THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP discussion

Members can discuss any aspect of Nightfighter Operations; weapons, individuals, aircraft & tactics during the Second World War in this area.

There has been some discussion in other threads about nightfighter operations during WW2 so I figured we could have a dedicated thread to discuss various topics covering this area of WW2. Please post any comments you feel like covering good books, interesting individuals, weapons and tactics.

Some books in my library covering the area of Nightfighters are these (some read, some not):



by Peter Hinchliffe

by Ken Delve

by Werner P. Roell

by Theo Boiten

by Peter Hinchcliffe

by Peter Hinchliffe

by Claire Rose Knott

Hi Rick and Happy new year i feel that one of the best books that i had read in recent times regarding night fighting was Adolf Gallands book he gives a very honest accurate account of Night fighting in that period
the book is the first and the last he was regarded as the greatest Fighter ace of his time
i will make more comments later have to rush of and attend to something
cheers Rod

Only the other day I replaced my old banged up second hand copy of that book with this nice second hand edition:

by Adolf Galland

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Some books in my library covering the area of Nightfighters are these (some read, some not):



by [author:Peter Hinchliffe..."

You may like my book Night Fighters, where I have interviews.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Only the other day I replaced my old banged up second hand copy of that book with this nice second hand edition:

by [au..."

Galland was a good friend. His featured full length interviews was in my book The German Aces Speak. All of my Luftwaffe books have him quoted to some extent.

Gerald wrote: "Geevee wrote: "I had the pleasure of talking to a Hurricane pilot of 213 Sqn a few years ago and he told me when in 1940 whilst based at Filton they were used as night-fighters. He described this ..."

Thanks Gerald I'd not been aware of the German approach - I must read more on night-fighting as a whole this year.

Rod many thanks for posting this and your recommendation along with the books Rick has posted (some I have on my shelves) and Colin's book/s set this thread up well.

I've reproduced below my comment from another thread as I thought it might be of interest.

I had the pleasure of talking to a Hurricane pilot of 213 Sqn a few years ago and he told me when in 1940 whilst based at Filton they were used as night-fighters. He described this as a great challenge as as soon as the engine started the flames of the exhausts destroyed any night vision the pilots had, and then once up the exhausts continued to glow and with no navigation aids they complained they were more dangerous to themselves and those on the ground than any enemy aircraft they might just bump in to by chance rather than judgement/information provided. He said he flew them again later when they were better adapted with some electronic kit.

It's been a bit quiet in this thread so here are a few more titles covering nightfighter operations, personal and aircraft of WW2:


Pursuit Through Darkened Skies by Michael Allen

Enemy in the Dark: The Story of a Luftwaffe Night-Fighter Pilot by Peter Spoden

Night Fighter Navigator: Beaufighters and Mosquitos in WWII by Dennis Gosling

The History of the Air Intercept Radar and the British Nightfighter 1935-1959 by Ian White

Night Fighter Over Germany: The Long Road to the Sky by Graham White

Good post AR - I've not read one of those.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "It's been a bit quiet in this thread so here are a few more titles covering nightfighter operations, personal and aircraft of WW2:


[book:Pursuit T..."

Those look good, AR.

As a youngster I was very much interested in the P-61 Black Widow night fighter. It did not seem much service but also did not realize its expected potential, which was disappointing. It seemed well designed and was very well armed with four machineguns and four cannon.

Has anyone tried The Other Battle?

I have a copy of that book Gerald but I can't remember if I've read it!


by Peter Hinchliffe

Great recommendations AR. I don't think I have any books on the night fighter war in WWII. Will have to correct that.

I found it to be a fascinating subject Mike but I must confess to have read only Luftwaffe operations against RAF Bomber Command so I should try and expand my reading a bit further into the Allied field.

I have a question about airports!

Wonder if anyone has the trivia I seek.

My query is this: are the large painted numbers at the end of runways, devised arbitrarily? Or, what exactly do they represent? I've just come across a statement in a book which suggests they are the compass headings upon which the runway lays. That is, when the pilot is lining up to land, the number of the runway is the heading they must turn on to.

If so, I'd find that pretty interesting! There's an elegance in something that efficient.

That is an interesting question Feliks. I think Mike, our former USAAF fighter pilot, will know.

Geevee! Thx. This group sure has a lot of members. Did you know that there's another (albeit, very much smaller) USAF group on GR, as well? 'Combat Aviation'--but it has a focus on very much more recent air force history. Still, maybe someone here might want to reach out to them and invite them to visit here sometime. Boy what a trove of expertise.

I didn't Feliks but your mention will I suspect set some members off to have a look.

While I'm at it!

A broader, 'air war' question. In the same book I was reading recently, characters were portrayed in '43 as 'looking forward to the arrival of the B-29s' as if they were going to quickly 'take care of things' in the Pacific.

This is something one hears so little of; because as we know the war dragged on stubbornly for quite a while.

So what I want to know is this: for service personnel at the time, what were other 'planes on the way soon' which were thought (when they finally came online) were going to solve the whole war in one stroke? Planes or ships which were supposed to be the schnizz, and which everyone looked forward to as the big stick to thrash the Axis? I don't mean jets or missiles, fyi.

Tangentially: was there originally a version of Overlord which was planned for '43? But they missed the weather? Or inter-service rivalry set it back? This is something you may know off the top of your head (anyone here, I mean)

The B-29 was one of the biggest technological leaps forward in aircraft during WWII other than jet engines and maybe airborne radar. It had remote controlled turrets, sealed cabins, etc. They were planned to have range and be able to bomb from high altitude. I have read accounts that the Japanese had to do some furious adjustments to get their fighter planes able to reach altitude to be able to attack them. One account was they stripped planes of all armament and ammo to lighten them and planned to ram them. Interestingly early results from high altitude were poor. Curtis Lemay switched to low altitude night attacks with incendiary bombs that destroyed many Japanese Cities. The big raids on Tokyo killed 110,000 and wiped out a quarter of the city. As a child I rode in my Dad's carpool at times in which there was an attorney who had been a crewman on a B-29. All he ever said about it was he could smell flesh burning at 10,000 in the follow-on waves of those missions.

That was 10,000 ft altitiude.
There were a lot of new weapons that barely made it or did not make it into combat. Our Pershing tank was interesting. Patton has been blamed for the delay in its development, but he only had influence on the decision, not the final say-so. There are endless pieces of equip the Germans were working on. Maybe most potentially deadly was their latest submarine type.

Good stuff Howard. Thank ya. So the B-29 was really the bee's knees, eh? Made pilots salivate?

There was a movie "Opertion Crossbow" which was historical fiction in which some scientists are looking at aerial photos of V-2 rockets and arguing about if they were torpedoes or some sort of flying weapon. I think the group leader said the agent reported the Germans were calling it the "New York Special." It was a good scene.

Yes, I've seen that flick. Its decently done.

p.s. I think one of George Peppard's co-stars with him in that film, had also starred with him in 'The Blue Max' (if memory serves). I love 'Blue Max' with James Mason, Ursula Andress, and Peppard.

There was a plane on the drawing boards to follow the B-29. I think it was going to be the B-32 Devastator, but it morphed into the B-36 which the Air Force flew for a while after the war.

Slightly extending Feliks' strand without suggesting a war winner was the arrival of the British Centurion tank. It went on to serve with great disntinction in Korea and elsewhere. The final Centurions in the British army served with our units in the first Gulf war (AVREs - Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers). The Cent (as it was known to all) entered into full production at the end of 1945 going to a regiment of the Royal Tank Regiment first in 1946, and certainly would have added interest to armoured encounters and all arms activity had it arrived earlier.

NB: An addition to the post above which made me all misty eyed to see a Cent AVRE and I noted on some interest posts that the last Centurion withdrawn from British military service was a BARV (Beached Amroured Recovery Vehicle) that served with the Royal Marines until 2003.

Yes, Centurion Tank. Excellent. Used for many years by many countries.

Howard wrote: "There was a plane on the drawing boards to follow the B-29. I think it was going to be the B-32 Devastator, but it morphed into the B-36 which the Air Force flew for a while after the war."


The B-32 Dominator did fly some combat missions toward the end of the war in the Pacific. You get a brief introduction to it in:

Mission to Tokyo: The American Airmen Who Took the War to the Heart of Japan

Feliks wrote: "I have a question about airports!

Wonder if anyone has the trivia I seek.

My query is this: are the large painted numbers at the end of runways, devised arbitrarily? Or, what exactly do they repr..."

You have it right Feliks. The number is the magnetic heading of the runway. Runway 36 is a heading of 360 degrees Mag. If you see 36L or 36R, that means there are 2 parallel runways, left and right. Always good to check your aircraft heading before you land to make sure you are landing on the runway the tower cleared you to land on!

Hurrah! How fascinating! Thank you Mike

Howard, any other "pilot faves" among the other well-known WWII craft? Which ones did they prefer? Which ones did they hate?

Mike wrote: "Feliks wrote: "I have a question about airports!

Wonder if anyone has the trivia I seek.

My query is this: are the large painted numbers at the end of runways, devised arbitrarily? Or, what exact..."

As I read from one general aviation columnist, 'You know you're getting old when you see them go out and change the numbers on your favorite runway.' As the magnetic poles do drift, runway numbers must be changed every long now and then.

Feliks wrote: "Howard, any other "pilot faves" among the other well-known WWII craft? Which ones did they prefer? Which ones did they hate?"

I've read several times that our pilots hated the Bell P-39 Airacobra, but the Russians loved them due to reliability, good armored protection and deadly armament of one cannon and two or four machine guns.

Howard wrote: "As a youngster I was very much interested in the P-61 Black Widow night fighter. It did not seem much service but also did not realize its expected potential, which was disappointing. It seemed wel..."

Yep mine too, If I remember right, in Hampton Sides book Ghost Soldiers it was used for that particular operation.

You remember right :)

On to Howards comment on the B-32, IIRC, it was intended as a backup incase the B-29 program didn't pan out. They did fly a few missions out of Okinawa at the very tail end of WWII. I read somewhere that the last Aircraft lost over Japan was a B-32, but I might be misremembering :)

The B-36 was a completely different airplane - much, much larger with 6 pusher engines on the trailing edges of the wings and in later models 4 jet engines two pods, one pod on the tip of each wing.

When I visited the AF Museum in Dayton, 20 yrs ago now, they had one hanging from the roof and it spanned both the main display hangers

Have no idea why I wrote anything to imply there was a relationship between B-32 and B-36. Jimmy Stewart must be rolling in his grave. Thanks for the clear separation on those two aircraft, Happy.

Feliks wrote: "Geevee! Thx. This group sure has a lot of members. Did you know that there's another (albeit, very much smaller) USAF group on GR, as well? 'Combat Aviation'--but it has a focus on very much more r..."

Runways are named by a number between 01 and 36, which is generally the magnetic azimuth of the runway's heading in decadegrees: a runway numbered 09 points east (90°), runway 18 is south (180°), runway 27 points west (270°) and runway 36 points to the north (360° rather than 0°).
Runway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RunwayW...

A little search came up with this. Hope it is true, since it makes sense.

That B-36 hanging from the ceiling must have looked overwhelmingly huge. Did the wings sag a lot? Those B-36 bombers needed a very long runway for take-off. At Biggs Field next to Fort Bliss there is an old runway used by the old bombers including the older model B-52s a bit short of engine power. They had to level off and go for airspeed, but the Organ Mountains loomed up ahead to the right and the border with Mexico was right there. It was a tough take-off every time.

I don't remember if they sagged, they probably had them supported, so probably not. They also had the shell of the H-Bomb it carried displayed on the ground beneath the bomb bay - also very large and it didn't look like a bomb, more like a water barrel :)

happy wrote: "The B-36 was a completely different airplane - much, much larger with 6 pusher engines on the trailing edges of the wings and in later models 4 jet engines two pods, one pod on the tip of each wing.

When I visited the AF Museum in Dayton, 20 yrs ago now, they had one hanging from the roof and it spanned both the main display hangers "

I remember almost buying a model airplane of the Peacemaker when I was a kid (went with F4 Phantom instead). The plane itself (both the real thing and the model) seemed unwieldy and inefficient. I remember looking at it and thinking it was just way too much aircraft; way too many extras.

It looks like they have taken it down, but here is the B-36 page from the musuem

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visi...

In many systems when there is a transition you find strange hybrids. Like in the progress from sail to steam power you found sailing ships with paddle wheels. The B-36 had props and jets. It was, I think, our first true intercontinental bomber. It was also very large, especially for its day. The idea of one hanging from a ceiling is hard to imagine. I remember once reading about a B-52 that taxied off the hardstand onto asphalt by mistake and it just sank right through.

Feliks wrote: "Tangentially: was there originally a version of Overlord which was planned for '43? But they missed the weather? Or inter-service rivalry set it back? This is something you may know off the top of your head (anyone here, I mean) "

"Roundup" was the codename for a 1943 cross-Channel invasion. American leaders were eager to get into France as rapidly as possible, but the British were not. Shortage of landing craft is the main reason Roundup never happened, but also diversions to the 1942-43 Mediterranean and Pacific campaigns were big factors. On the other hand, some of those diversions happened because the decision to cross the Channel had been postponed until 1944.

Broadly speaking, the British were reluctant because they didn't feel confident in the ability of both Allied armies to defeat the Germans that early in the war. The Americans needed over a year to create their armies and ship a sizable fraction to the UK, so they couldn't force the operation to happen as quickly as they wanted. As it happened, the air forces also needed that year to break down enough of the German air force to dominate the sky, and some of the landing craft and all of the special artificial ports would not have been ready, either.

FWIW, "Sledgehammer" was the code for a 1942 invasion, but that was an contingency plan for an emergency; in case the Soviet armies collapsed, it would have been a desperate hope to influence a reeling USSR to stay in the war.

Feliks wrote: "Howard, any other "pilot faves" among the other well-known WWII craft? Which ones did they prefer? Which ones did they hate?"

I've been told of a Czech fighter regiment, raised in the Soviet Union, that had flown Soviet-made planes. When the war was over, they had a chance to fly Mustangs, and said they preferred (IIRC) La-9s. That was a shock to hear.

Well, as was stated, the Russians loved the P-39 (I think we called those P-400.) It may have depended on the circumstances in which the pilots had to fly. The P-38 was great in N. Africa and the Pacific but not so hot in Europe. Most planes did well at either high or low altitude, but not both, or had advantage and disadvantages vs opposing equipment. The radial engines on the Italian fighters did well in the dust of North Africa. I think the Russians liked to use their fighters at low altitude. I was always impressed at how well the Flying Tigers in China fared against Zeros. The tactics and experience could be critical. The Thatch Weave was a game-changing ploy against the Zeros.
But you gotta do the doctrine. The great ace Tommy McGuire died because he did what he constantly told other pilots not to do: he banked sharply at low speed and low altitude in a P-38.

The P-51D was a whole lot better than earlier models, so I wonder if that was a factor. They had the Rolls-Royce Merlin Engine and other improvements.

I interviewed Lemay, Jimmy Doolittle, and Jimmy Stewart, as well as knew Paul Tibbets, among other bomber pilots, and they all loved the B-29.