A Peter March pic of XF 321 in her glory days. I saw it like this, but a bit more battered, Leuchars 1982. Nice memeories.
Robert.
Hi Paul,
Nice painting. Good depiction of a difficult subject. Nice big pic as well. Well done.
Robert.
Thanks EN830 and Pondskater for you help, much appreciated. I have blown it right up, however, the serial number falls right on the shadow line, well it would, making it unreadable. The group one: I can see the P P but nothing else.
Thanks once again. Robert.
Hi Jan,
There is a book out on this subject already: ‘Star Dust Falling: The Story Of The Plane That Vanished’, by Jay Rayner. May be of some help. Doesn’t solve STENDEC though, nothing does.
Best Wishes.
Robert.
Hi Shortsbro,
Are you sure you have the right artist? Never heard of a Michael Turner like that. There is a Robert Taylor one though. ‘Moral Support’, Peter Townsend escorting the damaged Hurricane of Jim Marshall.
Best Wishes.
Robert.
ID that one.
There was just that one 109 down, which was buried on impact. Likely claimant:Hepple. We know from excavation (2004) that its tail was on. However, in 1941 the Germans would not have gone digging around to establish if its tail was on or off…they were not interested in verifying RAF claims, after all! In any case, how would they have known if its tail was supposed to be on or off? I doubt that Casson would have told them he had clobbered one. Bader may have, though, but the LW were interested in who THEY themselves shot down, not in which RAF pilot had shot down which 109 etc etc. In any case, there was heavy overclaiming on the RAF side but the LW could not have known that. Not brought out properly in the programme, though, was the fact that there were also several other Spits down that day. Not sure if it answers your question, and I am probably being utterly dense but cannot quite grasp your point anyway. Draw me some pictures……!
Hi Andy,
The name of this pilot was Philip Whaley Ellis Heppell. Hepple was another family entirely.
Best Wishes
ROTFL! 😀
Veteran? – Fair enough.
Honourable? Don’t make me laugh. Peddling your silly little story to try and cover up being caught out telling a lie.
You don’t even know the meaning of the word.
It’s just a shame that as you have once again ‘departed this troubled forum’ you’ll never read the depth of contempt that I hold you in. Pity
Moggy
Its his story, Moggy, daft though it may seem to most. if you can prove otherwise, fair enough. I think you are getting a bit too personal here. I know Ken is as well but he has an excuse, he’s one of us.
ROTFL! 😀
Veteran? – Fair enough.
Honourable? Don’t make me laugh. Peddling your silly little story to try and cover up being caught out telling a lie.
You don’t even know the meaning of the word.
It’s just a shame that as you have once again ‘departed this troubled forum’ you’ll never read the depth of contempt that I hold you in. Pity
Moggy
Its his story, Moggy, daft though it may seem to most. if you can prove otherwise, fair enough. I think you are getting a bit too personal here. I know Ken is as well but he has an excuse, he’s one of us.
If JDK wants to read my view of Marseille, he will have to await publication of the book – should we find the crash site, that is. Of course we are able to look for it simply because we can, without having to justify why to anyone, let us not forget. It is a pity, however, that General Galland is no longer with us, for he described Marseille as ‘the virtuoso of all fighter pilots’. Did JDK challenge the great General on his statement; somehow I doubt it. JDK may rest assured, however, that whatever I write in my books is supported by firm evidence and analysis, as will any reference, in due course, to Marseille.
Regarding hero worshipping JEJ, not so – clearly you have not read either my ‘Johnnie Jophnson: Spitfire Top Gun’ Parts One or Two. In the latter’s foreword, Chris Johnson, Johnnie’s son, commends my approach for also including the negatives. Lady Bader has said similar regarding my published work in respect of DB, and as a former police detective of 22 years experience I am pretty conversant, it is fair to say, with presenting facts impartially. My view is that, like writing circumstances for Court, all of the evience must be presented for the Court, or in this case the reader, to make up his or her own mind. Anyone remotely familiar with my published work would agree that this is how my work is presented. On a personal level, as a friend I loved Johnnie and knew him well; I miss him still. But he knew that whatever I wrote about him would be warts and all, which is as it should be.
I can’t agree which what I consider to be a rude remark about keeping things on topic. This is a thread with a specific title ‘Operation African Star’; it is not ‘Was Marseille or Snoopy the best fighter pilot’ (frankly I don’t really care who was when it comes down to it!). If you wish to debate that then I think that there should be a new thread. You are right, I have my own web site – and do you know what? I decided against having a forum on it because I wanted to avoid exactly this. As I have said on the Bader thread, I have not involved myself in forums before, and only visited this one because I was personally involved with the Bader thread. The behaviour of many, however, leaves a great deal to be desired, and frankly who needs the hassle? I have avoided forums for this reason, and will resume my previous stance all round. Too much research to do, too many projects ongoing, no time to waste.
It seems to me that some people need to review why they use forums. Surely they are a place for the exchanging of information and ideas, not the provocative argument that certain members clearly revel in (and I can predict with certainty which member will follow up first with a smart response to this post!).
Should anyone be interested in an update re Operation African Star, look on my web site in about a month’s time. http://www.DilipSarkarMBE.co.uk. I can be emailed at [email]info@dilipsarkarmbe.co.uk[/email].
Over and out.
Dilip Sarkar MBE FRHistS
You have made some good points Dilip, however, you are on a public forum so you have to take the good with the bad. You have used this forum for your own ‘provactive argument’ though, as well as self publicity. The choice is yours to come or go but don’t moan when you are attacked.
Best Wishes.
Robert.
I have to agree with the majority on here, best left alone. I have a relative buried in this way in France, I don’t particularly like it. They died together, leave them in peace.
I had not realised that the redtwo link i posted earlier might not work
but if anybody is interested in 616 sqdn and /or personnel try…..
http://www.redtwo.plus.com/616
Good one, thanks.
Spitfire 1X in its little plastic bag.
Lancaster at six and a tanner.
Sunderland at ten and a tanner.
Certainly one of the worst, Mosquito 1/48, what a pain in the a…
Primary source material ONLY was used in the research. There was no reliance on ANY published work and no historian worth his salt would go down that route. However, it was not possible to go down the road of this programme without reference to the “authorised” Bader version! 90% of the research done was not seen on TV. Yes, the possible tear in Bader’s chute was factored in as far as was possible without knowing its full extent and a margin of error built into the calculation. It wasnt a precise science, but Bernie Forward is not exactly a slouch in these matters!! Andy Saunders
Well, you’re a bit wrong there. All historians use secondary sources, ie published material. Why do you think there are bibliographies in books? Some of those secondary sources are older than your primary ones.
*sniff* The memories of glue-rush, finger-sticking FUN and PRIDE when a completed model looked good rush back. Airfix and childhood – a match made in heaven.
Not all glue you know. The Ferguson tractor clicked together. I remember that well…..shows my age.