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

[QUOTE="fastmongrel, post: 16465166]...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 The information was out of date but there was no procedures for sending out a Hurricane to get up to date target info.[/QUOTE]

Hence my post earlier about the value of a proper liasion - spotting scheme being more valuable than hardware.
 
Last edited:
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.

The requirement that fighter need to perform well in it's duty of air defense still stands. With equal engines, the Sea Hurricane will be much better in chasing & destroying enemy bomber than it will be the Fulmar, since it will be 40 mph faster and climb much better. Surviving in presence of enemy fighter - again SH gets a nod. Sea Hurricane with 2x90 gal drop tanks will posses excellent loiter time at station, and increase of internal fuel tankage is no rocket science for a big aircraft the SH was. SH's low speed handling was suitable for carrier operations. With SH introduced early enough, both Sea Gladiator and Martlet are butterflied off, so the number of types is also reduced. The SH with drop tank under one wing and bomb under another is not that far fetched, when enemy airforce is not expected.
 
[QUOTE="fastmongrel, post: 16465166)...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 The information was out of date but there was no procedures for sending out a Hurricane to get up to date target info.

Hence my post earlier about the value of a proper liasion - spotting scheme being more valuable than hardware.[/QUOTE]

I'll add my vote to Carl's here in agreement. Something I'm not seeing (maybe I'm just missing it, I'm presently not at my best) but what about radio's? Do the ones you have work? Air to ground, air to ship. vice versa? Do you even have enough?
 
That's why I said give the Tiger Moth a cockpit canopy. The observer would then be able to use an RT set to talk to the ground or call in an airstrike. There's really not a lot of difference between the performance of a Tiger Moth and the later specialised Auster A.O.P and it was found that small maneuverable aircraft were remarkably difficult to shoot down. Of course once they get their hands on a Storch the Army Air Corps would want a copy of it for themselves.

The earlier comment about the Skua being vulnerable is true but I'm assuming the Army gets the A.A.C at the same time as the navy gets the Fleet Air Arm back so when the choices were made they wouldn't know that. Also as has been said in other threads any light/dive bomber would be a sitting duck in Northern France in May and June 1940. I imagine that once the survivors returned to Britain other options would be quickly sought. The misused Henley springs to mind but the Army would be more likely to be palmed off with Gladiators with bomb shackles in place of their wing guns.

The aircraft that would be just about perfect for them would be the Bristol 148 with the Taurus engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Type_148

bristol_148_1938-36331.jpg
 
but the Army would be more likely to be palmed off with Gladiators with bomb shackles in place of their wing guns.

Might not be such a bad idea the Henschel Hs 123 was similar in size and highly thought of by its pilots, there were even attempts to restart production in 1943. Fit bomb racks and dive brakes and you have a handy support aircraft that could at least survive a bit better than a Skua.
 
That's why I said give the Tiger Moth a cockpit canopy. The observer would then be able to use an RT set to talk to the ground or call in an airstrike. There's really not a lot of difference between the performance of a Tiger Moth and the later specialised Auster A.O.P and it was found that small maneuverable aircraft were remarkably difficult to shoot down. Of course once they get their hands on a Storch the Army Air Corps would want a copy of it for themselves.

The earlier comment about the Skua being vulnerable is true but I'm assuming the Army gets the A.A.C at the same time as the navy gets the Fleet Air Arm back so when the choices were made they wouldn't know that. Also as has been said in other threads any light/dive bomber would be a sitting duck in Northern France in May and June 1940. I imagine that once the survivors returned to Britain other options would be quickly sought. The misused Henley springs to mind but the Army would be more likely to be palmed off with Gladiators with bomb shackles in place of their wing guns.

The aircraft that would be just about perfect for them would be the Bristol 148 with the Taurus engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Type_148

bristol_148_1938-36331.jpg



What is the bomb load on this aircraft? The Fairey Fox carried about 200lbs, the Potez 25 400, the WM21 between 2 and 300. I'm guessing it will be somewhere in that range, but more is always better.
 
The original test aircraft supposedly matched the Lysander so at a minimum it would have a 500lb bomb load. The Taurus engine version which is the one listed in wikipeadia (I know not the best) doesn't appear to have been test with a bomb load given the large improvement in speed 1000lb doesn't seem an unreasonable guesstimate.
 
Also IIRC the Taurus engine version had a top speed of around 290mph when flying clean, now that is quite a useful 'Get out of Dodge' ability. This also makes it 18mph faster that the Fairy Fulmar so judging by that aircrafts performance as a fighter then the Bristol 148 in Army co-operation guise should have a reasonable chance at self defence against anything except the best axis fighters. 500lbs on wing racks is the oft quote bomb load. I believe the observers bomb aiming position prone behind/below the pilot precluded a central external bomb load. Though I think this would quickly change in the light of combat experience. If a central bomb position is utilized the 1x500lb bomb on that and 2x250lb bombs on the wing racks should be possible.
 
Good point about replacing Lysanders with Noordyn Norsemen.

OTL After early heavy losses, Lysanders were relegated to secondary roles: search and rescue, target tugs, delivering agents to occupied France, etc. Lysander's only advantage was its 870 hp engine which allowed it to cruise at almost 200 mph. Otherwise, Lysanders were cramped, slow to load, 2,000 useful load (crew + fuel + passengers).
OTOH Simultaneously, Robert Noordyn was developing a bush plane called the Norseman. With only 600 hp, it could carry 3,000 lbs and cruise at 120 mph. Norseman's biggest advantage was its huge cargo door which allowed rapid loading of fuel drums, etc.
Every base, fighter squadron, army regiment, etc. wants a "squadron Hack" to haul a few people, ammo, rations, spare parts, casualties, etc.
During the Korean and Vietnamese Civil Wars, the US Army bought hundreds of DeHavilland of Canada Beavers and Otters. Light STOL airplanes were extremely useful before helicopters grew turbine engines.
Even during Vietnam, the US Army, CIA, Air America, etc. used Fairchild Pilatus Porters, Helio Stallions, etc. to support anti-communist hill tribes.

ATL Everytime I try to do a Lysander wank, it ends up looking like a Norseman with an 800 or 1,000 hp engine. Maybe a Fairchild Husky style canoe hatch under the tail.
 
...

ATL Everytime I try to do a Lysander wank, it ends up looking like a Norseman with an 800 or 1,000 hp engine. Maybe a Fairchild Husky style canoe hatch under the tail.

The Norseman with 800-900 HP Mercury should've been a capable & affordable aircraft for every day jobs, not requiring any kind of modern tehnology in either airframe or powerplant 'department'. Not just for Army.
 

Driftless

Donor
The Norseman with 800-900 HP Mercury should've been a capable & affordable aircraft for every day jobs, not requiring any kind of modern tehnology in either airframe or powerplant 'department'. Not just for Army.

The stubs for the landing gear were relatively easy to adapt for pontoons or skis too
 
How about a using the Delanne winged Lysander with the tail turret exchanged for a loading ramp. By all accounts the prototype K6127 handled well, though lacking rudder authority a slow speed and could tolerate wide differences in CoG.
 
If more aircraft types designed specifically for army co-operation are produced, it is possible that the arguments over who should control the close air support forces fall on the side of the army - this would prevent AVM Coningham developing the succesful CAS tactics used - the difference in success between the DAF and the Allied air forces in the West of Africa after TORCH suggest this would hinder tactical success in his theatre
 
How about a using the Delanne winged Lysander with the tail turret exchanged for a loading ramp. By all accounts the prototype K6127 handled well, though lacking rudder authority a slow speed and could tolerate wide differences in CoG.

Modify the Nosreman that way? It already featured a wider cabin, where the two people could be seated one next to another, in rows, vs. Lysander with one after another for total of two.

If more aircraft types designed specifically for army co-operation are produced, it is possible that the arguments over who should control the close air support forces fall on the side of the army - this would prevent AVM Coningham developing the succesful CAS tactics used - the difference in success between the DAF and the Allied air forces in the West of Africa after TORCH suggest this would hinder tactical success in his theatre

We might take a look at benefit side of equation.
Production of the Botha amounted to 350 in 1939-40 (mainly in 1940), while there was 750 Lysanders produced in the same time. We kill Botha in good time (1937?), have Blackburn produce Norseman instead, delivering perhaps 250 before March 1st 1940? Instead of Lysander, Westland makes Hurribombers, 350 delivered before March 1st 1940. Army trains with new A/C from early 1939.
The Army with their several hundred of co-operation aircraft deployed in France (250 Norseman and 350 Hurribombers) before May 1940 is yet another obstacle Luftwaffe need to break. They will succeed eventually, with greater cost in men and material (+ for the Allies), while Army finds out what works and what does not (again + for the Allies).
With Westland tooled up for Hurribombers, they switch to Hurricanes in mid-1940 (after France is out), thus there is a surplus of fighters (again +), so FAA can have Sea Hurricanes earlier than in OTL (+). Having Norsemen in service means more saved personel, from France, N.A., Asia. Since Army and RAF know now that a 'frontline bomber' without speed is a dead duck, the Blenheim IV production is curtailed, the Mk V (Bisley) is not conceived, instead much more Hurricanes is built. In Africa, RAF provides escorts (Hurricanes, P-40s, Spitfires). P-39 is seen as an useless fighter above 12000 ft, thus gets employed as a fighter bomber, receiving the S Class gun instead the 20mm.
Norseman on floats means less need for the Supermarine Walrus, so Supermarine can produce more Spitfires.
 
Random thought but has anybody considered the P-39 Airacobra with a Merlin engine - surely a hot aircraft at all altitudes?
 
Merlin, as-is, was not a drop-in replacement for the V-1710 in P-39, since the V-1710 have had a removable reduction gear for the prop. Thus the same base engine can have either a reduction gear attached to the engine (use on, say, P-40, P-38, P-51) and remotely installed reduction gear (on P-39, P-63, XB-42).
However, a version of Packard Merlin, with redesigned crankcase (without the integral redcution gear) was mooted for the P-63. Designation of the engine was V-1650-5, that puts it in witer of 1943/44 time frame, ie. too late for P-39. I'm not sure that any of those -5 engines was actually produced.
 
How about Westland building 750 Bristol 148s, instead of Lysanders. They still have very good stol performance and are at least 70mph faster than a Lysander.so in the ground attack roll they have greater survivability. Any extra Hurricanes you can leverage can then be used as fighter protection.
 
With option for the 148s to engage German bombers or/and recons if opportunity arises, not unlike the Dauntlesses were being used sometimes. Though it will need Taurus or R-1830 to actually do 300 mph.
 
Some background information

This is from National Archives File AIR 9/50 Mobilisation and Expansion for War 1925-36
1931 Composition of Contingent "A" of the Regular Expeditionary Force
HQ, RAF in the Field
HQ, No. 1 (Bomber) Group
HQ, No. 1 (Army Co-operation) Wing

Nos. 2, 4 and 13 (Army Co-operation) Squadrons
Nos. 35 and 207 (Bomber) Squadrons
No. 41 (Fighter) Squadron

No. 1 Air Stores Park
No. 1 Aircraft Depot
No. 1 Port Detachment

Base Personnel Office
Base Accommodation Office​

The file gave no details of the later contingents. However, the file did have a few pages going back to 1925 discussing the size of the Air Component of the British Expeditionary Force. There was no formula of squadrons per division.

For example
16 squadrons for 5 divisions
58 squadrons for 20 divisions​

These were squadrons that "might" accompany such forces. The notes I'm writing this post from didn't give any breakdown of the force.

