Over The Convoys - Fw 200 vs. B-24

[iverson]

Well, not quite true. <snip>

I think that, as Justo noted, the scheme proved impractical because it "required a prohibitive number of machines" (and crews) to achieve the desired result.

Even if underwing fuel tanks let the Hurricane return to base after a reasonable time spent on patrol and in combat, the composite required (and risked) five engines, a much in demand bomber, a bomber crew, a fighter pilot, and a fighter to do a fighter's job. Even the CAM ships were probably a more practical/economical solution until merchant carrier conversions became available.

Since the Fw200, a rather fragile conversion of an airline, was the problem, I've often wondered why the fighter was even needed. Why not arm the Liberator with four or six 20-mm Hispanos and use it as a long-endurance, heavy fighter? I suspect that, once again, the Liberators were in short supply and needed for more urgent duties--like hunting U-Boats.

 

[Schneiderman]

I think that, as Justo noted, the scheme proved impractical because it "required a prohibitive number of machines" (and crews) to achieve the desired result.

Even if underwing fuel tanks let the Hurricane return to base after a reasonable time spent on patrol and in combat, the composite required (and risked) five engines, a much in demand bomber, a bomber crew, a fighter pilot, and a fighter to do a fighter's job. Even the CAM ships were probably a more practical/economical solution until merchant carrier conversions became available.

Since the Fw200, a rather fragile conversion of an airline, was the problem, I've often wondered why the fighter was even needed. Why not arm the Liberator with four or six 20-mm Hispanos and use it as a long-endurance, heavy fighter? I suspect that, once again, the Liberators were in short supply and needed for more urgent duties--like hunting U-Boats.

Risk, now there is an interesting issue.
In this case, on one side you have a convoy of vessels vulnerable to aerial attack beyond the range of shore-based defences, and on the other two aircraft both no longer regarded for front-line service. So, how much 'risk' are you prepared to accept to protect the convoy?
Technically the Composite was proven as practical, and the planned adaptations to the Hurricane had the full approval of both Rolls-Royce and Hawker, so no problem there. The Hurricane would not be 'on patrol' flying solo, it would remain attached to the Liberator until an enemy aircraft was sighted, detaching with its fuel tanks full.
Now, in terms of operational use the questions would be,.. How frequently would convoys run? How long would they be in the area deemed vulnerable to aerial attack? And what aircraft, and how many, could be used to attack them? The answer to the first would be known while the second and third would be linked. As they were dealing with a relatively small number of Fw200 and there was no reason to expect anything more lethal in the future then there would be no need for "..a prohibitive number of machines".
As it turned out it was an interesting solution to a threat that was not as great as feared and which could be dealt with effectively by other means.

 

[iverson]

Risk, now there is an interesting issue.
In this case, on one side you have a convoy of vessels vulnerable to aerial attack beyond the range of shore-based defences,

Naval AAA, long-range maritime patrol planes, and CAM ships already provided protection. The problem was that there were never enough of them to cover convoys during their entire voyage.

and on the other two aircraft both no longer regarded for front-line service.

Liberators were no longer fit for frontline service? I've always thought that there were never enough of them--so much so that 100 Group had to make due with worn-out USAAF veterans.

The Hurricane would not be 'on patrol' flying solo, it would remain attached to the Liberator until an enemy aircraft was sighted, detaching with its fuel tanks full.

If the Fw200 is in sight of the Liberator, why is the Hurricane needed? Why can't the Liberator chase off the Fw200? The problem is not the lack of a fighter. The problem is that aircraft--of any sort--were seldom present when convoys came under air attack. Escort carriers eventually solved the perceived problem of the Fw200 (and the U-Boat) by making aircraft part of the convoy.

As it turned out it was an interesting solution to a threat that was not as great as feared and which could be dealt with effectively by other means.

Agreed.

 

[Justo Miranda]

If the Fw200 is in sight of the Liberator, why is the Hurricane needed?

Because the Condor was armed with heavy machine guns and a 20-mm cannon.

Liberator III/G.R.V for RAF

 

[Justo Miranda]

Yes, but the Liberator could be armed with a larger number of heavy machine guns and/or, in some cases, with four 20-mm Hispano cannon in a pack under the fuselage.

