RAF bombers on Battle of Britain

[KingSargent]

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.

254896[/snapback]

The Battles were not bombing bridges in Belgium in June, the campaign had moved beyond that and if the AASF had not ben withdrawn, its ground component was in chaos.

 

The early raids in May (when it counted) were done at low level.

 

re Hoj: "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."

 

Try the Douglas O-46. There wer quite a few of them in 1940. The US didn't send them into war service bcause they knew it was obsolete - the RAF's Lysander was still tagged for the support role, and the Germans still used Hs126 for army cooperation.

[KingSargent]

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.

254975[/snapback]

The Mustang was a British aircraft, designed and built by North American to a British Air Ministry specification. If it lacked superhargers, that was because the Brits did not specify them.

 

It probably also lacked superchargers because they were going into bombers and P-38s. I wish I could find info on supercharger production, to find out if they were left off designs like P-39 because there simply weren't enough to go around.

[KingSargent]

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.

254981[/snapback]

Very true. It could be argued that the Luftwaffe lost because Milch didn't like Heinkel and kept a lid on his designs.

[DKTanker]

The Mustang was a British aircraft, designed and built by North American to a British Air Ministry specification. If it lacked superhargers, that was because the Brits did not specify them.

255017[/snapback]

 

To extend your comments. Originally the Brits merely were looking to NA to be a supplier of P-40s, said P-40s were being used for CAS and interdiction. NA thought they could, and ultimately did, design and produce a superior design. Undoubtedly NA went with an inhouse design, not merely for pride but, because they wouldn't then have to pay license fees to Curtis. As the P-51 was originally a CAS aircraft it shouldn't be a suprise that it wasn't originally equiped with a supercharger.

[D Simcock]

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

254891[/snapback]

 

I think the general trend of the forum in answering my original question, why the RAF didn't attack German airfields is that they did during the day sometimes but did very little damage and they couldn't at night because it was unfeasible.

 

My original thinking that that there were bombing raids on the ports along the northwest coast of Europe and some "precision bombing attempted of facilities (factories mainly) by the RAF at night during the middle phase of the Battle of Britain. However, further research suggests that they'd given up these so called precision bombing raids onto Germany since they weren't doing anything and concentration on finding cities at that stage.

 

I thought instead of these raids into Germany (the raids on ports had to continue to hamper the invasion fleet, so it's only the raids on Germany I'm questioning at this stage of the war), the RAF should have amassed its bombers (not Battles, but Wellingtons, Blenheims, Hampdens etc) and gone after some German airfields at night instead, as their locations were known, cities could have been used for navigation, and they would have emitted some light due to having to work through the night. While I'd aknowledge that it would be very lucky on the part of the RAF to actually hit anything valuable at night, if there were enough bombers over the target, chances are something valuable would have been hit. Even if it weren't a large scale air raid over the airfield would have at least disrupted repair operations and ruined the aircrews sleep making them less effective the next day.

However, I'll aknowledge that I was underestimating how hard it would be to actually find one of these airfields at night. Yes they'd probably emit light, but then so would most French hamlets and farmlets which would confuse the picture, which I didn't consider. If even finding the right city was hard, how would you find the right airfield. Low level attacks, no I didn't consider those, but dropping a flare to highlight the target ala the pathfinders would have been a good idea. Except that the pathfinder would very likely not find the target.

 

Cheers

[capt_starlight]

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.

254929[/snapback]

 

Please define "army co-operation" as it was thought of at the time the Lysander was conceived? The Lysander was to replace such venerable aircraft Hawker Henley and Audax and to be used in a similar role. Unfortunately the battlefield environment had moved on though it did provide valuable service in other roles that played to its strengths – loiter time, STOL capabilities, range and payload where appropriate.

 

I note that Lysanders did actually destroy aircraft and acted as the hunter if need be - including a Stuka by KO-T of 2 (Army Coop) Sqn RAF on 19MAY40 while on a recce mission to Scheldt River.