Air Force required for a war with Japan dated 30th June 1926

FAA 241 aircraft in aircraft carriers and 105 in battleships - to double within one year

BEF estimates as above

Coastal Reconnaissance initially 5 flights and expand to 25 flights

Other RAF The Initial 52 squadrons of the 1923 Scheme part of which to the BEF

Overseas Initial Strength as present

Training to suit total requirements​

From National Archives File AIR41/39 Bomber Command 1917-39
Air Component of the Field Force at 31st March 1933
Contingent "A"
2 bombers squadrons
1 fighter squadron
3 army co-operation squadrons​
Contingent "B"
2 bomber squadrons
2 fighter squadrons​
Total
4 bomber squadrons
3 fighter squadrons
3 army co-operation squadrons
Appendix 3
The 52 Squadron Scheme (598 aircraft) to be Formed by 31st March 1928
204 fighters in 17 squadrons of 12 (all regular)
264 day bombers in 22 squadrons of 12 (14 regular, 3 special reserve and 5 auxiliary)
130 night bombers in 13 squadrons of 10 (8 regular, 4 special reserve and one auxiliary)

Later changed to 20 day bomber and 15 night bomber (26 regular and 13 special reserve/auxiliary)
Squadrons Outside The Scheme
Inland Area
2 "reserve" day bomber squadrons (Nos. 39 and 207) later "emergency squadrons"
2 army co-operation squadrons​
Coastal Area
Naval Co-operation squadrons
Revision of 3rd December 1925 - Completion Postponed to 31st March 1935
39 squadrons actually existed in the 1926-27 Financial Year​
Revision of 11th December 1926 - Completion Postponed to 31st March 1938
39 squadrons actually existed in the 1930-31 Financial Year including the 13 SR and Auxiliary squadrons
Nos. 35 and 207 Squadrons were now counted in the 52 squadrons.​

Actual Situation 31st March 1934

Air Defence of Great Britain - 41 Squadrons
13 fighter squadrons (9 Bulldog, 3 Fury and one Daemon)
16 day bomber squadrons (one Gordon, 8 Hart, one Horsley, one Sidestrand, one Wallace and 4 Wapiti)
2 day bomber squadrons at the A&AEE (part of No. 21 Group, RAF Inland Area) organised on a skeleton basis
2 Emergency Squadrons (2 Gordon)
8 night bomber squadrons (6 Virginia, one Hinaidi and one Heyford)​
No. 22 (Army Co-operation) Group, RAF Inland Area
5 Army Co-operation squadrons (4 Audax and one Atlas) Numbers 2, 4, 13, 16 and 26 - That is one for each of the 5 regular infantry divisions based in the UK
The School of Army Co-operation​
 
Last edited:
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.

Specifications (Norseman Mark V)

General characteristics

  • Crew: 1
  • Capacity: 10
  • Length: 32 ft 4 in (9.86 m)
  • Wingspan: 51 ft 6 in (15.70 m)
  • Height: 10 ft 1 in (3.07 m)
  • Wing area: 325 sq ft (30.2 m2)
  • Empty weight: 4,240 lb (1,923 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 7,400 lb (3,357 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN1 9 cyl.air cooled radial piston engine, 600 hp (450 kW)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 155 mph (249 km/h; 135 kn) landplane
  • Range: 932 mi (810 nmi; 1,500 km) @ 10,000 ft (3,000 m)
  • Service ceiling: 17,000 ft (5,200 m)
Why wait till 1935?

Bellanca Aircraft started building the Aircruiser in 1930, but as with all single engine transports, were banned by the FAA in 1934

Does a whole lot more on 110 hp more

Looks cooler too, and was used with skies and floats in Canada, where that FAA restrictions did not apply.

tilabtw1.jpg


Specifications (66-70 Aircruiser)
General characteristics
  • Crew: one, pilot
  • Capacity: 16 passengers
  • Length: 43 ft 4 in (13.21 m)
  • Wingspan: 65 ft 0 in (19.82 m)
  • Height: 11 ft 6 in (3.51 m)
  • Wing area: 520 ft² (48.3 m²)
  • Empty weight: 6,072 lb (2,754 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 10,000 lb (4,536 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9 9-cylinder supercharged air-cooled radial engine, 710 hp (530 kW)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 165 mph, 266 km/h
  • Range: 608 nm (700 miles, 1,130 km)
  • Service ceiling: 22,000 ft (6,700 m)
 
Last edited:
Top