Luftwaffe after BoB: strategy, tactics, tecnology?

Shortround6 said:

Not even capitols, At the beginning 1936 the British didn't have a bomber that could fly from England with a 500lb bomb, drop it anywhere in Germany, like the western Ruhr area/French border and make it back to England.

Click to expand...

Hmm, someone's got their Stars and Stripes flavoured underpants on again. Entering service in 1937, the Handley Page Harrow had a range of 1,250 miles. The Heyford, the primary British bomber in the mid 1930s could carry a 1,600lb bomb load with a range of 920 miles. Its predecessor the Handley Page Hinaidi had a range of 850 miles; Germany was well within range of British heavy bombers in the 30s and beforehand. Lets go back to 1919 and the V/1500, with a range of 1,300 miles and an endurance of 17 hours.

On the subject of the Manchester, it was certainly troublesome and had its fair share of issues, such as troublesome electrics, aerodynamic problems caused by lack of vertical surface area, odd shaped turrets and things, not to mention its initially troublesome engines, but the thing with the Manchester is that the problems it had were rectified - the aerodynamics, the electrics and eventually the engines, which were then cancelled owing to the Air Ministry rationalising engine supply. The basic design was good and quite advanced for its day, the Lancaster did not suffer anywhere near the problems of the Manchester because they were sorted before or largely before it entered service.

Yes, many aircrews did not like the Manchester, but it's relative as its predecessors were well liked and more reliable - I did meet an old boy many years ago who flew Manchesters and Lancs with Bomber Command and he said the Manchester was nice to fly, very powerful, but the fear the engines would conk out kept him on edge throughout the duration of an operation! For comparison, the Halifax, derived from a design to the same spec as the Manchester was a dog - it was terribly underpowered and as a result, too heavy, too slow, and couldn't reach its calculated figures, not only that, it suffered rudder overbalance that killed crews operationally and in testing. HP worked over two years to rectify its problems and even by the time the Halifax III entered service, it still suffered from problems. The Lancaster didn't help - it demonstrated excellent load carrying, better speed and altitude and higher serviceability rates compared to the Halifax.

The He 177 was an inspiring and advanced concept plagued with design troubles, serviceability issues and troublesome engines, which, in short meant that the RLM had bitten off more than it could chew in its requirement for the bomber. It was found to be unstable in the air and required its fuselage lengthened, suffered from vibration and had weak undercarriage and throughout its service career remained unreliable, with maintenance issues keeping aircraft on the ground on a frequent basis. Despite partaking in several heavy bombing raids, notably on the Eastern Front, it was all too little too late; not enough serviceable examples to really make a difference and its unhappy childhood continued through to service use. An aircraft doesn't get the nickname "The Flaming Coffin" from excellence and reliability.

It is hard to be kind about the He 177, less hard to be kind regarding the Manchester though, considering the outcome.

nuuumannn said:

Hmm, someone's got their Stars and Stripes flavoured underpants on again

Click to expand...

No, just bad memory.

The date was Jan 1st 1935 not 1936 and the bomb was not 500lbs but larger than 500lbs. I also left out the qualifier "in service"

From the British bomber since 1914 by Mason. page 263.

"Much more significant, perhaps, is the fact that no British bomber in service on this date could reach the nearest point in Germany, drop a bomb larger than a 500-pounder, and return to it's base in the United Kingdom."

You may want to check the flavor of your own underwear, however.

The Harrow was not in service in either 1935 or 1936.
It had been a number of years since the HP V/1500 had been in service.
The Hinaidi's max bomb load is given as two 520lbs and four 112lb bombs, the 840 mile range is for "half bomb load" whatever that was.
Standard bomb load for the Heyford was 10 250lbs bombs, max was 14, it could carry the weight, could you really fit larger bombs on/in the plane? eight or ten of the bombs were carried in internal cells in the lower wing. Max load required 6 bombs on external racks.

I will post the other comments from the same page of the stars and stripes underwear wearing Mr. Mason when I get back from work

On Jan 1st 1935

"1, Not one monoplane bomber was yet in Service with Royal AIr Force.

2. Among the heavy bombers in service, none was of a design less than five years old, and most were twelve

3, The one and only medium day bomber Squadron was part-equipped with a 'new' aircraft,the Overstrand, that was fundamentally some eight years old

4. None of the light bomber and general purpose squadrons was flying aircraft whose design was less than six years old. "

Above from Mason

Granted there had been a world wide depression which had tended to limit military spending in many countries but the above are the facts as to where Britain stood at that particular point in time. It is not a reflection on what Britain had done in the past or what they would do in the Future. There were only 15 regular RAF bomber squadrons based in the UK with another 13 bomber squadrons in the Auxiliary Air Force. One of which flew the HP Hinaidi mentioned above.

top speed 127mph.

of course this was an improvement over the planes that equipped 5 of the eight heavy bomber squadrons on that date.
The Vickers Virginia X

top speed 108mph.
Things did get better, slowly.

The Fairey Hendon monoplane went into service in Nov 1936 with No 38 squadron
The first Blenheim was delivered to a service squadron (no 114) March 10th 1937
beating the first Vickers Wellesley by a month.
March of 1937 had seen the delivery of the first Whitleys to No 10 Squadron, the 3rd Whitley squadron was equipped in Oct of 1937.
These Whitleys had the Tiger engine
May of 1937 saw the first Battles delivered to No 63 squadron.
Sept of 1938 saw No 49 Squadron get the first Hampdens
Wellington Is were first delivered to No 99 squadron in Oct 1938 replacing Heyford biplanes.

The British did evolve a very powerful bombing force, it just took time and some relearning of the lessons of WW I, as to worthwhile bomb loads and the need for large bombs.

Shortround6 said:

You may want to check the flavor of your own underwear, however.

Click to expand...

Nah, my undies are multicoloured... I get a bit peeved with your constant sweeping statements rubbishing British equipment, often with considerable bias. It gets old real quick.

Mr Mason has been known to say the odd faux pa here and there. The figures I quoted show that his statement is incorrect. These aircraft could reach Germany with a greater load than 500lbs. Thetford in Aircraft of the Royal Air Force provided me with my figures, and just flicking through a single reference book proves that the RAF could reach Germany with a larger bomb load than 500lbs in the 1930s. Germany isn't just Berlin, there's a whole country west of it.

Shortround6 said:

The Harrow was not in service in either 1935 or 1936.

Click to expand...

This I know, it was included as a matter of course.

Their best strategy would be to kill Hitler, stage a coup and beg for terms of surrender.

Mr Mason has been known to say the odd faux pa here and there. The figures I quoted show that his statement is incorrect. These aircraft could reach Germany with a greater load than 500lbs. Thetford in Aircraft of the Royal Air Force provided me with my figures, and just flicking through a single reference book proves that the RAF could reach Germany with a larger bomb load than 500lbs in the 1930s. Germany isn't just Berlin, there's a whole country west of it.

Click to expand...

The word load was not in my original statement or the quotes from Mason. If you want to add words and change the meaning of the quotes then we are not going to get very far. The quotes (Masons and mine) are correct as they stand with one minor exception. The RAF apparently had some left over 520lb light case bombs and perhaps some 550lb heavy case bombs so yes, technically they did have bombs heavier than 500lbs and a few aircraft that could carry them without modification.

The ability of the smaller bombs (250lbs and under) to cause significant damage to industrial buildings/targets was known. At the end of WW I plans were set up to manufacture 750 of the 230lb bombs per week, 250 of the 520lb bombs and 500 of the 550lb lb, also per week. this is judged against only 54 of the 550lb bombs being dropped in the last 13 months of the war out of 665 tons. Eleven 1650lb bombs were also dropped but these big bombs (including the 520/550lb) seemed to just about disappear during the 20s and early 30s.

Bomb damage assessments were conducted both at the end of WW I and during the campaigns in Iraq. A Flt Lt Horace Bowen made a report on nearly 20 villages bombed with a variety of air dropped weapons.

Perhaps Mason was using hindsight with his singling out larger than 500lb bombs, but the experience of WW I seems to have been forgotten.

nuuumannn said:

Nah, my undies are multicoloured... I get a bit peeved with your constant sweeping statements rubbishing British equipment, often with considerable bias. It gets old real quick.

Click to expand...

I try to use british sources when "rubbishing British equipment" perhaps the British authors were biased?

I believe I have defended the british a number of times, like the constant idea that they should have adopted the Browning .50 cal or that the Merlin wasn't a good engine. I may have even defended the Mercury engine at times. Saying an engine was outdated in WW II when it was around 10 years old might not be bias?

This I know, it was included as a matter of course.

Click to expand...

Why, it had no bearing on either my mistake or Masons original statement.

BTW I have just starting reading this. StackPath

dismal reading in spots in the first two chapters so far.