Ideal night bomber for RAF: how would've you done it?

[tomo pauk]

...

Faster bombers resulting in faster fighters is a typical 'arms race'. You can bet the advantage would have swung from side to side throughout the conflict.
...

Hi, Steve (and others),
What was possibility for Germans to respond with a night fighter of a substantially better performance, able to catch the 'super-Mosquitoes' (ie. bombers that can cruise at 350 mph at 25K, max 400 at 25K, carrying 10-20,000 lbs?) or whatever we call them?
Both Ta-154 He-217 turned out as planes of questionable abilities; 'Moskito' even not possible to be produced? Me-210/410 offered little more (if any) as basis for NFs.
In this scenario (unarmed, with less crew needed - therefore cheaper bomber), RAF can field even more planes - LW has even more trouble?
Not to mention that 'short' 88s are out of game now, with high speed, high cruising bombers, and more capable Flak pieces have less time to shoot their shells?

 

[stona]

If we are assuming the hypothetical development of a fast bomber in the mid 1930s,before the war,it is surely reasonable to assume the concurrent development of some kind of hypothetical fighter to intercept them.
The Bf110 developed by the Luftwaffe pre-war was faster than the bombers it would intercept. Theoretically a Bf110 would be able to intercept a bomber cruising at 300mph though I concede that the reality,with the Bf110 in a night fighter configuration,would be somewhat different My point is that given a few extra years of development the performance increase over twin engined fighter aircraft that were actually developed is not huge,not as big as between the strategic bombers actually produced and our hypothetical 'super bomber'.

Cheers
Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm pointing out to the fact that Germans have had difficulty to achieve, per engine, more than 1300 HP above 15,000 ft prior 1943 (only 1000 HP at 25,000?). In 1943, it's still under 1500/1200 HP respectivelly. If RAF starts deploying fast, high flying bomber (instead of Stirling, for example), Germans need to pour resources into 4th major engine line (after DB-601/605, Jumo 211, BMW 801), namely the DB-603, in order to have a NF to compete.

 

[stona]

Crikey,you may well be correct,I don't want to divert the thread into another German engine thread and I'd have to dig out the data on the altitude performance of the ones you mention which would mean trawling through my somewhat disorganised book shelves.
To get back on topic I'll ask this;if the British are going to build the fast super bomber what engines are you proposing for it? Remember we need it in service by 1941,like the Lancaster.
What ifs are fun aren't they!
Cheers
Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

I've posted the graphs for both 601/605 and the BMW at 'better P-39' thread, so you don't have to dig

Mixmaster was a pretty good performer with 1300 something HP V-1710s (mech supercharged; 1200 HP at 20,000?), so the regular Merlin XXs are good choice (1000 Hp at 20K). Okay, we can't haul 8000 lbs at such speed alt, but surely 6000.
For 4-engined 'super-Mossie' the same choice?

 

[parsifal]

I dont think the germans could respond all that quickly actually. If a spec was written for a four engined version of a mosquito, at the same time as the Mosquito, the Germans are not going to be able to react any quicker than they did in the formation of a night fighter force.


And I dont agree that a bomber stream moving at 300 mph is going to be effectively countered by fighters that travel at arounf 320 mph. It would take far too long to vector the NF onto the target for it to be ever considered effective.

If we assume that the average distance to close from detection to engagement is 60 miles (it was often more than that), the intercepting NF cannot sustain its maximum speed for the 3 hours needed to bring about the interecption. Typically, to achieve an interception at those detection ranges, the fighter would need to be within 1 hours flying time to make the interception. That means that the German Night Fighters, if, they detect on average 60 miles, will need to close at a relative airspeed of 60mph greater than the target. That means, in effect, to interecept the bomber, the max speed of the German fighters would need to be around 380mph. This is why the Mosquito suffered such a low loss rate.....by day or night. There were no German night Fighters that could catch a Mosquito in a stern chase situation and no day fighters with the endurance either....they had to get very lucky and hope the Mosquito turned toward them, and slowed down long enough for the NF to achieve a firing solution. That did not happen very often. In the daylight, German day fighters were fast enough to catch the Mosquito, but they generally lacked the endurance to maintain top speed long enough to close the gap.

