Tag:

military

The B-52 ‘Flak-Bait II,’ the U.S. warplane that flew the most combat missions in WWII

by Till Daisd December 9, 2022

Flak-Bait II now shares a name with the first bomber and its history

A Martin B-26 Marauder by the name of Flak-Bait had completed 207 missions by the time World War II came to a close in 1945, more than any other American aircraft. However, as Master Sgt. Ted Daigle, 307th Bomb Wing, in the article Spirit of B-26 Marauder lives on at Barksdale AFB, its achievement was lost to history until three Barksdale Air Force Base crew chiefs named a B-52 Stratofortress after the record-setting B-26.

During the war, Flak-Bait lived up to its name. It received hits on almost every mission, and German 88mm guns twice destroyed its electrical system and once took out its hydraulics. It only used one engine to return home on two additional sorties. By the conclusion of the war, the aircraft had taken more than 1,000 hits. There was not a single panel on it that was unharmed.

Meet B-52 ‘Flak-Bait II,' the BUFF named after the B-26 ‘Flak-Bait,’ the U.S. warplane that flew the most combat missions in World War II — Flak-Bait II, a B-52 Stratofortress assigned to the 307th Bomb Wing, sits on the flight line at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, May 22, 2020. The jet’s crew chief recently renamed it in honor of a B-26 Marauder that flew more combat missions than any other U.S. aircraft in World War II. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Ted Daigle)

It was disassembled after the war and transported in crates to the storage site in Washington, D.C., for the National Air and Space Museum. It was kept in storage for many years, and the current generation of bomber aircrew had mostly forgotten about its name and past.

That is until 11th Aircraft Maintenance Unit crew chief Senior Airman Joshua Rich came upon the name. Rich was in command of a newly painted B-52 and was looking for a new name for it with the assistance of his two crew chiefs from the 307th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Staff Sergeant William Etheridge, and Tech Sergeant Patrick Deslauriers.

Rich accidentally proposed the moniker Flak-Bait when they first started naming things because he was unaware of the B-26 and its past. Rich was unable to explain how he came up with the name.

“It was something that was just in my head,” he explained. “I was a big airplane buff as a kid, so maybe it was something I read about in my childhood.”

The crew chief learned about the bomber’s past thanks to an internet search for the name and they became hooked. The Airmen chose to recreate the original plane’s nose painting and give the B-52 the designation Flak-Bait II. None of them had ever renamed a jet, therefore the steps to do it were quite unusual.

The crew chiefs made the choice to get in touch with the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum to find out if they required authorization to use the name. They didn’t and the museum curator was enthusiastic about the concept. Officials from the Smithsonian Institution advised Etheridge to contact Roberta Dow-Faulkenberry, the B-26 Marauder Historical Society’s secretary, for assistance in duplicating Flak-nose Bait’s decoration.

Since 1980, Dow-Faulkenberry has researched the history of Flak-Bait. She estimates that she has spent several hundred hours researching the bomber. When Etheridge contacted her, she was delighted to assist.

“It’s amazing that we are actually bringing our first-generation aircrew back into the light,” she said. “There aren’t very many of them left.”

The original Flak-Bait has been preserved for a few years now at the Mary Baker Engen Restoration Hangar at the Udvar-Hazy Center of the National Air and Space Museum in Chantilly, Virginia. It was proposed to display Flak-Bait and Flak-Bait II together, but the B-52 was too big to maneuver the center’s flight line. However, Flak-Bait II now shares a name with the first bomber and its history.

December 9, 2022 0 comment

History

Japanese Zero-sen naval aviators used the outmoded V formation against allied fighters

by Till Daisd December 8, 2022

written by Till Daisd

An Allied fighter pilot who managed to get an A6M in his gunsight would typically find himself quickly targeted by the remaining two members of the shotai.

Imperial Japanese Naval Air Force (IJNAF) A6M Zero-sens employed the three-aircraft shotai (tactical formation) during World War II in the Pacific, which was organized in an echeloned V formation as depicted in the following image.

How Japanese Zero-sen naval aviators turned the obsolete V formation into a formidable tactics in dealing with allied fighters during the early stages of the Pacific War

Although the three-aircraft shotai was an antiquated formation by European standards, the Japanese naval aviators made it highly functional by virtue of their exceptional teamwork and keen situational awareness, as explained by Peter Ingman in his book P-40E Warhawk Vs A6M2 Zero-sen East Indies and Darwin 1942. Typically flying without communications, pilots were very aware of the positions and combat circumstances of the other two shotai members.

When combined with the exceptional maneuverability of the Zero-sen, these tactics proved formidable for any adversary during the early stages of the Pacific War. The brief engagement between IJNAF A6M2 Zero-sen and USAAF P-40E Warhawks on February 20, 1942, demonstrated how fast the remaining two shotai would attack an Allied fighter pilot who was able to get an A6M in his gunsight.

Japanese troops had landed on Bali and Timor on that day, cutting off the air route between Darwin and Java and isolating the latter. IJN vessels off Bali supporting the invasion were a great target for American aircraft flying over Java, so seven A-24 Banshee dive-bombers from the 91st BS launched with a powerful escort of 16 P-40Es from the 17th PS (Prov).

When the formation was approaching the target at 14,000 feet and just as the final three A-24 pilots started to push over in their dives, Zero-sens of the 3rd Kokutai bounced it from above. Although none of the A-24s were shot down by the Zero-sens in the ensuing battle, four P-40E aircraft were lost (and a fifth was so badly shot up that it crashed back at Ngoro), and Capt. Charles Sprague, the CO of the 17th PS (Prov), was killed.

In contrast, US fighter pilots employed four-aircraft flights of two pairs during the early Pacific War (as shown in the image below).

The group’s original strategy was to climb as quickly as they could in the direction of the bombers. However, it was discovered that using “dive and zoom” strategies gave the heavier US fighters a noticeable speed advantage against the lightweight Zero-sens when diving. These updated strategies, when executed properly, effectively countered the Zero-sens sen’s agility.

P-40E Warhawk Vs A6M2 Zero-sen East Indies and Darwin 1942 is published by Osprey Publishing and is available to order here.

Photo by Osprey Publishing and Kogo via Wikipedia

December 8, 2022 0 comment

History

A monument for the F-14 fighter used by the US Navy and the 68 Naval Aviators who perished

by Till Daisd December 7, 2022

written by Till Daisd

The memorial will honor the renowned Grumman fighter plane in addition to the people who manufactured and maintained the aircraft flew it and gave their lives doing so

A monument honoring the F-14 Tomcat fighter plane will be erected on Virginia Beach’s oceanfront, according to The Virginian-Pilot on May 25, 2020. The memorial will honor the renowned Grumman fighter plane in addition to the people who manufactured and maintained the aircraft, flew it and gave their lives doing so.

A granite obelisk with four sides will serve as the memorial. A variety of pictures of the aircraft in use will be shown on panels along with information on how it was used and who maintained it. In actuality, a panel will remember the 68 pilots who lost their lives.

The F-14 Tomcat operated as an advanced interceptor and air superiority fighter, capable of striking six enemy aircraft simultaneously at a range of over 100 miles with the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. It is arguably the most well-known US Navy fighter because of its starring role in Top Gun.

A fleet defense fighter that could engage high-altitude bombers from well beyond visual range was necessary because Soviet long-range patrol and bomber aircraft during the Cold War had advanced. The famous F-14 Tomcat, according to the National Naval Aviation Museum, was Grumman’s response. With this hefty load, an interceptor’s fast speed was required, therefore Grumman created the F-14’s very effective variable-sweep wing, which allows it to fly at a variety of airspeeds.

The Navy’s search for an advanced carrier-based air superiority fighter led to the evaluation of General Dynamics’ F-111B, an aircraft that would promote the Department of Defense’s aim of commonality with the Air Force and its F-111A. When the F-111B was found to be too heavy for carrier operations after being upgraded to fulfill Navy mission requirements, the contract was terminated in April 1968. The Navy then launched a new design competition for what was known as the VFX program, with McDonnell Douglas and Grumman serving as its two main rivals.

Grumman’s Model 303 suggested a variable-geometry, two-seat, twin-engined design centered on the Hughes AWG-9 weapons system while McDonnell Douglas studied a navalized version of the F-15. Grumman’s earlier XF10F Jaguar, which had only been constructed as a prototype, had given it significant experience with “swing-wing” technology. The selection of Pratt & Whitney TF-30 turbofans, which are comparable to those used in the F-111, was required by the necessity for quick development and fielding of the aircraft.

The new “Tomcat,” which continued Grumman’s practice of naming its aircraft after felines, took to the skies for the first time in December 1970. The first F-14As were delivered to the Navy in June 1972 after going through a number of modifications during flight testing, with Fighter Squadron (VF) 124 being assigned the responsibility of crew training. VF-1 and VF-2 were the first operational squadrons to receive the new aircraft on the West Coast, while VF-14 and VF-32 were the first squadrons assigned to the Atlantic fleet on the East Coast. The Marine Corps was getting ready to launch VMFA-122 at NAS Miramar in 1974 when it was decided to stick with modified variants of the trusty F-4J Phantom II.

In August 1981, two Libyan Su-22 planes were shot down by an F-14 over the Gulf of Sidra. It saw considerable duty in the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In 2006, the final F-14s were taken out of service.

Photo by U.S. Navy

December 7, 2022 0 comment

Military

What we know about the B-21 Raider Stealthy

by Till Daisd December 7, 2022

written by Till Daisd

The B-21 Raider, the world’s newest stealth heavy bomber, was eventually made public by Northrup. The B-21 builds upon the success of its illustrious predecessor, the B-2 Spirit, which was also created by Northrup, and is named in honor of Jimmy Doo Little’s B-25 raiders, which memorably struck Imperial Japan shortly after the events of Pearl Harbor during World War II.

The B-21’s technology is thought to be at least two generations superior to the B-2’s, which is astounding given that the B-2 is still one of the world’s most stealthy platforms despite having been in use for more than two decades. Northrop Grumman was given the engineering contract for the B-21 by the USAF in 2015, and the critical design assessment was finished in 2018.

On December 2, 2022, the B-21 Raider was introduced to the public. Compared to the B-2, the B-21 is smaller and can carry less cargo. At first glance, the payload of the B-21 appears to be a disadvantage, but when you consider that the B-21 will be more stealthy given its advanced design and materials, this should allow it to penetrate deeper into contested airspace and hit targets with even greater precision as compared to today’s bombers. The payload of the B-21 is currently estimated to be above 30,000 pounds.

The Air Force is also budgeting for 100 B-21s, which is five times as many as B-2s now in service. By having more B-21s, the Air Force will be able to deploy them internationally and put them within two hours of any target. The B-21 Raider will actually be a part of a larger family of systems for a conventional long-range strike, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance or ISR electronic attack, communication, and other capabilities. The Raider is also designed to accommodate manned or unmanned operations, making it an extremely effective deterrent.

The B-21 is referred to as dual-capable when it comes to weaponry, which means it can use either conventional or nuclear munitions. The B61 variable yield nuclear fuel could be a potential payload. Gravity Bomb, Directed Energy Weapons or lasers could be used by future weapon systems, such as the B-21, as well as long-range standoff nuclear cruise missiles, long-range anti-ship missiles, conventional free-fall bombs, and laser-guided bombs to hit or disable targets. Additionally, it is said that the Raider has the same engines as the F-35.

If you want to learn more about adaptive engines, you can read about the now-in-use Pratt & Whitney F-135 series engines or the under-development adaptive cycle engines like GE’s XA-100 that are also intended to be used in the F-35. The B-21 and F-35 will benefit from lower costs and higher mission-capable rates because of the employment of similar engines. The B-21 might also be used as a mothership for swarms of tradable drones of varying sizes, either as a fighter screen for the bomber or as a networked hub for strike aircraft. Radar on the B-21 would enable this prospective application.

A stealth bomber was only revealed to the general public twice in history. Some of you may recall the first occasion of this kind, which took place in November 1988 when the B-2 Spirit was revealed to the public. The YB-35 and YB-49 piston engine flying wing concepts from Northrop were far earlier than the B-2, which is without a doubt the company’s most popular flying wing design. These two concepts were developed in the 1940s, long before the idea of stealth aircraft was even conceived.

Reduced Parasitic Drag weight from non-lift-generating components, such as vertical tail surfaces, was the driving force behind the development of flying wings. Theoretically, a flying wing might transport larger cargoes further, faster, and for less cost than current designs. Despite never being put into production, it was discovered during flight tests that these early flying-wing bombers had a modest radar cross-section. This would affect the stealth qualities of the two in a few decades; more on that later. Although it’s difficult to understand now, the B-2’s introduction in 1988 effectively marked the world’s first glimpse of a stealth aircraft.

Even though the F-117 Nighthawk had been in use for a while, the public didn’t really start to notice it until the Gulf War in 1991. However, the B-2’s effect was felt practically immediately.

Actually, the airframe design and materials are the two essential elements that enable America to restore its competitive edge in stealth farming technology. Similar to its predecessor, the B-21 will have flying wings. But we need to quickly review the history of stealth technology, which strangely started in Russia, in order to comprehend why a flying wing is so effective for stealth. Petr Ufimtsev, a Soviet mathematician, wrote a paper titled “Method of edge waves in the physical theory of diffraction” in 1971.

The paper was mostly overlooked in Soviet Russia, but Wright-Patterson Air Force Base’s international technology branch translated it the same year it was published. Dennis Overholser, an engineer at Lockheed Skunk Works.

The F-117 Nighthawk, also known as the Hopeless Diamond, was created as a direct result of a mathematical calculation created by Dennis Overholser, a Lockheed Skunk Works engineer, that used the theories from the paper to compute the radar cross-section or RCS of a three-dimensional object. The F-117’s numerous jagged angles and surfaces for radar deflection or diversion were a direct result of the limited computational capability at the time as well as the essential aerodynamic design trade-offs.

It’s interesting to note that Northrop competed in the project to create the Nighthawk, a stealth aircraft, but lost to Lockheed. However, Northrop kept working on the Cell technology and created the B-2 Spirit using the knowledge gained from the fighter competition and the ever-increasing computational capacity of computers. The B-2 is more streamlined and curved than the Nighthawk in part because of this; the idea is the same, it’s just that the B-2 has a lot greater resolution. This is analogous to how early digital photographs appeared pixelated or blocky, but now ultra-high quality images look realistic. Each picture has square pixels. The more recent photos simply create the image by assembling millions of much smaller blocks.

As previously established, the B-2 is still among the most stealthy aircraft in use today. In fact, even though they are smaller and more recent designs than the B-2, the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning are not as difficult to spot as the B-2. This is especially true for fighter aircraft, which, unlike bombers, are required to be able to execute daring maneuvers if close-range combat, often known as dogfighting, occurs. The twin vertical tails used by the F-22 and F-35 enable extreme maneuvering but reduce their RCS (Radar Cross-Section). Despite efforts by the designers of the Lightning and Raptor to lessen this design penalty, the vertical tails nonetheless reduce RCS on both aircraft.

Because of this, the majority of sixth-generation ideas include a tailless or flying wing configuration. With exceptionally advanced flight control systems, it is believed that a vertical tail is not necessary, even for a highly agile fighter. To return to the bombers, the B-21 builds on the knowledge gained from the B-2 in this regard. Just consider the developments in computing technology since 1988; the Raider is probably the most stealthy aircraft on the market today, despite having an appearance that is identical to the Flying Wing design.

A benefit of the B-21 will include next-generation radar-absorbing materials or Ram code structures in addition to the Raider’s shape. According to reports, modern Ram Coatings are rated to absorb between 70 and 80 percent of incoming radar radiation.

These coatings, however, are very pricey, difficult to apply, and vulnerable to harm from the elements or even routine flight operations. Ram Coatings have largely been the subject of ongoing research to increase their cost-effectiveness and durability due to these limitations. The alternate high-frequency material, or AHFM, which has been used on the B-2 bomber fleet since around 2004, is one example of a more recent Ram coating.

This more recent material provided the same performance while costing less to maintain. The redesigned B-21 design has adopted recent advancements made to the coatings and coding systems. According to estimates, today’s more modern coatings might absorb up to 90% of focused energy while costing less, taking much less time to install, and being easier to maintain. The improved airframe design and these more recent coatings make it obvious that the B-21 will have a very small radar signature.

Amazingly, the B-21 debuted at the same Palmdale site where the B-2 did back in 1988. It may only come along once in a lifetime to have the chance to see aviation history being made. At a time when geopolitical unpredictability is reigniting the world, the introduction of the Raider will help America preserve its competitive edge because of the B-21’s enhanced health characteristics and large fleet size. A global fleet of stealth bombers capable of launching an undetected attack on any target within two hours is essentially an incredibly potent deterrent. Like the B-2 before it, it appears that the B-21 will once more usher in a new era of strategic deterrence.

The Next Generation Air Dominance or End Guide Fighter and the Navy’s fax fighter will likely follow the B-21 into service in the middle of the 2020s. It’s interesting to note that the B-21 Raiders did not plan to replace the B-52, only the B-2 and B-1.

December 7, 2022 0 comment

History

Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown and the Seafire ‘crabbed’ landing

by Till Daisd December 6, 2022

written by Till Daisd

Brown avoided the curved approach in favor of a landing technique known as the “crabbed” landing on most, if not all, of the Seafire carrier tests he conducted

The front-line Fleet Air Arm Squadrons were there when the naval version of the legendary Spitfire finally entered service after a long and occasionally challenging voyage. The Seafire was far from ideal as a naval fighter since it lacked endurance and was challenging to land on a carrier, but it gave the Royal Navy an interceptor with a superlative performance in the air, helping to turn the tables on the enemy as the Allies went on the offensive.

The Seafire saw action in Malaya and Korea while serving in the Second World War from the North Atlantic to Japan and into the 1950s. Captain Eric Melrose “Winkle” Brown, widely regarded as Britain’s greatest-ever pilot, conducted a significant portion of the Seafire’s deck landing assessment while at the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the FAA Service Trials Unit, according to Naval aviation historian Matthew Willis’ account in his book Supermarine Seafire.

Brown was chosen to conduct deck-landing trials on an escort carrier in September 1942, obviously with the impending invasion of North Africa in mind. Despite the carrier not being ready for deck landings, the wires not being raised, and the ship’s head not even totally pointed into the wind, as described in the book Wings of the Navy, he flew his Seafire Ib to HMS Biter and landed without any issues. Three months later, Brown used the L IIc to make many landings and takeoffs aboard HMS Activity.

According to Brown, the FAA was persuaded to switch all Mk IIs to the low-altitude variant by the Merlin 32-engined L IIc’s takeoff performance during these testing. Early in 1943, he served as RATOG. Later that year, in June, he conducted deck-landing tests with the Mk III, and in August, he conducted low-wind landing tests aboard HMS Fencer, Tracker, and Pretoria Castle according to conditions anticipated during the Salerno landings, which turned out to be accurate. Considering the difficulties encountered during that procedure. Brown conducted additional low-wind speed landing tests with strengthened, modified aircraft, this time on the HMS Ravager, slowing the ship down one knot at a time until his propeller eventually “pecked” the deck, and a different aircraft was required.

The story of legendary test pilot Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown and the Seafire ‘crabbed’ landing — *Eric Melrose ‘Winkle’ Brown*

Brown eschewed the curved approach in favor of a technique known as the “crabbed” landing on the majority, if not all, of the carrier tests he conducted. He described it thus: “As I closed towards the stern, I swung the nose to starboard with the rudder, and counteracted the swing by putting on the slight opposite bank. In this way, I made the Seafire crab in sideways so that I had a view of the deck over the leading edge of the wing.” Brown, a skilled pilot with the ability to maintain the delicate balance necessary to fly obliquely, found that this strategy worked effectively since it would increase drag and allow a slower landing speed. The technique, however, was criticized as being too challenging for the typical service pilot to understand. Jeffrey Quill recommended that “Pilots had to be trained to employ a curved approach to the deck as the crabbed approach was acceptable only for skilled and experienced pilots.”

