1941: Top 3 Allied Bombers

stona · Jan 4, 2015

fastmongrel said:
Actually Gardening missions had some of the highest casualty rates of all night missions. Flying close to shore at 180mph at 1500 feet in a straight line often very close to Flak ships to drop Parachute mines was no picnic. Particulary when the dropping run needs to be down the swept channel and who would know better where the swept channel was than the people who swept it.

And yet if you look at Bomber Command's war diaries, usually under 'minor operations' on any particular night, you will see a list of the aircraft which carried out such missions and very often the succinct final phrase, 'no losses' or 'no aircraft lost'.

It's worth remembering that the venerable old Wellingtons and Stirlings were often employed on such operations. From early 1943 the height from which mines were dropped was raised to 3,000ft and later the same year to 12,000ft which took the earlier risk of flying at 600-800ft out of the equation.
It became standard practice by 1944 to drop mines from 15,000ft 'blind' using H2S.

I would have to dig for percentage losses on such operations, but I guarantee that they would be significantly lower than those incurred on missions to Germany, hence my original statement.

Edit: From Feb '42 to May '45 Bomber Command flew 16,240 mine laying sorties.
From April '40 to May '45 467 aircraft were lost on such missions.
If anyone knows how many missions were flown in 1940/41 we can work out a percentage loss. I have the data but can't be arsed to add it up. It's going to be around 2% anyway.

Cheers

Steve

tomo pauk · Jan 4, 2015

Shortround6 said:
Actually;

Granted this is an allied estimate of effective ceilings rather than actual tests but the max ceiling or self destruct height were vastly different than effective height, which is the reason the Germans tried to get the 50-55mm AA guns into service.

Thanks for the graph.
Maybe we might put the effective ceilings into a perspective - it is one thing to fire at small agile 300 mph fighter bomber, another thing to fire at 180 mph big bombers' stream flying at steady altitude and course? One thing being hit-to-kill, another thing being 'fire the bursts and maybe we can disrupt damage them'?

A page from Westermann's doctoral thesis on the Flak, FWIW:

stona · Jan 4, 2015

Which might explain why Harris regarded 15,000ft as 'lethal' ?
Cheers
Steve

Milosh · Jan 4, 2015

What was the usual bombing height for medium bombers?

Vincenzo · Jan 4, 2015

sea mining total mission 18725 BC - Statistics
you can get the 1940/41 for difference
same site give also a 19025 total BC - Mine Laying Stats
unlucky in this page they don't understand the own data some english speaking can write to they to get a correction

tomo pauk · Jan 4, 2015

Milosh - I don't know - the 5th AF was often flying tree-top their B-25s and A-20s.

stona said:
Which might explain why Harris regarded 15,000ft as 'lethal' ?
Cheers
Steve

I'd agree. The 15000 feet of altitude (absolute) means that 3,7cm still can be used (regardless how inaccurate would it be there), while the heavy AAA have had an easier time to bag or damage an aircraft there than the one at 19000 ft, as noted by Shortround6.
Even so, the claims for the Flak in mid 1941 vs. RAF were no better than one (one) aircraft per a night, and maybe 2 per a day; 3 RAF aircraft per 24 hours. Granted, for each aircraft claimed there was many aircraft damaged by Flak, and some of these might not return in order to their bases, if return at all.

stona · Jan 4, 2015

It seems loss rates "gardening" were typically in the 2-2.5% range, which is a little higher than I guessed but still a lot better than the losses incurred operating against targets in Germany.
Cheers
Steve

Shortround6 · Jan 4, 2015

Part of our problem with trying to evaluate "effectiveness" is that is doesn't seem to be spelled out in the documents of the time and that some light weapons effective range/ceiling could change by 1-2000 meters by changing the sight/s.

effective being ????% of shells fired being hits?

And that is a big part of trying to say what the 37mm guns were doing at 12,000ft and above at night.
The big guns had follow the pointer dials/indicators like this;

Driven by something like this;

The men responsible for training and elevation of the gun/s simply turned the control wheels to the position/s on the indicators.
The Search lights and the fire control computer/rangefinder could be connected to a radar unit or use radar generated data for inputs.

The light guns rarely had (unless late in the war?) such indicators and were pretty much local control ( one director did NOT control a battery of guns). Now a battery could be told to fire at such and such an elevation and such and such a direction for barrage fire with the hope that a bomber flew into one of their shells (although the sight/sound of any AA gun firing was probably good for moral of any civilians) or could try to fire at a plane caught by a search light. Of course trying to use their daylight sights even with seachlight aid at double or more the daylight effective range/ceiling wasn't going to give very good results. That doesn't mean that they never hit anything or the planes were 100% safe.
Granted by late 1944 or early 45 the Germans were putting a few radar units on light guns but was certainly not the norm in 1941/42.

tomo pauk · Jan 4, 2015

Shortround6 said:
Part of our problem with trying to evaluate "effectiveness" is that is doesn't seem to be spelled out in the documents of the time and that some light weapons effective range/ceiling could change by 1-2000 meters by changing the sight/s.
effective being ????% of shells fired being hits?

Effective, at least for the light AAA, meant also that it managed to do the 'mission kill' - ie. this or that battery fired on the attackers, forcing them to move away from their target (guarded by that AAA unit). Even if this can be listed as hangar talk, it was clearly stated by my instructors when I've served.

And that is a big part of trying to say what the 37mm guns were doing at 12,000ft and above at night.

Since the guns shells are produced, and the crews are standing by, perhaps they might as well fire on the bombers, however inefficient that is?

The big guns had follow the pointer dials/indicators like this;

Driven by something like this;

The men responsible for training and elevation of the gun/s simply turned the control wheels to the position/s on the indicators.
The Search lights and the fire control computer/rangefinder could be connected to a radar unit or use radar generated data for inputs.

Thanks.

The light guns rarely had (unless late in the war?) such indicators and were pretty much local control ( one director did NOT control a battery of guns). Now a battery could be told to fire at such and such an elevation and such and such a direction for barrage fire with the hope that a bomber flew into one of their shells (although the sight/sound of any AA gun firing was probably good for moral of any civilians) or could try to fire at a plane caught by a search light. Of course trying to use their daylight sights even with seachlight aid at double or more the daylight effective range/ceiling wasn't going to give very good results. That doesn't mean that they never hit anything or the planes were 100% safe.
Granted by late 1944 or early 45 the Germans were putting a few radar units on light guns but was certainly not the norm in 1941/42.

I'd say that you're on the money with that civilian moral thing. Like: we fired bursts, scaring the Englishmen made them run for their lives. There was just a few gun-laying radars in 1941, even for the heavy Flak units.

Glider · Jan 5, 2015

tomo pauk said:
I'd say that you're on the money with that civilian moral thing. Like: we fired bursts, scaring the Englishmen made them run for their lives. There was just a few gun-laying radars in 1941, even for the heavy Flak units.

I read somewhere that during the Blitz there was a discussion as to what AA gun to put in the grounds of Parliament and one reason for choosing a 2pd was that it made the most noise and would be better for morale.

stona · Jan 5, 2015

A battery was positioned at Marston, Oxford during the war. According to family history on the one occasion it actually opened fire the concussion damage to windows and shell fragment damage to roofs prompted letters to the Oxford Mail asking the battery to desist from shooting at passing enemy aircraft and only engage those actually attacking the city, or more likely the Morris plant at Cowley. The enemy aircraft on the occasion in question carried on their merry way

I've never actually checked the veracity of the story, partly because I'd be disappointed if it were to prove untrue!

It is a tremendous demonstration of the advantages of living in a democracy. It's hard to imagine similar letters to the equivalent newspaper in Heidelberg, assuming the Nazis hadn't already shut it down.

Cheers

Steve

Vincenzo · Jan 12, 2015

I've googled much so i can give some data and opinion
i start dividing in the category the bombers (that of my list: multiengine land level bombers)
Out of the game categories:
category "Too small for a bomber"
Yak-24 and Potez 633 s the category title i don't think need further comments, it's the same conclusion of the air forces for wich they were designed
category "Too old for 1941"
TB-3, this bomber was in production from 1932 to 1937, surely 5 years earlier would be in the top 3, many bombers of the list not even did the first flight before of TB-3 go out of production.
in game categories:
Small/Light bombers
Blenheim, IV: max bomb load 970 kg, max fuel load 2126 l, max combined load 2130 kg, weapons +6-7,7 mg, rounded max speed 450 km/h a 4,6 km
Boston, III: 1814 kg/ 2750 l/ 2890 kg/ 7-7,7, 540 km/h a 3,8 A-20A: 1089 kg/ 1491 l/ 2160 kg/ +5-7,7, 560 km/h a 3,8
Maryland, II: 907 kg/ 3055 l/ 2590 kg/ 5or6-7,7, 450 km/h a 3,6 I: 567 kg/ 3055 l/ 2240 kg/ 5or6-7,7, 490 km/h a 4
Hudson, all 612 kg/ 2438 l (SR variant) 3891 l (LR variant)/ 2365 kg (SR), 3410 kg (LR)/ 4or7-7,7, 400 km/h a 2 (slower variant), 460 km/h a 4,6 (faster variant)
Beaufort, I 681 kg/ 3217 l/ 3000 kg/ +8-7,7, 440 km/h a 3
Martin 139, WH-3 2000 kg/ 3300 l/ 3300 kg/ 3-7,62, 390 km/h a 3
SB, M-103A (and later) 1500 kg/ 2410 l/ 2700 kg/ 3or4-7,62, 450 km/h a 4
Ar-2, 1500 kg/ 1450 l/ 2540 kg/ 3-7,62, 510 km/h a 5
Pe-2, 1500 kg/ 1500 l/ 2575 kg/ 4-7,62 or up to 3 replaced with 12,7, 530 km/h a 5 (last block available in '41, earlier faster)

add and corrections are welcome
continue....

Vincenzo · Jan 13, 2015

Light bombers not so small
Hampden, I: 2268 kg/ 2973 l/ 3300 kg/ 6-7,7/ 410 km/h at4,7
Ju 86, Z: ??/ ??/ ??/ 3-7,7/ ??
DB-3,B: 2500 kg/ ??/ ??// 3-7,62/ 440 km/h at 4,9
Il-4, : 2500 kg/ 2000 l/ 3900 kg/ 2-7,62, 1-12,7/ 430 km/h at 4
B-25, B: 2268 kg/ 4209 l/ 3250 kg/ 1-7,62, 4-12,7/ 480 km/h at 4,6 25: 1633 kg/ 5057 l/ 4000 kg/ 3-7,62, 1-12,7/ 520 km/h at 4,6
Do 17,Kb: 1200 kg/ ??/ ??/ 2-7,92, 1-13,2, 1-20/ 440 km/h at?
S.M.79, K: 1250 kg/ 3460 l/ 2770 kg (normal load)/ 1-7,7, 3-12,7/ 420 km/h a 4,1

Vincenzo · Jan 13, 2015

Medium bombers
Whitley, V: 3629 kg/ 4541 l/ 6370 kg/ 5-7,7/ 370 km/h at 5
Wellington, II: 2041 kg/ 4545 l/ 4500 kg/ 6-7,7/ 410 km/h at 5,3
B-18, 18: 1996 kg/ 3036 l/ 4180 kg/ 3-7,62/ 350 km/h at 3
B-23, 23: ??/ ??/ ??/ 3-7,62, 1-12,7/ 450 km/h at 3,7
B-26, 26: 2177 kg/ 4588 l/ 4800 kg/ 2-7,62, 3-12,7/ 510 km/h at 4,6
Yer-2, M-105: 4000 kg/ 6240 l/ 6680 kg/ 2-7,62, 1-12,7/ 440 km/h at 4

Shortround6 · Jan 13, 2015

I think you are over complicating things.

For the US and Soviets you can short list things pretty quick.

For instance the Douglas B-18A was last delivered in Jan 1940. The US knew it wasn't up to world standards even in 1939/40.

