Build your own Luftwaffe

Chris Triangle · Sep 11, 2012

Hypothetical: it's the late 1930's and you're in charge of selecting the German Luftwaffe's designs. You are preparing for a war with the French and British air forces. Using hindsight regarding designs worked and what didn't while working within the technical and production limitations of German Industry, what projects would you emphasize, what designs would you prioritize and what technologies would you pursue? For example, would you make plans to replace the bf-109 or simply upgrade it? Would you concentrate on fighters, bombers or interceptors? Feel free to do the same for any other air force you like at the same time.

Deleted member 1487 · Sep 11, 2012

Chris Triangle said:
Hypothetical: it's the late 1930's and you're in charge of selecting the German Luftwaffe's designs. You are preparing for a war with the French and British air forces. Knowing what designs worked and what didn't while working within the technical and production limitations of German Industry, what projects would you emphasize, what designs would you prioritize and what technologies would you pursue? For example, would you make plans to replace the bf-109 or simply upgrade it? Would you concentrate on fighters, bombers or interceptors? Feel free to do the same for any other air force you like at the same time. Including the French.

Fighter:
Me109 (main until FW190 then 50%, upgrade marks about 2x per year, high altitude)
Fw187 (upgrade until Do335 is ready)
Ju88C ("")
later Fw190 (upgrade and keep in service for low altitude work (-20,000 ft)

Night Fighters:
Ju88C and G (upgrade for as long as possible)
Focus on centimetric radar that Germany had in 1935, but abandoned.

Bombers:
He111 (until 1940-1 then replace with Do217)
Ju88 and 188 (not dive bomber version) (main bomber)
He177 (not dive bomber or two propellor) (strategic bomber, upgrade size and load...avoid Amerika bomber diversion)
Do217 (when available in 1941)

Naval Bombers:
He111 (until Ju88 is produced enough)
Ju88 (replace with Do217)
Do217
Do119 (developed Do19) for long range offensive recon

Recon:
Do119
Do18
Do26
Fw189
Fi Storck
Hs 126

Tactical Bombers:
Hs123 (keep in production)
Hs129 (low production until Gnome Rhone, then 40% of Tactical)
Ju87 (D and G versions main, reduce to night bomber by 1943 and 10%)
Fw190 (CAS version then 30%)
Ju88C (20% for train busting, heavy fighter-bomber, light bomber-ground attack, LAAR)

Transport:
Ju52 (replace with Ju252 when ready)
Ju252 (100% when ready)

Jets:
Start producing in 1944 when ready, specialist units only
Me262
Ar234

I'm sure I'm leaving some things out, but this is a basic list.

Chris Triangle · Sep 11, 2012

Very good. How much emphasis would you put on production of those heavy bombers, the 4-engined He-177? Also, just curious, why do you keep the Hs.123 in production?

Deleted member 1487 · Sep 11, 2012

Chris Triangle said:
Very good. What kind aircraft would you put as the top production priority?

3:1 bombers to fighters until 1942-3 depending on war situation to that point.
Ju88 in all version 35% of production until 1942-3
He177 5% production
CAS 15% production
Me109 until 1942 20% production
Fw187 10% production
transports, recon, etc, 15%

1942-3 and on
Fighter 50%
Fw190 low altitude (35%)
Me109 high altitude (50%)
Fw187 (10%)
Ju88C (10%)

Night Fighters 20%
Ju88G

Bombers 25%:
Ju188 60%
He177 10%
Do217 10%
CAS 20%

All others 5%

Fuel issues keep the He177 from being a bigger production run.
The He123 was able to keep running in just about any condition, including very heavy mud. The He123C, which was the improved version after 1939 was never built, but would have been an excellent upgrade, would have been competitive later in the war. Even up to 1944 CAS groups were begging to get the Hs123 back into production, as it could operate even when the Ju87 and other heavier aircraft couldn't
It had awesome survivability even able to take direct 20mm hits and keep going thanks to its radial engine and armor, while being too slow and maneuverable for fighters to shoot down, as they quickly shot past it and would stall if they slowed down enough, which was a critical problem, as the Hs123 operated near the ground, so a stall meant a crash at that altitude.

Chris Triangle · Sep 11, 2012

I see you're quite fond of the Ju-88.

Kalvan · Sep 11, 2012

Well, I would have loved to have seen if I can get my hands on some of those Japanese Radial Engines mentioned here, except that I would have used a Twin Charge Design (Crank Driven Twin Screw Supercharger for the low end, and an exhaust-driven Twin Scroll Turbo for the high end. Also, I'll see if I can change the valvetrain to a SOHC arrangement for fewer moving parts and less valvetrain slop.

Of course, they came on a tad late, but I think that establishing an early joint-venture with the Japanese (especially Mitsubishi) to see if we can't engineer more reliability into the design and tooling, and get them out more quickly, at least in Germany. And since they will use even better fuel, they should be even more powerful!

We also need a heavy bomber. Since it doesn't need more than (pulling this number out of my ass), say, a 4,000 mile range, it doesn't need to be quite as big the biggest American efforts, but it has to at least match it's British opposite number in size and payload. I would also like to try to introduce the AWACS concept. See if it can't provide a better level of coordination particularly in the East Front.

Germany's biggest (though by no means only) aircraft problems are more related to doctrine then the hardware itself.

Divebombing the WWII way is stupid. The trip down and back up not only puts tremendous strain on the intake and frame, it leaves the bird vulnerable to flak and anti-air artillery. If we need a close ground attack aircraft, we need both light fighter-bombers after the style of the F-111 and F-14 Tomcat, and heavier versions after the fashion of the A-10 Warthog (With Prop engines and fixed wings for the time being).

If I can think of more, I'll add it in.

Deleted member 1487 · Sep 11, 2012

Chris Triangle said:
I see you're quite fond of the Ju-88.

It could have been the Luftwaffe's Mosquito...

@Kalvan: totally agree
as to the strategic bomber, check this out: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=254104
With some development the Do19, or perhaps a better name would be the Do119, which I used above, could have been the German B17 and had a 4 ton bomb load with 2,000+ miles range. Used as a night bomber, where its lower armor and defensive armament won't matter nearly as much, it could have been a specialist unit for use with the Anzünder Gruppen, Fire Raisers, could have lit up Britain's cities like Germany's were IOTL.

A useful quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm

"The Germans again and again missed their chance, ... of setting our cities ablaze by a concentrated attack. Coventry was adequately concentrated in point of space, but all the same there was little concentration in point of time, and nothing like the fire tornadoes of Hamburg or Dresden ever occurred in this country. But they did do us enough damage to teach us the principle of concentration, the principle of starting so many fires at the same time that no fire fighting services, however efficiently and quickly they were reinforced by the fire brigades of other towns could get them under control."
—Arthur Harris, [4]

Chris Triangle · Sep 11, 2012

wiking said:
It could have been the Luftwaffe's Mosquito...

@Kalvan: totally agree
as to the strategic bomber, check this out: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=254104
With some development the Do19, or perhaps a better name would be the Do119, which I used above, could have been the German B17 and had a 4 ton bomb load with 2,000+ miles range. Used as a night bomber, where its lower armor and defensive armament won't matter nearly as much, it could have been a specialist unit for use with the Anzünder Gruppen, Fire Raisers, could have lit up Britain's cities like Germany's were IOTL.

A useful quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm

The Germans, with a well-developed chemical engineering and manufacturing base, could certainly have developed a sort of petroleum jelly. Perhaps they could have pulled a Curtis LeMaye: masses of heavy bombers raining napalm down on cities and factories might have brought even Britain to its knees.

johnboy · Sep 11, 2012

HE 100

I would have thought the Me 100 would be a good addition. Performance similar to the ME 109 but longer range which sure would have been useful over the UK.

Deleted member 1487 · Sep 11, 2012

Chris Triangle said:
The Germans, with a well-developed chemical engineering and manufacturing base, could certainly have developed a sort of petroleum jelly. Perhaps they could have pulled a Curtis LeMaye: masses of heavy bombers raining napalm down on cities and factories might have brought even Britain to its knees.

The Germans had their own version of napalm before the war, but the bombs didn't work very well, often cracking open and spilling without igniting.
Their thermite 'Elektron' bombs worked much better and were the primary source of Luftwaffe fires.

http://thedaysofglory2.blogspot.com/2010/08/luftwaffe-bombs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz#The_Luftwaffe_and_strategic_bombing

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bombs.html

Incendiaries
B1 Series (1 kg. & 1.3 kg.) Incendiary
B2EZ Incendiary
B2.2EZ Incendiary
Brand 10 Liquid Filled Incendiary
Brand C50 A High-Intensity Incendiary
Brand C50 B High-Intensity Incendiary
Brand C250 High-Intensity Incendiary
FLAM C250 Liquid Incendiary
FLAM KC250 Liquid Incendiary
FLAM 500 Liquid Incendiary
Sprengbrand C 50 Incendiary Bomb
Strbd C500 Anti-Personel Liquid Incendiary Bomb

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/brandc250.htm

Filling: 87.7% Petroleum, 11.7% Polystyrene, 0.5% Phosphorus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

Napalm B is chemically distinct from its predecessor Napalm. It is usually a mixture of polystyrene and benzene, used as a thickening agent to make jellied gasoline.

Napalm B has a commonly quoted composition of 21% benzene, 33% gasoline (itself containing between 1% and 4% (estimated) benzene to raise its octane number), and 46% polystyrene.

Napalm B was used in flamethrowers and bombs by American and Allied forces in World War II.

Chris Triangle · Sep 11, 2012

Those thermite bombs were capable of starting a firestorm?

Deleted member 1487 · Sep 11, 2012

johnboy said:
I would have thought the Me 100 would be a good addition. Performance similar to the ME 109 but longer range which sure would have been useful over the UK.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/1940-ideal-fighter-luftwaffe-33345.html
There were some issues with the HE100. It wouldn't have been ready or optimized in time for the war and lack the ability to upgrade like the Me109 did over the course of the war. The HE112 had the same problem. And surface evaporation was the cause of a lot of the speed of the HE100, which didn't work in practice and then its removal compromised the design.

Deleted member 1487 · Sep 11, 2012

Chris Triangle said:
Those thermite bombs were capable of starting a firestorm?

When they found combustable materials in buildings, which the German 'cookies' would help with big time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Fire_of_London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_bomb

The 4 lb (1.8 kg) incendiary bomb was the standard light incendiary bomb used by Bomber Command in very large numbers, declining slightly in 1944 to 35.8 million bombs produced (the decline being due to more bombs arriving from the USA). It was the weapon of choice for the British dehousing plan. The bomb consisted of a magnesium body with a cast iron/steel nose, and it was filled with thermite incendiary pellets and was capable of burning for up to ten minutes, the magnesium body adding to the incendiary effect. There was also a high explosive version and delayed high explosive versions (2–4 minutes) which were specifically designed to kill rescuers.

The RAF used the exact same type of incendiary the Luftwaffe used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing#Tactics

Early in World War II many British cities were firebombed. Two particularly notable raids were the Coventry Blitz on 14 November 1940, and the blitz on London on the night of 29 December/30 December 1940, which was the most destructive raid on London during the war with much of the destruction caused by fires started by incendiary bombs. During the Coventry Blitz the Germans pioneered several innovations which were to influence all future strategic bomber raids during the war.[2] These were: The use of pathfinder aircraft with electronic aids to navigate, to mark the targets before the main bomber raid; The use of high explosive bombs and air-mines coupled with thousands of incendiary bombs intended to set the city ablaze. The first wave of follow-up bombers dropped high explosive bombs, the intent of which was knock out the utilities (the water supply, electricity network and gas mains), and to crater the road - making it difficult for the fire engines to reach fires started by the follow-up waves of bombers. The follow-up waves dropped a combination of high explosive and incendiary bombs. There were two types of incendiary bombs: those made of magnesium and iron powders, and those made of petroleum. The high-explosive bombs and the larger air-mines were not only designed to hamper the Coventry fire brigade, they were also intended to damage roofs, making it easier for the incendiary bombs to fall into buildings and ignite them. As Sir Arthur Harris, commander of RAF Bomber Command, wrote after the war:

"In the early days of bombing our notion, like that of the Germans, was to spread an attack out over the whole night, thereby wearing down the morale of the civilian population. The result was, of course, that an efficient fire brigade could tackle a single load of incendiaries, put them out, and wait in comfort for the next to come along; they might also be able to take shelter when a few high explosives bombs were dropping. ... But it was observed that when the Germans did get an effective concentration, ... then our fire brigades had a hard time; if a rain of incendiaries is mixed with high explosives bombs there is a temptation for the fireman to keep his head down. The Germans again and again missed their chance, as they did during the London blitz that I watched from the roof of the Air Ministry, of setting our cities ablaze by a concentrated attack. Coventry was adequately concentrated in point of space, but all the same there was little concentration in point of time, and nothing like the fire tornadoes of Hamburg or Dresden ever occurred in this country. But they did do us enough damage to teach us the principle of concentration, the principle of starting so many fires at the same time that no fire fighting services, however efficiently and quickly they were reinforced by the fire brigades of other towns could get them under control."
—Arthur Harris, [3]

Catspoke · Sep 11, 2012

Wilking's list is pretty good. One day the Mustangs will come and major size bomber formations. Even with better piston fighters and better pilots attrition will be heavy, need to lower this some how so you can keep going indefintely.

Instead of the V2:

a) do perhaps an air to air rocket, RM4 type thing, or a guided pilotless bomb (wired) to take out the bombers at long range.

b) Keep the V1 around, in fact get it going earlier, Hitler needs his vengence, the price is cheap and losing trained pilots doing silly things like the baby blitz are expensive.

Deleted member 1487 · Sep 11, 2012

Catspoke said:
Wilking's list is pretty good. One day the Mustangs will come and major size bomber formations. Even with better piston fighters and better pilots attrition will be heavy, need to lower this some how so you can keep going indefintely.

Instead of the V2:

a) do perhaps an air to air rocket, RM4 type thing, or a guided pilotless bomb (wired) to take out the bombers at long range.

b) Keep the V1 around, in fact get it going earlier, Hitler needs his vengence, the price is cheap and losing trained pilots doing silly things like the baby blitz are expensive.

Yep, the V2 was a waste of resources, but a bonanza for the Allies during and after the war.
The V1 was an excellent use of resources because it was so cheap. It diverted huge resources from the Allies and inflicted tens of thousands of casualties at no loss to the Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Assessment

Blitz (12 months) vs V-1 flying bombs (2¾ months)
Blitz V-1
1. Cost to Germany
Sorties 90,000 8,025
Weight of bombs tons 61,149 14,600
Fuel consumed tons 71,700 4,681
Aircraft lost 3,075 0
Men lost 7,690 0
2. Results
Houses damaged/destroyed 1,150,000 1,127,000
Casualties 92,566 22,892
Rate casualties/bombs tons 1.6 1.6
3. Allied air effort
Sorties 86,800 44,770
Aircraft lost 1,260 351
Men lost 2,233 805

jlckansas · Sep 11, 2012

For the night fighter I would go with the Heinkel He 219. It is seems to me to be a better aircraft for this than the 88.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_219

For Maritime recon I would say use either the BV 222,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_222
or the Dornier Do 26.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_26

The problem with the BV 222 is the range is good but don't know how it would work with fighters form CVE's with the convoys. It looks like it could be as well armed as a regular bomber to protect itself.

Deleted member 1487 · Sep 11, 2012

jlckansas said:
For the night fighter I would go with the Heinkel He 219. It is seems to me to be a better aircraft for this than the 88.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_219

For Maritime recon I would say use either the BV 222,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_222
or the Dornier Do 26.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_26

The problem with the BV 222 is the range is good but don't know how it would work with fighters form CVE's with the convoys. It looks like it could be as well armed as a regular bomber to protect itself.

The He219 is very over rated. It was underpowered and never lived up to the hype. It lacked the engine that it was designed for the Jumo222, which never entered production because of technical issues.
http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=669&page=2

As a nightfighter with the nose mounted Liechenstein radar the speed dropped to below 350mph. Not really as good. There is a good book by a German WWII test pilot on the planes he flew, only I can't remember his name...

I should add that one NJG (NJG 1 ??) would not fly the He 219s that were delivered to them, preferring to keep using their Ju 88s, as they did not consider these late production a/c combat capable.

Greg, that 416mph number is for a striped down a/c > no exhaust shround, no antenna and a few other weight saving items removed. A NF with no radar and spitting flames on a dark night signalling it presence to one and all is not of much use.

Eric Brown flew a captured He-219A-2 after the war and felt the plane was overrated because it was in his opinion underpowered. He did feel however, that it was a good all weather aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_(pilot)

Captain Eric Melrose "Winkle" Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, MA, Hon FRAeS, RN (born 21 January 1919) is a former Royal Navy officer and test pilot who has flown more types of aircraft than anyone else in history. He is also the Fleet Air Arm’s most decorated pilot and holds the world record for aircraft carrier landings.[1]

http://warbirdsforum.com/archive/index.php/t-196.html

In Wings of the Luftwaffe, Royal Navy test pilot Eric Brown (a man who probably knows more about the flight characteristics of WW2 aircraft than any other pilot) gives his impressions of the He 219A-2:

"I found no opportunity to fly the later DB 603G-powered He 219A-5, but imagine that it did not display any markedly different handling or performance characteristics to those of the A-2...

