Jump to content

TheyJammedKenny!

Members
  • Posts

    1,816
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington, DC
  • Interests
    aircraft, history, foreign languages and cultures

Recent Profile Visitors

1,053 profile views

TheyJammedKenny!'s Achievements

Very Obsessed Member

Very Obsessed Member (5/9)

2.2k

Reputation

  1. You mean Rock Apes? Monkeys have tails, ya know. WOMBAT sounds like a mean system that could be put to great use to clear all sorts of obstacles. Like any recoilless gun, it would have made a helluva flash and kicked up all sorts of debris in the back-blast, which would have triggered the opponent to single out the Rovers-portees for special treatment. OTOH, I think you could say the same thing about MILAN, so it's even. Not surprised that the paras were averse to giving up this weapon. ------ Perhaps this puts us in "bun fight" range, but what are the sorts of vanguard-like missions you could anticipate the Parachute Regiment conducting, using parachute delivery of personnel, on today's battlefield, against a near-peer adversary teeth-deep in area-denial weapons, like long-range SAMs? In the postwar world, I can recall only three U.S. parachute operations under combat conditions, at least two of which could have been performed by other means (helicopters!), and all under the umbrella of unchallenged U.S. air supremacy. The only reasonable scenario would be if/when the delivery aircraft could survive combat entry, which would have to follow establishment of at least "challenged" air supremacy and substantial roll-back of enemy air defenses. This could be quite late in any campaign, and hardly the stuff of a "vanguard force." Either way, you could use Chinooks to the same effect after forward-staging them, and simply air-land the troops. Even "leg" infantry would do at that point. The danger of employing paratroops is that the minimum safe altitude from which they drop may well not be "safe" for the delivery aircraft for LOS reasons and the shock effect of a mass assault likely short-lived against a near-peer ground adversary, who can call in indirect fire on the LZ before the paras can even rally. The short-range L118s are a poor substitute for M-777s, which could at least answer those fires, assuming they could be set up to fire quickly. That means the Regiment would be in trouble the moment it landed, and rely on CAS as a substitute for lack of organic fire support. Under the conditions of challenged air supremacy, CAS is possible, but I think only if the AFAC can get tally on the enemy's guns. Otherwise, the Regiment becomes nothing more than a big, expensive way of drawing the adversary's fire.
  2. we have over here an organisation called Models for Heroes. They ask for models to be given free Thanks, Laurie! Definitely a worthy organization. I'm unaware of anything directly comparable, model-wise, here. Alex
  3. Here are the tires and chocks. The tires are Vallejo dark grey mixed with a little Testors acrylic cockpit black. I'll weather them a bit after they fully dry. Based on photos I've seen of WD159 at Aden, the chocks were similar to those used in WWII for heavy bombers, so I simply used the chocks contained in Airfix's RAF Bomber resupply set and painted them a mix of Testors acrylic dark gull gray, Vallejo white, and Vallejo PRU Blue to approximate the slightly faded RAF blue-grey used in Aden.
  4. I applied the fin badge for WD159, which may or may not be a Ferry Service Squadron badge, rather than 233's. This aircraft came directly to Aden from the FSS, after having been assigned to a maintenance unit for several months. As I understand it, 233 was reactivated using aircraft from 84 Squadron and those from FSS and maintenance units in the UK. It may have taken a while for the squadron to shake down all of its new aircraft and get them to appear more uniform. You'll note that I also applied some panel wash to the cargo doors and the control surface breaks. I made this from a simple mix of Vallejo dark grey, water, and Future.
  5. From in-flight photos, the finish appears to be fairly uniform, without much weathering or any obvious difference between the wing/fuselage inboard walkways and the rest of the aircraft. I would have expected a lighter color on the walkway areas for some reason. Also, I see that many of these aircraft had the "bubble" mounted in the forward escape hatch for low-level missions, so you can have fun with this!
  6. One of the Reno High Rollers told me that part of TEREC was visible as a towel-rack antenna center-mounted atop the rear fuselage, just ahead of the vertical stabilizer. The Air National Guard aircraft didn't have it, but it's on the Fujimi kit. I built the Fujimi kit with the towel-rack antenna in place as a 92 RG RF-4C, and the High Roller told me it was incorrect!
  7. Beautifully done! On the real thing, the position of the hot exhausts would worry any pilot climbing out of the cockpit. Easy goes it!
  8. What an effort to get it to look like a Privateer! Great job on this. Though those vac-form engine nacelles were a treat, they are the best way to show the engines without weighing down the wings too much.
  9. Beautifully done! Can't say I've ever trusted myself masking directly over Alclad 2, but it's working for you, so... Really interesting project of an aircraft conversion I've never seen done elsewhere!
  10. Wow. That's a MODEL? You deserve the outstanding unit citation shown on the aircraft's vertical fin.
  11. That's fine. I know where to make the cuts and additions, thanks to your excellent station diagrams. The fuselage cross section should be constant where I need to add 1/4" of length and that makes it relatively easy to do, especially in creating compartments/flat optical sections for the cameras.
  12. I will mate the Aeroclub forward fuselage with the FROG B(I) 8 to get a PR.7. The B(I) 8 has the correct body length, engines, and shape--just a matter of doing some cutting to create camera windows, and a rear-fuselage flare bay using the existing kit parts. Though they are designed for the S and M kit, Scale Aircraft Conversion's landing gear set should do quite nicely. Just a matter of detailing the gear bays, finding a MB Mk.2 ejection seat, and otherwise having fun with it. Paint would be disruptive green/gray over LAG with low-viz decals for #39 Squadron.
  13. That looks sweet! We'll put you to work for Falcon of NZ soon! According to the 'net, there was a set of Los replacement vac canopies, but it appears you have things well under control. Funny about carving from balsa. That may be your recourse on the nose!
  14. That's stunning and most inspirational, and has given me a few ideas! It's certainly one of the best Airfix canberras I've seen built up. Thanks so much for sharing.
  15. Back to the subject of 16th ABN BDE in the 70s - 90s, I'm impressed by the anti-tank resources in the TO & E of the reinforced battalion group in 1974. I assume the WOMBATs were replaced by MILAN by the 90s. Did the brigade ever use Striker with Swingfire? The Ferrets would have been long gone by the 90s. Also, did 7RHA disperse its artillery resources among the battalion groups in the 90s, such that each battalion group would attach one 4-gun L118 battery? In addition, did the regiment's military police attach themselves to a battalion group? It seems to me that someone would need to secure EPWs, if any, at a drop zone.
×
×
  • Create New...