|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Apr 10, 2016 12:38:44 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Apr 10, 2016 14:50:06 GMT 12
Nice scheme and pix!
You may care to correct the figure in your "In that great venture some 120,000 Canadian and allied aircrew personnel were trained in Canada, including of course a few thousand Kiwis" to read 130,000 (actual total was 131,553 according to the statistical analysis of aircrew graduates in F. J. Hatch's 'Aerodrome of Democracy').
Errol
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Apr 10, 2016 15:00:56 GMT 12
With that scheme it looks less like a Hornet and more like a Wasp!
|
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on Apr 10, 2016 22:53:12 GMT 12
Nice scheme and pix! You may care to correct the figure in your "In that great venture some 120,000 Canadian and allied aircrew personnel were trained in Canada, including of course a few thousand Kiwis" to read 130,000 (actual total was 131,553 according to the statistical analysis of aircrew graduates in F. J. Hatch's 'Aerodrome of Democracy'). Errol Corrected with pleasure Errol, it's a staggering number! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 11, 2016 10:17:43 GMT 12
I love the colour scheme but I am confused about their 75th Anniversary. That would make the start date as 1941, but the Empire Air Training Scheme was first proposed by the British Government on the 26th of September 1939, with the details worked out at a conference between Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and other countries involved in December 1939. Are they basing the anniversary on the first actual course, and did it take well over a year to build up the training establishments required?
The RNZAF began training pilots and aircrew with aircraft supplied through the scheme (the first 146 Oxfords) as early as April 1940.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2016 14:18:30 GMT 12
It's a very fetching scheme for sure, and I love the artwork of the flightline, but I've noticed the Canadians are fond of topside-only commemorative schemes - compare their Battle Of Britain-schemed Hornet with the RAF's Typhoon. I was expecting/hoping for an all-over yellow machine! I'm sure she'll be a big hit on the Canuckistani circuit.
O/T - the web link/address says this is WONZ's 24,000th thread!
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Apr 12, 2016 9:43:17 GMT 12
Dave H (and you can decide which thread is most suitable for the second paragraph of this post).
I quite agree, just what is the basis for a 75th Anniversary of the BCATP (alias EATS) falling in 2016. I cannot see any alternative to December 2014, 75 years after 1939 - perhaps they simply forgot about it until AFTER the event? This is real red-faced stuff - there can really be any doubt as to the bare facts of the case. Does any Board members have a more detailed explanation of the timing of the official Canadian position on this celebration?
I think we have an almost identical problem here in New Zealand with the celebration of our Navy's 75th anniversary of its founding. Although its title was modified to the present style as from 1st October 1941, the actual date of its founding goes back a further twenty years, to 20th June 1921, when it was called the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy. The implication of this seemingly unambiguous title convinces the average citizen to assume that this was still an integral part of the Royal Navy, and the outward appearance of the seagoing force of that time, with British ships largely manned by RN officers and ratings would tend to confirm this belief. However it WAS, despite all appearances to the contrary, a quite separate force, and ENTIRELY funded by the NZ tax payer; the "loaned" ships on the strength of the NZ Division were funded entirely by NZ, although they remained the property of the Admiralty. All loaned RN personnel were funded by the NZ taxpayer at (usually higher) local pay rates, especially so in the case of ratings who comprised the bulk of loaned personnel. The modification of the designation of this force, from NZ Division to RNZN as from 1st October 1941 was simply that, nothing else fundamentally changed, although the RN white ensign was retained (probably for sentimental reasons) until as late as 1968. Another sign of the weaning process of the RNZN from its parent occurred on 1st December 1966, when Commodore L B Carey, RNZN, succeeded Commodore F T Healey, RN, as Third Naval member and Chief of Naval Technical Services of the NZ Naval Board. "This appointment marked the end of an era in the history of the Royal New Zealand Navy. Up to this date, one or more of the Naval Board members have been officers of the Royal Navy. Now for the first time since the Naval Board was established 45 years ago, all Board members are New Zealanders." [from H-4, Annual Report, RNZN for 1966/67]. Any forumite interested in the background to the establishment of New Zealand Division of the RN can read about it in Ian McGibbon's "Blue-water Rationale" (published by Historical Publications Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, 1981, particularly pages 58 to 65). Incidentally the NZ Naval Board was established on 14th March 1921, some 3 months prior to the creation of the NZ Division which it was intended to control. If the NZDF gets its act together, it could celebrate the 100th anniversary of the RNZN (aka NZ Div) in just five years time! The RNZAF celebrated its 50th and 75th Anniversaries based on it creation as a separate service (1/4/37) rather than its change of name to its present title (in February 1934) without any problem at all.
David D
PS, I had not overlooked the brief existence of the earlier attempt to form a local Naval force in 1913 - that was a victim of terribly unfortunate timing (outbreak of the Great War), nor of the even earlier small inland navy set up during the "troubles" in Colonial New Zealand, which is briefly covered in the appendices to the Official History of the RNZN in WW2. The 1913 attempt at forming a Navy was aborted, so had no continuity, whereas the 1921 effort has seen a continuous period of sea-going service since that date.
|
|
