Bf-109s and FW190s against B17s

[Cpt. John]

Hello guys, do you know wich models of BF109s (F-1, F-2, F-3... )and focke Wulf (A1,A4...) were used in europe in 1942-43 against B17s ?

 

[tomo pauk]

Looking here:
"The First Official Mission of the 8th Air Force, Mission Number 1, using their own planes, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses, did not occur until August 17, 1942 when they attacked Rouen / Sotteville marshalling yard in France with 12 aircraft. All returned safely."

we can surely discount the Bf 109F-2 and earlier, and probably Fw 190A-2 and earlier. Leaves us with Bf 109F-4 and subsequent fighter models, plus of course the Fw 190A-3 and subsequent fighter models.

 

[stona]

In August-December 1942 the Luftwaffe was flying predominantly Fw 190 A-3s and A-4s. There don't seem to have been many units still operating Bf 109 Fs, most were flying Gs, the G-2 had been introduced in May. The G-4 was just about appearing at this time.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Cpt. John]

Thank you Guys

 

[stona]

Into 1943 and the ubiquitous Bf 109 G-6 appears, deliveries to units in NW Europe followed those to units in the MTO, commencing in March/April. The next major variant (G-14) didn't appear until mid 1944, so you can ignore it.

Production of the Fw 190 A-3 continued into June 1943. Production of the A-4 continued (at least at Ago) until August 1943, overlapping the A-5 which was produced until August 1943 (at Marienburg). The A-6 started production in mid 1943 and continued well into 1944. All these dash numbers would have opposed the US bombing offensive as they became available. When a new version became available the older ones didn't disappear overnight !
The A-7 didn't enter production until November/December 1943, so that might be a bit of a stretch.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Cpt. John]

Thank you

 

[Koopernic]

Note Fw 190s and Me 109G could be modified or retrofitted in many ways. Me 109 often carried a pair of 20mm gondola guns under the wing. Fw 190 had a more adäquate firepower to begin with and though they also could carry gun packs are well known for being up armored where the pilot was fully encased in steal armor, had bullet proof glass for his side windows plus additional armor on vulnerable points such as engine and ammunition. These Stormbok or assault 190s were highly effective. They could resist return fire from the American bombers long enough to down them. The 190 would be damaged or the pilot might need to bail out but at least a 4 engined bomber and its crew of 10 were shot down and captured. These versions often were given 30mm MK 108 guns in the outer wing area. Only 3 hits were capable on average of bringing down a heavy bomber. These fighters were to heavy to fight the escorts and needed escorts themselves.

 

[Greyman]

These Stormbok or assault 190s ...

I was reminded of these when reading Jeffrey Quill's report after his stint of operational time during the Battle of Britain.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The existing armament is good for the destruction of enemy single-seaters, but it is rapidly becoming obsolete for use against bomber formations. Enemy bombers are now heavily armoured in the rear, and it appears that the rear machines of their bomber formations are firing cannon aft; the armament of eight .303 guns is therefore insufficient, both in range and penetrating power, for effective attack in the face of the rear armour and cross-fire encountered in these formations. It is apparent that our fighters must be split into two categories.

1. Dog-fighters, for high altitude encounters with enemy escort fighters.
2. 'Destroyers' for the splitting up and destruction of enemy bomber formations.

For the Dog-fighters, a high rate of fire and good 'spread' is required for the snap shooting at short range which is the usual order in these engagements, and for this the existing .303 armament is satisfactory.

For the 'Destroyer', however, heavy projectiles with great penetrating power which can be fired from long range are essential, and I consider that an armament of four Hispano Cannons is the absolute minimum to make it worth while putting a fighter into range of the fire which may now be expected to issue from the rear of the enemy's mass formations.

It will be a mistaken policy to try and compromise between these two distinct armament requirements. The question of weight is of great importance - the 'dog-fighters' must be kept as light as possible, as climb at high altitude, turning circle and general manoeuvrability are of great importance; therefore no extra weight must be added on account of unnecessarily heavy armament.

The 'Destroyer', on the other hand, will not be required to operate at high altitude and high rate of climb or great manoeuvrability will not be an operational necessity. Therefore considerable extra weight and wing loading can be permitted in the interests of range and striking power and forward protective armour.

The two differently armed fighters would operate in close co-operation, the 'Dog-fighters' forming a protective escort to the Destroyers.

J,K Quill
29 Aug 1940

 

[stona]

The compromise was never made between the two, mainly because the German bomber as a target disappeared from British skies. Two cannon and various combinations of machine guns or four cannon became the standards on British S/E fighters and roles were never divided

 

[pbehn]

On 29 Aug 1940 the Spitfire had already been fitted with 2 x 20mm cannon, the Typhoon which was due to replace it had first flown 6 months before. Maybe Quill was under the impression that cannons would never work when fitted in wings because the Spitfire had problems. He seems to be proposing Beaufighters escorted by Spitfires. As far as I have read EVERY BoB pilot that had been hit by cannon and survived wanted them to replace their "pea shooters"

 

[stona]

On 29 Aug 1940 the Spitfire had already been fitted with 2 x 20mm cannon

Earlier in fact. As early as 24th July 1940 Dowding wrote to Sinclair about the cannon armament, but expressing some reservations.

"The present situation is that the guns of about six Spitfires in No. 19 Squadron are working satisfactorily, and the defects in the others will probably be rectified in about a week or ten days.
I quite realise that information concerning the fighting qualities of the cannon Spitfire is required as early as possible, and I will take the first opportunity of getting it into action; but I am not at all keen on sending it up against German fighters since it will be extremely badly equipped for that task. I say that the cannon Spitfire is badly equipped to meet German fighters because it has only two guns and even the Me 109 has two cannon and two machine guns. Furthermore, it has fired off all its ammunition in five seconds."

Dowding's reservations about engaging fighters are reflected in Quill's writing and the very reasons that the British went for the eight gun fighter in the first place.
I can't agree that the pilots were happy to swop their eight machine guns for two cannon either, at least whilst reliability issues persisted. In fact No. 19 Squadron, following a series of engagements in late August in which some or all their cannon had malfunctioned were keen for the exact opposite. Squadron Leader R Pinkham wrote.

"In all engagements so far occurring it is considered that had the unit been equipped with 8-gun fighters it would have inflicted far more severe losses on the enemy. It is most strongly urged that until the stoppages at present experienced have been eliminated this squadron should be re-equipped with Browning gun Spitfires."

He went on to suggest a swop with the 8-gun fighters from an OTU, and this is exactly what happened on 4th September. The aircraft from the OTU (at Haywarden) had seen better days, but the squadron diarist summed up the feelings of his squadron when he wrote.

"First day with the eight-gun machines, and what wrecks. At least the guns will fire."

It took a while for a successful installation to be developed for the Spitfire, and then in combination with four machine guns (later two .50 calibre machine guns or even four cannon). By then the large formations of Luftwaffe bombers had disappeared from British skies in daylight. The British did have a cannon armed fighter in 1940 in the Whirlwind, but its problems are well known and it could barely reach the bombers and would certainly needed protection from other fighters at the altitudes at which combat was taking place in August/September 1940. By 1941 it, and possibly the Beaufighter, would have had to contend with the Bf 109 F and then, later, the Fw 190, which I suspect would not have gone well.

Cheers

Steve

 

[pbehn]

Oh I know all about the problems Stona, but the pilots obviously wanted canon that worked. There was a documentary on the BoB with an ex veteran (Wellum I think) and he had a German canon round compared to a .303 RAF round in his hand, the difference was huge.

 

[stona]

They certainly wanted cannon to knock down the bombers, just as Luftwaffe pilots would later. By the time they got them most of the bombers had gone, at least by day.
Quill made the point that the bombers were becoming better armed and armoured and that rifle calibre machine guns were becoming less effective. The issue that Dowding was taking up (apart from the small ammunition supply) was the relatively low rate of fire of two cannon compared with eight machine guns. The eight gun fighter had been adopted to enable a short burst of fire, at a high rate, to deliver enough weight and hits to shoot down a target in a fleeting engagement of two or three seconds. As Salmond wrote in 1933, when he was AOC-in-C of ADGB:

"the design of the home defence fighter and the tactics employed should be such as to produce the maximum fire effect in the minimum time."

Dowding feared that the chances of scoring any hits in such a short fighter to fighter engagement with just two cannon were negligible. Both the existing Whirlwind and planned Typhoon carried four cannon. Ralph Sorley is often credited as the 'father' of the eight gun fighter, but this is a bit of a stretch, and one encouraged by Sorley himself. In 1931 an A&AEE report concluded that a six gun fighter was equivalent to two general purpose fighters (two guns). Later in 1931, at Dowding's behest, air firing trials proved the concept behind the multi-gun fighter. The trials showed that

"the multi-gun type of fixed gun single-seater is more likely than the two-gun single-seater fighter, to produce the density of fire necessary to ensure a hit on a vital part of a target aircraft, in a time which approaches the actual average time during which aerial targets present themselves in air fighting."

Good reads on this subject are the Air Historical Branch 'Narrative on Armament, Vol II: Guns, Gunsights, Ammunition and Pyrotechnics' and GF Wallace's 'Guns of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945'. The latter is an old one (1970s), but still a good one..

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

. The British did have a cannon armed fighter in 1940 in the Whirlwind, but its problems are well known and it could barely reach the bombers and would certainly needed protection from other fighters at the altitudes at which combat was taking place in August/September 1940. By 1941 it, and possibly the Beaufighter, would have had to contend with the Bf 109 F and then, later, the Fw 190, which I suspect would not have gone well.

Cheers

Steve

Actually the 10th production Whirlwind was not delivered to 263 Squadron until October of 1940. There weren't enough Whirlwinds during August/early Sept (6th delivered Aug 31st) for anybody to figure out what they could or could not do in combat. While fighter combat was taking place at altitudes which the Whirlwind would have great difficulty the bombers were not flying that high, especially when carrying bombs.

It was the large increase in power that allowed the later fighters to carry the 20mm guns and do away with the two types of fighter idea.

At 20,000ft an early model MK VB Spit could climb 59% faster (2440fpm vs 1535fpm) than a prototype MK 1 with two cannon and four machine guns.

 

[stona]

Actually the 10th production Whirlwind was not delivered to 263 Squadron until October of 1940. There weren't enough Whirlwinds during August/early Sept (6th delivered Aug 31st) for anybody to figure out what they could or could not do in combat. While fighter combat was taking place at altitudes which the Whirlwind would have great difficulty the bombers were not flying that high, especially when carrying bombs.
.

Well they certainly knew it couldn't take on the Luftwaffe's fighters at altitude.

By September Fighter Command was tasking squadrons to 30,000ft (above the Whirlwind's ceiling, never mind operational limits) on occasion. Al Deere recalled how uncomfortable that could be when patrolling over Dover at 33,000ft on August 28th.

"We were hanging on our airscrews. It was cold, extremely cold; my feet like lumps of ice and tiny prickles of cold stabbed at my legs, just above the knees."

Several others remember these high altitude escapades and they are recorded in the ORBs of those concerned. More often patrols were around 20,000ft and many interceptions seem to have taken place between about 16,000ft and 23,000 ft. Given that the Whirlwind's performance, to quote Sqn. Ldr. Eeles "..above 20,000ft falls off quite rapidly" and that "above 25,000ft its fighting qualities are very poor" it was hardly the solution to the cannon problem. As Dowding noted on 27th October 1940, it was "quite wrong to introduce at the present time a fighter whose effective ceiling is 25,000 ft." He of all people should have known at what altitudes Fighter Command's fighters were required to operate.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

The thing is the Hurricane falls somewhere between. Which is one reason the Hurricane got the Merlin XX engines
The MK I could barely beat 500fpm at 30,000ft and 500fpm was considered the threshold for formation (small formations) flight.
1000fpm climb was thought to be the minimum for combat. Granted the Whirlwind was thousands of feet below even the Hurricane but the Hurricane I could not do (on paper) what was wanted or match the Spitfire.

And if they accepted the poor performing bomber destroyer idea the Whirlwind might have worked had it been available in numbers.
Kind of like I said earlier, with the coming of the Merlin XX and 45 the single engine fighters could carry cannon with adequate performance and the idea of using low performance heavily armed bomber destroyers was left to the Germans.

 

[stona]

Yep, there are several accounts of squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes taking off together, the Hurricanes being left behind in the wake and exhaust of the Spitfires.
It was a fundamental flaw in the Big Wing theory espoused by Bader, Leigh Mallory et alter. Three Hurricane squadrons were based at Duxford and two Spitfire squadrons at Fowlmere. Bader admitted in interviews with Albert Price that in order to stay with the Hurricanes the Spitfires had to throttle back. Spitfire squadrons operating on their own had no such limitation. By definition the wing could not climb as fast as a squadron, seconds lost in gaining an advantageous altitude could, and did, result in missed interceptions. It even contradicted the first of Bader's own three rules of air fighting, "He who has the height controls the battle." Missed interceptions was something the Duxford wing excelled at. From 7th September to 29th October Bader led 37 wing operations which made 7 interceptions. The average interception rate for squadrons in 11 Group was over 50%. Operations on 1,2,5,7,8,10,11,13,15,17,19,25 and 29 October resulted in zero interceptions for the Duxford wing for the entire month.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Ascent]

To me this does bring up an interesting question, how would the British fighters of 1943 handle a formation of B17's?

Plenty of cannon armed fighters around, did they have the punch to take them down?

 

[Shortround6]

To me this does bring up an interesting question, how would the British fighters of 1943 handle a formation of B17's?

Plenty of cannon armed fighters around, did they have the punch to take them down?

Well, it kind of gets back to the German use of Bf 109s and the "Gunboats" (five gun fighters).
With the under wing gun pods the 109 stood a much better chance of taking down the B-17 although still not what was wanted and yet, according to many accounts, still needed normal 109s (3 gun fighters) to keep the escorts busy. The gun pods didn't hurt speed much but impacted climb, roll response, and turning.
The Typhoon might not be what was wanted for fighter vs fighter at 20,000ft and above but how well it would have worked against B-17 formations flying at 180-200mph? British could have fitted Spitfires with four 20mm guns and accepted the loss of performance against fighters for better anti-bomber work?

The 20mm Hispano was roughly equal to the German MG151/20 with each have a few pluses and minuses so the British fighters would have been better equipped than a 5 gun 109 and roughly equal to a 190 with four MG 151/20s. (not counting 7.92 cowl guns).

Perhaps the four Hispano guns were not ideal but between what the Germans actually had and what they wanted?

 

[stona]

Plenty of Bf 109s with two heavy machine guns and a 20mm cannon shot down B-17s. Plenty of Fw 190s with two cannon and two heavy machine guns did the same. I don't see why a British fighter with four 20mm cannon, or two 20mm cannon and two heavy machine guns couldn't do the same. Of course the Germans were always looking for heavier and longer range anti-bomber armaments, but the basic package could be very effective in the hands of a decent pilot.
Cheers
Steve