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

Deleted member 1487

I was trying to get more on the 'bomber' side of equation, thus the proposal for a weapons bay. As a pure fighter, the HS-12Y-powered, but otherwise OTL Whirly is certainly a better thing.
A 500 kg bomb was slowing down the Ro.57 by 35 km/h - from 466 to 431 km/h, or some 8% (all max speed figures). So we'd see a bombed-up ALT Whirly with V12 engines doing perhaps 520 km/h instead of 560+ km/h?
Reason why I've proposed Mercury engines is because we should be getting a surplus of those, since neither Lysander nor Blenheim are up to the task for 1940, so a major wind-down is in order for production of those A/C. A small 300+ mph dive-bomber or fighter-bomber will stand much better chances, but even then an escort will be needed.
On the other hand, a V12 powered dive bomber, size of Whirly, with wepons bay, might do 550 km/h...
Sorry, wasn't aware that was the reason for the Mercury.
Of course if you're more interested in the bomber part, then the Beau was available in 1940, just not in May. It could have used Merlins early on.

Though you might be better off with a single engine wooden fighter with a bomb rack to use the HS12Y engine like the French VG 33. That way you could have more flying for the number of engines even if using relatively small bombs; at least they could be a better harassing aircraft, able to drop a single 500lb bomb or so and dash.
 
...
Of course if you're more interested in the bomber part, then the Beau was available in 1940, just not in May. It could have used Merlins early on.

OTL Beau + Merlin III or X will just give us an under-performer, much worse than Bf 110C.

Though you might be better off with a single engine wooden fighter with a bomb rack to use the HS12Y engine like the French VG 33. That way you could have more flying for the number of engines even if using relatively small bombs; at least they could be a better harassing aircraft, able to drop a single 500lb bomb or so and dash.

Hmm - the HS 12Y might give us a f/b that uses 20mm engine-cannon to kill armored cars, halftracks, trucks, even light tanks, plus aircraft obviously, and 500 lb bomb will not be too heavy for it.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hmm - the HS 12Y might give us a f/b that uses 20mm engine-cannon to kill armored cars, halftracks, trucks, even light tanks, plus aircraft obviously, and 500 lb bomb will not be too heavy for it.
Nothing wrong with lots of little Mosquito bites. They add up.
 
Nothing wrong with lots of little Mosquito bites. They add up.

The problem both RAF and AdA have had was not so much the payload of their bombtrucks, but that those were both too vulnerable and too innacurate. Vulnerability came from their slow speed, lack of maneuverability, big size, and many times via lack of protection both for pilot and fuel system. Accuracy was bad vs. tactical and logistical targets when bombers flew at their best altitude (~15000 ft for RAF), while flying low meant lowering the speed and getting into sights of Flak and MGs. Rarely dive bombing was employed, for host of reasons. Once we add questionable escort (sometimes no escort at all), there is no wonder that RAF and ADA quickly burned out their stocks of bombers and crew for little return.
A reason why I suggested emphasis on speed and small size rather than on payload is to improve survivability, so more bombers arrive on target, and more of them can attack next time; crews will gain experience quickly, and Germans more damage. A reason for adopting dive-bombing is to improve accuracy, so those bridges are brought down, as well as other German assets. More fighter-bombers so that LW fighters have a tough time, while enabling for a kill of an unlucky LW recon or a bomber.
Drop tanks and proper escort was suggested earlier in the thread.
 
My take on fighters, service use in Spring of 1940 (speed figures are ballpark):
'Monoplane Gladiator+', Mk.V, Merlin III, 4 HMGs, 350 mph
(in pipeline) m.Gladiator Mk.VI, Merlin XII, 2 cannons + 4 HMGs, 360 mph; all by Gloster
Hurricane Ia, 8 LMGs
Hurricane Ib, 2 cannons, 4 LMGs; all Merlin III, 320 mph, all produced by Hawker
Spitfire Ia, 4 HMGs, Merlin III, 360 mph; produced by Supermarine
Spitfire II, 2 cannons + 2 HMGs, 'militarized' RR 'R' engine, 1-speed S/C, 1300 HP at 15000 ft on 87 oct fuel; all produced by Boulton-Paul
(in piperline for second half of 1940) Spitfire III, Merlin XX, 2 cannons + 2 HMGs, 390 mph
2-engined heavy fighter, Mk1 with 12 LMGs, Mk2 with 4 cannons, HS 12Y-45, 370 mph, by Westland

All drop-tank capable.

Deployed in France are Spitfires and 'monoplane Gladiator' Mk.V; Hurricanes, twins and earlier 'm-G's deployed in the UK.
 
I like it, but are you going to make the most by allowing the additional plumbing/pumping capability so they can top-off the internal tanks from the drop tanks at altitude?

That system was used alredy on the Fulmars (drop tank was feeding only into main tank), so it can be done early enough for the time frame specified for this thread. The system also makes fuel management simpler, especially for Hurricane where pilot will have 3 internal tanks + 2 drop tanks to monitor and use.
 
Hopefully, the lineup of bombers will be something like this, in service in Spring of 1940:
- 'pre-Mosquito', 4 x 500 lb or 2 x 1000 lb bombs, Merlin X, 330-350 mph
- small twin, ~250 sq ft wing, one 500 or 1000 lb bomb, 2 HMGs + 1 at rear; Mk.1 with Mercury, 300- mph at high alt; Mk.2 with Perseus, 280+ mph at low altitudes, produced by Fairey; Mk.3 with Taurus, 300 mph at low alt, produced by Bristol after the Mk.1,
- historical Wellington and Hampden
- Whitley changed with 4-engined job
 
Don't bother with trying to change the outcome of the Battle of France with a better RAF in 1940. Go bigger. A better RAF in 1938 can change Munich, which is a bigger game changer.
Both the French and the British were painfully aware that their Air Forces were still playing catch up to the LW and that weighted heavily. The LW put on good show to look even better prepared than it actually was.
So if the RAF can look at LW strength in 1938 and tell the French and British government: "Don't worry, we've got this" either Hitler backs down or we have war in 1938 without German air superiority.
 
Don't bother with trying to change the outcome of the Battle of France with a better RAF in 1940. Go bigger. A better RAF in 1938 can change Munich, which is a bigger game changer.
Both the French and the British were painfully aware that their Air Forces were still playing catch up to the LW and that weighted heavily. The LW put on good show to look even better prepared than it actually was.
So if the RAF can look at LW strength in 1938 and tell the French and British government: "Don't worry, we've got this" either Hitler backs down or we have war in 1938 without German air superiority.

I have no problems if someone starts the thread that will focus on war of 1938.

Take 2 on fighters, featuring even more ruthless reduction of types of airframes and engines than per OTL, for early 1940:
- Hurricane stays as suggested, produced by Hawker and Gloster
- Spitfire - as per OTL, but with better guns; produced by Supermarine and Boulton-Paul
- 2-engined fighter with 2 Merlins (looking like big Whirly), 4 cannons, 380+ mph, produced by Westland

Simlar for bombers:
- 'pre-Mosquito' as suggested
- a tiny twin, dive bomber with either Mercury or Perseus, produced by Bristol and Blackburn
- Hurribomber, produced by Fairey

In pipeline:
- Spitfire III, as designed in OTL, but with cannons + HMGs
- Hurribomber with Hercules

Army use:
- Taylor Cub
- Noorduin Norseman
- Hurribomber

As per OTL:
Wellington, Hampden

Keen eye will see lack of Lysander, OTL Whirlwind, Whitley, Beaufort, Beaufighter, Defiant. Production of Battles slashed by many hundreds. No Taurus, no Peregrine.
 
Rather than the Hurry Bomber built by Fairy I would suggest can the Battle as early as possible and build a land based version of the Fulmer which was based on the P.4/34 light bomber and already stressed for dive bombing. IMVHO if you give it 2/4 cannons in the wing and you have a reasonable ground attack aircraft that can look after itself fairly well in most circumstances. Bonus is if this is done from January 1937 then the Naval Fulmar dive/bomber fighter might have replaced the Skua by 1940.
 
Rather than the Hurry Bomber built by Fairy I would suggest can the Battle as early as possible and build a land based version of the Fulmer which was based on the P.4/34 light bomber and already stressed for dive bombing. IMVHO if you give it 2/4 cannons in the wing and you have a reasonable ground attack aircraft that can look after itself fairly well in most circumstances. Bonus is if this is done from January 1937 then the Naval Fulmar dive/bomber fighter might have replaced the Skua by 1940.

This scenario with Fulmar coming o earlier certainly favores RN.
On the other hand, I'm trying to put the RAF/Army crews into an equal footing vs. Luftwaffe, as good & as fast as possible. Fulmar, even without the naval extras, will still be outpaced, outclimbed and outrolled by Bf 109. Even vs. Bf 110 it is outperformed. Replace LMGs with cannons, add bomb/rocket racks and equation is further skewed against the Fulmabomber vs. Hurribomber, let alone vs. LW opposition.
 
I have no problems if someone starts the thread that will focus on war of 1938.

Take 2 on fighters, featuring even more ruthless reduction of types of airframes and engines than per OTL, for early 1940:
- Hurricane stays as suggested, produced by Hawker and Gloster
- Spitfire - as per OTL, but with better guns; produced by Supermarine and Boulton-Paul
- 2-engined fighter with 2 Merlins (looking like big Whirly), 4 cannons, 380+ mph, produced by Westland

Simlar for bombers:
- 'pre-Mosquito' as suggested
- a tiny twin, dive bomber with either Mercury or Perseus, produced by Bristol and Blackburn
- Hurribomber, produced by Fairey

In pipeline:
- Spitfire III, as designed in OTL, but with cannons + HMGs
- Hurribomber with Hercules

Army use:
- Taylor Cub
- Noorduin Norseman
- Hurribomber

As per OTL:
Wellington, Hampden

Keen eye will see lack of Lysander, OTL Whirlwind, Whitley, Beaufort, Beaufighter, Defiant. Production of Battles slashed by many hundreds. No Taurus, no Peregrine.
You need a STOL aircraft for observation, liasion, MedEvac, more capable than the Cub.
The best in the world at the time was the Fi156 Storck. But there were many options, going back to bush planes such as the Fairchild 71. The Japanese bult a licensed Fokker Super Universal as the Nakajuma Ki-6.
You need a MPA/SAR/ASW aircraft
Twin engined dive bombers? The first I can think of was that worked was the Pe-2. The italians tried and failed to build a decent dive bombing twin and later found out that the Re2001 made a wonderful dive bomber. Maybe a suitable modiefied Hurricane can dive bomb with a single 500Kg bomb.
 
You need a STOL aircraft for observation, liasion, MedEvac, more capable than the Cub.
The best in the world at the time was the Fi156 Storck. But there were many options, going back to bush planes such as the Fairchild 71. The Japanese bult a licensed Fokker Super Universal as the Nakajuma Ki-6.
You need a MPA/SAR/ASW aircraft
Twin engined dive bombers? The first I can think of was that worked was the Pe-2. The italians tried and failed to build a decent dive bombing twin and later found out that the Re2001 made a wonderful dive bomber. Maybe a suitable modiefied Hurricane can dive bomb with a single 500Kg bomb.

You will note that I've suggested the Norseman several times in this thread, a far better MedEvac A/C than Storch.
MPA/SAR/ASW are indeed needed, though they are beyond the scope of this thread, so I didn't bothered much about them.
2-engined dive bombers started with Ju-88. Italians made the IMAM Ro.57 on two hopeless A.74 engines, up to 1000 kg bomb, 1025 L of fuel, 2 HMGs.
I see no reason why Hurricane will be a bad dive bomber - just install dive brakes, two bomb racks and here it is? Granted, Re.2001 was a very good idea, we can imagine 'A-36/40' dive bombers as versions of P-36/40 with U/C acting as dive brakes, just like the F4U did.
 
You will note that I've suggested the Norseman several times in this thread, a far better MedEvac A/C than Storch.
MPA/SAR/ASW are indeed needed, though they are beyond the scope of this thread, so I didn't bothered much about them.
2-engined dive bombers started with Ju-88. Italians made the IMAM Ro.57 on two hopeless A.74 engines, up to 1000 kg bomb, 1025 L of fuel, 2 HMGs.
I see no reason why Hurricane will be a bad dive bomber - just install dive brakes, two bomb racks and here it is? Granted, Re.2001 was a very good idea, we can imagine 'A-36/40' dive bombers as versions of P-36/40 with U/C acting as dive brakes, just like the F4U did.
The Ju 88 never replaced the Ju87 in the dive bomber role. It was a a multirole aircraft that could dive bomb. The Pe-2 was designed from the outset as a dive bomber (even if it was based on a heavy fighter design). But you could probably dive bomb in a Ghota from WW1 so it's one of those cases of how you define "worked".
The Fi156 is great because it was the closest thing you coud get to an helicopter in 1939 without the trouble of an autogiro and armies love helicopters. The Norseman is a great bush aircraft. if you don't value STOL much, keep the Norseman and drop the Cub.
The Italian dive Bomber I ws talking about was the S.M.85 and S.M.93. It was close to your "tiny twin dive bomber" and it was a disaster. Also ugly as hell. The Iman Ro57 was an attack aircraft.
The A36 Apache was a dive bomber. I see no reason why an Hurricane cannot be turned into a dive bombing capable Fighter Bomber, in the style of the Re2001G/V.
Are you leaving the MPA/ASW role to the RN?
latest
 
The Ju 88 never replaced the Ju87 in the dive bomber role. It was a a multirole aircraft that could dive bomb. The Pe-2 was designed from the outset as a dive bomber (even if it was based on a heavy fighter design). But you could probably dive bomb in a Ghota from WW1 so it's one of those cases of how you define "worked".

Anyway you slice it' Ju-88 was a dive bomber in most of it's alterations, and worked well as a dive bomber. It was not a multi-role aircraft in the vein that same example can do different things, like the P-47s or JABO Bf 109s - night fighters were night fighters, bombers did the bombing.

The Fi156 is great because it was the closest thing you coud get to an helicopter in 1939 without the trouble of an autogiro and armies love helicopters. The Norseman is a great bush aircraft. if you don't value STOL much, keep the Norseman and drop the Cub.

I like the Storch, though getteing it into UK service might be a long shot. STOL is needed for Army needs.

The Italian dive Bomber I ws talking about was the S.M.85 and S.M.93. It was close to your "tiny twin dive bomber" and it was a disaster. Also ugly as hell. The Iman Ro57 was an attack aircraft.

Ro.57 was a dive bomber, with dive brakes and extendable bomb crutch. Check out the manual from here or from here.
Re.2001 was both without the dive brakes and extendable crutch.

The A36 Apache was a dive bomber. I see no reason why an Hurricane cannot be turned into a dive bombing capable Fighter Bomber, in the style of the Re2001G/V.

You will note that I've stated 'A-36/-40' that are related to P-36/-40 - dive bombers emanating from fighters, not the OT A-36 based on P-51.

Are you leaving the MPA/ASW role to the RN?
...

They should know best, although they will also need improvement in equipment, numbers and Training.
 
Last edited:
You don't meed the Fi156. You just need the RAF to do what the Germans did. To combine the observation/liasion/utility/MedEvac misssion in one requirement for a 1936 aircraft to build a Fi156 analogue.
Twin engined dive bombers are not the answer in 1936. Curtiss hit the mark with the biplane Hawk fighter bombers. A monoplane single seat fighter bomber that can dive bomb is the 1936 answer. I was aware that you were going for a P36 based one. The RAF could go for a Hurricane based one.
The RAF still needs a bomber standardize early on the Wellington and use it as a MPA/ASW platform from the start.
 
...
Twin engined dive bombers are not the answer in 1936. Curtiss hit the mark with the biplane Hawk fighter bombers. A monoplane single seat fighter bomber that can dive bomb is the 1936 answer.

Questions are asked in 1936, to be answered with real aircraft in early 1940.
2-engined dive bombers are certainly answers, since there are more ways to skin a cat. Engine-out situation is manageable without a bomb. Two indifferent A.74 engines managed to lift 2200 lb bomb, 250 gals of fuel and two HMGs, while propelling the aircraft at decent speed, while British have large production of Mercury and Perseus as better engines, that will not be that useful for a fighter with 840-930 HP? P-36A seems to be limited to 500 lb bomb.
Re.2002, with 1175 HP engine, carried 1430 lbs.

The RAF still needs a bomber standardize early on the Wellington and use it as a MPA/ASW platform from the start.

Wellington is a keeper here.
 
As the starting date is January 1936...

IOTL the RAF of 1936 wanted 389 of the F.9/35 turret fighters to equip 9 squadrons plus reserves.

In 1936 it ordered 389 Hawker Hotspurs from Avro, which were to be delivered by the end of March 1939.

This was cancelled and replaced by orders for Boulton Paul Defiants. 450 Defiants were ordered in 3 batches between April 1937 and May 1938. They were delivered between August 1939 and February 1941. Altogether 1,400 Defiants were ordered, but 340 were cancelled, which reduced the number delivered to 1,060 plus prototypes.

Meanwhile Avro received a contract to build 250 Bristol Blenhiems in December 1936. Another 100 were ordered in May 1938 and 250 in August 1939. That made a total of 600 ordered to pre-war contracts. A grand total of 1,842 Blenhiems were ordered from Avro, but only 1,000 were built between September 1938 and November 1941.

ITTL I think that the Air Ministry should have ordered 389 Hurricanes from Avro in 1936 and stuck to it. Deliveries should have begun before the end of 1938 and the first contract should have been completed at about the same time that the first Defiant was delivered IOTL.

Meanwhile Boulton Paul should have built Blenheims to make up for the aircraft not built by Avro. Deliveries should begin in 1938 if orders were placed in 1936.

Or Boulton Paul also built the 136 Blackburn Rocs. ITTL it could also have built the 190 production Blackburn Skuas to release space at the Blackburn factory for other projects.
 
Curtiss hit the mark with the biplane Hawk fighter bombers. A monoplane single seat fighter bomber that can dive bomb is the 1936 answer. I was aware that you were going for a P36 based one.
Curtiss also had the World speed record for diving in 1939 with the Hawk 75, so it was known as good at diving, and more importantly, pulling out of a dive.
 
Top