question about the german luftwaffe?

[bigbaba]

hi all,

when i think and read about the 2nd WW, one maybe the most important aspect of the air war comes in my mind:

the range of fighter planes.

we know, that the strategic bomber offensive against german factorys and oil facilities was only possible when the USAAF had a huge number of fighters with the range to escort bombers to their targets and back. raids without escort like against schweinfurt or stuttgart in late 1943 were suicidal.

now, the german luftwaffe leadership (maybe except göring) knew for sure, that their 1940 frontline fighter, the ME-109 had one weak point: its short range.

the question to the aviation experts here is the following one:

why the germans missed to develop external fuel tanks for the ME-109 before the battle of britain and before the war started? a fighter plane with 1/3 larger range would surely make a difference and maybe the battle over britain would have a different outcome since many of the german fighter pilots were lost running out of fuel after their mission on the way back home.

[Terminus]

The Luftwaffe was created to be the Wehrmacht's flying artillery, leap-frogging forward behind the advancing armies. Their fighters were meant to establish air supremacy over the battlespace, in order for their bombers to operate with impunity, and didn't need long range. Thus, no external tanks were needed.

The BoB exposed the fatal flaw in that doctrine.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

hi all,

when i think and read about the 2nd WW, one maybe the most important aspect of the air war comes in my mind:

the range of fighter planes.

we know, that the strategic bomber offensive against german factorys and oil facilities was only possible when the USAAF had a huge number of fighters with the range to escort bombers to their targets and back. raids without escort like against schweinfurt or stuttgart in late 1943 were suicidal.

now, the german luftwaffe leadership (maybe except göring) knew for sure, that their 1940 frontline fighter, the ME-109 had one weak point: its short range.

the question to the aviation experts here is the following one:

why the germans missed to develop external fuel tanks for the ME-109 before the battle of britain and before the war started? a fighter plane with 1/3 larger range would surely make a difference and maybe the battle over britain would have a different outcome since many of the german fighter pilots were lost running out of fuel after their mission on the way back home.

I just woke up so my brain is not booted up properly just yet but: Luftwaffe primary purpose was to support ground forces. Luftwaffe didn't have the means to do strategic bombing. Luftwaffe lacked 4 engine bombers and long range fighters in order to do strategic bombing campaign.

Bf-109 E-7 did have external fuel tank and E-7 was used at the end of BOB, however it was a bit late. Hurricane and Spitfire throughout the whole war were tactical fighters just like the Bf-109. Bf-109 was superior fighter compared to Hurricane in that the 109 was faster, could out dive and out climb the Hurricane as well as 109 was better protected and better armed. Spitfire was overall on similar level to 109, the spitfire was slightly faster than 109 but only in the low and medium altitude in high altitude 109 was faster. 109 was still better armed and could out climb and out dive the spitfire. 109 also had a full fuel injection system therefore the engine wouldn't cut out while plane was pulling negative g maneuver. Something that both Hurricane and Spitfire couldn't do because they were using carburetors. Luftwaffe was using schwarm formation which was much more superior to RAF VIC formation. The major mistake that Goering did was tie the fighters to the bombers...in which case it was easier for RAF to attack the german bombers. At the beginning 109s were free to engage enemy fighters on their own...this was causing a lot of problems to RAF. Later on as the war progressed Goering changed this and forced 109s to prove close escort in which case the fighters were not as effective to protect the bombers as RAF ignored the 109s and focused on the bombers.

The irony is that it didn't matter what the outcome of the air war would have been since there is no way that German army could do operation Sea Lion anyways. I would say there are many reasons why Luftwaffe failed but I would say few major reasons are: 1) British had Radar system 2) Goering decision to change focus from bombing RAF airfields to bombing London 3) 109 was a tactical fighter just like the spitfire and Hurricane; however Spitfire and Hurricane didn't have to fly as far as the 109.

Overall above all else I think the British Radar system was the #1 reason why Luftwaffe lost BOB and not lack of drop tanks on 109s. However I would also like to also say that if RAF wouldn't have employed other nationalities pilots from Czech Republic, Polish and other nationalities...I wonder what would have happened because through out the mid and end of the battle RAF was in serious trouble due to lack of British pilots (KIA, WIA, MIA etc).

Here is an interesting article by RAF pilot John Greenwood on the subject of Battle of Britain:

http://www.airbattle.co.uk/b_research_1.html

Here is a small quote:

"I should like to give you a true idea of the realities of this Battle. The Me109 was the best fighting plane of the three main types of fighters involved. It could out-dive and out-climb both Hurricanes and Spitfires. It could out-dive and out-climb both Hurricanes and Spitfires, it was faster than the Hurricane at all heights and faster than the Spitfire above 23,000 ft. The armament of the 109 was far superior to ours since their 20mm cannon was lethal at 1,000 yds. Our .303 peashooters were effective at 250 yds or less."

Peter

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Luftwaffe was created to be the Wehrmacht's flying artillery, leap-frogging forward behind the advancing armies. Their fighters were meant to establish air supremacy over the battlespace, in order for their bombers to operate with impunity, and didn't need long range. Thus, no external tanks were needed.

