Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Alternative Bomber Command History?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Sorry if this has been done before, but Grumpyfred gave me the idea in something else he said!
What if after the Blunt? Report that said that the Bomber offensive was fairly innefectual, the RAF had taken a year out to devop radio aids and tactics and changed its policy completly to precision attacks by small forces of Mosquitoes? Forget the massed raids on german cities, instead there would be precision attacks on certain targets...
As far as I can see it this strategy would have;
1. Freed up Lancasters for use by Coastal Command (who later used and liked them) for the U-Boat war. We might have had the Shackleton earlier...certainly 4 engined landplanes and not twins or flying boats were the future of ASW.
2. Resulted in less losses in men and aircraft for Bomber Command.
3. Satisfied the British publics appetite for revenge (don't underestimate this - in quite of a few of the many personal accounts of the bomber war I have read many of the pilots and aircrew cited this as a reason for joining up and fighting).
4. Had a reasonable effect on the German War effort. I don't say dramatic, just significant.
However I am aware of counter arguments;
1. Some people say the de-housing campaign had an efect on german morale that was significant, and cumulative. By 1944 people had "had it" and were mentally stressed to the nth degree.
2. Aircraft like the Heinkel Owl would have been pushed and the 262 Nightfighter, and the losses would have been unnaceptable.
3. The technology wasn't there to hit with enough precision. So the effect would have been mimimal.
4. The ASW aircraft used in the Atlantic were adequate and Lancasters would have been no improvement.
I'm open to debate; as always! -
Message 2
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
ScepticalScotty,
1. Freed up Lancasters for use by Coastal Command (who later used and liked them) for the U-Boat war. We might have had the Shackleton earlier...certainly 4 engined landplanes and not twins or flying boats were the future of ASW.Β
I believe RAF Coastal Command used Flying Fortresses, since Bomber Command had no use for them in their night-raid strategy. I've never heard that CC found them any more effective.
To illustrate, in the early phase of the Battle of Midway, a flight of Forts attacked some Japanese ships but the only thing they hit was the Pacific Ocean, killing some civilian fish. -
Message 3
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Coastal Command used the B 24 for long rand patrols and continued to do so even after the introduction of the Woolworth carriers.I've always suggested that the loss of life to bomber crews would have been less if the RAf had switched to the likes of the Mosquito. It could carry a good bomb load (Equal to the B 17s) and had the range. Mix them in Mosquito fighters and they would be able to pick out targets of interest rather than carpet bombing. In the Fighter bomber roll they could drop their bombs and defend themselves against the best Germany had.
-
Message 4
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
I think the flaw in your idea is removing RAF bomber command from the war whilst they develop new technologies. This would have meant not taking the war to the Germans at all. It is, I know, a highly debatable point, but area bombing, once introduced did, I contend, seriously hamper German war production. Stopping this whilst new technologies were developed would have given the Germans a real advantage.
At what point would you consider re-starting once you have stopped ? You are thinking with 100% hindsight. When it was realised that precision bombing was not at all precise, you neither know what technologies can overcome this, nor know how long real development will take.
Also, the Lancaster first bombed Germany in 1942. The Butt report (not Blunt, btw) was August 1941. The Lancasters were ideal (for the time) area bombing aircraft. So, this also questions your timing for suspension and resumption of bombing. The Mosquito did indeed roughly match the payload of the B17. It did not, however, come close to the Lancaster. -
Message 5
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Fair enough Tim the "time out" phase was an idea that came to me as I recalled what had been written in "The Most Secret War" by RV Jones (of course it WAS the Butt Report!) in that whike Fighter Command seemed keen to grasp onto any new technology and use it and more importantly UNDERSTAND the technology, Bomber Command had more of a simplistic (naive?) approach to technology - "just another damn black box whats it going to do for us??". This lead to them not being savvy enough to maintain radio silence thus giving the greatful pilots and trackers of the Kammhumber Line PLENTY to feast upon.
I wasn't really referring to the heavies in an anti-shipping role, more in an ASW role. Its been said many times the battle of The Atlantic was the real theatre where Britains survival was decided.
The Mosquitoes indeed could not carry as much as the Lancaster, and in my plan some Lancaster squadrons would be retained for Tallboy & Grand Slam operations. But also, the overall bomber force would be far smaller, as I am not talking about equalling the Lancaster tonnage with Mossies at all, but striking at selected targets which the Mosquito was superb at. -
Message 6
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
I admit I might be expecting too much of the radio aids - I'm a radio nut myself so I'm probably biased. Strictly HF for me though.
