Heavy Bomber capacity?

[poor_bloody_infantry]

I know that msot all of the belligerent air forces developed some rudimentary heavy bomber aircraft during the War, with the most impressive was actually a Russian plane designed by Igor Sikorsky in my opinion. Does anyone know if any of the air commanders of the day considered using the heavy's to drop gas shells onto the enemy's extreme rear areas as part of a combined land gun and aircraft delivered bombardment scheme?

[Simon Jones]

The dropping of gas bombs from the air was certainly considered by French, German & British but rejected on grounds that on the one hand, the results would be too dispersed, and on the other that it would only invite reprisals. When the British dropped chemical bombs in Russia in 1919 these were arsenical smoke generators and light enough to be dropped from DH9a and Short 184 aircraft.

Regards

Simon

[PhilB]

The dropping of gas bombs from the air was rejected on grounds that it would only invite reprisals. Regards

Simon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose the same could be said of any new weapon, Simon. Were there particular grounds for rejecting aerial gas bombs? It would have made life more unpleasant around the staff`s areas of operation! Phil B

[Guest]

Using the small number of heavy bombers available would have been pointless. It would have taken them away from their primary taks while not providing the continuous bombing necessary to ensure persistence. Artillery was better for this purpose.

Phil hits the nail onthe head. Gas made life unpleasant as long as you took the precautions. It made it difficult for the enemy to function rather than killing large numbers. For this purpose, heavy bombers could do nothing which the artillery was not already doing, I think.

And gas was a tactical weapon which could accomplish little in the enemy strategic rear.

[poor_bloody_infantry]

And gas was a tactical weapon which could accomplish little in the enemy strategic rear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the replies folks. I was thinking more along the lines of disrupting a small area command & control operation during an offensive push rather than conducting a theater wide strategic bombing campaign when posting my question. Given the state of the aircraft available in those days, perhaps a stealthy attack on a rear area command post probably wasn't practical to launch, and perhaps poison gas wasn't the weapon of choice to consider using either. Maybe dropping a few bee hives instead? ((joking))

[PhilB]

Retaliation would have made life unpleasant for the Allied commanders too. Might that have influenced their decision not use the weapon? Phil B

[per ardua per mare per terram]

I don’t think these heavy bombers were regarded as stealthy; with a relatively low ground speed, they would be tracked to and from the targets enabling the command and control personnel to be ready. Plus I’m not sure that the intelligence available was sufficient to identify command posts that were out of range of artillery. And actually hitting a command post calls for greater accuracy than was possible for most bombers/ crews in WWII let alone WWI!

[J T Gray]

I don’t think these heavy bombers were regarded as stealthy; with a relatively low ground speed, they would be tracked to and from the targets enabling the command and control personnel to be ready.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will second this point - I've seen the Vimy replica in the air, and it is SLOW! I don't know what the quoted figures would be, but it looked as though you could outrun it on a pushbike. I don't think I've ever seen any other aeroplane that slow in level flight. I can't help thinking that their use in daytime would have been tantamount to a turkey shoot for anti-aircraft gunners.

Adrian

[Adrian Roberts]

I will second this point - I've seen the Vimy replica in the air, and it is SLOW! I don't know what the quoted figures would be, but it looked as though you could outrun it on a pushbike. I don't think I've ever seen any other aeroplane that slow in level flight. I can't help thinking that their use in daytime would have been tantamount to a turkey shoot for anti-aircraft gunners.

The Vimy Replica flown by Steve Fossett has just [2/7/05] crossed the Atlantic in a recreation of Alcock and Brown's 1919 flight. The media hardly noticed; it got about one entry on teletext which I only saw because I was looking out for it.

The cruising speed is quoted as being 85 mph - pretty slow but in terms of vulnerability to AAA or fighters it wouldn't make a lot of difference if it could have cruised at around 100 like an average two-seat single-engine bomber. But to be fair it was always intended that the Vimy would be used for night bombing only.

The performance would have been about the same for original and replica: the former had 360 hp Rolls-Royce Eagles; the latter has 360 hp BMW V12s (German!)

See www.vimy.org - but even they haven't got an account of the flight up yet! By the way, they quote 600 hp Orenda engines but only 75 mph cruise - the info I give above came from an Aeroplane Monthly article from 1999

Adrian (Roberts)

[Guest Gary Davidson]

Adrian,

Thanks for mentioning the Vimy flight and website. I had no knowlege of it until you mentioned it. A fascinating project that seems to be pretty well documented on their website.

Gary

[PFF]

The VIMY was feauthered in A National Geographic article