Hawker Henley, Miles M.20 and Martin Baker MB.3

Archibald

Banned
As title say. Those three lovely birds never got into service, and that's a shame. So I thought about a very rough outline to get all three in RAF service.

First, Hawker gets a contract for the Henley circa 1938 and it replace part of OTL Fairey Battle force. Hardly a loss, particularly for crews.

As per OTL Hawker outsource the Henley to Gloster (Gloster also build all the Typhoons later)
BUT
Because there is much more than OTL 200 Henleys, and even killing the Gladiator, Gloster isn't enough.
So Hawker build less Hurricanes.
Hence during the battle of Britain the Miles M.20 get into limited production.

Meanwhile the RAF fall in love with the Henley, and improved variants keep Hawker busy. So busy in fact that Tornado and Typhoon got into more trouble than OTL.
While Hawker promise an improved Typhoon for late 1942 (Tempest) the Martin Baker MB-3 is considered as a possible alternative mid-1941.
Because Hawker is overloaded with better and better Henleys, the MB-3 beats the Tempest and goes into production.
Because Sabre is troublesome, the Griffon MB-4 goes into production, too.

I've checked Wikipedia and was surprised that the MB-3 flew two months before the Tempest (July 1942 vs September)

What are your thoughts about this scenario ?
 
Last edited:
MB-3 is ought to out-pace the Typhoon, due to it's thin and small wing. The wing loading will be excessive, though, expecially with planned 6 cannons, or even with 4. Another shortcoming might be the look over nose, probably as bad as with 'birdcage' Corsairs.
The 'Griffon-ized MB-3' (= MB-4) might be a good chice for a long range fighter - volume between pilot and engine looks generous for fuel tankage.
Miles M.20 is yet another aircraft clamoring for Merlin XX in 1940-1941, hopefully RAF will insist on Merlin XII and send the fighters in the North, where 310-320 mph turn of speed will still be useful.
Henley is a good idea if it can be escorted. Say, British Army buys them, and some Hurricanes as escort? Will require change of mentality & doctrine, though.
 

Archibald

Banned
Interesting. Didn't remembered the Typhoon thick wing, so it make sense. On the Corsair they tried to improve forward vision with a simple trick: they got a longer tailwheel. Maybe that could work for the MB-3.

mb3.jpg


The tailwheel looks pretty diminutive or even non existing. Fit a bigger, taller unit and raise the tail.

The MB-3 was soooo sexy.

the MB-4 was pretty cool, too.

p1.jpg


I wonder if MB-4s could escort Lancasters in daylight raids ?
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Didn't remembered the Typhoon thick wing, so it make sense. On the Corsair they tried to improve forward vision with a simple trick: they got a longer tailwheel. Maybe that could work for the MB-3.
The tailwheel looks pretty diminutive or even non existing. Fit a bigger, taller unit and raise the tail.

Yes, the longer rear strut seems like a qiuck fix. Plus perhaps re-design the canopy to a taller size?

The MB-3 was soooo sexy.
the MB-4 was pretty cool, too.
I wonder if MB-4s could escort Lancasters in daylight raids ?

Is it known how much of fuel the MB-3/-4 was to carry?
 
What are your thoughts about this scenario ?

The Henley is a shoe in, but the AM didn't want that good an airplane for some reason.

The M-20 should have originated with the original Kestrel fighter proposal with the Master wing, or a better wing, but not the actual M-20 wing. As it was, it didn't out-perform the Bf-109, and couldn't out-turn it like Spit and Hurri.

The Martin-Baker MB-3 was originally intended to have a Griffon engine, but the AM didn't want it, and insisted on the Sabre. None of the engines were available in a convenient time frame, and Martin-Baker was swamped with sub-contracting orders for myriad projects to cover the fact that the AM was never going to give them an aircraft contract because they weren't on the approved list, just not done, old boy. The MB-3a was a proposed variant with relocated cockpit, moved forward for better visibility, possibly similar to MB5. The MB4 was a proposal for Centaurus powerplant, with nothing further done due to, perhaps, a lack of Centaurus powerplant. The MB5 had the under-belly Meredith rad, possibly due to over-heating problems with the MB3 wing rads, and the success of the Mustang. It would have saved a lot of trouble for the AM to insist on a timely Griffon and then shut up, or maybe help.
 
