EwenS

Yes. The carriers of 11ACS went to Hong Kong (Venerable & Vengeance arriving 29 Aug along with Indomitable), Shanghai, Formosa & Korea (Colossus) and Rabaul (Glory by 6 Sept). There are photos of aircraft on these ships flight decks around this time. You will find photos of 812 squadron Barracudas here. https://www.hms-vengeance.co.uk/812air3.htm Corsairs on Glory at Rabaul https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C51504

Since I saw this last night it has been troubling me on a number of levels. Firstly, Implacable & Indefatigable didn't operate either Hellcats or Barracudas in 1945. And if the comment was meant to go wider than these two ships, why omit the Corsair? The second issue is that of "joint operations with the US Navy near Okinawa in March 1945". While the TF57 carrier element of the BPF operated under USN control off Okinawa, its operational area meant it had little contact with the USN elements during Operation Iceberg between the end of March and the end of May when it withdrew to Sydney. It operated independently to the west of Okinawa, over the Sakishima Gunto and over to Formosa. And only Indefatigable was present for these operations. It was July/Aug1945 before TF37, as it had been renumbered, operated as a fourth carrier group to the USN TF38 of Japan. For those operations both ships were present. Thirdly is the question of when & where this repaint could have been carried out. When at sea en route to the combat zones, TF57/37 had a heavy exercise programme and while in the combat zones, a very heavy operational tempo leaving engineers & fitters little time to consider repainting aircraft. Even the week spent at Leyte Gulf at the end of April was spent replenishing store rooms and magazines and preparing the aircraft for the next phase of operations. And being in the tropics there would have been daily tropical downpours to contend with, which to me means carrying such work out was a hangar job. And there is the question of the numbers of aircraft involved. The aircraft complement on these two ships was 70-80 in 1945 of which 40-48 were Seafires. That is a lot of work. (Edit - plus of course the replacement aircraft that were supplied during the various replenishment periods during operations) So the alternative is that the aircraft were repainted while ashore. For Indefatigable that means 3 weeks in June/July (plus a extra unplanned 10-12 days since the ship was unable to leave on schedule due to mechanical problems). During this time her squadrons were ashore at MONAB III at Schofields. But this unit was was understaffed for the number of aircraft that descended on it during this period, and facilities were still under construction. Add to that bad weather caused flooding. So would they have had been able to carry out a repaint of the number of aircraft involved? Implacable (Mike Crosley's ship) only arrived at Sydney on 8th May 1945 and left again of the 23rd May during which time her aircraft disembarked to MONAB V at Jervis Bay, an airfield where the hangars were only beginning construction. Some flying was also carried out by the squadrons in this period. Then the ship was back to sea on exercises before participating in Operation Inmate to Truk in June before finally sailing for Japanese waters from Manus with the rest of TF37 on 6th July. Barracudas didn't arrive until around 21-22 July when the carriers of 21ACS arrived at Sydney. They sailed again on 13-15 August for Manus and various reoccupation activities, by which time the need for a camouflage change had disappeared with the end of the war. AIUI these squadrons adopted the BPF markings during this stopover. So I'm really struggling to see how the need could have been identified as early as indicated, and then how it could have been carried out on the scale suggested. But of course now someone will produce a photograph to prove us doubters wrong! Edit. I should of course have said 11ACS in the above. 21ACS was the escort carriers East Indies Fleet

The Battle of Cape Matapan was March 1941, but the operation to invade Madagascar, Operation Ironclad, was not “a couple of months later” but 14 months later, in May 1942. In the interim, after Formidable was bombed off Crete in May 1941, 803 squadron had been in the desert, including a period on Hurricanes. In March 1942 they totally re-equipped with Fulmar II while at Dekheila, Egypt and, along with 806, departed for Ceylon. 803 went back aboard Formidable on 25th April 1942 until Aug 1942 when they left the ship for a shore base in East Africa. Formidable then returned to the UK to refit. Sorry, but I can’t help with the markings.

Compare it with the Avenger alongside it which is at a different angle to the camera. Neither seems to carry underwing roundels. To me it is not a different colour but just a greater shadow effect from the different camera angle. It appears nowhere near as dark as that panel on the Wildcat.