 

I note 125 were assigned to the Eighth Air Force for target towing duties….

 

Not all aircraft are a success – US had around the same timeframe the B-18 Bolo and the Brewster Buffalo.

 

If the Finns could not get it to work in what they wanted it to do – perhaps it was their employment that was wrong ?

 

Frank

 

PS the Germans were not immune either - the HS-126 survived in a benign environment but when things turned nasty they were easy meat as well.

[capt_starlight]

I think the general trend of the forum in answering my original question, why the RAF didn't attack German airfields is that they did during the day sometimes but did very little damage and they couldn't at night because it was unfeasible.

 

My original thinking that that there were bombing raids on the ports along the northwest coast of Europe and some "precision bombing attempted of facilities (factories mainly) by the RAF at night during the middle phase of the Battle of Britain.  However, further research suggests that they'd given up these so called precision bombing raids onto Germany since they weren't doing anything and concentration on finding cities at that stage.

 

I thought instead of these raids into Germany (the raids on ports had to continue to hamper the invasion fleet, so it's only the raids on Germany I'm questioning at this stage of the war), the RAF should have amassed its bombers (not Battles, but Wellingtons, Blenheims, Hampdens etc) and gone after some German airfields at night instead, as their locations were known, cities could have been used for navigation, and they would have emitted some light due to having to work through the night.  While I'd aknowledge that it would be very lucky on the part of the RAF to actually hit anything valuable at night, if there were enough bombers over the target, chances are something valuable would have been hit.  Even if it weren't a large scale air raid over the airfield would have at least disrupted repair operations and ruined the aircrews sleep making them less effective the next day. 

However, I'll aknowledge that I was underestimating how hard it would be to actually find one of these airfields at night.  Yes they'd probably emit light, but then so would most French hamlets and farmlets which would confuse the picture, which I didn't consider. If even finding the right city was hard, how would you find the right airfield.  Low level attacks, no I didn't consider those, but dropping a flare to highlight the target ala the pathfinders would have been a good idea.  Except that the pathfinder would very likely not find the target.

 

Cheers

255115[/snapback]

 

 

And you must remember that they were, in the main, gras strips with well dispersed aircraft. Makes destroying the runways near impossible even if you find them, damage is easily repaired and the aircraft are wel dispersed.

 

Attacking the crowded harbours and transport infrastructure supplying them was a much more realistic (and in the light of the circumstances of the time) and more profitable target.

 

Frank

[capt_starlight]

Very true. It could be argued that the Luftwaffe lost because Milch didn't like Heinkel and kept a lid on his designs.

255020[/snapback]

 

 

I don't know about Ernst Heinkel - because he had lost control of the organisation that bore his name by 1939 - but Milch hated Messerschmitt with a passion and the Me210 fiasco just reinforced it. Not many of his designs went onto production after that little bit - and the Ta154 was a very good aircraft undone by reliance on a single source of decent bonding agent which was destroyed by an air raid.

 

Frank

[Chris Werb]

And you must remember that they were, in the main, gras strips with well dispersed aircraft.  Makes destroying the runways near impossible even if you find them, damage is easily repaired and the aircraft are wel dispersed.

 

The RAF also lacked a weapon designed for going after such dispersed targets. Later in the war the USAAC/F used 40lb frags in great numbers against airfields. There was a parachute version used from low altitude in the Pacific. Other anti airfield weapons deployed by the Axis side included the SD-2 butterfly bomb and caltrops.

[MiloMorai]

As the P-51 was originally a CAS aircraft it shouldn't be a suprise that it wasn't originally equiped with a supercharger.

 

The Allison powered Mustangs all had superchargers as did all Allison V-1710 engines.

 

The British P-38s had superchargers but not turbochargers.

 

 

And you must remember that they were, in the main, gras strips with well dispersed aircraft. Makes destroying the runways near impossible even if you find them, damage is easily repaired and the aircraft are wel dispersed.

