Jump to content

BPF Seafire with mixed roundels, before full repaint.


Troy Smith

Recommended Posts

?format=500w

 

from

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/task-force-57-iceberg-i-british-pacific-fleet

 

can't see a serial or ship codes, so maybe a new replacement which just didn't last long.

Don't remember seeing this before,  so thought might be of interest, and maybe others can fill in detail,  @iang  perhaps?

 

Hope of interest

T

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a copy of that photo, but can't see any other details under magnification. I'm leaning towards Implacable as the carrier from the deck markings. Indefatigable's centre line was not quite as wide and, when commissioned, I believe Implacable originally had a dashed centre line with occasional distance markings between the dashes. When this was changed to a solid line these distance markings look to have been over painted, but were still visible at the edges.  On my wider print, one of these looks to be visible - but it's a pretty tentative ID.

 

If I'm right and this is Implacable, the roundel mix could indicate that this Seafire was with 801 Squadron after it absorbed 880 Squadron in September '45.  I have a copy of the 801 Squadron diary, but without more information on the date of the photo or pilot, the serial is going to be hard to establish. 

 

I agree that it looks like a Westland built aircraft, with high contrast between the upper-surface colours. Whether these were DFS I don't know, but it seems a reasonable hypothesis.

Edited by iang
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine it is a Seafire III, which would automatically make it Westland built.

 

After seeing some threads on FlyPast Forum where they talk about how many of what type of hangars were on which airfields (as a clue to location in photo), I love analysis by style of centerline (sorry, centre line)!  And no, I am in no way taking the mickey- I think it is cool!

 

bob

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen this photo captioned as being flown by one of the batch of RAAF Spitfire pilots who had transferred to the Navy to fly Seafire`s and that this was during their training period. This would fit in with the partially applied BPF roundels as being based in Australia at the time.

Cheers

          Tony 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Tony is referring to the caption for this photo as it appears on p.39 of Wings of Fame 16:  "No 899 Sqn was designated a Seafire Operational Training Unit, converting RAAF pilots to form the nucleus of an Australian FAA.  Two courses were held, the first aboard HMS Indomitable, in Australia at the time.  Here a No 899 Sqn Seafire Mk.II comes to grief with a RANVR pilot aboard.  Note the mixture of Pacific Fleet markings on the fuselage and Type 'C' roundels on the upper wings."

 

Ballance: Squadrons and Units of the FAA gives the date for this first course's embarcation in Indomitable as 4-27 July 1945 (the second was in Arbiter 15 Aug 45 and 10-13 Sep 1945).

 

So the carrier is Indomitable, the Squadron 899  and the date between 4 and 27 July 1945.  Seafire crashes on Indomitable should be pretty thin on the ground with even fewer in the timeframe so it ought to be straightforward to identify candidate aircraft.  I am unable to judge with any certainty whether the airframe is a Mk.II or a Mk.III but I did spot that Sturtivant's FAA Aircraft 1939-1945 records Seafire L.III NF575, coded "CV" of 899 Sq in Dec 44, floating into the barrier of Indomitable on 24 July 1945 while piloted by S/L JP Crathus RAN.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick,

 

You might be right, but photos are often mis-captioned.

 

Against the carrier being Indomitable is the following:

 

1. I can't see an early 4.5" gun house. The later 4.5" gun houses, as fitted to Implacable and Indefatigable, were flush with the deck, and thus only the barrels would be visible (which is what I think I can see).

 

2. Indomitable's deck had a continuous dashed line to port, from stern to forward of the island. I can't see it in the photo.

 

3.  I can't see a HACS Mk V* director forward of the the batting position, above deck edge level, as fitted to Indomitable.  Implacable and Indefatigable tower arrangement was not the same and I don't think that the directors were visible above the deck edge level. 

 

4.  The screen for the batting position on Indomitable, forward of the 4.5",  had 6 panels in 1945. The one in the photo has 8 panels. I can't find a photograph of the screen on Implacable.

 

However, against all this, the deck edge profile does look like Indomitable.

 

 

IG

Edited by iang
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick,

 

Mmmm. I'm now doubting my own ID.

 

Here is a photo of Indomitable showing the dashed line to port and the HACS director above deck edge level, just astern of the w/t aerial,  albeit a photo from around April 1944. The starboard side HACS shows how much they were above deck level.

 

 

 

 

Here's a photo of 857 Avenger  W/372 landing on during Iceberg in April/May 1945. Note the 4.5" gun houses, dashed line to port and the batting screen with 6 panels. No HACS director is visible, as it is behind the Avenger canopy.  Otherwise, the deck edge profile matches the one in the Seafire photo.

 

 

 

 

In contrast, this is a photo of Implacable's Walrus. Note the 4.5" gun houses flush with the deck, no dashed line to port and no visible HACS director. 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, it does not show the batting screen, but is the batting screen the dark rectangle in this photo? If so seems to show a wider batting screen than the one on Indomitable - 8 panels rather than 6, or could the batting screens concertina and fold in/out?

 

 

 

 

 

So looking again at the Seafire photo, is there a earlier 4.5" gun house just visible behind the Seafire empennage, or is that a barrel from a flush gun house? Can the dashed line to port be seen in places? I've circled both. But where's the HACS director?

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iang said:

So looking again at the Seafire photo, is there a earlier 4.5" gun house just visible behind the Seafire empennage, or is that a barrel from a flush gun house? Can the dashed line to port be seen in places? I've circled both. But where's the HACS director?

18e8c614-6c36-4df5-895f-2ea85f16aa49.jpe

 

Ian,

 

Your print of this photo is much better than the one in WoF, where everything out of the area of shadow is pretty much whited out.  FWIW, to me that does look like the beginnings of the domed top of an earlier 4.5" BD turret but I cannot, even with the eye of faith, see any trace of the dashed line.   As regards the HACS director, Indomitable was at the time providing DLT in a completely benign environment: she may have been operating without it pending repairs or upgrade.  I note that Ballance records Indomitable as suffering minor damage (not further specified) in a Kamikaze attack on 4 May 1945 and in any case it's in a location vulnerable to damage from  deck landing accidents.  David Hobbs says in The British Pacific Fleet (p.252) that, as of June 1945, "Indomitable had remained in Sydney for a refit"  (my emphasis).  You may care to look at the 2 photos on p.222 of the same work, showing another deck-landing incident during No 1 RANVR Pilots' Course: I can't see the HACS (or that dashed line) in either of them.

 

In other news, Hobbs says (pp 220-1) that in 3 days of intense DLT starting on 24 July there were just 3 incidents: one aircraft over the side (24th), one floated into the barrier (24th) and one had a collapsed oleo (26th and as shown in Hobbs' photos).  If the photo is indeed taken on board Indomitable, I am growing in my conviction that, by a process of elimination, it depicts Seafire L.III NF575 on 24 July 1945 as per my post 8.  Which invites a further question: why is an aircraft issued to 899 Sq as early as December 1944 wearing Type C upper wing roundels in July 1945?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm edging towards Indomitable too.

 

If the dashed line was yellow, it would not be visible on prints made from orthocromatic film.  The HACS Mk V* remains a puzzle. The KK damage to Indomitable was to the port forward 4.5" battery, though the report notes that a port side pom-pom director (not HACS) was damaged.

 

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/adm26787/2014/10/16/indomitable-may-4-damage-report-bomb-shell

 

Could the HACS have been removed by the censor?

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...