#1 Piston Fighter was British

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

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:04:22 GMT, (The
Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

More
Packard Merlins were going into Hurricane Xs for delivery to the
Russians than into Kittyhawks or Mosquitos.

Actually, on second thoughts, I'm not sure about that. I don't
actually have any figures for Hurricane X/P-40F deliveries in 1941-42
beyond what went to the Middle East and general statements reserving
the Canadian Hurricanes for Russia. I'm not sure if the P-40F's came
out of the original British Packard Merlin allocation, but apparently
the US P-40's came out of the American allocation (3,000 vs 6,000 to
the British).

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

In article ,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
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.

Ah. O.K. That makes sense. Did most of the Murricane X's go to the
Soviets? I suppose it makes sense. Were thay delivered via Alaska?

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.

I agree that there were a lot of P-40s in service in early '43. But
after that point, with Mustangs and Thunderbolts making their
appearancce, that that's what would be coming into the pipeline.
Of course, it took time.

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.

That makes sense. The life of a WW 2 fighter in combat was rather
short. There was a heavy toll not only to enemy action, but there was
also the steady drumbeat of operational losses, and they'd ger well &
truly worn out from being run hard. I'd imagine that what was
happening was that 3 Sqn. RAAF was brought up to strength with what
was left over from 260 Sqn, as the numbers of both were cut down by
attrition.

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).

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
"Ed Majden" writes:

"Richard Brooks" Long live the memory of the Spitfire and our
Merlins!


The Spits are famed for winning the Battle of Britain. The Mustangs
are
famed for winning the war.

Ahh, those Merlins again! ;-)


The P51 wasn't a high performance fighter until the Brits installed the
RR Merlin in it. This increased speed and performance making the Mustang a
top long range fighter.

You might want to look into that a little bit deeper. All P-51s, (and
A-36s, and F-6As) were pretty damned high performance in their effective
altitude bands, faster cruising adn better accelerating at high speeds
than the than the contemporary Spitfire Vs and IXs. (Long tange
cruise at about 170 mph IAS vice 160 mph IAS for the Spits note that
that's indicated airspeed, which is the Sea Level equivalant of the
airplane's True Airspeed, which is higher as altitude increases, due
to the decreasing air pressure at altitude.) At low altitudes, a
P-51A or A-36 were quite high performers, better even than the V1650-3
engined P-51Bs. They were quite capable of dealing with the Fw 190As
of the time. In the Mediterranean Theater, the lower critical
altitudes of the engines wasn't as much of a factor, most combat
taking place at altitudes below 15,000'. 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, The Mistangs (and A-36s) could carry a
useful load as a fighter-bomber, and even without the extra fuselage
tank fitted to many B models, had an astonishing amount of range. The
first RAF firgters to reach Germany from Britain were Allison-engined
Mustang Is, in mid 1942, and they roamed all over Western Europe
shooting up whatever targets of opportunity came along.

The Spits did not have the range to be an effective long range bomber escort
but it was an excellent fighter. During the Battle of Britain the Spits
generally went after the fighter while the Hurricanes dealt with the
bombers.

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.
Especially with the command and control systems available at the time,
you don't get to pick and choose that way. Raides were intercepted by
whatever was available. The kill figures, vis-a-vis Fighters
vs. Bombers really don't differ all that much between Spitfires &
Hurricanes. What was more important was teh elimination of the
unweildy and worthless setpiece Fighter Attack tactics, which would
have casue crippling losses even if the RAF were flying Zeta Reticulan
Flying Discs. An excellent airplane doesn't make up for very bad tactics.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

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

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

Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 7/1/03 6:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: nk.net


"M. J. Powell" wrote in message
...

Quibble

Nissan Huts

/Quibble


Nissen Huts


Who cares as long as the roofs didn't leak and the pot bellied stoves didn'l
smoke up the place.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In message , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 7/1/03 6:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: nk.net


"M. J. Powell" wrote in message
...

Quibble

Nissan Huts

/Quibble


Nissen Huts

Wait! Wait! I corrected it!


Who cares as long as the roofs didn't leak and the pot bellied stoves didn'l
smoke up the place.

Did you manage to get them red-hot up to the ceiling?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Subject: #1 Piston Fighter was British
From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
Date: 7/1/03 7:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time

How would you know? Did you fly B-17's on B-24's or A-20's? If not,
apply your own rules of censorship and stop talking about anything
other than your personal observations of the missions you flew on, and
don't talk about anything else.

Gavin Bailey

I request the same of you. Only talk about what you experienced. I guess we
won't be hearing much from you anymore. And I guess you are now the
sell-appointed censor of this NG telling guys what they can and can't talk
about. That will never happen.If you have a problem with that I invite you , no
urge you to add me to your killfile.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 01 Jul 2003 15:08:07 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

I request the same of you.

You have been, for some time.

Only talk about what you experienced. I guess we
won't be hearing much from you anymore.

Remind me of your contemporary expertise on 100-octane fuel supply to
Britain in 1940. Didn't stop you voicing an opinion, so restrain your
hypocrisy.

And I guess you are now the
sell-appointed censor of this NG telling guys what they can and can't talk
about.

You seem you enjoy that role far too much for me to deny it to you.

That will never happen.If you have a problem with that I invite you , no
urge you to add me to your killfile.

Be my guest. I have no intention of killfiling you, as respecting and
tolerating dissent is one of the things your fighting and risking your
life for has given me the luxury of trying out.

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