Ramontxo
Donor
About the only thing I know about the Emerald Island is to choose Connemara always over Paddys. And never drink Jameson...
😘
The RAF, just that little bit better in 1940
- Thread starter tallthinkev
- Start date
😘
I've never been their myself either. However, a tour of the Jameson's distillery is one of the Disney Cruise Line approved port activities in Cork so I figured that sounded like fun and when I cruise I always book my port activities through the cruise line. They tend to cost more but they are designed to get you back to the ship on time. Too many stories of idiots who try to save a little money by coming up with their own port activities and then they fail to make it back in time for departure and the ships do not wait.
Of course now I want to try Connemara. I need to run out to my local store and see if they have any.
marathag
Banned
Basic rubber coated tanks started with the Ju-86 after Ju-52s in bomber mode were found very vulnerable in the Spanish Civil War. The move away from rubber coated metal tanks seemed to have been started with the Do-17F and He-111C, over to the semi-bladder non metallic tank in 1939.
.50s would be better, if nothing else for longer range and more incendiary filling.
When the USAAC and USN tested 20mm on full bladder tanks, the lack of oxygen in the tank prevented ignition on the shells detonation within the tank, and the bladder is many cases would expand from the explosion, yet not rupture.
Endorse this. What was pre-war RAF training like, in respect of fighter v fighter combat? That's the way to test yourself, and your aircraft, to the limits.
Didn't they prefer the three plane vic as opposed to the more flexible finger four or loose deuce type formations? I thought a lesson from the early stages of the BOB was to ditch the three plane vic? Maybe have that change pre-war?
Fighter Command was still utilising vic 3s in the BotB. But I'm not sure how much fighter v fighter tactics were practiced at all. It all seems to be Area Attacks, against unescorted bombers.
Pre war there was an assumption that fighter aircraft were now so fast that fighter vs fighter combat was all but impossible as there wouldn't be enough time to take a shot.
Ooh, kind of like radars and missiles will make dogfighting a thing of the past....
Exactly like that. Also just like with the missiles in the late 50's the pilots were telling the brass they were wrong but not listened to.
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
Even a fighter combat manual would have helped, apparently during the BoB some pilots were reduced to using their own money to buy memoirs of WW1 fighter pilots for tips, at least if "Most Dangerous Enemy" is to be believed.
Kind of hard to do both. The Brits opted for more, the Germans for better trained. It's debatable who made the better choice in terms of losses, but it is kind of hard to argue against the result, though the Dowding System was a significant factor in that.
Probably the biggest issue is getting more funding pre-war for fighters and cutting back on Bomber Command. Coastal Command could have used a boost too, same with having a Night Fighter Command pre-war. Frankly other than tactical/operational bombers, it is hard to justify the expense of strategic bombers in 1939-41. After that I'd argue that other than masses of Mosquitos only a few squadrons of heavy bombers were actually necessary for strategic bombing of worthwhile targets.
Last edited by a moderator:
When the Americans were testing the effectiveness of different caliber rounds I wonder if they only fired single shots. This may have given a misleading result. I would think the rapid impact of multiple rounds in close proximity would cause catastrophic damage to the wing tanks and rubber bladders. Same as for the wing spars. But OTOH when conducting testing they may have used only single shots so as not to destroy the test target thus preventing an assessment of the damage. It's an interesting subject.
One thing they should have done pre war is work out a proper air sea rescue service. Coastal Command, the RAF Marine Branch and the civilian RNLI did the best they could with less than adequate equipment and making it up as they went along, but crews died that could have been saved.
Depends if you're adding new squadrons or simply converting from Hurricanes to Spits.
Also, kick Trafford Leigh-Mallory over to army cooperation and replace him with someone who's not a wrong-headed prima donna.
Last edited:
Lot's of talk, most quite good, yet no one has really answered the question. What could the RAF do with these small, at the moment, amount of better aircraft. Earlier and better versions of Round-up's, Rodeo's Rhubarb's and the like.
The original agreement in late 39 called for 50,000 aircrew a year
So perhaps an agreement made in April 1938 (lets use the example I suggested of Germany ditching the AGNA in March 38) asks for a smaller number initially - say 20,000 aircrew a year and this number ramps up in later years
The difference being that the earlier 'smaller' plan is actually capable of quite significantly increasing the number of pilots available during the summer of 1940 - placing far less strain on individual pilots they now being the 'not so few' in TTL.
The issue with using .50 cal is the weight
They are about 3x the weight of a Browning mk2 - the ammo is again several time heavier and the guns had about half the ROF as the MK2
At the same time the FFL and FFS series of 20mm cannon are about the same weight as the Browning .50 and significantly more destructive.
Had the British gone for their own version of the FFS in the late 30s they might very well have developed an improved and lighter belt fed version by 1940
Leigh-Mallory was an Air Vice-Marshall, not a pilot. He was also an egotistical, backstabbing bugger who's insistence on big-wing tactics meant that the pilots under his command continually failed to do anything really helpful. On the other side of the scale, you have Quintin Brand, Air Vice-Marshall on No. 10 Group, who was perfectly happy to have his squadrons help out when called on.How many fighter pilots have you met?
Honestly, kick Trafford Leigh-Mallory into some other role (army support maybe), move Brand up to No. 12 Group, and find someone else for No. 10 group, and Britain will do markedly better with no new equipment at all.
One of the early pioneers of 'crash boats' was a chap in the RAF called T E Shaw who in 1931 had witnessed a downed crew drown before the nearest launch could reach them in time
He worked with the British Power boat company to develop a 'reliable' high speed crash boat capable of rapidly reaching pilots who had enjoyed an unplanned return to earth but instead had ended in the sea.
His documentation formed the basis of all the WW2 work on Air Sea Rescue boats
Shaw is better know by his real name T E Lawrence
Have him not famously die in a motor bike crash in Devon in 1935 and perhaps he does more to develop Air Sea Rescue before the war
Or even from gladiator to spits. There was one squadron using gladiators through the battle of Britain.