P-61 alternatives

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hi
I don't think the USA would have had to put too much effort into air defences against the ME 264 as preparations for deployment of the type would have been spotted quite early by the Allied intelligence systems, that were already in place. Indicators would have been the lengthening of an airfield's runway, for the over loaded bombers, either in France or Norway Judging by the construction of the Atlantic Wall and V1 sites this work would have been carried out by slave or forced labour and also have been visible to the local population so the information on construction would be quite 'easily' obtained. This would have been confirmed by photo reconnaissance, especially as both areas were of great interest already to Allied intelligence, Norway because of the Arctic Convoys of course as well as Heavy Water production. As soon as four engine bombers start to fly to these airfields they will be spotted on approach and take-off and during training, it would be rather hard to hide these operations, so as soon as the bombers arrive they will be targets for bombing attacks. If flight refuelling was used (and possible), this would have to be in daylight, just after take-off they would have to use R/T between the tanker and receiver which would be picked up by listening stations in the UK so long range fighters could intercept. If the Germans put up fighters to protect the bombers while re-fuelling then that would be another indicator that 'something was up' and attract allied attention. An awful lot of things could go wrong for the German deployment that are more in the realm of possibility than everything going right for the ME 264 programme and potential operations. The allies were not a 'powerless by-stander' and had a quite good, not perfect, intelligence system, as was shown in the 'real' war!

Mike
 
There seems to be a strong undercurrent of "the Amurricans were too stoopid 2 deal with German brilliance" from the Me264 advocates.

The Americans reset priorities as needed throughout the war: the B-36 was back-burnered because it was not needed once Britain didn't fall. Big-deck carriers weren't assigned to the Atlantic because they were superfluous; the German Navy's blue-water fleet was pretty tiny and had been emasculated by the loss of most of its heavy units (Bismarck: sunk; Tirpitz: stuck in port; Scharhorst: sunk; Gneisenau: damaged and never repaired). With a convenient island -- Britain -- near at hand, there was no need for carrier-based aircraft to deal with the Luftwaffe at places like Normandy in any case.

Put a significant threat of German bombardment of important places in the Northeast -- which had a major concentration of the US defense industry (Grumman, Electric Boat, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, Remington Arms, Curtiss-Wright, Edo, Bath Iron Works, Boston, Brooklyn, and Portsmouth Navy Yards, Vought-Sikorsky, ..... all head headquarters or major facilities in New York or New England) -- and there would be a change in priorities: fighter squadrons would be reallocated or formed, early warning radar systems would be put in place (the British would help here -- they had dealt with a long and unsuccessful bombing campaign by the Luftwaffe), night fighters developed, anti-aircraft batteries moved, civil defense procedures promulgated and enforced.
 
What kind of night-fighters did we have for defending the United States? The P-70 and P-61 right? I do remember some kluge jobs including a P-38 with a radar-pod (eventually, the night-lighting was developed as a purpose-built night-fighter, but that was later, IIRC).
 
Maybe go the Joe Baughers site and check out some dates A B36. B-36A or B36B couldn't fly at 50,000ft. Operational ceiling was 35,800ft. The engines didn't exist.
Unlike the B-36 the Me 264
1 Had its maiden flight in a plausible time frame (not post war)
2 Used of the shelf engines available at the time.
It just needed a normal supply of resources.

[/QUOTE]

And you still couldn't get more than 2 1/2 planes made because it stunk-even an engine change couldn't save it!.

And no one has yet to address a 40+ hour mission with a crew of only six or seven.

If you get to rewrite history for your argument, so does everyone else.
 

All are insignificant next to the R-4360 VDT, the R-33450 and V-1710 turbo compound engines.

It's one thing to play a "What If" game, like "what if you had only two a/c to fight WWII with. It is quite another thing to take the position that "Germany had all these wonderous war-winning weapons and lost because they chose not to use them," especially when you magically up the production dates by 2, 3, or more years and turn them into in-service dates.

In case you missed it, Germany was low on fuel and rubber from late 43 through the end of the war. Their factories were being bombed. They HAD to put everything into fighters to slow the bombing, and they were stuck with one 1935 and one 1939 fighter design. They produced more advanced aircraft, but could not make enough of them to change anything; their dilemma was to halt production of the types in service and retool for the better designs and running out of fighters or keep fighting with the types in production with minor 'fixes' applied. Neither was a path to victory.

Germany did NOT have most of a vast continent to build new factories that were simply out of range of the enemy. The USA produced significant numbers (1,000+) of the P-36 (1,100+), P-38 (10,000+), P-39 (9,500+) , P-40 (13,000+), P-47 (15,000+), P-51 (15,000+), P-63 (3,300+), F4F (7,800+), F4U (9,000+ during WWII), and F6F (12,000+) during the war. This is in addition to Great Britton producing Spitfires (20,000+), Hurricanes (14,000+), Tempest/Tornado/Typhoons (5,000+), and Defiants (1,000+), while the Soviet Union was turning out LaGG-3s (6,500+), La-5s (9,900), La-7s (5,000+), Mig-3s (3,400), I-16s (10,000+), Yak-1s (8,700), Yak-3s (4,800+), Yak-7s (6,300+), and Yak-9s (16,000+).

Germany managed significant numbers of only the Me-109 (33,000+), Me-262 (1,400+, Me-110 (6,000+), Me-410 (1,100+), and FW-190 (20,000+).

M4 Shermans won the battle of Europe over slightly inferior Pz IV and the superior Panther and Tiger tanks due to overwhelming numbers. It was nearly the same story in the air, with one critical exception; by 1943 the Allied forces had a decisive qualitative and quantitative advantages.

It all adds up to this: the Me-264 went nowhere and never was going anywhere.
 
Last edited:

None as none were needed. What kind of night fighters did Germany have before the RAF started night bombing?
 
Dimlee said:
The route via Greenland is interesting. Probably the refuelling over the landmass could be the best option since the beacons could be placed at German weather stations. Air crews had more chance to survive. Another topic for "what if" section.
Click to expand...

Didn't the US have a base in Greenland, via which aircraft were flown to the UK?
 

A couple of those routes seem to be within striking distance of a NF Mosquito fitted with long range tanks, particularly the one leaving from Germany.
 
Violator said:
Talk about a bait and switch! The title of this thread is "P-61 alternatives," but the last 5+ pages are dedicated almost exclusively to the Me 264. Call me crazy, but I don't see the Me 264 as being a viable alternative to the P-61.
Click to expand...

I started out me suggesting the P70 needed R-2800s and that neither P70 or P61 were up to the job. I was saying that if the Me 264 (speed 339mph at 21000ft or 350mph at 28000ft) might of been ready to conduct night raids on the US East Coast in December 1943 and that the P70 stood not hope of intercepting it since it was slower at any altitude and that the P-61 margin of speed (362mph) was insufficient for an intercept. The P61 was beginning production on October 1943 and I doubt it would be ready in December 1943 anyway.

The Me 264 had its maiden flight in December 1942. The engines it required, BMW801D2. were available and in service so a December 1943 nuisance raid is not implausible.

Basically the P-61 was ill-conceived as any bomber designed to attack the USA from japan or Europe would of necessity have exceptional aerodynamics and therefore speed. Adding turbo-chargers to the P61A of the day probably wouldn't make anything much better as its not going to improve speed at 21000ft by much if any.

I understand it was meant to loiter using its wide scan angle radar but what it needed was speed to get an intercept.

Mosquitos would be needed.
 
Koopernic said:
In regards to my what if Me 264 attacking the US East Coast (all the way to Florida)

  • US airborne defences would struggle. The Me 264 should be able to achieve 340-350mph and would easily outrun the P70 and the P-61A/B would hardly be any better.
Click to expand...

The P-38 was designed and built from the start AS A BOMBER-INTERCEPTOR!
And it certainly did reach 400mph.
Its use as a fighter was a later mission-shift.

If there was a threat from a German fast high-altitude bomber, the P-38M (2-seat radar-equipped night fighter historically built) would certainly have been produced in numbers, and deployed in the penetration route areas.

As noted earlier in the thread, a version with a longer fuselage giving a larger cockpit for the radar operator (and incidentally increasing top speed) would have been produced, based on that test airframe discussed in posts 45-47.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
9K
Thumpalumpacus
V
P-51Ds over Normandy June 1944
Replies
1
Views
484
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Flying Boeing P-26 Peashooter
Replies
10
Views
1K
GregP
M
P-39 Turbo - Here We Go Again
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregP
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
1K
Jugman
J
Menu
Log in
Register