Was the term "light bomber" used informally or formally by the allied side? I'm curious because I've heard the Airco DH.4 referred to as a day-bomber & general purpose aircraft and, while I'm not sure if it was referred to informally or formally as a light-bomber, it was sometimes described as such post-war at the minimum.
Bomber Question
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
I don't think the terminology had settled down in WW1. A DH4 and DH9 carried quite a heavy bombload for WW1 so I would be surprised to see them referred to as light bombers . It didn't match the HP 0400 or the German Gotha's which would be the heavy bombers of the period.
A lot of aircraft in the RFC/RAF got by with a varied selection of 20pd bombs.
Soon after the war technology continued to improve and I can see the DH4/DH9 being called light bombers but not during WW1
A lot of aircraft in the RFC/RAF got by with a varied selection of 20pd bombs.
Soon after the war technology continued to improve and I can see the DH4/DH9 being called light bombers but not during WW1
- Thread starter
- #3
The only plane I know referred to as a "light bomber" in the WW2 period is the Mosquito, but I dont know if that was actually documented as such. It was light because it was much less than a Wellington, and it was a bomber because it had no defensive armament and no aggressive armament. In the same period as the Mosquito was introduced the Do-17 was classed as a medium bomber and the Typhoon was a fighter bomber although they all had similar bomb loads.
Edit By the same token the Lancaster and Halifax were medium bombers and the Stirling was the UKs only official "Heavy Bomber". In terms of tonnage the Mosquito as a developed light bomber could drop twice the tonnage of explosives (maybe not bombs) on Berlin, simply because it could do two trips in one night.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #5
I was talking about WWI, and extended it to the period between WWI & WWII in the US & UK
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
I've never read of "light bomber" being used in WWI terminology.
In principle it is the same. The WW1 Gotha bomber carried 350KG of bombs the Vickers Vimy carried 1,123Kg but they were both late WW1 "heavy bombers"
Glider
Captain
This is a guess but I would say when twin engine bombers came upon the scene. I can see that single engine bombers could then be defined as light bombers. Later on these early twin engine bombers such as the Blenheim became light bombers as the capability of twin engine bombers improved.
There were always twin engined bombers from WW1 era. When you stop counting just engines, a Typhoon with either rockets or bombs could carry more offensive fire power than a Do-17, but it had more horsepower and less crew too.
Glider
Captain
True, but when the the Do17 and Hampden were in service in the first couple of years of the war the Battle and Stuka were light bombers. Things developed quickly and by the time the Typhoon and P47 were in service they had to a large degree usurped the Do17, Hampden and Blenheim which in turn were replaced by the Ju88, B25 and B26
Terminology was all over the place during the Great War, often without equivalent between each country. This was what was called a 'fighter' in 1915-1916: a two-or-more seat armed reconnaissance aircraft.
RAFM 47
That's why this was called the Bristol Fighter, not because it was used as a fighter, but because it was a two-seater scout reconnaissance aircraft that could also be used as a bomber.
Bristol F.2b ground-1
This is what was our modern understanding of a fighter, but it was called a 'scout'. The US called them 'Pursuits', terminology that stuck around, as we know.
RAFM 49
The French were the first to employ aircraft in units that we regard today as 'fighter' and 'bomber' squadrons. In 1915 they established the first Groupes de Chasse with the sole purpose of seeking German reconnaissance aircraft over their lines and shooting them down. No one else did that until the French began to. The same as their Groupes de Bombardement, equipped with aircraft for offensive operations as opposed to reconnaissance aircraft that could carry bombs, which is what everyone else was doing.
Knights of the Sky 31
The DH.4 fitted into this ethos. The RFC went to war with a mixed bag of aircraft and not very much inspiration of what to do with them. Bombing/close support became a necessity and the DH.4 fit this, but its units weren't strictly speaking 'bomber' squadrons, but their tactical use in support of ground objectives was obvious since it was army controlled.
DH-4
Even with the big twin-engined HP O/100s in use by the Royal Naval Air Service didn't change the specifics; DH.4s and DH.9s were tactical bombers but also served as recon platforms. The RNAS had a more strategic role and used small bombers such as the Sopwith Strutter and the big ones such as the O/100s and these were used to attack strategic targets, such as railway junctions, airship sheds, airfields and factories etc, the role of the 'bomber' as we know it, as opposed to close support with the RFC. The RFC did adopt bombers for more strategic roles, but that came about from necessity. The O/400 never saw frontline service with the RFC before it became the RAF in 1918, but the navy had big bombers beforehand and flew bombing operations against Germany.
