1936-1941: your best RAF

[Kevin J]

Seems like 580 were built?

Okay, you're correct, 284 operational, 290 training etc. My mistake. I wasn't using Wikipedia as my source but http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....-war&catid=48:production-statistics&Itemid=61. So that would be another 580 Roc's too.

 

[tomo pauk]

With freed capacity at Blackburn, Boulton-Paul and Fairey, how to take advantage of that? And at Gloster - curtail the production of Gladiator so they can start making Hurricanes?
For starters, let's have Blackburn making Hampdens, B-P making Spitfires, Fairey making big bomber (Wellington, Hampden, or a 4-engined bomber)? I'd again suggest Napier making Pegasus under licence. Spitfire production might get another boost through introduction of 1- or 2-piece ribs & formers instad of built-up ribs & formers, and start making early effort of bringing the Castle Bromwich factory on line.

 

[Shortround6]

The trouble is WHEN.

The Botha was a disaster, 676 were canceled but that is 580 too few.

Unfortunately first deliveries to a service squadron (actually No 1 operational training unit) were June 3rd 1940 and then 3 were deleivered to No 608 squadron on June 28, it took several more months to deliver 25 aircraft.

The last Dumbarton built aircraft, out of 200, was completed in June 1941 and the last Brough built aircraft, out of 380, was finished in May of 1942.

As much as the Botha should have been canceled (and another trainer built) most of it's production and that of it's engines falls either outside or at the end of the time period under discussion.

Roc production stopped in Aug of 1940, which certainly says something, considering all the other schemes to build emergency fighters( armed Miles Masters) and sling 20mm cannon onto Lysanders

 

[Shortround6]

With freed capacity at Blackburn, Boulton-Paul and Fairey, how to take advantage of that? And at Gloster - curtail the production of Gladiator so they can start making Hurricanes?

When? did these factories stay at the same size and capacity or did they expand over the years?
As usual most of the schemes short change the training units, setting the British up for the same sort of problems the Germans and Japanese wound up in.
there were only 747 gladiators built and 216 of them were exported. Only 8 Squadrons got Gladiators new (some were passed on). Stopping Gladator production sooner and building Hurricanes to the standard of the Day (late 1937/early 1938) means fabric covered wing Hurricanes with Merlin II engines (Wrong propshaft for one of the variable pitch props).
Some of these early planes and engines are not interchangeable with later planes and engines.

 

[tomo pauk]

When? did these factories stay at the same size and capacity or did they expand over the years?
As usual most of the schemes short change the training units, setting the British up for the same sort of problems the Germans and Japanese wound up in.

When? Immediately.
My suggestions don't say: let's reduce the output. Rather, my aim is to increase the output of aircraft. Pilots that trained on 1-engined aircraft still need to undergo training on 2-engined aircraft, and increased production of actually safe and useful twins adds to that.

there were only 747 gladiators built and 216 of them were exported. Only 8 Squadrons got Gladiators new (some were passed on). Stopping Gladator production sooner and building Hurricanes to the standard of the Day (late 1937/early 1938) means fabric covered wing Hurricanes with Merlin II engines (Wrong propshaft for one of the variable pitch props).
Some of these early planes and engines are not interchangeable with later planes and engines.

Even such a Hurricane beats the best produced Gladiator without breaking a sweat. Plus, Gloster making Hurricanes earlier improves their 'production curve'.

The trouble is WHEN.
The Botha was a disaster, 676 were canceled but that is 580 too few.
Unfortunately first deliveries to a service squadron (actually No 1 operational training unit) were June 3rd 1940 and then 3 were deleivered to No 608 squadron on June 28, it took several more months to deliver 25 aircraft.
The last Dumbarton built aircraft, out of 200, was completed in June 1941 and the last Brough built aircraft, out of 380, was finished in May of 1942.
As much as the Botha should have been canceled (and another trainer built) most of it's production and that of it's engines falls either outside or at the end of the time period under discussion.

