How about the Vickers Vildebeest, first flown in 1928 and last used in action against the Japanese in 1942. An odd biplane bomber that was long obsolete by the start of the 2nd World War, yet like the Gladiator, still saw action.
I was disappointed to read that only 2 complete Halifax bombers remain out of over 6,000 built and neither is airworthy. Then again, only two Lancasters are still flying (I've enjoyed watching the BoB Flight one a few times).
My grandad flew as flight engineer on Halifax’s, mainly with coastal command in wales and stornoway. He did fly on a few raids on Essen and Bremen as well as a few others.
1st Lieutenant Edward Dawson Kornegay, USAAF, joined the RCAF before Pearl Harbour and qualified as a pilot before being posted to England. After crewing up at 20 OTU, Lossiemouth (at which point my late father became his Wireless Operator) he became acquainted with the tired Merlin engined Halifax at 1663 HCU, Rufforth. Around this time, he was transferred to the USAAF but remained detached with the RAF at his request. From Rufforth, the crew were posted to 640 Squadron at Leconfield, flying the Bristol engined Halifax III. They were to complete only 8 'Ops' although their baptism included Berlin and the ill fated Nuremburg raid. Head hunted by Hamish Mahaddie, they were posted to the Lancaster equipped 35 Squadron, Pathfinder Force, with which they completed a further 48 'Ops' before being screened. Here's the thing though. Ed Kornegay rated the Halifax III as a better performer than the Lanc. It handled better and he preferred the Hercules to Merlins.
From all accounts the Mark 3s were as good or better than the Lancs in all aspects bar bomb load, unfortunately that's what bomber command prized above all.
My dad flew in the Halifax Mk3. He applied to join the RAF in 1939 but was told to complete his electrical engineering apprenticeship first. He did his training in 1942 in Canada and qualifies with his wings (for 2nd pilot), radio op - navigator and bombardier. He began operations from early 1943 including European raids, glider, coastal and transport duties.
Thanks for this. My father commanded a Halifax squadron from 1943 mostly bombing Germany at night but I hear little about the planes he flew. He said that out of 30 crews they would lose about 12 a month. He was 25 years old.
Interesting last comment about the odds of surviving after being shot down in a Halifax were slightly better than in a Lancaster. According to a quick check, this is because the layout and positioning of escape hatches in a Halifax made it marginally easier/faster to exit the plane. Given that the Halifax was a bit slower and saw action in more 'dangerous' skies for a year before the Lancaster came into service, there were relatively more of these quick bale-outs needed.
@@Aircraft_Files G'day, Yeah, both of you are not quite Right ; while being almost not wrong. The Early Halifaxes were Mongrel Bar-Stewards For Stalling their Rudders At Full-Pedal - such as when Attempting to evade a NachtJagdFlieger shooting up their Bum-Feathers. And, when the Rudders Stalled - The Halifax Snap-Rolled And Spun in To go "SPLAT - WhoomPHHhh !" All they who doubt This Veracity, are invited to Observe the Early Inadequate, Suicidal Fins. Such be The FACTS. Halifaxes were Incipient Spinning DEATH-TRAPS, For the first 70% of their Operational Service. And, then, after having Bin-Rectificated - They were ALL WITHDRAWN from Main Force Bombing Operations, And, like the failed Stirlings, And the Vulnerable Liberators - Relegated to SAFER Duties, Like Aerotowing Gliders, and Dropping Supplies, or Parachute Troops, Patrolling Empty undefended Ocean, Or Hauling Cargo. The Halifax was Not Any much more "Efficient" than was the Fairey "Battle". Notoriously easy to Shoot Down. Such is life. Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
My uncle with the RCAF was rammed by a German night fighter while piloting his Halifax and somehow managed to crash land it in Soviet occupied Poland closer to the end of the war. The crew were "interned" by the Soviets . His wife and family did not know if he was dead or alive as he was listed as missing until he managed to get back to the west. His aircraft was named after his wife, "Barbie Mark III", as I suppose it was a Mark III Halifax.
