Comment on "Fly Past" magazine article on Vultee Vengeance in WWII. [Archive]

Danny42C

8th Aug 2016, 19:58

FLY PAST
________

One day in Burma in WWII, General "Bill" Slim addressed his ragged troops of the 14th Army:

"You men call yourselves the 'Forgotten Army'. You've not been forgotten - it's just that no one's ever heard of you !"

And this remains, in general, the position of the British (and the world) media during WWII and ever since. As it may well be that I am the last man alive to have flown the Vultee Vengeance operationally with the RAF in Burma *, I must welcome Sean Feast's extended article in the September issue of "Fly Past" magazine, and intend to add my two cent's worth, and invite comment, amplification and (yes) correction if needed.

Note *: I know nothing of the RAAF operations with them in New Guinea, and cannot comment.

What comes now can only be followed by those who have a copy of the magazine open before them, and it is to these I write.

In order to avoid tedious repetition, "Squadron" will be omitted, it will be "110, 82, 8, etc"

--------------------------

I think it useful to start with my explaining the photograph top left on Page 28, for it maybe that others may plug the gaps in my my memory.

Bear in mind:

The pic was taken in Madhaiganj, not Digri, in the first days of January, 1943. I'd joined just a few days before.

Not all the Flight aircrew are there.

All aircrew named are Sergeants, except where othewise stated.

There are only two officers there - look for the caps.

Names and wings are L to R (looking at pic).

All pilots are standing on wings. All navs and AGs are sitting on wings. Standing on wheels are two ground NCOs.

Erks standing and sitting below. Many faces familiar; names familiar - but cannot put the two together.

..........

On top of cowling is F/O R.C.Topley ("Topper") Flt Commander. His acting Flt Lt has not come through yet, signs as F/O in my log until end of May. Draped on prop boss is "Chiefy" - F/Sgt Darling.

Standing (L to R) Sgt ("?"), think (RAAF); Reg Duncan (RCAF); Self; across to W/O Doug McIlroy (RNZAF); George Davies (RAF); Bud Yates (Yeats ? RCAF).

Sitting Sgt ("?"); P/O Robertson (nav - not the one who nearly lost entire Flight en route to Chittagong !), flew with me on first three (Akyab) ops in May; Duncan's dog "Spunky" #; another Sgt ("?"); across to a hunched figure: Keith Stewart-Mobsby (we'd not "crewed-up" yet). Why was he not with me in May ? Dunno, malaria perhaps ?

Then three more ("?")s. Together with first two ("?"s), perm from Payne, Mills, Turner, Brown, Lewis, and Foster.

Two NCOs standing on wheels, Cpl/(Sgt"?"); Cpl Reavill. (one would have been a Fitter I, t'other a Rigger I.

Sad note *: "Spunky" got extensive and incurable (Doc Pete Latcham did his best) skin infection, fur coming off in lumps, animal was suffering, in March poor Reg had to take his pistol and do the last act of kindness to his (and the whole Squadron's) friend. Everybody broken-hearted.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Fly Past,

Now that we have the dramatis personae sorted out (not a BMI over 21 to be seen), let us have a look at the text of the article. It is clear that the author (Sean Feast) has relied heavily on Peter C. Smith's "Vengeance!" ISBN 0 396393 65 5, particularly in the preamble. This points out the paradox that, when so much has been written about the success of the Ju87 "Stuka", and the Russian Pe-2; the RAF did not want to know about the operational value of this aircraft, which they themselves had commissioned in a panic in the dark days of '40-'41, now wished they hadn't, and that it would just go away quietly.

Many of the illustrations appear in "Vengeance!", but the quality is better and enable me to make useful comment.

The Vengeance was used by the RAF and IAF in India/Burma and by the RAAF in New Guinea. A useful (and only visible) difference is that the RAAF white centre of the blue/white SEAC roundel is larger than the RAF one.

--------------------------------

Now back to the beginning:

PAGE 26 PICS

The "silhouettes" of the three in echelon starboard show the normal wingover entry into the dive.

The one being bombed-up looks to have four ? * gun ports in the wing, two in the centre section(normal fit) and (judging by the masking) another two in the outer section, with one port visible. I think some later Mk.IVs did have an eight-gun installation, but the only picture available to me ("Vengeance!", page 117), clearly shows a Mk.IV used on 'ops' by the French at Agadir, Morocco). It has the trademark single 0.50 in the back, but only two masked ports in the wing.

The RAAF did get some Mk.IVs later on, but AFAIK all the VV operations both in Burma and New Guinea were flown with Mks. I and II. Mk.IIIs came out to us at the end, but were used for odd jobs. I've never even seen a Mk.IV in the metal. Most of these (in UK and Australia) were converted into target tugs.

I checked through all the pics in Peter C. Smith's "Vengeance!", there are very few unmasked "full frontals": the only clear ones are on pp. 40, 105, and 123. In all cases they show a 2-gun wing.

So what have we here ? The outboard extra two must be something else - but what ?

The 250lb going on to the wing rack looks as if the light metal back "fin" is painted black. Never saw that before, it would certainly be attached to the yellow (bomb) front half, and would be painted yellow, too. They were joined before going on the bomb trolley.

The 'op' count on the fuselage may've been exaggerated a bit. But possible !

More next time, Danny42C.

BEagle

8th Aug 2016, 20:01

Danny42C, with the best will in the world, perhaps your post might be better placed in the 'Aviation History and Nostalgia' forum?

Danny42C

8th Aug 2016, 20:11

BEagle,

Could well be right, but as the whole of my Vengeance story over the last few years has followed naturally from my "gaining a RAF Pilot's Brevet in WWII", I'm at home here (and don't want to change).

And you have a better class of Poster on this Thread !:ok:

Danny.

Stanwell

8th Aug 2016, 21:26

It's difficult to type when you're chuckling.
I've not yet seen that issue of Flypast on the news-stands but I'll certainly be having a look at it when it becomes available.

Just why the VV was not used more extensively in the New Guinea campaign, I don't yet know.
I do have my suspicions, though.
The Japs were very difficult to winkle out of their well-constructed bunkers - particularly during the Buna-Gona stage of things in NG.
It struck me that the Vengeance, effectively applied to the task, would have saved the lives of many, many of our brown/green jobs.
I'll be looking into it (just to enhance my 'PhD in Hindsight', of course).

Just by the way of a p.s., Australia, by the end of the War, had the fourth largest air force in the world - behind the US, USSR and GB.
Not bad for a country of our population at the time.
.

David Thompson

8th Aug 2016, 22:30

A photograph of a surviving Vengance appears in a thread on another aviation forum plus a mention of Danny42C too ;
Vultee Vengeance legacy (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?139692-Vultee-Vengeance-legacy&p=2329906#post2329906)

NutLoose

8th Aug 2016, 23:34

Vultee Vengence article in Flypast, probably the last RAF Vengence pilot responds (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?139712-Vultee-Vengence-article-in-Flypast-probably-the-last-RAF-Vengence-pilot-responds&p=2330045#post2330045)

:)

Danny42C

9th Aug 2016, 11:19

What a wealth of supplementary information has been loosed on our undeserving heads ! Now it's my turn to chuckle at Larry66's "Hangar about, lad !" (I may be registered on "Aviation Forum", for all I know, but a couple of weeks ago was saving my stuff on Desktop and Flash Drive; by an act of stupid carelessness replaced my 'MEMORANDA' file by putting 'DRAFTS FOR PRUNE POSTS' on top of both). Now cannot retrieve it, may have to engage local friendly (@ £50/hr) computer wizard to have a go.

Consequence: all Callsigns, Passwords etc and other vital information "gone with the wind", have to start again from scratch. But enough of my troubles......

Thanks to David Thompson (not far from me !) and NutLoose for putting up Dick Simpson's beautiful string of photos. Yes, it's the Camden Museum one all right, the only complete one in the world AFAIK. But there are several groups of enthusiasts in Oz trying to find enough bits to build another. I wish them well, and hope they may succeed, but it's been a long time....

Simpson's photos deserve comment as follows:

No.1: "complete and original"; complete, yes, original no. It is a genuine Mk.I (never saw action), EZ999 is genuine. But the Museum chose to fit it out as a Mk.IV, as evidenced by the massive 0.50 in the back (No.2), with matching perspex segment.

All Mks. other than IV, would have 2x 0.303s (to replace the unreliable 0.300s which came with them) and a different rear perspex to fit.

No.2: Now the good points. Note only two gun ports per wing, and the (justified) appearance of immense strength and solidity (to which I probably owe my life). Unfortuately strong means heavy: it was pretty useless for all purposes except as a vertical dive bomber - but it was very good at that.

No.3: Note the huge white centre to the roundel, much bigger than the RAF pattern, the hand-holds to get up to the back seat, or to get onto wing for the front (we found a quicker and better way: get on wheel and shin up strut up and over leading edge). "Bomblets" are fake.

No.4: No Comment.

No.5: As before, note pronouced dihedral on outer wing sections, with enormous fin made very stable in cruising flight, and part open bomb doors, you could load luggage on the "shelf" and close doors (with hand pump) - so long as you weren't "bombed-up".

Stanwell (#4),
...It struck me that the Vengeance, effectively applied to the task, would have saved the lives of many, many of our brown/green jobs...
You've "hit the nail on the head" there. It was the target the VV might have been designed for. When you're pushing the Jap back, his invariable tactic was to dig in at some strong point which would impede our advance. With a timely four tons (from a box-of-six) of HE, we dug him out again and sent him to join the ancestors. It was our "bread and butter" task, we did a lot of it, the Army was suitably grateful, for to reduce these places by frontal assault would involve heavy casualties.

Enough for the moment. Danny.

Arclite01

9th Aug 2016, 13:34

Thread drift.......

I've had every issue of Flypast since edition 1, I've always taken Aeroplane as well (used to be Aeroplane Monthly when I was a lad.......), cost of each is getting high and I am starting to think I need to decide between one or the other...........

Over the last few years I think I've seen a distinct decrease in quality of the articles in Flypast - is it me or does it seem like a comic nowadays with articles having little depth, some almost appear to be repeats of earlier (equally poor) articles ??

Aeroplane on the other hand, has retained its quality, and if anything, seems to have improved.

What do other people feel ??

Thanks

Arc

Wander00

9th Aug 2016, 14:32

I wish Aeroplane would take pity on their ageing readership and up the font size. I complained when it went smaller a year or so back, and for an issue or two it improved, but seems to have sunk back again.....

NutLoose

9th Aug 2016, 16:06

New editor on Aeroplane, it was bought out by the publishers who own Flypast and they are endeavouring to make it more cohesive, previously it would chop and change all over the place with no clear direction.
We had a go on Flypast's forum Wander about weird colour text over photos you couldn't read as well.

I get them both and Britain at War, another excellent read that was also bought out by the same group.

and NutLoose for putting up Dick Simpson's beautiful string of photosIt was not me Danny, the person you should be thanking is David.:)

Wander00

9th Aug 2016, 16:25

Nutloose - that too - print on colour - unreadable IMHO

Stanwell

9th Aug 2016, 17:39

Arclite, Wander and Nutty,
It's not only you.
As a former publishing person, I agree with your comments.
They'd better get their act together - or go under, which would be a shame.

There was a discussion here on PPRuNe about a year ago to do with that very subject.
The Editor of the magazine even came on here, trying to point out the economic realities of 'today's publishing environment'.
I'm afraid he was missing the whole point.
Having been a long-time supporter of that once fine publication (Aeroplane Monthly), I've had quite enough of their, I'm sorry to say, amateurism.
Has somebody now employed their 'talented' grand-niece as editor?

Also, as a grumpy old man was once heard to say, 'I'll take my business elsewhere'.
.

kghjfg

9th Aug 2016, 22:16

I have a copy of Flypast, and I've been resisting reading the article until Danny42C has !
Thankyou Danny, I can go and read it now with your notes. Thankyou. (and not just for the notes)

Danny42C

10th Aug 2016, 11:03

kghifg,

Why, thankee, kind sir. Another half ?....Don't mind if I do !

Spent a lot of time last night on exegesis of Illustration and Text of p.27. Had all done 'n dusted on Notepad (for fear of PPRuNe gremlin) before copy-paste to Post. Bloody gremlin had moved over to Notepad, everything vanished..:{
You should've had it to read this morning, all to do again now, bit of luck will get it out today.

Danny.

MPN11

10th Aug 2016, 11:38

Danny ... "Save often" usually helps! Although I thought Notepad on Mac saved all the time anyway - provided you have a saved filename in the first place!.

Danny42C

10th Aug 2016, 12:13

MPN11,

Yes - "Save often" is the trick ! Why do I never learn ? (plugging along on Windows 7, suits me fine !)

Danny.

Danny42C

10th Aug 2016, 16:32

PAGE 27 PICS

Amarda Road was in W.Bengal (Orissa?), about 100 mi SW of Calcutta. Seems they called the strip that as it was the name of the local railway station (same is true of Drigh Rd. Karachi).

But not of "Red Road" (Calcutta). That was the name of the park road which it had been before it was requisitioned as an airstrip. Difficult, I was told, because of the camber - but Hurricanes used it). Handy for the Top Brass, as very close to Old Court House Street and Great Eastern Hotel (junior officers sent round to Tradesmen's Entrance).

Whatever it was doing in Amarda, it wasn't 'operating' from there. It is on the wrong side of the Bay of Bengal from the Arakan. AP114 was a Northrop built Mk.I to "British Contract" (Peter C. Smith "Vengeance!"): ie we bought the thing (about $63,000), "Lend-Lease" came in later.

Never flew it, but flew AP119 on 110 at Khumbirgram a few times. 21 October 1943 attacked Kalemyo, log says "1 bomb hang-up", doesn't say what I did with it and can't remember now. 28 October, "long haul" to Tintha, logged 3.10 - refuelled Palel on way home. Palel was on the Imphal plain, but the great battles would be fought there only next year.

As to aircraft itself, note smaller white centre (RAF) to roundel. It has a retractible tailwheel - when, of all the aircraft in the world, a Vengeance least needed one. No bombs visible. Masked two-gun fit in wing centre section. No nose art - so never been on a squadron and no letters. Will continue rest of flight in this attitude, pilot can't see much in front.

Was foxed by spot 2 o'clock on cowling, then realised magazine put it on.

PAGE 27 TEXT

"...the Vengeance ultimatately evolved to a British specification..." It wasn't quite like that. The French had ordered the thing from Vultee, but the first had not flown when France collapsed. Vultee then had a production line going and no customer in sight (USAAC wanted nothing to do with it). They were very glad indeed when we came along and took over the French contract.

"Evolved" ? - all they would have had to do would've been to swap the metric instrumentation for imperial. The British contract required numbers in excess of Vultee's capacity to build. Northrop had spare capacity and built a lot of them (including our specimen on page 27). USAAC took a few for trial: their pilots turned it down for poor front visibilty. The USAAC gave it their number A-31, but lost interest after that. But beggars can't be choosers, we had to fly them poor visibility or not. The A-31 became our Vengeance Mks. I-II-III. All look and fly exactly alike: all have the 2x 0.303s in the back. All have zero Angle of Attack.

Then USAAC tried again, asked Vultee to put a 4° AoA on the wing. Which made them better aeroplanes, but worse dive-bombers. Called the A-35, the USAAC were still unsatisfied, gave up and palmed them off on us * as the Vengeance Mk.IV. All carry a single 0.50 in the back, and 2x (or 3x) 0.50s in each wing. I have heard rumours of four-gun wings, but nothing more. Note that the size of the gun ports is always the same: it is just the diameter of the blast tubes down which the guns (buried far back in the wings) have to fire. Both in UK and Oz, the only use found for them was as target tugs.

Note *: and the French, and the Brazilians, and maybe others. No one (AFAIK) could do much good with them. The Camden Museum has a Mk.I pretending to be a Mk.IV. (Why, God only knows !) Will Post this now before gremlin gets to it. More on Page 27 Text later.

Before I go: two little tips (which, for all I know, may only work for me). I have a touch-screen laptop. Every so often touch-screen downs tools. No sweat, close lid, wait for lights to go out, lift lid and hit start , normal service resumed (most times).

Brand new one, was working with little job involving Superglue. No fool he, Danny has clear thin medical plastic gloves on. Job done, no spillage, glove still on R.hand, starts on laptop. Dabs finger on screen, cursor appears every time without fail. With bare finger or little pointer thing, was very hit or miss. Now "every time a winner" - and no paw marks on screen ! :ok:

D.

MPN11

10th Aug 2016, 17:11

Touch screens can be funny. I put a new screen-protector on my iPad ... its a bit think, and 'taos' can have variable results.

Which has nothing to do with the topic :)

Hempy

10th Aug 2016, 19:05

An interesting comment made on Daves link in regards to the RAAFs issues with operating the Vultee, "If I remember rightly, didn't it also suffer from very high oil use which limited it's usefulness due to strains on the supply chain?".

How long could a squadron operate for on a Dakota load of oil? They used them to good effect in at least one battle against the Japanese in New Guinea, routing them. But they then staged from the inland field they helped capture. So if the above is true it might help explain why they were sparingly used.