Seems like 522 copies of the Botha were manufactured between September of 1939 and the end of 1941 (link), ie. withinn the scope of this thread. In 1940, 346 were produced. Wnat to train bomber crews on 2-engined A/C? Make more Blenheims.

 

[Glider]

Looking at this problem I would be tempted to go for options that were feasible, or at least more feasible.

Botha.
This was never going to work,and should have been killed off at first conception. This would have freed up not just production but the highly skilled designers and engineers to speed up the development of other designs.

Gladiator
Production could have been concentrated on Sea Gladiators which would give the Fleet Air Arm something in the first eighteen months of the war before the Sea Hurricane, or a Fulmar / replacement Fulmar came on stream.

Battle
Again this should have been killed off at an early stage as its performance and design made it what it was almost a death sentence against an enemy. Those who say that it served as a trainer which was in itself was a valuable role are of course are correct. However the UK had other designs in production that filled the role which didn't use the Merlin engine, in itself an item that was in high demand. The Miles Master is but one example of an alternative.

Skua / Roc
Skua, production should have had an increased and issued to the RAF as a Dive Bomber. There may well have been time to design a land based version which without the extra structural weight needed for carrier operation would presumably have had a better performance. They would have stood a better chance of surviving than the Battle and a better chance of achieving their goal. The Roc as we all agree was never going to work and the person whose idea it was simply sacked and transferred to the infantry.

Fulmar
There is no reason I can think of for designing a twin seat recce/fighter at that time. A single seat Fulmar (for want of a better description) would have a much better performance even with the range and ammunition capacity of the Fulmar which were its strengths. I am not pretending that it would be a match for the Zero or Wildcat, but it would have been a lot better than it was.
It should be remembered that between the wars the RN used a number of single seat fighters from the carriers so the concept wasn't alien to them.

Design Specs generally
There is probably overlooked. The people who wrote the specs from which the design teams developed their wares were often over cautious resulting in replacement equipment that was little better than the originals. These spec writers should have been shaken up and told to push the limits and the designers encouraged to treat the specs as a minimum, not a maximum.

In the Air
The Albacore was basically a cleaner Swordfish. In the USA the development period of the Avenger was similar to the Albacore, why couldn't the UK develop something similar. The Fulmar was basically a cleaner Battle, why not really push the designers.

On Land
The Matilda was replaced by the Valentine. A tank with essentially the same gun, armour, speed, and size of the Matilda. Why didn't someone say, what can we do with all these old WW1 13pdd or even 18pd guns we have in our warehouses, why not see how they work in a tank. Its more or less what the US did with the 75mm gun used in the Lee/Grant and Sherman. I believe that there was a High Velocity version of the 18pd gun using a 13pd shell developed for AA fire in WW1 which had a higher MV than the 75mm L40. That would have been worth a look.

When given a free hand the designers could deliver, which is why in the immediate post war world we had the Sea Fury and the Centurion tank.

 

[Kevin J]

Looking at this problem I would be tempted to go for options that were feasible, or at least more feasible.

Botha.
This was never going to work,and should have been killed off at first conception. This would have freed up not just production but the highly skilled designers and engineers to speed up the development of other designs.

Gladiator
Production could have been concentrated on Sea Gladiators which would give the Fleet Air Arm something in the first eighteen months of the war before the Sea Hurricane, or a Fulmar / replacement Fulmar came on stream.

Battle
Again this should have been killed off at an early stage as its performance and design made it what it was almost a death sentence against an enemy. Those who say that it served as a trainer which was in itself was a valuable role are of course are correct. However the UK had other designs in production that filled the role which didn't use the Merlin engine, in itself an item that was in high demand. The Miles Master is but one example of an alternative.

Skua / Roc
Skua, production should have had an increased and issued to the RAF as a Dive Bomber. There may well have been time to design a land based version which without the extra structural weight needed for carrier operation would presumably have had a better performance. They would have stood a better chance of surviving than the Battle and a better chance of achieving their goal. The Roc as we all agree was never going to work and the person whose idea it was simply sacked and transferred to the infantry.

Fulmar
There is no reason I can think of for designing a twin seat recce/fighter at that time. A single seat Fulmar (for want of a better description) would have a much better performance even with the range and ammunition capacity of the Fulmar which were its strengths. I am not pretending that it would be a match for the Zero or Wildcat, but it would have been a lot better than it was.
It should be remembered that between the wars the RN used a number of single seat fighters from the carriers so the concept wasn't alien to them.

Design Specs generally
There is probably overlooked. The people who wrote the specs from which the design teams developed their wares were often over cautious resulting in replacement equipment that was little better than the originals. These spec writers should have been shaken up and told to push the limits and the designers encouraged to treat the specs as a minimum, not a maximum.

In the Air
The Albacore was basically a cleaner Swordfish. In the USA the development period of the Avenger was similar to the Albacore, why couldn't the UK develop something similar. The Fulmar was basically a cleaner Battle, why not really push the designers.

On Land
The Matilda was replaced by the Valentine. A tank with essentially the same gun, armour, speed, and size of the Matilda. Why didn't someone say, what can we do with all these old WW1 13pdd or even 18pd guns we have in our warehouses, why not see how they work in a tank. Its more or less what the US did with the 75mm gun used in the Lee/Grant and Sherman. I believe that there was a High Velocity version of the 18pd gun using a 13pd shell developed for AA fire in WW1 which had a higher MV than the 75mm L40. That would have been worth a look.

When given a free hand the designers could deliver, which is why in the immediate post war world we had the Sea Fury and the Centurion tank.

You're assuming that it's really easy to change the production lines. I like your ideas for the Skua and ROC though, excellent. I worked in Systems development for 30 years. It's not that easy changing your production lines and we had multiple competitive products on the go at any one time, there was delivery time overlap in both designs and products. Sometimes the old product outlived the new as was the case with the Swordfish and Albacore.

 

[Glider]

I recognise that changing production is difficult but its a lot less effort than designing / testing a new aircraft, tooling up production for new design and of course putting it into production. Tooling up for producing an aircraft that is already in production is a lot easier and quicker.
Think of the effort wasted on the Botha, I dread to think what the cost was per aircraft.

Gladiator - minimal real change
Battle - Change or production certainly but to a design that was already being built so not too bad
Skua / Roc. The effort put into designing the Roc would easily covered the expense in time and effort in producing a 'Land Skua'
Fulmar - Just give the designers at Fairy a spec for a single engine fighter based on the P4/34 and see what develops

 

[tomo pauk]

I recognise that changing production is difficult but its a lot less effort than designing / testing a new aircraft, tooling up production for new design and of course putting it into production. Tooling up for producing an aircraft that is already in production is a lot easier and quicker.
Think of the effort wasted on the Botha, I dread to think what the cost was per aircraft.

Agreed 100%.
UK paid for tooling up of two factories to make Bothas. That's a waste in anybody's book, strangle the contraption already in the crib.

 

[Kevin J]

I recognise that changing production is difficult but its a lot less effort than designing / testing a new aircraft, tooling up production for new design and of course putting it into production. Tooling up for producing an aircraft that is already in production is a lot easier and quicker.
Think of the effort wasted on the Botha, I dread to think what the cost was per aircraft.

Gladiator - minimal real change
Battle - Change or production certainly but to a design that was already being built so not too bad
Skua / Roc. The effort put into designing the Roc would easily covered the expense in time and effort in producing a 'Land Skua'
Fulmar - Just give the designers at Fairy a spec for a single engine fighter based on the P4/34 and see what develops

Perhaps a carrier version of the Fairey Fantome biplane with the Merlin III. That should give the FAA a fighter of comparable performance to the Buffalo. The monoplane version to come next, if you like, a Wildcat equivalent.
A floatplane version of the Roc without the turret instead of the Roc with the turret for long range reconnaissance to free up space on the RN carriers. Operate it from our larger cruisers.

 

[Glider]

Perhaps a carrier version of the Fairey Fantome biplane with the Merlin III. That should give the FAA a fighter of comparable performance to the Buffalo. The monoplane version to come next, if you like, a Wildcat equivalent.
A floatplane version of the Roc without the turret instead of the Roc with the turret for long range reconnaissance to free up space on the RN carriers. Operate it from our larger cruisers.

