*_"Although she had the same bomb load as the Blenheim, she only had half the engine power."_* I believe that statement partially qualifies as *FAMOUS LAST WORDS.* *_"...no self-sealing fuel tanks..."_* *Same.*
Like the FW-57, this was an aesthetically-pleasing bird that couldn't fly as well as it looked. At twice the size of a Spitfire, no wonder its Merlin couldn't pull the Battle a little faster. An excellent short Warbird Mistress!
Thank you! Andrew Tarusov does my work, except the one with the Mosquito; that one is Alvaro Lino. You can as well get a copy of any of them for yourself at the link.
The Battle was really not bad for its day. Its employment as an unescorted bomber against newer Axis aircraft gives it an unfair reputation. It's a very similar design to the Nakajima B5N, but the B5N was used in a different theater with escorting fighters against poorly equipped forces.
The Kate gets a lot of compliments, but people forget that it was basically a sitting duck with many of the same failures as the Devastator. The greater adaptability in ordnance packages and the high drop speed tolerance for the Japanese aerial torpedoes mattered more in her successes than anything else.
I agree; it's about using your resources sensibly. Australia had a fighter called the boomerang. On paper it's an absolute dog, all the way down to the alarming fact that the type had no aerial victories, but under it's assigned roll of ground attack and recognisance in mountainous tropical regions it was unmatched. Low speed and good manoeuvrability were a deadly combination. Edit: I know autocorrect tries very hard but I can't help thinking he needs to stop taking drugs. 🤬🤬
If it could withstand it. The airframe was solid, but only to a limit. The lack of external stores definitely limited developmental potential, as well, in terms of wing loading, centre of gravity, and overall adaptability. A centreline ordnance bay like the Avenger would have made a difference there if paired with a better power plant.
Nicely done but there is also one more page of the Battle story. 365 were sent to Australia to be used as trainers just like those in Canada. None survive intact, but the remains of one, N2188, is under restoration in South Australia.
That's great to hear one is being restored! I'll be honest: I don't even think I've seen many photographs of the Plan in Australia. Perhaps just being North American means the books are a bit tilted. That and I do love Russell Crowe, but it means he probably didn't have to go to Canada to learn to fly, as sweet as that movie is.
Another underrated aircraft more defensive armour / armament. Would have made a big difference I think flying level low and straight Was more suicidal than the charge of the light brigade. Nice video Claire 👍
Thank you! Most of all, she needed fighter cover. More armament and armour would be nice, but her powerplant needed an upgrade for that. All in all, she'd seen her day. She wasn't a Heinkel 70 or D3A, she was more like an attempt at a fast, low-level day strike bomber that was just too long in the tooth too quickly.
@@TheWarbirdMistress I actually disagree slightly because her altitude performance was quite good You just don't fly at 1500ft /4000ft Your going to get shot at . It was quite effective over Dunkirk Also the bombing of barge ports During the battle of Britain I think it was ok aircraft bad management. 👍
I like the short, specific airframe style of this one. I would’ve added some more production info and marks produced or proposed, but still a great job in s short time!
Thank you! This is actually an excerpt from the longer video on Fairey. The Battle is maligned more than studied. Whilst not undeservedly so of the former, I would wish more was invested in for the latter.
I presume he was SALM 2de Luitenant Lawrence Munro Janse van Rensburg of the 44 Air School who died on 4 August when Fairey Battle 1002 stalled on approach. Only 19 years old, at that. I'm sure that stuck with your father something awful. Thank you so much for commenting.
@@TheWarbirdMistress That's the guy - he was 21 at the time and was buried in George. My father was serving in Egypt at the time (also in the SAAF) - navigator, gunner in Blenheims. He never talked about his brother. He told a friend of mine that when he was notified he and his friends got very drunk and then never spoke about the deceased again.
@@colinvanrensburg4652 Thank you so much for sharing. My uncle who is my adopted father is a SADF vet and his father was a messenger during the war. We still have his motorcycle since nobody seemed to keep track of it come 1945. He was Italian East Africa, North Africa, and Italy. My mums' side (they're sisters) were all in NW Europe except one who was in Burma and one, my nana, who was a Wren in Halifax. (Now you know why I speak Afrikaans, I suppose lol)
@@TheWarbirdMistress Both my parents were in the SAAF during the war years - their marriage certificate actually gives their address as Swartkops Air Base in what became Voortrekkerhoogte. When I did basics in 76 I was based not far from there at the Medic training centre
@@colinvanrensburg4652 I think I told you my siblings / cousins (I'm the adopted one; they're my aunt's kids) grew up in Verwoerdburg, eh? I was there briefly as well. Lugmagbasis Swartkop was right nearby, but the museum wasn't there yet. I've been there since. I recall going to the Military History Museum in Joburg, though. That I have not been back to see.
Not clear on the philosophy here. The USN went with single seat fighters, while RN stayed with two seaters for a goodly bit. What were the penalties endured by the two practices? I'd heard that the advantage of the second crewman lay in his ability to act as navigator. Was the second crewman an artifact of the times? Not identified as the "navigator" here, I have seen him referenced that way in other publications. The UK sources I've audited seem sold on the idea of two seaters. Good, solid, reasons. Did these reasons outweigh the increase in performance a single seater might possess? With US sources I've seen the issue is seldom addressed. We had the best fighters . . . yes, even F4F . . . and the UK could not get enough. Over at Armored Carriers, though, an anecdotal account jury has definitely ruled in favor of British types over Yank expedients.
The Fulmar often flew with just the pilot, but I would hazard to say that the British reliance on a navigator shows that they were also training their pilots very differently, particularly when the FAA was completely part of the RAF. Navigation at sea is very different from the kind of dead reckoning British pilots used in daytime flying. Furthermore, the idea of a multirole fighter was seen as advantageous. As the only carrier-equipped force in European waters, bombers were the target, not other fighters. I think that has an influence, as well.
One can say that 1935-1937 really was the turning point in aviation when the first generation of modern piston-powered aircraft were born. Of course, in 1939-1941, they were proven hopelessly outdated. The Devastator, Battle... even the Stuka if you give it thought: they were all barely hanging on to relevance as technology got better and air superiority theory had yet to dominate strategic pursuit philosophy.
what an elegant lady, that adage about if an aircraft looks good it will fly [well] may not apply here but, you could play table hockey between the pilot and the gunner /observer position.
Dimensionally, and in terms of engine, there's not that much difference between the Battle and the Fulmar, but I think the thick wing may have had something to do with the lack of performance. The Fulmar was no Hurricane, but it was decidedly better than the Battle.
The internal bomb bays were innovative and necessary in a way since there wasn't much aerodynamic forgiveness for hardpoints, but they limited the wing loading qualities and the potential armament mix. The Fulmar was very much like the Battle in one way: it would only succeed in a place where Axis fighters were at bay, outnumbered, or twin-engined. In the Atlantic she was golden; in the Pacific, she'd be mincemeat.
@@TheWarbirdMistress I don't know much more, unfortunately. I remember him talking about them with my other Uncle who flew in Boulton Paul Defiants! I remember them arguing about how they hated them!
August? RAF squadrons were gone by 18 June and Operation Aerial was all that continued, most personnel being evacuated by the end of July with only small-scale evacuations mostly all made up of French civilians and troops ending on 14 August. I don't see the BEF or other British units operating in an organised resistance past July. I'm always up for learning, though! Where'd you see otherwise?
@@TheWarbirdMistress you weren't clear as to who had left in June. Many history channels think that the Dunkirk evacuations were the end of British involvement in France in 1940, whereas in reality the 2nd BEF was being landed during those evacuations. From what I've read, and sorry it was a while ago so I can't name sources, elements of the 1st and 2nd BEF were still putting up armed localised resistance until the final official evacuations in August 1940.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Yes, that's so. The RAF was evacuated long before that. I see why you made your comment. Operation Aerial is unfortunately forgotten and the possibility of a Breton Redoubt is always something I love to wargame since it might have been a deadly turn for an exhausted Wehrmacht with a Heer stretching supply lines far beyond capacity and a Luftwaffe still reeling from the losses in Poland and France. Barbarossa might not have been contemplated until 1943 if France had held out for only a few more weeks and bled the Germans dry having to fight them and occupy all of Metropolitan France.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Oh, and local resistance in support of Operation Aerial I would consider very different from organised, large scale, unit-level engagement of the Germans. I've heard it said that it should have been named Operation Skedaddle.
I'm glad that you mentioned the battle in South African service I had no idea that they used it to fight the Italians.
So were many late interwar aircraft. The whole East Africa campaign is really quite interesting!
Nicely narrated and about all we need to know of the battle. It had its worst days in France and Best days in Canada.
*_"Although she had the same bomb load as the Blenheim, she only had half the engine power."_*
I believe that statement partially qualifies as *FAMOUS LAST WORDS.*
*_"...no self-sealing fuel tanks..."_*
*Same.*
"No self-sealing fuel tanks" were words I thought would be my last, but that's on account of growing up with my brother sharing the room.
Like the FW-57, this was an aesthetically-pleasing bird that couldn't fly as well as it looked.
At twice the size of a Spitfire, no wonder its Merlin couldn't pull the Battle a little faster.
An excellent short Warbird Mistress!
Thank you!
Surprised you found good things to say about the Battle, but you did and made an excellent job of it. My compliments.
well it was a really good plane in 1936. just not in 1940 lol
I just found your channel and I'm really impressed. New subscriber. 👍❤️
Thank you so much, Perry!
Excellent.........and your “pin ups” are perfect....!!
Thank you! Andrew Tarusov does my work, except the one with the Mosquito; that one is Alvaro Lino. You can as well get a copy of any of them for yourself at the link.
Well-produced, as always.
The Battle was really not bad for its day. Its employment as an unescorted bomber against newer Axis aircraft gives it an unfair reputation. It's a very similar design to the Nakajima B5N, but the B5N was used in a different theater with escorting fighters against poorly equipped forces.
The Kate gets a lot of compliments, but people forget that it was basically a sitting duck with many of the same failures as the Devastator. The greater adaptability in ordnance packages and the high drop speed tolerance for the Japanese aerial torpedoes mattered more in her successes than anything else.
I agree; it's about using your resources sensibly. Australia had a fighter called the boomerang. On paper it's an absolute dog, all the way down to the alarming fact that the type had no aerial victories, but under it's assigned roll of ground attack and recognisance in mountainous tropical regions it was unmatched. Low speed and good manoeuvrability were a deadly combination.
Edit: I know autocorrect tries very hard but I can't help thinking he needs to stop taking drugs. 🤬🤬
A plane kind to the eye . A pity the Griffin was not available to power this air frame .
If it could withstand it. The airframe was solid, but only to a limit. The lack of external stores definitely limited developmental potential, as well, in terms of wing loading, centre of gravity, and overall adaptability. A centreline ordnance bay like the Avenger would have made a difference there if paired with a better power plant.
Nice. Glad I found you again.
Glad you hear! Be sure to subscribe!
Nicely done but there is also one more page of the Battle story. 365 were sent to Australia to be used as trainers just like those in Canada. None survive intact, but the remains of one, N2188, is under restoration in South Australia.
That's great to hear one is being restored! I'll be honest: I don't even think I've seen many photographs of the Plan in Australia. Perhaps just being North American means the books are a bit tilted. That and I do love Russell Crowe, but it means he probably didn't have to go to Canada to learn to fly, as sweet as that movie is.
The Battle is normally condemned, a very fair analysis.
Thank you!
Great review, I haven't seen your channel before. I'm your newest subscriber!
Welcome aboard!
