ian hathaway
Recruit
- 5
- Jun 13, 2016
The Luftwaffe had the equipment (see the Ju87R and the Bf109E-7) and technical knowhow they just didn't see the need during July-August 1940 to combine them to give their single seat fighters extra range.
Was cost the primary reason for the scarcity of early war drop tank?
- Thread starter Nodeo-Franvier
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ju 87R was certainly there. The Bf 109E-7 was not.
It is not even present in delivery plan dated July 1st 1940 (for comparison, the Bf 109F is present in the plan, so is the Fw 190).
ian hathaway
Recruit
- 5
- Jun 13, 2016
The E-7 was certainly around during the Battle of Britain... field conversions were carried out on aircraft that were flown from mid-August onwards and production version started to appear a month later. HOWEVER, the emphasis was on their bomb carrying capability rather than drop tanks which fits in with the points being made. The Germans had the technical knowhow and equipment the fit drop tanks but chose not to because they considered the existing range of the 109 to be adequate.
planesoffame.org
Messerschmitt Bf 109E-7 'Emil' | Planes of Fame Air Museum
View our aircraft collection and information about each aircraft.
planesoffame.org
The "paper" tanks came years later (1943, IIRC).
I suspect that production capacity for "high quality" drop tanks was a major obstacle. You design the tanks, etc., etc. You design the tooling. You order the tooling. Weeks later, the tooling shows up--if you're lucky. Production starts, takes time to get rolling, takes time to work out quality problems that are causing serious leaks at the seam, etc., etc. By the time production is going at a useful rate, the Battle of Britain ended a year ago ...
Drop tanks were used on 109s before the BoB ended.
Ju 87s used these even before BoB started.
Shortround6
Major General
Yes that is a drop tank.
As is this
True, but there are big differences between "We have drop tanks," "We have enough drop tanks for every Bf109," and "We have enough production capacity for every Bf109 to drop its tank every mission.
Aside from the cost of setting up production (which is significant), throwing away drop tank like that is very expensive for a country with a shortage of aluminum.
Far less is the difference between these 3 conditions, than between these and 'We don't need any stinkin' drop tanks for the Bf 109s because of ... reasons'.
Japan was making drop tanks for a shooting war in late 1939s, so was Germany for the Spanish Civil was (for He 51s and Hs 123s). for crying out loud.
If Germans don't like throwing around aluminum, make the drop tanks of steel or wood.
Stating that drop tanks are a waste of aluminum is short-sighted - making, using and dropping of drop tanks is a far better use of resources than looking the burning wrecks of He 111s, Ju 88s, 87s, Do 17s meeting their fate across the UK and North Sea. It also does not take into account that each aircraft lost due to lack of good escort means that it's crew is lost for good.
Quickly adds up with many thousands of sorties in a campaign.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
In SCW the Germans were using drop tanks as fire bombs, so they had a history of disposable drop tanks.
At different points of WW2 different nations facing shortages of drop tanks wired them on to prevent the pilot from punching them off in combat. This plagued both sides in the Pacific, maybe not ETO.
At different points of WW2 different nations facing shortages of drop tanks wired them on to prevent the pilot from punching them off in combat. This plagued both sides in the Pacific, maybe not ETO.
