An elderly friend of mine flew all three heavies, he cartwheeled down the runway in a Halifax killing his crew, the a/c was badly shot up and his crew elected to stay with the a/c. He did three tours and outside of those flew special ops in Stirlins dropping weapons to resistance groups as far away as Norway he told the story of K for King a lanc that just could get to altitude however everyone wanted to fly it as it was the fastest a/c in the squadron and would you would beat everyone back for breakfast. Sadly he passed away, three tours and special ops thats one very brave man. He kept the clock from the Halifax as a reminder of his crew.
That's a very good explanation concerning angle of incidence vs. angle of attack, and why the Stirling sat so nose high. Visiting a local air museum, I met a gentleman who had flown a full tour on Stirlings. I had previously read that Halifax and Lancaster crews pitied the poor blokes flying Stirlings a couple of thousand feet below them...lower and slower. When I commiserated with him he would have none of it. He clearly loved the machine that had returned him and his crew to England and safety, every single morning. I think I learned lesson that day about men and machines.
Man old Dad flew Recce Bombers for the RAF All their kites had nicknames. The Stirling's was *'The flying coffin'* ......... There was a reason for that.
One of the nicest British bombers later overshadowed by the AVRO lancaster. Many crashed in the woods during the resupply sorties for the British airborne troops during the battle of Arnhem. There is a little monument near the British cemetery in Oosterbeek, which honors the Air despatchers for their brave resupply attempts.
Great video - and thanks for using the correct RAF terminology - ie 'Bomb Aimer' rather than 'Bombardier'........... [from the son of an RAF bomb aimer in WWII]
I like your concept of discussing the design spec, how the manufacturers tried to meet it and what problems it caused. We end up with a better understanding of the final product.
When I started the podcast a couple of years ago, I was looking for just that and couldn’t find it. So I tried doing it myself and here we are. Glad you enjoy it!
Have just discovered your channel and Enjoyed your coverage. On 6th November 1942 my uncle, Air Gunner Sgt James Michael Burgess was tail Gunner in Shorts Stirling bomber R9201 operating under the code name "Gardening", was shot down and K.I.A. I was fortunate in visiting his final resting place at Escoublac La Baule on the Brittany coast. There is a discrepancy in crew numbers. Some of these bombers carried 6, but my uncle was part of an 8 man crew. Four Brits and four kiwis. The details of the location of the cemetery can be found online in "Commonwealth War Graves Commission." Again, thank you for your presentation. Cheers. Edit...I believe there is a complete cockpit with instrumentation of a Stirling in Melbourne Australia.?? My research does not confirm or deny it however.
Welcome aboard and thanks for sharing! Crew numbers, as with many details , changed during the war and due to operational needs. Hopefully some Aussie will let us know about the possible Stirling cockpit!
it met a very challenging pile of requirements in the early years along with the wellington .....while the others were still being sorted out .....had the air ministry been more realistic there would have been no lancaster or halifax required
I think maybe the need for something with a higher ceiling and able to carry larger bombs would have necessitated the Lancaster sooner or later. Thankfully we had it sooner !
You mention no Stirlings were saved. In the case of the Empire Flying boat, BOAC offered one to the Science Museum- which had nowhere to keep it- so despite this gesture none survived.
I just watched the video on the Short Stirling, especially intresting because of the many diffenretn roles it had, after being taken off (most of) the bombing attacks (low maximum altitude and alle that jazz). It is worth adding that many Stirlings flew operations with the SOE, delivering guns, explosives and agents into occupied Europe. At least Denmark had many supplies delivered by the Stirling, probably because Denmark is far away. Compared to the Low Countries and France targets in Denamark would be 650-850 kms from bases in ex. Lincolnshire - a distance that would cover most of France!
My great uncle was a bomb loader for the Stirling. He (like many) never talked about it until one day took me to one side and told me all about it. It was approaching the end of the crews second tour and they took him up in it. The next mission they never returned. (I don't know if any of that is true) Then he gave me a model of it, complete with bomb loading crew and vehicles. He died a month later. I was only about 8 and played around with it and broke it. What a fool.
The Type C hangar was introduced in 1936, making the hangar door the reason for the limitation of span an oft-repeated fallacy. The specification, just like that of the P.13/36 called for most maintenance to be carried out in the open, hence the reference to "back country" airfields. The real reason why the Air Ministry wanted a 100ft wing span is more to do with the physical limitations of the pilots of single pilot aircraft. They decided that with unboosted controls a larger wing span would soon become to much for a single pilot. They were also wanting as many bombers as possible and having 2 pilots per bomber would effectively half the fleet. See Colin Sinnott book "The Royal Air Force and Aircraft Design 1823-1939" for more details.
I was just reading Murray Peden's "A Thousand Shall Fall" about his time flying Stirlings during the war and he mentioned the wing/ hangar door problem too. So now I don't what to believe!
@@worldofwarbirds the trouble is that this idea has been going around for so long now that it has become dogma. Tony Buttler in his book "British Secret Projects - Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950" mentions Mr Sinnott's work. I've seen a copy of his PhD that talks about this issue and I can see no flaws in his work. But the biggest hint at the hangars not being an issue is the maintenance requirement for the majority of maintenance to be carried out in the open. Overseas hangars were often just large tents, of which IIRC the largest were only 80ft long. Plus there are dollies than the undercarriage could be put on for sideways insertion into a maintenance hangar, if the aircraft go in front or rear first then it can go in sideways.
The key thing with the low ceiling is the vulnerability to flak. The combination of the Bristol Hercules and the insufficient wngspan really hampered the Stirling but even the Hercules engined version of the Lancaster was a poor performer in this respect compared to the Merlin engined versions. A real shame since air cooled radials are a more robust which it comes to machine gun or canon damage (no liquid cooling system).
I Love the Stirling Enjoyer your tribute of this bing bird. The you seen the 1/48th scach build of the Stirling in VR Air Modellier in 10 part biuld. A masterpiece of a kit
My Uncle Fred who dropped into Germany on the Rhine Crossing operation with the UK airbourne contingent. Was flown home for de-mob in one of the transport Stirlings, Though it may have been one of the glder tug bombers, because he always said he was flown home in the bomb bay of a Stirling and it was f***ing freezing all the 4 1/2 hour trip home!
Both versions you mention ARE the Stirling B.Mk.IV - The Mk.IV's being glider-tugs & transports It's ironic, as, whilst NEVER a Bomber - Mk.IV's flew THE last Stirling Bomber missons in Dec'1947 & Jan'1948 The users, the Egyptian Air Force bypassed the embargo by buying SIX (IIRC) civilian Belgian registered Stirlings On those dates I've mentioned above, they bombed & killed Israeli civilians (deliberately) & some years after the war Most folks WILL tell you that the Short Stirling ended it's career AS A BOMBER in 1943, but that clearly isn't so** **( By 1943 they mean RAF examples of the B.III - Many were later used by 100 Group until April 1945 )
Great video. Also of interest is the Stirling had bomb bays in the wings - inboard of the engines. But, I believe, they were usually used to house extra fuel tanks.
For all sides the majority of war time aircraft were scrapped at the end of the war without a thought of heritage and museum collections until it was too late. Even one I know of surviving Halifax is made up out of several different aircraft. As for the Sterling it is such a shame but lets hope they find one nearly intact in a lake somewhere in europe
In Canada they have a fully restored Halifax, that was recovered from a fjord. The Halifax you refer to is in Britain and made up wings from an other non Halifax aircraft that used same wings.
It's sad as they found the largely intact remains of a Short Stirling as recently as 2019 - (IIRC within last 5-6 years) They were laying oil-pipes in the North Sea between Britain & Norway & just stumbled across it by chance !! Sadly, IIRC again (typing from memory here), it's a "war grave" so won't be raised, in any case it's badly corroded. No one's mentioned "W.1048" yet (coded TL-S of 35.Sqdn) as they raised her back in 1973 (Lake Hocklingen) Lastly, the wings that JamesOmaha refers to, are from the Handley Page HASTINGS (derived from the Halifax) Hastings WERE used (early versions) during the 1948 Berlin Airlft & stayed in RAF service until 1977 (amazingly ! As for "HR.792" the composite, I saw "her" back in 1987 at Elvington as "only a completed mid-section & turret" As the years passed by & work progressed, the "composite" evolved into what became painted-up as "LV.907" "LV.907" (the real one, scrapped in 1946) was nicknamed "Friday The 13th" & was delivered to 158 Squadron RAF It flew 128 missions & returned home EVERY time & became THE highest-scoring Halifax of the war Displayed outside John Lewis store in Oxford St (postwar), it was stupidly scrapped, when they coulda saved it Only the nose panels (carrying the lurid & "fate tempting bad luck charms" survive today, at Hendon museum
my father was an RAF LAC and told me that the flaps and undercarriage were electrically operated and were always failing. The U/c could be wound down but there was no manual option for the flaps which caused some nasty crashes
A very interesting and factually correct presentation. The Stirling did good work, but was always hampered by a poor wing design and atrocious undercarriage. Having a maximum service ceiling of 16,000ft made them a sitting duck for anti aircraft guns and nightfigthers alike.
