+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-engined Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system.

 

Skyhawks played key roles in the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Falklands War. Sixty years after the aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960 produced (through February 1979). The Skyhawk found many users all around the world, and some still remain in service with the Argentine Air Force and the Brazilian Naval Aviation. Operators in Asia included Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

 

Thailand procured the Skyhawk in 1984, for the Royal Thai Navy air arm to be used for naval and air space surveillance, against sea surface targets and for close air support for the Royal Thai Marine Corps. A total of thirty aircraft were purchased from the USA, twenty-four single seaters and six two-seat TA-4J trainers.

 

The single seaters were refurbished A-4Cs from USN overstock, modernized to a standard that came close to the USN’s A-4L, but with some specific differences and unique features that made them suitable for all-weather strike operations. This modified version was re-designated as A-4LT and featured the late Skyhawk versions’ distinct “Camelback” fairing that house the additional avionics as well as a heat exchanger. The most distinctive external difference to any other Skyhawk version was a unique, pointed radome.

 

The update for Thailand included an AN/APQ-126 terrain following radar in the nose, which was integrated into an ILAAS digital navigation system – a very modern system of its era. The radar also fed a navigation and weapons delivery computer which made possible accurate delivery of bombs from a greater stand-off distance, greatly improving survivability.

Further special equipment for the Thai Skyhawks included, among others, a Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System, a Bendix AN/APN-141 Low altitude radar altimeter, an AN/AVQ-7(V) Head Up display (HUD), air refueling capability (with a fixed but detachable refueling probe), a brake parachute housing below the jet pipe, two additional underwing hardpoints (for a total for five, like the A-4E) and an increased payload. Avionics were modernized and expanded, giving the Thai Skyhawks ability to carry modern AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs and AGM-65 Maverick AGMs. The latter became, beyond standard iron bombs and pods with unguided missiles, the aircrafts’ main armament against naval targets.

However, despite the modernization of the avionics, the A-4LTs retained the A-4Cs’ Wright J65-W-20 engine with 8,200 lbf (36 kN) of takeoff thrust.

 

The first aircraft were delivered in December 1985 to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN / กองทัพเรือไทย / Kong thap ruea thai), carrying a USN grey/white livery. They served in the No.104 RTN Squadron, distributed among two wings based at U-Tapao near Bangkok and at Songkhla in the south of Thailand, close to the Malaysian border. During regular overhauls (executed at Singapore Aircraft Industries, now ST Aerospace), the RTN Skyhawks soon received a new wraparound camouflage with reduced insignia and markings.

 

While in service, the Thai Skyhawks soon suffered from frequent maintenance issues and a low availability rate, since replacement parts for the reliable yet old J65 engine became more and more difficult to obtain. At times, half of the A-4LT fleet had to remain grounded because of engine problems. In consequence, the Thai Skyhawks were in the mid-Nineties supplemented by fourteen Vought A-7E Corsairs (plus four two-seaters) in the coastal defense, sea patrol and anti-shipping role. In 1999, they were retired and replaced by Royal Thai Air Force F-16s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.29 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 6 in (8.38 m)

Height: 15 ft (4.57 m)

Wing area: 259 ft² (24.15 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 0008-1.1-25 root, NACA 0005-0.825-50 tip

Empty weight: 9,146 lb (4,152 kg)

Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Curtiss-Wright J65-W-20 turbojet with 8,200 lbf (36 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 575 kn (661 mph, 1,064 km/h)

Range: 1,700 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)

Combat radius: 625 nmi, 1,158 km

Service ceiling: 42,250 ft (12,880 m)

Rate of climb: 8,440 ft/min (43 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.7 lb/ft² (344.4 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.51

g-limit: +8/-3 g

 

Armament:

2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk. 12 cannons in the wing roots, 100 RPG

Total effective payload of up to 7,700 lb (3,500 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lb capability

- 2× Inboard wing: 2,200 lb capability each

- 2× Outboard wing: 1,000 lb capability each

  

The kit and its assembly:

I originally had this project stashed away for the upcoming "1 Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in June 2020, but since the current "In the Navy" GB had some days to go (and even received a two week extension) I decided to tackle this build on short notice.

 

The original idea was simply to build an A-4L, a modernized A-4C for the USN Reserve units, but similar machines had also been exported to Malaysia. For the naval theme I came across the Royal Thai Navy and its A-7E Corsairs - and from that the idea of a Skyhawk predecessor from the Eighties was born.

 

Instead of an A-4C (Fujimi does one in 1:72, but it's a rare kit) I based my build upon the nice Airfix A-4B/Q kit. Its biggest difference is the shorter nose, so that I decided to modify this "flaw" first and added a pointed radome instead of the usual blunt Skyhawk nose; not certain where it came from – it looks very Sea-Harrier-ish, but it’s actually the tip of a large drop tank (Italeri Tornado?). Nevertheless, this small change created a weird look, even more so with the black paint added to it later.

 

Further additions and mods are a dorsal avionics bulge from an Italeri A-4M, a scratched kinked refueling probe (made from wire and white glue, the early Skyhawks had straight probes but this would certainly interfere with the new radar in the nose), a brake parachute fairing under the tail (scratched, too, from sprue material) and additional antennae under the nose and behind the cockpit. Nothing fancy, rather details from more modern Skyhawk versions.

The AGM-65 Maverick missiles and their respective launch rails came from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen, the drop tank on the ventral pylon is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision. The Thai Corsairs as primary (and historically later) benchmark carried a standard USN grey/white high-viz livery, even though with small roundels. There were also VTOL Harriers (former Spanish Matadors) operated for a short period by the Thai navy on board of the multi-purpose carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which wore a darker two-tone grey livery, pretty boring, too. I rather wanted something more exciting (if not exotic), a more modern wraparound scheme, suited for both overwater and high-altitude duties. That brought me to the Thai F-5Ts (a.k.a. Tigris), which carried - among others - a quite unique US export/aggressor scheme in three shades of light grey, including FS 35414, which looked like a pale turquoise on these machines. I furthermore took inspiration by early Indonesian A-4s, which also carried an US export scheme, nicknamed "Grape", which included darker shades of blue, blue-gray and the bright FS 35414, too.

 

I eventually settled upon a compromise between these two liveries and tried to adapt the standard F-5 aggressor camouflage pattern for the A-4, made up from FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), 35164 (Intermediate Blue) and 35414 (Light Blue). Current Thai L-39 Albatros trainers seem to carry a similar livery, even though I am not certain about the tones that are actually used.

The basic enamel paints I used are Humbrol 129 and 144, and for the greenish Light Blue I used "Fulcrum Grey Green" from Modelmaster (#2134), a tone that is quite greenish but markedly darker and more dull than e.g. Humbrol 65, so that the color would not stand out brightly from the other greys and better fit between them. Worked quite well.

 

The inside of the slats as well as of the air brakes on the flanks were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19), while the landing gear and the interior of the air intake were painted in white (Humbrol 130). The cockpit was painted in a bluish mid grey (Revell 57).

 

After basic overall painting, the model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, for a lightly used/weathered look.

Most decals/markings come from a Thai Harrier (from an Italeri AV-8A kit), some other markings and stencils were puzzled together from the scrap box, e.g. from a USN F-5E aggressor and from a Peruvian Mirage 2000. Some additional details like the black gun soot areas on the wing roots or the fine white lines on the radome were created with generic decal sheet material.

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish, except for the radome, which became semi-gloss.

  

As intended, this build was realized in just a couple of days - and I am positively surprised how good the Skyhawk looks in its unusual, if not exotic colors! This fictional livery certainly looks different from a potential standard USN grey/white outfit, and more exciting than a dull grey-in-grey livery. And it’s so weird that it even adds some credibility to this whiffy aircraft model. 😉

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-engined Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system.

 

Skyhawks played key roles in the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Falklands War. Sixty years after the aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960 produced (through February 1979). The Skyhawk found many users all around the world, and some still remain in service with the Argentine Air Force and the Brazilian Naval Aviation. Operators in Asia included Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

 

Thailand procured the Skyhawk in 1984, for the Royal Thai Navy air arm to be used for naval and air space surveillance, against sea surface targets and for close air support for the Royal Thai Marine Corps. A total of thirty aircraft were purchased from the USA, twenty-four single seaters and six two-seat TA-4J trainers.

 

The single seaters were refurbished A-4Cs from USN overstock, modernized to a standard that came close to the USN’s A-4L, but with some specific differences and unique features that made them suitable for all-weather strike operations. This modified version was re-designated as A-4LT and featured the late Skyhawk versions’ distinct “Camelback” fairing that house the additional avionics as well as a heat exchanger. The most distinctive external difference to any other Skyhawk version was a unique, pointed radome.

 

The update for Thailand included an AN/APQ-126 terrain following radar in the nose, which was integrated into an ILAAS digital navigation system – a very modern system of its era. The radar also fed a navigation and weapons delivery computer which made possible accurate delivery of bombs from a greater stand-off distance, greatly improving survivability.

Further special equipment for the Thai Skyhawks included, among others, a Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System, a Bendix AN/APN-141 Low altitude radar altimeter, an AN/AVQ-7(V) Head Up display (HUD), air refueling capability (with a fixed but detachable refueling probe), a brake parachute housing below the jet pipe, two additional underwing hardpoints (for a total for five, like the A-4E) and an increased payload. Avionics were modernized and expanded, giving the Thai Skyhawks ability to carry modern AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs and AGM-65 Maverick AGMs. The latter became, beyond standard iron bombs and pods with unguided missiles, the aircrafts’ main armament against naval targets.

However, despite the modernization of the avionics, the A-4LTs retained the A-4Cs’ Wright J65-W-20 engine with 8,200 lbf (36 kN) of takeoff thrust.

 

The first aircraft were delivered in December 1985 to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN / กองทัพเรือไทย / Kong thap ruea thai), carrying a USN grey/white livery. They served in the No.104 RTN Squadron, distributed among two wings based at U-Tapao near Bangkok and at Songkhla in the south of Thailand, close to the Malaysian border. During regular overhauls (executed at Singapore Aircraft Industries, now ST Aerospace), the RTN Skyhawks soon received a new wraparound camouflage with reduced insignia and markings.

 

While in service, the Thai Skyhawks soon suffered from frequent maintenance issues and a low availability rate, since replacement parts for the reliable yet old J65 engine became more and more difficult to obtain. At times, half of the A-4LT fleet had to remain grounded because of engine problems. In consequence, the Thai Skyhawks were in the mid-Nineties supplemented by fourteen Vought A-7E Corsairs (plus four two-seaters) in the coastal defense, sea patrol and anti-shipping role. In 1999, they were retired and replaced by Royal Thai Air Force F-16s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.29 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 6 in (8.38 m)

Height: 15 ft (4.57 m)

Wing area: 259 ft² (24.15 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 0008-1.1-25 root, NACA 0005-0.825-50 tip

Empty weight: 9,146 lb (4,152 kg)

Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Curtiss-Wright J65-W-20 turbojet with 8,200 lbf (36 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 575 kn (661 mph, 1,064 km/h)

Range: 1,700 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)

Combat radius: 625 nmi, 1,158 km

Service ceiling: 42,250 ft (12,880 m)

Rate of climb: 8,440 ft/min (43 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.7 lb/ft² (344.4 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.51

g-limit: +8/-3 g

 

Armament:

2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk. 12 cannons in the wing roots, 100 RPG

Total effective payload of up to 7,700 lb (3,500 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lb capability

- 2× Inboard wing: 2,200 lb capability each

- 2× Outboard wing: 1,000 lb capability each

  

The kit and its assembly:

I originally had this project stashed away for the upcoming "1 Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in June 2020, but since the current "In the Navy" GB had some days to go (and even received a two week extension) I decided to tackle this build on short notice.

 

The original idea was simply to build an A-4L, a modernized A-4C for the USN Reserve units, but similar machines had also been exported to Malaysia. For the naval theme I came across the Royal Thai Navy and its A-7E Corsairs - and from that the idea of a Skyhawk predecessor from the Eighties was born.

 

Instead of an A-4C (Fujimi does one in 1:72, but it's a rare kit) I based my build upon the nice Airfix A-4B/Q kit. Its biggest difference is the shorter nose, so that I decided to modify this "flaw" first and added a pointed radome instead of the usual blunt Skyhawk nose; not certain where it came from – it looks very Sea-Harrier-ish, but it’s actually the tip of a large drop tank (Italeri Tornado?). Nevertheless, this small change created a weird look, even more so with the black paint added to it later.

 

Further additions and mods are a dorsal avionics bulge from an Italeri A-4M, a scratched kinked refueling probe (made from wire and white glue, the early Skyhawks had straight probes but this would certainly interfere with the new radar in the nose), a brake parachute fairing under the tail (scratched, too, from sprue material) and additional antennae under the nose and behind the cockpit. Nothing fancy, rather details from more modern Skyhawk versions.

The AGM-65 Maverick missiles and their respective launch rails came from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen, the drop tank on the ventral pylon is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision. The Thai Corsairs as primary (and historically later) benchmark carried a standard USN grey/white high-viz livery, even though with small roundels. There were also VTOL Harriers (former Spanish Matadors) operated for a short period by the Thai navy on board of the multi-purpose carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which wore a darker two-tone grey livery, pretty boring, too. I rather wanted something more exciting (if not exotic), a more modern wraparound scheme, suited for both overwater and high-altitude duties. That brought me to the Thai F-5Ts (a.k.a. Tigris), which carried - among others - a quite unique US export/aggressor scheme in three shades of light grey, including FS 35414, which looked like a pale turquoise on these machines. I furthermore took inspiration by early Indonesian A-4s, which also carried an US export scheme, nicknamed "Grape", which included darker shades of blue, blue-gray and the bright FS 35414, too.

 

I eventually settled upon a compromise between these two liveries and tried to adapt the standard F-5 aggressor camouflage pattern for the A-4, made up from FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), 35164 (Intermediate Blue) and 35414 (Light Blue). Current Thai L-39 Albatros trainers seem to carry a similar livery, even though I am not certain about the tones that are actually used.

The basic enamel paints I used are Humbrol 129 and 144, and for the greenish Light Blue I used "Fulcrum Grey Green" from Modelmaster (#2134), a tone that is quite greenish but markedly darker and more dull than e.g. Humbrol 65, so that the color would not stand out brightly from the other greys and better fit between them. Worked quite well.

 

The inside of the slats as well as of the air brakes on the flanks were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19), while the landing gear and the interior of the air intake were painted in white (Humbrol 130). The cockpit was painted in a bluish mid grey (Revell 57).

 

After basic overall painting, the model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, for a lightly used/weathered look.

Most decals/markings come from a Thai Harrier (from an Italeri AV-8A kit), some other markings and stencils were puzzled together from the scrap box, e.g. from a USN F-5E aggressor and from a Peruvian Mirage 2000. Some additional details like the black gun soot areas on the wing roots or the fine white lines on the radome were created with generic decal sheet material.

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish, except for the radome, which became semi-gloss.

  

As intended, this build was realized in just a couple of days - and I am positively surprised how good the Skyhawk looks in its unusual, if not exotic colors! This fictional livery certainly looks different from a potential standard USN grey/white outfit, and more exciting than a dull grey-in-grey livery. And it’s so weird that it even adds some credibility to this whiffy aircraft model. 😉

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

In Autumn 1946, the Saab company began internal studies aimed at developing a replacement aircraft for the Saab B 18/S 18 as Sweden's standard attack aircraft. In 1948, Saab was formally approached by the Swedish Government with a request to investigate the development of a turbojet-powered strike aircraft to replace a series of 1940s vintage attack, reconnaissance, and night-fighter aircraft then in the Flygvapnet’s inventory. On 20 December 1948, a phase one contract for the design and mock-up of the proposed aircraft was issued. The requirements laid out by the Swedish Air Force were demanding: the aircraft had to be able to attack anywhere along Sweden's 2,000 km (1,245 miles) of coastline within one hour of launch from a central location, and it had to be capable of being launched in any weather conditions, at day or night.

 

In response, Saab elected to develop a twin-seat aircraft with a low-mounted swept wing and equipped with advanced electronics. On 3 November 1952, the first prototype, under the handle “Fpl 32” (flygplan = aircraft) conducted its first flight. A small batch of prototypes completed design and evaluation trials with series production of the newly designated Saab 32 Lansen beginning in 1953. The first production A 32A Lansen attack aircraft were delivered to the Swedish Air Force and proceeded through to mid-1958, at which point manufacturing activity switched to the Lansen’s other two major scheduled variants, the J 32B all-weather fighter and the photo reconnaissance S 32C, optimized for maritime operations.

 

The idea behind the J 32 originated from the late 1940s: Even before the SAAB 29 Tunnan had taken to the air, discussions began between SAAB and the Swedish Aviation Administration regarding a future night fighter aircraft with a jet engine. Since the end of the war, the Swedish Air Force had wanted a night fighter aircraft but was forced to put these on the shelf due to cost reasons. In the end, they managed to obtain sixty de Haviland Mosquito night fighter aircraft (then designated J 30) from Great Britain as a low-budget solution, but the J 30 was far from modern at the end of the 1940s and talks with SAAB regarding a domestic alternative continued.

At the beginning of the 1950s, the Fpl 32 project was in full swing and the aircraft was selected as the basis for an indigenous all-weather jet night fighter with a sighting radar and various heavier weapons to be able to shoot down bombers – at the time of the J 32B’s design, the main bomber threat was expected to enter Swedish airspace at subsonic speed and at high altitude. The original idea was that this aircraft would replace the J 30 Mosquito from 1955 onwards, but this proved to be impossible as the J 30 fleet needed to be replaced long before this and the A 32A as initial/main varia of the Fpl 32 had priority. Because of this operational gap, in January 1951 the Swedish Air Force ordered the British de Haviland Venom (then designated J 33) as an interim all-weather fighter and plans for the J 32B were postponed until later with the idea that the Lansen’s fighter variant would replace the J 33 at the end of the 1950s and benefit from technological progress until then.

 

On 7 January 1957, the first J 32B conducted its maiden flight, and it was a considerable step forward from the A 32A attack aircraft – in fact, excepts for the hull, it had only little in common with the attack variant! The new fighter version was powered by a Rolls-Royce Avon Mk 47A (locally designated RM6A) which gave as much thrust without an afterburner as the SAAB A 32A's original RM5A2 did with an afterburner, greatly improving the aircraft’s rate of climb and acceleration, even though the J 32B remained only transonic.

The armament consisted of four heavier fixed 30 mm ADEN m/55 automatic cannon in a slightly re-contoured nose, plus Rb 24/AIM-9B Sidewinder IR-guided AAMs and various unguided rockets against air and ground targets. Instead of the A 32A’s Ericsson mapping and navigation radar, which was compatible with the indigenous Rb 04C anti-ship missile, one of the earliest cruise missiles in western service, the J 32B carried a PS-42/A. This was a search/tracking X-band radar with a gyro-stabilized antenna with a swivel range of 60° to each side and +60°/−30° up/down. The radar featured the option of a 3D display for both WSO and pilot and its data could be directly displayed in the pilot’s Sikte 6A HUD, a very modern solution at the time.

 

A total of 118 aircraft (S/N 32501-32620) were produced between 1958 and 1960, serving in four fighter units. However, the J 32B only served for just under 12 years as a fighter aircraft in the Swedish Air Force: aviation technology progressed very quickly during the 1960s and already in 1966, the J 32B began to be replaced by the J 35F, which itself was already an advanced all-weather interceptor version of the supersonic Draken. In 1969 only the Jämtland's Air Flotilla (F4) still had the J 32B left in service and the type began to be completely retired from frontline service. In 1970 the plane flew in service for the last time and in 1973 the J 32B was officially phased out of the air force, and scrapping began in 1974.

 

However, the J 32Bs’ career was not over yet: At the beginning of the 1970s, Målflygdivisionen (MFD for short, the “Target Air Division”) was still using old J 29Fs as target tugs and for other training purposes, and they needed to be replaced. The choice fell on the much more capable, robust and readily available J 32B. Twenty-four machines were transferred to the MFD in 1971 to be used for training purposes, losing their radar and cannon armament. Six of these six J 32Bs were in 1972 modified into dedicated target tugs under the designation J 32D, six more J 32Bs were left unmodified and allocated to various second-line tasks such as radio testing and ground training.

The other twelve J 32Bs (s/n 32507, -510, -512, -515, -529, -541, -543, -569, -571, -592, -607 and -612) became jamming aircraft through the implementation of ECR equipment under the designation J 32E. This electronics package included internally:

- An INGEBORG signal reconnaissance receiver with antennae in the radome,

covering S, C and L radar frequency bands

- A G24 jamming transmitter, also with its antenna in the radome, covering alternatively

S, C and L frequency bands. This device co-operated with the external ADRIAN jamming pod

- Apparatus 91B; a broadband jammer, later integrated with INGEBORG

- MORE, a jammer and search station for the VHF and UHF bands

- FB-6 tape player/recorder; used, among other things, to send false messages/interference

Additional, external equipment included:

- PETRUS: jamming pod, X-band, also radar warning, intended for jamming aircraft

and active missile radars

- ADRIAN: jamming pod, active on S- and C-band, intended for jamming land-based and

shipboard radars

- BOZ-1, -3, -9 and -100 chaff dispenser pods

 

Outwardly, the J 32E differed from its brethren only through some blade antennae around the hull, and they initially retained the fighters’ blue-green paint scheme and their tactical markings so that they were hard to distinguish from the original fighters. Over time, orange day-glow markings were added to improve visibility during training sessions. However, during the mid-Nineties, three machines received during scheduled overhauls a new all-grey low-visibility camouflage with toned-down markings, and they received the “16M” unit identifier – the only MFD aircraft to carry these openly.

 

When a J 32E crashed in 1975, three of the remaining six training J 32Bs were modified into J 32Es in 1979 to fill the ranks. The MFD kept operating the small J 32Ds and Es fleet well into the Nineties and the special unit survived two flotilla and four defense engagements. At that time, the Målflygdivisionen was part of the Swedish Air Force’s Upplands Flygflottilj (F16), but it was based at Malmen air base near Linköpping (where the Swedish Air Force’s Försökscentralen was located, too) as a detachment unit and therefore the machines received the unit identifier “F16M”, even though the “M” suffix did normally not appear on the aircraft. However, through a defense ministry decision in 1996 the Target Air Division and its associated companies as well as the aircraft workshop at Malmen were to be decommissioned, what meant the end of the whole unit. On June 26, 1997, a ceremony was held over the disbandment of the division, where, among other things, twelve J 32Es made a formation flight over Östergötland.

After the decommissioning of the division, however, the Lansens were still not ‘dead’ yet: the J 32D target tugs were kept operational by a private operator and received civil registrations, and eight flightworthy J 32Es were passed over to FMV:Prov (Provningsavdelningen vid Försvarets materielverk, the material testing department of the Swedish Air Force’s Försökscentralen) to serve on, while other airframes without any more future potential were handed over to museums as exhibition pieces, or eventually scrapped. The surviving J 32Es served on in the electronic aggressor/trainer role until 1999 when they were finally replaced by ten modified Sk 37E Viggen two-seaters, after their development and conversion had taken longer than expected.

 

However, this was still not the end of the Saab 32, which turned out to be even more long-lived: By 2010, at least two Lansens were still operational, having the sole task of taking high altitude air samples for research purposes in collaboration with the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, and by 2012 a total of three Lansens reportedly remained in active service in Sweden.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 14.94 m (49 ft 0 in)

Wingspan: 13 m (42 ft 8 in)

Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 37.4 m² (403 sq ft)

Airfoil: NACA 64A010

Empty weight: 7,500 kg (16,535 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 13,500 kg (29,762 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Svenska Flygmotor RM6A afterburning turbojet

(a Rolls Royce Avon Mk.47A outfitted with an indigenous afterburner),

delivering 4,88 kp dry and 6,500 kp with reheat

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,200 km/h (750 mph, 650 kn)

Range: 2,000 km (1,200 mi, 1,100 nmi) with internal fuel only

Service ceiling: 15,000 m (49,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 100 m/s (20,000 ft/min)

 

Armament:

No internal weapons.

13× external hardpoints (five major pylons and eight more for light weapons)

for a wide variety of up to 3.000 kg of ordnance, typically only used

for ECM and chaff/flare dispenser pods and/or a conformal ventral auxiliary tank

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a what-if project that I had on my idea list for a long time, but never got the nerve to do it because it is just a mild modification – the model depicts a real aircraft type, just with a fictional livery for it (see below).

The plan to create a J 32E from Heller’s A 32 kit from 1982 predated any OOB option, though. Tarangus has been offering a dedicated J 32B/E kit since 2016, but I stuck to my original plan to convert a Heller fighter bomber which I had in The Stash™, anyway)- also because I find the Tarangus kit prohibitively expensive (for what you get), even though it might have saved some work.

 

The Heller A 32A kit was basically built OOB, even though changing it into a J 32B (and even further into an “E”) called for some major modifications. These could have been scratched, but out of convenience I invested into a dedicated Maestro Models conversion set that offers resin replacements for a modified gun bay (which has more pronounced “cheek fairings” than the attack aircraft, the lower section is similar to the S 32C camera nose), a new jet exhaust and also the Lansen’s unique conformal belly tank – for the cost of a NIB Heller Saab 32 kit alone, though… :-/

Implanting the Maestro Models parts was straightforward and relatively easy. The J 32B gun bay replaces the OOB parts from the Heller kit, fits well and does not require more PSR than the original part. Since the model depicts a gun-less J 32E, I faired the gun ports over.

 

The RM6A exhaust was a bit more challenging – it is a bit longer and wider than the A 32A’s RM5. It’s not much, maybe 1mm in each dimension, so that the tail opening had to be widened and slightly re-contoured to accept the new one-piece resin pipe. The belly tank matched the kit’s ventral contours well. As an extra, the Maestro Models set also offers the J 32B’s different tail skid, which is placed further back on the fighter than on the attack and recce aircraft.

 

The J 32E’s characteristic collection of sizable blade antennae all around the hull was scratched from 0.5 mm styrene sheet. Furthermore, the flaps were lowered, an emergency fuel outlet was added under the tail, the canopy (very clear, but quite thick!) cut into two parts for optional open display, and the air intake walls were extended inside of the fuselage with styrene sheet.

 

Under the wings, four pylons (the Heller kit unfortunately comes totally devoid of any ordnance or even hardpoints!) from the spares box were added that carry scratched BOZ-1 chaff dispensers and a pair of ADRIAN/PETRUS ECM pod dummies – all made from drop tanks, incidentally from Swedish aircraft (Mistercraft Saab 35 and Matchbox Saab 29). Sure, there are short-run aftermarket sets for this special equipment that might come closer to the real thing(s), but I do not think that the (quite considerable) investments in all these exotic aftermarket items are worthwhile when most of them are pretty easy to scratch.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme was the actual reason to build a J 32E: the fundamental plan was to build a Lansen in the Swedish air superiority low-viz two-tone paint scheme from the Nineties, and the IMHO only sensible option beyond pure fantasy was the real J 32E as “canvas”. I used JAS 39 Gripens as reference: their upper tone is called Pansargrå 5431-17M (“Tank Grey”, which is, according to trustworthy sources, very close to FS 36173, U.S. Neutral Grey), while the undersides are painted in Duvagrå 5431-14M (“Dove Grey”; approximately FS 36373, a tone called “High Low Visibility Light Grey”). Surprisingly, other Swedish types in low-viz livery used different shades; the JA 37s and late J 35Js were painted in tones called mörkgrå 033M and grå 032M, even though AJSF 37s and AFAIK a single SK 37 were painted with the Gripen colors, too.

 

After checking a lot of Gripen pictures I selected different tones, though, because the greys appear much lighter in real life, esp. on the lower surfaces. I ended up with FS 36231 (Dark Gull Grey, Humbrol 140, a bit lighter than the Neutral Grey) and RLM 63 (Lichtgrau, Testors 2077, a very pale and cold tone). The aircraft received a low waterline with a blurry edge, and the light grey was raised at the nose up to the radome, as seen on JA 37s and JAS 39s. To make the low-viz Lansen look a little less uniform I painted the lower rear section of the fuselage in Revell 91 and 99, simulating bare metal – a measure that had been done with many Lansens because leaking fuel and oil from the engine bay would wash off any paint in this area, leaving a rather tatty look. Di-electric fairings like the nose radome and the fin tip were painted with a brownish light grey (Revell 75) instead of black, reducing contrast and simulating bare and worn fiber glass. Small details like the white tips of the small wing fences and the underwing pylons were adapted from real-world Lansens.

 

After a light black ink wash, I emphasized single panels with Humbrol 125 and 165 on the upper surfaces and 147 and 196 underneath. Additionally, grinded graphite was used for weathering and a grimy look – an effective method, thanks to the kit’s fine raised panel lines. The silver wing leading edges were created with decal sheet material and not painted, a clean and convenient solution that avoids masking mess.

 

The ECM and chaff dispenser pods were painted in a slightly different shade of grey (FS 36440, Humbrol 40). As a subtle contrast the conformal belly tank was painted with Humbrol 247 (RLM 76), a tone that comes close to the Lansens’ standard camouflage from the Sixties’ green/blue livery, with a darker front end (Humbrol 145) and a bare metal tail section.

 

The cockpit interior was, according to pictures of real aircraft, painted in a greenish grey; I used Revell 67 (RAL 7009, Grüngrau) for most surfaces and slightly darker Humbrol 163 for dashboards and instrument panels. The landing gear wells as well as the flaps’ interior became Aluminum Bronze (Humbrol 56), while the landing gear struts were painted in a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195) with olive drab (Revell 46) wheel hubs - a detail seen on some real-life Saab 32s and a nice contrast to the light grey all around.

 

All markings/decals came from RBD Studio/Moose Republic aftermarket sheets for Saab 32 and 37. From the latter the low-viz national markings and the day-glo orange tactical codes were taken, while most stencils came from the Lansen sheet. Unfortunately, the Heller kit’s OOB sheet is pretty minimalistic – but the real A/S 32s did not carry many markings, anyway. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish. As a confusing detail I gave the aircraft an explicit “16M” unit identifier, created with single black 4 mm letters/numbers. As a stark contrast and a modern peace-time element I also gave the Lansen the typical huge day-glo orange tactical codes on the upper wings that were carried by the Swedish interceptors of the time.

  

A relatively simple build, thanks to the resin conversion set – otherwise, creating a more or less believable J 32E from Heller’s A 32 kit is a tough challenge. Though expensive, the parts fit and work well, and I’d recommend the set, because the shape of the J 32B’s lower nose is quite complex and scratching the bigger jet pipe needs a proper basis. The modern low-viz livery suits the vintage yet elegant Lansen well, even though it reveals the aircraft’s bulk and size; in all-grey, the Lansen has something shark- or even whale-ish to it? The aircraft/livery combo looks pretty exotic, but not uncredible - like a proven war horse.

Incense is aromatic biotic material which releases fragrant smoke when burned. The term refers to the material itself, rather than to the aroma that it produces. Incense is used for a variety of purposes, including the ceremonies of religion, to overcome bad smells, repel insects, spirituality, aromatherapy, meditation, and for simple pleasure.

 

Incense is composed of aromatic plant materials, often combined with essential oils. The forms taken by incense differ with the underlying culture, and have changed with advances in technology and increasing diversity in the reasons for burning it. Incense can generally be separated into two main types: "indirect-burning" and "direct-burning". Indirect-burning incense (or "non-combustible incense") is not capable of burning on its own, and requires a separate heat source. Direct-burning incense (or "combustible incense") is lit directly by a flame and then fanned or blown out, leaving a glowing ember that smoulders and releases fragrance. Direct-burning incense is either a paste formed around a bamboo stick, or a paste that is extruded into a stick or cone shape.

 

HISTORY

The word incense comes from Latin for incendere meaning "to burn".

 

Combustible bouquets were used by the ancient Egyptians, who employed incense within both pragmatic and mystical capacities. Incense was burnt to counteract or obscure malodorous products of human habitation, but was widely perceived to also deter malevolent demons and appease the gods with its pleasant aroma. Resin balls were found in many prehistoric Egyptian tombs in El Mahasna, furnishing tangible archaeological substantiation to the prominence of incense and related compounds within Egyptian antiquity. One of the oldest extant incense burners originates from the 5th dynasty. The Temple of Deir-el-Bahari in Egypt contains a series of carvings that depict an expedition for incense.

 

The Babylonians used incense while offering prayers to divining oracles. Incense spread from there to Greece and Rome.

 

Incense burners have been found in the Indus Civilization (3300 BCE- 1300 BCE). Evidence suggests oils were used mainly for their aroma. India also adopted techniques from East Asia, adapting the inherited formulation to encompass aromatic roots and other indigenous flora. This comprised the initial usage of subterranean plant parts within the fabrication of incense. New herbs like Sarsaparilla seeds, frankincense, and cypress were used by Indians for incense.

 

At around 2000 BCE, Ancient China began the use of incense in the religious sense, namely for worship. Incense was used by Chinese cultures from Neolithic times and became more widespread in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. The earliest documented instance of incense utilization comes from the ancient Chinese, who employed incense composed of herbs and plant products (such as cassia, cinnamon, styrax, sandalwood, amongst others) as a component of numerous formalized ceremonial rites. Incense usage reached its peak during the Song Dynasty with numerous buildings erected specifically for incense ceremonies.

 

Brought to Japan in the 6th century by Korean Buddhist monks, who used the mystical aromas in their purification rites, the delicate scents of Koh (high-quality Japanese incense) became a source of amusement and entertainment with nobles in the Imperial Court during the Heian Era 200 years later. During the 14th century Shogunate, a samurai warrior might perfume his helmet and armor with incense to achieve an aura of invincibility (as well as to make a noble gesture to whomever might take his head in battle). It wasn't until the Muromachi Era during the 15th and 16th century that incense appreciation (Kōdō) spread to the upper and middle classes of Japanese society.

 

COMPOSITION

A variety of materials have been used in making incense. Historically there has been a preference for using locally available ingredients. For example, sage and cedar were used by the indigenous peoples of North America. Trading in incense materials comprised a major part of commerce along the Silk Road and other trade routes, one notably called the Incense Route.

 

The same could be said for the techniques used to make incense. Local knowledge and tools were extremely influential on the style, but methods were also influenced by migrations of foreigners, among them clergy and physicians who were both familiar with incense arts.

 

COMBUSTIBLE BASE

The combustible base of a direct burning incense mixture not only binds the fragrant material together but also allows the produced incense to burn with a self-sustained ember, which propagates slowly and evenly through an entire piece of incense with such regularity that it can be used to mark time. The base is chosen such that it does not produce a perceptible smell. Commercially, two types of incense base predominate:

- Fuel and oxidizer mixtures: Charcoal or wood powder forms the fuel for the combustion. Gums such as Gum Arabic or Gum Tragacanth are used to bind the mixture together while an oxidizer such as sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate sustains the burning of the incense. Fragrant materials are combined into the base prior to formation as in the case of powdered incense materials or after formation as in the case of essential oils. The formula for the charcoal-based incense is superficially similar to black powder, though it lacks the sulfur.

- Natural plant-based binders: Mucilaginous material, which can be derived from many botanical sources, is mixed with fragrant materials and water. The mucilage from the wet binding powder holds the fragrant material together while the cellulose in the powder combusts to form a stable ember when lit. The dry binding powder usually comprises about 10% of the dry weight in the finished incense. This includes:

- Makko (incense powder): made from the bark of various trees from the Persea such as Persea thunbergii)

- Xiangnan pi (made from the bark of Phoebe genus trees such as Phoebe nanmu, Persea zuihoensis.

- Jigit: a resin based binder used in India

- Laha or Dar: bark based powders used in Nepal, Tibet, and other East Asian countries.

 

TYPES

Incense materials are available in various forms and degrees of processing. They can generally be separated into "direct-burning" and "indirect-burning" types depending on use. Preference for one form or another varies with culture, tradition, and personal taste. Although the production of direct- and indirect-burning incense are both blended to produce a pleasant smell when burned, the two differ in their composition due to the former's requirement for even, stale, and sustained burning.

 

INDIRECT BURNING

Indirect-burning incense, also called "non-combustible incense", is a combination of aromatic ingredients that are not prepared in any particular way or encouraged into any particular form, leaving it mostly unsuitable for direct combustion. The use of this class of incense requires a separate heat source since it does not generally kindle a fire capable of burning itself and may not ignite at all under normal conditions. This incense can vary in the duration of its burning with the texture of the material. Finer ingredients tend to burn more rapidly, while coarsely ground or whole chunks may be consumed very gradually as they have less total surface area. The heat is traditionally provided by charcoal or glowing embers.

 

In the West, the best known incense materials of this type are frankincense and myrrh, likely due to their numerous mentions in the Christian Bible. In fact, the word for "frankincense" in many European languages also alludes to any form of incense.

 

- Whole: The incense material is burned directly in its raw unprocessed form on top of coal embers.

- Powdered or granulated: The incense material is broken down into finer bits. This incense burns quickly and provides a short period of intense smells.

- Paste: The powdered or granulated incense material is mixed with a sticky and incombustible binder, such as dried fruit, honey, or a soft resin and then formed to balls or small pastilles. These may then be allowed to mature in a controlled environment where the fragrances can commingle and unite. Much Arabian incense, also called "Bukhoor" or "Bakhoor", is of this type (Bakhoor actually refers to frankincense in Arabic) and Japan has a history of kneaded incense, called nerikō or awasekō, using this method.[17] Within the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, raw frankincense is ground into a fine powder and then mixed with various sweet-smelling essential oils.

 

DIRECT BURNING

Direct-burning incense also called "combustible incense", is lit directly by a flame. The glowing ember on the incense will continue to smoulder and burn away the rest of the incense without continued application of heat or flame from an outside source. Direct-burning incense is either extruded, pressed into forms, or coated onto a supporting material. This class of incense is made from a moldable substrate of fragrant finely ground (or liquid) incense materials and odourless binder. The composition must be adjusted to provide fragrance in the proper concentration and to ensure even burning. The following types of direct-burning incense are commonly encountered, though the material itself can take virtually any form, according to expediency or whimsy:

 

- Coil: Extruded and shaped into a coil without a core. This type of incense is able to burn for an extended period, from hours to days, and is commonly produced and used by Chinese culture

- Cone: Incense in this form burns relatively fast. Incense cones were invented in Japan in the 1800s.

- Cored stick: This form of stick incense has a supporting core of bamboo. Higher quality varieties of this form have fragrant sandalwood cores. The core is coated by a thick layer of incense material that burns away with the core. This type of incense is commonly produced in India and China. When used for worship in Chinese folk religion, cored incensed sticks are sometimes known as "joss sticks".

- Solid stick: This stick incense has no supporting core and is completely made of incense material. Easily broken into pieces, it allows one to determine the specific amount of incense they wish to burn. This is the most commonly produced form of incense in Japan and Tibet.

- Powder: The loose incense powder used for making indirect burning incense is sometimes burned without further processing. They are typically packed into long trails on top of wood ash using a stencil and burned in special censers or incense clocks.

- Paper: Paper infused with incense, folded accordion style, lit and blown out. Examples are Carta d'Armenia and Papier d'Arménie.

- Rope: The incense powder is rolled into paper sheets, which are then rolled into ropes, twisted tightly, then doubled over and twisted again, yielding a two-strand rope. The larger end is the bight, and may be stood vertically, in a shallow dish of sand or pebbles. The smaller (pointed) end is lit. This type of incense is highly transportable and stays fresh for extremely long periods. It has been used for centuries in Tibet and Nepal.

 

The disks of powdered mugwort called 'moxa' sold in Chinese shops and herbalists are used in Traditional Chinese medicine for moxibustion treatment. Moxa tablets are not incenses; the treatment relies on heat rather than fragrance.

  

REED DIFFUSING

A reed diffuser is a form of incense that uses no heat. It comes in three parts: a bottle/container, scented essential incense oil, and bamboo reeds. The incense oil is placed into the container and bamboo reeds are then put into the same container. This is done to absorb some of the incense oil, as well as to help carry its scent and essence out of the container and into the surrounding air. Reeds typically have tiny tube openings that run the entire length of the stick. Oil is absorbed by the reed sticks and carried along the entire reed. These are do-it-yourself incense sticks that do not burn and look almost identical to typical incense sticks

 

PRODUCTION

INDIRECT BURNING

The raw materials are powdered and then mixed together with a binder to form a paste, which, for direct burning incense, are then cut and dried into pellets. Incense of the Athonite Orthodox Christian tradition are made by powdering frankincense or fir resin, mixing it with essential oils. Floral fragrances are the most common, but citrus such as lemon is not uncommon. The incense mixture is then rolled out into a slab approximately 1 cm thick and left until the slab has firmed. It is then cut into small cubes, coated with clay powder to prevent adhesion, and allowed to fully harden and dry. In Greece this rolled incense resin is called 'Moskolibano', and generally comes in either a pink or green colour denoting the fragrance, with pink being rose and green being jasmine.

 

DIRECT BURNING

In order to obtain desired combustion qualities, attention has to be paid to certain proportions in direct burning incense mixtures:

 

- Oil content: Resinous materials such as myrrh and frankincense must not exceed the amount of dry materials in the mixture to such a degree that the incense will not smolder and burn.[citation needed] The higher the oil content relative to the dry mass, the less likely the mixture is to burn effectively.[citation needed] Typically the resinous or oily substances are balanced with "dry" materials such as wood, bark and leaf powders.

- Oxidizer quantity: The amount of chemical oxidizer in gum-bound incense must be carefully proportioned. If too little, the incense will not ignite, and if too much, the incense will burn too quickly and not produce fragrant smoke.

- Mixture density: Incense mixtures made with natural binders must not be combined with too much water in mixing, or over-compressed while being formed, which would result in either uneven air distribution or undesirable density in the mixture, causing the incense to burn unevenly, too slowly, or too quickly.

- Particulate size: The incense mixture has to be well pulverized with similarly sized particulates. Uneven and large particulates result in uneven burning and inconsistent aroma production when burned.

- Binder: Water-soluble binders such as "makko" have to be used in the right proportion to ensure that the incense mixture does not crumble when dry but also that the binder does not take up too much of the mixture.

 

Some kinds of direct-burning incense are created from "incense blanks" made of unscented combustible dust immersed into any suitable kind of essential or fragrance oil. These are often sold in America by flea-market and sidewalk vendors who have developed their own styles. Such items are often known as "dipped" or "hand-dipped" incense. This form of incense requires the least skill and equipment to manufacture, since the blanks are pre-formed in China or South East Asia, then simply scented with essential oils.

 

Incense mixtures can be extruded or pressed into shapes. Small quantities of water are combined with the fragrance and incense base mixture and kneaded into a hard dough. The incense dough is then pressed into shaped forms to create cone and smaller coiled incense, or forced through a hydraulic press for solid stick incense. The formed incense is then trimmed and slowly dried. Incense produced in this fashion has a tendency to warp or become misshapen when improperly dried, and as such must be placed in climate-controlled rooms and rotated several times through the drying process.

 

Traditionally, the bamboo cores of cored stick incense is prepared by hand from Phyllostachys heterocycla cv. pubescens since this species produces thick wood and easily burns to ashes in the incense stick. Through this process, known as "splitting the foot of the incense stick", the bamboo is trimmed to length, soaked, peeled, and then continuously split in halves until thin sticks of bamboo with square cross sections of less than 3mm This process has been largely been replaced by machines in modern incense production.

 

In the case of cored incensed sticks, several methods are employed to coat the sticks cores with incense mixture:

 

- Paste rolling: A wet, malleable paste of incense mixture is first rolled into a long, thin coil, using a paddle. Then, a thin stick is put next to the coil and the stick and paste are rolled together until the stick is centered in the mixture and the desired thickness is achieved. The stick is then cut to the desired length and dried.

- Powder-coating: Powder-coating is used mainly to produce cored incense of either larger coil (up to 1 meter in diameter) or cored stick forms. A bundle of the supporting material (typically thin bamboo or sandalwood slivers) is soaked in water or a thin water/glue mixture for a short time. The thin sticks are then evenly separated, then dipped into a tray of incense powder, consisting of fragrance materials and occasionally a plant-based binder. The dry incense powder is then tossed and piled over the stick while they are spread apart. The sticks are then gently rolled and packed to maintain roundness while more incense powder is repeatedly tossed onto the sticks. Three to four layers of powder are coated onto the sticks, forming a 2 mm thick layer of incense material on the stick. The coated incense is then allowed to dry in open air. Additional coatings of incense mixture can be applied after each period of successive drying. Incense sticks that are burned in temples of Chinese folk religion produced in this fashion can have a thickness between 2 and 4 millimeters.

- Compression: A damp powder is mechanically formed around a cored stick by compression, similar to the way uncored sticks are formed. This form is becoming more commonly found due to the higher labor cost of producing powder-coated or paste-rolled sticks.

 

JOSS STICKS

Joss sticks are the name given to incense sticks used for a variety of purposes associated with ritual and religious devotion in China and India. They are used in Chinese influenced East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, traditionally burned before the threshold of a home or business, before an image of a Chinese popular religion divinity or spirit of place, or in small and humble or large and elaborate shrine found at the main entrance to each and every village. Here the earth god is propitiated in the hope of bringing wealth and health to the village. They can also be burned in front of a door, or open window as an offering to heaven, or devas. The word "joss" is derived from the Latin deus (god) via the Portuguese deos through the Javanese dejos, through Chinese pidgin English.

 

Joss-stick burning is an everyday practice in traditional Chinese religion. There are many different types of joss sticks used for different purposes or on different festive days. Many of them are long and thin and are mostly colored yellow, red, and more rarely, black. Thick joss sticks are used for special ceremonies, such as funerals. Spiral joss sticks are also used on a regular basis, which are found hanging above temple ceilings, with burn times that are exceedingly long. In some states, such as Taiwan, Singapore, or Malaysia, where they celebrate the Ghost Festival, large, pillar-like dragon joss sticks are sometimes used. These generate such a massive amount of smoke and heat that they are only ever burned outside.

 

Chinese incense sticks for use in popular religion are generally without aroma or only the slightest trace of jasmine or rose, since it is the smoke, not the scent, which is important in conveying the prayers of the faithful to heaven. They are composed of the dried powdered bark of a non-scented species of cinnamon native to Cambodia, Cinnamomum cambodianum.[citation needed] Inexpensive packs of 300 are often found for sale in Chinese supermarkets. Despite the fact that they contain no sandalwood at all, they often include the Chinese character for sandalwood on the label, as a generic term for incense.

 

Highly scented Chinese incense sticks are only used by some Buddhists. These are often quite expensive due to the use of large amounts of sandalwood, aloeswood, or floral scents used. The Sandalwood used in Chinese incenses does not come from India, its native home, but rather from groves planted within Chinese territory. Sites belonging to Tzu Chi, Chung Tai Shan, Dharma Drum Mountain, Xingtian Temple, Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Buddhism in Burma and Korean Buddhism do not use incense.

 

BURNING INCENSE

For indirect-burning incense, pieces of the incense are burned by placing them directly on top of a heat source or on a hot metal plate in a censer or thurible.

 

In Japan a similar censer called a egōro (柄香炉?) is used by several Buddhist sects. The egōro is usually made of brass with a long handle and no chain. Instead of charcoal, makkō powder is poured into a depression made in a bed of ash. The makkō is lit and the incense mixture is burned on top. This method is known as Sonae-kō (Religious Burning).

 

For direct-burning incense, the tip or end of the incense is ignited with a flame or other heat source until the incense begins to turn into ash at the burning end. Flames on the incense are then fanned or blown out, with the incense continuing to burn without a flame on its own.

 

CULTURAL VARIATIONS

CHINESE INCENSE

For over two thousand years, the Chinese have used incense in religious ceremonies, ancestor veneration, Traditional Chinese medicine, and daily life.

 

Agarwood (chénxiāng) and sandalwood (tánxiāng) are the two most important ingredients in Chinese incense.

 

Along with the introduction of Buddhism in China came calibrated incense sticks and incense clocks. The poet Yu Jianwu (487-551) first recorded them: "By burning incense we know the o'clock of the night, With graduated candles we confirm the tally of the watches." The use of these incense timekeeping devices spread from Buddhist monasteries into Chinese secular society.

 

It is incorrect to assume that the Chinese only burn incense in the home before the family shrine. In Taoist traditions, incense is inextricably associated with the 'yin' energies of the dead, temples, shrines, and ghosts. Therefore, Taoist Chinese believe burning undedicated incense in the home attracts the dreaded hungry ghosts, who consume the smoke and ruin the fortunes of the family.

 

However, since Neolithic times, the Chinese have evolved using incense not only for religious ceremonies, but also for personal and environmental aromatherapy.

 

INDIAN INCENSE

Incense stick, also known as agarbathi (or agarbatti) and joss sticks, in which an incense paste is rolled or moulded around a bamboo stick, is one of the main forms of incense in India. The bamboo method originated in India, and is distinct from the Nepal/Tibet and Japanese methods of stick making which don't use a bamboo core. Though the method is also used in the west, particularly in America, it is strongly associated with India.

 

The basic ingredients are the bamboo stick, the paste (generally made of charcoal dust and joss/jiggit/gum/tabu powder - an adhesive made from the bark of litsea glutinosa and other trees), and the perfume ingredients - which would be a masala (spice mix) powder of ground ingredients into which the stick would be rolled, or a perfume liquid sometimes consisting of synthetic ingredients into which the stick would be dipped. Perfume is sometimes sprayed on the coated sticks. Stick machines are sometimes used, which coat the stick with paste and perfume, though the bulk of production is done by hand rolling at home. There are about 5,000 incense companies in India which take raw unperfumed sticks hand-rolled by approx 200,000 women working part-time at home, and then apply their own brand of perfume, and package the sticks for sale.[38] An experienced home-worker can produce 4,000 raw sticks a day. There are about 50 main companies who together account for up to 30% of the market, and around 500 of the companies, including a significant number of the main ones, including Moksh Agarbatti and Cycle Pure, are based in Bangalore.

 

In the Middle East, incense burning has been along tradition. The word bukhur means incense in Arabic. The well known choice for incense is the famous agarwood which is very popular in Africa, the Gulf and amongst some south Asians, but there are many many more choices. Incense come in a variety of forms such as blocks, pieces, pellets, granules or powdered, which is placed in the oil burner called mabkharah for several minutes to heat either with coal in the traditional way or via power in the modern way, allowing it to release its rich smell. However this takes awhile and the quick alternative is to use incense sticks called Oud in Middle East and Africa, and agarbatti in south Asia - again referring to the agar wood + batti meaning some sort of agar-stick. Occasionally some get confused between bukhur and oud, bukhur is the insence ie agarwood, sandlewood etc and oud being the incense sticks (and not the otherway round sometimes wires get twisted)

 

JERUSALEM TEMPLE INCENSE

Ketoret was the incense offered in the Temple in Jerusalem and is stated in the Book of Exodus as a mixture of stacte, onycha, galbanum and frankincense.

 

TIBETAN INCENSE

Tibetan incense refers to a common style of incense found in Tibet, Nepal, and Bhutan. These incenses have a characteristic "earthy" scent to them. Ingredients vary from cinnamon, clove, and juniper, to kusum flower, ashvagandha, or sahi jeera.

 

Many Tibetan incenses are thought to have medicinal properties. Their recipes come from ancient Vedic texts that are based on even older Ayurvedic medical texts. The recipes have remained unchanged for centuries.

 

JAPANESE INCENSE

In Japan incense appreciation folklore includes art, culture, history, and ceremony. It can be compared to and has some of the same qualities as music, art, or literature. Incense burning may occasionally take place within the tea ceremony, just like Calligraphy, Ikebana, and Scroll Arrangement. However the art of incense appreciation or Koh-do, is generally practiced as a separate art form from the tea ceremony, however usually practiced within a tea room of traditional Zen design.

 

Agarwood (沈香　Jinkō) and sandalwood (白檀　Byakudan) are the two most important ingredients in Japanese incense. Agarwood is known as "Jinkō" in Japan, which translates as "incense that sinks in water", due to the weight of the resin in the wood. Sandalwood is one of the most calming incense ingredients and lends itself well to meditation.[citation needed] It is also used in the Japanese tea ceremony. The most valued Sandalwood comes from Mysore in the state of Karnataka in India.

 

Another important ingredient in Japanese incense is kyara (伽羅). Kyara is one kind of agarwood (Japanese incense companies divide agarwood into 6 categories depending on the region obtained and properties of the agarwood). Kyara is currently worth more than its weight in gold.

 

Some terms used in Japanese incense culture include:

 

- Incense Arts: [香道, Kodo]

- Agarwood: [ 沈香 ] – from heartwood from Aquilaria trees, unique, the incense wood most used in incense ceremony, other names are: lignum aloes or aloeswood, gaharu, jinko, or oud.

- Censer/Incense burner: [香爐] – usually small and used for heating incense not burning, or larger and used for burning

- Charcoal: [木炭] – only the odorless kind is used.

- Incense woods: [ 香木 ] – a naturally fragrant resinous wood.

 

USAGE

Incense is used for a variety of purposes, including the ceremonies of all the main religions, to overcome bad smells, repel insects, purify or improve the atmosphere, aromatherapy, meditation, and for simple pleasure.

 

PRACTICAL

Incense fragrances can be of such great strength that they obscure other, less desirable odours. This utility led to the use of incense in funerary ceremonies because the incense could smother the scent of decay. Another example of this use, as well as of religious use, is the giant Botafumeiro thurible which swings from the ceiling of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. It is used in part to mask the scent of the many tired, unwashed pilgrims huddled together in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.

 

A similar utilitarian use of incense can be found in the post-Reformation Church of England. Although the ceremonial use of incense was abandoned until the Oxford Movement, it was common to have incense (typically frankincense) burned before grand occasions, when the church would be crowded. The frankincense was carried about by a member of the vestry before the service in a vessel called a 'perfuming pan'. In iconography of the day, this vessel is shown to be elongated and flat, with a single, long handle on one side. It is important to note that the perfuming pan was used instead of the thurible, as the latter would have likely offended the Protestant sensibilities of the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

The regular burning of direct combustion incense has been used for chronological measurement in incense clocks. These devices can range from a simple trail of incense material calibrated to burn in a specific time period, to elaborate and ornate instruments with bells or gongs, designed to involve and captivate several of the senses.

 

Incense made from materials such as citronella can repel mosquitoes and other aggravating, distracting or pestilential insects. This use has been deployed in concert with religious uses by Zen Buddhists who claim that the incense that is part of their meditative practice is designed to keep bothersome insects from distracting the practitioner. Currently, more effective pyrethroid-based mosquito repellent incense is widely available in Asia.

 

Papier d'Arménie was originally sold as a disinfectant as well as for the fragrance.

 

Incense is also used often by people who smoke indoors, and do not want the scent to linger.

 

AestheticMany people burn incense to appreciate its smell, without assigning any other specific significance to it, in the same way that the foregoing items can be produced or consumed solely for the contemplation or enjoyment of the refined sensory experience. This use is perhaps best exemplified in the kōdō (香道?), where (frequently costly) raw incense materials such as agarwood are appreciated in a formal setting.ReligiousUse of incense in religion is prevalent in many cultures and may have their roots in the practical and aesthetic uses considering that many religions with not much else in common all use incense. One common motif is incense as a form of sacrificial offering to a deity. Such use was common in Judaic worship and remains in use for example in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, Taoist and Buddhist Chinese jingxiang (敬香 "offer incense [to ancestors/gods]), etc.

 

HEALTH

Incense smoke contains various contaminants including gaseous pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and absorbed toxic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic metals). The solid particles range between ~10 and 500 nm. The emission rate decreases in the row Indian sandalwood > Japanese aloeswood > Taiwanese aloeswood > smokeless sandalwood.

 

Research carried out in Taiwan in 2001 linked the burning of incense sticks to the slow accumulation of potential carcinogens in a poorly ventilated environment by measuring the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzopyrene) within Buddhist temples. The study found gaseous aliphatic aldehydes, which are carcinogenic and mutagenic, in incense smoke.

 

A survey of risk factors for lung cancer, also conducted in Taiwan, noted an inverse association between incense burning and adenocarcinoma of the lung, though the finding was not deemed significant.

 

In contrast, a study by several Asian Cancer Research Centers showed: "No association was found between exposure to incense burning and respiratory symptoms like chronic cough, chronic sputum, chronic bronchitis, runny nose, wheezing, asthma, allergic rhinitis, or pneumonia among the three populations studied: i.e. primary school children, their non-smoking mothers, or a group of older non-smoking female controls. Incense burning did not affect lung cancer risk among non-smokers, but it significantly reduced risk among smokers, even after adjusting for lifetime smoking amount." However, the researchers qualified the findings by noting that incense burning in the studied population was associated with certain low-cancer-risk dietary habits, and concluded that "diet can be a significant confounder of epidemiological studies on air pollution and respiratory health."

 

Although several studies have not shown a link between incense and cancer of the lung, many other types of cancer have been directly linked to burning incense. A study published in 2008 in the medical journal Cancer found that incense use is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of cancers of the upper respiratory tract, with the exception of nasopharyngeal cancer. Those who used incense heavily also had higher rates of a type of cancer called squamous-cell carcinoma, which refers to tumors that arise in the cells lining the internal and external surfaces of the body. The link between incense use and increased cancer risk held when the researchers weighed other factors, including cigarette smoking, diet and drinking habits. The research team noted that "This association is consistent with a large number of studies identifying carcinogens in incense smoke, and given the widespread and sometimes involuntary exposure to smoke from burning incense, these findings carry significant public health implications."

 

In 2015, the South China University of Technology found toxicity of incense to Chinese hamsters ovary cells to be even higher than cigarettes.

 

Frankincense has been shown to cause antidepressive behavior in mice. It activated the poorly understood ion channels in the brain to alleviate anxiety and depression.

 

WIKIPEDIA

The display reads:

 

ADA in Vietnam – M42 Duster

 

Combat experience in the Korea War quickly showed that while the M19 40mm Gun Motor Carriage was a capable platform, it needed improvement. By 1952, a new anti-aircraft tank was in development, designated the T141. The new vehicle used the same turret and gun mount from the M19, but mated it with the larger, more powerful M41 Walker Bulldog light tank hull. The resulting vehicle was standardized as the M42 40mm Gun Motor Carriage by 1952 and entered full production that year.

 

However, with the service entry of the Nike Ajax system in 1953, the Army was focused on missile systems and with the introduction of the Hawk missile in the late 1950s, the M42 was quickly passed to National Guard units and all but removed from the active inventory by 1963.

 

Just two years later, US forces entered combat in South Vietnam. Two Hawk missile battalions were deployed to provide air defense around Saigon and along the DMZ, but an additional system was needed to cover potential low-altitude threats. In addition to the air defense requirement, the Army also needed a vehicle that could provide heavy firepower for both convoy escort and firebase defense. The M42 was back in demand and by the beginning of 1966, three battalions were formed for service in Vietnam.

 

Those three units, 1st Battalion, 44th Artillery; 4th Battalion, 60th Artillery; and 5th Battalion, 2nd Artillery arrived in-theater by mid-year and immediately had a significant impact on operations in their respective areas of operation. Each “Duster” battalion had a quad .50 battery and searchlight battery attached, forming an air defense task force that could respond to both air and ground threats, day or night.

 

On 20 June 1968, Air Defense and Field Artillery split the Artillery branch and the Duster, Quad, Searchlight and Hawk units were then designated ADA rather than “Artillery,” with the parenthetical Automatic Weapons, Searchlight or Guided Missile designation.

 

The story of Army Air Defense in Vietnam provides a fascinating contrast to the operations and equipment of the rest of the branch during the 1960s and early 1970s. While Army Air Defense of the day was focused on the strategic threat of a Soviet nuclear strike and were using the latest technology to deter that threat, the three ADA Duster battalions effectively used weapon systems from the “last war” to provide low altitude air defense and on-call direct fire support to infantry and artillery units across the entirety of South Vietnam from 1966 through 1972.

 

M42 Duster Specifications:

 

Weight: 50,000 lbs fully loaded

Height: 9 feet 4 inches

Length: 19 feet

Width: 10 feet 7 inches

Crew: Commander, driver, two loaders, two gunners

Armament: Two M2A1 40mm automatic anti-aircraft guns with 240 rounds per gun; 1-2 7.62 M60 Machine Guns with 1,750 rounds

Main Armament Rate of Fire: 120 rounds per minute, per gun

Engine: Continental AOS-895-3 6-cylinder opposed gasoline engine

Range: 100 miles

Speed 45 mph

 

The museum’s Duster served with the 1-44th Artillery in 1968.

 

The Duster occasionally towed the M332 ammunition trailer, which doubled the Duster’s ammunition capacity. However, it would be a liability in combat and would normally be removed before the Duster would be used in the convoy escort role.

 

Most Dusters in Vietnam carried some form of artwork. Usually the crew would name both the front hatch and the gun shield above the main armament.

 

Sergeant Mitchell W. Stout was born in Lenoir City, Tennessee on 24 February, 1950. He enlisted in the Army on 15 August 1967 and served his first tour in Vietnam as a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment in the Mekong Delta from August 1968 to August 1969. After completing his first tour, SGT Stout rotated back to the US, but returned to South Vietnam just five months later as a M42 Duster crewman.

 

Three months into his second tour, SGT Stout was commanding an M42 Duster at the Khe Gio bridge along Route 9, a strategic east-west route that was the supply lifeline to friendly outposts in western I Corps.

 

SGT Mitchell Stout

C/1-44th Artillery (Automatic Weapons), Khe Gio Bridge

 

The U.S. Army outpost at Khe Gio Bridge on Highway 9 near the DMZ was overrun by North Vietnamese troops on 12 March 1970. Fourteen Americans held the outpost along with a platoon of ARVN Infantry. Two M42 Dusters from C Battery 1-44th Artillery gave the small force a significant amount of firepower to protect the bridge, while an M151A1 searchlight jeep from G Battery, 29th Artillery provided nighttime battlefield illumination. Of those fourteen Americans, two were killed in action, five wounded and one was captured. Yet they fought valiantly and protected the bridge on Route 9, sparing it from destruction. Sergeant Mitchell Stout’s actions during the battle would earn him a posthumous Medal of Honor:

 

Citation:

 

Sgt. Stout distinguished himself during an attack by a North Vietnamese Army Sapper company on his unit's firing position at Khe Gio Bridge. Sgt. Stout was in a bunker with members of a searchlight crew when the position came under heavy enemy mortar fire and ground attack. When the intensity of the mortar attack subsided, an enemy grenade was thrown into the bunker. Displaying great courage, Sgt. Stout ran to the grenade, picked it up, and started out of the bunker. As he reached the door, the grenade exploded. By holding the grenade close to his body and shielding its blast, he protected his fellow soldiers in the bunker from further injury or death. Sgt. Stout's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action, at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the U.S. Army.

 

Taken December 13th, 2013.

At the beginning of the Vietnam War, there was little interest in a dedicated counterinsurgency (COIN) aircraft. The USAF was too committed to an all-jet, nuclear-capable force, while the US Army was satisfied with its helicopter fleet; the Navy concentrated on its carriers, and while the Marines were mildly interested, they lacked funding.

 

Vietnam was to change that. Horrendous losses among US Army UH-1s was to lead to a rethinking of helicopter doctrine, and pointed up the lack of a dedicated COIN aircraft. The USAF found itself depending on World War II-era A-26K Invaders, former US Navy A-1 Skyraiders, and converted trainers like the T-28 Trojan. The USAF also found itself in the market for a better forward air control (FAC) aircraft, due to the high loss rate of its O-1 Birddogs and O-2 Skymasters. Finally, the US Navy needed something to better cover its Mobile River Force units in the Mekong Delta, which could not always depend on USAF air support. In 1963, all three services issued a requirement for a new light design capable of performing as both a COIN and FAC aircraft. North American's NA-300 was selected in 1964 and designated OV-10A Bronco.

 

The OV-10 design drew heavily on independent research done at the China Lake research establishment, which in turn was inspired by the World War II P-38 Lightning fighter. The P-38 used a central "gondola" fuselage to concentrate all of its firepower along the centerline, which made for better accuracy; the OV-10 would do the same. As in the P-38, the engines were contained in twin booms that stretched back to the tail. The Bronco's four machine gun armament was placed in sponsons on either side of the fuselage, while ordnance was carried beneath the sponsons. To satisfy the USAF's requirements for a FAC aircraft, the two-man crew flew underneath a large, spacious canopy that gave them superb visibility. Because the Marines wanted an aircraft that could carry a Recon team, the fuselage was extended and, if the rear seat was removed, five paratroopers could be squeezed into the back, or two stretchers.

 

When the OV-10 arrived in Vietnam in 1968, there was a fear that the Bronco would be the jack of all trades and master of none. In fact, it proved to be excellent in all of its roles. As a FAC, it was a huge improvement over the slower O-1 and O-2; as a COIN aircraft, it was also a good aircraft, though it could not carry the same amount of ordnance as an A-1. The Navy equipped one squadron with OV-10As as VAL-4--nicknamed the "Black Ponies" for their dark green camouflage--and these were used extensively over the Mekong Delta. There were problems with the design: the airframe was actually too heavy for the engines, which left it underpowered, and ditching was invariably fatal for the pilot, as his seat tended to hurl forward into the instrument panel. Nonetheless, the Bronco turned in a sterling performance in Southeast Asia.

 

Though the Navy transferred its surviving Black Ponies to the Marines after the end of American involvement in Vietnam, the USAF and Marines would keep theirs for the next 20 years. For the 1970s and 1980s, the OV-10 replaced all other FAC designs in USAF service, aside from a handful of OA-37B Dragonfly squadrons. The Marines also kept their OV-10s and further refined the design by adding all-weather capability in the long-nosed OV-10D variant.

 

By the First Gulf War in 1991, the OV-10 was starting to show its age. The USAF began retiring its fleet even before Desert Storm; the Bronco was considered to be too slow to survive a modern air defense environment. Though the Marines used some of their OV-10Ds, the loss of two aircraft also led the USMC to retire their Broncos after war's end. Both services chose jets as replacements--the USAF with modified OA-10A Thunderbolt IIs, and the Marines with two-seat all-weather F/A-18Ds.

 

OV-10s were also a mild export success, going to seven other countries, mainly in the COIN role. Most have since been retired in favor of newer designs, though the Philippines still has a large and active OV-10 force. The type enjoyed a brief renaissance in 2015 when two former Marine OV-10Ds were taken up by the USAF for use against ISIS forces in Iraq, to see if the design was still viable. Though the OV-10s performed well, the USAF is not likely to put it back into production. 360 were built, and at least 25 are on display in museums aside from the aircraft that are still operational.

 

68-3787, shown here, is a Vietnam War veteran; it served with the 20th Tactical Air Support Squadron at Da Nang, South Vietnam, between 1970 and 1972. These aircraft used the callsign "Nail," alongside O-2 "Covey" FACs and nighttime "Sleepytime" FACs. I'm not sure where it went after Vietnam, but there's a good chance it served with the 601st Tactical Air Support Wing at Sembach, West Germany--in which case, this might not be the first time I've seen this aircraft! It was retired in 1991 and donated to the National Museum of the USAF.

 

Though 1980s-era OV-10s were camouflaged in "Europe Two" green and gray, 68-3787 was restored to the overall light gray used by Broncos over Vietnam. It is displayed with four LAU-3 rocket launchers (loaded with smoke and white phosphorus rockets to mark targets, though these could be used against enemy personnel in emergencies) and an external drop tank.

 

Since I grew up with OV-10s when my dad was at Sembach, it was a treat to see one of them again.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

 

Some background:

In December 1953, NATO Supreme Command issued specifications for a new light tactical support aircraft. European manufacturers were invited to submit their designs for this requested Light Weight Strike Fighter role. The G.91 was one contender and designed to this specification by the Italian engineer Giuseppe Gabrielli, hence the "G" designation.

 

The competition was intended to produce an aircraft that was light, small, expendable, equipped with basic weapons and avionics and capable of operating with minimal ground support. These specifications were developed for two reasons: the first was the nuclear threat to large air bases, many cheaper aircraft could be better dispersed, and the other was to counter the trend towards larger and more expensive aircraft.

 

The technical requirements were:

• 1,100 m (3,610 ft) takeoff distance over a 15 m (49 ft) obstacle

• Capability to operate from grass strips and roads

• Maximum speed of Mach 0.95

• Range of 280 km (170 mi) with 10 minutes over the target

• Armoured protection for the pilot and the fuel tanks

• 4 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) or 2 × 20 mm or 30 mm guns

• A maximum of 2,200 kg (4,850 lb) empty weight and 4,700 kg (10,360 lb) max. weight

 

The challenge of providing an engine that matched the requirements of lightness and power, reliability and ease of maintenance was solved by using the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus turbojet.

 

Project selections took 18 months to complete and the final selection of the three remaining competing designs was planned for late 1957. In September 1957, at the Centre d'Essais en Vol at Brétigny-sur-Orge, in France, the three rival aircraft types met for evaluation trials. During the trials the Italian aircraft performed impressively and, in January 1958, the Fiat G.91 was officially declared the winner.

 

Following a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in April 1958 it was agreed that the G.91 would be the first NATO lightweight strike fighter. A production meeting was planned for May 1958 to discuss the production of the aircraft with financial support from the United States, the Americans would provide some of the finance for the French, German and Italian aircraft and pay for the Turkish aircraft. Other NATO states were supposed to buy the G.91, too., and the defence ministers reached agreement to order 50 aircraft for each country.

 

Given the large economic and commercial interests at stake, there was a certain amount of controversy surrounding this decision. After the loss of the G.91 prototype, the French government preferred to pursue development of the locally-designed Étendard. The British government similarly ignored the competition to concentrate on Hawker Hunter production for the same role.

The Italian government ordered the G.91 for the Italian Air Force before the results of the competition were known. An initial pre-production batch of machines would later go on to serve for many years with the Italian aerobatic team, the Frecce Tricolori as the G.91 PAN.

 

The G.91 was also considered by Austria, Norway, Spain, Greece, Switzerland, and even the United States Army, which briefly evaluated the type as a possible Forward Air Control aircraft before relinquishing all fixed-wing aircraft operations to the Air Force.

 

Spain bought the intended 50 aircraft (42 single seaters called G.91R/2, outfitting two fighter bomber squadrons, plus 8 trainers with tandem seats, comparable with the Italian G.91T/1 trainers), which were produced in Italy from early 1961 onwards and became operational with the Ejército del Aire in late 1962, replacing the F-86 and HA-220 Super Saetas in the ground attack/CAS role.

 

The G.91R/2 was a hybrid between the simple Italian G.91R/1 and the later, more sophisticated G.91R/4 for Greece and Turkey. It used the R/1's airframe with the modified nose housing three cameras, but already had four underwing hardpoints, structural reinforcements and improved avionics, including a Doppler radar and a revised instrumentation that was also introduced with the Italian R/1A.

 

The G.91 in Spanish service was already phased out from the mid 70ies onwards and completely retired in 1986, being replaced by F-5 and Mirage F.1.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 10.3 m (33 ft 9 in)

Wingspan: 8.56 m (28 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.0 m (13 ft 1 in)

Wing area: 16.4 m² (177 ft²)

Empty weight: 3,100 kg (6,830 lb)

Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (11,990 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 803 turbojet, 22.2 kN (5,000 lbf)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,075 km/h (580 kn, 668 mph)

Range: 1,150 km (621 nmi, 715 mi)

Service ceiling: 13,100 m (43,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 30 m/s (6,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 331 kg/m² (67.8 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.42

 

Armament:

4× 12.7 mm (0.50 in) M2 Browning machine guns,

4× under-wing pylon stations holding up to 680 kg/1.500 lb of payload

  

The kit and its assembly:

Second entry for the "1 Week group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, since my first model was finished in just three days... This one struck me recently when I browsed through the F-5 book of the "Planes and Pilots" series, and came across the Spanish machines. What if Spain had bought the G.91...?

 

The resulting aircraft would surely have looked pretty in the three-tone "Small Asia" paint scheme, so the idea landed on the list and now entered the hardware stage.

 

...not until I got hands on a G.91 kit. Not easy, at least if you do not want to sink a fortune. I was lucky to find a pair of Airfix G.91s - from Japanese production, the boxes are dated 1981! And the kit is accordingly rather basic, especially anything concerning the interior is primitive, the wheels are a joke and the ordnance better ignored.

 

However, the fuselage lines are not bad, and since I had some leftover sprues from the more modern Revell G.91 in store I decided to pimp the Airfix kit with some donation parts and build an Ejércite del Aire whif.

 

It's not a true kitbashing, but a lot of Revell parts went into the vintage Airfix kit:

• The cockpit tub (which includes an upper wall for the air intake) was implanted

• The ejection seat and the dashboard, too

• An improvised jet nozzle was added - the Airfix kit just offers a bare hole(!)

• From the landing gear only the main struts were taken

• Even the landing gear covers were taken from the Revell kit

• The outer pylons are donations, too, while the inner ones were modified

• Ordnance is new, too, all from the spares box

 

The kit needed some putty work, but fit was surprisingly good.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, Spain is the theme and so I gave this Gina a "typical" livery, borrowed from export F-5s (e .g. for Spain, Iran, Jordania), the “Small Asia” paint scheme.

As basic colors I used Humbrol 74 (Linen), 29 (RAF Dark Earth) and 116 (FS34079), with pale grey undersides in Humbrol 129 (FS36440). The landing gear, its wells and the air intake were painted in Aluminum (Modelmaster), while the cockpit was kept in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) with a light blue dashboard - confirmed by real life pics.

 

As per usual the kit received a light black ink wash, light panel shading (also adding to a sun-bleached look) and some dry painting with light grey. No OOB decal was and could be used - 35 years took their toll!

 

Anyway, the decals come primarily from a Heller Mirage III, as well as some additional stencils e .g. from a BAC Lightning (Xtradecal sheet) and many red stripes or the camera ports, which were cut from TL Modellbau decal stripes.

 

Soot/exhaust stains were created with grinded graphite and around the nozzle and the gun ports. Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

 

This Hispanic Gina is not a great piece of work, but the paint scheme changes IMHO the total look of the small aircraft, very different from what you usually see? And it's a second proud addition to whatifmodelers.com's "1 Week Group Build", created in the leftover five day timeframe after the first whif kit.

 

And does anybody doubt that Spain flew the G.91...?

Some background:

The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).

 

The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.

 

The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties, which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.

 

The basic VF-1 was deployed in four minor variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower.

 

The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.

 

After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.

 

The versatile aircraft also underwent constant upgrade programs, leading to improved versions like the VF-1N and P. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems from 2016 onwards. Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with receivers, depending on the systems, mounted on the wing-tips, on the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECM measures were also mounted on some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

 

The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters in several variants.

 

However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!

  

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N. Spacy Marines

 

Accommodation:

Single pilot in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat

 

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

 

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

 

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Powerplant:

2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or in overboost (225.63 kN x 2)

 

4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip)

 

18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87

g limit: in space +7

Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24

 

Design Features:

3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system

 

Transformation:

Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.

Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.

 

Armament:

1x internal Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute

1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min

4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including:

- 12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or

- 12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or

- 6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or

- 4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,

- or a combination of above load-outs

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another spontaneous interim build in a busy time - if I want to build something "on autopilot", an ARII VF-1 in fighter mode is a safe bet. The trigger was that I realized that I had, despite having built far more than twenty VF-1s so far, none of them carried a US Navy "low viz" paint scheme? No idea why this had slipped my attention - even though I had already built one in a USAF "Egypt One" scheme and a modified (non-transformable) VF-1D in a low contrast Keith Ferris splinter scheme with USN colors.

 

I dug out VF-1 fighter from the pile and built the kit mostly OOB - but with some detail updates. This time, the kit would receive an extended landing gear and an open canopy for ground display. Consequently, I added side consoles and a dashboard extension to the cockpit. On the wings, the slats and the flaps were lowered, but not extended, and for additional excitement I opened the spoilers on the wings - because their red interior would be a nice contrast to the overall grey aircraft (see below).

Characteristic blade antennae were added to the nose flanks and on the spine, and the pilot figure was only added for the beauty pics.

 

The ordnance was in part taken OOB, too, with six AMM-1 missiles on the outer pylons but an 1:100 AN/ALQ-131 ECM pod (from a Revell 1:100 A-10) and a single stand-off missile (an 1:144 AGM-86 ALCM, left over from an Academy B-1B kit, just mounted upside down) on the inner pair of pylons.

Even though the model would later stand on its own legs, I added the option to attach a display (my almost-patented wire construction that uses the OOB display base) to the back of the ventral gun pod.

  

Painting and markings:

I am not certain if the "Compass Ghost" paint scheme is actually canonical for the Macross universe - Hasegawa offered such a "low viz" VF-1 as an option in one of their fighter kits, but I haven't found any sign of a USN paint scheme in official source material, except for some all light-grey Battroids that do not look like a "Compass Ghost" aircraft/mecha. After 2009, many VF-1s were officially painted in a low-viz scheme - but this would rather be an overall FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey) livery with full color markings than a totally subdued multi-grey paint scheme?

 

However, I found the idea plausible, and also took it as a challenge. Consequently, the aircraft was painted in typical USN colors: FS 36320 (Dark Compass Ghost Grey) from Modelmaster on the upper surfaces and FS 36375 (Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 127) from below. The area around the cockpit was painted with FS 35237 (Grey Blue, Humbrol 145), inspired by USN F-14 Tomcats, as well as the head unit.

Air intakes, the gun pod and some details were painted with Revell 77 (RAL 7012), the land gear was painted glossy white. The cockpit was held in standard colors, with medium gray interior, a black ejection seat and reddish brown upholstery and brown "black boxes". As a stark contrast to the all-grey exterior, I painted the interior of the spoilers on the wings in bright red (Revell 330, RAL 3000 Feuerrot) and added thin red decal strips to the lowered slats, too.

 

Many markings like the roundels and the modex' were designed and printed on clear decal sheet with an inkjet printer, and any other bright marking was replaced with grey alternatives from the decal scrap box. The lightning markings on the fins come belong to a Malaysian MiG-29, taken from a Begemot sheet. All in all I wanted a very "dry" and subdued look, with only the ordnance not being light bluish grey.

 

Once painted the kit received a light black ink wash and the engraved panel lines were traced with a very soft pencil, with some additional thin panel lines and details. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

I guess that I might be able to build this kit blindfolded, and the whole affair was completed in just three days, since the paint scheme itself was not complex. The result is interesting, though, and a nice contrast to the normally very bright and colorful VF-1s in my collection.

The Lockheed C-130 Hercules was originally desinged as an assault transport capable of operating from unpaved,hastily prepared airstrips.On August 23,1953,the Lockheed C-130 Hercules made its first flight.By 1976 more than 1,200 Lockheed C-130 Hercules had been ordered,including aircraft equipped for radar weather mapping and reconnasissance,mid-air space capsule recovery,search and rescue,ambulance service,drone launching,and mid-air refuling of helicopters.The Lockheed C-130 Hercules could transport up to 92 combat troops and their gerar or 45,000 pounds of cargo.Where facilities were inadequte,the Lockheed C-130 Hercules could deliver its cargo by parachute or by low altitude ground-cable extraction without landing.

 

Twenty-eight Lockheed C-130 Hercules were converted to side-firing gunships,primarily for night attacks against ground targets.This Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was modified at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,Ohio,as the prototype for the gunship version and was initially equipped with 20 milimeter cannons and 7.62 milimeter miniguns milti barrel guns,a searchlight and target sensors.After testing in Southeast Asia in 1967,it was used as a test bed for additional armament,sensor and fire control development.Later AC-130 Hercules gunships mounted improved sensors,a digital fire control computer and heavier armament.

 

Lockheed AC-130

--------------------------

With the success of the Douglas AC-47D Skytrain "Spooky" or "Puff the Magic Dragon" and "Puff" gunships in Southeast Asia,the U.S.Air Force created two modification programs for improved and larger gunships.The Fairchild AC-119G Flying Boxcar "Shadows" and Fairchild AC-119K Flying Boxcar "Stingers"were developed under the Gunship III program and the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was developed under the Gunship II program.

 

Compared to the Douglas AC-47D Skytrain "Spooky" or "Puff the Magic Dragon" and "Puff",the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules "spectre" gunship were equipped with more bigger guns--four MXU-470 7.62 milimeter miniguns and four M-61A1 20 milimeter cannons.Gunship II program was also equipped with a more sophisticated avions suite including the Night Observition Divice,Forward Looking InfraRed,side looking radar,beacon tracking radar and a fire control computer system.The Locckheed AC-130A Hercules was also equipped with a 20 kilowatt (1.5 million candlepower) illumnution and a flare launcher.

 

On Febuary 26,1967,the first aircraft (Lockheed JC-130A Hercules S/N 54-1626) was selected for conversion into the prototype Lockheed AC-130 Hercules gunship.The modification were done in April 1967 and May 1967 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,Ohio,by the Aeronaultical Systems Division.Flight testing of the prototype was done primarly at Eglin Air Force Base ,Florida,and began on June 6,1967.Testing and addition modifications were done throughout the sumer of 1967.By early September,the aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was certifed ready for combat testing.The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules prototype was flown to Nha Trang Air Base,South Vietnam arriving on September 21,1967,for a 90-day test program.

 

Combat test and Evaluation

-------------------------------------

The prototype Lockheed AC-130A Hercules Gunship II program (initial designated Gunboat) was modified at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,Ohio,in the spring of 1967.Initial flight was done during the summer of 1967,primarly at Eglin Air Force Base,Florida.The aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was flown to South Vietnam for follow-on-flight tsting under combat conditions.

 

The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules arrived at Nha Trang Air Base,South Vietnam on September 21,1967.The initial test of the Gunship II program involved Close Aip Support in the southern region of South Vietnam in the Mekong River Delta area.Close Air Support was a critical mission since suppot of Troops in Contact always took precedence over gunship missions.The next of test evaluated the aircrat's Lockheed AC-130A Hercules interdiction capabilities primarily against enemy trucks operating on the Ho Chi Minh Trail in the Tiger Hound (southeast quadrant of the panhandle) area of Laos.The final phase of test program involved flying armed reconnasissance missions in central highlands of South Vietnam (2nd Army Corps area).Actual combat sorties were flown between September 24,1967 and December 1,1967.

 

The result of combat test program were very encourging.The Gunship II program was particularly good at interdiction of enemy supply vehicles.Of the 94 vehicles sighted,38 vehicles were destroyed (verified direct hits and secondary explosions or sustained fire).During the combat evaluation,the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules fired more than 85,000 rounds of 20 milimeter cannon ammunition and more than 220,000 rounds of 7.62 milimeter miniguns ammunition While the combat test program was successful,there were some serios promblems indentified which would require fixing before the "production" Lockheed AC-130A Hercules modification program could begin.

 

After the prototype Lockheed AC-130A Hercules completed its initial combat evalution in early December 1967,problems inentifed during the test program were evaluated and integrated into an upgrade and overhaul plane expected to take until midsumer 1968.However,because of the success of first combat test,General William C.Westmoreland,Commander of the United States Military Assistance Command,Vietnam,requested the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules be returned to Vietnam as soon as possible,so it could be used before the start of the "wet "season Monsoon in late spring 1968.General William W.Momyer,Commander of the 7th Air Force,dircted the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules overhaul include only essential fixes and the gunship be returned to Vietnam by the begining of spring 1968.The overhaul was completed in early Febyary 1968 and the aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules arrived back in Southeast Asia on Febuary 12,1968.During the second combat test,the Gunship II program was based at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base,Thailand,a forward operating location of the 14th Air Commando Wing based at Nha Trang Air Base,South Vietnam (location of the first combat test).

 

The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules prototype conducted the second combat evaluation between Febuary 27,1968 and May 14,1968.Fourty-three combat missions were flown over Laos,primarily in the "Steel Tiger" area of the panhandle.Eight hundred 74 enemy vehicles were sighted--212 vehicles were destroyed and 107 damaged.The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules also destroyed 37 milimeter antiaircraft artillery (AAA) site and damaged four more 37 milimeter antiaircraft artillery (AAA) sites.

 

Because of some early problems with the gunship's fire control system and often heavy antiaricraft artillery (AAA),the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules teamed up with Cessna O-2 Skymaster "Covey" forward air controllers and Lockheed C-130 Hercules "Blindbat" flare ships.The Lockheed C-130 Hercules "Blindbat" was very effective detecting targets using its star light scope;however,it flew a preditable search pattern altiudes (right hand circular or race track at 8,000 feet - 11,000 feet altitude).Enemy gunners were quickly to realize if they heard or saw the unarmed Lockheed C-130 Hercules "Blindbat" orbiting their position,an attack styrike imminet and to hold fire waiting on the strike aircraft.The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was highly vulnerable in this situation,so if a Lockheed C-130 Hercules "Blindbat" spotted a target,it would relay the information to the Lockheed AC-130 Hercules gunship to achieve some amount of surprise when attacking defended ground targets,although most cases,the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules simply avoided areas known to contain heavy enemy antiaircaft artillery (AAA).

 

The Lockheed AC-130A Hercules worked well using the Cessna O-2 Skymaster "Covey" as a seeker aircraft.In general,the Cessna O-2 Skymaster "Covey" would fly slightly higher and inside the gunship's orbit.When an enemy antiaircraft artillery (AAA) position was spotted,the Cessna O-2 Skymaster "Covey" marked the gun and called for a "fast mover' to attack it while the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules moved off to search for truck traffic in areas within little or no antiaircraft artillery (AAA) gun positions.

 

The overhaul conclusion of the second test program was the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules would be extremely effective in intericting supply lines if the antiaircraft artillery (AAA) defense were neutralized.Note: Because of the bombing halt in place during the spring of 1968,three Cessna O-2 Skymaster "Coveys",one Lockheed C-130 Hercules "Blindbat",and three McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs based at Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base,Thailand were shot down over Laos (May 1968)--the enemy used the time to set-up many antiaircraft artillery (AAA) sites along the Ho Chi Minh Trail routes through southern Laos.

 

Following the second combat evaluation,all major aircraft systems and components were critiqued based on combat performance,ease of maintenance and reliablity.The illuminator system was broken throughout the test period and was eventually romoved from the aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules.Problems with the sysem included lack of spar parts,poor repair manuals and contamination of the water cooling system.The LAU-74 semiautomatic flare launcher installed beside the illuminator on the aft ramp worked well througghout the tests.When the fire control computer was 'down',the pilot sometimes resorted to Douglas AC-47d Skytrain "Spooky' or "Puff the Magic Dragon"and "Puff" style tactics --drop flares to light the target and manually site the gun and "walk" the tracer path to the target.The fire control radar (DPN-34) was broken much of the time and required extensive maintenance between flights.The evaluation team recommanded an entire new system be used on all further Lockheed AC-130 Hercules gunship conversions.The infrared tracking system was unable,but required a very exerienced operator to continuously track a ground target with the aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules in attack mode (30 degree left bank.The guns all performed well and only minor jamming problems (fixable inflight by the gunners) were reported.The fire control system performed well in direct fire operation (no offset computations)but was drone to problems otherwise.The fire control computer was subject to in-flight failure but working well when it was functional.The Night Observation Device worked well and was among the most reliable pieces of equipment on the Gunship II program Lockheed AC-130A Hercules prototype.The navigation equipment worked well and most problems were associated with the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules attack tactics.For Example,the search radar had a limited range of 30 miles and tended to have roll stabilzation problems druning sustained bank flight.

 

The typical Lockheed AC-130a Hercules attack profile was flown at 5,000 feet above ground level (AGL) for armer reconnaissance missions and interdirction missions.If moderate or heavy antiaircraft artillery (AAA) fire encountered the aircraft would attack from 6,500 feet or 8,000 feet above ground level (AGL)(in most cases,the Gunship II program would depart areas with hevey antiaircraft artillery (AAA) without attacking).For close air support of Troop In Contact (TIC) the aircraft Lockheed AC-130A hercules would fly as low as 3,500 feet above ground level (AGL) to improve gun accuracy.The standard speed was 145 knots.The aircraft Lockheed AC-130A Hercules while in a 30 degree left bank and guns were depressed 20 degrees (down).This combined with an approximate 10 degrees ballistic arc caused the round to impact the target area at approximatley 60 degrees (from horizontal).This high angle of incidence produced good results even when penetrating the jungle canopy.The 20 milimeter "Vulcan" cannon were primary weapons used and a 2-second burst (75-100 rounds) from a single 20 milimeter cannon was usually sufficient to destroy an enemy truck.When firing on a group of vehicles located close to one another,two 20 milimeter cannons were fired simultaneously.The only time all eight guns (four 20 milimeter cannons and 7.62 milimeter miniguns)were fired together when attacking an enemy antiaircraft artillery (AAA) site.When the Gunship II program encounted an antiaircraft artillery (AAA) site didn't attack it (this was usually the case),a flare,timed to ignite when it hit the ground,was sometimes dropped on the site to mark it (and be avoided by the Gunship and any forward air controller (FAC) aircraft in the area).

 

The final recommendation of evaluation team included the need for an upgrade fire control system which could minmize the time over target,reliable maintain lock,and store multiple target locations.The need for larger caliber guns to deal; with antiaircraft artillery (AAA0 sites and armored vehicles was also included in the report.The evaluation team suggested a 25 milimeter cannon;however,follow-on gunships included 40 milimeter cannons and some were equipped with a 105 milimeter howitzer!

 

M-102 105 MM Canon

------------------------------

Designed for easy transport by helicopter or light vehicles,the M-102 105 milimeter cannon first saw service in Southeast Asia with the U.S.Army in 1966.The M-102's light weight made it well-suited for use on Lockheed AC-130A Hercules gunships.One of the side-firing 40 milimeter guns on the Lockheed AC-130A Hercules was replaced with the modifed M-102 105 milimeter cannon to increase the firepower.

 

Other Lockheed AC-130A Hercules gunships,however,used the powerful M-102 105 milimeter cannon effectively against enemy targets.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some Background:

The Lockheed F-94 Starfire was a first-generation jet aircraft of the United States Air Force. It was developed from the twin-seat Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star in the late 1940s as an all-weather, day/night interceptor, replacing the propeller-driven North American F-82 Twin Mustang in this role. The system was designed to overtake the F-80 in terms of performance, but more so to intercept the new high-level Soviet bombers capable of nuclear attacks on America and her Allies - in particular, the new Tupelov Tu-4. The F-94 was furthermore the first operational USAF fighter equipped with an afterburner and was the first jet-powered all-weather fighter to enter combat during the Korean War in January 1953.

 

The initial production model, the F-94A, entered operational service in May 1950. Its armament consisted of four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns mounted in the fuselage with the muzzles exiting under the radome for the APG-33 radar, a derivative from the AN/APG-3, which directed the Convair B-36's tail guns and had a range of up to 20 miles (32 km). Two 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tanks, as carried by the F-80 and T-33, were carried on the wingtips. Alternatively, these could be replaced by a pair of 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under the wings, giving the aircraft a secondary fighter bomber capability. 109 were produced.

 

The subsequent F-94B, which entered service in January 1951, was outwardly virtually identical to the F-94A. Its Allison J33 turbojet had a number of modifications made, though, which made it a very reliable engine. The pilot was provided with a roomier cockpit and the canopy received a bow frame in the center between the two crew members. A new Instrument Landing System (ILS) was fitted, too, which made operations at night and/or in bad weather much safer. However, this new variant’s punch with just four machine guns remained weak, and, to improve the load of fire, wing-mounted pods with two additional pairs of 0.5” machine guns were introduced – but these hardly improved the interceptor’s effectiveness. 356 of the F-94B were nevertheless built.

 

The following F-94C was extensively modified and initially designated F-97, but it was ultimately decided just to treat it as a new version of the F-94. USAF interest was lukewarm since aircraft technology had already developed at a fast pace – supersonic performance had already become standard. Lockheed funded development themselves, converting two F-94B airframes to YF-94C prototypes for evaluation with a completely new, much thinner wing, a swept tail surface and a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J48. This was a license-built version of the afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay, which produced a dry thrust of 6,350 pounds-force (28.2 kN) and approximately 8,750 pounds-force (38.9 kN) with afterburning. Instead of machine guns, the proposed new variant was exclusively armed with unguided air-to-air missiles.

Tests were positive and eventually the F-94C was adopted for USAF service, since it was the best interim solution for an all-weather fighter at that time. It still had to rely on Ground Control Interception Radar (GCI) sites to vector the interceptor to intruding aircraft, though.

 

The F-94C's introduction and the availability of the more effective Northrop F-89C/D Scorpion and the North American F-86D Sabre interceptors led to a quick relegation of the earlier F-94 variants from mid-1954 onwards to second line units and to Air National Guards. By 1955 most of them had already been phased out of USAF service, and some of these relatively young surplus machines were subsequently exported or handed over to friendly nations, too. When sent to the ANG, the F-94As were modified by Lockheed to F-94B standards and then returned to the ANG as B models. They primarily replaced outdated F-80C Shooting Stars and F-51D/H Mustangs.

 

At that time the USAF was looking for a tactical reconnaissance aircraft, a more effective successor for the RF-80A which had shown its worth and weaknesses during the Korea War. For instance, the plane could not fly at low altitude long enough to perform suitable visual reconnaissance, and its camera equipment was still based on WWII standards. Lockheed saw the opportunity to fill this operational gap with conversions of existing F-94A/B airframes, which had, in most cases, only had clocked few flying hours, primarily at high altitudes where Soviet bombers were expected to lurk, and still a lot of airframe life to offer. This led to another private venture, the RF-94B, auspiciously christened “Stargazer”.

 

The RF-94B was based on the F-94B interceptor with its J33 engine and the original unswept tail. The F-94B’s wings were retained but received a different leading-edge profile to better cope with operations at low altitude. The interceptor’s nose with the radome and the machine guns underneath was replaced by a new all-metal nose cone, which was more than 3 feet longer than the former radar nose, with windows for several sets of cameras; the wedge-shaped nose cone quickly earned the aircraft the unofficial nickname “Crocodile”.

One camera was looking ahead into flight direction and could be mounted at different angled downward (but not moved during flight), followed by two oblique cameras, looking to the left and the right, and a vertical camera as well as a long-range camera focussed on the horizon, which was behind a round window at port side. An additional, spacious compartment in front of the landing gear well held an innovative Tri-Metrogen horizon-to-horizon view system that consisted of three synchronized cameras. Coupled with a computerized control system based on light, speed, and altitude, it adjusted camera settings to produce pictures with greater delineation.

