Fairey Fulmar Information required

[Grey Beema]

 

I am currently modelling Fairey Fulmar MkI N1951 / 6A of 803 NAS embarked HMS Formidable in the Salty Sea Dog Group Build.  0n 21.03.41 the aircraft was used by Lt Cdr JM Bruen with Lt DJ Godden as Observer, to severely damage a Ju88 which was subsequently shot down by the fleet AA.

 

The reason for the thread is to try and confirm what the aircraft would have looked like in March ’41.  Looking at Fleet Air Arm Camouflage & Markings – Atlantic & Mediterranean Theatres 1937-1941 (Stuart Lloyd).  On page 130 there is a picture of 803 NAS Fulmars on board HMS Formidable during 03.41.

 

Same picture from IWM. (sorry I cant get the image to embed)

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205046508

 

• The picture shows “Sand and Spaghetti” on a low demarcation TSS painted Fulmar.  I think the underside of the mainplanes is White / Black IFF markings rather than Sky but I am not certain what do you think?
• I also cannot see the aircraft letter on the fuselage in the photographs (Can see on leading edge "K" in foreground, "L" in background.  In the book it states that 803 carried the aircraft letter only “A” in front of the roundel and no “6”, I assume this is because 803 was the only fighter Squadron then aboard Formidable.  I also assume that the colour of the aircraft letter was Black unless someone knows different.
• Lastly was the tail flash of the standard size or was it the full width seen in other Squadrons.  Picture below was taken a couple of months later and shows the standard tail flash but I still can't see the fuselage letters and I cannot see the top of a full tail size flash in the top photograph.

 

WITH THE NAVAL COVERING FORCE FOR THE MADAGASCAR OPERATIONS. 24 APRIL TO 10 MAY, ON BOARD HMS FORMIDABLE AT SEA. THE COVERING FORCE LEFT FROM COLOMBO ON THE 24TH OF APRIL, ARRIVED AT THE SEYCHELLES TO REFUEL ON 1 MAY AND AFTER COVERING THE OPERATIONS AT MADAGASCAR RETURNED TO MOMBASA ON 10 MAY.. © IWM (A 9711) IWM Non Commercial License

 

I am looking to the usual suspects :-  @iang @EwenS @Giorgio N @Graham Boak but If anyone could help me I would be most grateful.

 

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

 

Edited March 3 by Grey Beema

[EwenS]

13 hours ago, Grey Beema said:

 

 

• ............  Picture below was taken a couple of months later and shows the standard tail flash but I still can't see the fuselage letters and I cannot see the top of a full tail size flash in the top photograph.

 

WITH THE NAVAL COVERING FORCE FOR THE MADAGASCAR OPERATIONS. 24 APRIL TO 10 MAY, ON BOARD HMS FORMIDABLE AT SEA. THE COVERING FORCE LEFT FROM COLOMBO ON THE 24TH OF APRIL, ARRIVED AT THE SEYCHELLES TO REFUEL ON 1 MAY AND AFTER COVERING THE OPERATIONS AT MADAGASCAR RETURNED TO MOMBASA ON 10 MAY.. © IWM (A 9711) IWM Non Commercial License

 

I am looking to the usual suspects :-  @iang @EwenS @Giorgio N @Graham Boak but If anyone could help me I would be most grateful.

 

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

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.

[Grey Beema]

1 hour ago, EwenS said:

 

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.

 

 

Thanks Ewen, that’s interesting as that photo shows Fulmar Is not Fulmar IIs so I guess the caption might be a little misleading.

[JWM]

I am not sure if you found also that (from here https://www.destinationsjourney.com/historical-military-photographs/fairey-fulmar/ ) :

I think you know it in any case... The serial is not seen, however interesting are Hurricane style screens for exhaust flames...

Regards

J-W

 

[Grey Beema]

12 hours ago, JWM said:

I am not sure if you found also that (from here https://www.destinationsjourney.com/historical-military-photographs/fairey-fulmar/ ) :

I think you know it in any case... The serial is not seen, however interesting are Hurricane style screens for exhaust flames...

Regards

J-W

 

 

 

 

J-W thank you for taking the time and trouble to write up and post this image.  It has made me look up this image in a couple of places to compare. 

