AHC: make Fairey Battle relevant until 1945

... as a combat aircraft, and cancel anything you want for that to happen. In order to remain relevant, it needs to grow in capability - a combination of increased bomb load, more speed, better survivability, suitable for other combat roles. Nice to have will also be another production source, whether in UK or abroad. Make it carrier-borne if you want. Plus points for scenarios where it can play a key role in a crucial battle or campaign.
 
Follow the lead of the Fairey Firefly. Start by installing Griffon engines in Battles.
If Canadian shadow factories can be convinced to build Hampden bombers, they could just as easily build Fairey Battles.
 
... as a combat aircraft, and cancel anything you want for that to happen. In order to remain relevant, it needs to grow in capability - a combination of increased bomb load, more speed, better survivability, suitable for other combat roles. Nice to have will also be another production source, whether in UK or abroad. Make it carrier-borne if you want. Plus points for scenarios where it can play a key role in a crucial battle or campaign.

When you put the two side-by-side, the Battle is roughly comparable to the Nakajima B5N "Kate" torpedo bomber. The Kate can carry a slightly heavier payload, the Battle is a bit faster, but range is about the same. In the case of this AHC, the FAA is permitted to order an all-metal monoplane torpedo bomber, which is just a modification of an RAF light bomber. The Sea Battle features a slightly breathed upon Merlin (and this is really the biggest bottleneck) to make up for the weight increases from carrier gear and the new inward-retracting undercarriage and strengthening to carry a torpedo. While the Sea Battle isn't a frontline aircraft by 1945 anymore, it soldiers on, due to its more powerful and capable replacements not arriving until later. Its docile handling characteristics make it easy to land on a carrier, and many worn examples are used as trainers for the next generation of FAA and Imperial aviators.

If you wanted a full Battlewank, later Marks replace the Merlin with a Griffon, put 4x HS.404 20mm cannon in the wings, reduce the crew from 3 to 1, and replace the long glazing with a teardrop bubble canopy to reduce weight and improve visibility (although this would alter the centre of gravity and require modifications). The Sea Super Battle also gains the capability to mount drop tanks, and its long wings allow rockets to be mounted outboard, so it becomes quite a potent ASW and AShW platform in its day.
 
Well the two are of similar size with the Battle being far lighter but the Mosquito having a single bomb bay as opposed to separate wing cells in the Battle. x2 Merlins giving more power than a single Griffon. The Mosquito bomb bay taking twice the bomb load of the Battle's cells. Perhaps the two could complement each other as the airframes use different materials and skills? Griffon production would need to be brought well forward and expanded. Fireflies barely made it into service during the war. Perhaps based upon the Fulmar rather than the Battle. With a Griffon it might be able to carry torpedo. Has to get into service before the Firebrand does.

The other way is a twin engined Battle (as proposed by Fairey IOTL) with twin engines of your choice. Not off a carrier though. Maybe in lieu of the Beaufighter? That was held back by the wing thickness. How does the Battle's wing compare?
 
1937 Fairey mock up a prototype Battle with a dummy torpedo and a tail hook, worried by the elements in RAF Bomber Command that want the type scrapped. The Admiralty takes one look and says "We'll take 200 now with options for more later" This also has the benefit that the Gloster Gladiator is out of the question as the next FAA fighter so Hurricanes are ordered instead. This also results in RN carriers having larger elevators.
 
1937 Fairey mock up a prototype Battle with a dummy torpedo and a tail hook, worried by the elements in RAF Bomber Command that want the type scrapped. The Admiralty takes one look and says "We'll take 200 now with options for more later" This also has the benefit that the Gloster Gladiator is out of the question as the next FAA fighter so Hurricanes are ordered instead. This also results in RN carriers having larger elevators.

Does the RN version of the Battle also have dive breaks so it can do double duty as a dive bomber? The Albacore was designed with dive bombing capability built in and was quite good at it so I don't see why not.
 
Does the RN version of the Battle also have dive breaks so it can do double duty as a dive bomber? The Albacore was designed with dive bombing capability built in and was quite good at it so I don't see why not.

Manual stated that at max 80 deg dive the bombs can be dropped. link

Making it carrier borne with the capability to drop a torpedo is the best way to go about this.

A land-based torpedo bomber, too.
 
Making it carrier borne with the capability to drop a torpedo is the best way to go about this.
Came here to say this.

With a hook and torpedo shackles, the Fairey Battle is an faster Nakajima B5N Kate in FAA paint with more range flying 5 years sooner.
It would have been the world's best Torpedo plane in 1937 to 1942, and then a chance for an update with self sealing tanks, armor for 25% less range without drop tanks
 
Came here to say this.

With a hook and torpedo shackles, the Fairey Battle is an faster Nakajima B5N Kate in FAA paint with more range flying 5 years sooner.
It would have been the world's best Torpedo plane in 1937 to 1942, and then a chance for an update with self sealing tanks, armor for 25% less range without drop tanks

And since you are carrying a torpedo externally you can put fuel tanks in its internal bomb bays instead to increase range.

Honestly, this probably butterflies away the Fairey Barracuda.
 
And the Swordfish, Blackburn probably has to restart Shark production for use on MACs. Preferably with a reliable engine this time.
 

Driftless

Donor
And since you are carrying a torpedo externally you can put fuel tanks in its internal bomb bays instead to increase range.

Honestly, this probably butterflies away the Fairey Barracuda.

What might the range be, with this additional fuel modification?

If an even longer-range anti-ship Battle is available in April of 1940, that could significantly add to German concerns with the invasion of Norway. Of course, they need to attack before the German fighters get established at Sola airfield in Stavanger. Attack the Kriegsmarine early, and perhaps torpedo bombers are viewed as wonder-weapons. Hit the Kriegsmarine when they have fighter cover, and it could be Devastators at Midway bad.
 
What might the range be, with this additional fuel modification?

OTL Battle carried 212 imp gals (~250 US gals); the aux tank of 45 gals was removed by some time of 1939/40? IIRC the tanks were not self-sealing.
With bomb cells now housing fuel tanks we might see 300 imp gals (almost 360 US gals)? That is more than the bigger, heavier and thirstier Grumman Avenger carried internally, with torpedo on board that meant more than 1000 miles radius on the Avenger.
 

Driftless

Donor
OTL Battle carried 212 imp gals (~250 US gals); the aux tank of 45 gals was removed by some time of 1939/40? IIRC the tanks were not self-sealing.
With bomb cells now housing fuel tanks we might see 300 imp gals (almost 360 US gals)? That is more than the bigger, heavier and thirstier Grumman Avenger carried internally, with torpedo on board that meant more than 1000 miles radius on the Avenger.

That additional range could make a naval-Battle (pun intended) into a formidable weapon. Norway 1940, the Med, Coastal Command, the Red Sea(mid-1940), and select locations in SW Asia*.

*edit - Zheng He's TL makes a pretty good case for use of those past-their-prime warbirds, including steady use of the conventional Battle
 
Manual stated that at max 80 deg dive the bombs can be dropped. link



A land-based torpedo bomber, too.

Thanks for posting that, that is terrific. However, I wonder if diving at 80 degrees without some serious dive brakes was practical given the requirement to not exceed 340mph and 3600rpm. In his excellent book Dive Bomber, Peter Smith talks about the Battle getting tested at 45 degrees with split flaps and dropping its bombs at 1500 feet and 338mph and then losing 760 feet in the dive recovery.

https://books.google.com/books?id=KTmKAAAAQBAJ&q=fairey+battle#v=snippet&q=fairey battle&f=false
 
Imagine this in Malaya with a hook, folding wings, a .50 Browning in the turret, torpedo and a Griffon engine. Much better than the ancient Vildebeest.

1684129.jpg


800px-Vickers_Vildebeest_ExCC.jpg
 
Last edited:
... as a combat aircraft, and cancel anything you want for that to happen. In order to remain relevant, it needs to grow in capability - a combination of increased bomb load, more speed, better survivability, suitable for other combat roles. Nice to have will also be another production source, whether in UK or abroad. Make it carrier-borne if you want. Plus points for scenarios where it can play a key role in a crucial battle or campaign.

Make it capable of carrying a fish or a mine or some DCs - have it conduct the shorter range MPA mission in the Seas around Britain and the G-I-UK gap.
 
have it conduct the shorter range MPA mission in the Seas around Britain and the G-I-UK gap.

A couple of squadrons actually did that into mid-1941.
 
Thanks for posting that, that is terrific. However, I wonder if diving at 80 degrees without some serious dive brakes was practical given the requirement to not exceed 340mph and 3600rpm. In his excellent book Dive Bomber, Peter Smith talks about the Battle getting tested at 45 degrees with split flaps and dropping its bombs at 1500 feet and 338mph and then losing 760 feet in the dive recovery.

https://books.google.com/books?id=KTmKAAAAQBAJ&q=fairey+battle#v=snippet&q=fairey battle&f=false

I'd certainly suggest reinforcing/modifying the undercarriage retraction mechanism so the undercarriage can be extended in flight to act as a dive brake.

BTW - early re-engining of the Battle with Bristol Pegasus might come in handy, at least for the role of topedo/naval bomber. Weight saving might amount to 500 lbs = more payload can be carried, those torpedoes are heavy things. Instead of 880 HP for take-off of the Merlin III, versions of the Pegasus give 960-1000 HP (all figures for 87 oct fuel). A radial in the nose = more drag, so that's a shortcoming of the proposal. That can be turned into advantage in the dive-bomber role since it will not pick up the speed as fast as the OTL Battle. There was a Cyclone-powered Battle prototype in Canada, so it's not that far-fetched for the Pegasus-powered version to be manufactured.
 
Top