80 years ago today - Britain Declares War on Germany
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
The long panel along the side of the fuselage is indeed a window. The cross bracing visible through the windows is the structure of the aircraft itself. The Wellington was unusual in that it was manufactured using a fairly unique "geodesic" system of crisscrossing aluminium beans. The technique was devised by Barnes Wallis and stemmed from his original work on airships for Vickers. The first aeroplane to use it was the Vickers Wellesley and it was used on the larger Wellington. It was also used on the later Warwick (effectively a beefed up Wellington) and the much larger Windsor (which never entered series production.
Thanks, Eric. I'd not heard of the Windsor before so googled it - wacky undercarriage design!Penelope Stopit said:
I've never seen a Wellington structure, and didn't know they were Aluminium
It was made from an alloy of aluminium, called Duralumin.By coincidence, I was at the Brooklands Museum last weekend looking over in detail the Wellington there that was lifted out virtually complete from Loch Ness 30+ years ago.
Eric Mc said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Thank you for the information about the bombers
I've never seen a Wellington structure, and didn't know they were Aluminium
Would you happen to know where the Aluminium came from?
Probably Canada and the US.I've never seen a Wellington structure, and didn't know they were Aluminium
Would you happen to know where the Aluminium came from?
aeropilot said:
It was made from an alloy of aluminium, called Duralumin.
By coincidence, I was at the Brooklands Museum last weekend looking over in detail the Wellington there that was lifted out virtually complete from Loch Ness 30+ years ago.
Thank you for the information, this topic will go too big for the internetBy coincidence, I was at the Brooklands Museum last weekend looking over in detail the Wellington there that was lifted out virtually complete from Loch Ness 30+ years ago.
Yes - a trip to Brooklands will give you a lot of understanding of the Wellington and its designer, Barnes Wallis (as well as all the other stuff he did during the war).
The only other surviving Wellington is owned by the RAF Museum. It's currently at their restoration facility in Cosford being completely restored and recovered. It'll be there for a few years yet.
I agree, WW2 is a vast topic but having a dedicated thread tracking each day through the war I thought would be a good way to allow people to see how the war progressed and how events rolled out in a chronological sequence. It might also allow people to appreciate the time gaps (often very short) between events.
The only other surviving Wellington is owned by the RAF Museum. It's currently at their restoration facility in Cosford being completely restored and recovered. It'll be there for a few years yet.
I agree, WW2 is a vast topic but having a dedicated thread tracking each day through the war I thought would be a good way to allow people to see how the war progressed and how events rolled out in a chronological sequence. It might also allow people to appreciate the time gaps (often very short) between events.
REALIST123 said:
Eric Mc said:
Yes - Britain and France's support for Poland in 1939 was largely academic as, from a logistics and preparedness point of view, there was not much either country could do to assist.
How does that equate to ‘selling them dove the river’. 300bhp/ton said:
CaptainSlow said:
Also, mobilised British WW1 army was more than twice the size than the WW2 number.
Very different types of warfare though. So not really directly comparable man for man.In Aug 1914 it just under 250,000 men, and in Sept 1939 it was about 890,000 comprising 225,000 full time regulars, with the rest made up of TA and ex-reg reservists.
From what I understand, there had been a large and rapid expansion of "reserve" elements to the Army, Navy and Air Force in the 1930s which allowed for the relatively small number of regulars on the books in 1939 to be rapidly augmented by reservists . In fact, the RAF had so many reservists that when they all reported for assignment or further training, they couldn't be processed fast enough.
Eric "Winkle" Brown, the famous test pilot, decided that he wasn't prepared to hang around waiting for the RAF to allocate him a place in a squadron so he promptly wandered down to the Royal Navy office and signed up to the Fleet Air Arm, which wasn't so inundated with pilots.
Eric "Winkle" Brown, the famous test pilot, decided that he wasn't prepared to hang around waiting for the RAF to allocate him a place in a squadron so he promptly wandered down to the Royal Navy office and signed up to the Fleet Air Arm, which wasn't so inundated with pilots.
Eric Mc said:
Wills2 said:
I'm still not going in that bin.....
The Americans came up with their own, more sophisticated version, the Sperry Ball Turret. I'm not sure I'd want to be squeezed into one of those either - 
Eric Mc said:
Later versions of the Whitley abandoned the ventral turret but the hole for it remained. On bomber versions, the hole was simply faired over. Later, when Whitley's began to be used as paratroop trainers, the hole was opened up again and the paratroopers dropped out through it. It wasn't very wide and if you were not careful, you could give yourself a nasty crack on the chin - a phenomenon jokingly referred to as "Whitley Chin".
As you can see, there wasn't much room in a Whitley for paratroops -
"The manner of men" goes into details about that plane IIRC and the issues they had whilst training for the drops around D day. As you can see, there wasn't much room in a Whitley for paratroops -
Apart from the (fairly rare) occasions when the occupant was trapped in a stuck turret, the ball turret was one of the safer places to be on a B-17 as it was an armoured sphere.
The B-17 was most vulnerable to a frontal attack. Over the course of its development, more and more forward firing guns were added to the B-17, ultimately leading to the remote controlled chin turret seen on the G models.
The B-17 was most vulnerable to a frontal attack. Over the course of its development, more and more forward firing guns were added to the B-17, ultimately leading to the remote controlled chin turret seen on the G models.
CaptainSlow said:
300bhp/ton said:
CaptainSlow said:
Also, mobilised British WW1 army was more than twice the size than the WW2 number.
Very different types of warfare though. So not really directly comparable man for man.aeropilot said:
More comparable, given this is about Sept 1939, is the comparable strengths of what was a peacetime army on the declaration of war.
In Aug 1914 it just under 250,000 men, and in Sept 1939 it was about 890,000 comprising 225,000 full time regulars, with the rest made up of TA and ex-reg reservists.
Warfare in WW2 was completely different, it wasn't rows of men lined up against each other in trench warfare. Machines & mechanised war played a much bigger part. A single tank is worth many infantry. In Aug 1914 it just under 250,000 men, and in Sept 1939 it was about 890,000 comprising 225,000 full time regulars, with the rest made up of TA and ex-reg reservists.
e.g.
1914 the Royal Flying Corps had 179 aircraft vs 2000 aircraft in 1939 for the RAF.
Comparing strength purely on headcount is somewhat misleading if I'm being polite. And something entirely different if I was being rude
Wills2 said:
Eric Mc said:
Wills2 said:
I'm still not going in that bin.....
The Americans came up with their own, more sophisticated version, the Sperry Ball Turret. I'm not sure I'd want to be squeezed into one of those either - 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_TaK0WZj2k
300bhp/ton said:
Warfare in WW2 was completely different, it wasn't rows of men lined up against each other in trench warfare. Machines & mechanised war played a much bigger part. A single tank is worth many infantry.
e.g.
1914 the Royal Flying Corps had 179 aircraft vs 2000 aircraft in 1939 for the RAF.
Comparing strength purely on headcount is somewhat misleading if I'm being polite.
That's not the point of the comparison though, its was the relative strengths in 1939 largely as a result of the lesson learned in 1914, (no TA in 1914)e.g.
1914 the Royal Flying Corps had 179 aircraft vs 2000 aircraft in 1939 for the RAF.
Comparing strength purely on headcount is somewhat misleading if I'm being polite.
I think we all going off at a tangent about different things or individuals understanding of one thing.
aeropilot said:
More comparable, given this is about Sept 1939, is the comparable strengths of what was a peacetime army on the declaration of war.
In Aug 1914 it just under 250,000 men, and in Sept 1939 it was about 890,000 comprising 225,000 full time regulars, with the rest made up of TA and ex-reg reservists.
My great uncle signed up in 1928 for 7 years with the colours and 5 in the reserve. I suspect this was commonplace. His battalion ( Monmouthshire) was sent to N Ireland as Home Defence initially.In Aug 1914 it just under 250,000 men, and in Sept 1939 it was about 890,000 comprising 225,000 full time regulars, with the rest made up of TA and ex-reg reservists.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff