Planes for FAA thatwould realy kick some axis a$ (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

QUOTE=tomo pauk;466731]

What about the daylight operations, where FAA planes were involved, like Channel Dash, or many convoy escorts? What about Norway in 1940 and Dunkuerque? The results of FAA crews were second to none in the 1st half of WWII, despite (not because) of the sucky equipment..[/QUOTE]

What about them? In Norway the battle was lost befor it was even begun. And the carriers were used in exactly the way they should have at the time....that is they covered the landings, and the subsequent withdrawals from outside German fighter ranges. There simply was not the strength n numbers for the british carrier groups to go slugging it out with the german airforce. if they had tried there were two possible disasters looming. The first was the potential to lose more carriers than they did lose. These were at the time so precious as to be considered irreplaceable. And at this stage of the war all britain could hope to do was to hang in there and keep her grip on the oceanic approaches to Europe. This in fact was a slow but certain war winning strategy for britain, and to achieve this she needed to keep her carriers afloat.

The second issue about avoiding open conflict with land based German fighters was the pitifully slow rate of replacement in pilots that the British were receiving at this time. In 1939 they "produced" the grand total of 16 carrier trained pilots, for the entire year By 1940, the oputput was about 80 pilots per year. The British methods for pilot training were similar to the Japanese at that time, in that they went for quality over quantity, or perhaps it is better to describe the briit pilots as super specialists rather than elite. It takes time to learn how to land and takeoff in a force 5 gale, it takes time to learn how to hit a pinpoint target that is underway, in conditions of poor visibilityor night.

So with perhaps one or two pilots joining the fleet every month in April 1940, the last thing you want is to open up a doctrine where you have these massive, heroic, and pointless, battles with the Luftwaffe, for whom the loss of 10 or 20 pilots is nothing. For the FAA it was nothing short of a major disaster to lose even 5 pilots....


As far as I know, Brit Carriers were not needed, or used over Dunkerque

The battles for the convoy escorts were all undertaken outside the range of German fighters. The exception to this was malta, where the standard tactic of the Brits was to place their carriers at "point X" (in the case of the western approach route this was a point southwest of Sardinia, which until 1942 had no major airfields, and no germans), and fly cover CAP over the relief convoy. Placing the Carriers with the convoy would have been suicidal, even if they had been equipped with Me 262s, because the numbers of aircraft that the Axis could bring to bear, versus the numbers that could be put up by the Brits (until 1942) was so one sided as to make such a strategy of close escort sheer madness

And your final point about Brit FAA aircrews being second to none in spite of the equipment, misses the reasons about why they were so good?? Because the FAA procurement was managed by the RAF until 1938, and because it was absolutely starved of resources so badly both in terms of the equipment, and in terms of the extremely limited manpower thrown at the FAA, the RN had to develop methods to extract the very best out of the limited resources available to it....enter the stringbag. A supremely docile and forgiving aircraft, able to undertake operations in weather other aircraft could not hope to consider flying oiperations in, the first tactical aircraft in the world to be fitted with ASV radar on an operational scale, she was perfect for the job, not "sucky equipment" as you put it. IMO, no other aircraft in the world could have brought down the Bismarck at that time, and the attacks at matapan and Taranto are worthy of mention for similar reasons.


Your comment about putting Hurricanes to sea, misses the poiints made above and earlier, namely, that in 1940, the hurricane was one of the topline fighters for the RAF, and putting even a few on the carriers is going to cost a lot more in numbers in land based units, because of the development costs, and diversion of funds, to the naval effort. In any event, the conversion of the hurricane could not have begun until after April 1940, because up to that time, the RN did not believe that high performance aircraft in the soupy conditions of the far north atalntic were able to be operated effectively, and were not needed anyway, because pre-war British carrier doctrine emphasised the need to stay out of enemy fighter range. If that was the doctrine (and that was the correct one to adopt, given al the constraints the Brits were labouring under at the time) why put top line fighters on the carriers at a huge expense in land based capability when you dont actually need them????
 
Parsifal, how about starting the new thread that would cover the doctrine, strategy, training and stuff since this thread is about hardware? Thank you :)
 
That is interesting info about FAA air crew and their training. Big contrast between FAA and USN. The pre war USN had a long training syllabus and started to vastly increase the numbers of pilots trained, I believe in 1940. Prewar the pilots were not trained for one specialty, VF,VT,VB or VSB, but rather for all trades.
 
Yes, i know. The USN had the right formula to suit their needs....its not a question of one method being better than the other. In 1939-41, the brits did not have the numbers in either carriers or pilots, to adopt the blue water sea denial strategy that the US was aiming for. Until their own procurement machine gor underway, primarily with Escort Carriers a few Light Carriers, increased deck parks, US aircraft (under lend Lease), the Brits could not undertake the kind of warfare that the US could, and did, from mid 1942 onward. The British did eventually adopt the massed carrier tactics of the USN, as their operations of the norwegian coast, and Sumatra, and later off the coast of Japan clearly demonstrate, but this could only be possible once the procurement issues had been solved....and in part that meant adopting USN mass production methods for its aircrew as well. AFAIK, the RN all but abandoned night strike methods in favour of US style daylight massed raids from the latter part of 1942 until the end of the war.

TP, I apologize for not quite sticking to the letter of your thread, but I just cant see how you can objectively discuss the hardware issue unless the backround to that question is also understood. I am not going to interfere with anyone who simply wants to talk hardware, but wanted to make the point, that procurement is often linked to many issues....
 
It must have been a kick in the ***** for Boulton Paul - their Sea Defiant gets rejected, in favour of the Blackburn Roc - which was obscenely slow (!) yet they had to make it.
Yet, even with land to crash into, a shot down Defiant can't have been any fun for the poor gunner - imagine trying to get out of that turret in the sea.

So alternatives:
First of all replace the Gladiator earlier - either Sea Hurricane, navalised Gloster F.4/34, Gruman Martlet, or perhaps a navalised Boulton Paul P.94 (single-seat Defiant).
Second (without compremising dotrine) supplant/replace the FDB Skua, with the Navalised (Sea) Henley (shouldn't have a problem adding machine guns in the wings).

There already was a replacement TB/DB available, the first Barracuda flew in Dec 1940. The Skua was adequate for the the job in the early war, as the sinking of the German cruiser by DB Skua's in Norway showed.

A navalised Defiant? trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear? To have a good British ship board AC in WW2, Hawker needed to develop the Sea Fury earlier.

The Sea Fury was still years away from development, and Hawker likely had it's hands full with the Typhoon/Tornado project

I read the coments made her and just shake my head.....the best aircraft available the Brits 1939-41 were the swordfish and the Albacore, because they suited the british capabilities of the time completely.

Because the british fielded less than adequate fighters, its only on rare occasions that they ventured their carriers into Axis land based fighter range, by day. One exception was the Formidable in May 1941. another was the Illustrious in January 1941. But as a rule, the british tried as much as possible to keep their Carriers away from Axis Fighters. There simply were not enough fighters on board British carriers for them to challenge axis air superiority in the way suggested in this thread.....

And another exception occurred in Aug of '42, as my Siggy obviously shows... :)

I think Tomo might have a point, if BP did have the Sea Defiant proposal accepted, perhaps they could have had aircraft ready by late 41/early '42. If they had an aircraft with performance similar to the Firefly, they could be used in place of the Swordfish on missions that brought the carriers within range of Axis bombers. The Firefly was an excellent aircraft for the FAA, as it could be used as Fighter/Bomber, and with over a 1,300 mile range, a significant advantage over both the Seafire or Swordfish
 
There already was a replacement TB/DB available, the first Barracuda flew in Dec 1940. The Skua was adequate for the the job in the early war, as the sinking of the German cruiser by DB Skua's in Norway showed.

As we were looking at aircraft for the FAA in the early war years i.e. 39/40, the Barracuda becomes a different aircraft entirely! And as you said it was originally a TB/DB - replace Swordfish Skua. Whereas the Sea Henley would replace the Skua only - and be more effective in both roles (the Henley first flew in March 1937), therefore the FAA would only need Swordfish replacement - more like the Spearfish. Result: probably no Fulmar, and the Sea Henley is later phased out in favour of fighter-bombers.


I think Tomo might have a point, if BP did have the Sea Defiant proposal accepted, perhaps they could have had aircraft ready by late 41/early '42. If they had an aircraft with performance similar to the Firefly, they could be used in place of the Swordfish on missions that brought the carriers within range of Axis bombers. The Firefly was an excellent aircraft for the FAA, as it could be used as Fighter/Bomber, and with over a 1,300 mile range, a significant advantage over both the Seafire or Swordfish

I am unclear here - is this 'Sea Defiant supposed to be a fighter or a torpedo bomber - i.e. you can't use it for the same job as a Firefly and the Swordfish. Blackburn had enough problems hanging a torpedo on the Firebrand - can't see it being practical on a Defiant - however it is changed, and if the change is that radical you might as well have a new aircraft.
 
It must have been a kick in the ***** for Boulton Paul - their Sea Defiant gets rejected, in favour of the Blackburn Roc -

I am unclear here - is this 'Sea Defiant supposed to be a fighter or a torpedo bomber - i.e. you can't use it for the same job as a Firefly and the Swordfish. Blackburn had enough problems hanging a torpedo on the Firebrand - can't see it being practical on a Defiant - however it is changed, and if the change is that radical you might as well have a new aircraft.

I'm not sure what the proposed "Sea Defiant" was, I'm not familiar with it.

No, in my mind it wouldn't be a TB, as they already had the Swordfish, and a replacement in the Barracuda. Also, there are other options in the Med, such as using long range bombers to deliver torpedos.

The "Sea Defiant" could be a similar role as the Firefly or Skua, which were both used as fighter/bombers. Although it could be used for bombing, it would still be adept enough as a fighter to defend against bombers.

Replacing the TB's {Swordfish} with FB's {Skua or Sea Defiant} would have been very helpful in the operations in Greece Crete in the summer of '41, but as you have noted earlier, doctrine was another reason while this was not done. With the British operating a strong fleet within range of Axis air squadrons, {eg covering Greek withdrawl} I would prefer the carriers to operate as many fighters as possible for air cover, at the expense of leaving behind all of the Swordfish.
 
I'm not sure what the proposed "Sea Defiant" was, I'm not familiar with it.

Found this today freebird but little else. At top is the 'Special Features' Defiant designed to test aspects of a proposed naval fighter and powered by either a Rolls-Royce Griffon or Bristol Centaurus engine.

In the box under that is, at top, the proposed Sabre Defiant (P.94D) and beneath that the Centaurus Defiant (P.96C)...

 
Graeme- interesting drawings, especially the P94D, which in design looks very similar to the P.94 proposed in the Summer of 1940 - with the Merlin XX engine.
Which makes it easy to wonder how different manufacturers could have ended up. P.94 is built supplants the Hurricane, and is improved by the P.94D used both for the RAF FAA! What happens the Hawker?
 
Graeme- interesting drawings, especially the P94D, which in design looks very similar to the P.94 proposed in the Summer of 1940 - with the Merlin XX engine.
Which makes it easy to wonder how different manufacturers could have ended up. P.94 is built supplants the Hurricane, and is improved by the P.94D used both for the RAF FAA! What happens to Hawker?

They spend years fiddling with the Sabre trying to develop the Typhoon... :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back