Fairey Battle: Performance and Tactics

[Zipper730]

From what I remember, the Fairey Battle had more problems with tactics than the basic performance of the aircraft, though it was deficient in terms of

1. Speed
2. Defensive Firepower

It was somewhat agile, and able to dive-bomb to some extent: I'm not sure to what extent this would yield in terms of agility, but I figure the Bristol Beaufort was (shockingly) sturdy with ultimate load-factors around 8-9g, and the Beaufighter TF.X managing 8.5g at 25000+ pounds, so it might be tougher than it looks.

I remember there being various issues regarding tactics that got loads of these aircraft shot-down: I'm curious what particular tactics were used, and what should have been used. As for performance, I'm curious what kind of engine upgrade could be put in, and what performance would likely occur from any such proposals?

 

[Greyman]

Really there's no correct answer with the Battle other than to have a magical crystal ball and use all of the time, money and effort on fighter-bombers instead.

 

[fubar57]

Maybe get this book...

 

[pbehn]

It was a three man bomber with one flexible defensive gun having the same or less power than the single engine fighters that it was up against. Their targets were not just bridges but bridges with pesky anti aircraft guns around them. I am sure it is an optical illusion but I always have the impression that it has thicker wings than a B-17 (pic from Wikipedia)

 

[Reggie_Mental]

Potentially it could have been Britain's version of the Sturmovik.

Get rid of the third crewman. Fit a 2 gun turret, or a .50. Some forward firing 20mm cannons and bombs, plus plenty of ventral armour. And it might have done the job of MkIIc Hurricanes and Kittyhawks or Westland Whirlwinds in Rhubarb sorties. But these were of course side shows to the strategic push of building up city smashing forces of Bomber command. Britain did not have as pressing a need for a CAS aircraft as the Russians did, so it never came to be. Also the Boulton Paul Defiant could have been modified for a Sturmovik role. An aircraft considerably more promising than the Battle.

 

[Shortround6]

How to "fix" the Battle?

Stick a Griffon in it (or a RR Vulture).This thing is going to need a LOT of power.
rebuild the entire wing, change fuel tanks around, move or eliminate the bomb cells, add a number of forward firing guns. Change the landing gear.
Reduce the size of the fuselage, (eliminate one man) add better rear gun station. add armor.
Modify the tail to suit the more powerful engine and the changed wing and fuselage.

Take original Battle name/serial number plate, polish it up and rivet it to the new airplane.

 

[tyrodtom]

In the time frame that it was used what other engines could have been used to power it ?
For that time it wasn't out of the norm slow.
How many other attack aircraft were all that much faster in 1940 ?
The Battle was obsolete in 1940. But what was availible in 1940 that could have improved it ?

It was sent on too many missions with little or no escort, and it was slaughtered by aircraft about 100 mph faster, and by ground defenses much more deadly than anyone expected.
With the fast moving war on the ground allied command just couldn't seem to get enough time to plan a attack. The German ground units were just advancing too fast, and the Allied command was still stuck with WW1 practices.

The aircraft always gets the blame when it's used wrong.

 

[Shortround6]

How many other attack aircraft were all that much faster in 1940

That is part of the problem, it wasn't an attack aircraft, It was a light bomber built to a price and a weight for a arms treaty that never materialized.

No Attack aircraft needed a 1000 mile range in the late 30s.'
No Attack aircraft needed an engine that developed it's max power at 16,000ft. (and a lot less power at sea level).


The Battle is credited with 257mph at 15,000ft and 250mph at 20,000ft. It may have been a bit faster at 16-17,000ft which would be about where the FTH of it's engine would be.

However, it is only credited with 210mph at sea level and 240mph at 10,000ft. Much is made of it's "agility" or "maneuverability" but while a good pilot in a less than fully loaded plane may have been able to perform some stunts you had a rather underpowered plane that was going to take a while to recover from any extreme maneuvers. At the 30 minute rating (I am assuming this) the plane is credited with taking 4 min 6 sec to climb to 5,000ft and 8 min 24 secs to 10,000ft (engine made more power the higher it climbed or at least the same power).
Figures are from the 1938 Jane's and may be suspect?

The Battle had a wing about 91% the size of the one on an A-20. It was not a small airplane.

 

[tyrodtom]

That is part of the problem, it wasn't an attack aircraft, It was a light bomber built to a price and a weight for a arms treaty that never materialized.

No Attack aircraft needed a 1000 mile range in the late 30s.'
No Attack aircraft needed an engine that developed it's max power at 16,000ft. (and a lot less power at sea level).


The Battle is credited with 257mph at 15,000ft and 250mph at 20,000ft. It may have been a bit faster at 16-17,000ft which would be about where the FTH of it's engine would be.

However, it is only credited with 210mph at sea level and 240mph at 10,000ft. Much is made of it's "agility" or "maneuverability" but while a good pilot in a less than fully loaded plane may have been able to perform some stunts you had a rather underpowered plane that was going to take a while to recover from any extreme maneuvers. At the 30 minute rating (I am assuming this) the plane is credited with taking 4 min 6 sec to climb to 5,000ft and 8 min 24 secs to 10,000ft (engine made more power the higher it climbed or at least the same power).
Figures are from the 1938 Jane's and may be suspect?

The Battle had a wing about 91% the size of the one on an A-20. It was not a small airplane.

It was used as a low level attack aircraft was it not ? And that was the problem .
It was big, slow, light armored, under armed, about everything you don't want in a attack aircraft.
What other aircraft in the Allies inventory in 1940 could have performed the missions assigned to the Battle ?
With no escort ?

But it was there, and that's what they used. And we blame the Battle .

 

[Shortround6]

They used the Vickers Valentia as a bomber in the Western Desert against the Italians (or in East Africa?), doesn't mean the Valentia was a bomber.

yes they used (misused) the Battle in France, Yes we blame the Battle and not the misuse.
The only other British aircraft available were the Lysander and Blenheim and both suffered in a similar fashion.
The only "allied" aircraft that had much chance were the French operated Martin 167s (Marylanders) and DB7s but they were too few in number, too new (crews, both air and ground) not fully trained.
From Joe Baugher's "website"
"After the German invasion of May 10, 1940, the French Martins were thrown into action. They flew 418 combat sorties from May 22 to June 24, 18 Martins being lost in action."
And
" Following handover to the French in the USA, the DB-7s were shipped to Casablanca, where they were reassembled and test flown before being delivered to units in French North Africa and in France. Five Groupes de Bombardment (GB I/19, II/19, II/61, I/32, and II/32) had been scheduled to receive the DB-7, but only the first three had fully converted to the type by the time of the German invasion on May 10, 1940.

Only 64 DB-7s were in service at the time of the German western offensive. They were immediately rushed from North Africa to France and were committed in a piecemeal fashion in a vain attempt to halt the German advance. The first DB-7 sortie against the Germans was on May 31, 1940, when 12 aircraft attacked enemy columns near St. Quentin. Some seventy sorties were flown against troops and panzer concentrations, supply convoys and depots and road bridges. The French DB-7s did a fairly creditable job against the Germans, but at least eight were lost to ground fire and fighter attacks."

This rather shows what was needed for such attack duties, Planes a bit larger than a Battle with about twice the power. Perhaps a single engine plane with 50-60% more power might have worked.

 

[Kevin J]

They used the Vickers Valentia as a bomber in the Western Desert against the Italians (or in East Africa?), doesn't mean the Valentia was a bomber.

yes they used (misused) the Battle in France, Yes we blame the Battle and not the misuse.
The only other British aircraft available were the Lysander and Blenheim and both suffered in a similar fashion.
The only "allied" aircraft that had much chance were the French operated Martin 167s (Marylanders) and DB7s but they were too few in number, too new (crews, both air and ground) not fully trained.
From Joe Baugher's "website"
"After the German invasion of May 10, 1940, the French Martins were thrown into action. They flew 418 combat sorties from May 22 to June 24, 18 Martins being lost in action."
And
" Following handover to the French in the USA, the DB-7s were shipped to Casablanca, where they were reassembled and test flown before being delivered to units in French North Africa and in France. Five Groupes de Bombardment (GB I/19, II/19, II/61, I/32, and II/32) had been scheduled to receive the DB-7, but only the first three had fully converted to the type by the time of the German invasion on May 10, 1940.

