March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

[FLYBOYJ]

I think it is also fair to say that the Americans got the benefit of what was happening in Europe, with regard to what the RAF and Luftwaffe were putting up in the skies in 1940. A Bf 109 and Bf 110 were shipped to the States in 1941, and I expect we also provided info on our own two fighters. What was discovered (and I know Vultee produced a comprehensive report and 20 minute film re the Bf 110) probably helped future thinking and development in some way. Which was no bad thing, given the ultimate performance of the US fighters in the last 12 months of the war over Germany, which was superb! And I say that as a Brit...

I've seen this before and just went through it again, very detailed, but to be honest, I don't think much of the data in the report made much on an influence on other manufacturers and Vultee really wasn't a major player at the time and was eventually swallowed up by Consolidated. The NA-73X flew October 1940 and most other contemporary US fighters of the period were either on assembly lines or entering service. I did find some of the systems interesting (Pneumatics for landing gear operation) and was a bit surprised to read that the -110 did not have a cockpit heating system but did support electrically heated flight suits (I wonder if the -110 was as cold as the P38?!?! ).

As far as construction and materials used, I didn't notice anything that was really ground shaking

EDIT* I'll correct my statement - the 110 had a hydraulic L/G retraction system, the emergency system used pneumatics, which is pretty typical on larger aircraft of the day.

 

[GrauGeist]

I've read it already before.
What feature of the Bf 110 was adopted on P-38, P-47 or P-51?

Black crosses?

 

[John Vasco]

I've read it already before.
What feature of the Bf 110 was adopted on P-38, P-47 or P-51?

The Americans were very interested in construction details, and engine operation and performance. Quite a bit of the report, although collated by Vultee, was compiled by other specialist companies, so you would have to go there to see what exact specifics were picked up. I cannot believed that nothing was gained from what the Americans examined in detail. Can you...?

 

[John Vasco]

I've seen this before and just went through it again, very detailed, but to be honest, I don't think much of the data in the report made much on an influence on other manufacturers and Vultee really wasn't a major player at the time and was eventually swallowed up by Consolidated. The NA-73X flew October 1940 and most other contemporary US fighters of the period were either on assembly lines or entering service. I did find some of the systems interesting (Pneumatics for landing gear operation) and was a bit surprised to read that the -110 did not have a cockpit heating system but did support electrically heated flight suits (I wonder if the -110 was as cold as the P38?!?! ).

As far as construction and materials used, I didn't notice anything that was really ground shaking

EDIT* I'll correct my statement - the 110 had a hydraulic L/G retraction system, the emergency system used pneumatics, which is pretty typical on larger aircraft of the day.

In 1941 the USA was basically looking at machines flying in 1940. What had actually been taking to the skies in combat, whereas the USA had not yet reached that point. I recall the report commenting favourably on the ease of construction, resulting in ease of replacement parts, and things like that which were important in the field.

The cockpit heating system came in on the Bf 110 E variant. Drawing air in through two openings (one in the nose and one in the fuselage), circulating it around both engines, and then feeding the hot air into the front and rear of the cockpit.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Americans were very interested in construction details, and engine operation and performance. Quite a bit of the report, although collated by Vultee, was compiled by other specialist companies, so you would have to go there to see what exact specifics were picked up. I cannot believed that nothing was gained from what the Americans examined in detail. Can you...?

I can - to be honest I see nothing really ground shaking when compared to the fighters (US) of the day. I did find the comments on the self sealing fuel tanks interesting

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In 1941 the USA was basically looking at machines flying in 1940. What had actually been taking to the skies in combat, whereas the USA had not yet reached that point. I recall the report commenting favourably on the ease of construction, resulting in ease of replacement parts, and things like that which were important in the field.

Agree

The cockpit heating system came in on the Bf 110 E variant. Drawing air in through two openings (one in the nose and one in the fuselage), circulating it around both engines, and then feeding the hot air into the front and rear of the cockpit.

Similar system on the P-38 and many other twin engine aircraft of the period

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think the biggest take away on this was the testing of the self sealing fuel tanks in which they actually shot up with .30 and .50 caliber rounds. This information was probably made available to the AAF and eventually disseminated to combat units

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I cannot believed [...]

C'mon, John, "I can't believe" is not a strong argument. I'd think that if Americans or Brits borrowed ideas from captured German a/c there'd be paperwork on it somewhere. Do you have any documentation or is this just a belief?

 

[John Vasco]

C'mon, John, "I can't believe" is not a strong argument. I'd think that if Americans or Brits borrowed ideas from captured German a/c there'd be paperwork on it somewhere. Do you have any documentation or is this just a belief?

It's a belief, Thump, because every nation was poring over the aircraft of other nations to see what was there, to pick up on the good ideas, and also to counter the things found. So things would be gone into in minute details, like armour plating, the thickess of it, the placement of it. Self-sealing fuel tanks (which has already been mentioned). Armament, and the type of bullets/shells in use. If they can get an aircraft back to flying condition, then testing it against their own latest types (this couldn't be done in 1941 by the USA, but I believe the USA did get German types flying in the Med Theatre). And there are not always extant papertrails (or if there are, they are filed away somewhere which is almost impossible to find). For example, for a long time, I tried to find out what happened to the Bf 110 fighter-bomber of 2./Erprobungsgruppe 210 (S9+CK) after the Vultee examination and report was complete. I wrote to shed loads of companies as well as official USA aviation organisations to try to find out, but drew a 100% blank. So papertrails do go cold, Thump. I could find nothing about it being scrapped, or crated-up and stored/archived somehwere. Some wag once said to me it was probably crated up and in storage in one of the massive Smithsonian facilities, as the staff there don't have a clue about a lot of what they've got, given the overall volume. I don't think I'll find out in my lifetime...

 

[nuuumannn]

The aircraft that fought in WW2 from every nation except Japan where fitted self sealing tanks, pilot armor, armored windscreens which was detrimental to their performance, as for the A6M even it's seat had holes in it to reduce weight

Actually, the Japanese did fit these things to their aircraft, including the Zero and I never said it wasn't an essential part of a fighter design, so don't misrepresent my words. My point was that you're stating that it meant the Zero would be entirely useless in combat with an aircraft with armour plating and that means it wouldn't have been effective without it, which, as we know simply was not the case. This is what I'm specifically referring to, as has been pointed out by a few people here, Zeros shot down and bested numerous aircraft types with armour plating. You are generalising and using that as the foundation behind your bias.

I have no illusions about the Zero and its capabilities and lack thereof, but to state that it was useless simply because it had no armour or self sealing tanks is just not gonna cut the mustard and ignores the first two years of the Pacific War when it bested virtually every fighter in theatre, including the USAAF and USN's best at the time. Everyone knows the Zero lost its sheen in the face of superior tactics and better aircraft, but that doesn't in any way detract from just how innovative the aircraft was in matching the original specifications, nor does it take away from what the Japanese pilots achieved with it.

Well the A6M cruise speed was around 200mph to get it's range which is slow, testing proved it couldn't turn at speed and incendiary ammunition was designed to set fuel tanks on fire which is why SS tanks were used so yes to all the above. As for how it shot down all those aircraft, like all Japanese planes it did well until the Allies found ways to combat them via tactics or improved aircraft and once they did they were shot down in droves, no other air force lost as many planes as the Japanese did in air battles which showed their design philosophy of endurance and maneuverability over everything else was a fatal flaw.

The Bf 109E-3 cruised at 210 mph, the A6M2 Model 21 207 mph, that three mph isn't gonna make that much of a difference and with the Zero's far superior range, and let's emphasise that one more time, over 1,100 miles, an increase in fuel consumption to improve its speed isn't going to eat too much into that range for it to be an effective escort fighter. As I mentioned earlier, in our hypothetical European scenario (still lookin' for that time machine), the Fairey Fulmar had an internal range of 800 miles, that's still a lot for a single-engined fighter and trumps almost every other fighter in Europe, so even if the Zero's range was knocked down by a few hundred miles, it'd still outrange every other fighter in Europe.

Wow, that's an admission that you've said the Zero did well, must have been difficult for you to swallow and yup, essentially you're right, but at the very end of the war, pilots of far superior aircraft were STILL being advised not to dogfight with the Zero.

Suburo Sakai was seriously wounded and blinded in one eye from a .30 cal bullet that hit him after penetrating through the unarmored windscreen of his A6M, he later stated that air forces shouldn't fight a war with acrobatic aircraft, enough said.

See above. Also, Sakai remarked about how he returned to base with his Zero all shot up on a couple of occasions, too, and again, hindsight is a wonderful thing for you to say that the Japanese shouldn't have done what they did, but they did and it caught everyone by surprise.

Here's what Bob Mikesh through Osamu Tagaya in an interview reproduced in Mikesh's book, said about the Zero and the lack of armour plating etc...

"Reading the standard literature on the subject, one gains the impression that the Japanese stand out like a "sore thumb" in not providing these features while everyone else did. This is simply not true. It should be pointed out that the Zero's contemporaries around the world, and just about all other combat aircraft of the period, originally were conceived as machines that would be flown in combat without armour or self-sealing tanks and were designed accordingly. The truth of the matter is that in the mid-1930s nether aircraft designers nor, more importantly, air force officers who were responsible for formulating design specifications to be imposed on aircraft manufacturers and their design staffs, foresaw the importance of these features in a future war."

More from Mikesh...

"In the United States - after witnessing Great Britain's experience in the Battle of Britain, as well as ongoing developments in the European air war - opinion began to favour self-sealing fuel tanks and armour protection for the pilot during 1940 and 1941." "Many US aircraft, including F4F-3s did not have these features at the time of Pearl Harbor. In light of these comparisons, the unprotected nature of the Zero and other Japanese aircraft of the period does not seem particularly out of place."

"The fault, if there is any, certainly does not lie with the aircraft designers. Where a major difference does exist is in the way the two opponents approached the situation. By December 1941, the US air services had clearly identified the need for these protective features, and were in the process of providing them, albeit incompletely at the time the Japanese struck. Therefore, once the war in the Pacific began, the vast majority of American aircraft had these features within a relatively short period of time. As for the Japanese, they were by no means oblivious to the issue of aircraft protection."

The chapter goes on to describe what happened next, stating that the Japanese took a longer time to do what everyone else was doing, not that they specifically ignored the issue. That was the problem. Another example of the Japanese hierarchy acting against its own aims...

 

[Greg Boeser]

For example, for a long time, I tried to find out what happened to the Bf 110 fighter-bomber of 2./Erprobungsgruppe 210 (S9+CK) after the Vultee examination and report was complete. Some wag once said to me it was probably crated up and in storage in one of the massive Smithsonian facilities, as the staff there don't have a clue about a lot of what they've got, given the overall volume. I don't think I'll find out in my lifetime...

It's in the crate next to the Ark.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a belief, Thump, because every nation was poring over the aircraft of other nations to see what was there, to pick up on the good ideas, and also to counter the things found. So things would be gone into in minute details, like armour plating, the thickess of it, the placement of it. Self-sealing fuel tanks (which has already been mentioned). Armament, and the type of bullets/shells in use. If they can get an aircraft back to flying condition, then testing it against their own latest types (this couldn't be done in 1941 by the USA, but I believe the USA did get German types flying in the Med Theatre). And there are not always extant papertrails (or if there are, they are filed away somewhere which is almost impossible to find). For example, for a long time, I tried to find out what happened to the Bf 110 fighter-bomber of 2./Erprobungsgruppe 210 (S9+CK) after the Vultee examination and report was complete. I wrote to shed loads of companies as well as official USA aviation organisations to try to find out, but drew a 100% blank. So papertrails do go cold, Thump. I could find nothing about it being scrapped, or crated-up and stored/archived somehwere. Some wag once said to me it was probably crated up and in storage in one of the massive Smithsonian facilities, as the staff there don't have a clue about a lot of what they've got, given the overall volume. I don't think I'll find out in my lifetime...

I sure appreciate the forthright and informative answer, John. I agree that there was definitely osmosis happening in designs, but I suppose with my experience with American bureaucracy that in the design consultations there'd be mention of it. Of course, I haven't prowled those trails to nearly your extent.

 

[Shortround6]

More from Mikesh...

"In the United States - after witnessing Great Britain's experience in the Battle of Britain, as well as ongoing developments in the European air war - opinion began to favour self-sealing fuel tanks and armour protection for the pilot during 1940 and 1941." "Many US aircraft, including F4F-3s did not have these features at the time of Pearl Harbor. In light of these comparisons, the unprotected nature of the Zero and other Japanese aircraft of the period does not seem particularly out of place."

The US Army was issuing requirements that all NEW planes be built in armor/self sealing tanks in Sept of 1940. How this translated into planes already contracted for may be a bit different. Certainly the P-40B's were built with a certain amount of of protection and the P-40C's had more (better SS tanks). The P-40D&E were in production in May of 1941.

In fact the US Army tried to standardized the number system so that any aircraft with the letters A, B, and C. after the number in 1940/41 were considered not combat capable.
As in a B-17B vs a B-17D or a P-39C vs a P-39D. This distinction went away as newer planes that weren't in production at the time came online in 1942/43.

