Bomber Command by Max Hastings

[nuuumannn]

No squadron was listed as a night bomber squadron although I believe the Fairey Hendon at least was referred to as a night bomber.

Right, but the squadrons would perform night bombing duties because it operated a night bomber. Do you see the distinction? Even when equipped with Lancasters and Halifaxes that predominantly carried out night operations, RAF bomber squadrons were not specifically referred to as Night Bomber Squadrons.

 

[pbehn]

According to Wiki the Whitley was ordered as a night bomber / troop transport and at the start of the war No 4 group were the only trained night bomber force in existence.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

According to Wiki the Whitley was ordered as a night bomber / troop transport and at the start of the war No 4 group were the only trained night bomber force in existence.

That's the evidence, Specification B.3/34 call for a night bomber, much appreciated.

You use what you've got, not what you want in future.

Very true, you have to carry on with the tools you have at your disposal, not the ones you want, so since the RAF didn't have an apropiate replacement in quantity, it have to soldier on with the Whitley in the bombing role. Maybe obsolete isn't an apropiate word, perhaps out of date been better.

 

[tomo pauk]

That's the evidence, Specification B.3/34 call for a night bomber, much appreciated.

Very true, you have to carry on with the tools you have at your disposal, not the ones you want, so since the RAF didn't have an apropiate replacement in quantity, it have to soldier on with the Whitley in the bombing role. Maybe obsolete isn't an apropiate word, perhaps out of date been better.

Whitley, at least once outfitted with Merlin X, was the best bombtruck that RAF had in 1939-40. Whitley V was carrying 4500 lbs over 1650 mile range, vs. Wellington I carrying 4500 lbs over the 1200 mile range. Same cruising speed for the two. Max bomb load was 8000 lbs for the Whitley V, 4500 lbs for the Wellington I.
Unfortunately, the concept of fighters escorting the bombers was not yet present in the RAF dictionary, thus RAF BC started night bombing after the few instances of bloody nose received.

 

[PAT303]

Put simply, Bf 109s shot down more Spitfires and Hurricanes than Spitfires and Hurricanes shot down Bf 109s, but the British fighters even up the score by shooting down lots of bombers and Bf 110s, enough to tip the scales in favour of the RAF in terms of numbers.

Bombers were the Spitfire and Hurricane's primary target, pilots were told to ignore the fighters, It was the same over Darwin, A6M's shot down 26 Spitfires, 19 of the losses were when the Spit pilot was engaged with a bomber.

 

[PAT303]

As part of an academic discussion, saying the 8 mgs of a Hurricane and Spitfire was heavy armament for the time is a valid comment, but it didn't impress any BoB pilot who had been hit by a cannon shell they wanted cannon THAT WORKED

I don't think the Luftwaffe pilots that shared their cockpit with a dozen or more .303's were very impressed either.

 

[nuuumannn]

Bombers were the Spitfire and Hurricane's primary target, pilots were told to ignore the fighters,

...And that is how it was done. Osterkamp became aware that the British were deliberately holding their fighters back when the Jagdgruppen were sending out fighter sweeps with the intent of drawing them out and whittling down their numbers. Dowding and Park were too canny for falling for that one and emphasised that attacking the bombers was the main priority.

 

[nuuumannn]

Maybe obsolete isn't an apropiate word, perhaps out of date been better.

Compared to what? In 1938 when the Whitley IV entered RAF service, there was no other heavy bomber in Europe that had its capabilities. Neither the Germans nor the Italians had an aircraft that had as much of a range carrying as heavy a load as the Whitley, nor did they have an aircraft that was defensively protected as well as the Whitley, even by the time the war began. Yes, it was slow, but the He 111, when carrying as heavy a load, which it couldn't internally didn't offer much more performance and because of its restricted internal bomb load, it had to carry its extra load externally.

As for the argument that it was biding its time until the big four-engined heavies arrived, not really - it was considered with the Wellington the mainstay of Bomber Command when it entered service. But again, because something is replaced by bigger and better doesn't immediately bestow out of date onto it, especially if it still can be used either in the role it was designed for or another, which in the Whitley's case was appropriate. The Whitley specification was released in 1934, the big heavy specs that produced the Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster were released in 1936. The Whitley entered service in 1937, the Stirling in 1940 and the Halifax in 1941, as with the Lancaster. In that time, expectations and technology changed drastically, beyond what could have been predicted in 1934.

Again, you're presuming it was outdated, but you don't have evidence.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Compared to what? In 1938 when the Whitley IV entered RAF service, there was no other heavy bomber in Europe that had its capabilities. Neither the Germans nor the Italians had an aircraft that had as much of a range carrying as heavy a load as the Whitley, nor did they have an aircraft that was defensively protected as well as the Whitley, even by the time the war began. Yes, it was slow, but the He 111, when carrying as heavy a load, which it couldn't internally didn't offer much more performance and because of its restricted internal bomb load, it had to carry its extra load externally.

As for the argument that it was biding its time until the big four-engined heavies arrived, not really - it was considered with the Wellington the mainstay of Bomber Command when it entered service. But again, because something is replaced by bigger and better doesn't immediately bestow out of date onto it, especially if it still can be used either in the role it was designed for or another, which in the Whitley's case was appropriate. The Whitley specification was released in 1934, the big heavy specs that produced the Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster were released in 1936. The Whitley entered service in 1937, the Stirling in 1940 and the Halifax in 1941, as with the Lancaster. In that time, expectations and technology changed drastically, beyond what could have been predicted in 1934.

Again, you're presuming it was outdated, but you don't have evidence.

Compared to the soviet Ilyushin DB-3 for example. It entered service in 1937 and had more range (2.100 miles), bombload (5.500 lbs) and speed (273mph) albeit less defensive armament, according to Wiki

Sorry, not sure what you mean by saying "biding its time" (wasting time, perhaps?).

I don't deny the Whitley importance or its value in the early bomber offensive and in other roles latter, just say that was outdated, since it was the first RAF bomber monoplane and it had to soldier on due to the delays in the heavies development. As you said, you just had to carry on with whatever tool you have, specially in the dire situation UK face in 1940 and first half of 1941.

The Whitley, Wellington and Hampden were there and had to go on the offense by night and the Blenheim by day. At that time, those were the tools the RAF had and, IMO, the Whitley was outdated fue to the fast aircraft development in the mid 30's.

Sure, neither the germans nor the italians had a comparable plane but long range bombing wasn't the Luftwaffe game and the italians themselves didn't know which its game was for the RA.

 

[33k in the air]

There was a reprint of Hastings' book published in 2013 — you can find previews of that edition through Google Books. However, the main text appears unchanged from the original 1979 version.

 

[nuuumannn]

Compared to the soviet Ilyushin DB-3 for example. It entered service in 1937 and had more range (2.100 miles), bombload (5.500 lbs) and speed (273mph) albeit less defensive armament, according to Wiki

That doesn't make the Whitley outdated, in fact the early DB-3 had a long range, but a smaller bomb load and throughout the aircraft's life it was not as well defended. At full load in its earliest incarnation its performance was not much better than the Whitley. Even compared to the late production model, compared to the figures you post above, the Whitley's maximum load is still greater and you can guarantee that the DB-3's bomb load could not be carried at its maximum range and going on the wiki figures, the Whitley still has a longer range unloaded. Let's also not forget that the Whitley is a much bigger aircraft than the DB-3, so you are comparing apples with oranges.

This illustrates the problems with using straight figures to illustrate your point. The two aircraft were very different and built to different requirements, and both had their strengths and weaknesses, so cannot really be compared to prove your point.

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Yes, that is. We agree in our disagree.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just a note about the B-17: its bombload at ETO ranges was typically 8x500lb bombs (4,000 lbs), meaning that going into Germany it carried less ordnance than your average Lancaster over similar ranges. Different designs, and different doctrine, meant that the -17 schlepped more armor and guns.

Over short ranges the B-17 could heft more than that 4,000 lbs (17,600 lbs is the figure I've read), but in usage, even Stirlings and Halis -- not to mention Lancs -- carried more, precisely because a doctrine of night-bombing meant defensive armament and armor was downsold, compared to -17s flying in daylight conditions, doctrinally.

 

[33k in the air]

Just a note about the B-17: its bombload at ETO ranges was typically 8x500lb bombs (4,000 lbs), meaning that going into Germany it carried less ordnance than your average Lancaster over similar ranges.

On missions to Berlin, the B-17 typically carried a bomb load of 5,000 lbs while the B-24 could carry 6,000 lbs.

Over short ranges the B-17 could heft more than that 4,000 lbs (17,600 lbs is the figure I've read), but in usage, even Stirlings and Halis -- not to mention Lancs -- carried more, precisely because a doctrine of night-bombing meant defensive armament and armor was downsold, compared to -17s flying in daylight conditions, doctrinally.

