What if, the Fairey Battle got a new lease of life in the Far flung outposts of the British Empire land based for torpedo (dive) bomber recce duties.

[Kevin J]

We seemed to have a shortage of such aircraft in SE Asia, the East Indies and Pacific theatres at the start of the war although Australia got sent 366, Canada 739 and South Africa 340. Can it carry a torpedo, either depth charges or extra fuel tanks in its wings.

 

[nuuumannn]

Interesting, but the large numbers supplied to the colonies was in aid of the Empire Air Training Scheme, the RAAF for example used theirs entirely in support roles only, not as front line aircraft. But I see where you're going with this, Kevin.

 

[Shortround6]

The Battle was not equipped with either armor or self sealing fuel tanks and might not have been judged combat capable after the battle for France. Battles were also built with Merlin III engines which is not the engine to use for low altitude combat.
Battles used a single Vickers K gun out the back.

All of this things can be fixed on new production planes or by an extensive modification program. But at what cost?

Not sure about slinging a torpedo under the fuselage without local strengthening.
A Battle was barely a 200mph airplane at sea level as it was let alone with a torpedo hanging underneath it. Yes that is better than a biplane torpedo bomber but is it enough difference to really make a difference?

And if you swipe the Battles for semi combat roles what do you use for trainers? Stretched Miles Masters with 3 man crews?
Battles were used for gunnery training and for bomber training.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We seemed to have a shortage of such aircraft in SE Asia, the East Indies and Pacific theatres at the start of the war although Australia got sent 366, Canada 739 and South Africa 340. Can it carry a torpedo, either depth charges or extra fuel tanks in its wings.

Send them all to Malaya to supplant the Vickers Vilderbeest. Or if post-Feb 1942, to Ceylon to hit Nagumo.

If the Battle can carry 1,500 of bombs then it can lift a torpedo. Just see if the tailwheel needs to be raised and engineer some torpedo mounts. Can the Merlin's supercharger be modified for optimal output at low altitude?

Of course if at Malaya, without air cover the Battle is doomed, and five squadrons of Buffaloes covering a territory larger than the UK (where over 80 fighter squadrons were active) and operating from poorly conceived, placed, defended and supplied airfields won't cut it. Address these deficiencies, especially air cover and the Battle would also serve a useful role as a CAS bomber once the IJA is ashore.

 

[Dinger]

The South African Air Force did use a small number of Battles quite successfully against the Italians in East Africa (with No 11 squadron). The outstanding success of the Wellesleys in the East African campaign shows what could be done if older "obsolete" designs are redeployed to theatres where the opposition is not so advanced. - Vickers Wellesley
But I don't think it would have been very good against the Japanese. Certainly, if you were offered the choice between flying a Vildebeest or a Battle against the Japanese I'd choose the Battle, if it was daylight, but still regard it as a suicide mission. But I rather think I'd prefer my chances, and get better results, with a Vildebeest at night.

 

[Shortround6]

If you swap the supercharger drive gears you can get more power at low altitudes. That is what was done for the Merlin MK VIII. Fitting an armor plate behind the pilot and another behind the gunner might not be difficult, fitting twin K guns might not be that hard either, assuming you can get the guns. Hampdens went from single mounts to duals.

I don't know about the torpedo. The Battle carried it's bombs in or under the wings. While the plane can lift the weight finding attachment points in suitable locations may or may not be easy. Struts/braces have to attach to major structural components. Can these modifications be done at squadron level or do they area workshops? If you double the rear guns on 500 Battles what other planes fight on with single guns instead of duals?

The empire training scheme is part of what allowed the allies to win. Taking too many of the training aircraft away from it means fewer and/or greener pilots and crew going into action in 1942/43 is going to mean higher losses and less damage to enemy regardless of what aircraft they have.

Since Blenheims were kept in combat service perhaps figuring a way to make the Blenheims more effective might pay better dividends.

 

[RCAFson]

During the IJN's Operation C 9 x Bleinheims attacked the IJN carriers on 9 April 1942 with a level bombing attack. I'd argue that 9 x Battles, flying the same flight path cpuld have attacked and made a low level glide bomb attack and actually scored some hits. During the same operation an IJN CVL was operating in the Bay of Bengal and a squadron of battle could have sank it with relative ease.

 

[RCAFson]

We seemed to have a shortage of such aircraft in SE Asia, the East Indies and Pacific theatres at the start of the war although Australia got sent 366, Canada 739 and South Africa 340. Can it carry a torpedo, either depth charges or extra fuel tanks in its wings.

I suspect the radiator location would prevent carrying a torpedo but the Battle already carried 290IG (348usg) of fuel and had a range( with allowances) of 1000 miles at 200mph. It could carry up to 6 x 250lb bombs (4 in internally in the wings) or a combination of 500lb and 250lb bombs with the 500lb bombs carried on external racks.

It was a tragically misused aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

Would the Battles have employed level bombing or the glide bomb you describe? Or does it depend on training/doctrine?
If so, is there a reason the historical Blenheims could not have glide bombed at low level had they been trained to do so?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I suspect the radiator location would prevent carrying a torpedo but the Battle already carried 290IG (348usg) of fuel and had a range( with allowances) of 1000 miles at 200mph. It could carry up to 6 x 250lb bombs (4 in internally in the wings) or a combination of 500lb and 250lb bombs with the 500lb bombs carried on external racks.

It was a tragically misused aircraft.

The radiator is pretty much tucked away under the nose, similar to Fairey's Barracuda. I can't see it being in the way of a torpedo hanging on the centreline.

 

[mjfur]

What if the Japanese had developed Sharks with Laser beams? It would have made your Battles obsolete.

 

[RCAFson]

The radiator is pretty much tucked away under the nose, similar to Fairey's Barracuda. I can't see it being in the way of a torpedo hanging on the centreline.

The Barracuda has a chin radiator and significantly more ground clearance than a Battle.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Barracuda has a chin radiator and significantly more ground clearance than a Battle.

The Battle's radiator is aft, but still under the nose, and looks to have sufficient ground clearance provided a raised tail wheel and that the torp is hung like a Devastator's.

 

[RCAFson]

The Battle's radiator is aft, but still under the nose, and looks to have sufficient ground clearance provided a raised tail wheel and that the torp is hung like a Devastator's.

View attachment 585610

The RN MK12 aerial torpedo is somewhat longer than the USN Mk13. It would require a lot of design work to come up with a suitable mounting, and the drag would be considerable.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The RN MK12 aerial torpedo is somewhat longer than the USN Mk13. It would require a lot of design work to come up with a suitable mounting, and the drag would be considerable.

True.... and I don't think anything powered by a single Merlin ever carried and dropped a torpedo in combat. We're pulling a brick through pudding with all this drag.

 

[tomo pauk]

Fortunately, people at Fairey never produced the Barracuda. They immediately saw Merlin for what it was: a lousy engine.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Fortunately, people at Fairey never produced the Barracuda. They immediately saw Merlin for what it was: a lousy engine.

Their Swordfish replacement should have been a monoplane .

 

[Shortround6]

The Battle's fuselage was about 3 feet longer than the Barracuda's.
After the first 30 the MK IIs got a 1640hp Merlin.

 

[wuzak]

What if the Battle got a Griffon engine? Or a Vulture II?

Maybe an R-2800?

 

[Shortround6]

Or the Sabre

The Original Battle was about 25-30mph slower than a Blenheim MK I at most altitudes, climbed slower and had a lower ceiling. Blenheim had a better defensive gun set up from the start (powered mount/turret for rear defence). If the Blenheim can't do the job you are going to need a rather extensively modified Battle. A 10% increase in performance just about gets you up to the performance of the Blenheim. You are going to need 1050-1200hp at sea level and no increase in drag just to match the Blenheim (and hope the Blenheim pilot can't use the 9lb boost limit some of them had.)