A mosquito had a normal cruising speed fully loaded of 323 mph, to achieve ranges to Berlin. They had a maximum speed fully loaded of 360mph and that was the early marks. later marks increased this to nearly 350 and 408 crusining/max.

This was the one of the weaknesses of the german procurement machine. Even though at the very wars end they produced a plethora of new types, for most of the war they fought with types that had already been flown, and in most cases introduced to service pre-war. In the case of the day fighters, there was the Me 109, introduced around 1937 , and the FW190, introduced 1941, but first flown 1939. Me 110 and Ju88s were both prewar types.

Given that the "Mosquito on steroids" or the "Lancaster streamlined and with reduced bombload and cut down armament" are types that would be adapted off the shelf from existing types, Germany is not going to have the time to go off and develop whole new type in time. They may ahave developed their FW 187 to some degree, but I am doubtful about this type being successful as a night fighter....perhaps, but I have my doubts.

 

[stona]

I've posted the graphs for both 601/605 and the BMW at 'better P-39' thread, so you don't have to dig

Mixmaster was a pretty good performer with 1300 something HP V-1710s (mech supercharged; 1200 HP at 20,000?), so the regular Merlin XXs are good choice (1000 Hp at 20K). Okay, we can't haul 8000 lbs at such speed alt, but surely 6000.
For 4-engined 'super-Mossie' the same choice?

So engines with a very similar performance to their German contemporaries.
Cheers
Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

Not sure where you're aiming...

 

[stona]

I'm thinking that it would be just as difficult to develop the fast bomber as it would be to develop the fast interceptor. As I said many posts back the chance to develop the fast bomber was missed in the mid 1930s. It was considered and discarded. We'll never know if it was even practicable. I believe that had the fast bomber been proved to be viable and adopted at that time fighters to counter it would also have been developed.

Parsifal, I agree that a 320mph fighter would never in reality intercept a 300mph bomber,I was being a little facetious. My valid point is that the increase in performance needed for a viable interceptor is not that great. The super Mosquito is as much 'pie in the sky' as my super Bf110! If a stripped down,high speed Lancaster was such a good idea why didn't they do it? For the same reason that they didn't build a high speed bomber earlier. The RAF was only interested in delivering the maximum tonnage of bombs.It's why the Manchester evolved into the Lancaster out of which they stripped armour and even talked about removing some defensive armament to this end.

Cheers
Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

RAF acquired both fast bomber and fast interceptor, historically: Mosquito. A 'super-Mosquito' is just a name describing a scaled-up bomber that uses 4 engines vs. two, has no armament, with small crew and clean lines. So no problems with bomb tonnage there.
LW tried to acquire both, yet failed. A day fighter Bf-110G-2 was barely able to make 350 mph, under 20,000ft that is. With all NF gear, it's 320mph for 110G-4. Ju-88 was only a tad better, but with Jumo 213s from second half of 1944. Ta-154 ended before it started. He-217 managed to score vs. ordinary bomb trucks, those that cruised 250-300 mph.

Or maybe we need an "ideal German NF" thread, to give Germans a chance?

 

[stona]

Or maybe we need an "ideal German NF" thread, to give Germans a chance?

That's my point,if the British had adopted a high speed strategic bomber in the 1930s the Germans would have had a chance to develop a fighter to counter it. This would have given them several extra years to develop it. They wouldn't have been trying to improve an existing design (Bf110 - Me210/410) nor would they have been attempting the design and development under war time conditions. The only problem is that they may not have developed it as a night fighter as neither side imagined that the bombers would be forced to operate by night. Maybe the 'super bomber' would have been able to operate by day but it would have had to be much faster than a Mosquito to do that. The Mosquito was far from invulnerable when attempting deep penetration day time operations.

Your 'super Mosquito',presumably Merlin powered,sounds awfully like the stripped down Lancaster that the RAF never developed.

Cheers
Steve

 

[wuzak]

The RAF didn't develop a "stripped out Lancaster" because it went against their bomber theory.

The Lancaster didn't develop from the Manchester to carry bigger loads - it came about because of the need for more reliable and more available engines. The top speed of the Manchester was similar to the Lancaster's.

I wonder what may have happened had the Centaurus been available in 1940 to fit to the Manchester.

 

[parsifal]

And both the concept of a mosquito with four engines or a cleaned up lanc, are not developments that would date back to the 1930s, they are concept that would develop concurrently with the historical airframes around 1938-40 (way too late for the LW to resppond earlier than they did), at the same time, in the same time frame, using the same engines and the same basic technology. there simply would not be a longer lead time to develop either of these concept. They just werent, because as Wuzak points out, they ran counter to RAF thinking at the time. hell, look how close the mossie came to not being accepted, how much harder would it be to extend that basic airframe concept to a heavy bomber configuration. i dont think it would be hard technologically....there is nothing inherent to the mosquito design that I can see that prevents the design froim being "stretched". there is nothing n that concept that I can see that would require a long lead time for development. its all "off the shelf technology, and "somewhat off the shelf" design work. What is missing is simply the vision the will on the part of the air staff to travel down that path.

 

[Readie]

And both the concept of a mosquito with four engines or a cleaned up lanc, are not developments that would date back to the 1930s, they are concept that would develop concurrently with the historical airframes around 1938-40 (way too late for the LW to resppond earlier than they did), at the same time, in the same time frame, using the same engines and the same basic technology. there simply would not be a longer lead time to develop either of these concept. They just werent, because as Wuzak points out, they ran counter to RAF thinking at the time. hell, look how close the mossie came to not being accepted, how much harder would it be to extend that basic airframe concept to a heavy bomber configuration. i dont think it would be hard technologically....there is nothing inherent to the mosquito design that I can see that prevents the design froim being "stretched". there is nothing n that concept that I can see that would require a long lead time for development. its all "off the shelf technology, and "somewhat off the shelf" design work. What is missing is simply the vision the will on the part of the air staff to travel down that path.

Good point Michael. You could also add a lack of resources to your explanation.
Our American allies had no such contraints yet they developed 4 engined bombers that were the same format performance to the Lancaster but, not as flexible.
Perhaps that was the technology at the time and deemed good enough?
Cheers
John

 

[pbfoot]

The RAF didn't develop a "stripped out Lancaster" because it went against their bomber theory.

The Lancaster didn't develop from the Manchester to carry bigger loads - it came about because of the need for more reliable and more available engines. The top speed of the Manchester was similar to the Lancaster's.

I wonder what may have happened had the Centaurus been available in 1940 to fit to the Manchester.

the Lanc was as about stripped as an aircraft could be , it had minimal armour, no deicing equipment it very hard for the crew to bail out , if you talk to some who flew the Lanc and Halifax many preffered the Halifax as it was easier to escape which is pretty important to the crew

 

[Shortround6]

trying to strip down a plane in the mid thirties doesn't really get you very far. Few if any power turrets although there are gun positions. Depending on the length of the mission the crew may not be all that shrinkable, at least to the thinking of the time. DO you need a separate navigator? do you need a dedicated radio operator. a 1935 aircraft radio was not a 1941 aircraft radio. Was the rear seater in a Blenheim a gunner that operated a radio or was he a radio operator that they gave a gun to?

