Defiants and Battles deployed overseas, any merit in that? (1 Viewer)

[parsifal]

Any additional speed in a bomber is an advantage. If the fighter has an endurance of say 4 hours, thats 2 hours on the out trip, and 2 hoursw return. I will assume the bomber can maximise the intercpt angle for the fighter. If the Fighter has a cruise speed of say 250 mph, and the bomber at say 200 mph, the fighter can only comence its interception at a maximimum of about 150 miles, allowing for manouvering to achieve a firing solution and increased fuel consumption whilst in combat.

If the bomber has a cruise speed of say 240mph, the fighter really can only catch the bomber if using some of its boost. This will greatly reduce the combat times and interception ranges.

People often look at the top speed of a mosquito....which could be as low as 360mp, and think "an me109 can go much faster than that!" True enough, but the Mossie can cruise at 320 mph fully loaded (roughly), which makes the 109 very short legged, and usually unable to catch the Mossie. Same principal; applies to all bombers. For the fighters attempting to intercept fuel management can be a deciding issue.

At sea during the Soviet invaasion of Afghanistan, we were often confronted with Soviet Tu95s with stand off weaponary. Our fighters were a good 250 mph faster than the bears, but catching them was hard because of the engine management issues. We had to have our fighters at the 300 KM line to counter stand off launches (none were ever made thankfully), but our pilots could not use full throttle if they wanted to get home in one piece. Same principal applies during the war.

 

[buffnut453]

Speed is an advantage if there isn't much to choose between the speed of the bomber and the speed of the fighter. However, the wider the difference between the 2, the less benefit you get from increasing the speed of the bomber. In the late 1960s, a series of trials were flown where Lightnings tried to intercept one of the last airworthy Spitfires. There were concerns that the Lightnings might have to take on, IIRC, the Indonesian Air Force which was still equipped with P-51s and so a Griffon-engined Spit was a pretty good substitute to see how the Lightning coped with such a slow target...and the answer was, they really struggled. The Spit was just too slow. Now, I'm not saying that the speed differential between a Vildebeest and, say, a Ki-27 was of that order of magnitude but I do wonder if the slower, more agile (from an instantaneous turn perspective) capabilities of the 'Beest might not offset some of the potential benefits that a faster bomber, like a Battle, might bring.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm not sure how healthy is for any bomber to engage in a dogfight. That means an automatic mission kill for the bomber, since it will discard it's bombs/rockets/torpedoes. Against a bomber that tries to dogfight, the fighter can enter into boom'n'zoom game. It also presents an opportunity for other fighters to gang up vs. bomber.
Yet another thing is training skill - not many of bomber pilots were that good to dogfight vs. a decent fighter jock. Despite the valiant deeds of Swede Vejtasa. Putting the pedal to the metal was far easier to do beneficial, providing the bomber can fly fast.

 

[buffnut453]

Tomo,

I'm not suggesting a bomber pilot engage in dogfighting, I'm simply suggesting that pilots would use the capabilities of the aircraft they're flying to best effect to carry out their mission and hopefully survive. If a slow, relatively agile biplane can turn or jink quickly, it makes a more difficult target for any attacking fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

The Cruise speed of the Battle was 180-200mph. We know it's top speeds. We may not know it's Max continuous speed, Speed it maintain for 30 minutes or so. This is not only governed by fuel consumption but by cooling. Singapore has an average high in the high 80s F. which is a bit more than the average July temp in southern England. Some Spitfires are noted for having marginal cooling for summer weather in England. Using higher than 6lbs boost on a Battle in the tropics without modifications could be asking for trouble.
Simply substituting Battles for Vildebeests on a one for one basis may have reduced the losses per mission a bit but would not have affected the campaign much at all. Reduced losses might have allowed one more mission to be flown.

 

[Wingspanner]

Some Spitfires are noted for having marginal cooling for summer weather in England.

On the ground running or when taxiing, not when in the air as far as I've read.

Using higher than 6lbs boost on a Battle in the tropics without modifications could be asking for trouble.

Most tropical modifications were to air-intakes and filters. Unless it was a blindingly hot day and the aircraft was operating on the deck, I doubt this was likely to have been a significant issue for this speculative scenario.

If a slow, relatively agile biplane can turn or jink quickly, it makes a more difficult target for any attacking fighter.

True - but unless you have somewhere to hide (like the fjords as utilised by the Swordfish in Norway) - this will only temporarily delay the inevitable. Getting away is not the same as being able to turn inside someone a couple of times.

As for the other aircraft in this scenario, I'd rather fancy the chances of the humble Defiant against all but the zeke from this era. Any Jap aircraft tring to intercept is going to have a tiny to nil speed advantage - and given their light construction is going to be an easy and fragile target for the Defiant gunner: clawing slowly towards the target in s atright line is going to present him with a perfect opportunity. On the other hand, a Defiant attempting to intercept a Japanese fighter is going to have a much more difficult prospect however, as their far greater manoeverability would mean they can break off at will.

 

[parsifal]

As for the other aircraft in this scenario, I'd rather fancy the chances of the humble Defiant against all but the zeke from this era. Any Jap aircraft tring to intercept is going to have a tiny to nil speed advantage - and given their light construction is going to be an easy and fragile target for the Defiant gunner: clawing slowly towards the target in s atright line is going to present him with a perfect opportunity. On the other hand, a Defiant attempting to intercept a Japanese fighter is going to have a much more difficult prospect however, as their far greater manoeverability would mean they can break off at will

.

Brave words in my opinion. Me 109s attacking Defiants were not armoured either, but were untroubled by Defiants (with some significant and heroic exceptions). Zeroes, Nicks, Oscars, and Tojos were all available (some in miniscule numbers) and were well capable of shooting Defiants down. Even Spits and hurricanes were hard pressed against the Japanese types....they were siply designed for a different enemy and environment. German fighters were energy fighters relying less on turning avility and more on speed, dive and climb. Spits were essentially a compromise, with some dive and some climb, and some turn ability. Japanese fighters excelled at the horizontal manouvre and the climb. They were ordinary in speed and generally poor in dive. How is the Definat going to do so well in those conditions. Possibly a dive, certainly not in a turning fight and not greatly so in a straight speed fight

 

[Wingspanner]

Well, the discussion so far was based on what I understood was the main period opposition and the principal Jap fighter which hacked down the Vilderbeestes (though please correct if this earlier assumption is wrong).

The A5Ms capabilities were listed by RCAFson as:

However, the same logic holds true for the A5M, which for the A5M4 meant a combat speed rating of 273 mph at 10,000ft, so slower at higher and lower altitudes.

This site:
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: A5M "Claude", Japanese Carrier Fighter
gives the following A5M4 speeds:

236 mph (380 km/h) at sea level
248 mph (400 km/h) at 3280 feet (1000 meters)
270 mph (435 km/h) at 9845 feet (3000 meters)
265 mph (426 km/h) at 10,140 feet (3090 meters)

Of course -4 made up only a proportion of all A5Ms, and the older variants were somewhat slower.

Me 109s attacking Defiants were not armoured either

109s WERE armoured by the time of BoB, were they not? Besides which, the A5m and contemporary Jap fighters were of far lighter construction than even 109s and lacked self sealing tanks to boot. 4 x 0303s in theory is going to be more than enough to swat them.

Looks again at the performance figures and then consider the engagement scenario. The failure of the Hurricanes against Japanese opposition came largely due to the fact that the Hurri didn't have a compelling tactical advantage - it had a little speed over the opposition - but that was basically it. It couldn't out-turn (though the pilots up to Singapore didn't realise that) - and due to its thick wing, couldn't dive away either, meaning pilots couldn't adopt zoom and boom tactics like the P40s. (see accounts in Hurricane the Last Witness by Brian Milton and Hurricanes in Sumatra by Terrence Kelly)

All a Defiant has to do is trundle at close to its best speed and tempt the Japanese on - which, given their tactical doctrine, is probably what they would have done. As you know from the 'heroic exceptions' - Defiants did great execution - even against 109s - when attacked from the rear quarter. Against a much slower, much more lightly constructed A5m, which has much lower fire-power to boot, I have no doubt they would have done even better... ESPECIALLY when the A5m has no speed advantage to force the belly or head-on attacks used later by the 109s. 109s had a 50mph+ speed advantage over Defiants. In our scenario here, Definats would appear to have an up to 50mph advantage over the A5m - and even if this performance was eroded by the fitting of Vokes filters etc, they would still have a significant speed advantage, even at the A5ms best rated alititude. Short of catching them with a height advantage, an intercepting A4m driver is going to have no option but to fly into the Defiant gunners cross hairs.

So, the Defiant has the option of the dive which the Hurricane doesn't (as you can bet your bottom dollar that the weighty beast IS going to dive well) - and the opposition we're considering here has no speed advantage either. Given that it isn't going to even attempt a turning fight (why would a turret fighter even try to?!) it might actually seem to have some advantages. It would certainly have been a better option than Buffalos - and perhaps even in this environment, than Hurricanes. I'm not saying they would have ruled the skies by any exception - trundling along and downing attackers is NOT the same as winning air superiority, but they could have been a potentially difficult tactical proposition for period Japanese fighters.

Of course, if doctrine would allow them, the best option would have been for Japanese pilots to ignore them.

 

[parsifal]

Well, the discussion so far was based on what I understood was the main period opposition and the principal Jap fighter which hacked down the Vilderbeestes (though please correct if this earlier assumption is wrong.

Havent read the full thread, however over malaya there were no A5Ms (Claudes) deployed. The only Claudes I know of that were deployed were a few attached to Carrier Zuiho at the beginning of the war in the PI operations, and possibly a few at kwaj. AFAIK there were no Claudes in these areas. Against the poms in Malaya, the following types listed in numerical order of importance may have been present at some time or other

1) Ki27 Nate
2) Ki 43 Oscar
3) A6M Zero (and some doubt by some about that)
4) Ki44 Tojo (maybe, but even if so as prototypes only).

109s WERE armoured by the time of BoB, were they not?

It was being introduced from July. The main combats against the Defiants were over France some time earlier, and not all 109s were armoured by the time of the BoB.

Looks again at the performance figures and then consider the engagement scenario. The failure of the Hurricanes against Japanese opposition came largely due to the fact that the Hurri didn't have a compelling tactical advantage - it had a little speed over the opposition - but that was basically it.

They had a firepower advantage, and a dive advantage. The Japanese relied mostly on their Oscars to demolish the Hurricanes, which had very nearly the same speed as the Hurris. Incidentally the most common types of Hurris in late'41, early '432 were not the new Hurri II, they were still relying on clapped out Hurri Is. I dont know what the actual performance of these fighters were, but in '44, the long continuous offensive by the USN did not give their carrier wings any opprtunity to re-supply with new engines and the like. Consequently, the Americans were flying aircraft tyhat whilst theoretically were able to fly 370 mph, were actually just able to make 350mph. I would be surprised if the Hurris shipped out to the pacific were abale to fly faster than the oscars opposing them.

It couldn't out-turn (though the pilots up to Singapore didn't realise that) - and due to its thick wing, couldn't dive away either, meaning pilots couldn't adopt zoom and boom tactics like the P40s. (see accounts in Hurricane the Last Witness by Brian Milton and Hurricanes in Sumatra by Terrence Kelly)

Ive read those accounts, but I dont fully buy it. Over Burma, whilst the japanese still bested the later marks of hurricane (a somewhat unfair comparison, since by then, Hurricanes were being used as ground attack aircraft), Hurricanes did use diving as a means of outrunning Japanese aircraft.

All a Defiant has to do is trundle at close to its best speed and tempt the Japanese on - which, given their tactical doctrine, is probably what they would have done. As you know from the 'heroic exceptions' - Defiants did great execution - even against 109s - when attacked from the rear quarter.

