Jump to content

36 Sqn Vildebeests - Serial/Code Letter Tie-ups


mhaselden

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

You mean that recipients of the incorrect orders in AMOs and the DTD Technical Circular somehow knew they were incorrect from common sense even before they were corrected and therefore ignored or queried them? Seems a bit unlikely. Do you have any evidence for that?

 

Or maybe you mean that I have no common sense?

 

Nick

With regard to your first post, you have NOT quoted any document in the archives accurately that I am aware of. I have seen the archive document that you refer to; it is NOT quoted accurately Furthermore, you have ADDED your own judgement which is where the distortion occurs. Post the document quoted correctly, i.e. word for word as it is reproduced in the archive file, then we can work from there. Otherwise what I have said stands true. 

 

With regard to the second post, it refers to YOU and MARK, where I am referring to a "judgement that can reasonably be expected from a majority without need for debate". The article  written by Ian.H. was published before the National Archive documents became available with the  "Tropical Land" scheme colour diagrams and other documentation. These same "Tropical Land" schemes were also at one time referred to as "Desert" schemes. These schemes were designed for Egypt, Aden and Iraq, where they were tested first. Egypt, Aden and Iraq are arid, desert countries. None of the schemes were "Mid Stone and Dark Green". This is NOT debatable it is a fact - all of this comes from the archives. It is not based on any assumption about the incorrect or otherwise use of a term.

 

 

Edited by Mark Mackenzie
update
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mhaselden said:

Not necessarily.  I suspect AHQFE established a defined "bombing range" for practice torpedo drops, hence these images could be taken on different days, perhaps months apart.  Given that the approaches to the range would be clearly defined, either physically or procedurally, it would make sense that the photographs of different aircraft show a very similar backdrop even when taken on different days.

Agree. Too much precipitation in my guess.

5 hours ago, mhaselden said:

 

Additionally, it's not clear to me whether the pre-war Vildebeests in Singapore were ever painted overall aluminium.  There are a couple of photos which show metal areas to be a pale grey shade as shown below, although I freely admit that the grey and aluminium dope areas sometimes look incredibly similar...even if the metal areas weren't later repainted in a metallic silver shade.

 

That's exactly what I had in mind. Let's say "a minimum effort interpretation", which I think in most cases can be an acceptable and convincing first cause.

5 hours ago, mhaselden said:

That's an interesting correlation, indeed the 4 AACU Swordfishes do appear to have a similar approach to their camouflage as was applied to the Vildebeests, although I can't see any pre-existing S1E (again, the quality of the photo isn't the greatest).

Well, S.1.E is in the eye of the beholder... :) Think of a 'naked' naval Swordfish in standard camouflage and you have the dark upper fuselage and most of the wing camouflage. Dress it up with some dark green bands and there you have it. I'm admittedly reasoning by the pound with the advantage that, as much as I would like a better quality image, it is not necessary for this sophisticated mental process... :) Don't ask me a colour spec, though. 

 

Best regards

Claudio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

With regard to your first post, you have NOT quoted any document in the archives accurately that I am aware of. I have seen the archive document that you refer to; it is NOT quoted accurately Furthermore, you have ADDED your own judgement which is where the distortion occurs. Post the document quoted correctly, i.e. word for word as it is reproduced in the archive file, then we can work from there. Otherwise what I have said stands true. 

 

With regard to the second post, it refers to YOU and MARK, where I am referring to a "judgement that can reasonably be expected from a majority without need for debate". The article  written by Ian.H. was published before the National Archive documents became available with the  "Tropical Land" scheme colour diagrams and other documentation. These same "Tropical Land" schemes were also at one time referred to as "Desert" schemes. These schemes were designed for Egypt, Aden and Iraq, where they were tested first. Egypt, Aden and Iraq are arid, desert countries. None of the schemes were "Mid Stone and Dark Green". This is NOT debatable it is a fact - all of this comes from the archives. It is not based on any assumption about the incorrect or otherwise use of a term.

 

I'm still not sure which post or document you are referring to. In the past I have posted the actual documents here as other members will know but I can no longer post images in my comments. 

 

The two paragraphs in my post to Mark H (if that is what you mean) refer to two documents with the second paragraph referring to the Air Ministry to RAE on 16 August 1938 which required the trialling of schemes LT2 and LT3 in India, the Far East and Iraq. That was in response to Mark H's query about Tropical schemes.

