RAF bombers on Battle of Britain

[Tony Williams]

British aeronautical industry was not up to all-metal attack bombers, they had fabric covered fighters (Hurricanes) and bombers (Wellesley, Wellington), and they had to go to WOOD for their best airplane...  

254301[/snapback]

Very sensible too! A good-quality moulded plywood monocoque structure still has an impressive strength-weight ratio - rather better than that of aluminium alloy in WW2, I believe.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Yama]

Which is actually quite surprising, considering that the RAF fighters were primarily concerned with stopping the bombers, and engaged the escorting fighters only when they had to. The German fighters, OTOH, were there only to shoot down the RAF fighters, so you would have expected that the Luftwaffe would have achieved a better kill ratio against the RAF fighters.

254413[/snapback]

 

IIRC, kill ratio with fighters was around 1:5 to 1 to LW's favour. Spitfire had only minor disadvantage vs 109, Hurricane suffered about 2:1. Bf-110 not included...

 

Luftwaffe suffered from inexperience at such large-scale bomber escort operations (took quite a while from everyone to get right) and short time-over-target.

[larrikin]

Exactly how do these bombers even find their targets?

 

In fall of 1941 (i.e. after a full year of experience in night bombing) a RAF survey showed that only one in three bombers were dropping their bombs within 5 miles of the Aiming Point.  This was trying to hit industrial targets, so it means that 66% of the bombers were not even finding the right city.

 

The airfields used by the Luftwaffe in 1940 were not huge visible things that modern airports like Kennedy or Heathrow are today.  Many of them were basically large level open fields with tents or (in more permanent fields) small buildings and hangars scattered about, often actually camouflaged.  With aircrew that were not even as experienced in night bombing as in 1941, how do you propose to find a darkened camouflaged field somewhere in France at night?

 

Hojutsuka

254406[/snapback]

 

Aerial navigation was far from and exact science in the early 40s. Wartime was a harsh teacher, and it improved rapidly, but as an example on the other side, US aircraft in the SWP were having trouble finding things as big as archipelagos (the Solomons), the worlds second biggest island (New Guinea), and the worlds smallest continent (Australia) on the home. This was flying in daylight.

[DKTanker]

Aerial navigation was far from and exact science in the early 40s.  Wartime was a harsh teacher, and it improved rapidly, but as an example on the other side, US aircraft in the SWP were having trouble finding things as big as archipelagos (the Solomons), the worlds second biggest island (New Guinea), and the worlds smallest continent (Australia) on the home.  This was flying in daylight.

254466[/snapback]

 

You could also add US aircrews not being able to find the continent of Africa returning from raids on the balkans.

[KingSargent]

You could also add US aircrews not being able to find the continent of Africa returning from raids on the balkans.

254470[/snapback]

Africa raided the Balkans??!! How did it manage that?

[baboon6]

I think he's talking about one of the Ploesti raids, the B-24s took off from Benghazi.

[swerve]

Which is actually quite surprising, considering that the RAF fighters were primarily concerned with stopping the bombers, and engaged the escorting fighters only when they had to. The German fighters, OTOH, were there only to shoot down the RAF fighters, so you would have expected that the Luftwaffe would have achieved a better kill ratio against the RAF fighters.

 

Tony Williams

 

But it was a much better ratio than the RAF got over France & the Low Countries when they started fighter sweeps for the sole purpose of shooting down LW fighters, & IIRC the LW was handicapped by orders to carry out close escort - though they weren't always followed. And as Yama has pointed out, the ratio was better when it was limited to single-engine fighters.

[Yama]

Very sensible too! A good-quality moulded plywood monocoque structure still has an impressive strength-weight ratio - rather better than that of aluminium alloy in WW2, I believe.

forum

254415[/snapback]

 

Nothing wrong with wood as such, except that it is quite laborous to make and detoriates quickly. Lavotchkin fighters were also mostly wood. Finnish 'Pyörremyrsky' had roughly equal performance to Bf-109, despite being wooden.

[larrikin]

Yes but I think sargent made the point that it wasnt obsolete compared to japanese designs. Dont get me wrong im not in love with the machine, but supposing we were fighting japan in 1939, it would have a rather better reputation than it actually got fighting the Jerries. Ultimately it gave the RAF a monoplane bomber and relatively faster than those which it replaced. Its real problem was that it was used against the best airforce in the world, where no mediocre warplane would show its best.

 

Im a great fan of the Blenheim, but I think the growth potential in it was near nonexistant by 1940. If it was, you would have seen updated versions used later in the war. As it was, it did some pretty good service in the early part of the war (and was rather better than reputation has it) and it did pave the way for other Bristol products. The worst that can be said of it was that it was not much worse than some other early German tactical bombers.

 

Of course, what we SHOULD have been building was lots of A20s...

254293[/snapback]

 

The Blenheim was designed as a fast bomber, able to outrun enemy fighters, ala the DH9 and the Mosquito. When it entered service it could, but then fighters caught up to it. It was the speed factor that led to it's very slim fuselage and inadequate defensive armament (one flexible Vickers K in the rear). However, Embrey had many mods made in sqdn service, like fitting Brownings in the engine nacelles, replacing the Vickers with twin Brownings in the rear, adding a downward firing Browning at feet of the gunner, etc.

 

The Blennie went through four marks, but for some reason, it was given up on, as the designers and engineers at Bristol regarded it as not viable for upgrades, even those that Embrey's acks carried out on base. Newer more powerful engines could have kept them a good viable aircraft for at least another couple of years, and they could have done things like fit them with a gun nose of 20mms ala the Mosquito or Beaufighter. What was interesting was that Bristol developed the Beaufighter heavy fighter out of a larger slower medium bomber, when a similar development program on the Blenheim may have produced a superior aircraft to the excellent Whispering Death.

[Nick Sumner]

British aeronautical industry was not up to all-metal attack bombers, they had fabric covered fighters (Hurricanes) and bombers (Wellesley, Wellington), and they had to go to WOOD for their best airplane...  

254301[/snapback]

 

Cobblers

 

 

1. If your going to go on one of your Brit bashing sprees get the right Brits to bash. UK Industry developed 2 very good attack bombers The Henly and the Fulmar prototype (forget the type number). It was the bomber barons who failed to use either of these potentially excellent replacements to the Squadrons. The Fairy type was stressed for dive bombing by the way.

 

2. Try and remember the war started in September 1939. What were the USAAF and USN using? Northrop A17? Vought Vindicator? I´m not knocking either of these types I´m just trying to acquaint you with the state of the art.

 

3. Your always needlessly cantankerous at this time of year. I realise the sun isn´t coming up for another 3 months but cant you just buy yourself a grow lamp?

 

[Von Richter]

Any Battle pilot who'd survived France must have been heartbroken... when they dragged him, kicking and screaming, onto a Spitfire Squadron when he was most likely praying to go on Defiants.

[KingSargent]

Cobblers

 

 

1. If your going to go on one of your Brit bashing sprees get the right Brits to bash. UK Industry developed 2 very good attack bombers The Henly and the Fulmar prototype (forget the type number). It was the bomber barons who failed to use either of these potentially excellent replacements to the Squadrons. The Fairy type was stressed for dive bombing by the way. But the Bomber Barons are so easy.... I wanted to stick my tongue in my cheek at the rest of the Air Ministry.

BTW, an airframe being stressed for dive-bombing does not mean it is equipped for dive bombing, nor that pilots are trained for it. Suppose you tell me how the bombs are supposed to come out of of those wing cells in a vertical dive (which was claimed for the Battle when this first came up).

BTW#2, what "potentially excellent replacements to the Squadrons" are we talking about here? To be a replacement you must replace something with the same mission, and the RAF had neglected close support since 1919.

 

2. Try and remember the war started in September 1939. What were the USAAF and USN using? Northrop A17? Vought Vindicator? I´m not knocking either of these types I´m just trying to acquaint you with the state of the art. Oh, I know plenty about the state of the art, thank you.

The point is not so much what types were being flown as what their missions were: the Shrike was intended for close support of ground troops, the RAF had nothing in that role. The Vindicator was a dive-bomber, and nobody except the Germans envisioned such a role in a land-based air arm.

My point was that one cannot claim the Battle was a dive-bomber when it was not designed or equipped for the role, the pilots were not trained for it, and it never did it.

 

3. Your always needlessly cantankerous at this time of year. I realise the sun isn´t coming up for another 3 months but cant you just buy yourself a grow lamp? My cantankerosity has nothing to do with the blessed night that falls on the Northland at this season; it's the fornicating Christmas decorations and music that piss me off!

[D Simcock]

I wonder if the missions at night would have been more successful if all bombers concentrated on one target. The shorter mission runs in attacking airfields in France and Holland would have helped decrease the attrition rate, and concentration may have meant that more bombs actually hit the target (I think results in general show that bombing with small numbers of aircraft at night (i.e. less than 20) at this stage of the war was generally ineffective. Do not forget that these airfields were located in what had been until very recently friendly and/or allied natons. The RAF could scatter bombs all over Germany (and Denmark when they missed Germany) with impunity (to both sides), but one would expect the Queen of the Netherlands to be a trifle upset about bombs being strewn over her subjects. Look how upset the French got over that little Mers-el-Kebir incident.

 

Sargent, why don't you put that flamethrower away. Afraid I'll set your wood and canvas planes on fire?

254407[/snapback]

 

I wondered of hitting local populations was a factor. I recall that this was a factor against attacking industrial centres outside of Germany, which generally was avoided by the allies in preference for targets in Germany (where civilian populations were almost the priority target). I think the most famous exception was the USAF bombing a factory in France (Rennes was it?).

 

I'm well aware (in relation to someone else's comments) that a German aerodrome in France wasn't equivalent to an airport today in terms of its visibility, but how much harder was it to find compared with other targets? Most cities in France were not subject to blackout in 1940, though I thought that most of the north European coast was. Cities and towns were useful navigational markers (the Germans used them over Britain when they could, and even used Dublin's lights to get a fix on Liverpool). Also, Luftwaffe ground crews did quite a lot of work at night to get their aircraft serviceable for daylight missions, so it seems doubtful they were completely blacked out. So I'd have thought they were feasible targets. Not that I'm saying they would have been easy to hit, but then nothing was at that time, as results showed. Maybe this question is partly answered in that the Germans themselves tended to attack RAF airfields in the day and only area targets at night, so maybe an airfield was just too hard to find.

 

With regards to that flamthrower, it just makes me nervous because you tend to aim hurt your allies as much as your enemies with it. Old habits die hard.

[swerve]

With regards to that flamthrower, it just makes me nervous because you tend to aim hurt your allies as much as your enemies with it.  Old habits die hard.

 

C'mon mate, he wasn't in the USAF, was he?

[Yama]

British aircraft industry did develope Spitfire, Lancaster and Mosquito. But they also developed Battle, Defiant and Lysander. I judge their track record uneven

 

Oh, and Wellesley. When I was kid, my pal built 1:72 model of Vickers Wellesley. I thought it was one strange machine and I couldn't understand what it was used for. Huge wings, quite a big fuselage and one tiny engine. "That could not have been very fast or maneuverable", I thought. My conclusion was that it had been some sort of transport or maritime reconnaissance aircraft. Many years later I learnt that it was a bomber, and those funny underwing pods were actually for bomb carriage, and not fuel as I had imagined. "You gotta be kidding me" was my reaction.

 

Wasn't Wellesley the plane which was supposed to bomb Soviet oilfields in Caucasus and deliver crippling blow to Soviet war machine? There is not enough adjectives in the world to describe how stupid that plan sounds in retrospect...

[Animal Mother]

Wasn't Wellesley the plane which was supposed to bomb Soviet oilfields in Caucasus and deliver crippling blow to Soviet war machine? There is not enough adjectives in the world to describe how stupid that plan sounds in retrospect...

254800[/snapback]

 

Well, i suppose one could hope that the burning wreckages of the shot down Wellesleys would fall on the oil fields and start fires

[Von Richter]

"British aircraft industry"

 

Also put summat called a Merlin engine into a piece of worthless Yankee shit called Muztang.

[hojutsuka]

I wondered of hitting local populations was a factor.  I recall that this was a factor against attacking industrial centres outside of Germany, which generally was avoided by the allies in preference for targets in Germany (where civilian populations were almost the priority target).  I think the most famous exception was the USAF bombing a factory in France (Rennes was it?).

French ports with U-boat bases (Brest, St. Nazaire, etc.) were very heavily bombed.

 

I'm well aware (in relation to someone else's comments) that a German aerodrome in France wasn't equivalent to an airport today in terms of its visibility, but how much harder was it to find compared with other targets?  Most cities in France were not subject to blackout in 1940, though I thought that most of the north European coast was.  Cities and towns were useful navigational markers (the Germans used them over Britain when they could, and even used Dublin's lights to get a fix on Liverpool).  Also, Luftwaffe ground crews did quite a lot of work at night to get their aircraft serviceable for daylight missions, so it seems doubtful they were completely blacked out.  So I'd have thought they were feasible targets.  Not that I'm saying they would have been easy to hit, but then nothing was at that time, as results showed.  Maybe this question is partly answered in that the Germans themselves tended to attack RAF airfields in the day and only area targets at night, so maybe an airfield was just too hard to find.

That was me. What other targets? Night bombing (except for very specially trained units and targets like the 617 Squadron and the dams) meant city bombing in World War II, and as you point out, cities are much easier to find. Cities have a fixed and known location. Even if a city is blacked out, there is normally a watercourse running through it, and European cities all have railroads, which show up well in moonlight, converging on them.

 

As for Luftwaffe ground crews working at night, yes, its likely that there would be some leakage of light some of the time. On the other hand, this is the French countryside. How likely is it that the French farmers are obeying the blackout strictly? After all, this is the countryside and why should we do what those sale Boches tell us? Given that you (the RAF) don't want to waste most of your bombs on French farmers, you have to make sure that the light you saw is a German airfield. So you need to fly over it very low, with possibly a flare to help you see. Any Luftwaffe airfield will have light AA. If your bomber stooging around doesn't alert the FLAK gunners, your low level pass and flare certainly will. When you come in for the bomb run, the FLAK gunners will be ready and waiting. And the bomber will show up against the sky (whether clear or with high cloud cover) a lot better than the airfield installations will show up against the dark ground. You are more likely to lose bombers than you are to damage airfields (hard to do, unless you hit the aircraft/hangars, or get really lucky and hit the communications tent/hut or the sleeping aircrew).

 

All this is in addition to the real drawback of your scheme. Since the bomber crews are not trained for night flying (I think you were proposing to use the Battles) over enemy territory at low altitude (only way to find Luftwaffe airfields), operational losses will be crippling IMHO. Never mind the enemy. Forcing untrained aircrew to fly at night low over territory with no navigational aids will result in high losses.

 

Hojutsuka

[hojutsuka]

British aircraft industry did develope Spitfire, Lancaster and Mosquito. But they also developed Battle, Defiant and Lysander. I judge their track record uneven 

Yama, what is wrong with the Lysander? Sure, it didn't shoot down German fighters. But it had a reasonable payload and a good STOL performance. It performed sterling service throughout the war, flying people and supplies into and out of occupied territories in support of the Resistance movements, something that I don't think any other Allied aircraft could have done.

 

Hojutsuka

[larrikin]

<snip>

 

My point was that one cannot claim the Battle was a dive-bomber when it was not designed or equipped for the role, the pilots were not trained for it, and it never did it.[/b]

 

<snip>

254742[/snapback]

 

Battle pilots taught themselves to dive bomb, and used the technique on bridges in Belgium in May and June 1940. They technique they used was a vertical dive from about 16k feet to pull out at about 1,200, and point of release was right at pull out. Not ideal , but doable, and reasonably accurate. While they weren't designed as dive bombers, and had their bombs in cells in the wings, they could actually do, and did, it. Think of it as a variant on toss bombing, but done in a different direction.

[Yama]

Yama, what is wrong with the Lysander?  Sure, it didn't shoot down German fighters.  But it had a reasonable payload and a good STOL performance.  It performed sterling service throughout the war, flying people and supplies into and out of occupied territories in support of the Resistance movements, something that I don't think any other Allied aircraft could have done.

254891[/snapback]

 

But that's not what it was designed for. Sure, you can use shit as a fertilizer too, but it is still shit...

 

Finns tried to use Lysander for its' original role, Army co-operation plane. It blew big time. Bomb load was tiny and accurate bombing impossible. Two forward-firing machineguns were located in the landing gears, which of course were flexible, meaning that spread when firing was enormous. But the worst part was that survivability was nil; it was slow and sluggish, and wings were weak and would break if you attempted to dive.

[hojutsuka]

But that's not what it was designed for.

Battle, Defiant, and Lysander ... And you want to judge them according to what they were designed for ...

 

Yama, I think you are blaming the British aircraft industry for the sins of RAF. The problems with these aircraft were inherent in their requirements and specifications. U.S. aircraft industry couldn't have done any better with such specifications. Look at the Bell YFM-1 Aircuda for what could be done by the U.S. Army Air Corps...

 

Hojutsuka

[Nick Sumner]

British aircraft industry did develope Spitfire, Lancaster and Mosquito. But they also developed Battle, Defiant and Lysander. I judge their track record uneven 

 

Wasn't Wellesley the plane which was supposed to bomb Soviet oilfields in Caucasus and deliver crippling blow to Soviet war machine? There is not enough adjectives in the world to describe how stupid that plan sounds in retrospect...

254800[/snapback]

 

All the major aircraft industries had their share of abject failures, the vaunted (but in MHO vastly overated and deeply average German aircraft industry produced staggering numbers of turkeys. Look up the Bomber B program - laughable, The Ta 154 Moskito - ridiculous, Me 210 - an asset to the allies, jet engines that only lasted 10 hours etc, etc, oh and the TA 183 jet ´wunderwaffen´ check the performance figures of the Hs 011 engine against the contemporary UK and US designs - pitiful. It couldn´t have outperformed the best allied piston types let alone the jets.

 

Why is a plan to make war on an industrial economy by destroying its fuel source stupid?

[Nick Sumner]

"British aircraft industry"

 

Also put summat called a Merlin engine into a piece of worthless Yankee shit called Muztang.

254813[/snapback]

 

There´s no need for that - the Mustang was an excellent aircraft held back by the stupidity of whatever the American equivalent of the air ministry is/was that denied its Allison engine a decent supercharger. The Merlin lump was better than the Allison yes, but not by much, the difference lay in the supercharging.

 

You have however raised the important point that it wasn´t just the UK aircraft industry that had to battle witless bureacrats. The P38 was also held back by the supercharging issue.

[Nick Sumner]

But the Bomber Barons are so easy.... I wanted to stick my tongue in my cheek at the rest of the Air Ministry.

 

True, but my point is that this wasn´t unique to Britain, all the major aircraft industries had moronic bureaucrats to battle.

 

BTW#2, what "potentially excellent replacements to the Squadrons" are we talking about here? To be a replacement you must replace something with the same mission, and the RAF had neglected close support since 1919.

 

Both the Hawker Henly and the aircraft that was developed into the Fairy Fulmar began life in a 1934 spec for a fast light bomber to replace the Battle. Both would have been significantly better than the battle in both the light bomber and close support roles (though as you mention close support was a lost art to the RAF). I forget the exact reasons (I´m far from my references) but for bad reasons that didn´t even seem that good at the time the battle was retained and the Henly (which was judged the better aircraft of the two new designs) produced only as a target tug.

 

My cantankerosity has nothing to do with the blessed night that falls on the Northland at this season; it's the fornicating Christmas decorations and music that piss me off!

 

I hear you. I´m currently in Peru where (Heaven be praised) the Yuletide consumer orgy is less all pervasive than in Europe or North America. I´ll be back to it on Friday though...