How should we rate the Beaufighter?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

V

vinnye

Senior Airman
613
11
Dec 28, 2009
Barnsley, UK
Most people would probably agree that some aircraft were outstanding and grab a lot of the headlines / attention. Notable examples being the Spitfire and Mosquito - both very worthy in their own rights. But, they have taken a lot of credit away from some of their peers - for example the Hurricane and the Beaufighter.
I know that the Beaufighter may not have the "glamour" of the Mosquito - but how good was it?
 
It was good at what it did. As with many planes it must get credit for being there, the Mosquito may have been better when it arrived, but when it arrived in numbers was a bit late for Malta and UKs night defences.
 
But was the Mosquito or an efficient airborne radar equipment a bit late for Malta and UKs night defences?
 
Elmas said:
But was the Mosquito or an efficient airborne radar equipment a bit late for Malta and UKs night defences?
Click to expand...
Good question, of course you need both the plane and the RADAR. My point was that the Beaufighter recorded its first night time kill in November 1940, the Mosquito became available in enough numbers to replace the Beaufighter as RAF frontline night fighter in Autumn 1943 but it still served in many theatres until much later. The USAAF used Beaufighters until Black Widows arrived in 1944.

On ground attack and anti shipping missions the Beaufighter also performed well, it was a robust aircraft and heavily armed. The Mosquito was undoubtedly better in most respects but there were 5,200 Beaufighters built against 7,800 Mosquitos. There were simply not enough Mosquitos to do all the tasks required. In logisticts terms if those Beaufighters were Mosquitos that is yet another 10,000 merlin engines required.
 

Provided the Hercules is not installed on the Mosquito.
BTW - a number of Beaufighters have had Merlins aboard.
 
Beaufighter air victories

Braham, John Robert Daniel 19 29,51.OTU,141 Ross; Heywood; Gregory, W. S.;
Jacobs, H.
Turnbull John Howard 13 [12+1] 125,600 Canadian Fowler, Cecil F. J.
Shipard, Mervyn Charles 13 68,89 Australian Oxby, Douglas
Fumerton, Robert Carl 13 406,89 Canadian Bing, L. P. S.
Buchanan, John Kenneth 13 [10+3] 272 Howes, R. C.
Hughes, Frederick Desmond 12 [11+1] 125,600 Dixon, Lawrence
Downing, Alwyn Berriman 12 600 Lyons, John P.
Crombie, Charles Arbuthnot 11 89,176 Australian Moss, R. C.
Willson, John Ellis 10 219 Burch, D. C.
Read, James Alfred Avory 10 89,46,108
Coate, Edward Ernest 10 [9+1] 272 Australian
Boyd, Archibald Douglas McNeill 10 600,219 Glegg, Alexander Joseph
Topham, John K. Groves 9 219 Berridge, H. W.
Schmidt, Dallas Wilbur 9 [8+1] 227 Canadian Campbell
Reeves, Neville Everard 9 89 O'Leary, Arthur Alexander
Mansfeld, Miroslav Jan 9 [8+1] 68 Czechoslovak Janáček, Slavomil
Green, Charles Patrick 9 600 Gillies, Reginald Joseph
Watson, Anthony 8 [6+2] 272
Rankin, Ronald 8 [4+4] 272 Australian
Hodgkinson, Arthur John 8 219 Dye, Bertram E.
Davison, Michael Metcalfe 8 (+1 V-1) 46,108 Willmott, A. C.
Crew, Edward Dixon 8 604 Guthrie, Norman; Duckett, Basil
Bretherton, Bruce Albert 8 255 Australian Johnson, T. E.
Mellersh, Francis Richard Lee 7 600
Kinmonth, Michael William 7 89 Edgar
Chisholm, Roderick Aeneas 7 604 Ripley, W. G.
Horne, Angus William 7 219,600 Browne, Rex
Edwards, Henry Grahame 7 89 Phillipson, J. R.
Daniel, Edward Gough 7 (+4 V-1) 1435.Flt
Coleman, GeorgeByrne Stanislaus 7 256,MNFU,46,272,600
Stephenson, Leslie 6 153 Hall, G. A.
Riley, William 6 [5+1] 252,272 Martin
Rees, Stewart William 6 600 Australian Bartlett, D. C.
Pring, Arthur Maurice Own 6 89,176 Phillips, C. T.
Pike, Thomas Geoffrey 6 219
Phipps, Rodney Thirsk 6 [5+1] 272 Canadian Pontet-Piccolomini, A.
Pepper, George 6 29 Toone, Joseph H.
Oven, Alan Joseph 6 600 McAllister, S. V.
Hayton, Gilbert McLean 6 1435.Flt New Zealand Josling, H.
Etherton, John Hill 6 89
Cunningham, John 6 604 Phillipson, J. R.;
Rawnsley, C. F.
Bailey, James Richard Abe 6 125,600
Aitken, John William Maxwel 6 68,46
Williamson, Peter Greville Kaye 5 153 Australian Lake D. S.
White, Derek 5 CR.Flt,39 Coldman, A.
Tuckwell, George Arthur 5 272 Hubbard, K. F.
Thompson, Dennis Alfred 5 600 White; Beaumont, Gerald
Styles, Laurence Hilton 5 219,153,600 Smith, L.; Ritchie, J.;
Wilmer, H. J.
Spurgin, Arthur Leslie Mervyn 5 89 Australian Horris, D. A.
Smith, Albert Ivan 5 252 Canadian Diaper, J. P.
Shead, Harold Frederick William 5 89 Curtis
Sage, Paul Christopher Wendover 5 46 Cockburn, John
Reynolds, Robert Edward 5 255 Wingham, M.
Rayment, K. G. 5 153 Lanning; Ayliffe, H. D., Bone
Pleassance, Harold Percival 5 25
Paton, Donald Pearson 5 600 McAnulty, John William Alec
Pain, Derek Sydney 5 68,89 Briggs, John Victor
Newhouse, Peter Saxton 5 600 Tate, Gerald
Modera, John Raymond Stewart 5 [2+3] 227 Hodges
Melville-Jackson, George Holmes 5 [2+3] 248
Meager, Patrick Edward 5 211
Kendall, Philip Stanley 5 255 Hill, C. R.
Keele, Brian Rushworth 5 604 Cowles, George H.
Johnson, Carl L. 5 [4+1] 227 Webb, R. A.
Gunnis, Herbert Horatio Kitchener 5 252
Greaves, Douglas Haig 5 255 Robbins, F. Milton
Gordon, Reginald Lloyd 5 31 RAAF Australian Jordan, Ronald S.
Gloster, Michael John 5 255 Oswald, James F.
Geddes, Keith Irvine 5 604
Butler, Roy Thomas 5 46 Graham, R. F.
Bobek, Ladislav 5 68 Czechoslovak Kovařík, Bohuslav
Boardman, Hubert Stanley 5 153 Mordan, James Roy
Allen, Percy Frank 5 68 Bennett, G.


Wight-Boycott, Cathcart Michael 4 219,29 Hendry, D.; Sanders, E. A.
Player, John Howard 4 255 New Zealand Lammer, Alfred
Morris, Douglas Griffith 4 406 Rix, A. V.
Miller, Reginald Arthur 4 1435.Flt Tearle, Francis J.
MacKenzie, Russell Merriman 4 [3+1] 89,46,227 New Zealand
Lawrence, Arthur George 4 406 Canadian Wilmer, H. J.
Kelsey, Howard Charles 4 141 Smith, Edward M.
Joll, Ian Kenneth Sefton 4 604 O'Leary M.
Hanuš, Josef 4 600,68,125 Czechoslovak Eyles, Ernest; Thompson, Niven;
Finlay, Harry
Foster, Reginald John 4 604,108 Newton, M. F.
Cox, Neill Dudley 4 39
Benn, Michael Julius Wedgewood 4 153 Lunan, W. R.
White, Harmon Edward 3 141 Allan, Mike
O'Sullivan, Kevin Thomas Anthony 3 255 Hood, W. G.
Miller, Wilfred Handel 3 125 Bone, F. C.
Masterman, Cedric Audley 3 [1+2] 227 Burnside, G. B.
Jameson, George Esmond 3 125 New Zealand Crookes, A. Norman
Hammond, Ronald Frank 3 [2+1] 248 Australian
Cartridge, David Leslie 3 248
Binks, Anthony Franklin 3 [1+2] 235
Berry, Joseph 3 255 Watson, I.
Beaumont, William Reginald Lancelot 3 219 Andrews, Ralph Leslie
Beare, Burgess John 3 227
Bates, Peter Anthony 3 600
Atcherley, David Francis William 3 25
Arnsby, John 3 600, 255 Wells; Gillies, R.; Lawson; Reid,
Douglas Mitchell
Alexandrowicz, Antoni 3 219 Polish Domanski, Z. J.
Welfare, Denis 2 [1+1] 272
Vopálecký, Josef 2 68 Czechoslovak Husár, Rudolf
Veselý, Vlastimil 2 [1+1] 68 Czechoslovak Montgomerie, J. F.;
Nečas, Zbyšek
Trousdale, Richard Macklow 2 409 New Zealand
Ramsey, Charles Maurice 2 153 Morton
Morton, James Storrs 2 219 Bailey, C.
Miller, Charles Michael 2 85
Chudleigh, Richard Neil 2 153 Ayliffe
Hayley-Bell, Dennis 2 68
Hammond, Derek Harold 2 [1+1] 272 New Zealand
Haddon, John Arthur Munro 2 153 McIlvenny, Robert J.
Eliot, Hugh William 2 255 Ibbotson, D. R.
Cowper, Robert Barson 2 108 Australian Farquharson; Watson, Bill
Constable-Maxwell, Michael Hugh 2 604
Cobley, Peter Charles 2 [0+2] 272
Clerke, Rupert Francis Henry 2 125 Wheldon, J. R.
Boulton, Kenneth Frank 2 153 Hoile, T. S. 'Castor'
Blackwell, Leslie Robert 2 89 Melrose, A. A. W.
Blackburn, Joseph R. 2 46
Beattie, Alexander Campbell 2 153 Dickinskon, John
Bays, Henry James 2 46 Baptiste, C. W. W.
Bastow, Richard 2 125, 600
Astbury, Joseph George 2 89 Busby, Ashworth
Appleton, Charles Henry 2 604 Rhodesian Jackson, Derek Ainslie
Alington, William James 2 25 Keith, D. B.
Adam, Josef 2 68 Czechoslovak Gemrod, Fridolín
Wright, Allan Richard 1 29
Williams, David John 1 406 Canadian
Ward, Donald Leslie 1 68
Verity, Victor Bosanquet Trachan 1 108 New Zealand Farquharson, A. W.
Tull, Desmond Trevor 1 FIU
Šerhant, Jan 1 68 Czechoslovak Nečas, Zbyšek
Šeda, Karel 1 68 Czechoslovak Hradský, Drahomír
Surman, John Clarke 1 604 Weston, Clarence E.
Singleton, Joseph 1 25 Bradshaw, Chris
Russell, Noel 1 272
O'Neill, John Anthony 1 89
Leathart, James Anthony 1 89 Glass, G. J.
Herrick, Michael James 1 25 New Zealand
Gough, William John 1 68 Matson
Goodman, Geoffrey Horace 1 29 Wall, R. C. B.
Burke, Patrick Lampard 1 600
Bugge, Per 1 255 Norwegian Robertson, A.
Benson, James Ghillies 1 (+6 V-1) 141 Brandon, Lewis
Baumberger, Stanley Herbert 1 153 Michaels, D.
Ashfield, Glyn 1 FIU


Inniss, Aubrey Richard De Lisle ? 248 British West Indies
 

In some cases you have to take into account timing. As has been noted the Beaufighter was in service 1 1/2 to 3 years ahead of the Mosquito depending on role.
And for some roles they were in no way, shape or form interchangeable. Nobody really tried using Beaufighters for photo recon for example unless there was nothing else available.
 
