Blenheim defensive moves?

[PolishEagle1939]

Now that I finally got the thing taking off and flying on a regular basis, I was wondering what sort of defensive moves work best when attacked. So far I stay low and turn a lot. Though this usually turns into me hearing that hail on a tin roof sound and things breaking. The Blenheim can really take the punishment though. Any help on any better tactics would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for replies

[He111]

Bombers could climb / fall a bit to offput 6 o'clock attackers, or slide left or right to give gunners good site past the tail.

surprising how maneuverable a bomber could be after dropping it's bomb load. case in point, a aussie pilot of a Hudson over PNG was able to pulloff a immelmann maneuver while being chased by Zeros. .. or was it a "wing-over" ?? not sure of the details.

.

[Sokol1]

a aussie pilot of a Hudson over PNG was able to pulloff a immelmann maneuver while being chased by Zeros. .. or was it a "wing-over" ?? not sure of the details.

I remember of this story in some web site a long time ago.
The Hudson alone against a group of Zeros, include Saburo Sakai.
The pilot turn against Zeros making "wing-over" maneuver.
After 10 minutes finally the rear gunner is disable and the Zeros down the Hudson.

If I remember correctly Sakai wrote to Australian government after the war and recommend the pilot for a medal, but they never received.

Edit- Warren Cowan: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s590505.htm

http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/allies/us/cleaverhudson.htm

Sokol1

[senseispcc]

In the case of most of RAF early bombers during the day; pray very hard! :evil:

[Blackdog_kt]

Hahaha, that was exactly what i was coming here to post as my introductory joking comment when i saw the title, pray :-P

On a serious note, there are various tactics you can try to minimize your exposure to interceptors. For other RAF bombers defensive formations work quite well, due to the rapid fire capability of the .030s and the fact that most if not all of the fighters in the sim (axis and allied) are early models with little or no armor. The Blenheim however only has a single machine gun in the turret so that gains are marginal. It's still better to fly with wingmen than without and put up a bit of barrage fire from, let's say, three turrets instead of one, but not as effective as in bombers equipped with more turrets and guns.

The Blenheim's main strength would be that it's nimble and can be quite fast if you know what you are doing with the engines and use an appropriate loadout. In that sense, your main aim should be to plan the mission out ahead of time in a way that will minimize your chances of exposure to enemy interceptors. Don't use your speed and agility to duke it out with fighters, use it to fly a route that will have you going in and out before you can get intercepted.

First of all, it's got quite a bit of range so don't load 100% fuel. The external fuel tanks were used for long range missions only (like the raid on the Cologne power stations) and most cross-channel flying was done on the inboard tanks alone. If memory serves me right, setting fuel to 55% or so will have you spawning with fuel only in the inboard tanks.

Second, since the bombsight is not really that accurate and there's no heading hold autopilot to keep it level, you need to fly somewhat low anyway to maintain bombing accuracy.

Another reason for this is that we can't yet judge or measure the effect of wind. It can be done on the automatic Luftwaffe sights because you can see if the sight is tracking correctly and adjust as necessary, but manual sights need a separate instrument to measure wind drift and this is currently not modeled yet. So, dropping from lower altitudes is a necessity to lessen the amount of time the bombs will be affected by wind.

Make yourself an advantage out of this restriction by flying as fast as you can at as low an altitude as you're comfortable bombing from. This could mean bombing via the bombsight from 3000ft or setting a delay fuse and bombing like a fighter bomber would from lower altitudes by using the pilot's gunsight. This will take some experimenting with the bomb fuzes to find which is the one that arms fast enough to ensure a detonation from lower altitudes.

Third, plan your routes. If you can come into the target area from an unexpected direction do so, even if it means spending 10 minutes going in a different direction to set up this alternate target approach (you got the fuel for it so why not use it). If you can approach the target from a direction that will have you facing home territory even better.

In short, if you want to take-off from Lympne and bomb a target in Calais, don't just turn to a SE heading and fly right into the hornet's nest. Fly south for some time, keep low over the sea, turn east towards land, then turn NW towards Calais. This way you'll be inching closer to home even as you aim and drop your bombs and take evasive action from flak, instead of having to execute a complete 180 degree turn in the vicinity of enemy flak and fighters.

Finally, a lot of this is also historically correct and will enhance your immersion factor. RAF bombers were generally inferior in terms of defensive armament and durability, making up for it with increased range, heavier bombloads, higher speed and better maneuverability. A single Mosquito could carry as much as a B-17 at comparable ranges and much faster speeds and if it went down the service only lost 2 crew members instead of 10. Why? Because it didn't have any guns :-P

The mosquito is of course a very specific example and probably shares the spot for most versatile aircraft of the war alongside the Ju88, but this design mentality is prevalent among most of the RAF bomber designs: even early twin-engined designs like the Whitley were considered heavy strategic bombers and not medium tactical ones.
When the four engined ones came along it went even further, the Lancaster had a cavernous bomb-bay that could hold a maximum 8 tons of bombs (the normal variants, special ones carried even heavier loads) for shorter range raids and probably 5 tons was an easy thing to do on a normal raid, plus was nimble enough and with a sufficient power reserve to execute violent evasive maneuvers like the corkscrew.

