Spit or P51 in mid 43

[wuzak]

They didn't want a long range fighter because they thought it was an impossibility , and thats why the switch to night bombing. Can tou imagine the havoc caused by 2 TAF if they had the ability to chase down the LW rather then allowing LW to pick and choose when to fight

Same could be said of the Americans. They did not think that a long range escort fighter was possible or necessary, so it was lucky for them that the P-51 was able to do the job, and that Lockheed and Kelsey had ignored the directive to not develop long range fuel tanks.

I wonder what the US industry could have come up with and how long it would have taken them had the requirement for a long range escort fighter come up in mid-late 1943, about the time the Luftwaffe demonstrated to the 8thAF that they were necessary.

 

[Shortround6]

Not 2 months or more early. The test shot was only 3 weeks ahead of Nagasaki and the Bomb used on Hiroshima was a Uranium bomb with no test shot because there was only enough uranium for one bomb. Plutonium for the test bomb and Nagasaki bomb started being delivered to Los Alamos in Feb 1945.

Nuking Berlin the 1st of May 1945 wasn't going to shorten the European war much.

 

[Readie]

Not 2 months or more early. The test shot was only 3 weeks ahead of Nagasaki and the Bomb used on Hiroshima was a Uranium bomb with no test shot because there was only enough uranium for one bomb. Plutonium for the test bomb and Nagasaki bomb started being delivered to Los Alamos in Feb 1945.

Nuking Berlin the 1st of May 1945 wasn't going to shorten the European war much.

Thanks for the A bomb information. I had not realised that it was so tight. The resources weren't as available as I thought.
I asked the question with the assumption that they were and that an A bomb or 2 may have been available for Germany earlier in 1945 or even late 1944.

I take your point about the 01 May 1945, but no one knew when VE day was going to happen then and it would have been poetic justice for the Nazi's.

Cheers
John

 

[Shortround6]

Justice or revenge? There was controversy over Dresden even before the war ended.

 

[Tante Ju]

I believe it's 10,736.5

Seems little too much for me.. if it is not claims. In Battle of Britain alone about 3000 claims were made by RAF, when real losses of Luftwaffe was about 1000 (to enemy interference, not meaning accidents). In France 1941.. very marginal.. a hundred perhaps. Over Malta.. very small again, about 300 in two years, including to ships and FlaK..? Afrika, Italy, couple o hundred again maximum, the Axis simply did not have plane there, no plane can not shot down. But can be claimed.

I do not think 10 000 can add up with this losses. The RAF shot down a few on accoasion, but you need a very lot more of few each time to make tenthousend. This is likely claim made by pilot - unrelieble everywhere.

 

[NZTyphoon]

I think the point is that the RAF were not after a long range escort/air superiority fighter. If they were the MkXIV Spitfire could have been modified for additional tankage, plus extra options for drop tanks, more quickly than a production line for Mustangs could be set up and start producing. The USAAF modified a Spitfire to give it much longer range, and the XVIII was basically a longer range XIV.

Also, as far as the XIV goes the standard armament was 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50s, but they could equally have been ordered with 4 x 20mm cannon. I believe some, but not many, were.

So, if the RAF wanted a longer range Spitfire it could have been made. When the RAF went to NAA they weren't after a long range escort a/c - they were after more P-40s.

It would not have been quite so simple to convert the Spitfire to a long-range fighter - the IX that the US converted used seven fuel tanks (three fuselage, two wing and two drop tanks) for a maximum capacity of 284 imp (341 US) gallons: the P-51D could carry 348 imp (419 US) gallons in five tanks (including two 75 US [62.5 imp] gal drop tanks) (NB: the Iwo Jima based Ds routinely used 110 (91.5 imp) gallon drop tanks or even 150 (125 imp) gallon tanks when carrying rockets). The Spitfire IX was right at the limits of its loading and was not combat stressed or combat capable, although it did carry armament.