Anti shipping ops

Coastal Command began to take delivery of the up-rated Mk.VIC in mid 1942. By the end of 1942 Mk VICs were being equipped with torpedo-carrying gear, enabling them to carry the British 18 in (450 mm) or the US 22.5 in (572 mm) torpedo externally. The first successful torpedo attacks by Beaufighters came in April 1943, with No. 254 Squadron sinking two merchant ships off Norway. The North Coates Strike Wing of Coastal Command, based at RAF North Coates on the Lincolnshire coast, developed tactics which combined large formations of Beaufighters using cannon and rockets to suppress flak while the Torbeaus attacked at low level with torpedoes. These tactics were put into practice in mid 1943, and in a 10-month period, 29,762 tons (27,000 tonnes) of shipping were sunk. Tactics were further adapted when shipping was moved from port during the night. North Coates Strike Wing operated as the largest anti-shipping force of the Second World War, and accounted for over 150,000 tons (136,100 tonnes) of shipping and 117 vessels for a loss of 120 Beaufighters and 241 aircrew killed or missing. This was half the total tonnage sunk by all strike wings between 1942 and 1945. By the autumn of 1943, the Mosquito was available in enough numbers to replace the Beaufighter as the primary night fighter of the RAF. By the end of the war some seventy pilots serving with RAF units had become aces while flying Beaufighters. In the Mediterranean, the USAAF's 414th, 415th, 416th and 417th Night Fighter Squadrons received 100 Beaufighters in the summer of 1943, achieving their first victory in July 1943. Through the summer the squadrons conducted both daytime convoy escort and ground-attack operations, but primarily flew defensive interception missions at night.

In the Pacific
The Beaufighter arrived at squadrons in Asia and the Pacific in mid-1942. In the South-East Asian Theatre, the Beaufighter Mk VIF operated from India on night operations against Japanese lines of communication in Burma and Thailand. The Beaufighter's Hercules engines used sleeve valves which lacked the noisy valve gear common to poppet valve engines. This was most apparent in a reduced noise level at the front of the engine. In the South West Pacific theatre, the Bristol Beaufighter Mk IC was employed in anti-shipping missions with the most famous of these missions was the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, where No. 30 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force(RAAF) Beaufighters flew in at mast height to provide heavy suppressive fire for the waves of attacking bombers. They were used in the fire-suppression role where the Japanese ships were left exposed to mast-height bombing and skip bombing attacks by the US medium bombers. Eight Japanese transports and four destroyers were sunk for the loss of five aircraft, including one Beaufighter.
 
In my opinion, the beaufighter had a significant impact on the losses suffered by the LW during the blitz, though I concede the main nightfighter at that time was the defiant.

it was also important in winning sea control and interdicting german sea communications in the north sea. it had a similar effect in the SWPAC area in the PTO. everywhere it was used it was a sturdy and dependable winner.
 
The Fairey Battle was not a good plane but was instrumental in the formation of Bomber command. Training of air and ground crew doesn't seem significant but is vital.

Developments in RADAR were important but how would you know how good it was how good it can be or what its faults were if it was only mounted in a Defiant. Many of the technologies, tactics and pilots became what they eventually became starting on Beaufighters then progressing to the Mosquito or other.
 
While training was important the Beaufighter was a viable combat aircraft in most theaters for a good part of the war (unlike the Battle) and for all of the war in some theaters. IN 1940-41-42 it was a viable night fighter because the Germans didn't have anything any better and/or the German night bombers couldn't outrun it. This may have started to change in 1943.
 
I agree completely, but the point I was making was technologies advance together, the Mosquito as an airframe was what it was, it needed the pilots navigators and RADAR operators, experts and technicians to be what it was as a night fighter, in that respect the Mosquito stood on the shoulders of the Beaufighter.
 
A good aircraft for a design that had its first flight in 1939. I wouldn't compare it to mid War designs.
 
Ascent said:
It was a competent torpedo bomber right up to the end of the war. For some reason the mosquito never carried torpedoes in anger, not that I'm aware of anyway.
Click to expand...
from Wiki

To meet specification N.15/44 for a navalised Mosquito for Royal Navy use as a torpedo bomber, de Havilland produced a carrier-borne variant. A Mosquito FB.VI was modified as a prototype designated Sea Mosquito TR Mk 33 with folding wings, arrester hook, thimble nose radome, Merlin 25 engines with four-bladed propellers and a new oleo-pneumatic landing gear rather than the standard rubber-in-compression gear. Initial carrier tests of the Sea Mosquito were carried out by Eric "Winkle" Brown aboard HMS Indefatigable, the first landing-on taking place on 25 March 1944. An order for 100 TR.33s was placed although only 50 were built at Leavesden. Armament was four 20 mm cannon, two 500 lb bombs in the bomb bay (another two could be fitted under the wings), eight 60 lb rockets (four under each wing) and a standard torpedo under the fuselage. The first production TR.33 flew on 10 November 1945. This series was followed by six Sea Mosquito TR Mk 37s, which differed in having ASV Mk XIII radar instead of the TR.33's AN/APS-6.


When everyone wanted Mosquitos I think a land based torpedo bomber to replace the Beaufighter would be at the bottom of the list in 1943/44
 
The beaufighter had a huge reverence from boys born in the 1950s.

Most mass produced aircraft have a good trick or two. The Beaufighter could haul a torpedo at over 300 mph at sea level and it could carry it over a thousand nautical miles. Ditto with other weapons. It had a huge amount of space, it surely would have taken much longer to fit the 300lbs of radar equipment in the smaller mosquito.

It's worth noting that when supplies of the Hercules looked like being too limited the first choice for a replacement was the Griffon. However Griffon production was allocated to some inconsequential naval bombers and the resulting Merlin powered Beaufighters were underpowered and had poor handling due to their opposite rotation. Griffon engines rotated in the correct direction.

The Griffon powered Beaufighter would surely have been a monster.

If the Beaufighter had of been available to the Luftwaffe what would they value it for?

On the surface it is no better than the Me 110 or Me 410. However I think they would have valued its immense range in the night fighter roll that would have allowed the aircraft to be sent of at high speed cruise to distant targets little effected by heavy radar aerials.. They would have valued its maritime attack capability though allied shipping tended to be defended. They probably would appreciate it as a long range ground attack aircraft in the Russian front perhaps armed with a pair of heavy guns of around 30, 37 mm.
 
Last edited:
The RAAF in the Pacific loved 'em. They were heavily armed, built like a brick sh!thouse, had good range and with twin engines gave you a better chance of getting home from the long SW Pacific over-ocean missions in the event of battle damage than single-engined fighters. Their finest hour was leading the attack in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in 1943.

The Mosquito didn't get into the Pacific until very late in the piece and initially had problems with the glue failing in Pacific heat and humidity. (A letter in Airfix Magazine in the '60s once referred to pilots finding themselves strapped to a seat in mid air, with a Merlin either side and a cloud of splinters half a mile behind!).

The other thing to remember about the Beaufighter was that it used large parts of the structure of the Beaufort, which meant it was able to be put into series production quickly. Even if it was subtle as a ton of bricks it was one of WW2's most successful improvisations.

Trivia:

1. I once read that the Beau had a ferocious swing on take-off due to the engine torque, but it didn't really matter because it had so much power at sea level you could happily take off in any direction runway or not!

2. I believe there's only six complete Beaufighters left. One at Duxford has been under restoration to flying standard for years and doesn't appear to be getting any closer. Two of them are here in Oz, and are Australian-built ones, which had a bulge in front of the cockpit for a Sperry autopilot. I've seen the one which is the centrepiece of the Australian National Aviation Museum at Moorabbin, Melbourne, but the Camden air museum, near Sydney, which has the other one, is currently closed to the public
 
You have to separate Beaufighters into their primary roles, the Mk1, 1C and II were primarily heavy/NF fighters, whereas from mkVI on they are re rolling as dedicated strike aircraft with a lot more armour, weapons fits, more powerfull engines etc.

As a heavy fighter it was a success, able to engage the German Ju88c's and Bf110's on equal footing, however just like the Ju88 and Bf110 you didn't want to be engaging single engine fighter if you can help it, although they did shoot down the odd 109 it was not a weapon of choice for that role and far more sensible to use the Beaus low level speed and endurance to evade.

Beaufighter was a mainstay of Coastal Command throughout the war, it interdicted shipping in the Channel, North Sea, off Norway and Denmark, caused considerable losses to axis shipping and transport aircraft in the med, was a very effective ground attack aircraft in North Africa and against the Japanese.

It fought Ju88c6's over the Biscay that were after the anti submarine bombers, was a highly successful night fighter in Europe and the Med which was also used as an intruder hunting German night fighters and catching bombers taking off and landing!

All told, not as glamorous as the Mossie, but a critical aircraft early war for the Allies, and which still had a useful role even at wars end.

One of the all time greats which a bit like the Hurricane gets forgotten.
 

The Mosquito wasn't smaller than the Beaufighter.



The Griffon wouldn't have been available in sufficient numbers, irrespective of whether it was to be used for other aircraft, when the Beaufighter II was produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
8
Views
380
Snautzer01
G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
MIflyer
M
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
607
Shortround6
S
F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
2K
cammerjeff
BAR 2.0 - how light might it went?
Replies
14
Views
731
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register