Was cost the primary reason for the scarcity of early war drop tank?

Nodeo-Franvier

Airman 1st Class
112
22
Jul 13, 2020
I noticed that during the sino-japanese war Sakai Saburo already have a drop tank in his A5M and also that Hs123 also got an aluminum drop tank,These drop tank would have work wonders in BoB yet the 109 didn't have them.
Was cost the primary factor preventing widespread adoption of drop tank on fighter?
The western allies have access to throwaway paper drop tank so it wasn't a problem for them.
 

Just Schmidt

Airman 1st Class
256
313
Jul 19, 2010
Tromsø
I think it had to do with the mindset of the people in procurement. Fighters were seen as point defense interceptors, so didn't need long range. The myth of the self-defending bomber had not yet been debunked.
I'm not really disagreeing, but to the Japanese the myth of the self defending bomber had been debunked. In Europe it hadn't. Goes to show that many myths (as the Japanese sacrificng absolutely everything except manouverability to get long range in their escort fighters) you have to debunk again and again.

Just browse the forum...
 

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,851
3,630
Apr 3, 2008
I think it had to do with the mindset of the people in procurement.
+1 on that.
Fighters were seen as point defense interceptors, so didn't need long range. The myth of the self-defending bomber had not yet been debunked.
It was so in most of the countries in the 1930s.
Though, Germany procued the Bf 110 as a long-range fighter that should be sorta cleaning the path for the incoming bombers. Instead of drop tanks as means to increase fuel quantity, it's internal fuel carried was increased by 50%+ more fuel per engine than it was the case with Bf 109E.
 

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,851
3,630
Apr 3, 2008
Many of the under fuselage tanks seen on late 1030s aeroplanes were external rather than drop tanks. eg Vincent, He51, HS123. Not to be confused with actual drop tanks.
Manual for the Hs 123, as copy/pasted at 'Luftfahrt International' 3/1974, notes that the external tank is an 'abwerfbarer behaelter' - literary a 'droppable tank'.
 

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Staff
Mod
28,098
8,682
Apr 9, 2005
Colorado, USA
The US had a number of planes with "dropable" tanks in the 1930s
1668958967866.png


source: the internet
 

pbehn

Lieutenant Colonel
11,888
8,376
Oct 30, 2013
I noticed that during the sino-japanese war Sakai Saburo already have a drop tank in his A5M and also that Hs123 also got an aluminum drop tank,These drop tank would have work wonders in BoB yet the 109 didn't have them.
Drop tanks were not needed in the Battle of Britain. The LW had the range to confront the RAF over southern England, they just didnt have the range to escort to London. However bombing London was outside the LW scope, they needed special permission from Adolf to do it. For the Bf 109 to be fitted with drop tanks you need magical foresight to predict France falling in weeks. Then a strategic campaign involving the bombardment of London in daylight in 1940. It may seem obvious now that the Bf109 needed drop tanks, it certainly wasnt until Sept 1940. In fact they had more success fitting bombs not drop tanks and in any case Adolf had already turned his eyes on Russia by then
 

Shortround6

Major General
19,803
11,801
Jun 29, 2009
Central Florida Highlands
The Bf 110 covered the "escort" part of the mission. And it worked quite well in Poland and France.
It came in before the bombers showed up. Strafed fighters on the airfields or caught them as they were trying to climb to altitude. Made things easier for the bombers.

A bit different than "close" escort but effective, right up until it wasn't. The British radar system meant it was harder (not impossible) to catch the British on the ground or in early stages of climb. It also the meant the British had a much better idea of where and the when the German bomber formations were going to arrive so the interceptors didn't have to engage the 110s. German bomber formation is 15-20 minutes behind the 110s ( around 50 miles?) the British fighters can pull back and not engage the 110s.

Great Britain was also a target rich environment. There were a lot of Cities and factories in a small area which made guessing the Germans intensions hard.

The Japanese were often operating at very long ranges compared to the Germans and cities were often much further apart. The Chinese could guess Japanese intentions considerably in advance of the Japanese arriving over a City.
 

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,851
3,630
Apr 3, 2008
Drop tanks were not needed in the Battle of Britain. The LW had the range to confront the RAF over southern England, they just didnt have the range to escort to London. However bombing London was outside the LW scope, they needed special permission from Adolf to do it.
On the contrary, the drop tanks were essential for the 109s. Even the RAF would've found them useful.
There was a lot for LW bombers to bomb between London and Belfast, they were unable to do it well because there fighter escort was insufficient.

For the Bf 109 to be fitted with drop tanks you need magical foresight to predict France falling in weeks. Then a strategic campaign involving the bombardment of London in daylight in 1940. It may seem obvious now that the Bf109 needed drop tanks, it certainly wasnt until Sept 1940. In fact they had more success fitting bombs not drop tanks and in any case Adolf had already turned his eyes on Russia by then

There was no magical foresight needed. French factories between the Bay of Biscay and Mediterannean will not just explode on themselves, Luftwaffe bombers will be needed to do bomb them instead. The Bf 109 had no range to cover that distance while escorting the bombers.
With France still fighting, Luftwaffe will need even greater range in order to hit the UK from Germany proper.
 

pbehn

Lieutenant Colonel
11,888
8,376
Oct 30, 2013
On the contrary, the drop tanks were essential for the 109s. Even the RAF would've found them useful.
There was a lot for LW bombers to bomb between London and Belfast, they were unable to do it well because there fighter escort was insufficient.

There was no magical foresight needed. French factories between the Bay of Biscay and Mediterannean will not just explode on themselves, Luftwaffe bombers will be needed to do bomb them instead. The Bf 109 had no range to cover that distance while escorting the bombers.
With France still fighting, Luftwaffe will need even greater range in order to hit the UK from Germany proper.
The RAF confronted almost every raid on UK airspace at the coast. That is only 21 miles from France at its shortest. To destroy the RAF the LW didnt need to fly to Belfast or anywhere near, if they were to do it, it had to be done over Kent and Sussex.. It would need magical foresight to predict that France would fall without most of France being invaded, and Paris not being involved. The LW mainly destroyed opposition forces by rapidly rolling over their airfields, once an airforce leaves its field behind it is screwed, all its ground crews and spares are captured or on the move with everyone else.
 

pbehn

Lieutenant Colonel
11,888
8,376
Oct 30, 2013
Wehrmacht did you mean i think Blitzkrieg and the role of the luftwaffe etc.
Sorry, yes of course. Aviation discussions discuss aircraft fighting each other, but they are both parts of a military that are fighting. The LW took large losses in its bombers invading Belgium and France, but that was in the process of routing all opposition over running Belgium and forcing a French surrender in weeks, easily worth the price paid. Around half of Hurricanes lost were destroyed on the ground, but that was by both sides, those the LW hadnt destroyed that couldnt fly because they werent airworthy or had no pilot were destroyed by their own side. In a very short space of time after combat started in Belgium there were pilots without planes, planes without pilots and pilots with planes that had no ground crew, fuel or ammunition. All of those are a "win" for the LW without them being shot down.
 

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,851
3,630
Apr 3, 2008
The RAF confronted almost every raid on UK airspace at the coast. That is only 21 miles from France at its shortest. To destroy the RAF the LW didnt need to fly to Belfast or anywhere near, if they were to do it, it had to be done over Kent and Sussex..
Apparently the Luftwaffe was of opinion that their job was not just to destroy the RAF in the air, they were also trying to bomb factories and air bases.

It would need magical foresight to predict that France would fall without most of France being invaded, and Paris not being involved.

If France is still fighting, LW needs the drop tanks on 109s even more.

The LW mainly destroyed opposition forces by rapidly rolling over their airfields, once an airforce leaves its field behind it is screwed, all its ground crews and spares are captured or on the move with everyone else.

LW rolled over the opposition's airfields, thus destroying the opposition forces?
Damn, those aircraft with iron crosses and swastikas were very lethal.
 

Users who are viewing this thread