DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fighter Bomber in RAF Service – a Journey from the Western Desert to Falaise the Pre-War Doctrinal Position on CAS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Fighter Bomber in RAF Service – a Journey from the Western Desert to Falaise the Pre-War Doctrinal Position on CAS The Fighter Bomber in RAF service – A Journey From The Western Desert to Falaise The Pre-War Doctrinal Position on CAS RAF Tactical memorandum on air attack in direct support of the field force, 1938–39: - Correctly identified that targets to be attacked were likely to be ‘mobile, small and aware’, but suggested that the light bomber was perfect for the job due to its high speed. - Blenheim IV, had a top speed of 266 mph, which dropped to below 250 mph with a full bomb load and desert air filters, substantially lower than any of the Axis fighters in the desert. - Extensive German light Flak, particularly 20-mm and 37-mm multiple mountings, made light bombers prohibitively vulnerable to anti- aircraft fire below 6,000 ft. - Light bomber crews at 6,000 ft found it impossible to identify ground signals less than 15 ft across – how can they reliably hit small, mobile targets by level bombing from this altitude or higher. - Report identifies correctly that close support aircraft would be required to operate in the presence of enemy fighters. In response, it recommended light bombers operating singly rather than in formation and carrying a single rearward-firing machine-gun for defence. Theory Doesn’t Work in Practice for Light Bombers • Light Bombers ineffective against Afrika Corps after initial successes against Italian Army. • Desperately vulnerable without close fighter escort. • During Operation Crusader – a major British offensive in November 1941 – the average response time by bomber squadrons to calls for air support was three hours. • Complex machines with comparatively poor reliability. • 17 October 1941: six Blenheim IVs dropped 5,750lbs of bombs on a ‘perfect convoy target’, destroying a grand total of two lorries and damaging an armoured car. Too inaccurate. • RAF report on lessons learned in the Western Desert between August 1940 and February 1941: ‘the 250 lb bomb has a poor destructive effect against solid structures and is almost useless against ammunition dumps due to low weight of explosive filling’. • Too inaccurate for use on vehicles, too light for use against structures and area targets. Practice and Desperation Trump Theory for Fighters RAF doctrine at the start of the desert campaign was clear that fighters were to be used only for gaining and maintaining air superiority. Prohibition(!) on ground strafing in place. • No. 73 Squadron starts experimenting with ground strafing on own initiative from January 1941. • April 1941, Air Marshal Arthur Tedder suggests that fighters be used to machine-gun enemy transport columns in a desperate attempt to slow the Axis advance during retreat from Rommel’s advance. • June 1941, after failure of Battleaxe RAF directive issued reaffirming that fighters are to be used in the air superiority role and using them for ground attack is inevitably to draw them away from main issue. • BUT RAF fighters are totally outclassed vs Bf-109-E7 and F series until Spitfires arrive in Mid-1942 except at low altitudes. • First Hurricane squadron fitted with bomb racks Nov 1941. • Battlefield situation forces Coningham’s hand… Fighter-Bomber Comes of Age in the Nick of Time • On 28 May 1942, as the fighting around Gazala intensified, Coningham orders all his fighters to fly below 6,000 ft and concentrate on close air support and interdiction. • Coningham wrote privately that he thought ‘asking fighter- pilots to fly below 6,000 ft and submit to unmolested attack from above is asking a very great deal’. • But later writes that loss rates and morale levels in fighter- bomber squadrons were much better than he expected and that ‘the success of the fighter-bomber has been quite phenomenal’. • Post Gazala, Coningham asks that all Hurricanes be permanently fitted with bomb-racks and more to be sent from Britain, despite their obsolescence. • He also demanded that all Kittyhawks be equipped with bomb-racks that could be fitted or discarded quickly between sorties, depending on the task required. • July 1942, Middle East Headquarters: ‘conservative estimates, based on the experience of the last month’ that a squadron of twelve Kittyhawk fighter-bombers could reliably destroy around 525 motor transports per week. A Word on Cannon-Hurricanes and Tank Busting… Crucial Fighter-Bomber Traits • Self Defence. Can Operate Unescorted! • Much more responsive than bomber squadrons. Can operate further forward, fly more sorties, can self-escort • Interdiction to suppress enemy movement behind the lines. Persistent presence: Germany Prisoner Microphones: “our whole unit was exhausted and at the end of our tether from RAF machine-gunning attacks”, “British aircraft seem to be able to do what they like without interruption; infantry receive no fighter support when strafed” • Flexible. • Forces Luftwaffe to come down and fight on RAF’s terms or allow them to inflict unacceptable damage. ‘Functional Air Superiority’. • Excellent use of obsolescent fighter resources. • More efficient than light bombers. Fighter-Bomber vs Light Bomber Efficiency (Bombs Delivered/Person/Day) Limitations over Italy • Italy is not primarily a campaign of movement. • Much more cover, both vegetation and terrain. Weather often awful. • Need to attack strongpoints means much denser AAA. • Stronger Luftwaffe presence at times. • Still highly effective and sought after! • Rockets starting to be used regularly. • Spitfire not the best fighter-bomber. Hunting over Normandy • Operational surprise means German Army forced to move by day • Less useful during Bocage actions, but presence of smoke shells allows them to provide valuable support • Proximity of forces makes level bombers very dangerous instruments • Primary effect – shutting down German road and rail movement by day. Invaluable • Typhoon an excellent platform and a match for 109 and 190 below 15,000ft Questions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LESSON 3 Significant Aircraft of World War II
    LESSON 3 Significant Aircraft of World War II ORREST LEE “WOODY” VOSLER of Lyndonville, Quick Write New York, was a radio operator and gunner during F World War ll. He was the second enlisted member of the Army Air Forces to receive the Medal of Honor. Staff Sergeant Vosler was assigned to a bomb group Time and time again we read about heroic acts based in England. On 20 December 1943, fl ying on his accomplished by military fourth combat mission over Bremen, Germany, Vosler’s servicemen and women B-17 was hit by anti-aircraft fi re, severely damaging it during wartime. After reading the story about and forcing it out of formation. Staff Sergeant Vosler, name Vosler was severely wounded in his legs and thighs three things he did to help his crew survive, which by a mortar shell exploding in the radio compartment. earned him the Medal With the tail end of the aircraft destroyed and the tail of Honor. gunner wounded in critical condition, Vosler stepped up and manned the guns. Without a man on the rear guns, the aircraft would have been defenseless against German fi ghters attacking from that direction. Learn About While providing cover fi re from the tail gun, Vosler was • the development of struck in the chest and face. Metal shrapnel was lodged bombers during the war into both of his eyes, impairing his vision. Able only to • the development of see indistinct shapes and blurs, Vosler never left his post fi ghters during the war and continued to fi re.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foundations of US Air Doctrine
    DISCLAIMER This study represents the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Air University Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education (CADRE) or the Department of the Air Force. This manuscript has been reviewed and cleared for public release by security and policy review authorities. iii Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Watts, Barry D. The Foundations ofUS Air Doctrine . "December 1984 ." Bibliography : p. Includes index. 1. United States. Air Force. 2. Aeronautics, Military-United States. 3. Air warfare . I. Title. 11. Title: Foundations of US air doctrine . III. Title: Friction in war. UG633.W34 1984 358.4'00973 84-72550 355' .0215-dc 19 ISBN 1-58566-007-8 First Printing December 1984 Second Printing September 1991 ThirdPrinting July 1993 Fourth Printing May 1996 Fifth Printing January 1997 Sixth Printing June 1998 Seventh Printing July 2000 Eighth Printing June 2001 Ninth Printing September 2001 iv THE AUTHOR s Lieutenant Colonel Barry D. Watts (MA philosophy, University of Pittsburgh; BA mathematics, US Air Force Academy) has been teaching and writing about military theory since he joined the Air Force Academy faculty in 1974 . During the Vietnam War he saw combat with the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing at Ubon, Thailand, completing 100 missions over North Vietnam in June 1968. Subsequently, Lieutenant Colonel Watts flew F-4s from Yokota AB, Japan, and Kadena AB, Okinawa. More recently, he has served as a military assistant to the Director of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and with the Air Staff's Project CHECKMATE.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress
    Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress Jeremiah Gertler Specialist in Military Aviation December 22, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34406 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Air Force Next-Generation Bomber: Background and Issues for Congress Summary As part of its proposed FY2010 defense budget, the Administration proposed deferring the start of a program to develop a next-generation bomber (NGB) for the Air Force, pending the completion of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and associated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and in light of strategic arms control negotiations with Russia. The Administration’s proposed FY2010 budget requested no funding specifically identified in public budget documents as being for an NGB program. Prior to the submission of the FY2010 budget, the Air Force was conducting research and development work aimed at fielding a next-generation bomber by 2018. Although the proposed FY2010 defense budget proposed deferring the start of an NGB program, the Secretary of Defense and Air Force officials in 2009 have expressed support for the need to eventually start such a program. The Air Force’s FY2010 unfunded requirements list (URL)—a list of programs desired by the Air Force but not funded in the Air Force’s proposed FY2010 budget—includes a classified $140-million item that some press accounts have identified as being for continued work on a next-generation bomber. FY2010 defense authorization bill: The conference report (H.Rept. 111-288 of October 7, 2009) on the FY2010 defense authorization act (H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA Facts National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 804 864-3293
    NASA Facts National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 804 864-3293 July 1995 World War II and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics: U.S. Aviation Research Helped Speed Victory Well before the United States’ formal entry into Hampton, Va.—to three. The new facilities were the World War II on Dec. 8, 1941, the political, military Ames Aeronautical Laboratory in Mountain View, and industrial leaders of the nation started what Calif., and the Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory in became a massive national mobilization effort. The Cleveland, Ohio. Employment peaked at 6,077 nation’s scientific organizations made vital contribu- employees in 1945 and the budget that same year was tions in several fields. In the area of aeronautical almost $41 million. research, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics made many important contributions to the Equally significant as the changes created by the development and production of military aircraft that expansion of personnel and facilities was the change in saw service during the war. The story of military avia- the NACA’s approach to research. Before the war, the tion and the American aircraft industry during the war NACA had conducted more basic research, mainly is well-known. The story of research conducted by the aerodynamics and flight research. Despite its charter to NACA has received less attention. This fact sheet find “practical solutions,” the NACA had held industry highlights some aspects of the NACA’s wartime work. at arm’s length. The urgent demands of war necessitat- ed a different relationship. A unique partnership was formed by NACA researchers with industry designers “Research Midwife”- and military planners.
    [Show full text]
  • A52 Mosquito Light Bomber
    A52 Mosquito Light Bomber The de Havilland DH 98 Mosquito was one of the greatest combat Initial delays in production were due to the difficulties of importing aircraft of World War II. Originally conceived as a fast, unarmed, light engines, tools and priority equipment from de Havilland in Great Britain bomber that would be able to outfly fighters, the lightweight, all-wood and Canada. Soon after production began, the manufacturer discovered construction “Mossie” first flew on Nov. 25, 1940, and had a top speed an issue with wing assembly, and the first 50 sets of wings required of almost 400 mph. Mosquitoes were built in several different versions, modification. This, and the discovery of flutter issues, further delayed including fighter-bombers (FBs), photo-reconnaissance, day and night production, which eventually amounted to just 75 airplanes being built bombers, and long-range day and night fighters. between March 1944 and May 1945. By the end of the war, production issues had been resolved, and 212 Mosquitoes were built at Bankstown. Mosquitoes were assembled in Great Britain, Canada, and in 1942, the Of these, six FB Mk 40s were converted for photo reconnaissance as Australian de Havilland factory at Bankstown commenced production of PR Mk 40s, and a further 28 were converted to PR Mk 41s, with the last an FB version of the Mosquito. A Royal Air Force Mk II (DD664) was delivered July 22, 1948. delivered to Bankstown and used as a prototype for the Australian FB Mk 40s. It made its first flight on Dec. 17, 1942, and was later delivered In addition to the Australian-built Mosquitoes, 76 British-built Mosquitoes to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) on Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art of Strafing
    The Art of Strafing By Richard B.H. Lewis ODERN fighter pilots risk their lives Mevery day performing the act of strafing, which to some may seem like a tactic from a bygone era. Last Novem- ber, an F-16 pilot, Maj. Troy L. Gilbert, died strafing the enemy in Iraq, trying Painting by Robert Bailey to protect coalition forces taking fire on the ground. My first thought was, “Why was an F-16 doing that mission?” But I already knew the answer. In the 1980s, at the height of the Cold War, I was combat-ready in the 512th Fighter Squadron, an F-16 unit at Ramstein AB, Germany. We had to maintain combat status in air-to- air, air-to-ground, and nuclear strike operations. We practiced strafing oc- casionally. We were not very good at it, but it was extremely challenging. There is a big difference between was “Gott strafe England” (“God punish flight controls and a 30 mm Gatling flying at 25,000 feet where you have England”). The term caught on. gun. I have seen the aircraft return from plenty of room to maneuver and you In the World War I Battle of St. Mihiel, combat with one engine and major parts can barely see a target, and at 200 feet, Capt. Eddie Rickenbacker once strafed of a wing and flight controls blown off. where the ground is rushing right below eight German artillery pieces, each Unquestionably, the A-10 is the ultimate you and you can read the billboards drawn by a team of six horses.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Collection
    A, AIR & SPA ID SE CE MU REP SEU INT M AIRCRAFT COLLECTION From the Avenger torpedo bomber, a stalwart from Intrepid’s World War II service, to the A-12, the spy plane from the Cold War, this collection reflects some of the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS IN MILITARY AVIATION. Photo: Liam Marshall TABLE OF CONTENTS Bombers / Attack Fighters Multirole Helicopters Reconnaissance / Surveillance Trainers OV-101 Enterprise Concorde Aircraft Restoration Hangar Photo: Liam Marshall BOMBERS/ATTACK The basic mission of the aircraft carrier is to project the U.S. Navy’s military strength far beyond our shores. These warships are primarily deployed to deter aggression and protect American strategic interests. Should deterrence fail, the carrier’s bombers and attack aircraft engage in vital operations to support other forces. The collection includes the 1940-designed Grumman TBM Avenger of World War II. Also on display is the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, a true workhorse of the 1950s and ‘60s, as well as the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and Grumman A-6 Intruder, stalwarts of the Vietnam War. Photo: Collection of the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum GRUMMAN / EASTERNGRUMMAN AIRCRAFT AVENGER TBM-3E GRUMMAN/EASTERN AIRCRAFT TBM-3E AVENGER TORPEDO BOMBER First flown in 1941 and introduced operationally in June 1942, the Avenger became the U.S. Navy’s standard torpedo bomber throughout World War II, with more than 9,836 constructed. Originally built as the TBF by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, they were affectionately nicknamed “Turkeys” for their somewhat ungainly appearance. Bomber Torpedo In 1943 Grumman was tasked to build the F6F Hellcat fighter for the Navy.
    [Show full text]
  • Air-To-Ground Battle for Italy
    Air-to-Ground Battle for Italy MICHAEL C. MCCARTHY Brigadier General, USAF, Retired Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama August 2004 Air University Library Cataloging Data McCarthy, Michael C. Air-to-ground battle for Italy / Michael C. McCarthy. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-58566-128-7 1. World War, 1939–1945 — Aerial operations, American. 2. World War, 1939– 1945 — Campaigns — Italy. 3. United States — Army Air Forces — Fighter Group, 57th. I. Title. 940.544973—dc22 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. Air University Press 131 West Shumacher Avenue Maxwell AFB AL 36112–6615 http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil ii Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER . ii FOREWORD . v ABOUT THE AUTHOR . vii PREFACE . ix INTRODUCTION . xi Notes . xiv 1 GREAT ADVENTURE BEGINS . 1 2 THREE MUSKETEERS TIMES TWO . 11 3 AIR-TO-GROUND BATTLE FOR ITALY . 45 4 OPERATION STRANGLE . 65 INDEX . 97 Photographs follow page 28 iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Foreword The events in this story are based on the memory of the author, backed up by official personnel records. All survivors are now well into their eighties. Those involved in reconstructing the period, the emotional rollercoaster that was part of every day and each combat mission, ask for understanding and tolerance for fallible memories. Bruce Abercrombie, our dedicated photo guy, took most of the pictures.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Priorities for the Air Force's Future Combat Air
    FIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE AIR FORCE’S FUTURE COMBAT AIR FORCE MARK GUNZINGER CARL REHBERG LUKAS AUTENRIED FIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE AIR FORCE’S FUTURE COMBAT AIR FORCE MARK GUNZINGER CARL REHBERG LUKAS AUTENRIED 2020 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2020 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces, Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, an M.P.A. from Central Michigan University, and a B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Patrol Aviation: 90 Years of Continuing Innovation
