British Weapons Enter Service A Year Earlier

ITTL there is noting to stop the Air Ministry issuing a specification of a heavy fighter powered by 2 Merlin engines in 1934 which flies in 1936 and enters service with the RAF in 1938. Unless @Just Leo can provide a plausible reason why "We wouldn't have the technology," to paraphrase Oscar Goldman.

We can build it. We have the technology. We can make it poorer, weaker, slower. There was no Merlin until 1935. The water-cooled PV-12 cracked cylinder heads. The Merlins from Merlin B through Merlin F, as fitted to Hurricane, Spitfire and Battle prototypes were ramp-head trash with more problems than PV-12. In 1938, it becomes just a scramble for production numbers.

The Beaufort was built as an improved Blenheim and the Beaufighter was built out of many Beaufort parts, taking longer than was thought to get it right. The Beaufighter II with Merlin XX was the poorest Beau of all. Nobody liked it. The ATL Beau with Merlin II would be as Goldman stated, poorer, weaker, slower. It might be better to build a Merlin/Whirlwind, or the slowest of all Mosquitoes. Why not an early Hornet?
 
If Merlins are the issue for an earlier Mosquito, the Sharp/Bowyer tome on the Mosquito has mention of two Napier Daggers.

I do have all the bits to do one, but can't find the nacelle rear castings that I got last year!
 
The Beaufort was built as an improved Blenheim and the Beaufighter was built out of many Beaufort parts, taking longer than was thought to get it right. The Beaufighter II with Merlin XX was the poorest Beau of all. Nobody liked it. The ATL Beau with Merlin II would be as Goldman stated, poorer, weaker, slower. It might be better to build a Merlin/Whirlwind, or the slowest of all Mosquitoes. Why not an early Hornet?
More interestingly, is there any reason that the sequence with the Beaufort and Beaufighter had to happen like it did? As I understand it the Beaufort was a revised Blenheim with bigger engines and some structural refinements - and the Beaufighter was much the same thing done to the Beaufort. What if they'd gone straight from Mercury to Hercules rather than Perseus engines. The two engines were available at roughly the same time, so it isn't a huge stretch to see them jumping straight the Hercules engine. If Coastal Command decide that they need a heavy strike fighter rather than a torpedo bomber then something looking roughly like the OTL Beaufighter isn't inconceivable.

You're not going to bring it all that far forward, but diverting the effort which went into the Beaufort to it should certainly help, and Beaufighters are far more use than Beauforts.
 
More interestingly, is there any reason that the sequence with the Beaufort and Beaufighter had to happen like it did? As I understand it the Beaufort was a revised Blenheim with bigger engines and some structural refinements - and the Beaufighter was much the same thing done to the Beaufort. What if they'd gone straight from Mercury to Hercules rather than Perseus engines. The two engines were available at roughly the same time, so it isn't a huge stretch to see them jumping straight the Hercules engine. If Coastal Command decide that they need a heavy strike fighter rather than a torpedo bomber then something looking roughly like the OTL Beaufighter isn't inconceivable.

You're not going to bring it all that far forward, but diverting the effort which went into the Beaufort to it should certainly help, and Beaufighters are far more use than Beauforts.
The Beaufort was a bigger design. Think Do17/Do217.
 
Now if we can advance all things by one year then Richard Fairey's H24 Monarch and H16 Prince engine could both be in production by 1939. Give the monarch to the Barracuda and the Pricess to the Fulmar/Firelfly then in 1940 the FAA has some of the best carrier planes in the world. Put the Monarch on the Manchester and you might have a decent bomber. Put four Monarchs on the big wing Sterling (the original 112 foot wingspan S29 design) give it ASV RDF and you have the makings of a very capable long range maritime patrol aircraft. A few squadrons of those in the North Atlantic in the winter of 1940 could have been significant.
 
More interestingly, is there any reason that the sequence with the Beaufort and Beaufighter had to happen like it did? As I understand it the Beaufort was a revised Blenheim with bigger engines and some structural refinements - and the Beaufighter was much the same thing done to the Beaufort. What if they'd gone straight from Mercury to Hercules rather than Perseus engines. The two engines were available at roughly the same time, so it isn't a huge stretch to see them jumping straight the Hercules engine. If Coastal Command decide that they need a heavy strike fighter rather than a torpedo bomber then something looking roughly like the OTL Beaufighter isn't inconceivable.

You're not going to bring it all that far forward, but diverting the effort which went into the Beaufort to it should certainly help, and Beaufighters are far more use than Beauforts.

To respect history, the Blenheim was a modified executive transport, the Beaufort was a capable bomber for torpedoes, mines or bombs, and the Beau was a 20mm gunship using as many available parts as possible to facilitate entry into service with a new, unready engine. The RAF and the AM were making the decisions based on available information regards to need and goals, not the whims of AH. The AM demanded the Perseus for the Beaufort, as with the Botha, but Bristol insisted on the Taurus, which wasn't really ready yet either. The Hercules readiness date was still to come. The Aquila and Perseus preceded Taurus and Hercules, and Aquila was dropped before the war as a wasted effort. The Perseus development stopped pretty much after the first production batch. The Taurus was failing its development to higher hp, and before production finally was defined and corrected, it too joined the forgotten lot. That left the Hercules, which ran through its entire life cycle, and could have powered a later Beaufort just as easily or more so than the Beaufighter, and even with a couple guns. The Beaufighter's eventual roles were not its original heavy day fighter/gunship role envisaged, although it performed some of that in the Med, in the absence of single-seat fighter opposition. Its performance never did live up to that expectation.
 
We can build it. We have the technology. We can make it poorer, weaker, slower. There was no Merlin until 1935. The water-cooled PV-12 cracked cylinder heads. The Merlins from Merlin B through Merlin F, as fitted to Hurricane, Spitfire and Battle prototypes were ramp-head trash with more problems than PV-12. In 1938, it becomes just a scramble for production numbers.
Unless I'm satisfied that there is a very good reason why it can't be done the Merlin and all other engines begun after 1930 IOTL are available a year earlier in this thread.
It's permissible to bring all the aero engines begun from 1930 onwards IOTL forward by one year. That's either by starting them a year earlier and/or by accelerating their R&D programmes. Service entry even earlier than that is allowed if a plausible reason can be given.

The Beaufort was built as an improved Blenheim and the Beaufighter was built out of many Beaufort parts, taking longer than was thought to get it right.
AFAIK the Hurricane and Spitfire took longer than was thought to get right too. The timetable I gave of specification 1934, first flight 1936 and service entry 1938 is exactly the same as the Spitfire and deliberately intended to be so.
The Beaufighter II with Merlin XX was the poorest Beau of all. Nobody liked it. The ATL Beau with Merlin II would be as Goldman stated, poorer, weaker, slower.
Yes and no.

Yes the TTL Beaufighter of 1938 will be inferior to the OTL Beaufighter of 1940 due to less powerful engines and probably more machine guns instead of the Hispano cannon.

And IMHO no because the TTL Beaufighter of 1938 will still be a great improvement over the Blenheim Mk I(f) because it will be faster and be more heavily armed.

Also bear in mind that the Hurricanes and Spitfires of 1938 were poorer, weaker and slower than the 1940 versions. Improvements to the ALT Beaufighter will have been made between 1938 and 1940 too.
It might be better to build a Merlin/Whirlwind, or the slowest of all Mosquitoes.
A Mosquito entering service in 1937 in place of the Battle and Blenheim is one of my favourite ideas. It will indeed be the slowest of all Mosquitoes. However, it's all relative because they would still be a great improvement over the Battle and Blenheim.
Why not an early Hornet?
At first I thought it was a very good idea. However, applying the logic applied by you to an early Beaufighter an early Hornet that would also be poorer, weaker and slower. However, an early Hornet might still be worth having even if it does have less powerful engines.
The RAF and the AM were making the decisions based on available information regards to need and goals, not the whims of AH.
It's a fair cop, guv, you've got me bang to rights.
 
Could the Beaufort be skipped entirely and development switched to a Beaufighter type aircraft? Absolutely and perhaps with hindsight it should have been. This Beaufighter would in all likelihood been powered by the Taurus initially though, as was it's most comparable competitor the Gloster Reaper. I would argue that though the Reaper was potentially the better aircraft the Beaufighter would still have been the aircraft to order, simply because of the vital need to get as many modern single engine fighters built as quickly as possible. Would this Beaufighter have been as good as the original? Possibly, but I doubt it. Once the Mosquito arrives on the scene the Beaus obsolete in Europe. In fact I see it as been mainly an Australian aircraft powered by American engines, with most of it's future development being done by the Australians.

As a nightfighter it's outclassed by the Mosquito, as a strike fighter it's also outclassed by the Mosquito. It's primary role when built would be that originally filled by the Beaufort maritime strike and in that role it would do well, but as with other potential roles once the Mosquito was adapted to fill it the Beaufighter would be obsolesecent in Europe. Again its primary theater would I think be the Far East and Pacific.
 
Maybe, the anecdote was that the firm Whittle was working with was sceptical about it and he had to have a bet with the welder that the stuff could be welded. Whittle won the bet.

Rene 80 and its offsprings were the only "R"s I can think of. The first superalloy was the German Tinidur, used in prototype German jets, too rare for production. Problem is that there are a bunch of qualities to have, and they didn't have enough of them at once. Tinidur became A-286 after the war, with a pinch of Mo. They had a 5 year lead on Nimonic 80, and Nimonic 80a was 4 more years. Funny thing, Mond supplied the Nimonic 80, and also had run the nickel mine in Finland that was a prime source for the Germans. The Germans did not have access to the cornucopia of riches from the Sudbury basin.
 
Rene 80 and its offsprings were the only "R"s I can think of. The first superalloy was the German Tinidur, used in prototype German jets, too rare for production. Problem is that there are a bunch of qualities to have, and they didn't have enough of them at once. Tinidur became A-286 after the war, with a pinch of Mo. They had a 5 year lead on Nimonic 80, and Nimonic 80a was 4 more years. Funny thing, Mond supplied the Nimonic 80, and also had run the nickel mine in Finland that was a prime source for the Germans. The Germans did not have access to the cornucopia of riches from the Sudbury basin.

It would take me forever to find the book to get the name, but in any event it was a new alloy that British jets needed.

However I wonder how much 'need' there was. I think Whittle could go quite a long way without it, accepting the limitation in temperature etc to get other stuff worked out, perhaps altering the design a bit to make up for the lack of a superalloy. Then once it comes along in 1941 Power Jets chases more power and reliability with an already mature design.
 

Glyndwr01

Banned
a 3.45in gun capable of being fired either from a light tripod or from the shoulder; inevitably, from its calibre, it became known as the '25pdr Shoulder Gun', though in fact, the projectile did not weigh 25lb. In its original form (known as P1) it had a single nozzle attached to the downward-opening screw breech block, and a coned cartridge case with blow-out base. In October 1942, Sir Dennis Burney approached the Director of Artillery's Department to arrange official trials, and a brief demonstration given in the following month was, in the official word, 'promising'. During subsequent months, manufacture of 32 pilot models was begun by the Broadway Trust Company, a consortium of engineering firms organised by Sir Dennis to develop his armament inventions. In 1943, the Ministry of Supply set up their 'RCL Group' to undertake completion of Burney's designs to service standards, and the Armaments Design Department began work on a slightly different (P2) version of the 3.45in, which used Burney's other cartridge case design, a conventionally-shaped case perforated with a number of large holes in the wall, through which the gas was vented into an annular space around the gun chamber and then backwards through four jets arranged around the breech. In November 1944, the War Office stated a firm requirment for a number of these guns, with the intention of using them in the Far East, where heavy firepower from a portable weapon would be of great value. Unfortunately, trials showed up some problems, notably a variation between recoillessness and recoil due to erosive wear in the throats of the venturis, and before this could be cleared up and the guns put into production, the war was over. A total of 135 guns were eventually made, and most of them were issued to various units for extensive user trials in order to 'feel out' the user's reaction to such a novel weapon, but apart from this, the 3.45in RCL was never issued for general service.

Data: Ordnance, RCL, 3.45in Mk 1

Weight of gun and breech mechanism: 75lb
Total length: 68.55in
Length of bore: 50.874in (14.75 cal)
Rifling: 16 grooves, uniform RH 1/20
Breech mechanism: Interrupted screw, percussion fired, four venturis
Elevation: Free
Traverse: Free
Weight in action: 75lb

Performance: Firing standard 11lb Wallbuster shell

Muzzle velocity: 600ft/min
Maximum range: 1,000 yards

Ammunition:

Cartridge, RCL, 3.45in WB Shell Mk 1. This complete fixed round consisted of a cartridge case pierced with holes in the wall, and with a thin brass liner to protect the propellant, and a Wallbuster shell. The propelling charge was 1lb 2oz Cordite. The shell was filled with Plastic Explosive and carried the Base Percussion fuse No. 299. The weight of the complete round was 16.25lb

The above text and the accompanying photos were all taken from 'British & American Artillery of World War Two', by Ian V. Hogg


file.php
 
It would take me forever to find the book to get the name, but in any event it was a new alloy that British jets needed.

However I wonder how much 'need' there was. I think Whittle could go quite a long way without it, accepting the limitation in temperature etc to get other stuff worked out, perhaps altering the design a bit to make up for the lack of a superalloy. Then once it comes along in 1941 Power Jets chases more power and reliability with an already mature design.

I don't think it works that way, but maybe it's just me. The difference between Nimonic 80 and 80a is the difference between Derwent III and Derwent 5, and decades were spent improving something for a good reason. You can't prove anything when an engine doesn't make much power, and then blows to pieces.
 
I've got that book too, have a look at the enhanced 9.2 which unfortunately never made it. Also the other Burnley guns including the 7.2in beast that could be towed by a jeep! A jeep!
 
If Merlins are the issue for an earlier Mosquito, the Sharp/Bowyer tome on the Mosquito has mention of two Napier Daggers.

I do have all the bits to do one, but can't find the nacelle rear castings that I got last year!

By the time the Mosquito design could reasonably be expected to have reached prototype stage issues with the Merlin shouldn't be a problem. I really can't see the design being speeded up by more than 18 months at the most. Which still allows them to be in service during the Battle of France in at least limited numbers. I wonder how 5 Mosquitos would have done attacking the Bridges of the Mass, as even the Battles managed to bring down one of them?
 
However if the RAF were flying in May 1940 what they were flying in May 1941... So increasing numbers of Spitfire Vs and Hurricane IIs. No Defiants, Gladiators, Blenheim Is, Battles. It wouldn't have stopped the loss of France,
Which still allows them to be in service during the Battle of France in at least limited numbers. I wonder how 5 Mosquitos would have done attacking the Bridges of the Mass, as even the Battles managed to bring down one of them?
Would the number of RP aircraft not be far more important that simple number might suggest? I don't think you need many PR Spits or Mosquitoes for even the French high command to know what is happening in time to stop the sickle cut?
 
Who said they'd be PR Mosquitos in service first? The strategic situation in early 1940 is far different than in 1941. They have an active (just about) front right on the French German border a high speed bomber would be of more apparent use given the known weakness of the Advanced Air Striking Fleet bombers than a specialised aircraft for the still in its infancy Photo Recconaisence Unit. Common practice at the time was to use light bombers for this in addition to their other duties. All things considered I think it highly likely that the Mosquito would enter service first as a bomber, closely followed by as a nightfighter then followed by a PR version.
 
I did once read a reasonably plausible story over on I think Changing Times where the Master Gunner boosted the B.E.F's artillery park by mounting rockets from the Z batteries on trucks foreshadowing the later land mattress. I can see no reason why this couldn't have been done in reality with little effort or cost. All the rockets need is an 18 or 25lb shell on the tip. Improvements can come later.

(Getting a bunch of M.Ps and senior civil servants to undergo a bout of involuntary defecation may have been taking things a little far, but was funny enough:biggrin:)

upload_2017-5-19_1-29-58.png
 
Last edited:
Top