A better Coastal Command?

[stona]

Yes, the GP bombs mostly had a CWR of around 30%. The early 250lb version had a CWR of just 23%!

the 20 lb F anti-personnel bomb and the 40 lb GP bomb were results of a 1935 recommendation from the Aircraft Bomb Sub-Committee. They were to replace some of the old WW1 bombs.
The 20 lb F replaced something called the 'Cooper Bomb' ( a 24lb fragmentation bomb of which just 4lb was HE, the other 20lb was cast iron and wood!).
The 40 lb GP was a new bomb designed for use against 'vehicles, houses and aircraft on the ground'.

Cheers

Steve

 

[nuuumannn]

How many squadrons of flying boats and shore based aircraft had been flying anti-sub patrols in 1917-18?

It is worth noting the almost universal ignorance that everyone has for the use of aerial maritime patrol assets in the Great War, notably airships, which were quite effective in that role. By the end of the Great War the RAF, formerly RNAS had over 100 maritme patrol airships at air stations dotted up and down the United Kingdom. The non-rigid airship made an excellent maritime patrol asset for several reasons, they could carry a sizeable load across a great distance and had excellent endurance, they had sets of eyes in numbers and could be deployed from any sizeable field with personnel for mooring; aside from the main airship stations, there were satellite mooring-out stations to assist long patrols when crews couldn't make it home.

As for their effectivity, the use of maritime patrol is as much a deterrent to U-boat attack as much as brining about the destruction of enemy submarines. At the end of the war (WW1) it was officially claimed that no enemy attack was successful against vessels escorted by airships, not strictly true, as two freighters were torpedoed whilst under escort from airships near Cornwall, but that is a pretty good record considering that from 1915 to 1916 the RNAS began building up its maritime patrol airship fleet. The Germans dithering over whether they would launch a sustained campaign meant that U-boat successes until 1917 were not large by comparison to that year, which meant British maritime patrol assets were not as numerous in the first few years.

From 1917 and the declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare, sinkings trebled. By the end of 1917 a greater tonnage of Allied merchant ships had been sunk in the previous 12 months than during the previous three years of the war. This caused a boosting of funding and concentration of effort to produce anti submarine assets, including airships, - nearly 200 non-rigid airships served with the RNAS/RAF during the war. Oh yes, and submarines were sunk by airships during WW1. The U-boat UB 115 was sunk by the rigid airship R.29 with help from the destroyer HMS Ouse (which was the pattern of aerial attack to call in surface help once a submarine was spotted) in September 1918.

U-boats tended not to attack if there was an airship present and post-war research (carried out by a chappie I once knew called Patrick Abbott, who wrote an excellent little book on Britain's use of airships during the Great War) showed that German U-boat commanders typically abandoned attacking ships because aircraft posed a serious threat to their survival. Once they were spotted, they would dive, but because their sub-surface speed was low, they could be caught by surface vessels relatively easily. Best to remain invisible and slink away without making an attack, rather than make an attack and be caught and sunk.

It is interesting to note that the United States was the only country to use maritime patrol airships during WW2, retiring the last, in training use in 1961. As for the use of hydrogen, the British only lost a couple in lifting gas related accidents, employing strict handling procedures, which the Germans, who lost quite a few airships due to accidents with lifting gas, did not employ.

What did the RAF require on the eve of WW2? More of everything, basically. More aircraft with greater range and better sensors. I (vaguely) remember reading something that was said post war by the then head of CC stating that specifically two things that helped win the Battle of the Atlantic was the VLR Liberator and the cavity magnetron. Now, if only I can remember who said it.

 

[stona]

I (vaguely) remember reading something that was said post war by the then head of CC stating that specifically two things that helped win the Battle of the Atlantic was the VLR Liberator and the cavity magnetron. Now, if only I can remember who said it.

I really hope it wasn't Sholto-Douglas

More likely Slatter, who had a solid background in maritime aviation.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Graeme]

The Anson you mention is an even sorrier case. This time it was the RAF which came to grief, the Anson was from 233 Squadron based at Leuchars. On the second day of the war this Anson attacked an 'enemy' submarine off the Scottish coast, only to be damaged by splinters from its own bombs. It nearly made it home, but was forced to ditch in St Andrews Bay. The shaken but unharmed crew of the submarine Snapper were left wondering just who the enemy was at the beginning of the war

Thanks Steve. Obviously Dr Alfred Price has the wrong submarine here. Couldn't find anything about this on the Wiki HMS Seahorse entry.

