Michael Relph
Mike Relph is a modern conflict archaeologist, battlefield guide and PhD candidate at the University of Bristol. A former army officer, he has a deep understanding of the employment of military force, the stresses of operational service and the challenges faced by those caught-up in conflict. His doctoral research, which adopts a multidisciplinary anthropologically informed approach, focuses on the inter-war battlefield tours undertaken by student officers attending the Army Staff College between 1922 and 1939.
Shortlisted for the Post-Medieval Archaeology Society’s post graduate dissertation prize in 2014, Mike has written and lectured on his work on British Home Defence during the Second World War, and on his part in the Great Arab Revolt Project’s 2014 expedition to Jordan. Elsewhere he has secured Heritage Lottery funding to deliver an exciting community based project to increase the ways in which the people of the Kennet Valley can access and celebrate their Second World War heritage.
Experienced in delivering a broad range of battlefield visits, Mike specialises in tailoring the tours he leads to the needs of his audience, be they members of the general public, veterans, young soldiers, military commanders or business executives.
Awarded the MBE for services to defence in 1993, Mike is a Trustee of the Kennet Valley at War Trust, a Patron of the Nursing Memorial Appeal and President of his local branch of the Royal Artillery Association.
Supervisors: Professor Nicholas Saunders, University of Bristol
Address: Bristol, Bristol, City of, United Kingdom
Shortlisted for the Post-Medieval Archaeology Society’s post graduate dissertation prize in 2014, Mike has written and lectured on his work on British Home Defence during the Second World War, and on his part in the Great Arab Revolt Project’s 2014 expedition to Jordan. Elsewhere he has secured Heritage Lottery funding to deliver an exciting community based project to increase the ways in which the people of the Kennet Valley can access and celebrate their Second World War heritage.
Experienced in delivering a broad range of battlefield visits, Mike specialises in tailoring the tours he leads to the needs of his audience, be they members of the general public, veterans, young soldiers, military commanders or business executives.
Awarded the MBE for services to defence in 1993, Mike is a Trustee of the Kennet Valley at War Trust, a Patron of the Nursing Memorial Appeal and President of his local branch of the Royal Artillery Association.
Supervisors: Professor Nicholas Saunders, University of Bristol
Address: Bristol, Bristol, City of, United Kingdom
less
InterestsView All (9)
Uploads
Papers by Michael Relph
Less well known is Britain’s revised defence plan, adopted once General Sir Edmund Ironside had been replaced by General Alan Brooke in July 1940 as Commander-in-Chief Home Forces. Brooke favoured more mobile and aggressive defensive tactics, and from 1941 the emphasis inland switched from Ironside’s stop lines to a network of defended towns and villages, and locally constituted mobile Strike Forces tasked with harassing and destroying the potential invader. In Wiltshire the market town of Marlborough was given a key role and designated an ‘anti-tank island’; a term which was quickly abridged to ‘Tank Island’.
Whilst much has been written about Britain’s static fortifications, and to a lesser extent about the the change in strategy following General Brooke’s arrival, relatively little is known about the detailed plans for the defence of a Tank Island, or of the sensorial and experiential impact of the conflict on those living in and charged with defending a town in this manner. Taking a “multidisciplinary, anthropologically informed approach” (Saunders 2012: iix), this dissertation engages with Marlborough’s early 1940s legacy: its conflict landscape and surviving archaeology, and the memoirs, letters and war diaries, photographic images and other artefacts which exist as sources of primary evidence to explore a hitherto neglected dimension of the Second World War.
The study focuses on both the practical and the sensorial aspects of the 1940s plans for the defence of the Marlborough Tank Island against potential German attack. In particular, what can we learn about the British plans for the defence of an anti-tank island between 1940 and 1942; how successful might these plans have been; and what was the experience like for the people involved during those difficult years?
Using the lens provided by modern conflict archaeology and a case study focused on the lives of those who lived in the Wiltshire village of Ramsbury and the surrounding area during the Second World War, this essay will explore the effect of modern conflict on a small corner of rural England.
What, therefore, can the “multidisciplinary, anthropologically informed endeavour known as ‘Modern Conflict Archaeology’ ” (Saunders 2012: iix) tell us? Whilst Ramsbury’s landscape does not claim to have been ‘drenched in hot metal’ (Terraine 1996: 9), or profess to the dramatic legacy of First World War Flanders or Second World War Normandy, from the autumn of 1939 to the summer of 1945 the village was at the centre of another unique conflict landscape; a symbolic landscape which also stands as a testament to the industrial nature and scale of 20th Century warfare. This paper will substantiate the hypothesis that conflict archaeology “is not simply restricted to battlefields” (Saunders 2012: xi); and whilst subtler and of lesser magnitude, that ‘quiet’ conflict landscapes and objects also posses an innate and enduring ability to influence and change human behaviour (Pels 1998).
Recognised for their ability to destroy, neutralise, harass or suppress, the guns also provided the war with an unnatural ‘heartbeat’; with artillery’s fire attuned to the conflict’s industrial tempo; each gun battery a mobile factory designed to efficiently transform live artillery rounds into empty brass shell-cases, with human beings subordinated as ‘gun numbers’ to the greater needs of attritional science and technology.
Taking a “multidisciplinary, anthropologically informed” approach (Saunders 2012: iix), and drawing upon memoirs, letters and war diaries, contemporary art and photographic images as sources of primary evidence, this paper focuses on a hitherto unexplored dimension of the Great War to explore the sensorial and experiential impact of the conflict on the gunners who served the most prolific British artillery piece of the war: the Quick Firing 18-Pounder Field Gun (the ‘18-pdr’).
The airfield was based on the standard RAF pattern, with its three 50 metre wide runways being linked by a perimeter track. The main runway was 2,000 metres long. Accommodation for 2,400 personnel was built in the woods to the east of the airfield.
Earmarked almost immediately for the US Airforce, the airfield became home to a series of USAAF Troop Carrier Groups, equipped with Douglas C-47 and C-53 aircraft. Soldiers from the 82nd (US) Airborne Division flew from RAF Ramsbury to Nazi occupied France early on the morning of D-Day, 6 June 1944.
The airfield was returned to agricultural use in 1946.
To counter this threat, defences were hastily erected along the lines of natural features and obstacles such as canals, rivers and railway lines. Sitting astride the Kennet and Avon Canal and the River Kennet, and the major road and rail communication routes between Reading in the east and Bath in the west, Newbury found itself in the summer of 1940 at the centre of Stop Line Blue - a line of concrete anti-tank obstacles, pillboxes and gun emplacements, and defended villages and towns, designed to stop the German armoured columns “cutting loose” in Britain, as they had in France.
Stretching from Semington in West Wiltshire to Theale in West Berkshire, Stop Line Blue had several hundred fortified structures along its length, many on the north bank of the canal. Built in less than a year, they would have been occupied by members of the Home Guard, armed with small arms and 2-pounder anti tank guns to take on the invading tanks. Thankfully they were never used in anger.
Silent reminders of the Second World War, many pillboxes can still be seen along the length of the Kennet and Avon Canal.
Less well known is Britain’s revised defence plan, adopted once General Sir Edmund Ironside had been replaced by General Alan Brooke in July 1940 as Commander-in-Chief Home Forces. Brooke favoured a more mobile and aggressive defence, based on a network of towns and villages defended by the Home Guard, and locally constituted regular Strike Forces tasked with harassing and destroying the potential invader.
In Wiltshire, the market town of Marlborough was given a key role and designated an ‘anti-tank island’; a term which was quickly abridged to ‘Tank Island’.
Marlborough's surviving war time archaeology reveals a multilayered defensive plan, with two outer defensive lines along the line of the former railway and the River Kennet, and two inner citadels, one at either end of the High Street, reinforced by the use of road blocks, pillboxes and strongpoints. Had they invaded, there is no doubt that the Germans would have faced stiff opposition.
