Thank you for posting this. Some years ago I had the privilege of working inside Battle L5343 (which is actually also bits of L5340) at the RAF Musuem Hendon. It never ceased to amaze me how bizarrely over engineered some of the airframe was, especially the pointlessly long perspex canopy, and the concealed masterpiece of a rear gun mount that, on the pull of a lever rotated 180 degrees to reveal the puny Vickers Gas Operated weapon. Let's spare a thought for all those Battle crews who knowingly took these woefully inadequate aircraft into combat, and especially LAC Reynolds of 12 Squadron who was Garland and Gray's gunner. They both received VCs. As a lowly LAC he received nothing.
I read the the IL2 specs were similar and yet it was a "success". A lot of IL2s were lost however, but kept in production, human life seemed less important to the Soviet air force perhaps?
Stuka excelled as a CAS aircraft and was an extremly dangerous Dive bomber and even was a threat to ships due to how accurate it was. Like any plane designed for that role, even bombers they were sitting ducks with out air cover. The battle just was not a good plane unlike the Dauntless or Stuka which excelled at their roles.
It seems to me the Fairey Battle was much larger and the IL-2 was better armoured against ground fire and the Stuka was a dive bomber, so it was somewhat less exposed to ground fire. But yeah, planes like these rely heavily on having air superiority over the combatzone.
The Stuka was a dive bomber able to accurate bomb targets and its flight characteristics and range were good. It even proved a well tank busting aircraft later in the war. Just like any bombers though, they were highly vulnerable to fighters without a heavy fighter escort of their own, but they were not in the same league as the battle.
OK so it's a Hurricane with an extra 1500lb weight, plus 1000 lb bomb load, plus an extra crew member, plus enough fuel to fly 1000 miles. What can possibly go wrong??
My father joined the RAF in 1938 and was stationed at Manston when war broke out. He told me they had one Vickers Virginia bomber and some Fairey Battles. He recalled the runway being tarred over as it was thought to be less conspicuous that concrete.
G'day, Back in the 1980s I nursed 2 RAAF pilots who flew Battles, one only in training, here in Oz. The other, name of Mackintosh, was one of the 7 shot down attacking the Albert Canal Bridges. He said his Section Leader chose the Low level approach, along the Canal, and they both got shot down by Ground-Fire, Rifles, Mg-34s & 20mm Flack. The Section Leader went "Splash !", and Mackintosh force-landed, dead-stick, on the Tow-Path beside the Canal & went into the Bag as a POW. He said that the decision to go in low was what saved his life, because the three who went at Medium Altitude (5,000 Ft !) to try Level Bombing and the three who flew "high" (12,000 ft! intending to Glide Bomb in a 30-degree dive, for better accuracy - they all attracted Me-109 & Me-110s from the Standing Patrol CAP over the Bridges..., and 5 of the 6 of them were all "eaten by the Messerschmidts..." I suspect the photo at 0:07:00 may well be Mackintosh's Battle, on the Tow Path...(!). In about 1960 he was knocked off his galloping Horse by a low hanging branch which was slightly above the line of sight imposed by the brim of his Felt Hat, and he became a "Low Quadriplegiac", retaining some use of his Arms. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
@@RexsHangar Not that I know of... I had trained at RGH Concord in Sydney, where I met the bloke who flew Battles in training, among the 2,000 or so Veterans of every Military adventure Oz embarked upon from 1914 to 1984, for an average of 10 days per Veteran. In 1984 I graduated and then started at the Vegetable Creek Hospital at Emmaville, and that's where I met the ex-POW. I think he was the younger brother or cousin of Colin Macintosh, who at the time owned Clarevaulx Station, and the handover Report coming on-shift included the snippet that he had flown in the War of 2 & had had a private Aeroplane (a Chipmunk I think) before falling off his horse. I've always been an autodidactic Aeroplanologist, so I asked him about his Wartime Flying, and bingo..., 1 Squadron - "Leads The Field", the only Squadron which was issued Fairey Foxes back when the Air Ministry were reluctant to give up DH-9s and the like. A rich Sheepfarmer's son who went to Blighty and joined the RAF in time to be Operational in 1939, a survivor of the Phoney War, and Blitzkrieg, who operated Fairey Battles in anger, and survived attempting to bomb the Bridges over the Albert Canal. We had some fairly famous Pilots came from around here, eg Peter Turnbull, 76 Sqadron Leader shot down at Milne Bay - Glen Innes still gets a contingent from the Squadron marching up the Main Street on ANZAC Day and a Jet Flyover at 11 AM to remember him by (!), and Charlie Scherff the Mosquito Pilot who shot down a Heinkel Zwilling and had a price put on his head by Hitler in a Radio Berlin Speech by way of retaliation - he also came home to Emmaville. Civilian life didn't go well for Charlie though, he died in a Sports Car, at speed, drunk, accompanied by somebody else's missus during the 1950s ; his widow ran the Tuckshop at the Glen Innes Primary School when I was there (1966-'72). The after effects of WW-1 & WW-2 were whiplashing through Inland Smalltown Oz for a long time after the shooting stopped. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
@@RexsHangar No worries mate ! Somebody has to try to integrate the whole, and try to make sense of it all. It probably doesn't count as "Scholarship", but one of my 18 Playlists is titled "Personal Aeroplanology..." ; so if you ever feel like checking out something a bit different, there is always that... I started in 1978, working for Neil Cottee at Olde Bowral Airfield, when he had 2 Tiger Moths, a B-model Hornet Moth, a 1946 J-3 Piper Cub, a Warner Scarab Replica Fokker Triplane and a Replica Sopwith Pup with an Armstrong Siddley Gennet Major... Look up, "The 8-Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft !" to unpack that whole story. The Scout has been hanging from the Ceiling of the Inverell Transport Museum since about 1995. I was the last person to ever fly it, in November 1978...; so when I started posting on YT it was my first Aeroplanology Upload (!). I use Potato-grade Phone-Cameras, edited-in-camera, shot-in-sequence, so it's pretty olde skool style ; but in 2013 Falmouth University in Cornwall sent me a Gold (coloured) Medal for winning the "Low Technology" division of their "Equals Project", an international YT Videomaking Competition..., so my offerings are apparently World-Class Potato-Cam...(!). Enjoy...(!). Have a good one, Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
The belgian airforce also operated the Fairey Battle in 1940. There's a surviving example at the army museum in Brussels, but it seems to be under restoration indefinitely.
The one in the Brussels museum is not a surviving Belgian machine. None survived the may 1940 campain. It is originaly a UK aircraft, repainted in Belgian colours.
@@wisserke a flight of Fairey Battles crashed 2 km from my house location while en route trying to bomb the bridges over the Meuse river... A lot of history at every house's doorstep. The fairey battle in the museum is indeed a british one, if i'm correct it's not complete and during work some errors where made.
Another good summary, really enjoying these little vignettes! Minor correction: Sgt Letchford, the observer in an 88 Sqn Battle did claim a Bf109 near Aachen during an action on 20 Sep in which the 2 other Battles were shot down. However, examination of German records shows the aircraft survived. Nevertheless, a week later on 27 Sep 39 it was indeed a Battle that claimed the RAF's first actual Luftwaffe kill when a flight of 103 Sqn Battles on a mission to recce the Siegrfied Line was bounced by four 109s. One of the Battles was badly shot up but Radio Op/Gunner LAC Summers returned fire at close range, downing one 109; he was later awarded a DFM. This time the other two Battles escaped. Summers' aircraft was forced to crash land and was written off but he and the pilot were unhurt. The Observer was badly injured in the fight and died of his wounds 10 days later.
Excellent video and, considering the grim subject matter, very enjoyable too. As an aside, I've never understood why the Battle wasn't equipped with a propeller spinner. It just looks unfinished without one.
The Battle was much more a threat to German divisions when she was used at extremely low altitude for surprise attacks, since she was fast and versatile enough, avoiding detection and AA fire, as the Russians did later with the Sturmovik. But British Command didnt extend that experimentation as a new standard and kept the mid-level bombing theories, allowing easy detection for all enemies (AA fire and fighters attacks), with the poor result described in this video. Excellent job, thanks for this !
the IL 2 Sturmovik , even in it's earliest form had armour plating for the pilot AND decent calibre guns/cannons - comparing that ( defence/offense ) to the two .303 's on the "battle " is unfair to the Russians
Exactly, the basic airframe wasn't a problem, an upgrade to a later Merlin, some armour and better defensive armament but above all better tactical use.
The failings and losses of the Battle are so legendary that more than one pop history of the war or of the RAF I must have read in youth decades ago impressed these ideas on my memory pretty well. Here you've given an excellent survey and fleshing out of their story for me. Excellent video.
The Fairey Battle was, I think, one of several pretty hopeless types of aircraft with which the RAF went into the World War. This resulted in the loss of many of the fully-trained, experienced Regular aircrew in the first few months of the war. But they just had to do the best they could with what they'd got.
Thank you. A shame we don't hear more about aircraft like the Battle. To be sent out and shot at in a state of the art aircraft is bad enough. To have to do so with defective kit? That's courage.
@@Hartley_Hare The average age of RAF pilots in the Battle of Britain was 20 years. The average age of RAF pilots killed during the Battle ws 22. The average ages may have been a little higher during the Battle of France when the majority of pilots would have been pre-war regulars but it was still a young man's war.
My friend's late father was in an attack on a Danish airfield in 1940. All 6 Battles were shot down; only 6 of 18 men survived; his pilot broke his back. He was a POW for 5 years.
The Battle has the propositions for a good rc flying model. That's why I designed and built one. Flys great and looks good doing so. A fine tribute to an aircraft that faced such opposition but had no other choice. I love the Battle it's a classic.
A major point in the background that lead to the Fairey Battle was the huge success of fast, single engine, twin seat, biplane bombers it was meant to replace. They were easily as fast as the biplane fighters of the period, making them able to operate without fighter escort. The idea was to simply continue with the same concept while switching to a new, faster monoplane with retractable undercarriage. From an early 1930's perspective that made a huge lot of sense. At that time it was almost impossible to predict that the basic design of monoplanes with retractable undercarriage would result in a much larger gain in speed in single seat fighters than it did in twin seat, light bombers.
"Destroyed while still on the ground" Throughout this video a voice inside my head was screaming: "Stop!" Stop using it. Too many casualties already. Those Battle pilots watching their planes burn on the airfield must had felt some relief as they would at least live to fight another day and taking those death traps to the sky would not have changed the outcome one bit. Well except for the pilots being dead...
I learn quite a bit watching your channel, Rex so many thanks for the considerable time and research effort to bring interested viewers a detailed back story that is easily digested and gives pleasure to those of us who with schoolboy enthusiasm enjoy aviation history yet suffer brain pain if too technical especially when complex mathematical formula's are included.
The Battle did make a couple more positive contributions. The ‘lightweight’ design variant that formed the basis of the very successful Fulmar for the FAA was one that’s well known. Less known is the fact that it’s because of the armour plate behind the pilot in the Battle that back armour became a standard fitment in RAF fighter aircraft in WW2. The Hurricanes of 1 Squadron were part of the ‘Advanced Air Striking Force’ sent out to France. They saw a lot of action and indeed volunteers from 1 Squadron formed the totally overwhelmed escort for the (in)famous Battle strike on the Maas bridges. The Hurricane had armoured glass windscreens but nothing behind the pilot. Back armour had been requested but the Air Ministry refused it, saying the experts at Hawker’s maintained that such armour would adversely affect the plane’s c of g, leading to ‘flying difficulties’. The CO of 1 Squadron, ‘Bull’ Hallahan, located a written-off Battle ~ of which unfortunately there were far too many ~ took the back armour out, had it fitted to a Hurricane & flight tested it. These were successful. Only then did he tell the Air Ministry of what he’d done. The Hurricane & a 1 Squadron pilot, F/O ‘Hilly’ Brown DFC were despatched to RAE Farnborough where it was amply demonstrated that the armour plate did not impact the performance or airworthiness of the Hurricane & soon after this back armour became standard equipment ~ something that doubtless saved many lives.
@@raypurchase801 also the Fulmar can hardly be described as “very successful” - it was another oversized/outdated/underpowered aircraft that was produced in far greater numbers (and served for an extended period into the war) than it ought to have simply because it was the best the FAA had at the outbreak of war. In the 30’s the RN refused to believe in the concept of a single seat naval fighter aircraft.
Rex's Hanger did a recent video on the Vultee V-ll. Commentators on that video accurately said it was the U.S. version of the Battle. The Vultee V-ll was a level attack bomber, under powered, no armor and in a later version had three crew men.
The Battle was obsolete before the outbreak of war, but it was all we had apart from a few equally obsolete Blenheim's. The Air Ministry was adept at issuing specifications that were muddled.
Thank you for this beautiful video about a plane that I love despite its flaws. As a child I read my father's "Battler Britton" comics and that's when I started to love this plane. In fact, I found it (and still find it) graceful compared to the planes of the time. It looked like a "Hurricane" (my favorite fighter from the Second World War) and a long fuselage. His name also made me dream. (Translated from French by Google translate)
Love the factory photo of the engine assembly workers with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths. The ashes must have done wonders for the internals of the motors...
The aircraft coded HA were from 218 squadron.This squadron was adopted by the seaside town of Weston Super Mare Somerset. August 1939 the Squadron visited Weston Airport.
I have a bit of a soft spot for the Battle and its derivatives, but the story of the Battle clearly demonstrates the dangers of accepting an interim solution, all too often you end up stuck with the interim design. However, it is interesting to think how the Battle might be remembered if war had broken out as a result of the Munich Crisis and instead of Me109 Dora and Emiles, Battles over the Western Front were opposed primarily by ME109Bs and HE51s...
A minor point to note. The term "Bombardier" is inappropriate in the context of the video. There was no such crew position in the wartime RAF. People who aimed bombs from RAF aircraft were referred to as 'Bomb Aimers'.
The term was, correctly, 'Air Bomber' - colloquially, as you say, bomb aimer. In 1940 the job did not actually exist and aiming the bombs was the job of the navigator.
Heavy yes but the Lysanders suffered at least as much but with less publicity. When I was in the Air Training Corps one of our officers had been. Battle air gunner in France. One might note that the bomb carriers in the wing bomb cells could be lowered to allow the bombs to be released in a steep dive.
I've always been very critical of the UK and France's military designs of the 1930's but I need to remember that many of these weapons ( like the Fairey Battle or the Char B Tank) were designs that far exceeded the abilities of the designs they were supposed to replace. Like in the case of the Battle over the Hawker Hart; speed went up by like 40 MPH and the bomb load was almost doubled ! However, it just wasn't enough to double the performance which laughable in the first place.
Something to be used in the meantime until something better on the horizon shows up. Land, sea, or air, how many battles have been fought throughout history by weapons meeting that spec? Probably most. If not outright obsolete, it is usually the 2nd line gear carrying the brunt of the fighting.
The remaining Greek Fairey Battles were destroyed in ground after the German invasion as Luftwaffe was dominating the skies over Greece.Until then they had significant action with the best moment the air raid in the Argyrokastron(Girokaster) airfield with a dozen of Italian aircraft destroyed in the ground.
The Fairey Battle was just fine for a light bomber and a modified version would have made a fine carrier based bomber, but the lack of any kind of escort made it look worse than it was.
desperate times call for desperate measures…the old style of bombing just didn’t work anymore, thank goodness these were able to be reworked and helped the war effort in another way despite the terrible distinction
The excellent book, "Piece of Cake" by Derek Robinson gives an account of the Albert Canal attack as discussed by the pilots of the Hurricane squadron that was the focus of the book.
My grandfather was a Battle pilot in France 1940 . When the time came to fall back to England they burned the u/s aircraft and walked to the coast . They commandeered a train at one point , I wonder if anyone else has heard this story?
The bottom line on the much-maligned Fairey Battle is that it was based upon a WW-I concept for a single-engined day-bomber. The aircraft was designed as a 1930s equivalent to the De Haviland DH-4 and DH-9A bombers which did very well during WW-I. It was also a product of Fairey Aviation, which had revolutionized the British concept of the single-engine day-bomber during the mid 1920s with their Fairey Fox, a single-engine bomber which was faster than the fighters of the day. The only problem was that the state of the art had moved on since then, and WW-II was not the same as WW-I. As a result, in 1940 the very concept of the fast, single-engine day-bomber was no longer relevant. However, that does not mean that the Battle was a bad aircraft, it merely means that the concept behind it was outmoded. There was nothing at all wrong with the aircraft itself, which went on to make a very significant contribution to the war as a training airplane. In addition, anyone who thinks the Fairey Battle was bad should take a look at the alternative, the Armstrong-Whitworth A.W.29.
Curious that you didn't mention the Battle's favoured nick-name: The Widowmaker! There is an example being restored at the Port Adelaide Aviation Museum, South Australia.
Yeah this plane defiantly looks like something you'd see in tier 1 and is as outdated as the swordfish and therefore I'd love to play it Also, I think it'd be a great idea in general if you displayed stats like weight, max speed, range etc. In text as well because that would make things much easier to understand and remember
In defense of the crews who bravely went to war with this aircraft, their effort was not in vane. The Germans had to combat them and spent considerable effort to shoot them down. This alone served the purpose of diverting aircraft that might have been used otherwise. Their brave effort was not in vain! Salute!
Excellent summary of neglected type. TFP. A minor matter; the RAF and Commonwealth air forces trained and assigned 'bomb aimers' to bomber crews, not bombardiers (USAAC/F).
In 1940 the RAF did not use bomb aimers. The trade came into existence as Bomber Command began to equip with four engined 'heavies'. The bombs were, until then, aimed by the navigator.
Hi Rex, very informative video, thanks for posting. My friend is writing a book about the Battle and as a cover wishes to use the still image you have from 12sec to 24 sec on the video. would you know if it is in the public domain, or is it copyright? if it is copyright, would you be good enough to forward the appropriate person to contact. many thanks in anticipation, keep posting the excellent videos. best regards Roy
Unfortunately there were a lot sacrificial air crews/planes in the early days of the war. In the Pacific just as bad were Vildebeasts (even slower than the Battle), US Devastators, P-35s and Vindicators, P-26s (used by the Philippian air force), Australian Wirraways, Dutch operated Martin B-10 to name a few. The smart officer takes these out front line service and uses them in auxiliary roles.
I checked out the Fairey Battle at RAF Museum in London last year. I've always though these were a gracefully shaped aircraft, except for the wheels not fully retracting. Like the Ju-87 and aircraft this size carrying a 1000lb bomb was rather a lot for a RR Merlin to pull at a decent speed, although the Jumo 211 in the Stuka had an even worse load. I've never understood why they never added a spinner to the prop. Maybe the performance advantage just wasn't justified, I don't know. I suppose most of the poor old bird's shortcomings are explained by the age of the original specifications, with huge advances in fighter performance having overtaken it since its first flight. Like the Messerschmitt Bf-110 it failed in it's intended role only to find success in a different niche later on. Just illustrates how rapidly military aviation changes on the lead up and especially in the cut and thrust of war. Thanks Rex. I'll be in London in briefly in May. Maybe I could shout you a beer?
It met the specification, it had no aerodynamic vices, it was pleasant to fly and it did a useful role once removed from front line service. In short, it was a good aircraft - just a poor and obsolete specification. If tiger moths were sent into combat they would have been shot out of the skies, that doesn’t make them bad aircraft. A better example might be the Lysander - it met the specification for an army observation aircraft, but was hopelessly vulnerable to German fighters when deployed in this role. It was therefore a total failure, but very successful in other roles - so not a bad aircraft, but a bad spec…
Fairey themselves told the Air Ministry that the design was under powered with me Merlin and they urged them to go for it as a twin with a pair of Kestrels/Peregrines.
The Battle as built around the idea that there might be a treaty limiting heavy bombers so that was why it was what it was. Fairey believed that a two engined plane would be a more effective machine and even proposed a form of twin engined Battle, although this never got beyond the design stage.
Stuka was amazingly accurate in the right hands. In January 1941, to the east of Malta, 24 Stukas put six bombs onto HMS Illustrious, one going down the aft lift and exploding in the hangar. Another penetrated the deck and a flow-up attack put another bomb down the aft lift space. Illustrious steering on her engines, entered Malta's Grand Harbour with her aft hull glowing red hot from the fires. The Germans lost three Stukas in the battle but were ultimately beaten by the quality of the British ship, her armoured decks and amazing work by her AA gunners and damage control crews. The Fleet Air Arm's Fairey Fulmar aircraft (navalised versions of the Battle) even with eight .303 machine guns were pretty useless even against the slow flying Ju87.
It's a shame that so many pilots and crew had to 'sacrifice' their lives in this less capable aircraft. Or was it more like 'suicide'? Anyway, thanks for creating and uploading this informative video!
My uncle was killed flying one in France, I have his photo album from that period. My Nan hated the RAF for the rest of her days for sending her son up in something so useless.
Apparently one of the Belgian Battles when seeing that its bombs were not effective destroying a bridge went "Kamikaze" on that bridge. The (Belgian quality) bridge survived, the Battle not, the crew I don't know.
It's what happens when you give companies a specification and then tell them the budget per aircraft is a fiver! The thirties were dogged by the attitude of "Don't care if it's good or bad as long as it's cheap." Many young brave men died because of bean counters. That's never changed.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I would have changed P2732 to a 'high speed', single seat light attack bomber capable of carrying a single 1000 lb bomb in a semi recessed bomb bay and given it two or four forward fining Vickers. Pilots would have been trained in fast, shallow angle bombing tactics similar to what was used by rocket armed Typhoons later in the war. The aircraft should have come in at half the weight or less with a top speed as close as possible to 300mph. (The larger and heavier Fairey Fulmar topped out at 272 mph.)
Well, they could at least have these ua-cam.com/video/SjdCOn3fm8M/v-deo.html But for some strange reason they didn't use them and preferred to mass produce Battle and Fulmar. Even a modified streamlined Defiant, without the gun turret, would be much better. Part of the renerality&admiralty must have been either s*dists or corrupt incompetent m*r*ns.
Polish bomber crews who flew them declared these were WAY behind Polish bomber PZL P-37...and so was Wellington (P-37 had two engines, but carried the bomb load of B-17 and was faster...).
![A Domestic Failure That Became An International Success | Curtiss P-36 Hawk [Aircraft Overview #33]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lTgY8za-2Xw/mqdefault.jpg)
![France's Forgotten Heavy Bomber That Bombed Berlin | Farman F.222 / F.223 [Aircraft Overview #35]](/img/n.gif)
Thank you for posting this. Some years ago I had the privilege of working inside Battle L5343 (which is actually also bits of L5340) at the RAF Musuem Hendon. It never ceased to amaze me how bizarrely over engineered some of the airframe was, especially the pointlessly long perspex canopy, and the concealed masterpiece of a rear gun mount that, on the pull of a lever rotated 180 degrees to reveal the puny Vickers Gas Operated weapon. Let's spare a thought for all those Battle crews who knowingly took these woefully inadequate aircraft into combat, and especially LAC Reynolds of 12 Squadron who was Garland and Gray's gunner. They both received VCs. As a lowly LAC he received nothing.
A thought for Reynolds
That was dreadful, typical RAF class structure at work again.
Typical British class structure.
Respect to those brave lads. My experience has been that over engineering is not uncommon amongst British designs.
Presumably the Fairey Battle was about contemporary with the faster and much more effective Bristol Blenheim?
Seems similar in performance to the German Stuka, and did about as well in combat when faced with large amounts of quality enemy fighters.
Yup. The Stuka was lucky early on because the Luftwaffe had air superiority so it could operate in relative safety.
I read the the IL2 specs were similar and yet it was a "success". A lot of IL2s were lost however, but kept in production, human life seemed less important to the Soviet air force perhaps?
Stuka excelled as a CAS aircraft and was an extremly dangerous Dive bomber and even was a threat to ships due to how accurate it was. Like any plane designed for that role, even bombers they were sitting ducks with out air cover. The battle just was not a good plane unlike the Dauntless or Stuka which excelled at their roles.
It seems to me the Fairey Battle was much larger and the IL-2 was better armoured against ground fire and the Stuka was a dive bomber, so it was somewhat less exposed to ground fire. But yeah, planes like these rely heavily on having air superiority over the combatzone.
The Stuka was a dive bomber able to accurate bomb targets and its flight characteristics and range were good. It even proved a well tank busting aircraft later in the war. Just like any bombers though, they were highly vulnerable to fighters without a heavy fighter escort of their own, but they were not in the same league as the battle.
OK so it's a Hurricane with an extra 1500lb weight, plus 1000 lb bomb load, plus an extra crew member, plus enough fuel to fly 1000 miles.
What can possibly go wrong??
I'm on about what a happened if they remove the extra crew members
@@jamesricker3997 You cut the casualties by half... That's about all.
Especially true of those at 3:57.
you forgot he most important things: less firepower and less armor
Well,
It could have had a turret.
My father joined the RAF in 1938 and was stationed at Manston when war broke out. He told me they had one Vickers Virginia bomber and some Fairey Battles. He recalled the runway being tarred over as it was thought to be less conspicuous that concrete.
Ah, the Virginia! A near-WWI bomber, nearly in WW2; how could the Battle seem obsolescent?
G'day,
Back in the 1980s I nursed 2 RAAF pilots who flew Battles, one only in training, here in Oz.
The other, name of Mackintosh, was one of the 7 shot down attacking the Albert Canal Bridges.
He said his Section Leader chose the Low level approach, along the Canal, and they both got shot down by Ground-Fire, Rifles, Mg-34s & 20mm Flack.
The Section Leader went "Splash !", and Mackintosh force-landed, dead-stick, on the Tow-Path beside the Canal & went into the Bag as a POW.
