Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.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.
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.
.
Well, let's try something more practical.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.
Sounds like a plan, I guess I can use that Amazon gift card I got for Christmas.Maybe get this book...
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...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).
Interesting take on the matter. I assume the third guy was the bombardier?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.
I'm not so sure about that... I would imagine they'd have held the continent a lot better if they hadBut 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
The turret at least...Also the Boulton Paul Defiant could have been modified for a Sturmovik role. An aircraft considerably more promising than the Battle.
Were there any proposals to re-engine the aircraft?Stick a Griffon in it (or a RR Vulture).This thing is going to need a LOT of power.
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?rebuild the entire wing, change fuel tanks around, move or eliminate the bomb cells, add a number of forward firing guns.
What was wrong with the landing gear?Change the landing gear.
How much armor did the plane have early on? As for the gun-station, what would you have wanted based on the time?Reduce the size of the fuselage, (eliminate one man) add better rear gun station. add armor.
The lack of coordinated escort seemed to be a major problem. I'm not sure why they had trouble coordinating escorts.It was sent on too many missions with little or no escort
What WWI practices?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.
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.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?
Perhaps even a Fulmar III with a Merlin III for 1942/43.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.
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.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...
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 RAF originally had been built around city-busting attacks, and defending against them (to the ability they thought they could).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
?
Oops Merlin 32.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?Merlin III on a Fulmar in 1942/43? Do we hate FAA crewmen that much?