Talk:Heavy fighter

An early heavy fighter

Straightforward question, I hope. Is the Supermarine Nighthawk an early form of 'heavy fighter', or a historical curiosity? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It would seem to be an attempt at an early form of specialized heavy fighter. It was a twin, it was heavily armed, and at 3700 lbs empty it was about 4X the weight of more typical 900 lb empty weight single engine fighers of WWI. It also seems to suffer the rather common weaknesses of many heavy fighters of having lower performance, with unrealistic expectations of the combat value of its heavier weapons incorrectly assumed to more than compensate. The answer for shooting down flammable hydrogen Zeppelin bombers successfully arived in the form of explosive and incendiary rounds for the standard machine guns on the "light fighters" of the era.

I wish I could find literature on the psychology of expecting major success from or favoring heavy fighters that this aircraft demonstrates goes back to WWI. It seems to be a "bigger is better" instinct that has always existed. Perhaps it derives from the fact that humans were the prey of large predators over most of our evolutionary history, so that it is baked into our DNA (such as the instictive fear of spiders and snakes). But whatever the reason, that instinct is completely wrong once weapons enter the situation. Humans used to be near helpless against a 400lb lion. But, two Maasai warriors armed with shields, spears, training, and fighting spirit could match a lion. Or, one man armed with a standard hunting rifle and the ability to use it well is completely dominant. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No regular weight fighter could manage the 9+hr loiter. Zeppelin raids on UK effectively stopped in October 1917. Few Zeppelins were lost to aircraft and those were at lower altitudes than the Zeppelins flying at 20000 ft in the 1917 raids. Looking down list of Zeppelins shot down by aircraft over or near the UK two were shot down by a flying boat flown by Robert Leckie. Cadbury shot down two: one at 8000 ft in 1916, and one at 16000 ft over the North Sea in 1918 by jettisoning fuel and bombs to reach it. Cadbury's aircraft in the latter was a DH4 day bomber.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The reference quoted in the Zeppelin article says of the new incendiary rounds: "The success of the new technology was responsible for the German army withdrawing the use of airships in 1917 - by which time 77 out of 115 had been shot down or totally disabled." Are you saying the reference is wrong? PhaseAcer (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The German Army operated Zeppelins. So did the German Navy; the Navy continued attacks. And Zeppelins were not only used over UK but attacked Paris, used in support of the fighting on the Western and Eastern fronts. A number of Zeppelins were lost to ground fire, destroyed by their crews after landing to prevent capture, lost in attacks on their bases. eg October 1917, the 'Silent Raid', 5 of 11 Zeppelins lost - 3 crash landings 1 forced landing (captured intact) and 1 shot down by French artillery. One of those on raid LZ 85 evaded British fighters by climbing out of reach. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It is an interesting chapter in WWI, where the Zeppelins apparently could temporarily survive due to superior ceiling with enclosed gondolas and on-board oxygen systems that fighters did not yet have. But, it is like any arms race where advantages are usually quickly countered. The Zeppelin campaign was apparently broken by a combination of ground fire and improving fighters and ammo that drove them very high to have a chance to survive the mission, where their reduced effectiveness by having to bomb from such high altitude was not worth the resource losses they were still incurring. Strategically, it is very similar to the losses the U.S. was suffering in the WWII European air war when the bombers were unescorted, or escorted by heavy fighters that could not adequately protect them. The same thing happened in the air war over Vietnam. Unsustainable losses = "you lose", a key factor in the light vs heavy argument. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I would also tend to agree. Most air forces had the overall concept down, even if they didn’t explicitly call it a ‘heavy fighter,’ which is a modern, catch-all term for ‘zerstörer,’ ‘jachtkruiser,’ 'bomber destroyer,' or 'long-range/offensive fighter.' As for the RAF specifically, the concept of a heavy fighter was at least on their minds since the 20s. Which would indicate to me that the idea had been floating around even earlier, as with the Nighthawk. Another early mention of a heavy fighter-like specification came as early as 1924 with Air Ministry Specification 4/24 which specified a "'Twin-Engined Home Defence Fighter' armed with two 37 mm cannons," which led to the COW 37mm cannon-armed Westland Westbury.

Also, Royal Air Ministry Specification F.37/35 came soon after Specification F.10/35 -- created specifically for the Spitfire -- and would lead to the development of the Westland Whirlwind and the -- ironically -- Oerlikon-armed Hurricane. If anything, the Whirlwind would be, IMO, the candidate for an early attempt at a British 'heavy fighter.' Twin-engined, longer range, VERY heavy armament for a fighter of its day (x4 nose 20mm cannons). Just in case people want to debate the idea that the RAF had heavy fighters as early as 1917. MWFwiki (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Whirlwind isn't longer ranged than a Spitfire, it's another interceptor. A twin engine design was chosen by the Air Ministry because cannon out on the wings of a single engine fighter (there were four single engines designs, including modified Hurricane and Spitfire, and three twins tendered to the specification ) would be inaccurate. The twin engined turret fighters of F9/37 and F11/37 ("home defence" day and night fighter, four 20mm in a turret) are more "heavy fighter" GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh; I genuinely thought the Whirlwind had a longer range than the Spitfire? Like twice the range? I know it’s combat range was roughly equal, but yeah. I would still maintain the Whirlwind would qualify as a heavy fighter. Even as a (short-range) interceptor; It has twin-engines, relatively heavy armament... but then again, it falls into that weird category such as with the P-38. Not quite a light fighter, not quite a heavy fighter. That said, the wiki article on the Whirlwind does indeed label it as a heavy fighter.

Regardless, I do agree with you on the Nighthawk. Definitely an early progenitor of the heavy fighter concept we’d see bloom in the later Interwar Period.MWFwiki (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Another extreme

For consideration, under Operational Requirement F.155 of the 1950s, the 44 ton all-up Saunders-Roe SR.187.? Compared to half its weight Hawker P.1103. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s at least worth a mention in the modern-day section. But again, we need to avoid the implication that the fighter was ever called a ‘heavy fighter’ but it is rather analogous to WWII heavy fighters (as you said, it’s double the weight of a contemporary fighter, and it’s primary role was as an interceptor — all hallmarks of a WWII HF). Otherwise the ‘There Are No Heavy Fighters and Never Have Been’ Mafia will be all over us. MWFwiki (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Japan’s Heavy Fighters

So, I’ve created a section for the Netherlands, France, and the USSR, as well as expanded Germany, all over the past year. I think it’s time we added other powers, most importantly Japan. I’m seeking suggestions as well as citations. Otherwise I’m just going to go off of the list of Japanese heavy fighters on the WWII aircraft list page, and research as-needed. Any help would be appreciated. Anything I should be sure to mention, that sort of thing? MWFwiki (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mosquito bites

Towards the end of the intro, I found a sentence that I find difficult to understand.

• Some heavy fighters did find success in the roles they were designed for; The de Havilland Mosquito, for example, excelled in its originally-intended role as a fast light bomber.

@MWFwiki Is it possible there is a missing 'not', e.g. in roles they were not designed for ? Although even that change doesn't render the meaning totally clear, unless you reverse the whole sentence to lead with the point that it started as a light bomber design. I sense there is more to it, but I'm struggling. WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Howdy, WendlingCrusader, :)

Well, I think it is important to note that the line in-question is preceded by:

"Many twin-engine heavy fighters found their niche as night fighters, especially in the bomber-destroyer role; or as fighter-bombers, roughly analogous to modern strike fighters. Among such conversions was the Bf 110, which served as a relatively successful night fighter, ground attacker, and fighter-bomber for most of the war; and the Bristol Beaufighter, which emerged as a major anti-shipping strike fighter of the Royal Air Force."

I.e. roles that they were not initially primarily designed for. Heavy fighters were — particularly in the late-interwar period — designed primarily to be strategic fighters or penetration fighters. They didn't use these terms contemporaneously… they instead used terms like "offensive fighter," or simply "long-range fighter."

Anyways, point being, regardless of what their primary roles were intended to be, most of them wound-up fulfilling ground-attack, night fighter, and light transport roles. Not many fulfilled their originally-intended roles.

That said, I'm certainly not against re-wording the sentence in-question, particularly if you have some suggestions. I'm just not sure how else one could succinctly (it is the lead, after all) word that. MWFwiki (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I am still confused. On the one hand we have 'many heavy fighters' becoming more successful in a different role. Or simply less successful as a heavy fighter, hence they were re-purposed?

And then we have some heavy fighters finding success in the role they were designed for. Presumably the Beaufighter and Me 410 are two examples.

