"Sanity options" 2.0 - RAF, 1935-43

[JasTysoe]

The effect of ariel bombing on the British public was a panic reaction and as a data base was far to small in realty to form a firm basis for setting an entire new line of strategic thinking. The High Command of the RFC were only too eager to exploit the public and political fear of what was then an unknown form of warfare. Once set down that road by Trenchard in 1919 no one was permitted to question the hallowed fable of the mighty effect of arial bombardment. So yes I do hold the Air Ministry and the RAF to account for their blind faith in their own Myth during the inter war period.

I get your point, but then don't we have to apply the same standard of evidence to other questions and decisions made by the AM, RAF and other forces? What does that then do to the adoption of RDF, fast monoplane fighters, the Mosquito and other ideas that didn't have a large data base of real life evidence on which to base the decision?

That's not to deny the force of the political drive behind the bomber ideal, or the fact that the RAF didn't properly teach the crews how to navigate or properly assess the value of defensive firepower or civilian defence. It's just that in warfare many decisions had to be made with far less evidence than that of the effect of bombing. By the way the RAF also looked at the effect of bombing on the German population, which they decided had similar far-reaching effects.

 

[JasTysoe]

The sad thing is that they could have had with the Bristol 148 B (With the Taurus Engine). Designed to the same specification as the Lysander and performing just as well from rough fields it was rejected largely because the Lysander's high wing was better for gunnery observation. It would have been just right to provide close air support for the Army. Get these for an Army Co Operation Command under Trafford Leigh Mallory and you'd have a very nasty shock for the Germans.

Bristol Type 148 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can't find any good info about the bombload. With only underwing bombs I assume it would be pretty light?

 

[sonofpegasus]

The Lysander built to the same specification as the Bristol 148 could supposedly carry up to 500lb of bombs, so I would expect the Bristol m148 to at least match that.
By the way that is about double the payload of the Hector.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The Lysander built to the same specification as the Bristol 148 could supposedly carry up to 500lb of bombs, so I would expect the Bristol m148 to at least match that.
By the way that is about double the payload of the Hector.

I've always assumed that if put into production it would carry either a 250lb bomb, a small bomb container or a cargo canister under each wing.

 

[Some Bloke]

The sad thing is that they could have had with the Bristol 148 B (With the Taurus Engine). Designed to the same specification as the Lysander and performing just as well from rough fields it was rejected largely because the Lysander's high wing was better for gunnery observation. It would have been just right to provide close air support for the Army. Get these for an Army Co Operation Command under Trafford Leigh Mallory and you'd have a very nasty shock for the Germans.

Bristol Type 148 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Add some guns and you'll have something on a par with the Fulmar. The Navy would probably name it after a seabird. The Bristol Booby?

 

[ArtosStark]

The Bristol Booby

Bring sailors presumably the Admiralty would see and at least try and avoid the obvious entendre. Maybe the Bittern?

Or maybe they will figure their sailors need the morale boost and just announce that Boobies are coming to the fleet.

 

[Some Bloke]

We are scrambling the squadron, get your seamen off those boobies at once.

 

[Aber]

Bring sailors presumably the Admiralty would see and at least try and avoid the obvious entendre.

Really? They approved HMS Pansy...

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

We are scrambling the squadron, get your seamen off those boobies at once.

Oh God, it's Carry On Round The Horn with Captain Julian and 1st Lt Sandy on the HMS Polari

 

[Some Bloke]

Really? They approved HMS Pansy...

Not to mention HMS Cockchafer and the entire Gay Class of Motor Patrol Boats.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Gay Class of Motor Patrol Boats.

To be fair the word Gay didn't have the same connotations when the class was named as it does now.

 

[vetinari]

To be fair the word Gay didn't have the same connotations when the class was named as it does now.

"Gay" had the same connotations as now from the turn of the 20th Century at least...

