Hampden torpedo bomber

[Graham Boak]

Not you Tony - though I thought you were teasing - but the first profile artist who invented it and those who followed on repeating his mistake. When the Airfix Hampden came out I didn't have the Green source (read it many years before from libraries but it predated my buying of such things) but just looking at the photos I was as puzzled as you. Something was clearly wrong with the presentation in modelling circles. It was a relief when C.H. Barnes in the Putnam came out with the proper description. It's one thing to be a modeller doing your own thing, but when you come to publish work or tool up a model, a little fore-study should be expected.

I've a feeling that the first appearance of the dodgy deep doors was in the model pages of Flying Review (or following mag) - the great Mr. Green nodded then.

[tonyot]

No worries Graham,.......at the end of the day (as footballers tend to say!) I`m just glad that something which has narked me for some time has finally been confirmed, so cheers for that. I`ve already got the rasp file out!

Cheers

Tony

[Iain Wyllie]

Graham, I would agree with the verticaldimensions that you quote ( they were also in the copy of AI that I referred to/

The one that puzzles me is the 12" shorter gondola - is the 12" removed from the front or the back, since the rear edge of the gondola where it sprouts from the fuselage, looks to be in much the same position as the bomber version but I would need clearer underside views to establish that. If the shorter aft section just began at the rear of the bomb doors and is 12" shorter, you would expect to see a difference in photos from the side, but if the opposite was the case, the doors would have to be 12"longer than standard to make up the difference, which seems the less likely option as it would entail moving the rear rams and bulkhead aft by 12",

Looking at the photo of the restored section, there appears to a cutout in the bottom at the rear end to provide clearance for the the upper tail of the torpedo

[Graham Boak]

Oops! I would agree with all your comments on (what would have been) the resulting problems. Barnes actually wrote "...the main frame ahead of the ventral gunner's station has 12 inches removed from its base, with corresponding modifications of the gunner's fairing" but in trying to make it briefer I introduced the problem. It should have said "less in depth" and it does, now. I was trying to avoid the terms "smaller" and "shallower" as I didn't think them clear. Hah!

Just to make it clearer - the 12 inches is a vertical reduction. It is not a simple matter of cutting off the gondola and removing 12 inches from the top, as the gunners windows are changed.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Graham Boak

[Dave Swindell]

A good side on period shot of TB AN127, plus some more photo's of the Cosford restoration progress here

Some observations:-

The rear bomb bay bulkhead has been reduced in depth and clearly has a V shaped cutout in it.

The ventral cupola has an inverted V shaped channel in it which presumably mates up with the cutout in the rear bomb bay bulkhead, and also presumably, internally there would be a floor over the top of this channel (12 inches higher than in the standard bomber.

The channel cutout introduces a sharp kink in the cupola side view at floor level.

There doesn't appear to be any provision for an entrance door (normally on the port side of the cupola) in the restoration photos - I'm guessing the torpedo air tail would have interfered with this.

None of the photo's I've seen of TB's appear to have any glazing in the cupola gun position.

[Graham Boak]

That's an interesting point about the entrance door, but there is visible glazing in the photos of AN127 that you've posted, and in the views of the Canadian ones. The glazing is different to that of the standard bomber, but it is present.

[Dave Swindell]

Graham, I'm referring to the bit that has the guns poking through, not the smaller windows on each side. The photo is a double page spread in Chas Bowyers Hampden Special, and the rear of the cupola is an open void, no glazing (or guns).

[Graham Boak]

OK, I've that photo. Do you have the Warpaint or the Red Kite Hampden Squadrons? You'll find a similar photo in the latter p94 of AJ993 without this glazing, but other photos showing it present p84 (unidentified a/c probably 455 Sq), p77 AE201 415 Sq. In the former book there's AE201 again, same photo. There are a number of other photos that could be debated, but it may be relevant that those without this glazing are trials or training aircraft - perhaps this was to get a clear view of the drop? Maybe, maybe not, but the operational aircraft have the glazing and the guns.

