British 1936-42 purchase options, logistics and export/import of military hardware (1 Viewer)

[tomo pauk]

... just for the RAF and Army; the RN, FAA, other countries of Commonwealth deserve the separate thread.

Similar to the other recent threads. What to make at home, what to import, what to export (in order to prop up the Allies, or perhaps as a diplomatic bribe), while having the realities of technology and budget at the time.

My long-stading favorite to start the ball rolling - start making the Spitfires at Boulton-Paul and Westland by 1939.

 

[ThomasP]

Not necessarily in order of importance.

Significant increased investment in welding technologies.

Significant increased investment in precision machine tools.

Significant investment in Whittle engine (and related tech) development.

Significant increased investment in radar production methods & facilities (if practical) in order to get the working systems into service sooner and/or in larger numbers.

 

[tomo pauk]

Having the night fighters, outfitted with radar, ready for the BoB would've been a real boon here...

Hawker fighters:
- Hurricane is a staple here IMO. Gloster will need to be introduced into the production of them faster than it was historically the case, the price to be paid (200 Henleys, last several hundred of Gladiators) is pennies.
- Bombed-up early Hurricane would've been a reality with much more of them available (easier part) and the doctrines being less entrenched (hard part historically).
- Next-gen fighter with the modern aeodynamics and long range? Or get them into making a jet-powered fighter - and same with Supermarine once Spitfire is up and running?

All of these aircraft would've benefited with the earlier introduction of a workable 20mm cannon.

 

[yulzari]

Increasing welding use requires more trained welders. This was not something over popular with general industry in as much as as soon as they trained and qualified a welder he went off to earn more money in shipyards.

For AFV suitable armour there were issues making enough suitable for welding and was one reason for the use of a welded frame/box and riveting other good armour onto it.

But, yes, in general it would be a good thing.

 

[tomo pauk]

Bristol 2-engined aircraft: either have them be more ambitious, or have them be 1-engined instead. A keen eye needs to be had towards the most recent advances in airfoils in both cases.


A 'more ambitious' branch:
- Blenheim needs to be designed for a 2000 lb bomb load (alternatively a torpedo to be carried) fro the get-go.
- Beaufort needs to be designed for a 4000 lb bomb load, otherwise the Hampden is the type to be produced, not the Beaufort.
- Beaufighter - emphasis on performance, that means the aircraft need to be much smaller, talk ballpark of the Bf 110.
-

The 1-engined approach:
- The not-Blenheim to be sorta Dauntless.
- The not-Beufort to be size & weight of the Henley.
- The not-Beaufighter to be size of the F6F Hellcat (perhaps a bit smaller).

 

[Shortround6]

A lot depends on timing and things being developed.
And infrastructure.
And yes a lot could be changed by changes of "ideas" like doctrine.

start making the Spitfires at Boulton-Paul and Westland by 1939.

A problem here is that a few more Spitfires with fixed pitch props doesn't gain much. Lets also remember that even in the summer of 1940 Castle Bromwich was complaining about the almost daily change drawings coming from Supermarine. In 1938 and much of 1939 there was no "standard" Spitfire I. There was a continuing stream of minor changes. You may not get the benefit you think tooling up early although stopping Roc production cannot be seen as anything but helpful.

Hurricane is a staple here IMO. Gloster will need to be introduced into the production of them faster than it was historically the case, the price to be paid (200 Henleys, last several hundred of Gladiators) is pennies.

Sort of the same thing, tooling up for the fabric wing Hurricane may not give that many more planes in total. Perhaps a bigger refit program?
Henley had several problems, some of which point to the doctrine/thinking of the British of the time which need to be 'fixed'.
Henley did not have a constant speed prop which lead to over speeding the engine in dives. Not a hard problem to solve given the adoption of constant speed props in more timely fashion (and building more production capacity).
The Henley was built to house a pair of 250lb bombs inside the fuselage. Not Hawkers fault and this is something that needs to be straightened out at the Air Ministry. A pair of crappy 250lbs bombs are intended for what kind of target? You could bulge the bomb bay and put in a crappy 500lb bomb but we are putting lipstick on a pig. Please note that all of the British bombers were crippled by both small bombs and crappy bombs. Standard British HE bombs carried about 30% HE by weight meaning that for anything other than troops in the open they were less effective than just about anybody else's similar weight bombs. This is going to get repeated often.

