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

Driftless

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

What would you have take their place in the field? The earlier mentioned thin-wing Beaufort might have been more useful in the torpedo bomber role. Otherwise, what would you seen taking the Beaufort's place at that time? I'm guessing the Norduyun Norseman is an optional replacement for the Lysander. That would certainly work and open up additional uses that the Lysander couldn't easily do: air ambulance, deliver a larger number of agents or commandos, adaptable for floats, etc.
 
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.

Re. the US .50 - AM will pay either Vickers to expand their .50 production, or for a production line for the US .50, but very unlikely for both. At any rate, a steady flow of HMGs before 1939 is a boon. I'm against waiting for Hispano, it is/was too late for this thread - make a deal with Oerlikon already in 1936 for their 20mm cannons.
HS 12Y-45 does not seem to be in full production by 1940 in France? But then, licence of earlier HS 12Ys sounds better to me than licence production of G&R 14K.

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.

Making 119 aircraft does not really sound as churning out. Just because AM could be spending material, workforce and money in 1944/45 does not seem like they need to do it in 1939/40. Especially once we recall that a good deal of war-making material need to be shiped from abroad, through U-boats areas and mines sown.
Cancelling-out need to be done before the aircraft in question is to be flown - this timeline starts actually in 1936, in order to bear fruit in 1939/40.

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.

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.

Defiant as a 1-seat fighter certainly looks more useful than a turret-fighter it was. I'd go for a fighter-bomber version, Hurricanes and Spitfires as predominant fighters.
2-engined aircraft usually have more than 1 tank; P-38 started with 4 in wings, even the Hurricane had 3. There was no cross-feed on the Whirly, though. More fuel, even in form of drop tanks, made aircraft more useful when applied.
 
What would you have take their place in the field? The earlier mentioned thin-wing Beaufort might have been more useful in the torpedo bomber role. Otherwise, what would you seen taking the Beaufort's place at that time? I'm guessing the Norduyun Norseman is an optional replacement for the Lysander. That would certainly work and open up additional uses that the Lysander couldn't easily do: air ambulance, deliver a larger number of agents or commandos, adaptable for floats, etc.

Norseman me likes, a liaison and short recon provided by the Cub-like light A/C. Combat part of the job taken over by a fighter bomber (Hurricane, Defiant, or something similar).
Some kind of fast bomber is needed, unlike what the Beaufort was. So something smaller, lighter, with a more modern wing and high-lift devices. No need for big range/endurance. Smaller and faster will also be a tougher target for Flak. Erstwhile with Taurus, later with Merlin?
 

Driftless

Donor
Some kind of fast bomber is needed, unlike what the Beaufort was. So something smaller, lighter, with a more modern wing and high-lift devices. No need for big range/endurance. Smaller and faster will also be a tougher target for Flak. Erstwhile with Taurus, later with Merlin?

Something on the order of a Martin Maryland maybe? Fast, lighter than the Beaufort. Buy them off the shelf from the US, or make a home-grown version, tailored to British needs?

It's no wonderweapon, but plenty good for 1939-1942.
 

Deleted member 1487

HS 12Y-45 does not seem to be in full production by 1940 in France? But then, licence of earlier HS 12Ys sounds better to me than licence production of G&R 14K.
The 12Y-51 was just entering production at the time of the armistice, it seems the Y-45 was in production, as it was the engine of the D.520.
 
I will decline to pick this ball up as it is very close to the Peerless Air Ministry that I am already neck deep in. I would suggest that there would need to be a much earlier pod than the PAM.
 
Something on the order of a Martin Maryland maybe? Fast, lighter than the Beaufort. Buy them off the shelf from the US, or make a home-grown version, tailored to British needs?

It's no wonderweapon, but plenty good for 1939-1942.

Either somenting along these lines, or DB7 look-alike, or even Ki-48, smallest of the 3. Size of the Gloster F7/39 looks like tailor-made for an early fast bomber with not too much power.
The 'original' Blenheim I was supposed to be speedy, too, supposedly beating 280 mph mark on modest power. At any rate, keep the size & weight modest here.

The 12Y-51 was just entering production at the time of the armistice, it seems the Y-45 was in production, as it was the engine of the D.520.

