Bomber offensive vs. Gemany: you are in charge

[pbfoot]

I stand corrected.

Does seem a lot like suicide though....

Some of the loss rates for night missions approached 10% if you include aircraft written off after landing , thats a lot of young guys gone with little visible results . It harkens to remember that the photo flash was used to ensure guys were dropping bombs on target rather then North Sea and then stooging around waiting to return with stream

 

[Readie]

Some of the loss rates for night missions approached 10% if you include aircraft written off after landing , thats a lot of young guys gone with little visible results ...

True Neil, that also applies to the early Royal Marine Commando raids in WW2 while the bosses were learning the craft.
John

 

[Readie]

Perhaps someone can chime in with an assessment how well the Spit VIII would've fared as bomber escort for 1943, ETO?

Tomo,

1,657 Mk VIIIs were produced in all, so although it never replaced the Mx IX in Britain and Northern Europe it was still a major version of the Spitfire. It was produced in three versions. The F.VIII using the 1,560 hp Merlin 61 was the standard fighter model. The HF.VIII used a 1,655hp Merlin 70 and was a high altitude fighter and the LF.VIII used the 1,705 hp Merlin 66 and was officially a low altitude fighter, although its best altitude was not that much lower than for the F.

The success of the Mk IX reduced the importance of the Mk VIII. Although the first production model was completed in November 1942, it took until June 1943 for the first squadron to be equipped with the model. One reason for the delay was that it had been decided to use the Mk VIII in the Mediterranean and Far East, and so the first squadron to use it was No. 145, based on Malta. By the summer of 1943 the crisis in the Mediterranean was in the past, and the Mk VIII saw most of its service during the invasion of Italy, often in a ground attack role.

Spitfire History

Towards the end of August 1942, the Luftwaffe began launching high-level bombing raids against England. A unit called the Höhenkampfkommando der Versuchsstelle für Höhenflüge, equipped with a small number of Junkers Ju 86R bombers, was able to bomb England from above 40,000 ft without impediment from RAF fighters, or from anti-aircraft guns. On one such attack on 28 August a single bomb dropped on Bristol killed 48 people and injured another 46. To counter the threat, the "High Altitude Flight" was formed at RAF Northolt; this unit used a pair of Spitfire Mk Vcs which were converted into IXs by Rolls-Royce at the Hucknall plant. These were stripped of everything not required for the role of high-level interception, lightening them by 450 lb each. On 12 September 1942 Flying Officer Emanuel Galitzine, flying BS273, successfully intercepted a Ju 86R piloted by Fw Horst Götz and commanded by Leutnant Erich Sommer above Southampton at 41,000 ft. The ensuing battle went up to 43,000 ft and was the highest air battle of the war. However, problems were caused by the freezing air at that altitude and the combat was not decisive: the port cannon suffered a jam and, whenever the pilot fired a burst, the aircraft would slew and fall out of the sky. The bomber escaped safely with just one hit to its port wing, but having found it to be vulnerable to the RAF at high altitudes, the Luftwaffe launched no further high-altitude attacks against England.

As the American strategic (B-17 and B-24) and medium (B-26 and A-20) bombing campaigns gathered momentum in mid-1943, the need for fighter escort meant much of Fighter Command's Spitfire force was utilised in this role while the U.S. fighter groups worked up to operational status.[83] The limited combat radius of the Spitfire, however, meant the RAF support operations were limited to the North Sea-coastal regions of Belgium and north-western France and across the English Channel to Normandy. As the battle intensified over occupied Europe, USAAF fighters like the P-47, P-38 and, from early 1944, P-51 bore the brunt of bomber protection. Spitfire IX squadrons had to bide their time until the invasion of Europe before fully engaging the Luftwaffe's Jagdwaffe.


Tomo,

The Spitfire was not really suitable as a long range bomber escort fighter. It played a role in the defence of Britain and was a stop gap until the Mustang arrived.
As the war progressed and range ( of the lack of it) was not so much of an issue the Spitfire joined in.

John

 

[tomo pauk]

I appreciate your work, John. Unfortunately, it does not give a single reason why the Spit VIII was a lousy choice to bring the war even more to the Germans, or Germany proper.

I've done some superficial search in order to find out more about Spitfire VIII fuel quantity. There was 120 imp gals of fuel internally and 90 gals in single dropable tank, ferry range being 1265 miles ( http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit8performance-n.jpg ). That would mean just under 350 miles of combat range; P-51D was capable for 375 miles on 269 us gal (215 imp gal, but all internal). The capability comparable with P-47 with 305 + 75 us gals (= 340 miles, from July 1943) - meaning that Spitfire, even without rear hull tanks was capable to escort bombers to Ruhr.

If some kind soul has good data about when the rear hull tanks were issued for Spitfires, it would be cool to post it

 

[Milosh]

tomo, Spitfires were used to escort American heavy bombers. They escorted them on the outward leg and picked them up on their return. This allowed more American fighters to do the escorting at the longer ranges, which some people seem to forget.

The Spitfire VIII was sent to the MTO and to SEA where the longer range was required more.

 

[Glider]

If some kind soul has good data about when the rear hull tanks were issued for Spitfires, it would be cool to post it

As requested, its a bit rough but I think you can make it out

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks, I'm aware that Spit VIIIs were (exclusively?) sent abroad, and that UK-based Spits were protecting the bombers near the UK. Maybe it was a mistake to not produce more of those?
My point is that longer-ranged Spits would've escorted them as far as Ruhr/Bremen/Strassburg, playing a far more important role. The US escorts were really few in numbers and capability in 1943, and that's the time I'm interested more than about 1944 - when the USAAF had far better more escorts themselves.

Thanks, Glider
That Would be July 9th 1944, not Sept 7th?

 

[tomo pauk]

Taken from another froum (many familiar people there ):

http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1962

Basically, with a 75 imp gals in rear hull tank, plus a 45 imp gals externally, economic power settings, flying around 1000 ft, the endurance of the Spit was 5 hours.

 

[Glider]

It would be 7th September, the UK use ddmmyy.

This might be of interest, agan rough but you can make it out

 

[Siegfried]

Taken from another froum (many familiar people there ):

http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1962

Basically, with a 75 imp gals in rear hull tank, plus a 45 imp gals externally, economic power settings, flying around 1000 ft, the endurance of the Spit was 5 hours.

The rear hull tank was essentially unusable except for ferrying it created such serious stabillity issues, much worse than the P-51 tail tank. Worse if engaged by German fighters it could not be jettisoned given the handling issues most of it would need to be burned off first; this then leaves the aircraft with full drop tanks which themselves need to be jetisoned immediatly upon being engaged by the enemy. Any gain in range would be small and compromised by the need to burn tail fuel first and then The Spitifre IX actually had LESS range than the Me 109G (both at maxium cruise). Really, an Me 109G with a 66 gallon drop tank could ferry about the same distance, a result of fuel efficiency in the DB605 I believe.

Spitfire VIII and Mk XIV etc received leading edge wing tanks, I believe of 12.5 gallons per wing. Latter F.22 (with and entirely new wing) managed an addition 6 gallons there. The VIII certainly had more range but ended up in the Paciffic where its range was essentiall; the XIV needed the extra fuel to compensate for the thirsty Grifffon.

The 5 hour endurance of the Spitfire is also almost totally useless in combat situation. It was a supermarine publicity stunt by Mutt Sommers.

 

[Glider]

The rear hull tank was essentially unusable except for ferrying it created such serious stabillity issues, much worse than the P-51 tail tank. Worse if engaged by German fighters it could not be jettisoned given the handling issues most of it would need to be burned off first; this then leaves the aircraft with full drop tanks which themselves need to be jetisoned immediatly upon being engaged by the enemy. Any gain in range would be small and compromised by the need to burn tail fuel first and then The Spitifre IX actually had LESS range than the Me 109G (both at maxium cruise). Really, an Me 109G with a 66 gallon drop tank could ferry about the same distance, a result of fuel efficiency in the DB605 I believe.

I don't see how this differs from the Mustang which also had a rear tank that had to be used first and was left with the drop tanks that had to be dropped on first contact Am I right in saying that this is the same as the PR Spits which didn't have a problem with the internal tanks.

The 5 hour endurance of the Spitfire is also almost totally useless in combat situation. It was a supermarine publicity stunt by Mutt Sommers.

It might have been a stunt to some degree but both the UK and the USA made modifications to the Spit with similar results but the UK changes had less reliance on the drop tanks, so it also proved a point.

 

[tomo pauk]

Glider, many thanks for you input, a very constructive indeed The date format is then as used here.

Hi, SIgrfried,
Glider has covered the rear tank (actually tanks, lower with 33 imp gals, upper with 41 or 33 gals) endurance questions.
I was advocating for the Spit VIII anyway, the fuel of 120 imp gals internally had no problem being augmented by one or both rear hull tanks, so we arrive at 153 - 194 imp gals ( 191 - 242 us gals - hello, P-51). A premier all-around fighter for 1943?

 

[Readie]

Glider, many thanks for you input, a very constructive indeed The date format is then as used here.

Hi, SIgrfried,
Glider has covered the rear tank (actually tanks, lower with 33 imp gals, upper with 41 or 33 gals) endurance questions.
I was advocating for the Spit VIII anyway, the fuel of 120 imp gals internally had no problem being augmented by one or both rear hull tanks, so we arrive at 153 - 194 imp gals ( 191 - 242 us gals - hello, P-51). A premier all-around fighter for 1943?

Many say that the Mk8 was the best Spitfire Tomo.
Others say the Mk9
and so on.
Each mark had pros and cons like other fighters that were used throughout WW2.

The only Spitfire that had true long range was the PR version. Berlin and back.

John

 

[Hop]

The rear hull tank was essentially unusable except for ferrying it created such serious stabillity issues, much worse than the P-51 tail tank.

The RAF seem to have considered the stability issues to be better than the P-51. From the Spitfire IX manual:

Aerobatics are not permitted when carrying any external stores (except the 30 gallon "blister" drop tank) nor when the rear fuselage tanks contain more than 30 gallons of fuel, and are not recommended when the rear fuselage tanks contain any fuel

From the RAF Mustang III manual:

When carrying bombs or drop tanks, or with fuel in fuselage tank, aerobatics are prohibited

Post war the Spitfires needed special permission to use their rear fuselage tanks. The RAF removed the Mustang rear fuselage tanks completely.

Thanks, I'm aware that Spit VIIIs were (exclusively?) sent abroad, and that UK-based Spits were protecting the bombers near the UK. Maybe it was a mistake to not produce more of those?
My point is that longer-ranged Spits would've escorted them as far as Ruhr/Bremen/Strassburg, playing a far more important role. The US escorts were really few in numbers and capability in 1943, and that's the time I'm interested more than about 1944 - when the USAAF had far better more escorts themselves.

The problem with earlier long range escorts is that the requirement wasn't really there until 1943. It wasn't until February 1943 that the USAAF began studying drop tanks for combat use. Orders weren't placed until September 1943.

In July 1943 Arnold sent a representative to US fighter manufacturers to ask them to put more fuel tanks in their aircraft. It took until March 1944 for Republic to modify P-47 production lines.

In other words, it wasn't until the US doctrine of self defending bombers was clearly seen to fail that the US started demanding more range. If the US didn't see the need until so late, how would the RAF, who were busy escorting mediums and fighter bombers to targets in France?

Producing anything in war time means not producing something else. Switching Spitfire IX production to Spitfire VIIIs would have meant disruption and less Spitfires produced. Without the clear requirement, it wasn't going to happen.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, John,

In my eyes the Spit VIII is a more usable plane than Spit XI, while the other capabilities are almost identical. Hence the Spit VIII is a better one

Hi, Hop,

The thread is titled 'you are in charge', and usage of real, existing equipment is encouraged. That means that a person in charge will not adhere to the self-defending bomber mantra , but try and introduce some real escort.
The Spit VIII was already being produced, no great novelties there. But even the Spit IX with one rear tank can compete, let alone with both.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'll make a pause on Spit, and move on with US planes.