I saw the Handley Page, Halifax bomber on display at the Canadian Air Force Museum at Trenton, ON back in 2010. It is amazing how the workers there were able to rebuild it to how it looks almost "factory-fresh" today considering where it was originally found.
Mark V was not just used on training, and met flights, etc, it was fully operational on front line bomber squadrons. Many of my Dad's 30 missions were on mark v, according to the squadron operational records and serial numbers of the aircraft used. Some were Mk ii. The main difference seems to have been the non- standard undercarriage.
I think the reason was availability of parts for manufacturing. Messier was standard, Dowty was substitute on Mk V. Reputedly the Dowty was dodgy, which seems surprising since it's what was used on the Lancaster, but presumably they sorted the issues out. The Messier u/c looks way more substantial
The guns on the later Halifaxes seemed more sensible than on the Lancasters. They replaced the front turret with a aerodynamic perspex blister with a hole for one machine gun. The mid upper turret maybe slowed the Halifax down, but at least it had four machine guns.
So many good lives lost through rudder stall and many too, lost in determining the best shape of rudder from A, through E F G Modified C until finally D type.
Interesting video. For me, a little light on their role as glider transports and in SOE support missions, but that's a personal bias. Their role in the Far East was primarily to be in airborne assault and support, which the dropping of the bomb on Japan put an end to.
Apologies. But I did try to coordinate the pics with the marks and series. Same with the coastal command GRs. I'm always a bit wary adding historical film. But I enjoy the rare find and hope others do too.
In July 1937 the Air Ministry instructed Handley Page to redesign the HP.56 into a 4-engine bomber as they had grave concerns that RR woukd not becable to solve all the problems the Vulturexwas having and they didn't want two of the new medium bombers grounded due to engine issues.
@@Aircraft_Files it's not that hazy. As setbout in Tony Buttler's book British Secret Projects (Fighters and Bomber 1935-1950), in February 1937 we had the mock-up conferences and in April 1937 the HP.56 was selected as the second choice medium bomber followed by,I July 1937, the decision was made to drop the HP.56.56 for a 4-engined version.
I mean it's hazy who initiated the new spec for the 4 engine version. Just suggesting that 3 possible sources to drop the vulture. Including RR themselves. But I think no doubt that the ministry drove the shift to heavies. The companies just read the room.
@@Aircraft_Files sorry, the props were in line with the wings leading edge unlike on the Lancaster which were set below the leading edge. This arrangement on the Halifax caused a greater disturbance to the airflow over the wing in a similar way to the disturbed airflow at the rear prop on the Do X seaplane reduced the thrust it produced.
Yeah. The Lancaster's definitely benefited from their later development. There was a lot learned with the earlier aircraft. You look at some of the Allied Bombers and they were developed much earlier. The B-17 first flew in July of 1935 and the Wellington first flew in June of 1936. Lancaster's first flew in Jan. of '41. There was a lot learned in those years and of course more learned as the war went on. One of the things about the P-51 - is it's later development. Look at all the numbers between 38 and 51. Each of those numbers was an aircraft model which may or may not have amounted to anything. There was a lot of improvement in ergonomics with the P-51 over the pre-war P-38 which made the 51 a much easier plane to fly. In he hands of an experienced pilot - the 38 was phenomenal - but - you needed an experienced pilot to do all the things it could do. The thing is with these later developments - someone had to carry the load to begin with. Wellingtons and B-17's did tremendous service early on as did a number of other early war aircraft. The Japanese - in the New Guinea and Solomon's Campaigns were defeated by pilots flying F4F's and P-40's. By the time the P-51's and Hellcats were available - a lot of the highly experienced pilots the Germans and Japanese had had - were dead. The Americans and British were the only ones that actually conducted Strategic Bombing Campaigns and they had to start with something. .
Great Points Bob. I love this period for the innovation and technological advances, albeit driven by wartime necessity. In one of those "What if" rabbit holes, the germans did develop strategic bombers in the Ural Bomber Project. And if Walther Wever had not died prematurely in June 1936, he just may have gone on to develop a bomber command that would have resulted in a entirely devastating Blitz.
