#1 Piston Fighter was British

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
I never read any books on the subject.
It shows.
I was there. I looked for you but didn't see you, where were you? Read a
thousand books. You still won' t have the feeling of what it was all
about..

I suggest you read a few more books on the whole subject, to balance your
one eyed view.
Looking out from the nose of a medium bomber was not "what it was all
about".

In article , Kevin
Brooks writes
Peter Twydell wrote in message news:gs0Tf8A6MKA$EwjF
...
snip outrage

Dad never liked Americans, and sometimes I can see why.

Dear God, please do not judge us all on the basis of the mumblings of
folks like Art, the Tarvernaut, and those of similar ilk. We all have
our share of bad apples.


I did say "sometimes".

I worked with Americans (and Texans) for many years, and found the vast
majority to be kind and friendly people. Just like every other
nationality I have known. As you said, every country has its share of
stupid, ignorant and downright irritating people (God save us from those
who are all three), so I don't judge whole nations on the evidence of a
few individuals.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 00:08:31 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

It's worth noting that,
until the introduction of the 2-stage/2-speed Merlin 61 in the Spit
IX, Merlin/SPitfire critical altitudes were dropping as well, from
16,000'+ for the Spit I's Merlin III, , to 13,000' for the Spit II's
Merlin XII, , to 9250' for the Merlin 45 on the Mk V, and, later 3700'
for the cropped supercharger Merlin 45M for the Spit L.F V.
Merlin 45 engined Spit Vs,

I'm not sure this is true for the Merlin XII and Merlin 45, as their
full throttle heights were higher than the Merlin III's. Do you mean
achieving maximum output (horsepower)?

The Spit certainly was an excellent fighter, and it had a lot of
stretch. I do find the claim that "Spitfires were sent after Figters
in the Battle of Britain, and Hurricanes after bombers" a bit dubious.

Apparently this is what Park ordered in one of his tactical
instruction memos issued by 11 Group HQ. The pressures of timing
often prevented it, but Biggin Hill Spitfire units seemed to be
scrambled first to engage 109 escorts towards the end of the battle.

Fighting area attacks were cumbersome and outclassed by the more
flexible Luftwaffe fighter tactics, but they were designed to deal
with unescorted bombers, and as such they were as good a way of any of
organising cumulative attacks on aircraft which would probably survive
a single pass by an eight-gun .303 fighter. Of course, the real
environment was somewhat different from one where the fighters would
have the time to engage in luxuries such as formulaic and cumbersome
approaches to the enemy bombers.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

On 30 Jun 2003 21:56:02 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

I should have said the war in western europe. Sorry I left that out.

Fair enough, and I agree that the critical period in the west was
D-Day to V-E Day. Nonetheless, the real war existed beforehand. Like
Paul, I'd have been interested to see my great uncles reaction to
being told he wasn't fighting a real war after Hamburg, Peenemunde,
six trips to Berlin and being shot down in February 1944 on the way
back from Schweinfurt, costing the life of one of his crew.

I'm grateful for what you did, Art, but you weren't completely alone
in what you did. That takes nothing away from the risks you and your
crew and group ran and had to face every day to get your job done.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:56:38 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:

Look at what happened before it showed up. There was more going on
than just the Mustang.

What happened before the (extended-range) Mustang showed up? Well, the
German air force was shooting down so many B-17s and B-24s that it
looked possible that the 8th Air Force would have to give up
deep-penetration daylight raids into Germany, to the huge benefit of
Albert Speer and the German war effort.

Escorted raids did not begin and end with the Mustang. Look at German
pilot losses in August-November 1943 before the Mustang showed up.
The Mustang accelerated a pre-existing dynamic. I'm not suggesting
that it didn't have a major impact, just that it tends to appropriate
too much of the credit for losses caused by a more diverse force.
Luftwaffe defeats over the battlefronts in the east, over Tunisia or
Sicily or Salerno were not inflicted by the Mustang.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:25:09 +0800, "Dennis"
wrote:

What happened before the (extended-range) Mustang showed up? Well, the
German air force was shooting down so many B-17s and B-24s that it
looked possible that the 8th Air Force would have to give up
deep-penetration daylight raids into Germany, to the huge benefit of
Albert Speer and the German war effort.

Problem with this analysis is that the attrition of the Luftwaffe had
already got to the back side of the curve prior to the P-51's introduction.
The P-38, for example, did a lot of damage, and was capable of deep escort.

Precisely. On balance the P-51 might have been better, or more
reliable (even then it had it's share of teething problems), but the
problem was recognised and was being addressed before it showed up.

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

This increased speed and performance making the Mustang a
top long range fighter.

The engine didn't improve the range. It took the addition of a big
fuse tank behind the pilot to do that.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:22:31 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Gavin,
I don't wish to sound argumentative, but wouldn't it be more fair to
say that the Packard Merlins i Lancaster B.IIIs and various flavors
of Mosquito were more significant.

Not really, look at the numbers supplied over time in 1942-43. More
Packard Merlins were going into Hurricane Xs for delivery to the
Russians than into Kittyhawks or Mosquitos. The Packard Merlins for
the Lanc III were certainly significant, as any holdups in supply
affected expansion of Lancaster production in 1943, and this generated
concern at high levels of the MAP (unlike almost anything to do with
the Mosquito) which indicates the importance attached to PM supply as
part of the heavy-bomber programme.

I'm not trying to cut down the
Kittyhawk IIs again, but I think that everybody except, perhaps
those in the CBI Theater had pretty much decided by 1943 that P-40
based airframes weren't the best option available.

Sure. I don't disagree with that, but they still had to fight with
what they got, not what they wanted. As it happens the Merlin
Kittyhawks provided the majority of the US fighter strength in the MTO
in 1942-1943 during the first Allied offensive operations to clear
North Africa and attack Italy. That's not insubstantial, although the
picture changes rapidly over time as other types appeared in greater
quantity and replaced the P-40F/L on the front line.

As a point of
information, how long did teh Kittyhawk IIs stay in service? There
seemed to ba a rapid turnover of fighter types in North Africa in
'42 and '43, and I've seen information that indicates that the
Kittyhawk IIs in the RAAF Squadrons that wwere in North Africa were
replaces with Kittyhawk IIIs (P-40Ks and Ms) in relatively short
order. Could you please shed some light on this?

My information (which is limited on post-May 1943) is that the British
got one sizeable batch of P-40Fs which equipped 260 Squadron in the
DAF September/October 1942. These, plus some later arrivals, then
went on to equip 3 RAAF squadron and 260 Squadron had replaced it with
Kittyhawk IIIs by the spring of 1943 (some aircraft served in both
squadrons). 3 RAAF retained them into the summer of 1943 throughout
Sicily and the invasion of southern Italy. That's a reasonable
service life for aircraft which had been received nearly a year
earlier. The shortage of numbers, and the fact that they didn't get
any more supplied in quantity after November 1942 (as production
finished) meant that it was a minor type.

This seems equivalent to the service life of other variants of the
P-40 in RAF service, e.g. the Tomahawks in 112 Squadron which lasted
six months before replacement (July 1941 - January 1942), or the
Kittyhawks of 94 Squadron lasting six months before replacement
(January 1942 - May 1942).

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

Well, not exactly. The problem during that period was not the
absence of the Mustang, but the failure to aggressively pursue
the use of P-47s and P-38s as long-range escort fighters. The
development of suitable drop tanks was being badly neglected,
and the available fighters were not being effectively used.

Not so at all. (Surely you're not saying that drop tanks weren't being
used? Strewth, the P-40D of late 1941 had drop tanks!)

It was generally believed that it was impossible to give an existing
fighter the stretch to reach Berlin from Germany, and that an entirely
new fighter was needed. The oversized fuse tank in the Mustang was a
last resort, which happened to do the job (with drop-tanks to boot, of
course). As I recall the memoirs, the Mustang had a c of g so far aft
on the early part of a mission that the trim wouldn't compensate, but
the pilot had to use forward stick.

I doubt the 47 could ever have been adapted in this fashion, because
of its higher weight. And I'm not sure that the 38 was all that
effective defending bombers against 109s/190s on their home ground.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Escorted raids did not begin and end with the Mustang. Look at German
pilot losses in August-November 1943 before the Mustang showed up.
The Mustang accelerated a pre-existing dynamic. I'm not suggesting
that it didn't have a major impact, just that it tends to appropriate
too much of the credit for losses caused by a more diverse force.
Luftwaffe defeats over the battlefronts in the east, over Tunisia or
Sicily or Salerno were not inflicted by the Mustang.

We're speaking of deep penetration. Where did those German pilot
losses take place--at what distance from the Allied fighter bases?

The Mustang's job was to enable bombers to reach Berlin, not Sicily, a
task that was indeed with the Spitfire's capabilities.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub