American Hurricanes?

Malcom,

While I cannot cite my references right now, I, like James, had heard that they were because of the Vichy forces, not your theory – not that your theory wouldn’t make sense.

Ryan

Further to my last post and nothing to do with Hurricanes, M’lud, I would cite as further evidence to support my argument regarding the star on Torch aircraft as being applied simply to aid minimally trained allies identify friendly aircraft the instance of Seafires and other British carrier naval aircraft operating in the Pacific which carried a marking of a blue and white roundel, with, and I draw the jury’s particular attention to this feature, bars of the type applied to American markings.

These were not overpainted original US markings but British applied markings – the bar provided an added recognition aid. As further evidence, albeit a little tangential M’lud, bars were not applied to the special roundels used on British aircraft in the Indian Ocean where the US presence was minimal.

And if I might crave the indulgence of court once more M’lud, I introduce into evidence the example of the markings carried by Royal New Zealand Air Force aircraft operating in the Pacific which also carried the added bar, even in roundel positions which were not present on US aircraft, such as above the starboard wing and below the port wing. From 1943 onwards US aircraft carried no national markings in those positions.

It’s a shame the Allies couldn’t have come up with a way to confuse the Vichy into shooting themselves down. More traitorous French weasels in the dirt would have been better for us all. 🙂

– for which you’ve provided no evidence. Nice essay, but without data, it’s just a(nother) theory.

Well I can’t help that it is more logical than the argument that it was to appease the Vichy French, which I might add until I read your post I had never heard of in regard to the American star marking 😀 , whereas I equally have long been aware that the reason was to prevent confusion in the American naval and air forces who really had received very sketchy training in matters concerning the actual existence of British aircraft whose insignia bore at a distance a very distressing resemblance to the Vichy marking.

And also we must remember that the British pilots may have been confused by the Vichy roundel as well bearing in mind its similarities to their own, thus allowing enemy aircraft to approach much closer than was desirable. Marking Allied aircraft with a star instead of a roundel makes good sense for the British as well in that campaign.

However in the spirit of magnaminity, as we don’t want a silly dispute, I will be quite happy to accept your argument if you can come up with the evidence that it was to placate the Vichy forces. After all these events happened well over 60 years ago and Vichy is rightly consigned to the dustbin of history.

This I did not know. Tell us more please.

I’m trying to avoid looking things up. 😉

www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-ADFA/uploads/approved/adt-ADFA20031029.102545/public/09chapter8.pdf

Page 227 (first page of pdf) paragraph two. (Page 230, end of the second para shows it wasn’t all one way.)

… as shown by the Gladiator ‘kill’ of a Walrus in the Med

This I did not know. Tell us more please.

Moggy

In fact it is the only logical explanation –

– for which you’ve provided no evidence. Nice essay, but without data, it’s just a(nother) theory.

As I said before, I’d be interested in anyone proving either explanation with facts, one way or another. We can advance ‘only logical explanations’ with lumps of extraneous data all day.

I’ve an open mind, despite Malcom’s carefully constructed theory, it’s not one I’ve seen widely advanced before, while I have read the moderating Vichy reaction theory multiple places. That doesn’t make it right, and even if there’s evidence of contemporary public statements of such an explanation that doesn’t make it the real/true/main reason. Real history rather than 60+ year later logical constructs is slippery stuff, only worth weight when anchored by facts.

Oh, and the ‘experienced’ RAF/RN were quite as capable of trying to down their own aircraft, as shown by the Gladiator ‘kill’ of a Walrus in the Med – hence my lack of interest in the ‘Americans were hopeless at ident’ theory.

Evidence welcome.

Red-white-blue vs Blue-white-red?

I also have always assumed that the decision to put US stars on RN aircraft during Torch was to defray Vichy French liklihood of fiercer resistance to British aircraft following Mers El Kebir and Syria.

Malcolm’s suggestion does make good logical sense, in that with US and British/Commonwealth forces co-operating for the first time on such a scale of numbers, the similarities between the British red-white-blue roundels and the Vichy blue-white-red roundels may have been confused in the heat of battle, and friendly fire incidents the result. Putting US stars on the RN aircraft would have avoided the initial confusion by having none the “Allied” aircraft over the beachhead wearing roundels.

Weren’t a couple of RAF-roundel painted ASW Hudsons attacked or shot-down by USN Wildcats during the initial landings?

…geoff

Inexperienced they may have been but I’d not heard the explanation you’re putting forward, before.

In fact it is the only logical explanation – the Vichy French may have been many things but completely stupid was not one of them so attacking them under an American flag of convenience would not in any fashion deter them from shooting back. The Vichy Governnment was an ally of Germany, and was a very pro-fascist and pro-Axis government (they had no qualms about reaching accommodations with the Japanese) whose political outlook was firmly rooted in the pre-war anti-communist and anti-socialist elements of French politics. Germany had declared war on America so if American marked aircraft attacked them they would logically respond in the same fashion as they would have against British marked aircraft.

Simply put the US marking was adopted to prevent US friendly fire – the subsequent events in Nth. Africa after the Torch invasion (Kasserine Pass etc.) demonstrate how poorly trained and prepared, although brave, the US forces were. Eisenhower came perilously close to losing his military career during that fighting. One should not expect that their anti-aircraft gunners were any better prepared. After all their previous military experience had been the annual Louisiana war games.

However as events showed both the US and Royal navies maintained their traditions of shooting at any aircraft that came near them regardless of nationality. This did complicate matters even more. There was a multi-sided war being fought. The Americans and British against the Vichy French and Germans, and the US Navy and the Royal Navy against the Vichy French and Germans as well as against all aircraft regardless of nationality. This private naval anti-aircraft war had begun at Dunkirk, continued through every European battle and culminated at Normandy. I suspect that the Navy had never ever forgiven the British government for taking the RNAS away from it and their US brothers-in-arms were stoughtly supporting the tradition to show solidarity. 😀

I don’t see why they should feel that way, the RN gave the French fleet the option of sailing under escort to safe ports and fighting under the Free French banner and they refused…..:rolleyes:

I don’t see why the British wanted to fight on as Hitler offered terms and would have allowed them to keep most of the empire… :rolleyes:

Wars are nasty – while Oran was necessary, alternatives were not easy to achieve, or acceptable – although one was, elsewhere with the French fleet.

While the Vichy regime was reprehensible, bear in mind it was the legitimate French government of the time – while the Free French were (then) an un-coordinated rabble who’d refused their country’s orders.

Hindsight makes these decisions easy. Thankfully most of us don’t have to choose between conscience and orders.

Link here for 71 sqn flying Hurris

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/71.html

includes a glowing testimony about the Spitfires handling qualities by pilot Bill Dunn(would have been useful during the recent spitfire /wing thread :D)

cheers baz

What I read regarding the Hurricane specifically said American units were equipped with the type for a brief period before American warplanes could be supplied (presumably P-40’s?). No mention was made of the Eagle squadrons, which I’ve heard of, or of British Hurricanes wearing American markings.

Is it possible then that any American fighter squadron ever operated the Hurricane in the manner that some used the Spitfire and other types?

I’ve not seen anything in all the various books on the Hurricane to support that. Only use was by the RAF Eagle sqns from what I can see.
It may be that might have been an intention, but that it never came to fruition as supply of P-38’s and P-47’s to US forces in the ETO and MTO was fairly swift.

Some interesting information both about the USAAF markings and the Vichy French (the weasels they were….).

What I read regarding the Hurricane specifically said American units were equipped with the type for a brief period before American warplanes could be supplied (presumably P-40’s?). No mention was made of the Eagle squadrons, which I’ve heard of, or of British Hurricanes wearing American markings.

Is it possible then that any American fighter squadron ever operated the Hurricane in the manner that some used the Spitfire and other types?

Phantom II – I found this: AMERICAN EAGLES: American Volunteers in the RAF 1937-1943 – USAAF Colours 1 – very handy with lots of information on the Eagles’ early history, especially their use of Hurricanes.

Tom

But they didn’t have a MacDonalds to burn down in those days!!!!

The destruction of the French Fleet at Oran was one issue. Many Free French felt quite strongly about that as well.

I don’t see why they should feel that way, the RN gave the French fleet the option of sailing under escort to safe ports and fighting under the Free French banner and they refused…..:rolleyes:

The resistance invariably got a lot more numerous shortly after the Germans left an area.

The true heroes of the resistance deserved better.

Moggy

That and lots of French people were happy to collaborate with the Germans under Vichy, the Resistance was never as strong as de Gaulle made out post-war

Sorry to take this off the topic but why did the Vichy French particularly hate the British so much?

The destruction of the French Fleet at Oran was one issue. Many Free French felt quite strongly about that as well. The British also fought the French when they occupied Syria in 1941 (Our Enemies The French, Anthony Mockler) and of course the invasion of Madagascar.

Sorry to take this off the topic but why did the Vichy French particularly hate the British so much?

Also what did the Vichy French actually fly against these Hurricanes and other Allied aeroplanes? Did they have German aircraft, or French machines?

Were any Free French units involved in the Torch campaign, versus their own countrymen?