From the tiny sliver what I have read, he seems to be someone to be in a place it the British frontline , and perhaps the earlier wrap-up of the North African front would probably meant him asking for a post in the Far-East as per OTL. THough it would be very interesting if the changes in the war had already set him in a different path.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
Enoch was in his own way a British MacArthur, though far more intelligent, he was by all accounts a nightmare to work with, and lacked any sense of empathy. He famously refused compensation to the children that suffered from the thalidomide crisis, saying that any mother that took medication during her pregnancy was responsible for what happened. And while on an intellectual level he was right to an extent, morally he was totally wrong. If ITTL he isn’t sent east as he requested, and he should encounter Kim in a professional manner, it wouldn’t take him long to realise that there is something very off about Kim. Nor would he keep his suspicions quiet, he would make a significant fuss, and ensure that serious questions are asked. However I doubt that this will come to pass, Enoch is going to go east and he will become one of the youngest Brigades ever in the British Army.
RR.
RR.
He was in the Army's Intelligence Corps, so running into someone from MI6 is not unlikely.
And by a curious co-incidence they both went to Trinity College, Cambridge.
(Its much harder to ignore an Officer and Gentleman, especially one who reached Brigadier, who was a Fellow of Oxbridge, and an MBE)
He ended the war as a Brigadier. At this point he is still a Major. Though he was apparently doing the work of a much more senior officer, and would be promoted to Lt Col in August based on OTL’s schedule.
One thing to note about Powell’s career however, is that he turned down a few promotion opportunities to be able to move to the Far East. Partially as he saw the War in Europe as being an inevitable victory by that point and wanted to be where the war was going to pick up. If he feels the same ITTL it’s possible that he was able to get out to the Far East easier which may mean a more smooth and clear rise once he does. He may even fulfill his own prediction and end the war at major-general or higher.
To be honest, even if Philby or other Soviet spies were known at this point I don’t know if they would been brought in. The general mood around such men seemed to have been that while the war was one the British had other things to worry about. In some cases such spies were considered useful ways to pass information to Stalin that he wouldn’t believe coming through official channels. That said, if he is known about it’s at least more likely he is arrested or at least shut out after the war.
Powell being in the Far-East could lead to interesting things ITTL such as, (from most likely to less likely)
- Being posted to Delhi (and being involved with the planning of the advances towards Thailand and Indochina), or,
- Being posted to Australia (probably to the annoyance one of his former students back during the days he was a lecturer at Sydney), or,
- Being posted to Singapore (let's hope he did not rambling and saying opinions that accidently create potential long term headaches to the British Malaya or Dutch East Indies administrators).
P/s: I would be honest, I am not expecting even have a(n enjoyable perhaps due to it being breaking the monotone which are weapons,) discussion about Enoch Powell especially in this thread, but here we are.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
In regards to recent comments regarding Enoch Powell, he was a very complex man, highly intelligent and holding strict moral beliefs, this is a man who repeatedly refused a life peerage, as he didn’t believe in them. His personal belief was that all peerages should be heredity, and that life peerages cheapened the peerage. As a young man I can remember him debating with Brian Walden when Walden was the presenter on Weekend World on ITV. Watching these two men both former MP’s, one Labour the other Tory was always a joy and normally very informative, sadly this quality of debate is mostly missing nowadays.
RR.
RR.
He also refused all pay rises as an MP until re-elected at the next election as he felt that they had not been validated by his constituents until that point.
Dad once told me that when he was working for the Times in the 1960's his heart would sink when he was told to precis an Enoch Powell speech. He said that it was next to impossible to cut down his already succinct language. It was about the only thing about the man that he admired.
Enoch Powell vs Gough ... that would've been a sight to see & hear.
Thanks for that mental image
allanpcameron
Donor
Good questions. My reading of the British Military Mission to the USSR (BMM) problems were problematic because the Russians were paranoid about security. Horrocks is not asking for any information regarding Soviet tactics or equipment in this instance. Instead the British are asking for information on the Wehrmacht. Giving the British a couple of prisoners and some knocked out tanks is, in my opinion, not the usual kind of request and possibly no skin off their noses. The basic Russian demand for a Second Front to draw off German forces from the East, is slightly different ITTL. The Defeat of the Italian/Germans in North Africa has shown that the Brits aren't as bad as the OTL Soviets would have believed. The imminent invasion of Rhodes, with promises no doubt to do more (whether true or not), possibly strengthening 10th Army in Persia, possibly coming to Red Army help in the Caucuses. The PQ convoys are getting into their stride, the tanks coming from the UK are better than OTL. ...
Probably a lot of wishful thinking on my part, but I think it is within the bounds of possibility.
Allan
In this vein: It's a good and perhaps rare chance, from the 'Paranoid Politburo' perspective, to come across as helpful and cooperative (fraternal, internationalist, Comradely et.) Without actually risking giving away anything of importance (Eg: Anything Soviet.)
Edit: I just had the amusing thought of a QP ship using the German wrecks as ballast, as I'm fairly sure not much cargo went in the Soviet-Britain direction. You could maybe work that in if you liked. "Unfortunately, I am not authorised to release to you any of these tanks. However, the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, mindful of the assistance of our allies and our obligations under the terms of the Lend-Lease agreements, is willing to graciously make a gift to the people of the United Kingdom an amount of scrap metal, to be used both as ballast and then as is seen fit. Please make no mention of how Panzer-shaped the scrap metal is."
Last edited:
I can see the logic chain making the USSR more open to this though I think they would try to pull some more Valiants out of the British at least in the short term.
