AHC: a better British Army co-op 'airforce'

All right - if there was something that Bomber Barons didn't like in 1930s, that was deploying 'proper' RAF aircraft into Army co-operation tasks. The tasks being artillery spotting, tossing a bomb or two/machine-gunning the enemy infantry, trucks & guns, carrying a healty or wounded soldier or two between different Army locations etc. Direct air-defense - not until Dunkirk? So let's give the grunts the 'airforce', that will be comprised by much better A/C than it was the Lysander (and earlier than P-40 or Mustang), while not blowing up the budget. Two A/C can be suggested, since some roles require one kind of aircraft vs. what other roles require. The A/C need to became available by early 1939.
 

Driftless

Donor
Would the Swordfish have worked in an Army recon role? It's tough, capable of long loiter times, can land and take off from short fields under awful conditions. Plus, it could simplify the logistical trail - unless the FAA & RAF get in a pissing match over who has priority....
 
Have Westlands and Boulton Paul build Hurribombers instead of the Lysander and Defiant.

The RAF will still need an aircraft for AOP and light liaison work though. But that can be done by bringing the Auster forward 2 or 3 years.
 
The Bomber barons may not have liked it but there was a requirement for one a/c squadron per army division based in the UK.

OTL there were 5 a/c squadrons in No. 22 (A/C) Group of RAF Inland Area because there were 5 regular army divisions.

By 1936 the total requirement had risen 20 squadrons. That is:
8 squadrons (2 PR, 5 a/c and one communications) for the 1st Echelon BEF - i.e. the regular army of 5 infantry divisions
4 squadrons (all a/c) for the 2nd Echelon BEF - 4 TA divisions
4 squadrons (all a/c) for the 3rd Echelon BEF - 4 TA divisions
4 squadrons (all a/c) for the 4th Echelon BEF - 4 TA divisions​

Expansion Scheme F of 1936 provided for 11 a/c squadrons (7 regular and 4 auxiliary) by 31st March 1939. That is:
  • 2 PR squadrons with Blenheims and 5 Lysander squadrons (all regular) for the 1st Echelon BEF. All 7 squadrons were formed by September 1939 but only 4 of the a/c squadrons had Lysanders.
  • 4 auxiliary a/c Lysander squadrons for the 2nd Echelon BEF. These could be auxiliary units because the 4 divisions would not be able to go overseas until 4-6 months (IIRC) after mobilisation. Only 2 of the 4 squadrons were formed by September 1939 and they were still equipped with aircraft derived from the Hawker Hart.
The communications squadron and the 8 squadrons required for the 3rd and 4th echelons could be formed on mobilisation because it would be 8-12 months (IIRC) before the divisions would be ready to go overseas.
 
For the 'general use' (transport of men, docs and/or material, recce, ambulance, lightly armed), I'd purchase license for the Noorduyn Norseman from Canada. On modest HP, it carried 10+- people (vs. Lysander that had space just for 2, on more HP). Slap some Bristol's radial on it, even the Alvis Leonides will do it at 1st.
For something that can bomb those funky Germans, Hurribomber is a sensible idea. No need for hi-alt engine, so even the Dagger can be put into use (adds a bit of resilience vs. small arms fire). Or, a monoplane Gladiator already in 1937/38 in reasonable production? The Fokker XXI?
 
Be nice to have first rate aircraft, but, that is secondary to having proper liasion & first rate support tactics like they had in 1943. With that sort of CAS at the Arras battle Rommels artillery line would swiftly be toast.
 

Driftless

Donor
The Noordyun Norseman is a really good choice, as it could admirably fill several roles. I had assumed that it came along a decade or so later, but 1935 intro. It's tough as an old boot and very adaptable.
 
Have Westlands and Boulton Paul build Hurribombers instead of the Lysander and Defiant.

The RAF will still need an aircraft for AOP and light liaison work though. But that can be done by bringing the Auster forward 2 or 3 years.

For the 'general use' (transport of men, docs and/or material, recce, ambulance, lightly armed), I'd purchase license for the Noorduyn Norseman from Canada. On modest HP, it carried 10+- people (vs. Lysander that had space just for 2, on more HP). Slap some Bristol's radial on it, even the Alvis Leonides will do it at 1st.

For something that can bomb those funky Germans, Hurribomber is a sensible idea. No need for hi-alt engine, so even the Dagger can be put into use (adds a bit of resilience vs. small arms fire). Or, a monoplane Gladiator already in 1937/38 in reasonable production? The Fokker XXI?
It would be more expensive, but if we're going for a Fokker how about the G.I?

Although I suggested the Hurribomber too, IIRC the Hurricane Mk I couldn't carry bombs because its 1,030hp Merlin wasn't powerful enough. It wasn't until the Mk II with the more powerful 1,280hp Merlin became available that the Hurribomber carrying two 250lb or two 500lb bombs was born. Or if the Mk I could carry bombs they would probably have reduced its speed considerably.

IOTL the army co-operation aircraft the RAF used before the Lysander were adaptations of light bombers. E.g the Audax, Hardy and Hector were all members of the Hind family. Therefore why not replace these aircraft with the Hawker Henley which AFAIK carried its 750lb load of bombs internally. The RAF had 122 of them in September 1939 and it could have had another 257 if Westland had built them instead of the Lysander. However, it didn't have any forward firing machine guns for ground strafing.
 
It would be more expensive, but if we're going for a Fokker how about the G.I?

G.I is certainly a contender. I'd stick a low-level Mercury or Perseus instead of the hi-alt Mercury that was historically used, so it should be about as fast as the Bf 109E under 2 km, and faster than Bf 110 and 109D.
Actually, the G.I as-is and improved, being mass-produced in UK, Canada and Australia makes plenty of sense.

Although I suggested the Hurribomber too, IIRC the Hurricane Mk I couldn't carry bombs because its 1,030hp Merlin wasn't powerful enough. It wasn't until the Mk II with the more powerful 1,280hp Merlin became available that the Hurribomber carrying two 250lb or two 500lb bombs was born. Or if the Mk I could carry bombs they would probably have reduced its speed considerably.

Both Battle and Henley were carrying bombs, an extra crew member or two, and more fuel, on same Merlin III. Hurricane needs one crucial thing if we want it to carry bombs - that someone orders bomb racks to be installed. The Sea Hurricane (Merlin III) was rated for 2x45 gal drop tanks or 2x250 lb bombs for carrier operations (data sheet).

IOTL the army co-operation aircraft the RAF used before the Lysander were adaptations of light bombers. E.g the Audax, Hardy and Hector were all members of the Hind family. Therefore why not replace these aircraft with the Hawker Henley which AFAIK carried its 750lb load of bombs internally. The RAF had 122 of them in September 1939 and it could have had another 257 if Westland had built them instead of the Lysander. However, it didn't have any forward firing machine guns for ground strafing.

Henley is a very good choice. Since the best part of the wings was carry-over from Hurricane, use that to advantage and install at least 4 Brownings, or two cannons.
 
All right - if there was something that Bomber Barons didn't like in 1930s, that was deploying 'proper' RAF aircraft into Army co-operation tasks. The tasks being artillery spotting, tossing a bomb or two/machine-gunning the enemy infantry, trucks & guns, carrying a healty or wounded soldier or two between different Army locations etc. Direct air-defense - not until Dunkirk? So let's give the grunts the 'airforce', that will be comprised by much better A/C than it was the Lysander (and earlier than P-40 or Mustang), while not blowing up the budget. Two A/C can be suggested, since some roles require one kind of aircraft vs. what other roles require. The A/C need to became available by early 1939.

I was thinking about this very thing on the way home yesterday

My idea is that instead of the RAF absorbing the RFC and the RNAS at the end of WW1 - it simply becomes a 3rd air arm responsible for the defence of the Homeland - and has responsibility for AAA - lets call it AAA or Ack Ack Command - of cities and home island defence fighter squadrons - let's call it fighter command and the Organisation Royal Air Defence Force or RADF (pronounced raadaff). The organisation is upon its inception principally concerned with preventing a repeat of the Gotha bomber raids of England (the Zeppelin threat having been defeated already) and as an organisation treats the claim that "the bomber will always get through" with both contempt and as a challenge to its existence.

Later a 3rd and 4th force are generated - Bomber command and the RADF Regiment responsible initially for the defence of RADF airfields against Terrorist, 5th columnist and Parachutist troop threats against Home island airbases and later assets of the Air defence net work - both coming under the command of RADF.

So how does this help us with the op's question in 1939?

Well in this POD the Navy keeps its airforce and more importantly for this thread the Army keeps it airforce and in our analogous 1939 each of the army corps has a Squadron of 12 Lysander's for Co-operation/recce work/forward obs and a large squadron (say 30 a/c*) of CAS/dive bombers based on the Hawker Hurricane (with only 4 guns but better protection and capable of carrying underwing bombs) - and unlike our OTL RAF do not hold the idea of dive bombing..or loss height bombing as they cynically called it in the late 30s with irrational contempt and are instead in 1939 ready adopters and indeed leaders in the field of dropping bombs fairly accurately on tactical targets like enemy artillery units and troop/supply columns behind the main line of enemy resistance and in direct support of their parent formations fighting divisions.

The a/c being used should be similar to those being used by the RAF.....erm I mean....the RADF and the RNAS as much as possible - or it could be that the aircraft manufacturers split along service lines - ie Fairey and Blackburn traditionally build for the Navy etc etc

*I use 30 as Typhoon squadrons on D-Day typically numbered 30 a/c each - I suspect this was in the expectation of heavy losses and previous CAS experiance!
 
The Hurricane with Hercules on board simply says 'pick me, I'm your fighter-bomber'. Though, the Bristol Type 153 looked as a more modern type (pic).
 
The Hurricane with Hercules on board simply says 'pick me, I'm your fighter-bomber'. Though, the Bristol Type 153 looked as a more modern type (pic).

Why not a merlin powered one? Simply keep the same aircraft and make minimal changes to make it a bomb carrying CAS platform and one that can play tag with fighters - from an industry and mass production standpoint it makes more sense to me!
 
Why not a merlin powered one? Simply keep the same aircraft and make minimal changes to make it a bomb carrying CAS platform and one that can play tag with fighters - from an industry and mass production standpoint it makes more sense to me!

Chioce of Merlin, or other liquid cooled engine, implies that liquid cooling system is present. That can be punctured easy by MG fire, and German army possesed vast amounts of MGs, all that can be pointed upwards. Choice of air-cooled engine removes that weak spot.
Another thing going on for the Hercules in this role was that it produced 1350-1400 HP at low level (SL to 5000 ft) already in 1939, with 87 oct fuel, when the best low-level Merlin was between 1000 and 1100 on 87 oct. The weights are comparable for installed powerplants, even the drag will not be much increased due to deletion of the 'speed brake' radiator. The 30% increase of power is a very handy thing in 1939/40.
 
I'd replace consider replacing the battle with the Hurricane, or possibly consider a two seat derivative of the Hurricane if an observer/navigator is considered necessary. What can you do to get more Range out of a Hurricane derived airframe? Because if you cancel the Fairy Battle, you probably don't get the Fulmer.

A CAS version of the Fulmer would probably need an earlier introduction of the 20mm cannon.....
 
Although I suggested the Hurribomber too, IIRC the Hurricane Mk I couldn't carry bombs because its 1,030hp Merlin wasn't powerful enough. It wasn't until the Mk II with the more powerful 1,280hp Merlin became available that the Hurribomber carrying two 250lb or two 500lb bombs was born. Or if the Mk I could carry bombs they would probably have reduced its speed considerably.

IOTL the army co-operation aircraft the RAF used before the Lysander were adaptations of light bombers. E.g the Audax, Hardy and Hector were all members of the Hind family. Therefore why not replace these aircraft with the Hawker Henley which AFAIK carried its 750lb load of bombs internally. The RAF had 122 of them in September 1939 and it could have had another 257 if Westland had built them instead of the Lysander. However, it didn't have any forward firing machine guns for ground strafing.

Both Battle and Henley were carrying bombs, an extra crew member or two, and more fuel, on same Merlin III. Hurricane needs one crucial thing if we want it to carry bombs - that someone orders bomb racks to be installed. The Sea Hurricane (Merlin III) was rated for 2x45 gal drop tanks or 2x250 lb bombs for carrier operations (data sheet).
I couldn't follow that data sheet very well. However, this link to the Hurricane Defender of the Empire website in turn links to pages of performance figures of the different marks with different armaments.

http://www.k5083.mistral.co.uk/TECHDATA.HTM

Externally carried stores like bombs create drag which reduce speed. I think the maximum speed for the Sea Hurricane (Merlin III) in your data sheet is the speed with no bombs carried.

AFAIK the Hawker P.4/34 (better known as the Henley) and its rival the Fairey P.4/34 (which was modified to become the Fulmar) carried their bombs internally. That's why I think either of them would have been a better choice. IIRC it has been mentioned in other threads that the Fulmar was stressed for dive bombing, so presumably the Fairey P.4/34 was too and possibly the Henley.

As we want to use either P.4/34 as a CAS aircraft rather than as a true light bomber I think we don't need the second crew member and we might less fuel because a shorter range is required. Both measures would reduce weight which might make both P.4/34s faster and more agile.
 
Chioce of Merlin, or other liquid cooled engine, implies that liquid cooling system is present. That can be punctured easy by MG fire, and German army possessed vast amounts of MGs, all that can be pointed upwards. Choice of air-cooled engine removes that weak spot.

