A very unfortunate service history but back in 1937 it was seen as a very modern aircraft. Flight magazine article about the construction and technical details of the airaft that failed miserably during the Battle for France
The Victoria Crosses The Battle of France was a desperate affair, but some actions stand out to show just how desperate it was. On 12 May 1940, six Battles of 12 Squadron attacked the bridges over the Albert Canal, when four of the aircraft were destroyed. Two Victoria Crosses were awarded posthumously for the action - to Flying Officer Garland and navigator/bombardier Sgt. Gray of Battle P2204/K - for pressing home the attack in spite of the heavy defensive fire. The third crewmember, rear gunner Leading Aircraftman Lawrence Reynolds, did not share the award. Garland's Battle destroyed one span of the bridge, although the German army quickly erected a pontoon bridge to replace it. The LG citation Flying Officer Donald Edward GARLAND (40105). 563627 Sergeant Thomas GRAY Flying Officer Garland was the pilot and Sergeant Gray the observer of the leading aircraft of a formation of five aircraft that attacked a bridge over the Albert Canal which had not been destroyed and was allowing the enemy to advance into Belgium. All the air crews of the squadron concerned volunteered for the operation and, after five crews had been selected by drawing lots, the attack was delivered at low altitude against this vital target. Orders were issued that this bridge was to be destroyed at all costs. As had been anticipated, exceptionally intense machine gun and anti-aircraft fire was encountered, and the bridge area was heavily protected by enemy fighters. In spite of this the formation successfully delivered a dive bombing attack from the lowest practicable altitude and British fighters in the vicinity reported that the target was obscured by the bombs bursting on it and in its vicinity. Only one aircraft returned from this mission out of the five concerned. The pilot of this aircraft reports that in addition to the extremely heavy antiaircraft fire, through which our aircraft dived to attack the objective, they were also attacked by a large number of enemy fighters after they had released their bombs on the target. Much of the success of this vital operation must be attributed to the formation leader; Flying Officer Garland, and to the coolness and resource of Sergeant Gray, who navigated Flying Officer Garland's! aircraft under most difficult onditions in such a manner that the whole formation was able successfully to attack the target in spite of subsequent heavy losses'. Flying Officer Garland and Sergeant Gray unfortunately failed to return from the mission.
This shows how badly the Battle was mauled during the few weeks of the campaign: http://www.pavaservices.com/cfs/Battle.htm
Thanks, Kiran, for this. Several interesting points for discussion: 1] To what extent was the Battle's losses the fault of the aircraft, rather than the tasks it was expected to do? Was there any day bomber of the early part of WW2 which did not suffer horrendous losses when attacked by enemy fighters, or to AA when attacking targets at low level? The Blenheim, the Skua, the TBD Devastator, the Lockheed Ventura, the Ju87 Stuka, the Potez 63, the Tupolev SB2, all suffered high casualty rates where operated in areas where they did not have air superiority. Later in the war, the Mosquito got away with it because it was genuinely faster than the opposition, and the US day bombers such as the B25 succeeded by partly having a heavy defensive armament but more importantly by having a strong fighter escorts. 2] The VC awards to Garland and Gray: this is the only time that a pilot and navigator (Observer, to be precise) of one aircraft were both awarded VCs, The controversy here is not so much that the observer was awarded the VC but that the air gunner was not. But the assumption was that Gray must have navigated under extreme pressure, but Reynolds was not in a position to make any contribution to the actual bombing attack or to be part of the decision process. It could be described as quite progressive thinking to acknowledge that an aircraft had more than just a pilot on board to exercise courage, but I imagine that in later instances it was felt that the award would be cheapened by being approved for more than one of the crew, and when the pilot was awarded a VC it was as a representative of his crew, in same way as a ship's captain was. The pilot, or Captain, makes the decision to attack. But the first account I ever read of this action was in John Frayn Turner's book "VCs of the Air", which I read when I was about twelve: this book doesn't even mention Reynold's presence; it was only much later that I realised the aircraft even had an A/G. 3] Note that the 1937 Flight article seems to assume a two-man crew, with the observer acting as gunner as well as navigating, bomb-aiming and operating the wireless. Presumably these roles were separated out later. 4] The prone bomb-aimer's position must have been very cramped given that the centre-section spar must have carried through in this area. Pity they don't show just how he fitted in. The diagram in pdf 7 gives some clue, but I would have liked more on this. Sadly there are no complete Battles in existence to examine. 5] re.: the article on pdf 8 on the Zurich Air Race. Note that the Me 109, as flown by a certain Colonel Udet, is not refered to as a Messerschmidt, but as a BFW, which presumably stands for Bayerisch Flugzeug-Werke [Bavarian Aircraft Factory]. Was this in fact always the correct designation?