To get a fast bomber you need a low drag wing, small in area and thickness. Low drag wings, in general, don't give good lift ( I know about the Spitfire ) Remember that flaps were just coming into use in the mid 30s and some flaps (like split flaps) were actually called drag flaps and were used, not to create lift but to increase drag to steepen the glide path and keep the plane from floating down the runway. To get a fast bomber ( a big one) you not only had to ditch the turrets and make a streamlined fuselage you had to get the air staff to build bigger airfields to handle big planes with higher take off and landing speeds, It would help of they changed the ground pressure requirements so smaller wheels could be used or actually paved teh runways to be used by the fast bombers. It is one thing to operate at 20,000lb bomber of a grass field, it is another to operate a 40,000lb bomber of the same field even if it does have twice the power.

 

[wuzak]

Low drag wings means faster for teh same power, or the same speed with less power, means less fuel to be carried. Fewer crew members with less guns and ammo, choose to run a slightly smaller bomb load and you get some weight savings.

The all up weight would be reduced by a bigger amount than the empty weight, I would think.

 

[parsifal]

I simply dont get this argument that it was somehow not possible to design a high speed bomber using the technology of the "mid 30s"....I guess it depends on what is the "mid 30s", but if it includes 1938, then history shows that it definately was possible to design a high speed bomber with the technology available at that time. So its not a case of "historically posible", its a case of "historical fact". Both the germans with their Ju88, and the brits (more successfully IMO but a little later in development) with their Mosquito concepts were doing just that very thing....designing and dveloping a fast bomber using the technology developed in the immeditely preceding mid thirties technology.

This is an extract from the ubiquitous wiki that pretty succinctly describes what was happening in the dehavvilland world in the early 30's and onward.

"Throughout the 1930s, de Havilland established a reputation for developing innovative high-speed aircraft such as the DH.88 Comet racer. The potential of their construction techniques could also be seen in the design of the DH.88, which heavily influenced the Mosquito, while the DH.91 Albatross airliner also successfully employed the composite wood construction that the Mosquito would later use. The construction of their aircraft compensated for the low power of engines generally available at the time. The 22-passenger Albatross was capable of cruising at 210 miles per hour (340 km/h) at 11,000 feet (3,400 m). The wooden construction and stressed skin covering not only saved weight and compensated for the low power engines, but simplified production and enabled a fast construction rate.

On 8 September 1936, the British Air Ministry issued Air Ministry specification P.13/36, which called for a twin-engined medium bomber capable of carrying a 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg) bomb load for 3,000 miles (4,800 km) with a maximum speed of 275 miles per hour (443 km/h) at 15,000 feet (4,600 m); a maximum bomb load of 8,000 pounds (3,600 kg) which could be carried over shorter ranges was also specified. Major aviation firms entered heavy designs with new high-powered engines and multiple defensive turrets, but de Havilland felt that a smaller aircraft could do the same job. The firm had little experience of working with the Air Ministry, and their all-wood construction was considered to be out of keeping with official policy, which was then concentrating on promoting heavily armed bombers with all-metal construction. P.13/36 would eventually lead to the Avro Manchester and Handley Page Halifax.

In 1937 the concept of a fast unarmed bomber that included a design comparable to P.13/36, was put before the Air Ministry by George Volkert of Handley Page. Within the RAF it had support as an idea worth pursuing, although concerns were raised that the economic benefits over conventional bombers were marginal given the limited operational role it could play. The Ministry was also considered the maximum use of non-strategic materials for aircraft production, that lead to the development of the Albemarle medium bomber which was largely constructed from spruce and plywood attached to a steel tube frame.

Geoffrey de Havilland strived to surpass the original P.13/36 specifications, and at first considered the adaptation of existing designs, such as the Albatross airliner, to the RAF's requirements. In April 1938 de Havilland considered the performance of a twin Merlin engined Albatross, armed with three gun turrets and a six-man crew. It would carry 6,000 pounds (2,700 kg) of bombs to Berlin and return at 11,000 feet (3,400 m). It had a total weight of 19,000 pounds (8,600 kg), a top speed of 300 miles per hour (480 km/h) and cruise speed of 268 miles per hour (431 km/h) at 22,500 feet (6,900 m).[11] On 7 July, Geoffrey de Havilland sent a letter to Air Marshal Wilfred Freeman, the Air Council's member for Research and Development, discussed the specification and argued that the weight to strength ratio of wood to that of duralumin or steel, and that a different approach to designing a high-speed bomber would be better. Freeman gave the plans the green light. On 27 July 1938, de Havilland distanced themselves further by stating the P.13/36 specification could not be met by a two Merlin engine aircraft unless the Air Ministry only wanted half of the 4,000 pounds (1,800 kg) bomb load, otherwise a larger and slower bomber would be needed".

