AHC: AM's/RAF's best reply to LW and Heer in 1940

Basically, a good boy's counterpart to the best possible LW topic. It should also include aircraft operated by British Army, so we're also to give them as good gear and doctrine as realistically possible.
Before we jump into bits and pieces that warm the rivet-counter's hart, a good look at doctrine, training, communication, cooperation and defence of assets is needed. Change the historical RAF/AM doctrine when/where needed.
Also - how much of assets to deploy in France before April/May 1940? What to deploy?
Realistic pieces of gear are encouraged (no jets, no cluster bombs etc), buy/licence from abroad if need.
Start date is January 1936, and we somehow know that war is imminent within 3-4 years.
Extra points for managing to save France in 1940, so we need to blunt both LW and Heer with air power - tall order indeed.
 
...
Before we jump into bits and pieces that warm the rivet-counter's hart, a good look at doctrine, training, communication, cooperation and defence of assets is needed. Change the historical RAF/AM doctrine when/where needed. ...

Amen

Have something a lot closer to the 1943 tactical air support techniques developed. So the Fariay Battles are attacking just ahead of the armored attack at Arras 22 may, instead of expended attacking bridges a week earlier. This helps concentrate combat power, and makes fighter cover more practical. This may not save France, but probably triggers the 'Panzer Halt' a day or two earlier.
 

Driftless

Donor
An earlier and larger aviation training program would be a big help. Bonus points if that training is extended to the Commonwealth in some fashion. Having that structure in place well before the war would help both the RAF, Fleet Air Arm, Coastal Command, etc; plus aid in the quicker integration of foreign pilots after the shooting starts.

Pilot training would be the primary focus, but you would also be identifying navigators, flight engineers, radio/radar operators, mechanics, gunners, flight controllers, intelligence officers, etc.
 
The RAF can't defeat the Heer in 1940. That needs the French to sort themselves out (the British Army isn't big enough to beat the Heer, no matter what the RAF do. Outside of giving the RAF a few squadrons of (modern) Typhoon and the BEF flying similar numbers of Apache France is going to fall).

Other than that the RAF have already prepared the best reply to the Luftwaffe that is realistically possible. There is an integrated air defence network for the UK, the RAF has one of the best fighters in the world in the Spitfire and a very capable companion in the Hurricane and the RAF bomber force is well equipped by the standards of the day (badly used, but well equipped).

There's some tweaking you can do around the edges (getting reliable belt fed Hispano 20mm airborne in Spitfires and Hurricanes by 1940, as an example) but most of the improvements people would normally suggest for the RAF in 1939/40 are reliant on hindsight. Bomber Command could improve their training and move to night attacks earlier but that relies on the UK government accepting attacks on private property earlier as much as it does on the RAF.
 
Air Ministry, as part of HM Government, needs to decide whether UK is best defended on the Continent, or above UK itself. If it is above continent, bulk of RAF's assets need to be starting deployment in France once war is imminent, latest start being once the war has started. Obviously, good negotiations with the French need to be held. Deployment of major assets in France also requires excellent support with radars and anti-aircraft artillery.
In this case (RAF at continent), RAF will also be tasked with tactical missions, so aircraft for that type of missions are required. In order to ease ad-hoc deployment and to cover the Southern part of North Sea, along with Belgium (that was attacked 22 years before, despite being neutral) and Netherlands (it is a neutral country), good range/endurance is needed. Thus, copy the drop tank idea from Curtiss fighters that have it in early 1930s.
Army should be buying off-the-shelf aircraft. A small A/C for liaison and close-in recon, in lines of the Taylor's and later Piper's Cub. A 1-engined transport, like the Noorduyin Norseman. Of course, stick British engines on those. Fighter-bomber for close-in support - a version of Hurricane or (provided there is a surplus) Spitfire.
 

A very good time line indeed.
Thing with it is that UK still produced & used hundreds of Battles, Lysanders and Blenheims past the sell date (= death & destruction of the said planes and crews once Germans come in knocking), and results of improved RAF were begun to feel by time of BoB.

Now about further strenthening the RAF, and make a better use of investment. Recon is what aircraft do best before satelites are available. Recons need range, and some form of protection to do their job. Protection comes in form of flying high and fast, out-performing enemy fighters. Pick own fighters as base, delete guns & ammo, invest in better fit & finish, install cameras and extra fuel. Recons need to fly around the clock, covering hopefully Western half of Germany. Historically, the best bet is Spitfire again.
That leads us to improving production of Spitfires for 1939/40. (un)Fortunately, British can opt to cancel thousand or two worth of questionable/bad aircraft in order to increase numbers of useful ones. 560 of Blackburn Bothas don't get built in any ALT RAF scheme (here too), and there is also no Defiant case (BP makes Spitfires instead). In case BP still makes Defiant, we can make it work as a fighter-bomber.
Westland is another possible source for early Spitfires. I favor early tooling up & expanding both BP and Westland vs. what was invested in Castle Bromwich.
 
The RAF can't defeat the Heer in 1940. That needs the French to sort themselves out (the British Army isn't big enough to beat the Heer, no matter what the RAF do. Outside of giving the RAF a few squadrons of (modern) Typhoon and the BEF flying similar numbers of Apache France is going to fall).

So what impact on the Ardennes traffic jams or Meuse crossings is required to give the French enough time to recover their grasp of the situation and for reserves capable of holding a line to arrive?
 
To get the desired impact you'd probably want to throw bomber command and anything the French had at it. Bomb the bejasus out of the roads and try and hit the bridges. You might well gut both forces, but any delay you can buy is vital. It's still probably not enough, but who knows.
 
The Purse strings being loosened just a year earlier would have made a massive impact to the British and Commonwealth military

So an earlier start to very successful 'The Plan' which would result in far more pilots and crew earlier

An earlier acceleration of the Shadow Factory scheme

The Battle was built because it was cheap! More money might see a better plane built in larger numbers earlier

Other things such as a continuation of the Mechanized force which included CAS and liaison squadrons working in conjunction with the brown jobs - had this initiative continued into the 30s we could see RAF units assigned to each Division or Corps - possibly this responsibility becomes that of the Army Air corps?

The RAF embracing 'Drop Altitude Bombing' as they called (which exposes and makes very clear what they thought about it) rather than ignoring everyone else and fudging the numbers claiming that level bombing was more accurate (while the Navy and pro dive bombing RAF officers were proving otherwise)

An obvious airframe for the CAS units would be something like the Swordfish - let call it the Claymore - capable of lifting 6 x 250 pound bombs and very maneuverable

With Castle Bromwich assembly stood up earlier and in full production by Xmas 39 the Spitfire becomes the Principle Fighter Interceptor of the RAF and Hurricane becomes a 'Jabo' (as well as being sold to Allied nations) and by the Battle of France has begun to replace the 'Claymore' in Army Support Squadrons

RAF Coastal command given more attention and the ability of RAF Aircraft to find and sink U Boats and attack raiders better realised.

One thing we must consider when establishing what this improved RAF looks like is that I don't think anyone saw France being defeated in 6 weeks - so any improved RAF would be designed to fight the battle in France and Belgium - with view to supporting the Army and bombing Germany.
 
The improved RAF and Army's aircraft will need improvement in weponry, too, vs. what was in OTL in 1940. In the UK, Army and RN were making rockets, the 3in rocket is attractive enough, and it's timing might be favorable. 2in rocket was also in development in late 1930s. So I'd like to see rockets under the wings of fighter-bombers.
Gun wepons also need a step-up or two vs. .303s late 1930s and early war. For HMG, Vickers has their own 0.50, so pump production of these. For cannon, the Hispano is, by 1936, still an unknown, so shop at Oerlikons. A good 20mm will kill light tanks and armoured cars, as well as aircraft, trucks, infantry and ground crews. A feasible fighter-bomber for 1940 might be carrying 2 cannons and 6-8 rockets. A fighter might carry a 4 HMG battery; HMG also for bombers (unless we make them fly fast ;) ).
The biplane fighters belong to history books, so Gloster will be making a monoplane fighter instead of Gladiator.
 

Driftless

Donor
A longer range, cannon-armed fighter would be helpful, both in France and later during the BoB. Down the road, that aircraft would also be useful in North Africa and the Far East. The theory being that with greater range/loiter time, that aircraft could be put up into the air earlier and be at altitude, then vectored into the fight. The twin-engined Gloster, a Whirlwind with alternative engines, or a single engine fighter with greater fuel capacity(even via drop tanks) could serve in that role
 
A longer range, cannon-armed fighter would be helpful, both in France and later during the BoB. Down the road, that aircraft would also be useful in North Africa and the Far East. The theory being that with greater range/loiter time, that aircraft could be put up into the air earlier and be at altitude, then vectored into the fight. The twin-engined Gloster, a Whirlwind with alternative engines, or a single engine fighter with greater fuel capacity(even via drop tanks) could serve in that role

Like the P-40 with cannons?
 
The Whirlwind might have been ok, if they could have fitted more powerful engines (without ruining CoG) and more fuel, lots more fuel.
 
