What airplane could have turned the tide of the war?

Hi,
As an aside, several years ago I tried to convert a scale model of a Battle into a torpedo bomber, though I'm not sure if it would be too long to operate from a carrier. I think that the suggestion to start from the slightly smaller Fulmar for a what if torpedo bomber might not be a bad idea at all.
Pat

Marcel said:

Turn the tide of war? If I interpret it as 'changed the timeline of the war' then I would suggest good and capable aircraft in abundance for the neutrals In 1939/1940. If Poland, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands would have beaten there sh!t out of the Luftwaffe, the BOB would never have happened, maybe not even the battle of France.

Click to expand...

With 20/20 hindsight, the Hurricane was produced faster than the RAF could accept it and so selling them was discussed, the Yugoslavs ordered some (24 according to wiki). Poland, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands (also previously Czechoslovakia) inflicted losses on the LW. If the Hurricane had been thrown out in enough numbers and given to any European state that would have them, it could have happened. By the end of the BoB the LW was down to about 200 serviceable bombers, it wouldn't take a huge increase in losses before the Battle of france ran differently and the Battle of Britain either didn't start or turned into a damp squib. The only problem with this shifting of timelines is that you end up ordering Merlins and Hurricanes and commissioning state funded factories before Adolf actually comes to power.

nuuumannn said:

A torpedo bomber Fulmar might have been possible - might, as it was based on the Fairey P.4/34, which was built to spec P.4/34 for a light day bomber, to which the Hawker Henley was built, but that leaves the FAA without a viable fighter. There weren't that many Fulmars at any given time and those that there were were very busy dog fighting with aircraft that were their superior in the Mediterranean and were not doing as badly as one might suspect. One problem in carrying a torpedo is the Fulmar's nasal features; that big messy radiator/oil cooler arrangement might make carrying and releasing torpedoes difficult.

View attachment 559953Fulmar nose



Yup Admiral, you're right, it was ridiculous that it took so long to get into service - airframe wise it was a dog's breakfast and it was sorting out aerodynamic issues that meant it spent far too long in development - this wasn't the FAA's fault. Marcel Lobelle (Fairey designer) chose a clean sheet design rather than an adaptation of an existing platform as he did with the Fulmar, but the Barra was flawed because arguably too much was being asked of the one airframe and it was designed around the observer's room below the wing, which meant it was a shoulder wing design, which, with its big Fairey-Youngman flaps, disrupted airflow round the hori stab. One thing led to another and another...

On the Albacore as a dive bomber, they were used as such during the build up to Operation Torch in attacking Vichy French airfields, with moderate success, but losses were suffered.

Click to expand...

Nope, I'd have developed the Fulmar into a Scout / dive-bomber for use against the IJN carriers able to carry bigger bombs.

Albacore and Barracuda are perfect for the atrocious weather conditions we have in the Atlantic, the later maybe better with a Griffon from the start.

The Firefly, underpowered, perhaps the Sabre would have been a better fit from the start.

We still need those 5 Ark Royal style carriers with deck edge lifts, so the 5 KGV class battleships will have to go, and we'll upgrade the 4 Iron Duke class battleships as hybrids instead and uparmour the Tiger.

Admiral Beez said:

Fairey should have just made the Albacore a monoplane, closed hood Swordfish, same as the Hurricane is essentially a monoplane Fury or Nimrod.

View attachment 559958

Click to expand...

Nope, for a faster TBR for the East Indies, upgrade the Fairey Battle, folding wings and torpedo slung underneath the belly.

Kevin J said:

Nope, I'd have developed the Fulmar into a Scout / dive-bomber for use against the IJN carriers able to carry bigger bombs.

Click to expand...

Well, there's certainly logic in that suggestion owing to the Fulmar's origins. I'm with Eric Brown in the suggestion that the FAA pilots needed not to have gone to war in such antiquated airframes as the Swordfish and Albacore, particularly knowing the Japanese have put aircraft such as the Nakajima B5N into service.

Kevin J said:

Nope, for a faster TBR for the East Indies, upgrade the Fairey Battle, folding wings and torpedo slung underneath the belly.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't bother with the Battle on a carrier deck - it's a big, heavy aeroplane. As you probably understand, Kev, putting an aircraft on a carrier deck requires more than just making its wings fold and giving it an 'ook. The problem is the FAA and the specifications it released to industry being too complex and overreaching when a basic single purpose design could have done the jobs that were expected of the aircraft designed for the specification - the Barracuda for example, and the likes of Spiecification O.5/43 for a torpedo bomber/dive bomber that produced the Fairey Spearfish.

A clean sheet torpedo bomber that wasn't aerodynamically complex, simple to build and maintain, structurally sound and with a reasonable performance, something like the Grumman Avenger, for example.

Just considering the Ballte as a carrier aircraft foir a moment, the Fulmar breaks down into a smaller, easily manageable airframe below decks.

0307 FAA Museum Fulmar

Looking at the Avenger and the Battle side by side, they are almost identical in terms of physical dimensions - they both are around the same in terms of wingspan, length and height, but the Battle has a far greater wing area, is heavier and slower, the Avenger can carry a heavier warload - its torpedo internally, although they both have a similar range.

Avenger wing fold

nuuumannn said:

Well, there's certainly logic in that suggestion owing to the Fulmar's origins. I'm with Eric Brown in the suggestion that the FAA pilots needed not to have gone to war in such antiquated airframes as the Swordfish and Albacore, particularly knowing the Japanese have put aircraft such as the Nakajima B5N into service.



I wouldn't bother with the Battle on a carrier deck - it's a big, heavy aeroplane. As you probably understand, Kev, putting an aircraft on a carrier deck requires more than just making its wings fold and giving it an 'ook. The problem is the FAA and the specifications it released to industry being too complex and overreaching when a basic single purpose design could have done the jobs that were expected of the aircraft designed for the specification - the Barracuda for example, and the likes of Spiecification O.5/43 for a torpedo bomber/dive bomber that produced the Fairey Spearfish.

A clean sheet torpedo bomber that wasn't aerodynamically complex, simple to build and maintain, structurally sound and with a reasonable performance, something like the Grumman Avenger, for example.

Just considering the Ballte as a carrier aircraft foir a moment, the Fulmar breaks down into a smaller, easily manageable airframe below decks.

View attachment 5600910307 FAA Museum Fulmar

Looking at the Avenger and the Battle side by side, they are almost identical in terms of physical dimensions - they both are around the same in terms of wingspan, length and height, but the Battle has a far greater wing area, is heavier and slower, the Avenger can carry a heavier warload - its torpedo internally, although they both have a similar range.

View attachment 560092Avenger wing fold

Click to expand...

The Battle is certainly not heavier but is slower with only half the HP. If you want a decent tbr then I'd say a Barracuda with a Griffon. As an interim conventional light bomber for carrier service, I'd still go for a Battle but with the 30 series Merlin, unless a much bigger bomb can be slung under the Fulmar. If we can put a torpedo under the Battle then that's a bonus, our Avengers only ever carried bombs and depth charges, and never dropped a torpedo. The Albacore did everything the Battle could do, but at a slower pace, even carried a torpedo. Perhaps the Admiralty really did know what they were doing?

[QUOTE="Admiral Beez, post: 1510645,
"No one in the West would be advocating for an armistice......"

I find it hard to believe that the Germans would even consider approaching America/England with a conditional armistice, if, they didn't have information telling them that there were some who would agree to it.

By mid-war, politicians and generals were already aware of Stalin's game playing and considering ways to put an end to it and also to the threat he was ours lose in the future.

When you have outspoken WARRIORS, like Patton, willing and able to take on the Russians head on, you will always have shadow warriors and politicians in the background with the same goal, but, looking for a "cleaner" way to get it done.

My feeling is that, in the end, the Nazis did too much evil to let them get away with a limited armistice. Had they not been guilty of genocide and other atrocities, kicking Nazi ass back behind their original border and playing up Russian atrocities against it's own people may have been enough to justify to the Western public a ceasefire on the Western front. In addition, with our allies safe again, we could turn our attention towards the country that did attack us first, Japan, Playing up the ability to shift resources to the Pacific as another reason to end the shooting war against Germany.

Ultimately, I believe Nazi misdeeds prevented a limited armistice from occurring and caused the Western allies to begin considering taking care of the "Soviet problem" themselves, otherwise, plans such as Operation Unthinkable wouldn't have been on the table.

thunderbird said:

Does anyone want the Nazis to win WWII? What airplane(s) would have helped the Allies win the war sooner? My vote is for using P-38s as tactical bombers instead of building B-25s or B-26s. Similar range and payload, but much faster.

Click to expand...

Agreed, let's close this war sooner. My vote, Napier Sabre and Griffon engines developed earlier, with Typhoon entering service earlier, with maybe a naval variant asap. Next, Beaufighter, Mosquito and Lancaster move up a year earlier or more.

How about the six Swordfish and nine Sea Gladiators serving on HMS Glorious when she was sunk in April 1940?

Instead, the six Swordfish are torpedo armed, fueled and on deck. Four Sea Gladiators are on CAP, and spot Scharnhorst and Gneisenau well beyond the gunnery range to Glorious. The carrier immediately launches her six Stringbags and soon after the remaining five Sea Gladiators, just in case the sisters' half dozen Arado Ar 196 try to interfere. Meanwhile HMS Ark Royal is alerted and prepares a larger strike. In the ensuing attack, in calm seas and clear skies, both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are hit by torpedoes, with both slowed down sufficiently for Ark Royal's Swordfish and Skuas to finish them off.

So, now in April 1940, just months after the beginning of the European War, two modern capital ships have been sunk at sea by small numbers of carrier strike aircraft. Surely this will have an impact globally to naval planning and strategy. Italy may think twice about invading France the following month, and both Germany and Italy may choose to expedite their carrier programs over their battleships. After the recent loss of Graf Spee, Hitler will not be amused with his surface fleet. Japan will watch this all closely of course.

The sinking of the Bismark had zero impact on the war and it was the oft maligned Swordfish that locked her in a fatal turn with torpedo hits.

And why didn't the Bismark's Ar196s interdict the Swordfish's approach?

Admiral Beez said:

Agreed, let's close this war sooner. My vote, Napier Sabre and Griffon engines developed earlier, with Typhoon entering service earlier, with maybe a naval variant asap. Next, Beaufighter, Mosquito and Lancaster move up a year earlier or more.

Click to expand...

I vote for a false flag attack on the USN in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1940, Japanese blamed; plus Twin Towers destroyed in August 1940 too, piloted by Nazi suicide bombers flying Fw 200 Condors based in Bordeaux, actual cause, navigational errors and clouds. America is outraged, joins us Brits immediately. USSR never gets invaded. War finishes Spring 1944.

Kevin J said:

As an interim conventional light bomber for carrier service, I'd still go for a Battle but with the 30 series Merlin, unless a much bigger bomb can be slung under the Fulmar. If we can put a torpedo under the Battle then that's a bonus, our Avengers only ever carried bombs and depth charges, and never dropped a torpedo.

Click to expand...

Why bother with a Battle when you have the Applecore, Barracuda, Fulmar and Swordfish, all of which could act as bombers. Besides, the Battle was officially declared obsolete in 1941. The remaining aircraft went into service as training aircraft. Waste of time and effort converting Battles for carrier duties. That wing has to be redesigned for folding, the structure beefed up, etc, etc. Why bother? it'd just make a slow ponderous aircraft even slower and more ponderous?

nuuumannn said:

Why bother with a Battle when you have the Applecore, Barracuda, Fulmar and Swordfish, all of which could act as bombers. Besides, the Battle was officially declared obsolete in 1941. The remaining aircraft went into service as training aircraft. Waste of time and effort converting Battles for carrier duties. That wing has to be redesigned for folding, the structure beefed up, etc, etc. Why bother? it'd just make a slow ponderous aircraft even slower and more ponderous?

Click to expand...

Was it easier & cheaper to make two designs (Albacore, Barracuda) or to navalize the Battle? Should we brag around how Albacore and Barracuda were amazing aircraft?

For the Allies, we have already had the suggestion that the Fairey Battles be replaced by an equal number of Hurricanes to alter the Battle of France, which is a very plausible idea, especially as 2,201 Battles were produced up to September 1940. However, there may be attractions in avoiding the shortage of RR Merlins by another route and changing events even before the Battle of France.

If we can imagine an aircraft that was flown as at least a prototype being developed earlier, we could imagine that Henry Folland, the chief designer of Gloster Aircraft, had been slightly quicker to decide in 1934 that future aircraft would be monoplanes of stressed skin construction with retractable undercarriages. In our world, Gloster redesigned their Gauntlet fighter, which had been ordered into production in September 1933, as a private venture to give the significantly improved Gladiator, which first flew in September 1934 and introduced such modern features as an enclosed cockpit. The Gladiator was ordered by the RAF in June 1935 as it was much superior to the other contenders for Specification F.7/30 most of which were handicapped by the RR Goshawk engine whilst the Gauntlet and the Gladiator used Bristol's reliable Mercury. If Folland had followed his historic route towards his F.5/34 design Gloster F.5/34 - Wikipedia but quicker and without building a Gladiator prototype, it might have flown perhaps a year earlier than its historical December 1936 first flight and close to the Hurricane's November 1935 first flight (note that the all metal P-36 Hawk flew in May 1935). By November 1935, the RAF would have been desperate to replace the Gloster Gauntlet and Hawker Fury biplanes but would have realized that the Hurricane must wait for Merlin production to build up. Thus they might have ordered both aircraft into production especially as the flight trials of the "Gladiator" monoplane (assuming that it gets the same name) would not have been delayed by engine problems or difficulties in spin recovery (which is dubious as the F.5/34 design's care over spin recovery may reflect the Gladiator and Hurricane's problems).

Historically the first Gladiator was received by the RAF on 16th February 1937. With at least a six-month delay in the order and a new type of structure, the first production "Gladiator" monoplane would hopefully be delivered at around the same time as the first Hurricane on 12 October 1937 but production would build faster as engines were available. Thus, it is possible that by September 1938, London would be defended by monoplanes, "Gladiators" and the first Hurricanes, rather than by mostly biplane Gladiators.

Can we suggest that Chamberlain at Munich has been advised that German bombers are now not such a serious threat and is more willing to risk war? Even if history roles on its way up to September 1939, Belgium, Finland and Norway may have stronger air forces in 1940.

Another contender, the Canadian Car & Foundry (CC&F) Goblin, but maintained in production, with F3F improvements, as the stepping stone to the early arrival of the CC&F Martlet.

118 SQN RCAF CC&F Gobblins (Grumman FF-1)



With a good and uninterrupted pipeline to Grumman's tech and specs, CC&F can skip Hurricanes and produce fixed wing Martlets from about 1938 onwards. Send the first 300-400 to Malaya, then convert to the folding variant for the FAA.

Also, send CC&F drawings and expertise on the Goblin and later F3F to CAC in Australia to begin a parallel line, eventually switching over to Martlets, same as CC&F.

Admiral Beez said:

Another contender, the Canadian Car & Foundry (CC&F) Goblin, but maintained in production, with F3F improvements, as the stepping stone to the early arrival of the CC&F Martlet.

118 SQN RCAF CC&F Gobblins (Grumman FF-1)

View attachment 561869

With a good and uninterrupted pipeline to Grumman's tech and specs, CC&F can skip Hurricanes and produce fixed wing Martlets from about 1938 onwards. Send the first 300-400 to Malaya, then convert to the folding variant for the FAA.

Also, send CC&F drawings and expertise on the Goblin and later F3F to CAC in Australia to begin a parallel line, eventually switching over to Martlets, same as CC&F.

Click to expand...

Little problem here, first Martlets delivered 1940, other than that, it's still.a good idea.

Kevin J said:

Little problem here, first Martlets delivered 1940, other than that, it's still.a good idea.

Click to expand...

Understood. My thinking above was that CC&F could begin setting up for production of the Martlet in 1938, perhaps six to eight months after the Wildcat's Sept 1937 first flight in the USA. CC&F will need time to set up tooling, materials procurement, etc. so the first Martlet likely won't fly until 1939.

Admiral Beez said:

Understood. My thinking above was that CC&F could begin setting up for production of the Martlet in 1938, perhaps six to eight months after the Wildcat's Sept 1937 first flight in the USA. CC&F will need time to set up tooling, materials procurement, etc. so the first Martlet likely won't fly until 1939.

Click to expand...

You can't do that because it's a redesigned wing, but I like the idea of CC&F producing Martlets instead of Hurricanes as we would no longer need the Sea Hurricane which had some issues when landing on deck. Also, they should have built Hellcats rather than Helldivers.