Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Graham
There were serious problems with Spitfire, Supermarine being just too small and too inexperienced for a mass production. That is why she was considered a stop-gap only, and even in 1940, due to serious delays at Castle Bromwich (oh, those commies) it was considered to cancel the production in favour of other types. The one must consider CBAF was then in hand of Morris, while Supermarine was Vickers Armstrong, hardly friends.
Of course there was a lot of conflicts on several decisions, which we find either correct or wrong, but we have a different perspective. I am wondering, how RAF would serve its purpose having no Spitfires or Mosquitoes, both types having extremelly strong opponents.
Concerning Typhoon and its qualities - well, it simply never entered intended role, and was almost cancelled due to breaking off tails. The fact it was used as a pulveriser had more to the lack of any other suitable aircraft rather than any particular qualities of the design. Considering the amount of money spend at HM citizens expense, certainly a complete failure would have caused some heads falling (including those responsible for the specification), so it is obvious some people were anxious to see it in any role.
The question remains, was there any aircraft better suit to the role of CAS and available for the RAF. Airacobra or Thunderbolt?
Concerning P-47, this was a subject of a very strong PR action, but while not as much a success, it entered intended role anyway.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

BC dropped 30 bombs on the Koenigsberg and missed. The FAA Skuas sank it. In my book it is evidence for the claim that BC lacked competence.

But if this doesn't do it for reasons which you give but I cannot understand, please explain what evidence would convince you that a country's bombing force was incompetent. Let's ignore the divebomber versus level bomber debate, which you agree was decided in favour of the divebomber.

Would you accept the following as evidence that a country's bombers were incompetent in contrast with another country.

Two aircraft of country X surprised warship Z and dropped bombs on it, causing extensive damage and killing 31 sailors and wounding 74. The ship had to abandon its mission and return to the shipyard for repairs. The two attacking aircraft returned unharmed to base.

Ten aircraft of country Y surprised warship Z and dropped bombs causing negligible damage. The ship remained on station. Five of the attacking aircraft were shot down.

Would you say this was evidence that country Y's bombers were incompetent, or would you say that their failure was not surprising?
Contrastingly, would you say that Country X's bombers were outstanding, or would you say that their success was unsurprising?

By the way, this is no whatif.

Tony

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Steve49: "There is no denying that dive-bombers in the face of limited air defence offered a better weapons platform for 'precision' attacks and the failure to provide dedicated ground attack aircraft hampered the Allied forces in the first half of the war."

I entirely agree that divebombing is more precise. It is also more vulnerable, as your qualification implies. There is a trade-off, and clearly opinions differed on the best way to use limited resources. It is worth pointing out that, but for the urgent requirement for Hurricanes, the Henley could have been made available for late 1940/41. The RAF were not totally neglecting such types, they just were squeezed out by Beaverbrook's urgent priorities in 1940. I do think it difficult to justify any number of Henleys at the expense of a greater number of Hurricanes, in mid 1940.

The French had no shortage of dedicated ground attack aircraft, which rather deflates your second claim. Clearly there were other factors in play. The important factors are less the aircraft in hand than the weapons available for them, the training and doctrine, and the operational command and control system. I entirely agree that these were lacking, but argue that the platform is of less importance.

tcolvin: Cherry-picking single examples is futile. We can all point to bombing attacks, by all nations, that failed to damage the targets at all. How many times did the Germans claim to have sunk the Ark Royal? If you want to go after shipping targets, particularly large warships, you need trained crews and weapons capable of doing damage. It seems that the prewar RAF faith in level bombing with their 2000lb SAP was misplaced.

Franek: No, the Typhoon did enter in its intended role as interceptor, against the Jabos. It was also used for intruder missions, long range by RAF fighter standards. It can hardly be blamed for the lack of mass formations of German bombers, to try it against its design role.

As alternatives to the Spitfire and Typhoon in 1940 - what? More Hurricanes? Now I will defend the Hurricane against its more ignorant detractors, but let's be serious! The Whirlwind? The Vickers Venom, or any of the other Mercury-engined fighters? If you want other alternatives in 1940, then you have to lay the groundwork for them in 1937. How many alternative fighters could the British industry have been producing at any one time? They already had the Hurricane, Spitfire, Whirlwind and Defiant, plus the Blenheim and the Beaufighter, the Skua, Roc, Gladiator and Fulmar. Quite enough, I feel, to cover a range of possible scenarios of needs and failures.

The P-39 has nothing that the Typhoon didn't, except some agility and, initially, a better view. It was slower, much less power and much less firepower. In any competition the Typhoon would have won hands down (as, effectively, it did).

The P-47 would have done better, I believe, because of the radial engine and its accidental armouring - the stainless steel ducting for the turbocharger. However, the P-47 was not available to the RAF until two years after the Typhoon, and would not have been available in enough numbers for D-Day. It was widely and successfully used by the 9th and other US AFs.

Similar comments apply to the very similar Hellcat, otherwise an excellent choice for 2 TAF (despite being the slowest fighter ever built with a 2000hp engine - Firebrand excepted!).

The only real alternatives were the Vengeance and the Bermuda. I think we've discussed those.

I see the key problem (with platforms) as the non-availability of more powerful engines, particularly radials. Had the Centaurus been more successful early on - or had production not been stopped to redesign it "a la Fw 190" - then the Tornado would have made a superior GA aircraft to the Typhoon. Not that it would ever satisfy the dive-bomber theorists, but good enough to become the classic fighter-bomber of its time, perhaps. Perhaps a Tornado/Typhoon with an R2800 - but they weren't available in large enough numbers soon enough, either.

You may argue that the Typhoon became the RAF's main fighter-bomber by default, but I see no real alternative, other than heaping yet more duties on the long-suffering Spitfire. Which did indeed carry out much GA work, but I believe any fair comparison would show the Typhoon superior to it.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Graham
Typhoon was too late and only filled the unexpected gap, never becoming the main RAF fighter. Even this was achieved with plenty of problems - I would hardly call that a success. Still, there were some alternatives, eg. Spitfire XII for low level interceptions - actually they were faster that Typhoons. There is a very interesting comparison between Tempest and Griffon Spitfire and Merlin Mustang in the mentioned AFDU report. Even far superior Tempest was a niche aircraft that actually was not that necessary, and could have been well replaced by the other types in the inventory.
Going back to 1940, indeed there was no serious alternative for Spitfire and as a stop-gap - Hurricane. But was not production of Hurricanes in later period a waste of resources?
The another question is - do we need a monster engined fighter at all? Perhaps less power, however wise designed aircraft is a better sollution? This is what lightweight Mustang actually followed.
P-39 could have been not an ideal choice but it had several advantages. Indeed it was slower, but it was still pretty fast, one of the fastest low level aircraft at the time. Forward view must have been superior to the one of Typhoon for obvious reasons and it is often crucial in ground attack duties. It was much more streamlined, thus a harder target to hit with all the internal fittings hidden behind the structure. Certainly there was a potential in the type.
On the other hand, Thunderbolt was available for RAF just for Normandy landings but it was send overseas to replace Hurricanes, which then could have been replaced by increased Spitfire production and already mentioned Vengeances. This would leave Hawker with no own type in production, however, and Hawker was the main supplier of RAF through the 1930s.
There were possible alternatives, but going to the main topic, Battle was no alternative.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

"BC dropped 30 bombs on the Koenigsberg and missed. The FAA Skuas sank it. In my book it is evidence for the claim that BC lacked competence."


Tony
after all BC sank ½ of German battleships, Tirpitz
Knocked out for good ½ of German battlecruisers, Gneisenau.
sank 2/3 of German Pocket battleships, Admiral Scheer and Lützow.
Now the 2 pocket battleships were sunk during the last month of war but Lützow was still giving valuable gun support to hard pressed Heer when sunk. Halifaxes damaged Schanhorst badly at La Pallice on 24 July 41. Carpet bombing of La Havre sunk a number of torpedo and motor torpedoboats and forced others to move away from there during summer 44. There were also many failures and the bombings of Schanhorst, Gneisenau and Hipper at Brest were ineffective. But so were Luftwaffe's attacks on Scapa Flow, on Rosyth and on Loch Ewe or what was the RN's temporary base in NW Scotland.

BTW, how many sorties LW flew against damaged Illustrious at Valetta harbour, when it laid there during emergency repairs? IIRC they got only one hit. Was LW's anti-ship specialist Fliegerkorps incompetent? Was Ju 87 wrong plane against docked ships? To me the first question is ridiculous, what You think?

Juha

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

1. So you won't play with real examples. But it's only by looking at actual events that discussions such as we are having are rescued from the phenomenon of people talking past each other and never engaging. There is no progress therefore towards understanding. The RAF got it terribly wrong in WWII. And this is not 20/20 hindsight. It was said at the time.

2. We are discussing the P-39 on another thread at, I believe, your suggestion. The P-39 had what the Typhoon never had; which was protection for the engine, the essential in any CAS aircraft. The sending of the Typhoon into a Flak environment without protection to the engine and its vitals shows that the RAF was never serious about CAS and butchered its pilots.
3. The alternatives (NB) to the Typhoon and Spitfire existed:
a) the Vengeance for dive-bombing, which is placing HE accurately onto the weapons preventing the army from advancing - mortars, machine-guns, Paks, and artillery. 2TAF delivered HE with Bombphoons which were inaccurate because they could not bomb from the vertical, and with mediums. Mediums were a by-word for inaccuracy and a joke. Dutchmen I have spoken to said it was common for all the houses around a bridge to be destroyed while the bridge stood unmarked. By the way, did you know that Horrocks (OC 30 Corps) banned all mediums because they were killing too many of his own troops? You won't find that in Shores & Thomas' book on 2 TAF.
b) armoured Hurricane IID or armoured P-39 for tank-busting and machine-gunning. Or best of all, let Hawkers build the IL-2 under licence.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

I will not play with one cherry-picked example, chosen to make your point, not necessarily representative, and disguised to hide any and all other contributory factors. Clear? Single cases prove nothing. That the RAF was not adequately prepared for anti-shipping operation in 1939 is clear and widely accepted already.

Your misapprehensions about the P-39 and Typhoon's armour have been addressed elsewhere, as has your continued refusal to accept the vulnerability of the dive-bomber in an intense AA environment. The armoured Hurricane Mk.IId existed in 2 TAF as the Mk.IV up until May 1944. Perhaps you should consider the reasons why it was withdrawn (to the relief of its pilots).

As for the use of emotive terms such as butchery, for every one man butchered in a Typhoon two would die in a Vengeance. I suggest that thought for its men just might have featured in RAF thinking.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

"So you won't play with real examples"

Tony
I think it's you who cannot face reality. The according to you incompetent BC sank/disabled permanently over 50% of the heavy units of the German Navy and the LW, which had in your oppinion right planes, Ju 87 and Hs 129, sank whole 0% of the heavy units (battleships, battlecruisers and fleet carriers) of the RN. That put me wander what is your definition of competence. And also wander, are you trolling?

Juha

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

I tell you what I think, Juha.
I think the claims made by the RAF and BC from 1930 to 1945 were ridiculous.
In the 1930s the RAF argued that the RN did not need to build any more capital ships because the RAF could destroy all German warships much more cheaply.
The RAF said the only need for an army was to protect its airfields and the ports, and to occupy Germany after it had capitulated to the RAF. All threats everywhere would be met by bombers. They pointed to American tests in which bombers sank battleships.
The panic over being bombed that gripped the British public in the 1930s was far greater than anything today over 'Muslim extremists', and just as ridiculous. But it meant the RAF got nearly all of the funds.
In 1939 the RAF was a well-equipped and well-funded strategic bomber force.
When hostilities began BC was asked to deliver on its promises, and specifically to degrade the Kriegsmarine. But BC's attacks on the Admiral Scheer in the Schillig Roads on September 4, 1939, and on the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst off Brunsbuettelkoog on the same day, and its attack on the Koenigsberg, all failed completely. The sinking of the Koenigsberg showed where the money should have gone.
So what went wrong with BC?
I say BC's claims were always outrageous and their performance was incompetent. By the time BC learnt some competence it didn't matter because the Kriegsmarine had been destroyed by the RN, and the Wehrmacht had been beaten by the Soviet army.
Concerning the Luftwaffe, the Germans rearmed with the Luftwaffe as part of all-arms. The Germans never believed the Luftwaffe could win the war on its own. Hitler said as much. The Luftwaffe was a tactical arm and little thought was given to using it strategically.
German all-arms were successful until they met an army with better equipment and better integrated all-arms. They were beaten at their own game.
The Allies by comparison were not in the all-arms game. The game they were in could be described as glorifying the boys in blue.
But a time comes when reality replaces spin. BC never got a campaign medal.

Tony

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Army with better equipment and better integrated all-arms - is it about Red Army?

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Would dive bombers have faired any better than the level bombers? Think not!

I would still like to know if you consider the P-47 a 'failed' fighter.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Did you read the report carefully for it compares a 3-bladed+ old style canopy Typhoon to the Tempest while I compared 4-bladed+bubble canopy Typhoon to the Tempest. The 4-blade prop improved the Typhoon´s speed by 10 mph.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

I do.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Jawohl.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Surely what happened to the Koenigsberg is evidence dive bombers would have fared better, don't you think?

I'm sorry. I don't know about the P-47. The USAAF was different from the RAF. It was an army air force.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

You really think so? Better do some reading up on the conflict between the land segment and the air segment of the USAAF. The American air force fought really hard to seperate from the American Army, finally succeeding in 1947.

Maybe you should do some reading on the P-47 then.

How many times do you have to be told that about dive bombers without air superiority? They would have suffered the same fate, or even worse, than the bombers with the same, or even less, bombing results.

Franek, why do you say that?

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Because Thunderbolt was an 'overpaid' plane. It was too heavy, too expensive, not very manouverable. Analysis of the first year of operations shows that they were not that successfull against the Luftwaffe, and it is really no wonder 8th AF asked them to be replaced by Mustangs as soon as possible. I do not mean it was a completelly useless aircraft, but certainly did not deserve that much propaganda as it get, at least in the fighter role.

Tony
I would strongly recommend to get accustomed to the recent publications, mainly Russian, concerning the eastern front. Certainly hordes of Half Tracks, Shermans, Jeeps, Studebakers, Airacobras and Bostons made the Red Army superior to the Western counterparts. Any qualities? Some Russians would hang butcher Zhukov by his balls. Referring to old propaganda is not the way to proper research.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Franek.

Butcher Zhukov, meet Butcher Harris!

I don't see why Russian dependence on Lend-Lease has anything to do with the qualities of the Red Army which also valued the boots and the steel and the gold braid they were sent.
The British also got Lend-Lease.
The Americans got all the British secrets from the atom bomb to Bletchley Park with centimetric radar along the way. So what?

I don't speak Russian. But I would appreciate a reference to what in your opinion is the best current English-language study of the Russian way of warfare.

I know Stalin was a better GROFAZ than Hitler, Churchill or FDR. But no one confuses that with the type of man he was - surely.

Tony

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

And here we come to the point. You are trying to prove your points based on fragmentary or untrue publications, often not based on any primary sources. The fact is, that I am not awared of any recommendable English-language studies on the subject. Perhaps I have missed something, being not forced to read in the language only, but indeed the situation may be called dramatic, especially having in mind several pro Soviet and derogatory comments.
Certainly Soviets had some bright men or some good ideas, quite often they were able to work in simplier and effective method, but considering a more general view and longer experience in modern warfare, they were simply ineffective, human losses being most important.
Several of their designs were obsolete, ineffective or even dangerous, and get their reputation only because of years of propaganda. Il-2 is the most typical example of what propaganda could make with an average, to say the least, aircraft, but the same situation was elsewhere. More, Soviets perfectly knew of those problems and demanded more Lend-Lease.
Now you ridicule Soviet dependancy on Lend-Lease, but in the previous post you have claimed Soviets were better equipped. How it was possible if Soviets claimed they got second rate stuff?
Last but not least, I have always understood Harris was butchering the foes, but Zhukov butchered their own.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

I really do urge you to read Max Hastings' "Bomber Command" on this question and his trenchant observations on just how ill-prepared Bomber command in fact was for what it had always assumed it would do in the event of war.

P.S. I still think Fighter Command did a pretty good job in the Battle of Britain - we're still here, aren't we? - so give the RAF some credit.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Another BS statement for the P-47 e.g. rolled better than your beloved PoS Mustang. Using WEP it could operate from similar sized runways that the PoS Mustang. As for prices, it was only some 15% more expensive than the Hellcat, supposedly a very production friendly design. Comparisons with the flimsy PoS Mustang are not fair for the latter is capable of carrying considerably smaller external stores or internal armament.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Jukka
yes I noticed but I don't think that 4-bladed+bubble canopy made much difference on roll-rate, which IIRC AFDU valued highly at that time and had not much effect on dive and had not significant effect on zoom climb even if probably effected somewhat on climb. So IMHO 4-bladed+bubble canopy would have not affect much AFDU's conclusions maybe they would have changed the adjective.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Well, that change of adjective might have resulted in very significantly different tone.

On the CMN, Brown states:"Our job at RAE Farnborough was to determine how critical this limiting Mach number was if taken to the ultimate loss of control." And: "From these tests it was clear that the true limiting Mach number of the Typhoon was 0.79 and the true critical Mach number was 0.81." On the Tempest: "Our other great interest in the Tempest V at the RAE was in its high Mach number characteristics, and thse proved to be very similar to those of the Typhoon, except that it had a limiting Mach number of 0.81 true and a critical Mach number 0.83 true."

So, you may believe theoretical pencil pushing wankers, err Hoerners, I do believe real testing.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

I do believe in results taken from a wide range of aircraft from several manufacturers, several nations and years of testing, challenged and confirmed over decades of design and flight. Some may prefer single unsupported anecdotes but a solid backlog of evidence is how engineering actually works. If you actually believe that key design engineers are all pencil-pushing wankers, that reflects only on the credibility of your contributions.

That said, more politely than the comment deserved, this anecdote does have the advantage of being specific to type. It is possible that the wing design was not the critical factor with the Tempest. It is always possible to do worse than the optimum, if never better. For example the P-38, despite its thick wing (as acknowledged by Kelly Johnson), the limited factor is generally thought to be due to interference between the fuselage and the nacelles. The Tempest has no such multi-body interference, but perhaps some other factor came into play? There seems to be no obvious candidates.

However, we also have the evidence of the maximum speeds presented in the manual. Without allowing for the unknown pressure errors it is impossible to be precise, but they suggest a Mcrit of the Tempest around 0.9. For the real Mcrit to be 0.82 would require a stonking pressure error, not unheard of on thick-winged draggy aircraft such as the Vengeance (which has been claimed as supersonic – yeah) but exceedingly unlikely here.

It would be interesting to round off this sub-thread with the equivalent maximum speeds for the Typhoon, if anyone has access to them? Just how close are they to those of the Tempest? They might appear misleading close, if the PEs of both types differ. Does anyone have the Pilot’s Notes for each type?

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Brown gives these figures, my copy of Typhoon PN dated November 1943 does not have the data except that the VNE is 525 mph (that of the Tempest V 540 mph):

Alt 20,000 25,000 30,000
IAS 425 mph 385 mph 340 mph

So you do admit that Horner´s data is NOT based on testing the TEMPEST?

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Re Hoerner/Tempest: I simply don't know: I haven't the reference to hand. It included other aircraft of that vintage and, I believe, later. I believe it did include the Spitfire, so that suggests British aircraft are included.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

1. Then I can't argue with you. Until someone produces new evidence I'm stuck with the old. I have tried to read Glanz, but he just recites lists without any insight. Then there's Beevor on Stalingrad and Berlin. Who else?
2. I have a big problem accepting your claim that I have swallowed soviet propaganda about the IL-2. I have quoted Schwabedissen - who is a primary source - about German awe of the IL-2; "All German commanders describe the IL-2 as a highly useful aerplane for ground attack. Owing to its good armour plating, the plane could only be brought down by very well directed ground fire". There is another primary source - Gifford Martel. He was one of the creators of the tank, and was Military Attache in Moscow during the battle of Kursk. The Russians uniquely gave him access. He even met Stalin. This is what he wrote about the IL-2 in 'The Russian Outlook'; "The discussion (in 1943) on armoured forces ended this series of conferences with the Russians. Certain points stood out. First of all, it was clear the Russians set great store by the Sturmovik (sic) aeroplane. No other nation had developed an aircraft which was armoured in this way. Were they all wrong and the Russians right? We made further enquiries as regards casualties in these aircraft from flak. This was not very easy to assess. The troops on the Russian front were not nearly so well equipped for producing flak. This question of using armoured aircraft was clearly very important, and we decided that we must take every opportunity of studying the matter and obtaining further information".
Martel was uninformed about the Hs129B so wrong that no other nation had produced an armoured aircraft (let alone the Junkers J-1 and Sopwith Salamander which he should have known about), and his argument was incoherent because if flak was more intense in the west (which I question), then the argument for an armoured aircraft in the west would have been GREATER and not less. When Martel was called home his successor was frozen out by the Russians, so the question about the IL-2 was never pursued. It is time someone did it. Franek? You look qualified.
3. You are plain wrong about Harris. Everybody called him "Bomber Harris", except his aircrew who called him "Butcher Harris" because he butchered them. It's exactly the same with Zhukov.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

I know all about the USAAF separating. That is irrelevant to the situation in 1942/3/4/5.

Of course you need air superiority in order to bomb without being shot down by a defending aircraft.
Gaining air superiority was the job of the RAF. The USAAF achieved it, but the RAF, which never stopped talking about its expertise, never even tried to get air superiority over the Reich. The RAF argued that a long-range fighter could never compete with a short-range fighter and so the RAF would not waste time with the Mustang.
Given this prejudiced RAF mindset, it is clear why the RAF refused to have dive-bombers. It could not even imagine how it would gain air superiority.
This was also the reason why it was a disaster for the RAF to decide on CAS.
So do you now understand the answer to your question " How many times do you have to be told that about dive bombers without air superiority?"

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Read Hastings. Maybe I am just parrotting him. Then why the argument?

Fighter Command did an outstanding job in the Battle of Britain. Period. Otherwise we'll start on a whole different argument.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Absolutley untrue. Portals' meetings continually referred to the need for a long-range fighter. The RAF tried to get the Mustang - the British damn well nearly designed the Mustang - but deliveries were prioritised to the 8th and only small numbers were delivered until late in 1944. The RAF began the war with short range fighters, a policy that paid off in 1940 but left a legacy that restrained later operations. There was, however, plenty for those fighters to do.

Air superiority over Normandy was achieved by the joint operation of the RAF and the USAAF. 8th AF operations were only possible by the support of the RAF in providing an undisturbed base and escorting the bombers out, and back, when with the range of RAF fighters. Air superiority at a distance was only maintained by air supremacy at home. That was the RAF's achievement without any help from its US allies.

Hey! Aren't you the guy that was slating strategic bombing and interdiction behind enemy lines as a waste of effort? What do you want a long-range fighter for?

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

To come back to the original topic:

the Battle, compared to other single engine light bombers or assault planes in 1939/40 was completely outdated, no matter how one puts it.

it carried a light payload and was weakly armed and armoured, and even if it got through to its targets, it could never hit them with the same precision as a Stuka for example could.
of course, unescorted Stukas usually did not fare better than unescorted Battles, but the fact still remains, that Battles were utterly useless as light bombers, even if they got through.

compare a Battle to a SBD, Stuka or Val and you will know what I mean.

it speaks volumes for the construction of the SBD and Stuka, that both were still operational in 1944 and indeed were operationally useful by then, something that surely could have never been said about the Battle.

the Swordfish on the other hand is not fitting as an example as it mostly operated over sea and seldomly was confronted by a spirited air defense system.
the one time it did, during the channel dash, it paid a heavy price though.

and do not get me started on the TBolt.
I am pretty sure that as a fighter bomber, the TBolt was way better than any Mustang, and I am equally sure, many Mustang pilots in the Korean war would have happily traded their Ponys against the rugged TBolt, if they had the chance to do so.

just my two cents though...

best regards
phil

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

I am continually amazed by our differences.

Haven't you read 'Appendix G' of John Terraine's 'The Right Of The Line'? It starts off; "My repeated assertion of the direct involvement of Sir Charles Portal, while CAS, in the question of long-range fighters for the RAF, and his personal opposition to such a weapon, has been questioned. Yet it is strongly documented in the Official History..........."
Please fisk this Appendix if you think Terraine has got it wrong. He concludes that this crucial area of long-range fighter support was a blind spot in Portal's war direction, and made me ask if you would buy a used car from people such as Portal, Tedder, Harris, Coningham and Sholto Douglas.

As to your question as to what I want a long-range fighter for, I don't. What I want is the RAF to achieve air superiority over the battlefield so the Vengeances and Hawker IL-2/Hs129B can pound the shit out of fixed defences like Hillman overlooking Sword Beach, and let the Third British Infantry Division take Caen on D-Day. As it was the only air support came late from the mediums, IIRC, who missed.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

...these threads (of a similar ilk) get more Irvingesque by the day...

"I have quoted Schwabedissen - who is a primary source - about German awe of the IL-2"

I presume that, while Schwabedissen's comments are proof-positive and beyond reproach, parallel German comments about the significance of the Allied Strategic bombing campaign AND the effectiveness of Allied (Western) CAS and ground interdiction are somehow worthless/meaningless...

Frankly, IMHO, a number of the hypothetical alternatives that have been presented here simply do not take into account causality. But maybe one true constant does remain; in an alternate universe, a few months after D-Day, the crews of Dive Bomber Command, pitted against all that Flak that isn't needed to defend Germany, along with a strong Luftwaffe fighter force, lovingly refer to their C-in-C (who's name is obviously not Harris) as 'Butcher'. By then they have it easy, it's the Brown Jobs that are ultimately suffering the most, due to the Luftwaffe strategic bombing force.


Cheers

Rod

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

But, Phil, that is no reason for calling the Battle outdated, but a reason for calling the requirement for the Battle as plain wrong.

Place the blame where it belongs, on the tactical ineptitude of Bomber Command, not on the poor sods who designed and built what the RAF said it wanted, and by all accounts did a good job of it.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Hi,

"What I want is the RAF to achieve air superiority over the battlefield so the Vengeances and Hawker IL-2/Hs129B can pound the shit out of fixed defences like Hillman overlooking Sword Beach."

...presumably like the Luftwaffe and the Stuka did during the BoB, but with more Flak...

Cheers

Rod

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

I don't think you do know about the 'conflict' that was happening between the ground and air contingents of the USAAF during WW2.

Certainly Graham, for how else was air superiority over the battlefield achieved. The RAF didn't need to have long range fighters as the USAAF was over the Reich. Some people have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

Btw tcolvin, if it was not for the Brits, and the Merlin, there would have been no P-51s doing long range escorting. And then it was only by accident since the P-51 sat at Wright-Patterson for months until the USN had to do some tests and asked why this a/c was sitting around. The 'failed fighter', the P-47, and the troubled P-38, would have had to do the long range escorting.

Others have commented on your myoptic tunnel vision in your post, so I won't.

