wunwinglow Posted May 3, 2006 Author Share Posted May 3, 2006 I'll tell you what is involved the day afte tomorrow! Must remember to pick up my green tights, pointy boots and feathered hat though; I don't want to look like a beginner! Found that link! http://www.saint-aignan-de-cramesnil.com/scripts/fr/phototheque/1944_liberation_Saint_Aignan/1944_liberation_saint_aignan.htm Tim P (wunwinglow) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Originally posted by wunwinglow: I'll tell you what is involved the day afte tomorrow! Must remember to pick up my green tights, pointy boots and feathered hat though; I don't want to look like a beginner! Found that link! Tim P (wunwinglow) Oh yeah, you wouldn't want to look stupid . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Originally posted by junk2drive: I think I learned to string the bow, place the arrow, pull back, get your nose out of the way, in about ten minutes. After that it is just practice. My nose isnt' that big - I had to learn to get my arm holding the bow out of the way of the string - can get some nasty rope burns on the inside of your forearm otherwise. Or you can wear an arm guard of course 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunwinglow Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 Archery report; Loved it! 24 of us tyros managed to only lose 3 arrows between us all evening, and after 2 hours I was getting them all on the target. No-where near as painful as the last target shooting I did, which was with a No 4 Lee Enfield. But I think it will be a while before I can get as good a group with the bow; especially at 300 yards. www.clevearchers.co.uk Back to the battle, map rebuilt and extended, starting to repopulate it with troops. Back soon... Tim P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Wunwinglow, nice map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunwinglow Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 Series Bleue 1613O turned up in the post today, my copy of No Holding Back is being read from cover to cover, and the Scenario Editor is up and running on my PC! Version two of the map out shortly... Thanks Aragorn, for the kind word, by the way! Much appreciated. Wun 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DesertFox Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Originally posted by wunwinglow: Series Bleue 1613O turned up in the post today, my copy of No Holding Back is being read from cover to cover, and the Scenario Editor is up and running on my PC! Version two of the map out shortly... Thanks Aragorn, for the kind word, by the way! Much appreciated. Wun Look closely how the elevation lines differ from the map in Reid´s book and overlay these with the aerial pic you posted. After translating all of this, you end up with a map close to mine and then things start to get interesting. Good luck. cheers Helge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 He was killed by Canadian Fireflies; 'No Holding Back, Operation Totalize, Normandy, August 1944' by Brian A. Reid.' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Originally posted by wunwinglow: There is even what appears to be a Spitfire, in, or above, a field just to the right of the main road; west, in otherwords. South is to the top. Look at the light, diagonal field, level with the middle Tiger diamond. Spitfire?......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Yeah, looks like a Spit to me, although I can't tell whether it is on the ground or a little above it. Scaling from the tank tracks I'd be tempted to say above, but not a lot. Also, there isn't a plow line behind the a/c, which I would have expected if it had spudded in but stayed that intact. Staggering amount of arty impact craters in that pic ... sucks to be a grunt, I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Did a quick (and rough) comparison of the Spitfires 36ft width with a Shermans 9ft and you can get the width of the tank tracks 7 times in that 'Spitfires' wing span rather than x4. Clearly it is in flight above the ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Originally posted by JonS: Staggering amount of arty impact craters in that pic ... sucks to be a grunt, I guess. Look at the other side of the road (N158). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Sorry, yes, I meant the whole pic wrt the arty comment, not just the cropped bit around the Spit. Hmm. Was this area one of the impact zones for the RAF the previous night? Off the top of my head I'm thinking not - I thought they (the RAF impact zones) were all further north. Your calc for the track width vs wing span confirms what I'd estimated by eye - ie, the Spit is in flight. Bear in mind that the a/c appears to be banking to port, which would make it's apparent wing span shorter than actual, giving a higher actual height. Then again, that could just be a trick of the lighting which - to my untrained eye - seems to be low-ish in the east (late afternoon/near sunset)? Perhaps a/c length might be a more reliable indicator/comparator? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Answering my own question Originally posted by JonS: Was this area one of the impact zones for the RAF the previous night? Off the top of my head I'm thinking not - I thought they (the RAF impact zones) were all further north.No it wasn't, yes they were all further north (map p173, "No Holding Back"). However, it is smack dab in the middle of the barrage fired to support the night advance (map p178, "NHB"), which owuld explain the generally even distribution of craters, including across all the open fields. By the by, the map on p416 of "NHB" notes that it was drawn with partial reference to an "RAF aerial photo showing knocked out Tigers". I wonder if that is the photo that we are discussing here. That'd be kinda cool 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Gentlemen, I must respectfully disagree with your aircraft ID. I think it's a P-47, not a Spitfire. Here's why. 1. Wings are too stubby for a Spitfire; not long enough relative to fuselage length. Spot on, though, for a Thunderbolt. 2. Chord is too shallow for a Spitfire, but right for a Thunderbolt. 3. Nose is too short for a Spitfire and not pointed. Thunderbolt has short squared off nose (giant radial engine) and no pointed prop hub, exactly what's visible in the picture. 4. Fuselage is way too chunky and barrel like to be a Spitfire's slim, graceful frame. It's just what I'd expect to see, though, for a Thunderbolt and is what I first noticed as being not right for a Spitfire when peering at the photo. It nagged at me so badly that I broke out my AIRCRAFT OF WORLD WAR II by Gunston, in which I found the all-important overhead views which allowed me to look at proportions, assess chords, examine wing shapes and relative spans, etc. After that drill, I see no way in which, even with significant glint from what looks like a polished aluminum fuselage, that the plane shown could be a Spitfire. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 What would a lone 'bolt be doing at that altitude deep inside 21st AG's AOP, over a battle already fough out? Granted, I know the USAF and RAF both flew over each other's zones when needed - the Typhoons over Mortain being a good example - but the pic does not suggest it is a bombing run by a 'bolt. What the pic does suggest is a low level photo run by a spit, which IIRC was used for aerial recon. Aerial recon grog - was it common practice for photo runs to employ two planes, one high and one low? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bannon DC Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 So, what about this scenario? It still looks like a work in progress unless the latest version is not at the original link. Map looks good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 On the plane - Hawker Tempest, I'd guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Originally posted by JasonC: On the plane - Hawker Tempest, I'd guess. Naah. Ridgeback Merlin Spit. Nothing else in the world has wings that shape. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 The debate continues! Would someone with a scanner or other suitable means please post overhead views of the current contenders that we might view them side by side? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Who cares what you think JK? You see panzers on Mars, and what ever else you want to see, so I think we can happily discount whatever you have to say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 JonS, Whether I do or don't is immaterial to this discussion, for that is a separate discussion, drawing on an entirely different set of data. If you can't grok that simple concept, perhaps we should instead ignore you! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 No John. The simple fact is that you see whatever you want to see. You have demonstrated that behaviour time after time after time, on all sorts of subjects. That makes your "analysis" on any subject thoroughly unreliable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Tempests had eliptical wings - the short chord at the wingtip supports a Tempest rather than a cliped wing Spit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Nice site SO. Look at the tailplane. The leading edge is well forward of the rudder. That rules out the P-47, adn probably the Tempest. It could be the Typhoon, except the flare-out at the front base of the rudder is wrong, and there is the ridgeback (which rules out the Tempest again). Which leaves ... the Spitfire. Also, the main wing outer leading edge has a distinct rear curve, absent on the Typhoon, Tempest*, and P-47, which leaves ... the Spitfire. *Although the Tempest does have a rear taper which could be what's shown, but the Tempest is ruled out by the rudder-tailplane and the ridgeback. [ March 25, 2007, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.