It is strange how HP were able to uprate performance by deleting the useless front turret, but the Lanc stuck with the turret until the end; possibly because the RAF wanted to use the Lanc in daylight where the front turret would have been necessary. It is ironic that crews were more likely to be shot down in a Halifax than a Lanc, but more likely to escape the burning aircraft.
It may have been that to replace the front turret on the Lancaster with the perspex blister would have interupted Lancaster production and Harris wanted every Lancaster to be available. The removal of the front turret would have inhanced performance and payload.
If the Halifax started with the right engine it could have reached a decent service ceiling, and although impossible to prove the counterfactual, it would have enjoyed a great return and survival rate.
In the 1950s I used to cycle out to Radlett to view a single Halifax fitted with single fin for radio testing only. I later saw its nose only near HP's main gates and then years later walked through it at the Imperial War Museum. I knew an ex-army chap who attended a Halifax wreck at Aldergrove. Within the burnt remains of the crew he saw a woman's bones. They were those of the 'station master's' daughter, hitching a lift home.
Came later after the introduction into service of the Halifax. Plus the Lanc was a failure at first when it was introduced as the two engine Manchester. Lessons learned the hard way with the Manchester were incorporated into the Lanc. Those improvement allowed to Lanc to fly higher than the Halifax and carried a heavier pay load of bombs. As the Halifax was developed and improved, it was almost on par with the Lanc on speed, service ceiling and range but not bomb load.
6:01 - that's the American use of "moot" i.e. no longer relevant. In Britain "moot" means open to debate and potentially decisive (oh, and Samlesbury is pronounced "salmsbry")
Why the heavy use of B-17 fotoage at the near end of the video about the Halifax? The Halifax is another of those unsung hero's of WWII, over shadowed by the Lanc, just as the Hurricane is over shadowed by the Spitfire and the American B-24 Liberator is over shadowed by the over hyped B-17. Good to see you covering an often over looked aircraft, but try not to use things like B-17 videos when talking about an RAF bomber.
I think the video you mentioned was of operation ghamorra. And was to point out why the lanc was preferred by bomber command. Ie try and place the Halifax in the broader context of strategic bombing.
Yet the B-17 was instrumental in the defeat of Germany. You can hate it all you want, but the B-17 did its job. More so than than either the Lancaster, or the Halifax.
@@cvr527 Wrong. the Lanc alone dropped 618,000+ tons of bombs over Germany to the B-17's 600,000 tons, while flying less missions due to its greater bomb load. It should be noted that the B-17 was offered to the RAF but was turned down however the B-24 was adopted by not only the RAF but also the RAAF and used successfully by Maritime Command on anti-submarine patrols. In many respects, the B-24 was the superiour aircraft to the B-17, but like the Spitfire, the B-17 was the one that got a majority of the glory.
@@cvr527 Grumpy was just annoyed that i didnt 100% concentrate on the aircraft for this particular videos subject, and he has a point. the B-17 is a big subject but i want to get to it soonish. Cheers.
You have no idea the Air Ministry specifications work. The letter indicates the type of aircraft (in 1936 F for fighter, B for heavy bomber, and P stood for medium bomber), the first number indicates the number of the specification issues in a given year (indicated by the last number. So for the HP.56 the specification was P.13/36 which decodes as the 13th specification issued in 1936 and was for a medium bomber. Whenever a new specification was issued from that year's series. This happend in tge case of the B.9/38 (B now just standing for Bomber) for a medium bomber that used no aluminium alloys. After the mock-ups from Armstrong-Whitworth and Bristol had been inspected two new specifications were issued B.17/38 (for the Bristol designs) and B.18/38 (for the Armstrong-Whitworth design). As the decision to drop tge HP.56 from the P.13/36 programme was made in 1937, the new aircraft should have been give a specification from the 1937 series, but no one has any evidence for such a specification.
Yes I actually did understand. I simply meant that one of the two, avro or handly page would have raised alarm at how the engine was performing. Or maybe both. Thus leaving both the Manchester (built) or the inbuilt hp 56 to go at the new specs. Of course the ministry and vendors worked together.
Also as I mentioned the air ministry was turning away from medium bombers and leaning into heavies for strategic bombing. Both avro and HP went with the flow. No doubt talks occurred.
@Aircraft_Files the official shift in emphasis to heavier bombers didn't come about until late 1938 with the issuing of Specification B.19/38 (which was quickly superceded by specification B.1/39), this brought forth nine designs none of which got beyond the design proposal stage. The specification called for a 4-engine bomber with a maximum weight of 50,000lb capable of carrying 9,000lb of bombs with a minimum range of 2,500 miles at a cruise speed of 280mph. It was to be armed with 20mm cannons for defence. However, George Volkert had already predicted the future with a high-speed twin-engined medium bomber with no defensive armourment that exceeded the requirements of P.13/36 back in 1937.
I'm on the road so can't look it all up but just consider the Lanc heavy was born of the same spec as the Halifax. The major difference was avro actually built the Manchester.
From what the Luftwaffe has said of this aircraft and what Harris said, it must have been a lemon. I've seen a sample in Trenton, ON, Canada. The curators of this Luftwaffe victim chose to hide the single 20 mm cannon shell that brought it down - a disgrace.
Sorry Braidy. It's a common complaint, but tbh without Eleven Labs I would not be able to do this channel. My own voice and speech capabilities just cant work. If i monitise well enough the first thing I'll do is hire a real voice actor. But for now I'll persist with my fake BBC voice guy from the 70, and hope the info and images are still worth it. Cheers for the feedback tho.
@@Pyjamarama11 Of all the AI voices out there, and poor old Aircraft Files know how I feel about them right mate?, the one used here is one of the better ones and is not overly used or heard often. I'd offer to voice his video's for him for free, but I suspect my harsh old man west coast Canadian accent would be a right horror show for anyone to listen too......Narration is a specialized talent, something most of us sadly don't have, me included.
Apologies for the extra text guys... Next up: The Vickers Vildebeest
Merch here: teespring.com/en-GB/new-halifax
How about the Vickers Vildebeest, first flown in 1928 and last used in action against the Japanese in 1942. An odd biplane bomber that was long obsolete by the start of the 2nd World War, yet like the Gladiator, still saw action.
@@gumpyoldbugger6944 Will do. Cheers Grumpy.
My dear friend Ken Wright flew ops on Halifaxes late in the war. He passed away recently at age 100. There were giants in the earth!!! Great video!
Lest we forget.
I was disappointed to read that only 2 complete Halifax bombers remain out of over 6,000 built and neither is airworthy. Then again, only two Lancasters are still flying (I've enjoyed watching the BoB Flight one a few times).
@@PaIaeoCIive1684
When you go, there will be none who cares a toss!
@@alexhayden2303 I say, that's depressing! Actually, a few people will read my published site reports and papers when I'm worm food. Very few, sadly.
My grandad flew as flight engineer on Halifax’s, mainly with coastal command in wales and stornoway. He did fly on a few raids on Essen and Bremen as well as a few others.
The radial engine Halifax variants are really good looking aircraft.
Somehow the Merlin engined ones just don't look quite right.
1st Lieutenant Edward Dawson Kornegay, USAAF, joined the RCAF before Pearl Harbour and qualified as a pilot before being posted to England. After crewing up at 20 OTU, Lossiemouth (at which point my late father became his Wireless Operator) he became acquainted with the tired Merlin engined Halifax at 1663 HCU, Rufforth. Around this time, he was transferred to the USAAF but remained detached with the RAF at his request.
From Rufforth, the crew were posted to 640 Squadron at Leconfield, flying the Bristol engined Halifax III. They were to complete only 8 'Ops' although their baptism included Berlin and the ill fated Nuremburg raid. Head hunted by Hamish Mahaddie, they were posted to the Lancaster equipped 35 Squadron, Pathfinder Force, with which they completed a further 48 'Ops' before being screened.
