iang

Or maybe they used grey? You'd imagine that Ameer would have Roundel Blue in it's paint locker, assuming that roundel was painted out onboard, but it doesn't look dark enough for Roundel Blue to me (though as Troy observes, a thin coat might produce the effect seen in the photo, but I'm a little doubtful). Also, why leave the red on the fin flash when modifying the wing roundel to comply with EIF instructions, when the same instructions mandate a change to the flash? Or has the red on the flash been "greyed " out rather more neatly? Finally, has the fuselage roundel been modified? I assume it has, and there seems to be an irregular lighter tone in parts, otherwise this would be a particularly curious example of an aircraft originally finished with wing roundels and flash appropriate for the ETO and fuselage roundel appropriate for EIF.

The Seafires are all Indomitable. As for the deck makings of Illustrious/Implacable Class carriers during WW2: Illustrious: solid centre line with distance markings and feet indicated as commissioned until Jan 1941; dashed line formed of elongated triangles 1942-45 Victorious: dashed centre line formed of rectangles as commissioned until 1945 (the only other carrier with a centre dashed line of the same style was Unicorn) Formidable: solid centre line with regular thin distance markings, as commissioned until 1945 Indomitable: solid centre line with distance markings, as commissioned until 1945, and thinner dashed line of rectangles offset to port than ran about half the length of the flight deck (roughly from the stern to rear of island). Indefatigable: solid centre line with few thin distance markings (often gives the appearance of a solid line without any intersections), as commissioned until 1945 Implacable: solid centre line with thick distance markings, though these seem to be fainter than the centre line, as commissioned until 1945

There is a photograph of P4217:L of 814 Squadron in Fleet Air Arm Camouflage and Markings, p.117. Three 814 Squadron Swordfish from Hermes were detached to Ark Royal for Operation Menace. P4217 force-landed at Dakar on 24th September 1940 and the photograph is a close-up after this. I spent a while searching for 814 Squadron Swordfish photographs for the book and in addition to 814 Squadron P4217:L at Dakar, the only other photograph I am aware of is in Sturtivant and Ballance Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm (2nd Edition, p.174), which shows L2811:F and L9723:H, though they date the photograph incorrectly to early 1940 (the camouflage and markings unambiguously date the photograph to post-June 1940). There is also film of 814 Squadron's detachment on Ark Royal, which shows L and (from memory H). So, it's my guess that these three (F, H, L) are the 814 detachment on Ark Royal. All three of these Swordfish have a camouflage pattern similar to Ark Royal's 818 and 820 Squadron Swordfish, with high demarcation on the fuselage side with a wavy pattern. The code was a single letter (no carrier ID letter or squadron number) in the middle of a full width fin flash. I'd be very surprised if the rest of the squadron was not finished in the same way.

The photo can't be November 1941, as Indomitable was in an early Admiralty disruptive pattern then. This photo must post-date operation 'Ironclad', as the camouflage scheme in the photo was applied after that date (May or June 1942).

or 5. - I had a senior moment. The sequence refers to KD695:143/X

I've searched for the digital version without success. I have the original in a photo album compiled by a crew member, but all my photos are packed away at the moment and I can't get at them. I'll repost when I can - probably after Easter.

Yes, I've a sequence from the crash onwards. I can't remember if I have the photo of the wreck in the sea or not, but I have seen a photo of this.

KD244:143/X was stripped and swung out by crane, rather than being pushed off.

The two 1770 Squadron Fireflies were S/281:DV119 (Stott and Ward) and S/276:DT941 (Thomson and Miller). These two Fireflies took off from Indefatigable at 07.45 on 12 April on a DUMBOCAP to rendezvous with, and provide cover for, a USN Mariner on ASR duties off Yonakuni Shoma. I have both Firefly combat reports as well as Indefatigable's Report. Neither are unambiguous with respect to the weapon loading, but my reading of the documents suggest 20mm canon only. If RPs were carried (which I doubt), they certainly weren't fired. Given that there were 20mm canon feed jams noted in the Combat Reports, if RPs had of been carried, I'd imagine they would have been fired. The two Fireflies were quickly relieved by additional 1770 Fireflies, so drop tanks may not have been carried either, though logically you'd expect they would have been given the mission. For information, other 1770 Fireflies involved in attacks on shipping and shore targets on 12 and 13 April were all equipped with 8 x RPs, not bombs.

You don't need a Seafox. Exeter never carried one: Osprey, Fairey IIIF and then Walrus. At the time of the River Plate, Walrus were carried before being ditched.

Is Bristol the last RN Falklands ship?

Nick, that is a very nicely finished Skua. The black and white IFF markings and camouflage look spot on. As a depiction of L2988 during the Konigsberg attack, however, you would probably have been better leaving the code off entirely. 803 Squadron had a well-documented practice of colour coding the individual aircraft letter in accordance with section colours. If L2988 carried an individual aircraft letter (F), it would likely have been blue, as Lucy was flying No.1 in Blue Section for the Konigsberg attack. The original Admiralty documents for the Konigsberg attack, however, identify aircraft by their section (colour) and position number only (no individual aircraft letters given). I also have copies of all of 800 and 803 Squadron’s Combat Reports while shore based in March /April 1940 (including Lucy’s) and Skuas are only identified by their serial number or by the section and position number. This strongly suggests that they were still uncoded in early April, as later in April during operation DX off Norway, Admiralty reports identify 803 Squadron Skuas by by their individual aircraft letter. Certainly A6F is incorrect for an 803 Squadron aircraft at this time. 803 Squadron was shore based before being allocated to Glorious for operation DX off Norway (from 27th April). To complicate matters, at the same time, a detachment of 803 Squadron also operated from Ark Royal during operation DX. Ark Royal had its own Skua squadrons: 800 squadron coded (A)6x and 801 squadron coded (A)7x. It is likely that he carrier code (A) was not carried. If the ex-Glorious 803 Squadron aircraft were coded, they could have been coded (A)8x, which is sometimes how they are depicted. Equally, they could have retained Glorious’ codes, but there are no known photographs from this period of Glorious' Skuas on Ark Royal. Cheers, IG

That is some project. The method is very interesting - what software are you using?

CAFO 1099 June 1945 mandated that code marking on Royal Navy aircraft were to be Sky or Medium Sea Grey. Interestingly, Morris opines the pale blue codes found on Corsair KD431 a local mix for "Sky", but found no written documents mandating pale blue codes. Two observations on this. First, the service application of Confidential Admiralty Fleet Orders often pre-dates the relevant CAFO issue date. Secondly, practice among BPF units was not uniform. On Formidable and Implacable, white codes seem to have been consistently used, whereas Indefatigable and Victorious used codes that were clearly not white throughout their BPF deployment (as in the case of JT633 pictured in a previous post). On these last two carriers, there may have been a difference between fighter and bomber squadrons, though this may just be because of a lack of photographs from the same time period. Here is a good example on non-white codes on Indefatigable's 820 Avengers. I believe these are photographed during Operations off Japan (i.e. after CAFO 1099): Pale blue, Sky, or Medium Sea Grey? I have quite a large number of examples of non-white codes, but establishing chronology is still a work in progress.

They look great.