I have often wondered what would have happened if instead of the build up of Fighter Command the RAF had put all its resources into bringing heavy four engined bombers into service in 1939 instead of 1941.
Churchill would have the means to punish Germany earlier and begin the destruction of its cities.
The first obstacle is manufacturing sufficient engines that produce more than 1,000 horsepower each.
The second obstacle is deciding whether to defend them with turret-mounted machineguns.
My bias would be towards "Super Mosquitos" with 4 engines, but no turrets and make them as fast as possible.
I have often wondered what would have happened if instead of the build up of Fighter Command the RAF had put all its resources into bringing heavy four engined bombers into service in 1939 instead of 1941.
Churchill would have the means to punish Germany earlier and begin the destruction of its cities.
France falls a few days faster. Luftwaffe bombers have a field day over best part of England. Luftwaffe fighters rack up the scores. RAF turns to night bombing, for what they have no navigation technology nor training.
With Gladiators used by the RAF FC in 1940, North Africa is defended by Hawker Furies, and Malaya by Hawker Harts.
Earlier 4 engined bombers likely mean worse 4 engined bombers that likely get squandered while the RAF figures out how to actually effectively employ and operate their bomber fleet.
In terms of bang-for-the-buck, cost versus effectiveness and opportunity costs it is arguable that in the real history the RAF spent too much of their immediate pre-war/ early war resources on their (in that time period largely ineffective) long range bomber fleet.
More resources pushed in this direction at that time probably proves to be a poor investment with marginal gains in effectiveness and the actual impact of the bomber force but much more impactful reductions in the capabilities of Fighter Command, etc.
The increasing capability of Bomber Command as the war progressed is at least as much about the slow punishing accumulation of experience and skill (and related ongoing improvements in operational technologies and techniques) as it was about upping 4 engined bomber numbers. Increased numbers earlier doesn’t shortcut that process. Indeed potentially earlier heavier disasters/ failures may have had a longer term impact of reduced ongoing focus and investment in Bomber Command.
Baldwin was the PM (--28/5/17, Chamberlain at Treasury) who initiated most of the Rearmament Prog. My only beef with his pace is with his, ah, dissembling about the Threat, by pandering to the National Mood of revulsion at any risk of more slaughter: Sir J.Bankes' Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms 20/2/35-10/36 resonated ("Merchants of Death"); 27/6/35 Result of L Cecil's (1937 Nobel Peace Laureate)Peace Ballot included:
* Are you in favour of an all-round abolition of national military and naval a/c by intn'l agreement? Yes, 9,533,558. No, 1,689,786.
* Should manufacture and sale of armaments for private profit be prohibited by international agreement? Yes, 10,417,329. No, 775,415.
All of that caused him to be schtum through the Election of 14/11/35: his famed bomber will always get through, in the House, 10/11/32, had been addressed to his then-boss, Labour PM Macdonald, disposed towards talk in the League to Ban the Bomber, and was successful: PM funded Heyford, 3/33, Wellington and Hampden, 9/33, Fairey Hendon Night Bomber, 3/34.
Baldwin 7/10/35 funded A.W.39 and H.P.55 Mediums and Warwick Heavy - classified Secret, not to disguise this work from Germany, but from those he hoped would vote for him next month. He initiated the Shadow Production Scheme - which built the Bombers, and before he departed 28/5/37 funded V.S.T.317 (22/3/37), (to be) Avro Manchester, H.P.56 Big Twins (30/4/37). Chamberlain then funded (to be) Stirling, (6/11/37) and changed H.P.56 to HP.57 (to be) Halifax, 3/9/37.
I doubt deployment of these Paralysers was delayed by Policy wrangling over the RAF Expansion Schemes, balance, Home and Empire, Fighter and Bomber. And I further doubt Deterrence would have been enhanced by fluttering more, sooner at Hendon Displays.
German rectification of borders upto the Sudetenland, 9/38, was not a casus belli to enthuse anyone into the trenches, and neither was the later elimination of rump Czech, which Germany knew, so would not have been deterred by a couple of Squadrons of Stirlings.
A better PoD would be mid-39, where Hitler chose to Blitzkrieg into his Ukrainian Lebensraum, so first to defuse the Threat of another stab in the back from France. UK Force, notable by its absence, did not feature in his calculations, because, to deter, a deterrent must be credible to a rational actor. He, indeed his regime, indeed his country, did not compute the risk: reward in any rational way. Even if Baldwin's Rearmament had been faster -armoured carriers, more, better-kitted soldiers, more Viermotoren - he would not be counting.
Let's try the different approach: Britain found out in late 1930s that their night navigation concept is unworkable, and put efforts into the development of radio navigation systems for bombers. So by 1939 they have working prototype of metric-wave circle navigation system (Oboe-esque), that could precisely guide bomber to the target in zero visibility.
The Whitley and Hampden were fine machines - Bomber Command couldn't have done much better. Agree with @Dilandu comment above - better to improve what existed.
Now, if you really wanted a crapton of Merlins for an earlier four engine bomber force, there is a way: just erase goddam Fairey Battle from history. And build more Blenheims with radials.
2201 perfectly good Merlins wasted on goddam fucking Battle flying death trap. Now that was inept, only contemporary France Ministère de l'air could be more stupid than that. A simple division gives you a 500+ four-Merlin bomber force.
We need an alternate history where
- the British swaps all those Battles for Henleys and moar Blenheims (not a great fan of the latter, but it was useful and faster at least)
- while the French turns that 1100 Potez 63s 1936-1940 production run into a big striking force - instead of a fighter / 63-11 recon colossal waste (out of 1100 Potez 63, 700+ were 63-11 for reconnaissance - slower and even more vulnerable than the basic 63 which was already a death trap for its crews).
At this point can I thank everyone for sticking to the spirit of the thread.
Any of the options suggested,including Archibald's and Dolandu's above could be developed here.
There is already a lot of info that.I for one did not have, or at least needed reminding of in a concise form.
I think the main thing for me is that more bombers is needed to have an impact rather than better bombers. When you look at things like tons dropped per year then there's a massive increase up to the 1944/45 point.
Now, if my 4 engined bomber is a Vulcan or Victor with PAVE SPIKE and LGBs then that might make more of an impact from better. But otherwise I think the need is more.
Now, if my 4 engined bomber is a Vulcan or Victor with PAVE SPIKE and LGBs then that might make more of an impact from better. But otherwise I think the need is more.
The RAF force sent to France was equipped with the ill fated Fairey Battle light bomber and the Bristol Blenheim light bomber.
They had some Hawker Hurricanes as well.
The composition and quantity of the RAF in France ought to get ita own thread, but it overlaps with the Bomber vs Fighter debate here.
It is clear that the RAF in France needed more fighters and Spitfires as well. These were essential to cover the Blenheims and Battles.
German Army Flak including the dreaded 88mm and made raids on bridges and enemy troop concentrations.
With loitering munitions much in the news, might we revisit the Miles Hoop-la?
No need to worry about Merlin shortages ... Gipsy Queen shortages maybe. Still, you are throwing away a 6-banger per mission instead of risking aircrew. As is, accuracy would be appalling but improved radio navigation has already been mentioned.
Use Hoop-la (or similar types) for saturation bombing. Save higher-performing manned bomber for priority targets?
Well, it's possible, but it would require a lot of time to refine the design. And there would be fire control limitations, since with early radio navigation systems it's hard to make many separate channels. So the saturation would be... problematic.
Still think that circular radio navigation system & radio-controlled bomb for precise attacks on bridges, dams and similar installations would be most efficient WW2-tech combo.
With loitering munitions much in the news, might we revisit the Miles Hoop-la?
No need to worry about Merlin shortages ... Gipsy Queen shortages maybe. Still, you are throwing away a 6-banger per mission instead of risking aircrew. As is, accuracy would be appalling but improved radio navigation has already been mentioned.
Use Hoop-la (or similar types) for saturation bombing. Save higher-performing manned bomber for priority targets?
I have often wondered what would have happened if instead of the build up of Fighter Command the RAF had put all its resources into bringing four-engine heavy bombers into service in 1939 instead of 1941.
Churchill would have the means to punish Germany earlier and begin the destruction of its cities.
This would require a Point-of-Departure (POD) on 09.04.32 when Specification C.26/31 was issued to tender (according to Air Britain's "British Aircraft Specification File") so the A.W. 23 (upon which the Whitley was based), Bristol Bombay and H.P. 51 (upon which the Harrow was based) would be four-engine aircraft instead of two-engine aircraft. The alternative versions of the Bombay, Harrow and Whitley would not have significantly better performance (i.e. speed and range) but they would carry double the weight of bombs.
Then Spec. B.9/32 (Issued to Tender on 17.09.32) needs to be for a four-engine aircraft and (in common with with the four-engine versions of the aircraft built to Spec. C.26/31) would carry double the weight of bombs, but wouldn't necessarily be able to carry them faster or further. The alternative Wellington would effectively be a four-engine version of the Warwick rather than the Windsor.
In addition to deciding to replace its twin-engine biplane heavy bombers and bomber-transports (built by Handley Page and Vickers) with four-engine monoplanes it decided to replace its single-engine biplane light bombers with twin-engine monoplane medium bombers. Thus Spec. B.27/32 (issued to tender on 12.04.33) produces the Twin-Merlin version of the Battle that was proposed IOTL. This was the opposite of the aircraft built to Alternative Specifications C.26/31 and B.9/32 because it carried the same weight of bombs considerably faster and somewhat further than the single-engine version.
It would help if two prototypes of each aircraft were built instead of one.
Therefore, at the outbreak of World War Two RAF Bomber Command would have had 35 first-line, 20 second-line squadrons and the same number of aircraft as the "real world" but its 23 first-line heavy bomber squadrons would have double the carrying capacity. However (with the exception of the Twin-Battles in AASF) they'd still be hacked out of the sky in daylight operations and still be unable to bomb at night with any degree of accuracy until early 1942 when Gee entered service at which point the aircraft built to the Alternative versions of Specs. B.1/35, B.12/36 and P.13/36 may be replacing the aircraft built to Alternative Specs. C.26/31 and B.9/32. (See below for why I wrote "may be" instead of "would be".)
The main beneficiary of this could be the maritime RAF because the four-engine versions of the Hampden, Wellington and Whitley could trade some of their doubled bomb loads for more fuel with the result that they could fly further into the Atlantic than the twin-engine aircraft built in the "real world" and possibly far enough for the "Black Gap" to be closed soon after it opened.
The knock-on effect on Specs. B.1/35, B.12/36 and P.13/36 is that they're likely to be for aircraft with four engines with horse powers in the Vulture class. Therefore, the Centaurus, Griffon, Sabre and the Vulture itself. So:
The Alternative Short Stirling might be an aircraft like the S.34 or S.36 Super Stirling.
The Alternative Vickers Warwick might be an aircraft like the Vickers Windsor, but with four Vultures instead of the two Vultures that the Warwick originally had and the four Merlins that the Windsor originally had.
The Alternative Halifax & Manchester were probably designed around four Vultures instead of two Vultures.
However, if the Vulture & Sabre have the same problems that they had in the "real world" and the Centaurus & Griffon take as long to develop in "this version of history" the Alternative versions of the Battle, Blenheim, Hampden, Wellington and Whitley will have to be kept in production for even longer.
The closest to that is the ALT-Handley Page H.P. 53 Hereford which would have four Daggers (instead of the real aircraft's two Daggers) built by Short & Harland. Though I'm hoping that the ALT-Hampden upon which the ALT-Hereford would be based is effectively a Halifax with four 1,000hp Pegasus XVIII engines, which would be replaced by more powerful Hercules and Merlin engines in later marks.
I don't know, I could well see there being an interim step with 4 small engines rather than immediately jump to doubling size and the complexity that goes with this
Not as much as you might think though.
B.12/36 did threw up a several such types - the Boulton Paul P.90 with four Kestrels or Daggers; the original Shorts S.29 submission had four Daggers; RJ Mitchell went the full hog with the 316 with Merlins or Kestrels or Hercules or Pegasus or Daggers; the Vickers 293 had Kestrels, Taurus or Daggers.
Only AW and Bristol actually went for heavy metal - AW using Merlins, Vultures or its own Deerhound and Bristol opting for Hercules. Eventually Supermarine and Shorts saw the light and went with the Hercules too (though Shorts did keep the Dagger option as late as 1937).
Engines would seem to be the limiting factor here. A production four engined Wellington would come out at 4,000hp with four Pegasus XVIII but most options would seem to be less than 1,000hp at that time, indeed most of the engine choices well into 1936 are in the 850-950hp range (Taurus, Kestrel, Dagger etc.). The Hercules is not a production prospect before 1939.
Warwick did skip from Hercules to Vulture in its development, but as you rightly point out the Vulture/Griffon/Sabre/Centaurus group is prone to nightmares. You would effectively end up with what we had - namely Mk.Is with late-30s engines offering ~3,600hp output then interim Mk.IIs with ~4,400hp from Merlin and Hercules.
I would agree though that a four-engined Warwick - effectively the Type 293 offered to B.12/36 would have been better than the Stirling for growth. Partly because of its bomb load configuration.
EDIT: I notice than in an article on the Westland Whirlwind in Issue 42 of Aviation Historian, that the author, Paul Stoddart concludes that the Peregrine was unsuited for a fighter but that four Peregrines would outperform two Hercules on the Wellington with good high-altitude performance and would may have also suited the Warwick.
Partly this is because of the bombs themselves, the RAF being limited mainly to 250lb and 500lb bombs in this period. A 4,000lb load = 16x 250lb or 8x 500lb bombs, 8,000lb doubles that. A drawback are the configurations necessary to stow that many bombs in the airframe around the centre of gravity.
Most British bombers of this period relied on wing cells in the inner wings to take a fair portion of the payload, these cells being shaped for 250-500lb bombs. For example the AW.42 to B.12/36 could carry 41x 250lb or 500lb bombs split roughly 50/50 between the fuselage bomb bay and the wing cells. The downside is that only the space ahead of the forward spar was available for fuel tanks. Vickers used tiered horizontal stowage in its fuselage bomb bays for the Wellington/Warwick and the Type 293 could take 29 250/500lb bombs or 7 2,000lb bombs internally. But it frees the wings for more fuel.
Even several of the 'Ideal Bombers' for B.1/39 retained wing cells. This would prove a handicap as the war goes on and bomb-sizes go up. It's no coincidence that the most successful RAF bombers of this period had long (indeed perhaps of all bombers in the world until the B-29 came along), capacious fuselage bomb bays.
Boulton Paul came up with its innovative rotary bomb-bay, sized for 250lb and 500lb bombs but allowing more capacity, for example the P.79 to B.3/34 had six 4-bomb rotary carriers = 16 bombs with the ability to carry larger anti-battleship 'B' bomb externally. The P.90 to B.12/36 could carry 28 250/500lb bombs or 7 2,000lb bombs.
The drawbacks are potential mechanical issues (jammed gear etc.), incompatibility with existing RAF bomb trailers and probably less than ideal for 'salvo' bombing. But it was at least an innovative concept.
Where a four-engined Warwick leaves P.13/36 I'm not sure. I'd be tempted to ditch it entirely and maybe give Mr Volkert a ring about his unarmed bomber ideas for a smaller twin-engined general purpose fast bomber. Then I'd issue a new four-engined heavy Spec in 1938 with range of 2,500 miles with 9,000lb of bombs bomber with the new high-power engines - in effect B.1/39 without the 20mm cannon turrets. The winner may well be Chadwick's 120ft-span 4x Hercules-powered Lancaster bomber (320mph at 15,000ft, service ceiling 26,200ft). That would be a very effective bomber, easily capable of lifting 14,000+lb to Berlin - it could reach any target in the Third Reich or Italy from Lincolnshire with a bombload of more than 10,000lb.
I don't know, I could well see there being an interim step with 4 small engines rather than immediately jump to doubling size and the complexity that goes with this
I think not. According to Air Britain's "British Aircraft Specification File" Short Brothers didn't tender any designs to Specs. C.26/31, B.9/32, B.3/34 & B.1/35.
Making the machines built to those specifications four engine aircraft instead of two engine aircraft is the only way to bringing four engine heavy bombers into service in 1939 instead of 1941 as requested by @uk 75 in the Opening Post.
Tinkering with Specs. B.12/36 and P.13/36 wont do it because they were high priority projects in the "Real World". For example the aircraft were ordered into quantity production "off the drawing board" i.e. before the the prototypes were flown and evaluated with the objective of getting what became the Halifax, Manchester and Stirling into front-line service several years earlier than would otherwise been the case.
The best that could be done with the aircraft built to those specifications is turn the Manchester into the Lancaster sooner. This can be done by allowing Avro to change from two Vultures to four Merlins on 03.09.37 which is when Handley Page's contract was amended from two Vultures to four Merlins. Or make P.13/36 (Issued to Tender on 08.09.36) be a specification for an aircraft with four Merlin engines in the first place. That way the Lancaster enters service in 1941 instead of 1942.
I began writing the following on the afternoon of Wednesday 8th March so any similarities with @Hood's Post 20 (which was uploaded in the morning of Thursday 9th March) are purely coincidental.
This is how I think Vickers bombers would develop with a Point-of-Departure (POD) in June/July 1931 instead of the POD on 09.04.32 that I suggested in Post 15.
Specification G.4/31
General Purpose, Bombing and Torpedo-Carrying Aircraft
Issued to Tender (Initial issue, June/July 1931. Revised issue, October 1931.)
This specification was for a two-engine aircraft instead of a single-engine machine. Vickers submitted at two-engine version of the Type 253 and a two-engine version of the Wellesley. The latter aircraft (which made its first flight on 19.06.35) was effectively the Wellington. The ALT-Type 253 was the winning design and 150 production aircraft were ordered, but Vickers persuaded the Air Ministry to cancel the order and replace it with a contract for 96 ALT-Wellesleys that was let in September 1935.
All other things being equal 176 ALT-Wellesleys (effectively Wellington Mk Is with two 925hp Pegasus XX engines) were built for the RAF and delivered between March 1937 and May 1938. It entered service with No. 76 Squadron at Finningley, Yorkshire in April 1937 and equipped 6 Bomber Command squadrons (Nos. 7, 35, 76, 77, 148 and 207). It was withdrawn from Bomber Command service by April 1939 but the RAF had 152 Wellesleys on charge at the beginning of World War II and it equipped 3 squadrons (Nos. 14, 47 and 223) in the Middle East.
Specification B.9/32
Twin-Engined Day Bombing Aircraft
Issued to Tender. Dated 17.09.32
(Except that in "this version of history" it was for a Four-Engine Day Bombing Aircraft)
Vickers built an aircraft that was effectively a four-engine version of the Warwick. The prototype was ordered in February 1934, flew on 15.06.36 and crashed on 19.04.37. The first production contract (for 180 aircraft) was let on 15.08.36. The first production aircraft flew on 23.10.37 and deliveries to the RAF commenced on 10.10.38. The first RAF squadron was No. 99 at Mildenhall in October 1938. 172 Wellingtons were on charge at the outbreak of World War II and the aircraft equipped 10 squadrons in Bomber Command of which 6 (Nos. 9, 37, 38, 99, 115 & 149) were first-line and 4 (Nos. 75, 148, 214 & 215) were second-line units.
A grand total of 11,460 production aircraft were delivered from 10.10.38 to 25.10.45. All of them were built by Vickers in 3 factories as follows:
3,406 at Blackpool, which were delivered from 08.08.40 to 25.10.45.
5,540 at Chester, which were delivered from 04.08.39 to 08.07.45.
2,514 at Weybridge, which were delivered from 10.10.38 to 18.09.43.
The prototype had 915hp Bristol Pegasus X engines and the engines fitted to the 11,460 production aircraft were as follows:
3,447 aircraft with 1,050hp Bristol Pegasus Mk XVIII engines. (181 Mk I, 183 Mk IA & 2,685 Mk IC bombers, 4 Mk IA-DWI minesweepers, and 394 GR Mk VIII.)
220 Mk IV bombers with P&W Twin Wasp engines which according to Wikipedia produced 1,200hp.
465 with RR Merlin engines. (401 Mk II bombers with 1,145hp Merlin Xs and 64 Mk VI high-altitude bombers with 1,600hp Merlin 60s.)
7,328 with Bristol Hercules engines.
1,519 Mk III bombers with 1,500hp Hercules XI engines. (Source: Putnams Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918).
3 Mk V high-level bombers. The prototypes (R3298 & R3299) had the Hercules III & Hercules VIII respectively. I don't know what mark the sole production aircraft (W5796) had.
3,803 Mk X bombers with 1,675hp Hercules VI or XVI engines.
238 with 1,675hp Hercules VI engines (180 GR Mk XI and 58 GR Mk XII).
1,765 with 1,735hp Hercules XVII engines (844 GR Mk XIII, 841 GR Mk XIV and 80 T Mk XVIII).
Except where noted above the horse powers are according to Vickers Aircraft since 1908 by C.F. Andrews and E.B. Morgan.
It will be the same in "this version of history" except all of the above would have four engines instead of two.
Specification B.1/35 - Heavy Bomber - Issued to Tender 08.05.35.
This specification was for an aircraft powered by four Vultures instead of two Vultures and as a result the ALT-Warwick had the same problems as the Real-Warwick. Therefore:
The first prototype (Vulture engines ordered on 07.10.35) still flew on 13.08.39.
The second prototype (Centaurus engines ordered on 02.07.37) still flew on 05.04.1940. This aircraft was refitted with P&W Double Wasp engines and first flew with them in July 1941.
The first production contract (for 250 aircraft) will still be let on 28.12.40 and follow-up contracts increased the total to 1,815 aircraft (300 Blackpool, 300 Chester & 1,215 Weybridge).
However, only 843 production aircraft (343 with Centaurs engines and 500 with Double Wasps) were actually built (all at Weybridge) and delivered from June 1942 to May 1946.
In common with the Real-Warwick the Double Wasp powered ALT-Warwick served with the RAF in the ASR & transport roles and the Centaurus powered ALT-Warwick served with the RAF as a GR aircraft.
The ASR Mk I entered service with No. 280 Squadron at Langham, Norfolk in August 1943.
The C Mk III entered service with No. 525 Squadron at Lyneham in August 1944.
The GR Mk V entered service with No. 179 Squadron at St. Eval, Cornwall in November 1944.
Specification B.5/41 - Pressure Cabin Bomber (Vickers) - Dated 10.12.41 - Issued on 19.12.41 to Vickers
I think this would be the Windsor powered by four Griffons instead of four Merlins, but in common with the real aircraft only 3 out of 307 aircraft ordered (7 prototypes and 300 production) would be completed. In common with the "Real World" the contract for 300 Windsor Mk I production aircraft (with Griffons instead of Merlins) let on 24.06.43 would be amended to 40 Mk II aircraft with Clyde engines on 19.06.45 and cancelled outright on 23.11.45.
Some background information. If you see a mistake, please inform me via a Private Message and I will correct it.
Notes
The above does not include No. 24 (Communications) Squadron in the Metropolitan Air Force.
The above does not include Nos. Nos.15 and 22 (Light Bomber) Squadrons which were engaged on experimental work at the Martlesham Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment, had no proper equipment, and were "skeleton units merely recorded as squadrons in the Air Force List".
The Actual Strength at 31.03.34 & Schemes A-to-L don't include the Bomber-Transport flight in India. Scheme M replaced this flight with a full-strength Bomber-Transport squadron.
The Medium Bombers in Schemes A, C & F include 2 Torpedo-Bomber squadrons (12 aircraft each in Schemes A & C and 16 aircraft each in Scheme F) and in Schemes L & M they are counted among the G.R., T.B.G.R., and T.D. squadrons.
There weren't any Torpedo-Bomber squadrons in the UK on 31.03.34.
G.R. = General Reconnaissance (Flying Boats and Landplanes).
A Home Defence Force 52 squadrons (35 bomber and 17 fighter) was approved in 1923. It became known as the "Fifty-Two Squadron" scheme.
The 52 squadrons originally had 598 aircraft (394 bombers and 204 fighters) but was amended to 594 aircraft (390 bombers and 204 fighters) in 1925 when the ratio of Day Bomber squadrons to Night Bomber squadrons was changed from 22:13 to 20:15. This was due to the Day bomber squadrons having 12 aircraft and Night Bomber squadrons 10 aircraft which resulted in a net reduction of 4 aircraft.
At some point between 1933 and 1935.
The Night Bombers were re-designated Heavy Bombers.
The twin-engine Day Bombers were re-designated Medium Bombers.
The single-engine Day Bombers were re-designated Light Bombers.
(Please inform me by Private Message if you know the exact date.)
The original completion date for the scheme was 31.03.28. However, it was postponed twice.
On 03.12.25 when it was postponed to 31.03.35
On 11.11.29 when it was postponed to 31.03.38.
The Metropolitan Air Force also had an emergency force of 24 light bombers in 2 squadrons so the RAF would have had 618 bombers in 37 squadrons (that is 264 day bombers in 22 squadrons and 150 night bombers in 15 squadrons) on 31.03.38. However, from 07.01.30 they were counted among the 52 squadrons. This effectively reduced the 52 Squadron scheme to a scheme for 50 squadrons with 366 bombers in 33 squadrons instead of 390 bombers in 35 squadrons.
IMHO, the RAF's infamous 'turret fighters' might have done well against 'Spanish Civil War' air-power, but the Luftwaffe had learned and moved on. Likewise, bombers. Easy-Peasy making unfortunate Guernica's rubble bounce. Quite another precision-targeting bridges, trains etc in the face of prepared defences, as some mix of AAA, barrage balloons and fighter aircraft...
Could other RAF twin-engine bombers have been re-worked 4-up per 'Manchester' to 'Lancaster', or was it just that team's genius ??
Longer range, even if slow-ish, would have given the U-Boots a seriously bad time much sooner...
Me, I'd make the 4-engined version of the Whitley.
Four Mercury engines (basically doubling the horsepower vs. the original powerplant of 2 Tiger engines), on the wing of a slightly greater span so the engines and props can comfortably fit. Make sure that wing is not of such high incidence, so the in-flight drag is kept reasonable.
Engine-out situation is no problemo; even two engines out might result in a less calamitous landing than if that happens on the original Whitley.
If anyone could do it, Armstrong Whitworth could.
They have a ready-made wing. As they were designing the AW.38 Whitley they were working on the AW.27 Ensign.
The Ensign had a 123ft span wing and a MTOW of 66,000lb (with four 950hp Wright Cyclones) - compared to the Whitley Mk.V's 33,500lb. So with the 920hp Tiger VIII with 2-speed superchargers I think it would approach the performance of the later Cyclone-fitted upgraded Ensigns.
Judging by similar bombers (the B-17 is smaller, the XB-15 larger) the bomb capacity would be somewhere in the region of 12,000lb, possibly 14,000lb.
My only question with a two-engined Wellesley is, would it be perceived as being too much of a leap for the largely untested geodetic construction method given its largely unknown nature at that time?
I have often wondered what would have happened if instead of the build up of Fighter Command the RAF had put all its resources into bringing heavy four engined bombers into service in 1939 instead of 1941.
Churchill would have the means to punish Germany earlier and begin the destruction of its cities.
This is the typical "the bombers will allways get through" kind of thinking. You need to have air superiority for effective bombing. Most of the destrucion of German towns happend in the last year of the war when it was allready decided and air defence was weak. Britain didn"t even have fighter with sufficient range at that point, so the bombers would have been useless.
If anyone could do it, Armstrong Whitworth could.
They have a ready-made wing. As they were designing the AW.38 Whitley they were working on the AW.27 Ensign.
The Ensign had a 123ft span wing and a MTOW of 66,000lb (with four 950hp Wright Cyclones) - compared to the Whitley Mk.V's 33,500lb. So with the 920hp Tiger VIII with 2-speed superchargers I think it would approach the performance of the later Cyclone-fitted upgraded Ensigns.
If anyone could do it, Armstrong Whitworth could.
They have a ready-made wing. As they were designing the AW.38 Whitley they were working on the AW.27 Ensign.
The Ensign had a 123ft span wing and a MTOW of 66,000lb (with four 950hp Wright Cyclones) - compared to the Whitley Mk.V's 33,500lb. So with the 920hp Tiger VIII with 2-speed superchargers I think it would approach the performance of the later Cyclone-fitted upgraded Ensigns.
Judging by similar bombers (the B-17 is smaller, the XB-15 larger) the bomb capacity would be somewhere in the region of 12,000lb, possibly 14,000lb.
My only question with a two-engined Wellesley is, would it be perceived as being too much of a leap for the largely untested geodetic construction method given its largely unknown nature at that time?
If anyone could do it, Armstrong Whitworth could.
They have a ready-made wing. As they were designing the AW.38 Whitley they were working on the AW.27 Ensign.
The Ensign had a 123ft span wing and a MTOW of 66,000lb (with four 950hp Wright Cyclones) - compared to the Whitley Mk.V's 33,500lb. So with the 920hp Tiger VIII with 2-speed superchargers I think it would approach the performance of the later Cyclone-fitted upgraded Ensigns.
Judging by similar bombers (the B-17 is smaller, the XB-15 larger) the bomb capacity would be somewhere in the region of 12,000lb, possibly 14,000lb.
My only question with a two-engined Wellesley is, would it be perceived as being too much of a leap for the largely untested geodetic construction method given its largely unknown nature at that time?
There is indeed, thanks for reminding me of that.
It's a 1941 private-venture proposal - 135ft wing with new centre section, 72ft 6in long, 4x Centaurus III or Wright Cyclones, it had four Whitley vertical tail fins(!), 90,000lb AUW, 24,000lb bombload and 3x turrets (nose, dorsal - which interestingly is faired in - and tail), 295mph.
No Air Ministry interest as they felt the Whitley was obsolete.
Nom: RSF Expansion SchemesApproved by Cabinet: Official Hist,WW2, Webster/Frankland, Strategic Air Offensive v.Germany,HMSO, '61,Pp.67-81 takes us through Schemes A-M, some Cabinet Approved, some not, but none Treasury-funded in full, none implemented: all were aspirational fantasies...until or unless:
Compulsion - instructions to the Munitions Industries to cease civil/export work, was 3/38: that caused the shadow system to be implemented, Auto-firms moving into their apprentice template jobs like Fairey Battle, Bristol Mercury.
Spend-like-water was 4/38, to include expending our $/gold to buy from US
Conscription was 4/39 - Power to call young men to (6 months) National Service.
Before all that, ideas of 4-motor Whitleys, accelerated Proper Jobs, could neither be funded, nor built.
So we must go to PoD 1936: March, the Rhineland; May: Italy (fresh from bonding with us, Stresa Pact, April) taking Abyssinia, rewarded in July by the League lifting sanctions; and in July, Fascists & Sovs meddling in Spain.
Could we, should we, noisily have Re-armed then, to include Compulsion and Conscription.
Well...why? We would have been entirely alone: France was teetering on Red chaos. Public Opinion was Jaw, not War.
What would we have funded without limit? These Whittles? A fantasy. Even more Hampden, Wellington, Whitley? In 1936 UK Aero industry was not a credible base for Defence of the Realm v. Germany near and/or Japan, far. Lean-to sheds on meadows. Supermarine sculpted wooden flying boats one-by-one. Volume expertise in UK Engineering was in auto and marine, needed to sustain the 4th Arm of Defence, which is income. OTL success in creating the actual volume of 1943, was in part due to MAP imposing Production Controllers brought in from those volume sectors: DH Hatfield (Canada did the same for DHC), Boulton Paul, Fairey, General... more; changing Equity Ownership at Napier, Shorts.
The wonder of UK-Aero 1939-45 is not of missed opportunity of earlier conception of Big Engines, fast fighters, Heavy Bombers...but that in OTL we moved so fast. RR in 1935 was about to exit Aero, with a mere handful of Kestrels in work ('35/36 orders for Hart-variants, Kestrels “revived HAL and prevented RR from abandoning (aero-engine prodn) started them on (the) road to perfection” MM.Postan,Br.War Prodn,HMSO,1952,P.18
Part Two of the background information. If you see a mistake, please inform me via a Private Message and I will correct it.
The sources for the above are.
National Archives file AIR 2/2774, "RAF Squadrons, Monthly Statement of Strength, 1936-39".
National Archives file AIR 2/2775, "RAF Squadrons, Monthly Statement of Strength, 1933-36".
National Archives file AIR 41/39, the Air History Branch monograph, "The RAF in the Bombing Offensive Against Germany", Volume I, "The Pre-War Evolution of Bomber Command 1917-1939".
National Archives file AIR 41/45, the Air History Branch monograph. "The RAF in Maritime War", Volume I, "Atlantic and Home Waters, The Prelude, April 1918 - September 1939."
Notes.
From December 1935 to February 1939 the Monthly Statements of Strength included the following paragraph.
"It is emphasised that the figures above are establishments, and not actual strengths. This is inevitable owing to the number of squadrons in the course of formation under the Expansion Programme. In the case of the more recently formed units the actual number of aircraft held may be negligible and bear no relation to authorised establishment."
No. 24 (Communications) Squadron which was in the Metropolitan Air Force throughout the period that the table covers is not shown.
The Metropolitan bomber force at 31.03.34 does not include Nos.15 and 22 (Day Bomber) Squadrons which were engaged on experimental work at the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment, had no proper equipment, and were "skeleton units merely recorded as squadrons in the Air Force List".
The Metropolitan torpedo-bomber squadrons are included in the Medium Bombers from 31.03.35 to 31.03.38 and the Metropolitan G.R., T.B./G.R. and T.D. force from 31.03.39 to 03.09.39. (There weren't any Metropolitan torpedo-bomber squadrons on 31.03.34.)
The Metropolitan bomber force on 03.09.39 is actually the force on 29.08.39.
The Metropolitan G.R., T.B./G.R. and T.D. force on 03.09.39 is actually the force on 27.08.39.
G.R. = General Reconnaissance (Flying Boats and Landplanes).
Link to Post 22 which is how I think Vickers bombers would develop with a Point-of-Departure (POD) in June/July 1931 instead of the POD on 09.04.32 that I suggested in Post 15.
Carrying on from the above this is Part One of how I think Handley Page bombers with a Point-of-Departure (POD) in June/July 1931 instead of the POD on 09.04.32 that I suggested in Post 15.
Specification G.4/31
General Purpose, Bombing and Torpedo-Carrying Aircraft
Issued to Tender (Initial issue, June/July 1931. Revised issue, October 1931.)
In the "Real World" Handley Page built the H.P.47 single-engine fixed-undercarriage monoplane which flew on 01.04.35. The aircraft wasn't ordered into production because the Air Ministry ordered the Vickers Wellesley instead. In "this version of history" the H.P.47 was a two-engine fixed-undercarriage monoplane which flew on 01.04.35 and it didn't because the Air Ministry ordered the Vickers "Twin-Wellesley" (effectively the Wellington Mk I with less powerful Pegasus engines) instead.
Specification C.26/31
Bomber Transport Aircraft
Issued to Tender 09.04.32
The Air Ministry ordered single prototypes of the Armstrong-Whitworth A.W.23, Bristol Type 130 Bombay and Handley Page H.P.51 to this specification and they made their first flights on 04.06.35, 23.06.35 and 08.05.35 respectively. A production contract for 80 Bombays (later reduced to 50) was let to Short & Harland (not Bristol) in September 1936. The first production aircraft flew in March 1939 and the 50 aircraft were delivered between April 1939 and June 1940. However, the A.W.23 was developed into the A.W.38 Whitley bomber and the H.P.51 was developed into the H.P.54 Harrow bomber.
In the "Real World" the A.W.23, Bombay and H.P.51 were two-engine aircraft, but because the Whitley had four engines "in this version of history" rather than two its predecessor the A.W.23 has to be a four-engine machine as well. This means that by extension the Bombay, H.P.51 and Harrow have to be four-engine aircraft too.
The "Real World's" Handley Page built the H.P.51 a two-engine fixed-undercarriage monoplane which was ordered in December 1933 and flew on 08.05.35. It was built by converting the sole H.P.43 a three-engine fixed-undercarriage biplane built to meet Spec. C.16/28 that first flew on 21.06.32. The ALT-Harrow of "this version of history" was a four-engine fixed-undercarriage monoplane which was larger than the Real-Harrow therefore had to be an all-new machine, because the there were no changes to the H.P.43 "in this version of history".
100 H.P.54 ALT-Harrows were ordered in August 1935. The first aircraft flew on 10.10.36 and the 100 aircraft were delivered between January and December 1937. The first 38 aircraft were ALT-Harrow Mk Is with four 830hp Bristol Pegasus X engines and the last 62 were ALT-Harrow Mk IIs with 930hp Pegasus XXs. The ALT-Harrow entered service with No. 214 Squadron at Feltwell, Norfolk, in January 1937. It equipped a total of 5 Bomber Command squadrons, Nos. 37, 75, 115, 214 and 215.
The RAF had 86 ALT-Harrows on charge at the outbreak of World War II. It had been withdrawn from service as a bomber but would go on to serve as a transport aircraft with No. 271 Squadron which was formed on 01.05.40.
Specification B.9/32
Twin-Engined Day Bombing Aircraft
Issued to Tender. Dated 17.09.32
(Except that in "this version of history" it was for a Four-Engine Day Bombing Aircraft)
Rather than a scaled-up H.P.52 Hampden with four Bristol Pegasus engines instead of two, the aircraft built in "this version of history", was effectively the Halifax with Bristol Pegasus engines. The prototype was ordered on 24.02.34 and made its first flight on 21.06.36. The first production aircraft flew on 24.06.38 and was part of a contract for 180 aircraft that was let in August 1936. They were delivered between August 1938 and June 1939. The ALT-Hampden entered service with No. 49 Squadron in the newly formed No. 5 Group in Lincolnshire in August 1938. 212 ALT-Hampdens were on charge at the beginning of World War II and the aircraft equipped 10 squadrons in Bomber Command of which six (Nos. 44, 49, 50, 61, 83 & 144) were first-line and four (Nos. Nos. 7, 76, 106 & 185) were second-line units.
A total of 1,430 production aircraft were delivered from August 1938 to May 1942. They were built by three firms as follows.
500 by Handley Page, which were delivered from August 1938 to July 1940
770 by English Electric (of 900 ordered), which were delivered from 19.03.40 to 07.03.42.
160 by Canadian Associated Aircraft, which were from September 1940 to May 1942.
Meanwhile, the nearly identical H.P.53 flew with Pegasus XX engines on 01.07.37 and with Napier Dagger engines on 06.10.38. This aircraft was used as the prototype of the H.P.52 Hereford. The Air Ministry also ordered 100 production aircraft from Short & Harland in August 1936 and a follow-up contract increased the total to 150. The first aircraft flew on 17.05.39 and the 150 aircraft were delivered between August 1939 and July 1940. These aircraft were ALT-Hampdens with four Napier Dagger engines.
5 ALT-Herefords were on charge at the beginning of World War II, but "all other things being equal" the type didn't enter service until 1940 when they equipped a flight of No. 185 Squadron (the other two flights having ALT-Hampdens), but the ALT-Hereford was mainly employed as a bomber-crew trainer by No. 14 Operational Training Unit, Upper Heyford. ALT-Herefords were first delivered to No. 14 O.T.U. on 07.05.40.
In the "Real World" Handley Page proposed several developments of the Hampden (with wider fuselages and different engines) to the Air Ministry. These included one to the specifications that produced the Blackburn Botha & Bristol Beaufort and (with hindsight) that is the design I'd have chosen instead of the Botha. Another, made in November 1938, had Merlin XX or Hercules engines. According to the Putnams on H.P. aircraft Tedder's reply was that, "The Air Staff would leap at such a bomber if available immediately, but could not wait the 15-18 months before delivery, so they declined the offer; what they wanted as early as possible from Handley Page was plenty of Halifaxes". (Quote from Page 371.)
In this "Version of History" Handley Page proposed several developments of the four-engine ALT-Hampden. Whether any go into production depends upon how the Handley Page aircraft designed to meet Specifications B.1/35 and P.12/36 fare.
Link to Post 22 which is how I think Vickers bombers would develop with a Point-of-Departure (POD) in June/July 1931 instead of the POD on 09.04.32 that I suggested in Post 15.
Link to Post 33 which carried on from the above and was Part One of how I think Handley Page bombers with a Point-of-Departure (POD) in June/July 1931 instead of the POD on 09.04.32 that I suggested in Post 15.
This is Part Two of how I think Handley Page bombers would develop with a Point-of-Departure (POD) in June/July 1931 instead of the POD on 09.04.32 that I suggested in Post 15. It is about the aircraft that Handley Page designed to meet Specifications B.1/35 and P.13/36 in the "Real World". Part Three (which I have yet to write) will be about the aircraft that Handley Page designed to meet those specifications in this "Version of History". (If you see a mistake please inform me by a Private Message and I will correct it.)
Specification B.1/35
Heavy Bomber - Issued to Tender 08.05.35.
This specification was originally for an aircraft powered by two 1,000hp type-approved service engines such as the A.S. Deerhound, Bristol Hercules or R-R Merlin. Single prototypes of the Armstrong-Whitworth A.W.39, Handley Page H.P.55 and Vickers Type 284 were ordered in September or October 1935. The A.W. & H.P. aircraft were cancelled before they could fly. The Vickers prototype flew in August 1939 with two R-R Vultures. A second Vickers prototype flew in 1940 with two Centaurus engines. 843 production aircraft (named the Warwick) were delivered from June 1942 to May 1946 and were powered by two Centaurus or two Double Wasp engines.
According to the Putnams Hadley Page aircraft book the H.P.55 was to have had two Hercules 1SM engines. The contract was formally signed on 23.10.35, with mock-up completion scheduled for February 1936 and delivery on 23.07.37. It continued by saying that the engines were changed to two 1,200hp Merlin XXs in May 1936 and the mock-up in this form was shown to Air Commodore Verney on 11.07.36. He returned for a second look on 22nd July, with so many criticisms that the official mock-up conference was indefinitely postponed and work was stopped while the possibility of accommodating a much bigger bomb-load was investigated. "This led to a meeting between Handley Page and Verney on 14th September, when a new draft specification was discussed, the proposed engines being up-rated Hercules, although it was hoped that Rolls-Royce Vultures of still higher power would be available in three years' time. Volkert thereupon prepared an enlarged design, H.P.56, with two Vultures―but that is another story." Unfortunately, the book doesn't say when the H.P.55 was cancelled.
Specification P.13/36 - Dated 08.09.36 - Medium Bomber - Issued to Tender
2 H.P. 56 prototypes were ordered on 30.04.37 and both were to be fitted with Vulture engines. The contracted was amended from 2 Vultures to 4 Merlin X engines on 03.09.37 and at the same time the designation was changed from H.P.56 to H.P.57. The first prototype flew on 25.10.39 and the second on 17.08.40.
Meanwhile, a production contract for 100 Halifaxes had been let to Handley Page on 07.01.38. According to the Air Britain Book on RAF Aircraft in the serial range L1000 to R9999 they were delivered between August 1940 and December 1941. However, August 1940 can't be right because according to "Handley Page Aircraft since 1907" by C.H. Barnes the first production aircraft didn't fly until 11.10.40. According to Barnes the first Halifax squadron (No. 35) mustered at Boscombe Down on 05.11.40 and a little later moved to Leeming, Yorkshire. It moved to its new operational base of Linton-on-Ouse on 05.12.40 and began full training of aircrews. With six crews competent by March 1941, the squadron made its first night sortie to Le Havre on 10th/11th March 1941 and found the found target with some difficulty. No aircraft were lost to enemy action, but one was misidentified and shot down by a home defence night fighter over Surrey. Two more Halifaxes attacked Hamburg the following night.
A total 6,177 production aircraft was built by five firms of which 6,176 were delivered to November 1946 as follows:
The delivery dates for the aircraft built by E.E. come from the Putnams book on English Electric aircraft. The delivery dates for the other firms come from the relevant Air Britain "Royal Air Force Aircraft" books. Except that as already noted the first production aircraft didn't fly until October and deliveries to the AAEE at Boscombe Down and No. 35 Squadron didn't begin until November according to C.F. Barnes.
The 6,177th aircraft was a Halifax Mk II built by Rootes, that crashed (on a test flight) before delivery. Therefore, Rootes only delivered 1,069 Halifaxes instead of the 1,070 shown in the table.
I have often wondered what would have happened if instead of the build up of Fighter Command the RAF had put all its resources into bringing heavy four engined bombers into service in 1939 instead of 1941.
Churchill would have the means to punish Germany earlier and begin the destruction of its cities.
1) As others have said, the Luftwaffe now most likely wins the Battle of Britain, or the RAF has a much harder time of it and it becomes a closer-run thing than even Waterloo.
2) Churchill didn't come into power until 1940.
3) The problem with Bomber Command was quality, not quantity, as others had also stated. You don't just need the machines; you need competent and thoroughly well-practiced crews to fly them.
Even assuming you have the well-equipped and well-trained strategic bombing machine ready to go on the morning of 3 September 1939, the other thing you need is the will to use it. The only thing that MIGHT have saved Poland is an immediate land assault on Germany from the west, not with the aim of conquest but certainly demanding a major diversion of effort, coupled with an immediate strategic heavy bombing effort on every railroad and marshalling yard the bombers can reach. If Germany is faced with immediate consequences and a strong Anglo-French resolve, there is a slim possibility that it might end there since it denies Germany the time to catch its breath and learn any lessons from Poland before turning west. MAYBE it even leads to the overthrow of Hitler, since his bluff is called immediately and he doesn't get away with it scot-free (the declaration of war notwithstanding).
History demonstrates that the resolve was lacking.
Just contemplate being the man responsible for turning these aspirations into delivered hardware: Air Council Member for (1/4/36: R&D; 6/38-14/5/40) Devt&Prod, AM Sir W.Freeman (inc RN aircraft) then in MAP; 11/40 to be VCAS, operating them; then to be Chief Exec/MAP delivering more and developing Very Heavy Bombers for the Pacific.
His biographer credits him with Merlin-into P-51, and Mosquito was his (Freeman's Folly). But...onway to that...BPA Defiant, DH Don, Blackburn Botha, Roc, Skua, Fairey Battle, Hawker Henley, Saro Lerwick, Vickers Warwick, Westland Whirlwind; all Big and several smaller Engines.
When he retired he pumped his pension in Courtaulds and in Babcock to purge Aero from his day.
Link to Post 22 which is how I think Vickers bombers would develop with a Point-of-Departure (POD) in June/July 1931 instead of the POD on 09.04.32 that I suggested in Post 15.
Link to Post 33 which carried on from the above and was Part One of how I think Handley Page bombers with a Point-of-Departure (POD) in June/July 1931 instead of the POD on 09.04.32 that I suggested in Post 15.
Link to Post 34 which is Part Two of how I think Handley Page bombers would develop with a Point-of-Departure (POD) in June/July 1931 instead of the POD on 09.04.32 that I suggested in Post 15. It is about the aircraft that Handley Page designed to meet Specifications B.1/35 and P.13/36 in the "Real World".
This is Part Three of how I think Handley Page bombers would develop with a Point-of-Departure (POD) in June/July 1931 instead of the POD on 09.04.32 that I suggested in Post 15 and is about the aircraft that Handley Page designed to meet those specifications in this "Version of History". (If you see a mistake please inform me by a Private Message and I will correct it.)
ALT-H.P.55 to Specification B.1/35.
I think that in "this version of history" Specification B.1/35 will originally be for an aircraft powered by four 1,000hp type-approved service engines such as the A.S. Deerhound, Bristol Hercules or R-R Merlin and that single prototypes of the ALT-versions of the Armstrong-Whitworth A.W.39, Handley Page H.P.55 and Vickers Type 284 will be ordered in September or October 1935. In common with the "Real World" the A.W. and H.P. prototypes will be cancelled before they flew, but as written in Post 22 the first ALT-Warwick prototype will have four Vulture engines (instead of two), the second will have four Bristol Centarus engines (instead of two) and the 843 production ALT-Warwicks will have four Centaurus or Double Wasp engines (instead of two).
ALT-H.P. Halifax to Specification P.13/36
The ALT-H.P.55 designed to meet Spec. B.1/35 would have had four Hercules 1SM engines and I think that the enlarged ALT-H.P.56 designed to meet Spec. P.13/36 would have had four Vultures. I think it highly unlikely that the contract would have been amended from four Vultures to eight Merlin X engines on 03.09.37 (and the designation changed from H.P.56 to H.P.57 at the same time) so the two ALT-H.P.56 prototypes (both ordered on 30.04.37) would fly on 25.10.39 and 17.08.40 with four Vulture engines.
In the "Real World" the time taken to find a suitable engine for the Warwick led to the Wellington being kept in production for longer than intended and developed considerably more thoroughly than was intended. I think that in this "Version of History" the time taken to find a suitable engine for the ALT-Halifax will lead to the ALT-Hampden being kept in production for longer than intended and developed considerably more thoroughly than intended.
The ALT-Halifax might not go into production at all. If it does, I suspect that less than a thousand will be built. Furthermore, it won't enter service with the RAF until the second half of the war and it will only be used as a G.R., A.S.R. & transport aircraft. That's based on what happened to the Real-Warwick and what I think will happen to the ALT-Warwick.
More ALT-Hampdens instead of ALT-Halifaxes
Meanwhile, I think that the ALT-Hampden, with four Hercules or four Merlin XX engines, proposed to the Air Ministry in November 1938 in this "Version of History" will be built. All other things being equal as many as 6,176 ALT-Hampdens with Hercules or Merlin engines would be delivered from November 1940 to November 1946 out of 6,177 production aircraft built. The exact number depends upon if (and when) the ALT-Halifax goes into production. However, all other things would not be equal.
Firstly, in the "Real World" the last Handley Page-built Hampden with Pegasus engines was delivered in July 1940, the first H.P.-built Halifax didn't fly until 11.10.40, the first aircraft wasn't delivered until November 1940 and production didn't get "up to speed" until well into 1941. However, I think that in this "Version of History" the last ALT-Hampden with Pegasus engines will be delivered in July 1940 and deliveries of the ALT-Hampden with Merlin engines will commence immediately afterwards. Therefore, the number of ALT-Hampdens with four Hercules or four Merlin engines delivered by Handley Page between the middle of 1940 and the middle of 1941 will be considerably greater than the number of Halifaxes delivered by Handley Page to the middle of 1941 in the "Real World".
Secondly, English Electric would delivered 2,910 ALT-Hampdens with Hercules or Merlin engines from March 1940 to November 1945. That is 770 instead of the 770 Hampdens with Pegasus engines that it delivered from March 1940 to March 1942 and 2,145 instead of the Halifaxes that it delivered from September 1941 to November 1945 in the "Real Word". The 770 aircraft built instead of the Hampdens would probably have had Bristol Hercules engines as the aircraft that they were built instead of had Bristol Pegasus engines.
Thirdly, the 160 ALT-Hampdens built by two factories in Canada and delivered in from September 1940 to May 1942 will have four Bristol Hercules engines instead of four Bristol Pegasus engines. In the "Real World" the Canadian factories were to have built Short Stirlings, but in the end one of them built Lancasters with American-built Merlin engines. In this "Version of History" the factory at Malton might continue building the ALT-Hampden with Hercules or American-built Merlin engines instead of re-tooling to make the ALT-Lancaster which would be powered by four American-built Griffon engines. The 430 Real-Lancasters built in Canada were delivered from September 1943 to August 1945. If the Canadian factories did continue to build the ALT-Hampden instead of re-tooling to build the ALT-Lancaster the total built would have been more than 590 (i.e. 160 instead of the Real-Hampden and 430 instead of the Real-Lancaster) due to no gap in deliveries between May 1942 and September 1943.
Fourthly, the "This Version of History" Specification B.12/36 was for a heavy bomber with four Vulture-class engines so the Short ALT-Stirling and Supermarine ALT-B.12/36 (the former with four Centurus engines instead of four Hercules engines) would have been delayed too. The likely result of this is that the RAF cancelled Short & Harland's ALT-Stirling contracts and ordered it to continue production of the ALT-Hereford and the Firm delivered 1,218 ALT-Herefords with four Hercules engines from October 1940 to December 1945 instead of the 1,218 Stirlings that the Firm delivered over the same period in the "Real World". That would have increased the number of ALT-Herefords built in this "Version of History" from 150 to 1,368. Except, that it would have been more than 1,368 because deliveries of ALT-Hereford with Hercules engines would have begun in July 1940 (which is when production of the ALT-Hereford with Dagger engines ended) instead of October 1940.
Fifthly, Stirlings were also built by Austin, which delivered 620 from December 1940 to January 1945. The firm also built.
1,029 Fairey Battles, which were delivered from October 1938 to August 1940.
300 Hawker Hurricanes, which were delivered from February 1941 to October 1942.
330 Avro Lancasters, which were delivered from March 1944 to December 1945.
The Opening Post says.
I have often wondered what would have happened if instead of the build up of Fighter Command the RAF had put all its resources into bringing heavy four engined bombers into service in 1939 instead of 1941.
Therefore, in the spirit of that statement the RAF had Austin build ALT-Hampdens powered by four 1,000hp Merlin engines instead of the Battle which were delivered to August 1940. Then it had the Firm build ALT-Hampdens with four Hercules engines or more powerful versions of the Merlin instead having it build Hurricanes and ALT-Stirlings. The Firm might also build more ALT-Hampdens instead of the ALT-Lancaster.
However, as I've turned the Hampden, Wellington and Whitley from two-engine into four-engine aircraft in this "Version of History" it made sense to turn the Battle from a single-engine into a two-engine aircraft and there is a precedent for this as a "Twin-Battle" with two Merlin engines instead of one was proposed in the "Real World" and that's what I really want Austin (and Fairey) to build instead of the Real-Battle.
I have often wondered what would have happened if instead of the build up of Fighter Command the RAF had put all its resources into bringing heavy four engined bombers into service in 1939 instead of 1941.
Churchill would have the means to punish Germany earlier and begin the destruction of its cities.
Complimentary to the above the RAF puts all the resources that it put into the development of radar for defensive purposes (such as the Chain Home networks, the GCI network & AI radar) in the "Real World" into developing electronic navigation aids for Bomber Command in this "version of history".
This is part of Post 222 in the Alternative RAF 1936-41 thread.
In the "Real World" the Luftwaffe had "Knickebein" in service at the start of the War. It also had the pathfinder unit LN.100 formed on 26.08.38 (but its lineage stretched back to 01.10.35). It would be renamed KGr.100 on 18.11.39 and expanded into KG100 on 15.12.41. The next navigation aid "X-Gerät" was being tested by the end of 1939 and was in service early enough to be used in the raid on Coventry and then came "Y-Gerät".
The RAF was far behind the Luftwaffe in this technology. According to the British official history on the Strategic Bombing Offensive against Germany.
Development of "G" also known as "Gee" didn't begin until 1941. The first trials were in July 1941, the first operational use was on 12.08.41 and in August 1942 80% of Bomber Command's operational force had it, but it was also when the Luftwaffe started to jam it. The whole operational force had it in January 1941 and in March 1943 "Gee Mk II" with anti-jamming devices was fitted to 60% of the force.
Development of "H" began in July 1942, service trials began in June 1943, the first operational use was on 03.11.43 and it was used in conjunction with "Gee" as "G-H".
Development of "Oboe" began in 1940 with the intention of having it operational by July 1942, but it wasn't available until December 1942. To get "Oboe Mk I" into service deployment of the centimetric & jamming-resistant "Oboes Mk II & III" and "Repeater Oboe" had to be delayed. "Oboe Mk II" became operational in October 1943 and "Oboe Mk III" became operational in April 1944.
Approval wasn't given to adapting the centimetric Air to Surface Vessel (ASV) radar to BN (later H2S) radar until September 1941 and the first operational use was in January 1943.
However, the same source also said.
"Gee" was first proposed in 1938 which was three years before development began in the "Real World". Does that mean that had development begun immediately that IOC would have been in August 1938 (in time for the Munich Crisis) and that 80% of Bomber Command's operational force would have had it August 1939 and 100% by January 1940? One of "Gee's" limitations was its short range. However, it wouldn't be as bad in this "version of history" as "Gee" transmitters could be installed in France in September 1939 which would allow Bomber Command to bomb with greater accuracy further into Germany.
"H" was first proposed in June 1940 which was two years before development began in the "Real World". Does that mean that in this "version of history" service trials could be advanced to June 1941 and the first operational use to 03.11.41?
If there was a delay between the first proposal for "Oboe" and the start of its development, by source doesn't say so.
The requirement for a H2S-type radar was stated as early as 1938. This followed the AI trials of 1936-37 with a Heyford bomber. The trials for AI purposes were unsatisfactory but it did show the difference between the countryside and built up areas. However, development of Blind Navigation (BN) radar was not proceeded with due to the priority given to air defence and as already stated the go ahead to adapt the centimetric ASV wasn't given until September 1941. If it was given in September 1938 in this "version of history" would the first operational use have been in January 1940? However, if it did the H2S Mk I radar of this "version of history" would have to use a metric rather than the 10 cm centimetric wavelength because the development of centimetric radar wasn't far enough advanced in the late 1930s to allow that.
Bombers produced by Hawker Siddeley Part One.
Armstrong-Whitworth Bombers
Hawker Aircraft bought Gloster Aircraft in 1934 and in 1935 purchased the companies of J.D. Siddeley to create Hawker Siddeley. The latter included Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft which to J.D. Siddeley purchased in 1927 and Avro which J.D. Siddeley acquired in 1928 by buying A.V. Roe's shared in the Company.
Specification G.4/31
General Purpose, Bombing and Torpedo-Carrying Aircraft
Issued to Tender
(Initial issue, June/July 1931. Revised issue, October 1931.)
Armstrong-Whitworth built a single A.W.19 to meet this specification. It was a biplane powered by one 810hp Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger VI engine and made its first flight on 26.02.34. The aircraft didn't progress beyond the prototype stage because the production contract went to the Vickers Wellesley. In this "Version of History" the A.W.19 would have been a biplane powered by two 810hp Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger VI engines and it still didn't progress beyond the prototype stage because the production contract went to the Vickers Twin-Wellesley described in Post 22.
Specification C.26/31
Bomber Transport Aircraft
Issued to Tender 09.04.32
Armstrong-Whitworth built a single AW.23 to meet this specification. It was a monoplane with a retractable undercarriage powered by two 810hp Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger VI engines and made its first flight on 04.06.35. The aircraft didn't progress beyond the prototype stage because the production contract went to the Bristol Bombay (except it was built by Short & Harland instead of Bristol). But the A.W.23 was the basis of the A.W.38 Whitley and another aircraft built to meet C.26/31 was the Handley Page H.P.51 which was the basis of the H.P.54 Harrow. In this "Version of History" all the Specification was for a four-engine aircraft so that the ALT-Harrow and ALT-Whitley can be four-engine aircraft.
Specification P.27/32 - Single-Engined Day Bombing Aircraft - Issued to Tender 12.04.33
In the "Real World" a single A.W.29 powered by one 920hp Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger VIII engines was ordered on 11.06.34 and made its first flight on 06.12.36. According to the British Aircraft Specifications file her first flight was delayed due to the priority given to the Whitley heavy bomber. Meanwhile, the prototype of its rival the Fairey Battle (powered by one 1,030hp RR Merlin I engine) made its first flight on 10.03.36 and a production contract for 155 aircraft had been let nearly a year before (May 1935) as part of Expansion Scheme C.
The Alternative Specification P.27/32 was for a Twin-Engine Day Bombing Aircraft and the ALT-A.W.29 was powered by two 920hp Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger VIII engines. In common with the "Real World" the ALT-Whitley was given priority over the ALT-A.W.29 which delayed its first light until 06.12.36 and meanwhile, the prototype of its rival the Fairey ALT-Battle (powered by two 1,030hp RR Merlin I engines) made its first flight on 10.03.36 and a production contract for 155 aircraft had been let nearly a year before (May 1935) as part of Expansion Scheme C.
Specification B.3/34 - Heavy Bomber Landplane - To Tender 03.07.34
This produced the A.W.38 Whitley a descendent of the A.W.23 Bomber-Transport built to Specification C.26/31. The two prototypes were powered by two 795hp Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger IX engines and the first flight was on 17.03.36.
The "British Aircraft Specifications File" (Page 191 & 192) says that the Bristol Type 144 a development of the Type 130 Bombay Bomber-Transport built to the same specification as the A.W.23 was tendered to B.3/34 too, along with the Boulton Paul P.79 and a Fairey project, but it also said that in spite of much written to the contrary the H.P.54 Harrow was not tendered to this specification.
The first production contract (for 80 aircraft) was let on 23.08.35 as part of Expansion Scheme C and they were delivered between March 1937 and June 1938. These were the first of 1,812 Whitleys that were delivered to March 1943 or June 1943 depending upon which source you believe.
According to the British official history of the Design & Development of Weapons a total of 1,932 Whitleys were ordered as follows.
The 1,812 production aircraft were delivered as follows.
Furthermore, according to "Aircraft for the Few" by Michael J.F. Bowyer a total of 206 Whitleys were delivered from March 1937 to the end of August 1939 and another 465 were delivered between September 1939 and December 1940. That made a total of 671 aircraft delivered to the end of 1940. According to two other sources the RAF had 196 Whitleys on charge on 03.09.39.
In this "version of history" the ALT-Whitley would be an aircraft powered by 4 Armstrong-Siddeley Tigers or 4 Rolls-Royce Merlin engines and was a descendent of the ALT-A.W.23 Bomber-Transport aircraft.
Specification B.1/35 - Heavy Bomber - Issued to Tender 08.05.35.
This specification was originally for an aircraft powered by two 1,000hp type-approved service engines such as the A.S. Deerhound, Bristol Hercules or R-R Merlin. Single prototypes of the Armstrong-Whitworth A.W.39, Handley Page H.P.55 and Vickers Type 284 were ordered in September or October 1935. The A.W. & H.P. aircraft were cancelled before they could fly. The Vickers prototype flew in August 1939 with two R-R Vultures. A second Vickers prototype flew in 1940 with two Centaurus engines. 843 production aircraft (named the Warwick) were delivered from June 1942 to May 1946 and were powered by two Centaurus or two Double Wasp engines.
I think that in "this version of history" Specification B.1/35 will originally be for an aircraft powered by four 1,000hp type-approved service engines such as the A.S. Deerhound, Bristol Hercules or R-R Merlin and that single prototypes of the ALT-versions of the Armstrong-Whitworth A.W.39, Handley Page H.P.55 and Vickers Type 284 will be ordered in September or October 1935. In common with the "Real World" the A.W. and H.P. prototypes will be cancelled before they flew, but as written in Post 22 the first ALT-Warwick prototype will have four Vulture engines (instead of two), the second will have four Bristol Centarus engines (instead of two) and the 843 production ALT-Warwicks will have four Centaurus or Double Wasp engines (instead of two).
Specification B.18/38 - Reconnaissance Bomber Aircraft for Rapid Production
Armstrong Whitworth A.W.41 Albermarle
Issued on 01.09.38 to Armstrong Whitworth
1,280 aircraft were ordered, but only 602 were built, including the two prototypes. The first prototype flew on 20.03.40 and arrived at the A&AEE for its acceptance trials in November 1940. The second prototype flew on 20.04.41. These aircraft were built by Armstrong-Whitworth at Baginton.
The 600 production aircraft were delivered between October 1941 and May 1945. They were built at Gloster's Hucclecote factory, but were built by a specially created company called A.W. Hawkesley Ltd. The aircraft didn't enter service (with No. 511 Squadron) until November 1942.
It would be same in this "version of history" except that the ALT-Albermarle was powered by 4 Bristol Hercules engines instead of 2.
Armstrong-Whitworth Airliners of the 1930s.
Having the A.W.23 and Whitley be four-engine aircraft in this "version of history" may be the most plausible upgrade that I have so far proposed. This is because the firm built a pair of four-engine airliners in the "Real World" in the 1930s and as a result may be better at designing four-engine aircraft than the other firms discussed so far.
The first was the A.W.15 Atlanta a fixed-undercarriage monoplane powered by four Armstrong-Siddeley Serval III engines producing 340hp each which first flew on 06.06.32.
The second was the A.W.27 Ensign a retractable-undercarriage monoplane initially powered by Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger engines, but during World War II the surviving aircraft had them replaced by Wright Cyclones. The first aircraft was ordered on 22.09.34 for delivery in 1936, but because priority was given to the Whitley it didn't fly until 24.01.38 and the other 13 Ensigns were delivered late too because the Whitley was given priority.
In this "version of history" the Ensign could well have been an airliner version of the ALT-A.W.23 Bomber-Transport rather than a new aircraft that might help it be delivered closer to schedule as it might be easier to modify an existing aircraft than design a new one and it might be possible to build it using the same tooling. As the ALT-Whitely was also a development of the ALT-A.W.23 it might have many components in common with the ALT-Ensign which might make the ALT-Ensign easier to produce and reduce the delays further.
Specification B.18/38 - Reconnaissance Bomber Aircraft for Rapid Production
Armstrong Whitworth A.W.41 Albermarle
Issued on 01.09.38 to Armstrong Whitworth
1,280 aircraft were ordered, but only 602 were built, including the two prototypes. The first prototype flew on 20.03.40 and arrived at the A&AEE for its acceptance trials in November 1940. The second prototype flew on 20.04.41. These aircraft were built by Armstrong-Whitworth at Baginton.
The 600 production aircraft were delivered between October 1941 and May 1945. They were built at Gloster's Hucclecote factory, but were built by a specially created company called A.W. Hawkesley Ltd. The aircraft didn't enter service (with No. 511 Squadron) until November 1942.
It would be same in this "version of history" except that the ALT-Albermarle was powered by 4 Bristol Hercules engines instead of 2.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
