Early ww2 airborne tank-busters what-if

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Problem with Batlle wrt. performance was that it was too big for the engines of the day. At 422 sq ft, wing area was ~50% greater than what the already too big wing Hurricane and Wildcat had, or almost twice the wing area of Spitfire or P-36. Even the big Fulmar, SBD or Val were smaller than Battle. It was 10 ft longer than Hurricane.
A 'tactical' aircraft that is big and slow = AA gunners delight; enemy fighters will also love it. Even the turret-less Defiant with two anti-tank guns will be better off.
 

Lets go with your Vickers 25.4mm then

If the Taurus is considered too unreliable, why not go for the Pegasus? Its only a drop of 100hp at rated altitude (but actually 100hp more for take off than the merlin1- and around sea level is where this thing is going to be most of the time) and its an engine famed for its reliability. Its still a bit lighter than the Merlin - and also means we can ditch both the radiator and the armour a radiator necessitates for a ground attack aircraft. (engine installation at least seems a relatively simple operation for the battle, given the numerous incarnations of the test bed version )...

But if we want to go down the Merlin line, maybe we should have a closer look at the Hawker Henley....?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread