Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,776
- Dec 6, 2006
The USN didn't have an AP bomb early in the war. The following is from Yorktown's Coral Sea action report.
Heavy case bombs are SAP
Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Heavy case bombs are SAP
Icorps1970
Airman
- 18
- Dec 23, 2013
Some years ago I talked to a B-17 pilot, 8th AF. He told me some Interesting things. Such as the Landcaster being much faster. He also told me be would not even fly a Liberator. Thought they were dangerous. But we need to remember what the B-17 and B-24 raids over Germany were REALLY about (noting I have not read all the posts here). It was about the destruction of the Luftwaffe before the landings in Europe. The British night raids would never have accomplished this. The daylight raids did and by D-Day, thanks mostly to the P47 escorts, (the P-51 was not s significant actor before early 1944). The Luftwaffe was not able to do anything of any significance during the landings and actually not a lot afterwards either. Despite the "bomber mafia's" efforts to prevent fighter escorts (even making B-17s into gunships) until after the mass losses during Schweinfurt 1 and 2 proved them wrong with masses of destroyed B-17s and 8th AF KIAs and POWs.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
This is nonsense, as official records show. For example, a memorandum from General Arnold on 28 June 1943 (this is before the first Schweinfurt mission):
This brings to my mind very clearly the absolute necessity for building a fighter airplane that can go in and out with the bombers. Moreover, this fighter has got to go into Germany. Perhaps we can modify some existing type to do the job. The P-38 has been doing a fine job from North Africa in escorting our B-17's 400 miles or more. Whether this airplane can furnish the same close escort against the GAF on the Western Front is debatable. Our fighter people in the U.K. claim that they can't stay with the bombers because they are too slow and because they must have top speed by the time they hit the coast. The P-38 is notable for its poor acceleration, so perhaps it too will not be able to furnish close escort and be able to meet the FW's and 109's. About six months remain before deep penetration into Germany begins. Within the next six months, you have got to get a fighter that can protect our bombers. Whether you can use an existing type or have to start from scratch is your problem. Get to work on this right away because by January, '44, I want a fighter escort for all our bombers from U.K. into Germany.
Developing an entirely new aircraft in six months was obviously impossible, so modifying existing types would have to be the solution. And that modification meant increasing the internal fuel supply and developing drop tanks suitable for combat operations.
Drop tanks were already being looked at by the AAF in early 1942. From Development of the Long-Range Fighter Escort (p.113):
The quest for fighter range received early attention from the highest level of the AAF. At a conference in General Arnold's office on 20 February 1942 several cablegrams from various theaters of operation asking for increased range of aircraft then in use were presented for discussion. Following the conference, instructions to begin immediate study of means to extend the range of fighters were transmitted by telephone to Materiel Division at Wright Field. Within a week, on 28 February, Materiel Division issued technical instructions initiating action for procurement of 52-gallon tanks for P-40's at the rate of 6 for each airplane. Materiel Division also asked for production of these tanks in sufficient quantities to meet needs of forces in the Far East and England. The tanks were to be increased to a maximum consistent with the structural and flight limitations of the fighter plane for which they were intended.
As it happened, bureaucratic inertia, production delays in the U.S. and Britain, and wrangling over the proper techniques for drop tank operational usage, resulted in slow entry into service in the ETO.
75-gallon drop tanks did not become available in numbers until August 1943, and the 108-gallon paper tank not until September 1943. The former pushed the P-47 radius out to 230–250 miles, while the latter increased it to 275–300 miles, depending on the source. (The P-47Ds with 370 gallons of internal fuel, did not arrive until May 1944.)
Last edited:
Icorps1970
Airman
- 18
- Dec 23, 2013
By the time the P-47 was in service they had a 200 gallon belly tank COMPLETELY tested to 30000 ft. ALL P-47s except the first 173 aircraft were equipped for drop tanks and there was that tested 200 gallon tank. But ARNOLD wrote an order in 1939 SPECIFICALLY banning drop tanks on fighters. It did not stop the aircraft makers from developing them for ferry use or for foreign buyers (who used them), they just could not be used by the USAAF. This DELAYED their use in Europe till late 1943. Had the Army been allowed and the technology developed by the Army as the aircraft were developed and put into service the B-17s could have been escorted from DAY ONE. But this was not only not wanted it was specifically BANNED by Arnold. The US Navy used drop tanks, they even used them on the Lockheed Ventura patrol bombers and the P-38s and virtually ALL American fighters were drop tank capable. But they were not allowed by the highest levels of the USAAF. This was not changed until not long before the Schweinfurt raids. If you go to youtube and look up Gregs Airplanes and Automobiles. Note his credentials and then watch his multipart discussion of the P-47 AND specifically #6 titled P-47 Pt. 6 Range, Deceit and Treachery. Basically what you are stating here is what the USAAF brass created to COVER THEIR BUTTS over the losses (DEAD MEN) incurred do to their "bombers can't be stopped" BS the bomber mafia believed until they encountered the war. What they failed to take into account was the FIGHTERS would catch up and surpass speed and altitude capability of the bombers by the time the B-17 and the USA was at war. And that the B-17 was very vulnerable to fighter attacks. Everything Greg states in this video is backed up by period DOCUMENTATION. Being a former flight engineer and now airline pilot. He understands range, aircraft and he can read and he knows where to find the info. I don't think you can refute it.
Attachments
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The long range escort/drop tank issue has been exhaustively discussed on this site many times over the years.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Yup.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
That was a FERRY tank. It was not suitable for combat as it was unpressurized, and leaked if fuel was left in it for too long.
Metal 200-gallon drop tanks for the P-47 did not appear in the ETO until 1944, although they appeared earlier in the Southwest Pacific as Gen. Kenney pushed hard for their development locally, and were manufactured by Ford in Australia.
There's your problem. His video on the B-17 being able to regularly carry as many tons of bombs as the Lancaster through the use of external racks is, frankly, laughable. I pointed out to him in the comments how he completely ignored the drag and handling penalties associated with external bombs, and just brushed it aside.
Instead of relying solely on the claims of a YouTube video, I suggest you also dig for yourself through books and the source official documents that are available online.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
Gregs "here is what I think about stuff" channel, nearly every video is riddled with the most fundamental errors.
Last edited:
1939 is before the P-47 flew, are you sure that Arnold SPECIFICALLY banned drop tanks? He appears to have been ignored, since you state that all but the first 173 P-47 in service were plumbed for them.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
P-40C's got drop tanks in the Spring of 1941. They were ordered in 1940. P-40D&E were ordered in the summer of 1940 with the drop tank.
However the drop tank was to make up for the reduction in internal fuel capacity when they changed from unprotected tanks to protected fuel tanks.
Same with the P-38 and P-39. Drop tanks were to restore existing/planned radius/range not to extend it.
However once you have the plumbing and racks extending the size of the tanks was easy (mostly)
However the drop tank was to make up for the reduction in internal fuel capacity when they changed from unprotected tanks to protected fuel tanks.
Same with the P-38 and P-39. Drop tanks were to restore existing/planned radius/range not to extend it.
However once you have the plumbing and racks extending the size of the tanks was easy (mostly)
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
Its all deeply lacking in mystery once you put numbers on a table. But "mafia conspiracy" is much catchier than
"table".
"table".
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
"Discussed", or "beaten like a rented mule"? The world wonders ...
MiTasol
Major
Everyone forgets that the part number 75-45-433 (52 US gal) P-40 drop tank is exactly the same as the P/N 75-45-433 H75A and P-36 drop tank and that was provided as an option to foreign buyers plus shows as a 57 US gal drop on P-36A and 58 US gal on the P-36C in their flight manual.
That type entered service in the US and France in 1938.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone forgets, I just think it doesn't suit Greg and others "bomber mafia" conspiracy theory. What meaning has a document written in April 1939 to operations in 1943/4? The P-38 had just got in the air, the P-47 and P-51 were not even on the drawing board and the USA wasnt at war, neither was anyone in Europe, moreover the "bomber mafia" didnt have many bombers.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
It would be interesting if the "bomber mafia" type would expressly state what escort radius they think the P-47 had at what points with what drop tanks.
That last bit is going to trigger the ghost of Admiral Halsey.
That last bit is going to trigger the ghost of Admiral Halsey.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Ever astute, you are.
wuzak
Captain
The USAAF raids in the ETO were designed to destroy German industry.
It was not until early 1944 that the goal was changed to destroy the Luftwaffe.
While RAF raids did not directly lead to the destruction of the Luftwaffe, they did cause significant diversion of resources. Such as the strengthening of teh defences of cities by flak guns.
Glider
Major
Just a thought. Once you have sufficient and effective long range single engine fighter cover. There is no reason why the Lancaster and Halifax couldn't be used as a day bomber. The loss rate for the Lancaster on daytime missions was exactly the same as the B24.
Considering the much better range payload ability of the UK bombers, both of them would be more effective than either US design.
Considering the much better range payload ability of the UK bombers, both of them would be more effective than either US design.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Halifax didn't have a better range compared to the Lancaster and the Lanc, Halifax and B-24 all had a service ceiling within range of the 88.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
They were, in that in the second half of 1944 and into 1945 Bomber Command flew many daytime operations. For example, 38% of Halifax sorties in 1944 were in daytime, and over 40% in 1945.