Here's the thing though. Ed Kornegay rated the Halifax III as a better performer than the Lanc. It handled better and he preferred the Hercules to Merlins.
From all accounts the Mark 3s were as good or better than the Lancs in all aspects bar bomb load, unfortunately that's what bomber command prized above all.
The MkIII ‘s were a bit faster than the Lanc and crews were happy to get through the raid a bit faster than their cousins.
My dad flew in the Halifax Mk3. He applied to join the RAF in 1939 but was told to complete his electrical engineering apprenticeship first. He did his training in 1942 in Canada and qualifies with his wings (for 2nd pilot), radio op - navigator and bombardier. He began operations from early 1943 including European raids, glider, coastal and transport duties.
Hi. Which Squadrons was he in?
My Grandfather was a navigator on these with coastal command in WW2. Thank you for the upload.
My absolute pleasure.
Thanks for this. My father commanded a Halifax squadron from 1943 mostly bombing Germany at night but I hear little about the planes he flew. He said that out of 30 crews they would lose about 12 a month. He was 25 years old.
It was my pleasure. They were/are the greatest generation. Hard to comprehend.
I will say what I like about the Halifax.
I will say it is a very handsome aircraft.
Interesting last comment about the odds of surviving after being shot down in a Halifax were slightly better than in a Lancaster. According to a quick check, this is because the layout and positioning of escape hatches in a Halifax made it marginally easier/faster to exit the plane. Given that the Halifax was a bit slower and saw action in more 'dangerous' skies for a year before the Lancaster came into service, there were relatively more of these quick bale-outs needed.
The hatches were a bit bigger too.
@@Aircraft_Files
G'day,
Yeah, both of you are not quite
Right ; while being almost not wrong.
The
Early
Halifaxes were
Mongrel Bar-Stewards
For
Stalling their Rudders
At
Full-Pedal - such as when
Attempting to evade a
NachtJagdFlieger shooting up their
Bum-Feathers.
And, when the Rudders
Stalled -
The Halifax
Snap-Rolled
And
Spun in
To go
"SPLAT -
WhoomPHHhh !"
All they who doubt
This
Veracity, are invited to
Observe the
Early
Inadequate, Suicidal
Fins.
Such be
The
FACTS.
Halifaxes were
Incipient
Spinning
DEATH-TRAPS,
For the first 70% of their
Operational Service.
And, then, after having
Bin-Rectificated -
They were
ALL
WITHDRAWN from
Main Force Bombing Operations,
And, like the failed
Stirlings,
And the
Vulnerable
Liberators -
Relegated to
SAFER Duties,
Like
Aerotowing Gliders, and
Dropping Supplies, or Parachute Troops,
Patrolling
Empty undefended
Ocean,
Or
Hauling
Cargo.
The Halifax was
Not
Any much more
"Efficient" than was the
Fairey "Battle".
Notoriously easy to
Shoot
Down.
Such is life.
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Cracking video may i add the Halifax might not of been as popular as the Lanc but it brought my old mate home raid after raid.
My Dad, too !!!
@@andrewmaville7797 And my Father. 40 operations as a rear gunner with 578 squadron, RAF Burn. DFM.
Interesting how improved the Halifax was with development.
Thank you sir for producing this video
You are most welcome.
My uncle with the RCAF was rammed by a German night fighter while piloting his Halifax and somehow managed to crash land it in Soviet occupied Poland closer to the end of the war. The crew were "interned" by the Soviets . His wife and family did not know if he was dead or alive as he was listed as missing until he managed to get back to the west. His aircraft was named after his wife, "Barbie Mark III", as I suppose it was a Mark III Halifax.
The RAF had the best streregic bombers.
Thats a big call :-)
I saw the Handley Page, Halifax bomber on display at the Canadian Air Force Museum at Trenton, ON back in 2010. It is amazing how the workers there were able to rebuild it to how it looks almost "factory-fresh" today considering where it was originally found.
A LOT of Canadians flew the Halifax.
My Grandfather was groundcrew for these during the war.
Love the Halifax
Mark V was not just used on training, and met flights, etc, it was fully operational on front line bomber squadrons. Many of my Dad's 30 missions were on mark v, according to the squadron operational records and serial numbers of the aircraft used. Some were Mk ii. The main difference seems to have been the non- standard undercarriage.
I think the reason was availability of parts for manufacturing. Messier was standard, Dowty was substitute on Mk V. Reputedly the Dowty was dodgy, which seems surprising since it's what was used on the Lancaster, but presumably they sorted the issues out. The Messier u/c looks way more substantial
Thanks again for an interesting, informative video.
Glad you enjoyed it
The guns on the later Halifaxes seemed more sensible than on the Lancasters. They replaced the front turret with a aerodynamic perspex blister with a hole for one machine gun. The mid upper turret maybe slowed the Halifax down, but at least it had four machine guns.
TBH I didn't know it started with waist gunners. I'm loving this delve I'm undertaking.
The front gun was just a scare gun though, not likely to do much damage.
So many good lives lost through rudder stall and many too, lost in determining the best shape of rudder from A, through E F G Modified C until finally D type.
Interesting video. For me, a little light on their role as glider transports and in SOE support missions, but that's a personal bias. Their role in the Far East was primarily to be in airborne assault and support, which the dropping of the bomb on Japan put an end to.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Anouther great video. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it
Bomber Harris didnt want it, nor the Shorts Stirling. He valued only Lancasters for their service ceiling, speed and bomb load.
Interesting video, genuinely informative
Glad you enjoyed it
Great video. Thank you
The Hadley Page Halifax had a version Passannger aircraft called Halton because of RAF Halton.
Well it was just the bombers named after towns, so i guess a rename was in order.
It would have been useful if the visuals had been better syncronised with the narrative.
Apologies. But I did try to coordinate the pics with the marks and series. Same with the coastal command GRs. I'm always a bit wary adding historical film. But I enjoy the rare find and hope others do too.
In July 1937 the Air Ministry instructed Handley Page to redesign the HP.56 into a 4-engine bomber as they had grave concerns that RR woukd not becable to solve all the problems the Vulturexwas having and they didn't want two of the new medium bombers grounded due to engine issues.
It seems a bit hazy who triggered the 4 engine spec. It might have even been Avro with its Manchester mk 3.
@@Aircraft_Files it's not that hazy. As setbout in Tony Buttler's book British Secret Projects (Fighters and Bomber 1935-1950), in February 1937 we had the mock-up conferences and in April 1937 the HP.56 was selected as the second choice medium bomber followed by,I July 1937, the decision was made to drop the HP.56.56 for a 4-engined version.
I mean it's hazy who initiated the new spec for the 4 engine version. Just suggesting that 3 possible sources to drop the vulture. Including RR themselves. But I think no doubt that the ministry drove the shift to heavies. The companies just read the room.
The short distance beteen the wing leading edge and the low slung propeller also caused control issues.
I saw one mention of that to explain why the merlin's failed but the bristles performed. But couldn't find a secondary source.
@@Aircraft_Files sorry, the props were in line with the wings leading edge unlike on the Lancaster which were set below the leading edge. This arrangement on the Halifax caused a greater disturbance to the airflow over the wing in a similar way to the disturbed airflow at the rear prop on the Do X seaplane reduced the thrust it produced.
Yes that's what they said.
Yeah. The Lancaster's definitely benefited from their later development. There was a lot learned with the earlier aircraft.
You look at some of the Allied Bombers and they were developed much earlier. The B-17 first flew in July of 1935 and the Wellington first flew in June of 1936. Lancaster's first flew in Jan. of '41. There was a lot learned in those years and of course more learned as the war went on.
One of the things about the P-51 - is it's later development. Look at all the numbers between 38 and 51. Each of those numbers was an aircraft model which may or may not have amounted to anything. There was a lot of improvement in ergonomics with the P-51 over the pre-war P-38 which made the 51 a much easier plane to fly. In he hands of an experienced pilot - the 38 was phenomenal - but - you needed an experienced pilot to do all the things it could do.
The thing is with these later developments - someone had to carry the load to begin with.
Wellingtons and B-17's did tremendous service early on as did a number of other early war aircraft.
The Japanese - in the New Guinea and Solomon's Campaigns were defeated by pilots flying F4F's and P-40's.
By the time the P-51's and Hellcats were available - a lot of the highly experienced pilots the Germans and Japanese had had - were dead.
The Americans and British were the only ones that actually conducted Strategic Bombing Campaigns and they had to start with something.
.
Great Points Bob. I love this period for the innovation and technological advances, albeit driven by wartime necessity. In one of those "What if" rabbit holes, the germans did develop strategic bombers in the Ural Bomber Project. And if Walther Wever had not died prematurely in June 1936, he just may have gone on to develop a bomber command that would have resulted in a entirely devastating Blitz.
Isn't that a Halton at 0:39?
It should be. I mentioned it late in the video as a version.
It is strange how HP were able to uprate performance by deleting the useless front turret, but the Lanc stuck with the turret until the end; possibly because the RAF wanted to use the Lanc in daylight where the front turret would have been necessary. It is ironic that crews were more likely to be shot down in a Halifax than a Lanc, but more likely to escape the burning aircraft.
It may have been that to replace the front turret on the Lancaster with the perspex blister would have interupted Lancaster production and Harris wanted every Lancaster to be available. The removal of the front turret would have inhanced performance and payload.
True. A lot of production continued simply because retooling was a major disruptor.
If the Halifax started with the right engine it could have reached a decent service ceiling, and although impossible to prove the counterfactual, it would have enjoyed a great return and survival rate.
And yet 17 years after the RAF flattened Hamburg, the Beatles were playing there ... go figure!
the difference between the Marshall Plan and reparations?
In the 1950s I used to cycle out to Radlett to view a single Halifax fitted with single fin for radio testing only. I later saw its nose only near HP's main gates and then years later walked through it at the Imperial War Museum. I knew an ex-army chap who attended a Halifax wreck at Aldergrove. Within the burnt remains of the crew he saw a woman's bones. They were those of the 'station master's' daughter, hitching a lift home.
Why was the Lancaster better than the Halifax?
Halifaxes went out of control with one failed engine. Group Captain Leonard Cheshire VC (and a very long list) realised this. A poor aeroplane.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935and resolved when the Merlin engines and the original tail fins were replaced.
Came later after the introduction into service of the Halifax. Plus the Lanc was a failure at first when it was introduced as the two engine Manchester. Lessons learned the hard way with the Manchester were incorporated into the Lanc. Those improvement allowed to Lanc to fly higher than the Halifax and carried a heavier pay load of bombs. As the Halifax was developed and improved, it was almost on par with the Lanc on speed, service ceiling and range but not bomb load.
I have often wondered whether the heavy bombers were over-manned. So the flight engineer was necessary.
6:01 - that's the American use of "moot" i.e. no longer relevant. In Britain "moot" means open to debate and potentially decisive (oh, and Samlesbury is pronounced "salmsbry")
Why the heavy use of B-17 fotoage at the near end of the video about the Halifax? The Halifax is another of those unsung hero's of WWII, over shadowed by the Lanc, just as the Hurricane is over shadowed by the Spitfire and the American B-24 Liberator is over shadowed by the over hyped B-17.
Good to see you covering an often over looked aircraft, but try not to use things like B-17 videos when talking about an RAF bomber.
I think the video you mentioned was of operation ghamorra. And was to point out why the lanc was preferred by bomber command. Ie try and place the Halifax in the broader context of strategic bombing.
But point taken. And agree it's very unsung.
Yet the B-17 was instrumental in the defeat of Germany. You can hate it all you want, but the B-17 did its job. More so than than either the Lancaster, or the Halifax.
