Frontline bomber for the RAF in 1939/40: any thoughts?

[pbfoot]

[I'm going to propose although the aircraft were not the best for their time they were adaquate The Blenheim was not a bad aircraft but was hampered by lack of range being able only to reach the borders of Germany however the training was was poor and this certainly IMHO hampered their proper use an example of this was that in 1937 only 84 pilots in Bomber Command were night qualified


"The air observer was perhaps the epitome of the amateur status of aircrew at this time . This amateur status'' was not only a matter of a confusion of functions in the air; it was above all that observer gunners were provided by volunteer ground-crew, whose air duties severe regarded as ''spare-time and paid accordingly. The Air Ministry though the real villain was no doubt the Treasury - fought a hard rearguard action against recognition of aircrew status. In 1939 1,000 out of 3,000 required Bomber Command observers were still officially observer gunners. In April 1938 the ministry did agree to the 10 (week Navigational course for observers that Ludlow Hewitt (CiC Bomber Command) had been demanding since January 1937 but as late as August 1939 he still had to face the fact that over 40 per cent of a force of his bombers were unable to find a target in a friendly city in broad daylight''.

or as this qoute from the Official History says
"Thus when war came in1939 Bomber Command was not equipped or trained either to penetrate into enemy territory by day or find its target areas let alone targets, by night"

 

[merlin]

In service as a tug, the Henley was restricted to a speed of 220mph due to a high rate of engine failures. So it would have been even less effective than the Battle, I think, and still subject to the same tactical limitations.

Its engine failures - were due to its being employed as a target tug!

As a dive-bomber, it would have been a useful addition to the RAF's aircraft in France in '40. Moreover with a speed of nearly 300 mph, it would have been a much better option than the Skua, especially as it could carry a bigger bomb load. Indeed, seems more plausible that a Sea Henley should have replaced the Skua!

The problem was the RAF's attitude at the time, it was dragged into providing aircraft to operate in France. It disliked the idea of 'dive-bombing', too many officers 'on high' were obsessed with bombers - that could strike back at the enemy's heartland. They wanted an independant air force that could take independant action!

Alternatives: that could have been developed if there was the will - as 'attack' aircraft,
- the Gloster F.34/35 - F.9/37, and Supermarine 313.

At the time, the Air Ministry was criticized for ordering the Lockeed Hudson. Though Caproni 311 313 were ordered as trainers (withdrawn 23 April 1940), a proposal to order Savoia Marchetti bombers was not approved by the Commons.
Because of their more desparate position with their aircraft industry - the French with their orders - effectively kick-started the US aircraft industry!

 

[davebender]

Junkers Ju 89 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Britain could purchase rights to the cancelled Ju-89 heavy bomber in 1937. It's my impression that the design was production ready when the program was cancelled during April 1937. Substitute RR Merlin engines for the DB600 engines and put the aircraft into mass production.

 

[Waynos]

SM 79? Ju 89???

I thought this thread was about light bombers? I like the idea of a re-engined Breguet 690 series, it almost looks like a twin tail Beaufighter anyway from some angles

 

[tomo pauk]

for true the 79 was heaviest of hamp and maryland, and commonly w/o turret

Yep, you're right, Vicenzo. It's those pounds that confused me
A decent aircraft, nevertheless.

 

[tomo pauk]

SM 79? Ju 89???

I thought this thread was about light bombers? I like the idea of a re-engined Breguet 690 series, it almost looks like a twin tail Beaufighter anyway from some angles

It's about frontline/light bombers. However, the Su-2, Pzl. 23 and Battle were unlikely to withstand fighter AAA combo opposition, so the twin (at least) engined a/c is a better choice.
Ju-89 is an overkill though

 

[Lucky13]

I think that the PZL 37 would have been a good choice for the job, as it was one of the most modern bombers before the war....
Would have changed the armament slightly though.

 

[davebender]

Fair enough. Even though the A-20 had a greater payload then the SM.79.

The Luftwaffe Ju-87 and Ju-88 were designed with CAS in mind. The RAF needs something similiar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Whirlwind_(fixed_wing)
The Westland Whirlwind gets my vote. Power it with 2 x R1830 air cooled radial engines rather then the troublesome RR Peregrine V12. Put some additional armor around the cockpit to protect the pilot from light flak. If the program receives adequate funding you could have operational CAS squadrons during the 1940 battle for France. Just the thing for knocking out German bridges across the Meuse River.

 

[Lucky13]

Should have fitted them with Merlins instead me think....

 

[merlin]

Junkers Ju 89 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Britain could purchase rights to the cancelled Ju-89 heavy bomber in 1937. It's my impression that the design was production ready when the program was cancelled during April 1937. Substitute RR Merlin engines for the DB600 engines and put the aircraft into mass production.

Even if they could, even if they would - it's not just a matter of changing the engines. To build it in the UK, would mean redrawing the design to British imperial measurements from the continental metric.
And besides the timing is all wrong - in October 1936 the Tender Design Conference met for the specification B.12/36 (Britain's four engined design), bizarrely the one that was last Short Brothers was the one that got built - the Stirling rather than the Boulton Paul P.90 - of which it was said '... was ahead of the others in terms of easy manufacture'.
Hence, it seems feasible that the P.90 could have been available much earlier.

 

[Vincenzo]

Fair enough. Even though the A-20 had a greater payload then the SM.79.

first A-20 it's a newest design comparate with 79, 79 already bombing target before of DB-7 drawings, second A-20G a internal load of 725 gallons of fuel and 2000 pounds of bombs (and i'm not 100% sure that fuel load is w/o tank in bomb bay) 79 a internal load of 878 gallons of fuel and 2755 pounds of bombs, it's true that 79 is a large aircraft of DB-7 and i think they aren't directly comparable

 

[davebender]

That would work. However I would prefer an air cooled radial engine for CAS. More resistant to light flak, which you will be experiencing on every mission. It's the same reason for additional armor around the pilot.

 

[Waynos]

If we had this 'ideal' in 1939 we might never have got the Mosquito, so maybe its better we stay as we were?

 

[davebender]

If we had this 'ideal' in 1939 we might never have got the Mosquito, so maybe its better we stay as we were?

If Britain had a decent ground attack aircraft during the spring of 1940 then the Allies might have held on to a portion of France and fought the German army to a stalement. That's worth a lot more then the Mosquito aircraft.

 

[Marcel]

This one with merlins. Had it all, manoeuvrability, guns, bombload, dive brakes and, with Merlins, speed

 

[BombTaxi]

If Britain had a decent ground attack aircraft during the spring of 1940 then the Allies might have held on to a portion of France and fought the German army to a stalement. That's worth a lot more then the Mosquito aircraft.

IMHO, it would have taken far more than a decent strike plane to hold any part of France or the Low Countries in 1940. Both Britain and France were doctrinally prepared and physically equipped for a re-run of WWI, evidenced by the construction of the Maginot Line, the deployment of armour in penny packets to provide direct infantry fire support, and indeed the very design philosophy of AFVs like the Matilda I, Char B1bis and A9 'Cruiser' tanks. The Allies were in no way prepared to resist Blitzkrieg, let alone stop it. A different ground attack airframe wouldn't have changed this one bit - even if a superlative type existed in 1939-40, there was simply no room in RAF or Armee d'Air doctrine for a 'Stuka' or a 'Typhoon'. That space would only appear with the Ranger and Rhubarb ops of 1941 onwards.

 

[davebender]

If Britain had that attitude during September 1939 they would not have declared war on Germany in the first place. Clearly someone in London thought they had a good chance to defeat Germany.

 

[tomo pauk]

Re: Bomber to stop Blitzkrieg:
It's hard to imagine that allies would manage to stop 1940 Blitzkrieg, even with a super-duper tactical bomber.
Yet, I like discussing the design tehnical issues 8)

Re: Fokker G1: Yep, the plane is excellent, it's a shame more f those weren't available. With Twin Wasps/Taurus it would be cool too; with Merlins it would be as fast as Mosquito.

Re: need of Mosquito: It was a strategic bomber, so no tactical bomber would jeopardize it.

 

[Marcel]

If Britain had that attitude during September 1939 they would not have declared war on Germany in the first place. Clearly someone in London thought they had a good chance to defeat Germany.

Yup, but like most people in the world, they didn't know what they were getting into. Even the Germans surprised themselves. Bombtaxi is correct, all armies in the world, except for Germany were prepared for another trench war. The Germans were the only ones in 1939 to think beyond that and that gave them early victory.

 

[BombTaxi]

If Britain had that attitude during September 1939 they would not have declared war on Germany in the first place. Clearly someone in London thought they had a good chance to defeat Germany.

You're confusing realism with defeatism Dave. Everyone in the UK thought we would beat the Germans because we thought it would be just like the last time. France, Belgium and Holland thought likewise. As it turned out, we were wrong and were smartly bundled off the Continent for our trouble. Blitzkrieg completely re-wrote the rulebook in European warfare, it is still almost certainly the most radical thing to happen in that field.

The real triumph of British 'attitude' was that rather than accepting our beating and suing for terms (like half the world thought we should), we learned the new rules and went across Africa and Europe giving it right back