" The USAAC was sufficiently intrigued by the Douglas proposal that they issued a change order in late 1938 in which the last 38 B-18As ordered under Contract AC9977 would be delivered as B-23s." from Joe Baugher's web site.

These 38 aircraft were delivered by the end of Sept 1940.

First flight of a B-25 was in Aug of 1940 but the first plane accepted by the USAAF wasn't until Feb 1941.

Listing all the obsolete models, while complete and thorough doesn't change the top ranked planes any.

The US is a mess to figure out because of only 3 weeks of war in 1941, what do you include and what do you exclude based on "combat" service. The first B-25C contract was approved on September 24, 1940 but the first B-25C wasn't delivered until Dec 1941. There were around 160-165 B-25s built in 1941 but none were deployed outside the Continental US during 1941 and so saw no combat. There were over 200 B-26s built in 1941 but again, none were over seas and none saw combat.

Kind of the Same with the Russians, listing all the stuff they made from 1933 to 1940 isn't going to change what were the top planes in 1941.
BTW the IL-4 bomber was simply an DB-3F with a designation (name) change that may have been done in early 1942.

Vincenzo · Jan 13, 2015

i know that many bombers of the list are not starter for the challenge but i want give the whole picture.
the list as the thread was based on operational status not on the combat status, all the US bombers that i listed fly patrol in 1941 so i suppose they were operational, the alone US bomber saw combat were the B-17 and the A-20&B-18 if we count they were target of enemy planes.

Vincenzo · Jan 13, 2015

Heavy bombers
Manchester, I: 4695 kg/ 7726 l/ 10250 kg/ 8-7,7/ 430 km/h at 5,2
Stirling, I: 6351 kg/ 12246 l/ 13800 kg/ 8-7,7/ 420 km/hat 3,2
Halifax, I: 5897 kg/ 9463 l/ 10450 kg/ 10-7,7/ 430 km/h a 5,3
Liberator, I: 1814 kg/ ??/ ??/ 6-7,7/ 470 km/h at 4,7
B-17, E: 3629 kg/ 13673 l/ 10400 kg/ 1-7,62, 8-12,7/ 510 km/h a 7,6 D: 2177 kg/ ??/ ??/ 1-7,62 6-12,7/ 520 km/h at 7,6
Pe-8, AM-35A: 4000 kg/ 17000 l/ 14000 kg/ 2-7,62, 2-12,7, 2-20/ 440 km/h at 6,4

Shortround6 · Jan 13, 2015

The whole picture is nice but for the US the top 3 bombers in 1941 are pretty much the B-17, B-25 and B-26. Only 9 turbo charged B-24s being built in 1941.

For the Russians nothing winds in the top 3 allied bombers or even close as far as production aircraft go no matter how much service they may have seen or not seen.

Vincenzo · Jan 13, 2015

i starting with my 3 top choice for category (inverse category list order not merit order)
Heavy: Pe-8, B-17E, Halifax I
Medium: too hard
Light not so small: B-25, DB3-F, Hampden I
Small/Light: most were short ranged, that were not short ranged are low on bomb load, the alone with not bad number in both the fields is the "old" Martin 139 WH-3A, the 139 is, take out the TB-3, the oldest bomber operational in thr allies field in 1941 did the first flight in 1932.

luckily there were not russian bomber in 1941 so i can not do the wrong to choice a russian bomber

Vincenzo · Jan 15, 2015

i've did my choice for the medium category
Yer-2 M-105R, Wellington II, Whitley V

My choice overall category is the same of heavy category
Restricing the choice to models that were actually common on 1941 so pratically only british and soviet (for clear the following models Whitley V, Wellington IC&II, Blenheim IV, Hampden I, Beaufort I, Hudson I/II/III/V and SB (late models most production was in 39/40) and DB-3F (F was more common in june '41 and was the alone in production) taking out for first all the planes in the small/light category (as my comment on that category post 199) its keep the Wellingtons, Whitley, Hampden and DB-3, so 2 of 3 are sure Wellington and Whitley, the third place is hard Hampden I and DB-3F had similar capability i vote for a draw

1941: Top 3 Allied Bombers

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Major General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Captain

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads