Dive bombers to Ceylon 1942 (1 Viewer)

[SaparotRob]

Based on poorly remembered anecdotes and the like:
Wasn't the Henly a missed opportunity?
I don't think there were was a superfluity of any viable aircraft for the various expanding fronts, otherwise there may have been Hurricanes and Mohawks flying for the Dutch, Belgium and Finland.
The Vengeance is cool.
What's not to like about the PBY except there's maybe not enough of them?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I was just reading this memoir by DH Clarke and this is probably already well known around here, but man, he loved the Henley. Didn't think much of the Hurricane or the Kittyhawk either. He described chasing a Bf 109 in a Henley without any guns.

How feasible was it to make a Henley a dive bomber or am I in the wrong thread for that question

View attachment 854362

Internal bomb bay?

 

[yulzari]

When deciding on the use of the Henley the RAF had an urgent requirement for a high speed target tug for anti aircraft gunners as well as air to air firing practice. There was nothing in hand to meet it bar the Henley. A few other somewhat slower possibilities existed and were made use of but, at that point, there was only the Henley. A role later taken on by the Defiant too. The Henley gave sterling service as a necessary high speed target tug so was neither misused nor unsuccessful but put to other necessary work. There would be no more Henley's made as the production line was put to produce other aeroplanes but the RAF still had the need and sought a replacement. The size and strength of the airframe and space for test instruments etc and an engineer made it a useful airframe for engine testing and a few were fitted to take the Rolls Royce Vulture, Rolls Royce Griffon and one was set aside to carry the mighty Rolls Royce Crecy.

The vital role of high speed target tug for the AACU units in the UK towards UK air defence was never going to let Hawker Henley's to be sent to Ceylon as light bombers whatever it's merits as such. The Blackburn Skuas equally were being used as target tugs as they fell out of first line service use as Fairey Fulmars came in. These target tugs had to service the needs of fleet anti air gunnery training. Humble work but necessary. So those are out.

I remain convinced that, under the OTL circumstances only the Fairey Battle could be spared in quantity, early enough and with adequate support in time.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

What good are Fairey Battles going to be against the IJN? That's going to be just another form of aerial gunnery practice is what!

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Internal bomb bay?

 

[Admiral Beez]

What good are Fairey Battles going to be against the IJN? That's going to be just another form of aerial gunnery practice is what!

The Blenheims got through because of a lack of IJN CAP. If Nagumo has an effective CAP up then nothing is getting through. But that's my point in launching this thread topic, we have IJN carriers approaching Ceylon without effective air cover. The Blenheims scored a few near misses but didn't hit anything. But I'm looking to add the precision of dive bombers in that strike, and what's available to send in time are Skuas, Chesapeakes and perhaps Henleys. Battles aren't going to be dive bombing and if extra Fulmars are available they'll be on Sommerville's carriers as fleet air defence, not joining a RAF strike.

I'm clearly intrigued by these US-made twin seat, single engine bombers used by the RAF. I think I'll look at buying some kits.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not much to add to the conversation except to say that I'm enjoying the back-and-forth. Thanks, gents.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The Blenheims got through because of a lack of IJN CAP. If Nagumo has an effective CAP up then nothing is getting through. But that's my point in launching this thread topic, we have IJN carriers approaching Ceylon without effective air cover. The Blenheims scored a few near misses but didn't hit anything.

The Blenheims were incredibly lucky they found a temporary gap in the air coverage and got as close as they did, but they were never going to hit anything.

On the other hand, it's demonstrably proven that Allied fighters could in fact battle through IJN CAP and the more capable Allied bombers, basically dive bombers, could indeed hit Japanese warships, as we all know.

The Wildcat is not a very high bar in terms of fighter performance. USN pilots were particularly well trained, admittedly, but the British could find well trained pilots too. The fighter component of a Ceylon defense shouldn't be ignored. Of course, commanders and pilots would also have to very quickly learn the lessons of Malaya and Burma to adjust tactics appropriately.

But I'm looking to add the precision of dive bombers in that strike, and what's available to send in time are Skuas, Chesapeakes and perhaps Henleys. Battles aren't going to be dive bombing and if extra Fulmars are available they'll be on Sommerville's carriers as fleet air defence, not joining a RAF strike.

I'm clearly intrigued by these US-made twin seat, single engine bombers used by the RAF. I think I'll look at buying some kits.

View attachment 854406

I've seen a real one of these, at the Pensacola Naval Air Museum. Interesting and rather handsome looking plane, but not popular with US crews, they called it the 'Vought Vibrator'.

But still probably fairly capable, with enough of these they probably could have scored some hits on IJN warships.

View attachment 854405

Another interesting looking plane, but a dud from my understanding.

View attachment 854407

I have a model of this one on the shelf, one I'm fairly pleased with even though it was a kind of a rubbish old kit.

Goofy looking plane, the wing design was almost an accident, but it seemed to work fairly well. This may actually be your best bet for sinking the Japanese warships.

I still say some Marylands, Beaufighters, Kittyhawks, maybe a whole bunch of Hurricanes. Bostons.

 

[Shortround6]

We keep going back to sending small numbers of obsolete aircraft without sufficient spare parts to Far East (India, Burma, Singapore) as a sort of "surprise" for the Japanese.

The Henley was near miss as a dive bomber. In part not because it was a marvelous target tug (it wasn't) but because the RAF didn't want to do ground support. They also hadn't quite figured out what was even needed for ground support. And Ground support was NOT ship killing. Perhaps a MK II with modified bomb bay to hold a 500lb bomb instead of the twin 250s would have been an improvement.

Chesapeake's were good in their day but their day was 1937-39, not 1941-42. Paper spec's look good (max bomb load of 1500lbs???) but in actual practice???
In a plane very close to size and weight of a Dauntless, it had an engine of about 75-82% of the power and yet it is supposed to carry a heavier load further?
British had fitted armor and four small forward firing machine guns so they had added weight (not a lot but then there isn't a lot of power).
VP and CS props did a wonders for aircraft performance, what they could not do was act as air brakes for dive bombing, a popular idea in the late 30s. Which lead to the Vindicators having to lower their landing gear to act as dive brakes. I am sure a more popular idea among the admirals than the crewmen were frantically trying to get the landing gear to retract at the end of the bombing run while being shot at by AA guns and enemy fighters closing in fast This also meant that Vindicator/Chesapeake's had to bomb at a shallower angle than intended with the loss in accuracy.

And we are back to timing British squadron didn't even get their planes until July 1941 and they would have had to be aboard ship and sailing by fall (early) of 1941 to get to the far east in time. And not get detoured along the way.

Blenheims might have been a lot more effective if they had bombed a low level (skip bombing) rather than medium altitude but that requires earlier development of the technique and practice. It also requires acknowledgement that the standard British bombsight was useless below 3,000ft and that alternative methods were needed.

What we are not getting is any love for the Fairley Battle
It could dive at least 60 degrees and some crews practiced that. It could sling a 500lb bomb under each wing but at the cost of high drag.
It could fly within 10mph of the "desired" Chesapeake at the same altitude and the Chesapeake's speed may not include the bomb/s.

Any of the newer American dive bombers (Brewster, Vultee) are months away from service use or initial squadron introduction. Trying to use 1941-42 fighter bombers (even speeding up actual use by a number of months) only works if the British are able to pull off the intercept at close distance. If the Japanese are over 200 miles from the British base/s the fighter bombers are either not going to find them or will be on a one way mission. Bomb, run for home and hope for rescue after running out of gas.

Pulling aircraft from Calcutta to defend Ceylon only works when the Japanese are attacking Ceylon
Calcutta/North East India was the front line as Burma fell and was the supply line for China after the Japanese took Burma and closed the Burma Road.
Japanese were not going to invade Calcutta in the Spring of 1942 but they were going to try to cut the last supply line to China which was in the airspace that Calcutta based planes were covering. Calcutta also means forward air bases 100-200 miles north east of Calcutta itself.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Blenheims were incredibly lucky they found a temporary gap in the air coverage and got as close as they did, but they were never going to hit anything.

But still probably fairly capable, with enough of these they probably could have scored some hits on IJN warships.

I like all three of Bermuda (not a DB), Vengeance and Chesapeake, but only the latter, along the the Skua is available with the RAF in late 1941 in preparation for the IJN's March 1942 move on Ceylon. That's where I started off from. I wonder if anyone thought to send the Chesapeakes to Malaya to meet their demand for more aircraft .

 

[Steamed_Banana]

We keep going back to sending small numbers of obsolete aircraft without sufficient spare parts to Far East (India, Burma, Singapore) as a sort of "surprise" for the Japanese.

Worked for the AVG

Blenheims might have been a lot more effective if they had bombed a low level (skip bombing) rather than medium altitude but that requires earlier development of the technique and practice. It also requires acknowledgement that the standard British bombsight was useless below 3,000ft and that alternative methods were needed.

What we are not getting is any love for the Fairley Battle
It could dive at least 60 degrees and some crews practiced that. It could sling a 500lb bomb under each wing but at the cost of high drag.
It could fly within 10mph of the "desired" Chesapeake at the same altitude and the Chesapeake's speed may not include the bomb/s.

I'm not withholding love for the Battle. I said it would be an excellent gunnery target for the IJN and would provide 'sterling service' in this regard

But no, it can't actually dive bomb and it won't have any range with bombs under the wings. You'd be much better off with with fighter-bombers.

Any of the newer American dive bombers (Brewster, Vultee) are months away from service use or initial squadron introduction.

Probably true

Trying to use 1941-42 fighter bombers (even speeding up actual use by a number of months) only works if the British are able to pull off the intercept at close distance. If the Japanese are over 200 miles from the British base/s the fighter bombers are either not going to find them or will be on a one way mission. Bomb, run for home and hope for rescue after running out of gas.

Probably true, but you could escort strikes from Marylands or 'Chesapeakes' or whatever dive bombers you could get into the zone.

Pulling aircraft from Calcutta to defend Ceylon only works when the Japanese are attacking Ceylon

They actually had enough Mohawks for two or three squadrons, they were just taking too long to decide what to do with them.

Calcutta/North East India was the front line as Burma fell and was the supply line for China after the Japanese took Burma and closed the Burma Road.
Japanese were not going to invade Calcutta in the Spring of 1942 but they were going to try to cut the last supply line to China which was in the airspace that Calcutta based planes were covering. Calcutta also means forward air bases 100-200 miles north east of Calcutta itself.

It's a cinch India should have been reinforced just like Ceylon. But that probably means Hurricanes. Maybe they can spare some more Tomahawks or Kittyhawks. Send the 77 P-40Es that got sunk on the way to Java on the Langley and the Sea Witch to India instead, maybe they'll make it.

 

[EwenS]

I'm beginning to wonder how many people actually have a grasp on what the Japanese invaded and when in Malaya, Burma and the DEI in 1941/42 and just how long some of the individual campaigns lasted. Ceylon was just a small part of it.

Malaya - 8 Dec 1941 to 15 Feb 1941 when Singapore surrendered.
Sumatra - invaded 14 Feb at the southern end to 28th March when Dutch in the North finally surrendered.
Nicobar and Andaman Islands - Japanese reached them on 23rd March 1942.
Java - troops for this invasion started leaving FIC on 18 Feb. Landings at both ends of the island took place on 1 March 1942. Allies surrendered on 12th March.
Christmas Island - invaded 31st March.
Timor - invaded 19 Feb 1942 breaking the air reinforcement route between Australia & Java. But the last Australian forces defending the island were not withdrawn until Feb 1943.
Burma - orders for this were not issued to Japanese forces in Thailand until 22nd Dec. They crossed the border in mid/late Jan. Rangoon fell on 9th March. The retreat from Burma into India was not completed until the end of May 1942 in the middle of the monsoon.

Langley with 32 P-40E of the 13th Pursuit Squadron and Sea Witch with 27 crated P-40E left Fremantle on 22nd Feb to join convoy MS5 bound for Colombo and then Bombay. They were diverted on the 23rd to Java. Worth noting that when the IJN struck Darwin on the 19th Feb, there was a USAAF fighter squadron present, but only because it was en route to Java by air IIRC.

But let's be clear, USAAF units being sent to India at this time were NOT intended to provide reinforcements to bolster British defences in Ceylon. They were destined for NE India and China to protect the Burma Road termini. Keeping China supplied was the US priority, not protecting British colonial interests.

The 51st Pursuit Group (later Fighter Group) with P-40E left California in Jan 1942, stopped briefly in Australia & Colombo before being landed at Karachi on 14 March 1942. It then moved up to Dinjan in NE India in Oct 1942.No doubt its move East was delayed due to need to assemble its aircraft and then the SW monsoon that affects the whole IO area in May-Sept and limits the "fighting season".


On 22 April USS Ranger left the US carrying 68 P-40E intended as replacements for both the AVG and the 51st FG. These were launched on 10 May to fly to Takoradi and the across Africa and the ME to India.

It was over the summer months that RAF squadrons that had fought in Java & Burma were able to rebuild their strength ready for the next campaign.

Edit:- The IJN carriers sailed from Staring Bay, Celebes (now Sulawesi) on 26th March with the strike on Ceylon on 5th April & Trincomalee on the 9th. Ozawa's cruiser force left Mergui, Burma on 1st April and began sinking ships on the 5th.

 

[cammerjeff]

Chesapeake's were good in their day but their day was 1937-39, not 1941-42. Paper spec's look good (max bomb load of 1500lbs???) but in actual practice???
In a plane very close to size and weight of a Dauntless, it had an engine of about 75-82% of the power and yet it is supposed to carry a heavier load further?
British had fitted armor and four small forward firing machine guns so they had added weight (not a lot but then there isn't a lot of power).
VP and CS props did a wonders for aircraft performance, what they could not do was act as air brakes for dive bombing, a popular idea in the late 30s. Which lead to the Vindicators having to lower their landing gear to act as dive brakes. I am sure a more popular idea among the admirals than the crewmen were frantically trying to get the landing gear to retract at the end of the bombing run while being shot at by AA guns and enemy fighters closing in fast This also meant that Vindicator/Chesapeake's had to bomb at a shallower angle than intended with the loss in accuracy.

Just a Note on the Vindicator/Chesapeake true the version used by the USN & USMC did not have dive brakes, but the versions ordered by the French did have dive brakes. How effective they were I have no idea. My father flew Vindicators during his training in early 1942, he did not think to much of them, but they were 3 or 4 years old and well used at the time he flew them. You can just make out the mid wing mounted dive brakes on the upper wing surface in the picture below, they are just inboard of the French Roundel. Here is a quote from the voight page "One other feature of the V-156-F was that wing-mounted fence-type dive brakes (rejected by the U.S. Navy) were installed on the V-156-F." The page also says that the French aircraft were not equipped with the center line bomb displacement gear due to "security reasons". And were expected to be equipped with the French version of the displacement gear. But most aircraft were not so equipped and so attacks were made with only the wing rack mounted bombs.

I also do not think the Vindicator's would have much effect on the battle.

Source v-156-f

 

[Shortround6]

We keep going back to sending small numbers of obsolete aircraft without sufficient spare parts to Far East (India, Burma, Singapore) as a sort of "surprise" for the Japanese.

Worked for the AVG

100 aircraft is not small numbers. Many of these proposals call for one or two squadrons, without spares. AVG had 3 squadrons of how many aircraft? most squadrons of the time had 12-16 aircraft, US went to 25 aircraft in late 1943 or early 44. So the AVG had squadrons with 100% spare aircraft as sent. Invasion of Burma and bombings meant losses.
The P-40s sent to the AVG were not obsolete. They were the best the US had in June 1941 and were better than most other nations had in June of 1941. We can argue about what was better in Dec 1942 but what you have in Dec 1941 is not what you can put on the ships in back in June.

I'm not withholding love for the Battle. I said it would be an excellent gunnery target for the IJN and would provide 'sterling service' in this regard

The Battle gets a very, very bad rap from the Battle for France. I have asked in other threads for people to come up with how anybody else's planes would have done any better flying the same missions under the same conditions. So far no answers
The Battles, and Lysanders and Blenheims, were not given escorts. They were sent in penny packets, that is small numbers spread out over hours to attack some the targets in question, giving time for the AA crews to have coffee and snacks between attacks
But it was easy to blame the aircraft rather than the poor training, tactics/doctrine, inter unit co-operation. A fighter sweep 20 minutes before or after the strike in the same general area as the target is NOT escorting the strike force.
The RAF did not want to do tactical missions so they seized on the failures in France to get out of the tactical strike business and blamed the lack of suitable aircraft as one of the excuses.

But no, it can't actually dive bomb and it won't have any range with bombs under the wings. You'd be much better off with with fighter-bombers.

Well, the Chesapeake couldn't dive bomb either
or some of the other planes being put out there. If we are going by the criteria of needed to do a 90 degree (or close) dive. If we consider using 60 degrees as needed diving angle then it could.
Battle was as big as it was because it had just over 100 Imp gal in each wing and that is not at the cost of bomb capacity. The Battle could carry a 500lb bomb under each wing with no reduction in fuel capacity if they did not put any bombs inside the wing. Since Battles were supposed to carry 1000lbs for about 1000 miles I find it hard to believe that by shift the bombload to external racks they would have lost around 50% of their range.
Yes the Battles needed to be replaced but it's reputation, such as it is, is very much like the reputation of the Brewster Buffalo in US service (not British or Finnish) . Based on a few battles over a short period of time manned by basically green crews and often in bad situation/s.

Probably true, but you could escort strikes from Marylands or whatever dive bombers you could get into the zone.

And we are shifting from 1-2 squadrons of dive bombers to 1-2 squadrons of bombers PLUS 1-2 squadrons of fighter escorts.

You want more fighters in the far east in Dec 1942?
Don't send over 200 Tomahawks to Russia in the summer/fall of 1941. Granted you have no (or few) pilots or ground crew but you have planes

 

[yulzari]

What good are Fairey Battles going to be against the IJN? That's going to be just another form of aerial gunnery practice is what!

What else could be available in time and effective? You want a 1942 A6M killer that can sink a cruiser and see off Japanese CAP? That does not exist.

At the very, very best you may get some bombers that can sink a cruiser if they are lucky enough to avoid the CAP. It is unwise to compare maximum speeds as the bombers will be flying at cruising speed for most of their journey. There is no fast bomber which can evade the CAP at this time. Just as the Fairey Albacore was criticised for low speed vis a vis their contemporary foreign dive bombers yet the Albacore cruise speed is not so different to it's contemporaries.

What the Battle can bring is a decent light bomber load of 250lb bombs that can be delivered via an up to 80 degrees dive with reasonable precision and a reasonable range. Yes we know it is vulnerable to modern fighters but then so is every other possible choice. The key thing, other than being capable of doing some damage, is that there are hundreds of Battles which have recently been taken off front line duties so are the easiest way to get a significant number of aeroplanes in place if the decision making can be done in time. All the kit and trained personnel exist too. A quick course and practice in dive bombing for the pilots is the only extra need and this can be done before or after sailing as may be most expedient.

The key thing to putting dive bombers over the Indian Ocean from Ceylon is time. The earlier the better and we had best remember that we are talking of convoys travelling around Africa so the voyage alone will take weeks and that something else will not be travelling in the convoy that was travelling IOTL as their space is taken up with our dive bombers and all their personnel and kit.

 

[MikeMeech]

Blenheims might have been a lot more effective if they had bombed a low level (skip bombing) rather than medium altitude but that requires earlier development of the technique and practice. It also requires acknowledgement that the standard British bombsight was useless below 3,000ft and that alternative methods were needed.

Hi
The RAF had been using low level bombing techniques against shipping since 1940, Blenheims, Hudsons and Beauforts had all been used off Norway, the Low Countries and France as well as in the Med. Indeed the Hudsons stopped doing 'Skip' bombing during 1942, see page 143 of 'The Cinderella Service. by Andrew Hendrie:

The stopping of these Hudson attacks may have been also due to the transfer of aircraft and crews to the Middle East and Far East due to the war situation, causing a reduction in available replacements in Coastal Command. Also the start of the war in the Far East also caused aircraft/squadrons to be sent/redirected from the ME to the Far East, as were RN ships and some ground forces causing a weakening of the British and Commonwealth Forces in that Theatre with some negative consequences.
The RAF had decided to some extent that low-level was the most effective form of attack against shipping by the end of 1940, however, it could also depend on the target and how the German defences evolved (which they did becoming very able to cause heavy casualties, hence the development of the Strike Wings later in the war to 'swamp' these defences). A couple of extracts from 'RAF in Maritime War, Volume II', available on the British Air Historical Branch website, these give some of the conclusions of the RAF on methods of attack:

Bomber as well as Coastal Command (and also Fighter Command at times) were involved in this sort of attack, extract from Chapter 8 'Sink Those Ships' of '2 Group RAF' by Michael J F Bowyer (18 April 1941)
:

Some photos from 'The Bristol Blenheim, A complete History' by Graham Warner, showing 1941 low-level shipping attacks:

Similar was happening in the Med, from same source:

Note bombs going through the side of the ship in the text.
Also reference the No. 11 Sqn., the squadron had previously been sent after the Japanese Fleet after a garbled report was received from a Catalina. They would not be flying low level if they needed to spot the fleet after their first experience (dive bombers would also have flown at a similar height if used).
I hope that is of interest.

Mike

 

[EwenS]

Just a Note on the Vindicator/Chesapeake true the version used by the USN & USMC did not have dive brakes, but the versions ordered by the French did have dive brakes. How effective they were I have no idea. My father flew Vindicators during his training in early 1942, he did not think to much of them, but they were 3 or 4 years old and well used at the time he flew them. You can just make out the mid wing mounted dive brakes on the upper wing surface in the picture below, they are just inboard of the French Roundel. Here is a quote from the voight page "One other feature of the V-156-F was that wing-mounted fence-type dive brakes (rejected by the U.S. Navy) were installed on the V-156-F." The page also says that the French aircraft were not equipped with the center line bomb displacement gear due to "security reasons". And were expected to be equipped with the French version of the displacement gear. But most aircraft were not so equipped and so attacks were made with only the wing rack mounted bombs.

I also do not think the Vindicator's would have much effect on the battle.


View attachment 854441

Source v-156-f

Except the Chesapeake wasn't a copy of the French V-156-F.

As explained in Eric Brown's " Wings of the Navy" the French ordered two batches each of 20 V-156-F in Feb & May 1939. These were based on the USN SB2U-2 (the then current production model), but removing the single wing mounted 0.3" MG and replacing it with a 7.5mm Darne gun "each side of the fuselage", deleting the swinging bomb crutch (for inexplicable reasons) but fitting the fence-type dive brakes, and specifying a French radio. These began to arrive in France in Aug 1939 and flew from land bases during the Battle of France where most were lost.

The USN ordered its batch of 57 SB2U-3 on 25th Sept 1939, this version having additional fuel tanks. It was in production by the time of the next French order.

On 28th March 1940 France ordered another 50 V-156-F. This contract was taken on by Britain in June. Before any aircraft were delivered, Britain negotiated changes to the contract. The result was that the Vought designation of this new batch was changed to V-156-B1 later named Chesapeake. This model was probably closer to the USN SB2U-3 in its equipment fit than the French V-156-F but still had its own unique features.

Removed - French Darne MG & radio, and the dive brakes.
Added - British radio, centre line bomb crutch, extra fuel tanks from the SB2U-3, a pair of 0.3" MG in each outer wing panel with 500rpg, increased armour protection for both crew

The bomb load was now specified as 3x250lb or 3x500lb.

First flight 26 Feb 1941. First acceptance at factory 26 March. Initial aircraft seem to have arrived in Britain in May with trials beginning at A&AEE in early June. 811 squadron formed to operate them on 14th July. The intention was to put the squadron aboard the first US built escort carrier, HMS Archer. She completed on 15 Nov 1941 but her entry into service was plagued by various machinery problems which required fixing before she was able to conduct her first operational tasking in March 1942.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Thanks to Ewen for including a lot of dates etc. I am including here, for my records.

Italian East Africa, fall of Gondar 27 November 1941, low level guerrilla warfare until Italian surrender in September 1943.

British aircraft exports to USSR, may not include some early special shipments, for 1941, August to December, 86, 196, 270, 187, 165, total exports for the same time period, 724, 1,190, 920, 840, 992 (lots of trainers in the numbers). Certainly with warning the allies could have given the IJN a big problem off Ceylon in April 1942 or off Darwin in February for that matter.

Of the allies only the USN had been building dive bombers in numbers, it is remarkable to note the pre war ratio of USN dive bombers to torpedo bombers and the near reverse for the RN. It meant allied industry was not in a position to put new dive bombers into production in numbers in 1941, any force assembled would need to have plenty of older types and/or remove the small amount of capacity actually existing. And would need the IJN to come within range. Given the quality of the IJN combat patrol and offensive escort tactics any allied fighters would best be there as escorts. In contested airspace dive bombers were found to need top cover, dive cover and recovery cover.

In all of this comes trying to hit a moving target, at 30 knots a ship moves 100 yards in 6 seconds. The other big one is accurate over water navigation, easy to get lost.

For the plenty of aircraft idea, RAAF Official History, The operational strength of R.A.F. Command in Malaya on 7th December 1941
SINGAPORE ISLAND
Seletar
No. 205 Sqn RAF Catalina (flying-boat) 3 aircraft of which 2 failed to return from sorties on 7 December.
No. 100 Sqn RAF Vildebeeste (torpedo-bomber) 6 aircraft
Dutch Group Catalina 3 aircraft
Photo-Reconnaissance Flight RAF Buffalo 2 aircraft

Tengah
No. 34 Sqn RAF Blenheim IV (bomber) 16 aircraft

Sembawang
No. 453 Sqn RAAF Buffalo (fighter) 16 aircraft
No. 8 Sqn RAAF Hudson (General reconnaissance) 4 aircraft

Kallang
Nos. 243 RAF and 488 RNZAF Sqns Buffalo 30 aircraft

NORTHERN MALAYA
Sungei Patani
No. 21 Sqn RAAF Buffalo 12 aircraft
No. 27 Sqn RAF Blenheim I (night-fighter) 12 aircraft

Kota Bharu
No. 1 Sqn RAAF Hudson 12 aircraft
No. 36 Sqn RAF Vildebeeste 6 aircraft
No. 243 Sqn RAF (Det) Buffalo 2 aircraft
AHQ special reconnaissance Beaufort 1 aircraft

Gong Kedah
No. 100 Sqn RAF Vildebeeste 6 aircraft

Kuantan
No. 8 Sqn RAAF Hudson 8 aircraft
No. 36 Sqn RAF Vildebeeste 6 aircraft
No. 60 Sqn RAF Blenheim I (bomber) 8 aircraft

Alor Star
No. 62 Sqn RAF Blenheim I (bomber) 11 aircraft

Total first-line aircraft 164

60 squadron in Malaya from Burma for bombing practice. About mid-December all officers and airmen returned to Burma by sea, their aircraft being retained in Malaya to replace wastage.

Reserve Aircraft
Blenheim I and IV 15
Buffalo 52 (21 temporarily unserviceable owing to trouble with the valve gear on a new mark of engine.)
Hudson 7
Vildebeeste 12
Catalina 2
Total Reserve 88, note Wirraway present not being counted here.

As of 27 December there were 189 aircraft in units, 39 in reserve, in addition in Ceylon 273 squadron had 4 Vildebeeste and the China Bay Station Flight had 4 Seal. On 10 January 1942 159 aircraft in units, 30 in reserve, Ceylon position unchanged.

British 18th Infantry division, depart UK 28 October 1941, arrive India 27 December 1941, WS (faster than normal) convoy, depart India 18 January 1942, arrive Singapore 29 January, begin arriving Japanese PoW camps 15 February.

It would be a good idea to establish the closest IJN approaches to Trincomalee and Colombo the main JN carrier force came, from a small scale map around 200 nautical miles perhaps, the strike on Pearl Harbour was from around 200 statute? miles, Darwin maybe 270 miles. Only Hiryu had radar, with a blind spot dead astern, which is where the Blenheim strike came from.

23 March Occupation of Andaman Islands
31 March Occupation of Christmas Island
4 April Catalina spots Nagumo force 360 miles from Columbo, shot down before a full sighting report can be sent, second Catalina finds the force and is also shot down.
5 April air raid on Colombo, Dorsetshire, Cornwall, Tenedos and Hector sunk
6 April surface raid on convoys off India east coast, bombardment near Calcutta, RIN sloop Indus sunk, plus 20 to 30 merchant ships of about 100 to 150,000 tons over the next few days (sources vary, some are just this raid, others the total losses to all IJN forces) (Ryujo, 5 heavy, 2 light cruisers, 11 destroyers in total)
9 April air raid on Trincomalee, Hermes, Vampire, Hollyhock sunk

The aircraft:

Baltimore first arrivals Middle East November 1941.

Battle, the RAAF reports 366 imports, of which 211 had arrived by end 1941.

Beaufighter, mark Ic (Coastal) first production March 1941, 75 by Bristol to end July, Fairey began in May, 62 by end July. First Beaufighter exports 16 in April 1941, next was 3 in June, then 8 in July then 18 in September

Beaufighters historically could and did tangle with Zeros, their low altitude speed allowed them to survive and even prevail in these encounters better than you might think. The Beaufighters in India and Burma actually seem to have made out better against Ki-43s than some of the single-engined types.

So provide the numbers, the encounter reports tend to show the Beaufighters using their low level speed to leave, rather than engage.

Buffalo, 33 ex Belgian into UK July to September 1940, 2 into UK in January 1941, 167 into Far East February to August 1941, plus 1 more in January 1942. RAF units,
60 sqn July 41 until disbanded in February 1942
67 sqn March 41 to February 1942, then to Hurricane IIB
71 sqn UK September to November 1940, then to Hurricane I
146 sqn Buffalo and Mohawk March to May 1942 then to Hurricane IIB
243 sqn April 1941 to disbanded January 1942
453 sqn August 1941 to February 1942, disbanded in March
488 sqn October 1941 to February 1942, disbanded in March

21 RAAF, arrived Singapore with 18 Wirraway, first Buffalo arrived 27 August 1941. Reduced to nucleus in March 1942.

Maryland end of production April 1941.

Mohawk, apart from decisions about use there was the issue of spare parts supply, changes to RAF stadnards and shipping space, Mohawks had low priority.

Month	Qty	For	"Reason"
Nov-40​	8​	Middle East	Overseas Command
Nov-40​	-4​	Middle East	Overseas Command
Jan-41​	13​	Middle East	Overseas Command
Jan-41​	2​	South Africa	Joint Air Training Plan
Feb-41​	14​	South Africa	Joint Air Training Plan
Apr-41​	4​	South Africa	Joint Air Training Plan
May-41​	12​	South Africa	Joint Air Training Plan
Jun-41​	12​	South Africa	Joint Air Training Plan
Jul-41​	8​	South Africa	Joint Air Training Plan
Aug-41​	11​	Portugal	Other Exports
Sep-41​	5​	India	Overseas Command
Sep-41​	6​	South Africa	Joint Air Training Plan
Oct-41​	3​	India	Overseas Command
Oct-41​	5​	Portugal	Other Exports
Nov-41​	6​	India	Overseas Command
Dec-41​	10​	India	Overseas Command
Jan-42​	4​	India	Overseas Command
Jan-42​	4​	South Africa	Other Exports
Feb-42​	1​	India	Overseas Command
Apr-42​	35​	India	Overseas Command
May-42​	11​	India	Overseas Command
Jun-42​	10​	India	Overseas Command
Jun-43​	1​	India	Overseas Command

5 sqn December 1941 to June 1943 then to Hurricane IID, 146 sqn along with Buffalo from March to May 1942 then to Hurricane IIB, 155 sqn August 1942 to January 1944 then to Spitfire, 510 (communications) sqn October 1942 to April 1944.

3 (SAAF) sqn used Hurricanes not Mohawk plus some Gladiators for a time, 4 (SAAF) had Furies, Mohawks, Audaxes for training in Kenya May to September 1941, SAAF 5, 6, 10, and 43 sqns also used Mohawks for training.

End February 1943, Mohawk, 5 in UK, 55 in South Africa, 63 in India, total 144, 2 instructional, 22 lost in UK, 25 lost overseas, 16 transferred to other powers, from 209 deliveries.

Tomahawk for AVG, acceptances from January 1941, first exports in March, final acceptances April, final exports May.

Vengeance first production January 1942.

Whirlwind production ended in January 1942, considered a maintenance resource heavy design, only aircraft using the Peregrine.

Wirraway, RAAF Southern Area History Sheets, memo dated 21 Jan 1942 Wirraways not to be used as fighters, confined to dive bombing role., the ability to carry bombs was there from the start as far as the usual references are concerned.

designation, CAC model, quantity, RAAF serial, RAAF mark
GP Mk I CA1 40 A20-3 to 42 Mark I
GP CA3 60 A20-43 to 102 Mark II
GP CA5 32 A20-103 to 134 Mark II
GP CA7 100 A20-135 to 234 Mark II
GP/Trainer CA8 200 A20-235 to 434 Mark II
Dive Bomber CA9 188 A20-435 to 622 Mark II
GP CA10 & 10A 0 n/a Cancelled
Dive Bomber CA16 135 A20-623 to 757 Mark III

Dive bomb tests done in March 1942 dive flaps fitted to production from A20-623 on, November 1943. Kits for earlier versions were made, 113 aircraft modified October 1942 to October 1943 following on from the June 1942 approval request to spend £100,000 fitting them. Carrying 1,000 pounds of bombs was overload condition. Wirraway top speed 220 mph at 7,000 feet clean, bombs carried externally, Battle 241 mph at 15,000 feet bombs carried internally.

Middle East strengths and losses first 9 months of 1941, provisional figures, losses include destroyed on the ground.

Aircraft	1-Jan-41​	1-Oct-41​	arrived	lost, accident	lost, battle	%lost
Beaufighter	0​	38​	51​	2​	8​	11.24​
Beaufort	0​	9​	9​	0​	0​	0.00​
Blenheim	202​	423​	507​	41​	126​	17.96​
Gladiator	95​	62​	30​	4​	14​	19.57​
Hurricane	104​	627​	839​	27​	231​	17.60​
Lysander	71​	63​	30​	3​	8​	11.83​
Wellington	63​	143​	165​	17​	47​	20.78​
Maryland	5​	129​	145​	6​	23​	10.58​
Tomahawk	0​	294​	336​	23​	23​	7.30​
Total	540​	1788​	2112​	123​	480​	15.46​

Unsurprisingly the types that had been there the longest and in numbers had lost the most. Middle East can be a variable area in RAF documents, in 1940/41 including Egypt, Greece, Sudan and Palestine

First there was the initial phase - the biplane war - Gladiators vs. Fiat CR. 32s mainly, and in some numbers, with some Lysanders, Gauntlets, Harts, BR.20s, I think Wellesleys, maybe Wildebeasts? Swordfish. A host of weird planes all duking it out. There was a lot of losses on both sides, but the British had a slight upper hand, arguably.

Neither side had a good supply system, which limited operations, plus the spread out nature of the fighting and that the armies were largely stationary. Next as of 31 October the RAF had 36 Hurricanes in units, up to 66 by the end of the year or around 3 squadrons worth Swordfish were around for years. No Harts but there were Hardy. Lysander as expected being the army co-operation type. Sunderland arrived in May 1940. Plenty of Blenheim.

• Then Hurricanes came in gradually starting with 73 Sqn in late 1940 / early 41, and the Italians brought in some Fiat G.50s. Hurricanes were a game changer.

"Then Hurricanes came in gradually starting with 73 Sqn in late 1940 / early 41, and the Italians brought in some Fiat G.50s. Hurricanes were a game changer."
Gradually meaning? "Game changer"? 36 Hurricanes in units end October 1940, 66 end of year, 86 on 1 March 1941, 289 as of 1 October.

• The Germans sent some Bf 110s in early 1941, but Hurricanes still dominating.

Given the limited number of sorties being done what is the definition of dominating?

• Then the Germans sent in Bf 109E7s with JG 27 in April 1941. Hurricane losses started to mount, Blenheims were dying like flies.

