Defiants and Battles deployed overseas, any merit in that?

[stona]

If Bomber Command hadn't been such a hog about bombing Germany with most available planes the Far east, mid east and especial Coastal command may have had more squadrons of more effective aircraft earlier and done more for the war effort than the bombing campaign of 1940-41.

I agree. On that final point we have to remember that Britain is a democracy and senior military commanders are also politicians and ultimately sub ordinate to other politicians.
Germany was bombing Britain and for most Britons the Far East or even Mediterranean were a long way away,much further than they are in our much smaller world.
It was easy for the men of Bomber Command to convince their political masters that they were hitting back. This kind of strategic application of air power had never been tried before,as Harris famously said. All they needed was more aircraft.....and more,and more.
Knowledge of the almost total ineffectivness of RAF bombing in the early years was not widely circulated and certainly wasn't public knowledge. The films shown in cinemas at the time,from which many people gleaned there information about the war,give the impression that "our boys" in their bombers were doing exactly what they said they could do. We know now that they weren't and couldn't.

 

[nuuumannn]

Against a first string opposition like the German types, the Defiant is little more than a target. Even second string opposition like the Italian monoplanes handily outclass it

Not necessarily true. The Defiant proved itself more than capable of defending itself against fighters such as the Bf 109 if the correct tactics were used. During the three months it was in day fighter use during the Battle of Britain the majority of kills against Defiants were made by superior, often overwhelmingly so, numbers of enemy fighters. You are correct in saying that one-on-one, the Daffy would have a hard time against a Bf 109, but in the right hands it proved itself a worthy opponent against single-seat fighters as witnessed between 264 Sqn's sqn ldr Philip Hunter, who carried out a mock dog fight with Bob Stanford Tuck in a Spitfire. Tuck had a hard time staying on Hunter's tail.

You also have to remember the Defiant was designed as a bomber interceptor, not as a fighter-versus-fighter aircraft and it proved itself effectively in this role as Britain's premier night fighter from late 1940 to mid '42. As with the Battle after its showing over France, there would be no way that the RAF would deploy the type on day ops after the Battle of Britain; any deployment overseas would have been as a night fighter.

 

[RCAFson]

That's because the Hudson was designed as a naval strike aircraft and was kitted out for maritime ops, the Battle wasn't. Similarities in bomb load has nothing to do with it. Why are you comparing the Hudson and Battle? They were totally different aircraft operated by different commands using different tactics. The Battle was not at any stage in its career used for maritime patrol nor anti-shipping strike. Its bomber career ended in 1940 and continued in service for second line duties only from then on, finally being officially declared obsolete in these roles in 1944.

As for Blenheims, they were available in numbers in 1941 and were still operating in front line squadrons. In the Far East the following bomber squadrons operated Blenheim IVs; 11, 34, 39, 45, 60, 84, 113 and 211. Blenheim V units in the Far East were 34, 42 and 113. This list covers the duration of the war, bearing in mind that the Blenheim V did not enter service (firstly in North Africa) until November 1942. Yes, they were committed in large numbers (that's what I meant when I say 'available') at that time, remember the Blenheim was in service at home in Fighter, Bomber and Coastal Commands and in North Africa and the Middle and Far East as fighters, bombers and army co-operation aircraft. Blenheims served on every front in every theatre the RAF was engaged in throughout the war, despite having been superceded in key roles by more suitable aircraft.

The Battle was a level bomber, as dive bombing wasn't RAF doctrine it was expected to fulfil the role of a level bomber with the capability for dive bombing. The spec to which it was built was P.27/32; this spec was produced as a replacement for the Hart and Hind bombers and also as insurance against the Geneva Convention banning heavy bombers. Even if it was capable of dive bombing or not, it doesn't change the situation in the Far East. The same as what happened over France to the Battle would have happened over Singapore too.

The Hudson was a hurriedly converted civil aircraft design:

The Hudson's ancestry may be traced back to the Lockheed's Model 10 Electra, a ten-passenger civil airliner which first flew on 23 February, 1934. Designed by Hall Hibbard, Richard von Hake, Lloyd Stearman, and Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, this was Lockheed's first twin engine aircraft. It was Johnson's idea to adopt the twin tail configuration, which would be a Lockheed trademark for many years. Lockheed built 148 production Electras (plus the prototype), the most famous of which was flown almost around the world by Amelia Earhart. An interesting development of the Model 10 was the XC-35, which flew with a pressurized cabin in 1937.

The Model 10 was the immediate parent of the somewhat smaller Model 12 Electra Junior, a six-passenger executive transport. Lockheed built 114 examples of the Model 12 and 16 of a bomber version for the Netherlands East Indies. The latter aircraft later saw combat against the Japanese in late 1941 and early 1942. The Model 12 also served as military cargo aircraft and two, one purchased by France and one by Britain, served as clandestine photo-reconnaissance aircraft over Germany, Italy, and North Africa before the war.

Lockheed followed these with the larger Model 14 Super Electra, a 12-passenger civil airliner. First flown on 29 July, 1937, this aircraft had engines more powerful than those of her predecessors and featured Fowler flaps and a wing designed for higher speeds. Competing against the legendary Douglas DC-3, a larger and more economical aircraft, the relatively advanced Model 14 was not a big success, and only 112 were sold. One of these aircraft, piloted by Howard Hughes, flew around the world in less than 4 days, averaging 206.1 mph. It was a Model 14 that flew Neville Chamberlain to Munich to meet with Adolf Hitler in September, 1938.

In February 1938, Lockheed's design team learned of an impending visit of the British Purchasing Commission and, after five days and nights of rushed design work, proposed the B-14L, a reconnaissance bomber based on the Model 14. The British requested changes which were incorporated within 24 hours. Because the British were already impressed with the Model 14, and because the proposed Lockheed aircraft was cheaper than its competitors and could be delivered in quantity more quickly, on 23 June 1938 the British Purchasing Commission placed an order for Lockheed's proposed patrol bomber. This order specified 200 aircraft to be delivered by 31 December 1939, plus up to 50 additional aircraft if these could also be delivered by that date. All 250 were delivered well before that date (plus one replacement for an aircraft which was lost before delivery), at a price of about $100,000 each. The outbreak of war interrupted delivery because of a 1935 law which put an embargo on arms sales to belligerents. The Neutrality Act, signed by Roosevelt on 4 November, 1939, allowed the British and French to buy weapons on a "cash and carry" basis.
Lockheed Hudson Patrol Bomber - Aircraft - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net

The Battle wasn't used where it should have been where air and ground defenses were less dense than in France, and was used when it was obviously faced with a task that no other contemporary strike aircraft could have done either; its failure was not a failure of the aircraft but of tactics and doctrine. The Battle was used for coastal patrol prior to being withdrawn entirely.

 

[RCAFson]

You need a lot of aircraft to stand any chance of sinking ships. One of the Luftwaffe's most successful attacks during the Kanalkamf was on convoy CW9 on 8/8/40. This was caried out with the Ju 87 which most would concede to be be one of the best and accurate dive bombers of the era,flown by well trained and experienced crews.
After piecemeal attacks in the morning it took two attacks by 57 and then 82 Stukas,heavily escorted by Bf 109s and Bf 110s to do the damage. In the end 7 of the eighteen freighters were sunk and only 4 were left undamaged. They limped into Weymouth,recent home of the Olympic sailing regatta.
That's 139 dive bombers ( I don't know how many actually pressed home an attack) and about 100 escort fighters (50 on each wave) to sink 7 freighters slowly butting there way up the English Channel,virtually within sight of the Luftwaffe bases.

Steve

This actually points out the ineffectiveness of the Luftwaffe against targets defended by the RN and how much they feared RN AA. TheLuftwaffe seemed to require huge numbers of sorties to accomplish sinkings, when the ships were defended by an RN escort.
OTOH, the Battles proved that they would press their attacks home, even against suicidal concentrations of FLAK. I would submit that equal numbers of Battles flown by RAF aircrew would have wiped out the convoy.

 

[stona]

The convoy was shepherded by RN vessels but was essentially protected by the RAF. The morning attacks were driven off by the RAF fighters. The first of the two afternoon attacks occurred off St Catherine's Point (Southern tip of the Isle of Wight) and was initiated by Bf 109s who quickly destroyed the protective barrage balloons. They were followed by the Ju 87s who had a relatively clear run at the ships.

Arthur Hague,aboard Borealis,recalled

"Under a hail of incendiary bullets the Borealis' balloon disintegrated in flames. Then,out of the sun,roared a flight of Ju 87 dive bombers."

The arriving RAF fighters (Hurricanes from three squadrons,Spitfires from one) were engaged by the escort as they tried to intervene. There were around 150 aircraft involved in the melee which lasted about twenty minutes.

I don't think it reflects particularly on the RN's defensive fire but rather the relative inaccuracy of even the best dive bomber. It is often said that the Ju 87 could put a bomb in a 30m circle,near enough 100',which given data from later allied efforts seems optimistic but we'll go with that. Presumably this was in in ideal conditions and with noone,on ships or in enemy aircraft,shooting at it.

The targets in that convoy would typically be less than 250' long and, more importantly, have a beam of under 50'. Not such an easy proposition,even in perfect conditions.

Steve

 

[parsifal]

There was at least an equivalent of the battle in the MTO, and it didnt do wellat all. im thinking of the breda BA64 and 65. originally designed as a mixed fighter-bomber it was fairly easy meat for RAF fighters. Many in fact were grounded for lack of spares and captured during the British countetroffensive (or more correctly destroyed by the retreating italians).

 

[Shortround6]

The Hudson was a hurriedly converted civil aircraft design:

True but it tuned out pretty well for 1938 design. It was upgraded to the Ventura. Of note is that it was the fist plane built in quantity to use the Fowler flap.

That said it was probably a lousy design in 1943.

See: Flap (aircraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wing design was under going major changes in mid to late 30s.

The Battle wasn't used where it should have been where air and ground defenses were less dense than in France, and was used when it was obviously faced with a task that no other contemporary strike aircraft could have done either; its failure was not a failure of the aircraft but of tactics and doctrine. The Battle was used for coastal patrol prior to being withdrawn entirely.

The "density" of the air defense in France may be somewhat over blown. It was now where near what it would be one to two years later on most fronts the Germans fought in.

As for being used for coastal patrol??? Sure it was.

In 1939 Coastal command had 10 Squadrons of Ansons, 2 squadrons of Vildebeests, 2 of Hudsons, 3 of Sunderlands and 3 of Supermarine Biplane flying boats plus 3 squadrons equipped with mixtures of aircraft for training and AA co-operation. 19 service squadrons total and 4 for training.
By Nov 1940 there were 28 service squadrons and and 8 training squadrons. One squadron of Battles is stationed in Iceland. Ansons are on the way out.

 

[RCAFson]

The "density" of the air defense in France may be somewhat over blown. It was now where near what it would be one to two years later on most fronts the Germans fought in.

As for being used for coastal patrol??? Sure it was.

In 1939 Coastal command had 10 Squadrons of Ansons, 2 squadrons of Vildebeests, 2 of Hudsons, 3 of Sunderlands and 3 of Supermarine Biplane flying boats plus 3 squadrons equipped with mixtures of aircraft for training and AA co-operation. 19 service squadrons total and 4 for training.
By Nov 1940 there were 28 service squadrons and and 8 training squadrons. One squadron of Battles is stationed in Iceland. Ansons are on the way out.

German Flak:

The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West, p180. Also note the overwhelming Luftwaffe fighter superiority.
About a 1/4 of the Flak guns were 88mm, the rest were mainly 20mm and 37mm AAA.

Three squadrons of Battles were used on coastal patrol duties, Nos. 88 and 226 Squadrons from Belfast and No. 98 Squadron from Iceland. These squadrons retained their Battles for most of 1941 – at this period Coastal Command often had to make do with whatever aircraft could be spared.
Fairey Battle

 

[stona]

Battles were not retained for "most of 1941". 98 squadrons were the last to go and were classed as non-operational on 9th June 1941 according to the squadrons records. This was the day after they received their first Hurricanes,so they seem keen to get rid of them! They did fly them a little longer but they were flown to Rekyavik and dismantled for shipping during July.
They were not based in Rekyavik either but infact at Kaldadarness with flights detached to the Northern airfields at Melgerdi and Akureyri.

88 squadron traded their Battles for Bostons in December 1940/January 1941. They were the first RAF squadron to adopt this type.

226 Squadron traded their Battles in for Blenheims in February 1941.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Wingspanner]

If the Defiant was acknowledged to have been a capable bomber destroyer (in the absense of manoeverable fighter opposition), then I've always thought that a trick was missed not swapping them for the Hurricanes and Spits in the Northern sector during the BoB. THAT might have been a much more efficient usage of airframes - send the hurris and spits to where numbers were short - and send the Defiants north where they would have had no troubles against the bombers (northern targets esp. on the east coat being well out of range of the 109s)

 

[Aozora]

Regarding the Battles: had they been available in Malaya or the NEI they probably wouldn't have made much of a difference; however they would probably have been better that the
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOz_i_2USkY "A shallower dive is actually better than a vertical dive for practical purposes..." Best normal dive angle 65-70 degrees.
Waay back in the thread there was some comment about
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HxDQdIZYoE...some fancy flying for the cameras.

 

[Wingspanner]

Well, IIRC, the Vildebeeste was primarily a torpedo bomber - but perhaps the best way of taking this speculative thought forward regarding whether the Battle would have been more survivable/effective is to simply compare its performance stats with that of the Vilderbeeste. Next question is to ask what the Battle's primary opposition's performance was and then to look to see if any improvement would have probably translated into lower losses/greater effectiveness. To start the ball rolling -

Data from Vickers Aircraft since 1908[28]

General characteristics

Crew: three, pilot, navigator, and observer
Length: 36 ft 8 in (11.18 m)
Wingspan: 49 ft 0 in (14.94 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
Wing area: 728 ft² (67.7 m²)
Empty weight: 4,773 lb (2,170 kg)
Loaded weight: 8,500 lb (3,864 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Bristol Pegasus II-M3 air-cooled radial engine, 635 hp (474 kW)

Performance

Maximum speed: 143 mph (124 knots, 230 km/h)
Range: 1,250 mi (1,090 nmi, 2,010 km)
Service ceiling: 19,000 ft (5,800 m)
Rate of climb: 630 ft/min (3.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 11.7 lb/ft² (57.1 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.075 hp/lb (0.122 kW/kg)

Armament

Guns: 1 × fixed, forward-firing .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers machine gun and 1 × flexible, rearward-firing .303 in (7.7 mm) Lewis Gun
Bombs: 1,100 lb (500 kg) of bombs or 1 × 18 in (457 mm) torpedo

Versus -

Data from Fairey Aircraft since 1915[31]

General characteristics

Crew: 3
Length: 42 ft 4 in (12.91 m)
Wingspan: 54 ft 0 in (16.46 m)
Height: 15 ft 6 in (4.72 m)
Wing area: 422 ft² (39.2 m²)
Empty weight: 6,647 lb (3,015 kg)
Loaded weight: 10,792 lb (4,895 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce Merlin II liquid-cooled V12 engine, 1,030 hp (768 kW)

Performance

Maximum speed: 257 mph (223 kn, 413 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Range: 1,000 mi (870 nmi, 1,610 km)
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Climb to 5,000 ft (1,520 m): 4 min 6 sec

Armament

Guns:
1× .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine gun in starboard wing
1× .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers K machine gun in rear cabin
Bombs:
4× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs internally
500 lb (230 kg) of bombs externally

... a speed improvement of 100mph would surely help in terms of presenting a more difficult intercept by Jap fighters, surely?

 

[buffnut453]

More speed is not necessarily a good thing. There are accounts where aircraft like the Swordfish flew too slowly to be effectively engaged. Now, this obviously wasn't the case at Endau with the Vildebeest but I rather doubt that the Battle would have fared any better.

 

[Shortround6]

Speed helps if the margin of speed between the fighter and the bomber is close.

Say a 300mph fighter and a 200mph bomber and a 250mph bomber. The 250mph bomber is harder to intercept in that the fighter is gaining at less than one mile per minute. If it starts 20 miles behind the bomber it will take 24 minutes to catch the bomber and cover about 120 miles while doing so. a 270mph bomber is an even harder target. Depending on fuel state the fighter may run out of fuel before intercept or be limited in the attacks it can make.
The 200mph bomber can be caught in 12 minutes and in 60 miles with a much larger amount of fuel remaining for the fighter.
A 120mph bomber can be caught even quicker but once the fighter has a large margin of speed over the bomber the "safety" more speed brings (120mph vs 180-200mph) doesn't really buy much.

