Hellcat Mk I - NICE ! ! !

[Marta]

http://www.onmarkint.com/manuf/franklin_propfighters.php

[Maple1]

Marta wrote:
> http://www.onmarkint.com/manuf/franklin_propfighters.php
>
>
>
FYI there is a modeling newsgroup you know

[Blume, Alf]

"Maple1" > skrev i en meddelelse
news:fdoEh.1139013$5R2.653816@pd7urf3no...
> Marta wrote:
>> http://www.onmarkint.com/manuf/franklin_propfighters.php
>>
>>
>>
> FYI there is a modeling newsgroup you know

The concensus is that modelpictures are well-come - if marked as such in
subject . .

;-)

[[email protected]]

Maybe it's "OK" as a Franklin Mint diecast, but it doesn't hold a candle to
a properly built plastic kit.

Brian

[Andrew B]

> wrote in message
ng.com...
> Maybe it's "OK" as a Franklin Mint diecast, but it doesn't hold a candle
> to
> a properly built plastic kit.
>
> Brian


Would this be anywhere near qualifying as what you mean Brian?
I've been waiting for an excuse to post the pic for a while now, it was
taken while the model was suspended in front of a white-ish wall having
given the prop a quick spin. I'm just a little disappointed by the under
wing light/reflection. A standard plastic kit completed by my brother.

--
Andrew

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
(Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.)

[Mike Henley]

> Would this be anywhere near qualifying as what you mean Brian?
> I've been waiting for an excuse to post the pic for a while now, it was
> taken while the model was suspended in front of a white-ish wall having
> given the prop a quick spin. I'm just a little disappointed by the under
> wing light/reflection. A standard plastic kit completed by my brother.
>
> --
> Andrew
>


Tell your brother, "Well Done!"

[[email protected]]

Oh yes, that definitely qualifies.

brian

[Mitchell Holman[_2_]]

"Marta" > wrote in news:errrto$s3s$1
@nemesis.news.tpi.pl:

> http://www.onmarkint.com/manuf/franklin_propfighters.php
>
>
> begin 666 98177-1.jpeg
>
> Attachment decoded: 98177-1.jpeg
> `
> end
>



A Hellcat with DDay invasion stripes? What
Hellcats were flying in the ETO?

[Graham]

Wasn't the Hellcat known as the Martlet or some such when used by the poms?
I think the FAA (Fleet Air Arm of the RN) called them that. Dunno if the
RAF operated them.

As this pic is of a model in British markings, should we not refer to it as
a Martlett then?

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
> "Marta" > wrote in news:errrto$s3s$1
> @nemesis.news.tpi.pl:
>
>> http://www.onmarkint.com/manuf/franklin_propfighters.php
>>
>>
>> begin 666 98177-1.jpeg
>>
>> Attachment decoded: 98177-1.jpeg
>> `
>> end
>>
>
>
>
> A Hellcat with DDay invasion stripes? What
> Hellcats were flying in the ETO?
>
>
>

[Mitchell Holman[_2_]]

"Graham" > wrote in
:

> Wasn't the Hellcat known as the Martlet or some such when used by the
> poms?


That was the F4F. Our Wildcat, their Martlet.

[Enzo Matrix]

Graham wrote:
> Wasn't the Hellcat known as the Martlet or some such when used by the
> poms? I think the FAA (Fleet Air Arm of the RN) called them that.

It was originally intended to be called the "Gannet", but reverted to the
name Hellcat before the first ones were delivered.

"Martlet" was the name given to earlier versions of the Wildcat, although
the FM-2 was known as the "Wildcat VI" in FAA service.

As for FAA Hellcats in the ETO, those markings are accurate. They depict an
aircraft from 800 NAS, flying from HMS Emperor (ex-USS Pybus CVE-34).
Emperor operated Hellcats as fighter cover during Operation TUNGSTEN, an
attack on the German battleship /Tirpitz/ on 2 April 1944. One Hellcat was
severely damaged and ditched. Emperor provided aircraft for the
anti-submarine screen during the D-Day landings, again with Hellcats as
fighter cover.

--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

[Netko]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 2:37:42 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote
(in message >):

> A Hellcat with DDay invasion stripes? What
> Hellcats were flying in the ETO?

Not the ETO but close: a couple of USN escort carriers with
Hellcats supported the landings in southern France in August 1944
(Operation Dragoon).

The attached picture shows one of these vessels, the USS Tulagi, on
its way to the Riviera beaches.

--

[[email protected]]

It is a legit and fascinating scheme. I actually have a decal sheet of it,
making this part of my long term "build list."

Brian

[Netko]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:11:59 +0000, Enzo Matrix wrote
(in message >):

> As for FAA Hellcats in the ETO, those markings are accurate. They depict an

Here are some striped Martlets/Wildcats but I have no further
information about the picture.

--

[Andrew B]

> wrote in message
ng.com...
> Oh yes, that definitely qualifies.
>
> brian


Thanks Brian, he is currently working on a U-boat which I think should look
rather good.

--
Andrew

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
(Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.)

[Andrew B]

"Mike Henley" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tell your brother, "Well Done!"
>


Thanks Mike. I will pass the message on.
--
Andrew

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
(Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.)

[CWO4 Dave Mann]

Netko wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 2:37:42 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote
> (in message >):
>
>> A Hellcat with DDay invasion stripes? What
>> Hellcats were flying in the ETO?
>
> Not the ETO but close: a couple of USN escort carriers with
> Hellcats supported the landings in southern France in August 1944
> (Operation Dragoon).
>
> The attached picture shows one of these vessels, the USS Tulagi, on
> its way to the Riviera beaches.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

I am guessing that they would have been used for close air support - air
to ground? The fast movers (Mustangs, Lightnings, T-Birds, Spits) would
have been up at altitude to kill any bombers or fighters?

And thanks for the pictures .. I thought the F4F was out of the fight by
1944.

Cheers,

Dave

[Llarry]

"CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
. ..
> I am guessing that they would have been used for close air support - air
> to ground? The fast movers (Mustangs, Lightnings, T-Birds, Spits) would
> have been up at altitude to kill any bombers or fighters?
>
> And thanks for the pictures .. I thought the F4F was out of the fight by
> 1944.

The Wildcat soldiered on right to the end, mostly FM-1s and FM-2s built by
Eastern so Grumman could concentrate on Hellcats. The Wildcats were used
mainly in the Atlantic on Jeep carriers for convoy escort / antisubmarine
duty, since you didn't need a Hellcat to deal with a Kondor...

In the Pacific, FMs were used behind the lines, where you might run into at
worst a bomber or recon plane, or the occasional sub. Again, allowing
Corsairs and Hellcats to stay at the front.



--
--Llarry Amrose

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in
practice, there is.
-- Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...
>
> A Hellcat with DDay invasion stripes? What
> Hellcats were flying in the ETO?
>

FAA and USN Hellcats supported the invasion of southern France in August
1944.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wasn't the Hellcat known as the Martlet or some such when used by the
> poms? I think the FAA (Fleet Air Arm of the RN) called them that. Dunno
> if the RAF operated them.
>
> As this pic is of a model in British markings, should we not refer to it
> as a Martlett then?
>

The Grumman Wildcat was known as the Martlet in FAA service. The British
originally named their Hellcats "Gannet", until deciding separate names for
American aircraft was not worth the bother.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
...
>
> Emperor provided aircraft for the anti-submarine screen during the D-Day
> landings, again with Hellcats as fighter cover.
>

Are you sure about that?

[Enzo Matrix]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Emperor provided aircraft for the anti-submarine screen during the
>> D-Day landings, again with Hellcats as fighter cover.
>>
>
> Are you sure about that?

Pretty much.


--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pretty much.
>

I think you're wrong. Do you have anything to support your assertion?

[Ray O'Hara]

"Andrew B" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ng.com...
> > Maybe it's "OK" as a Franklin Mint diecast, but it doesn't hold a candle
> > to
> > a properly built plastic kit.
> >
> > Brian
>
>
> Would this be anywhere near qualifying as what you mean Brian?
> I've been waiting for an excuse to post the pic for a while now, it was
> taken while the model was suspended in front of a white-ish wall having
> given the prop a quick spin. I'm just a little disappointed by the under
> wing light/reflection. A standard plastic kit completed by my brother.
>

excellent

[Enzo Matrix]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Pretty much.
>>
>
> I think you're wrong. Do you have anything to support your assertion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Emperor_(D98)

http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/034.htm

One of the photographs here clearly shows a Hellcat with invasion stripes,
although the carrier was engaged on Operation DRAGOON at the time.


--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Emperor_(D98)
>
> http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/034.htm
>
> One of the photographs here clearly shows a Hellcat with invasion stripes,
> although the carrier was engaged on Operation DRAGOON at the time.
>

The presence of invasion stripes does not indicate an aircraft participated
in the D-Day landings, it just indicates it operated over western Europe on
June 6 1944 or later.


http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4

[Bob Harrington]

"Andrew B" > wrote in
om:

> > wrote in message
> ng.com...
>> Oh yes, that definitely qualifies.
>>
>> brian
>
>
> Thanks Brian, he is currently working on a U-boat which I think should
> look rather good.

And photographed airborne in a simulated sky... ;^}

Nice model and photo!

Bob ^,,^

[Enzo Matrix]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Emperor_(D98)
>>
>> http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/034.htm
>>
>> One of the photographs here clearly shows a Hellcat with invasion
>> stripes, although the carrier was engaged on Operation DRAGOON at
>> the time.
>
> The presence of invasion stripes does not indicate an aircraft
> participated in the D-Day landings, it just indicates it operated
> over western Europe on June 6 1944 or later.

Agreed. However we have two documents that mention Ermperor's service during
the D-Day landings. One document states that Emperor "served on
anti-submarine detail during Operation Overlord". The other states she
"served as an ASW patrol ship at Normandy".

The same two documents also claim that Emperor took part in Operations
TUNGSTEN and DRAGOON. TUNGSTEN preceded OVERLORD, DRAGOON was after it. Both
TUNGSTEN and DRAGOON involved the use of Hellcats from Emperor. It doesn't
seem likely that the Hellcats were removed from Emperor before D-Day and
replaced with some other naval fighter, only to be returned to the ship
immediately afterwards.

My statement, which you questioned, was "Emperor provided aircraft for the
anti-submarine screen during the D-Day landings, again with Hellcats as
fighter cover", which seems pretty much supported by those two documents.


--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

[Paul Elliot]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Emperor_(D98)
>>
>> http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/034.htm
>>
>> One of the photographs here clearly shows a Hellcat with invasion stripes,
>> although the carrier was engaged on Operation DRAGOON at the time.
>>
>
> The presence of invasion stripes does not indicate an aircraft participated
> in the D-Day landings, it just indicates it operated over western Europe on
> June 6 1944 or later.
>
>
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4
>
>
>

From http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/034.htm comes this quote:

> HMS Emperor was outfitted as a strike/CAP carrier. Provided fighter cover for a strike on German battleship Tirpitz;

> served as an ASW patrol ship at Normandy and supported invasion of southern France before transferring to the Pacific.

which does support Enzo's statement that the ship was at Normandy on D-Day.

--
Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.

Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.

http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

[Andrew B]

"Bob Harrington" > wrote in message
...

>
> And photographed airborne in a simulated sky... ;^}
>
> Nice model and photo!
>
> Bob ^,,^


Thank you Bob.
--
Andrew

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
(Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.)

[Andrew B]

"Ray O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> excellent
>
>

Thanks Ray
--
Andrew

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
(Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.)

