A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45 (1 Viewer)

[Kevin J]

Wow that's dark! No wonder all the revolutions so soon after the war.... I know Malaya went into a revolt very soon after right?



Didn't know that! Different engine variant I guess? RN / Fleet Air Arm seemed to have a preference for low altitude engines for so many of their planes which I never did grasp. They must have had the strangest procurement policies of the war and that is saying something.

Well, FM-2s then the US had plenty of those I think.

I agree, Japanese soldiers as policemen is pretty wicked. The Malayan Emergency lasted from 1948 - 1960. We ended up fighting our Chinese Communist allies of WW2.

The Sea Hurricane Ib was fast low down, 317 mph at 7000 ft, faster than any other naval fighter low down in 1941/42.

 

[RCAFson]

Wow that's dark! No wonder all the revolutions so soon after the war.... I know Malaya went into a revolt very soon after right?



Didn't know that! Different engine variant I guess? RN / Fleet Air Arm seemed to have a preference for low altitude engines for so many of their planes which I never did grasp. They must have had the strangest procurement policies of the war and that is saying something.

Well, FM-2s then the US had plenty of those I think.

Most naval air combat in 1942 took place well under 20K ft. The Martlet used single stage, two speed engines, and were basically F4F-4A or -4Bs, where the F4F-3/4 used two stage engines. Consequently the Martlet was a bit lighter than the equivalent -3/4. The The FM-2 (Wildcat-6) reverted to a single stage engine.

 

[RCAFson]

The need for a long range escort existed from the time of the first long range RAF bombing missions in 1940. They didn't bomb at night because they loved looking at the stars, bombing at night made already abyssmally low bombing accuracy drop to sub-marginal levels. They were lucky if they even hit the right city and quite often they didn't.

If the RAF had a daytime escort fighter available in 1941 or 1942, and one that could take on Fw 190s and Bf 109F and G, I am pretty sure they would have used it.

From 1939 up to May 1940, the RAF had access to French Airfields, but bomber command was forbidden from attacking civilian targets. If Bomber Command had the strength to undertake large scale daylight bombing, they could have used existing single seat fighters, just as the Luftwaffe did during the BofB. Bomber Command did not have sufficient aircraft to undertake large scale bombing raids until 1942 when the night bombing policy was well entrenched. Additionally most RAF heavy bombers were not suited to daylight bombing because they were designed with medium altitude engines.

 

[RCAFson]

Can an average of 60 Spitfires at a time defend 240 - 300 bombers. It sounds doubtful. All you need is Me 110's to bounce the Spitfires with their 90 IG tanks still on them over the North Sea and they're mincemeat.

How is that different from P-47s and P-51s carrying drop tanks? You are arguing that it's impossible for any single seat fighter to undertake long range escort missions. The 90IG tank could be dropped at up to 300mph IAS, and so the Me-110s pilots who dared to intercept a formation of Spitfires are going to be awarded their Iron Crosses posthumously.

Using Schweinfurt as an example, if we randomly insert 60 Spitfires over the bombers at any given point, it causes severe headaches for the Luftwaffe, who are forced to divert fighters away from attacking bombers, and the results is more Luftwaffe fighter losses and fewer 8th AF bomber losses.

 

[Kevin J]

How is that different from P-47s and P-51s carrying drop tanks? You are arguing that it's impossible for any single seat fighter to undertake long range escort missions. The 90IG tank could be dropped at up to 300mph IAS, and so the Me-110s pilots who dared to intercept a formation of Spitfires are going to awarded their Iron Crosses posthumously.

Using Schweinfurt as an example, if we randomly insert 60 Spitfires over the bombers at any given point, it causes severe headaches for the Luftwaffe, who are forced to divert fighters away from attacking bombers, and the results is more Luftwaffe fighter losses and fewer 8th AF bomber losses.

I'm making the point that 180 Spitfires each 60 defending one third of each leg of the mission is woefully insufficient.

 

[RCAFson]

Lets see if ive got this right( and it seems logical, to me anyway) the range of an escort fighter would be limited to the miles it could fly on internal fuel only from the point at which it was likely to encounter enemy fighter oposition to the target and then home again. Because you've got to drop your tanks at that point.
Could this, and perhaps it was, be mitigated by aditional waves of fighters scootin along at a pretty high cruise speed ( difficult to intercept therefore not likely to have to be forced to drop there tanks)to rondevue with the bombers farther out.

Yes, and that's exactly what was done, so the fighter escort detailed to provide cover at the most distant legs of the bomber's route didn't have to tag along with the bombers as close escort.

 

[Kevin J]

Yes, and that's exactly what was done, so the fighter escort detailed to provide cover at the most distant legs of the bomber's route didn't have to tag along with the bombers as close escort.

When the RAF sent 12 Bombers across the Channel, there were 12 fighter squadrons in support.

 

[RCAFson]

Not in dispute.



Not what I am arguing at all. what we are arguing about is how far from bases the Spitfire could engage in combat.



in my mind internal fuel only counts if you have it for the return trip, this may be in stark contrast to some other people.

Maybe I am simple minded but what is the difference between stuffing 71 gallons of fuel in the rear fuselage that has to burned/used to make the plane safe to fly before you reach the area where enemy fighters may be encountered (let alone the bombers target) and simply using drop tank/s that hold 71 gallons more than the drop tanks used with the rear fuselage tanks? You can't fly home on fuel you used to take-off and climb to operational hight with no matter what tank it was in.

Question on the 45 gallon slipper tank. Was it self-sealing or not?

Given enough time (projected started early) I don't see the plumbing of the wings for wing drop tanks as an insurmountable problem. The bigger problem is using wing leading edge tanks and drop tanks on wings not designed to hold the weight. WHich is part solved by limiting maneuvers with the drop tanks, which just about everybody did.
Likewise I don't worry too much about how difficult it was to jettison the slipper tanks as I assume that given enough interest either the problem would have been sorted out or alternative tank/s designed. Using twin 44 gallon Hurricane tanks sounds like too much of a bodge to get very far, you want the simplest fuel system possible to cut down on accidents caused by either pilot error (wrong tank selected) or leaky fittings, sucking air into the system is as bad as leaking fuel.

I don't know how difficult it was to put wing tanks in the MK IX. If any rib noses had to be taken out? or how hard it was to run fuel lines in an existing wing. the rear fuselage tank set up may have been seen as an easy way to modify existing aircraft.

The Main problems as I see it for the escort Spit is properly engineering the wing for the increased loads (and that includes loads imposed by taking off on less than perfect airfields) and getting the plane to fly properly (solve a lot of the problems by just sticking 33-37 of fuel behind the pilot and forgetting the remainder of the 71 gallons).
If doesn't give the impressive number on paper though

The fuel in the 75IG fuselage tank has to be partially (50%) consumed prior to combat, just as per the Mustang. The Mk VIII carried wing mounted 250lb bombs.

The 30/45IG slipper tanks were SS and caused a loss of about 20MPH at maximum speed. AIUI, the use of bag tanks required minimal mods to the wings as they fitted between existing ribs and spars.

Mustang pilots had exactly the same fuel management problems as a Spitfire and they somehow managed to fly those long range missions.

 

[RCAFson]

I'm making the point that 180 Spitfires each 60 defending one third of each leg of the mission is woefully insufficient.

As opposed to no fighter escort at all, which is what the 8th AF had during the Schweinfurt raids. The Luftwaffe didn't have unlimited numbers of fighters either which is why the raids were even possible, in the first place.

 

[RCAFson]

When the RAF sent 12 Bombers across the Channel, there were 12 fighter squadrons in support.

Those raids were strictly short range affairs and had very little in the way of strategic value and they were designed to try and draw the Luftwaffe up. The RAF simply didn't have bombers capable of long range daylight missions, even with adequate LR fighter escort until much later in the war.

