Jump to content

Spitfire BR112... yes, more thoughts about Malta's Spitfires...


Giorgio N

Recommended Posts

obviously, 'sea camouflaged' could refer to any colour scheme appropriate for deployment to a remote island with mostly over-water action expected - for example:  blue

 

it constantly amazes me how some people jump to conclusions based on no evidence at all

 

e.g., is there any evidence at all indicating that distinctive Temperate Sea Scheme?      nope

 

'common inference' and 'believed to be' are not part of a rational hypothetico-deductive process

 

speculate away, but we simply do not know, based on the proffered text

 

ilj

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ilj said:

obviously, 'sea camouflaged' could refer to any colour scheme appropriate for deployment to a remote island with mostly over-water action expected - for example:  blue

 

it constantly amazes me how some people jump to conclusions based on no evidence at all

 

e.g., is there any evidence at all indicating that distinctive Temperate Sea Scheme?      nope

 

'common inference' and 'believed to be' are not part of a rational hypothetico-deductive process

 

speculate away, but we simply do not know, based on the proffered text

 

ilj

So, your contrarian take is that everything "sea camouflaged" goes because "we simply do not know"?

Fascinating.

We do in fact have a pretty good grasp of what the people writing the orders at that time thought of when they wrote "sea camouflaged" and what paints were available, but if you want to to use Gris Hydroavion on your Spitfires, no one will stop you.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ilj said:

obviously, 'sea camouflaged' could refer to any colour scheme appropriate for deployment to a remote island with mostly over-water action expected - for example:  blue

...

It seems to me that you do not have a clear idea of how the military works, because in the military, or air force to be specific, you things in a military way.

 

There's a set standard and that is adhered to when the brass was making the orders.

 

In the case of sea camouflage of the time of the Malta operations, this would be the temperate sea scheme. There was no other option.

 

Obviously, this was disregarded when the situation was intolerable, e.g. when desert camouflaged aircraft was the only ones available and the ship was ready to sail, so some were painted in Dark Mediterranean Blue.

 

I often wonder and hope that someone would invent a timemachine, so that we send a trusted observer to have a look and report back. This certainly would have the potential to kill a lot of speculations and idle discussions.

 

Lastly, no one has to right to cry out "Foul" if you presented a Spitfire at Telford in a particular vile dark turquoise shade, so feel free to do so.

 

/Finn

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ilj said:

obviously, 'sea camouflaged' could refer to any colour scheme appropriate for deployment to a remote island with mostly over-water action expected - for example:  blue

 

it constantly amazes me how some people jump to conclusions based on no evidence at all

 

e.g., is there any evidence at all indicating that distinctive Temperate Sea Scheme?      nope

 

'common inference' and 'believed to be' are not part of a rational hypothetico-deductive process

 

speculate away, but we simply do not know, based on the proffered text

 

ilj

@Olmec Head said:

"Having just received my copy of the Colour Conundrum Book, Mr Lucas does present a considerable body of research from contemporary resources.  In terms of Operation Bowery, he refers to the RAF loose minute document outlining operation Oppidan (the precursor op to supply the Spitfires before embarkation for Op Bowery) at para 4 stated: 'Aircraft are to be sea camouflaged before embarkation'.  I would support the common inference that this would be taken as the requirement for the aircraft to be finished in TSS.  The document is also reproduced in Brian Cauchi's book page P159, if a bit unclear. "

 

@ilj replied:

"obviously, 'sea camouflaged' could refer to any colour scheme appropriate for deployment to a remote island with mostly over-water action expected - for example:  blue

it constantly amazes me how some people jump to conclusions based on no evidence at all

e.g., is there any evidence at all indicating that distinctive Temperate Sea Scheme?      nope

'common inference' and 'believed to be' are not part of a rational hypothetico-deductive process

speculate away, but we simply do not know, based on the proffered text"

 

 

I agree that Mr Lucas' research is quite detailed. However, I also believe that ilj is quite correct in pointing out that in neither of the quoted documents is the camouflage stated in definitive terms. 

 

The problem here is that assumptions are being made some fifty years after the event by people that were not there. I have been involved in research for many years and am well aware of a mistake that is often made when interpreting results and fitting them to confirm what we want to see - this is known as confirmatory bias, a trap into which we all too often fall.

 

In August 1941, as the RAF moved to offensive operations across the channel, it changed the camouflage scheme for fighter aircraft to The Day Fighter Scheme, (Dark Green, Ocean Grey, Medium Sea Grey). This replaced the Temperate Land Scheme, (Dark Green, Dark Earth, Sky). The DFS was often colloquially referred to by pilots and ground crew as the "sea scheme", presumably because they saw it as a camouflage desingned for protection over the  water of the channel. The TLS then became described as the "land scheme". I have interviewd many ex servicemen over the years and not one referred to the "Day Fighter Scheme" or the "Temperate Land Scheme" : they used the terminology "sea scheme" or "land scheme". If queried further on the colours, they would reply somewhat along the lines of, "you know, blue and green or brown and green".

 

Neither, the RAF loose minute, nor the cypher telegram from H.Q. Malta, specifically describe the exact camouflage to be applied. Both use the term, "sea camouflage". As I have stated above, this was a popular contemporary term used to describe the Day Fighter Scheme. I would therefore postulate that, what was in fact required, was that the aircraft be finished in the Day Fighter Scheme. The Temperate Sea Scheme was often colloquially referred to as the "maritime scheme", yet both documents use the term "sea camouflage".

 

Some twenty odd years ago I had some correspondence with Jack Rae who was with No. 603 Sqn, and flew one of the Spits off Wasp as part of Operation Calendar on 26 April. He was quite adamant that his aircraft was finished in the "sea scheme". He further described this as being, "the blue and green tonings" as on the Spitfires "that we flew in the UK". He did state that he did see "brown tonings" Spitfires arrive later on in July or August - he mentioned that they had come off Furious. Both Len Reid and John Bisley confirmed that they had flown desert camouflaged as well as "sea camouflaged" Spitfires from Malta. John also mentioned "blue and brown" on some Spitfires.

 

Of course none of the above proves that there were no Temperate Sea Scheme Spitfires on Malta,. However, until someone comes up with a definitive document that proves otherwise, I will stick with my belief that the more likely intepretation of the term, "sea camouflage" means the DFS and not the TSS.

 

Peter M,

donning helmet and retreating to the bunker to await incoming! 🏳️

 

 

Edited by Magpie22
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FinnAndersen said:

It seems to me that you do not have a clear idea of how the military works, because in the military, or air force to be specific, you things in a military way.

 

There's a set standard and that is adhered to when the brass was making the orders.

 

In the case of sea camouflage of the time of the Malta operations, this would be the temperate sea scheme. There was no other option.

 

Obviously, this was disregarded when the situation was intolerable, e.g. when desert camouflaged aircraft was the only ones available and the ship was ready to sail, so some were painted in Dark Mediterranean Blue.

 

I often wonder and hope that someone would invent a timemachine, so that we send a trusted observer to have a look and report back. This certainly would have the potential to kill a lot of speculations and idle discussions.

 

Lastly, no one has to right to cry out "Foul" if you presented a Spitfire at Telford in a particular vile dark turquoise shade, so feel free to do so.

 

/Finn

 

Finn,

 

I have served in the military and, later as a civilian, doing R&D work, so have seen the communication problem from both sides. 

In an ideal world everything in the military is covered by rules, orders, instructions, training etc, but the problem arises when circumstance takes us beyond those, and outside our 'comfort zone'.

In the case of Malta, they received a number of Spitfires in an inappropriate camouflage. A signal had to be sent quickly to try and rectify the matter. Presumably the camouflage ANOs were not immediately at hand and an imprecise descrption of the required camouflage was given.

The interpretation of what exactly was meant is somewhat confused. You believe that they meant the TSS and I believe that they meant the DFS. Either could be correct - we just won't know until someone finds  definitive document.

Till then, as you say, we can paint our models any way we deem to be correct.

 

Cheers,

Peter M

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes, Peter, but you have the proof what the other meaning of "sea scheme" could be.

On the other hand, if "sea scheme" was Fighter Command slang for DFS, how common was it overall? If someone wired a MU in Scotland to repaint the Spitfires in "sea camouflage", would they reach for TSS or DFS drawings?

 

Vedran

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dragonlanceHR said:

Well yes, Peter, but you have the proof what the other meaning of "sea scheme" could be.

On the other hand, if "sea scheme" was Fighter Command slang for DFS, how common was it overall? If someone wired a MU in Scotland to repaint the Spitfires in "sea camouflage", would they reach for TSS or DFS drawings?

 

Vedran

 

Hi Vedran,

 

I do not have "proof" that the term "sea scheme" definitively refered to the DFS, only my interviews of RAAF personnel, (some 30+), who were stationed in the UK and Malta at the time. They were there - more recent researchers, including me, were not. Their comments, although hearsay, also warrant consideration in any study of the subject. Also, bear in mind that very few would have had access to the camouflage AMOs and thus would have been ignorant of the correct terminology to be applied to the camouflage schemes. Thus the common usage of "land scheme", "sea scheme" and "maritime scheme".

 

Equally, there is no "proof" that "sea scheme" means the TSS, the only "proof" being more recent interpretations of the term. You are quite welcome to place greater weight on the theories of published authors, than on those of other researchers if you wish.

 

I do not claim to be the 'font of all knowledge' on the subject. I merely raised another possible meaning for the term "sea scheme". It is up to each individual to evaluate what has been written, and reach their own conclusion. As I said above, until we find a definitive document on the subject, the matter remains unresolved.

 

If someone 'wired a MU in Scotland to repaint the Spitfires in DFS' they would indeed have been confused, as that would have been the scheme in which they had been received from Supermarine!

 

Cheers,

Peter M

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Magpie22 said:

 

... If someone 'wired a MU in Scotland to repaint the Spitfires in DFS' they would indeed have been confused, as that would have been the scheme in which they had been received from Supermarine!...

Somewhere above, it was stated that Spitfire Vc(T) were delivered in desert scheme. Would this be a mistake? 

 

/Finn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finn,

 

My research, based partly on Spitfires sent to Australia, indicates that all Spitfire VC aircraft built by Supermarine and Westland were finished in the DFS. Those earmarked to be sent overseas then went to an MU where they were repainted, generally in the desert scheme, according to the theatre to which they were to be sent. Spitfire VC aircraft built by Castle Bromwich were finished in the desert scheme at the factory.

 

Supermarine and Westland built A/C that went to Australia, (apart from the initial 48 that were loaded onto Nigerstown and Stirling Castle), were re-camouflaged in desert scheme at an MU before bing shipped. On arrival in Australia, they generally received another coat of paint when Foliage Green was applied over the Middle Stone. The CB aircraft were shippped in their factory applied desert camouflage.

 

Peter M

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we do know is that on Malta, the first thing they did (for camouflage) was repaint Spitfires from Desert scheme (as delivered in Operations Spotter I and II) by repainting them blue.  We also know from correspondence that when Malta pilot Jumbo Gracie arrived to lead operation Calendar, he insisted that they had to be repainted from the colours they were in to Mediterranean Dark Blue.  Confirmation of this can be seen in Dennis Branham's writings and paintings.  When we come to the second Wasp delivery, more hastily prepared than the first, we know that they were in a two-colour scheme said to be TSS.

 

I find the suggestion that Day Fighter Scheme was termed "sea scheme" in casual parlance a little surprising, but here we are not talking about casual parlance.  Given that the Air Ministry had a specific "sea scheme" already labelled and widely used as such, then suggesting that they would have interpreted it as DFS is stretching credibility rather far.  Such photos as do exist for Bowery show a low contrast between the colours, too much so I feel for DFS but perhaps with very fresh paint?  However, I've yet to see a photo of a Bowery delivery aircraft showing the light colour seen on used Ocean Grey.  For these reasons alone I would doubt the DFS theory.  TSS is notoriously variable in appearance in  b&w photos, and so unhelpful.  The question is perhaps why and where along the line the message was lost that what Malta really wanted was Mediterranean Dark Blue.  Perhaps Gracie's comments never got passed back to the Ministry?

 

It is true that Mk.Vc were generally regarded as intended for overseas, and overseas aircraft were painted in DFS.  Given that the other key destination for early Mk.Vc was the Western Desert, this is not surprising.

 

I don't think that there is doubt that aircraft camouflaged in DFS did appear on Malta.  This would certainly be enough to register in the memories of pilots - there is a wide range of colours offered in pilots' memoirs!  The question is  - when?  I remember, some 20 years ago, ploughing through a wide range of such memoirs in the hope that some kind of colour timeline could be found, but fruitlessly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

However, until someone comes up with a definitive document that proves otherwise, I will stick with my belief that the more likely intepretation of the term, "sea camouflage" means the DFS and not the TSS.

The report on Operation Newman (preparation of the Spitfires for Calendar) states deliveries to Abbotsinch were in either "sea scheme"  or "desert scheme" and lists which airframes arrived on which date in which scheme, those arriving in "desert scheme" were to be repainted at Renfrew in "sea scheme" before loading on Wasp.

The paint originally delivered to do this was deemed the wrong colours and stocks of paint were requisitioned from 14 MU to match the colours of those aircraft already delivered in "sea scheme"

The report lists the paints delivered as:-

33B/224 Dope Dark Sea Grey - (Description for this stores ref should be Dark Slate Grey)

33B/221 Dope Extra Dark Sea Grey - (Description for this stores ref should be Dark Sea Grey)

33B/335 Dope Sky

The notes in brackets aren't in the report, they're Mr Lucas cross reference for the stores ref numbers from a contemporary RAF Stores Vocabulary - there is obviously some discrepancy in the report between the stores ref and colour names for the upper surface colours supplied, but it it pretty clear that the scheme aimed at is TSS or something very close if DSG/EDSG weren't supplied. It's definitely not DFS colours.

Spitfires delivered for Bowery are thought to have been in the same TSS "sea scheme"

The paint originally delivered to Abbotsinch was confirmed by S/L Gracie to be the correct colours for what Malta had requested as "sea scheme" (believed to be Dark Mediterranean Blue and Sky Blue) this was loaded onto Wasp for repainting the "sea scheme" of the Spitfires as loaded whilst on passage to the Med.

 

2 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

If someone 'wired a MU in Scotland to repaint the Spitfires in DFS' they would indeed have been confused, as that would have been the scheme in which they had been received from Supermarine!

The Spitfires were supplied to Abbotsinch from MU's, not Supermarine, and part of the instructions for preparation was to repaint into "sea scheme", either at the MU or after delivery to Abbotsinch at Renfrew

 

2 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

I do not have "proof" that the term "sea scheme" definitively refered to the DFS, only my interviews of RAAF personnel, (some 30+), who were stationed in the UK and Malta at the time. They were there - more recent researchers, including me, were not. Their comments, although hearsay, also warrant consideration in any study of the subject. Also, bear in mind that very few would have had access to the camouflage AMOs and thus would have been ignorant of the correct terminology to be applied to the camouflage schemes. Thus the common usage of "land scheme", "sea scheme" and "maritime scheme".

Aircrew and groundcrew may have colloquially referred to DFS as "sea scheme", but I think those making the decisions in the Painter/Finisher trade at MU's would have access to all the relevant documentation and would have known exactly what the difference was between DFS and TSS, and "sea scheme" to an MU in the UK at the time would have meant TSS, not DFS.           

The only place that seems to have understood and conformed to what Malta was requesting as a "sea scheme" would appear to be at Gibraltar, specifically the Special Erection Party that was re-assembling and preparing Spitfires delivered crated by sea from the UK for onward flights direct or via aircraft carrier to Malta and North Africa.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 

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

7 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

There's 6 Malta Spitfire articles in the book 🙂

 

Good Point, I wasn't really looking at the later ones, the Calendar and Bowery articles profiles have taxed me enough, let alone thinking about 'Deep Sky'. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to look at things in a new way:

 

What camouflage schemes and colours do people think these Spitfires could be:

 

Spitfire_BR226_Wasp_1942

 

Spitfire BR226 being loaded on USS Wasp for Op Calendar.

 

002

 

Spitfire BP97? again being loaded onto Wasp for Calendar 

 

and my favourite with the unusual wavy demarcation?

Spitfire_BR344_Wasp

 Being made ready to fly off USS Wasp as part of Op Bowery.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Olmec Head said:

Spitfire BR226 being loaded on USS Wasp for Op Calendar.

BR226 arrived at Abbotsinch 26th April, Wasp left on Calendar on the 13th April, this is being loaded for Bowery

 

40 minutes ago, Olmec Head said:

 

Spitfire BP97? again being loaded onto Wasp for Calendar 

From the serial this could be either Calendar or Bowery, but if in the same sequence as BP226, more likely Bowery as well.

 

Neither have the camouflage down the sides of the vokes filters associated with Renfrew repaints.

BP226 undersurface colour is very patchy in application indicative of either lack of paint or lack of time for a proper paint job, but the upper surface colours look properly applied. The underside is also quite dirty in way of aileron hinges, gun heating outlet and undercarriage doors, so painted before delivery, or at least well air tested after painting.

BP97? looks much better finished underneath, but again shows weathering indicating painting before delivery.

Both have the lighter camouflage colour passing through the cockpit (this would be dark green in the TLS and DFS schemes, Mid stone in the Desert scheme) BR344 has the darker camouflage colour passing through the cockpit.

This could be taken as an indication of different schemes, or simply reversal of colours during the repaint. If all had been in the Desert scheme and were to be repainted in TSS both upper surface colours would require repainting, however Lucas speculates this is one of the aircraft repainted in the blue/grey scheme on Wasp, citing the wavy lower demarkation being more typical of US practice than British.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Dave Swindell said:

BR226 arrived at Abbotsinch 26th April, Wasp left on Calendar on the 13th April, this is being loaded for Bowery

 

From the serial this could be either Calendar or Bowery, but if in the same sequence as BP226, more likely Bowery as well.

 

Neither have the camouflage down the sides of the vokes filters associated with Renfrew repaints.

BP226 undersurface colour is very patchy in application indicative of either lack of paint or lack of time for a proper paint job, but the upper surface colours look properly applied. The underside is also quite dirty in way of aileron hinges, gun heating outlet and undercarriage doors, so painted before delivery, or at least well air tested after painting.

BP97? looks much better finished underneath, but again shows weathering indicating painting before delivery.

Both have the lighter camouflage colour passing through the cockpit (this would be dark green in the TLS and DFS schemes, Mid stone in the Desert scheme) BR344 has the darker camouflage colour passing through the cockpit.

This could be taken as an indication of different schemes, or simply reversal of colours during the repaint. If all had been in the Desert scheme and were to be repainted in TSS both upper surface colours would require repainting, however Lucas speculates this is one of the aircraft repainted in the blue/grey scheme on Wasp, citing the wavy lower demarkation being more typical of US practice than British.

 

Thanks Dave for being first back.  BR226 from Morgan and Shackleton Spitfire the History has its airframe history as the aircraft arriving at Abbotinsch on 12-4.  My copy has 'f/f at Malta on 8-6' which is probably an error as the next entry is 'CB ops 18-5'.  So this points that BR226 was loaded onto USS Wasp for Calendar.  That said, Paul Lucas has BR226 as arriving on 26 April from the RAF report  as you say -so that would be Bowery.  As I said before, Malta Spitfires aren't easy!

 

I would say again from Spitfire the History is that BP97? arrived at  Abbotsinch on 11 Apr, of the AB 97? series sent to Malta: 70 was at Abb, on 8 Apr, 73, 74 75, 77, 79 were there on 11 Apr.  So that points to Calendar.

 

I haven't really looked enough the paint finish on BR226, as you say the top finish looks good, but the underneath is a bit ropey; the wing leading edge is also not precisely demarked and the filter isn't great either.  So thanks I hadn't picked that up at all.

 

The wavy line on BR344 is intriguing, I am not sure about Lucas's idea, but I could buy into it, it is the only Malta Spitfire with a wavy demark line that I have seen, so it could be a one off USN paint finish.  That said Spitfire EP257 has a similar scallop edge line on its filter only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Olmec Head said:

Thanks Dave for being first back.  BR226 from Morgan and Shackleton Spitfire the History has its airframe history as the aircraft arriving at Abbotinsch on 12-4.  My copy has 'f/f at Malta on 8-6' which is probably an error as the next entry is 'CB ops 18-5'.  So this points that BR226 was loaded onto USS Wasp for Calendar.  That said, Paul Lucas has BR226 as arriving on 26 April from the RAF report  as you say -so that would be Bowery.  As I said before, Malta Spitfires aren't easy!

Morgan & Shacklady contains transcripts of aircraft record cards, which you've quoted from, there a re errors & omissions on these cards and possibly from transcribing hand written records 

Not all aircraft recorded as being delivered to Abbotsinch have this on their record card, and some of those that do have dates that conflict with those in reports from Abbotsinch 

 

BR226 Construction No 2710 HEA (Supermarine Eastleigh dispersal built) First Flight 23/3/42 39MU 29/3 RAF Abbotsinch 12/4 First Flight Malta 8/6 Category B Ops 18/5 North Africa 1/6 Malta 1/11 CE ops 4/5/45 Struck Off Charge 26/5 Brought Back On Charge 21/6 Struck Off Charge 30/8

As you note, there is a discrepancy for delivery to Abbotsinch, and the first flight date doesn't tally chronologically with the following two entries for cat B damage and a move to North Africa, so this date is most likely wrong. Rather than conclude this points to Calendar I'd suggest that the detail in the Abbotsinch reports noting the camouflage scheme each aircraft arrived in is more likely to be correct, and the first flight on Malta date isn't 8/6, and is in fact a misreading of 9/5 which coincides with arrival and immediate refuel and scramble from Bowery

 

BP977's History is also interesting

BP977 Construction No 2759 CHA (Chattis Hill) First Flight 1/4/42 39MU 2/4 RAF Abbotsinch 11/4 39MU 25/4 Malta 8/6 601Sqn Flying Accident Category B 26/6 Middle East 1/7 Northwest African Air Force 1/11/43

Note it is shown back at 39MU on the 25th after Wasp had departed for Calendar and Lucas note's its arrival at Abbotsinch for Bowery on 1/5. The record for Malta again on the 8/6, is this another misreading of 9/5 coinciding with Bowery?

The 601 Sqn note is interesting, 601 Sqn aircrew flew to Malta on Calendar, and then flew on to Egypt on 23/6.

Unfortunately the Squadron ORB went with the ground crew by ship to Egypt and it records their passage from the UK via Freetown and Durban to Egypt rather than the aircrew's exploits on Malta, so if BP977's delivery was on Bowery it presumably was put on 601's strength as a replacement for losses after Calendar. There is no record in the ORB of BP977 being on strength when flying resumed on 1/7, if it was one of the 9 aircraft that flew with the sqn to Aboukir on the 23rd, but being cat B on the 26th and then on the books of ME command would fit with this movement and no longer being with 601 Sqn.

 

19 hours ago, Olmec Head said:

I would say again from Spitfire the History is that BP97? arrived at  Abbotsinch on 11 Apr, of the AB 97? series sent to Malta: 70 was at Abb, on 8 Apr, 73, 74 75, 77, 79 were there on 11 Apr.  So that points to Calendar.

I'd be inclined to go with Lucas and put 70,73,74,75,76 & 79 on Calendar and 71, 72 & 77 on Bowery so neither operation can be ruled out, though 79 was delivered to Abbotsinch in desert scheme and was repainted at Renfrew with the camo over the vokes filter side, so this one can be discounted. I have found a copy of this photo with two others which include USN captions quoting the date taken as 13/4, which also makes  this more likely a Calendar Spitfire. Tantalisingly, one of the other photos is BR22? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2021 at 7:36 PM, Olmec Head said:

and my favourite with the unusual wavy demarcation?

Spitfire_BR344_Wasp

 Being made ready to fly off USS Wasp as part of Op Bowery.

 

Interesting, they seem to have switched the starboard cowling panels (on the background Spit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

Morgan & Shacklady contains transcripts of aircraft record cards, which you've quoted from, there a re errors & omissions on these cards and possibly from transcribing hand written records 

Not all aircraft recorded as being delivered to Abbotsinch have this on their record card, and some of those that do have dates that conflict with those in reports from Abbotsinch 

 

BR226 Construction No 2710 HEA (Supermarine Eastleigh dispersal built) First Flight 23/3/42 39MU 29/3 RAF Abbotsinch 12/4 First Flight Malta 8/6 Category B Ops 18/5 North Africa 1/6 Malta 1/11 CE ops 4/5/45 Struck Off Charge 26/5 Brought Back On Charge 21/6 Struck Off Charge 30/8

As you note, there is a discrepancy for delivery to Abbotsinch, and the first flight date doesn't tally chronologically with the following two entries for cat B damage and a move to North Africa, so this date is most likely wrong. Rather than conclude this points to Calendar I'd suggest that the detail in the Abbotsinch reports noting the camouflage scheme each aircraft arrived in is more likely to be correct, and the first flight on Malta date isn't 8/6, and is in fact a misreading of 9/5 which coincides with arrival and immediate refuel and scramble from Bowery

 

BP977's History is also interesting

BP977 Construction No 2759 CHA (Chattis Hill) First Flight 1/4/42 39MU 2/4 RAF Abbotsinch 11/4 39MU 25/4 Malta 8/6 601Sqn Flying Accident Category B 26/6 Middle East 1/7 Northwest African Air Force 1/11/43

Note it is shown back at 39MU on the 25th after Wasp had departed for Calendar and Lucas note's its arrival at Abbotsinch for Bowery on 1/5. The record for Malta again on the 8/6, is this another misreading of 9/5 coinciding with Bowery?

The 601 Sqn note is interesting, 601 Sqn aircrew flew to Malta on Calendar, and then flew on to Egypt on 23/6.

Unfortunately the Squadron ORB went with the ground crew by ship to Egypt and it records their passage from the UK via Freetown and Durban to Egypt rather than the aircrew's exploits on Malta, so if BP977's delivery was on Bowery it presumably was put on 601's strength as a replacement for losses after Calendar. There is no record in the ORB of BP977 being on strength when flying resumed on 1/7, if it was one of the 9 aircraft that flew with the sqn to Aboukir on the 23rd, but being cat B on the 26th and then on the books of ME command would fit with this movement and no longer being with 601 Sqn.

 

I'd be inclined to go with Lucas and put 70,73,74,75,76 & 79 on Calendar and 71, 72 & 77 on Bowery so neither operation can be ruled out, though 79 was delivered to Abbotsinch in desert scheme and was repainted at Renfrew with the camo over the vokes filter side, so this one can be discounted. I have found a copy of this photo with two others which include USN captions quoting the date taken as 13/4, which also makes  this more likely a Calendar Spitfire. Tantalisingly, one of the other photos is BR22? 

 

Again thank you Dave for expanding on my slightly thin research and providing some excellent further information.  Its helping me at least to see that Lucas' research is holding up across his articles on Ops Calendar and Bowery. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/11/2021 at 08:05, FinnAndersen said:

It seems to me that you do not have a clear idea of how the military works, because in the military, or air force to be specific, you things in a military way.

 

There's a set standard and that is adhered to when the brass was making the orders.

 

In the case of sea camouflage of the time of the Malta operations, this would be the temperate sea scheme. There was no other option.

 

Obviously, this was disregarded when the situation was intolerable, e.g. when desert camouflaged aircraft was the only ones available and the ship was ready to sail, so some were painted in Dark Mediterranean Blue.

 

I often wonder and hope that someone would invent a timemachine, so that we send a trusted observer to have a look and report back. This certainly would have the potential to kill a lot of speculations and idle discussions.

 

Lastly, no one has to right to cry out "Foul" if you presented a Spitfire at Telford in a particular vile dark turquoise shade, so feel free to do so.

 

/Finn

 

I want to be on that time machine !

Wulfman

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2021 at 7:36 PM, Olmec Head said:

and my favourite with the unusual wavy demarcation?

Spitfire_BR344_Wasp

 Being made ready to fly off USS Wasp as part of Op Bowery.

Two cannons on the starboard wing of the Spitfire behind BR344?

Not on a Mk. VB, AFAIK, but it looks just that. What is fooling me?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ClaudioN said:

Two cannons on the starboard wing of the Spitfire behind BR344?

Not on a Mk. VB, AFAIK, but it looks just that. What is fooling me?

Nothing's fooling you, all the aircraft delivered on Calendar and Bowery were Spitfire VcTrop's with 4 cannon armament and wide wing blisters as per the new Airfix kit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dave Swindell said:

Nothing's fooling you, all the aircraft delivered on Calendar and Bowery were Spitfire VcTrop's with 4 cannon armament and wide wing blisters as per the new Airfix kit.

Nothing new here, but for the first time I notice that the 20 mm cannon fairings looks odd. Either the cannon protrudes further than normal, or else is it a shorter fairing.

 

?Confused?

 

/Finn  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FinnAndersen said:

Nothing new here, but for the first time I notice that the 20 mm cannon fairings looks odd. Either the cannon protrudes further than normal, or else is it a shorter fairing.

Or there's protective covers over the ends of the cannons -  looks like this is the case to me if you zoom in on them.

  • Like 2
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...