soc.history.war.world-war-ii

Don Phillipson wrote:

>
> > In Bomber Command the same situation
> > existed. The Stirlings couldn't fly as high
> > as the Halifaxes and Lancasters. The Halifaxes couldn't
> > fly as high as the Lancasters (and Manchesters IIRC).
> > The Stirlings were eventually sidelined for
> > raids into Germany, and eventually the early marks
> > of Halifaxes were stood down too.
>
> No, it's a bit more complicated than that.
> The Stirling was a prewar design, to prewar
> specifications that limited total wingspan

It was barely pre-war, but not entirely pre war standards. The RAF had
been using two engine bombers and the Stirling departed from that
standard by having four smaller engines. It had more power, paylaod and
range than any other bomber at the time. The wing design was a bit of a
problem because it reduced its ceiling, though it handled very well and
was extremely manouverable at lower altitude.


> (so the
> aircraft would fit into current hangars) and its
> bomb-bay (like that of the B-17) was so designed
> that it could not carry the larger-sized bombs
> produced from 1940 onwards:

Indeed, Later on the RAF started using the "cookie" bombs. They still
had their role to play. They were frequently used in the Pathfinder
squadrons. Those planes carried a mixed load of incendiary flares for
marking targets and explosives. My father was on a Stirling crew with
No, 7 Squadron.

> and its engines
> provided less speed and a lower operational altitude
> than later 4-engined designs. Stirlings were eventually
> reassigned as glider tugs etc.

They were also used for mine laying operations. Some were converted for
carrying paratroops too.


> By contrast the smaller
> but contemporary Wellington was deployed on offensive
> operations almost up to the end of the war: its performance
> was similar and its construction withstood battle damage better.

They were pretty tough. My father's plane was damaged by flak while
setting up to mark targets at Stettin in April 1943. They lost an engine
on the way in to the target area and aborted because the radar sighting
equipment was also damaged. They had trouble maintaining altitude so
they dropped their bombs on an airfield near Pennemunde. They were able
to regain altirude but were attacked by a night fighter over Denmark.
The fighter attack set the wings on fire and when the order came to bale
out, my father was the only one who was able to get out.


In reference to comments about the B-26 having the lowest losses, I
found a site that made the claim, but was unable to find anything about
the nature of the operations on which they were used that might explain
that. They seem not to have been used much in the skies over Europe
where heavy concentrations of flak batteries and fighter interception
accounted for high losses. However, several sites discussed the
problems with the B-26 that caused a lot of training accidents. It had a
very high stall speed that meant fast landings. It also had a problem
with the propeller pitch adjustment that led to sudden feathering, and
with the two large engines so far out on the wings it often caused
sudden loss of control at low altitude.