Building a new airfield
-
- Member
- Posts: 872
- Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 17:14
- Location: Essex, UK
Building a new airfield
Hi All
In the past I've read of airbases being built in the UK, around 1940-43 as taking anything up to a year to complete, but when I read of air warfare in the South-East Asia or the Pacific, it seems airfields were constructed a lot quicker. I get that by 1943, the SeeBee's, who were well equipped with mechanised machinery, and the Marston Map, could be quick, and maybe weather and terrain were an advantage for them. However, earlier, both the British and Japanese seemed to be able to knock out an airfield in a couple of months, admittedly grass, but this still seems quite impressive. And again in the Guadalcanal campaign, airfields seem to come on line pretty quick too. Now the fighters could operate of grass, but how well did the twin engine bombers operated off it, and the heavy American bombers, Fortresses and Liberators, surely must have operated off concreate?
And the second part to that is, its not just a runway, but maintenance sheds, dispersal areas, pens and just general accommodation for everyone had to be provided too. The servicing of engines, repair of airframes, the storage of fuel and ammo, food, water, and general supplies all took organising and maintaining. Is there a difference in time builds?
In the past I've read of airbases being built in the UK, around 1940-43 as taking anything up to a year to complete, but when I read of air warfare in the South-East Asia or the Pacific, it seems airfields were constructed a lot quicker. I get that by 1943, the SeeBee's, who were well equipped with mechanised machinery, and the Marston Map, could be quick, and maybe weather and terrain were an advantage for them. However, earlier, both the British and Japanese seemed to be able to knock out an airfield in a couple of months, admittedly grass, but this still seems quite impressive. And again in the Guadalcanal campaign, airfields seem to come on line pretty quick too. Now the fighters could operate of grass, but how well did the twin engine bombers operated off it, and the heavy American bombers, Fortresses and Liberators, surely must have operated off concreate?
And the second part to that is, its not just a runway, but maintenance sheds, dispersal areas, pens and just general accommodation for everyone had to be provided too. The servicing of engines, repair of airframes, the storage of fuel and ammo, food, water, and general supplies all took organising and maintaining. Is there a difference in time builds?
Re: Building a new airfield
At Guadacanal the Japanese benefited from starting off with a relatively flat and clear field from which to carve out an airstrip, but it was not quite "on line" when the Marines landed on August 7th. It would take them a further 10 days before the field was ready for the 1st Marine air wing.Fatboy Coxy wrote: ↑01 Aug 2019, 23:22And again in the Guadalcanal campaign, airfields seem to come on line pretty quick too.
B-17s used Henderson field when it was covered with airfield matting. What restricted their use was not the condition of the runways and taxiways so much as was the limited bomb handling and refueling capabilities. Of course, the almost nightly lobbing of 14", 8" and 6" HE shells from the IJN certainly contributed to their limited deployment.Now the fighters could operate of grass, but how well did the twin engine bombers operated off it, and the heavy American bombers, Fortresses and Liberators, surely must have operated off concreate?
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb
~Babylonian Proverb
Re: Building a new airfield
From 1943 to the end of the war, the Russians built thousands of "operational airfields" (Feldflugplatz in German, field airstrips in Allied terminology). These consisted of a rolled 1000 x 80 meter runway, taxiways, 20 to 30 blast bays for parking aircraft, a few prefabricated sheds and bunkers. All of this was accomplished in 1 to 5 days, depending on the weather and the amount of equipment that could be brought to bare. The tenant units provided their own accommodations, i.e., tents.
fwiw,
L.
fwiw,
L.
Re: Building a new airfield
It mostly depends on what the strip would be used for.
Bomber bases in Britain required concrete 6-8 inches thick. Grass fighter bases could be constructed in considerably less time.
Bomber bases in Britain required concrete 6-8 inches thick. Grass fighter bases could be constructed in considerably less time.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10055
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Building a new airfield
Corsica was occupied by the Allies in November 1943. In January 1944, aprox 60 days later a bit over 1000 Allied bombers and fighters were operating off the former Axis and new Allied air fields.
