Wg Cdr Arthur Gill, OBE, DFC
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Oh, excellent, NigG ... thanks for your efforts there.
I tentatively post before Danny42C, but I can't help noticing several references to large formations (21, 24, 24, 36). I wait his input with interest.
My eye was also caught by:
"P/O Gabrielson thrown out of aircraft ‘U’ " (I assume from the rear cockpit?)
"... ordered F/O Ellis, gunner, to standby to bale-out."
Given the minimalist armament in the back of the VV, this seems an expensive way of manning it. Would Danny42C elaborate on that aspect, please?
I tentatively post before Danny42C, but I can't help noticing several references to large formations (21, 24, 24, 36). I wait his input with interest.
My eye was also caught by:
"P/O Gabrielson thrown out of aircraft ‘U’ " (I assume from the rear cockpit?)
"... ordered F/O Ellis, gunner, to standby to bale-out."
Given the minimalist armament in the back of the VV, this seems an expensive way of manning it. Would Danny42C elaborate on that aspect, please?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Talk of Many Things.
NigG (your #80),
Thank you for the very interesting extracts from your late Father's Logbook, and your comments on them. Of course this generates still more questions and so ad infinitum..... - but that is the nature of the "crewroom natter" which is the essence of PPRuNe.
So, I start with:
But he was certainly still behind in Madhaiganj (Bengal) ! Perhaps there was some very urgent business that had to be wrapped up before he followed them down to Ceylon. We shall never know now (unless it's in the Squadron ORB). Otherwise one of the countless unsolved mysteries of war !
We-ll no, not really. It is very quiet now and has slipped into the Slough of Despond (aka Page 2 of "Military Aircrew"), and there is only one stalwart (Walter603) keeping the flag aloft at the moment.
Would be a lot easier if PPRuNe's "Search" facility worked ! Time again it says "sorry, no match" (or words to that effect), I try Google with the same cue words and it does the business, so much so that it's now my first port of call.
No ! No need ! If you choose to Post on one Thread - or several at a time - you have brought on your own head the task of sorting out the replies you get.
IMHO, 3 hours is pushing it, and frankly, 3.5 hours is "not on". The sum is simlple: with full bomb load, in formation, and climbing to your target on the way out, you cannot hope for better than 65 (US) galls/hr overall. You have 220 galls (US) on board....Certainly they must have refuelled somewhere on the way home. I never clocked more than 2hrs 20 on any one flight, and any total time over 3 hrs involved a refuel.
It looks as if my doubts over "12 in hand" were not valid ! Perhaps it was a combined effort with 110 - six from each. Strafed with front guns ? Our early experiences on 110 with the front 0.300 US Brownings were dire: they were so unreliable as not to be worth bothering with. (Don't remember ours having ever been harmonised). I only used them once, in the last few moments of a dive on Akyab (yes, after the chap ahead had pulled away !), merely in the hope making any flak gunners keep their heads down rather than on any particular target. Got a bollocking for it as (a) the chances of hitting anything were remote and (b) the Armourers would now have to clean the four guns, they had enough to do, and that was a job they could do without !
The rear (UK) 0.303s were much better: the back seat men loosed off at any opportinity Jap target when we were coming back low over Jap-occupied Burma.
Setting aside the "24 VVs", which would imply a maximum effort from both Squadrons (or did 7 [IAF] Squadron lend a hand from nearby Uderbund ?); this illustrates the Vengeance doing the job it might have been designed for. Any surviving Jap would be so stunned by noise and blast after the arrival of 96 bombs (some 16 tons of HE), that he would be incapable of putting up much resistance to a Gurkha !
How true ! I should think we all felt that. Of course we were young and impressionable then, but even so those days, often dangerous, sometimes boring and uncomfortable , but always with a sense of purpose, were the high point of many lives. I always thought of my five war years as being the university to which I could never otherwise have aspired.
Too long, already - will continue later,
Danny.
PS: MPN11 (#81),
Next time, certainly !
Danny.
Thank you for the very interesting extracts from your late Father's Logbook, and your comments on them. Of course this generates still more questions and so ad infinitum..... - but that is the nature of the "crewroom natter" which is the essence of PPRuNe.
So, I start with:
...why it was he signed your log book in late April '43. The Squadron had recently moved down to Ceylon...
...I appreciate you're busy in the 'Pilot's Brevet' Thread...
...the somewhat unwelcome task of needing to trawl through and finding a page reference for me to view...
...Apologies...
...while the long range ones in support of the Chindits were 2.5 to 3.5 hours...
...29 February Bomb attack on Jap village of Metkalet. 12 Vengeances. Highly successful. Strafed target with front and rear guns...
The rear (UK) 0.303s were much better: the back seat men loosed off at any opportinity Jap target when we were coming back low over Jap-occupied Burma.
...15 April AASC target. Led 24 Vengeances on attack on ridge, NE of Imphal. Large number of Japs dug-in. All bombs in target area. [Note adds:] Report from 4 Corps stated that Gurkha troops ‘went-in’ immediately after bombing and occupied the whole area with little opposition. Over 450 dead Japs counted...
...but I think these days of aerial warfare counted for the most remarkable of his life...
Too long, already - will continue later,
Danny.
PS: MPN11 (#81),
...My eye was also caught by:
"P/O Gabrielson thrown out of aircraft ‘U’ " (I assume from the rear cockpit?)
"... ordered F/O Ellis, gunner, to standby to bale-out."
Given the minimalist armament in the back of the VV, this seems an expensive way of manning it. Would Danny42C elaborate on that aspect, please?...
"P/O Gabrielson thrown out of aircraft ‘U’ " (I assume from the rear cockpit?)
"... ordered F/O Ellis, gunner, to standby to bale-out."
Given the minimalist armament in the back of the VV, this seems an expensive way of manning it. Would Danny42C elaborate on that aspect, please?...
Danny.
Last edited by Danny42C; 23rd May 2016 at 13:13. Reason: Spelling !
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Curiouser and curiouser", said Alice.
MPN11,
I think we may be mixing up two entries on NigG's #80 here:
and
As usual, these terse entries beg further questions. In the first place how did Gabrielson come to be "thrown out" ? Not wearing his seat harness ? Incredible !
In the second incident, I would guess the 'smoke' to be a mist (?) of hydraulic oil. Had a problem with the hydraulic plumbing in the cockpit one day, managed to get u/c down at last after some frantic pumping - but everything (inc me) soaked in fluid !
Although extra passengers were carried in the back of VVs from time to time on non-op runs, it was a dangerous business; there was no way of securing them, so they were likely to be injured in the slightest accident; they might (or might not) have parachutes. You would never do it on 'ops'.
And I'd like to take up NigG's
Peter C. Smith "Vengeance !" also has the story (p.123):
Keech "(USA)" - how come ? And here's a dog story again. I simply do not know how this could be done - supposing you wanted to do it at all. How could you secure the animal ? And what about the dive ? The very last thing you would need would be a dog bounding round you while you were trying to concentrate on the dive and pull-out. What did your Boss think of the idea ? And your Flight Commander (he might have you in formation on his wingtip with the pooch licking your face). The mind boggles !
Lots more loose ends, but that will do for the moment,
Danny.
EDIT: FD105 (I've just put it in 'Bold' above) is a Mk.III - th first time I've heard of one on VV ops in Burma - thought all the bombing was done with Is and IIs.
...My eye was also caught by:
"P/O Gabrielson thrown out of aircraft ‘U’ " (I assume from the rear cockpit?)
"... ordered F/O Ellis, gunner, to standby to bale-out."
Given the minimalist armament in the back of the VV, this seems an expensive way of manning it. Would Danny42C elaborate on that aspect, please?...
"P/O Gabrielson thrown out of aircraft ‘U’ " (I assume from the rear cockpit?)
"... ordered F/O Ellis, gunner, to standby to bale-out."
Given the minimalist armament in the back of the VV, this seems an expensive way of manning it. Would Danny42C elaborate on that aspect, please?...
...6 April ‘B’ Flight flew into a very bad storm. P/O Gabrielson thrown out of aircraft ‘U’ and landed safely by parachute. He arrived back after 6 days of walking....
...26 June [Note made about an attack he didn’t fly on:] Vengeance FD 105 had a hydraulic pipe burst when approaching the target at Tamu. PO Finnie, the pilot, ordered F/O Ellis, gunner, to standby to bale-out. But as both cockpits were filled with ‘smoke’, Ellis evidently misunderstood and baled-out...
In the second incident, I would guess the 'smoke' to be a mist (?) of hydraulic oil. Had a problem with the hydraulic plumbing in the cockpit one day, managed to get u/c down at last after some frantic pumping - but everything (inc me) soaked in fluid !
Although extra passengers were carried in the back of VVs from time to time on non-op runs, it was a dangerous business; there was no way of securing them, so they were likely to be injured in the slightest accident; they might (or might not) have parachutes. You would never do it on 'ops'.
And I'd like to take up NigG's
...4 March Another attack on the camp west of Kontha. Direct hits on target area. One aircraft lost. [An additional note adds:] WO Keech (USA) (pilot) and WO Watkins lost when their aircraft exploded during the dive over the target, possibly due to AA fire...
...'Curly' Keech flew on another strike.... Keech's plane never pulled out...both kiled instantly... Watkins had a small black and white mongrel called Snaggles with him, as he did on most missions...
Lots more loose ends, but that will do for the moment,
Danny.
EDIT: FD105 (I've just put it in 'Bold' above) is a Mk.III - th first time I've heard of one on VV ops in Burma - thought all the bombing was done with Is and IIs.
Last edited by Danny42C; 23rd May 2016 at 15:19. Reason: Just noticed !
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Originally Posted by Danny42C
It looks as if my doubts over "12 in hand" were not valid !
But my other question remains ... Plt Off or Fg Off manning the solitary tail gun? As you noted previously, their utility was limited: so why put officers in charge of a solitary 0.5? Were they doubling up as Navigators, to complement the pilots' implicit skills??
Join Date: May 2016
Location: North Wales
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll get back to you on your (very interesting) points. In the mean time, I've just posted on my profile an Album of Arthur's photos from 84 Squadrons' time over Burma, 1944. Just to give a bit of context to his log book entries quoted above. Not as evocative as the footage 'Vultee Vengeance' on youtube.com, but still worthwhile, I hope.
Last edited by NigG; 16th Jun 2016 at 19:09.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mixed Bag.
MPN11 (your #84),
Frankly, yes. All the sorties I flew on 110 were lone sixes, except for the very first (Akyab Jail), where they put six of 82 and six of 110 together, all going to the same place (but as two boxes of six a mile apart - if we had been jumped by 'Oscars', each box would fight its own battle, as it were). All 8 Sqdn trips I flew were just six at a time. Don't think they ever put 12 up.
The make-up of the RAF VV crews was an ad hoc affair dictated by circumstances (cf p.129 #2571 on "Pilot's Brevet"). We pilots had to work with what was there: the ex-Blenheim back-seat men who'd come out in '42 (I don't think there was ever another Nav, Wop/Ag or Ag posted in). The pilots were a mixture of the old Blenheim men who were left in India when the junior ones had gone back to ME with the Blenheims, plus an infusion of brand-new Hurricane and Spitfire pilots, fresh from OTU and green as they come (inc yours truly).
The 0.50 Browning was peculiar to the Mark IV, and we didn't have any of those. All earlier Marks like ours had a twin 0.303 installation and it was pot-luck who came with them - officer or NCO, Nav or Gunner. I was lucky - a Wop/Ag chose me as his pilot ! (Navs were under a bit of a cloud [cf p.132 #2630] - Peter C. Smith tells me this one was KIA later on - so de mortuis nil nisi bonum).
It was all a bit complicated !
Danny.
...perhaps you missed the Balbos?...
...Plt Off or Fg Off manning the solitary tail gun? As you noted previously, their utility was limited: so why put officers in charge of a solitary 0.5? Were they doubling up as Navigators, to complement the pilots' implicit skills??...
The 0.50 Browning was peculiar to the Mark IV, and we didn't have any of those. All earlier Marks like ours had a twin 0.303 installation and it was pot-luck who came with them - officer or NCO, Nav or Gunner. I was lucky - a Wop/Ag chose me as his pilot ! (Navs were under a bit of a cloud [cf p.132 #2630] - Peter C. Smith tells me this one was KIA later on - so de mortuis nil nisi bonum).
It was all a bit complicated !
Danny.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Thanks, Danny42C ... that [sort of] makes sense.
Apologies for the "0.5" error! As I was typing that I had a twinge of doubt, but was too lazy to go and find the forensic thread on the one in Australia!!
Apologies for the "0.5" error! As I was typing that I had a twinge of doubt, but was too lazy to go and find the forensic thread on the one in Australia!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
NigG,
I make no apology for returning to one of my favourite hobby-horses: the feasability of low and medium level bombing (and strafing) with a Vultee Vengeance.
In my working-up period (Jan-Feb and last half April of '43) on 110, I trained intensively, doing nothing but high-level dives.
We went up to Chittagong on 12 May, operated there in the Arakan for about a week, the rains came, and (although we were on hard standing), went back to West Bengal to sit out the monsoon. During that time, there are two training entries in my log (26 and 26 June): "shallow dives" - and for the life of me I cannot remember anything about these. But they were each logged as "3 dives - 1 Shallow dive", which can only mean that the weather was suitable for high-level training but that each time the one low-level was tacked on just to try it.
110 went up to Khumbirgam on 15 October, we operated there until 13 November, when I was "head-hunted" (no option!) by 8 Sqdn IAF (working-up back in Bengal). They moved up to Double Moorings (in the Arakan) on 12 December; I operated with them there on several strips until 24 February '44, when a mishap removed me from the scene. When I came back in July, the Vengeance story (in Burma) was all over.
"So what's all that to do with the price of eggs ?" Only this: that I never did any low-level dive bombing on any of my 'ops', and certainly none in monsoon conditions. I am not an expert witness ! - and what follows is just my personal opinion.
I note that there are frequent references in your late father's obituary and Peter C. Smith's "Vengeance!" to medium and low-level operational dives being done by 84 (and other) Squadrons during the monsoon period (for of course, in the dry season, you would always go in high, as that was what the Vengeance was designed for, and what it did supremely well). I cannot see how low and medium level could safely or effectively be carried out with a VV in a monsoon.
With that enormous nose (exacerbated by the zero angke of incidence) blocking off your forward vision (USAAC pilots rejected the A-31 [their name] out of hand [PCS] on that account), you would have a poor sight of your target (and, more importantly, of obstacles ahead !) Might not matter so much on the coastal plain of the Arakan, but in the hills of Assam round Khumbirgram, a different story, for dodging round things was not the ponderous Vengeance's strong point. Add in low cloud and pouring rain, and it starts to look distinctly "hairy".
For the same reason, estimating the bomb-release point would be very difficult, as you'd lose sight of your target on the round-out much sooner than (say) a Hurricane, and your accuracy would suffer. All in all, "let the cobbler stick to his last" - the VVs to their vertical high-level dives, and leave the medium and low level bombing to the Beaufighter, Hurricane, and the US Kittihawks and Lockheed P.38 Lightnings we had with us out there.
As for using the VV for "strafing", words fail me ! Even apart from the forward visibility problem, why use a VV (with 4 rifle-calibre unreliable guns and a primitive ring-and-bead sight), when you have Hurricane IICs and Beaufighters with 4 x 20mm cannon and proper (reflector) sights to do the job?
Nevertheless I accept what the references say, and jolly good luck to the crews who did it, say I ! And I promise not to say another word about it !
Danny.
I make no apology for returning to one of my favourite hobby-horses: the feasability of low and medium level bombing (and strafing) with a Vultee Vengeance.
In my working-up period (Jan-Feb and last half April of '43) on 110, I trained intensively, doing nothing but high-level dives.
We went up to Chittagong on 12 May, operated there in the Arakan for about a week, the rains came, and (although we were on hard standing), went back to West Bengal to sit out the monsoon. During that time, there are two training entries in my log (26 and 26 June): "shallow dives" - and for the life of me I cannot remember anything about these. But they were each logged as "3 dives - 1 Shallow dive", which can only mean that the weather was suitable for high-level training but that each time the one low-level was tacked on just to try it.
110 went up to Khumbirgam on 15 October, we operated there until 13 November, when I was "head-hunted" (no option!) by 8 Sqdn IAF (working-up back in Bengal). They moved up to Double Moorings (in the Arakan) on 12 December; I operated with them there on several strips until 24 February '44, when a mishap removed me from the scene. When I came back in July, the Vengeance story (in Burma) was all over.
"So what's all that to do with the price of eggs ?" Only this: that I never did any low-level dive bombing on any of my 'ops', and certainly none in monsoon conditions. I am not an expert witness ! - and what follows is just my personal opinion.
I note that there are frequent references in your late father's obituary and Peter C. Smith's "Vengeance!" to medium and low-level operational dives being done by 84 (and other) Squadrons during the monsoon period (for of course, in the dry season, you would always go in high, as that was what the Vengeance was designed for, and what it did supremely well). I cannot see how low and medium level could safely or effectively be carried out with a VV in a monsoon.
