So seven extra long range fighter squadrons of Henleys and therefore seven more squadrons of Blenheim's instead of the "odds and sods' at the foot of the on charge list! in 1940 that would be useful.
WI: Hawker Henley as a viable combat aircraft?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
For what its worth the Main Force of Fighter Command had 35 fighter squadrons and one communications squadron at the outbreak of World War II as follows:
No. 22 (Army Co-operation) Group, RAF Fighter Command had 13 squadrons as follows:
There were another 4 fighter squadrons and 6 army co-operation squadrons in the overseas commands as follows:
The first thing the RAF did when World War II was declared was to downgrade 20 of the 55 squadrons in Bomber Command to Group Pool and Reserve squadrons. The second thing it did was to form 18 fighter squadrons in October 1939. This increased the total in the UK and France from 39 to 57, which was the number required in the 1939 version of the Ideal Plan. Most had to be formed on Blenheims, but by the Spring of 1940 most had converted to Hurricanes and Spitfires.
I think 200 extra Hurricanes would have been a better investment than the 200 Henleys and I would have used them to accelerate the re-equipment of Fighter Command with monoplane fighters.
However, if I had to use the Henley in combat I would use them to re-equip the 5 Lysander squadrons of No. 22 Group that went to France and formed part of the Air Component, British Expeditionary Force (ACBEF).
10 Spitfires
12 Hurricanes
7 Blenhiem Mk IF
3 Gladiators - these squadrons converted to Hurricanes between November 1939 and May 1940
1 Gauntlet - this squadron converted to Spitfires in October 1939
2 Hind - these were AuxAF light bomber squadrons transferred from Bomber to Fighter Command and were converted to Spitfires in September and October 1939
1 communications squadron (No. 24)
12 Hurricanes
7 Blenhiem Mk IF
3 Gladiators - these squadrons converted to Hurricanes between November 1939 and May 1940
1 Gauntlet - this squadron converted to Spitfires in October 1939
2 Hind - these were AuxAF light bomber squadrons transferred from Bomber to Fighter Command and were converted to Spitfires in September and October 1939
1 communications squadron (No. 24)
No. 22 (Army Co-operation) Group, RAF Fighter Command had 13 squadrons as follows:
4 Hurricanes
2 Blenheim Mk IV strategic reconnaissance squadrons
5 Lysanders
2 Hind - these were AuxAF light bomber squadrons transferred from Bomber to Fighter Command between November 1939 and April 1940
2 Blenheim Mk IV strategic reconnaissance squadrons
5 Lysanders
2 Hind - these were AuxAF light bomber squadrons transferred from Bomber to Fighter Command between November 1939 and April 1940
There were another 4 fighter squadrons and 6 army co-operation squadrons in the overseas commands as follows:
4 Gladiators - 3 in Egypt and one in Aden - The Royal Egyptian Air Force also had a squadron of Gladiators
2 Lysanders - both in the Middle East
2 Audax - in India
2 Wapiti - in India and IIRC No. 1 Squadron, Indian Air Force also had Wapitis.
2 Lysanders - both in the Middle East
2 Audax - in India
2 Wapiti - in India and IIRC No. 1 Squadron, Indian Air Force also had Wapitis.
The first thing the RAF did when World War II was declared was to downgrade 20 of the 55 squadrons in Bomber Command to Group Pool and Reserve squadrons. The second thing it did was to form 18 fighter squadrons in October 1939. This increased the total in the UK and France from 39 to 57, which was the number required in the 1939 version of the Ideal Plan. Most had to be formed on Blenheims, but by the Spring of 1940 most had converted to Hurricanes and Spitfires.
I think 200 extra Hurricanes would have been a better investment than the 200 Henleys and I would have used them to accelerate the re-equipment of Fighter Command with monoplane fighters.
However, if I had to use the Henley in combat I would use them to re-equip the 5 Lysander squadrons of No. 22 Group that went to France and formed part of the Air Component, British Expeditionary Force (ACBEF).
The AACU and Royal Navy still had a need for high speed target tugs and air fighting training also needed them to train pilots and gunners. What will fill that need without Henleys? Historically the Defiant eventually replaced the Henleys. Battles and Rocs could do for some of the task but are still too slow with a drogue behind for some tasks.
The issue with the lysander is its job is artillery observation and army cooperation ( not CAS) so there is the reasonable requirement for the airfield to be within a mile of a Div HQ and to move with it.
As early as 1928 the RAF manuals are quite clear that the best means of conducting low flying attacks is through a fast singe engine fighter and 2 man aircraft should only be used in dire emergency.
The 1937 manual on army cooperation rather plaintively states that the composition of the army cooperation force is dependent on what the ARMY intends to do, and seeing as the army had not made up its mind until 37 that eaves little time to design aircraft.
And anything will be against the overriding RAF consideration that the first thing you do is achieve air superiority. For all the Bomber Barons mythology Portal pre war stated that the missions of the RAF were air defence, Imperial Policing, and army support in the event of a major war. the War Office in 39 says its requirements are attacks on armoured columns, reinforcements and disruption of mobilisation arrangements.
The Henley or any other light bomber is essentially a dead end in RAF terms as soon as any choice has to be made. The choice will always be a bomber capable of a strategic or deep role or a fighter. Short ranged bombers don’t figure. A Whitley or a Wellington or a Hampden can do what a dedicated light bomber can do short of low level attacks. A Fighter can do the low level attacks.
Battle as a concept arises out of the Geneva disarmament talks (banning heavy bombers) in an effort to keep a strategic component when multi engine aircraft are banned. But when rearmament comes along its ready to build. And suffers the same fate of any 200 mph aircraft faced with 300mph fighters. If you can intercept its meat on the table.
As early as 1928 the RAF manuals are quite clear that the best means of conducting low flying attacks is through a fast singe engine fighter and 2 man aircraft should only be used in dire emergency.
The 1937 manual on army cooperation rather plaintively states that the composition of the army cooperation force is dependent on what the ARMY intends to do, and seeing as the army had not made up its mind until 37 that eaves little time to design aircraft.
And anything will be against the overriding RAF consideration that the first thing you do is achieve air superiority. For all the Bomber Barons mythology Portal pre war stated that the missions of the RAF were air defence, Imperial Policing, and army support in the event of a major war. the War Office in 39 says its requirements are attacks on armoured columns, reinforcements and disruption of mobilisation arrangements.
The Henley or any other light bomber is essentially a dead end in RAF terms as soon as any choice has to be made. The choice will always be a bomber capable of a strategic or deep role or a fighter. Short ranged bombers don’t figure. A Whitley or a Wellington or a Hampden can do what a dedicated light bomber can do short of low level attacks. A Fighter can do the low level attacks.
Battle as a concept arises out of the Geneva disarmament talks (banning heavy bombers) in an effort to keep a strategic component when multi engine aircraft are banned. But when rearmament comes along its ready to build. And suffers the same fate of any 200 mph aircraft faced with 300mph fighters. If you can intercept its meat on the table.
To finish this off. Sorry for hijacking the thread, but you did ask.
My idea of building more Spitfires instead of the Defiant, Lysander and Whirlwind, with more Hurricanes instead of the Gladiator and Henley is part of my alternative RAF 1919-39 scenario.
RAF Fighter Command would still have a main force of 36 squadrons, but they would be equipped as follows:
17 Spitifre squadrons (instead of 10)
8 Hurricane squadrons (instead of 12)
7 Blenheim IF squadrons or something better
1 Gauntlet squadron as OTL
2 Hind squadrons about to re-equip with Spitfires
1 communications squadron
8 Hurricane squadrons (instead of 12)
7 Blenheim IF squadrons or something better
1 Gauntlet squadron as OTL
2 Hind squadrons about to re-equip with Spitfires
1 communications squadron
No. 22 (Army Co-operation) Group, RAF Fighter Command, would still have 15 squadrons, instead of 13 and they would be equipped as follows:
4 Hurricane fighter squadrons as OTL
5 Hurricane fighter-bomber squadrons as OTL
4 Hind instead of 2 and operating in the fighter-bomber role, rather than the army co-operation role, to be re-equipped with Hurricanes ASAP
2 Blenheim Mk IV or something better in the reconnaissance role
5 Hurricane fighter-bomber squadrons as OTL
4 Hind instead of 2 and operating in the fighter-bomber role, rather than the army co-operation role, to be re-equipped with Hurricanes ASAP
2 Blenheim Mk IV or something better in the reconnaissance role
The increase from 13 to 15 squadrons was due to the requirement was for one fighter-bomber squadron for the 9 divisions that formed the first and second echelons of the British Expeditionary Force. More fighter-bomber squadrons were to be formed for the 8 divisions in the third and fourth echelons on mobilisation.
In addition to the 13 squadrons there were also 9 flights of Austers for air observation post and light liaison duties, again on the basis of one flight for each of the 9 divisions in the first and second echelons of the BEF and 8 more would be formed on mobilisation for the third and fourth echelons of the BEF.
There were still 10 fighter and army co-operation squadrons overseas, but the mix of equipment would be different:
4 Hurricane fighter squadrons in the Egypt and Aden instead of the Gladiators
2 Hurricane fighter-bomber squadrons in the Middle East instead of the Lysanders
2 Audax squadrons in India as OTL
2 Wapiti squadrons in India as OTL
2 Hurricane fighter-bomber squadrons in the Middle East instead of the Lysanders
2 Audax squadrons in India as OTL
2 Wapiti squadrons in India as OTL
The total number of fighters was the same
31 Hawker Fury Mk I
62 Hawker Fury Mk II
54 Hawker Demon - not included in the post on OTL fighters
145 Gloster Gauntlet
527 Supermarine Spitfire
842 Hawker Hurricane
111 BristolBlenheim IF or something better - not included in the post on OTL fighters
62 Hawker Fury Mk II
54 Hawker Demon - not included in the post on OTL fighters
145 Gloster Gauntlet
527 Supermarine Spitfire
842 Hawker Hurricane
111 BristolBlenheim IF or something better - not included in the post on OTL fighters
1,772 Total - in the post on OTL fighters the total was 1,607, but that did not include the Gauntlet and Blenheim
Actually that might not be true because ordering pre-production batches of Spitfires instead of the Stranraer flying boat and Hurricanes from Hawker instead of Gladiators from Gloster in 1935 might have helped both firms complete the orders for 310 Spitfires and 600 Hurricanes placed in 1936 on schedule in March 1939 instead of September and October 1939 respectively and both firms would be working on follow up contracts when war was declared. However, I haven't allowed for that. Similarly Gloster built fewer aircraft in 1938 that it did in 1937 and 1939 IOTL, but output in 1938 would have been the same or more than 1937 ITTL, but I haven't allowed for that either.
I haven't used the 122 extra Hurricanes on charge instead of the Henley to form any extra squadrons or re-equip some of the squadrons that still had biplanes. They would have been used to form more Group Pools in Fighter Command, which were the forerunners of the Operational Training Units or exported to countries like Belgium to strengthen their air defences.
Yikes thats a plane only its designer could love. The cockpit canopy looks like it was thrown together on a Friday afternoon by a cowboy builder.
I like to think it was made from parts from some old French bomber that was lying around, probably on a saturday. That's why I usually prefer to sub a Dauntless canopy for my doodles.
The problem with this is that in 1939 they were still working out how to mass produce the Spitfire, or rather it's wing. For this to be a credible option you need to solve that problem early.
Indeed. There is a book called Dogfight, the Supermarine Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf-109 which chronicles this adventure, including the threat to cancel the Spit altogether for the Beaufighter and Tornado/Typhoon which are right around the corner, they thought.
In spite of that more Spitfires were built than Lysanders to September 1939.
The prototypes of the Spitfire and Lysander were both build to specifications issued in 1934, i.e. F.37/34 and A.4/34 respectively. The first production contracts were placed in June 1936 for 310 Spitfires and the first contract for 144 Lysanders was not placed until September 1936. Admittedly the first Lysander squadron was formed in May 1938 and the first Spitfire squadron wasn't formed until August 1938. But Supermarine more than caught up over the next 12 months.
Furthermore earlier in the thread I had a pre-production batch of Spitfires ordered in August 1935 instead of the Stranraer flying boats and the point of that was to work out the problems of building a Spitfire.
However, for the sake of further argument Westland builds 1,372 Hurricanes to January 1942 instead of 1,372 Lysanders, which changes the situation at the outbreak of World War II to:
RAF Fighter Command would still have a main force of 36 squadrons, but they would be equipped as follows:
10 Spitifre squadrons as OTL
15 Hurricane squadrons (instead of 12)
7 Blenheim IF squadrons or something better
1 Gauntlet squadron as OTL
2 Hind squadrons about to re-equip with Spitfires
1 communications squadron
15 Hurricane squadrons (instead of 12)
7 Blenheim IF squadrons or something better
1 Gauntlet squadron as OTL
2 Hind squadrons about to re-equip with Spitfires
1 communications squadron
No. 22 (Army Co-operation) Group, RAF Fighter Command, would still have 15 squadrons, instead of 13 and they would be equipped as follows:
4 Hurricane fighter squadrons as OTL
5 Hurricane fighter-bomber squadrons as OTL
4 Hind instead of 2 and operating in the fighter-bomber role, rather than the army co-operation role, to be re-equipped with Hurricanes ASAP
2 Blenheim Mk IV or something better in the reconnaissance role
5 Hurricane fighter-bomber squadrons as OTL
4 Hind instead of 2 and operating in the fighter-bomber role, rather than the army co-operation role, to be re-equipped with Hurricanes ASAP
2 Blenheim Mk IV or something better in the reconnaissance role
The increase from 13 to 15 squadrons was due to the requirement was for one fighter-bomber squadron for the 9 divisions that formed the first and second echelons of the British Expeditionary Force. More fighter-bomber squadrons were to be formed for the 8 divisions in the third and fourth echelons on mobilisation.
In addition to the 13 squadrons there were also 9 flights of Austers for air observation post and light liaison duties, again on the basis of one flight for each of the 9 divisions in the first and second echelons of the BEF and 8 more would be formed on mobilisation for the third and fourth echelons of the BEF.
There were still 10 fighter and army co-operation squadrons overseas, but the mix of equipment would be different:
4 Hurricane fighter squadrons in the Egypt and Aden instead of the Gladiators
2 Hurricane fighter-bomber squadrons in the Middle East instead of the Lysanders
2 Audax squadrons in India as OTL
2 Wapiti squadrons in India as OTL
2 Hurricane fighter-bomber squadrons in the Middle East instead of the Lysanders
2 Audax squadrons in India as OTL
2 Wapiti squadrons in India as OTL
The total number of fighters was the same
31 Hawker Fury Mk I
62 Hawker Fury Mk II
54 Hawker Demon - not included in the post on OTL fighters
145 Gloster Gauntlet
270 Supermarine Spitfire
1,099 Hawker Hurricane (400 OTL plus 122 vice the Henley, 320 vice the Gladiator and 257 vice the Lysander)
111 BristolBlenheim IF or something better - not included in the post on OTL fighters
62 Hawker Fury Mk II
54 Hawker Demon - not included in the post on OTL fighters
145 Gloster Gauntlet
270 Supermarine Spitfire
1,099 Hawker Hurricane (400 OTL plus 122 vice the Henley, 320 vice the Gladiator and 257 vice the Lysander)
111 BristolBlenheim IF or something better - not included in the post on OTL fighters
1,772 Total - in the post on OTL fighters the total was 1,607, but that did not include the Gauntlet and Blenheim
Actually that might not be true because ordering pre-production batches of Spitfires instead of the Stranraer flying boat and Hurricanes from Hawker instead of Gladiators from Gloster in 1935 might have helped both firms complete the orders for 310 Spitfires and 600 Hurricanes placed in 1936 on schedule in March 1939 instead of September and October 1939 respectively and both firms would be working on follow up contracts when war was declared. However, I haven't allowed for that. Similarly Gloster built fewer aircraft in 1938 that it did in 1937 and 1939 IOTL, but output in 1938 would have been the same or more than 1937 ITTL, but I haven't allowed for that either.
I haven't used the 122 extra Hurricanes on charge instead of the Henley to form any extra squadrons or re-equip some of the squadrons that still had biplanes. They would have been used to form more Group Pools in Fighter Command, which were the forerunners of the Operational Training Units or exported to countries like Belgium to strengthen their air defences.
Interesting - but it's the last line that I would change things, the Gloster single-engine needs to fly earlier, and becomes a viable complement to the Hurricane, with Mk II powered by the Pelides Major. Many foreign customers for the Glad., will switch over to it - especially those with a manufacturing licence for the Mercury. The Gloster twin - is easier to get earlier, its antecedent for the Defiant won spec. is used as a template for a back up the Whirlwind spec. e.g. two x 20mm cannon & four 0.303" mgs - it quickly replaces the Blenheim 1f.
'What about the Hurricanes Gloster produced' you ask - 'no problem' the Austin Shadow factory is making those instead of Battles.
The questions for me regarding the Henley, and assuming for the moment we think it's a good thing that it should have had its chance, should it have been ordered as per the original spec., for the RAF (and perhaps the FAA), or at the outbreak when what the RAF had was being re-evaluated - that they were re-configured for active service, or even after the debacle of France they were then converted just in case of invasion - then sent to North Africa.
The Gloster F.5/34 (G.38) prototypes were built in 1937 and 1938 respectively. The Gloster F.9/37 (G.39) prototypes were built in 1939 and 1940 respectively.
AFAIK the antecedence of the G.39 went back to Specification F.5/33 to which Gloster submitted a two-seat aircraft with 2 Bristol Aquila engines. However, it lost out to the Armstrong Whitworth A.W.34 powered by 2 AS Terrier engines, but the prototype was cancelled before it could fly. Work on the Gloster F.5/33 was used for the twin-engine two-seat fighter that the Air Ministry ordered one prototype of to Specification F.34/35. However, as you wrote development was abandoned when the Defiant was built to Specification F.9/35.
One of the things I am playing about with for my alternative RAF is for a Mercury powered version of the Gloster P.39 to be ordered to Spec. F.5/33 in place of the A.W.34 and for the aircraft to make its first flight in 1935. A second prototype with Taurus engines would be ordered instead of the OTL F.34/35 with one Merlin and one Hercules powered prototype following to F.9/35. However, at present I'm going to have it ordered into production as a light bomber in 1935 as part of my ALT Expansion Scheme C instead of the Battle and Blenheim, rather than a fighter, but fighter versions would follow. If it had enough development potential it would also be used as a torpedo bomber instead of the Beaufort and a night-fighter and torpedo bomber instead of the Beaufighter. However, I'm also considering a twin Merlin version of the Battle instead of the OTL Battle.
Though Austin did built 300 Hurricanes IOTL, which AFAIK was between it finishing Battle production and starting the Stirling.
IOTL the Hawker Hurricane was built to a 1934 specification (F.5/34 via F.36/34) and so was the Henley (P.4/34), but the former made its first flight on 6th November 1935 and the latter didn't fly until 10th March 1937. Meanwhile the maligned Fairey Battle built to a 1932 specification (P.27/32) made its first flight on 10th March 1936 and it entered service in May 1937.
If someone could provide the necessary jiggery pokery to move the first flight date for the Henley forward at least one year then its possible to have a one-ton-one substitution of the Battle with the Henley and Bomber Command has 15 Henley squadrons (10 operational and 5 training) at the start of World War Two.
To do that a change in RAF doctrine is probably required.
The 52-Squadron scheme of 1923 provided for a UK based bomber force of 35 squadrons (15 twin-engine night bombers and 20 single-engine day bombers) to be completed by March 1928. However, the completion date was put back several times so that by March 1933 only 28 bomber squadrons had been formed (8 heavy, one medium and 19 light) and the 7 squadrons required to complete the scheme were not due to be formed until March 1938.
As the RAF expanded during the course of the 1930s the proportion of heavy bombers was increased at the expense of light bombers as follows:
- Expansion Scheme A of 1935 was for 43 bomber squadrons (8 heavy, 8 medium and 25 light) by March 1939
- Expansion Scheme C of 1935 was for 70 bomber squadrons (20 heavy, 20 medium and 30 light) by March 1937
- Expansion Scheme F of 1936 was for 70 bomber squadrons (20 heavy and 50 medium) by March 1939
- Expansion Scheme L of 1938 was for 73 bomber squadrons (47 heavy and 26 medium) by March 1940
- Expansion Scheme M of 1928 was for 85 bomber squadrons (all heavy) by March 1942
One of the reasons why there were so many light bomber squadrons initially was that one of the jobs of the domestic bomber force was to act as a reserve for imperial defence and light bombers were thought to be the best type for overseas reinforcement. I can't provide a definitive reason for the elimination of light and then medium bombers in Bomber Command. However, it could have been that the expansion of the overseas commands might have meant that fewer squadrons were needed in reserve at home and that as more money became available the single-engine bombers overseas were replaced by twin engine-bombers anyway.
Meanwhile the RAF used modified light bombers for army co-operation e.g. the Hawker Audax and Hector which were AC versions of the Hawker Hart light bomber. Then in 1934 it issued specification A.39/34 for a specialised army co-operation aircraft that was won by Westland with the Lysander. Experience in the Battle of France revealed that this was a big mistake and the army co-operation squadrons were re-equipped with Curtiss Hawks ordered by France and delivered to the UK ASAP. The air observation post and light liaison roles were assumed by British Taylorcraft Auster light aircraft.
The change in doctrine has to be between 1934 and 1936
ITTL the Air Staff does not issue Specification A.39/34 because it decides to replace the army co-operation squadrons with the winner of P.4/34, which as IOTL was won by the Hawker Henley, but production was subcontracted to Westland which built them instead of the OTL Lysanders which coincidentally built the Lysander's immediate predecessor the Hawker Hector too.
An initial order for 155 Henley light bombers (to be built by Fairey) was placed in 1935. A year later the Air Ministry decided that Fairey and Austin would build enough Henley's to equip 30 light bomber squadrons in the Metropolitan Air Force as part of Expansion Scheme F in place of the 26 Battle squadrons and 4 of the Blenheim squadrons planned IOTL. Combined with the 11 army co-operation squadrons equipped with Westland built Henleys the plan in June 1936 was to have a total of 41 Henley squadrons in the UK at the end of March 1939.
The actual situation in September 1939 would have been 1,271 Henleys on charge instead of 1,014 Battles and 257 Lysanders. The Henley would equip 22 squadrons (15 Bomber Command, 5 No. 22 (AC) Group and 2 overseas). As the 22 squadrons required 264 aircraft there would be enough surplus machines to relieve the Gloster built Henleys in the target towing role. This was just as well because I think more Hurricanes would have been ordered from Gloster to accelerate the conversion of the fighter squadrons from biplanes to monoplanes.
However, I still think that Hurricanes operating in the fighter-bomber role instead of the Battle, Henley and Lysander were the best solution. That requires a change of doctrine in about 1934 where the RAF decides to replace its biplane light bombers and army co-operation aircraft with fighter-bombers.
Last edited:
Some interesting ideas I had not come across or thought about before.
However, the construction method for the Wellington is unique, OTL they tried without success. I'd go to B.12/36 - here the Vickers and Bolton-Paul designs were initially placed first and second, only after lobbying did Supermarine get re-considered. Stick, with the initial preference, cancel the Warwick (though maybe the name is used for the four-engine aircraft), with the B-P design changing from Kestrels to Merlins. The Stirling doesn't exist, more Sunderlands & Bombays are built, with Short's design team focusing on a new very-long range flying boat.
With the Government delaying the heavy-bomber programme because of the cost, and focussing on the fighters, the Air Ministry shoe-horns the Henley back in under the guise of a long-range fighter-bomber, and also orders another of the P.13/36 designs the Bristol being the smallest under the cover of being a medium bomber replacement - it replaces the Hampden, Blenheim and Botha.
I was surprised just how many Lysanders there were, IMHO maybe stretching it a bit to get the Henley instead of the Lysander, but certainly get less of them - within an expanded Army Co-operation Command - T L-M in command?
Hmm. The Hampden is certainly slower than the Beaufort but not by a huge margin and can carry twice the bomb load even if only the same one torpedo. Maybe we can get rid of those Vildebeests too? Henleys are better than Lysanders but one keeps coming back to the Henley being too much aeroplane to carry a Hurricane's load. If we can wean Vickers off geodesic construction then they can build something that will then give them factories and a workforce that can build Lancasters later on. Personally I prefer the Whitley to the Wellington. Carries more further even if a bit slower. As IOTL they can go on to make Lancasters later too. If we have GR Wellingtons then why not double them up as torpedo bombers? They can carry two of them after all. Whilst thinking out loud, maybe the Bombay/Harrow could fill the DC3 task. Not that much slower and better able to get into small fields. Maybe then replaced by an earlier Bristol Freighter?
The Hampden was used as a torpedo-bomber later in the war, which is why I substituted it for the Beaufort. Handley Page did propose improved Hampdens with Hercules engines. According to the Puntams on Handley Page Tedder liked them but he wanted the maximum number of Halifaxes. The main purpose of building a TB Hampden instead of the Beaufort was that the Hampden is to have something better than the Vildebeest in service in September 1939. IOTL the Hampden prototype flew in June 1936 and the Beaufort prototype did not fly until August 1938. IIRC Beaufort deliveries were to have begun in April 1939, but none had been delivered before war was declared. ITTL I think that enough Bristol built TB Hampdens would have been delivered by September 1939 to equip all 5 Vildbeest squadrons (2 Coastal Command, 2 Singapore and one Ceylon).
More Whitley's instead of the Wellington is an interesting idea, but IIRC it was more expensive. As it happens one of the Vickers factories did build a few hundred Lancasters. However, the reason we got over 11,000 Wellingtons in the first place was due to the failure of the Warwick, which in turn was due to the problems with its engines. I think that if it had been designed around 4 Hercules or 4 Merlin engines from the start the Wellington would have been built in similar numbers to the Hampden and thousands more Quad Warwicks would have been built instead.
The main reason for more Wellingtons in place of the Botha is the same as substituting more Hampdens for the Beaufort - earlier deliveries. The Wellington prototype flew in June 1936 and the first flight of the Botha wasn't until December 1938. Only 2 Bothas (and 78 Hudsons) were on charge with the RAF at the outbreak of World War II. I think enough Blackburn built Wellingtons would have been delivered by September 1939 to equip all 11 landplane GR squadrons in Coastal Command. Additional Blackburn built GR Wellingtons would have been built in place of the first 200 Hudsons saving Dollars.
Having Bristol making Hampdens, and Blackburn making Welligntons is a great thing. Wellighton's 'upgradeability', when it received Hercules engines, meant it could cruise as fast as the Whitley (one with Merlins) was on max speed. Though, Whitley with Merlin XX might also be a good bomber, as could the Hampden.
The next bomber by Vickers with 4 engines is also a great thing.
The next bomber by Vickers with 4 engines is also a great thing.
So you're using extra Wellingtons to replace Coastal Commands Anson then, which was the role the Hudson was designed for. That butterflies the Hudson completely as Lockheed now have no reason to convert the Electra pre war. I'm assuming though that the Anson remains in production as a trainer otherwise there is a huge hole in the RAF's training fleet
Having Blackburn make anything but the Botha would be a good thing. One could only wonder why it was so necessary in OTL. (as was the Saro Lerwick) It was crap as built and tested, and they knew it, yet it entered service. Wellingtons were a good thing, but their record of effectiveness as a torpedo dropper is something I'm not aware of. The Hampton's record in torpedo delivery I am aware of. It wasn't good. The Beaufort was good, albeit with heavy losses.
The entire bomber force in 1939 consisted of OTL bombers constructed to a requirement to fit existing airfields, which meant that the Hampton had wings too thick, the Whitley had wings too thick and set at a ridiculous angle of incidence, and the Stirling looked ridiculous on those long undercarriage legs. Better airfields and relaxed short grass field requirements would mean better bombers.
Vickers did make a 4 engine bomber. Winkle Brown flew it. The Warwick, as it was, was truly the limit for the construction method.