Attack on Taranto used RAF Wellingtons instead of RN Swordfish aircraft?

[NOMISYRRUC]

Once again, the book range for a Wellington or ANY bomber is neither the burdened range or the time aloft after climb, form up, flight to target, combat maneuvers at maximum speed, and egress from target. Take the Wellington's 1000 mile book radius and knock off 1/3 for the TRUE COMBAT RADIUS burdened.

Runways on Malta are too short.

You just proved what I pointed out about fuel-bomb ratios. Those Wellingtons were not fueled or bombed up to max burden capacity for a long endurance mission. More like 60% for a very short mission.

IOTL Wellingtons were flying bombing missions from Malta from 9th November 1940. See the following quote from Post 26.

The Wellington Flight, Malta was formed in 1940 by merging elements of 49 and 79 Squadrons (Mildenhall) and 38 and 115 Squadrons (at Marham). The flight was operating from Luqa, Malta from 9th November 1940. It was disbanded on 1st December 1940 at Luqa to become 148 Squadron. (Source: Flying Units of the RAF)

This map from the British official history proves that a Wellington loaded with 4,500lbs of bombs could fly from Malta to Taranto and back.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Med-II/maps/UK-Med-II-25.jpg

I've tried to post the map into the thread, but the file is too large.

 

[yulzari]

There is the issue that any Wellington attack will be far less accurate than Swordfish torpedo or dive bombing. To put the maximum bang by the things to go bang on the Swordfish will deliver the bang better. What would improve the Taranto attack at this point is some way of getting more Swordfish in the game. Swordfish were operating out of northern Greece. Maybe deliver them some extra bombs and/or torpedos and fuel to them and add them to the attack. The Greeks might have a word to say about an attack on mainland Italy from Greece though.

 

[sonofpegasus]

OTL Wellingtons on the ferry route UK/Gibraltar/Malta/Egypt would stop on Malta for a time and carry out bombing missions from there against Italian targets and north African ports. In ATL with good planning it would be possible to surge Wellingtons to Malta for a Maximum effort attack on Taranto. Ideally this bombing raid would arrive at Taranto whilst the FAA attack is happening and the Swordfish have the whole area lit up with flares. I would suggest prime targets would be the fuel tanks. and the docks/workshops of the Naval Dockyard in the Mare Piccolo. Add in a few magnetic mines in both harbours for added confusion and excitement.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There is the issue that any Wellington attack will be far less accurate than Swordfish torpedo or dive bombing. To put the maximum bang by the things to go bang on the Swordfish will deliver the bang better. What would improve the Taranto attack at this point is some way of getting more Swordfish in the game. Swordfish were operating out of northern Greece. Maybe deliver them some extra bombs and/or torpedos and fuel to them and add them to the attack. The Greeks might have a word to say about an attack on mainland Italy from Greece though.

The simplest way to do that is avoid the fire that prevented Eagle from taking part in the raid and destroyed two of her Swordfish. Then the British would be attacking with two aircraft carriers and 36 Swordfish instead of one aircraft carrier and 24 Swordfish. The source I'm using says that 21 aircraft were launched, but one had to turn back due to damage sustained in a collision with another Swordfish before taking off. Therefore, 31 or 32 aircraft could have taken part in the raid had Eagle been available and 10 or 11 of the 12 extra aircraft were serviceable.

The Greeks might have a word to say about an attack on mainland Italy from Greece though.

And the word they would say is: approved! Greece was at war with Italy at the time of the OTL raid and had been for two weeks. The problems whether the airfields in Greece have been made ready by then.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

OTL Wellingtons on the ferry route UK/Gibraltar/Malta/Egypt would stop on Malta for a time and carry out bombing missions from there against Italian targets and north African ports. In ATL with good planning it would be possible to surge Wellingtons to Malta for a Maximum effort attack on Taranto. Ideally this bombing raid would arrive at Taranto whilst the FAA attack is happening and the Swordfish have the whole area lit up with flares. I would suggest prime targets would be the fuel tanks. and the docks/workshops of the Naval Dockyard in the Mare Piccolo. Add in a few magnetic mines in both harbours for added confusion and excitement.

