A German "Zero" in 1940

I'll defer to british sensibilities and change the wording to "superb allied trainning program" The brits were not yet the poor cousins in the special relashionship back than...
 
The first weeks of Battle of Britain, before the Germans switched from fighting for air superiority to bombing civilian targets, almost wore down the RAF. At the start the Germans had c1000 Bf109 and 300Bf110. (about 80% of wich avaiable for missions) If the 110 had never existed, that would mean a force of 1500 single seat fighters (a bf 110 cost a lot more than a 109) with a trainning program adjusted for that number. No twins means more singles, but also more single seater pilots!
A lot of Bf 109 were lost on the return trip, short on fuel. It's a lot easier to dogfight if you don't have to keep an eye on the fuel gauge all the time.
Even if we're just talking about He112s, anything would have been better than the Bf110.
This of course assuming that the RAF really was in trouble before the Germans switched to city bombing...
Of course, that would, latter, if they lost anyway, made getting a nightfigther force operational much harder.


the me-109's kill ratio wasn't superior enough where an extra couple of hundred aircraft would have made a difference; that's the point
 
1. Fine program, plenty of pilots from late 40 onwards, not producing combat trained spitfire pilots in August 1940...
2. Teaching people to fly is easy. The OCU have the hard job of turning them into combat pilots, and it was that job the germans could not do in later war years.
3. The RAF could allways retreat northwards, preserve strengh, and came back in force later. Would that later be quick enough to prevent an invasion? Maybe yes, maybe not...

Put it this way: assume the Germans have degraded No 11 Group to such an extent that it is effectively hors de combat. Likewise assume that Chain Home has been hit and degraded, and that Nos. 10, 12 and 13 Groups are being kept too busy on their own patch to do much good in 11 Groups Area of Operations.

In addition to achieving and maintaining this situation (which is well beyond what they managed at any point in OTL), the Germans would have to have sufficient air power spare to strike repeatedly at the Royal Navy, and keep it out of the picture, to be able to even consider the unmentionable sea mammal. And if they aren't in a position to consider said sea mammal, any temporary success over 11 Group is just that; they will in due course be out-produced in both aircraft and pilots.
 
the Germans would have to have sufficient air power spare to strike repeatedly at the Royal Navy, and keep it out of the picture, to be able to even consider the unmentionable sea mammal. And if they aren't in a position to consider said sea mammal, any temporary success over 11 Group is just that; they will in due course be out-produced in both aircraft and pilots.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. The Luftwaffe could do a lot of damage to a RN counter invasion force, but if an invasion was going on the RN would be willing to take near suicidal losses to stop german reinforcments crossing. If the evacuation of Crete is an example, some ships would get through, and even a couple of cruisers and a few destroyers would cripple a transport fleet. (And nobody had night air attack capability against ships on the move back then, so they could move closer at night)
The best "invasion of England" plan was Milch proposal for a surprise airborne assault just after dunkirk, and even that had risks that make Market Garden look sensible.
Sea Lion was allways going to be very hazardous, but a win in the first weeks of Battle of Britain would give the Luftwaffe the option of a more devastinting, unopposed Blitz.
 
CalBear;4592397 It has always puzzled me why the USAAF didn't just break down and grab the F4U in early 1943. It was having trouble with deck qualification so it wasn't going to cripple the fleet if it was diverted said:
Probably because the war between the USAAF andthe USN was prosecuted with only slightly less priority than that against the Luftwaffe, the Japanese and the RAF....:rolleyes::rolleyes::D
 
Even temporary air superiority over Southeastern England won't make the unmentionable sea mammal possible.
 
Probably because the war between the USAAF andthe USN was prosecuted with only slightly less priority than that against the Luftwaffe, the Japanese and the RAF....:rolleyes::rolleyes::D


One of the reasons the P-47 was replaced by the P-51 was cost.

The P-47 wasn't much cheaper then the P-38, which was twice the cost of the P-51. IIRC the Corsair wasn't much cheaper then the P-47.

Might also have something to do with production capabilities and maybe R-2800 shortages.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
One of the reasons the P-47 was replaced by the P-51 was cost.

The P-47 wasn't much cheaper then the P-38, which was twice the cost of the P-51. IIRC the Corsair wasn't much cheaper then the P-47.

Might also have something to do with production capabilities and maybe R-2800 shortages.


Cost might make sense except for that the cost of a B-17 far exceeded that of a F4U. Production shouldn't be that much of an issue since Goodyear was building F4Us (as the FG-1) in addtion to Vought and Curtiss was building P-47s. Seems that having Curtiss build Corsairs instead wouldn't have been that much of a stretch.

Since both the Corsair and the 'Bolt used the same engine and the Corsair was at least the equal of the P-47 in the ground attack role with the bonus of the Corsair having an extra 400 miles in range with tanks (which = escort as deep as Berlin) the engine issue seems to be moot.
 
The P-47 was the most-produced fighter in US service. It was faster than the F4U, particularly at altitude. The question of range is variable with the Corsair, depending on wing tank fitment and number of drop tanks. The P-47 was only cleared at one time for 75 gallon tanks, but 108 gallon paper tanks were used anyway. The Corsair suffered more operational non-combat losses than combat losses. They solved the terrible stall problem on one wing by making the good wing stall badly also. "Winkle" Brown test flew the Corsair and noted that it was not as fast as reported, and handled poorly.

In addition, the Jug sounds kinda neat,as did the P-38, what with running the exhaust through the turbo.

xp47j05.png
 
Cost might make sense except for that the cost of a B-17 far exceeded that of a F4U. Production shouldn't be that much of an issue since Goodyear was building F4Us (as the FG-1) in addtion to Vought and Curtiss was building P-47s. Seems that having Curtiss build Corsairs instead wouldn't have been that much of a stretch.

Since both the Corsair and the 'Bolt used the same engine and the Corsair was at least the equal of the P-47 in the ground attack role with the bonus of the Corsair having an extra 400 miles in range with tanks (which = escort as deep as Berlin) the engine issue seems to be moot.


You're not making much sense to me regarding the comparison of a strategic bomber to a fighter. :confused:
 
You're not making much sense to me regarding the comparison of a strategic bomber to a fighter. :confused:

I think the point is that the B-17 was produced in thousands upon thousands - so it wasn't as though US production was particularly limited, either in materials or cost, when selecting a fighter for mass production.
 

Bearcat

Banned
Remember the F4U was absolutely fucking deadly.

Unfortunately, it was deadly to its own green pilots, too. IIRC one of it's nicknames was the "Ensign Eliminator". And that was not ALL about carrier approaches.

The Jug was a ridiculous looking aircraft. Way too big for a fighter, most pilots of the era thought. Until they flew in it. then most of them seemed to revel in the power.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You're not making much sense to me regarding the comparison of a strategic bomber to a fighter. :confused:

Let me try it like this -

B-17 Heavy Bomber with ten man crew Cost (without crew) $238,000 1943 dollars

Cost of F4U - $55,000 1945 dollars (BTW: the P-51 was $51,000 1945 dollars)

Presence of three or four F4U at $165-220,000 (or even 3-4 $85,000 P-47 if it had the range) mean that the $238,000 dollar bomber comes home way more often, along with its crew.

The ROI is pretty spectacular.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The P-47 was the most-produced fighter in US service. It was faster than the F4U, particularly at altitude. The question of range is variable with the Corsair, depending on wing tank fitment and number of drop tanks. The P-47 was only cleared at one time for 75 gallon tanks, but 108 gallon paper tanks were used anyway. The Corsair suffered more operational non-combat losses than combat losses. They solved the terrible stall problem on one wing by making the good wing stall badly also. "Winkle" Brown test flew the Corsair and noted that it was not as fast as reported, and handled poorly.

In addition, the Jug sounds kinda neat,as did the P-38, what with running the exhaust through the turbo.

The P-47 was a fine aircraft, tough as hell, and deadly in the hands of a pilot who understood its strengths and weaknesses. I personally love the damned monster, which puts me in a bad position in countering any praise for the plane. However...

The Corsair was the equal of the P-47 in dog fighting (see Robert S Johnson's autobiography Thunderbolt! where he details mock dog fights with F4U during Stateside training), and there are any number of pilots who stated that the Corsair handled beautifully, not to mention the number of Japanese pilots, flying extremely agile aircraft who found themselves second best in ACM in encounters with the Corsair.

Range is always a variable, but the Corsair had the advantage of being some 3,500 pounds lighter than the P-47 with the same engine. That equals greater range, as was demonstrated time and again.

The question I raised is not whether the P-47 was an excellent aircraft, it was. If the P-47N, with its 2,000 mile range, had been available when the escort was needed there would be no question that it would have been the way to go. The question is simply why the USAAF would allow massive losses to Luftwaffe fighters due to the Jug's range limitations when an alternative was available.

Simply seems wasteful.
 
Wiki lists the price of an F6F Hellcat at $35,000 in 1945 dollars. That makes it cheaper than the P-40 which was just about the cheapest. How come Navy aircraft costs so much less than USAAF aircraft? Is it because they don't include GFE like engines, guns and radio's?

In the Pacific, Corsairs often had P-38's flying top cover. The Corsair was optimized for 20,000 feet. The P-47 was set for 10,000 feet higher. Germans liked to attack with altitude advantage.

What's this got to do with German Zekes?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Wiki lists the price of an F6F Hellcat at $35,000 in 1945 dollars. That makes it cheaper than the P-40 which was just about the cheapest. How come Navy aircraft costs so much less than USAAF aircraft? Is it because they don't include GFE like engines, guns and radio's?

In the Pacific, Corsairs often had P-38's flying top cover. The Corsair was optimized for 20,000 feet. The P-47 was set for 10,000 feet higher. Germans liked to attack with altitude advantage.

What's this got to do with German Zekes?

Nothing.:D

That issue has, as usual, long since been lost.
 
To bring this thread back on topic, the Zero had a propellor spinner. The Nakajima Ki-44 was delayed while the aerodynamics around the cowling, including the spinner, were modified for best performance. The FW-190 derived great speed from it's close cowl and spinner. The Hawker Tempest II got a beautiful spinner, as did the Lavochkin series of fighters. Of American aircraft, the XP-42 was used to develop a ducted cowling which failed in three forms, and was used eventually to test.........spinners. Eventually, the 311 mph P-37 was morphed into the 340 mph XP-42, in 1943. The aircraft eventually tested the solid tailplane, the all-moving stabilator, as used on the Bell X-1, in 1945. Air-racing Corsairs and Bearcats used spinners. A Wildcat with a properly designed spinner and cowling might easily have exceeded 350 mph.

Why didn't American aircraft use spinners?

Vought Corsair.png
 
Top