Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Richard, I have just dig out an article about PR.XIXs (look out for Ventura booklets! Merlins are in print, so I suppose Griffons will be forthcoming) and it provides 718 km/h at 7,9 km. Ceiling was 14,9 km. What is important is a comment that operating on between 640 km/h at 10,5 km and 595 km/h at 12,2 km allowed to keep safe distance from German jets. Now, have a look on MiG-15 performances.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Without any doubt the spit couldn't compare with the 262, not same category, seems that even not comparable to the TA152 which was designed for high altitudes, quite normal at that time the spit was a 10 years old design, has the spit XIX larger wings than her predecessors ??

Rémi

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Remi, read it again, the first aircraft able to intercept Spitfire XIX was MiG-15. The wing was identical as in Mk I.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Franek,

The data I provided was from a source document from 2nd World War (Messerschmitt test report from fall 1944) and not from the internet. And this source document I consider as fact but not a general statement like early jets had poor altitude performance.

Roger Gaemperle

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Richard
thanks for the Me 262 data!

Juha

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Roger, I meant Spitfire performance. Regarding jets, it is a common knowledge their poor altitude performance. MiG-15, which was an another generation jet aircraft, had a ceiling, IIRC, 15,5 km. Compare it to almost 15 km of Spitfire XIX.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Franek you are right, no russian aircraft could catch the XIX, I checked for the TA152, a bit just also, comparable performance even slightly better in speed but not enought to catch it, an other candidate in the western corner, now that there is no more allies ???

How was the griffon overfeeded ? Turbo ? usual compressor ??

We hv also to tell that the brits, hv been, as usual very fairplay, because the Mig15 use a british engine or...

Rémi

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Franek,

I am no Spitfire expert and had no other source than a websearch. For the Me 262 I had source material (which I can post if anybody is interested). So, if you don't recommend a websearch, I am sure you have source material (official Supermarine documents) for the Spitfire and could present this to this board. A speed comparison would also be interesting.

To me the speed and maximum ceiling of the Me 262 stated in the document I and Richard mentioned don't look like poor performance. So this is hard fact against "common knowledge". And "common knowledge" doesn't proof that the Me 262 was not able to fly as high as the Spitfire if the technical facts tell a different story.

I don't want to be small minded since even if the Me 262 could have catched the Spitfire, the result of the war and of the Me 262s benefits and shortcomings would not be different. But just as a matter of curiosity I would like to find out based on hard technical facts what is true and what is not.

By the way: obviously an unarmed Spitfire could not prevent Ar 234 to fly recon missions even over England. So, regarding reconnaissance it was a 1:1 for the Luftwaffe vs. RAF (except for the inbalance of number of aircraft employed).

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

One report does not tell us anything about reliability in service. My impression is that Jumo jets had chronic troubles at high altitude and that little improvement was made before the war ended. For the same reason it was difficult for Me 262 pilots to fly in formations above 30,000 feet because the engines tended to flame out with changes in throttle settings. Obviously, any inability to operate as a team was another limit to success.

All this was well known to Me 262 pilots and their superiors. After a flyer from JG 7 claimed three Mosquitos (flying at heights not identified by the unit historian) Hermann Goering was apparently sceptical when he joked that it was a phenomenal achievement for a plane with engines that stop above 6,000 meters and self-destruct at speeds above 750 km/hr.

I'm not suggesting that you should dismiss test pilot reports, be they German, British or American. But don't get too comfortable with paper figures because experience in combat holds more weight.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Roger: can you identify Ar 234 flights over England? I know of none. The aircraft lacked the range for any significant penetration. I know of a handful of Ar 240 flights in March 1944 where the pilot infiltrated returning US bomber streams, but the number of such flights and the depth of penetration was limited. The Ar 234 was used in Italy and for missions behind Allied lines in France/Belgium, but was not invulnerable then. The Ju 88, in different variants, was used for limited coastal missions away from the main combat areas.

However, even if more did exist, they were only a few in comparison. The Allies, with mainly Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Lightnings, carried out continuous missions over Germany and the occupied territories. The Germans, who started with an excellent reconnaissance setup, had nothing to match this coverage after the first years of the war.

This is a long way from 1 to 1.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Which doesn't mean aircraft were unable to intercept it, I guess it had to do with the relative late introduction and rarity of the XIX, rather than it's undeniably good performance. The Luftwaffe certainly had greater headaches in 1944-45 than high flying PR aircrafts. Technically, interception of it would have been possible even on 1942 technology, meaning the odd-numbered 109Gs here with GM-1 here.

Lone, high flying and fast targets are always difficult targets for interception. Radar might not pick them up, it tooks a lot of time to climb to their altitude in which they may slip away, and require accurate vectoring. Blandford's book gives some surprising examples of that, with He 177s penetrating the English airspace at high altitudes around 9000m with inpunity... and it wasn't because the huge heavy bomber was extraordinary fast or faster than the RAF interceptors.

As for the 262 as bomber, it's puzzling why, as the LW had a perfectly good and suitable desing for that purpose, in the form of the Arado 234. The 262 at best could have been just another Jabo, with greater speed but greater vulnerability of the engines to ground fire...

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Remi, 'typical' two stage compressor.

Roger, I am based on original papers, but I do not have them. My friend is keen on Spitfires and provided me some informations when I worked on early cold war incursions. It must be noted that post war flights were flown at a higher altitude, though.
Anyway, the problem of poor altitude performance was well known and identified, albeit not in popular history publications. The problem was with the engines, and IIRC, turbines providing air into them. Soviets also had Jumo technology and build them for their early jets, which also were unable to catch Spitfire. One of the most interesting facts is that in Soviet service MiG-15 replaced... Spitfire LF.IX, which still had excellent high altitude performances!
In regard of your and Richard's Me 262 data, it may be assumed that above 10 kms speed significantly dropped. Bombs would not add that much to the ceiling, their weight not being substantial comparing to the whole airframe, the most important penalty being drag inducing speed decrease.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Graham, on September 9, 1944, Erich Sommer received orders to fly a reconnaissance sortie over the Thames Estuary. He carried this out the next day, extending the flight to cover London.

Yes, you are right, the 1:1 is only valid if you disregard the imbalance in numbers of aircraft employed (as I wrote in my last post as well).

Hermann Goering was not sceptical, he just ironically referred to the Allied propaganda that the engines would stop above 6'000meters and self-destruct above 750 km/hr as the achievement demonstrated that this was not true.

Again, to summarize:
the Spitfire had a speed of 718 km/h at 7,9 km (source: Franek).
the Me 262 had a speed of 859 km/h at 8,0 km (source: Mtt Versuchsbericht 29 L 44)

The bombs made a difference of 35km/hr at 6km. Without bombs it was certainly possible to fly higher, Franek. While drag dictated speed, weight together with speed dictated the rate of climb (simplified). If it was less heavy, then less speed was required to produce the upward thrust to keep it at level flight. So, less weight, higher service ceiling.

Formation flight at 14'000m would not have been necessary if you attack single recon airplanes. Formation flight was much more important when attacking bomber formations.

Therefore, IMHO the reason for the few high altitude sorties were less due to poor performance but much more due to:

1) lacking pressurized cabin which prevented pilots to fly above 12'000meters

2) only few occasions where an interception would have been possible due to the time it took to rise to 14'000m. The interception would have required a well organized guidance via radio, which was often a problem.

3) The main focus for the Me 262 were the bombers. On 5 January, Hitler ordered on advice of Speer the Me 262 to be used primarily against bombers. It was estimated that in the long run the US could produce only one bomber as opposed to three fighters for the equivalent of one German fighter due to the increased demand on aluminum.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

You are sadly mistaken. Goering's remark was not a public statement and the wartime Allied propaganda machine knew nothing about it.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Six Nifty .50s, I didn't claim that he said it in Public nor that the Allied propaganda knew about it, did I?

I only said that it was an ironic remark of Göring regarding the Allied propaganda which spread the rumor - partially appropriate, at least in summer 1944 - that the Germans had engine problems at high altitude. They indeed had troubles with the engines at the beginning since at high altitude the Jumo speed governor delivered too much fuel for the low air density and there were issues with the fuel nozzles which operated not so well at low pressure. But these problems were mostly solved towards the end of the war when they were just about to introduce a new type of governor (Beschleunigungsregler) that allowed the pilot to vary the throttle as fast as he wanted without risking a flame out or burning engine.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Some additional information regarding the Jumo 004s:

During the summer and fall 1944 Junkers, Messerschmitt and Rechlin tried to optimize the settings of the speed regulator and the adjustable exhaust area motor in order to increase the altitude performance. At the same time work was being carried out on new types of regulators and fuel nozzles that should have avoided a flame out at high altitude or a burning engine when the pilot moved the throttle too quickly. All these work gradually improved the reliability of the engine step by step.

On 3 January 1945 the Kriegstagebuch Chef TLR announced that the problems of the engines at high altitude and when the throttle was moved quickly were eliminated ("Ausgehen der Triebwerke in Höhe und bei schneller Drosselung bei Jumo 004 behoben").

On 4 April TLR mentioned that it was intented to introduce the new speed governor that completely eliminated the "throttle problems" at both the units and serial production by the beginning of April.

A post war interrogation report (A.D.I. Report 323/1945) by the Allieds said that "a new regulator had been developed to control the fuel flow from 0 rpm to maximum so that the throttles could be set at once at any point. ... The new regulator had been tested and found satisfactory".

So, while it is true that the Germans experienced engine problems in summer and fall 1944, R&D at both Junkers, Messerschmitt and Rechlin gradually improved the performance and reliability and at the end of the war the most severe issues had been resolved.

Of course by this point in time the German industry had suffered so heavily from the Allied bombing that material and supply issues became more critical than technical deficiencies.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Roger, nobody says jets were not faster on their operational altitude below 10 km. Nonetheless we are talking about extreme (then) altitudes of above 12-13 kms. Weight of bombs certainly would add a little to climb speed, but please do not overestimate it. It was only 7 percent of total weight, and as such it had a limited influence on the ceiling. More, several Soviet designs like early Yak-15/17, Su-9 or MiG-9 jets used improved German technology of Jumo 004 and neither of them was able to intercept Spitfire nor reach its ceiling.
This is a limitation of the design in general and not anything else. Me 262 and its engines were not perfect, and had several imperfections. It is not surprising, considering it was one of the first jets to enter service, but there is no reason to glorify it.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Franek,

I completely agree with you, there is absolutely no reson to glorify it. Therefore, I tried to base all my statements on technical source documents. The 13.5km maximum service ceiling with bombs is given in a technical report of the Messerschmitt company. I even said that they had engine problems in summer and fall 1944. The fact that they found a way out of the most severe engine problems is based on the diary of the Technische Luftrüstung as well as Jumo reports and last but not least an US interrogation report. I hope you agree with me that using source documents is not glorifying the technical achievements of that time.

So, again, I couldn’t find any source document that states that it could fly above 13.5km. But they were able to fly at 13.5km with bombs according to Erprobungsbericht No. 50 (why should they lie in this report? There was no need for that). Assuming that it couldn’t fly much higher without bombs and assuming that your information regarding the maxium service ceiling (above 14’000m) is correct for the Sptifire, it has to assumed that the Me 262 could not reach it even if it had a pressurized cabin. But as I said in one of my earlier post, you will always find a special purpose aircraft that excels in its role but cannot outperform others in other roles. Just take the Me 163 and the Spitfire XIX as an example and talk about rate of climb. And then again, the Ar 234 could carry out reconnaissance missions as well over Allied territory without being harassed (which was less due to its maximum service ceiling but more due to the high speed at which it carried out these missions). And in the end it made no difference as there were much more serious problems the Luftwaffe was faced with than high flying enemy aircraft: inferior number of aircraft employed, fuel shortage, low quality of pilot training, collapsing logistics, enemy fighter bombers that waited over own airfields, etc. etc. The Me 262 could not win the war, neither did the Spitfire XIX. And as another member stated in this thread, if a technology did win the war, then it was the atomic bomb.

Regarding Soviet fighters. I am no expert of early Soviet jets, but I know that not only the engine but also the wing type and profile was important for the maximum service ceiling. But I really don’t want to start arguing about their performance as I believe that your information is based on true facts.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

I am still waiting for Franek to tell us that the PR XIX ALWAYS flew at max altitude on EVERY mission. Hard to take photos from 14km when the cloud base is at say 10km.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Kutscha: Not a lot of point in taking photos at any altitude if cloud covers the intended target, though weather reconnaissance is an important part of any intelligence gathering, of course, and there remains the possibility of alternative targets where the weather could be better. It was a fairly common event during the war, and built into the operating procedures. Therefore there is little point to the last posting. (I don't think the PR Mk.XIX always operated at 14km either - but then it didn't need to.)

Roger: Examples of the Ar 234 were shot down on their missions over Allied lines. If this counts as not being harassed we have different dictionaries.

This discussion has moved significantly away from its original intent. If it has dissolved into a pissing contest then Ruy should close it down.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Graham,

Please. No aircraft was invincible and as far as I can tell without referring to books the Ar 234 that were shot down were mostly bombers and if reconnaissance Ar 234 then not at high altitude and at high speed. Even a Spitfire XIX was vulnerable during climbing and landing.

I really cannot understand your statement that this discussion is a "pissing contest". Could you elaborate? I hope I didn't offend anybody.

I think it is an interesting thread where at least I learned some new facts previously unknown to me and I hope most of the other members see this also in the same light.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Roger, but what was the point, please? Somebody has tried to prove Meteor was hopeless because Spitfire XIX was found a better photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Now, what is the purpose claiming that Spitfire XIX was a highly specialised aircraft? Everyone knows she was. But still, she was better at high altitude work than any jet available until 1950.
Graham, do not underestimate weather service. This was the most important reconnaissance but it had no glamour at all.
Kutscha, it would help if you read my posts, actually.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Franek,

With my remarks about the development of the engines and about the performance recorded in the Messerschmitt report I wanted to point out -based on hard facts - that the Me 262 was not that bad as it was intially asserted and the main reason that it rarely flew between 12'000m - 13'500m were mainly due to the missing cabin pressure and the major target being bombers at lower altitudes.

If you mean higher flying with better you are right if it flew higher than 13'500meters, which I also admitted in my last post. The Ar 234 didn't fly so high as the Spitfire but it was faster than any other propeller driven fighter at 10'000m making it a very effective reconnaissance plane as well. But of course, this fact shouldn't diminish the Spitfire's performance and maximum service ceiling which apparently was unrivaled until years after the war. If I offended you by stating technical facts, I have to apologize.

For me, not being familiar with Spitfires, this thread provided interesting and new information to me and was not intended as "pissing contest" whatsoever. And honestly, I don't see why anybody should see it this way.

I hope we can now go back to a constructive discussion again.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

I wasn't underestimating weather reconnaissance, but most important work was done to the west of the UK because of the prevailing winds. I was pointing out that useful information could be obtained even if the prime mission proved abortive.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Erich Sommer flew a mission over the Thames estuary Sept 9 1944. His was based at the time at Rheine. He also flew another mission over southern England shortly after he potographed the Normady beach area.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

What an interesting discussion!
But what is the conclusion? Should any aircraft, let alone the Me262, have been used as a bomber?
I think not.
There was a need for armoured aircraft with guns to destroy tanks, artillery and ships.
And a need for a divebomber with pin-point accuracy against strongpoints, ships and artillery.
And a need for a bomber like the Mosquito to take out the German electricity generation and distribution system, and the synthetic fuel plants.
But that, in my humble opinion, was that. These needs would require about 10% of the nation's GNP, and not the 40 to 50% absorbed by Bomber Command.
The 30 to 40% of GNP that was available should have been used to give the army better tanks and equipment so that they could have had equality with the Wehrmacht instead of inferiority.
The military cemetaries would then have been far smaller.
Germany survived for six years because it had no strategic bombing force.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Here is an uncommon thought, but all is far to be wrong, winning at any cost is disastrous for the future, the great winner is the one that defeat his foe without trying to take an unfair advantage after, in this category for sure Germany is not among, but maybe not the others too.

rémi

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

You say no aircraft should have been used as a bomber, then cite instances of when a bomber would be useful. Actually what you cite is exactly what fighter-bombers have been doing from July 1940 up to present. Go get a copy of some guy's book on the Luftwaffe's fighter-bomber unit in 1940 and see what they did to a lot of targets in 1940...

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Please recommend a good book concerning the LW's fighter bombers in 1940. I must read it.
Nothing I've seen so far, apart from the destruction of the Polish army in 1939 which lacked Flak, about the early years of WWII fighter-bombers showed them as any more effective than the Typhoons of 2-TAF in 1944/1945. Their activity was curtailed in March 1945 due to high losses from Flak.
My reading is that the Me262 would have been a faster Typhoon, ineffective and unable to survive over the battlefield.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

To add; concerning the unused of fighter-bomber due to Flak, the fact that when the SG4 first use the Pz-blitz in dec.44 in Elsass, they concluded that their use was impossible due to the density of the Flak they found

"Pz-blitz + M8 zwecklos ist, da das Verhältnis v. erfolg z. Verlust zu ungesund "

rémi

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Hello tcolvin
"the Polish army in 1939 which lacked Flak" is not entirely correct, Polish army had a decent number of 40mm Bofors AA guns and some heavy AA guns.

"There was a need for armoured aircraft with guns to destroy tanks, artillery and ships"
There was a point for armoured a/c like Il-2 in ground attack work but against ships that wasn't a good type of a/c because they lacked load carrying ability and ships were rather difficult to sink. Even fabric covered torpedo bi-plane like Swordfish was clearly more effective against ships than Il-2. Against warships the difference was even clearer. And Il-2 armed with 37mm cannon wasn't liked by pilots, plane was too heavy and unwieldy and the recoil was too heavy for accurate aiming. But Il-2 was effective against infantry, soft vehicles and artillery and moderately successful against armour with 23mm cannon and anti-tank bomblets.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Any quality may have a combat plane, it cannot be effective unless it is available in number.
A handful of high-technology Ar 234s and Me 262s were definitely less effective than thousands of Il-2s.
That's for the same reason that the US kept on building Shermans which were outclassed by German Tigers but outnumbered them.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Although lacking in range for other than Baltic waters, the Il 2 would have been perfectly effective against ships using rockets. The RAF strike wings were converting to rockets rather than torpedos because rockets were at least as effective when they hit, had a greater probability of hitting, and placed the aircraft under less risk from flak. No aircraft can be effective without an appropriate weapon. The Russians had air-to-ground rockets, so it was just a matter of applying their capabilities.

How much flak renders fighter-bombers nugatory is a difficult measure to use. The intense German light flak did not stop the Allied fighterbombers, though may well have biased the weapon of choice to the less accurate (but stand-off) rocket rather than the more effective bomb. Intense light flak also drives to the use of the medium bomber, bombing in the safer environment of medium altitudes.

The Germans no longer had the luxury of choice. The high speed of the 262 would give greater survivability than the 190 jabo, and linked to air-to-ground rockets was probably the only option available with any realistic capability.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Hello Graham
Il-2s could make life miserable for minesweepers and smaller warships and for transports but usually could not sink them. On the other hand destroyers and bigger warships were able to give artillery support to Heer at Baltic right to end of war. Swordfish, which could use rockets, torpedos, bombs or mines and had room and carrying capacity for ASW radar and operator, could attack day or night or at least mine the harbour entrances or usually used searoutes would IMHO have been more effective countermeasure against Kriegsmarine. Il-2 with its, was that 700 kg, armour simply didn't have enough carrying capacity for an effective anti-shipping operation, at least against real warships.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

But a big ship, Arcona ?full of Kz-lager inmates was sunk by brit. aircrafts using rockets no ?? during the war between Iran nd Irak tankers were sunk using blind-rockets, not maybe adapted for armoured big-units..

rémi

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

This is new. Can you tell me how this Polish Flak performed during the heavy LW attacks on September 16, 1939 against the Bzura counteroffensive?
Is it not true that the LW considered the Polish army had no Flak?
It is my understanding that the LW responded to the Wehrmacht's clamour for help against the Polish counterattacks that began on the Bzura on Sptember 9, by sending everything available to destroy the Polish army.
On September 16, 820 German aircraft dropped 328,000 kg of bombs on the hapless Poles. Sending everything to destroy Poles included fitting bomb racks to air superiority fighter aircraft for the first time ever, because a bomb was seen to be more destructive than bullets against troops that could not fire back and had no fighter defense. The German fighters had nothing to do so why not use them as make-shift bombers?
The fighter-bomber was thus born over the Bzura.
Later, during the Battle of Britain, Galland was told to fit a bomb rack to his Bf109 when bomber losses became unacceptable. Galland went apeshit. The British saw a bomb rack on a downed Bf109 and promptly followed this LW innovation that was controversial even on the German side. The British had never thought of a fighter-bomber before, but seized on it as a way of using up failed air superiority fighters like the Typhoon and at the same time heading off army demands for an army-air corps because the army had been abandoned by the RAF at Dunkirk.
The Russians started from a different and base which was the development at the end of WWI by Britain and Germany of armoured tactical ground-attack aircraft, which like the IL-2 were bombers which could survive over the battlefield and not fighter-bombers which could not survive - except against troops like the Poles who lacked Flak.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

RT
Yes Arcona was sunk by rockets, but Brtish used solid head rockets in their anti-shipping strikes. Aimed little low to hit hull below waterline to punch holes. IIRC Soviet rockets were short stubby sort ones and I'm not sure were they enough accurate and did they have suitable underwater traectory for such a tactic and anyway IIRC they usually had HE warhead.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Tcolvin
"The fighter-bomber was thus born over the Bzura."
Now they used fighter bombers in WWII and LW used them in Spanish Civil War, He 51s.

On Poland's AA defences, IIRC they had some 380 40mm Bofors AA guns etc.

"army had been abandoned by the RAF at Dunkirk."
Now I'd say that that is a one-sided statement when one thinks the air combats over Dunkerque.

"IL-2 were bombers which could survive over the battlefield and not fighter-bombers which could not survive..."

Now Il-2 losses were very heavy and without better fighter escorts would have been even disasterous because Bf109 with gun gondolas or Fw190 could shoot them down, I'll not say easily but without too much difficulties. And Il-2s were vulnerable to AAA fire from 20mm upwards. Of course they were "harder" targets than fighter bombers and were practically invulnerable to rifle and 7 - 8mm mg fire which could be deadly to fighter-bombers. But on other hand fighter-bombers were less vulnerable to enemy fighters.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Hi tcolvin,

It appears you didn't pick up on it, but John Vasco's message above contains a self-effacing reference to his own fine book, "Messerschmitt Bf 110 Bombsights over England: Erprobungsgruppe 210 in the Battle of Britain", published by Schiffer in 2002, ISBN 0764314459. (An earlier edition was published by JAC in 1990.)

The revised edition is available from Amazon and Schiffer for about $50.

Leon Venter