The Axis countries' forces were similar in that bombers were derived from reconnaissance aircraft and were initially dual role, and strategic operations was initially a navy activity with airships until late 1916/early 1917, when bigger aeroplanes became available to the army air force, such as the Gothas and AEGs, and eventually the Riesenflugzeugen.
Gatow 145
Single engined bombers close to the front were employed in support of ground movements and were, as mentioned above, initially dual role reconnaissance bombers.
LVG C VI
Although we think of the Jastas as typical of German aerial war plans, they were a late war thing and grew from necessity, as well as the intent of the French in deliberately setting out to attack German reconnaissance aircraft. German plans were defensive in nature and from 1915 to around 1917, when better Allied aircraft began to emerge over the frontlines, were designed to hold the line; not venture into enemy territory and especially not to venture forth hunting enemy aircraft. They were designed to shoot down enemy aircraft over German territory - they invented the standing patrol. The concept of hunting units, the 'Flying Circuses' in 1917 changed that, of course. The Germans were playing the long game. They took territory and intended on holding onto it, so that defined how they used their equipment.
Fok Dr I-2
So, differentiating between roles was not always clear cut in terms of the type of aircraft used, but in terms of role of the unit and relationship to the forces being engaged, definitely. 'Light' and 'heavy bombers' were not a thing, even though that's how we might refer to them today, but there were bomber squadrons, reconnaissance squadrons, bomber reconnaissance squadrons etc depending on what time during the war we are talking about.
That's why this was called the Bristol Fighter, not because it was used as a fighter, but because it was a two-seater scout reconnaissance aircraft that could also be used as a bomber.
This is what was our modern understanding of a fighter, but it was called a 'scout'. The US called them 'Pursuits', terminology that stuck around, as we know.
The French were the first to employ aircraft in units that we regard today as 'fighter' and 'bomber' squadrons. In 1915 they established the first Groupes de Chasse with the sole purpose of seeking German reconnaissance aircraft over their lines and shooting them down. No one else did that until the French began to. The same as their Groupes de Bombardement, equipped with aircraft for offensive operations as opposed to reconnaissance aircraft that could carry bombs, which is what everyone else was doing.
The DH.4 fitted into this ethos. The RFC went to war with a mixed bag of aircraft and not very much inspiration of what to do with them. Bombing/close support became a necessity and the DH.4 fit this, but its units weren't strictly speaking 'bomber' squadrons, but their tactical use in support of ground objectives was obvious since it was army controlled.
Even with the big twin-engined HP O/100s in use by the Royal Naval Air Service didn't change the specifics; DH.4s and DH.9s were tactical bombers but also served as recon platforms. The RNAS had a more strategic role and used small bombers such as the Sopwith Strutter and the big ones such as the O/100s and these were used to attack strategic targets, such as railway junctions, airship sheds, airfields and factories etc, the role of the 'bomber' as we know it, as opposed to close support with the RFC. The RFC did adopt bombers for more strategic roles, but that came about from necessity. The O/400 never saw frontline service with the RFC before it became the RAF in 1918, but the navy had big bombers beforehand and flew bombing operations against Germany.
The Axis countries' forces were similar in that bombers were derived from reconnaissance aircraft and were initially dual role, and strategic operations was initially a navy activity with airships until late 1916/early 1917, when bigger aeroplanes became available to the army air force, such as the Gothas and AEGs, and eventually the Riesenflugzeugen.
Single engined bombers close to the front were employed in support of ground movements and were, as mentioned above, initially dual role reconnaissance bombers.
Although we think of the Jastas as typical of German aerial war plans, they were a late war thing and grew from necessity, as well as the intent of the French in deliberately setting out to attack German reconnaissance aircraft. German plans were defensive in nature and from 1915 to around 1917, when better Allied aircraft began to emerge over the frontlines, were designed to hold the line; not venture into enemy territory and especially not to venture forth hunting enemy aircraft. They were designed to shoot down enemy aircraft over German territory - they invented the standing patrol. The concept of hunting units, the 'Flying Circuses' in 1917 changed that, of course. The Germans were playing the long game. They took territory and intended on holding onto it, so that defined how they used their equipment.
So, differentiating between roles was not always clear cut in terms of the type of aircraft used, but in terms of role of the unit and relationship to the forces being engaged, definitely. 'Light' and 'heavy bombers' were not a thing, even though that's how we might refer to them today, but there were bomber squadrons, reconnaissance squadrons, bomber reconnaissance squadrons etc depending on what time during the war we are talking about.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Wonderful post!
- Thread starter
- #13
nuuumannn
So that came after the first World War? That's a good starting point, since it appears to be after WWI, and definitely between WWI & WWII.
The post was really fascinating, particularly how the French were the first to pursue squadrons explicitly for aerial combat and aerial bombardment.
Please bear in mind that the conflict was in France, they had a serious interest in the outcome.
So that came after the first World War? That's a good starting point, since it appears to be after WWI, and definitely between WWI & WWII.
The post was really fascinating, particularly how the French were the first to pursue squadrons explicitly for aerial combat and aerial bombardment.
Shortround6
Major General
The Typhoon just didn't fly as far as the Do-17, not that the Do-17 was a long range aircraft.
Hi
Air-Britain's publication 'The British Aircraft Specification File' gives some detail of the 'formal' terminology, page 15 gives the Air Board's official specification for both the RFC and RNAS as from April 1917:
With the formation of the RAF (page 20) the following specifications are issued:
In both the term Heavy, Medium or Light Bomber is not used, mentions of day, night and the range is. A 'Memorandum on Bomber Operations' dated 17th January, 1918 and sent by CIGS War Office to General Sir H Wilson, British Military Representative, Supreme War Council, also mentions night, day and references to range:
The Specifications book has the first mention of 'Heavy' in 1927 (page 115) in relation to Spec. 8/27 Heavy Night Bomber, which is referring to "Vickers Virginia VII Production".
The first mention of 'Medium' is in 1929 (page 139) with Spec. 10/29 Medium Day Bomber, which is referring to the "Boulton Paul P.29 Sidstrand".
The first mention of 'Light' is in 1934 (page 187) with Spec. P.4/34E Light Day Bomber, which is referring to the "Fairey P.4/34" and "Hawker Henley".
I hope that answers some of the question.
Mike
Thanks guys. 
Brilliant, Mike, note how the aircraft are defined by their use late by that time in the war, 1917/1918 and the use of the word 'fighter' has become standard in the RAF. Note the difference between 'short distance' and 'long distance' bombers, which effectively equates to light and heavy bombers, but as Mike pointed out, were not defined as 'light', 'medium' and 'heavy' until the 20s and 30s. Note also how ill-defined RFC and RNAS aircraft were role-wise a year earlier.
Brilliant, Mike, note how the aircraft are defined by their use late by that time in the war, 1917/1918 and the use of the word 'fighter' has become standard in the RAF. Note the difference between 'short distance' and 'long distance' bombers, which effectively equates to light and heavy bombers, but as Mike pointed out, were not defined as 'light', 'medium' and 'heavy' until the 20s and 30s. Note also how ill-defined RFC and RNAS aircraft were role-wise a year earlier.
The Do 17 was actually not very capable of an aircraft, although it was reasonably fast for its time and equipped with cameras the Do 17E was an excellent long-range reconnaissance platform. The Do 17Z could carry a maximum bomb load of 1,000 kgs over 600 kilometres range, or 500 kgs over twice that, so as a bomber there needed to be more of them to deliver a given load compared to other types in the German inventory.
Shortround6
Major General
Thank you. I just get a bit tired of the Typhoon being trotted out as some sort of single engine medium bomber.
It took quite a while to get the pair of 1000lb bombs with several modifications, like using a long span (tempest?) tail plane and different tyres (especially tail wheel) before carrying the 100lbs bombs was common. The pair of 500lb bombs was a lot earlier and need little if any modification aside form the bomb racks?
Most fighter bombers being rather short ranged they were not really in same class or ability as medium bombers (even small ones or borderline light bombers).
The Typhoons and their pilots did a lot of good work and faced one of the best AA defenses in the world at the time.
I was just trotting it out because it is a fact. I dont think the Typhoon was a great aircraft but in terms of air support for ground troops it had more horse power and fire power than the Do-17 and just one crew, plus a much better chance of getting away. The Do-17 is called a medium bomber, it was used in much the same roles as the Typhoon for its short lived life as a front line combat plane. To me it is just an illustration of how things had moved on between 1940 and 1943
