Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The treaties play no role in this thread. We're not looking at changing the RN's carriers, just their number or quality of aircraft.There's also the effect of the naval treaties.
The air group on Illustrious for Taranto was NOT understrength. She was in fact carrying a deck park for that operation.The treaties play no role in this thread. We're not looking at changing the RN's carriers, just their number or quality of aircraft.
For the Nov 1940 attack on the Italian port of Taranto, a total of twenty Fairey Swordfish were launched from HMS Illustrious, of which five were transferred from the broken down HMS Eagle. But Illustrious was designed to carry thirty-six aircraft herself, so unless some embarked Swordfish were excluded from the raid or she was fighter-heavy, Illustrious' CAG was clearly under strength. The size of the carrier is not relevant if the hangar, magazines, fuel tanks and stores are not over-utilized.
This is the question of this thread, is Britain better off with more of their existing aircraft, or historically-equal numbers of better aircraft? For example, were HMS Illustrious and Formidable crippled by Stukas in 1941 because their Fulmars were too few, or too slow?
I meant the above as a comment on the previous discussion in this thread, not as an answer to the original question that started the entire thread. Sorry for the confusion.The treaties play no role in this thread. We're not looking at changing the RN's carriers, just their number or quality of aircraft.
Wait, do you insinuate that target-tug Defiants, Battles and Henleys were not the money (and resources) best spent?, You, my sir, are a heretic, and prepare to deal with consequencesAnd speaking of Merlins, just think of how many invaluable Merlins were used to pull around target tugs (on Battles, aforementioned Henleys, Defiants etc.), a waste only the british can "accomplish". Better have even a fraction of those Merlins actually do something useful to the war effort, be it on Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes, even Seafires.
Illustrious..... For example, were HMS Illustrious and Formidable crippled by Stukas in 1941 because their Fulmars were too few, or too slow?
Well something had to do the task. Perhaps there could be a conversion kit to replace a Merlin with something otherwise surplus thus releasing the Merlins for the RN. Not that I can immediately think of anything. Kestrels were earmarked for trainers. A purpose built target tug as a PoD? Can old early mark Merlin's actually be updated and refurbished fit for use? Armstrong Siddely Tigers or Napier Daggers? Dialled back for longevity. Sea Spitfires, Sea Hurricanes are the obvious choices, releasing Fulmars for the endurance and strike role. Was the RN short of airframes? ie if they had more of the existing period ones could they embark these extra aeroplanes? Did they have the pilots to man them? Did they have the engineering and artificers etc. to maintain them? If not then there is a need for extra naval personnel suited to these and their training. If they cannot embark these extra aeroplanes then either it is pointless or they need extra hulls. Cue fast build/conversion escort/light carriers?Wait, do you insinuate that target-tug Defiants, Battles and Henleys were not the money (and resources) best spent?, You, my sir, are a heretic, and prepare to deal with consequences
I wonder if the Merlins originally installed in Defiants (>1,000 built), Battles (2,000 built) and Henleys (200 built) were removed, rebuilt and continued in RAF service after these aircraft were retired. For example, according to my copy of Rootes Story, over 1,000 Merlins were refurbished by the Rootes car group and returned to service.Wait, do you insinuate that target-tug Defiants, Battles and Henleys were not the money (and resources) best spent?, You, my sir, are a heretic, and prepare to deal with consequences
If we address the FDO and radar detection ranges, perhaps the Fulmars are fine. But the Fulmar is a big beast in a small hangar.Fulmar performance and numbers were only two issues. Radar detection ranges and the ability of the FDOs to react were others as were fleet orders in the case of Illustrious. But against strikes of the numbers of attackers involved, could a single carrier carry enough fighters without dedicating its entire air group to fighters and doing without a strike force.
A better aircraft needed be one already in existence. But your point on on low range is apt. Perhaps our Mini Firebrand could have more internal fuel, akin to a P-51. Though keeping in mind the Merlin of 1938-40 is not the Merlin of 1942+.A significant problem with the Seafire & SeaHurricane would be the endurance for CAP operations and range for escort missions. In comparison to the Fulmar, with only internal fuel the Seafire had about 1/2 and the SeaHurricane about 2/3 the time aloft before having to land and refuel. This would greatly increase the problems with more deck operations and the carrier having to manage WOD.
Oh well, who am i to criticize the ...brilliant minds from the Ministry of Silly Aircraft Production and Procurement.Wait, do you insinuate that target-tug Defiants, Battles and Henleys were not the money (and resources) best spent?, You, my sir, are a heretic, and prepare to deal with consequences
You need to be careful about hangar capacity figures and note the dates and aircraft involved, and mix thereof, in view of growing aircraft size in the 1930s. See below for dimension data.In that timeframe, i'd rather go with more aircraft, at least if they have enough aircraft they can keep the carriers filled to capacity, and have enough to quickly replace losses. Even better if they go early with later inovations like deckparks, outriggers etc. While most of the british carrier planes of this time were passable to mediocre, still better to have as many of them as possible rather than not.
