The Fairey Battle: Was it really that bad?

Possibly, if they could reach the target. For that the Allies need at least temporary control of the air, which history tells us never happened. Any 1930's light bomber was an easy target for fighters.

While true many Battles and Blenheims did reach the Meuse Bridges/crossing despite German Air superiority and did attempt to 'level bomb' them from low altitude in the face of a staggering amount of AAA - and for the loss of so many aircraft 1 suicidal attack did drop a single span of one Bridge (which was replaced/repaired the same day)

While dive bombing battles would be as equally vulnerable to fighters - dive bombers are 'less vulnerable' to AAA as they start from a higher altitude and have a greater speed after pulling out of their dives as well as making for a more difficult target than a level bomber flying in a straight line - in addition steep dive bombing is more accurate than level bombing so more damage could be expected over OTL
 
I've talked about the five plane raid on the bridges earlier on, but should perhaps have explained that I class the single engine dive bombers as light bombers as their only real difference as aircraft is how they aim the bombs.
 
So we agree the Battle could have been used in a dive bombing role, with at least a 70 degree dive, if not an 80 degree. I think I read the bombs would have had to been carried outside, owing to release issues. I guess this drag on air flow wouldn't have hampered operations, indeed may have helped controlling the dive, in slightly slowing the decent. At this stage I ask, do we need the bomb aimer/navigator as part of the crew, or can the pilot now aim the bomb?
 
I don't think we agree at all whether the Battle could have been used as a dive bomber, and, if so, to what degree of dive, and to what degree of effectiveness. The Air Ministry eventually determined, after Stuka demonstrations of effectiveness, that having a dive bomber might not be so bad an idea, but only in Burma.
 
According to Peter Smith, in 1936 the RAF tested the Battle at 30 and 45 degree dive angles with pull out heights of 3000, 2500, and 1500 feet. A 30 degree dive angle is more like glide bombing and 45 degrees is kind of in between.
 
On the Albacore, this is a good quote from Peter Smith's book regarding action by No. 821 and 826 Squadrons in the desert in 1942:

"Their accuracy in dive bombing was proverbial. Yet swamped by the numerically much greater effort put up by the RAF and ignored by the Admiralty, who were moved at one point to enquire to what extent they were being employed."
 
Assuming the Griffon or Fairey engine could have been ready to match the Battle's otl in service date that would lead to some interesting butterflies. ......... A Griffon Spitfire would completely out class all German Fighters at the start of the war but there's going to be very few available. .....
Would this not lead to all the Griffons going to Spits as 1st priority for GBAD and therefore very few others getting them?
 
Would this not lead to all the Griffons going to Spits as 1st priority for GBAD and therefore very few others getting them?

Absolutely if they actually have the Spitfires to put them in. They are still going to have the same problems building the Spitfire as otl, so if I remember correctly there would only be somewhere around 200 in service at the start of the war.
 
So we agree the Battle could have been used in a dive bombing role, with at least a 70 degree dive, if not an 80 degree. I think I read the bombs would have had to been carried outside, owing to release issues. I guess this drag on air flow wouldn't have hampered operations, indeed may have helped controlling the dive, in slightly slowing the decent. At this stage I ask, do we need the bomb aimer/navigator as part of the crew, or can the pilot now aim the bomb?

I've got to be honest, after further research and reflection, what I said above is absolute bull!

I'm not sure anyone dived at 80 degree, 70-75 was probably the max, and I've read the Stuka was used at 65 degree. The RAF would have used the Battle at maybe 45 degree. Does that sound about right to you guys?
 
I'm not sure anyone dived at 80 degree, 70-75 was probably the max, and I've read the Stuka was used at 65 degree. The RAF would have used the Battle at maybe 45 degree. Does that sound about right to you guys?

https://books.google.com/books?id=d0sMQ15sPj8C&pg=PA55

SBD Manual notes on engine RPM limits for vertical dives, and 70+ degree dives were not uncommon.

However, this one had about the best dive brake setup of the entire war, with no changes to flight trim on deployment
 
Would this not lead to all the Griffons going to Spits as 1st priority for GBAD and therefore very few others getting them?
Not necessarily IMHO because AFAIK the Spitfire Mk III did not go into production because the Hurricane needed the more powerful engines even more more. Also the OTL Battle was ordered into production a year earlier than the Spitfire. It also entered service with the RAF 15 months earlier than the Spitfire.

If any aircraft needs the extra power in 1940 its the Fairey Fulmar followed by the Defiant (the extra power would make it a better night fighter IMHO).

It also depends on how many Griffon engines were available. AFAIK the Griffon was begun at the same time as the Merlin and put on hold for 5 years to concentrate on the Merlin. What if it was the other way around? That's probably not going to work, but I've suggested it just in case.
 
The Battle was tested at 45 degrees by the RAF according to Peter Smith in his study of dive bombers in WW2.

I may be wrong but Im sure there is a chart in that book which gives Battles Max dive angle as 80 degrees which implies that it was tested as such?
 
Maybe in a different book because he has written more than one but on page 87 of "Dive Bomber" his chart shows testing done at 30 and 45 degree angles:

https://books.google.com/books?id=KTmKAAAAQBAJ&q=battle#v=onepage&q=fairey battle&f=false

The chart indicates that bombs can be released at a max. dive angle of 80 degrees, but doesn't indicate testing. I got a chuckle that they also listed the Handley Page Harrow which safely releases bombs at a 30 degree angle. It also seems to indicate that there was no training or doctrine, except as made up at the moment, and they were hoping for failure.
 
The chart indicates that bombs can be released at a max. dive angle of 80 degrees, but doesn't indicate testing. I got a chuckle that they also listed the Handley Page Harrow which safely releases bombs at a 30 degree angle. It also seems to indicate that there was no training or doctrine, except as made up at the moment, and they were hoping for failure.

The fact the RAF called it 'Losing height Bombing' says it all
 
Top