1941: Top 3 Allied Bombers

[Shortround6]

Getting back to the original question it comes down to pretty much British bombers.

The American contenders being pretty much the the early shark fin B-17s, a variety of A-20s (most without r-2600 engines) and few (19) B-24/LB-30Bs being the only planes to actually see any action outside of the US and Pearl Harbor. First 65 B-25s had NO power turrets and only three .30 cal guns and a single .50cal gun. They were pretty zippy though

None of the Russian bombers were really in the top 3.
1941 IL-2s lacked the rear seat gunner and were rather vulnerable.
The DB-3F/IL-4 had a top speed of about 255mph, two 7.62mm mg and one 12.7mg, range with 2200lbs of bombs was 1400 miles.
They only built about 93 PE-8s during the entire war, how many were built before the end of 1941? and even then there were several different engine installations even in 1940/41.
The PE-2 had a rather limited internal bomb load.

One can argue if the first Halifax's were worse than the first Manchester's but the British pretty much get the top three by default.

 

[nuuumannn]

Pretty much in agreement SR, although the Halifaxes might not have been worse, they were certainly no better, although they offered greater range and payload carrying ability than the Manchester and what the RAF really wanted by that time was four engined bombers and since the Stirling was not living up to expectations, the Halifax was it. As Steve pointed out earlier, the Hali was the benchmark for the RAF at the time (and what Avro were told the four engined Manchester (groan!) would have to be measured up against), niggling issues aside; HP repeatedly assured the Air Staff that the problems would be fixed so they kept it going, but a really satisfactory Halifax bomber, i.e. what it should have been from the start did not emerge until the end of 1943.

The LB-30 or Liberator Mk.II to the British is certainly worth a mention (forgot about this in my earlier estimation) and although the first were delivered to the RAF in June 1941, in that year there weren't many of them. The LIb II bears the distinction of being the first American bomber to enter service equipped with power operated turrets, although it entered service with the RAF with turrets before the USAAC, sans turrets as the LB-30. The aircraft were built in the USA without turrets and were delivered to Britain for fitting of their armament. These were a Boulton Paul four gun rear turret and BP four gun top turret (a la Defiant) located aft of the wing box, not forward of it like in subsequent B-24s. There was no real US equivalent; the next in line being the B-24C, which, like the mass produced 'D' model had turbosupercharged engines, so had better performance than the Liberator II. These, too, began delivery by the end of 1941.

I'm gonna revise my top three; Wellington, Liberator II/B-24C and B-17, honourable mention to Whitley, Maryland and Baltimore, and Manchester. Wellington for obvious reasons; available in numbers/good range/bomb load/suvivability/defensive armament, Liberator because of its range/defensive armament/bomb load and future potential, downside is there's not many of them, B-17 for its good performance/range/ceiling and potential, but no turrets at this time - speed is good for a big bomber though, better than anything else except the Ju 88. I picked the B-17 over the Whitley despite the latter's turrets because of the former's potential and performance and by 1941 the Whitley had little future. Despite the B-17 example I've included turrets for defensive armament because at the time heavy bombers really needed then, but everyone else was slower than the British to realise this.

Whitley because of availability/range/bomb load/turrets, but slow, Maryland because of its range and performance but cramped, Baltimore because it largely replaced the Maryland in service and rectified some of its inadequacies, Manchester because - do we really need to go into this again?

 

[Shortround6]

Well, I did ask about the planes as they were in 1941 or what they would later become and the answer was as the planes as they were in 1941 .

For the Liberator, the Liberator II was built and delivered in 1941 but wasn't issued to a squadron until Jan of 1942. That leaves the Liberator I. ( 9 B-24Cs were delivered before the end of the year to the USAAC but never used in combat, only as operational trainers for the B-24D).
Kind of the same for the B-17. B-17E's were in Hawaii, in transit to the Philippines, on Dec 7th but saw little or no action otherwise until until 1942.
The Martin Baltimore falls in there too, ordered in 1940, first prototype doesn't fly until June of 1941 and " The first Baltimore Mk I reached the UK in October 1941, and underwent trials at Burtonwood near Liverpool. It entered service three months later, in January 1942, with No.223 Squadron at Shandur, Egypt. At the time this was an Operational Training Unit, but it would soon take its Baltimores into combat. The first operation unit to get the Baltimore was No.55 Squadron, also in Egypt, in May 1942." from this website: Martin Baltimore - Development and Combat Record

The Halifax is a bit better, 5 squadrons had them as of Dec 1941 but the MK II only started leaving the production lines in Sept (EE) and Oct of 1941, the 84 MK Is had Vickers K guns out the side windows and no top turret and Merlin X engines. Of course with no top turret it was actually a bit faster than the MK II.