[Enzo Matrix]

Paul Elliot wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Emperor_(D98)
>>>
>>> http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/034.htm
>>>
>>> One of the photographs here clearly shows a Hellcat with invasion
>>> stripes, although the carrier was engaged on Operation DRAGOON at
>>> the time.
>>
>> The presence of invasion stripes does not indicate an aircraft
>> participated in the D-Day landings, it just indicates it operated over
>> western
>> Europe on June 6 1944 or later.
>>
>>
>> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4
>>
>>
>>
>
> From http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/034.htm comes this quote:
>
>> HMS Emperor was outfitted as a strike/CAP carrier. Provided fighter
>> cover for a strike on German battleship Tirpitz;
>
>> served as an ASW patrol ship at Normandy and supported invasion of
>> southern France before transferring to the Pacific.
>
> which does support Enzo's statement that the ship was at Normandy on
> D-Day.

Steven's link http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4 states "The Hellcat
Is did not participate in the Normandy invasion in June 1944".

It seems most unlikely that a valuable resource such as a squadron of very
potent fighters would have sat out the biggest operation of the war. It may
be splitting hairs, but there is a way that we can *both* be right. It is
possible that Emperor's Hellcats were directly involved in fighter cover for
the ASW screen, either in the Western Approaches or in the English Channel
itself, and so did not actually make an appearance over the Normandy beach
head. Therefore, they didn't actually *participate* in the invasion, but
they did *support* it.

--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

[Blume, Alf]

"Enzo Matrix" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
>>> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4

>> From http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/034.htm comes this quote:
>>
>>> HMS Emperor was outfitted as a strike/CAP carrier. Provided fighter
>>> cover for a strike on German battleship Tirpitz;
>>
>>> served as an ASW patrol ship at Normandy and supported invasion of
>>> southern France before transferring to the Pacific.
>>
>> which does support Enzo's statement that the ship was at Normandy on
>> D-Day.
>
> Steven's link http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4 states "The
> Hellcat Is did not participate in the Normandy invasion in June 1944".
>
> It seems most unlikely that a valuable resource such as a squadron of very
> potent fighters would have sat out the biggest operation of the war. It
> may be splitting hairs, but there is a way that we can *both* be right. It
> is possible that Emperor's Hellcats were directly involved in fighter
> cover for the ASW screen, either in the Western Approaches or in the
> English Channel itself, and so did not actually make an appearance over
> the Normandy beach head. Therefore, they didn't actually *participate* in
> the invasion, but they did *support* it.

Grasping at straws now? ;-)

It did participate, as did all other that served on that day in any
capacity; and the original question was whether the paintscheme was
correct - It was!

[Enzo Matrix]

Blume, Alf wrote:
> "Enzo Matrix" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>>>> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4
>
>>> From http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/034.htm comes this quote:
>>>
>>>> HMS Emperor was outfitted as a strike/CAP carrier. Provided fighter
>>>> cover for a strike on German battleship Tirpitz;
>>>
>>>> served as an ASW patrol ship at Normandy and supported invasion of
>>>> southern France before transferring to the Pacific.
>>>
>>> which does support Enzo's statement that the ship was at Normandy on
>>> D-Day.
>>
>> Steven's link http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4 states "The
>> Hellcat Is did not participate in the Normandy invasion in June
>> 1944". It seems most unlikely that a valuable resource such as a squadron
>> of very potent fighters would have sat out the biggest operation of
>> the war. It may be splitting hairs, but there is a way that we can
>> *both* be right. It is possible that Emperor's Hellcats were
>> directly involved in fighter cover for the ASW screen, either in the
>> Western Approaches or in the English Channel itself, and so did not
>> actually make an appearance over the Normandy beach head. Therefore,
>> they didn't actually *participate* in the invasion, but they did
>> *support* it.
>
> Grasping at straws now? ;-)

LOL As always.

--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

[Enzo Matrix]

Andrew B wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ng.com...
>> Maybe it's "OK" as a Franklin Mint diecast, but it doesn't hold a
>> candle to
>> a properly built plastic kit.
>>
>> Brian
>
>
> Would this be anywhere near qualifying as what you mean Brian?
> I've been waiting for an excuse to post the pic for a while now, it
> was taken while the model was suspended in front of a white-ish wall
> having given the prop a quick spin. I'm just a little disappointed by
> the under wing light/reflection. A standard plastic kit completed by
> my brother.

My first reaction was "He's cheating! That's not a model - that's real!"
:-)

However, when you look closely - and it has to be really closely - you can
just about tell it's a model. Excellent work!

--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

[Andrew B]

"Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
...
>
> My first reaction was "He's cheating! That's not a model - that's real!"
> :-)
>
> However, when you look closely - and it has to be really closely - you can
> just about tell it's a model. Excellent work!
>
> --
> Enzo
>
> I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
>

Thanks Enzo, I'll make sure my brother gets to see your remarks and everyone
else's when he next visits.
--
Andrew

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
(Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
...
>
> Agreed. However we have two documents that mention Ermperor's service
> during the D-Day landings. One document states that Emperor "served on
> anti-submarine detail during Operation Overlord". The other states she
> "served as an ASW patrol ship at Normandy".
>

I have no problem with the first one, I believe the second document is in
error. HMS Emperor does not appear among the list of ships participating in
Operation NEPTUNE, the naval side of OVERLORD. HMS Emperor may very well
have been engaged in ASW operations during the invasion, but if those
operations aren't considered direct support of NEPTUNE they can't be
considered direct support of the Normandy invasion.

The Royal Navy archive site does not mention Normandy or OVERLORD in it's
history of HMS Emperor.

http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/EMPEROR.htm


>
> The same two documents also claim that Emperor took part in Operations
> TUNGSTEN and DRAGOON. TUNGSTEN preceded OVERLORD, DRAGOON
> was after it. Both TUNGSTEN and DRAGOON involved the use of Hellcats from
> Emperor. It doesn't seem likely that the Hellcats were removed from
> Emperor before
> D-Day and replaced with some other naval fighter, only to be returned to
> the ship immediately afterwards.
>

Agreed, and since there's no mention of participation in the Normandy
invasion in the history of 800 Squadron it seems likely that HMS Emperor did
not participate in that action.