Two former Norwegian Air Shuttle 787-8s currently residing at Prestwick are to be stripped for spare parts and the remains scrapped. These are the first 787s to be broken up. https://airlive.net/worlds-first-two-boeing-787-dreamliners-to-be-scrapped-for-spare-parts/

In the first photo posted, to which I believe GrzeM was referring, you can see the underside of the folded port wing of aircraft F. With the wings folded it is the undersides that are nearest the fuselage with the uppersides facing outwards. There is a very distinct and clearly defined dark area at the forward end of that port wing underside. I don’t think that it is a shadow.

RN orders for the white SEAC bands took effect on 1 Feb 1945. So:- None of the carriers passing through to the Pacific in 1945 adopted SEAC markings as their stay was brief. That would include those on Implacable, and the light carriers of 21ACS. Barracudas - had been replaced on the fleet carriers in Oct 1944 by Avengers. After that the the only Barracudas in theatre were held in MUs until 824 squadron formed in Ceylon in early July 1945 and 815 and 821 arrived from the UK on the escort carriers Smiter & Trumpeter in late July. They didn't last long before being sent home in Sept/Oct usually minus their aircraft. I can't recall seeing photos of the aircraft in these squadrons in that brief time. 756 was another user for a brief spell in Oct/Nov 1945 having previously given them up in Oct 1944. Firefly - the only Firefly squadron serving in SEAC was on Indefatigable which had left for the Pacific in Jan 1945. It was into 1946 before the next squadron arrived on one of the light carriers. Swordfish - by 1945 the only Swordfish were in second line squadrons. 757, a deck landing training squadron, gave them up in Feb 1945 leaving only 742, a communications squadron based at Sulur in Southern India with flights in Ceylon, and 722, a Fleet Requirements Unit, as the only users but they also used a variety of other types. And again photos are rare. I hope that this helps.

No rockets for the period of your interest I’m afraid. ”A Separate Little War” says the first trials of an RP on the Mossie was 28 Sept 1944. First operational Mossie rocket sortie was 26 Oct 1944 by aircraft of 235 & 248 squadrons, by which time the squadrons had moved up to Banff.

Luftwaffe Colours Sea Eagles Vol 2 Luftwaffe Anti-shipping units 1942-45 has brief details of operations of Anzio including Hs293 operations. II./KG 100 flew Hs293 missions with Do217E-5 aircraft and was credited with 10 sinking and 8 ships damaged in the period 23 Jan to 25 Feb. They included the destroyers Janus (sunk) and Jervis (bow blown off) on 23rd Jan, Inglefield on 25 Feb. And it must have been this unit that sank Spartan. The only other unit flying Hs293 missions over Anzio was II./KG 40 which began operations off Anzio from Bordeaux Merignac on 23rd Jan 1944. But it was equipped with the He177. It also operated on 24th & 26th losing 7 aircraft to flak & fighters over the 3 nights. But after that seems to have returned to operating over the Bay of Biscay, except a couple of nights in Feb/Mar, which don’t concern us in the current discussion.

Here is a “Short History of Lajes Field”. It notes (p8) that when the airfield was built in 1943 by British engineers it was known as “Lagens Field”. And in British records it seems to have remained that throughout WW2. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e25b3811195f14156e54b35/t/5f0b74220f4f095f7e6ec608/1594586150735/Lajes+Field.pdf In “Stations of Coastal Command Then And Now” there is a paragraph about an Anglo American agreement signed on 1 Dec 1943 outlining the roles and responsibilities of the USAAF and USN at Lagens. It then continues ”Using Lagens - or Lajes Field, as the Americans preferred to call it - ......” Curiously the official USN reports of the locations of aircraft simply refer to their being based in the “Azores”. So it would appear that the name applied to this airfield in the Azores depends on which side of the pond you come from.

