Alternative RAF Battle of Britain Aircraft

[Glider]

I still prefer the Defiant it had a better performance

 

[Captain Dunsel]

I think the Defiant was the product of one of the many misguided theories of air warfare floating about in the interwar years. The zerstorer was another that immediately springs to mind

Makes you wonder which of the current war-fighting theories is also complete bunk.

CD

 

[renrich]

I see that becuse of the huge cost overruns on the F35, Boeing is pushing the AF to buy F18s instead.

 

[Glider]

There are strong stories going around that the UK are only going to buy 75 instead of 150.
Its causing a huge stink as the FAA and the RAF both want them. The RAF to support the troops in Iraq and Afganistan, the FAA as without them there is no need for the carriers.

 

[Blaydon]

No need for the carriers anyway as they can't sail anywhere dangerous because by then we won't have enough Destroyers and Frigates to protect them.

 

[KrazyKraut]

Also they won't have any threads that can't be dealt with using F-18s

 

[BombTaxi]

Makes you wonder which of the current war-fighting theories is also complete bunk.

CD

All war-fighting theories become complete bunk once a sufficient number of years have passed Just ask what people here think of Haig's tactics on the Western front, and you will see what I mean.

Similarly, the wooden warship, the ironclad, the pre-dreadnought battleship, and eventually the battleship itself all became complete bunk, as did close-formation infantry tactics with muskets and bayonets. And the US went into the Vietnam War convinced that the aircraft-mounted gun had gone the way of the musket, only to come out equally convinced that every fighter built afterward must carry a gun.

I am personally convinced that every generation will look back at the generation or two before their own, and find everything their elders did stupid and/or misguided. They will also assume that they have all the right answers. These seem to me to be inevitable components of the human condition.

 

[KrazyKraut]

There's a difference between becoming obsolete like Haig's tactics and never being right in the first place like turret fighters or three men heavy fighters.

 

[BombTaxi]

Very true. But generally, each generation looks upon the beliefs and theories of it's predecessors as being naive at best and plain wrong at worst. You can see that throughout history, but especially in the last century or so. That goes for all fields of activity, not just the military

 

[merlin]

Maybe not. The RAF could reject the Spitfire for the same reason that the Luftwaffe rejected the He-112. Too expensive to mass produce.

I don't see the Spitfire as being rejected - the priority after the test flight was knowing if it could be flown by the same standard of pilots that were coming through the pilot training schools.
The problem later could arise though - with the perception in the RAF of what was required to fight what threat. The main 'danger' was believed to be masses of unescorted enemy bombers intent on an all-out attack. Hence, the need to knock the bombers down quickly i.e. use the destructive power of canons. Therefore its just possible that if the Boulton Paul P.88(A?) had been ordered and proved itself. It might have jeopardised Spitfire production other than at Supermarine.

 

[merlin]

A dead monkey would have been a better alternative than Lee Mallory.

I think you mean Leigh-Mallory, but yes I agree, how did he get that position - his experience was in Army Co-operation! But who in the late thirties could have taken-over 12-Group?

 

[The Basket]

Well the Defiant would have done very well in its role as heavy fighter. Just that it was no dogfighter.

Hindsight is always correct. If the Merlin engine had been a total dog then both the Spitfire and Hurricane would have been useless...And we would have been in big trouble...but it wasn't.

Other RR engines such as the Vulture and Pereguine were.

Yes I meant Leigh Mallory. I often wondered how fools got such high rank but then I joined the Raf and realised why.

 

[Clay_Allison]

There's a difference between becoming obsolete like Haig's tactics and never being right in the first place like turret fighters or three men heavy fighters.

Or Donald Rumsfeld's "small footprint" theory.

 

[HellToupee]

There's a difference between becoming obsolete like Haig's tactics and never being right in the first place like turret fighters or three men heavy fighters.

Actually ww1 had a few successful turret fighters.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Umm, there is a difference between turret fighters and two-seaters. Two-seaters, such as the Brisfit, were close enough in performance to match most single-seaters, with the benefit of a protected tail. When the Brits first deployed them, they tried to go with the "flying battle-line" concept, staying in formation and using the flexible guns as the primary weapon. It didn't work very well.

Once the Brits let the pilots fly their aircraft as fighters, letting the gunners protect their tails, then the plane became effective.

Turret fighters, with their big, heavy, and clumsy turrets, didn't have the performance to fly as fighters. The whole idea was to, again, make a flying battle-line, cruise up to the enemy bombers, and shoot them down. When the planes had to dog-fight, they couldn't match the performance of enemy fighters.

CD

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just for the record, a Martin Upper Turret weighs over 560 pounds. I think even in a P-47 there would be some performance degradation.