Whirlwind vs Me 109 during B of B

[-Neu-]

But we still get the Hornet - the Luftwaffe was terrified of the Mosquito, imagine the panic if they'd actually got the Hornet in service before the end of the war?

I to this day believe that the Hornet was one of the most underrated 1946 aircraft. Enthusiasts love to point to stuff like the Do-335 or other Luftwaffe designs... when the british had developed an aircraft that outclassed most of them.

All in hindsight of course, but I think Goering's failure to neutralize CHAIN HOME and Hitler's strategic shift to bombing of cities changed what started as a very close affair to one that favored the RAF greatly. By having only the Hurricane and a heavy twin like the Whirlwind, the Me-110 would have faired better in the battles, and the Me-109 altitude advantage would have favored the Luftwaffe just a bit more; resulting in the bombers being more effective. These two changes may, and that's a weak "may", have worn down the RAF a bit quicker. Catastrophic if that had happened, and I am glad we'll never know.

Tim

There was a UK history symposium a few years ago that suggested none of this mattered; the inability to do anything to the Royal Navy was Germany's key failing. In the event of any invasion, the UK could just sortie the home fleet with 10 to 12 battleships, 30+ cruisers and innumerable destroyers and sail to the south of england. It might have been ugly, with a number of capital ships lost due to mines and Uboats, but in the end there was little the Germans would be able to do to stop such a force. Once among the landing fleet, the german forces would have been crushed, in a fashion like what almost occurred during the Leyte Gulf. Those units on the beaches would have starved of ammunition and fuel very quickly and be easy pickings for home units with Naval gunfire support. Germany would have lost hundreds of thousands of their best troops in a matter of days.

Edited March 16, 2013 by -Neu-

[Duncan B]

buggrit if i ever make 1 its getting 2 griffons!

No, stick 2 Avons on it, go the whole hog and a bit! 30kFt no problem then.

Duncan B

[Sten Ekedahl]

A little outside the scope of this thread, but IIRC a wargaming session/study was held in the 50's or 60's with participation of former German and British generals and admirals from WWII. The purpose was to study whether or not Operation "Seelöwe", according to the original German plan, could have succeeded. One of the contitions set before the game was that the Luftwaffe had won the BoB. But in the end the operation failed, because even if the German Army had succeded in getting ashore and captured a bridgehead, Germany wasn't able to provide enough supply across the Chanel to sustain a ground offensive in England. They had no Mulberry harbours, no PLUTO, no Red Ball Express and they were woefully short of ships to provide the large scale uninterupted logistic flow needed. As a comparison the Allied supply capacity across the Channel in 1944 was vastly greater than anything the Germans would have been able to achieve in 1940, but even despite this, it was still a severely limiting factor for the operations on the western front in 1944.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Sten Ekedahl

[JohnT]

I always liked the Whirlwind as one of those aircraft from that time when several designs just didn't quite make it to their full potential due to a number of reasons. In the case of the Whirlwind her combination of speed and firepower make her a real "if only" subject.

However she just didn't live up to expectations.

The two squadrons so equipped carried out 5000 or so sorties. Only a handful of air to air victories were achieved because the large bomber fleet targets had gone and the Whirlwind was left to deal with single engines fighters. She was not a match for the 109 and outclassed by the emerging 190. Like all twins in WW2 they were not good at tackling the latest single engined fighters. EG Me 110, P-38, Beaufighter etc.

She was noted as being particularly vulnerable to return fire from bombers which given her proposed role is not a good characteristic.

The average monthly sortie rate was not impressive at 138. She did achieve some success as a fighter bomber but had the great misfortune to find herself overshadowed by the emergent Mosquito. Arguably the best MRCA ever in the history of aviation.

To digress on the who won the BoB - I always think that Hitler played a much bigger role in the final outcome than portrayed. He didn't say "on land I am a hero, at sea I am a coward" for Remember how powerful a force the 1940 Royal Navy was perceived to be. The aircraft carrier was still in the minds of most except the visionaries the second string to the big gun fleet. It took the Pacific to alter that. No battleship had been sunk by aircraft while at sea at that time so it could not be done. From Hitlers perspective the RN looked frighteningly formidable and even with air superiority it would almost certainly be a disaster. The RN would have taken big losses but the German Army would have drowned and how many armoured divisions would languish at the bottom of the Channel - tanks needed for Russia.

Recalling his attitude over the River Plate battle, Bismark sortie and Tirpitz I think he expected to lose every time the German surface fleet went toe to toe with the RN. A sort of inferiority complex. Coupled with his burning desire to go East I can't help but wonder if he was quietly satisfied in the depths of his mind that he was not having to attempt to cross the Channel, something I expect his incorrect analysis of British policy towards Europe would have lead him to believe was unnecessary.

Edited March 16, 2013 by JohnT

[Christopher]

I seem to remember an account in which Spitfires supposedly 'rescued' two untroubled Whirlwinds from a group of Fw190s. The Whirlwind was an agile plane and would have certainly made mincemeat of the Bf110. The Bf109 was more problematic - the Hurricane could out-turn it but was otherwise outclassed. However, the four Hispano cannon layout in the Whirlwind would have been a deciding factor. That kind of firepower would allow the Whirlwind to hit at ranges greater than the Luftwaffe bombers could handle. As the original poster is envisaging a lot of Whirlwinds any reliability problems with the Hispano would have been rapidly solved. I suspect that the RAF would have evolved tactics to use the good points of their fighters. The outcome of the BoB would have been the same though.

[UKscalemodeller]

With 655 victories going to 30 Squadrons, at 22.5 per Squadron, while 19 Spitfire Squadrons got 530, at 28 per Squadron, the difference really isn't worth arguing about, but I'd say we have vindication of the old saying, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."dEdgar

Edgar, where did you get the stats from?

I, like countless others have always belived the 'Hurricane did lots of work but the spitfire got the glory' story. I am currently reading 'How the Spitfire won the battle of britain' by Dilip Sarkar , am 2/3 of the way through and I must say he's not convinced me yet.

[gingerbob]

More to the point, think about the fact that it WAS 3/5 Hurri, 2/5 Spit (roughly speaking). It was the FIVE fifths that did the job. That's like arguing whether it was the forward or the goalie that won the soccer (sorry, football) game. There's a reason it is called a team sport.

bob

Edited March 19, 2013 by gingerbob

[Edgar]

I am currently reading 'How the Spitfire won the battle of britain' by Dilip Sarkar , am 2/3 of the way through and I must say he's not convinced me yet.

Read the final third. (blasted smileys refuse to work.)

Edgar

[ejboyd5]

Given similar numbers of aircraft it would have required twice the total number of engines for the Whirlwind as compared to the Spitfire. Would engine production have been able to increase so as to equip and maintain a Whirlwind fleet?

[Edgar]

It wasn't just engines (which couldn't operate efficiently at the necessary height, anyway.) Westland could produce, at most, 1-2 airframes per week, while Squadrons were losing that many aircraft per day, so some other manufacturer would have needed to go over to producing the Whirlwind. 17-10-40, Dowding reported that there was still no complete Squadron of Whirlwinds, because they were simply not getting enough new ones.

One deciding factor, for Dowding, was that the anticipated Hurricane IIC would operate higher, and carry the same cannon armament, with more ammunition, using only a single engine.

Edgar

[brewerjerry]

whirlwind with merlins?

Hi

Yep,

i communcated with the guy who worked in the westlands drawing office, who designed the merlin engine package, later in 1941 production of the whirlwind was offered with merlin XX engines.

imho It seems there may have been two options, one with an early merlin, and later the one with the merlin XX.

my whif theory on the XX version is 'lanc/beau' engine pods with the radiator area in the whirlwinds wings free for the addition fuel tanks.

....... Yes the airframe could cope with the merlin development, according to the guys who designed it.......

there is even a westland sketch of a cross between a whirlwind and a welkin. ( I posted it on the whirlwind replice project website )

Cheers

Jerry

P.S.

the drawing is also posted in this thread page 5 near the end of the page.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5734.60.html

"drawing from aviation news 1982,based on westland drawing 84132 6th dec 1940"

Edited March 19, 2013 by brewerjerry

[XV107]

A little outside the scope of this thread, but IIRC a wargaming session/study was held in the 50's or 60's with participation of former German and British generals and admirals from WWII. The purpose was to study whether or not Operation "Seelöwe", according to the original German plan, could have succeeded. One of the contitions set before the game was that the Luftwaffe had won the BoB. But in the end the operation failed, because even if the German Army had succeded in getting ashore and captured a bridgehead, Germany wasn't able to provide enough supply across the Chanel to sustain a ground offensive in England. They had no Mulberry harbours, no PLUTO, no Red Ball Express and they were woefully short of ships to provide the large scale uninterupted logistic flow needed. As a comparison the Allied supply capacity across the Channel in 1944 was vastly greater than anything the Germans would have been able to achieve in 1940, but even despite this, it was still a severely limiting factor for the operations on the western front in 1944.

It was a wargame at Sandhurst in 1974. The RAF Staff College used to run Ex See Adler, and as Sir Christopher Foxley Norris pointed out (he had been on the Directing Staff at Bracknell or Andover), when he ran it, he went to the Commandant and pointed out that the Germans always won if you applied the key principles that the Staff College taught its students...

[oz rb fan]

jerry if i recal...petter wanted the merlin but the airministry wouldnt let them have it?...the nacelle was said to be designed for the merlin with a few minoir mods

here's my merlin powered one!!!

i also read that on the deck a whirlwind was pretty much big trouble for a 190!!

[Selwyn]

I seem to remember an account in which Spitfires supposedly 'rescued' two untroubled Whirlwinds from a group of Fw190s. The Whirlwind was an agile plane and would have certainly made mincemeat of the Bf110. The Bf109 was more problematic - the Hurricane could out-turn it but was otherwise outclassed. However, the four Hispano cannon layout in the Whirlwind would have been a deciding factor. That kind of firepower would allow the Whirlwind to hit at ranges greater than the Luftwaffe bombers could handle. As the original poster is envisaging a lot of Whirlwinds any reliability problems with the Hispano would have been rapidly solved. I suspect that the RAF would have evolved tactics to use the good points of their fighters. The outcome of the BoB would have been the same though.

There wasn't really any reliability problems with the Whirlwind Hispano installation.

The Hispano was originally designed as a "Moteur Cannon" to be installed in the "V" of the Hispano Suisa aircraft engine, and fired through the spinner. This gave the Cannon a rigid mounting (the engine block) and the installation was generally trouble free.

Problems with reliability were caused when the RAF mounted them in the wing. Firstly the cannons were too long resulting in the recoil mechanism being overcooled, being out in the cold wind rather than in the nice warm engine compartment. Secondly a wing is designed to have some degree of flex, which resulted in a not very rigid mount for the cannon, and the cannon also had to be mounted on its side to accomodate the ammunition drum which caused feed problems.

The Whirlwind nose mounted cannon were on rigid mounts, the recoil mechanisms didn't really project out of the airframe (much),and the guns were mounted the right way up so no feed problems. Therefore most of the gun problems encountered on Spitfire and Hurricane just didn't appear on Whirlwind.

The eventual solution on the single seat fighters was to introduce belt feeds rather than the drums, aerodynamic fairings over the projecting recoil mechanism/barrel, and later on in the Mk 5 Hispano a shorter barrel and recoil assembly which hardly projected from the leading edge at all. But obviously this all happened after the demise of whirlwind!

Selwyn

[Spitfires Forever]

From what I have been able to gather it seems that the Whirlwind had the potential to be the only true twin engined fighter, as opposed to gun platforms like the Me 110 used as fighters but unable to go one on one successfully with a single engined opponent. Most twin engined fighters used during WWII were generally at a disadvantage in one on one ACM situations against single engined fighters. I haven't yet read much in regards to the performance of the Mossie in a tight turning, one on one battle with a single engined aircraft. I have read that the P-61 could effectively turn with single engined fighters due to the air rakes on top of the wings, sort of like grabbing a pole and turning on that instead of trying to run around the pole in a much bigger circle. Maybe someday Osprey will come out with a book on Whirlwind aces, (come to think of it, were there any Whirlwind aces?)

Cheers

[Chuck1945]

From what I have been able to gather it seems that the Whirlwind had the potential to be the only true twin engined fighter, as opposed to gun platforms like the Me 110 used as fighters but unable to go one on one successfully with a single engined opponent. Most twin engined fighters used during WWII were generally at a disadvantage in one on one ACM situations against single engined fighters. I haven't yet read much in regards to the performance of the Mossie in a tight turning, one on one battle with a single engined aircraft. I have read that the P-61 could effectively turn with single engined fighters due to the air rakes on top of the wings, sort of like grabbing a pole and turning on that instead of trying to run around the pole in a much bigger circle. Maybe someday Osprey will come out with a book on Whirlwind aces, (come to think of it, were there any Whirlwind aces?)

Cheers

ummm ... P-38 Lightning?

[Work In Progress]

Me-262?

[JohnT]

jerry if i recal...petter wanted the merlin but the airministry wouldnt let them have it?...the nacelle was said to be designed for the merlin with a few minoir mods

here's my merlin powered one!!!

i also read that on the deck a whirlwind was pretty much big trouble for a 190!!

From what I read when the Whirlwind came across the 190 the 190 could pull away easily from the Whirlwind. A couple of 190's were claimed as probables. In all 6 claims were made against 190s by Whirlwind pilots as follows

Destroyed nil

Probables 0.5 (shared between 2 Whirlwinds)

Damaged 5

Fact remains that over 75% of all Whirlwinds produced were lost in action or accidents.

[JohnT]

(come to think of it, were there any Whirlwind aces?)

Cheers

Nope

The Whirlwind best scorer was p/o Clifford P Rudland of 263 SQN with 2 victories

Then four more pilots with 1 each and then six pilots with a half score each

I don't know if any of them went on to ace status on another aircraft

Happy to let you have the full claim lost by dates, unit, type claimed, aircraft serial etc if you pm me

[davidelvy]

I haven't yet read much in regards to the performance of the Mossie in a tight turning, one on one battle with a single engined aircraft. I have read that the P-61 could effectively turn with single engined fighters due to the air rakes on top of the wings, sort of like grabbing a pole and turning on that instead of trying to run around the pole in a much bigger circle. Maybe someday Osprey will come out with a book on Whirlwind aces, (come to think of it, were there any Whirlwind aces?)

Cheers

I recall reading (can't remember where, I'm afraid) that a Mosquito could out turn single engined opposition. It would, however, be disadvantaged in terms of other elements of manoeuvrability such as rate of roll.

[Work In Progress]

From what I have been able to gather it seems that the Whirlwind had the potential to be the only true twin engined fighter, as opposed to gun platforms like the Me 110 used as fighters but unable to go one on one successfully with a single engined opponent. Most twin engined fighters used during WWII were generally at a disadvantage in one on one ACM situations against single engined fighters. I haven't yet read much in regards to the performance of the Mossie in a tight turning, one on one battle with a single engined aircraft. I have read that the P-61 could effectively turn with single engined fighters due to the air rakes on top of the wings, sort of like grabbing a pole and turning on that instead of trying to run around the pole in a much bigger circle.

You seem to be regarding minimum turn radius as the defining quality of a fighter. Minimum turn radius is not necessarily important in ACM and should certainly not be regarded as the definitive virtue. If you have superior top speed, acceleration and zoom climb capability then you would be crazy to get involved in a turning fight at all. You have the ability to engage and disengage at will, and if you need more than one pass you can trade speed for height and back again to repeat your attack.

For example, the FW190A has a poor turning radius compared to any Spitfire or Hurricane, but was a far superior fighter to either in 1941, mainly because it could attack at will, and run away at will, and had heavy armament.

The time you need a tight turn radius most is when your attacker has the energy advantage and you're on the back foot. Then it can be handy. But it's always better to be the one controlling the fight, dictating the terms, than the one curling up in a ball like a hedgehog. F6F versus Zero... P-38 vs A5M... FW190 versus Hurricane... P-51D vs Bf.109G... 109F versus Gladiator... the tight-turn specialist is the one at the disadvantage when up against the boom and zoom type.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Work In Progress

[Spitfires Forever]

I understand your point, you go with the best attributes that your aircraft has and use them to your advantage. Obviously the Wildcat or the P-40 could not turn with the Zero, in fact neither could the Hellcat or Corsair when engaged in battle with a pilot with the ability of Nishizawa or Sakai, so they needed to fight on their terms not the Zero's. And we all know the struggle between the Spit Mk V and Fw 190, thusly the Spit Mk XII and Mk IX. There are many examples that come to mind. No doubt there are many factors in play within the ACM environment, i.e. who sees whom first,,altitude..sun position ( all from Bolecke's bible) but my emphasis is on the turning fight, twin vs single. Eventually most dogfights go to that point once the initial strikes have been made, just like in most physical confrontations the fight usually goes to ground within the first minute, thusly Jiu jitsu comes into play. My initial query was meant to see what others would think how the Whirlwind would fare under these circumstances. As to the Me 262, there was no contest with its speed and zoom capabilities, but I wasn't talking about jets, especially in a turning fight. Regarding the P-38, which Galland had very little respect for, the consensus amoung many, both pilots and aviation historians was that the P-38 was not very effective/ suited for the ETO, but did well in the Pacific where twin engines added greatly to the survivability of an aircraft that fought over water. Of course, in the hands of a Dick Bong or Thomas McGuire who knows what success they would have had in the ETO? The bottom line is that there are many variables in air combat, too many to give a truly definitive answer to the many theories and questions that arise, and will continue to do so as long as people like ourselves have an interest in military aviation.

Cheers

[brewerjerry]

Fact remains that over 75% of all Whirlwinds produced were lost in action or accidents.

Hi

could we have some comparism figures for losses for other aircraft to compare ?

i.e. spitfire hurricane etc...

cheers

Jerry

[MilneBay]

Well I know it's all hypothetical but replace the awful useless Defiant with a couple of squadrons of Whirlwinds as pure bomber destroyers - 4x20 mm cannon in a head on attack would be be pretty damn devastating to a bomber and maintain the number of Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons. That would keep the same balance as existed with Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants.

[Work In Progress]

SA,

Actually I don;t think you did understand my point. My point was not that you fight to the relative strength of your aeroplane: my point is that the general set of strengths that come from extra speed, acceleration, rate of climb and dive, and firepower are *much* more valuable than ability to sustain a tight turn. So while it's perfectly OK to argue about which fighter might be able to out-tuen another, that's not a proxy for which is the better fighter. Giiven pilots of equal competence, it is the one in the aeroplane with the energy advantage who has the upper hand. Turning circle is a fall-back: it is advantageous only when things have already gone wrong for you

t my emphasis is on the turning fight, twin vs single. Eventually most dogfights go to that point once the initial strikes have been made

That's where I think you are paying too much attention to a romantic notion. Some *dogfights* end up in turning, though not most because that will only happen when both aeroplanes are broadly matched in energy performance, or if the pilot of the superior aeroplane (i.e. the one with the energy advantage) is stupid enough to fight to the advantage of the prey. But the raison' d'etre of the fighter is not the dogfight, it is winning aerial combats, Very few *aerial combats* ever become dogfights at all, and even fewer are resolved in one pilot out-turning the other - where one pilot has a significantly more energy-rich aeroplane he will disengage and come back (if he wants to) in a slashing attack. The fighter pilot's job is to shoot the other guy in the back taking as few risks as possible and clear off sharpish, ideally without the victim ever seeing the attacker.

So, in simple terms, the reason that the Bf.110 was inferior to the Spitfire and Hurricane in the B of B is not that it couldn't turn. It is that it was slow. If it had been equally slow, but able to out-turn a Hurricane, then fewer 110s might have been lost but it would still have been fairly useless as a daytime escort fighter and would not have been able to keep the fighters off the bombers. If on the other hand it had been 30 mph faster than a Spitfire I, then its poor turning circle would not have prevented it from being devastatingly effective. It would never had had to dogfight.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Work In Progress