 

[RCAFson]

I



I don't agree, it wasn't done because it wasn't feasible. The problem with the Spit was a big part of what made it great- that thin, high efficiency, low drag wing. Couldn't fit both gas and guns in it. Those 'bag' tanks in the leading edges of the wings... were those self-sealing?

You are talking about a scenario that sounds like getting into a knife fight while carrying a stack of dishes in one hand and a bucket of water in the other.

The Spitfire VIII had integral wing tanks and it carried cannon and MGs... I don't know if the bag tanks were SS, but even SS tanks are of little use against cannon fire and some risk has to be accepted, because in the grand scheme of things a single seat fighter was more expendable than a 4 engine bomber.

How do you think the Mustang was able to succeed? Please stop arguing that LR single seat fighter escort is impossible, when it obviously wasn't.

 

[Kevin J]

The Spitfire VIII had integral wing tanks and it carried cannon and MGs... I don't know if the bag tanks were SS, but even SS tanks are of little use against cannon fire and some risk has to be accepted, because in the grand scheme of things a single seat fighter was more expendable than a 4 engine bomber.

How do you think the Mustang was able to succeed? Please stop arguing that LR single seat fighter escort is impossible, when it obviously wasn't.

It's definitely possible, but you're looking at 1944/45 service entry. I was in computing for 30 years, developing new systems. First you get your system developed and installed, you learn a bit, respond to customer needs, upgrade it, then you look back and think to yourself "now why didn't I think of that in the first place"? So Spitfire IX 1942/43, VIII 1943/44, XVI 1944/45. So to me the progressive development path seems reasonable. Then you look back and think to yourself "cobbled together systems", what a pile of CRAP ( Concurrent Retail Application Package), and you start all over again.

 

[RCAFson]

It's definitely possible, but you're looking at 1944/45 service entry. I was in computing for 30 years, developing new systems. First you get your system developed and installed, you learn a bit, respond to customer needs, upgrade it, then you look back and think to yourself "now why didn't I think of that in the first place"? So Spitfire IX 1942/43, VIII 1943/44, XVI 1944/45. So to me the progressive development path seems reasonable. Then you look back and think to yourself "cobbled together systems", what a pile of CRAP ( Concurrent Retail Application Package), and you start all over again.

The Mustang and P-47 had cobbled together systems as well (with severe limitations with full fuel loads), but they were also the focal point of large design teams. The Spitfire with Merlin 60 series engines entered production nearly a year before the P-51B and if given similar engineering priority could have been available as a LR fighter 6 months to a year prior to the Mustang.

 

[Schweik]

The Spitfire VIII had integral wing tanks and it carried cannon and MGs... I don't know if the bag tanks were SS, but even SS tanks are of little use against cannon fire and some risk has to be accepted, because in the grand scheme of things a single seat fighter was more expendable than a 4 engine bomber.

I think the bigger problem is actually the great big slipper tank which is quite vulnerable, bulky and large... and apparently expected to be carried during combat in this scenario you are laying out. That is foolish.

How do you think the Mustang was able to succeed? Please stop arguing that LR single seat fighter escort is impossible, when it obviously wasn't.

Because the Mustang could fly 900+ miles on internal fuel (in protected tanks) and do so at close to 400 mph. That way it could fly out to a target say, 600 miles away, drop it's external tanks when attacked, fight for a while and then fly home with fuel to spare.

Lol! I never made such an argument - I am saying that the SPITFIRE could not be and never in fact was a long range fighter escort. I know it's always tempting to win an argument by claiming that somebody said something foolish that they didn't actually say, but let's not go there.

As for flying with unprotected fuel tanks, it wasn't normally done - even by the Japanese, after 1943... and for good reason. There is a big difference between an aircraft with a few holes in it (even big holes from 20mm cannon) vs. one that has caught on fire. The former can and does fly home, the latter very rarely survives (sometimes fires do go out of course).

That is a 20mm cannon hole, one of 5 this aircraft received, but the pilot made it back home due to the armor and strong structure of the aircraft. This very likely hit the fuselage tank.

Same with those - shrapnel from the lower cannon hole almost certainly pierced the main wing fuel tank.

Also a 20mm hole, right behind the armor plate. And right above or into the rear fuselage fuel tank.


If you assume it's Ok to not have protected fuel tanks "because four engine planes are more important than single engine" then just take the self-sealing tanks out altogether, that would seriously reduce the weight and increase fuel capacity at the same time. But that vastly increases the vulnerability of the pilot.

 

[Schweik]

Anyway, while I fear the Spitfire Long Range escort is a pipe dream, the Beaufighter could do it down low!

 

[RCAFson]

I think the bigger problem is actually the great big slipper tank which is quite vulnerable, bulky and large... and apparently expected to be carried during combat in this scenario you are laying out. That is foolish.



Because the Mustang could fly 900+ miles on internal fuel (in protected tanks) and do so at close to 400 mph. That way it could fly out to a target say, 600 miles away, drop it's external tanks when attacked, fight for a while and then fly home with fuel to spare.

Lol! I never made such an argument - I am saying that the SPITFIRE could not be and never in fact was a long range fighter escort. I know it's always tempting to win an argument by claiming that somebody said something foolish that they didn't actually say, but let's not go there.

As for flying with unprotected fuel tanks, it wasn't normally done - even by the Japanese, after 1943... and for good reason. There is a big difference between an aircraft with a few holes in it (even big holes from 20mm cannon) vs. one that has caught on fire. The former can and does fly home, the latter very rarely survives (sometimes fires do go out of course).

View attachment 549403

That is a 20mm cannon hole, one of 5 this aircraft received, but the pilot made it back home due to the armor and strong structure of the aircraft. This very likely hit the fuselage tank.

View attachment 549404

Same with those - shrapnel from the lower cannon hole almost certainly pierced the main wing fuel tank.

View attachment 549405

Also a 20mm hole, right behind the armor plate. And right above or into the rear fuselage fuel tank.


If you assume it's Ok to not have protected fuel tanks "because four engine planes are more important than single engine" then just take the self-sealing tanks out altogether, that would seriously reduce the weight and increase fuel capacity at the same time. But that vastly increases the vulnerability of the pilot.

You are really not making much sense here. As I stated I don't know if the bag tanks were SS and you showing pictures of aircraft with holes in the aluminum skin is quite meaningless and quite pointless especially since the 2nd photo seems to show a shot down aircraft... The wing tanks in a MK VIII were SS.

The 30 and 45IG SS slipper tanks are not huge and have a small effect on performance. I postulated that a Spit8 could carry a 75IG rear fuselage tank as actually tested, (and twin wing torpedo style DTs with ~50IG each), and a 30 or 45IG slipper tank (229-244IG). This creates a fighter with very similar range, using SS tanks, as a Mustang on internal fuel (221-224IG), when using the same throttle settings. The Mustang must burn about 40IG from it's rear fuselage tank before engaging in combat versus about 35IG for the 75IG rear fuselage tank in the Spit8.

If the Mustang could fly 900 miles on internal fuel then a Spit8, as above, could fly 800-900 miles at the same throttle settings, especially as the slipper tank is released when empty.

 

[Milosh]

RAF used the following allocations for its SE fighters:

5 minutes at Take-off power
2 minutes at climb
5 minutes at combat power (full power)
15 minutes at high speed cruise
Remainder at economical cruise
20% reserve

The RAF's standard radius of action was about 40% of still air cruising range on internal fuel. With tanks this changes by a few percent, as aircraft are expected to spend more time at efficient cruise speeds.

So, a Mk IX with a 450 mile still air cruising radius would have a combat radius of approximately 180 miles. With a 30 gal tank about 240 miles, with a 45 gal tank about 275 miles.

 

[Kevin J]

The Mustang and P-47 had cobbled together systems as well (with severe limitations with full fuel loads), but they were also the focal point of large design teams. The Spitfire with Merlin 60 series engines entered production nearly a year before the P-51B and if given similar engineering priority could have been available as a LR fighter 6 months to a year prior to the Mustang.

Don't you mean the Spitfire VIII of May 1943? The IX was the CTS, BECAUSE THE RAF WANTED THE VIII YESTERDAY. You've obviously not been in the development creativity lark. You keep your customer satisfied with their priority needs. The all singing, all dancing version comes later.

 

[RCAFson]

The concept of LR Fighter escort by rendezvous is explained in this film, starting at about 16:25:

 

[Schweik]

You are really not making much sense here. As I stated I don't know if the bag tanks were SS and you showing pictures of aircraft with holes in the aluminum skin is quite meaningless and quite pointless especially since the 2nd photo seems to show a shot down aircraft... The wing tanks in a MK VIII were SS.

I believe I am making sense, you are just repeatedly missing the point. I really don't know, but you appear to have the power of ideology locking you in to a particular belief, and if that is the case anything I say will never dissuade you from your belief. I suspect we are rapidly approaching an impasse beyond which we should agree to disagree.

The second image isn't a shot down fighter it's one, like the one above it (which had 5 x 20mm holes in it) that made it back to base and had what is called a forced landing. Not ideal, but much better than burning alive at 20,000 feet. You were saying (or seemed to be saying) that the power of 20mm cannon made self sealing tanks pointless. Those three images show just a few examples among many thousands of aircraft which had 20mm cannon hits that almost certainly punctured one or more fuel tanks and yet they made it back to base in part because they had self-sealing tanks. Including the Spitfire. But extra tanks and especially external tanks don't always have protection. And one more thing.

The 30 and 45IG SS slipper tanks are not huge and have a small effect on performance. I postulated that a Spit8 could carry a 75IG rear fuselage tank as actually tested, (and twin wing torpedo style DTs with ~50IG each), and a 30 or 45IG slipper tank (229-244IG). This creates a fighter with very similar range, using SS tanks, as a Mustang on internal fuel (221-224IG), when using the same throttle settings. The Mustang must burn about 40IG from it's rear fuselage tank before engaging in combat versus about 35IG for the 75IG rear fuselage tank in the Spit8.

If the Mustang could fly 900 miles on internal fuel then a Spit8, as above, could fly 800-900 miles at the same throttle settings, especially as the slipper tank is released when empty.

According to that datasheet you posted, the Spit VIII could fly 940 miles with "aux tanks full". With "permanent tanks full" (143 IG) it could manage 740 miles but doesn't that mean a full rear fuel tank which makes the thing unstable? Realistically the actual range is ~650 miles after dropping the tanks and that includes a bit of margin for landing, weather etc. but doesn't, I believe, include WEP or military power time for combat.

Also, in your scenario, you were suggesting that they fight with the external tank in place. Not only would that put a Spit VIII or IX at a disadvantage against a Fw 190 or late model 109G, it would create a variety of hazards.

If the external tank is indeed self sealing then I'll retract that from the list of additional perils that it would bring to a dogfight but I'd really like to see some proof of that before I signed off. I don't believe any Amercian made external tanks were. But aside from those issues, there are reasons why it was generally considered a bad idea to get into combat with external tanks on - especially against other fighters where hard maneuvering may be required. You still have the weight and drag, and stability effects of an external tank. I think you might find even worse effects than the dreaded vokes filter.

In short, I think it's very unlikely the Spit VIII could fly a Schweinfurt raid escort, and Berlin is just grasping at straws.

If they actually could then they would have done so, in my opinion, because in a dogfight a Spitfire is a bit better than a P-51, depending on the models.