Victory Bomber

British strategic bomber design of WW2. The British "Victory Bomber" was a Second World War design proposal by British inventor and aircraft designer Barnes Wallis while at Vickers Armstrongs for a large strategic bomber. This aircraft was to have performed what Wallis referred to as "anti civil engineering" bombing missions and was to have carried his projected "earthquake bomb" to strategic targets in Germany. The Victory Bomber was considered extremely ambitious: the Royal Air Force (RAF) at that time not yet having introduced four engine heavy bombers, and to give the necessary performance, the Victory Bomber was to have six engines and was highly specialised to its role. The project was studied in detail, the bomber proceeding to wind tunnel testing while the earthquake bomb to equip it was tested on representative models. The Air Ministry chose not to proceed with development of the Victory Bomber, terminating it in May 1941. No prototypes were built, but the Avro Lancaster filled a similar role and was fitted with a similar armament array. The Lancaster used Wallis' Tallboy, Grand Slam and bouncing bomb during strategic "anti civil engineering" missions, such as Operation Chastise, the "Dambusters" mission.

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. 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. 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 150 feet (46 m) of the dam's face. Wallis argued that roughly 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. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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 Tallboy bomb, and then the larger 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. 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'. 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. 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. 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. 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, 45000 feet (13716 m) being calculated to give the bomb maximum impact speed, at a speed of over a distance of 4000 mile (6437 km). It would carry a single "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. In response to these difficulties, Wallis had proposed the adoption of a new gyroscopic bombsight to provide for greater accuracy.