Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Spitfire III also had clipped wings.
I'm not so sure how accurate that statement attributed to Price is. As noted just above, 611's April 1943 Operations Record Book lists Spitfire IX (LF) as the aircraft type on operations. See also the Spitfire L.F. IX data card dated 28.10.43. Certainly the Merlin 66 engined Spitfire went by a variety of names. A quick browse of Spitfire IX combat reports from 1943 shows mention of Spitfire IX L., Spitfire IX (66) and Spitfire IX B. Incidentally, Spitfire IX H is also listed as an aircraft type in spring 1943 such as seen in this combat report from 17/5/43.It replaced the F IX in production.[...] As Alfred Price states, it was not known as the LF IX until the HF IX appeared in 1944.
The LF IX had nothing to do with Coningham or the LF V.
As Alfred Price states, it was not known as the LF IX until the HF IX appeared in 1944.
Maybe the length and quality of the take off strip?It seems like a lot of fighters, not just the Spitfire, often flew ground support missions with bomb-loads well under what they were rated to carry. P-47s flying with 2x500 lb bombs vst its rated load of 2500 lbs, for example. In WWII, P-51s would carry 2x500lbs, but In Korea, they would carry 2x1000. Was there a particular reason for this?
Possibly because Bomber Command had first call on 1000lb bombs in Europe.Maybe the length and quality of the take off strip?
Hanging more ordnance from an aircraft would effect combat radius, I would have thought? Both the Spitfire and P-39 had very short endurance at the best of times - a single 500Ib bomb would not be good for combat range - 2, or even 3 such bombs would cripple such aircraft completely. Good for bombing the airfield main gate perhaps...It seems like a lot of fighters, not just the Spitfire, often flew ground support missions with bomb-loads well under what they were rated to carry. P-47s flying with 2x500 lb bombs vst its rated load of 2500 lbs, for example. In WWII, P-51s would carry 2x500lbs, but In Korea, they would carry 2x1000. Was there a particular reason for this?
Good for bombing the airfield main gate perhaps...
Range maybe useful but in close support of ground forces it is always best to close it. The Typhoon and P-47 had enough range to cross the 100 miles of the English Channel but that didnt mean constructing airfields in the beachhead wasnt a good idea.Good thing they were operating from bases in formerly occupied territory against the retreating Germans, then. It is worth noting that with their bomb loads operating from these bases in places like Belgium and the Netherlands they were reaching far into Germany. How far do you need them to go to be effective against a retreating enemy?
Possibly, but I was thinking specifically about the Typhoon, it could carry a lot more than it did when doing CAS, but there were issues with operating from steel mat airfields and tyres that "shimmied" etc.Possibly because Bomber Command had first call on 1000lb bombs in Europe.
Yup, both these types operated from the same captured airfields as the Spitfires. Why bother flying them from the UK when you can get better operational flexibility and faster response time over in the continent?The Typhoon and P-47 had enough range to cross the 100 miles of the English Channel but that didn't mean constructing airfields in the beachhead wasnt a good idea.
100 miles is a huge distance away from base for a pilot to know what he is supposed to be attacking. Once the Normandy beach head was established why would you need any more distance? It is 200 miles from Caen to Calais which is 21 miles from Dover. By the time you have got the information and briefed the pilots about what is where and what to attack then things have probably changed anyway. This is why the cab rank system was developed and that is to support things in visual range of those on the ground at the front.Yup, both these types operated from the same captured airfields as the Spitfires. Why bother flying them from the UK when you can get better operational flexibility and faster response time over in the continent?
Without being too obvious, the P-47 and Typhoon made far better ground attack aircraft, but that shouldn't overshadow nor diminish the efforts of the Spitfire pilots that flew it in that role.
I was talking about this with a British friend of mine recently and I remarked that when I was in France a couple of years ago we visited a few cemeteries around the Normandy area and almost all of them have Typhoon pilots interred within. Loss rates were high, sadly. It was deadly game these guys played.
100 miles is a huge distance away from base for a pilot to know what he is supposed to be attacking. Once the Normandy beach head was established why would you need any more distance? It is 200 miles from Caen to Calais which is 21 miles from Dover. By the time you have got the information and briefed the pilots about what is where and what to attack then things have probably changed anyway. This is why the cab rank system was developed and that is to support things in visual range of those on the ground at the front.
It could be several reasons, supply being one reason. Getting several hundred 500lb bombs to a forward air field is a lot easier that getting the same number of 1000lbs to the same air field, assuming you have the same number of 1000lbs in the first place.It seems like a lot of fighters, not just the Spitfire, often flew ground support missions with bomb-loads well under what they were rated to carry. P-47s flying with 2x500 lb bombs vst its rated load of 2500 lbs, for example. In WWII, P-51s would carry 2x500lbs, but In Korea, they would carry 2x1000. Was there a particular reason for this?
A good idea often has several different origin myths. The one I was raised on is that a test of a captured FW190 vs an early Spitfire IX prompted the desire for improved lower altitude performance. I discount that one, as I don't think the time line fits with the actual Merlin 66 development time line. I also tend to discount the Coningham story for the same reason as I don't see any proper account of when he said it, to whom he said it and how it was conveyed to Rolls Royce. In fact, the following will show he would have had to make the request before he actually used the Spitfire in combat.I really should do more reading before I answer... So going back to this, Yes, it does. Coningham did in fact have something to do with the LF.IX, albeit by proxy via the LF.V. Here's what Morgan and Shacklady has to say,
"The impetus given to large scale production [of the LF.IX, my addition] came from Air Marshal Coningham, C-in-C Air Forces in the Western Desert. He originally asked for 'massive' supplies of LF.VB/VCs as 80% of his operations were at low altitude."
"There was little point in building and shipping additional Mk.Vs to the Middle East as future Spitfire production was devoted to the Mk.IX, and the result was a low altitude variant to meet requirements."
Not entirely accurate apparently, see above in Mike Williams' post. The HF designation might have come around at a similar time as the LF designation though, but a year earlier, as per a report written at Boscombe Down dated 3 August 1943 titled "Spitfire HF.IX EN524". However, according to Morgan and Shacklady the first "LF.IX" was a converted Mk.VC MA648, which was fitted with a Merlin 66 on 23 May 1943 by Rolls-Royce, which contrasts with the ORB entry above...