Victory Bomber

During the early stages of the Second World War, Wallis performed extensive studies of the German war economy and industry, concluding that with the selective destruction of strategic infrastructure targets, the German capacity to produce armaments could be reduced. Wallis believed that a fundamental means to ending the war would be to send bombing missions against German power sources and that the destruction of facilities such as coal mines, oil depots, hydroelectric dams and water supplies would leave Germany without a functional war industry and therefore having no ability to wage war.Holland 2013, p. 83.Edgerton 2011, p. 237.

Wallis also spent a considerable amount of time studying the physics involved in high explosives and various bombs. As a result of these studies, Wallis conceived of more effective means to use explosives; that the shock wave that was created when munitions such as depth charges were detonated was more damaging than the initial blast of the detonation itself; he also viewed conventional bombing methods as practised by RAF Bomber Command to be insufficient on these terms to attack dispersed industrial areas. On this basis, he sought to apply this principle to a new type of weapon that would detonate underground. In 1940, Wallis designed a {{convert|22400|lb|kg|abbr=on}} "penetrating" bomb that was to bury itself in the ground before detonating. Designed with a sharp, pointed nose, the bomb could be dropped from a high altitude of {{convert|40,000|ft|m|abbr=on}} and would plunge around {{convert|135|ft|m|abbr=on}} underground; the explosion would cause a miniature concentrated 'earthquake' with a destructive radius of 29 acres.Holland 2013, p. 86. It was estimated that this bomb could be capable of breaking dams such as the Möhne if it were to explode while in the reservoirs within {{convert|150|ft|m|abbr=on}} of the dam's face.Levine 1992, p. 54.

Wallis argued that roughly {{convert|4,000|acre|km2}} could be thoroughly destroyed by five aircraft each deploying only a single such bomb; this would allow for far greater levels of destruction by RAF Bomber Command as it required substantially fewer bombers to create the same levels of damage as via contemporary means. Only a small number of such equipped bombers was reasoned to be able to devastate Germany's industrial capacity to a greater extent than mass waves of conventionally-armed bombers.Holland 2013, pp. 86–87. Wallis allegedly said that "irreparable damage could be inflicted on the strategic communications of the German Empire by ... ten or twenty machines within the course of a few weeks". However, the deployment of Wallis' concept was not immediately possible, for there was no existing Royal Air Force (RAF) bomber that would be capable of carrying such a weapon.

The limitation of the purpose of the Victory Bomber to only a single bomb and mission did not endear it to the Air Ministry, who required more flexibility of their aircraft. In mid 1940, a principle had been established that the manufacturing of only five types of aircraft should be pursued – two of these being fighter aircraft and three being bombers; Wallis' vision for a six-engine bomber equipped for only a specialised bomb conflicted with this concept. However, Lord Beaverbrook committed support for the project, and co-operation from both the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Road Research Laboratory would be forthcoming to aid Wallis in developing his plans.Holland 2013, p. 88.Brickhill 2009, p. 19. In August 1940, the Aeronautical Research Committee permitted the use of a wind tunnel at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington to perform tests to develop the penetration bomb.Holland 2013, p. 90.

In May 1941, the Air Staff rejected both the Victory Bomber and the bomb, observing that the aircraft was unlikely to be completed before the war ended. The thinly-stretched resources for bombers were being mostly allocated to the already-ambitious introduction of multiple four-engine bomber projects. Aviation author Paul Brickhill notes of the decision: "It was a fair assumption that it might be disastrous to dislocate [four-engine bombers] in favour of the Victory Bomber, which would inevitably take much longer to develop."Brickhill 2009, p. 13. However, Wallis's concepts had drawn attention within the establishment and his concepts continued to be explored, in particular the value of attacking infrastructure such as dams was being recognised, and the concept for the weapon did not meet its demise in the May 1941 decision.Edgerton 2011, p. 238.

The bomber design is not believed to have been developed beyond construction of a large wooden wind tunnel model which survives today at Brooklands Museum. However, the earthquake bomb idea was continued, initially as the smaller {{convert|12000|lb|kg|abbr=on}} Tallboy bomb, and then the larger {{convert|22000|lb|kg|abbr=on}} Grand Slam bomb, the carrying aircraft being a modified Avro Lancaster, whose performance had improved during the war to the point where it could manage such a load. There was further design work on large high flying bombers by the British during the war, including 75 ton (68 tonne) and 100 ton (90 tonne) design proposals, but these did not progress either.Buttler 2004 The Bristol design work for a 100-ton bomber did have some influence on the Bristol Brabazon.

In response to the absence of a suitable aircraft, Wallis revived an earlier concept for a large six-engine bomber, known initially as the 'High Altitude Stratosphere Bomber' and later simply as the 'Victory Bomber'.Jablonski 1971, p. 136. The Victory Bomber had its origins in an earlier concept that the RAF had previously rejected prior to the war, having not even introduced four-engine bombers at the time, there had been some political support from figures such as Lord Beaverbrook, who had been appointed as the Minister of Aircraft Production in May 1940.Holland 2013, p. 87. In July 1940, Wallis was summoned to meet with Beaverbrook, and was able to briefly present the Victory Bomber concept to him, who in turn referred it for further study.Brickhill 2009, pp. 14–16. On 1 November 1940, Sir Charles Craven, Vickers' Managing Director, wrote to Lord Beaverbrook to suggest that he give backing to both the bomb and the Victory Bomber.Brickhill 2009, p. 16.