Stanwell

10th Aug 2016, 20:40

Another gem, Danny. Thank you.
The thing with the VV as far as Oz was concerned, was that, by the time Consolidated Vultee/Northrop had ramped up their
production, the war had moved on a bit.
We then had shiploads of them arriving at our ports - whether we wanted them or not.
'Well, thank you anyway, but we're in the market for lots of target-tugs' (not).

p.s. Hempy .. Our posts crossed. Which battle was that - can you refresh my memory?
Also, Wright engines using oil? .. That's what they were primarily designed to do, I was told. (smiley).
.

Danny42C

10th Aug 2016, 21:20

Hempy (#19),

This is an extract dug out of the archives from one of my early Posts ca May 1912:
...Engines were another matter. Vultee, like most aircraft makers, bought them in, and with US rearmament in full swing, they were scarce as hen's teeth. Vultee's scouts scoured the land, and struck oil in Galveston (Texas). Several hundred Wright "Double Cyclone" radials sitting on the dockside, quietly rusting away and looking for a good home.

These engines had a chequered history. They had been ordered by the French to power one of their new fighter designs, but by the time they had been delivered, France had collaped. This batch would have fallen into Nazi hands had someone not had the sense to load them back on one of the last freighters to leave Bordeaux for the States.

There they were dumped until Vultee found them. Possession would be nine-tenths of the law and the question of ownership could wait. My guess is that Wright (the makers) had been paid in advance, so they weren't interested, and the French were in no position to ask for their money back. Whatever, Vultee paid the storage charges, carried off their finds in triumph and the production line started to roll...

We later found that these engines had been insufficiently inhibited in the first place, had then had two Atlantic voyages, (possibly as deck cargo) before being dumped for months in the open at Galveston. The results were as you might expect.

An engine in good condition would burn 1½ galls/hr. We had a 21 gallon oil tank. But these ex-French things might suddenly develop a galloping thirst; oil consumption would rise exponentially, there were cases when the whole 21 gallons were burned, and the engine failed, on a single flight.

Danny.

Hempy

10th Aug 2016, 22:54

When you think about it the war in the Pacific moved on so much quicker than the war in Europe. The Pacific war didn't kick off until 6 months after Germany invaded the USSR. The Japs had 6 months of general success and then gradually started moving backwards after Guardalcanal and Midway. By the time the VV came into service it was considered that other aircraft like the Beaufighter, which they had plenty of, were more suited in the ground attack role given the tasks that the RAAF were being assigned to carry out by MacArthur. e.g long range over water low level attack missions against enemy ports, aerodromes etc.

ps Stanwell,

]By August 1943, the Unit had standardised with Vengeances and was soon deployed to New Guinea, where dive-bomber operations commenced from Nadzab. Accurate attacks were made against enemy occupied towns and on Japanese positions at Shaggy Ridge. The Vengeances also supported the Cape Gloucester landings before being withdrawn to Australia in March 1944.

https://www.awm.gov.au/unit/U59387/

Stanwell

11th Aug 2016, 05:11

Thanks Hempy.
I hadn't been aware of those Vengeance operations from Nadzab.
Shaggy Ridge was indeed a difficult job.

FAR CU

11th Aug 2016, 05:38

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/baldrick1946/_IMG7011_1.jpg (http://s125.photobucket.com/user/baldrick1946/media/_IMG7011_1.jpg.html)

EXCELLENT PICS THANKS DICK SIMPSON. Before the present building was built at Narellan to house the collection of the late Harold Thomas, the former shed
was so over-stuffed with planes and pieces and parts you needed to be as thin as a match stick to sidle anywhere. My greatest sympathies with Harold were over his failed attempts to retrieve from Tahiti the Sandringham VH-APG , the one that now resides in the Musee de L'Air in Paris.

Danny42C

11th Aug 2016, 09:25

FAR CU,

Yes, the Camden Vengeance, all right. One small point which I did not notice before: the "nose art" is just a bit of window-dressing; the history of EZ999 is well known and documented, it never saw service on a RAAF Squadron. A Mk.I, it was supplied to Britain on Vultee's "British Contract", it was ours to do what we liked with it; we passed it on to the RAAF. A curious thing, I flew EZ993 in Burma, EZ999 went to Oz.

All Mk.IVs were "Lend Lease", which meant that, at war's end, we had to give them back to the US if they wanted (they didn't !), or buy them from them, or destroy them completely.

EDIT:

Now I believe most of the Vengeance bits in Oz would be from Mk.IVs (as a lot of them went out there at war's end). So if one of the teams of eager enthusiasts who are (in competition with one another ?) scouring the land for them are successful in rebuilding another complete specimen, it'll be a IV - and they can expect a bill from the US Air Attaché !

Danny42C.

Stanwell

11th Aug 2016, 18:38

Something funny must have been going on then - because those ones from Boulder, Western Australia (less engines, I understand),
were available for ten quid each.
.

Danny42C

11th Aug 2016, 19:17

Stanwell,

Perhaps you Aussies were (shall we say) not as scrupulous as we Poms in reading the fine print of the LL Agreement ? Are you sure the Boulder ones were Mk IIIs or IVs ?

Was threatened with Court Martial for refusing to burn my Mk.IIIs where they stood.

If you have any airframe numbers, that should enable us to pin the Boulder ones down.

Danny.

Danny42C

11th Aug 2016, 20:12

PAGE 28 PICS

The one at top left of page has been covered on the Posts before. At New Year 1943, Madhaiganj, not Digri.

Right: see my #21 above. There's the reason for the engine change ! (It would not be the only change, by a long chalk).

I think 82 would be doing anti-submarine sweeps out over the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean from Cholaveram (Madras). 84 did the same for a while from Ceylon. Don't think they ever found anything to attack. Vengeance not suitable for job, as would have to be fairly low to see and make sure submarine not one of ours in first place, then a low level attack would be hit and miss as pilot cannot see much ahead. To deliver famed Vengeance accuracy you would have to climb to 10,000 minimum first. That would take 15 mins, prudent U-boat skipper is under the waves and far away by then.

In early 1945 was on a Radar Calibration Flight at Cholaveram: Flight Commander a Swiss Air Gunner (yes). Flew tracks 50 miles out to sea. All Vengeance operations in Burma had ceased for good on onset of 1944 monsoon as RAF sqdns supposed to be converting to Mosquitoes. (The IAF went over to the Spitfire XIV). Snag was: the glues that held the "Wooden Wonder" together - didn't in moist tropical climates - and they started falling to bits in the air. By the time they got the glue trouble sorted, it was 1945 before the Mossies got into their stride.

The "United Provinces" relates to, as Wiki tells us:

United Provinces of Agra and Oudh........
Province of India under the British Raj (Disestablished 1921)"

So what was a 1943 aircraft doing with that on the side ?..... No idea.

PAGE 28 TEXT

...Vics of up to a dozen aircraft were considered ideal...
I have heard many accounts of formations of 12 or even 24 or more, but I can only relate from my own experience. Of all my 52 ops, only one was a 12-ship sortie, and that was of two separate boxes of six going to target together and coming back together, but bombing separately.

We had established that the largest tactical unit to have any hope of taking evasive action if attacked was the "Box-of-Six" which was the standard. After Fighter Affiliation exercises, the "attacking" Hurricane pilots told us that we had almost no hope of survival if a box were attacked by even a pair of well handled "Oscars". It stood to reason, one Vengeance is clumsy enough in all conscience, six in formation nearly hopeless. Any more - forget it. A 24-ship attack would simply have to be a loose collection of four six-boxes diving in turn.

Of course, dive bombers are attacking weapons only, The extra strength that has to be built-in to resist the stresses of the dive and pull-out means extra weight, that makes them awkward, so they need fighter escort and require air supremacy to be used successfully. In WWII the Luftwaffe had this in Poland and France. In the Battle of Britain they lost it and the Stuka became easy prey for the Hurricane and Spitfire. Wiki tells us in a very detailed account that:
...The Stuka depended on air superiority, the very thing being contested over Britain. It was withdrawn from attacks on Britain in August after prohibitive losses, leaving the Luftwaffe without precision ground-attack aircraft.[119]...
In our case in Burma, if a six-box were "jumped" at height on the way to target, the only sensible tactic would, IMHO, be a well-practised "Red-Arrow" style "bomb-burst", and dive vertically. In the dive one Vengeance would be a hard target, six in separate dives an impossible one. On pull-out each aircraft would be very fast (300 mph), well scattered and very low. Not very valorous - but we'd only lose one or two instead of the lot.

Luckily for us, for some reason which has never been explained to this day, the Japanese Army commanders (under whose command the "Oscars" operated), never tried to intercept us. The only concerted effort ever made to hamper our activities was at Khumbirgram in November 1943, when a high-level attack by nine "Bettys" (a thing the size of our "Wellington") killed three of 110's men, destroyed one Vengeance, damaged others - and a working elephant on the Station went AWOL for good !

..."The honour of being the first RAF unit to operate the Vengeance fell to 82, although its sister unit, 84 became the first to bomb Japanese targets"...
The first part of the statement is open to question, we on 110 thought we were the first, but we both started in a small way shortly before the 1943 Monsoon, and it really doesn't matter now. The second part is contradictory. Obviously 84 were operating the Vengeance if the were "bombing Japanese targets with them". The difficulty is that 84 only started on the "bread and butter" targets with the rest of us very late (March 1944, I think). Before that, they had been bombing in support of the Chindits and details of that are scarce.
......diving from 10,000ft to 4,000ft to achieve an accurate drop and allowing...
12,000 gave you a bit more time. We pulled out when the altimeter needle passed 3,500 agl, that would be 3,000 true as the altimeter lagged. The average chap, pulling to the onset of "grey-out", would regain level flight around 1,000 agl. That would represent a 2½ secs margin for error (descending at 400 ft/sec in the dive). Not a lot ! But of course, with your bomb gone, your interest now was survival. So, instead of floating along at 1,000ft, making yourself a target for any AA about (and for any Jap with a rifle or light automatic weapon), you eased off the pull-out so as to get among the treetops ASAP.
...The mounting for the twin 0.30in guns in the rear cockpit was inadequate...
(Replaced by 0.303s in fact). The trouble was that, in a dive, the weight of the guns sheared the mounting, and the rear gunner came home with the two guns in his lap ! - soon fixed.
...and the similar calibre four guns in the wings tended to overheat and jam...
On 110 we gave up and did not use them any more, as being more trouble than they were worth.

Always thought Wg.Cdr. D.R. Gibbs got his DSO with 82 on Blenheims in UK. Can't trace it now.

Danny42C.

Stanwell

11th Aug 2016, 20:12

Not at this stage, Danny.
Nobody seems to know (or care).
The common reaction seems to be something along the lines of .. 'Isn't it enough that I know what a Vengeance is?'
I'll have to get down to HARS at Albion Park and have a look at what they've ended up with.
That reasonably complete example, included in that collection of crates that had been mentioned over on the 'Brevet' thread, I know, came from that Boulder disposal.
We do try to get to the bottom of things on here. It's fun.

Oh, just BTW, the origin of the pic of that instrument panel that had been discussed before seems not to have been from the Camden Museum

Danny42C

12th Aug 2016, 09:39

Stanwell,
...Isn't it enough that I know what a Vengeance is?.,, Not if you're trying to assemble one from a pile of bits, it ain't !

The A-31 and the A-35 are two different animals, as the USAAC recognised. But they all look alike, which is why we lumped then all together under the the name of "Vengeance".

To recap: Vengeance I-II-III are A-31s: IVs are A-35s. A-31 bits do not always fit with A-35 bits (so I'm told).

Ias and all IIIs and IVs were supplied under Lend-Lease. The others are "British Contract" (Peter C. Smith). We can do what we like with these. Lend-Lease remain US property, unless 'bought out"'. They were lent to us to fight a war - not to play about with....:=

That's the strict position as I understand it.

Cheers, Danny.

Stanwell

12th Aug 2016, 09:58

Of course, Danny.
A bit like the Oz-built Mk.21 Beaufighter that Duxford had snavelled.
Oh dear .. things don't seem to fit like we imagined they would.

onetrack

12th Aug 2016, 14:26

Quite a plethora of information on the VV on the AWM site. I would think Danny42C would enjoy perusing the collection.
The AWM VV collection includes 131 photos of RAAF VV's, and crews, including many "action" photos, mostly around New Guinea - plus 4 films, one of which is online, and which shows the IAF using VV's.
I'd expect the excellent short (6 min) film of the IAF VV's would provide some memory-jogging moments for him.

Vultee Vengeance - AWM (https://www.awm.gov.au/search/all/?query=vultee&submit=&op=Search&format=list&section%5B%5D=events&section%5B%5D=units&section%5B%5D=places&section%5B%5D=articles&section%5B%5D=books&section%5B%5D=people&section%5B%5D=collections)

Danny42C

12th Aug 2016, 20:37

PAGE 29 TEXT

Dohazari is in Arakan, and a Railhead.

(Top)

Second from left of group of four in front - what on earth is he ? Who wears a fleece jacket in the Arakan, when the others are stripped to the waist ? And he is wearing what look like blue overalls - not khaki. A Maufacturer's Tech Rep, perhaps? Chap on wing would be the refueller.

Behind chap on left is a "chore-horse" - a heavy, wheeled battery pack with a small petrol generator (to keep it topped-up) on top, Used to supply ground power for engine starting etc.

Bomb trolley (wheel looks dodgy). Good view of cylindrical light sheet metal "fins" - the back half of the cast steel bomb, to which it is fixed. Only fitted together when ready for loading onto trolley, as it is easily damaged. Delivered in a "bomb fin container". strong fibreboard cylinder case (makes ideal bar stool).

Difficult to tell 250 and 500lbs apart at any distance, as weight varies as the cube of the dimension, so the larger is only 1.2 times bigger than the smaller.

(Lower right),

"Sortie" from Karachi ? Possibly sub-hunting. They moved to Madhaiganj around Christmas and I joined them there just afterwards. Note the standard RAF roundel, not yet with the red painted over with white to show the blue/white SEAC roundel.

(Lower left) - Chugalug will spot the mysterious wingtip aerial !

PAGE 29 TEXT

..."vics of up to a dozen aircraft were considered ideal.....etc...290 mph at 75°"...
See p.28 TEXT. THe intention was always to get 90°, that was what the aircraft was designed to do, and that way you got the accuracy. I would stand by my edtimate that: "a good Squadron would get all its bombs in a 100-yard circle (ie no error to exceed 50 yards).
... a box of six Vengeances.......all bombs burst in the centre of the target,,,
Six aircraft would carry 24 bombs.
,,,UNWANTED CHILD..
Only too true, I'm afraid.

Danny42C.

Danny42C

13th Aug 2016, 17:34

PAGE 30 PICS
(ignoring part-pics of Page 31)

Only one, but interesting. Look carefully at the nearer bombs on trolley. See the "spikes" sticking up from the middle ? They are not from the bomb. but "trunnions" mounted on "trunnion bands" fixed round the CoG point of the 500lb bomb. If this were simply dropped from the rack in the bomb bay during the drive, the bomb could fall up against the end of the bay, and detonate. Or if it just cleared the edge, go into the propeller disc.

Either way would be disastrous, so it was vital to throw the bomb well "out" to get clearance. In the bay were two forks, hinged from the front of the bay. When fitted to the rack, each bomb had the band adjusted so that the trunnions were horizontal, then the forks, which had two extensible "cup" ends, would be fitted over the trunnions. Now, when the bomb was dropped, the forks would swing out and throw the bomb safely clear. The Stuka used the same idea.

Of course, the 250lb on each wing dropped normally. In my experience, we always carried the full 1,500lb load. There was no need to carry less, and it couldn't carry more. I believe 2x 500s on the wings were tried, but it barely got off, and couldn't climb at any acceptable speed.

Sgt Das Gupta is pulling a parachute in or out of the cockpit, but there were no Sgt-Pilots in the IAF, all officers. There were sergeants as gunners (not sure about navs). Funny, I can't see any guns in the back - but they must be there somewhere !"

Centre ground, looks like an engine cover, a 5-gallon oil drum, and an oilcan on top. Tractor driver keeps a keen eye on his load.

PAGE 30 TEXT

"...Indian Air Force Vengeance [for a time "Royal Indian Air Force"] Squadrons meanwhile joined the fray in "December"..."
Well, in a way. 8's difficulty was that they only had sufficient trained crews to form one Flight. But it was politically important to bring them into action ASAP - otherwise the war might end, and they would have no "battle honours" for the IAF.

So Air HQ "robbed" the RAF squadrons of crews (I think) a total of eight, with ground crew to match to fill the gap: (This was not popular !) Eight or nine experienced RAF crews were posted in to form a "B" Flight under Flt Lt "Bill" Boyd Berry. "Stew" and I were one of two from 110.

110 was in Khumbirgram (Assam), 8 were back at Chaara (W. Bengal). Although they were doing nothing with their (full) squadron of VVs, they did not lift a finger to collect us: 110 certainly weren't going to ferry us across, so we had to find our own way with baggage on train - river steamer across the Sunderbuns - train again to Chaara. There was not a rapturous welcome.

My last Log Summary on 110 was 18th November, we got there a few days later, I flew an admin sortie on 29th, and my first 'op' with them on December 1st from "Double Moorings" (between Chittagong and the sea). The intervening fortnight had been one frantic rush to get the aircraft compasses swung, and the gun ammumition "belted-up", for although they had been at Chaara for some time, they had been placidly waiting for something to happen, and neglected the chores. Their CO, Sqn Ldr Prasad, was replced by Sqn Ldr Ira K. Sutherland DFC (RNZAF) in February, 1944.

As for 7, they first appeared for action at Uderbund (Assam). not far from Khumbirgam. I do not know much about them, and Wiki is no help, but my recollection is that they went into action in Assam in early 1944 - and I was in Arakan with 8 by then.

Of Australian 'ops' I have no knowledge.

Danny42C.

MPN11

13th Aug 2016, 17:46

A sad recollecition, Danny ... No. 8 sitting on their backsides doing nothing? Didn't they know there was a War on?!

No wonder Sqn Ldr Prasad was replaced!

Danny42C

14th Aug 2016, 18:38

PAGE 32 PICS

(Top Left)

Nice clean aircraft, gunner hanging on to guns like grim death (for benefit of camera), note that although it gives the impression of being in a gentle climb, it is in fact flying level. All (A-31) Vengeance flew like this, you could pick them out from ten miles away.

Could it possibly be called "Danny" ?

Vengeance IIs are Vultee built, Vengeance Is are Northrop built. Both same aircraft. All Is and IIs are "British Contract", IIIs and (A-35) IVs "Lend-Lease". [Peter C. Smith].

(Bottom)

Chap with precarious foothold on engine bay enjoying the breeze from the "fan". Must be a chap in the cockpit (as engine running), would have full tail-heavy trim on (look at tab on underside of elevator) and stick held right back.
Shorts are being worn turned up this year. Two chaps on the wing are wearing a dark belt with a kind of pouch on it ? (must be an Aussie thing).

Very strong undercarriage, makes it easy to see pilot's short-cut into cockpit. Right foot on wheel, left in "stirrup", quick heave up over leading edge - bingo ! Two (masked) gun ports in wing. No sign of bomb racks. "Biddles" may be a kangaroo, can't make out "nose art".

Big, ugly brute !

PAGE 32 TEXT

...worked out a new tactic, attacking the target in two "vics" from opposite directions ....... could have fatal consequences...
I'll say ! What will these Wild Colonial Boys come up with next ? Never heard of it in Burma - Not this child !
...caught in the blast of the aircraft in front of it, although the fuses were timed to avoid this...
Fuses can be timed for all sorts of reasons, but this has nothing to do with fuses. Correct bombing drill is the answer. First, box-of-six goes into long echelon starboard, with a gap between 3 and 4. No.1 (who must pick his time exactly right, as all the rest will just follow him), rolls into dive, waits a moment or two before putting out dive brakes. 2 puts his his out as he is rolling over. 3 puts his out first, then rolls over. Moment's gap, then 4-5-6 do same.

This, if properly done, will ensure that the bombers are at least 1000 ft apart in the dive, batches of four bombs will be bursting at 2-3 second intervals. Nobody should get hurt (except enemy).

If you want a sad story, Google/Wiki: "Blackburn Skua" (Navy dive bomber). Synopsis: surfaced U-boat is molesting merchant ship with gunfire (torpedoes cost money). But, never fear - the Navy's here ! Three "Hearts of Oak" in three Skuas go into attack simultaneously. Miss U-boat, but blast and spray damage two Skuas, which have to ditch. U-boat picks up crews as POWs. What third Skua did then, and what happened to the merchantman is not recorded. Result: U-boat 2, Skuas 0.
...The Vengeances swept down through thick cloud to register a direct hit...
Bully for them - but "through thick cloud" ? This phrase crops up a lot in VV stories. Read this and (if you can stop laughing), weep:
...[Wiki]...Second World War[edit]

All Stuka units were moved to Germany's eastern border in preparation for the invasion of Poland. On the morning of 15 August 1939, during a mass-formation dive-bombing demonstration for high-ranking commanders of the Luftwaffe at Neuhammer training grounds near Sagan, 13 Ju 87s and 26 crew members were lost when they crashed into the ground almost simultaneously.

The planes dived through cloud, expecting to release their practice bombs and pull out of the dive once below the cloud ceiling, unaware that on that particular day the ceiling was too low and unexpected ground mist formed, leaving them no time to pull out of the dive.[87]...
How about the Stuka's vaunted "Automatic Pull-out", then ? Didn't they know the AMSL of their Target ? Sticking together in a balbo of 15 (?) left them no time to watch their altimeters, I suppose.

Moral: Bomb one at a time, never dive on a target you cannot see, never dive on a target unless you know its AMSL, watch your altimeter, live long in the land !

But they made a deep impression ! (thirteen of them, in fact). What did Goering say about it, I wonder ? And Hitler ? But then, you can't please everybody.
...The start of the monsoon season in June [1944] signalled the beginning of the end for Vengeance operations in the Far East. In what appears to be undue haste, the squadrons were withdrawn and re-equipped...
Agree whole heartedly ! Note the weasel words: "withdrawn and re-equipped". So we're all going to fly Mossies now, are we ? We can scrap all the VVs ? Not on your Nellie ! The Mossies came out all right (and started to fall apart, but that is a separate problem, and was fixed in about 6 months, anyway). But they came out with their own fully trained crews.

The very few ex-Blenheim pilots on the four RAF squadrons might have been candidates for a conversion, but why bother - they were due for repat in summer 1945, waste of time to convert them now. But the new trained Mossie crews had a full tour ahead of them. (For all we knew, the war out there could go on for years).

Meanwhile in India, you still have all your Vengeance (including, plenty of new Mk.IIIs to replace the tired old Is and IIs, all your experienced crews, nearly all of whom came out (like me) almost at New Year, 1943. We're not due for repat till 1946. There's a full dry season of work ahead of us still, the 14th Army's got the Japs on the run, ideal for the Vengeance to really show what it could do (and had been doing).

Why not let us carry on with our old Squadron numbers, and give the Mossie boys new ones ? They'd need one new Wing Commander - early on in 1944, a self-destruct Mossie had taken the CO with it. How about Sqn Ldr A.M.Gill DFC ? (ex-Blenheim, shouldn't take long to convert, knows the battle areas, and the country generally, like the back of his hand, whereas most of the crews are new to India). He'd have to extend his tour, of course.

All a pipe dream. It didn't happen. Politics ! Their Ugly Duckling was turning into a Swan, the Army loved us, congratulations were flowing in from all sides. Can't have that, wring its neck before the Home Press get to hear about it ! The Vengeance was a waste of space - get rid of it ! was the official attitude. (Coincidentally, I believe the American Commanding General in New Guinea shut down the RAAF operation).

It was relegated to odd jobs and so were its crews. I did three months on them with a Calibration Flight, and then they sent me to take over 1340 (Special Duties) Flight from "Red" McInnnis (RCAF), who'd been on "B" Flight of 110 with me, on his return to Canada in 1945.
...Trials were even undertaken to use the Vengeance to carry poison gas... How does Sean Feast know of this ? The "Chemical Defence Research Establishment" (which the Special Duties Flight served) was a tropical offshoot of Porton Down - and they don't go in for self-publicity very much. If you want to know any more, cf my Posts ("Pilot's Brevet") from p.152, #3036 on. Presumably, "Fly Past" reads PPRuNe, must've picked it up there.
...It's time the Vultee Vengeances, and the men who crewed them, are given the recognition they so richly deserve...
Couldn't have put it better myself ! As (maybe) the last living specimen, thanks, Sean ! (Don't hold your breath).

Conclusions tomorrow, DV.

Danny42C.

MPN11

14th Aug 2016, 19:00

Idly watching TV this afternoon ... World at War, Series 1, Episode 14 (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x125tkh_the-world-at-war-episode-14-it-s-a-lovely-day-tomorrow-burma_shortfilms).

And there, at 24:40 [with Vera Lynn singing in the background] is another VV. I'm now being stalked by them, Danny42C :D

Danny42C

15th Aug 2016, 15:27

MPN11,
Never mind, keep taking the tablets, lie down in a darkened room, they'll soon go away.

Had a look on "World at War" on iplayer, in all fairness, why do they always show Burma in the middle of the monsoon ? For eight months of the year the climate is fine and dry, if a bit sticky. And almost all the VV shots are of the thing being pushed back, or taxying in the rain. No pictures of a Vengeance in a dive (but in that weather, couldn't be).