The activities, which are principally designed for pupils aged between 9 and 14, can be adapted to suit older or younger children who are studying the history of the local area.
Designated a Vital Point during the Second World War, the defence of Swindon against German air attack was important to the war effort. The surviving gun emplacements are the most complete remaining example of the four semi-permanent heavy anti-aircraft sites which defended the town between 1941 and 1944, and are of local and regional significance.
The Stubb’s Hill site is an important example of the tactical deployment and use of static (rather than mobile) anti-aircraft defences during the War, utilising the 3.7 inch heavy antiaircraft
gun attached via a holdfast to a concrete platform; a tactic which dominated UK based air defence from 1941 to 1944.
The site is also noteworthy as an example of the unique role of the ATS during the War. Designated a mixed site from 1941, the remaining buildings stand as a testament to the pioneering work of British female service personnel during the 1940s.
The four gun emplacements are in good condition, which is almost certainly due to their setting in a rural landscape; as evidenced by their physical condition, the total lack of graffiti, and the survival of some of the original internal paintwork. Now that the buildings
and the site have been recorded, schemes for their survival should be incorporated into any plans for the future development of the area.
Teaching Documents by Michael Relph
Less well known is Britain’s revised defence plan, adopted once General Sir Edmund Ironside had been replaced by General Alan Brooke in July 1940 as Commander-in-Chief Home Forces. Brooke favoured more mobile and aggressive defensive tactics, and from 1941 the emphasis inland switched from Ironside’s stop lines to a network of defended towns and villages, and locally constituted mobile Strike Forces tasked with harassing and destroying the potential invader. In Wiltshire the market town of Marlborough was given a key role and designated an ‘anti-tank island’; a term which was quickly abridged to ‘Tank Island’.
Whilst much has been written about Britain’s static fortifications, and to a lesser extent about the the change in strategy following General Brooke’s arrival, relatively little is known about the detailed plans for the defence of a Tank Island, or of the sensorial and experiential impact of the conflict on those living in and charged with defending a town in this manner. Taking a “multidisciplinary, anthropologically informed approach” (Saunders 2012: iix), this dissertation engages with Marlborough’s early 1940s legacy: its conflict landscape and surviving archaeology, and the memoirs, letters and war diaries, photographic images and other artefacts which exist as sources of primary evidence to explore a hitherto neglected dimension of the Second World War.
The study focuses on both the practical and the sensorial aspects of the 1940s plans for the defence of the Marlborough Tank Island against potential German attack. In particular, what can we learn about the British plans for the defence of an anti-tank island between 1940 and 1942; how successful might these plans have been; and what was the experience like for the people involved during those difficult years?
Using the lens provided by modern conflict archaeology and a case study focused on the lives of those who lived in the Wiltshire village of Ramsbury and the surrounding area during the Second World War, this essay will explore the effect of modern conflict on a small corner of rural England.
What, therefore, can the “multidisciplinary, anthropologically informed endeavour known as ‘Modern Conflict Archaeology’ ” (Saunders 2012: iix) tell us? Whilst Ramsbury’s landscape does not claim to have been ‘drenched in hot metal’ (Terraine 1996: 9), or profess to the dramatic legacy of First World War Flanders or Second World War Normandy, from the autumn of 1939 to the summer of 1945 the village was at the centre of another unique conflict landscape; a symbolic landscape which also stands as a testament to the industrial nature and scale of 20th Century warfare. This paper will substantiate the hypothesis that conflict archaeology “is not simply restricted to battlefields” (Saunders 2012: xi); and whilst subtler and of lesser magnitude, that ‘quiet’ conflict landscapes and objects also posses an innate and enduring ability to influence and change human behaviour (Pels 1998).
Recognised for their ability to destroy, neutralise, harass or suppress, the guns also provided the war with an unnatural ‘heartbeat’; with artillery’s fire attuned to the conflict’s industrial tempo; each gun battery a mobile factory designed to efficiently transform live artillery rounds into empty brass shell-cases, with human beings subordinated as ‘gun numbers’ to the greater needs of attritional science and technology.
Taking a “multidisciplinary, anthropologically informed” approach (Saunders 2012: iix), and drawing upon memoirs, letters and war diaries, contemporary art and photographic images as sources of primary evidence, this paper focuses on a hitherto unexplored dimension of the Great War to explore the sensorial and experiential impact of the conflict on the gunners who served the most prolific British artillery piece of the war: the Quick Firing 18-Pounder Field Gun (the ‘18-pdr’).
The airfield was based on the standard RAF pattern, with its three 50 metre wide runways being linked by a perimeter track. The main runway was 2,000 metres long. Accommodation for 2,400 personnel was built in the woods to the east of the airfield.
Earmarked almost immediately for the US Airforce, the airfield became home to a series of USAAF Troop Carrier Groups, equipped with Douglas C-47 and C-53 aircraft. Soldiers from the 82nd (US) Airborne Division flew from RAF Ramsbury to Nazi occupied France early on the morning of D-Day, 6 June 1944.
The airfield was returned to agricultural use in 1946.
To counter this threat, defences were hastily erected along the lines of natural features and obstacles such as canals, rivers and railway lines. Sitting astride the Kennet and Avon Canal and the River Kennet, and the major road and rail communication routes between Reading in the east and Bath in the west, Newbury found itself in the summer of 1940 at the centre of Stop Line Blue - a line of concrete anti-tank obstacles, pillboxes and gun emplacements, and defended villages and towns, designed to stop the German armoured columns “cutting loose” in Britain, as they had in France.
Stretching from Semington in West Wiltshire to Theale in West Berkshire, Stop Line Blue had several hundred fortified structures along its length, many on the north bank of the canal. Built in less than a year, they would have been occupied by members of the Home Guard, armed with small arms and 2-pounder anti tank guns to take on the invading tanks. Thankfully they were never used in anger.
Silent reminders of the Second World War, many pillboxes can still be seen along the length of the Kennet and Avon Canal.
Less well known is Britain’s revised defence plan, adopted once General Sir Edmund Ironside had been replaced by General Alan Brooke in July 1940 as Commander-in-Chief Home Forces. Brooke favoured a more mobile and aggressive defence, based on a network of towns and villages defended by the Home Guard, and locally constituted regular Strike Forces tasked with harassing and destroying the potential invader.
In Wiltshire, the market town of Marlborough was given a key role and designated an ‘anti-tank island’; a term which was quickly abridged to ‘Tank Island’.
Marlborough's surviving war time archaeology reveals a multilayered defensive plan, with two outer defensive lines along the line of the former railway and the River Kennet, and two inner citadels, one at either end of the High Street, reinforced by the use of road blocks, pillboxes and strongpoints. Had they invaded, there is no doubt that the Germans would have faced stiff opposition.
The activities, which are principally designed for pupils aged between 9 and 14, can be adapted to suit older or younger children who are studying the history of the local area.
Designated a Vital Point during the Second World War, the defence of Swindon against German air attack was important to the war effort. The surviving gun emplacements are the most complete remaining example of the four semi-permanent heavy anti-aircraft sites which defended the town between 1941 and 1944, and are of local and regional significance.
The Stubb’s Hill site is an important example of the tactical deployment and use of static (rather than mobile) anti-aircraft defences during the War, utilising the 3.7 inch heavy antiaircraft
gun attached via a holdfast to a concrete platform; a tactic which dominated UK based air defence from 1941 to 1944.
The site is also noteworthy as an example of the unique role of the ATS during the War. Designated a mixed site from 1941, the remaining buildings stand as a testament to the pioneering work of British female service personnel during the 1940s.
The four gun emplacements are in good condition, which is almost certainly due to their setting in a rural landscape; as evidenced by their physical condition, the total lack of graffiti, and the survival of some of the original internal paintwork. Now that the buildings
and the site have been recorded, schemes for their survival should be incorporated into any plans for the future development of the area.