You rag on and on about Flak doing so much damage to Brit FBs, yet totally ignore what Flak would do to your super duper dive bombers. Your super duper Vengeance in SEA did not have the opposition, ground and air, that was in NWE.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

The RAF (and USAAF) did obtain air superiority over the beaches in 1944. The P-47s and P-51s held the outer line, the Spitfires the inner line, and the Typhoons could look after themselves. Between them, they wiped out the Jagdwaffe in the key aerial battle of 1944. However, this could not have been guaranteed in 1942 when the key equipment decisions were made. The arguments for a fighter-bomber vs divebomber vs armoured truck have been thrashed out, but you do not seem to have taken any of them in. The Army did not lack CAS in Normandy: it was not a lack of CAS that prevented it taking Caen. In the first days excessive timidity perhaps paid a key part, in the reliance on experienced but over-used veterans who were inclined to take cover rather than risks after fighting through Africa and Italy. There was also a few Germans present, who perhaps could claim some of the blame/credit..... In the later days Montgomery refused to advance to his previously prepared timetable, despite massive reinforcments and building pressure on all sides.

Not that he was without a case, although he does seem to have rewritten his plans post facto, but it was certainly not due to shortage of CAS, if failure sometimes rested on misuse of aerial support (For example, timing bomber missions too far in advance of the British troops, so that the Germans had time to recover from the shock/morale effect). What was needed was fighter airfields in Normandy, so that interdiction could stop new German units reaching the front, and cut the supply chain to those there. But those airfields needed the capture of Caen.

You think the RAF needed a fighter to cover CAS missions at low level over Normandy. Hmm, sounds tailor-made for the Typhoon/Tempest family to me!

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Jukka
Aircraft is not a devil flown by bad forces. It is all about science called aerodynamics and the key issue in an aircraft's aerodynamics is the airfoil and then the wing. That said, Graham's (and mine) comments on Tempest vs Typhoon airfoil characteristics is based on common (tosome degree) knowledge based on years of research.
I am also intrigued on your derogatory comments on Mustang and praising of Thunderbolt. It looks you believe both Britons (yes, they had switched plans for both types, having both at hand in quantities) and Americans were complete idiots replacing Thunderbolt in escort missions. Obviously airmen's comments do not matter as well. But well, considering you have the comfort not to go there and fight for another day, you are free to live with your beliefs.

Tony
OK, I thought you meant blood loss in combat, which actually was not that high, bulk of the losses being to extermination of population on occupied territories by both regimes. That said, I have to note that the real problem was not with armed forces but a political will. This must be seen with political corruption and treason on the highest levels of both American and British societies. Philby or Harriman were just needles in the haystock, and the real and current problem is that others were not pursued with all strength available.
Concerning books, it is a serious problem, but it must be had in mind that only in recent years Soviet archives were opened to some degree allowing for independent research. Results are astonishing and definetelly change the view of the war. That said, my comments on Il-2 are based on research in primary and period Soviet documents. Most significant find is definetelly that the aircraft was frequently used for ordinary level bombing and not ground attack missions! Simply, there were no other aircraft available in quantities. I have been interested on this particular aircraft and even have had written an article-summary of recent knowledge on the type.
I would not view British policy towards army aviation through this particular scope, and while talking about butcher, I would take some comparison of numbers. Soviets claimed they have lost some 600,000 men in Poland in 1944/45 alone. US lost some 180,000 servicemen during the whole war, and you cannot say they were not fighting.

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

Franek, when Swedish AF pilots were testing some Allied designs in 1944, they recommended that the Thunderbolt be bought, not the Mustang.

And regarding the Typhoon/Tempest: please provide TESTED (not calculated) data on the issue. Since mr. Brown was personally flying these tests, I tend to believe his claims over calculated data. Or why did they conduct flight testing at all? Why are aircraft still tested in flight? Shouldn´t a look at your beloved Hoerner give all the answers?

Re: Placing the Fairey Battle.
 

The message I got from Hastings was that Bomber Command was relatively well-funded (with much of that had gone on high-quality ground facilities) but ill-prepared and largely ill-equipped. It's aircraft weren't exactly an all-star line-up although I'd guess the Wellington and Hampden more or less on a par with contemporaries such as the Do 17 and He 111 (he said without checking the figures). But as Hasting points out, no realistic practice for their planned strategic role and no "plan B" (no serious practice in night flying and navigation, no radio navaids, target markers, thought given to blind bombing etc.).