Holme
HOLME: Military aerodrome later company airfield
(also known as HOLME-on-SPALDING, HOLME-on- SPALDING MOOR and SPALDINGTON)
Note: Both of these pictures were obtained from Google Earth ©
Military users: WW2: RAF Bomber Command 4 Group
76 Sqdn (Handley Page Halifaxs)
101 Sqdn (Avro Lancasters)
1689 (B) DTF (Vickers-Supermarine Spitfires)
Manufacturing: Blackburn & General Aircraft, Hawker Siddeley and British Aerospace
Location: Surrounding Tollingham village from W through S to SE, just S of Rascal Moor, E of the A164, 5nm SW of Market Weighton, NE of Goole and Howden
Period of operation: Military from 1941 till 1984 ? (Some say civil from 1985 to ?)
Runways: WW2: 03/21 1280x46 hard 08/26 1280x46 hard
12/30 1829x46 hard
NOTES:
When, in 1943, 76 Squadron were moved to this muddy godforsaken hole, after being based at LINTON-on-the-OUSE in comparative luxury, to make place for Canadian 6 Group, they were far from happy. And quite rightly so, considering what they'd been through. Very few of their aircews survived a tour of thirty missions.
As Max Hastings explains in his most excellent book Bomber Command, first published in 1979: "At the end of the Battle of the Ruhr, Bomber Command had flown 18,506 sorties, and lost 872 aircraft missing over Germany - 4.7 per cent - plus a further 16 per cent damaged. On some nights, 30 per cent of all the aircraft dispatched came back damaged or failed to return at all. They had poured 58,000 tons of bombs on to Germany, more than the Luftwaffe dropped on Britain throughout 1940 and 1941, more than Bomber Command dropped on Germany in the whole of 1942."
"The photographs of cities that they had attacked revealed thousands of acres of industrial and residential devastation." Bomber Command had computed that compared to 400 acres of urban Germany being razed by bombing in 1942, in 1943 this would rise to 26,000 acres. The sustained four nightly attacks on Hamburg in 1943 showed the Nazi regime what the RAF alone could achieve - the total obliteration of a city. If the Nazi regime had any sense, they would have surrendered.
But the uncomfortable truth was that aerial photographs, apparently showing utter devastation, did not portray the reality. Even high ranking Nazis, appalled by these raids, were surprised at how quickly the city and its industry started functioning again. I suppose that one example could be the destruction of a submarine. The vessel might have been destroyed, but the materials weren't. They could be recycled. And, large machine tools were very resilient to bomb damage. The roof of the factory might have been blown away, but once the debris was cleared away, much of the machinary was relatively undamaged - and quickly repaired. But Bomber Command did not order repeat raids, time and time again. They mistakenly thought the job was done.
It will be an argument that can never be resolved. Why for example was the Mohner dam never bombed again, at height with high explosive bombs, whilst the Germans were rebuilding it? As we know, Bomber Command crews couldn't be relied upon to hit a target within 3 miles, but I feel sure a selected number of crews could have done the job. Photo-reconnaissance flights would have shown the best time for such attacks.
The argument given, it seems for cities, was that reinforcements would be drafted in giving an unacceptable loss to Bomber Command. But this seems contrary to the Hamburg raids. The relentless campaign over four days gave the Germans no opportunity to set up an effective defence. And, I'm thinking I'm correct (?). the USAAF were conducting daytime raids.
Another aspect is that the RAF employed 'Windows' for the first time, dropping millions of metal strips to fog the radar defences. And it worked brilliantly. But the Germans had already thought of the idea and dismissed it. It might work once, but counter-measures had been planned - ironically far more effective and damaging to the RAF bombers than previous methods.
However, if that strategy was pursued with ever greater numbers of aircraft, which it was later, Dresden being a good example, could the war have ended a year or more earlier? This said, and without any doubt, the war had to end eventually with 'boots on the ground' and tanks etc. In order to establish military control. But how much easier could their task have been by totally obliterating several more key cities? Especially in the Ruhr region.
LEONARD CHESHIRE
Without any doubt whatsover the capabilities of a Squadron Commander, (let alone a Station Commander), could make a huge difference. Not just to morale, but resulting in far less casualties. After Cheshire took control of 76 Squadron he transformed it. Quite unlike Guy Gibson, often hailed as one of the best, his approach being a mild mannered man soon won his crews over. He studied his subject, aerial bombing, relentlessly. He consistently flew on the most dangerous missions on the basis that he would never ask his crews to undertake any mission he was not prepared to go on himself.
It was a proven fact that most crews failed to survive the first six missions. Cheshire would often fly as 'Second Dickie' (co-pilot) to a rookie crew to teach them 'the ropes'. Not being in the slightest bit interested in sports, I am reminded that most of the really successful, do mention that, "The more I practice, the more successful I become." Could it be that Cheshire had picked up on this? No doubt just luck also plays a part, but Cheshire, unlike Gibson, did survive.
SOMETHING TO BE EXPLAINED
It must of course be explained that the end result of manufacturing is very often final assembly and test flying, often at a location well away from where the components were actually produced. It appears the first pre-production versions of the Buccaneer, the NA.39 were towed across from BROUGH on their own wheels from July 1958.
From 1966 it appears many if not most of the McDonnell Douglas Phantoms destined for the RAF, the design authority being given to Hawker Siddeley Aviation, were initially test flown here? Listed in 1975/77 as a Hawker-Siddelely flight test airfield for Buccaneers. In 1985 operated by British Aerospace as a non-flying site?
It is stated that flying activity ceased here after the last Buccaneer flight in December 1983, so presumably this site closed shortly after?
BRITISH AEROSPACE SITES
When British Aerospace (BAe) was formed in April 1977 they had eighteen sites employing roughly 50,000 people. These were: Bitteswell*, Brough*, Chadderton, Chester (Broughton)*, Christchurch, Dunsfold*, Filton*, Hamble*, Hatfield*, Holme-on Spalding Moor *, Hurn (Bournemouth)*, Kingston, Preston, Prestwick*, Salmesbury*, Warton*, Weybridge (Brooklands), and Woodford*.
When the merger with Marconi took place in November 1999, the number of BAe manufacturing facilities had been reduced to eight: Brough*, Chadderton, Chester (Broughton)*, Filton*, Prestwick*, Salmesbury, Warton* and Woodford*.
*This indicates sites that I’m pretty certain were still also operational airfields/airports at these two dates – 1977 and 1999. Was it just possible that Dunsfold should be included in 1999?
HOSM
This comment was written on: 2021-04-10 13:35:53From my own research and having family members that worked at Brough HOSM; you are correct, I believe all production Buccaneers were flown from Holme after being towed there from the factory at Brough. Extensive work was carried out on the airfield insfrastructure in 68 to handle the Phantom work, which meant that for a few months Driffield was used as the flight test airfield for Brough. There are photos existing of the site online, much of it including bucc and phantom flying. Also believe the South African buccaneers were test flown there with rocket assisted take off! The site was also used as a Bolthole for the various RAF Jet Provost squadrons at bases in the vale of York. A couple of private jets were also based at the airfield, including one owned by Hygiena based in Howden. Airfield closed in 1983, with much of the wartime hardsrandings being removed prior to the last aircraft leaving in December 83! Google earth time lapse shows the outline of the runways in 1984, with no runways left in 85! Obviously a lot of road building going on meant hardcore was valuable at the time. A fascinating airfield in its own right, and shame that very little is documented at what was by all accounts a busy and interesting airfield in the middle of nowhere!
We'd love to hear from you, so please scroll down to leave a comment!
Leave a comment ...
Copyright (c) UK Airfield Guide