One of the first checked marked boxes after the "Don't give our secrets or information away" is " Does this help kill Germans" Yes, second question "Does this help them build better arms that we can get or steal plans for" yes, "can we depend on them to share information with us in the future?" Yes
Everything helps the Russians without giving their own secrets away.
Everything helps the Russians without giving their own secrets away.
allanpcameron
Donor
I got a book by an Arthur E Carden which explores the Cardens of Templemore. He has a bit of info about Cardin which I didn't know, but leaves me with a question. He reprints a letter sent from Carden to Loyd about progress of various endeavours (inc A9, A10 & A11). The thing I can't decipher, is the use of the 'm/c' or 'M/c' abbreviation. I don't know if an engineer would have an idea of what it is short for. The problem is that it is used in, what seems to me, to be different contexts, referring to engines and guns, and being me, I just can't sort it out.
Letter written 7 Dec 1935.
Quote: "Price is the only trouble and I hope the new V.8. m/c will get over this - the only trouble is that it keeps getting more expensive."
2nd quote: "The new V.8. M/c has already completed its trials at M.E.E and is now with a unit." It has not got quite the performance of the old M/c but it is thought good enough."
3rd quote (possibly in reference to Universal carrier, according to footnote): "It is not so roomy as the old m/c but it carries all the W.O (War Office) want."
4th Quote (and goes to the gun on my A11): A big success is our new 40.mm Gun fitted in Light Tank. The turret is not very nicely arranged yet, but is being modified. I went to Elswick last week and fixed it personally - it is no worse to handle than a m/c gun, the kick does not even effect the tank and the personnel - but it is a hell of a gun - it goes through 2" plate at 700 yards like butter. Any country having light tanks so fitted working in pairs with similar machines with m/c guns could easily hold up any enemy whether they had tanks or not."
Interestingly, regarding the 40mm gun in a light tank, which dates around 35/36, David Fletcher's Mechanised Force, both the Latvian and Vickers Command Tank, the gun was 'a quick-firing, semi-automatic weapon it was described as Vickers own design and claimed to have a performance only slightly inferior to the 2-pdr anti-tank gun of the same calibre developed by the Royal Arsenal.' I think Vickers and Royal Arsenal competed for the 2-pdr gun order, which Royal Arsenal won, but Vickers produced some of their own. If that is the 'm/c' gun in the attached sketch by Carden, then it might not have been the naval 2-pdr pompom but the semi-automatic Vickers gun.
Anyway 'm/c' or 'M/c': any ideas?
Allan
Letter written 7 Dec 1935.
Quote: "Price is the only trouble and I hope the new V.8. m/c will get over this - the only trouble is that it keeps getting more expensive."
2nd quote: "The new V.8. M/c has already completed its trials at M.E.E and is now with a unit." It has not got quite the performance of the old M/c but it is thought good enough."
3rd quote (possibly in reference to Universal carrier, according to footnote): "It is not so roomy as the old m/c but it carries all the W.O (War Office) want."
4th Quote (and goes to the gun on my A11): A big success is our new 40.mm Gun fitted in Light Tank. The turret is not very nicely arranged yet, but is being modified. I went to Elswick last week and fixed it personally - it is no worse to handle than a m/c gun, the kick does not even effect the tank and the personnel - but it is a hell of a gun - it goes through 2" plate at 700 yards like butter. Any country having light tanks so fitted working in pairs with similar machines with m/c guns could easily hold up any enemy whether they had tanks or not."
Interestingly, regarding the 40mm gun in a light tank, which dates around 35/36, David Fletcher's Mechanised Force, both the Latvian and Vickers Command Tank, the gun was 'a quick-firing, semi-automatic weapon it was described as Vickers own design and claimed to have a performance only slightly inferior to the 2-pdr anti-tank gun of the same calibre developed by the Royal Arsenal.' I think Vickers and Royal Arsenal competed for the 2-pdr gun order, which Royal Arsenal won, but Vickers produced some of their own. If that is the 'm/c' gun in the attached sketch by Carden, then it might not have been the naval 2-pdr pompom but the semi-automatic Vickers gun.
Anyway 'm/c' or 'M/c': any ideas?
Allan
abbreviation for "machine", so V8 machine, the old machine, with machine guns?
Hello,
You may have to soft through this carefully, but m/c either means manual w/clutch or master cylinder.
I've seen it on occasion in the past, and usually took it to be a British engineering term for "motor/chassis" or perhaps "motorized chassis", somewhat akin to US tank-automotive engineering lingo "drivetrain" or "powertrain" referring to the combination of the engine, transmission, elements ancillary to their functioning including the controls and the cooling and fuel systems, possibly a driveshaft if the engine and transmission are not closely coupled and in line with the drive sprocket axle, and a structural frame to hold everything together.
In the days of rivets, it was more common for tanks to have a separate structural frame on which the chassis side plates would be hung. Once welding and/or casting/machining became common, tanks evolved to have what automotive engineers would call a "unibody" construction, in which the outer shell is also the primary structure. The uses of "m/c" I've seen in the past mostly were from the riveted-construction era.
"M/c gun" would seem to make less sense, unless perhaps it would refer to a main gun mounted to the motor/chassis instead of to a separate turret, i.e. an "assault gun" concept.
In the days of rivets, it was more common for tanks to have a separate structural frame on which the chassis side plates would be hung. Once welding and/or casting/machining became common, tanks evolved to have what automotive engineers would call a "unibody" construction, in which the outer shell is also the primary structure. The uses of "m/c" I've seen in the past mostly were from the riveted-construction era.
"M/c gun" would seem to make less sense, unless perhaps it would refer to a main gun mounted to the motor/chassis instead of to a separate turret, i.e. an "assault gun" concept.