Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
Typhons dive-bombing!!??
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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
Get there, maybe; return? Not a chance.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?
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
Typhons dive-bombing!!?? ... it wasn't done
This is simply not true. The RAF did dive bomb but at nowhere near a vertical dive
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.
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.
That sounds more believable.
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