Cannon to Right, Cannon to the Left, Cannon being copied all around Them

The first “set” of W. Britains I acquired as a child I still have, but it was not a set of toy soldiers, but a field gun. Set No. 1201 Royal Artillery Gun, was one of many magnificent fully operational model guns Britains produced to accompany their sets of toy soldiers. It appears to be an accurate copy of the Ordnance, Quick-firing, 18 pdr, used extensively by the British Army as it’s standard in World War I. The toy gun was produced from 1932 to 1967. It came in at least two colors I'm aware of, an olive drab (Official designation: Khaki Green 3 or SCC 2), and the later British Army ordnance dark green (Official designation: Olive Green SCC 15). The gun also came in a shade of dark blue for a period of approximately a year. 

View of an original W. Britains Royal Artillery Gun in
the late Olive Green SCC 15

The same gun from a different angle 

Again a side view of the gun

Exact same gun in the earlier olive drab color
also showing one of the earlier boxes

W. Britains Set No. 39, King's Troop Royal
Horse Artillery. Last configuration.

Principal different being that the hydraulic recoil buffer tube on the model is under the barrel (like the QF 15 Pdr Mk I) and the splinter screen is of a slightly different configuration from the real gun, actually permitting higher elevation in the toy.

Further enhancing the toy was Britains adaptation of the Mk IV carriage, a box trail. This eliminated the original central pole trail, which had restricted elevation on the real gun, allowing increased elevation to 37.5 degrees and hence increased maximum range from 6525 to 9300 yards with the 2 charge shell.

Due to the fact that Britains incorporated this gun in an update of Set No. 39 King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery with Gun, Limber, Team, and Escort galloping, some confusion arose. The Royal Horse Artillery employed the Ordnance, Quick-firing 13 pdr, a smaller, lighter version of the 18 pdr, but very similar in overall configuration. See a direct comparison of the two guns in the following photographs and in the video below. Perhaps Britains was using the 13 pdr as its prototype.

Ordnance, Quick-firing 18 pdr, the "real thing"

Ordnance, Quick-firing 18 pdr the "business end"

A side view of the Ordnance, Quick-firing, 18 pdr, showing
one of the early models of the gun with the central pole
trail which saved weight, but unfortunately restricted the
 elevation, and consequently the range of the gun.

A detail of the actual gun. Note in the background the
 standard British Army Anti-aircraft Searchlight which
 Britains also produced as a working model in Sets No.
1640 and 1718

Britains Set No. 1718. Note fine wires which could be
connected to dry cell batteries

A close-up of the Ordnance, Quick-firing 13 pdr.
Note shorter caliber (barrel length) of gun compared
 with the 18 pdr.

King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery deploying a 13 pdr
for ceremonial "Royal Salute"

All of this background is merely intended to show the care and accuracy, with which Britains researched all of their product line.

The main purpose of this blog page however is to show a classic example of plagiarism which occurred (polite term for outright design theft), even though Britains included the word “copyright” embossed in the underside of the gun carriage. The example shown is a Japanese copy, and at least is embossed “Japan”, and probably produced in the post-WWII years, judging from its condition. As can clearly be seen in the photographs, an excellent piece of reverse engineering. The only readily discernible differences being the lack of the slight "lip" at the muzzle, and the lack of a bend in the tip of the breech mechanism of the copy. It is not known how many of these flagrant counterfeits were actually produced, or remain in existence.

Britains had to continuously fight this issue throughout its company history. To quote from Joe Wallis’ excellent book, Armies of the World Britains Ltd. Lead Soldiers 1925-1941;

            “One measure of its success was that Britains soon found it necessary to sue “pirates” of their figure designs. Warnings featuring the details of their successful lawsuits are found in their early catalogs, aimed at deterring such misappropriations. Paper labels with copyright notices were also affixed after 1900 to the underside of the base of each infantry figure. Beginning in 1900 for mounted figures, and in 1904 for foot figures, the copyright notice and date of issue were engraved in the mold itself so that a more permanent marking was made on each item. The Sculpture Copyright Act was altered in 1911 so that a date marked on each piece was no longer required for protection – and the company’s name and “Made in England” were inscribed on the base thereafter. In 1926 the Britains Ltd. trademark was officially recorded with the registration number of 459993 (which helps in determining how early a particular box label might be. If it lacks the number 459993 near the trademark on the box label, then the box predates 1926). Other British firms such as Johillco, Reka, and Taylor and Barrett, adopted the hollowcasting process, but developed their own designs that avoided copyright infringement, even though the same hollowcasting technique was being used by them. Britains had so overcome the German dominance of the English toy market that there was room for these and other smaller British enterprises.”

For those who may be interested this video is a short presentation of the Ordnance, Quick-firing 13pdr and 18pdr employed as the main field artillery pieces of the British Army in WWI.

A Comparison of the WWII GAL 49/50 Hamilcar Mk I and AS.51 Horsa Mk I Gliders

Because of the sustained popularity of the pages in this blog regarding the WWII General Aircraft Ltd. GAL 49 Hamilcar Mk I Heavy Assault Glider, as well as the Airspeed AS.51 Horsa Mk I Glider, thought it might be beneficial to present a one-on-one comparison of both aircraft.

As can be seen in some of the photographs of personnel standing under the wing of a Horsa, it was not a small aircraft. However, it was dwarfed by the Hamilcar. Even though it was only a foot longer in overall length, the fuselage and the wing span and area of the Hamilcar far exceeded that of the Horsa. Obviously it was these dimensions that provided the massive payload capacity of the glider, which was well over double that of the Horsa. The wing span of the Hamilcar exceeded that of the Horsa by 22 ft. and the wing area by 553.5 ft².

A AS.51 Horsa Mk I showing the 25 air landing troops
embarking, which comprised the glider's full capacity

Also note the disparity in the vertical stabilizer design of the two aircraft. Stability and control is a compromise between the two factors. And overly stable airplane will tend to resist any change in direction, and a very nimble aircraft would require constant adjustments to keep flying straight .

The stabilizing effect of the vertical tail surface is a function of its size and the distance between its location and the position of the center of gravity of the airplane; so a smaller tail located further aft would be as stable as a larger tail that is kept closer. A simple matter of leverage. Compared to the Horsa, the center of gravity of the Hamilcar was much further forward on the glider due to the positioning and distribution of their vastly differing payloads.

While not of a calculated precise scale, the drawings which are shown are approximately proportional to each other (with a slight error which occurs in transferring images; this can be corrected by enlarging and copying off-line), affording a direct comparison of the size of the two gliders. It is unfortunate that accurate original plans for the Hamilcar seem to be non-existent.

Profile of the General Aircraft Ltd. GAL 49 Hamilcar Mk I

Top View of the GAL 49 Hamilcar Mk I

General Aircraft Ltd. GAL 49 Hamilcar Mk I General characteristics

• Crew: 2
• Capacity: 7 tons (17,500 lbs)
• Length: 68 ft (20.73 m)
• Wingspan: 110 ft (33.53 m)
• Height: 20 ft 3 in (6.17 m)
• Wing area: 1,657.5 ft² (153.98 m²)
• Airfoil: RAF.34 modified
• Empty weight: 18,400 lb (8,346 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 36,000 lb (16,329 kg)

Performance

• Never exceed speed: 187 mph (300 km/h)
• Maximum speed: 150 mph (240 km/h)
• Stall speed: 65 mph (105 km/h)
• Wing loading: 22.37 lb/ft² (109.2 kg/m²)

Profile of the Airspeed AS.51 Horsa Mk I

Top View of the AS.51 Horsa Mk I

Airspeed AS.51 Horsa Mk I General characteristics

• Crew: 2
• Capacity: 25 troops (20-25 troops were the "standard" load – 7,130 lbs)
• Length: 67 ft 0 in (20.43 m)
• Wingspan: 88 ft 0 in (26.83 m)
• Height: 19 ft 6 in (5.95 m)
• Wing area: 1,104 ft² (102.6 m²)
• Empty weight: 8,370 lb (3,804 kg)
• Loaded weight: 15,500 lb (7,045 kg)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 150 mph on tow; 100 mph gliding (242 km/h / 160 km/h)
• Stall speed (fully loaded): 69 mph (flaps up), 55 mph (flaps down).

Wing loading: 14.0 lb/ft² (68.7 kg/m²)

A side-by-side profile view of the two gliders showing the more box-like voluminous fuselage of the Hamilcar, as compared with the narrower tubular fuselage of the Horsa. 

The following are detailed cut-aways of each glider showing both design and structural features. As can  be seen both aircraft had an airframe constructed entirely out of wood.

An additional segment of historical film footage showing the Hamilcar glider in flight, as well as unloading some of the many heavy payloads it could carry.

Admiral Harry E. Yarnell, USN - A Unique Perspective on History circa 1937

In this current period of an evolving and unsettled world it may be both interesting and instructive to recall history, and what was occurring in the world in the mid to late 1930’s. Less than a year prior to Germany’s occupation of the Sudetenland in October of 1938, the United States was involved in a major provocation by Japan during its invasion of China, specifically in December 1937, during the Battle of Nanking.

Admiral Harry E. Yarnell, USN
Commander-in-Chief US Asiatic Fleet
1936-1939

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN
Commander-in-Chief US Pacific Fleet

By uncanny coincidence both Admiral Harry E. Yarnell and future Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, discussed in depth in an article in this blog regarding the planning for the attack on Pearl Harbor (http://arnhemjim.blogspot.com/p/military-strategy.html), were involved in the incident, one directly the other indirectly. As a then Captain, Nimitz had commanded the heavy cruiser USS Augusta (CA-31) in 1934 -1936, a relatively new ship, having been commissioned in 1930. The Augusta was to become ADM Yarnell’s flagship during his tour as Commander-in-Chief, Asiatic Fleet. During that tour is when the bombing and subsequent sinking of the USS Panay (PR-5), a River Class Gunboat, by Japanese naval aircraft, occurred in December 1937 on the Yangtze River. The incident, like so many others, quickly slipped into obscurity, forgotten in time. The only transient reminder (but not directly related) being the movie “Sand Pebbles” starring Steve McQueen and Richard Attenborough, released in 1966.

USS Augusta (CA-31)
Flagship US Asiatic Fleet circa 1937

USS Panay (PR-5) River Class Gunboat circa 1937

Preliminary proposed naval architect's design for the River Class gunboats dated 1924. Note the flat bottom, as well as the tunnels for the diesel engine driven propellers, both design features intended to minimize potential damage from the Yangtze River bottom, shoals and sandbars. The image can be enlarged in order to improve legibility.

I had the good fortune a number of years ago to be able to borrow and copy a set of files containing ADM Yarnell’s personal correspondence, as well as that of his chief-of-staff, written at that exact period in history. The files had been retained in the possession of CAPT R. F. McConnell, ADM Yarnell’s Chief-of-Staff at the time. They provide original source documentation written within a “window of history”, and a unique perspective on the time and events leading up to World War II.

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, USN
Chief of Naval Operations
1937-1939

Not intending to bore anyone, the following are just some brief vignettes into history. The composition and content of the correspondence mix a perspective on significant historical world events on the same page with a reminder about “not forgetting golf clubs”, and queries about wife and family. This was privileged personal correspondence. Who, even in this day in age, would begin official correspondence to the then Chief of Naval Operations with, “My Dear Leahy” (Admiral William D. Leahy)? One clarification, Captain Harold M. “Cap” Bemis, was naval intelligence, and Naval Attache to Japan at the time. Admiral John Marquart commanded the Yangtze River Patrol. With regard to quality of the copies, please try and appreciate that they are reproductions by a copy machine about 4 decades ago of already aging pieces of paper.

                                  

The following is a contemporary newsreel film of what was called the "Panay Incident", and in its real time coverage is considered as sensationalism in its format, but as well certainly unique.