Hi all, the Fairey Battle is much maligned aircraft, primary for its disastrous losses in May 1940, when it was called upon to destroy the bridges and pontoons across the Meuse. Attacking without fighter escort, flying low to avoid detection from German standing fighter patrols, it was badly exposed to AA ground fire, attacking vital strategic points which were sure to be well defended. Losses were simply horrendous. But was it so bad, the Blenheim, the new French Breguet 693 and the German Stuka all suffered catastrophic losses when caught alone without fighter escort, while operating in a tactical air role, attacking key points. If we put the Battle in an environment of clear air superiority, how well does she stand up to the task of attacking those bridges and pontoons? Firstly, she doesn’t have to approach targets at tree top, and be exposed to light AA flying to the target, which was something they did to avoid the German fighters, so her approach can be at something like 5,000 ft Secondly, she can dive bomb, not at the fantastic angles of the Stuka, but 60 degrees would surely give a better accuracy than level bombing at 5,000 feet. Thirdly she carried four 250lb General Purpose bombs, a good size for the time, which wouldn’t have any problems with pontoon bridges, and I suspect if all four could hit a steel truss bridge, they might well take a span down. She was very vulnerable to ground fire, in part due to no self-sealing tanks, and her acceleration away after the bomb release, despite being 1,000 lb lighter, was very poor. Self-sealing tanks could have been back fitted in late 1940, if not earlier, but being re-engined, which was greatly needed, meant a commitment to a tactical approach which without air superiority wasn’t viable. Nevertheless, she would have done ok for the time, in that environment, accepting the instillation of seal sealing tanks, and maybe some amour protection being fitted. What do you think? Regards Fatboy Coxy
A whole book has been published on the subject. https://www.amazon.ca/Fairey-Battle...?keywords=fairey+battle&qid=1587673018&sr=8-1
Here is a debate on Strategic Bombing with the Mosquito being examined for that role with the Fairy Battle drawn into the discussion as to its role in the AASF supporting the BEF in France in the summer of 1940. Strategic Bombing????
I've not read the book, but it has good reviews. Re the Strategic Bombing debate, very interesting, but I wasn't trying to defend the Battle as a Strategic Bomber, but air superiority aside, I thought it capable of taking out the bridges, abet with losses.
Almost all major air forces in 1939 had single engined 2 or 3 seat low wing monoplane bombers either developed in country or bought in. Their gun armament was strikingly similar to that employed in WW1. Speeds in general were about 220 - 240 mph and they were poorly armoured (if at all). None were capable of operating effectively in the face of the latest monoplane multi gun fighters without significant fighter escort and all were vulnerable to light AA.The Battle was no worse and no better than the rest.
It's worth reading his other book, The Battle of France and Britain (reappraisal) as the Battle is mentioned quite heavily, along with his views on its deployment. The problem was not the ability to disable bridges, but the amount of AA that was allowed to build up as they were not attacked immediately.
Hi Markyboy, are you agreeing that in a sloping dive of say 60 degrees, with the four 250 lb bombs dropped accurately, that should be enough to take a bridge down
Worth noting that in 1945 the FW190 fighter bomber had difficulties in bringing down bridges Some attacks were made by total commitment (suicide) pilots flying Me109s. Bridges were not easy
Does it say why, was it surviving in the hostile environment, or was the bomb load not up to the job?
Hitting something vital even if one did survive was the problem - bridges as targets are mainly open space - most bombs go in the water
That's about accuracy, i was more interested as to whether the Germans thought she carried an insufficient load. It may well be that a section of four aircraft would be required to target a bridge, to account for poor accuracy, but if delivered at a dive, are several 250 lb bombs going to do the job?
It also depends on the type of bridge and where the bomb hits. Will not check the explosive component of the British 1940 250 lb GP bomb because it was appr. 45 years ago when I made calculations on the amounts of HE needed to drop a span, so this all is more or less guess work. But if we suppose that the British GP bomb carries the rather normal amount of HE for a HE bomb, namely 50%, so 125 lb ~ 57 kg. If it hit a middle of the span of a stone bridge IMHO it had a chance to broke the span, if it hit on the deck above piers, less so. On steel and concrete bridges, hits on the load bearing members or above them were more dangerous than hits on the deck between them. On pontoon bridges, even a near miss might broke it or at least riddle a pontoon and so fill it with water.
Working on the British 250 lb, and going with a 60 degree dive (max) how low does a Fairey Battle have to be to get all four bombs on target. Obviously the higher they are the more dispersed they are, but if the Battle is able to release all four bombs simultaneously, then we're dealing with a much bigger impact on the bridge. And I guess we should break the bridges down into types, helping identify possible damage. A. German pontoon bridge, part metal, mostly wood, relatively easy to destroy and repair. B. Steel truss railway bridge, possibly with wooden sleepers C. Stone Arch bridge, constructed with stone, brick, concrete.
The trouble with this type of question is that virtually (if not all) aircraft COULD be criticised for not performing well against opposition, especially in the early stages of any War. The Stuka was superb, with its extreme dive angle if unopposed, as would any comparable light bomber. Against opposition? That then becomes a duel not just between aircraft, but pilot and/or crew co-ordination and abilities. When one adversary appears to have the upper hand then countermeasures are usually quickly developed to overcome. It's only if those countermeasures are too slow or poorly executed that one side triumphs over the other. To get back to the Battle, (user name is town, not aircraft!!) had there been freedom to attack the targets assigned, I have no doubt that it would have accomplished the tasks. But it DIDN'T have the freedom, that was in the hands of the aggressor. One might equally question the Tornado losses in Gulf War One. Against well defended targets, it's a difficult job, only when those defences have been degraded can abilities show through. The Battle never had that opportunity. And one might well ask that question of virtually any aircraft in the French Air inventory.............
Simple assessment...the Battle could not compete in daylight operations against the Luftwaffe without support from fighter aircraft.Payload was a paltry 1000 lbs. Stuka was no different...returned good performances in Poland and from 10 May 1940 during the Blitzkreig but was found wanting when the Luftwaffe lacked air superiority over the skies of southern England during the Battle of Britain.The aircraft was deemed to be obsolescent by the Luftwaffe in 1939 but was successful against weaker opposition. Interestingly the A10 Warthog after 40 years in service and bristling with on board armament has now been relegated to combat against insurgents...not considered for its past role as a tank buster and competing against aircraft now being developed by the potential enemy
On blowing up bridges the the Stuka had the advantage of far better accuracy, and delivered a 550 lb bomb. The only advantage the Battle may have had in this regard was, if it could deliver them accurately, it could place four 250 lb bombs on target, nearly double the weight, and four separate explosions may well weaken a metal truss bridge better than one single bigger bomb?
I'd say bigger is better and one bomb under fuselage is better than four inside the wings. Of course one might have better chance to achieve a hit with four bombs than with one.
I know I already said this before on another thread but every Battle meant one less Merlin for a Spitfire.
