# Allied Fighter vs Fighter: Is it really necessary ???



## timmy (Aug 28, 2010)

Long time reader first time poster to this forum.
Great site by the way, I'm amazed how many posters here really know their subject matter
Anyhow back to the Question...

Reading through this forum and finding many great Allied Fighter vs Fighter comparisons, which I admit is fun.
But doesn't it really miss the point, what really WAS the allies real strength of ww2 over the axis ?

I mean our real strength I think was that we didn't just have one or two great fighters like the Germans
But we had many numerous types of great fighters that where well suited to a particular role 
For example 

Mustang- Great long range escort fighter
Spitfire- Great short range interceptor
Thunderbolt- Tough allrounder well suited for ground attack
Lightning- Perfectly suited for the pacific theatre duties
Corsair- Great island based fighter
Hellcat- Perfect Carrier based fighter
Mosquito- Great allrounder 

So while comparing say a P51D mustang with say P47D Thunderbolt is fun
Could we really have won the war with one but not the other. Maybe, but it would have been a lot harder.
We would have been short of a particular aircraft that was strongly suited for a specific role

The Germans would have killed to have so many fighters that where so strong in one specific role
Kind of why I think they lost. Not that the 109/190 weren't great. They just couldn't perform all the duties
the large variety types of fighters the allied had at their disposal 

Just my 2 cents timmy


----------



## drgondog (Aug 28, 2010)

Timmy - the Germans correctly determined that they didn't have the resources to design, manufacture and maintain so many variations.

In another sense they were somewhat handicapped by doctrine. They had one view of airpower - dominate the battlefield in concert with their armies, they were prohibited from naval build up by Treaty. The US had a different vison for airpower both at sea and land based - and it was different from USSR and Great Britain.

So, independently many aviation 'trees and branches' were grown by the Allies and evolved to suit the campaigns and strategic/tactical requirements of winng the war.

We had so many successes simply because we had the resources to try many different things - and the US R&D was shielded from invasion and attack by two great oceans.


----------



## renrich (Aug 28, 2010)

Timmy, enjoyed your post. This discussion has been had before in kind of reverse fashion. To me, the US would have been better served if it had concentrated it's resources on fewer fighter designs and improving those models they selected. For instance, I believe the US in 1940-41 could have shelved the P47 and P38 and concentrated on the F4U1 and would have had a fighter with enough range and performance to escort bombers in 1942-43, until the Mustang with the Merlin engine had come along. The early F4U carried 361 gallons of fuel internally and could have carried a 175 gallon drop tank which would have given it a combat radius of perhaps as much as 500 miles. The early bugs in the Corsair which handicapped it for carrier duty would not have mattered much as a land based fighter and if Republic and Lockheed had been helping in the development stage, the Corsair could have been in production sooner than it ultimately was. Vought was a relatively small company. If, in addition Grumman had been involved in the Corsair project, the Corsair would have been carrier ready much sooner than it was and the Hellcat would have not been needed at all.

Looking at the Mustang, in hindsight, if Lockheed or Curtiss had been helping in the Mustang program, the Merlin might have been installed a little earlier and Mustangs would have been pouring off the assembly lines faster and in greater quantity. If instead of Packard being the only US producer of Merlin engines, Allison had built them also instead of producing engines for P38s and P40s, then more Merlins would have been available for Mustangs and Lancasters.

Bottom line to me is that if someone had had an infallible crystal ball the US could have gotten along very nicely with only the two designs, the Corsair as an early escort fighter and later as THE fighter bomber and the Mustang as the great escort fighter it ulitmately became.

Those would have been cost effective measures and would have simplified the logistics problems significantly.


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 28, 2010)

Interesting point renrich.


----------



## renrich (Aug 28, 2010)

Thanks Messy, the fly in the ointment, as far as the Corsair deal is concerned, is that even if the potential of the Corsair had been recognised in 1940 when it first flew, the AAF would have to have been dragged kicking and screaming into a situation for a fighter designed as a shipboard fighter to have become a mainstay as a landbased airplane for the AAF.

The somewhat extended gestation period for the Corsair was the result of the extensive redesign of the prototype and then the testing which had to be done when the production model F4U1 emerged. Vought only had one main test pilot for the Corsair project and if Grumman and Republic had been involved the evolution must have been much faster.

The availability of Merlin engines had to be a significant impact on Mustang production and if Allison built Merlins and Lockheed and Curiss had built Mustangs instead of P40s and P38s, Merlin Mustangs would have been available in every theatre of the war and the unit cost would have been lower. Likewise for the Corsair.


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 28, 2010)

Would a dedicated land based fighter version of the Corsair have a performance advantage over a dedicated naval plane? I would assume a dedicated land based plane would not need the folding wing mechanism, nor the added weight. Would the design have been taken that far to offer a different land and sea based fighter.


----------



## davebender (Aug 28, 2010)

The Fw-190 series was a high performance but relativley expensive fighter. The Me-109 was dirt cheap yet still had acceptable performance. I don't know if it was accidental or intentional but Germany adopted the High-Low doctrine used by the modern day U.S.A.F. This gives you the most bang for the buck.

Fw-190 equates to F-15
Me-109 equates to F-16


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 28, 2010)

Messy1 said:


> Would a dedicated land based fighter version of the Corsair have a performance advantage over a dedicated naval plane? I would assume a dedicated land based plane would not need the folding wing mechanism, nor the added weight.
> 
> Would the design have been taken that far to offer a different land and sea based fighter.


Theoretically, yes
additional torsional rigidity where there is no requirement for a folding wing and a lower AUW minus the structural strengthening and the tail hook assembly. We should note however that the late-mark F4Us rolled as well as anything and they were navalised.

Interesting question, carrier-based to land-based being the reverse of the Spitfire's story. Putting a land-based aircraft on a carrier will involve very obvious modifications and in the case of the Spitfire, once the Seafire had 'taken root' it did go off on a divergent path to its land-based forebear.

I would argue yes, if the F4U started to experience big demand from the 8th AF then I can't imagine the USAAF fighter pilots being happy with the extra weight or any penalty, however small, in the rolling plane as a result of reduced torsional rigidity from a feature they didn't need. Heeding this, Chance-Vought would very likely look upon the USAAF as a potential BIG customer.

In my opinion, sat side by side, you would see the similarities and differences of the F4U and its land-based variant in just the same way as you would looking at a Spitfire F24 and a Seafire FR47 sat side by side.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 28, 2010)

If an F4U version had been built from the ground up, performance advantages could have been designed in. However, a customized F4U provided only a limited amount of weight savings in the removal of the wing fold and arrester hook, and maybe lightening of the gear. The FG-1 was a Goodyear built F4U with fixed wings. In general the F4U had such good performance the customizing was not really needed.

I don't think there is such a thing as a dedicated Naval fighter.

renrich's argument is sound argument. Unfortunately, Service competition, politics, greed, and slew of other factors including uncertainty of fast evolving technology, prevented a uniform analysis of wartime needs. I would guess that six months could have been shaved off the war if a most efficient mix had been pursued.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 28, 2010)

davparlr said:


> I don't think there is such a thing as a dedicated Naval fighter


As evidenced
by the early use of F4Us from land-based strips. They may not be dedicated Dave, but they're certainly specialised - how long do you think un-navalised P-51s or P-47s would last bouncing in on a carrier?


----------



## al49 (Aug 28, 2010)

Hi,
in my opinion a comparison between aircraft, being them Allies or Axis, is a nice exercise if we want to asses a rating among machines.
But, still in my opinion, what made the difference and heavily influenced the outcome of the air war, was manpower.
In 1944 German industry was still able to produce thousand of fighters per month and an expert German pilot was indeed able to shot down a P47 or a P51.
But, besides a few "experten" still alive, most of the German pilots were sent to operational units with less then 80 hours flying time, with very high possibilities to be killed during their first combat flight. In the mean time American and British had their pilots fully trained in USA or Canada.
Cheers
Alberto


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 28, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> As evidenced
> by the early use of F4Us from land-based strips. They may not be dedicated Dave, but they're certainly specialised - how long do you think un-navalised P-51s or P-47s would last bouncing in on a carrier?



Navalising an aeroplane is not just about strengthening for takeoff and landing and increasing range. Salt water is very corrosive for many alloy materials so navalising makes a plane more expensive to make without any increase in performance


----------



## renrich (Aug 28, 2010)

I have to believe that if, for instance, Republic was given the basic Corsair design and told to redesign where possible to improve performance by lightening the air frame, at least a few hundred pounds could have been saved. A possibility might have been, since the landing gear did not have to be as robust for a strictly land based fighter, the inverted gull wing might have been eliminated. That casting for the gull was complicated and heavy. The drag penalty might have offset the weight savings, though.

Actually there is an example of a shiboard fighter design being adopted by the Air Force because it was superior to anything else available and oddly enough it was an F4 also. The F4 Phantom was designed as a shipboard fighter for the USN. And even more oddly it had an inverted gull wing also, kinda!

Fortunately for the world, money and industrial capacity was not a problem for the US so the war went the Allies' way. A few 8th Air Force crewman's lives would have been saved though if a long range escort fighter like the F4U1 had been available in 42-43.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 28, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Navalising an aeroplane is not just about strengthening for takeoff and landing and increasing range. Salt water is very corrosive for many alloy materials so navalising makes a plane more expensive to make without any increase in performance


Which would reinforce my point surely?



Colin1 said:


> ... they're certainly specialised...


...but out of interest
what was the WWII difference between US land-based and carrier-based fighter anti-corrosion measures? As far as I'm aware, both were treated with zinc-chromate primer. Did the USN use any additional inhibitors?


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 28, 2010)

timmy said:


> Long time reader first time poster to this forum.
> 
> I mean our real strength I think was that we didn't just have one or two great fighters like the Germans
> But we had many numerous types of great fighters that where well suited to a particular role
> ...




Timmy, of the aircraft you mentioned only the Spitfire Lightening and Hellcat were designed for the roles they became noted for. The role of long range escort didnt exist until the need was seen, everyone thought bombers could defend themselves. The thunderbolt was a great high altitude fighter but didnt have the range for long range escort work. The Corsair was designed to be a carrier fighter/fighter bomber but in its early days was a problem to land on a carrier so was used from land bases then later from carriers. The mosquito was designed as a bomber but was at first rejected because it didnt have guns and was first ordered for reconnaissance.

With regard to the war in Europe the advantage of the allies was overwhelming resources of men materials production capacity and also maybe ideas. On the subject of fighters only, whereas huge numbers of Me 109s and FW190s were produced when measured against the numbers of mustangs thunderbolts tomahawks lightenings spitfires hurricanes typhoons defiants whirlwinds tempest Mig and Yak fighters as well as various others from Poland France etc which may have been obsolete but still caused losses the luftwaffe lost it on numbers. 

By 1942/43 America and USSR could produce planes tanks etc unmolested while in Britain there was little problem from bombers so by 1944 Germany was on the edge of collapse.

Things such as Radar, Sonar, Ultra and the Nuclear bomb and others were a huge international effort.Ultra was given a huge boost by Czech (and other mathematicians) continued in UK and then in USA and ended up producing what we now know as a computer.
At the time of their design the U Boat and the Luftwaffe had the resources to achieve their aims. Without sonar and centrimetric radar the atlantic convoys would have been destroyed, they suffered badly even with sonar. Similarly without Radar I doubt the RAF could have survived more than a month. The LW claimed they would wipe the RAF out in a week, in fact they did what they wanted in plane numbers (it took more than a week) but they didnt think that the planes and pilots could be replaced.

For example the Mustang, it was an American design to a British request then fitted with a Britsh designed engine and gunsight and produced with americam mass production techniques. It was eventually fitted with canons which started as a french design. In the end Germany was overwhelmed by the weight of weapons men materials and and technologies ranged against it a similar story in the far east with Japan.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 28, 2010)

Take away comparisons and what ifs and this forum is out of a job!


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 28, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Which would reinforce my point surely?
> 
> 
> ...but out of interest
> what was the WWII difference between US land-based fighter and carrier-based anti-corrosion measures? As far as I'm aware, both were treated with zinc-chromate primer. Did the USN use any additional inhibitors?



Colin

I was just pointing out a phenomena I wasnt contradicting you.

All I know is that 

1 Navalising the harrier involved a lot of measures to reduce the effects of salt water ingress
2 My motorcycles alloy parts used to get eaten alive when I rode it in winter
3 when working in a stainless steel factory snow was a nightmare because you couldnt use salt.

Having seen pictures of carriers with planes strapped to decks in bad weather covered in spray, measures must have been taken to prevent salt corrosion and it all costs money with regard to a land only 'plane. As far as measures taken by the US Navy I dont know, but many European US planes were flown with polished finish only I havn't seen any picture of an unpainted carrier plane


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 28, 2010)

Concentrating on just the Corsair would be fine if you knew for definite it wouldnt turn out to be a dog. Even today with computer modelling aircraft dont always turn out just like the designer expected. For example I bet Boeing wished they hadnt been so confident and taken all those pre-orders for the Dreamliner.

I have always wondered how the Hellcat would have worked as a land based fighter/bomber. Its my favourite fighter of WWII and to me always looks like anything short of an 88mm round would just bounce off without scratching the bodywork


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 28, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> 1 Navalising the harrier involved a lot of measures to reduce the effects of salt water ingress


I was careful to stipulate the 'WWII difference', by the time we got to the Harrier I'm sure we'd learned a trick or two.

I've no doubt they knew about saltwater corrosion but what steps did they take in terms of inhibitors for sea-going aircraft? Carrier ops weren't long out of their infancy in WWII and there is also the throw-away nature of WWII combat aircraft who could, best case, look forward to an operational life of around ten months.

I'm not being contrary, I just don't know the answer - anyone?


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 28, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> Concentrating on just the Corsair would be fine if you knew for definite it wouldnt turn out to be a dog. Even today with computer modelling aircraft dont always turn out just like the designer expected. For example I bet Boeing wished they hadnt been so confident and taken all those pre-orders for the Dreamliner.
> 
> I have always wondered how the Hellcat would have worked as a land based fighter/bomber. Its my favourite fighter of WWII and to me always looks like anything short of an 88mm round would just bounce off without scratching the bodywork



I agree, for example the RAF had 3 british designed frontline bombers with 4 engines (stirling halifax and lancaster) but only the Stirling was actually designed to be with 4 engines the other 2 were supposed to use the RR Vulture. The Stirling was screwed from the start with restrictions on wingspan and a supposed need to launch with a tow rope, the manchester was a failure but was a success as the lancaster. Similarly the defiant fulfilled every part of its spec as a turret fighter except the idea of a turret fighter was completely flawed.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 28, 2010)

The main problem with the turret fighter is that dogfighting hadn't been part of its design.

The idea of a non deflection bomber kill shot was top.

The Germans agreed and schrage muzik was born.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 28, 2010)

The Basket said:


> The main problem with the turret fighter is that dogfighting hadn't been part of its design.
> 
> The idea of a non deflection bomber kill shot was top.
> 
> The Germans agreed and schrage muzik was born.



I agree and in the context of this thead conversation the schrage musik was used by Ju88 Bf110 and Do217 which were never designed to use it either


----------



## renrich (Aug 28, 2010)

In 1940, the XF4U was the first single engine fighter to exceed 400 mph in level flight in the US so they knew they had something special. In March, 1941, the Navy issued a letter of intent for a production F4U1 and in June 1941, a contract was issued for 584 F4U1s but the first flight of the production F4U1 did not take place until June 25, 1942. It seems that all knew the Corsair would be a winner but if more resources were devoted to it the AC could have been ready much sooner.

To me, what is interesting is comparing the Hellcat which was an evolutionary airplane to the Corsair which was more revolutionary. Of course the Corsair was an earlier design but the comparison shows how aircraft design is always a compromise and there ain't no free lunch.

The Hellcat and Corsair were about the same size and weight and both used the same engine. Both companies wanted the fuel tank to be centered over the CG and both companies wanted the CL(center of lift) to coincide closely with the CG. Grumman placed a lot of emphasis on pilot forward visibility and wanted the airplane to be stable at low speeds for ease of carrier landings. That meant that they mounted the cockpit perched high and had the fuel tank under the pilot. The Hellcat also had a large wing with a lot of lift.

Vought was more interested in high performance and chose to make the fuselage cross section as small as possible for less drag. So the cross section was only as large as the engine which meant the fuel tank was mounted over the wing and the CG but the cockpit had to be behind the fuel tank, not on top of it which really reduced pilot forward visibility. The Corsair also had less wing area than the Hellcat. 

All these compromises resulted in the Hellcat being a nice carrier landing airplane with good low speed handling and good visibility but with a lot of drag which extracted a performance penalty. The Corsair was more tricky at low speeds and had poor pilot visibility but was faster, climbed better, accelerated better and rolled better. Both had good range.

It was just very hard to design a shipboard fighter that had all the virtues. The fact that the Corsair evolved into one of the premier piston engine fighters in history and turned out to be a fine shipboard airplane showed what an inspired design it was.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 28, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> As evidenced
> by the early use of F4Us from land-based strips. They may not be dedicated Dave, but they're certainly specialised - how long do you think un-navalised P-51s or P-47s would last bouncing in on a carrier?



I never said that there was not a dedicated land based fighter, only no dedicated Naval aircraft. Any Navy plane can be used on the land, except, of course, float planes, but the reverse is not true.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 28, 2010)

Something to consider when putting forth the idea that the Corsair for European use was that the Corsair really couldn't do the job of the P-38 or P47. The P-51 is a bit later in timing.

The Air Corp was committed to the idea of using bombers with turbocharged engines flying at high altitude (25,000-30,000ft?) as it's main strike force. 
To combat enemy developments along those lines (hypothetical, but in 1939-41 who knew that the Germans wouldn't, couldn't develop high altitude bombers in numbers). In 1939-41 this pretty much meant using turbo charged engines. 

While the Corsair did fly in May of 1940 it was a rather different airplane than the production F4U-1. It also was flying with a single stage supercharger and not the two stage supercharger of the production models. First production contract wasn't placed until June of 1941. The famous 405mph flight wasn't made until October 1 of 1940. The Army had already placed contracts for 773 P-47s (split between 'B' and 'C' models) just over two weeks earlier. 
I don't know who was promising what when, but the early versions of the R-2800s used in the F4U-1 and the early P-47s were both rated for 2000hp for take-off. however the mechanical drive two stage supercharger on the Corsair had a Military rating of 1650hp at 22,500ft compared to the 2000hp at 25,000ft rating for the turbo engine used in the P-47. Nobody was using WER ratings or water injection at this point. 
I would also be rather careful in comparing combat radius or range. Many ranges for the Corsair are given at low altitudes (high drag) but low speeds (one source gives a cruise of 178mph) but at that altitude the 1st stage of the supercharger is disconnected and not using any power giving better economy than at higher altitude. 
Some contract dates for the P-38 are Apr 27 1939 for 13 YP-38s. Aug 10 1939 for 66 P-38s. Mar 1940 for 143 model 322s for the British (without turbos). Jun 5 1940 US approval is given for a British second order for 524 Lighting MK 2s with turbos. Aug 30 1940 US Army orders another 607 P-38s. 
Canceling or dropping P-38 development/production in favor of the Corsair is going to give you NO high performance fighters in 1941 and most of 1942. Given the time from placing of orders until planes were actually produced and then the months between first production and first combat use you would need to speed things up considerably to get Corsairs in numbers in the fall of 1942. 178 Corsairs had been accepted by the Navy by Dec 31 1942. 
you also have the problem that Lockheed is in southern California and Chance Vought was in Connecticut, almost 3000 miles away. Moving workers/engineers around would be difficult and communications between the factories would be slow. Telephone/telegraph is one thing but commercial air travel took around 24 hours one way and trains took 4-5 days one way. 
Yes the British did manage to set up factories in Canada and Australia but it was more a matter of being sent plans and patterns for an existing aircraft (and adapting them to local conditions) than trying to develop a new aircraft. 