Battles cruised at 180-200mph. Running at high speed could burn fuel at 2-3 times the cruise rate.

 

[RCAFson]

More speed is not necessarily a good thing. There are accounts where aircraft like the Swordfish flew too slowly to be effectively engaged. Now, this obviously wasn't the case at Endau with the Vildebeest but I rather doubt that the Battle would have fared any better.

Really? You don't think that an aircraft that's 100mph faster would be more survivable? Many of the IJN/IJAAF fighters were older models like the A5M that had only a modest speed advantage over a Battle, so that there would be fewer interceptions and interception speed versus target speed would be much lower allowing the rear gunner a much better target. Mathematically, the Battle should be much more survivable.

 

[buffnut453]

All depends what it's going up against and the tactical situation at the time. RCAFSon, you're assuming a rear attack by the Japanese fighters which, I'll accept, a Battle would probably be more survivable because the tail-chase would be harder for the Japanese fighters. That said, a daylight raid like the one on Endau where 2 formations were thrown into the assault and the Japanese were able to attack on the route into the target, I don't see the Battle as being any more survivable. Like I said, all depends on the situation at the time.

 

[Shortround6]

MAX speed for the Fairey Battle was 257mph at 15,000ft. 240mph at 10,000ft and 210mph at sea level.

The Max Speed for the Vildebeest may have been at around 5000-6500ft.

The Battle may not have been able to sustain those speeds ( for more than 5 minutes?) while the Vildebeest may have. Older engine/propeller combinations were rated at a constant power and not 5 minute or 30 minute ratings.

 

[RCAFson]

MAX speed for the Fairey Battle was 257mph at 15,000ft. 240mph at 10,000ft and 210mph at sea level.

The Max Speed for the Vildebeest may have been at around 5000-6500ft.

The Battle may not have been able to sustain those speeds ( for more than 5 minutes?) while the Vildebeest may have. Older engine/propeller combinations were rated at a constant power and not 5 minute or 30 minute ratings.

The speeds given are for a loaded Battle with 6.25lb boost. Using 100 octane fuel and 12lb boost, the Battle would be ~20mph faster under 10,000ft, and probably another 10mph more after bomb release.

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:
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/A/5/A5M_Claude.htm
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.

 

[tomo pauk]

Would it be correct to say that Battle would be for Claude Nate what was the Mossie for LW day fighters? Defiant an even tougher catch?

 

[Aozora]

All depends what it's going up against and the tactical situation at the time. RCAFSon, you're assuming a rear attack by the Japanese fighters which, I'll accept, a Battle would probably be more survivable because the tail-chase would be harder for the Japanese fighters. That said, a daylight raid like the one on Endau where 2 formations were thrown into the assault and the Japanese were able to attack on the route into the target, I don't see the Battle as being any more survivable. Like I said, all depends on the situation at the time.

Reading "Bloody Shambles" the Battle would have been a much better, more survivable aircraft in this situation:

1) The Buffaloes were at a big disadvantage trying to escort the Vildebeest - they had to slow down and circle at low altitudes to try and keep the Vildebeest in sight, thus wasting fuel and being dragged down to speeds and altitudes where they were more vulnerable. The Battle had a cruising speed that was about 50 mph higher than the maximum speed of the biplane, and could cruise at higher altitudes. Less time on target approach, less time spent on withdrawal.

2) Against the Vildebeest and, to a lesser extent, the Albacore, the Japanese fighters had all the advantages of attacking slow moving targets - they could spend plenty of time lining up the targets and could attack from any direction, mainly from above, plus they had time to attack several times over. With a formation of Battles cruising at 200 mph + or withdrawing at, say, 240 mph they would have been drawn into a stern chase without a great deal of speed advantage, if any at all.

3) The aircraft that inflicted the most damage on the Japanese ships off Endau were Hudsons, which also took part in the attacks.