 

[stona]

Bomber Command, and particularly Harris, had a VERY low opinion of the Halifax. After the Lancaster turned up, that's all they wanted in terms of four engine heavies.

Harris wrote a fantastic letter to Sinclair, Secretary of State for Air, in which his opinion of the Stirling, and the Short management, and the Halifax and Handley Page are made very clear indeed.

"I understand that the Stirling is to go in favour of the Lancaster as fast as the changeover can be achieved. But it will not be fast, or achieved at all with goodwill and good intent, as long as His Majesty's Government balk at the issue of taking the Stirling management away from the incompetent drunk who at present holds our fate in his hands. The Stirling Group has now virtually collapsed. They make no worthwhile contribution to our war effort in return for their overheads."

So much for Oswald Short and his company, soon to be nationalised.

Next Handley Page and his company.

"Handley Page is always weeping crocodile tears in my house and office, smarming his unconvincing assurances all over me and leaving me with nothing but a feeling of mounting uncertainty that nothing whatever ponderable is being done to make his deplorable product worth for war or fit to meet those jeopardies which confront our gallant crews. Nothing will be done until Handley Page and his gang are also kicked out, lock, stock and barrel. Unless we can get these two vital factors of the heavy bomber programme put right, and with miraculous despatch, we are sunk. We cannot do this by polite negotiation with these crooks and incompetents. In Russia it would have long ago been arranged with a gun and to that extent I am a fervid communist."

The Halifax might have been seen as some kind of benchmark in 1941, but how it was viewed by the man running Bomber Command a year later, the letter was dated 30th December 1942, is hardly open for debate.

It is hard to imagine a more intemperate letter sent by such a senior officer to his political master, and it is a reflection of just how strongly Harris felt about the Halifax.

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

And I also wrote, three times no less, that we know this and are not disputing this. You did state earlier that the four engined Manchester bagan with the 680, which I refute.
I think we've gone as far was we are going to go with this, don't you?

We'll agree to disagree as I still believe that the Lancaster has roots in the Type 680, a four engine design based on the Manchester/Type 679 which was never designed to have four engines.

The results of that feasibility study in late 1938 (not 1937 which has never had anything to do with a four engine bomber from Avro) were, a couple of months later, not a four engine Type 679 but a new designation, Type 680, which would become the Manchester III/Lancaster.

I mean how far back in an aircraft's lineage do we need to go? Since the Type 679 was the first bomber Avro had ever designed then of course the Lancaster has some roots in it, but the direct ancestor of the Lancaster still remains the Type 680, designed from the outset with four engines, an extended wing and larger tail plane and fins....just like the Lancaster.

Cheers

Steve

 

[nuuumannn]

Nope, the direct ancestor of the Lancaster is the Type 679!

Okay then SR, but since the Liberator II had been delivered in 1941, then again, I'll stay with it because its available next year - forward planning. The B-17E was not available, but the Fortress I was, so that stays. I'll stay with the Maryland and Baltimore since they had been delivered by 1941, but not in service. But the Halifax isn't being included. Too much effort and time to pass before its ready.

 

[Shortround6]

They (the British) had a lot more Halifax's in service in 1941 than B-17s, B-24s and Baltimore's combined. The Liberator IIs started to be delivered in Aug of 1941 (after the first one crashed) but "delivered' meant accepted at the Consolidated plant in San Diego. The British had to get them to England and mount the turrets and other operational equipment before issuing them to the user squadrons.

 

[stona]

Nope, the direct ancestor of the Lancaster is the Type 679!

About as much as the Spitfire owed to the Type 224...at least they had the same number of engines.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Vincenzo]

the operational squadrons with Halifax in '41 were 35th and 76th
none had Baltimore
the 90th had the Fortress
the 120th (Costal Command unit) had the Liberator (the I)

 

[nuuumannn]

Sorry SR, was in a hurry when I posted my last post. Yes, you're right, no Baltimore, no Liberator II, but B-24C and Fortress I remain, along with Wellington - this is about which was the top 3 Allied bombers after all. Regarding the Halifax, actually there weren't that many in service in 1941, the first Mk.Is entered service in early November 1940 with 35 Sqn and began flying operations in February 1941, with its first op on the night of 11/12 March. Of seven aircraft, only four reached the target and of those, only three returned home. Halifaxes only flew a handful of operations in 1941 and in small numbers; it's first year of service was marred with problems; temporary groundings, accidents from varying sources, hydraulic issues that caused belly landings, tail wheel failures, which resulted in the tail wheels being locked down, which in turn produced a drop in performance, but cured the failures, and of course, rudder over balance. A total of 84 Halifax Is were produced in three sub-variants, Series 1, of which 50 were built, Series 2, 25 and the rest Series 3. By the end of 1941, less than half the total number of Halifax Is had entered service and even fewer were ready for service. It's just not ready in 1941.

