# The reality of WW2 tales



## Danny McG (Nov 17, 2019)

I've recently been looking up the reality of some legends of WW2 and, so far, they've proved insubstantial:-

On 16th February 1940 in the Altmark Incident, the Royal Navy did *not* use cutlasses for the last time ever while boarding a German ship.

When Germany invaded, there was *not *a desperate cavalry charge by Polish lancers against German tanks.

No doubt there are more such legends that in reality never took place


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 17, 2019)

References?


----------



## Elckerlyc (Nov 17, 2019)

Yep, this has to be substantiated or else we'll have flag it as fake-news!


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Nov 17, 2019)

Ditto for WW1.


----------



## reiver33 (Nov 17, 2019)

Is someone saying ‘The Angel of Mons’ is fake news???


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 17, 2019)

I remember reading that the Royal Navy continued to do cutlass drill for quite a time after the turn of the century. Even when they had invented the dreadnaught that could sink ships over the horizon. I mean who brings a knife to a _really big gun _fight?! But the drilling might have been useful to give the sailors something to do on long boring tours, so that's perhaps why they kept it so long. 

The Polish cavalry thing, yeah, Nazi Propaganda. There was a Polish-German tank on tank fight and actually the Poles came out on top, knocking out 7 for nothing, I believe. (Not something that the Nazis would talk about!). But the Poles only had ~500 armoured vehicles compared to the thousands the Germans had so it wasn't going to change much.

Further mythbusting, 

aah, 'Mad Jack' Churchill. I remember reading that he actually killed a German sentry with a longbow in France 1940. Now it turns out he couldn't have, because his Longbows had been crushed earlier in the campaign.


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 17, 2019)

I grew up with a Polish neighbour [and WWII soldier]. He was adamant that his friends died in that cavalry charge in 39. He rarely talked about the war but hated Germans or anything German in any shape or form. Even to his death in the 1980s, he wouldn't have anything German in the house.


----------



## -K2- (Nov 17, 2019)

Well, I long ago learned as I researched WWII air combat in New Guinea, that you need to consider numerous sources, realizing many later accounts, are simply a new writer taking old MIS-information and incorrect conclusions, then regurgitating them as gospel, then adding their own research.  Nevertheless, most myths are based in fact and historical record.

I'll not take the time to research this particular issue (so I'm using the first source that popped up... as I shouldn't), yet before you discount ALL cavalry based on the 'vs. tanks myth,' perhaps you should start your research here: Charge at Krojanty - Wikipedia

K2


----------



## Danny McG (Nov 17, 2019)

There is a report from the logs of HMS Cossack where a Jim Halliday explains he was the "boarder with a bayonet" that apparently originates the myth of the cutlass..




__





						1938 – HMS Cossack
					





					www.hmscossack.co.uk


----------



## Danny McG (Nov 18, 2019)

And this history net article states the cavalry charge never happened








						1939: Polish Cavalry vs. German Panzers (Preview)
					

During the September Campaign in Poland in 1939, no mounted Polish cavalrymen ever charged at German tanks with lances, but their story is on of bravery and professionalism in the face of overwhelming odds, and it clearly indicates that far from being a military anachronism, the Polish lancer...




					www.historynet.com


----------



## sknox (Nov 18, 2019)

The source cited on the cavalry charge is only a snippet. The rest is behind a paywall, so there's no way to check sources.


----------



## -K2- (Nov 18, 2019)

dannymcg said:


> And this history net article states the cavalry charge never happened
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well again, a cavalry charge happened... but, a cavalry charge against tanks did NOT happen. I understand your beef about 'against tanks' having been taught or more often regurgitated as though fact. But, to eliminate the efforts by the cavalry entirely (based on that propagandized version), discredits the efforts of those men who essentially saved the lives of many of their own forces through the delaying action.

That said, your beef is valid and sadly a common tale (actually going to both extremes, courage/cowardice) that can be found in any historical record you care to check.  What I discovered in my own subject of research, were numerous reasons for the errors, but only one in the perpetuation of that supposed 'fact.' Reasons for whatever error might range from nationalistic bias or propaganda being accepted as fact (case of the cavalry vs. tanks deal), ignorance about other cultures, their tactics, weapons, language, etc., lazy investigation (often performed by opposing troops seeing no point in documenting the losing side), and so on. As to the reason it establishes itself, is typically subsequent investigation 'builds off the initial reporting.' So, the misconception ends up being repeated time and again, and soon is viewed as gospel since everyone seems to agree.

I'm not that bright, I'm not educated, nor am I gifted... But, in my own research (air combat in New Guinea between the U.S. 5th Air Force and Japanese 4th Koukuugun), I noticed that numerous--most--texts regarding actions, markings, naming conventions, aircraft, tactics and so on, of the Japanese, was repeated verbatim from book to book to research paper and so on. I mean exact phrases to even paragraphs (all by Western researchers). As a novice to that subject, I had to start from scratch, yet, when I went to Japanese sources, they didn't match up (though some did, again, using the same phrasing which became clumsy in their wording trying to directly translate English into Japanese).

Using spelling of or naming conventions as an example, I actually changed the way a number of the acknowledged experts used those terms, and they accepted it, and began using terms I discovered because I proved it... I also proved that the numerous western publications were using repeated text.

In any case, here is a quick example. What follows is the early (left) tail marking for the 68th Hikousentai (flying regiment):








For years and in countless publications that emblem was denoted as a "hawk" or various other fanciful notions.  The Japanese Army Air units all had very ornate markings... BUT, they just about all display the unit number. That 'hawk' is actually a numeral 6 inside a Japanese 8... 68th.

The 78th Hikousentai was claimed to in early years use a 'cherry blossom' as their emblem:




It's actually 8-7's, or 78 

So that's how these misconceptions or even blatant errors, sometimes deliberate were passed down and so repeated that they're believed to be fact. With enough diligent investigation, however, the truth can be found.

K2


----------



## Danny McG (Nov 18, 2019)

sknox said:


> The source cited on the cavalry charge is only a snippet. The rest is behind a paywall, so there's no way to check sources.


I know, there's just so many conflicting stories on the lancers attacking German tanks, it's hard to find a credible source to prove/disprove it


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 18, 2019)

-K2- said:


> BUT, they just about all display the unit number. That 'hawk' is actually a numeral 6 inside a Japanese 8... 68th.



Interesting that they don't seem to display any identifier for the individual aircraft. Any particular reason for that?


----------



## Overread (Nov 18, 2019)

You only need one decently popular source (or the only source) to have wrong information and many people will write their own history books/articles and parrot out the error without doing their own base research. If you read the good books on any subject to any depth and then do your own research you can often find that you can spot some of those repeated errors where its clear one author has copied from another who copied from another. Sometimes you can even spot the original source book that started it all. 

The internet makes this many times worse because often as not its a lot easier to find a website to reference or get information from than a book and whilst neither book nor internet is, by medium, more accurate than the other; its much easier for more websites to parrot the same incorrect information (sometimes its just a cut and paste job). 


We live in an age of information where information has never been more accessible; yet at the same time we've not yet built tools to sift through it all (google doesn't count; heck it often actively aims to show you the same links you saw before in search results; and websites related to those sites. So you can easily break your own searching patterns and results based on your search history)


----------



## -K2- (Nov 18, 2019)

HareBrain said:


> Interesting that they don't seem to display any identifier for the individual aircraft. Any particular reason for that?



Again, only speaking to army air units in New Guinea (and Rabaul, New Britain), a rare few did yet most didn't. Here is where I'm going to have trouble showing you examples. I lost tens-of-thousands of images I had collected, generated, enhanced along with ALL of my research notes and text in a 2-HDD and even backup crash (I could have paid to retrieve it, but, I lost all heart and figured it was time to move on).

To help you understand, in brief, here is something I wrote a number of years ago (found on the web) that describes how air units are subdivided:


> Using New Guinea as an example and working from the top down:
> 
> Koukuusogun = Supreme Air Army...This group would of been the big wigs back in Japan.
> 
> ...



Once you get down to the hikousentai level, you'll note the entire hikousentai uses the same type of aircraft (in the case of the 68th and 78th, Type-3 Fighters/Ki-61). The entire HS will use the same basic tail emblem. That hikousentai is further subdivided into chuutai, and each chuutai paints that emblem in their own color (typically lt.blue=command, white=first, red=second, yellow third). In very rare cases, once those chuutai are fractioned into shoutai, they might designate each flight by 1,2,3,4 stripes (again, very rare).

For the most part, however, pilots are NOT assigned a specific aircraft. EXCEPT-- Command (as in chuutai lead) aircraft were often denoted with varied styles of stripes (see the image above... the stripe mid-fuselage). That said, some aircraft did have unique markings. Sometimes a personal emblem (very rare, only aces). Sometimes one or two katakana (Japanese letters) on the tail. And in the case of a Hien being transported to Truk on an army aircraft carrier, a spiral spinner. Each plane, however, often had on the wheel cover a number applied (for maintenance differentiation).

But-- I suspect in most cases they were maintenance applied markings, NOT pilot applied (like a totem for luck).

The reason was, initially, the best pilots were picked for each mission, and then took whatever aircraft was available due to in-service/maintenance condition. Very quickly, personnel became ill with the numerous tropical diseases... so, if you had aircraft designated per/pilot, then you would never fill a mission due to who's aircraft was operational. Further, in short order the 5th Air Force decimated the aircraft in raids (which I had some amazing air-strike photos). That left only 3-9 out of 45 aircraft available until new ones arrived, which often were destroyed the next day. Hien/Ki-61 units were reduced to using old abandoned Ki-43-I & II aircraft once other units left. Finally, due to the fabric control surfaces, you'll find countless mish-mashed markings as the rudder would be cannibalized from other aircraft.

So, considering those problems and others, designating a specific aircraft to a specific pilot was simply impractical.

As an example, a gentleman shared with me a photograph his uncle captured in Hollandia. I was stunned, the conditions suggested it was the never before seen crash of the 'Hero of Wewak,' Major Shogo Takeuchi, 68th Hikousentai. Once I worked through it, I had no answer. Upon a second photo he produced, the aircraft proved out to be a 78th Ki-61 instead... BUT, that meant little. Being a top pilot, it would not be surprising for 68th and 78th pilots to be merged, and for Takeuchi to be flying a 78th Hien.  But, my crash happened... and it broke me.

Here is that research on the Wayback time machine (the only documentation left). Please be kind if you read it. I was then struggling with my literacy significantly more than now.: 78th Sentai Forum • View topic - Last Flight of the Hero of Wewak.......Maybe......

Hope that answers your question... hehe 

K2


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 19, 2019)

Here's a good one: Operation Tracer 









						Operation Tracer - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Essentially, in the event of Gibralter being attacked and taken by the Axis there was a plan, at least up till ~1943, that they would leave behind a six man team, whose role was to spy on axis shipping and other intelligence and send the information back via radio. The thing is, they were to be buried in a secret bunker and _sealed in. _They had seven years worth of supplies, although their mission stated that they should expect to be cut off for only a year. 

As far as I know this mission was give the go-ahead, thankfully it was never required to be put into action.


----------

