Me-110 Underrated

[Schweik]

The whole "light fighter" vs "heavy fighter" argument is bogus.

You'll have to forgive me, but just because you say something doesn't make it so. I was talking about light and heavy fighters on the basis of empty weight, and while the average weights increased as the war progressed, there were indeed still light and heavy fighters, and those in between. It's not just a matter of early and late war fighters. I would say looking at these numbers from prominent late war day fighters, there were indeed distinct and recognizable categories. The lightweight fighters have a gross weight that is lighter than the empty weight of the heavy fighters, in fact some of the heavy fighters are more than twice the weight of some of the lighter fighters. I'd say that's a noticeable difference.

Light
Ki-61 - Empty 5,798 / Gross 7,650 lbs
Ki-44 - Empty 4,643 / Gross 6,094 lbs
Ki-84 - Empty 5,864 / Gross 7,940 lbs
N1K1 - Empty 5,855 / Gross 8,598
Yak 9 - Empty 5,020 / Gross 6,327 lbs
Yak 3 - Empty 5,172 / Gross 5,864 lbs
La 5FN - Empty 5,743 / Gross 6,984 lbs
Bf 109G- Empty 4,954 / Gross 6,940 lbs
Bf 109K4 - Empty 6,261 / Gross 7,052 lbs
Spitfire VIII LF - Empty 5,800 / Gross 7,767 lbs
Spitfire IX LF - Empty 5090/ Gross 7,400 lbs

Heavy
P-38L - Empty 12,800 / Gross 17,500 lbs
P-47D- Empty 10,000 / Gross 14,500 lbs
F4U-1A - Empty 9,205 / Gross 14,669 lbs
F6F-5 - Empty 9,238 / Gross 12,598 lbs
Tempest - Empty 9,158 / Gross 11,574 lbs

Medium
P-51D - Empty 7,635 / Gross 9,200 lbs
Spitfire XIV - Empty 6,600 / Gross 8,500 lbs
Fw 190 - Empty 7,652 / Gross 9,100 lbs

 

[Schweik]

Early anything was lighter because it was lower powered. A Typhoon had a similar bomb load to a 1939/40 Do 17, similar weight and power but one engine and one pilot and 4 cannon. Early fighters were light and short ranged because early engines had less than 1000BHP, that's why the Bf 110 had two engines and also why the P-38 had two engines. Your whole argument is based on the Germans couldn't do what the Americans did. But it was proved in the Battle of Britain that was the case before the USA entered the war. The Do 17 was too light. The He 111 was too slow and under powered. Its best bomber was also its best long range fighter and also one of its best night fighters. The Ju88 was similar to the Mosquito, but it wasn't a strategic bomber. And although 15,000 were made how does that compare to the number of Mosquitos, Beaufighters, Lancasters Wellingtons Halifaxes and many others made only by the British, excluding those made by USA and USSR. The LW as a bomber force was at its peak BEFORE the Battle of France. It never had huge fleets of bombers to escort so why even think about an "escort fighter". The difference was the Channel and the Med. Once they were crossed even for the USA and British the important fight was close range supporting a ground advance across France Belgium and Netherlands into Germany.

You seem to have a knack for turning everything into a nationalistic contest. I was just pointing out differences. One kind of fighter is relatively good for long range escort and ground attack, another type is good as an interceptor / frontal aviation fighter. I'm not saying a P-51 is better or worse than a Bf 109, I'm saying they are different. If the Germans ever built an effective long range escort fighter, please point it out I'd love to read about it.

My point about the utility of the escort fighter, since it apparently isn't obvious, is that it allows greater use of whatever bombers you had. The Ju 88 was a good bomber, though contrary to what you seem to be saying they did not do well in the BoB. Still working out some teething and training issues, apparently. They did do well on the Russian Front, at least initially, and they did well in the MTO, also initially. But by late 1941 in the MTO and late 1942 in Russia, they were starting to find Ju-88s too vulnerable to be used in areas where they might encounter Allied fighters, unless they had an escort (or there was local air superiority).

Contrary to what you suggest above, there are quite important targets for bombers other than Strategic or Tactical - there are operational targets. C3I - trains, supply depots, road networks, bridges, ports, supply convoys, tank and truck columns moving through the rear. Anglo-American fighter-bombers and light / medium bombers (whatever you call an A-20 / DB-7 and later an A-26) were quite effective at causing major problems for the Germans particularly with supply interdiction. This was arguably the issue in the MTO. Airfields were another target of great importance, but they were not always within reach of the German fighters. Allied bombers were able to stage beyond the range of Axis fighters and attack Axis air bases, eventually this is how they achieved air superiority. Far more Axis aircraft were destroyed on the ground in this way than were shot down in the air.

The Germans were still able to launch some devastating raids with their Stukas, Ju-88s and some of their other bombers (Do-217 with radio guided missiles were pretty deadly) but only when they either caught the Allies napping or they were within the very short range of the Bf 109 / Fw 190s and could muster enough strength to wrest temporary air superiority, (which got harder and harder as you get through 1942 and into 1943). In the MTO during much of the fighting, the German bombers were often sitting idle because the viable targets were too far away for the fighter cover they had. This was particularly painful during some of the convoy fights and when the Germans were desperately trying to bring in supplies with nearly helpless Ju-52s, that got shot down like so many geese. It was also a problem during the big land battles taking place because the Allies had fairly effective CAS while the Germans had considerably less so as time went on (particularly after Kasserine pass).

So yeah, I think a longer range fighter would have been beneficial for the Germans, and they could have gotten a lot more mileage out of those 15,000 Ju-88s they built than they in fact did. So we are lucky they didn't sort it out.

 

[Schweik]

The Soviets (including Russians) developed mostly multipurpose front line fighters capable of doing various jobs. There were some interceptors but rare and none was produced in large numbers.

I mean interceptor in the sense of light weight and short ranged.

 

[Shortround6]

You'll have to forgive me, but just because you say something doesn't make it so. I was talking about light and heavy fighters on the basis of empty weight, and while the average weights increased as the war progressed, there were indeed still light and heavy fighters, and those in between. It's not just a matter of early and late war fighters. I would say looking at these numbers from prominent late war day fighters, there were indeed distinct and recognizable categories. The lightweight fighters have a gross weight that is lighter than the empty weight of the heavy fighters, in fact some of the heavy fighters are more than twice the weight of some of the lighter fighters. I'd say that's a noticeable difference.

It is still bogus. Most of your "light fighters", even the late war versions, were moderately updated designs of early war or prewar aircraft. some of them were using legacy engines. The Russian VK-105 engine was kept for production reasons, not because it was anywhere near a first class engine by the later part of of the war. When you have a crap engine you build light fighters (with light armament) because that is all the engine power will allow and still give you useable performance.

For the American fighters (many of your heavy fighters) they were carrying a huge load of guns and ammo.

P-38L............1235lbs
P-47D...........1237lbs
F4U-1A.........1300lbs
F6F-5.............1353lbs

to do that needed lots of power and the Americans had engines (or a pair of engines) that allowed them to do that. Maybe it was overkill, but it was part of the design.

If you need two light fighters to get the same gun power and ammo as one heavy fighter into the battle area the reason for the light fighter tends to fall apart. Countries continued to build them because the production lines for the engines and airframes were already set up and in some cases there was no replacement engine at a suitable level of development to switch to.

You can split aircraft into categories based on weight, but it tells you nothing about their capabilities or usefulness. Except that large is usually more capable.

 

[Schweik]

It is still bogus. Most of your "light fighters", even the late war versions, were moderately updated designs of early war or prewar aircraft. some of them were using legacy engines. The Russian VK-105 engine was kept for production reasons, not because it was anywhere near a first class engine by the later part of of the war. When you have a crap engine you build light fighters (with light armament) because that is all the engine power will allow and still give you useable performance.

Ki-44, Ki-61 and Ki-84 were all new designs, not incremental improvements of 'legacy' designs. N1K1 was an adaptation of a float plane design but it wasn't from the pre-war. The La 5FN and Yak 3 were adapted but so radically that they were also basically new designs. I think you could say the Spit IX and VIII were significantly different from the 1940 versions, as was the Bf 109K. Both had quite powerful engines - the engine on the Spit IX could haul around the much heavier P-51 for example. And most of the aircraft in my list were quite heavily armed. Ki-84 had 2 x 20mm with 150 rounds each, plus two 12.7mm with 350 rounds each, the N1K1 had similar. La 5FN had two 20mm cannons with 200 rounds. The 109 K had a 30mm cannon plus 2 13mm, and the option for two more 20mm in gondolas. The Spits had various armament but 2 x 20mm plus 4 x .303 or 2 x 20mm plus 2 x 12.7mm are also pretty effective.

We have compared the six .50s armament of US fighters to cannon armed fighters many times, we know the limitations of the HMG compared to the cannons. I don't think the mid to late war American fighters were wildly more heavily armed, with the possible exception of the P-47.

But I don't think any of that matters. So what if they were older designs? They still had a niche, and they still had quite similar traits (for example in terms of rate of climb and range). All this is, is another way to look at the design parameters. The only thing 'bogus' is your attempt to claim it's irrelevance. There were clearly, objectively, different categories. And yet they could still compete. Does anyone deny that a Yak-3, a Bf 109 K, or a Spit IX could hold their own with a P-38 or an F6F?

For the American fighters (many of your heavy fighters) they were carrying a huge load of guns and ammo.

P-38L............1235lbs
P-47D...........1237lbs
F4U-1A.........1300lbs
F6F-5.............1353lbs

to do that needed lots of power and the Americans had engines (or a pair of engines) that allowed them to do that. Maybe it was overkill, but it was part of the design.

Again... so what? Even if you really believe that the 'heavy' fighters were vastly more heavily armed, isn't that part of the difference between the heavy fighter concept and an interceptor? I don't believe any of the aircraft I listed, with the possible exception of the earlier mark Ki-61 and the Ki-44, were particularly undergunned or had any trouble shooting down enemy aircraft due to their armament. All of them are fairly well regarded designs.

If you need two light fighters to get the same gun power and ammo as one heavy fighter into the battle area the reason for the light fighter tends to fall apart. Countries continued to build them because the production lines for the engines and airframes were already set up and in some cases there was no replacement engine at a suitable level of development to switch to.

I don't think that is actually true. The Soviets for example had their choice of Allied planes. They certainly could have used P-47s if they wanted them, they were given some to evaluate. They concluded it wasn't really a fighter. For their battlefield, which didn't involve a lot of high altitude combat, the Yak-3 was a far better fit. And that is the aircraft they chose. It's also the aircraft the Normandie -Neiman squadron chose when given their option of any type (including Spitfires, P-39s or Kingcobras).

You can split aircraft into categories based on weight, but it tells you nothing about their capabilities or usefulness. Except that large is usually more capable.

I don't think you can categorically say that the larger aircraft on that list were more capable than the smaller. That would be a gross oversimplification and objectively incorrect. Each type of fighter, and anyone can clearly see there were indeed light, medium and heavy fighters, had different capabilities. Nor can you say that the size or weight of the aircraft says nothing about their capabilities. Of course it varied by individual aircraft, but generally speaking the lighter aircraft had a faster rate of climb, better acceleration, were a bit more agile, but were limited by shorter range. The heavier aircraft had longer range, maybe a bit more protection, and perhaps slightly more firepower. If you want I can calculate an average rate of climb, top speed, ceiling, and range for each group. I think that would be revealing.

My argument is that ideally, many countries could have used both types of aircraft. By the latter half of the war, the Anglo-Americans had the best of both worlds because they had an excellent interceptor in the Spitfire, but also had superb escort fighters in the Mustang and the others. They had potent carrier aircraft. The Soviets concentrated on their interceptor / frontal aviation type (lightweight, short range) fighters, though they did create a longer ranged version, the light, short ranged fighter was the best adapted to their battlefield. The Japanese kept their fighters light even after they incorporated heavier guns, armor and protected fuel tanks. Probably in part due to pilot preference. The Germans ultimately stuck with the increasingly sophisticated variants of their original Bf 109, not because they just had the factory lines going - it was no Hawker Hurricane, but because nothing else ultimately surpassed it in terms of capability (such as rate of climb and high altitude performance). The Fw 190 was a great fighter but it didn't do as well at higher altitudes and didn't climb as well, ultimately the improved version came too late.

Circling back to the subject of the thread, I think the Germans could have really used a good heavy fighter. Whether a twin engined or single engined type doesn't really matter. What they needed was something that could compete with the Allied types but also had sufficient range to be a good escort fighter.

 

[swampyankee]

There were "lightweight" fighters, e.g., the Caudron C.714, which were intended to be cheap in comparison with the non-light fighters, e.g., the Dewoitine D.520. I don't think this sort of distinction makes sense with any of the single-engined fighters mass produced and used through the war: these were designed to performance specifications and were not built as an alternative to some hypothetical "heavy" fighter.

 

[Snautzer01]

Ki-44, Ki-61 and Ki-84 were all new designs, not incremental improvements of 'legacy' designs. N1K1 was an adaptation of a float plane design but it wasn't from the pre-war. The La 5FN and Yak 3 were adapted but so radically that they were also basically new designs. I think you could say the Spit IX and VIII were significantly different from the 1940 versions, as was the Bf 109K. Both had quite powerful engines - the engine on the Spit IX could haul around the much heavier P-51 for example. And most of the aircraft in my list were quite heavily armed. Ki-84 had 2 x 20mm with 150 rounds each, plus two 12.7mm with 350 rounds each, the N1K1 had similar. La 5FN had two 20mm cannons with 200 rounds. The 109 K had a 30mm cannon plus 2 13mm, and the option for two more 20mm in gondolas. The Spits had various armament but 2 x 20mm plus 4 x .303 or 2 x 20mm plus 2 x 12.7mm are also pretty effective.

We have compared the six .50s armament of US fighters to cannon armed fighters many times, we know the limitations of the HMG compared to the cannons. I don't think the mid to late war American fighters were wildly more heavily armed, with the possible exception of the P-47.

But I don't think any of that matters. So what if they were older designs? They still had a niche, and they still had quite similar traits (for example in terms of rate of climb and range). All this is, is another way to look at the design parameters. The only thing 'bogus' is your attempt to claim it's irrelevance. There were clearly, objectively, different categories. And yet they could still compete. Does anyone deny that a Yak-3, a Bf 109 K, or a Spit IX could hold their own with a P-38 or an F6F?



Again... so what? Even if you really believe that the 'heavy' fighters were vastly more heavily armed, isn't that part of the difference between the heavy fighter concept and an interceptor? I don't believe any of the aircraft I listed, with the possible exception of the earlier mark Ki-61 and the Ki-44, were particularly undergunned or had any trouble shooting down enemy aircraft due to their armament. All of them are fairly well regarded designs.



I don't think that is actually true. The Soviets for example had their choice of Allied planes. They certainly could have used P-47s if they wanted them, they were given some to evaluate. They concluded it wasn't really a fighter. For their battlefield, which didn't involve a lot of high altitude combat, the Yak-3 was a far better fit. And that is the aircraft they chose. It's also the aircraft the Normandie -Neiman squadron chose when given their option of any type (including Spitfires, P-39s or Kingcobras).



I don't think you can categorically say that the larger aircraft on that list were more capable than the smaller. That would be a gross oversimplification and objectively incorrect. Each type of fighter, and anyone can clearly see there were indeed light, medium and heavy fighters, had different capabilities. Nor can you say that the size or weight of the aircraft says nothing about their capabilities. Of course it varied by individual aircraft, but generally speaking the lighter aircraft had a faster rate of climb, better acceleration, were a bit more agile, but were limited by shorter range. The heavier aircraft had longer range, maybe a bit more protection, and perhaps slightly more firepower. If you want I can calculate an average rate of climb, top speed, ceiling, and range for each group. I think that would be revealing.

My argument is that ideally, many countries could have used both types of aircraft. By the latter half of the war, the Anglo-Americans had the best of both worlds because they had an excellent interceptor in the Spitfire, but also had superb escort fighters in the Mustang and the others. They had potent carrier aircraft. The Soviets concentrated on their interceptor / frontal aviation type (lightweight, short range) fighters, though they did create a longer ranged version, the light, short ranged fighter was the best adapted to their battlefield. The Japanese kept their fighters light even after they incorporated heavier guns, armor and protected fuel tanks. Probably in part due to pilot preference. The Germans ultimately stuck with the increasingly sophisticated variants of their original Bf 109, not because they just had the factory lines going - it was no Hawker Hurricane, but because nothing else ultimately surpassed it in terms of capability (such as rate of climb and high altitude performance). The Fw 190 was a great fighter but it didn't do as well at higher altitudes and didn't climb as well, ultimately the improved version came too late.

Circling back to the subject of the thread, I think the Germans could have really used a good heavy fighter. Whether a twin engined or single engined type doesn't really matter. What they needed was something that could compete with the Allied types but also had sufficient range to be a good escort fighter.

They did, Fw190

 

[Schweik]

There were "lightweight" fighters, e.g., the Caudron C.714, which were intended to be cheap in comparison with the non-light fighters, e.g., the Dewoitine D.520. I don't think this sort of distinction makes sense with any of the single-engined fighters mass produced and used through the war: these were designed to performance specifications and were not built as an alternative to some hypothetical "heavy" fighter.

I never said there was a conscious decision to make lightness or heaviness a fundamental design feature, but those were certainly parameters which came into play. If you made a production fighter with a 12,000 lb loaded weight you know damn well it will have different characteristics than a fighter with a 6,000 loaded weight. Ultimately the priorities of the mission defined how the fighters turned out - not necessarily any particular focus on weight. There was sometimes such a focus, but it was largely the result of the culture of the pilots who would sometimes reject heavier fighters.

The point though is that if you make a fighter specification for an aircraft with a 1,200 mile range and relatively heavy armament, it's probably going to end up being a heavy fighter, objectively, whether that was a conscious decision or not. The only one from the list which seems to have managed to be both light weight and pretty long range is arguably the Ki-84. If you want a fighter that can climb 4,000 feet per minute and be highly maneuverable, you are probably going to need a lightweight aircraft with an empty weight under 6,000 lbs. There are a lot of differences between aircraft in those two weight categories. The only exception I can think of is a late war Corsair which though heavy could climb very well. The F8F which was really a postwar aircraft, was a conscious decision to make a more lightweight fighter, probably with an eye toward intercepting kamikazes. But by then the piston engined era was ending.

 

[Schweik]

They did, Fw190

What was the range of a Fw 190

 

[pbehn]

You seem to have a knack for turning everything into a nationalistic contest. I was just pointing out differences. One kind of fighter is relatively good for long range escort and ground attack, another type is good as an interceptor / frontal aviation fighter. I'm not saying a P-51 is better or worse than a Bf 109, I'm saying they are different. If the Germans ever built an effective long range escort fighter, please point it out I'd love to read about it.
That's because you do, all your examples of a heavy fighter are from the USA. How about the Beaufighter, Mosquito and Typhoon?
My point about the utility of the escort fighter, since it apparently isn't obvious, is that it allows greater use of whatever bombers you had. The Ju 88 was a good bomber, though contrary to what you seem to be saying they did not do well in the BoB. Still working out some teething and training issues, apparently. They did do well on the Russian Front, at least initially, and they did well in the MTO, also initially. But by late 1941 in the MTO and late 1942 in Russia, they were starting to find Ju-88s too vulnerable to be used in areas where they might encounter Allied fighters, unless they had an escort (or there was local air superiority).
When did this become obvious? Which of your heavy fighters was designed as a long range escort? I didn't say the Ju88 did well in the BoB quite obviously the campaign was halted. The Beaufighter shot down its first daylight victory in October 1940 and its first night time kill in Nov 1940.By March 1941, half of the 22 German aircraft claimed by British fighters were by Beaufighters; during the night of 19/20 May 1941, during a raid on London, 24 aircraft were shot down by fighters against two by anti-aircraft ground fire.[11] The Ju88 was getting vulnerable because the Beaufighter was shooting it down from Norway to the Bay of Biscay. It had 4x20mm cannon six x.303mgs could carry rockets and torpedos. THAT is a heavy fighter.
Contrary to what you suggest above, there are quite important targets for bombers other than Strategic or Tactical - there are operational targets. C3I - trains, supply depots, road networks, bridges, ports, supply convoys, tank and truck columns moving through the rear. Anglo-American fighter-bombers and light / medium bombers (whatever you call an A-20 / DB-7 and later an A-26) were quite effective at causing major problems for the Germans particularly with supply interdiction. This was arguably the issue in the MTO. Airfields were another target of great importance, but they were not always within reach of the German fighters. Allied bombers were able to stage beyond the range of Axis fighters and attack Axis air bases, eventually this is how they achieved air superiority. Far more Axis aircraft were destroyed on the ground in this way than were shot down in the air.
I am fully aware of targets and the British had been hitting them since the early days of the war.
The Germans were still able to launch some devastating raids with their Stukas, Ju-88s and some of their other bombers (Do-217 with radio guided missiles were pretty deadly) but only when they either caught the Allies napping or they were within the very short range of the Bf 109 / Fw 190s and could muster enough strength to wrest temporary air superiority, (which got harder and harder as you get through 1942 and into 1943). In the MTO during much of the fighting, the German bombers were often sitting idle because the viable targets were too far away for the fighter cover they had. This was particularly painful during some of the convoy fights and when the Germans were desperately trying to bring in supplies with nearly helpless Ju-52s, that got shot down like so many geese. It was also a problem during the big land battles taking place because the Allies had fairly effective CAS while the Germans had considerably less so as time went on (particularly after Kasserine pass).
And now we come to the other side of the discussion, after the superiority of the P-51 in all things we get German wonder weapons. What happened to the Italian battle fleet? What happened to German surface raiders? How many aircraft and ships did the Beaufighter take out from Malta? What about Tallboys and Grand Slams and Upkeep? Centimetric radar? How about the role of the Mosquito and Tempest in countering the V1 and V2 threat as interceptors and attacking launch sites?
So yeah, I think a longer range fighter would have been beneficial for the Germans, and they could have gotten a lot more mileage out of those 15,000 Ju-88s they built than they in fact did. So we are lucky they didn't sort it out.

The Beaufighter, Mosquito and Spitfire sorted out the Ju88 by day and night as bombers and fighters. The P-51 was without doubt the best long range escort, it made sense to use them and P-47s to attack airfields as part of a heavy bomber raid, but they did suffer increased losses, because it is watercooled single engine plane with little armour. It makes no sense at all to have a design brief for a single engine plane to stooge about around Zwickau and Stuttgart looking for targets of opportunity armed with 4 or 6 0.5" MGs. The P-51B/C as an escort started to be introduced in mid 1943, after much of the LWs bomber and transport strength had been lost in Stalingrad, and while Germany was losing at Kurk and Allemein. The P-51D was introduced after D-Day, the fall of Rome and Bagration getting started.

 

[Schweik]

I did mention the Mosquito numerous times in this thread, it was arguably the best night fighter of the war and good in many other roles as well, but it was not an effective daytime escort fighter for use in bomber escort. I also mentioned the Beaufighter several times - it was a good plane in a number of roles too but it was not (as far as I'm aware) used for daytime bomber escort either, nor could it handle top quality enemy daytime fighters on a regular basis, certainly not Bf 109s. The Typhoon didn't really become very useful or see much action until after D-Day. I also did mention the Tempest in my list.

Yes I'm quite well aware the Mustang came late in the war and had some limitations. So what? You seem to be confusing me for other people you have had much more nationalistic arguments with in past.

The Spitfire could certainly handle the Ju-88 if it was around, but the Ju 88 had longer range and could reach things that Spitfires couldn't protect, like quite often convoys.

 

[Schweik]

I missed some of this earlier because it was hidden inside the quote. You know how to use the quote tag right?

When did this become obvious? Which of your heavy fighters was designed as a long range escort? I didn't say the Ju88 did well in the BoB quite obviously the campaign was halted. The Beaufighter shot down its first daylight victory in October 1940 and its first night time kill in Nov 1940.By March 1941, half of the 22 German aircraft claimed by British fighters were by Beaufighters; during the night of 19/20 May 1941, during a raid on London, 24 aircraft were shot down by fighters against two by anti-aircraft ground fire.[11] The Ju88 was getting vulnerable because the Beaufighter was shooting it down from Norway to the Bay of Biscay. It had 4x20mm cannon six x.303mgs could carry rockets and torpedos. THAT is a heavy fighter.

Like I said already, I had a lot of praise for the Beaufighter, and already mentioned it's use as a Night fighter and great utility in Coastal patrol (including in the Med) I just didn't see it as being a viable daytime escort, which is really what was most needed by the Luftwaffe IMO. I believe I actually addressed everything you brought up about the Beaufighter (IIRC originally in an objection because I had been talking about the Mosquito as a night fighter instead...)

And now we come to the other side of the discussion, after the superiority of the P-51 in all things we get German wonder weapons. What happened to the Italian battle fleet? What happened to German surface raiders? How many aircraft and ships did the Beaufighter take out from Malta? What about Tallboys and Grand Slams and Upkeep? Centimetric radar? How about the role of the Mosquito and Tempest in countering the V1 and V2 threat as interceptors and attacking launch sites?

You are turning this into (yet another) generalized UK vs. US or whoever else argument. I am not playing that game. Intercepting V2s or dropping Tallboys has nothing to do with heavy fighters to be honest. I never claimed P-51 was the best fighter of the war, let alone that it was a better bomber than a Lancaster or a better V1 killer than a Tempest. I was talking about different roles and suitability for different roles.

Look I'm not claiming "heavy" fighter vs. "light" vs. "medium" (or you could even also add "ultra light") is some groundbreaking new theory or that it in any way overrules any other more conventional way of looking at WW2 fighters, nor am I trying to wade into yet another nationalistic debate over who had the best toys, I just think it's an interesting angle from which to consider fighter design. And that this relates to the saga of the Bf 110.

 

[pbehn]

I did mention the Mosquito numerous times in this thread, it was arguably the best night fighter of the war and good in many other roles as well, but it was not an effective daytime escort fighter for use in bomber escort. I also mentioned the Beaufighter several times - it was a good plane in a number of roles too but it was not (as far as I'm aware) used for daytime bomber escort either, nor could it handle top quality enemy daytime fighters on a regular basis, certainly not Bf 109s. The Typhoon didn't really become very useful or see much action until after D-Day. I also did mention the Tempest in my list.

Yes I'm quite well aware the Mustang came late in the war and had some limitations. So what? You seem to be confusing me for other people you have had much more nationalistic arguments with in past.

The Spitfire could certainly handle the Ju-88 if it was around, but the Ju 88 had longer range and could reach things that Spitfires couldn't protect, like quite often convoys.

You were talking about heavy fighters weren't you? Both the Beaufighter and Mosquito could sink ships and were ranging huge distances to counter Ju88s and Condors long before the P-51B/C became operational. The Typhoon helped put an end to Fw190 tip and run raids on south England in 1942/43 as the only plane that could catch an Fw 190, before D-Day it was used to do all the things you said were useful for a P-51, with twice the destructive power in 4 cannon, up to a ton of bombs or 8 rockets and about half a ton of armour, which still didn't stop numerous losses before and after D-Day.

 

[Schweik]

You were talking about heavy fighters weren't you? Both the Beaufighter and Mosquito could sink ships and were ranging huge distances to counter Ju88s and Condors long before the P-51B/C became operational. The Typhoon helped put an end to Fw190 tip and run raids on south England in 1942/43 as the only plane that could catch an Fw 190, before D-Day it was used to do all the things you said were useful for a P-51, with twice the destructive power in 4 cannon, up to a ton of bombs or 8 rockets and about half a ton of armour, which still didn't stop numerous losses before and after D-Day.

I challenge you to find anywhere in this forum where I ever said the Beaufighter or the Mosquito was a bad plane.

The Typhoon was fine as a low-altitude interceptor, despite all the issues, but it was not a long ranged fighter suitable for escorting heavy or medium bombers, IMO.

The original context was the success (or lack thereof) of the Bf 110. I think the Bf 110 was pretty good at a lot of the same things that the Beaufighter was good at (night fighting, ground attack, coastal patrol), except the Beaufighter had a much longer effective range so it was better in that (quite important) respect. But neither of them could really hold their own in combat with enemy day-fighters, at least not in Europe*. Neither one could really fight at high altitude either. My point is that the Germans really needed was a "heavy fighter" that could escort the bombers they had to their full range, their best being arguably the Ju 88.