 

This picture is captioned in the Imperial War Museum Photo collection as "Two Fairey Fulmar Mark Is of No. 803 Squadron from HMS FORMIDABLE, photographed from a third while flying to HMS EAGLE during February 1941. This detachment augmented EAGLE's Fighter Flight in providing cover for a Malta convoy." however in the Stuart Lloyd book it is captioned "Fulmar 7C thought to be of 805 Squadron, with HMS Eagle visible in the background".   

 

I would be confident of the Low demarcation TSS for N1951, I believe it should have the Small tail flash and black(?) Id markings.  I think it make well have been fitted with the anti dazzle device as seen in the photo above and may well have had the Sand & Spaghetti leading edge and nose but did it have "A" or "6A" in front or behind the roundel and did it carry the Black White IFF markings on the underside of the mainplane.

 

I guess a clear colour dated picture showing both sides with the serial number clearly readable, preferable with Lt Cdr Bruen in the cockpit is out of the question!!

[Dave Swindell]

Interesting that the photo posted by J-W is from the same source as @Grey Beema first photo link

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205046496

There's 2 others but they're both of Applecores (though there might be a Fulmar lurking in the backround of this one -

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205046502 )

 

 

[ClaudioN]

1 hour ago, Grey Beema said:

This picture is captioned in the Imperial War Museum Photo collection as "Two Fairey Fulmar Mark Is of No. 803 Squadron from HMS FORMIDABLE, photographed from a third while flying to HMS EAGLE during February 1941. This detachment augmented EAGLE's Fighter Flight in providing cover for a Malta convoy." however in the Stuart Lloyd book it is captioned "Fulmar 7C thought to be of 805 Squadron, with HMS Eagle visible in the background". 

I discussed this photo with @iang a long time ago. Here are some hints I considered at he time:

• 805 Sqn used '7x' codes on Fulmars and Buffalos. Both 806 and 803 used single letter codes
• Formidable and Eagle were together in the Eastern Mediterranean only a very short time
• 805 Sqn was briefly embarked in Eagle for operations before Formidable came to the Med

If the photo is enlarged some of the serial characters can be read: N20...5. There appears to be an unusually narrow space between '0' and '5', which would be compatible with '1'. Hence, my preferred interpretation of the picture is: 7C:N2015 and two other Fulmars of 805 Sqn. overfly Eagle.

 

Claudio

Edited March 5 by ClaudioN

[Grey Beema]

56 minutes ago, Dave Swindell said:

Interesting that the photo posted by J-W is from the same source as @Grey Beema first photo link

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205046496

There's 2 others but they're both of Applecores (though there might be a Fulmar lurking in the backround of this one -

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205046502 )

 

 

 

56 minutes ago, ClaudioN said:

I discussed this photo with @iang a long time ago. Here are some hints I considered at he time:

• 805 Sqn used '7x' codes on Fulmars and Buffalos. Both 806 and 803 used single letter codes
• Formidable and Eagle were together in the Eastern Mediterranean only a very short time
• 805 Sqn was briefly embarked in Eagle for operations

If the photo is enlarged some of the serial characters can be read: N20...5. There appears to be an unusually narrow space between '0' and '5', which would be compatible with '1'. Hence, my preferred interpretation of the picture is: 7C:N2015 and two other Fulmars of 805 Sqn. overfly Eagle.

 

Claudio

 

 

Dave and Claudio, Thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

The aircraft I have questions about is from 803 NAS - specifically one flown by Lt Cdr John Bruen; Fairey Fulmar MkI N1951 / 6A.

 

Looking at the first picture I referenced.  Is the starboard wing underside - White or Sky?  I am heading towards White of the White Black IFF Marking..

 

 

[Paul Lucas]

16 minutes ago, Grey Beema said:

Looking at the first picture I referenced.  Is the starboard wing underside - White or Sky?  I am heading towards White of the White Black IFF Marking..

In my opinion, almost certainly White.

The clues are in the presence of the 'Confusion' scheme on the frontal aspect of the aircraft that was introduced for ground attack work, the introduction of a black and white recognition marking for Fighter type aircraft operating in the close support role and the absence of a roundel where all Fighter aircraft should have been so marked but Bombers and close support aircraft were not.

 

The real problems with this scheme relate to the colours used to apply the 'Confusion' scheme, the extent of the black and white marking and what shade of duck egg blue might cover those parts of the under surface that might not be black or white.

Regards, 

Paul.

[iang]

On 03/03/2023 at 18:26, Grey Beema said:

 

I am currently modelling Fairey Fulmar MkI N1951 / 6A of 803 NAS embarked HMS Formidable in the Salty Sea Dog Group Build.  0n 21.03.41 the aircraft was used by Lt Cdr JM Bruen with Lt DJ Godden as Observer, to severely damage a Ju88 which was subsequently shot down by the fleet AA.

 

The reason for the thread is to try and confirm what the aircraft would have looked like in March ’41.  Looking at Fleet Air Arm Camouflage & Markings – Atlantic & Mediterranean Theatres 1937-1941 (Stuart Lloyd).  On page 130 there is a picture of 803 NAS Fulmars on board HMS Formidable during 03.41.

 

Same picture from IWM. (sorry I cant get the image to embed)

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205046508

 

• The picture shows “Sand and Spaghetti” on a low demarcation TSS painted Fulmar.  I think the underside of the mainplanes is White / Black IFF markings rather than Sky but I am not certain what do you think?
• I also cannot see the aircraft letter on the fuselage in the photographs (Can see on leading edge "K" in foreground, "L" in background.  In the book it states that 803 carried the aircraft letter only “A” in front of the roundel and no “6”, I assume this is because 803 was the only fighter Squadron then aboard Formidable.  I also assume that the colour of the aircraft letter was Black unless someone knows different.
• Lastly was the tail flash of the standard size or was it the full width seen in other Squadrons.  Picture below was taken a couple of months later and shows the standard tail flash but I still can't see the fuselage letters and I cannot see the top of a full tail size flash in the top photograph

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Phil,

 

There was a real hotchpotch of paint finishes on Fulmars in the Mediterranean in 1940/41, so to model the aircraft you really are going to need a photo. The hotchpotch includes: undersurface colour and demarcation, the application of "sand and spaghetti" finish to leading edge, cowl and/or spinner, code style and colour, plus the style and position of national markings.  It seems that just about everything you could think of with respect to finish might vary from one aircraft to another, and while there was some uniformity between squadron level finishes,  replacement aircraft would reflect the evolution of paint finishes at factory level, plus the application of additional camouflage at unit level. To make a confused picture even more complicated, there was considerable cross-deck operations for 803/5/6 squadrons. 

 

I'm not aware of any photos that can be positively identified as  6A of 803 from March 1941. At this time, Formidable was operating Fulmars from 803 and 806 Squadron. There are photos of Fulmars taken around this time and those that I was aware of I used in my book. This was written nearly twenty years ago now (2005-7, published 2008), and in the intervening period I've come across very few Fulmar photos from this period that I didn't know of in 2005. One such is this one:

 

 

This is sometimes misidentified as Illustrious because of the presence of the Sea Gladiators, but is definitely Formidable from the deck markings. The Fulmars in the photo are similarly marked to the IWM photo linked in the first post that I used in my book. The aircraft ID letters would probably be the same with a repeat of the code in black on the leading edge of the wing. Probably impossible to make out in the photo.

 

There is also this remarkable piece of film taken around the time of Matapan, with Formidable under air attack (probably returning to Alexandria after Matapan):

 

"While the Fleet was on the way back to Alexandria a continuous air patrol was maintained by HMS Formidable for the remainder of the voyage. Fighters dealt effectively with a dive bombing attack made by 12 Ju.88’s at 1530/29 which was directed mainly against Formidable. No damage was caused although she was shaken by two near misses. One Ju.88 was shot down, another one was damaged and four had been forced to jettison their bombs early. At 0834/30 an S.79 that was shadowing the fleet was shot down by Fulmar fighters.

The Fleet arrived at Alexandria around 1730/30. A submarine was reported while the Fleet was entering the harbour. Destroyers cleared the area by dropping depth charges but all ships arrived in harbour safely" (https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4015.html)

 

If this is correct the film  shows HMS Bonadventure as Formidable's close-escort (a couple of days before she was sunk )and  a J class destroyer (I'm not sure which one).