One of the best ways of getting your a/c shot out from under you is to "trundle along" in a straight predictable speed. And thats basically what a definat had to do with the armament it was carrying. In the Pacific, with tropical conditions, it is not going to exceed 300mph IMO. And it will not be going flat knacker when jumped by Japanese fighters. And the Japanese pilots at that stage of the war displayed exceptional initiative and skill. Plus they studied the outcomes of battles in Europe with a great deal of interest. if the Definat was deployed into the TO in any numbers, you cannot count on the japanese not being aware of how to deal with it. Rule number 1 in combat. Assume your opponent knows all about your mount, and will fly to the best possible advantage

Against a much slower, much more lightly constructed A5m, which has much lower fire-power to boot, I have no doubt they would have done even better... ESPECIALLY when the A5m has no speed advantage to force the belly or head-on attacks used later by the 109s.

Im not sure why a comparison between the by then obsolescent claudes and the still in production Defiants is all that valid. Not sure the RAF would risk Defiants in daylight combat again anyway, when the Defiants niche was as a NF anyway. Against the Defiant it was far more likley that it would encounter Oscars which did by far the lions share of fighting over Malaya (at least in an offensive role), and possibly against Nates. Hurricaners even struggled against Nates. If the Nates are flying defensively, that will mean the Defiants are flying escort, and that means they will be tied to 150 mph bombers. If I were the Japanese, knowing I was flying against Defiants, and knowing its weknesses, I would direct my Nates to attempt to engage from below......get the height, then dive to a point below and finally engage the formation in a rapid climbing fight.

109s had a 50mph+ speed advantage over Defiants. In our scenario here, Definats would appear to have an up to 50mph advantage over the A5m - and even if this performance was eroded by the fitting of Vokes filters etc, they would still have a significant speed advantage,

Nope, not necessarily. In a defensive fighter only situation, the Definats might have a 15-30mph disadavantage compared to the Oscar. In an offensive role, the Defiant would be tied to an escort role, meaning it might have a 100-150 mph disadvantage against a fast moving Nate. if the Nate had the altitude advantage, the speed advantage might be closer to 200mph

So, the Defiant has the option of the dive which the Hurricane doesn't (as you can bet your bottom dollar that the weighty beast IS going to dive well) - and the opposition we're considering here has no speed advantage either. Given that it isn't going to even attempt a turning fight (why would a turret fighter even try to?!) it might actually seem to have some advantages.

Hardly, in comparison to th hurricane. Therere were good reasons why the Defiant was withdrawn from daylight operations, and the Hurri was not. Nothing would be substantially different in the Pacific.

It would certainly have been a better option than Buffalos - and perhaps even in this environment, than Hurricanes.

Buffnut would disagree with you on that.....Buffaloes I was surprised to learn actually did quite well considering the difficulties they were placed under. I dont see any different outcome arising from the deployment of a Defiant inplace of say Hurricanes and Buffaloes> The allies were not defeated because of their equipment. They were defeated because of other factors.

I'm not saying they would have ruled the skies by any exception - trundling along and downing attackers is NOT the same as winning air superiority, but they could have been a potentially difficult tactical proposition for period Japanese fighters.

If they were, they would have been the only Allied fighters apart from the F4F that was able to do that. a tall ask indeed.

Of course, if doctrine would allow them, the best option would have been for Japanese pilots to ignore them

.

Nope the best option for the Japanese would be to shoot them down, as they did with just about every allied aircraft type at that time

 

[Glider]

I have been trying to think of somewhere where the Defiant and the Battle would have improved our chances and all I can come up with is in 1941 when the Iraq airbase at RAF Habbaniya was attacked. The Battle must be better than the Oxfords used as bombers and the Defiant at least as good as whatever they used (until some Hurricanes arrived)

 

[buffnut453]

They used Gladiators so perhaps the Defiant wasn't any better. Certainly armament was the same, the Gladiator being more manoeuverable.

 

[Glider]

Gladiator or Defiant, close call. Possibly the Defiant just if only as it was a bit faster than the opposition and better protected.

Another option would be the very first days in the desert. The first RAAF fighter unit even had some Gauntlets.

 

[VinceReeves]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but has anyone considered using the Battle as a torpedo bomber, which is the type it most resembles?

It offered quite a performance improvement over, for example, the TBD, so slinging a torpedo underneath it shouldn't be impossible.

A land-based torpedo bomber at Singapore or Ceylon would be quite useful. The Battle had good range and endurance. Also, it didn't look unlike a B5N, so if the red of the roundels was enlarged a bit, it might be able to sneak through Japanese CAPS.

With it's good range and endurance, I'm surprised the Battle wasn't used for maritime patrol more generally. The one place it was used, Iceland, had the most hostile environment.

 

[tomo pauk]

In order to have good TO power, maybe it would need the Merlin X or XX. Some undercarriage strengthening would come in nice, too.

 

[VinceReeves]

Maybe. I think the max. take-off load for the Battle was 1500lb. (4 x 250lb. int. + 2 x 250lb. ext.), so a 1600lb torpedo shouldn't be too much of an extra burden for the undercarriage. TO power would have been better than for a TBD, though with a proportionately higher TO weight. Also Merlins could get a bit wheezy in hot climes.

I'm not expert enough to give a solid opinion if an engine or u/c upgrade would be necessary, really.

In a general non-torpedo maritime role, think it wouldn't need an upgrade: 4 x 250lb Depth charges or 6 x 100lb. A/S bombs are no problem for it. Should be a good ditcher with those big wings. Can't think why they didn't use it for the jobs the Botha was intended for....

 

[RCAFson]

Havent read the full thread, however over malaya there were no A5Ms (Claudes) deployed. The only Claudes I know of that were deployed were a few attached to Carrier Zuiho at the beginning of the war in the PI operations, and possibly a few at kwaj. AFAIK there were no Claudes in these areas. Against the poms in Malaya, the following types listed in numerical order of importance may have been present at some time or other

1) Ki27 Nate
2) Ki 43 Oscar
3) A6M Zero (and some doubt by some about that)
4) Ki44 Tojo (maybe, but even if so as prototypes only).

There was a squadron of A5Ms based in Indochina but the Ki-27 has only marginally better performance than the A5M.

 

[buffnut453]

I don't think there's any evidence that the A5Ms were used operationally during the Malayan Campaign. Most likely they were used for local airfield defence over Saigon where they were based.

 

[tomo pauk]

Guess I'm about to dust off another thread

Looking at the take off power available for the Battle, the mere 880 HP are obviously a major shortcoming for a bomber airplane. Eg, the Ju-87B (with Jumo-211B) have had 1200 HP for take off (max bomb load being the 1000 kg bomb IIRC, with reduced fuel), 1340 was available for the Ju-87D with Jumo-211F (1800 kg bomb, also with reduced fuel?). Hence we might take a look at another early war possibilities, both for Merlin line of engines and another plausible power plants (those at another post; all at take-off ratings):
-Merlin VIII, used on Fulmar I, 1080 HP
-Merlin XII, for Spit II, 1175 HP (+12 psi)
-Merlin X, ??? HP
-Merlin XX, 1280 HP

A torpedo-armed Battle?

 

[RCAFson]

Guess I'm about to dust off another thread

Looking at the take off power available for the Battle, the mere 880 HP are obviously a major shortcoming for a bomber airplane. Eg, the Ju-87B (with Jumo-211B) have had 1200 HP for take off (max bomb load being the 1000 kg bomb IIRC, with reduced fuel), 1340 was available for the Ju-87D with Jumo-211F (1800 kg bomb, also with reduced fuel?). Hence we might take a look at another early war possibilities, both for Merlin line of engines and another plausible power plants (those at another post; all at take-off ratings):
-Merlin VIII, used on Fulmar I, 1080 HP
-Merlin XII, for Spit II, 1175 HP (+12 psi)
-Merlin X, ??? HP
-Merlin XX, 1280 HP

A torpedo-armed Battle?

The Merlin II/III could do somewhat better with 100 octane fuel and was rated for 12lb boost at TO for about 1200hp.
The Merlin VIII was rated at 1275hp with 100 octane. The Merlin XXX (1360hp) was also a good candidate.

 

[tomo pauk]

Those are the values I was able to positively pin-point (found at Williams' site). Any source for you data?
Merlin 30 could be stated as mid-war engine, though.