1941: Top 3 Allied Bombers

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Just so we are clear on a few things. This is the B-17 used by the British in 1941
Click to expand...

SR, yes, it's a Fortress Mk.I Re-read my post. Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress in RAF service

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

Not necessarily, Vincenzo. There were more Stirlings in reserve since more had rolled off the production line, also the Halifax was suffering many problems in service, so the number of aircraft that were combat worthy were lower than the number of Stirlings, which suffered high losses within their first year of service as a result of their indifferent altitude performance. Like I said, there had been 150 Stirlings built by the end of 1941, but less than half that number of Halifaxes.


88 Sqn received Boston IIIs in July 1941 (Aircraft of the RAF since 1918 Owen Thetford) or October 1941 (McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 Vol One Rene Francillon) at Swanton Morley, but did not carry out its first anti-shipping strikes until February 1942. 226 Sqn also operated the type alongside 88 Sqn during the Channel Dash. The first Boston IIIs in the MTO entered service with 24 Sqn, SAAF in November 1941 and were used for reconnaissance ops, suffering heavy losses. After being withdrawn from service in December, the unit returned again on 22 February 1942 and was joined by 12 Sqn SAAF in March 1942. See here: Douglas Boston in RAF Service

"At first No.24 SAAF used its Bostons on unescorted reconnaissance missions in small groups, and suffered very heavy losses. By the end of December the squadron had to be withdrawn to recover. The squadron returned to the fight in 22 February 1942, this time operating with fighter escorts."

Never under estimate the effect on the morale of the men who flew what we, looking at paper figures, might consider decent aeroplanes.
Click to expand...

D'you really think I'd do that?

"it was undoubtedly well liked by its crews in spite of its reduced rate of climb after some 10,000 lbs of armour plate and equipment had been added to its empty weight" Shorts Aircraft since 1900 C.H. Barnes.

"In service the Stirling was to prove popular with its crews and very manoeuvrable - a useful attribute when it was attacked by German fighters, and one which earned it the contemporary nickname 'the fighter bomber'. The Hamlyn Concise Guide to British Aircraft of World War Two David Mondey.

"Despite the "disappointing performance" at maximum altitude,[18] Stirling pilots were delighted to discover that, due to the thick wing, they could out-turn the Ju 88 and Bf 110 nightfighters they faced. Its handling was much better than that of the Halifax and some preferred it to the Lancaster. Based on its flight characteristics, Pilot Murray Peden of No. 214 RAF Squadron flatly described the Stirling as 'one of the finest aircraft ever built'." Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Stirling

I could dig up similar comments about the Stirling too.
Click to expand...

So could I, but what option did the RAF have in 1941? The Halifax and Manchester suffered the same, if not worse because not only did aircrews have to put up with what they received during ops, but also the probability of the numerous mechanical failures that both aircraft suffered. The Stirling is worth including as one of the top three bombers in 1941 for the reasons I've stated, Steve and yes, I'm aware of its reputation. The Bomber Command mainstays were the Wellington and Whitley, which, if you had read my post, you'll see I have rated as the other of my top three.
 
Shortround6
ok a SAAF squadron this explan because was not on rafweb page, looking info on this i found that the first losses of Boston of 24 SAAF squadron was on 23rd November '41, 24th November, 7th December, 8th January '42 (2 Boston). I found others informations on the 24 SAAF used the Boston in the Crusader offensive so is confirmed that the Boston were operational since the november '41 in only one SAAF squadron

Just for add confusion for the 88 rafweb.org report the first delivery in february (I&II model)

From the statistics on lancaster-archive the Stirling dropped the 7.3% of bombs of the BC in '41 and the Halifax the 3.9%, the Manchester the 2.5%, the Fortress 0,1%, the Wellington 49,1%, the Whitley 17.5%, the Hampden 15.9%. In the western desert i think there were only Blenheim and Maryland (and eventually the 24 SAAF with Boston), in far east there were mainly Blenheims, the Hudson were also common, and i found a flight with Beaufort. i suppose the CC hade nothing more modern of Beaufort and the alone squadron with Liberator.
 
Last edited:
Vincenzo said:
From the statistics on lancaster-archive the Stirling dropped the 7.3% of bombs of the BC in '41 and the Halifax the 3.9%, the Manchester the 2.5%, the Fortress 0,1%, the Wellington 49,1%, the Whitley 17.5%, the Hampden 15.9%.
Click to expand...

