Name the plane please help
- Thread starter DanMorris
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
its a B-26 Marauder
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Hi Dan welcome aboard. That looks like a Martin B-26.
here's a better pic of a B-26
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Ya beat me to the draw!
- Thread starter
- #7
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
your Grandad would have served in the Middle East and Italy, as this is the only theater in which B-26 Marauders were used by the RAF, with five squadrons being equipped, Nos 14, 39, 326, 327 and 454 Squadrons, plus a further five from the South African Air Force.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In RAF operations, it was called the "Marauder I" and the RAF 12th and 24th Sqdn. operated them in the Aegean area (Crete) and Italy as well.
Ascent
Senior Airman
It's not relevant to the thread and I'm sorry for being picky but you wouldn't call them 12th or 24th Squadron, it's twelve or twentyfour Squadron.
Being an ex RAF type myself it's just one of my pet peeves. I know that's how the Americans call their squadrons so it's understandable and you do see it quite often but it's always irritated me.
Don't mean to offend.
Being an ex RAF type myself it's just one of my pet peeves. I know that's how the Americans call their squadrons so it's understandable and you do see it quite often but it's always irritated me.
Don't mean to offend.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Dave, 12 and 24 Squadrons were two of the SAAF squadrons I mentioned above, not RAF. The others were 21, 25 and 30 Sqns, SAAF.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Ahh then my mistake, Terry!
I always thought the SAAF units were assigned under RAF command bearing those unit assignments. Perhaps I should invest in a pair of glasses next time I'm reading up on the MTO?
I always thought the SAAF units were assigned under RAF command bearing those unit assignments. Perhaps I should invest in a pair of glasses next time I'm reading up on the MTO?
buffnut453
Captain
Understand what you mean. The difference originates from the fact that the USAF (and its forebears) always put the definite article (ie "the") in front of unit designations (eg "the 1st Fighter Wing) - and "the" is always implied even if not actually present in the actual sentence.
For those who may be unaware of the origin of RAF naming conventions, the following may be of interest. Instead of the definite article, the RAF uses the word "number" which, again, can be silent if the word isn't actually present in the sentence (eg "I served on 13 Sqn from 1992-1994" is essentially saying "I served on number 13 Sqn from 1992-1994"). The RAF convention was drawn from the preceding Royal Flying Corps (RFC) which, in turn, grabbed it from the cavalry.
In the British Army, the main unit organization is the Regiment and the definite article is employed for such formations (eg "the 21st Lancers") because they are uniquely identified. Since subordinate units are not unique, it is inappropriate to use the definite article because there may be many sub-units all with the same designation. This is where the cavalry linkage comes in. Cavalry sub-units are squadrons, usually identified by a letter or a number (eg "A Squadron" or "number 3 Squadron"). The definite article is not employed because of the risk of confusion (there being several "3 Squadron" entities across all the Army's cavalry regiments) and because you can't have "the Ath Squadron"! When the RFC was formed, it was decided to use Squadrons as the primary unit organisation, and the cavalry-based naming convention stuck. Nowadays, we tend not to insert the word "number" into the description and simply refer to the unit as, for example, "13 Squadron".
As an additional bonus, the Royal Navy also used the term "squadron" to define a formation of vessels. The use of the squadron as a formation dates back to at least the early 19th Century and is still in use today for small groups of ships (actually, that's pretty much all the RN can manage these days...). Just to be confusing, the RN did use the definite article but, since the RAF was proportionately made up of more RFC units than RNAS units, the Junior Service (ie the RAF) stuck with the Army convention.
All entirely logical and justifiable, really...!
Last edited:
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
No problem Dave. The SAAF units were under RAF control and organisation, just as, for example, RAAF or RCAF units were in the ETO, but as they had a similar numbering order to the RAF squadrons, they would be referred to as, for example "12 (South African) Squadron", in order to avoid confusion.Ahh then my mistake, Terry!
I always thought the SAAF units were assigned under RAF command bearing those unit assignments. Perhaps I should invest in a pair of glasses next time I'm reading up on the MTO?
The other 'Commonwealth' squadrons, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian, had Squadron numbers allocated in blocks, in the '400 series', within the RAF numbering system, and were often just referred to as, for example "464 Squadron", the actual number identifying the nationality.
buffnut453
Captain
Terry,
Most of the 400-series block was, IIRC, reserved for Article XV Squadrons. These units were raised in the Commonwealth nations but personnel were employed at RAF rates of pay and terms of service. At some point, the distinction was deemed to be unnecessary and all the 400-series units were folded into the Air Force of the Commonwealth nation from which they were drawn. Examples include 453 Sqn and 488 Sqn which served in Singapore, the former drawn from Australia and the latter from New Zealand.
Some Commonwealth squadrons were already in existence, as you point out with the SAAF but it wasn't a peculiarly South African issue. Again, from Singapore, 21 Sqn RAAF was Australian in every sense of the word.
