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

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 completely agree. What we need is a change of doctrine between 1934 when Specifications P.4/34 (Henley and Fairey P.4/34), F.5/34 (Gloster G.3), F.36/34 (Hurricane), F.37/34 (Spitfire) and A.39/34 (Lysander) were issued and 1936 when the production contracts were placed as part of RAF Expansion Scheme F.
 
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.
In defence of the Fairey Battle there wasn't that much wrong with the airframe, what let it down was that it was under powered.

OTL it was either to have had an early version of the RR Griffon (IIRC derived from the Buzzard and put on hold for 5 years while RR concentrated on the Merlin) or a Fairey engine, both of which would produce 1,500hp. In the absence of those engines a Merlin producing one-third less power had to be used with regrettable results.

Some time ago I started an unsuccessful thread called The Fairey Battle - The Metal Mosquito where the Battle was redesigned as a Twin Merlin aircraft to make up for the lack of power so that it would make a half-decent bomber, but also a long-range PR aircraft AND a decent night-fighter that would be an improvement over the Blenheim during the Blitz.

How fast would a Battle fitted with a 1,350hp Hercules go.

According to the Wikipaedia entry the major versions of the Hercules were the Hercules VI which delivered 1,650 hp (1,230 kW), and the late-war Hercules XVII produced 1,735 hp (1,294 kW).

How would they transform the performances of later marks of the Battle, the Henley/Hurricane fighter-bomber and the Fulmar/Fairey P.4/34 fighter-bomber?
 
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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lysander
The Lysander was an embarrassment of riches for the RAF during the Battle of Britain. IIRC there was a front-line of 162 Lysanders in 9 squadrons of 18 during the battle when there were 600 - 660 Hurricanes and Spitfires in 50-55 squadrons of 12.

Had they been equipped with a fighter-bomber the RAF they could have taken part in the battle, increasing Fighter Command's effective strength by about 25%.
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.
That is what the Army belatedly got when the AOP squadrons numbered in the series 651-666 were formed, starting with No. 651 Squadron in August 1941.

These squadrons were equipped with the British Taylorcraft Auster. This was derived from the Taylorcraft A civil aircraft. British Taylorcraft was formed in 1938 and the prototype Taylorcraft A flew in America in 1930 according to Wikipaedia.

So it looks to me that there could have formed a few Auster equipped AOP squadrons at home and overseas 1936-39 to support the regular army and a few Auster equipped RAuxAF AOP squadrons to support the Territorial Army.
 
I couldn't follow that data sheet very well.
...
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.

The speed is for the mean weight, ie. no external loads indeed.

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.

The Fairey's proposal carried bombs externally, thus it will be less attarctive than either of the Hawkers. Hurricane with external bombs will not be any bit slower than Henley with or without bombs, and once bombs are gone it is a certified fighter. Meaning that pilot(s) can choose whether to fight or to run away. Hurricane is also a smaller target, might come in handy when a perspective enemy has AAA and aircraft that number in thousands.
There is one feature that I'd 'transplant' from Henley to Hurricane, namely the layout of the radiator - less plumbing around for lower chance to be punctured, less drag, will not be destroyed in forced landing, less weight.

...
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.

The 'normal' fighters need good power at altitude, that was one of the Merlin's strong suites. There was, however, the Hercules III from 1939, that gave 1210-1270 HP at 15000 ft (different sources state different HP figures), or some 15-20% more than Merlin III/X. Having the 2-speed S/C gear, it also provided 1400 at low level, vs. ~1100 for the Merlin X (and Merlin VIII from 1940), and ~900 for the Merlin III. All figures for 87 oct fuel.
I'm all for Hercules-powered 1-engined stuff in 1939/40. That would've especially come handy for the aricraft that were not that sleek (Defiant, Fulmar, Henley, even Battle) and/or sport lousy radiator set-up (Hurricane, again Defiant), and less handy for sleek A/C (Spitfire).
The earlier RAF/AM forgets about turret fighters, the better :)

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.

Stick the tail on that plan and call it a weasel ;)
 
Moments like this are when we, as a board, will really miss the expertise of the late Just Leo .

I was not aware he had passed away?

So sorry to hear that - I'll miss his dry wit more than his expertise and his expertise was very good!
 
The earlier RAF/AM forgets about turret fighters, the better :)
The Defiant, Hotspur and Roc could still fly as prototypes but instead ordering 389 Hotspurs from Avro in 1936 (later cancelled in favour of the Defiant and Avro built 1,000 Blenheims instead) order 389 Hurricanes and stick to the plan.

The particularly absurd thing about the turret fighter is that they were intended for the Field Force not Home Defence.

Had the original plan gone ahead and been completed on time the RAF would have sent 126 Hotspurs (9 squadrons of 14) to France in September 1939.
 
The speed is for the mean weight, ie. no external loads indeed.
These are the maximum speeds of the different marks of Hurricane from the website Hawker Hurricane - Defender Of The Empire (c) Dr. Colin James Pratt-Hooson (1996 - 2004).
296 mph - Sea Hurricane Mk. IB - Merlin II/III - 1,030 hp
301 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIC Fighter Bomber (2 x 500lb) - Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
302 mph - Sea Hurricane Mk. IA - Merlin II/III - 1,030 hp
306 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIC Tropical Long-Range - Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
307 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIB Fighter Bomber (2 x 500lb) - Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
312 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIB Tropical Long-Range - Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
314 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIC Fighter Bomber (2 x 250lb) - Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
314 mph - Sea Hurricane Mk. IIC - Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
317 mph - Hurricane Mk. I - Tropical Merlin II/III - 1,030 hp
320 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIB Fighter Bomber - (2 x 250lb) Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
320 mph - Sea Hurricane Mk. IIB - Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
328 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIC - Tropical Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
330 mph - Hurricane Mk. I - Merlin II/III 1,030 hp
334 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIB - Tropical Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
334 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIC - Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
340 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIA - Merlin XX - 1,185 hp
340 mph - Hurricane Mk. IIB - Merlin XX - 1,185 hp​

So the second slowest Hurricane was the Mk IIC when armed with two 500lb bombs and is about 10% faster with no external loads carried. The Mk IIB was also about 10% faster when no external loads were carried.

Though I thought the Merlin on the Hurricane Mk II produced 1,280hp and it was more than 4 to 10mph faster than the Mk I.
 
The Fairey's proposal carried bombs externally, thus it will be less attractive than either of the Hawkers. Hurricane with external bombs will not be any bit slower than Henley with or without bombs, and once bombs are gone it is a certified fighter. Meaning that pilot(s) can choose whether to fight or to run away. Hurricane is also a smaller target, might come in handy when a perspective enemy has AAA and aircraft that number in thousands.

There is one feature that I'd 'transplant' from Henley to Hurricane, namely the layout of the radiator - less plumbing around for lower chance to be punctured, less drag, will not be destroyed in forced landing, less weight.
An all Hurricane force rather than a mix of Henleys and Hurricanes would offer considerable "tactical flexibility" if that is the correct expression.

As I wrote in Post 23
The Lysander was an embarrassment of riches for the RAF during the Battle of Britain. IIRC there was a front-line of 162 Lysanders in 9 squadrons of 18 during the battle when there were 600 - 660 Hurricanes and Spitfires in 50-55 squadrons of 12.

Had they been equipped with a fighter-bomber the RAF they could have taken part in the battle, increasing Fighter Command's effective strength by about 25%.
Although the Henley and Hurricane had many parts in common building just Hurricanes would help from the production, training, supply and maintenance angles.
 
...
So the second slowest Hurricane was the Mk IIC when armed with two 500lb bombs and is about 10% faster with no external loads carried. The Mk IIB was also about 10% faster when no external loads were carried.

Though I thought the Merlin on the Hurricane Mk II produced 1,280hp and it was more than 4 to 10mph faster than the Mk I.

Thanks for the effort to rype out the data. I'd also point to the wwiiaircraftperformance.org site as a source of valuable data, not just for Hurricanes.
Stating that Merlin III was a 1030 HP engine, or that Merlin XX was a 1185 HP engine is a good way to mis-inform people, since it neglects the fact that by 1940 those engines were operating on 100 oct fuel = more boost = more power. So, for 1940 and historical use in the Fighter Command (BC, CC and Army 'airforce' were still pretty much on 87 oct), the Merlin III was making 1300 HP, and Merlin XX 1400, at 5000-10000 ft. In 1941-42, the Mk.XX was rated for greater boost = still more power, almost 1450 HP.
Power chart for different Merlin 20s marks (includes XX): link

An all Hurricane force rather than a mix of Henleys and Hurricanes would offer considerable "tactical flexibility" if that is the correct expression.