 

The British repaired their bombed airfields during BoB in a very short time, even quick enough in some cases to be able to receive returning a/c.

[Yama]

Please define "army co-operation" as it was thought of at the time the Lysander was conceived?  The Lysander was to replace such venerable aircraft Hawker Henley and Audax and to be used in a similar role.  Unfortunately the battlefield environment had moved on though it did provide valuable service in other roles that played to its strengths – loiter time, STOL capabilities, range and payload where appropriate.

255149[/snapback]

 

I define army co-operation as recon, spotting and bombing (and occasional drop of supply torpedo for long-range patrols). Lysander was miserable in these roles, except perhaps the last.

 

Were there better contemporary aircraft? Sure. Fokker C.X for example.

 

I note that Lysanders did actually destroy aircraft and acted as the hunter if need be  - including a Stuka by KO-T of 2 (Army Coop) Sqn RAF on 19MAY40 while on a recce mission to Scheldt River.

255149[/snapback]

 

I would be very sceptical of such claims, unless they happened under exceptional circumstances or with immense luck. Lysander is too slow and unmaneuverable to catch a Stuka, and it's offensive armament is actually inferior to Stuka's defensive armament.

 

Not all aircraft are a success – US had around the same timeframe the B-18 Bolo and the Brewster Buffalo.

255149[/snapback]

 

Nothing wrong with Buffalo as it was originally conceived. Unfortunately, USN then screwed it up with it's impossible requirements for F2A-3.

 

If the Finns could not get it to work in what they wanted it to do – perhaps it was their employment that was wrong ?

255149[/snapback]

 

Indeed - we thought it was able to do what it was designed for - silly us...

[Yama]

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.

254965[/snapback]

 

Yes, true, it was the RAF and Air Ministry and FAA which kept coming up with daft requirements. Of course all had failures, but British Powers-That-Be seem to have been more out of touch than most others. It has been said that Defiant was actually very good aircraft for the specifications it was designed - it was just the specifications itself which were flawed. Other notable example of "good aircraft, stupid requirement" would be I-153 Chaika.

[Yama]

Very true. It could be argued that the Luftwaffe lost because Milch didn't like Heinkel and kept a lid on his designs.

255020[/snapback]

 

What designs? If you refer to He-178, it should be noted that first British turbojet engine was tested in 1929 - eight years before Germans. Now that is the real "jet scandal", and not Me-262.

[Nick Sumner]

I think the general trend of the forum in answering my original question, why the RAF didn't attack German airfields is that they did during the day sometimes but did very little damage and they couldn't at night because it was unfeasible.

255115[/snapback]

 

I actually bought this up a couple of years back and I agree with you, attacks on the German fighter airfields make sense, especially as they were crammed into the Pas de Calais close to the coast.

 

I suggested that the bombing , or at least the target marking could have been accomplished by the FAA. My reasoning was (and is) that while Bomber Command in this era had difficulty finding entire countries under a full moon the FAA regularly found small ships in vast oceans and filthy weather. This seems to indicate something about the abilities of the FAAs navigators.

 

The point about denying the German pilots rest is a very important one. Even if the bombs land a mile away from the airfields its hard to sleep amid loud explosions and flying glass. Fitting a proportion of the bombs as delayed action will intensify this effect and if the bombs did land on the airfield then the delayed action ones would have to be difused before the airfield could return to operations.

 

Even if this only means the airfield is unservicable for half a day its significant in a battle as close run as the BoB.

[Nick Sumner]

Yes, true, it was the RAF and Air Ministry and FAA which kept coming up with daft requirements. Of course all had failures, but British Powers-That-Be seem to have been more out of touch than most others.

255247[/snapback]

 

I must disagree, the Germans were without doubt light years ahead of any of the others in the stupidity stakes. My favourite example is the reasons given for the awarding of the fighter contract to the Bf109 rather than the He112 which was favoured by all of the test pilots. It was because of Ernst Heinkel´s ¨Schwabian pig headedness, and his unGermanic face¨ Heinkel didn´t get the contract because he didn´t look Aryan enough.

 

And there are those who believe that the Nazis were clever...

 

[KingSargent]

What designs? If you refer to He-178, it should be noted that first British turbojet engine was tested in 1929 - eight years before Germans. Now that is the real "jet scandal", and not Me-262.

255248[/snapback]

I was thinking more of the He100D, the He280, the He"277" (four-engine He177), and the He219.

 

I disagree on the Buffalo, it was flawed, especially the weird landing gear. The early models had decent performance for the day, but that landing gear broke under carrier landing stresses. Did the Finns have problems with the landing gear?

 

The B-18, OTOH, was a pretty good plane for its day. It was equal if not superior to the He111, which was its closest contemporary. At least we replaced the B-18 before the Germans replaced the He111.

[Yama]

I must disagree, the Germans were without doubt light years ahead of any of the others in the stupidity stakes. My favourite example is the reasons given for the awarding of the fighter contract to the Bf109 rather than the He112 which was favoured by all of the test pilots. It was because of Ernst Heinkel´s ¨Schwabian pig headedness, and his unGermanic face¨ Heinkel didn´t get the contract because he didn´t look Aryan enough.

255266[/snapback]

 

That's nonsense. He-112A lost because it was slow, heavy and uninspired design. He-112B was better, but not superior to Bf-109 in a way which would have justified disturbing already ongoing Bf-109 production. Ditto for He-100D.

[Yama]

I was thinking more of the He100D, the He280, the He"277" (four-engine He177), and the He219.

255351[/snapback]

 

He-280 was not accepted to production because there was no engines for it. When engines became available, there was already superior Me-262. He-177/277 would have had almost no effect on war in any case.

 

I disagree on the Buffalo, it was flawed, especially the weird landing gear. The early models had decent performance for the day, but that landing gear broke under carrier landing stresses. Did the Finns have problems with the landing gear?

255351[/snapback]

 

I may have heard about 1 or 2 landing gear breakages. It was not considered to be a major problem, nevertheless. Tailwheel was changed to bigger, though.

 

Note that another excellent carrier-borne fighter, F4U Corsair, suffered from signifant landing gear problems too.

[Nick Sumner]

That's nonsense. He-112A lost because it was slow, heavy and uninspired design. He-112B was better, but not superior to Bf-109 in a way which would have justified disturbing already ongoing Bf-109 production. Ditto for He-100D.

255361[/snapback]

 

That´s completely at odds with everything I´ve read on the subject, The test pilots (who you might think would be listened to) were all in favour of the He112. This was the test in 1936 (?) when the competing prototypes all flew with RR Kestrals because Daimler Benz hadn´t quite finished the design of the DB600 (which they ripped off from Rolls Royce incidentally). Bf109 production had not yet begun.

 

Incidentally, make up your mind, was the He112 a ´slow, heavy and uninspired design´ or was it ´better, but not superior to Bf-109 in a way which would have justified disturbing already ongoing Bf-109 production.´ It can´t have been both.

 

The He100 had an over complex and vulnerable cooling system, TTBOMK it was never really a competitor to the 109 as the 109 was in production when the He100 was test flown.

 

Something similar happened with the Zerstorer competition, the pilots all liked theFW187 so of course the Bf110 won.

 

I guess Willy looked the part.

[Nick Sumner]

He-280 was not accepted to production because there was no engines for it. When engines became available, there was already superior Me-262.

255365[/snapback]

 

That´s not correct, there was no production line for the engines but if the Nazi heirachy had the sense God gave a mullet they could have got one started. We can all praise heaven for their stupidity.

 

He-177/277 would have had almost no effect on war in any case.

255365[/snapback]

 

That´s highly subjective, the He117 was a turkey yes but the He277 led directly to the He274 which, if it had been built, would have been a weapon as formidable as the B29. If the Germans had a strategic bomber force they could have hit the Russian factories behind the Urals and there is really no telling the results of that, so once again we wind up being thankful for Nazi idiocy.

[hojutsuka]

That´s completely at odds with everything I´ve read on the subject, The test pilots (who you might think would be listened to) were all in favour of the He112.  This was the test in 1936 (?) when the competing prototypes all flew with RR Kestrals because Daimler Benz hadn´t quite finished the design of the DB600 (which they ripped off from Rolls Royce incidentally). Bf109 production had not yet begun.

That's 1935, and the test pilots liked the He 112 because it was the sort of plane they were used to, with a huge thick wing for good maneuverability at lower speeds, comfortable cockpit, and sturdy landing gear.

 

Incidentally, make up your mind, was the He112 a ´slow, heavy and uninspired design´ or was it ´better, but not superior to Bf-109 in a way which would have justified disturbing already ongoing Bf-109 production.´ It can´t have been both.

You need to read more carefully. Yama said (bolding added for emphasis):

 

'He-112B was better, but not superior to Bf-109 in a way which would have justified disturbing already ongoing Bf-109 production.'

 

The He-112B was a radically redesigned aircraft (wing planform and structure changed, wing area reduced by 20% , fuselage fineness increased, all round view canopy adopted), and what Yama means is that the He-112B was better than the He-112A but not superior to the Bf-109.

 

The Bf-109 was the better choice. AApart from higher speed and better climb, it was designed for rapid production.

 

Hojutsuka

[KingSargent]

The He100 had an over complex and vulnerable cooling system, TTBOMK it was never really a competitor to the 109 as the 109 was in production when the He100 was test flown.

 

255480[/snapback]

The He100 speed-record race plane had the surface area cooling. The He100D was a fighter, designed to be cheaper than the Bf109, better landing qualities, over 400 mph, and twice the radius of action. I'd say that was a significant improvement.

 

The He277 did not lead to the He274, they were parallel developments of the He177. Heinkel had been trying to get rid of the flammable DB606 engines (and the asinine dive-bombing requirement), the RLM insisted on them, Heinkel finally got away round when Hitler asked why he couldn't have four-engine bombers and Heinkel said the He277 would do it.

 

I don't think the Germans could have sustained a large strategic bomber force, they couldn't sustain their smaller planes. I see no reason to believe that He277s over the Urals would knock the USSR out of the war when thousands of Allied four-engine bombers over the Reich did not knock Germany out - they definitely contributed, but the Bomber Barons had said they could win the war all on their lonesomes and they didn't.

[Pachy]

The Vindicator was a dive-bomber, and nobody except the Germans envisioned such a role in a land-based air arm.

254742[/snapback]

The Armée de l'air was planning to do so, ordered the LN.411 which was merely an un-navalized variant of the LN.401, then rejected the plane. So there were no dive bombing units in the AdA in May 1940, only "assault bombers" with a strong forward armament and time-delayed bombs, and using nap-of-the-earth tactics (Breguet 691, 693 and 695). But the idea hadn't been abandoned, and several US aircraft projects were considered for that role (from Brewster and Vultee mostly).

[JohnB]

So there were no dive bombing units in the AdA in May 1940, only "assault bombers" with a strong forward armament and time-delayed bombs, and using nap-of-the-earth tactics (Breguet 691, 693 and 695).

255575[/snapback]

 

Any idea how well these bombers did against the German bridges across the Meuse?

 

As I understand it, the Advanced Air Striking Force actually lost most of their Battles and Blenheims to Flak rather than German fighters.

[Pachy]

Any idea how well these bombers did against the German bridges across the Meuse?

255587[/snapback]

I have to check but out of memory assault bomber units did not target the bridges themselves. They were probably sent against troop concentrations near the bridges though. But the attemps to destroy the bridges were almost entirely by the AASF, a few conventional French bombers (LeO.451s) did take part in that unsuccesful effort though.