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.
Fairey Battle: Performance and Tactics
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,638
- Dec 6, 2006
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
Last edited:
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,638
- Dec 6, 2006
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 Merlins produced in this time frame was more than the combined total of R-1820s and R-1830s.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The American companies didn't take 4 years to do it
But your point is well made. I am not sure the idea that Merlins were made in Sherwood Forest by elves with tiny hammers in small numbers is ever going to go completely away no matter how many times the reality of Britain's mass production efforts are proved.
Few people mention that of those Liberty engines some were very good and some made excellent boat anchors. Let us say that quality control was not a strong point of the Liberty program and draw the curtain.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
In summary. The Fairey Battle was a medium bomber misused as a tactical bomber.
The Bristol Blenheim was in the same performance envelope broadly bar less range and a greater (scarcely used) overload bomb load.
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.
The Bristol Blenheim was in the same performance envelope broadly bar less range and a greater (scarcely used) overload bomb load.
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.
Admiral Beez
Major
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?
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
It's a bit of a stretch to call the Breda Ba65 a dive bomber. It could and did dive bomb but it's main bomb load of 400 kilogrammes was carried vertically nose up in four tubes behind the pilots seat. In Spain it was used as a level or shallow angle bomber ten times more often than as a dive bomber. Only the two wing hardpoints could be used in a dive. I don't know what bombs could be slung under the wings possibly the same 100 kilogrammes bomb as carried in the bomb bay.
The Spanish Nationalists thought the Breda Ba65 a better ground attack aircraft than the Stuka and on a par with the Herschel Hs123.
Shortround6
Major General
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.
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.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
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.'
Admiral Beez
Major
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,638
- Dec 6, 2006
Neil Stirling
Airman 1st Class
Firefly performance. Speed in KTS.
IMG_0524.JPG
IMG_0525.JPG
IMG_0526.JPG
IMG_0527.JPG
IMG_0528.JPG
Neil
Sorry wrong thread and F up posting the links. Info is here Fairey Firefly Performance - Sea Level vs at altitude.
IMG_0524.JPG
IMG_0525.JPG
IMG_0526.JPG
IMG_0527.JPG
IMG_0528.JPG
Neil
Sorry wrong thread and F up posting the links. Info is here Fairey Firefly Performance - Sea Level vs at altitude.
Last edited:
The Fairey Fulmar was essentially a battle with reduced wing span and minor changes around the tail. It could definitely dive bomb.
I recall reading that the Fairey Battle was designed to dive bomb, it think the undercarriage was used as a dive brake. Wikipedia has destroyed all of the authoritative sources. However it has a glass window on the bottom so that a bomb aimer could level bomb. This seems to have been effective and accurate. As German Army and Luftwaffe had been well equipped with travelling rifle calibre and 2.0cm C30 and C38 canon the Battle was vulnerable if doing low level bombing.
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.
Admiral Beez
Major
Shortround6
Major General
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 P.4/34 was considerably smaller than the Battle. It no longer carried a 3rd crewman or had the prone bomb aimer position.
Shortround6
Major General
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.
fubar57
General
The actual Illushyn Sturmovik had significant limitations as an attack and anti tank aircraft. The heavy armour protection reduced its war load and of necessity forced it to perform relatively light attacks thereby forcing multiple sorties. Furthermore the armour, while providing wide coverage, could be penetrated with armour piercing 20mm rounds and when it was the penetrating round and its fragments would bounce around inside the steal armour causing havoc and perhaps killing the pilot. the Ju 87 had a more of a 'all or nothing' armour scheme around the pilot that either protected him fully or allowed the round to pass through.
The Fairey Battle modified as a ground attack aircraft might have a pair of long barreled Hispano guns and perhaps about 300 or so pounds of armour added. The prone bomb aimer might need some armour. With an improved bombsight such as the Mk XIV it would be possible to roll bombs into armoured targets.
Last edited:
