First, the whole idea of the tactic was to avoid combat with the escorts. Dive past them, his and dive clear, unless actively pursued (and the '109 pilots had orders to stay with the bombers) zoom for height, t the 109 pilots didnt have orders to stay with the bombers till 2/3 of the way through the battle! If you dive and climb in sight of the formation an escort will pick you off, if you get clear and climb then the formation is miles away! hen climb back up and do it again. This can break up a bomber formation just as effectively as being chased around by the escorts. If the escorts chased you, continue the dive to low level and fight him there. but he was superior to the p40 at ALL altitudes just less so at low level The German tactics involved MASSED attacks by large numbers of fighters. This is why even a relatively small escort force could be effective. Engage the mass before it could attack. and the RAF didnt? Unless you can overwhelm the escort, the 'mission continues' in any event. The question is: can you inflict enough losses to discourage tomorrow's mission. As I mentioned, these tactics were used very effectively by the AVG in China on a smaller scale, of course, but the altitudes and relative performance of the a/c were similar, proportionate numbers of interceptors lower and the GCI support much more primative. the altitude in china was sub 10k for most all raids and the japanise fighter escort was in inferior aircraft to the p40 not superior ones like the 109 would have been. the raid sizes were also much smaller, in most raids the fighter escort by the japs were outnumbered by the avg, in the bob it was the other way round. lack of aircraft was never an issue for the luftwaffe! the job of the BOB fighters was to disrupt the attack, one bomber on its own is pretty ineffective, it took formation bombing to get results, breakup the formation and you end up with indivual aircraft so minising the effectiveness of the raid it was never going to possible to inflict sufficent casulties in the bob to stop the raids it was to discorage them. the AVG only managed about 1/3 of thier aircraft in any engagement due to the requirements of long patrol/ong service times I was aware that the Tomahawk I didn't come with racks, but the structure was built for them, and installation (assuming the racks and fittings were available) should not have been a problem. the structure might have been made for 3x20lbs as it was the old p36 airframe, however if they are not fitted and no allowance made to be able to fit them I would say that the role was not one of ground support! the oringinal spec for the spit had the same bomb requirement but it was never classed as a ground support untill 42

Bombers generally operate at their most efficient height. Typical Japanese twin engine bombers had best height of about 15K, similar to German He's and Do's. A Ki44, or Zero of '41-'42 was quite comperable to a '109E in speed, climb and fire power. A Ki43 gave up speed firepower compared to a '109E but was much more maneuverable and at least as good in climb. My understanding is that Luft '109s assigned to escort were expected to remain with the bombers, and that the policy became increasingly strict as losses mounted. RAF in BoB rarely managed mass attacks, until the Germans switched targets to London, and even then the Big Wing usually attacked them on the way out. For most of the BoB, Ftr Com was throwing squadrons in individually, or at best, in pairs. Two dozen a/c isn't a massed attack against several hundred bombers. The Luft was trying to send in attacks numbering well over a hundred at a time. As to the AVG outnumbering Japanese attacks, they were usually lucky if they could put up a dozen a/c at a time.

To OBNW ref Tomahawk bomb rack. Checked some references. Tomahawks (P40b & C) were equiped to carry external fuel tanks of either 52 or 150 gal. cap. AS the same racks were used for drop tanks as for bombs, and weight of full 150 gal. tank would be over 700 lbs, they did have the capability. Can't say if it was used or not. Later model Kittyhawks also had wing racks for either a drip tank or 250 lb bomb.

"The Hurri with 40mms was a fairly ingenius idea as a specialized tank destroyer, even if the limited ammo supply, and terrible effect on performance were debits. God knows that British tank forces in the desert needed all the help they could get." They were a good system but were largely dropped in favour of RP-3 aircraft rockets in the anti-tank role, when these came into use(the Hurricane being the first aircraft to use them). The 40mm's were much more accurate and with 12 to 15 rounds per gun would have given the Mark IID the opportunity to destroy more tanks per mission than a rocket armed equivilent, with 8 weapons. However, the performance disadvantage made them too vulnerable to AAA fire and they couldn't destroy a Tiger tank. The Mark IV had a universal wing which could have them fitted when needed, and they were used from time to time when the situation suited, use in 1944 in Normandy against armour and coastal shipping and in the Far-East against road and river transport being the last times I have read about. They were a good system for specific circumstances and demonstrate the intrinsic versatility of the type. "I know that ref. claim that a Hurri bomber could carry 2x500 lb bombs, but I'd hate to think about the performance penalty. With performance already reduced with the air filter, etc., and never all that great at low altitude (best altitude for a Hurri II is listed as 18K) what could have been left??" First of all, just because the Hurri's performance was best at 18k doesn't mean that it was bad at low-level compared to other types(eg, the P-40). That said, I accept that 2 x 500lb'ers would have had a big impact on performance. The 40mm guns weighed just under 300lb each and dropped the top speed to around 280mph, so you would expect a 500lb x 2 armed Hurri to have a top speed of around 250mph or so. However unlike with the guns, a Hurri with bombs could drop them if threatened by enemy fighters, at which point the Hurri was capable of defending itself nicely. Also, the use of the bombs only necessitates one pass at a target, so they wouldn't be as exposed to AAA as the IID's with guns would have. Finally, the extra weight is only an issue on ingress, whereas the guns hindered the types performance right through the mission. Given missions that could make use of the specific characteristics of the 500lb'ers or 40mm guns, I tend to think think that the risk/return payoff would have been quite acceptable. For instance, a well-protected pontoon bridge would be a sufficiently important tactical target to risk the Hurricanes on with 500lb'ers. A big armoured column might have also justified such a risk for 40mm armed Hurri's, whilst a train or a convoy that might have been less well protected, would have reduced the risk to an acceptable level for more widespread use. However, The main point relating to both the 40mm and the 500lb'ers, is that the Hurricane gave commanders the option of using 500lb'er earlier than the P-40 didn't and in the case of the 40mm the P-40 never had anything comparable. Also, regarding your reference about the Hurricane IIA is wrong. It had 12 x 303 MG's or 4 x 20mm cannon. I tend to think that either of these weapons choices would have been more useful than 4 - 6, .3 or .5 cals, with the 20mm's giving better hitting power against harder targets and fragmentation against soft ones, whist 12 x 303's would have given better area saturation against troops and soft vehicles.

In actual fact, the reference you give "FIGHTERS OVER THE DESERT" also gets the Hurricane Mark IID's armament wrong, as it had 40mm cannon, not 37mm. Given those two mistakes it makes me question the accuracy of the rest of the speeds/altitudes etc that are given.

To AussieEngineer: The Hurricane IIA retained the 8x.303 armament of the MkI. The 12x.303 (or cannon as alternate) armament came with the MkIIB.

Actually according to these sites we are both right, and wrong. The Hurricane Mark IIA, Series One, came into service in September 1940 with 8 x .303 mg's. In October 1940 the Mark IIA, Series Two, came into service with alternate 12 x .303 mg's or 4 x 20mm cannon armed wings. In April 1941 the Mark IIB came into service. I'd have to say that most Mark IIA's would have been Series 2's, with the 12 guns or 4 cannon, but you are correct that for a month at least 8 gun Mark IIA's were produced. http://www.vectorsite.net/avhurr.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane#Hurricane_Mk.II

That info more complete than what I had. PROFILE #24, HAWKER HURRICANE IIC just says that: "the first Hurricane IIs to reach the RAF on 4th September 1940 were Mark IIAs with standard 8-gun wings. Twelve-gun wings started moving down the Langley lines shortly afterwards and were delivered to home squadrons as Hurricane IIBs at the end of the year." I remember reading that Douglas Bader insisted on keeping a IIB when his wing was equiped with IICs because he considered the cannon unreliable. Ref the Tomahawk. While they were not used in England as fighters, they did re-equip three army co-operation squadrons in summer of '41: Nos 2, 13 and 26. Also pilots from a number of other RAF and RCAF sqds were checked out in them, and 'several hundred' were kept in England as a reserve in case of German invasion attempt in '41. (according to PROFILE 35 CURTISS P40 TOMAHAWK.

>>gf0012-aust rememeber that shooter has a pathalogical need for US planes to be superior to anything else.<< This is pure bull! No one on this board has ever asked which WW-II planes I thought were the best and I have never stated anything on this topic. None here can find any quote that I have ever posted stating which single engined fighter was the best. I personaly think the Ta-152 and some Me-109K6's were much better than any allied fighter! >> that they werent cannot be allowed and facts have got to be warped or missread to prove that in fact all american plans were superior, little relising that this actually devalues the superb planes the US did build. arguing that the p39 was anything but a complete dog does little to improve peoples opinon, an aircraft that even the USAAF rejected for use in europe. << I have pointed out that the Ruskies had half a dozzen pilots who flew P-39s and shot down more planes than any American or Brit. IIRC their top P-39 Ace had 48-49 kills? That either P-39/40 would out fly the German Bombers of the BoB is beyond question. If the Hurry was so great and it's published stats are infirior to the P-39/40, AND it downed roughly 2/3rds of all the Germans Killed durring the BoB, Why would any rational person think it, the P-39/40, could not do the job?

And wouldn't handling at high altitude be a much better defence anyway?? The endurance limit on an Me262 would be very tight on an intercept, even at 35K. I recall reading that during the early '50s jet interceptors had a lot of trouble with the big B36 because the speed range between the top speed and stall speed of the early jets at 35K became very narrow, and the big bomber could actually out maneuver them. << This is true as the Big-36 could opperate at well above 50K'! My Uncle told me he personaly had one to almost 56K'!