For Want of a ... Competent Air Ministry

But yeah, I'll chip in too and say it'll be nice to get some good updating for 'tis very, very fascinating TL!
Ditto. In re FAA, if Air Ministry is more aware of foreign types, can this mean a spec resembling the F4U? Even early purchase of F4Us, in place of Seafires (Sea Shrikes, excuse me;)) that aren't materializing?

I should say, tho, the 21 Oct date for *Judgement is a fail: on that date, there was an onboard fire which destroyed two TSRs, & Eagle shortly suffered a fuel system casualty, taking her out of action. If you push the start date back a bit (not sure what motivates it, but...), you can avoid that.
Very interesting, I hadn't really considered this, as it was such a short time after the PoD. Looking into the details, the He-112 failed in direct competition with the Bf-109, and was also judged to be more complex to construct. Even with the rush on production, I can't see the testing being skipped completely, and the He-112 is an aircraft that crashed twice during evaluation.

Interestingly despite the first production order being given in March, right after the news of the Spitfire contract, it seems testing continued until October, when after continued failure of the He-112 to match the Bf-109, the former was definitively chosen. If this happened IOTL, I can easily see Heinkel receiving in order in late February, which is then either cancelled or scaled down by October as its aircraft's problems become apparent.

If people really think the He-112 should have gone into production, I can go with either option, stay with the 109, have the Luftwaffe end up with a mix of 112s and 109s, or go completely with the 112.
I hadn't known about the He-112's test trouble. Nevertheless, I'd agree, it should've won. IIRC, it was Messerschmitt's political connections that got the contract. The 112 was better in almost every way. I've tended to think of it as RAF having a choice between Spit & Hurry, & picking Hurry because it's cheaper...:eek::confused::confused:
If there position was reversed, it seems likely that their results would be too.
IIRC, BFW was about bankrupt at this point. Without the 109 contract, it folds up & is never heard from again... Maybe frei Willie:p gets Udet's job?;) (He couldn't screw up worse, could he?:p)

I also must say, I have serious doubt the FA.226 was ready for combat in 1940, or ever... Nor do I believe autogyros are suitable for sea-air rescue, not having a powered rotor (tho most think they have:rolleyes:).

Nice touch with Valiant.:) Was she, or would she have been, present OTL? (I know, butterflies; I always have questions about ships being radically out of OTL position, because where they were OTL was for a damn good reason, & IMO you need a damn good reason she's not. That said, I won't bust you if you simply never thought about it.;) It's a stylistic issue.)

The indecisive fighting around el Aghela I also find interesting.:cool: Not quite the usual North Africa at all.

One other question: doesn't the increased fuel consumption of jets have an impact on shipping? Or at least on other missions? It seems to me, it means more kerosene must be delivered, at the expense of avgas, which either means more ships must arrive or other missions must be curtailed. Which IMO might mitigate against hi-altitude ops in favor of canal & river mining, & canal & railyard bombing. (Yes, I know, a pet one of mine.:p)
What other uses do we think they could have been put to. I'd expect that the Commandos would have become intereted in them, but they may not have been capable of to much at this stage.
The performance was pretty marginal at the time. IDK if it was because they couldn't make the dynamic components strong enough for higher hp, or just couldn't get better engines because everybody else had better claims than "the silly damned eggbeaters". Even a 600hp R1340 equivalent would be a big step up, tho I've a hunch even trainers, which might use them, got priority... IDK enough about Brit engines to say. I'd guess having more Merlins will help, & so will having more turbines, since it'll reduce the strain on piston engine makers (providing they're not also making turbines:rolleyes:).

That said, casevac was already an option: R-4s were used in CBI in '44 (one man at a time...); I've read the evac numbers were in the thousands. There's also A/S, tho this really needs more hp; even *FIDO was too heavy for the underpowered R-4. You've got SAR already; I'd add plane guard. I'd also add A/S observation; just build a flat on every tanker that sails. (Does this lead to early introduction of MACs?:cool:) To defeat U-boats, you don't acutally need to sink them, just keep them from sighting convoys...;) Allowing for enough hp, & given Monty's still an idiot,:p you might see helos supporting 1st British Airborne at Arnhem.:cool: Or, indeed, subsituting for airborne.:cool:

On the German side, again with hp an issue, the Fl.282 (with 2 in tandem) could readily be the first attack helo: more hp, 73mm Föhn (Hs-297) rockets in cheek pods, & even a pair of MG42s...:cool: (I"ve a hunch 20mm would be too heavy, unless she's got more like 1000hp.)

OTOH, if you've got turbines, you can, naturally, fit turboshaft engines...:cool: & that Kolibri becomes a Wespe.:eek:

Well I think the air gap in the mid Atlantic could be covered far easier by refueling aircraft to enable longer patrols.
You'd think so, but as a matter of fact, crew fatigue was the decider. Unless Coastal Command figured out they could carry two crews & leave gunners home?
...bombers could be refueled over the UK in defended airspace after they have reached their operational altitude. As they use the most fuel taking off and climbing to that altitude that would enable higher payloads and/or greater distances covered. The same could be done with the fighters to escort them.
IMO, the need for fighters to refuel en route (both ways) is much more pressing in any event, but I don't disagree. Can you feature tankers stationed to fuel them coming back? And battles over the tankers, as German fighters try to down them?:eek:

OTOH, given jets, can you feature (relatively) tiny parasite fighters? Think XF-85, with just enough range to get back to a tanker, after launch over Europe. (Come to think of it, what about bombers with JATO & big drop tanks?)

You'll also have noticed that the Philippines haven't been invaded quite yet. Whether this is good or bad for the Americans remains to be seen, as it may just gve them the opportunity to do what the Britih did IOTL and rush troops there just to surrender.
Not going to happen. Especially not with a worse loss at Pearl than OTL: one CV, which wasn't OTL. (I must ask how you explain that, since AFAIK, even Enterprise was fully a day out 7 Dec. Or do you change the date? I had a sense it was 14 Dec TTL...)
Some nasty shocks coming in the Atlantic from what you said earlier but with higher German and lower British losses and the stronger basis for LR a/c should be chance to secure the supply lines pretty quickly hopefully.
Given Bomber Command shifting to very high altitude jets, I'd expect hundreds of Lancs & Stirlings becoming available to Coastal Command. That's extremely bad news for BdU.:eek::eek::eek:

On the AA, the need has ben recognised, and ships have been refitted when possible. Of course, those ships that have been away from the UK for longer have had less opportunity for this too happen.
There is another issue at play, what you could call "AA doctrine". As I understand it, the Brits fired aimed AA, where the U.S. relied on barrage, & barrage was more effective (if more profligate).
Whilst the total tonnage loss is much less bad than IOTL, the movement of the uboat fleet to the US seaboard has produced a much greater relative increase in the loss rates. This will make it look like the USN is performing even worse in this theatre than they did IOTL, even though the KM is actually sinking less tonnage there.
This has some very important knock-ons downstream. One, it means the tanker crisis of OTL '43 doesn't happen. Two, it means the Bengal famine of '43 or '44 (I don't recall) doesn't, either, since it was (at least in part) the product of diversion of British shipping to cope with the above crisis. Three, it impacts British relations in India & Bangladesh postwar (obviously...:rolleyes:)

Does it also give USN an exaggerated sense of the quality of their ASW? OTOH, as U-boats appear off North America, does it attract the ex-BC Stirlings & Lancs to Newfoundland, thereby increasing U-boat losses & drastically reducing convoy losses...?
 
Last edited:
Top