HMS Seahorse (98S) - Wikipedia

 

[Graeme]

Do we blame Churchill and Roosevelt?
The quote at the top is a calculation from Professor Patrick Blackett.
(Page 372 of Johnathan Dimbleby's book - The Battle of the Atlantic)

 

[Graeme]

As a result of these improvements the depth charge was redesignated (again) as the Mk XI and the pistols to Mk XIV and Mk XVI. This was the version that remained almost unchanged from mid 1942, when it entered service, until the end of the war. It was on this version that production was concentrated.

The Mk XVI pistol. Not that I have one in the back shed - but where do ya adjust the depth setting?

 

[stona]

I don't know, but step 3 "Screw in depth setting pillar...." should give a clue. I'm not sure which bit that is!

Cheers

Steve

 

[nuuumannn]

The Anson was far from an an adequate type and it was armed with a far from satisfactory weapon.

Yes, indeed, but let's put it into perspective. When the Anson I first entered service (early 1936), the Gloster Gauntlet biplane was the RAF's front line fighter. The Anson was a hangover from a previous era, and by the time WW2 kicked off, it was in service in numbers. Let's also not forget that the Short Sunderland was about as advanced as you could get in terms of maritime patrol asset when it entered service in 1938; four engined, all metal monoplane with internal weapon storage, possessing decent endurance and fitted with a range of modernities, such as variable pitch props and power operated gun turrets - no other such MP asset was so equipped in the world at that time. The Sunderland was the RAF's first modern four engined 'bomber'.

A lot happened technological advance wise in the couple of years prior to WW2 and the shortcomings of the RAF's approach to maritime patrol was only exposed due to the exigencies of war. There were few other countries in Europe, or indeed the rest of the world that were as well equipped. France, the USA, Germany. Not many other countries had such modern equipment in the types of numbers that the RAF did in mid/late 1939, as inadequate as it all was to deal with Germany's U-boats.

 

[Milosh]

Ansons flew navigator training missions out over the Gulf of St Lawrence from 1GRS in Summerside PEI even mid war. The crew was also tasked with looking for U-boats.

 

[Shortround6]

Yes, indeed, but let's put it into perspective. When the Anson I first entered service (early 1936), the Gloster Gauntlet biplane was the RAF's front line fighter. The Anson was a hangover from a previous era, and by the time WW2 kicked off, it was in service in numbers. Let's also not forget that the Short Sunderland was about as advanced as you could get in terms of maritime patrol asset when it entered service in 1938;

I quite agree with the Sunderland, trouble is there were only two squadrons of them, which is somewhat understandable as they are large, expensive and somewhat difficult to build.

Unfortunately the Anson, advanced as it was for the RAF, was rather out of date on the world stage.
in the 1934 London to Melbourne Air Race the 2nd pace finisher was a DC-2

first flight of DC-2 was May 11th 1934
Third place finisher was a Boeing 247

First flight was in Feb 1933 in a somewhat different form.
The Lockheed 10 first flew in Feb 1934

The Anson first flew March 24th 1935 and entered service with No 48 squadron on March 6th 1936. While a significant improvement on what the RAF was using at the time it shouldn't have taken a world class genius (or crystal ball) to figure out that the Anson was NOT on leading edge of world aviation.

BTW the Dornier 17 V1 first flew on November 23rd 1934

Picture of the V2.

 

[Shortround6]

To continue, first flight of the PBY Catalina was on March 28th 1935. It did take until Oct 1936 to get the first one/s into service.

these early ones used a 900hp rated engine for take off (850 max continuous at 8000ft)

The Saro London did beat the PBY into service by 8-9 months but they still had 3 squadrons flying Londons in Sept 1939( with only 31 built the number per squadron was?)

 

[stona]

The Saro London did beat the PBY into service by 8-9 months but they still had 3 squadrons flying Londons in Sept 1939( with only 31 built the number per squadron was?)

I don't know specifically but several Coastal Command 'Squadrons' in the immediate prewar period were little more than expanded Flights operating a handful of aircraft.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

I don't really have any trouble with that, Flying boats were large and probably maintenance intensive. ANd yes, it takes time to work up full squadrons, in terms of ground personnel on addition to flying crews.
Perhaps (or probably?) some of the Anson squadrons were under strength also but it does point out that even comparing squadron numbers leaves the Anson as shouldering too much of the burden.

 

[pbehn]

Third place finisher was a Boeing 247
View attachment 478264
First flight was in Feb 1933 in a somewhat different form.
.

Reading the Wiki article on AA Griffith about turbines I found it also says this on brittle fracture and even mentions the Boeing 247 in connection with it.

The work, published in 1920 ("The phenomenon of rupture and flow in solids"),[2] resulted in sweeping changes in many industries. Suddenly the "hardening" of materials due to processes such as cold rolling were no longer mysterious. Aircraft designers immediately understood why their designs had failed even though they were built much stronger than was thought necessary at the time, and soon turned to polishing their metals to remove cracks. The result was a series of particularly beautiful designs in the 1930s, such as the Boeing 247. This work was later generalised by G. R. Irwin and by R. S. Rivlin and A. G. Thomas,[3][4] in the 1950s, applying it to almost all materials, not just rigid ones.

 

[stona]

I don't really have any trouble with that, Flying boats were large and probably maintenance intensive..

I've just checked and the size of a flying boat 'squadron' was just four aircraft, certainly for the reasons you give.
It's worth bearing in mind when looking at Coastal Command strength, to imagine that such squadrons had twelve operational aircraft, as the land based squadrons were supposed to, would give a very false impression.

Maintenance really was an issue across the entire RAF. In the year from July 1938 to July 1939, under the expansion schemes, 31,600 aircrew entered the RAF. Recruiting for many RAF trades also went well, but maintenance was an issue. It was almost impossible to recruit such men (there were no women) from civilian life, as they were already required within the aircraft industry. This meant that they had to be recruited from within the service, with the result that in September 1938 a shortage of maintenance personnel, across the RAF of 8,486 was forecast for 1940. How they arrived at such a precise figure I have no idea!

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you for that information.
I would say that the best aircraft for Coastal Command in 1939 would have been the smallest and simplest that would do the job.

However I would say that the job required 500-1000lb bombload (two to four 250lb anti sub bombs at the least if you couldn't get depth chargers in time) and an endurance of 8 hours or so (range 1000 miles?) which could be done with a smallish twin, not so small as an Anson but twin Hercules or 4 engines certainly not required in 1939/40.

With a 600 mile range and roughly 4 hour endurance (at about 150mph) an Anson was good for a bit over 2 hours "on station" at about 100 miles from base. Flying a search pattern or orbiting a convoy. A plane with 6 hours endurance could stay on station about 4 hours under the same conditions or patrol that much further from base. If you want dawn till dusk air coverage on a 12 hour hour day you need 5-6 flights from Ansons but only 3 flights from the larger aircraft. that should help even out the maintenance requirements somewhat.

 

[tomo pauk]

Use the Blenheim.

 

[Airframes]

They did.

 

[Shortround6]

But not until the spring/summer of 1940 and only after Bomber command howled and complained like a soccer fan cut off from beer after his team loses
And then it was four squadrons of bombers and two squadrons of fighter Blenheims from fighter command.

 

[nuuumannn]

I quite agree with the Sunderland, trouble is there were only two squadrons of them, which is somewhat understandable as they are large, expensive and somewhat difficult to build.

Unfortunately the Anson, advanced as it was for the RAF, was rather out of date on the world stage.

But in 1936, no other country had a comparable land based maritime patrol aeroplane. The Do 17 was not in service and in 1934 the DC 2 and Boeing 247 was an aberration in world service. Advanced all metal airliners were just entering service, not the status quo. The point I'm trying to make is that yes, I agree with you in that the Anson was obsolete in 1939, but as I have pointed out on so many occasions, you go to war with what you have, not what you want. Yes, the RAF was behind in certain technologies, but ahead of everyone else in others. Yes, government was reluctant to spend on military equipment in the mid Thirties as the British wanted peace sooo much; its politicians had seen their sons march off to war and not return, so the Anson was it in 1936.

Third place finisher was a Boeing 247
View attachment 478264
First flight was in Feb 1933 in a somewhat different form.

Wasn't me who said this, pbehn. Try Shorty.

None of the offered aeroplanes above were dedicated maritime patrol aircraft, and on the world stage the only profferable machine comparable to the Sunderland offered thus far is the PBY, which between 1937 and 1938 some 14 squadrons were so equipped - good numbers. In 1938 the German maritime patrol aircraft in service was the Heinkel He 59. The Ha 138 was in prototype form and the BV 138 derivative would not go into service until 1940 and the He 115 was not yet ready for service, it entered production at the very end of 1939.

Yes, the RAF only had a small number of Sunderlands in service in 1939, but my point is that by then no other country (with the exception of the United States) could match the RAF's aerial assets in quality or quantity to deal with a sustained U-boat campaign. The Sunderland was the world's most modern maritime patrol bomber in service.