Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.

[Tante Ju]

The basic position taken was that the Ju87 was very resistant to damage,and the conversely the allied Fighter bombers were hopelessly innaccurate and very vulnerable to German ground fire.

You are distort position he makes to extreme to ridicule it. He gave you book - have read it already? You are fast reader then. Even faster typer..

Fighter bomber is just a fighter with bomb on it. Crew is untrained. No armor. Inaccurate they were - not hopeless, that is your own "extra" addition for falsehood.. then prove false falsehood "wrong" eh? Weapons too inaccurate to fight armor, and difficult to hit small targets. But were very useful against trucks, destroyed many. But its wrong to think there was concept.. simply too many fighters, having nothing to do.. so, ground attack role.

Ju 87 or Shturmowik type aircraft is more suited for ground "work" role. They are designed for that. They fly stable at attack speed - low speed it is. Fighter has different requirement - high speed. Handling is optimal for high speed. 87D or shturmo is armored, both very heavy - useful as many (most) times there is no self propelled AA or AA, but there is always hand 7,62 machineguns, rifles etc. Also large airframe, MUCH larger. See Shturmo next to even P-47.. or Stuka. They can take more... stressed for heavy load, heavy built, not like fighter, where a bomb is a after idea. In West, there was no equivalent until A-10. No experience either. No great land battles in West, like GPW. Experience was very quickly learned.. effective used.. ineffective ceased.. price was payed with blood. Makes people quick learners - even from enemy - less space for theory, ideology.

But Sturmo and Il-2 need escort to "work" in calm conditions.. then they are effective.. very.. not only to cut supply, but the help direct fight.. fighter bombers can arrive quickly, depart quickly. Less vulnerable, much less effective.

 

[ctrian]

And exactly what are you saying regarding Grohler. I can only repeat, the link you gave, was to an unreferenced site that mentions this very source, and then proceeds to provide an unreferenced critique of it. So, are you agreeing with Butler, or are you agreeing with Grohler. Its impossible to agree with both, because they are disagreeing with each other

I am simply interested in the LOSSES PER SORTIE i don't CARE about opinions only facts .

 

[NZTyphoon]

As usual your references are dodgy and misleading, The source you give is stated in the article by this les Butler and is in fact the object of his critique. It is not the source of the link you have provided at all. But I guess you already know that.

The link itself is dubious and rubbish basically. Apart from the target of its cabal, it is an unreferenced article, author unkown, and no way to check the veracity of its claims. Cannot find any references to this les Butler.

So my summation. Unsubstantiated rubbish basically because it has shoddy and questionable credentials. if this is the sort of material that you have based your opinions, then no wonder you are out there.

A slight misunderstanding here: Les Butler owns the JG 26 website (http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/schlageter.htm) and does much of the graphics and artwork: the site's co-owner is Aviation Historian Don Caldwell, (Donald Caldwell: Author and Historian) whose expertise on JG26 is legendary. I presume Don wrote the article critiquing Gröhler's statistics and pointing out where they are questionable. If you read it carefully the article has nothing to do with the nonsense Ctrain is writing.

 

[Mustang nut]

I dont know how this argument continues, didnt the germans convert the FW 190 fighter into a fighter bomber because of the Ju87s vulnerability? All ground attack ACs are vulnerable to some extent especially with a radiator. The Ju87s forte was supporting advancing troops when it faced with no opposition. When it didnt have air superiority it was vulnerable and impossible to defend in its dive.

Adding armour decreases payload and speed. Dropping a bomb on a target means flying over the target making the AC a perfect target itself. Dive bombing makes an AC is difficult to miss which is why the allies used so many rockets. The Il 2 was perhaps the most armoured AC in the war and also suffered the heaviest losses of any Soviet marque.

I think Normandy counts as a land battle as did the Battle of the Bulge in both battles allied fighter bombers played a major part.

 

[parsifal]

Thanks NZ, at last some sanity

 

[ctrian]

A slight misunderstanding here: Les Butler owns the JG 26 website (http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/schlageter.htm) and does much of the graphics and artwork: the site's co-owner is Aviation Historian Don Caldwell, (Donald Caldwell: Author and Historian) whose expertise on JG26 is legendary. I presume Don wrote the article critiquing Gröhler's statistics and pointing out where they are questionable. If you read it carefully the article has nothing to do with the nonsense Ctrain is writing.

