Defiants and Battles deployed overseas, any merit in that?

[Shortround6]

For another example of a single engine "strategic" bomber see the Vickers Wellesley.

Air staffs could be a bit on the optimistic side in the early thirties as the original specification called for "general purpose aircraft, capable of carrying out level bombing, army co-operation, dive bombing, reconnaissance, casualty evacuation and torpedo bombing." and all from a plane weighing 6000lbs empty?

The Wellesley was a private Venture to replace Vickers own winning Biplane with ALL requirements except bombing dropped.

 

[Vincenzo]

no the sources confirm that i am saying. all the 6 gruppen (that were not transferred all in september) were already equipped with friederichs when they go in MTO. At end 41 were built more of 2500 Friederichs so i don't see no trouble to equip this unit as you can see at 27/12/41 the only unit with emils were
I/2 with 12 Emils and 19 Friederichs (in the west)
15/27 with 6 Emils, the spanish unit in the east
15/52 with 11 Emils, the croatian unit in the east
I/77 with 97 Emils in Norway
I/1 with 31 Emils and 14 Friederichs in the west
I/LG2 with 52 Emils in the east
66 emils were in the replacement units
so 275 emils vs 509 3 months before

 

[Wildcat]

I'm no expert on the Battle, but what I find interesting is that the RAAF, which had received a number of battles since 1940, chose to deploy the (on paper) inferior Wirraway into combat whilst the battle was relegated to training units back in Australia. May-be the brass hats in Oz knew full well its short comings?

 

[stona]

I'm no expert on the Battle, but what I find interesting is that the RAAF, which had received a number of battles since 1940, chose to deploy the (on paper) inferior Wirraway into combat whilst the battle was relegated to training units back in Australia. May-be the brass hats in Oz knew full well its short comings?

I'm sure that senior RAAF officers would have been aware of the views of their British colleagues. Embry,Slessor,Tedder and many others.

Steve

 

[stona]

The other factor with the Battle was the Geneva Disarmament conference - there was a large anti-bomber lobby that was campaigning to ban them - unrealistic n.b many of the Lw bombers were disguised as passenger aircraft. There was a proposal to restrict the weight of bombers - although it was relaxed with the Wellington design, it was broadly kept with the Battle e.g. single-engine.

The luftwaffe was governed by other earlier treaties.

These debates were of their time and it is important to understand the atmosphere in which they were carried out.

It is noticeable that those seeking to limit air power were principally the senior officers of the other services! The War Office and Admiralty,in the 1934-9 period were ambivalent about the danger of aerial bombardment.They always underplayed it when discussing re-armament,partly to increase their own chances of obtaining a larger share of the limited funds available.They also did not believe the airmen's claim that they would decide the outcome of the next war.
Simultaneously the Admiralty was concerned about the prospect of aerial attacks on merchant shipping and the War Office was much excercised about the effect on the morale of the civilians of the working classes of attacks on them.

In January 1936 Sir Archibald Montgomery-Massingberd,head of the Army (that really was his name!) argued,displaying Victorian attitudes to go with his Victorian name, that "air limitation,if not absolute prohibition was of infinitely greater importance to our security than the production of superior air forces." History has made Archibald look a little foolish.

Even later in November 1936 Sir Samuel Hoare,civilian head of the Admiralty,urged the government to seek an international agreement to restrict air war fare. As if the nazis would have honoured that.

A 1937 comittee,headed by Sir William Malkin of the Foreign Office was still seeking means to restrict the use of air power in warfare.

No less a figure than Harold MacMillan recalled in one of the volumes of his huge biography,published in the 1960s, that "we thought of air power in 1938 rather as people think of nuclear warfare today."

The emminent and sober men of the Committee of Imperial Defence suggested in 1936 that a well aimed air attack against "our people" might well succeed. The Air Ministry advised the committe to expect 20,000 casualties on the first day and 150,000 by the end of the first week.

This is what people then believed. Stanley Baldwin was not correct to say in 1932 that "the bomber will always get through" but he was probably still right in 1936/7.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

This is what people then believed. Stanley Baldwin was not correct to say in 1932 that "the bomber will always get through" but he was probably still right in 1936/7.

He may not have been right even in 1936/7 but most air staffs let alone civilians believed him to be right and made decisions on aircraft procurement based on that belief.
The Spanish Civil war was supporting this wrong view as the 2nd or even 3rd rate air defenses let the vast majority of bombers through. The Germans experiences convinced them that 3 hand held (free swivel) rifle caliber MGs were sufficient defensive armament even though they knew the British were moving to eight gun fighters, and both themselves and the French were trying to move to cannon armed fighters.
The Japanese were learning that un-escorted bombers could not make long distance raids without unacceptable losses even in the skies over China although they were not sharing that with the rest of the world.

 

[RCAFson]

True,but the story that circulated in Fairey Aviation,at the time,was that it related to C.R.'s battles with the Air Ministry.

To sink unarmoured ships you want something like the Luftwaffe's SC 500. They did a special version filled with Trialen 105 (15% RDX,70%TNT,15% Aluminium powder). Being thin walled the relative amount of explosive was high,over 50%, at 295 Kg. This gave a good "mining effect" that is it worked well when it exploded underwater.
Unfortunately the Battle couldn't have carried a 500Kg bomb to attack the Japanese fleets.
I've got a picture somewhere of one such bomb with "Nur Gegen Handelschiffe" (only against merchant ships) stencilled on the side and a ship's silhouette rather than a yellow band on the tail cone. As a complete aside that bomb also formed the warhead of the first generation,anti ship, smart bombs,noteably the Hs 293 "glide bomb".

Cheers

Steve

The JU87r was limited to a 550lb bomb and I doubt that the merchant Navy or RN would say it was ineffective. The SBD and TBF probably dropped more 500lb bombs than any other weight - and ask Konigsberg if 500lb bombs are ineffective.

 

[stona]

500lb bombs were certainly effective against shipping,I never said that they weren't but bigger is self evidently better. Our beleaguered Battle wasn't designed to carry even a 500lb bomb. There is a diminishing return and 250 lb bombs become much less effective.

As for Konigsberg,the Royal Navy has a long and glorious tradition of attacking enemy ships at anchor or in port by whatever means. The Spanish Armada was attacked with fireships whilst anchored off Calais,then there is Copenhagen, The Nile,Taranto,Oran.....
Ships make much easier targets when they are not moving

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

when dealing with Cruisers, even light ones like the Konigsberg, you are dealing with armored decks. These generally need at least a SAP (semi-armor piercing) bomb to penetrate them. General purpose bombs carry a much higher percentage of explosive and can certainly wreck top side fixtures and structures and send a ship into the dockyards for months but need very lucky hits or even luckier "near misses" to sink armored ships. The armored deck was usually one or two decks below the main deck and penetration ( and detonation) of a bomb below this deck almost guaranteed damage to propulsion, power systems, magazines or flotation (leaks).
Ge the fusing wrong on an AP bomb against a freighter and you might have a 12-16" hole through the bottom of the ship, not a good thing but perhaps "fixable" with local resources, at least temporarily.
Of course AP (or SAP) bombs have to be dropped from the right height to have the proper impact speed. And just like an AP shot/shell the further from 90 degrees they hit the armor the less armor they penetrate.

You have to suit the bomb, and it's delivery, to suit the target. The bigger the bomb, the more "over kill" you have and the less critical some things become. 1000lb bomb vs 250lb bomb?

 

[stona]

Absolutely,I should have made it clear I was referring to merchant or at least unarmoured shipping. I'm assuming that our theoretical Battle,attacking a Japanese invasion fleet,would not be going after the naval escorts.

This is the kind of thing you want for them,if you can lift it.

Cheers

Steve

 

[RCAFson]

500lb bombs were certainly effective against shipping,I never said that they weren't but bigger is self evidently better. Our beleaguered Battle wasn't designed to carry even a 500lb bomb. There is a diminishing return and 250 lb bombs become much less effective.

As for Konigsberg,the Royal Navy has a long and glorious tradition of attacking enemy ships at anchor or in port by whatever means. The Spanish Armada was attacked with fireships whilst anchored off Calais,then there is Copenhagen, The Nile,Taranto,Oran.....
Ships make much easier targets when they are not moving

Steve

The Battle was designed to carry 500lb bombs and I posted a chart previously showing that. Against unarmoured ships 250lb bombs are highly effective. The Battle could carry a variety of bombs types, including GP, SAP, and AS (high capacity) bombs. There's no reason why a Battle would be less effective in an anti-shipping strike than any other aircraft such as the Hudson or B-25.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...oyed-overseas-any-merit-f_battle_armament.jpg

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There's no reason why a Battle would be less effective in an anti-shipping strike than any other aircraft such as the Hudson or B-25.

Maybe an early Hudson, but not even close to a B-25, especially a B-25G.

 

[RCAFson]

Maybe an early Hudson, but not even close to a B-25, especially a B-25G.

Of course a Battle wouldn't carry the same payload or have the same firepower as a B25-G, but it's bombing accuracy should be the same.

 

[Shortround6]

A Battle might very well be as effective as a Hudson, within the Battles combat radius, which is a lot less than the Hudson's, or even a Blenheim's. It also can't make it back to base with a bad engine ( normal failure or combat damage.)

Vs a B-25? Well, The first 14 B-25Bs were accepted in August of 1941. "range 2000 miles with 3000 pounds of bombs"

Granted there were a lot more Battles around than B-25s but then that is rather beside the point. The point being that the Battle was a rather limited plane even in 1939/40.

Handley Page Hampden. 1,095 miles (1,792km) with max bombload. 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) bombs or 1 x 18 in torpedo or mines.

Or see the Martin Maryland, granted not that many built (about 450) but again they show that the Battle had little place flying in contested airspace, and equipping large numbers of active duty squadrons that have to be deployed ONLY to areas without fighter opposition is a luxury Britain cannot afford in 1940/41.
They may think the Japanese fighters aren't much good but sending aircraft to the far east with valuable crews to posts that takes weeks to get to and will takes weeks to get replacement aircraft or crews to actually doesn't make much sense no matter how cheap or available the aircraft appear at first glance.

 

[stona]

The Battle was not designed to carry 500lb bombs. It was adapted to carry them externally as a later expedient. It may be a matter of semantics but it's why I wrote designed. The Battle was built to a specification that required it to carry 1000lbs of bombs and it was designed to carry 4 x 250 lbs. Obviously smaller or lighter ordnance would not be a problem.
As far as I can tell the Battle never carried a 500lb bomb in anger though I stand to be corrected.
This seems a more typical scene.

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Again this is one of the features that point to it being a strategic bomber rather than a tactical bomber. Streamlining the plane by internal bomb storage gives greater range in addition to higher top speed. It may slow rearming (multiple missions per day). Given the change in the ground situation from orders issued in France to arrival over target I fail to see the need to operate tactical aircraft at long ranges which just delay the arrival of the planes.
This "feature" is part of what condemned the Battle from being improved much. Hanging bombs on the outside cut into the speed and range and trying to change the wing to accommodate larger bombs inside either required too much work or required some major lumps and bumps, or both. It also meant a thick, high drag (but high lift) wing. Not so bad in in 37-38 when it seemed the RAF was trying to build STOL aircraft that could use cow pastures as airfields ( an exaggeration) but a definite liability to getting a major improvement in performance. Once the British caught on to better flap designs that allowed for improved take offs with smaller wings the thick wing section lost a lot of appeal.
that is part of the problem with trying to update older designs. How much work (engineering, drawing and tooling) and how much production disruption do you put up with for how much improvement and at what point do you just shift to a new design?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Of course a Battle wouldn't carry the same payload or have the same firepower as a B25-G, but it's bombing accuracy should be the same.

In what type of bombing? Maybe if it was bombing an undefended target!

B-25s regularly skipped bombed and mast height bombed at high speeds and low altitudes, I don't see a Battle doing this in say in the Bismarck Sea and surviving. BTW the B-25s did this at over 260 mph, just faster than the Battle's top speed.

 

[RCAFson]

I bought a copy of Pilot's Notes's for the Battle:

Vmax = 340mph IAS and there are no restrictions on diving except speed.

How many strategic bombers can release their bombs at 80 degrees?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I bought a copy of Pilot's Notes's for the Battle:

Vmax = 340mph IAS and there are no restrictions on diving except speed.

View attachment 210996

How many strategic bombers can release their bombs at 80 degrees?

V max at what altitude and what weight? IAS needs to be calculated to true air speed to give a real picture of how fast the aircraft is going

 

[RCAFson]

The Battle was not designed to carry 500lb bombs. It was adapted to carry them externally as a later expedient. It may be a matter of semantics but it's why I wrote designed. The Battle was built to a specification that required it to carry 1000lbs of bombs and it was designed to carry 4 x 250 lbs. Obviously smaller or lighter ordnance would not be a problem.
As far as I can tell the Battle never carried a 500lb bomb in anger though I stand to be corrected.
This seems a more typical scene.

Steve

Hogwash.

The Battle was carefully designed to accommodate a variety of internal and external ordnance including 500lb bombs. You know it's really unbelievable that the extraordinarily clean design of the Battle and it's ability to carry 1000lb of bombs internally (4 x 250lb) is now being held up as a draw back or a defect!