What he said. Plus what I wrote in Post 26.

Yes they could. This is exactly what was happening at the time.

A handful of DWI Wellingtons were in the Mediterranean and Middle East when Italy declared war. However, there were four Wellington bomber squadrons in the theatre by 1st January 1941.

One of the squadrons was an existing squadron that was converted from Valentia bomber-transports to Wellingtons. Two were Bomber Squadrons that were flown from the UK to Egypt. The fourth squadron was formed as a flight in the UK from elements of existing Bomber Command squadrons that was flown from the UK to Malta where it was upgraded from a flight into a squadron.

That is:

• No. 70 (Bomber Transport) Squadron received its first Wellington in September 1940 and the last had Valetta left the squadron by the end of October 1940. (Source: RAFWEB.)
• Nos. 37 and 38 Squadrons were transferred from the UK to Egypt in November 1940. (Source: RAFWEB.)
• The Wellington Flight, Malta was formed in 1940 by merging elements of 49 and 79 Squadrons (Mildenhall) and 38 and 115 Squadrons (at Marham). The flight was operating from Luqa, Malta from 9th November 1940. It was disbanded on 1st December 1940 at Luqa to become 148 Squadron. (Source: Flying Units of the RAF.)

Each squadron had a nominal first-line strength of 16 aircraft.

AFAIK aircraft destined for the Mediterranean and Middle East arrived by two routes. Aircraft like the Wellington could be flown from the UK to Egypt via Gibraltar and Malta. Shorter range aircraft had to travel by sea to the deep water port of Takoradi in the then Gold Coast. Then they used one of the Imperial Air Routes to fly to Egypt via Nigeria, Chad and the Sudan.

Edit

The OTL arrival of the Wellingtons is too close to the date of the OTL Taranto raid to make it feasible. IMHO they will have to arrive at least one month earlier ITTL.

However, as I wrote in the edit the Wellingtons will have to be sent a month earlier for their raid to be combined with the OTL Taranto raid.

 

[McPherson]

@NOMISYRRUC...

Did one read the annotation to that map?

Under the "Wellington carrying 4,500 lbs of bombs" was
"With its bombload reduced to 1000 lbs its radius of action was 900 miles"

The 4500 pound bombload is estimated at 480 miles radius (hence the bomb fuel ratio works out 4 to 1 at ~24/45 radius (480 miles) which is about correct for fuel and bombs)... and the RUNWAYs are still too short.

Remembering two bomber crashes at Qormi 80 years ago (timesofmalta.com)

During the night of October 31, the Wellingtons set off on their first bombing raid, bound for Naples. However, during the ensuing days, it became evident that Luqa aerodrome was not long enough for the operation of heavy-laden bombers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@NOMISYRRUC...

Did one read the annotation to that map?

Under the "Wellington carrying 4,500 lbs of bombs" was
"With its bombload reduced to 1000 lbs its radius of action was 900 miles"

The 4500 pound bombload is estimated at 480 miles radius (hence the bomb fuel ratio works out 4 to 1 at ~24/45 radius (480 miles) which is about correct for fuel and bombs)... and the RUNWAYs are still too short.

Remembering two bomber crashes at Qormi 80 years ago (timesofmalta.com)

@McPherson...

I have read the annotation to the map. I have quoted the 480 miles with 4,500lbs and 900 miles with 1,000lbs several times in the thread. Here's an example from Post 60.

The radius of action a Wellington from the source quoted in Post 52.

480 miles with 4,500lbs of bombs​

900 miles with 1,000lbs of bombs​

The very fact that I quoted those figures proves that I read the annotation to the map.

 

[McPherson]

@McPherson...

I have read the annotation to the map. I have quoted the 480 miles with 4,500lbs and 900 miles with 1,000lbs several times in the thread. Here's an example from Post 60.

The very fact that I quoted those figures proves that I read the annotation to the map.

And failed to refute the runways in question were found to be "too short" for safe operation of burdened bombers. So combat radius claimed was kind of "irrelevant".

 

[marathag]

You just proved what I pointed out about fuel-bomb ratios. Those Wellingtons were not fueled or bombed up to max burden capacity for a long endurance mission. More like 60% for a very short mission.

I proved that the fields were not too short for both Bombs and Fuel, You said too short for even fuel with your first reply that Malta couldn't be used as a stop for Gibraltar to Alexandria transfer

 

[marathag]

But, what is wrong with my suggestion that Wellingtons flying from Egypt could carry a full bomb load to Taranto by refuelling in Crete or mainland Greece?

Nothing at all, just wanted to bring in that Malta did host Wellingtons when Italy first came into the War in 1940

 

[McPherson]

I proved that the fields were not too short for both Bombs and Fuel, You said too short for even fuel with your first reply that Malta couldn't be used as a stop for Gibraltar to Alexandria transfer

The British did not so think as they stopped trying to fly BOMB missions from them with Wellingtons. That is kind of the "point" of the fuel-bomb-ratio.

 

[marathag]

The British did not so think as they stopped trying to fly BOMB missions from them with Wellingtons. That is kind of the "point" of the fuel-bomb-ratio.

They stopped because Malta was within easy strike range. It was just too high a risk to base them there, under constant air attack. They needed more fighters, not bombers after the German raids got serious

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The British did not so think as they stopped trying to fly BOMB missions from them with Wellingtons. That is kind of the "point" of the fuel-bomb-ratio.

Nearly incomprehensible Batman! Did you mean...

The British did not think so as they stopped flying bombing missions from there with Wellingtons.

They stopped because Malta was within easy strike range. It was just too high a risk to base them there, under constant air attack. They needed more fighters, not bombers after the German raids got serious.

What he said. Furthermore, the German raids did not become serious until early 1941.

I haven't heard of the length of Malta's runways being a problem. What I have heard is that at the time we're discussing the number of aircraft that Malta's airfields could accommodate was limited by the "dispersal" that was available.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I haven't heard of the length of Malta's runways being a problem. What I have heard is that at the time we're discussing the number of aircraft that Malta's airfields could accommodate was limited by the "dispersal" that was available.

HyperWar: The Mediterranean & Middle East, Vol.II (Chapter 3)

www.ibiblio.org

Extract from Chapter III - Malta Under Attack - January to June 1941

There were three airfields: Hal Far in the extreme south, Luqa overlooking the Grand Harbour, and Takali lying under the high ground in the centre of the island. Between Hal Far and Luqa lay the two landing strips of Safi. The flying-boat base and the equipment and repair depot were at Kalafrana, only a mile from Hal Far. The capacity of the airfields at this time was about five squadrons in all, a figure which allowed for some dispersion on the ground and left room for aircraft reinforcements passing through to Egypt. Possible sites for fresh airfields were few. Much of the remaining level ground was intersected by ravines and even the existing airfields were bordered by rocky outcrops and church towers which limited the length of the runways and increased the hazards of taking off and landing. Machinery for airfield construction was almost entirely lacking. During this period the aircraft were dispersed around the perimeter of the airfields at no great distance from the runways. It was not until June that a network of taxi-tracks was begun which made it possible to disperse over a much wider area, thus gradually increasing the capacity of the airfields.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@McPhersonThe Wellingtons of No. 148 Squadron were withdrawn from Malta in March 1941. The reason for their withdrawal was that the air commander at Malta felt unable to protect them and the Sunderlands of No. 228 Squadron from German air attack.

Here's the proof.

HyperWar: The Mediterranean & Middle East, Vol.II (Chapter 3)

www.ibiblio.org

The attacks on Malta in January were made by anything from a single aircraft to formations of sixty bombers and forty escorting fighters. Early in February the Germans changed their tactics, and instead of bombing heavily by day they began to visit the island every night. These night attacks were made by varying numbers, anything up to forty-five Ju. 88s and He. IIIs coming over singly and dropping their bombs from high or low level anywhere on the island. On moonlit nights Luqa and Hal Far were repeatedly bombed. On 12th February German single-engined fighters (Me. 109s) first appeared over the island, and for a time daylight raids were made only by them, with the object, no doubt, of neutralizing Malta's small fighter force. February also saw the beginning of mine-dropping inside the harbours and in the approaches to them. Towards the end of the month the bombers joined again in these daylight attacks and in one day six Wellingtons were destroyed on the ground and four damaged; moored flying-boats were also frequently attacked. After particularly heavy raids on 5th and 7th March Air Vice-Marshal Maynard reported that he was unable to protect the Sunderlands and Wellingtons and with great reluctance felt obliged to advise their removal. Sir Arthur Longmore agreed, and both squadrons left for Egypt during the month.

 

[McPherson]

They stopped because Malta was within easy strike range. It was just too high a risk to base them there, under constant air attack. They needed more fighters, not bombers after the German raids got serious

See next. (Especially bolded in red..)

Nearly incomprehensible Batman! Did you mean...

The British did not think so as they stopped flying bombing missions from there with Wellingtons.

What he said. Furthermore, the German raids did not become serious until early 1941.

I haven't heard of the length of Malta's runways being a problem. What I have heard is that at the time we're discussing the number of aircraft that Malta's airfields could accommodate was limited by the "dispersal" that was available.

Same again.

@McPhersonThe Wellingtons of No. 148 Squadron were withdrawn from Malta in March 1941. The reason for their withdrawal was that the air commander at Malta felt unable to protect them and the Sunderlands of No. 228 Squadron from German air attack.

Here's the proof.

HyperWar: The Mediterranean & Middle East, Vol.II (Chapter 3)

www.ibiblio.org

Note...

There were three airfields: Hal Far in the extreme south, Luqa overlooking the Grand Harbour, and Takali lying under the high ground in the centre of the island. Between Hal Far and Luqa lay the two landing strips of Safi. The flying-boat base and the equipment and repair depot were at Kalafrana, only a mile from Hal Far. The capacity of the airfields at this time was about five squadrons in all, a figure which allowed for some dispersion on the ground and left room for aircraft reinforcements passing through to Egypt. Possible sites for fresh airfields were few. Much of the remaining level ground was intersected by ravines and even the existing airfields were bordered by rocky outcrops and church towers which limited the length of the runways and increased the hazards of taking off and landing. Machinery for airfield construction was almost entirely lacking. During this period the aircraft were dispersed around the perimeter of the airfields at no great distance from the runways. It was not until June that a network of taxi-tracks was begun which made it possible to disperse over a much wider area, thus gradually increasing the capacity of the airfields.

No matter how one tries to parse the statements... the runways were TOO SHORT.

 

[CalBear]

The biggest problem, beyond range and the need to overfly enemy territory, lies in the attack itself.

Up thread someone post a picture from Pearl, as an illustration of what Level bombers could do. It is critical to look beyond a picture. The IJN used a specially modified 16" battleship AP shell to conduct its level flight attacks. 48 Aircraft dropped single bombs, in CVU full daylight conditions and managed ONE crippling hit. That hit was, of course, spectacularly successful and destroyed the Arizona. It is likely that one or both of the bomb hits on Maryland was also an 800kg modified shell, however reports that California was also struck by one or two of the 800kg weapons don't match up with known conditions since all the B5N so equipped had cleared the area before the ship took the bomb hits. This very low rate of success came from crews that were extensively, and relentlessly, trained on conducting precision attacks against maneuvering warships, yet they managed a fairly abysmal success rate. This does not bode well for an RAF attack (unless the aircrew are hand picked and rigorously trained a la 617 Squadron) with level bombers.

The second, and very important issue, lies in aircraft maneuverability. The Wellington had close to double the wingspan of the Swordfish, was 50% longer, and its empty weight was about 2 1/2 time the max load of the Swordfish. That makes for a far less maneuverable aircraft with a wide wingspan attempting to make ultra low level and low speed torpedo attacks (almost certainly with hastily trained crews unless the 617 example is used) in the dark while in the confines of a harbor. The likelihood of losing a number of aircraft simply through dragging a wingtip is very high (keep in mind the efforts it took to get 617 ready to fly at about double the height needed to make a successful torpedo attack) much less hitting a crane or other obstruction in the dark.

Be a tragic loss of brave crews,

 

[marathag]

the runways were TOO SHORT.

Too Short would mean that no takeoffs could occur.
That is false, as they did, in fact, send off armed and fueled bombers to attack Italian targets.

Were they not as long as pilots would wish?

Certainly.

 

[marathag]

The second, and very important issue, lies in aircraft maneuverability. The Wellington had close to double the wingspan of the Swordfish, was 50% longer, and its empty weight was about 2 1/2 time the max load of the Swordfish. That makes for a far less maneuverable aircraft with a wide wingspan attempting to make ultra low level and low speed torpedo attacks

Yet later IC were converted to be torpedo bombers, so someone at FAA thought it doable.

Wellington IC
Wing loading: 168 kg/m²
Power loading 7.5W per kg

Swordfish
Wing loading: 60 kg/m²
Power loading 6.0W per kg

Now for another successful torpedo bomber
SM.79

Wing loading: 165 kg/m²
Power loading 5.45W per kg

EDIT and another
G4M
Wing loading: 164 kg/m²
Power loading 5.64W per kg

Now that the Wimpy had the strongest structure of the three, I don't see why it would do any worse than the SM. 79, since it had more power

​

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The biggest problem, beyond range and the need to overfly enemy territory, lies in the attack itself.

Up thread someone post a picture from Pearl, as an illustration of what Level bombers could do. It is critical to look beyond a picture. The IJN used a specially modified 16" battleship AP shell to conduct its level flight attacks. 48 Aircraft dropped single bombs, in CVU full daylight conditions and managed ONE crippling hit. That hit was, of course, spectacularly successful and destroyed the Arizona. It is likely that one or both of the bomb hits on Maryland was also an 800kg modified shell, however reports that California was also struck by one or two of the 800kg weapons don't match up with known conditions since all the B5N so equipped had cleared the area before the ship took the bomb hits. This very low rate of success came from crews that were extensively, and relentlessly, trained on conducting precision attacks against maneuvering warships, yet they managed a fairly abysmal success rate. This does not bode well for an RAF attack (unless the aircrew are hand picked and rigorously trained a la 617 Squadron) with level bombers.

The second, and very important issue, lies in aircraft maneuverability. The Wellington had close to double the wingspan of the Swordfish, was 50% longer, and its empty weight was about 2 1/2 time the max load of the Swordfish. That makes for a far less maneuverable aircraft with a wide wingspan attempting to make ultra low level and low speed torpedo attacks (almost certainly with hastily trained crews unless the 617 example is used) in the dark while in the confines of a harbor. The likelihood of losing a number of aircraft simply through dragging a wingtip is very high (keep in mind the efforts it took to get 617 ready to fly at about double the height needed to make a successful torpedo attack) much less hitting a crane or other obstruction in the dark.

Be a tragic loss of brave crews,

Makes me wonder what aircraft the RAF had in 1940 that would be suitable for extreme low level attacks. Skip Bombing in the US vernacular. That also requires some extra training, but gives 250 & 500 kg bombs the effect of small torpedoes.