AM is the Air Ministry ? how about a meteor landing on them ?

I think that's the problem. All the sanity and hindsight in the world is not going to get the AM to make good decisions, any more than it would get the RLM to do so.

With hindsight it would have been better for the AASF to have Hurricanes carrying 500 pounds of bombs then Battles which were totally vulnerable to fighters. Wasn't going to happen though
 

Archibald

Banned
All the sanity and hindsight in the world is not going to get the AM to make good decisions, any more than it would get the RLM to do so.

Mind you, the Ministère de l'air was probably as bad as both RLM and AM altogether. Kafka would have loved them.
An example of this: In September 1939 Air France fleet was to be handled to the AdA that badly lacked transport aircrafts. Air France was reluctant, and the end result was a big red tape / military boondoggle.
 
Last edited:
With hindsight it would have been better for the AASF to have Hurricanes carrying 500 pounds of bombs then Battles which were totally vulnerable to fighters. Wasn't going to happen though

I'm not sure things would be that different. 10 squadrons of Hurribombers would still have been overwhelmed by the 109s. It may have take a few days longer but whatever the RAF were flying the Luftwaffe would still have owned the French sky.
 
I'm not sure things would be that different. 10 squadrons of Hurribombers would still have been overwhelmed by the 109s. It may have take a few days longer but whatever the RAF were flying the Luftwaffe would still have owned the French sky.

I agree that it would have done nothing to change the overall shape of the battle. Even 10 squadrons of Mosquitos or Marauders couldn't have knocked down the Maas bridges given the level of the flak defences the Germans were allowed to install. On the other hand, I'm fairly convinced that Hurribombers could have achieved more in the critical period than the Battles did. How much more is open to debate, but they couldn't have done worse than the Battles. I'd be interested to hear Pdf27's view on this.

Also, using Hurribombers would have allowed a lot more RAF pilots to survive and escape back to England for the Battle of Britain (again I'm using hindsight here - that's not something the AM could have planned for). The Hurricanes would have cruised faster than the Battles even with an external bomb load, making them harder to intercept. The LeO45s were a good 15mph slower than the Hurricane, but were still relatively difficult to intercept. Once the bombs had been dropped (or jettisoned) it would have looked far more like a fair fight than 109s against Battles. So, German losses go up, British losses go down, and there's an outside chance that the German advance could have been slowed briefly.
 
I don't think the Battle was as bad as its reputation tells us. It was simply the wrong aircraft for the circumstances it faced in May 1940. It was for example reasonably successful in the Channel Ports raids and in the desert, and would probably done well as rep!acement for the Avro Anson in coastal command, and possibly in the Far East with the right tactics.

That being said I have said in other threads that someone should have looked at the Henley and Hurricane and had Fairey build Hurribombers instead of Battles. Even that though is not enough to save the AASF light bomber squadrons. They need proper air to air combat training as well as bombing training, and I include the Blenheim squadrons in that. Without that no matter what aircraft are being flown the crews are just lambs to the slaughter.
 
It was simply the wrong aircraft for the circumstances it faced in May 1940.

All Allied aircraft were wrong for the circumstances, flying into an area where the Germans held local air supremacy and had carefully deployed over 300 flak emplacements. The Germans had held air supremacy earlier, when their Stukas had destroyed French artillery and defences. That would have been a good time to challenge that air supremacy, with a coordinated fighter effort. 5 Hurricanes were lost as well during the attack, unencumbered by bombs.
 
I agree with all of that. When talking about the Battle what tends to be ignored is the fact that just a few weeks after the Fall of France the Stuka was proved to be just as much of a sitting duck to opposing fighters. Despite that though the Stuka is still seen by the general public, rather than those who do some basic research as a far superior weapon to the Battle, when really the only difference was how they aimed their bomb load. Like the Battle the reputation gained in May 1940 still clings to it, whether it's deserved or not.
 
This thread is drifting. Maybe we should start a new one (possibly in ASB) along the lines of "AASF Ideal Equipment With 20/20 Hindsight". The only rules would be that you have to use the technology of the time and you can't have more airframes tham OTL. Could this have changed the course of the battle? Probably not, but it could be an interesting exercise.
 
Going back to the thread ...
If the Henley did go ahead as per the original spec., then yes there would be a split between Battle & Henley (not possible not to have the Battle). Quite likely to have modifications in the field to add MGs from a crashed Hurricane's outer wing panels, and would a mixed formation of Henleys and Hurricanes be regarded by the Lw as just an Allied fighter sweep!?
Follow on versions, with better (h.p.) Merlins would result in bigger bomb load, and perhaps the final version with a Griffon engine (redesigned front fuselage) would include 2 x 20mm cannon.
The Miles M.20 was though an emergency fighter - if standard fighter production had been compromised - Lw bombing - there might have been more interest.
Now, the Martin-Baker M.B. 3 - 5 aircraft is a whole different ball game! If Britain used the Soviet system - successful designs were built in any allocated factory - it would have been different. When the MB.3 crashed, rather than carry on with a different engine, they went for the re-design so the MB.5 was born.
Could it have seen service in time - maybe after all no one new when the war would end, yet it would be a new type from a airframe maker inexperienced in handling big orders, and besides the future will be jets.

If the make of the RAF was different - with a mix of functions within Commands, or at least a much bigger Army Co-operation Command, then fighter-bombers may have been required, but OTL design specs were amended to delete any bomb-carrying capability on the Spitfire for example. I think there was enough reaction to the emphasis on Fighter production OTL, to accept that they could be used as bombers! Besides even if you increased the number of Hurricanes with the BEF by 50% (with the extra ear marked as FBs), they still would get the chance - they'd be too busy with their primary role of fighters.
The Hurricane OTL only became a FB when it was realised at wasn't good enough to be only a 'fighter'.
 

Redbeard

Banned
No ground attack plane will make a serious impact on the enemy if that enemy has airsuperiority - be it Battles, Henleys or P47s. When that is said however, the Battles in 1940 probably made it much worse for themselves by insisting on flying in tight formations and level bombing from an altitude perfect for the German FlAK. So, not just more suitable planes are needed but also tactics with just a slight touch of brain activity - and airsuperiority!

One big problem probably was that RAF never found support of ground operations very interesting - that really was below their dignity - which not at least was founded on being an independent service on par with the army and the navy. OTOH Luftwaffe, even with a big pompous ass like Göring on top, was as independent, but all the way through had a clear focus on supporting army operations.
 
I agree with all of that. When talking about the Battle what tends to be ignored is the fact that just a few weeks after the Fall of France the Stuka was proved to be just as much of a sitting duck to opposing fighters. Despite that though the Stuka is still seen by the general public, rather than those who do some basic research as a far superior weapon to the Battle, when really the only difference was how they aimed their bomb load. Like the Battle the reputation gained in May 1940 still clings to it, whether it's deserved or not.

May 11, RAF 87 squadron Hurricanes shot down 6 Stukas near Brussels, with one loss. May 12, GC I/5 6 H-75s shot down 11 0f 12 Stukas over Sedan without loss. Ducks are ducks. Stukas, however, usually dropped their bombs on target, on call within 20 minutes, in a winning effort. Protocols for a Battle strike took days, not hours.
 
May 11, RAF 87 squadron Hurricanes shot down 6 Stukas near Brussels, with one loss. May 12, GC I/5 6 H-75s shot down 11 0f 12 Stukas over Sedan without loss. Ducks are ducks. Stukas, however, usually dropped their bombs on target, on call within 20 minutes, in a winning effort. Protocols for a Battle strike took days, not hours.

I'll start another thread on this.
 
May 11, RAF 87 squadron Hurricanes shot down 6 Stukas near Brussels, with one loss. May 12, GC I/5 6 H-75s shot down 11 0f 12 Stukas over Sedan without loss. Ducks are ducks. Stukas, however, usually dropped their bombs on target, on call within 20 minutes, in a winning effort. Protocols for a Battle strike took days, not hours.
The RAF really didn't want to do tactical strikes in 1940, considering direct support of the Army as only slightly less of a waste of time than maritime patrol. Slightly odd as thats what kept them from being disbanded in the early 20s.
 
Top