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.