Author Topic: Spitfires vs Allied bombers (Read 442 times)

fdiron · « **on:** February 16, 2002, 08:45:19 AM »

Some Luftwaffe General once said that he wished he had a squadron of Spitfires. What if a spitfire IX had crashed landed in Germany during the early part of the war and the Germans reversed-engineered it. Would the Spitfire IX (and perhaps later the XIV) have been able to intercept Allied bomber formations better than the 190 and 109?

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2002, 10:36:13 AM »

Dont think so. Germans uses specialized verions of 190A8/A7/A6 with 2x20mm + 2x30mm and extra armour to intercept allied buffs at the end of the war. Spitfire firepower and armour was not enough to acomplish that mission.

Pongo · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2002, 12:09:46 PM »

If the hispano worked like it does in AH a 4 cannon spit IXHF would have been better at killing bombers then any 190. Way better high alt performance far better guns especially as regards range. I dont know if the LW had access to the fuel that the Brits needed for their late merlins but the 4 hispano spit would have been a very effective interceptor.
They were working on 6 cannon spit derivitives...ouch.

funkedup · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2002, 04:02:06 PM »

A Spitfire with 60-series Merlin definitely would have stood a better chance against the Allied escort fighters.

JoeCrip · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2002, 06:17:40 PM »

I think i read this some where....Germany actually had a small b17 squad...The LW repiared downed bombers and formed a squadran.

Seeker · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2002, 02:31:53 AM »

I think it's worth noting that the Allieds had more purpose built bomber interceptors planned or in production (such as the Westland Whirlwind) but actually dropped them in favour of more sophisticated Jabo types (Typhoon/Tempest) as the threat of Axis bombing evaporated.

Prewar, the doctrine that the bomber would always get through had heavily influenced British design, to the point where the Spitfire, while a splendid interceptor in it's own right, hardly had the fuel to much once it had crossed the channel (a perenial British design fault which persisted right up to the second generation of jet interceptors such as the Bae Lightning). This was excacerbated by ambitous air commanders fooling themselves into thinking the buff would be self-defending.

I think the way the two sides point blank refused to learn from each other shows how blind command can be...

The LW tried daylight bombing with an escort of insufficient range and were slaughtered.

Two years later the Americans try the same thing with the same result - it was only when new aircraft with vastly improved range such as the P38/47/51 were introduced that the daylight bombing campaign could progress.

Something I would like to know more about is how accurate were Axis buffs? The RAF were night bombing, and dropped ordinance all over the place; whilst the USSAF made much of the Nordens "bomb in a pickle barrel" accuracy. What were Axis buffs using, and was it any good?

Angus · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2002, 06:01:22 AM »

The Spitfire could mount 4 Hispanos/Oerlikons from MkV onwards, however I do not know why not so many were built. Perhaps pilots liked to mount a combination, perhaps the cannons were too heavy, perhaps not reliable enough.
Being a rugged plane with quad cannons, the Spitfire has more firepower than any 109 save those with gondolas, and nicely on par with many of the 190 variants.
Now the combat radius is another issue. The much prased mustang with its incredible range could be copied with the Spitfire. That was done by adding a tank in the fuselage behind the pilot. A spitfire with that extra amount of fuel could fly to Berlin and back. The tank made the aircraft more unstable, but by burning that fuel first the plane would be back to normal when in hostile airspace, - very much the same as the mustang!!!
Two Spitfires strafed General Rommels car, injuring the general, - those belonged to the Luftwaffe;) Haven't heard about bomber intercepting spits though, but you never know....

fdiron · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2002, 08:36:24 PM »

Why didnt they add extra fuel tanks to the Spitfire? I dont think Bomber Command would have objected to having escort for their Lancasters. After all, it was the British who discovered that it was safer to have fast unarmed bombers with escort than to have heavily armed slower bombers.

Nashwan · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2002, 10:38:04 PM »

They did add extra tanks to the Spit, they just didn't use them very often.
The first Merlin Spits had 85 gallons of fuel in two forward fuselage tanks.
Later in the war, some had one of the forward fuselage tanks enlarged to fill the bay (could have been done from the begining) to add another 10 gallons.
Wing tanks were added to most from the Mk VIII on, for another 34 - 36 gallons.
Drop tanks of 30, 45 or 90 gallons were commonly carried. A 170 gallon tank was available, but seems to have been used mainly for ferry flights.
Rear fuselage tanks were fitted to some late aircraft, of up to 75 gallons.
Wing tanks were tested successfully in America, two 62 gallon Mustang tanks.
Basic range on the Spit was around 450 miles on 85 gallons, with reserves. Griffon Spits 45 miles on c 110 gallons.
None of these fuel tanks required major alterations, and whilst they couldn't all have been used at once, there's no reason Spits couldn't have been flying regulary with an extra 250 gallons, or ranges of c. 1500 miles.

Karnak · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2002, 12:56:27 PM »

Seeker,

By the second half of 1944 the RAF night bombing was as acurate as the USAAF day bombing. The "dropping stuff all over the place" only happened in the beginning.

There was something close to a scandal when the accuracy figures for ther first two years were revealed. The Brits strated coming out with some very good technology to improve accuracy at night.

Seeker · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2002, 01:06:46 PM »

I know bomber command improved greatly, but to be honest I thought the improvement was down to better navigation (radar) and marking (pathfinders) rather than any great improvement in bomb aiming technology.

Am I right in thinking the USAAF never shared the Norden?

Oldman731 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2002, 01:25:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seeker
I know bomber command improved greatly, but to be honest I thought the improvement was down to better navigation (radar) and marking (pathfinders) rather than any great improvement in bomb aiming technology.

Am I right in thinking the USAAF never shared the Norden?

As I understand it, the improvement in navigation and marking was the big brass ring. Once the center of the target could be accurately marked, the English bombers EACH aimed for it. US formations dropped - in formation - on the lead bombadier. No matter how accurate he was, the drop pattern was only going to be as tight as the size of the whole formation.

British bombing of the rail yards during the transportation campaign was very accurate. By then, of course, they had pretty much given up long penetration raids.

- oldman

HoHun · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2002, 02:14:50 PM »

Hi Nashwan,

>They did add extra tanks to the Spit, they just didn't use them very often.

I think the reason was that the extra fuel tanks had a much more serious impact on the Spitfire's stability than they had on the Mustang's.

The Spitfire F. R. XIV was one of the types equipped with a 31 gallon rear fuselage tank. Quoting the Pilot's Notes:

"NOTE.--Ecept for special operations, as directed by the appropriate Operational Commander, the rear fuselage tank on F.R. Mk. XIV aircraft is sealed off and is not to be used.

[...]

(b) The addition of rear fuselage tank fuel impairs longitudinal stability and with this tank full the F.R. Mk. XIV aircraft should not be flown above 15,000ft.

(c) When a 90-gallon drop tank is carried on F.R. Mk. XIV aircraft there is a marked reduction in longitudinal and directional stability. In this condition the aircraft is restricted to straight and level flying and very gentle manoeuvres at low altitude in good weather conditions only, and it should be flown only by experienced pilots."

I needed to read the disclaimer more than once to fully appreciate it ;-)

As always, Spitfires with large-chord rudder had a bit better stability, and Spitfires with "tear drop" canopy were even worse. I'm not sure whether there were F. R. XIV models with bubble canopy, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HFMudd · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2002, 03:36:55 PM »

As an aside, in his book "The First and the Last" Galland does indeed relate a story of having told Goring that what he needed to beat the the English in the Battle of Britain was Spitfires. But the statement is more or less tounge in cheek and he goes on to explain that he felt the 109 was superior. (Goring didn't seem to appreciate the humor.)

Like so many great quotes, it is often used out of context.

Nashwan · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2002, 04:27:15 PM »

Quote

(b) The addition of rear fuselage tank fuel impairs longitudinal stability and with this tank full the F.R. Mk. XIV aircraft should not be flown above 15,000ft.

Yes, but the FR XIV had a warning about stability anyway.
In fact, it's a pity you didn't start reading at (a) rather than (b)

(a)On early F XIV aircraft stability about all axes is satisfactory, but on those aircraft with rear-view fuselages, and on FR XIV aircraft, directional stability is reduced.

The normal takeoff weight for an FR XIV is listed as some 380lbs higher than the F XIV. I can't believe a camera installation would weigh that much, but however much it weighed it was situated in the rear fusealge, so greatly reduced stability.

The Spit IX and XVI could take a 75 gallon rear tank. Again the manual says by special order only, but later in the manual it says no aerobatics with more than 30 gallons in the rear tank, whereas the RAF manual for the Mustang says no aerobatics with any fuel in the rear tank.

As the manuals seem to have slightly more warnings about the Mustang with rear tank than Spit IX with rear tank, I honestly think the "by special order only" thing is a reflection of training, rather than any inherent danger.

Mustang pilots would presumably be trained to fly with the extra tank, but as it was rarely used on the Spit, I doubt many Spit pilots were. Being used to flying a more forgiving plane like the Spit, the extra difficulties caused by the fusealge tank must have been even more dramatic than they were in the Mustang.