All cameras could be triggered individually by pilot or a dedicated observer/camera systems operator in the 2nd seat. Talking into a wire recorder, the crew could describe ground movements that might not have appeared in still pictures. A vertical view finder with a periscopic presentation on the cockpit panel was added for the pilot to enhance visual reconnaissance and target identification directly under the aircraft. Using magnesium flares carried under its wings in flash-ejector cartridges, the RF-94B was furthermore able to fly night missions.

The RF-94B was supposed to operate unarmed, but it could still carry a pair of 1.000 lb bombs under its wings or, thanks to added plumbings, an extra pair of drop tanks for ferry flights. The F-94A/B’s machine gun pods as well as the F-94C’s unguided missile launchers could be mounted to the wings, too, making it a viable attack aircraft in a secondary role.

 

The USAF was highly interested in this update proposal for the outdated interceptors (almost 500 F-94A/Bs had been built) and ordered 100 RF-94B conversions with an option for 100 more – just when a severe (and superior) competitor entered the stage after a lot of development troubles: Republic’s RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. The first YRF-84F had already been completed in February 1952 and it had an overall slightly better performance than the RF-94B. However, it offered more internal space for reconnaissance systems and was able to carry up to fifteen cameras with the support of many automatized systems, so that it was a single seater. Being largely identical to the F-84F and sharing its technical and logistical infrastructures, the USAF decided on short notice to change its procurement decision and rather adopt the more modern and promising Thunderflash as its standard tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The RF-94B conversion order was reduced to the initial 100 aircraft, and to avoid operational complexity these aircraft were exclusively delivered to Air National Guardss that had experience with the F-94A/B to replace their obsolete RF-80As.

 

Gradual replacement lasted until 1958, and while the RF-94B’s performance was overall better than the RF-80A’s, it was still disappointing and not the expected tactical intelligence gathering leap forward. The airframe did not cope well with constant low-level operations, and the aircraft’s marginal speed and handling did not ensure its survivability. However, unlike the RF-84F, which suffered from frequent engine problems, the Stargazers’ J33 made them highly reliable platforms – even though the complex Tri-Metrogen device turned out to be capricious, so that it was soon replaced with up to three standard cameras.

 

For better handling and less drag esp. at low altitude, the F-94B’s large Fletcher type wingtip tanks were frequently replaced with smaller ones with about half capacity. It also became common practice to operate the RF-94Bs with only a crew of one, and from 1960 on the RF-94B was, thanks to its second seat, more and more used as a trainer before pilots mounted more potent reconnaissance aircraft like the RF-101 Voodoo, which eventually replaced the RF-94B in ANG service. The last RF-94B was phased out in 1968, and, unlike the RF-84F, it was not operated by any foreign air force.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (but frequently operated by a single pilot)

Length: 43 ft 4 3/4 in (13.25 m)

Wingspan (with tip tanks): 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)

Height: 12 ft. 2 (3.73 m)

Wing area: 234' 8" sq ft (29.11 m²)

Empty weight: 10,064 lb (4,570 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,330 lb (6,960 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,184 lb (10,970 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison J33-A-33 turbojet, rated at 4,600 lbf (20.4 kN) continuous thrust,

5,400 lbf (24 kN) with water injection and 6,000 lbf (26.6 kN) thrust with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 630 mph (1,014 km/h) at height and in level flight

Range: 930 mi (813 nmi, 1,500 km) in combat configuration with two drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,457 mi (1,275 nmi, 2,345 km)

Service ceiling: 42,750 ft (14,000 m)

Rate of climb: 6,858 ft/min (34.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 57.4 lb/ft² (384 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.48

 

Armament:

No internal guns; 2x 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) drop tanks on the wing tips and…

2x underwing hardpoints for two additional 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) ferry tanks

or bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber each, plus…

2x optional (rarely fitted) pods on the wings’ leading edges with either a pair of 0.5" (12.7 mm)

machine guns or twelve 2.75” (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each

  

The kit and its assembly:

This project was originally earmarked as a submission for the 2021 “Reconnaissance & Surveillance” group build at whatifmodellers.com, in the form of a Heller F-94B with a new nose section. The inspiration behind this build was the real-world EF-94C (s/n 50-963): a solitary conversion with a bulbous camera nose. However, the EF-94C was not a reconnaissance aircraft but rather a chase plane/camera ship for the Air Research and Development Command, hence its unusual designation with the suffix “E”, standing for “Exempt” instead of the more appropriate “R” for a dedicated recce aircraft. There also was another EF-94C, but this was a totally different kind of aircraft: an ejection seat testbed.

 

I had a surplus Heller F-94B kit in The Stash™ and it was built almost completely OOB and did – except for some sinkholes and standard PSR work – not pose any problem. In fact, the old Heller Starfire model is IMHO a pretty good representation of the aircraft. O.K., its age might show, but almost anything you could ask for at 1:72 scale is there, including a decent, detailed cockpit.

 

The biggest change was the new camera nose, and it was scratched from an unlikely donor part: it consists of a Matchbox B-17G tail gunner station, slimmed down by the gunner station glazing's width at the seam in the middle, and this "sandwich" was furthermore turned upside down. Getting the transitional sections right took lots of PSR, though, and I added some styrene profiles to integrate the new nose into the rest of the hull. It was unintentional, but the new nose profile reminds a lot of a RF-101 recce Voodoo, and there's, with the straight wings, a very F-89ish look to the aircraft now? There's also something F2H-2ish about the outlines?

 

The large original wing tip tanks were cut off and replaced with smaller alternatives from a Hasegawa A-37. Because it was easy to realize on this kit I lowered the flaps, together with open ventral air brakes. The cockpit was taken OOB, I just modified the work station on the rear seat and replaced the rubber sight protector for the WSO with two screens for a camera operator. Finally, the one-piece cockpit glazing was cut into two parts to present the model with an open canopy.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision: either an NMF finish (the natural first choice), an overall light grey anti-corrosive coat of paint, both with relatively colorful unit markings, or camouflage. The USAF’s earlier RF-80As carried a unique scheme in olive drab/neutral grey with a medium waterline, but that would look rather vintage on the F-94. I decided that some tactical camouflage would make most sense on this kind of aircraft and eventually settled for the USAF’s SEA scheme with reduced tactical markings, which – after some field tests and improvisations in Vietnam – became standardized and was officially introduced to USAF aircraft around 1965 as well as to ANG units.

 

Even though I had already built a camouflaged F-94 some time ago (a Hellenic aircraft in worn SEA colors), I settled for this route. The basic colors (FS 30219, 34227, 34279 and 36622) all came from Humbrol (118, 117, 116 and 28, respectively), and for the pattern I adapted the paint scheme of the USAF’s probably only T-33 in SEA colors: a trainer based on Iceland during the Seventies and available as a markings option in one of the Special Hobby 1:32 T-33 kits. The low waterline received a wavy shape, inspired by an early ANG RF-101 in SEA camouflage I came across in a book. The new SEA scheme was apparently applied with a lot of enthusiasm and properness when it was brand new, but this quickly vaned. As an extra, the wing tip tanks received black anti-glare sections on their inner faces and a black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen - a decal from a T-33 aftermarket sheet. Beyond a black ink wash the model received some subtle panel post-shading, but rather to emphasize surface details than for serious weathering.

 

The cockpit became very dark grey (Revell 06) while the landing gear wells were kept in zinc chromate green primer (Humbrol 80, Grass Green), with bright red (Humbrol 60, Matt Red) cover interiors and struts and wheels in aluminum (Humbrol 56). The interior of the flaps and the ventral air brakes became red, too.

 

The decals/markings came from a Special Hobby 1:72 F-86H; there’s a dedicated ANG boxing of the kit that comes with an optional camouflaged aircraft of the NY ANG, the least unit to operate the “Sabre Hog” during the Seventies. Since this 138th TFS formerly operated the F-94A/B, it was a perfect option for the RF-94B! I just used a different Bu. No. code on the fin, taken from a PrintScale A/T-37 set, and most stencils were perocured from the scrap box.

After a final light treatment with graphite around the afterburner for a more metallic shine of the iron metallic (Revell 97) underneath, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A camouflaged F-94 is an unusual sight, but it works very well. The new/longer nose considerably changes the aircraft's profile, and even though the change is massive, the "Crocodile" looks surprisingly plausible, if not believable! And, despite the long nose, the aircraft looks pretty sleek, especially in the air.

The MOL Northern Juvenile, capable of carrying 8,800 twenty-foot equivalent units, set a record today as the largest container ship to ever call on Jacksonville. The ship, which transited the Suez Canal from Asia before reaching the U.S. east coast, loaded and offloaded cargo at JAXPORT’s TraPac Container Terminal at Dames Point.

More than 1 million containers move through Jacksonville's public and private marine terminals annually. Jacksonville boasts the widest shipping channel in the Southeast U.S., wide enough for two ships to pass at the same time and offers worldwide cargo service from more than 40 ocean carriers, including direct service with Europe, Africa, South America, the Caribbean and other key markets.

Florida is now the nation’s third most populous state – and more than 60 million U.S. consumers live within a one-day truck drive of Jacksonville’s port. JAXPORT terminals are serviced by three U.S. interstates (I-10, I-95 and I-75), and the city has 36 daily train departures via three railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Florida East Coast. The port’s equal balance of imports and exports provides backhaul opportunities, saving money and maximizing transportation costs.

JAXPORT has invested $600 million in recent infrastructure investments in everything from cranes to docks to rail and a newly authorized project to deepen the federal shipping channel.

 

The display reads:

 

ADA in Vietnam – M42 Duster

 

Combat experience in the Korea War quickly showed that while the M19 40mm Gun Motor Carriage was a capable platform, it needed improvement. By 1952, a new anti-aircraft tank was in development, designated the T141. The new vehicle used the same turret and gun mount from the M19, but mated it with the larger, more powerful M41 Walker Bulldog light tank hull. The resulting vehicle was standardized as the M42 40mm Gun Motor Carriage by 1952 and entered full production that year.

 

However, with the service entry of the Nike Ajax system in 1953, the Army was focused on missile systems and with the introduction of the Hawk missile in the late 1950s, the M42 was quickly passed to National Guard units and all but removed from the active inventory by 1963.

 

Just two years later, US forces entered combat in South Vietnam. Two Hawk missile battalions were deployed to provide air defense around Saigon and along the DMZ, but an additional system was needed to cover potential low-altitude threats. In addition to the air defense requirement, the Army also needed a vehicle that could provide heavy firepower for both convoy escort and firebase defense. The M42 was back in demand and by the beginning of 1966, three battalions were formed for service in Vietnam.

 

Those three units, 1st Battalion, 44th Artillery; 4th Battalion, 60th Artillery; and 5th Battalion, 2nd Artillery arrived in-theater by mid-year and immediately had a significant impact on operations in their respective areas of operation. Each “Duster” battalion had a quad .50 battery and searchlight battery attached, forming an air defense task force that could respond to both air and ground threats, day or night.

 

On 20 June 1968, Air Defense and Field Artillery split the Artillery branch and the Duster, Quad, Searchlight and Hawk units were then designated ADA rather than “Artillery,” with the parenthetical Automatic Weapons, Searchlight or Guided Missile designation.

 

The story of Army Air Defense in Vietnam provides a fascinating contrast to the operations and equipment of the rest of the branch during the 1960s and early 1970s. While Army Air Defense of the day was focused on the strategic threat of a Soviet nuclear strike and were using the latest technology to deter that threat, the three ADA Duster battalions effectively used weapon systems from the “last war” to provide low altitude air defense and on-call direct fire support to infantry and artillery units across the entirety of South Vietnam from 1966 through 1972.

 

M42 Duster Specifications:

 

Weight: 50,000 lbs fully loaded

Height: 9 feet 4 inches

Length: 19 feet

Width: 10 feet 7 inches

Crew: Commander, driver, two loaders, two gunners

Armament: Two M2A1 40mm automatic anti-aircraft guns with 240 rounds per gun; 1-2 7.62 M60 Machine Guns with 1,750 rounds

Main Armament Rate of Fire: 120 rounds per minute, per gun

Engine: Continental AOS-895-3 6-cylinder opposed gasoline engine

Range: 100 miles

Speed 45 mph

 

The museum’s Duster served with the 1-44th Artillery in 1968.

 

The Duster occasionally towed the M332 ammunition trailer, which doubled the Duster’s ammunition capacity. However, it would be a liability in combat and would normally be removed before the Duster would be used in the convoy escort role.

 

Most Dusters in Vietnam carried some form of artwork. Usually the crew would name both the front hatch and the gun shield above the main armament.

 

Sergeant Mitchell W. Stout was born in Lenoir City, Tennessee on 24 February, 1950. He enlisted in the Army on 15 August 1967 and served his first tour in Vietnam as a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment in the Mekong Delta from August 1968 to August 1969. After completing his first tour, SGT Stout rotated back to the US, but returned to South Vietnam just five months later as a M42 Duster crewman.

 

Three months into his second tour, SGT Stout was commanding an M42 Duster at the Khe Gio bridge along Route 9, a strategic east-west route that was the supply lifeline to friendly outposts in western I Corps.

 

SGT Mitchell Stout

C/1-44th Artillery (Automatic Weapons), Khe Gio Bridge

 

The U.S. Army outpost at Khe Gio Bridge on Highway 9 near the DMZ was overrun by North Vietnamese troops on 12 March 1970. Fourteen Americans held the outpost along with a platoon of ARVN Infantry. Two M42 Dusters from C Battery 1-44th Artillery gave the small force a significant amount of firepower to protect the bridge, while an M151A1 searchlight jeep from G Battery, 29th Artillery provided nighttime battlefield illumination. Of those fourteen Americans, two were killed in action, five wounded and one was captured. Yet they fought valiantly and protected the bridge on Route 9, sparing it from destruction. Sergeant Mitchell Stout’s actions during the battle would earn him a posthumous Medal of Honor:

 

Citation:

 

Sgt. Stout distinguished himself during an attack by a North Vietnamese Army Sapper company on his unit's firing position at Khe Gio Bridge. Sgt. Stout was in a bunker with members of a searchlight crew when the position came under heavy enemy mortar fire and ground attack. When the intensity of the mortar attack subsided, an enemy grenade was thrown into the bunker. Displaying great courage, Sgt. Stout ran to the grenade, picked it up, and started out of the bunker. As he reached the door, the grenade exploded. By holding the grenade close to his body and shielding its blast, he protected his fellow soldiers in the bunker from further injury or death. Sgt. Stout's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action, at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the U.S. Army.

 

Taken December 13th, 2013.

The F-105 Thunderchief, which would become a legend in the history of the Vietnam War, started out very modestly as a proposal for a large, supersonic replacement for the RF-84F Thunderflash tactical reconnaissance fighter in 1951. Later this was expanded by Republic’s famous chief designer, Alexander Kartveli, to a nuclear-capable, high-speed, low-altitude penetration tactical fighter-bomber which could also replace the F-84 Thunderstreak.

 

The USAF liked the idea, as the F-84 had shown itself to be at a disadvantage against Chinese and Soviet-flown MiG-15s over Korea, and ordered 200 of the new design before it was even finalized. This order was reduced to only 37 aircraft with the end of the Korean War, but nonetheless the first YF-105A Thunderchief flew in October 1955. Although it was equipped with an interim J57 engine and had drag problems, it still achieved supersonic speed. When the design was further refined as the YF-105B, with the J75 engine and area ruling, it went over Mach 2. This was in spite of the fact that the design had mushroomed in size from Kartveli’s initial idea to one of the largest and heaviest fighter ever to serve with the USAF: fully loaded, the F-105 was heavier than a B-17 bomber. The USAF ordered 1800 F-105s, though this would be reduced to 830 examples.

 

Almost immediately, the F-105 began to be plagued with problems. Some of the trouble could be traced to the normal teething problems of any new aircraft, but for awhile it seemed the Thunderchief was too hot to handle, with a catastrophically high accident rate. This led to the aircraft getting the nickname of “Thud,” supposedly for the sound it made when hitting the ground, along with other not-so-affectionate monikers such as “Ultra Hog” and “Squat Bomber.” Despite its immense size and bad reputation, however, the F-105 was superb at high speeds, especially at low level, was difficult to stall, and its cockpit was commended for its ergonomic layout. Earlier “narrow-nose” F-105Bs were replaced by wider-nosed, radar-equipped F-105Ds, the mainline version of the Thunderchief, while two-seat F-105Fs were built as conversion trainers.

 

Had it not been for the Vietnam War, however, the F-105 might have gone down in history as simply another mildly successful 1950s era design. Deployed to Vietnam at the beginning of the American involvement there in 1964, the Thunderchief was soon heading to North Vietnam to attack targets there in the opening rounds of Operation Rolling Thunder; this was in spite of the fact that the F-105 was designed primarily as a low-level (and, as its pilots insisted, one-way) tactical nuclear bomber. Instead, F-105s were heading north festooned with conventional bombs.

 

As Rolling Thunder gradually expanded to all of North Vietnam, now-camouflaged Thuds “going Downtown” became iconic, fighting their way through the densest concentration of antiaircraft fire in history, along with SAMs and MiG fighters. The F-105 now gained a reputation for something else: toughness, a Republic hallmark. Nor were they defenseless: unlike the USAF’s primary fighter, the F-4 Phantom II, the F-105 retained an internal 20mm gatling cannon, and MiG-17s which engaged F-105s was far from a foregone conclusion, as 27 MiGs were shot down by F-105s for the loss of about 20. If nothing else, Thud pilots no longer burdened with bombs could simply elect to head home at Mach 2 and two thousand feet, outdistancing any MiG defenders.

 

If the Thud had any weakness, it was its hydraulic system, which was found to be extremely vulnerable to damage. However, it was likely more due to poor tactics and the restrictive Rules of Engagement, which sent F-105s into battle on predictable routes, unable to return fire on SAM sites until missiles were launched at them, and their F-4 escorts hamstrung by being forced to wait until MiGs were on attack runs before the MiGs could be engaged. The tropical climate also took a toll on man and machine, with the end result that 382 F-105s were lost over Vietnam, nearly half of all Thuds ever produced and the highest loss rate of any USAF aircraft.

The combination of a high loss rate and the fact that the F-105 really was not designed to be used in the fashion it was over Vietnam led to the type’s gradual withdrawal after 1968 in favor of more F-4s and a USAF version of the USN’s A-7 Corsair II. An improved all-weather bombing system, Thunderstick II, was given to a few of the F-105D survivors, but this was not used operationally.

 

The Thud soldiered on another decade in Air National Guard and Reserve units until February 1984, when the type was finally retired in favor of the F-16, and its spiritual successor, the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

 

This F-105D, 61-0088, was one of the few Thuds never to see combat over Vietnam. Delivered to the 49th TFW at Spangdahlem, West Germany, it served with USAFE until 1967, when it was transferred to McConnell AFB, Kansas to train new F-105 pilots heading to Southeast Asia. With the drawdown of the Thud force, it was transferred to the Air Force Reserve in 1972, and was among the last F-105s to be retired by the USAF in 1982. It was donated to Grissom AFB for display in their airpark a year later.

 

61-0088 sits here looking rather brand-new; it was recently repainted. It carries standard USAF Southeast Asia camouflage, and currently lacks both a tailcode and tail numbers. Previously, this aircraft carried an erroneous "IN" tailcode, but the Indiana ANG never flew F-105s. The yellow ring around the nose usually indicates a Thud assigned to PACAF units, so more than likely 61-0088 will get a Vietnam-assigned wing code. Though the F-105 always looks a little naked without bombs, this aircraft is remarkably well preserved.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-engined Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system.

 

Skyhawks played key roles in the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Falklands War. Sixty years after the aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960 produced (through February 1979). The Skyhawk found many users all around the world, and some still remain in service with the Argentine Air Force and the Brazilian Naval Aviation. Operators in Asia included Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

 

Thailand procured the Skyhawk in 1984, for the Royal Thai Navy air arm to be used for naval and air space surveillance, against sea surface targets and for close air support for the Royal Thai Marine Corps. A total of thirty aircraft were purchased from the USA, twenty-four single seaters and six two-seat TA-4J trainers.

 

The single seaters were refurbished A-4Cs from USN overstock, modernized to a standard that came close to the USN’s A-4L, but with some specific differences and unique features that made them suitable for all-weather strike operations. This modified version was re-designated as A-4LT and featured the late Skyhawk versions’ distinct “Camelback” fairing that house the additional avionics as well as a heat exchanger. The most distinctive external difference to any other Skyhawk version was a unique, pointed radome.

 

The update for Thailand included an AN/APQ-126 terrain following radar in the nose, which was integrated into an ILAAS digital navigation system – a very modern system of its era. The radar also fed a navigation and weapons delivery computer which made possible accurate delivery of bombs from a greater stand-off distance, greatly improving survivability.

Further special equipment for the Thai Skyhawks included, among others, a Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System, a Bendix AN/APN-141 Low altitude radar altimeter, an AN/AVQ-7(V) Head Up display (HUD), air refueling capability (with a fixed but detachable refueling probe), a brake parachute housing below the jet pipe, two additional underwing hardpoints (for a total for five, like the A-4E) and an increased payload. Avionics were modernized and expanded, giving the Thai Skyhawks ability to carry modern AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs and AGM-65 Maverick AGMs. The latter became, beyond standard iron bombs and pods with unguided missiles, the aircrafts’ main armament against naval targets.

However, despite the modernization of the avionics, the A-4LTs retained the A-4Cs’ Wright J65-W-20 engine with 8,200 lbf (36 kN) of takeoff thrust.

 

The first aircraft were delivered in December 1985 to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN / กองทัพเรือไทย / Kong thap ruea thai), carrying a USN grey/white livery. They served in the No.104 RTN Squadron, distributed among two wings based at U-Tapao near Bangkok and at Songkhla in the south of Thailand, close to the Malaysian border. During regular overhauls (executed at Singapore Aircraft Industries, now ST Aerospace), the RTN Skyhawks soon received a new wraparound camouflage with reduced insignia and markings.

 

While in service, the Thai Skyhawks soon suffered from frequent maintenance issues and a low availability rate, since replacement parts for the reliable yet old J65 engine became more and more difficult to obtain. At times, half of the A-4LT fleet had to remain grounded because of engine problems. In consequence, the Thai Skyhawks were in the mid-Nineties supplemented by fourteen Vought A-7E Corsairs (plus four two-seaters) in the coastal defense, sea patrol and anti-shipping role. In 1999, they were retired and replaced by Royal Thai Air Force F-16s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.29 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 6 in (8.38 m)

Height: 15 ft (4.57 m)

Wing area: 259 ft² (24.15 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 0008-1.1-25 root, NACA 0005-0.825-50 tip

Empty weight: 9,146 lb (4,152 kg)

Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Curtiss-Wright J65-W-20 turbojet with 8,200 lbf (36 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 575 kn (661 mph, 1,064 km/h)

Range: 1,700 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)

Combat radius: 625 nmi, 1,158 km

Service ceiling: 42,250 ft (12,880 m)

Rate of climb: 8,440 ft/min (43 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.7 lb/ft² (344.4 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.51

g-limit: +8/-3 g

 

Armament:

2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk. 12 cannons in the wing roots, 100 RPG

Total effective payload of up to 7,700 lb (3,500 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lb capability

- 2× Inboard wing: 2,200 lb capability each

- 2× Outboard wing: 1,000 lb capability each

  

The kit and its assembly:

I originally had this project stashed away for the upcoming "1 Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in June 2020, but since the current "In the Navy" GB had some days to go (and even received a two week extension) I decided to tackle this build on short notice.

 

The original idea was simply to build an A-4L, a modernized A-4C for the USN Reserve units, but similar machines had also been exported to Malaysia. For the naval theme I came across the Royal Thai Navy and its A-7E Corsairs - and from that the idea of a Skyhawk predecessor from the Eighties was born.

 

Instead of an A-4C (Fujimi does one in 1:72, but it's a rare kit) I based my build upon the nice Airfix A-4B/Q kit. Its biggest difference is the shorter nose, so that I decided to modify this "flaw" first and added a pointed radome instead of the usual blunt Skyhawk nose; not certain where it came from – it looks very Sea-Harrier-ish, but it’s actually the tip of a large drop tank (Italeri Tornado?). Nevertheless, this small change created a weird look, even more so with the black paint added to it later.

 

Further additions and mods are a dorsal avionics bulge from an Italeri A-4M, a scratched kinked refueling probe (made from wire and white glue, the early Skyhawks had straight probes but this would certainly interfere with the new radar in the nose), a brake parachute fairing under the tail (scratched, too, from sprue material) and additional antennae under the nose and behind the cockpit. Nothing fancy, rather details from more modern Skyhawk versions.

The AGM-65 Maverick missiles and their respective launch rails came from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen, the drop tank on the ventral pylon is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision. The Thai Corsairs as primary (and historically later) benchmark carried a standard USN grey/white high-viz livery, even though with small roundels. There were also VTOL Harriers (former Spanish Matadors) operated for a short period by the Thai navy on board of the multi-purpose carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which wore a darker two-tone grey livery, pretty boring, too. I rather wanted something more exciting (if not exotic), a more modern wraparound scheme, suited for both overwater and high-altitude duties. That brought me to the Thai F-5Ts (a.k.a. Tigris), which carried - among others - a quite unique US export/aggressor scheme in three shades of light grey, including FS 35414, which looked like a pale turquoise on these machines. I furthermore took inspiration by early Indonesian A-4s, which also carried an US export scheme, nicknamed "Grape", which included darker shades of blue, blue-gray and the bright FS 35414, too.

 

I eventually settled upon a compromise between these two liveries and tried to adapt the standard F-5 aggressor camouflage pattern for the A-4, made up from FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), 35164 (Intermediate Blue) and 35414 (Light Blue). Current Thai L-39 Albatros trainers seem to carry a similar livery, even though I am not certain about the tones that are actually used.

The basic enamel paints I used are Humbrol 129 and 144, and for the greenish Light Blue I used "Fulcrum Grey Green" from Modelmaster (#2134), a tone that is quite greenish but markedly darker and more dull than e.g. Humbrol 65, so that the color would not stand out brightly from the other greys and better fit between them. Worked quite well.

 

The inside of the slats as well as of the air brakes on the flanks were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19), while the landing gear and the interior of the air intake were painted in white (Humbrol 130). The cockpit was painted in a bluish mid grey (Revell 57).

 

After basic overall painting, the model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, for a lightly used/weathered look.

Most decals/markings come from a Thai Harrier (from an Italeri AV-8A kit), some other markings and stencils were puzzled together from the scrap box, e.g. from a USN F-5E aggressor and from a Peruvian Mirage 2000. Some additional details like the black gun soot areas on the wing roots or the fine white lines on the radome were created with generic decal sheet material.

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish, except for the radome, which became semi-gloss.

  

As intended, this build was realized in just a couple of days - and I am positively surprised how good the Skyhawk looks in its unusual, if not exotic colors! This fictional livery certainly looks different from a potential standard USN grey/white outfit, and more exciting than a dull grey-in-grey livery. And it’s so weird that it even adds some credibility to this whiffy aircraft model. 😉

Museum info:

Manufacturer: Jaguar Cars

Also called: Jaguar 240 and Jaguar 340 (from 1967)

Production: 1959-67, 83,976 (Mk. II); 1967-69, 7,234 (240 & 340)

Predecessor: Jaguar Mk. I

Successor: Jaguar XJ6

Class: sports saloon

Body style(s): saloon

Engines: 2483c.c. XK i6; 3442c.c. XK i6; 3781c.c. XK i6 (until 1966)

Wheelbase: 107in

Length: 180in

Width: 67in

Height: 58in

 

The Jaguar Mk. II is a medium-sized saloon car built during the 1960s by the Jaguar company in Coventry, England. Adhering to William Lyons' maxim of "grace, pace and space", the Mk. II was a beautiful, fast and capable saloon car.

 

The Mk. II transcended borders of class and breeding in the 1960s, being owned by city bankers and bank robbers. The 3.8 specifically gained a reputation as a capable car (especially for bank raids), being fast (over 200b.h.p. and 125m.p.h.), with room enough for five adults. The British police were often found to be chasing them, as depicted in T.V. cop shows. They were also used as police patrol cars, especially on U.K. motorways which in the early 1960s had no speed limit. It is sometimes rumoured that the police upgraded the 3.8 with XKE inlet manifolds and triple SU carburettors. Although the E-Type manifold will not fit the 3.8 Mk. II's 'B-Type' cylinder head, this could be achieved by swapping the cylinder head and modifying the engine compartment.

 

Stondon Motor Museum

Lower Stondon, Beds.

Israeli Police Yamam unit during Counter Terror Training

 

The Yamam (Hebrew: ימ"מ‎, an acronym for Special Central Unit (יחידה מרכזית מיוחדת, Yehida Merkazit Meyuhedet)) is the elite civilian counter-terrorism unit in Israel. The Yamam is capable of both hostage-rescue operations and offensive take-over raids against targets in civilian areas. Besides military duties, it also performs SWAT duties and undercover police work.

 

Name and structure

 

In Israel the Yamam is also known as the "Unit for Counter-Terror Warfare" (Hebrew: היחידה ללוחמה בטרור‎). It is subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Security central command and is part of the civilian Israel Police force, specifically the Israel Border Police. Its operators and officers are professional policemen on payroll, usually with infantry experience from their military service within the Israel Defense Forces. Yamam recruits its members exclusively from Israeli units.

 

Responsibilities

 

The unit is primarily responsible for civilian hostage rescue within Israel's borders, but from about the mid-1990s it has also been used for tasks such as arresting police suspects who have barricaded themselves in structures and requiring specialized extraction methods, as well as in personal security for VIPs and in counter-terror operations within the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Yamam are schooled in basic Arabic and dress to assimilate within the Arab population to avoid detection in order to carry out raids to arrest those suspected of conducting terrorist activities within Israel.

However, most of the Yamam's activity is classified, and published Yamam operations are often credited to other units.

 

Organisation

 

The Yamam has around 200 officers, and consists a headquarters element, an intelligence section and a small team responsible for the development of new operational techniques and testing new equipment. Aside from these central elements, the bulk of the unit is divided into a number of sections, each consisting of five teams, each containing operators with a particular specialization, so that the section includes within its numbers all the elements needed for a successful operation: roping team, entry team, medic team, sniping team, dog team, EOD team (demolition and bomb disposal). Thus, whereas an IDF special forces operation needs to assemble elements from different specialist units, in Yamam, they are all permanently part of the same unit, living, training and operating together.

 

Officers

 

Applicants for Yamam must be between 22 and 30 years old and must have completed their three-year infantry service in the IDF with a level 7 of IDF training or higher, although no previous police experience is required. Unlike American SWAT teams, the YAMAM is a professional unit with only combat duties and no other police type work. The selection process includes a "hell week" said to be one of the hardest in the world. This level of difficulty is achieved because all the applicants are already seasoned combat soldiers, like the US Delta force. The skills they are looking for in every candidate are: intelligence, physical fitness, motivation, trustworthiness, accountability, maturity, stability, judgment, decisiveness, teamwork, influence, and communication. Training lasts 6 months and is carried out in the unit's own training center, although some use is made of the facilities at the IDF Counter Terror Warfare School (LOTAR, Unit 707.) The course is divided into an three-month general CT training period at the end of which recruits are selected for their specialization and then concentrate for the remaining four months on that specialization. Upon graduation, individuals are posted to fill gaps in the sections. Yamam considers that it has several advantages over the IDF counter-terror units, first, because the men are more mature, most in their mid 30's and early 40's, and spend much longer in the unit than the equivalent military units, and, second, because the units contain a far broader range of ages and experience.

The Yamam is self-dependent, training its own operators in all fields, such as sniping, reconnaissance, dog operating, bomb disposal, etc. As a result, the Yamam has a rapid deployment time and high coordination between various squads (sniping squad, entry team, engagement force, etc.).

Waiting in the rain & in vain for 60103 Flying Scotsman at Ampthill Crossing 4/11/2017 (It was 25 minutes earlier than scThe British Rail Class 222 is a diesel multiple unit high-speed train capable of 125 mph (200 km/h). Twenty-seven units have been built in Belgium by Bombardier Transportation.

 

The Class 222 is similar to the Class 220 Voyager and Class 221 Super Voyager trains used by CrossCountry and Virgin Trains, but it has a different interior. The Class 222 trains have more components fitted under the floors to free up space within the body. Since 2009 East Midlands Trains has been the only train operating company using Class 222s.

All coaches are equipped with a Cummins QSK19 diesel engine of 750 hp (560 kW) at 1800 rpm.[2] This powers a generator, which supplies current to motors driving two axles per coach. Approximately 1,350 miles (2,170 km) can be travelled between each refuelling.

 

Class 222 have rheostatic braking using the motors in reverse to generate electricity which is dissipated as heat through resistors situated on the roof of each coach; this saves on brake pad wear.

 

In common with the Class 220s, B5000 lightweight bogies are used - these are easily recognisable since the entire outer surface of the wheel is visible, with inboard axle bearings.

 

The Class 222 are fitted with Dellner couplers,[3] as on Class 220 Voyager and Class 221 SuperVoyager trains,[3] though these units cannot work together in service because the Class 222 electrical connections are incompatible with the Class 220 and Class 221 trains.[3][clarification needed]

 

All Class 222 units are maintained at the dedicated Etches Park depot in Derby, just south of Derby station.

 

Formation[edit]

 

Seven car length Class 222 No. 222003 at London St Pancras

 

Five car length Class 222 No. 222016 at Bedford

Class 222 units are currently running in the following formations:

 

East Midlands Trains: seven cars with 236 standard seats and 106 first-class seats.

 

Coach A - Standard Class with driving cab and reservable space for two bikes

Coach B - Standard Class

Coach C - Standard Class

Coach D - Standard Class with Buffet counter

Coach F - First Class

Coach G - First Class

Coach H - First Class, kitchen and driving cab

East Midlands Trains: five cars with 192 standard seats and 50 first-class seats

 

Coach A - Standard Class with driving cab and reservable space for two bikes

Coach B - Standard Class

Coach C - Standard Class with Buffet counter

Coach D - Standard Class / First Class composite

Coach G - First Class, kitchen and driving cab

East Midlands Trains: four cars with 132 standard seats and 33 first-class seats

 

Coach A - Standard Class with driving cab and reservable space for two bikes

Coach B - Standard Class with Buffet counter

Coach D - Standard Class / First Class composite

Coach G - First Class, kitchen and driving cab

The four- and five-car units can be coupled to form 9/10-car services at peak times. When coupled together, coaches A-G are found in the front unit and the rear coaches become labelled J, K, L, M, N, with the first-class seats in coaches J and K.

 

Initially, the 23 units ordered for Midland Mainline were 4-car and 9-car. Over time these have been gradually modified to the current formations. The 4-car units ordered by Hull Trains had an option when constructed to be extended to 5-cars if required.[4]

East Midlands Trains has named the following Meridians:

 

Unit numberNameDate namedNamed byNotes

222 001The Entrepreneur Express22 September 2011Tim Shoveller, East Midlands Trains Managing DirectorNamed to kick off the start of the 2011 entrepreneur festival MADE

222 002The Cutlers' Company18 October 2011Pamela Liversidge, Master CutlerNamed to mark the successful partnership between East Midlands Trains and Sheffield

222 003Tornado24 March 2009Tim Shoveller, East Midlands Trains Managing DirectorDriving car 60163 named as it has the same number as Tornado

222 004Children's Hospital Sheffield26 February 2013Michael Vaughan, Charity PatonTo mark the successful partnership between East Midlands Trains and the Sheffield Children's Hospital

222 006The Carbon Cutter31 May 2011Philip Hammond, Transport SecretaryTo mark the introduction of eco-mode to the fleet

222 008Derby Etches Park13 September 2014David Horne, East Midlands Trains Managing DirectorNamed as part of the open day at Derby Etches Park

222 015175 Years of Derby's Railways 1839 - 201418 July 2014Paul Atterbury, Antiques Roadshow Expert and railway authorTo mark 175 years of railways in Derby

222 022Invest In Nottingham19 September 2011Jon Collins, leader of Nottingham City CouncilNamed to launch the 2011 Invest in Nottingham day

222 011Sheffield City Battalion 1914-191811 November 2014Ron Wiltshire, Royal British Legion representativeNamed to honour Sheffield City Battalion who fought in the World War I

 

East Midlands Trains Class 222/0 No. 222018 at Loughborough.

In 2008 further rearrangements were made to the sets: another carriage was removed from the eight-car Meridians, except for 222 007, which has been reduced to five cars.[6] The surplus coaches were then added to the remaining four-car Meridians to make six seven-car sets (222 001-222 006) and 17 five-car sets (222 007-222 023). This took place from March to October 2008; as part of the process, two first-class coaches removed from 222 007 were converted to standard class and part first class.

 

The seven-car trains are almost exclusively used on the fast services between London St Pancras and Sheffield. These do not operate the London St Pancras-Leeds, although the service is via Sheffield. The five-car trains are mainly used between London St Pancras and Sheffield, Nottingham or Corby on semi-fast services. The four-car trains supplement the five-car trains on these services.

 

In December 2008 the Class 222 Meridians started work on the hourly London St Pancras to Sheffield services, because they have faster acceleration than the High Speed Trains and so were able to reduce the Sheffield to London journey time by 12 minutes. The hourly Nottingham service was then transferred to High Speed Train running to cover for the Meridians now working the hourly Sheffield fast service.[7]

 

In February 2009, 222 101 and 222 102 transferred from Hull Trains to East Midlands Trains, and were quickly repainted in the East Midlands Trains white livery. 222 104 followed from Hull Trains later in the year. 222 103 followed a few months after 222 104 after repairs had been completed (see below). 222 103 has now been reinstated for service after two years for repairs after the unit fell from jacks at Bombardier, Crofton in early 2007.

heduled and sitting in my car it passed by heard but not seen)

 

  

Capable of 12 frames per second burst mode shooting (RAW+JPEG), the snapper can also capture 14 frames per second with the mirror locked up and the camera shooting JPEGs.

  

---

Check out my preview of the EOS-1D X here:

Canon EOS-1D X exclusive hands-on

   

More photos here:

Canon EOS-1D X unveiling: photo gallery

   

Follow me on Twitter @ ShawnCNETAsia

 

and check out CNET Asia Cameras for your daily camera fix:)

Like many of the fans who endured the cold, drizzly conditions inside Reliant Stadium to start the game, the Texans took a few minutes to warm up Sunday afternoon in the regular season finale against the Chicago Bears.

 

After a wake-up call courtesy of a momentum-changing sack by defensive end Mario Williams and a stern message from coach Gary Kubiak, the fans were treated to a spectacular offensive display led by Pro Bowler Andre Johnson and rookie running back Steve Slaton .

 

The 31-24 win gave Houston its second-consecutive 8-8 record to end the season, and it shut out the Bears from postseason contention.

Texans owner Bob McNair admired the team's strong finish to the season.

 

"I'd rather be 16-0," McNair said. "But I think starting out the way we did, 0-4, coming back, understand that only nine other teams have ever done that (start 0-4 and finish .500 or better) in this history of the NFL. So I think it was an accomplishment for our team."

 

Early on, the Texans appeared to suffer from the same malaise they showed at Oakland a week earlier. But the team erased a 10-0 deficit in the first quarter with 21 unanswered points to take a 21-10 lead early in the third quarter.

 

In that stretch, Johnson scored back-to-back touchdowns to bring the franchise-record crowd of 70,838 to its feet. The Pro Bowler finished with 10 catches for 148 yards (14.8 avg.) to end the season with the NFL lead in receptions (115) and receiving yards (1,575).

 

Meanwhile, Slaton rebounded from a first half in which he totaled only 19 rushing yards and lost a fumble to put the offense on his back in the final quarter of play. By gaining 128 total yards from scrimmage and scoring a touchdown in the game, Slaton may have sealed NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.

 

Slaton’s five-yard gain with 1:24 remaining in the contest gave Houston a first down and allowed the team to run out the remainder of the clock.

 

"I really like the way we came back and played after we played pretty poorly on both sides of the ball throughout the first quarter," Kubiak said.

 

Chicago scored its first touchdown with 5:57 remaining in the first quarter when wide receiver Brandon Lloyd stretched out for a four-yard touchdown grab near the front left pylon. A 15-yard reception by wide receiver Devin Hester and a 15-yard penalty on defensive end Tim Bulman for roughing the passer set up the score.

 

Wide receiver André Davis ' 39-yard kickoff return down the Bears' sideline gave the Texans solid field position at their 42-yard line to begin their second possession. But Slaton fumbled on the first play from scrimmage after being tackled by cornerback Charles Tillman. Defensive end Alex Brown recovered the fumble and returned it 17 yards to the Houston 38.

 

Three plays later, Robbie Gould's 37-yard field goal made the score 10-0.

 

The next drive started promising when quarterback Matt Schaub threw a tight spiral to Davis for a 33-yard gain up the middle of the field. But tight end Owen Daniels was penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness on the next play, and Schaub was flagged 10 yards for intentional grounding one play later to derail the drive and force a punt.

 

Upon returning to the sideline, the offense received an earful from Kubiak.

 

"I just didn't think we were going about our business the way we were capable of playing," Kubiak said. "That's not us. We're usually a pretty poised group as a football team and right there is losing poise and getting a shot in on a guy and all of a sudden it took a lot of momentum away from us."

 

With 11:26 left in the first half, Chicago took over at the Houston 49 following a three-and-out series by the Texans. But Williams saved the defense with his 12th sack of the season by tackling quarterback Kyle Orton at the Chicago 45 for a 10-yard loss on third down.

 

From there, Johnson caught three passes for 72 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown where he dragged two defenders with him over the goal line. Kris Brown's extra point cut the Bears' lead to 10-7 with 5:50 remaining before halftime.

 

Running back Ryan Moats forced a fumble on the ensuing kickoff when he tackled Devin Hester. Brown dove on the ball at the Chicago 38 for the Texans' first takeaway.

 

On third-and-goal at the three-yard line, Schaub threw a fade route to Johnson in the back right corner of the end zone, and Johnson ripped away the ball from Tillman for the score.

 

Safety Danieal Manning returned the opening kickoff of the second half 40 yards to the Chicago 45. But on third-and-six, rookie safety Dominique Barber blitzed off the right side to sack Orton for a nine-yard loss.

 

Picking up where he left off in the first half, Johnson gained 21 yards to the Houston 48 on his first reception of the third quarter. Later, Slaton's 17-yard catch and wide receiver Kevin Walter's 23-yard grab helped give the Texans a first down at the Chicago 17.

 

Moats scored his first touchdown with the team on a two-yard rush off the left guard to cap the nine-play drive. Brown's extra point extended the Texans' lead to 21-10 with 8:30 left in the third quarter.

 

The Bears refused to lie down and responded with a seven-play, 77-yard drive over 3:00. A 37-yard catch by Hester to the Texans' one-yard line set up Orton's touchdown pass to tight end Greg Olsen.

 

Late in the third quarter, the Texans moved into scoring range thanks to a 33-yard catch by Daniels to the Chicago 15. On third-and-10 at the 15-yard line, wide receiver David Anderson made a diving nine-yard reception, and Schaub dove forward on fourth down to keep the drive alive.

 

Following two short rushes by Slaton, Schaub's pass intended for Anderson on third-and-goal from the four-yard line fell incomplete, setting up Brown's 22-yard field goal.

 

Following a Chicago punt to the Houston 11 midway through the fourth quarter, Schaub drove the offense 89 yards in 11 plays. On the first play of the series, he avoided a safety on first down by tossing a pass in the flats to Slaton, who outran a defensive lineman for an 11-yard gain. Two plays later, Slaton rushed for 47 yards before Manning tackled him at the Chicago 29.

 

A 14-yard reception by Johnson set up Slaton's 15-yard touchdown run, but a holding call on right guard Mike Brisiel negated the score. On the next run by Slaton, he was tackled and fumbled after a one-yard run, but Kubiak challenged the call. Replays showed Slaton's elbow was down before the ball came loose, and officials overturned the call.

 

On third-and-14, Bears linebacker Nick Roach was penalized for holding, giving the Texans an automatic first down at the 14-yard line. Slaton capped the team’s second-consecutive 11-play series with a two-yard touchdown run to make the score 31-17 after Brown's extra point.

 

The Bears made things interesting by picking apart the Texans' prevent defense on an 11-play, 72-yard drive over 1:55. On fourth-and-one at the Houston 11, Orton dove forward for a first down at the two-minute warning. He moved the Bears to the one-yard line by finding running back Adrian Peterson open on a nine-yard screen pass.

 

Safety Eugene Wilson was injured on the play, resulting in a burned timeout for Houston. Once play was restored, Orton pushed his way over the goal line for a touchdown that made the score 31-23 with 1:29 left in the game.

 

But Gould’s onside kick was recovered by Walter at the Chicago 44, and Slaton preserved the win on his final carry of the game for five yards and a first down.

Land Rover has a long history of delivering capable and premium offroad vehicles. The Range Rover has set the benchmark for premium offroad (now known as SUV) vehicle types. And, the original Land Rover (recently known as 'Defender') has set the benchmark for capable offroad attributes since its inception in 1948.

 

One thing the Defender isn't is comfortable, stylish, safe or pretty much anything you would use to describe a newly engineered car. Problem is, Land Rover has not been able to identify and produce a replacement vehicle design.

 

A few years ago Land Rover produced a series of concepts, under the title DC 100 (Defender Concept 100) looking at a modern interpretation of the core Land Rover values: offroad capability & robustness.

 

The version shown here was a followup concept, based on the three door DC 100 design.

 

The production version of this vehicle had been due in 2016/17, but at this stage there is no confirmation regarding the vehicle or the production date.

 

What we are left with are some interesting concepts glimpsing the thoughts of one of the original offroad capable product companies.

 

More info can be found at the following wikipedia link:

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_DC100

 

This Lego miniland-scale Land Rover DC 100 Concept - has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 105th Build Challenge, titled - 'The Great Outdoors!' - a challenge for any vehicle designed for outdoor adventuring.

  

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The origins of the Henschel Hs 165 date back to early 1937, when the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM, German Ministry of Aviation) issued a specification for a carrier-based torpedo bomber to operate from Germany's first aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin construction of which had started at the end of 1936. The specification was originally issued to two aircraft producers, Fieseler and Arado, and demanded an all-metal biplane with a maximum speed of at least 300 km/h (186 mph), a range of at least 1,000 km and capable both of torpedo and dive-bombing. By the summer of 1938 the Fieseler design proved to be superior to the Arado design, the Ar 195.

Anyway, by the time the Fi 167 prototype was ready for tests and proved its excellent handling, the biplane layout was already outdated and did not promise much development potential. Therefore, the RLM's request was repeated in late 1938 and a monoplane requested. Since the Graf Zeppelin was not expected to be completed before the end of 1940, the RLM did not put much pressure behind the project.

 

Among others, Henschel replied with the Hs 165. It was a compact and conservative low wing monoplane of all-metal construction with a crew of two (pilot and navigator/observer/gunner) under a common, heavily framed and high glasshouse canopy. In order to achieve a high performance, the airframe was originally developed around the new 14 cylinder BMW 139 radial engine with 1,550 hp (1,140 kW). The main landing gear was fully retractable, retracting outwards into wells that were part of the outer, foldable wings. Similar to the Ju87 C, the wings could manually be folded backwards, so that the aircraft became very compact for onboard stowage.

The tail wheel, placed behind a V-shaped arrester hook, could not be retracted, even though a mechanism allowed the control of the tail's ground clearance for the carriage of a torpedo under the fuselage and an optimized angle of attack for starts and landings.

 

Armament consisted of a pair of 20mm MG FF cannons in the wings, a pair of 7.92mm machine guns above the engine, synchronized to fire through the propeller arc, and another single light machine gun for rear defense.

 

Among the special equipment of the Hs 165 for naval operations was a two-seat rubber dinghy with signal ammunition and emergency ammunition. A quick fuel dump mechanism and two inflatable 750 L (200 US gal) bags in each wing and a further two 500 L (130 US gal) bags in the fuselage enabled the aircraft to remain afloat for up to three days in calm seas.

 

When the first two prototypes of the Hs 165 (the V-1 and V-2) were about to be finished, it became clear that the BMW 139 would not materialize, but rather be replaced by an even more powerful engine. The new design was given the name BMW 801 after BMW was given a new block of "109-800" engine numbers by the RLM to use after their merger with Bramo. The first BMW 801A's ran in April 1939, only six months after starting work on the design, with production commencing in 1940.

 

Hs 165 V-1 was re-engined and ready for testing in mid 1940, while the first catapult launch tests on board of the Graf Zeppelin carrier were already carried out with Arado Ar 197s, modified Junkers Ju 87Bs and modified Messerschmitt Bf 109Ds. However, the Graf Zeppelin was still incomplete and not ready for full military service, and the changing strategic situation led to further work on her being suspended. In the wake of this decision, the completion of further carrier-borne aircraft was stopped and the completed examples were taken into Luftwaffe service in several evaluation/test units.

 

The Hs 165 initially fell victim to this decision, and only five airworthy airframes were completed as Hs 165 A-0 pre-production aircraft. Anyway, these were kept in service as test beds and other development duties, and Henschel kept working on detail improvements since the aircraft was also intended to become a land-based replacement for the Ju 87 dive bombers which had become obsolete by 1941, too. This aircraft was planned as the Hs 165 B.

 

However, by the spring of 1942 the usefulness of aircraft carriers in modern naval warfare had been amply demonstrated, and on 13 May 1942, the German Naval Supreme Command ordered work resumed on the German carrier projects. Henschel was happy to have the refined Hs 165 A at hand, and the type was immediately put into production.

 

The resulting Hs 165 A-1 differed in many equipment details from the former pre-production aircraft, and the armament was upgraded, too. The wing-mounted MG FF 20mm cannons were replaced with more effective and lighter MG 151/20 guns, while the pair of MG 17 machine guns above the engine was replaced by a pair of heavy MG 131 machine guns. The observer's single, light MG 15 machine gun was also upgraded to a belt-fed MG 81Z with two barrels, or a single MG 131.

The original BMW 801A engine remained the same, though, and due to the Hs 165 A-1’s higher overall weight the aircraft's performance deteriorated slightly.

 

Production did not last for long though, because further work on the Graf Zeppelin was soon terminated, and this time for good. In the meantime, the RLM had also decided to reduce the variety of aircraft types and rather develop specialized versions of existing aircraft than dedicated types like the Hs 165. As a consequence Hs 165 production was stopped again in June 1943, with several improved versions on the drawing board. These included the A-2 single seater and the C with an alternative liquid-cooled Jumo 213 powerplant.

The land-based Hs 165 B never materialized because, at the time of the type’s introduction into service, the dive bomber concept had turned out to be much too vulnerable in the European theatre of operations. Effectively, the Hs 165 needed cover from more agile fighters and did not stand a chance against enemy fighters.

 

However, until the end of production about 100 Hs 165 aircraft had been delivered to land-based front line units, since no German aircraft carrier ever materialized, and these machines were primarily used in Northern Europe in the coastal defense role and for harassment attacks in the North and Baltic Sea until 1945.

In service, they were gradually replaced by Ju 88 torpedo bombers and the Fw 190 A-5a/U14, which was able to carry a single torpedo, too, but offered a much better performance than the heavy and large Hs 165.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (pilot and observer/gunner)

Length: 11.08 m (36 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 13.95 m (45 ft 9 in)

Height: 4.18 m (13 ft 8 in)

Wing area: 26.8 m² (288 ft²)

Empty weight: 9,725 lb (4,411 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 14,300 lb (6,486 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1 × BMW 801A air-cooled 14 cylinder two row radial engine, 1,700 hp (1,250 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 302 mph (262 kn, 486 km/h) at 11,000 ft (3,350 m)

Cruise speed: 235 mph (204 kn, 378 km/h)

Range: 1,400 miles (1,220 nmi, 2,253 km)

Service ceiling: 22,500 ft (6,860 m)

Wing loading: 43.1 lb/ft² (210 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.12 hp/lb (0.19 kW/kg)

 

Armament:

2× 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wings

2 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun above the engine

1 × 7.92 mm MG 81Z, firing backwards

 

1× 1000 kg (2,200 lb) bomb, or

1× 765 kg (1,685 lb) torpedo, or

1 × 500 kg (1,100 lb) bomb plus 4 × 50 kg (110 lb) bombs, or

4 × 250 kg (551 lb) ventrally

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another entry for the 2016 "In the Navy" Group Build at whatfimodelers.com, and in this case a complete kitbash for a fictional aircraft. Originally, this idea started as a Hs 126 on floats, which then turned into a low wing aircraft (in the Ju 87 class) and finally evolved into a carrier-capable torpedo bomber. Pretty dramatic evolution, but once the plan was settled, things quickly turned into hardware.

 

Ingredients include:

- Fuselage, cockpit and stabilizers (though mounted differently) from an Italeri Hs 126

- Wings from a Mastercraft (ex ZTM Plastyk) PZL 23 Karas, with the ventral gondala removed

- Landing gear from a Matchbox He 70, wheels from a Mastercraft Su-22;

- Engine/cowling from an Academy Fw 190, plus various donation parts and a putty plug

- Canopy from a Matchbox Brewster Buffalo

- German torpedo from the spares box (IIRC from an Italeri He 111)

 

Even though this is a kitbash, work was rather easy and straightforward, because most of the parts come from OOB donation kits. First, the Hs 126 fuselage was finished without an interior and the Fw 190 nose section transplanted. Inside, a styrene tube was added in order to hold the propeller and let it spin freely. In parallel, the landing gear wells were cut into the wings and the flaps separated/opened. Then the canopy was integrated into the fuselage, using styrene strips and putty.

For the wings, a wide opening had to be cut into the Hs 126’s lower fuselage, and the parts took some putty work to blend together.

Once the wings were in place, the landing gear was mounted as well as the scratched torpedo hardpoint. The cockpit interior followed suit with new seats and two figures, then the Buffalo canopy was modified for the rear machine gun mount and glued into place.

  

Painting and markings:

I wanted a rather "dry", typical German livery, and settled for a simple splinter scheme with a low waterline in the naval colors RLM 72 (a kind of very dark olive drab) and 73 (a bluish, very dark green) with light blue (RLM 65) undersides.

 

In this case I used enamels from the Modelmaster Authentic range, treated with a light black ink wash and with serious panel shading (with Humbrol 66 and a mix of Humbrol 30 + 77, respectively), because some color pictures I got hands on from early German naval aircraft (e. g. He 115 or Ar 196) suggest that the two murky, green tones weathered and bleached easily, and the enhanced contrast between the very similar colors was IMHO helpful, anyway.

 

The interior and the landing gearw as painted in contemporary RLM 02, the torpedo is simple black with a gun metal tip and a brass propeller.

 

The markings had to be puzzled together; I originally wanted the kit to be part of one of the Küstenfliegergruppen, in particular KüFliGr 106. But in mid 1943, these were partly integrated into the Kampffliegergruppen, and offensive parts of KüFliGr 106 were added to KG 6. It took some time to figure out where KG 6 was operating in the time frame I wanted to place the Hs 165, and eventually found 8./KG 6 from the third group that was based in Belgium at that time and flew Ju 88 torpedo bombers - so I added the Hs 165 to that squadron.

 

As a side effect, the aircraft would not carry any of the fuselage bands or other bright ID markings - the only color highlights are the red wing tip and the individual code "K" letter, and I used a grey decal for the 8th squadron's code letter "S" for better contrast with the dark green livery. Another "highlight" is a KG 6 emblem behind the engine, which I found on a Peddinghaus Decals sheet in the stash. Anyway, this minimal and very conservative livery does not look bad at all, though?

  

A complex kitbashing,done in about a week, and despite some trouble and major body work the result looks IMHO very good - especially the flight scenes, with the retracted (retouched...) landing gear show the sleek lines of the Hs 126, the fictional Hs 165 looks pretty fast and purposeful. And with a different engine, this could also carry some Hinomaru - the thing reminds me a lot of Japanese torpedo bombers (e. g. the B5N?) and carrier-borne reconnaissance aircraft?

 

Is anyone capable of looking at an inchworm and NOT singing to it? Do you suppose inchworms get tired of hearing "Inchworm, inchworm, measuring the marigolds ..."?

 

(For a charming version, see:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtk-ZmYlxPA )

 

In Beneficial Moments

A second generation Gun/Knife. "Gife"

A Dirigible Airship Boarding Cutlass ... An Air-Kraken Killer. A MultiBarreled gun and Blade. An Electroplasmatically charged "Gife" capable of slicing through hull metal and Kraken armour with impunity. Whilst capable of delivering rapid fire bursts of EP energy front or rear via quad barrel emitters ;)

 

Think of it more as a four barreled gun with a very hefty bayonet lol .. The blade is 10mm thick all the way to the gaurd and very solidly bolted together. Its an Electroplasmatically powered weapon.

A charged 4 barrel pistol, a charged blade and a charged Knuckleduster guard.

The generator is the cage/coil thingy at the back. (Its a straight line design akin to the Force Lances used in the scifi series Andromeda)

 

The gauge is a power level indicator (Telling you whats left .. Measured in power units called "Harlots" after my characters name Colonel "Wolfgrin" Harlot - the creator of all these weapons and devices at the R& D facilty at Valles Marineris in the 25th century )

 

On the opposite side is a three position selector switch for off, pistol & blade/knuckledusters.

 

Dirigible Airship Boarding Cutlass ("Gife" ... "Gunlass" :) )

ElectroPlasmatically powered blade, EP-knuckleduster guard, EP-rapid fire 4 barrel pistol.

4 power settings 0 - 3

Pommel mounted ElectroPlasmatic power generator is rated up to 120,000 Harlots of EP energy. Warning : Sustained discharge over 80,000 Harlots is inadviseable ... But fun ;-)

 

The piece is hand built with basic tools, constructed entirely from repurposed/found items, junk (some vintage) tool parts, scrap materials. Predominately brass, some copper and the blade is 10mm aluminium. Even the wiring is vintage ;-)

Weight : 3lbs / 1.5 kgs

Overall length : 30.5 inches / 77.5 cm

Blade edge length : 18 inches / 45.5cm

Rosewood grip

 

IF MY THINKERING TALENTS MAY BE OF USE TO YOU, DROP ME A LINE ;-) ... kruki99@hotmail.com

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.

 

Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a turretless Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.

 

The first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec. The turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in Kaliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft).

 

The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed (an innovative feature at that time for AA guns). In the Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family, anyway. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops. In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some Background:

The Lockheed F-94 Starfire was a first-generation jet aircraft of the United States Air Force. It was developed from the twin-seat Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star in the late 1940s as an all-weather, day/night interceptor, replacing the propeller-driven North American F-82 Twin Mustang in this role. The system was designed to overtake the F-80 in terms of performance, but more so to intercept the new high-level Soviet bombers capable of nuclear attacks on America and her Allies - in particular, the new Tupelov Tu-4. The F-94 was furthermore the first operational USAF fighter equipped with an afterburner and was the first jet-powered all-weather fighter to enter combat during the Korean War in January 1953.

 

The initial production model, the F-94A, entered operational service in May 1950. Its armament consisted of four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns mounted in the fuselage with the muzzles exiting under the radome for the APG-33 radar, a derivative from the AN/APG-3, which directed the Convair B-36's tail guns and had a range of up to 20 miles (32 km). Two 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tanks, as carried by the F-80 and T-33, were carried on the wingtips. Alternatively, these could be replaced by a pair of 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under the wings, giving the aircraft a secondary fighter bomber capability. 109 were produced.

 

The subsequent F-94B, which entered service in January 1951, was outwardly virtually identical to the F-94A. Its Allison J33 turbojet had a number of modifications made, though, which made it a very reliable engine. The pilot was provided with a roomier cockpit and the canopy received a bow frame in the center between the two crew members. A new Instrument Landing System (ILS) was fitted, too, which made operations at night and/or in bad weather much safer. However, this new variant’s punch with just four machine guns remained weak, and, to improve the load of fire, wing-mounted pods with two additional pairs of 0.5” machine guns were introduced – but these hardly improved the interceptor’s effectiveness. 356 of the F-94B were nevertheless built.

 

The following F-94C was extensively modified and initially designated F-97, but it was ultimately decided just to treat it as a new version of the F-94. USAF interest was lukewarm since aircraft technology had already developed at a fast pace – supersonic performance had already become standard. Lockheed funded development themselves, converting two F-94B airframes to YF-94C prototypes for evaluation with a completely new, much thinner wing, a swept tail surface and a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J48. This was a license-built version of the afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay, which produced a dry thrust of 6,350 pounds-force (28.2 kN) and approximately 8,750 pounds-force (38.9 kN) with afterburning. Instead of machine guns, the proposed new variant was exclusively armed with unguided air-to-air missiles.

Tests were positive and eventually the F-94C was adopted for USAF service, since it was the best interim solution for an all-weather fighter at that time. It still had to rely on Ground Control Interception Radar (GCI) sites to vector the interceptor to intruding aircraft, though.

 

The F-94C's introduction and the availability of the more effective Northrop F-89C/D Scorpion and the North American F-86D Sabre interceptors led to a quick relegation of the earlier F-94 variants from mid-1954 onwards to second line units and to Air National Guards. By 1955 most of them had already been phased out of USAF service, and some of these relatively young surplus machines were subsequently exported or handed over to friendly nations, too. When sent to the ANG, the F-94As were modified by Lockheed to F-94B standards and then returned to the ANG as B models. They primarily replaced outdated F-80C Shooting Stars and F-51D/H Mustangs.

 

At that time the USAF was looking for a tactical reconnaissance aircraft, a more effective successor for the RF-80A which had shown its worth and weaknesses during the Korea War. For instance, the plane could not fly at low altitude long enough to perform suitable visual reconnaissance, and its camera equipment was still based on WWII standards. Lockheed saw the opportunity to fill this operational gap with conversions of existing F-94A/B airframes, which had, in most cases, only had clocked few flying hours, primarily at high altitudes where Soviet bombers were expected to lurk, and still a lot of airframe life to offer. This led to another private venture, the RF-94B, auspiciously christened “Stargazer”.

 

The RF-94B was based on the F-94B interceptor with its J33 engine and the original unswept tail. The F-94B’s wings were retained but received a different leading-edge profile to better cope with operations at low altitude. The interceptor’s nose with the radome and the machine guns underneath was replaced by a new all-metal nose cone, which was more than 3 feet longer than the former radar nose, with windows for several sets of cameras; the wedge-shaped nose cone quickly earned the aircraft the unofficial nickname “Crocodile”.

One camera was looking ahead into flight direction and could be mounted at different angled downward (but not moved during flight), followed by two oblique cameras, looking to the left and the right, and a vertical camera as well as a long-range camera focussed on the horizon, which was behind a round window at port side. An additional, spacious compartment in front of the landing gear well held an innovative Tri-Metrogen horizon-to-horizon view system that consisted of three synchronized cameras. Coupled with a computerized control system based on light, speed, and altitude, it adjusted camera settings to produce pictures with greater delineation.

All cameras could be triggered individually by pilot or a dedicated observer/camera systems operator in the 2nd seat. Talking into a wire recorder, the crew could describe ground movements that might not have appeared in still pictures. A vertical view finder with a periscopic presentation on the cockpit panel was added for the pilot to enhance visual reconnaissance and target identification directly under the aircraft. Using magnesium flares carried under its wings in flash-ejector cartridges, the RF-94B was furthermore able to fly night missions.

The RF-94B was supposed to operate unarmed, but it could still carry a pair of 1.000 lb bombs under its wings or, thanks to added plumbings, an extra pair of drop tanks for ferry flights. The F-94A/B’s machine gun pods as well as the F-94C’s unguided missile launchers could be mounted to the wings, too, making it a viable attack aircraft in a secondary role.

 

The USAF was highly interested in this update proposal for the outdated interceptors (almost 500 F-94A/Bs had been built) and ordered 100 RF-94B conversions with an option for 100 more – just when a severe (and superior) competitor entered the stage after a lot of development troubles: Republic’s RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. The first YRF-84F had already been completed in February 1952 and it had an overall slightly better performance than the RF-94B. However, it offered more internal space for reconnaissance systems and was able to carry up to fifteen cameras with the support of many automatized systems, so that it was a single seater. Being largely identical to the F-84F and sharing its technical and logistical infrastructures, the USAF decided on short notice to change its procurement decision and rather adopt the more modern and promising Thunderflash as its standard tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The RF-94B conversion order was reduced to the initial 100 aircraft, and to avoid operational complexity these aircraft were exclusively delivered to Air National Guardss that had experience with the F-94A/B to replace their obsolete RF-80As.

 

Gradual replacement lasted until 1958, and while the RF-94B’s performance was overall better than the RF-80A’s, it was still disappointing and not the expected tactical intelligence gathering leap forward. The airframe did not cope well with constant low-level operations, and the aircraft’s marginal speed and handling did not ensure its survivability. However, unlike the RF-84F, which suffered from frequent engine problems, the Stargazers’ J33 made them highly reliable platforms – even though the complex Tri-Metrogen device turned out to be capricious, so that it was soon replaced with up to three standard cameras.

 

For better handling and less drag esp. at low altitude, the F-94B’s large Fletcher type wingtip tanks were frequently replaced with smaller ones with about half capacity. It also became common practice to operate the RF-94Bs with only a crew of one, and from 1960 on the RF-94B was, thanks to its second seat, more and more used as a trainer before pilots mounted more potent reconnaissance aircraft like the RF-101 Voodoo, which eventually replaced the RF-94B in ANG service. The last RF-94B was phased out in 1968, and, unlike the RF-84F, it was not operated by any foreign air force.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (but frequently operated by a single pilot)

Length: 43 ft 4 3/4 in (13.25 m)

Wingspan (with tip tanks): 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)

Height: 12 ft. 2 (3.73 m)

Wing area: 234' 8" sq ft (29.11 m²)

Empty weight: 10,064 lb (4,570 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,330 lb (6,960 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,184 lb (10,970 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison J33-A-33 turbojet, rated at 4,600 lbf (20.4 kN) continuous thrust,

5,400 lbf (24 kN) with water injection and 6,000 lbf (26.6 kN) thrust with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 630 mph (1,014 km/h) at height and in level flight

Range: 930 mi (813 nmi, 1,500 km) in combat configuration with two drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,457 mi (1,275 nmi, 2,345 km)

Service ceiling: 42,750 ft (14,000 m)

Rate of climb: 6,858 ft/min (34.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 57.4 lb/ft² (384 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.48

 

Armament:

No internal guns; 2x 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) drop tanks on the wing tips and…

2x underwing hardpoints for two additional 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) ferry tanks

or bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber each, plus…

2x optional (rarely fitted) pods on the wings’ leading edges with either a pair of 0.5" (12.7 mm)

machine guns or twelve 2.75” (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each

  

The kit and its assembly:

This project was originally earmarked as a submission for the 2021 “Reconnaissance & Surveillance” group build at whatifmodellers.com, in the form of a Heller F-94B with a new nose section. The inspiration behind this build was the real-world EF-94C (s/n 50-963): a solitary conversion with a bulbous camera nose. However, the EF-94C was not a reconnaissance aircraft but rather a chase plane/camera ship for the Air Research and Development Command, hence its unusual designation with the suffix “E”, standing for “Exempt” instead of the more appropriate “R” for a dedicated recce aircraft. There also was another EF-94C, but this was a totally different kind of aircraft: an ejection seat testbed.

 

I had a surplus Heller F-94B kit in The Stash™ and it was built almost completely OOB and did – except for some sinkholes and standard PSR work – not pose any problem. In fact, the old Heller Starfire model is IMHO a pretty good representation of the aircraft. O.K., its age might show, but almost anything you could ask for at 1:72 scale is there, including a decent, detailed cockpit.

 

The biggest change was the new camera nose, and it was scratched from an unlikely donor part: it consists of a Matchbox B-17G tail gunner station, slimmed down by the gunner station glazing's width at the seam in the middle, and this "sandwich" was furthermore turned upside down. Getting the transitional sections right took lots of PSR, though, and I added some styrene profiles to integrate the new nose into the rest of the hull. It was unintentional, but the new nose profile reminds a lot of a RF-101 recce Voodoo, and there's, with the straight wings, a very F-89ish look to the aircraft now? There's also something F2H-2ish about the outlines?

 

The large original wing tip tanks were cut off and replaced with smaller alternatives from a Hasegawa A-37. Because it was easy to realize on this kit I lowered the flaps, together with open ventral air brakes. The cockpit was taken OOB, I just modified the work station on the rear seat and replaced the rubber sight protector for the WSO with two screens for a camera operator. Finally, the one-piece cockpit glazing was cut into two parts to present the model with an open canopy.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision: either an NMF finish (the natural first choice), an overall light grey anti-corrosive coat of paint, both with relatively colorful unit markings, or camouflage. The USAF’s earlier RF-80As carried a unique scheme in olive drab/neutral grey with a medium waterline, but that would look rather vintage on the F-94. I decided that some tactical camouflage would make most sense on this kind of aircraft and eventually settled for the USAF’s SEA scheme with reduced tactical markings, which – after some field tests and improvisations in Vietnam – became standardized and was officially introduced to USAF aircraft around 1965 as well as to ANG units.

 

Even though I had already built a camouflaged F-94 some time ago (a Hellenic aircraft in worn SEA colors), I settled for this route. The basic colors (FS 30219, 34227, 34279 and 36622) all came from Humbrol (118, 117, 116 and 28, respectively), and for the pattern I adapted the paint scheme of the USAF’s probably only T-33 in SEA colors: a trainer based on Iceland during the Seventies and available as a markings option in one of the Special Hobby 1:32 T-33 kits. The low waterline received a wavy shape, inspired by an early ANG RF-101 in SEA camouflage I came across in a book. The new SEA scheme was apparently applied with a lot of enthusiasm and properness when it was brand new, but this quickly vaned. As an extra, the wing tip tanks received black anti-glare sections on their inner faces and a black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen - a decal from a T-33 aftermarket sheet. Beyond a black ink wash the model received some subtle panel post-shading, but rather to emphasize surface details than for serious weathering.

 

The cockpit became very dark grey (Revell 06) while the landing gear wells were kept in zinc chromate green primer (Humbrol 80, Grass Green), with bright red (Humbrol 60, Matt Red) cover interiors and struts and wheels in aluminum (Humbrol 56). The interior of the flaps and the ventral air brakes became red, too.

 

The decals/markings came from a Special Hobby 1:72 F-86H; there’s a dedicated ANG boxing of the kit that comes with an optional camouflaged aircraft of the NY ANG, the least unit to operate the “Sabre Hog” during the Seventies. Since this 138th TFS formerly operated the F-94A/B, it was a perfect option for the RF-94B! I just used a different Bu. No. code on the fin, taken from a PrintScale A/T-37 set, and most stencils were perocured from the scrap box.

After a final light treatment with graphite around the afterburner for a more metallic shine of the iron metallic (Revell 97) underneath, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A camouflaged F-94 is an unusual sight, but it works very well. The new/longer nose considerably changes the aircraft's profile, and even though the change is massive, the "Crocodile" looks surprisingly plausible, if not believable! And, despite the long nose, the aircraft looks pretty sleek, especially in the air.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some Background:

The Lockheed F-94 Starfire was a first-generation jet aircraft of the United States Air Force. It was developed from the twin-seat Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star in the late 1940s as an all-weather, day/night interceptor, replacing the propeller-driven North American F-82 Twin Mustang in this role. The system was designed to overtake the F-80 in terms of performance, but more so to intercept the new high-level Soviet bombers capable of nuclear attacks on America and her Allies - in particular, the new Tupelov Tu-4. The F-94 was furthermore the first operational USAF fighter equipped with an afterburner and was the first jet-powered all-weather fighter to enter combat during the Korean War in January 1953.

 

The initial production model, the F-94A, entered operational service in May 1950. Its armament consisted of four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns mounted in the fuselage with the muzzles exiting under the radome for the APG-33 radar, a derivative from the AN/APG-3, which directed the Convair B-36's tail guns and had a range of up to 20 miles (32 km). Two 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tanks, as carried by the F-80 and T-33, were carried on the wingtips. Alternatively, these could be replaced by a pair of 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under the wings, giving the aircraft a secondary fighter bomber capability. 109 were produced.

 

The subsequent F-94B, which entered service in January 1951, was outwardly virtually identical to the F-94A. Its Allison J33 turbojet had a number of modifications made, though, which made it a very reliable engine. The pilot was provided with a roomier cockpit and the canopy received a bow frame in the center between the two crew members. A new Instrument Landing System (ILS) was fitted, too, which made operations at night and/or in bad weather much safer. However, this new variant’s punch with just four machine guns remained weak, and, to improve the load of fire, wing-mounted pods with two additional pairs of 0.5” machine guns were introduced – but these hardly improved the interceptor’s effectiveness. 356 of the F-94B were nevertheless built.

 

The following F-94C was extensively modified and initially designated F-97, but it was ultimately decided just to treat it as a new version of the F-94. USAF interest was lukewarm since aircraft technology had already developed at a fast pace – supersonic performance had already become standard. Lockheed funded development themselves, converting two F-94B airframes to YF-94C prototypes for evaluation with a completely new, much thinner wing, a swept tail surface and a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J48. This was a license-built version of the afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay, which produced a dry thrust of 6,350 pounds-force (28.2 kN) and approximately 8,750 pounds-force (38.9 kN) with afterburning. Instead of machine guns, the proposed new variant was exclusively armed with unguided air-to-air missiles.

Tests were positive and eventually the F-94C was adopted for USAF service, since it was the best interim solution for an all-weather fighter at that time. It still had to rely on Ground Control Interception Radar (GCI) sites to vector the interceptor to intruding aircraft, though.

 

The F-94C's introduction and the availability of the more effective Northrop F-89C/D Scorpion and the North American F-86D Sabre interceptors led to a quick relegation of the earlier F-94 variants from mid-1954 onwards to second line units and to Air National Guards. By 1955 most of them had already been phased out of USAF service, and some of these relatively young surplus machines were subsequently exported or handed over to friendly nations, too. When sent to the ANG, the F-94As were modified by Lockheed to F-94B standards and then returned to the ANG as B models. They primarily replaced outdated F-80C Shooting Stars and F-51D/H Mustangs.

 

At that time the USAF was looking for a tactical reconnaissance aircraft, a more effective successor for the RF-80A which had shown its worth and weaknesses during the Korea War. For instance, the plane could not fly at low altitude long enough to perform suitable visual reconnaissance, and its camera equipment was still based on WWII standards. Lockheed saw the opportunity to fill this operational gap with conversions of existing F-94A/B airframes, which had, in most cases, only had clocked few flying hours, primarily at high altitudes where Soviet bombers were expected to lurk, and still a lot of airframe life to offer. This led to another private venture, the RF-94B, auspiciously christened “Stargazer”.

 

The RF-94B was based on the F-94B interceptor with its J33 engine and the original unswept tail. The F-94B’s wings were retained but received a different leading-edge profile to better cope with operations at low altitude. The interceptor’s nose with the radome and the machine guns underneath was replaced by a new all-metal nose cone, which was more than 3 feet longer than the former radar nose, with windows for several sets of cameras; the wedge-shaped nose cone quickly earned the aircraft the unofficial nickname “Crocodile”.

One camera was looking ahead into flight direction and could be mounted at different angled downward (but not moved during flight), followed by two oblique cameras, looking to the left and the right, and a vertical camera as well as a long-range camera focussed on the horizon, which was behind a round window at port side. An additional, spacious compartment in front of the landing gear well held an innovative Tri-Metrogen horizon-to-horizon view system that consisted of three synchronized cameras. Coupled with a computerized control system based on light, speed, and altitude, it adjusted camera settings to produce pictures with greater delineation.

All cameras could be triggered individually by pilot or a dedicated observer/camera systems operator in the 2nd seat. Talking into a wire recorder, the crew could describe ground movements that might not have appeared in still pictures. A vertical view finder with a periscopic presentation on the cockpit panel was added for the pilot to enhance visual reconnaissance and target identification directly under the aircraft. Using magnesium flares carried under its wings in flash-ejector cartridges, the RF-94B was furthermore able to fly night missions.

The RF-94B was supposed to operate unarmed, but it could still carry a pair of 1.000 lb bombs under its wings or, thanks to added plumbings, an extra pair of drop tanks for ferry flights. The F-94A/B’s machine gun pods as well as the F-94C’s unguided missile launchers could be mounted to the wings, too, making it a viable attack aircraft in a secondary role.

 

The USAF was highly interested in this update proposal for the outdated interceptors (almost 500 F-94A/Bs had been built) and ordered 100 RF-94B conversions with an option for 100 more – just when a severe (and superior) competitor entered the stage after a lot of development troubles: Republic’s RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. The first YRF-84F had already been completed in February 1952 and it had an overall slightly better performance than the RF-94B. However, it offered more internal space for reconnaissance systems and was able to carry up to fifteen cameras with the support of many automatized systems, so that it was a single seater. Being largely identical to the F-84F and sharing its technical and logistical infrastructures, the USAF decided on short notice to change its procurement decision and rather adopt the more modern and promising Thunderflash as its standard tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The RF-94B conversion order was reduced to the initial 100 aircraft, and to avoid operational complexity these aircraft were exclusively delivered to Air National Guardss that had experience with the F-94A/B to replace their obsolete RF-80As.

 

Gradual replacement lasted until 1958, and while the RF-94B’s performance was overall better than the RF-80A’s, it was still disappointing and not the expected tactical intelligence gathering leap forward. The airframe did not cope well with constant low-level operations, and the aircraft’s marginal speed and handling did not ensure its survivability. However, unlike the RF-84F, which suffered from frequent engine problems, the Stargazers’ J33 made them highly reliable platforms – even though the complex Tri-Metrogen device turned out to be capricious, so that it was soon replaced with up to three standard cameras.

 

For better handling and less drag esp. at low altitude, the F-94B’s large Fletcher type wingtip tanks were frequently replaced with smaller ones with about half capacity. It also became common practice to operate the RF-94Bs with only a crew of one, and from 1960 on the RF-94B was, thanks to its second seat, more and more used as a trainer before pilots mounted more potent reconnaissance aircraft like the RF-101 Voodoo, which eventually replaced the RF-94B in ANG service. The last RF-94B was phased out in 1968, and, unlike the RF-84F, it was not operated by any foreign air force.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (but frequently operated by a single pilot)

Length: 43 ft 4 3/4 in (13.25 m)

Wingspan (with tip tanks): 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)

Height: 12 ft. 2 (3.73 m)

Wing area: 234' 8" sq ft (29.11 m²)

Empty weight: 10,064 lb (4,570 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,330 lb (6,960 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,184 lb (10,970 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison J33-A-33 turbojet, rated at 4,600 lbf (20.4 kN) continuous thrust,

5,400 lbf (24 kN) with water injection and 6,000 lbf (26.6 kN) thrust with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 630 mph (1,014 km/h) at height and in level flight

Range: 930 mi (813 nmi, 1,500 km) in combat configuration with two drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,457 mi (1,275 nmi, 2,345 km)

Service ceiling: 42,750 ft (14,000 m)

Rate of climb: 6,858 ft/min (34.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 57.4 lb/ft² (384 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.48

 

Armament:

No internal guns; 2x 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) drop tanks on the wing tips and…

2x underwing hardpoints for two additional 165 US Gallon (1,204 liter) ferry tanks

or bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber each, plus…

2x optional (rarely fitted) pods on the wings’ leading edges with either a pair of 0.5" (12.7 mm)

machine guns or twelve 2.75” (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each

  

The kit and its assembly:

This project was originally earmarked as a submission for the 2021 “Reconnaissance & Surveillance” group build at whatifmodellers.com, in the form of a Heller F-94B with a new nose section. The inspiration behind this build was the real-world EF-94C (s/n 50-963): a solitary conversion with a bulbous camera nose. However, the EF-94C was not a reconnaissance aircraft but rather a chase plane/camera ship for the Air Research and Development Command, hence its unusual designation with the suffix “E”, standing for “Exempt” instead of the more appropriate “R” for a dedicated recce aircraft. There also was another EF-94C, but this was a totally different kind of aircraft: an ejection seat testbed.

 

I had a surplus Heller F-94B kit in The Stash™ and it was built almost completely OOB and did – except for some sinkholes and standard PSR work – not pose any problem. In fact, the old Heller Starfire model is IMHO a pretty good representation of the aircraft. O.K., its age might show, but almost anything you could ask for at 1:72 scale is there, including a decent, detailed cockpit.

 

The biggest change was the new camera nose, and it was scratched from an unlikely donor part: it consists of a Matchbox B-17G tail gunner station, slimmed down by the gunner station glazing's width at the seam in the middle, and this "sandwich" was furthermore turned upside down. Getting the transitional sections right took lots of PSR, though, and I added some styrene profiles to integrate the new nose into the rest of the hull. It was unintentional, but the new nose profile reminds a lot of a RF-101 recce Voodoo, and there's, with the straight wings, a very F-89ish look to the aircraft now? There's also something F2H-2ish about the outlines?

 

The large original wing tip tanks were cut off and replaced with smaller alternatives from a Hasegawa A-37. Because it was easy to realize on this kit I lowered the flaps, together with open ventral air brakes. The cockpit was taken OOB, I just modified the work station on the rear seat and replaced the rubber sight protector for the WSO with two screens for a camera operator. Finally, the one-piece cockpit glazing was cut into two parts to present the model with an open canopy.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision: either an NMF finish (the natural first choice), an overall light grey anti-corrosive coat of paint, both with relatively colorful unit markings, or camouflage. The USAF’s earlier RF-80As carried a unique scheme in olive drab/neutral grey with a medium waterline, but that would look rather vintage on the F-94. I decided that some tactical camouflage would make most sense on this kind of aircraft and eventually settled for the USAF’s SEA scheme with reduced tactical markings, which – after some field tests and improvisations in Vietnam – became standardized and was officially introduced to USAF aircraft around 1965 as well as to ANG units.

 

Even though I had already built a camouflaged F-94 some time ago (a Hellenic aircraft in worn SEA colors), I settled for this route. The basic colors (FS 30219, 34227, 34279 and 36622) all came from Humbrol (118, 117, 116 and 28, respectively), and for the pattern I adapted the paint scheme of the USAF’s probably only T-33 in SEA colors: a trainer based on Iceland during the Seventies and available as a markings option in one of the Special Hobby 1:32 T-33 kits. The low waterline received a wavy shape, inspired by an early ANG RF-101 in SEA camouflage I came across in a book. The new SEA scheme was apparently applied with a lot of enthusiasm and properness when it was brand new, but this quickly vaned. As an extra, the wing tip tanks received black anti-glare sections on their inner faces and a black anti-glare panel was added in front of the windscreen - a decal from a T-33 aftermarket sheet. Beyond a black ink wash the model received some subtle panel post-shading, but rather to emphasize surface details than for serious weathering.

 

The cockpit became very dark grey (Revell 06) while the landing gear wells were kept in zinc chromate green primer (Humbrol 80, Grass Green), with bright red (Humbrol 60, Matt Red) cover interiors and struts and wheels in aluminum (Humbrol 56). The interior of the flaps and the ventral air brakes became red, too.

 

The decals/markings came from a Special Hobby 1:72 F-86H; there’s a dedicated ANG boxing of the kit that comes with an optional camouflaged aircraft of the NY ANG, the least unit to operate the “Sabre Hog” during the Seventies. Since this 138th TFS formerly operated the F-94A/B, it was a perfect option for the RF-94B! I just used a different Bu. No. code on the fin, taken from a PrintScale A/T-37 set, and most stencils were perocured from the scrap box.

After a final light treatment with graphite around the afterburner for a more metallic shine of the iron metallic (Revell 97) underneath, the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

A camouflaged F-94 is an unusual sight, but it works very well. The new/longer nose considerably changes the aircraft's profile, and even though the change is massive, the "Crocodile" looks surprisingly plausible, if not believable! And, despite the long nose, the aircraft looks pretty sleek, especially in the air.

Former Fire Chief Thomas Harrigan, 46, lies dying in a Miami hospital room, suffering from mesothelioma, black lung, heart failure, and other diseases linked to his exposure to toxic substances while working on the Ground Zero rubble pile for three months after 9/11.Doctors have given him until July to live. On the day these photos were taken, he had receved a letter cutting off his Social Security disability payments, saying that he was capable of working

Federation Forest State Park, WA

 

“Icmadophila is capable of killing and overgrowing moss mats. When colonizing mossy surfaces, the leading edge of the lichen is associated with a zone of necrosis in the moss.” - McCune, Bruce. 2017. Microlichens of the Pacific Northwest. Volume 2: Keys to the Species.

 

"Often you'll see lichens growing with bryophytes, so the two are potential competitors and a variety of lichen-bryophyte interactions do occur. Crustose lichens look like thin skins or simple washes of paint on the underlying soil, rock or wood. At first it would appear that such simple, two-dimensional growth forms could be easily overgrown by many bryophytes. In fact some crustose lichens are very effective at keeping bryophytes away, quite likely with chemical deterrents. Lichens produce a wide variety of chemical compounds, some of which have negative effects on bryophytes - acting to prevent spore germination or inhibiting protonemal or gametophytic growth [reference link] ." - www.anbg.gov.au/lichen/ecology-plants.html

 

my lichen photos by genus - www.flickr.com/photos/29750062@N06/collections/7215762439...

 

my photos arranged by subject, e.g. mountains - www.flickr.com/photos/29750062@N06/collections

 

Tear gas canisters capable of quelling a riot in minutes were suspended from the ceiling of the Alcatraz dining hall. These canisters could be remotely activated from both the Gun Gallery and outside observation points but were never used. The dining hall and kitchen was one of the most dangerous areas of the prison. Guards were unarmed, inmates were gathered together, and eating utensils could proxy for dangerous weapons. To keep the situation under control, the officials ran the dining hall strictly and made sure meals were varied and well prepared. An armed guard kept close watch from a walkway outside the main window. At the end of each 20 minute meal, the inmates' forks, spoons and knives were laid out on the table and carefully counted.

 

The main cell house on Alcatraz Island was the largest steel-reinforced concrete building in the world when it was built in 1912. Designed to hold up to 600 prisoners, it was the brainchild and pride of Major Reuben B. Turner, construction engineer and first commandant of the military. Central steam heat, skylights and electricity contributed to its reputation as a model, modern, facility.

 

Like any other structure on the island, construction presented challenges. Material and equipment had to be shipped in on barges. Mixing cement, the main building element, required fresh water not naturally available on the land. Labor was largely provided by unskilled inmates.

 

Like prisons within a prison, four free standing cellblocks stood within the cellhouse so that no cell adjoined an outside wall or ceiling that a prisoner might tunnel through. Before it assumed its role as a maximum-security lockup, tool-proof bars replaced the flat, soft-steel barriers of the military prison and gun galleries were built at either end of the two main cell blocks.

 

Alcatraz Island, a 22-acre island located 1.5 miles offshore in San Francisco Bay, has served as a lighthouse, a military fortification, and a prison. In 1972, the island often referred to as The Rock, became a national recreation area operated by the National Park Service as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and is currently open to tours.

 

The island was first discovered in 1775 by Spaniard Juan Manuel de Ayala, who charted the bay and named it "La Isla de los Alcatraces," or "The Island of the Pelicans." The island's earliest recorded owner is Julian Workman was the island's earliest recorded owner, given it by Mexican governor Pio Pico in 1846 to build a lighthouse. Following the acquisition of California in 1848, the United States fortified the island for positioning of coastal batteries. When the civil War broke out in 1861, the island mounted 85 cannons (increased to 105 by 1866) and served as the San Francisco Arsenal. Alcatraz never fired its guns but was used to imprison Confederate sympathizers. In 1867, a brick jailhouse was built and in 1868, Alcatraz was designated a long-term detention facility for military prisoners--a role it prominently played during the Spanish-American War.

 

After the 1906 Earthquake, civilian prisoners were transferred to Alcatraz, and the facilities were slowly expanded at the beginning of the century. Construction on Major Reuben Turner's huge concrete main cell block was completed in 1912. The Fortress was deactivated as a military prison in 1933 and transferred to the Department of Justice, becoming a Federal Bureau of Prisons federal prison the following year. During its 29 years of operation, the penitentiary claimed no prisoners had ever successfully escaped--36 prisoners were involved in 14 attempts; 23 were caught, six were shot and killed, and three were lost at sea and never found. Alcatraz held such notable criminals as Al Capone, Robert Franklin Stroud (better known as the "Birdman of Alcatraz"), George "Machine Gun" Kelly, James "Whitey" Bulger, and Alvin "Creepy Karpis" Karpowicz (who served more time at Alcatraz than any other inmate).

 

Far more expensive to operate than other prisons, Alcatraz was closed on March 21, 1963 by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. From 1969-1971, the island was occupied by a multi-tribal group of Native Americans, culminating in the Trail of Broken Treaties.

 

National Register #76000209 (1976)

The display reads:

 

ADA in Vietnam – M42 Duster

 

Combat experience in the Korea War quickly showed that while the M19 40mm Gun Motor Carriage was a capable platform, it needed improvement. By 1952, a new anti-aircraft tank was in development, designated the T141. The new vehicle used the same turret and gun mount from the M19, but mated it with the larger, more powerful M41 Walker Bulldog light tank hull. The resulting vehicle was standardized as the M42 40mm Gun Motor Carriage by 1952 and entered full production that year.

 

However, with the service entry of the Nike Ajax system in 1953, the Army was focused on missile systems and with the introduction of the Hawk missile in the late 1950s, the M42 was quickly passed to National Guard units and all but removed from the active inventory by 1963.

 

Just two years later, US forces entered combat in South Vietnam. Two Hawk missile battalions were deployed to provide air defense around Saigon and along the DMZ, but an additional system was needed to cover potential low-altitude threats. In addition to the air defense requirement, the Army also needed a vehicle that could provide heavy firepower for both convoy escort and firebase defense. The M42 was back in demand and by the beginning of 1966, three battalions were formed for service in Vietnam.

 

Those three units, 1st Battalion, 44th Artillery; 4th Battalion, 60th Artillery; and 5th Battalion, 2nd Artillery arrived in-theater by mid-year and immediately had a significant impact on operations in their respective areas of operation. Each “Duster” battalion had a quad .50 battery and searchlight battery attached, forming an air defense task force that could respond to both air and ground threats, day or night.

 

On 20 June 1968, Air Defense and Field Artillery split the Artillery branch and the Duster, Quad, Searchlight and Hawk units were then designated ADA rather than “Artillery,” with the parenthetical Automatic Weapons, Searchlight or Guided Missile designation.

 

The story of Army Air Defense in Vietnam provides a fascinating contrast to the operations and equipment of the rest of the branch during the 1960s and early 1970s. While Army Air Defense of the day was focused on the strategic threat of a Soviet nuclear strike and were using the latest technology to deter that threat, the three ADA Duster battalions effectively used weapon systems from the “last war” to provide low altitude air defense and on-call direct fire support to infantry and artillery units across the entirety of South Vietnam from 1966 through 1972.

 

M42 Duster Specifications:

 

Weight: 50,000 lbs fully loaded

Height: 9 feet 4 inches

Length: 19 feet

Width: 10 feet 7 inches

Crew: Commander, driver, two loaders, two gunners

Armament: Two M2A1 40mm automatic anti-aircraft guns with 240 rounds per gun; 1-2 7.62 M60 Machine Guns with 1,750 rounds

Main Armament Rate of Fire: 120 rounds per minute, per gun

Engine: Continental AOS-895-3 6-cylinder opposed gasoline engine

Range: 100 miles

Speed 45 mph

 

The museum’s Duster served with the 1-44th Artillery in 1968.

 

The Duster occasionally towed the M332 ammunition trailer, which doubled the Duster’s ammunition capacity. However, it would be a liability in combat and would normally be removed before the Duster would be used in the convoy escort role.

 

Most Dusters in Vietnam carried some form of artwork. Usually the crew would name both the front hatch and the gun shield above the main armament.

 

Sergeant Mitchell W. Stout was born in Lenoir City, Tennessee on 24 February, 1950. He enlisted in the Army on 15 August 1967 and served his first tour in Vietnam as a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment in the Mekong Delta from August 1968 to August 1969. After completing his first tour, SGT Stout rotated back to the US, but returned to South Vietnam just five months later as a M42 Duster crewman.

 

Three months into his second tour, SGT Stout was commanding an M42 Duster at the Khe Gio bridge along Route 9, a strategic east-west route that was the supply lifeline to friendly outposts in western I Corps.

 

SGT Mitchell Stout

C/1-44th Artillery (Automatic Weapons), Khe Gio Bridge

 

The U.S. Army outpost at Khe Gio Bridge on Highway 9 near the DMZ was overrun by North Vietnamese troops on 12 March 1970. Fourteen Americans held the outpost along with a platoon of ARVN Infantry. Two M42 Dusters from C Battery 1-44th Artillery gave the small force a significant amount of firepower to protect the bridge, while an M151A1 searchlight jeep from G Battery, 29th Artillery provided nighttime battlefield illumination. Of those fourteen Americans, two were killed in action, five wounded and one was captured. Yet they fought valiantly and protected the bridge on Route 9, sparing it from destruction. Sergeant Mitchell Stout’s actions during the battle would earn him a posthumous Medal of Honor:

 

Citation:

 

Sgt. Stout distinguished himself during an attack by a North Vietnamese Army Sapper company on his unit's firing position at Khe Gio Bridge. Sgt. Stout was in a bunker with members of a searchlight crew when the position came under heavy enemy mortar fire and ground attack. When the intensity of the mortar attack subsided, an enemy grenade was thrown into the bunker. Displaying great courage, Sgt. Stout ran to the grenade, picked it up, and started out of the bunker. As he reached the door, the grenade exploded. By holding the grenade close to his body and shielding its blast, he protected his fellow soldiers in the bunker from further injury or death. Sgt. Stout's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action, at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the U.S. Army.

 

Taken December 13th, 2013.

India & Pakistan Owe their Freedom to Allama Mashriqi

 

By Nasim Yousaf

 

Has a powerful ruler ever transferred power without facing a significant threat to their rule? The Indian sub-continent’s freedom was inconceivable without Allama Mashriqi’s private army of over five million uniformed Khaksars who threatened British rule. Considering this reality, India and Pakistan owe their independence to Allama Inayatullah Khan Al-Mashriqi – a legend and a great freedom fighter.

 

Allama Mashriqi’s struggle to revive the glory of the Indian nation started with his poetic work, Kharita, which he wrote in his youth (1902-1909). In 1912, Mashriqi discussed his future aims to liberate the nation when he spoke at a graduation dinner (hosted by the Indian Society of Cambridge University in his honor):

 

“[translation]…Our educational achievements bear testimony to the fact that India can produce unparalleled brains that can defeat the British minds. India is capable of producing superior brains that can make the nation’s future brighter. After we return from here, we must ponder how to break the chains of slavery from the British…We should keep our vision high and enlarge our aims and goals so we can be free from the chains of slavery as soon as possible” (Al-Mashriqi by Dr. Mohammad Azmatullah Bhatti).

 

Later, Mashriqi’s work Tazkirah (published in 1925) spoke of jihad as well as the rise and fall of nations and was a step towards bringing revolt against British rule. In 1926, Mashriqi embarked on a trip to Egypt and Europe; there, he delivered a lecture on his book Tazkirah, jihad and fighting colonial rule. In Germany, Mashriqi was received by Helene von Nostitz-Wallwitz, the niece of German President Hindenburg (Al-Islah, May 31, 1935). While in Germany, Mashriqi discussed the aforementioned topics with Albert Einstein, Helene, and other prominent individuals; these conversations reflected his mindset of bringing an uprising in foreign lands (as well as in India) against the oppression of British colonial rule. Earlier, while in Egypt at the International Caliphate Conference, Mashriqi succeeded in defeating a British plan to have a Caliph of their choice elected to control the Muslim world. During the trip, Mashriqi acted courageously and ignored the risks of being persecuted or even hanged for treachery against the British Empire in foreign lands…and that too as a government employee.

 

Meanwhile in India, M.A. Jinnah, M.K. Gandhi, the All-India Muslim League, and Indian National Congress had not taken any concrete steps to bring revolt or overturn British rule. Anyone who attempted to rise against British rule was either ruthlessly crushed or faced the end of his/her political career. As such, Muslim and Hindu leadership adopted ineffective methods such as passing resolutions, taking out rallies and raising anti-British slogans. Mashriqi felt that such methods were useless and would not end the British Raj.

 

In 1930, Mashriqi resigned from his lucrative job to bring independence to the nation. Risking the lives of himself and his family, Mashriqi launched a private army called the Khaksar Movement. Enrollment in the combative and revolutionary Movement was tough; the masses were not only dispirited, but scared to risk their lives for freedom. In order to promote his mission, Mashriqi traveled in buses, tongas, or third-class compartments of trains and walked for miles at a time in poverty-stricken and rural areas. He was indistinguishable from the common people. This was a man who could have easily accepted an Ambassadorship and title of “Sir” (both of which he was offered by the British in 1920) and continued to draw a hefty salary, brushing shoulders with the British rulers and leading a life of utmost luxury. However, he chose to fight for the people instead.

 

In 1934, Mashriqi launched the Al-Islah weekly newspaper. The Times of India (August 08, 1938) wrote, “The publication of Al-Islah gave a fresh impetus to the [Khaksar] movement which spread to other regions such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran [as well as Bahrain, Burma, Ceylon, Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Yemen, and U.K].” By the late 1930s, from Peshawar to Rangoon, the private army of Khaksars had grown to millions.

 

Throughout these years, the Khaksars continued their activities, including military camps where mock wars were held using belchas (spades), swords, batons, and sometime even cannons. Many Khaksars had willingly signed pledges in blood indicating that they would lay their lives and property if necessary for the cause of freedom. The Khaksars paraded in the streets of India and spread their message against British rule, including running slides in cinemas, chalking walls, distributing pamphlets and flyers and through Al-Islah. By 1939, Mashriqi had prepared a plan to oust British rule. Later that year, he paralyzed the Government of U.P. Thereafter, Mashriqi formed a parallel government, published a plan (in Al-Islah newspaper) to divide India into 14 provinces, issued currency notes, and ordered the enrollment of an additional 2.5 million Muslim and non-Muslim Khaksars.

 

By now, the strength of the Khaksars had been revealed and the British foresaw Mashriqi taking over. Under intense pressure, the rulers began to make promises of freedom for India and started conversations with M.A. Jinnah, M.K. Gandhi, and others. The Government also took immediate action by launching an anti-Mashriqi campaign in the media; Khaksar activities and the Al-Islah journal were banned. A large number of Khaksars were mercilessly killed by police on March 19, 1940. Mashriqi, his sons, and thousands of Khaksars were arrested. Mashriqi’s young daughters received death threats and threats of abduction. Intelligence agencies were alerted. While in jail, life was made miserable for Mashriqi and the Khaksars; many individuals were kept in solitary confinement and several got life imprisonment. While their activities were banned, the Khaksar Tehrik continued operating from the underground; Al-Islah’s publishing operations were moved to other cities (Aligarh and Calcutta). To overcome censoring of mail and phone calls, they employed the use of secret codes. The Government repression brought additional uprise in the country against British rule.

 

While in jail, Mashriqi was informed that in order to obtain his release, he must announce the disbandment of the Movement; he refused and instead kept a fast unto death that made the rulers fearful of additional backlash from the public and forced them to release Mashriqi after two years in jail without a trial (strict restrictions on his movements remained after release). Thus, Mashriqi, his family, and the Khaksars refused to surrender and the rulers failed to suppress the Khaksar Tehrik.

 

Upon his release (despite restrictions on his movements), Mashriqi asked Jinnah, Gandhi, and other leaders to form a joint front and stand with him so he could end British rule. He also pushed for a Jinnah-Gandhi meeting and continued to promote Hindu-Muslim unity. However, vested interests prevented these leaders from joining hands with Mashriqi.

 

As the British continued holding talks with their favored leaders, Mashriqi continuing pushing rigorously for a revolt. In 1946, Mashriqi succeeded in bringing about a Bombay Naval Mutiny on February 18, 1946 (Al-Islah, March 08, 1946), which also prompted mutiny within the other armed forces.

 

On June 08, 1946, at the Khaksar Headquarters in Icchra (Lahore), Mashriqi addressed a gathering of Khaksars, soldiers released from the armed forces after World War II, and the soldiers of the defeated Indian National Army (INA) of Subhas Chandra Bose: “after sixteen years of unprecedented self-sacrifices, we are now ardent to reach our objective as fast as possible, and within the next few months will do anything and everything to achieve our goal” (Al-Islah June 14, 1946).

 

Final preparations for a revolt for independence took place in November 1946 at a historic Khaksar Camp in Peshawar (from November 07-10, 1946), where mock wars and military exercises were held. Mashriqi addressed a crowd of 110,000 Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and others; he shed light on the self-seeking and futile politics of Indian leaders and gave an account of the British exploitations of India’s resources. The speech sparked a sense that further abuse by the rulers would no longer be tolerated and their rule must come to an end. Thereafter, on December 01, 1946, Mashriqi distributed a pamphlet in India proclaiming:

 

“[translation] Idara-i-Aliya [Khaksar Headquarters] shall soon issue an order that in the entire India, four million [sources quote a range from 4-5 million members] Khaksars, side by side with hundreds of thousands rather millions of supporters shall march simultaneously…This moment shall dawn upon us very soon and that is why it is being ordered that a grand preparation for this historical day should commence immediately…so that British can clearly witness the day of India’s freedom…”

 

With this bold announcement, a British hold on power was no longer possible. As such, Prime Minister Clement Attlee announced a transfer of power by no later than June 1948. Mashriqi suspected that the announcement could be a ploy to divert public attention or to buy time to create dissent within the country (for example, by encouraging ongoing Muslim-Hindu riots), so that the British could justify and extend their rule.

 

To close the door on any such ploys, Mashriqi ordered 300,000 Khaksars to assemble on June 30th, 1947 in Delhi; this order put the final nail in the coffin for the British Raj. Such a huge assembly of this private army of Khaksars would enable them to take over all important installations – including radio/broadcasting stations, newspaper offices, British officials’ lodges, and government offices. Immediately following these steps, an overturn of British rule was to be announced via media. The timing of this coup d’état was fitting, as the entire nation (including the armed forces, who had already revolted against the regime) wanted an end to British rule. With this impending massive assembly of Khaksars in Delhi, the rulers saw the writing on the wall; they feared their humiliation and defeat at the hands of the Khaksars and angry masses. Moreover, the rulers could not accept a united India…and that too at the hands of Allama Mashriqi.

 

Therefore, without any other compelling reason, a transfer of power was undertaken by the British in an extraordinary rush; on June 3rd, 1947, the Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten, announced a plan to partition India. Mountbatten called a hurried meeting of their selected Muslim and Hindu leaders and asked them to accept the plan immediately. The selected leaders saw power falling in the hands of Mashriqi and he becoming the champion of freedom if they did not accept the plan. Jealousy and vested interests came into play. M. K. Gandhi, Jinnah’s All-India Muslim League, and the Indian National Congress accepted the plan almost immediately. Mashriqi tried to prevent the All-India Muslim League from signing off on the plan, but was “stabbed” (The Canberra Times, Australia, June 11, 1947) on the same day that the League accepted the plan (June 09, 1947). It was obvious that the motive of this stabbing was to keep Mashriqi from stopping the partition of India (in order to have a united independence).

 

The partition plan was accepted and announced all over the world only about two weeks before the assembly of the Khaksars was to take place. Logically speaking, can it actually be called a “transfer of power”? The British handed over control of the nation in a rush because the Khaksars were on the verge of forcibly ending their rule; indeed, over 100,000 (Dawn July 02, 1947 reported “70,000 to 80,000”) Khaksars had already entered Delhi despite strict measures in place.

 

The establishments in India and Pakistan and historians overstate the role of the British’s preferred leaders, while failing to recognize the reality of what led to independence. Neither Jinnah nor Gandhi had the street power to overturn-British rule; it is for this reason that they were seeking a transfer of power, which they obtained based on the threat posed to British rule by the powerful Khaksar Movement. Historians have thus far presented history from a colonial or Pakistani/Indian state point of view, rather than based on the facts on the ground.

 

Instead of giving credit to Mashriqi, some historians provide flimsy reasons for the end of British rule. Some of the reasons they cite are:

 

(1) Gandhi’s methods and Jinnah’s constitutional fight brought freedom to India and Pakistan respectively -- this argument is neither supported by human history nor the realities on the ground, as colonial rulers do not voluntarily relinquish their power without a significant threat to their rule.

 

(2) The British fast-forwarded transfer of power and left quickly to avoid blame for the massive killings that would ensue -- this argument also does not make sense as the massive communal riots/killings began on Direct Action Day (August 16, 1946), so an early transfer of power would not have helped the rulers avoid blame. Even if we were to accept these writers’ claims, why would Lord Mountbatten then become the first Governor General of India and why would many Britishers continue to hold important positions in Pakistan and India?

 

(3) The British left India because after World War II, they became economically weak and could not keep their hold on India -- this claim does not hold water. India’s rich resources would have helped them to recover their losses from the war.

 

(4) The end of the British Raj came about because of Subhas Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army (INA) -- the INA was defeated in 1945 and thereafter, Subhas Chandra Bose was not on the scene anymore (he was either killed or went into hiding as claimed).

 

The Pakistani, Indian, and United Kingdom establishments do not let the truth come out. Despite my open letters to the Chief Justices of the Supreme Courts and the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India, both countries (and the U.K.) have not declassified Mashriqi and the Khaksar Tehrik’s confiscated papers from the pre-post partition era. In order to hide the truth, Mashriqi’s role is also excluded from the educational curriculum and academic discussions everywhere. The Partition Museum in Amritsar, Lahore Museum, London Museum and others do not display Mashriqi and the Khaksar Tehrik’s artifacts.

 

Despite the current state of affairs, the ground realities speak loudly to Mashriqi’s heroic fight; without Mashriqi’s private army of Khaksars, the British rulers would not have even come to the table to discuss the freedom of the Indian sub-continent (now Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan), leave alone quit the lucrative sub-continent. As such, both countries owe their independence to Mashriqi and he is a founding father of India and Pakistan.

 

Nasim Yousaf is a biographer and grandson of Allama Mashriqi. Yousaf’s works have been published in peer-reviewed encyclopedias and academic journals (including at Harvard University and by Springer of Europe), and he has presented papers at academic conferences, including at Cornell University.

 

Copyright © 2020 Nasim Yousaf

 

Published:

 

Kashmir Images (Srinagar, Kashmir), August 22, 2020

Pakistan Link (USA), August 28, 2020

The Miracle (Canada), August 28, 2020

Brisbane Indian Times (Australia), September 12, 2020

Asian World News (United Kingdom), August 20, 2020

Isma Times (India), Aug 20, 2020

Muslim Mirror (India), August 25, 2020

New Age Islam (India), August 21, 2020

Fast Kashmir, (Kashmir), Aug 20, 2020

 

***

 

2) archive.org/details/india-pakistan-owe-their-freedom-to-a...

 

2) issuu.com/nasimyousaf

 

#AllamaMashriqi #AllamaMashriqiVirtualMuseum #KhaksarMovement #Khaksars #TwoNationTheory #Partition #PartitionofIndia #OralHistory #BritishEmpire #PakistanHistory #IndianHistory #FreedomMovement #LahoreMuseum #PartitionMuseum #AmritsarMuseum #PartitionMuseumAmritsar #Lahore #Twitter #YouTube #SocialMedia #CollectionsUnited

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

I go round the cathedral again.

 

Initially at some of the memorials on the walls and the canopy of the pulpit, but it is the windows that are calling.

 

At least it was a bright, sunny day outside, which meant light was good in the cathedral with most shots coming out fine with no camera shake.

 

As I edit the shots I am stunned at the details of windows so high up they mostly seem like blocks of colour.

 

And so far, I have only just started to edit these shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

ADULT SEA OTTERS: MONTEREY BAY

 

The southern, or California, sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) has been listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act since 1977. It belongs to the order Carnivora and the family Mustelidae. Two other otter subspecies are also recognized – E. lutris kenyoni, which is found from Oregon to Alaska, and E. lutris lutris, which inhabits parts of Russia and northern Japan. Sea otters are highly specialized marine mammals capable of living their entire lives without ever having to leave the ocean, have the densest fur of any mammal and are one of the few marine species to use tools. Sea otters are an apex predator of the near shore ecosystem. The species is considered a keystone species because of their critical importance to the health and stability of the near shore marine ecosystem. They are also considered a sentinel species because their health reflects that of California’s coastal oceans. The southern sea otter population has exhibited high levels of mortality in recent years. Scientists attribute up to 40 percent of southern sea otter mortality to infectious diseases alone, many of which are known to have anthropogenic causes and land-sea linkages. The single greatest threat to the sea otter is an oil spill. One large oil spill in central California could be catastrophic, with the potential of driving the entire southern sea otter population into extinction.

 

Description

The sea otter is one of the smallest marine mammals, but one of the largest members of the family Mustelidae, a group that includes skunks and weasels among others. Adult males reach an average length of 4.5 feet (1.4 m) with a typical weight between 50 and 100 lbs. (23 to 45 kg), while adult females reach an average length of 4 feet (1.2 m) and typically weigh 45 lbs. (20 kg). It has a highly buoyant, elongated body, blunt snout and small, wide head. Sea otters have an acute sense of smell and taste and have good vision both above and below the water surface. They also rely heavily on their sense of touch.

 

Sea otters exhibit numerous adaptations, which help them survive in their challenging marine environment. Long whiskers help them to detect vibrations in murky waters and sensitive forepaws, with retractable claws, help them to groom, locate and capture prey underwater, and use tools. When underwater, they can close their nostrils and small ears. The sea otter’s hind feet are webbed and flipper-like, and are used in conjunction with its lower body to propel the animal through the water. It has a long, flattened tail, which they use as a rudder and for added propulsion. Hearing is one sense that is not yet fully understood, although studies suggest they are particularly sensitive to high-frequency sounds. Their teeth are unique for a mammal in that they are blunt and designed for crushing, rather than being sharp for tearing like most marine mammals are equipped with.

With the exception of its nose and pads of its paws, the sea otter’s body is covered in dense fur. The fur consists of two layers. The short, brown under fur can be as dense as 1 million hairs per square inch, making its fur the densest of any mammal. By comparison, we only have about 100,000 hairs in total on our heads. A top layer of long, waterproof guard hairs helps to keep the under fur layer dry by keeping cold water away from the skin. The pelage is typically deep brown in color with silver-gray highlights, with the coloration of the head and neck being lighter than the body. Unlike other marine mammals, such as seals and sea lions, sea otters do not have any blubber, so they depend on this exceptionally thick, water-resistant fur to stay warm in the cold, coastal Pacific.

 

Range & Habitat

Historically, southern sea otters were present in coastal marine habitats from northern California to Baja California in Mexico. This range decreased significantly during the fur trade during the 18th and 19th centuries, with excessive hunting nearly driving the species into extinction by the early 1900s. The current range extends along the California coast from Half Moon Bay in the north to Santa Barbara in the south, though individuals are occasionally seen outside these limits. A small population of sea otters lives at San Nicolas Island as a result of translocation efforts initiated in 1987.

 

Sea otters are found in a variety of coastal marine habitats, including rocky shores and sea-bottoms, sandy sea-bottoms, as well as coastal wetlands. Sea otters naturally inhabit offshore areas with an abundance of food and kelp canopy. They tend to live in ocean depths shallower than 130 feet (40 m) with water temperatures ranging between 35°F and 60°F.

 

Behavior

Most of a sea otter’s life is spent at sea, though they do occasionally haul out on land, where they appear clumsy and walk with a rather awkward gait. They eat, sleep, mate and give birth in the water. Sea otters spend most of their time floating on their backs at the surface grooming, eating, resting, and diving for food on the seafloor. Sea otters are relatively slow swimmers, generally traveling at 3-5 mph (5-8 km/h). They typically swim belly-up on their backs, propelling themselves through the water using their webbed hind feet. If a faster speed is required, for instance when a male is patrolling it’s territory for competing males or when in hot pursuit of a sexually receptive female, it turns over onto its stomach and in addition to using its webbed hind feet, it undulates its entire body for greater propulsion and acceleration.

 

Sea otters groom themselves almost continuously while at the surface, a practice critical for maintaining the insulating and water repellant properties of their fur. Its pliable skeleton and loosely fitted skin allow the animal the flexibility to reach any part of its body. During a grooming bout, which generally occurs directly after a foraging bout (a period of time in which diving and eating takes place) or resting bout, the animal can be seen somersaulting, twisting and turning, and meticulously rubbing its fur at the water surface. This behavior not only cleans the fur, but also traps air bubbles against the skin within the millions of hairs of its pelage. This layer of entrapped air creates an insulating barrier (similar to that of a double-paned window), which prevents water from reaching the skin. Constant grooming is absolutely critical for their survival. If cold ocean water reaches their skin, it will immediately begin to draw heat out of the animal, which disrupts the animal’s ability to thermo regulate and will ultimately lead to hypothermia and death.

Sea otters often rest together in single-sex groups called rafts. They are known to wrap themselves up in kelp to keep from drifting out to sea. While resting at the surface, a sea otter will often times hold its forepaws above the water surface and fold its hind feet up onto to its torso to help conserve heat.

 

With the exception of territorial males, who have the privilege of living among females, males and females tend to live in separate groups. The center of the sea otter range is predominately occupied by females (of all ages) and territorial males, as well as some dependent pups and recently weaned juvenile males. The northern and southern edges of the range are largely male dominated areas; consisting of juvenile, sub adult and adult males. Numbers in these male areas tend to increase in winter and spring because there are fewer mating opportunities with sexually receptive females during this time of the year.

 

Females generally have small home territories while many adult males hold larger aquatic territories consisting of several adult females. Bachelor males (animals who are either to young or too old to defend their own territories) reside in the large male-only groups at either end of the range. Males travel much greater distances throughout the range than females, typically making seasonal treks of up to 200 miles between the months of June and November when the highest proportion of females are in estrous. On any given day though, males tend to remain in the same general location, moving only a mile or two along the coastline. Females, on the other hand, are sedentary by nature, generally staying within 10 – 20 miles of their home ranges. Their home ranges are smaller because they have higher metabolic costs while pregnant and raising their pup.

 

Sea otters are equally active both night and day. A foraging bout occurs for several hours in the morning, typically starting just before sunrise. A second foraging bout begins in the afternoon, usually lasting for several hours until sunset. A grooming bout occurs before and after each foraging bout and resting bout follows at midday, followed again by another grooming and resting bout. A third foraging bout may also occur around midnight.

 

Although difficult to hear from shore, sea otters exhibit a variety of vocal behaviors. Pups are the most vocal. A pup can be heard squealing when its mother leaves it to dive for food and often times when a male approaches. Their cry is similar to that of a gull. Other vocalizations include: coos and grunts, which occur when an animal is eating or when content, as in the case of a pair-bonded couple during courtship; whines occur when an animal is frustrated, as in the case of an older pup wanting to suckle or an adult male attempting to mate with an uninterested female; growls, snarls, whistles and hisses can be heard when an animal is frightened or distressed, as in the case of a captured otter.

  

Food & Foraging

An otter must consume approximately 25% of its bodyweight in prey each day just to stay alive! A 75-pound otter can eat up to 1,500 sea urchins a day, or about 25 pounds of seafood (for a 75 pound kid, that would amount to eating 75 quarter pound hamburgers every day!). To meet its high energetic and thermoregulation demands, a sea otter’s metabolic rate is 2 to 3 times that of comparatively sized mammals. Sea otters consume a wide variety of benthic invertebrates. Prey items include sea urchins, abalone, crabs, mussels, clams, marine snails, marine worms, sea stars, and squid. In total, otters eat at least 50 species of benthic (bottom-dwelling) invertebrates, although individuals tend to specialize on only a few main prey types. Prey specialization and feeding preferences are passed on from mother to pup.

 

The strong forelegs paws are used to locate and capture prey. Pockets of loose skin under each foreleg are used to store prey it has gathered on the seafloor for the ascent to the surface. Rocks are often used as tools to dislodge prey on the sea floor and to break open the hard outer shells of some prey items upon returning to the surface. Floating belly-up in the water, they place rocks on their chests and repeatedly pound hard-shelled prey against them to gain access the meat inside. While eating, an otter will roll repeatedly in the water to wash away food scraps from its chest. Unlike most other marine mammals, sea otters commonly drink seawater. Although most of the animal’s water needs are met through the consumption of prey, its large kidneys allow it to extract fresh water from seawater.

 

Sea otters generally forage close to shore in depths shallower than 60 feet (18 m) but are capable of diving to depths of 300 feet (90 m) or more. With a relatively large lung capacity for it’s size, an otter can hold its breath for 5 minutes, but most dives are two minutes or less in duration. Source: www.seaotters.com

 

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.

 

Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a turretless Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.

 

The first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec. The turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in Kaliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft).

 

The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed (an innovative feature at that time for AA guns). In the Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family, anyway. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops. In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.

 

Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a turretless Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.

 

The first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec. The turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in Kaliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft).

 

The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed (an innovative feature at that time for AA guns). In the Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family, anyway. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops. In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

The Shot:

  

Taken in a Studio Setup at the National College of Arts in Lahore, 3 continues lights and 2 strobes used to light up the scene.

  

EXIF

  

Canon EOS 6D

Exposure: 1/400

Aperture: f/2.8

Focal Length: 120mm

ISO Speed: 400 ISO

Exposure Bias: 0 Step

Metering Mode: Pattern

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM ♥

  

Facebook | Twitter

For Professional Services, Please contact:

(+92) 345 588 8440

muhammadfahadraza@gmail.com

Like many of the fans who endured the cold, drizzly conditions inside Reliant Stadium to start the game, the Texans took a few minutes to warm up Sunday afternoon in the regular season finale against the Chicago Bears.

 

After a wake-up call courtesy of a momentum-changing sack by defensive end Mario Williams and a stern message from coach Gary Kubiak, the fans were treated to a spectacular offensive display led by Pro Bowler Andre Johnson and rookie running back Steve Slaton .

 

The 31-24 win gave Houston its second-consecutive 8-8 record to end the season, and it shut out the Bears from postseason contention.

Texans owner Bob McNair admired the team's strong finish to the season.

 

"I'd rather be 16-0," McNair said. "But I think starting out the way we did, 0-4, coming back, understand that only nine other teams have ever done that (start 0-4 and finish .500 or better) in this history of the NFL. So I think it was an accomplishment for our team."

 

Early on, the Texans appeared to suffer from the same malaise they showed at Oakland a week earlier. But the team erased a 10-0 deficit in the first quarter with 21 unanswered points to take a 21-10 lead early in the third quarter.

 

In that stretch, Johnson scored back-to-back touchdowns to bring the franchise-record crowd of 70,838 to its feet. The Pro Bowler finished with 10 catches for 148 yards (14.8 avg.) to end the season with the NFL lead in receptions (115) and receiving yards (1,575).

 

Meanwhile, Slaton rebounded from a first half in which he totaled only 19 rushing yards and lost a fumble to put the offense on his back in the final quarter of play. By gaining 128 total yards from scrimmage and scoring a touchdown in the game, Slaton may have sealed NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.

 

Slaton’s five-yard gain with 1:24 remaining in the contest gave Houston a first down and allowed the team to run out the remainder of the clock.

 

"I really like the way we came back and played after we played pretty poorly on both sides of the ball throughout the first quarter," Kubiak said.

 

Chicago scored its first touchdown with 5:57 remaining in the first quarter when wide receiver Brandon Lloyd stretched out for a four-yard touchdown grab near the front left pylon. A 15-yard reception by wide receiver Devin Hester and a 15-yard penalty on defensive end Tim Bulman for roughing the passer set up the score.

 

Wide receiver André Davis ' 39-yard kickoff return down the Bears' sideline gave the Texans solid field position at their 42-yard line to begin their second possession. But Slaton fumbled on the first play from scrimmage after being tackled by cornerback Charles Tillman. Defensive end Alex Brown recovered the fumble and returned it 17 yards to the Houston 38.

 

Three plays later, Robbie Gould's 37-yard field goal made the score 10-0.

 

The next drive started promising when quarterback Matt Schaub threw a tight spiral to Davis for a 33-yard gain up the middle of the field. But tight end Owen Daniels was penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness on the next play, and Schaub was flagged 10 yards for intentional grounding one play later to derail the drive and force a punt.

 

Upon returning to the sideline, the offense received an earful from Kubiak.

 

"I just didn't think we were going about our business the way we were capable of playing," Kubiak said. "That's not us. We're usually a pretty poised group as a football team and right there is losing poise and getting a shot in on a guy and all of a sudden it took a lot of momentum away from us."

 

With 11:26 left in the first half, Chicago took over at the Houston 49 following a three-and-out series by the Texans. But Williams saved the defense with his 12th sack of the season by tackling quarterback Kyle Orton at the Chicago 45 for a 10-yard loss on third down.

 

From there, Johnson caught three passes for 72 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown where he dragged two defenders with him over the goal line. Kris Brown's extra point cut the Bears' lead to 10-7 with 5:50 remaining before halftime.

 

Running back Ryan Moats forced a fumble on the ensuing kickoff when he tackled Devin Hester. Brown dove on the ball at the Chicago 38 for the Texans' first takeaway.

 

On third-and-goal at the three-yard line, Schaub threw a fade route to Johnson in the back right corner of the end zone, and Johnson ripped away the ball from Tillman for the score.

 

Safety Danieal Manning returned the opening kickoff of the second half 40 yards to the Chicago 45. But on third-and-six, rookie safety Dominique Barber blitzed off the right side to sack Orton for a nine-yard loss.

 

Picking up where he left off in the first half, Johnson gained 21 yards to the Houston 48 on his first reception of the third quarter. Later, Slaton's 17-yard catch and wide receiver Kevin Walter's 23-yard grab helped give the Texans a first down at the Chicago 17.

 

Moats scored his first touchdown with the team on a two-yard rush off the left guard to cap the nine-play drive. Brown's extra point extended the Texans' lead to 21-10 with 8:30 left in the third quarter.

 

The Bears refused to lie down and responded with a seven-play, 77-yard drive over 3:00. A 37-yard catch by Hester to the Texans' one-yard line set up Orton's touchdown pass to tight end Greg Olsen.

 

Late in the third quarter, the Texans moved into scoring range thanks to a 33-yard catch by Daniels to the Chicago 15. On third-and-10 at the 15-yard line, wide receiver David Anderson made a diving nine-yard reception, and Schaub dove forward on fourth down to keep the drive alive.

 

Following two short rushes by Slaton, Schaub's pass intended for Anderson on third-and-goal from the four-yard line fell incomplete, setting up Brown's 22-yard field goal.

 

Following a Chicago punt to the Houston 11 midway through the fourth quarter, Schaub drove the offense 89 yards in 11 plays. On the first play of the series, he avoided a safety on first down by tossing a pass in the flats to Slaton, who outran a defensive lineman for an 11-yard gain. Two plays later, Slaton rushed for 47 yards before Manning tackled him at the Chicago 29.

 

A 14-yard reception by Johnson set up Slaton's 15-yard touchdown run, but a holding call on right guard Mike Brisiel negated the score. On the next run by Slaton, he was tackled and fumbled after a one-yard run, but Kubiak challenged the call. Replays showed Slaton's elbow was down before the ball came loose, and officials overturned the call.

 

On third-and-14, Bears linebacker Nick Roach was penalized for holding, giving the Texans an automatic first down at the 14-yard line. Slaton capped the team’s second-consecutive 11-play series with a two-yard touchdown run to make the score 31-17 after Brown's extra point.

 

The Bears made things interesting by picking apart the Texans' prevent defense on an 11-play, 72-yard drive over 1:55. On fourth-and-one at the Houston 11, Orton dove forward for a first down at the two-minute warning. He moved the Bears to the one-yard line by finding running back Adrian Peterson open on a nine-yard screen pass.

 

Safety Eugene Wilson was injured on the play, resulting in a burned timeout for Houston. Once play was restored, Orton pushed his way over the goal line for a touchdown that made the score 31-23 with 1:29 left in the game.

 

But Gould’s onside kick was recovered by Walter at the Chicago 44, and Slaton preserved the win on his final carry of the game for five yards and a first down.

Yellow is a color capable of charming God.

----Vincent van Gogh

The display reads:

 

ADA in Vietnam – M42 Duster

 

Combat experience in the Korea War quickly showed that while the M19 40mm Gun Motor Carriage was a capable platform, it needed improvement. By 1952, a new anti-aircraft tank was in development, designated the T141. The new vehicle used the same turret and gun mount from the M19, but mated it with the larger, more powerful M41 Walker Bulldog light tank hull. The resulting vehicle was standardized as the M42 40mm Gun Motor Carriage by 1952 and entered full production that year.

 

However, with the service entry of the Nike Ajax system in 1953, the Army was focused on missile systems and with the introduction of the Hawk missile in the late 1950s, the M42 was quickly passed to National Guard units and all but removed from the active inventory by 1963.

 

Just two years later, US forces entered combat in South Vietnam. Two Hawk missile battalions were deployed to provide air defense around Saigon and along the DMZ, but an additional system was needed to cover potential low-altitude threats. In addition to the air defense requirement, the Army also needed a vehicle that could provide heavy firepower for both convoy escort and firebase defense. The M42 was back in demand and by the beginning of 1966, three battalions were formed for service in Vietnam.