But I don't see the Mosquito either group. It made the reverse journey, from bomber to fighter. Plus it was still successful at what it was originally designed for, as a bomber. I cannot see a valid connection beyond they were all types of aircraft that ended up being used for a different purpose. And during WWII that makes for a very long list. So I still feel I am missing something, and I stress that I accept the fault could be at my end. Please help me understand what connects the Mosquito with the other types. WendlingCrusader (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, everything sounds better in one's head when one is responsible for writing it. (Though, in my defense, and if my memory serves correctly, that section was slightly edited by another user, so it doesn't read precisely how I originally intended it)

What is trying to be said — perhaps poorly — is that the Mosquito excelled in her originally-designated/designed role. That of a heavy fighter capable of acting as a light/fast bomber, scout, and pathfinder. This is in-contrast to the likes of, say, the Bf 110, which was envisaged by several in Luftwaffe to serve as their premier offensive/strategic fighter, but wound-up as an attacker.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the term "designed" to reduce the sentence to its core, which is that the Mosquito was successful. It doesn't matter so much whether it was or was not designed as a heavy fighter. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it reads fine and wasn’t trying to imply that your edit made the sentence worse, apologies if that is what it sounded like MWFwiki (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Bristol Blenheim 1F

• During the Battle of Britain, Bristol Blenheim bombers were fitted, as an interim measure and in utmost secrecy, with radars and ventral gun packs, turning them into the RAF's first night fighters.

I disagree. Isn't the full story that the Blenheim 1F was developed with a ventral gun pack alone, as a day heavy fighter, back in 1938, two whole years before the Battle of Britain. It was from this that the night fighter subsequently arose, initially just closing on the enemy thanks to ground-control and searchlights, or maybe moonlight? On board radar came even later. Or is all this so obvious it doesn't need stating?

And then there was the Battle of France, with Blenheim bombers suffering horribly. But there were also Blenheim 1F fighters, and in one classic encounter six Blenheims were thoroughly mauled by Bf110s. Heavy fighter meets heavy fighter? I don't see that in the article either.

I come from a background of spending many many years positively laughing at the single forward firing gun of the standard Blenheim, wondering if it was mostly there as a comfort blanket for the pilot, and never intended to actually achieve anything. When I found out that the Blenheim 1F was deemed a 'heavy fighter', with just a gun pack comprising four .303, I still found the whole idea faintly ludicrous. But those were desperate times.

Does anybody want to comment on the Blenheim 'heavy fighter'? Is this description backed-up by any sources?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not write the British section, and it is arguably my weakest area of knowledge. That being said, Britannica (likely where the quote you take issue with originated from) has this to say:

"During the Battle of Britain, the RAF converted twin-engined bombers such as the Bristol Blenheim into night fighters by installing offensive ordnance and radar, but these had little success, since they were no faster than their prey."[1]

"Weapons and Warfare" has this to say:

"The three-seat Bristol Blenheim first flew in 1935 and was a technological quantum leap among RAF aircraft at the time. With a top speed of around 428kph/266mph, the Blenheim bomber was considerably faster than the 290kph/180mph Hind biplane it replaced and it could outrun many contemporary fighters. The first Blenheim fighter, the IF, was proposed as a long-range fighter that could escort bombers over hostile territory and also carry out ground attack missions of its own. Around 200 Blenheims were modified for these fighter duties, additionally armed with a gun pack beneath the fuselage consisting of four machine-guns. The type had first entered service in December 1938 and by September 1939 there were 111 Blenheim fighters in use with the RAF. Unfortunately the Blenheim could not match the performance of aircraft such as the Messerschmitt Bf109 and so many became nightfighters, ultimately carrying the new and highly secret airborne radar. Even before the IFs were equipped with radar they achieved some nighttime victories – in June 1940 No. 23 Squadron destroyed a Heinkel 111 bomber over Norfolk. The first ever radar interception came in late July when a Blenheim IF of Tangmere’s Fighter Interception Unit destroyed a Dornier Do 17 near Brighton."[2] (questionable source)

Ultimately, yes, it would seem to support your assertion. That being said, the Bristol Blenheim article indicates this regarding the IF:

"Night fighter version, equipped with an AI Mk III or Mk IV airborne interceptor radar, armed with four 0.303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns in a special gun pack under the fuselage. About 200 Blenheim Mk Is were converted into Mk IF night fighters."

This assertion is not sourced.

Personally, I'd start with the Blenheim article proper, get some good sources, and work from there. That said, if you want to remove the assertions from this (the heavy fighter) article for now, you'd get no objections from me. MWFwiki (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)