Strewth Adrian, you don't ask simple questions, do you? I have to think about a couple but I can answer your last one now. As you state BF is the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (Bavarian Aircraft Works), which Willy Messerschmitt joined in the 1920s. In the late 1930s, the company was changed to Messerschmitt AG, with Willy becoming Director. Those aircraft that had been designed before this retained the Bf (108, 109, 110 - can't remember any others) on official documents, and the ones after became Me. However, the two became pretty much interchangeable.
Have just been reading the entry for the Battle in Fairey Aircraft since 1915 by Taylor and it confirms what I thought - namely that the aircraft always had a 3-man crew. However, the Flight article seems to be an composite of their own research and details gleened from the original Air Ministry specifications. The AM specs originally intended it to be a 2-man crew, which assumed that the task of navigation and radio-operation wasn't that difficult. It certainly highlights how far behind the thinking was about the nature of future war, and also the skills of the navigator. But to be fair, it was only when the war actually started, and was well into its second year, that Bomber Command finally accepted that navigation skills were wanting, especially when entire cities couldn't be found with the equipment and training then available. Unfortunately, I can't seem to attach the relevant section on the Battle as a pdf but if you are interested I'll email it to you.
These are much grittier questions, Adrian. It is true that most aircraft suffered, not just because of their performance. The Germans learnt in the BoB what the RAF learnt initially in France - the use of light, slow dive-bombers on their own was asking for trouble. What I find interesting is that both the British and Germans spent so much time working out their anti-aircraft doctrines but then didn't tabulating them for affects on their own attacking aircraft. However, as Taylor states in the Fairey book, the Battle was seen by everyone as obsolete even whilst the first few aircraft were being rolled out. That's a couple of years before the war started! However, the RAF just didn't have any other alternative at that time as a replacement. As with the Defient, it was partly out dated doctrinal thinking, and partly to get as many aircraft on to the front-lines as possible as an attempt at scaring the Germans into not starting a war. Unfortunately, both the doctrine and the deterent failed, and the people who really suffered were the crews who had to fly these suicide missions. I have always thought Reynolds' ommission as a gross injustice. As you state, more often than not, he is left out altogether. But the fact that he couldn't even be awarded another award is so sad. But one has to wonder (without taking away the bravery of the other two) whether they would have got the VC if other awards were available posthomously. Just one of those "what ifs" linked to many occassions where the VC has or hasn't been awarded.
Battle L5343 http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1997/08/stuff_eng_detail_battle.htm http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/12/stuff_eng_battleaddendum.htm
Kyt Thanks for these replies - I will reply properly tomorrow; my Broadband link has been off-line since about 9 pm until just now; this often happens on Sunday evenings; it seems to be Virginmedia's time to take down the system to maintain it. I promised myself a relatively early night tonight! The article you mention would be particularly interesting if it has any interior diagrams in it. Adrian
I think Hendon has a complete Battle and that might be the one Kyt linked to (haven't been to that site yet). There's one down here in South Australia being put together slowly as well (we used them for gunnery training of air gunners). Iceland rings a bell for wreckage as well but will have to trawl for that lot.