    J. F. KEANE AND C. A. EASTERLING Maritime Patrol Aviation: 90 Years of Continuing Innovation John F. Keane and CAPT C. Alan Easterling, USN Since its beginnings in 1912, maritime patrol aviation has recognized the importance of long-range, persistent, and armed intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in sup- port of operations afl oat and ashore. Throughout its history, it has demonstrated the fl ex- ibility to respond to changing threats, environments, and missions. The need for increased range and payload to counter submarine and surface threats would dictate aircraft opera- tional requirements as early as 1917. As maritime patrol transitioned from fl ying boats to land-based aircraft, both its mission set and areas of operation expanded, requiring further developments to accommodate advanced sensor and weapons systems. Tomorrow’s squad- rons will possess capabilities far beyond the imaginations of the early pioneers, but the mis- sion will remain essentially the same—to quench the battle force commander’s increasing demand for over-the-horizon situational awareness. INTRODUCTION In 1942, Rear Admiral J. S. McCain, as Com- plane. With their normal and advance bases strategically mander, Aircraft Scouting Forces, U.S. Fleet, stated the located, surprise contacts between major forces can hardly following: occur. In addition to receiving contact reports on enemy forces in these vital areas the patrol planes, due to their great Information is without doubt the most important service endurance, can shadow and track these forces, keeping the required by a fl eet commander. Accurate, complete and up fl eet commander informed of their every movement.1 to the minute knowledge of the position, strength and move- ment of enemy forces is very diffi cult to obtain under war Although prescient, Rear Admiral McCain was hardly conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • HELP from ABOVE Air Force Close Air
    HELP FROM ABOVE Air Force Close Air Support of the Army 1946–1973 John Schlight AIR FORCE HISTORY AND MUSEUMS PROGRAM Washington, D. C. 2003 i Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schlight, John. Help from above : Air Force close air support of the Army 1946-1973 / John Schlight. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Close air support--History--20th century. 2. United States. Air Force--History--20th century. 3. United States. Army--Aviation--History--20th century. I. Title. UG703.S35 2003 358.4'142--dc22 2003020365 ii Foreword The issue of close air support by the United States Air Force in sup- port of, primarily, the United States Army has been fractious for years. Air commanders have clashed continually with ground leaders over the proper use of aircraft in the support of ground operations. This is perhaps not surprising given the very different outlooks of the two services on what constitutes prop- er air support. Often this has turned into a competition between the two serv- ices for resources to execute and control close air support operations. Although such differences extend well back to the initial use of the airplane as a military weapon, in this book the author looks at the period 1946- 1973, a period in which technological advances in the form of jet aircraft, weapons, communications, and other electronic equipment played significant roles. Doctrine, too, evolved and this very important subject is discussed in detail. Close air support remains a critical mission today and the lessons of yesterday should not be ignored. This book makes a notable contribution in seeing that it is not ignored.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bombsight War: Norden Vs. Sperry
    The bombsight war: Norden vs. Sperry As the Norden bombsight helped write World War II’s aviation history, The less-known Sperry technology pioneered avionics for all-weather flying Contrary to conventional wisdom, Carl three axes, and was often buffeted by air turbulence. L. Norden -- inventor of the classified Norden The path of the dropped bomb was a function of the bombsight used in World War I! -- did not acceleration of gravity and the speed of the plane, invent the only U.S. bombsight of the war. He modified by altitude wind direction, and the ballistics invented one of two major bombsights used, of the specific bomb. The bombardier's problem was and his was not the first one in combat. not simply an airborne version of the artillery- That honor belongs to the top secret gunner's challenge of hitting a moving target; it product of an engineering team at involved aiming a moving gun with the equivalent of Sperry Gyroscope Co., Brooklyn, N. Y. The a variable powder charge aboard a platform evading Sperry bombsight out did the Norden in gunfire from enemy fighters. speed, simplicity of operation, and eventual Originally, bombing missions were concluded technological significance. It was the first by bombardier-pilot teams using pilot-director bombsight built with all-electronic servo systems, so it responded indicator (PDI) signals. While tracking the target, the bombardier faster than the Norden's electromechanical controls. It was much would press buttons that moved a needle on the plane's control simpler to learn to master than the Norden bombsight and in the panel, instructing the pilot to turn left or right as needed.
    [Show full text]