# Spit or P51 in mid 43



## pbfoot (Jun 9, 2011)

Given a choice between a Spit or P51 in mid 43 for a all round fighter for RAF service which would you choose


----------



## marshall (Jun 9, 2011)

Given the options in the poll I guess that I can't choose a combination of both types?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 10, 2011)

I'm a Spitfire fan, but the P-51 was simply the more effective type if you want to win a war.

The better climb/intercept and dogfight performance of the Spitfire is more than offset by the strategic flexibility that the P-51's range offers, as well as its superior speed. P-51 equipped RAF units had many more opportunities to score than Spitfire equipped units. 

As the RAAF concluded when it took delivery of its first P-51s, the Spitfire was a nicer aircraft (easier to fly and better behaved in most flight regimes) but the combination of speed and range made the P-51 a better weapon. 

If I was in charge of the RAF, I'd take a the P-51C, outfit it with the Merlin 66 and arm it with 4 Hispanos.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 10, 2011)

Mid 1943 gets you a Spitfire XIV. And they did have the capability of extended range with increased tankage, as per XVIII.


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2011)

Guess what, if defending Spitfire, attacking P51.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2011)

Glider said:


> Guess what, if defending Spitfire, attacking P51.


 I think that sums it up. If you want a very large footprint over enemy soil - the mustang. If you wish to defend with greatest vertical performance envelope - spitfire


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 13, 2011)

drgondog said:


> I think that sums it up. If you want a very large footprint over enemy soil - the mustang. If you wish to defend with greatest vertical performance envelope - spitfire


This is the point I'm trying to make , the LW was no longer a force able to brimg weight to bear on the UK so why did they continue to build a defensive fighter when an offensive weapon was available in the 51. As everyone knows the best defence is a good offence


----------



## Hop (Jun 13, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> This is the point I'm trying to make , the LW was no longer a force able to brimg weight to bear on the UK so why did they continue to build a defensive fighter when an offensive weapon was available in the 51. As everyone knows the best defence is a good offence


 
It's based on a false assumption. 

The 8th AF needed long range fighters to escort their bombers. Attacking the Luftwaffe across the channel didn't need much range.

In 1941 the Germans could withdraw most of their forces from Western Europe because they knew there was nothing Britain could really do to hurt them. In 1943 that was no longer the case.

In 1943 there were plenty of targets in France, Belgium and the Netherlands the Luftwaffe had to defend. The invasion defences, V-1 and V-2 launch infrastructure, their own airfields (which would be essential when the invasion came), the road and rail links they would need to bring troops to the front.

In 1943 the Luftwaffe were in the same position the RAF were in in 1940. They had to defend against an enemy air force based 20 miles across the water. That doesn't require long range on the part of the attacker.


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2011)

If we are working on the basis that they are going to fight each other and I had to sit in one of them, then the Spit gets my vote. The choice of a P51 over a Spitfire is a strategic one not a tactical one. So if I were a Senior Officer then its the P51, if I had to fly the thing, its the Spitfire.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 13, 2011)

If I was an RAF/RCAF fighter pilot in England 1943-1944 and I wanted to 'have a go - and go often' against Jerry I want the ship that will take me over their home skies. I have listened to more than a few RAF vets who desparately wanted a piece of continued escort of 8th AF when they migrated from France/Holland to Germany targeting.

RCAF Flt Lt Warren Peglar scored all his victories (4 air/1 ground in six weeks) with 355th and loved the Spit - but saw no Germans in the Spit - so he loved the Mustang and in particular the P-51B w/malcolm hood. He flew over 400 (zero air, 3 ground) missions with Spit and Tempest, 15 with Mustang.

Comment - the RAF wasn't doing long range escort - but even TAC operations with a 51 makes more sense than a Spit because range/combined with load IS a factor, it is a factor for recon and while the 51 wasn't quite as nimble a dog fighter it would done just fine against the 190 and 109.

The Brits also had quite a few mediums making daylight tactical strikes, particularly in MTO - and those ranges could have been extended with good protection had the RAF been equipped with Mustangs.


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2011)

I voted, assuming that the P51 had the Merlin engine. I have read that the early P51 with the Allison was a nicer flying bird than the Merlin Mustang but it's altitude capabilities or lack thereof would make me go for the Spitfire. I think that one reason the Brits continued to built the Spit was plain and simple, money. I question how many of us realise how close Britain was to the end of their rope when WW2 ended. John Keegan, my favorite British historian and who is in his late 70s, just like me, told about how scarce even food was in the period just after the war in Britain. I believe that the British had little money or even manpower to try to develop a long range escort fighter, especially after the Mustang arrived. After two world wars with the cost in blood and gold and with the empire disentegrating, those were tough times for the British Lion.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2011)

What may not be satisfactorily explained is why the MK VIIIs went away from England and the MK IXs stayed in England. I can certainly understand the need in 1942 to get the MK IX into service as quick as possible. But one year later in the summer/fall of 1943 one would think that at least SOME UK based Spitifires could have had the 14gal leading edge tanks. By the Summer of 1944 having either NO Spitfires or darn few with the leading edge tanks doesn't seem right. Maybe I am missing something?

The leading edge tanks certainly are NOT going to turn the Spitfire into a Berlin escort but an extra 100-150miles of radius ( the extra fuel is return home fuel after drop tank is dropped and combat) would have been quite useful. 

Surely Great Britain was not so hard up for fighters that some of the 5,600+ Mk IXs could not have been fitted with the leading edge tanks ( or contracts changed for less MK IXs and more MK VIIIs without tropical kit)?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 13, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> What may not be satisfactorily explained is why the MK VIIIs went away from England and the MK IXs stayed in England. I can certainly understand the need in 1942 to get the MK IX into service as quick as possible. But one year later in the summer/fall of 1943 one would think that at least SOME UK based Spitifires could have had the 14gal leading edge tanks. By the Summer of 1944 having either NO Spitfires or darn few with the leading edge tanks doesn't seem right. Maybe I am missing something?
> 
> The leading edge tanks certainly are NOT going to turn the Spitfire into a Berlin escort but an extra 100-150miles of radius ( the extra fuel is return home fuel after drop tank is dropped and combat) would have been quite useful.
> 
> Surely Great Britain was not so hard up for fighters that some of the 5,600+ Mk IXs could not have been fitted with the leading edge tanks ( or contracts changed for less MK IXs and more MK VIIIs without tropical kit)?


 
To fit Mk IXs with leading edge wing tanks needs a fairly significant rework of some parts of the wing structure. Not an easy thing to do.

Mk VIIIs were sent to the Med and Eastern/Pacific theaters as it was recognised that the 200 miles extra range was much more needed in these theaters than in the ETO. 

The RAAF defence of Darwin and the RAF battles around India/Burma are cases in point. On some missions with Mk Vs, more fighters were lost due to running short of fuel than to enemy action. As a result, the RAAF imposed a 260 km (163 mile) operational radius, even when operating with 30 gal drop tanks.

Some longer-ranged WERE available in the ETO: Mk VIIs, but just four squadrons worth at any one point.

They performed SOME longer ranged escort missions: notably a 1944 daylight raid to La Pallice, which was a round trip of 690 miles, in just under three and a half hours. There were several other missions of more than 600 miles, but most were conducted in fairly paltry strength, at most about 18-24 aircraft and usually much less.

The longest Spitfire escort mission was in the PTO: Seven RAAF Mk VIIIs performed escort duties for four B-25s, tasked with bombing Japanese targets in Timor, a round trip of 850 miles.

Both long range missions are notable in that they largely took place over water, allowing the Spitfires to cruise at low speeds (~200 mph, rather than the usual 220-240 mph). 

There were two more simple solutions than the leading edge tanks: the PR style 29 gal rear fuselage tank and the enlarged lower nose tank with another 13 gal. Unfortunately, the air staff were reluctant to adopt such measures: rear fuselage tanks didn't start appearing on Mk IXs until mid-late 1944, and only late production Mk XIIs were fitted with the enlarged nose tanks.

I've never been fully satisfied as to why the various options available were never seized upon by the RAF/Air Ministry/Air Staff. Quill and other test pilots certainly pushed for it, as did combat pilots in the squadrons.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 14, 2011)

Hop said:


> It's based on a false assumption.
> 
> The 8th AF needed long range fighters to escort their bombers. Attacking the Luftwaffe across the channel didn't need much range.
> 
> ...


I disagree , the Spit in its prime role as a point intreceptor was over . The war had changed directions and knocking down the LW should have been the prime role that the Commonwealth units were unable to perform with the same dash and elan as the US units it would take hundereds of spits to perform the same task as a group of 51's .


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 14, 2011)

Good thread, PB. 

MM


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 14, 2011)

deleted


----------



## bada (Jun 15, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Mid 1943 gets you a Spitfire XIV. And they did have the capability of extended range with increased tankage, as per XVIII.



you got a bad time line i think. The Mark14 is a Mid44 plane and is not really a long range, as the G65 was a very thirsty engine compared to the M61 or M66.
And the MKXVIII is a second half45 plane, never saw combat in WWII, the first beeing send to MU for reception in june45.

I would rather go with the MK8 in mid43, but i'm still troubled by the fact that all of them have been send to the MTO (and few to India), ETO squadrons only receiving Mk9's with M66 .


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 15, 2011)

If the RAF had opted for the 51 over the Spit the priduction lines used for the Spit probably could have been switched over to 51 comstruction in quick order


----------



## Glider (Jun 15, 2011)

At this stage its probably worth reminding everyone that in Oct 1944 the US equipped two Spits with 2 x 60 gallon drop tanks and they flew the atlantic. So there is little doubt in my mind that the Spit had the potential to be a decent long range fighter. I am NOT saying that it would have had the range of a P51 but sufficient so that the UK wouldn't have had to build P51's


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 15, 2011)

Glider said:


> At this stage its probably worth reminding everyone that in Oct 1944 the US equipped two Spits with 2 x 60 gallon drop tanks and they flew the atlantic. So there is little doubt in my mind that the Spit had the potential to be a decent long range fighter. I am NOT saying that it would have had the range of a P51 but sufficient so that the UK wouldn't have had to build P51's


 
I'm going to assume it wasn't a direct flight across the pond and if the Spit was capable of such flights why wouldn't they have done this earlier on the early 8th AF missions into Germany


----------



## Glider (Jun 16, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I'm going to assume it wasn't a direct flight across the pond and if the Spit was capable of such flights why wouldn't they have done this earlier on the early 8th AF missions into Germany


 
I don't pretend to know the details to give a definitive reply to either of these questions. I wouldn't rule out flying across the atlantic in one hop. With a total of 290 gallons (including the rear optional tanks) they would have had the legs for it. As for the second question simple bloody stupidity on behalf of the senior ranks of the RAF, not for the first or last time in WW2.


----------



## Hop (Jun 16, 2011)

> I'm going to assume it wasn't a direct flight across the pond



It was one of the normal ferry routes, Goose Bay, Newfoundland - Iceland was the longest leg at 1,530 miles. (Berlin is 575 miles from London)



> if the Spit was capable of such flights why wouldn't they have done this earlier on the early 8th AF missions into Germany



For a variety of reasons.

First, it takes time to modify aircraft, especially ones that are already in service. The USAAF only belatedly realised the need for escort fighters. It wasn't until May 1943 that they placed the first order for drop tanks in the UK, for example. 

Secondly, numbers. When the USAAF started attacking Germany in earnest in Feb 1944, they used very large fighter forces. On the first day of Big Week, for example, they flew 830 fighter sorties. On the last day of Big Week the number had increased to 910 fighter sorties. (Those figures exclude RAF operations escorting USAAF medium bombers)

The RAF didn't have enough spare fighters to put on operations like that. In July 1943, for example, they had a grand total of 730 serviceable Spitfires in squadrons in the UK. (they had more in reserve, but that only helps with sustaining a campaign, it doesn't increase front line strength)

By Feb 1944 the RAF had 830 serviceable Spitfires in squadrons in the UK, still nowhere near enough to carry out operations of that strength. If the RAF had committed all their strength to escorting the 8th, it A: wouldn't have been enough, and B: would have meant an end to invasion preparation. 



> So there is little doubt in my mind that the Spit had the potential to be a decent long range fighter.



We know the fuel consumption figures for the Spitfire from the Australian trials of a Spitfire VIII. Whilst carrying a 90 gallon tank at 20,000 ft it could cruise at 306 mph true at 6.2 mpg.

From there it's simple to work out an escort profile.

First, take a Spitfire VIII (123 gallons internal) and add a 30 gallon rear tank, as fitted for flights to Malta. Spitfire IXs later used 75 gallon tanks, with the same restrictions as Mustangs. They were OK for aerobatics when the rear fuel was down to 30 gallons.

That's 153 gallons internal, add a 90 gallon drop tank (you could use a 170 gallon if necessary)

10 gallons for warm up and takeoff, from main tanks.
143 gallons internal, 90 gallons external remaining

Climb to 20,000 ft and form up, 10 gallons from drop tank.
143 gallons internal, 80 gallons external remaining

Cruise to target, 80 gallons from drop tank at 6.2 mpg = 496 miles
143 gallons internal remaining.

Cruise to target, 5 gallons from internal at 6.2 mpg (consumption should improve with the tank dropped, but I'll ignore that), 31 miles.
138 gallons internal remaining.

5 minutes at maximum power, 10 at military (same as US allowed for combat in flight planning) 25 gallons
113 gallons internal remaining.

Climb back to altitude, 10 gallons
103 gallons internal remaining

Fly 530 miles back to base, at 6.2 mpg (the tank would have been jettisoned by now, but we won't allow for the drag reduction). 86 gallons
17 gallons remaining.

From East Anglia that gets you to Berlin and back, with reserves, but no further. 

There's nothing difficult about adding range. You just need to identify the requirement. The RAF simply didn't have much requirement for extra range. The USAAF did because they were committed to unescorted daylight bombing, and when that didn't work out they had to either abandoning daylight bombing or provide escorts.

But that was the USAAF's decision. The RAF didn't have the requirement themselves, and didn't have enough aircraft to take over the escort role for the USAAF.


----------



## Glider (Jun 16, 2011)

As detailed a reply as you could wish for and I doff my hat to you Hop. Still think that _simple bloody stupidity _had a certain ring to it though. 
Being serious it does give a very good indication as to what the Spit would have been capable of given some development in this area and if you used the 75 gallon rear tank not the 30 then its pretty comfortable.

Thanks again for the detail of the transatlantic trip.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2011)

Glider said:


> I don't pretend to know the details to give a definitive reply to either of these questions. I wouldn't rule out flying across the atlantic in one hop. With a total of 290 gallons (including the rear optional tanks) they would have had the legs for it. As for the second question simple bloody stupidity on behalf of the senior ranks of the RAF, not for the first or last time in WW2.



The only possible stops are Greenland and Iceland. 

Escort range is how far you can fly after dropping the external tanks and using 5 minutes of combat power and 15-20minutes military power and allowing for a certain reserve and landing allowance. adding 30-40 gallons of internal fuel to the Spitfire could have roughly doubled it's escort or combat radius. While this is not what was needed for a long range escort it would certainly have allowed UK based Spitfires greater participation in late 1943-44.

Edit: thank you Hop !


----------



## Hop (Jun 16, 2011)

> Still think that simple bloody stupidity had a certain ring to it though.



I meant to reply to that bit earlier but forgot.

In 1941 Carl Spaatz signed a memo rejecting fitting long range tanks to the P-39D. Amongst the reasons:

_opposition to the “carrying of bombs” and “provision of excessive range”, “require 
additional and unnecessary [sic] weight and operational complexities that are 
incompatible with the mission of pursuit.”_

The memo noted that the provision of extra tanks would “provide opportunities for improper tactical use of pursuit types.”

In 1941 and 1942 the USAAF was considering the provision of escorts for bombers and came to the conclusion they should build bomber gunships, rather than try to extend the range of fighters. They thought long range fighters couldn't fight on even terms with short range ones, and they didn't want to divert them from other missions.

Carl Spaatz and the airwar in Europe goes in to some detail on this. You can find it free on the net as a pdf.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 16, 2011)

Glider said:


> I don't pretend to know the details to give a definitive reply to either of these questions. I wouldn't rule out flying across the atlantic in one hop. With a total of 290 gallons (including the rear optional tanks) they would have had the legs for it. As for the second question simple bloody stupidity on behalf of the senior ranks of the RAF, not for the first or last time in WW2.


Just finished reading Don MacVicars trilogy about flying and pioneering the ferry routes and it was a very dicey thing they had horrible and no cooordinated weather briefings for such conditions as icing and winds aloft, the route was usually Dorval(montreal) Sept Iles , Goose or Gander, Bluie West (landing up hill at end of fiord) depending on aircraft maybe another stop in Greenland then Iceland to Prestwick. Direct flights returning were usually 13- 19 hours long in Libs bombays or C54s(if lucky) and many times at the limits of fuel. He ferried some Hampdens back but they had eztra tanks fitted but even then fuel exhaustion brcame a huge concern. I really doubt the Spits did it direct not many pilots would be brave enough to to challenge the Atlantic in a single engine ship


----------



## Glider (Jun 16, 2011)

I will certainly accept that view, something learnt today. Thanks


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 16, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> If the RAF had opted for the 51 over the Spit the priduction lines used for the Spit probably could have been switched over to 51 comstruction in quick order


 
The RAF opted for production of the Mustang and wanted 500 per month even with an Alison engine. However when the merlin version Mustang II (P 51B/C) was eventually produced and its capabilities realised the the USAAF directed production to be provided for fighter escorts. This was a very fast moving situation. The need for huge numbers of fighter escorts was only realised towards the end of 1943 and the game was over before the end of 1944. As a joint venture instead of the RAF challenging the Luftwaffe in France Belgium Holland the USAAF challenged them over Germany. The Mustang was a great plane whose qualities were recognised first by the RAF as a long range fighter. The need for a fighter escort wasnt seen by anybody until mid/late 1943. 

Producing the Mustang in UK in place of the spitfire is a nice idea but it is a completely different plane. The Mustang was designed from the very start for production on its designers production lines, to produce it in the UK would take an age to arrange when in fact there were only months available. There were two dedicated facilities for the mustang but they didnt actually produce many planes. The Mustang I was held up for lack of Allison engines. After the Merlin engined MkII was developed it was quickly uprated to the mk III but these changes even in dedicated factories cost production. The British put a lot into the Mustang versions I,II, and III. They commisioned it but it wasnt allowed to fly because engines wernt made available. They provided the merlin engine. They provided a gunsight The British Mk II manufactured as the Sperry K14. The aerodynamics of the Mustang used the Meredith effect (Meredith was British) to achieve its high speed at altitude which acording to its designer had much more effect than the laminar flow wing. When recieved by the British the canopy was changed with the British Malcolm hood and then by the bubble canopy already in service Typhoon Tempest Spitfire.

The British realised the qualities of the Mustang in all its variants and ordered it. It is hardly a problem of the British that Americas need was greater than ours and so it was used for bomber escort, with P47 used for ground attack. Mustang squadrons in the RAF had to change back to spitfires due to lack of planes and Mustangs supplied to the RAF were used for bomber escort after all we were all on the same side.

Perhaps a better question would be if the US had adopted P 51A (and hence B/C,D) production over P40 as soon as the P 51A was available the the war would have finished MUCH sooner, if the Mustang was so obviously brilliant why did the USA order N.A. to fit dive brakes and use it as a dive bomber in mid 1943?

Please dont forget that in 1944 Britain was faced with the V1 threat at which the tempest and spitfire were much more suited than the Mustang III, we still had to defend our island which contained at the time a huge amount of American assets. If the V1 was able to target an airfied for example the game would have changed in a heartbeat.

PS I use the Mustang designation purely to irritate, it may be an American icon but without the British and some very dedicated and brilliant American designers it would still be a "might have been".


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 16, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Producing the Mustang in UK in place of the spitfire is a nice idea but it is a completely different plane. ?


Without a doubt but I think there is enough skilled labour in the UK to make a quick change , I thought about building it in Canada but the ferrying over would be to pilot intensive.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 16, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Without a doubt but I think there is enough skilled labour in the UK to make a quick change , I thought about building it in Canada but the ferrying over would be to pilot intensive.


 
PB the skilled labour was there but the design was different, it would take literally months to produce the drawings and source suppliers. It may seem that the fitting of a Merlin was a simple engine change but it cost North American 223,000 engineering hours just to fit the Merlin to their own plane.

quote
It took some 223,000 engineering hours to accomplish the modification compared to the 78,000 hours NAA engineers and craftsmen took to build the original prototype from nothing.

from a history of the Mustang

quote
North American Aviation originally designed the Mustang in response to a British specification. They agreed to produce the first prototype only 4 months after signing the contract in April 1940. By the end of 1941 North American had delivered the first Mustang to England for test flights. These first Mustangs were powered by the Allison V-1710 engine, a good engine, but one which didn't operate well at high altitudes. 

A Better Engine
In April, 1942, a British test pilot, Ronald Harker, flew the Mustang and was very impressed by it. He suggested that the new plane would be a natural fit with the Rolls Royce Merlin 60-series engine, well-suited to high altitudes. At the prodding of Major Thomas Hitchcock, the Americans began working along the same lines (using the Packard license-built version of the Merlin), and the first Merlin-equipped Mustang, the P-51B, flew in November, 1942. The results were impressive, to say the least. At 30,000 feet, the improved Mustang reached 440 MPH, almost 100 MPH faster than the Allison-equipped Mustang at that altitude.
unquote

to summarise
contract signed in April 1940
designed in 100 days but first plane not delivered until end of 1941
Merlin suggested in April 1942 first plane flew in Nov 1942
First Merlin production planes arrive in Europe in Nov 1943.

That is the performance of American aviation at its worst please dont say the Brits could have made the plane in a month or two. It took the USA from April 1940 to end of 1943 to get it all together.


----------



## Hop (Jun 16, 2011)

From Spitfire the History


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 16, 2011)

It was not non stop it stopped at Reykjavik , non stop would be Goose direct Prestwick or Shannon . and I'll wager the weapons were gone one thing it doesn't mention is if there was an aux oil tank. That is very ballsy flight with the nav aids available both on the ground and in the aircraft , be advised that the Mossie , B25 and B26 all carried ferry tanks for the same flight including the above mentioned stops. You should read some of the stories of those flights it was considered a worthy investment if 50% of aircraft actually made it initially


----------



## wuzak (Jun 17, 2011)

bada said:


> you got a bad time line i think. The Mark14 is a Mid44 plane and is not really a long range, as the G65 was a very thirsty engine compared to the M61 or M66.
> And the MKXVIII is a second half45 plane, never saw combat in WWII, the first beeing send to MU for reception in june45.
> 
> I would rather go with the MK8 in mid43, but i'm still troubled by the fact that all of them have been send to the MTO (and few to India), ETO squadrons only receiving Mk9's with M66 .


 
I never said that the Spitfire XIV was a long range fighter. 

The prototype MkXIV flew in January 1943 - two months after the prototype P-51B/Mustang III. Production MkXIVs came of the line in October 1943, a month before P-51Bs arrived in Europe.




Mustang nut said:


> contract signed in April 1940
> designed in 100 days but first plane not delivered until end of 1941
> Merlin suggested in April 1942 first plane flew in Nov 1942
> First Merlin production planes arrive in Europe in Nov 1943.



While the MkXVIII was post war, the main change was added tankage, which could have been achieved on the MkXIV had it been so desired. 

The problem for the XIV was that production was still flat out on the MkIX and, to a lesser extent, the MkVIII.


----------



## Glider (Jun 17, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> It was not non stop it stopped at Reykjavik , non stop would be Goose direct Prestwick or Shannon . and I'll wager the weapons were gone one thing it doesn't mention is if there was an aux oil tank. That is very ballsy flight with the nav aids available both on the ground and in the aircraft , be advised that the Mossie , B25 and B26 all carried ferry tanks for the same flight including the above mentioned stops. You should read some of the stories of those flights it was considered a worthy investment if 50% of aircraft actually made it initially


 
I did see a photo in an Air international magazine and I remember being suprised as it still seemed to have its cannon.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 17, 2011)

Glider said:


> I did see a photo in an Air international magazine and I remember being suprised as it still seemed to have its cannon.


not denying but very shocked I wonder who did the navigation or did they have a shepherd, navigation would be dicey with only a magnetic compass/dg. Did the article say how many days it took. 
On an equally stunning flight they were testing towing gliders across as well


----------



## Glider (Jun 17, 2011)

I thought for a second you might be saying that gliders were towed over the Atlantic, count me out. Its in the loft I could not say


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 17, 2011)

Glider said:


> I thought for a second you might be saying that gliders were towed over the Atlantic, count me out. Its in the loft I could not say


it was done using a Waco Glider


----------



## Readie (Jun 18, 2011)

The Spitfire had evolved into a fearsome broadsword defending against the doodlebug and undertaking ground attack missions.It truely was the 'woodman's favourite axe'.
The Mustang was the long range fighter the allies needed. Although, I have always been puzzled why the twin engined 'heavy' fighters were not used more. The Beaufighter, Whirlwind and the Lightning would have been better with Merlins, they had the range and the clout to deliver the fatal blow to the LW.
Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2011)

The Beaufighter wasn't fast enough, it had too much drag no matter what you stuffed in it for an engine. It also was the nearly size of some peoples medium bombers. dog fighting wasn't it's suit. 

The Whirlwind was too small. It couldn't hold enough fuel inside to get back from a long range mission. It's how much fuel you have aftervthe drop tanks are gone that determine mission range/radius. 

The Merlin got worse fuel mileage than the Allison. Switching to Merlins, depending on models of engines being compared and cruise conditions might have shortened the P-38s range from 8-30%


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 18, 2011)

Readie said:


> The Spitfire had evolved into a fearsome broadsword defending against the doodlebug and undertaking ground attack missions.It truely was the 'woodman's favourite axe'.
> The Mustang was the long range fighter the allies needed. Although, I have always been puzzled why the twin engined 'heavy' fighters were not used more. The Beaufighter, Whirlwind and the Lightning would have been better with Merlins, they had the range and the clout to deliver the fatal blow to the LW.
> Cheers
> John


Without a doubt it was great dogfighter it just did not have the legs needed to give the Allies the knockout blow needed to KO the LW that was done by the P51 which makes the 51 the labourers favourite sledgehammer or if you prefer the woodsmans favourite chainsaw


----------



## Readie (Jun 18, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Without a doubt it was great dogfighter it just did not have the legs needed to give the Allies the knockout blow needed to KO the LW that was done by the P51 which makes the 51 the labourers favourite sledgehammer or if you prefer the woodsmans favourite chainsaw


 
I like that PB... The chainsaw.. ( Merlin powered naturally )
You are quite right of course. Horses for courses.
The Spitfire played its role until VE day but, the P51 was the plane we needed over Germany. Was it the 'Black Angels' that distinguished themselves? 
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jun 18, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The Beaufighter wasn't fast enough, it had too much drag no matter what you stuffed in it for an engine. It also was the nearly size of some peoples medium bombers. dog fighting wasn't it's suit.
> 
> The Whirlwind was too small. It couldn't hold enough fuel inside to get back from a long range mission. It's how much fuel you have aftervthe drop tanks are gone that determine mission range/radius.
> 
> The Merlin got worse fuel mileage than the Allison. Switching to Merlins, depending on models of engines being compared and cruise conditions might have shortened the P-38s range from 8-30%


 
The Beau was a sledgehammer but,as you say too big...unless it could have been to go faster. Maybe with the Mossie there wasn't the need.
The Whirlwind. Bit like the Spitfire then. Shame.
Those MPG figures you mention would make a huge difference. Power is not everything I guess.
Cheers
John


----------



## Hop (Jun 18, 2011)

> Without a doubt it was great dogfighter it just did not have the legs needed to give the Allies the knockout blow needed to KO the LW that was done by the P51



Well, RAF fighters shot down more Luftwaffe aircraft in the ETO than USAAF fighters did, so I'm not sure where this notion of a "knockout blow" comes from. If you look at a chart of Luftwaffe loss rates they accelerated throughout the war. Their peak was during the Normandy campaign. Luftwaffe quality started to decline following the heavy pilot losses during the BoB. 

There was no "knockout blow". There was steady attrition, from the summer of 1940 onwards it was always more than the Luftwaffe could replace without reducing quality.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 18, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> The need for huge numbers of fighter escorts was only realised towards the end of 1943 and the game was over before the end of 1944.
> 
> *It was recognized in 1942, the first P-38 Group in the ETO was the 78th FG but had its 38's stripped and sent to North Africa as higher priority. The P-47C already had longer range than the Spit V and the 4th FG was the first to convert.*
> 
> ...



I agree


----------



## drgondog (Jun 18, 2011)

Hop - What was the RAF victory credit total in ETO?


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 19, 2011)

Charley Fox DFC bar who flew Spits V XI XIV and Mustangs stated to us one day , " It was not hard in a dogfight to win with a Spit over a Mustang but then the P51 pilot would say lets try this over Berlin". I believe if push came to shove it would not take long for the US to get the jigs and drawings to the UK . 
a quote from Right of the Line in ref to daylight bombing
"Less helpful was the continuing disposition to find ways to resume daylight bombing when there was only one way to make it effective - the introduction of true long range fighters to protect the bombers. Churchill had already percieved the necccessity, but Portal firmly set his face against it . A long range fighter he believed would never hold its own aginst a short range fighter it was a attitude as Churchill said "closed many doors"


----------



## Readie (Jun 19, 2011)

Hop said:


> Well, RAF fighters shot down more Luftwaffe aircraft in the ETO than USAAF fighters did, so I'm not sure where this notion of a "knockout blow" comes from. If you look at a chart of Luftwaffe loss rates they accelerated throughout the war. Their peak was during the Normandy campaign. Luftwaffe quality started to decline following the heavy pilot losses during the BoB.
> 
> There was no "knockout blow". There was steady attrition, from the summer of 1940 onwards it was always more than the Luftwaffe could replace without reducing quality.


 
It was the loss, of experienced pilots that Dowding feared most in the BoB. You are right Hop about attrition. The 'knock out blow' could only have been A bombs.
This link makes an interesting read
</title> </head> <body bgcolor="#f5f5f5" text="#000000" link="#2f4f4f" alink="#2f4f4f" vlink="#2f4f4f"><script type="text/javascript" src="http://hb.lycos.com/hb.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"><![CDATA[//><!]]></script> <script type="te
Cheers
John


----------



## Hop (Jun 19, 2011)

> Hop - What was the RAF victory credit total in ETO?



I believe it's 10,736.5


----------



## drgondog (Jun 19, 2011)

Hop said:


> I believe it's 10,736.5


 
And the total from April 1943 through May 1945?


----------



## Readie (Jun 20, 2011)

drgondog said:


> And the total from April 1943 through May 1945?



Why the split? We were fighting in the ETO from 1939....
Cheers
John


----------



## wuzak (Jun 20, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Charley Fox DFC bar who flew Spits V XI XIV and Mustangs stated to us one day , " It was not hard in a dogfight to win with a Spit over a Mustang but then the P51 pilot would say lets try this over Berlin". I believe if push came to shove it would not take long for the US to get the jigs and drawings to the UK .
> a quote from Right of the Line in ref to daylight bombing
> "Less helpful was the continuing disposition to find ways to resume daylight bombing when there was only one way to make it effective - the introduction of true long range fighters to protect the bombers. Churchill had already percieved the necccessity, but Portal firmly set his face against it . A long range fighter he believed would never hold its own aginst a short range fighter it was a attitude as Churchill said "closed many doors"


 
I think the point is that the RAF were not after a long range escort/air superiority fighter. If they were the MkXIV Spitfire could have been modified for additional tankage, plus extra options for drop tanks, more quickly than a production line for Mustangs could be set up and start producing. The USAAF modified a Spitfire to give it much longer range, and the XVIII was basically a longer range XIV.

Also, as far as the XIV goes the standard armament was 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50s, but they could equally have been ordered with 4 x 20mm cannon. I believe some, but not many, were.

So, if the RAF wanted a longer range Spitfire it could have been made. When the RAF went to NAA they weren't after a long range escort a/c - they were after more P-40s.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 20, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I think the point is that the RAF were not after a long range escort/air superiority fighter. If they were the MkXIV Spitfire could have been modified for additional tankage, plus extra options for drop tanks, more quickly than a production line for Mustangs could be set up and start producing. The USAAF modified a Spitfire to give it much longer range, and the XVIII was basically a longer range XIV.
> 
> Also, as far as the XIV goes the standard armament was 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50s, but they could equally have been ordered with 4 x 20mm cannon. I believe some, but not many, were.
> 
> So, if the RAF wanted a longer range Spitfire it could have been made. When the RAF went to NAA they weren't after a long range escort a/c - they were after more P-40s.


They didn't want a long range fighter because they thought it was an impossibility , and thats why the switch to night bombing. Can tou imagine the havoc caused by 2 TAF if they had the ability to chase down the LW rather then allowing LW to pick and choose when to fight


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2011)

They also were not after a plane that would be effective in 1943-44. They were after something (anything?) they could use next year-18months. Hence the 120 day limit an a substitute for the P-40. 

On the "breaking point" while a slow grind works it is both slow and costly for the grinder as well as the grindee. The late 1943 and 44 escorted bomber offensive forced the Luftwaffe to fight more often against fighters rather than bomber intercepts as earlier daylight bombing had. It sped up the 'grind' causing a much more rapid decline in Luftwaffe pilot capability. 

If one wants to think of a prize fight analogy then the British and Russians tired the Luftwaffe out in the early rounds with body shots and jabs and then the US delivered the "knock-out" blow near the end.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 20, 2011)

Readie said:


> Why the split? We were fighting in the ETO from 1939....
> Cheers
> John



It is a quick assessment of transition from being the single point of fighter on fighter engagements in the ETO. The same question could be asked of the MTO although the USAAF was engaged 4-6 months earlier in Africa and the Med.

During the start up of 8th AF ops in August 1942, only the RAF and a very limited 4th and 31st FG (in Spits) were available for any cross Channel Ops. In Mid 1943 there were three P-47 FG engaged over France, Belgium and Holland. In second half of 1943 the 8th and fledgling 9th AF were engaging on the German border and RAF was getting fewer engagements.

It was only during and after the Invasion that RAF once again had excellent opportuinties over previous hunting grounds because the LW contested over France..

After traction in gaining access to Europe based airfields, RAF once again was able to extend range to engage and Operation Market Garden was an opportunity for RAF to engage LuftFlotte Reich instead of perpetual skirmishes with LF3 (JG26 and JG2)

So - out of the total of 10K+ what is the breakout of pre-1943 and post Jan1 - 1943?
Second - strictly for knowledge - what is the same total 'arrangement' for MTO to wrap up air war against Germany?

Last question - are there any BC credits in the 10K+ number. God knows, nobody would include 8th/15th AF bomber claims in aggragate for US - at least not until parsing 10:1


----------



## Readie (Jun 20, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> If one wants to think of a prize fight analogy then the British and Russians tired the Luftwaffe out in the early rounds with body shots and jabs and then the US delivered the "knock-out" blow near the end.



I hardely think so Shortround....The USA did not deliver the knock out blow to the Nazi's. You helped, but, did not 'win' the WW2 for the allies.
Hollywood has spun such a fabric of woppers that a lot of American's sincerely believe that John Wayne won WW2 single handed...

Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jun 20, 2011)

drgondog said:


> It is a quick assessment of transition from being the single point of fighter on fighter engagements in the ETO. The same question could be asked of the MTO although the USAAF was engaged 4-6 months earlier in Africa and the Med.
> 
> During the start up of 8th AF ops in August 1942, only the RAF and a very limited 4th and 31st FG (in Spits) were available for any cross Channel Ops. In Mid 1943 there were three P-47 FG engaged over France, Belgium and Holland. In second half of 1943 the 8th and fledgling 9th AF were engaging on the German border and RAF was getting fewer engagements.
> 
> ...



I may be terminally dense, but...I cannot quite see what point you are making,
Sorry matey,
Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2011)

Readie said:


> I hardely think so Shortround....The USA did not deliver the knock out blow to the Nazi's. You helped, but, did not 'win' the WW2 for the allies.
> Hollywood has spun such a fabric of woppers that a lot of American's sincerely believe that John Wayne won WW2 single handed...
> 
> Cheers
> John



I don't believe that was what I was trying to say or even implied. 

Just like many a prize fight, a "punch" that may end things in a late round may not be anywhere near as conclusive if delivered earlier in the fight. The grind of the earlier years (rounds) wore the Germans down to where the "knock out" blow could be delivered. 
And at a lower cost than if the grind hadn't occurred. 

I believe I was trying to say it was a team effort and credit should go all.


----------



## Readie (Jun 20, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't believe that was what I was trying to say or even implied.
> 
> Just like many a prize fight, a "punch" that may end things in a late round may not be anywhere near as conclusive if delivered earlier in the fight. The grind of the earlier years (rounds) wore the Germans down to where the "knock out" blow could be delivered.
> And at a lower cost than if the grind hadn't occurred.
> ...


 
'Team effort' yes, that is quite right Shortround. 
I had my tongue in my cheek about JW....

Seriously though, there is a perception that we ( being the UK, Commonwealth and our allies) were doing ok, holding our own if you like,till the American cavalry arrived in 1943/44. There is an element of truth in that but, I ask you to try and see it from our side too.

It took a lot of punches and we all took our share too to defeat the Nazi's. It seems incredible now when you look at the size of Germany that it could defend itself against the Russians, British, Commonwealth and the USA for so long.

Perhaps you know the answer to this question. I have often wondered why the A bomb was not delivered to Berlin. Do you know the politics behind this?

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2011)

Politics or timing? 

First test shot wasn't until July 16th of 1945. Just a little late for the war against Germany.


----------



## Readie (Jun 20, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Politics or timing?
> 
> First test shot wasn't until July 16th of 1945. Just a little late for the war against Germany.


 
Either, could the A bomb been ready earlier if the need was pressing?
Cheers
John


----------



## wuzak (Jun 20, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> They didn't want a long range fighter because they thought it was an impossibility , and thats why the switch to night bombing. Can tou imagine the havoc caused by 2 TAF if they had the ability to chase down the LW rather then allowing LW to pick and choose when to fight


 
Same could be said of the Americans. They did not think that a long range escort fighter was possible or necessary, so it was lucky for them that the P-51 was able to do the job, and that Lockheed and Kelsey had ignored the directive to not develop long range fuel tanks.

I wonder what the US industry could have come up with and how long it would have taken them had the requirement for a long range escort fighter come up in mid-late 1943, about the time the Luftwaffe demonstrated to the 8thAF that they were necessary.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2011)

Not 2 months or more early. The test shot was only 3 weeks ahead of Nagasaki and the Bomb used on Hiroshima was a Uranium bomb with no test shot because there was only enough uranium for one bomb. Plutonium for the test bomb and Nagasaki bomb started being delivered to Los Alamos in Feb 1945. 

Nuking Berlin the 1st of May 1945 wasn't going to shorten the European war much.


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Not 2 months or more early. The test shot was only 3 weeks ahead of Nagasaki and the Bomb used on Hiroshima was a Uranium bomb with no test shot because there was only enough uranium for one bomb. Plutonium for the test bomb and Nagasaki bomb started being delivered to Los Alamos in Feb 1945.
> 
> Nuking Berlin the 1st of May 1945 wasn't going to shorten the European war much.



Thanks for the A bomb information. I had not realised that it was so tight. The resources weren't as available as I thought.
I asked the question with the assumption that they were and that an A bomb or 2 may have been available for Germany earlier in 1945 or even late 1944.

I take your point about the 01 May 1945, but no one knew when VE day was going to happen then and it would have been poetic justice for the Nazi's.

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2011)

Justice or revenge? There was controversy over Dresden even before the war ended.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 21, 2011)

Hop said:


> I believe it's 10,736.5


 
Seems little too much for me.. if it is not claims. In Battle of Britain alone about 3000 claims were made by RAF, when real losses of Luftwaffe was about 1000 (to enemy interference, not meaning accidents). In France 1941.. very marginal.. a hundred perhaps. Over Malta.. very small again, about 300 in two years, including to ships and FlaK..? Afrika, Italy, couple o hundred again maximum, the Axis simply did not have plane there, no plane can not shot down. But can be claimed.  

I do not think 10 000 can add up with this losses. The RAF shot down a few on accoasion, but you need a very lot more of few each time to make tenthousend. This is likely claim made by pilot - unrelieble everywhere.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jun 21, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I think the point is that the RAF were not after a long range escort/air superiority fighter. If they were the MkXIV Spitfire could have been modified for additional tankage, plus extra options for drop tanks, more quickly than a production line for Mustangs could be set up and start producing. The USAAF modified a Spitfire to give it much longer range, and the XVIII was basically a longer range XIV.
> 
> Also, as far as the XIV goes the standard armament was 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50s, but they could equally have been ordered with 4 x 20mm cannon. I believe some, but not many, were.
> 
> So, if the RAF wanted a longer range Spitfire it could have been made. When the RAF went to NAA they weren't after a long range escort a/c - they were after more P-40s.


 It would not have been quite so simple to convert the Spitfire to a long-range fighter - the IX that the US converted used _seven_ fuel tanks (three fuselage, two wing and two drop tanks) for a maximum capacity of 284 imp (341 US) gallons: the P-51D could carry 348 imp (419 US) gallons in *five* tanks (including two 75 US [62.5 imp] gal drop tanks) (NB: the Iwo Jima based Ds routinely used 110 (91.5 imp) gallon drop tanks or even 150 (125 imp) gallon tanks when carrying rockets). The Spitfire IX was right at the limits of its loading and was not combat stressed or combat capable, although it did carry armament.

(As a further example of how hard it was to cram extra fuel into the Spitfire airframe the Seafire 46/47 needed to use *10* fuel tanks: two forward and one rear fuselage tank, plus 4 wing tanks plus two under-wing combat tanks and an under-fuselage drop-tank for a maximum, overload, capacity of 248 imp (298 US) gallons - yet it still came up short in terms of range/endurance cf. the P-51D and the complication of keeping tabs on ten fuel tanks must have been fun.

Yes the XIV became the XVIII, but to get there the wings and undercarriage needed to be reinforced pending the new wing/undercarriage of the 21-24 series - and again, it still did not have the range or endurance of a P-51.


----------



## Hop (Jun 21, 2011)

> They didn't want a long range fighter because they thought it was an impossibility , and thats why the switch to night bombing.



They thought a long range fighter would be too compromised to fight on equal terms with the defenders. Early on in the war they were correct, of course. With the 1,000 hp engines then in service it would have been difficult to take off carrying an extra ton of fuel, and if attacked early in the flight they'd have been at a serious disadvantage.



> Can tou imagine the havoc caused by 2 TAF if they had the ability to chase down the LW rather then allowing LW to pick and choose when to fight



Fighters can't effectively "chase down" enemy aircraft that are refusing combat. I know the USAAF made a lot of straffing claims (although half were in April 1945), but damage done on the ground is usually less serious, and of course doesn't harm the pilot. As the Germans were short of pilots but had plenty of planes, straffing didn't really accomplish much.

It's worth pointing out the USAAF achieved a similar kill/sortie rate in the late summer of 1943 as they did in the first half of 1944. They achieved a lot more kills because the numbers went up so much.



> If one wants to think of a prize fight analogy then the British and Russians tired the Luftwaffe out in the early rounds with body shots and jabs and then the US delivered the "knock-out" blow near the end.



There was no knockout blow. There was a continuous beating that started in 1940 and carried on until early 1945. You can't point to any point in between and say "this is when the Luftwaffe were knocked out". They took damage throughout the war, and became gradually less effective as a result.



> So - out of the total of 10K+ what is the breakout of pre-1943 and post Jan1 - 1943?



No idea.



> Last question - are there any BC credits in the 10K+ number. God knows, nobody would include 8th/15th AF bomber claims in aggragate for US - at least not until parsing 10:1



No bomber claims. It includes night fighter claims by 100 Group BC, but only the nightfighters. Around 250 of the total, I believe.



> Seems little too much for me.. if it is not claims. In Battle of Britain alone about 3000 claims were made by RAF, when real losses of Luftwaffe was about 1000 (to enemy interference, not meaning accidents).



RAF claims (including flak) in the BoB were around 2,600. German losses on operations were around 1,900.

Breaking down German losses to enemy action and accidents isn't easy. Many losses to unknown causes seem to be listed as "accidents". What's strange is that the accident rate was so much higher for day bombers than night bombers, when the reverse should be true. 



> In France 1941.. very marginal.. a hundred perhaps.



JG2 and JG26 lost 100 fighter pilots killed, 1 prisoner and 48 wounded in the second half of the year. That should mean about 200 aircraft lost, based on the number of killed pilots, but German records are sketchy. 

Add in the first half of the year, losses other than fighters, losses to other fighter units etc and the total will be several hundred.



> Over Malta.. very small again, about 300 in two years, including to ships and FlaK.



The total doesn't include operations in the Med. 



> This is likely claim made by pilot - unrelieble everywhere.



Yes, it's pilot claims. 



> It would not have been quite so simple to convert the Spitfire to a long-range fighter - the IX that the US converted used seven fuel tanks (three fuselage, two wing and two drop tanks) for a maximum capacity of 284 imp (341 US) gallons: the P-51D could carry 348 imp (419 US) gallons in five tanks (including two 75 US [62.5 imp] gal drop tanks) (NB: the Iwo Jima based Ds routinely used 110 (91.5 imp) gallon drop tanks or even 150 (125 imp) gallon tanks when carrying rockets). The Spitfire IX was right at the limits of its loading and was not combat stressed or combat capable, although it did carry armament.



It's worth noting that the US attempt was a retrofit out on existing aircraft, it's always easier if these things are done when the plane is being built.

The main Spitfire tank was actually 2 tanks, one on top of the other. That could take 96 gallons. I'll call this one tank as it behaves as a single tank.

The rear fuselage tank could carry 75 gallons. Total so far 171 gallons from 2 tanks.

Wing tanks about 28 gallons, another 2 tanks. Total 199 gallons, 4 tanks

Drop tank 170 gallons, total 369 imperial gallons, 5 tanks.

Weight shouldn't be a problem with that much fuel. 7,800 lbs for the Spitfire VIII with 120 gallons, the extra fuel would weigh another 1,800 lbs. That's 9,600 lbs without the extra tanks required to hold the fuel. The limiting weight given for the FRXIV (which was the same airframe with a different engine) was 10,280 lbs for take off from a hard runway. That means the extra tanks would have to weigh less than 680lbs, which sounds OK.


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Justice or revenge? There was controversy over Dresden even before the war ended.


 
That controversy still continues. Bomber Harris is either a hero or villain depending on your view and how WW2 affected your family etc. I got very upset when I read that the modern Germans want him to be treated as a war criminal. The effects of the blitz are still felt here with ghastly post war rebuilding of fine old historical towns that were bombed flat.
Winning the WW2 bankrupted the UK and there was no money for rebuilding. I'll give you an example. Canterbury (also my home town), a very old cathedral city in Kent, was bombed. Part of the high street was rebuilt as a modernist. concrete horror. I remember it being lauded as a good thing, and I suppose it was better than a pile of rubble.By the 1980's it was so bad that the post war rebuild was demolished and reconstructed in the same style as before the war. The improvement was immense and while it'll take a few years to weather and mature its back to normal.
Plymouth was very badly hit and what was left was demolished and rebuilt as a brave new modern town centre. It has been acknowledged as functional but a flawed architectural experiment.
The A bomb ? I would apply the same rational to the Germans as your country applied to the Japanese.
It would have been both revenge and justice.
And saved allied lives.
Cheers
John


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 21, 2011)

Hop said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you sure could track down and slay the LW if you can stay up longer then the short legged LW fighters rather then looking at fuel guage and returning on fumes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> I got very upset when I read that the modern Germans want him to be treated as a war criminal.



Before you get upset, you might want to actually find out who wanted that. It was the NDP, which is a right wing party that wanted that. The NDP is the political party that is represented by the smallest minority of Germans.

They have no seats in the federal govt. and only ignorant neo nazis follow them. *They hardly speak for the "modern Germans". *


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Before you get upset, you might want to actually find out who wanted that. It was the NDP, which is a right wing party that wanted that. The NDP is the political party that is represented by the smallest minority of Germans.
> 
> They have no seats in the federal govt. and only ignorant neo nazis follow them. *They hardly speak for the "modern Germans". *


 
True, no more than the idiotic 'national front' speak for the average Brit.
It was the unveiling of the memorial by the Queen mother that sparked the row.
The article I read was very forceful and some time ago so It may well have been the NDP behind it. As I cannot find it to make my point * I withdraw the 'modern German' comment.
*

RAF tribute stirs up 'war crime' storm | UK news | The Observer

wiki
Dresden was not the only city destroyed by the allies. The bombing of the larger city of Hamburg in 1943 created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[9] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city. The Allies also bombed the smaller city of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[10], suggesting that the bombing raids over Dresden were actually not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognized as one of the many examples of civilian suffering caused by allied strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[11] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.

Those Who Defend 'Bomber' Harris's Destruction of German Cities Are Wrong, Geoffrey Wheatcroft Argues - Skadi Forum

Bomber Harris...War Criminal [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums


What's done is done.

John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2011)

Whats done is done, I agree. I do not see it as a war crime.

I went to Dresden a few years ago and visited the church there. Dresden actually is a partner city of Coventry now and they do a lot of cultural exchanges and memorials to one another.


----------



## Readie (Jun 23, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Whats done is done, I agree. I do not see it as a war crime.
> 
> I went to Dresden a few years ago and visited the church there. Dresden actually is a partner city of Coventry now and they do a lot of cultural exchanges and memorials to one another.



That's a good way to build bridges. Maybe that should happen in Plymouth too.
Cheers
John


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

Ive worked with a few East Germans, I dont really think they consider it a war crime because they dont really consider it at all. 35 years under Soviet rule gave them much more to think about.

The cross on top of the Frauenkirche was presented by the Duke of Kent in 2004


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2011)

You are correct Mustang nut. Most of the former "East Germans" had their history rewritten by the Soviets. There is an interesting Memorial in Dresden that was presented by the Soviets after the war. It is written in both Russian and German. It tells about how the "Evil US and British" attacked Germany without mercy until the "Good Soviet Union" came and saved them. 

Very funny if you ask me. Of course the Germans don't actually believe that...


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

Der Adler I bet they dont

Last Year I spent three weeks in Japan with an East German engineer, he lives there now but grew up in Zwickau under communism. Wheras he knew about Coventry being flattened because of its links to Dresden he had no idea about the rest of the blitz he actually asked me if the Germans bombed London and said "no wonder you wanted to flatten Berlin and Dresden" when I told him. Some people may be surprised and shocked at this ignorance but to the East Germans Ive met the second world war is as distant as the Boer war or the Crimean war is to the British, they know it happened but not the detail. It was a short conversation as we were too busy drinking beer to get serious. I'm in Germany at the moment enjoying the Schutzenfests and the beer.


----------



## Readie (Jun 23, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are correct Mustang nut. Most of the former "East Germans" had their history rewritten by the Soviets. There is an interesting Memorial in Dresden that was presented by the Soviets after the war. It is written in both Russian and German. It tells about how the "Evil US and British" attacked Germany without mercy until the "Good Soviet Union" came and saved them.
> 
> Very funny if you ask me. Of course the Germans don't actually believe that...




Mon dieu, whatever next.
MN has made a brilliant point, one that completely escaped me as I think of Germany as a whole rather than the pre 89 division.

Well said.
Cheers
John


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> Mon dieu, whatever next.
> MN has made a brilliant point, one that completely escaped me as I think of Germany as a whole rather than the pre 89 division.


 
Readie I dont know about "brilliant" few countries I have visited are what I thought they would be like, most are not even close to how I imagined. You can still see the scar on the landscape left by the old East/West border, its hard for me to imagine what growing up on either side of it must have been like. For example I cross a canal every morning going to work, it was built as a means of transport and a means of defence, if Russia attacked the bridges would be blown to slow the advance. For people living between the canal and the border they knew if war started they had no means of escape unless they could swim.

The Russians were just using German wartime propaganda for their own benefit. Goebbels used the bombing campaign to "prove" that the US and Britain wanted to wipe out the German race not just achieve victory. In that, the bombing campaign may have been counter productive. With regard to Adlers post the Russians seem to have forgotten that they dropped more explosives on Berlin than the allies in the course of "saving" the Germans.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2011)

Where in Germany are you now MN?


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Where in Germany are you now MN?


 
Near Hannover Adler

I dont know if youve been to a schutzenfest. Everyone dresses up in traditional costumes, the traditional costume around here is what was imported by the hannovarians for the British Army. On Monday the town was awash with what looked like a brigade of drunken british soldiers after Waterloo all red jackets white straps and gold beading.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2011)

Yes we have similar things in this area as well. Next time I am up in that area, we will have to meet up for a beer.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes we have similar things in this area as well. Next time I am up in that area, we will have to meet up for a beer.


 
Sure thing Adler


----------



## Readie (Jun 23, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Readie I dont know about "brilliant" few countries I have visited are what I thought they would be like, most are not even close to how I imagined. You can still see the scar on the landscape left by the old East/West border, its hard for me to imagine what growing up on either side of it must have been like. For example I cross a canal every morning going to work, it was built as a means of transport and a means of defence, if Russia attacked the bridges would be blown to slow the advance. For people living between the canal and the border they knew if war started they had no means of escape unless they could swim.
> 
> The Russians were just using German wartime propaganda for their own benefit. Goebbels used the bombing campaign to "prove" that the US and Britain wanted to wipe out the German race not just achieve victory. In that, the bombing campaign may have been counter productive. With regard to Adlers post the Russians seem to have forgotten that they dropped more explosives on Berlin than the allies in the course of "saving" the Germans.



You are on the money with the East West Germany thing MN.
I recall reading that the EG's were disappointed not to have liberated ( if that's the right word) by the US British troops rather than the Russians.
Enjoy the beer fest !
I could murder a beer or 3 
Cheers
John


----------



## drgondog (Jun 24, 2011)

Readie said:


> I may be terminally dense, but...I cannot quite see what point you are making,
> Sorry matey,
> Cheers
> John


 
Perhaps the confusion is that I was asking a question


----------



## Readie (Jun 24, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Perhaps the confusion is that I was asking a question



Er, lost me again matey. I'm not being funny ..I really do not understand what you are trying to say.
Cheers
John


----------



## drgondog (Jun 24, 2011)

"And the total from April 1943 through May 1945?" was a question to separate RAF total ETO claims of 10K+ from pre and post-8th/9th AF Ops.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 25, 2011)

A late mark Spitfire with superior climb and dogfighting ability able to climb faster to a superior altitude within minutes of scrambling.

A Mustang that two hours in advance of attack is patrolling at an altitude above the attacking force, can wait another hour at that altitude if the enemy is late for the party, and then spending another hour chasing the enemy home, before even thinking about having enough fuel to get back to base.

Sure the Spitfire had superior performance for dogfighting, but not sufficiently superior to overwhelm average pilots using good tactics flying Mustangs.

As far as doing all the tasks asked of a fighter; with few exceptions advantage Mustang.


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 26, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> A late mark Spitfire with superior climb and dogfighting ability able to climb faster to a superior altitude within minutes of scrambling.
> 
> A Mustang that two hours in advance of attack is patrolling at an altitude above the attacking force, can wait another hour at that altitude if the enemy is late for the party, and then spending another hour chasing the enemy home, before even thinking about having enough fuel to get back to base.
> 
> ...



Good points, what we will never know is how good P-51 actually could be against LW opponents and tactics with both sides fighting at 1:1 numerical odds..theoretical and perhaps trivial, but would answer many of todays questions and polls about 'Best something of WW2', 'Plane A vs Plane B' etc...


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 26, 2011)

I think it would be very good. Experience shows - speed is most important characteristics. Even for Zero sacrifice was made for more speed.. Fast aircraft were always successfull. Mustang was very fast, among faster aircraft of war. Other qualities were good. Excellent package. Especially if you do not think World War I combat style... one plane against one plane.. but World War II... Combat size in squadron, or wing. Speed matters more in this case - speed protects against all planes. Good turn protects only against one.. if you notice him, that is point too.

Back on thread... Mustang with same powerplant... speed 60 km/h faster than Spitfire. Range - three times. There is no question. Much superior aircraft overall. Spitfire was good above England - not anywhere else it could not go. Also low speed is great disadvantage to Spitfire. Not only maximum, but also look at good cruise speeds, maximum cruise speeds.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 26, 2011)

MaximusGR said:


> Good points, what we will never know is how good P-51 actually could be against LW opponents and tactics with both sides fighting at 1:1 numerical odds..theoretical and perhaps trivial, but would answer many of todays questions and polls about 'Best something of WW2', 'Plane A vs Plane B' etc...



Look to Dec 1943 through May 1944 for your comparisons when Mustangs were fighting LW with less than 1:1 odds


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 10, 2011)

This a quote from the Official History of the RCAF Vol 3 The Crucible of War
"War is a complicated business and though the British and the Americans (especially the latter) commanded Immense resources there was nothing to guaranteethis material would be well applied in every case. Neither of the two major naational air forces involved in the Normabdy campaign had seen fit to equip itself with long range fighters until the autumn of 1943. Thus in the summer of 1944 even as air forces were learrning more about the tricky business of supporting ground troops a task which ideally , required a capability for prolonged loitering over the battlefield there were not enough Mustangs to go around. The Spitfire could not be replaced and RCAF pilots would have to do their best with the tools available."
The same book also states the MKIX Spit had a useful combat radius of 170 miles 
I still believe the Brits should have stopped production of the Spit and swapped over to Mustang even if losing a couple of months production after all they only outnumbered the LW 6-1 in fighters


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2011)

Switching from MK IX production to MK VIII production might have involved a lot less disruption of the production line. While not able to go to Berlin the extra 100 miles or so radius would have been rather useful I would think.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 12, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I still believe the Brits should have stopped production of the Spit and swapped over to Mustang even if losing a couple of months production after all they only outnumbered the LW 6-1 in fighters


 
I agree in theory.. but probably it is not so easy to switch production to a completely new, advanced plane. Already Spitfire was very difficult for UK to produce, and I risk say that Mustang was much more advanced airframe.. construction wise. Very small tolerances.. Spitfire much rougher, I have seen from close.. panel work and riveting.. very sub par for example compared to US P-47. Otherwise, it loose performance and no longer "Mustang" as we know meaning of word.

But if not change to Mustang... one thing I will not understand ever is why produce very short ranged Mark IX series, when medium range Mark VIII was available..? Why not produce only Mark VIII? Surely situation would be better..


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2011)

I know this is going to sound like a stuck record but the LR fighter problem for the RAF wasn't equipment, it was will. If the RAF wanted long range fighters they had 
a) the Tempest which had a combat radius of approc 1,150 miles using 90 gallon Drop Tanks which isn't so far off the Mustangs 1,335 miles combat radius
b) an extended range Tempest which had the same combat range of the Mustang
c) they could have used the modified Spitfire (note the USA and Vickers both produced extended range spits with the same fuel capacity) which had a combat range of 1,150, not as far as the Mustang but pretty good
d) they could have put greater effort into the Hornet which entered production in early 1945. This had a combat range of 1,410 miles 

All of these options would be easier and quicker than trying to build the P51 in the UK. The Tempest in particular would be a good option.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 12, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> This a quote from the Official History of the RCAF Vol 3 The Crucible of War
> "War is a complicated business and though the British and the Americans (especially the latter) commanded Immense resources there was nothing to guaranteethis material would be well applied in every case. Neither of the two major naational air forces involved in the Normabdy campaign had seen fit to equip itself with long range fighters until the autumn of 1943. Thus in the summer of 1944 even as air forces were learrning more about the tricky business of supporting ground troops a task which ideally , required a capability for prolonged loitering over the battlefield there were not enough Mustangs to go around. The Spitfire could not be replaced and RCAF pilots would have to do their best with the tools available."
> The same book also states the MKIX Spit had a useful combat radius of 170 miles
> I still believe the Brits should have stopped production of the Spit and swapped over to Mustang even if losing a couple of months production after all they only outnumbered the LW 6-1 in fighters


 
The Mustang was used in 1942 at Dieppe, the RAF were impressed with it and wanted 500 per month even with the Allison engine. The necessity of long range escorts for daylight missions meant that almost all P51 B/C and D models went to long range escorts initially at least. Later models were fitted with rockets and bombs.

There was a need for long range fighters over the normandy landing area but actually the LW didnt put up much opposition. When the landings were successful airfields were quickly set up to support the ground troops. Loitering over contested airspace is a dangerous mission, in a pure fighter the enemy can ignore you or bounce you because MGs are not very destructive to ground targets and straffing ground targets is also dangerous.

The allies had plenty of long range fighters in 1944 they just used them against the LW over Germany and not so much over France. This was a deliberate tactic, the LW could not commit fully to opposing the allied invasion because of the damage being done in daylight raids. A spitfire may well have been a better plane with a bit more range but for most missions it was adequate. 

Also dont overlook the number of mustangs used countering the V1 threat in 1944, also Spitfires Tempests and Mosquitos which flew a total of approx 44,700 sorties and lost 351 aircraft.

Below is a brief history of the Mustang in the RAF which although from a modeling forum does make some good points.

1. A brief history of RAF Mustang Operations.. 


The Mustang’s achievements in WW2 with the USAAF tend to overshadow its work with the RAF, who of course took the aircraft in to combat before the Americans ever did. RAF operations can be grouped in to three types:


a. Army Co-operation including low level recce, naval strike using Allison engined P51A’s or Mustang 1/ll’s. Some also acted as low level interceptors against low flying German raiders.

b. Long range escort missions for coastal strike and bomber operations using Mustang lll’s and lV’s.

c. Ground attack and general fighter support using Mustang lll’s and lV’s.


a. The RAF loved the early Mustangs and it was very much missed when the production line closed in favour of the Merlin engined B’s and C’s. As a low level fighter the P51A had few equals in speed and range, even if its agility was exceeded by the low altitude cropped wing Spitfire Mk V’s. Mustangs saw action all over Western Europe including Dieppe flying in ones and twos at ranges Spitfire’s could only dream about in their armed versions. Mustangs had the standard day scheme of green/brown uppers and sky undersides later replaced by the green/Ocean Grey/Medium Sea Grey scheme. Markings were a standard mix of B roundels on the upper wings and C and C1’s on the under sides of the wings and fuselage sides (A’s on the green/Dark Earth versions). The RAF also had some of the 20mm cannon armed aircraft designated 1a’s. The last Mustang 1/ll squadron kept their aircraft until 1945. All others having been replaced by other types or Merlin Mustang versions.


b. As North American ceased production of the Allison engined versions the RAF reequiped some of the squadrons with less well suited types such as the Spitfire Mk V. While the Spitfire is still the best fighter of WW2 in this role the early Mustangs were certainly the better aircraft as their long range and rugged construction were very useful operating at these altitudes and mission profiles. The RAF then shifted attention to the Merlin engined Mk lll’s (the US B/C). The B/C were the same aircraft made by different factories with tiny differences between them, hence the RAF’s use of the same designation. By late 1944 this version had established itself as a competent performer capable of doing all that was asked of it. RAF modifications gave the aircraft a bulged Malcolm canopy for improved visibility and cockpit access and the US modification to the ammunition feed resulted in an end to the gun jamming problems that beset the aircraft when it first entered service. Some authorities believe the Malcolm hooded C with the modified ammunition feeds to be better than the later P 51D due to the loss of lateral stability that resulted from removing the fuselage side area. These Mustangs roamed far and wide over Europe escorting RAF bombers as Bomber Command increasingly turned day light precision raids such as those carried out by 617 and 9 Squadron’s using Tallboys and Grandslam earthquake bombs. Mustangs also carried out escorts for Mosquitoes and Beaufighters as far away as Norway for anti shipping strikes. Leonard Cheshire even used a Mustang for experimental target marking for 617 Squadron in place of the Mosquito he normally used. Almost all examples were green/Ocean Grey/Medium Sea Grey. Polish units often had colourful markings and large kill boards, 19 Squadron was quite well marked and its post war examples such as the well known Dooly Bird (Matchbox’s kit for example) were almost gaudy. These Mustangs took part in the anti Diver patrols against the V1 and were very successful, even if the Tempest had the speed edge on the Mustang. 


c. Most notably in Italy the RAF and RAAF employed the Mustang in the lll and lV versions for ground support work and general fighter escort, but in Italy the Luftwaffe was virtually absent by the beginning of 1945, so the main role became ground attack including missions over the Balkans, where the Mustangs superior range was put to good use. In this region Silver painted Mustangs first appeared in some numbers, (later in NW Europe), but most aircraft retained normal RAF camouflage of green/Ocean Grey/Medium Sea Grey. It should be noted that most late RAF Mustangs were the K version with a different propeller to the D’s. Airfix provide this option their 1/72nd scale kit, but not the Dallas canopy used on the K. They also do not provide the modified air outlets on the lower cowling that were a feature of most aircraft supplied to the RAF and RAAF. The best looking Mustangs were used by 112 squadron, who in many case’s applied their well known sharks mouth nose decoration. It makes a Mustang look really evil! Post war under the terms of lend lease the Mustang did not survive long in RAF service as late Spitfires and Tempests along with Meteors and Vampires became the standard RAF fighters.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 12, 2011)

Glider said:


> I know this is going to sound like a stuck record but the LR fighter problem for the RAF wasn't equipment, it was will.



It is also one of targets, what are you going to hit with 6 MGs in central France, Belgium or Holland, to attack something you need a daylight bomber, Mustangs did escort Mosquitos and later Lancasters in daylight precision raids. The pointblank offensive gave daylight bombing missions to the USAAF and they needed the P51 more than the RAF needed the Mustang.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 12, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I agree in theory.. but probably it is not so easy to switch production to a completely new, advanced plane. Already Spitfire was very difficult for UK to produce, and I risk say that Mustang was much more advanced airframe.. construction wise. Very small tolerances.. Spitfire much rougher, I have seen from close.. panel work and riveting.. very sub par for example compared to US P-47. Otherwise, it loose performance and no longer "Mustang" as we know meaning of word.
> 
> But if not change to Mustang... one thing I will not understand ever is why produce very short ranged Mark IX series, when medium range Mark VIII was available..? Why not produce only Mark VIII? Surely situation would be better..


 
The Spitfire was difficult to produce because of the compound curvature of its wing - nothing to do with tolerences. But by 1943 they had that problem solved. The Mustang structure was simpler and easier to produce. In terms of aerodynamics the Mustang may have bene more advanced, but structurally I doubt there was much difference.

Mustangs were very sensitive to surface finish because of the laminar flow wing. I have read that it is unlikely that the wing ever completely worked in laminar flow due to imperfections in manufacture.

The production of the MkIX was as an interim measure for combating the Fw190, while teh definitive version was tooled up for production. But like many things during WW2 the production was more important than the improvement. VIIIs could have been rolling off the line since 1942, but didn't - at least not in the same numbers as the IX.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 12, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> This a quote from the Official History of the RCAF Vol 3 The Crucible of War
> "War is a complicated business and though the British and the Americans (especially the latter) commanded Immense resources there was nothing to guaranteethis material would be well applied in every case. Neither of the two major naational air forces involved in the Normabdy campaign had seen fit to equip itself with long range fighters until the autumn of 1943. Thus in the summer of 1944 even as air forces were learrning more about the tricky business of supporting ground troops a task which ideally , required a capability for prolonged loitering over the battlefield there were not enough Mustangs to go around. The Spitfire could not be replaced and RCAF pilots would have to do their best with the tools available."
> The same book also states the MKIX Spit had a useful combat radius of 170 miles
> I still believe the Brits should have stopped production of the Spit and swapped over to Mustang even if losing a couple of months production after all they only outnumbered the LW 6-1 in fighters


 
The Spitfire had enough range to support the troops over the invasion beaches. But they weren't really needed. After some ground was taken and airfields captured the Spitfires could be brought closer to the front. In any case, most of the Luftwaffe was busy defending Germany.

In any case, I think the Tempest and/or Typhoon was quite well suited to the task. Good at the low levels that aircraft attacking ground troops would be operating in and very good at hitting the enemy's ground forces.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 12, 2011)

For the record, the VIII was in production from November 1942, the IX from June 1942. The first XIV rolled off the line in October 1943. 

So when talking of changing over production in mid 1943 why wouldn't you go for the XIV?


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2011)

Engine production was the chokepoint and it was for most of the war. For instance every suitable Merlin III was refurbished and converted to Merlin 45 in the Spit V. To such a degree that the Russians asked for 300 second hand Merlins for installing in some MTB's a request that had to be turned down as they could not be spared. Later on the huge numbers required for other aircraft such as the lancaster ensured that supplies were low and any additional load on the production facilites were monitored with care.

As long as the Spit IX, VII and VIII were good enough, why change?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 12, 2011)

Glider said:


> I know this is going to sound like a stuck record but the LR fighter problem for the RAF wasn't equipment, it was will.



I see. So, they get will and waive magic wand, and voila! Long range fighter..? sorry.. you are very optimistic.



Glider said:


> If the RAF wanted long range fighters they had
> a) the Tempest which had a combat radius of approc 1,150 miles using 90 gallon Drop Tanks which isn't so far off the Mustangs 1,335 miles combat radius
> b) an extended range Tempest which had the same combat range of the Mustang



Except: combat radius of Tempest V - 404 miles, not 1150.. see? http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temprange.jpg



> c) they could have used the modified Spitfire (note the USA and Vickers both produced extended range spits with the same fuel capacity) which had a combat range of 1,150, not as far as the Mustang but pretty good



Spitfire had about 100-150 miles radius. How does it become ten times..? Magic wand? A tank of _850_ gallon..? 
Major factor: 1 great drag of airframe 2 great consumption of engine.. it was built-in disadvantage of design to have small range..



> d) they could have put greater effort into the Hornet which entered production in early 1945. This had a combat range of 1,410 miles



But, in 1943, it would have 1943 engines.. meaning same as Spitfire, ie. Merlin 61 or 63, 66, in best case.. what would performance look like with so less power?



> All of these options would be easier and quicker than trying to build the P51 in the UK. The Tempest in particular would be a good option.



I agree, especially last sentence.. Tempest had potential.. but I do not think practically doable.. in _1943_. You need faster development of airframe, when Typhoon is still do not work, when Sabre still do not work.. how.. even 1945 - Tempest was rare aircraft. One unit, that is.. How mass produce it two years early?


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 12, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I agree, especially last sentence.. Tempest had potential.. but I do not think practically doable.. in _1943_. You need faster development of airframe, when Typhoon is still do not work, when Sabre still do not work.. how.. even 1945 - Tempest was rare aircraft. One unit, that is.. How mass produce it two years early?


 
I still dont know what you are going to hit in 1943, the RAF had Mustangs anyway. Name a military target you could hit effectively with a Mustang/P51 that you couldnt hit with a spitfire. The mustang/P51s range was longer than the spitfire or typhoons but only in uncontested airspace. Based on 50 gals per hour 180 gallons is 3 1/2 hrs cruising at 250MPH. You can only fly a mustang for six hours if you dont meet anything in the first 3 or 4. It is the bomber that made the merlin engined P51 necessary and effective. cruising about over enemy territory with a fighter achieves nothing. For ground support the typhoon I would say was better being armed with cannon and carrying a bigger payload.


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I see. So, they get will and waive magic wand, and voila! Long range fighter..? sorry.. you are very optimistic.


 I was wrong to put radius in my previous message which no doubt caused confusion and was clearly wrong.

That said the USA and Vickers both modified a SPit IX to carry 287 gall of fuel and tested them in August 1944. The main difference was the USA carried 2 x 60 gall DT and the Vickers 1 x 90 gall DT. The still air range was 1,500 miles and for planning purposes they used 75% of the still air fig. If your interested the advantage of the US conversion was that it had less effect on the COG and the Vickers conversion had more internally which gave more leeway from a tactical position.

My figures came from official documents which I attach. Its not optimism on my part





> .. Tempest had potential.. but I do not think practically doable.. in _1943_. You need faster development of airframe, when Typhoon is still do not work, when Sabre still do not work.. how.. even 1945 - Tempest was rare aircraft. One unit, that is.. How mass produce it two years early?



The Tempest had more than potential. UK based Tempests escorted at least one Halifax daylight raid to the Rhur without loss to the bombers or fighters in 1944. The USA were impressed and in Aug 1944 asked for two examples to experiment on in a similar manner to the Spit IX's that they had previously used to extend the range.

The point I am trying to make is that the RAF had they pushed development had the tools, they lacked the will. The standard Tempest was close to the Mustang, an amended Tempest could match it. In the wings in production from early 1945 was of course the Hornet which had development been pushed also had the range.

If you have difficulty reading the paper let me know on PM and send me your email address and I will send it to you.

PS to talk of 1943 is a dream, 1944 is probably the best that could be done


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 12, 2011)

In terms of the poll mid 1943 means an allison engine. That means no high level escort work and if you loiter about the LW can fly above and bounce you while you cant climb up to attack. A Mid 1943 P51 was good for recon and ground attack not for the escort work it later made its name at.


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2011)

I should add that by 9th September 800 modification kits were on order to be retrofitted into Spits IX which increased internal tankage from 85 gallons to 168 gallons.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2011)

Range does not directly translate into operational radius. Consider two aircraft, both with 400 gallons of fuel. One with 150 gallons inside and 250 gallons external and one with 250 gallons internal and 150 gallons external. If we ignore the drag of the extrnal tanks we could say that both planes have the same range. But their usable operational radius will be quite different. If they are both bounced ( if forced to drop tanks to intercept fighters going for the bombers) after burning 200gals of fuel. (plane "B" is already operating on internal fuel) Plane "A" has 150 gals to fight the engagement ( it dropped 50 gals of unused fuel in order to fight), chase enemy aircraft and or regroup after the engagement and then head for home. Plane be has an extra 50 gals to do those things. 

Plane "A"s operational radius is defined by the distance it can fly AFTER dropping the external tanks and using a portion of it's fuel in combat. How much it carried in drop tanks before the fight starts does it no good in getting back to base. Plane "B" might have a "radius" 100-200 miles further than plane "A".


----------



## drgondog (Jul 12, 2011)

Shortround is entirely correct. Every successful long range fighter was characterized by large internal capacity. Only in the case of ferry ranges from Point A to point B was the total fuel combining internal and external capacity useful for discussion...

Every mission had to be planned to conserve internal fuel - and the combat radius was calculated by only considering the internal fuel remaining at Point B, with reserves for combat and for loiter around the base areas.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2011)

I would add that for combat radius the internal has to be in tanks that allow the plane to fly in an unrestricted manner. While both the Mustang and the Spitfire could be fitted with sizable tanks in the rear fuselage these upset the CG to the extent that some rather sever restrictions on maneuvers were in place if they were filled, these were enforced not only be regulations but by the laws of aerodynamics and physics. Violating these restrictions could result in a bent or broken aircraft, lose of control and/or a crash.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 12, 2011)

The question I posed still remains would the the Commonwealth forces be better served with the P51 or Spit seeing how the main task of the Spit in middle to late 44 was dive bombing or chasing enemy transport a rather poor end to a storied air superiority fighter


----------



## drgondog (Jul 12, 2011)

I would pose an equally provocative question. Take the P-51 'as is' in mid 1943, with knowledge that the first production P-51B flew in May 1943. Transition bomber tactics to adapt to the P-47 for high cover - short range and the 51 (allison) for long range escort at 17,000 feet. It gives up performance slightly to the Fw 190 and Me 109 at that altitude - but there might have been fewer losses in the bombing campaign in 1943. Bomber lose more to flak and far fewer against LW with greater escorted footprint for all medium and heavy daylight missions.

It (Mustang II and then III and IV) continues to do well in ground support, gives up a lot as a point interceptor but if we play this logically, the RAF doesn't put a match to the Mk IX and Mk V, it just replaces many squadrons with first P-51 and then the P-51B while the role of the Spit is relegated to short range/high performance missions.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 12, 2011)

> Spitfire had about 100-150 miles radius. How does it become ten times..? Magic wand? A tank of 850 gallon..?
> Major factor: 1 great drag of airframe 2 great consumption of engine.. it was built-in disadvantage of design to have small range..



On internal fuel, standard RAF combat radius for Mk IX was 170 miles, about 40% of still air range. With a 45 gal d/t this increased to 240 miles - about 35% of still air range. 

Funnily enough, operation OVERLORD planners used a figure of 240 miles as combat radius for the Spitfire Mk IX. 

Its entirely possible for the Spitfire Mk VII/VIII to have a 340-350 mile combat radius - enough to put it over west central Germany (although probably not Berlin). Mk VIIs performed escort missions out to 690 miles in the ETO. Mk VIIIs performed escort missions out to 730 miles in the PTO.

On balance, the Mustang, with more fuel and less drag at high speed was a better option, provided the RAF wanted to go on the offensive over Germany.

Without a daylight bomber force to escort, the RAF doesn't have the same offensive imperative as the 8th AF. Fighter Command relegated itself to short-range penetrations escorting medium bombers and harassing German fighters in France. 

If the RAF had been able to see how the course of the war was to develop, then a long-range Spitfire can be developed and put into place quite painlessly. The RAF had been modifying Mk Is with 98 gal front tanks and additional 29 gal rear fuselage tanks for reconnaissance duties - with no ill effects - since 1940. 

Adopting the Mk III airframe as the successor to the Mk I/II - instead of the interim Mk V - gets you 15% more fuel, with options for wing tanks and rear fuselage tanks. If the RAF had really wanted to - and had the foresight to - its not that difficult to see a Merlin 60 family powered Mk III derivative operational in mid to late 1942, with two thirds more internal tankage than the standard 85 gal. 

How different would the ETO be if the RAF was able to provide escort to the 8th AF past the French-German border from the beginning of 1943?


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 13, 2011)

drgondog said:


> It (Mustang II and then III and IV) continues to do well in ground support, gives up a lot as a point interceptor but if we play this logically, the RAF doesn't put a match to the Mk IX and Mk V, it just replaces many squadrons with first P-51 and then the P-51B while the role of the Spit is relegated to short range/high performance missions.


 I think that was the original plan, however changing from allison to merlin engines meant some loss of production. The merlin engined P51s didnt appear in operation
strength until Nov/Dec 1943. I still dont know what advantages a P51 had over a spitfire in mid 1943 it had more range but less altitude. Without a daylight bomber force what use is it? 

For Britain to stop producing the spitfire in 1943 and change to Mustangs the decision would have to be made in 1942 why would they decide to do that? The US airforce had no real interest in the P51 at the time and were confident that daylight escorts wernt needed with heavily armed bombers. The RAF expected to receive Mustangs but suddenly they didnt get them because the US needed them more. People may get misty eyed about the Spitfire today but they didnt during the war. 
If the typhoon was better it would have replaced the Spitfire, if the Mustang was available it would have replaced the Spitfire. In fact Mustang squadrons had to convert to back Spitfires because no more were available not because the Spitfire was better or the RAFs preferred choice.

It may be an advantage to be able to loiter over an area for a time which is what happened in Normandy. Ground support would circle in the cab rank waiting to be called down on a target if no target was identified by radio they would go and look for one when fuel was running low. This is easier to do from airfield close to the front not from bases in south England.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 13, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> I think that was the original plan, however changing from allison to merlin engines meant some loss of production. The merlin engined P51s didnt appear in operation
> strength until Nov/Dec 1943. I still dont know what advantages a P51 had over a spitfire in mid 1943 it had more range but less altitude. Without a daylight bomber force what use is it?
> 
> *Well, nearly double the range, faster. Ideal sweep aircraft, armed recce, medium bomber escort to much longer range than Spit. Spit was superior in dogfight in everything except speed and dive.. *
> ...


 
All true.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 13, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> I
> For Britain to stop producing the spitfire in 1943 and change to Mustangs the decision would have to be made in 1942 why would they decide to do that? The US airforce had no real interest in the P51 at the time and were confident that daylight escorts wernt needed with heavily armed bombers. The RAF expected to receive Mustangs but suddenly they didnt get them because the US needed them more. People may get misty eyed about the Spitfire today but they didnt during the war.
> If the typhoon was better it would have replaced the Spitfire, if the Mustang was available it would have replaced the Spitfire. In fact Mustang squadrons had to convert to back Spitfires because no more were available not because the Spitfire was better or the RAFs preferred choice.
> 
> It may be an advantage to be able to loiter over an area for a time which is what happened in Normandy. Ground support would circle in the cab rank waiting to be called down on a target if no target was identified by radio they would go and look for one when fuel was running low. This is easier to do from airfield close to the front not from bases in south England.


Firstly in 1941 Churchill was told by Portal that a long range fighter was not feasible hence the switching to night bombing ,so the quest for a longer ranged fighter was put off because of Portals opinion . So for almost 3 years middle 41 to middle 44 the Spits were sent off on less then profitable Balboas, Rhubarbs and Rodeos where the numbers have proved the Luftwaffe romped. I propose if push come to shove they could have set up a paralell production line in the UK in less then 3 months, most of the jigs and forms could have come over on Ferry Command flights and the heavier equipment on convoy. I believe ( my memory is sometimes faulty) the cab rank sysytem came into being post Falaise . 
i just read where the MKIX's were st up to carry 2 500lb bombs underwing but many aircraft had bent wings because of it . The Spitfire is a beautiful and amazing aircraft but it was out of it's element post D Day.


----------



## Glider (Jul 13, 2011)

The problem with the SPit IX was with skin wrinkling when dive bombing with a maximum bomb load which was 3 x 500lb bombs. Clipping the wings was found to resolve the problem. How many aircraft had this problem I don't know, the only reference I can find says 'several cases of severe wrinkling' which means nothing, but clearly enough for a fix to be identified.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 13, 2011)

Glider said:


> The problem with the SPit IX was with skin wrinkling when dive bombing with a maximum bomb load which was 3 x 500lb bombs. Clipping the wings was found to resolve the problem. How many aircraft had this problem I don't know, the only reference I can find says 'several cases of severe wrinkling' which means nothing, but clearly enough for a fix to be identified.


 
Glider - 'wrinkling' is all about exceeding design limits for shear distribution in skins due to bending loads on the wing...


----------



## wuzak (Jul 13, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Firstly in 1941 Churchill was told by Portal that a long range fighter was not feasible hence the switching to night bombing ,so the quest for a longer ranged fighter was put off because of Portals opinion . So for almost 3 years middle 41 to middle 44 the Spits were sent off on less then profitable Balboas, Rhubarbs and Rodeos where the numbers have proved the Luftwaffe romped. I propose if push come to shove they could have set up a paralell production line in the UK in less then 3 months, most of the jigs and forms could have come over on Ferry Command flights and the heavier equipment on convoy. I believe ( my memory is sometimes faulty) the cab rank sysytem came into being post Falaise .
> i just read where the MKIX's were st up to carry 2 500lb bombs underwing but many aircraft had bent wings because of it . The Spitfire is a beautiful and amazing aircraft but it was out of it's element post D Day.


 
To be fair, in 1941 the longe range escort wasn't possible or, more importantly, wouldn't be available in sufficient quantaties in the time frame required. So the switch to night bombing would have happened even if a suitable aircraft was on the drawing board or in pre-production.

And the USAAF 8th AF still didn't believe that long range escorts were required in 1943, even after Regensburg/Schweinfurt.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 13, 2011)

Glider said:


> The problem with the SPit IX was with skin wrinkling when dive bombing with a maximum bomb load which was 3 x 500lb bombs. Clipping the wings was found to resolve the problem. How many aircraft had this problem I don't know, the only reference I can find says 'several cases of severe wrinkling' which means nothing, but clearly enough for a fix to be identified.


 


drgondog said:


> Glider - 'wrinkling' is all about exceeding design limits for shear distribution in skins due to bending loads on the wing...


 
I hadn't heard about the skin wrinking in IXs, but I know that for the XIVs some skin wrinkling occurred on the top of the wing. The RAF instructed that the wing tips be replaced with the clipped wings, even though Joe Smith told them there was no need for concern.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 13, 2011)

I still say in the time frame a move to production of the Spitfire XIV would be better than the Mustang.

I've been trying to find the stats on the range of the similar PRXIX, which apparently had over 250 gallons of internal fuel. Some of that fuel was in the leading edge tanks which would probably preclude it being used on an armed Spit. The PRXIX also had a pressure cabin, which I'm sure the fighter jocks would have enjoyed having.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 13, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I hadn't heard about the skin wrinking in IXs, but I know that for the XIVs some skin wrinkling occurred on the top of the wing. The RAF instructed that the wing tips be replaced with the clipped wings, even though Joe Smith told them there was no need for concern.


"in the last days of Sept No 126 Wing replaced its SpitfireIXB's with Spit IXE's which carried more powerful armament - 2 50 cal machineguns instead of 4 303's that supplemented the 2 20mm cannon -and wing racks for 2 extra 250lb bombs .A thousand lbs of ordnance (500lb lb bomb under the fuselage and a 250lb bomb under each wing) . was heavy burden for a Spitfire and on OCt 18 No 412 sqn completed its first sorties with such loads four aircraft were found to have wrinkled wings on their return . No 442 carried similar loads the next day , however and Spitfires would continue to haul 1000lb burdens in spite of possible structuaral stress , repalcement wings were easily obtained``
From Crucible of War 1939- 1945 . The official history of RCAF Vol 3


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 14, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> 1. The Spitfire is a beautiful and amazing aircraft but it was out of it's element post D Day.
> 
> 2. I propose if push come to shove they could have set up a paralell production line in the UK in less then 3 months, most of the jigs and forms could have come over on Ferry Command flights and the heavier equipment on convoy.



1. I agree, but D Day was in 1944 the thread is about mid 1943. There was no shortage of combat aircraft over Normandy and I would say for the requirements of the allies after D Day the Tempest was a better plane.

2 If the British could set up a production line in 3 months why did it take NAA so long in America? Would the people working in UK be from spitfire factories which would cut spitfire production or new labour. How long did the dallas plant take to get operational?

Strapping a bomb under a single engined fighter means it requires an escort itself unless you have eliminated the opposition.


Posted by Dragondog
*Well, nearly double the range, faster. Ideal sweep aircraft, armed recce, medium bomber escort to much longer range than Spit. Spit was superior in dogfight in everything except speed and dive.. *

That is the point I am making it was used by the British for tactical recon but as a medium bomber escort you need the medium bombers for fighter sweep I would say its lack of performance at altitude would be a problem.

*The Brits never intended to build Merlin Mustangs, they 'hoped for' delivery but realistically foresaw them going straight to USAAF Strategic Bomber forces.. your statements are all true wrt to 'what did happen' but wasn't 'what if' the the basis of the thread? 
*
I was replying to PBfoots proposition. When the Merlin was first fitted to the Mustang the requirement for long range escort was not forseen. As I said, to start producing Mustangs in the UK with either engine in 1943 the decision would have to be made in 1942. In 1942 the US had no interest in the mustang and no requirement for a long range escort. The "what if" in the thread is mid 1943 at which time the P51B/C had not arrived.


----------



## Glider (Jul 14, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Glider - 'wrinkling' is all about exceeding design limits for shear distribution in skins due to bending loads on the wing...


 
I know but its fair to mention that the main spar of the Spitfire had some give in it being basically a strong leaf spring, it would when pushed beyond limits bend before breaking and that could well be why the planes and pilots made it home even if the skin was damaged. Some of the spits were written off after this damage but most were repaired.
The fix does seem unlikely but it did work and was often implemented.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2011)

Well, there really wasn't anything wrong, per se, about the wing design. It simply wasn't designed for the application.

All wings are like springs, some 'springier' than others. In the elastic range the spring returns to original state - when it exceeds elastic and moves to plastic (i.e. going to Ultimate Load from Limit Load) stuff has deflected too much - resulting in permanent structural damage for that group of 'items'

The concern about the Standard Wing from the beginning was about possible control reversal when ailerons were used in really high dive speeds. The design estimate for reversal was IIRC about 580mph but later tests referenced by NACA 868 showed that the P-47C-1 reversed at 565mph when at 400mph there was a 31% reduction in effectiveness in the aileron (indicating wing torsion).. but at the same time the Spit aileron effectives was reduced 65% at 400mph --------> suggesting that the '580mph reversal estimate was perhaps seriously optimistic..

The point is that the wing was less stiff than comparable designs and it was a known fact.

The Clipped wing was much stiffer - hence the dramatically improved roll rate at high speeds over the Mark V and IX..with standard tip design.


----------



## Readie (Jul 14, 2011)

drgondog said:


> The Clipped wing was much stiffer - hence the dramatically improved roll rate at high speeds over the Mark V and IX..with standard tip design.


 
But at a price though...the attitude performance suffered and the clipped wings look horrid.
The original Shenstone wing was superior in design and outlasted the clipped one.
Cheers
John


----------



## Glider (Jul 14, 2011)

I am pretty sure I read a test report that said that the clipping of the wing made little difference to the roll rate and the disadvantages outweighed the advantages.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2011)

Glider said:


> I am pretty sure I read a test report that said that the clipping of the wing made little difference to the roll rate and the disadvantages outweighed the advantages.


 
Look up Naca 868. There was a dramatic difference past 250mph in favor of clipped wing for all the reasons mentioned above. The Spit V wing for example started above a Mustang but as the speed increased beyond 225 mph, it quickly degraded and remained far below the Mustang at 400mph - on the other hand the clipped wing remained above the 51 until ~ 350+ mph


----------



## wuzak (Jul 14, 2011)

I believe the VIII had a strengthened wing, which it shared with the XIV. Another question as to why the IX, very much an upgraded V, continued in production for so long in preference to the definitive two stage Merlin Spitfire (ie the VIII).


----------



## Glider (Jul 15, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Look up Naca 868. There was a dramatic difference past 250mph in favor of clipped wing for all the reasons mentioned above. The Spit V wing for example started above a Mustang but as the speed increased beyond 225 mph, it quickly degraded and remained far below the Mustang at 400mph - on the other hand the clipped wing remained above the 51 until ~ 350+ mph


 
I stand corrected, thanks


----------



## drgondog (Jul 15, 2011)

Wasn't meant as a correction - strictly conveying information..


----------

