On 27/02/2012 17:34, Ramsman wrote:
On 27/02/2012 09:45, 展奄rdo wrote:
On 26/02/2012 23:54, Ramsman wrote:
On 26/02/2012 21:35, 展奄rdo wrote:
On 26/02/2012 17:34, Ramsman wrote:
On 26/02/2012 16:10, 展奄rdo wrote:
On 26/02/2012 14:37, Ramsman wrote:
On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and
say
that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.
And would you say that it is a Warwick GRMkV of 179 Sqn, RAF, as used
for anti-submarine patrols in Bay of Biscay in 1944?
http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/179_wwII.html
Yes.
No. 179 was the first squadron to be equipped with the Warwick for
anti-submarine work, and the aircraft that sank U927 was commanded by
F/Lt. Brownsill.
GIYF!
;-)
Not in this case. I used one of those things with lots of sheets of
paper covered in printing, which was standing on a shelf in a special
room in the house.
LOL! Yes, I've got shelves of those, which groan under the weight of
useful knowledge - but I'm not sure if I've got very much on the Warwick.
I don't think there's much about. Some Wellington books (Crowood,
Squadron Signal) have just a single page. Squadron histories such as
"Coastal, Support and Special Squadrons of the RAF and their aircraft"
have operational details. The only publication I have that is dedicated
to the Warwick is Profile 229.
I've always liked the look of the Warwick, as a sort of grown-up
Wellington, even though they were developed more or less simultaneously.
The one thing in favour of both of those aircraft was their sheer
ruggedness. Barnes Wallis was a man of many talents.
--
Moving things in still pictures