 

https://www.britishpathe.com/video/naval-material-reel-6/query/1833

 

Ignore the 1939 caption, from around 6 min onwards the film shows Fulmars and Albacores on Formidable at the end of March 1941.  Screen shots of the low flying Fulmar shows a single black letter code in front of the fuselage roundel (B). Note the significant variation in finish. One Fulmar shows a leading edge ID letter in white (P).  When Formidable redeployed after repair suffered off Crete, her Fulmars were coded 7x in white, but this film of "P" is the only example I know of with a white leading-edge code before Crete. 

 

The one last comment, on p.130 of my book there is a photo of Fulmar A or X, which I heroically identify as an 806 Fulmar from Illustrious. If I was writing the caption now, I would not be so confident as to the squadron identity. There is a chance that it shows 803:A and even if it shows 806:A, this could have been one of the 3 806 Fulmars seconded to 803 Squadron's  compliment for Matapan.

 

HTH

Ian

[ClaudioN]

3 hours ago, iang said:

The one last comment, on p.130 of my book there is a photo of Fulmar A or X, which I heroically identify as an 806 Fulmar from Illustrious. If I was writing the caption now, I would not be so confident as to the squadron identity. There is a chance that it shows 803:A and even if it shows 806:A, this could have been one of the 3 806 Fulmars seconded to 803 Squadron's  compliment for Matapan.

Ian,

 

there is an interesting analysis related to that image in this thread:

Fulmar and RN top aces

 

Quoting from this:

 

However, I recently came across a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5_pRzxepeQ) that can add further information to the topic.

This video was probably recorded in late 1940, and shows three Fulmars of 806 NAS in flight ("P", "G", "X") and ready to take off from a north African airbase (note the palm trees on the background). Coincidentally, Sub.Lt. G. Hogg wrote in his diary dated 5 December 1940 while stationed at Alexandria [from the book “806 Naval Air Squadron” by Cull and Galea]: “A press photographer came today and White Section (us) were his subjects. He took pictures of us getting into our cockpits, starting up, formation flying and fighter attacks”.

 

I think the poster has a very convincing explanation pointing to 806:X as the aircraft identity.

 

 

 

[Grey Beema]

5 hours ago, iang said:

 

Phil,

 

There was a real hotchpotch of paint finishes on Fulmars in the Mediterranean in 1940/41, so to model the aircraft you really are going to need a photo. The hotchpotch includes: undersurface colour and demarcation, the application of "sand and spaghetti" finish to leading edge, cowl and/or spinner, code style and colour, plus the style and position of national markings.  It seems that just about everything you could think of with respect to finish might vary from one aircraft to another, and while there was some uniformity between squadron level finishes,  replacement aircraft would reflect the evolution of paint finishes at factory level, plus the application of additional camouflage at unit level. To make a confused picture even more complicated, there was considerable cross-deck operations for 803/5/6 squadrons. 

 

I'm not aware of any photos that can be positively identified as  6A of 803 from March 1941. At this time, Formidable was operating Fulmars from 803 and 806 Squadron. There are photos of Fulmars taken around this time and those that I was aware of I used in my book. This was written nearly twenty years ago now (2005-7, published 2008), and in the intervening period I've come across very few Fulmar photos from this period that I didn't know of in 2005. One such is this one:

 

 

This is sometimes misidentified as Illustrious because of the presence of the Sea Gladiators, but is definitely Formidable from the deck markings. The Fulmars in the photo are similarly marked to the IWM photo linked in the first post that I used in my book. The aircraft ID letters would probably be the same with a repeat of the code in black on the leading edge of the wing. Probably impossible to make out in the photo.

 

There is also this remarkable piece of film taken around the time of Matapan, with Formidable under air attack (probably returning to Alexandria after Matapan):

 

"While the Fleet was on the way back to Alexandria a continuous air patrol was maintained by HMS Formidable for the remainder of the voyage. Fighters dealt effectively with a dive bombing attack made by 12 Ju.88’s at 1530/29 which was directed mainly against Formidable. No damage was caused although she was shaken by two near misses. One Ju.88 was shot down, another one was damaged and four had been forced to jettison their bombs early. At 0834/30 an S.79 that was shadowing the fleet was shot down by Fulmar fighters.

The Fleet arrived at Alexandria around 1730/30. A submarine was reported while the Fleet was entering the harbour. Destroyers cleared the area by dropping depth charges but all ships arrived in harbour safely" (https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4015.html)

 

If this is correct the film  shows HMS Bonadventure as Formidable's close-escort (a couple of days before she was sunk )and  a J class destroyer (I'm not sure which one).

 

https://www.britishpathe.com/video/naval-material-reel-6/query/1833

 

Ignore the 1939 caption, from around 6 min onwards the film shows Fulmars and Albacores on Formidable at the end of March 1941.  Screen shots of the low flying Fulmar shows a single black letter code in front of the fuselage roundel (B). Note the significant variation in finish. One Fulmar shows a leading edge ID letter in white (P).  When Formidable redeployed after repair suffered off Crete, her Fulmars were coded 7x in white, but this film of "P" is the only example I know of with a white leading-edge code before Crete. 

 

The one last comment, on p.130 of my book there is a photo of Fulmar A or X, which I heroically identify as an 806 Fulmar from Illustrious. If I was writing the caption now, I would not be so confident as to the squadron identity. There is a chance that it shows 803:A and even if it shows 806:A, this could have been one of the 3 806 Fulmars seconded to 803 Squadron's  compliment for Matapan.

 

HTH

Ian

 

 

Thanks for getting back to me Ian.  I thought that might be you answer but it was worth a go.

 

Thank you too for the video.  I note that there is a mix of finishes.  At least they all appear to be low demarcation but with the underside of the mainframe in light colour (sky ?) with underwing roundels.  Black / White underside with Sand & Spaghetti..  P looks to me to have black / white underside but no Sand & Spaghetti.. 

 

Hmm maybe I need to re-think this.  I wanted a Fulmar I that Lt Cdr Bruen has scored an air to air victory in, though not sure identifying what the aircraft looked like will get any easier..

 

Thanks again

Phil

 

Edited March 5 by Grey Beema
Spurios line removed

[iang]

1 hour ago, ClaudioN said:

Ian,

 

there is an interesting analysis related to that image in this thread:

Fulmar and RN top aces

 

Quoting from this:.

 

I think the poster has a very convincing explanation pointing to 806:X as the aircraft identity.

 

 

 

Thanks, I had not seen it. I agree - likely 806:X (more by luck, it seems that my original caption was not too far off).

[Graham Boak]

Beware that the black/white undersides were intended for use in the UK for visual identification from the ground observation network, and was superseded by the introduction of Sky in mid 1940.  The black underwing returned in November 1940 but with otherwise Sky undersides.  Obviously there could be some lag overseas, and especially with the carrier-borne FAA, but by early 1941 I would have considerable doubt about the survival of black and white.  After all, it was gone before the introduction of Sky in the FAA, let alone low demarcations.

[ClaudioN]

8 hours ago, Paul Lucas said:

The clues are in the presence of the 'Confusion' scheme on the frontal aspect of the aircraft that was introduced for ground attack work, the introduction of a black and white recognition marking for Fighter type aircraft operating in the close support role and the absence of a roundel where all Fighter aircraft should have been so marked but Bombers and close support aircraft were not.

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Beware that the black/white undersides were intended for use in the UK for visual identification from the ground observation network, and was superseded by the introduction of Sky in mid 1940.  The black underwing returned in November 1940 but with otherwise Sky undersides.  Obviously there could be some lag overseas, and especially with the carrier-borne FAA, but by early 1941 I would have considerable doubt about the survival of black and white.  After all, it was gone before the introduction of Sky in the FAA, let alone low demarcations.

It seems FAA camouflage schemes are always mind-confusing.

On one hand, I would not think FAA fighters would conform to recognition markings introduced for the close support role. On the other hand, overseas lag alone would not seem enough to explain the persistence of black/white undersides into early 1941, although in that period the FAA was often hard-pressed to field more than a handful of Fulmar fighters.

 

It seems possible that black/white undersides were for some time a recognition marking for Mediterranean Fleet fighters. They were certainly used on Sea Gladiators aboard Eagle (see the book by Stuart Lloyd), and reportedly (Eagle's war, book by Peter C. Smith) at the beginning of September 1940 a section of three Fulmars sent from Illustrious to provide protection were fired at by Eagle's AA guns because "Fulmars did not have their mainplanes painted black, and consequently they were mistaken for Italians". The accident is not reported in the book 806 Naval Air Squadron, by Cull and Galea, that does mention one section (Lt. Cdr. Kilroy, Sub-Lt. Hogg, Sub-Lt. Orr) landing on Eagle from Illustrious.

[Graham Boak]

Apologies for perhaps misleading you: black/white undersides were not not introduced for the close support role (neither was the "sand and spinach" scheme) but so that observers on the ground could identify friendly intercepting fighters from the enemy. However this would apply to land-based FAA fighters land based, and presumably were marked on all FAA fighters either for convenience because of unit rotation or through a misunderstanding.  As to their use in the Mediterranean by the RAF and the FAA, here the full panoply of ground command/control/support was not available but the markings were adopted either by assumption or direct command that they should follow UK practice.  Aircraft arriving from the UK would appear with this form of recognition marking, though presumably this would stop after July 1940.  For aircraft in theatre, the markings will have continued in use until a pause in operations regardless of any change.  Unless such marking had been approved, black underwing markings should not have been carried by September.

 

Given that Indomitable's gunners fired at their own Sea Hurricanes during Pedestal, that Eagle fired similarly on Fulmars doesn't need the gloss provided by Smith but it may be true nonetheless.

[Paul Lucas]

17 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Apologies for perhaps misleading you: black/white undersides were not not introduced for the close support role (neither was the "sand and spinach" scheme)...

Black and white markings were introduced for Fighter aircraft on Army Co-operation units and ground attack aircraft by a letter from HQ RAF Middle East Command dated 24 September 1940. The distribution list is as long as your arm, but the two recipients that are of relevance here are the Naval Liaison Offices in Alexandria and 252 Wing RAF that was responsible for the operational control of the RAF's Hurricanes and the Fulmars whilst they were based ashore.

 

The 'sand and spaghetti' scheme was introduced for the RAF Hurricanes from from 7 October 1940 with the stated aim being "to effect confusion and miscalculation of range by enemy gunners."

This is why usually call this the 'confusion scheme'. There's no sand in it!

 

I covered this subject, even giving some passing mention to Fulmars, in two Colour Conundrum articles entitled 'Middle East Blue' and 'Middle East Confusion' that were published in the May and June 2016 issues of SAM. They are both currently available in Colour Conundrum Compendium No.1.

 

I am currently working on a CC article that examines FAA Fighter schemes during 1940-41, hence my interest in this thread.

 

In the interests of perhaps nipping this whole ground attack scheme idea in the bud if it is incorrect, perhaps @iang could shed some light on what 806 NAS were doing when ashore between October 1940 and the end of February 1941during the build up to and execution of Operation Compass? Does the ORB make mention of ground strafing?

 

Regards,

Paul.

 

[iang]

15 hours ago, Paul Lucas said:

 

 

In the interests of perhaps nipping this whole ground attack scheme idea in the bud if it is incorrect, perhaps @iang could shed some light on what 806 NAS were doing when ashore between October 1940 and the end of February 1941during the build up to and execution of Operation Compass? Does the ORB make mention of ground strafing?

 

Regards,

Paul.

 

To my knowledge, the 806 Squadron Diary is no longer extant. The only early war ones that are in the public domain are 803 for the summer of 1940 and 804 for 1939-40. For 806 squadron the closest is Lt Graham Hogg's Diary which I have a copy of.  Brian Cull relied heavily on this for his history of 806 Squadron. I can't access my copy of the Hogg diary at the moment, but Cull's book mainly concentrates on episodes of combat. There are no diaries for 805 or for 803 after leaving Ark Royal in October 1940.

 

However, it is clear from Illustrious' log  there were significant periods in October and November when 806 was disembarked while Illustrious was at Alexandria. There is also a land-based period after the Illustrious blitz at Malta, before having a detachment seconded to Eagle and then Formidable in February 1941. 

[ClaudioN]

Reading from "Colour conundrum - Compendium No. 1", page 22:

 

4. The colouring of the under-surfaces of fighter type aircraft will therefoe, be as follows:

(i) ...

(ii) Fighter engaged in the defence of areas specified above -- Black and White.

(iii) ...

(iv) ...

 

The "areas specified above" were: Alexandria, Cairo, Suez and Haifa

This seemingly fits the case for FAA Fulmars, as they flew over Alexandria when shore based, even if they were not engaged in close support.

[Paul Lucas]

@ClaudioN, I agree, it seemingly fits, but I am discounting it because FAA Fighters, like RAF Fighters operating in the Fighter role, are supposed to be marked with under wing roundels. Before the original black and white Fighter marking was discontinued earlier in the summer of 1940 roundels were applied to it, both in the UK and the Middle East.

 

Paragraph 4(iv) of CAFO 1719/40 dated 26 September 1940 that covers the period that we are discussing clearly and unambiguously states that:

"With the exception of fighters, no roundels are to be carried on the under surfaces of F.A.A. aircraft.

Fighters are to carry red, white and blue roundels."

 

I don't recall seeing a photograph of a Fulmar with both the 'confusion' scheme and what might be black and white under surfaces that also has roundels on the under surfaces.

 

It is at this point that @iang will no doubt point out that there is a whole album full of them at Yeovilton and post a number of examples. At which point I will simply go away and cry...  and then perhaps sulk for a while......

 

In the meantime, perhaps this idea might warrant some consideration

Which aircraft would make the best interceptor, a Hurricane or a Fulmar, (same engine, two crew and 'weighs six ton')?

Which aircraft would make a better interdictor/intruder, a Hurricane or a Fulmar, (greater range/endurance, on-board navigator and greater ammunition capacity (?))?

 

Regards,

Paul

[iang]

Mmmm. Can't find one either, but in most photos the undersurface of the wings are not visible. In those  where they are  = no roundel.

 

On the conflict between mandated underwing roundels and black/white under-surfaces, in my experience,  there was sometimes a fairly fluid relationship between practice and instructions. Some commands were clearly sticklers for the application of CAFO instructions, others less so.

 

On your first question -  Hurricane versus Fulmar - 880 Squadron flew them both. The caption in the 880 Squadron line book for a Fulmar is "SEVEN TONS OF USELESSNESS ".

 

 

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

38 minutes ago, iang said:

"SEVEN TONS OF USELESSNESS "

 

Seems a little harsh really even if quite amusing. The poor Fulmar's maximum takeoff weight is apparently just 10,200lbs, or 4.6 metric tonnes.

[Paul Lucas]

@iang Many thanks for your contributions Ian, I am now happy to commit the hypothesis to print.

 

Prior to making my last post, I made sure that I had taken a good look under maximum magnification at the photo that you posted above. Five Fulmars in the same place at the same time, all but the one right at the back appear to have the 'confusion' scheme, all have black and white under surfaces and none of them appear to have under wing roundels...

 

I took the 'weighs six ton' comment from the lyrics of the song published in the old Fulmar Profile (No.254) written by David Brown and published in 1973.

 

"Any old iron, any old iron,

  Any, any, any old iron;

Talk about a treat,

 Chasing around the Fleet

Any old Eyetie or Hun you meet!

 

Weighs six ton,

 No rear gun,

Dam' all to rely on!

 

You know what you can do

 With your Fulmar Two;

Old iron, old iron!

 

David Brown wrote that it was believed to have originated in HMS Victorious, inspired by Harry Champion's music hall song.

 

[iang]

4 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

Seems a little harsh really even if quite amusing. 

We even know who to attribute the opinion to- Lt J.G.S. Forrest. 880 Squadron pilot, line-book compiler, and former Cambridge University student of medicine  and Scottish International rugby player of some note. He was killed in September 1942. His line-book went for north of £2k at auction, if IRC.

 

 

[Grey Beema]

Might just try @Lee Howard - You wouldn't happen to have a picture of Fairey Fulmar MkI N1951 / 6A of 803 NAS embarked HMS Formidable knocking around would you?