The BoB exposed the fatal flaw in that doctrine.

Well, I think it actually exposed the equipment when the battlefield no longer looked like doctrine had intended. Luftwaffe doctrine still worked in operational conditions it was designed for, as it demonstrated after the BOB in Russia.

The BOB merely asked the Luftwaffe to do something it was never built to do with predictable results.

Regards,
ID

[DivePac88]

The Luftwaffe was trained and fitted-out for; direct battlefield support, enemy logistics and command disruption, and lastly airfield suppression. It was not designed as a strategic bombing weapon, and had neither the aircraft nor the doctrines to successively complete such a mission.

[Mike Parker]

I think the issue though is their lack of speed in developing extended fuel tanks.  It seems odd to me, even given that their doctrine did not require long range fighters, it would seem a handy thing to have nonetheless.  And while I am no aeronautical engineer, I do not think disposable tanks would be all that difficult a feat of engineering to come up with.
 
So I have to ask myself why didn't they?  Tack on an extra 20% to the 109's range, you would have doubled or tripled the time it could spend in combat during BOB... what would that have potentially meant?  I agree that an Operation Sealion was not in the cards, but with a smashed RAF, would GB have sought a peace with Hitler?

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

I think the issue though is their lack of speed in developing extended fuel tanks.  It seems odd to me, even given that their doctrine did not require long range fighters, it would seem a handy thing to have nonetheless.  And while I am no aeronautical engineer, I do not think disposable tanks would be all that difficult a feat of engineering to come up with.

So I have to ask myself why didn't they?  Tack on an extra 20% to the 109's range, you would have doubled or tripled the time it could spend in combat during BOB... what would that have potentially meant?  I agree that an Operation Sealion was not in the cards, but with a smashed RAF, would GB have sought a peace with Hitler?

As far as the 1939/40 Luftwaffe was concerned, Bf110 Zerstorers were long range fighters so there was no need for the 109 to need extended range tanks.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

I would say there are many reasons why Luftwaffe failed but I would say few major reasons are: 1) British had Radar system 2) Goering decision to change focus from bombing RAF airfields to bombing London

Peter

Peter

Your post was really spot on-except for this one line above. I think that the battle was lost when the Luftwaffe changed its targets to tactical targets in the landing zones. From what I understand of the situation the RAF was in big trouble for the first few weeks, it was approaching exhaustion. The combination of hitting the a/c factories and airfields was working-the Germans just thought it had worked too well. The respite brought about by the Germans shifting operations to the coastal areas allowed the Brits to reorganize. By the time the Luftwaffe redirected its efforts against the airfields and factories again, it was too late. After several more weeks of ever increasing loses, and the RAF becoming stronger, that's when the Germans decided to just blast London to bits. Of course, by this time, the bomber groups were drastically reduced in size compare to the August 1 strength. The initiation of the London bombing campaign was not the cause of defeat, but the sign of defeat.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

I think the issue though is their lack of speed in developing extended fuel tanks.  It seems odd to me, even given that their doctrine did not require long range fighters, it would seem a handy thing to have nonetheless.  And while I am no aeronautical engineer, I do not think disposable tanks would be all that difficult a feat of engineering to come up with.

So I have to ask myself why didn't they?  Tack on an extra 20% to the 109's range, you would have doubled or tripled the time it could spend in combat during BOB... what would that have potentially meant?  I agree that an Operation Sealion was not in the cards, but with a smashed RAF, would GB have sought a peace with Hitler?

Mike,
I'd disagree. The point about fuel tanks is that they are merely about getting you to where you need to go. The ME-109 didn't need the range of the P-51 and the ability to go to the highlands of Scotland, because the Luftwaffe didn't need to go there.

Doubling or tripling the time spent in combat was also a little problematical. Combat was most likely to end after a few minutes when you had expended your ammo not when you ran out of fuel. The ammo carried would disappear pretty quickly with the MGs roaring as you pursued a target.

A little extra range would have given the ME-109 a little more tactical and operational flexibility, but the Germans lost for reasons largely unconnected to the ME-109's range. Or rather, adding fuel tanks wouldn't have made an overall difference.

Regards,
IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

I would say there are many reasons why Luftwaffe failed but I would say few major reasons are: 1) British had Radar system 2) Goering decision to change focus from bombing RAF airfields to bombing London

Peter

Peter

Your post was really spot on-except for this one line above. I think that the battle was lost when the Luftwaffe changed its targets to tactical targets in the landing zones. From what I understand of the situation the RAF was in big trouble for the first few weeks, it was approaching exhaustion. The combination of hitting the a/c factories and airfields was working-the Germans just thought it had worked too well. The respite brought about by the Germans shifting operations to the coastal areas allowed the Brits to reorganize. By the time the Luftwaffe redirected its efforts against the airfields and factories again, it was too late. After several more weeks of ever increasing loses, and the RAF becoming stronger, that's when the Germans decided to just blast London to bits. Of course, by this time, the bomber groups were drastically reduced in size compare to the August 1 strength. The initiation of the London bombing campaign was not the cause of defeat, but the sign of defeat.