[Iain Wyllie]

Well, thank you for the clarification, Graham. I was spending too much time trying to figure it out ....... and I am not even going to build a Hampden. Seems that Barnes could have stated things somewhat more clearly and with less room for misinterpretation. I have over 30 Putnam books and find that, by their nature, they don't give nearly enough of the sort of detailed information that interests me - very good though they are for an overall description in a compact format.

It has been a good discussion, and strangely lacking the usual number of theories based on ill informed speculation.

[Dave Swindell]

Hi Graham

Just had a flick through the Warpaint, haven't got the Red KIte book. The gun and glazing are quite clear in the photo of AE201, so definitely fitted to some. The photo of AN127 shows a gun in the dorsal position, so was armed and operational, but nothing in the ventral position. Could be more role oriented, torpedo strike would be low level, so less need of a ventral gun? Doesn't explain the lack of glazing though....

[Graham Boak]

I believe - don't know where I found it - that AN127 was on trials - the odd camouflage might be a hint there.

I don't see it as a feature of the role. The actual attack was carried out at low level, but not necessarily the entire trip. That's also true of Beauforts, yet they hastily added a ventral gun after going into service without one. I think the lack of glazing is a bit more of an indication.

You raised the point about the apparent lack of a door. Could the two features be connected?

EDIT serial corrected from AN207 to AN127; Thanks to Mark Haselden who can identify a Buffalo from 80 serials.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Graham Boak

[old thumper]

I am not that well up on or interested in the Hampden so I don't know if this is even possible considering the Hampdens airframe, but if I were going to alter a Hampden in the same way as I would alter a room in a house then I would do one of two things. Extend the bomb bay into the gun position or move the gun position further back. Some of the pictures look to me as though the Bomb bay has been extended into the gun position, my guess would be that the frame of the gun position was left mostly intact but was largely occupied by the torpedo leaving no room for a gunner. I don't think the belly position enhanced the Hampden's chances of survival such a great deal so it probably wouldn't have been greatly missed.

I don't generally like the Hampden but the torpedo version in coastal command colours does appeal to me and so I am tempted to have a go at this myself at some point.

[brewerjerry]

deleted

Edited January 27, 2015 by brewerjerry

[Graham Boak]

Houses are not aircraft, but you'd still have an expensive and complex rework if you were changing the basic walls. The equivalent in this case is the major fuselage frame at the rear of the bombbay. Moving this frame would require the complete disassembly and remanufacture of the fuselage, which was manufactured on envelope jigs so new ones of these would be needed, as well as changes to the bombbay roof/upper floor, new doors and actuators, plus a likely effect on the upper gun position Not a little change but a fairly complete redesign. What actually happened was a fairly simple set of modifications to use existing aircraft that were no longer desired in their design role.

This rear frame was reduced in depth but remained in the same position. The main body of the torpedo is carried partially exposed within the bombbay length - it is the monoplane air tail that sits outside the bombbay area and this is below the reduced depth of the gondola. The gunner doesn't actually sit in the gondola, which is far too small for him. (I've actually held it in a single hand - the metal skin, anyway.) He lies on the floor of the bombbay and looks below and behind - mainly behind.

Given the effort put into ventral gun defence, for example on Beauforts and Blenheims in similar or identical roles, I think the RAF of the day disagreed with you as to its value.

[old thumper]

Ventral positions were removed from most RAF bombers. Other than American ball turrets ventral gun positions were notoriously unsuccessful.

