fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
To be fair to the RAF what airforce in 1935 was planning on carrying anything bigger than a 500lb bomb internally.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Dive bombers are not only required to do close support of the army. They can attack bridges and roads, railroads and marshaling yards, ports and ships, troops concentration, different vehicles - both soft-skinned and armored - that they meet in the target area. Dedicated forward/embedded officers are nor required for such tasks, even if they are necessary for the tasks of close air support to work well.
Perhaps.Seems like someone reported it partially wrong?
You are overlooking all the other changes, including "The Vickers main undercarriage units were similar to but larger than those of the Blenheim and used hydraulic retraction, with a cartridge operated emergency lowering system" Blenheim did use hydraulic retraction but you do need larger, heavier landing gear for a 21,000lb airplane than you do for a 14,000lb airplane. The wing could easily have been lighter on the Beaufort, with the much larger fuselage, increased equipement, heavier engines, props and landing gear these could all have out weighed whatever weight saving there was in the wing.Stronger it certainly was at Beufort, both when looking at tare weight of the whole aircraft, max permissible weight, ability to morph into Beaufighter without much of calamity, and the G load.
Lighter wing - I'd say no. Beaufort weighted - tare weight - between 12760 and 14000 lbs, Blenheim started at 8077 lbs, went to ~ 9250-9800 lbs to Mk.IV, and 10650 lbs on Mk.V (that also had a 3 ft longer nose).
Blenheim was already too big for it's engines, speed went quickly down from respectable 286 mph for the Mk.I to 260-266 for the Mk.IV. Being slower and bigger makes it easier to shot down both for enemy fighters and AAA.
Perhaps.
From wiki so usual cautions.
from the entry on the Beaufort.
"The basic structure, although similar to the Blenheim, introduced refinements such as the use of high-strength light alloy forgings and extrusions in place of high-tensile steel plates and angles; as a result the structure was lighter than that of the Blenheim.[11][N 3] "
The reference is to Bristol aircraft since 1910 by C.H. Barnes, the N3 note says (unattributed) "The added weight of the Beaufort was due to the additional equipment and crew accommodation, plus the heavier engines. "
You are overlooking all the other changes, including "The Vickers main undercarriage units were similar to but larger than those of the Blenheim and used hydraulic retraction, with a cartridge operated emergency lowering system" Blenheim did use hydraulic retraction but you do need larger, heavier landing gear for a 21,000lb airplane than you do for a 14,000lb airplane. The wing could easily have been lighter on the Beaufort, with the much larger fuselage, increased equipement, heavier engines, props and landing gear these could all have out weighed whatever weight saving there was in the wing.
The Blenheim got some rather questionable "improvements" during it's career, the 260-266mph version looked like this
The fuel dump tubes didn't help and you could probably pick up some speed by getting rid of the under chin reward firing gun mount. Increased drag slowed the plane down as much or more than the weight alone. Top turret is always a question. Since it was semi-retractable, one always wonders if the speed quoted is with the turret up or down. A bit of time spent on cleaning up some of the more obvious drag problems might have paid dividends (or gotten the plane a lot closer to the 280mph mark)
For RAF, their gear is the topic here.
Dive bombers are not only required to do close support of the army. They can attack bridges and roads, railroads and marshaling yards, ports and ships, troops concentration, different vehicles - both soft-skinned and armored - that they meet in the target area. Dedicated forward/embedded officers are nor required for such tasks, even if they are necessary for the tasks of close air support to work well.
A dive bomber that can carry 2-3-4 500lb bombs will carry a 1000 lb bomb far better than a bomber designed to carry just one such bomb. Something like the Italian Ro.57, or a pre-Whirlwind with two Mercuries, or something like the Fw 187 with British engines.
Conversely, we can come out with a much smaller dive bomber to carry a 500 lb bomb. Talk something size of Spitfire, Re.2000, P-36/-40 or Gloster F.5/35. Or, have Hurricane carrying two bombs.
In other words, no mention of steels on Blenheim.
can attack is not the same as needed to attack. The need for a dive bomber to perform those missions is subject to question. Quite a few air forces had either no dive bombers or very few until the German Blitzkrieg in Poland and France and the accompanying newsreel footage. At which point it was a case of the "the Germans have them so we need them too". But the focus was the overall effect (exaggerated by propaganda) and not how it was achieved (tactics, doctrine, training) and the assumption that by having a similar airplane the other nations would automatically get similar effects.
and the effects the germans got was partially the result of the poor AAA of the armies/nations they were attacking. Some accounts claim the Germans had up to 303 AA guns defending the bridges over the Meuse, The Germans rarely, if ever, had to face such concentrated AA. Not to mention the German fighters providing protection.
You could have given the British 100 Ju 87s to use in the attacks and the results would not have been much different without changing the tactics, escorts and other factors.
If you are carrying four 500lbs you have light bomber that can dive, It might be single engine something like the Avenger but it won't be a small airplane if you expect any range.
The Ro 57 used a single bomb crutch under the fuselage for up to a 500kg bomb.
In the 30s a bomber, even a dive bomber or tactical bomber, was expected to have certain amount of range. Having bases 50-100 miles from the areas it was supposed to bomb may not have been regarded as very likely? Actual war with thousands of planes produced and manned (include ground crew) and hundreds of airfields built is a very different operational environment than what was envisioned leading up to WW II.
Please note that nobody is trying to leave RAF speachless with regard to torpedo or 'ordinary' bombing, or night fighting capability. Early start for Mosquito is suggested instead (that can cover a lot just by itself), Hampdens (not just) for torpedo bombing instead of the stillborn Botha, improved Blenheim etc.
BTW - when (if ever?) is the right time and approach for the RAF to start requesting bespoke dive-bombers?
Specification called that the torpedo is also to be carried, so I'd say it was designed in, rather than it was an accident, even partially.
A lot of wishful thinking going on here, Tomo. There is no "early start for the Mosquito". The prototype first flew in November 1940 - you are not going to get it any earlier. It was first suggested on paper in September 1939 and it was built in a shed on a country estate in secret. De Havilland was also not geared up for mass production at that time and by the end of 1941, following the issuing of a production contract in March 1940, DH Hatfield had produced 20 Mosquitoes, a couple of those were prototypes and there were the four airframes built at Salisbury Hall, including the prototype.
The Hampden (and Wellington) were converted for carrying torpedoes because of the shortage of modern RAF torpedo carrying types, most notably delays with the Beaufort, and the Botha was built initially as a the loser to the Beaufort specification 10/36, so, no Beaufort, no Botha, that is, unless Blackburn is the only entrant to the specification, which again brings your theory into question - Bristol would have no doubt produced an aircraft to the spec for a new torpedo bomber, which would have been the Beaufort. Nevertheless, Blackburn should have been directed to channel its resources elsewhere sooner rather than putting the Botha into production! On that we can agree.
Again, no point in beefing up the Blenheim - to what end and when does this begin? Before the war? The Blenheim was designed by Barnwell who died and so design within Bristol on the Beaufort and Beaufighter was the work of Frise, so why redo the Blenheim at that time? After the war begins? Then what? Blenheim production is disrupted and delayed because of the work needed to redo the aircraft.
Firstly you need more powerful engines, let's say, Hercules, which means beefing up the wing and nacelle structure, then the undercarriage as well, because presumably you want to carry heavier loads, so the overall structure of the aircraft probably needs strengthening, which probably means a different fuselage design, which will be dictated by what you want it to do. Then what? By 1941/42 when you've settled on a design and got it into production, the Mosquito is coming on line in numbers and the RAF is receiving B-25s and Bostons under Lend Lease, which replaced the Blenheim in the medium bomber role anyway... Just doesn't seem worth the effort in hindsight, especially when before the war, Frise's Beaufighter was pretty much the aircraft that an improved Blenheim would have become. Perhaps Bristol should have shut down Blenheim production and built more Beaufighters.
Actually no, it didn't. B.9/32, to which the Hampden and the Wellington were built did not specify carrying torpedoes - odd then, that both were specifically modified to do so. The basic design for the HP.52 came as much from a twin-engined floatplane torpedo carrier being investigated by the Swedish government, but was never built, but its torpedo was to be slung between the twin floats, so, yeah, you are partially right.
Badly stated by me or doesn't translate well.Anything that enemy uses falls under 'needed to attack' category.
RAF/AM can go see US dive bombers accurately planting the bombs on targets by early 1930s, then compare the accuracy of their bombers of similar size flying at 15000 ft and draw conclusions. 'Dive bomber' category is not same as 'slow bomber', a dive bomber sized of Re 2002 (used as dive bomber, up to 680 kg bomb) is not slow-as-mud and big Ju 87 or Battle.
I do agree that escort need to be provided, but upping chances for bomber pilots, by sitting them into more elusive targets, is not just to make their escape but also for them to accomplish their missions is a worthwhile thing to do.
It will not be a small plane. On the other hand, it does not need to be bigger than Me 210.
The Re.2002 carried 400 kg of fuel - 147 US gals.
1000 kg bomb.
Again Ro.57 - engines not better than Mercury, 700 kg of fuel, 1000 kg bomb (more than twice of Blenheim), almost half of the wing of BlenheimMore later
In fact, I have a copy of that book sitting next to me as I write this - well worth getting a hold of.
Badly stated by me or doesn't translate well.
"can attack is not the same as needed to attack." was in reference to the type of planes used for the attack. AS in Plane A is good at attacking targets R,S and T and can attack targets X, Y and Z but it's special attributes are not needed to attack X, Y and Z.
Dive bombers can attack rail road yards or troop/supply columns on roads. But they are not needed for such attacks, The targets are large and pin point accuracy is not needed. Infact a low level bomber with numerous small bombs might be preferred for such targets.
A dive bomber, to be accurate, needs to dive at a steep angle at a relatively slow speed (what the dive brakes are for) to give the pilot time to aim and correct aim. Many dive bombers started theri dives between 6-12,000ft meaning they can't sneak up on a target, no matter what their speed, like a low altitude bomber can. Loading a fighter sized plane with a heavy bomb load means they can't maneuver very well and are going to have difficulty avoiding/evading the defending fighters unless they drop their bombs, at which point the defending fighters have succeeded (at least for a few hours) even if they don't shoot a single bomber down. By the way, what was the range of the R2 2002 when toting 680kg of bombs?
The Douglas SBD has some rather astonishing bomb loads listed but unless the target was practically visible from the Carrier's bridge (exaggeration) they weren't going to carry that bomb load in an attack, The SBD traded fuel for bomb load, as did many other dive bombers. This assumes the SBD could even get off the carrier deck with the listed 2250lb load. Long paved runway on an Island might be possible.
When the enemy invades your country and is marching/driving to your existing airfields then sticking large bombs on short ranged fighters makes a certain amount of sense.
Can the Re 2002 carry full internal fuel while carrying max (or near max ) bomb load
A lot of controversy/varying sources on this one but basically we have a plane about the size of a Whirlwind, with crappier engines carrying double the bomb load and more fuel at the same time?
Most sources say the 20mm guns were MG 151s but the illustration you provided says 60 rounds per gun??? (My Italian stops at buongiorno
weights don't add up for most published books. with 590 kg of fuel the plane only has 415kg of payload left before hitting max weight but published figures may be for the interceptro version and and higher gross weight was allowed for the Dive bomber?
A supply column on the road or a passing train can also be attacked with a dive bomber that drops several medium-sized bombs, eg. 4 x 250 lbs. I didn't suggested that RAF attacks German factories eith dive
Training manual for the P-40 dive-bombing - that was not a dive bomber of any fame or even of note - calls to level-out at 4500 ft above the target, then roll over so the dive can be commenced. So pilots can certainly open their throttles when at 500 ft, fast climb to 4500-5000 ft and commence the dive from there. Dive angle recommended close to 70 deg, but not more. Pull out at between 2000 ft (recommended) and 1000 ft.
It does look every tighter than the other dustbin type turrets.
...
The Americans and British certainly used many fighters as fighter bombers using diving attacks and in the last years of the war had enough that they could send them out to attack targets of opportunity (passing trains) rather than specific pre-planned targets. In the Early part of the war? Not so much.