Though advancing by fits and starts, and unsure that technology was going to be able to deliver, "outsider " companies like dehavilland clearly did not share the conventional wisdom that fast bombers made out of non-strategic materials were not possible. what wasnt possible was a fast design, based on the restrictive specifications insisting on massive defensive armaments and bombloads. what was needed was a new direction, as Dehavilland repeatedly pointed out. It took time to convince the powers that be to let them have a go....the result was, of course B1/40 (the mosquito). For those interested, the wiki article gives a good account of how officialdom was eventually overcome and the mosquito triumphed. but what is also apparent is this notion that it was not possible to dsign a high speed bomber using the technology of the 30s is simply untrue. what wasnt possible was the ability to design a bomber to existing prejudices and preconceptions that would also go fast.

de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

....Eventually, after examining concepts based on the Albatross and the new DH.95 Flamingo, de Havilland settled on a completely new design. It would be aerodynamically clean and powered by the Rolls-Royce Merlin which, in 1939, offered huge promise. The concept behind what became known as the DH.98 Mosquito was that it would have to be faster than enemy fighter aircraft, and would therefore not need defensive armament: heavy, drag producing gun turrets would simply slow it down and make interception more likely, plus they were no defence against anti-aircraft guns. Instead high-speed and good manoeuvrability would make it easier for the design to evade both fighters and ground fire. In turn the lack of turrets meant that production would be easier and faster, with a delivery rate far in advance of any competing designs. Without armament, the crew could be reduced to two, a pilot and a navigator. This was in complete opposition to contemporary RAF design philosophy, which required well-armed heavy bombers - the Mosquito was much more akin to the German schnellbomber concept.......

 

[stona]

the Lanc was as about stripped as an aircraft could be , it had minimal armour, no deicing equipment it very hard for the crew to bail out , if you talk to some who flew the Lanc and Halifax many preffered the Halifax as it was easier to escape which is pretty important to the crew

But it had a lower ceiling making it more vulnerable. I've never seen or heard a Lancaster crew member say he would have preferred a Halifax but maybe some did.
There is plenty of evidence,particularly after a collapse in moral in early 1944,of the habit of 'pickling the cookie' in which crews jettisoned their 4000lb cookies into the North Sea to lighten the load and gain vital altitude. Bennett described seeing them exploding on the water,which implies they couldn't be jettisoned 'safe' (I need to look into that!).
Other crews,notoriously some of your countrymen,simply didn't follow the ordered routes or altitudes in an effort to stay safe. Typically they went in high and came back low,sometimes very low and by a more direct route. Questions were asked when they returned to base ahead of the rest of the stream but they largely seem to have got away with it.
It was a practice unsurprisingly frowned upon by Bomber Command.
Cheers
Steve

 

[pbfoot]

Other crews,notoriously some of your countrymen,simply didn't follow the ordered routes or altitudes in an effort to stay safe. Typically they went in high and came back low,sometimes very low and by a more direct route. Questions were asked when they returned to base ahead of the rest of the stream but they largely seem to have got away with it.
It was a practice unsurprisingly frowned upon by Bomber Command.
Cheers
Steve

Well my fellow countrymen were not exactly the darlings of BC , I know of aircrew that used to bomb from low altitudes to get out of the flak and other hazards. There was a lot of acrimony between the higher ups in the RAF and RCAF but that is a very different topic