-
Message 7
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
I reckon the Liberators deployed as bobmbers would have been more valuable for AS - and perhaps the Stirlings, too. Jimmy Edwards' autobiog speaks of flying a Wellington to North Africa, where it joined an airfield full of similar aircraft, doing nothing productive. Given there were available overload tanks, surely they could have got more use from them than the part they played in the "Bay Offensive"? The Wimpey carried about 4000lbs, and a depth charge was about 250, a 2,000 lb bomb load would have been more than useful - with a 4-gun fore turret to keep the gunners heads down, and reduced or removed rear armament?
-
Message 8
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
The Wellington with a range of 1500 miles max was hardly suitable for modification suggested. the inclusion of long range tanks would have seriously crippled its potential bomb load. There was an attempt to so do viz the Mark IV(LL)but it was not a great success. The real threat was in the Atlantic and aircraft of much greater range were required(or seen to be at the time).
The real problem was with the RR Vulture engine, the failure of which held back the production of the aircraft including the Warwick(1939), the updated version of the Wimpey with a range of over 3000 miles and was a much better prospect for the AS role.
As someone has mentioned the Shackleton I doubt if there was any serious prospect of having that aircraft in time for the hostilities as the specification was not tendered until 1945 and then there was a fairly lengthy gestation period before it entered service. It was not universally liked being extremely noisy and cold.
Several crews I have heard were quite happy when they transferred back to Lancasters - an aircraft they considered superior to the Shak.
The Short Stirling, however, with a normal range of 2000 miles might have been a better prospect for development. Half the split bomb-bay could have been utilized for extra fuel and still have a useful bomb-load of about 7000 lb.
Its lack of service ceiling made it vulnerable over Germany but it was very manoeuvrable particularly at low altitude(it could easily out turn the Junkers Ju88 and during fighter affiliation exercises our pilots were quite often surprised by its ability to give Spitfires a run for their money)and it was an easy aircraft to fly thus making it an ideal a/c for AS. Now, did the AM miss a trick here? -
Message 9
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
According to the figures I've seen the max range of the Wellington was more like 2,500 than the 1,500 you cite, and a VLR Liberator had a bomb load of 2,500 lbs. Keep that bomb load, lose the waist & tail guns, and you should be able to let the Wimpey carry an extra 2,000 lbs of fuel (as far as I can find, the normal maximum, by subtracting bomb load from the difference between max takeoff weight and empty weight) was about 6,000 lbs. That suggests 3,000 as a max range figure, and aircraft with that sort of range, based in NI, Iceland, Greenland and Canada could have covered part of the convoy tracks - and the U-boat patrol lines - to keep them down in daylight, leaving the VLR aircraft to cover more distant tasks.
Of course, some of the more Naval-minded suggest that ALL the heavy bombers should have been used in that way up to about mid-43, and claim that the cost of producing the aircraft & munitions was greater than the value of the damage they actually did. -
Message 10
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
U,
Your figure represent the average Maximum range. Mine quoted the Normal operational range i.e. with full bomb load and a five man crew which even that represents I believe still air conditions and not five hundred feet above the Atlantic in the middle of winter.
Although all the following is speculation and I do not usually indulge - the loss of the two waist machine guns would not account for much of a weight difference whilst losing the tail turret would effect the C of G which I think was one of the problems with the prototype(and I guess here)that difficulty might be exacerbated by the fitting of internal tanks, especially as fuel was consumed.
Although the Wellington was reputed to be a comfortable aircraft to fly with padded arm rests for the pilot etc, it was notorious for losing height in tight turns - thus care had to be exercised during such manoeuvres(genuflection for those chaps who flew the Torpingtons). The advantages of the Stirling with its flying characteristics without consideration of the more effective bomb load are manifest. Plus there would have been the security of four engines over two. Which would you prefer having to fly long patrols over the sea in often very bad weather?
Mind you, had the Vulture proved a success the Warwick would probably have been adequate for the task. What was really wanted was an aircraft with the flexibility and payload of a Catalina fitted with a forward firing battery of 20mm cannon - but here we enter 'Boys Own' territory.
Regards.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.