Effect of Beaverbrook Rationalisation of Aircraft Types

hammo1j

Donor
In 1940 Lord beaverbrook was placed in charge of the rationalisation of the British aircraft production programme as it was felt it lacked coordination. He did manage to boost production, but this alienated the aircraft producers and he was eventually removed.

One of the proposed ideas was that the aircraft types would be rationalised. Only proven successful types would be allowed to continue production, future types and unsuccessful types would be ruthlessly purged.

This may have resulted in the following types of being allowed in the RAF.

Fighter: Hurricane and Spitfire

Heavy fighter/ Nightfighter: Beaufighter

Medium bomber: Wellington

Heavy bomber: Halifax

I would be interested in other people on the forum agreed with this list. What engines and equipment would be suggested for standardisation?

Clearly the phasing out of inferior types such as the Sterling and the Defiant would results in some gains, but the removal of future types such as the Lancaster and the mosquito would have grave consequences.

Lets say beaverbrook had more sway than in the original timeline. What would be the consequence of allowing him to alter the air industry in this way?
 
"future types and unsuccessful types would be ruthlessly purged." and "removal of future types such as the Lancaster and the mosquito would have grave consequences."

How it is not possible?

I would say Marlin Engine is Build as engine for 80% fleet.
 
I'm sure that Beaverbrook didn't want to get rid future work rather he was seeking to postpone r&doing with a payoff beyond six months till the battle of Britain was won.
 
Clearly the phasing out of inferior types such as the Sterling and the Defiant would results in some gains, but the removal of future types such as the Lancaster and the mosquito would have grave consequences.
The Stirling production continued until 1945, and the Defiant stayed in production until early 1943, with refits continuing to 1944, as target tug. When it comes to rationalization of an industry, it's always a good idea to have someone who not only understands the industry, but the product as well. He could have rationalized the Botha and Lerwick before production and service, but people that were supposed to know stuff didn't even do that.
 
Stirling was the first of the 4-engined heavy bombers. Stirlings' biggest problem was that it's span conformed to a contract specification which limited wingspan to what would fit into 1930s-vintage hangars.
Meanwhile, later marks of Halifaxes and Lancasters which improved climb rate, ceiling and payload. The Stirling production line stayed open to keep skilled workers fully-employed (a goal of British politicians dating back decades).

Later Stirlings were built as transports and glider tugs. Think glider tugs big enough to pull huge, tank-carrying Hamilcars!

Speaking of glider tugs .... Albemarle should also be still-born. Not that Albemarle was a bad airplane but because it lagged behind NAA B-25 Mitchel development. Albemarle Mark 1 competed directly with third or fourth generation B-25s.

Deviants and Battles and Lysanders and Bothas were converted to target tugs because they were obsolete for front-line duties, but too new to scrap. In an even sillier program, the RCAF retro-fitted turrets to dozens of Battles to train aerial gunners.
 
Stirlings' biggest problem was that it's span conformed to a contract specification which limited wingspan to what would fit into 1930s-vintage hangars.

I heard that from an old wife. A newer wife told me that it was a convoluted and failed ploy to reduce the size and price of the aircraft.
 
Top