Only 64 DB-7s were in service at the time of the German western offensive. They were immediately rushed from North Africa to France and were committed in a piecemeal fashion in a vain attempt to halt the German advance. The first DB-7 sortie against the Germans was on May 31, 1940, when 12 aircraft attacked enemy columns near St. Quentin. Some seventy sorties were flown against troops and panzer concentrations, supply convoys and depots and road bridges. The French DB-7s did a fairly creditable job against the Germans, but at least eight were lost to ground fire and fighter attacks."

This rather shows what was needed for such attack duties, Planes a bit larger than a Battle with about twice the power. Perhaps a single engine plane with 50-60% more power might have worked.

Perhaps installing the 2x12 cylinder Fairey Monach engine would have solved the problem, but did it ever work? Then again, by the time the engine would have worked we would have had the Mosquito bomber and the heavily armoured Typhoon, so we wouldn't have needed it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Was the Henley better than the Battle? It would seem the former has more capability. And.... Potential to accompany its Sea Hurricane cousin onto the RN's carriers as a replacement for the Skua.

But if the Battle is canceled, does that erase the Fulmar and Firefly?

 

[Just Schmidt]

The only "allied" aircraft that had much chance were the French operated Martin 167s (Marylanders) and DB7s but they were too few in number, too new (crews, both air and ground) not fully trained.
.

Though of course available in far to trivial numbers, I'd suggest that the Bloch 175 had potential. You may even consider the additional advantage that few germans would think it looked French.

 

[Zipper730]

Really there's no correct answer with the Battle other than to have a magical crystal ball and use all of the time, money and effort on fighter-bombers instead.

Well, let's try something more practical.

1. How were they used in practice: What tactics were used?
2. Why were these tactics bad: Why did they use these tactics?

Maybe get this book...

Sounds like a plan, I guess I can use that Amazon gift card I got for Christmas.

It was a three man bomber with one flexible defensive gun having the same or less power than the single engine fighters that it was up against. Their targets were not just bridges but bridges with pesky anti aircraft guns around them. I am sure it is an optical illusion but I always have the impression that it has thicker wings than a B-17 (pic from Wikipedia).

I'm wondering if the comment about attacking defended targets at low altitudes is similar to what caused a lot of bomber losses in the start of WWII. From what I remember...

1. The RAF originally had been built around city-busting attacks, and defending against them (to the ability they thought they could).
2. In the prelude to the war (1936-1939), it's possible they realized they couldn't do what they planned, and decided to focus some of their resources on military targets predominantly.
3. As the war started, FDR asked the UK & Germany not to target civilians: The UK said they'd agree if the Germans would refrain from the matter.
4. Early attacks were on military targets only and accuracy was poor at higher altitudes, so they ended up going lower: With the bombers intended to come in at high altitude, they became much more vulnerable to ground-fire and fighter planes (which originally would have had to climb up to meet them, could now get to their altitude or even above; then get the drop on them).

As for the thickness of the wings: They really do look quite thick. That said, the aircraft performed okay for the time it first flew, but the RAF did have some legendary issues with wind-tunnels. If I recall, one of the larger tunnels was defective (something about it produced a lot of turbulence, which made it difficult to gauge turbulence on the model, particularly at higher speeds).

Potentially it could have been Britain's version of the Sturmovik. . . Get rid of the third crewman. Fit a 2 gun turret, or a .50. Some forward firing 20mm cannons and bombs, plus plenty of ventral armour. And it might have done the job of MkIIc Hurricanes and Kittyhawks or Westland Whirlwinds in Rhubarb sorties.

Interesting take on the matter. I assume the third guy was the bombardier?

But these were of course side shows to the strategic push of building up city smashing forces of Bomber command. Britain did not have as pressing a need for a CAS aircraft as the Russians did

I'm not so sure about that... I would imagine they'd have held the continent a lot better if they had

1. Effective CAS: I'm not sure how coordinated the Royal Army and Air Force were. They were supposedly effective in the early 1920's, but I don't know after that point. They became so fixated with strategic bombing that their skill set might have atrophied.
2. Effective fighter-escort: They had fighters on the continent early on, but they were often uncoordinated with the bombers, and rarely could time up their R/V's right.