Much is made of IJN's lack of aircraft for Kido Butai in this timeframe, but while IJN planes were top notch, compensating to a degree for the always insufficient numbers, RN's were not only mediocre but also lacking in numbers. At least in this TL RN gets plenty of planes, even if subpar.
Skimming through some www info, for instance the follies could carry a maximum 40 to 50, Ark as many as 70 plus, Eagle about 35, Hermes about 25, early Illustriouses about 50 plus, Implacable almost 60, this assuming deckparks etc. So that means more aircraft for CAP, ASW, and strikes. Mening likely less air and sub hits on british carriers and perhaps some other ships, more targets hit, better scouting etc.
Given that the Defiant fulfilled a major, if unsuccessful role, as a night fighter through until 1942 when sufficient Beaufighters & Mosquitos appeared how do you intend to fill that gap? It was 1942 before aircraft released from front line duries could begin to be used for secondary tasks.And they can be had without significantly affecting what RAF gets, the classic Peter/Paul connundrum would have them get more Skuas instead of the useless Rocs, some Merlin airframes (Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes, even Seafires, whatever it is) rather than Henleys, whatever carrier types built instead of the equally useless Bothas and so on. And speaking of Merlins, just think of how many invaluable Merlins were used to pull around target tugs (on Battles, aforementioned Henleys, Defiants etc.), a waste only the british can "accomplish". Better have even a fraction of those Merlins actually do something useful to the war effort, be it on Fulmars, Sea Hurricanes, even Seafires.
But how given the state of development of the electronics & the art of fighter direction itself in the RN. Radar only went to sea in an operational way in 1939. Fighter direction started off Norway in 1940 and consisted of a guy with a Biggsworth board sitting in the corner of the bridge. It was an entirely different problem doing it at sea when compared to the RAF on land. Theoretically the Type 279 & 281 air warning sets weren't designed for fighter direction. Height finding with these relied on experienced operators interpreting echoes fading & returning as targets passed through the radar lobes.If we address the FDO and radar detection ranges, perhaps the Fulmars are fine.
Actually the Firebrand took up less space on a hangar deck than its 50ft wingspan might at first suggest.But the Fulmar is a big beast in a small hangar.
With a hypothetical smaller, single-seat Merlin-powered fighter with the Fulmar's compact wing fold and robust undercarriage, we should get a few more fighters onboard without hugely impacting the strike force. Something like a Merlin-powered mini-Firebrand.
View attachment 784969
A better aircraft needed be one already in existence. But your point on on low range is apt. Perhaps our Mini Firebrand could have more internal fuel, akin to a P-51. Though keeping in mind the Merlin of 1938-40 is not the Merlin of 1942+.
While flying Defiants around as night fighters may have been good for morale, as long as we don't look at the number of crashes, it's actual effectiveness was somewhere under marginal. The high point of it's career was April/May of 1941. Which is well before they stuck radar in service squadron Defiant. We have the benefit of knowing that the Luftwaffe did not come back to Britain in large numbers after they flew off to Russia in May/June of 1941. However in the fall of 1941 when the nights got longer they should have had enough time to figure out what had happened in the Spring of 1941 and total up the crashes and crew losses of Defiant operations vs damage inflicted on the Germans. British may have come out ahead in saved aircrew and fuel by parking the Defiants.Given that the Defiant fulfilled a major, if unsuccessful role, as a night fighter through until 1942 when sufficient Beaufighters & Mosquitos appeared how do you intend to fill that gap? It was 1942 before aircraft released from front line duries could begin to be used for secondary tasks.
Easy to say with the benefit of hindsight and from someone whose country was not suffering nightly attacks on its towns and cities, with significant civilian casualties and several hundred thousand people forced from their destroyed and bomb damaged homes as well as the disruption to industry and the overall war effort! And the Blitz did have an effect on civilian morale in certain areas which did concern the Govt of the day greatly.While flying Defiants around as night fighters may have been good for morale, as long as we don't look at the number of crashes, it's actual effectiveness was somewhere under marginal. The high point of it's career was April/May of 1941. Which is well before they stuck radar in service squadron Defiant. We have the benefit of knowing that the Luftwaffe did not come back to Britain in large numbers after they flew off to Russia in May/June of 1941. However in the fall of 1941 when the nights got longer they should have had enough time to figure out what had happened in the Spring of 1941 and total up the crashes and crew losses of Defiant operations vs damage inflicted on the Germans. British may have come out ahead in saved aircrew and fuel by parking the Defiants.
I can forgive the Henley, only 200 made, all sub contracted to Gloster, production stopped in mid 1940. Production line replaced by a Hurricane production line.
I can even forgive the Battle. It helped train the RAF. And probably at less cost than the Botha.
A lot harder to be charitable about the Defiant.