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

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

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.



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



LW rolled over the opposition's airfields, thus destroying the opposition forces?
Damn, those aircraft with iron crosses and swastikas were very lethal.
Yes if. What you are discussing is what might have been needed, if France had not surrendered, but they did. My original point was that anyone in 1940 would need magical foresight to predict that France would be over run in weeks. How many strategic raids on French industry were made during the Battle of France?
 
Yes if. What you are discussing is what might have been needed, if France had not surrendered, but they did.
I don't understand the 1st sentence.
Our exchange started with your claim that "Drop tanks were not needed in the Battle of Britain" - to what I disagreed and still am, the drop tanks were much needed for the BoB for the LW's Bf 109s.

My original point was that anyone in 1940 would need magical foresight to predict that France would be over run in weeks.

This is another premise that I disagree with - France still in the ring increases the need for the drop-tank-outfitted 109s.

How many strategic raids on French industry were made during the Battle of France?

Luftwaffe was fighting against one major AF, two minor AFs, and part of a big AF in the decisive 30 days of late Spring of 1940, while giving the support to the Army. They were winning, their opponents either surrenderring or on the run. Attacks on French industry was well down on the priority list vs. what would be the case with LW fighting just the French AF, while the ground war is static.
 
I don't understand the 1st sentence.
Our exchange started with your claim that "Drop tanks were not needed in the Battle of Britain" - to what I disagreed and still am, the drop tanks were much needed for the BoB for the LW's Bf 109s.

This is another premise that I disagree with - France still in the ring increases the need for the drop-tank-outfitted 109s.
I will answer your point second in bold first. You are correct, France still in the ring increases the need for drop tanks, but France wasnt in the ring, and no one predicted that, I dont think anyone anywhere considered it at all. That is my point, all thinking was based on any German attack being held at the Maginot line, even though the Maginot line didnt stretch across all of France.

In the Battle of Britain what would drop tanks be useful for? The LW didnt need drop tanks to reach 11 group airfields and they had a massive superiority in numbers across the Pas de Calais.
 
In the Battle of Britain what would drop tanks be useful for? The LW didnt need drop tanks to reach 11 group airfields and they had a massive superiority in numbers across the Pas de Calais.
RAF FC was much more than the Group 11, and list of Luftwaffe targets was far greater than the Group 11 airfields.
 
RAF FC was much more than the Group 11, and list of Luftwaffe targets was far greater than the Group 11 airfields.
Yes I know, but if they wipe out 11 group and its planes and pilots what do the RAF do, send in forces from other groups or pull back? As it was the LW ran out of bombers before they were anywhere near running out of fighters and they hadnt put any airfields out of action or forced them to be abandoned. In terms of conducting a strategic war of attrition, they didnt have the equipment or the intel.
 
Cost of drop tanks wasn't necessarily a major factor, but logistics was an issue in various places at various times. It was a challenge to get sufficient drop tanks of the right type to the right place at the right time. The P-47 was designed to take a droppable conformal "Ferry tank", but for doctrinal reason wasn't programmed to regularly use droptanks on combat missions, and no combat droptanks were initially designed for the plane. Once the P-47 was earmarked for bomber escort, it became urgent to equip th P-47 with the biggest tanks that could be found. Failure to plan ahead meant that there were always issues as the types available didn't match the missions programmed. (P-47s in New Guinea didn't have this problem. General Kenney, the head of the Fifth Air Force there, had his staff design a droptank for the P-47 that was custom manufactured at an auto plant in Australia on a rush basis. As such. Kenney had good droptanks in remote New Guinea before the 8th Air Force had them in England.) Though all of the P-38s that were combat-ready could take droptanks, the combat bases weren't necessarily stocked with them. F4Fs at Guadalcanal usually flew with a tank under 1 wing. This was both because of shortages of tanks and the fact that the F4F with 2 tanks climbed like a pig. The F6F was designed with a custom-made 230 external fuselage tank, but there was a running modification to take a 150 gallon tank under each wing. The Navy standardized on the 150 gallon tank as its standard tank and it was used on F6F, F4U, F7F, and I believe occasionally on TBM and SB2C bombers. A self-sealing variant of the 150 gallon tank was designed for the F4U subtypes that had their built-in wing tanks removed. It was designed to be retained in combat. We had a thread in this forum where none of us could find any sign that it was ever used in combat though, at least not in WWII.
 
In the Battle of Britain what would drop tanks be useful for? The LW didnt need drop tanks to reach 11 group airfields and they had a massive superiority in numbers across the Pas de Calais.
You are completely right. Luftwaffe plans did not require attacks on the RAF, its aircraft or infrastructure to be conducted beyond the range of the 109 (except on 15th August when they attempted to attack Bomber Command targets in the NE and Yorkshire). They could quite happily fly escorted raids as far north as Debden, Duxford and North Weald etc., basically any airfields that could send defensive sorties to the south east corner of England. There is a myth that the 109s ran out of fuel before reaching London based mainly on accounts of the major raids on London on 7th and 15th September. On these occasions poor planning and the sheer scale of the attacks meant the fighters fuel was wasted in forming up with their bombers which could take as much as 30-40 minutes... no wonder the 109s had to break off early under those circumstances.
 
You are completely right. Luftwaffe plans did not require attacks on the RAF, its aircraft or infrastructure to be conducted beyond the range of the 109 (except on 15th August when they attempted to attack Bomber Command targets in the NE and Yorkshire). They could quite happily fly escorted raids as far north as Debden, Duxford and North Weald etc., basically any airfields that could send defensive sorties to the south east corner of England. There is a myth that the 109s ran out of fuel before reaching London based mainly on accounts of the major raids on London on 7th and 15th September. On these occasions poor planning and the sheer scale of the attacks meant the fighters fuel was wasted in forming up with their bombers which could take as much as 30-40 minutes... no wonder the 109s had to break off early under those circumstances.
Agreed, and on those attacks on London they were labouring into extremely high and rare headwinds.
 
Cost of drop tanks wasn't necessarily a major factor, but logistics was an issue in various places at various times. It was a challenge to get sufficient drop tanks of the right type to the right place at the right time. The P-47 was designed to take a droppable conformal "Ferry tank", but for doctrinal reason wasn't programmed to regularly use droptanks on combat missions, and no combat droptanks were initially designed for the plane. Once the P-47 was earmarked for bomber escort, it became urgent to equip th P-47 with the biggest tanks that could be found. Failure to plan ahead meant that there were always issues as the types available didn't match the missions programmed. (P-47s in New Guinea didn't have this problem. General Kenney, the head of the Fifth Air Force there, had his staff design a droptank for the P-47 that was custom manufactured at an auto plant in Australia on a rush basis. As such. Kenney had good droptanks in remote New Guinea before the 8th Air Force had them in England.) Though all of the P-38s that were combat-ready could take droptanks, the combat bases weren't necessarily stocked with them. F4Fs at Guadalcanal usually flew with a tank under 1 wing. This was both because of shortages of tanks and the fact that the F4F with 2 tanks climbed like a pig. The F6F was designed with a custom-made 230 external fuselage tank, but there was a running modification to take a 150 gallon tank under each wing. The Navy standardized on the 150 gallon tank as its standard tank and it was used on F6F, F4U, F7F, and I believe occasionally on TBM and SB2C bombers. A self-sealing variant of the 150 gallon tank was designed for the F4U subtypes that had their built-in wing tanks removed. It was designed to be retained in combat. We had a thread in this forum where none of us could find any sign that it was ever used in combat though, at least not in WWII.
Another factor in logistics is drop tanks are fragile, use a lot of aluminium for a single use and take up a huge amount of space with no weight. Probably easier to transport and store 2,000 gallons of fuel than the drop tanks 2,000 gallons would fill.
 
Or the need for drop tanks is more obvious and use of drop tanks is much easier in 2022 than it was between 1940 and 44

I will not discuss the merits of the drop tanks further in this thread. Cheers.
 
Probably not, or at least not for a year or two after France falls (if it does). As it was, the Luftwaffe expended an 'entire air force' worth of airframes between Poland and France. If France had not fallen when it did there would have been no lull in the fighting to give the Luftwaffe time to rebuild for the coming BoB.
 
In the Battle of Britain what would drop tanks be useful for? The LW didnt need drop tanks to reach 11 group airfields and they had a massive superiority in numbers across the Pas de Calais.

Increased combat radius puts more targets within escorted range. Drop tanks provide more loiter time over shorter distances.
 
Increased combat radius puts more targets within escorted range. Drop tanks provide more loiter time over shorter distances.
In fact the LW went the other way, instead of putting drop tanks on theu put bombs on and a Bf 109 could and did drop bombs on London for much of October from high altitude, extremely difficult to stop.
 
No, primary factor was stupidity. For example Soviets used drop tanks in late Winter War.
The primary factor was it wasn't in the requirement. And why would AMT add it to a point defense fighter. Expecting Germans to incorporate lessons of Winter War into their single engine fighters when they had twin fighters for that expressed purpose is too much hindsight.
2nd was when the engine had less than 700hp, tacking on the extra drag/weight of drop tank made the fighter uncompetitive against peers. Even the extra structure/wing area makes it unable to do its primary task. When Jumo 210 has been replaced with DB601 and that there is extra capability, you can commence initiatives to take advantage. But the logistics to change plumbing in aircraft and provide materiel (drop tanks) takes time.
3rd until BoB, there hadn't been any need. Not everyone's crystal ball was perfect.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back