Captain Lowell Smith and Lt. JP Richter with DB-4 did multiple aerial refueling to fly from Washington DC to Tijuana, Mexico in October 1923
Airborne refuelling before WW2
- Thread starter Julius Vogel
- Start date
Captain Lowell Smith and Lt. JP Richter with DB-4 did multiple aerial refueling to fly from Washington DC to Tijuana, Mexico in October 1923
So I guess in summary from the OP's question it could easily have been done. As now with twin engines or in a different set-up with single engines. Question is what it takes to make it happen?
Here is a suggestion that comes in three flavors:
1: A rumor that the Germans have long-ranged in flight refueling capable torpedo bombers
Scares the British a bit and beefs up AA defenses and maybe leads to development of their own in flight refueling capable forces (including fighters?) and hence a faster win in the atlantic and an earlier effective daylight bombing campaign perhaps.
2: Were the rumor is true. The Germans wants this approach for deterring opposition to their iron ore transport and Raeder therefore cannot get support for the Kriegsmarine heavies. Then you have the payment for a German wing as well.
3: Were the rumor is true and not picked up. Really dangerous in the Atlantic post fall of France I guess.
Really nice German wank pod, but not what you looked for?
Here is a suggestion that comes in three flavors:
1: A rumor that the Germans have long-ranged in flight refueling capable torpedo bombers
Scares the British a bit and beefs up AA defenses and maybe leads to development of their own in flight refueling capable forces (including fighters?) and hence a faster win in the atlantic and an earlier effective daylight bombing campaign perhaps.
2: Were the rumor is true. The Germans wants this approach for deterring opposition to their iron ore transport and Raeder therefore cannot get support for the Kriegsmarine heavies. Then you have the payment for a German wing as well.
3: Were the rumor is true and not picked up. Really dangerous in the Atlantic post fall of France I guess.
Really nice German wank pod, but not what you looked for?
Ian_W
Banned
Easily countered by Hurricats ... which were develped because German aircraft were able to hit british shipping out of range of land based fighter cover.
Extending the range of German aircraft therefore does nothing.
Mid-air refueling doesn't seem to have been given serious consideration by anyone during the war, despite the earlier experiments, and the potential of it. That has me thinking there must have been good practical reasons for mid-air refueling to not have been used.
Hmm, 15 posts and I get to be the first to suggest mid-air refueling for the Battle of Britain? You guys are slipping!Germany could have also sent medium bombers and Me-110s out into the Eastern Atlantic.
not mid-air refueling but Germans had at least prototypes of towed fuel tank of 3,000 litres (660 gallons)
I have not, but I shall now, thank you for the link.
So it seems that we have a rough consensus, that the most likely and practical use for Britain initially is ocean surveillance / ASW. If we assume several years of escalating usage to say 41-42, would it be right to assume we should see the technology rolling out further, or would that be a bit fast?
What would the Germans do? Assuming they don't capture any examples, would they be likely to try and run their own programme?
Mid air refuelling for the Battle of Britain. Hmm. First thought, over the channel, in reach of British radar and fighter sweeps? How much fun would be being bounced while in mid- refuelling not be?
The only feasibly safe place is over home base- the 109's spiral up to operational altitude and then fill up, replacing the fuel they burnt off on the climb and leaving them with full tanks at thirty thousand feet.
I have only a vague idea how much of its' total nine hundred pound(ish) fuel load an E series 109 would use climbing to that height- a frighteningly large fraction, but details? At any rate, nearest round number, you're looking at two He111 based tankers per staffel- one could do it but you'd need the redundancy for malfunctions and cockups.
If my wild guess of about a third of fuel used to reach altitude is correct, you could be looking at escorted strikes as far inland as the rough arc Ipswich- Cambridge-Oxford-Portsmouth; how much does this really get you, when bombers are already scarce enough?
The one thing it does do is deprive Dowding of the option of retreat; there isn't a safe zone north of London any more. Which he never needed to do anyway, but...
It does make intruder operations later in the war nastily more practical, though- enough to tip the doctrine?
And yes, I was wrongly optimistic about the in service dates of the B-29. Complicated beast, that- adding in flight refuelling would only make it worse, too.
The only feasibly safe place is over home base- the 109's spiral up to operational altitude and then fill up, replacing the fuel they burnt off on the climb and leaving them with full tanks at thirty thousand feet.
I have only a vague idea how much of its' total nine hundred pound(ish) fuel load an E series 109 would use climbing to that height- a frighteningly large fraction, but details? At any rate, nearest round number, you're looking at two He111 based tankers per staffel- one could do it but you'd need the redundancy for malfunctions and cockups.
If my wild guess of about a third of fuel used to reach altitude is correct, you could be looking at escorted strikes as far inland as the rough arc Ipswich- Cambridge-Oxford-Portsmouth; how much does this really get you, when bombers are already scarce enough?
The one thing it does do is deprive Dowding of the option of retreat; there isn't a safe zone north of London any more. Which he never needed to do anyway, but...
It does make intruder operations later in the war nastily more practical, though- enough to tip the doctrine?
And yes, I was wrongly optimistic about the in service dates of the B-29. Complicated beast, that- adding in flight refuelling would only make it worse, too.
I'd be very wary indeed about inflight refuelling of fighters (even drop tanks are a bit dodgy) - fighters really are weight critical when it comes to performance. Adding extra fuel gives them the range, but if it's at the cost of them being a complete dog when they start fighting then you may well be able to escort a strike on Duxford, but if half the aircraft get shot down over Kent on the way in then you can't keep it up for very long.
The Mustang was a very much bigger aircraft than an Me-109 (over 50% heavier empty, 60% greater max takeoff weight) and even they relied on not having to fight until a lot of weight had been burned off. Remembering that refuelling probes are heavy themselves (perhaps 10% of the empty weight of an Me-109 - and worse the engine means it has to be on the wingtip, where it has the biggest impact on moment of inertia and hence roll rate), it isn't clear to me at all that the modified aircraft would have much of an impact. The Germans already had a long-range fighter in the Me-110, but due to the large weight and slow roll rate it needed single-seat escorts itself - and you risk doing the same to the -109s if you try and make them capable of aerial refuelling.
The Mustang was a very much bigger aircraft than an Me-109 (over 50% heavier empty, 60% greater max takeoff weight) and even they relied on not having to fight until a lot of weight had been burned off. Remembering that refuelling probes are heavy themselves (perhaps 10% of the empty weight of an Me-109 - and worse the engine means it has to be on the wingtip, where it has the biggest impact on moment of inertia and hence roll rate), it isn't clear to me at all that the modified aircraft would have much of an impact. The Germans already had a long-range fighter in the Me-110, but due to the large weight and slow roll rate it needed single-seat escorts itself - and you risk doing the same to the -109s if you try and make them capable of aerial refuelling.
Well, in the original scenario, it was more that Britain has a small programme in place, that is extended not cancelled. The German effort would be a reaction to this programme, so I don't imagine they'd quickly have much in the way of success.
What SAC found useful was having B-52s take off with full bombloads, but light on gas, and would fill up once airborne.
Less stress on airframes and engines.
In a WWII sense, most WWII bombers could not take off with max bombloads with full fueltanks. Few super long runways existed to allow that.
Refueling would allow much larger bombloads be carried for much longer distances, even if refueled right above the airfield they took off from
Not exactly true. Depends on what planes would be using the option. Against the arctic convoys there were tremendous problems with land based He-111 and JU-88's.
The planes not only sank a lot of ships, but they also meant the British did not risk having their heavies within range. Together with the Tirpitz threat they ended up make the allies cancelling the convoys in the summer.
Ian_W
Banned
*bright smile*
So, given Hurricats were the solution to German long-ranged air, how does German access to aerial refueling for their bombers help this ?
Additionally, people willing to pay attention to what other than their favorite side were doing will note that the business of moving stuff from the Western Allies to the Soviets was moved from the Murmansk route to via Persia and Vladivosktok, both of which were well outside the range of even refuelling-assisted German air.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Basically in a Airborne Refulled WW2 the Luftwaffe would have had to compensate for the utter failure of the U-waffe in the face of extended range Coastal Command aircraft. The solution the Allies would employ would still revolve around convoy routing, to make them as distant targets as possible for as long as possible until coming under the land based air umbrella and escort carriers.
The Battle of the Atlantic would be simply be the Battle of Britain at sea...still would favour the capital intensive western Allies.