Back completely on topic:



[url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/stanley-spencer-and-wwi-revisionism.htmlA few thoughts on the current debate, viewed through the prism of Stanley Spencer's Sandham Memorial Chapel paintings[/url.

[iHere dead we lie[/i

[iBecause we did not choose[/i

[iTo live and shame the land[/i

[iFrom which we sprung.[/i



[iLife, to be sure,[/i

[iIs nothing much to lose,[/i

[iBut young men think it is,[/i

[iAnd we were young.[/i



A E Housman

I can't recall ever wanting the Germans to win [iany[/i battle except against Patton (not because he was American, but because he was an ).



The German army was certainly well trained, for the most part well led, motivated and professional, but I wouldn't describe them as "special". I would reserve that for David Stirlings SAS.

Nice, I like that and I'm intrigued with the spray equipment you've recently obtained, I almost went down that line myself but at the time could only think that it would lead to respraying cars or painting flames on wheel arches

You don't paint flames on wheel arches as well do you ?

Thank you, Sir.



The hussar was painted with a brush, in acrylic.



[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004XP7K9W/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1We've got this baby[/url, but I haven't done much with it yet, although testing it on paper I discovered that you really need top-notch ventilation and/or a mask.



As to wheel arches and flames, I lack the former so haven't tried the latter.





You can do some serious super-realiasm on canvas with an airbrush:

Remember, this is a view started in childhood and things can seem very special to a child.

I used to buy war comics, yes I am that old, which contained made up stories of Tommies fighting the Germans.

Now for a child this is at the cowboys and Indians level.

Now I had the rough idea that it was 'good' that the cowboys should win and similarly that the Tommies should win, and in the comics they invariably did.

However, of the two, which looked special, the Tommies with their soup plate helmets, shiite coloured uniforms and clodhopper boots, or the Germans with their specially shaped helmets, cool uniforms and jackboots?

No contest to me has a child.

And the language? One recognisable, one mysterious and evocative.

Mind you the German text was in English interspersed with the German for 'my God', 'quick' and the like ... very funny in hindsight.

lol

That is a broad generalisation that is only true in part. The Lee Enfield rifle, Bren Gun, and Vickers machine gun were all excellent infantry weapons. The Matilda 2 tank was the match of any German Tank at the start of the war (and early on in the desert campaign) and the 25 pounder was one of the best ever small/medium artillery pieces. The Spitfire, Hurricane, Mosquito, Halifax and Lancaster need little praise from me as they are already world renown.





To be fair the same could be said for a Panzer 3/4 against a British 25pdr







It was the equivalent of the Panzer 4 - the most produced German Tank. It was outclassed by the Panther and the Tiger in terms of armour and main gun but was more reliable and manouverable. It's big brother the Comet was a match for ther panther and It's big brother - the formidable Centurion, was a match for the lot but came too late. If the British had pushed tank design like Hitler did we would have had a match for the Germans much earlier because we did have the capability.

I suppose if you look at it like that you have a point certainly with the small arms. However although heavily armoured the Matilda could only mount the 2lb gun and was an "Infantry Tank" designed to support the infantry not engage in out and out tank battles which was the role of the "Cruiser" tanks. The Matilda was slow in comparison to the German tanks and like most British tanks didn't a have gun to engage the 88mm anti tank guns at range. Given the 88mm could penetrate the armour of the Matilda at long range its thick armour wasn't much use against it. The first tank we had capable of engaging the 88mm was when the Lee/Grant tanks arrived in the desert with their 75mm gun followed later by the Sherman.







Although it had armour piercing ammunition it wasn't until 1943 that it got a kind of booster charge to increase the muzzle velocity and by 1944 the 17lb gun was out and made it obsolete in that role. It was primarily a field artillery piece and when used with the special APDS ammunition the 6lb gun was also more effective anti-tank gun.







The Cromwell came to the scene late. It arrived in 1944 and was effectively obsolete. The Panzer IV had been toting a long barrelled 75mm for some time since 1942 which meant it could knock out any allied tank it faced. The Cromwell was fitted with the same 75mm gun as the Sherman and Churchill tanks which was pretty useless against the Panther and Tiger. Had the Cromwell arrived on the scene in 1942 it would have been fine for then but by 1944 it was already past it.



The army even tried making up troops of four tanks, three Cromwell's and a Sherman Firefly which had the 17lb gun to give the troop some kind of chance against the heavier German armour.



The decision to fit the 75mm to Cromwell was made because it could fire high explosive rounds but again the 6lb gun would have been better forgoing up against the tanks the Cromwell faced.



I once read a very interesting book by someone who commanded one of the Churchill Crocodile tanks modified to mount a flame thrower. He explained if you wanted to knock out a Panther with that 75mm gun you had to aim incredibly accurately at the gun mantle of the German tank to get the shell to bounce downwards and enter the tank above the driver and machine gunner as that bit of armour was thin enough. Hit elsewhere and it just bounced off!







While the Comet saw some action it didn't feature in any major battles. Unfortunately for British tank crews later in the war they had to do that in Cromwell's and Sherman "Tommy cookers" for the most part.

The only German language I recall from war comics was 'Achtung!' - though of course it depends which comics you read.



My choice was Battle Weekly, and more specifically Charley's War, which to this day remains unsurpassed as the definitive war comic. Could you imagine allowing a child of, say, 7 years old to read something like that today? As a young lad I loved the violence and dramatic imagery of the drawings, yet distinctly recall appreciating the futility, waste and desperation of it all. Pat Mills drew upon the historical record and wrote his plots around actual events of WW1 (such as the oft-forgotten Étaples Mutiny) whilst Joe Colquhoun produced images I found stunning and did my best to emulate for many years. I can still draw a damn good Charley's War Tommy or battle scene today.



The Germans were often portrayed as ruthless bloodthirsty killers, but just as often as men no different to the Tommies, with the same banter and songs and desires. It was unashamedly pro-British, but then it was a British comic for British boys, what else do you expect?



I've always remembered the issue which saw Charley and Sergeant 'Ole Bill' sent to the Russian Front, and the feeling of sadness that they had done their bit and survived the Western Front, yet now had to suffer the conditions Colquhoun portrayed so brilliantly.



It was brutal and dark and unforgiving, yet witty and light and historically close to the mark (I knew about mustard gas, the Somme, the dangers of munitions factories, the executions of deserters, the 'Old Contemptibles', the plight of the 'War Horses', tanks and much more from a very early age). I've never forgotten it, and I'm glad it formed part of my childhood.

No. My one was "Commando" which wasn't just about Commando's! A big treat for me on holiday in Cornwall which we did for several years was to be given 50p to go and buy one from the local newsagents. I read them from cover to cover several times over.

I preferred Spider-Man and Thor and less about the glamourfication of millions being slaughtered as cannon fodder.