By comparison with another troublesome bomber, the Manchester entered Bomber Command in the same month as the Halifax and flew its first op in February 1941, but by the end of the year, there were more available in squadron service for ops and the Manchester Mk.III was almost ready for its first flight, with examples beginning to be converted on the production line. For that reason alone, the Manchester comes ahead of the Halifax.

 

[Vincenzo]

For complete the RAF squadrons with 4 engine bombers
the 7th and the 15th had the Stirling (I)

 

[Vincenzo]

USAAF avalability unit with 4 engines bombers the 7th december
2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 19th, 29th, 30th, 34th, 39th, 43rd Bomber Groups with 149 B-17, only the 7th and the 19th were a full B-17 Group (they had 70 B-17) some of this groups would be not operational, an other 6 B-17 were in the 38th Recce Squadron.
In the december after the attack the 6th and 19th BG get also some teens of LB-30 (B-24 built for UK within the A and C US model) they go in combat in january '42 so probably operational or near to operational in very late '41.

The Sovied had the 22nd june '41
the TB-3 in the 1st, 3rd, 7th, 250th and 251st heavy rgts and TB-3 and TB-7 in the 14th heavy rgt in all 256 TB-3 and 9 TB-7, in add is probable there was a fleet unit with the TB-3

 

[Glider]

The three that I would choose are the Wellington, the Sterling and the Boston. The B17 totally failed in 1941 in RAF service, the Halifax had too many faults it couldn't be relied on in 1941 and the Sterling despite performance mainly altitude issues was reliable and for the day had a good range payload performance.
The Boston even in its early days had a good performance. It was far from perfect but that wasn't unusual in 1941 and its performance would have given it some protection.

 

[nuuumannn]

I've been thinking about the Stirling within this thread; it certainly has merit. Four engines, heavy bomb load, good range, comparable speed to other bombers of the time, power operated turrets, easy to fly, manoeuvrable with a good roll rate for such a big aeroplane; pilots commented favourably about it and compared it to a Gentleman's Carriage, so with all these things, is worthy of inclusion. Its down side is its poor ceiling, which made it flak bait, but it held the line, along with the Halifax until more suitable and less vulnerable and troublesome Lancasters were available in numbers from 1942 on. The addition of armour plating and other equipment introduced during service reduced its rate of climb and ceiling further, but it remained well liked by aircrew, despite a lack of enthusiasm from the Air Ministry. Although not really a criteria for judgment here, the Stirling took a long time to get right for production (there were also delays as materials were diverted from manufacture of fighters around the Battle of Britain time by the Ministry of Aircraft Production) and for some reason it cost more to build than either the Hali or Lanc. Despite this, by the end of 1941, some 150 Stirlings had been manufactured, which gave better availability than the Halifax by a country mile. It was not plagued by any catastrophic mechanical defect, like the Manchester or Halifax either.

Regarding the Fortress, the RAF's experience with the Fort I was disappointing, but one of the principal criticisms by the Americans was the fact that it was sent on individual sorties. It's equipment froze at high altitudes and was criticised for its defensive armament - a big minus. It's worth remembering that the RAF used it on daylight raids individually, which was asking for trouble; it received 20 of 38 B-17Cs built by that time, so wasn't available in large numbers. The Americans also claimed the RAF was using it above its designed operating height and that defensively, the tactics employed could not take advantage of its defensive armament as well as the Americans had planned.

On the plus side, it had an excellent turn of speed for a big bomber, a maximum of 320 mph at 20,000 feet and cruise of 232 mph at 14,000 feet; putting that into context, this was 1 or 2 mph difference from the maximum speed of the Wellington. Despite its comparatively small bomb load, it did have impressive range of 2,100 mph and a maximum range of 3,160 miles. If it were put to use in a different fashion, it could, or would have been very effective if these attributes were exploited.

Agree, Glider about the Boston, a very practicable and adaptable aeroplane, but is slightly outside the scope of this thread as a bomber at least. By mid 1940 the French had received some 64 (65 in some sources) DB-7s before the country had capitulate; these did carry out combat ops against the advancing Germans though, the ones that arrived in Britain from the French order had to have their throttle movement reversed, the French moved the power levers aft for increased, so this delayed entry into service. The RAF used these 20 examples for training only as Boston Is as they were considered unfit for service. The RAF Boston II was similar to the earlier Boston I but had uprated engines and was used exclusively as a heavy fighter and was named Havoc I as a night fighter in RAF service. The first bomber version in RAF service was the Boston III - the USAAC received the A-20C, which was close to the Boston III in performance and spec - and although the first Boston IIIs/A-20Cs were delivered in 1941, they weren't quite ready for operations until early 1942.

The TB-3 is not worth mentioning; it was considered obsolete in 1939. The TB-7 or Petlyakov Pe-8 is an interesting choice, but is in service in paltry numbers in 1941 - only a small number were available due to engine and production issues. At the time of Barbarossa, only the 2nd Sqn of the 14th heavy Regiment had them in service, but none were ready for combat. Later in the year, as aircraft became available - fourteen in October 1941, night raids were conducted, even against Berlin, but results were unspectacular. It had good bomb load, range and performance and showed much promise though, but I would be reluctant to include it as one of the three best of the year, largely because of low numbers and poor operational availability.

A further rethink from me. Wellington, Stirling and a toss up between Fortress I and B-24C... Hmmm, thing is, neither Fort or B-24 available in numbers and poor defensive armament. Maybe Wellington, Whitley, Stirling? An all-British top three? All available in numbers, relatively trouble free service use in 1941, defensive turrets, good bomb load, good range...

 

[tomo pauk]

Since the Flak was managing to bag circa one RAF bomber per night in 1941, the Stirling seem to have no problems with it?

 

[stona]

Never under estimate the effect on the morale of the men who flew what we, looking at paper figures, might consider decent aeroplanes. They developed perceptions about which aircraft were most likely to get them killed, hardly something we need to worry about.

Bob Goss, an air gunner who flew on Manchesters wrote that it had such a dismal reputation within Bomber Command that "a member of a Manchester Squadron was pitied rather than admired". I could dig up similar comments about the Stirling too.

Of course all these men were judging the types retrospectively against the Lancaster which doesn't fall within this time frame.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Just so we are clear on a few things.

This is the B-17 used by the British in 1941:

One .50 out the top, one out each side and one out the bottom in the "tub". No power turrets or assist. One .30 cal in the nose. Even in formation that is pretty weak armament.

There were only 9 B-24Cs ever built. The B-24Ds were on order and following the B-24Cs on the production line/s. they just aren't delivered until Jan 1942.

I have no idea why it took the British 8-10 months to use the Boston III in combat over France after the first ones showed up in England. 3-6 months I can understand. Perhaps the diversion of some of the Boston III to Russia after the German invasion slowed the conversion/build up?

There was a squadron flying combat missions in North Africa in Nov/Dec of 1941 but the British (true to form) used small numbers of aircraft per mission without escort and losses were heavy. The Squadron had to pulled out of operations by the end of Dec to recover.

The Boston III was rated at a 1000lb bomb load over a 745mile range, 2000lbs over 525 miles. A Blenheim could carry 1000lbs about 1400 miles. The Boston offered better survival over areas it could reach.

 

[Vincenzo]

If the numbers of Halifax were too low also the Stirling numbers are too low, RAF had only 2 squadrons each.

On the Boston i'm not aware of none RAF squadron that used it in MTO in 1941, what's the squadron number?
For my sources the first unit that get Boston was the 88th Squadron in february '41, so i've thinked that this became operational before of end of year but checking this unit stay also with Blenheim until february '42 so it this possible that became operational with Boston only in early '42, someone can check when the 88th became operational on Boston? (i'm aware that the first combat use was in february '42)

 

[stona]

The Squadron was only in Bomber Command (2 Group) from July '41 until May '43 when it transferred to become part of the 2nd TAF. It flew on just 62 bombing raids, 15 with Blenheims, 47 with Bostons, whilst part of Bomber Command.

As a Bomber Command unit it received Bostons somewhere between June and October '41, depending which source you believe. As far as I can tell it's first operational use was on 12th February'42.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

On the Boston i'm not aware of none RAF squadron that used it in MTO in 1941, what's the squadron number?

SAAF squadron 24 according to some sources.

From RAF - Bomber Command No.88 Squadron

"No. 88 Squadron returned to England in June 1940 - after having seen some very heavy fighting and having suffered heavy losses - and the following year, after a spell with Bristol Blenheims, became the first squadron to be equipped with Douglas Bostons."

"Fairey Battle : Dec 1937-Jul 1941
Bristol Blenheim IV : Jul 1941-Nov 1941
Douglas Boston III and IIIA and IV : Oct 1941 onwards"

4-5 months to go from 1st aircraft delivered to squadron to first combat missions isn't too bad.