(As a further example of how hard it was to cram extra fuel into the Spitfire airframe the Seafire 46/47 needed to use 10 fuel tanks: two forward and one rear fuselage tank, plus 4 wing tanks plus two under-wing combat tanks and an under-fuselage drop-tank for a maximum, overload, capacity of 248 imp (298 US) gallons - yet it still came up short in terms of range/endurance cf. the P-51D and the complication of keeping tabs on ten fuel tanks must have been fun.

Yes the XIV became the XVIII, but to get there the wings and undercarriage needed to be reinforced pending the new wing/undercarriage of the 21-24 series - and again, it still did not have the range or endurance of a P-51.

 

[Hop]

They didn't want a long range fighter because they thought it was an impossibility , and thats why the switch to night bombing.

They thought a long range fighter would be too compromised to fight on equal terms with the defenders. Early on in the war they were correct, of course. With the 1,000 hp engines then in service it would have been difficult to take off carrying an extra ton of fuel, and if attacked early in the flight they'd have been at a serious disadvantage.

Can tou imagine the havoc caused by 2 TAF if they had the ability to chase down the LW rather then allowing LW to pick and choose when to fight

Fighters can't effectively "chase down" enemy aircraft that are refusing combat. I know the USAAF made a lot of straffing claims (although half were in April 1945), but damage done on the ground is usually less serious, and of course doesn't harm the pilot. As the Germans were short of pilots but had plenty of planes, straffing didn't really accomplish much.

It's worth pointing out the USAAF achieved a similar kill/sortie rate in the late summer of 1943 as they did in the first half of 1944. They achieved a lot more kills because the numbers went up so much.

If one wants to think of a prize fight analogy then the British and Russians tired the Luftwaffe out in the early rounds with body shots and jabs and then the US delivered the "knock-out" blow near the end.

There was no knockout blow. There was a continuous beating that started in 1940 and carried on until early 1945. You can't point to any point in between and say "this is when the Luftwaffe were knocked out". They took damage throughout the war, and became gradually less effective as a result.

So - out of the total of 10K+ what is the breakout of pre-1943 and post Jan1 - 1943?

No idea.

Last question - are there any BC credits in the 10K+ number. God knows, nobody would include 8th/15th AF bomber claims in aggragate for US - at least not until parsing 10:1

No bomber claims. It includes night fighter claims by 100 Group BC, but only the nightfighters. Around 250 of the total, I believe.

Seems little too much for me.. if it is not claims. In Battle of Britain alone about 3000 claims were made by RAF, when real losses of Luftwaffe was about 1000 (to enemy interference, not meaning accidents).

RAF claims (including flak) in the BoB were around 2,600. German losses on operations were around 1,900.

Breaking down German losses to enemy action and accidents isn't easy. Many losses to unknown causes seem to be listed as "accidents". What's strange is that the accident rate was so much higher for day bombers than night bombers, when the reverse should be true.

In France 1941.. very marginal.. a hundred perhaps.

JG2 and JG26 lost 100 fighter pilots killed, 1 prisoner and 48 wounded in the second half of the year. That should mean about 200 aircraft lost, based on the number of killed pilots, but German records are sketchy.

Add in the first half of the year, losses other than fighters, losses to other fighter units etc and the total will be several hundred.

Over Malta.. very small again, about 300 in two years, including to ships and FlaK.

The total doesn't include operations in the Med.

This is likely claim made by pilot - unrelieble everywhere.

Yes, it's pilot claims.

It would not have been quite so simple to convert the Spitfire to a long-range fighter - the IX that the US converted used seven fuel tanks (three fuselage, two wing and two drop tanks) for a maximum capacity of 284 imp (341 US) gallons: the P-51D could carry 348 imp (419 US) gallons in five tanks (including two 75 US [62.5 imp] gal drop tanks) (NB: the Iwo Jima based Ds routinely used 110 (91.5 imp) gallon drop tanks or even 150 (125 imp) gallon tanks when carrying rockets). The Spitfire IX was right at the limits of its loading and was not combat stressed or combat capable, although it did carry armament.

It's worth noting that the US attempt was a retrofit out on existing aircraft, it's always easier if these things are done when the plane is being built.

The main Spitfire tank was actually 2 tanks, one on top of the other. That could take 96 gallons. I'll call this one tank as it behaves as a single tank.

The rear fuselage tank could carry 75 gallons. Total so far 171 gallons from 2 tanks.

Wing tanks about 28 gallons, another 2 tanks. Total 199 gallons, 4 tanks

Drop tank 170 gallons, total 369 imperial gallons, 5 tanks.

Weight shouldn't be a problem with that much fuel. 7,800 lbs for the Spitfire VIII with 120 gallons, the extra fuel would weigh another 1,800 lbs. That's 9,600 lbs without the extra tanks required to hold the fuel. The limiting weight given for the FRXIV (which was the same airframe with a different engine) was 10,280 lbs for take off from a hard runway. That means the extra tanks would have to weigh less than 680lbs, which sounds OK.

 

[Readie]

Justice or revenge? There was controversy over Dresden even before the war ended.

That controversy still continues. Bomber Harris is either a hero or villain depending on your view and how WW2 affected your family etc. I got very upset when I read that the modern Germans want him to be treated as a war criminal. The effects of the blitz are still felt here with ghastly post war rebuilding of fine old historical towns that were bombed flat.
Winning the WW2 bankrupted the UK and there was no money for rebuilding. I'll give you an example. Canterbury (also my home town), a very old cathedral city in Kent, was bombed. Part of the high street was rebuilt as a modernist. concrete horror. I remember it being lauded as a good thing, and I suppose it was better than a pile of rubble.By the 1980's it was so bad that the post war rebuild was demolished and reconstructed in the same style as before the war. The improvement was immense and while it'll take a few years to weather and mature its back to normal.
Plymouth was very badly hit and what was left was demolished and rebuilt as a brave new modern town centre. It has been acknowledged as functional but a flawed architectural experiment.
The A bomb ? I would apply the same rational to the Germans as your country applied to the Japanese.
It would have been both revenge and justice.
And saved allied lives.
Cheers
John

 

[pbfoot]

.



Fighters can't effectively "chase down" enemy aircraft that are refusing combat. I know the USAAF made a lot of straffing claims (although half were in April 1945), but damage done on the ground is usually less serious, and of course doesn't harm the pilot. As the Germans were short of pilots but had plenty of planes, straffing didn't really accomplish much.

It's worth pointing out the USAAF achieved a similar kill/sortie rate in the late summer of 1943 as they did in the first half of 1944. They achieved a lot more kills because the numbers went up so much.



.

you sure could track down and slay the LW if you can stay up longer then the short legged LW fighters rather then looking at fuel guage and returning on fumes

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I got very upset when I read that the modern Germans want him to be treated as a war criminal.

Before you get upset, you might want to actually find out who wanted that. It was the NDP, which is a right wing party that wanted that. The NDP is the political party that is represented by the smallest minority of Germans.

They have no seats in the federal govt. and only ignorant neo nazis follow them. They hardly speak for the "modern Germans".

 

[Readie]

Before you get upset, you might want to actually find out who wanted that. It was the NDP, which is a right wing party that wanted that. The NDP is the political party that is represented by the smallest minority of Germans.

They have no seats in the federal govt. and only ignorant neo nazis follow them. They hardly speak for the "modern Germans".

True, no more than the idiotic 'national front' speak for the average Brit.
It was the unveiling of the memorial by the Queen mother that sparked the row.
The article I read was very forceful and some time ago so It may well have been the NDP behind it. As I cannot find it to make my point I withdraw the 'modern German' comment.


RAF tribute stirs up 'war crime' storm | UK news | The Observer

wiki
Dresden was not the only city destroyed by the allies. The bombing of the larger city of Hamburg in 1943 created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[9] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city. The Allies also bombed the smaller city of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[10], suggesting that the bombing raids over Dresden were actually not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognized as one of the many examples of civilian suffering caused by allied strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[11] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.

