Those I'd send to Malaya once the fighting in East Africa ended. While they'd be dead meat against any fighters they'd be a good night bomber force.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
The Germans reacted to a combination of two things , the fact that the British were reinforcing Greece and the Italians being inept ( 3rd November was tellingly when the Italian invasion stalled and the Greeks started pushing them back ). None of the units that went to Greece with the exception of some Luftwaffe transports were ever more than follow up forces for Barbarossa. In that reguard it made no difference, the delay was mainly weather, the roads had not dried out enough for a fast moving attack.
Which reason was more compelling is hard to judge, the OKW inital planning ( Directive 18 ) is more a general support the Italians in the Mediterrian theatre, rather than specific to Greece ( it included attacking Gibralter as one of the aims for example ).Some point to the pact you mention with Bulgaria as inital thinking of just going defensive whilst the first phase of Barbarossa unfolded ( as the Germans correctly believed the British lacked the ability for a Land offensive and it would just be air strikes even if Bulgaria was not being truely neutral ). This then changing as the OKW determined the Campagin would be over before the troops were needed in the Soviet Union.
Random Thought: It could well be that the Logistics for Barbarossa are such that the Germans have forces available that they even they don't think they'll be able to usefully use all of them. So there might be forces available even with maximum effort being put into Barby.
Slow long range aircraft with room to ad fuel tanks, my thought was, what a great ASW plane it would make. Night bomber I had not considered but that is a good thought.
Unfortunately the single engine would be a problem for any naval role.
Edit. I watched the video, and they were used as ASW planes.
Last edited:
Hopefully ITTL they can relegated as training aircraft and the Squadrons that suffered them equipped with better aircraft.
The last Wellesleys OTL were used for ASW patrols over the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf until mid '43. Mate of mine did the Matchbox kit in the last scheme it wore.
marathag
Banned
The Vought SB2U-3 was known as the 'Flying Fuel Tank' 370 gallons internal, 50 in a drop tank, for a long rang Scout/Bomber.
Now the Wellesley could have a lot more fuel than that, even.
It's all payload. Fuel or Bombs?
It's already out of production so I'd guess at no. The airframes have been built and used already and adding a heavier engine may well not be possible. Even then is it worth it if it is, put the new powerful engines in more modern planes.
So, no then, or at least, not with a British engine. Looking at it, if you can cadge a few R-1820s off the Americans, you could try them. They are a touch heavier than the Bristol engine (~30-35 kg), but an 1820-40/42 (1,100 hp/1,200 hp respectively) is probably more than enough of a power increase to mitigate the need to fit a counterweight in the rear.
marathag
Banned
An R-1820 would be around 80 pounds heavier, for almost 300HP more for the current model, plus an added cowling should clean up the aerodynamics a bit
For balance, a few pounds of lead in the tail, or move some internal equipment in the rear, or put in a single .50.
Might as well get some use from the extra balance weight needed behind the pilot
Sure but realistically what are you actually getting.
ITTL the fighting in North Africa is going to be over soon so a lot of the aircraft used their in OTL will be made available for other theatres.
The Wellesley was out of service by mid-late 43. Giving it a better engine in theory extends that but it will take time to fit that engine and is the end result a significant enough improvement to justify the effort over simply supplying a better and more modern plane? For me no, and if this was an aircraft TL I would see the Wellesley out of service sooner that OTL.
Anyway back to tanks.
marathag
Banned
Advantages, you have an aircraft with a really strong airframe, and has been used before the war in extremely long range flights.
Pawned off on Oz, they would have the need for long range patrolling, as well as domestic production of the P&W R-1830 at the CAC plant in NSW to keep them powered.
By no means a front line aircraft, but still fills a niche where a more capable twin engine Beaufort or similar could be used in combat against front line Japanese forces.
Hm, the R-1830 is a bit heavier than you really want (~65-70 kg heavier than the Pegasus), but as long as the mountings are good, it shouldn't be entirely unworkable...
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Almost interchangeable in DC-3, and the Pegasus was an engine option for the DC-2 for exports
Other than slightly better fuel consumption/economy with the P&W while having a slightly better P/W ratio, and is longer, while being smaller in diameter
In the DC-3 the engines sat very close to the centre-of-lift, in the Wellesley it's quite a way ahead of the centre, requiring a degree of weighing in the rear to counter-balance it.
It's not worth it.
Withdrawn from service to go to be rebuilt ...though at what site....war on you know.
Then retrain crew.
Time worn airframes
Not in production ....lack of spares.
It wasn't worth it in out time, why when the UK and Commonwealth is in a better situation would they look at these frankly 2nd line aircraft and go " you know what , these clapped out old things we have been using cause we got nothing else can be redesigned, have a new engine and find a role somewhere" come on guys....its not feasable, somethings are just not on the cards.
As someone said earlier .....Tanks.....lets say it together..........
....
....
...
TANKS
Withdrawn from service to go to be rebuilt ...though at what site....war on you know.
Then retrain crew.
Time worn airframes
Not in production ....lack of spares.
It wasn't worth it in out time, why when the UK and Commonwealth is in a better situation would they look at these frankly 2nd line aircraft and go " you know what , these clapped out old things we have been using cause we got nothing else can be redesigned, have a new engine and find a role somewhere" come on guys....its not feasable, somethings are just not on the cards.
As someone said earlier .....Tanks.....lets say it together..........
....
....
...
TANKS
How vulnerable are rear mounted tank fuel drums? Can they be demounted or emptied in/for combat like an aircraft external fuel tank?
Has internal armour spalling been addressed enough yet? What can be done to reduce brew-ups and ammo cook-offs. Have the crews got a decent semi-auto carbine or machine pistol, if they have to evacuate the tank?
Earlier call for an armored utility T9 with a nice half inch thick roof and side plates, maybe a lower and longer rear ramp gate? Something to do with all those MkVI light tank chassis.
Has internal armour spalling been addressed enough yet? What can be done to reduce brew-ups and ammo cook-offs. Have the crews got a decent semi-auto carbine or machine pistol, if they have to evacuate the tank?
Earlier call for an armored utility T9 with a nice half inch thick roof and side plates, maybe a lower and longer rear ramp gate? Something to do with all those MkVI light tank chassis.
Last edited:
Oh great, now we have to spend the next 6 weeks arguing about small-arms cartridges. Thanks for nothing
()