Give Dame Vera her due - she was up there "at the sharp end" with the 14th Army lads - not stuck in Calcutta like some, being wined and dined by the "gabardine swine". All credit to the girl ! Never saw hair or hide of her in the RAF/IAF, but then, when you consider how immeasurably better off we lived (basha roof over our heads, charpoy and mossie net, three meals a day) than the PBI, we didn't expect to.

Last part of review of "Fly Past" later tonight,

Danny.

Danny42C

15th Aug 2016, 18:05

SUMMING-UP

I would say Sean Feast has done a pretty good job on the whole, and a historian working on events before he was born is at the mercy of his sources. A lot of this, and the pics, have been taken from "Vengeance!" by Peter C. Smith, published 1986 by Airlife Publishing Ltd, Shrewsbury (ISBN 0 906393 65 5). The Appendices are a mine of useful figures, although I would dispute some of them: we ran our engines at 2400 rpm max, not 2300 as stated; a figure of fuel burn of 795 litres/hr (180 galls/hr) at full bore seems excessive in comparison with our cruising average of 60 galls/hr (Yes, we're speaking of the same engine, the Wright Double Cyclone GR2600 A5B,1193Kw =1600HP).

But these are minor quibbles. IAF statistics can be (let us say) "enthusiastic". Clearly the "100% accuracy" claimed for the Vengeance is nonsense (or has been until the introduction of modern laser-guided ordnance). As I've said long ago on "Pilot's Brevet": "Precision bombing" was a myth in WWII. Even on the much vaunted daylight raids with the B-17s and B-24s of the "Mighty Eighth", the "after" target photographs show a fair proportion of bombs "mud-moving" in the surrounding fields. This does not matter, if enough go into the target to achieve the desired result. So it was with the Vengeance. Not all bombs went into target - but enough did.

Really, we should applaud "Fly Past" and Sean Feast for "ressurecting" the Vengeance saga, about which hitherto nothing much has been written at all. I faintly remember a semi-official "Aircraft Recognition" periodical, which did an article on them in the late '60s. The writer opened with the statement that "they were used only for level bombing", which shows the extent of his knowledge. I wrote a rebuttal which they were good enough to print. Apart from that, nothing.

The quotation from General Slim with which I opened this review still holds good in respect of the Vultee Vengeance. It was totally ignored at the time it was doing its best work, and completely forgotten thereafter. Anything which rescues it from this obscurity is to be heartily welcomed.

Danny42C.

MPN11

15th Aug 2016, 18:36

Many thanks for your dissertation [and dissection], Danny42C ... you are the embodiment of what 'living history' is about :ok:

Stanwell

15th Aug 2016, 20:33

Yes.
Polite applause from here, Danny.

ian16th

15th Aug 2016, 21:03

Enthusiastic applause from me.

Union Jack

15th Aug 2016, 21:44

Respectful applause from me, Danny, together with a gentle reminder that at least one Vengeance is still serving, vide HMS Vengeance (S31) | Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/submarine-service/ballistic-submarines/hms-vengeance) !:ok:

Jack

Danny42C

16th Aug 2016, 08:04

Union Jack,

Ah, but can it fly ?..........Can a Vultee Vengeance swim ?

Danny....:*

Danny42C

16th Aug 2016, 09:56

Thank you all for the kind things said about my comments on the "Fly Past" article about my old cantankerous steed. Did us proud, Sean !

Now unfinished business:

onetrack (#32),

I must apologise for this tardy reply to your helpful offer on 12th August: ...I would think Danny42C would enjoy perusing the collection.....The AWM VV collection includes.....plus 4 films, one of which is online, and which shows the IAF using VV's.....I'd expect the excellent short (6 min) film of the IAF VV's would provide some memory-jogging moments for him....Vultee Vengeance - AWM...
I have seen this before at various times, thank you, onetrack. Another wonderful clip was Posted by Chugalug (Pilot's Brevet; page 129; #2561) but the YouTube seems to have gone AWOL. I am sure it must be visible somewhere else, but don't have the technical skill to go after it (try BHARAT RAKSHAK [IAF] for a start ?]

Anyone interested in the "Fly Past" article must see the Australian War Museum film which onetrack has got for us.

Danny.

jaganpvs

17th Aug 2016, 02:28

First, A salute to Danny42c for yet anotehr lovely thread on the Vengeance. Its always a pleasure to read his posts - and especially when he talks about the Vengeance and in India..

Next I would liek to address MPN11's post.

A sad recollecition, Danny ... No. 8 sitting on their backsides doing nothing? Didn't they know there was a War on?!

No wonder Sqn Ldr Prasad was replaced!

If i may jump to Sqn Ldr Prasad's defence - No.8 was not really sitting on their backsides doing nothing. Under Sqn Ldr Prasad's command, between 15 Dec 43 and 24 March 44, the Squadron flew hundreds of sorties with both its Indian and British flight.

Prasad's sudden posting out on 24.3.44 was reported in the ORB as thus

"This came as a suprise to all ranks and all Indian officers and other rnaks took it as a real sad news. One could see gloomy atmosphere all around... crews felt they were losing a good leader and others felt the loss of a good commanding officer..".. the ORB page btw is signed by Ira Sutherland.

There is some controversy about his posting out. the one Indian veteran pilot I spoke with (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/history/ww2/veterans/1065-philip01.html) spoke highly of Prasad. and suggested there was some friction between him and his British Flt Cdr . Ofcourse Prasad didnt get along well with everyone.. some got along fine, some didnt.

MPN11

17th Aug 2016, 09:05

jaganpvs ... thank you for that detail, and especially the link*, and my apologies if I have caused any offence.

* Do I spy a youthful Danny42C in this photograph of 8 Sqn ?

Danny42C

17th Aug 2016, 09:06

jaganpvs,

On "Pilot's Brevet" Thread (page 138, #2743), I say:
... We had an Indian C.O. (Sqn.Ldr. N. Prasad). He struck me as a very reserved, scholarly, intellectual type, far better suited as a Staff officer than in the rough-and-tumble of Squadron life (he did, IIRC, reach air rank in the postwar IAF).

He was replaced some time in February '44 by Sqn.Ldr. Ira K. Sutherland, a tough New Zealander with a hard reputation as a martinet. The Indian "A" Flight Commander, Flt.Lt. "Pop" Chopra, was the exact opposite of S/Ldr Prasad. A mustachioed, cheerful extrovert, he was the life and soul of the party and very popular with everyone...
The rest of the Post may be worth a read (IMHO !)

We know a Jagan on here - any relation ?

Danny.

jaganpvs

17th Aug 2016, 14:10

HI Danny, yes I am the same Jagan.

MPN11. No worries - always glad to share more info. I really would like to get to the reason behind his Prasad's posting out.

A small bit of trivia - Prasad was an Army Officer who was seconded to the IAF. He went back to the Army end of the war and later became a Major General - but had to leave in cloud because one of the wars with Pakistan did not work in his favour. While in the army - he wore the IAF Pilots Badge , right upto the time he left as a General. - one of the few handful of army officers qualified to go around as such..

MPN11

17th Aug 2016, 18:50

Danny42C ... is it you? The moustache, the cheekbones, the jaw-line, the steely glint in the eye ... surely it is you , 2nd left, front row?

Danny42C

17th Aug 2016, 19:52

Alas, no ! Can't remember being in any squadron photograph like that. Thought the ferocious one bottom row might've been Boss Sutherland, but now see he's a F/Sgt.

Might have been after my time. Chap with Cap S.D. vaguely familiar, can't be sure.

Presume pic of me taken on ATC Course 1955, more hair then, enjoying last few weeks of bachelor freedom.

Settle down now for BBC2 2100 (Right up your street !).

Danny.

Chugalug2

18th Aug 2016, 11:01

Danny is this the video that you mention in post #45? I seem to remember your critical comments about the shallow "ground attack" shots as against a proper vertical dive. Perhaps the latter was no longer "PC" at this time? :-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8RqlK1d1_k

onetrack

19th Aug 2016, 10:23

All Stuka units were moved to Germany's eastern border in preparation for the invasion of Poland. On the morning of 15 August 1939, during a mass-formation dive-bombing demonstration for high-ranking commanders of the Luftwaffe at Neuhammer training grounds near Sagan, 13 Ju 87s and 26 crew members were lost when they crashed into the ground almost simultaneously.

The planes dived through cloud, expecting to release their practice bombs and pull out of the dive once below the cloud ceiling, unaware that on that particular day the ceiling was too low and unexpected ground mist formed, leaving them no time to pull out of the dive.

What is it about military firepower displays for high-ranking leaders? :rolleyes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imber_friendly_fire_incident

Danny42C

19th Aug 2016, 11:15

Chugalug (#52),

Thanks for the link ! Unfortunately my Google Chrome is "tied up" for the moment (for reasons which would take too long to explain): so tried it on Internet Explorer (only other thing I have), wouldn't play. So a "treat in store" (hope to get G.C. back some time today).

But I can guess what it's all about. My views on LL Ground attack with VVs remain the same. I have said that we never tried it operationally in my time (on 8 IAF and 110), and this is true.

But a hunt through my log book reveals: 26 and 28 June '43, "1 Shallow Dive" (plus 3 High Level) each. And on 7 August '43, just "Shallow Dive". Note all of these are in training after 110 had been pulled back to W. Bengal to sit out the monsoon. I have not the slightest memory of these exercises and no idea of results. But it shows that the idea was tried.

Now if you're sculling around in hilly country, with low monsoon cloud and pouring rain, you want an aircraft in which the pilot can see where he's going, and which is "chuckable" (for want of a better word). On both counts, the Vengeance fails miserably. You would have to approach in a "shallow dive", or you could see nothing ahead, and when you pulled the nose up to bomb, you would lose sight of the target completely. Of course that is true of anything, but you would "lose" your target very much sooner than in a Hurricane (say), it would just be a case of chucking the thing off and hoping for the best.

And the best word to describe a Vengeance is "Ponderous". "Chuckable" it ain't. How would a Hastings be for ground attack in the hills in poor weather ? We've got Hurricanes and Beaufighters for the job: Mosquitoes and Thunderbolts coming. Use the Vengeance for the work it was designed for, and which it could do extremely well !

On "Pilot's Brevet", Walter has sad news.

Danny.

Chugalug2

19th Aug 2016, 12:44

Danny, sorry to hear that Chrome is playing up (presumably by not opening links on a fresh page). Have you tried a "right click" on your mouse/tracker pad? If it offers "open in new window (or some such) select it and see if it obliges having outlined the link. Of course, there are other browsers that may or may not be already on your computer such as Internet Explorer, Firefox, etc, but I know that you don't care to tinker about too much...

How would a Hastings be for ground attack in the hills in poor weather ?

Not too well in good or bad wx to be honest, unless you count dropping SEAC 'chutes onto tiny DZs in Borneo's valleys. It was quite good at doing that, as long as you could stay below the low cloud. :ok:

Your summing up of the pointless misuse of an aircraft designed for a specialised purpose that made it useless for any other (target towing not withstanding) is clear and succinct. Given the closeness to the front line, the rare appearance of hostile aircraft, and the precision results that dive bombing assured, it is indeed a mystery as to why this rugged and dependable aircraft was pensioned off. If the Luftwaffe were happy to go on using the Ju 87 as long as air superiority was generally assured, why wasn't the RAF so minded with the VV? "Not Invented Here", perhaps?

Of course, as both onetrack and you observe, it was basically a fair weather machine, hence monsoon time was "out of season"!

Danny42C

19th Aug 2016, 21:54

Chugalug,

Google Chrome problems admin, not technical, fixed.
...why wasn't the RAF so minded with the VV? "Not Invented Here", perhaps?...
Worse than that. The RAF didn't really want a dive bomber at all, wished they'd never taken over the French contract, and when they saw what they'd bought (at $63,000 a throw), were only concerned to put it "out of sight, out of mind" - which amounted to India in those days.

Then, by a series of fortunate coincidences, it got the opportunity to show what it could do, and started to build up a reputation, which steadily grew as the 14th Army showered thanks and congratulations on it for its bunker-busting-capability. But Higher Authority took a different view.

The policy at home was set in stone: the Vengeance was a mistake, get rid of it ASAP. Meanwhile allow no favourable publicity for it and belittle reports of its success. It wasn't difficult to "lose" bad news, the public at home were rightly concerned with the wonderful work of Bomber Command by night, and the 8th Air Force by day, and by Monty and his merry men chasing Rommel round the North African desert. Burma was "a far off land of which we know little" (Neville Chamberlain).

Some of this descended into spite (as when Wg Cdr Gill's recommendation for a DSO for his work on 84 with the Chindits was watered down to a DFC for his deed on a Spitfire, by AHQ, Delhi). So in the end the Vengeance went to its grave "unhonoured and unsung", and has remained so to this day.

Danny.

PS: In all fairness it must be admitted that, had the Japanese Army Command turned its "Oscars" loose on the VVs, there would've been no story - but they didn't.
D.

Stanwell

20th Aug 2016, 00:44

What a beaut summation, Danny. :D

MPN11

20th Aug 2016, 09:12

We, and indeed History, should be grateful to Danny42C for bringing the VV into the light [albeit late in the day] on this and other Threads.

Indeed, there would be a case for the IWM to extract his various dissertations and combine them into a proper record of the VV in India/Burma.

Stanwell

20th Aug 2016, 09:55

On another professionals' forum, (nothing to do with aviation) about a year ago, a member had started a thread about little-known weapons of WWII.
It occurred to me that the Vengeance might be a reasonable subject to introduce.

With only the moderately reasonable knowledge that my research had turned up, with regard to its RAAF service, I contributed a little to that discussion.
The resident aggro idiot then charged in with the challenge .. "Yeah, well how did it go against the Zero, then?"
Some mothers do have 'em.
I was, perhaps unkindly, somewhat dismissive of him, saying that it did very well, thank you.
(As far as records show, the VV and the Zero never came to blows.)
If I was a nicer person, I could have taken him by the hand, etc...
.

Danny42C

20th Aug 2016, 10:21

Stanwell and MPN11,

I am grateful for your kind words. But the IWM should be wary. Very early (1998), when Danny lashed out for a Canon "Starwriter", and started recording (on floppy disc) his long and weary tale (for benefit of friends and family only), he wrote: "Much of this is hearsay, I had no means then, and have no means now, of establishing the truth of what I write". I have repeated this on Post here. And I have often cautioned against your regarding me as any kind of an authority.

Now we have Google and the invaluable Wiki to fall back on - but are they always right ? ("What is Truth ?" said Pilate).

Danny.

MPN11

20th Aug 2016, 11:34

Substitute 'Hearsay' with 'Danny-Say' and you will still have a substantial [and authentic*] tome ;)

* Memory permitting, of course!

Danny42C

20th Aug 2016, 18:06

onetrack (#53),

Thanks for the link, tried it on Internet Explorer, no joy.

Today have Google Chrome back, tried that, success ! It's the Imber incident, fairly well known at the time. Sgt McLachlan does not appear to have paid much attention to his target briefing - a collection of old tanks does look rather different from a row of spectators. Don't think his nationality has anything to do with it. The man was an idiot.

Danny.

Chugalug2

20th Aug 2016, 23:03

Danny, I am indebted to oneshot for his link to the AWM. I did a search for "RAF Vultee Vengeance" (as against IAF) and came up with this melange. The VV appearance is brief but rather dramatic! Reminds me of the Hastings that I left in a similar pose! The bulk of the video is perhaps more interesting to me than to you, being of Dakota supply dropping at various DZs and low (at times very low!) transits in between. Silent I'm afraid, so pianoforte accompaniment recommended. Info here:-

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F02125/

Video here:-

https://www.awm.gov.au/video/F02125.mp4

Added to say that I realise that it was part of the video collection that he pointed to, but perhaps still worth highlighting.

Hempy

20th Aug 2016, 23:12

Danny, you may have already answered this question somewhere else, and if so apologies in advance for my poor search skills.

How did you actually aim your bombs in a dive-bombing attack. Was it via gunsight, some form of bombsight, or Mark 1 eyeball?

Danny42C

21st Aug 2016, 11:30

Hempy,

Mk.I eyeball !

My p.133 #2658 has a full description of my first 'op'. Extract follows:
...But the Jail sortie will do very well to begin with. And this description of it will do as a template for every VV operation which followed, for the modus opendi was always the same. Off we go, then.

I've said that we normally put up only six aircraft at a time. On this single occasion, we scraped up twelve - six from 110 and six from 82 Sqdn. 82 ("Out of the blue came Eighty-Two!") were to go in first. As a new boy on 110, I flew the 6 position, which would mean I would be the last man of all to go down. As I never flew in a 12-ship strike again, this was the only time I was able to watch all the action from the air.

Topper was leading our six. We came in from the North at 12,000 ft with 82 ahead. It was afternoon. As we reached the island, the heavies opened up. Our two formations were "weaving", flying a slow zig-zag with a course change every twenty seconds or so. This confuses the gun predictors, so the flak bursts were 2-300 ft off to the side, but uncomfortably accurate for height. We overflew the island, then turned left in a wide sweep over the mainland, flying right round until we reached Akyab again, but this time coming out of the haze and gloom of the eastern sky.

It was a clever ruse (if it was a ruse - perhaps the 82 leader had simply misjudged his first run-up). Later intelligence confirmed that the Jap had put out an air raid warning the first time. But as we didn't bomb, they assumed that we were going on somewhere else and sounded the all-clear. Second time round, we caught them napping, sitting with their evening rice.

The jail was a bomber's dream target. Built on the cart-wheel plan, I suppose it was 2-300 ft across. It was unmissable. It must have been the largest building on the island. As the last man on the line, I could allow myself room to watch the action. 82 were a mile ahead, so I watched them all go down. They were like beads sliding down a string, three spaced out at a time. I could see the bomb flashes dead on target, billowing up in smoke and dust.

Then it was our turn. Topper waggles his wings. This is the signal for the rear "vic" to drop back and move into echelon starboard. A few seconds later, he waggles again and opens his bomb doors. All open theirs. 3 and 6 (me) swing across into echelon on 2 and 5 respectively. Now we're all in a diagonal line like a skein of geese. (This formation change is made only at the last moment, for although it looks nice on the newsreels, it leaves you practically at the mercy of an attacker - and it advertises your imminent attack to any watcher on the ground).

Mechanically I go through my drill: Canopy shut, check bomb doors open, bomb switches "live", trims neutral, 2100 rpm, mixture rich, gyros caged, cowl gills closed, straps tight. The first three go down. A few seconds later 4 goes over, settles in the dive and puts his brakes out. 5 puts his out as he rolls over. I put mine out, throttle back to a third and then roll. This gives us an extra bit of spacing for safety.

After that, it's simply "doin' what comes nacherly". Rolling over, I throw my head back and look straight down on the dust cloud over the jail - or what's left of it. Then it's just a matter of sighting down the yellow line and "flying" it onto the target. Feet braced on my big fat rudder pedals, I sense the dive is as near vertical as dammit - you can feel it with practice. Topper has done us proud, for this is a follow-my-leader operation, and if he's off vertical, then the whole thing will be a mess.

I can see 4 and 5 ahead for a few moments, then 4 pulls away from my field of vision. Bomb flash. I'm snatching quick glances at my altimeter, which is spinning like a broken clock, one sweep of the "big hand" every two or three seconds. 5 pulls away, keep line on target, bomb flash, 5000 ft, check line, 4000, check, 3500, press button (on throttle grip) and pull, pull, pull for dear life - literally - five seconds too late and you're dead...
A telescopic sight was tried (excerpt from Google 'single Post" so cannot give page/Post ref), with the result:
...There was nothing in the RAF's accumulated stock of wisdom about dive bombing, and we'd had to work it all out for ourselves. There was a story (for which I cannot vouch), that late in '42 one of the other squadrons had been visited by a couple of types who had done a dive-bombing course with the US Navy in Pensacola. They intended to go round all the Squadrons to lighten our darkness with their "gen"; they preached the nose-over method and brought along some form of tubular (telescopic ?) bombsight which they had been given in the US.

A sceptical audience of 82 Sqdn ? - (I believe they got their VVs first, in late '42) - heard them out. "Show us", they said. They gave one of the "experts" a VV and he rigged up his patent sight in it.

Unfamiliar with a VV and concentrating on his bombsight, he forgot to open the dive brakes. His attentive class gloomily surveyed the smoking hole and decided that it might be better to do it their way. Wing-overs are much more comfortable than push-overs and the yellow line was all the bombsight we needed (the other "expert" being rather discredited, retired hurt).

Having said that, I believe that the "Stuka" was nosed-over (not so bad if you're only diving 60-70 degrees), and Wiki tells me that they had some kind of window in the cockpit floor through which they sighted their target.

I cannot see the point of this, the area you can see on the ground through a window on the floor has to be relatively small compared with that (say 25 square miles or more) at 10,000 ft, which is blanked off by the mass of aircraft you're sitting on. And what about the 500 kg bomb which was carried right in your line of sight ? The only way to do it would have been to fly nearly up to the target, turn sharply on to it, hope it pops up in the window and nose dive on it. And were you trying to fly formation and gawping through this window at the same time ?...
The mind boggles !

Danny.

Hempy

22nd Aug 2016, 04:47

Danny, thanks for that :ok:

When you say you sight down the yellow line, does that mean that there was a centreline painted along the nose of the a/c giving you a reference? I've tried looking on the interwebs for a photo, but there aren't many looking down on the aircraft from above. Certainly no modlers have picked up on this little tidbit.

Fascinating stuff :ok:

Stanwell

22nd Aug 2016, 05:18

Hempy,
It's interesting that you raised the subject of modellers' interest in the VV.
A quick Giggle brought up the site of Australian Modellers International.

On there, there's a fair swag of detail photos of the Camden Museum's EZ999.
Amongst those is a photo of the instrument panel, previously commented on, as presented.
While I know EZ999 had been discussed on a separate thread, I hadn't seen those pics before.
Perhaps Danny, when he has a spare moment, might care to peruse those quite clear images of the machine, and comment.
.

mmitch

22nd Aug 2016, 08:06

This thread on Key Historic forum (Danny was on it!) was from some modellers doing several different versions.
Vultee Vengeance series - Help needed. (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126064-Vultee-Vengeance-series-Help-needed&highlight=Vultee+Vengeance)
mmitch.

Stanwell

22nd Aug 2016, 08:48

Thanks for that link, mmitch.
Most interesting - and some competent modelling there.
There's also a pic of Danny himself pedalling his own machine.
Danny had asked a specific question (on the 'Brevet' thread, I think) re a photo of a Vengeance instrument panel.
The answer to his question is contained within one of the pics I mentioned above.
.

Danny42C

22nd Aug 2016, 10:03

Hempy (#66),

I should have elaborated. Along the centreline of the fuselage, from the top of the cowling back to the base of the screen, was painted an inch-thick yellow line.

So when you entered your dive, your previous horizontal plane now became a vertical one, and you flew with reference to that. Now the lack of an Angle of Incidence, which had been such a curse in normal flight, now turned into a blessing. For the Vengeance had stopped flying, and become a guided ballistic weapon. Now it "fell" beautifully "level" (from your point of view), you could sight down the line and "fly" the aircraft onto it quite normally, and hold it there.

As I've put it somewhere, you "threw" the VV at the target much as a darts player "throws" his wrist at the board. This happy situation lasted only twenty seconds or so, then you pressed the button, pulled out, with the application of "G" the VV became an aeroplane again (albeit an old clodhopper).

Danny.

Hempy

22nd Aug 2016, 10:19

Thank you again Danny. Do you know if this line was a British 'solve', or was it there when the aircraft arrived from the factory? As I said, it's always intrigued me as to how dive bombers 'aimed', or more accurately 'stayed on target'. I suppose when said target was growing large in the windscreen it would be a straight forward answer, but I've never seen the stripe in a photograph.

Cheers! :ok:

Danny42C

22nd Aug 2016, 12:25

mmitch (#68) and Stanwell (#69),
...A quick Giggle brought up the site of Australian Modellers International...
Not for me it didn't - I got a load of International Harvester trucks ! Tried Australian Modellers Vultee Vengeance International, and got one scratty pic of a VV.

I suspect that all roads will lead back to Dick Simpson's marvellous pics of the Narellan (Camden Museum) Vengeance, and we know those well enough. But a high quality pic of the Camden panel now - that would be something to see.

I reckon that the panel in EZ999 started life quite normally in a Mk.I. Then the engineering students at the Tech College got hold of it and God knows what they did with it. I suspect that any Flight instruments (useful to a home builder) would be looted and replaced with any old clock they could find to fill the hole (this would account for the double ball in the DI, which never was in any Mk.I, to my certain knowledge: we had a plain old DI).

(The Museum was a whole load of help, dresssing the thing up as a Mk.IV with that thundering great cannon in the back, and throwing everyone off the scent).

I suspect that what is in the front room of the Camden VV is a 'bitsa', unlike any VV living or dead.
...There's also a pic of Danny himself pedalling his own machine...
Dear old FB986, never gave any trouble, had been "M" for Mother on some squadron, but as a Mk.III would not have seen combat (none of them did). Taken over the foothills of the Western Ghats south of Cannanore. We sprayed mustard on volunteer squaddies to see if their Gas Capes were any good (not much, IIRC). Chopped up at Nagpur in the end.

Finally we cleaned 'em out (I hope) and sprayed DDT on some unsuspecting Indian villages to reduce incidence of malaria. Worked, too - until they found that DDT was toxic. Ah, well.

Danny.