682alQuoting from that last source:-
In July 1943 the Fishpond modification of H2S was ready. A display screen was added, that indicated range and bearing of any aircraft below the bomber; an estimate of the relative height could be made by banking the bomber. But Bomber Command was large, and it took considerable time to install the new equipment. By the spring of 1944 most bombers carried Fishpond, and losses dropped sharply. However, there was considerable turmoil when it was discovered that German nightfighters carried the Naxos detector, that allowed them to determine the origin of H2S emissions. Only after the interrogation of prisoners made clear that Naxos was far too inaccurate to allow nightfighters to home in on an individual bomber, and at best gave an indication of the position of the bomber stream, was confidence in H2S and Fishpond restored.
So, according to the above, Fishpond was, to some degree at least, available at the very same time that S.M. was introduced by the Luftwaffe (July/August 1943)?
So did Fishpond a/c survive to tell a tale of nightfighters attacking from underneath, or was the stealthy, (almost) same speed approach of the night fighter mistaken for “one of ours” with fatal consequences?
And if (almost) the whole force was equipped by the spring of 1944, why were bombers still falling as such easy victims of S.M. in 1945 (“attacked without warning”), especially since “Only after the interrogation of prisoners made clear that Naxos was far too inaccurate to allow nightfighters to home in on an individual bomber, and at best gave an indication of the position of the bomber stream, was confidence in H2S and Fishpond restored.” and the crews were again permitted to operate the equipment while over enemy territory.
Hmmm, we’re still some way from a clear understanding (or at least, I am)!
682alGoing back to Schräge Musik for a moment (Don, did you “pull” your supplementary thread cos I can’t find it?), a number of questions have occurred to me as a result of reading posts in this thread, and from skimming thru parts of my library in search of definitive answers.
These are mostly to do with Bomber Command’s ignorance of Schräge Musik.
JDK has implied (and I’ve seen other comments supporting the idea) that Bomber Command was unaware of S.M. until the war’s end. Martin Middlebrook, whose books I rate highly, has stated that it took Bomber Command “many months” to realise what was going on – this suggests that S.M. was understood well before the war’s end, given that it started to be used in 1943.
I wonder what the truth is? None of my books is able to provide the answer. I find it hard to accept that no-one in Bomber Command could envisage something along the lines of upward firing guns, given that every heavy bomber in it’s inventory had just that capability with it’s turrets. And had everyone forgotten about one of the RAFs early answers to the shooting down of bombers at night – the Defiant, with guns capable of firing (almost) vertically?
Even if the exact installation details of S.M. eluded them, surely they could have considered the proposition that JU88s were being fitted with turrets capable of firing upwards?
And as the Germans were pushed back from Belgium, France and Holland, we must have discovered wrecked and abandoned night fighters by the score – surely there were some clues to be gleaned from these?
So, just exactly when did the penny drop and what was the response, is what I’d like to see from this discussion.
For example, we know that some Lancs and Halifaxes were fitted with under turrets. Even then, I’ve read one account from a crew member who flew in one of these Lancs and they got attacked, but survived. He describes a .5″ Browning on what he calls a “swivel mounting” in the H2S position of the Lanc. He says that the gun was set up to fire towards the rear, rather than directly underneath, and was therefore of no use when attacked. He says it was the Bomb-aimer who actually spotted the night fighter (and he was killed in the attack). This tallies with perspex blisters I’ve seen in the extreme nose of both Lancs and Halifaxes, from mid to late 1944, which look to be ideally placed for the Bomb-aimer to keep an eye out below the aircraft. Were these another measure against attack from below?
And what of Fishpond? Was this considered to be the ideal protection from an unseen attack from below? Does anyone know when it was introduced into service, and how comprehensively was it installed? Did it suffer from a blind spot under the aircraft or was it capable of detecting the presence of another aircraft directly beneath? And was it fatally flawed because it worked in conjunction with H2S, which was itself one of the greatest aids to a Luftwaffe night fighter trying to locate a bomber?
There are just so many questions in my mind. I wish I was closer to Kew, where I guess the answers are. I’d never be out of the bloody place!
682alAlan,
That was the HP56. The HP57 (the Halifax thus) was originally designed with Hercules engines in mind but as the Stirling had these too it was feared that there might be a shortage. The design work on the nacelles had been completed already when the Air Ministry ordered Merlins to be fitted, The design was not very well suited for the Merlins and as a result causing a lot of drag (which Harry Fraser Mitchell confirmed to me as well).