[Graham Boak]

The early British turrets were certainly unsuccessful, though that's not true for all ventral gun positions. The ventral turrets designed for the heavies were removed early in their career, because of the failure of these turrets. However these were night bombers not expected to operate in daylight, and the same did not apply to day bombers. Every US type operated in daylight by the RAF i.e. Hudson, Boston, Mitchell, Marauder and Ventura featured ventral gun positions, to which the Liberator can be added with its ball turret. On the night bombers their general lack proved disastrous with the introduction of Shrage Musik. Despite their general removal, design and development work continued throughout the war trying to create better British ventral turrets, though delayed by over-optimistic (as it happened) emphasis on the 20mm cannon for the next generation of turrets. As temporary measures Avro retained the option of a ventral handheld gun on the Lancaster (as often discussed on threads about the Dambusters' aircraft), and the ventral turret was fitted to Mk.IIs to "fill in" the gap behind the bulged bombbays. The Stirling reintroduced a ventral turret near the end of its career. Much earlier some units introduced their own ventral position through the "Joe hole" on the Halifax versions and the production Preston-Green installation was common on Halifaxes, especially it seems the Canadian ones, until the introduction of the H2S dome in the same place. Which they were not happy about.

Not just the ball turret of course - the remotely controlled turrets on the B-29 and A-26 worked perfectly well. And for all the claims made against the Sperry on the B-25, it was still seen operating in 2 TAF in the final year of the war.

[mhaselden]

I believe - don't know where I found it - that AN207 was on trials - the odd camouflage might be a hint there.

Hi Graham,

Are you sure about that serial? AN207 was a Brewster Buffalo sent to the Far East.

Cheers,

Mark

[Graham Boak]

Thanks Mark: AN127.

[mhaselden]

I suspected that was the airframe you were striving to identify. Apols for the pedantry.

[old thumper]

The early British turrets were certainly unsuccessful, though that's not true for all ventral gun positions. The ventral turrets designed for the heavies were removed early in their career, because of the failure of these turrets. However these were night bombers not expected to operate in daylight, and the same did not apply to day bombers. Every US type operated in daylight by the RAF i.e. Hudson, Boston, Mitchell, Marauder and Ventura featured ventral gun positions, to which the Liberator can be added with its ball turret. On the night bombers their general lack proved disastrous with the introduction of Shrage Musik. Despite their general removal, design and development work continued throughout the war trying to create better British ventral turrets, though delayed by over-optimistic (as it happened) emphasis on the 20mm cannon for the next generation of turrets. As temporary measures Avro retained the option of a ventral handheld gun on the Lancaster (as often discussed on threads about the Dambusters' aircraft), and the ventral turret was fitted to Mk.IIs to "fill in" the gap behind the bulged bombbays. The Stirling reintroduced a ventral turret near the end of its career. Much earlier some units introduced their own ventral position through the "Joe hole" on the Halifax versions and the production Preston-Green installation was common on Halifaxes, especially it seems the Canadian ones, until the introduction of the H2S dome in the same place. Which they were not happy about.

Not just the ball turret of course - the remotely controlled turrets on the B-29 and A-26 worked perfectly well. And for all the claims made against the Sperry on the B-25, it was still seen operating in 2 TAF in the final year of the war.

I am conscious of going off topic here but on the subject of ventral turrets. Various arrangements were tried on RAF aircraft and I know of none that were fully adopted. The Blenheim was tried with both a ventral gun and a fixed gun in the tail, neither of which were much help. The Lancaster BII in some cases had a ventral turret but again it wasn't found to be successful and the B25 had the ventral turret removed in the J model. The trouble was in sighting the gun, the B29 and A26 turrets were radio controlled by an operator sat away from the actual gun position which helped.

B25 formations in the 2nd TAF flew with a gunnery controller (first of all this controller was stationed in the tail and then in the dorsal position) who's job it was to co-ordinate the defensive fire of the formation. Later in the war as the Luftwaffe became less of a threat the B25's defensive armament was reduced until only the dorsal turret was manned. Just because an aircraft was fitted with a gun position it doesn't mean it was manned at all times, think of the front turret on the Lancaster for example.

I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this. I just don't think that the Hampden's ventral gun was that crucial.

[hacker]

The early British turrets were certainly unsuccessful, though that's not true for all ventral gun positions. The ventral turrets designed for the heavies were removed early in their career, because of the failure of these turrets. However these were night bombers not expected to operate in daylight, and the same did not apply to day bombers. Every US type operated in daylight by the RAF i.e. Hudson, Boston, Mitchell, Marauder and Ventura featured ventral gun positions, to which the Liberator can be added with its ball turret. On the night bombers their general lack proved disastrous with the introduction of Shrage Musik. Despite their general removal, design and development work continued throughout the war trying to create better British ventral turrets, though delayed by over-optimistic (as it happened) emphasis on the 20mm cannon for the next generation of turrets. As temporary measures Avro retained the option of a ventral handheld gun on the Lancaster (as often discussed on threads about the Dambusters' aircraft), and the ventral turret was fitted to Mk.IIs to "fill in" the gap behind the bulged bombbays. The Stirling reintroduced a ventral turret near the end of its career. Much earlier some units introduced their own ventral position through the "Joe hole" on the Halifax versions and the production Preston-Green installation was common on Halifaxes, especially it seems the Canadian ones, until the introduction of the H2S dome in the same place. Which they were not happy about.

Not just the ball turret of course - the remotely controlled turrets on the B-29 and A-26 worked perfectly well. And for all the claims made against the Sperry on the B-25, it was still seen operating in 2 TAF in the final year of the war.

The funny thing is if they had kept the lower turrets they would have seen and protected the bombers from the German night fighters sneaking up from underneath to use their vertical cannons. Bomber Command was always mystified about it until the end of the war and discovered why

[Cees Broere]

that would explain why they persisted in retaining the dorsal turret on night operations.

Cees

[Graham Boak]

To be fair to Bomber Command, the Shrage Musik didn't come into use until 1944, and then only with a minority of crews - the good ones, inevitably! In middle 1944 the bomber force was largely diverted to support the invasion, and by the winter the Luftwaffe night fighter force had disappeared as any serious threat. The Command saw the improvement in bombing accuracy from the use of H2S as more important - had they known the use the Germans made of its emissions they might have changed their mind. I think you could argue that this was more important than the oblique cannons.

However the point relevant to the thread is not whether you or I or the combined minds of history think that ventral guns on lighter bombers were a good idea or not. The point is that the Air Staff and crews at the time liked to have them, and the crews went about fitting them if they weren't provided. The Hampden TB crews would not have taken out half their defense - not to mention leaving a wide open hole in its place. The photos of operational aircraft (with the possible exception of AN127) show the guns and glass in place. Whatever the reason for the two views showing Hampdens without this position, it isn't going to be an operational one. What was done elsewhere after the collapse of enemy fighter defences is irrelevant to 1942/43 over the North Sea and Biscay.

Now what about a few photos showing the identity of Hampden TBs with radar arrays?

Edited January 28, 2015 by Graham Boak

[tonyot]

The Hampden TB crews would not have taken out half their defense - not to mention leaving a wide open hole in its place. The photos of operational aircraft (with the possible exception of AN127) show the guns and glass in place. Whatever the reason for the two views showing Hampdens without this position, it isn't going to be an operational one. What was done elsewhere after the collapse of enemy fighter defences is irrelevant to 1942/43 over the North Sea and Biscay.

Maybe they had hit upon the Fleet Air Arm Fulmar form of rear defence by using a Tommy Gun and bundles of toilet paper which were thrown out and `exploded' into hundreds of individual sheets upon hitting the slipstream, thus scaring any following fighter? It would arguably have been more effective than a pair of .303in popguns? I`m only joking by the way,.......although the Fulmar crews did use this form of defence.

Cheers

Tony

[Graham Boak]

It was probably more effective than a fixed rearward-firing "scare" gun, which was totally useless unless the bomber pilot flew his aircraft into the ideal position for the fighter.