"Sanity options" 2.0 - RAF, 1935-43

[tomo pauk]

We have had a lots of good discussions about the sanity options, years ago, for different organizations. Mostly dealing with the build-up towards the ww2 and the ww2 itself.
So here is another take, starting with the everyone's favorite air force
This should deal with changes/improvements of strategy, tactics, manpower, logistics, and technicalities. Feel free to give the free reign for Army's and Navy's all-aircraft needs; also siphon the LR MP aircraft to the RN once it is evident that RAF has a lot on it's plate.
Take out the trash (= what was proven to be a bad use, or outright waste of time and resources), prop up the good stuff. Copy (whether via licence or without) what foreigners are doing well, and do it fast - money can be earned again, time and human lives not so much.

Discussing the alternative gear for the Army cooperation needs is also okay in this thread, but RN/FAA are really worthy of their own thread.

 

[tomo pauk]

To start the ball rolling: a bit more ambitious Blenheim. A tad bigger fuselage and wings, Pegaus engines instead of Mercury, 2000 lb of bombs initially (not that far-fetched, Finnish Blenheims were carrying almost that weight of bombs), also a bathtub for a gunner to cover the aft low sector. 2000 lb bomb load allows for a torpedo to be carried, too

Definitely not a fast bomber (not that Blenheim was that, anyway), but surely more bang for the buck. For daylight operation, it will require escort - and that requires a major shift in RAF's doctrine.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

To start the ball rolling: a bit more ambitious Blenheim. A tad bigger fuselage and wings, Pegaus engines instead of Mercury, 2000 lb of bombs initially (not that far-fetched, Finnish Blenheims were carrying almost that weight of bombs), also a bathtub for a gunner to cover the aft low sector. 2000 lb bomb load allows for a torpedo to be carried, too

Definitely not a fast bomber (not that Blenheim was that, anyway), but surely more bang for the buck. For daylight operation, it will require escort - and that requires a major shift in RAF's doctrine.

That sounds like you're reinventing the Hampden, but putting it into service about 18 months earlier.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

To start the ball rolling: a bit more ambitious Blenheim. A tad bigger fuselage and wings, Pegaus engines instead of Mercury, 2000 lb of bombs initially (not that far-fetched, Finnish Blenheims were carrying almost that weight of bombs), also a bathtub for a gunner to cover the aft low sector. 2000 lb bomb load allows for a torpedo to be carried, too

Definitely not a fast bomber (not that Blenheim was that, anyway), but surely more bang for the buck. For daylight operation, it will require escort - and that requires a major shift in RAF's doctrine.

In other words a slightly less capable Beaufort entering service in 1937. A turretless night fighter should also have a priority.

For the escort design a version of the Whirlwind with the Bristol Taurus as an insurance against the failure of the Peregrine. (This was done with the competing Gloster Reaper) It will also need drop tanks.

 

[tomo pauk]

That sounds like you're reinventing the Hampden, but putting it into service about 18 months earlier.

Also removes the need for the separate designs like the Botha and Beaufort.

As a counterpart to the bombtruck, a fast 2-engined bomber powered by V12 engines is also needed - we can't count on RAF FC support 100% to be available, after all.

In other words a slightly less capable Beaufort entering service in 1937. A turretless night fighter should also have a priority.

A slightly more capable Beaufort.

For the escort design a version of the Whirlwind with the Bristol Taurus as an insurance against the failure of the Peregrine. (This was done with the competing Gloster Reaper) It will also need drop tanks.

Do we want that RR makes a single Peregrine, and/or that Bristol makes a single Taurus?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Do we want that RR makes a single Peregrine, and/or that Bristol makes a single Taurus?

True, it would be better that those resources went into advancing development of the Merlin, Griffon and Hercules.

 

[tomo pauk]

Would it be too much of a stretch to expect earlier/better/more mature results in the field of jet engines if they get more support and funding?

 

[jlckansas]

Look at what bomber are obsolescent and obsolete bombers could be used with Coastal Command for Uboat searches. There was an institutional memory of needing air search for them from WW1 in the RN and the different ministries that might push the RAF into making some available earlier. Trying to find out what might work sooner than later for ASW and surface search to help there be some protection from surface and Uboat raiders.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As a counterpart to the bombtruck, a fast 2-engined bomber powered by V12 engines is also needed - we can't count on RAF FC support 100% to be available, after all.

I nominate the Twin Battle that was proposed IOTL. You have enough time to get it into service at the same time as the Single Battle and for Rolls Royce to create the extra production capacity needed to make the extra Merlin engines.

As a bonus it should be a better night fighter than the converted Blenheims & Defiants and might be better night fighter than the Beaufighter.

Or did the UK have the technology to develop the Mosquito 4 years earlier?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Also removes the need for the separate designs like the Botha and Beaufort.

Have you been reading my old posts about the OTL proposal for a TB/GR version of the Hampden that I think should have been built in place of the Botha? I usually suggest a TB version of the Twin Battle instead of the Beaufort.

 

[tomo pauk]

Or did the UK have the technology to develop the Mosquito 4 years earlier?

Technology required, IMO:
- engines (Merlin of 1938 is not as good as that of 1942, but it is still the best bet)
- aerodynamics (DH were probably top crop in the UK, if not in the world - cue Albatros or pre-war Comet - both in shape and execution)
- materials (again the two aircraft above as a guidance)

All of this put together can probably give a bomber that is a bit faster than the Bf 110C, as a contemporary ballpark for 1938/39?

Have you been reading my old posts about the OTL proposal for a TB/GR version of the Hampden that I think should have been built in place of the Botha? I usually suggest a TB version of the Twin Battle instead of the Beaufort.

I like the Hampden in that role.
We'd probably want Merlins to power something where speed is priority number one?

 

[timjusttim]

As soon as the Hurricane flies its becomes apparent that the Gladiator is obsolete (performance and firepower are both inferior to the Hurricane) all future orders are cancelled and Gloucester switch to producing Hurricanes. Can we get the universal wing in production earlier?

 

[tomo pauk]

Beyond materiel, some things will probably need to change/improve:
- firm separation between the role of BC and FC, that precludes effective cooperation within the RAF
- offensive fighters can work (meaning the drop tanks are introduced before ww2)
- let Army have their aircraft, don't came out with a the requirement for an do-all aircraft that (= Lysander) ended up unfit to do combat, too big and expensive as an artillery spotter, and too restrictive as a transport A/C
- turret fighter concept has to go
- don't saddle the RAF to do long-range marine patrol job above North Atlantic
- while a bomber will always get through, it will take much more to actually harm Germany, just as the UK was not harmed in a major way by the zeppelins and Gothas that gotten through back in the Great War

 

[Driftless]

Of the existing planes (as a starting point), which are the best suited for the Long Range Maritime Patrol role? What alterations would be needed to make them better for that purpose?

 

[tomo pauk]

Of the existing planes (as a starting point), which are the best suited for the Long Range Maritime Patrol role? What alterations would be needed to make them better for that purpose?

We'd probably want something powered with 4 engines (will require some strong-arming of the RAF/AM brass)?
Out of the civilian aircraft that might be converted for the job, there is the DH Albatros and A-W Ensign (have those two being motorized by other engines - perhaps Mercury for Albatros and Pegasus for Ensign?). Out of the military aircraft, Short Stirling was least capable among the modern 4-engined types, perhaps have it siphoned to the Coastal Command?
Two-engined A/C as more easily available - Wellington is probably the most capable as a bomber, so perhaps choose the Whitley (it was rangiest). Again avoid the Tiger engines. Big Blenheim as suggested above?

 

[hammo1j]

Isn't the standard answer to a RAF wank: give Whittle what he wants?

Still good to see another thread and I always enjoy the answers...

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

Earlier/ more funded RDF development and deployment seems like an obvious avenue for improvements. More trained operators, fewer weird kludges to keep stations running in the field, and ideally an earlier Airborne Interception set to make night fighters viable before the Blitz begins would all offer big improvements, not to mention the ability to deploy sets more widely and earlier than OTL outside the British Isles.

The Hawker Henley also seems like a big missed opportunity- either invest more into getting a whole dive bombing compatible ground attack system set up to use them as a Stuka-equivalent, or don't build them and just buy more Hurricanes (which can still be converted to ground attack, after all- perhaps an earlier Hurricane Mark IID to offer at least a psychological threat to Panzer drivers during the Battle of France?)

And, of course, there's the ever-classic option for these threads: investment to get a working belt-fed 20mm cannon (either Hispano-Suiza or Oerlikon, or even some third option) prior to the outbreak of war, or at least the Battle of Britain.

 

[Driftless]

(snip)

The Hawker Henley also seems like a big missed opportunity- either invest more into getting a whole dive bombing compatible ground attack system set up to use them as a Stuka-equivalent, or don't build them and just buy more Hurricanes (which can still be converted to ground attack, after all- perhaps an earlier Hurricane Mark IID to offer at least a psychological threat to Panzer drivers during the Battle of France?)

And, of course, there's the ever-classic option for these threads: investment to get a working belt-fed 20mm cannon (either Hispano-Suiza or Oerlikon, or even some third option) prior to the outbreak of war, or at least the Battle of Britain.

Taking a cue from the quote above, I know I've read here numerous times that the RAF brass was not at all keen on the dive bombing/drop-level bombing idea. What PoD would be needed for the Brass to rethink their approach to CAS in the mid to late 30's - whether it's dive bombing, or something else? I understand that the Battle was intended to serve as the light-bomber over the battlefront, but time and technology passed the plane and its purpose by.

The Henley comes up frequently as a missed opportunity for several roles. For a loopy thought, could the Gladiator have been modified to serve as a Henschel 123 CAS counterpart (obsolescent to obsolete tough nut soldiering on very usefully into the early part of the war til parts ran out).

Was the bigger part of the CAS problem for the RAF was the need for a more integrated control and communications set up on the battlefield? Both field personnel and technology for directing CAS traffic.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Or did the UK have the technology to develop the Mosquito 4 years earlier?

De Havilland first proposed it in 1938. Given the historical timeline for it's development it could have been entering service in small numbers at the end of the Battle of France.

 

[steamboy]