Aerial refuelling in WW2
- Thread starter Alexius
- Start date
It could allow much greater range on bombers, but with Britain staying firm against the Nazis it didn't much matter. because they could easily bomb most of Europe form the British Isles.
Could have made much more difference in the Pacific. If the bombers could be refueled and therefore could fly much further than they could in OTL. Perhaps that makes the Americans focus more on aircraft carriers (and bigger ones to carry Bombers, too) and use these to start pounding Japan much earlier than in OTL?
Could have made much more difference in the Pacific. If the bombers could be refueled and therefore could fly much further than they could in OTL. Perhaps that makes the Americans focus more on aircraft carriers (and bigger ones to carry Bombers, too) and use these to start pounding Japan much earlier than in OTL?
It would have closed the Atlantic gap helping to defeat the U-Boats. Then it would have facilitated transport flights across Africa to India.
It would have then made the Pacific War a lot easier for America.
That is all of course for the Allies. If the Axis took it up you could get anti-convey missions to assist the U-Boats and a lot of longer ranging fighter escorts.
In the pacific the Japanese could make themselves a lot more of a nuisance especially to Australia.
Thought that came as a result of this - could conceivably the Allies move supplies to Australia, and then use long-distance flights to keep Singapore and Hong Kong? That would royally piss off the Japanese and if they can keep those bases the Japanese will have a real problem moving supplies around.
This makes very interesting reading, especially from Page 15 on and very especially the 'wartime might have beens' on Page 17
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/75yrs_inflight_refueling.pdf
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/75yrs_inflight_refueling.pdf
Well I think apart from the obvious maritime patrol work the most significant use of this would be transport. Much of the payload of a plane is fuel sometimes 50%. Now a fully loaded aircraft needs so much fuel to get off the ground and climb to it's economical cruising height that it is not carrying as much as it could.
If it was given enough fuel to take off and reach a re-fueler at its cruising height it could add 50% to it's payload and fly further especially if it could rendezvous with more tankers en-route.
I'm not so sure. The shortest-ranged aircraft are the smallest one; which is, apart from short-range liaison and recon and assorted grasshoppers, fighters.
Now, fighters also are the kind of aircraft that can ruin the day of every other kind.
So if refueling in the air was widespread, the most significant impact would be in fighter range. There's been a lot of Battle-of-Britain-related threads; imagine if the Bf 109s take off, gain altitude, and get refueled just off the French coast. That changes the game, I think.
Of course, the British would also use refueling - one hopes.
Think about the US daylight strategic bombing policies, and how the game changed once the long-ranged Mustang became available.
The larger the aircraft the greater the percentage of it's gross weight would be fuel. Aerial refueling would greatly increase payloads.
Airborne tankers would be vulnerable as would machines refueling from them. To make aerial refueling useful for escort or interdiction missions it would have to take place in range of enemy fighters and would not be a viable proposition.
But large aircraft (transport, bombers) could and always did trade fuel for payload. Fighters have much less flexibility there.
If I mentioned take-off and climbing to air-superiority altitude as the things to do before refueling, it's because those are great consumers. Once a fighter is fully topped up at operational height, its range increases disporportionately. I believe. And German planes were not attacked by British fighters as they came over the French coast. Likewise, refueling Mustangs over Britain as they went into Germany would put the tankers at the edge of the German defense system, later on.
Note anyway that just like bombers can be escorted by fighters, then tankers can also be, and as pointed out above, they don't need to go as deep into the enemy fighters' range as bomber do.
Even so, yes, tankers would become valuable targets. That would have been true in any post-WWII all-out confrontation among superpowers (read WWIII), but it doesn't seem post-WWII planners considered tankers unviable, in general, nor tankers refueling fighters, in particular.
I would say you certainly have to rule out AAR for European Theatre bombing operations (except possibly against Tirpitz etc) with its use limited to refueling patrol aircraft over the convoy routes.
The Pacific theatre is another matter however.
I doubt that even arial re-fueling could have made a differnence to the fall of hong kong and Singapore. If stalingrad proved nothing else , it is that a even a superior air force cannot hope to resupply an army indefinately. Aircraft of the time lacked the capacity ,the ability to carry extra heavy equipment ,and were too vulnerable to ground fire.
As for refuelling in other contexts, perhaps the most intriguing concept is the atlantic theatre. i seem to recall that german FW200 Condor aircraft made it to within spitting distance of the east coast of the US and back to france on one tank of Fuel. I wonder if Bombing raids would have been possible/feasable with the additional payload freed up by mid flight refuelling? or perhaps Adolf Gallands proposed surprise attack on the panama canal?
Curiouser and curiouser...
Sir scott
-Magnificent man with a flying machine.
As for refuelling in other contexts, perhaps the most intriguing concept is the atlantic theatre. i seem to recall that german FW200 Condor aircraft made it to within spitting distance of the east coast of the US and back to france on one tank of Fuel. I wonder if Bombing raids would have been possible/feasable with the additional payload freed up by mid flight refuelling? or perhaps Adolf Gallands proposed surprise attack on the panama canal?
Curiouser and curiouser...
Sir scott
-Magnificent man with a flying machine.
One major change would the possibility of the U.S. being bombed. That alone would have enormous butterflies.
Even a rudimentary refueling system would have greatly increased the damage that allied heavy bombers could have inflicted (e.g. IIRC, the max bombload of a B-17 was over 8 tons, but actual combat bombloads were less than half, sometimes as little as a quarter of that over Germany)
Even a rudimentary refueling system would have greatly increased the damage that allied heavy bombers could have inflicted (e.g. IIRC, the max bombload of a B-17 was over 8 tons, but actual combat bombloads were less than half, sometimes as little as a quarter of that over Germany)
I really don't see why, and you don't explain it.
For sure sending tankers over Germany in 1943 would not be a good idea, if that's the picture your mind conjured up. OK, we agree on that.
Then again, I have a rule-of-thumb assessment by Michael Spick that in taking off and reaching ceiling altitude, a Mustang would consume more than one sixth of its internal fuel (or about one eighth, if it did not climb to the very top height). That doesn't count heating up before take-off.
So the picture I figure up is that the refueling would take place somewhere over the British coast, with the tanker escorted by a pair of short-ranged fighters for good measure. This would not send tankers over enemy territory, yet it would give the fighters something like a 20% increase in range. Not bad. And that's for an already long-ranged fighter. Other models would see an even greater % increase.
Note that here we are talking about refueling for intruders. Then there's the reverse. It happened all the time, during the Battle of Britain, that defending units were "bounced", i.e. attacked from above, while they were still on their climb to useful altitude – and they had all the warning possible for 1940 standards. Suppose the defenders have their first line already up high and topped up with fuel.
The act of transferring fuel from one aircraft to another mid-air isn't the tricky bit. There are two big problems with the process in the 1940's:
1) Navigation and communication. These aircraft don't have the ability to navigate as precisely as our modern aircraft. How do they find and arrange the tanker? Remember, they won't have an AWACS directing the air battle.
2) Mechanical issues. Can a 1940's era engine run longer than they did without required maintenance? I'm wondering if the average fighter engine could handle running for three or four times it's fuel capacity before badness starts.
1) Navigation and communication. These aircraft don't have the ability to navigate as precisely as our modern aircraft. How do they find and arrange the tanker? Remember, they won't have an AWACS directing the air battle.
2) Mechanical issues. Can a 1940's era engine run longer than they did without required maintenance? I'm wondering if the average fighter engine could handle running for three or four times it's fuel capacity before badness starts.
They would certainly have problems with rendezvous points but not if the tanker flew with them to the refueling point.
Not a problem, the long range bombers had the same engines as the fighters. The Merlin was in the Mustang, Mosquito and Lancaster, three of the longest range aircraft of the war, as well as the Spitfire. The B-29 used the same engine as the Thunderbolt. So long missions would not have exceeded run times between servicing.
Well far a start, a hose and grapple method was used with the tanker aircraft trailing a hose that was caught by a grapple from the receiver and hauled in - not easy in fighters even twin engines and crewed ones - and even if the familiar probe and drogue method was perfected, putting a probe on a fighter of the time (probably even twin engined) would be like putting an anchor on it.
I'm trying to download that USAF pdf, but it's taking forever. IIRC, the early refueling efforts required a guy in the receiving aircraft to handle the hose and make sure it got the right place. So, refueling aircraft with multiple crew (heavy bombers, etc.) should be 'easy' (i.e. only crazy dangerous), but single seat fighters would be really tough.
Still, it might allow bombing Japan with B17's at B29 ranges if the US gets in range earlier or if B29s are delayed (even more) due to teething problems (which were bad enough OTL).
That would be interesting, even if only a few aircraft have the range to get there, the US will have effectively lost its moat in many people's eyes.