AHC: make Fairey Battle relevant until 1945

So we've got the large carriers with a mix of Sea Battles, probably Sea Hurricanes and first Skua's then by 1941 Fulmars. What then do we put on Argus, Eagle and Hermes to start with and then the Escort Carriers and M.A.C's? The Swordfish is likely out of production by the start of the war.
 
So we've got the large carriers with a mix of Sea Battles, probably Sea Hurricanes and first Skua's then by 1941 Fulmars. What then do we put on Argus, Eagle and Hermes to start with and then the Escort Carriers and M.A.C's? The Swordfish is likely out of production by the start of the war.

Or they keep producing String Bags due to the requirement to equip the smaller carriers plus the types phenomenal versatility.
 
One of the reasons for the TBD angled Torpedo, there was a tunnel for the Bombardier to crawl into to get to the Norden Bombsight
TBD+Bombing+Doors+1505-1519.jpg

The Japanese just offset the Torpedo to give the sight clearance
Kate-with-Torpedo-1024x537.jpg

Avenger, with window inside the Bomb Bay for the bombsight
Figure8.jpg

Before the War, Level Bombing was thought to be very important, so this won't change until later in the war

Level bombing was not important for the RN. They started the war with a dive bomber/fighter in the Skua plus a TBR aircraft in the Swordfish so I'm not sure the FAA will care about level bombing capability in the Sea Battle meaning they will strip out the provisions for the third crew member plus all of the equipment like the bomb site to save weight.
 
Level bombing was not important for the RN. They started the war with a dive bomber/fighter in the Skua plus a TBR aircraft in the Swordfish so I'm not sure the FAA will care about level bombing capability in the Sea Battle meaning they will strip out the provisions for the third crew member plus all of the equipment like the bomb site to save weight.

Yes quite. When the RAF were calling dive bombing 'Drop Altitude bombing' (despite several champions within their ranks having proved its worth) the FAA were successfully dive bombing Centurion (at one point achieving 19 hits out of 48 bombs dropped during trials) with Swordfish with no dramas about descending below 1000 feet.

The Devastator had a Norden sight - the same all singing all dancing sight the B17 was equipped with

I can still see a pre war FAA Sea Battle still being equipped with the Course Setting bombsight MK IV (the US Norden was a copy of that sights earlier variant with the additional feature of a autopilot to allow the bomb aimer to control the aircraft) as it was 'all the rage' back then - even the Grumman Avenger was fitted with the Norden or at least there were provisions for its fitting - in actual practice it was found to be hopeless - but that was something only discovered during actual wartime use!

Course_Setting_Bomb_Sight_in_use.jpg
 
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

That turreted Fairey Battle looks like the dozens that were converted by Fairchild of Canada. They only had a single MG and went immediately to BCATP schools to train aerial gunners.
 
So we've got the large carriers with a mix of Sea Battles, probably Sea Hurricanes and first Skua's then by 1941 Fulmars. What then do we put on Argus, Eagle and Hermes to start with and then the Escort Carriers and M.A.C's? The Swordfish is likely out of production by the start of the war.

If the Sea Battle is stressed for dive bombing does the Skua even happen?
 
That turreted Fairey Battle looks like the dozens that were converted by Fairchild of Canada. They only had a single MG and went immediately to BCATP schools to train aerial gunners.
That's because it is. I've always thought it was a good idea and a logical upgrade of the type.

If the Sea Battle is stressed for dive bombing does the Skua even happen?

I don't see why not even if only as a trainer and for the smaller carriers. Also it carries a larger bomb than the 250lbers that the Battle does which will penetrate better armoured ships. In the right circumstances 1 500lb bomb will do more good than 4 or even 6 250lb bombs.
 
Last edited:
Level bombing was not important for the RN. They started the war with a dive bomber/fighter in the Skua plus a TBR aircraft in the Swordfish so I'm not sure the FAA will care about level bombing capability in the Sea Battle meaning they will strip out the provisions for the third crew member plus all of the equipment like the bomb site to save weight.
The FAA knew that hitting a moving ship with level bombing was more a matter of luck than judgement, even if the message never quite got through to the rest of the fleet or RAF.
 
If the Sea Battle is stressed for dive bombing does the Skua even happen?

...
I don't see why not even if only as a trainer and for the smaller carriers. Also it carries a larger bomb than the 250lbers that the Battle does which will penetrate better armoured ships. In the right circumstances 1 500lb bomb will do more good than 4 or even 6 250lb bombs.

Early Sea Battle most likely removes the Skua from history, we'd probably see Blackburn making Swordfish* only.
OTL Battle was rated for carrying 2x 500 lb bombs under the wings.

*most of the Swordfishes were made at Blackburn, almost 1700
 
Let us not get carried away. Even with a very good Merlin it is still a lot of aeroplane to be dragged around by one engine and you won't get a Griffon until mid war (mid 1943) at best and even then it will be no wonder weapon. Only a solid strike aeroplane needing fighter escort in the face of opposition. Sea launched it upgrades the FAA early and land based it is a single engined Beaufighter. Could it replace the Beaufighter as well as the Skua, Albacore, Fulmar and Firefly. What would those factories and engines be doing instead? At sea you will need Sea Hurricanes and then Seafires to escort them. The Swordfish remains as the period helicopter equivalent for small carriers. Could the Canadian OTL Hurricane production begin as the Sea Hurricane maker? With our ATL Griffon production could that upgrade to Griffon and thin wing as per Hawker OTL proposals and by pass the Seafire?
 
Follow the lead of the Fairey Firefly. Start by installing Griffon engines in Battles.
According to Gunston in Aircraft for the Few that was what was intended in the first place. It had to have the less powerful Merlin because Rolls Royce didn't have the resources to develop both engines at the same time and priority was given to the Merlin.

OTOH we know that the Exe, Peregrine and Vulture would be cancelled or be failures IOTL, so with hindsight the resources put into developing them aught to have been put into accelerating the development of the Griffon and bringing forward more powerful versions of the Merlin.
 
Make one a jet engine and rocket engine testbed in 1941, Whittle jets. Have it break the sound barrier accidentally by 1943. Then it can chase Me-163s. Job done.
 
... 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.
Just over 4 years ago I started a thread about building the Battle as a twin-Merlin aircraft to overcome its lack of power.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-fairey-battle-the-metal-mosquito.372179/

It's unlikely to have been as good as the Mosquito, but it aught to have been an improvement on the OTL Battle and Blenheim.

One additional combat roles is torpedo-bomber to replace the Vildebeest earlier than was possible with the Beaufort.

It should have been a better night fighter than the Blenheim Mk IVF and Defiant. I think it would have been just as good as a night fighter as the Beaufighter.

For another production source have Boulton Paul build a heavy fighter version of "Twin-Battle" with eight .303" machine guns or four 20mm Hispano cannon in the nose and a the Defiant's turret instead of the Defiant.
 
Does anyone know how much time it would take to actually see these "Sea Battles" in full-scale service on the British CVs? I mean the basic design is there, but they still have to navalize it, decide how to fit everything they need, change thr landing gear arrangement... FAA's Sea Battle is likely to be more of a distant cousin, then an outright "brother" to its RAF counterpart.

Also, would having a much faster and more capable aircraft cause British Aerial Torpedoes to evolve somewhat? With a higher performing aircraft, they can drop a much heavier torpedo, much faster and much higher then before, and it seems plausable to actually have some further development in that area.

Lastly, is it possible that the Fulmar gets into service earlier and continues in development throught the war? It was not that bad of an aircraft, and it seems to me that it was mostly let down by it engine, not because of any actual fault in the design.
 
Just over 4 years ago I started a thread about building the Battle as a twin-Merlin aircraft to overcome its lack of power.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-fairey-battle-the-metal-mosquito.372179/

It's unlikely to have been as good as the Mosquito, but it aught to have been an improvement on the OTL Battle and Blenheim.

One additional combat roles is torpedo-bomber to replace the Vildebeest earlier than was possible with the Beaufort.

It should have been a better night fighter than the Blenheim Mk IVF and Defiant. I think it would have been just as good as a night fighter as the Beaufighter.

For another production source have Boulton Paul build a heavy fighter version of "Twin-Battle" with eight .303" machine guns or four 20mm Hispano cannon in the nose and a the Defiant's turret instead of the Defiant.

It all depends on what, say, flavor of an airframe is wanted. The proposed 'Twin Battle' from Fairey will not cut the mustard, not with it's big & very thick wing. Something not bigger than Bf 110 could be a very useful aircraft, definitely better performer than either of the Bristol's twins or the Ju 88.
Also - do we want a fuselage bomb bay, or wing bomb cells? Dive bomber or not?
 
Last edited:
Let us not get carried away. Even with a very good Merlin it is still a lot of aeroplane to be dragged around by one engine and you won't get a Griffon until mid war (mid 1943) at best and even then it will be no wonder weapon. Only a solid strike aeroplane needing fighter escort in the face of opposition. Sea launched it upgrades the FAA early and land based it is a single engined Beaufighter. Could it replace the Beaufighter as well as the Skua, Albacore, Fulmar and Firefly. What would those factories and engines be doing instead? At sea you will need Sea Hurricanes and then Seafires to escort them. The Swordfish remains as the period helicopter equivalent for small carriers. Could the Canadian OTL Hurricane production begin as the Sea Hurricane maker? With our ATL Griffon production could that upgrade to Griffon and thin wing as per Hawker OTL proposals and by pass the Seafire?

Solid strike airplane needing fighter escort in the face of opposition describes just about every dedicated attack aircraft and bomber of WWII.
 
It all depends on what, say, flavor of an airframe is wanted. The proposed 'Twin Battle' from Fairey will not cut the mustard, not with it's big & very thick wing. Something not bigger than Bf 110 could be a very useful aircraft, definitely better performer than either of the Bristol's twins or the Ju 88.
Rather than the Fairey proposal in the old thread, I was thinking of something more like the OTL aircraft with a Merlin under each wing leaving the nose free for machine guns or cannon in the fighter version.
Also - do we want a fuselage bomb bay, or wing bomb cells? Dive bomber or not?
I don't know about we want, but I want a fuselage bomb bay that's big enough for:
4 x 500lb bombs or
2 x 1,000 bombs or
1 x 18" torpedo
It would not have to be capable of dive bombing, we have the later Fairey P.4/34 and Hawker Henley for that.
 
Last edited:
My proposal has fuel tanks in the wing bomb cells and the torpedo for larger bombs (500 and 1000 pounds) carried on the centerline or in a centerline internal bay with wing hard points for smaller 250 pound bombs. This adds fuel and eliminates the bombardier position. Stress it for dive bombing as well, now you only need one strike aircraft for the bigger decks with the String Bag for the smaller carriers. I like the Swordfish as the helicopter equivalent analogy.
 
Rather than the Fairey proposal in the old thread, I was thinking of something more like the OTL aircraft with a Merlin under each wing leaving the nose free for machine guns or cannon in the fighter version.I don't know about we want, but I want a fuselage bomb bay that's big enough for:
4 x 500lb bombs or
2 x 1,000 bombs or
1 x 18" torpedo
It would not have to be capable of dive bombing, we have the lager Fairey P.4/34 and Hawker Henley for that.

Looking at the wing area, it is very similar to the Pe-2. Provided that suitably modified (new?) wing can take 2 Merlins, it will result with a very useful aircraft.
 
Top