Oh my.... .From the site :
It is clear from his text that Groehler's objectives were: (1) to show that the German-Soviet front was the most significant source of the Luftwaffe losses that ultimately led to Allied air supremacy, and (2) that the Luftwaffe could not afford to weaken its forces in the East, even when pushed hard by the USAAF strategic offensive and the Normandy invasion. Groehler did make these claims, to the undoubted pleasure of his Soviet masters, but his data, when examined carefully, don't back him up.

Look there it says HIS data .the author criticizes Groehler's explanation not his DATA. You do realize that my point is that the Stuka had low losses in the East? What do you think those stats say? Don't answer now talk to a mathematician first.

 

[ctrian]

I dont know how this argument continues, didnt the germans convert the FW 190 fighter into a fighter bomber because of the Ju87s vulnerability? .

Yes they did but while the Fw was more survivable against fighters it was a much worse ground attack plane due to very low accuracy (same as P-51 and P-47 in ground attack role).

 

[parsifal]

You are distort position he makes to extreme to ridicule it. He gave you book - have read it already? You are fast reader then. Even faster typer..

Nope, I am not exaggerating his position. The statement that dredged all this up was as follows:

Actually the problem for the allies is that their ground attack units were decimated by AA AND they didn't hit anything .Stuka units in the East had low loss rates despite being used in contested airspace and unlike their allied counterparts were precision weapons


As to the book, yes I have read it already. I own a copy. I type at 100 wpm, cant type as quickly as I think. try to keep up if you can


Fighter bomber is just a fighter with bomb on it. Crew is untrained. No armor. Inaccurate they were - not hopeless, that is your own "extra" addition for falsehood.. then prove false falsehood "wrong" eh? Weapons too inaccurate to fight armor, and difficult to hit small targets. But were very useful against trucks, destroyed many. But its wrong to think there was concept.. simply too many fighters, having nothing to do.. so, ground attack role.

Ah no, incorrect. British set up a specialist unit, 2 TAF that contained its specialist ground attack units. These guys flew FBs which were adaptions as you say, but they were modified in various ways to maximise their ground attack capabilities. The pilots were specialists and good at their jobs too


Ju 87 or Shturmowik type aircraft is more suited for ground "work" role. They are designed for that. They fly stable at attack speed - low speed it is. Fighter has different requirement - high speed. Handling is optimal for high speed. 87D or shturmo is armored, both very heavy - useful as many (most) times there is no self propelled AA or AA, but there is always hand 7,62 machineguns, rifles etc. Also large airframe, MUCH larger. See Shturmo next to even P-47.. or Stuka. They can take more... stressed for heavy load, heavy built, not like fighter, where a bomb is a after idea. In West, there was no equivalent until A-10. No experience either. No great land battles in West, like GPW. Experience was very quickly learned.. effective used.. ineffective ceased.. price was payed with blood. Makes people quick learners - even from enemy - less space for theory, ideology.

So the British expereiences in North Africa count for nothing I see. From what I read, the effects of the specially modified Hurribombers was devastating to efforts of DAK. I can agree that in the field of ground support the germans were ahead of the allies, but that is not the point of contention, the point of contention, and I quote"allied attack units were decimated and they didnt hit anything". Still waiting for evidence to support that

But Sturmo and Il-2 need escort to "work" in calm conditions.. then they are effective.. very.. not only to cut supply, but the help direct fight.. fighter bombers can arrive quickly, depart quickly. Less vulnerable, much less effective.


As delivery devices, I dont disagree, but again, this is not the point of contention. Please show me the evidence that aircraft like the P-47 was more vulnerable than the Ju87, and couldnt hit anything. They hit lots, and they were far more survivable than the specialist types. Id also like to see where it was a political decision., I think it was a cost and survivability decision.

 

[Mustang nut]

Yes they did but while the Fw was more survivable against fighters it was a much worse ground attack plane due to very low accuracy (same as P-51 and P-47 in ground attack role).

Ctrian you seem to be saying that a Ju 87 is superior because it hits the target while its inability to reach the target or return from it is not important. As soon as Germany lost control of the air the Ju87 had had its day. In a P51 or Typhoon/tempest no escort is absolutely necessary what were the losses of Ju87s AND their escorts on the eastern front?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay everyone. Play nice or don't play at all!

Heated discussions are fine, until they become personally insulting. I feel this thread is on the verge of getting out of hand, don't let that happen!

