UK2 PN748 Vickers WellingtonGRMkV.jpg

[Joseph Testagrose]

[Ramsman]

On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:

I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and say
that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.

--
Peter

[®i©ardo]

On 26/02/2012 14:37, Ramsman wrote:
> On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>
> I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and say
> that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.
>

And would you say that it is a Warwick GRMkV of 179 Sqn, RAF, as used
for anti-submarine patrols in Bay of Biscay in 1944?

http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/179_wwII.html

--
Moving things in still pictures

[Ramsman]

On 26/02/2012 16:10, ®i©ardo wrote:
> On 26/02/2012 14:37, Ramsman wrote:
>> On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and say
>> that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.
>>
>
> And would you say that it is a Warwick GRMkV of 179 Sqn, RAF, as used
> for anti-submarine patrols in Bay of Biscay in 1944?
>
> http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/179_wwII.html
>

Yes.

No. 179 was the first squadron to be equipped with the Warwick for
anti-submarine work, and the aircraft that sank U927 was commanded by
F/Lt. Brownsill.

--
Peter

[®i©ardo]

On 26/02/2012 17:34, Ramsman wrote:
> On 26/02/2012 16:10, ®i©ardo wrote:
>> On 26/02/2012 14:37, Ramsman wrote:
>>> On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and say
>>> that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.
>>>
>>
>> And would you say that it is a Warwick GRMkV of 179 Sqn, RAF, as used
>> for anti-submarine patrols in Bay of Biscay in 1944?
>>
>> http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/179_wwII.html
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> No. 179 was the first squadron to be equipped with the Warwick for
> anti-submarine work, and the aircraft that sank U927 was commanded by
> F/Lt. Brownsill.
>

GIYF!

;-)

--
Moving things in still pictures

[Ramsman]

On 26/02/2012 21:35, ®i©ardo wrote:
> On 26/02/2012 17:34, Ramsman wrote:
>> On 26/02/2012 16:10, ®i©ardo wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2012 14:37, Ramsman wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and say
>>>> that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And would you say that it is a Warwick GRMkV of 179 Sqn, RAF, as used
>>> for anti-submarine patrols in Bay of Biscay in 1944?
>>>
>>> http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/179_wwII.html
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> No. 179 was the first squadron to be equipped with the Warwick for
>> anti-submarine work, and the aircraft that sank U927 was commanded by
>> F/Lt. Brownsill.
>>
>
> GIYF!
>
> ;-)
>

Not in this case. I used one of those things with lots of sheets of
paper covered in printing, which was standing on a shelf in a special
room in the house.

--
Peter

[®i©ardo]

On 26/02/2012 23:54, Ramsman wrote:
> On 26/02/2012 21:35, ®i©ardo wrote:
>> On 26/02/2012 17:34, Ramsman wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2012 16:10, ®i©ardo wrote:
>>>> On 26/02/2012 14:37, Ramsman wrote:
>>>>> On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and say
>>>>> that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And would you say that it is a Warwick GRMkV of 179 Sqn, RAF, as used
>>>> for anti-submarine patrols in Bay of Biscay in 1944?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/179_wwII.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> No. 179 was the first squadron to be equipped with the Warwick for
>>> anti-submarine work, and the aircraft that sank U927 was commanded by
>>> F/Lt. Brownsill.
>>>
>>
>> GIYF!
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>
> Not in this case. I used one of those things with lots of sheets of
> paper covered in printing, which was standing on a shelf in a special
> room in the house.
>

LOL! Yes, I've got shelves of those, which groan under the weight of
useful knowledge - but I'm not sure if I've got very much on the Warwick.

--
Moving things in still pictures

[joet5]

You are right, it is a Warwick, the previous posts were properly named
Warwick. Just typed wellington by mistake. Joe.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:37:20 +0000, Ramsman >
wrote:

>On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>
>I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and say
>that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.

[®i©ardo]

On 27/02/2012 14:14, joet5 wrote:
> You are right, it is a Warwick, the previous posts were properly named
> Warwick. Just typed wellington by mistake. Joe.
>
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:37:20 +0000, >
> wrote:
>
>> On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and say
>> that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.

Given the number that you post Joe, and the variety of the subject
matter, you are totally forgiven.

;-)

Ri©ardo

--
Moving things in still pictures

[Ramsman]

On 27/02/2012 17:20, ®i©ardo wrote:
> On 27/02/2012 14:14, joet5 wrote:
>> You are right, it is a Warwick, the previous posts were properly named
>> Warwick. Just typed wellington by mistake. Joe.
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:37:20 +0000, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and say
>>> that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.
>
> Given the number that you post Joe, and the variety of the subject
> matter, you are totally forgiven.
>
> ;-)
>
> Ri©ardo
>

Amen to that. You're in good company Joe, even the MoD did the same
thing on a website not long ago. Guess who spotted it? That's right, the
ATC East Essex Wing aircraft recognition champion of
nineteen-sixty-something-or-other (prize one guinea). Life has been
largely downhill from then on.

I'm going to post more once I've got round to leaving the
Procrastination Club.

--
Peter

[Ramsman]

On 27/02/2012 09:45, ®i©ardo wrote:
> On 26/02/2012 23:54, Ramsman wrote:
>> On 26/02/2012 21:35, ®i©ardo wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2012 17:34, Ramsman wrote:
>>>> On 26/02/2012 16:10, ®i©ardo wrote:
>>>>> On 26/02/2012 14:37, Ramsman wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and
>>>>>> say
>>>>>> that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And would you say that it is a Warwick GRMkV of 179 Sqn, RAF, as used
>>>>> for anti-submarine patrols in Bay of Biscay in 1944?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/179_wwII.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> No. 179 was the first squadron to be equipped with the Warwick for
>>>> anti-submarine work, and the aircraft that sank U927 was commanded by
>>>> F/Lt. Brownsill.
>>>>
>>>
>>> GIYF!
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Not in this case. I used one of those things with lots of sheets of
>> paper covered in printing, which was standing on a shelf in a special
>> room in the house.
>>
>
> LOL! Yes, I've got shelves of those, which groan under the weight of
> useful knowledge - but I'm not sure if I've got very much on the Warwick.
>

I don't think there's much about. Some Wellington books (Crowood,
Squadron Signal) have just a single page. Squadron histories such as
"Coastal, Support and Special Squadrons of the RAF and their aircraft"
have operational details. The only publication I have that is dedicated
to the Warwick is Profile 229.

I've always liked the look of the Warwick, as a sort of grown-up
Wellington, even though they were developed more or less simultaneously.
--
Peter

[®i©ardo]

On 27/02/2012 17:34, Ramsman wrote:
> On 27/02/2012 09:45, ®i©ardo wrote:
>> On 26/02/2012 23:54, Ramsman wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2012 21:35, ®i©ardo wrote:
>>>> On 26/02/2012 17:34, Ramsman wrote:
>>>>> On 26/02/2012 16:10, ®i©ardo wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/02/2012 14:37, Ramsman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and
>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>> that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And would you say that it is a Warwick GRMkV of 179 Sqn, RAF, as used
>>>>>> for anti-submarine patrols in Bay of Biscay in 1944?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/179_wwII.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. 179 was the first squadron to be equipped with the Warwick for
>>>>> anti-submarine work, and the aircraft that sank U927 was commanded by
>>>>> F/Lt. Brownsill.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GIYF!
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not in this case. I used one of those things with lots of sheets of
>>> paper covered in printing, which was standing on a shelf in a special
>>> room in the house.
>>>
>>
>> LOL! Yes, I've got shelves of those, which groan under the weight of
>> useful knowledge - but I'm not sure if I've got very much on the Warwick.
>>
>
> I don't think there's much about. Some Wellington books (Crowood,
> Squadron Signal) have just a single page. Squadron histories such as
> "Coastal, Support and Special Squadrons of the RAF and their aircraft"
> have operational details. The only publication I have that is dedicated
> to the Warwick is Profile 229.
>
> I've always liked the look of the Warwick, as a sort of grown-up
> Wellington, even though they were developed more or less simultaneously.

The one thing in favour of both of those aircraft was their sheer
ruggedness. Barnes Wallis was a man of many talents.

--
Moving things in still pictures

[®i©ardo]

On 27/02/2012 17:29, Ramsman wrote:
> On 27/02/2012 17:20, ®i©ardo wrote:
>> On 27/02/2012 14:14, joet5 wrote:
>>> You are right, it is a Warwick, the previous posts were properly named
>>> Warwick. Just typed wellington by mistake. Joe.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:37:20 +0000, >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/02/2012 12:50, Joseph Testagrose wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to upset the people who accuse others of nit-picking and say
>>>> that this is a Warwick, not a Wellington.
>>
>> Given the number that you post Joe, and the variety of the subject
>> matter, you are totally forgiven.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> Ri©ardo
>>
>
> Amen to that. You're in good company Joe, even the MoD did the same
> thing on a website not long ago. Guess who spotted it? That's right, the
> ATC East Essex Wing aircraft recognition champion of
> nineteen-sixty-something-or-other (prize one guinea). Life has been
> largely downhill from then on.
>
> I'm going to post more once I've got round to leaving the
> Procrastination Club.
>

Guineas, by God! Those were the days.

--
Moving things in still pictures