Fast bombers alternatives for 1939-40

[Steamed_Banana]

To further the above post by SplitRz we can look at a 1943 fighter bomber (service use) that has been held up as example.

A-36 with two 500lb bombs, Gross weight as per load and weight chart in manual. 180 US gals (150 imp) full internal tanks.
1325hp for take-off vs your favorite 1939-40 fighter engine/s ????
232sq ft wing
Now for the interesting part.
Manual says on a sod runway it needs with zero wind, 2400ft (800yds) to lift off and 3200ft (1066yds) to clear 50ft.
However that is at 0 degrees C. Manual says add 10% for every 10 degrees C higher than zero degrees so add 15% for 15 degrees C (59 degrees F)
so 3620 ft (1206yds) just to get off the run way. Adjust further for summer days (or warm spring and fall)
Head winds help but what size were the 1939-40 airfields/runways?

Was just reading a memoir by a DAF pilot he noted their airfields were 1,000 yards. Some of the surviving B-24s from the Ploesti raid landed on their field in Sicily and were able to take off again, but just barely (and without any payload other than fuel).

Not saying that fields in 1940 were going to be 1,000 yards necessarily. But they could be.

Some lists of the 4 greatest American weapons of WW II some times include the bulldozer

And pierced steel mesh marsden etc. mats

 

[Shortround6]

Drag is going to vary with both speed and shape.
Long skinny bombs have less drag than short fat ones but this assumes you have the materials (alloys) and the manufacturering capabilities to make the desired forged shapes.
Mk 82 bombs were very low drag at 500mph. Advantage at 230mph???
And unless your logistic train can handle a lot more different types of bombs you might screw yourself on the bombers that had internal bays. Mk 82 may need a longer bomb bay or be more restricted in under fuselage carriage.
US Mk 82 bomb is around 500-530lbs in weight and wiki says 196lbs fill weight (wiki can't even agree with itself). Roughly a 40% charge weight
Length is give at 7ft 3in (87 in) although exact fin style/type may vary. Diameter is a bit under 11in

early British 500lb GP bombs were a little fatter, 12.9in but were 70.9in long later cut to 55.6in long with much shorter fin/drum.
They were also a little lighter. 470lbs with the long tail but they only held 143-144.5lbs of HE, a 29% charge weight.

Later British 500lb MC bombs were the same diameter and very close to the same length.
But the nose ogive was blunter, the mid section maintained constant diameter longer and the rear had much less taper. Also used much thinner walls and often different construction, some of which didn't turn out well. But they held 210-232lbs of HE and were considered to be 50% charge bombs. They are higher drag than the early bombs but under a Typhoon it probably didn't make much difference.
American WW II bombs were pretty blunt.

 

[SplitRz]

A lot of hyperventilating about the A-36 here is based on a very false premise that anyone was actually suggesting it for 1939-1940.

Let me remind you and SplitRz of the context - the conversation drifted into the potential capabilities of fighter-bombers in general, since the original discussion was hinging on the use of aircraft like Henleys and adapting them to fighter bomber or dive bomber roles. It was alleged that fighter-bombers could not operate without air superiority, which isn't actually true. I brought up the A-36 to point out a particular, glaring, obvious example of a fighter bomber which was used in a very dangerous environment without escort.

This is also true, incidentally, for CAS by fighter bombers (even though this is another discursion and may not really be germane to the original discussion). Even when Cab Rank and it's various precursors were being used in North Africa, the DAF did not, in fact, have air superiority. Early precursors to Cab Rank were already being used at a large scale at 2nd El Alamein in late 1942 and the air above it was very much heavily contested. The DAF took a lot of losses, as did the Luftwaffe, but they (DAF) made it work. And it played an important role in the battle. And in battles prior to that one.

Circling back, the A-36 and other aircraft mentioned were simply part of a discursion into the debate about the capabilities of fighter bombers and dive bombers in general. The "What If" aspect of this thread, going back to the OP, hinges on whether something available could be adapted to the role, which may or may not have required using the aircraft in different ways than it was historically. Nobody is going to win a battle by flying a better target tug. The A-36 was brought up as one example of an effective fighter-bomber adaptation, albeit later in the war.

I hope that clears it up gentlemen.

I'm not sure its hyperventilation as opposed to head-scratching and some challenge as to why you're using examples of non-contextual aircraft to prove... well... what exactly? (and it seems i'm in company on that front, so maybe your hyperbole is unnecessary)... 1939/40 Fast Bomber. The A-36 doesn't even fly for another two years. I get that we can dip into other periods to see what happens with certain concepts, but fighter bombers in 1942 onwards exist in a very different front-line world. You could have used the early P40s and Hurribombers (which at least existed in early '41 an could arguably have been developed sooner) as a pertinent example of effective fighter-bomber adaptions from '40/41, but I assume you didn't, because they clearly weren't anything like 'sef defending' and required escort and top cover to have a reasonable chance of survival? It looked, and pardon me if I'm being to cynical, like you drifted over to the A36 to try and support a proposition that doesn't seem to have much traction or relevance to a 1939/40 'fast bomber' [the threads title and purpose]- and even then, you used an outlier example of an aircraft. One that was used on fronts and at a time, unlike 1939/40 when the principal threat to it in the ETA was going to increasingly be flak, not fighter interception (the most important aspect requiring high speed to defend against). Not that the A-36 stayed in service very long either, given the horrendous attrition it suffered after a relatively brief period of peak success in Italy (delivering a single ace in the process....)

"As fighting intensified in all theaters where the A-36A operated, the dive bomber began to suffer an alarming loss rate with 177 falling to enemy action.[13]​ The main reason for the attrition was the hazardous missions that placed the A-36A "on the deck" facing murderous ground fire. German defenses in southern Italy included placing cables across hill tops to snare the attacking A-36As.[22]​ Despite establishing a reputation for reliability and performance, the one "Achilles' heel" of the A-36A (and the entire Mustang series) remained the ventral-fuselage location of the radiator/cooling system, leading to many of the losses. By June 1944, A-36As in Europe were replaced by Curtiss P-40s and Republic P-47 Thunderbolts.[5]​[23]...."​

Maybe we assume it performed far better in the PTO? But even that seems an iffy proposition overall: ​

"A-36As also served with the 311th Fighter Bomber Group in the China-Burma-India theater. The 311th had arrived in Dinjan, India by late summer 1943 after being shipped across the Pacific via Australia.[26]​ Two squadrons were equipped with the A-36A while the third flew P-51As. Tasked with reconnaissance, dive bombing, attack and fighter missions, the A-36A was outclassed by its main opposition, the Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar." The light and highly agile Japanese fighter could outmaneuver the A-36A at all altitudes but did have some weak points: it was lightly armed and offered little protection for pilot or fuel tanks. However, the A-36A fought at a significant disadvantage, having to carry out long-range missions often at altitudes above The Hump that meant its Allison engine was below peak performance. In a fighter escort mission over Burma, three A-36As were lost without scoring a single victory. The A-36A CBI missions continued throughout 1943–1944 with indifferent results. "​

Its just Wikipedia - but the sources are cited if you want to take up cudgels on that front.

A 'self-defending / too fast to intercept' fighter-bomber/dive bomber that entered service in 1942, beaten into a cocked-hat in the PTO by an opposing fighter that first flew in 1939? A fighter-bomber completely replaced in post D-Day '44 Europe by, amongst others, Curtis P-40s? I don't doubt the A-36 achieved great things in its short service life, regardless of the cost to its pilots due to the mission profile. But I don't see how it advances a helpful or relevant contribution to a conceptual 1939/40 fast bomber as per the thread title - let alone following the criteria Tomo set out. Instead, its a short-range aircraft with a maximum 1000lb bomb-load that doesn't go into service until 2 years after the 'what it' design criteria period and barely lasts the course of the war in front-line service. ​

Interesting, but ... what conclusions can we draw from it?​

 

[Shortround6]

I brought up the A-36 to point out a particular, glaring, obvious example of a fighter bomber which was used in a very dangerous environment without escort.

I hope that clears it up gentlemen.

It seems that you bought up a strawman type argument.
I believe it was pointed out before that the A-36 used aerodynamics that did not exist in a service aircraft in 1940. This includes airfoil, cooling system, and general fit and finish. An Allison Mustang I was about 25-30mph faster than a P-40 using the same engine and a P-40 was not exactly a slouch for the installed power. Please give altitudes for challenges to this. The P-40E was both too late for 1940 and 1000-2000lbs heavier than most of it's foreign competition that arrived even later (MC 202 or Ki-61)
The Hurricane was towing a parachute.
Expecting a speed advantage that can be partially traded away in the fighter bomber role over other fighters was going to be very hard to come by in 1939-40.
Spitfire and Bf 109F are the only ones that can manage it both are short of fuel for anything but very close missions with external bombs.