The B-17's load was limited by the size and nature of its bomb bay. The heaviest internal load was 12,800 lbs, consisting of 8 x 1,600 lb armor piercing bombs. Needless to say AP bombs were not of much use against factories. The next heaviest internal load would be 8,000 lbs, consisting of 8 x 1,000 lb or 16 x 500 lb semi-armor piercing bombs; after that, 6,000 lbs consisting of 6 x 1,000 lb or 12 x 500 lb general purpose bombs. (SAP bombs had a narrower diameter allowing more of them to be carried as compared to GP bombs.)

The B-17 could have two external bomb racks, each capable of carrying up to a 4,000 lb bomb. A few raids were carried out using 1,000 lb bombs on external racks, but the drag and handling penalties associated with externally carried bombs was judged not worth the small increase in bomb payload.

According to records of the 401st Bomb Squadron of the 91st Bomb Group, from Nov. 11, 1942 through June 28, 1944, the number of missions carrying the stated bomb load by its B-17s:

40 = 10 x 500 lb GP
34 = 12 x 500 lb GP
22 = 42 x 100 lb incendiary
21 = 5 x 1,000 lb GP
11 = 6 x 1,000 lb GP
10 = 6 x 500 lb GP & one bomb bay auxiliary fuel tank
6 = 2 x 2,000 lb GP
6 = 16 x 300 lb demo
6 = 38 x 100 lb GP
3 = 21 x 100 lb incendiary & one bomb bay auxiliary fuel tank
24 = a variety of other load outs only carried once or twice

This example is by no means exhaustive. I plan on eventually doing a comprehensive examination of the bomb loads carried by the major Bomber Command bombers. (I've already downloaded a large number of squadron ORBs in order to do this.)

 

[Greyman]

Average bomb loads for British bombers
Excluding Special Duty Squadrons and PFF

10,000 lb Lancaster (mar42 - mar45)​

7,250 lb Halifax (mar41 - mar45)​

5,250 lb Stirling (feb41 - mar45)​

1,930 lb Mosquito (may42 - mar45)​

 

[33k in the air]

Average bomb loads for British bombers
Excluding Special Duty Squadrons and PFF

10,000 lb Lancaster (mar42 - mar45)​

7,250 lb Halifax (mar41 - mar45)​

5,250 lb Stirling (feb41 - mar45)​

1,930 lb Mosquito (may42 - mar45)​

What's particularly interesting, I would say, about the loads of the RAF four-engined bombers is not the total weight, but how that weight was distributed into actual bombs carried. There was an enormous variety in the load outs, and the typical loads carried varied over time.

 

[Greyman]

For sure, and all the different ordnance kind of makes the tonnage comparisons a bit pointless in some sense.

eg: in '42 and '43 the 4-lb incendiary bomb was widely used by Bomber Command -- but for the most part the limit on carrying this store was volume-related, not weight-related. The Halifax and Stirling were inefficient in this regard (vs. the Lanc) so the blanket 'average tonnage per sortie' figure really suffered because of this.

Vitally important to, say, Harris -- but I suppose less so to us looking at what the operational aircraft was technically capable of.

 

[pbehn]

Just a note about the B-17: its bombload at ETO ranges was typically 8x500lb bombs (4,000 lbs), meaning that going into Germany it carried less ordnance than your average Lancaster over similar ranges. Different designs, and different doctrine, meant that the -17 schlepped more armor and guns.

Over short ranges the B-17 could heft more than that 4,000 lbs (17,600 lbs is the figure I've read), but in usage, even Stirlings and Halis -- not to mention Lancs -- carried more, precisely because a doctrine of night-bombing meant defensive armament and armor was downsold, compared to -17s flying in daylight conditions, doctrinally.

Also note that although a Lancaster could drop a Grand Slam it was stripped of a lot of equipment like turrets and radio operators and equipment to do so.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also note that although a Lancaster could drop a Grand Slam it was stripped of a lot of equipment like turrets and radio operators and equipment to do so.

Absolutely. And even with their standard load-outs of cookies+incendiaries, in a formation of three or four hundred, they became (collectively) -- as Robert O'Connell put it -- a weapon of mass-destruction.

 

[33k in the air]

Absolutely. And even with their standard load-outs of cookies+incendiaries, in a formation of three or four hundred, they became (collectively) -- as Robert O'Connell put it -- a weapon of mass-destruction.

When bombing was concentrated, that is. When bombing was scattered, the results were decidedly less spectacular.