Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO

[MIflyer]

The Typhoon was used mainly for ground attack, and only in the ETO. Elsewhere in the war the Beaufighter was used extensively for ground attack. Given the problems with the Typhoon's Sabre engine and almost complete inability to ditch, which led to pilots being fearful of crossing the Channel, why did they not use Beaufighters to attack tanks in France? While the Tiffie probably was better for air-to-air than the Beau, the Allies owned the skies over France and the RAF had plenty of Spit IX that were not much good as fighter bombers which could have provided cover.

By the way, the RAF flew Beaufighters until 1960.

 

[Shortround6]

I like the Beaufighter but.......................

It is big.
It is slow.

Spit IXs don't defend against flak.

You might be better off using A-20s ???

 

[MikeMeech]

I like the Beaufighter but.......................

It is big.
It is slow.

Spit IXs don't defend against flak.

You might be better off using A-20s ???

Hi
You mean the the bigger and slower A-20 (Boston/Havoc)?

"The Typhoon was used mainly for ground attack, and only in the ETO. Elsewhere in the war the Beaufighter was used extensively for ground attack. Given the problems with the Typhoon's Sabre engine and almost complete inability to ditch, which led to pilots being fearful of crossing the Channel, why did they not use Beaufighters to attack tanks in France? While the Tiffie probably was better for air-to-air than the Beau, the Allies owned the skies over France and the RAF had plenty of Spit IX that were not much good as fighter bombers which could have provided cover."

That being said the Boston/Havoc was used for Intruder operations, but the Boston IIIs of Fighter Command started to be replaced by the Mosquito VI from May 1943, much faster and better armed. By D-Day the 2ndTAF were using both Typhoons and Mosquitos for ground attack missions, although smaller aircraft like the Typhoon were probably relatively harder to hit by flak when engaged in ground attack than larger twin-engine aircraft. The Beaufighter was well used by Fighter and Coastal Commands, gradually being supplemented and then replaced by variants of the Mosquito. So why would you have the Beaufighter over Normandy in 1944?

Mike

 

[EwenS]

The Beau was a big aircraft. Typhoon was faster & more manoeuvrable in the role of supporting troops on the front line, and could carry a bigger bomb load.

From 1940 night fighter squadrons had first call on production. Dec 1940 saw the first go to Coastal Command as long range fighters for convoy protection against the Fw200 Condors. But in mid-1941the first 2 CC squadrons were diverted to the Middle East to fulfill the same role there. CC Beaufighter use peaked at 9 squadrons in late 1943 / early 1944. In 1944/45 4 of those converted to the Mosquito FB.VI.

In the Med those initial 2 squadrons added strafing of vehicles to their maritime duties. The next non NF squadron didn't form until Aug 1942. The Med Beaufighter force peaked at 6 squadrons in mid/late-1943, after which there were transfers out of theatre and conversions to other types before the war ended. But the majority of their work was concerned with the long range fighter and coastal strike roles.

In the Far East the first Beau squadron didn't receive its aircraft until Nov 1942. The non NF Beau force peaked at 6 squadrons incl one transfer from the ME in early 1944, and 2 based in Ceylon converting from Beauforts in early/mid-1944. Two converted to Mosquito FB.VI in 1944/45, 1 disbanded in July 1945, leaving just 3 when the war ended.

The operations in the Far East were mostly in the form of pairs of Beaus carrying out long range intruder type work and not direct support of troops on the front line.

As for the Aussies, they formed 2 Beau squadrons in 1942, using British built aircraft, for use in the long range fighter role. Their third squadron wasn't re-equipped until Jan 1945 after virtually all its A-20s had been destroyed or damaged in a Japanese air attack. 2 other squadrons formed on the type in 1945 but only 1 saw combat before the war ended.

The last combat missions flown by RAF Beaus took place in 1948 during the Malayan Emergency. After that their service through to 1960 was in the target towing role.

 

[Glider]

Its also worth mentioning that the Typhoon was very well protected against small arms fire. Armour was added to the floor and the sides of the cockpit as the fighting in Europe progressed..

As a result the Beaufighter was a bigger, slower, less agile target, as well as being more vulnerable to AA fire. Plus of course, it cost more to build and you lost two crew should the plane be shot down.

 

[MIflyer]

Well, flak was not exactly nonexistent in the attack roles the Beaufighter did well, especially antishipping, where the chance of surviving a tour of ops was the worst of any mission, being rather low for one tour and around 15% for two.

