Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?

[Shortround6]

In air combat, no chance, but in the absence of enemy aircraft our rocket armed Miles will be lethal enough.

To heck with enemy aircraft, how about enemy AA guns?
Swordfish with rockets were usually anti sub.

Rockets vary tremendously in speed and range. US Viet Nam 2.75in rockets had pretty dismal accuracy but their speed and range was several times what the II British rockets were. The idea was to be able to stay out of the worst of the ground fire. No such hope with the British 3 in rocket. Especially if you were going to use the 60lb HE warhead.

 

[nuuumannn]

Rockets vary tremendously in speed and range. US Viet Nam 2.75in rockets had pretty dismal accuracy but their speed and range was several times what the II British rockets were. The idea was to be able to stay out of the worst of the ground fire. No such hope with the British 3 in rocket. Especially if you were going to use the 60lb HE warhead.

This is certainly true, but the Vietnam-era rockets were not used in WW2, because they didn't exist. The Mighty Mouse rocket was developed after WW2. You use what you've got. The British began research into unguided rockets in early 1941.

 

[Shortround6]

This is certainly true, but the Vietnam-era rockets were not used in WW2, because they didn't exist. The Mighty Mouse rocket was developed after WW2. You use what you've got. The British began research into unguided rockets in early 1941.

You are quite correct. However some people sometimes bring in 1950s or 60 (Viet Nam) to justify an idea they think could have been used in WW II.

Using low 200 mph trainers armed with slow rockets for ground attack equal????? Well within 7.92mm machine gun range and time of engagement. Against 20mm AA guns
Faster planes can actually launch from a bit farther out ( speed of rocket is added to the speed of the plane) and the plane spends less time in the AA field of fire (and is moving faster/harder target)

Somebody brought in the A-37 super Tweet. Which compared to the jets of the time was slow, however it was faster than any WW II Piston engine fighter and could outclimb many of them by 50%. To guys on the ground it was a harder target than a Tempest.
Using a Miles Trainer was like using an O-2 Skymaster.

 

[nuuumannn]

Using low 200 mph trainers armed with slow rockets for ground attack equal????? Well within 7.92mm machine gun range and time of engagement. Against 20mm AA guns
Faster planes can actually launch from a bit farther out ( speed of rocket is added to the speed of the plane) and the plane spends less time in the AA field of fire (and is moving faster/harder target)

I agree, craziness. The Brits did concoct some rather desperate measures to begin with, but once the operational realities began hitting they were quick to rethink their previous ideas. You gotta put all those Lysanders to use somehow!

It's interesting to research the British approach to rocket development, a varied number of types were tested for carrying rockets, despite their obvious shortcomings. Coastal Command Liberators is one such eye-opening use. One interesting find was that during rocketry trials the Mustang I suffered a loss of 68 mph (true) off its top speed when fitted with rocket rails. The later Mustang III proved a more suitable platform, but the automatic oil cooler door had to be fitted with a limiter as the temp sensor fluctuated a bit with the rails fitted.

 

[c1951]

I just read Dowding's dispatch on the Battle of Britain. He said that 263 (Gladiator) Squadron in Norway set the presidence for deflection shooting which was adopted by Fighter Command. The performance of the Gladiaor in Norway was most impressive-it shot down more than 60 enemy aircraft, aircraft whose performance was superior to its own. As for Germany-Germany lost the war in Norway

 

[cammerjeff]

I just read Dowding's dispatch on the Battle of Britain. He said that 263 (Gladiator) Squadron in Norway set the presidence for deflection shooting which was adopted by Fighter Command. The performance of the Gladiaor in Norway was most impressive-it shot down more than 60 enemy aircraft, aircraft whose performance was superior to its own. As for Germany-Germany lost the war in Norway

I don't understand what you mean by saying Germany Lost the war in Norway? As they still controlled the country until they Finally surrendered in 1945?

 

[c1951]

I don't understand what you mean by saying Germany Lost the war in Norway? As they still controlled the country until they Finally surrendered in 1945?

They lost their destroyer force in Narvik to the Royal Navy. During the Sealion conference the Navy said it did not have enough units to protect the invasion force. The Allies had landed at Narvik but had to withdraw due to the invasion of the France and the low countries. They were never to keep up with their losses particularly aircrew during the invasion of Norway. The worst thing they did was leave a standing army in Norway, it could have been used for the protection of the Reich. The Allies did a good job in Norway. (Written in haste)

 

[Shortround6]

German navy, in no way, shape or form could have protected the Sealion forces from the RN. Doesn't matter if the Germans sink twice as many ships as they loose. The British have them to loose. The RN has one job and one job only once the Sealion puts to sea, destroy the invasion force. They will worry about the U-boats with what is left later. This was the RN main job since 1588.
Yes the Luftwaffe lost a huge amount of transports and pilots during the invasion of Norway.
Not leaving a standing army in Norway just invites the British to re-invade Narvik and cut off the iron ore supplies.