For P-47 to carry some extra fuel, the plane need to carry drop tank(s). The P-47s in early 1943 were not carrying the real drop tank; the 210 gal tanks were for ferry purposes. The biggest drop tank that can fit under hull seem to be the 108 us gal one, 90 gal imp. That gives the escort range of 375 miles.

The P-38 is a tricky bird here. The Gs and Hs should not exceed the 25000 ft if we want both pilots and engines to function properly, so it's too bad that theoretical capabilities are not so easy to turn into the practical ones. We have the needed range, though. So why not attach a bomb under one wing, a 150/165 gal tank under another, and send it to bomb something? The next step is to send them with 300 gals under a wing, bomb under another.

P-51A has the range, but the performance is lower at high altitude than of the other premier fighters. I'm thinking to bomb them up, too

So basically the P-47s and Spitfires would've been flying a 'classic' escort, or more accurately the fighter sweep, trying to engage LW at 25-30000 ft (in case those are scrambled timely; if not, even better). The P-38s and P-51As would've try and bomb supress the LW ground assets in Low countries France, so the defenders have hard time during take-off landing. The Spitfires without long-range capabilities would've provided top cover, the strike package should ideally ingress at 20000 ft+ and then make shallow dive turn to attack LW assets from generally Eastern direction. Of course, such a scenario will be changed some time , in order to prevent being predictable.

 

[Readie]

Hi, John,

In my eyes the Spit VIII is a more usable plane than Spit XI, while the other capabilities are almost identical. Hence the Spit VIII is a better one
.

Hello Tomo,
Before you move on to the USA planes..

I would venture to suggest that the 1X was, in Johnny Johnsons's words, 'the best of them all' and in his hands the most succesfull.

Supermarine Spitfire Mk. IX in Detail

Spitfire History

John

 

[tomo pauk]

Fine machine, the IX
Too bad that it dawned some 20 months too late to people at RAF/AM that a Spitfire with some legs would've been very usable for ETO.

 

[Glider]

Fine machine, the IX
Too bad that it dawned some 20 months too late to people at RAF/AM that a Spitfire with some legs would've been very usable for ETO.

That sums it up perfectly. The amusing thing is that the mock up had a larger fuel tank. It was reduced in size for production as Supermarine were concerned about the extra weight that the RAF wanted to install iro 8 mg#s instead of 4. I forget the size it wasn't huge but it was a bit bigger

 

[Readie]

Fine machine, the IX
Too bad that it dawned some 20 months too late to people at RAF/AM that a Spitfire with some legs would've been very usable for ETO.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txeKZE4_kHg

The Spitfire IX is the direct result of the nasty surprise" the RAF received in the fall of 1941, when a strange radial engined fighter began to appear in the German units on the Channel coast. In the summer of 1942, the RAF was given the "gift" of a brand new Fw-190A-3 when its pilot mistook RAF Pembrey on the southern coast of the Bristol Channel for a German airfield on the south coast of the English Channel; extensive tests were undertaken with the captured Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire V, which revealed that the only area where the Spit V outshone the Focke-Wulf was in turning radius. As Al Deere said upon discovering this: "Turning doesn't win battles!"

Fortunately for the RAF, at about the time that the Fw-190 first began to appear in the Fall of 1941, the first Spitfire with a Merlin-60 series engine took to the air. The Merlin 60 series had a two-stage supercharger, with an intercooler between the two stages, which gave maximum power of the superb Merlin engine well above 20,000 ft., which heretofore had been about the maximum operating altitude of the Spitfire with full power. The plan was to produce the Spitfire VII and VIII, with airframes suitably strengthened to take the excess power, but their appearance in squadron strength was over a year away.

Tests demonstrated that a beefed-up Spitfire V airframe could absorb the extra power successfully, and this modification would put Merlin 60-powered Spitfires into the Squadrons by the summer of 1942. Even at that, it was almost too late. The Spitfire IX first appeared in time to fly top cover over the Dieppe Raid with 64 Squadron in August 1942, but it was not until the fall of 1943 that the front line squadrons of Fighter Command could finally say good-bye to the Spitfire V.

Enjoy the clips Tomo.

John