Wallis' design for the huge six-engined Victory Bomber drew upon his prior experience and expertise. Wallis was an expert on geodetic airframe construction, having previously used it in designs such as the Wellesley (1935) and Wellington (1936), and naturally used it again for the Victory Bomber; also, all existing Vickers tooling was for this construction method. His specification was for a 50-ton (45 tonne) bomber that could fly at high altitude, {{convert|45000|ft|abbr=on}} being calculated to give the bomb maximum impact speed, at a speed of {{convert|320|mph|kn km/h|abbr=on}} over a distance of {{convert|4000|mi|nmi km|abbr=on}}.Sweetman 1982, p. 17. It would carry a single {{convert|22400|lb|kg|abbr=on}} "earthquake bomb". Defensive armament was minimal; speed and height would be its chief defence with one quad-gun turret in the tail position for any fighter aircraft that did attempt to reach it. The bomber would benefit by climbing to altitude while over Britain, where fighter defences could protect it. Due to the high altitudes that bombing missions would take place at, the crew compartment was pressurised.

Bombing from high altitudes posed several issues, principally amongst these being accuracy. Wallis himself acknowledged that the accuracy called for to employ the penetration bomb from {{cvt|40,000|ft|m}} was difficult to achieve; specifically, there was an assumption that around 25 percent of days throughout the year would be suitable for performing bombing missions in, but that during such missions the benefits of being undisturbed from ground-based anti-aircraft fire would lead to equivalent accuracy to conventional bombers flying at {{cvt|15,000|–|20,000|ft|m}} under gunfire.Sweetman 1982, p. 18. In response to these difficulties, Wallis had proposed the adoption of a new gyroscopic bombsight to provide for greater accuracy. The Victory Bomber was to have been capable of traversing substantial ranges, being able to launch bombing missions upon Moscow in Russia from airfields around London in the United Kingdom; Wallis also promoted the aircraft as being the potential basis for post-war civil aircraft capable of performing direct transatlantic crossings.Edgerton 2011, pp. 237–238.

{{Aircraft specs

|ref=

|prime units?=imp

|genhide=

|crew=

|capacity=

|length ft=96

|length in=

|length note=

|span ft=172

|span in=

|span note=

|upper span ft=

|upper span in=

|upper span note=

|mid span ft=

|mid span in=

|mid span note=

|lower span ft=

|lower span in=

|lower span note=

|swept ft=

|swept in=

|swept note=

|dia ft=

|dia in=

|dia note=

|width ft=

|width in=

|width note=

|height ft=11

|height in=

|height note=

|wing area sqft=2675

|wing area note=

|swept area sqft=

|swept area note=

|volume ft3=

|volume note=

|aspect ratio=

|airfoil=

|empty weight lb=

|empty weight note=

|gross weight lb=104000

|gross weight note=

|max takeoff weight lb=

|max takeoff weight note=

|fuel capacity=

|lift lb=

|lift note=

|more general=

|eng1 number=6

|eng1 name=Rolls-Royce Merlin or Bristol Hercules

|eng1 type=V-12 / 14-cyl radial

|eng1 hp=1580-1356

|eng1 note=supercharged piston engines

|max speed mph=352

|max speed note=at {{cvt|32000|ft|0}}

|cruise speed mph=

|cruise speed note=

|stall speed mph=

|stall speed note=

|never exceed speed mph=

|never exceed speed note=

|minimum control speed mph=

|minimum control speed note=

|range miles=

|range note=

|combat range miles=

|combat range note=

|ferry range miles=

|ferry range note=

|endurance=

|ceiling ft=45000

|ceiling note=

|g limits=

|roll rate=

|glide ratio=

|climb rate ftmin=

|climb rate note=

|time to altitude=

|sink rate ftmin=

|sink rate note=

|lift to drag=

|wing loading lb/sqft=

|wing loading note=

|fuel consumption lb/mi=

|power/mass=

|more performance=

|guns=4× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns

|bombs=single {{cvt|22000|lb|0}} bomb

|avionics=

}}

• Barnes Wallis
• Boeing B-29 Superfortress
• Amerika Bomber
• Convair B-36 Peacemaker
• Focke-Wulf Ta 400
• Heinkel He 277
• Messerschmitt Me 264
• Nakajima G10N Fugaku
• Vickers Windsor

{{reflist}}

{{refbegin}}

• Andrews, Charles F. Vickers Aircraft Since 1908. London, UK: Putnam Ltd, 1960.
• Buttler, Tony. Secret Projects: British Fighters and Bombers 1935 -1950 (British Secret Projects 3). Leicester, UK: Midland Publishing, 2004. {{ISBN|1-85780-179-2}}.
• Brickhill, Paul. The Dam Busters. Pan Macmillan, 2009 [Originally published: London: Evans, 1951]. {{ISBN|0-3305-0995-0}}.
• Edgerton, David. Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources, and Experts in the Second World War. Oxford University Press, 2011. {{ISBN|0-1999-1150-9}}.
• Holland, James. Dam Busters: The Race to Smash the Dams, 1943. Random House, 2013. {{ISBN|0-5521-6341-4}}.
• Jablonski, Edward. Tragic Victories. Doubleday, 1971.
• Levine, Alan J. The Strategic Bombing of Germany, 1940–1945. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1992. {{ISBN|0-275-94319-4}}.
• Sweetman, John. Operation Chastise: The Dams Raid: Epic or Myth. Jane's, 1982. {{ISBN|0-7106-0124-7}}.

{{refend}}

{{commons category|Victory Bomber}}

• [http://www.sirbarneswallis.com/Bombs.htm Sir Barnes Wallis: Wallis’s Bombs – Big and Bouncy]
• [http://www.military-history.org/articles/seismic-bomb.htm Earthquake bombs on military-history.org]

{{Vickers aircraft}}

Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects of the United Kingdom

Category:Weapon development

Category:1940s British bomber aircraft

Victory Bomber

Category:High-wing aircraft

Category:Six-engined tractor aircraft