That said, I'm sure they would have been delighted with an aircraft that had all the capabilities of the Beaufighter (esp. range). I just think they needed something a bit more like what came toward the second half of the war. Obviously it was a hard nut to crack because many of the Allied heavy fighters struggled to reach their real potential. But the Germans never got there, and I don't think it was due to a lack of sufficient engines (everyone struggled with engines to some extent) but probably more just the nature of their system and their bureaucracy, and maybe to some extent dumb luck.

In other words what I see here is a big gap in the Luftwaffe War machine from roughly early 1942 onward. The Anglo-Americans saw the same lack or need, though for somewhat different reasons (I don't think long range Strategic bombing would have really worked for the Luftwaffe, at least not in the West. Maybe on the Russian Front).

* Beaufighters did Ok against Japanese fighters, maybe not well enough to be a bomber escort but well enough to do unescorted strikes of their own sometimes.

 

[Schweik]

Lighter weight fighters (4,000 - 6,500 lbs empty) may have been far more common in the early part of the war, but they clearly kept their niche right up to the end, as some of the best piston engined fighters in 1944 or 1945 fit into this category. I would include Bf 109 K4, Spit Mk 24, Ki-84, La 7 and Yak 3 in this category. F8F Bearcat too though it was only operational post-war.

 

[Milosh]

The Typhoon helped put an end to Fw190 tip and run raids on south England in 1942/43 as the only plane that could catch an Fw 190, before D-Day it was used to do all the things you said were useful for a P-51,

First Mustangs arrived in the UK, Liverpool, on October 24, 1941.

 

[Schweik]

Another good post-war example of the "Heavy fighter" which occurs to me is the P-82 "Twin Mustang" - sorry hope not to trigger anyone. As goofy looking as it was it seems to have had some success, it's only real merit being range and speed, though as always with two engine planes the second engine can contribute to survival on long missions (on the other hand it's more stuff to break so they can also contribute to mission aborts).

 

[pbehn]

First Mustangs arrived in the UK, Liverpool, on October 24, 1941.

And were of no use at all to escort a fleet of bombers into central Germany.

 

[pbehn]

I challenge you to find anywhere in this forum where I ever said the Beaufighter or the Mosquito was a bad plane.

The Typhoon was fine as a low-altitude interceptor, despite all the issues, but it was not a long ranged fighter suitable for escorting heavy or medium bombers, IMO.

The original context was the success (or lack thereof) of the Bf 110. I think the Bf 110 was pretty good at a lot of the same things that the Beaufighter was good at (night fighting, ground attack, coastal patrol), except the Beaufighter had a much longer effective range so it was better in that (quite important) respect. But neither of them could really hold their own in combat with enemy day-fighters, at least not in Europe*. Neither one could really fight at high altitude either. My point is that the Germans really needed was a "heavy fighter" that could escort the bombers they had to their full range, their best being arguably the Ju 88.

That said, I'm sure they would have been delighted with an aircraft that had all the capabilities of the Beaufighter (esp. range). I just think they needed something a bit more like what came toward the second half of the war. Obviously it was a hard nut to crack because many of the Allied heavy fighters struggled to reach their real potential. But the Germans never got there, and I don't think it was due to a lack of sufficient engines (everyone struggled with engines to some extent) but probably more just the nature of their system and their bureaucracy, and maybe to some extent dumb luck.

In other words what I see here is a big gap in the Luftwaffe War machine from roughly early 1942 onward. The Anglo-Americans saw the same lack or need, though for somewhat different reasons (I don't think long range Strategic bombing would have really worked for the Luftwaffe, at least not in the West. Maybe on the Russian Front).

* Beaufighters did Ok against Japanese fighters, maybe not well enough to be a bomber escort but well enough to do unescorted strikes of their own sometimes.

Your criteria for heavy fighters and light fighter is that they must be a P-51 in all escort scenarios and therefore a P-51 is best. The P-51 was not a heavy fighter in either weight or armament, but is top of the tree as a heavy fighter because it was an escort fighter without peer? If German aircraft with radio or wire guided missiles were "pretty deadly" what were RAF aircraft with Tall Boys torpedos, bombs and depth charges? As a real heavy fighter what about a B-24 with centimetric radar and searchlights closing the Atlantic gap and bringing the Battle of the Atlantic to a close.

 

[Milosh]

And were of no use at all to escort a fleet of bombers into central Germany.

They would get further than any Brit a/c and were fast enough to catch the 190s..