AHC: replace Bristol Blenheim much earlier

merlin

Your challenge - if you choose to accept it, is to create a plausible chain of events that would substantially reduce the Blenheim squadrons in France in 1940 with a more effective aircraft. And soon after is confined to secondary areas.

The aircraft when it arrived on the scene, was yes a world beater, but under-powered it was a crime to the aircrew that had to fly them that it went on for so long.
OTL, Bristol designed options - Beaumont & Buckingham, but the Air Ministry kept changing their minds on want they wanted.

But why no replacement earlier. I can think of one or two ways, but see what you think first!
 

Archibald

Banned
I'd say - more Douglas DB-7.Another alternative is the Glenn Martin 167. The AdA found the type much better than the french bombers.
 

tomo pauk

350-400 sq ft wing, two Merlins (best call is the Mk.X, though the Mk.III will do), bomb bay for 2000 lbs (4 x 250 lbs) of bombs, defensive armament as low as possible, 2-4 front-firing .303s max. Basically a better bomber than Bf 110C.
Alternatively two Taurus engines (not that reliable, but okay for low level work, decent power even on 87 oct fuel), to be replaced with Twin Wasps when available.
 

Carl Schwamberger

Archibald said:
I'd say - more Douglas DB-7.Another alternative is the Glenn Martin 167. The AdA found the type much better than the french bombers.
Click to expand...

I wonder why so few of the twin engined Martins were used by the RAF? The production line for the 167s was operating, and projected output for 1941 was 1200+. The existing July delivery was commandeered by the Brits. Some stripped models were used for high altitude/long range reconissance. Instead Havocs and Mauraders were ordered from the US.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Archibald said:
I'd say - more Douglas DB-7.Another alternative is the Glenn Martin 167. The AdA found the type much better than the french bombers.
Click to expand...

Carl Schwamberger said:
I wonder why so few of the twin engined Martins were used by the RAF? The production line for the 167s was operating, and projected output for 1941 was 1200+. The existing July delivery was commandeered by the Brits. Some stripped models were used for high altitude/long range reconissance. Instead Havocs and Mauraders were ordered from the US.
Click to expand...

The Glenn Martin 167/Maryland is one of my favorite under-appreciated planes. While being just past the cusp of current on the technology bell curve, it was a very useful and capable aircraft. Adrian Warburton used a Maryland as a fighter! shooting down five aircraft.

The DB-7/Havocs were also very capable aircraft as well.
 

Tallil2long

Make max use of Bostons and/or Marylands for "this generation" light bombers.
Concentrate your own domestic design efforts on the "next generation" light bomber, and on heavies. Don't flail around with the Beaumont and Buckingham.
 

sonofpegasus

Get Bristol's to sort the Taurus and Hercules earlier and concentrate on building Beauforts and Beaufighters instead of bloody Blenheims!
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Was there a viable alternative to the Blenheim in the British pipeline in the mid thirties? As noted in the OP, the plane was hot stuff when it came out, but it was not originally designed as a bomber. Compare the Blenheim against the Italian Breda Ba.88 Lince - a hot airplane when designed, but a crappy military conversion.
 

NOMISYRRUC

As an off-the-wall idea, how about the Hawker Tornado, in a timeline where the RR Vulture's development wasn't as protracted. Avro, which built 1,000 Blenheims did receive a contract to build several hundred Tornadoes and Bristol did build some of the Hawker Tempests.
 

NOMISYRRUC

I've been shot down for this before, but have the Air Ministry buy more Hampdens in place of the Blenheim from the start.

They have similar size crews, performance and defensive armament, but the Hampden carried a heavier bomb load (IIRC 4,000 lbs to 1,000 lbs). It was also about 60% more expensive, but the theoretical result is literally more bang per buck (or should that be bang per quid), plus more bang per aircraft lost and aircrew lost.

Handley Page proposed a Hercules powered version, which the Air Ministry liked, but what they really wanted was the maximum number of Halifaxes so it wasn't built.​
 

Cryhavoc101

NOMISYRRUC said:
I've been shot down for this before, but have the Air Ministry buy more Hampdens in place of the Blenheim from the start.

They have similar size crews, performance and defensive armament, but the Hampden carried a heavier bomb load (IIRC 4,000 lbs to 1,000 lbs). It was also about 60% more expensive, but the theoretical result is literally more bang per buck (or should that be bang per quid), plus more bang per aircraft lost and aircrew lost.

Handley Page proposed a Hercules powered version, which the Air Ministry liked, but what they really wanted was the maximum number of Halifaxes so it wasn't built.​
Click to expand...

No I get it - how about just building more Wellingtons?
 

PMN1

[FONT=&quot]According to BSP
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Supermarine[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Type[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]313[/FONT][FONT=&quot] proposed for the F37/35 spec that Westland won with the Whirlwind - two Goshawk apparently giving 390mph at 15,000ft, 7.5 minutes to 20,000ft and a ceiling of 34,000ft. Aero-engines (Hispano) 12Y engines were an alternative and if fitted then a 20mm cannon could be fired through each hub so different engines were a possibility.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The design could apparently house 4 x 500lb bombs in the fuselage behind the pilot. A second crewman would be added and two of the 20mm cannon removed and max weight increased from 8,200lb to 10,700lb. (The Whirlwind’s max weight was 10,377lb).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to BSP, the Design Conference originally recommended the Type 313 as this was most experts' preference but the types delivery date of 27 months was considered to be excessive.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So how about the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Type[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]313[/FONT][FONT=&quot] being built with Merlins or Taurus in Rootes or Austin Motors shadow factories rather than Blenheims which continued in production until 1942?[/FONT]
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
An artist rendering of the Supermarine Type 313

tumblr_inline_nk3kxmejzD1t90ue7.jpg
 

Just Leo

In 1940, a squadron of 12 Blenheims was dispatched to attack an airfield in the Netherlands. One aborted. The pilot facing court martial for cowardice/LMF died before his hearing, on another mission. 11 Blenheims were destroyed on the raid, 5 to flak, 6 to fighters.

In 1943, a USAAF squadron of B-26 Marauders left on a raid to the Netherlands. One aborted. 11 Marauders were destroyed.

The Marauder was much better armed/armored and was faster but the results were much the same, and resulted in a change in mission profile and tactics which imparted a much improved loss rate to the B-26.
 

Zheng He

Carl Schwamberger said:
I wonder why so few of the twin engined Martins were used by the RAF? The production line for the 167s was operating, and projected output for 1941 was 1200+. The existing July delivery was commandeered by the Brits. Some stripped models were used for high altitude/long range reconissance. Instead Havocs and Mauraders were ordered from the US.
Click to expand...

I've never figured out why the USAAF did not use the Martin Maryland or the Martin Baltimore. Both were very good planes the RAF and SAAF seemed to like them.
 

Zheng He

sonofpegasus said:
Get Bristol's to sort the Taurus and Hercules earlier and concentrate on building Beauforts and Beaufighters instead of bloody Blenheims!
Click to expand...

That would be my thought. Get the Beauforts sooner. Similar performance to the Blenheim but longer range, better payload, and better defensive armament.

Heck, there is even the boring old Lockheed Hudson. Suffers a little in performance to the Blenheim but longer range, better payload, and better defensive armament.
 

NOMISYRRUC

Cryhavoc101 said:
No I get it - how about just building more Wellingtons?
Click to expand...

I usually have more of them built by Blackburn instead of the Botha for the GR role. In the current RAF money no object I'm thinking of setting up a factory to build GR Wellingtons in Canada, rather than buying Hudsons from the USA to save Dollars.

For that I'm also going to change Specification P.27/32 so that Fairey builds the Twin Merlin Battle I suggested for the Metal Mosquito thread, which is built instead of the Blenheim for the overseas commands and as a night fighter. However, under Schemes A, C and F, Bomber Command is to consist entirely of B.9/32 heavy bombers by March 1939, i.e. the Hampden and Wellington.

A without spending more money solution might be to design the Gloster G.40 Reaper around the Merlin and Hercules instead of the Peregrine and Taurus.
 

Just Leo

The USAAF was well served by the Douglas DB7/A-20 as well as the Mitchell and Marauder. They just didn't need Maryland and Baltimore.

The Lockheed Hudson, like the Hampden, was used in Blenheim roles and withdrawn due to high loss rates. The Blenheim was available in such numbers that high loss rates wouldn't use up supply as quickly. A bit cold-blooded, but that's war. The Beaufort was a better bomber, but also a torpedo bomber, a role it was assigned for, which incidentally had the highest loss rate of all services. A Beaufort powered by Merlins was planned, but was superseded by the Beaufighter. Beaufighters themselves, apart from the lack of a bomb bay, also suffered a severe mauling by fighters in a Norwegian fiord, but only 7 lost, I think. A major problem was the lack of a timely Hercules engine, due to a decision by the Bristol board of cousins. Speaking of timely, American aircraft production in 1939 lagged behind Japanese production for the same year. American production in 1943 and 1944 isn't important in 1939 and 1940.

There was a British target tug which might have performed some useful role in the war had it not been for its ability to dive-bomb with minor modification. It might even have been better with a Hercules engine or something Alvish.
 

Cryhavoc101

PMN1 said:
[FONT=&quot]According to BSP
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Supermarine[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Type[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]313[/FONT][FONT=&quot] proposed for the F37/35 spec that Westland won with the Whirlwind - two Goshawk apparently giving 390mph at 15,000ft, 7.5 minutes to 20,000ft and a ceiling of 34,000ft. Aero-engines (Hispano) 12Y engines were an alternative and if fitted then a 20mm cannon could be fired through each hub so different engines were a possibility.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The design could apparently house 4 x 500lb bombs in the fuselage behind the pilot. A second crewman would be added and two of the 20mm cannon removed and max weight increased from 8,200lb to 10,700lb. (The Whirlwind’s max weight was 10,377lb).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to BSP, the Design Conference originally recommended the Type 313 as this was most experts' preference but the types delivery date of 27 months was considered to be excessive.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So how about the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Type[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]313[/FONT][FONT=&quot] being built with Merlins or Taurus in Rootes or Austin Motors shadow factories rather than Blenheims which continued in production until 1942?[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Its a possibility - perhaps had Supermarine not been bombed in Southampton?

Also I'm not sure if that's what you meant but the Hispanio Cannon in the French Fighters did not fire through the Hub per se but fired from between the Vee of the Engine using an interrupter gear much like the Bf109

But there would be no need for such a complex fitting if the 4 cannon could go in the nose - which they could!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top