Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Seems high speed bomber is in favor here.
My proposal would be Merlinized Mixmaster (XB-42). Or, later, Griffonized
I was thinking about Mixmaster (hi, David) as a general idea: a plane of such a general layout could've been made prior the WW2. A scaled-up version ( with 2 Griffons, or maybe 4 Merlin 60s?), and the Tallboy is airborne? Grand Slam?
Fielding 2 'MixMerlins' for each Lanc/Hallibag/Stirling sounds neat.
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.
John the reason those losses pan out like that is because in January 1944 the Battle of Berlin was lost. Most of the attacks in February were against less dangerous targets in southern and western Germany. Another major raid on Berlin did not occurr until March 24th and bomber command lost 73 bombers or 9.1% of aircraft dispatched. By early March the commitment to the invasion had started to divert Bomber Command to targets in France. The Luftwaffe night fighters had made the skies over the Reich too dangerous for Bomber Command to risk frequent deep penetration raids but the Luftwaffe was unable to tranpose that success to the skies over the occupied western countries,principally France. There are many reasons for this but overall the night fighter defence system was designed for defence of the Reich,German cities,not French marshalling yards.
We all look at these figures,73 bombers lost,9.1% of aircraft dispatched and sometimes lose sight of the men that this represents. Whatever I may feel,with the benefit of 70 years of hindsight,about the strategic bombing campaign my admiration for these men knows no bounds.They were a special breed and we owe them an immense debt.
Cheers
Steve
So, along with 'medium' bomber, we need to build a plane with 2 - 2,5 times as much of a wing area (1110-1390 sq ft; Lanc had 1300). Next, a pair of Merlins in front of the wing (driving one shaft), and another pair driving another. Empty weight is some 32,000-35,000 lbs (Mixmaster - 21klb, Lanc - 37klb up).
A Grand Slam carrier?
I'm convinced that Hitler would had A bombed Britain with the V1 given the chance....
Cheers
John
The problem of survivability affected bombers both by night and by day and was,as you rightly say,a problem rooted in pre war thinking. It was too late to start from scratch when the realisation that bombers couldn't defend themselves sank in. I realise that we are talking hypothetically and would agree that a fast heavy bomber would have been a better solution. It wouldn't need defensive armament and would require a smaller crew. Unfortunately,even discounting pre war doctrine, I don't believe that anyone could have built a bomber capable of cruising at around 300 mph and carrying 12,000lbs of bombs which could have been in service in 1941.
The RAF tried to protect its bombers with technological and operational methods. 'Window' famously worked for a while and later elaborate planning and spoofs as well as attempts to jam the German controllers' commentaries or even imitate them sometimes worked.'Monica' would warn a bomber that enemy radar was illuminating it but it didn't take long for the Germans to develop a system (Flensburg) to home in on this. Intruders had limited success too. Harris actually wanted 'provision of nightfighter support on a substantial scale' which makes me wonder just how much of a grasp he had of the operational problems faced by his crews. It was Bennett,who did such a tremendous job with his Pathfinders,who observed that one of the great failings in Bomber Commands leadership was that no other senior officer besides himself (he had flown an operational tour) had any grasp of the operational conditions under which their crews fought,because they had not flown combat missions in this war.
They never attempted to develop a high speed,heavy,strategic bomber because they had taken the wrong fork in the road years earlier.
Cheers
Steve
I don't think that the primary bomber would need to hold 12,000-14,000lbs. It was only on rare occasions that the load had to be carried by single bombs. A fast bomber with smaller crew carrying 1/2-2/3 the load could do 90%+ of what was required historically during the war. You could even argue that the Mosquito carrying 1/3 the load could, and did, do 90% of what was required.
Steve, my admiration of Bomber Command crews is the same as you. We owe them all so much and it grieves me deeply when history is rewritten to infer that it was wrong to bomb our enemies.
Regards
John
Hello Tomo. Quite possibly.But, the question is what would the advantage been over the Lancaster? Maybe ( I can hear FLYBOYJ waiting for this ... ) the B29 would have been the next step had the war continued for another few years. Another maybe...would we have delivered the A bomb on Berlin?
I'm convinced that Hitler would had A bombed Britain with the V1 given the chance....
Cheers
John
With a V1?Hello Tomo. Quite possibly.But, the question is what would the advantage been over the Lancaster? Maybe ( I can hear FLYBOYJ waiting for this ... ) the B29 would have been the next step had the war continued for another few years. Another maybe...would we have delivered the A bomb on Berlin?
I'm convinced that Hitler would had A bombed Britain with the V1 given the chance....
Cheers
John
This seems to assume that the larger quantity of smaller bombers would all be bombing the same target as the smaller quantity of larger bombers. Instead, the larger quantity of smaller bombers could be dispersed over multiple targets. This would cause enemy fighters to disperse as well.Infact as you would need three times as many bombers to drop the same weight of bombs the concentration would most likely be much worse. Creep back would certainly be worse and your aiming point would have to be off set even further to compensate. It is human nature for successive waves to push the bomb release a fraction of a second earlier on their bomb runs,no amount of training ever overcame this.
To drop an equivalent weight of bombs your bomber stream would need to spend much longer over the target,one of the things Bomber Command went to great lengths to minimise in its planning.
"SNIP '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.
SNIP
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. Cheers Steve