Malcolm,
You are correct. The war went into a phase where short-range ground attack aircraft weren’t necessary on the Channel front, but perhaps they could’ve been used elsewhere until the fighter-bomber concept was truly workable with adequate types. I’m not trying to argue that the Battle was as successful as the Ju 87 or Il-2, but rather that properly equipped with appropriately trained crews they could have provided similar results in certain mission sets to the other two types. As others have mentioned there was not one attack or bomber type that wasn’t vulnerable during the war when not provided with adequate fighter protection.
otis,
I can already see that we won’t ever begin to agree on this topic as I know from what perspective you are viewing the aircraft with, but I’ll attempt to explain my thinking regardless. First off saying that it was marginally better than the aircraft it replaced is disingenuous to say the least. Of course the notion of a single-engine bomber was soon obsolete, thus the aircraft was, through not fault of its own, left without a true mission. The RAF’s continued insistence on strategic bombing meant that the aircraft would never be truly re-roled into a battlefield attack type although the premise of the basic design meant it could have. Your comments regarding performance imply that no new engine was to be fitted. Had the aircraft been truly equipped with the necessary equipment for a battlefield attack role, then we can surmise it would have gotten a much larger engine (either a later Merlin or another type…many different engines were tested on the Battle to varying degrees of success. As mentioned the bomb aimer comes out of the aircraft with the new mission set so no weight penalty there. As someone else mentioned, there was a fair amount of time between the end of Battle production and the Hurricane being truly thrust into the fighter-bomber role. The last point regarding its lack of ability to escape also applies to all other bomber, attack types of the war.
I think some of you guys are still missing the point. I’m not claiming that the Battle was a war-winning design nor am I saying it could have served the RAF throughout the entirety of the war in any frontline role. My point is that it is an example of an aircraft that could have been more than it was, and the sound basic design would have permitted that. High level thinking in the RAF being what it was however this was not to be the case. The common (i.e. coffee table history book description) perception of the aircraft was that of an obsolete design that was nothing more than a failure. I disagree with that assessment and place more of the blame for the aircraft’s ultimate fate on a lack of innovation among the Air Staff. Hindsight is always 20/20, but the aircraft could have been turned into a useful design. The author does an excellent job of explaining this from a wide variety of different angles and perspectives. We shall agree to disagree.
Sign In