 

Regarding the second issue I do not have Ian Huntley's article to hand but I do recall he was quoting from someone who was actually present at the time.

 

Nick

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mhaselden said:

 

Thanks Nick.  Sadly, and ironically similar to the Mark MacKenzie's LST2 sketch, none of those align with what we're seeing on these 'Beests. :(

 

I'm really beginning to think there's missing documentation in the middle of all this swirl.  The rather complex schemes proposed and approved in 1937-1938 clearly were rationalized into the simpler TLS and similar patterns...but it seems like there's an interim phase for "tropical schemes" that's missing from the archive material. 

 Hi Mark

 

The letter from Air Ministry to RAE of 16 Aug 1938 might contain the answer. It requires further trials of the Temperate Land scheme as prepared for Aden (and the LT2 and LT3 schemes in India, Far East and Iraq as mentioned above) but suggests modifying the scheme by using a lighter colour than Dark Earth "being more appropriate to Aden" with the retention of the Dark Green. But then the words "India and Far East" are added to that paragraph.

 

I'll send you the original document as I can't post it here.

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

That's exactly what I had in mind. Let's say "a minimum effort interpretation", which I think in most cases can be an acceptable and convincing first cause.

 

Hi Claudio,

 

The challenge there is that this "minimum effort interpretation" lasted for a considerable time - at least 9 months and probably much longer.  I can see a minimum effort being triggered by a crisis (eg Munich or Britain declaring war in Sep 39) but I don't see that emergency measure still being used almost a year later, when the threat hasn't substantially changed. 

 

Wish we did have a colour spec with documentation that said "Hey, we painted the VIldebeests in Scheme X today...and don't they just look spiffing!" :)

 

Cheers,
Mark

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mhaselden said:

The challenge there is that this "minimum effort interpretation" lasted for a considerable time - at least 9 months and probably much longer.  I can see a minimum effort being triggered by a crisis (eg Munich or Britain declaring war in Sep 39) but I don't see that emergency measure still being used almost a year later, when the threat hasn't substantially changed.

Hi Mark,

 

here we are left guessing at dates, but you found a reference to K4156 being lost from Ceylon in January 1940. No. 273 Squadron started Vildebeest operations from China Bay as soon as the runway was ready, in mid-September 1939 (using only Seal floatplanes up to then, IIRC). We also know (from the picture of K4599:VU-J) that pre-war Vildebeestes were uncamouflaged and carried the squadron emblem on the fin. We do not know when K4156:OE-T was transferred to 273 Sqn., but I'd reckon the time window we are talking about would be no more than two-three months. Of course, it may have been longer for other aircraft in the squadron.

 

I have made up the impression that RAF Singapore was not particularly slow in reacting to orders concerning identification markings. Camouflage changes were another matter, but here the availability of correct paint is more important and I understand, also from the messages in this thread, that Singapore did experience some shortages. Now, let me keep guessing, just for the sake of it.

  1. change of squadron codes (from VU to OE) and modification of fuselage roundel from 'B type' (as per K4599) back to 'A type': required after the start of the war, arguably urgent. Possibly done by October 1939?
  2. aircraft camouflage: new-build aircraft (e.g., Blenheims) were delivered in camouflage. Later, Buffalos would also arrive already camouflaged. Vildebeestes were possibly the largest group of aircraft requiring camouflage, that had to be newly applied using local facilities and stores. Which paints were available, and in what quantities? This is a question for experts;
  3. camouflage has two purposes, concealment and breaking the aircraft profile to make it less conspicuous. Pre-war trials carefully analysed concealment but, had correct colours been unavailable, using available ones to at least break the aircraft profile and disrupt enemy aim would already have been something. Assuming availability of a single colour (e.g., Dark Green), in reasonable but not very large quantity, its use with this purpose could be justified. An acceptably quick job, possibly done by...? 
  4. alternatively, considering the task of camouflaging about 30-40 large biplanes, we might assume that RAF Singapore acquired a largish stock of Light Earth (or similar) and repainted all aircraft, taking care to reinstate the unit emblem on the fin. Then, a few months later, they started it all again, to apply C.3A. At the outbreak of WW II, hostilities were still two years away in the Far East. We might perhaps consider that camouflage was not yet a priority and a simpe temporary scheme could suffice.

