I’d love this to be true, but I think there is more chance of finding Amelia Earhart crated and buried in Burma in working condition.
From wiki:
“However, in spite of the media attention garnered by these events, there is no real evidence that the RAF ever buried the Spitfires in the first place and, it would seem that like many such rumours this was all a chimera”
There have been many constant rumours of crated Spitfires buried around Brisbane for the last 50 years.
There is also this story about a falling out between interested parties.
Another quote:
One obviously hopes for the former,’ says Christopher Shores, an aviation historian and author of Air War For Burma. ‘But let’s not forget that we’re talking about the tropics here. These are really terrible conditions to have stored the Spitfires in.’
It is a not insignificant point. Mingaladon receives nearly 100 inches of rain per year, and the dampness is likely to have wrought havoc on the packing cases, and penetrated the pieces of aircraft and engine parts. Furthermore, the same mud that coated the Spitfire pilots’ boots 70 years ago will almost certainly have corroded the metal to some degree."
With the obligatory caveat about these aircraft possibly being a work of fiction in the first place - I don’t think taking a bulldozer and burying some crates in an unmarked patch of earth in the tropics fits the usual definition of ‘carefully stored’.
To go a bit off-topic but not too far, there are several references in this thread and elsewhere on the Net to war materiel being destroyed more-or-less in-place after WWII. Thrown into the sea, burned, buried NOT in storage crates, etc.
I understand why these goods would be scrapped, as there would be little or no civilian use for tanks, fighter planes, artillery pieces, bazookas, etc. But these references are to non-scrapping destruction. Wasn’t there a market for scrap metal in pretty much every industrialized country?! And wouldn’t the war-torn places rebuilding infrastructure damage – the very places where materiel would be when the war ended – need metal all the more than in ordinary times?! :smack: Or were recycling efforts being made and the burning of materiel was a crude method of separating the metals from the non-metals?
No, this is straight forward destruction. Most of the material was not in an industrialised country or anywhere it could be easily recycled - the back end of Burma or a small Pacific island is not near a scrap yard. We’re talking about equipment thousands of miles from the homeland and a significant shortage of shipping space.
Add to this six years of war where equipment was being destroyed every day it’s no surprise the service personnel found it easier to just destroy it in place.
It reminds me of how some pre-WWII US built tanks were found in Brazil. They had been supplied to the Brazilian Army, which stored them in a depot somewhere, then forgot about them.
Eventually, everything becomes valuable, at some point…except for beany babies (my daughter must have 300 of them).
I’ve read about this in Air Vice Marshal Harjinder Singh’s autobiography. He joined the Air Force as an airman and rose to become an Engineering officer and ultimately in charge of Maintenance Command. He was instrumental in salvaging many of these sabotaged Liberators for IAF service.
And wouldn’t the war-torn places rebuilding infrastructure damage – the very places where materiel would be when the war ended – need metal all the more than in ordinary times?! :smack: Or were recycling efforts being made and the burning of materiel was a crude method of separating the metals from the non-metals? 