Sorry, get on with the Lancaster
Cheers
Cees
That’s fascinating, Cees, and I’ve never heard it before.
The Handley-Page cynic in me might almost think it was their way of accounting for all those (awful) Merlin engined Halifaxes.
“See Mr Air Ministry man, if only you’d let us put the Hercules on it, like we always wanted to….”
:diablo:
682al(fuselage side windows excepted ).
Granted, Ed!
I must admit I was surprised by the number of Lancasters which came off the line with the fuselage side windows.
I think a partial explanation may be that most published photos of Lancs are those from the later contracts when the windows had been deleted, thus creating the impression that only the first few had them.
I was well on with a spreadsheet on this very subject around the time when you and I were discussing the Lanc in detail – I must dig it out and spend a bit more time on it.
I must also update my database on “known” Lancasters in published photos. It’s what started off my contribution to this thread, being able to locate photos for Don.
682alAl – this wouldn’t be true if “Fishpond” was fitted in conjunction with the H2S…!
True Ed, provided it was a) fitted, b) switched on (remember the “Silence Policy”) and c) serviceable!
I could also add d) the operator was alert. Not wishing any disrespect to the memory of bomber crews, but I do sometimes ponder how easy it might have been for individual crew members to “nod off” at their station, and how disastrous the consequences might have been.
682alI would have thought that the vast majority of night time shootdowns by Luftwaffe nightfighters against RAF Bombers fall into the category of “without any warning”, whether from the rear, underneath or any other direction?
From my reading of witness accounts, a night fighter spotted before the attack opened could often be lost, or dissuaded from pursuing it’s attack, by appropriate evasive action.
PD393 would have had H2S fitted, making the detection of a night fighter attack from beneath all the harder to detect. Perhaps in this instance, the aircraft wasn’t weaving as vigorously as it might have been (and thus denying the gunners an opportunity to scan the airspace below), or the gunners were simply searching elsewhere when the enemy made his approach?
682alApart from that the Lanc was designed with underslung nacelles whereas the Halifax was designed origninally for radials which suited the Hercules extremely well.
??? News to me, Cees. I always thought the Halifax was designed with Vultures in mind, like the Manchester, but was switched to Merlins when the difficulties with the former were being realised. :confused:
682alInteresting. Is there any evidence that a) the FN64 made any difference (given that it was a difficult turret to use) rather than us, with hindsight, thinking it ought to have made a difference? and b) did the RAF realise about “Shräge Musik” before the war’s end? I thought that the cause of those losses was never realised.
No evidence that I’ve seen to date. The response to “Shräge Musik” attacks, seems to have been from local initiative at Squadron level, given, as you say, that it’s widespread use seems not to have been picked up by Bomber Command for many months.
It seems from anecdotal evidence that it was realised within 6 Group that attacks were increasingly coming from underneath. It is said that “official” policy at the time was for the under turrets to be removed (saving the weight of turret, ammo, gunner etc), but the Canadians decided to retain them. At best, the turret allowed a view of the sky underneath the bomber and I guess the response to the sighting of a night fighter would have been violent evasive action, rather than use of it’s guns.
Martin Middlebrook talks about this in his book The Nuremburg Raid.
In addition, some 3 Group Squadrons appear to have (re-)installed the ventral turrets in their Merlin Lancasters during 1944, but this was only possible when the aircraft weren’t fitted with H2S.
Am I right in thinking that the B.II didn’t have the same altitude or speed performance but was a bit more frugle on the fuel.
Can’t recall off hand about speed or consumption, but the B.II seems to have topped out at around 18,500′ compared with 20,000’+ for the Merlin versions.
682alDon,
I used this book for reference:-
Claims to Fame: The Lancaster
Author: Norman Franks
Format: Hardcover
Publication Date: March 1995
Publisher: Arms & Armour
Dimensions:9.5″H x 6.5″W x 1″D; 1.4 lbs.
ISBN-10: 1854092200
ISBN-13: 9781854092205
I’m sure that new and used copies will abound on the net, but should you run into difficulties, I will help with scans.
All the last few Lancasters of that particular batch seem to have gone to 617 Sqn, probably as replacements for those lost on the Dams Raid.
I’m no 617 expert, but I think their next major operations involved the 8,000 lb blast bomb, in which case they will have required modified aircraft with the bulged bomb doors. Perhaps that’s why EE147 came to be passed on to 619 Sqn (just a guess, though).
Fedaykin,
Regarding the B.II Lancasters, I could write a book. Or at least, I could if I was able to undertake enough research, ‘cos they get quite confusing as well!
Some, but not all, Lancaster II’s had the bulged bomb doors for 8,000 lb bombs. A lot of those that did, had the original FN64 under turret intended for all Lancs at one time. These (turrets) seem to have been in service far longer than those on Merlin engined Lancasters, and were probably appreciated when the “Shräge Musik” attacks started. Most of the B. IIs with standard bomb doors seem to have had the FN64 deleted, although my memory is telling me I’ve seen a few photos showing them in service.
The B.IIs were replaced in 3 Group by Merlin Lancasters and in 6 Group by the Halifax III with Hercules engines.
As far as I know, no B.II was ever re-engined with Merlins. Perhaps the airframes were considered to be too goosed to make it worthwhile?
682alHuzzah!
(Watching too many Deadwood repeats)
682alOoo-err, a minefield in my humble opinion.
I could point you to a photo of EE146, which served on 617 Sqn., in Lancaster – Story of a Famous Bomber, by B. Robertson.
However, the photo is of it’s crew lined up at the rear of the aircraft and it does not show much detail of the actual aeroplane.
Even if it did, I doubt it would give you many clues as to what EE147 looked like while serving on 619 Sqn, because at the time the photo of ‘146 was taken, it had probably been modified to drop Tallboy bombs.
A more reliable guide may be had in photos of EE139 “Phantom Of The Ruhr”, (shortly to be PA474’s next paint scheme I understand).
This aircraft came off the line at about the same time as EE147 and was also a B.III.
Photos show it to have had the early pitot head position in the nose, the larger bomb-aimer’s blister to accommodate a Mk. XIV bombsight, needle blade propellors and a full set of fuselage side windows (which were deleted on the production lines at some point), normal (not bulged) bomb doors, FN50 (not 150) turret and Fn20 (not 120) rear turret.
However, and picking up Cees’ point regarding side blisters on the canopy, the photos of EE139 that I have seen suggest she did not have them (at least at the time when she was being regularly photographed as a 100 op veteran. However, another 100 op Lanc was EE136, and this did have the blisters, even when a veteran airframe.
My guess is that they all probably came off the line with the blisters, but some airframes may have had these panels replaced during overhaul, or repair etc. It’s also worth pointing out that this batch of Lancs probably all had the earlier, and shallower blister at the rear of the main canopy.
I’m not a modeller and cannot therefore recommend the best model to represent your uncle’s Lanc. Perhaps someone else can give advice on that?
Regards!
682alOn a related note, I’m saddened to hear that John Barton passed away a few days ago.
He was one of the stalwarts of the RAF Bomber Command NZ Association and I was just one of the many people he must have contacted in his efforts to track down missing parts for NX664.
No doubt others on the board will have come to know him through his long distance phone calls too.
I’m sure MOTAT’s site would have borne a suitable note about his passing had it not been wrecked. 😡
R.I.P. John, a great bloke.
682alHope they use CGI to re-create Harry Andrews, Percy Herbert and Dickie Attenborough, etc.
“I’m finished Cap’n, just prop me up over there with me Vickers gun, a wireless and a bit of camo netting and I’ll keep the bleeders at bay ’til you lot gets back to camp….”
682alIn the meantime I am pleased to say that the Whitwick Aeromart will still be running this year & the projected (although as yet unconfirmed) date is Saturday April 21st.
That makes two bits of good news today. Well done Dave, looking forward to it already.
I also received my invite to the Popham Aero/autojumble on Monday, May 7th. Again, maybe stall holders and customers with Shoreham withdrawal will be tempted out of bed on this Bank Holiday for what is usually a splendid combined event – aerojumble, autojumble, classic vehicle rally, fly-in, daft clown on stilts, etc etc.
682alThe tyres are Shack tyres.
Perhaps the R.C.A.F. used them when the supply of Lancaster “slicks” dried up over there? There are certainly lots of photos of Canadian Lancs with “knobbly” tyres.
Sign In