Ignoring advances in power to weight of later powerplants, advances in propeller design (really looking at the British here), changes in fuel, changes if flaps or other aerodynamic changes to claim the concept could have been used early seems to calling many of the early designers idiots.
Hurricane Is would have been horrible fighter bombers in 1939-40 even if they had tried.

 

[Shortround6]

Hurricanes in France had fixed pitch two-blade props

They might have gone to France with the fixed pitch props but I doubt if they kept them very long. It was about 8 months from the start of the war to the start of the BoF. Everything seems to have been a mad scramble but they had been installing DH two position props at the factory in the summer of 1939 (?, they trialed one in the summer of 1938) the Hawlers had started installing at least a few Rotol props in the fall of 1939. Home defense may have had first priority.

Up against a Gloster Gladiator, the Bf110s superior performance more than made up for what I regard as a bad tactical concept.

The tactical concept went from mediocre to bad with the decision to use them as close escorts instead of free range. The Bf 110s could boom and zoom but if you take that way and try to use them as turning fighters it was not going to end well.

 

[SaparotRob]

I think S SuperFire had the right idea. The U.S. should've been building P-51s and B-29s from the start of '42.

 

[SplitRz]

They might have gone to France with the fixed pitch props but I doubt if they kept them very long.

As I understand it, operational experience and feedback in France meant that a rapid modification programme had ensured most (if not all) had been re-equipped with variable props before the peak of the BoB - a matter of a few months.

I don't know if you've ever read Paul Richies 'Fighter Pilot'? A really good read about his first hand account of his experience with 1 Squadron during the BoF. They were operating Hurricane 1s with fixed wooden Watts 2 blade props.

 

[Shortround6]

As I understand it, operational experience and feedback in France meant that a rapid modification programme had ensured most (if not all) had been re-equipped with variable props before the peak of the BoB - a matter of a few months.

As I understand it was possible to correct the blunder of Air Ministry in short order because they did not re-equip the planes with variable speed props.
The DH hub had 20 degrees of movement from high pitch to low pitch. Most of the planes had a two position switch. Either high or low. There was a pump mounted on the engine to push oil into the piston/s in the hub to move the propeller shanks/bosses.
DH built a modification kit that bolted onto the engine and a new switch/harness that went into the cockpit. There was a sensor that could read the propeller speed (or engine speed?) and a governor that could be set for a desired RPM. This acted by using the existing oil pump from the two pitch prop and the existing prop hub and blades.
When the governor was set it would automatically vary the pitch of blades to keep the engine at the same rpm within the limits of the pitch change range.
DH sent out teams of men with trucks holding dozen or scores of kits and they should show the squadron mechanics how to do it in a few hours guiding them through several installs with the squadron fitters doing more and more of the work and the team would leave enough kits for the rest of the squadrons machines and then drive to the next squadron.
The Air Ministry had bought the props and the basic oil pump already. They had 'saved' the money for the governor/control valve unit and the new switch.
I don't know how many kits were built but the first contract was for 500 kits or a handful more. I don't know if there was a 2nd contract.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I'm not sure its hyperventilation as opposed to head-scratching and some challenge as to why you're using examples of non-contextual aircraft to prove... well... what exactly? (and it seems i'm in company on that front, so maybe your hyperbole is unnecessary)... 1939/40 Fast Bomber. The A-36 doesn't even fly for another two years. I get that we can dip into other periods to see what happens with certain concepts,

yes that would in fact be the point, since some were asserting that fighter bombers couldn't survive such raids

but fighter bombers in 1942 onwards exist in a very different front-line world.

Very different how? Faster fighters perhaps? More AAA?

You could have used the early P40s and Hurribombers (which at least existed in early '41 an could arguably have been developed sooner) as a pertinent example of effective fighter-bomber adaptions

I certainly don't think the A-36 was a perfect fighter-bomber, it was just one which I happen to know worked in very challenging environments. And not the only one that I brought up either.

from '40/41, but I assume you didn't, because they clearly weren't anything like 'sef defending' and required escort and top cover to have a reasonable chance of survival?

That was not in fact always the case, particularly in CBI and the Pacific, but the P-40s if not Hurricanes were fairly often sent on unescorted fighter bomber strike missions, or sometimes with a minimal number of their own unit (flight of four) flying as top cover. They did take fairly heavy losses in North Africa, especially up to mid 1942, but they used them this way regardless.

It looked, and pardon me if I'm being to cynical, like you drifted over to the A36 to try and support a proposition that doesn't seem to have much traction or relevance to a 1939/40 'fast bomber' [the threads title and purpose]- and even then, you used an outlier example of an aircraft.

Allow me to assist you in understanding (though something tells me you still won't) - it was an obvious, well known example of a fighter bomber which actually worked as a fast bomber, thus helping to demonstrate that the categorical claim that fighter bombers (or bombers carrying ordinance outside of a bomb bay) couldn't do it. In 1940 the difference is it would not have to be quite that fast.

One that was used on fronts and at a time, unlike 1939/40 when the principal threat to it in the ETA was going to increasingly be flak, not fighter interception (the most important aspect requiring high speed to defend against). Not that the A-36 stayed in service very long either, given the horrendous attrition it suffered after a relatively brief period of peak success in Italy (delivering a single ace in the process....)

"As fighting intensified in all theaters where the A-36A operated, the dive bomber began to suffer an alarming loss rate with 177 falling to enemy action.[13]​ The main reason for the attrition was the hazardous missions that placed the A-36A "on the deck" facing murderous ground fire. German defenses in southern Italy included placing cables across hill tops to snare the attacking A-36As.[22]​ Despite establishing a reputation for reliability and performance, the one "Achilles' heel" of the A-36A (and the entire Mustang series) remained the ventral-fuselage location of the radiator/cooling system, leading to many of the losses. By June 1944, A-36As in Europe were replaced by Curtiss P-40s and Republic P-47 Thunderbolts.[5]​[23]...."​

Uh, the reason A-36 were retired is because wings couldn't ultimately hold up to high angle dive bombing and started falling off, and they had stopped making them so there weren't any replacements

The advantage of the A-36 was partly high cruise speed, but it was largely (compared to P-40s and P-47s) it's bombing accuracy, which also matters a lot in tactical bombing. P-40s and P-47s could also bomb fairly accurately but that extra 10 or 20 degrees of dive angle + the dive brakes seemed to make a difference.

Maybe we assume it performed far better in the PTO? But even that seems an iffy proposition overall: ​

"A-36As also served with the 311th Fighter Bomber Group in the China-Burma-India theater. The 311th had arrived in Dinjan, India by late summer 1943 after being shipped across the Pacific via Australia.[26]​ Two squadrons were equipped with the A-36A while the third flew P-51As. Tasked with reconnaissance, dive bombing, attack and fighter missions, the A-36A was outclassed by its main opposition, the Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar." The light and highly agile Japanese fighter could outmaneuver the A-36A at all altitudes but did have some weak points: it was lightly armed and offered little protection for pilot or fuel tanks. However, the A-36A fought at a significant disadvantage, having to carry out long-range missions often at altitudes above The Hump that meant its Allison engine was below peak performance. In a fighter escort mission over Burma, three A-36As were lost without scoring a single victory. The A-36A CBI missions continued throughout 1943–1944 with indifferent results. "​

Its just Wikipedia - but the sources are cited if you want to take up cudgels on that front.

Both A-36 and P-51A did poorly as fighters in the CBI, but I don't think that A-36 took particularly heavy losses on bombing / strike missions.

A 'self-defending / too fast to intercept' fighter-bomber/dive bomber that entered service in 1942, beaten into a cocked-hat in the PTO by an opposing fighter that first flew in 1939? ​

Well, it turns out the Ki-43 was a much better fighter than the postwar legends had it...

A fighter-bomber completely replaced in post D-Day '44 Europe by, amongst others, Curtis P-40s? ​

Another fighter (and fighter-bomber) type which was better than the press claims it was...

I don't doubt the A-36 achieved great things in its short service life, regardless of the cost to its pilots due to the mission profile. But I don't see how it advances a helpful or relevant contribution to a conceptual 1939/40 fast bomber as per the thread title - let alone following the criteria Tomo set out. ​

I think that is mainly because you hate the notion which the A-36 in fact proves correct - that fighter bombers could also do this mission. And did do, through the war.