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Squadrons/800.htm


>
> My statement, which you questioned, was "Emperor provided aircraft for the
> anti-submarine screen during the D-Day landings, again with Hellcats as
> fighter cover", which seems pretty much supported by those two documents.
>

Only by one of them, which appears to be in error.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
...
>
> From http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/034.htm comes this quote:
>
>> HMS Emperor was outfitted as a strike/CAP carrier. Provided fighter cover
>> for a strike on German battleship Tirpitz;
>
>> served as an ASW patrol ship at Normandy and supported invasion of
>> southern France before transferring to the Pacific.
>
> which does support Enzo's statement that the ship was at Normandy on
> D-Day.
>

Yes, but that appears to be an error.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven's link http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4 states "The
> Hellcat Is did not participate in the Normandy invasion in June 1944".
>
> It seems most unlikely that a valuable resource such as a squadron of very
> potent fighters would have sat out the biggest operation of the war. It
> may be splitting hairs, but there is a way that we can *both* be right. It
> is possible that Emperor's Hellcats were directly involved in fighter
> cover for the ASW screen, either in the Western Approaches or in the
> English Channel itself, and so did not actually make an appearance over
> the Normandy beach head. Therefore, they didn't actually *participate* in
> the invasion, but they did *support* it.
>

Then why isn't HMS Emperor listed among the participating ships of Operation
NEPTUNE, and why isn't the Normandy invasion mentioned in the history of 800
Squadron?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Blume, Alf" <AlfBlume(a)hotmaildotcom> wrote in message
k...
>
> Grasping at straws now? ;-)
>
> It did participate, as did all other that served on that day in any
> capacity; and the original question was whether the paintscheme was
> correct - It was!
>

The paint scheme is correct for the invasion of southern France.

[Lynn in StLou]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steven's link http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4 states "The
>> Hellcat Is did not participate in the Normandy invasion in June 1944".
>>
>> It seems most unlikely that a valuable resource such as a squadron of very
>> potent fighters would have sat out the biggest operation of the war. It
>> may be splitting hairs, but there is a way that we can *both* be right. It
>> is possible that Emperor's Hellcats were directly involved in fighter
>> cover for the ASW screen, either in the Western Approaches or in the
>> English Channel itself, and so did not actually make an appearance over
>> the Normandy beach head. Therefore, they didn't actually *participate* in
>> the invasion, but they did *support* it.
>>
>
> Then why isn't HMS Emperor listed among the participating ships of Operation
> NEPTUNE, and why isn't the Normandy invasion mentioned in the history of 800
> Squadron?
>
>
The question might better be "What does the
official 800 Squadron history say it was doing
during the time of June 1 to June 10, 1944?
What does the official history of HMS Emperor say
it was doing in that same time period. Not the
web history, but the official history in the RN
archives.

If you go to
http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/EMPEROR.htm
, in the body it makes no mention of Emperor
supporting the Normandy landings. But if you
look at the sidebar, it lists Normandy 1944 among
its battle honors.

There seems to be similar holes in 800 squadron's
history as it appears on the web. One source
mentions their support of the Tirpitz raids, but
makes no mention of them in the invasion of
southern France in the body of the history. But
it lists Southern France 1944 as a battle honor.

This source,
http://www.answers.com/topic/no-800-naval-air-squadron
indicates 800 Squadron was in the process of
absorbing 804 Squadron in June, 1944 before
participating in the invasion of Southern France.

It is possible that 800 was busy absorbing 804 at
the time of the invasion and Emperor was present
in an ASW role sans 800 Squadron.

One needs to get to the original sources to truly
answer the question of Emperor being at or near
Normandy. As you can see, the web is not always
consistent.



--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

[Enzo Matrix]

Lynn in StLou wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Steven's link http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4 states "The
>>> Hellcat Is did not participate in the Normandy invasion in June
>>> 1944". It seems most unlikely that a valuable resource such as a
>>> squadron
>>> of very potent fighters would have sat out the biggest operation of
>>> the war. It may be splitting hairs, but there is a way that we can
>>> *both* be right. It is possible that Emperor's Hellcats were
>>> directly involved in fighter cover for the ASW screen, either in
>>> the Western Approaches or in the English Channel itself, and so did
>>> not actually make an appearance over the Normandy beach head.
>>> Therefore, they didn't actually *participate* in the invasion, but
>>> they did *support* it.
>>
>> Then why isn't HMS Emperor listed among the participating ships of
>> Operation NEPTUNE, and why isn't the Normandy invasion mentioned in
>> the history of 800 Squadron?
>>
>>
> The question might better be "What does the
> official 800 Squadron history say it was doing
> during the time of June 1 to June 10, 1944?
> What does the official history of HMS Emperor say
> it was doing in that same time period. Not the
> web history, but the official history in the RN
> archives.
>
> If you go to
> http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/EMPEROR.htm
> , in the body it makes no mention of Emperor
> supporting the Normandy landings. But if you
> look at the sidebar, it lists Normandy 1944 among
> its battle honors.
>
> There seems to be similar holes in 800 squadron's
> history as it appears on the web. One source
> mentions their support of the Tirpitz raids, but
> makes no mention of them in the invasion of
> southern France in the body of the history. But
> it lists Southern France 1944 as a battle honor.
>
> This source,
> http://www.answers.com/topic/no-800-naval-air-squadron
> indicates 800 Squadron was in the process of
> absorbing 804 Squadron in June, 1944 before
> participating in the invasion of Southern France.
>
> It is possible that 800 was busy absorbing 804 at
> the time of the invasion and Emperor was present
> in an ASW role sans 800 Squadron.
>
> One needs to get to the original sources to truly
> answer the question of Emperor being at or near
> Normandy. As you can see, the web is not always
> consistent.

That's *always* good advice.

However, it does seem a little strange to me that *two* whole squadrons (800
and 804) were removed from the line of battle just at the very moment that
the Normandy landings were happening.

And if that *was* the case, was Emperor employed as an ASW ship without any
aircraft aboard? Sub hunting is a job for a destroyer or corvette - not a
carrier!

This thread has raised some very interesting questions.


--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

[Lynn in StLou]

Enzo Matrix wrote:
> Lynn in StLou wrote:
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Steven's link http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4 states "The
>>>> Hellcat Is did not participate in the Normandy invasion in June
>>>> 1944". It seems most unlikely that a valuable resource such as a
>>>> squadron
>>>> of very potent fighters would have sat out the biggest operation of
>>>> the war. It may be splitting hairs, but there is a way that we can
>>>> *both* be right. It is possible that Emperor's Hellcats were
>>>> directly involved in fighter cover for the ASW screen, either in
>>>> the Western Approaches or in the English Channel itself, and so did
>>>> not actually make an appearance over the Normandy beach head.
>>>> Therefore, they didn't actually *participate* in the invasion, but
>>>> they did *support* it.
>>> Then why isn't HMS Emperor listed among the participating ships of
>>> Operation NEPTUNE, and why isn't the Normandy invasion mentioned in
>>> the history of 800 Squadron?
>>>
>>>
>> The question might better be "What does the
>> official 800 Squadron history say it was doing
>> during the time of June 1 to June 10, 1944?
>> What does the official history of HMS Emperor say
>> it was doing in that same time period. Not the
>> web history, but the official history in the RN
>> archives.
>>
>> If you go to
>> http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/EMPEROR.htm
>> , in the body it makes no mention of Emperor
>> supporting the Normandy landings. But if you
>> look at the sidebar, it lists Normandy 1944 among
>> its battle honors.
>>
>> There seems to be similar holes in 800 squadron's
>> history as it appears on the web. One source
>> mentions their support of the Tirpitz raids, but
>> makes no mention of them in the invasion of
>> southern France in the body of the history. But
>> it lists Southern France 1944 as a battle honor.
>>
>> This source,
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/no-800-naval-air-squadron
>> indicates 800 Squadron was in the process of
>> absorbing 804 Squadron in June, 1944 before
>> participating in the invasion of Southern France.
>>
>> It is possible that 800 was busy absorbing 804 at
>> the time of the invasion and Emperor was present
>> in an ASW role sans 800 Squadron.
>>
>> One needs to get to the original sources to truly
>> answer the question of Emperor being at or near
>> Normandy. As you can see, the web is not always
>> consistent.
>
> That's *always* good advice.
>
> However, it does seem a little strange to me that *two* whole squadrons (800
> and 804) were removed from the line of battle just at the very moment that
> the Normandy landings were happening.

The squadrons may have been removed for refitting
as part of normal rotation. Most likely working
up for the invasion of Southern France. They are
not the only squadrons in the FAA. But remember
that only one source cites this and it could well
be wrong.
>
> And if that *was* the case, was Emperor employed as an ASW ship without any
> aircraft aboard? Sub hunting is a job for a destroyer or corvette - not a
> carrier!
>
> This thread has raised some very interesting questions.

The Hellcat was not an ASW aircraft, so its
presence is not relevant to ASW work. Emperor may
have sailed with only ASW aircraft. Not sure what
FAA was using for ASW at that time.
>
>



--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
...
>
> The question might better be "What does the official 800 Squadron history
> say it was doing during the time of June 1 to June 10, 1944? What does the
> official history of HMS Emperor say it was doing in that same time period.
> Not the web history, but the official history in the RN archives.
>

We'll work on those questions next.


>
> If you go to http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/EMPEROR.htm
> , in the body it makes no mention of Emperor supporting the Normandy
> landings. But if you look at the sidebar, it lists Normandy 1944 among
> its battle honors.
>

Been there.


>
> There seems to be similar holes in 800 squadron's history as it appears on
> the web. One source mentions their support of the Tirpitz raids, but
> makes no mention of them in the invasion of southern France in the body of
> the history. But it lists Southern France 1944 as a battle honor.
>

How is that a hole?


>
> This source, http://www.answers.com/topic/no-800-naval-air-squadron
> indicates 800 Squadron was in the process of absorbing 804 Squadron in
> June, 1944 before participating in the invasion of Southern France.
>
> It is possible that 800 was busy absorbing 804 at the time of the invasion
> and Emperor was present in an ASW role sans 800 Squadron.
>

Both squadrons were operating Hellcats at the time, the "absorbing" process
would seem to be mostly paperwork.

HMS Emperor is not listed among the participating ships of Operation NEPTUNE
in any capacity. No aircraft carriers are listed. There wouldn't seem to
be a need for them with thousands of land-based aircraft available.


>
> One needs to get to the original sources to truly answer the question of
> Emperor being at or near Normandy. As you can see, the web is not always
> consistent.
>

Have at it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
...
>
> However, it does seem a little strange to me that *two* whole squadrons
> (800 and 804) were removed from the line of battle just at the very moment
> that the Normandy landings were happening.
>

Wouldn't seem to be a need for carrier-based aircraft to support the
invasion with thousands of land-based aircraft available. I'd expect to
find the carriers conducting operations somewhere land-based aircraft
couldn't reach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> The squadrons may have been removed for refitting as part of normal
> rotation. Most likely working up for the invasion of Southern France.
> They are not the only squadrons in the FAA. But remember that only one
> source cites this and it could well be wrong.
>

It appears the carriers Tracker, Pursuer and Emperor were on U-boat patrol
about 300 miles west of Normandy during the landings.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/comnaveu/comnaveu-7.htm#cn417-3

[Lynn in StLou]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Major snippage for brevity...

>
> HMS Emperor is not listed among the participating ships of Operation NEPTUNE
> in any capacity. No aircraft carriers are listed. There wouldn't seem to
> be a need for them with thousands of land-based aircraft available.

The following is provided in another post...

> t appears the carriers Tracker, Pursuer and Emperor were on U-boat patrol
> about 300 miles west of Normandy during the landings.
>
> http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/comnaveu/comnaveu-7.htm#cn417-3

This reference is titled *DEFENSIVE MEASURES --
NEPTUNE OPERATION* and in its footnotes mentions
Tracker, Pursuer, and Emperor. The document says
they were part of a force provided by CinC Western
Approaches to counter U-boat movement from the
north. That does not support your position that
there were no aircraft carriers. All three
carriers are credited with battle honors at Normandy.


--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
. ..
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Major snippage for brevity...
>
>>
>> HMS Emperor is not listed among the participating ships of Operation
>> NEPTUNE in any capacity. No aircraft carriers are listed. There
>> wouldn't seem to be a need for them with thousands of land-based aircraft
>> available.
>
> The following is provided in another post...
>
>> t appears the carriers Tracker, Pursuer and Emperor were on U-boat patrol
>> about 300 miles west of Normandy during the landings.
>>
>> http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/comnaveu/comnaveu-7.htm#cn417-3
>
> This reference is titled *DEFENSIVE MEASURES --
> NEPTUNE OPERATION* and in its footnotes mentions Tracker, Pursuer, and
> Emperor. The document says they were part of a force provided by CinC
> Western Approaches to counter U-boat movement from the north. That does
> not support your position that there were no aircraft carriers.
>

I didn't say there were no carriers, I said there were no carriers listed
among the participating ships of Operation NEPTUNE. If you have information
to the contrary please present it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Neptune


>
> All three carriers are credited with battle honors at Normandy.
>

Can you cite an official source for that assertion?

[Enzo Matrix]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> However, it does seem a little strange to me that *two* whole
>> squadrons (800 and 804) were removed from the line of battle just at
>> the very moment that the Normandy landings were happening.
>>
>
> Wouldn't seem to be a need for carrier-based aircraft to support the
> invasion with thousands of land-based aircraft available. I'd expect
> to find the carriers conducting operations somewhere land-based
> aircraft couldn't reach.

I agree. But that would still make it somewhat illogical to remove two
squadrons worth of aircraft from the line of battle just at the moment when
they would be most needed.


--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

[Enzo Matrix]

Lynn in StLou wrote:
> Enzo Matrix wrote:
>> Lynn in StLou wrote:
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>> "Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Steven's link http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4 states
>>>>> "The Hellcat Is did not participate in the Normandy invasion in
>>>>> June 1944". It seems most unlikely that a valuable resource such
>>>>> as a squadron
>>>>> of very potent fighters would have sat out the biggest operation
>>>>> of the war. It may be splitting hairs, but there is a way that we
>>>>> can *both* be right. It is possible that Emperor's Hellcats were
>>>>> directly involved in fighter cover for the ASW screen, either in
>>>>> the Western Approaches or in the English Channel itself, and so
>>>>> did not actually make an appearance over the Normandy beach head.
>>>>> Therefore, they didn't actually *participate* in the invasion, but
>>>>> they did *support* it.
>>>> Then why isn't HMS Emperor listed among the participating ships of
>>>> Operation NEPTUNE, and why isn't the Normandy invasion mentioned in
>>>> the history of 800 Squadron?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The question might better be "What does the
>>> official 800 Squadron history say it was doing
>>> during the time of June 1 to June 10, 1944?
>>> What does the official history of HMS Emperor say
>>> it was doing in that same time period. Not the
>>> web history, but the official history in the RN
>>> archives.
>>>
>>> If you go to
>>> http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/EMPEROR.htm
>>> , in the body it makes no mention of Emperor
>>> supporting the Normandy landings. But if you
>>> look at the sidebar, it lists Normandy 1944 among
>>> its battle honors.
>>>
>>> There seems to be similar holes in 800 squadron's
>>> history as it appears on the web. One source
>>> mentions their support of the Tirpitz raids, but
>>> makes no mention of them in the invasion of
>>> southern France in the body of the history. But
>>> it lists Southern France 1944 as a battle honor.
>>>
>>> This source,
>>> http://www.answers.com/topic/no-800-naval-air-squadron
>>> indicates 800 Squadron was in the process of
>>> absorbing 804 Squadron in June, 1944 before
>>> participating in the invasion of Southern France.
>>>
>>> It is possible that 800 was busy absorbing 804 at
>>> the time of the invasion and Emperor was present
>>> in an ASW role sans 800 Squadron.
>>>
>>> One needs to get to the original sources to truly
>>> answer the question of Emperor being at or near
>>> Normandy. As you can see, the web is not always
>>> consistent.
>>
>> That's *always* good advice.
>>
>> However, it does seem a little strange to me that *two* whole
>> squadrons (800 and 804) were removed from the line of battle just at
>> the very moment that the Normandy landings were happening.
>
> The squadrons may have been removed for refitting
> as part of normal rotation. Most likely working
> up for the invasion of Southern France. They are
> not the only squadrons in the FAA. But remember
> that only one source cites this and it could well
> be wrong.
>>
>> And if that *was* the case, was Emperor employed as an ASW ship
>> without any aircraft aboard? Sub hunting is a job for a destroyer
>> or corvette - not a carrier!
>>
>> This thread has raised some very interesting questions.
>
> The Hellcat was not an ASW aircraft, so its
> presence is not relevant to ASW work. Emperor may
> have sailed with only ASW aircraft. Not sure what
> FAA was using for ASW at that time.

Tarpons (TBM Avengers) and Barracudas. However, earlier in the war Martlets
were often used as U-boat spotters. There is no reason why Hellcats couldn't
be used in a similar manner.


--
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree. But that would still make it somewhat illogical to remove two
> squadrons worth of aircraft from the line of battle just at the moment
> when they would be most needed.
>

I've seen nothing that suggests that was done.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Enzo Matrix" > wrote in message
...
>
> However, earlier in the war Martlets were often used as U-boat spotters.
>

And later in the war as well.

[Lynn in StLou]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> Major snippage for brevity...
>>
>>> HMS Emperor is not listed among the participating ships of Operation
>>> NEPTUNE in any capacity. No aircraft carriers are listed. There
>>> wouldn't seem to be a need for them with thousands of land-based aircraft
>>> available.
>> The following is provided in another post...
>>
>>> t appears the carriers Tracker, Pursuer and Emperor were on U-boat patrol
>>> about 300 miles west of Normandy during the landings.
>>>
>>> http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/comnaveu/comnaveu-7.htm#cn417-3
>> This reference is titled *DEFENSIVE MEASURES --
>> NEPTUNE OPERATION* and in its footnotes mentions Tracker, Pursuer, and
>> Emperor. The document says they were part of a force provided by CinC
>> Western Approaches to counter U-boat movement from the north. That does
>> not support your position that there were no aircraft carriers.
>>
>
> I didn't say there were no carriers, I said there were no carriers listed
> among the participating ships of Operation NEPTUNE. If you have information
> to the contrary please present it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Neptune

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/comnaveu/comnaveu-7.htm#cn417-3

As stated previously, the document says they were
part of a force provided by CinC
Western Approaches to counter U-boat movement
from the north. It seems rather clear that the
Wikipedia list is incomplete.

>
>
>> All three carriers are credited with battle honors at Normandy.
>>
>
> Can you cite an official source for that assertion?
>
>

As official as Wikipedia....

http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/EMPEROR.htm

http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/PURSUER.htm

http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/TRACKER.htm

Battle honors are listed in the left sidebar.

--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

[[email protected]]

"[4] HELLCAT IN FOREIGN SERVICE

* The Hellcat was also heavily used by the British Royal Navy's Fleet Air
Arm (FAA). A total of 252 F6F-3s were supplied beginning in March 1943. The
FAA had originally wanted to call it the "Gannet F.I (Fighter Mark I)", but
by this time they were realizing that changing the names of Yank aircraft in
their service caused more confusion than it was worth, and so the aircraft
was simply called the "Hellcat F.I".

Two squadrons were built up in 1943, being dispatched on the HMS EMPEROR for
convoy duty late in the year, where they saw no real combat. When the
EMPEROR returned to Britain in early 1944, the ship was sent north in March
as part of OPERATION TUNGSTEN, the attack on the German battleship TIRPITZ
in its protected Norwegian fjord. The Hellcats fought in wintry weather,
taking on German Bf-109Gs and FW-190As, and claiming three kills for the
loss of one of their own.

The Hellcat Is did not participate in the Normandy invasion in June 1944,
but the EMPEROR did participate in the invasion of southern France in
August. US Navy Hellcats also fought in that operation, flying from the
"jeep" carriers KASAAN BAY and TULAGI. The Hellcats performed strikes and
shot down a handful of German aircraft."

From: http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf6f.html#m4

Brian

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
. ..
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>> Major snippage for brevity...
>>>
>>>> HMS Emperor is not listed among the participating ships of Operation
>>>> NEPTUNE in any capacity. No aircraft carriers are listed. There
>>>> wouldn't seem to be a need for them with thousands of land-based
>>>> aircraft
>>>> available.
>>> The following is provided in another post...
>>>
>>>> t appears the carriers Tracker, Pursuer and Emperor were on U-boat
>>>> patrol
>>>> about 300 miles west of Normandy during the landings.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/comnaveu/comnaveu-7.htm#cn417-3
>>> This reference is titled *DEFENSIVE MEASURES --
>>> NEPTUNE OPERATION* and in its footnotes mentions Tracker, Pursuer, and
>>> Emperor. The document says they were part of a force provided by CinC
>>> Western Approaches to counter U-boat movement from the north. That
>>> does
>>> not support your position that there were no aircraft carriers.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say there were no carriers, I said there were no carriers listed
>> among the participating ships of Operation NEPTUNE. If you have
>> information to the contrary please present it.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Neptune
>
> http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/comnaveu/comnaveu-7.htm#cn417-3
>
> As stated previously, the document says they were part of a force provided
> by CinC
> Western Approaches to counter U-boat movement from the north. It seems
> rather clear that the Wikipedia list is incomplete.
>
>>
>>
>>> All three carriers are credited with battle honors at Normandy.
>>>
>>
>> Can you cite an official source for that assertion?
>
> As official as Wikipedia....
>
> http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/EMPEROR.htm
>
> http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/PURSUER.htm
>
> http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/TRACKER.htm
>
> Battle honors are listed in the left sidebar.
>

I think you've lost track of the subject. The issue is not where the
carriers were on D-Day, but whether the Hellcat was used during the Normandy
invsasion. If you accept sources that indicate the carriers were nowhere
near Normandy you have to accept that their aircraft were not used during
the invasion.

[Lynn in StLou[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Major snippage for brevity...
>>>>
>>>>> HMS Emperor is not listed among the participating ships of Operation
>>>>> NEPTUNE in any capacity. No aircraft carriers are listed. There
>>>>> wouldn't seem to be a need for them with thousands of land-based
>>>>> aircraft
>>>>> available.
>>>> The following is provided in another post...
>>>>
>>>>> t appears the carriers Tracker, Pursuer and Emperor were on U-boat
>>>>> patrol
>>>>> about 300 miles west of Normandy during the landings.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/comnaveu/comnaveu-7.htm#cn417-3
>>>> This reference is titled *DEFENSIVE MEASURES --
>>>> NEPTUNE OPERATION* and in its footnotes mentions Tracker, Pursuer, and
>>>> Emperor. The document says they were part of a force provided by CinC
>>>> Western Approaches to counter U-boat movement from the north. That
>>>> does
>>>> not support your position that there were no aircraft carriers.
>>>>
>>> I didn't say there were no carriers, I said there were no carriers listed
>>> among the participating ships of Operation NEPTUNE. If you have
>>> information to the contrary please present it.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Neptune
>> http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/comnaveu/comnaveu-7.htm#cn417-3
>>
>> As stated previously, the document says they were part of a force provided
>> by CinC
>> Western Approaches to counter U-boat movement from the north. It seems
>> rather clear that the Wikipedia list is incomplete.
>>
>>>
>>>> All three carriers are credited with battle honors at Normandy.
>>>>
>>> Can you cite an official source for that assertion?
>> As official as Wikipedia....
>>
>> http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/EMPEROR.htm
>>
>> http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/PURSUER.htm
>>
>> http://www.royalnavyresearcharchive.org.uk/ESCORT/TRACKER.htm
>>
>> Battle honors are listed in the left sidebar.
>>
>
> I think you've lost track of the subject. The issue is not where the
> carriers were on D-Day, but whether the Hellcat was used during the Normandy
> invsasion. If you accept sources that indicate the carriers were nowhere
> near Normandy you have to accept that their aircraft were not used during
> the invasion.
>
>