He said that the decision to go in low was what saved his life, because the three who went at Medium Altitude (5,000 Ft !) to try Level Bombing and the three who flew "high" (12,000 ft! intending to Glide Bomb in a 30-degree dive, for better accuracy - they all attracted Me-109 & Me-110s from the Standing Patrol CAP over the Bridges..., and 5 of the 6 of them were all "eaten by the Messerschmidts..."
I suspect the photo at 0:07:00 may well be Mackintosh's Battle, on the Tow Path...(!).
In about 1960 he was knocked off his galloping Horse by a low hanging branch which was slightly above the line of sight imposed by the brim of his Felt Hat, and he became a "Low Quadriplegiac", retaining some use of his Arms.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Thats fascinating! Did they ever write a book about their experiences?
@@RexsHangar
Not that I know of...
I had trained at RGH Concord in Sydney, where I met the bloke who flew Battles in training, among the 2,000 or so Veterans of every Military adventure Oz embarked upon from 1914 to 1984, for an average of 10 days per Veteran.
In 1984 I graduated and then started at the Vegetable Creek Hospital at Emmaville, and that's where I met the ex-POW.
I think he was the younger brother or cousin of Colin Macintosh, who at the time owned Clarevaulx Station, and the handover Report coming on-shift included the snippet that he had flown in the War of 2 & had had a private Aeroplane (a Chipmunk I think) before falling off his horse.
I've always been an autodidactic Aeroplanologist, so I asked him about his Wartime Flying, and bingo..., 1 Squadron - "Leads The Field", the only Squadron which was issued Fairey Foxes back when the Air Ministry were reluctant to give up DH-9s and the like.
A rich Sheepfarmer's son who went to Blighty and joined the RAF in time to be Operational in 1939, a survivor of the Phoney War, and Blitzkrieg, who operated Fairey Battles in anger, and survived attempting to bomb the Bridges over the Albert Canal.
We had some fairly famous Pilots came from around here, eg Peter Turnbull, 76 Sqadron Leader shot down at Milne Bay - Glen Innes still gets a contingent from the Squadron marching up the Main Street on ANZAC Day and a Jet Flyover at 11 AM to remember him by (!), and Charlie Scherff the Mosquito Pilot who shot down a Heinkel Zwilling and had a price put on his head by Hitler in a Radio Berlin Speech by way of retaliation - he also came home to Emmaville.
Civilian life didn't go well for Charlie though, he died in a Sports Car, at speed, drunk, accompanied by somebody else's missus during the 1950s ; his widow ran the Tuckshop at the Glen Innes Primary School when I was there (1966-'72).
The after effects of WW-1 & WW-2 were whiplashing through Inland Smalltown Oz for a long time after the shooting stopped.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Thank you for sharing this! I value all of these small personal stories that people are retelling :)
@@RexsHangar
No worries mate !
Somebody has to try to integrate the whole, and try to make sense of it all.
It probably doesn't count as "Scholarship", but one of my 18 Playlists is titled "Personal Aeroplanology..." ; so if you ever feel like checking out something a bit different, there is always that...
I started in 1978, working for Neil Cottee at Olde Bowral Airfield, when he had 2 Tiger Moths, a B-model Hornet Moth, a 1946 J-3 Piper Cub, a Warner Scarab Replica Fokker Triplane and a Replica Sopwith Pup with an Armstrong Siddley Gennet Major...
Look up,
"The 8-Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft !"
to unpack that whole story.
The Scout has been hanging from the Ceiling of the Inverell Transport Museum since about 1995.
I was the last person to ever fly it, in November 1978...; so when I started posting on YT it was my first Aeroplanology Upload (!).
I use Potato-grade Phone-Cameras, edited-in-camera, shot-in-sequence, so it's pretty olde skool style ; but in 2013 Falmouth University in Cornwall sent me a Gold (coloured) Medal for winning the "Low Technology" division of their "Equals Project", an international YT Videomaking Competition..., so my offerings are apparently World-Class Potato-Cam...(!).
Enjoy...(!).
Have a good one,
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Despite its questionable effectiveness, its a very pretty aircraft.
It looks like a flying limousine
Until it ends up wrecked.
it looks like a barracuda but the wings are just placed bellow the fuselage
The trainer with two separate cockpits was far from pretty!
To me it's like a loooong hurricane
You can’t deny however that the Battle is a beautiful machine!
The old Axiom "if it looks right it is right" didn't quite apply here.
It's not a pretty plane. No spinner, the cockpit glazing is too big and I don't like the tail. Hey ho, it's all a matter of taste.
Looks somewhat like how Japanese B5N would have looked with linear engine.
I’d call it “pretty” rather than “beautiful” 😊
denied
The belgian airforce also operated the Fairey Battle in 1940. There's a surviving example at the army museum in Brussels, but it seems to be under restoration indefinitely.
The one in the Brussels museum is not a surviving Belgian machine. None survived the may 1940 campain.
It is originaly a UK aircraft, repainted in Belgian colours.
@@frankkeustermans1223 I know, I believe they got it from Canada or something?
@@wisserke a flight of Fairey Battles crashed 2 km from my house location while en route trying to bomb the bridges over the Meuse river... A lot of history at every house's doorstep. The fairey battle in the museum is indeed a british one, if i'm correct it's not complete and during work some errors where made.
"But it seems to be under restoration undefinitely"
How typically Belgian it is
Another good summary, really enjoying these little vignettes! Minor correction: Sgt Letchford, the observer in an 88 Sqn Battle did claim a Bf109 near Aachen during an action on 20 Sep in which the 2 other Battles were shot down. However, examination of German records shows the aircraft survived. Nevertheless, a week later on 27 Sep 39 it was indeed a Battle that claimed the RAF's first actual Luftwaffe kill when a flight of 103 Sqn Battles on a mission to recce the Siegrfied Line was bounced by four 109s. One of the Battles was badly shot up but Radio Op/Gunner LAC Summers returned fire at close range, downing one 109; he was later awarded a DFM. This time the other two Battles escaped. Summers' aircraft was forced to crash land and was written off but he and the pilot were unhurt. The Observer was badly injured in the fight and died of his wounds 10 days later.
Excellent video and, considering the grim subject matter, very enjoyable too. As an aside, I've never understood why the Battle wasn't equipped with a propeller spinner. It just looks unfinished without one.
It didn't go fast enough for aerodynamics to matter 🙂
The Battle was much more a threat to German divisions when she was used at extremely low altitude for surprise attacks, since she was fast and versatile enough, avoiding detection and AA fire, as the Russians did later with the Sturmovik. But British Command didnt extend that experimentation as a new standard and kept the mid-level bombing theories, allowing easy detection for all enemies (AA fire and fighters attacks), with the poor result described in this video.
Excellent job, thanks for this !
the IL 2 Sturmovik , even in it's earliest form had armour plating for the pilot AND decent calibre guns/cannons - comparing that ( defence/offense ) to the two .303 's on the "battle " is unfair to the Russians
Exactly, the basic airframe wasn't a problem, an upgrade to a later Merlin, some armour and better defensive armament but above all better tactical use.
Or throw away the airframe and nsil a Hurricane to the engine. .
The Battle, ironically, was most useful outside of battle.
The failings and losses of the Battle are so legendary that more than one pop history of the war or of the RAF I must have read in youth decades ago impressed these ideas on my memory pretty well. Here you've given an excellent survey and fleshing out of their story for me. Excellent video.
The Fairey Battle was, I think, one of several pretty hopeless types of aircraft with which the RAF went into the World War. This resulted in the loss of many of the fully-trained, experienced Regular aircrew in the first few months of the war. But they just had to do the best they could with what they'd got.
Thank you. A shame we don't hear more about aircraft like the Battle. To be sent out and shot at in a state of the art aircraft is bad enough. To have to do so with defective kit? That's courage.
@@Hartley_Hare And now we have people even older, who think their rights are being infringed by being asked to wear a mask!🤦♂️
@@Hartley_Hare The average age of RAF pilots in the Battle of Britain was 20 years. The average age of RAF pilots killed during the Battle ws 22. The average ages may have been a little higher during the Battle of France when the majority of pilots would have been pre-war regulars but it was still a young man's war.
My friend's late father was in an attack on a Danish airfield in 1940. All 6 Battles were shot down; only 6 of 18 men survived; his pilot broke his back. He was a POW for 5 years.
The Battle has the propositions for a good rc flying model. That's why I designed and built one. Flys great and looks good doing so. A fine tribute to an aircraft that faced such opposition but had no other choice. I love the Battle it's a classic.
The British version of the Douglas Devastator-a good plane, but kept around for too long...
A major point in the background that lead to the Fairey Battle was the huge success of fast, single engine, twin seat, biplane bombers it was meant to replace. They were easily as fast as the biplane fighters of the period, making them able to operate without fighter escort. The idea was to simply continue with the same concept while switching to a new, faster monoplane with retractable undercarriage. From an early 1930's perspective that made a huge lot of sense. At that time it was almost impossible to predict that the basic design of monoplanes with retractable undercarriage would result in a much larger gain in speed in single seat fighters than it did in twin seat, light bombers.
Great color footage of the Fairey Battles in Canadian service as trainers in the Jimmy Cagney film Captains of the Clouds.
That was a pretty good movie, too.
Lordhardthresher directed me to this episode by name checking you!
His off the cuff remarks on Battles now makes sense to me
"Destroyed while still on the ground"
Throughout this video a voice inside my head was screaming: "Stop!" Stop using it. Too many casualties already.
Those Battle pilots watching their planes burn on the airfield must had felt some relief as they would at least live to fight another day and taking those death traps to the sky would not have changed the outcome one bit. Well except for the pilots being dead...
I learn quite a bit watching your channel, Rex so many thanks for the considerable time and research effort to bring interested viewers a detailed back story that is easily digested and gives pleasure to those of us who with schoolboy enthusiasm enjoy aviation history yet suffer brain pain if too technical especially when complex mathematical formula's are included.
The Battle did make a couple more positive contributions. The ‘lightweight’ design variant that formed the basis of the very successful Fulmar for the FAA was one that’s well known. Less known is the fact that it’s because of the armour plate behind the pilot in the Battle that back armour became a standard fitment in RAF fighter aircraft in WW2.
The Hurricanes of 1 Squadron were part of the ‘Advanced Air Striking Force’ sent out to France. They saw a lot of action and indeed volunteers from 1 Squadron formed the totally overwhelmed escort for the (in)famous Battle strike on the Maas bridges.
The Hurricane had armoured glass windscreens but nothing behind the pilot. Back armour had been requested but the Air Ministry refused it, saying the experts at Hawker’s maintained that such armour would adversely affect the plane’s c of g, leading to ‘flying difficulties’. The CO of 1 Squadron, ‘Bull’ Hallahan, located a written-off Battle ~ of which unfortunately there were far too many ~ took the back armour out, had it fitted to a Hurricane & flight tested it. These were successful. Only then did he tell the Air Ministry of what he’d done. The Hurricane & a 1 Squadron pilot, F/O ‘Hilly’ Brown DFC were despatched to RAE Farnborough where it was amply demonstrated that the armour plate did not impact the performance or airworthiness of the Hurricane & soon after this back armour became standard equipment ~ something that doubtless saved many lives.
Sometimes one encounters the very best nerds on UA-cam.
@@raypurchase801 also the Fulmar can hardly be described as “very successful” - it was another oversized/outdated/underpowered aircraft that was produced in far greater numbers (and served for an extended period into the war) than it ought to have simply because it was the best the FAA had at the outbreak of war. In the 30’s the RN refused to believe in the concept of a single seat naval fighter aircraft.
@@neilturner6749 We're having a nerd-fest here!
Rex's Hanger did a recent video on the Vultee V-ll. Commentators on that video accurately said it was the U.S. version of the Battle. The Vultee V-ll was a level attack bomber, under powered, no armor and in a later version had three crew men.
The Battle was obsolete before the outbreak of war, but it was all we had apart from a few equally obsolete Blenheim's. The Air Ministry was adept at issuing specifications that were muddled.
Excellent video on an aircraft that was way obsolete by the outbreak of hostilities in WWII. Thanks for sharing and keep up the good work!
Thank you for this beautiful video about a plane that I love despite its flaws.
As a child I read my father's "Battler Britton" comics and that's when I started to love this plane. In fact, I found it (and still find it) graceful compared to the planes of the time. It looked like a "Hurricane" (my favorite fighter from the Second World War) and a long fuselage. His name also made me dream.
(Translated from French by Google translate)
Love the factory photo of the engine assembly workers with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths. The ashes must have done wonders for the internals of the motors...
Greg Baughens book covers this in immense detail, particulary the policy issues.
The aircraft coded HA were from 218 squadron.This squadron was adopted by the seaside town of Weston Super Mare Somerset.
August 1939 the Squadron visited Weston Airport.
I have a bit of a soft spot for the Battle and its derivatives, but the story of the Battle clearly demonstrates the dangers of accepting an interim solution, all too often you end up stuck with the interim design. However, it is interesting to think how the Battle might be remembered if war had broken out as a result of the Munich Crisis and instead of Me109 Dora and Emiles, Battles over the Western Front were opposed primarily by ME109Bs and HE51s...
Yes, I think of the Battle when I think of Fairey and hey presto, you've done a video about them. Cheers!
Totally out classed and like the Douglas Devastator an unwitting kamikaze.
3:20 Luftwaffe engineers help design Battle prototypes. “Ha ha ve tink you haf no problem vis zis shutz-bang flieger. Ve ferry scared ja.”
A minor point to note. The term "Bombardier" is inappropriate in the context of the video. There was no such crew position in the wartime RAF. People who aimed bombs from RAF aircraft were referred to as 'Bomb Aimers'.
The term was, correctly, 'Air Bomber' - colloquially, as you say, bomb aimer.
In 1940 the job did not actually exist and aiming the bombs was the job of the navigator.
Indeed. At the time, “Bombardier” was a rank in artillery regiments…
@@rej1960 yes, equal to a Corporal
Most Early British light bombers took heavy losses in France but the poor Battle really took the brunt of those losses.
Anyway great vid.
Heavy yes but the Lysanders suffered at least as much but with less publicity.
When I was in the Air Training Corps one of our officers had been. Battle air gunner in France.
One might note that the bomb carriers in the wing bomb cells could be lowered to allow the bombs to be released in a steep dive.
The Fairey Battle had the dubious distinction of losing more of their crew members than the enemy personnel they killed in action.
Have to admire the crew who flew these second rate aircraft
To paraphrase George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld. "You go to war with the Army (aircraft) you have." The Russians used older I-153 and I 16.
I remember reading a comic maybe Warlord, that featured a Battle squadron and how the pilot had to make the most of the woeful armament
Amazing that they where still in use in 1949!
It was also featured in a WW2 era movie being flown by James Cagney if I recall.... Training duties in Canada
Just a short time later Fairey produced the excellent Firefly which was delayed because the Griffon was put on a back burner.
I've always been very critical of the UK and France's military designs of the 1930's but I need to remember that many of these weapons ( like the Fairey Battle or the Char B Tank) were designs that far exceeded the abilities of the designs they were supposed to replace. Like in the case of the Battle over the Hawker Hart; speed went up by like 40 MPH and the bomb load was almost doubled ! However, it just wasn't enough to double the performance which laughable in the first place.
Excellent channel, kind of a Drachinifel of the air.
Something to be used in the meantime until something better on the horizon shows up. Land, sea, or air, how many battles have been fought throughout history by weapons meeting that spec?
Probably most. If not outright obsolete, it is usually the 2nd line gear carrying the brunt of the fighting.
The remaining Greek Fairey Battles were destroyed in ground after the German invasion as Luftwaffe was dominating the skies over Greece.Until then they had significant action with the best moment the air raid in the Argyrokastron(Girokaster) airfield with a dozen of Italian aircraft destroyed in the ground.
The aircraft at 4:14 look more like hurricanes to me
The Fairey Battle was just fine for a light bomber and a modified version would have made a fine carrier based bomber, but the lack of any kind of escort made it look worse than it was.
You mean like the fairey Fulmer?
Staggering that they were produced in such numbers.
Happened a few times. We built 1700 Covenantor tanks that couldn't be used due to engine cooling issues as another example. 😕
Great work Sir thank you
desperate times call for desperate measures…the old style of bombing just didn’t work anymore, thank goodness these were able to be reworked and helped the war effort in another way despite the terrible distinction
The excellent book, "Piece of Cake" by Derek Robinson gives an account of the Albert Canal attack as discussed by the pilots of the Hurricane squadron that was the focus of the book.
The Battle fared very well in it’s RAF trials, it was thought v manoeuvreable.
A reminder that the trials procedure basically is just systematic guessing.
My father was shot down in one of these 11 6 1940.Had the scars to prove it.Said it was an easy plane to fly.Had a lot of time for the French.
My grandfather was a Battle pilot in France 1940 . When the time came to fall back to England they burned the u/s aircraft and walked to the coast . They commandeered a train at one point , I wonder if anyone else has heard this story?
Yes,aircraft were set on fire during the retreat but a lot of aircrew lost their lives when the ship(name eludes me)taking them off was sunk.
@@geraldperyman6535 Was the ship the RMS Lancastria?
@@annemadison7258 Yes,one of the worst tragedy's of the war .
It was a crime to put young pilots in those flying coffins
If the Blackburn Skua had four forward firing brownings than why couldn't the Battle have two?
i kinda wanna see his in warthunder now, i think it'd be a decent 1.7 maybe 2.0
The bottom line on the much-maligned Fairey Battle is that it was based upon a WW-I concept for a single-engined day-bomber. The aircraft was designed as a 1930s equivalent to the De Haviland DH-4 and DH-9A bombers which did very well during WW-I. It was also a product of Fairey Aviation, which had revolutionized the British concept of the single-engine day-bomber during the mid 1920s with their Fairey Fox, a single-engine bomber which was faster than the fighters of the day. The only problem was that the state of the art had moved on since then, and WW-II was not the same as WW-I. As a result, in 1940 the very concept of the fast, single-engine day-bomber was no longer relevant. However, that does not mean that the Battle was a bad aircraft, it merely means that the concept behind it was outmoded. There was nothing at all wrong with the aircraft itself, which went on to make a very significant contribution to the war as a training airplane. In addition, anyone who thinks the Fairey Battle was bad should take a look at the alternative, the Armstrong-Whitworth A.W.29.
Always wondered why the Battle never received a spinner for the airscrew.
Curious that you didn't mention the Battle's favoured nick-name: The Widowmaker!
There is an example being restored at the Port Adelaide Aviation Museum, South Australia.
Yeah this plane defiantly looks like something you'd see in tier 1 and is as outdated as the swordfish and therefore I'd love to play it
Also, I think it'd be a great idea in general if you displayed stats like weight, max speed, range etc. In text as well because that would make things much easier to understand and remember
Good suggestion! I'll see if I can work that in to the next videos and see how people like it :)
It doesn't look defiantly, it doesn't have a turret. :D
In defense of the crews who bravely went to war with this aircraft, their effort was not in vane. The Germans had to combat them and spent considerable effort to shoot them down. This alone served the purpose of diverting aircraft that might have been used otherwise. Their brave effort was not in vain! Salute!
Nice airplace!
Let's just say the Typhoon definitely was an improvement
The Fairey Battle was almost as bad as the Leprechaun Fistfight and the Pixie Slapper.
Excellent summary of neglected type. TFP. A minor matter; the RAF and Commonwealth air forces trained and assigned 'bomb aimers' to bomber crews, not bombardiers (USAAC/F).
In 1940 the RAF did not use bomb aimers. The trade came into existence as Bomber Command began to equip with four engined 'heavies'. The bombs were, until then, aimed by the navigator.
Not bad, just obsolete when it entered combat. Five years earlier, it would have been quite the effective airplane.
Hi Rex, very informative video, thanks for posting. My friend is writing a book about the Battle and as a cover wishes to use the still image you have from 12sec to 24 sec on the video.
would you know if it is in the public domain, or is it copyright? if it is copyright, would you be good enough to forward the appropriate person to contact.
many thanks in anticipation, keep posting the excellent videos.
best regards
Roy
Unfortunately there were a lot sacrificial air crews/planes in the early days of the war. In the Pacific just as bad were Vildebeasts (even slower than the Battle), US Devastators, P-35s and Vindicators, P-26s (used by the Philippian air force), Australian Wirraways, Dutch operated Martin B-10 to name a few. The smart officer takes these out front line service and uses them in auxiliary roles.
I checked out the Fairey Battle at RAF Museum in London last year. I've always though these were a gracefully shaped aircraft, except for the wheels not fully retracting. Like the Ju-87 and aircraft this size carrying a 1000lb bomb was rather a lot for a RR Merlin to pull at a decent speed, although the Jumo 211 in the Stuka had an even worse load.
I've never understood why they never added a spinner to the prop. Maybe the performance advantage just wasn't justified, I don't know. I suppose most of the poor old bird's shortcomings are explained by the age of the original specifications, with huge advances in fighter performance having overtaken it since its first flight. Like the Messerschmitt Bf-110 it failed in it's intended role only to find success in a different niche later on. Just illustrates how rapidly military aviation changes on the lead up and especially in the cut and thrust of war.
Thanks Rex. I'll be in London in briefly in May. Maybe I could shout you a beer?
It wasn't a fairy and it couldn't battle. A quote from "What were they like to fly"! A book I owned many years ago.
"The Fairey Battle -- Bad or Unlucky?"
"Yes."
It met the specification, it had no aerodynamic vices, it was pleasant to fly and it did a useful role once removed from front line service. In short, it was a good aircraft - just a poor and obsolete specification. If tiger moths were sent into combat they would have been shot out of the skies, that doesn’t make them bad aircraft. A better example might be the Lysander - it met the specification for an army observation aircraft, but was hopelessly vulnerable to German fighters when deployed in this role. It was therefore a total failure, but very successful in other roles - so not a bad aircraft, but a bad spec…
Would have created some exasperated expressions reporting to your superior "Sir... We lost 200 battles today..Sir".
Fairey themselves told the Air Ministry that the design was under powered with me Merlin and they urged them to go for it as a twin with a pair of Kestrels/Peregrines.
The Battle as built around the idea that there might be a treaty limiting heavy bombers so that was why it was what it was. Fairey believed that a two engined plane would be a more effective machine and even proposed a form of twin engined Battle, although this never got beyond the design stage.
Bit out of time, but I'm here because HardThrasher said to come and take a look.
At 4:00 those are Hurricans and not Battles, right?
8:41 That's one strange looking plane.😳
Great vid Rex! Enjoying your content.
Some of the bad wrap may be caused by it.s appearance It looks somewhat like a fighter but it is a bomber, Sort of a British Stuka.
I see the problem.
They painted the letters and numbers on the bottom of the wing backwards.
That causes massive drag.
Australia airforce should have had 1000 of these aircraft to defeat the Japanese.
Stuka was amazingly accurate in the right hands. In January 1941, to the east of Malta, 24 Stukas put six bombs onto HMS Illustrious, one going down the aft lift and exploding in the hangar. Another penetrated the deck and a flow-up attack put another bomb down the aft lift space. Illustrious steering on her engines, entered Malta's Grand Harbour with her aft hull glowing red hot from the fires. The Germans lost three Stukas in the battle but were ultimately beaten by the quality of the British ship, her armoured decks and amazing work by her AA gunners and damage control crews. The Fleet Air Arm's Fairey Fulmar aircraft (navalised versions of the Battle) even with eight .303 machine guns were pretty useless even against the slow flying Ju87.
brave flight crew..
Imagine what a nightmare it would be if it had been equipped with the Rolls-Royce Vulture!
I am wondering, were a few of these aircraft sent to the defense of Hong Kong's defence force??
Sending the Battle into the Battle proved to be a bad Idea.
Nothing wrong with this the fairey battle but they was in need of fighter protection like all other similar light bombers.
It's a shame that so many pilots and crew had to 'sacrifice' their lives in this less capable aircraft. Or was it more like 'suicide'? Anyway, thanks for creating and uploading this informative video!
My uncle was killed flying one in France, I have his photo album from that period. My Nan hated the RAF for the rest of her days for sending her son up in something so useless.
@@timsytanker Thanks for sharing.
Apparently one of the Belgian Battles when seeing that its bombs were not effective destroying a bridge went "Kamikaze" on that bridge. The (Belgian quality) bridge survived, the Battle not, the crew I don't know.
It didn't help survival odds when they flew missions unescorted.
It's what happens when you give companies a specification and then tell them the budget per aircraft is a fiver! The thirties were dogged by the attitude of "Don't care if it's good or bad as long as it's cheap."
Many young brave men died because of bean counters.
That's never changed.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I would have changed P2732 to a 'high speed', single seat light attack bomber capable of carrying a single 1000 lb bomb in a semi recessed bomb bay and given it two or four forward fining Vickers. Pilots would have been trained in fast, shallow angle bombing tactics similar to what was used by rocket armed Typhoons later in the war. The aircraft should have come in at half the weight or less with a top speed as close as possible to 300mph. (The larger and heavier Fairey Fulmar topped out at 272 mph.)
Well, they could at least have these ua-cam.com/video/SjdCOn3fm8M/v-deo.html
But for some strange reason they didn't use them and preferred to mass produce Battle and Fulmar. Even a modified streamlined Defiant, without the gun turret, would be much better. Part of the renerality&admiralty must have been either s*dists or corrupt incompetent m*r*ns.
Polish bomber crews who flew them declared these were WAY behind Polish bomber PZL P-37...and so was Wellington (P-37 had two engines, but carried the bomb load of B-17 and was faster...).
960 mile range would permit a bombing raid on Warsaw from an airfield in central London. That's pretty far. I didn't realize its range was that good.
Except "Range" in British means one way (not including return). It´s basicly ferry range, but with bombs.
Reality of Bf 109 with cannon. Very lucky for the Luftwaffe that fighter command were not so equipped in 1940.
Just discovered this channel - subscribed. 🔔
Those poor but brave pilots, 50% or more chance to be killed each flight 😔
You gonna do the Fairey Firefly?