aferguson

A bit late to reply on this one. Vietnamese camouflage on their planes was very unstandardized; somewhat in the way that late war german and japanese camo was on their planes. For Mig 21's specifically, it seems that camouflage paint, usually a bright or dark green was applied over both natural metal and a light to medium grey base. Some Mig 21's were overall light/medium grey, not natural metal and it seems were later camoulfaged further with green. Little standardization is seen, although it is usually a mottle of some kind, rather than stripes, patterns or solid. As for markings, definitely no soviet style stars on the tail or anywhere else. The soviets would have forbid this. I have seen pics of examples of Migs that had no vietnamese airforce national markings anywere....at least as far as could be seen in the picture. Just a buzz number on the nose. So it seems that there is a great latitude of freedom for painting up a Vietnamese Mig, or if complete accuracy is desired, then careful attention must be paid to a specific photo of a specific plane. Lack of standardization gives great freedom to some modellers and great headaches to others. Oh, and i wouldn't pay much attention to the paint schemes in the series Dogfights. They are often not very accurate.

Does anyone have an idea how the fw-190/v-1 combination would have been intended to be used? Since the V-1 would have to be running from the time of take off, there wouldn't be much range extension for it, ie using the 190 to ferry the V-1 to targets like London, that were out of range late in the war. Perhaps it was to be used as an aerial torpedo?...just point it at a large target, release and hope it goes straight. Or maybe it would have been guided by the pilot, like other mistels?

hm....if installed at Brandis then maybe white 9 would make a good choice to model with jagdfaust. Very interesting stuff, thanks.

i saw a profile drawing of white 9 a few years ago and this model here represents it as to my memory of that drawing: http://home.online.no/~ru-hau6/gallery/Planes/Me163BKomet/Me163B_gallery_english.htm According to the modeller this is how the aircraft appeared in Jan '45 It is unlikely that this is the plane Kelb flew on April 10 as jagdfaust equipped komets would have been delivered to the unit so equipped, rather than having the system retrofitted into existing planes stationed there. But, it's something. Your colour photo is better as a guide i think though. Back to the point of which bomber which was destroyed; Kelb was an experienced pilot and would surely have been able to distinguish a single rudder b-17 from a twin rudder lancaster/halifax, even at high speed. Had he claimed it was a b-24, then i can see there being some doubt but not with a b-17. I think the halifax theory is just a case of some overly enthusiastic research....people love to shed 'new light' on old beliefs. The only way to conclusively prove it was not a b-17 would be to determine there were no fortresses lost in the area that day. Pretty tricky research but maybe possible? As to the direction of the attack. The side to side attack would be best, as i mentioned above, as the komet would traverse the underside of the wing, which would cast the largest shadow and present the largest target area. But at high speed this would be a triicky manouever as the pilot would have to lead the bomber, which is travelling at right angles to his direction and it would be easy to miss. I remember i read one author who felt a head on attack was best, as the tremendous speed, a combined 800 miles per hour or so, would make shooting down the komet with the bomber's guns, virtually impossible. But i think the fantastic closing speed would almost be too fast for the system to operate effectively. So i think a tail attack is most likely. The komet would still be travelling nearly 400 mph faster than the bomber, making aiming for defensive gunners extremely difficult and yet would be slow enough for the pilot to take good aim to be able to fly right under the bomber. I would really like to know what type of attack would have been found most effective.

excellent updated information, thank you. Very informative. The comment regarding the underside colour.....the concern was that a bright shiny underside would reflect sufficient light to prevent the photo detector from picking up the difference between it and the sky backround....i don't know how sensitive the trigger's photo receptor would have been in '44, '45 but as you said, this apparently was tested during the cell's development. By the way, is the location of the photo receptor, on the aircraft, known? As to the identity of the aircraft shot down. I still feel it was a B-17. Kelb's comments regarding the brightness of the underside of the target aircraft and as you said, he stated it was a b-17 (difficult to mistake a b-17 with a Halifax or Lancaster) seem fairly conclusive and the only evidence to the contrary is the observation of an RCAF Halifax exploding in mid air, while 3 komets were in the vicinity. But as i mentioned above, the observer would have no knowledge of the jagdfaust weapon or it's employment,and so he would not know the komet must fly under the bomber....for him to think the halifax was attacked and destroyed by a komet, he must have witnessed a conventional gun attack.. At any rate, it seems weak evidence in light of the pilot's own words. But i guess it will never be known for sure. As regards to the paint scheme, it is unfortunate this will never be known as well, it seems. I guess white 9 would be the best scheme to use, as at least it represents a camouflage pattern used by Brandis komets around the same time frame...or perhaps a scheme mimicing the one in the wonderful colour picture you posted, with a guess at the markings? Is it known from what direction Kelb attacked the bomber? eg head on, from the rear, across the wings? I don't think i have ever read or heard this but across the wings would seem to be the best approach as it gives the longest and broadest target for the weapon, but would be the most difficult approach. I find this weapon very interesting, being both very 'science fictiony' and real, all at the same time.

Hello everyone.....new member here. i read this thread with great interest. However, the jagdfaust would not have been located where you have shown on the wing. There are flight controls that run through there, so it would not have been possible to install the jagdfaust in that location. I realize the exact locaton is still uncertain, but the most likely place was in the wing root, replacing the 30mm cannons Those guns would have been removed anyway, to save weight for the jagdfaust, so it seems a logical location. Also, there were 5 tubes per wing not 4 and it is likely the tubes would have been fanned slightly, rather than parallel to each other, so as to cover a wider area with the salvo. Only one shell hit was needed to bring down a bomber, so covering a larger area would have made the chances of a hit almost a certainty, especially considering the komet would have flown at about 100 feet or so below the targeted bomber. As to the only kill being an RCAF Halifax: i realize this is currently what is 'in fashion' but i don't think it's true, unless there were actually two jagdfaust kills, instead of just one. Years ago, i read in a book the name of which escapes me now, an exerpt from Fritz Kelb's log, in German. While he doesn't name the bomber type, he does state that he was concerned prior to the attack, because of the brightness of the underside of the targeted bomber. His concern being the photo optic trigger device would not operate. Since Halfiax's were black underneath, it is far more likely the target plane was either a silver B-17 or B-24. Probably a B-17, since that is what has long been reported. Maybe there were two jagdfaust kills, with the second being a Halifax, but the observer of the Halifax being destroyed made no mention of a komet flying under the Halifax, just that a Halifax was destroyed. He would have had no knowledge of the jagdfaust's existance, nor the need for the komet to fly under the targeted bomber, so for him to state the Halifax was destroyed by a komet, suggests he witnessed a more conventional attack by the komet, which thus would have not been with the jagdfaust.. Had he witnessed a komet merely flying under the Halifax, he probably would not have thought that komet responsible for its destruction. Now i have a question: does anyone have any knowledge of the markings of the komet flown by Kelb on April 10, when he destroyed whatever bomber type it was? His usual mount was white 9 but i have never read whether that was the plane he flew and if jagdfaust had ever been intalled in it.