Very good points. In defence of the French (and Belgians), a lot (perhaps even a majority) of the bridges RAF and French airmen died trying to take out were German pontoon bridges.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Battle wasn't sent to France to attack bridges or provide CAS. It was sent there to shorten the range to Germanys industry. In hindsight I wouldn't have built a single Battle I would have built more Hurricanes and put a couple of cannons and a bomb under the additional production to strafe and bomb the bridges in question. However in hindsight I would have just blown the bridges up when the French had control of them.
No Peregrines, need all of them for Whirlwinds. There are no Kestrels either, unless you take used ones out of Hawker Harts or Miles Master trainers.
Merlins are being made on the same lathes, milling machines and other machinery that made Kestrels and by the same workers.
The Kestrels used in the Miles Master were rebuilt by Rolls Royce from used ones. Only about 1300 Kestrel engined Masters were built before it switched to the Mercury.No Peregrines, need all of them for Whirlwinds. There are no Kestrels either, unless you take used ones out of Hawker Harts or Miles Master trainers.
Merlins are being made on the same lathes, milling machines and other machinery that made Kestrels and by the same workers.
To further illustrate this enormous effort, by the end of 1941 the Merlin had become the second most produced aircraft engine of all time, trailing only the Hispano V8 of WWI. The Merlin had exceeded even that marvel of mass production the Liberty. For some strange reason, when 6 American companies make 20,000 engines its mass production, when Rolls Royce does the same its not.The Kestrels used in the Miles Master were rebuilt by Rolls Royce from used ones. Only about 1300 Kestrel engined Masters were built before it switched to the Mercury.
Building twin engined Battles instead of trainers would be a losing proposition in the long run.
To give you an idea of the prodigious efforts Rolls Royce accomplished in Merlin production.
1938 1700 Merlins
1939 2000 Merlins
1940. 7000 Merlins
1941. 12000 Merlins
Mostly from Derby. Doesn't leave much room for anything else
The American companies didn't take 4 years to do itFor some strange reason, when 6 American companies make 20,000 engines its mass production, when Rolls Royce does the same its not.
It's an odd thing that neither the RAF or IJAF had dive bombers whilst their respective naval arms made good use of them. The Luftwaffe had the Stuka, the Italians had the Breda Ba.65, the Russians the Petlyakov Pe-2, USA the A-24 Banshee, etc. When the RAF finally got the Vultee Vengeance were the pilots sent for dive bomber training or just told to get on with it?The RAF had no tactical bomber other than the army co operation Lysanders and Hectors. The Henley and Fairey P4/34 were the proposed light bombers. The Royal Navy had a better suite of tactical bombers and used them over France in 1940 with some success.
fixedIn summary. The Fairey Battle was a (medium)light bomber misused as a tactical bomber.
A bit faster and in the MK IV version longer ranged.The Bristol Blenheim was in the same performance envelope broadly bar less range and a greater (scarcely used) overload bomb load.
It's an odd thing that neither the RAF or IJAF had dive bombers whilst their respective naval arms made good use of them. The Luftwaffe had the Stuka, the Italians had the Breda Ba.65, the Russians the Petlyakov Pe-2, USA the A-24 Banshee, etc. When the RAF finally got the Vultee Vengeance were the pilots sent for dive bomber training or just told to get on with it?
Is it a stretch to configure the Battle for dive bombing?
The Fairey Battle was already so configured (if not for 90 degree work) with the wing bomb racks extending outwards: 'Up to 1,000 lbs (454 kg) of bombs carried internally in four inner wing bomb cells. The internal wing bomb cells had racks that were lowered and attached to the bombs and then hydraulically raised the bombs into their cells. These hydraulic racks could also be extended below the wing for dive bombing attacks.'Is it a stretch to configure the Battle for dive bombing?
To me the Battle is more Heinkel He 118 than IL-2.Potentially it could have been Britain's version of the Sturmovik.
Accuracy is a relative term. The attached study by the US Navy is eye opening.People keep confusing ground attack with dive bombing. They are not synonymous. Dive bombers can do ground support. They can do short range interdiction. But the method/s are often different for ground attack. Dive bombers work great against point targets. A squadron of 12 dive bombers trying to attack a regiment of troops in a 1/2 mile long wood might not give a good result using one large bomb apiece.
12 close support aircraft with more machine guns per plane, and multiple small bombs, up to 20-30 per plane might cause much more disruption.
It's an odd thing that neither the RAF or IJAF had dive bombers whilst their respective naval arms made good use of them. The Luftwaffe had the Stuka, the Italians had the Breda Ba.65, the Russians the Petlyakov Pe-2, USA the A-24 Banshee, etc. When the RAF finally got the Vultee Vengeance were the pilots sent for dive bomber training or just told to get on with it?
Is it a stretch to configure the Battle for dive bombing?
Not a window, just a hole.However it has a glass window on the bottom so that a bomb aimer could level bomb.
No, the Fairey Fulmar was Fairey P.4/34 with a reduced wing span and changes around the tail. The P.4/34 by Fairey was a competitor to the Hawker Henley.The Fairey Fulmar was essentially a battle with reduced wing span and minor changes around the tail. It could definitely dive bomb.
as has been mentioned many times before. the Battle was a small strategic bomber (no tactical bomber needed a 1000 mile range in Europe in 1937-39) which means it was grossly misemployed as a tactical bomber or close support aircraft. If you try and turn it into a Sturmovik you are going to have to throw away much of the plane and you will wind up with a different plane that just sort of looks like a Battle.I don't think it was a bad design, just misemployed, underarmed and under escorted. I imagine fitting a Bolton and Paul style Defiant turret, more powerful engines and more armour would have made it an excellent Sturmovik and light level tactical bomber. A Fairey Battle was apparently used to test the Griffon engine.
as has been mentioned many times before. the Battle was a small strategic bomber (no tactical bomber needed a 1000 mile range in Europe in 1937-39) which means it was grossly misemployed as a tactical bomber or close support aircraft. If you try and turn it into a Sturmovik you are going to have to throw away much of the plane and you will wind up with a different plane that just sort of looks like a Battle.
Due to it's size and the size of the cockpit/crew stations it made a very good engine test bed. Room for engineers/observers and lots of test instruments. At least 4 other engines besides the Merlin were tested on Battles.