Why the heck did they design it that way?

[pbehn]

Horses may have been of little use in a cross country cavalry charge but EVERY European power except England relied on horses for the movement of goods on public roads and their armies relied on them for the movement of guns and supplies whenever and wherever the railroads could not be relied on or were overloaded.

Yes but only on clear road and highways, theoretically a horse can go anywhere, but by 1939 they were restricted to the roads.

 

[Shortround6]

There were 113,000 universal carriers produced, how many have been seen in a WW2 movie? 26,00 Lloyd carriers too. There were 3 time as many Jeeps produced but 100 times more appeared in movies.

The British army was fully motorised before the war. That is motorised and not mechanized.
2 things.
1 Mechanized means tracks, motorised means wheeled vehicles.
2. fully motorised does not mean everybody had a ride. Infantry walked/marched but all supplies, artillery and support equipment had wheeled vehicles with a smattering of tracked thrown in. It means horses were no longer used as prime movers.

 

[Shortround6]

Yes but only on clear road and highways, theoretically a horse can go anywhere, but by 1939 they were restricted to the roads.

The bulk of the German army that attacked Poland and later France was horse drawn. Much of the Italian Army was horse drawn, not the part that went to Africa.
Few of those horse drawn wagons or larger artillery pieces were going very far off road with horse traction even if there was no barbed wire or fences.
A large part of the French army was horse drawn.

 

[pbehn]

The bulk of the German army that attacked Poland and later France was horse drawn. Much of the Italian Army was horse drawn, not the part that went to Africa.
Few of those horse drawn wagons or larger artillery pieces were going very far off road with horse traction even if there was no barbed wire or fences.
A large part of the French army was horse drawn.

I was mainly discussing scouting and civilian movement, not even exclusively by horse. Fencing off of fields meant that roads had to be used.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Ok, I'll bite, and it's not about horse power, but the usual suspects.

Meaning the bf 109 and the Spitfire, though as both were among the few making it all through the war, it's hardly surprising they get discussed a lot. And though their late war merits can be debated (that at least should be evidenced by countless threads), looking at the time before the appearance of the Fw 190 they tower above practically everything else (a not altogether unproblematic statement, but at least in raw performance they seem to have no early equal. Thus, as an aside, I do believe the Spitfire mk I to have a good speed for the power available). But in comparing the two, it is interesting to note some rare features they had in common, but that few later found it worth copying.

What i am thinking about in this context is the arrangement of radiators under the wings. To be sure Messerschmitt used it on the 110 and on later designs, but apart from those, from what I can recall right now, only the Re 2001 had a similar arrangement, though I look forward to get a listing of the several designs I'm certain I'm overlooking here, preferably with pictures, thanks in advance. However, this common feature of two top fighters never became anything near standard throughout the world of fighter aircraft, and i would be very interested in hearing the rest of the forums opinions on the pros and cons of this arrangement?

Should anybody think that's not enough on their plate, i can throw in the annular radiators known from a few allied, but many German designs, the Ju 88 family, He 219 and Fw 190D springs to mind. In some previous thread the arrangement was deemed not very efficient in cooling for the price paid in drag, and I'm wondering if it was mostly the ease of interchangability between radials and in-line on the same basic airframe, and that it was the easiest way to find/make room for it?

I'm looking forward to yet another round of messerspit bashing...

 

[fastmongrel]

The Royal Army Service Corps the logistics organization for the army had got rid of it's horses by 1930. By 1934 the Engineers and Signals were fully motorised. The Artillery in 1934 was mostly motorised apart from a small number of mountain howitzer batteries and Territorial 18pounder batteries. Experments were carried out throughout the 30s with motorised infantry the Durham Light Infantry being the cheif guinea pigs, these experiments led to the new 1937 pattern Battle Dress and webbing system which allowed men to sit more comfortably and not get hung on their equipment when entering or leaving a vehicle.

 

[pbehn]

Need I point out that the UK is an Island group, getting horses anywhere even across the channel is a nightmare.

 

[wuzak]

Ok, I'll bite, and it's not about horse power, but the usual suspects.

Meaning the bf 109 and the Spitfire, though as both were among the few making it all through the war, it's hardly surprising they get discussed a lot. And though their late war merits can be debated (that at least should be evidenced by countless threads), looking at the time before the appearance of the Fw 190 they tower above practically everything else (a not altogether unproblematic statement, but at least in raw performance they seem to have no early equal. Thus, as an aside, I do believe the Spitfire mk I to have a good speed for the power available). But in comparing the two, it is interesting to note some rare features they had in common, but that few later found it worth copying.

What i am thinking about in this context is the arrangement of radiators under the wings. To be sure Messerschmitt used it on the 110 and on later designs, but apart from those, from what I can recall right now, only the Re 2001 had a similar arrangement, though I look forward to get a listing of the several designs I'm certain I'm overlooking here, preferably with pictures, thanks in advance. However, this common feature of two top fighters never became anything near standard throughout the world of fighter aircraft, and i would be very interested in hearing the rest of the forums opinions on the pros and cons of this arrangement?

Should anybody think that's not enough on their plate, i can throw in the annular radiators known from a few allied, but many German designs, the Ju 88 family, He 219 and Fw 190D springs to mind. In some previous thread the arrangement was deemed not very efficient in cooling for the price paid in drag, and I'm wondering if it was mostly the ease of interchangability between radials and in-line on the same basic airframe, and that it was the easiest way to find/make room for it?

I'm looking forward to yet another round of messerspit bashing...

The Spiteful had a radiator layout similar to the 109's - shallow profile, but wide, and on the trailing edge of the wing.

The Spitfire's radiator problems revolved around the area of the inlet and outlet compared with each other and the radiator matrix, and the outlet flap, which was used to control the air flow through the radiator, having only 2 positions (at least on early versions).

Napier experimented with an annular radiator for the Sabre late in the war and the immediate post war. It was more sophisticated than the ones used by the Germans, I believe.

The Merlin XX power egg was designed to replace the Hercules on the Beaufighter. It contained the radiator, and oil coolers (?), so it was a direct swap.

If you ever see the pictures of the XB-38 (V-1710 powered B-17) without its cowling, you can see how much room a liquid cooled V12 has when fitted to a nacelle designed for a radial. It had space for all the coolers, but strangely they only used it for the intercooler (despite the B-17 already having an intercooler in the nacelle) and used the leading edge between the engines on the wing for the radiators.

 

[pbehn]

The Merlin XX power egg was designed to replace the Hercules on the Beaufighter. It contained the radiator, and oil coolers (?), so it was a direct swap.
.

I thought the power egg idea was strategic, in case an engine manufacturer was hit?

 

[swampyankee]

E

I was mainly discussing scouting and civilian movement, not even exclusively by horse. Fencing off of fields meant that roads had to be used.

Even if the fields weren't fenced, roads are preferred: they were likely to require less energy, especially to pull a wagon, and the crops in a field would get damaged.

 

[Shortround6]

E

Even if the fields weren't fenced, roads are preferred: they were likely to require less energy, especially to pull a wagon, and the crops in a field would get damaged.

I would note in addition that the roads were usually hard packed or gravel and while a good rain might make a mess of them you are going to get more horse drawn wagons over a road, in part due to the lower rolling resistance/less energy in a period of time than field or meadow that is going to rut very quickly.
There is a reason they built roads from roman times on, if not before.

 

[wuzak]

I thought the power egg idea was strategic, in case an engine manufacturer was hit?

Yes, but more with the delays with Hercules production, and the fear there would not be enough to go around.

 

[yulzari]

The British Army was acutely aware that half of WW1 shipping across the Channel was forage for horses. Not to mention oceanic shipping bringing in horses from as far away as Argentina and Australia. With all the other things to be manufactured in WW2 it was Canadian lorries that kept the British army mechanised. Thank you Canada.

BTW when my father joined the Royal Signals in the mid 1930's they were still using horse drawn wagons for line laying and the GS wagon was still being used for assorted minor tasks.

 

[MiTasol]

I note that the only reference for his assertion is "I think I read in a book once".

I have just purchased the replacement book I have been looking for. I had been searching for Guns of the RAF when I should have been searching for Guns of the Royal Air Force by GF Wallace - the book description is Hardcover Publisher: William Kimber and Co. Limited., London, 1972 Used - Fine. Size: Medium 8vo. 221pp.; includes dustjacket (AVIATION. MILITARY HISTORY. SECOND WORLD WAR. RAF.)

With luck it will reach Australia within 2 or 4 days (the usual from the USA). After that tracking will become meaningless until it is delivered. My last book from the same vendor took 12 days after clearing customs in Sydney giving it an average travel speed of under 150 km (100 miles) per day, pretty fast for non-CBD mail in Australia.

 

[David Fred]

I would verry much like to hear everyones thoughts on design on issues pertaining to a particular plane that kept ok planes from being good, good planes from being great, and great planes from being darn near perfect( or at least as close to it as could be humanly expected at the time of its design). The obvious picks for me are two great planes that could have been darn near perfect , the Bf109 and the spitfire, both for the same two issues. Those being the narrow undercarriage and limited fuel capacity. I'm sure there are many examples so " why the heck did they design it that way"

The undercarriage bit, especially, and on the Spitfire, especially. With that thin wing, you would have thought you'd want the fat wheel inboard, on the thickest part of the wing.

Fuel capacity.
Well, we know the Spitfire was designed as a point interceptor, a defensive fighter, so less range, less fuel, less weight, more speed, better rate of climb, etc.
And both were tactical, rather than Strategic weapons. The bomber would always get through (Sir Hugh Trenchard) so no need for escort fighters. Just need masses of short range fighters to shoot down as many bombers as possible of the enemies.
That conflict in thinking has always bothered me.
MY bombers will always get through, so I need no escorts, but I can build fighters so the enemy CAN'T get through with HIS bombers.
Germany too thought of their aircraft TACTICALLY, to safeguard short range medium bombers, with a forward placement of shorter ranged fighters.
I agree, a conundrum m.

Dave

 

[David Fred]

I would verry much like to hear everyones thoughts on design on issues pertaining to a particular plane that kept ok planes from being good, good planes from being great, and great planes from being darn near perfect( or at least as close to it as could be humanly expected at the time of its design). The obvious picks for me are two great planes that could have been darn near perfect , the Bf109 and the spitfire, both for the same two issues. Those being the narrow undercarriage and limited fuel capacity. I'm sure there are many examples so " why the heck did they design it that way"

There is a good book on British thinking in WW2 and just prior.
Attached image. There are lots of used copies on Amazon. That's where I got mine.

 

[michael rauls]

The undercarriage bit, especially, and on the Spitfire, especially. With that thin wing, you would have thought you'd want the fat wheel inboard, on the thickest part of the wing.

Fuel capacity.
Well, we know the Spitfire was designed as a point interceptor, a defensive fighter, so less range, less fuel, less weight, more speed, better rate of climb, etc.
And both were tactical, rather than Strategic weapons. The bomber would always get through (Sir Hugh Trenchard) so no need for escort fighters. Just need masses of short range fighters to shoot down as many bombers as possible of the enemies.
That conflict in thinking has always bothered me.
MY bombers will always get through, so I need no escorts, but I can build fighters so the enemy CAN'T get through with HIS bombers.
Germany too thought of their aircraft TACTICALLY, to safeguard short range medium bombers, with a forward placement of shorter ranged fighters.
I agree, a conundrum m.

Dave

I never thought of that contradiction in thinking you so aptly point out. Ya if the bomber will always get through then whats with all the interceptors.

 

[michael rauls]

View attachment 503592


There is a good book on British thinking in WW2 and just prior.
Attached image. There are lots of used copies on Amazon. That's where I got mine.

And thanks for the heads up on the book. Looks good and like it might answer quite a few other questions I have about early war and pre war thinking. Several people here have given me some really goog book suggestions. Just got my first delivery of 3 of those yesterday as a matter of fact.

 

[Shortround6]

There was a lot of contradictory thinking going on.

Like,

Lets use a fixed pitch prop on the interceptors so that will save around 200-250lbs on a 5500lb airplane and give us better climb..........

Of course because the pitch on a fixed pitch prop suitable for 350mph is so extreme it means we have to throttle our 3000rpm engine down to no more than 2200rpm (less?) for take-off and limit it to somewhere between 2200rpm and 2400rpm (depending on altitude) when climbing instead of the 2600rpm the engine is rated for max continuous (or at least 1/2 hour) but hey, the lighter weight will make up for the loss in power, right??????????

 

[michael rauls]

There was a lot of contradictory thinking going on.

Like,

Lets use a fixed pitch prop on the interceptors so that will save around 200-250lbs on a 5500lb airplane and give us better climb..........

Of course because the pitch on a fixed pitch prop suitable for 350mph is so extreme it means we have to throttle our 3000rpm engine down to no more than 2200rpm (less?) for take-off and limit it to somewhere between 2200rpm and 2400rpm (depending on altitude) when climbing instead of the 2600rpm the engine is rated for max continuous (or at least 1/2 hour) but hey, the lighter weight will make up for the loss in power, right??????????

Maybe it's just because we have the benefit of hindsight but some of that stuff really does make one wonder about the thought process.
Apparent foot dragging on the deployment of the Me262 is another one that has always puzzled me.