I’m not clear what “details” you are looking for? The craft? The action? The details on the NavSource site are incorrect for LCF7 & 8 and the vessel in the photo is LCF 4 (the number is visible on the bow despite the poor quality of the photo). The LCF came in 4 types:- LCF(1) - a single vessel LCF 1. Armament 2x4” twin mounts, 3x20mm single. Lost 1944 LCF(2) - a single vessel LCF 2. Armament 8x2pdr Pom Pom singles, 4x20mm singles. lost 1942 These two vessels were conversions from the LCT(2) hull. Displacement 539 tons Length OA- 159ft 11in Beam - 31ft 1in Draught - 3.75-7ft Diesel powered giving 11 knots Crew - 4 officers & 70/63 men respectively. LCF(3) - based on the LCT(3) type hull. Displacement 470 tons Length OA- 190.75ft Beam -31ft Draught - 3.75-7ft Diesel powered 11 knots. There were 2 groups with different armaments. Group 1 - LCF 3-6 - 8 single Pom Pom and 4 single 20mm. Crew 62 Group 2 - LCF 7-18 - 4 single Pom Pom and 8 single 20mm. Crew 66 (your LCF 7 would look like this) Finally the LCF(4) type based on the LCT(4) hull and numbered LCF 9-46 (although the last 2 may not have been converted). Displacement 415 tons Length OA - 187.25ft Beam - 38.75ft Draught - 3.5-4.5ft Diesel powered 11 knots Crew 66 Armament - 4 single Pom Pom & 8 single 20mm Looking at the various LCF files on NavSource virtually all use the same photo of LCF 4. The extra one under LCF 2 are, I believe, of the LCF(4) type. The confusion probably occurs as the numbers on the hull probably relate to the organisational unit she was attached to for D-Day and not a reference to the vessel itself. The clue is the position of the 20mm on the quarterdeck as opposed to raised up in the bridge wings.

224 squadron was at Leuchars with Hudsons between May 1939 and April 1941. It also used them briefly from Tiree from April 1942 before converting to Liberators. 233 also began WW2 on Hudsons at Leuchars until Sept 1940. 269 got Hudsons in April 1940 at Wick.

The photo is post mid-1942 (see aircraft markings) and Hixon is in Staffordshire, so we’ll away from all the coasts. So the threat from Luftwaffe attack would be much lower. But still, more likely a publicity shoot or a visit from some dignitary.

Some information on the introduction of various A-26 modifications appears over at Joe Baugher’s site along with serial numbers for the various blocks. Somewhere I have a timeline on these but I’m away from that computer at present. http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/a26_3.html Clamshell canopy Production line standard from B-26B-30-DL but fitted to a few earlier aircraft. 8 gun nose Introduced on the A-26B-50-DL with Pacific version A-26B-51-DL (extra fuel tank in place of lower turret) interspersed on the production line, and subsequent models. The first -51 models went to the 3rd BG in the Pacific and only arrived in theatre from June 1945. I’ve never seen a wartime photo of this nose on a European theatre aircraft. If I’m reading the serial on the Airfix box artwork correctly, 43-2233?, it relates to a A-26B-15-DT from the Tulsa production line. That factory ceased A-26B production at the end of 1944 to concentrate on the glazed nose A-26C. The nose could be swapped out but the ETO had no need for it as their A-26s flew in medium bomber roles at altitude not ground strafing as in the Pacific. AFAIK it was the same nose fitted to the B-26K. http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/a26_10.html

Typical air group composition for the period SquadronsAircraftRemarks 2 Fighter Squadrons (VF). 24 F-14 2 Attack Squadrons (VA). 24 A-7 1 All-weather Attack Squadron (VA). 10-12 A-6E and 4 KA-6DAlso responsible for tanker operations (KA-6D). 1 Carrier Early Warning Squadron (VAW). 4-6 E-2C 1 Tactical Electronic Squadron (VAQ). 4-6 EA-6B 1 Air Anti-Submarine Squadron (VS). 10 S-3A 1 Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS). 6 SH-3G/H Total: 86-92 aircraft Usually it would be 4 xE-2C & 4x EA-6B & 10 xA-6E.

The bulged bomb bay doors were required to carry the 8,000lb HC, 12,000lb HC and 12,000lb Tallboy which were all 38” in diameter. The 12,000lb HC was basically an 8,000lb HC with an extra explosive section and had an overall length of 196 inches, a bit shorter than Tallboy. you can find details of all British bombs in this official document. https://bulletpicker.com/pdf/OP 1665, British Explosive Ordnance.pdf#page=52

How about some of those planned under Plan Z but not built:- P class heavy cruiser / panzerschiffe of 23,700 tons. 12 planned. None laid down. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-class_cruiser Earlier the cruisers Seydlitz and Lutzow were originally planned to have a main armament of 12x5.9in in triple turrets but the design was changed in 1936 to 8x8in in twin turrets to match Hipper, Blucher and Prinz Eugen. They were laid down 18 months to 2 years after the S & G.

55 squadron didn’t swap its Baltimores for Bostons until Oct 1944. Also 13 (Jan-Oct 1944), 69 (until Apr 1944 for shipping recce and ASW) , 223 (became 30 SAAF in Aug 1944), 500 (from Aug 1944) as well as the SAAF squadrons.

Every month Lockheed Martin produce a “Fast Facts” info sheet about the F-35 Programme. OK it is their spin on progress with the aircraft, but it does provide an alternative view to the sometimes very negative focus that gets reported from a US Congress many of whom are not behind the project in the slightest because some other manufacturer who could perhaps benefit from another design is based in their state. So as of Dec 2022:- 875+ aircraft delivered (first flight 2006, service entry 2015 - 8 crashes + 2 other “serious incidents” only half of which seem to be due to faults with the aircraft) 602,000 flight hours recorded (up from 500,000 in April 2022) 1,845 pilots trained belonging to 9 countries And so it goes on. It is one of the most technically advanced aircraft ever built. With millions of lines of computer code. Of course there will be problems. But is it an unsafe aircraft for the pilots to fly? I’m not seeing that in the data at present. https://www.f35.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/f35/documents/December 2022 Fast Facts_1.pdf https://www.f35.com/f35/about/fast-facts.html

Imagine the size of cat needed to sit on that box of parts!

The US attitude to providing us with nuclear weapons changed from mid-1954. At that point the Americans advised that they were willing to offer assistance to modify RAF aircraft to carry US nuclear bombs in the event of war, something which did not depend on changes to the Atomic Energy Act. That led to talks in early 1955 about co-ordinating both countries strike plans. The causes of American attitudes towards nuclear co-operation changing, seem to have arisen due to:- 1. Britain having its own bomb (first British test was Oct 1952); and 2. An effective means of delivering it becoming a reality (first Valiant delivery was 8 Feb 1955). Clearly, the horse had bolted so the Americans had concluded there was no longer any point in trying to shut the stable door. Better to co-ordinate the effort and work to change US legislation. I recommend “RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces” by Humphrey Wynn of MoD Air Historical Branch for the full history of the RAF’s involvement in Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

A third bomb in August was not just possible, it was a certainty. You need to understand the background to their use. Following the lack of a Japanese response to the Potsdam Declaration, at least formally, Truman authorised the use of atomic weapons after 3 Aug. But he effectively passed control of the selection of targets and timing to the military. He did not authorise the use of each individual bomb. Under these orders, as more bombs became available it was up to the military as to how they should be used. On 12th Aug, once the Japanese had begun negotiations, Truman changed the rules. He took control of the use of atomic weapons away from the military. Thereafter he personally would have to sanction further missions. On 9 Aug the 509th CG sent two aircraft from Tinian to their US base at Wendover AFB, Utah to collect the components for the third bomb which was ready. Following Truman’s change of instructions these aircraft and the bomb components remained in the USA. The bomb core itself was used for experiments in late 1945 and into 1946, that resulted in two accidents that resulted in the death of a scientist each time. https://sofrep.com/news/demon-core-the-third-atomic-bomb-intended-for-japan-proved-deadly-to-it-own-creators/ The figures provided in that memo by Gen Groves are entirely believable. He had been in charge of the whole Manhattan Project since 1942 and knew what was possible and what was not. He was an engineer to trade and not someone prone to exaggeration or promising something that could not be delivered. Atom bomb availability in 1946 cannot corroborate his figures because, with the end of the war, there was no need to continue maximising production. The US was the sole nuclear power and peace was expected. Attention turned to improving them and simplifying manufacture. Figures for 1946 vary, possibly depending on the date chosen. Figures of 6-11 appear in various places. Two Mk3 Fat Man bombs were expended in Operation Crossroads at Bikini Atoll in June/July 1946. Various features for the Mk4 Bomb were tested in 3 nuclear tests in 1948, before mass production of that weapon between 1949 and 1951 (some 550 produced). The US stockpile in 1950 was 300-400, again sources differ. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country As for what finally persuaded the Japanese to surrender, who knows exactly what tipped the balance. But 9 Aug was a terrible day for them. Stalin kept his promises from Tehran in Nov 1943 and Yalta in Feb 1945. Considering that the Japanese had been trying to use them as intermediaries in an effort to seek a negotiated way out of the war, this was a huge shock. The Soviets rolled into Manchuria with overwhelming force just after midnight. The speed of their advance was something to behold. Then 11 hours later Nagasaki. That on top of their being pushed back in every theatre in which they were fighting, including southern China itself. The decision was not easy and did not go down well in certain quarters leading to a coup attempt. It has always struck me that it was the cumulative effects of all these things rather than any single one that changed their minds. They finally realised there was no way out. Efforts then shifted to how to keep the Emperor. The whole question of the invasion of Japan fascinates me. I’d recommend this if you want to know more https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hell-Pay-D-M-Giangreco/dp/1591143160/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3NXY0WJQYZXL8&keywords=Hell+to+pay&qid=1668736167&s=books&sprefix=hell+to+pay%2Cstripbooks%2C162&sr=1-1 As a teaser here is the air order of battle for the Kyushu Operation Olympic. https://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/Downfall/OOB/OOB_Allied.htm Operation Olympic to capture the southern half of Kyushu for space for airfields to support later operations was scheduled for 1 Nov 1945 but inevitably would have been pushed back due to the damage inflicted on staging areas on Okinawa at the end of Sept by a typhoon. Beyond that, planning focussed on Operation Coronet, scheduled for 1 March 1946 on the Tokyo Plain. But no plans had been developed for what would happen if, at that point, the Japanese still did not surrender and the whole of Japan had to be conquered. By the end of 1945 the Soviets would have been well placed to invade the northernmost island Hokkaidō. There are loads of fascinating aspects. Like Ironhorse. A Mulberry style artificial harbour for Operation Coronet. Given a high priority, work on it was only beginning when the war ended. Various elements would have to be sailed/towed across the Pacific!

The threat was not as empty as you portray. The third bomb would have been ready for dropping by about 19 Aug. Components were awaiting being flown to Tinian. After that monthly production from Sept would have been as follows:- Sept - 3 or 4 Oct - 3 or 4 (depends on Sept production) Nov - 5+ Dec - 7+ Further increases were expected in 1946. All set out in a memo by Gen Groves on 30 July 1945 http://www.dannen.com/decision/bomb-rate.html When news of the Hiroshima Bomb was publically released, the planners for Operation Olympic even began to think in terms of using the atomic bombs tactically. The war ended before those plans could be developed. Bomb components were being flown out from the US to Tinian by the 509th CG. So no long delays with sending components by sea.

The 100gal drop tank and tiered rocket rails were fitted to 143, 235 and 248 squadron Mosquitos at Banff between 4 and 7 March 1945. Some aircraft flew without the rockets for flak suppression. The last of the invasion stripe markings (under fuselage) were removed / overpainted by the end of 1944. If you want rockets and under fuselage invasion markings then you are looking at the period Nov/Dec 1944. Then it is no drop tanks and 8 rails.

My version seems to have one of the Airbus A330 Voyagers turning onto the runway for a westerly take off. Are we talking about the same aircraft? Two things struck me:- 1. Very pronounced almost vertical winglets casting shadows. 2. A fuselage extension behind the rudder and elevators. Contains the APU on the Voyager. The Poseidon has a very stubby fuselage in that area which does not protrude so far. The hardstanding in front of the hangar at the westerly end has an A400M Atlas (from shadows of curly props). That is the problem with Google Maps. Different browsers can produce different results. I’m on Safari.