You also had the change in engines. A P-40 had 1325hp for take-off in 1942 and the Ns (the big bomber variant) had 1200 with perhaps more in reserve if they used WEP to get off the runway. The Hawker Henley used a Merlin II (not III) engine for the production versions and while the prototype flew with a Hamilton standard propeller the production planes git two pitch de Havillands. It carried 1/2 the bomb load you suggest and yes the Hurricane would up carrying more but not until the Merlin XX engine was fitted.
Ok.................Let's see, take 1 1/2 to 2 minutes to climb to 4500ft from 500ft ending at under 200mph forward speed. Re-acquire the target, roll over (Inverted) establish 70 degree dive (pull though 110 degrees) line up target in sight (or gum stuck to windscreen) and release bomb all in a matter of seconds so you can pull out at just under 2000ft???
Accuracy (the whole point of dive-bombing ) is???????? ANd while the P-40s are doing their fast climb to 5000ft within 4-8 miles of the target the AA guns are getting in another hand of cards?
You were an AA gunner, if you were tasked with defending a Bridge and saw bunch of aircraft doing this sort of maneuver within sight of the bridge what would your crew have been doing?
Lots of planes can drop bombs in a dive and get better accuracy than level bombing or low level fast bombing. But true dive bombers (You asked for a Bespoke dive bomber) used the longer dive and dive brakes to allow for a certain amount of time to line up the target and even to adjust for wind drift. That is where the test results of high accuracy came from. Test range accuracy also had nobody shooting at the planes so yes, in a lot of cases using the 1930s/1940 (battle of France) textbook approach and dive could lead to high losses.
For the RAF to consider fighter-bombers would've required a major change in doctrine.
The P-40N was capable taking off with 2x225 gal drop tanks (2640 lbs of fuel, plus whatever the drop tanks and sway braces weighted) on 1200 HP - not some power surplus vs. Re2002 with 1150 HP engine. Granted, we can't dismiss the possiblity of the P-40s over-boosting their engines for take off, even if that's just one minute.
SBD-1 was supposed to take off from a carrier with 1600 lb bomb and 180 gals of fuel in s-s tanks, just above 1000 ft (feet, not yd) was needed without the head wind, and 470 ft with 25 kt head wind. All on 1000 HP for take off.
Granted, the really big bombs on aircraft with modest power do introduce a number of shortcomings, but it can be done.
Good to know, WW II tactics, early war, often meant 6-12 planes playing follow the leader when doing dive bombing attacks. First flew planes might throw the gunners off quite a bit. Last 3-4 planes out of a dozen?????We gunners love our targets flying without change of speed, altitude or course (altitude preferably not being to small or too high, speed we want as low as possible). A bomber that is flying straight and level, .................................... They also leave less of favorable angles for pursuing fighters to tackle them.
The level bombers trying to bomb from altitudes that put them above the ceiling of 20mm will most likely be too inaccurate to hit the small target.
My bespoke dive bomber for early war for RAF would've certainly have dive brakes (although the reinforced undercarriage is tempting, so it can be used in dive as impromptu dive brake), hopefully Merlins, size no bigger than Gloster F.9/37 (if 2-engined), bomb bay for one 2000 lb bomb (or more smaller bombs; bomb bay being something like the bomb bay on the Avenger or Helldiver), crew of 2 in tandem.
...
I would be very leery of claims of the SBD-1 (or even the SBD-2) taking off with 1600lb bombs. The SPD-3 was in production by the spring/summer of 1941. The SPD-1 and -2 did not have protected fuel tanks, The SPD-3 could be fitted with either protected tanks or unprotected tanks. The 1600lb bomb was not adopted until the fall of 1942 and didn't see service until some time in 1943. Most US carriers didn't keep more than 20 in their magazines, if they had any at all.
The 1942 manual for the SBD-3 calls for 853ft of take off distance with a 1000lb bomb and 100 gallons of fuel in self sealing tanks. With unprotected tanks and the 1000lb bomb and 100 gallons the distance was 701 ft. Weight of the self sealing tanks (or the difference) was 232lbs for the center section fuel tanks, 218lbs for the outer wing fuel tanks, 30 lbs for the oil tank and armor for the crew was 212lbs.
For the British a Skua MK III (Pegasus engine instead of the Perseus) and a bespoke 1000lb bomb might have made life rather miserable for the Kriegsmarine and quite possibly the Italians.