Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Perils P40 Archive DataIt goes back to what you had for available bombers and try to compare them to the American bombers of 1942/43. The American bombers had engines with turbos that would give 1000hp max continuous to 27,000ft or above and they weren't good enough to keep 4 engine bombers doing 200+mph at altitudes over 20,000ft in large formations. Mainly because by the time you get to max cruise lean you are down to around 750hp. The Melrin XX wasn't much different. Max lean cruise was around 725-760hp depending on altitude (and without the turbo that was down around 18-20,000ft). Problem for the Melrin XX is that as you go above 18-20,000ft the cruise power drops. The B-17 could hold 750hp cruise to 35,000ft. Makes cruising at 24-26,000ft a breeze.
How much does this comparison differ from the experiences with Luftwaffe precision day bombing during the BoB? (aside from them having no real heavy bombers, though several of the medium bombers were higher performing and/or better armmed)So the interim solution seems to be, use bombers that have lousier gun defense than the Americans used, bombers that can't fly any faster, bombers that can't fly as high, and bombers that can't (if you try for high altitudes) carry much more than the American bombers. And use escort fighters that had trouble matching the German fighters over the coastal areas without being burdened with long range fuel tanks. Why the panic over getting MK IX Spits in service? Because the MK Vs couldn't to the job and yet somehow adding several hundred pounds of tanks and fuel will improve the combat results?
Mustang IIs (9.6 supercharged allisons) might have been good enough to provide top cover for bombers cruising at 20,000. Or ... better than overweight spitfire Vs (spit IXs with extended fuel capacity would be another matter). Speed was the big disadvantage of the Spitfire V next to the 190s, and the P-51A fared much better there even at 20,000 ft.I don't think higher than 20000ft is needed in 1941/42 in fact if only Allison engined escorts are available I was thinking as low as 15000ft for bombers since fighters could provide top cover at about 20000ft before being forced down to 15000ft where the bombers they were protecting were (Allison's full throttle height). At 15000ft bombers are more vulnerable to FLAK but the numbers of guns and numbers of radar was nowhere near as high as it would become and fighters are far more dangerous.
They would have been capable of some very accurate bombing over the highly industrialised Ruhr in the summer and fall of 1941.
If the Merlin XX is available for the escorts then Attack altitude over 20000ft would seem to be practical.
Wouldn't this be another argument in favor of focusing on shorter/medium range bombing objectives? (more like the RAF already was, just with the shift to daylight precision bombing)It is common to quote losses in percentages. However losses are in aircraft which have to be replaced. I doubt that any group of 10 bombers (4 engined heavies) trying to raid deep into Germany at any time during the war in daylight would suffer less than 60% losses and would probably be 100% more often than not. You need a massive number of bombers and escorts to keep the losses down to 10%. The UK had just staggered through the BoB in 1940 , I think it is very very fanciful (as some have) to think about forces of 500 x 4 engined bombers and escorts in 1941 when we were struggling to cope with defence of the UK plus N Africa.
A lot of this was also just looking for middle ground though. Not something as good as the mustang, just something closer to what the P-47C, P-40, or even P-39 could manage in 1941/42. (except not the P-47 since it wasn't combat ready yet, let alone in sufficient numbers) Or for that matter, similar to the P-38 or P-51/Mustang I's combat radius without drop tanks.The Mustang was an Accident, not clever planning, and forever linked to the idea of "P-40 replacement" for low to medium altitude utility fighter. The Wing Rack and Fuel drop tank ideas first originated with the notion of keeping the NAA Mustang line (and plant and workers) employed by slipping the A-36 procurement into available AAF Dive Bomber funding in early 1942. The notion of Merlin engine modification originated with RR in the last days of April, 1942.
Yes, which is why I brought it up with the specific context of expanding internal fuel capacity as well.Basically the practical radius of a standard typhoon was closer to 250 miles if you count the combat allowance and provide a decent reserve.
knocking an engine out at 20,000 ft gives the pilot a problem but knocking an engine out at 50ft is a kill in most cases
Any number of Mossies came home "on one", can't agree that the ones that didn't account for most cases.
Hmm, actually the He-111H series with 7 defensive guns during the BoB seems better covered than the british heavies, let alone the later H models with improved armaments.
Lack of waist and ventral guns on british heavies leaves a lot of open spots. (wellington too)
How much does this comparison differ from the experiences with Luftwaffe precision day bombing during the BoB? (aside from them having no real heavy bombers, though several of the medium bombers were higher performing and/or better armmed)
Hmm, actually the He-111H series with 7 defensive guns during the BoB seems better covered than the british heavies, let alone the later H models with improved armaments. (given the relative sizes, more akin to the B-17's defensive arrangement ... or B-25's )
Lack of waist and ventral guns on british heavies leaves a lot of open spots. (wellington too)
Mustang IIs (9.6 supercharged allisons) might have been good enough to provide top cover for bombers cruising at 20,000. Or ... better than overweight spitfire Vs (spit IXs with extended fuel capacity would be another matter). Speed was the big disadvantage of the Spitfire V next to the 190s, and the P-51A fared much better there even at 20,000 ft.
