Defiants and Battles deployed overseas, any merit in that? (1 Viewer)

[stona]

The Battle did suffer very high losses, but not as high as you imply. According to Wikipedia 63 were lost during 4 raids amounting to 108 sorties. However, given the Luftwaffe's degree of air superiority and the density of German FLAK, it is unlikely that any other contemporary aircraft could have done better. Unescorted, the Bleinheim also suffered heavy losses. The Battles did achieve some measures of success during their missions, and with proper escort they could have done much more, and undoubtedly they could have had a considerable impact in the MTO and Malaya, if deployed in similar numbers.

That's a loss rate of about 50% which is unsustainable.

The mechanism to escort them in 1940 simply didn't exist.

They were slow,unmanoeuverable,underarmed and didn't carry a worthwhile payload. In other words they were obsolete in the air battles of 1940. They were bought by the RAF for doctrinal and economic reasons both of which were demonstrably out of date very soon after hostilities commenced.

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

The dive was at 90 degrees (or as close to it as they could judge; 'If you were not hanging in your straps, you were not straight down') so the high speeds were not much of a deflection issue.

This is simply not true.

The RAF did dive bomb but at nowhere near a vertical dive. Typhoons performed this type of attack.

The actual method of attack depended on how heavily defended the target was considered to be. I've lifted this from a post I made elsewhere as I'm not at home. I have the diagrams used to instruct the RAF's pilots in the first,steeper,attack but can't scan them at the moment.

The first method involved a fairly steep dive,about 60 degrees. A relatively steep dive angle was considered essential for safety and accuracy.Here are the explanatory notes that go with the diagrams.

"When in vicinity of target section changes to echelon starboard. The leader when over the target allows it to pass under the leading edge of his port wing as in second phase in diagram.When the target reappears at trailing edge the leader executes a semi stalled turn to port,followed by the other aircraft of his section. The result of this manoeuvre is a line astern attack at a steep angle on the reciprocal of the original course as shown in the third phase of the diagram. After releasing bombs,all aircraft make a violent evasive turn in a prearranged direction and reform in a section line abreast."

At no point do any aircraft fly straight and level.

The RAF did make low level attacks. These were carried out in a dive at about 30 degrees with the bombs released at about 800' and the aircraft flying at high speed to escape small calibre and light flak as well as fragments and debris from their own bombs.Typhoons attacked in pairs using bombs fitted with short delay fuses so that the second pair attacked just after the first's bombs had exploded. Such attacks were considered extremely hazardous and an RAF report warned that four aircraft going down in two pairs was all that could reasonably expected to get away with this type of attack.

Again this is a diving attack,albeit from a shallow angle,and at no point are the attacking aircraft flying straight and level which the RAF considered suicidal.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Milosh]

The Battle had some protection with ground fire in mind but not the Defiant.

With regards to upgraded German anti-aircraft fire, you're right about 'dense' being a relative term. Keep in mind shooting down low flying, vic-formations of Fairey Battles at 220 mph is a bit of a different task than shooting down singular Hawker Typhoons dive bombing at 520 mph.

The Pilot's Manual for the Typhoon says 450mph IAS max when diving with bombs. At 520mph it becomes a Kamikaze. Max diving speed limit, 525mph with no bombs.

 

[stona]

Typhons dive-bombing!!??

See my post above. It was the only method used to deliver bombs on a defended target,the shallower low level attack only being made on lightly or undefended targets.

The RAF did not have an aversion to dive bombing,it had an aversion to close air support in any form.

I'm not surprised that Smith,a life long proponent of dive bombing and dive bombers,doesn't mention the Typhoon. The Typhoon was not a dive bomber,it was a fighter pressed into a ground attack role which is an entirely different animal.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Edgar Brooks]

The dive was at 90 degrees (or as close to it as they could judge; 'If you were not hanging in your straps, you were not straight down') so the high speeds were not much of a deflection issue.

Sorry, but no; if you dive at the vertical, you plant your bomb into your own propeller disc, which is why the Ju-87 slung them out on a trapeze. Dives (for a Spitfire, but I doubt the Typhoon would have been very different) were at 45-60 degrees, with the bombs released as the target vanished under the nose during pull-out. Sight used was the standard Mk.I eyeball, plus "one thousand and one, one thousand and two" count, under one's breath. The recommended path was dive, level off, and leave at low level; do not climb back after delivery.

 

[The Basket]

Over 2000 battles were made which was a huge mistake on someone's part.

Or was it? Could have been 2000 Hurricanes instead.

It was a good idea then suddenly became a bad idea but then you had hundreds of the things.

All aircraft of this class...Il-2, Val, Ju 87 and Devastator were cannon fodder. I don't blame the designers or the RAF but time was unkind.

 

[tomo pauk]

When Typhoon, A-36, or Hurricane dives vertically, they have no problems to release bombs without the trapeze - their bombs are slung under the wing, approx. just under the wing guns.

BTW, was Battle able to conduct a bomber sortie from the N. Africa vs. Crete (say, attacking the German paratroopers during their asasult there), and, of course, return?

 

[Edgar Brooks]

If they cannot succeed in France they probably won't do better anywhere else. Unless the failure of May 1940 was primarily caused by poor crew training.

It would be nice if, just for once, you canned your snide, sarcastic, and ill-informed anti-British remarks. The Battle was a 1932 design, held in service for far too long, and a throw-back to the ludicrous "The bomber will always get through" doctrine of myopic, self-satisfied politicians and chair-polishing bureaucrats. By the outbreak of war, it was hopelessly slow, with a top speed of 275 mph at 15,000', and a ceiling of 25,000' so it was already obsolete, and the crews might as well have been dubbed Kamikazes from the start. Sending them anywhere (apart from the scrapyard) was the equivalent to a death sentence for any of the crews.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

When Typhoon, A-36, or Hurricane dives vertically, they have no problems to release bombs without the trapeze - their bombs are slung under the wing, approx. just under the wing guns.

Unless you have the slightest sideslip, want to keep your eyes on the target, and don't want to give AA gunners a no-deflection shot, which were enough reason for not using a vertical dive.

BTW, was Battle able to conduct a bomber sortie from the N. Africa vs. Crete (say, attacking the German paratroopers during their asasult there), and, of course, return?

Get there, maybe; return? Not a chance.

 

[stona]

Whether or not it is possible to bomb from a vertical dive in a Typhoon is irrelevant. It is not the way RAF pilots were taught to do it and it wasn't the way it was done. 30 degree dive for a low level attack and 60 degrees (maximum) for a higher level attack on a defended target.

I wouldn't want to drop a bomb within a foot of my propeller disc whilst in a vertical dive,a situation in which longditudinal stability became an issue for many aircraft.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Over 2000 battles were made which was a huge mistake on someone's part.

Or was it? Could have been 2000 Hurricanes instead.

It was a good idea then suddenly became a bad idea but then you had hundreds of the things.

It went into squadron service a month before the Hurricane. It was a STRATEGIC bomber. Building 2000 may have been a mistake, building 500 was not. Where the cross over point was is the actual subject of debate. It helped train not only pilots, but bomb aimers, aerial gunners, radio operators, and thousands of ground personnel, aircraft fitters, engine mechanics ordnance personnel and so on. And this is in the operational squadrons of 1937-39. It helped with the rapid expansion of the RAF in the late thirties. New squadrons had to be equipped with something and there weren't enough old Harts to go around. The Battle was cheaper than a Blenheim, your other basic choice at the time.

Please remember that the Merlin of the time, even if fitted with the better propeller of the Battle vs the fixed pitch prop of the Early Hurricane only made 880 hp at sea level for take-off. This would rather restrict any attempt to turn the Hurricane MK I into a fighter bomber even with a better propeller so the Hurricane cannot do any part of the Battles job, close range or long range.

 

[Shortround6]

When Typhoon, A-36, or Hurricane dives vertically, they have no problems to release bombs without the trapeze - their bombs are slung under the wing, approx. just under the wing guns.

BTW, was Battle able to conduct a bomber sortie from the N. Africa vs. Crete (say, attacking the German paratroopers during their asasult there), and, of course, return?

The Battle had some sort of outside bomb racks, but the main load was INSIDE the wing with bomb doors. With out some sort of displacement mechanism a very steep dive is going to result in the bombs hitting the forward edge of the bomb cell much like a Blenheim or Mosquito could not release bombs over a certain angle of dive without the bombs hitting the forward wall of the bombbay. You could seal up the bomb cells, reinforce the area and carry the bombs outside but at lower speed and shorter range.

Battle was supposed to carry 1000lbs for 1000 miles, It seems to be over 300 miles from Alexandria to the eastern tip of Crete and Crete is 160 miles long. That doesn't leave much for reserve for weather or navigation problems even if you don't go to a combat setting on the engine near the target.

 

[stona]

BTW, was Battle able to conduct a bomber sortie from the N. Africa vs. Crete (say, attacking the German paratroopers during their asasult there), and, of course, return?

Only if the Luftwaffe let them

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

The Luftwaffe fighters not being able to interfere during the assault?

Unless you have the slightest sideslip, want to keep your eyes on the target, and don't want to give AA gunners a no-deflection shot, which were enough reason for not using a vertical dive.

Whether or not it is possible to bomb from a vertical dive in a Typhoon is irrelevant. It is not the way RAF pilots were taught to do it and it wasn't the way it was done. 30 degree dive for a low level attack and 60 degrees (maximum) for a higher level attack on a defended target.

I wouldn't want to drop a bomb within a foot of my propeller disc whilst in a vertical dive,a situation in which longditudinal stability became an issue for many aircraft.

Cheers
Steve

Hi, Edgar, Steve,
Seem like the A-36 have had no problems at all to dive bomb in a near-vertical dive, and even had the capability to bomb with one bomb at time. That makes a fairly un-symetrical set up for the second bomb run, yet it was done. So no problems for Hurri and Tiffie (lack of the dive brakes maybe being the issue here, therefore restricting the dive angle)?

The Battle had some sort of outside bomb racks, but the main load was INSIDE the wing with bomb doors. With out some sort of displacement mechanism a very steep dive is going to result in the bombs hitting the forward edge of the bomb cell much like a Blenheim or Mosquito could not release bombs over a certain angle of dive without the bombs hitting the forward wall of the bombbay. You could seal up the bomb cells, reinforce the area and carry the bombs outside but at lower speed and shorter range.

Hi, SR6,
Did not tried to turn the Battle into a dive bomber (though it would be interesting to adopt Skua's gear for those?), but wondered about the fighters turned into bombers, with bombs under wing guns.

Battle was supposed to carry 1000lbs for 1000 miles, It seems to be over 300 miles from Alexandria to the eastern tip of Crete and Crete is 160 miles long. That doesn't leave much for reserve for weather or navigation problems even if you don't go to a combat setting on the engine near the target.

Yep, seem like a stretch

 

[Greyman]

Typhons dive-bombing!!?? ... it wasn't done

This is simply not true. The RAF did dive bomb but at nowhere near a vertical dive

I encourage more reading of Typhoon pilots and their exploits. I'm not going to comb through all of my books but I remembered the location of a couple off the top of my head:

"When they were in the open a vertical dive was best, but not all pilots could put their aircraft into such a position, since one always gains the impression within the aircraft that the dive is steeper than is really the case." - Squadron Leader Raymond Lallement, 609 Squadron

The method he recommended of checking that an aircraft was in a vertical dive was to do a roll: if the attitude was less than vertical, the pull of gravity would be felt when the aircraft was on its back. On a vertical dive one did not experience such an effect. - (from same source) Typhoon: The Combat History

"The dive itself was straight down. If you were not hanging in your straps, you were not straight down. If the target was heavily defended, we set our engine throttle for one-third open, dived from eleven thousand feet down to six thousand feet, released, and pulled hard. On the pullout the aircraft's airspeed indicator read 525 mph, the red line for the aircraft. If less heavily defended and we were feeling confident, we dove from eight thousand, released at four thousand. Now Roy Burden, over at 438, he told me he used to release at three thousand, but you'd be yanking pretty hard—me, I liked four thousand. If there was anti-aircraft fire coming up at us, we fired our cannons in the dive to keep their heads down. The typical delay on the bomb fuse was 1/25th of a second."

...

"The Germans put a ring of guns around bridges, and they fired them to a cone right in the middle. They knew we had to go down through that cone. They wouldn't aim at us; they just created this cone of fire that we had to go through." - Flight Lieutenant Harry Hardy, 440 Squadron

Flight Lieutenant Hardy also mentioned his time in No. 6 Tactical Exercise Unit in Scotland taking a dive-bombing course on Hurricanes prior to transfering to a Typhoon Squadron.

Wing Commander Hugh Godefroy in his book 'Lucky Thirteen' also made mention of his success deviating from the perscribed 60 degree dive—which his Wing "discovered that this technique of dive bombing was extremely inaccurate"—and diving straight down instead. But this was with Spitfires. Release also had to be during pullout with Spitfires due to the—as has been mentioned—trouble with centreline bomb rack.

The Battle had some sort of outside bomb racks, but the main load was INSIDE the wing with bomb doors. With out some sort of displacement mechanism a very steep dive is going to result in the bombs hitting the forward edge of the bomb cell much like a Blenheim or Mosquito could not release bombs over a certain angle of dive without the bombs hitting the forward wall of the bombbay.

Actually, the Battle did have such a mechanism. When the bomb doors opened the bomb racks were lowered so the bombs were clear of the aircraft prior to release.

 

[The Basket]

It went into squadron service a month before the Hurricane. It was a STRATEGIC bomber. Building 2000 may have been a mistake, building 500 was not. Where the cross over point was is the actual subject of debate. It helped train not only pilots, but bomb aimers, aerial gunners, radio operators, and thousands of ground personnel, aircraft fitters, engine mechanics ordnance personnel and so on. And this is in the operational squadrons of 1937-39. It helped with the rapid expansion of the RAF in the late thirties. New squadrons had to be equipped with something and there weren't enough old Harts to go around. The Battle was cheaper than a Blenheim, your other basic choice at the time.

Please remember that the Merlin of the time, even if fitted with the better propeller of the Battle vs the fixed pitch prop of the Early Hurricane only made 880 hp at sea level for take-off. This would rather restrict any attempt to turn the Hurricane MK I into a fighter bomber even with a better propeller so the Hurricane cannot do any part of the Battles job, close range or long range.

I agree that the Battle was part of RAF expansion and I agree that it replaced BiPlanes and I also agree that when it was being designed and flown in the early days it would have been certainly a winner and it could have shown mid 1930s biplane fighters like the He 51 a clean pair of heels.

I mentioned the Hurricane as a fighter. I would hate to think that the RAF didnt have enough fighters because the Battle was allocated all production of Merlins!

 

[davebender]

That sounds more believable.

 

[Shortround6]

Just about 2000 Hurricanes were made by the start of the BoB. Throw in Spitfire production and the Defiant and it doesn't look like the Battle was hogging all the Merlins. Production of the early Merlins were 172 Merlin Is at Derby 1935-37, 1,283 Merlin IIs at Derby 1937-39 and the Merlin II was built to the tune of 6,444 at Derby and 2,012 Crewe from 1938-41. Aside from a few prototypes you can throw in 73 Merlin IVs in 1938 for the Whitley, 184 Merlin MK VIIIs for the Fulmar 39-40, both at Derby and 312 Derby built and 4,589 Crewe built Merlin X engines 1938-42 for Whitley's Halifaxes and Wellingtons. The Merlin XII started in 1939 also lasting until 1941.

Granted some of these engines were produced after the Battle had ceased production but the Defiant II got the Merlin XX engine so timing and allocations are in the same area. Or if Tomo's proposal is taken up the engines would have come out of these figures.

In order to have a somewhat balanced air force you need both bombers and fighters, in 1937-39 if not the Battles then what? The Whitley was a much more capable bomber ( at least at night) but in addition to needing two Merlins it's empty weight is about 3 times that of a Battle so it is not even a 2 for one swap. 2 1/2 to 1 ?

Between the Battle, Blenheim, Hampden, Whitley, Wellington, Sterling, Manchester and Halifax (first flight 24 September 1939) bomber command was getting more than it's share of the goodies. I would venture to guess that canceling the last of the Battles would not have increased fighter production but simple increased bomber production of another type.

 

[Shortround6]

That sounds more believable.

450mph indicated is 522mph true at 8000ft.

As I read the post describing this the planes dived at up to 450IAS and released the bombs, 525mph was seen during the pull out. Bombs are already gone but quating 525mph as a diving speed may be confusing.

 

[RCAFson]

That's a loss rate of about 50% which is unsustainable.

The mechanism to escort them in 1940 simply didn't exist.

They were slow,unmanoeuverable,underarmed and didn't carry a worthwhile payload. In other words they were obsolete in the air battles of 1940. They were bought by the RAF for doctrinal and economic reasons both of which were demonstrably out of date very soon after hostilities commenced.

Cheers

Steve

They were slow compared to SE fighters, but the Battle was quite comparable in performance to the Stuka and most TE bombers. I would guess that if the RAF in France replaced it's battles with Stukas that their loss rate would very similar.

AFAIK, the SAAF used the Battle with some success in North Africa, and I suspect that the RAF could have used it there with similar success as well.