Greatest aviation myth this site “de-bunked”.

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

P-47 was faster than Fw 190 above 20000 ft by a large margin and probably cimbed better there, while it was not slower than Bf 109G, especially than 109G-6. The Bf 110 was probably not faster than Hurricane I above 17000 ft, and it was slower than Spitfire and Hurricane II. Granted, using bad tactics - as it seems to be the case with 110s - makes things even worse.
The nimber of Bf 110s deployed was not big when compared to what the RAF FC was able to put in the air beyond the range of Bf 109s; the P-47s often fought with numerical superiority, or at least with numerical parity. German industry was ill able to replace the losses of Bf 110s vs. what UK coud do with fighters that used half of engines needed, while the Americans coud've churned P-47s in admirable fashion.
 
You have several P-47s in 1943, very early 1944.
Planes were equipped in the field with water injection, and also the paddle blade props.
A P-47 with both has rather different combat capabilities than one without both.

Getting a P-47 off the ground with drop tanks and the early propeller might need a fair amount of runway.
An early P-47 at 14,000lbs could need over 3900ft to clear the 50 ft trees on a 20 degree C day with zero wind.
 
GrauGeist said:
The Jumo004s did fine at higher altitudes and it was actually faster the higher it flew.
Click to expand...
I just figured, because the stall speed wasn't absurdly high (193.2 km/h or 104.3 kn) and, I remember hearing there were issues with cooling.

The Wellington figure for 11g at 24500 sounds a bit high, but otherwise, it's fascinating that the design-load for bombers were often near their full weights.
 


I happened to read a little of Fleischers absolutely essential "German Air Dropped Weapons" last night. It's clear that in the light of the Luftwaffe's experience in the Spanish Civil War that they began focusing on precision bombing to support Ground forces. To an extent the Dornier Do 17, He 111, Ju 86 and even Me 110 were legacy aircraft.

Apart from the Ju 87 Stuka just about every new German aircraft had dive bombing capability. I can think of no other air force that had focused on proper twin engine dive bombers with dive brakes capable of sustained 60 degree dives (as opposed to momentary ones)

Ju 88, Ju 288 and Me 210/410 all had the ability to be equipped with dive brakes and the He 177 was specified so. In fact if Ernst Heinkel had not undertaken to make the He 177 dive bombing capable his contract would have been cancelled.

Aircraft such as the Hawker Henley could carry out dive bombing but at shallower angles 70 degrees due to the lack of bomb swing arms (the henley was more of a light bomber) and I know of no other air force that developed twin engine dive bombers.
 
Last edited:
Koopernic said:
Aircraft such as the Hawker Henley could carry out dive bombing but at much shallower angles due to the lack of bomb swing arms (the henley was more of a light bomber) and I know of no other air force that developed twin engine dive bombers.
Click to expand...
Why would you, it is a strategy for attacking people who don't defend themselves, if you meet people who do defend themselves you lose your whole force very quickly.
 
pbehn said:
Why would you, it is a strategy for attacking people who don't defend themselves, if you meet people who do defend themselves you lose your whole force very quickly.
Click to expand...

Honestly, what are you talking about. You are trying to hijack this thread with your politics the same way you did with Barbarossa?

A dive bomber is a precision weapon that can usually hit within 20ft hence its use by the RN, USN and IJN against ships.

It's of little use in killing civilians are causing broad damage to a factory because while its precision is good its lift is not high. StuKa's didn't kill civilians or cause collateral causalities except in two cases 1 the rare misidentified target or 2 in the lurid, fabricated imagination of British propaganda in the wake of the battle of France that sought to portray the Ju 87 StuKa as a weapon of terror rather than an highly effective piece of heavy artillery. They attacked pretty girls with picnic baskets or 'refugees'. Propaganda is used to manipulate people into anger and want to go to war.

If you want to "attack" & mass kill "defenceless" people (your language) civilians you have your majesties government issue an broad "Area Bombardment" directive to "Dehouse" and "Demoralise" civilians to your air force at the policy level. One of the reasons for the US attachment to the Norden was because they didn't have a stomach for this. One the the reasons for the StuKa terror propaganda is to justify the Area Bombardment policy.