My 2¢ worth, go with some thing like;

1) Based upon WWI experience, pre-war make aerial maps of every single route of advance that an invading German army will have to use in any and every sector for their supply trains to use, and train a large number of dedicated dive bombers to smash logistics motor vehicles/horse drawn transports on said terrain, both within France, and outside.
2) Have fighter pilots trained in joint exercises with the dive bombers, to keep the Luftwaffe off them as well as possible.
3) Use all other bombers to smash buildings/bridges to delay advances, and especially to massacre traffic jammed up concentrations of supply convoys.
4) Have a pre-war plan to draw the Heer forward, in the least favorable terrain to defend their supply convoys as possible, and let the Germans think they have found a hole in your lines, and smash their logistics with everything you have, once their forces enter the trap.
 
A longer range, cannon-armed fighter would be helpful, both in France and later during the BoB. Down the road, that aircraft would also be useful in North Africa and the Far East. The theory being that with greater range/loiter time, that aircraft could be put up into the air earlier and be at altitude, then vectored into the fight. The twin-engined Gloster, a Whirlwind with alternative engines, or a single engine fighter with greater fuel capacity(even via drop tanks) could serve in that role

Even a Hurricane/Spitfire with a decent drop tank(s) will be very useful, likely adding a hour to their endurance.
Pre-Whirlwind with two Mercury or Kestrel engines would've been a decent fighter, probably no worse than the historical Fw 187A. Twelve 0.303s until cannons are not available? Switch to Taurus, Perseus of Twin Wasp when available. Granted, a twin with Merlins and 4 cannons would've been the best, probably above 370 mph and with very good/excellent climb. Just dont make a big aircraft like Bf 110 and Gloster F.9/37 were. With deletion of Defiant and cutting back production of Battles, UK has enough of Merlins to make those.
On the other hand, an early Spitfire can carry 2 cannons, it will be easier, faster and cheaper to make them (especially if the ribs are made in single piece), it is easier to train a pilot for a single, the twin is easier for enemy to spot and to hit.
 
Some dead wood to cut so green wood can grow better. Or, production of some aircraft, Sept 1939 - Dec 40 that UK can do without:
Defiant: 382
Hereford: 146
Battle (just in 1940): 232+466 (bombers + trainers) = 698
Botha: 284 + 78 (b + t) = 362

There were also 385 Beauforts and 750 Lysanders made in 1939-40.

Change and/or cancellation brings, after we cut the number by 1/3rd (due to time limit the funky Gerrmans imposed in May 1940), some 750 Merlins, ~200 Daggers and ~1500 Bristol's engines to use on something more useful we can imagine. The last number makes Gloster's monoplane even more attractive. Obviously, decision for cancellation and change in production need to be made well before in 1939.
As for Daggers - have De Havilland dust off the DH 77 idea?
Also - 1900+ Blenheims in 1939-40.

(production data from here)
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Ordering some US .50 caliber HMGs would be helpful for any RAF fighter, plus they got some later on as it was.

Also why did the British not license the HS Y-25/45 engine to use with the Whirlwind??? It was already developed, roughly the same size and weight as the Peregrine and would have given the Brits and outstanding fighter-bomber/bomber killer. Plus it could have been loaded up with a lot of AN-2 .50 caliber HMGs to boot while the 20mm Hispano cannons are readied. Without delays imposed on it by the engine availability, there shouldn't be a reason it couldn't have been available in numbers in time for Summer 1940.
 
The problem with cancelling production is what happens to the workforce? You may need that team in six months when you need to start production of the new Scruggs Wonderplane F.mk 1 but your team has been called up or drafted by Bevan to work in the mines because they're not doing anything to benefit the war effort.

Late war, Bristol kept churning out Buckinghams - with no role or user to go to, and often without engines or other equipment - before Brigand production came on line.

Besides, I wouldn't necessarily cancel the Defiant as it's got potential as a single seat fighter. All it needs is a little tweaking of the production line.

Boulton%20Paul%20Defiant%20P94%2001.jpg


Whirlwind didn't really need more fuel but it DID need a proper fuel feed system. Instead of fuel coming from a single tank, each engine was fed by a separate tank which couldn't draw fuel off the other if necessary.
 

Driftless

Donor
Instead of fuel coming from a single tank, each engine was fed by a separate tank which couldn't draw fuel off the other if necessary.

Short term fix by redundant fuel lines (meaning a line off each tank going to both engines). Of course, that puts another potential set of gauges for the pilot to monitor in a pinch.
 
Top