Re: Building a new airfield
Another point in favor of a Sicily /Sardinia /Corsica line of advanceCarl Schwamberger wrote: ↑10 Aug 2019, 09:21Corsica was occupied by the Allies in November 1943. In January 1944, aprox 60 days later a bit over 1000 Allied bombers and fighters were operating off the former Axis and new Allied air fields.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb
~Babylonian Proverb
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10055
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Building a new airfield
Unlike the southern Italian airfield Cosrsica placed France & Austria in range of the Allied medium bombers. Supplementing the heavy bomber wings and adding to the weight targeting the interdiction and industrial targets in those regions.Kingfish wrote: ↑11 Aug 2019, 13:37Another point in favor of a Sicily /Sardinia /Corsica line of advanceCarl Schwamberger wrote: ↑10 Aug 2019, 09:21Corsica was occupied by the Allies in November 1943. In January 1944, aprox 60 days later a bit over 1000 Allied bombers and fighters were operating off the former Axis and new Allied air fields.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: Building a new airfield
Not just USN Seabees, the USAAF had 51 battalions of Engineer Aviation Battalions that could even be glider landed with Mini DozersFatboy Coxy wrote: ↑01 Aug 2019, 23:22Hi All
In the past I've read of airbases being built in the UK, around 1940-43 as taking anything up to a year to complete, but when I read of air warfare in the South-East Asia or the Pacific, it seems airfields were constructed a lot quicker. I get that by 1943, the SeeBee's, who were well equipped with mechanised machinery, and the Marston Map, could be quick, and maybe weather and terrain were an advantage for them. However, earlier, both the British and Japanese seemed to be able to knock out an airfield in a couple of months, admittedly grass, but this still seems quite impressive. And again in the Guadalcanal campaign, airfields seem to come on line pretty quick too. Now the fighters could operate of grass, but how well did the twin engine bombers operated off it, and the heavy American bombers, Fortresses and Liberators, surely must have operated off concreate?
And the second part to that is, its not just a runway, but maintenance sheds, dispersal areas, pens and just general accommodation for everyone had to be provided too. The servicing of engines, repair of airframes, the storage of fuel and ammo, food, water, and general supplies all took organising and maintaining. Is there a difference in time builds?
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit ... e-tractor/
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
-
- Member
- Posts: 872
- Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 17:14
- Location: Essex, UK
Re: Building a new airfield
Thanks guys
LineDoggie, your link was interesting, Broadway, a 5000ft landing strip built in 24 hours!
I guess I'd have to differentiate between light and heavy aircraft, the heavy ones needing steel matting at the very least, or concrete, while single engined aircraft could manage on grass. And also on whether they were temporary landing strips, or permanent air stations.
LineDoggie, your link was interesting, Broadway, a 5000ft landing strip built in 24 hours!
I guess I'd have to differentiate between light and heavy aircraft, the heavy ones needing steel matting at the very least, or concrete, while single engined aircraft could manage on grass. And also on whether they were temporary landing strips, or permanent air stations.
-
- Member
- Posts: 872
- Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 17:14
- Location: Essex, UK
Re: Building a new airfield
Pre-war and early war, the cheaper runway would be the grass one, and I assume the quickest, however having cleared and levelled the ground, provided drainage etc, we have to provide the grass. Did they sow seed, or turf it, and how soon before doing this could it take the heavy traffic of aircraft landings?
Regards
Fatboy Coxy
Regards
Fatboy Coxy
Re: Building a new airfield
There is some information here on building airstrips in Europe - Page 17 +.
https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/ ... nal-51.pdf
There is plenty of film on youtube showing their construction in all theatres - search "Building Airfields WW2". The equipment and techniques seem to have been universal.
https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/ ... nal-51.pdf
There is plenty of film on youtube showing their construction in all theatres - search "Building Airfields WW2". The equipment and techniques seem to have been universal.