Raid on Mulheim 22/23 June 43

[vctenderness]

I am trying to gain some background to the loss of my uncle Sergeant Stanley Lawrence Webb, flight engineer, on a Stirling bomber on 23rd June 1943.

The aircraft was brought down with no survivors over Germany. The crew are buried at Reichswald Forest Cemetary.

What I would like to know is anything related to the actual aircraft, registration etc. also how aircraft was attacked ie by fighters or Anti Aircraft Artillery.

I have trawled the internet and gained some info but most sites are commercial and require signing up to a subscription in order to access records.

I'm sure someone out there will have details of this loss and I would appreciate your assistance.

Thank you.

[XH175]

Well you can go round the houses with free and subscription sites but the information you glean will mostly have no guide to accuracy.


The exception is the CWGC
CWGC - Casualty Details (http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/2046797/WEBB,%20STANLEY%20LAWRENCE)


For the small fee of £3.30 you can download the Summary of Events section of the Operations Record Book for No.75 Squadron (unit given by free CWGC site) and get it from the horses mouth.


Squadron Number: 75 Summary of Events: Y | The National Archives (http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=D8453887)


The ORB also lists previous operations he took part in for the month. This will not be available from any other web source.


This will give your research a stable footing for looking at other sources eg W R Chorley Bomber Command Losses, 1943.


Regards
Ross

[Old-Duffer]

75 Sqn lost four Stirlings that night and of these the crew of F/S B B Wood are buried at Reichswald Forest CWGC. (Stirling EF408, code letter P)


The aircraft was shot down by AA fire 20 km north east of the target and crashed at Gelsenkirchen. The crew was first buried at Bismarck Cemetery before being reinterred.


Old Duffer

[vctenderness]

Thank you both for that information I will follow it up.

[rolling20]

Anti Aircraft Artillery

Just to be pedantic. Anti Aircraft Artillery appeared during the 1st Gulf War, for some reason. Your Uncles generation would have known it as Ack Ack or Flak. Flak is a contraction of German Flugzeugabwehrkanone meaning "aircraft-defense cannon". In English, "flak" became a generic term for ground anti-aircraft fire.

[Lordflasheart]

Don't know when Triple-A originated but I seem to remember in WWI it was called "Archie" (I checked with Biggles) LFH

[rolling20]

Yep you are correct LFH. I think it was the Americans who began using the term triple A in the first Gulf war. And we seem to follow for some bizzare reason.

[vctenderness]

Whatever it was called it still ended the lives of those brave young men that night!

My uncle was 33 the oldest on board the youngest was 19 tragic!

[rolling20]

Indeed. Remarkably similar to my own Great Uncle, all his crew were killed flying a Stirling. Pilot 19, rear gunner 19 and two thirty year olds among the crew, the oldest 32.

[vctenderness]

During my research of this I discovered that 75 Squadron had only just converted onto Sterlings, I think from Lancasters.

I also read that the Sterling was the least popular/successful of the British bombers due to its limited ceiling which exposed them to 'flak'.

Maybe if they, and the others on Stirlings that night, had not converted they would have survived the war.

[54Phan]

vctenderness, good luck with your search for information. 75 Squadron started World War II flying Wellingtons. They converted to Stirlings and finished the war flying Lancasters. IIRC, they were in 3 Group. (Sorry, my references are at the other end of my commute.)

I'm sure that a lively discussion could evolve around the respective merits of the 3 British designed Royal Air Force W.W. II four engined bombers, but the gallantry and dedication of both the air and ground crews is beyond reproach.

[rolling20]

54 Phan is right the discussion would go on long into the night. The Stirling was handicapped by its 100ft wingspan. It was believed this was due to the fact it had to fit into a hanger that size, when in fact the hangar in standard use was 112ft. Weight was the reason that the span was shortened and this was to be the achilles heel of the Stirling, which led to its low ceiling.
It was not all doom and gloom however, in that the Stirling was a very easy aircraft to fly, with characteristics like a fighter. Pilots called it a 'Gentlemans aircraft'.
There was a better version on the drawing board, which alleviated the wingspan issues, but the Air Ministry were not interested.

As for the belief that if they had not been flying Stirlings, they would have survived the war, I am afraid its not as clear cut as that.

[PerAsperaAdAstra]

Yes the Sterling was hampered by the reduced wingspan, I've always liked the look of it and am not surprised it handled well, would have been very interesting to see what would have been the result if she was given a new wing and four Merlins? Utterly huge bomb bay, so maybe a missed oppertunity? The Lancaster had an un interupted bomb bay, one of it's strong points, but the Sterling was so long, if it was modified it could have carried a huge load I think.

[faubourg]

Get into this blog and find out much about your man


23rd June 1943 | 75(nz)squadron (http://75nzsquadron.wordpress.com/tag/23rd-june-1943/)


Tony

[Stanwell]

PerAspera,
As an aside, just what was so wrong with the Bristol Hercules on the Stirling?
Those fine engines had quite a few advantages over the RR Merlin and could have been developed, even then, to give the required altitude performance.

Reducing the wingspan was the big mistake which sadly sealed its fate as the 'also-ran' of the big three.
Perhaps the Air Ministry were 'out to lunch' when they briefed Shorts.

[staircase]

I have heard, like most people interested in this period, of the ‘hangar door width’ theory for the reduced wing span of the Stirling. However it was the first of the 4 engine heavies in service, and I suspect that Shorts used the Sunderland wing to save time and money on the Stirling.

Looking at the plan profile of both wings they seem remarkably similar. Later years also showed that Shorts have ‘form’ in this direction, given the bits of Britannia that seemed to become parts of the Belfast.

If anyone knows if this was the case, I would be interested to hear about it.

As for the type of engine. I understand that the Hercules used more fuel than the Merlin, but of course was less subject to battle damage due to no coolant system.

[megan]

I suspect that Shorts used the Sunderland wingOnly recently seen that statement made as if it were fact. Think in a copy of "Aeroplane" magazine. Of course, many facts turn out to be myths.

Edited to add: The following link states, "The wing span was limited by the Air Ministry to 100ft.—from considerations of hangar space, one presumes—and the fuselage dimensions were largely determined by the size of packing case needed."

Also: "In the primary structure of the Stirling one finds obvious evidence of its flying boat ancestry. The wings are almost identical, so far as the type of design is concerned, with those of the Empire and Sunderland boats. The fuselage, apart from the fact that it has, of course, no step, shows a form of construction very similar to that of the boat hulls."

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1942/1942%20-%200248.html

Comparisons of wing spans would seem to suggest there may well be something to an Air Ministry stipulation of wing span fitting in the 112 foot hangar. The Lancaster is a fraction over the 100 feet, but remember its wing was increased in span from the Manchester (90 feet 1 inch span).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/British_WW2_bombers_comparison.png

[staircase]

Thanks. I had not seen the Aeroplane article, and I certainly don’t feel strongly enough to disagree with you. The drawings are interesting, as were the quotes from the Aeroplane.

Guess we will never know the absolute truth.