Instead, its a short-range aircraft with a maximum 1000lb bomb-load that doesn't go into service until 2 years after the 'what it' design criteria period and barely lasts the course of the war in front-line service. ​

Interesting, but ... what conclusions can we draw from it?​

That really depends on how open you are to drawing any conclusions you didn't already have mate

 

[Steamed_Banana]

It seems that you bought up a strawman type argument.

No, that would be a lie on your part.

I believe it was pointed out before that the A-36 used aerodynamics that did not exist in a service aircraft in 1940. This includes airfoil, cooling system, and general fit and finish. An Allison Mustang I was about 25-30mph faster than a P-40 using the same engine and a P-40 was not exactly a slouch for the installed power. Please give altitudes for challenges to this. The P-40E was both too late for 1940 and 1000-2000lbs heavier than most of it's foreign competition that arrived even later (MC 202 or Ki-61)

I could go back and drag out the claim that was being refuted, but you probably already read it yourself and just don't want to remember. But the point was simply that fighter bombers could in fact do this. A-36 was not the only fast fighter bomber around during WW2. Keep in mind, we are not just talking about speed at altitude, since these are probably about low-level raids.

The Hurricane was towing a parachute.

No argument there

Expecting a speed advantage that can be partially traded away in the fighter bomber role over other fighters was going to be very hard to come by in 1939-40.
Spitfire and Bf 109F are the only ones that can manage it both are short of fuel for anything but very close missions with external bombs.

I think you could find others if you wanted to. No I'm not talking about the A-36 in 1940 and I never was, your claiming that I was, repeatedly, isn't a straw man it's just a lie.

Ignoring advances in power to weight of later powerplants, advances in propeller design (really looking at the British here), changes in fuel, changes if flaps or other aerodynamic changes to claim the concept could have been used early seems to calling many of the early designers idiots.

I'm not calling them idiots, I am calling you disingenuous.

Hurricane Is would have been horrible fighter bombers in 1939-40 even if they had tried.

No doubt.

 

[SplitRz]

yes that would in fact be the point, since some were asserting that fighter bombers couldn't survive such raids



Very different how? Faster fighters perhaps? More AAA?



I certainly don't think the A-36 was a perfect fighter-bomber, it was just one which I happen to know worked in very challenging environments. And not the only one that I brought up either.



That was not in fact always the case, particularly in CBI and the Pacific, but the P-40s if not Hurricanes were fairly often sent on unescorted fighter bomber strike missions, or sometimes with a minimal number of their own unit (flight of four) flying as top cover. They did take fairly heavy losses in North Africa, especially up to mid 1942, but they used them this way regardless.



Allow me to assist you in understanding (though something tells me you still won't) - it was an obvious, well known example of a fighter bomber which actually worked as a fast bomber, thus helping to demonstrate that the categorical claim that fighter bombers (or bombers carrying ordinance outside of a bomb bay) couldn't do it. In 1940 the difference is it would not have to be quite that fast.



Uh, the reason A-36 were retired is because wings couldn't ultimately hold up to high angle dive bombing and started falling off, and they had stopped making them so there weren't any replacements

The advantage of the A-36 was partly high cruise speed, but it was largely (compared to P-40s and P-47s) it's bombing accuracy, which also matters a lot in tactical bombing. P-40s and P-47s could also bomb fairly accurately but that extra 10 or 20 degrees of dive angle + the dive brakes seemed to make a difference.



Both A-36 and P-51A did poorly as fighters in the CBI, but I don't think that A-36 took particularly heavy losses on bombing / strike missions.



Well, it turns out the Ki-43 was a much better fighter than the postwar legends had it...



Another fighter (and fighter-bomber) type which was better than the press claims it was...



I think that is mainly because you hate the notion which the A-36 in fact proves correct - that fighter bombers could also do this mission. And did do, through the war.



That really depends on how open you are to drawing any conclusions you didn't already have mate

It really boils down to whether or not you understand the concept of context, the title of a thread [read it out aloud to yourself if that helps] - and whether you can have a reasonable, polite and relevant conversation without strawmen arguments, hair-splitting, tangents, and ad hominem comments within that frame.

Given you're demonstrating across a number of threads that you can't, I'll take your leave and talk with the grown ups.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

It really boils down to whether or not you understand the concept of context, the title of a thread [read it out aloud to yourself if that helps] - and whether you can have a reasonable, polite and relevant conversation without strawmen arguments, hair-splitting and tangents, within that frame.