Mossies are NOT most cases.
Of the Mosquito-only raids, the majority took place when the heavies were at home. Any number of Mossies came home "on one", can't agree that the ones that didn't account for most cases. During the daylight raids of '42-'43, overall Mossie loss rates dropped appreciably when they went low-level. Losses to flak went up slightly - if the loss rate to flak had stayed even, the Mossie squadrons could have expected to lose 11.5 aircraft, when in fact they lost 13.
I am not twisting your tail mhuxt
The low level raid against Augsburg by Lancasters was a disaster, but the raid against Cruesot was successful.
It maybe the size of the attack had some bearing - the Augsburg raid was smaller.
The low level raid against Augsburg by Lancasters was a disaster, but the raid against Cruesot was successful.
As posted earlier in the thread: 17th October 1942: Operation Robinson hits Le Creusot works
It maybe the size of the attack had some bearing - the Augsburg raid was smaller.
I think it was because there was a navigation/planning error and a portion of the Augsburg formation flew directly over a Luftwaffe fighter base.
The Wellington (Ia) had a retractable mid-under turret (though it was quite unsatisfactory) and a port/starboard .303 in each side (Ic on).
The firing arcs of the mid-upper turrets of the four-engined heavies were capable of covering the sides.
Mid-under turrets were fitted to the Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster - but these didn't last long as they weren't very useful at night.
The German bombers' defensive armament had a few shortcomings - one can't merely count the barrels.
- hand-held on gimbal mountings: much more difficult to fire steady, accurate bursts than weapons mounted in a powered turret
- magazine-fed: every 75 rounds the gunner has to change magazines, as opposed to the 500 to 2,500 rounds belts the British turrets used
- ring-and bead sights
You have got to be joking?
Most He-111s were lucky they had six guns let alone seven. The idea that a single gun (1000rpm) with a 75 round magazine manually aimed on a pivot mounting was the equal of 2 or 4 guns (11-1200rpm) with belt feeds and powered mountings is quite a stretch. That fixed gun in the tail of the He 111 did a to of good too. Mostly for morale of the bomber crew. Didn't stop others from trying it. He 111 didn't get a powered (if you could call it that) top turret until 1942.
The comments on armament are more towards 'being good enough to allow the escorts to be effective.' So limiting the options for attacking interceptors (and especially close-up attacks).But basically it comes down to if the American bombers with 9-13 .50 cal mounts with 2-4 powered mounts couldn't defend themselves then how does 6-10 .303 guns with 2-3 powered mounts look like it's going to work?
The comments on armament are more towards 'being good enough to allow the escorts to be effective.' So limiting the options for attacking interceptors (and especially close-up attacks).
The heavy bombers don't really show up until 1942. and then some are rather late. Lancaster, which seems to be every-bodies favorite had a total of 290 planes by the end of July 1942. That is NOT the number issued to units. that lags a few weeks or a few months.If the existing armament on 1941/42 heavy bombers (or medium bombers for that matter) could manage that.
The Manchester, Stirling and early Halifax and most of the twin engine bombers were quite incapable of flying at anything near a high enough altitude while carrying both a high bomb load and large amount of fuel. Few of these planes had a service ceiling of over 20,000ft in full loaded condition and could only make 22-23,000ft by lightening the plane by around 10,000lb for the heavies.and manage a high enough altitude to avoid unsustainable losses from flack alone
Of course long range missions in 1941 with escorts are essentially impossible unless the Spitfire V is properly prepared. The Spitfire carried around 90 Imp gallons of fuel in tanks behind the engine which gave a range of around 400 miles. Historically 2 smaller tanks were fitted in the wing leading edges (4 in all) which increased internal fuel tankage by around 33% and range of some marks of Spitifre VII and VIII by around 50% (600 miles) over the Spitfire IX which lacked it. This suggests to me escort radii with drop tanks of around 400-450 miles. Historically many spitfires also had tail tanks which tended to be regarded as ferry tanks only due to their destabilising effects in combat. However if only 10 gallons (instead of 44-50 gallons) I'm sure the effect would be minimal and further range increases would be possible.
Unfortunately there was another unresolved obstacle to flying long distance combat in British fighters. Nearly all Spitfires, including the Mk IX, had no cockpit heating system.