Well you have to start off by viewing the aircraft from a different perspective in terms of what roles it might be suited for. It’s obvious that the idea of a single-engined bomber in the conventional sense was an anachronism from the 1920s and early 30s. The aircraft was designed to replace designs from that era (Hawker Hart, etc.) and in that regard it was excellent. It’s performance far exceeded the design specifications it was intended for, and the general design was actually quite good in terms of handling, agility, and other features (it used an excellent albeit not perfect engine for example).

The problem that the Battle faced was that around the time it came about some other designs came along (Blenheim, Wellington, Hampden, etc.) that the Air Ministry became more focused on and this was because they viewed these designs as one step closer to the ultimate arrival of the four (& one twin) engine heavies they so badly wanted (Striling, Halifax, & Manchester….later redesigned into the Lancaster) Long-range strategic bombing was still very much on the minds of those in the upper ecehelons of the RAF and so they immediately viewed the Battle as obsolete even though in reality in terms of its design it wasn’t. From the very beginning, they should have discarded any notion of using it in a strategic context. I can’t think of many other single-engine designs that were intended to be used this way and even worse, the crew training was based on this idea which meant that when the Battle found itself in tactical situations such as in France, the crews didn’t have the training they should have to make the most of their aircraft. This isn’t to say the aircraft didn’t have its limitations, but the simple solution was to re-role the aircraft into a tactical bomber in the same vein as the Ju-87 & Il-2. Granted the Il-2 came about just a bit later and the Ju-87 was a dedicated dive bomber, but the comparisons are still valid. Broadly similar dimensions, weights, & warloads in their initial incarnations mean that the Battle could have been developed to be much more had the necessary emphasis been placed on solving its weaknesses which were as follows:

Only a single forward firing rifle caliber gun (which was used quite often)…This should have been supplemented with further machine guns or perhaps cannon. The aircraft and wing could have dealt with this design change and you would have had an aircraft that would have been far more effective in a tactical battlefield role.

Self-sealing tanks…these were actually designed and delivered but apparently never really fitted (certainly not prior to combat in France) and this is largely to do with the lack of focus on the aircraft as it was viewed already as a waste of resources.

Increased range…this could have been provided by additional fuel tankage and some weight savings could have been gained by removing the bomb aimer and his equipment as for the battlefield role, this would have been unnecessary. (See the Ju-87 & two-seat variants of the Il-2…)

More engine power…several additional powerplants were looked at to replace the early Merlin and although some tests were successful, it was not proceeded with as pretty much by the time the aircraft entered service the powers that be had moved on.

The point I’m trying to make is that the aircraft had a good sound design and a variety of improvements would have helped turn it into a likely fairly successful attack aircraft that could have helped hold the line until dedicated fighter-bomber types such as the Typhoon & Tempest came along. You say that for ground attack you require a cannon-armed fighter-bomber and it must be realized that this concept didn’t really come into play until a bit later in the war although the Stuka & Il-2 certainly showed that dedicated attack types had their place. (Yes, they were both vulnerable to fighters, but there were few bombers of any type during WWII that weren’t. I think that properly equipped Battles with crews trained to perform the battlefield mission could have done their bit through the first few years of the war until the advent of newer fighter-bomber types.

The post is getting long so if you want to talk about specific aspects individually that might be easier. The author covered a lot of ground in the book, and I think he made some incredibly valid points. I don’t know what your particular perspective or experiences are as they pertain to the Battle, but based on your response I tend to think your are viewing the Battle in the “traditional” way that indeed I used to. Thus, I do not think it was a poor design, but one that wasn’t developed to its full potential.

Thanks for the help! I’m almost done, and it’s a pretty nice kit, and it really underscores how small the type was. Although I had assumed it was small, until I saw a few in person, I had never realized just how small it actually was. Almost like a 3/4 scale Sabre in some ways…

It’s fun to think of the capabilities of a modern version of the G.91. I can’t help but think it might make a useful CAS type for those countries with a smaller budget. The role it was designed to perform it could likely do now, albeit with more modern equipment and some design changes. A moot point I suppose, but I can’t help but wonder.

Anyone seen any photos or drawings of the upper guns? I’ve not seen much on them.

If the two-blade prop gave better takeoff performance, was the advantage with the three blade in terms of maximum speed? Rate of climb?

Levsha,

The point was not whether or not it could carry six B-8 rocket pods at once, but just to determine which pylons can carry which stores. There are certain stores limited to certain pylons (I think ATGM’s outboard pylons only, gun pods on middle pylons only), so it’s just interesting to think about the various combinations that are possible.

TR1,

So, it would appear we seem to have differing thoughts on the newest variants. The Russian Helicopters website does not mention the Mi-8AMTSh-VN, but just the V & VA. The Mi-171Sh-VN has been touted recently (Moscow Airshow I think). Would this be the Mi-8AMTSh-VN? Perhaps Mi-8AMTSh-V doesn’t exist…it is just VN & subsequent VA. The website has a typo?

It appears to me that the Mi-171Sh-VN is the military version of the Mi-171A2. Looking at the two, they just appear too similar to not effectively be the same platform, albeit in a military vs. civilian configuration. To me the only question is the domestic designation of the Mi-171Sh-VN, which in my estimation should be Mi-8AMTSh-VN.

http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/0/4/3/2410340.jpg?v=v40

This would seem to put to bed the question on how many B-8 rocket pods the Mi-8 family can carry.