Large, Well-Armed Bomber Proves Best

Northern Advocate, 12 December 1941, Page 6

Large, Well-Armed Bomber Proves Best

LONDON, December 10.

The British decision, to develop large, heavily-armed types of bomber aircraft is regarded officially as having been proved right by the experience of war conditions, as was the earlier decision to adopt the eight-gun fighter

Much of the credit for sustaining air offensive in western Europe during November, in the face of difficult weather conditions, and increasing opposition, is due to the big new bombers.

The heavy bomber of the Short Stirling and Handley Page-Halifax type has shown distinct superiority over the earlier two-motor types when operating in bad weather. It has also proved markedly superior in the penetration of the enemy's defences, and especially in combat with enemy fighters.

Losses Lower

Apart from the advantages of carrying a greater load for each unit operating with a consequent saving in the number of personnel engaged for an equal weight of bombs carried. The greater speed and heavier defensive armaments has resulted in a reduction of the margin of aircraft inevitably lost in action.

The percentage of new bombers that have been lost on night raids have proved to be appreciably lower than that suffered by the earlier two-motor types, even when the latter was operating under identical conditions.

Luftwaffe Goes For Speed

Britain’s decision to develop the bomber along the lines of greater size and with a load capacity allied with high defensive qualities and as much speed as possible, is to some extent, shared by America. The enemy's choice, as so far revealed, still seems to be in the direction of speed with comparatively lightarmament. Apart from the commerceraiding Focke-Wulf, no new big fourengined types have yet appeared in the west. Nevertheless, the Germans have learned something from the R.A.F. about defensive armaments on bombers since the battle of Britain.

Such of the cable news in this issue as is so headed has appeared in ‘‘The Times, and is sent to this paper by special permission. It should be understood that the opinions are not those of “The Times unless expressly stated to be so.