British bomber development in regards to long range fighters.

I remember reading somewhere that tiger moths were going to rigged as bombers in case of German invasion. Even as chemical warfare bombers too. I wouldn't class this a British bomber although the list is so diverse that it should be.

The Lysander was not a bomber or even a ground attack aircraft. It's use as a bomber is purely incidental.

Anything can be a bomber. In fact the most numerous bomber at Guernica was the Ju 52.

Stona, you are a very knowledgeable fellow and just about all the time I would take your word for something.

However the Hawker Hector (14/35) was also an Army Cooperation aircraft although an interim one until the A.39/34 (Lysander) could be put into production and into service.
The Hector being little more than a Hawker Audax with the Kestrel removed and a Napier Dagger installed. Due to the change in the center of gravity the sweep in the upper wing did have to be changed. Engine change was due to fears that RR would not be able to keep up with the demand for Merlins and Kestrels at this time.

However, and pertinent to the discussion the Hector was able to carry two 230lb bombs, or four 116lb bombs, or lighter bombs, supply containers etc.

The Hawker Audax Army Cooperation aircraft also had a similar bomb load in addition to it's other duties so the same provisions carrying over to the Hector is no surprise.
Hundreds (653 for the RAF) of the Audax were built (along with more variations like the South African Hartbees).

Interestingly but proves nothing one way or the other, Westland built 43 Audax I's under subcontract.

So we have the Lysander having it's predecessors carrying bombs (among their other duties), we have pictures of the Lysander being loaded with bombs and we have accounts of Lysander's attacking enemy positions with bombs including one Indian squadron making several attacks on Japanese airfields using pairs of 250lb bombs. Lysanders also did bombing attacks in the middle east during the first months of fighting there.

I just can't figure out where the idea that the Lysander wasn't intended to carry bombs comes from?
The fact that it might have been left out of a memo or there was a temporary change in duties is certainly possible.

The Basket said:

I remember reading somewhere that tiger moths were going to rigged as bombers in case of German invasion. Even as chemical warfare bombers too. I wouldn't class this a British bomber although the list is so diverse that it should be.

Click to expand...

There were sixteen squadrons ear marked to be used in the 'Gas Plan'. Five were Lysander squadrons, four Battle squadrons, five Blenheim squadrons and two squadrons of Wellingtons (the only planes in the group that were to be equipped with 1,000-pound spray containers).

Air Commodore John Slessor, the Director of RAF Plans, stated in a memo to Brooke: 'It is not the present policy that squadrons should stand by to use gas against initial enemy landings. If the use of gas is authorised after invasion has taken place, an interval of 24 hours will be required to change over from bombing to gas spray.' In practice, however, the Lysanders would not need twenty-four hours to switch their equipment. When the order came, spray containers could actually be fitted in under six hours. In other passages in his memo to Brooke, Slessor explained that 'training had been completed in respect of sufficient pilots' for the squadrons in the Gas Plan and that 'full instructions have been issued to RAF Station Commanders concerned on the operation of gas spray aircraft.' Furthermore, he told Brooke that it was 'certainly feasible for orders for gas spray to be given in the same manner as for the bombing of targets. It is not considered necessary to introduce a special code word for the use of gas, since we are operating in our country and such orders will have been issued before the aircraft takes off.'

As early as July a War Office memorandum noted that: 'We shall be able to develop gas attack from the air on a considerable scale for a limited period. Low spray would be the most effective method for dealing with troops on beaches. Provided the containers can be refilled without delay our existing stocks would be sufficient to spray a strip 60 yards wide and 4000 miles long. Bombs would be useful for contaminating specific points, such as piers, and so interfering with the landing of guns and equipment.'

Implementation of the Gas Plan required sufficient stores of chemical weapons. In late June there was a shortage of them, with just 450 tons of mustard gas and 40 tons of phosgene in stock, as well as 1,000 charged containers and 39,000 mustard-filled bombs at the RAF bases, barely enough to mount one or two days' intensive aerial attack on the invader. Steps were undertaken to rectify this situation, by September, the stock of mustard gas had almost doubled. On 27th September, a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff was informed that the production rate for mustard gas had reached 350 tons per week, and 45 tons per week for phosgene, while storage capacity was undergoing expansion to hold a reserve of 4,000 tons. Indeed, by the autumn of that year Britain's stock of chemical agents had risen to 13,000 tons.

Had the Germans managed to make any kind of lodgement on the English coast it was a question of when, not if, they would have been attacked with chemical agents.

Cheers

Steve

The American mainland was bombed during ww2. By the Yokosuka E14Y. So bomber it was not but bomb it did.

Huge point missing. It's called deterrent.

If a country bombs UK then UK has more bombers than you. So absolutely vital to show that the RAF was capable of dishing out whatever we received. The bomber was the feared killing machine of the day and so having plenty and seen to have plenty may give Johnny Foreigners second thoughts.

Guernica was used as propoganda at the time so actual loss of life and damage caused is speculative but it certainly made an impact. Also chemical warfare and use of gas against a civilian target was top of the fear of bombing. WW1 saw gas used like any other shell and there was no reason to suggest the new war would be different.

USA had no fear of bombing or fear of chemical warfare so it's priority is not the same.

The Ju 52 was used as bomber in some numbers by the Germans during their build up.


the Ventral gunners station ws lowered once in the air. The bombs are not thrown out the side door.
It was used to supplement the DO series of bombers.

So the Ju 52 wasn't that far of the mark as a bomber in the early/mid 30s.
The British managing to get this into service in late 1935.


The air war in Spain despite some deliveries of Bf 109s and Russian I-16s was also fought with a lot "used" equipment.
Both countries and Italy did send trial batches of aircraft but just about anything that could fly was used.

To go over to the Americans for a moment.

The requirement that lead to the Martin B-26 was put out in 1939 and had, inpart, the following requirements.
"According to the requirements listed in the specification, a bombload of 3000 pounds was to be carried over a range of 2000 miles at a top speed of over 300 mph and at a service ceiling exceeding 20,000 feet."

Please note that cruising speed could be quite a bit lower than top speed and in fact was close to 200 mph which called for a 10 hour mission. The USAAC did not wind up getting a bomber that could do what the specification called for.
However look at what a designer of an "escort" fighter would have been up against. Even trying to come up with a 1500 mile range fighter at 200mph with the engines either being made in 1939 or with the prospect of being made in 1940-41 (no hindsight allowed). you need 2 to 3 times the fuel of any existing fighter design, and unfortunately, as the British found out in 1941, cruising at 200mph or a bit above just turned the escorting fighters into alternative targets. It took too long to accelerate up to a speed where they had any initiative in joining the combat.

Shortround6 said:

I Iust can't figure out where the idea that the Lysander wasn't intended to carry bombs comes from?
The fact that it might have been left out of a memo or there was a temporary change in duties is certainly possible.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, nobody on this thread has claimed that the Lysander couldn't carry bombs. A number have said that it wasn't a bomber, which is a subtly different statement. I keep asking for a clear definition of a bomber but get no responses other than going back to whether or not the Lysander was one.

If a bomber is defined as any aircraft that can carry bombs, then surely we need to add the P-39, P-40, Spitfire and numerous other fighters to the list of bombers?

To be a wee bit sarcastic, the Lysander also carried 2 fixed forward-firing machine guns so should we consider the Lysander a fighter?

To my mind, a bomber is an aircraft (typically multi-crew) designed from the outset with an explicit primary role of dropping bombs.

If a British specification is prefixed by B, P or G it could be described as a bomber. Some Ms might also be bombers. Then there's Ss, but we'll leave the Navy out of it.

That's the problem. There is no strict definition of a bomber and almost any aircraft can be a bomber. It is true that Tiger Moths were to be used to bomb the invasion beaches had the Germans launched Sealion and actually managed some landings.

Cheers

Steve

The Overstrand is everything we can discuss about 1930s technology.
It's top speed was about 150mph which is actually good because the fighters it may meet were only 200mph if we discuss a very narrow slither of time. Its impact was minimal as only 2 dozen or so was made and only equipped one squadron.

So the Overstrand can be used either as a poor or good aircraft depending on viewpoint but totally irrelevant as was made in such low numbers. The original Sidestrand would have been considered as rocket ships in the 1920s.

buffnut453 said:

...
To my mind, a bomber is an aircraft (typically multi-crew) designed from the outset with an explicit primary role of dropping bombs.

Click to expand...

Right on the money there.
There was plenty of proper bomber types in RAF inventory at the outbreak of the war, unfortunately they were about to hit the brick wall of German fighters very soon - Germans were preparing defences themselves.

The Basket said:

I remember reading somewhere that tiger moths were going to rigged as bombers in case of German invasion.

Click to expand...

Tiger Moths were used to bomb Japanese positions during the final days of the defense of Singapore.

Excellent!
Did the Tiger Moths succeed in defeating the Japanese at Singapore? A few bombs should have them running home!

Hi SR.
Just wondering if you compiled the list of bombers on page one based on Mason's book (The British Bomber - Putnam 1994) as it chronologically fits perfectly, minus a few experimental types. I could be wrong.
Mason seems to have taken over from the the same titled book in the Putnam range but which was published originally in the late 60's and written by Peter Lewis.
Lewis made it clear on the front inner dust-jacket that he considered just about any aircraft that could carry a bomb/s or torpedo - as a bomber. I don't agree with the definition, but it's their books.

I keep asking for a clear definition of a bomber but get no responses other than going back to whether or not the Lysander was one.

Click to expand...

Surely the answer to this is whether or not the aircraft was intended for and operated by RAF Bomber Command. Since the Lysander, Audax etc weren't then they don't count as 'bombers' within the initial premise of this thread.

The Overstrand is everything we can discuss about 1930s technology.

Click to expand...

Firstly, let's remember why the Overstrand was built in the first place. It was fitted with a power operated turret. Yes, it wasn't built in large numbers, but the development of the turret was considered to be effective defence against interceptors. From 1936 onwards, bomber specs issued had turrets as mandatory defence. This also renders the entire premise of this thread, that the British didn't consider escorts for their bombers and should have a little irrelevant since at the time the belief was that the turret was a good means of defence against enemy fighters. Since no one had ever gone to war in a bomber equipped with powered turrets in the kind of environment British bombers were about to fce over occupied territory from 1939 onward, there was little argument against - how wrong this was, but that's for another thread. Presuming that the Air Ministry should have considered escorts is not taking this into consideration, not to mention the use of what Mark has described as the 'retrospectoscope' in applying what we know now to how people behaved then.

It is worth remembering that in the Overstrand, Blenheim, Whitley and Wellington, the RAF had the very first bombers equipped with power operated gun turrets, which even with fighter escort, as the war progressed, was considered necessary for heavy bombers. It's also worth mentioning that the first production American bomber fitted with turrets was the B-24, specifically the Liberator Mk.II, especially built for the British and fitted with British turrets on arrival in the UK.

The gun turret was no revolution, but it was proven to be a necessity by heavy bombers throughout the war and explains the British stance toward bomber specifications. Why? someone has already answered with 'the bomber will always get through'.

nuuumannn said:

From 1936 onwards, bomber specs issued had turrets as mandatory defence. This also renders the entire premise of this thread, that the British didn't consider escorts for their bombers and should have a little irrelevant since at the time the belief was that the turret was a good means of defence against enemy fighters.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Cheers

Steve

A few issues. When did radios become a standard fit in fighters?
So my point is not whether the bomber can get through because in 1930s warfare it most certainly was but could it get through an integrated air defence and even with escorts plenty of bombers went down anyway.

The Fairey Battle in 1930 would have been considered a rocket ship so technology was changing so fast that today's expensive superweapon was tomorrows cannon fodder.

Didn't the Americans still fly thier bombers without escorts in 1942?

Well if we take that to a logical conclusion then we have a problem. Each aircraft must have escort. How that work? No point having any long range bombers or even coastal command flying boats. If everything must fly within the range of a Spitfire then pretty much puts a hex on any air power capabilities other than purely tactical. Unless we can find the same magic wand that can create hundreds of bombers and hundreds of long range escorts to go with them.

The RAF was a very limited organisation with a limited amount of resources.

Yes one could argue mistakes were made but only in hindsight.

Graeme said:

Hi SR.
Just wondering if you compiled the list of bombers on page one based on Mason's book (The British Bomber - Putnam 1994) as it chronologically fits perfectly, minus a few experimental types. I could be wrong.
Mason seems to have taken over from the the same titled book in the Putnam range but which was published originally in the late 60's and written by Peter Lewis.
Lewis made it clear on the front inner dust-jacket that he considered just about any aircraft that could carry a bomb/s or torpedo - as a bomber. I don't agree with the definition, but it's their books.

Click to expand...

Yes I used the that book, it is rather convenient for this sort of thing.

I have my own "definition"of a bomber, much like the proverbial duck.
If it walks like duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it's a duck. (bomber)

Some are bigger than others, some are faster than others. Some had other duties incorporated in their specifications.
The HP Harrow equipped 5 bomber squadrons from the end of 1937 (all in Britain) until the last gave them up at the end of 1939. All were replaced by Wellingtons.
In 1937 the Germans were using a number of Ju 52s as bombers so this is not really a dig at the British. The Bristol Bombay was the design contemporary of the Harrow but due to delays (understandable in the light of building a new factory in Northern Ireland) production didn't start until sufficient Wellingtons (and Hamptons) were being built and the Bombay went off to it's secondary roll as transport.
I don't believe anybody ever contemplated operating the Harrows in daylight so the question of a suitable escort is rather moot.

In regards to the Lysander, no it was not a "conventional bomber". It falls more into the catagory of ground attack/close support aircraft. Yes, this duty was one of many it was tasked with.
But you don't wind up with the machine gun and bomb armement it had by accident on a battlefield photo-recon plane.
British ground attack/close support aircraft had a long and rather twisted development (or rather development at times was left to twist in the wind). The RAF had certainly performed trench strafing/light bombing in WW I and had built several specialized types (Sopwith Salamander for one) for this duty. However between budget cuts and changes in policy the official position on such aircraft tended to go back and forth?

Getting to the mid to late 30s and 3-5 years between initial requirement and squadron service the Lysander had the same (or slightly better ) bomb load/capacity as the Audax that it was to replace.
Lets also remember the whole Audax, Hardy, Hind family. Same wingspan, same length, same wing area (same wings?) perhaps a different mark Kestrel in the nose, similar two seat cockpit, same ,303 Vickers gun in the side of the fuselage and same Lewis gun in the back. Each them could carry about 500lbs worth of bombs but the Audax was an
"army cooperation biplane", the Hardy was a "general purpose biplane" and the Hind was "light day bomber biplane". Actual difference was the type of equipment in and around the cockpit/s (?) so hopefully the casual observer is forgiven about what constituted "a bomber" under the " whether or not the aircraft was intended for and operated by RAF Bomber Command" definition.

Apparently the Hardy, to suit the "General purpose" classification was an Audax with an emergency tent, bedding, food and drinking water (wireless removed?), low pressure tyres for rough dessert landing strips and improved cooling for tropical conditions.

The Lysander had about three times the firepower for strafing than the planes it replaced.
We also have the Fairey P.4/34, from wiki
" In 1934 the Air Ministry issued Specification P.4/34 which called for a light bomber that could also be deployed in a close-support role. Fairey, Gloster and Hawker all supplied proposed designs; contracts were issued for the construction of examples of Hawker and Fairey's designs. The P.4/34 design was a low-wing all-metal monoplane, powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, with a crew of two accommodated in tandem under a long-glazed canopy. Its layout was similar to Fairey's earlier Battle bomber, but the P.4/34 was smaller and had a wide track, inwards-retracting undercarriage. The aircraft was stressed for dive bombing, as required by the specification, and carried its load of two 250 lb (110 kg) bombs underwing (the competing Hawker aircraft had an internal bomb bay). "

Now I don't know who was supposed to operate the Fairey airplane or Hawker Henley but if it wasn't "Bomber Command" then they aren't bombers?????
This design competition shows that the RAF/Air Ministry certainly didn't believe that the Battle was ideal for close support. Doctrine/policy could certainly shift in the 3-4 years between issuing the request for designs and planes being able to be built. The bomber boys may have desired to kill off the close support program as distracting (taking away from) bomber commands true mission.
This left the Lysander as the defacto close-support aircraft.

On a more historical note:

The Westland Lysander - The IAF's first monoplane bomber - Bharat Rakshak:Indian Air Force

an account of the Lysander's service in the Indian air force.

When operating on the fringes of the empire "needs must when the devil drives"
"According to Air Vice Marshal DF Stevenson's Despatch, No.1 Squadron had carried out a total of 41 Bombing sorties against enemy aerodromes and close support to the army.
This was in Late Feb-early March.

buffnut453 said:

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.

Click to expand...

And if you include "depth charge" in your definition of "bomb", you have to include a whole slew of unlikely civilian types, including Shortround's Fairchild and Flieger's cub! The Civil Air Patrol pressed a most astounding variety of aircraft into service against the U-boats.
Cheers,
Wes

Lets not forget that the Lysander was used in Canada as a fighter as all their Hurricanes had been sent to Britain. Not quite sure what they could have shot down though, I don't think the Luftwaffe had anything that could get as far as Canada.