British escort fighter--what might it have been like?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

With the British doing a lot of strategic bombing a night, the NF Mosquito infiltration of the bomber stream, especially those aircraft equipped to home in on the enemy night-fighter radar emanations, must have provided some psychological benefit to RAF bomber crews, if the NF Mosquitos only obtaining spotty results.
 

Like this?


No. 100 Group RAF - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Let me know how that worked out.
Click to expand...
Fine, as it went.

#1. Daylight long range strategic bombing missions were only very occasionally undertaken from 1942
#2. Spitfire PRs were operating over huge distances at this time. If there had been an overwhelming operational need for a long range escort fighter for the RAF in 1942 (given how early the commitment to night time strategic bombing had been taken), there's no reason as to why an armed variant could not have been relatively easily developed (subject to all of the arguments, counter arguments, hair-splitting and b@llscratching outlined in depth previously!)
#3. The RAF used Mosquitos and Beaufighters as long range strike fighters - and the former as long range nocturnal escort fighters
#4 By late war they had access to a superb American aircraft designed to a British Purchasing specification that had the range to escort the 2nd Tactical Airforce on its long range missions.

... very well, in fact
 
Last edited:
PAT303 said:
We don't need a P51, we just need a 400 mile radius Spitfire from the end of 1942.
Click to expand...
But the P-51 was also a viable fighter bomber, whereas the Spit was none too good at that task. In fact in the ETO the RAF pretty much lacked a decent fighter bomber until the Tempest showed up late in the war. The Typhoon was so dangerous to ditch that RAF pilots had to seriously consider if they would rather be an involuntary guest of the Germans rather than risk going down with the ship if that none too reliable Sabre engine started acting up over France.

I read that on some daylight raids to support the Normandy landings the Lancaster were escorted part way by Spitfires and then handed over to Mosquitos (presumably FB VI) down around Brest. I've never heard of Mossies being used for daylight escort except possibly on anti-shipping missions where the deadliest "fighter" they were likely to encounter was a Ju88. I'd guess that if circa 1942 they decided they needed a long range fighter and were smart enough they would have ended up with something very like a Hornet.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Let me know how that worked out.
Click to expand...

This gives a good insight into the issue and includes a useful comparison between Spitfire IX and P-51, plus information on long-range trials carried out in the US on a Spitfire airframe. You might find it enlightening.

Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society

Could Supermarine's iconic fighter have been modified to escort US bombers all the way to Berlin and back? Paul Stoddart examines some development options for the Spitfire and suggests what might have been achieved.
www.aerosociety.com
 

You're forgetting the Hurricane, which proved itself an effective fighter bomber and saw extensive use in the ETO, MTO, North Africa and CBI Theatres. That was the primary reason why the type remained in production well past its use-by date as a fighter. According to historians and people who were there, the Hurri-bomber as it was nicknamed proved decisive in Burma in defeating the Japanese.

Regarding the Typhoon, yes, the Sabre was problematic but I think you might be underestimating the number employed in combat despite the difficulties it faced, and yes, these were numerous. The Typhoon, like the Handley Page Halifax was a success despite itself, but disregarding the tail falling off, the carbon monoxide entering the cockpit, the recalcitrant engine, and so on, the biggest danger the Typhoon pilots faced was the hazards of operating at low level over enemy territory. In many cemeteries across Western France are Typhoon pilots' graves, many of them shot down by ground fire, some in air-to-air combat, and some by simply flying into the ground.

Europe 119
 
With its radiator scoop I don't think the P51 would have been much fun to ditch either mate just saying.
 
MIflyer said:
But the P-51 was also a viable fighter bomber, whereas the Spit was none too good at that task. In fact in the ETO the RAF pretty much lacked a decent fighter bomber until the Tempest showed up late in the war.
Click to expand...

SPITBOMBER — Vintage Wings of Canada

Most pilots who flew the Supermarine Spitfire will agree that it was a great aircraft, easy to fly and with no nasty surprises for even a ham-fisted driver. But when we began adding external gadgets …
www.vintagewings.ca
 

Has someone taken a dram and leant a little to hard on the cheeky button?

Seriously, can you cite a reasonable source of reference for that assertion - its seems a stretch too far to me? There's a BIG difference between not being the best fighter bomber and supposedly 'none too good'. It was clearly viable.

#1 Spitfire fighter bombers" - "In early February 1945 the Squadron began re-equipping with Spitfire Mk IX.HF(e)'s primarily in order to carry out dive-bombing attacks on the mobile launch sites of the V2 rockets, [as part of Operation Big Ben] mainly in the woodland area around The Hague in the Netherlands.[5] On 10 February, the unit moved to RAF Coltishall, Norfolk, the nearest sea-crossing to the target, 120 miles. The V2 rockets had been developed by Wernher von Braun at the Peenemünde Army Research Center. The first rockets to hit London had been in early September 1944. 124 Squadron became the fifth of six squadrons of Spitfire dive-bombers deployed to attempt to take out the mobile launching sites, by flying sorties known in the RAF as ramrods (daylight bomber sorties on specific targets). Attacks were made in two ways.[6]

Firstly, on days when the Squadron received clearance from the RAF Second Tactical Air Force (known as the 2nd TAF) for use of liberated airfields in Belgium, squadron aircraft each dropped a 1000 lb bomb-load onto the target. This consisted of a 500lb bomb under the fuselage, and a 250 lb bomb under each wing. After the attacks, they flew on to one of the liberated airfields – Advanced Landing Grounds – most frequently Ursel Airfield, Maldegem and Kleine Brogel, for refuelling, before return to Coltishall. On a few occasions, they refuelled and also re-armed, to enable further attacks on the launch sites in the Netherlands during the return flight to base.[6]

Alternatively, on days when clearance was not available from 2nd TAF for use of these forward airfields, the bomb-load was 500 lbs. The 500 lb bomb under the fuselage was replaced by a drop tank (referred to at the time an overload tank) needed for the extra fuel for out-and-return sorties. The drop tanks were jettisoned on approach to the Dutch coast, when the pilot switched to the full main fuel tank.[6]

Operations were preceded by early morning photo reconnaissance and/or met flights to try and pointpoint the latest positioning of the mobile launchers, and to check for sufficient visibility and cloud base. After the resulting briefing, the Squadron Leader was responsible for finding the target area and leading all twelve aircraft into the attack on the launch site(s). 124 Squadron's dive bombing runs at the targets usually started at 11,000 feet, with a steep dive of 60 degrees, to an optimum release height of 4,000 feet. During the dive, each pilot attempted to pick out the rocket launcher amongst the trees. Pulling out of the dive at up to 350 mph at the release height resulted in high G forces which could cause pilots temporarily to black out. To deal with this possibility, during the dive pilots trimmed the aircraft so that it automatically pulled up if pressure on the stick was relaxed - as happened during blacking out. The main danger on these operations was not fighter defence, but heavy flak particularly along the coast and during the descent to drop the bombs.[6]

In addition to the ramrods flown against the launching sites, the Squadron also flew sorties known as interdictions. These were low level attacks often flown when the cloud base was too low for dive-bombing the V2 sites. Their objective was finding and bombing railways and other targets to disrupt the movement of rocket launching supplies by the enemy. Interdictions were flown on an out-and-return basis from Coltishall in sections of four aircraft, again with a 500 lb bomb-load using drop tanks. For interdictions, bombs had an 11-second delay to allow the fourth aircraft to clear the area before the bombs exploded.[6]

... and just to repeat -
Can you cite a source for that? I don't doubt an aircraft with a nose mounted radiator scoop might not be ideal - but then again, as previously pointed out, how is it any worse for a water ditching than the belly radiator of a P51? USAF P51s were flying over the same pieces of water as the Typhoons.

I'm presuming you're American. Go and have a look at a scale map and see how narrow the channel actually is, and then consider how, against all likely possible operational reasons for loss, how likely ditching in the channel is going to be?

The sabre in 42 and 43 was an unreliable (but incrementally improving dog of an engine) But Tempest also had the same nose scoop radiator and by 44/45, the same Sabre iib. But apparently not the same problems with ditching or unreliability? Why would that be then?

In fact in the ETO the RAF pretty much lacked a decent fighter bomber until the Tempest showed up late in the war
Click to expand...
Compared to whom? And compared to what and when?

As previously mentioned, the Hurricane was a perfectly good fighter bomber early on. And the Mosquito certainly seems to fit the bill from '43 onwards. The Beaufighter had also been operating as a long range fighter bomber extremely effectively.

What bomb or rocket carrying fighter bombers were the USAF deploying operationally in the ETO in '42 or for almost all of '43?
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
I'm struggling to think of 400+-mile-radius missions escorted by Spits in 1940 or even later.
Click to expand...

:eyeroll: It never fails to surprise me how American members can't possibly perceive that the British toy Spitfire could ever fly further than the local chip shop, yet their fighters were flying from Boston and back...

For context. Without drop tanks, with a range of 470 miles, the Spitfire Mk.V, which first flew in 1941 had a similar range to the P-47D-25 (475 miles) and greater than the P-40 F/L, K and N (at between 350 and 375 depending on the variant.) At a hundred miles less than the Spitfire, that's not great for a contemporary frontline fighter, worse even than the lowly Hurricane Mk.IIA and B, which also had a normal range of 470 miles. The highest range figures for the Spitfire without external tanks was 580 miles in the Spitfire 21. (Figures from Andrews and Morgan, Supermarine Aircraft since 1914, Putnam 1981, Swanborough, United States Military Aircraft since 1909, Putnam, 1963 First Edition, and Mason, Hawker Aircraft since 1920, Putnam, 1991).

In July 1942, 16 Spitfires flew non-stop from Britain to Gibraltar. It took them 5 and half hours to cover 1,300 miles. This was in support of Malta operations. Similar distances were being flown by British aircraft routinely around the Mediterranean and North Africa as a part of supply efforts to British forces in theatre. Spitfires as escort fighters most certainly could have been done, why is that so hard for people to believe?
 
Admiral Beez said:
How far could the unarmed recon Spitfires go?
Click to expand...

Quite far depending on the variant and camera fit. Here's an example quoted from Morgan & Shacklady's Big Book of Spitfires (Key, 1987). These figures come from trials carried out by Supermarine with a modified Spitfire Mk.I, designated PR.I, in October 1939. "Ranges, allowing for 20 gal for taxying, take-off and residue after flight, and also allowing for amount used in climbing to the appropriate altitude: at 15,000 ft, 1,715 miles at 250 mph, 1,380 miles at 300 mph. At 20,000 ft, 1,830 miles @ 250 mph, 1,500 miles at 300 mph. At 25, 000 ft, 1,885 miles at 250 mph, 1,615 miles at 300 mph."

These figures are impressive for 1945, let alone 1939. Sure, this is a stripped-down airframe for photo recon where range, speed, and agility are its only weapons, but this certainly illustrates what could have been done with a long-range fighter escort Spitfire. Bear in mind, tankage is internal only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

BAR 2.0 - how light might it went?
Replies
14
Views
847
tomo pauk
A
Empire fighter program?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
MiTasol
A
What does the IJN look like if war delayed six months?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Shinpachi
A
British Aerial Ordnance Exotica
Replies
2
Views
864
Shortround6
S
P-39-style fighter by other people?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register