This is the way it should have been from the beginning....

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


I think you are a little bit too focused on top speed. Top speed for a fighter is not the same as combat speed. Bf 109E was slower, on paper than the Spit I/ II or early P-40, but in practice it was faster due to acceleration and low drag.

'Daimlerized Fw 190' is an interesting idea too but I doubt as good as an Re 2005 or G.55.

Rufe's held their own against allied fighters in the Pacific about as well as the Zero did. Which is to say pretty well. I'm confident it could easily handle the Hurricane which offered no advantages against it. Martlet would probably be more even because at least the F4F can disengage. Fulmars weren't slaughtered because they rarely saw combat against fighters ... because everyone knew they would be slaughtered.

I'm all for Mosquitoes, unfortunately they can't solve all WAllied problems in 1942-43. 1100 lb bomb is not a big bomb, the 8000 or 12000 lb bombs were big bombs.
Click to expand...

Today the go-to bomb for most missions is a 1,000 or 2,000 lbs bomb. The accuracy (today laser guided or GPS guided) makes the difference. An 8,000 lb bomb has very limited real world need, outside of propaganda. Much like huge 4 engine bombers full of 500 lb bombs which explode miles away from their target.

A 1,000 lb bomb is plenty to destroy oil refineries and most factories or airfields. Let alone tanks or AT guns which is the main purpose of a Dive Bomber in land combat ala Stuka.

Most 4 engined heavy bomber raids were dropping 250 or 500 lb bombs anyway most of the time. And missing.


I think you know that the reasons 'Rhubarbs' failed from the UK was because they had fighters with very limited range and because the Fw 190 had the number of the Spit V.

Send a few hundred Corsairs or P-47's and you'll notice a difference, but keep in mind, i wasn't referring so much to "Rhubarbs" for tactical fighters, so much as close air support. Win North Africa quicker, invade Italy quicker, etc.

Long range escort fighters would appear around the same time regardless. Which means the fight goes to the Luftwaffe much more quickly. The "honey trap" would be stickier when actual military operations were being threatened. Rail lines cut, locomotives and bridges blown up, Gestapo HQ incinerated, airfields destroyed, tank concentrations bombed and strafed.

As we know, post D-Day these kinds of attacks were extremely effective, in direct and obvious contrast to the useless and bloody heavy bomber raids. They were also increasingly effective in Russia as their fighters improved sufficiently in quality to provide protection to their Sturmoviks.

S
 

The whole point in making wooden aircraft - also done (partial wood) extensively by the Soviets, was to save on strategic metals like aluminum and magnesium etc. The marvelous performance of the Mosquito and some of the later war Soviet planes was a happy side effect.

The Soviets also used birch and spruce, by the way. They had been using birch for all kinds of things for 1,000 years and had literally tons of it.

The US had much easier access to Central and South American natural resources not to mention all of North America (which is covered in forests), than comparatively tiny and treeless England did.

The argument that the US couldn't build mosquitoes because they didn't have the wood is very weak.
 
It would be a weak argument, but I didn't make it. The wood was from trees of a particular type and age. increasing the harvesting of this requires the setting up of a logging industry.
 
Last edited:

The Bf 109E was not a low drag A/C, granted it was a bit lighter than Spitfires or P-40s.
Ever greater speed was what people in (not only) ww2 wanted and usualy got, it is not some funky fetish of mine. Nobody was saying 'let's make this fighter slower, since it is too fast'. Against 400-430 mph P-47s, P-38s, Spitfire VIII/XI/XIIs, P-51s, Tyhoons, yet another 380 mph will not cut it. Even the Fw 190 was found wanting against P-47s above 20000 ft, despite being faster than G.55.
Daimlerized 190 offers thinner and smaller wing than Re.2005, let alone the G.55. Better canopy, excellent rate of roll, suitable for mass production, already can lug hefty cannon, ammo, fuel and bomb load. Germans dropped the ball by not making it already in 1939.


I disagree with the above quoted, this being my last comment on that.


