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

[tomo pauk]

Just have looked at some pictures of the Battle, and noticed that the engine is set a great deal forward, more then it was the case with Hurricane or Spitfire. And, the wingspan and wing area are much closer to Blenheim or Gloster F.9/37, then to the single-engined planes mentioned.

So, I'd like to propose (drumm roll) the twin engined Battle:
two Bristol Tauruses, crew reduced to two, armor for crew, nose shaped like Me-410, Boulton Paul turret (I just love it!).

Hopefully the performance would be near of those of Gloster F.9/37 (at least 550km/h clean; not bad for 1939) since the plane would be similar in size, drag,weight and power.

Now I know that some people would yell that the plane would have CoG issues, but (again) good engineers could rehash the other parts of the plane to minimise that. Of course, unlike the real Battle, the new engines would be mounted as close to the wings as possible.

Of course, one-two 40mm cannons would be nice (at least from 1942, if nor right away). those would look great on most of the planes mentioned here, but not for the SM-79 thogh

 

[Waynos]

tomo, you're not the first. Fairey did design a twin battle but nobody was interested, at least the Gloster Reaper actually flew so that would do as a stand in. That was exactly the problem with the Battle, it was as big as the twins like the Blenheim but was even more handicapped than they were due to having only one engine. That was why the Henley would have been better. it was not much bigger than a hurricane and a lot more chuckable.

Also, the Mossie was absolutely not a strategic bomber, how many strategic bombers attack a low level with nose guns blazing, have you never seen 633 Squadron?

I also agree with the other guys here that the Blitzkreig was not stopping for anything until it hit the sea, which is in fact what happened.

 

[tomo pauk]

Mossie was not a strategic bomber if we consider the plane's dimensions. But, it was capable for flying far with a decent bombload, so it belongs to the 'strategic' class in my eyes.

Being able to strafe enemy with 20mm only ads to the appeal 8)

On the other hand, how the Defiant would do as a Tac Bomber?
The turret is there, plane could do 500km/h clean, it's smaller then Battle (so, as big as Henley). I'd put Taurus, then Twin Wasp, and then Hercules on it (with, ta-daa, 40mm under the wings).

 

[pbfoot]

I'll state it wasn't aircraft but doctrine and training the doctrine is a hindsight issue the training was verified by
Ludlow Hewitt CiC Bomber Command in 1937-40. who stated
" the present situation is most disquieting" Bomber Command was "entirely unprepared for war , unable to operate except in fair weather and extremely vunerable in the air and on the ground".
later he stated
"A fair weather Air Force is relatively useless not worth the vast expenditure now being poured out on the air arm of this country. And yet today our bombing force judged from a war standard ,practically useless and cannot take advantage of the excellent characteristics of its new and expensive aircraft" March 1939 from his report "Readiness for War" Ludlow Hewitt CiC Bomber Command
As a point of interest to back this up over 478 force landings by Bomber Command aircraft in 2 years preceding the war because the pilots got lost
These are qoutes and excerpts from the book "The Right of the Line" The Raf in the European Air War by John Tremaine

 

[Glider]

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.

A common thought I admit but one that I would disagree with. The only fully mechanised Army at the start of WW2 was the British Army and it didn't plan on a trench warfare conflict.

Re the ability of the Skua to defend itself and attack bridges. Apparently during Dunkirk Skua's were put under the control of the RAF and as far as I can see only carried out one GA mission that was a success by any standard. The key points are that 9 Skuas were engaged by 12 Me109's, two were shot down and one crash landed while they shot down one Me109 and damaged another. Would anyone care to guess what would have happened to 9 Battles attacked by 12 Me 109's?

On the 31st May ten Albacores and nine Skuas bombed German pontoon bridges over the Nieuport Canal, near the coast North East of Dunkirk. Direct hits were claimed. Returning home the Skuas were engaged by 12 Messerschmitt Bf 109s of I/JG20 and two Skuas of 801 Squadron (L2917 and L3005) were shot down. Another Skua crash landed back at Detling. The battle was not all one sided, the Skuas claimed one Bf109 shot down and another damaged. It seems the Messeschmitts may have broken off the chase to go after three Coastal Command Hudsons, who in turn escaped claiming another Bf109 shot down. The Skua that crash-landed back at Detling is probably the one described in Capt Eric Brown's "Wings of the Navy" and Alexander McKee's "Strike from the Sky", as providing an example of the Skua's sturdiness, with nine bullet holes in one propeller blade alone, the top cylinder of the Perseus engine shot away, along with the pilot's windscreen and canopy. On this very day the British 12th Infantry Brigade (consisting of the 2nd Bn Royal Fusiliers, 1st Bn South Lancashire Regt and 6th Bn The Black Watch) were holding the sector of the Dunkirk perimeter opposite Nieuport. They had just beaten off a strong German attack but at 5pm massive German reinforcements were observed moving along the canal. Just then bombing by British aircraft stopped the enemy movements and the Germans turned and fled. If this was the attack by the Skuas and the Albacores, then this one single incident alone justifies the British tax payer's investment in the poor maligned Skua! Far from being a fighter sweep that was cut to pieces this would then be a highly accurate dive-bombing attack which possibly saved the Dunkirk perimeter from collapse at the cost of only three Skuas.

 

[Juha]

Re on what kind of war Allied were prepared
British, most common tank was the light Mk VI, a recon vehicle, next sommon were Cruisers, most of them were designed for deep penetration (for ex A13 series (Cruiser MKs III and IV)). There were only two I-tank regiments (British Tank regiments were a size of other nations' tank battalions). 1st Armoured was still in GB on 10 May and it's subsequent use was dictated by the desperate situation and WC's urge to show to French that British were still fighting. And as Glider noted British Expedition Force was fully mechanized which would have been odd if the plan was to replay WWI trench warfare.

French, they have 3 heavy armoured divs and the fourth was forming but it is often overlooked that their light mechanized divisions were organized much like German PzDivs, with their Somua S-35s a light mechanized div could more or less handle a German PzDiv as shown during Gembloux Gap battle in Belgium. Problem with light mechanized divisions was that they were seen as modern cavalry divs with main functions being screening and flank protection. Also most of French cavalry divs were ½ mechanized with light tanks etc.

The main advantages to Germans were a) initiative b) brilliant plan c) that Allied high command thought they knew what the German plan was, ie attack through Holland and Belgium, and so played nicely to Germany's advantage. d) Panzer Divs were better balanced fighting formations than those of Allies, which tended to be too "tank-heavy", except French light mechanized divisions which were hampered by their doctrine e) better integration of all arms at least down to Corps level and inside armoured divisions. f) more effective use of air force.

DB-7 was very good a/c for its time definitely better than Blenheim Mk IV but no light bomber would do very good without proper fighter protection. Brequet 693 and Fokker G1 would have been good straffers in May 40, but at least Brequets suffered very heavy losses in may 40. Against good Flak and good fighter opposition there was no cheap way to attack enemy ground forces.

Juha