What did Australians train in to be unused to 1000HP engines and fixed U/C? How did their training differ from other RAF units? I thought the majority converted from Hurricanes.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What did Australians train in to be unused to 1000HP engines and fixed U/C? How did their training differ from other RAF units? I thought the majority converted from Hurricanes.Meanwhile I don't know about England but I know US and Australian pilots were so new to their P-40s in late 1941 and early 1942 they were crashing in about 20% of their landings. They weren't used to 1,000 hp engines or retractable landing gear. The Allies were scrambling to get everyone trained and to develop suitable tactics, which took a while to disseminate.
The P-40 wasn't exactly a long range champion!
What did Australians train in to be unused to 1000HP engines and fixed U/C? How did their training differ from other RAF units?
In many ways, perhaps that is true, but it also had some limitations - especially range. The Emil was the first 109 variant being used in the Western Desert in 1941 and due to problems (losses) in combat with Tomahawks they rushed it's replacement with the 109F.
I thought you were discussing N Africa. That is just lack of training.I have no idea, I am just referring to what happened when the Australian 75th FS were flying their new P-40s across Australia, from the South to Darwin. Two of the issues they mentioned was engine torque and retractable landing gear. They made about 6 hops and lost about 2/3 of their fighters in the process. Same thing happened to the 49th FG on their way up, and then again to the RAAF 74th FS. Some of the aircraft were later repaired and flown up.
This is the point. The context within which each operated.
The US manufacturers identified that building for foreign needs kept them in business because the US military simply wasn't ordering in nearly as large numbers as foreigners were before the US entered the war. Why wouldn't they? Before the BPC ordered Hudsons from Lockheed, how many military aircraft was that firm building? What was its production rate? Look at how many US types the Brits and French investigated and ordered; manufacturers were falling over themselves for contracts and understandably so. Many of the aircraft were unsuited for the European conditions, but that didn't mean the Brits and French weren't about to take them and test them. Even the woeful Curtiss Sea Mew was evaluated in Britain for service.
They were, though they suffered at the hands of P-40s in ChinaDespite the Japanese aircraft having fixed landing gear, how effective in theatre were they? Very, in fact. The Ki-27 and A5M were formidable fighters against the opposition they were expecting and the Germans figuring out the Finger Four again highlights the context within the environment the Bf 109 was operating.
The Germans figured their tactics out in Spain and that conflict prepared them for what they were about to embark on.
I thought you were discussing N Africa. That is just lack of training.
It is instructive to know how important that the northern desert campaign was for the RAF and Luftwaffe to see what aircraft they did and did not use.
The RAF used the Tomahawk II and Hurricane II, but did not, initially, use Spitfires, of any mark, in theatre.
The Luftwaffe initially used the Bf 109E, though the Bf 109F had entered service nearly a year before Tomahawks show up in North Africa. The Bf 109F-4 had entered Luftwaffe service in July 1941. The Bf 109G-1 started production in early 1942.
The Focke Wulf Fw 190 did not appear in North Africa for more than a year after its debut in Europe,
The book The Right of the Line by John Terraine is a good starting point on the RAF's wartime history and the author questions Portal's stance against evidence, which is compelling in hindsight.
Amazon product ASIN 1848841922
Bomber Command by Max Hastings talks about Ludlow-Hewitt and mentions his battle to reform the pre-war Bomber Command, including his stance that escort fighters were needed, but doesn't detail Portal's obstinacy on that subject so much, although he is mentioned within on numerous subjects, specifically over his disagreements with Harris.
Amazon product ASIN 0760345201
I have both these in my library. I don't know for certain but I'm sure there is a biography of Portal in print that goes into the issue.
Well, the world standard was certainly varied
The Hawk 75 is supposed to be the best the French could get.
I haven't compared training times or time in service.
However the Hawk 75 and the P-36 were both noted for structural weaknesses, one reason the P-40 may have porked up?
There was a French officer running around Buffalo trying to by 30 wing sets in Dec 1939/Jan 1940 as they had about 30 planes grounded because they had no spare wings.
The French had purchased (in money value) the equivalent of 50 airframes for 200 complete aircraft.
Reasons looked into were damage due to gun fire, wing failures due to high stresses at poor wartime airdromes and a high rate of landing accidents, plus an insufficient order for spare parts.
It does make you wonder what the rest of the French fighters were like?
While the maneuverability of the Hawk 75 is often mentioned against the Spitfire what is often left out is that the Spitfire could enter or break off combat at will due it's superior speed. The test Spitfire was number K9944 was one of the first 215 or so flown and while it is highly doubt it had a fixed pitch prop it is very likely it used a two pitch prop while the Hawk had a constant speed prop. The constant speed prop reduced the climb 20,000ft from 11.3 minutes to 7.7 minutes.
I suspect the D.520 was actually the best fighter the French had, they just had so little time to get used to it before the battle started, and relatively few of them were even out with their units and so on.
It was a medium range fighter. Which is to say, it seems to have had about twice the effective range of a Spit V, 109E or F, of MC 202. Or most of the Soviet fighters.
The relevance in the Med was that the Spitfires were almost always used for point defense and rarely for escorting strikes, except when they were really close to the base.
p0-+edI have no idea, I am* just referring to what happened when the Australian 75th FS were flying their new P-40s across Australia, from the South to Darwin. Two of the issues they mentioned was engine torque and retractable landing gear. They made about 6 hops and lost about 2/3 of their fighters in the process. Same thing happened to the 49th FG on their way up, and then again to the RAAF 74th FS. Some of the aircraft were later repaired and flown up.
They were, though they suffered at the hands of P-40s in China
The US top leadership (i.e. FDR, George Marshall) knew that the US was probably going to end up fighting the Germans and would be allied with England and France. They also knew England and France were going to be fighting sooner. So it made sense to give priority to these soon to be Allied nations for the early ramp up in military aircraft production, which is something they did quite deliberately. Thus conferring upon the French and the British their best attack bombers etc.
Partly because they knew they were going to start the war, while some of the Allied leadership was still hoping they could prevent it.
All of that is true for every longer ranged fighter; P-51Ds didn't handle so well with a full load of fuel either. The idea was that they usually encountered enemy fighters near or over the target area, by which time they had burned off most of the less conveniently located (as in in external or overload tanks) fuel while taking off, climbing up to altitude, and flying to the target. If they were jumped early on a strike when they had drop tanks they sometimes had to jettison the tanks and abort the mission in order to defend themselves.It does help to figure how they were really using it.
The gross weight usually listed for was with 120 US gallons of fuel.
They could put 160 US gallon into a P-40B or early Tomahawk. The later ones got about 135 US gallons but could be fitted with the drop tank.
But then you have to figure the performance loss (climb and turn) for the extra fuel/oil load.
Well, they were having trouble with the wings, and they broke at least one (some stories say several) when they tried to do acrobatics with the behind the seat tank filled. That was more of a too far aft CG thing.I suspect the D.520 was actually the best fighter the French had, they just had so little time to get used to it before the battle started, and relatively few of them were even out with their units and so on. D.520 was considerably faster than the Hawk 75, much better armed (with a 20mm HS.404) and being smaller, inline engined and nicely streamlined probably kept up a better combat speed. The D.520 had armor and a self sealing fuel tank too. I think the Hawk maybe had some armor?
The French didn't seem to have any complaints about the sturdiness of the Hawk 75 during the BoF though, to the contrary, they said it was a beast. They also did pretty well with it against the US Navy during Torch as I pointed out before (actually with both the Hawk 75 and the D.520).
It was, but it was a lot more difficult to fly and train on, the Hawk 75 was praised because of its ease of handling. The MS.406 was the most numerous French fighter at the time of the German invasion.
Point is you can you have the extra fuel or you can have the weight penalty.All of that is true for every longer ranged fighter; P-51Ds didn't handle so well with a full load of fuel either. The idea was that they usually encountered enemy fighters near or over the target area, by which time they had burned off most of the less conveniently located (as in in external or overload tanks) fuel while taking off, climbing up to altitude, and flying to the target. If they were jumped early on a strike when they had drop tanks they sometimes had to jettison the tanks and abort the mission in order to defend themselves.
I thought the P-40B couldn't take a drop tank, but the P-40C could. I may be remembering wrong.
Didn't the Spitfire have an unprotected or lightly protected (i.e. no self sealing) fuel tank in front of the pilot?