Please, don't mix B-17s/24s with bombers capable carrying big bombs, like the Lancaster or Halifax, that used those frequently. Mixing the 21st century stuff with what was used in ww2? C'mon, you know better that that.


As above - let's not mix US bombers with British bombers. War-time exerience taught British that 1000 lb bombs were too small, they didn't went to 4000, 8000, 12000 bombs because they were swimming in money.


Wait for mid-1943 for P-47s and Corsairs in order to win in N.Africa by early 1943? Please.
What will the 'tactical air support' support in the ETO in 1942/43? What US fighters can bring to the air war there in 1942, in order to beat the Fw 190s?


Allies were already trashing bridges, Geetspo HQs, tank concentrations, what they were not doing in 1942 and better part of 1943 was destroying POL facilities, chemical factories and other targets of interest deep in Germany. Fighter-bombers can't do it, no matter how you cut it.
Post D-day attacks were done against German targets devoid of fighter protection. Soviet fighters protecting Sturmoviks is one thing, not comparable with what you want to do with WAllied types on WAllied fronts.
 
1 An 8,000lb bomb and heavier had many uses in the real world, sinking battleships and smashing submarine pens, collapsing rail tunnels, destroying V3 sites etc your objection to them is obvious, no US bomber could drop one until 1945. They played a major part in the battle of the Atlantic.

2 The Africa campaign finished in May 1943, what use would a P47 or Corsairs be in shortening that? P 47s did not become operational in UK until Jan 1943

Post D Day was also post Bagration and post the allied air offensive which not only crippled the LW but also removed much of their access to fuel.
 
Schweik said:
The argument that the US couldn't build mosquitoes because they didn't have the wood is very weak.
Click to expand...

It is actually pretty good in that the US didn't have some of the right types of wood.
Yes the US was closer to the Balsa trees than England but you still had to find them, cut them, get them to a port, load them on a ship and then send them to either the US Canada or England. The countries were they grew not having very good infrastructure (roads or railroads)
You only need a few Balsa trees to make thousands of Balsa wood model aircraft but you need thousands of Balsa trees to make hundreds of Mosquitos.
Yes you can substitute wood. but every pound of heavier wood means one of three things.
1. poorer performance, mainly climb and ceiling
2. shorter range.
3. lower bomb load.

The first is if you accept a higher gross weight. the other two are if you don't.
The US was building quite a number of light planes out of wood plus gliders. However some of the bigger US wooden aircraft didn't turn out so well.
The Curtiss C-76 almost being the poster child for how NOT to build a wooden airplane.

USAAF Materiel Command later estimated the entire C-76 project cost the U.S. government $400 million dollars and several months in lost production time.
 
I think there is a misunderstanding of "strategic materials" as far as the mosquito is concerned. De Havilland used the argument that it didn't use "strategic materials" to say the project should continue, they were told three times to stop it. However de Havilland used wood as the material of choice, they built wooden planes before it and even used wood on their jets in places.
 
Milosh said:
How did DeHavilland Canada manage to built its Mosquitoes?
Click to expand...
Probably the same way the British did. The Canadians built 1134. Perhaps the US could have built that many or more. the Problem comes in with people wanting to replace tens of thousands of 4 engine bombers. A few Thousand Mosquitos isn't going to do it. You are not adding 15 or 20 or 25% to mosquito production, you are trying to multiply it by 5 or 6 times.
 
Just reading the wiki article on balsa wood. The natural distribution is 3 per hectare and they take thirty years to grow, you may build the first aircraft with one outside the shipping office, very quickly you are building roads to reach what you want. The living wood weighs almost the same as water because it is mainly water. After drying there is a huge variation in density, not all balsa wood is suitable.
 
A few quick comments and a request.
  • BF 109E (and all BF 109s) were low drag because 32' wingspan (vs. Spitfire 36', P-40 37', and Hurricane 40'). Unless you have "Laminar Flow" type ultra low drag wings, bigger wings mean more drag, it's probably the single most important factor.
  • On the other hand, big wings are good at high altitude. This is where the P-47 excelled (it actually wasn't so great down low). G.55 had big 38' 10" wings but they were also low drag if I recall. But i think this along with a good DB 605 engine means good altitude performance. It's also very heavily armed with 3 x 20 mm cannon plus 2 x 12.7mm HMG.
  • The notion that Canada could build 1,100 of a type of aircraft but the US might be able to equal it? You are trying too hard breh. Do I really need to point out the difference between US and Canadian Industrial Capacity in 1942? The US was already exploiting Latin America for all kinds of resources including a lot of lumber by 1940. Almost all coffee and a lot of sugar used by the US came from down south by then. The notion that they couldn't secure balsa is a joke. A ridiculous joke! If you just don't want to agree that's ok but don't try so hard to bend reality.
  • You can't blame a Curtiss aircraft boondogle on wooden materials. Curtiss was a mess and had a dozen or more terrible aircraft design catastrophes. The P-40 was probably their last halfway decent plane, or maybe the C-46. Most of their attempts to build new aircraft failed after ~1942. One of the reasons why the company failed right after the war.
  • Why does everyone keep moving the goalposts on dates. What effective Strategic bombing was done in 1941?
  • Similarly, the "what if" of a Strategic shift away from heavy 4-engined bombers toward fast bombers and fighters, would mean more engines and nice things like turbochargers for fighters. Which means, presumably, better fighters sooner. Which in turn is how I posit an earlier invasion of North Africa (partly because less trouble in the Pacific to worry everyone)
  • Put Merlin XX engines in P-40's I think that would get you a long way to where you need to be. Either fix the turbos in the P-38 quicker or put Merlin XX's in those too. Again, better fighter a lot quicker. Merlin XX might even fix the P-39.
But forget all these silly arguments for a moment. I need a little help.
I must humbly report that I am a newby here and have apparently 'watched' too many threads. I thought only 'watched' two threads actually but somehow I got 120 messages in my email inbox as of yesterday. This is not sustainable for ye olde Schweik! Can't seem to find on here how to switch the notifications to once a week or something reasonable like that. Can anyone help?

S
 
Milosh said:
How did DeHavilland Canada manage to built its Mosquitoes?
Click to expand...
They built 1,134 with 500 completed before the end of the war. Setting up new production facilities abroad takes time and until it actually flew the Mosquito had few friends or champions.
 

And how many battleships did Germany have?

Most industrial targets could be destroyed by 1,000 lb bombs or less. If they hit the target. That's the big caveat.

Giant bunker buster / block buster bombs were mostly a gimmick. They did have some uses, but their use to damage battleships was basically an act of desperation born of extreme ineptitude. They were mainly intended to blow the roofs off of buildings and houses so they would catch fire more easily if I remember correctly.

It may be blasphemy to compare 21st Century to WW2, but I think modern experience has borne out that in most cases, precision wins out over muscle when it comes to the use of air assets. We may have some use for 'carpet bombing' but it's more of a niche thing. Like those massive daisy cutter bombs, they are impressive but not actually used that much.


The idea that I don't like heavy bombers with blockbuster bombs because Murikuh is pretty creative too. How did you get to that from my suggestion that we cancel all B-24's and replace with (last I heard, British designed) Mosquitos.
 
Last edited:
Damage caused to heavy industry by small bombs can be repaired very quickly, it is mainly a lot of seamless welded tubes.

you cannot damage submarine pens with 1000lb bombs, or many other protected facilities.
 
There was a Merlin XX-powered P-40, named P-40F, available from start of 1942. Was about as good as Spitfire II, ie. will not help much against LW's dynamic duo above 10000 ft. As before - if there is surplus of Merlins, install them on Mustangs.
Bf 109E was draggy due to deep radiators, fixed tailwheel, struts at tail, blocky nose. Granted, being small helped to keep speed up, the redesigned 109F was much more stremlined and gained speed because of that and engine power increase.
Proposing to use fighters that got produced in numbers in 1943 in the USA, in order to solve perceived problems in other part of the world in 1st 2/3rds of 1943 defies logic. So does throwing more fighter-bombers and dive-bombers into teeht of German Flak. Changing production priorities too late also does not help.
P-38 program needed much more input than sorting out turboes in 1941-43 - cockpit heating, compressibility problems, apaling rate of roll, messed up cockpit, pilots training for a twin with turbo engines, too much time wasted in 1940-41, no second source. New or a better powerplant, no matter how good, does not solve that.
I'm not sure that re-designing Merlin for the P-39 is an easier & faster thing than making a 9.60:1 S/C drive for the V-1710.

Perhaps drop the private message to a moderator to help you out?
 
coffee plants and sugar cane don't grow 3 plants per 100 acres. how many square miles of tropical forest do you have to deal with to get the needed trees?
If some bright spark around 1910 had decided that Balsa wood would be the coming thing in 30 years and planted hundreds of acres with neat rows of Balsa trees so they could be harvested and shipped in large quantities with little trouble then yeah, America could have built thousands of Mosquitos.

Just pointing out that wooden aircraft take a certain expertise and when you are trying to get either multiple manufactures or one consortem of 3-5 manufacturers to build large numbers of something things can go wrong. B-17s were built in 3 plants and B-24s were built in 5.

If you want to replace the B-17 and the B-24 the decision has to be made in 1941. it doesn't matter if the accomplished anything or not in 1941 or even much in 1942. 1941 (and before) is when the factories started to be built, the engine factories started to be built, machinery purchased/ordered supplies of material sorted out (how many tons of aluminum to which rolling mills which would supply which factories with the least amount of miles traveled by rail car)

As for fighters with turbos. They almost have to be designed in from the start adding them later is NOT like adding them to car today.
adding them later gets you things like this

and this is for a plane that already had a two stage supercharger and intercoolers.
 
tomo pauk said:
There was a Merlin XX-powered P-40, named P-40F, available from start of 1942. Was about as good as Spitfire II, ie. will not help much against LW's dynamic duo above 10000 ft. As before - if there is surplus of Merlins, install them on Mustangs.
Click to expand...

As noted previously in this thread by others, the Merlin XX / V-1650 on the P-40F/L was not the same engine they put in the P-51 (V-1650-7) which had a 2 stage supercharger with an intercooler. I think a P-40 with that engine would have been even better than the P-40F, which was pretty good (I'd say more on par with a Spit V but with longer range).

Bf 109E was draggy due to deep radiators, fixed tailwheel, struts at tail, blocky nose. Granted, being small helped to keep speed up, the redesigned 109F was much more stremlined and gained speed because of that and engine power increase.
Click to expand...
And yet, not that much speed increase right? 20 - 25 mph with much more streamlining plus a ~ 200 hp more powerful engine ? That tells me that in spite of all the little protrusions the overall drag of the 109E was actually pretty low, and I named the culprit already, the small wings.

I never said it would be easy, nor was I proposing fighter bombers attack hardened german targets like Sub pens. I was talking about the tactical use of fighter bombers (i.e. against tanks and troops and AT / AA guns) and the operational / strategic use of Mosquitoes and the equivalent 'schnellbomber' you might call 'em.

And yes for example I definitely do think that if you cut production of B-24's, you could definitely accelerate the A-26 as well as making 25,000 or more Mosqutos. And make more even faster bombers as the Japanese did late in the war (too late for them).

Dive bombers was another argument, i was suggesting the Lufwtwaffe could have used some faster ones like the very fast Aicha B7A.


A two stage sueprcharged merlin could have allowed them to dump the turbo on the P-38 and allowed the P-38 to play at high altitude, where they faced limited competition that didn't fly that well up high. Then they could focus on the other (I agree, myriad) problems. But the P-38 was supposed to be a high altitude fighter from the get-go so it's major problems playing up above the clouds was a huge setback for it's value as a fighter.

Perhaps drop the private message to a moderator to help you out?
Click to expand...

I figured it out, thanks.

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
MIflyer
M
S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
6K
EwenS
E
What is this?
Replies
11
Views
678
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
7 8 9
Replies
162
Views
7K
SaparotRob
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
1K
Jugman
J
Menu
Log in
Register