----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Smith" <timothy.smith1@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 11:08 AM
Subject: [MV] war graves vs salvage HMV's
> Colin,
> Your letter was very well written but I think we might narrow the issue
> somewhat.
>
> Disturbing "war graves" is without a doubt an act looked upon with great
> disdain by most of us (hopefully). If the "grave" happens to be an HMV
(or
> even something other than an HMV) and its recovery serves not the personal
> edification of an individual or small group of individuals but to honor
> those persons who died or their fellows, then my feelings are that the
> effort is worthwhile. After all, most normal graves serve not only as a
> resting place but as a monument (however small) to the person who lies
> there. My feeling is that a sunken tank is no monument as it cannot be
> appreciated by the casual passerby.
The notion that the definition of a 'war grave' as opposed to a salvageable
vehicle is a variable entity and one that is nothing new to the Armed
Forces.
Battlefields were routinely scavenged for salvageable equipment and personal
gear,
despite the fact that men had fought and died in this self-same equipment
hours, days
or weeks before. It could be argued that the pressures on supply
necessitated this
preservation of materiel, but are not Hampden bombers, DD Shermans and
select
others likewise in short supply in the 2000's?
Andy Hill
MVPA 9211
Vancouver, B.C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 03 2000 - 20:29:47 PST