Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Douglas Havoc III and Havoc IV denominations

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South West of France
    Posts
    752
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Douglas Havoc III and Havoc IV denominations

    Morning All,

    Something seems a bit confusing to me regarding those denominations. In some written sources those denominations appear to have been reserved for the Havoc (Pandora) and the Havoc (Intruder). I don't know if it is true or false but in any case they were never adopted, and if anyone know the reasons why, I'd be happy to read them.
    Also, does anyone know why the RAF didn't used the name 'Havoc' for the Boston III converted in Turbinlite or Intruder like they did for the Boston I and II? Here too somebody has broken the rules somewhere but I guess that there was a good reason for that.

    Thanks

    Phil

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    524
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    I suspect that there may have been two possible reasons, but I don't know which is correct (if either).

    The first is that around this time the Air Ministry ceased allocating different names to the same aircraft when used in different roles. Pre-WW2 examples include the Vincent/Vildebeeste, and several members of the Hart family. It seems likely to me that the Havoc/Boston was the last example of this rule, with the Havocs being fighters (at least of a kind) whereas the Bostons initially were only bombers. Using the pre-war system, the Ministry may have run short of suitable names when it came to the Mosquito... or indeed the Beaufighter before it, leading to the use of initially a role suffix, and later a role prefix. It took the Ministry some time to settle down to a stable consistent system, and the naming of the various Havoc/Boston variant would seem to fall into the time period of some confusion and irregularity.

    The second possibility is that after initial experience the RAF considered the early aircraft sufficiently different to require a different name. In which case it may seem more likely for the earlier aircraft to have retained the name Boston, but their role as fighters may have meant looking for a more aggressive name. Of course the Blenheim made do with a mere suffix.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •