Hard runways in WWII

[kitplane01]

Did either the Allies of the Axis have many hard paved runways in operational combat use?

As a silly example (and please don't move this to what-if) did the Allies/Axis have the sort of runways we would now use to operate an F-16/B-52? Were they really landing DC-4s or Constellations on grass? And where ever they were landing DC-4s or Constellations, did they run combat ops out of those bases?

 

[EwenS]

Did either the Allies of the Axis have many hard paved runways in operational combat use?

As a silly example (and please don't move this to what-if) did the Allies/Axis have the sort of runways we would now use to operate an F-16/B-52? Were they really landing DC-4s or Constellations on grass? And where ever they were landing DC-4s or Constellations, did they run combat ops out of those bases?

RAF class A airfields

Class A airfield - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[kitplane01]

RAF class A airfields

Class A airfield - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

OK. Awesome and thanks. But how many Class A Airfields were there? Wiki implies at least 8 but maybe more.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Did either the Allies of the Axis have many hard paved runways in operational combat use?

As a silly example (and please don't move this to what-if) did the Allies/Axis have the sort of runways we would now use to operate an F-16/B-52? Were they really landing DC-4s or Constellations on grass? And where ever they were landing DC-4s or Constellations, did they run combat ops out of those bases?

Understand that F-16s can use 5,000 or so foot runways, and a fully-loaded B-52 probably needs more like 7-8,000 foot, so while both sides had many paved runways in WWII, that's not to say they could accommodate those jets, necessarily.

No doubt the UK and/or Germany had -- in 1945 -- the highest numbers of long concrete airstrips, with some able to handle jets. But the Japanese and Americans both had healthy hard-paved air bases, at Munda, Rabaul, and the Marianas, too. Andersen AFB in Guam handles B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s to this day (though it may have been extended, not sure).

But to answer your first question, yes, both sides had hard runways.

 

[yulzari]

The British program of building hard runway airfields with all the support buildings, services etc. for the RAF and USAAF was the largest civil engineering project they had ever undertaken. Previously, although there were some hard runways, the assumption for even heavy aeroplanes was that operations would be from grassed airfields and was written into the design requirements. Given the issues of drainage on grass airfields in NW European weather simple airfields on dry hard ground in parts of the Empire could actually be better operationally.

 

[EwenS]

OK. Awesome and thanks. But how many Class A Airfields were there? Wiki implies at least 8 but maybe more.

In 1939 there were about 100 permanent airfields in Britain. By 1945 that had risen to over 700.

The first hard runways for the RAF were constructed in 1938 at Odiham & Gosport, two sites that were proving particularly wet with only grass strips. Each received two runways (700 yards long for Odiham & 350-400 yards long for Gosport). By autumn of 1938 hard runways were recognised as essential, and development started with 8 fighter stations receiving two 800x50 yard hard runways. By Dec 1940 bomber airfields were being designed with three hard runways of at least 1,100x50 yards. Then in 1942 the Class A airfield became the standard operational airfield as described in the article I linked, to which standard all new construction was undertaken. Most training airfields, aircraft storage units etc had been built by then and had or did not have hard runways as appropriate to their role. Then in 1944/45 several airfields were developed beyond Class A standards, with a view to accomodating later generations of aircraft (main runway 3,000x100 yards with two subsidiary runways of 2,000x50yards).

Many earlier airfields had their runways brought up to Class A standard by laying hard runways (e.g. Scampton in 1943/44) or by increasing the length of existing runways (visible by runways and perimeter tracks extending beyond the original perimeter track around the airfield) or completely rebuilding existing runways to take later, heavier, generations of aircraft. A handful of airfields were built specifically for the Royal Navy and had 5 hard runways (better for naval aircraft with narrower landing gear tracks to land into wind).

Exceptions were the temporary Advanced Landing Grounds built in southern England to support the various tactical air forces in the run up to D-Day, which received metal track runways of one type or another.

Construction materials varied over time and the part of the world airfields were being built in. Concrete was best but wasn't always available. Bitumen was also used. But in the CBI stone & gravel was used and on Pacific islands crushed coral.

Some of the largest airfield complexes built were in the Mariana Islands to support B-29 operations. 8,000-8,500 ft runways often 4 in parallel. North & West Fields, Tinian, & North & North West Fields on Guam.

If you want to understand airfield development for the RAF here are a couple of titles of interest:-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Military-Airfield-Architecture-Airships/dp/185260462X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1LQT6H17Z3ZK7&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.YsMVxtryjkPsaVJ2ZGr1l9sNVrpv-ouDCryBDFIBi0s.fgrBhBJ2Q6-y59TPWf7MkF5s46WIqqkKjWuLzs0n3Bc&dib_tag=se&keywords=british+military+airfield+architecture&qid=1721812410&s=books&sprefix=british+military+airfield+architecture%2Cstripbooks%2C81&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bases-Air-Strategy-Construction-Antecedents/dp/1840370092/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1BVDDCAOF0HX6&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.78JXQrEtyVvWYLhy1fDkPcEGFgyTl5mlJyed-TietcjGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.AhxXKPyuCanYaxYeJEjhXxTJbPQfoUJtyfGd_oUcEkI&dib_tag=se&keywords=bases+of+air+strategy&qid=1721812449&s=books&sprefix=bases+of+air+strategy%2Cstripbooks%2C67&sr=1-1

Videos showing construction of B-29 airfield in China by hand:-

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqaEb7GxZ3A

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEoX3kOtS4k

The attached article will give you an idea of what was involved.

 

[yulzari]

The Luftwaffe kindly provided a lot of the hardcore upon which to lay the concrete in many cases. The airfield at my home town of Plymouth could only take Gladiators so a flight of these was maintained there during the daylight Blitz. Much as the early airfields off the RAF in France could only take Gladiators until somewhat improved in length and drainage. The lack of a large airfield in the South West led to RAF Harrowbear being built, principally for Coastal Command, upon the rubble of the early bombings of Plymouth nearby. The later clearances after the last bombing is 1944 filled in Lipson Creek which now houses a large school and it's grounds etc.Older locals will tell you that the Americans disposed of a lot of munitions in there too. As to the truth of that I cannot say but I have heard first hand tales from older residents.

OT but current Plymouth City centre improvements are being delayed by finding the post war clearances had imperfectly filled in the cellars etc. of the old city leaving voids and the hasty installation of new post war services were very badly mapped so they keep finding mains where there should be none and have to work around them. Curiously I am not aware of unexplored bombs in the centre but the clearances hopefully saw to that problem. No one wants a 1,000kg bang amongst Christmas shoppers. An interesting anomaly is that, in Germany, the German government will cover the cost of rebuilding damage from discovered bombs going off but in Britain the property owner is left to fund it themselves with building insurance companies writing their contracts to not cover war damage.But I digress from the OP.

 

[MikeMeech]

Did either the Allies of the Axis have many hard paved runways in operational combat use?

As a silly example (and please don't move this to what-if) did the Allies/Axis have the sort of runways we would now use to operate an F-16/B-52? Were they really landing DC-4s or Constellations on grass? And where ever they were landing DC-4s or Constellations, did they run combat ops out of those bases?

Hi
The 1987 publication 'Military Airfields, in the British Isles 1939-1945 (Omnibus Edition)' by Steve Willis and Barry Holliss, has details of 654 airfield (including small plans showing runway layouts, plus appendices with consolidated information.
The introduction includes the following info:

Appendix 'N' gives detail of materials used for the runways:

Also a sample of main body info on airfields:

I hope that is of use.

Mike

 

[kitplane01]

Wow y'all much thanks! I'm impressed!

 

[MikeMeech]

Wow y'all much thanks! I'm impressed!

Hi
The Official History for RAF construction is 'The Royal Air Force Builds for War, A History of Design and Construction in the RAF 1935-1945', HMSO 1997 (although first published as a classified history in 1956). Extract reference runways:

It also has a chart of some of the aircraft requirements in relation runway design:

Mike

 

[PStickney]

Another bit to add was the U.S. development of Pierced Steel Planking (Marston Mat) just before World War 2. This allowed the Combat Engineers / SeaBees (Navy) to carve hard-surface forward airfields out quickly, creating mostly weatherproof airstrips in a matter of days. (It wasn't perfect, but it beats waiting for a 25cm thick concrete slab to cure.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Another bit to add was the U.S. development of Pierced Steel Planking (Marston Mat) just before World War 2. This allowed the Combat Engineers / SeaBees (Navy) to carve hard-surface forward airfields out quickly, creating mostly weatherproof airstrips in a matter of days. (It wasn't perfect, but it beats waiting for a 25cm thick concrete slab to cure.

Very useful in the Pacific. Not sure how much it was used in ETO, though I think it was in both Italy and Normandy.

 

[ThomasP]

It was used quite a lot in Europe. Unless the airfield in question was a captured one that had its runways intact, there was almost always PSP//PBS/SMT involved - either for covering the newly constructed runways on the temporary fields or for repairs of existing runways, as well as for constructing numbers of hard stands and taxiways. The general name for the new-build airfields on the continent was ALG (Advanced Landing Ground).

see "Advanced landing ground - Wikipedia"

A long time ago (mid-'90s)I I read a very good history of the IX Engineer Command that went into very detailed descriptions of the various aspects of building an ALG. I looked online just now but did find mention of it (that may be due to my not remembering the name/source ), but I will look some more.

 

[MikeMeech]

Another bit to add was the U.S. development of Pierced Steel Planking (Marston Mat) just before World War 2. This allowed the Combat Engineers / SeaBees (Navy) to carve hard-surface forward airfields out quickly, creating mostly weatherproof airstrips in a matter of days. (It wasn't perfect, but it beats waiting for a 25cm thick concrete slab to cure.

Hi
Quite a lot of 'temporary hard surface' developments were devised during WW2, you will note from the UK airfield list, that I have already posted, that several types were used on various airfields. 'The Royal Air Force builds for War' has a brief mention:

The 'Action Stations' series of books has useful information on airfields, Volume 1 'Military airfields of East Anglia' by Michael J. F. Bowyer, also has illustrations of some of the different types:

Another book that some may find useful is 'Bases of Air Strategy, Building Airfields for the RAF 1914-1945' by Robin Higham, Airlife 1998, has world wide coverage.

Mike

 

[MikeMeech]

It was used quite a lot in Europe. Unless the airfield in question was a captured one that had its runways intact, there was almost always PSP//PBS/SMT involved - either for covering the newly constructed runways on the temporary fields or for repairs of existing runways, as well as for constructing numbers of hard stands and taxiways. The general name for the new-build airfields on the continent was ALG (Advanced Landing Ground).

see "Advanced landing ground - Wikipedia"

A long time ago (mid-'90s)I I read a very good history of the IX Engineer Command that went into very detailed descriptions of the various aspects of building an ALG. I looked online just now but did find mention of it (that may be due to my not remembering the name/source ), but I will look some more.

Hi
ALGs date back to WW1, the RFC/RAF used them quite extensively during 1917-18. For example Scouts (fighters) being used for ground attack missions would fly out from their own airfield in the morning to undertake an attack, then land at the allocated ALG rearm and refuel, and remain on call until targets were spotted, then they would go out again, then return to the ALG. In the evening as the light faded they would return to their main airfield. Targets could be reported by ground forces, when they were held up, or by Corps aeroplanes flying over the battlefield, who reported targets by wireless, then the target would be engaged by artillery or ground attack aircraft (or both) depending on the situation.
Another WW1 development used during WW2.

Mike

 

[pbehn]

Did either the Allies of the Axis have many hard paved runways in operational combat use?

As a silly example (and please don't move this to what-if) did the Allies/Axis have the sort of runways we would now use to operate an F-16/B-52? Were they really landing DC-4s or Constellations on grass? And where ever they were landing DC-4s or Constellations, did they run combat ops out of those bases?

The war lasted a long time, at the start you could say not many were paved concrete asphalt or whatever "hard standing". In peacetime, nothing is absolutely urgent, once war was declared it was quickly realised that there were few activities that can easily be postponed. The first thought is bombers because they are heavy, but you could postpone your own bombing activities more easily than your fighter defence which had work all the time, day and night. Same for training, Air Sea Rescue, even "transport" which doesnt sound important but the first use of the B-24 was not for what it was designed for, it was used to ferry pilots, to transport documents like Merlin engine blue prints, contracts for Mustangs, transport Churchill himself and in the Battle of the Atlantic, which B-24 do you want to crash and burn on take off or landing doing any of that? I raced motorcycles in the early 1980s and many former RAF airfields in UK were used for racing. Some like Thruxton, Silverstone, Snetterton Croft Elvington Carnaby and West Raynham were known as WW2 airfields famous for what they did during the war. However others like Ouston and Silloth were not, Silloth was a Coastal Command airfield mainly use for training but it had concrete runways. Apart from racing, my wife gets her hair cut on what use to be RAF Thornaby, which was a concreted airfield mainly used for Air Sea Rescue, and in the 1990s I worked on a oil/gas project which used the concrete runway of RAF Tain in Scotland to weld together a "sub sea pipe bundle", since the end of the runway was at the start of the sea it was ideal. It just needed a specialist team of workers to make railway line that ran into the sea, the first and probably last time they would be asked to do such a thing.

 

[GregP]

Understand that F-16s can use 5,000 or so foot runways, and a fully-loaded B-52 probably needs more like 7-8,000 foot, so while both sides had many paved runways in WWII, that's not to say they could accommodate those jets, necessarily.

No doubt the UK and/or Germany had -- in 1945 -- the highest numbers of long concrete airstrips, with some able to handle jets. But the Japanese and Americans both had healthy hard-paved air bases, at Munda, Rabaul, and the Marianas, too. Andersen AFB in Guam handles B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s to this day (though it may have been extended, not sure).

But to answer your first question, yes, both sides had hard runways.

A full-loaded B-52 needs more than that. At least, the ones with J57 jet engines did. The J57 had anywhere from 8,700 lbf (39 kN) to 13,750 lnf (61.2 kN). In 1961, they started being delivered with TF33 turbofans with 17,100 lbf (17 kN). In the mid-1970s, they started thinking about using Rolls-Royce RB211 engines, but never did use them. In 2001, the USAF decided to purchase 650 Rolls-Royce F130s.

I was in the USAF in the mid-1970s and the units at Ellsworth was the 28th Bombardment Wing. Not too sure which engines they used, but they emitted a LOT of black smoke during takeoff! I think J57s. Those things were ground lovers of the first magnitude.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A full-loaded B-52 needs more than that. At least, the ones with J57 jet engines did. The J57 had anywhere from 8,700 lbf (39 kN) to 13,750 lnf (61.2 kN). In 1961, they started being delivered with TF33 turbofans with 17,100 lbf (17 kN). In hte Mid-1970s, they started thinking about using Rolls-Royce RB211 engines, but never did use them. In 2001, the USAF decided to purchase 650 Rolls-Royce F130s.

I was in the USAF in the mid-1970s and the units t Ellsworth was the 28Tth Bombardment Wing. Not too sure which engines they used, but they emitted a LOT of black smoke during takeoff! I think J57s. Those things were ground lovers of the first magnitude.

The BUFFs I serviced as a firefighter, doing standbys for MITOs, were lifting off not far past the midway-point of our 11,000' runway at Carswell. My truck was at the midpoint of the runways/taxiways there and they were lifting off not very far past me at all, perhaps 7,000' rollout all told?

I don't know what engines they had. 7th BW flew B-52H models when I was there. Smoky as hell, fo' sho. Peeling off left and right ASAP, too.

Not Carswell but Minot AFB, but you can see how much runway is underneath them at liftoff, these guys were bucking for altitude.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6VFeDJNNzw&t=4s

 

[SaparotRob]

BUFF don't look fat to me.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

BUFF don't look fat to me.

I always thought that was an odd moniker. The B-52 always struck me as spindly, lots of length and span, but not much visible bulk.