Zeroes over Britan

[Gunnarnz]

Iirc tge bf109-e7 could be plumbed for an external fuel tank that would have greatly increased combat radius, but in th the bob the pylon was used for a bomb.

That seems like a really odd decision. A few extra bombs carried by fighters would be neither here nor there in terms of bringing Britain to her knees; whereas as soon as the Luftwaffe realised the extent of the fighter opposition they were facing the advantages of extending the 109's combat radius should have been clear. I've heard that the Luftwaffe didn't use drop tanks because they couldn't afford the expenditure of aluminium to make them out of, but since the tanks can be made out of wood or even paper this doesn't sound right. Another possibility is that the Germans were just slow to react to the circumstances that existed - I have trouble believing this as well, because whatever ideological hindrances they had they weren't slackers or idiots at any stage. German forces were tactically sophisticated at a uniformly high level for almost all of the war.
If you want to do fast "tip and run" raids, then putting a few bombs on Me-110s makes a degree of sense. But lumbering your main-line air-superiority fighters with bombs is something you do after you've defeated the enemy air forces, not while they're still hacking down your aircraft by the score. Can anyone shed any light on why they might have decided to do this?

 

[johnboy]

I thought from a German Perspective its greatest advantage would be its range. This is a fighter that could actual fight the Battle of Britian by escorting bombers and being able to stay over England without immediately heading home.

Of course we will have to assume this is the 'Army' version with no folding wings etc. I think in 1940 it would be a very useful, if fragile plane for the Germans.

I assume its range would also come in handy for the vast distance of Russia.

What made the zero so fearsome in real life was the skill of the initial pilots and that many of early US planes were out of date.

In Europe it won't be as feared as it was in Pacific in 1942, but would be simply a respected early war long range fighter.

Where it would be useful was I supporting strikes against Northern England from Norway, which was much more weakly defended by RAF units and may have forced redeployments from Southern England.

 

[Saphroneth]

A small nitpick: If you're talking about the fragility of Japanese weapons, that's more because of resource constraints, not attitude.

Not entirely. The Japanese philosophy in weapons was to have greater range and greater hitting power at range - hence the "diving shell".
If they'd considered self sealing fuel tanks important, they could have done it (and greatly reduced the fragility of their Zeros) once they took Malaya, which was All The World's Rubber Bonanza. They didn't, suggesting that this element at least of the long-range high-power low-defence weapons was philosophical.

 

[Dan]

If it has the ceiling, range and maneuverability, but not the damage resistance of say an ME109E, then why not fit a couple of Cameras and use it for recon?

 

[Saphroneth]

If it has the ceiling, range and maneuverability, but not the damage resistance of say an ME109E, then why not fit a couple of Cameras and use it for recon?

The Zero performed poorly at altitude. I think it's a result of the light engine.
At low altitude and low speed, it was beautifully agile. At higher altitude or higher speed, less so.

 

[Geordie]

Where it would be useful was I supporting strikes against Northern England from Norway, which was much more weakly defended by RAF units and may have forced redeployments from Southern England.

While the defences in Northern England were - for obvious reasons - not as thick as in the South, it was hardly left unguarded. Luftflotte 5 got a bit of a slap-down on the 15th of August 1940 for thinking the North East was exposed. Obviously, Zeroes in escort, rather than Me110s, would likely be rather more effective, but what were the zeroes made instead of? How many squadrons of Zeroes need to be sent to Norway to distract the RAF? Will they manage to draw enough RAF fighters away from the South East to make the effort worth the Luftwaffe's while?

For once, the RAF have the internal lines of communication here, and they're also used to rotating squadrons from the South to the North anyway, as they were doing it for R&R purposes.

 

[Shadow Master]

I hope everyone is preparing some good tactics/doctrines for their plans. This discussion has already brought one thing to my attention that I didn't know before, and so I have altered my evil plan....

 

[AdA]

Iirc tge bf109-e7 could be plumbed for an external fuel tank that would have greatly increased combat radius, but in th the bob the pylon was used for a bomb.

Was the E-7 used in BoB in relevant numbers? IIRC the LW fought the BoB with a mix of E-3 and E-4, the E-7 having been introduced later Wiki gives late August as service entry with older Bf109 being refitted for drop tanks from october.

 

[Riain]

That seems like a really odd decision. A few extra bombs carried by fighters would be neither here nor there in terms of bringing Britain to her knees; whereas as soon as the Luftwaffe realised the extent of the fighter opposition they were facing the advantages of extending the 109's combat radius should have been clear. I've heard that the Luftwaffe didn't use drop tanks because they couldn't afford the expenditure of aluminium to make them out of, but since the tanks can be made out of wood or even paper this doesn't sound right. Another possibility is that the Germans were just slow to react to the circumstances that existed - I have trouble believing this as well, because whatever ideological hindrances they had they weren't slackers or idiots at any stage. German forces were tactically sophisticated at a uniformly high level for almost all of the war.
If you want to do fast "tip and run" raids, then putting a few bombs on Me-110s makes a degree of sense. But lumbering your main-line air-superiority fighters with bombs is something you do after you've defeated the enemy air forces, not while they're still hacking down your aircraft by the score. Can anyone shed any light on why they might have decided to do this?

There is a bit in the back of Len Deighton's 'Fighter' about the Bf109-E7 fuel tank, and his conclusion is that the lack of a tank is baffling. Bf110s had tanks as did He51s in Spain but the Bf109 didn't even get a shackle to carry anything until late August 1940 when the E7 became available, and then the fuel plumbing wasn't installed until later. In the meantime they became nuisance raiders when carrying a bomb, about as useless an 'improvement' as is possible to imagine. Apparently the moulded plywood tanks of older aircraft would often split, but this shouldn't have been an insurmountable problem or a real handicap when stacked up against the problems the Bf109 force laboured under.

So, better than a Zero coming on line during the BoB would be the timely fitment of a drop tank to the Bf109.

 

[Riain]

Was the E-7 used in BoB? IIRC the LW fought the BoB with a mix of E-3 and E-4, the E-7 having been introduced later with an eye on Med use.

Late August, so early production ones would have served in the later parts of the BoB. But apparently the fuel plumbing for a drop tank wasn't ready in time for the BoB.

 

[GarethC]

Not really a BoB issue, but an A6M force would be useful in prosecuting the Arctic convoys as an escort to the FW.200s once the CAM Hurricanes and later escort carriers become available.

Which means that 1942 would see F4F vs. A6M clashes over the Norwegian Sea as well as in the Pacific. Plus [FONT=&quot]ç[/FONT]a change...

 

[andyheong]

As a fun challenge, I’ll make a thread where folks can have a week to think up the most advantageous use for a limited number of Zeroes in the BoB. The premise will be that the entire OTL Luftwaffe still exists, but that this ATL Germany has a 30 Zero/month production capacity in addition to all OTL capacity. This will allow me to get ideas from everyone else, and I’ll also see if anyone comes up with the most important/advantageous uses.

Basically, Germany starts 1940 building a Zero a day, so by the end of June they ~180 Zeroes ready to throw in against the RAF. Try to work out the tatics and doctirne you would use to gain the most from your limited supply of long range fighters.


Any takers?

The initial meeting will be a shock for Allied pilots if they try to dogfight the Zero. Then they will quickly realise that the Zero has little capacity to take damage and will be vulnerable to zoom and shoot tactics. The advantage of the Zero would probable be the loiter time over UK (assuming anyone can find the data to back this up).

The advantage the Zero had in OTL was a combination of highly trained IJN pilots, obsolescent allied aircraft in SE Asia and as it was an 'Asian' plane it was also underestimated by it's opponents. Once the USAF, USN and USMC got over the shock of meeting Zeros, their P-40s and F4Fs were more or less able to hold their own. I don't think the Zeros will bring much to the Germans apart from dead pilots when the Zeros explode after getting hit. Werner Molders was bailed out over France twice but if he had been in a Zero it's likely he would have been dead after the first time.

 

[mcdo]

Not entirely. The Japanese philosophy in weapons was to have greater range and greater hitting power at range - hence the "diving shell".
If they'd considered self sealing fuel tanks important, they could have done it (and greatly reduced the fragility of their Zeros) once they took Malaya, which was All The World's Rubber Bonanza. They didn't, suggesting that this element at least of the long-range high-power low-defence weapons was philosophical.

They did, actually--the A6M6 (admittedly a very late war variant) was fitted with self-sealing gas tanks. The Ki-61 , which was the first fighter developed after The conquest of Malaya, featured self-sealing fuel tanks (and pilot armor, and bulletproof cockpit glass) from the start.

While prewar doctrine definitely favored light weight and low wing-loading, I don't think it is fair to say they had a philosophical opposition to armor or self-sealing fuel tanks. Throughout the war, each new Zero variant, and each new fighter developed, would have more and more armor fitted. With specific regard to self-sealing fuel tanks, I think it was less a rubber shortage than a lack of knowledge of how to properly chemically treat the rubber. Several Japanese fighter variants before the Ki-61 debued in August 1942 had multiple layers of rubber around the central fuel tank, but that does not a self-sealing fuel tank make. In the meantime, Zeros made due with automatic fire extinguishers in the fuel tanks, which did help stop the exploding issue, but not the fuel leak issue.

 

[Shadow Master]

Does anyone have any new thoughts for this thread? my computer broke down on me and I have not been able to post. I finally got my Vista machine up and running for however long it will be. When I get home I will post the information that I gathered since my last participation in this thread. I hope to get the discussion restarted and get in some good info.