I speak from memory, but I seem to remember reading that the Coastal Command Liberators were armed with .303-in machine guns, can you confirm this?

 

[iverson]

I speak from memory, but I seem to remember reading that the Coastal Command Liberators were armed with .303-in machine guns, can you confirm this?

I believe that some UK Liberators had .303-in guns, some had .50-in, some had a mix, and a few had the forward-firing 20-mm gun pack that I mentioned above (as an anti-U-Boat measure).

My only point is that using the Liberator as a fighter would seem to be an easier, cheaper, and safer way of dealing with an Fw200 than the composite. Liberators were actual combat aircraft, more capable of absorbing battle damage and able to carry more guns and armor. The Fw200 was a converted airliner with a week structure and an ad-hoc armament layout. The only thing that suited it to the role was its long range, achieved by putting large fuel tanks in the erstwhile passenger cabin.

The first five images show the 20-mm gun packs. The sixth image shows a US top turret (2x0.50-in) and a British tail turret (4x0.303-in). The seventh shows a US nose turret (2x0.50-in) and probably a US top turret. The last example shows US tail, top, and nose turrets (0.50-in):

 

[Arjen]

RAF Liberator GR I - four 20 mm cannon in belly pack between bomb bay and nosewheel well.
Image from Consolidated B-24 Liberator by Martin W Bowman, Crowood 1998.

<edit> Ninja'd by iverson, in my defence Bowman's image at slightly better resolution.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I believe that some UK Liberators had .303-in guns, some had .50-in, some had a mix, and a few had the forward-firing 20-mm gun pack that I mentioned above (as an anti-U-Boat measure).

My only point is that using the Liberator as a fighter would seem to be an easier, cheaper, and safer way of dealing with an Fw200 than the composite. Liberators were actual combat aircraft, more capable of absorbing battle damage and able to carry more guns and armor. The Fw200 was a converted airliner with a week structure and an ad-hoc armament layout. The only thing that suited it to the role was its long range, achieved by putting large fuel tanks in the erstwhile passenger cabin.

The first five images show the 20-mm gun packs. The sixth image shows a US top turret (2x0.50-in) and a British tail turret (4x0.303-in). The seventh shows a US nose turret (2x0.50-in) and probably a US top turret. The last example shows US tail, top, and nose turrets (0.50-in):

That's true, some Fw 200s suffered structural damage from overloading the airframe.

 

[Justo Miranda]

RAF Liberator GR I - four 20 mm cannon in belly pack between bomb bay and nosewheel well.
Image from Consolidated B-24 Liberator by Martin W Bowman, Crowood 1998.
View attachment 760483
<edit> Ninja'd by iverson, in my defence Bowman's image at slightly better resolution.

That's an anti-submarine version; the radar wasn't suitable for an all-weather fighter.

 

[Arjen]

It has four forward-firing cannon to severely damage any surfaced submarine, those cannon would make mincemeat of any Fw 200 unlucky enough to cross its path. It would outrun any Fw 200. Win-win.

 

[Arjen]

it would have been a very long interception

All the Liberator crew would have needed to do was circle the convoy to drive off a apying/attacking Fw 200. Mission kill.

 

[Justo Miranda]

All the Liberator crew would have needed to do was circle the convoy to drive off a apying/attacking Fw 200. Mission kill.

Continuously keeping an aircraft protecting the convoy exceeded the logistical capabilities of the Coastal Command, that possibility was already studied, and that solution was not applied. Wartime realism.
In addition, the Condor was not the only German aircraft over the Atlantic, Biscay Bay was randomly patrolled by Ju 88 heavy fighters that the Liberators had to avoid by flying far north and using too much fuel. It would not have been impossible, but it would have been quite expensive and difficult, nor did the Hurricane catafighters perform well in the defense of the convoys.

 

[Arjen]

In the end, the composite aircraft was not practical. Imagine one of those against a Ju 88. Long-range Liberators were better, because they also worked against submarines - their primary target. Then Hurricats, then merchant aircraft carriers and eventually escort carriers.