But the USAAF thought it would be a good idea to use A-26's instead of P-47's for the CAS and tactical ground attack roles. The "Invader" proved to be just as fast as the P-47 at low altitude, capable of carrying more ordnance, and was at least as fiercely armed as the T-Bolt, having at least six and as much as fourteen .50 cal. But while the A-26 was a better attack aircraft than the P-47, the USAAF found it was so much larger that it had a significantly greater chance of being hit. So the A-26's in the ETO were used mainly on medium altitude bombing missions. And even though the B-26s had side package guns they almost never used them. A B-26 navigator who was on them in the ETO said there was only ONE occasion where they were told to deliver their bombloads and then go down and strafe the target area. On that same mission the bombardier relished finally getting to use that .50 cal in the nose, although it required the Norden bombsight to be removed to do so and the navigator got the job of holding the Norden while the bombardier had his fun.

Interestingly enough, some Mossie equipped units in the Far East had their aircraft replaced by Beaus. The bugs and fungus in that area loved munching on that plywood held together by glue that was based on milk.

 

[EwenS]

47 squadron was the first squadron in India to trade its Beaus for Mosquitos which happened in Oct 1944 but quickly had to switch back due to the glue problems in the wings. But, with those sorted, it re-equipped entirely with Mosquitos between Feb & April 1945.

It was the only squadron to change back to the Beau during WW2.

45, 82, 84 & 110 switched from Vengeance to Mosquito between Feb and Nov 1944, but the wing problems delayed most of these becoming operational on the type until the end of the year. The final Mossie squadron in India / Burma was 211 which swapped Beaus for Mossies in June 1945.

Post war Beaufighters again replaced Mosquitos in the couple of the remaining squadrons from late 1946.

 

[Shortround6]

You mean the the bigger and slower A-20 (Boston/Havoc)?

Beaufighter
Wing area: 503 sq ft (46.7 m2​)

A-20G
Wing area: 464 sq ft

Granted the fuselage was bit bigger.
Speed may depend on altitude.
A-20Gs with the turret peaked at around 325mph.
older versions without turret could hit around 340mph.
Depends on gun trays and other "stuff".

Others have covered things very well.

Japanese AA kinda sucked. Both land and sea. They did shoot stuff down, but not as often as the Germans did. The 25mm fired slow, was slow to reload, vibrated, and both traverse and elevation were slow. The Japanese had no 37/40 mm AA (or just a handful) and the 13.2mm Hotchkiss? repeat, fired slow, was slow to reload, vibrated, and both traverse and elevation were slow.
Japanese Army 20mm AA gun.

fired about 2/3s as fast as German 20mm and with the magazine changes practical fire was even less. Japanese built about 2500 before/during the war.
Germans built about 8,000 of the early slow firing 20mm guns, about 40,000ft of the FLAK 38s and around 3750 of the quad guns.
With the Army scattered from Manchuria to Singapore to New Guinea to the Solomon's numbers in any one location were not great, being charitable.
Ground attack was rather different between Asia and Europe.

 

[yulzari]

I found it interesting to compare the much touted Douglas Skyraider with the Bristol Beaufighter and superficially they are very similar bar the Beaufighter needing more hard points. There are differences in size, empty weight etc. but they overall appear to be in much the same class and a pair of post war 2,000bhp Hercules engines, as used in civil aeroplanes, gives the Beaufighter 4,000bhp to lift off a higher armament weight had it more hard points. Whilst designed as a heavy fighter the Beaufighter was principally used as a ground attack aeroplane too.

So, if the Beaufighter was a large vulnerable target to AA fire, the Skyraider must be too. The Typhoon was used for the role not because it was smaller, although it was, but essentially because it was there. Production was geared up so they were going to be made anyway and could do the ground attack task very adequately. Less of a Top Trumps comparison of performance than a logistical choice looked at from a high level.

 

[Shortround6]

So, if the Beaufighter was a large vulnerable target to AA fire, the Skyraider must be too.

I guess it would be true. But the Skyraider didn't operate in the sort of AA environment that NW Europe was. I have given numbers for the German 20mm guns. Germans also built just over 20,000 37mm guns of which the Japanese had zero. Germans introduced the 37mm Flak 43 into service in 1944.

In Feb 1945 they were supposed to have 1032 singles and 380 twins in service ( how many were already lost?)



In Viet Nam the Skyraiders faced some 37mm guns but very few in the south. North Koreans had some 37mm guns.
The Skyraiders faced a lot 12.7mm fire and some 14.5mm and 23mm fire and things changed a bit over the years but the AA environment was pretty intense in NW Europe on both sides.
British infantry division was supposed to have 72 40mm Bofors guns for instance, not sure if they all got the full amount. Americans had the famous quad .50s, 37mm and 40mm AA.

 

[33k in the air]

The Typhoon was used mainly for ground attack, and only in the ETO. Elsewhere in the war the Beaufighter was used extensively for ground attack. Given the problems with the Typhoon's Sabre engine and almost complete inability to ditch, which led to pilots being fearful of crossing the Channel, why did they not use Beaufighters to attack tanks in France?

Perhaps because it was already being used in the ETO by Coastal Command as an anti-shipping strike aircraft and as a long-range fighter over the Bay of Biscay in support of anti-U-boat operations.

 

[MIflyer]

Japanese AA kinda sucked. Both land and sea.

In the Beaufighter Boys book I am reading they mention that while the Japanese did not have much in the way of AAA in Burma they were very clever about positioning rifle caliber weapons in good spots and it was a rare mission in which they did not come back with bullet holes in the airplane.

By the way the book also mentions that the Merlin equipped Beaus were not a big success and by 1943 were relegated to training.

 

[ThomasP]

The problem was that the Mk II variant was a bit underpowered in comparison to the Hercules powered variants, at least down low. The only 2 practical advantages the Mk II had over the Hercules powered variants was speed at altitude and range. Maybe if they had fitted Merlin 25s instead there would have been a greater appreciation - but Hercules engine production increased enough that there was no need. The same basic situation applied to the Wellington Mk II with the Merlin X (which had significantly less power than the Merlin XX used in the Beaufighter) vs the Hercules powered Wellington Mk III and later variants.

 

[MIflyer]

The book says that the initial Hercules version that was available was underpowered and the later versions took longer than expected to be developed, so they stuck the Merlins on. I recall reading in one book about the Malta air combat that a new MKII Beau arrived and crew took it up. Right over the airfield, they shoved the nose down abruptly, which was not a problem with Hercs but the dreaded Merlin negative G "Lean Cut" led to both engines quitting and the Beau fell into a Spit dispersal area, killing not on the Beau crew but some of the Spit ground crew.

How many other people swapped engines like the British did? Aside from the Merlins on the Herc they also put some on the Halifax. The Germans put Junos on the FW-190D and BMW radials on the Ju88. The Japanese made the Ki100 when they put a radial on the Ki61. As far as production aircraft the US did not do much of that. The Hawk 75, Hudson and DC-3 got both R-1830's and R-1820's. The Mustang got V-1710 and V-1650. The P-36 replaced the R-1830 with the V-1710 and the result was the P-40.

 

[Just Schmidt]

How many other people swapped engines like the British did? Aside from the Merlins on the Herc they also put some on the Halifax. The Germans put Junos on the FW-190D and BMW radials on the Ju88. The Japanese made the Ki100 when they put a radial on the Ki61. As far as production aircraft the US did not do much of that. The Hawk 75, Hudson and DC-3 got both R-1830's and R-1820's. The Mustang got V-1710 and V-1650. The P-36 replaced the R-1830 with the V-1710 and the result was the P-40.

The British did it also on the Lancaster and Whitley to name two bombers. The Germans did it on the Do 17 and Do 217, the Ju 188 and the Hs 129. I'm sure I forget some. Most other nations may have been less interested, as the specialized more on one type of engine, either I'n general or for categories. It was of course easiest to do on multi engine aircraft. But I think all did it to some extent.

 

[EwenS]

Unfortunately the Beaufighter Mk.I predicted speed of 335mph at 13,500ft turned out, when fully equipped and tested in April 1940, to be only 309mph at 15,000ft with the Hercules III engine. Later aircraft received the Hercules X or XI which seems to have improved the performance to around 321mph.

Various re-engining suggestions were then made, including the Hercules VI and Griffon IIB but neither was available in 1940 (a prototype with a pair of Griffon IIB was flown in 1943). The only alternative engine then available was the Merlin XX, delivered to Bristol as a "power-egg" for installation on the aircraft, which was fitted in an airframe and first flown in June 1940. Unfortunately the greater side area of the Merlin engine nacelles made the famous Beaufighter take off swing worse. It was rated at 330mph. Increasing demand for the Merlin XX power-eggs for Lancaster production meant the full order for the MK.II was never completed. The last was produced in July 1942, by which time Hercules VI powered Beaufighter VI had begun to be produced.

