the Blenheim in battle of britian

[SplitRz]

While popular with some ACAMs (Arm Chair Air Marshal) the 40mm guns were lousy for air to air and not that great against surface targets. They used the same ammo as the British 2pdr pom pom AA gun, much less powerful than the 2pdr AT gun or the 40mm Bofors gun. The Vickers gun fired at about 100rpm and weighed over twice what a Hispano gun did.
The RR gun was trialed in aircraft but just about all of the production was used on MGB, motor minesweepers and harbor defense craft and in this application there was no magazine., the gun was manually loaded for each shot.

What an interesting point!

I went off and did some background reading. I had always assumed that the Vickers S was a purpose designed anti tank weapon - and had no idea that it was basically a warmed over COW gun, firing a modified shell from a modified pom-pom cartridge. A simple comparison between its 1,870 ft/s velocity and that of the purpose designed Bordkanone 3,7 firing at between 3,800–2,600 ft/s, shows something of a gulf in performance, eh? No wonder the S was quickly phased out once Panthers and Tigers started to appear.

However, that said, I had no idea that cannon armed (and comprehensively armoured!) Hurricane mk ivs, carried on operations right the way through the war in the Far East. That in itself answers a question I had regarding the point of the 'universal wing' for the Hurricane! Its seems that not facing heavily armoured tanks in the Middle East, the fact that its HE shells were particularly accurate, appear to have offset its other disadvantages. The accuracy of guns as opposed to RPs has also caused some other synapses to fire; I watched a very interesting vid on Youtube which featured some first hand accounts from Mosquito Tsetse pilots who were extoling the merits of the 57mm Molins gun. Might be cause for a separate thread there, methinks - lots of interesting things to unpick.

 

[pbehn]

I don't think the Blenheim did any better or worse than any other twin engine bomber of the era. The people ordering it and putting it into service seemed to make the assumption that it wouldn't face single engine monoplane fighters and have to operate in radar controlled space even though that is just what the British were developing themselves. I cant think of any 1940 twin bomber that succeeded in the role, almost all were retired by 1941/42.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

As I remember, I think the merlin was introduced for the Beaufighter not for the sake of aerodynamics, but because supplies of the Hercules couldnt keep pace with airframe production. I remember reading that the mk2 was considered a pig to fly, unstable - and (interestingly!) under-powered.

(Weird, isn;t it? The Lancaster later ended up being re-engined with Hercules in its Mk B2 form - though I'd need to track down info as to whether its peformance was diminished or benefitted! No idea why the decision was made - though maybe by this time in the war, perhaps demand and supply had swapped over)

The Merlin Beaufighter had a dorsal extension to the fin added to improve stability which was later made standard on Hercules models.
The Hercules Lancaster had a lower ceiling and shorter range. On the other hand Eric Brown thought it was nicer to fly than the Merlin version. 300 were made. It was insurance against a Merlin shortage. It must have been inferior in performance to the Merlin version because they gave it to the Canadians. It was actually out of production before the Halifax got the Hercules.

 

[SplitRz]

I don't think the Blenheim did any better or worse than any other twin engine bomber of the era. The people ordering it and putting it into service seemed to make the assumption that it wouldn't face single engine monoplane fighters and have to operate in radar controlled space even though that is just what the British were developing themselves. I cant think of any 1940 twin bomber that succeeded in the role, almost all were retired by 1941/42.

Absolutely. Given the age of its design, its arguable it actually did a lot better than many/most of its design contemporaries like the DO17 - or the B18 in particular. Looking at the performance stats of contemporary twin bombers does put things into context.

 

[pbehn]

The Merlin Beaufighter had a dorsal extension to the fin added to improve stability which was later made standard on Hercules models.
The Hercules Lancaster had a lower ceiling and shorter range. On the other hand Eric Brown thought it was nicer to fly than the Merlin version. 300 were made. It was insurance against a Merlin shortage. It must have been inferior in performance to the Merlin version because they gave it to the Canadians. It was actually out of production before the Halifax got the Hercules.

Which Merlin and which Hercules, were all 300 given to the Canadians?


Edit, I cant find any mention of any Canadian squadron here Avro Lancaster Mk II It was of course an improvement on the Wellington which many were using at the time.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A better Blenheim fighter in 1939-40 may present an even better one in Malaya for 1941-42. Something that's faster than the Bettys, Nells, Lillys and Sallys it needs to intercept.

 

[MIflyer]

Well, if you are playing with What Ifs, What If Mitchell had lived long enough to complete the design of his fast bomber after he designed the Spitfire?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, if you are playing with What Ifs, What If Mitchell had lived long enough to complete the design of his fast bomber after he designed the Spitfire?

Poor Mitchell, without him Supermarine went on to make the rubbish Spiteful, Attacker, Swift and Scimitar. I would have been amazing to see what Mitchell would have made postwar.

 

[Shortround6]

A better Blenheim fighter in 1939-40 may present an even better one in Malaya for 1941-42

we are reinventing the wheel.

Over 200 built by spring of 1941 with two factories coming on line Feb and march.

the design was available, production was not large enough to meet the demand for the European and Med theaters. top speed of 323 with the early Hercules engines shows that with engines of roughly 2/3 the power there wasn't a lot you were going to do to turn the Blenheim into a 300 mph airplane.
In 1941 Bristol had long ago stopped making Blenheims.
The Blenheim V was built by Rootes Securities at Speke.
and in fact the Blenheim IV production " for the RAF comprised 316 by built by Bristol Aeroplane Company, 750 built by AV Roe & Co Ltd at Avro Chadderton and 2,230 built by Rootes Securities in Speke"
There was a large shadow factory scheme set up to make Mercury engines in the quantities needed for these orders. You are going to need some serious revamping of schedules and tooling to make any major changes, like changing engines.

And in 1941-42 every 3 Perseus engines built means 2 Hercules engines not built. ALthough hundreds could have been swiped from the Botha program with negligible effect to the British war effort (might have even saved some aircrew trainees) however the Perseus offers very little improvement (if any) over the Mercury engine running on 100 octane.

If you want better aircraft in Mayala in Dec 1941 and early 1942 you need somebody to change the priorities, not try to cobble together bits and pieces to make what would still be 2nd rate aircraft.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Which Merlin and which Hercules, were all 300 given to the Canadians?


Edit, I cant find any mention of any Canadian squadron here Avro Lancaster Mk II It was of course an improvement on the Wellington which many were using at the time.

408, 426, 432. Some RAF squadrons did use the II.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

408, 426, 432. Some RAF squadrons did use the II.

I found a source that adds 424, but other sources contradict this. 61 squadron trialed the MkII alongside their Mk Is, but didn't convert to them. 115 and 514 did use them.
Incidentally in looking up the history of 61 I discovered that they did a couple of stints on loan to costal command in 1942 and one of the Lancaster shared credit for sinking a Uboat.
The Type VIIC U-boat U-751 - German U-boats of WWII - uboat.net

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I found a source that adds 424, but other sources contradict this. 61 squadron trialed the MkII alongside their Mk Is, but didn't convert to them. 115 and 514 did use them.
Incidentally in looking up the history of 61 I discovered that they did a couple of stints on loan to costal command in 1942 and one of their Lancasters shared credit for sinking a Uboat.
The Type VIIC U-boat U-751 - German U-boats of WWII - uboat.net

 

[pbehn]

I found a source that adds 424, but other sources contradict this. 61 squadron trialed the MkII alongside their Mk Is, but didn't convert to them. 115 and 514 did use them.
Incidentally in looking up the history of 61 I discovered that they did a couple of stints on loan to costal command in 1942 and one of the Lancaster shared credit for sinking a Uboat.

Where I live I am surrounded by ex Bomber command airfields, almost all operated for RCAF squadrons, they used all sorts of aircraft most of which were not as good as a Lancaster Mk II which first appeared in October 1942 and was in service until 1944. It just isn't fair to say it was inferior and so was given to Canadians, it isn't true either.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Where I live I am surrounded by ex Bomber command airfields, almost all operated for RCAF squadrons, they used all sorts of aircraft most of which were not as good as a Lancaster Mk II which first appeared in October 1942 and was in service until 1944. It just isn't fair to say it was inferior and so was given to Canadians, it isn't true either.

Where I live I am surrounded by ex Bomber command airfields, almost all operated for RCAF squadrons, they used all sorts of aircraft most of which were not as good as a Lancaster Mk II which first appeared in October 1942 and was in service until 1944. It just isn't fair to say it was inferior and so was given to Canadians, it isn't true either.

I first came to the conclusion years ago that the Canadians had inferior equipment foisted on them when I learned of the Halifax Mk VII. When the Halifax was upgraded to the considerably superior Mk VI, there was a shortage of Hercules 100 engines. The Mk VII was a retrograde step, being a Mk VI equipped with the older, inferior Hercules Mk XVIs. The RAF got the VIs while the RCAF got the VIIs, which was really no better than the III.
Canadians think of the Lancaster as the quintessential RCAF bomber. It wasn't. The Halifax was the primary RCAF bomber for most of the war.

This chart illustrates the point.

Its interesting to note that when the Lancaster Mk IIs were withdrawn the RAF replaced theirs with Merlin Lancasters while the RCAF got Halifaxs.
Some will argue that the Halifax Mk III was the equal of the Lancaster but Operational Research showed that this was not the case. A good read on the subject is:
Amazon product ASIN 0802096298

 

[Admiral Beez]

If you want better aircraft in Mayala in Dec 1941 and early 1942 you need somebody to change the priorities, not try to cobble together bits and pieces to make what would still be 2nd rate aircraft.

True. I don't think the Beaufighter was needed for Malaya though.

IMO there's nothing wrong with RAF Malaya relying on the Buffalo, Blenheim and Hudson. They just needed more of them. I will accept that the Vilderbeests desperately needed replacement in the torpedo strike role, likely Beauforts or even FAA Albacores. By 1941 Bristol had produced more than 2,000 Blenheims (excluding Canadian-made aircraft, over 4,400 would be made by the time production ceased in 1942), but only 43 operational Blenheims were based in Malaya in Dec 1941, to cover a territory larger than the entire UK.

In all likelihood there were no more Buffaloes, Blenheims or Hudsons to send, but had there been IMO they would have been up to the job of facing the IJAF (assuming the host of other command, strategy, preparation and operational deficits, including air base placement and defence are addressed), rather than the deathtraps they are purported to be.

I like the gun pack on the Blenheim, and this clearly shows someone at Bristol or down the chain was thinking of uses for this aircraft. It would have been nigh impossible for our fighter Blenheim to catch a G4M Betty, but there are other IJAF and IJN folly within reach.

Question on the dorsal turret. When this is turned forward wouldn't the gunner have the airstream straight in his face?

 

[tomo pauk]

we are reinventing the wheel.

View attachment 614044
Over 200 built by spring of 1941 with two factories coming on line Feb and march.

the design was available, production was not large enough to meet the demand for the European and Med theaters. top speed of 323 with the early Hercules engines shows that with engines of roughly 2/3 the power there wasn't a lot you were going to do to turn the Blenheim into a 300 mph airplane.
In 1941 Bristol had long ago stopped making Blenheims.
The Blenheim V was built by Rootes Securities at Speke.
and in fact the Blenheim IV production " for the RAF comprised 316 by built by Bristol Aeroplane Company, 750 built by AV Roe & Co Ltd at Avro Chadderton and 2,230 built by Rootes Securities in Speke"
There was a large shadow factory scheme set up to make Mercury engines in the quantities needed for these orders. You are going to need some serious revamping of schedules and tooling to make any major changes, like changing engines.

And in 1941-42 every 3 Perseus engines built means 2 Hercules engines not built. ALthough hundreds could have been swiped from the Botha program with negligible effect to the British war effort (might have even saved some aircrew trainees) however the Perseus offers very little improvement (if any) over the Mercury engine running on 100 octane.

If you want better aircraft in Mayala in Dec 1941 and early 1942 you need somebody to change the priorities, not try to cobble together bits and pieces to make what would still be 2nd rate aircraft.

Good points. Unfortunately, there was a lot of overlap in the Bristol 850-1100 HP bracket.
BTW - Malaya of 1941-42 in the BoB thread?

 

[Admiral Beez]

BTW - Malaya of 1941-42 in the BoB thread?

Sure. Get the Blenheim up to fighter spec in 1939-40 for BoB and we have a good contributor for Malaya, Burma and North Africa.

As for your playing Mod, if the actual Mods don't complain then I'm good too.

 

[pbehn]

I first came to the conclusion years ago that the Canadians had inferior equipment foisted on them when I learned of the Halifax Mk VII. When the Halifax was upgraded to the considerably superior Mk VI, there was a shortage of Hercules 100 engines. The Mk VII was a retrograde step, being a Mk VI equipped with the older, inferior Hercules Mk XVIs. The RAF got the VIs while the RCAF got the VIIs, which was really no better than the III.
Canadians think of the Lancaster as the quintessential RCAF bomber. It wasn't. The Halifax was the primary RCAF bomber for most of the war.

This chart illustrates the point.
View attachment 614190
Its interesting to note that when the Lancaster Mk IIs were withdrawn the RAF replaced theirs with Merlin Lancasters while the RCAF got Halifaxs.
Some will argue that the Halifax Mk III was the equal of the Lancaster but Operational Research showed that this was not the case. A good read on the subject is:
Amazon product ASIN 0802096298

There were 300 Mk IIs produced and with the ventral turret it was supposed to be an improvement, three squadrons obviously don't use 300 planes in two years, it entered service in Oct. 1942. Whether each variant of the Halifax and Lancaster was superior to others is always a question of debate. But so is their use. Increasingly the Lancaster was used on long distance raids because it could carry more, and RCAF squadrons based in Northern England were used for gardening and raids in the Baltic and North European ports. The real dogs of bomber command weren't issued to RCAF squadrons like the Stirling and the Hampden and there is an issue of logistics, how many aircraft and engine types do you want on an airfield and in a bomber group?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

There were 300 Mk IIs produced and with the ventral turret it was supposed to be an improvement, three squadrons obviously don't use 300 planes in two years, it entered service in Oct. 1942. Whether each variant of the Halifax and Lancaster was superior to others is always a question of debate. But so is their use. Increasingly the Lancaster was used on long distance raids because it could carry more, and RCAF squadrons based in Northern England were used for gardening and raids in the Baltic and North European ports. The real dogs of bomber command weren't issued to RCAF squadrons like the Stirling and the Hampden and there is an issue of logistics, how many aircraft and engine types do you want on an airfield and in a bomber group?

The 408 and 420 did in fact fly Hamptons. When the RCAF were flying their 3 Hercules powered Lancaster squadrons they had 5 Merlin powered Halifax squadrons and 1 Merlin powered Lancaster squadron. On top of that they then added 4 new Hercules powered Halifax squadrons, so I don't think anyone was trying to decrease the logistics load on the RCAF.
As to the statement that the RCAF was given easier targets I suggest you read "The Berlin Raids" by Martin Middelbrook." 4 and 6 groups were flying their Merlin Halifaxs on the same missions as the other Groups until their losses became intolerable. 3 Group's Stirlings were decimated but they also flew as long as humanly possible. Both were removed from frontline service shortly after. I have to say the Lancaster MkIIs fared a lot better than the Merlin Halifaxes and actually better than the Hercules Halifaxes.
According to Middelbrook, counting only effective sorties, the Lancaster loss rate was was 5.6%, the Halifax 8.9% and the Stirling 15.8% in the Battle of Berlin.

 

[Shortround6]

Question on the dorsal turret. When this is turned forward wouldn't the gunner have the airstream straight in his face?

No, because the "turret" didn't have 360 degree rotation. I am not sure it could even do 180 degrees? it was power traverse and power elevation though. It was also semi retractable.