A Question on the Battle

[Autothrottle]

Hello all,

I've just recently downloaded one of Nigel's superb Fairey Battles. The standard armament was I think a single, forward firing Browning .303 and a Vickers light machine Gun in the rear.

Why was this type of armament allowed on the Battle in the first place? I studied a thread about it online and wondered, why was this allowed to be installed on each aircraft that came off of the assembly lines? Some 2,400 thereabout (I could be mistaken)

Smaller fighters like the Hurricane MkII, and the Spitfire MkV were equipped with lethal cannons. I ask Nigel or anyone else here to shed some light as to why the battle, wasn't really prepared for battle?

[Led Zeppelin]

Another question for the Battle: AI explodes at take off and personnaly, I use to damage the tail wheel despite my efforts (same with Spit MkV and Fokker DXXI).

Does anybody know how to modify contact points section in the aircraft.cfg? I suspect this comes from it. I've tried but failed.

thanks.

[ndicki]

Actually, the Hurricane and Spitfire were not fitted with cannon until well after the Battle's withdrawal from front-line service. Other than a handful of relatively unsuccessful Spitfires MkIb trialled during the Battle of Britain, and a single prototype Hurricane fitted with two Hispano cannon, the RAF did not test or deploy cannon-armed aircraft until well into 1941.

The Battle was a light bomber, designed at a time when most fighters were biplanes fitted with two rifle-calibre machine guns. The exception was the Gloster Gladiator, which had four. It is worth remembering that later American monoplane fighters such as the Curtiss Hawk or early Wildcat were not exactly heavily armed either. In this light, the Battle doesn't appear to be so poorly armed after all. It is after all a light bomber, not a ground-attack aircraft.

Therein lies the difference. Light bombers operate in formation, and cover one another with their defensive armament. At the time the Battle was designed, that notion was still held to be true. And a single forward-firing machine-gun was deemed to be more than adequate, since the aircraft was not intended to attack the target with it. The German Stuka was scarcely better armed, and it was intended as an attack aircraft, for example.

Admittedly the Battle was not the ideal aircraft, but then neither was the Stuka, or any light bomber or attack aircraft deployed against heavily defended targets without fighter cover. History judges the Battle severely, but it should rather judge those whose decisions led to its being used in a way which was at odds with its abilities. As the fighter-bomber did not yet exist, there were however few alternatives, and the crews of the Battles serving in France paid the heaviest of prices. Yet the Battle itself was not a bad aircraft - just a poorly thought-out concept.

[MajorMagee]

The Douglas SBD has two forward firing 50 cal Brownings starting in 1940, and had some fair success against the Zero when it needed to. It's even claimed to have achieved an overall positive win/loss ratio in air to air engagements. For example, one pilot, Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa, was attacked by three A6M Zero fighters and managed to down all three.

[ndicki]

It's the words "starting in 1940" that give the game away! And the Dauntless WAS a ground-attack/anti-shipping aircraft, something which the Battle very clearly was not. The Battle entered service in 1936-37, before the prototype Spitfire had flown for the first time. While we're at it, the P-36A (as opposed to the Hawk-75 A-1) had only two machine guns, too! And the F4F-2. So the Battle wasn't especially badly armed compared to the pre-war, late 1930s fighters which were in service at the time of its development. Even the early Bf109s had only four light machine-guns. Cannon were introduced with the e-3 subtype in late 1938/early 1939, although it was mid-1940 before all German fighters were cannon-equipped.

[Autothrottle]

It's the words "starting in 1940" that give the game away! And the Dauntless WAS a ground-attack/anti-shipping aircraft, something which the Battle very clearly was not. The Battle entered service in 1936-37, before the prototype Spitfire had flown for the first time. While we're at it, the P-36A (as opposed to the Hawk-75 A-1) had only two machine guns, too! And the F4F-2. So the Battle wasn't especially badly armed compared to the pre-war, late 1930s fighters which were in service at the time of its development. Even the early Bf109s had only four light machine-guns. Cannon were introduced with the e-3 subtype in late 1938/early 1939, although it was mid-1940 before all German fighters were cannon-equipped.

Well Said Nigel, Thanks for the historical footnotes. History indeed judges in its own lights and whims. Excellent job on the work Nigel, My history books do not give such a description as you have.

[HouseHobbit]

Well cannot say the Battle was a "bad" aircraft, just wasn't used with the
protection it needed..
Like most of the "failed" early war, Light Bombers..
When used in protected formations they did their jobs..
But the battle was doomed by the fact she couldn't protect herself when faced
with the german fighters of the day..

Yes, the aircraft wasn't a bad bird, Just badly used..
To protect the Battles did require something the RAF would Have been Hard pressed to do in the early war..So they were pulled out of front line duty..
And better aircraft and tactics were developed..

[Autothrottle]

Well cannot say the Battle was a "bad" aircraft, just wasn't used with the
protection it needed..
Like most of the "failed" early war, Light Bombers..
When used in protected formations they did their jobs..
But the battle was doomed by the fact she couldn't protect herself when faced
with the german fighters of the day..

Yes, the aircraft wasn't a bad bird, Just badly used..
To protect the Battles did require something the RAF would Have been Hard pressed to do in the early war..So they were pulled out of front line duty..
And better aircraft and tactics were developed..


Well put, Another question though: What prevented the rear machine guns in these aircraft from shooting the tailfin off during battle?

[ndicki]

Nothing. Which made life doubly interesting, especially as at the time, air gunners received no special training or privileges, were not considered as real aircrew, did not automatically hold Sergeant's rank, and were essentially the first erk who came along who had the winged bullet on his sleeve. The AG half-wing and Sergeant's tapes came in just as France was falling...

[Cromwell]

I think the fact that the Battle and the Defiant were pre WW2 designs holds the answer.

Aircraft design advanced greatly between the wars. Problems was the tactics did not!

The idea of "The bomber will always get through" gave birth to the Battle and the early Blenheims which, although good for their time could not counter developments and ideas that conficts like the Spainish Civil war threw up that became hard line tactics by the start of WW2.

Aircraft design has a long gestation period. New tactics and styles of fighting are quicker born out of nessecisty and survival.

The Battle was a great idea..unfortunatly circumstances overtook the idea!!!