Wow! Great video!
Thank you for this video
Another underrated aircraft more defensive armour / armament.
Would have made a big difference
I think flying level low and straight
Was more suicidal than the charge of the light brigade.
Nice video Claire 👍
Thank you!
Most of all, she needed fighter cover. More armament and armour would be nice, but her powerplant needed an upgrade for that. All in all, she'd seen her day. She wasn't a Heinkel 70 or D3A, she was more like an attempt at a fast, low-level day strike bomber that was just too long in the tooth too quickly.
@@TheWarbirdMistress I actually disagree slightly because her altitude performance was quite good
You just don't fly at 1500ft /4000ft
Your going to get shot at .
It was quite effective over Dunkirk
Also the bombing of barge ports
During the battle of Britain
I think it was ok aircraft bad management.
👍
I like the short, specific airframe style of this one. I would’ve added some more production info and marks produced or proposed, but still a great job in s short time!
Thank you! This is actually an excerpt from the longer video on Fairey. The Battle is maligned more than studied. Whilst not undeservedly so of the former, I would wish more was invested in for the latter.
There is one on display at the Military Museum in Brussels.
I don't remember seeing it when I was there 😔 Oh well: time to visit again!
It was in the aircraft display section, pieced together out of at least six separate wrecks. I saw it just over a year ago.
My father's only brother died in an accident with one of these at Grant's Valley in South Africa in August 1942
I presume he was SALM 2de Luitenant Lawrence Munro Janse van Rensburg of the 44 Air School who died on 4 August when Fairey Battle 1002 stalled on approach. Only 19 years old, at that. I'm sure that stuck with your father something awful. Thank you so much for commenting.
@@TheWarbirdMistress That's the guy - he was 21 at the time and was buried in George. My father was serving in Egypt at the time (also in the SAAF) - navigator, gunner in Blenheims. He never talked about his brother. He told a friend of mine that when he was notified he and his friends got very drunk and then never spoke about the deceased again.
@@colinvanrensburg4652 Thank you so much for sharing.
My uncle who is my adopted father is a SADF vet and his father was a messenger during the war. We still have his motorcycle since nobody seemed to keep track of it come 1945. He was Italian East Africa, North Africa, and Italy. My mums' side (they're sisters) were all in NW Europe except one who was in Burma and one, my nana, who was a Wren in Halifax.
(Now you know why I speak Afrikaans, I suppose lol)
@@TheWarbirdMistress Both my parents were in the SAAF during the war years - their marriage certificate actually gives their address as Swartkops Air Base in what became Voortrekkerhoogte. When I did basics in 76 I was based not far from there at the Medic training centre
@@colinvanrensburg4652 I think I told you my siblings / cousins (I'm the adopted one; they're my aunt's kids) grew up in Verwoerdburg, eh? I was there briefly as well. Lugmagbasis Swartkop was right nearby, but the museum wasn't there yet. I've been there since. I recall going to the Military History Museum in Joburg, though. That I have not been back to see.
Not clear on the philosophy here.
The USN went with single seat fighters, while RN stayed with two seaters for a goodly bit. What were the penalties endured by the two practices? I'd heard that the advantage of the second crewman lay in his ability to act as navigator. Was the second crewman an artifact of the times? Not identified as the "navigator" here, I have seen him referenced that way in other publications.
The UK sources I've audited seem sold on the idea of two seaters. Good, solid, reasons. Did these reasons outweigh the increase in performance a single seater might possess?
With US sources I've seen the issue is seldom addressed. We had the best fighters . . . yes, even F4F . . . and the UK could not get enough. Over at Armored Carriers, though, an anecdotal account jury has definitely ruled in favor of British types over Yank expedients.
The Fulmar often flew with just the pilot, but I would hazard to say that the British reliance on a navigator shows that they were also training their pilots very differently, particularly when the FAA was completely part of the RAF. Navigation at sea is very different from the kind of dead reckoning British pilots used in daytime flying. Furthermore, the idea of a multirole fighter was seen as advantageous. As the only carrier-equipped force in European waters, bombers were the target, not other fighters. I think that has an influence, as well.
One of those planes that are guilty of being amazing in 1936 but didnt go so well 4 years later
One can say that 1935-1937 really was the turning point in aviation when the first generation of modern piston-powered aircraft were born. Of course, in 1939-1941, they were proven hopelessly outdated. The Devastator, Battle... even the Stuka if you give it thought: they were all barely hanging on to relevance as technology got better and air superiority theory had yet to dominate strategic pursuit philosophy.
My late dad flew these was shot down in 1940 bombing bridges near Dunkirk pow same camp as the great escape
That's incredible!
With what squadron was he?
what an elegant lady, that adage about if an aircraft looks good it will fly [well] may not apply here but, you could play table hockey between the pilot and the gunner /observer position.
It might be a better purpose as an airborne game table than a bomber lol
Dimensionally, and in terms of engine, there's not that much difference between the Battle and the Fulmar, but I think the thick wing may have had something to do with the lack of performance. The Fulmar was no Hurricane, but it was decidedly better than the Battle.
The internal bomb bays were innovative and necessary in a way since there wasn't much aerodynamic forgiveness for hardpoints, but they limited the wing loading qualities and the potential armament mix. The Fulmar was very much like the Battle in one way: it would only succeed in a place where Axis fighters were at bay, outnumbered, or twin-engined. In the Atlantic she was golden; in the Pacific, she'd be mincemeat.
@@TheWarbirdMistress Perhaps a quad turret like the defiant would have helped. Non? I'll see myself out 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
One of my uncles flew in Battles in WW2 - he said they were awful
That's something you don't hear every day! I don't think I've ever met someone who flew a Battle outside of training. Was he in the French campaign?
@@TheWarbirdMistress I don't know much more, unfortunately. I remember him talking about them with my other Uncle who flew in Boulton Paul Defiants! I remember them arguing about how they hated them!
FWIW: I know _turreet fighters_ were a failed concept, they still look 'kinda cool' to me...👍
Agreed. The whole evolution of them is a great story, too!
@@TheWarbirdMistress >>> Yes.
👍
No, thank You!😉
The British were still fighting in France until August 1940.
August?
RAF squadrons were gone by 18 June and Operation Aerial was all that continued, most personnel being evacuated by the end of July with only small-scale evacuations mostly all made up of French civilians and troops ending on 14 August. I don't see the BEF or other British units operating in an organised resistance past July. I'm always up for learning, though! Where'd you see otherwise?
@@TheWarbirdMistress you weren't clear as to who had left in June. Many history channels think that the Dunkirk evacuations were the end of British involvement in France in 1940, whereas in reality the 2nd BEF was being landed during those evacuations. From what I've read, and sorry it was a while ago so I can't name sources, elements of the 1st and 2nd BEF were still putting up armed localised resistance until the final official evacuations in August 1940.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Yes, that's so. The RAF was evacuated long before that. I see why you made your comment. Operation Aerial is unfortunately forgotten and the possibility of a Breton Redoubt is always something I love to wargame since it might have been a deadly turn for an exhausted Wehrmacht with a Heer stretching supply lines far beyond capacity and a Luftwaffe still reeling from the losses in Poland and France. Barbarossa might not have been contemplated until 1943 if France had held out for only a few more weeks and bled the Germans dry having to fight them and occupy all of Metropolitan France.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Oh, and local resistance in support of Operation Aerial I would consider very different from organised, large scale, unit-level engagement of the Germans. I've heard it said that it should have been named Operation Skedaddle.
@@TheWarbirdMistress those troops were forced to leave by the terms of the French surrender and fighting is still fighting.
Ah yes the Fairey Battle: well suited to colonial operations but NOT for the Battle of France.
The problem with British design in the 20s through mid-30s was that they were planning for a war WITH France, not alongside France.