As I wrote in Post 23Although the Henley and Hurricane had many parts in common building just Hurricanes would help from the production, training, supply and maintenance angles.

Agree with all of that.
 
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.

Stick the tail on that plan and call it a weasel ;)
In that case can:
  • 326 Hercules powered Fulmars be built instead of the 136 Rocs and 190 Skuas built IOTL?
  • 600 Hercules powered Fulmars instead of the OTL Merlin powered Fulmars?
  • "Loads" of Hercules powered Fulmars be built instead of the Sea Hurricane?
Would a Hercules powered Firefly release Griffon engines for the Spitfire or the proposed Griffon powered Hawker Tempest?
 
In that case can:
  • 326 Hercules powered Fulmars be built instead of the 136 Rocs and 190 Skuas built IOTL?
  • 600 Hercules powered Fulmars instead of the OTL Merlin powered Fulmars?
  • "Loads" of Hercules powered Fulmars be built instead of the Sea Hurricane?
Would a Hercules powered Firefly release Griffon engines for the Spitfire or the proposed Griffon powered Hawker Tempest?

1 - Both Hercules and Fulmar are too late to replace Skua and Roc. I'd propose another 100-150 Skuas to be produced, and purchase Sea Hurricane ASAP - no Roc, no Sea Gladiator.
2 - Agreed.
3 - It is possible, but I'd stick with Hercules Fulmars (and/or earlier Fireflies) to be produced to under 1500 pcs, while going for an improved Sea Hurricane for 1941/42.

Push for the Firefly/Fulmar with either Griffon, 2-stage Merlin, 1700 HP Hercules, or even Sabre, to became avilable by winter of 1942/43 - the winter of 1943/44 is too late to matter. FAA will need a 370+ mph fighter by 1943 if they want to make meaningful contribution to the Med invasions/operations during daylight, and that role is probably best fulfilled by Seafire with better engines early on.
 
1 - Both Hercules and Fulmar are too late to replace Skua and Roc. I'd propose another 100-150 Skuas to be produced, and purchase Sea Hurricane ASAP - no Roc, no Sea Gladiator.
2 - Agreed.
3 - It is possible, but I'd stick with Hercules Fulmars (and/or earlier Fireflies) to be produced to under 1500 pcs, while going for an improved Sea Hurricane for 1941/42.

Push for the Firefly/Fulmar with either Griffon, 2-stage Merlin, 1700 HP Hercules, or even Sabre, to became avilable by winter of 1942/43 - the winter of 1943/44 is too late to matter. FAA will need a 370+ mph fighter by 1943 if they want to make meaningful contribution to the Med invasions/operations during daylight, and that role is probably best fulfilled by Seafire with better engines early on.
I think it's possible to substitute the Fulmar (powered by a Merlin engine at the very least) for the Roc, Skua and Sea Gladiator based on the following.

Specifications and first flight dates:
P.4/34 - Fairey P.4/34 - 13th January 1937

P.4/34 - Hawker Henley - 10th March 1937

O.27/37 - Blackburn Skua - 9th February 1937

O.30/35 - Blackburn Roc - 23rd December 1938

O.8/38 - Fairey Fulmar - 4th January 1940​

IMHO the Air Ministry (because the FAA was still part of the RAF - FAA is short for Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force) could have cancelled the Roc and Skua in 1936 before the production contracts were placed and brought Specification O.8/38 forward by 2 years, that is from 1938 to 1936. On that basis the first flight of the OTL Fulmar prototype with a Merlin engine could be brought forward from 4th January 1940 to 4th January 1938.

The Fulmar (span 46ft 4.25in) and Firefly (span 44ft 6in) had wings that folded, IIRC to 13½ feet. The wings on the Sea Gladiator (span 32ft 3in) and Sea Hurricane (span 40ft 0in) didn't fold at all. That's an important consideration.

On the subject of the Gladiator I wrote in another thread recently that Gloster build 581 Gladiators for the RAF proper and FAA 1937-40, but the last 378 were built in parallel with the 200 Henleys that Gloster built. We could have had 578 extra Hurricanes in place of these aircraft.

I'm also convinced that with a non-ASB amount of jiggery pokery we could have had 746 extra Hurricanes for the RAF, FAA and export in place of all 746 Gladiators built 1937-40 IOTL.
 
well as we've had Henley / Hurricane how about Fulmar (later Firefly) / Battle (but ditch the 3rd crewmember in the Battle) but not with Merlins / Griffons but with the Fairey Prince and then the Monarch when available
 
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 healthy or wounded soldier or two between different Army locations etc. Direct air-defence - not until Dunkirk? So let's give the grunts the 'air force', 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.

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?
IIRC the RFC/RAF developed an effective CAS doctrine/organisation through 4 years of practical experience on the Western Front. Furthermore the CAS doctrine/organisation that was developed after the Battle of France by Army Co-operation Command and the Desert Air Force was essentially a reinvention of what was created in World War One.

If that is correct the interwar RAF has to remember, "How to do it!"
 
...

The Fulmar (span 46ft 4.25in) and Firefly (span 44ft 6in) had wings that folded, IIRC to 13½ feet. The wings on the Sea Gladiator (span 32ft 3in) and Sea Hurricane (span 40ft 0in) didn't fold at all. That's an important consideration.

On the subject of the Gladiator I wrote in another thread recently that Gloster build 581 Gladiators for the RAF proper and FAA 1937-40, but the last 378 were built in parallel with the 200 Henleys that Gloster built. We could have had 578 extra Hurricanes in place of these aircraft.

I'm also convinced that with a non-ASB amount of jiggery pokery we could have had 746 extra Hurricanes for the RAF, FAA and export in place of all 746 Gladiators built 1937-40 IOTL.

IIRC there was 3 Merlins produced in 1938 per each Hurricane or Battle produced in the same time. So yes, press on with Gloster making Hurricanes instead of the Gladiators.
BTW - re. Sea Hurricane wings, with earlier introdction of the type (1939?) it should be possible to come out with folding wings by 1941. Both Grumman and Supermarine designed folding wings for their respective F4F and Seafire, even Junkers for the Ju 87C, so it can be done.
 
The Fulmar (span 46ft 4.25in) and Firefly (span 44ft 6in) had wings that folded, IIRC to 13½ feet. The wings on the Sea Gladiator (span 32ft 3in) and Sea Hurricane (span 40ft 0in) didn't fold at all. That's an important consideration.
The hangars on Ark Royal were 60 feet wide and the hangars on the Illustrious class were 62ft wide allowing 4 Fulmars or Fireflies to be stowed abreast. The Sea Gladiator and Sea Hurricane could only be stowed one abreast.

IIRC the Swordfish and Albacore folded to 18ft and the Barracuda folded to 13½ feet. So 4 Barracudas could be stowed in the same space as 3 Swordfish or Albacores. How early could a Hercules powered Barracuda have been put into service?
 
BTW - re. Sea Hurricane wings, with earlier introdction of the type (1939?) it should be possible to come out with folding wings by 1941. Both Grumman and Supermarine designed folding wings for their respective F4F and Seafire, even Junkers for the Ju 87C, so it can be done.
I take your point, but I still think all ALT-Fulmars is better than a mix of ALT-Fulmars and ALT-Sea Hurricanes.
  • A folded Fulmar would still take up less hangar and deck space than a folded ALT-Hurricane.
  • The Fulmar can fly further on internal fuel.
  • IIRC it had slower take off and landing speeds which is useful for aircraft carrier operations.
  • Also with the limited space aboard the aircraft carriers the fewer the number of types carried the better from the operational and administrative perspectives.
 
Last edited:
Assuming this has to be done on the cheep.

Army Air Corps 1939

Aircraft role
Air Observation Post De Havilland Tiger Moth with cockpit canopy
Communications De Havilland Dragon Rapide
Tactical Strike Blackburn Skua

All existing aircraft modified for Army use and none of them aircraft the R.A.F. is likely to complain too much about the Army having.
 
Assuming this has to be done on the cheep.

Army Air Corps 1939

Aircraft role
Air Observation Post De Havilland Tiger Moth with cockpit canopy
Communications De Havilland Dragon Rapide
Tactical Strike Blackburn Skua

All existing aircraft modified for Army use and none of them aircraft the R.A.F. is likely to complain too much about the Army having.

Only problem the Skua is going to get slaughtered in much the same way as the Battle and Lysander. A tactical recce plane is also needed, the RAF did try to attack the German Army in 1940 but often by the time they got to the target the Germans had gone. The information was out of date but there was no procedures for sending out a Hurricane to get up to date target info.
 
Top