March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

Well, no doubt the accuracy was pretty bad from those levels at that time, but that's where they were. And if you're the defending air force, do you want to procure aircraft that run out of breath up there?

You don't need tremendous accuracy to hit London, and that's the main air battle we're looking at in this timeframe.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.

IIRC the flight altitude of German bombers in 1940 was ~15000 ft. It took slapping the turboes on B-17s and B-24s to make bombers cruise above 20000 ft, or the 2-stage Merlins on Mosquitoes to do the same.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

IIRC the flight altitude of German bombers in 1940 was ~15000 ft. It took slapping the turboes on B-17s and B-24s to make bombers cruise above 20000 ft, or the 2-stage Merlins on Mosquitoes to do the same.

I was under the impression that the BoB bombers flew higher?

Or am I confuzzling that with the altitude of the escorting fighters?

 

[SaparotRob]

Cool word.

 

[VA5124]

Had to look that one up. It's called the Skyline (non-export models) and now known as the GTR or Godzilla. I prefer the looks of the R33 / 34 versions myself!

Can i make a flat-4 powered suggestion the 1995 subaru impreza wrx sti the road going version of the car that would take the late colin mcrae to his only WRC title

 

[VA5124]

Any plane is only as good as how it fits the doctrine it's designed for and the pilots tasked to execute the mission.

As for the radios, where the hell was Sony when you needed it?!
































Yes, I know. Ir's a joke.

Sony really ? as a former ham ex KD8KXV get a kenwood or what in that time period would have been brand as a trio which would become kenwood and compete with both icom and yaesu

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sony really ? as a former ham ex KD8KXV get a kenwood or what in that time period would have been brand as a trio which would become kenwood and compete with both icom and yaesu

It's a joke, son. I've got a Kenwood amp in my bedroom for cranking some Sabbath. The CD player is Sony, though.

 

[VA5124]

It's a joke, son. I've got a Kenwood amp in my bedroom for cranking some Sabbath. The CD player is Sony, though.

I didnt know you was joking kenwood does make decent radios though even though i dont use it anymore sitting on my dresser is a kenwood ts-850s 100 watt transceiver im sure would still work to this very day

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didnt know you was joking kenwood does make decent radios though even though i dont use it anymore sitting on my dresser is a kenwood ts-850s 100 watt transceiver im sure would still work to this very day

I was just ripping on how the Japanese overtook the radio market in the 70s/80s when their 40s stuff was pretty weak.

My stereo rig is all 80s-era Japanese, because they knew how to do it right by then.

 

[Venturi]

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

The 109E-3/4 had the DB 601A, the late E-7 and F-2 the 601N, and the G-2, G-4, G-6 as well as later 109 models the DB605 variants. I just double checked, and you're right. The F-4 with the DB 601E in particular was a leap of performance over the opposing contemporary allied fighters (Spitfire MkV which had parity or better with the 109F-4 were rare in the desert at this time).

 

[Greyman]

I was under the impression that the BoB bombers flew higher?

Or am I confuzzling that with the altitude of the escorting fighters?

Repost from elsewhere:

Late May '40 French report:
The bombers almost always operate in columns of 9 to 25 aircraft, divided into sections of 3 or 5. Sometimes the formation comprises as many as 60 aircraft, divided into several columns staggered laterally and in height.

A number of bombing attacks were carried out by 3 to 6 aircraft.

The average height of these raids is from 2000 to 3000 metres, but several attacks on aerodromes were carried our using low flying tactics.

Dive bombing was primarily used in attacks on targets in the zone of ground fighting.

Late September '40 British report:
The bomber formations have operated at heights varying between 10,000 ft. and 20,000 ft., though reports indicate that the favourite operational height is between 13,000 feet and 17,000 feet.

 

[Jagdflieger]

I was under the impression that the BoB bombers flew higher?

Or am I confuzzling that with the altitude of the escorting fighters?

Off course standard Luftwaffe bombers such as the He-111H or the Ju 88 could and did operate at 20,000 feet - especially later on during the Blitz and as such reducing losses
considerably - however the accuracy of a bomb dropped at 20,000 feet would hit anywhere within a range of 4-5 km. So maybe a means towards terrorizing the civilian population
and causing damage but useless towards a pinpoint attack such as industrial plants. Described quite well in the book General Wever KG.4

The Germans taking air-superiority for granted - emphasized on the dive bomber role of its bomber-fleet - especially the Ju88 at a dive-angle of 35-40degree and as such being very
effective in striking targets at high accuracy. But for the BoB this wasn't a feasible attack role.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[VA5124]

The Reggiane Re.2000 should be in the list as it was superior, in most respects, to the G.50 and C.200 (Max speed 530Km/h, climb to 6000m 6'10", combat range over 700Km). Shortly before the war, in 1939, a British mission sent to Italy sought to procure 300 of them. The deal evaporated once war broke out but still it was sold in small number to Sweden (60) and Hungary (70+ ~200 produced locally). Italy, on the other side, never adopted it because it was too complex to manufacture and its unprotected, integral wing fuel tanks were considered a liability. Only the Italian Navy used some of them catapulted from ships. The Re.2000 was however the basis for the Re.2001 (same fuselage, different wings, inline DB601 engine) and the Re.2002 (same fuselage, same wings of the 2001, more powerful radial engine, 3 hardpoints)

id rather have flown the fiat to be honest of course the best fighters hailing from this time are these four the p-36 and 40 the 109-E-3 and the G 50

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I'm going with Tkdog on this. The Me 109 and Spitfire would be as effective in striking island outposts in the middle of nowhere as the A6M and F4F would be in the Battle of Britain. Since the timeframe is before the great carrier battles, perhaps carrier planes shouldn't be considered. As no-one mentioned Fulmars, Me 109Ts and Rocs, this shouldn't be a problem.

Devil's advocate hat on here, I think A6M would have been pretty good in the Battle of Britain, in the sense that at least they had very good range and loiter time, so they could attack in the less expected routes, forcing Fighter Command to spread much more thin, we also know that A6M did very well against Hurricanes and pretty well against early Spitfires too. Not sure which if any German bombers had sufficient range to really take advantage of the long legs of the A6M but anyway, you would have any of this 20 minutes of fighting time type restrictions.

Then again, of course, BoB being largely an attrition war, no doubt losses would become telling.

IIRC in the beginning none of the fighters had armor etc., maybe they would have put some in after early experiences there. I think both German and British fighters had somewhat limited fuel tank protection too.

Anyway, for my money, the A6M is certainly in the running with the Spitfire I and Bf 109e as one of the best fighters in the world in this time frame.

I think Ki-27 is also good, as is the MC.200, the Dewoitine D.520 (they would have done better in the Battle of France if the pilots had any time to familiarize themselves with the type), P-36 is pretty good, the D.XXI is good. The I-16, though ridiculed, if you look at the variants with the 20mm cannon, I think is still a pretty good fighter at this point. The Hurricane is also clearly a very good fighter in mid 1940, especially for shooting down bombers which is the most important job a fighter has.

My personal favorite from that period though is probably the Westland Whirlwind. Small, fast, heavily armed. There is a lot to like! But not ideal for bomber escort or interception necessarily.

 

[buffnut453]

id rather have flown the fiat to be honest of course the best fighters hailing from this time are these four the p-36 and 40 the 109-E-3 and the G 50

Really? You include the G-50 in a list of the four "best fighters hailing from this time" but you don't include the Spitfire?

Even the Hurricane was far better than the G-50 - faster, higher ceiling, longer range, more firepower.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Spit and the Emil are 1 & 2, depending on one's preferences -- you'll get no argument from me either way, the P-40 a distant third, and 4 ... ? I don't know.

 

[SaparotRob]

Devil's advocate hat on here, I think A6M would have been pretty good in the Battle of Britain, in the sense that at least they had very good range and loiter time, so they could attack in the less expected routes, forcing Fighter Command to spread much more thin, we also know that A6M did very well against Hurricanes and pretty well against early Spitfires too. Not sure which if any German bombers had sufficient range to really take advantage of the long legs of the A6M but anyway, you would have any of this 20 minutes of fighting time type restrictions.

Then again, of course, BoB being largely an attrition war, no doubt losses would become telling.

IIRC in the beginning none of the fighters had armor etc., maybe they would have put some in after early experiences there. I think both German and British fighters had somewhat limited fuel tank protection too.

Anyway, for my money, the A6M is certainly in the running with the Spitfire I and Bf 109e as one of the best fighters in the world in this time frame.

I think Ki-27 is also good, as is the MC.200, the Dewoitine D.520 (they would have done better in the Battle of France if the pilots had any time to familiarize themselves with the type), P-36 is pretty good, the D.XXI is good. The I-16, though ridiculed, if you look at the variants with the 20mm cannon, I think is still a pretty good fighter at this point. The Hurricane is also clearly a very good fighter in mid 1940, especially for shooting down bombers which is the most important job a fighter has.

My personal favorite from that period though is probably the Westland Whirlwind. Small, fast, heavily armed. There is a lot to like! But not ideal for bomber escort or interception necessarily.

Full disclosure: I recently realized I am a Zero fanboi. I hold GregP and his gang fully responsible.
What might be important to consider is who are flying the planes. If it's IJN pilots then ix-nay on the armor. Source? Anecdotal, of course!
There have been numerous posts in various threads regarding the Whirlwind. A bunch of killjoy grownups killed those ideas. It does look really cool, though.
Bitchin' avatar, Dude!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Full disclosure: I recently realized I am a Zero fanboi. I hold GregP and his gang fully responsible.
What might be important to consider is who are flying the planes. If it's IJN pilots then ix-nay on the armor. Source? Anecdotal, of course!
There have been numerous posts in various threads regarding the Whirlwind. A bunch of killjoy grownups killed those ideas. It does look really cool, though.
Bitchin' avatar, Dude!

I read those, I get that it was in a production dead end due to the peregrine engine, but I still think it was an outstanding design. A lot of those 'grown up' arguments are just aout rationalizing whatever was actually done during the war. But that doesn't mean they couldn't have done something different. There was a lot of wasted capacity as we can see clearly with the power of hindsight. I'd certainly trade all of the Defiants and Blackburn Rocs, Vought Vindicators and Airacudas for a few more Whirlwinds.

 

[SaparotRob]

Certainly not the Rocs?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Lets keep a few ok