The Engineer’s annual review of technological advances took a melancholic turn in January 1940 when it became clear that aeronautical innovation would be driven by conflict.
Four months had elapsed since Britain and France declared war on Germany, yet it was becoming apparent that fighters and bombers would be more pivotal to the outcome of the Second World War than the First World War.
As noted in 1940, great strides had been made to “knit the world together by rapid air transport” in the 36 years since the Wrights first flew, but military advances continued to outpace those in the civilian sector.
“It is always so with new inventions,” The Engineer wrote with resignation. “Mankind, still in the youth of his civilisation, is quick to seize on a chance to design yet another tool for attack on his neighbours, and only gradually is the peaceful use of the device discovered and developed.”
The author couldn’t have predicted that by July 1940, an entirely new theatre of war would have opened up in the skies above England that would be followed by a devastating – and strategically futile – bombing campaign by the Luftwaffe. That said, our correspondent went on to exercise a degree of prescience in assessing what might be required to defend our shores.
With only a narrow window through which to observe the war, The Engineer noted that results were going against Germany with “certainly no less than 25, and maybe nearer 50 per cent” losses for the Luftwaffe.
“The formations concerned in the fighting so far have all been small, and the question may be asked whether the bombers would find greater security if they came in large formations,” The Engineer wrote.
Bombers had range but they lacked the speed and manoeuvrability to outrun or out-manoeuvre fighters sent to repel attacks, but that didn’t stop The Engineer observing that “the initiative is always with the attacker, and until one can be quite sure that every possible mode of attack has been measured up and allowed for it is not possible to say that the defence is complete”.
Our correspondent said: “At present the nature of the attack depends on the speeds and manoeuvring powers attainable today, but it is necessary when planning the defence to look far ahead. The speeds are now well over 300mph and machines have even been driven at over 400mph; it must be expected that they will rise still further, though to pass Nature’s steep barrier at the velocity of sound will take much more knowledge than anyone in the world now possesses.
“Fortunately, there is good reason to expect that fighting aircraft will always have a comfortable margin of speed over contemporary bombers.”
Bomber designers were, said The Engineer, continually trying to push the performance of their aircraft in terms of speed, but realised that the omission of guns would leave their lumbering aircraft vulnerable to attack.
“As a gun platform the fighter is a much better proposition,” our correspondent noted. “Better as regards accuracy, and better as regards volume of fire. No doubt it is due in part to these causes that the casualty list among German aeroplanes has been so considerable.”
As if predicting a significant operational failing of the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, our correspondent observed that bomber formations need the protection of accompanying fighters, but “the latter lack the range of the large bomber, and the home-based defensive fighters are vastly better circumstanced. This is to the good as it strengthens the defence”.
“On the whole, therefore, it can be said that the defence in the air is now exceedingly powerful and is likely to grow still stronger,” said The Engineer. “Defence from the ground is also becoming increasingly effective and is fully keeping pace with technical improvements in aircraft, whilst the arrival of hostile aircraft in huge formations would naturally delight the aircraft gunner’s professional eye.”
Our reporter said: “It is sad that our aeronautical record of 1939 should have to relate to warlike matters entirely. But the requirements of public safety make it undesirable that the scientific advances of the year, important as they are and interesting as they would be to our readers, should be disclosed at this time. We hope for better fortune when ‘Aeronautics in 1940’ comes to be written.”
…and never was owed by so many to so few as the British fighter pilot. Great daring, great skill, and the world is a happier place for it.
Yes, new inventions, some very useful to boost the civil industry as a side effect while most of country management does not see the advantages of new technology because we are a primate monetary ideology, that is where most wars originate. Similar as with the jet engine at the start of WW2. Now a comparable situation with robot weapons, investing billions in JSF , while on the other hand our management is trying to forbid robot weapons because these outclass everything … We do not invest in useful technology and know how but as stupid mules try to buy stripped technology and thus always are a step behind, stay stupid. Even worse always buy from the same vendor, who lives in a very big house. Our place is last in the party and costing a huge amount of money which explains the high fuel prices at a low barrel cost..
Our tv is never debating about this, it is filled with pro forma discussion and focussing on the bad over the border.
sadly, the most memorable and humane discovery/procedure, was surely that of the art of “plastic surgery”?
The petrol tank on Spitfire’s was in front of the pilot………….getting out of a cockpit, through fiercely fanned burning petrol, resulted in hideously scarred pilots. Photo’s of them brings tears to the eyes—a life of permanent, awful, disfigurement / blindness. Surgical progress– at an awful cost to “The Few”.
Have read this blog comment several times: still not sure what link or metaphor or simile or analogy Jan is trying to get across?
Help?
[“As a gun platform the fighter is a much better proposition,” our correspondent noted…]
But a sad truth was that British fighters had mostly rifle caliber machine guns, while German ones had stronger autocannons plus machine guns. It took a too long time to realize the limitations of the small calibre guns, even when fed with incendiary-AP bullets. Advanced fighters started to use autocannons but even then, those were mounted in the wings, therefore the fire was properly aimed at a fixed distance only, while the airscrew shaft mounted ones were much better aimed! In the end, the stupidity of Goering and Hitler was of Paramount importance in the result of the battle. Goering never gave the figher branch of Luftwaffe the importance they deserved, and Hitler stopped short of almost draining the lower and lower British pilot numbers, would they persevered and the outcome would be different. Fortunately, the several strategy changes by both sides was successful for Britain and bad for Germany. The RAF was allowed to reorganize and keep the necessary strenght thanks to the change in objectives set by the Germans. Anyhow, the famous phrase is still valid! And even more significant is the frequently forgotten fact that the British achieved a tremendously well organized system of comanding the battle: from the remote observation and listening posts, to the effective RADAR implementation, to the exemplary performance of the war-room staff (including the female WAAFs-Women Auxiliary Air Force), where the battle was really conducted!
My dear Father (deceased back in 1991) was present inside that room as an observer, and when the magnificent movie “The Battle of Britain” directed by Guy Hamilton was projected in my city (I guess it was around september 1970) my father took me to the premiere, and we returned not one, but TWO more times to see it again before the cinema stopped to show it! After each session, my father took me to a coffe shop, where he went into a special mood (He seldom talked about WW-II), and carefully explained to me the many scenes from the movie at lenght, and also described in full detail how it was life during the Blitz.
In 2007 I was fortunate to be in Canada on the celebration of the Battle of Britain in Ottawa-Gatineau small airport, where they have a very moving ceremony to honor the few survivors that returned from that battle. The event is grandiose, because they perform a fly-by where I was happy to hear “music” perfomed by no less tan SEVEN Merlin engines running simultaneously (four on a Lancaster bomber, one on a Hurricane, and two more on a Mustang P-51 and a Spitfire (well, the Spitfire had’n a Merlin, but a Griffon!)
That ‘musical’ performance was accompanied by a Bagpipes assembly, and the solemnity made me shed tears.
While that phrase sounds nice, according to a book printed in 1943 that my dear father brought from England, in 1940 the average enemy aircraft downed by AA fire was about 10,000 gun projectiles fired per aircraft downed, if I remember correctly! I don’t have that book at hand now, but promise to post its data later.
Amclaussen: Thank you for your sharing.