Compare the track of the Martlet and Seafire. It was not the narrowness of the Seafire's undercarriage that was the issue but it's geometry and spring/damper/stroke. Wider would be nice yes, but not critical. Later Seafire Marks went some way to address this and fit a better hook system. A Sea Hurricane would be the easiest choice but will need replacement by 1941/2. A Sea Spitfire would be incrementally updated throughout the war. In 1940 though you do come back to an either/or situation leaving the RAF with fewer Spitfires unless you can make Sea Spitfires instead of something otherwise in service.
Absolutely - on the subject of the RAF I could only sea an Earlier Seafire if Spitfire Production is sufficient to equip Fighter command needs (
OTL Week ending April 6 1940 35 Hurricanes were built with just 14 Spitfires and 5 defiants) - which means tripling (or more)the OTL production and the only way I see that happening is if Castle Bromwich and associated production is advanced by at least 6 months - it was supposed to be building 60 per week by May 1940 - actual number was Zero!
So better management earlier ie Vickers takes over the running of the plant in mid 1939 from Nuffield and we could see Total production reach and exceed those numbers far earlier with overall national production sufficient to cover all of Fighter commands needs allowing the RN to 'syphon off' enough Spitfire airframes and engines for their needs.
Its a question of better management and a better 'grip' earlier than OTL
One of my PODs for this is that Winston is not made First Sea Lord but instead as Minister for War production at the outbreak of war and he brings Lord Beverbrook in as Minister of Aircraft Production - and he is able to act as he did in OTL May 17 1940 in late 1939 and take over control of the
CBA as well as generally shaking up the Aircraft Industry earlier.
Also with an earlier 'Seafire' Fairey's production might be leveraged and instead of them producing Fulmar. Thius aircraft was chosen because there was no other option. So given the option for an earleir Seafire we might instead see them producing Seafire instead of the 600 or so Fulmars and do so earlier given the basic Spitfire design was ready for mass production while the Fulmar was being rushed from drawing board to Production.
From Sept 1939 Fariey was producing MK1 Fulmars at an intial rate of 8 a month - the Fulmar was a more expensive aircraft than Spitfire - £8000 per unit verses £6000 for Spitfire and was a very complicated aircraft to make.
Also Fairey knows a thing or to about landing on.....
And of course with 4 or more Frontline Squadrons and a similair number of Training/OCU/Reserve squardons operational in June 1940 equipped with Seafires - they would be able to replace RAF fighter command units with little or no loss of effectiveness paticularly in the north during the Battle of Britain.
Do note that the entire post could equally put the Sea Hurricane into service earlier instead with additional Spitfire production going directly to RAF FC but I am championing the Seafire in this thread. And Im not even sorry.