Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What recommends the B-25 for the role?
Since a big part of the night bomber campaign would be the use of incendiary devices i might expand on a medium to large sized bomber like the Lanc, focusing on
the bombbay compartment to hold a max load and increase in spread. Probably something similar to how they converted post war B-25s and 26s to firefighter aircraft.
A new plane similar to a C-130 could be possible.
A large cargo bay that could hold a larger load of incendiary sticks.
The more you can carry the less bombers you'd need.
With less flak to worry about at night i don't see a light armored cargo ship being more than effective in this roll.
Rather than relying on 10 Lancs, you might only require 3 or 4 of these to do the incendiary part.
The low level raids would still be better suited for Mosquitoes.
SNIP At 22000 feet, the principal German AA weapon is inneffective. at a cruising (with bombload) speed of 323mph, vs German fighters will have a much harder time intercepting the bomber force. Me110s and Ju88s will have no hope in a stern chase situation, which was the method used in night interceptions
.
The Lancaster was the best night bomber of WWII. It was very expensive (about £50,000 in 1943/4)
Since a big part of the night bomber campaign would be the use of incendiary devices i might expand on a medium to large sized bomber like the Lanc, focusing on
the bombbay compartment to hold a max load and increase in spread. Probably something similar to how they converted post war B-25s and 26s to firefighter aircraft.
A new plane similar to a C-130 could be possible.
A large cargo bay that could hold a larger load of incendiary sticks.
The more you can carry the less bombers you'd need.
With less flak to worry about at night i don't see a light armored cargo ship being more than effective in this roll.
Rather than relying on 10 Lancs, you might only require 3 or 4 of these to do the incendiary part.
The low level raids would still be better suited for Mosquitoes.
The price fell later in the war. The average price the government paid for a Lancaster was just under £32,000.
"So a 4 engined mosquito made of a mixture of wood and alloy, configured so as to be as fast as single engined fighters with the same power, would be my spec".
'Avro Lancaster' by Francis Mason lists the various bomb loads carried by Lancaster bombers,including the rather special 'Tallboy' and 'Grand Slam' bombs though not the famous 'Upkeep' bouncing mine. The typical weight for a load is around 12,000lbs.
The Mosquito could carry a maximum load of 4000lbs. You are attempting to triple the bomb load,enlarge the airframe,add two engines and still maintain the performance (at least speed) of the original aircraft. The Lancaster's bomb bay is 33' long. I don't believe that is possible.
You'd probably end up with something remarkably like the Lancaster!
Regarding Flak,a post war study estimated that a German Flak gun fired,on average,16,000 shells for every aircraft destroyed.
Not a particularly good return.
By far the greatest threat to the night bomber was the specialised night fighter. When they got into the bomber stream in numbers they caused carnage. It beggars belief that the Luftwaffe squandered this valuable and expensive (in terms of technology and training) resource in pointless daytime operations against the USAAF.
Cheers
Steve
I see all sorts of figures bandied about,some claiming it absorbed as much as half of Britain's total war budget.
The incendiary part of the load was complemented by the large,usually 4000lb, 'cookie',effectively a blast bomb to blow in roofs and windows,allowing the incendiaries to fall into and ignite the buildings. H.E. and delayed action bombs were also needed to disrupt infrastructure,communications and water supplies in order to hamper fire fighting efforts.
The Lancaster bomb bay was ideal for various mixed loads as it was not partitioned having originally been designed to be capable of holding a torpedo. You would struggle to improve on it in the 1940s.
Cheers
Steve
I've never seen an original source for that figure. The closest I can find is that bomber production (some of which went to Med, Coastal Command etc) took up 45% of the Ministry of Aircraft Production effort.
Of course, MAP was just a small part of the war effort overall.
In total Bomber Command absorbed about 3.5 million man years. That compares to a total of 45 million man years expended on all the armed forces.
Bomber Command used up 7% of the British war effort.
Indeed,as I said all sorts of figures get thrown into the melting pot! 7% of the total war effort would be as low as I have seen but I'm not able to argue the statistics as I simply don't have enough information. It was a vast expenditure in men and material whatever the figures are.
Cheers
Steve
the one thing that Bomber command needed to improve most of all was its leadership skills and 'hands on' experience.
Cheers
John
Yes indeed John,Harris very nearly destroyed his own force during the five months of the Battle of Berlin. His comand lost 1,128 aircraft,mostly four engined bombers. Even the Pathfinders lost about 150% of their establishment! In one seven day period,which included the Nuremberg debacle, Bomber Command lost 190 bombers (73 in Berlin,9 in Essen and 108 in Nuremberg). This was not a sustainable rate of loss. After all this,though Harris never conceded defeat,the OFFICIAL history wrote that "...the German fighter force had interposed itself between Bomber Command and its strategic objective...". A nice way of saying that the Luftwaffe had won this battle.
The German night fighters suffered losses too though their worse enemy was,statistically at least,themselves. Running out of fuel and belly landing or crashing on unfamiliar aitfields were popular methods of damaging or writing off their expensive aircraft.
One unfortunate crew from NJG 6 got lost and force landed in Switzerland!
Cheers
Steve