84 replies to this topic

[Pighills]

We watched it last night and thoroughly enjoyed it.

You could almost feel the heat coming out of the tv (although I did say if I were them I'd have stepped back a little bit more than they were when they knew the diesel was being added, and therefore could be a little bit more ferocious!).

One has to ask how many more great tv programmes can be made on subjects which have not yet been covered - I suspect very few, if any.

[David Faulder]

Gunner Bailey, on 15 April 2011 - 03:10 PM, said:

This sounds odd but just because the locals call in Mammay does not mean it's right. Locals in the Somme and the Pas De Calais (especially) tend to crop words in a way that sometimes makes their very French difficult to follow. I suspect this is what has happened to Mametz. It still does not answer my question how to the French pronounce the town of Metz. I bet it's not May.

John

Can you project how to pronounce Mametz based on the pronounciation of Metz?  Can you project how to pronounce Birmingham, Hexham, Newham etc, from the pronouciation of Ham?  Or Newtown from Town?  Folkstone from Stone? etc.  (or vice versa!)

David

[Wainfleet]

I too found this a fascinating and informative programme. There may well be a career for Peter Barton as a TV presenter if he wants one! His manner was just right. But why are people crabbing Tony Robinson? Personally I think he’s an excellent presenter, keeping things alive and always steering the talk round to draw out the info the viewer wants. One perhaps doesn’t realise he’s doing it because the whole point is you’re meant to focus on the discoveries and not on him, but watch a few Time Teams with this in mind and his (actually quite subtle) professionalism becomes evident. And he's learned an awful lot since the first series!

[Toby]

It is correctly pronounced 'Mam-may' in French. I believe it has always been 'Mamets' to us Brits. I read that Sassoon poem only this morning, and noticed the 'Mametz - parapets' rhyme.

Thoroughly enjoyed the programme, but it was irritating hearing Baldrick repeatedly saying 'we' have done this and 'we' are doing that, when he (or TT) had nothing to do with it. All that illusion spinning grinds. And he was really rather rude and sarcastic about the sparsity of finds at one point. Never mind - if that what it takes. Jeremy, I was slightly surprised when you said that no one had any further 'inclination' to find more of the machine - presumably the whole thing is in there. It must be heartbreaking to uncover those parts that you did find, in such remarkably good condition, only to have to stop. I noticed the boarding of the sap walls being retreived at one point. Was sufficient salvaged to make some kind of reconstruction a part of the exhibition?

The successful Livens machine was installed in a sap running to the left (north) of the Carnoy-Montauban road, the craters being to the right (south). According (I think) to Jeremy and Peter's marvellous book the trenches affected by it were surveyed and the number of people killed by the machine were counted. It was clearly locally at least an effective form of 'frightfulness'.

Norman, forgive me, I don't wish to be disrespectful, but why are you always so negative about this sort of thing? Oh, and I am sure the programme did mention that the body was French, .

[ulsterlad2]

Fascinating programme. Well done to the team who put it together.

Re: Pronounciation.  My advice is: Don't look for any kind of sense or phonetic rules when dealing with place names, especially when you've got your English speaking head on.  Look at Ginchy: Shansee & Guillemont: Gee(y)mon.

If you're talking with your English speaking mates, call it : " Hey let's go to  Mamets "

If you need to ask a local, for example, which track you need to follow call it: "Quelle chemin pour Mammay "

[kmcgee]

I failed to pick up how the flame was ignited. When demonstrating the modern version someone applied a light by standing next to the nozzle. when used in the War I understood that the nozzle was pushed upwards into view above the end of the sap, so at what point was a flame applied?

I mentioned this to my wife when watching the programme so if it was covered we both missed it.

Kevin

[ianw]

kmcgee, on 15 April 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

I failed to pick up how the flame was ignited.

Kevin

I would imagine in the same way as the replica. The flame head appeared to be hooded with the ignition apparatus protected as well.

[Bombadier]

When i worked in Nancy, the locals called Metz "Mess"

Nigel

[kmcgee]

ianw, on 15 April 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

I would imagine in the same way as the replica. The flame head appeared to be hooded with the ignition apparatus protected as well.

When the replica was ignited it was in a firing position with a soldier stood next to it. It does not follow that the demonstration showed how it was actually lit in battle.

In 1916 the machine was in a tunnel with the firing head below ground, this was pushed up by pressure. The man igniting it would therefore still be underground and presumably had to light it before it was pushed above ground.

Kevin

[Rockdoc]

In the animation used in the programme, there were two igniters in similar positions to those on the replica. I assume that the animation was based on the drawings Peter Barton was showing and such photographs as exist.

Keith

[kmcgee]

Rockdoc, on 15 April 2011 - 07:28 PM, said:

In the animation used in the programme, there were two igniters in similar positions to those on the replica. I assume that the animation was based on the drawings Peter Barton was showing and such photographs as exist.

Keith

I'll have to try and look at it again. I recall the drawing with a man standing at the bottom of the shaft. The firing head then being pushed through a cover, into the open air, but I don't remember any animation of it being ignited.

Don't want to be pedantic about this - it just seemed a jump from the head being underground to it then being able to fire a stream of ignited fuel above ground.

I wonder what experiences they had in such an enclosed space. Firstly to ignite the  the burner prior to fuel coming through and also timing it so that it wasn't burning underground and in such a way to coincide with the surge of fuel through the pipes.

Kevin

[Gunner Bailey]

David Faulder, on 15 April 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

Can you project how to pronounce Mametz based on the pronounciation of Metz?  Can you project how to pronounce Birmingham, Hexham, Newham etc, from the pronouciation of Ham?  Or Newtown from Town?  Folkstone from Stone? etc.  (or vice versa!)

David

That's still no answer to how they pronounce Metz in Metz, but my experience of the Somme, Pas De Calais dialects (I have a house there) says to me they are just pronouncing Mame and the t or tz is dropped. Typical of the local area.

John

[ianw]

kmcgee, on 15 April 2011 - 07:40 PM, said:

I wonder what experiences they had in such an enclosed space. Firstly to ignite the  the burner prior to fuel coming through and also timing it so that it wasn't burning underground and in such a way to coincide with the surge of fuel through the pipes.

Kevin

I would think that the "pilot lights" would have been ignited and trimmed just prior to the weapons use with safety systems in place to avoid the main fuel flow being initiated prior to the emergence of the head.

[Miniliz]

Just to add that my Dad and I really enjoyed this programme - Dad called me this evening to say that he was enthralled by it and asked me some questions that this thread has answered - thank you!

I'll agree with those who think it's a shame that the rest of the weapon is still in the ground. Though I've heard that archaeology is often hampered by budgets and other deadlines so I guess it's not a surprise.

[Rockdoc]

Having watched it again, I realised that there was some quite misleading information being given, which is a shame. Throughout the the programme, the impression given was that they were digging for a functional projector that had been buried in position for the attack. The dig was actually in the area of the two inclines leading to the entrance of Sap 14, nowhere near the spot where the thing was to be erected, and the parts recovered were just that - parts. The firing tube still had protective flange-plates bolted to it and the clamps were in a group. I think the RE must have been in the process of assembling the projector and parts were being brought up by carrying parties and left in the inclines until needed. When the shell destroyed the eastern access it buried any parts that were stored there. Presumably, the rest of the projector was removed (why leave it?) up the western incline, along with any shuttering they could get out safely. After July 1st, Sap 14 would have had no further use so the removal of anything they could take is not surprising.

Given the date for the shell was quite close to the original date for the Somme, more could perhaps have been made of the speed with which this enormous machine could be assembled since it could not have been close to complete when work was stopped by the loss of the parts.

Keith

[RobL]

Just watched it, absolutely fantastic programme, very very well done to all involved.

For what it's worth I think Tony Robinson is great, and has probably done more for creating and maintaining a presence of history in the UK through Time Team than anyone else in the past decade or however long it's been shown for

[Grantowi]

kmcgee, on 15 April 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

When the replica was ignited it was in a firing position with a soldier stood next to it. It does not follow that the demonstration showed how it was actually lit in battle.

Yes it did...
They used two gas welding torch's with the flames crossing the path of the diesel / petrol mix at 90 degrees and sent a short petrol "leader" -  which would catch alight easier than the mix - before the diesel / petrol.
Anyone stood next to it would have been toasted.

Grant

[Robert Dunlop]

J Banning, on 15 April 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

- it's pronounced Mammay. That is how the Mayor and villagers themselves say it so if it is good enough for them....

Oops. Does this only apply to localities that have a Mayor and villagers? Perhaps I need to start pronouncing Birmingham differently  

Robert

PS: on a serious note, thank you for posting on the local pronunciation. I wonder if it reflects the origin of the name. The spelling suggests it might be Germanic in origin? There are a number of place names in the northern part of France that are not French in origin. Awoingt is another good example, I believe.

[Gunner Bailey]

Robert Dunlop, on 16 April 2011 - 05:59 AM, said:

Oops. Does this only apply to localities that have a Mayor and villagers? Perhaps I need to start pronouncing Birmingham differently  

Robert

PS: on a serious note, thank you for posting on the local pronunciation. I wonder if it reflects the origin of the name. The spelling suggests it might be Germanic in origin? There are a number of place names in the northern part of France that are not French in origin. Awoingt is another good example, I believe.

Don't ask a Geordie to explain it either.

John

[serreroad]

Excellent program about a fascinating project - well done to all those involved.  I actually walked up the track from Mametz Halt last November without realising what had happened there back in May!

A couple of quick questions though.

1) The average viewer would, imho, have come away with the idea that Livens invented the flamethrower, whereas of course we know that the Germans also had them deployed to horrible effect on 1st July (Sausage Valley being one location I seem to recall?)  So how did the German version differ from the Livens one?  And did they both have a common ancestor, or were they developed and deployed independently?

2) Do we think the whole apparatus is still down there, or is it just the bits the RE failed to recover after the shelling incident?  Surely if it IS still there there ought to be a concerted effort to recover the whole contraption?  It's scarcity makes it more of a find than, say, a tank, and I'm sure there would be a massive effort to recover one of them if one was found, especially in near perfect condition?

Mike

[iain mchenry]

Rockdoc, on 15 April 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Having watched it again, I realised that there was some quite misleading information being given, which is a shame. Throughout the the programme, the impression given was that they were digging for a functional projector that had been buried in position for the attack. The dig was actually in the area of the two inclines leading to the entrance of Sap 14, nowhere near the spot where the thing was to be erected, and the parts recovered were just that - parts. The firing tube still had protective flange-plates bolted to it and the clamps were in a group. I think the RE must have been in the process of assembling the projector and parts were being brought up by carrying parties and left in the inclines until needed. When the shell destroyed the eastern access it buried any parts that were stored there. Presumably, the rest of the projector was removed (why leave it?) up the western incline, along with any shuttering they could get out safely. After July 1st, Sap 14 would have had no further use so the removal of anything they could take is not surprising.


Keith

Keith,

I have not seen the programme so cannot agree or disagree if any of the commentary was misleading. I can tell you what the Special Brigade War Diary says.

28th June at 0530 hrs. "The most important parts of the flamenwerfer collected and placed in a Sap 14: This was done chiefly by the small RE party who worked exceedingly well."

28th June at 0600 hrs. "Heavy shell sealed up end of sap for length of 20 feet, burying vital parts of flamenwerfer beyond recall."

This is the information we had to work on. We did not know if part of the machine was in the incline and other parts already gathered in Sap 14. You mention in your post above that the impression was that we were digging for a functional machine. Its clear by the war diary that this was not the case and we did not expect to find a fully functional, put together, machine. As is, with a dig of this nature though, until you find what you are looking for you can never be 100% sure. As to what, if any, pieces of the machine are still down there - who knows!

As to the uses of the inclines that fed Sap 14. We found only the shadow of the western incline. The timber sets used to prop it had long been removed. By whom and when we do not know although a very interesting source has been identified that could possibly highlight a unit in the close area that removed the timber in late 1917. I dont want to go too much into detail as Jeremy has mentioned already that a book on the flamethrower is in the pipeline.

For those who wish to know more, as mentioned before, the Historial in Peronne are running an exhibition on the project and the flamethrower starting mid June. Once we know the dates of the transmission of the 2 hour version for History Channel, we will be back with more info. I can say though that the programme should be broadcast internationally which is warming.

Two fond memories of this project are in my mind. The first was knowing that the RE were the last people to have their hands on the flamethrower parts when they carried them into place. The first people to carry the pieces, discovered on the dig, away to storage, was the team of young RE's from the Royal School of Military Engineering, Chatham.

The second memory I will take away from this was that the delivery head of the machine, a major component, was found by a French archaeologist working with us on the site. Anthony Byledebal is forum member, although fairly inactive on the GWF. He is a qualified archaeologist and is doing his masters degree on the New Zealand Tunnelling Company. I cannot think of anyone who has done as much research on the NZ T Coy as Anthony has. I remember us all being chuffed to bits that a French archeologist had found a major component as it is their history as much as it is ours.

Regards

Iain

[Frank_East]

I cannot see that the apparatus would be designed such that ignition took place at any other stage other than when the pressurised atomiser (firing head) was above ground and ready to fire at its target.To fire the atomiser underground could be disasterous for the operatives.

The ignition system would be primitive and would be made at the point when the oil mixture was being delivered at the atomiser to form a spray jet of fuel.If this was not the case then there was a risk of a blow back into the delivery system and fuel oil storage tanks.The design would have had to cope with the possibility of a blowback on occasions of low flow when there was a danger of the ignition point reversing and entering the delivery system pipework and possibily as far as the storage system.The degree of risk would depend on the type of fuel oil being used,the more volatile,the fuel oil,the greater the risk.I would say that the volativity of petrol and its extremely low flash point would rule it out.Kerosine on the other hand is less volatile than petrol but mishaps can easily occur with kerosine especially if the tank contents are low which results in the build up of kerosine vapour above the kerosine contents and provides the ideal weak air/kerosine mixture for an explosion to take place should ignition reverse down the delivery system.On modern systems,reflux non return devices prevent this happening.No doubt had the beast been put into prolonged service,then deficiencies in the handling of the operation and the equipment design would have been encountered.

I can't recollect how the flamethrower ignition system was said to function but it would not surprise me if the system was primitive.Ignition may have been achieved by the manual application of an ignition torch to the oil jet by the operator.A dangerous operation in the best of times and in industry in the past has been the cause of dangerous occerences and worse.

[Rockdoc]

Iain, I meant no disrespect to the archaeologists. The brief view of the War Diary allowed me to see that the shelling had buried vital components so there was no chance that the machine was even close to being functional and I'm sure that you were always looking for any parts buried in the eastern incline. Any criticism was for the Channel 4 commentary, which always talked about he objective being the recovery of the machine.

I assume you were hoping to find a remnant of the western incline so that you could have pin-pointed the entrance to Sap 14 but, as there appeared to have been no work done anywhere near the heading where the projector was being built, was there too much potential error to prevent you from trying to find the vertical shaft for the monitor to emerge? Would it not have been possible to have used geophys to see whether there were any large, metal deposits in the area of the heading or do ground conditions preclude that?

The design of the projector was clearly intended to allow it to be built and dismantled rapidly so, with the significant advance around Mametz on 1st July and the Sap remaining fully accessible after the attack, I would be very surprised if the parts of the machine that had been put in place and those that were stored on the western incline had not been recovered at a convenient time soon afterwards. I know that war is a wasteful business and kit is discarded without thought for the cost but the usefulness of the projector had been proven and the parts could have been used as spares or have had the lost parts re-made, the latter depending on how many parts had been lost and their ease of manufacture. I hope to visit Peronne later this year. I really want to see the exhibit!

Keith

[iain mchenry]

Hi Keith,

No offence taken at all mate. As I mentioned before I have not seen the programme myself yet so can't really comment on the commentary.

I remember well the time spent trying to locate the western incline to Sap 14. I was observing from above and there were a few close moments were we thought we had the incline. It was strange to see the "shadow" of the incline (discoloured clay/earth) and yet not find it. The pressure was really on at that moment, a real edge of the seat nail biting time! The geophys that we had done for us before the dig began in earnest, was done by both GUARD and a civilian demining company. The one problem you have in the area of the dig site is that there is a fairly thick cap of clay sitting over the chalk layer, making it quite difficult for geophys, although we had some good potential results.

I do take your point about the recovery of re-usable pieces of the flamethrower and it does make sense that pieces would have been salvaged. There is however no mention, that I know of, in the Special Company War Diary mentioning this. I suppose the only real way to find out is to go back and see!

Let us know what you think when you get to Peronne later in the year. I am really looking forward to the exhibition. If the effort taken by the Historial in setting up this exhibition is anything like the effort they spent supporting and helping us in the project then it will prove to be a very successful exhibition.

Best regards

Iain

[hywyn]

iain mchenry, on 16 April 2011 - 09:07 AM, said:

I have not seen the programme so cannot agree or disagree if any of the commentary was misleading. I can tell you what the Special Brigade War Diary says.

Iain

Iain

I note that the RE units concerned are Special Brigade. I'm not all that up on RE but will there be an unit number for the Companies within the Brigade who were responsible for this weapon?

The reason I ask is because, like many others, I research men local to my area. Many will have been RE men and I'd like to have a look at those whose papers  survived to see if they were in these units during the period in question (and the 1917 deployment). Being able to say tha so and so was in the units responsible would add a lot of local interest value.

Even better of course would be any lists of men you found during the research.


Hywyn