Fairey Battles
Fairey Battles
I apologize for seeming to rant about bad equipment in the British armed forces in WWII, but I just wonder, " What were they thinking?"
Today's rant is about the Fairey Battle. It gets all kinds of bad press and I begin to think it's undeserved. Many analysts state that it was underpowered, obsolete, underarmed. etc. However, many Japanese aircraft had similar performance and were spectacularily successful. Is this just a case of sour grapes? We lost the Battle of France. Couldn't be us, must be bad equipment?
As far as the Fairey Battle was concerned, it's performance was not all that bad for a light bommber/attack aircraft. It might have been improved, too, if the third crew memeber was left out. How often would a land based light bomber need an observer/navigator? I can see it at sea, but over land he just seems like ballast to me. The weight saved might have been used to supply the Wireless Operator/ Air Gunner with a second Vickers K gun. How often would the plane need a pilot, Observer/ Navigator, Wireless Operator/ air gunner , all simultaneously?
The Battle wasn't equipped with self sealing fuel tanks or cockpit armour. I think this is the true reason for it's lack of success. Anybody else have an opinion?
Today's rant is about the Fairey Battle. It gets all kinds of bad press and I begin to think it's undeserved. Many analysts state that it was underpowered, obsolete, underarmed. etc. However, many Japanese aircraft had similar performance and were spectacularily successful. Is this just a case of sour grapes? We lost the Battle of France. Couldn't be us, must be bad equipment?
As far as the Fairey Battle was concerned, it's performance was not all that bad for a light bommber/attack aircraft. It might have been improved, too, if the third crew memeber was left out. How often would a land based light bomber need an observer/navigator? I can see it at sea, but over land he just seems like ballast to me. The weight saved might have been used to supply the Wireless Operator/ Air Gunner with a second Vickers K gun. How often would the plane need a pilot, Observer/ Navigator, Wireless Operator/ air gunner , all simultaneously?
The Battle wasn't equipped with self sealing fuel tanks or cockpit armour. I think this is the true reason for it's lack of success. Anybody else have an opinion?
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Fairey Battles
Perfromance might look good compared to the Japanese...but what about RAF or European equivalents?
The Blenheim carried the same crew...and internally the SAME 1000lb bombload! Don't forget the weight of this weighed down the Battle, as well as the extra crewmember
It did have what was required of it when it entered service - a fractional improvement in performance over the RAF's early 1930's "medium" Hawker biplane types...but almost within months it was obsolete regarding the performance of fighters and thus was immediately vulnerable in the environment it was expected to operate in.
IIRC there was discussion of a replacement - and that the Battle was, like the Blenheim, only a transition aircraft for the late 1930s - but emphasis was put instead on completing the development of Fighter Command after Munich...and the replacement for either type never materialised.
BUT....there is something VERY important that the Battle contributed to - the overall "modernisation" and expansion of the RAF after 1935/6 As the Air Plan grew the service again, the newly-forming squadrons had to have something to fly - and the Battle (and Blenheim) were there for them Your best reading on this whole process and how it hung together is John James' "The Paladins".
The Blenheim carried the same crew...and internally the SAME 1000lb bombload! Don't forget the weight of this weighed down the Battle, as well as the extra crewmember
It did have what was required of it when it entered service - a fractional improvement in performance over the RAF's early 1930's "medium" Hawker biplane types...but almost within months it was obsolete regarding the performance of fighters and thus was immediately vulnerable in the environment it was expected to operate in.
IIRC there was discussion of a replacement - and that the Battle was, like the Blenheim, only a transition aircraft for the late 1930s - but emphasis was put instead on completing the development of Fighter Command after Munich...and the replacement for either type never materialised.
BUT....there is something VERY important that the Battle contributed to - the overall "modernisation" and expansion of the RAF after 1935/6 As the Air Plan grew the service again, the newly-forming squadrons had to have something to fly - and the Battle (and Blenheim) were there for them Your best reading on this whole process and how it hung together is John James' "The Paladins".
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
- Saxon Cross
- Member
- Posts: 158
- Joined: 05 Apr 2010, 15:33
- Location: UK/USA
Re: Fairey Battles
The French lost the Battle of France, not the British. The British had only about 300,000 troops in France. The Germans over 10 times that amount. The French had 117 divisions compared to 10 to 13 British Divisions.Spontoon wrote: We lost the Battle of France. Couldn't be us, must be bad equipment?
As far as the Fairey Battle was concerned...
The British had a very wide range of vehicles and equipment, probably too wide. This meant the British had plenty of excellent and plenty of rubbish equipment, and old and new equipment in all the services. Though I'd say the British artillery was consistently good, and the best in the world during WWII. Even the Germans had some rubbish vehciles and equipment.
cheers,
Re: Fairey Battles
Hello!
Best regards, Aleks
The degree of "rubbishness" of any military equipment depends mostly on people who use it, and on skills of these people's higher command. So, even the most sophisticated equipment can become rubbish when used by unskillful staff.Saxon Cross wrote:Even the Germans had some rubbish vehciles and equipment.
Best regards, Aleks
-
- Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 17 Mar 2011, 08:31
Re: Fairey Battles
The Battle is much maligned because it was thrown into a role it was never designed for and shouldn’t have been forced to perform. It was a light patrol and day bomber, designed with as much of an eye towards colonial duties as it was with a European war in mind.
Operating over France at low level, without air superiority against 350 mph single/double engine cannon-armed fighters and facing fast-firing medium calibre flak was a role that only a handful of aircraft in the war were relatively accomplished at. Even redoubtable combat aircraft like the Il-2 or the Hs-129 would have suffered in such circumstances.
The Battle was a product of the RAF’s dual fixation with its position as an independent arm of the British armed forces and with its role as a strategic bombing force and little else.
The though of a dedicated ground attack aircraft was abhorrent to most of RAF high command – unlike in France and Germany, where airpower was viewed as an adjunct to ground fighting force and dedicated ground attack and dive bombers were in development pre-war. The few specifications that did call for a ground attack aircraft (like P.4/34) sank without producing any real results.
A similar cultural bias to the RAF was present in the USAAF – the single engined light bombers and ground attack aircraft (A-12, A-17, A-18, A-19) of the immediate pre-war were all built in very small numbers and either palmed off for export or quickly passed over for larger, longer ranged aircraft twin engine ‘attack’ bombers like the A-20 and
The main ‘failing’ of the Fairey Battle was to be overtaken by the pace of technology, as a result of the relatively unambitious specification it was designed to (1000 lbs for 1000 miles at 200 mph) and the lack of foresight over the pace of development in the Air Ministry. The is the same Ministry that approved production of the Sidestrand after-all.
Remember that when the Battle was designed, the RAF got less than a fifth of the UK’s defence budget and wanted to build its squadron strength, a role best filled by light bombers.
When the Battle first flew, in March 1936, its performance marginally better than that of the Gloster Gladiator and it actually cruised faster. So, in comparison to fighters of the time, it was competitive. Unfortunately, it entered service just as the age of the monoplane, stressed skin fighter began, so its minor speed advantage evaporated just as it entered service.
The Hawker Hurricane prototype only flew about four to five months before the Battle prototype did. It quickly displayed a 40 mph speed advantage over the Battle, increasing to 65 mph within 12 months.
This is the point that the RAF should have pulled the plug on the Battle. Unfortunately, in full expansion mode, the RAF decided to press ahead with the aircraft as an interim solution until it could get the mediums and heavies into service.
Operating over France at low level, without air superiority against 350 mph single/double engine cannon-armed fighters and facing fast-firing medium calibre flak was a role that only a handful of aircraft in the war were relatively accomplished at. Even redoubtable combat aircraft like the Il-2 or the Hs-129 would have suffered in such circumstances.
The Battle was a product of the RAF’s dual fixation with its position as an independent arm of the British armed forces and with its role as a strategic bombing force and little else.
The though of a dedicated ground attack aircraft was abhorrent to most of RAF high command – unlike in France and Germany, where airpower was viewed as an adjunct to ground fighting force and dedicated ground attack and dive bombers were in development pre-war. The few specifications that did call for a ground attack aircraft (like P.4/34) sank without producing any real results.
A similar cultural bias to the RAF was present in the USAAF – the single engined light bombers and ground attack aircraft (A-12, A-17, A-18, A-19) of the immediate pre-war were all built in very small numbers and either palmed off for export or quickly passed over for larger, longer ranged aircraft twin engine ‘attack’ bombers like the A-20 and
The main ‘failing’ of the Fairey Battle was to be overtaken by the pace of technology, as a result of the relatively unambitious specification it was designed to (1000 lbs for 1000 miles at 200 mph) and the lack of foresight over the pace of development in the Air Ministry. The is the same Ministry that approved production of the Sidestrand after-all.
Remember that when the Battle was designed, the RAF got less than a fifth of the UK’s defence budget and wanted to build its squadron strength, a role best filled by light bombers.
When the Battle first flew, in March 1936, its performance marginally better than that of the Gloster Gladiator and it actually cruised faster. So, in comparison to fighters of the time, it was competitive. Unfortunately, it entered service just as the age of the monoplane, stressed skin fighter began, so its minor speed advantage evaporated just as it entered service.
The Hawker Hurricane prototype only flew about four to five months before the Battle prototype did. It quickly displayed a 40 mph speed advantage over the Battle, increasing to 65 mph within 12 months.
This is the point that the RAF should have pulled the plug on the Battle. Unfortunately, in full expansion mode, the RAF decided to press ahead with the aircraft as an interim solution until it could get the mediums and heavies into service.
Re: Fairey Battles
The similar story was in Soviet Air Force before 1941 - with Neman R-10 and, to a certain extent, Sukhoi Su-2 which were gradually replaced by Ilyushin Il-2.Jabberwocky wrote:A similar cultural bias to the RAF was present in the USAAF – the single engined light bombers and ground attack aircraft (A-12, A-17, A-18, A-19) of the immediate pre-war were all built in very small numbers and either palmed off for export or quickly passed over
Best regards, Aleks
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Fairey Battles
1/ Ah, maybe the same ministry, but not necessarily the same Air Staff! The Battle was a product of that post February '33 change in focus towards war with one specific enemy - therefore colonial needs rapidly came a distant second...squadrons in the Empire would only get "modern" kit second-hand, or after all UK squadron requirements had been filled (which would take several years) and dual-role aircraft, like the "bomber transports" - so that half the aircraft could do twice the number of tasks!The main ‘failing’ of the Fairey Battle was to be overtaken by the pace of technology, as a result of the relatively unambitious specification it was designed to (1000 lbs for 1000 miles at 200 mph) and the lack of foresight over the pace of development in the Air Ministry. The is the same Ministry that approved production of the Sidestrand after-all.
2/ Don't forget the Sidestrand was a product of the previous decade, entering service ten years before the Battle...
3/ Only one squadron-worth was built...
4/...keeping Boulton Paul in the bomber business The Air Ministry did that through the interwar business, spread the money about in small contracts to to help companies retain designers and trained production staff, and to keep them current. The Sidestrand seque'd directly into the Overstand after all, the RAF's first operational powered-turret bomber...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Re: Fairey Battles
As an aside, has anyone ever seen a pic of a Battle captured and flown by the Luftwaffe?
Re: Fairey Battles
Hi SpontoonSpontoon wrote:As an aside, has anyone ever seen a pic of a Battle captured and flown by the Luftwaffe?
Within Foreign Planes in the Service of the Luftwaffe (Review of this book in the link below) by Jean-Louis Roba, he shows two pictures of Fairey Battles.
On Pg 70
The book then shows a Fairey Battle in said markings and under some basic camouflageNot all the wrecked planes were scrapped. Some of these planes, lavishly repainted in German markings, were used as decoys on fake airfields (Scheinflugplatze).
Pg 84
He mentions and shows a photograph published in the Der Adler magazine, which shows various Allied aircraft captured in May/June'40 at a test flying facility at Rechlin. Within the picture is a Fairey Battle used for testing.
Review link
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=12347
Regards
Andy H
Re: Fairey Battles
Yet, incredibly, a second plant - Austins at Longbridge - was put to making Battles, sixteen months before a second Hurricane factory began producing and two-years before the second Spitfire plant began production.Jabberwocky wrote: The Hawker Hurricane prototype only flew about four to five months before the Battle prototype did. It quickly displayed a 40 mph speed advantage over the Battle, increasing to 65 mph within 12 months.
This is the point that the RAF should have pulled the plug on the Battle. Unfortunately, in full expansion mode, the RAF decided to press ahead with the aircraft as an interim solution until it could get the mediums and heavies into service.
Re: Fairey Battles
Well Fairey Battle as well as many other attack-planes designed before WW II suffred same foults, they were under powered, under armed, lacked manouvrability, were over weight and designed to do work that did not exist anymoore. Like PZL 23, Ju 87, Aichi Val and others they needed good deal of fighter cover - without it they were just good targets for enamy fighters. Battle of France was such a hard case for British and French - they both had good material to keep germans away, but they did not know what to do and certainly they had no idea into what kind of war they were mixed with. What comes to british taking part of battele of France - certainly they could have send moore fighters to France, but we all know to that would have led them. One thing is really intresting and in my opinion supports my idea that the british and french did have no clue of what kind of a war to expect - The Phoney War. Certainly there were some possiabilities to to hurt german aircraft/armament production so to prevent them forming new formations ans to place losses in Poland. It is true that RAF bombers were not so efficent as in the end of war, but seems that only reason for not bombing germany was that they did not want to provocate germans to bomb Britain and France. Any way - I think that immobilisising some let us say Messerschmiit factories would have made Lufwaffes fight over France much harder.
Re: Fairey Battles
Hi SVaaka
Though I appreciate your post I would to remind everyone that the posts should relate more specifically to the Fairey Battle rather than the general situation that surounded there use. Thats not to say its unimportant but just that this thread isn't about that area and threads relating to the Phoney War, Battle of France and BoB exist elsewhere in the AHF
Regards
Andy H
Though I appreciate your post I would to remind everyone that the posts should relate more specifically to the Fairey Battle rather than the general situation that surounded there use. Thats not to say its unimportant but just that this thread isn't about that area and threads relating to the Phoney War, Battle of France and BoB exist elsewhere in the AHF
Regards
Andy H
Re: Fairey Battles
From what i've read elsewhere,
"The Battle File" indicates that the AM realised the Battle was obsolescent in 1939 but kept production going at Fairey's Stockport factory and at Austin through most of 1940 just to give the workforce something to do pending the switch-over to the Avro Manchester at Stockport and Short Stirling at Austin.
So how about reviving the twin engined proposal??
The "Battle File" book says that after the original twin-engined proposal in late 1933 interest in the twin-engine version disappeared until 1937 when Fairey revived the idea, this time with the bigger P-16 engine or Merlin. The Air Ministry became interested again in 1938 but then for a year or so they were keener on the P-24 engined version of the Battle, (authorising the building of the prototype) before loosing interest altogether - by which time the Beaufighter was on the verge of entering service (with the Gloster 9/37 expected to follow).
If production of a twin-engined Battle had gone ahead then replacing the single-engined Battle in production at Austin's Longbridge plant would have presented a problem - assembled Battles there were hoisted up a steep ramp from the flight-shed assembly factory to the tiny hill-top testing aerodrome by a sort of ski-lift assembly. I doubt if it could have accommodated a twin-engined aircraft. So they would have had to adopt early the scheme they used when Battle production was switched to Short Stirlings - Shipping the major assemblies to the near-by Elmdon aerodrome (now Birmingham airport) for final assembly there before flight-testing.
This is supposed to be the twin engined version but i've never seen any proof...
"The Battle File" indicates that the AM realised the Battle was obsolescent in 1939 but kept production going at Fairey's Stockport factory and at Austin through most of 1940 just to give the workforce something to do pending the switch-over to the Avro Manchester at Stockport and Short Stirling at Austin.
So how about reviving the twin engined proposal??
The "Battle File" book says that after the original twin-engined proposal in late 1933 interest in the twin-engine version disappeared until 1937 when Fairey revived the idea, this time with the bigger P-16 engine or Merlin. The Air Ministry became interested again in 1938 but then for a year or so they were keener on the P-24 engined version of the Battle, (authorising the building of the prototype) before loosing interest altogether - by which time the Beaufighter was on the verge of entering service (with the Gloster 9/37 expected to follow).
If production of a twin-engined Battle had gone ahead then replacing the single-engined Battle in production at Austin's Longbridge plant would have presented a problem - assembled Battles there were hoisted up a steep ramp from the flight-shed assembly factory to the tiny hill-top testing aerodrome by a sort of ski-lift assembly. I doubt if it could have accommodated a twin-engined aircraft. So they would have had to adopt early the scheme they used when Battle production was switched to Short Stirlings - Shipping the major assemblies to the near-by Elmdon aerodrome (now Birmingham airport) for final assembly there before flight-testing.
This is supposed to be the twin engined version but i've never seen any proof...
Re: Fairey Battles
True, but how much use would extra Hurricanes and Spitfires have been without pilots?Gooner1 wrote:Yet, incredibly, a second plant - Austins at Longbridge - was put to making Battles, sixteen months before a second Hurricane factory began producing and two-years before the second Spitfire plant began production.Jabberwocky wrote: The Hawker Hurricane prototype only flew about four to five months before the Battle prototype did. It quickly displayed a 40 mph speed advantage over the Battle, increasing to 65 mph within 12 months.
This is the point that the RAF should have pulled the plug on the Battle. Unfortunately, in full expansion mode, the RAF decided to press ahead with the aircraft as an interim solution until it could get the mediums and heavies into service.
Most of the Battles produced were used for non operational role especially training.
Re: Fairey Battles
An interesting statement in 'Bomber command and its aircraft 1936 - 1940' by James goulding and Philip Moyes P.24
'When the P.27/32 specification was first drafted it was envisaged that the new bomber could be powered by the military, production version of the Rolls Royce 'R' racing engine'
'When the P.27/32 specification was first drafted it was envisaged that the new bomber could be powered by the military, production version of the Rolls Royce 'R' racing engine'