My understanding was that the Germans started going for the relevant aircraft factories way too late. They were never prioritised as a target until it didn't matter. It's also not the case that the effort against the airfields was a battle winner. Even at the height of the battle, with the Luftwaffe all out for the airfields, rarely was an airfield out of action for more than a couple of hours. In many cases, they simply mopped up and carried on.

It simply wasn't that easy to put airfields out of action.

Regards,
IronDuke

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

I think the issue though is their lack of speed in developing extended fuel tanks.  It seems odd to me, even given that their doctrine did not require long range fighters, it would seem a handy thing to have nonetheless.  And while I am no aeronautical engineer, I do not think disposable tanks would be all that difficult a feat of engineering to come up with.

So I have to ask myself why didn't they?  Tack on an extra 20% to the 109's range, you would have doubled or tripled the time it could spend in combat during BOB... what would that have potentially meant?  I agree that an Operation Sealion was not in the cards, but with a smashed RAF, would GB have sought a peace with Hitler?

Mike,
I'd disagree. The point about fuel tanks is that they are merely about getting you to where you need to go. The ME-109 didn't need the range of the P-51 and the ability to go to the highlands of Scotland, because the Luftwaffe didn't need to go there.

Doubling or tripling the time spent in combat was also a little problematical. Combat was most likely to end after a few minutes when you had expended your ammo not when you ran out of fuel. The ammo carried would disappear pretty quickly with the MGs roaring as you pursued a target.

A little extra range would have given the ME-109 a little more tactical and operational flexibility, but the Germans lost for reasons largely unconnected to the ME-109's range. Or rather, adding fuel tanks wouldn't have made an overall difference.

Regards,
IronDuke

I understand that the Luftwaffe's mission did not require excessively long range, as for what effect it might have had in the Battle of Britian its sure hard to quantify, the biggest reason the Luftwaffe was on the short end of the stick was the target prioritization in my opinion, but its not inconsiderable to have a vastly increased ability to have combat time even with as you point out the ammunition situation.

But it still amazes me that if for almost no other reason than long ferry missions that external tanks for the 109 were not created earlier. It would then have been fairly easy to make them drop tanks.

[Peter Fisla]

There is one other thing I forgot to say and that is when 109 got shut down over England well, the pilot was POW (assuming he bailed out). However if RAF pilot bailed out, he fought another day.

There is another problem with fuel tanks, people that know flight simulators...example IL2...they know how bad a plane handles with external fuel tank. So the problem is if you encounter RAF planes you are gonna have to drop them...and then you still have the same problem.

I think that if Luftwaffe would continue to target the air fields, or disable the electrical grid and 109s would be free to hunt I think...things would have been a lot more difficult for RAF because they were running out of pilots badly.

Also based on my research on the subject I would say it wasn't the spitfire that was every important ...it was your regular workhorse Hurricane. There simply wheren't enough spitfires to make a difference. Also Hurricane was much better equipped to fighting the Luftwaffe bombers. However overall The radar system I believe was #1 reason why Luftwaffe lost the battle (I actually believe the outcome was more of a draw...but anyways)

Peter

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla


I think that if Luftwaffe would continue to target the air fields, or disable the electrical grid and 109s would be free to hunt I think...things would have been a lot more difficult for RAF because they were running out of pilots badly.

The RAF actually finished the BOB with more Pilots than it started. Admittedly, many were green(ish) but such was the case for the Luftwaffe as well.

Also, attacks on the airfields never did enough, and even if they had, the RAF would simply withdrew out of the operational area into the middle of the country and waited.

The essential German issue was that they couldn't shoot enough Allied planes down for each loss they took. It was a battle of attrition and they never got on top of the exchange rate. The ME-109 and the German pilots were not qualitatively better enough than Allied equipment and pilots to do the damage they needed to.

Regards,
IronDuke

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

There is one other thing I forgot to say and that is when 109 got shut down over England well, the pilot was POW (assuming he bailed out). However if RAF pilot bailed out, he fought another day.

There is another problem with fuel tanks, people that know flight simulators...example IL2...they know how bad a plane handles with external fuel tank. So the problem is if you encounter RAF planes you are gonna have to drop them...and then you still have the same problem.

Peter

Well that is why you have drop tanks. You use the fuel from the tanks first, then if you run into combat you jettison the tanks in order to regain your manouverability. Then you use the fuel from your internal stores.

[bigbaba]

thanks for the input so far.

the wrong expectations from the BF-110 as a fighter and the tactical orientation of the luftwaffe may realy be the reasons why the germans did not developed external tanks to increase the range of the BF-109.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: bigbaba

thanks for the input so far.

the wrong expectations from the BF-110 as a fighter and the tactical orientation of the luftwaffe may realy be the reasons why the germans did not developed external tanks to increase the range of the BF-109.

Don't be mistaken, they did have drop tanks, but not all that early.