Then it probably was.
Apart as an alternative engine for the Whirly, shove one on Hurricane + 1 cannon + two HMGs? And/or on the aforementioned fast bomber?
 
Something on the order of a Martin Maryland maybe? Fast, lighter than the Beaufort. Buy them off the shelf from the US, or make a home-grown version, tailored to British needs?

It's no wonderweapon, but plenty good for 1939-1942.

This meets your needs and more.

mosquito_B_IV_105sqn.jpg


Have the Air Ministry listen to De Havilland a year earlier. Simples.
 
You need to be careful about dumping designs like the Blenheim and Battle too quickly. The fact is when they were introduced they were the state of the art like the TBD Devastator, Vought Vindicator, and Ms. 406 but were they were at the start of the wave of new all metal monoplanes and were thus quickly overtaken. The problem is if you time this wrong you end up with the same situation the French had in May and June 1940 when they were in the process of swapping out older designs for newer ones at the worst possible time.

The imperative of impending war means you may have to suck it up with the older designs and the best approach at least in the short term is figuring how to improve those through airframe modifications and use them in the most effective way possible in terms of munitions and tactics.
 

Deleted member 1487

Then it probably was.
Apart as an alternative engine for the Whirly, shove one on Hurricane + 1 cannon + two HMGs? And/or on the aforementioned fast bomber?
The problem was the small size, especially relative to the Hurricane, which also meant it was lower powered than the Merlin, a bad option for the already slower Hurricane. I'd keep it's power up rather than toss a weaker engine at it.
Now if the Brits could design an aircraft around the 12Y engine, which had been around since 1932, that was light weight and perhaps wooden like the Mosquito it could have been a fine interceptor. The company doesn't seem to have been building any military aircraft as of 1936-40 before the Mossie. They tried in 1929 with the DH.77, which is an example of what could be done with a light aircraft and a lower powered engine.
 
The problem was the small size, especially relative to the Hurricane, which also meant it was lower powered than the Merlin, a bad option for the already slower Hurricane. I'd keep it's power up rather than toss a weaker engine at it.
Now if the Brits could design an aircraft around the 12Y engine, which had been around since 1932, that was light weight and perhaps wooden like the Mosquito it could have been a fine interceptor. The company doesn't seem to have been building any military aircraft as of 1936-40 before the Mossie. They tried in 1929 with the DH.77, which is an example of what could be done with a light aircraft and a lower powered engine.

Hmm - yes, lower power vs. Merlin might be a problem, especially on the big aircraft the Hurricane was. Small size will not, though.
I very much agree that De Havilland designing a fighter might be a win-win situation, in fact I've strated a thread about D-H being more involved in ww2 some time ago: link . Including a what-if fighter.

You need to be careful about dumping designs like the Blenheim and Battle too quickly. The fact is when they were introduced they were the state of the art like the TBD Devastator, Vought Vindicator, and Ms. 406 but were they were at the start of the wave of new all metal monoplanes and were thus quickly overtaken. The problem is if you time this wrong you end up with the same situation the French had in May and June 1940 when they were in the process of swapping out older designs for newer ones at the worst possible time.

The imperative of impending war means you may have to suck it up with the older designs and the best approach at least in the short term is figuring how to improve those through airframe modifications and use them in the most effective way possible in terms of munitions and tactics.

I will recommend against being sattisfied with old designs if and when industry can make better aircraft.
The 1st reason being that aircraft don't fly by themselves, and for 2nd reason that aircraft are manufactured to do a task. Sending out slow aircraft armed with bombs into the hundreds of Flak will just make many crewmen die, with tasks uncompleted. The Battle have had almost twice the wing area the Spitfire had, much thicker wing, with same engine, carrying twice the fuel and 3 times the crew -> no airframe modification will make it go 300 mph with Merlin III. Henley might be a much better bet, being smaller. Possibly also the Blenheim, with a little nip'n'tuck, but let's not over-do it - Bristol can do better job with ALT Beaufort.
Please note that I did not recommend that UK cancels all of it's designs - Hurricane, Spitfire, Wellington, Hampden, trainers certainly have a role in any ALT RAF. Whitley probaly too, unless A-W makes a 4-engined bomber? A slightly modified Defiant might also serve well, ditto for a cleaned-up Blenheim.
A Vindicator-like aircraft might be a good addition, actually - a small, light aircraft that can dive bomb, with decent bomb-load.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hmm - yes, lower power vs. Merlin might be a problem, especially on the big aircraft the Hurricane was. Small size will not, though.
I very much agree that De Havilland designing a fighter might be a win-win situation, in fact I've strated a thread about D-H being more involved in ww2 some time ago: link . Including a what-if fighter.
I vaguely remember seeing that thread. Looks like @Cryhavoc101 had a similar idea. Certainly getting DH into the fighter market with the RAF in the late 1920s would have been a major step in the right direction, especially when coupled then with a licensed HS Y12 engine to take advantage of the small, light engine allowing for a small, light interceptor that maximizes the idea behind the E-M Theory put forth by Boyd later on. The question is what sort of armament it could mount. You'd probably want some .50 cals with API ammo, the question is whether on a small wooden fighter you could actually get them to fit and the recoil be tolerated.
Any idea if the HS 12Y allowed for a motor pass through MG?
 
I vaguely remember seeing that thread. Looks like @Cryhavoc101 had a similar idea. Certainly getting DH into the fighter market with the RAF in the late 1920s would have been a major step in the right direction, especially when coupled then with a licensed HS Y12 engine to take advantage of the small, light engine allowing for a small, light interceptor that maximizes the idea behind the E-M Theory put forth by Boyd later on. The question is what sort of armament it could mount. You'd probably want some .50 cals with API ammo, the question is whether on a small wooden fighter you could actually get them to fit and the recoil be tolerated.
Any idea if the HS 12Y allowed for a motor pass through MG?

You mean whether a gun will fire through HS 12Y? It will, however something smaller than cannon will require blast tube around the barrel.
Light construction will still probably allow for 4 .303s in wings, so we'd probably have 1 cannon + 4 LMGs, just like the VG-33 had. Or 3 HMGs total.
 

Deleted member 1487

You mean whether a gun will fire through HS 12Y? It will, however something smaller than cannon will require blast tube around the barrel.
Light construction will still probably allow for 4 .303s in wings, so we'd probably have 1 cannon + 4 LMGs, just like the VG-33 had. Or 3 HMGs total.
The 3x .50 cals would be the overall best option without HE rounds for the 20mms. I don't this the HS cannons did in 1940 IOTL. Besides it also had the 60 round drum that limited the MG FF. I checked on the HS 404 page and apparently the French had it already set up with the 20mm, so given the size and weigh to the weapon the US .50 cal would have lots of spare space for belt ammo.
 
The 3x .50 cals would be the overall best option without HE rounds for the 20mms. I don't this the HS cannons did in 1940 IOTL. Besides it also had the 60 round drum that limited the MG FF.
...

The 20 mm fires HE shells by default.
BTW - I've dismissed Hispano at least two times here due to being too late for British needs; shop at Swiss instead. Drums with 75 rd, 90 rd, 100 rd, belt feed - they have it already.
 

Deleted member 1487

The 20 mm fires HE shells by default.
Not sure that was the case, they listed a bunch of different ammo types and IIRC the HS relied on kinetic energy more than chemical load.

BTW - I've dismissed Hispano at least two times here due to being too late for British needs; shop at Swiss instead. Drums with 75 rd, 90 rd, 100 rd, belt feed - they have it already.
Sure, but would they really be happy with the low velocity ammo and HE rounds? The Brits seemed to be like the US and wanted high velocity weapons. If we put that aside then yes, but they have the same problem the Germans did with the drum bulges, ammo feed, and limited capacity. Though they certainly would help drop bombers much more easily and be nice strafing weapons, though early rockets would be better.
 
Not sure that was the case, they listed a bunch of different ammo types and IIRC the HS relied on kinetic energy more than chemical load.

Nobody was buying cannons to they can punch a bigger hole with Ball ammo at enemy A/C, but to fire shells that will kill enemy A/C quickly. Like most cannons, HS 404 was able to fire a host of different ammo, AP included.

Sure, but would they really be happy with the low velocity ammo and HE rounds? The Brits seemed to be like the US and wanted high velocity weapons. If we put that aside then yes, but they have the same problem the Germans did with the drum bulges, ammo feed, and limited capacity. Though they certainly would help drop bombers much more easily and be nice strafing weapons, though early rockets would be better.

Oerlikon S and FFS: 830-840 m/s (licence produced in France, later in UK and USA)
Oerlikon L and FFL: 750 m/s (used by Japan)
Both available well befor war. Oerlikon was offering belt-fed cannons to the RAF already in 1920s(!).
 

Driftless

Donor
Nobody was buying cannons to they can punch a bigger hole with Ball ammo at enemy A/C, but to fire shells that will kill enemy A/C quickly. Like most cannons, HS 404 was able to fire a host of different ammo, AP included.



Oerlikon S and FFS: 830-840 m/s (licence produced in France, later in UK and USA)
Oerlikon L and FFL: 750 m/s (used by Japan)
Both available well befor war. Oerlikon was offering belt-fed cannons to the RAF already in 1920s(!).

*not necessarily a question to Tomo Pauk alone *

In my case, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... I know enough to know that I don't know enough.

The Swiss, Italians, Germans, Swedes, Danes, French, Poles (others too?) all had developed/improved some form of 20-25mm autocannon during the interwar years. Why didn't the British or Americans, especially since both concluded they needed to have such a weapon PDQ by the mid-thirties and onward. Both the British and Americans expended great effort experimenting with and improving on the models they selected. While the British succeeded in getting working weapons, it seems to have eluded the Americans for far too long. Considering the industrial wherewithal of both countries, why not a homegrown model? Maybe that's a thread of its own - by somebody with better knowledge than mine.
 
...
The Swiss, Italians, Germans, Swedes, Danes, French, Poles (others too?) all had developed/improved some form of 20-25mm autocannon during the interwar years. Why didn't the British or Americans, especially since both concluded they needed to have such a weapon PDQ by the mid-thirties and onward. Both the British and Americans expended great effort experimenting with and improving on the models they selected. While the British succeeded in getting working weapons, it seems to have eluded the Americans for far too long. Considering the industrial wherewithal of both countries, why not a homegrown model? Maybe that's a thread of its own - by somebody with better knowledge than mine.

It is always easier to answer question of 'why', rather than to the 'why not' :)
For the British - they (Vickers) deveoped a 25mm/1in autocannon, the only certain user of it being Argentinian navy. However, some people were/are of opinion that British were wary of then-current international law that didn't allow gun-fired HE ammo to be lighter than 400 grams, and embarked to 20mm cannons path only once they were certain that both France and Germany adopted them, too. Oerlikon for ground and naval use (plus Bofors of course), Hispano for aircraft.
400 grams limit is one of reasons reason why 37mm cannons were so popular before 1945, too - the lightest gun that can fire HE ammo above allowed weight.
For USA - several reasons. Browning developed 37mm AA gun, the .50 was supposed to be a step under it - thus no pressing need for 20mm as AA gun for the Army. Navy was favoring 1.1in, USAAC favored the low-power 37mm M4 cannon, since 1st and foremost job of their fighters was to kill enemy bombers that will somehow be bombing USA. The .50 will cover the 'light' portion of firepower here, too.
With Browning gone, there was probably no-one to fill his shoes, the .60 in cannon went nowhere for ww2 needs. M3 .50 was too late developed for ww2. The licence manufacturing of Oerlikon was a succes story, unlike Hispano, that suffered mostly due to chamber being a 1/10th of an inch too long, allowing for round to go to far forward so the firing pin will not fire it.
In USA, a gifted designer will most likely be designing some commercial pistol or rifle, rather than to adventure into military autocannon Business.
 
Last edited:
One thing that has to change is the RAF has to get over its allergy to dive bombing. I suppose this was because they viewed dive bombing as a gateway drug to the RAF getting pulled back into the Army's orbit or something. It's ironic that the Germans had the exact opposite reaction with the ridiculous requirement that all bombers (even four engine ones) had to have dive bombing capability.

The RAF's problems in this area are highlighted in one Peter Smith's books on dive bombing where he talked commanders telling Vultee Vengeance pilots in Burma to level bomb instead of dive bombing (they dive bombed and they did it well).
 
Top