Cheers,
B-N
Most of the 400-series block was, IIRC, reserved for Article XV Squadrons. These units were raised in the Commonwealth nations but personnel were employed at RAF rates of pay and terms of service. At some point, the distinction was deemed to be unnecessary and all the 400-series units were folded into the Air Force of the Commonwealth nation from which they were drawn. Examples include 453 Sqn and 488 Sqn which served in Singapore, the former drawn from Australia and the latter from New Zealand.
Some Commonwealth squadrons were already in existence, as you point out with the SAAF but it wasn't a peculiarly South African issue. Again, from Singapore, 21 Sqn RAAF was Australian in every sense of the word.
Cheers,
B-N
Your original photograph is actually of a very EARLY Marauder, not a late version.
You can tell by the location of the swivel mount of the nose gun:
The early versions: B-26, B-26A, and I believe the very early B-26B series had the swivel mounted above the centerline of the bubble without extra bracing. This version would also have had the smal air intakes over the engines. From the appearance and lack of shadow on the side of the nose, there also does not appear to be the extra armour plate that was added on the outside of the aircraft in front of and just below the cockpit.
Note that this aircraft also does not appear to have the four package guns on the fuselage sides below and behind the cockpit
This would have been the original "short wing" Marauder which was quite a bit faster than later versions but also landed much faster. Wing was later increased in span from 65 feet to 71 feet.
The swivel mount of the photograph in the third post is mounted on the vertical centerline and has two braces running upward and diagonal (banked about 45 degrees) from the swivel back to the rest of the nose. Not also the package guns on the sides of the fuselage. The second photograph appears to be a late B Model or perhaps a C from the tail turret configuration and lack of inclined nacelles.
Hope this helps.
- Ivan.
You can tell by the location of the swivel mount of the nose gun:
The early versions: B-26, B-26A, and I believe the very early B-26B series had the swivel mounted above the centerline of the bubble without extra bracing. This version would also have had the smal air intakes over the engines. From the appearance and lack of shadow on the side of the nose, there also does not appear to be the extra armour plate that was added on the outside of the aircraft in front of and just below the cockpit.
Note that this aircraft also does not appear to have the four package guns on the fuselage sides below and behind the cockpit
This would have been the original "short wing" Marauder which was quite a bit faster than later versions but also landed much faster. Wing was later increased in span from 65 feet to 71 feet.
The swivel mount of the photograph in the third post is mounted on the vertical centerline and has two braces running upward and diagonal (banked about 45 degrees) from the swivel back to the rest of the nose. Not also the package guns on the sides of the fuselage. The second photograph appears to be a late B Model or perhaps a C from the tail turret configuration and lack of inclined nacelles.
Hope this helps.
- Ivan.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
That's correct. The original batch of Marauder Mk1 and Mk1A were the B-26A and B-26B, with 52 and 19 of each being supplied.
Later batches were supplied as the Marauder MkII (B-26C) and Marauder MkIII (B-26F and B-26G).
Buff, you're quite correct - the '400 series' squadrons were formed under Article XV of the Commonwealth Air Training Scheme, and were in addition to the existing squadrons, commencing 'No1', of the RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF, RIAF and SAAF,
This numbering system was devised in order to minimise confusion, and worked as, with a few exceptions, the existing original squadrons, and in particular those of the RAAF, operated mainly in the 'home' territory, the Middle East and Far East, with 21 Sqn RAAF, as an example, operating exclusively in the Far East. On the other hand, 21 Sqn RAF, operated in the ETO - and coincidentally, had a strong 'Aussie' contingent.
In general, the differing theaters of operation avoided confusion of identity, for the supplies of stores, equipment, spares and personnel - although I know of at least one exception to the latter!
Later batches were supplied as the Marauder MkII (B-26C) and Marauder MkIII (B-26F and B-26G).
Buff, you're quite correct - the '400 series' squadrons were formed under Article XV of the Commonwealth Air Training Scheme, and were in addition to the existing squadrons, commencing 'No1', of the RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF, RIAF and SAAF,
This numbering system was devised in order to minimise confusion, and worked as, with a few exceptions, the existing original squadrons, and in particular those of the RAAF, operated mainly in the 'home' territory, the Middle East and Far East, with 21 Sqn RAAF, as an example, operating exclusively in the Far East. On the other hand, 21 Sqn RAF, operated in the ETO - and coincidentally, had a strong 'Aussie' contingent.
In general, the differing theaters of operation avoided confusion of identity, for the supplies of stores, equipment, spares and personnel - although I know of at least one exception to the latter!
The B-26B series of aeroplanes had all kinds of variations except for the 3.5 degrees increased incidence of the wing and engine. Some of them were identical in equipment and specifications to the B-26C which was the designation given to the Omaha, Nebraska. I believe those were also Marauder Mk.II's.
A former neighbour of mine flew a B-26G with the 320th Bomb Group. I am trying to build a flight simulator version of his aircraft.
- Ivan.
A former neighbour of mine flew a B-26G with the 320th Bomb Group. I am trying to build a flight simulator version of his aircraft.
- Ivan.
