What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#31

Post by Rob Stuart » 27 Nov 2014, 01:21

phylo_roadking wrote:
As for your suggestion that the number of ground crew posted to a bomber squadron or base, and hence the serviceability rate of the aircraft, would be limited by the number of hangars, that's another hard sell. Either the usual number of ground crew would be posted in and the hangars would simply be used around the clock, or they'd bloody well build another hangar.
Hangars WERE used around the clock; but the manhours required for notified-interval servicing, major repairs etc. was all calculated and factored in. I'm not saying that the number of ground crew posted to a squadron was determiend by the number of hangars - I'm saying that there was a certain number of ground crew needed in each hangar for given tasks...and on multi-squadron fields those would be drawn from BOTH squadrons. Each squadron didn't have to find a full hanagar staff from within ITS ranks.
All you're saying here is that the most economic use possible was made of all the ground crew on a bomber station. But the same would be true on fighter stations, and you have yet to explain why the maintenance of 16 heavy bombers did not require more ground staff than the maintenance of the same number of fighters. (If this is not your argument then please explain.)

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#32

Post by Rob Stuart » 27 Nov 2014, 01:44

phylo_roadking wrote:
To put it another way, if the two heavy bomber units at your bomber station, with say 16 Stirlings each, were converted into fighter units and re-equipped with 16 Spitfires, I'd suggest that something like the following numbers of personnel would be surplus and could be posted out:

-all of the aircrew, except for the pilots. (The pilots would either be trained on fighters or replaced on an one-for-one basis.) Some of them, especially flight engineers, might easily be retrained in ground crew trades.
Please just get a copy of James. That was NOT how the RAF worked.
Yes, I know that it would not have happened in this way. It doesn't matter that it wouldn't happen in this way. I was simply trying to illustrate in an additional way that heavy bombers needed more ground crew per aircraft than fighters did.


Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#33

Post by Rob Stuart » 27 Nov 2014, 02:03

phylo_roadking wrote:
]-enough engine fitters for at least two other two-squadron fighter bases
I tried to explain this before; a four-engined heavy bomber did not have all its engines serviced at once by a group of fitters for each engine - its dedicated ground crew serviced its engines one after the other.
I never said otherwise. If there were 128 Merlins on a bomber station and 32 Merlins on a fighter station, each one would need oil changes, spark plug replacement, etc, after X number of hours. All other things being equal, the bomber station will need four times as many fitters. You have implied that all things would not be equal, but there is no way that economies of scale could possibly reduce the ratio from 4:1 to 1:1.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#34

Post by Rob Stuart » 27 Nov 2014, 04:36

Brit-bomb-types.jpg
phylo_roadking wrote:
enough armourers for more than two other two-squadron fighter bases, since fighter squadrons needed many fewer armourers than a heavy bomber squadron
:o Rob...there were typically eight MGs on a Lancaster (although there were variations, some had only 2x.5 Brownings in the rear turret instead of 4x.303) - two in the forward turret, two in the dorsal turret, four in the rear turret...how many MGs were there in a "multibank" Spitfire? Or Hurricane?
Do you really think I don't know this? The maintenance of the eight machine guns on a heavy bomber would probably require more labour than the maintenance of the same number of the same weapons on a fighter, because the bomber's weapons were mounted in power operated turrets, but the difference due to this would have been small. The big difference would be due to the need to store, maintain and load those things which bombers carry in large numbers but which are carried by fighters in very small numbers or not at all. Obviously I'm talking about the bombs. As evident in the well known photo I've attached, bombers carried a large variety of bombs, to say nothing of target indicators, flares and the like. Your comment that the bombers on a bomber station would not all undergo maintenance at the same time is true, but they all had to be bombed up at the same time prior to a "maximum effort" mission. It is therefore obvious that a lot more armourers were needed per heavy bomber than per fighter.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#35

Post by Rob Stuart » 27 Nov 2014, 05:38

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
Rob Stuart wrote:....

Regarding the Battle of the Atlantic, many supporters of the RAF bomber offensive overlook the fact that the allocation of virtually all UK-built four-engine bombers to Bomber Command meant that many more Allied ships were lost to the U-boats than had to be the case. If Churchill felt in June 1940 that a bomber offensive against Germany could not win the war and a different strategy was adopted, he could probably have been prevailed upon to allow some four-engine aircraft to be produced for the Battle of the Atlantic.
This is one someone might be able to do some calculating on. The numbers of submarines destroyed by aircraft, both the short/medium ranged aircraft of coastal command through 1942, and the VLR types post 1942, would give a general base to work from. The 1939-42 data from the short/medium ranged aircraft is necessary as they reflect the search and attack hardware and techniques available then. The VLR aircraft data post 1942 would have to be modified from that.

I dont think my copy of Hughes & Costello 'The Battle of the Atlantic breaks down the submarine sunk data by attack type, so I'm unable to estimate any of this. Maybe some one else can weigh in with it.
It would be useful to have the numbers you refer to, which I've not been able to find so far, but the importance of having VLR aircraft cannot be measured solely by the number of U-boats destroyed. An even better measure, but one which cannot easily be quantified, is the number of Allied ships saved due to the efforts of VLR aircraft.

Marc Milner, the leading Canadian historian of the Battle of the Atlantic, has had this to say about the closing of the air gap by VLF aircraft (and the aircraft of the escort carriers):

Historians point to the decisive role of ULTRA in the Atlantic war, particularly in early 1943 when the German defeat followed quickly after the breakthrough in late March. However, the elimination of the air gap would have defeated the wolf-packs without ULTRA, although special intelligence allowed it to happen faster and with more telling effect. It was air power that forced submarines to operate fully submerged as a normal mode.

It was unsound to have allocated insufficient Liberators to the Battle of the Atlantic until 1943. The two RAF bomber squadrons equipped with Liberators which were deployed to the Middle East in early 1942 contributed less to Allied victory than they would have had they been converted to VLRs and used over the Atlantic.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#36

Post by maltesefalcon » 27 Nov 2014, 14:10

The reversal of fortune in the UBoat campaign between March and May 1943 was due to a number of factors.
More escorts, Huff Duff radio location, radar improvements, better weapons like the Hedgehog and of course air cover all contributed.

In the early days the escorts were required to form a picket line as well as seek/destroy ops.

The Uboats knew this and they could hang back just out of practical range on the surface during the day. That way they could catch up at night for attack.

Aerial patrol increased both the area and frequency of those passes. U boats were often forced to submerge, slowing them down. Not only that the escort vessels could now concentrate into Hunter Killer groups and sink anything the air patrol spotted.

So even if the aircraft had actually sank no UBoats, they would still have been a vital link in the chain.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#37

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 27 Nov 2014, 16:48

Rob Stuart wrote:
It would be useful to have the numbers you refer to, which I've not been able to find so far, but the importance of having VLR aircraft cannot be measured solely by the number of U-boats destroyed. An even better measure, but one which cannot easily be quantified, is the number of Allied ships saved due to the efforts of VLR aircraft.
Sure, but it has to start somewhere & best to lay the more solid data first, then wrestle the less tangible items.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#38

Post by phylo_roadking » 27 Nov 2014, 23:46

But the same would be true on fighter stations, and you have yet to explain why the maintenance of 16 heavy bombers did not require more ground staff than the maintenance of the same number of fighters. (If this is not your argument then please explain.)
No, my argument is that...
I never said otherwise. If there were 128 Merlins on a bomber station and 32 Merlins on a fighter station, each one would need oil changes, spark plug replacement, etc, after X number of hours. All other things being equal, the bomber station will need four times as many fitters.


...a bomber squadron does not need four times as many fitters, Just because the same number of airframes has four times the number of engines. Not if the engines are checked over/fully serviced when necessary one after the other instead of all at once.
Obviously I'm talking about the bombs. As evident in the well known photo I've attached, bombers carried a large variety of bombs, to say nothing of target indicators, flares and the like. Your comment that the bombers on a bomber station would not all undergo maintenance at the same time is true, but they all had to be bombed up at the same time prior to a "maximum effort" mission. It is therefore obvious that a lot more armourers were needed per heavy bomber than per fighter.
You're assuming of course that all the RAF grades arming a bomber I.E. loading ordnance, would ALL be armourers...as opposed to a couple of armourer grades and the rest ac2s or whatever helping bomb up "their" aircraft after they've carried out their OTHER duties...
The maintenance of the eight machine guns on a heavy bomber would probably require more labour than the maintenance of the same number of the same weapons on a fighter, because the bomber's weapons were mounted in power operated turrets, but the difference due to this would have been small.
In many case, due to restricted access, fighter MGs would have to have an increased number of maintenace and repair tasks such as stripdowns etc. carried out "off" the airframe. I'm not actually sure that armourers would service the turret mechanisms themselves, something worth finding out...but given the sheer number of powered turrets in the wartime RAF despite their relatively late arrival in the B-P Overstrand in the second half of the 1930s, I would hazard a guess that this was in fact part of the normal fitter's trade.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#39

Post by Rob Stuart » 28 Nov 2014, 02:11

phylo_roadking wrote:
But the same would be true on fighter stations, and you have yet to explain why the maintenance of 16 heavy bombers did not require more ground staff than the maintenance of the same number of fighters. (If this is not your argument then please explain.)
No, my argument is that...
I never said otherwise. If there were 128 Merlins on a bomber station and 32 Merlins on a fighter station, each one would need oil changes, spark plug replacement, etc, after X number of hours. All other things being equal, the bomber station will need four times as many fitters.


...a bomber squadron does not need four times as many fitters, Just because the same number of airframes has four times the number of engines. Not if the engines are checked over/fully serviced when necessary one after the other instead of all at once.

But fighter engines would likewise be checked over/fully serviced one after the other instead of all at once, so this is not a valid argument.

By the way, I notice that you're simply denying that the ratio would be 4:1. What, in your opinion, would the ratio have been?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#40

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 29 Nov 2014, 06:08

Has anyone arguing the ground crew question bothered to look up the actual strength of such units? Here is one example of a fighter squadron strength. Have not yet found anything similar for a heavy bomber unit


Squadron Headquarters.
Adjutant, 1 F/O.
Flying, 1 S/L.
Intelligence, 1 F/O.
Aircraft Hands (General Duties), 1 F/S, 2 Acs.
Clerks (General Duties), 1 Cpl, 1 Ac.
Total, 8 HQ.

Servicing Party.
Engineer (G), 1 F/O or P/O.
Aircraft Hands (Armament Assistants), 16 Acs.
Armourers, 1 Sgt.
Armourers (Guns), 2 Cpls, 12 Acs.
Clerks (General Duties), 1 Ac.
Clerks (Equipment Accounting), 1 Ac.
Electricians, one F/S, 2 Cpls, 1 Ac.
Equipment Assistants, 1 F/S, 1 Cpl, 2 Acs.
Fitters One, 1 F/S, 1 Sgt, 2 Cpls.
Fitters 2A, 10 Acs.
Fitters 2E, 10 Acs.
Fitters (Armourer), 1 F/S (Qualified instructor).
Fitters (Armourer Guns), 1 Cpl, 4 Acs.
Instrument Makers, 1 Cpl.
Instrument Repairers, 1 Ac.
Wireless Mechanics, 1 F/S, 2 Cpls.
Total, 77 Servicing Party.

Two Flights (including 4 spare pilots).
Flying, 2 F/L, 8 F/O or P/O.
Airman pilots, 10 Sgts.
Aircrafthands (Maintenance Assistants), 2 Cpls, 2 Acs.
Electricians 2, 4 Acs.
Fitters One, 2 F/S, 4 Sgts, 8 Cpls.
Flight Mechanics A, 16 Acs.
Flight Mechanics E, 16 Acs.
Instrument Repairers, 2 Acs.
Radio Telephony Operators, 4 Acs.
Labourers, 12 civilians.
Total 20 flying, 60 technical, 12 civilian labourers = 92.
Grand total (HQ, Servicing, Flights) = 177.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#41

Post by Rob Stuart » 30 Nov 2014, 12:57

Carl, a week or two ago I looked for squadron establishment but struck out, so thanks very much for posting this.

This establishment appears to be for a squadron with 16 aircraft, since there are 20 pilots (excluding the CO) and 4 are spare pilots. Could I ask you where you found this information? Also, do you know if it is an early war establishment?

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#42

Post by Rob Stuart » 30 Nov 2014, 13:05

Carl, did you get the establishment from David Duxbury's post of 7 March 2011 at http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showth ... (Fighters)? If so, then it's for a Buffalo squadron in the Far East in 1941.

Fatboy Coxy
Member
Posts: 872
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 17:14
Location: Essex, UK

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#43

Post by Fatboy Coxy » 30 Nov 2014, 23:03

NZ Squadron 488 had an establishment of 15 Officers and 140 men, when first sent to Malaya it had 12 Officers and 143 airmen

http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarl ... rF-c7.html

They took over the 21 Buffalos left by RAF Sqn 67, who transferred to Burma.
Regards
Fatboy Coxy

Currently writing https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/ ... if.521982/

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#44

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 01 Dec 2014, 01:16

Rob Stuart wrote:Carl, did you get the establishment from David Duxbury's post of 7 March 2011 at http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showth ... (Fighters)? If so, then it's for a Buffalo squadron in the Far East in 1941.
Yes. It is very close to a squadron establishment stationed in Egypt in 1942, shown to me from a magazine article. I am too lazy to transcribe that & for what you are trying to do the paste up from the web should do.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: What if the UK had produced no four-engined bombers?

#45

Post by Rob Stuart » 02 Dec 2014, 02:03

Carl, thanks for the confirmation.

I've now found a 1942 establishment for a Hurricane squadron in India. It is at http://www.rafcommands.com/reference/un ... -squadron/. It calls for the squadron to have 294 combatant and 51 non-combatant personnel. This establishment has about 130 more uniformed personnel than the one for the Buffalo squadron. The 1942 establishment is evidently predicated on the assumption that the unit might be operating from an airstrip with little or no "station" staff to support it. I'd point out that the administrative echelon has 73 people, including 36 gunners who were presumably manning the unit's AA guns. There is also a 14 man signal section and a 22 man MT section, neither of which was apparently required by the Buffalo squadron. This implies that fighter squadrons based at multi-squadron stations in the UK and elsewhere were supported by station personnel, i.e., that the economies of scale which phylo_roadking notes were possible at bomber stations were also a feature of fighter stations.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”