Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Enciclopedia Romaniei and some Rom. army "myths", Interesting photos
Agarici
Posted: August 15, 2009 11:28 am
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



In this already mentioned work (see also this topic http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=5386 ) I found some interesting pictorial evidence (unfortunately low quality, due to the poor and black and white scanning) referring to some facts/accounts considered as “myths”, concerning the equipment of the Romanian army (navy, airforce) before WW 2. Though only partial (some of the photos not having an explicit legend connecting them to Romanian army), all images are included in the chapter XI (Capitolul XI - partea a 2-a, Armata romana - continuare, at http://www.biblioteca.ase.ro/resurse/resur...tole.php?cid=45 ). Among them, from page 698 onward, intercalated by photos which obviously depicts the Romanian army and its equipment (the ZB light MG, R 2 and FT 17 tanks, cavalry and mountain troops on maneuvers, etc) we could find a Vickers-Armstrong heavy tractor, a Vickers-Armstrong 6 tons twin turret light tank and a few planes of an unidentified type - a twin engine bomber, a biplane torpedo bomber, some fighters (?) in formation.

Now after having seen these photos many years ago (in the hard copy of the encyclopedia), I’ve been troubled when I’d found out that, according to what we now consider to be “established facts”, these materials were not used by the Romanian army (!). On the other hand, I could not forget that AFP reporter famous saying “a photo worth a thousand words”, especially when the photo is part of a contemporary source. I’d really encourage the people to browse this chapter and express their opinion. Also, a check from our own “aviations experts” on the mentioned plane photos would be more than welcomed. As for myself, I’ve been obsessed by the picture of that torpedo-bomber for some years now, unsuccessfully trying to identify it, also by the question whether or nor the Romanians have bought (and used) the Vickers light tanks.

On the other hand, the mentioned chapter is very useful for mirroring in detail the official Romanian military doctrine and organization in the second half of 1930s. It is interesting (and somewhat surprising) to see how “completely French” it was. Thus, the tanks were listed as infantry weapons, after rifles, MGs and grenades (!), for the operational role being subordinated to the army corps and/or being part of the general reserve of the HQ - a somewhat “poorer relative” of the French practice to subordinate the BCC (Battalions de Chars de Combat) to the infantry divisions and to form DCRs (Divisions Cuirasee de Reserve). Also interesting, while the role and functions of the AA are explained and detailed, the AT artillery is not even mentioned expresis verbis, being only alluded as part of the infantry heavy support weapons.

EDIT: Another interesting detail - according to an info from page 699, the infantry also used rifle-launched grenades with their ZB rifles.

This post has been edited by Agarici on August 16, 2009 07:28 am
PMEmail Poster
Top
Victor
Posted: August 15, 2009 12:54 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



The only tanks in those photos that appear to be used by Romanians are teh R-1 and R-2. The Vickers tractor and 6-ton lack any visible Romanian soldier beside them and the photos are too poor to see any trace of Romanian markings on them.

The established facts (I do not see a reason to put them between " ") are that the Romanian Army did not use these tanks in combat.

Regarding the planes, the seaplane looks similar to a Supermarine Schneider Cup race plane in British markings and the bomber is definitely not displaying the Romanian cockarde.

It isn't necessarily that everything shown in the Encyclopedia is Romanian materiel.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: August 15, 2009 02:09 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4344
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



I can second Victor's opinion: those aircraft types were never in service with ARR. The photos are merely illustrations as how a heavy bomber, a floatplane, or a torpedo carrying aircraft looked like in those days.

Gen. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Agarici
Posted: August 16, 2009 07:22 am
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



Thanks for your feed-back! I agree with both of you, the explanation you have suggested is perfectly logical, possible (also being the easiest at hand), but it still remains only probable, not being demonstrated by anything (as well as its opposite). And from here on, the speculations could escalate, which is not my intention.

Victor: you have a better view of the Vickers-Armstrong photo here http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/romania...ania-tanks.html According to the same site, Romania din bought a (small) batch of these tanks. This is one reason for which I put the expression established facts between the quotation marks, since I believe everything might be established until proved otherwise. As I said, there are also some other photos in the book depicting Romanian army units&equipment, without having that explicitly mentioned. However, I must agree with you that, from what I know, the appearance and positioning of the markings of the heavy bomber are not at all typical for the RR Aeronautics (RAF perhaps?). But what about the other planes? As a totally subjective impression, I think the other two hydroplanes (especially the torpedo plane - any chance that it is a SET plane?) have an appearance which might be consistent with the Romanian markings. What about the planes flying in formation?

Denes: you might be right, but could we move a little further and try to identify the types? I think this would help us to further clarify the issue.

Any help/suggestions are welcomed.
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted: August 16, 2009 07:34 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Unbelievable! According to that site, Romanian Army had... Panthers received from the Soviets! This is preposterous, at least when considering that 2-nd Armored Regiment was sent in battle in march 1945 with R2's and alike. The Soviet Red Army to give the Romanian Army Panthers?!?! This is written by someone who never had "business" with Reds.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Agarici
Posted: August 16, 2009 07:46 am
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



Well MMM, shockingly as it might seem but they are right. :D Actually the explanation is much more simpler and it has to do with the timeframe. Shortly after WW2, the Soviets delivered a certain number of Panther A and G tanks to the Romanian army, which were soldiered well into the 1950s. They can be seen in a 10 May parade photo (the one posted on the site), obviously taken before 1947. If you look carefully, you can see the royal crown on the frontal amour plate.

Actually, the info is presented on the site proper (though in a laconic form). A little more attention won't hurt, I guess... ;)

This post has been edited by Agarici on August 16, 2009 07:48 am
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted: August 16, 2009 08:17 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Oh, I misunderstood "capitulation"! Thus, after 09.05.1945, but definitely before 30.12.1947... Now it makes a little more sense, but I presume the Soviets rather sold them to us... ;)

This post has been edited by MMM on August 16, 2009 08:18 am
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Agarici
Posted: August 16, 2009 06:28 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



QUOTE (MMM @ August 16, 2009 08:17 am)
Oh, I misunderstood "capitulation"! Thus, after 09.05.1945, but definitely before 30.12.1947... Now it makes a little more sense, but I presume the Soviets rather sold them to us... ;)


OFF-TOPIC: It’s possible, and knowing their habits from that period they might have extracted a good price for them, too. :roll:
PMEmail Poster
Top
Agarici
Posted: September 06, 2009 08:08 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



QUOTE (Agarici @ August 16, 2009 07:22 am)
Thanks for your feed-back! I agree with both of you, the explanation you have suggested is perfectly logical, possible (also being the easiest at hand), but it still remains only probable, not being demonstrated by anything (as well as its opposite). And from here on, the speculations could escalate, which is not my intention.

   Victor: you have a better view of the Vickers-Armstrong photo here http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/romania...ania-tanks.html According to the same site, Romania din bought a (small) batch of these tanks. This is one reason for which I put the expression established facts between the quotation marks, since I believe everything might be established until proved otherwise. As I said, there are also some other photos in the book depicting Romanian army units&equipment, without having that explicitly mentioned. However, I must agree with you that, from what I know, the appearance and positioning of the markings of the heavy bomber are not at all typical for the RR Aeronautics (RAF perhaps?). But what about the other planes? As a totally subjective impression, I think the other two hydroplanes (especially the torpedo plane - any chance that it is a SET plane?) have an appearance which might be consistent with the Romanian markings. What about the planes flying in formation?

   Denes: you might be right, but could we move a little further and try to identify the types? I think this would help us to further clarify the issue.

   Any help/suggestions are welcomed.


No answers, no oppinions, no interest...? :unsure:

Doesn't the "heavy bomber" in the photo look like the interwar British Bristol Bombay? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Bombay

What about the other planes?

This post has been edited by Agarici on September 06, 2009 09:48 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0429 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]