Feed that dirty soup to yourself. I won't suggest that you couldn't follow the argument, since I am fairly sure you did. You just decided to pretend otherwise because you didn't like that it went places other than where you wanted the discussion to go, i.e. in a pre-conceived direction you had already chosen.

I never put forth any "straw man argument" in either this thread or any other. You were just full of it and when it was pointed out, got butt hurt. And you aren't the only one.

Given you're demonstrating across a number of threads that you can't, I'll take your leave and talk with the grown ups.

Please by all means avoid me for the rest of your life, may it be a short and unpleasant one.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I think a lot of people in here really struggle with the concept of a 'What If' scenario for WW2 history. For some of y'all, if anything didn't actually happen during the war, then it couldn't have happened.

In order for a different aircraft to fly in a particular time frame, some decisions would have to have been made differently. The exercise or game of figuring out what you could really do is one if determining what was possible, not what they did. Some of y'all just can't make that distinction and then get cranky because of it. My advice would be to avoid the "What If" threads.

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps it would've been the best if people take a step back.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I'm not going to lie, sometimes I really wish these discussions were held in person.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Part of the point of any "What If" is that it's clear with the power of hindsight, that while the people making the big decisions leading up to WW2 were typically not in fact idiots, they did in fact make a lot mistakes, some of which were fairly serious ones that cost a lot of lives. The fun aspect of a "What-If"' hinges on analyzing what different decisions they could have made, with the power of hindsight.

But if you can't make that distinction, if it hurts you deep down to conceive of someone in 1936 or 1938 or 1940 making a different decision than they actually made, you can't participate.

Second-guessing wartime or pre-war decisions with the power of hindsight doesn't mean that you are suggesting or implying that anyone today would have necessarily made the right decisions back in the original timeframe. Foresight is a lot rarer and more difficult to achieve than hindsight. But that isn't the point of such an exercise.

 

[z42]

Hurricane Is would have been horrible fighter bombers in 1939-40 even if they had tried.

Probably yes, but would it have been worse than the single engined light bomber they were using instead, like the Battle? At least they'd lose only one man instead of three for every one of them shot down.

 

[SplitRz]

Probably yes, but would it have been worse than the single engined light bomber they were using instead, like the Battle? At least they'd lose only one man instead of three for every one of them shot down.

There's at least an argument that a purpose designed two seater light bomber like The Henley *might* have been superiour. It certainly was to the Battle in all important aspects - especially speed - apart from bombload. Its interesting that many of the Henley's proponents after it was cancelled, were those with decent personal and working knowledge of the early war RAF.

I think Tomos framing is quite realistic - enclosed bombay, reasonable range, capability to carry 500lbs class bombs internally. Some kind of bomb aimer / or other mechanism that would be at least a step up from shallow-dive, eyeball and guesswork. A Mark 1 Hurricane would in all likelihood, burdened by external bombs and crutches and operating at low level, not have been faster or even more manoeuvrable than a Henley (though obviously a smaller). It would lack a navigator to get to the target on time (or at all - one mission on time and target has got to be safer than repeating it) or anyone to be watching the rear, even if defence wouldn't amount to more than a Vickers K.

Personally, I think the best potential and most potent option would have been to have placed an urgent and early order for the Maryland. It would have been a significant upgrade from both Battl and Blenheim.

 

[Shortround6]

Probably yes, but would it have been worse than the single engined light bomber they were using instead, like the Battle? At least they'd lose only one man instead of three for every one of them shot down.

I am problem going to chewed out for this but..........................

Hurricane I, which is what we are talking about in 1939-40 has a few technical things wrong with it as far as light bomber or fighter bomber goes. Some could have fixed had different decisions have been made at the time/s in question. A few of them apply to the Battle also which is part of the reason for the Battles poor reputation.

There are some other reasons like poor training and/or doctrine and some of them are just ignorance. Like very few people knew how effective light AA was going to be. Germans guessed better than others but they didn't know despite Spanish war experience.
British and French rather ignored WW I experience or remembered it as too costly and there for not to be repeated. It was too costly to use as a day in/day out substitute for artillery. It was not too costly to use for several days at a time to either push and attack through or to prevent a breakthrough while reinforcements were rushed into threatened areas.

British wanted that short field performance which meant light wing loading which equaled large wings, which means more drag and a bit more structural weight. Battle and Blenheim could fly closer to 60mph than 70 or 70 plus. This made them easy to fly and land but hurt top speed. The flaps didn't offer lot of extra lift. They helped land the planes by using drag and slowing the planes down rather than having them float over the fields if they came in even a little hot. For take off the British hurt the Merlin by giving it that high altitude supercharger. High is relative in 1939-40, Merlin III peaks around 4000ft higher than HS 12Ys or early DB601s but with 87 octane fuel they had to close the throttle to keep from over-boosting the engine and the Merlin III was only good for 880hp for take-off. Which kind of sucks for trying to get even a 500lb bomb load out of small airfield with even the 260sq ft of the Hurricane.

Things the British could have done in 1939/early 1940 that do not require using more modern aerodynamics than the 1935-36 aerodynamics used by the planes (changing structure/shape is going to delay production/service use) is using constant speed props instead of two pitch. Better climb/thrust at low altitudes and less than max speed.
Battle was designed as strategic bomber with a 400 mile radius or over double what the Hurricane could do. It was also designed to fly at 15,000-20,000ft, not sea level or at 1000ft across Belgium. Had the British installed either a medium supercharger gear or a low altitude supercharger gear they could have had somewhere around 1000-1100hp for take-off or combat flying at low altitudes even on 87 octane fuel. Use of 100 octane just adds a couple of hundred HP more. Use the fuel that suits you. It can go either way in the spring/summer of 1940. Please note that were either experimental Merlin's or service engines with both types of gears at the time. Like the Merlin VIII used in the Fulmar. You do have to change production priorities and I am not going to say if that could or could not be done. But the engines either existed or calculations as to power output existed at the time.
No saying that Hooker could have/should have developed the Merlin XX even quicker.

Those are some of the problems I have with the whole Battle vs Hurricane F/B argument. The Battle was never upgraded or given much in the way of protection or extra guns (a few got a single gun firing out through the floor, effect unknown). Hurricane II fighter bombers got the Merlin XX engine with the two speed supercharger, the Rotol propellers, 100 octane fuel and 12lbs of boost, some minimal fuel tank protection and some armor and BP glass. Some really late Hurricane had several hundred pounds of armor around the radiator and cockpit floor against ground fire so comparisons to losses sustained by Battles aren't really valid. That 400hp boost the Merlin XX gave for take-off over the Merlin III in the Hurricane I
was a real game changer as far as getting loads out of crappy airfields but then a 45% increase in power will do that for you

I will note that the Hurricane F/Bs were not doing well in the attacks on France in 1942 and that was the reason that the Whirlwinds were finally given bomb racks. There were only two Hurricane Fighter Bomber squadrons (there were only two fighter bomber squadrons total but that is another story) in operation crossing the channel and such was rate of supply to over seas theaters (or to Russia?) that the existing rate of attrition was going to require at least one of them to disbanded. By mounting bomb racks on the Whirlwinds Fighter command doubled their number of fighter bomber squadrons for cross channel attacks and the reduced work load meant both Hurricane squadrons could remain operational with the reduced need for replacement aircraft. RAF was trying to use small number (not even squadrons size) of fighter bombers as 'bait' for the Luftwaffe while providing several dozen or several scores of non bomb carrying escort.

I tend to like "what ifs" that are about different choices that could have been made using pretty much existing technology of it's time. Jet powered radar equipped night fighters using missiles in 1940 are well into the land of fantasy, not "what if".

 

[SplitRz]

I am problem going to chewed out for this but..........................

Hurricane I, which is what we are talking about in 1939-40 has a few technical things wrong with it as far as light bomber or fighter bomber goes. Some could have fixed had different decisions have been made at the time/s in question. A few of them apply to the Battle also which is part of the reason for the Battles poor reputation.

There are some other reasons like poor training and/or doctrine and some of them are just ignorance. Like very few people knew how effective light AA was going to be. Germans guessed better than others but they didn't know despite Spanish war experience.
British and French rather ignored WW I experience or remembered it as too costly and there for not to be repeated. It was too costly to use as a day in/day out substitute for artillery. It was not too costly to use for several days at a time to either push and attack through or to prevent a breakthrough while reinforcements were rushed into threatened areas.

British wanted that short field performance which meant light wing loading which equaled large wings, which means more drag and a bit more structural weight. Battle and Blenheim could fly closer to 60mph than 70 or 70 plus. This made them easy to fly and land but hurt top speed. The flaps didn't offer lot of extra lift. They helped land the planes by using drag and slowing the planes down rather than having them float over the fields if they came in even a little hot. For take off the British hurt the Merlin by giving it that high altitude supercharger. High is relative in 1939-40, Merlin III peaks around 4000ft higher than HS 12Ys or early DB601s but with 87 octane fuel they had to close the throttle to keep from over-boosting the engine and the Merlin III was only good for 880hp for take-off. Which kind of sucks for trying to get even a 500lb bomb load out of small airfield with even the 260sq ft of the Hurricane.

Things the British could have done in 1939/early 1940 that do not require using more modern aerodynamics than the 1935-36 aerodynamics used by the planes (changing structure/shape is going to delay production/service use) is using constant speed props instead of two pitch. Better climb/thrust at low altitudes and less than max speed.
Battle was designed as strategic bomber with a 400 mile radius or over double what the Hurricane could do. It was also designed to fly at 15,000-20,000ft, not sea level or at 1000ft across Belgium. Had the British installed either a medium supercharger gear or a low altitude supercharger gear they could have had somewhere around 1000-1100hp for take-off or combat flying at low altitudes even on 87 octane fuel. Use of 100 octane just adds a couple of hundred HP more. Use the fuel that suits you. It can go either way in the spring/summer of 1940. Please note that were either experimental Merlin's or service engines with both types of gears at the time. Like the Merlin VIII used in the Fulmar. You do have to change production priorities and I am not going to say if that could or could not be done. But the engines either existed or calculations as to power output existed at the time.
No saying that Hooker could have/should have developed the Merlin XX even quicker.

Those are some of the problems I have with the whole Battle vs Hurricane F/B argument. The Battle was never upgraded or given much in the way of protection or extra guns (a few got a single gun firing out through the floor, effect unknown). Hurricane II fighter bombers got the Merlin XX engine with the two speed supercharger, the Rotol propellers, 100 octane fuel and 12lbs of boost, some minimal fuel tank protection and some armor and BP glass. Some really late Hurricane had several hundred pounds of armor around the radiator and cockpit floor against ground fire so comparisons to losses sustained by Battles aren't really valid. That 400hp boost the Merlin XX gave for take-off over the Merlin III in the Hurricane I
was a real game changer as far as getting loads out of crappy airfields but then a 45% increase in power will do that for you

I will note that the Hurricane F/Bs were not doing well in the attacks on France in 1942 and that was the reason that the Whirlwinds were finally given bomb racks. There were only two Hurricane Fighter Bomber squadrons (there were only two fighter bomber squadrons total but that is another story) in operation crossing the channel and such was rate of supply to over seas theaters (or to Russia?) that the existing rate of attrition was going to require at least one of them to disbanded. By mounting bomb racks on the Whirlwinds Fighter command doubled their number of fighter bomber squadrons for cross channel attacks and the reduced work load meant both Hurricane squadrons could remain operational with the reduced need for replacement aircraft. RAF was trying to use small number (not even squadrons size) of fighter bombers as 'bait' for the Luftwaffe while providing several dozen or several scores of non bomb carrying escort.

I tend to like "what ifs" that are about different choices that could have been made using pretty much existing technology of it's time. Jet powered radar equipped night fighters using missiles in 1940 are well into the land of fantasy, not "what if".

I think there's a lot of wisdom in this. Especially the last sentence!

One of the largely forgotten stories of 1940 is the 'battle of the barges' - a series of attacks that were actually effective (and most likely would in and of themselves have made Sealion even more impossible than it was already inherently impractical) - and which involved pretty much all of Bomber Command's inventory - including the Fairey Battle. As a campaign, it was a success.

Context is always important when understanding the reasons for relative success of failure. You can only fight with what you have (or, for a thought experiment, reasonably could have had). One of the interesting and points of discussing 'What Ifs' are for me, pondering and discussing the realistically possible alternatives. The impossible or irrelevant ones, unless dosed with humour and a sense of fun, quickly decay into pointless ego and nerdism. That's why I always appreciate it when a title and terms of the first post are well framed and logical to the context of the period - and even more so, when people adhere to it.