AHC/WI: 40 thousand Spitfires

The task is to find the way(s) that British/Allied war effort gets twice the number of Supermarine Spitfires, from 1938 to 1945, vs. what was produced in the same time. People can kill off one or more OTL designs in order to pump up the number of Spitfires. Engines, guns and other bits & pieces as available on the OTL, the types that were more or less available for the British/Allies (eg. no restriction to just Merlin and Griffon, but no BMW 801 for example). The number can includes Seafires. Ditto for improved Spitfires.

What the Allies can gain with double the number, and presumably improved capabilities of the fighter? Other butterflies?
 
Perhaps a good first step would be to get Mitchell to design it to be easier to manufacture.
Of course, I have no idea if that is possible without ruining the design.
 
To get an extra 20,000 just from the UK/Empire you'd probably need to somehow make sure the Hurricane (14,583 built) never exists and have Hawker building Spitfires as soon as they're ready. You'd need to work Supermarine harder getting them into production though otherwise the Battle of Britain's going to be a lot closer. Then you need to develop the Spitfire into a fighter bomber sooner and build them instead of the Hawker Typhoon (3,317) and Tempest (1,702) which gets you nicely up to just short of 20,000 extra Spits. Butterflies such as Seafire being in production earlier and the FAA not needing to use as many American imports probably puts you quite easily over your target.

You really need to find a way of making the early production run easier though.

Other than that, any chance of getting either the US or USSR interested in a licence built Spitfire in the late 1930s? You can potentially add a good few thousand if you can get either of them building Spitfires but either would probably be a stretch outside of a (relatively) small number for the US (who don't have a large air force before the war and who have plenty of their own manufacturers and designs) and the USSR may be interested but the Spitfire's relatively delicate undercarriage might go against it with the more agricultural Soviet designs.

Outside of that though, and some very limited pre-war export potential (Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, maybe Poland) I can't see where you're getting the extra numbers from. The other major nations that are going to want enough aircraft to make a significant difference are either enemy/potential enemy nations (Germany, Italy, Japan and their satellites) or friendly nations with their own aircraft industry and their own designs (France, US, USSR). The rest of the world doesn't have the industrial capacity to build large numbers of aircraft themselves and there's no way the UK is going to be exporting thousands of fighters to Central or South American nations with war in Europe looming.
 
Perhaps a good first step would be to get Mitchell to design it to be easier to manufacture.
Of course, I have no idea if that is possible without ruining the design.

Introduction of stamped sheet ribs ( to replace buil-up ribs) would've shaved plenty of manhours needed for each Spitfire. I'd also like to trow in De Havilland introducing wooden wing for Spitfire, that might mean that tools and people trained in woodworking skills can be added to production.

To get an extra 20,000 just from the UK/Empire you'd probably need to somehow make sure the Hurricane (14,583 built) never exists and have Hawker building Spitfires as soon as they're ready. You'd need to work Supermarine harder getting them into production though otherwise the Battle of Britain's going to be a lot closer. Then you need to develop the Spitfire into a fighter bomber sooner and build them instead of the Hawker Typhoon (3,317) and Tempest (1,702) which gets you nicely up to just short of 20,000 extra Spits. Butterflies such as Seafire being in production earlier and the FAA not needing to use as many American imports probably puts you quite easily over your target.
...

Perhaps RAF or AM have a lightbulb moment, and can the turret fighter idea before it is materialized in Defiant (and the Roc, that BP ended making). The BP gets license to produce Spitfires instead? Or/and, the Peregrine is cancelled in 1938, thus leaving Westland free to manufacture someting else in lieu of Whirlwind; they started producing Spitfires in late 1940/early 1941 per OTL anyway.
Mass influx of Spitfires early on also means Hurricanes are less needed, so production can be reduced by several thousands - perhaps from 1942 Hawker making Typhoon/Tempest, while Gloster making Spitfires?
 
Perhaps a good first step would be to get Mitchell to design it to be easier to manufacture.
Of course, I have no idea if that is possible without ruining the design.
The distinctive curve of the Spitfire's wings and control surfaces didn't enhance maneuverability it just made production lot difficult. That's a good place to start
 
Perhaps RAF or AM have a lightbulb moment, and can the turret fighter idea before it is materialized in Defiant (and the Roc, that BP ended making). The BP gets license to produce Spitfires instead? Or/and, the Peregrine is cancelled in 1938, thus leaving Westland free to manufacture someting else in lieu of Whirlwind; they started producing Spitfires in late 1940/early 1941 per OTL anyway.
Mass influx of Spitfires early on also means Hurricanes are less needed, so production can be reduced by several thousands - perhaps from 1942 Hawker making Typhoon/Tempest, while Gloster making Spitfires?

The Defiant and the Roc gives you another 1,200ish production slots (obviously with all of these you have to balance out the numbers for what was actually built with any additional time or difficulty building Spits over Hurris/Tiffs/Tempests etc. but in a world where the Spitfire's development is quicker and she goes into full production quicker I assume any production difficulties for the Spitfire should be overcome and the numbers should be fairly equal for Spitfires as they are for Hurricanes or Defiants or whatever in the same factory).

To be honest though, I don't think there's an issue to find 20,000 production slots that could be used for Spitfires over some other kind of aircraft. Physically it could have been done relatively easily, if we remove other types, start production earlier, etc, etc. The problem is giving someone in the late 1930s the balls to make a call that the UK was going to rely on the Spitfire and not go on with the Hurricane or to challenge the perceived wisdom of turret fighters. It would have been a very brave man to make that call in 1937 given the circumstances the UK found herself in. I'm not sure what you'd have to change to make that happen.
 
The Dutch were interested in a manufacturing licence for both the Spitfire and the Merlin engine pre war. The Japanese also wanted a couple to play with, so a Japanese "copy" (think the Kawasaki Ki 61 looks similar to an Heinkel He 100?) isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

No Defiant means no stopgap nightfighter in 1940 between the useless Blenheim and the Beaufighter and then the Mosquito.
 
How about if Vultee starts off in 1939 making licensed Spitfires?
Use the Spits to ramp up their production capacity while working to develop their in-house designs.
Win-Win considering their OTL aircraft underperformed the competition.
 
The Defiant and the Roc gives you another 1,200ish production slots (obviously with all of these you have to balance out the numbers for what was actually built with any additional time or difficulty building Spits over Hurris/Tiffs/Tempests etc. but in a world where the Spitfire's development is quicker and she goes into full production quicker I assume any production difficulties for the Spitfire should be overcome and the numbers should be fairly equal for Spitfires as they are for Hurricanes or Defiants or whatever in the same factory).

That is 1200 vs. what BP historically produced, 1939-41, plus what they should be producing 1941-45. Another 5-6000?

To be honest though, I don't think there's an issue to find 20,000 production slots that could be used for Spitfires over some other kind of aircraft. Physically it could have been done relatively easily, if we remove other types, start production earlier, etc, etc. The problem is giving someone in the late 1930s the balls to make a call that the UK was going to rely on the Spitfire and not go on with the Hurricane or to challenge the perceived wisdom of turret fighters. It would have been a very brave man to make that call in 1937 given the circumstances the UK found herself in. I'm not sure what you'd have to change to make that happen.

I didn't suggested 'Spitfires only' policy, for any time of 1938-45. Hurricane, in 1937-42, is still very much in play, though a succesfuly increased mass production of Spitfires would've allowed winding down the Hurricane production by 1941-42. Typhoon is in the pipeline as a next-gen fighter (for good or worse), so is the Beaufighter. The 'colonial fighter' line of prototypes (MB.2, Gloster unnamed fighter etc) still happen.

...
No Defiant means no stopgap nightfighter in 1940 between the useless Blenheim and the Beaufighter and then the Mosquito.

Germans probably lost more bombers due to mechanical problems and crew mistakes than due to Defiant, that was too late for the BoB, and in process of being replaced by Beaufighter by 1941. Seems like Blenheim was not that useless after all, with 20 kills during the BoB? - link

After all, since pilot was operating the radar on Defiant, I can't see any problem that he could not do the same on the Hurricane.
 
The Defiant and the Roc gives you another 1,200ish production slots (obviously with all of these you have to balance out the numbers for what was actually built with any additional time or difficulty building Spits over Hurris/Tiffs/Tempests etc. but in a world where the Spitfire's development is quicker and she goes into full production quicker I assume any production difficulties for the Spitfire should be overcome and the numbers should be fairly equal for Spitfires as they are for Hurricanes or Defiants or whatever in the same factory).

To be honest though, I don't think there's an issue to find 20,000 production slots that could be used for Spitfires over some other kind of aircraft. Physically it could have been done relatively easily, if we remove other types, start production earlier, etc, etc. The problem is giving someone in the late 1930s the balls to make a call that the UK was going to rely on the Spitfire and not go on with the Hurricane or to challenge the perceived wisdom of turret fighters. It would have been a very brave man to make that call in 1937 given the circumstances the UK found herself in. I'm not sure what you'd have to change to make that happen.

You need to take into account that even after the Spitfire was fully on stream, it took 2.5 times the man-hours of skilled labour to build a Spit compared to a Hurricane (I don't have figure for Defiant or Roc)
 
IOTL Westland built Spitfires and Seafires after the Lysander and Whirlwind. IOTL the Spitfire and Lysander were ordered into production at about the same time and entered service with the RAF at about the same time.

You could have a change in the RAF's army co-operation doctrine between 1934 and 1936 that leads to the Air Ministry equipping the A/C squadrons assigned to the ACBEF with Hurricane fighter-bombers instead of the Lysander and increase the number of Spitfires in the Main Force of Fighter Command.

IIRC the RAF had 16 Hurricane, 10 Spitfire and 7 Lysander squadrons at the outbreak of World War II. ITTL it would be 16 Hurricane and 17 Spitfire squadrons.

IOTL the 12 of the Hurricane squadrons and all 10 Spitfire squadrons were part of the Main Force of Fighter Command. The other 4 Hurricane squadrons and 5 of the Lysander squadrons were in No. 22 (Army Co-operation) Group and the other 2 Lysander squadrons were in the Middle East.

ITTL only 5 out of 16 Hurricane squadrons would be in the Main Force of Fighter Command because there would be 9 squadrons in No. 22 Group and 2 squadrons in Egypt. The number of Spitfire squadrons would be increased from 10 to 17 to compensate.

That would get you part of the way.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
You mentioned Allied. So have the USA build them under license. If one is not worried whether it helps win the war or not, have FDR and an UK PM agree to do build the 40K Spitfires, half in USA. Give FDR some concession he likes, and this is what is given back to the British PM.
 
A thought that may well have pleased my old dad.

Normandy 1944, a Lysander threw out a message canister which hit him on the head and knocked him unconscious :perservingface:
(No permanent damage done)
ITTL it is likely to have been a canister thrown out by an Auster AOP aircraft.

OTL the RAF changed it's army co-operation doctrine after the Battle of France. No. 22 (Army Co-operation) Group, Fighter Command became Army Co-operation Command and then the Second Tactical Air Force. The Lysander squadrons were re-equipped with fighter-bombers or fighter-reconnaissance aircraft. However, there was still a requirement for an airborne observation post which was filled by British Taylorcraft Auster light aircraft.

What I'm proposing is that this change of doctrine is brought forward 4 or 5 years.

According to Bowyer in Aircraft for the Few there was an IE of 162 Lysanders in 9 squadrons of 18 at the height of the Battle of Britain. However, in the Lysanders, which served with operational squadrons 1st July - 15th October 1940 he lists 10 squadrons (9 RAF and one RCAF), that is Nos. 2, 4, 13, 16, 26, 225, 231, 613 and 614 Squadrons RAF and No. 110 Squadron RCAF. Furthermore I know that there was a second RCAF army co-operation squadron was in the UK during the Battle of Britain. This was No. 112 Squadron, RCAF.

Regardless of whether there were 9, 10 or 11 squadrons it would have made a lot of difference to the Battle of Britain had they been equipped with Spitfires instead.
 
How about Castle Bromwich Assembly is stood up earlier - say at full production in mid 1939

Other CBA like factories are stood up under the guidance of Albert Kahn as part of an expanded shadow factory scheme (large modern factories using modern production line techniques in turn making use of lots of single use machine tooling requiring lower skilled workers)

This coupled with an earlier loosening of the purse strings results in an improved over OTL shadow factory scheme allowing for much higher than OTL production numbers 'earlier' - wouldn't even have to take 1%

The Ramp head issue on the Merlin is resolved or never happens - some one other than George Elliott joins RR in the 30s so 'proper' Merlin production is stood up earlier

As part of the Tizard mission the design is provided to the US and the manufacture of Spitfire's is stood up in several US Aircraft factory's in 1941 and the type is used to equip early USAAF interceptor Squadrons when the USA enters the war - US Production mirrors improvements to the type for the next 3 years (as well as feeding back improvements of their own)

There that should do it
 
How about Castle Bromwich Assembly is stood up earlier - say at full production in mid 1939

Other CBA like factories are stood up under the guidance of Albert Kahn as part of an expanded shadow factory scheme (large modern factories using modern production line techniques in turn making use of lots of single use machine tooling requiring lower skilled workers)

This coupled with an earlier loosening of the purse strings results in an improved over OTL shadow factory scheme allowing for much higher than OTL production numbers 'earlier' - wouldn't even have to take 1%

The Ramp head issue on the Merlin is resolved or never happens - some one other than George Elliott joins RR in the 30s so 'proper' Merlin production is stood up earlier

IMO Merlin production was up to the task, after all Merlins were installed in a 1000+ Defiants, 2000+ Battles, later versions of Whitley (2 per A/C obviously), some Beaufighters and Halifaxes (2 and 4 per A/C) etc, while Merlin was to power some versions of French A/C. Production of Merlin was greater than combined production of DB 601/605 and Jumo 211/213 in any year, including 1938-41.
As for CB factory getting earlier into churning out Spitfires - invest some of that money at Boulton Paul and Westland in 1938-40 for their production of Spitfires (with Defiant and Whirlwind cancelled). I'd again propose introduction of single-piece ribs vs. built-up ribs to save manhours.

Further about the engines - say, Napier makes licensed HS 12Y instead of the Dagger (= lighter, better altitude power, if not on Merlin level), Allison V-1710 for US and Canadian production, Hercules, R-2180?

As part of the Tizard mission the design is provided to the US and the manufacture of Spitfire's is stood up in several US Aircraft factory's in 1941 and the type is used to equip early USAAF interceptor Squadrons when the USA enters the war - US Production mirrors improvements to the type for the next 3 years (as well as feeding back improvements of their own)

There that should do it

Yes, making Spitfires instead of P-39s and/or P-66 would've make sense. Though, the drawings should've been redone (USA used one projection, UK another), and UK has more lax G limits than USA. USAAC would've also asked for greater range, so we might see a LR Spitfire inn 1941/42 instead in 1944. Four, and then six .50s would've looked nice on Spitfires.
Spitfire will out-climb P-40 and P-39, due to being lighter.
 
More Spitfires early on might allow for some 'planned' A/C are actually produced, or produced in greater numbers. Like the Spitfire III (aerodynamically refined, with more internal fuel and Merlin XX in mid-1940; prototype was said to be good for 400 mph), and Spitfire VIII series produced already in 1942 (again more fuel, retractable tailwheel) instead of 1943. Makes 1941-42 much less of a hassle for the RAF.
More Spitfires might also mean that North African theatre and Australia get them in 1941, instead of some time in 1942, with knock on effects mounting.
 
- What if North American gets the contract and license to build Spitfires instead of P-40s?
-The Mustang becomes a joint project between the British and Americans to design a next generation Spirfire with longer range.
-American built Spitfires remain in frontline service with the USAAF for the rest of the war. Maybe the Eagle Squadron flies American made Spitfires then keeps their planes when they become the 4th Fighter Group.
-Chennault’s flying Tigers transition from P-40s to late model Spitfires?
-Butterfly away the A-36 Apache with a fighter-bomber Spitfire.
 
Four, and then six .50s would've looked nice on Spitfires.

Maybe with greater British involvement the issues impacting the US Production of the HS 404 20 mm cannon (mainly headspace issues making them unreliable) will be resolved much earlier and the USSAF and USN will not have to rely on the AN2 .50 into the 50s

As is was the USA built well over 100,000 very well made with superb finish 20mm cannon by 1942 - all of which went into storage because of the headspace issue!

So a slightly more perfect answer is that the US and British working together overcome the issues on the US production of the guns and together make them far more reliable earlier.

Upshot US aircraft in 1944+ are rocking 4 or even 6 x 20mm cannon and the heavy bombers replace their twin 50s with twin 20mm!
 
Top