OTL it was called the Tizard Mission. Beaverbrook was busy running riot as the Minister at MAP. ITTL MAP is joined at the hip with the AM. SIR Archibald Sinclair as head pf MAP is defacto Sir Phillips second at the AM.
The Beaufighter with 4 40mm Vickers S guns would be a better tank/maritime/ground attack aircraft than the Hurricanes use OTL, with twin radials it can take more damage than a single water cooled engined aircraft. It would still have 4 mg's for self defense.As per Astrodragon's post you only need more than 20mm if you are trying to punch holes in a U-boats pressure hull or the armour of a panzer.
Conversely, a Beaufighter in the low level ground attack role presents a larger less agile target to light AAA and is not so capable of self defence against first rate single engine fighters. all becomes a matter of 'horses for courses'. The most suitable aircraft you use in this role is decided by many tactical factors and sometimes strategic ones. All to often in OTL it was simply a case of what was available and not requires for more important tasks. Ground attack for much of the first years of WW2 very low on the RAF's Totem Pole.
in OTL, did beaverbrook join in? or was it just Tizzard giving out goodies?
Given its record, the Beaufighter would be the Heavy Tactical ground attack aircraft supplementing the Hurricane. Bigger bomb load ( 2000lb max vs 500lb ), more rugged and far better pilot protection ( engines are so far forward they basically acted as shields ) so better at hitting fixed defended targets like bridges. Hurricane would be better at mobile targets where it has to loiter more and so more chance of fighters being vectored on to them.Conversely, a Beaufighter in the low level ground attack role presents a larger less agile target to light AAA and is not so capable of self defence against first rate single engine fighters. all becomes a matter of 'horses for courses'. The most suitable aircraft you use in this role is decided by many tactical factors and sometimes strategic ones. All to often in OTL it was simply a case of what was available and not requires for more important tasks. Ground attack for much of the first years of WW2 very low on the RAF's Totem Pole.
Given its record, the Beaufighter would be the Heavy Tactical ground attack aircraft supplementing the Hurricane. Bigger bomb load ( 2000lb max vs 500lb ), more rugged and far better pilot protection ( engines are so far forward they basically acted as shields ) so better at hitting fixed defended targets like bridges. Hurricane would be better at mobile targets where it has to loiter more and so more chance of fighters being vectored on to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufighter
Beaufighter Whispering Death— in the Beaufighter's case, supposedly because attacking aircraft often were not heard (or seen) until it was too late.[34][2] The Beaufighter's Hercules engines used sleeve valves, which lacked the noisy valve gear common to poppet valve engines. This was most apparent in a reduced noise level at the front of the engine. Mark X Beaufighters were also flown on long range daylight intruder missions over Burma. The high-speed, low-level attacks were very effective, despite often atrocious weather conditions, and makeshift repair and maintenance facilities.
Just reread the Beaverbrook/Tizard Mission intro. You say Beaverbrook's also Minister for Ship Production, so without an aircraft production crisis, they can spare man and brain power for other systemic problems in the British war effort.
Modernising production and labour practice in an industry as prominent as shipbuilding could lead to bigger imports of machine tools etc instead or on top of finished goods. IOTL Britain had a production crisis due to worn out plants wearing themselves out further, here the crisis could come from the fact that Britain is trying to modernise its industries during wartime.
Well that does depend on how accurate the loss figures are that the rate is calculated from. OTL Bomber Command knew they were losing when they hit 3% loses per mission.Whilst many in the RAF Higher echelons considered a loss rate of 5% sustainable by the Luftwaffe, Sir Phillip thought that it must still be very damaging to both material and men in a sustained campaign.
(snip)