@@cvr527 Wrong. the Lanc alone dropped 618,000+ tons of bombs over Germany to the B-17's 600,000 tons, while flying less missions due to its greater bomb load.
It should be noted that the B-17 was offered to the RAF but was turned down however the B-24 was adopted by not only the RAF but also the RAAF and used successfully by Maritime Command on anti-submarine patrols.
In many respects, the B-24 was the superiour aircraft to the B-17, but like the Spitfire, the B-17 was the one that got a majority of the glory.
@@cvr527 Grumpy was just annoyed that i didnt 100% concentrate on the aircraft for this particular videos subject, and he has a point. the B-17 is a big subject but i want to get to it soonish. Cheers.
You have no idea the Air Ministry specifications work. The letter indicates the type of aircraft (in 1936 F for fighter, B for heavy bomber, and P stood for medium bomber), the first number indicates the number of the specification issues in a given year (indicated by the last number. So for the HP.56 the specification was P.13/36 which decodes as the 13th specification issued in 1936 and was for a medium bomber. Whenever a new specification was issued from that year's series. This happend in tge case of the B.9/38 (B now just standing for Bomber) for a medium bomber that used no aluminium alloys. After the mock-ups from Armstrong-Whitworth and Bristol had been inspected two new specifications were issued B.17/38 (for the Bristol designs) and B.18/38 (for the Armstrong-Whitworth design). As the decision to drop tge HP.56 from the P.13/36 programme was made in 1937, the new aircraft should have been give a specification from the 1937 series, but no one has any evidence for such a specification.
Yes I actually did understand. I simply meant that one of the two, avro or handly page would have raised alarm at how the engine was performing. Or maybe both. Thus leaving both the Manchester (built) or the inbuilt hp 56 to go at the new specs. Of course the ministry and vendors worked together.
Also as I mentioned the air ministry was turning away from medium bombers and leaning into heavies for strategic bombing. Both avro and HP went with the flow. No doubt talks occurred.
@Aircraft_Files the official shift in emphasis to heavier bombers didn't come about until late 1938 with the issuing of Specification B.19/38 (which was quickly superceded by specification B.1/39), this brought forth nine designs none of which got beyond the design proposal stage. The specification called for a 4-engine bomber with a maximum weight of 50,000lb capable of carrying 9,000lb of bombs with a minimum range of 2,500 miles at a cruise speed of 280mph. It was to be armed with 20mm cannons for defence.
However, George Volkert had already predicted the future with a high-speed twin-engined medium bomber with no defensive armourment that exceeded the requirements of P.13/36 back in 1937.
I'm on the road so can't look it all up but just consider the Lanc heavy was born of the same spec as the Halifax. The major difference was avro actually built the Manchester.
From what the Luftwaffe has said of this aircraft and what Harris said, it must have been a lemon. I've seen a sample in Trenton, ON, Canada. The curators of this Luftwaffe victim chose to hide the single 20 mm cannon shell that brought it down - a disgrace.
That's interesting. do you have a link to the Luftwaffe assessment please?
Robo voice not great
Sorry Braidy. It's a common complaint, but tbh without Eleven Labs I would not be able to do this channel. My own voice and speech capabilities just cant work. If i monitise well enough the first thing I'll do is hire a real voice actor. But for now I'll persist with my fake BBC voice guy from the 70, and hope the info and images are still worth it.
Cheers for the feedback tho.
@@Aircraft_Files
can you try different voices ?
Ernie from Sesame Street would be fun
@@Pyjamarama11 It took me days and many many tries to find one i liked. Besides that might cause some copyright issues :-)
@@Pyjamarama11 Of all the AI voices out there, and poor old Aircraft Files know how I feel about them right mate?, the one used here is one of the better ones and is not overly used or heard often.
I'd offer to voice his video's for him for free, but I suspect my harsh old man west coast Canadian accent would be a right horror show for anyone to listen too......Narration is a specialized talent, something most of us sadly don't have, me included.
@@Aircraft_Files Try a Jasper Carrot voice.