UK2 PN748 Vickers WellingtonGRMkV.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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