British bomber development in regards to long range fighters.

Kevin J said:

Notice the lack of Soviet 'strategic bombers'. This was because the SU wasn't convinced that this 'bombing the civilians' into submission idea would ever work.

Click to expand...

Soviets had the Pe-8 and TB-3

Milosh said:

Lysander could carry 8 very little bombs.

Click to expand...

Via 4+ Publications

fliger747 said:

Not sure the "Lysander" would be considered a bomber? I could toss stuff out of my Supercub too...

Click to expand...

White and orange plane on the left is a four seat Fairchild 24. The Lysander was hardly a Supercub.


Pre-war drawing, It may be very wrong. Notice alternative position for for rear gunner/radio man lying prone in fuselage to use bomb sight?

If it has bomb racks and a bombardier isn't it a bomber? (not saying it was a good one)

Milosh said:

Soviets had the Pe-8 and TB-3

Click to expand...

Less than 100 of the former and IIRC, the latter were used extensively as transports as well as night bombers. The TB-3 was a pre Spanish Civil War type built prior to deciding that strategic bombing wasn't an effective use of resources.

Shortround6 said:

If it has bomb racks and a bombardier isn't it a bomber? (not saying it was a good one)

Click to expand...

In a word...no. The Lysander was an army co-op aircraft. Period. As I observed earlier, let's have some clear definition of what constitutes a bomber so we're comparing apples to apples. The ability to carry and drop bombs is not a sufficient definition because, if it were, we'd have to include the Cessna Bobcat, Airspeed Oxford and even the Tiger Moth in the listings.

Kevin J said:

Less than 100 of the former and IIRC, the latter were used extensively as transports as well as night bombers. The TB-3 was a pre Spanish Civil War type built prior to deciding that strategic bombing wasn't an effective use of resources.

Click to expand...

They build the Yermolayev Yer-2 too, even if it was in trivial numbers compared to the western allies. It was far from trouble free, was out of production in the middle war years and some may argue it was not heavy enough to be a true strategic bomber (I wouldn't agree). However it shows continued interest in very long range bombers, its development continued during the war. It should also be noted that bombing civilians into submission wasn't the only task envisages for strategic bombers. Even then, the soviets priorities largely lay elsewhere which , in context, makes sense.

There were many factors influencing the specifications issued for bombers and this maybe what has led to some subsequent confusion.

Until the emergence of Germany as a threat in the early 1930s British bomber specifications were for bombers suitable to attack France. The distance to Paris was the main criterion for the range of the day bombers which would form the RAF's principal striking force.

Also in the early 1930s Japanese aggression in the Far East became a factor. Then, in 1935, came the Abyssinian crisis. These led to another factor in specifications, a ferry range sufficient to reinforce the Middle East. This also eventually led to a transport capability as a cost cutting measure.

Since the 1920s there had been two classes of day bomber, high performance and medium performance.

It was all these conflicting and changing requirements that led to a number of different specifications and a number of different aircraft. There was all sorts of other restrictions too. Wingspan was limited to ease ground handling (it had nothing to do with hangar size). Assisted take off was seriously considered. An ability to carry a torpedo, etc., etc.

The first rationalisation came with bombers to attack Germany, which really amounted to just four types (Wellington, Stirling, Halifax and Manchester). There were further attempts at rationalisation in the mid to late 1930s, the Air Ministry even called this mythical beast the 'Ideal Bomber'. During the war Harris would have had nothing but Lancasters if he could have had his way.

There was no consideration given to escort fighters. All the bombers were supposed to be self defending. There was some consideration of a specification that would use speed as its defence and be otherwise unarmed, this had crept into the Ideal Bomber concept by 1938, but it was never accepted that speed alone could provide adequate defence, not least because fighters kept getting faster. British fighters were the result of two overriding factors, a quest for speed, to enable interception of the expected bomber fleets, and a quest for firepower, to shoot the bombers down. Everything else, including endurance, was secondary. These were defencive aircraft. Their is a clue in the name of Fighter Command's predecessor, Air Defence of Great Britain (ADGB) which included other assets such as anti-aircraft artillery. If the bombers were expected to get through why would an escort fighter be considered?

Cheers

Steve



Cheers

Steve

Shortround6 said:

Now which bombers are we trying to design/modify an escort fighter for and for what fraction of the bombers potential range?

Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaking it, this is the key question of this thread.
Range vs bomb load (on most economical speed):
- Wellington IA, IC (Pegasus engines): 4500 lbs at 1500 miles, 2750 lbs at 1805 miles; all plus 69 gals of fuel allowance
- Hampden : 2000 lbs @ 1820 miles; plus 60 gals of fuel allowance
- Whitley VII (Merlin X engines): 5500 lbs at 1360 miles, 4500 lbs at 1630 miles ; plus 45 gals allowance

Seems like nothing is wrong with ability of British bombers to reach well into Germany while carrying useful bomb load. Their ability to survive in daylight in 1939 and on is close to zero, however.

A few factors.

Range is not important but endurance can be. The combat air patrol is better served by a more fuel.