Regards

 

Claudio

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Claudio,

 

We have to be careful not to use hindsight to evaluate decisions made without it.  In 1939, the UK didn't know that war with Japan was 2 years away, indeed tensions continued to rise throughout the 2 year period.  While Singapore was rather "out of the way" we must remember that the war was still global, even in 1939 (eg the Battle of the River Plate in 1939).  Thus it would be in every commander's best interest to ensure his unit(s) were as fully prepared for operations as possible. 

 

The question of paint shortages at Singapore was purely speculation on my part.  There is some slight evidence that Dark Earth might (stress MIGHT) have been in short supply east of Suez as witnessed by the pic in Graham Warner's tome on the Blenheim, as well as the LIFE images of 27 Sqn machines which appear to show some repainting on the fins of at least 2 aircraft in a lighter shade than the original Dark Earth.  The "evidence", such as it is, is pretty thin.

 

I believe the timing between application of the high contrast scheme and C.3A is rather longer than "a few months".  If the supposition is correct that the Vildebeests were first camouflaged shortly after war was declared against Germany, then the high contrast scheme as seen on K4156 was carried through until after June 1940 and potentially into 1941.  Sadly, we can't be certain because there are no dates associated with the photos, nor is there any documentary evidence for when the various schemes were applied (or, indeed, what schemes were applied). 

 

If the photos we're seeing depict your #3 step, then that quick expedient of applying just dark green over the base aluminium dope and grey paint of the pre-war markings must have been around for some considerable time...at least until June 1940 and probably beyond.  The alternative would be that your "quick expedient" scheme is almost indistinguishable from Light Earth and Dark Green (assuming that's what we're seeing in these photos) which means 3 total repaints (initial Dark Green only, Light Earth/Dark Green and then TLS)  rather than the 2 suggested by early adoption of Light Earth/Dark Green followed by TLS.  Again, we can never know but I suspect the latter course of action is more likely.

 

Kind regards,
Mark 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2017 at 7:52 PM, mhaselden said:

 

Hi Graham,

 

.....

 

Vilde1.jpg

 

....

 

Cheers,
Mark

 

My two cents: (my apology  if it has already been mentioned in this thread)

The undersides are clearly black here IMO.

If you enlarge the pic it it becomes obvious, they are darker than the roundel blue on the underside of the wing ....

 

This rules out silver-DG even more.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/10/2017 at 6:18 AM, occa said:

My two cents: (my apology  if it has already been mentioned in this thread)

The undersides are clearly black here IMO.

If you enlarge the pic it it becomes obvious, they are darker than the roundel blue on the underside of the wing ....

 

This rules out silver-DG even more.

 

Occa,

 

thanks for reminding me of this. I agree black undersides is a reasonably well supported assumption. There's still the picture of K6402-OE-J to discuss, but the light undersides are pnly those of the upper mainplane.

 

The very high contrast of the grey shades in those pictures is still disconcerting, but there's little more that can be added. One last crazy idea would be to argue about the use of colour filters on the camera taking the picture. As Mark suggested, the pictures appear to have been taken at some torpedo dropping range. I would venture to suggest that the black crosses appearing in most of the full-size pictures might be reference marks from the range camera taking those pictures. If this is the case, it is hardly believable a colour filter was added as an "artistic license". If it was at all, it might perhaps be required for better image contrast in torpedo drop assessment.

 

Definitely my last attempt at guessing why such an oddly contrasting scheme appears in a set of photos.

 

Best regards

 

Claudio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/10/2017 at 2:23 PM, mhaselden said:

Per the image below of a Vildebeest at Hong Kong after its surrender, perhaps this is showing a Light Earth/Light Green overall scheme?

 

VildebeestWreckHongKong.jpg 

 

Mark,

 

thanks for your replies to my posts. At this point, lack of dates for the pictures makes further discussion difficult and the "odd" scheme may remain partly unexplained.

Anyway, I went through all the pictures again and I focused on this one, reportedly "a wreck at Hong Kong after surrender". Are you sure of this caption?

 

I have no familiarity whatsoever with the surroundings of RAF airfields anywhere, but men standing around the aircraft have a definite "European" attitude to my eyes. I'd say the gentleman standing at the right of the truck has topee, long trousers and nothing more. The two men seemingly talking, between the truck and the aircraft, seem to wear shorts. The aircraft does not appear to be that "wrecked" (I'd say "repairable"...) and its attitude is quite reminiscent of the accident to K4186 you mentioned in post#1:

 

K4186  Overshot landing at Seletar, taxied into ditch. Damage to wings, lower centre section and engine bay, 6 Nov 1941.

 

If this is so, we might possibly have a documented and dated Light Earth/Light Green Vildebeest, however crazy that scheme may be (perhaps not so much, by the look of the ground around there?).

 

Regards

 

Claudio

 

Edited by ClaudioN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 12:18 AM, occa said:

 

My two cents: (my apology  if it has already been mentioned in this thread)

The undersides are clearly black here IMO.

If you enlarge the pic it it becomes obvious, they are darker than the roundel blue on the underside of the wing ....

 

This rules out silver-DG even more.

 

Hi Occa,

The black undersides with Type A underwing roundels were mentioned at Post #6 but I agree...it militates against this just being a quick overpaint of the silver dope with just Dark Green.

 

 

8 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Mark,

 

thanks for your replies to my posts. At this point, lack of dates for the pictures makes further discussion difficult and the "odd" scheme may remain partly unexplained.

Anyway, I went through all the pictures again and I focused on this one, reportedly "a wreck at Hong Kong after surrender". Are you sure of this caption?

 

I have no familiarity whatsoever with the surroundings of RAF airfields anywhere, but men standing around the aircraft have a definite "European" attitude to my eyes. I'd say the gentleman standing at the right of the truck has topee, long trousers and nothing more. The two men seemingly talking, between the truck and the aircraft, seem to wear shorts. The aircraft does not appear to be that "wrecked" (I'd say "repairable"...) and its attitude is quite reminiscent of the accident to K4186 you mentioned in post#1:

 

K4186  Overshot landing at Seletar, taxied into ditch. Damage to wings, lower centre section and engine bay, 6 Nov 1941.

 

If this is so, we might possibly have a documented and dated Light Earth/Light Green Vildebeest, however crazy that scheme may be (perhaps not so much, by the look of the ground around there?).

 

Regards

 

Claudio

 

Hi Claudio,

The image came from Japanese sources but I have no more definitive information to help confirm the location.  The scheme is certainly interesting because of the overall light tone and low contrast...perhaps DE/MS?  We can't say it's the image just being washed out because the national markings appear so strongly, as does much of the background detail...so I suspect we're seeing another unusual scheme on a 'Beest.  Sadly, the image isn't the greatest quality so it's hard to draw any further conclusions.

 

Cheers,
Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mhaselden said:

I suspect we're seeing another unusual scheme on a 'Beest.

Hi Mark,

 

please, not yet another unusual scheme... one is enough and more than one seems highly unlikely. I was just suggesting it might be the one we had been discussing.

 

Quoting from Wikipedia:

The colony had no significant air defence. The RAF station at Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport had only five aeroplanes: two Supermarine Walrus amphibians and three Vickers Vildebeest torpedo-reconnaissance bombers, flown and serviced by seven officers and 108 airmen. An earlier request for a fighter squadron had been rejected and the nearest fully operational RAF base was in Kota Bharu, Malaya, nearly 2,250 kilometres (1,398 miles) away.

(...)

The Japanese bombed Kai Tak Airport on 8 December. Two of the three Vildebeest and the two Walrus were destroyed by 12 Japanese bombers.

 

Looking at the people in the photo, I am simply suggesting that it does not portray a Vildebeest wreck during Japanese occupation (e.g., the one survivor of the December, 8th bombing?), but a Vildebeest damaged in a landing accident and being attended by British personnel.

I'd be glad if this helps make any small step forward.

 

Regards

Claudio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Hi Mark,

 

please, not yet another unusual scheme... one is enough and more than one seems highly unlikely. I was just suggesting it might be the one we had been discussing.

 

Quoting from Wikipedia:

The colony had no significant air defence. The RAF station at Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport had only five aeroplanes: two Supermarine Walrus amphibians and three Vickers Vildebeest torpedo-reconnaissance bombers, flown and serviced by seven officers and 108 airmen. An earlier request for a fighter squadron had been rejected and the nearest fully operational RAF base was in Kota Bharu, Malaya, nearly 2,250 kilometres (1,398 miles) away.

(...)

The Japanese bombed Kai Tak Airport on 8 December. Two of the three Vildebeest and the two Walrus were destroyed by 12 Japanese bombers.

 

Looking at the people in the photo, I am simply suggesting that it does not portray a Vildebeest wreck during Japanese occupation (e.g., the one survivor of the December, 8th bombing?), but a Vildebeest damaged in a landing accident and being attended by British personnel.

I'd be glad if this helps make any small step forward.

 

Regards

Claudio

 

Hi Claudio,

 

I'm not doing it on purpose!!! :)

 

You may be right.  I haven't looked into the provenance of the picture in any great detail.  I may dig around and see where it came from which may provide some additional detail.

 

FYI, I've ordered a copy of the Air Britain K-File book which I plan to peruse for any additional info it may contain about Vildebeests ('cos I'm boring like that!).


All the best,

Mark

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/27/2017 at 6:02 PM, Nick Millman said:

 Hi Mark

 

The letter from Air Ministry to RAE of 16 Aug 1938 might contain the answer. It requires further trials of the Temperate Land scheme as prepared for Aden (and the LT2 and LT3 schemes in India, Far East and Iraq as mentioned above) but suggests modifying the scheme by using a lighter colour than Dark Earth "being more appropriate to Aden" with the retention of the Dark Green. But then the words "India and Far East" are added to that paragraph.

 

I'll send you the original document as I can't post it here.

 

Nick

Nick,

 

It would be nice if you would quote your sources. I posted that same document a while ago on this very forum as well as several of the other documents that you now quote. 

 

Regards,

Mark

Edited by Mark Mackenzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

The source is the letter from Air Ministry to RAE of 16 Aug 1938, and is attributed approriately

The source was a forum post from me a while ago, as are several documents that were referenced. Of course he doesn't have to quote the source, however common courtesy would have been appropriate. That happens, When someone re-posts another's research, work without reference to the original. 

Edited by Mark Mackenzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2017 at 7:20 AM, ClaudioN said:

Alert in the East

A propaganda film from the IWM Collections. From minute 9 to 9:35, four torpedo drops by Vildebeests.

 

Great find..... Vildebeests at Taranto eh?

 

Another interesting thread but let's hope it doesn't go to 345 pages and repeat anything in the earlier one, which should be compulsory reading before you post here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Nick,

 

It would be nice if you would quote your sources. I posted that same document a while ago on this very forum as well as several of the other documents that you now quote. 

 

Regards,

Mark

Mark

 

You are presuming too much. The documents which I have quoted from and referred to in this thread are copies in my own collection from original Air Ministry and RAE documents photographed at the National Archives where they are publicly accessible. They were not sourced from your posts (which can be proven). The fact that you have posted your own copies of the same public documents does not give you exclusive rights over their content. 

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/10/2017 at 2:26 AM, mhaselden said:

 

 

You may be right.  I haven't looked into the provenance of the picture in any great detail.  I may dig around and see where it came from which may provide some additional detail.

 

Hi Mark

 

That photograph (together with others of wrecked/abandoned Vildebeests) was published in the wartime Asahi Newspaper book "Anatomy of Enemy Aircraft" in February 1943. So the provenance of the photo is Japanese but I don't think that it was taken at Hong Kong. It could be that it was a photograph confiscated from Allied personnel or records following their capture.  I'll try to get the caption translated.

 

Regards

Nick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick Millman said:

Mark

 

You are presuming too much. The documents which I have quoted from and referred to in this thread are copies in my own collection from original Air Ministry and RAE documents photographed at the National Archives where they are publicly accessible. They were not sourced from your posts (which can be proven). The fact that you have posted your own copies of the same public documents does not give you exclusive rights over their content. 

 

Nick

I'm not presuming anything. Here is the link to those exact documents  (#63) in which YOU are a participant. Just because you RE-COPY them and RE-POST them does not obligate you from common courtesy and public decency. The same applies to the earlier documents that I originally posted on this forum and which you now quote.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mark Mackenzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

I'm not presuming anything. Here is the link to those exact documents  (#63) in which YOU are a participant. Just because you RE-COPY them and RE-POST them does not obligate you from common courtesy and public decency. The same applies to the earlier documents that I originally posted on this forum and which you now quote.

 

 

 

 

I didn't post any documents in that thread or this one and the ones that you posted are no longer shown there. In that linked thread Edgar Brooks also refers to examining those very same documents at Kew so they are not exclusive to you.

 

I don't think that I have ever posted those various trials schematics although I did refer to them in this thread by examining the copies in my own files.

 

Nick

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...