I'm puzzled about the Merlin engined Beaufighter on Malta, because so far as I can see the night fighter squadrons in the Med only operated Mk.I & VI. Any idea what the book was? Later in the war some second line FAA fleet requirement units received Beaufighter II and operated them in both the Med & Far East.


There is another factor to bear in mind with regard to Beaufighter night fighter speeds in the early war period. From Nov 1940 the night fighter camouflage was Special Night (R.D.M.2). That paint had what is described as a "sooty" of "velvety" appearance, and unfortunately seems to have increased airframe drag.

The Halifax was originally to be a RR Vulture engined sister type to the Manchester. In 1937 the Air Ministry, starting to have doubts about the Vulture, ordered HP to redesign it to take 4 Merlins. HP were also able to take advantage of the dropping of certain requirements (torpedo dropping & dive bombing) in their redesign. The Marks I/II/V were all Merlin engined. A switch to Hercules engines was proposed in 1941 but it was Oct 1942 before a Hercules VI engined prototype flew. Production of the Mk.III was ordered in Feb 1943 and production aircraft started appearing in August, reaching the squadrons before the end of the year.

 

[MIflyer]

starting to have doubts about the Vulture,

With the exception of the V-3420, such dual engines seem to have had a very poor record of serviceability. And of course the V-3420 seemed to be successful in its applications but the aircraft never went into production, although the engine does not seem to have driven those decisions. The P-75 simply was a bad idea, the P-58 unnecessary at best, and the XB-39 probably had a better record than the early B-29, but eventually they fixed the R-3350.

Also, for the Vulture it seems that the engine produced vibrations that tended to make the Manchester tail fall off. Perhaps that was the inspiration for the movie "No Highway In The Sky"?

I may be able to find the book that had the Beaufighter II story in it, but of course Beaus were used in both attack and nightfighter roles in the Med.

 

[EwenS]

I may be able to find the book that had the Beaufighter II story in it, but of course Beaus were used in both attack and nightfighter roles in the Med.

Of the various units using the Beaufighter in the long range fighter / attack role at home and overseas, only 2 used the Mark II and both were based in the UK.
143 - 9/42-3/43 while based at North Coates &
404 - 9/42-3/43 in the north of Scotland and then Cornwall.
Both got the Mk.IIf as a replacement for the Blenheim IVf and gave them up for the Beau XI.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

According to RAF Squadrons by Jefford 48 (not 43, see message 21) squadron had some Beaufighter II July/August 1943 to go with their Hudson VI, based in Gibraltar with a detachment to Agadir. According to the RAF census as of end February 1943, no Beaufighter II located overseas, no overseas losses, as of end June 1944 none overseas, 2 losses either overseas or with the USAAF, while 86 had been sent to the Admiralty, along with 1 mark IF.

The Admiralty as of end January 1944 reports 14 Beaufighters in Britain, 29 overseas. (11 eastern theatre, 9 Western Mediterranean, 1 Eastern Mediterranean, 8 South Atlantic). The RAF Census for end December 1943 says 6 IIF in SEAAC, 42 to Admiralty, end January 1944 it was 6 in SEAAC, 45 to Admiralty.

 

[Greyman]

Unfortunately the Beaufighter Mk.I predicted speed of 335mph at 13,500ft turned out, when fully equipped and tested in April 1940, to be only 309mph at 15,000ft with the Hercules III engine. Later aircraft received the Hercules X or XI which seems to have improved the performance to around 321mph.

This matches up exactly with a test of R2054 I have, and I don't think this would be a 'representative' Mk.I (though I'm far from any sort of Beaufighter expert).

R2054 was noted to have:

• early, prototype nacelles
• early, poor finish
• no flush riveting
• external escape door
• retractable tail wheel

I think a better bet would be R2060, which had did not have any of the above (and so had flush riveting, though no retractable tailwheel). This Mk.I was compared to the older one and did 323 mph at 14,250.

EDIT: Also, X7540 and X7542 were tested at 335 and 333 mph respectively, both just under 16,000 ft. These had:

• Hercules X
• improved air intakes
• undercarriage door close mod.

All this said -- the Typhoon had 55+ to 75+ mph on the Beaufighter under 10,000 (depending on the number of Typhoon refinements).

For what it's worth, in British testing there was almost nothing to choose speed-wise between a Boston III/IIIa and a Beaufighter (Herc X/Herc VI).