1945 GB

Bob, that sound's just fine, welcome aboard and hope to see some pics soon.

Brandon, thanks for the info. Do you know if there is a reason those roundels did not have the red centre. My first thought would be to avoid confusion with the Japanese markings, but that's just a guess.

Brandon, I believe that all the commonwealth/Empire nations at that time used the same roundels as the RAF, the more nation specific ones came after the war. But those blue/white roundels do always make me thing Aussie rather than Brit. And ye, I do believe that's the reason the red circle was removed from US aircraft markings.

That's what I've always understood, too--red was removed from USAAF markings because of possible confusion with Japanese insignia.

For a short time in 1943, USAAF used a red outline around its star-and-bar insignia; then quickly discontinued it.

Those are PTO markings. In CBI a light blue center was substituted for the white center on RAF roundels. But yes, red was deleted from national insignia cockades and roundels on Allied aircraft fairly early in the war in the Pacific as one of several theater recognition markings employed.. While the US did re introduce red for a brief period in mid 1943, it was not used much there due to concerns about friendly fire incidents.

Scott van Aiken reviewed this release and claims that it includes a newly modeled lower hull. If the argument is over the correct size and shape of parts, it's of little difference to me. The kit sure looks like Stalin. If there is trouble with the fit and hull, that obviously bad news. We'll see.

I will stand correction, but I don't think that RNZAF flew Spitfires in the Pacific. It took over a year for NZ forces to get seriously involved - their airmen were a major part of RAF bomber command. So they were given aircraft by the USA for PTO. The RNZAF flew in the Solomons and relied on the USN for aircraft. It's true that they initially flew P-40s, but in 1944 these were replaced by Corsairs. The RAAF's strike force was mostly under 5th AF, although under direct RAAF command. So for fighters this meant P-40s in New Guinea. (Australia began to produce P-51s under license - I don't think any served in combat.) The exception was the odd US/RAAF bombing campaign between Darwin and the East Indies. After initially using P-40s, the Brits sent a couple of squadrons or a FG of Spit Vs to Darwin - their pilots included some of the RAAF's best pilots in the Med. Sometime in 43 the defensive side of this campaign was over when Bettys gave up raiding Darwin. The RAAF also set up a training command to raise more Spitfie units - ditto with B-24 crews. Then the US brought in a group of B-24s and began raiding oil facilities in the Indies. I can't recall if the Spitfires were able to escort them all of the way. The Spits would have been brought forward after the seizure of the small but oil rich island near Borneo of Tarakan in March 45, and supported the larger invasion of Balikpapan. (Air organization in this theater is extremely confusing. Some RAAF squadrons were formed in Oz with Spitfires and ended up supporting the tail end of MacArthur's campaign in the PI. Two RAF squadrons were also sent to Darwin - lots of politics there.) In any case Spits never played the role in the PTO as the Med or ETO. The poor range of the Spit really hurt and the crude operating conditions favored more rugged US makes. When the RN brought a fleet to aid in the attack on Japan in 1945, it's CVs were flying Corsairs and Hellcats. That said, WWII was fought on industrial scale and there were several Spitfire aces in the PTO. Both Aussie and NZ officers thought there should have been more. But the limiting factor in the PTO was always shipping and supply. After late 43 MacArthur steadily put Aussies in defensive positions because bringing an Ossie unit to the PI would have meant leaving an American unit behind. No sane general seeks major allies if they aren't needed. The same was true with Admiral King who treated RN efforts near Japan with coldness. The Anglo-US alliance was the most successful in military history- yet it's wrong to forget the myriad of disputes - petty and important- that divided the two, often breaking into the front pages. After all FDR had made it quite clear to the UK that the US was not fighting WWII to preserve the British Empire. Churchill strongly disagreed as one can imagine.

Eric    

I am not up to speed on the differences between RAAF and RNZAF roundels in the PTO off the top of my head, but didn't the RNZAF roundels there have the side bars like the US forces after late 1943, while the RAAF did not?

I know that the Spit in question here is fairly well known as is its' pilot. At least in modeling circles as I have seen those markings for the past 20+ years on one kit or decal sheet or another.

BrandonD, that Spit looks super

roundel roundup ...

The red center was indeed removed to avoid confusion with the Japanese HINOMARU.  This change occurred in 1942.  By mid 1942, the white center was replaced with light blue.  

The markings also could be found reduced to half their size as the centers were too prominant for aircraft parked on the ground.   Another option was to fill in even more of the white:

The bars ere not specific to just the RNZAF.  These were left over from lend leased US marked planes, and FAA would add them to their own British made aircraft (such as the Seafire) just for uniformity sake.

