80th anniversary modelling ideas

[Rheged]

Next year will be the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Britain.  Would anyone wish to help me commemorate a forgotten group of B of B pilots...the Fleet Air Arm?   https://navalairhistory.com/2017/09/15/the-fleet-air-arm-in-the-battle-of-britain/  In addition to RN pilots, there were even at least  three  Royal Marines involved too; here's one of them that  I know about:-   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Cuthbert_Hay.

The possibilities thus offered for premier league Numpty-Boggling are considerable.  Interwoven with the truth, one could  for instance offer a mixed  Skua/Roc   contingent flown down from the FAA base at Hatston as back-up to the first line RAF squadrons.

I'll be attempting a backstory or two  and inviting you all to decide where history ends and  whiffery begins.  I would be delighted if anyone felt able to join in.

[McColm]

The magazine 'Aeroplane ' has been running something similar in their recent publications.

[The Rat]

Seems like only yesterday that we were celebrating the 75th anniversary. Dang, I feel old. 

[Scotaidh]

That sounds great!  My dad was FAA - I'm in.

I can see either Skuas or Rocs being used for high-altitude standing patrols - facing into the wind, they could 'hover' for hours!    Plus they hadan extra pair of eyes to help with the eye-numbing job of searching for wee incoming hostile specks of Germanity ...  

[NARSES2]

One to flag up when we come to next year's Poll to select GB's. Which isn't that far away.

[NARSES2]

Interestingly of course is that when the RFC was founded it saw it's mission as being to support the Army and in particular any expeditionary force they decided to send where ever they decided to send it. It was the RNAS who saw it as it's mission to defend the British Isles as that was what the navy had always done.

So extrapolate from that 

[jcf]

US carrier on Neutrality Patrol has a "hangar fire" that requires diversion to a British
port and the temporary offloading of a number of Grumman F3F-2/3 fighters, not
a big issue because the first F4Fs were coming in to service and the F3Fs were slated
for replacement at the end of the cruise.

Through unknown and mysterious processes the Grumman barrels ended up with the
FAA where they saw service against Regia Aeronautica Fiat CR-42 and G-50.

I'll leave it to others to figure out where these combats may have occurred. .

[kitbasher]

Interestingly of course is that when the RFC was founded it saw it's mission as being to support the Army and in particular any expeditionary force they decided to send where ever they decided to send it. It was the RNAS who saw it as it's mission to defend the British Isles as that was what the navy had always done.

So extrapolate from that 

Now that would make for an interesting alternative 1940 GB.  Would the 1930's era RNAS brought strategic bombers into service while the RFC tinkered with the tactical, short-range stuff?

[Old Wombat]

Interestingly of course is that when the RFC was founded it saw it's mission as being to support the Army and in particular any expeditionary force they decided to send where ever they decided to send it. It was the RNAS who saw it as it's mission to defend the British Isles as that was what the navy had always done.

So extrapolate from that 

Now that would make for an interesting alternative 1940 GB.  Would the 1930's era RNAS brought strategic bombers into service while the RFC tinkered with the tactical, short-range stuff?

It was the RFC that operated the large bombers in WW1, so I'd figure the same later, too, with the FAA focusing on fighters for Home Defence & fighters, dive-bombers & torpedo-bombers for Fleet work.

Interestingly, the FAA's fighter roles would be almost diametrically opposed to each other, as the Home Defence fighters would need to be heavily armed but relatively short-ranged for, obviously, defensive operations, while the Fleet fighters would need to be heavily armed but very long-ranged for offensive operations.

[kitbasher]

Sorry Old Wombat but the Handley-Page O/100s and O/400s were RNAS-operated, and then the RAF upon the latter's formation in 1918.  Some of the former RFC squadrons were so equipped, but only after they became RAF squadrons.

Anyway, let's not hijack the thread.   

[Nick]

I certainly have an idea for a BofB whiff but not necessarily a Fleet Air Arm version. Although... 

https://navalairhistory.com/2017/09/15/the-fleet-air-arm-in-the-battle-of-britain/

What were the differences in FAA and RAF camo?
https://navalairhistory.com/2017/07/24/the-fleet-air-arm-over-dunkirk/

" ... the Fleet Air Arm's camouflage at that time bore some resemblance to that worn by the Luftwaffe's fighters. It was perhaps for this reason that modifications to the colours later appeared, with the upper camouflage demarcation line being extended down to the level of the wing from the rear of the cowling to the front of the tail fin. "

[Rheged]

Sorry Old Wombat but the Handley-Page O/100s and O/400s were RNAS-operated, and then the RAF upon the latter's formation in 1918.  Some of the former RFC squadrons were so equipped, but only after they became RAF squadrons.

Anyway, let's not hijack the thread.   

I've no objections to thread drift in a discussion I started.

My maternal grandfather was a tailor by trade, serving in "Naval A" squadron RNAS..........family legend has it he spent 1918 sewing the wings back onto  H-P O/100s in France.

[Snowtrooper]

• Did Fulmar actually participate? It would have just about become operational so is perhaps not even a whiff.
• The Roc gets upgraded with a Hercules instead of Perseus, allowing it actually to pursue bombers instead of waiting to be chased by them? For example, the batch of 20 waiting for delivery to Finland that never happened was at the time not part of any squadron so would have been more easily available for tinkering once the deal was off...
• The FAA adopts the Battle as a land-based torpedo bomber to counter the coming invasion?
• RAF actually came into possession of a batch of SBC Helldivers (after they wouldn't fit on the French ships and were left in Canada, meanwhile France surrendered). Since there was no real use for them, what if FAA gets them instead and converts them to turret fighters? For improved performance and to maintain centre of gravity, replace the Cyclone with Twin Cyclone from a Boston...
• A stretch (though perhaps not requiring a stretch of an Alien Space Bat's wings), but the F4U Corsair began its test flights in its XF4U-1 prototype guise in May 1940. Suppose a small detachment was immediately sent to Britain for "combat evaluation" and to comply with the US neutrality policy, was "loaned" to FAA?

[NARSES2]

Interestingly of course is that when the RFC was founded it saw it's mission as being to support the Army and in particular any expeditionary force they decided to send where ever they decided to send it. It was the RNAS who saw it as it's mission to defend the British Isles as that was what the navy had always done.

So extrapolate from that 

Now that would make for an interesting alternative 1940 GB.  Would the 1930's era RNAS brought strategic bombers into service while the RFC tinkered with the tactical, short-range stuff?

My own view is that the RNAS would have continued with heavy bombers (as you say the 0/100's and 0/400's were theirs) as the RN had always seen Force Projection as part of it's role, whilst the RFC would have been developing ground attack types to support their comrades in the Army 

The Royal Marines however would have wanted some tactical stuff in order to support landings and raids. So do they use RFC types or does the RNAS develop its own ?

[Old Wombat]

Should have researched that but I was sure that the RFC were the operators of the bombers. Oh, well, another failure of my aging brain.

Aircraft used for Fleet operations (especially as aircraft carriers were developed & improved) would be more amenable to modification for Marines use & would probably have better range than RFC aircraft as time went by, especially dive-bombers & long-range escort fighters.

Also, with the RN actually being invested in the design & development of aircraft, through feed-back from their own pilots, there may have been fewer of those ... abominations? ... foisted on it by ignorant admirals & a disinterested RAF.