The Mission for the P-38 and P-47 changed from interceptor to general fighter to long range escort. While the anticipated German high altitude bombers failed to show up in any numbers the fighters shifted over to the escort mission. 

To properly escort the bomber formations was going to require fighters that could not only fly but fight at 30,000-35,000 ft to prevent enemy fighters from getting on top of the bomber formations. In the 1942-43 time frame this pretty much required turbo chargers for the fighter engines. The two stage Merlins being in rather short supply at this point. 

While it may be easy to say, with the benefit of hindsight, what could/should have been done it may have been a lot harder at the time. The Actual mission the planes performed were often different than what the original design requirement called for. Planes went into combat 2-4 years after design work started. Without some real numbers or reports from the time it is very hard to tell how changes in priorities/allocations of engineering staff, workers, materials, tooling would have affected production. Some companies performed minor miracles of production while short of everything while others (Brewster and Curtiss) seemed to have real trouble turning out production numbers of certain types pf aircraft.


----------



## mikewint (Aug 28, 2010)

i can't even approach the expertise all of you posses but i agree with post #2 by drgondog. i really don't think it mattered what plane was flown. it was the US ability to outmanufacture germany and japan that turned the tide.. with US industry fully geared up and protected from any type of air, land, or water attack we could make more of anything that the germans or japanese destroyed. a superior german aircraft couldn't be produced fast enough, maintained fast enough, or kept fueled well enough to make any difference


----------



## timmy (Aug 28, 2010)

Great responses to my original post everyone 

Interesting how a few here think we may have had too Many fighter designs to choose from
That really the allies may have been able to get by with say Mustangs and Corsairs I find is an Interesting argument

I personally think your in a better position if you have more aircraft design type options than not enough

Really Germany only really had two fighters to pick from. Both of those (109/190) are very similar in concept
Both have the same design philosophy in they are both small compact fighters with one Radial the other inline
In fact you could argue that Germany had one real main stay fighter if where talking numbers produced with the 109 

Just imagine the allies where in the same position as Germany and had only one descent fighter design to choose from. Say example the Spitfire. It would have been a nightmare trying to design a Spitfire to perform all the rolls that had to be filled like long range escorts,ground support,Carrier duties 

Just an example as to why we where so fortunate to have so many great variations in fighter designs


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 28, 2010)

mikewint said:


> i can't even approach the expertise all of you posses but i agree with post #2 by drgondog. i really don't think it mattered what plane was flown. it was the US ability to outmanufacture germany and japan that turned the tide.. with US industry fully geared up and protected from any type of air, land, or water attack we could make more of anything that the germans or japanese destroyed. a superior german aircraft couldn't be produced fast enough, maintained fast enough, or kept fueled well enough to make any difference



The Quality of the aircraft (or tank or ship) does matter somewhat. Otherwise you are trying to make targets faster than the Germans/ Japanese could make ammo. 

Try imagining the US conducting bombing raids over Germany in 1944 using hundreds of Early B-17s (without power turrets) escorted by P-36s with drop tanks. Even the US might have been hard pressed to keep up with the loss ratio that would have entailed.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 29, 2010)

A few points...

The 109/190 are not the same concept...

The American war machine could build anything all day long in huge numbers very quickly. They were also able to bring on a new aircraft and fix the bugs. The B-29 is a classic example. Only the Americans could have built a machine so complex so quickly.

Yamamoto didn't fear American fighting spirit or Corsairs...he feared the production capabilities that the 
Usa had


----------



## Njaco (Aug 29, 2010)

While not so tech minded as some posts here, my take on the whole thing is this....

Fighter design and specialized roles for aircraft was an ongoing, developing area during the war. If you look at the history of planes after WWI you will find that most thinking was fighter vs fighter. Bomber theory was the money-maker so most countries played around with that concept while leaving fighter designlooking at speed and armament.

WWII made everyone start to look at the specialized roles needed for the different theatres ad thats why the many designs.

But - its one thing to develop a design and test free from bombs dropping on your head. Whereas USA was isolated and could freely test new planes completely, Germany was under a boot heel so to speak, and new planes were very difficult to bring to operational staus. USA could waste its time on testing while Germany could hardly properly do it. So instead of concentrating on what was needed they scrambled with half done designs and falling back on old ons. The 219 Moskito might have been a winner if the glue factories weren't bombed and proper time to iron out bugs been ok. USA never had this problem - discounting Brewster!


----------



## renrich (Aug 29, 2010)

At most economical cruise speed the yardstick ranges with internal fuel only for the F4U1, and P47C and early D were:
F4U1 1596 miles
P47C and early D 835 miles
Combat range would have been roughly 70%-80% of the yardstick ranges.
An AAF graph shows the P47D with 307 gallons of internal fuel to have a combat radius of 125 miles, the P47D with 370 gallons of internal fuel had a combat radius of 225 miles. The altitude for these profiles was 25000 feet so it is obvious that the P47 took a lot of fuel to get to that altitude.

The early F4U1 at military power got it's Vmax of around 395 mph at 23000 feet. It's service ceiling was 36900 feet. later water injection and combat power boosted it's Vmax to 417 mph. The Corsair was no slouch at high altitudes and few bomber missions early in the war were flown above 25000 feet with the majority, especially with B24s being flown well below that. ACM regularly was well below 30000 feet.

The early Corsair IF AVAILABLE would have been a desirable substitution for the P47 or P38,( which did not do well in the early going in the ETO) IMO however......

As far as timing of when which AC was ready is concerned, I stated early on that an infallible crystal ball was needed and since those crystal balls were heavily rationed just like tires and gasoline in WW2, this is all a fantasy.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 29, 2010)

1,596 for F4U1? Are you sure about that - Vought themselves only list a little over 1,000.


----------



## davebender (Aug 29, 2010)

> most of the German pilots were sent to operational units with less then 80 hours flying time


That has nothing to do with manpower. From June 1941 onward Germany did not have enough aviation gasoline. 

According to David Glantz German 6th Air Fleet had only 2/3rds of the aviation fuel required to support the Kursk Offensive. If such a high priority combat force was short on fuel I expect Luftwaffe training command got practically nothing at the time. You cannot train fighter pilots using gliders and WWII era flight simulators. They need fuel.


----------



## renrich (Aug 29, 2010)

VB, that is from page 600, Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand" and is a table of max ranges Navy fighters. How they get it is they take the amount of fuel and divide by the fuel burn at the most economical speed and the cruise altitude is 5000 feet and the internal fuel is 361 gallons which includes the fuselage tank, protected and wing tanks unprotected. The reason it is called yardstick range is that it is for comparison purposes only. 

To get an idea of what combat radius that would represent is to divide by two which is roughly 750 and take about 80% which is about 600 miles. That combat radius would depend on the mission profile.

The yardstick range for the P47 D late/M is at 10000 feet with 370 gallons internal and is 1020 miles which would give a combat radius of roughly 400 miles.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 29, 2010)

timmy said:


> Just imagine the allies where in the same position as Germany and had only one descent fighter design to choose from. Say example the Spitfire. It would have been a nightmare trying to design a Spitfire to perform all the rolls that had to be filled like long range escorts,ground support,Carrier duties
> 
> Just an example as to why we where so fortunate to have so many great variations in fighter designs



In fact the Spitfire was, perhaps, the only fighter aircraft that was designed and then redesigned, to fulfil requirements as a long range escort,ground support fighter and for Carrier duties. 

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if the Allies had suspended all other fighter development, say in 1939, and concentrated solely on the Spitfire. What if the Grumman design team, for example, was freed to concentrate on navalizing the Spitfire?

Suppose the USAAF had built only the Spitfire and poured resources into developing a long range Spitfire, earlier? Certainly the Spitfire could achieve extremely long range:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg
and the range with this mod was equivalent to the Mustang.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 29, 2010)

renrich said:


> VB, that is from page 600, Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand" and is a table of max ranges Navy fighters. How they get it is they take the amount of fuel and divide by the fuel burn at the most economical speed and the cruise altitude is 5000 feet and the internal fuel is 361 gallons which includes the fuselage tank, protected and wing tanks unprotected. The reason it is called yardstick range is that it is for comparison purposes only.
> 
> To get an idea of what combat radius that would represent is to divide by two which is roughly 750 and take about 80% which is about 600 miles. That combat radius would depend on the mission profile.
> 
> The yardstick range for the P47 D late/M is at 10000 feet with 370 gallons internal and is 1020 miles which would give a combat radius of roughly 400 miles.



The RAE/RAF used a different method and it is detailed on the aircraft data cards:
so you can compare the range of the Mustang III
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-3.jpg
with a Spitfire VIII
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfirehfviii-ads.jpg
as both ranges are calculated using the same methodology.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> and the range with this mod was equivalent to the Mustang.



There is an error in your assumptions of Spitfire range vs. Mustang range and it is based on the data you provided. The internal fuel of the Mustang III in the report is 150 gallons, (UK). This is the amount of internal fuel, all wing tanks, of the P-51A and some P-51Bs. It does not include the 85 gallons (U.S) fuselage tank in the majority of P-51B and Ds. Apparently, the British Mustang IIIs did not provide the fuselage tank, the one the data page references certainly did not. An accurate comparison, converted to U.S gallons and the requirement to burn off some fuel from the fuselage tanks (est. 20 gallons), of the P-51B to the Spitfire data page would be;* internal fuel P-51*, 249 gallons,* Spitfire (data page*), 144 gallons, and* Spitfire (drawing schematic)* 194 gallons. It is apparent that the P-51B/D carried substantially more internal fuel than either version of the Spitfire, or, 105 gallons more for the first and 55 gallons more for the latter (for a comparison, this is half the fuel load of a Bf-109).

Internal fuel is critical for an escort fighter. When combat is initiated all external fuel is normally jettisoned. That means that the fighter now must fight with internal fuel but not use the fuel required to go home. I estimated in a previous thread that the P-51 would get about .6 minute of combat for each gallon used. This would equate to an additional hour of combat for the P-51 over the Spitfire version on the data sheet and an additional 30 minutes of combat time for the P-51 over the Spitfire version in the tank drawing. In addition, according to the data provided, the P-51 is 11% more fuel efficient so it would not need the same amount of fuel for the home trip, thus increasing its time on target.

It is apparent that, while the two versions of the Spitfire would be capable of the escort mission (the first marginal), their time on target would be significantly less. Also, since the Spitfire in the drawing has aft tanks like the P-51 fuselage tanks, some cg fuel burn off, like the Mustang, might apply, again affecting time on target.


----------



## KevinK. (Aug 30, 2010)

Even the Mustangs had to use drop tanks until they engaged to maximize combat flight time.

As far as the Seafires, the Royal Navy also used carrier based Corsairs both in the PTO and ETO. It was acutally the Brits who figured out how to land it on carriers. Until then the US used it as a land based fighter. I think they had a total of 18 (maybe 19 or 20) squadrons of Corsairs.

Earlier and I'm sorry I didn't qoute. A comparision of the F4-U and the P-47D were compared. I think the F4U-1 was used and not the F4U-4. Which might have been closer in terms of when they entered service(P-47D and F4U-4). In that case the numbers would look a bit different.

F4U-4
Range 1000 miles (w/out Drop tank)
Speed 446 mph (couldn't find the alt @)
Climb rate 3870 ft/min.
Ceiling 41,500 ft.

P-47D
Range 800 miles (w/out drop tanks)
Speed 433 (@30K ft)
Climb rate 3120/ft min.
Ceiling 43,000 ft.

And not to mention:

P-51D
Range 1650 miles (w/drop tanks - couldn't find range w/out)
Speed 437 (sorry again no alt).
Climb rate 3200 ft/min.
Ceiling 41,000 ft.

I know.. I know.. Speed at Alt matters

I think these numbers might give a bit better comparision. If someone wanted to dig up roll, and turn rates it would make it even more interesting. IMHO I think the Corsair is a better dog fighter than either, but not as good at ground attack at the Jug. With the P-51 being the least in ground attack and rated between the others as a dog fighter.

I DO think that those numbers at altitiude are what's going to set them apart. Most of the combat the Corsair took place in wasn't at 30-40k (again I could be wrong, and don't have access to anything like those numbers).

I'd assume some of you out there have access to better numbers and more knowledge than I do when it comes to this. 

Sadly we just can't pull them out the hangers and let them fight it out.


** Now of course I have a found a thread and just made my post soo out of date ***


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2010)

davebender said:


> The Fw-190 series was a high performance but relativley expensive fighter. The Me-109 was dirt cheap yet still had acceptable performance. I don't know if it was accidental or intentional but Germany adopted the High-Low doctrine used by the modern day U.S.A.F. This gives you the most bang for the buck.
> 
> Fw-190 equates to F-15
> Me-109 equates to F-16



Actually I find this a pretty good parellel. They had very versatile and adoptable airframe for many roles with the 190, which excelled at practically everything but as a high altitude fighter. For that role they already had the 109, which could also function reasonably well in other duties. For bomber and night fighter duties, they had the Ju 88, probably the most versatile airframe of the whole war.. they certainly did not need naval fighters, for the lack of a naval air arm, nor longer ranged fighters than the 109/190.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 30, 2010)

Njaco said:


> The 219 Moskito might have been a winner if the glue factories weren't bombed and proper time to iron out bugs been ok. USA never had this problem - discounting Brewster!



Shouldn't that be Ta154 Moskito? The 219 from Heinkel was an all metal a/c.

.........................................

German avgas






...........................................................





World War II Pilot Training Videos Playing Live For Free Over the Internet


----------



## davebender (Aug 30, 2010)

I think these aircraft failed to enter mass production for a reason that has nothing to do with bad glue and political rivalry.

The Ju-88G night fighter entered mass production during late 1943 and it worked just fine. Spending resources to place the Ta-154 and He-219 into mass production would have been pointless as these aircraft offered no significant performance increase.


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 30, 2010)

Absolutely agree...


----------



## davparlr (Aug 30, 2010)

KevinK. said:


> Even the Mustangs had to use drop tanks until they engaged to maximize combat flight time.



I ‘m not sure what you are trying to get at here, but internal fuel load and aerodynamic efficiency is a decisive factor in effectiveness of an escort fighter. Sure, you should carry enough fuel in drop tanks to make the FEBA (front edge of the battle area) but once they’re dropped, usually on contact with the enemy, all you have left to fight with and get home with is internal fuel. As I have said, the P-51 had the advantage over the Spitfire in both internal fuel capacity and in aerodynamic efficiency.




> Earlier and I'm sorry I didn't qoute. A comparision of the F4-U and the P-47D were compared. I think the F4U-1 was used and not the F4U-4. Which might have been closer in terms of when they entered service(P-47D and F4U-4). In that case the numbers would look a bit different.



F4U-4 did not become operational until April ’45. The P-47D first went operational in May ’43. The P-51B/D went operational in December, ’43. In my opinion, a more equitable comparison would be the F4U-1A to the P-47D-5 and the P-51D, or the F4U-4 to the P-47M and the P-51H.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 30, 2010)

davparlr said:


> There is an error in your assumptions of Spitfire range vs. Mustang range and it is based on the data you provided. The internal fuel of the Mustang III in the report is 150 gallons, (UK). This is the amount of internal fuel, all wing tanks, of the P-51A and some P-51Bs. It does not include the 85 gallons (U.S) fuselage tank in the majority of P-51B and Ds. Apparently, the British Mustang IIIs did not provide the fuselage tank, the one the data page references certainly did not. An accurate comparison, converted to U.S gallons and the requirement to burn off some fuel from the fuselage tanks (est. 20 gallons), of the P-51B to the Spitfire data page would be;* internal fuel P-51*, 249 gallons,* Spitfire (data page*), 144 gallons, and* Spitfire (drawing schematic)* 194 gallons. It is apparent that the P-51B/D carried substantially more internal fuel than either version of the Spitfire, or, 105 gallons more for the first and 55 gallons more for the latter (for a comparison, this is half the fuel load of a Bf-109).
> 
> Internal fuel is critical for an escort fighter. When combat is initiated all external fuel is normally jettisoned. That means that the fighter now must fight with internal fuel but not use the fuel required to go home. I estimated in a previous thread that the P-51 would get about .6 minute of combat for each gallon used. This would equate to an additional hour of combat for the P-51 over the Spitfire version on the data sheet and an additional 30 minutes of combat time for the P-51 over the Spitfire version in the tank drawing. In addition, according to the data provided, the P-51 is 11% more fuel efficient so it would not need the same amount of fuel for the home trip, thus increasing its time on target.
> 
> It is apparent that, while the two versions of the Spitfire would be capable of the escort mission (the first marginal), their time on target would be significantly less. Also, since the Spitfire in the drawing has aft tanks like the P-51 fuselage tanks, some cg fuel burn off, like the Mustang, might apply, again affecting time on target.



The Mustang III data card:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-3.jpg
has a note at the bottom of the page that states:
*with extra fuselage tank of 71gals, increase ranges by:
1) 500 miles at most economical
2) 300 miles at max cruise
*
giving a range of 1450 miles at econ cruise and 900 miles, at max cruise. both with 221 igals of internal fuel.

Increasing fuel by 71 gals equals 500/300 miles increase in range or 7.04/ miles/igal

The HF Spit IX data card shows a range of 434/252 miles with 85 igal internal fuel while the HF Spit VIII shows a range of 660/390 with 120 igals, so an increase of 35 igals = a 226/138 mile range increase or a 9%/7% fuel economy advantage for the Mustang. Now if we fit a Spit VIII with the increased internal tankage of the Spit IX long range mod, we get 189 igals of internal fuel, for a range on internal fuel of 1105/670 miles. So the Mustang still has an advantage, but it is apparent that the Spitfire VIII with the LR tanks could have performed as a long range escort.


----------



## renrich (Aug 30, 2010)

The Seafire was not a good carrier fighter as it was too shortranged, it's performance was hampered by being made into a carrier fighter and it was not robust enough. It could never compete as a carrier fighter, no matter what was done to it with purpose built carrier fighters like the Hellcat and Corsair. It's liquid cooled engine was not a good choice because of reliablitiy issues, it was not robust enough and it was just too small. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The Spitfire was a fine design for a short ranged interceptor and IMO, is the most beautiful airplane ever designed, particularly the early models but a carrier borne fighter it was not.

The internal wing tanks were deleted on the F4U1D and the F4U4, in favor of drop tanks but the F4U1 with full internal fuel and a 175 gallon drop tank was carrying a lot of gas. The gas carrying USN fighter champion though was the F4F7 with 685 gallons of internal fuel.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The Mustang III data card:
> 
> The HF Spit IX data card shows a range of 434/252 miles with 85 igal internal fuel while the HF Spit VIII shows a range of 660/390 with 120 igals, so an increase of 35 igals = a 226/138 mile range increase or a 9%/7% fuel economy advantage for the Mustang. Now if we fit a Spit VIII with the increased internal tankage of the Spit IX long range mod, we get 189 igals of internal fuel, for a range on internal fuel of 1105/670 miles. So the Mustang still has an advantage, but it is apparent that the Spitfire VIII with the LR tanks could have performed as a long range escort.




If the RAF was in need of a long range day escort they would have re engineered the spitfire concentrating on increasing internal fuel capacity and reducing drag while simplifying design to allow mass production.


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 30, 2010)

Very interesting info and views guys. You've got me all very interested in this thread!


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 30, 2010)

renrich said:


> It's liquid cooled engine was not a good choice because of reliability issues
> 
> You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear


I wasn't aware of any reliability issues, either with the Merlin- or Griffon-engined Seafires

A sow's ear? Wrong proverb surely?


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 30, 2010)

I'm sure Renrich is referring to the possibility of the liquid cooled engines suffering damage or malfunction that would damage the cooling system.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The HF Spit IX data card shows a range of 434/252 miles with 85 igal internal fuel while the HF Spit VIII shows a range of 660/390 with 120 igals, so an increase of 35 igals = a 226/138 mile range increase or a 9%/7% fuel economy advantage for the Mustang. Now if we fit a Spit VIII with the increased internal tankage of the Spit IX long range mod, we get 189 igals of internal fuel, for a range on internal fuel of 1105/670 miles. So the Mustang still has an advantage, but it is apparent that the Spitfire VIII with the LR tanks could have performed as a long range escort.


I'm trying to juggle this in my head
but some of your wording has lost me a bit so let me just ask:

How far into Germany do you think a Spitfire VIII long range escort would get and what would be the combat margin once the Luftwaffe showed up and the RAF jettisoned the drop tanks?

Would you describe the Spitfire VIII as suitably armed for a prolongued gunfight?


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 30, 2010)

renrich said:


> The Seafire was not a good carrier fighter as it was too shortranged, it's performance was hampered by being made into a carrier fighter and it was not robust enough. It could never compete as a carrier fighter, no matter what was done to it with purpose built carrier fighters like the Hellcat and Corsair. It's liquid cooled engine was not a good choice because of reliablitiy issues, it was not robust enough and it was just too small. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The Spitfire was a fine design for a short ranged interceptor and IMO, is the most beautiful airplane ever designed, particularly the early models but a carrier borne fighter it was not.
> 
> The internal wing tanks were deleted on the F4U1D and the F4U4, in favor of drop tanks but the F4U1 with full internal fuel and a 175 gallon drop tank was carrying a lot of gas. The gas carrying USN fighter champion though was the F4F7 with 685 gallons of internal fuel.



The Seafire certainly had drawbacks but it also must have had access to only a tiny fraction of the engineering resources, used for purpose built fighters, committed to its transformation to a carrier borne fighter. The later variants, such as the Mk XV, achieved much greater robustness and performance, however the Merlin engined Seafire still had some advantages over radial engined fighters, in that it was much lighter and the Seafire III had a very compact form, with the wings folded. A carrier could probably have carried more Seafires than other types, while the cost per aircraft, based upon airframe weight would probably be lower. The rate of climb and low altitude performance was excellent, but the low altitude optimization of the Seafire III makes it appear to be a poor performer, when under 10000ft it was very competitive. However, my point is that the Seafire could have "made do" if it was the only Allied single engined carrier fighter.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 30, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I'm trying to juggle this in my head
> but some of your wording has lost me a bit so let me just ask:
> 
> How far into Germany do you think a Spitfire VIII long range escort would get and what would be the combat margin once the Luftwaffe showed up and the RAF jettisoned the drop tanks?
> ...



I started this line of thought to explore the results of a "Spitfire only" Allied fighter force, in response to post 27 in this thread. Yes the LR Spitfire will have less range than a Mustang, but this doesn't prohibit it from performing long range flights, as most German targets were less than 650 miles from 8th AF bases in the UK. The Spitfire VIII data card states that for every 5 minutes at combat power, reduce the range on internal fuel by 80/43 miles. So 15 minutes of combat would give the LR Spitfire 860/540 miles remaining range. USAAF pilots might prefer to fit 4 or 6 x .5" HMG armament with more firing time than cannon armed Spitfires, but a switch to a 2 x 20mm and two by .5" guns would allow a pilot to use the cannon and switch to the .5" when the cannon ammo is gone and thus extend the firing time. Alternatively delete the .5" MGs and use 2 x 20mm with more ammo. There are lots of feasible permutations to explore.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 30, 2010)

An all Spitfire airforce and navy would be a bad thng.

The Spitfire was a marginal Naval foghter and a marginal ground attacker.

Sticking to a mid 1930s design would be throwing away any new technologies and thinking.

Spitfire does one thing very good...the rest not so much.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I started this line of thought to explore the results of a "Spitfire only" Allied fighter force, in response to post 27 in this thread. Yes the LR Spitfire will have less range than a Mustang, but this doesn't prohibit it from performing long range flights, as most German targets were less than 650 miles from 8th AF bases in the UK. The Spitfire VIII data card states that for every 5 minutes at combat power, reduce the range on internal fuel by 80/43 miles. So 15 minutes of combat would give the LR Spitfire 860/540 miles remaining range. USAAF pilots might prefer to fit 4 or 6 x .5" HMG armament with more firing time than cannon armed Spitfires, but a switch to a 2 x 20mm and two by .5" guns would allow a pilot to use the cannon and switch to the .5" when the cannon ammo is gone and thus extend the firing time. Alternatively delete the .5" MGs and use 2 x 20mm with more ammo. There are lots of feasible permutations to explore.



From bits I have read here on these forums and elsewhere

1 The spitfires eliptical wing has fundamentally more drag than the lamellar trapezoidal wing of the mustang.
2 The Mustang was designed from the start to have low drag, From things as major as frontal area and wing aerodynamics and size of control surfaces to as minor as fit of panels and rivet finish it was less draggy.
Less drag not only gives a potentially higher speed but also lower fuel consumption for the same speed/altitude with the same engine.
3 The spitfire due to its original design was marginal on stability, attempts to increase its range made it unstable, this was also true for the mustang but not so pronounced. The Mustang loaded with all internal tanks full was at the limits of stability, but experiments with the spitfire reached those limits much sooner.
4 All the military in WW2 would have preferred canon armament but all also had problems installing it. Cannons mounted in the fuselage were no problem (as in the mosquito) but in the wings were unreliable and for high altitude use needed to be heated. Eventually wing mounted canon in the spitfire were mounted on their sides and belt fed but needed to be kept warm by an air bleed from the radiator. It proved difficult to heat the outside cannon ( the wing was too thin) and so high altitute spitfires generally had two cannon with 4 x 0.303 or 2 x 0.5" MGs. The British initially stuck with the .303 for the same reason as the Americans stuck with the 0.5"....they were good enough for what was required, they worked and it was what they were used to.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 30, 2010)

Messy1 said:


> I'm sure Renrich is referring to the possibility of the liquid cooled engines suffering damage or malfunction that would damage the cooling system.



Reliability is reliability Air or liquid cooled, if you want to read about reliability issues read about the B29 in its early days.


----------



## KevinK. (Aug 30, 2010)

davparlr said:


> I ‘m not sure what you are trying to get at here, but internal fuel load and aerodynamic efficiency is a decisive factor in effectiveness of an escort fighter. Sure, you should carry enough fuel in drop tanks to make the FEBA (front edge of the battle area) but once they’re dropped, usually on contact with the enemy, all you have left to fight with and get home with is internal fuel. As I have said, the P-51 had the advantage over the Spitfire in both internal fuel capacity and in aerodynamic efficiency.



*Sorry davparlr, I was agreeing with you. I'm sorry I was not very clear. My point was that Mustangs had to use drop tanks to maximize combat time before fuel restrictions forced them to head home.*


[/QUOTE]F4U-4 did not become operational until April ’45. The P-47D first went operational in May ’43. The P-51B/D went operational in December, ’43. In my opinion, a more equitable comparison would be the F4U-1A to the P-47D-5 and the P-51D, or the F4U-4 to the P-47M and the P-51H.[/QUOTE]

*I was thinking that the F4U-4 came about in 1943, and that the -5 models came out in late 1944/early 1945. But after solidly checking (I was at work for my original post) You are correct.*

Sorry I shot off without being 100%.


----------



## KevinK. (Aug 30, 2010)

renrich said:


> The Seafire was not a good carrier fighter as it was too shortranged, it's performance was hampered by being made into a carrier fighter and it was not robust enough. It could never compete as a carrier fighter, no matter what was done to it with purpose built carrier fighters like the Hellcat and Corsair. It's liquid cooled engine was not a good choice because of reliablitiy issues, it was not robust enough and it was just too small. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The Spitfire was a fine design for a short ranged interceptor and IMO, is the most beautiful airplane ever designed, particularly the early models but a carrier borne fighter it was not.
> 
> The internal wing tanks were deleted on the F4U1D and the F4U4, in favor of drop tanks but the F4U1 with full internal fuel and a 175 gallon drop tank was carrying a lot of gas. The gas carrying USN fighter champion though was the F4F7 with 685 gallons of internal fuel.



renrich, that's why the Brits found ways to get the landing problems on carriers out of F4U-1's and took several squadrons of them to help replace the SeaSpits.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 30, 2010)

davebender said:


> I think these aircraft failed to enter mass production for a reason that has nothing to do with bad glue and political rivalry.
> 
> The Ju-88G night fighter entered mass production during late 1943 and it worked just fine. Spending resources to place the Ta-154 and He-219 into mass production would have been pointless as these aircraft offered no significant performance increase.



I stand corrected Milosh and should get 20 lashes for that faux pa! Dave, I agree that the glue wasn't the main reason but I do think it hindered production. I still think the stress of Allied bombing sent designs scrambling for the best answer to it.


----------



## timmy (Aug 31, 2010)

Its amazing how it worked out so well for the allies compared to the axis I think

You could argue that the allies only had one good fighter up to 1943 (spitfire)

But by the second half of 1943 they had so much choice at their disposal they really must of licking their lips
By 1943 the Mustang/Corsair/Lightning/Thunderbolt/Hellcat a lot of those problematic designs early in their development
Where finally ready for mass production. I'm not sure how many they built...maybe 20 000 units each ???

Which i think worked out well in the end. All those designs had a particular strength which must have made high command very happy.
The Germans still with only the 109/190 and over investing in extremely problematic Jet aircraft. Have must have been so envious


----------



## renrich (Aug 31, 2010)

Timmy, if one checks the record, the F4F Wildcat had much more success in the Pacific in 1942 than did the Spitfire. There may have been reasons for that other than the performance of the Spitfire but the fact remains that, based on results, the Spitfire was not as good a fighter as the F4F in 1942, early 1943, in the Pacific.

The USN and IMO correctly, was prejudiced against liquid cooled engines for reliability reasons. In Shores' books, time and time again British fighters were U/S because of glycol leaks and were brought down by minor damage. In fact the Japanese were said to, being aware of the cooling system vulnerability of the liquid cooled engines, have specifically aimed at the areas where cooling system damage would disable the British fighters.

The Seafire offered no substantial performance advantage over the A6M and, in several areas, was significantly inferior to the Zeke. This was not true in comparison to the Hellcat and Corsair. In fact in many respects, the Seafire was inferior to the Wildcat (Martlet.) If the Allies had to depend on a prewar design for it's carrier fighter, the Pacific War would have been lengthened if that design was the Spitfire. Every modification to the Spitfire to make it more suitable as a shipboard fighter robbed it of some of the characteristics which made it a great design. The last model of the Wildcat, the F2M, was a pretty good airplane and soldiered on through the whole war both in the PTO and ETO.


----------



## Glider (Aug 31, 2010)

I read somewhere a line that described the Seafire as Just About Good Enough as a naval fighter which is a pretty fair statement. Its true that the FAA were keener on the Hellcat and Corsiar.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2010)

Apparently not too much. Or else Germany would have placed the Jumo004A jet engine into mass production during 1943 rather then beginning the massive Type XXI submarine program.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 31, 2010)

renrich said:


> Timmy, if one checks the record, the F4F Wildcat had much more success in the Pacific in 1942 than did the Spitfire. There may have been reasons for that other than the performance of the Spitfire but the fact remains that, based on results, the Spitfire was not as good a fighter as the F4F in 1942, early 1943, in the Pacific.
> 
> The USN and IMO correctly, was prejudiced against liquid cooled engines for reliability reasons. In Shores' books, time and time again British fighters were U/S because of glycol leaks and were brought down by minor damage. In fact the Japanese were said to, being aware of the cooling system vulnerability of the liquid cooled engines, have specifically aimed at the areas where cooling system damage would disable the British fighters.
> 
> The Seafire offered no substantial performance advantage over the A6M and, in several areas, was significantly inferior to the Zeke. This was not true in comparison to the Hellcat and Corsair. In fact in many respects, the Seafire was inferior to the Wildcat (Martlet.) If the Allies had to depend on a prewar design for it's carrier fighter, the Pacific War would have been lengthened if that design was the Spitfire. Every modification to the Spitfire to make it more suitable as a shipboard fighter robbed it of some of the characteristics which made it a great design. The last model of the Wildcat, the F2M, was a pretty good airplane and soldiered on through the whole war both in the PTO and ETO.




The first combat encounters between the Spitfire and IJN/IJAAF aircraft did not occur until mid 1943. The first encounters between the Seafire and the IJNAF did not occur until 1944-45.

The Seafire III/F4F-4/F6F-3, for example had the following performance (from Oct42 and Sept 1943 reports):

Time to 20K ft: 6.5min/12.7/10
Time to 10K ft 2.5min/5.7/4.6
Speed:
SL: 302mph/275/
5000ft: 325mph/285/315
10000ft: 350mph/300/333
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lr765speed.jpg (sept 43)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-detail-specification.pdf (oct 1942)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/fn322.pdf (sept 43)


----------



## renrich (Sep 1, 2010)

Whether or not the Spitfire did poorly against the Zeke in 42 or 43 is beside the point as it did not do as well as the F4F did in 1942 and early 43. 

According to Eric Brown who was well acquainted with the Spitfire and Seafire, the Seafire was not a good carrier plane because it was not robust enough, did not have good slow speed handling characteristics and acted like a submarine in a ditching. It was quite often U/S because of it's fragility and poor deck landing abilities. If it can't fly it is of no use.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 1, 2010)

renrich said:


> Whether or not the Spitfire did poorly against the Zeke in 42 or 43 is beside the point as it did not do as well as the F4F did in 1942 and early 43.
> 
> According to Eric Brown who was well acquainted with the Spitfire and Seafire, the Seafire was not a good carrier plane because it was not robust enough, did not have good slow speed handling characteristics and acted like a submarine in a ditching. It was quite often U/S because of it's fragility and poor deck landing abilities. If it can't fly it is of no use.



I don't know what you are referring to in terms of F4F versus Seafire. as the Seafire did not encounter IJNAF aircraft till 44/45.

I read Wings of the Navy, and IIRC, Brown states that it was the good low speed handling characteristics. low stall speed and short take off run, of the Hurricane and Spitfire that allowed these fighters to be adapted to carrier operation. The Sea Hurricane and Seafire were operated off escort carriers with 450ft decks and did so successfully, however the Seafire did have problems off the Italian coast when the escort carriers operated in windless conditions. The Seafires had great difficulty landing on such short decks as the escort carriers could only make 17 knots. Certainly the Seafire was not as robust as purpose built types, but it was not as bad as many believe, especially when being operated from fleet carriers, with longer decks and higher speeds. The Hurricane and Spitfire were reputed to have poor ditching qualities but for the catapult launched Hurricane, which often had to ditch. only one pilot was lost and he may have been killed by bomber defensive fire. IIRC, an RAF Spitfire that took off from USS Wasp for a flight to Malta was actually able to land on the carrier again with no arrestor gear , after developing mechanical problems. The LG problems were progressively engineered out of the Seafire showing that it was development time and effort that was key to the transformation to naval fighter.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 1, 2010)

renrich said:


> Whether or not the Spitfire did poorly against the Zeke in 42 or 43 is beside the point as it did not do as well as the F4F did in 1942 and early 43.
> 
> According to Eric Brown who was well acquainted with the Spitfire and Seafire, the Seafire was not a good carrier plane because it was not robust enough, did not have good slow speed handling characteristics and acted like a submarine in a ditching. It was quite often U/S because of it's fragility and poor deck landing abilities. If it can't fly it is of no use.



The Seafires weaknesses are the narrow track undercarriage...range...not robust enough...ditching qualities...

Just what you need at sea.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 1, 2010)

The Basket said:


> The Seafires weaknesses are the narrow track undercarriage...range...not robust enough...ditching qualities...
> 
> Just what you need at sea.




I am surprised that the Hurricane wasnt developed more for carrier operations addrssing performance and range issues, it had a wide track and robust construction. Maybe they had enough on their plate as it was.


----------



## The Basket (Sep 1, 2010)

Making the Spitfire into a naval fighter was a case of best effort. The FAA was a very poor relation and made do. I am not saying it was rubbish...but it wasnt good either...just best of a bad situation.

Hurricane was already obsolete by 1940.... making it heavier for naval use is just taking the urine.

Don't mean it don't have uses but fighter v fighter won't be on its list.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 1, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I am surprised that the Hurricane wasn't developed more for carrier operations addressing performance and range issues, it had a wide track and robust construction. Maybe they had enough on their plate as it was


The Hurricane
went through its development life cycle being equipped with successively more powerful versions of the Merlin. Unfortunately, with structural changes it kept getting heavier too so never really ended up being meaningfully any faster than the original Mk I and I'm not talking solely about performance at altitude.

How would the range issue be resolved unless we're talking about drop tanks and if we are, what capacity drop tanks before the Hurricane stops being able to depart the flight deck? Even if it still can, it's going to fly further than it normally does and - not drop anything on anyone. Alot of risk and distance just to beat someone's airstrip up with your machine guns...

Hurricanes and Spitfires were designed as interceptors, nobody envisaged traversing large expanses of ocean.

By 1942-43 the Hurricane was a museum piece that got work doing North African ground attack. It also got work on CAM ships because it was just the disposable fighter they needed.


----------



## renrich (Sep 1, 2010)

The statement was in one of Timmy's posts that the Allies had only one good fighter, the Spitfire, until 1943. My post in reply to that was that the F4F pretty much fought the A6M to a draw in 1942 and early 1943, before the Corsair and Hellcat got to the Pacific to give the Allies a clear advantage over the Zeke. Based on that record and the later experiece that the Spitfires had in the Pacific and the CBI with the A6M, the statement about the Allies having only one good fighter until 1943 was in error, IMO. 

I never mentioned anything about the Seafire and Zekes. From "Duels in the Sky" by Eric Brown, page 114. "It was in the critical area of deck landing that the Sea Fire had significant shortcomings. The view on approach was poor. Speed control was difficult because the airplane was underflapped and too clean aerodynamically. Furthermore, landing gear had too high a rebound ratio and was not robust enough to withstand the high vertical velocities of deck landing." " The Seafire's performance fell below that of the land based Spitfire because navalisation incurred the penalties of weight and drag. Never designed for shipboard use the Seafire was difficult to deck land and it acted like a submarine when ditched."

Page 211, " The Seafire, the shipboard version of the Spitfire, was extensively used in the Med and in the later stages of the war on a limited scale in the Far East, but it's short range limited it to the CAP role. Unfortunately, it's deck landing disadvantages probably resulted in more operational losses than combat successes."

My summing up- The Seafire was too fragile, too short ranged, did not have much or any performance advantage over first class opposition and had many deck landing problems which decreased the number of fighters available for operations. It could not remain on CAP very long because it ran out of fuel and it could not escort Vbs or Vts. It was obviously better than nothing but the F4F(Martlet) was more effective as a shipboard fighter.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 1, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> The Hurricane
> went through its development life cycle being equipped with successively more powerful versions of the Merlin. Unfortunately, with structural changes it kept getting heavier too so never really ended up being meaningfully any faster than the original Mk I and I'm not talking solely about performance at altitude.
> 
> How would the range issue be resolved unless we're talking about drop tanks and if we are, what capacity drop tanks before the Hurricane stops being able to depart the flight deck? Even if it still can, it's going to fly further than it normally does and - not drop anything on anyone. Alot of risk and distance just to beat someone's airstrip up with your machine guns...
> ...



I didnt mean fiddling about I meant starting with the good points (wide track and robust constuction) and making a purpose designed carrier fighter. I suppose the FAA almost always got cast offs. Maybe if the Typhoon hadnt had the problems it had it would have been a good carrier plane after all via the tempest the Sea Fury wasnt bad.


----------



## davebender (Sep 1, 2010)

Blohm Voss BV 155 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did Britain consider a more comprehensive CV conversion of the Spitfire like Germany did with the Me-109? I'm referring to a completely new wing with wide track landing gear and lower stall speed.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 1, 2010)

davebender said:


> Did Britain consider a more comprehensive CV conversion of the Spitfire like Germany did with the Me-109? I'm referring to a completely new wing with wide track landing gear and lower stall speed.



That would be the Seafang, the naval version of the Spiteful.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 1, 2010)

Milosh said:


> That would be the Seafang, the naval version of the Spiteful.



The Griffon engined Seafire Mk. XVII did receive a stronger wing and LG with longer struts and a wider track, and this was a first version that was probably equivalent to a purpose built naval fighter in terms of strength. However, if the FAA and/or the USN had decided to mod the Spitfire for carrier work, say in 1939, a fully navalized version could have been ready by 1942, or sooner depending on the resources committed to the project.

Considering that 10 RAF Hurricanes landed successfully on HMS Glorious in 1940. I would suspect that the Sea Hurricane could have been available to the FAA much sooner, but it still made its first carrier based kill in late July 1941.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 1, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> The Hurricane
> went through its development life cycle being equipped with successively more powerful versions of the Merlin. Unfortunately, with structural changes it kept getting heavier too so never really ended up being meaningfully any faster than the original Mk I and I'm not talking solely about performance at altitude.
> 
> How would the range issue be resolved unless we're talking about drop tanks and if we are, what capacity drop tanks before the Hurricane stops being able to depart the flight deck? Even if it still can, it's going to fly further than it normally does and - not drop anything on anyone. Alot of risk and distance just to beat someone's airstrip up with your machine guns...
> ...



The Hurricane IIB featured 2 more MGs in the outer sections of each wing. It seems to me that these could have been removed and extra fuel tanks substituted in their place. An armament of 4 x .5" BMGs would have been sufficient IMHO, in place of the 8 x .303" MGs and lighter than the 4 x 20mm cannon armament of the successful Sea Hurricane IC. So with moderate development a longer ranged Sea Hurricane could have been developed and by 1942 the Merlin was cleared for 14 -16lb boost allowing the Sea Hurricane to retain a very lively low altitude performance. At full combat rating the IC with Merlin III could probably climb at over 3500fpm, while a 4 x .5" variant would probably have exceeded 4000fpm which would be tops amongst carrier fighters in Aug 1942. These charts tell us the combat ratings of the Hurricane I with only 12lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Climb-HRuch.png (3500fpm at SL)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png (290mph at SL)

The Hurricane and Spitfire had enough lift and power that TO from a fleet carrier would not have been a problem at any feasible weight.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 1, 2010)

The Basket said:


> Making the Spitfire into a naval fighter was a case of best effort. The FAA was a very poor relation and made do. I am not saying it was rubbish...but it wasnt good either...just best of a bad situation.
> 
> Hurricane was already obsolete by 1940.... .



The Sea Hurricane seems to have done rather better than the Martlet (F4F), when both types flew against the Luftwaffe during Operation Pedestal, in Aug 1942, and in Aug 1942 what other choices for naval fighters were there?


----------



## timmy (Sep 1, 2010)

renrich said:


> The statement was in one of Timmy's posts that the Allies had only one good fighter, the Spitfire, until 1943. My post in reply to that was that the F4F pretty much fought the A6M to a draw in 1942 and early 1943, before the Corsair and Hellcat got to the Pacific to give the Allies a clear advantage over the Zeke. Based on that record and the later experiece that the Spitfires had in the Pacific and the CBI with the A6M, the statement about the Allies having only one good fighter until 1943 was in error, IMO.
> 
> I never mentioned anything about the Seafire and Zekes. From "Duels in the Sky" by Eric Brown, page 114. "It was in the critical area of deck landing that the Sea Fire had significant shortcomings. The view on approach was poor. Speed control was difficult because the airplane was underflapped and too clean aerodynamically. Furthermore, landing gear had too high a rebound ratio and was not robust enough to withstand the high vertical velocities of deck landing." " The Seafire's performance fell below that of the land based Spitfire because navalisation incurred the penalties of weight and drag. Never designed for shipboard use the Seafire was difficult to deck land and it acted like a submarine when ditched."
> 
> ...



There has always been debates about how we should look back at the F4F wildcat
Was it a great carrier fighter ??? In the end its combat record stood at 6.9:1 for the entire war
So that should be the end of the argument right...but is it ???

The allies only carrier friendly aircraft was said to be out classed by the Zeke in every performance 
category, climb, speed and range.The only advantages it had was armer and in a dive.
I really don't think we give enough credit to the U.S navy pilots training in combating the Zeke
The 'Thach weave', dive to escape and learning not to dogfiight with the Zero paid big dividends 
I also believed that even before the Hellcat appeared the Japanese was already running out of
experience Pilots which might explain how the combat record of the wildcat greatly improved as
the War progressed

To back that argument the f6f Hellcat while a good naval fighter, I don't it was That much better
to warrant a 13 to 1 combat record against the Zeke. Which is really a bloodbath! 
U.S pilot training should get some credit....just my 2 cents Timmy


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 2, 2010)

timmy said:


> ...the F4F Wildcat
> Was it a great carrier fighter? In the end its combat record stood at 6.9:1 for the entire war
> 
> The Allies only carrier-friendly aircraft was said to be outclassed by the Zeke in every performance
> ...


If USN pilots were achieving 6.9:1 in an aircraft outclassed by the Zeke in every performance category bar armour and dive, their excellence is, for me, implied

If they can achieve 6.9:1 in an outclassed F4F why is 13:1 in an F6F designed specifically to deal with the Zeke so difficult to believe? F4F pilots would transition to the F6F, bringing all their Zeke combat experience with them and exploiting it in a bigger, better bird.

The F6F went into the ring with the Japanese mid-1943; I'm not that certain the IJN were a spent force by then, there was still a long way to go in the Pacific war so can I ask what the basis is for your argument that most of the IJN experience was eliminated _prior_ to the F6F showing up?


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2010)

What about all the U.S. Army Air Corps aircraft that supported Gen MacArthur's offensive to re-take New Guinea and the Philippines? Probably quite a few Australian aircraft also. I suspect Gen MacArthur's air force flew a lot more sorties against Japan then CV based USN aircraft.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 2, 2010)

davebender said:


> What about all the U.S. Army Air Corps aircraft that supported Gen MacArthur's offensive to re-take New Guinea and the Philippines? Probably quite a few Australian aircraft also. I suspect Gen MacArthur's air force flew a lot more sorties against Japan then CV based USN aircraft.


Dave
I'm not sure what your point is


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

timmy said:


> There has always been debates about how we should look back at the F4F wildcat
> Was it a great carrier fighter ??? In the end its combat record stood at 6.9:1 for the entire war
> So that should be the end of the argument right...but is it ???
> 
> ...



I read that one Japanese ace got so frustrated with his radio never working he took it out and threw it on the ground as dead weight. If all pilots had the same experience then most of the time they were operating like WW1 planes against radar guided and radio equiped oponents so they were usually at a tactical disadvantage.

The zero was light with no armour self sealing tanks and constructed from an alloy which was light but brittle (according to wiki??? see below) which was fine so long as the enemy didnt shoot back. This may be a result of experience in China where the enemy had limited means to shoot back. If a wildcat was made to the same design philosophy it would have performed much better as an aeroplane but I doubt the pilots would prefer the changes.
quote
Every weight-saving method was used. Most of the aircraft was built of T-7178 aluminum, a top-secret aluminum alloy developed by the Japanese just for this aircraft. It was lighter and stronger than the normal aluminum used at the time, but was more brittle.
unquote


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 2, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> The zero was light with no armour self sealing tanks and constructed from an alloy which was light but brittle (according to wiki??? see below) which was fine so long as the enemy didnt shoot back. This may be a result of experience in China where the enemy had limited means to shoot back. If a wildcat was made to the same design philosophy it would have performed much better as an aeroplane but I doubt the pilots would prefer the changes.
> 
> Every weight-saving method was used. Most of the aircraft was built of T-7178 aluminum, a top-secret aluminum alloy developed by the Japanese just for this aircraft. It was lighter and stronger than the normal aluminum used at the time, but was more brittle


Initially
Wildcats _were_ made to the same design philosophy. It too was a pretty sparkly performer for its time. Intelligence reports coming in from Europe urged the implementation of self-sealing tanks and armour and thus burdened, the Wildcat became the restrained beast that eventually faced off with the A6M.

I don't know anything about 'brittle' aluminium but the skinning was thinner on the earlier A6Ms than their Allied counterparts, they beefed it up for the A6M7 but with a powerplant barely more powerful than the orginal Sakae 21, the type took a retrograde performance step in the face of Allied fighters that had already overtaken it.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 2, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Initially
> Wildcats _were_ made to the same design philosophy. It too was a pretty sparkly performer for its time. Intelligence reports coming in from Europe urged the implementation of self-sealing tanks and armour and thus burdened, the Wildcat became the restrained beast that eventually faced off with the A6M.
> 
> I don't know anything about 'brittle' aluminium but the skinning was thinner on the earlier A6Ms than their Allied counterparts, they beefed it up for the A6M7 but with a powerplant barely more powerful than the orginal Sakae 21, the type took a retrograde performance step in the face of Allied fighters that had already overtaken it.



I looked in various sites on the 7178 alloy and although it didnt give an impact strength (charpy value) it did say that it was difficult to form in a radius less than 5 times wall thickness. Although this doesnt directly say its brittle such lack of ductility implies a brittle structure, the last thing you need when being hit by 12.5mm MGs


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2010)

How did the P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47 and P-51 fare vs IJA fighter aircraft like the Ki-27, Ki-43 and Ki-61?


----------



## timmy (Sep 2, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> If USN pilots were achieving 6.9:1 in an aircraft outclassed by the Zeke in every performance category bar armour and dive, their excellence is, for me, implied


true


Colin1 said:


> If they can achieve 6.9:1 in an outclassed F4F why is 13:1 in an F6F designed specifically to deal with the Zeke so difficult to believe? F4F pilots would transition to the F6F, bringing all their Zeke combat experience with them and exploiting it in a bigger, better bird.


Not hard to believe, just do not think it was a 13 to 1 better airplane. It all comes back to what I was saying earlier that some of the Wildcats success was due to superior pilot training and tactics 


Colin1 said:


> The F6F went into the ring with the Japanese mid-1943; I'm not that certain the IJN were a spent force by then, there was still a long way to go in the Pacific war so can I ask what the basis is for your argument that most of the IJN experience was eliminated _prior_ to the F6F showing up?


Sorry didn't mean to word it as the IJN was a spend force more a case that a believe a lot of the creme had gone.I can't back it up, just something I'm sure I read some where. Maybe someone else here can help


----------



## renrich (Sep 2, 2010)

Timmy, agree wholeheartedly with your post. In WW2, I believe that the pilots trained by the USN were some of the best trained in the world. From Lundstrom, "The First Team," the finest and best researched book about air fighting in WW2, IMO: "In philosophy of gunnery training and marksmanship, the pilots of the USN exercised a system superior to those of all of the world's air forces."

However, the performance of the Zeke, although outstanding, was not as superior to the F4F3s which were the first Wildcats to engage the A6M as it was compared to the F4F4 which supplanted the 3s just before Midway. The later FM2 regained pretty much the performance of the early F4F and it was pretty sprightly.

Because this forum is very Eurocentric, I find there is a lot of understandable prejudice and a general attitude that the main event was the ETO and what happened in the Pacific was kind of immaterial and contested by the second and third string. Also, I believe we are all too impressed by raw performance figures which we believe tell the tale in combat and we tend to ignore one performance factor which is range and are somewhat ignorant about another all important factor-seviceability. If the fighter is not in the fight then it's performance does not matter.

In the ETO, the Spitfire has a deserved redoubtable reputation and as an interceptor and air superiority fighter it was a premier fighter if it could get into the fight. In the Pacific and SE Asia, it was handicapped by it's short range and had serviceability issues which limited it's effectiveness. The British Isles from north to south is only 700 miles and from London to Warsaw is 800 miles. Those are short distances in the Pacific.

Many believe that the A6M was a flimsy firetrap with so so armament but in 41-42, flown by highly trained and experienced pilots it was probably the equal of any fighter in the world. Later it's armament was augmented and armor and protected fuel tanks added but it's performance could not be improved because of the added weight so it fell behind it's Allied opponents although it was still a worthy foe if flown by an experienced pilot. The KI43 was somewhat similar to the A6M and, well flown, was still formidable in 44-45.


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2010)

> In the ETO, the Spitfire has a deserved redoubtable reputation and as an interceptor and air superiority fighter it was a premier fighter if it could get into the fight. In the Pacific and SE Asia, it was handicapped by it's short range


Endurance was a handicap for the Spitfire in Europe too. During the invasions of Sicily, Salerno and Anzio Spitfires could not spend much time loitering over Allied ports and beach heads. Even though vastly outnumbered, the Luftwaffe learned how to strike quickly between Spitfire shift changes. That slowed the build up of Allied forces in the beach head, leading to desperate measures like reinforcing the beach head with paratroops.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 2, 2010)

davebender said:


> How did the P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47 and P-51 fare vs IJA fighter aircraft like the Ki-27, Ki-43 and Ki-61?


The IJA appeared in New Guinea and the Solomons right at the end of 1942, and beginning of 1943 respectively. So, other than AVG P-40's in early 1942 and USAAF P-40's in China later on, the USAAF itself rarely met the JAAF in 1942, just a few encounters with older Type 97's (Nate) in Philippines and Dutch East Indies where P-40 achieved <1 kill ratio. And, unfortunately IJA air records are less complete in general than IJN ones so the real story in 1943 is not as clear as it is in many cases of IJN air ops in '42 and '43. At least early combats, featuring P-38, P-39 and P-40 w IJN Zero units and IJA Type 1 (Oscar) units both appearing over NG, those that are really known, tended to come out somewhere close to even in reality. The situation surely deteriorated for the IJA overall as more US units deployed, and more had the advanced types like P-38 and P-47 (P-51 wasn't used in SWPA until late 1944); they also faced the famous relentless air attacks on their fields (those cool pictures of parafrag bombs landed next to IJA a/c but not detonated yet). By all accounts the IJA was in bad shape in NG by second half of '43, but I could not quote a specific typical fighter-fighter real kill ratio. It introduced the Type 3 (Tony) in the theater at that time, but even Japanese accounts are mixed about that a/c, some still clung to the idea that a Type 1 with alert pilot could always evade an Allied hit and run attack, and a Type 3 had less visibility and manueverability. OTOH sooner or later, formations would be caught unaware and suffer heavily; though on 'the third hand' the Type 3 was less serviceable (the Zero and Type 1 were apparently remarkably reliable and tolerant of poor field conditions, note example we went though mission by mission of Zeroes operating agianst Darwin in 1943, *no* operational losses if assume all 4 losses were downed by Spitfires, and probably were, pattern in NG is similar studying mission by mission, operational losses rare, mechanical aborts not so common either).

It may 'jumping in with ten league boots' again, but somebody quoted 6.9 ratio for F4F which is just not remotely realistic for real fighter-fighter kill ratio, that's the claimed ratio (approx anyway) v all types; the real ratio v Zero was around 1:1 in 1942, and doesn't seem to have dramatically risen in '43 Solomons combats before the F4F was phased out (not counting the FM-2's career in 1944-45). F4F's also met Type 1's over the Solomons in a few combats in early 1943 before the Japanese settled on using Army air units in NG and Navy ones in the Solomons. The outcomes were not vastly different than against Zeroes in those few cases, nor did the F4F pilots recognize immediately that they were facing a different opponent.

But again the original benchmark of most Allied types (USAAF P-39 and P-40 in early going, as well as Brit/CW and Dutch) v the Zero in early-mid 1942 was several:1 in Zero's favor; and IJA Type 1's maintained a several:1 kill ratio v Hurricanes all the way through 1943, and Spitfire's record v Zero in 1943 was similar. 

Achieving kill ratio parity with Zeroes, or even Type 1's, even in early 1943 was not like falling out of bed. That was success relative to many Allied performances, and in the bigger picture of the war, where the Allies had much greater ability to replace losses: 1:1 fighter attriction combat was a disaster for the Japanese, given their lesser ability to replace losses. Then it got worse as kill ratios really shifted againt them, as '43 went on, in most theaters.

Joe


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2010)

Apparently we need to review the historical timeline. 

8 Dec 1941.
Japanese forces occupy Batan Island and Calayan Island (Philippine Island group). Both small islands were used as forward air bases for the invasion of Luzon.

9 Dec 1941.
Japanese forces occupy Makin (Gilbert Islands) for use as a seaplane base.

10 Dec 1941.
IJA siezes the Aparri, Luzon airfield. This allows them to base short range aircraft like the Ki-27 within support range of the main Luzon invasion.

10 Dec 1941.
IJA invades Burma.

12 Dec 1941.
Japanese seize Legaspi (southern Luzon) for use as an air base.

16 Dec 1941.
IJA invade Borneo.

17 Dec 1941.
IJA land at Sarawak, Borneo.

18 Dec 1941.
IJA invade Hong Kong.

22 Dec 1941.
IJA land at Lingayen Gulf, Luzon. This was the main Philippine invasion.

7 Jan 1942.
IJA land on Masbate (Philippines).

11 Jan 1942.
IJA invade East Indies and Dutch Borneo.

20 Jan 1942.
IJA begin "Operation R". The invasion of Rabaul and Kavieng.

30 Jan 1942.
IJA invade Ambon (Dutch East Indies).

2 Feb 1942.
IJA invade Java.

14 Feb 1942.
IJA invade Sumatra.

15 Feb 1942.
Singapore surrenders to IJA.

19 Feb 1942.
IJA invade Bali.

20 Feb 1942.
IJA invade Timor.

27 Feb 1942.
IJA seize the Calapan, Mindoro airfield.

5 March 1942.
IJA "Operation SR". Invasion of Lae and Salamuana, New Guinea.

As you can see the IJA moved very quickly when they wanted to. 8 December 1941 to 5 March 1942 must have set a world record for the number of amphibious landings. And they were all successful. By the end of March 1942 the IJA already controlled most of the New Guinea coast.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 2, 2010)

davebender said:


> Apparently we need to review the historical timeline.
> 
> . By the end of March 1942 the IJA already controlled most of the New Guinea coast.


I'm not sure I follow the point of that post. If it's in response to my post saying IJA *air* units seldom encountered the USAAF in 1942, I would reiterate that that's true. IJA air units were deployed initially mainly in Malaya and Burma (ie didn't encounter the USAAF). The 5th Air Division operated in the Philippines once bases were seized there after a few days, but JNAF units operating from Formoas had already greatly reduced the USAAF force by then. Most Far East Air Force 1941-2 JAAF-USAAF combats were in the PI but there weren't many. The P-40's and P-35's didn't even claim as many Type 97's (24th and 50th Sentai) as their own a/c lost in those combats (the exact Japanese losses aren't known in that episode). In most cases the few remaining US fighters were being used as recon or hit and run bombers and weren't seeking fighter combat. Interestingly however, after early January 1942 the JAAF withdrew most of their fighters from the PI (Zeroes were gone too) and the remaining single company of Type 97's barely if at all outnumbered the remaining US P-40's on Bataan till the end of the campaign in April. There were however very few combats in that period. 

After the Japanese closed in on Singapore and as their air ops extended to Dutch East Indies, JAAF units in Malaya operated over Western DEI, JNAF covered operations over eastern DEI. USAAF fighter only met the JAAF in DEI once, a combat between Type 97's and P-40's where each side lost 1 a/c; again the opponents were mainly Zeroes which had very good success v the P-40's.

IJA operations in New Guinea and the Solomons in 1942 relied entirely on the Navy for air support until late December 1942 when the first JAAF fighter unit, 11th Sentai, was encountered over New Guinea, and same unit first flew against Guadalcanal in January '43. So 1942 NG air fighting was almost entirely USAAF/RAAF v the JNAF, and 1942 Solomons fighting mainly USN/USMC v JNAF with relatively minor participation by USAAF. Likewise defense of Australia in 1942 was USAAF v JNAF, same with Aleutians.

Again, the other exception to this pattern was 23rd Fighter Group (former AVG) from bases in China v Army Type 1's in Burma/China July-Dec 1942, JNAF fighters were not present in that theater at that time.

Joe


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 3, 2010)

davebender said:


> Endurance was a handicap for the Spitfire in Europe too. During the invasions of Sicily, Salerno and Anzio Spitfires could not spend much time loitering over Allied ports and beach heads. Even though vastly outnumbered, the Luftwaffe learned how to strike quickly between Spitfire shift changes. That slowed the build up of Allied forces in the beach head, leading to desperate measures like reinforcing the beach head with paratroops.



Range on Internal fuel (from RAF/FAA/RAAF data cards):

Hurricane I: 585
Spitfire FIX: 434
Spitfire LFVIIITrop: 740
Spitfire LFVIIITrop 50/90igal DT: 940/1265
Seafire IILC: 493
Seafire IILC 30/45igal DT: 682/755

FM-2: 595
F4F-4: 695
F6F-3: 538
F6F-3 56/180 igal DT: 762/1185
F4U-1: 673

The Spitfire VIII takes the cake for range, but the Seafire is not that far behind the F6F-3.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 3, 2010)

It might not be far behind but its still a long way to swim if you run out of fuel


----------



## davebender (Sep 3, 2010)

Apparently it still wasn't good enough over Sicily and Italy. "The Day of Battle" by Rick Atkinson lists all sorts of successful Luftwaffe hit and run attacks on Allied shipping in the Mediterranean.

What Spitfire type(s) were based on Malta and Sicily during 1943?


----------



## davebender (Sep 3, 2010)

> IJA operations in New Guinea and the Solomons in 1942 relied entirely on the Navy for air support


That's very unusual. Normally the IJA supplied their own air support. Just like the U.S. Army.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaaf.htm
The IJA had 5 hikodan (i.e. air force) during December 1941. Total of about 1,500 aircraft.
1st. China.
.....29th. I believe this consisted of detachments for deployment away from the parent hikodan.
2nd. Manchuria.

3rd. Indochina. They supported the Malaya operation. During January 1942 they began shifting assets to the Dutch East Indies.

5th. Formosa. They supported the Philippine operation. After Gen MacArthur was penned up on the Bataan Peninsula most of this hikoshidan moved to Thailand to support the invasion of Burma.

17th. Home Island defense.


----------



## renrich (Sep 3, 2010)

RCAFson, Don't know where you get your numbers for your argument but they are totally at odds with reality. You may be confused about yardstick range and combat radius or perhaps kilometers and nautical miles. I can find no source that has ranges as short as you show for F6F and F4U. In fact, your numbers are ludicrous. The F4U1 according to Dean,"America's Hundred Thousand" with 361 gallons of internal fuel had a range of more than 1500 miles. The F6F5 with 250 gallons of internal fuel, more than 1300 miles. Those fighters could also carry 175 gallon drop tanks. The F4F3 with 147 gallons internal could make more than 1000 miles. The best Spitfire range I can find is a Mk VC at 470 miles on internal fuel and 1135 miles with 175 gallons (IMP) drop tank.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 3, 2010)

renrich, it depends on how the ranges are obtained.

The F4U would get the 1500mi.+ using most economical cruise but what would its range be using a combat mission profile?


----------



## JoeB (Sep 3, 2010)

davebender said:


> That's very unusual. Normally the IJA supplied their own air support. Just like the U.S. Army.
> 
> The IJA had 5 hikodan (i.e. air force) during December 1941. Total of about 1,500 aircraft.
> 1st. China.


Unusual? I just described where the JAAF met the USAAF in '42; where their air opposition was often solely JNAF, even in theaters with ground combat like NG, Solomons and Aleutians. Likewise later in the war in Central Pacific the larger islands were defended by the Army (some like Tarawa defended by Special Naval Landing Forces), but the JAAF was not encountered in that area. Despite their intense rivalry the Japanese Army and Navy rationalized somewhat on who provided air power in different places.

Most of your post is just repeating what I already said from some link.  But as the link says, there were 5 hikoshidan, Air Divisions, at the beginning of the war, not 5 hikodan. Actually, though the link doesn't mention it, right at the beginning of the war the division level entities were still called hikoshudan (飛行集団(which is usually translated 'Air Group', though not the same word as smaller naval air formations, 'kokutai' also usually translated 'Air Group'). From 1942 they were called hikoshidan 飛行師団. Shidan, the second two characters, is the regular word for 'division', same with an army ground division. 'Hiko', the first two characters, means 'flying' or 'aviation'. The 5th Air Division was used in the PI as I said, but also as I said, the JNAF units based in Formosa had greatly attrited the US air component in just the few days before the IJA fighters established bases in the PI. The Type 97 couldn't operate over Luzon directly from Formosa; the Zero could (and that was a big shock, in fact the IJN only decided it was possible, with the right cruise control training, weeks before the war). The extraordinary range of the Zero was a often a factor in cases where Navy rather than Army fighters covered Army operations in 1942.

Joe


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 3, 2010)

davebender said:


> Apparently it still wasn't good enough over Sicily and Italy. "The Day of Battle" by Rick Atkinson lists all sorts of successful Luftwaffe hit and run attacks on Allied shipping in the Mediterranean.
> 
> What Spitfire type(s) were based on Malta and Sicily during 1943?



It is certainly likely that even the Soitfire VIII range was considered insufficient but my point is that USN fighters, at that point in the war couldn't do a whole lot better. The USAAF 31st FG began combat operations with the Spit VIII on Aug 2 1943, over Sicily, where they were used as top cover for their Spit Vs:

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/uncle-sams-spitfires.html


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 3, 2010)

renrich said:


> RCAFson, Don't know where you get your numbers for your argument but they are totally at odds with reality. You may be confused about yardstick range and combat radius or perhaps kilometers and nautical miles. I can find no source that has ranges as short as you show for F6F and F4U. In fact, your numbers are ludicrous. The F4U1 according to Dean,"America's Hundred Thousand" with 361 gallons of internal fuel had a range of more than 1500 miles. The F6F5 with 250 gallons of internal fuel, more than 1300 miles. Those fighters could also carry 175 gallon drop tanks. The F4F3 with 147 gallons internal could make more than 1000 miles. The best Spitfire range I can find is a Mk VC at 470 miles on internal fuel and 1135 miles with 175 gallons (IMP) drop tank.



I picked variants that would have been available in Mid 1943. The range data is from RAF/FAA/RAAF data cards that were used for mission planning, and all tankage capacity is in impgals. and all aircraft listed could use DTs to increase range:

Hurricane I, the Hurricane II and Sea Hurricane would have been quite similar, and the performance of the Sea Hurricane with 12 to 16lb boost is very similar to the FM-2:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-ads.jpg

Spit VIII Trop:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8adsaussie.jpg

Spit IX:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg

Seafire IILC,:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/seafirel2cads.jpg


I'm not sure that the FM2 would have been available but I included it for reference:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-VI-ads.jpg

F4F-4:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-IV-ads.jpg

I did make a mistake here and the F6F does have a 208 igal internal capacity and thus a 762 mile range on internal fuel which is slightly more than the Spit VIII, the way it was written made it appear to be using a 50igal DT:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-ads.jpg

The data cards for the F4U state 192igal internal capacity, it may be that internal overload tanks made the aircraft unsuitable for combat:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-ads.jpg


----------



## renrich (Sep 3, 2010)

Milosh, you are exactly right. The mission profile determines the combat radius or range of a fighter and combat radius is always substantially less than one half of the maximum range. It is useless, really, to throw out numbers that one finds in books and especially on the internet because one usually does not know how those numbers were obtained. I explained in an earlier post on this thread about the difference between "yardstick" range and combat radius. That explanation came from my "bible" on US WW2 fighters, Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" which is the most authoritative book I know of on that particular subject.

The early F4U1, that began the war in February, 1943, in the Solomons, had the protected fuselage tank of 237 gallons and internal wing tanks, (unprotected, but with a CO2 purge system) with 62 gallons each in them. I know for a fact that these wing tanks were used on long escort missions. Obviously, like the Mustang's aft tank of 85 gallons, the Corsair wing tanks were drained first and then the CO2 was used to eliminate the fumes whereby the Corsair still had the fuselage tank to complete the mission. The F4U1D dispensed with the wing tanks in favor of drop tanks and later Corsairs did not have the wing tanks either. That early Corsair with full internal tanks and a 175 gallon drop tank was carrying a heavy load of fuel, 536 gallons X 6 equals 3216 pounds but of course the airplane could lift that load but it must have carried no other external ordnance. One had to be careful extrapolating also when using drop tanks as a way to extend range, (on paper) a 175 gallon drop tank did not extend range like 175 gallons of internal fuel because of the additional drag. F4U1Ds and later sometimes carried two drop tanks. Another factor in range considerations is that a fighter operating from a carrier could not have the combat radius of the same fighter operating from a ground base. Lundstrom in "The First Team" commented that the A6M had a 300 mile combat radius from a carrier and a 500 mile CR from a ground base.

Every book I have read about the Spitfire commented on how range challenged it was. I wonder why, if some people's claims about how it could be made to have a long range are true, it was such a failure as a long range escort fighter in every theatre, including the CBI late in the war.


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

Hello Renrich
on Spits, many seems to be unware that Mk VIIs/VIIIs had extra internal tankage (also Mk XIV had, being based on Mk VIII, but thirsty Griffon negated rangewise that). Also many late Spits had rear fuselage tank like that in P-51, so Merlin powered late production Spits had longer range than Spit VC.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2010)

To add to my last message
- Aviation (Aviation - Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums) 
- - Longest Spitfire raid of WWII. (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/longest-spitfire-raid-wwii-16182.html) 

Wildcat	12-30-2008 05:57 AM
Longest Spitfire raid of WWII.

On the 27th of Nov 1944, five spitfires from No. 549 sqn RAF and 2 spitfires from No.1 Fighter Wing, RAAF in conjuction with 4 B-25's from No. 2 sqn RAAF plus an ASR Catalina, attacked and destroyed a Japanese radar station at Cape Lore on Portuguese Timor. The raid was a round trip of some 850 miles taking 4.5 hours. The Spitfires were first to attack carrying out strafing runs on the installations resulting in the radar tower being destroyed. The B-25's then destroyed the remaining buildings once the spitfires were clear.
The spitfire pilots flying Mk.VIII's, were -

No.1 Fighter Wing
G/Capt "Black Jack" Walker DSO, RAAF
W/Cdr R Wilkinson OBE, DFM and Bar, C de G. RAF

No. 549 sqn RAF
S/Ldr E Bocock DFC
F/Lt W Wedd
F/Lt L Webster
W/Off A Franks
W/Off J Beaton

At the time the Australian media claimed this as the longest operational raid ever conducted by Spitfires in any theatre. My question is, is this claim accurate? (What of PR spits) and if so, did any other operations surpass this?

Juha	12-30-2008 11:15 AM

Hello
PR Spits were able to cover Berlin, at least, from GB.

Longest Spitfire escort mission in ETO I'm aware was that made by 131 Sqn on 11 Aug 44 to La Pallice, 690mls and took 3 hours 50 min. They were flying Spit VIIs.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Sep 3, 2010)

Does anyone know how the British arrived at the range of their a/c?


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 3, 2010)

Milosh said:


> Does anyone know how the British arrived at the range of their a/c?



I just read the link on another thread about operation vengeance, the total flight plan was 1000 miles and the P38 was selected because it was beyond the range of the wildcats and corsairs, I know the operation was performed at low altitude but it shows "range" range depends on how high you fly and how fast.

It is easy to say that if you cant reach the fight you arnt in it, the same applies to rate of climb as well as range, the wildcat may have been a great plane when at altitude but its rate of climb would have seen it looking at everyone flying overhead in the BofB. Both the hurricane/spitfire and wildcat/hellcat/corsair were fine aircraft in their time designed to do different jobs. The wildcat was ordered by the french but none arrived before France surrendered. If the Europes fate rested in the wildcat/hellcat/corsair then the war in Europe would be over before they arrived, if you cant reach the fight you arnt in it that also applies to operational development.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2010)

Its been mentioned a couple of times but its worth repeating that the Spitfire had the potential to be a good long ranged fighter. In Oct 1944 two Mk IX's were fitted with 2 x 60 gallon drop tanks together with the additional tank behind the pilot and flew the Atlantic. 

Good enough for most missions

The sad thing is that no one tried it in 1943 when it would have made a huge difference


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2010)

Something to consider when comparing ranges in the Pacific to ranges in Europe is that it was perfectly feasible to fly at long range cruise settings and optimum altitudes for long distances in the Pacific. No AA guns in the ocean, few if any spotters. OK, a few coast watchers 

Radar stations were on known islands and Japanese radar was few and far between

higher "combat" cruise speeds could be used only when in "danger" areas near the target/s.

Over Europe at certain periods of time anytime you were over land you were in a "danger" area. Cruising heights and flight paths had to take flak concentrations into account. Your flight path was spotted and plotted as soon as you neared the coast on the way in. Cruise speeds had to be kept higher than optimum for range in order to keep from giving a defending/intercepting fighters too high a speed advantage in a surprise "bounce".

It was possible to cruise a MK V Spitfire at 225 true airspeed using 29 Imp gal of fuel an hour at 10,000ft but such a speed and altitude would be almost useless over enemy territory. Long range or ferry speeds were even lower. At a maximum continuous cruise speed of 331 mph true at 10,000 ft the Spit burned 70 imp gallons an hour. Obviously the Spitfire isn't going very far on the normal 88 Imp gal internal tanks. Full combat power (16lbs boost) used 150 gallons an hour. 

A problem for fighters escorting bombers is that the at least some of the fighters had to fly higher than the bombers to keep the interceptors from climbing above the bombers and diving down through the formation/s. The fighters also had to be moving faster than the bombers in order to have speed in hand should the enemy show up. They flew a weaving course compared to the bombers so that they actually covered a greater distance at a higher speed than the bombers even though they were in sight of each other the whole time. At least they were supposed to be, clouds and all that
This weaving course and higher speed did absolutely nothing for fuel economy or radius of action.

It is something to consider when trying to figure radius of action for bomber escort compared to straight line range at optimum cruise settings.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 4, 2010)

The RAF/FAA/RAAF data cards make an allowance for TO and climb to cruise altitude and then seem to calculate the range based upon the cruise fuel consumption at cruise altitude. 

Cruising speeds:

Spitfire VIIItrop: 220 @ 20k ft
Spitfire IX: 220 @ 20k ft
Hurricane I: 212 @ 20k ft
Seafire IILC: 188mph at 5K ft.

FM2:203 @ 15k ft
F4F-4: 213 @ 15k ft
F4U1: 251 @ 20k ft
F6F-3 244 @ 20k ft

P51B
for reference:: 253 @ 20k ft


The P47 mission planner gives the no reserve range with 253 igals of internal fuel as 835 miles at 10k ft @ 220mph or 650 miles at 260mph at 25K ft. If we allow a 50 gallon reserve, this would reduce the range to 700 miles @ 220mph at 10K ft and 540 miles at 260 mph @ 25k ft and we would then add back the distance covered during the climb to cruise, for an estimated range of something like 600 miles @ 25K ft.


----------



## Juha (Sep 4, 2010)

Hello Shortround
very good analyze.
The 131 Sqn escort mission on 11 Aug 44 to La Pallice, 690mls and took 3 hours 50 min, was as long as one could do in Europe, almost no reserve for combat. Brits calculated that merely the presence of Spit escort would kept possible LW interceptors away from bombers at that stage of war. The internal fuel capacity of Spit VII was the same 123 Imp gal as was that of Spit Mk VIIIs, both could use 30 and 90 Imp gal DT. At least 131 Sqn planes probably didn't have rear fuselage tanks, they were from too early production run.

Juha


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 4, 2010)

A Spit IXC serial MK210 was modified at Wright Field Ohio in May 1944 to have an internal fuel load of 161 gallons plus it could carry 2 Mustang drop tanks for a total of 285 gallons. This mod carried its normal armament and flew the Atlantic via Iceland so it was possible to carry the fuel for a deep penetration escort but obviously by this time Mustangs were pouring off the lines so it was not neccessary. 

The PR19 could carry 256 gallons internally and could use a 90 gallon slipper tank. I believe they were able to photograph as far as eastern Poland with a bit to spare. There was a 170 gallon slipper tank built for Pacific use but possibly never used the photo makes the Spit look as aerodynamic as a brick.


----------



## Hop (Sep 4, 2010)

Australian test of Spitfire VIII:






The "ferry condition" label means the tank wasn't jettisoned.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 4, 2010)

Hi Hop, does the report have the version of the Merlin fitted to the test aircraft?
According to the _Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire VII and VIII (AP 1565G H - December 1943)_
the figures for the Merlin 63 and 64 were

*2650 rpm Weak Mixture*
+4lb/sq.in Boost: 71 gal/hr
+2 lb/sq.in Boost: 66 gal/hr
0 lb/sq.in Boost: 60 gal/hr
-2 lb/sq.in Boost:53 gal/hr

*2,400 rpm Weak Mixture*
+4lb/sq.in Boost: 66 gal/hr
+2 lb/sq.in Boost:61 gal/hr
0 lb/sq.in Boost: 55 gal/hr
-2 lb/sq.in Boost:49 gal/hr

*2,200 rpm Weak Mixture*
+4lb/sq.in Boost: 61 gal/hr
+2 lb/sq.in Boost:57 gal/hr
0 lb/sq.in Boost: 51 gal/hr
-2 lb/sq.in Boost:45 gal/hr


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 4, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Something to consider when comparing ranges in the Pacific to ranges in Europe is that it was perfectly feasible to fly at long range cruise settings and optimum altitudes for long distances in the Pacific. No AA guns in the ocean, few if any spotters. OK, a few coast watchers



And NG and Burma has no mountains?

If there was one thing the ETO/MTO didnt have that made the Pacific theater so unusual was the severe weather factors that couldn't be forecast as accurately as in Europe. Many times the aircraft had to fly high, or through thunderstorms with more than a few AC simply never being heard from again.


----------



## davebender (Sep 4, 2010)

> USAAF 31st FG began combat operations with the Spit VIII on Aug 2 1943, over Sicily, where they were used as top cover for their Spit Vs:


Why didn't the USAAF 31st FG operate the P-38? Greater endurance and performance was acceptable at low level where Luftwaffe strike aircraft were operating.


----------



## Glider (Sep 4, 2010)

At a guess 
a) because they wanted some high cover
b) Agility against single engined fighters


----------



## davebender (Sep 4, 2010)

Against what? German strike aircraft weren't flying at 30,000 feet.


----------



## Glider (Sep 4, 2010)

Maybe they just recognised that the best way to escort a Mk V is with a Mk IX. After all the extra range of the P38 is no good if the aircraft your escorting only goes a fraction of the distance. The ability to climb is important for a high cover as is the ability to dogfight.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 4, 2010)

davebender said:


> Why didn't the USAAF 31st FG operate the P-38? Greater endurance and performance was acceptable at low level where Luftwaffe strike aircraft were operating.



There wasn't enough P-38s to go around.


----------



## davebender (Sep 4, 2010)

I find that difficult to believe.

*Historical P-38 production. *
I have omitted photo recon variants plus the single P-38K.
US Warplanes
527 x P-38F. 1942
1,082 x P-38G. 1942.
601 x P-38H. 1942.
2,970 x P-38J. 1943.
About 5,000 P-38 fighter variants were produced during 1942 and 1943. 

*Operation Torch OOB.*
XII Fighter Command, Western Air Command, 08.11.1942
Six P-38 squadrons participated in Operation Torch. Why weren't they moved to Malta for the invasion of Sicily, then moved to Sicily prior to the Salerno invasion?


----------



## Hop (Sep 4, 2010)

> does the report have the version of the Merlin fitted to the test aircraft?



Merlin 66.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 4, 2010)

davebender said:


> I find that difficult to believe.
> 
> *Historical P-38 production. *
> I have omitted photo recon variants plus the single P-38K.
> ...



The P38 wasn't considered up to par for combat in Europe. That's the simple truth of it, and here's what the USAAF had to say:

_



a. For a general combination of climb, range, endurance, speed, altitude and fire power, the P-38F is the best production line fighter tested to date at this station. Types tested include the P-47, P-51, P-40F and P-39D-1.

b. The allowable maximum diving speed is not as great as desired for combat operations.

c. At speeds above allowable diving speeds especially over twenty-thousand (20,000) feet, violent vibrations from tail buffeting are experienced. 

g. While the rate of climb is superior to all other types tested to date, this is not as great as required, especially below twenty-thousand (20,000) feet, and all excess weight in the structure and installations not vital to combat operations should be reduced or eliminated whenever possible

i. The guns will not feed properly during maneuvers which create a pull of greater than 3-1/2 G’s.

Click to expand...

_P-38F Tactical Trials

The Spitfire VIII could easily outclimb, out turn, outdive and (not so easily) out run the P38 in Mid 1943, and here's the real kicker, the Spitfire VIII probably had more range on internal fuel. The USAAF flew the Spitfire VIII because it was the best fighter in the Allied inventory, at that time, and the only one that could meet the Luftwaffe's best on equal terms.

Sources: 
Spitfire Mk VIII Performance Testing
P-38 Performance Trials

FINAL REPORT ON TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-38F TYPE AIRPLANE 6 March 1943:
P-38F Tactical Trials

performance evaluation of the P38:
The P-38 Lightning

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-tactical-chart.jpg


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Something to consider when comparing ranges in the Pacific to ranges in Europe is that it was perfectly feasible to fly at long range cruise settings and optimum altitudes for long distances in the Pacific. No AA guns in the ocean, few if any spotters. OK, a few coast watchers
> 
> Over Europe at certain periods of time anytime you were over land you were in a "danger" area. Cruising heights and flight paths had to take flak concentrations into account. Your flight path was spotted and plotted as soon as you neared the coast on the way in. Cruise speeds had to be kept higher than optimum for range in order to keep from giving a defending/intercepting fighters too high a speed advantage in a surprise "bounce".
> 
> ...



The typical long range escort profile for target support (dominant P-51 and P-38 role until the very late model P-47D and M) was fast cruise to R/V point - either stooge around while waiting or throttle up to catch up- then is was Ess at ~ 225IAS BUT the actal plot speed was 150 IAS until bombas away, then 160+ returning to R/V with Withdrawal Support, then ~225 IAS back to let down point.

As you pointed out the entire chain is only moving as fast as the slowest bomber in formation. Two situations detracted greatly from optimal cruise - 1.) the Mustang optimal was usually around 18,000 feet and B-17's and B-24's weren't flying at that altitude in clear weather, 2.) while the 225IAS was a good cruise speed they were covering twice the ground 'relatively speaking' while Essing in escort.

Of course the 1650-7 at 67+'hg Emergency war power would soak up 220-240 gph while the cruise settings ranged from 46 gpm (opimal loiter/endurance) to 50-60gpm in optimal cruise depending on altitude.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 4, 2010)

davebender said:


> I find that difficult to believe.
> 
> *Historical P-38 production. *
> I have omitted photo recon variants plus the single P-38K.
> ...



The P-38J only began arriving in Aug 1943.

P38s on hand in the MTO/Pacific Area:

Apr 1943 - 533/152
May 1943 - 551/151
June 1943 - 514/187
July 1943 - 448/274
Aug 1943 - 362/347
Sept 1943 - 296/333
Oct 1943 - 257/357
Nov 1943 - 253/357
Dec 1943 - 236/356

The total number of P-38s on hand overseas was between 800 and 862 from Apr to Oct 1943 when it jumped to 956 in Nov and 1123 in Dec.


----------



## renrich (Sep 4, 2010)

Uhhhh, tailend charlie, your point about the ability to climb into the fight is well taken. If you can't be up there you can't be in the fight.

From Mike Williams site:
12 June 1940, MK1L Hurricane, Merlin 3 engine, Rotol constant speed prop, normal load( the Hurricane was the most numerous British fighter in BOB)
Service ceiling- 33750 feet
Time to climb to 10000 feet-3.7 minutes
Time to climb to 20000 feet-8.35 minutes

January 23, 1941, F4F3, normal load, service ceiling 38200
sea level rate of climb-3300 fpm
time to climb to 10000 feet-3.5 minutes
time to climb to 20000 feet-7.6 minutes

One can see that the Wildcat had a somewhat better rate of climb than the Hurricane and with a higher service ceiling!


----------



## Milosh (Sep 4, 2010)

What are the numbers for 12lb boost instead of 6.24lb boost and using a Merlin XX?


----------



## davebender (Sep 4, 2010)

I realize early model P-38s had some problems. However it was the only high endurance day fighter available to the Allies during mid 1943. So ready or not they should get the high endurance mission over Sicily and Salerno. Just as the not up to par Me-110 was used as a bomber escort during the Battle of Britain for lack of something better (i.e. Fw-187).


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 4, 2010)

renrich said:


> Uhhhh, tailend charlie, your point about the ability to climb into the fight is well taken. If you can't be up there you can't be in the fight.
> 
> From Mike Williams site:
> 12 June 1940, MK1L Hurricane, Merlin 3 engine, Rotol constant speed prop, normal load( the Hurricane was the most numerous British fighter in BOB)
> ...



One can see that the models you care to compare suit your argument perfectly.
I fail to see why you compare a BoB hurricane with a 1941 wildcat.The Hurricane MII with Merlin XX was introduced before the F4F3 saw combat in Europe so maybe it would be better to compare the MII hurricane with the Cyclone engined wildcats, and as you quote an aircrafts performance from 1941 you are quoting a plane that didnt reach the fight for 18 months.
The hurricane was obsolete when it was designed, being an uprated biplane that could easily and reliably produced, by 1941 it was being developed for night fighter and ground attack roles, it would be more useful to compare to the operating spitfires in 1941 I think.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 4, 2010)

davebender said:


> I realize early model P-38s had some problems. However it was the only high endurance day fighter available to the Allies during mid 1943. So ready or not they should get the high endurance mission over Sicily and Salerno. Just as the not up to par Me-110 was used as a bomber escort during the Battle of Britain for lack of something better (i.e. Fw-187).



The Me110 was as you say used over the north sea to escort bombers because of its range, however its use in the BoB (in the south) after the first engagements seems to have been a sort of Goering "pet" project. He insisted on their use when it was shown that they wernt up to the job, eventually the 109s were escorting the bombers and the 110s.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 4, 2010)

Milosh said:


> What are the numbers for 12lb boost instead of 6.24lb boost and using a Merlin XX?



From "Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1945-46" (Hurricane IIC)
Time to 10,000 ft = 3.4 minutes - climb rate = 2,941 ft/min
Time to 20,000 ft = 7.2 minutes - climb rate = 2,750 ft/min
Service ceiling = 35,000 ft.
Big difference is armament = 4 x 20mm Hispano v 6 x .50 Brownings


----------



## NZTyphoon (Sep 4, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> One can see that the models you care to compare suit your argument perfectly.
> I fail to see why you compare a BoB hurricane with a 1941 wildcat.The Hurricane MII with Merlin XX was introduced before the F4F3 saw combat in Europe so maybe it would be better to compare the MII hurricane with the Cyclone engined wildcats, and as you quote an aircrafts performance from 1941 you are quoting a plane that didnt reach the fight for 18 months.
> The hurricane was obsolete when it was designed, being an uprated biplane that could easily and reliably produced, by 1941 it was being developed for night fighter and ground attack roles, it would be more useful to compare to the operating spitfires in 1941 I think.



Spitfire VB (Price Spitfire Story) Merlin 45 Boost rpm not stated.
Time to 10,00 ft = 3.06 min - climb rate=3,250 ft/min - speed = 331 mph
Time to 20,000ft = 6 min 24 sec - climb rate = 2,440 ft/min - speed = 371 mph


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 4, 2010)

renrich said:


> Uhhhh, tailend charlie, your point about the ability to climb into the fight is well taken. If you can't be up there you can't be in the fight.
> 
> From Mike Williams site:
> 12 June 1940, MK1L Hurricane, Merlin 3 engine, Rotol constant speed prop, normal load( the Hurricane was the most numerous British fighter in BOB)
> ...



The F4F-3 was built in very small numbers and not after late 1941, IIRC. Also IIRC the above figures were Grumman's estimates which were not achieved in USN testing and the F4F-3 gained a lot a weight due to service requirements for SS tanks, more armour and folding wings. FAA data cards state that even the FM-2 could not match the Hurricane climb performance with the time to 15k ft being 6.5 minutes using combat power, which is hardly better than the standard boost Hurricane I at 6.85 minutes and worse than the 5.9/6.4 minutes of the standard boost Hurricane IIB/IIC

Estimated RoC of the Hurricane I with 12lb boost was 3440fpm at SL and 2.9/6.5 minutes to 10k/20k ft. At 16lb boost, the times would probably (IMH estimation) drop by .4 minutes to 2.5/6.1 minutes and peak at well over 4000fpm. A Hurricane IIC with 4 x 20mm cannon had its max weight with internal fuel increase by 10% over a Hurricane I but available power increased by 40% over the Merlin III 6.25lb rating. A Hurricane IIc with 14 or 16lb boost and peak 1480hp should out climb the Hurricane I at 12lb boost with peak 1310hp. SL climb would be similar but the Merlin XX would maintain boost levels and climb rates to higher altitudes. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Climb-HRuch.png


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 4, 2010)

NZTyphoon said:


> Spitfire VB (Price Spitfire Story) Merlin 45 Boost rpm not stated.
> Time to 10,00 ft = 3.06 min - climb rate=3,250 ft/min - speed = 331 mph
> Time to 20,000ft = 6 min 24 sec - climb rate = 2,440 ft/min - speed = 371 mph



The bare figures themselves dont tell all the story, bearing in mind the situation in 1940, if the wildcat outperformed the hurricane why didnt they use it in the BoB the first arrived in July 1940?


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 4, 2010)

Using combat power the RAAF recorded a Spit VIII as 5 minutes to 20k ft:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf934time.jpg
which is about 2 minutes faster than the Spit VIII at 12lb boost.

Spit IX:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html

4.75 minutes to 20k ft with 18lb boost.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 4, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> One can see that the models you care to compare suit your argument perfectly.
> I fail to see why you compare a BoB hurricane with a 1941 wildcat.The Hurricane MII with Merlin XX was introduced before the F4F3 saw combat in Europe so maybe it would be better to compare the MII hurricane with the Cyclone engined wildcats, and as you quote an aircrafts performance from 1941 you are quoting a plane that didnt reach the fight for 18 months.
> The hurricane was obsolete when it was designed, being an uprated biplane that could easily and reliably produced, by 1941 it was being developed for night fighter and ground attack roles, it would be more useful to compare to the operating spitfires in 1941 I think.




I think others have already answered.

RCAFson one of Canadas famous sons Andrew Charles Mynarski V.C. flew his last op from my local airfield.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 4, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I think others have already answered.
> 
> RCAFson one of Canadas famous sons Andrew Charles Mynarki flew his last op from my local airfield.



So you're in the UK?


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 4, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> So you're in the UK?



Sure, there is a memorial to Mynarski at the airfireld and in the Airport hotel there is the Mynarki bar with a replica of his V.C. My Mothers second husband lived in the village during the war he said the noise made when there was an op on was absolutely deafening.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 4, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> So you're in the UK?




Here is a link showing the memorial statue although I am sure I read somewhere that he flew from Croft which is only a few miles away.

Andrew Mynarski


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2010)

A couple of notes.

1. Many British climb figures use a continuous climb rating or 30 min rating. for Some early Merlins this was the the normal 6 or 6.5lbs of boost but only 2600rpm instead of the full throttle 3000rpm. Climb performance using 12lbs of boost and 3000rpm would obviously be better. 

American Climb figures are often obtained using full military power for the first 5 minutes of the climb with max continuous power used for the rest of the climb.

2. The early Wildcats the British got were NOT F4F-3s. They were Martlets and this is NOT semantics. The Martlet I ( first delivery July 27, 1940 ) used a Wright Cyclone R-1820 9 Cylinder engine with a two speed SINGLE STAGE supercharger. The same engine used in the F2F-3 Buffalo. 
The Martlet II ( first delivery March, 1941 )used a 14 cylinder P&W R-1830 but it was different model than the the F-F-3 used. It was the same two speed SINGLE stage engine the F4F-3A used. This was the same engine the 30 Martlet IIIs used (ex Greek aircraft). The Martlet IV reverted back to the Wright Cyclone engine with Deliveries starting July 1942.
The British don't get the two stage P&W R-1830 engine until Dec 1942 with the delivery of the Martlet V. This engine is the R-1830-86 instead of the R-1830-76 used in the American F4F-3s. 

When comparing Wildcats/Martlets to either the Hurricane or the Spitfire it would be well to specify what Hurricane or Spitfire, what propeller is being used ( fixed pitch, two pitch or constant speed) and what power rating is being used and specify which Martlet is being used for the comparison.

Martlet VI/Wildcat VI were the same as the FM-2 and used the 1350hp Wright Cyclone engine but they don't show up in British service until 1944.


----------



## renrich (Sep 5, 2010)

The performance figures for the F4F3 are from US Navy tests at the NAS, Anacostia, DC, and they were conducted around four months after the BOB ended. They are NOT manufacturer's figures. The Wildcats tested had armor which I am pretty sure the Hurricane tested did not. The argument comparing Hurricane and Wildcat has been had on this forum ad nauseum. Under the right circumstances,( if Grumman and the US had been on a war footing since before 1939, like the UK was) the F4F3 COULD have probably been ready for the BOB but it was not and that is the end of the story.

The reason that I posted the performance figures was that TEC said that the Wildcat did not climb well enough to be in the fight and seemed to imply that the Corsair and Hellcat did not either. I tried to pick the Hurricane that would be representative of the BOB knowing that the Hurri did most of the work in the BOB and did it well in spite of it's so so performance. If some don't think an F4F3 with four 50 BMGs would not have done very good service in the BOB, if available, then I can do nothing about it. The F4F3 was a remarkable airplane, just like the A6M. Shipboard fighters with the ability to go head to head with the best European landbased fighters.

In going through the Williams papers online I am fairly certain that the Hurricane tested had no armor and I am not certain that all the Hurris in the BOB had the constant speed prop. It seems that the armor was added between the end in France and before the BOB officially began. If that Hurri tested had no armor then a BOB Hurri would have had somewhat worse climb numbers than I posted.

The F4F4 was not as good a performer as was the F4F3, partly because of the stupid insistence by the British for six guns instead of four. The USN and it's pilots did not like the six gun configuration and a few F4F4s were built at the end of the production run with the four guns. Perhaps the Brits wanted the six guns because they knew their pilots were not, on the whole, good gunners like the US Navy pilots were.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 5, 2010)

renrich said:


> Perhaps the Brits wanted the six guns because they knew their pilots were not, on the whole, good gunners like the US Navy pilots were.



I think it was the British found that the more sturdily built German Bombers needed six MG's to bring them down.


----------



## Glider (Sep 5, 2010)

renrich said:


> The performance figures for the F4F3 are from US Navy tests at the NAS, Anacostia, DC, and they were conducted around four months after the BOB ended. They are NOT manufacturer's figures. The Wildcats tested had armor which I am pretty sure the Hurricane tested did not. The argument comparing Hurricane and Wildcat has been had on this forum ad nauseum. Under the right circumstances,( if Grumman and the US had been on a war footing since before 1939, like the UK was) the F4F3 COULD have probably been ready for the BOB but it was not and that is the end of the story.
> 
> The reason that I posted the performance figures was that TEC said that the Wildcat did not climb well enough to be in the fight and seemed to imply that the Corsair and Hellcat did not either. I tried to pick the Hurricane that would be representative of the BOB knowing that the Hurri did most of the work in the BOB and did it well in spite of it's so so performance. If some don't think an F4F3 with four 50 BMGs would not have done very good service in the BOB, if available, then I can do nothing about it. The F4F3 was a remarkable airplane, just like the A6M. Shipboard fighters with the ability to go head to head with the best European landbased fighters.
> 
> ...



For what its worth I agree with the vast majority of the above. I have no doubt that the Wildcat would have done well in the BOB. The Hawk 75 did well in the battle of France and see no reason why the Wildcat wouldn't have done better. The 6 x LMG of the Hawk was on the light side and 4 x 0.5 would have been far more effective let alone the better performance.

The only observations I have are on the aircraft being used as a test. I believe that all the Huirricanes in the BOB had the Constant Speed Propeller and the 100 Octane fuel as well as the armour. Also the F4F3 didn't have armour or self sealing tanks as standard. These would need to be fitted before the RAF/FAA accepted them in numbers. The weight of these changes should be considered when comparing the Wildcat to the Hurricane. 
The time period is interesting as the Wildcat wasn't ready for the BOB and any discussions around this are open to debate (which is half the fun). The Wildcat version a tested and quoted in the Mike WIlliams site would probably be better compared to the Hurricane IIA

The only section I have significant doubts about is the last paragraph. To blame the UK for the installation of 6 x 0.5 after the USN had considerable experience with the F4F3 lacks logic. 
a) The UK considered the Wildcat with 4 x 0.5 to be better armed than the 8 x LMG fitted on BOB fighters
b) I understood that it was the French who first asked for a Wildcat with 6 x LMG
c) Why would the british insist on 6 x 0.5 when they had at that time no intention of using the 0.5 as a standard weapon?
d) I can understand the RN asking for 6 guns on a WIldcat if, they wanted to revert to the 0.303, maybe thats what happened.
e) It assumes that the USN had no influence on the design of an aircraft that was so important to them, which I cannot see happening.
f) To assume that its beacuse the RAF/FAA couldn't shoot straight is almost a joke. They were probably no better or worse than any other nation and had some experience with 4 gunned aircraft. Gladiators, Skua's, Defiant and Blenhiem spring to mind and the problem wasn't 'we cannot hit them',the problem was 'we cannot hit them hard enough with 4 x LMG'.

That said it important that I confirm what I said at the beginning, that I have no doubt that the Wildcat would have done well in the BOB. Its performance was similar to the Hurricane probably pros and cons to each but overall as good as each other, even with the weight of armour and sealing tanks. It was better armed than the Hurricane and the Germans wouldn't get far in using negative G to escape, something that I don't think has been mentioned before.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 5, 2010)

If the British were idiots for wanting 6 x .50s on a Martlet/Wildcat how stupid were the USAF for fitting 6 and even 8 x .50s to there aircraft


----------



## davebender (Sep 5, 2010)

> how stupid were the USAF for fitting 6 and even 8 x .50s to there aircraft


The real problem is the U.S. badly botched their effort to mass produce a decent 20mm aircraft cannon. Without a reliable 20mm cannon what other choice does the USAF have except to use .50cal MGs in ever increasing numbers?


----------



## pinsog (Sep 5, 2010)

FASTMONGREL

The point was, the British supposedly asked for 6 guns to be placed in a moderately performing fighter, thus reducing its performance even more. Placing 6 guns in a P51, F4U or F6F, or 8 guns in a P47, much more powerful and advanced planes which arguably had a decisive advantage in performance over their rivals wouldn't have been an issue.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 5, 2010)

DAVEBENDER

I tend to think the .50 was a better choice against single engine fighters than the 20mm, due to being able to carry so much more ammo per weapon. Since the US didn't face large heavy bombers I tend to think the lack of a good 20mm wasn't really much of an issue. Had we faced German B17 or B 24 type aircraft, I believe it would have definately become an issue. One question, wasn't the 20mm on the P38 and P61 a reliable weapon? If so, did it have to do with the difference between it being mounted on a solid internal mount and being mounted in a flexible wing?


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 5, 2010)

pinsog said:


> DAVEBENDER
> 
> I tend to think the .50 was a better choice against single engine fighters than the 20mm, due to being able to carry so much more ammo per weapon. Since the US didn't face large heavy bombers I tend to think the lack of a good 20mm wasn't really much of an issue. Had we faced German B17 or B 24 type aircraft, I believe it would have definately become an issue. One question, wasn't the 20mm on the P38 and P61 a reliable weapon? If so, did it have to do with the difference between it being mounted on a solid internal mount and being mounted in a flexible wing?



The USAAF had this to say about the mid 1943 P-38 armament:

_ i. The guns will not feed properly during maneuvers which create a pull of greater than 3-1/2 G’s. _
P-38 Performance Trials
but they don't distinguish between the .5" and the 20mm.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 5, 2010)

pinsog said:


> FASTMONGREL
> 
> The point was, the British supposedly asked for 6 guns to be placed in a moderately performing fighter, thus reducing its performance even more. Placing 6 guns in a P51, F4U or F6F, or 8 guns in a P47, much more powerful and advanced planes which arguably had a decisive advantage in performance over their rivals wouldn't have been an issue.



You say the Wildcat was amoderately performing fighter but renrich says it was an excellent performing fighter. So I am confused as to how an extra 2 .50 Brownings ruin performance so much when as I understand it the total ammunition capacity was roughly the same between the 4 gun plane and the 6 gun plane.


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 5, 2010)

Air combat is largely a factor of altitude advantage and surprise. The primary purpose of a carrier borne fighter was to protect the fleet and to do this the fighter had to kill the attacking bombers. I think the FAA wanted a 6 gun Martlet/F4F because they reasoned that the average pilot was unlikely to get more than one pass at a target, therefore it made sense to optimize the firepower to maximize hit potential during each pass. There's not likely to be much difference in actual weight between a 4 gun F4F with 450 rounds/gun and a 6 gun f4F with 240 rounds/gun. The most successful FAA fighter on the Malta run appears to have been the 4 x 20mm armed Sea Hurricane IC, which supports this logic.


----------



## davebender (Sep 5, 2010)

If that was true then modern fighter aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 would still be armed with .50cal MGs rather then a 20mm cannon.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 5, 2010)

davebender said:


> If that was true then modern fighter aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 would still be armed with .50cal MGs rather then a 20mm cannon.



Cannon or Machine Gun – Evaluation
How did the British 20 mm cannon compare with the American HMG-only concept?

The first problem to be considered is that the cannon of the combating nations varied hugely in size, weight and performance. The MG FFM, Type 99-1 and B-20 were all lighter than the American M2, but the first two were significantly worse in terms of muzzle velocity and rate of fire, although the B-20 matched the M2′s rate of fire and was not far behind in velocity. The Japanese Ho-5 and Type 99-2 and the ShVAK and MG 151/20 were all somewhat heavier. Muzzle velocities and rates of fire were closer to the M2′s but generally still not as good. The Hispano was significantly heavier and slower-firing until the British Mk V emerged near the war’s end, matching the MG 151/20 in weight and rate of fire.

The foregoing compares only the guns’ efficiency; it takes no account of ammunition, the area in which the cannon gains most ground over the HMG. The 20 mm cannon shells were not only two to three times heavier than HMG bullets, but their HEI contents greatly increased their effectiveness. Although HE ammunition was available for most HMGs, their small bullets severely limited the quantity of chemicals carried, so the Americans decided not to use them at all. Initially, the M2 used a mix of incendiary and AP bullets, with some tracers, but in 1944 the M8 API began to take over. Rather curiously, this was based on the Soviet B.32 API used in the Berezin.

It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of different ammunition types, but various tests suggest that a typical World War Two-era HE or incendiary shell, with chemical contents forming about 10 per cent of total shell weight, was about twice as destructive as a plain steel shell of similar size and weight. This makes it clear that 20 mm cannon were considerably more destructive for a given total weight of armament than any HMG could hope to be. For example, the .50 M8 API contained less than one gram of incendiary, whereas the 20 mm Hispano SAPI achieved similar armour penetration but carried more than ten times as much incendiary material.

This advantage was recognised by the US Navy. After comparing the .50 M2 and the 20 mm Hispano they estimated that the cannon was three times as effective. In other words, the fairly typical late-war RAF armament of four 20 mm cannon was twice as destructive as the USAAF’s six .50 HMGs, for very little more weight.

Proponents of the Browning HMG point to its excellent ballistics, which enhanced its range and hit probability. But the Hispano’s muzzle velocity was very similar, and although the blunt-nosed shells were less aerodynamic the difference over typical air-combat ranges was not significant.

The cannon’s advantages are clearly shown in the decisions made as a result of combat experience by air forces with a choice of good HMGs and cannon. We have already seen how Germany preferred the 20 mm version of the MG 151 despite its poorer ballistics. In the 12.7 mm Berezin the Soviets had arguably the best HMG of the war, but they still preferred the heavier, slower-firing 20 mm ShVAK. Japan had several good HMGs available; the army’s Ho-103, and the navy’s 13 mm Type 3, a .50 Browning chambered for slightly larger-calibre ammunition, but they made increasing use of cannon.

So why did the Americans not make more use of cannon, specifically the 20 mm Hispano they already had in mass production? There were two main reasons. One was certainly that the M2 was adequate for its purpose. In Western Europe the main adversaries were fighters, which were much easier to damage and shoot down than bombers. In the Pacific Theatre the Japanese aircraft were initially poorly protected and easy to shoot down. Later Japanese aircraft were better protected, but again these were usually fighters. If the Americans had faced the need to stop raids by heavy, well-protected bombers, it is likely that the HMG’s shortcomings would have been starkly revealed.

After the war the US Navy quickly changed over to the 20 mm cannon in its improved, faster-firing and more reliable M3 form, but the USAF stayed with the .50 M3 until the fighting in Korea demonstrated once and for all that the heavy machine gun had had its day


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2010)

renrich said:


> The performance figures for the F4F3 are from US Navy tests at the NAS, Anacostia, DC, and they were conducted around four months after the BOB ended. They are NOT manufacturer's figures. The Wildcats tested had armor which I am pretty sure the Hurricane tested did not. The argument comparing Hurricane and Wildcat has been had on this forum ad nauseum. Under the right circumstances,( if Grumman and the US had been on a war footing since before 1939, like the UK was) the F4F3 COULD have probably been ready for the BOB but it was not and that is the end of the story.



The F4F-3 had the two stage supercharged engine and so had rather different performance above 15,000ft than the other Martlet/Wildcats. 
As far as "IF the US had been on a war footing" The Problem was not only Grumman but Pratt Whitney. 
One if not two Army fighters in the Army 1939 fighter competition were powered by TWO stage supercharged R-1830s. They worked so well (sarcasm) that not only did the Army buy single stage planes (P-40) but it was the final straw that saw P&W stop using General electric designed superchargers. This redesign of the superchargers took time. 
While the US Navy did order F4F-3 in Aug of 1939, the French also ordered an export version using the Wright cyclone engine. This engine, while it did offer the same 1200hp for take-off was good for 1000hp at 13,500ft compared to the 1000hp at 19,000ft of the P&W R-1830 that would eventually be in the F4F-3. The French version was to be armed with six 7.5 Darne mg. They were not finished when France fell and the order was taken over by the British. The US Navy allowed this French/British order to be delivered before it's own orders. This aircraft (the Martlet I) was changed to four .50 cal guns, did not have self sealing tanks or armor and had fixed wings and no carrier equipment. They were used as land based fighters. These are the ones that show up on July, 1940. It takes until Oct 31 1940 for the 81st Martlet I to be delivered. It takes until Dec 1940 for the 22nd F4F-3 to be accepted by the Navy out of 578 on order. 
Because of difficulties with the two stage engine a two speed single stage engine installation has been worked out and flown as the XF4F-6. It is ordered into limited production as the F4F-3A. This is the engine used in the Martlet II and III. It was good for 1000hp at 14,500ft. 
The British got 1082 Martlet/Wildcats out of 7905 produced. considering that 111 of them were from picking up the French and Greek orders and the last 340 weren't supplied until 1944 I hardly think British requirements had much influence on the Wildcats design or development. 
A number of the US F4F-3 and F4F-3A were completed without selfsealing tanks. 

The XF4F-3 isn't flown until until Feb 12 1939. It needs wing and tail modifications. In May it is still suffering from persistent cooling problems but they are finally solved. Navy places first order in Aug.
Even if Grumman goes on a "WAR FOOTING" the next month just how much faster could thy have turned out any large numbers of Wildcats? It took North American about a year to deliver the first production Mustang after the prototype flew. And North American wasn't dealing with a temperamental prototype supercharger set-up. Even if everything went extremely well you would probably be lucky to get a couple of hundred F4Fs into service during the BoB without totally rewriting history.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2010)

davebender said:


> If that was true then modern fighter aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 would still be armed with .50cal MGs rather then a 20mm cannon.



That might be true if the enemies jet fighters grossed 6,000-8,000lbs and had fuselage-wing skinning the same thickness as WW II 350-450mph aircraft. 

Since a Mig-29 weighs empty about what a Martin B-26 bomber from WW II does I think we can see that this argument is a non-starter.


----------



## davebender (Sep 6, 2010)

The American Army was partially mobilized during the summer of 1940. A massive naval building program was also in progress by mid 1940 including the first two Essex class aircraft carriers. So there should have been no shortage of money for military aircraft.


----------



## renrich (Sep 6, 2010)

Glider, without going back through the report, I am pretty sure that the Wildcats tested in the Jan. 41 tests at Anacostia had armor which surprised me also.

Without getting into the debate about whose guns and how many and all the ballistics and other BS which we have had here before besides which we do not have Soren and HoHun to keep us straight, it is very clear according to Lundstrom in "The First Team" that when the F4F4 was under development, the British insisted on six guns against the wishes of the USN. If one reads my post carefully I said that the F4F4's performance drop, compared to the F4F3, was partly caused by the six 50 BMGs. The other factors were the weight of the folding wings and a few other modifictions and the drag of six gun ports is more than four. Grumman had to revise the gun layout to accomodate the six guns along with the folding wings and they did not want to build two versions of the F4F4. I have a feeling that everyone went with the Brit's desires because they had been in combat since 1939 and the US had not. Having said that, the USN did not like the six guns in the Wildcat and as I stated, a few of the last F4F4s built reverted to the four guns. Thach said that,"If you can't hit with four, you will miss with eight." The six guns carried 240 rounds for each gun, as I remember, whereas the four guns had 430 rounds per gun. The firing time for the F4F3 was 28.7 seconds and the F4F4 was 16 seconds. Big difference! The USN trained their pilots to shoot in two second bursts which amounted to fifty rounds per gun. The P51B and C had only four fifties and the original F8F had only four fifties and of course the FM2 had the four fifties. The P51s and the FM2s did quite well.

It is also clear, according to Lundstrom, that the pilots trained by the USN had more training in gunnery than the pilots of any other air force in the world. That is not to say that there were not expert gunners in every air force but from what I have read about the RAF in the early war, their pilots were not particularly well trained in gunnery.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 6, 2010)

renrich said:


> Glider, without going back through the report, I am pretty sure that the Wildcats tested in the Jan. 41 tests at Anacostia had armor which surprised me also.
> 
> Without getting into the debate about whose guns and how many and all the ballistics and other BS which we have had here before besides which we do not have Soren and HoHun to keep us straight, it is very clear according to Lundstrom in "The First Team" that when the F4F4 was under development, the British insisted on six guns against the wishes of the USN. If one reads my post carefully I said that the F4F4's performance drop, compared to the F4F3, was partly caused by the six 50 BMGs. The other factors were the weight of the folding wings and a few other modifictions and the drag of six gun ports is more than four. Grumman had to revise the gun layout to accomodate the six guns along with the folding wings and they did not want to build two versions of the F4F4. I have a feeling that everyone went with the Brit's desires because they had been in combat since 1939 and the US had not. Having said that, the USN did not like the six guns in the Wildcat and as I stated, a few of the last F4F4s built reverted to the four guns. Thach said that,"If you can't hit with four, you will miss with eight." The six guns carried 240 rounds for each gun, as I remember, whereas the four guns had 430 rounds per gun. The firing time for the F4F3 was 28.7 seconds and the F4F4 was 16 seconds. Big difference! The USN trained their pilots to shoot in two second bursts which amounted to fifty rounds per gun. The P51B and C had only four fifties and the original F8F had only four fifties and of course the FM2 had the four fifties. The P51s and the FM2s did quite well.
> It is also clear, according to Lundstrom, that the pilots trained by the USN had more training in gunnery than the pilots of any other air force in the world. That is not to say that there were not expert gunners in every air force but from what I have read about the RAF in the early war, their pilots were not particularly well trained in gunnery.




There appears to be some contradictions within this. If 4 x 0.5 cal were deemed satisfactory why was 6 the norm on US fighters later in the war. It may be true that if you cant hit with four you will miss with eight but it is also true that if you cant hit in 16 seconds you will miss in 29. Many of the long range craft that would attack a British fleet were bombers and the british had already had experience of how how many hits were required to bring down a bomber, that is time you dont have when the bombers are heading towards your fleet and the longer you shoot at a target the longer you are a target yourself.

From the first world war all air cooled machine guns were supposed to be fired for 2 seconds because they overheat, and from the first world war most people in a combat situation forget it.

When American pilots were trained in gunnery, was it with or without a sperry gyro gunsight?


----------



## RCAFson (Sep 6, 2010)

renrich said:


> Glider, without going back through the report, I am pretty sure that the Wildcats tested in the Jan. 41 tests at Anacostia had armor which surprised me also.
> 
> Without getting into the debate about whose guns and how many and all the ballistics and other BS which we have had here before besides which we do not have Soren and HoHun to keep us straight, it is very clear according to Lundstrom in "The First Team" that when the F4F4 was under development, the British insisted on six guns against the wishes of the USN. If one reads my post carefully I said that the F4F4's performance drop, compared to the F4F3, was partly caused by the six 50 BMGs. The other factors were the weight of the folding wings and a few other modifictions and the drag of six gun ports is more than four. Grumman had to revise the gun layout to accomodate the six guns along with the folding wings and they did not want to build two versions of the F4F4. I have a feeling that everyone went with the Brit's desires because they had been in combat since 1939 and the US had not. Having said that, the USN did not like the six guns in the Wildcat and as I stated, a few of the last F4F4s built reverted to the four guns. Thach said that,"If you can't hit with four, you will miss with eight." The six guns carried 240 rounds for each gun, as I remember, whereas the four guns had 430 rounds per gun. The firing time for the F4F3 was 28.7 seconds and the F4F4 was 16 seconds. Big difference! The USN trained their pilots to shoot in two second bursts which amounted to fifty rounds per gun. The P51B and C had only four fifties and the original F8F had only four fifties and of course the FM2 had the four fifties. The P51s and the FM2s did quite well.
> 
> It is also clear, according to Lundstrom, that the pilots trained by the USN had more training in gunnery than the pilots of any other air force in the world. That is not to say that there were not expert gunners in every air force but from what I have read about the RAF in the early war, their pilots were not particularly well trained in gunnery.



The USN's CIC, Admiral King was not noted as an Anglophile... You seem to be suggesting that somehow the perfidious Brits were able to force USN carrier and squadron commanders to retain 6 x .5" MGs in their F4F-4s when it appeared to be a simple field mod to remove one gun from each wing. Then to complete their dastardliness the Brits forced the USN to install 6 x .5" BMGs in their new F6F-3 fighter...

I would submit that the USN studied the combat reports and noted that most pilots came back with ammo remaining and therefore their kill probabilities would increase with more guns to maximize hits per firing pass.


----------



## renrich (Sep 6, 2010)

I am not suggesting anything. I am relating exactly what Lundstrom has reported in his book about the six guns and the British.. If you have not read the book, I suggest you get it and read it. It is the best researched book I know of on the Pacific air war in 1941-42.

It is obvious that a fighter with six whatever guns is going to be better armed than one with four of the same guns,IF, an adequate supply of ammo can be carried and there is room for the additional guns and IF the ACs performance is not seriously degraded by the extra guns and ammo. In the case of the Wildcat with around 1000 HP, the extra weight of the two guns added up along with some other weight adding measures to seriously degrade the performance. As far as the RAF and there studies of how many bullets it takes to down a bomber, I have read that they decided that it took 197 hits from the puny rifle caliber guns carried by their vaunted eight gun fighters (whoopee) to down a bomber on average. It may have been more than that as I am quoting from an article in Air and Space about the BOB from memory. I have news for you. The 50 BMG is a horse of a different color than the 303 British. The bullet weighs more than three times what the 303 weighs and it's down range velocity and energy is substantially greater than the British weapon. Armor plate that will just stop a 303 will be like hot butter for the 50 BMG. It was and still is a very effective weapon against AC and light armored vehicles, not to mention trucks, locomotives, small ships, houses and buildings and terrorists at a mile.

Quote from Lundstrom, "The First Team", chapter eighteen, the F4F controversy' " Cdr. John Pearson of BuAer's Engineering Section stressed in a letter to Jimmy Flatley that the Bureau never claimed the F4F4 was the perfect fighting machine," The Bureau seemed to feel guilty about the six gun battery- it's reduced ammunition capacity and additional weight. According to Pearson, the decision for six guns with fewer rounds per gun was "very close" inside the Bureau, the deciding point being the need for standardization in production in view of the British insistence on six guns." " The gun controversy became so heated that the Bureau decided to "tamper with production." " Armament labored to redesign the F4F4's fold ing wings to accomodate four guns instead of six and with 430 rounds per gun rather than 240. The resulting air craft, which including a few other minor changes, tipped the scales about 500 pounds lighter than the standard F4F4." Those changes were incorporated in the eleventh Eastern FM1 and those following.

The Mustang, Hellcat, Corsair and P47 could carry six or even eight 50 BMG without serious consequences to their performance although I have read that two MGs were removed from some P51Ds and some P47s to enhance performance both in climb and roll. I also have read that some Corsair pilots would switch off the two outboard guns and just use the four inboard ones and keep the others in reserve.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 6, 2010)

renrich said:


> I am not suggesting anything. I am relating exactly what Lundstrom has reported in his book about the six guns and the British.. If you have not read the book, I suggest you get it and read it. It is the best researched book I know of on the Pacific air war in 1941-42.
> It is obvious that a fighter with six whatever guns is going to be better armed than one with four of the same guns,IF, an adequate supply of ammo can be carried and there is room for the additional guns and IF the ACs performance is not seriously degraded by the extra guns and ammo. In the case of the Wildcat with around 1000 HP, the extra weight of the two guns added up along with some other weight adding measures to seriously degrade the performance. As far as the RAF and there studies of how many bullets it takes to down a bomber, I have read that they decided that it took 197 hits from the puny rifle caliber guns carried by their vaunted eight gun fighters (whoopee) to down a bomber on average. It may have been more than that as I am quoting from an article in Air and Space about the BOB from memory. I have news for you. The 50 BMG is a horse of a different color than the 303 British. The bullet weighs more than three times what the 303 weighs and it's down range velocity and energy is substantially greater than the British weapon. Armor plate that will just stop a 303 will be like hot butter for the 50 BMG. It was and still is a very effective weapon against AC and light armored vehicles, not to mention trucks, locomotives, small ships, houses and buildings and terrorists at a mile.
> The Mustang, Hellcat, Corsair and P47 could carry six or even eight 50 BMG without serious consequences to their performance although I have read that two MGs were removed from some P51Ds and some P47s to enhance performance both in climb and roll. I also have read that some Corsair pilots would switch off the two outboard guns and just use the four inboard ones and keep the others in reserve.



From what you say above it is clear that the Wildcat with only 1000BHP was marginal on performance despite not seeing combat until over a year after the conflict started. By that time the hurricane II was introduced which had 1480BHP the Mk 1 hurricane was in service from 1938.

The 8 x .303 MGs wernt much vaunted, even before the war started it was thought they wouldnt be hard hitting enough and cannon were preferred. Prior to the Wildcat (martlet) seeing service the RAF were already operating spitfires with 20mm cannon armament which had a hitting power approximately 3x that of a 0.5" MG (in the opinion of the RAF)

The US had even more problems with wing mounted cannon than the Brits which left them with 40 million cannon rounds in storage, eventually they sorted these problems and the last variant of the Grumman range the Bearcat had 4x 20mm cannon which had been standard armament on some RAF fighters for years.


----------



## davebender (Sep 6, 2010)

There's a big flaw in that argument. 

You may obtain a few .50cal hits but fail to critically damage the enemy aircraft. It happened all the time when using machineguns against aircraft. That's why Germany modified the MG151 cannon to fire 20mm mine shells ILO 15mm bullets with only a tiny bursting charge.


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2010)

Renrich
I certainly support everything you say about the effectiveness of the 0.5 vs the 303. 4 x 0.5 would be far more effective than 8 x 0.303 mgs.

Re the British insisting on 6 guns for the F4F4 well I cannot go against Lundstrom but admit to having a question mark about it in my head. I find it hard to believe that the British were insisting on 6 x 0.5 but thats as far as I can go.

You say that the efforts to lighten the Wildcat saved approx 500lb, well the removal of the 2 x HMG would save around 120lb so for anyone to claim that it was the UK's fault that the F4F4 was too heavy is stretching it a bit.

The bit that I totally disagree with is any implication that the UK wanted 6 guns because they couldn't hit anything with 4. That to put it mildly, is total bull. The US may well have put more effort into gunnery training and the average pilot been more accurate when they finished training but that doesn't mean that the other airforces couldn't hit anything. Its worth remembering that the RAF using the Spitfire shot down a good number of aircraft in the ETO using two effective guns as the 4 x 303 were pretty usless against the well protected Luftwaffe aircraft.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 6, 2010)

Wouldn't 2 extra mgs ensure more quickly the destruction of bomber a/c attacking the fleet?


----------



## renrich (Sep 6, 2010)

Glider, the 50 BMG weighed 70 pounds and then you have the mounting system which I dont't know what that weighs. I did not say that the redesign saved around 500 pounds, those are direct quotes from Lundstrom and once again, with respect to you, I never said that the extra guns were wholly the problem. I said they were part of the problem.

From what I have read about pre war training of the RAF, I get the impression that they were taught to mainly make low deflection runs from astern, open fire at relatively long ranges and shower the target with a lot of rounds. That philosophy may have been because they were stuck, at that time, with the Browning 303 MG and they knew it took a lot of hits to bring down a bomber. There may have also been time or budget constraints on the amount of gunnery training they received. That was not the philosophy of the USN and we have had this discussion before so I will only mention their strong interest in making high deflection runs with fire opening at 1000 feet and continuing as the range closed.

Going back to the weight and four or six guns, I am surprised that around 500 pounds could be saved by the new four gun configuration along with a few other minor changes. The F4F4 with six guns had two guns inside the wing fold and one outside. Maybe that had something to do with the weight gain that I don't understand.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 6, 2010)

renrich said:


> From what I have read about pre war training of the RAF, I get the impression that they were taught to mainly make low deflection runs from astern, open fire at relatively long ranges and shower the target with a lot of rounds.



I would be interested to know what pre war (prior to sept 1939) training in the USA consisited of and in which aircraft this training was conducted. Pre war, everything was based on theory much of which turned out to be false. It didnt take the RAF or LW long to discover you must get in close and then develop a deflection gunsight. I dont understand why 4 MGs was perfect on a Wildcat but every other front line fighter in the US inventory Mustang Thunderbolt Hellcat and Corsair had eventually 6MGs.

It was remerked by one pilot that those with high rank are rarely seen at high altitude


----------



## davebender (Sep 6, 2010)

The .50cal MG produces a lot of recoil and vibration. You cannot just stick it inside an aluminum aircraft wing. There would need to be considerable bracing around the gun mount.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 6, 2010)

renrich said:


> From what I have read about pre war training of the RAF, I get the impression that they were taught to mainly make low deflection runs from astern, open fire at relatively long ranges and shower the target with a lot of rounds. That philosophy may have been because they were stuck, at that time, with the Browning 303 MG and they knew it took a lot of hits to bring down a bomber. There may have also been time or budget constraints on the amount of gunnery training they received. That was not the philosophy of the USN and we have had this discussion before so I will only mention their strong interest in making high deflection runs with fire opening at 1000 feet and continuing as the range closed.



This all depends on what pre-war period you are talking about. Prior to 1938, the RAF held extensive and competitive air-to-air gunnery shoots, including an annual competition to determine the fighter squadron with the best gunnery skills. These competitions used coloured wax bullets against drogue targets towed behind another aircraft. Under these conditions low-deflection, tail-on attacks were an absolute no-no. From 1938 onwards, rearmament took priority and there was an undoubted reduction in overall force effectiveness as the RAF rapidly expanded and training hours were cut.

The imposition of the Fighting Area Tactics must also be factored into the equation. Much of 1930s doctrine was centred on accetance of Douhet's theory that the bomber would always break through, and hence there was no need for escorting fighters (nor air-to-air tactics to counter a fighter threat). This maxim seemed pretty accurate throughout 1939 but was thoroughly debunked in 1940. Unfortunately, it took time for tactics to evolve. It was the Fighting Area Tactics which were more prescriptive about stern attacks, although this was primarily done to increase the number of hits on the target. One could reasonably argue that the USN (and FAA for that matter) didn't really need to consider massed bomber attacks, at least not on the scale encountered during the Allied retreat through France and the Battle of Britain. As to gun harmonisation, that was a matter for the pilots and the "spray everywhere" approach was soon seen to be ineffective.

Finally, despite all the accepted benefits of the 50 cal it still took more time to get it operationally effective (indeed, it was well into 1942 before all the bugs were wrung out of the ammunition feeds etc). With hindsight, we may consider the RAF to have made a wrong choice in sticking with the .303 but at the time it was entirely the correct decision.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 6, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> This all depends on what pre-war period you are talking about. Prior to 1938, the RAF held extensive and competitive air-to-air gunnery shoots, including an annual competition to determine the fighter squadron with the best gunnery skills. These competitions used coloured wax bullets against drogue targets towed behind another aircraft. Under these conditions low-deflection, tail-on attacks were an absolute no-no. From 1938 onwards, rearmament took priority and there was an undoubted reduction in overall force effectiveness as the RAF rapidly expanded and training hours were cut.



All theories about fighter tactics before 1939/40 excluded radar guidance because even if people knew about it they didnt know how well or badly it would actually work the chain home system was still being worked on in 1939.

BTW the P40 had 6 MGs and that was in service before the Wildcat


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 6, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> BTW the P40 had 6 MGs and that was in service before the Wildcat




Yes, and it too had problems with ammunition feed and stoppages. Also, as late as July 1941 the RAF was still struggling to obtain enough 50 cals for its US-provisioned fighters, hence efforts to adapt the Buffalo for .303s well before the Japanese invasion.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 6, 2010)

I think we all agree that if you hit an aircraft with a single 20mm and a single .50 BMG the 20mm is going to do more damage. I think that all of us should also agree that the Germans and Japanese both had cannon because thay HAD to have cannon to shoot down US heavy bombers. But, my argument is that using a 20 mm on a Zero or even an Me109 or FW190 was overkill. I just don't think it was really needed. Even the German twins like the Me110 weren't that difficult to destroy. We've all seen gun camera footage of what 6 .50's will do to a German or Japanese airplane. Not only will it easily destroy engines, kill pilots and start fires but it will also remove wings and cause other catastrophic failures. Using 4 20mm against an aircraft like a Zero or Me109 to me would be like using buckshot to shoot a dove. Will buckshot kill a dove? Of course it will if you can hit him, but it isnt required, and it is a lot more efficient to use smaller shot such as 7.5, 8 or 9. If you trying to kill a deer, buckshot works great. Again, you can kill a deer with birdshot, but it takes ALOT of it and you had better be REALLY close. But if I were in WW2 flying against single engine fighters, 6 50's with 300 to 400 rounds each would trump 4 20's with 60 to 90 rounds each for me. If I was flying against 4 engined American heavy bombers then cannon would be the only way to go.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2010)

my humble opinion is that the rifle calibre weapons fitted to British fighters at the beginning of the war were the best solution available, given the limitations of the pilots and the relative vulnerability of the target aircraft. With 7.7mm mgs, each gun had a lot of ammunition, meaning that a relatively inexperienced shot could hammer away for longer until he hit his target. And because the targets were generally un-armoured, or lightly armoured rifle calibre weapons were adequate (but not oustanding) in theior ability to bring down an enemy

In essence, I am saying the rifle calibre wepons of the RAF sacrificed firepower for firing duration, and that thgis was the right choice given the pilot proficiency at the time. 

The problem as i see it is that rifled weapons rapidly approached obsolescence as aircraft rapidly improved their levels of protection. I dont think this had been adequately anticipated in the pre-war planning


----------



## Juha (Sep 7, 2010)

Hello pinsog
when cannon were belt-fed they usually had at least 120 rounds. And Soviet thought that against Fw 190 20mm was a better option than 12,7mm. And 110 was clearly more lightly built than twin engined bombers. Of course one could shot down a Ju 88 with 4 or 6 .5s but with 4 20mm one could do that faster if all other things were equal.

And when 109 got its 20mm cannon it wasn't because of US heavy bombers and I really doubt that US heavy bombers had any significant impact on the decision on Zero's armament.


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2010)

renrich said:


> Glider, the 50 BMG weighed 70 pounds and then you have the mounting system which I dont't know what that weighs. I did not say that the redesign saved around 500 pounds, those are direct quotes from Lundstrom and once again, with respect to you, I never said that the extra guns were wholly the problem. I said they were part of the problem.


Your right I shold have read the posting again, apologies



> From what I have read about pre war training of the RAF, I get the impression that they were taught to mainly make low deflection runs from astern, open fire at relatively long ranges and shower the target with a lot of rounds. That philosophy may have been because they were stuck, at that time, with the Browning 303 MG and they knew it took a lot of hits to bring down a bomber. There may have also been time or budget constraints on the amount of gunnery training they received. That was not the philosophy of the USN and we have had this discussion before so I will only mention their strong interest in making high deflection runs with fire opening at 1000 feet and continuing as the range closed.


This whole topic of gunnery training I find interesting but there is next to nothing about it in any book that I have seen. There is no doubt that the RAF pre war put a lot of effort into gunnery as outlined in the other posts and that for obvious reasons shooting at towed targets has to be a deflection shot. The question that no one can know the answer to is how the pressure of war impacted this training.

If I can digress a moment. The gunnery practice of shooting at towed targets with dyed ammunition to work out the score carried on into the early 70's. The highest score for quite a time was held by a lightning pilot who had a runaway with his Aden’s. He decided that the safest thing to do was to keep his aircraft pointing at the target for as long as possible. Unfortunately it didn't count as a record as they were limited to the number of rounds they could use in a burst.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 7, 2010)

Re: RAF FCMGs, gotta agree with Parsifal on that one completely. It was fine solution pre-war, just become obsolate overnight. In the hindsight, if we want to criticize the decision given that armoring of aircraft (the Soviets did for their fighters first IIRC with the I-16 already in the Spanish Civil War) could be expected, and perhaps the decision lacked foresight somewhat.


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2010)

There can be no doubt that the LMG in the ETO was obsolete by the BOB, in fact I have just read of a Hurricane that made it back to base with 97 hits ( I am assuming that they were LMGs).

The problem wan't the choice of 8 x LMG for the RAF, most airforces used them and eight of them was considerably more than other nations airforces at the time. The problem was the delay in getting the 20mm to work.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 7, 2010)

Some thoughts/notes on the .50 cal thing.

1. Be careful WHICH .50 cal you are comparing. In the 1930s and into the year 1940 the .50 cycled at 600rpm in a free firing installation (non-sychronized). At some point in 1940 the gun was modified to do from 750-850rpm. How fast were the older guns replaced/modified? At the end of the war (April 1945?) the AN-M# version was type classified which could achieve 1150-1250 rpm. So those four .50 cal guns in the Bearcat had a rate of fire of eight pre-1940 .50 cal guns. If the first Bearcats didn't have the faster firing guns it cold be argued that they were on the way.

2. Consider the available ammunition. before 1943 there was ball, AP and tracer. From 1943 on there was the API M8 round which combined armor piercing with a small incendiary charge. This latter round would be much more effective against fuel tanks/systems. 

3. At some point in the 30s the power of the basic loading of the .50 cal was increased. Several hundred FPS were added to the velocity. 

4. Consider some of the pilots. Thach had been a Naval aviator since 1929. a bit different level of experience than pilots newly recruited after the war started. 

5. Consider some of the problems related to deflection shooting and rates of fire. 
IF an enemy plane flies across the front of the firing plane at 90 degrees while doing 300mph (440fps) a 1200rpm gun will place a bullet every 22 feet down the length of the plane. Obviously even twelve 1200rpm guns are going to have a hard time infecting any real damage. Just as obviously a 600rpm gun is going to have it's bullets spaced out 44ft apart. 
This means that the shooting aircraft is going to have to turn to keep the crossing target in the impact area of the guns for at least a short period of time. It takes a very skilled (or lucky) pilot to keep the target perfectly centered in the impact zone for several seconds. What happened much more often was that the impact zone shifted for and aft in relation to the target during a couple of second burst. Some times the impact zone was missing ahead, much more often it was missing astern and some times the center of the zone was traveling the length of the fuselage. All in just tenths of second. 
Training can increase the duration of time on target. Higher rates of fire (total rate of fire of the airplane) can increase the hit rate for for a given time on target. Lesser angles of interception do make things much easier but in real life the pilots had the problem of trying to shoot where the target was GOING TO BE rather than just putting out a stream of bullets and letting the target fly through the stream. 

As far as the Wildcat goes. If the British were truly the instigators of the 6 gun armament they sure didn't get what they wanted. Of the just under 1100 Wildcats delivered to the British only around 370 had six guns. If the British did want SIX guns, when did they make the decision and based of of what? 
They had tested the American .50 cal Browning during the 30s but that would have been the low rate of fire gun without incendiary ammo. 

as far as the uselessness of rifle caliber machine guns goes, the Germans and the Japanese seemed to do a fair amount of work with them in the early part of the war. Not only were they the standard defensive armament but after the the wing mounted cannon with their 55-60 round drums had run dry (in about 8 seconds ) the 109 and Zero were down a pair of such machineguns for the rest of the fight.


----------



## Nikademus (Sep 7, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> I would be interested to know what pre war (prior to sept 1939) training in the USA consisited of and in which aircraft this training was conducted. Pre war, everything was based on theory much of which turned out to be false. It didnt take the RAF or LW long to discover you must get in close and then develop a deflection gunsight. I dont understand why 4 MGs was perfect on a Wildcat but every other front line fighter in the US inventory Mustang Thunderbolt Hellcat and Corsair had eventually 6MGs.
> 
> It was remerked by one pilot that those with high rank are rarely seen at high altitude



USN standard training was not all that much different from other services. What improved their gunnery (including deflection shooting) was operational training once posted to the VF squadrons. That's where Thach and his disciples first came into the picture. For example, when CV Hornet deployed for the battle of Midway, commentary revolving around the status of their training was not viewed favorably by veterans. (Lundstrom)

Later in the war, Thach was able to get his methods officially incorporated into the standard USN training program. Shores' Tunisia book contains commentary from some RAF personell who considered US pilot training better than their own on the basis of their being trained more thoroughly over time before being shipped overseas for combat ops. This was in marked contrast to the RAF experience at times. Necessity sometimes requires less than optimal deployments.


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> USN standard training was not all that much different from other services. What improved their gunnery (including deflection shooting) was operational training once posted to the VF squadrons. That's where Thach and his disciples first came into the picture. For example, when CV Hornet deployed for the battle of Midway, commentary revolving around the status of their training was not viewed favorably by veterans. (Lundstrom)
> 
> Later in the war, Thach was able to get his methods officially incorporated into the standard USN training program. Shores' Tunisia book contains commentary from some RAF personell who considered US pilot training better than their own on the basis of their being trained more thoroughly over time before being shipped overseas for combat ops. This was in marked contrast to the RAF experience at times. Necessity sometimes requires less than optimal deployments.



I am trying to get a picture as to RAF training including gunnery training to add to the thread about RAF Pilot Hours/training during the BOB. I don't have a full (or even half full) picture yet but it looks as if RAF training was at a low during 1941/2 when standards slipped following the introduction of the revision 4 training scheme. Training from OTU to the squadrons was significantly changed and improved as a result of this to such an extent that the RAF started to have a surplus of pilots from mid 1943 onwards as losses were considerably less than planned.

Changes included the following steps:-
1) Pilots trained overseas e.g. Canada and South Africa were posted to conversion squadrons which normally were equipped with Hurricanes. This was because they would have used Hurricanes when trained and enabled them to get used to British Weather and operating environments in an aircraft they were familiar with. They would then be posted to OTU which operated the aircraft they would be using in action. This also helps explain why the RAF had hurricane squadrons in the UK late into 1944
2) The OTU's specialised in one type of aircraft Typhoon, Tempest, Spitfire, Mosquito, light bombers, PR pilots whatever. These OTU's were quite large. 57 OTU had 77 Spitfires, 20 Masters, 6 Martinets, 2 Magisters, 1 Dominie and an Oxford. It’s worth noting that the Martinet was a specialised aircraft for target towing.
3) Fighter Leader schools were opened for training of leaders from the front line squadrons but were also known as OTU but the students were obviously from front line units and taught them the latest tactics.
4) Low Attack Schools provided additional training for Typhoon pilots on top of the OTU.
5) Tactical Exercise Units were formed but to be honest I have yet to quite understand their role. The information I have is confused. One of them 3 TEU specialised in converting experienced pilots to Typhoons and Mustangs. Others seem to be involved in co-ordination different types of unit to work together before going into action, but as I said I am not certain about this.
6) The Syllabus was continually updated to cover the latest weapons and equipment. Gyro gun sight training, RP and dive-bombing.
7) OTU Training time was increased for day units to 12 weeks and the Night fighter and Night Intruder OTU to 16 weeks.

To sum up. I would certainly understand that some RAF Pilots in particular those trained in 1942 would consider US training to be better than they received, but significant changes were made and I would hope that the alterations made up the difference.

When I have a more complete picture I will update the pilot hours thread but don't hold your breath, it will take some time. Also this is a work in progress statement, so please don't take the above as gospel, but it should be a fair indication


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 7, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> USN standard training was not all that much different from other services. What improved their gunnery (including deflection shooting) was operational training once posted to the VF squadrons. That's where Thach and his disciples first came into the picture. For example, when CV Hornet deployed for the battle of Midway, commentary revolving around the status of their training was not viewed favorably by veterans. (Lundstrom)
> 
> Later in the war, Thach was able to get his methods officially incorporated into the standard USN training program. Shores' Tunisia book contains commentary from some RAF personell who considered US pilot training better than their own on the basis of their being trained more thoroughly over time before being shipped overseas for combat ops. This was in marked contrast to the RAF experience at times. Necessity sometimes requires less than optimal deployments.



The training any military organisation gives depends on military necessity. At various times all European airforces have used pilots with minimal training. It may be the case that British pilots were sent into combat with less training than may have been needed but everyone was aware how much training and experience were vital, when you are faced with invasion you have no choice. However the fact that the British developed a gyro gunsight later used by the USA into the jet age shows that the British realised the importance of gunnery. In fact the gyro gunsight may have been a way to improve gunnery without the hours/costs involved in gunnery training schools, I am sure others know better than me on that score


----------



## The Basket (Sep 8, 2010)

Glider said:


> There can be no doubt that the LMG in the ETO was obsolete by the BOB, in fact I have just read of a Hurricane that made it back to base with 97 hits ( I am assuming that they were LMGs).
> 
> The problem wan't the choice of 8 x LMG for the RAF, most airforces used them and eight of them was considerably more than other nations airforces at the time. The problem was the delay in getting the 20mm to work.



I disagree.

The .303 was by no means obsolete,


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 9, 2010)

The Basket said:


> I disagree.
> 
> The .303 was by no means obsolete


You couldn't expand on that a bit, could you?


----------