In the context of a total tonnage of bombs dropped by Bomber Command in 1941 of about 30,000. That's still about three times what was dropped in 1939/40.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
On the USAAF bombers use for the statistical digest only heavy bomber dropped bombs in december '41 (36 tons), the medium&light first month with drop is in march '42.
Ever the SD report on hand the 30th november 145 B-17 and 11 B-24, 113 B-25, 143 B-26 and 131 A-20, for the 31st december the numbers are 198, 89, 151, 181, 417.
Of this overseas on 30th nov 61 B-17, 24 A-20 and for the 31st december 81 B-17 and 22 A-20 not other models (of that in the list all the old were not on the list) were overseas
note: is near sure that the LB-30 were overseas so this is strange
 
Last edited:
is near sure that the LB-30 were overseas so this is strange
Click to expand...

Not really, The USAAF statistical digest is only going to list US owned aircraft or at the very best, aircraft the US paid for.

The LB-30s and the early Hovacs/Bostons were paid for by the British (and French) on direct order and had nothing to do with the USAAF. Lend-Lease aircraft may get iffy. They may count in production totals but may not when counting aircraft "deployed" by the USAAF overseas or count for bombs dropped by the USAAF, since they are not being flown by US squadrons or groups.
 
Shortround6 said:
. They may count in production totals but may not when counting aircraft "deployed" by the USAAF overseas or count for bombs dropped by the USAAF, since they are not being flown by US squadrons or groups.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the LB-30 used from the 6th and 19th US Bomber groups so they were flown to US groups
 
Going back to the three that I suggested.
The Sterling was for its time quite a decent aircraft often used in 1941 on daylight raids and on those raids the Germans considered them to be difficult targets. The B17 wasn't ready for combat missions in 1941. It had far too many problems and when the RAF started to use them the USAAF advisors in discussion with Churchill were urging caution in the use of the aircraft on actual missions. The RAF went ahead ignoring their advice.

The French version of the Boston was in service in 1941, just because the RAF took a fair amount of time getting it tweaked to RAF standards doesn't mean that the aircraft wasn't ready in 1941. Personally I would rather take a French Boston rather than a Blenheim any time.
 
One might ask what relevance to the strategic bombing campaign any allied bombers had in 1941 given the minute fraction of the eventual tonnage of bombs dropped and the wild inaccuracy of those dropped. In 1941 accuracy was still so bad that one RAF bomber dropped its bombs on an airfield in Cambridgeshire, believing it was bombing an airfield in German occupied Holland!



With the exception of the Halifax, which should have been replaced, that's another story, they all were phased out before the campaign reached a level where it could have any serious impact on Germany.

None of the bombers available in 1940/41 were fit for the purpose of mounting a strategic bombing campaign against one of Britain's continental rivals, which had been the raison d'etre of the RAF in the inter war years. Really the thread is trying to establish which were the 'least worse '.

The 'least worse', operational in 1941, albeit in limited numbers, was the Halifax. That is intentionally faint praise. You can juggle the other contenders mentioned into order depending on the criteria applied. I'd juggle the Whitley, Wellington and Stirling, probably in that order.

Cheers

Steve
 

be that as it may it was still a real threat that germany took very seriously. i am reading the PDF file of preparing for barbarossa in the technical section. in the report it mentions several times moving training and unit assembly facilities east and out of the reach of enemy bombing. plus one of the early goals of barbarossa was to push the front so far into the soviet union that these bases would also be beyond the operational capabilities of their air force. to me that says it was effective enough.
 

There were about 4 different Boston/Havocs up until the end of 1941. There were two different P W R-1830 engines used in the the Early DB-7s, one of 1000hp for take-off with a single speed supercharger and one with 1100hp for take-off and two speed supercharger. Some of the early planes didn't have self sealing fuel tanks, and several different self sealing schemes were used. In fact some of the French contract machines had been built with 500 gallon integral tanks and had to be refitted with smaller, self sealing tanks. Most, if not all, of the Early planes were either used for training or converted to night fighters as they didn't have the range to be used as bombers once France fell. Most of the Early aircraft had a single MG in the dorsal position and sometimes a single MG out the bottom rear (supposed to manned by the same gunner using the dorsal gun).
The Havoc II was the first with the 1600hp Wright R-2600s and there was still a mish-mash of fuel tanks and armament. The Boston III (not a French type) got twin .30 cal guns in the dorsal position and 394-400 gallon fuel tanks which still gave a very short range with the R-2600 engines if any speed was used. Range on 340 gallons was about 700 miles at around 150mph IAS (188mph at 12,000ft?) Range on 340 gallons dropped to 500miles at 221 IAS (274mph true at 12,000ft) and that is at max lean. Going to max continuous shortened the range to 325 miles for 340 gallons.
Doesn't matter how fast the bomber is if can't reach the target.
 
The B17 wasn't ready for combat missions in 1941.
Click to expand...

Not how the RAF were using it, no. the fact that it had good turn of speed - cruise speed as high as the Wellington's maximum and excellent range and height, the latter of which is what the RAF was interested in. These advantages could have been exploited in a different fashion, rather than as a strategic bomber operating alone against heavily defended targets, as the Fortress Is were used.


Yep, I agree, much better aircraft, but the French Bostons were not in service with the RAF as bombers in 1941. The Boston Is, which were French DB-7s were used solely for training and the Boston IIs from French orders became heavy fighter/intruders and primarily night fighters as Havocs. This makes the first RAF operated bomber variant of the Boston the Mk.III, which as we have established did not see operations until early 1942, despite having had deliveries of the type to squadrons in 1941. The Safas in 24 Sqn having used theirs in tactical reconnaissance in December 1941, however.


Pretty much. The problems that afflicted Bomber Command went beyond the quality of its equipment, though (which is outside the scope of this thread). Be that as it may, this is about what we think were the top three Allied bombers of 1941. As I put a few posts back (after a few perspective changes ), Whitley, Wellington, Stirling in no particular order; There weren't too many other bombers that had the attributes of these three and were available in numbers.
 

A little confusion of cause and effect.
Poor training, tactics and target selection had as much, if not more, to do with the poor results achieved in 1940, 41 and early 42 as the type of bombers used. You could have used a time machine and equipped ALL Bomber Command squadrons with Lancasters during that time period and gotten pretty much the same results. A crew that doesn't know if they are over Holland or England is not going to navigate better with a different type of airplane.
 
Shortround6 said:
A crew that doesn't know if they are over Holland or England is not going to navigate better with a different type of airplane.
Click to expand...

True, they were waiting for the development of various electronic and navigational aids, the bomber stream and Bert Harris

It doesn't alter the fact that they were all phased out of Bomber Command (with the exception of the Halifax) as soon as was practicable. The Halifax only survived for political and production related reasons, not operational considerations. If Harris had his way by 1943 BC would have been equipped with two types, Lancaster and Mosquito.

Surely the biggest problem for the Whitley, Wellington, Hampden, Stirling and even Manchester was an operational cruising height below 15,000 feet, well below in some cases. This made them all too vulnerable. The Halifax I scraped in a little higher, but still too low.
Operational cruising speeds between 160 and 210 mph left something to be desired too. The Stirling wins on this one (208mph)

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
It doesn't alter the fact that they were all phased out of Bomber Command (with the exception of the Halifax) as soon as was practicable.
Click to expand...

True but that doesn't mean that they were the "The 'least worse'," in 1941 anymore than the fighters that were used in 1941 were the 'least worse' even if they were phased out as soon as possible in 1942/43 by newer models. Such was the rate of progress in WW II.
 
A good design can be developed. The Spitfire wasn't phased out in 1941, nor was the Bf 109.

One of Bomber Command's complaints against the Halifax was that Handley Page proved incapable of carrying out the development promised. The others were already going or gone by this time.

Sinclair was a supporter of the MAP line on the Halifax and a rather optimistic statement by him about the Halifax saying that the men in Halifax squadrons would prefer it to the Lancaster if "30 or 40 mph speed could be restored to it" provoked the following response from Harris.
"I am convinced, as usual, that Handley Page is covering up behind a mass of verbiage and a lot of pettifogging minor modifications, by which he hoped to postpone either the realisation of the hopelessness of the Halifax or the necessity to switch as far as possible to something better."

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
We are back to the "best as used in 1941" or "best for potential development in 1941" or a combination of the two?

Granted the Whitley was pretty much a dead end design but it never got a better engine than the Merlin X. The Wellington continued on as a Bomber for quite a few years in the Med but got a lot more power as the years went on. Twin 1000hp or 1145hp engines were still quite common in 1941 although the 1375hp Hercules engines came into use in 1941. Going to 1675hp engines later kept it useful even if not first rate.

The better engines were pretty much siphoned off to the 4 engine bombers and Mosquito.

2000-2800hp (total) bombers were never going to equal 4600-6700hp bombers so, yes, the twins as heavy bombers were on the way out. But as used in 1941 ???
 
Shortround6 said:
We are back to the "best as used in 1941"
Click to expand...

I think our lists of 'best used in 1941', given that I have no opinion on Soviet bombers, would agree. There are only a handful of contenders and the order can be shuffled depending on the criteria applied, speed, altitude, load, survivability etc. They were all terrible though.

Cheers

Steve
 
There are only a handful of contenders and the order can be shuffled depending on the criteria applied, speed, altitude, load, survivability etc. They were all terrible though.
Click to expand...

Whilst I don't disagree with your assessment of strategic bombing - and the Halifax at the time, Steve, I have to ask the question, terrible compared to what? In 1941, ignoring this thread for a minute, the Stirling, Whitley and Wellington, for all their faults were among the best bombers in the world. Yes, the Germans had the Ju 88 and the He 111, Do 17 etc, but they lacked bomb load and adequate defensive armament, for example - need I list every heavy bomber in the world at that time to make my point? You are getting ahead of yourself. The status quo in 1941 was by no means impressive compared to what was to come, but at the time, 1941, what was considered the best was very different to a year later.

In 1941, hangovers from before the war were still prevalent in service; the Defiant, the Whitley, the Blenheim etc. These aircraft were still front line types and yes, the British were hoping for more in the future - of course, you don't settle for the status quo for long in a technological race during wartime, but until the future arrives, you have what you have. The Whitley and Wellington were advanced aircraft, as was the Stirling, Manchester and Halifax. Unfortunately for the RAF, the newer designs were all proving to be less than what they promised; but in their own way, these aircraft were a big step forward and had virtues - some not so obvious at that time - that would eventually prove themselves. Until that happened though, the older, more established aircraft were the best that there were. Compare them with their Axis contemporaries, analyse their strengths and weaknesses and you'll see that they stack up rather well compared to what everyone else was doing. Terrible is relative.
 
Again I agree.
The problem I have is that the RAF had decided that it should be capable of mounting a strategic bombing campaign against any continental rival, rather obviously Germany from the mid '30s onwards, and convinced itself and influential people in the government that it could.
It patently could not, given the equipment available in 1939/40/41 and even into 1942 and a lot of men paid with their lives for this and with no effect on Germany at all. That is terrible. Aircraft flying at less than 200mph in daylight were little more than target practice for enemy fighters, as were aircraft flying at 12,000ft for Germany's developing flak defences.
A lot of men would pay with their lives later too, but at least the campaign in which they perished, whilst not decisive, as some had hoped, did make a major contribution to the ending of the European war in 1945.
Cheers
Steve
 

reverse it;
"given the equipment available in 1939/40/41 and even into 1942 and a lot of men paid with their lives for this and with no effect on England at all. That is terrible. Aircraft flying at less than 200mph in daylight were little more than target practice for enemy fighters, as were aircraft flying at 12,000ft for England's developing flak defences."

WHY were the German results better (if they were) using planes that were, for the most part, no faster, had worse defensive armament and carried smaller payloads on average?

Blaming the airframes in use is not putting the blame were it belongs. Granted the planes of 1941 would have trouble reaching Berlin with large payloads but the Ruhr was certainly within reach. It is only 256 miles from Norwich to Essen.

The Whitley could carry 5500lbs over 1300 miles cut it to 1/3 for radius if you want. Early Wellingtons could carry 4500lbs 1200 miles. Hampden could carry 3000lbs 1800miles.

ASSUMING you can fly and navigate at night without practicing or proper equipment let alone drop bombs and hit a target at night is where the big failures lay.

With better training and better equipment (navigation, not airframes) those crews could have achieved much more solid results for their sacrifice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Axis Strategic Heavy Bombers?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
German heavy bombers
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
D
"Self-inflicted" heavy bombers damages in 8th Air Force
Replies
2
Views
1K
Daniel BASTIEN
D
S
ww2 propeller crash biggin hill 1941
Replies
3
Views
388
stuart
S
high altitude bomber
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register