The bomber did get through in the current conflicts in the 1930s and current bombings such as Guernica and Chongqing proved this as not just a proper exercise.

Without radar and fighter direction then the bomber could easily slip through

There were a couple of periods when a "high-Fast Corridor" existed that favored the bombers. Pre Radar when fighters were still ensconced with two wings as angles fighters and the bombers were actually faster, one existed. Post WWII before supersonic fighters and SAM's For a while the B36 was fast and high enough to meet this criteria, as did the subsequent B-47. The evaporation of this corridor with SAM's made the B-70 a dead duck. Even much later, the interception of Korean 007 Cruising along at it's normal M.85 was barely accomplished (almost back out of Russian airspace). You don't go very far in burner!

The Japanese "Zero" probably best met these criteria early in WWII and were responsible for whatever success the "Betty's" had down the slot. But being at the end of a long radius brings it's own problems on wear and tear on the pilots and machinery. The short ranged BOB fighters of the Luftwaffe had much the same issue over England.

Shortround6 said:

Notice alternative position for for rear gunner/radio man lying prone in fuselage to use bomb sight?

Click to expand...

Hi SR. A Max Millar drawing first published on June 9 1938. I found a slightly clearer version in a Gunston book, and if my eyes are correct, that prone guy is....."scribbling"....at his desk?

On the possible loadouts sheet, the 150 gal tank is depicted. 150 x 7.2 lbs= 1080 lbs (+ weight of the tank itself). Is it just me, or Lysander have had far better bomb-carrying capacity than Aichi 'Val'?

Graeme said:

Hi SR. A Max Millar drawing first published on June 9 1938. I found a slightly clearer version in a Gunston book, and if my eyes are correct, that prone guy is....."scribbling"....at his desk?

Click to expand...

Writing a response to the note they just picked up with the hook?


Thanks for the better picture.

tomo pauk said:

On the possible loadouts sheet, the 150 gal tank is depicted. 150 x 7.2 lbs= 1080 lbs (+ weight of the tank itself). Is it just me, or Lysander have had far better bomb-carrying capacity than Aichi 'Val'?

Click to expand...

I don't know about "better bomb-carrying capacity" but it looks like a better load carrying capacity.

that may be an illusion however as we don't know at G load ratings the different loads were good for. I doubt you would want to do very aggressive flying with the Lysander with a full fuel tank underneath.

A tail drift sight is NOT a bomb sight. It is a navigational aid. The prone airman is assisting with navigation, not aiming bombs, he's not a bombardier (or bomb aimer as we say here).



The periscope would be positioned to view the terrain directly below the fuselage while in flight. The angle of flight is then aligned on the sight. As the terrain passes below the aircraft, it travels at an angle that directly indicates the angle of drift of the aircraft caused by cross winds. By rotating the sight to align with the angle of terrain travel vs the intended aircraft course, the drift angle can be obtained. This angle is then used to calculate course corrections.

Cheers

Steve

I can't find anything 100% definite -- but it sounds like the bomb sight was mounted on the port side under the rear cockpit 'floor'. So basically to the left (crewman's point-of-view) of the tail drift sight there, hidden from view.

*EDIT: here we go:

The profile looks like one of the early Marks of course setting bomb sights, but it's hard to be sure.

Cheers

Steve

Thank you the extra details on equipment and layout.

I haven't hit many descriptions of the use of the Lysander in France aside from the loss of 88 out of 174-6 dispatched to France in the air (and another 30 on the ground).

Several squadrons were sent to NA or the middle east and several more did go to India.
I won't say they were used to great effect in either theater but they were certainly used with great bravery and resourcefulness by aircrew and ground crew. A number of raids against the Japanese being done by both British and Indian squadrons (or parts of squadrons) using 250lb bombs. On occasion being escorted by Buffaloes.

British army cooperation planes had a history of carrying "light bombs" (which went up to pairs of 250lb or four 116lbs) in the planes preceding the Lysander. Post Lysander the many different functions of 'army cooperation were split into 2 or 3 different types of planes. Taylorcraft took over the roles of battlefield reconnaissance, liaison, artillery spotting and such.
Tomahawks took over the deeper penetration photo recon duties (deeper than the front line, not strategic reconnaissance) although early Tomahawks didn't have much ground attack capability, which came with the later Tomahawks. Light bombing duties would have to be done by light bombers. Once the fighters could carry adequate bomb loads the need for the light bombers diminished )but with increasing numbers of squadrons in general (and communications getting better) light and medium bomber squadrons could be assigned army cooperation duties as needed between other missions.

The Lysander was not a bomber, it was an Army Cooperation aircraft (A.39/34, the 'A' is a clue). It was revealed to be pretty useless in this intended role once a shooting war started.

Between September 1939 and May 1940, of the 174 Lysanders sent to France and Belgium, 88 were lost in air 'combat' (though they were virtually defenceless and combat maybe something of an overstatement) and another 30 were destroyed on the ground, a loss rate of 69%.

Cheers

Steve