Apologies for the length but I want to clarify how your post has many holes with context. Group 1: -5 cm FlaK 41 effective AA celling 10,010 ft only 60 made -3.7 cm Flak 18/36/37 effective AA ceiling 13800ft Total made 20,243 -2 cm Flak AA ceiling effective AA celling 7218ft Total made Of 2cm AA Flak Flak 30: 8,000+, Flak 38: 40,000+ & more than 144,000 (Flakvierling count per barrel) so 192,000 AA guns of 2CM. Group:2 The only 3 ww2 German AA Flak gun with an Effective range above 16,000+ are as follows: -8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 effective AA Ceiling 26,000 ft) total made 21,310 with approximately 1350 housed in Mk6 panzer/tiger tanks making them effectively a Anti tank gun instead of an AA gun. So shy of 20,000 of any AA effect. -10.5 cm FlaK 38 Effective AA ceiling 31,003 ft Total made some 4000 -12.8 cm FlaK Effective AA ceiling 48,556 ft Total made 1125. With these figures you will see how the total of German AA guns in question at some 297,368 Aprox in my favour. minimum 272,243 AA guns fired under 16,000ft. Only 25,125 AA guns fired above 16,000ft. Mind these large guns of 8.8cm or larger were in or of excess of 26,000ft Few aircraft were save 8.8Cm flak. British Lancaster's at 28,500ft were save but not from the 5000 other bigger AA guns. Short Stirling served it role & function/purpose perfectly adequately!
Of the 8 German night fighters of ww2 only 2 were dedicated night fighters made for said purpose. Focke-Wulf Ta 154 Moskito which only a few were built proofing to be disappointing compared to the prototype. Only dedicated German night fighter of meaningful number (Heinkel He 219) ~300 built Ju 88C being a converted night fighter had significant for 1060 were converted later constructed on original unaltered frames though 900 were the C-6 based on the A4 frame which only got into production of October 1943. Britain entered ww2 with effective dedicated night fighters unlike Germany in ww2. Played a massive advantage to the battle of Britain! -Boulton Paul Defiant Mk II-was a bit meh but served the purpose up north in Scotland mainly. -Bristol Beaufighter Was good enough the yanks wanted them as they didn't have a night fighter till 'Douglas A-20 Havoc'introduced in 1941 in initially limited production. A-20 under performed the British Bristol Beaufighter was -Bristol Blenheim Mk IF=dedicated frame & design from scratch need I say more. -de Havilland Mosquito NF series=dedicated frame's;) -Fairey Firefly NF Mk 1-5=Had issues but could perform as Night fighter from Carrier as was it's desired purpose. -Supermarine Spitfire= Readily plentiful in use that could be converted to night fighters on field if it was required though suboptimal to dedicated night fighters. You should know Short stirling & other heavy bombers flew in the rear defence of British night fighters! This was an option was reserved to the RAF that no other air force had nor was capable of achieving in ww2!
@@arnijulian6241 = Well said, GOOD post ( too many post-war armchair warriors !! ) 100 Group made GREAT use of them & of course they were EXCELLENT for "Gardening" operations No one moaned when it WAS found-out (combat conditions) that the Stirling COULD outturn Me110.G4s ( There is also documented evidence of empty Stirlings out-turning Hurricanes at Sutton Bridge "F.i.Us")
@@hawnyfox3411 I agree certainly to many armchair historian that tend to be axis fanboys. If everything the Allies had was worse then the German gear as they to often claim then simply how did the allies win that war? Interesting hole they always dig themselves ah?
Below is taken from the A.R.G (Airfield Research Group's) own website : And I quote.... ""Able to out turn the Me110 and Ju88 nightfighters. While speaking to a Hurricane pilot who flew some fighter affiliation sorties, he told us the Stirling he was carrying out a mock stern attack on, whipped around and ended up on his tail !!!"" (I've heard the same, too, even an account by an Me.110 G.4 Nightfighter pilot)
B17 ''Total aircraft accidents 52,651, with 6,039 with fatalities. That's about 1,170 aircraft accidents a month about 40 per day! That likely means nothing to you but that is very injury & death rate for operating an aircraft. That alone makes a B17 a death trap. B17 carried 26 X 100 lb bombs=2600Ib's to a range of 1,020 miles. typical 1944 load out was 10 X 500 lb. bombs or 6 X 1000 lb bombs. A Short Sterling carried 1400Ib's of bombs over 2000 miles or 8000Ib's over 3000miles. British (Short Sterling) carried 5 times the bomb load over twice the distance of B17. Even the shy of 7,781 Wooden wonders delivered more more bombs in weight over far more sorties with negligible losses unlike the 12,731 B17's/'falling fortresses'. British de Havilland Mosquito that are multi role twin engine heavy fighters/ bombers Wooden wonder bomb loadout varied from 500IB's to 4000Ib's. 4000Ib used 1 cookie bomb with a range over 1500 miles. After dropping said bomb it's speed was in excess of 439 mph. An unleaded B17 that carried comparable load out to Mosquito couldn't even get past 300Mph for fvck sake. B17: -little range under 1000 miles with any meaning load out of 5000Ib's -a bomb load on par with Twin engine fighter! -light bomb load. B17 performed so poorly the RAF rejected their use in testing even when Britain was desperate for bombers in 1940. Only decent Bomber the USA had in meaningful number at 18,000 units that RAF reports praised was the (Consolidated B-24 Liberator) Though 1 major complaint was the 11 crew required to operate which is very high though it was cut down to 9 then 8 in RAF configurations. Short range (˜400 mi): 8,000 lb Long range (˜800 mi): 5,000 lb Very long range (˜1,200 mi): 2,700 lb This range is usable though still nothing special or desired. Still piss poor compared to Mosquito, Sterling ley alone a Lancaster 22,400Ib's gram slam.
The big Stirling was the result of the old skool shirt and backhanders or rather the lack of the old Skool shirt and backhanders. Had this aircraft been allowed to be developed it was more than a match for the Lancaster
It wasn't developed because the jack -of-all-trades transport bomber concept was abandoned in favour of dedicated types with transport versions of the heavies mostly because retooling resulted in lost efficiency - that is, better to produce transport Stirling versions than lose production switching to Lancasters. A year after the Stirling's introduction, the Lancaster was on the cusp of adoption and could do the heavy bomber aspect for a lower cost. The Lancaster, not having the transport heritage element was cramped and hard to escape from, though.
There should be National collections like the "Pattern Room" segment of the Royal Armouries Collection. I'm sure Jonathan Ferguson would love to add aircraft to his wealth of responsibilities. 😁
In 1936 the B series Air Ministry specifications, like the B.12/36, referred to heavy bombers and those in the P series, like the P.13/36, were for heavy bombers. The numbers refer to the position that the specification was issued in for that year , for the Stirling, the specification was the 12th specification of all types issued during 1936.
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁? 𝗜𝘀 𝗜𝘁 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗗𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲? War exists because the universe is made up of two opposing forces: reception and bestowal. When these forces do not enter into a balance, then they short circuit and try to destroy each other. That mutual effort of each side to eliminate the other is war. The root cause of war is in the clash of these opposite forces of nature: reception and bestowal. That clash of spiritual forces gives rise to wars that unfold in our material world. Therefore, stopping war at its source requires developing a regulating sense that has the ability to bestow above our innate force of reception, which are our self-serving desires that aim solely at absorbing into ourselves. In the language of Kabbalah, that bestowing sense is called a “screen” (Heb. “Masach”). Through this new regulating sense, we can acquire a state of positive and balanced human connection. That is the key to a war-free, harmonious and peaceful existence.
Interesting, but I think you are looking to deep into it. War needs no reason for it isn't innate to ''human nature'' but all of nature/organisms. Chimpanzees to ants war just as 2 examples of many besides humans/homo sapiens. an interesting fact is both a group of humans & Chimpanzees are called a (troop) respectively for both. You say ''reception and bestowal'' though not entirely of you are mistaken Dekel. Wars origin began in earnest long before man walked the earth some 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. War began with the Cambrian Explosion approximately 538.8 million years ago after the Great oxidation that allowed complex macroscale life to occur beginning at 1st the biological arms race. Our very planet is a planet of War for Warfare occurs between every living organism. Tree fight for sun light through the canopy & the Oak roots kill any that take root around it. Our earth doesn't care & nor does it think but every organism competes to persist in order to propagate! Warfare is just 1 fraction in that competition called life! In summary: 'War'' is merely 1 factor of life's competition. Kind regards!