  New Zealand did have their own twist to their roundel by still retaining a thin white circle outline over the blue.

... and some really detailed explanations:

regards,

Jack

Amazing what info pops up on here. Thanks guys, really informative.

One clarification to the info above. The Red Bordered US insignia was only in effect for about 2-3 months. It was Authorized in June 29 1943 and discontinued in August 14 1943 when it was replaced with the Insignia Blue border on the "sidebars". Red would not re appear on US national insignia until 1947 when the red bar in the center of the sidebars of the cockades was added, and is still in use today on full color markings on US aircraft.

I had forgotten about FAA aircraft having the white sidebars added to the roundels in the PTO.

Ahhh the joys of marking regulations...

Jack,

Do you know where the NZ Spit was flying? I see the NMS B-24s so it couldn't have been early.  I know that in 44 the OZ and NZ combined their forces under under the redoubtable General Bostock. Most of the airwar was to support the strange and arguably pointless campaign against Rabaul and environs - which were worthless to the Japanese. But the operations against the Borneo area beginning in March 45 gave Bostock the command of a major force, including many US units from FEAF. What I don't know is when the RNZAF started flying Spits at all. Corsairs were a much better PTO fighter because it had superior range which could keep someone alive who got lost in the unpredictable weather there. (By late war Japanese fighter presence would have been minimal, so combat capabilities wouldn't have meant much.) Wonder if OZ gave them Spits that were being supported by the in-house Spit-B24 training program in Oz. Do enlighten if you can.

Eric

Hi Eric,

I think your write up is very correct and complete - thank you for those, they are both good and informative reads.  I've found exactly as you have stated, New Zealand did not have any units equipped with Spitfires in the Pacific theater, but did have one (485 Sqn) based in Europe under RAF command.

The Seafire photo I've posted is linked to the web site where it was discovered.  Caption description gives it as a FAA aircraft taxiing at an American B-24 base somewhere in the Far East.  It further adds it was found on someones' flickr account.

Clearly can be seen is the 'Royal Navy' stenciling and a serial number.  It is odd though there is no fuselage or tail plane codes visible - perhaps a replacement working up before transfer to a carrier?

regards,

Jack

After finishing up my ARVN 113 on Wednesday, I resumed work on my SU-76 yesterday. Last night I did step 3, the fighting compartment. This morning I did step 4, the suspension/running gear, and step 6, gun cradle and breech. I skipped step 5, the tracks until later, most likely tomorrow. This is actually a simple build for the most part. I will get some photos posted later today.

if there is no proof, it didn't happen. So....

step 3 fighting compartment, and rear plates

I also glued the engine deck from step 2 in place after adding a strip styrene shim in place to close a gap there

step 4, the running gear. I left the sprockets loose until I do the indy link tracks.

after skipping step 5, the tracks, I proceeded to 6, the gun cradle and breech

step 7 was completing the gun, including the muzzle brake, recuperator assembly armor, mantlet, casemate armor, and final breech details...

I also added some strip styrene to hide the nasty assembly seam in the gun cradle

Step 8 was assembling the fighting compartment armor sidewalls

the I did part of step 9 where I glued the front and side armor pieces together. I left that assembly, and the gun itself unattached to the hull to make it easier to paint the interior of the fighting compartment, but I put it all together for a couple of shots to show where it is now in assembly

And that's all for today on this project. I have IPMS meeting this evening so no more work here for me... 

That's looking good Stik. But how the hell can you paint al that interior with it assembled.

Thanks Bish. That's why I left the gun and upper armor unattached to the hull for now. It's 95% green in there, but otherwise painting those rounds will be a real beast... But overall this is going together a LOT easier than I though it would. It still looks and feels clunky to me, but looks the part.

Nice, crisp assembly work, stik.

And, yeah--what Bish said!

Thanks guys. This is a fun project so far. A bit of a throwback build for me to just start and go instead of research and plan and research some more...

Stikpusher - that's really building up nicely. I like how that's possible with armor kits, and even some aircraft. Other aircraft... well...

It's fun to get a peek at the final dimensions and whatnot.

-BD-

Excellent work everyone,  Bish I would like to enter in two armor models. 

Tamiya's 1/35 M4A3E8 Easy Eight.

And Academy 1/35 Hetzer.

The Sherman comes with markings for 1945, the ones for the Hezter have no date.  Not sure when I'll start these.

Could it be a recon plane? I'm not sure what color the RNZAF painted their Corsairs, but I know blue was used for recon in the ETO.

