Fairey Battle

[The Rat]

 

[zenrat]

I would guess that it was named after the town of Battle, near to Hastings and is the true site of a certain little rumpus in 1066.

I suppose once you name a town that it's inevitable that armies will come some distance to fight there.

[The Rat]

I would guess that it was named after the town of Battle, near to Hastings and is the true site of a certain little rumpus in 1066.

I suppose once you name a town that it's inevitable that armies will come some distance to fight there.

[The Rat]

According to Wikipedia Coastal Command did use Fairey battles, based in Iceland, presumably for recce patrols. I should have known that, because I remember now that my old reserve regiment* was involved in the rescue of the crew one that went down there, off in the rocky wilderness.

*The Royal Regiment of Canada. Regular force during the war, decimated at Dieppe. 

[Snowtrooper]

Further possibility: With a service ceiling of 25,000ft, it flew at more than twice the altitude of most enemy fighters. 10,000ft higher than the TA-152, which was specifically designed as a high-altitude fighter, it could have flown untouched by any Luftwaffe fighters, and at the extreme effective range (26,000ft) of the Flak AAA.

What. Ta-152 ceiling was 15 000 metres (49 000 feet), not feet. Fw 190A had an altitude of 10,4 km (some 34 000 ft), Bf 109G 12 km (39 000 ft), Bf 110C 10 km (33 000 ft). Against these, Battle's ceiling was 25 000 ft (about 7,6 km).

[rickshaw]

Further possibility: With a service ceiling of 25,000ft, it flew at more than twice the altitude of most enemy fighters. 10,000ft higher than the TA-152, which was specifically designed as a high-altitude fighter, it could have flown untouched by any Luftwaffe fighters, and at the extreme effective range (26,000ft) of the Flak AAA.

What. Ta-152 ceiling was 15 000 metres (49 000 feet), not feet. Fw 190A had an altitude of 10,4 km (some 34 000 ft), Bf 109G 12 km (39 000 ft), Bf 110C 10 km (33 000 ft). Against these, Battle's ceiling was 25 000 ft (about 7,6 km).

The Fw190A used to crap out about 24,000 feet due to the lack of a supercharger.  Which is why Kurt Tank attempted several improved versions with a different engine or a supercharger in the Fw190B and Fw190C.  The Fw190D finally cured the problem.

[The Rat]

Further possibility: With a service ceiling of 25,000ft, it flew at more than twice the altitude of most enemy fighters. 10,000ft higher than the TA-152, which was specifically designed as a high-altitude fighter, it could have flown untouched by any Luftwaffe fighters, and at the extreme effective range (26,000ft) of the Flak AAA.

What. Ta-152 ceiling was 15 000 metres (49 000 feet), not feet. Fw 190A had an altitude of 10,4 km (some 34 000 ft), Bf 109G 12 km (39 000 ft), Bf 110C 10 km (33 000 ft). Against these, Battle's ceiling was 25 000 ft (about 7,6 km).

In my defence, I was on drugs. I think.

[jcf]

The Fw190A used to crap out about 24,000 feet due to the lack of a supercharger.  Which is why Kurt Tank attempted several improved versions with a different engine or a supercharger in the Fw190B and Fw190C.  The Fw190D finally cured the problem.

Like the majority of radials of the period the BMW 801 had an integral centrifugal supercharger;
single-stage, two-speed in most versions. Refinement of the supercharger design, improved gear
ratios etc., led to the 801F version with an output up to 2,400hp (take off).

The Jumo 213 had a two-stage, three-speed centrifugal supercharger, which (like the two-stage
superchargers that equipped many Allied engines) was more flexible than a single stage.

[The Rat]

Yeah, I see where I screwed up. Wikipedia is usually accurate, and they were in this case, but they are inconsistent in their presentation. The specifications for the Battle are given in Imperial first, followed by metric equivalents, I guess because it was British. The page for the TA-152 has the opposite arrangement; metric followed by Imperial. I didn't bother looking at the figures closely enough to realise that. 

Move along, nothing to see here...

[zenrat]

Further possibility: With a service ceiling of 25,000ft, it flew at more than twice the altitude of most enemy fighters. 10,000ft higher than the TA-152, which was specifically designed as a high-altitude fighter, it could have flown untouched by any Luftwaffe fighters, and at the extreme effective range (26,000ft) of the Flak AAA.

What. Ta-152 ceiling was 15 000 metres (49 000 feet), not feet. Fw 190A had an altitude of 10,4 km (some 34 000 ft), Bf 109G 12 km (39 000 ft), Bf 110C 10 km (33 000 ft). Against these, Battle's ceiling was 25 000 ft (about 7,6 km).

In my defence, I was on drugs. I think.

Yeah, I see where I screwed up. Wikipedia is usually accurate, and they were in this case, but they are inconsistent in their presentation. The specifications for the Battle are given in Imperial first, followed by metric equivalents, I guess because it was British. The page for the TA-152 has the opposite arrangement; metric followed by Imperial. I didn't bother looking at the figures closely enough to realise that. 

Move along, nothing to see here...

You had me with the first explanation.  But yeah, Wikipedia can catch you like that.

[NARSES2]

Interestingly this book has some speculation on what might have happened if Coastal Command had had a higher priority when it comes to procurement.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Atlantic-1939-41-Commands-Campaign/dp/1472836030/ref=pd_ys_c_rfycrnr_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1472836030&pd_rd_r=PH7V8Z2DB587BARRPXXV&pd_rd_w=ZVb8Z&pd_rd_wg=0Mj05&pf_rd_p=e83f36ba-a532-4987-ba7a-d3d2fa0abb43&pf_rd_r=PH7V8Z2DB587BARRPXXV&psc=1&refRID=SZBDSCNTRKSMNWA5F1YC