Bombed-up early Hurricane would've been a reality with much more of them available (easier part) and the doctrines being less entrenched (hard part historically).

They could have built Hurri-bombers much sooner if............they had adopted better propellers sooner or the Hurri-bombers show up in 1940?
Getting a Hurricane even with a pair of 250lb bombs out of a standard British fighter field using a 2 pitch prop (880hp?) was going to be rather exciting for the pilot and ground crew.
Once they get the C-S props things get a bit easier. Until the Hurricane II with the Merlin XX engines perhaps swiping some Merlin VIII engines from the Fulmars would work for a low altitude attack plane?

All of these aircraft would've benefited with the earlier introduction of a workable 20mm cannon.

Historically the British fooled around with a number of belt feeds (and other contraptions) for far to long on the Hispano cannon. What they eventually settled on in 1941 was almost identical to the Hispano feed system that was gotten out of Paris by a British officer during the fall of Paris in June 1940. Not Invented Here? A 4-5 month timeline improvement (or more?)

A 'more ambitious' branch:
- Blenheim needs to be designed for a 2000 lb bomb load (alternatively a torpedo to be carried) fro the get-go.
- Beaufort needs to be designed for a 4000 lb bomb load, otherwise the Hampden is the type to be produced, not the Beaufort.
- Beaufighter - emphasis on performance, that means the aircraft need to be much smaller, talk ballpark of the Bf 110.

In 1936-37 we are back to the "infrastructure". You need planes that can actually fly out of and into existing British Air Fields. The Blenheim I was practically an STOL aircraft.
Major problem with the Blenheim was that the Air Staff was so proud of it that they practically encased it in Amber, a very bad thing to do in the mid 1930s. The Prototype Blenheim, flying in April 1935 and in June/July it hit 280mph. Please note that while this is commercial plane with 650hp engines the prototype Gladiator (also with 645/650hp engine) had been delivered to the RAF in April of 1935. Bristol got an order for 150 bomber versions and instructions to proceed for long lead items for a further 450 aircraft. This was nine months before Hawker got the first contract for 600 Hurricanes.

We also have to look at the state of the RAF and the expansion plans. We KNOW that the war would not break out until Sept 1939. In 1935-37 things were not quite as certain.
The 1000lb bomb load of the Blenheim looks very weak to modern eyes. As to how weak it really was??? And it was weak, just not as bad as many other British planes of the mid 30s).
British bomber categories seem to have been light bomber (1000lbs or under) medium (2000lbs or under) and heavy (????)
Jan 1st 1938 in Great Britain (all foreign bases had nothing better and often worse) bomber squadrons......

21 (?) light squadrons of Hawker Hind Biplanes. Max load 510lbs
5/6 light squadrons of Fairey Battles 1000lb load.
6/8 light squadrons of Blenheims 1000lb load.
5 medium squadrons of Vickers Wellesely's, 2000lb load
1 medium squadron of B-P Overstrand biplanes. 1500lb load.
1 Heavy squadron of Fairey Hendon 1660lb load (?)
1/2 Heavy squadron of Vickers Virginia X biplanes 3000lb load
7 Heavy squadron of HP Heyford biplanes 2500lb load
5 Heavy squadron of HP Harrows 3000lb load
2 heavy squadrons of A W Whitley's. 7000lb load (???)

Please note that the Whitley's had the Tiger engines which proved rather unreliable.
Long time getting here but delays in the Blenheim program means more of these antiques lasting longer in British service.
1000lbs in a plane that could actually fly faster than 200mph actually looked pretty good
The 1000lb bomb load was under discussion for a proposed international treaty that did not pan out.
The 1000 mile range of the Blenheim I offered some hope of hitting Germany from British bases however low the effectiveness of the bombload.

Hampden turned out to have some operational limitations. The narrow fuselage meant it was impossible for the crew to change position in flight.
The Beaufort was a mistake. Too little improvement for too much cost.
Beaufighter??? British really need to get that wind tunnel fixed
The wind tunnel data showed a speed of 370-380mph.
A lot of wishful thinking and a loss of the head designer.

The 1-engined approach:
- The not-Blenheim to be sorta Dauntless.
- The not-Beufort to be size & weight of the Henley.
- The not-Beaufighter to be size of the F6F Hellcat (perhaps a bit smaller)

British run into the engine problem here. And perhaps a case of thinking they were too clever?
Americans tended (Allison excepted) to stick really big engines on Single engine planes.
The British didn't have such engines (unless purchased?).
The Taurus was not a substitute for the R-1820/R-1830.
The Hercules was not a substitute for the R-2600 (at least in 1940-41)
The ??????was trying to substitute for the R-2800????
You can't power everything with the Merlin............unless.................you build a large shadow factory even earlier.

Go back to the BP and the Roc, build Skua's and stick Pegasus engines in them. Upgrade the bomb crutch to 1000lbs.
For land use bolt the wings in place. Perhaps mount a pair of 250lbs under each wing?
Buy R-1830 engines?

Henley? Get the Griffon into production sooner?
It doesn't have enough power with an early Merlin for weapon's load and fuel, especially if you upgrade it to combat with self sealing tanks and armor.

 

[tomo pauk]

A problem here is that a few more Spitfires with fixed pitch props doesn't gain much. Lets also remember that even in the summer of 1940 Castle Bromwich was complaining about the almost daily change drawings coming from Supermarine. In 1938 and much of 1939 there was no "standard" Spitfire I. There was a continuing stream of minor changes. You may not get the benefit you think tooling up early although stopping Roc production cannot be seen as anything but helpful.

Taking into account what Castle Bromwich says in 1940 is not something what I'd do. Their negative effect on the Spitfire production in 1940 is well known.
Spitfires with fixed props beat the Gladiators and Defiants with any prop.

Sort of the same thing, tooling up for the fabric wing Hurricane may not give that many more planes in total. Perhaps a bigger refit program?

??
Usefulness of a fabric wing Hurricane beats usefulness of any Gladiator or Henley.

Henley had several problems, some of which point to the doctrine/thinking of the British of the time which need to be 'fixed'.

Not making the Henley at all is what I'm advocating for.

 

[tomo pauk]

They could have built Hurri-bombers much sooner if............they had adopted better propellers sooner or the Hurri-bombers show up in 1940?
Getting a Hurricane even with a pair of 250lb bombs out of a standard British fighter field using a 2 pitch prop (880hp?) was going to be rather exciting for the pilot and ground crew.
Once they get the C-S props things get a bit easier. Until the Hurricane II with the Merlin XX engines perhaps swiping some Merlin VIII engines from the Fulmars would work for a low altitude attack plane?

Battle is also on the chopping block, anywhere between 1000 and 1500 of these. Frees the same quantity of 2-speed props and Merlins.

Historically the British fooled around with a number of belt feeds (and other contraptions) for far to long on the Hispano cannon. What they eventually settled on in 1941 was almost identical to the Hispano feed system that was gotten out of Paris by a British officer during the fall of Paris in June 1940. Not Invented Here? A 4-5 month timeline improvement (or more?)

Buy Oerlikon 20mm cannons today.

The 1000lb bomb load of the Blenheim looks very weak to modern eyes. As to how weak it really was??? And it was weak, just not as bad as many other British planes of the mid 30s).

1000 lb bomb load for a 2-engined bomber (Blenheim) is really weak in the light of having in pipeline an 1-engined bomber (Battle) that can also carry 1000 lbs.

Please note that the Whitley's had the Tiger engines which proved rather unreliable.
Long time getting here but delays in the Blenheim program means more of these antiques lasting longer in British service.
1000lbs in a plane that could actually fly faster than 200mph actually looked pretty good
The 1000lb bomb load was under discussion for a proposed international treaty that did not pan out.
The 1000 mile range of the Blenheim I offered some hope of hitting Germany from British bases however low the effectiveness of the bombload.

Battle was probably doing the same 1000 mile trip with 1000 lbs.
Japan and Germany left League of the Nations in 1933, and not because these countries were the paragon of freedom and safety. It will take rosiest of the glasses to expect that these countries will accept something that can hamper their future military might. Shackling the willing countries with such the treaty will work like flower garden in Hell.

Beaufighter??? British really need to get that wind tunnel fixed
The wind tunnel data showed a speed of 370-380mph.

Was it the wind tunnel, or the company's sales people claiming 370 mph?

British run into the engine problem here. And perhaps a case of thinking they were too clever?
Americans tended (Allison excepted) to stick really big engines on Single engine planes.
The British didn't have such engines (unless purchased?).
The Taurus was not a substitute for the R-1820/R-1830.

The SBD was powered with a small engine (for the 1940s). British have the exact equivalent of the engine on the SBD-1 to -3 in the 2-speed Pegasus.
That engine will do - and did - for the 2-engined bombers, too. The 'switch' to the 1-engined stuff instead of 2-engined stuff saves countless engines and propellers, while not removing much of ability from the resulting aircraft.

The Hercules was not a substitute for the R-2600 (at least in 1940-41)
The ??????was trying to substitute for the R-2800????
You can't power everything with the Merlin............unless.................you build a large shadow factory even earlier.

Power the 1-engined 2-seat heavy fighter/fighter bomber/night fighter with the Hercules of the time.

Go back to the BP and the Roc, build Skua's and stick Pegasus engines in them. Upgrade the bomb crutch to 1000lbs.
For land use bolt the wings in place. Perhaps mount a pair of 250lbs under each wing?
Buy R-1830 engines?

Agreed with the suggestions.

 

[z42]

• Adopt fuel injection for aero engines. Just single point injection into the supercharger would be nice, port injection better but is it enough better to be worth the extra cost? Maybe not direct injection if you're in a hurry.
• Light a fire under somebody's bum to get the Hispano into shape (reliability, and belt feed) sooner.
• As pointed out earlier in the thread, invest more into jets and radar.
• Not being bitten by the sleeve valve bug could have pushed forward the R&D timeline for Bristol engines.
• To play it safe, instead of the Sabre, Napier develops a large poppet valve V-12. Say, 45L?
• Anoint the Napier Lion as the "standard" tank engine instead of the Liberty until the Meteor comes on line. On the topic of tank design, demand 3 man turrets. And use the 6pdr gun, with both AP and HE shells.
• Adopt single seat fighter bombers with shallow angle dive bombing sights as a replacement for single engine bombers and dive bombers?

 

[tomo pauk]

Adopt fuel injection for aero engines. Just single point injection into the supercharger would be nice, port injection better but is it enough better to be worth the extra cost? Maybe not direct injection if you're in a hurry.

A better carb - 'fuel pump' - gave extra 8-10 mph to the Spitfire V, and added 1500 ft to the ceiling.
link
Less draggy exhausts - copy these from the late Spanish Civil War Bf 109s - can add extra ~7 mph?
Obviously, applicable to the Hurricane, too.

To play it safe, instead of the Sabre, Napier develops a large poppet valve V-12. Say, 45L?

Agreed 200%.

Anoint the Napier Lion as the "standard" tank engine instead of the Liberty until the Meteor comes on line. On the topic of tank design, demand 3 man turrets. And use the 6pdr gun, with both AP and HE shells.

There were so many ways to improve the motorization of the British tanks. Indeed, the Lion, then the Kestrel, even keep the Liberty at 340 HP ( = no push towards 410 HP), then double the AEC engine that was powering the Valentine, a good V12 diesel. Even a radial
Adopting the navy's 6pdr would've been a way to have an excellent gun on the tanks in a timely manner, for both AP and HE delivery.

Adopt single seat fighter bombers with shallow angle dive bombing sights as a replacement for single engine bombers and dive bombers?

Any worth in airborne rockets being developed earlier? IIRC Dowding was saying that rockets were Army's prerogative?

 

[SaparotRob]

Taking into account what Castle Bromwich says in 1940 is not something what I'd do. Their negative effect on the Spitfire production in 1940 is well known.
Spitfires with fixed props beat the Gladiators and Defiants with any prop.


Usefulness of a fabric wing Hurricane beats usefulness of any Gladiator or Henley.


Not making the Henley at all is what I'm advocating for.

I was thinking the same things.

 

[Shortround6]

A problem for British close air support and early bomb campaigns is the crappy bombs.

The standard 250lb bomb held about 67lbs of HE.
There may have been some left over WW I 112-116lbs but the more modern 120lb GP was only dropped about 2000 times during 1940-41-42.
The 120lb held about 30lbs of HE.
The 40lb bomb saw a lot of use but it was a compromise between HE and Fragmentation so the 6.8lb charge is not very destructive most non-personnel/light vehicle targets.
Against tanks it required a direct hit.

For comparison the German 50kg bombs came in a large variety, the SC-50 held about 55lbs of HE for demolition work (light buildings, hangers, light bridges). The SD-50 bomb was designed for more splinters and held about 35lbs of HE.

Going up the British 500lb GP bomb in the first few years of the war held 28% HE or about 142lbs. The German SC-250 bomb held 276-287lbs of HE. The SD-250 held 176lbs.
This class of bomb is getting into the target class of heavier buildings, railways, bridges, industrial complexes and ships.

The British MC bombs don't start showing up in number until 1942.
I will note that the British did not really use cluster munitions, at least for most of the war. Not really counting the SBC here. I am referring to a device that is dropped as a single unit and then opens up and disperses the sub munitions at a lower altitude.

According to one source the British halted development of the 1000lb GP bomb in 1932 and did not restart until 1938 but orders for experimental versions were not placed until June of 1939. Things went well and production orders were placed in Dec 1939.
Now without a 1000lb inexistence the size of the bomb bays may have been restricted, existing bomb hoisting gear may have been inadequate and some other design issues? Can't put 1000lbs at the rear of the bomb bay?

If you want more effective bombers, fighter bombers/attack planes and ASW planes, arm them with better bombs.

 

[tomo pauk]

My take on the British bombers, with the caveat that these will still mostly require the fighter escort in order to actually matter before the night bombing techs and training are up to the task.
- Fairey Battle - at any rate, don't make over 1000 of them.
- Bristol bombers - covered above.
- Hampden, Wellington - useful bomb trucks, and better use of British resources than the above mentioned historical bombers. I'd have more of them produced.
- Whitley - perhaps have A-W make a 4-engined early bomber?
- Fast gun-less 2-engined bomber - a pre-Mosquito initially, later a full-blown Mossie - would've been useful.
- Axed: Botha, Albermarle, Warwick, Henley (a victim of the need for the Hurricanes)

 

[Shortround6]

Battle is also on the chopping block, anywhere between 1000 and 1500 of these. Frees the same quantity of 2-speed props and Merlins.

We keep arguing about this
You can't use Tiger Moths for the same duties that many of Battles were used for.
Battles get something a bad rap in France due to extremely poor tactics/doctrine/execution.
The RAF didn't want to be the ground support/interdiction business. Yes the Battle was a very poor strategic bomber. The RAF never tried to adapt it. They rarely gave it escorts. They sent it on missions a number of hours after the recon flights were done, some of the targets had moved. The RAF bitches because they aren't medium/heavy bombers.
Once they decide not to use Battles as long range strategic bombers the Battle, without modifications, was a real loosing proposition.
A few performance problems. Top speed of 257mph was at 15,000ft or above. Top speed at sea level was 210mph. If you want a low altitude tactical bomber do not put a high altitude engine/propeller in it.
The 1000 mile range was advertised as being done at 16,000ft at 200mph. This is way too slow to actually penetrate enemy airspace over more than spitting range.

For comparison the 'wasteful' twin engine Blenheim I was supposed to be 28mph faster at altitude and 30mph faster at sea level and to cruise about 20mph faster. Also had the power operated dorsal gun for better defense

The Battle could have been a cheap, easy single engine light bomber for army support. Shrink the fuel tanks to about 60%, protect them fit some armor and mount 1-3 more .303 guns in the wings for strafing. Crop the supercharger impeller or install different gear ratio for around 200hp more at lower altitudes.
You still need a radio so you can talk to the escort fighters
But that would put the RAF in the Army support business and some of the Air Staff guys would rather have lost the war than do ground support.

Buy Oerlikon 20mm cannons today.

The trick here is that the British wanted to build the guns in a British factory, not buy guns from a small factory in Switzerland that could (and was) cut off in time of war.
Perhaps the British could have licensed the Oerlikon gun and built a factory, but that might mean no Hispano guns ever, even in 1944.

1000 lb bomb load for a 2-engined bomber (Blenheim) is really weak in the light of having in pipeline an 1-engined bomber (Battle) that can also carry 1000 lbs.

See above. I would note that the Blenheim IV was slower, but carried enough fuel for over 1400 miles. For some reason they modified the bomb bay to allow for a higher bomb load when carrying less the full fuel.

Battle was probably doing the same 1000 mile trip with 1000 lbs.

See above.

Was it the wind tunnel, or the company's sales people claiming 370 mph?

Well, BP thought their Defiant without turret would also be good for around 370mph. The Typhoon was supposed to be good for 420mph or higher. So a lot of companies sales people were making the Bell factory look completely honest.

Power the 1-engined 2-seat heavy fighter/fighter bomber/night fighter with the Hercules of the time.

The Problem here is that Curtiss and Grumman were planning on 1600hp R-2600engines for the Helldiver and Avenger, so was Vultee. They soon got 1700hp engines. In 1939-40 and most of 1941 the Hercules was good for around 1300hp. The 1500hp Hercules arrived in mid/late 1941 and by that time the R-2600 was making 1700hp. depending on exact model and when the approved the higher boost levels you may be a bit further behind.

 

[Shortround6]

My take on the British bombers, with the caveat that these will still mostly require the fighter escort in order to actually matter before the night bombing techs and training are up to the task.
- Fairey Battle - at any rate, don't make over 1000 of them.
- Bristol bombers - covered above.
- Hampden, Wellington - useful bomb trucks, and better use of British resources than the above mentioned historical bombers. I'd have more of them produced.
- Whitley - perhaps have A-W make a 4-engined early bomber?
- Fast gun-less 2-engined bomber - a pre-Mosquito initially, later a full-blown Mossie - would've been useful.
- Axed: Botha, Albermarle, Warwick, Henley (a victim of the need for the Hurricanes)

You have to make something to replace the trainers/target tugs. British gunnery was not good.
The Blenheim IV would have been a decent asset (not great) for ASW, the mid east, the far east.
The Hampden could not do much that the Wellington could not do, the speed difference was less than the speed difference between the Battle and Blenheim. And the Hampden had less effective defensive firepower.
Such a Whitley is a very poor investment. An awful lot depends on exactly when as A-W would have been trying to either built a 4 engine Whitley (horrible wing and lift devices) or trying to slide in right after the Wellington/Hampden and compete (somewhat) with the Stirling. You need better aerodynamics and better engines or you are flushing money down the toilet. A 4 engine plane using Tigers is too terrible to thing about. A 4 engine bomber using Pegasus engines?

Agree with the Botha, Albermarle, Warwick (the super large twin never worked). Henley? Got to replace those Battles with something

 

[tomo pauk]

You can't use Tiger Moths for the same duties that many of Battles were used for.
Battles get something a bad rap in France due to extremely poor tactics/doctrine/execution.
The RAF didn't want to be the ground support/interdiction business. Yes the Battle was a very poor strategic bomber. The RAF never tried to adapt it. They rarely gave it escorts. They sent it on missions a number of hours after the recon flights were done, some of the targets had moved. The RAF bitches because they aren't medium/heavy bombers.
Once they decide not to use Battles as long range strategic bombers the Battle, without modifications, was a real loosing proposition.
A few performance problems. Top speed of 257mph was at 15,000ft or above. Top speed at sea level was 210mph. If you want a low altitude tactical bomber do not put a high altitude engine/propeller in it.
The 1000 mile range was advertised as being done at 16,000ft at 200mph. This is way too slow to actually penetrate enemy airspace over more than spitting range.

I've suggested several times that a non-Merlin small bomber is made instead. Your suggestion of the land-based Skua with Pegasus is nicely aligned with that. Battle as a frontline bomber is a no go against the peer opponent, let alone against the German troop- and territorial air defenses of 1938 and on.

For comparison the 'wasteful' twin engine Blenheim I was supposed to be 28mph faster at altitude and 30mph faster at sea level and to cruise about 20mph faster. Also had the power operated dorsal gun for better defense

The 285 mph top speed for the Blenheim was sales pitch. British (Cotton's team) found out that 'normal' Blenheims were slower than 270 mph, and barely faster than 270 mph when turret was removed, wings were clipped, pointy nose was added, and whole aircraft was puttied/sanded/polished.
Blenheim I was supposed to cruise at 165 mph mph for the almost 1000 mile range. See the data sheet. Figure that - cruising slower than the Battle

The Battle could have been a cheap, easy single engine light bomber for army support. Shrink the fuel tanks to about 60%, protect them fit some armor and mount 1-3 more .303 guns in the wings for strafing. Crop the supercharger impeller or install different gear ratio for around 200hp more at lower altitudes.
You still need a radio so you can talk to the escort fighters
But that would put the RAF in the Army support business and some of the Air Staff guys would rather have lost the war than do ground support.

You still have a slow and big aircraft that will make the faces of both LW pilots and Flak gunners appear as they just have won the lottery. A bombed-up Hurricane with such the mods at least can fend for itself against the enemy fighters, and can kill bombers, while being a more difficult target for the flak gunners.
Yes, before all of this, the doctrine shift needs to happen.

The trick here is that the British wanted to build the guns in a British factory, not buy guns from a small factory in Switzerland that could (and was) cut off in time of war.

'Today' in this thread is 1936. Make a factory for the Oerlikon guns in the UK.

Perhaps the British could have licensed the Oerlikon gun and built a factory, but that might mean no Hispano guns ever, even in 1944.

No Hispano, no problems. Oerlikons will do.

The Problem here is that Curtiss and Grumman were planning on 1600hp R-2600engines for the Helldiver and Avenger, so was Vultee. They soon got 1700hp engines. In 1939-40 and most of 1941 the Hercules was good for around 1300hp. The 1500hp Hercules arrived in mid/late 1941 and by that time the R-2600 was making 1700hp. depending on exact model and when the approved the higher boost levels you may be a bit further behind.

Big American radials are not an option until 1941? Until that time, Hercules will do for the British; the power at altitude was similar and then it was better than on the R-2600.

 

[EwenS]

20mm Oerlikon in RN service from Navweaps.

In 1937 the British Admiralty initiated tests to find a weapon suitable for arming merchant ships and minor warships against close range air attacks. They rejected the Oerlikon Model 1934, but in 1938 the Admiralty informed Oerlikon that if they could raise the muzzle velocity and demonstrate that the weapon could be used and maintained by non-specialist personnel, such as fishermen and merchant seamen, then it would be acceptable. Oerlikon made the necessary changes and the first prototypes of the new design were delivered late in 1939. These were immediately accepted into service as the 20 mm Mark I and Britain placed large orders with Oerlikon and obtained a manufacturing license. However, only a few additional guns were delivered prior to the German occupation of France, which cut off the supply route. This is basically why so few British ships had Oerlikon guns during the early part of the war, with the official USN BuOrd history stating that the Royal Navy had only 100 Oerlikons at sea in November 1940.


Shortly before France fell, the British took advantage of their manufacturing license with Oerlikon to obtain a set of production drawings. These were brought back from Switzerland by Stewart Mitchell, who had previously been Inspector of Naval Ordnance Contracts at the Oerlikon factory in Zurich. Mitchell, together with the famous ordnance expert Charles Goodeve and with Cmdr. S.W. Roskill (then working in the Admiralty Staff Division and later the famous Capt. Roskill, author of "The War at Sea") set up a factory at Ruislip to produce Oerlikon guns. "Considerable difficulties" with equipment and labor had to be overcome before deliveries of the British version of this gun, designated as the 20 mm Mark II, began in the fall of 1941. In November 1941, the battleship HMS Duke of York was commissioned with six of these weapons, which I believe to have been the first warship to carry British-produced Oerlikon guns "as completed."

 

[tomo pauk]

Such a Whitley is a very poor investment. An awful lot depends on exactly when as A-W would have been trying to either built a 4 engine Whitley (horrible wing and lift devices) or trying to slide in right after the Wellington/Hampden and compete (somewhat) with the Stirling. You need better aerodynamics and better engines or you are flushing money down the toilet. A 4 engine plane using Tigers is too terrible to thing about. A 4 engine bomber using Pegasus engines?

Yes, probably 4 Pegasus engines per A/C.
As for how it should've looked, a bomber size & shape like the the AW Ensign might fit the bill.

Henley? Got to replace those Battles with something

If I had to choose, I'd rather have the Henley indeed.

 

[Shortround6]

I am using 1938 as a sort of bench mark.
What was going well for the British after 2 years of upgrading and what was going not so well.
Also what were France and Germany doing?
Germany was using Do 17Es with BMW V-12s and in late 1937 were just introducing the Do 17M. These could carry more bombs than the British light bombers but they could not fly as far.
The Ju 86 bombers could carry about 800kg (1660lbs) but could not carry that load 1000 miles and they were sloooow.
The He 111 was better but that was competing with the bigger British bombers.
French bombers in mid 30s were...................let's just say not up to the mark.

British were operating at something of a disadvantage when it comes to bombers. Germany and France shared a common border and the targets were much closer. The British had to fly about 250-300 miles further if they could not base bombers in other countries. This also helped protectant Britain, a variable depending on how much territory the the Germans could seize. Many people expected them to seize some. Very few people expected them to seize as much as they did and as quickly.

The British, a bit mistakenly, were playing a numbers game. They were comparing numbers of bombers to the French and Germans and Italians and not actually capabilities. It sounded good in memos to parliament and to the treasury. They kept it simple. When the focus shifted (the bombers might not always get through?) funding for bombers was cut and for fighters increased. But the "Bomber Boys" wanted to keep their numbers up. It takes time to create actual squadrons and not paper squadrons with strokes of pens. Actual squadrons need actual bases, experienced ground crew (with housing and hangers) and experienced air crew. Switching aircraft is easier that creating everything form scratch.

All that said the British did have a number of problems. They had no real replacement for the Mercury and Pegasus engines. The Perseus was not much of an improvement. The Taurus was too small even if it worked and it took way too long to get it to work even moderately well at low altitudes in temperate weather at low altitudes.
Perhaps the Air Ministry should have pressed harder/been more skeptical of promises?
The Hercules in 1938-39-40 was a 1375-1400hp engine and had production problems in 1939 maybe early 1940? That was when they had the sleeve problems and oil problems.
There was a lot promised but the number of planes that actually flew vs the number of proposals is very different. Bristol did snatch victory from defeat and managed it much quicker than Napier. Napier did not snatch victory from defeat, they snatched survival from annihilation.

Perhaps a review of the Battle is in order as it also shows some other problems with British procurement and with British industry.
The Battle was designed to a 1933 specification, 1932/3 seeing the start of a lot British planes, like the Wellington and Hampden.
Copying from Wiki
"In April 1933, the British Air Ministry issued Specification P.27/32 which sought a two-seat single-engine monoplane day bomber to replace the Hawker Hart and Hind biplane bombers then in service with the Royal Air Force (RAF).[2]​ A requirement of the prospective aircraft was to be capable of carrying 1,000 lb (450 kg) of bombs over a distance of 1,000 mi (1,600 km) while flying at a speed of 200 mph (320 km/h).[2]​ According to aviation author Tony Buttler, during the early 1920s, Britain had principally envisioned that a war with France as its enemy and the range to reach Paris was sought. According to aerospace publication Air International, a key motivational factor in the Air Ministry's development of Specification P.27/32 had been for the corresponding aircraft to act as an insurance policy in the event that heavier bombers were banned by the 1932 Geneva Disarmament Conference."​

Please note that the bomb load was twice the load of the Hart and the range wanted was twice the range and the speed asked for was 15mph faster than the Hart The designer managed to beat the requested speed by over 25%. Please note in a previous post that 20-21 Squadrons were still using Harts as of Jan 1st, 1938, about 5 years after the requirement was issued.
First flight was March 1936 (3 years after requirement) but orders for 155 planes were placed before flight. 1st flight of a production aircraft was June 1937, Things are getting late and the need to replace all those Harts is extreme. Fairey had built a new factory at Heaton Chapel for Battle production. Austin Motors was brought into the production scheme with a new shadow factory at Longbridge with their first plane flying July 1938. Doubts about the Battle were starting to come up but there was nothing a lot better actually ready, there was a lot of long lead time items in the pipeline and there was a work force in place at the factories and stopping production for months to wait for a new plane would see the work force disperse, so production continued.

Now the British were pretty good at placing orders and often the practice of ordering off the drawing board worked. Unfortunately it didn't in some late cases. The problems were getting a prototype flying quickly after the go-ahead was given (which lead to the order off the drawing board practice) and actually getting things into production once the production order was given.

Now fans of the escort fighter may note that they were calling for a 1000 mile range for a light/daylight bomber in 1932/33. They never came close to asking for a 1000 mile range for any single engine fighter until some time in WW II? about 10 years later.

British had a habit of asking for new aircraft instead of modifying/adapting existing ones. This was not absolute as can be seen by the prolific Hawker Hart family but it seems to rather wide spread. Adapting existing aircraft into target tugs is not being counted here

 

[tomo pauk]

British were operating at something of a disadvantage when it comes to bombers. Germany and France shared a common border and the targets were much closer. The British had to fly about 250-300 miles further if they could not base bombers in other countries. This also helped protectant Britain, a variable depending on how much territory the the Germans could seize. Many people expected them to seize some. Very few people expected them to seize as much as they did and as quickly.

Here is the advantage of a big bomber clear vs. the small bomber - there is far more elbow room to play with bomb load and fuel in order to reach targets that are at different distances.

Now fans of the escort fighter may note that they were calling for a 1000 mile range for a light/daylight bomber in 1932/33. They never came close to asking for a 1000 mile range for any single engine fighter until some time in WW II? about 10 years later.

Making a 1000 mile range fighter was pretty easy even before Hurricane arrived