"The fault, if there is any, certainly does not lie with the aircraft designers. Where a major difference does exist is in the way the two opponents approached the situation. By December 1941, the US air services had clearly identified the need for these protective features, and were in the process of providing them, albeit incompletely at the time the Japanese struck. Therefore, once the war in the Pacific began, the vast majority of American aircraft had these features within a relatively short period of time. As for the Japanese, they were by no means oblivious to the issue of aircraft protection."

A number of the existing aircraft were NOT refitted at the time of Pearl Harbor.
However in the case of some aircraft (Like P-35s and P-36s and P-40'no letter') there were no plans to ever refit them as the combat squadrons were supposed to be replacing these older aircraft with new production planes and the older planes (at least ones in the US) were supposed to go to training squadrons.
Some P-40 'no letter' were rebuilt with protection in mid/late 1941 for shipment to the USSR and were called P-40Gs. Around 30?

The F2A-3s were built with protection. The older F4F-3s did not have it but were refitted in Jan/Feb of 1942. Some of the other planes in 1941/early 1942 like dive bombers and torpedo planes were lacking protection. But again, the older planes were already being scheduled for replacement as soon as the new planes could be built/issued.

 

[nuuumannn]

The US Army was issuing requirements that all NEW planes be built in armor/self sealing tanks in Sept of 1940. How this translated into planes already contracted for may be a bit different.

A number of the existing aircraft were NOT refitted at the time of Pearl Harbor.
However in the case of some aircraft (Like P-35s and P-36s and P-40'no letter') there were no plans to ever refit them as the combat squadrons were supposed to be replacing these older aircraft with new production planes and the older planes (at least ones in the US) were supposed to go to training squadrons.
Some P-40 'no letter' were rebuilt with protection in mid/late 1941 for shipment to the USSR and were called P-40Gs. Around 30?

The F2A-3s were built with protection. The older F4F-3s did not have it but were refitted in Jan/Feb of 1942. Some of the other planes in 1941/early 1942 like dive bombers and torpedo planes were lacking protection. But again, the older planes were already being scheduled for replacement as soon as the new planes could be built/issued.

So, you've essentially confirmed everything that Mikesh and Tagaya have said. September 1940 is well within the throes of the Battle of Britain and from the previous month's combat, ample time for the USA to gain intel from Britain.

 

[slaterat]

here were other evaluations between the British fighters and the Tomahawks and reports to the US as early as Feb 1941 on how they were doing. But they were non-operational aircraft (I.E. lacking some operational equipment). Again they were rated as being better than the Hurricane I and in some regards as good or better than the Spitfire but altitudes are not given.

Hello Shortround6, do you have the source or link to this report? It seems that the RAF was pretty reluctant to deploy the P 40 in N Europe, and quickly sent all available p 40s to the DAF, while they kept lots of Hurricane IIs in England until mid 42. I suppose the better climb rate and superior high altitude performance of the Hurri II was the deciding factor.

 

[Venturi]

Even in N Africa the RAF P-40s had issues with altitude capability. And it was 1941 and 1942, not 1940 - so 109F-2 with the airframe redesign and F-4s with DB605. Not a good comparison from a performance standpoint. When a 109F was captured and tested by the DAF, even somewhat damaged and with unknown engine regime, the test pilot remarked - from memory of reading Shores - "it is a rocket ship, we see why we are at such a disadvantage."

 

[Vincenzo]

Even in N Africa the RAF P-40s had issues with altitude capability. And it was 1941 and 1942, not 1940 - so 109F-2 with the airframe redesign and F-4s with DB605.

The F-4 had the DB-601E engine, the F-2 the DB-601N engine

 

[VA5124]

I think @PAT303's point about range being a result of the Zero's flight regime is fair. Flying relatively low and slow is very different between PTO and ETO.


No argument here.

If im picking from that time chunk ill take a P-40 if you wait a few months you'd see me in a mk2 trop hurricane

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If im picking from that time chunk ill take a P-40 if you wait a few months you'd see me in a mk2 trop hurricane

I'd be concerned about altitude performance. German bombers regularly flew above 22-24,000 feet, where especially the early P-40s were wheezy. Even the later variants weren't praised for performance above 20k.

 

[Ovod]

I'd be concerned about altitude performance. German bombers regularly flew above 22-24,000 feet, where especially the early P-40s were wheezy. Even the later variants weren't praised for performance above 20k.

How accurately can a German bomber hit its target from 22-24,000 feet? Even if the defending fighters can't reach the enemy at such an altitude, forcing the enemy to fly at such an altitude can be seen as a small victory, surely?