FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1940
1940 - 1258.PDF
396 The French still attach a great deal of importance to the observation balloon. the Air Ministry has been found wanting in that it has failed to provide for such a situation. What answers are there to the following ques- tions? : What fully equipped army co- operation aero- planes are there which can co-oper- ate with the British and French troops in Norway when these aircraft have to operate from aerodromes in Great Britain? Remember that in the experience gained in the past, army co-operation aeroplanes took anything from two to four or five hours to complete co-ordination duties. For. conveni- ence in action army co-operation squadrons are gener- ally placed as close to the front as possible, usually on more advanced aerodromes than fighters or bombers. Contact has to be established on the ground and in the air before, during and after every flight. How is it pro- posed to do this efficiently when the troops are in Norway and the aircraft in Britain? At the moment of writing there might be three methods of partially overcoming this handicap. One is the use of part of the Fleet Air Arm for army co-operation. This would mean detaching at least one aircraft carrier from naval duty and posting it to army duty. At least the suggestion possesses novelty, if not merit. Lack of merit is due to the fact that Fleet Air Arm pilots do not know anything about army co- operation, and it is no use posting army co-operation pilots to the ship, for they know nothing about ship fly- ing. Again, R.A.F. army co-operation aeroplanes are no use as ship-planes because their span is too great for the lifts and their wings do not foid. Thus, the only possible aeroplanes for this job are the Swordfish, Alba- core and Walrus, all belonging to the Fleet Air Arm, so back we come again to Fleet Air Arm pilots. Again, Certain army co-operation squadrons are equipped with Bristol Blenheim have a range of 1,900 miles. MAY 2, 1940 if the floating aerodrome were stationed close to the Nor- wegian coast, it might prove none too easy to defend from German air attack. The whole essence of army co-operation is swiftness of inter-communication between aircraft and ground forces. The use of radio is essential. If army co-operation aero- planes were to be used from a ship off the Norwegian coast, how would the radio communication be accom- plished—via aircraft to ship and ship to shore, or direct from aircraft to a shore station? In any case, to main- tain the necessary contact between the ground and air units, before and after flight, it would be necessary to have radio communication between shore and ship. This would disclose the ship's position to the enemy and make it easier for air attacks to be launched against the ship. And if the ship were to be damaged, driven off, or sunk, what happens to the army co-operation? If, for reasons of safety, a wireless silence is maintained between ship and shore and ship and aircraft, how can the necessary co-operation be carried out? It looks as though the first suggestion must be discarded. The second suggestion is the employment of ski-planes from the surface of frozen lakes. Well, as the R.A.F. has no ski-planes, that disposes of suggestion number two. [The Norwegians have.—ED.] The third suggestion is the employment of floatplanes or flying boats operating from the nearest open water to the troops with which co-operation is to be carried out. Here again the R.A.F. is handicapped by the compara- tive inattention which has been paid by the Air Ministry to the development and provision of floatplanes and units to operate them. : "T Flying Boats as Bases? One does not want big flying boats of the London, Lerwick, Stranraer or Sunderland types for army co- operation work. No doubt they could do it, and army officers could be carried by them with the idea of making up for the absence of army co-operation training in the flying boat squadrons, which have been regarded pri- marily (and properly) as naval co-operation types. But what an expense! And, moreover, one really needs a smaller and nippier type of aircraft to co-operate with troops engaged in the hilly, not to say mountainous, country of Norway. And are there enough flying boats available to make possible their detachment from their present duties in order to assist the troops in Norway? The floatplane side is probably even worse. How many floatplanes are available at the moment? How many trained floatplane pilots are there to fly them? How many pilots are there who combine knowledge of floatplanes and army co-operation?If the floatplane side were not so poorly off, itmight have been possibleThese
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