 

[McAuslan_in_the_Rough]

The aircraft that the RAF used to 'support' the Army in the early war years were not purpose built (except for the Lysander), nothing to compare with the Geran Ju-87, or Henshel 123, or the Soviet IL-2, or even the French Br.693.

Thank god the RAF did not have anything like an IL-2. Imagine a plane that is slower and less maneuverable than the Battle, with a smaller bombload and even worse accuracy, guns that are useless against tanks (when they can hit them which isn't often) and a rocket armament that might inspire infantry but won't do much beyond that.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Thank god the RAF did not have anything like an IL-2. Imagine a plane that is slower and less maneuverable than the Battle, with a smaller bombload and even worse accuracy, guns that are useless against tanks (when they can hit them which isn't often) and a rocket armament that might inspire infantry but won't do much beyond that.

And while the Stuka was fine if you had air superiority [1] the reality is that more and better artillery is a better way to make up a shortfall in artillery. Also by the time the allies had air superiority, fighter bombers were a better option for close air support [2]

[1] It also helps a lot if the enemy are lacking in light (20 or 25mm) and medium (37 or 40mm) AA.
[2] OK, the stringbags did a bit of dive bombing in North Africa, but it's more or less correct.

 

[El Pip]

And while the Stuka was fine if you had air superiority [1] the reality is that more and better artillery is a better way to make up a shortfall in artillery.

[1] It also helps a lot if the enemy are lacking in light (20 or 25mm) and medium (37 or 40mm) AA.

This was the position of the British Army pre-war, they wanted an artillery spotter and one of the complaints against the Lysander was that it was too fast to do that job properly. As I understand it neither Army nor RAF had any doctrine for a Stuka/Il-2 type CAS aircraft pre-war and so would have no idea what to do with one.

If you want to improve aerial support for the BEF then a load more fighters would be far more valuable. Don't build any Fairey Battles and make Spitfires instead, it's probably not enough to change the Battle of France but it would at least give the Germans a harder fight in a few places.

To get a British Stuka you need big changes in the Army (to want one), the RAF (to not want to strategically bomb everything) and the Government (to want to deploy and pay for a a more capable BEF from the early 1930s onwards).

 

[ArtosStark]

"Gay" had the same connotations as now from the turn of the 20th Century at least...

Not really. The term had a sexual usage much earlier as an extension of its primary meaning of “carefree”. But when used as such it was generally (though not exclusively) applied to heterosexual use (a gay woman was a prostitute and a gay man was a womanizer).

There are some references to it being used to describe homosexuality going back to the 1890’s but it was not a connotation used by the general public and even when used in a sexual context was generally not exclusive to homosexual relationships. The first recorded reference to “gay” being used as a self descriptor for homosexuality is from 1950, but even then the general usage of gay had only shifted as far as to be generally understood as hedonistic and uninhibited. It was only in the 1960’s that the term narrowed and was adopted as the general descriptor for homosexuality in general and male homosexuality in particular.

 

[The Wooksta!]

A four engined (Hercules) Warwick was studied, but it would have cut into range and payload, so progressed no further than calculations.

Plans for a navalised Gloster F5/34 were drawn up, using a Perseus engine and an additional fuel tank behind the pilot.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Not really. The term had a sexual usage much earlier as an extension of its primary meaning of “carefree”. But when used as such it was generally (though not exclusively) applied to heterosexual use (a gay woman was a prostitute and a gay man was a womanizer).

Which is why the 1890's were called the Gay 90's and Paris known as Gay Parie.

 

[Machiavelli Jr]

A four engined (Hercules) Warwick was studied, but it would have cut into range and payload, so progressed no further than calculations.

These calculations were by the same geniuses who thought 2x Vulture was going to be a better heavy night bomber than 4x Merlin on the Manchester.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Plans for a navalised Gloster F5/34 were drawn up, using a Perseus engine and an additional fuel tank behind the pilot.

Do you have a source for that, because while it's frequently suggested here, and I think is a good idea, that's the first claim I've seen of official plans for it?