Not the best pictures but the only internal ones I can find Looking from the Cockpit backwards Gunners Position forward
Yep, that's the Hendon one, which is the one that was found in Iceland. And for the Australian Battles: http://www.adf-serials.com/ Go to RAAF Series 2, and then A22
http://www.belleair.co.uk/diving/wreck_note.asp Battle in Malta? Target tug? Comms aircraft? The British ‘S’ class Submarine HMS Stubborn lays upright and intact in 57 metres of water on a sand seafloor about a mile out of St. Paul’s Bay. The remains of a German ‘E’ Boat which came to grief whilst laying sea-mines just outside the harbour at Marsascala, resting in 40 metres of water. A 19th century paddle-steamer - HMS Hellespont used by the allies during the 1940’s can be found upright and intact on the seabed in about 50 metres of water out of Grand Harbour. Close by, the Admiral of the Fleet Barge HMS St. Angelo which also lies upright and intact on a sand/gravel seabed at a similar depth. In the same area and similar depth the Minesweeper HMS Eddy and a cable layer are perfectly preserved wrecks. For many years a few privileged divers had ventured to dive the wreck of a Blenheim Bomber aircraft out of Marsascala in 40 metres of water and then wandered to the resting places of the many allied and axis aircraft that were known to have entered the sea close to shore. In the last months of 2004 the wreck of a British Bristol Beaufighter aircraft was relocated (after its initial discovery in the 1970’s) some 500 metres out of Sliema in just under 40 metres of water. The aircraft was ditched after the pilot experienced problems after taking off from Luqa Airfield en-route for a raid on shipping in Sicilian waters. Both crewmembers escaped unharmed. Ongoing is the search for a WW2 Spitfire and Fairey Battle both of which have been pinpointed but require further in-depth investigation. For the advanced diver, the giant passenger-liner Polynesian lays on a sloping seabed some 3 miles out from Marsascala. This massive wreck was sent to the seafloor after encountering enemy action during 1917 and is rarely dived.
Hi Kyt & Andy I was gob-smacked to see that there is after all a Battle in the RAF Museum! I hadn't been there since I was a boy, but then I went there twice last year (because I didn't get all round the first time), and again this year (for the Cross&Cockade AGM), but I don't remember seeing a Battle. This could well be just down to me: going round somewhere like the RAFM is like eating a whole box of chocolates in one go; I spend so long looking at every rivet on the first few exhibits I come to that I am in a daze by mid-afternoon and rush round the second half. So I may well have bypassed the Battle and a lot else besides. On the other hand, the photo above was clearly taken some years ago - I know this because the Sikorsky R-4B Hoverfly in the background is now in the Milestones of Flight Exhibition in the new hall, so possibly the Battle got sent to Cosford or Duxford when they rearranged. And co-incidentally I was reading Aeroplane Monthly last night and they said there are four Battles in existence,, including one in Belgium. It must have been very disconcerting to know the Battle was not going to survive in a contemporary combat environment, but not to have any alternative. Was there any aircraft in the world that they had their eye on? The Blenheim was scarcely faster, had no better defensive armament and the same bombload. The Stuka was slower, but possibly more accurate in dive-bomber mode, which may have made missions seem less futile. The Mosquito was of course the real answer, but in 1937 it was still a twinkle in the eye of Geoffrey De Havilland and Ronald Bishop. The interior photos that Kyt posted appear to show the Observer's bomb-aiming well, in the floor. The last of the photos in the IPMS link shows a view of the underside, showing the cooling exit, and behind that three apertures apparently covered in perspex, which must have been the opening hatch for the bombsight (draughty and vertiginious when open I should imagine). This hatch appears to have been further aft that the "Flight" diagram in the pdf, therefore behind the main-spar carry-through. The rear gun stowage arrangements (in the IPMS pictures) are very similar to those in the contemporary TBD Devastator (attached below).
AR, the link in post #16 is the Belgian Battle if you haven't seen her before. Sometimes I feel as though the Battle was the interim aircraft when biplane bombers were being phased out but nothing decent monoplane-wise had been designed as a "culture-shift" in what bombers should be was still under way. Despite its shortcomings, I think the Blenheim was the first real attempt at a modern British bomber. After all, when it flew, it was faster than the fighters at the time. Obviously it was caught up with pretty quickly but it presented a leap forward by proving bombers didn't have to be lumbering things. The Battle was another attempt at this (thinking differently) but, I think, put too much reliance on the Merlin. Interesting that two pivotal British light bombers, the Blenheim and Mossie, started off as private ventures. Having said all that, and going back to AR's comments about knowing the inadequacies of your aircraft, surely Battle men were the bravest of the brave? Mind you, all aircrew were brave no matter their nationality or aircraft. The early RAF bomber crews in the war, though, never cease to amaze me. Interesting to note that a lot of the leaders I come across in my reading on the Med theatre had already completed a tour out of the UK before being posted to warmer climes. Amazing people.
