A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45
- Thread starter Kevin J
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The hawk had the highest score for the Allied side during the Battle of France, I believe. Too bad they didn't get Tomahawks and all the other stuff they had ordered in time. Not to mention a few more months to get their D.520s ready and up to speed as those were quite good too.
Or a few Arsenal VG-33s....
Or a few Arsenal VG-33s....
Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a list of front line aircraft (fighters and bombers) that the French had ordered before the Battle of France started for real, that they never actually got in time? I think they had placed pre-orders for A-20s and SBDs and all kinds of stuff...
- Thread starter
- #544
Kevin J
Banned
IIRC the French had 335 Twin Wasp variants, 30 going over to the RAF before the BoB and 195 Cyclone versions.
The Wrights only. I have never seen a 2 speed P&W engine listed for the P36/Hawk 75
One of the biggest problems with the Mohawks used by the RAF in the CBI theatre was the fuel tank in the fuselage behind the cockpit. The RAF units were ordered to vent the tank before entering combat, a process that could take minutes, and required the pilot to fly straight and level during the venting. Better armour and self-sealing material for the fuselage tank would have added weight, as it did in the P-40s, reducing climb performance, which means adding power probably takes you down the P-40 road - faster on the level, but can't climb.
The problem was the turbo-charger designs of the day were very bulky. To fit a turbo into the P-36 as done with the P-43 would mean taking out the fuel tank behind the cockpit to make room for the turbo, plus requiring a bulge under the fuselage to run the large air trunking from the engine to the turbo and back. That's why the P-43 had an oval fuselage shape and why the P-47 ended up so big. Taking out the fuselage tank would produce a faster, high-flying P-36, but with a range so short it probably wouldn't be useful.
I see Schweik is still living trying to pretend a P-40 of any version was better than a Spitfire VIII/IX.
Why would you wait until your actually engaged in combat to vent the tank be hind the seat? It's an overload tank, you use it for take off and climb, it should be empty long before your engaged in combat, if not then it shouldn't have been filled in the first place. A P36 had 1050 hp at takeoff, and extra 75 pounds would have given it a 2 speed engine with 1,200 hp up to 5,000 feet and according to tests by the US army top speed would jump by 20 mph at 17,000 feet with an engine providing 50 less hp. Not sure how heavy your self sealing material for your one little overload tank is, but if it overcomes an additional 150 hp and lowers your climb rate then you might want to back off on how much you use. The P40 had more weight issues than just a bit of self sealing tank material, 450 pounds of guns and 400 pounds of ammo might have been a start.
Plenty of room in a P36 behind and below the tank behind the pilot for a turbocharger. The return pipe would be internal and the pipe from engine to turbo half exposed like on a P43. Considering they went from a radial to a V12 and ended up adding 1500-2500 pounds to the design, I don't think that slipping a pair of 6 inch pipes down the middle for 12 feet would be a huge problem. Also, that little added bulge isn't going to hurt the aerodynamics of a P36 considering how dirty the bottom of that plane was anyway.
That would be down to the tactics used by No.1 Wing RAAF, not the Spitfires themselves. You have to question the skill and training of any flight leader that allows themselves to be run out of fuel whilst flying defensive interceptions under ground control as No.1 Wing did.
In 1940 the Luftwaffe was tightly tied to the idea of the ME109 for air-superiority over the battlefield, with the ME110 providing the long-range role by sweeping ahead of the bombers into enemy airspace. That idea worked fine in Poland and also France, but was not able to cope during the Battle of Britain with the better ground control afforded by RAF Fighter Command using radar. The Germans did have long-range drop-tanks in use for the He.51 pre-War, but that was before the ME110 was ready. They considered drop-tanks for the ME109 pre-War but thought the ME110 made the idea redundant. Drop-tanks were then hurriedly brought back into service for the ME109, but the Battle Of Britain was already lost, and after that the majority of the jadgflieger's work was defensive. In 1941 the ME109-E7 could carry a drop-tank to extend its range to 1350km, and the cleaner F to 1660km. So the German fighters could have ranged widely over the British Isles in 1942, they just didn't have the operational requirement to. The RAF did have the requirement, and Spitfires did range as far as the German border. By mid-1942 the Spitfire Vc Trop with long-range tank could fly direct from Gibraltar to Malta, a flight of 1100 miles.
