Fairey Battle as an RAF Sturmovik?

[Larry]

Considering how similar the performance was between the Battle and the Sturmovik, did the RAF miss a trick in not developing it in the same way the Russians did with the Il-2? Both types suffered high losses when first used.

Fairey Battle - Performance

Maximum speed: 257 mph at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Range: 1,000 mi
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb 1,250 ft/min

Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik - Performance

Maximum speed: 257 mph
Range: 450 miles
Service ceiling: 18,045 ft
Rate of climb: 2,050 ft/min

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

Hi Larry
frankly speaking this kind of statement is just crazy! It does not make any sense. The same way you can compare tank Renault FT-17 and/versus Tiger I,

both tanks
both had guns,
both fought in WW II

[Juha]

Hello Larry
first of all Battle would have needed much more powerful engine, like RR Griffon, which wasn't available until late 1942. Even with appr. 1700 hp engine Battle would have been handicapped because it wasn't designed as an heavily armoured plane like Il-2. One characteristic feature of Il-2 was its integral armoured "bathtub".

Juha

[Larry]

I don't think it is as mad as comparing a WW1 FT-17 with a WW2 Tiger Tank at all.

After all the Mikulin Am38F engine gave 1,770 hp, which is similar to the Battle's Merlin.

Also 2x 20mm cannons in each Battle wing and rockets underneath might have been much more useful than one fixed forward firing 0.303 MG and conventional bombs dropped out of the wing bomb bay.

Sturmoviks flew at very low altitude, some say it few below 20 feet, which was no doubt far too low for a Battle trying to release 'conventional' bombs on a German pontoon bridge in 1940.

Plenty of WW2 aircraft morphed in to something else such as the Alison powered Mustang compared to those P-51Ds that flew to Berlin and back.

[Kutscha]

Larry, Merlins weren't producing 1770hp in 1940.

More like 1,030 hp (768 kW)

[Larry]

My mistake re the Merlin, but then the original Allison engine had an initial rating of 1,000 hp.

It's my belief that the RAF took on the Battle as a monoplane replacement for the Hawker Hart types etc and used it too conventionally and never considered other front line uses. This IMHO was because the RAF didn't think in such agressive terms as the Luftwaffe and Russian Air Force, who had both fought in the Spanish Civil War.

The RAF didn't bomb Germany proper until approx 6 months after WW2 began out of respect for civilians, so I doubt they considered it 'gentlemenly' to strafe the hell out of roads and railways in 1940.

[Graham Boak]

I agree with your comment as to the design requirements for the Battle, but once it had appeared it could not be redesigned overnight into a much heavier aircraft with different armament, role, and crewing philosophy, even if an engine had magically appeared overnight. It was also a rather large machine for such a mission - as demonstrated in practice the single-seat fighter was far more survivable in this environment, once the weapons and the tactics had appeared..

[kirche]

Russian analogue of the Fairey Battle is the Su-2 ( "Ivanov" project).
This concept Vultee V-11 - popular before the war.

Il-2 - it's another concept.
Ilyushin replaced by the concept on early design stage 'Ivanov' and created a unique aircraft.

[Dénes Bernád]

Just as a side note, the Il-2 should not be too overrated, as it did not have an outstanding performance, particularly in the early time period. It was certainly not a 'wonder weapon', as many suggest. It's greatest advantage was the sheer number it was built and deployed to the front zone. It was also the airplane type most likely to be shot down (this is also linked to the high numbers it was deployed in).

[HGabor]

It is also important that large portion of the IL-2 losses was lost to ground AA fire. In low operational altitude -no matter how good/bad, strong, or weak an airplane was -, it was flying within the effective range of most AA weapons. This was the danger/weakness of the operation itself, not the airplane. In such a wall of fire any plane would have had huge losses. The IL-2, however, could survive very strong fighter attacks, so I think it was rather the nature of the operation, rather than a bad plane. For long years the British did not have intense ground fights like the soviets in the East, which required massive ground attack planes, therefore they concentrated their Warplane industry on fighters and strategic bombers. Surely after D-Day their need for a good ground-attack plane increased, but this was the time when eg. the rocket firing Typhoons covered their troops.

Gabor