With that enormous nose (exacerbated by the zero angke of incidence) blocking off your forward vision (USAAC pilots rejected the A-31 [their name] out of hand [PCS] on that account), you would have a poor sight of your target (and, more importantly, of obstacles ahead !) Might not matter so much on the coastal plain of the Arakan, but in the hills of Assam round Khumbirgram, a different story, for dodging round things was not the ponderous Vengeance's strong point. Add in low cloud and pouring rain, and it starts to look distinctly "hairy".
For the same reason, estimating the bomb-release point would be very difficult, as you'd lose sight of your target on the round-out much sooner than (say) a Hurricane, and your accuracy would suffer. All in all, "let the cobbler stick to his last" - the VVs to their vertical high-level dives, and leave the medium and low level bombing to the Beaufighter, Hurricane, and the US Kittihawks and Lockheed P.38 Lightnings we had with us out there.
As for using the VV for "strafing", words fail me ! Even apart from the forward visibility problem, why use a VV (with 4 rifle-calibre unreliable guns and a primitive ring-and-bead sight), when you have Hurricane IICs and Beaufighters with 4 x 20mm cannon and proper (reflector) sights to do the job?
Nevertheless I accept what the references say, and jolly good luck to the crews who did it, say I ! And I promise not to say another word about it !
Danny.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: North Wales
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny
(Ref your post 82) Re my father signing your log book: he also had jaundice and had a couple of weeks recuperating at Ooty, maybe around April '43 (?)... you weren't there too were you?
Re maximum possible length of operational flights. Arthur records only one mission at 3 hr 25. Four others were 3 hrs or 3.05. They were with a standard bomb-load of 1500lb. As I said previously, they had to be very careful to conserve fuel... throttle right back and gentle climbing. That long one was in a Vengeance III, the others in V.II or V.III. So possibly that was a factor in pushing the distance.
Re the number of aircraft deployed on ops. A quick flick through the log book indicates that during the period 84 Sqn were in the company of other Vengeance sqns (to about late May '44, when the monsoon arrived) a handful of ops were with 6 aircraft, half of the rest were either with 12 (probably 84 Sqn aircraft) and half were with larger formations of up to 36 aircraft. After the monsoon arrived, 84 were operating alone and most of the ops were with 12 aircraft. On some ops, Arthur neglected to note down the number of aircraft.
Ha! Funny that you got a bollocking for firing your forward guns... creating work for the ground crew! The telling-off must have specifically referred to 'wasting ammunition'... otherwise it stretches the imagination a bit far!! Think you might be guilty of making out the reprimand was less justified than it really was?! Though it's slightly in the same vein as Arthur being told-off for shooting down a Jap aircraft... after having exceeded geographical limits. (I thought people were supposed to launch lead at the enemy!)
That's coincidental! You suggest that your 5 war years were the equivalent of gaining a degree. I was thinking precisely the same thing a couple of days ago. The analogy has it's limits of course. Honours degrees don't involve putting your life on the line... and they mostly involve resolving imaginary problems... exercises, projects and so on. You people were dealing with deadly reality in difficult circumstances. That's partly why you are so venerated... you were challenged on behalf of the nation... and you met that challenge with distinction.
(Ref your post 83)
Re Gabrielson being thrown out of his aircraft... 'Scorpion's Sting' elaborates. 'B' Flight flew unwittingly into a cumulo nimbus cloud with it's dangerous up-currents. They were thrown all over the place, Gabrielson ending up suspended on his leash, upside down and half way out of the cockpit. He couldn't get back in and so released the quick-release catch. Happily he had had the foresight to clip his chest parachute to his harness in view of the conditions they were flying in. He landed by parachute in a bamboo thicket. Naga tribesmen (headhunters) found him and took him back to their village. Here he was greeted by a well-armed Ursula Bower, the Naga's 'White Princess'. She was reporting back by radio on Jap movements. He was escorted back to civilisation and thence turned up at Kumbhirigram after 6 days travel, reporting for duty to Arthur, the CO!
Re the death of Keech and Watkins when they blew-up in their dive... I think the dog was Watkins' and he was in the rear, not flying. At a guess, it was a 'lucky mascot' (... that ran out of juice!)... all due respect to the three of them. Also, I don't see my father banning them from carrying the dog, so long as they were happy with their ability to do the job. He was a reasonable (non-domineering) sort of chap and was respected for it, as I understand.
Ref your post 86. Interesting that you went out to India straight from OTU. Arthur was given quite a few of the same when he was reforming 84 Sqn, and took them up in a Harvard to check them over, prior to converting them to the Vengeance. He had been through instructor training at the Central Flying School at the beginning of the war, so he knew what he was about.
MPN11
Ref your post 33. Yes the pilot's crew was a navigator, cum wireless operator, cum air gunner. So he was pulling his weight. Whether he was commissioned or not was neither here nor there. Some heavy bombers had a crew of Sgts and WOs, with a solitary commissioned officer who was merely a gunner, rather than a key player. I think getting a commission had more to do with whether your face fitted, where you went to school, what job you had in civvy street, what your interests were and what school qualifications you had. Also whether your CO thought you suitable for putting forward to the commissioning board: bright enough and sufficiently dependable. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Danny.)
Arthur related that at his commissioning board at the Air ministry, he was interviewed by a panel of 3 officers. He was asked if he went fishing. He replied 'Yes Sir!' To this came the reproach 'So why didn't you join the Navy rather than the Air force?' Arthur laughed and made a quip about trailing a fishing line off the back of a battle ship. He got through. Of course, it's a different procedure today... officer candidates are rigorously tested.
Did you get to see the album of photos?... click on 'NigG'
(Ref your post 82) Re my father signing your log book: he also had jaundice and had a couple of weeks recuperating at Ooty, maybe around April '43 (?)... you weren't there too were you?
Re maximum possible length of operational flights. Arthur records only one mission at 3 hr 25. Four others were 3 hrs or 3.05. They were with a standard bomb-load of 1500lb. As I said previously, they had to be very careful to conserve fuel... throttle right back and gentle climbing. That long one was in a Vengeance III, the others in V.II or V.III. So possibly that was a factor in pushing the distance.
Re the number of aircraft deployed on ops. A quick flick through the log book indicates that during the period 84 Sqn were in the company of other Vengeance sqns (to about late May '44, when the monsoon arrived) a handful of ops were with 6 aircraft, half of the rest were either with 12 (probably 84 Sqn aircraft) and half were with larger formations of up to 36 aircraft. After the monsoon arrived, 84 were operating alone and most of the ops were with 12 aircraft. On some ops, Arthur neglected to note down the number of aircraft.
Ha! Funny that you got a bollocking for firing your forward guns... creating work for the ground crew! The telling-off must have specifically referred to 'wasting ammunition'... otherwise it stretches the imagination a bit far!! Think you might be guilty of making out the reprimand was less justified than it really was?! Though it's slightly in the same vein as Arthur being told-off for shooting down a Jap aircraft... after having exceeded geographical limits. (I thought people were supposed to launch lead at the enemy!)
That's coincidental! You suggest that your 5 war years were the equivalent of gaining a degree. I was thinking precisely the same thing a couple of days ago. The analogy has it's limits of course. Honours degrees don't involve putting your life on the line... and they mostly involve resolving imaginary problems... exercises, projects and so on. You people were dealing with deadly reality in difficult circumstances. That's partly why you are so venerated... you were challenged on behalf of the nation... and you met that challenge with distinction.
(Ref your post 83)
Re Gabrielson being thrown out of his aircraft... 'Scorpion's Sting' elaborates. 'B' Flight flew unwittingly into a cumulo nimbus cloud with it's dangerous up-currents. They were thrown all over the place, Gabrielson ending up suspended on his leash, upside down and half way out of the cockpit. He couldn't get back in and so released the quick-release catch. Happily he had had the foresight to clip his chest parachute to his harness in view of the conditions they were flying in. He landed by parachute in a bamboo thicket. Naga tribesmen (headhunters) found him and took him back to their village. Here he was greeted by a well-armed Ursula Bower, the Naga's 'White Princess'. She was reporting back by radio on Jap movements. He was escorted back to civilisation and thence turned up at Kumbhirigram after 6 days travel, reporting for duty to Arthur, the CO!
Re the death of Keech and Watkins when they blew-up in their dive... I think the dog was Watkins' and he was in the rear, not flying. At a guess, it was a 'lucky mascot' (... that ran out of juice!)... all due respect to the three of them. Also, I don't see my father banning them from carrying the dog, so long as they were happy with their ability to do the job. He was a reasonable (non-domineering) sort of chap and was respected for it, as I understand.
Ref your post 86. Interesting that you went out to India straight from OTU. Arthur was given quite a few of the same when he was reforming 84 Sqn, and took them up in a Harvard to check them over, prior to converting them to the Vengeance. He had been through instructor training at the Central Flying School at the beginning of the war, so he knew what he was about.
MPN11
Ref your post 33. Yes the pilot's crew was a navigator, cum wireless operator, cum air gunner. So he was pulling his weight. Whether he was commissioned or not was neither here nor there. Some heavy bombers had a crew of Sgts and WOs, with a solitary commissioned officer who was merely a gunner, rather than a key player. I think getting a commission had more to do with whether your face fitted, where you went to school, what job you had in civvy street, what your interests were and what school qualifications you had. Also whether your CO thought you suitable for putting forward to the commissioning board: bright enough and sufficiently dependable. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Danny.)
Arthur related that at his commissioning board at the Air ministry, he was interviewed by a panel of 3 officers. He was asked if he went fishing. He replied 'Yes Sir!' To this came the reproach 'So why didn't you join the Navy rather than the Air force?' Arthur laughed and made a quip about trailing a fishing line off the back of a battle ship. He got through. Of course, it's a different procedure today... officer candidates are rigorously tested.
Did you get to see the album of photos?... click on 'NigG'
Last edited by NigG; 16th Jun 2016 at 19:12.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
@ NigG ... no issue with the crewing issues at all! It just seemed a little unusual in this context, as opposed to the more complex scenario over Germany, in the dark, where the AG's skills were more than a little bit critical!
As to Commissioning Boards, there's a Thread in its own right!!
On my 4th visit to OASC*, the Board Chairman said [looking at a very fat file] "Ah, Mr MPN11, I see you've been here before."
* For a variety of reasons, Air Training Corps, RN and RAF, I must add
As to Commissioning Boards, there's a Thread in its own right!!
On my 4th visit to OASC*, the Board Chairman said [looking at a very fat file] "Ah, Mr MPN11, I see you've been here before."
* For a variety of reasons, Air Training Corps, RN and RAF, I must add
Last edited by MPN11; 25th May 2016 at 07:41.
Guest
Posts: n/a
NigG (your #89),
I am a prize dunce at this IT business (you can teach an old dog new tricks, but not very many, and he is a slow learner). Tried it (more in hope than any expectation). Hallelujah - it worked. Nice pics. Note many of them have been used by P.C.S. in "Vengeance!". Lucky devil to get a Jeep.
So many bells rung and hares started with your Post that will take me ages to do it justice. Leave it for tonight, I think.
Danny.
...Did you get to see the album of photos?... click on 'NigG'...
So many bells rung and hares started with your Post that will take me ages to do it justice. Leave it for tonight, I think.
Danny.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Readers of this forum in 2012 may not recall that I wrote it was not Reg Duncan who had a bomb hung up, with the Vengeance exploding on landing. I did write the names of the unfortunate pilot and navigator (wasn't Paddy). (I deleted my posts.) My father was a navigator with 110 in Burma and flew with Tubby Robinson. I was a friend of Reg Duncan who passed away six years ago, a friend of Rodney Topley's son John Topley who passed a few years ago and remain friends with Reg's navigator Bob Harvey and another navigator, Jim "Jock" Galbraith. I've recently met the daughter of Eric Baldwin who flew some of his ops with Arthur Gill.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: North Wales
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny
Ref your post 88, in which you explain your doubts about the viability of low-level bombing with the Vengeance. I'm not a pilot, let alone ex-Vengeance pilot, so I have to be careful not to be too opinionated. Suffice it to say, that while the size of the Vengeance's nose would undoubtedly obstruct the view of the target if the aircraft was flying straight and level, that wouldn't be the case if it dived directly at it, with a straight run. The yellow sighting line could have been used, much as it was during a vertical dive. The tricky bit, presumably, would be the timing of the pull-out and the timing of bomb release. If the bombs were released too early or too late, they obviously would have fallen short or long. So perhaps that critical timing was what 84 Squadron perfected. Looking at Arthur's log book, he mentions trying out the 'new tactic' low-level dive on 29 June '44... citing direct hits on a bridge. There are then a further ten bombing missions, nine of which are low-level, only one is vertical. The results are described as 'accurate', 'very accurate' or 'excellent'. So it seems they were doing something right. Presumably all conventional low-level dive bombers had the problem of aligning the aircraft with the target and releasing the bombs at the right moment. Admittedly these aircraft didn't have the low angle of incidence that caused the Vengeance to 'hang off it's propeller', so maybe they had more time in which align their sights. But perhaps Arthur picked up some useful ideas from these flyers... if he wasn't already on top of the subject.
Re strafing the target, you suggest that 20mm cannon would have been more effective than .303 ball. That's the old debate, isn't it? Cannon with longer-range and punch, .303 with lots more nasty little bits of metal in the air. I daresay that strafing by Vengeances was pretty satisfying for the pilot and gunner, and there was the hope that some of the rounds would find a worthwhile target. As quoted earlier, Arthur did note in his log book that on one occasion AA fire stopped after he strafed during his bombing dive. I think you mentioned that you also strafed with the intention of suppressing AA fire (but got told-off for it!). Anyway... just some guess-work, on my part... can't resist a good debate!
Savimosh
Must have been interesting to chat to these noble players. Would have been interesting to know if my father knew Eric Baldwin or if they shared common memories. Too late to quiz him now, alas. Baldwin served with 110, presumably.
Ref your post 88, in which you explain your doubts about the viability of low-level bombing with the Vengeance. I'm not a pilot, let alone ex-Vengeance pilot, so I have to be careful not to be too opinionated. Suffice it to say, that while the size of the Vengeance's nose would undoubtedly obstruct the view of the target if the aircraft was flying straight and level, that wouldn't be the case if it dived directly at it, with a straight run. The yellow sighting line could have been used, much as it was during a vertical dive. The tricky bit, presumably, would be the timing of the pull-out and the timing of bomb release. If the bombs were released too early or too late, they obviously would have fallen short or long. So perhaps that critical timing was what 84 Squadron perfected. Looking at Arthur's log book, he mentions trying out the 'new tactic' low-level dive on 29 June '44... citing direct hits on a bridge. There are then a further ten bombing missions, nine of which are low-level, only one is vertical. The results are described as 'accurate', 'very accurate' or 'excellent'. So it seems they were doing something right. Presumably all conventional low-level dive bombers had the problem of aligning the aircraft with the target and releasing the bombs at the right moment. Admittedly these aircraft didn't have the low angle of incidence that caused the Vengeance to 'hang off it's propeller', so maybe they had more time in which align their sights. But perhaps Arthur picked up some useful ideas from these flyers... if he wasn't already on top of the subject.
Re strafing the target, you suggest that 20mm cannon would have been more effective than .303 ball. That's the old debate, isn't it? Cannon with longer-range and punch, .303 with lots more nasty little bits of metal in the air. I daresay that strafing by Vengeances was pretty satisfying for the pilot and gunner, and there was the hope that some of the rounds would find a worthwhile target. As quoted earlier, Arthur did note in his log book that on one occasion AA fire stopped after he strafed during his bombing dive. I think you mentioned that you also strafed with the intention of suppressing AA fire (but got told-off for it!). Anyway... just some guess-work, on my part... can't resist a good debate!
Savimosh
Must have been interesting to chat to these noble players. Would have been interesting to know if my father knew Eric Baldwin or if they shared common memories. Too late to quiz him now, alas. Baldwin served with 110, presumably.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Savimosh01 (your #92),
Yes, I remember your Posts in 2012 about this strange business. You'll remember that I Edited my Post ("Pilot's Brevet" p.134 #2680) with the information that a search of the CWGC showed that there was no war grave in Burma (now Myanmar) in the name of a F/O Reg Duncan (RCAF): bodies would certainly not have been repatriated at that time: it is conclusive that the victim was not Reg. This weird (and inexcusable) rumour did gain currency, though - for it was widely believed at the time.
I flew with F/O Baldwin behind me once on 8.5.43. on a training exercise. Reg Duncan took me (in the back seat) on 5.1.43. for my first 20 minute ride in a VV. Thereafter, I was considered fully trained on type - having on 9.1.43. incautiously put my name to a slip in my logbook reading: "I hereby certify I understand the HYDRAULIC, FUEL and OIL systems of the Vultee Vengeance Aircraft". They took a lot on trust !
Danny.
Yes, I remember your Posts in 2012 about this strange business. You'll remember that I Edited my Post ("Pilot's Brevet" p.134 #2680) with the information that a search of the CWGC showed that there was no war grave in Burma (now Myanmar) in the name of a F/O Reg Duncan (RCAF): bodies would certainly not have been repatriated at that time: it is conclusive that the victim was not Reg. This weird (and inexcusable) rumour did gain currency, though - for it was widely believed at the time.
I flew with F/O Baldwin behind me once on 8.5.43. on a training exercise. Reg Duncan took me (in the back seat) on 5.1.43. for my first 20 minute ride in a VV. Thereafter, I was considered fully trained on type - having on 9.1.43. incautiously put my name to a slip in my logbook reading: "I hereby certify I understand the HYDRAULIC, FUEL and OIL systems of the Vultee Vengeance Aircraft". They took a lot on trust !
Danny.
Guest
Posts: n/a
NigG,
Have been Indisposed for a bit and so off line. Bit of catching up to do.
(your #89),
Jaundice was a common sequel of malaria (he probably got that, too). By coincidence, I got them both in March, 1943. Now "Ooty" (Ootacamund) was a Hill Station in S.India, it would make sense for him to recuperate there on his way down to Ceylon. Flew over the place a few times, but was never there. With malaria and/or jaundice, he would be stuck at Madhaiganj until he was fit to travel, 84 would have had to go with the 2i/c.
Don't know how he did it, There was no extra tankage in a Mark III. "Throttle right back" - it wouldn't climb at all !
Could they have had three Squadrons there together (45, 84 and 110 ?) Possibly. Even so, would have needed a truly maximum effort. After my time there, anyway.
They used to be. Listen to this true story, which I've put in several times on this Forum, and tell me what you think.(Reported by Daily Telegraph 9.1.15):
Am I missing something here ? This was in 2010, and there was a war going on in Afghanistan (as we have 453 good reasons to remember). This is the enemy, and he is making ready to kill you (or some of your comrades) if he can. You are airborne in one of the RAF's most powerful weapons. You have a 27mm cannon. You buzz him off (as I used to shift a flock of goats off my strip before landing). So that he can come back later and try again ? (Better luck next time ?)
Very nice of you to say so, but as the D.Tel. obituarist said a year or so "They were just ordinary men who did extraorinary things". It was just our luck to be around at the time - your generation would have done just as well if the need had arisen.
This puzzles me. On the few occasions I rode in the back seat of a VV, I remenber I had a bucket seat with a pilot's parachute and four-point harness (same as in front). And see Vlad's marvellous bit of film on Chugalug's Post on "Pilot's Brevet", p.129 # 2561. At 0.33, you can clearly see two pilot's chutes going aboard. "Clip his chest parachute" ?
Wonderful story, which I had never heard before. And they gave her only an MBE !!!
But if he had to use his guns, the dog would be just as much a nuisance.
My procedure was a much more relaxed affair (I'm happy to say) !
Danny.
PS: Will have a look at your interesting #93 later.
D.
Have been Indisposed for a bit and so off line. Bit of catching up to do.
(your #89),
...Re my father signing your log book: he also had jaundice and had a couple of weeks recuperating at Ooty, maybe around April '43 (?)... you weren't there too were you?...
...The maximum possible length of operational flights. Arthur records only one mission at 3 hr 25. Four others were 3 hrs or 3.05. They were with a standard bomb-load of 1500lb. As I said previously, they had to be very careful to conserve fuel... throttle right back and gentle climbing. That long one was in a Vengeance III...
...half were with larger formations of up to 36 aircraft...
..(I thought people were supposed to launch lead at the enemy!)..
..."The pair have said that one of their proudest moments to date involved helping to foil a rocket" [RPG ?] "attack on their base at Kandahar airfield in 2010. There was a high threat and the base was expecting an imminent attack after some men were spotted in a nearby ditch, setting up to fire a rocket at their accommodation block. They took the aircraft out to 15 miles from their position in the ditch and came down to low level, approaching at more than 500mph and as close to the Operational Low Flying minimum of 100 feet as possible, passing directly over them before heading into a steep climb. The rocket crew immediately scarpered in a truck and the pair felt they had made a tangible difference to protect their colleagues. The intention is to always use the minimum force required to provide the effect needed by the guys on the ground"...
...That's partly why you are so venerated... you were challenged on behalf of the nation... and you met that challenge with distinction...
...Gabrielson ending up suspended on his leash, upside down and half way out of the cockpit. He couldn't get back in and so released the quick-release catch. Happily he had had the foresight to clip his chest parachute to his harness...
...Here he was greeted by a well-armed Ursula Bower, the Naga's 'White Princess'...
...Re the death of Keech and Watkins when they blew-up in their dive... I think the dog was Watkins' and he was in the rear, not flying...
...He got through. Of course, it's a different procedure today... officer candidates are rigorously tested...
Danny.
PS: Will have a look at your interesting #93 later.
D.
Last edited by Danny42C; 26th May 2016 at 21:16. Reason: Typo
Guest
Posts: n/a
NigG (your #93),
.
Well that's all that counts ! My cavils are purely theoretical, having only tried it a couple of times in early training, and can't remember what happened. And the Vlad You tube Posted by Chugalug clearly shows the IAF doing it (at OTU ?), including a pair in formation with dive brakes out in a 45° dive.
Would still be risky business in hilly country in monsoon conditions !
I'd think that you'd only use cannon on an identified, worth while target. You could spray 0.300 or 0.303 more or less "on spec".
Treat in store. With my Irish ancestry, can "talk the hind leg off a donkey !" (or so I'm told).
Yes, flew with him once when 110 was working up to go forward in early '43.. Must have been on "A" Flight, but cannot put a face to the name.
Danny.
... The results are described as 'accurate', 'very accurate' or 'excellent'. So it seems they were doing something right..
Well that's all that counts ! My cavils are purely theoretical, having only tried it a couple of times in early training, and can't remember what happened. And the Vlad You tube Posted by Chugalug clearly shows the IAF doing it (at OTU ?), including a pair in formation with dive brakes out in a 45° dive.
Would still be risky business in hilly country in monsoon conditions !
...Re strafing the target, you suggest that 20mm cannon would have been more effective than .303 ball. That's the old debate, isn't it? Cannon with longer-range and punch, .303 with lots more nasty little bits of metal in the air...
...... can't resist a good debate!...
...Baldwin served with 110, presumably...
Danny.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: North Wales
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ NigG ... no issue with the crewing issues at all! It just seemed a little unusual in this context, as opposed to the more complex scenario over Germany, in the dark, where the AG's skills were more than a little bit critical!
As to Commissioning Boards, there's a Thread in its own right!!
On my 4th visit to OASC*, the Board Chairman said [looking at a very fat file] "Ah, Mr MPN11, I see you've been here before."
* For a variety of reasons, Air Training Corps, RN and RAF, I must add
As to Commissioning Boards, there's a Thread in its own right!!
On my 4th visit to OASC*, the Board Chairman said [looking at a very fat file] "Ah, Mr MPN11, I see you've been here before."
* For a variety of reasons, Air Training Corps, RN and RAF, I must add
Join Date: May 2016
Location: North Wales
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
NigG ... things got better when he moved on from driving aeroplanes to controlling them ... that's when the brain-cells get some good exercise*
* That's my excuse, anyway!
PS. My father was Royal Artillery (AA) during WW2, so presumably they just shot at anything that moved in their sector (SE UK, a fairly safe war for Daddy)
* That's my excuse, anyway!
PS. My father was Royal Artillery (AA) during WW2, so presumably they just shot at anything that moved in their sector (SE UK, a fairly safe war for Daddy)
Join Date: May 2016
Location: North Wales
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A small technical question about the meaning of 'practicing a forced landing'. Does that mean you cut your engine and then land without power? Also does it imply that the landing will be rough?
The reason I ask is that my father's first log book has just turned up. I had really wanted to get my hands on it, but had supposed it was lost. It logs his early, pre-war flying when he was in the RAF(VR). One of Arthur's stories was that he flew for the cameras in the film 'It's in the Air', starring George Formby, in 1938. I was skeptical, because when he supposedly did it he hadn't yet quite qualified for his 'Wings'. He said that the company that ran the VR flying training asked him to fly for a re-shoot by the camera, as Ealing Studios weren't entirely happy with the first takes, which had been flown by one of the instructors. So it was really interesting to see the log book and check if Arthur was 'shooting a line' or telling the truth.
Hey presto, July '38 he makes a flight in Audax K8334 in which he practices aerobatics, spins, steep turns, climbing turns and a forced landing. Well, I looked at the movie and, sure enough, K8334 features in scenes on the ground and in a very rough landing. The movie script has Formby flying the aircraft without knowing how to fly, so that 'rough landing' is his horrible touch-down after a hair-raising flight all over the sky.
So I'm wondering if a landing featuring a side slip close to the ground, followed by a great bounce back into the air before settling, would be consistent with it being a 'practice forced landing', as recorded in his log book.
In the log book he makes no mention of flying for the cameras... though no where else does he make 'comments' in the margin, except for one forced landing. So it's possible that this was just a practice session, not a movie shoot, as he was just a week away from his final test prior to being awarded his 'Wings'. (Though that final test was in a Hart and this practice was in an Audax.)
The film was launched two months after this flight, which, assuming the studio had a fast 'turn-around' time, fits with Arthur's log book entry. So I'm interested to know if anyone can make a better guess than I can... is it reasonable to assume that this flight was made for the benefit of the movie... or was it just a standard practice flight?
I should add that the aerobatics in the movie is both very skillful and at least some of it is in an aircraft with a different set of lettering, so maybe Ealing Studios decided to use the original footage, that the instructor flew for, but used Arthur's bumpy landing also. Bit of a tricky question... but I'd be interested if anyone has an opinion.
The reason I ask is that my father's first log book has just turned up. I had really wanted to get my hands on it, but had supposed it was lost. It logs his early, pre-war flying when he was in the RAF(VR). One of Arthur's stories was that he flew for the cameras in the film 'It's in the Air', starring George Formby, in 1938. I was skeptical, because when he supposedly did it he hadn't yet quite qualified for his 'Wings'. He said that the company that ran the VR flying training asked him to fly for a re-shoot by the camera, as Ealing Studios weren't entirely happy with the first takes, which had been flown by one of the instructors. So it was really interesting to see the log book and check if Arthur was 'shooting a line' or telling the truth.
Hey presto, July '38 he makes a flight in Audax K8334 in which he practices aerobatics, spins, steep turns, climbing turns and a forced landing. Well, I looked at the movie and, sure enough, K8334 features in scenes on the ground and in a very rough landing. The movie script has Formby flying the aircraft without knowing how to fly, so that 'rough landing' is his horrible touch-down after a hair-raising flight all over the sky.
So I'm wondering if a landing featuring a side slip close to the ground, followed by a great bounce back into the air before settling, would be consistent with it being a 'practice forced landing', as recorded in his log book.
In the log book he makes no mention of flying for the cameras... though no where else does he make 'comments' in the margin, except for one forced landing. So it's possible that this was just a practice session, not a movie shoot, as he was just a week away from his final test prior to being awarded his 'Wings'. (Though that final test was in a Hart and this practice was in an Audax.)
The film was launched two months after this flight, which, assuming the studio had a fast 'turn-around' time, fits with Arthur's log book entry. So I'm interested to know if anyone can make a better guess than I can... is it reasonable to assume that this flight was made for the benefit of the movie... or was it just a standard practice flight?
I should add that the aerobatics in the movie is both very skillful and at least some of it is in an aircraft with a different set of lettering, so maybe Ealing Studios decided to use the original footage, that the instructor flew for, but used Arthur's bumpy landing also. Bit of a tricky question... but I'd be interested if anyone has an opinion.