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.
Some operated from Iceland - 98 Squadron.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=164228
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.
The big question in my mind is, if the Battle gets a new powerplant and is adapted to carrier use, how likely is it that they're going to rename it? Fairey Traflagar anyone?
There is a whole host of engines that can make Battle better, in one way or another.
Air-cooled: Pegasus and Cyclone are probably as low as it make sense. 2-row radials are a mixed bag - Twin Wasp is a sensible choice, Taurus was troubled at begining, better later. Advantage of those engines is their smaller weight than of the Merlin, Pegasus might be readilly available.
Hercules might be the best fit, it flew on the Battle in OTL. R-2600 - if US can spare any, the ones from Lockland are problem. Napier Dagger is probably not worth it.
Water-cooled: a better Merlin is obvious choice, so is Griffon for the later part of the war.
Merlin and then Griffon had a great deal of treasure thrown at them to keep them viable right to the end of the war and beyond into the start of the Jet age.
So to my thinking an aircraft that starts life with a Merlin and whose air frame and basic design serves on for the entire war either ends with a Merlin or is adapted to the Griffon
Pretty well summarized...you can actually learn things on this site.I'd agree with that; as the design evolves around a liquid-cooled powerplant, it becomes harder and harder to change it without requiring more extensive modifications.
Also, let it be said that threads like this are a huge reason I like AH.com.
Most AH Websites My Age: "WI: Super Yamato vs. Mega Montana vs. H-44 AGAIN!!1!!" "WI: Notler and the Notzis Built 50 000 Jets in 1941?"
AH.com: "WI: Obsolescent Light Bomber adapted into Carrier-Based Torpedo Bomber with capabilities in line with contemporaries?"
Hmm. Illustrious launches its strike from further away, and likely recovers its aircraft and is able to run sooner so doesn't get bombed. Both Illustrious and Formidable are at the Battle of Cape Mapatan so none of the Italian ships survive and Italy is down another Battleship? Also as I said earlier a Sea Battle makes the Sea Gladiator a very unlikely choice when the FAA replaced the Hawker Nimrod fighter, so either a Sea Hurricane or the Gloster F. 5/34 would have been selected. These would still be in service in until at least 1942 and the Stuka probably wouldn't have got through to Illustrious. The Fulmar would if ordered be a scout dive bomber not a fighter.A Sea Battle has some interesting effects. A faster, long legged aircraft at Taranto as well as having a crack at Bismarck spring to mind.
A Sea Battle has some interesting effects. A faster, long legged aircraft at Taranto as well as having a crack at Bismarck spring to mind.
Hmm. Illustrious launches its strike from further away, and likely recovers its aircraft and is able to run sooner so doesn't get bombed. Both Illustrious and Formidable are at the Battle of Cape Mapatan so none of the Italian ships survive and Italy is down another Battleship?
A Sea Battle has some interesting effects. A faster, long legged aircraft at Taranto
The direct air line from Malta to Taranto is only 349.59 mi (562.61 km) would a Sea battle have range to strike without a carrier?Hmm. Illustrious launches its strike from further away, and likely recovers its aircraft and is able to run sooner so doesn't get bombed.
We can add Aberdeen to Stavanger is 312.13 mi (502.33 km) for more FAA/RAF CC fun.....a 600km+ torpedo bombers early war makes the Axis life much more interesting.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.
The fairey Battle had a range of 1000 miles, but that's without anything hanging in the breeze. Still that can be compensated for by using the wing bomb cells as extra fuel tanks. Those distances should therefore be possible. Best to factor in another 100miles or so for combat manoeuvring but raiding Taranto from Malta should be doable. Does that mean Fliegerkorps X doesn't get sent to the Med quite so early?The direct air line from Malta to Taranto is only 349.59 mi (562.61 km) would a Sea battle have range to strike without a carrier?
We can add Aberdeen to Stavanger is 312.13 mi (502.33 km) for more FAA/RAF CC fun.....a 600km+ torpedo bombers early war makes the Axis life much more interesting.
Hmm. Illustrious launches its strike from further away, and likely recovers its aircraft and is able to run sooner so doesn't get bombed. Both Illustrious and Formidable are at the Battle of Cape Mapatan so none of the Italian ships survive and Italy is down another Battleship? Also as I said earlier a Sea Battle makes the Sea Gladiator a very unlikely choice when the FAA replaced the Hawker Nimrod fighter, so either a Sea Hurricane or the Gloster F. 5/34 would have been selected. These would still be in service in until at least 1942 and the Stuka probably wouldn't have got through to Illustrious. The Fulmar would if ordered be a scout dive bomber not a fighter.