 

[Tante Ju]

Tante Ju

please bear in mind that these aircraft wernt developed in a vacuum. German aircraft had to take down B 17s and B24s while Allied aircraft didnt. The USA for better or worse standardised on 0.5" MGs the British also for better or worse on 20mm cannon both of which were adequate to take down a 109 or 190. Germany throughout its military used a huge range of calibres which caused its own logistical problems.

Hi Mustang Nut!

I agree requirement was different. Its no criticizm. However I disagreed that weight total gun weight = firepower thesis, this is Shortrund thesis.. my point is that is is not, 4x gun weight is not same as 4x firepower. Armament may be simply inefficient for weight. but inefficient does not mean ineffective - just poorer use of resources. Yes I agree from logistical point, all .50 fighters are simple to service. However I do not believe it is real problem. In given time frame, Germans/Russians/British used typically just two guns on fighters, sometimes three. Not really difficult. Japanese - bad I agree.

Is it possible to syncronise a gun to fire through a contra rotating prop or a 5/6 pladed prop and what is the rate of fire?
Adding guns under wings as on 109 detracts substantially from performance the Typhoon became the Tempest which had 4 cannon in the wings.

I do not know answer to first question.. but this was not standard propeller arrangement in ww2? Second, yes, adding guns decrease 109 performance. But adding guns adds 2 factors, weight and in most built in types, drag. Any aircraft. Typoon for example alraedy had this loss "built in". Due to this, much less agile than light aircraft like 109. Soviet tested 109G with five guns, 190A. They found even gunpods, 109G is no worse manouver, speed or climb than 190A. Same. Firepower - same. Point again? Gun always add weight. In 190, it was already present to show effect.

I dont know how this argument continues, didnt the germans convert the FW 190 fighter into a fighter bomber because of the Ju87s vulnerability? All ground attack ACs are vulnerable to some extent especially with a radiator. The Ju87s forte was supporting advancing troops when it faced with no opposition. When it didnt have air superiority it was vulnerable and impossible to defend in its dive.

I do not know why exactly 190 was replacing Ju 87. Not completely though. I suspect increasing Red Army superiority. Yes Ju 87 is not possible to effectively operate when enemy has air superiority. But is 190F? In West, 190F had hard time too.

I agree, dive bombers are special. Most bomber stay together, defend each other. More effective than you believe.. Ju 87 too. Problem is that dive scatters formation. Normal bombers keep together even when bombing.. dive bombers scatter, they are alone, become vulnerable until they in formation again. Also dive bomber is easier target during dive to AA - predictable, close. This is why German use Ju 87D no longer as dive bomber, but as ground attack, or shallow bombings.

Adding armour decreases payload and speed.

Payload - Yes. Speed - no really. Only little.
But shooting down also. Very drastic. There is balance due to that. Statistics show best combination.

The Il 2 was perhaps the most armoured AC in the war and also suffered the heaviest losses of any Soviet marque.

Yes, but is reason? Il2 effective, German know. So in Eastern Front typical Soviet fighters escort Il-2, German fighter primary target is Il-2. Summary of Eastern Front Air war in one sentence.. All attention is to shoot down Il-2. Losses are logical conseqence. Also - Eastern Front was large.

I think Normandy counts as a land battle as did the Battle of the Bulge in both battles allied fighter bombers played a major part.

Yes. I meant doctrine of FB already formed by that long time before. Doctrine not yet tested, effectiveness not known. Il-2, Stuka effectiveness known on Eastern Front. Plenty of experience.

 

[ctrian]

Ctrian you seem to be saying that a Ju 87 is superior because it hits the target while its inability to reach the target or return from it is not important. As soon as Germany lost control of the air the Ju87 had had its day. In a P51 or Typhoon/tempest no escort is absolutely necessary what were the losses of Ju87s AND their escorts on the eastern front?

I showed that in the East they had low losses despite flying a lot.In the West even the Bf and Fw had high losses.Bottom line if the enemy doesn't have crippling air superiority a dedicated ground support aircraft is the way to go .If he has crippling air superiority then ANY kind of aircraft will suffer.What is worse having a fighter that survives the mission but doesn't hit anything or a Stuka that will destroy a bridge ,depot ,train etc but will not come back? The Fw ground attack also had heavy losses but without the effect on the field.

 

[Milosh]

"In his September 1943 address to his fellow Stuka pilots, Oberstleutnant Ernst Kupfer insisted that Junkers 87 flying units were "on the verge of extermination" at which time he also noted that ground fire accounted for 80% of Stukas lost to enemy action. It follows that Kupfer would endorse the air-cooled Focke-Wulf 190, for its higher speed and manueverability was now essential in the face of intense antiaircraft fire.

Kupfer added that Ju-87 pilots no longer favored vertical dives due to excessive losses from enemy fire during the pull outs. He reasoned that even though vertical bombing was technically more accurate if done properly, better reflex sights could offset the difference. Ground fire or not, the Ju-87 was a sitting duck for the Yaks and Lavochkins. Kupfer dismissed the Stuka and the heavily armored Russian Il-2 as obsolete in concept; only able to operate with substantial fighter escort.

Among his other thoughts, Kupfer advocated that because the individual tank was an elusive target, the pilots should increase attacks on the more vulnerable supply convoys that supported the enemy tanks, because destroying their fuel and spares was just as likely to halt the armored breakthroughs.

Finally, Kupfer used tanks as an analogy, when he stated that "We created the Tiger, the Panther, the Ferdinand with enormous strength, thick plates of armor. But we saw from the air time and again in the slaughters at Kursk, Belgorod, and Orel that even these tanks could be stopped by Flak and by Pak" … expensive high-tech machines knocked out by cheap and easy to replace towed guns."

 

[Mustang nut]

I showed that in the East they had low losses despite flying a lot.In the West even the Bf and Fw had high losses.Bottom line if the enemy doesn't have crippling air superiority a dedicated ground support aircraft is the way to go .If he has crippling air superiority then ANY kind of aircraft will suffer.What is worse having a fighter that survives the mission but doesn't hit anything or a Stuka that will destroy a bridge ,depot ,train etc but will not come back? The Fw ground attack also had heavy losses but without the effect on the field.

Two different ways of look at the problem I guess. However as air superiority is the crux of the matter I would go with a plane that can help maintain that superiority after attacking a ground target P 51,Typhoon/Tempest and most of all the Corsair were formidable opponents for any German/Japanese fighter. Pilots loved a "stuka party" I dont think anyone loved a "P 51" party.

 

[ctrian]

"In his September 1943 address to his fellow Stuka pilots, Oberstleutnant Ernst Kupfer insisted that Junkers 87 flying units were "on the verge of extermination" at which time he also noted that ground fire accounted for 80% of Stukas lost to enemy action. It follows that Kupfer would endorse the air-cooled Focke-Wulf 190, for its higher speed and manueverability was now essential in the face of intense antiaircraft fire.

Kupfer added that Ju-87 pilots no longer favored vertical dives due to excessive losses from enemy fire during the pull outs. He reasoned that even though vertical bombing was technically more accurate if done properly, better reflex sights could offset the difference. Ground fire or not, the Ju-87 was a sitting duck for the Yaks and Lavochkins. Kupfer dismissed the Stuka and the heavily armored Russian Il-2 as obsolete in concept; only able to operate with substantial fighter escort.

Among his other thoughts, Kupfer advocated that because the individual tank was an elusive target, the pilots should increase attacks on the more vulnerable supply convoys that supported the enemy tanks, because destroying their fuel and spares was just as likely to halt the armored breakthroughs.

Finally, Kupfer used tanks as an analogy, when he stated that "We created the Tiger, the Panther, the Ferdinand with enormous strength, thick plates of armor. But we saw from the air time and again in the slaughters at Kursk, Belgorod, and Orel that even these tanks could be stopped by Flak and by Pak" … expensive high-tech machines knocked out by cheap and easy to replace towed guns."

If you fly all day you will be shot down even if you're flying the Starship Enterprise ,the question is losses in comparison to sorties.

 

[stona]

" Kupfer advocated that because the individual tank was an elusive target, the pilots should increase attacks on the more vulnerable supply convoys that supported the enemy tanks, because destroying their fuel and spares was just as likely to halt the armored breakthroughs."

He wasn't daft was he. If I was at home I'd dig out the actual figures for armoured vehicles destroyed by allied fighter bombers during the Normandy campaign. That's specifically armoured vehicles. It is very low indeed. Maybe someone else has them to hand.
Steve

 

[Mustang nut]

He wasn't daft was he. If I was at home I'd dig out the actual figures for armoured vehicles destroyed by allied fighter bombers during the Normandy campaign. That's specifically armoured vehicles. It is very low indeed. Maybe someone else has them to hand.
Steve

Steve I think the hit rate was about 4% for tanks but I may be wrong, however the effect on an armoured column was devastating and a tank alone is very vulnerable, fighter pilots knew that hitting a fuel bowser could knock out a squadron of tanks. In a very short period of time after D Day Rommel could only move supplies by night. That is a major handicap for any army.

 

[Shortround6]

I agree in 1942 change of things. But in opinion, Allied designs, including Soviet, were very poor in early war with many flaws... all these well known.. negaive G, lack of cannon, too weak engines, poor designs with old fashioned airframes.. no drop tank.. production failures etc. In 1942 designs got better, same class as German or Japanese, flaws eliminated.

This and earlier you showed weapons got much heavier in P-47, Spitfire. I ask: and? Weight of guns is not measure of weapon effectiveity. Was Type V Hispano worse than Type II? It was lighter.. but fired more. Was Soviet B-20 cannon worse than Swak? It was lighter for certain.. so you comparison analagou would show weapon was bad in comparison because it was, gun and ammo, lighter.

Sorry to say, this is flaw in logic.

No, it is not. I am trying to evaluate the design of the aircraft. I do not rate the Mustang as being better than the Spitfire because it carried carried six .50s and a lot of ammunition. It was better in this regard because it could carry the weight at the performance levels it did achieve. That the USAAF chose to use this weight for a 2nd class gun installation isn't the point. The airframe designer/manufacturer rarely gets to choose the weapons the airplane will be equipped with.

Measure of firepower is weight of own shots in enemy plane, not weight of shots and gun in own plane. Accuracy, concentration fire, shell power, number of shell, ammunition available - these count. Weight of guns - do not help. Less weight, the better. Also trends. Trends were centralised guns - Soviet, French design too - ...

Trend here is that both countries used the same engine, which had been designed from the start for an engine mounted cannon. Showing commendable foresight in the days when standard armament was a pair of 7.7-8mm mgs. However it was also a 800hp engine in it's early days and simply couldn't power an a plane with more than one cannon and a pair of small mgs. Neither could anybody else at the time. Early gun was not the Hs 404 but a slower firing, less powerful, lighter gun.

.....increasing armament - 109G had increased armamanet, three cannons, two machineguns. Surely there was no lack of firepower with 3 MG 151/20. And before you say - decreased manouverabiliy!

I am not saying you are doing it, but I really dislike the morphing 109 with it's 3 guns/5guns. I have gotten into debates before and the 109 proponent wants to argue the fire power of the 5 gun version but wants to argue the performance of the 3 gun version. Pick one and stick with it.

.
Why, add weight did not decrease manouverability in Spitfire? Typhoon? FW 190? Add armament, add weight. Decrease manover. All planes. Was new trend plane Typhoon more heavily armed than 5 point Messer? No. Was it more manouverable - no, it was less. Was new trend plane 190 more heavily armed than 5 point Messer? No. Was it more manouverable? Again, no. NIIVVS tests show similar.

Heavier armament did decrease the maneuverability in the Spitfire. But since the Spitfire A.) was designed to have a heavier weapons load to begin with (around 165kg for the eight .303s) and B.) had that big wing adding the same amount of weight increase degrades performance less.

Typhoon was planned from the start for 4 cannon. problems with the guns forced the twelve .303 version. No 'decrease' in maneuverability. While a 109 a 7,000lbs is 61.4% of the typhoons 11,400lb weight the 109 also has 63% of the wing area. While wing loading is certainly not the only factor in maneuverability I think it shows that the 109 was getting too small to carry the loads asked of it.

Soviet considered 109G world class. Very fast, very good climber, 5 pointer Messer heavy hitter too. You forgot 5 pointer - and all 109G can be five pointer.

Soviets were also saddled with the VK-105 engine, 85% of the power of the DB 605A. Their part wood construction was also heavier than all metal. 'Standard' factory finish often meant 20-30kph less speed than trial figures. 109 would certainly look world class. I did not forget the '5 pointer'. One of the original Pro 109 poster's in this last flurry of posts was running down the Mike Williams site for using the performance figures of the '5 pointer' in his comparisons. Fine and dandy, you want to argue the flight performance of the '3 pointer' you don't get to use the armament performance of the '5 pointer' and vice versa.

Regarding range - range was much better than 109E. 109E was very poor.
1600 km range, 5 1/4 hours in air. Sufficient for any task. Why add fuel capacity (weight), if not requested by official? If operation not require it? Did German had to escort B-17s from London to Berlin? Fly in Paicific carrier battles? Name task it was insufficent..

Great, we are comparing theoretical ferry ranges? 200mph at 16,500ft is a nice speed for moving a plane from one point to another. It is also almost a guaranteed way to get dead flying in a combat area. You are aware that a Spitfire MK V can do 225mph at 10,000ft burning 29 gallons an hour or 263mph at 20,000ft burning 36 gallons an hour? not quite what the 109F can do but slap even a 90 gallon tank under it and see what you get. If the 109 isn't short ranged then neither is the Spitfire. Under realistic conditions, say 340-350mph at 20,000ft or so, and making allowances for combat 2 -2.5 gallons a minute and neither one is going that far. The Spitfire had room for more tankage. the 109 not so much.

And I really like the logic. Compared to other fighters the later 109s were short ranged, but since they didn't need long range for the few types of mission they were still doing we shouldn't use range as a factor in seeing if they were still world class?

I disagree. British armament was technological backward. Look at armament - guns in wings, 4-5 meters apart. Concentration fire - poor. Soviet had Spitfires, considered weapons badly located. All Soviet aircraft had weapons concentrated in nose. Also 109, P-38 etc. All post war aircraft had weapons concentrated in fusealge. Wing armament - simply backward. Very much weight added for much less effective increase in practical firepower. Reason: wing installation less rigid. Less ammunition in wing. Two guns, but two guns rarely hit target at same time. Two guns weight for one guns firepower.

and what does this say about the guns on the '5 point Messer' which aren't even in the wing but hung in pods underneath?

I am not arguing about which gun was better, guns changed over the life of many of the planes. The planes with a larger amount of weight and volume devoted to armament could be upgraded easier. The gun that was supposed fire through the prop on the 109 changed at least 4 times. the original 20mm design was a bust and they had to try to substitute a 3rd MG 17 as a stop gap. The 20mm MG/ff was also intended (2nd try) but never worked well enough for combat. The Germans finally get a working motor/cannon with the MG/151 in either caliber. The change to the MK 108 was better in some ways, not so good in others. The 109 had the weight allowance and volume for the motor cannon. After that everything was sort of a bodge.
Russian planes powered by V-12s had the same problem as the 109 with some factors worse and others better. The engine was low on power and never really got better, this means a small plane to get performance. Wooden construction of some types meant high structure weights and low volume in some interior spaces. Russians sacrificed gun life to make light, fast firing, high performance guns. The lighter guns and low ammo loads were necessary for performance but the Russians were not happy with the 3gun fighters unless it was 3 20mm guns.

First part - endurance - you have wrong facts. Late 109G and Konrad had good endurance. For example why need more than 5 hours endurance. British papers above show.

We have been over that but try this. A DB 605 burns 10.68 litres a minute while using MW-50, say they use it for just 5 minutes. 54 litres. the engine burns 8.03 litres at 'normal' take off power, say this power is used for 10 minutes (USAAF planners called for 15-20minutes) another 80 litres. 266 liters left if the plane was carrying a drop tank and dropped it at at the instant the engine went to full MW50 power or full take off power when at altitude. The engine burns 6.43 litres at the short power setting (30 min?) The engine in the "F-4" was good for 1.66litres a minute at that low cruise setting but that speed is useless if there is a chance of enemy planes about. Some old books claim a range of 350 miles at 330mph at 5,800 meters. no drop tank. This may very well be wrong but an endurance of just over an hour with no combat allowance does limit German options. Like fighters based in Wiesbaden-Frankfort can't reach a bomber stream routing through Bremen and return without drop tanks, or landing near Bremen after combat.

 

[ctrian]

Why would the Bf range be an issue in Europe provided that the LW had bases everywhere and the advanced technology of drop tanks was known? The only other option is to build a fighter with lots of weight to store the extra fuel .That's not a good choice for the LW or any airforce not invested in ''Strategic''TM bombing.

 

[davparlr]

Why would the Bf range be an issue in Europe provided that the LW had bases everywhere and the advanced technology of drop tanks was known? The only other option is to build a fighter with lots of weight to store the extra fuel .That's not a good choice for the LW or any airforce not invested in ''Strategic''TM bombing.

You mean a heavy plane like the Ta-152H with 263 gallons of internal fuel? What were they thinking?