V1 - crosses and swastikas?

I know I've seen this, but a look through the net and the books I have on
them don't show it. OOTH I can't think of a reason for them to be carried,
the markings were to identify aircraft as to tell friend from foe. Wouldn't
think they need them, in fact it would compromise the camo. I thought open
white crosses on the top, open black on the bottom, small swastika on the
rudder? Any thoughts?
I know, it's mine, do as I please.
Tamiya 1/48 V1 with cart.
Reply to
ftauss
Loading thread data ...
they didn't carry them, that's the history. even versuchs #1 had none. they do have stencils up the ass, so get that decal sheet. if you want accuracy.
Reply to
someone
snipped-for-privacy@some.domain ( snipped-for-privacy@some.domain) wrote in news:QwVGr.114393$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-12.dc.easynews.com:
Indeed, I was impressed with the number of stencils, but curious as to why no crosses.
Reply to
ftauss
snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-12.dc.easynews.com:
Was that the version flown by Hannah Reitsch (and others, less successfully)?
Maybe because it was regarded as a bomb rather than an aircraft? Perhaps crosses/swastikas were restricted to manned aircraft? Mistel conversions might retain their former markings, but was that always true of airframes dedicated to that purpose from the outset, as I understand some Ta154 were?
Regards,
Moramarth
Reply to
Moramarth
innews:QwVGr.114393$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-12.dc.easynews.com:
I recall reading somewhere in my Luftwaffe research (on the Natter, I think) that by regulation national insignia were not to be applied to "disposable aircraft". Thus any missile, glide bomb, etc. didn't have national insignia of any kind applied to it.
Reply to
Rufus
Rufus wrote in news:qKidncuqy8Kes3DSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@mchsi.com:
That would pretty much settle that.
Thanks to all.
Reply to
ftauss
snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-12.dc.easynews.com:
Funny you shouldmention the Natter. I am currently scanning a lot of old Ai= r Trails mags and one I'm currently working on shows a Natter on display in= the U.S. post-war. On each wing is a black swastika in a white circle. Eve= ry other photo that I've seen taken from the other side indicated NO markin= gs whatsoever.
Regards, John Braungart
Reply to
The Old Man
innews:QwVGr.114393$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-12.dc.easynews.com:
Trails mags and one I'm currently working on shows a Natter on display in the U.S. post-war. On each wing is a black swastika in a white circle. Every other photo that I've seen taken from the other side indicated NO markings whatsoever.
The Book "Bachem Ba 349 Natter" by David Myhra is a very nice book on the Natter. On page 107 is a picture of the one you have likely found (Werk Nummer T2-1011; now part of the NASM collection), on post war display next to a Ju 290 in Seymour, Indiana - the photo caption reads:
"The only known Ba 349 of the two brought to the United States post war to have survived...The Ba 349s dark grey camouflage and Halkenkruez [swastika] both being incorrect and having been applied after it's capture. Disposable aircraft such as this Ba349A were not allowed by the RLM to carry Halkenkruez."
In this book, in the only pictures of actual Natters with markings on their wings the markings are either black stripes over a yellow aircraft, or one large solid white circle on one wing and one large solid white cross on the opposite wing - these are test Natters, and the markings were applied "for tracking purposes". There is also a picture of one with numbers on each wing - "2" on the port wing and "3" on the starboard, crudely painted - but other than that "operational" Natters seem to have carried no national markings at all, as described above.
Somewhere during my Luftwaffe research I saw information regarding "national markings on disposable aircraft" in general, but I can't locate it just now. However in my book "V-Missiles of the Third Reich: the V-1 and V-2"; on page 318 it says: "the display of national markings on bombs and missiles was forbidden". Which is in the same vein. So I'm pretty confident of my memory of the RLM reg...
If I figure out where I have the info (I know it's in my library someplace) I'll post a pointer.
Reply to
Rufus
i knew that was correct. i must have seen your reference somewhere.
Reply to
someone

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.