German? Me410 would be an interesting escort, especially if using boom'n'zoom tactics against climbing Spit Vs. Thankfully, by the time the Me410 first flew in March 1942, the Germans were already being forced over to the defensive. British? In 1942, the Beaufighter, maybe the Merlin-engine IIF version for altitude performance, and without the weight of the radar. As long as it doesn't get sucked into a turning match the Beau IIF could give a Spit some problems, especially fi the Beau starts with an altitude advantage. Coastal Command Beaufighters spent many years of the War sweeping over the Bay of Biscay for Luftwaffe recce and long-range fighters. And then (even in 1942) there's the Mosquito, which could have flown all the way either as an escort or with it's own bombload, dropped the bombs and still been able to mix it with Spit Vs. If you want to expand the question to include the Yanks, then the P-38F or G was massively superior to the Zero.
You also get to question the plane when they run the interceptor out of fuel over his own territory after flying 500 miles 1 way.
Me109 with any drop tank can't fly 500 miles, fight a comparable single engine fighter and return, neither could any model Spitfire.
Me410's were meat on the table for any P38, P47 or P51. No way is it a long range escort in any scenrio.
I love the Beaufighter. As an escort vs single engine fighters, meat on the table.
If you include US fighters you have P38, P47 and P51, but I didn't include them because they, along with the Zero are the only 4 long range fighters of the war.
The Zero was called 2nd rate in 1942 and yet, my original point was that those "2nd rate Zeros" flew 500 miles 1 way and whipped one of the supposedly greatest planes of all time 7-1 over its own airspace and then flew home.
Nothing the Germans or British had during the war could have done that mission. Period.
Why, do you think the pilot said "Hey, we're running out of gas", only for the plane itself to force him to fly on? No, running out of fuel is a pilot error. If you are referring to 2nd May 1943, the Spits shot down between six and ten Japanese aircraft for the loss of five Spits in the actual air combat, then five Spits then made forced landings due to running out of fuel. They had used too much from the long climb followed by dogfighting with the Zeros. On the plus side, the majority of the Spits that did run out of fuel were repaired and returned to service. I can find only two Spitfires at Darwin that ran out of fuel and were too badly damaged to be repaired. So, despite pilot error, the long-term effect on the defences was small. After the 2nd May 1943, the Spits carried drop-tanks and avoided dogfighting, which chewed up fuel, and were so effective that the Japanese made their last major raid on 6th July 1943, and abandoned attacks on Darwin by November 1943.
Your post said neither side could fly far over the Channel without running out of fuel. My reply was not intended to imply either the Spit nor the ME109 could have flown 500 miles, had a combat and then returned, it was to fill in the gaps in your knowledge regarding both Luftwaffe and RAF range capabilities by 1942.
And there were how many P-38s, P-47s or P-51s at Darwin? The Allied defence at Darwin was tropicalized Spitfire Vs and P-40Es. The Me410 could outrun both with 385mph top speed, could fly higher than the P-40 could, and was excellent for boom'n'zoom tactics. It had the firepower to knock either down in a single pass, and the dive capability to then speed out of range to make a safe recovery, necessary given its relatively slow climb rate (though still better than the P-40E). The problem for the Me410 as an escort was there simply was no Luftwaffe role as long-range escort by 1942. I was also faster than the Zero, by quite a margin, and had the advantage of a rear-gunner to warn the pilot of attacks from the rear. It could even have carried bombs to Darwin, dropped them and engaged or evaded the Spitfires at will. Did the Zeros carry bombs to Darwin?
Beaufighters shot down ME109s and ME110s on day sweeps over the Med and Desert in 1942, both of which out-perform the Zero. The Beau II with Merlins would also have had the altitude performance to come in above the climbing Spit Vs (and well above the P-40Es), allowing them to position for diving attacks out of the Sun. Maybe you should think more about the scenario before passing such quick judgement? To be successful, an escort does not need to shoot down every enemy interceptor, it just has to disrupt them enough to keep them from attacking the bombers. Having said that, any Spit V or P-40E that got in the way of a diving Beau would have been shredded by the Beau's cannons.
I didn't include them because there were none at Darwin.
It didn't whip anything, the RAAF pilots stupidly ran out of fuel. A properly flown Spitfire V Trop was more than capable of besting a Zero, and the Spit V Trop was pretty much second-rate by mid-1942, let alone by the time of the Darwin raids in 1943. Please also note that the Spits were tasked with shooting down the bombers, not the Zeros, and shot down more Japanese aircraft than were lost in the defence of Darwin.
Except for the Me410, the Beau, the Mosquito, and the P-38 at the time, and planes like the P-51B/D or P-47N much, much, much better later in the War.
You're on your period? That does explain a lot.
IIRC, the fuselage tank was the largest tank in the P-36 (and P-40s), and the RAF Mohawks spent a lot of time flying patrols (and escorts to Blenheims) and needed the additional range. It was unlikely to be empty by the time you ran into the enemy, not unless you had already started back for home. However, using the fuselage tank left you with the possibility of an explosive mix of fuel, fumes and air, and after the Battle of Britain the RAF was paranoid about fuel tank fires.
Wing tanks are 42 and 63 gallons, the behind the seat ferry tank is 58 and cannot be used during high g maneuvers. It is strictly for take off, climb and ferrying. No one fought with fuel in this tank. It was the first tank emptied if used at all.
Shortround6
Major General
Uh, guys, the P-36 and Hawk 75 held about 42 US gallons in the forward wing tank and about 63 US gallons in the rear wing tank. The "small" fuselage tank held 57 US gallons (47.8 Imp gallons).
Part of the problem with the rear fuselage tank was not the accumulation of fumes but the fact that with a fair quantity of fuel in the tank the planes CG was too far aft and it was prohibited from performing combat maneuvers or aerobatics. The French had lost at least one Hawk 75 and possible more by trying to fly them and do hard maneuvering with fuel in the fuselage tank. It depends on which accounts you read.
The P-40 no letter had a fuel system that weighed 171lbs and that went to about 254lbs on the P-40B and then to 420lbs on the P-40C and there it stayed for most later models that kept all three tanks. Late model Ns got a different style self sealing tank.
Unless you had Dr. Who helping design your fuel tanks the two wing tanks were restricted in size/volume and fuel capacity dropped from 105 gallons to something less depending on type of self sealing tanks used. Standard fuel capacity on early P-40s was given as 120 gallons but this required the fuselage tank to partially filled. One data sheet has just 28 gallons of fuel capacity left for overload.
The forward shift of weights in the P-40 meant that fuel could be carried in the rear tank during combat (it might not have been recommended depending on model, Merlin P-40s used a partially filled rear tank to counterbalance the Merlin engine and while the tank was 1/2 emptied early on the last of the fuel was kept as the reserver) ) and the rear tank was self sealing.
The P-43 had the fuel storage out in the wings, well away from the fuselage. Running hot exhaust pipes near the tanks on the P-36/Hawk 75 may not have been a good idea without lots of heat shielding and cooling air. Not so much from a fire risk but to stop hot fuel from causing vapor lock problems. It is bad enough that the low pressure air at altitude can cause vapor pressure problems (a difference between aviation fuel and motor (car/truck) fuel) but heating the fuel with hot exhaust pipes is just asking for trouble
Please note the Hawk 75 A-4 added about 165lbs worth of guns and ammo compared to a P-36A and had a bit heavier armament than the P-36C.
Please note that a 6 gun Hawk 75 carried a heavier load of ammo than an 8 gun Spitfire II or Hurricane.
Part of the problem with the rear fuselage tank was not the accumulation of fumes but the fact that with a fair quantity of fuel in the tank the planes CG was too far aft and it was prohibited from performing combat maneuvers or aerobatics. The French had lost at least one Hawk 75 and possible more by trying to fly them and do hard maneuvering with fuel in the fuselage tank. It depends on which accounts you read.
The P-40 no letter had a fuel system that weighed 171lbs and that went to about 254lbs on the P-40B and then to 420lbs on the P-40C and there it stayed for most later models that kept all three tanks. Late model Ns got a different style self sealing tank.
Unless you had Dr. Who helping design your fuel tanks the two wing tanks were restricted in size/volume and fuel capacity dropped from 105 gallons to something less depending on type of self sealing tanks used. Standard fuel capacity on early P-40s was given as 120 gallons but this required the fuselage tank to partially filled. One data sheet has just 28 gallons of fuel capacity left for overload.
The forward shift of weights in the P-40 meant that fuel could be carried in the rear tank during combat (it might not have been recommended depending on model, Merlin P-40s used a partially filled rear tank to counterbalance the Merlin engine and while the tank was 1/2 emptied early on the last of the fuel was kept as the reserver) ) and the rear tank was self sealing.
The P-43 had the fuel storage out in the wings, well away from the fuselage. Running hot exhaust pipes near the tanks on the P-36/Hawk 75 may not have been a good idea without lots of heat shielding and cooling air. Not so much from a fire risk but to stop hot fuel from causing vapor lock problems. It is bad enough that the low pressure air at altitude can cause vapor pressure problems (a difference between aviation fuel and motor (car/truck) fuel) but heating the fuel with hot exhaust pipes is just asking for trouble
Please note the Hawk 75 A-4 added about 165lbs worth of guns and ammo compared to a P-36A and had a bit heavier armament than the P-36C.
Please note that a 6 gun Hawk 75 carried a heavier load of ammo than an 8 gun Spitfire II or Hurricane.
Over the course of the Darwin raids, the Japanese shot down 28 Spitfires confirmed by the pilots that in fact got shot down. They lost according to their own records, 4 Zero's and 1 Ki43. This does not include the Spitfires that they ran out of fuel over their own territory. They knocked down a few bombers as well but over all they lost more than they knocked down. That is not a good record for an interceptor and should prove e that the Zero was not a 2nd line fighter. At the time of those raids in 1942, there was not a fighter in the world that could have flown that mission, I don't believe the P38 was plumbed for drop tanks at that time.
My point about the Spitfire and Me109 was that they were so short ranged they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way. Ok, they got drop tanks, congrats you can each cross a 20 mile body of water to do battle now. The Zero could probably have flown from Berlin and fought over the channel and returned but hey, its only a 2nd rate fighter.
So your proving the British and Germans could have escorted a group of medium bombers 500 miles one way and defended them over Darwin from Spitfires and P40's with......2 more medium bombers. Both the Me410 and the Beaufighter weigh more when empty than a P38 weighed loaded without drop tanks. An Me410 weighed 16,574 pounds empty and a Beaufighter weighed 15,592 pounds empty. Both weighed over 20,000 when loaded. The Beaufighter was 80-100 miles per hour slower than a P38. It was 20-30 mph slower than the Spitfire V at Darwin and your plan is to climb above the Spitfire and Boom and Zoom him??? This just keeps getting better. When a Spitfire gets behind a Beafighter or the Beaufighter gets down below 15,000 feet where a P40 or P39 works well he is done. He can't outrun them and he sure can't out maneuver them
I said, "Nothing the British or Germans had during the war could have flow that mission" and you said "except the Me410, Beaufighter, Mosquito, P38, P51 or P47"
Last I checked the P38, P51, and P47 were not British or German. It has also been proven by the British themselves that the Mosquito was no match for a single engine fighter in one on one combat during the daylight. Yes if you catch someone napping or distracted you can knock him down with a pass from a plane like a Me410, Beaufighter or Mossie, but in a prolonged combat if you don't have a big speed advantage you are toast.
Last edited:
Well maybe you could start by acknowledging some facts. Those Zero's you talk about were factory new aircraft flown by experienced pilots as noted in Darwin Spitfires, the MkV's they fought against were worn out converted MkII's that had corroded cooling systems and faulty propeller CSU that caused the engines to fail flown by less experienced pilots, again as noted in Darwin Spitfires, running out of fuel was caused by Clive Caldwell wanting all the planes to form up as per Mallory's ''big wing'' which caused them to fly around in circles wasting time and fuel and when they finally set off it was a stern chase pursuit which wasted what little fuel they had, the same thing that happened in the BoB and again noted in Darwin Spitfires. Lastly the MkV's had Merlin 46 engines that had 500Hp less than the 45 had at 20,000ft, the most common height the Japanese attacked from, as per Shortround6's post on the subject, the result was the MkV's had inferior performance to a MkII, RAAF tests showed the MkV's, A6M and P40's all maxed out around 320-330mph, the MkV's are giving away 45mph and loss of overall performance to the Zero and P40 by having the wrong engine. I'm not a fan of the Zero, it is one plane I would not want to go to war in, especially if I was up against 1941-42 era European aircraft.
Like any tank, it has a certain amount of unusable fuel in the sump. Just because all the usable fuel has been used, doesn't mean it's not a FAE (fuel air explosive) bomb just waiting for an ignition source. It's not fuel that burns, it's the vapor. On a subzero day which suppresses vapor, you can toss lit matches into a can of avgas and it will just snuff them out. Venting clears out the vapor and evaporates the residual fuel in the sump, clearing its vapors out as well.
Besides, running a tank dry (to make sure it's empty) is, I'm told, not considered good formation flying etiquette, as the sudden loss of power when your engine sucks air is apt to precipitate a chain reaction of ducking and dodging to avoid a midair. Especially so if the formation is the RAF's favored line in trail.
I've flown a Cherokee Six with 4 tanks and a Twin Comanche with 8. On long trips with Piper's imprecise fuel gages, it was common practice to run tanks dry (assuming no nervous passengers), so as you got towards the end, you at least knew where your remaining fuel was. In the Six especially, you could have a tank indicating "E" with as much as 8 gallons in it. You could be half an hour offshore with two hours of usable fuel onboard and all four tanks indicating "E".
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
In theory yes
but 1 v 1 air combat can be a rock-paper-scissors game. The RAAF test quoted earlier in this thread says the Spit.V(trop) they used in Australia had no great advantages over the tested A6M3 model 32 below 20,000ft.The short range of the Spitfire was its biggest problem, In Burma the long range US airfield raids by P-51 and P-38's in early 1944 gave the JAAF no respite. The Beaufighter had the range to make the same long range raids but does not seem to have been used much for that?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
