- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It wasn't until early 1941, about the time that the Stirling became operational, that Churchill issued an instruction that Bomber Command's main operational effort should be against the two main threats to British shipping, the U-Boats and Focke-Wulf who built the 'Kondor'. A remarkable crystal ball would have been needed several years earlier to cancel the Stirling in favour of another type to meet this threat.
Cheers
Steve
Why should the Stirling be cancelled 'in favour of another type to meet this threat'!? My question posed if it wasn't ordered in the first place - there were other airframe companies bidding for an order. The Vickers's design was highly thought of - but they were busy, with the Wellington, Bolton-Paul came second initially, but after lobbying by Supermarine, it all changed with the latter first and Shorts the back-up.
So if The Bolton-Paul design stays at number two, or number one, Sunderland production continues, there is scope for Shorts to work on a military version of the 'G' Class, and B-P can point to Shorts production of the Bombay to deflect enquiries about a bomber/transport. Seems plausible to me - just wondered how many more Sunderlands etc.
It is very hard to quantify but the effect of air cover for convoys was much more than just sinking u-boats. It was about reducing the ship losses caused by u-boats which is not the same thing. Every time a u-boat returned to port with unfired torpedos aboard because it was forced under water by patrol planes (even if u-boat crew just thought they were spotted) was a "victory" for the aircraft. They kept the u-boat from doing it's job even if they didn't sink it. Even in WW I u-boats stopped operating in certain areas do to patrol plane activity.
However we also should remember that just like strategic bombing, the weapons, weapons loads, and tactics needed for ASW were woefully under estimated in the pre-war era. I mean 100lb antisubmarine bombs, really?
It might also be a cautionary tale for those who advocate the Germans (or substitute other countries) should have built some sort of 4 engine bombers in 1938-39-40 so has to have an airframe in production in several factories when higher powered engines became available. Even switching from 1375hp to 1635hp engines was not enough to save the Stirling.
The Ju 89 Bomber developed directly into the Ju 90 transport (same wings) that became the very impressive Ju 290: powerful, well armed, long ranged, phenomenal lifting capacity and ready in 1942 but alas a transport being used as a maritime reconnaissance aircraft, without a bomb bay. Had the route been direct from Ju 89 to a putative Ju 289 the narrow body would have added speed and Bombay would have given the Luftwaffe one of the most impressive bombers of the war.
... the Wellington actually had more range with 3500lbs of bombs than the Stirling had with 3500lbs.