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.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


What job is the Blenheim being asked to do? For a naval strike bomber we need accurate low level dive bombing and/or glide bombing. The Battle can do that as is. If we need more speed and power, we partially get that from a Merlin III and 12lb boost and fully get it with a Merlin X/XX.
 
Shortround6 said:
View attachment 585644
The Battle's fuselage was about 3 feet longer than the Barracuda's.
After the first 30 the MK IIs got a 1640hp Merlin.
Click to expand...

Look at how the torpedo straddles the wing to maintain the CG. The big failing of the Barracuda was the mid wing design which required a complex and heavy LG assembly and messed up the airflow over the elevators. The same basic design with a low wing would have saved ~1000lb and a year of design work. Unfortunately the Admiralty wanted a high wing to give better visibility (note the window under the wing), IIRC.
 
Why can't the Blenheim low level dive bomb (sort of an oxymoron) or glide bomb?
Both planes had a normal bomb load of four 250lb bombs, both could carry a pair of 500lb bombs except the Blenheim carried it's 500lb bombs inside.

What attributes did the Battle have that the Blenheim did not? How many hoops are you going to jump through to get the Battle up to the same speed and capabilities of the Blenheim?
Low as those were.
 

To dive bomb, the bombs have to drop clear of the fuselage. IIRC, the Blenheim's BB doors were forced open ( no hydraulics) by the descending bomb. The DAF often removed the BB doors but I suspect the geometry of the BB would limit the angle of release.

Fitting a Merlin III or X/XX to a Battle doesn't seem all that difficult.
 
So you're going to need a Merlin VIII or X. So that sounds feasible.
 
wuzak said:
What if the Battle got a Griffon engine? Or a Vulture II?

Maybe an R-2800?
Click to expand...
Wright Cyclone was tried by the Canadians. No way the Vulture will be made for a single application, RR learned that lesson with the Peregrine. But at low level I don't think it's necessary for this mission - set the Merlin's blower for LA and we're good.

A dozen Battles, each with 4 × 250 lb HE bombs and with adequate air cover would be useful against IJN and IJA ops in Malaya and Burma. Of course, with adequate air cover you could bomb the Japanese with Handley Page Heyford's (shown below in 1941) effectively.

 
Last edited:
wuzak said:
The Vulture was already in production.

Had it been used for the Battle there may have been enough encouragement to continue with the Tornado.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'd prefer the twin engine Battle proposal, two Peregrines would be ideal. The Pe-2 is about the same size as the Battle, engines likewise and it had a good turn of speed so it looks feasible. We definitely needed something better than the Blenheim IV & V for the light attack bomber role.
 
Forget that distraction, the RAF has the Mosquito and Beaufighter in the pipeline. No other twin engined anything is needed.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Forget that distraction, the RAF has the Mosquito and Beaufighter in the pipeline. No other twin engined anything is needed.
Click to expand...
The Mosquito doesn't arrive as a fighter bomber until 1943, the Beaufighter torpedo strike fighter likewise. There's a big gap in the middle it's called 1940-43. The gap is filled by the Maryland and Baltimore in the MTO, the Havoc and Boston in the ETO. Rubbish in the CBI, the Blenheim I, IV and V followed by the Vengeance which I thought was quite good. A limited mix of Boston and Mitchell's in the PTO followed by the Vengeance which wasn't rated good.
 
So, rated good, why do we need the twin Battle? And when would a twin Battle enter service?

Anyway, you're taking your own thread about the Battle in colonial threatres off topic.
 
Last edited:
Hi

The photo is certainly not from 1941 as it is a No. 10 Sqn. aircraft which were all replaced by Whitley Is during 1937. Indeed the nearest aircraft is probably K4023 'K' of "B" Flight which joined No. 10 Sqn. on 13.8.34 and left to join No. 97 Sqn. on 16.9.35. Almost all Heyfords were SOC during 1940, the last ones flying with the 'Bombing & Gunnery Schools'. I think the last to be SOC was K6888 on 7.5.41, but that had been in MUs from 2.5.40. None of these would have been available for any service during 1941.

Mike
 
Whatever one thinks of the Fairey Battle it was built to (shallow) dive bomb. The 250lb internal wing cell mounts could be extended below wing level to allow for release in a dive. Were they sent to Malaya in addition to OTL forces then they were in a position to do great damage to the Japanese troop ships. If they could get through to them. Yes many would be shot down by fighters and AA fire but no one seems to worry about the losses of infantry losses fighting the japanese troops if they landed without the troopships being hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Finish copy of the DH "Mosquito"
Replies
6
Views
611
Seppo
S
German answer to the WAllies introducing the P-47 + DTs and Mustang Mk.X in June of 1943?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
SaparotRob
What if the Bugatti 100p became a fighter?
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
GTX
A
Spanish Lend-Lease and (Potential) Domestic Production if Franco Joined the Axis
Replies
6
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Realistic limits of the small 12 cyl engines, 1935-45
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register