A bit odd, because it seems that he claimed only one Lavochkin (a LaGG-3) in 1945, at least according to this page Aces of the Luftwaffe - Oskar Romm
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
... The German fighter pilot Oskar Romm, flying an Fw 190D9, reports being consistently able to shoot down Lavochkins by targeting the cockpit at ranges of 500m. Brutal business.
P-51B/C/D/K weren't pressurised.
P-38L wasn't pressurised.
But do the escorts need pressurisation?
Escorts regularly flew at 30,000ft in the war without pressurisation. If the B-29s were flying at 30,000ft, how much higher do the escorts need to be?
And while the Ta 152H can fly at extreme altitudes, will it be? Perhaps the Ta 152C would be more of a threat, considering that its performance is optimised around the altitudes at which their enemy would be flying.
The Me 262 with its performance margin over Allied piston fighters and 4 x 30mm cannon, plus rockets, would be a greater threat.
I'm not sure why you you would think that the P-38L was the answer.
The P-47M and N would have more performance at high altitudes, as would the P-51H a little later.
The P-38L also had a relatively low critical Mach number, which very much restricted its performance at high altitudes.
By the time the Ta 152 starts operating the Allies have bases in France, so range becomes less of an issue for the escorts.
You may even be able to use Spitfire XIVs, which was judged to be better than the Ta 152H below 30,000ft, equal between 30,000ft and 35,000ft. Above 35,000ft the Ta 152H was better.
Not sure how the Spitfire XIV compared to the Ta 152C.
It's a good point. When I first saw this thread I looked at the Wiki specs for the B-29. I expected the service ceiling to be more than the 31,850 ft shown on Wikipedia. The non-pressurized B-17G has a ceiling of over 35,000 feet. Wiki must have the B-29 wrong, otherwise what's the point of a 45,000 ft. ceiling on the Ta 152?And while the Ta 152H can fly at extreme altitudes, will it be? Perhaps the Ta 152C would be more of a threat, considering that its performance is optimised around the altitudes at which their enemy would be flying.
How would the fight develop at 30,000+ feet?, if you look at the P47 and P51 they were boom and zoom fighters, above 30K how much B&Z can they do?. The Luftwaffe would be sending the Ta 152's out at 35-40,000ft to be top cover which would mean any intercepts and fights would center around turning while keeping altitude which is something the P47 in particular couldn't do. The USAF will be in the same situation the RAF was in in 1940, climbing up under the German fighters but with aircraft with much lower performance. I believe the only fighter that could turn and fight above 30K with the Ta is the Mk XIV, both of them could still climb and turn at that height, with the two American fighters you would get one pass if you were at 40K and the Ta was below you and that would be it, especially with the P47, it'll be thousands of feet and miles behind the bombers once it recovered.
It's a good point. When I first saw this thread I looked at the Wiki specs for the B-29. I expected the service ceiling to be more than the 31,850 ft shown on Wikipedia. The non-pressurized B-17G has a ceiling of over 35,000 feet. Wiki must have the B-29 wrong, otherwise what's the point of a 45,000 ft. ceiling on the Ta 152?
Not sure why wiki states that altitude, but it is wiki, after all.It's a good point. When I first saw this thread I looked at the Wiki specs for the B-29. I expected the service ceiling to be more than the 31,850 ft shown on Wikipedia. The non-pressurized B-17G has a ceiling of over 35,000 feet. Wiki must have the B-29 wrong, otherwise what's the point of a 45,000 ft. ceiling on the Ta 152?
What is the endurance of the Ta 152, how much NO2 does it carry (minutes of use) and how long does it take to climb to 35,000-40,000ft?
True, if the Ta 152s are circling at 40,000 feet preparing to dive onto the B-29s 10,000 feet below the USAAF had better have an escort fighter than can reach them.No idea but if the B29's are at 30,000ft they will have to be at 35-40,000 with the the escorts able to meet them.
Like the Zimmerit paste applied to protect German tanks when the only forces regularly using magnetic anti-tank mines were the Germans.The Ta 152 was an answer to high altitude bombers that didn't materialise.
What is the endurance of the Ta 152, how much NO2 does it carry (minutes of use) and how long does it take to climb to 35,000-40,000ft?
Not sure why wiki states that altitude, but it is wiki, after all.
Thr B-29 was more than capable of higher altitudes.
In May 1946, during some testing, the following records were achieved:
B-29 "THE CHALLENGER" was flown to 41,561 feet with a 22,050 lb. load, and to 39,500 feet with 33,070 lbs.
B-29 "QUEEN OF THE NECHES" (44-84065), carried 4,400 lbs. to 46,522 feet on 13 May and the following day took 11,025 lbs. to 45,252 feet.
B-29 "FLUFFY FUZ IV" reached 47,910 feet carrying 2,200 lbs.
The Ta 152 was an answer to high altitude bombers that didn't materialise.
And also the answer to high altitude reconnaissance aircraft, such as the Spitfire XI and XIX, which would often fly at 40,000ft.
The Ta 152 was an answer to high altitude bombers that didn't materialise.
And also the answer to high altitude reconnaissance aircraft, such as the Spitfire XI and XIX, which would often fly at 40,000ft.
With a Fat Man does it matter?I would love to know how they were supposed to hit anything from that height.
Fair pointWith a Fat Man does it matter?
It's interesting that the Brits went with low altitude V bombers. You have to love the Vulcan skimming at ground level.I recall reading that one of the objectives to reaching higher altitudes was to avoid flak and frustrate interceptors.
This was something that continued into the early cold war (on both sides).
I recall reading that one of the objectives to reaching higher altitudes was to avoid flak and frustrate interceptors
Vs were designed as very high altitude bombers but the development of USSR AA missile defences forced them to low level. That was too much for Valiants, which were grounded in mid 60s because of fatigue cracks in the rear spar. Ironically, Vickers had developed early on a low level version of Valiant but Air Ministry was not interested in it at that time because high level bombing was the accepted attack method.It's interesting that the Brits went with low altitude V bombers. You have to love the Vulcan skimming at ground level.
True, if the Ta 152s are circling at 40,000 feet preparing to dive onto the B-29s 10,000 feet below the USAAF had better have an escort fighter than can reach them.
What about the P-38L? Wiki gives it a ceiling of 44,000 feet, Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia