Avro Manchester

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Roddoss72
Member
Posts: 1367
Joined: 21 Jul 2005 05:44
Location: Australia

Avro Manchester

Post by Roddoss72 » 20 Jul 2010 04:21

My point of view on the Avro Lancaster bomber is one of fondness and it truely bacame one of the greatest aircraft in history but.

What if the Air Ministry decided to stick with the Avro Manchester and insisted that the bomber also have dive bombing capabilities. Avro and Rolls Royce know this is not a good design of aircraft as it stands and decides to approach the Air Ministry to overcome the inate problems, but the Air Ministry rejects any attempt to fix the problem, this also includes the twin engined Handley Page Halifax.

What If the Avro Manchester became the pre-dominant heavy Bomber/Dive Bomber and the RAF was forced to use it throughout the war, this also pertains to the twin engined Handley Page Halifax. Plus in conjunction with all the problems of the He-177 had.

Any takers.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2801
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Avro Manchester

Post by Takao » 20 Jul 2010 06:15

Manchester vs. Lancaster: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=163837

The Manchester as a dive-bomber is a new twist, however, it wouldn't fit on any British carrier I know of. So, the Fleet Air Arm will still be stuck with the Skua. Still, it might loosely qualify as the world's first "four engined" dive bomber.

Having seen little of the Manchester, would the wings stay attached in a dive and pull-out? It's about 6 tons heavier than a JU-88, but with about the same amount of wing-loading. Once the engine problems are fixed, the whole airframe would need to be re-stressed for dive bombing.

Still, the RAF never went in for dive-bombing, so why would they even make that suggestion?

User avatar
Roddoss72
Member
Posts: 1367
Joined: 21 Jul 2005 05:44
Location: Australia

Re: Avro Manchester

Post by Roddoss72 » 20 Jul 2010 06:53

I had an idea from the Aircraft section over the He-177 and thought what would have happened had the Air Ministry had decided throughout the war that the Avro Manchester was kept it as it was in 1939, with the additional role as a heavy bomber/dive bomber (The aircraft would have no place in the fleet air arm).

I also included the aspect that AV & Roe plus Roll Royce had approached the Air Ministry to change the aircraft to a four engined bomber and not a super twin engined bomber, but the Air Ministry rejects the idea out of hand, this is in conjuntion with the Handley Page Halifax, it started its life out as a super twin engined bomber but became a rour engined heavy.

As with the He-177, the histories of both the Manchester and Halifax are constantly dogged with reliance issues, they continually suffer engine malfunction, fires, stoppages and explosions, but are denied the opportunity to rectify the problems that they face. And the losses that follow.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Re: Avro Manchester

Post by Tim Smith » 20 Jul 2010 08:07

Roddoss72 wrote:
What if the Air Ministry decided to stick with the Avro Manchester and insisted that the bomber also have dive bombing capabilities. Avro and Rolls Royce know this is not a good design of aircraft as it stands and decides to approach the Air Ministry to overcome the inate problems, but the Air Ministry rejects any attempt to fix the problem, this also includes the twin engined Handley Page Halifax.

What If the Avro Manchester became the pre-dominant heavy Bomber/Dive Bomber and the RAF was forced to use it throughout the war, this also pertains to the twin engined Handley Page Halifax. Plus in conjunction with all the problems of the He-177 had.

The reason the Avro Manchester was rejected historically was because its Vulture engines were chronically unreliable. For the Manchester to be accepted in its twin engine form, the Vulture engine would have to be a lot more reliable than it was historically - reliable enough for the RAF to stick with it instead of switching to the very reliable but less powerful Merlin. Remember the Merlin was available in large numbers due to the previous production emphasis on fighters, also the RAF had other engines including the Bristol Hercules available. Unlike Germany, Britain did not suffer from a shortage of different but powerful engines.

Can we assume that the Vulture in this scenario is at least as reliable as the Napier Sabre that later powered the Typhoon fighter? I don't see the RAF accepting a less reliable engine than that.

Also I'd like an explanation as to why RAF Bomber Command is going to assign a strategic heavy bomber like the Manchester the dive bombing role, which is usually associated with tactical battlefield support. In the RAF, battlefield support was done by light bombers, not heavy bombers. Also dive bombing is a daylight tactic, not a night tactic - and RAF Bomber Command made the decision in 1940 to bomb mainly at night.

User avatar
Roddoss72
Member
Posts: 1367
Joined: 21 Jul 2005 05:44
Location: Australia

Re: Avro Manchester

Post by Roddoss72 » 20 Jul 2010 09:41

Tim Smith wrote:
Roddoss72 wrote:
What if the Air Ministry decided to stick with the Avro Manchester and insisted that the bomber also have dive bombing capabilities. Avro and Rolls Royce know this is not a good design of aircraft as it stands and decides to approach the Air Ministry to overcome the inate problems, but the Air Ministry rejects any attempt to fix the problem, this also includes the twin engined Handley Page Halifax.

What If the Avro Manchester became the pre-dominant heavy Bomber/Dive Bomber and the RAF was forced to use it throughout the war, this also pertains to the twin engined Handley Page Halifax. Plus in conjunction with all the problems of the He-177 had.

The reason the Avro Manchester was rejected historically was because its Vulture engines were chronically unreliable. For the Manchester to be accepted in its twin engine form, the Vulture engine would have to be a lot more reliable than it was historically - reliable enough for the RAF to stick with it instead of switching to the very reliable but less powerful Merlin. Remember the Merlin was available in large numbers due to the previous production emphasis on fighters, also the RAF had other engines including the Bristol Hercules available. Unlike Germany, Britain did not suffer from a shortage of different but powerful engines.

Can we assume that the Vulture in this scenario is at least as reliable as the Napier Sabre that later powered the Typhoon fighter? I don't see the RAF accepting a less reliable engine than that.

Also I'd like an explanation as to why RAF Bomber Command is going to assign a strategic heavy bomber like the Manchester the dive bombing role, which is usually associated with tactical battlefield support. In the RAF, battlefield support was done by light bombers, not heavy bombers. Also dive bombing is a daylight tactic, not a night tactic - and RAF Bomber Command made the decision in 1940 to bomb mainly at night.
Stick to the topic, the Vulture engines are woeful, but the Air Ministry won't budge, on them, AV & Roe must still continue to use them as they are, and that in this thread i indicate that the Avro Manchester and Handley Page Halifax must have dive bombing capabilities.

And i have indicated that the Air Ministry won't allow the aircraft and aero engine companies to alter the specifications.

Something like what the German RLM did with the He-177.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Re: Avro Manchester

Post by Tim Smith » 20 Jul 2010 10:48

Roddoss72 wrote: Stick to the topic, the Vulture engines are woeful, but the Air Ministry won't budge, on them, AV & Roe must still continue to use them as they are, and that in this thread i indicate that the Avro Manchester and Handley Page Halifax must have dive bombing capabilities.

And i have indicated that the Air Ministry won't allow the aircraft and aero engine companies to alter the specifications.

Something like what the German RLM did with the He-177.

So you want to confine the thread to very specific circumstances, but are not prepared to provide any background story as to why these circumstance came about, other than "because I say so"?

As you wish. Presumably the answer you're looking for is "The British bombing campaign against Germany is an utter failure" - so I might as well give you that answer now - without bothering to explain any further.

I won't be wasting any more of my time in this thread, since I get the impression that I'm feeding a troll rather than co-creating an alternate history scenario.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 14986
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Avro Manchester

Post by Andy H » 20 Jul 2010 10:56

As noted earlier there is already a rather lengthy thread concenring the Manchester within the WI.

Though this WI revolves in part around a possible dive-bombing facet, I don't see enough daylight between the threads to warrant keeping this one open. Already the information coming forward is already contained and discussed in the previous thread.

Please feel free to add to that thread

Regards

Andy H

Return to “What if”