How about a little flip-flop

[Glider]

As said, giving the Germans the Spitfire does little in my opinion. The Spit and Messerschmitt were very close equals in performance and RANGE.

In performance and range you are correct but the one advantage the Spit has is that it can be upgunned to 4 x 20mm with little difference in performance or handleing. So in effect you have an altitude performance of the 109 with the firpower of the 190, which by any standards is a good combination against B17's at altitude.

So, lets say the 8th AF bombers are protected by Thunderbolts and Spitfires. How are they to deal with Luftwaffe Lightnings attacking the bombers? The stand-off distance a P-38 can strike from is greater because of its central armament, so they may be able to break off their attacks on the bombers sooner than the FW or ME planes of reality. If the Lightning tries to dogfight with the Spit, it is in some real trouble. But the Lightning should be able to dogfight the Thunderbolt. I could see a dive flap equipped P-38 being able to dive away from a Spitfire, but I don't think it would dive away from the Thunderbolt. I'm thinking as I'm typing, but maybe let the Spits first engage the P-38's. Once they break off and try to run or dive away, send the P-47's after them?

In this scenario I think the defenders have a significant advantage. The Lightnings will effectively have on initial pass and then the P47's can go down with the leaving tghe SPits to cover the bombers. The down side of course is that the P38's have to do is wait for the escort to turn back due to a lack of fuel

 

[Hop]

However the Spitfire, P-38, P-47 etc. are all expensive to produce compared to the Me-109 and Fw-190.

That's certainly true of the P-38 and P-47, but the Germans calculated the Spitfire would take less man hours to build than the 109.

I really don't think the Germans could afford either the P-47, or especially the P-38, as their major fighter type. Both took were expensive and took a lot of resources to build.

 

[drgondog]

That's certainly true of the P-38 and P-47, but the Germans calculated the Spitfire would take less man hours to build than the 109.

I really don't think the Germans could afford either the P-47, or especially the P-38, as their major fighter type. Both took were expensive and took a lot of resources to build.

The P-51D labor burden was 2000 hours. Out of curiosity what were the comparable numbers for the Spit and Me 109 in late 1944?

 

[davebender]

During late 1944 A German Spitfire prototype would be competing against the Fw-190D9, Me-262, Me-109K, Do-335 and He-162. I don't see much chance to win the RLM competition.

 

[TheMustangRider]

A German built P-38 with DB engines and four or even five 20 mm cannons would had been a deadly bomber killer in the hands of the Luftwaffe. And as Drgondog pointed out once the 8th Air Force was experiencing severe losses in late 1943 due to the lack of a long range escort fighter, the appearance of this menace in my opinion would had accelarated the termination of daylight bombing raids over Europe and therefore caused a reverse for the Allies morally and strategically.

 

[drgondog]

During late 1944 A German Spitfire prototype would be competing against the Fw-190D9, Me-262, Me-109K, Do-335 and He-162. I don't see much chance to win the RLM competition.

Dave - the Spit would be available in late 1939 -early 1940.

By the 'rules' of the poll - by definition it would not be available to RAF during BoB. That could be a game changer bigger than taking Mustangs away from escorting 8th AF in late 1943.

 

[olbrat]

Good point MustangRider. Along the same lines of thought, german war production could have been more easily maintained or suffered less financial losses, allowing more output, or allowing more resources to put into special projects (like the jet aircraft etc.). I still think the P-38 would make a good night bomber killer as well, which would have had a similar effect against Britain's unescorted night bombing raids. Would it have been enough to cause stalemate on the western front (I don't think the Russians would have stopped), or push the allies to the negotiating table? Maybe. I don't think the allies could stand even an additional 10-25% (maybe more?) losses to the sometimes 30+% they were being hammered with.

 

[davebender]

Where do you plan to put the radar operator and all his equipment? It would barely fit in the more roomy Me-110. Besides, WWII Germany did not need a different night fighter. They were winning the night air war until the Normandy invasion blew a massive hole in the Luftwaffe air defense system.

 

[drgondog]

Where do you plan to put the radar operator and all his equipment? It would barely fit in the more roomy Me-110. Besides, WWII Germany did not need a different night fighter. They were winning the night air war until the Normandy invasion blew a massive hole in the Luftwaffe air defense system.

I agree that the P-38 was not required as a front line Night Fighter. Ditto Mustang or Spit as the Me 110 did just fine.

Having said that I see no reason an extended two place fuelage mod version could not have been built for that purpose.

 

[TheMustangRider]

The P-38M was the dedicated nightfighter version of the Lightning with a second cockpit behind the pilot which housed the radar operator and despite the added weight of radar and the second crewmember it was a fast and nimble nightfighter.

 

[Colin1]

Dave - the Spit would be available in late 1939 -early 1940.