Rather the unsupported opinion about dying like flies is dying like flies.

• The Italian sent in Macchi MC.200, which were better than the Fiats but still a bit inferior to the Hurricane.

The Italians had many problems with supply and pilot training, it made it hard for them to exploit their aircraft performance.

Then the first Tomahawks were deployed with 112 Sqn starting in June 1941. These seemed to even the odds quite a bit, notably on one particularly harrowing battle for both sides which somewhat rattled JG 27. So the Germans diverted some 109F-4s that were meant for the Russian Front, going into action with JG 27 by Dec 1941.

As read the German were so rattled it took 6 months to send better aircraft, even though they were in production at the time. Next comes the first Tomahawk squadrons were 3 RAAF in May 1941, sent to Syria, arrived back in Egypt early September 1941, 112 squadron in June 1941, arrived in Egypt in mid August 1941, mid September for first combat claim, 2 (SAAF) which was finally united as a unit in June 1941 and given Tomahawks, moved near the front in early July, first claim on 15 July, while 250 squadron received Tomahawks in April 1941, moved up to the front in mid June, first claims on 16 June. Operation Battleaxe had started on 14 June, defeated by 17 June.

• The Italians got the first of their new MC.202 in action with 9° Gruppo, 4° Stormo in November 1941, followed swiftly by 1° Stormo. This tends to be downplayed in a lot of popular narratives about the war but these were very effective fighters.

Downplayed in the desert thanks to the usual supply issues.

So the Kittyhawks did not work out as hoped, at least initially, which I think is the actual reason why they finally decided to get the wheels turning on the Spitfires.

How about the big one, the USSR was going to survive into 1942, so no Battle of Britain II in 1942, Spitfire production had doubled in 1941 and was pulling ahead of Hurricane, Fighter Command started 1941 with 40 Hurricane and 19 Spitfire squadrons, ended it with 12 Hurricane and 58 Spitfire. January 1942 operational hours flown, Middle East, first mention of Kittyhawk 769 hours, while Tomahawk was 734 hours, Hurricane 2,932 hours. rather instant response to Kittyhawk problems. For much of 1942 Kittyhawk + Tomahawk equals about Hurricane operational hours. Baltimore appear in May 1942, July report is missing, Spitfire, Halifax and Liberator in August, Boston in September.

First Spitfire fighter exports, Operation Spotter/Quarter (the second being the RAF name) 16 Spitfires were loaded on the Cape Hawke which departed Britain 10 February, arriving Gibraltar 23 February. HMS Eagle first fly off attempt sailed 27 February returning the next day due to defects in the Spitfire long range fuel tanks. One Spitfire may have been cannibalised for spares. HMS Eagle sailed on 6 March and the fly off was on the 7th. 15 Spitfires, all arrived. HMS Eagle returned to Gibraltar on the 8th.

they were focusing heavily on ground attack and bombing and less so on the fighter war, which was not great for morale as the Germans and Italians were both racking up kills.

Actually no, the RAF was trying for air superiority, helped by the continued arguments about how to do ground support. Crusader had proved leaving bombers on the ground to await a possibly fleeting target did not work, it took hours to get the escorted bombers aircraft over the target which had often moved. Meantime squadrons sat around waiting for a mission.

No wonder the Steamed_Banana section was hidden.

The Blenheims were incredibly lucky they found a temporary gap in the air coverage and got as close as they did, but they were never going to hit anything.

So what was the special always miss quality of Blenheim bombs? Lack of radar and lower quality radios tends to open up gaps in the fighter defences.

On the other hand, it's demonstrably proven that Allied fighters could in fact battle through IJN CAP and the more capable Allied bombers, basically dive bombers, could indeed hit Japanese warships, as we all know.

As we all know Steamed_Banana ranges across the war looking for examples to fit, rather than what was possible at a given time.

I still say some Marylands, Beaufighters, Kittyhawks, maybe a whole bunch of Hurricanes. Bostons.

I suspect most of these would make the short list for the Steamed_Banana Apollo project.

I'm not withholding love for the Battle. I said it would be an excellent gunnery target for the IJN and would provide 'sterling service' in this regard

You might want to check out the size and speed of standard USN attack aircraft during WWII, and note how close they were to the Battle, plus the effectiveness of even late war IJN AA. Battle 241 mph at 15,000 feet, wing area 433 square feet, TBM-1C 257mph at 12,000 feet, TBM-3 272mph at 16,500 feet, wing area 490 square feet. SB2C was faster, 295 mph, wing area 422 square feet. The Battle had around half the power and maximum load but longer runways.

But no, it can't actually dive bomb and it won't have any range with bombs under the wings. You'd be much better off with with fighter-bombers.

Actually the Battle could dive bomb and would carry 1,000 pounds of bombs further than an early 1942 fighter with half the load.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

But I'm looking to add the precision of dive bombers in that strike, and what's available to send in time are Skuas, Chesapeakes and perhaps Henleys.

I don't know if the cruising speeds of them all could be made a strike package work or how them compared to the one of the Bleheim

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't know if the cruising speeds of them all could be made a strike package work or how them compared to the one of the Bleheim

The Vought Chesapeake is a lot slower than the Blenheim, so that may be a problem. Though presumably the latter could dial it back a little.