By comparison the B-17's 6000lbs, which is a short range payload, is less than 3 tons and looks paltry in comparison. That doesn't mean one kind of design mentality is superior to the other, it just means that different priorities forced a different set of advantages and disadvantages. Precision bombing from higher altitudes, in formations with sufficient mutually protective gunner fire and durable bombers that could bring their crews back was what the USAF did later in the war: their bombers were meant to make way to the target in an organized manner and be able to fight it out.

RAF bomber command was almost the exact opposite. They mostly cared about carrying the maximum amount of bombs possible to the maximum possible range and designed their bombers around that, sacrificing other features in the process. Lancasters had an appallingly low crew survival rate if they were forced down, with many fatalities occurring even when a controlled crash landing was made, all the RAF bombers were more susceptible to battle damage and they all carried weaker guns and usually less of them. They were not made to fight it out, but to rely on stealth, speed and agility to carry their heavier payloads to greater distances.

The kind of tactics employed later in the war clearly reflect that, with bomber captains even having a choice of take-off time within a certain time frame: if you can't take much damage or provide a hail of covering fire there's no need to fly a rigid formation, especially if you are bombing during nighttime (collision hazards, etc). Much better to spread out (but not too thin so as not to be picked off one by one by radar controllers), flying in the same general airspace to saturate the enemy air defences but at different altitudes, airspeeds and time. You don't want to fight it out with them because you can't, you want to make it as hard for them as possible to find each individual bomber and make sure that for every one that gets intercepted alone in the dark (sacrificial lamb style), 2-3 more make it to the target undisturbed.

Even slight dive bombing attacks were employed by RAF bombers as early as 1940-41, i remember reading an account by a Hampden pilot but i can't find the link.

Anyway, this is getting rather lengthy so i'll stop here. Just try to emulate bomber command's tactics and you'll find that stealth over direct combat plays into the few advantages your bomber has, while also enhancing your immersion and accomplishment factor. Good luck ;)

[He111]

Excellent comments blackdog, i would also add - don't fly during clear weather, fly at night etc. This brings me onto my next question, i watched many docos on the BOB but I've never heard of bomber command attacking enemy airfields at night, to disorganise the Luftwaffe the following day. Did BC ever help FC by bombing airfields at night during BOB? I've heard of Hampdens dropping mines in harbour entrances but that's about it! ..


.

[mazex]

Bombers could climb / fall a bit to offput 6 o'clock attackers, or slide left or right to give gunners good site past the tail.

surprising how maneuverable a bomber could be after dropping it's bomb load. case in point, a aussie pilot of a Hudson over PNG was able to pulloff a immelmann maneuver while being chased by Zeros. .. or was it a "wing-over" ?? not sure of the details.

.

Well, some bombers where not that bad without their bombs... I was inches from getting a ride in an A-20 once and it still hurts that they had some issue with it the day we where there. Had to sit in the cockpit discussing the plane with one of the pilots at least... I have seen that plane at air shows though and it really flies more like a heavy fighter than a bomber, but OK - the A-20 is one of the most agile bombers and was used like the ju-88 as a night fighter...

From what I hear the Blenheim was not that bad without bombs... But far from an A-20 ;) The Hudson though? :)

Mazex

[JG53Frankyboy]

when i fly the Blenheim online, i have no tracers loaded in my Vickers K.
Might surprise an enemy interceptor :D

[Tavingon]

I want to see the blenhiem version with the under nose rearface turret, and the dual browning rear gunner!

[Scavenger]

I have a very greedy e4 killed with nose MG. He was very surprised.

[senseispcc]

The Blenheim was not a bad bomber but a light bomber or a bad fighter. in 1936 a very fast bomber, in 1940 a not so fast bomber, in 1942 a slow bomber but never a big bomber or a long range one. This plane had never enough armament, guns or bombs. The little under nose Frazer Nash two .303 machines guns was a defensive weapon but the fighter version had four .303 machine guns firing forward in a turret on the underside of the center fuselage for the MKI or IV.

[HurricaneDriver]

Excellent post, Blackdog.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Whilst researching for some server missions Ive seen "Blenhiem fighters" listed from various sources...

WTF is this? Like a heavy fighter? Does anyone have more info?

[JG53Frankyboy]

a gondola with 4x .303cal Brownings were installed in the bombbay - that made a Blenheim Mk.IF and IVF

so, fire'power' aimed by the pilot was 5x .303cal ........................