Another thing going on for the Hercules in this role was that it produced 1350-1400 HP at low level (SL to 5000 ft) already in 1939, with 87 oct fuel, when the best low-level Merlin was between 1,000 and 1,100 on 87 oct. The weights are comparable for installed powerplants, even the drag will not be much increased due to deletion of the 'speed brake' radiator. The 30% increase of power is a very handy thing in 1939/40.
The extra power would have been handy for my proposed CAS versions of the Henley and Fairey P.4/34. They might be able to carry 1,000lb of bombs (instead of 750lb) internally and have 8 x .303in MG or 4 x 20mm cannon in the wings and still be faster than the OTL versions. As more powerful Hercules engines became available it might have enabled them to carry even heavier loads. Of the two the Fairey aircraft might have the most development potential as AFAIK the Henley had a fabric skin like the Hurricane while the Fairey P.4/34 and Fulmar were stressed-skin aluminium. Also the Fairey Firefly was sort of a Griffon powered Fulmar.

What was the performance of the early Hercules engines at higher altitudes. Because...

Imagine a Hercules powered Fulmar entering service in 1940 with a 1,350-1,400hp engine. Actually they might have been able to get it in 1939 by ordering more of them from Blackburn and Boulton Paul instead of the Skua and Roc.

Substituting the Merlin for the Hercules on the Boulton Paul Defiant and Hawer Hotspur would have improved their performance. Boulton Paul did propose night fighter versions of the Defiant using more powerful engines like the Griffon with up to 12 machine guns or six 20mm cannon in the wings while keeping the turret or replacing it with an observer.

As the Hercules you're proposing for the CAS Hurricane produced 1,350-1,400hp compared to 1,030hp fitted to the Hurricanes that took part in the Battles of France and Britain and the later marks of Hurricane had Merlins producing 1,280hp it looks as if we could have had a Hercules powered Hurricane in 1940 with the Hurricane Mk IIB and IIC performance and armament.
 
Surely this should start at the doctrinal/organisational end?

Without a clear definition of what these units are supposed to do, and who will direct them, how do you chose the right equipment?

what the army wanted, which was tactical reconnaissance and artillery reconnaissance capability – photographic reconnaissance and observation of artillery fire in daylight – up to about 15,000 yards (14 km) behind the enemy front.


The view of Army AOP pilots was that the Lysander was too fast for artillery spotting purposes, too slow and unmanoeuverable to avoid fighters, too big to conceal quickly on a landing field, too heavy to use on soft ground and had been developed by the RAF without ever asking the Army what was needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lysander
 
I'd replace consider replacing the Battle with the Hurricane, or possibly consider a two seat derivative of the Hurricane if an observer/navigator is considered necessary. What can you do to get more Range out of a Hurricane derived airframe? Because if you cancel the Fairy Battle, you probably don't get the Fulmer.

A CAS version of the Fulmar would probably need an earlier introduction of the 20mm cannon.....
We had two 2-seat derivatives of the Hurricane. One was the Hawker Henley light bomber and the other was the Hawker Hotspur turret fighter built to the same specification as the Defiant.

At one point in 1936 the plan was for Avro to build 389 Hotspurs to equip the 10 fighter squadrons then required to support the BEF and that they be delivered by March 1939. But the plan was changed to the Defiant and the number of fighter squadrons required to support the BEF was reduced to 4. The Blenheim fighters in Fighter Command in September 1939 weren't night fighters they were interim turret fighters for the Air Component BEF pending the late arrival of the Defiant. Although 4 Hurricane squadrons (out of the 16 then in Fighter Command) were sent in their place.

The Fulmar was the fighter version of the Fairey P.4/34 light bomber built to the same specification as the Hawker Henley. The earlier 20mm cannon or 12 machine guns instead of 8 is a good idea though.

I think the thread is evolving into a Henley fighter-bomber or a Hurricane fighter-bomber both powered by the Hercules. Nearly the same aircraft. The difference is the Henley carries its bombs internally and the Hurricane its bombs externally.

Or a Fulmar/Fairey P.4/34 fighter-bomber powered by the Hercules. This would have the considerable bonus of giving the FAA a much better fighter 1939-42.

Edit
Because if you cancel the Fairy Battle, you probably don't get the Fulmar.
Actually we probably do because the Fulmar wasn't derived from the Battle.

The Battle was designed to Specification P.27/32 and the Fulmar was based on the Fairey P.4/34 built to the eponymous Air Ministry specification. The P.4/34 resembled the Battle but it was a different aircraft.

It also depends upon when the cancellation took place. E.g. we could have the Air Ministry ordering the prototypes but not ordering it into production.

Even if the Air Ministry decided not to order any prototypes of the Battle I think Fairey would still have submitted the same design as OTL to Specification P.4/34.
 
Last edited:
Top