Nope...never lost track. All I posted was
relevant to rebutting your position that there
were no carriers and hence no Hellcats.

If you want to state:

< that their aircraft were not used OVER THE
BEACHHEAD during the invasion. >

(BOLD inserted by me) then I can agree with you.


--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> Nope...never lost track. All I posted was relevant to rebutting your
> position that there were no carriers and hence no Hellcats.
>
> If you want to state:
>
> < that their aircraft were not used OVER THE BEACHHEAD during the
> invasion. >
>
> (BOLD inserted by me) then I can agree with you.
>

Well, since that IS what I said, it appears you DID lose track.

[Lynn in StLou[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> Nope...never lost track. All I posted was relevant to rebutting your
>> position that there were no carriers and hence no Hellcats.
>>
>> If you want to state:
>>
>> < that their aircraft were not used OVER THE BEACHHEAD during the
>> invasion. >
>>
>> (BOLD inserted by me) then I can agree with you.
>>
>
> Well, since that IS what I said, it appears you DID lose track.
>
>


No, the following is what you said:
>
> I think you've lost track of the subject. The issue is not where the carriers were on D-Day, but whether the Hellcat was used during the Normandy invsasion.
If you accept sources that indicate the carriers
were nowhere near Normandy you have to accept that
their aircraft were not used during the invasion.

and

> MS Emperor is not listed among the participating ships of Operation
> NEPTUNE in any capacity. No aircraft carriers are listed. There
> wouldn't seem to be a need for them with thousands of land-based aircraft
> available.

Show me where you stated over the beachhead prior
to this and I will concede. Adding that phrase
makes the statement correct, leaving it out makes
the statement incorrect. I do not see where you
made that distinction until I made it for you.

--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
et...
>
> No, the following is what you said:
>>
>> I think you've lost track of the subject. The issue is not where the
>> carriers were on D-Day, but whether the Hellcat was used during the
>> Normandy invsasion.
> If you accept sources that indicate the carriers were nowhere near
> Normandy you have to accept that their aircraft were not used during the
> invasion.
>
> and
>
>> MS Emperor is not listed among the participating ships of Operation
>> NEPTUNE in any capacity. No aircraft carriers are listed. There
>> wouldn't seem to be a need for them with thousands of land-based aircraft
>> available.
>
> Show me where you stated over the beachhead prior to this and I will
> concede. Adding that phrase makes the statement correct, leaving it out
> makes the statement incorrect. I do not see where you made that
> distinction until I made it for you.
>

Review the thread, it's there.

[Lynn in StLou[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
> et...
>> No, the following is what you said:
>>> I think you've lost track of the subject. The issue is not where the
>>> carriers were on D-Day, but whether the Hellcat was used during the
>>> Normandy invsasion.
>> If you accept sources that indicate the carriers were nowhere near
>> Normandy you have to accept that their aircraft were not used during the
>> invasion.
>>
>> and
>>
>>> MS Emperor is not listed among the participating ships of Operation
>>> NEPTUNE in any capacity. No aircraft carriers are listed. There
>>> wouldn't seem to be a need for them with thousands of land-based aircraft
>>> available.
>> Show me where you stated over the beachhead prior to this and I will
>> concede. Adding that phrase makes the statement correct, leaving it out
>> makes the statement incorrect. I do not see where you made that
>> distinction until I made it for you.
>>
>
> Review the thread, it's there.
>
>


I have...that statement is not there.

Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> I have...that statement is not there.
>

It's there. If you haven't found it you haven't reviewed the complete
thread.

[Lynn in StLou[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> I have...that statement is not there.
>>
>
> It's there. If you haven't found it you haven't reviewed the complete
> thread.
>
>

Prove your case. Produce the post.

--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVETHIS anti-spam measure to reply

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
...
>
> Prove your case. Produce the post.
>

For what purpose? You say you've reviewed the thread. If that's true,
you've already seen them.

[PDFM]

I have Ray Sturvtivant and Theo Ballance exhaustive history of the
Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm here.

The narrative history of the Squadron says that: "on 3rd April 1944
escort was provided for an attack on the battleship Tirpitz, and during
the next two months strikes were made on shipping off Norway. On 18th
June no.804 Squadron was absorbed and its strength increased from 10 to
20 Hellcats. It later sailed to the Mediterranean to take part in the
invasion of the south of France in August"

A Battle honour for "Normandy 1944" is however listed.

The squadron base list says:

"HMS Emperor 6 May 1944
Belfast 5 June 1944
HMS Emperor 7 June 1944
Ayr 19 June 1944
Ballyhalbert 28 June 1944
HMS Emperor 9 July 1944"

The NORMANDY battle honour is for "Operation Neptune, covering and
support forces in the Channel, Dover to Ushant for landings in France
6th June to 3 July 1944"

??

Moggy




Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Lynn in StLou" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Prove your case. Produce the post.
>>
>
> For what purpose? You say you've reviewed the thread. If that's true,
> you've already seen them.
>
>