Also the Boulton Paul Defiant could have been modified for a Sturmovik role. An aircraft considerably more promising than the Battle.

The turret at least...

Stick a Griffon in it (or a RR Vulture).This thing is going to need a LOT of power.

Were there any proposals to re-engine the aircraft?

rebuild the entire wing, change fuel tanks around, move or eliminate the bomb cells, add a number of forward firing guns.

Why would you want to redesign the wings and fuel-tanks? I gather by the term "bomb-cells" that they didn't have a centralized bay in the fuselage?

That said, I agree with the forward guns, I would have wanted at least 2 x 0.303" (that was the norm), and potentially either increase the number of 0.303" or use a different caliber.

Change the landing gear.

What was wrong with the landing gear?

Reduce the size of the fuselage, (eliminate one man) add better rear gun station. add armor.

How much armor did the plane have early on? As for the gun-station, what would you have wanted based on the time?

It was sent on too many missions with little or no escort

The lack of coordinated escort seemed to be a major problem. I'm not sure why they had trouble coordinating escorts.

With the fast moving war on the ground allied command just couldn't seem to get enough time to plan a attack. The German ground units were just advancing too fast, and the Allied command was still stuck with WW1 practices.

What WWI practices?

 

[Kevin J]

Was the Henley better than the Battle? It would seem the former has more capability. And.... Potential to accompany its Sea Hurricane cousin onto the RN's carriers as a replacement for the Skua.

But if the Battle is canceled, does that erase the Fulmar and Firefly?

I think the Fulmar would be a better choice as a Skua replacement. The MK.II version carry a 500 lb bomb, an interim Taurus powered Skua being deployed in 1940.

 

[Kevin J]

I think the Fulmar would be a better choice as a Skua replacement. The MK.II version carry a 500 lb bomb, an interim Taurus powered Skua being deployed in 1940.

Perhaps even a Fulmar III with a Merlin III for 1942/43.

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps even a Fulmar III with a Merlin III for 1942/43.

Merlin III on a Fulmar in 1942/43? Do we hate FAA crewmen that much?

 

[pbehn]

I'm wondering if the comment about attacking defended targets at low altitudes is similar to what caused a lot of bomber losses in the start of WWII. From what I remember...

1. The RAF originally had been built around city-busting attacks, and defending against them (to the ability they thought they could).
2. In the prelude to the war (1936-1939), it's possible they realized they couldn't do what they planned, and decided to focus some of their resources on military targets predominantly.
3. As the war started, FDR asked the UK & Germany not to target civilians: The UK said they'd agree if the Germans would refrain from the matter.
4. Early attacks were on military targets only and accuracy was poor at higher altitudes, so they ended up going lower: With the bombers intended to come in at high altitude, they became much more vulnerable to ground-fire and fighter planes (which originally would have had to climb up to meet them, could now get to their altitude or even above; then get the drop on them).

As for the thickness of the wings: They really do look quite thick. That said, the aircraft performed okay for the time it first flew, but the RAF did have some legendary issues with wind-tunnels. If I recall, one of the larger tunnels was defective (something about it produced a lot of turbulence, which made it difficult to gauge turbulence on the model, particularly at higher speeds).
?

The planned use if there was a plan was just as likely to be based on bombing tents in the middle east. Even with the over optimism about what bombing could achieve I cant see anyone considering that the Battle was going to make any effect bombing cities. Looking at it with three crew, a full fuel bomb load and 1,000HP I suspect it performed like a present day powered glider.

 

[Kevin J]

Merlin III on a Fulmar in 1942/43? Do we hate FAA crewmen that much?

Oops Merlin 32.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Merlin III on a Fulmar in 1942/43? Do we hate FAA crewmen that much?

Wikipedia says the last Fulmar was delivered to the RAF on 11 December 1942. Wouldn't the final Fulmar of Dec 1942 have a different Merlin than the first of Jan 1940?