The Ju 87 StuKa was vulnerable in 1939 without air superiority, so militaries weren't 'defenceless' or when used deep past the front line but not until 20mm and 40mm weapons with gyro and computing sights became available probably from 1942. Ju 88 twin engined "StuKa" was no more vulnerable than any other twin engined bomber.

When the Luftwaffe does get accused of "terror", usually falsely, it doesn't involve StuKa but level bombers. Rotterdam being the case of besieged city no commander was going to send young soldiers into for slaughter by machine gun fire without prior bombardment and also the case of the Dutch Commander milking a German 2 day ultimatum to the last minute and getting caught out by daylight saving time. In that case the requested StuKa were not available because they were still needed for the Battle of France and the ultimatum could not be extended because the army needed to keep moving.
 
Last edited:
SaparotRob said:
The myth that I had always thought true was the P-51 was the only fighter capable of escorting the bomber streams deep into Germany.
Click to expand...
THAT is the biggest myth of all related to WWII combat aircraft IMHO. That myth has been repeated by many respected historians like Richard Overy who wrote, "Why the Allies Won". In that book he makes that very claim. I've seen Richard Overy interviewed on many WWII related TV shows on the American Military Channel (AMC). Much of this myth's tenacity is because it was the narrative put out by Air Force leaders at the time. With tanks, the P-47 could have gone all the way to Berlin by mid 1943, before the Mustang started escorting bombers.
 
Spitlead said:
Well down FUBAR. I have a request in to AFHRA even as I type this, Korean War air combat related. Where did you get your data??
Click to expand...

The British developed an version of the Spitfire called the Mk VIII which had the two stage Merlin engine and had fuel tanks in the leading edge of the wings plus an enlarged lower forward tank. This advanced aircraft which also featured a retraction mechanism for the tail wheel. Only 1600 or so were produced. The bulk of two stage Merlin were built into the Spitfire IX which was simply an Mk V with the Merlin 45 replaced with a Merlin 61/66. This Spitfire Mk IX lacked the enlarged lower forward tank or the wing tanks however eventually received a tail tank of up to 40 gallons referred to as a "ferry tank" to emphasise it was not to be used in combat as the centre of gravity was too far aft. It could be fought with the fuel half burned off. The ferry tanks were never installed in the Mk VIII.

However a Spitfire VIII with ferry tanks could have burned of half its tail tank fuselage during climb and take-off, switched to a drop tank when at altitude and switch back to the tail tank when the drop tank or tanks were jettisoned. This combination was never tried on a Merlin Spitfire but did make it on to the Griffon XIV (it needed the fuel). If given full retractable wheel doors it wouldnt have been much slower than a Mustang.

On interesting fact about the oft maligned P39 is that it had to carry all of its fuel in the wings since there was no space in the fuselage The P39 carried 120 gal (454 l) in its wings though this was reduced to 87 gal (329 l) in the P39N

This shows how much fuel could have been fitted in a P-40 or P47 wing.

I suspect that the "Bomber Mafia" having rejected the need for escort fighters, drop tanks and high capacity fuel tanks for those escort fighters found it convenient to promote the P-51 more of a technical breakthrough than it was. After all they could have developed a long range P-47 earlier by just developing wing tanks and drop tanks.
 

What is truly appalling is that the "Bomber Mafia" knew the P-47 had the range to escort the bombers and yet they didn't do the work to get it done all to "save face". Their egos got in the way and hundreds of airmen lost their lives because of it. Shame on them.
 
Ideology over reality. Good thing that isn't still happening today!
 
Last edited:
It wasnt just the bomber mafia ideology that was the problem it was the "panacea target" ideology too. The idea that one raid could end or massively shorten the war led people to think huge losses would be justified. The RAF battle of Berlin, dambusters raid and Schweinfurt were all examples of it.
 

Any math to support the notion of P-47s with (drop?) tank successfully escorting the 8th AF bombers all the way to Berlin by mid 1943?
 
Thunderbolts all the way to Berlin in June of 1943? Man I'd have to see some hard data/source material for that first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
13K
EwenS
E
What is this?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
S
Can anyone help me ID this pilot and his plane?
Replies
6
Views
776
pb43
P
Z
Weather limitations in carrier aviation in the interwar and WWII eras
5 6 7
Replies
126
Views
9K
RCAFson
R
B
Need help identifying this aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
BobW
B
Menu
Log in
Register