Placing the Fairey Battle.

[Ruy Horta]

Just think what these Battles could have achieved, if supported by enough fighters, bombing roads instead of the bridges during the early phase of the war in the west. These roads were absolutely filled with miles and miles of concentrated military units waiting for a breakthrough.

Even with the light weight ordenance the effect would have been noticable. The RAF misused its bomber force during the early phase and (and I may offend some) kept its fighter force at home or in rigid patrol areas. Think what a combined fighter and light bomber effort could have done against the soft elements of these mile long traffic jams?

The Anglo-French armies were too aggressive by deploying too far north, the air forces too passive by concentrating on defence.

[tcolvin]

Absolutely, Ruy.

But remember the AASF was an Advanced Air Striking Force with the strategic objective of knocking Germany out of the war by destroying the heavy industry in the Ruhr. It was answerable to BC and the Air Staff and was only stationed around Lille because of the Battle's short range.

The new policy of restricted bombing that came from FDR destroyed the AASF's raison d'etre since it could not be used against the Ruhr. The AASF was therefore used tactically in support of the BEF because it had nothing else to do and the RAF could not think of a reason for refusing it's use against the Meuse bridges.

BC wanted to avoid being in such a bind again, so rubbished the Battle as obsolescent, and concentrated on the heavies.

Tony

[Juha]

Tony
BC used its medium bombers, Hampdens, Wellingtons and Whitleys against road targets in May and June 1940 to support badly pressed BEF. I’m sure if it had had heavies then, it would have used them also against tactical targets. When nation’s army is in desperate situation other branches had to help, even if they don’t like the idea. In 1944 situation wasn’t even desperate but still BC and 8th AF heavy bombers were used even to give battlefield support, for ex. at the beginning of Goodwood and Cobra. So I cannot see rationale of your claim.

Juha

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Juha

When a nation’s army is in a desperate situation other branches had to help, even if they don’t like the idea.

Exactly. I don't think the Royal Navy had planned to use its destroyer force getting troops away from Dunkirk rather than fighting the Kriegsmarine but it's what the war situation demanded, so they did it.

On Ruy's point, how about using the Battle force in the Nachtschlacht role against the German supply routes into France?

[Juha]

Ruy
on the first day (May 10th) Battles attacked exclusively against German columns but lost 13 out of 32 attacking planes, all to ground fire. So that wasn't the answer. Battle was too big, slow, vulnerable and too lightly armed for daytime interdiction ops. Nick's proposition might be better but Battle crews were trained on daytime jobs and I don't know how good Battle was as night flying machine, Blenheim wasn't very good for night flying. With hindsight one can argue that RAF should have foreseen the effectiveness of German light Flak and troops ability to defence themselves with mgs and thought beforehand some antidoses to that.

Juha

Checked from Franks' Valiant Wings, the losses were 13 FTR plus a written off out of 32. And most of others were damaged, some to extent that they were declared written-offs later.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Juha

Ruy
With hindsight one can argue that RAF should have foreseen the effectiveness of German light Flak and troops ability to defence themselves with mgs and thought beforehand some antidoses to that.

Juha

Equally one could argue that the British and French Armies should have been much better provided with mobile automatic AA weapons than they were.

[Franek Grabowski]

At least Polish 300 and 301 Sqn flew Battles on night missions against Channel targets, but I suppose those turned ineffective, as they quickly converted to Wellingtons. Battle was a descendant of an old concept of light bomber/scout aircraft which were eg. predominant in French air force - see Potez XV/XXV and Breguet XIX. This was an aircraft outdated from the beginning. Concerning Typhoon - yes it was outdated as well. Airfoil used is not the thing that should have taken place. They have realised that and build Tempest, but too late.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Battle was a descendant of an old concept of light bomber/scout aircraft which were eg. predominant in French air force - see Potez XV/XXV and Breguet XIX. This was an aircraft outdated from the beginning.

The specification that was fulfilled by the Battle was P27/32 calling for a Medium Bomber Hart/Hind replacement.
Others call it a light bomber specification, but P apparently meant medium bomber, and B meant heavy bomber. There was apparently no specific designation for a light bomber.

By the way, has anyone published these complete specifications either on-line and/or in a book? I think they are important to any understanding of RAF intentions.

I would also like to see the complete Specification P4/34 for a medium bomber and close support aircraft that was fulfilled by the Hawker Henley of lamented memory.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

Tony
BC used its medium bombers, Hampdens, Wellingtons and Whitleys against road targets in May and June 1940 to support badly pressed BEF. I’m sure if it had had heavies then, it would have used them also against tactical targets. When nation’s army is in desperate situation other branches had to help, even if they don’t like the idea. In 1944 situation wasn’t even desperate but still BC and 8th AF heavy bombers were used even to give battlefield support, for ex. at the beginning of Goodwood and Cobra. So I cannot see rationale of your claim.

Juha

In 1944 BC and 8 USAAF were placed under Ike after a monumental pissing contest when Butcher Harris swore they could not bomb accurately and thousands of Frenchmen would be killed.

The heavy Hampdens, Wellingtons and Whitleys were not much help to the BEF.

But what about the Fleet Air Arm Skua divebombers? Peter C Smith makes the claim that as well as sinking the cruiser Koenigsberg (which I know about and was something BC failed to do), the Skuas dive-bombed and broke up a major German army assault on the Dunkirk perimeter and perhaps saved the BEF. If true - and does anyone have the facts - this was far more than the heavies or the medium Battles and Blenheims ever did.

[Steve49]

Will not wishing interupt the discusion about Battles that it desending into an attack against BC tactics, I will pass comment over the sinking of the crusier Koenigsberg. This already damaged ship (it had been hit by a coastal battery the day before during the initial invasion) was attacked by 15 FAA Skuas whilst alongside a quay in Bergen 10/4/40. The cruiser I believe suffered three direct hits from 500lb bombs and two near misses, hardly an impressive strike rate against an immobile target. All this goes to show is that even a divebomber, supposedly designed for 'precision' bombing was pretty much a hit and miss affair in WWII. I'm not aware of any attack on Bergen by BC, so I fail to see any facts to support the claim that BC 'failed' to sink it.

Regards,

Steve