Help support TMP


"Battles in France '40" Topic


14 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Aviation Discussion Message Board

Back to the WWII Aviation Painting Guides Message Board


971 hits since 3 Aug 2011
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Windward03 Aug 2011 12:55 p.m. PST

I see that Battles had black undersides, did they carry roundels on the underside of the wings?

Jovian103 Aug 2011 1:21 p.m. PST

My figures for France 1940, have roundels on the underside of the wing, but I don't know if the ones you are talking about do or not.

emckinney03 Aug 2011 5:03 p.m. PST

According to several sources, no:

Airfix 1/72 kit instructions (you can just make out the underside in the instructions)

picture

from link

Profile view

picture

from link

Walkaround (hard to tell if it covers all of the important bits)
link

Windward04 Aug 2011 5:03 a.m. PST

Excellent thank you!

spontoon Supporting Member of TMP05 Aug 2011 11:31 a.m. PST

A much maligned aircraft, in my opinion. If they had ditched the Observer/Navigator third crew member, and added self sealing fuel tanks and cockpit armour, the Battle would have been much more successful!

Grizzlymc Inactive Member05 Aug 2011 4:26 p.m. PST

Stuka without dive brakes.

RockyRusso Inactive Member07 Aug 2011 11:18 a.m. PST

Hi

Well, while you are at it, add in a Pratt and Whitney 2600 and it could become a TBF!

R

(religious bigot) Inactive Member07 Aug 2011 2:42 p.m. PST

If they'd pulled it apart, built a Hurricane from the bits, sent the two redundant crew members home with the leftover bits to repair bicycles and stuck the same payload underneath, they'd have had something.

Etranger07 Aug 2011 7:09 p.m. PST

I completely agree with you, SR!

spontoon Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2011 7:24 a.m. PST

And if we had some ham we could have ham and eggs; if we had some eggs!

I still think the Battle is more sinned against than sinning. Used poorly, not given the gear to make it a good plane.

(religious bigot) Inactive Member09 Aug 2011 3:19 p.m. PST

Used correctly, it was a target tug, which is a lot healthier than being a target.
Though you have a point – stick a honking big motor in it and you'd basically have a Firefly. This must have eventually occurred to someone.

spontoon Supporting Member of TMP12 Aug 2011 8:18 a.m. PST

Shan't ask your opinions of the Blackburn Roc, then!

Tommiatkins13 Aug 2011 2:19 p.m. PST

Simply add a Rolls Royce Pegausus and VTOL technology, It was a Harrier.

Or in reality it was a thinly plated, over weight , underpowered, slow when it needed to be fast, underarmed deathtrap that was used idiotically.

spontoon Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2011 7:48 a.m. PST

Roc? or Battle?

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.