...I had read German reports that, fully loaded, the He 219 enjoyed an ample surplus of power and that an engine cutting immediately after take-off or during the approach presented little danger. There was, it is said, an instance of a pilot making an emergency take-off on one engine with his undercarriage locked in the 'down" position and with flaps fully extended! If there is any truth in this last report, I can only say that for this extraordinary feat the aircraft must have been equipped with JATO and have had a very long runway indeed! In my view, the Heinkel fighter, certainly in its He 219A-2 version - was decided underpowered. An engine failure on take off must have been a very nasty emergency to handle at night as, below 137 mpg (220 km/h) the aircraft was difficult to hold straight...

...The rate of climb was certainly unimpressive...A full power run at 20,000 ft revealed somewhat sluggish acceleration and a top speed of 378 mph (608 km/h), which was somewhat below the German handbook figures...

...From my experience with the He 219A-2, I would say that this Heinkel fighter's reputation was somewhat overrated. It was, in my view, basically a good night fighter in concept but if suffered from what is perhaps the nastiest characteristic that any twin-engined aircraft can have - it was underpowered. This defect makes take-off a critical maneuver in the event of an engine failing and a landing with one engine out can be equally critical. There could certainly be no overshooting with the He 219 in that condition. Furthermore, it appeared to be short on performance to deal with the Mosquito, a task which was, in part, its raison d'etre."

These views are 180 degrees different from the gushing words we often hear about the He 219. Admittedly the up-engined He 219A-7 was probably a considerable improvement, but these arrived too late and in too few numbers to make much difference to the RAF night bombing campaign, none being delivered until December 1944. From Aders and Brown's testimony, the He 219A-2/5 was not all it is cracked up to be, and certainly not superior to the Mosquito...

So we're better off sticking to the Ju88G for scales of economy and without the dive bombing requirement, would have been somewhat fast than IOTL.

Chris Triangle · Sep 11, 2012

Would it even be worthwhile to seriously target British Shipping and naval vessels from the air? What about British ships in the Mediterranean?

Deleted member 1487 · Sep 11, 2012

Chris Triangle said:
Is there anything the Luftwaffe could have done, with air superiority, to pull off some successful raids on Scapa Flow?

They did in 1939 with the dive bombing Ju88s, but casualties were high and the damage was repaired quickly. Its pretty hard to hit such a well defended target. Plus the Brits kept moving the home fleet base around throughout the war, so getting up-to-date intelligence could be difficult. They could try and do a high altitude bombing raid, but without the right engines and pressurized cockpits, which only appeared later in the war, its had to pull off and accuracy would be shit.

Chris Triangle said:
Would it even be worthwhile to seriously target British Shipping and naval vessels from the air? What about British ships in the Mediterranean?

Yes! British shipping was very vulnerable to aerial bombing in 1939-1941, which is the premise of the Do19 thread. IOTL the German naval bomber squadrons were operating quite well in the Mediterranean until the USAAF swamped the area with fighters in 1943. Ju88s and Do119s (my fantasy navalized Do19) would be effective after 1941 once Barbarossa starts and there aren't enough resources to go after Britain proper anymore and its becoming too dangerous. Besides the Mediterranean is a sideshow to attacking the Home Isles, as the Luftwaffe working closely together with the Kriegsmarine could have knocked Britain out of the war if Hitler does make the 'logical' choice (it was actually more logical to declare war on the US with 1941 knowledge that Hitler had) and declare war on the US.

Chris Triangle · Sep 11, 2012

wiking said:
They did in 1939 with the dive bombing Ju88s, but casualties were high and the damage was repaired quickly. Its pretty hard to hit such a well defended target. Plus the Brits kept moving the home fleet base around throughout the war, so getting up-to-date intelligence could be difficult. They could try and do a high altitude bombing raid, but without the right engines and pressurized cockpits, which only appeared later in the war, its had to pull off and accuracy would be shit.

Wouldn't regular high altitude bombing of Scapa Flow be at least a bit disruptive? I mean, with safety compromised even there, the Royal Navy would have to be a bit uncomfortable. Kind of like Kure in Japan.

Build your own Luftwaffe

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487

Deleted member 1487