Stik - like the looks of the 76. I called it a Russian Marder and if you would showed me the kit without warning I would have guessed a Marder. Lethal looking thing.

I have the Tamiya Hetzer and have heard the Academy is a nice build. Very important vehicle. I'd guess that in September-October and then after the failure of the Bulge attack the Hetzer would have thick as fleas (to the extent that was possible for German industry) on the Western Front using ambush to slow allied advance to the Rhine. Actually they and other German armor did a pretty good job. Ugly time of the war.

Eric

IIRC, after the Bulge offensive was called off, and Nordwind in the Colmar area fizzling out, the bulk of German armor was sent east to deal with the Soviets in East Prussia and Hungary. While there were still armored units left in the west, they were under equipped and few in number. The cautious Western Allied advance to the Rhine had as much to with having to re equip & re staff units after the Bulge, as well as a desire to finally have the advance on a broad front instead of a spearhead here and a spearhead there as during the late summer and fall offensives of 1944, or any German delaying actions. March would finally see the Western Allies reach and the cross the Rhine, while in April they dashed headlong across Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Regarding the SU-76, I think the Soviets may have been influenced by the Marder designs, but the SU has a lower silhouette and a better armor layout in my view. It was primarily an infantry fire support weapon, with a secondary anti tank capability, something of a role reversal compared to the Marders.

Hi gents,

Here's the latest on the Indy. I will be able to get  a bit done this weekend, but I just wanted to post an update. I will install the superstructures, rigging and railing next.

Steve

I'm sure you're right about the bulk of German armor being sent East (amazing how many armor chips Hitler threw into Ardennes/Nordwind:) - even Hitler could that a redeployment to the East was essential. But I don't think the West was stripped of armor (think what that would have done to the morale of the shaky German infantry there.). It was obviously important to keep the allies away from the Rhine if anything in the East could be done. Hetzers (or JP 38s - a new bit of Wiki trivia) were assigned to anti-tank battalions of infantry divisions. There were about 4000 made, most after August 44 until VE Day. Well employed that would have caused tactical headaches for the allies. That's all German forces could do anywhere - German doom was obvious to everyone minus Hitler and a few of his minions. I know for a fact allies encountered German armor in the Ruhr pocket - heaven knows where the fuel came from. And in early 45 Hitler actually attempted offensive operations (Hungary) and counter-attacks like the attack on the Soviet northern flank in early February. If there was a problem with Stugs or JPs of any kind it was the very serious disadvantage for a vehicle without a turret when attacking. I'd guess that there were several hundred Hetzers in the West - a minority but enough to cause trouble. You're right that the allies were getting their house in order (Monty's fans still claim he was right in not wanting to push the Germans out of the bulge and the "offensive stage" of the Ardennes in January was even more violent than December for many allied units.) The Final Report on Casualties in US Army and USAAF in WWII (a complex document but available at ibiblio.org/.../index.html reports that US combat deaths in the ETO were 12,200 in January, 8,200 in February, 12,000 in March and 9,000 in April - all numbers are quite close to those after July in 1944. But in 1945 US forces were fighting much weakened German units. The battle for the Rhine was a violent affair and the Germans made it so. With improved US armor flooding into the front, I can't see how German infantry on their own could have caused so much pain.

Panzerfausts and Panzerschreks. Each was capable of knocking out most any Western Allied tank. In defensive warfare at close quarters in favorable terrain, handheld anti tank weapons are exceptionally efficient. I will have to look up the numbers, but the Western Front was quite denuded of German armor in Spring 1945 when compared to available forces in the East. A weak rifle company with handheld AT weapons well deployed could take a fearsome toll on an assaulting tank unit. Repeat at the next village down the road and the casualties climb. Yes, there were some amounts of German armor caught in the Ruhr pocket, but those were more of an exception than the rule.

An example of extra protection from hand held anti tank devices, captioned as April 24 1945 in the vicinity of Dingstede, Germany:

I've another photo in a book, but can't find on the net, also a Fort Garry Horse Sherman similarly attired and also has logs fastened vertically around the turret sides.  Dated April 25 1945, location Oldenburg Germany.

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

Anyhow, back to the Pacific theater ...

For the most part, NZ Corsairs appear to have retained  their  American paint scheme as delivered.

Doing some digging and asking around, I've some definitive info on the Seafire posted on the previous page.  Located at Clark Field Philippines, Seafires (serials NN610 and NN611) were doing performance tests with a captured Ki-84 during June and July 1945.

http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p083.html

http://www.j-aircraft.com/faq/ki84.htm

regards,

Jack

Commendable progress on Indianapolis, Steve.  Looks good!