Short Sunderland

until you take into account its operational altitude, counted in feet, then you realise how all the armament could be trained on anything having to make a shallow dive attack on it.
Would the same low level operation technique have worked for the B17or B24’s of the USAAF and the heavies of Bomber Command. Flack and terraine would obviously have been an increased problems but attack from below by enemy fighters would have been prevented.

Richard

It was I believe a standard practice for bombers and maritime patrol aircraft to dive to a minimum altitude over the water if under threat. I have talked with people who flew in RNZAF Hudsons who survived attackes from multiple Zeros by getting down to sea level and using the turret to fight them off. One Hudson could cope well enough – the pilot would be putting the aircraft through the gate to get as far away from the Jap base as possible too so the fighters ran out of range – but they reckoned if there were two Hudsons the odds were far better for survival as both turrets trained on the diving aircraft were leathal. The Venturas that succeeded them were even better, a famous incident where two were attacked by many fighters saw three Zeros destroyed, two damaged and no loss to the PV-1’s.

I have interviewed a chap who flew B-26 Marauders in the RAF. His role was to fly around Axis ports each day counting ships and checking movements. When the German fighters scrambled, he’d floor it out to sea. These B-26’s were lightened, and many crew memebrs removed and had long range tanks fitted. He’d bring it down till the rear gunner could see the vortices on the water from the props, and he said that was 15 feet. He’d then slowly drop height till the vortices merged, and the rear gunner yelled that this had happened. At this point the bottoms of the prop arcs were six feet off the water. He locked it all off and sat at this height till the attack was over. He reckoned the B-26 was remarkably stable and reliable, and you could never have done tis with a Wellington or other British types he’d flown, as they drifted and you had to continually figh them. Anyway he flew like this with the gunner fighting off attackers till the fighters ran out of range and turned for home. Oftn whenthe fighter turned, so did he, and he followed it back in so he could finish his reconnaissance. He said at six feet off the water htere was nothing that could get a clear shot at him and generally they were never hit by a single round. I thnk on one occasion they were hit further up at higher altitude.

They all have numbers starting 64, the part number shown is on a sort of winder. I have shown these parts to dozens of people and no one has been able to ID then yet. It was suggested they were Sunderland but this seems unlikely.
I never considered that the Sunderland would spend most of its time at low level, this would have to I guess make it much tougher to shoot down. Its not particularly heavily armed but certainly seems a tough bird.

Graham
I didnt see the programme but have read the accounts of how prickly a Sunderland could be. For a long time it seemed to me implausible that an aircraft that looked so cumbersome could look after itself so well, until you take into account its operational altitude, counted in feet, then you realise how all the armament could be trained on anything having to make a shallow dive attack on it.
Would the same low level operation technique have worked for the B17or B24’s of the USAAF and the heavies of Bomber Command. Flack and terraine would obviously have been an increased problems but attack from below by enemy fighters would have been prevented.

Richard

Not sure. All the parts I’ve seen usually have S25 stamped clearly at the start of the number. Unless, of course, they are engine related in which case expect to see the codes for Bristols. Can you find S25 on any of the bits?

AllanK