Precisely - official policy even then was that it wasn't safe to go over 60 degrees, but individuals in practise went with steeper because it worked - more accurate.
Defiants and Battles deployed overseas, any merit in that?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Precisely - official policy even then was that it wasn't safe to go over 60 degrees, but individuals in practise went with steeper because it worked - more accurate.
The failure was two fold - accepting a restriction on a bomber weight as per the Geneva Disarmament talks, - which the Battle was designed around, and then using that as an aircraft for the Shadow Factories. So yes the Hurricane should have been built in the Austin plant.
Curiously none of the other aircraft were a failure like the Basttle was!!
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Was something like the early versions of the Blenheim and Wellington so much better?
If either met an Emil it was for the chop.
This is the illusion of all those ' what ifs'. Stop Battle production, chuck them all in the sea and start again. Can't do that.
It was well known that early bombers were well below Hurricane performance and the Spitfire was even more but you make these machines and send men to war.
If either met an Emil it was for the chop.
This is the illusion of all those ' what ifs'. Stop Battle production, chuck them all in the sea and start again. Can't do that.
It was well known that early bombers were well below Hurricane performance and the Spitfire was even more but you make these machines and send men to war.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Ju-87B could deliver a 500 kg bomb with 30 meter accuracy. If the Battle was just as capable then it's difficult to explain why the RAF didn't destroy every German bridge over the Meuse River during May 1940.
Shortround6
Major General
The Blenheim had a bit more speed and somewhat more range, the later versions had a two gun power turret. No power turret could give immunity to interception but could affect the loss ratio or the bombers lost to fighters lost ratio ( which would still be in favor of the fighters). The Blenheim used the same 3 man crew.
Wellington had more range and a bigger bomb load. While it was still easy meat for fighters it's ability to carry 4500lb instead of 1000lbs of bombs meant the ones that got through did a lot more damage. The Ability of both the Blenheim and Wellington to use bigger bombs than 250lbs (granted only two 500lb for the Blenheim) also made them more dangerous. Neither could perform unescorted daylight missions .
It is well known that you can't perform bombing missions of any kind with early Hurricanes and Spitfires and with the later ones the target better be darn close to the airfield.
Closer comparisons to the Battle are the Japanese KI-30 and Ki-32. Neither of which could operate in Chinese airspace without escort.
When comparing the Battle to the JU-87 remember that the Battle had a lower powered engine than the Ju-87B, had a two position air-screw ( fine or coarse although the JU-87 may have had the same) and the Battle carried around 960 liters of fuel in the standard wing tanks. Almost double the fuel in a JU-87.
buffnut453
Captain
Which goes back to what I was saying...the Battle offers no benefits over the Blenheim that was extensively used in the Middle East, North Africa and Malaya.
I bet the FLAK and fighters had something to do with it, but even during the Vietnam war, bridges were hard to destroy with iron bombs.
Here's an interesting comparison chart of early war aircraft:
HyperWar: The Mediterranean Middle East, Vol.I (Appendix VIII)
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
The Ju-87 was proved vulnerable against proper defences, and was shot down in droves by Spitfires and Hurricanes.
The Battle's top speed, and height capabilities were identical to those of the Gladiator; calculate the possibilities of aircraft that slow getting through the flak and Me109 defences, then start trying to talk sense.
parsifal
Colonel
Ju 87s were accurate but vulnerable. Battles were innaccurate but still vulnerable. Its a moot point as to which type (Stuka or Battle) was more vulnerable. And it is at least debatebale to say that Ju87s remained accurate when faced with decent stiffer opposition. Flak is the main factor that ones side uses to affect enemy bombing accuracy, and in 1940 allied flak in Frtance was very light.
because of its great accuracy Stukas remained in production until 1944. Battles were phased out of service from 1940. Stukas however could not really operate in daylight (or where enemy fighters were effective) after 1943.
So Battles were a failure from the beginning but were phased out fairly quickly. Ju87s were higly successful at the start, but became a liability as time passed. But inexplicably they remained in service, suffering ever increasing losses as time passed.
My opinion is is that it cannot be argued that Ju87s could be expected to succeed where the Battle failed is frought with uncertainty. In 1940, until opposed by FC over SE England, Ju87s were not subjected to the same density of resistance as the Battle was forced to endure. It therefore is an open debatable position to arguer that given the same situation the Stuka would have done better and be moer survivable
because of its great accuracy Stukas remained in production until 1944. Battles were phased out of service from 1940. Stukas however could not really operate in daylight (or where enemy fighters were effective) after 1943.
So Battles were a failure from the beginning but were phased out fairly quickly. Ju87s were higly successful at the start, but became a liability as time passed. But inexplicably they remained in service, suffering ever increasing losses as time passed.
My opinion is is that it cannot be argued that Ju87s could be expected to succeed where the Battle failed is frought with uncertainty. In 1940, until opposed by FC over SE England, Ju87s were not subjected to the same density of resistance as the Battle was forced to endure. It therefore is an open debatable position to arguer that given the same situation the Stuka would have done better and be moer survivable
Last edited:
The difference in operation of the Ju 87 and the Battle is that the Ju 87 operated effectively in areas where the Luftwaffe had established local or temporary air superiority. When it didn't,as in the BoB for various reasons,the Ju 87 was cannon fodder.
The RAF in 1940 had no mechanism for,nor intention of,escorting its Battles,neither had it established local air superiority over,say,the Meuse bridges with inevitable results.
Cheers
Steve
The RAF in 1940 had no mechanism for,nor intention of,escorting its Battles,neither had it established local air superiority over,say,the Meuse bridges with inevitable results.
Cheers
Steve
I still don't believe that Typhoons bombed from a 90 degree dive. Pilots' memories can be notoriously unreliable and a steep dive easily becomes a vertical dive in the remembering. I don't doubt some pilots exceeded the recommended dive angles,there are plenty of reports of "Bombfires" suffering severe structural damage due to pilots diving too steeply,too fast and with too abrupt a pull out.
We'll agree to differ or we'll be flogging a dead horse
It's also worth saying that when attacking a heavily defended target "where intense flak is anticipated" the steeper dive was used but by two sections of four aircraft simultaneously from two directions to dissipate the concentration of anti-aircraft fire.
All these tactics were published in the RAF's Air Fighting Development Unit report on fighter bombing,"Fighter Bomber Tactics"of 1944,the diagrams are in the appendices (AIR 23/7479), and "Tactics used by the Squadrons of the 2nd Tactical Air Force (AIR 37/871).
What were USAAF tactics for dive bombing in the A-36 or any other fighter bomber? I'm unfamiliar with them. Were they taught to bomb from the vertical? The RAF certainly were not.
Cheers
Steve
We'll agree to differ or we'll be flogging a dead horse
It's also worth saying that when attacking a heavily defended target "where intense flak is anticipated" the steeper dive was used but by two sections of four aircraft simultaneously from two directions to dissipate the concentration of anti-aircraft fire.
All these tactics were published in the RAF's Air Fighting Development Unit report on fighter bombing,"Fighter Bomber Tactics"of 1944,the diagrams are in the appendices (AIR 23/7479), and "Tactics used by the Squadrons of the 2nd Tactical Air Force (AIR 37/871).
What were USAAF tactics for dive bombing in the A-36 or any other fighter bomber? I'm unfamiliar with them. Were they taught to bomb from the vertical? The RAF certainly were not.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
Battles and Defients would have been extremely useful in any theatre. Half the enemy fighter pilots who met them would have died laughing, and the other half would have exhausted their ammunition gleefully shooting them out of the sky, thereby becoming easy meat for the real fighters in the second wave...
The Defiant would have been a tough proposition for a CR-42, and the Battle would obviously fair better against IAF fighters than against the 109 and 110.
Shortround6
Major General
To see how well the Battle would have fared against the IAF, see how well the Blenheim did. It was faster, better defensive armament and had twin engines making it harder to bring down.
Loosing 25% per mission instead of 50% is doing far better but it still unsustainable. 10% per mission is unsustainable.
Loosing 25% per mission instead of 50% is doing far better but it still unsustainable. 10% per mission is unsustainable.
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
Everything was a tough proposition for the CR 42! Against the MC200 or G50 the Battle's losses might have improved from horrific to awful, until the MC202 arrived and it went back to horrific.
The fact still remains that if the RAF had deployed 200 Battles and the Defiant I to the Desert AF, they would have given the RAF a decisive edge over the IAF in 1940-41. Even off Malaya a strike force of a 100 Battles escorted by Defiants would have been able to cripple the IJN invasion forces in Dec 1941.
The Machi 202 has an armament of 2 x 12.7mm Vickers MGs, and so much less deadly than the Cannon armed 109 and 110.
The Battle could have been a campaign winner in the MTO and SEA theatres.
parsifal
Colonel
Mc 202s began to be introduced from September 1941, but production really didnt get into stride until 1942. For most of its service life it was equipped with just 2 x 12.7 in MGs. There were supposed to be additional 2 x 7.7mm MGs, but these were rarely fitted.
If we assume that the Battle was retained for some insane reason, until 1942, you cannot assume that it would be the same design as went into battle in May 1940. That really would be insane. But lets assume that the Battle was re-engined, uparmoured and up gunned, such that it carried 2 x 0.5in rear firing guns and 2 x forward firing 0.5in MGs. Say it was armoured to withstand 0.5in fire, that would make it a difficult opponent for the MC202. Particularly so if top speed was increased, to say around 280 mph.
MC 202s were sent to the Eastern Front, where a few of them fought the Russians. i expect the C202s at some stage met up with the nearest equivalent I can think of to this "Battle-on-steroids", the IL-2. I dont know how the italian fighter fared in those encounters, but anecdotally, the Sturmoviks was considered a tough bird to bring down by the LW, who were generally cannon armed. How much more difficult for the Folgores with such light armament
One further comment...you do realize that the Italians actually did better with the CR42 at least early in the war, with the CR 42 than they did with the ostensibly more modern types like the MC 200.
Shortround6
Major General
A Battle is going to need about 1300hp, AT 15-16,000ft in order to make 280mph. This is doable with a Merlin XX or Merlin 45. But that is with no additional drag. The Defiant picked up all of 8mph changing from the Merlin III to the Merlin XX. The Hurricane picked up between 10-15mph (at the same altitudes) making the switch. Picking up 20-23mph doesn't look good once extra cooling drag and other factors come into play.
While a .50 cal gun in each wing sounds good and looks doable from a weight/space standpoint, how maneuverable was the Battle? Light wing loading needs good role response and pitch response. If the Battle cannot bring the guns to bear it doesn't matter what they are.
Twin manual .50s in the top rear is no solution, sounds good but trying to heave a pair of .50s around in a narrow fuselage is going to be near impossible. Some US Navy gunners were split over using a SINGLE .50 or a pair of .30s. The .50 hit harder but the paired .30s were easier to aim. A .50 out the top and a .50 out the bottom might offer more scope.
Add 300-400lbs of self sealing tanks, several hundred pounds of armor ( 3 crew stations), 230lbs worth of guns (over the originals) and around 200lbs more ammo weight ( at 200rpg of .50 cal ammo) and you have sucked up the entire normal bomb load of the original Battle. Granted a New Merlin can handle a bigger load but adding 10% or more to the gross weight of the plane is going to bring the performance back down.
If you want a tactical bomber in late 1941 take the Fulmar, pin the wings in place, yank 4 of the .303s out with their ammo and cut the remaining guns to 350-400rounds each. about a 300l-350lb saving. Stick a Vickers "K" gun in the rear cockpit and do what you have to put a 500lb under each wing or a 1000lb bomb under the fuselage. Original would already take a 250-500lb under the fuselage and ditching some of the guns and ammo should help make the goal. The smaller airframe should offer more performance with the same engine compared to the Battle.
While a .50 cal gun in each wing sounds good and looks doable from a weight/space standpoint, how maneuverable was the Battle? Light wing loading needs good role response and pitch response. If the Battle cannot bring the guns to bear it doesn't matter what they are.
Twin manual .50s in the top rear is no solution, sounds good but trying to heave a pair of .50s around in a narrow fuselage is going to be near impossible. Some US Navy gunners were split over using a SINGLE .50 or a pair of .30s. The .50 hit harder but the paired .30s were easier to aim. A .50 out the top and a .50 out the bottom might offer more scope.
Add 300-400lbs of self sealing tanks, several hundred pounds of armor ( 3 crew stations), 230lbs worth of guns (over the originals) and around 200lbs more ammo weight ( at 200rpg of .50 cal ammo) and you have sucked up the entire normal bomb load of the original Battle. Granted a New Merlin can handle a bigger load but adding 10% or more to the gross weight of the plane is going to bring the performance back down.
If you want a tactical bomber in late 1941 take the Fulmar, pin the wings in place, yank 4 of the .303s out with their ammo and cut the remaining guns to 350-400rounds each. about a 300l-350lb saving. Stick a Vickers "K" gun in the rear cockpit and do what you have to put a 500lb under each wing or a 1000lb bomb under the fuselage. Original would already take a 250-500lb under the fuselage and ditching some of the guns and ammo should help make the goal. The smaller airframe should offer more performance with the same engine compared to the Battle.
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
I think the CR42 was about as good as biplane gets, but anyway you look at it, it was a generation removed from the Hurricanes and Tomahawks the RAF were fielding against it – and they were hardly cutting edge either. And I agree the Italian fighters were for the most part chronically under-gunned, though the net result of that might have been to simply prolong a Battle's pain.
Incidentally, in the timeline you are talking about wouldn't our MTO 'super-Battles' have been facing the Lutwaffe as well? Bf109 E, F, and Gs as well as 110s were in the desert war weren't they?
parsifal
Colonel
Coomon sense and my natural instincts would lead me to agree. However Forum member Vincenzo provided some conclusive proof that over Malta in the very early days, the CR42 was actually somewhat effective against the Hurricane, and more effective against this type than the MC 200s that were also sent over Malta.
The problem with the CR42 and indeed all those early war italian types, is that they were in no way air superiority fighters. They were manouverable enough to stay out of trouble, and if an allied pilot was silly enough to get into a turning fight with them, could easily become a dangerous oponent. But they lacked the firepower, and the performance to force issues in the air....allied fighters could use energy and speed and usually altitude as well, to gain distinct advantage over the italians. To that extent, your comments about generational differences in performance I completely agree with
Er no, if we are talking "super Battle" not necessarily the case. At 280 mph, CR 42s cannot catch them, neither can a G-50 really. An MC200 is only 30 mph faster so will not really have time to approach from astern with any manouver in the mix. An aircraft forced to fly straight and level with in the face of 2 x HMGs is in for a tough fight. An MC 202 can catch the Battle, but the rate of closure is about 70mph. If there are any escorts about, it might be a difficult job even for them, particulalry considering that the fighters return fire is no greater than the defending Battles. And if the battles are flying in a tight defensive formation and the fighter is attacking individually, as they usually do, the defensive abilities of the "super battle" should be even more apparent.
