If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?

[Admiral Beez]

it is very easy in hindsight to criticize using planes that didn't exist or didn't perform as claimed in the time period being discussed.

We're not relying on hindsight. The AM need only: look at the bombers and fighters then in service that the Nimrod's replacement would need to counter; ask the pilots what they need; and finally test and exercise to verify any assumptions. Clearly none of this occurred.

Replacing the Nimrod with the obsolete Sea Gladiator and dual role Skua may have been convenient and fiscally prudent, but you're not going to catch the bombers. As tomo pauk points out, even the single-engined Battle will outpace these two FAA fighters. It's no wonder the thinking of time was "the bomber will always get through", when this was what was intended to counter them. We can only assume that the intended role for the FAA's Nimrod replacement was not fleet defence, but instead reconnaissance and scouting, and that instead RN's battleships would bring the war to the enemy and AA would tackle the bombers.

 

[swampyankee]

You do have to be careful about asking pilots; user communities are frequently loath to change what works now, even if it won't work in the very near future. One can see this with some of the Japanese and Italian fighters: the CR.42 was strongly influenced by the pilot community's concern with low-speed maneuverability. The Zero and Ki.43 were not as extreme, but both compromised overall performance for turning performance

 

[Admiral Beez]

You do have to be careful about asking pilots; user communities are frequently loath to change what works now, even if it won't work in the very near future. One can see this with some of the Japanese and Italian fighters: the CR.42 was strongly influenced by the pilot community's concern with low-speed maneuverability. The Zero and Ki.43 were not as extreme, but both compromised overall performance for turning performance

Good points. Fleet exercises will challenge what pilots think they want.

 

[Admiral Beez]

There is another option of course.... replace the Nimrod with nothing and free up the hangar space for TSRs and dive bombers. That's what HMS Ark Royal did. After the Flycatcher was withdrawn, HMS Hermes operated just TSRs until she was sunk in 1942.

 

[tomo pauk]

After everything is said and done, the Sea Hurricane still looks like a winner.

 

[SaparotRob]

After everything is said and done, the Sea Hurricane still looks like a winner.

Even with only a few it had to be better.

 

[Admiral Beez]

After everything is said and done, the Sea Hurricane still looks like a winner.

I have to wholeheartedly agree. Scrap the Sea Gladiator proposal, instead run the Nimrod (and Skua) until the fixed-wing Sea Hurricane can be sorted (3 blade vp prop, metal wings, arrestor hook, etc). I expect there will be a period where the Nimrods will be replaced first by the Skuas before the Sea Hurricanes are ready.... but we can certainly do better than introducing it to fleet service in 1941.

What we really want is to skip the Fulmar and Firefly..... so the succession of FAA fighters is Nimrod, Skua, Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Sea Fury, Attacker, Vampire, Seahawk, Venon, Scimitar, Vixen, Sea Harrier. Maybe we can skip the Attacker and Scimitar like we did the Seafang and much of the Firebrand.

 

[nuuumannn]

Do you know why the nose turret was removed from the Wellington??

As far as I know, weight saving and to provide a better view over the nose for the pilot. The pilot's aiming device was a framework mounted on the sill forward of the windscreen. Here's a wee piccie from IWM, note the nose contour and revised bomb bay doors, with cutouts in the rear of the bomb bay to enable the carriage of a MAT (Took me ages to find a photo!).

BRITISH AIRCRAFT IN ROYAL AIR FORCE SERVICE, 1939-1945: VICKERS WELLINGTON.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey nuuumannn,

Thanks for the link and description. I knew that the Wellington had carried torpedoes operationally, but I had never seen or heard of any of the mods you described.

 

[nuuumannn]

I knew that the Wellington had carried torpedoes operationally, but I had never seen or heard of any of the mods you described.

No worries Thomas, like with the Hampden, the aircraft were bomber variants especially modified to carry torpedoes but the requirement to do so was not written into its specification, oddly, the same as that to which the Hampden was produced, B.9/32. I think that later Coastal Command Wellingtons could also carry torpedoes and mines, but I'm not so certain as to what mods were carried out on these.

Here's another piccie.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Vickers_Wellington_-_Royal_Air_Force_Operations_in_North_Africa,_1939-1943._ME(RAF)3689.jpg

 

[ThomasP]

I just downloaded the 3 pics you posted, and labeled them Torpington . . .