Those Who Defend 'Bomber' Harris's Destruction of German Cities Are Wrong, Geoffrey Wheatcroft Argues - Skadi Forum

Bomber Harris...War Criminal [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums


What's done is done.

John

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Whats done is done, I agree. I do not see it as a war crime.

I went to Dresden a few years ago and visited the church there. Dresden actually is a partner city of Coventry now and they do a lot of cultural exchanges and memorials to one another.

 

[Readie]

Whats done is done, I agree. I do not see it as a war crime.

I went to Dresden a few years ago and visited the church there. Dresden actually is a partner city of Coventry now and they do a lot of cultural exchanges and memorials to one another.

That's a good way to build bridges. Maybe that should happen in Plymouth too.
Cheers
John

 

[Mustang nut]

Ive worked with a few East Germans, I dont really think they consider it a war crime because they dont really consider it at all. 35 years under Soviet rule gave them much more to think about.

The cross on top of the Frauenkirche was presented by the Duke of Kent in 2004

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You are correct Mustang nut. Most of the former "East Germans" had their history rewritten by the Soviets. There is an interesting Memorial in Dresden that was presented by the Soviets after the war. It is written in both Russian and German. It tells about how the "Evil US and British" attacked Germany without mercy until the "Good Soviet Union" came and saved them.

Very funny if you ask me. Of course the Germans don't actually believe that...

 

[Mustang nut]

Der Adler I bet they dont

Last Year I spent three weeks in Japan with an East German engineer, he lives there now but grew up in Zwickau under communism. Wheras he knew about Coventry being flattened because of its links to Dresden he had no idea about the rest of the blitz he actually asked me if the Germans bombed London and said "no wonder you wanted to flatten Berlin and Dresden" when I told him. Some people may be surprised and shocked at this ignorance but to the East Germans Ive met the second world war is as distant as the Boer war or the Crimean war is to the British, they know it happened but not the detail. It was a short conversation as we were too busy drinking beer to get serious. I'm in Germany at the moment enjoying the Schutzenfests and the beer.

 

[Readie]

You are correct Mustang nut. Most of the former "East Germans" had their history rewritten by the Soviets. There is an interesting Memorial in Dresden that was presented by the Soviets after the war. It is written in both Russian and German. It tells about how the "Evil US and British" attacked Germany without mercy until the "Good Soviet Union" came and saved them.

Very funny if you ask me. Of course the Germans don't actually believe that...

Mon dieu, whatever next.
MN has made a brilliant point, one that completely escaped me as I think of Germany as a whole rather than the pre 89 division.

Well said.
Cheers
John

 

[Mustang nut]

Mon dieu, whatever next.
MN has made a brilliant point, one that completely escaped me as I think of Germany as a whole rather than the pre 89 division.

Readie I dont know about "brilliant" few countries I have visited are what I thought they would be like, most are not even close to how I imagined. You can still see the scar on the landscape left by the old East/West border, its hard for me to imagine what growing up on either side of it must have been like. For example I cross a canal every morning going to work, it was built as a means of transport and a means of defence, if Russia attacked the bridges would be blown to slow the advance. For people living between the canal and the border they knew if war started they had no means of escape unless they could swim.

The Russians were just using German wartime propaganda for their own benefit. Goebbels used the bombing campaign to "prove" that the US and Britain wanted to wipe out the German race not just achieve victory. In that, the bombing campaign may have been counter productive. With regard to Adlers post the Russians seem to have forgotten that they dropped more explosives on Berlin than the allies in the course of "saving" the Germans.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Where in Germany are you now MN?

 

[Mustang nut]

Where in Germany are you now MN?

Near Hannover Adler

I dont know if youve been to a schutzenfest. Everyone dresses up in traditional costumes, the traditional costume around here is what was imported by the hannovarians for the British Army. On Monday the town was awash with what looked like a brigade of drunken british soldiers after Waterloo all red jackets white straps and gold beading.