 

Those three units, 1st Battalion, 44th Artillery; 4th Battalion, 60th Artillery; and 5th Battalion, 2nd Artillery arrived in-theater by mid-year and immediately had a significant impact on operations in their respective areas of operation. Each “Duster” battalion had a quad .50 battery and searchlight battery attached, forming an air defense task force that could respond to both air and ground threats, day or night.

 

On 20 June 1968, Air Defense and Field Artillery split the Artillery branch and the Duster, Quad, Searchlight and Hawk units were then designated ADA rather than “Artillery,” with the parenthetical Automatic Weapons, Searchlight or Guided Missile designation.

 

The story of Army Air Defense in Vietnam provides a fascinating contrast to the operations and equipment of the rest of the branch during the 1960s and early 1970s. While Army Air Defense of the day was focused on the strategic threat of a Soviet nuclear strike and were using the latest technology to deter that threat, the three ADA Duster battalions effectively used weapon systems from the “last war” to provide low altitude air defense and on-call direct fire support to infantry and artillery units across the entirety of South Vietnam from 1966 through 1972.

 

M42 Duster Specifications:

 

Weight: 50,000 lbs fully loaded

Height: 9 feet 4 inches

Length: 19 feet

Width: 10 feet 7 inches

Crew: Commander, driver, two loaders, two gunners

Armament: Two M2A1 40mm automatic anti-aircraft guns with 240 rounds per gun; 1-2 7.62 M60 Machine Guns with 1,750 rounds

Main Armament Rate of Fire: 120 rounds per minute, per gun

Engine: Continental AOS-895-3 6-cylinder opposed gasoline engine

Range: 100 miles

Speed 45 mph

 

The museum’s Duster served with the 1-44th Artillery in 1968.

 

The Duster occasionally towed the M332 ammunition trailer, which doubled the Duster’s ammunition capacity. However, it would be a liability in combat and would normally be removed before the Duster would be used in the convoy escort role.

 

Most Dusters in Vietnam carried some form of artwork. Usually the crew would name both the front hatch and the gun shield above the main armament.

 

Sergeant Mitchell W. Stout was born in Lenoir City, Tennessee on 24 February, 1950. He enlisted in the Army on 15 August 1967 and served his first tour in Vietnam as a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment in the Mekong Delta from August 1968 to August 1969. After completing his first tour, SGT Stout rotated back to the US, but returned to South Vietnam just five months later as a M42 Duster crewman.

 

Three months into his second tour, SGT Stout was commanding an M42 Duster at the Khe Gio bridge along Route 9, a strategic east-west route that was the supply lifeline to friendly outposts in western I Corps.

 

SGT Mitchell Stout

C/1-44th Artillery (Automatic Weapons), Khe Gio Bridge

 

The U.S. Army outpost at Khe Gio Bridge on Highway 9 near the DMZ was overrun by North Vietnamese troops on 12 March 1970. Fourteen Americans held the outpost along with a platoon of ARVN Infantry. Two M42 Dusters from C Battery 1-44th Artillery gave the small force a significant amount of firepower to protect the bridge, while an M151A1 searchlight jeep from G Battery, 29th Artillery provided nighttime battlefield illumination. Of those fourteen Americans, two were killed in action, five wounded and one was captured. Yet they fought valiantly and protected the bridge on Route 9, sparing it from destruction. Sergeant Mitchell Stout’s actions during the battle would earn him a posthumous Medal of Honor:

 

Citation:

 

Sgt. Stout distinguished himself during an attack by a North Vietnamese Army Sapper company on his unit's firing position at Khe Gio Bridge. Sgt. Stout was in a bunker with members of a searchlight crew when the position came under heavy enemy mortar fire and ground attack. When the intensity of the mortar attack subsided, an enemy grenade was thrown into the bunker. Displaying great courage, Sgt. Stout ran to the grenade, picked it up, and started out of the bunker. As he reached the door, the grenade exploded. By holding the grenade close to his body and shielding its blast, he protected his fellow soldiers in the bunker from further injury or death. Sgt. Stout's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action, at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the U.S. Army.

 

Taken December 13th, 2013.

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.

 

Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a turretless Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.

 

The first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec. The turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in Kaliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft).

 

The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed (an innovative feature at that time for AA guns). In the Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family, anyway. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops. In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.

 

Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a turretless Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.

 

The first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec. The turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in Kaliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft).

 

The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed (an innovative feature at that time for AA guns). In the Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family, anyway. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops. In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

7/14/11 cblog, I AM LOVEABLE & CAPABLE ;

ho fam art, m: "'IALAC ...I am loveable & capable ....every person is loveable ..wife will feel better if she is loved..and chance to share gifts..children cute..but..if we forget the IALAC of a person ..we lessen the self worth ..u r loveable but not capable ..or u r capable but not loveable ..we lessen the value...put down words ..keep it in mind ..in gospel today hesus values our IALAC .."take my yoke.." u will find rest for yourselves ..we all want to find rest ..remove my..jesus tells us take my yoke..what mean? 2000 yrs ago the yoke they placed was on beast of burden or on 2 men ..carry my yoke ..meaning..share the weight ..says we r capable..together..ask for grace..that he may accompany us on the cross ..how pray what pray for ..why this cross ..ls...carry with me..

 

Ex 3:13-20 "Moses, hearing the voice of the LORD from the burning bush, said to him,“When I go to the children of Israel and say to them,‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you, if they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what am I to tell them?” God replied, “I am who am.” Then he added, “This is what you shall tell the children of Israel: I AM sent me to you.” God spoke further to Moses, “Thus shall you say to the children of Israel: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.“This is my name forever; this my title for all generations“Go and assemble the elders of Israel, and tell them: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has appeared to me and said I am concerned about you and about the way you are being treated in Egypt; so I have decided to lead you up out of the misery of Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites a land flowing with milk and h

 

them: The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has appeared to me and said I am concerned about you and about the way you are being treated in Egypt; so I have decided to lead you up out of the misery of Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites a land flowing with milk and honey.“Thus they will heed your message. Then you and the elders of Israel shall go to the king of Egypt and say to him:“The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has sent us word. Permit us, then, to go a three-days’ journey in the desert, that we may offer sacrifice to the LORD, our God.“Yet I know that the king of Egypt will not allow you to go unless he is forced I will stretch out my hand, therefore, and smite Egypt by doing all kinds of wondrous deeds there. After that he will send you away.” R. (8a) The Lord remembers his covenant for ever or R. Alleluia. Give thanks to the LORD, invoke his name; make known among the nations his deeds

 

em, and wonders in the land of Ham R. The Lord remembers his covenant for ever or R. Alleluia

 

"Jesus said 'Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened and I will give you rest Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light"

  

Drax is a large coal-fired power station in North Yorkshire, England, capable of co-firing biomass and petcoke. It is situated near the River Ouse between Selby and Goole, and its name comes from the nearby village of Drax. Its generating capacity of 3,960 megawatts is the highest of any power station in the United Kingdom and Western Europe, providing about 7% of the United Kingdom's electricity supply.

 

Opened in 1974 and extended in the mid-1980s, the station was initially operated by the Central Electricity Generating Board, but since privatisation in 1990 the station has changed owner several times, and is currently operated by Drax Group plc. Completed in 1986, Drax is the most recently built coal-fired power station in England, and by implementing technologies such as flue gas desulphurisation, is one of the cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power stations in the UK.[1] However, because of its large size, it is also the UK's single largest emitter of carbon dioxide. In an attempt to reduce these emissions, the station is currently co-firing biomass and undergoing a turbine refurbishment, and there are plans to build a biomass only fired plant alongside the station, known as Drax Ouse Renewable Energy Plant.

 

The MOL Northern Juvenile, capable of carrying 8,800 twenty-foot equivalent units, set a record today as the largest container ship to ever call on Jacksonville. The ship, which transited the Suez Canal from Asia before reaching the U.S. east coast, loaded and offloaded cargo at JAXPORT’s TraPac Container Terminal at Dames Point.

More than 1 million containers move through Jacksonville's public and private marine terminals annually. Jacksonville boasts the widest shipping channel in the Southeast U.S., wide enough for two ships to pass at the same time and offers worldwide cargo service from more than 40 ocean carriers, including direct service with Europe, Africa, South America, the Caribbean and other key markets.

Florida is now the nation’s third most populous state – and more than 60 million U.S. consumers live within a one-day truck drive of Jacksonville’s port. JAXPORT terminals are serviced by three U.S. interstates (I-10, I-95 and I-75), and the city has 36 daily train departures via three railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Florida East Coast. The port’s equal balance of imports and exports provides backhaul opportunities, saving money and maximizing transportation costs.

JAXPORT has invested $600 million in recent infrastructure investments in everything from cranes to docks to rail and a newly authorized project to deepen the federal shipping channel.

 

TThe stigmas attached to breastfeeding in industrial nations and the dangers they pose

 

When my first child was just several months old I did what so many working women do – I stopped breastfeeding because I just didn’t feel capable of doing both. Even though I worked for a very large company, there were no policies for breastfeeding moms, no places in which to discreetly pump during the day, and no extended breaks allowed in order to feed my daughter if she was brought to the office. There were no mothers in my circle of friends and co-workers who breastfed after returning to work, if at all. I felt as if I had failed in that one job that as a mother I was supposed to be able to do.

 

Breastfeeding, although recommended by the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other leading organization as the most complete and best way to feed infants, is still not accepted in so many modern cultures. When it is accepted, it is not always supported and encouraged.

   

Just as recently as December of 2011, a breastfeeding sit-in was declared in Target stores across America in response to one mother’s reports of ill-treatment after she chose to breastfeed her baby in the store. Employees apparently asked her to move from her spot in the women’s clothing section of the store where she was breastfeeding her baby, completely covered with a blanket, to an even more remote location – a dressing room.

 

Those who do find offense to breastfeeding appear to be most specifically adverse to it when it is done where they know it is happening. It doesn’t even have to be something that is seen – it can be as innocent as a mother swaddling her baby under a blanket where not even a single tiny toe is visible. The naysayers appear to be afraid that even a glimpse of breast flesh might be seen. Ironic, in a country where you can’t go to the mall without seeing teenagers dressed in less clothing than I wear to the beach, and where movies and television commercials are flooded with more skin than I ever revealed breastfeeding.

 

The Stigmas of Breastfeeding

In third world countries breastfeeding is a necessity and a completely accepted and encouraged aspect of raising children. However, in industrial nations such as the United States of America, breastfeeding is still looked at as something that is done in large part by 4 groups of moms:

 

Throwback hippies (I saw this with all of the love for a generation from which I come)

Natural pathogen moms who wouldn’t ever consider manufactured foods of any kinds

Working moms who have more demanding things to do with their time

Those who are too poor to purchase formula and the necessary supplies

Moms who might consider breastfeeding are often put off by several stereotypes, stigmas, and unfortunate concerns.

 

Formula, like wine, is not cheap, especially the good stuff. There is an undercurrent in American society that breastfeeding is something that those who can’t afford formula choose to do.

Breastfeeding is icky (according to some). There is a stigma that it is gross and perverted to have an infant so dependent on what society has declared to be a purely sexual body part. Our “modernized” society has melded breastfeeding and sexual imagery – two totally separate issues – and has somehow declared breastfeeding in public to be inappropriate. Yet parents can yell at their children during tee-ball games, belittle their children for not doing well enough in school, and ignore their children as they spend more time texting than talking. Somehow our definition of inappropriate has gone askew.

Breastfeeding reduces your social life. Nothing says “new mom” like when you are out with friends to dinner and a baby nearby begins to cry and you spring a leak in a natural response.

Breastfeeding your baby means you won’t be able to return to work at full capacity and pursue career goals with vigor.

Yes – there are unfortunately some truths to these stigmas, but only because society hasn’t caught up to reality. They shouldn’t be stigmas and issues that stop moms from providing this wonderful and natural source of nutrition for their babies.

 

Breastfeeding does mean restructuring your social life – but so does becoming a parent in general. Good friends at dinner won’t think less of you if you need to pump-n-dump – those who do probably aren’t worth dinner plans anyway.

Even though the laws are changing, they are still not current with world health opinions and endeavors. Working outside of the home will be more challenging as a breastfeeding mom. You will need to plan ahead and let your employer know how often you will need to pump and work with your employer to find a suitable place to do this and store the milk. It won’t always be easy, but it will be worth your time and your infant’s health and relationship with you. Don’t let it be something you regret like I do.

When my 2nd child was just days old I became very ill with a high fever and signs of a bacterial infection, and was told I needed to be hospitalized for a round of IV antibiotics. I immediately saw my hopes and plans of breastfeeding for at least the first year of his life begin to fail as I hadn’t even been able to breastfeed long enough to establish a pattern with my newborn – until my stubborn Irish side kicked in and I refused to be admitted to the hospital without my son allowed in my room so I could breastfeed. The hospital staff relented and I was admitted for 3 days of treatment with him at my side.

 

That baby, and his brothers who followed, were all breastfed for at least the first year of their lives, despite the roadblocks and stigmas that modern society tends to place on the choice. Don’t let the breastfeeding backlash stop you from providing your child with the best nutritional and developmental start possible – even if you aren’t Irish.

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.

 

Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a turretless Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.

 

The first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec. The turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in Kaliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft).

 

The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed (an innovative feature at that time for AA guns). In the Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family, anyway. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops. In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

All-new 2015 Jeep® Renegade: Most Capable Small SUV Expands the Brand's Global Portfolio

 

- All-new 2015 Jeep® Renegade marks the brand's first entry in the small SUV segment

 

- Renegade Trailhawk model delivers best-in-class 4x4 Trail Rated capability with class-exclusive Jeep Active Drive Low, which includes 20:1 crawl ratio and Jeep Selec-Terrain system

 

- Designed to expand the Jeep brand globally, the all-new 2015 Renegade combines the brand's heritage with fresh new styling to appeal to youthful and adventurous customers

 

- Nothing else like it: Renegade displays a powerful stance with aggressive wheel-to- body proportions, plus the freedom of two My Sky open-air roof systems

 

- Renegade's all-new interior exudes an energetic appearance with rugged and functional details, crafted in high-quality materials and inspired colors

 

- All-new "small-wide 4x4 architecture" combines best-in-class off-road capability with world-class on-road driving dynamics

 

- Designed for global markets – with 16 fuel-efficient powertrain combinations for different markets around the world – including the world's first nine-speed automatic transmission in a small SUV

 

- Renegade will offer a best-in-class combination of fuel efficiency and off-road capability

 

- Technology once limited to premium SUVs: award-winning Uconnect Access, Uconnect touchscreen radios and the segment's largest full-color instrument cluster

 

- Loaded with up to 70 available advanced safety and security features

 

- Designed in America, crafted in Italy, the 2015 Renegade highlights the Jeep brand's global resources and dedication to meeting customer needs in more than 100 countries

 

The all-new 2015 Jeep® Renegade expands the brand's global vehicle lineup, entering the growing small SUV segment, while staying true to the adventurous lifestyle Jeep is known for. Renegade delivers a unique combination of best-in-class off-road capability, open-air freedom and convenience, a segment-first nine-speed automatic transmission that contributes to outstanding on- road and off-road driving dynamics, fuel-efficient engines, world-class refinement, and a host of innovative safety and advanced technology offerings. The result is an efficient vehicle created to attract youthful and adventurous customers around the world to the Jeep brand.

 

The all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade expands the brand's product portfolio and targets the rapidly expanding small SUV segment around the globe with benchmark levels of efficiency and driving dynamics, while at the same time delivering best-in-class 4x4 capability that customers expect from Jeep,‖ said Mike Manley, President and CEO - Jeep Brand, Chrysler Group LLC. ―Renegade symbolizes the brand's renowned American design, ingenuity and innovation, marking the Jeep brand's first entry into the small SUV segment in more than 100 markets around the globe.

 

Best-in-class off-road capability thanks to two all-new 4x4 systems

 

Leveraging 4x4 technology from the all-new Jeep Cherokee, the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade offers two of the most advanced and intelligent 4x4 systems in its class, all to deliver best-in-class off-road capability. Both systems can provide up to 100 percent of the engine's available torque to the ground, through any wheel, for optimal grip.

 

- Jeep Active Drive – full-time 4x4 system

- Jeep Active Drive Low – class-exclusive full-time 4x4 system with 20:1 crawl ratio

 

Innovation is also at the forefront of any new Jeep vehicle, and the Renegade is the first small SUV to feature a disconnecting rear axle and power take-off unit (PTU) – all to provide Jeep Renegade 4x4 models with enhanced fuel economy. The system instantly engages when 4x4 traction is needed.

 

Both Jeep Active Drive and Active Drive Low 4x4 systems include the Jeep Selec-Terrain system, providing up to five modes (Auto, Snow, Sand and Mud modes, plus exclusive Rock mode on the Trailhawk model) for the best four-wheel-drive performance on- or off-road and in any weather condition.

 

Trail Rated: Renegade Trailhawk 4x4 model

 

For customers who demand the most off-road capability from their Jeep vehicles, the Renegade Trailhawk model delivers best-in-class Trail Rated 4x4 capability with:

 

- Standard Jeep Active Drive Low (20:1 crawl ratio)

- Selec-Terrain system with exclusive Rock mode

- Increased ride height 20 mm (0.8 inches)

- Skid plates, and red front and rear tow hooks

- Unique fascias deliver 30.5 degree approach, 25.7 degree breakover and 34.3 degree departure angles

- 17-inch all-terrain tires

- Up to 205 mm (8.1 inches) of wheel articulation

- Hill-descent Control

- Up to 480 mm (19 inches) of water fording

- Up to 1,500 kg (3,300-lb.) towing capability with MultiJet II diesel engine and 907 kg (2,000- lb.) towing capability with 2.4-liter Tigershark engine, with available tow package

 

A global Jeep design for a rapidly growing global brand

 

From the start, Jeep designers knew the Renegade would need to deliver best-in-class off-road capability with city-sized proportions that exuded the brand's rugged style while at the same time enhancing versatility, maneuverability and style. Additionally designers were tasked to create an all- new SUV that would symbolize the brand's renowned American design and ingenuity, as it would mark the Jeep brand's first entry into the small SUV segment in more than 100 markets around the globe. Last, Renegade had to offer the open-air freedom that dates back to its 1941 roots with the Willys MB Jeep.

 

The result is the all-new 2015 Renegade, a vehicle that builds on the Jeep Wrangler's powerful stance, and features fresh new styling with rugged body forms and aggressive proportions that enable best-in-class approach and departure angles purposely designed to deliver best-in-class off- road capability. And for segment-exclusive panoramic views, two available My Sky open-air roof panel systems conveniently stow to provide passengers open-air freedom with ease.

 

All-new interior exudes a rugged and energetic appearance

 

The all-new Jeep Renegade interior features a rugged and energetic appearance that builds upon Jeep's legendary brand heritage. Its precisely crafted detail, innovative and high-quality color and material appointments, state-of-the-art technology, and clever storage features draw inspiration from contemporary extreme sports gear and lifestyles.

 

The interior of the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade has a distinctive form language which Jeep designers have titled ―Tek-Tonic.‖ This new design theme is defined by the intersections of soft and tactile forms with rugged and functional details. Major surfaces such as the sculpted soft-touch instrument panel are intersected with bold functional elements like the passenger grab handle – indispensable for off-road adventures and borrowed from its big brother, the legendary Jeep Wrangler. Unique ―protective clamp fasteners,‖ anodized design accents and inspired colors are derived from extreme sports equipment, while the newly familiar ―X‖ shapes inspired by its roof and tail lamps add to Renegade's Tek-Tonic interior look. And to make sure all of the needed passenger gear fits, the Renegade is designed with an efficient and flexible interior package that includes a removable, reversible and height-adjustable cargo floor panel and fold-forward front-passenger seat.

 

My Sky: continuing Jeep open-air freedom since 1941

 

Keeping the tradition of the legendary 1941 Willys MB Jeep, the all-new 2015 Renegade offers open-air freedom with two available My Sky open-air roof systems. With a manual removable, or removable with premium power tilt/slide feature, the segment-exclusive My Sky roof-panel systems quickly bring the outdoors inside. Designed for convenience, the honeycomb fiberglass polyurethane roof panels are lightweight and stow neatly in the rear cargo area. For added design detail, both My Sky roof systems feature a debossed ―X‖ stamped into the roof that exude strength and play on the brand's utilitarian history.

 

Best-in-class off-road capability with world-class on-road driving dynamics

 

Designed and engineered to first and foremost deliver legendary Jeep 4x4 capability, the all-new 2015 Renegade is the first small SUV from Chrysler Group to use the all-new ―small-wide 4x4 architecture.‖

 

With its fully independent suspension capable of up to 205 mm (8.1 inches) of wheel articulation and 220 mm (8.7 inches) of ground clearance (Trailhawk), Renegade raises the bar in the small SUV segment with best-in-class off-road capability. Extensive use of advanced steels, composites and advanced computer-impact simulations enable the all-new 2015 Renegade's architecture to deliver world-class torsional stiffness and Jeep brand's durability required for Trail Rated adventures.

 

The all-new Renegade is the first Jeep to integrate Koni's frequency selective damping (FSD) front and rear strut system. This damping system enables the Jeep Renegade to deliver world-class road-holding and handling characteristics.

 

Designed for global markets: 16 powertrain combinations

 

True to the Jeep brand, the all-new Renegade will offer customers in global markets maximum off- road capability and fuel efficiency. The Renegade will offer up to 16 strategic powertrain combinations – the most ever in a Jeep vehicle – customized to markets around the world to meet a range of performance and efficiency needs. Powertrain options include:

 

- Four MultiAir gasoline engine offerings

- Two MultiJet II diesel engine offerings

- Efficient and flex-fuel capable E.torQ engine

- Emissions and fuel-saving Stop&Start technology

- Segment-first nine-speed automatic transmission

- Two manual and one dual-dry clutch transmission (DDCT) offerings

 

World's first small SUV with nine-speed automatic transmission

 

Like the new Jeep Cherokee, the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade has raised the bar - this time in the small SUV class - with the first available nine-speed automatic transmission. When paired with either the 2.0-liter MultiJet II diesel engine, or 2.4-liter MultiAir2 gas engine, the nine-speed transmission delivers numerous benefits customers will appreciate, including aggressive launches, smooth power delivery at highway speeds and improved fuel efficiency versus a six-speed automatic transmission.

 

Segment-exclusive technologies once found only on higher classed SUVs

 

The all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade offers technology features once found only in upper-segment vehicles, and makes them attainable to customers in the growing small SUV segment – including award-winning Uconnect Access, Uconnect touchscreens and the segment's largest full-color instrument cluster.

 

- Uconnect Access: Utilizes embedded cellular technology to allow Jeep Renegade occupants to get directly in contact with local emergency-service dispatchers – all with the push of the 9-1-1 Assist button on the rearview mirror. Uconnect Access applies the same logic to roadside assistance. One push of the ―ASSIST‖ button summons help directly from Chrysler Group's roadside assistance provider, or the Vehicle Customer Care Center. Further peace of mind comes from the system's ability to receive text messages, announce receipt of texts, identify senders and then ―read‖ the messages aloud with Bluetooth-equipped cell phones. AOL Autos named Uconnect Access its ―Technology of the Year for 2013.‖ (Uconnect services may vary in different markets)

 

- Uconnect touchscreen radio systems: Award-winning in-vehicle handsfree communication, entertainment and available navigation. Key features available on the Uconnect 5.0 and 6.5AN systems include a 5.0-inch or 6.5-inch touchscreen display, Bluetooth connectivity, single or dual-turner, radio data system capability (RDS), digital audio broadcast (DAB), HD Radio, digital media broadcasting (DMB), SiriusXM Radio, SiriusXM Travel Link, SiriusXM Travel Link, USB port and auxiliary audio jack input. (Uconnect services may vary in different markets)

 

- Segment's largest full-color instrument cluster display: Filling the Jeep Renegade's gauge cluster in front of the driver is an available 7-inch, full-color, premium multiview display, featuring a reconfigurable function that enables drivers to personalize information inside the instrument cluster. The information display is designed to visually communicate information, using graphics and text, quickly and easily.

 

Renegade features up to 70 advanced safety and security features

 

Safety and security were at the forefront in the development of the all-new 2015 Jeep Renegade, setting the stage for up to 70 available safety and security features – including the availability of Forward Collision Warning-Plus and LaneSense Departure Warning-Plus.

 

In addition, engineers added both active and passive safety and security features, including Blind- spot Monitoring; Rear Cross Path detection; ParkView rear backup camera with dynamic grid lines; electronic stability control (ESC) with electronic roll mitigation and seven standard air bags.

 

Jeep brand's global resources

 

Designed in America and crafted in Italy, the 2015 Renegade continues the Jeep brand's dedication to the global marketplace and demonstrates the depths of its available resources. The final assembly location for the Renegade will be at the Melfi Assembly Plant. The Renegade's global portfolio of powertrain production includes the United States, Italy and Brazil.

Like many of the fans who endured the cold, drizzly conditions inside Reliant Stadium to start the game, the Texans took a few minutes to warm up Sunday afternoon in the regular season finale against the Chicago Bears.

 

After a wake-up call courtesy of a momentum-changing sack by defensive end Mario Williams and a stern message from coach Gary Kubiak, the fans were treated to a spectacular offensive display led by Pro Bowler Andre Johnson and rookie running back Steve Slaton .

 

The 31-24 win gave Houston its second-consecutive 8-8 record to end the season, and it shut out the Bears from postseason contention.

Texans owner Bob McNair admired the team's strong finish to the season.

 

"I'd rather be 16-0," McNair said. "But I think starting out the way we did, 0-4, coming back, understand that only nine other teams have ever done that (start 0-4 and finish .500 or better) in this history of the NFL. So I think it was an accomplishment for our team."

 

Early on, the Texans appeared to suffer from the same malaise they showed at Oakland a week earlier. But the team erased a 10-0 deficit in the first quarter with 21 unanswered points to take a 21-10 lead early in the third quarter.

 

In that stretch, Johnson scored back-to-back touchdowns to bring the franchise-record crowd of 70,838 to its feet. The Pro Bowler finished with 10 catches for 148 yards (14.8 avg.) to end the season with the NFL lead in receptions (115) and receiving yards (1,575).

 

Meanwhile, Slaton rebounded from a first half in which he totaled only 19 rushing yards and lost a fumble to put the offense on his back in the final quarter of play. By gaining 128 total yards from scrimmage and scoring a touchdown in the game, Slaton may have sealed NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.

 

Slaton’s five-yard gain with 1:24 remaining in the contest gave Houston a first down and allowed the team to run out the remainder of the clock.

 

"I really like the way we came back and played after we played pretty poorly on both sides of the ball throughout the first quarter," Kubiak said.

 

Chicago scored its first touchdown with 5:57 remaining in the first quarter when wide receiver Brandon Lloyd stretched out for a four-yard touchdown grab near the front left pylon. A 15-yard reception by wide receiver Devin Hester and a 15-yard penalty on defensive end Tim Bulman for roughing the passer set up the score.

 

Wide receiver André Davis ' 39-yard kickoff return down the Bears' sideline gave the Texans solid field position at their 42-yard line to begin their second possession. But Slaton fumbled on the first play from scrimmage after being tackled by cornerback Charles Tillman. Defensive end Alex Brown recovered the fumble and returned it 17 yards to the Houston 38.

 

Three plays later, Robbie Gould's 37-yard field goal made the score 10-0.

 

The next drive started promising when quarterback Matt Schaub threw a tight spiral to Davis for a 33-yard gain up the middle of the field. But tight end Owen Daniels was penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness on the next play, and Schaub was flagged 10 yards for intentional grounding one play later to derail the drive and force a punt.

 

Upon returning to the sideline, the offense received an earful from Kubiak.

 

"I just didn't think we were going about our business the way we were capable of playing," Kubiak said. "That's not us. We're usually a pretty poised group as a football team and right there is losing poise and getting a shot in on a guy and all of a sudden it took a lot of momentum away from us."

 

With 11:26 left in the first half, Chicago took over at the Houston 49 following a three-and-out series by the Texans. But Williams saved the defense with his 12th sack of the season by tackling quarterback Kyle Orton at the Chicago 45 for a 10-yard loss on third down.

 

From there, Johnson caught three passes for 72 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown where he dragged two defenders with him over the goal line. Kris Brown's extra point cut the Bears' lead to 10-7 with 5:50 remaining before halftime.

 

Running back Ryan Moats forced a fumble on the ensuing kickoff when he tackled Devin Hester. Brown dove on the ball at the Chicago 38 for the Texans' first takeaway.

 

On third-and-goal at the three-yard line, Schaub threw a fade route to Johnson in the back right corner of the end zone, and Johnson ripped away the ball from Tillman for the score.

 

Safety Danieal Manning returned the opening kickoff of the second half 40 yards to the Chicago 45. But on third-and-six, rookie safety Dominique Barber blitzed off the right side to sack Orton for a nine-yard loss.

 

Picking up where he left off in the first half, Johnson gained 21 yards to the Houston 48 on his first reception of the third quarter. Later, Slaton's 17-yard catch and wide receiver Kevin Walter's 23-yard grab helped give the Texans a first down at the Chicago 17.

 

Moats scored his first touchdown with the team on a two-yard rush off the left guard to cap the nine-play drive. Brown's extra point extended the Texans' lead to 21-10 with 8:30 left in the third quarter.

 

The Bears refused to lie down and responded with a seven-play, 77-yard drive over 3:00. A 37-yard catch by Hester to the Texans' one-yard line set up Orton's touchdown pass to tight end Greg Olsen.

 

Late in the third quarter, the Texans moved into scoring range thanks to a 33-yard catch by Daniels to the Chicago 15. On third-and-10 at the 15-yard line, wide receiver David Anderson made a diving nine-yard reception, and Schaub dove forward on fourth down to keep the drive alive.

 

Following two short rushes by Slaton, Schaub's pass intended for Anderson on third-and-goal from the four-yard line fell incomplete, setting up Brown's 22-yard field goal.

 

Following a Chicago punt to the Houston 11 midway through the fourth quarter, Schaub drove the offense 89 yards in 11 plays. On the first play of the series, he avoided a safety on first down by tossing a pass in the flats to Slaton, who outran a defensive lineman for an 11-yard gain. Two plays later, Slaton rushed for 47 yards before Manning tackled him at the Chicago 29.

 

A 14-yard reception by Johnson set up Slaton's 15-yard touchdown run, but a holding call on right guard Mike Brisiel negated the score. On the next run by Slaton, he was tackled and fumbled after a one-yard run, but Kubiak challenged the call. Replays showed Slaton's elbow was down before the ball came loose, and officials overturned the call.

 

On third-and-14, Bears linebacker Nick Roach was penalized for holding, giving the Texans an automatic first down at the 14-yard line. Slaton capped the team’s second-consecutive 11-play series with a two-yard touchdown run to make the score 31-17 after Brown's extra point.

 

The Bears made things interesting by picking apart the Texans' prevent defense on an 11-play, 72-yard drive over 1:55. On fourth-and-one at the Houston 11, Orton dove forward for a first down at the two-minute warning. He moved the Bears to the one-yard line by finding running back Adrian Peterson open on a nine-yard screen pass.

 

Safety Eugene Wilson was injured on the play, resulting in a burned timeout for Houston. Once play was restored, Orton pushed his way over the goal line for a touchdown that made the score 31-23 with 1:29 left in the game.

 

But Gould’s onside kick was recovered by Walter at the Chicago 44, and Slaton preserved the win on his final carry of the game for five yards and a first down.