Spitfires. How good/bad at ground attack

[Mike Williams]

"Spitfires Rampant" by Bill Tatham is a very good read on the exploits of 4 Sqn SAAF's dive bombing Spitfires in Italy, if you are after first-person impressions...

Thanks for the heads up. I'm currently re-reading Spitfire Diary by E.A.W. Smith who flew Spitfire IXs with 127 Squadron as part of the 2nd TAF. Lots of air to ground action described therein. Gives a pretty good idea of the day to day grind bombing and strafing with 2nd TAF during the last year of the war.

 

[nuuumannn]

A good idea often has several different origin myths.

As yet you haven't demonstrated it's a myth, all you've done is demonstrate that RR are thinking of modifications to make to the Merlin...

The origins of the Merlin 66 and 65 are discussed in "Rolls Royce and the Mustang" by David Birch. These versions of the Merlin were developed at the same time, the 65 for the Mustang and the 66 for the Spitfire. The main difference between them was the propeller reduction ratio (.477 for the 66, .42 for the 65).

It's a great resource, I have a copy in my library, but ditto as above; none of what is contained within that book proves that Coningham had nothing to do with the impetus behind the low altitude Spitfire...

 

[Matt Bone]

Bit late tho this thread, sorry for covering old ground. The LF IX was a solid ground-attack aircraft but was hampered with range issues when loaded and vulnerability to ground fire due to the positioning of the vitals on the underside.

With a full bombload, which usually was around 1000lb, her range was less than half that of the Typhoon (95 miles to the Tiffy's 250 miles with double the load). Which in the static days of June/early July, this wasn't a huge issue, but as soon as the break out happened, the LF IX's were getting to their limits of range with a decent bombload.

The other tricky bit was the lack of a cradle on the centre line to drop the weapon clear of the prop. That 'flick' on release meant that the pilot would lose the target at release which isn't ideal.

But these are niggles when you have the volumes of LF IXs in action that 2TAF did. Whistle for a Tiffy, get a Spit, take what you get!

 

[EwenS]

How about the Seafire? Did they ever carry bombs? I would think if drop tanks are feasible, so would bombs.... though given the fragile legs returning to the carrier with the bombs still affixed would be a challenge. Clearly in Korea the Seafire's role was ground attack, with 3" rockets under the wings.

View attachment 640312

Yes the Seafire did carry bombs in WW2. In the case of the Mk.III while it was cleared for a 500lb bomb under the fuselage and a 250lb bomb under each wing, I believe that operationally loads were limited to the under fuselage rack only. 807, 808, 809 and 879 squadrons used them off escort carriers in the Med in 1944 against targets in the South of France and Aegean and then in 1945 (not 808 which had converted to Hellcats) in the Indian Ocean.

AFAIK squadrons in the BPF did not use them. Initially those Seafires on Indefatigable were retained for Task Force Combat Air Patrol. Later in July and Aug 1945 when Seafires from Indefatigable and Implacable ranged across Japan, the racks were needed for drop tanks as shown in your photo taken on Implacable at that time.

Seafires did not use rockets in WW2. AIUI they had not been cleared to do so. Reportedly Implacable's squadrons took the mountings for them to the Pacific in 1945 but never got the chance to use them.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

As yet you haven't demonstrated it's a myth, all you've done is demonstrate that RR are thinking of modifications to make to the Merlin...



It's a great resource, I have a copy in my library, but ditto as above; none of what is contained within that book proves that Coningham had nothing to do with the impetus behind the low altitude Spitfire...

The statement in M&S is the only one I have ever seen that credits Coningham as the father of the Merlin 66 powered Spitfire. The biography I read doesn't. M&S gives no source and does not indicate when he would have made the statement. The second part of the statement not does actually claim that Coningham directed that Spitfires become specialized low altitude fighters but that someone did so on his behalf. Again I would like to see when and how that occurred. Regardless my point remains that the Merlin 66 powered Spitfire was not specialized for low level and in fact was the standard Fighter Command interceptor from 1943 on. Few aircraft could compete with it as an interceptor particularly above 20,00 feet.

 

[nuuumannn]

The statement in M&S is the only one I have ever seen that credits Coningham as the father of the Merlin 66 powered Spitfire.

That's not what Morgan and Shacklady state at all. Coningham was the impetus for large scale production of low altitude Spitfires. If you think they are wrong, it's up to you to prove them wrong.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

That's not what Morgan and Shacklady state at all. Coningham was the impetus for large scale production of low altitude Spitfires. If you think they are wrong, it's up to you to prove them wrong.

I have no doubt that Coningham was instrumental in the development of the LF V Ronnie Harker tells the story in his book "The Engines were Rolls Royce"
"The first problem was how to redress the discrepancy between the Spitfire and the German fighters. The local workshops had been trying to get more power out of the Merlin by setting the propeller to give 3200 revolutions per minute with no improvement. This was not surprising as the propeller lost efficiency at these revolutions per minute, and the engine power curve peaked between 2,850 and 3,000 revolutions per minute! I sent a cable to Lovesey and Hooker asking them how much should be machined off the supercharger rotor to give plus eighteen pounds of boost at six thousand feet, which was the height at which combat with the FW 190 was taking place. The reply came back "three quarters of an inch." It was arranged to crop three rotors immediately and that I should fly down to Aboukir to test the engines in the air.
The estimate was exactly right and the eighteen pounds of boost materialized at six thousand feet; this, together with an improved air filter and cropped wing tips, which incidentally improved the rate of roll, gave an increased speed of twenty-two miles per hour and also a better climb at low altitude. Resulting from these improvements, a wing of three squadrons was converted and thus the balance redressed."

"A visit was made to the Middle East by Air Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh–Mallory, who now headed Fighter Command in England. He was impressed by the low altitude modifications on the Merlin and decided to have a number of his Spitfires converted too, which could hold the fort, so to speak, until all his squadrons were equipped with the more modern and superior Mark IXs"

Unfortunately Harker does not give a time line for his visit to the Middle East. I would be curious to know when all this actually occurred. I would guess late 1942.

As to the development of the Merlin 66 powered Mark IX the connection to Coningham as presented in Morgan and Shacklady is tenuous. It states that someone somewhere decided to procure a low level version of the Mark IX to satisfy Coningham without any background.

I am not arguing that Coningham had nothing to do with the development of the MK V as a low level fighter, I am arguing that the Merlin 66 powered Spitfire was not a specialized low level fighter. Its high attitude performance was better that anything it faced for most of the war.

As I mentioned previously Alfred Price gives a completely different version of events in "Spifire in Combat"