By the 'rules' of the poll - by definition it would not be available to RAF during BoB. That could be a game changer bigger than taking Mustangs away from escorting 8th AF in late 1943.

Could have been
but I still think the most decisive factor in the BoB was the inability of the Jagdwaffe to loiter over even south-east England for more than 20 minutes; they could lure Fighter Command into the air, they just couldn't stick around long enough to destroy them.
I doubt the Spitfire would have changed the balance in that respect.

 

[Hop]

The P-51D labor burden was 2000 hours. Out of curiosity what were the comparable numbers for the Spit and Me 109 in late 1944?

No idea. But what's included in the hours? The P-51 cost just over $50,000 in 1944. That's an awful lot if 2000 was the total man hours. From memory the average wage in the US was about $1 an hour at the time.

Of course, if the 2,000 hours is only for the airframe, and excludes the engine, guns, radios, tyres etc, then it makes sense.

The problems with comparisons is you can end up comparing airframe only hours for one type against a fully fitted aircraft of another.

That's why the German comparison is so useful. It's a single German report comparing the man hours for their own aircraft and includes a calculation of how many hours it would take them to build Spitfires.

Comparing by price has its own problems. Germany used a lot of slave labour, for example.

Having said that, I know Spitfires were costing the RAF less than P-51s were costing the USAAF. Price was in the region of £5,000 - £8,000 for a Spitfire, and there were $4.5 to the pound.

but I still think the most decisive factor in the BoB was the inability of the Jagdwaffe to loiter over even south-east England for more than 20 minutes; they could lure Fighter Command into the air, they just couldn't stick around long enough to destroy them.

I don't think range was the problem. Look at the casualty rates for the Luftwaffe, it wasn't a lack of combat that forced their fighter pilot and aircraft numbers down.

On 13 August the Luftwaffe had 976 SE fighters on hand, 853 serviceable. By 7 September they were down to 831 on hand, 658 serviceable.

SE pilot numbers fell from 906 fit for duty on 29 June to 676 on 28 September.

More combat isn't the answer for the Luftwaffe, they needed more successful combat.

Having said that, I don't think the Spitfire would get them much better results. They needed either a large technological lead or far more pilots and planes.

 

[Colin1]

I don't think range was the problem. Look at the casualty rates for the Luftwaffe, it wasn't a lack of combat that forced their fighter pilot and aircraft numbers down.

On 13 August the Luftwaffe had 976 SE fighters on hand, 853 serviceable. By 7 September they were down to 831 on hand, 658 serviceable.

SE pilot numbers fell from 906 fit for duty on 29 June to 676 on 28 September.

More combat isn't the answer for the Luftwaffe, they needed more successful combat.

Having said that, I don't think the Spitfire would get them much better results. They needed either a large technological lead or far more pilots and planes.

You're talking BoB the way it unfolded
we're talking flip-flop - a straight swap of assets; if the Spitfire had swapped sides and Goering turned his attention away from the RAF airfields towards London (in the way that the BoB unfolded) how much difference do you think the Spitfire would have/could have made?
If Goering had chained his new Spitfire assets to the bombers (in the way that the BoB unfolded) how much more effective do you think they would have been than the Bf109s constrained by the same, useless tactics?

The Luftwaffe weren't going to get 'more successful combat' chained to bombers flying over London whether they were flying Spitfires or Bf109s, they'd been forced to relinquish the initiative; instead of hunting the RAF out over their own airfields, they had to sit and wait for them to turn up whilst chained to a bomber formation over the capital.

 

[drgondog]

No idea. But what's included in the hours? The P-51 cost just over $50,000 in 1944. That's an awful lot if 2000 was the total man hours. From memory the average wage in the US was about $1 an hour at the time.

Of course, if the 2,000 hours is only for the airframe, and excludes the engine, guns, radios, tyres etc, then it makes sense.

Just the opposite -

the $53K/Mustang included all in PRICE to USAAF for airframe and GFE.

Remember the original labor burden for the P-51A was 12,000 hours and mass production techniques plus a fully trained work force took the cost down - but not the Price. The Price includes Direct Labor, Indirect Labor, R&D amortization, Material Costs, Depreciation and profit. A lot more profit on the tail end when labor hours were reduced 10,000 hours per ship. I suspect the Indirect Costs (Engineering/Management/Procurement, etc) were also dramatically reduced on the P-51D in late 1944 as the R&D and large indirect costs were being applied to the P-51H and P-82 at that time.


I don't think range was the problem. Look at the casualty rates for the Luftwaffe, it wasn't a lack of combat that forced their fighter pilot and aircraft numbers down.

On 13 August the Luftwaffe had 976 SE fighters on hand, 853 serviceable. By 7 September they were down to 831 on hand, 658 serviceable.

SE pilot numbers fell from 906 fit for duty on 29 June to 676 on 28 September.

More combat isn't the answer for the Luftwaffe, they needed more successful combat.

Having said that, I don't think the Spitfire would get them much better results. They needed either a large technological lead or far more pilots and planes.

I suspect that a combination of Me 109s, Me 110s and Spits against only Hurricanes would get the LW better results.

 

[Colin1]

I suspect that a combination of Me 109s, Me 110s and Spits against only Hurricanes would get the LW better results.

I'm pretty sure the beleaguered Hurricane squadrons would struggle against that combination but if the Air Ministry can roll out x Hurricane squadrons and y Spitfire squadrons by the time the BoB kicked off, then they could likely roll out x + y Hurricane squadrons just as easily, I think this is a reasonable assumption.
Attrition rates would be higher among Hurricane squadrons, both the Bf109 and Spitfire could break off the engagement at will and the Bf110C (prevalent during the BoB) could and did give the Hurricane a hard time if the Hurricane was trying to catch it.
Hurricanes would need to attack the bomber streams to lure the escorts in to be attacked by more Hurricanes, a raiding party of all-Bf109s/Spitfires would present the Hurricanes with few opportunities for success.

The effect on history elsewhere would be felt just as keenly. Whatever Sydney Camm had on the drawing board (the Typhoon, eventually) would be accelerated as a program and it would be interesting to see what the new fate of the Westland Whirlwind would have been.

 

[drgondog]

Could have been
but I still think the most decisive factor in the BoB was the inability of the Jagdwaffe to loiter over even south-east England for more than 20 minutes; they could lure Fighter Command into the air, they just couldn't stick around long enough to destroy them.
I doubt the Spitfire would have changed the balance in that respect.

1. What were the comparable ranges of Spit I versus Me 109E?

2. What would the range of a Spit have been for a pure fighter sweep, unshackled from escort duties?

Having Spits (and removing from RAF inventory) has two effects, namely removing the best air superiority fighter from RAF and improving air superiority capability of LW over a Hurricane only air defense capability.

That alone would have placed more pressure on RAF during daylight raids over England, but to fully capitalize the LW would have to perform many more fighter sweeps out in front of bombers.

Colin - obviously this is pure speculation but I suspect RAF completely loses control of air during BoB - and permanently - absent the Spitfire.

If Britain loses control of air and bombers can get to ports to compliment U-Boat ravages over shipping, that in my opinion is enough to force Britain out in 1942..

 

[Colin1]

1. What were the comparable ranges of Spit I versus Me 109E?

2. What would the range of a Spit have been for a pure fighter sweep, unshackled from escort duties?

Having Spits (and removing from RAF inventory) has two effects, namely removing the best air superiority fighter from RAF and improving air superiority capability of LW over a Hurricane only air defense capability.

That alone would have placed more pressure on RAF during daylight raids over England, but to fully capitalize the LW would have to perform many more fighter sweeps out in front of bombers.

Colin - obviously this is pure speculation but I suspect RAF completely loses control of air during BoB - and permanently - absent the Spitfire.

If Britain loses control of air and bombers can get to ports to compliment U-Boat ravages over shipping, that in my opinion is enough to force Britain out in 1942..

1. Spitfire I - 400 miles; Bf109E - 350-450 miles (roughly true of all 109 versions)

2. I would say the Spitfire would suffer similar constraints to the Bf109, limiting it to action over SE England

3. Hurricane-only - maybe; I did point out that it would be interesting to speculate on the new fate of the Westland Whirlwind, as fast as a Spitfire and significantly more heavily armed.
If the Air Ministry have finally been shaken out of their 'single-engined syndrome' then the Whirlwind is taking on bomber streams (quite effectively, with a nose-concentrated 20mm cannon armament), shooting up bandits in the Channel and having a pop at invasion barges in French ports, escorting Blenheims as they do.

If the Air Ministry haven't then I fear you're right - and we're in dead trouble.

 

[Hop]

Just the opposite -

the $53K/Mustang included all in PRICE to USAAF for airframe and GFE.

Yes, I know. $50,000 was the total price. But I don't believe 2,000 is the total man hours for a completed aircraft.

$50,000 for something that took a total of 2000 man hours in 1944 doesn't add up.

Remember the original labor burden for the P-51A was 12,000 hours and mass production techniques plus a fully trained work force took the cost down - but not the Price.

The price did fall. The P-51 cost nearly $59,000 in 1942.

I don't believe even 12,000 is total man hours for a fully fitted aircraft. The price is simply too high. I suspect it includes a lot of bought in equipment, ie that the price is the final total but the man hours are only those expended by the aircraft manufacturer, and don't include the hours required to make the engine, guns, instruments etc.

The production gains, from 12,000 - 2,000 man hours in 2 years, are also too great. From Overy, The Air War:

Number of workers in airframe industry in US:
1942 - 471,000
1944 - 2,102,000

Number of aircraft produced
1942 - 47,836
1944 - 96,318

Weight of airframes produced (million lbs)
1942 - 275
1944 - 952

That means the number of aircraft per worker fell from 0.1 to 0.046 per year. Airframe weight fell from 584 lbs per worker per year to 453 lbs.

That doesn't square with the Mustang falling from 12,000 to 2,000 man hours.

What it does suggest is more outsourcing. It suggests that the price didn't fall anywhere near as much as the man hours because man hours were reduced by outsourcing, but of course the overall price included the money paid to the sub-contractors.

I suspect that a combination of Me 109s, Me 110s and Spits against only Hurricanes would get the LW better results.

Oh yes. The RAF would have been in trouble with only the Hurricane.

You're talking BoB the way it unfolded

I think it's applicable to any way it could unfold. The Germans had to defeat the RAF in the SE. There aren't many ways of doing that.

if the Spitfire had swapped sides and Goering turned his attention away from the RAF airfields towards London (in the way that the BoB unfolded) how much difference do you think the Spitfire would have/could have made?

The lack of the Spitfire would be a big blow to the RAF, because it leaves them with only the Hurricane (this is of course assuming the RAF don't attempt to procure a different aircraft, which they would have done). The addition of the Spitfire isn't a huge benefit to the Luftwaffe, unless of course the Spitfires are in addition to the same number of 109s they actually had.

If Goering had chained his new Spitfire assets to the bombers (in the way that the BoB unfolded) how much more effective do you think they would have been than the Bf109s constrained by the same, useless tactics?

That's not really the way it happened. Goering told his Jagdwaffe commanders to develop their own escort tactics. It wasn't until quite late in the battle he ordered more close escort, and even then it was only for part of the fighter force.

The Luftwaffe weren't going to get 'more successful combat' chained to bombers flying over London whether they were flying Spitfires or Bf109s, they'd been forced to relinquish the initiative; instead of hunting the RAF out over their own airfields, they had to sit and wait for them to turn up whilst chained to a bomber formation over the capital.

They were never much good at hitting the RAF over their own bases, the RAF simply ignored the fighter sweeps. That's why the bombers got so annoyed, they were being shot to pieces whilst the Luftwaffe were off "looking" for the RAF.

I know it's not what Galland would have you believe, but the Luftwaffe actually had a bit better kill/loss rate in the last phase over London than they'd had in the previous month against the RAF airfields.

 

[Colin1]

The lack of the Spitfire would be a big blow to the RAF, because it leaves them with only the Hurricane (this is of course assuming the RAF don't attempt to procure a different aircraft, which they would have done).

They were never much good at hitting the RAF over their own bases, the RAF simply ignored the fighter sweeps. That's why the bombers got so annoyed, they were being shot to pieces whilst the Luftwaffe were off "looking" for the RAF.

I know it's not what Galland would have you believe, but the Luftwaffe actually had a bit better kill/loss rate in the last phase over London than they'd had in the previous month against the RAF airfields.

We seem keen to discount the presence of the Whirlwind in this fictional time-line, why is its potentially more prominent role so easy to overlook?

I have difficulty believing hostile enemy aircraft entered UK airspace and were ignored by the RAF, I've certainly not seen any written evidence of this.

Do you have any figures to support your claim that the Luftwaffe enjoyed a higher kill ratio over London than over their previous stategy? The RAF had finally got their Big Wing act together and were starting to hit bomber streams very effectively.

 

[drgondog]

Yes, I know. $50,000 was the total price. But I don't believe 2,000 is the total man hours for a completed aircraft.



$50,000 for something that took a total of 2000 man hours in 1944 doesn't add up.



The price did fall. The P-51 cost nearly $59,000 in 1942.

I don't believe even 12,000 is total man hours for a fully fitted aircraft. The price is simply too high. I suspect it includes a lot of bought in equipment, ie that the price is the final total but the man hours are only those expended by the aircraft manufacturer, and don't include the hours required to make the engine, guns, instruments etc.

.

Mustang - the Story of the P-51 Fighter by Gruenhagen

Pg 178
"NAA cost to produce the Mustang was $26,741. Profit and government furnished equipment raised the price to $58,698 in 1942. Mass Production techniques reduced the price to $50,985 by 1945. Cost was based on airframe weight of 4800 pounds at $3.58/pound. The Mustang structure was comprised of 36,000 parts. 25,000 rivets were used and three hundred additional units were furnished as government furnished equipment"

Pg 138
"In October 1941, 12,000 hours were required to assemble each Mustang. At the time of assembly of the last Mustang in August 1845 production techniques had reduced this figure to 2,077.

Gruenhagen's sources included complete disclosure and support from NAA as well as extensive interviews with Ed Schmeud and Ed Hockley.

Show me better references and we can talk?