Brown was appointed Chief Naval Test Pilot of the RAE in 1944 after his predecessor perished while attempting to land a Seafire aboard a carrier. In October/November 1944, Brown performed the Mk XV’s initial deck landing before collaborating with Quill on the type’s deck landing trials.

Brown has been erroneously associated with the controversy surrounding the Seafire’s service use approval and its ensuing career of accidents. Henry “Hank” Adlam of the Fleet Air Arm was harsh in his criticism of Brown for approving the Seafire for service usage and for recommending the “crabbed” landing method. The Seafire was in fact certified as suitable for deck landing by Lieutenant-Commander Bramwell, and the ‘crabbed’ approach was never recommended in favor of the curved one.

Similar to many FAA pilots, Winkle thought the Griffon-engined Seafire behaved brilliantly in the air but had significant limitations as a deck-landing fighter. He called the Seafire “sheer magic.”

Supermarine Seafire is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here along with many other beautiful aviation books.

Photo by Imperial War Museum via Wikipedia

December 6, 2022 0 comment

History

When B-17 and B-24 bombers were converted into flying bombs against Luftwaffe’s V-1 sites

by Till Daisd December 6, 2022

written by Till Daisd

The Special Weapons Branch of the Equipment Lab at Wright Field, Ohio, came up with the concept of turning existing airplanes into power-driven controlled bombs in January 1944

At Wright Field, Ohio’s Special Weapons Branch of the Equipment Lab, the concept of transforming existing airplanes into power-driven, controlled bombs first surfaced in January 1944.

The original plan was to employ C-47 transport planes or attack gliders, carrying 10 tons of high explosives, according to Steven J. Zaloga in his book American Guided Missiles of World War II. The USAAF Engineering Division’s Materiel Command expanded the idea to cover a range of bombers, such as the B-24 and B-17. On March 25, 1944, the program was fully launched with the creation of twelve conversion kits. The guidance system was based on the aircraft’s autopilot.

A two-man crew would pilot the aircraft during the initial phase, and once cruising altitude was reached, activate the autopilot and bailout. Then, using a radio-control system, a supporting control aircraft would direct the aircraft toward the target. Any unnecessary weight, such as gun turrets, would be removed from the aircraft. The combat theater enthusiastically supported the program. The commander of the 8th Air Force, Lt. Gen. James Doolittle, proposed using old “Weary Willie” bombers that were available in Britain as the basis for flying bombs in May 1944.

The B-17F and B-24J, now known as the RB-17F and RB-24J, were chosen as the first missile aircraft on June 9, 1944. Two B-17s, one B-24, and one P-38J “Droopsnoot” were chosen as the control aircraft in addition to the dozen missile planes. The project was given the codename MX-541 Castor on June 19.

Project Castor: the story of B-17 and B-24 bombers converted into flying bombs and aimed to destroy Luftwaffe’s V-1 sites — *After completing 80 missions with the 323rd Bombardment Squadron, Aphrodite B-17F (The Careful Virgin) was used against Mimoyecques but impacted short of target due to controller error.*

The priority for Project Castor increased dramatically on Jun. 20, 1944, when Maj. Gen. Alfred Maxwell, Director of Operations of the US Strategic Air Forces in Europe (USSTAFE), telegraphed an urgent request that the Materiel Command dispatch any available experimental guided weapons to Britain with the highest air priority. Operation Eisbär (Polar Bear), launched by the Luftwaffe against London in early June, involved the new V-1 cruise missile. Strong political pressure was put on the USSTAFE commander, Lt. Gen. Carl Spaatz, to destroy the launch sites, particularly the massive “Heavy Crossbow” bunker launch facilities that were resistant to conventional bomber attacks. It was necessary to launch an explosive strike on the bunkers between ten and twenty feet from the target.

Some preliminary studies had suggested that the radio-control system in use with the Azon-guided bombs could be adapted for this requirement. Two systems—one to control altitude and one to control direction—were integrated because the Azon could only move the bomb along one axis. The 8th Air Force Operational Engineering Section at Bovingdon oversaw a crash program that started under the codename Aphrodite. Maj. Henry “Jim” Rand, the primary Azon expert for the 8th Air Force, developed the Double Azon. The AN/ARW-18 transmitter on the control plane and the AN/ARW-1 receiver on the missile made up the radio link between the “Mother” and the “Baby.”

On June 23, an experimental B-17F “robot” and “mother” ship were completed, and on June 24 in the evening, the first test flight was carried out. The conversion program was given to the USSTAFE Base Air Depot 1 at RAF Burtonwood, and from B1 to B10, a total of ten “Babies” were converted through the end of June. On July 8, Spaatz placed a conversion order for 65 Aphrodite aircraft, with the remaining 15 being filled with jellied gasoline and the remaining 75 with 10 tons of nitrostarch high-explosive (napalm).

On August 4, 1944, the first Aphrodite mission was carried out employing four Babies. Robot B1, which was intended to reach the Watten missile bunker, aborted its first pass due to cloud cover but succeeded on its second. Robot B1 was flown back out toward the English Channel because the B-24 Mother was unable to activate the “Down” control. Before it could be reoriented for another pass, it was hit by flak and went off in an explosion. Robot B4’s aim at Wizernes was successful, but during the final approach, cloud cover briefly obscured the target, and the B-17 crashed about 700 yards past the bunker.

The B-17 Mother crew thought Robot B5 was flying too high as it approached the Mimoyecques bunker and attempted to bring it down to the normal 300 feet. The relatively rudimentary controls caused them to crash around 1,500 feet short of the target. The altimeter on Robot B8, which was destined for Siracourt, failed above England. The aircraft experienced a number of uncontrollable climbs before finally stalling and crashing close to Woodbridge in Suffolk, with one crew member safely parachuting out.

On August 6, Mission 2 was carried out using the B-17F “Franklin Yellow” and B-17G “Franklin White,” which were each loaded with 830 gallons of jellied gasoline and a dozen 100lb bombs. Over the English Channel, the Franklin Yellow group came upon a formation of B-24 bombers, which caused the Mother to overshoot the Baby and experience control issues. Franklin Yellow lost control, made a sudden left turn, flipped over on its back, and crashed into the water. When the crew got out, Franklin White appeared to be flying normally, but a little while later the Mother saw that the B-17G was drifting to the right.

As the Baby began to perform complete turns, the situation increasingly got worse. The B-17 was purposefully crashed into the ocean following failed attempts to control Franklin White using the second Mother rather than risk it unintentionally returning to England.

By modifying its remote-control technology for the PB4Y-1 Privateer, the maritime patrol bomber variant of the B-24 Liberator bomber, the US Navy offered to assist Aphrodite. Compared to the basic Double Azon, this remote-control system was substantially more advanced. Two television cameras were installed on the Anvil, one in the nose to aim the robot at the target and the other in the cockpit to monitor the flight instruments. The Naval Air Factory in Philadelphia carried out the Project Anvil adaptations, and on July 7, 1944, the first Anvil PB4Y-1 and two modified PV-1 Ventura motherships left the US.

On August 12, the Anvil PB4Y-1 was sent on its Aphrodite mission, with the Mimoyecques bunker as its target. The formation took off as expected, but before the crew could bail out, the 10 1/2 ton load of Torpex exploded before its time, destroying the Anvil PB4Y-1 south of Halesworth and seriously damaging the surrounding terrain. Lt. Joseph P. Kennedy, the elder brother of the future US president John F. Kennedy and the son of the former US ambassador to Britain, was the plane’s pilot. In order to ascertain what caused the accident, more Aphrodite missions were suspended. The most likely cause, as determined by more recent studies, was a flawed safe-and-arming mechanism.

By the end of August 1944, the Allied forces had taken control of the missile launch sites in France and Belgium, bringing an end to Operation Crossbow, the campaign against the German V-1 sites. The remaining missiles’ targets changed to other valuable, well-defended targets as a result. Missions into Germany at great depth were deemed too risky. On September 3, 1944, a second Anvil Privateer was used at the Kriegsmarine base in Heligoland, attacking a location with fuel dumps and barracks on Dune Island. The Aphrodite program’s first successful mission was this one.

The Castor Project persisted in the US while the makeshift Aphrodite program was running in Britain. Plans to convert 500 missiles and 100 control aircraft were approved on July 5. On July 12, the first RB-17G and RB-24J were sent to be transformed into Castor aircraft. On August 5, 1944, the Castor designations were changed to BQB-17F and BQB-24J for the missiles and CQB-17G, CQB-24J, and CPQ-38 for the control planes. On August 25, this was changed once more when the BQ-7 for B-17 conversions and BQ-8 for B-24 conversions attack drone designations were given to the missiles.

The flight control system employed by the Castor aircraft was more akin to the Navy’s Anvil than the Aphrodite’s Double Azon. Two SCR-549A Block III television cameras, one in the cockpit to monitor the flight instruments and one in the nose to assist with aircraft aiming during the terminal phase, were part of the Castor system. The triple AN-117-A antenna array on the Azon aircraft was replaced with a tiny AN-145 or AN-146 antenna on the Castor Baby aircraft. A set of remote-controlled servos were installed in the aircraft to manage the different flight controls, such as the throttle, propellers, landing gear, and cowl flaps.

In order to track the drone even in overcast situations, the Castor conversions also contained an AN/TPN-1 Eureka navigation beacon that could be tracked by the AN/APN-2 Rebecca navigation aid on the control aircraft. The BQ-7 was equipped with a smoke generator pod under the fuselage that produced a white smoke trail to help the control aircraft even more.

On August 2, 1944, the first Castor BQ-7 detachment from Wright Field reached Britain. Twelve B-17 bombers were modified into BQ-7 drones at RAF Burtonwood, together with five CQB-17G motherships. On August 20, the first drone modification was finished, and on September 11 against the Heligoland submarine pens, the first Castor operation was carried out. Only one of the ten Castor flights that were carried out through January 1945 was barely successful. Flak, equipment failure, and poor weather impacted the program.

One special Castor mission was a plan to attack the German battleship, Tirpitz, in the Alten Fjord in Norway. British munition experts advised using a large hydrostatic bomb that could be detonated underwater because regular high explosives would not be adequate. Boeing engineers developed a technique to remove the fairing behind the B-17 cockpit since these large weapons could not be placed into the bomb bay of the B-17. As a result, a space was made large enough for the weapons to be lowered into the fuselage from above.

This conversion only applied to one aircraft, the Aphrodite B3 “Gremlin Gus II.” After the payload was secured into the fuselage, the opening was faired over with sheet metal, leading to the drone’s new nickname “The Roadster.” In the end, on November 12, 1944, the Tirpitz was sunk by RAF Lancaster bombers with Tallboy penetrating bombs.

The final Castor mission in Europe took place on January 1st, 1945, in Oldenburg. By this time, the 8th Air Force believed that the system was ineffective against targets that were well-defended by flak and in terrible winter weather.

American Guided Missiles of World War II is published by Osprey Publishing and is available to order here.

Photo by U.S. Air Force and www.fold3.com

December 6, 2022 0 comment

History

The Piper L-4H Grasshopper crew that shot down a Fieseler Fi 156 Storch

by Till Daisd December 4, 2022

written by Till Daisd

“The two planes were so close I could see the Germans’ eyeballs, as big as eggs, as we peppered them,” Merritt Duane Francies, L-4H Grasshopper pilot.

By April 11, 1945, American tanks from the 5th Armored Division were advancing across central Germany in the direction of Berlin, with the 71st Armored Field Artillery Battalion taking the lead. The unit crossed the Weser river at Hamlin and continued to advance east while armed with M7 self-propelled 105mm howitzers and M4 Sherman tanks.

According to the battalion’s official history, Fire Mission: The Story of the 71st: “The old familiar tactics of bypassing heavy resistance by using secondary roads and passing through only small villages were put to use again.

“Sixty and 70-mile marches were standard operations during the passing of those lightning-fast days. The deeper we drove into the Reich the longer our supply lines were stretched and the more difficult the job of service battery became.”

And on Apr. 11: “That day German air activity increased over the column. All sizes and types either roared or limped past. Our ack-ack would pull off to the side of the road at the slightest pause.”

The story of the Piper L-4H Grasshopper crew that used their Colt. 45 Pistols to shoot down a Fieseler Fi 156 Storch — *Piper L-4H Grasshopper*

The 71st’s progress had been directed by spotter pilots flying ahead over the enemy territory since landing at Utah beach on July 28, 52 days after D-Day, as described by Dan Sharp in his book Spitfires Over Berlin. The spotters flew long hours in frequently hazardous weather while outfitted with tiny two-seat 65hp Piper L-4 Grasshoppers.

Merritt Duane Francies, a 24-year-old Grasshopper pilot from Wenatchee, Washington, was one of the most skilled in the 71st. Duane Francies, often known as “Doc,” had been with the 71st from the beginning of the European war. He had taken some pre-med college courses and was frequently asked to provide first aid for minor injuries.

He flew an L-4H called ‘Miss Me!?’ He said: I named my plane ‘Miss Me!?’ Because I wanted the Germans to do that, the reason for the exclamation point, but I also wanted someone back home to ‘miss me’, so there was the question mark.”

On April 11, Francies and Lieutenant William Martin, his observer, were seen flying ahead of the 5th Armored about 100 miles to the west of Berlin. They saw a German motorcycle and sidecar speeding along a side road not far from the 5th’s approaching vehicles. They moved closer to get a better look and discovered a Fieseler Fi 156 Storch observation plane flying 700 feet over some trees.

Francies and Martin gave up on the motorcycle outfit after realizing they had to act quickly to stop the Storch from informing them of their 5th position.

Afterward, Francies wrote: “The Storch had an inverted eight Argus engine. It was also a fabric Job and faster and larger than ‘Miss Me!?’. It spotted us and we radioed: ‘We are about to give combat.’

Piper L-4H Grasshopper — *Pilot Lieutenant Duane Francies left and observer Lieutenant William Martin right*

‘But we had the advantage of altitude and dove blasting away with our Colt. 45s trying to force the German plane into the fire of waiting tanks of the 5th. Instead, the German began circling.”

Francies and Martin had opened their aircraft’s side doors and fired their pistols at the Storch while hovering just above and over the German aircraft. They observed damage to its right wing, fuel tank, and windscreen. Francies then reloaded while holding the Grasshopper’s control column between his knees. He wrote: “The two planes were so close I could see the Germans’ eyeballs, as big as eggs, as we peppered them.”

The Storch made a low turn that was too low in an attempt to dodge the American aircraft that followed it everywhere, and the tip of its right-wing hit the ground as a result. Before ultimately coming to rest right side up, it spins around and cartwheels while losing control of its right-wing and undercarriage.

Francies landed nearby, and he and Martin immediately went to the crash. The German crew had abandoned their machine stumbling and confused. The pilot hid behind a mound of sugar beet when they spotted the Americans coming, and the defeated observer fell to the ground.

Francies rushed over and went to aid the observer after noticing that they had been struck in the foot. When he removed the man’s boot, a.45 bullet was found inside. The pilot emerged with his hands raised after Martin, who had now also reloaded his gun, fired a warning shot.

A German flag they discovered inside the Storch was taken by Francies, along with the pilot’s uniform insignia. He wrote: “I never found out their names. They could have been important, for all I know. We turned them over to our tankers about 15 minutes later, after the injured man thanked me many times for bandaging his foot. I think they thought we would shoot them.”

Francies and Martin were scouting in advance of the 5th when some of the division’s components arrived at the Elbe not long after their aerial victory. A group of Soviet soldiers riding steppe horses approached them after they had flown across the river and landed on the other side. The soldiers were dressed in grey greatcoats.

The Russians moved back when they noticed the white star insignia on the Grasshopper, but they were unfriendly, and later the Americans boarded their aircraft and went back to the 71st. They had not realized that they were supposed to remain on the ‘American’ side of the Elbe.

Francies had twice been recommended for the Distinguished Flying Cross but had not been awarded it by the conclusion of the war. The recommendations were forgotten as the years went by. Francies was a Korean War veteran before beginning his career as a commercial pilot. In his book The Last Battle from 1966, historian Cornelius Ryan writes about his exploits. Harry Jackson, a US senator, pushed for the recognition of Francies’ accomplishments, and the following year, Francies finally received his DFC.

Spitfires Over Berlin is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here.

Photo by ERIC SALARD from PARIS, FRANCE, and Marie-Lan Nguyen via Wikipedia and Mark Felton Productions via YouTube

December 4, 2022 0 comment

History

Comparing the Vought F4U Corsair and Hawker Sea Fury with the Seafire

by Till Daisd December 2, 2022

written by Till Daisd

“We had several interesting dogfights with the much larger and more powerful F4U Corsair. In turning dogfights, the Corsairs were unable to get a bead on us if we saw them first,” Commander R ‘Mike’ Crosley, former CO of 880 and 887 NAS.

The front-line Fleet Air Arm Squadrons were there when the naval version of the legendary Spitfire finally entered service after a long and occasionally challenging voyage. The Seafire was far from ideal as a naval fighter since it lacked endurance and was challenging to land on a carrier, but it provided the Royal Navy access to an interceptor with exceptional air performance, which helped the Allies turn the tables on the Germans as they went on the offensive.

The Seafire saw action in Malaya and Korea while serving in the Second World War from the North Atlantic to Japan and into the 1950s. There is a remarkable degree of agreement among pilots regarding how the Spitfire flew, which can be summed up as beautifully responsive and maneuverable in the air, but challenging to handle and land, especially on an aircraft carrier, according to Naval aviation historian Matthew Willis in his book Supermarine Seafire. Any criticisms usually focus on the excessively light elevators or the heavy ailerons. The following remarks from two pilots, one from the past and the other from the present, provide some context as well as a comparison with some of the Seafire’s rivals from the war and its immediate aftermath, the Vought Corsair and Hawker Sea Fury.

Commander R ‘Mike’ Crosley DSC (former CO of 880 and 887 NAS)

“Once the tail was raised – by prop slipstream over the tail and a small push on the stick – and the pilot could see where he was going, the true enjoyment began. The acceleration was like a racing car. Once airborne, the Seafire responded with the sensitivity of a polo pony to nearly all our ignorant demands upon it. It behaved in its normal habitat with such unselfish grace and with such rapid response and power, that we knew we were being allowed to fly a thoroughbred.

“We had several interesting dogfights with the much larger and more powerful F4U Corsair. In turning dogfights, the Corsairs were unable to get a bead on us if we saw them first. However, they could, like an Fw 190, out-dive us … Also, above 15,000 feet they were faster than Seafire L IIIs. However, the F III with its two-speed, uncropped supercharger, could easily keep up with the Corsair at 20,000 feet and above.

“The Corsair could not out-turn a Seafire I, II, or III as has been claimed. However, if the Corsair slowed down to about 90 knots and then the pilot selected half-flap —provided it was down to its last 50 gallons of fuel — it could hold a Seafire LIII at this speed and configuration at heights above 10,000 feet.”‘

Flying the Seafire: a comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair and Hawker Sea Fury — *Sea Fury, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat*

Lieutenant-Commander Chris Götke AFM (former CO Royal Navy Historic Flight)

“You can see the progression from a Seafire versus a Sea Fury. The Seafire [F 17] has got a short-block Griffon VI with about 2,000 hp. When you’re in the Seafire it’s incredibly noisy compared with a Centaurus, because you have all the exhausts and they come out down by your feet, pointing at you. The Centaurus engine is very good at lower rpm, so when we go cruising on it we’re down at 1,500 rpm which gives you about 220, 230 knots. The Griffon is complaining by the time you get it down to 1,800. For the pilot, one of the things you don’t want is to over-boost an engine. The Sea Fury was one of the first that you can’t over-boost. In a Sea Fury, as you go up on the boost, the rpm automatically rises. So, if you’re in combat and you’re just holding on, and then you get bounced, you can just slam the Centaurus open and it will go up to 2,700 and plus nine boosts. You can’t do that with the Griffon in the Seafire.

“Regarding the handling and maneuvering, if you were doing 300-plus knots in the Seafire you’d be getting very heavy ailerons, but in the Sea Fury you could do 100 knots or 400 knots and it’s the same feel. It’s a very well-harmonized system in that aircraft. The Seafire is very, very light in pitch, so is quite maneuver-unstable. You can get maneuvering very quickly, but if you hit turbulence as you’re pulling up, you almost have to unload, it’s so light in maneuver. The Sea Fury has 183 gallons internally, plus it had another tank which took it to about two hundred. That’s almost twice what you could get inside a Seafire, and the Seafire uses fuel at about the same rate. Actually, with the Centaurus, you can happily get down to 40 gallons an hour. In display, though, both are lovely aircraft.”

Supermarine Seafire is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here.

Photo by Imperial War Museum via Wikipedia

December 2, 2022 0 comment

History

Hans-Guido Mutke, a Me 262 pilot who may have achieved supersonic flight before Chuck Yeager

by Till Daisd November 29, 2022

written by Till Daisd

“The airspeed indicator was stuck in the red danger zone, which is over 1100kph. I noticed that rivets began popping out of the tops of the wings. The aircraft began vibrating and shaking wildly, banging my head against the sides of the cockpit,” Hans-Guido Mutke, Me 262 pilot.

There are a dozen more pilots who flew the Me 262 in the final days of the war who history has all but forgotten for every well-known one. Fahnrich Hans-Guido Mutke appeared to have every chance of becoming just such an unknown and uncelebrated pilot.

He was called up to serve in the war effort despite being a medical student. He was born on March 25, 1921, in Neisse, Germany. He joined Nachtjagdgeschwader 1 in 1942 after completing his pilot training, flying Messerschmitt Bf 110s and Dornier 217s against British bombers.

His experience with twin-engine aircraft made him the perfect candidate, so in March 1945, he was transferred to 10./EJG 2 (Erganzungsjagdgeschwader 2, or “Operational Fighter Training Group 2”) in Lechfeld for retraining on the Me 262.

According to Dan Sharp’s story in Spitfires Over Berlin, Mutke was instructed to conduct a training trip at a high altitude on April 9. As a result, he climbed to a height of a little over 36,000 feet, which is nearly as high as the Me 262’s ceiling of 37,565 feet. He was at this near-maximum altitude when he overheard a flight controller warning that a P-51 Mustang was about to intercept one of his fellow trainees and decided to fly down to help.

With both engines running at full power, he drove his Me 262 “White 9” over into a steep 40–50° left bank and started to descend. In just a few seconds, the plane started to tremble violently.

Mutke himself recalled: “The airspeed indicator was stuck in the red danger zone, which is over 1100kph. I noticed that rivets began popping out of the tops of the wings. The aircraft began vibrating and shaking wildly, banging my head against the sides of the cockpit.

“I moved the stick wildly around the cockpit. For a brief moment, the aircraft responded to controls again, then went back out of control. The aircraft still did not respond to pressure on the stick so I changed the incidence of the tailplane.

“The speed dropped to 500kph, the aircraft stopped shaking and I regained control. After diving about three miles I was able to return to base. On the runway, the mechanics were very surprised by the appearance of the aircraft, which looks as though it had been shaken by the hand of a giant.”

The story of Hans-Guido Mutke, the Me 262 pilot who might have gone supersonic two years earlier than Chuck Yeager — *Hans-Guido Mutke*

In another interview, Mutke stated: “What happened had never happened to another pilot as I entered a very dangerous realm without knowing it. I had no idea what was happening. I thought there was something wrong with the aircraft.”

The condition of Mutke’s jet fighter may have confused the mechanics, but his bosses were unimpressed.

He said: “When I landed, the commander was furious and demanded to know if I had gone above the red fork mark of 950km.

“I said, ‘Of course not. You know, this might be a Monday production’. That means it was made the day after the workers had been drinking.”

Mutke soon learned that the colleague he had been trying to save had been shot down despite his efforts to save him, but had been able to parachute to safety. And the story may have come to an end there.

In 1989, at a conference commemorating the 50th anniversary of jet-powered light, Mutke spoke with some of the experts in attendance about his experiences on April 9, 1945, and they speculated with him about the possibility that he may have actually broken the sound barrier two years earlier than Chuck Yeager, who achieved supersonic flight on October 14, 1947.

Since then, Me 262 enthusiasts and critics of the aircraft have debated the specifics of Mutke’s flight, the Me 262’s suitability or lack thereof for breaking the sound barrier, the accuracy of its in-flight instruments, and the technical challenges of conclusively proving or disproving the pilot’s account.

His supporters mention a handbook on Me 262 published by the USAAF in January 1946 based on tests of captured aircraft. He died on April 8, 2004, and donated his body to anatomist Gunther von Hagens.

This states: “At speeds of 950 to 1000kph the airflow around the aircraft reaches the speed of sound, and it is reported that the control surfaces no longer affect the direction of flight. It is also reported that once the speed of sound is exceeded, this condition disappears and normal control is restored.”

The Me 262 may have had the ability to reach supersonic speeds, according to computer simulations conducted in 1999 at Munich Technical University.

Professor Otto Wagner told Reuters, which was reporting on Mutke’s claims in 2001: “I don’t want to exclude the possibility but I can imagine he may also have been just below the speed of sound and felt the buffeting, but did not go above Mach 1.”

Additionally, engineers at the time in the US who were building a replica Me 262 with contemporary engines said they thought Mutke might have been right.

Jim Byron of the Me 262 Project said: “We met with Herr Mutke and having listened to his story, we believe he could have accomplished this in the severe dive and engine flameout.”

The Me 262 would become unmanageable after Mach 0.86, according to flight tests conducted during the war by Messerschmitt engineers, resulting in an ever-steepening dive that the pilot would be unable to prevent. Then, as a result of high G loads, speeds would increase until the airframe broke apart.

Some people think Mutke was able to resist the steepening dive and level out to momentarily regain control at just before supersonic speed because he changed the tailplane incidence.

The German measuring equipment’ later-war unreliability and the compressibility of pitot tubes, which led to incorrect readings close to the speed of sound, have been cited as reasons for skepticism.

The Me 262’s fuselage’s area rule design, which would have produced extremely high drag at transonic speeds, also worked against it. However, it is acknowledged that the Me 262 would have been able to break past the sound barrier and enter supersonic flight if the force of gravity and engine thrust combined during a steep descent.

While the air traveling over Mutke’s aircraft may have exceeded Mach 1, it is highly unlikely that his jet did. However, the exact speed at which he traveled will never be known.

Spitfires Over Berlin is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here.

Photo by U.S. Air Force and Noop1958 via Wikipedia

November 29, 2022 0 comment

History

Crossbows, Big Bens and Divers: a quick look at Allied Operations against Hitler’s V-Weapons

by Till Daisd November 27, 2022

written by Till Daisd

In July and August 1944 approximately 30 percent of RAF Bomber Command sorties and tonnage was directed against V-1 and V-2 sites, as was about 20 percent of US Eighth Air Force sorties and tonnage.

The following article contains excerpts from Adam Lunney’s book We Together, 451 and 453 Squadrons at War.

Before the Second World War, rocketry was a novel form of weapon, and the British made an effort to monitor German advances. The German Army first asked for specific rocket designs that could carry warheads in 1931, and by 1939 a program was in place and active. Hitler didn’t show much interest in the project until it was suggested to launch 5,000 V-2 rockets (also known as A-4 rockets) in England in April 1942. As rocketry could not be left to the army (because of ongoing inter-service rivalry), the Luftwaffe developed their own designs and named their weapon the FZG76, which later came to be known as the V-1.

Until Albert Speer became Minister for War Production in March 1943, the 451 and 453 Squadrons at War projects were in direct competition with one another, according to Adam Lunney in We Together, 451 and 453 Squadrons at War. After Speer assumed this position, the two projects’ efforts were combined while additional material and human resources were added. However, in order to learn as much as they could about the projects, the Allies employed spies and interrogation of prisoners.

Continuous aerial photography supported this intelligence, and between March 1943 and March 1944, almost 40% of Allied photo-reconnaissance sorties were focused on locating V-1 and V-2 sites. To find the locations of these weapons’ production, storage, and launch facilities, more than a million pictures were taken.

In March 1944, it was believed that the sites would be fixed and that heavy bombers would be needed to destroy them. However, later information, such as that acquired from photographic sorties, revealed that V-2 sites were actually relatively simple squares of concrete where the transporter unit would park its portable equipment prior to the launch. Around 20% of the US Eighth Air Force’s sorties and tonnage in July and August 1944 and 30% of the RAF Bomber Command’s were both targeted at V-1 and V-2 sites. Standing instructions set out the code words to be used in reference to the V-weapons:

Crossbow: All general references to long-range weapons.
Big Ben: For use in reference to long-range rockets.
Diver: For use in reference to pilotless aircraft.

Crossbows, Big Bens and Divers: a quick look at Allied Operations against Hitler’s V-Weapons — *This V-1 made it through air defenses and fell on London. (U.S. Air Force photo)*

Operation Hydra, a raid on Peenemunde in August 1943 by 596 RAF bombers (crewed by men from all across the Commonwealth), alerted the Germans to Allied knowledge of their actions and caused the facilities to be dispersed, making following raids less successful. 40 bombers were lost that night, along with 243 aircrew members and 45 detainees. Compare this to Fighter Commands losing roughly 537 pilots throughout the Battle of Britain, which lasted over four months, to show the severity of Bomber Commands’ operations.

One person’s loss is not greater than another’s, and one person’s sacrifice is not less than another’s, but the rate of loss in Bomber Command is frequently disregarded. On the night of June 12/13, 1944, the V-1 assaults started, and the Allies launched a series of countermeasures to go along with the bombing raids. The fastest fighters, whose job it was to track and fire down the rockets, were taken out of action over Normandy, and a belt of anti-aircraft guns was built up along the coast on expected approaches.

Before Operation Market Garden, the V-1 attacks against England halted because the Allies had taken over most of the coastal areas where they were based. However, with the end of one menace came the beginning of a new one, and on September 8, the first V-2 landed in London. The warhead of this new weapon was only as massive as the V-1, despite its size and speed. Although England was targeted less frequently, other targets like Antwerp and Allied airfields were still within range as the front line changed, as did the launch sites. Operations against the V-1 installations and the facilities connected to them cost the Allies 443 aircraft and 2,924 aircrews by the time the war was over.

Electronic countermeasures, which involved RAF forces stationed in coastal areas with signaling equipment trying to detect the signals connected with a V-2 rocket launch and then trying to jam that signal, were one strategy that was intended to be used to combat the V-2 rockets. Any movement had to be almost instantaneous because it was thought that radio control was only available for the first 40 to 70 seconds of the V-2’s flight.

These presumptions were based on how the Luftwaffe used its radio-controlled HS 293 bomb, which was fired from an aircraft and subsequently guided to its target by the bomb aimer. The Luftwaffe employed radio-controlled bombs of various kinds against Allied ships during the landings at Anzio, where radio-guided bombs sank the LCT35, the liberty ship Elihu Yale, and the HMS Inglefield.

While the electronic countermeasures were thought to be of use, one proven piece of technology was radar, which had been used so successfully during the Battle of Britain in 1940. A number of procedures were put in place, including the shouting of the code word “Big Ben” when a launch was detected, to start the chain of events and communications for the countermeasures to begin. Radar sites along the areas where the rockets were expected to pass were alerted to the potential new threat. The code word “Fireworks” was used to alert the Scientific Observers Office, and the code word “Pop Gun” was to be used by army forces on the continent if they saw rockets being fired.

In August 1944, anti-Big Ben drills were conducted in preparation for the use of these long-range weapons. The actual actions comprised regular “Jim Crow” coastal patrols to look for V-2 launches and escorts to the specially adapted bombers of the RAF 100 Group who would also monitor the area of the Dutch coast to look for any electronic signals connected to the operation of V-2s. The rockets proved to be less lethal than expected and the attacks on England happened at a lesser rate than expected, therefore several countermeasures (such outfitting trawlers to aid spot launches) were scaled back or abandoned after the strikes began.

Together, the 451 and 453 Squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) conducted sorties against V2 sites.

Other Australians, such as the 456 RAAF Squadron, participated in operations against the V-weapons while the 451 and 453 Squadrons launched dive-bombing flights against the German targets stationed in and around The Hague. They conducted night-interception patrols in their Mosquitos in an effort to locate the sporadic Heinkel He-111 aircraft that dropped V-1 missiles. Squadrons performing Big Ben operations were given the following instructions:

not abandoning any escorted bombers for the purpose of attacking a Big Ben site
not carrying out strafing attacks below 1,000 ft in case the target vehicle being strafed caused a large explosion
flying patrols at a height out of effective range of light flak, and
patrolling aircraft to attack other targets of opportunity only after being relieved by the next patrol, ensuring that ammunition was not wasted on targets of little value, since a launch may occur at any time and the patrol should always be ready to attack.

Sqn Ldr Ernest Esau of 453 Squadron and his station commander, Group Captain Arthur Donaldson DSO, DFC, AFC, came up with the idea of using Spitfires as dive-bombers against the V-2 sites together. They then presented the idea to Air Marshal Sir Roderic Hill, Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command, who gave them the go-ahead.

We Together, 451 and 453 Squadrons at War is published by Mortons Books and is available to order here along with many other beautiful aviation books.

Photo by U.S. Air Force, Crown Copyright and Bild 146-1978-Anh.026-01 via Wikipedia

November 27, 2022 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts