Ongoing Halifax reconstruction project

Are the wing sections from a Hastings or Halifax? How much original Halifax material do they have?

Not that one IIRC.

So far Karl has amassed wing centresections, outer wings, Hercules engines, tailturret, nose transparency and Hastings undercart (not of much use on a Halifax). That is
quite a lot to bring back a taxying Halifax. We all know that YAM and the NA337 team have searched the world for Halifax bits but still parts do turn up. Hopefully this
will continue.
Cees

The Baltic one mentioned seems to be the one that was in a Swedish newspaper a few years ago when divers were trying to identify it, and isn’t a recent discovery. There was a post up about it on warrelics, and subsequently on here too.

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/armour-weapons-aircraft-recovery/crash-site-baltic-sea-83739/

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?110959-Halifax-tailwheel

Nice find as it is, the photos and reports suggest its not anywhere near intact.

Regards,

Rich

IIRC, a Halifax wreck was found in Kiel bay a few years back but I’ve no information on how complete it was

It was mentioned on LW170’s Facebook page.
Cees

Cees, are you able to give any more infomation on these Baltic discoveries ?

I would love to see one built as a Halton. It would be nice to have the missing link between Halifax and Hastings filled, and the natural metal ones look fantastic.

For me it doesn’t necessarily need to be a Halton but I agree with you: I’ve always wanted a civilian Halifax. The Hali’s contribution to the Berlin airlift and is so often overlooked. (as was much of its contribution to many theaters). The Halifax could do anything…. “Second to none”

How about “red-Eagle” G-ALEF.

I would love to see one built as a Halton. It would be nice to have the missing link between Halifax and Hastings filled, and the natural metal ones look fantastic.

As Cees says, its a ridiculous, pedantic point thats being made a mountain out of a molehill. “War Grave” may have no formal meaning in law, but its a perfectly acceptable phrase that’s in everyday use. Move on.

Quit the discussion on wargraves in this thread, perhaps a seperate thread is a better option. In the Baltic several Halifaxes have been located.
Whatever identity the Canadian reconstruction will carry, I don’t give a whoopsie.
Cees

Because people keep throwing the “war grave” phrase around like confetti, when in reality there is no such thing. In English or Norwegian.

Quite so Rich. w7656 is theoretically a better choice, even if apparently ‘not available’. Not quite sure why some are making such a big meal of it here!

ROFL. *I’m* being pedantic! ?!? Really??? I think you should look again. whether you call it war grave status or whatever the correct pedantic Norwegian term is, the status of this airframe is one that will see it remain on the fjord bottom. As, I say, as I understand it. Pedantry sisnot debating facts, it’s nit picking over whether someone used the right word, even when the meaning is plainly clear

its been reported that the family of one of the missing want his remains to remain undisturbed, and that’s not unusual, whatever any of us might think

I had hoped we wouldn’t veer this far off course. My mentioning W7656 was purely to point out there are likely to be better candidates than a needle in the haystack search in the Irish Sea for an aircraft that could have drifted for miles during the period it sank. As well as the action of currents, aircraft have a habit of ‘gliding’ underwater as they sink.

There are several known ditchings off Tiree, at least one off Gibraltar in the 1950’s, there’s got to be a better candidiate out there than LW170.

Regards,

Rich

WebPilot, you are being pedantic. Ross_McNeill is quoting the law, correctly.

I cannot imagine any relative of a deceased airman would really want the body leaving in the sea if there was a genuine chance of recovery.

Well, of course the Norwegians won’t have used the term War Grave. The Norwegians will have used a Norwegian term, probably in Norwegian! This being an English language forum, I thought that might cause confusion…

Web Pilot your understanding is faulty in terms of “Norwegian authorities are classing the aircraft as a war grave” they will have applied the term listed in Norwegian Law and it is not “War Grave”.

Your statement “As far as the UK is concerned, there is legislation that protects or controls sites where war dead remain and this covers wrecks outside the UK / UK territorial waters.” is also incorrect in that The Protection of Military Remains act concerns

The remains of aircraft/designated vessels which have been in the military service of any country and which lie in UK territorial waters; and

The remains of all aircraft/designated vessels which have been in UK military service lying in international waters.

The Protection of Military Remains act does not apply to Norwegian (or any other) Territorial Waters.

For aircraft/designated vessels covered by the UK Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 there is an express dispensation for operations provided a defined permission is given by a defined signatory.

Ross

All well and good but as the Norwegian authorities are classing the aircraft as a war grave (as I understand it) and the family of at least one of the missing men are reported to have said they don’t want his remains disturbed, that would seem to be an end to the matter – opinions on what is right or not are moot.

Its certainly true that international law on war graves is fairly hazy, though there are provisions in the various Geneva Conventions, et al, on treatment of war dead and their resting places. As far as the UK is concerned, there is legislation that protects or controls sites where war dead remain and this covers wrecks outside the UK / UK territorial waters. There’s no fundamental difference between HMS Prince of Wales, for example, which is a protected place under the legislation and W7656, other than scale.

There’s a good deal of justification as to why remains should be recovered, but bear in mind that a lot of war survivor families and associations were deeply offended by the increase in interference and desecration of sites by amateurs from the 70s onwards, which in part lead to the UK legislation. For example, the Force Z Survivors have the following statement on their website. I think their opinion carries a lot of weight.

I am the current secretary for the Association, having taken over the role when my father, Kenneth Byrne passed away. My father served on HMS Prince of Wales, and was 17 years and one month when the Prince of Wales was sunk; his friend was the same age but did not survive the sinking and still lies with his ship. This is something my father never forgot.

Some people have suggested that most survivors do not own a computer or have access to the Internet. They are wrong. My father had his first computer at the age of 75, Internet ready. Most survivors have children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who own computers and are able to simply type in HMS Repulse to a search engine. It is surprising what turns up. Some of the items on websites are very distressing as they contain images of human remains.

I had the pleasure of meeting the late Shirley Ward. Her father Frank served on HMS Repulse, she was a baby when her father died. His final resting place is HMS Repulse. Shirley was one of the first persons to inform the association of the activity of divers on the wrecks. When I see a photo, clip of a film on the Internet, for all I know I could be looking at the remains of Shirley’s father, for that matter a father or grandfather of another member of the Association. When you have met these people personally you see a different picture.

What should the Association do, keep quiet or to work to try and protect the final resting places of hero’s who died fighting for their country, some of whom were only boys?

I have a duty to report to members anything that is brought to my attention. The matter was again on the agenda for the AGM this year. Again the members voted for the Association to continue to campaign for changes in the law to stop divers entering the ships. This is what we shall do.

Please don’t get me wrong, we do not want to stop divers visiting the ships. But please do not enter. Please do not disturb the final resting place of these men.

We don’t just want this for HMS Repulse or HMS Prince of Wales, we would like this for all maritime war graves, whatever their nationality. If the law is not changed and international agreements set in place, one-day divers will be in HMS Hood and the Bismarck. The Association wants protection for every war grave whether on land or at sea.

Correct, Ross_McNeill. It’s a term that is misused as a convenient smokescreen for not doing the right thing – which is making every possible attempt to recover the dead. Personally I’d love to see W7656 recovered, and displayed at Hendon as a tableau in conserved condition. Which of course would allow a proper and long-overdue restoration of W1048…

No, there was one thought to be left on board NA337- the Flight Engineer, hence the extensive sifting of the mud as it came out of the aircraft post recovery. The ‘assumption’ on record is that he got out the aircraft unnoticed and died in the waters of Lake Mjosa. At least there’s some comfort in that while he has no known grave he has one utterly magnificent memorial.

Its all very well shouting “War grave” but if it works for one, it works for them all – or not at all. It shouldn’t be used purely when convenient to your cause. Besides which it doesn’t mean W7656 can’t be recovered, just that as a designated grave any interference needs the correct permissions. With it being in the location it is and the photos showing the escape hatches open, there’s a similar possibility that her crew also got out and never made it to shore as the Halifax was known to have a good survivability rate of its crews. How will you ever know? Recover the aircraft..!

Regards,

Rich