The day of the biplane was over. My suggestion was based on the fact that Gladiator was already in production and it would give the RN something with minimal disruption that would suffice against unescorted bombers.
Re the use of any floatplane form a cruiser as a recce was doomed to failure. The aircraft would lack performance and range due to the drag involved. Interestingly the IJN did use cruiser aircraft for Recce as you suggest but it was difficult to co-ordinate operations in the real world as opposed to exercises.

 

[Kevin J]

The day of the biplane was over. My suggestion was based on the fact that Gladiator was already in production and it would give the RN something with minimal disruption that would suffice against unescorted bombers.
Re the use of any floatplane form a cruiser as a recce was doomed to failure. The aircraft would lack performance and range due to the drag involved. Interestingly the IJN did use cruiser aircraft for Recce as you suggest but it was difficult to co-ordinate operations in the real world as opposed to exercises.

The Fairey Fantome did 270 mph with the Hispano-Suiza 12Ycrs back in1935, so the same as the Fairey P4/34. The 267 mph Fiat Cr 42 was projected to do 323 mph with the DB 601a. The Fantome with the Merlin should have a similar sort of speed.

 

[Glider]

The Fairey Fantome did 270 mph with the Hispano-Suiza 12Ycrs back in1935, so the same as the Fairey P4/34. The 267 mph Fiat Cr 42 was projected to do 323 mph with the DB 601a. The Fantome with the Merlin should have a similar sort of speed.

I know, but the disruption of bringing in another aircraft which is already obsolete in its basic configuration wasn't worth the effort. That effort would have been better spent in developing a new monoplane fighter which had future development potential.

 

[tomo pauk]

I know, but the disruption of bringing in another aircraft which is already obsolete in its basic configuration wasn't worth the effort. That effort would have been better spent in developing a new monoplane fighter which had future development potential.

Quite so. These are not 1920s where biplanes were okay. Need a naval fighter for late 1930s? Make the Sea Hurricane.

 

[The Basket]

Any aircraft which is going to be in numbers and fully operational is going to have least flown by 1936 to fly in 1940.

So get it right and you get the Spitfire. So get it wrong, the Battle of Britain could have been Blackburn Roc v Me 109.

End of the day, UK entered the Battle of Britain with 2 modern fighters, Radar, Ground Control intercept and an integrated air defence. And the Botha.

How you can get it so wrong and so right at the same time is staggering. Maybe the Botha was normal and the Spitfire was a fluke. Some of the design choices that both the RN and RAF made after the war was equally terrible. Full of Javelins and Scimitars and Swifts and Beverly.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Glider]

It's a guess of course, but I suspect that to a degree it's what I said earlier about the design spec. The Spit was so advanced the spec was written around the design in other words they let the designer have their head. The Botha was written to meet the spec which was updated adding complication and weight with the result we all know

 

[Shortround6]

When? Immediately.
My suggestions don't say: let's reduce the output. Rather, my aim is to increase the output of aircraft. Pilots that trained on 1-engined aircraft still need to undergo training on 2-engined aircraft, and increased production of actually safe and useful twins adds to that.

When also refers to what is made when, As in do you need to make some osrt of modern aircraft (monoplanes?) in 1936-37 in case the war started in 1938.
Yes pilots that train on single engine aircraft need to train on twins to be a pilot for twin engine bombers. However the Battle was used as a crew trainer, It trained (or helped train) bomb aimers and navigators, it helped train radio operators and air gunners. It helped teach pilots to command a crew (although a small one) and it taught team work, granted other planes could do the same thing but the Battle's contribution is often under appreciated. It also helped teach ground crew.

Even such a Hurricane beats the best produced Gladiator without breaking a sweat. Plus, Gloster making Hurricanes earlier improves their 'production curve'.

true, but the bit about Glosters leaning curve needs a bit of look.

Block 1, First Hawker Produced Block
Serial Range L1547 - L2146 600 Aircraft
Built by Hawker Aircraft Ltd., of Kingston and Brooklands, to specification 15/36 under contract No. 527112/36. The first 430 aircraft were manufactured with fabric covered wings; the remaining 170 with metal covered wings, some aircraft later re-fitted with metal wings at Maintenance Units within the R.A.F. Aircraft deliveries commenced on the 15th December, 1937, and were completed on 6th October, 1939. L1547 was first flown on 12th October, 1937

L1702 - First with Merlin III engine.
L1980 - First with Variable Pitch airscrew.

Block 2, Second Hawker Produced Block
Total 300
Built by Hawker Aircraft Limited, Kingston and Brooklands, to Contract No. 751458/38. Aircraft powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin III engines driving Rotol or De-Havilland three blade propellers. Aircraft deliveries commenced on the 29th September, 1939 and were completed on the 1st May, 1940. The average rate of production was one-two aircraft per day

Block 1/G, First Gloster Produced Block
First batch of 500 Mk. I Hurricanes Built by Gloster Aircraft Company Limited, Brockworth, Gloucestershire, to Contract No. 962371/38/C.23a. Aircraft were powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin III engines. Aircraft deliveries commenced in November, 1939 and were completed by April 1940, the average rate of production was three aircraft per day.

Gloster was out producing Hawker almost as soon as they started. Perhaps in part by having a large and well trained workforce from building those Gladiators? If you Bring Gloster in earlier than the Spring of 1939 you have planes with fixed pitch props and quite likely the fabric covered wings although things would change over the summer. Useful if the war starts early but not so much if things start as historically or a bit later (you just have to refit more planes).

 

[tomo pauk]

When also refers to what is made when, As in do you need to make some osrt of modern aircraft (monoplanes?) in 1936-37 in case the war started in 1938.
Yes pilots that train on single engine aircraft need to train on twins to be a pilot for twin engine bombers. However the Battle was used as a crew trainer, It trained (or helped train) bomb aimers and navigators, it helped train radio operators and air gunners. It helped teach pilots to command a crew (although a small one) and it taught team work, granted other planes could do the same thing but the Battle's contribution is often under appreciated. It also helped teach ground crew.

Battle was being made in 1936-37, while Blenheim was in the pipeline.

...
Gloster was out producing Hawker almost as soon as they started. Perhaps in part by having a large and well trained workforce from building those Gladiators? If you Bring Gloster in earlier than the Spring of 1939 you have planes with fixed pitch props and quite likely the fabric covered wings although things would change over the summer. Useful if the war starts early but not so much if things start as historically or a bit later (you just have to refit more planes).

Thanks for the effort to find out and post the production numbers.

Gloster was also out-producing Hawker due to their production being started when the war was already underway - with production starting couple of years before the war, daily production will not be that big. It is far better to have Hurricanes with worst prop than Gladiators with best prop.

 

[Shortround6]

On Land
The Matilda was replaced by the Valentine. A tank with essentially the same gun, armour, speed, and size of the Matilda. Why didn't someone say, what can we do with all these old WW1 13pdd or even 18pd guns we have in our warehouses, why not see how they work in a tank. Its more or less what the US did with the 75mm gun used in the Lee/Grant and Sherman. I believe that there was a High Velocity version of the 18pd gun using a 13pd shell developed for AA fire in WW1 which had a higher MV than the 75mm L40. That would have been worth a look.

I will take this to a new a thread.

1936-1941: your best RA (tanks/artillery)

 

[swampyankee]

The Roc and the Botha were horrible mistakes; both should have been strangled in their figurative cribs. Did Blackburn design any decent land planes in this era? Well, I guess the Skua was decent, and some of its faults were less its fault than the idea that it was a dual-role aircraft.

Before combat was entered, it's probable that nobody would notice the Battle's failings, and it's failings are really only evident in hindsight.

The RAF should have noticed that U-boats were a major threat to the UK in the previous war; they were spending far too little effort on maritime patrol aircraft. Given the limitations on the operations of seaplanes in bad weather, the RAF should have considered land-based aircraft for the role.