AHC: 1930s/40s airforce on a budget

[riggerrob]

Curtiss-Wright 21 meets most of our criteria: single-row Wright R-1820 engine, great rate of climb and high ceiling, armed with a pair of .30 cal MGs plus a pair of .50 cal HMGs. During its limited combat service Flying Tigers in China and Dutch East Indies) it proved a match for similar Japanese fighters. Zero out-gunned it with 20mm cannons.

Also consider the North American Aviation P-64 and the similar Austrailian Woomera. Though Woomera had a more powerful R-1830 engine.

Minimizing the number of different engine types vastly simplifies logistics and maintenance. If one airframe proves a dud, reuse the engines on a newer and better airframe. Common tires (B-25 and Catalina) also simplifies L & M.

 

[EverKing]

Apart from the Stork and a trainer, we would have a one engine air force.

That was my thought, as well. But looking at the P-43 cost I don't know that it is good enough value for this. I thought they would be quite a bit less than shown on @tomo pauk's table. Of course, looking at 1941--the only year for which both the Lancer and Thunderbolt were procured, the former is still significantly less expensive than the latter so maybe it isn't all bad, especially when considering the additional cost savings of using a standardized R-2600 installation.

 

[riggerrob]

........... what I would suggest is...

..an interceptor which can also act as close escort
..a long range invulnerable reconnaissance plane for tactical, operational and strategic reconnaissance .........

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite sure why you need close escort fighters with no heavy bomber fleet.??????????
Recce airplanes should fly high enough and fast enough to dodge most enemy interceptors.

 

[Jukra]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Not quite sure why you need close escort fighters with no heavy bomber fleet.??????????
Recce airplanes should fly high enough and fast enough to dodge most enemy interceptors.

I'm having a national bias here on how to operate against a vastly superior enemy. What I have in mind is that the few fighters you have are best used as a concentrated asset. Their primary mission would be to escort dive bombers to significant targets, ie. enemy naval assets or key targets such as enemy schwerpunkt. They might have a chance to win a time-limited air superiority there, ensuring the dive bombers have a chance to perform their work.

If the correlation of forces is unfavorable there's no use of wasting your fighter assets just to wear down enemy bombing fleet or masses of tactical aircraft in interception or CAP duties. You win some, you lose some, but it's still the ace of spades as in the end you have lost your fighter assets and enemy has not suffered significant casualties. Better to use your fighters as an offensive asset and the AA to wear down enemy forces, to make them wary of striking targets and to destroy their aim. An asymmetrical use of forces.

 

[Jukra]

Some quick estimates (somebody correct me if I am obviously missing something):

About 550 fighter aircraft used in first line service by the FAF, vs. c. 1000 light, c. 350 medium, and c. 350 heavy AA guns used by all branches of the Finnish military.

The AA guns were practically operated throughout the war, demonstrating their longevity, while FAF had great difficulties in purchasing modern fighter aircraft. The line strength for first line fighter aircrafts, depending on what could be considered to be first line aircraft, fluctuated around 40 (42 Brewster F2A's in June 1941, 38 Messerchmitt Me-109G2's in June 1944) to maximum of roughly 100 (ME-109G2's and G6's at the end of 1944 campaign.)

 

[Jukra]

Germany was awash with heavy and light AAA (10000 of heavy pcs in 1944 in service), yet, once the 8th AF LR fighters killed LW fighters, US bomber losses went into ~2% vs. ~10% befor the LR escorts were employed.
Recruiting high school boys, wousewives and PoW into crews for AAA is false economy, that was one of main factors in declining of LW Flak arm from 1942 on - from 4000 heavy shells per kill to 16000 (16 thousand) im 1944.

Even Luftwaffe fighters could not handle USAAF strikes after they were escorted, so the comparison is moot. A small country, as specified in this thread, cannot hope to contest a major enemy head on. If it, on the other hand, fights against a peer the peer effort will be limited as well. The reason shell consumption went up was higher flying US bombers and the very effective US EW against German flak.

If we're having a small country with top of the line fighters, sure it can have VT fuzes too? Historically small countries of the era had extreme difficulties in making or purchasing modern combat aircraft.

 

[DrakonFin]

The AA guns were practically operated throughout the war, demonstrating their longevity, while FAF had great difficulties in purchasing modern fighter aircraft. The line strength for first line fighter aircrafts, depending on what could be considered to be first line aircraft, fluctuated around 40 (42 Brewster F2A's in June 1941, 38 Messerchmitt Me-109G2's in June 1944) to maximum of roughly 100 (ME-109G2's and G6's at the end of 1944 campaign.)

What can be seen "first line" is of course a question of interpretation and semantics. I counted the total number of pretty much anything that was practically thrown against Soviet bombers and fighters during both the Winter War and the Continuation War, from the Fokker D.XXI and even the Gloster Gladiator in the Winter War to the Curtiss Hawk in the Continuation War. Naturally the number of planes actually in use at any particulat time was much lower.

 

[Jukra]

What can be seen "first line" is of course a question of interpretation and semantics. I counted the total number of pretty much anything that was practically thrown against Soviet bombers and fighters during both the Winter War and the Continuation War, from the Fokker D.XXI and even the Gloster Gladiator in the Winter War to the Curtiss Hawk in the Continuation War.

Yes, and I counted just the Continuation War. Finnish Air Force fighter strength included a large number of second, or third grade fighters which did not achieve very much, but due to need to use everything available were thrown into battle anyway.

 

[DrakonFin]

Yes, and I counted just the Continuation War. Finnish Air Force fighter strength included a large number of second, or third grade fighters which did not achieve very much, but due to need to use everything available were thrown into battle anyway.

Hence the notion that, being very short of options, the FAF used second rate (or even third rate) fighters in de facto first line use. The Fiat G.50 was in practice one of the most effective fighters used by the FAF even in the Continuation War, in terms of the victory-loss ratio, even if it was by 1942 woefully obsolete in technical terms. So, despite them not being first grade as such, they still need to be included into any comparative numbers if one considers the effectiveness of AA guns on the ground versus fighters in the air. By the same token, we can say that at least some of the AA guns the Finns used and (more often) their fire control systems also were obsolescent during the war.

Which gets us to the point I think not many have made above: any air force going into WWII on budget needs to put some real effort into training, tactics and strategy to get best out of its budget equipment. Without its modern tactics and from decent to great pilots, in comparison to those of its enemy, the FAF would have suffered much more due to its its out-of-date equipment than it did IOTL.

 

[Driftless]

Which gets us to the point I think not many have made above: any air force going into WWII on budget needs to put some real effort into training, tactics and strategy to get best out of its budget equipment. Without its modern tactics and from decent to great pilots, in comparison to those of its enemy, the FAF would have suffered much more due to its its out-of-date equipment than it did IOTL.

It's a variation on the logistics wins wars theme. All the finest equipment in the world is only as good as your ability to keep the planes in the air and the pilots ability to acquire sufficient skill to continue the fight.

 

[Jukra]

Hence the notion that, being very short of options, the FAF used second rate (or even third rate) fighters in de facto first line use. The Fiat G.50 was in practice one of the most effective fighters used by the FAF even in the Continuation War, in terms of the victory-loss ratio, even if it was by 1942 woefully obsolete in technical terms. So, despite them not being first grade as such, they still need to be included into any comparative numbers if one considers the effectiveness of AA guns on the ground versus fighters in the air. By the same token, we can say that at least some of the AA guns the Finns used and (more often) their fire control systems also were obsolescent during the war.

Sure, but I did not want to make Finnish AAA to be more lopsidely effective in this comparison. Finnish AAA is one of the less noticed success stories of Finnish war effort. While defense of Helsinki in 1944 gets a lot of public recognition the efficiency for AAA was at very high level. But unlike FAF the AAA does not have the individual heroics or world-class small unit tactics of FAF.

In a pure alternate history clean slate procurement after 1939 I would guess more effort into purchasing modern AAA equipment would have been more effective than the number of second line fighters purchased from Germany and elsewhere or license produced in Finland. Naturally these choices were not always possible - Valtion Lentokonetehdas could not be converted to put out anti-aircraft guns or radars and I wonder if Germany and other sellers would have been that able to sell more AA guns instead of whatever French and Soviet souvenirs it had in the boneyard. But, who knows?

Which gets us to the point I think not many have made above: any air force going into WWII on budget needs to put some real effort into training, tactics and strategy to get best out of its budget equipment. Without its modern tactics and from decent to great pilots, in comparison to those of its enemy, the FAF would have suffered much more due to its its out-of-date equipment than it did IOTL.

And maintenance, especially important for a small force. Finnish Air Force maintenance personnel were probably the best in the world in keeping the hodge podge equipment in fairly high serviceability rate.

 

[tomo pauk]

What do you mean it can't keep up with the other planes of the day? With a maximum speed of 220 mph, it's faster than its main competitors in the region - Letov Š-28, Hawker Audax and Armstrong Atlas.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was going after the date & performance figures of what was actually ANBO 41. The ANBO IV indeed looked like a fine performer for the era, though there were fighters in early 1930s with supercharged engines that would've been considerably better above 2 km.

Some quick estimates (somebody correct me if I am obviously missing something):

About 550 fighter aircraft used in first line service by the FAF, vs. c. 1000 light, c. 350 medium, and c. 350 heavy AA guns used by all branches of the Finnish military.

Thank you. Thus 1700 AA guns vs. 550 fighters.

 

[DrakonFin]

Sure, but I did not want to make Finnish AAA to be more lopsidely effective in this comparison. Finnish AAA is one of the less noticed success stories of Finnish war effort. While defense of Helsinki in 1944 gets a lot of public recognition the efficiency for AAA was at very high level. But unlike FAF the AAA does not have the individual heroics or world-class small unit tactics of FAF.

I understand what you are saying. Then again, looking just at the numbers of downed enemy aircraft would not really tell us much about the success of defending Helsinki from Soviet bombers with AA guns in 1944, given that during those major attacks the Finnish air defence was often not trying to shoot the bombers down, exactly, but to deter them from reaching their targets and force or trick the crews to drop their bomb loads outside the city itself. So I guess looking at how many planes took part in bombing sorties against Helsinki, how many tons of bombs they dropped, and how much (or little) damage they managed to do to the Finnish capital would be more illuminating numbers in terms of this particular issue.

I definitely agree with you on the success of defending Helsinki in 1944, though. Had the Finnish defence failed, those air attacks alone could have broken Finland in the Continuation War and paved the way for a *Warsaw Pact Finland.

And maintenance, especially important for a small force. Finnish Air Force maintenance personnel were probably the best in the world in keeping the hodge podge equipment in fairly high serviceability rate.

Agreed.

Thank you. Thus 1700 AA guns vs. 550 fighters.

With some caveats, like you can see from my discussion with Jukra.

 

[Jukra]

Thank you. Thus 1700 AA guns vs. 550 fighters.

For a total number of 1612 (1941-1944) + 207 (1939-1940) kills by 550 fighters = 3,3 kills per fighter and 1106 (1941-1944) + 314 (1939-1940) kills by 1700 AA guns, or 0,835 kills per gun, this includes everything from 20mm upwards. Probably a pretty lopsided efficiency factor for AAA, even if we do not take into account that overclaiming was an issue even in FAF more than in AAA.

And of course we're not even touching the issue of mission kills by AAA, in both damaged planes turning back and also the distrupted aim when strafing or diving to bomb.

I must include the caveat that even in a WW2 context an efficient air combatant must include both fighter and AA elements. However, one should not underestimate the importance of AAA and especially it's benefits to a minor combatant fighting against a larger one. Especially as second or third rate fighter had very low efficiency rate but even a WWI era AA-gun could be used for a deadly efficiency.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
And of course we're not even touching the issue of mission kills by AAA, in both damaged planes turning back and also the distrupted aim when strafing or diving to bomb.

Agree pretty much.
OTOH - the fighters were also damaging enemy A/C, making mission kills and rendering them less efficient overall. Let's recall that Finns tried to come out with their own fighters in ww2, like the VL Myrsky and Pyörremyrsky.

 

[Oldbill]

I have to agree with other posters here, the most cost effective thing for small nations to do is to invest in training, logistics and AA.

As this is OP is predicated on small, less wealthy nations and their need for cost effectiveness, the need for aircraft of rugged construction should be re-emphasized. You will probably not have many airfields with concrete runways. Those that you do have will be priority targets for the enemy, hence the need to move your aircraft out to other fields, which will almost certainly be grass fields. When looking at what aircraft to buy, this also needs to be taken into consideration. How well do proposed aircraft operate from rough, muddy or snowy fields, especially since you may not have all the field maintenance equipment you want?.

Who are you fighting? If its a peer, or even a large power that is first rate, but not in the absolute top tier, then obviously you have more of a chance of some success. OTOH, if your coming up against the US, the UK, the SU (that the Finns did as well as they did against the SU is nothing short of amazing IMO) or Germany, then you are, as Bender of Futurama would say, "Boned". Ergo, why invest in aircraft that are so much more expensive (and based on what is being posted this means mostly US types) when you can buy more of something else that will work almost as well against your probable enemies? The one large positive about the more expensive US equipment, is that it is standardized to a degree not found in any other military. Switching parts out via cannibalization or replacement is going to be faster and easier, meaning your aircraft is back in the air sooner.

I'll throw out a couple aircraft not mentioned so far, to get your thoughts. Firstly, the Miles M.20, which seems to fit the bill nicely for a small nation needing an inexpensive fighter. What about the Tucker XP-57? Can the engine problems be fixed, or would another engine be more suitable? The IAR-80?

Lastly, what of the Soviet aircraft? How expensive were they compared to peers? They certainly meet the criteria of heavily armed, rugged and able to operate almost anywhere, yet I seldom see them in these threads. Wouldn't some of them have been worthwhile to obtain?

 

[Driftless]

Obtaining suitable engines and weapons were a problem for most of the second tier countries; so both upfront cost and spare parts are issues. I like @Oldbill's options of the Miles M.20 and the IAR-80; even with the Romanian fighter being perpetually handicapped by engine and weapons sourcing. That's a plane that should have fit the OP criteria quite well. It seems you would probably need to have the appropriate licensing arrangements in place for building (without designing) necessary technologies at home.

 

[tomo pauk]

...

Who are you fighting? If its a peer, or even a large power that is first rate, but not in the absolute top tier, then obviously you have more of a chance of some success. OTOH, if your coming up against the US, the UK, the SU (that the Finns did as well as they did against the SU is nothing short of amazing IMO) or Germany, then you are, as Bender of Futurama would say, "Boned". Ergo, why invest in aircraft that are so much more expensive (and based on what is being posted this means mostly US types) when you can buy more of something else that will work almost as well against your probable enemies? The one large positive about the more expensive US equipment, is that it is standardized to a degree not found in any other military. Switching parts out via cannibalization or replacement is going to be faster and easier, meaning your aircraft is back in the air sooner.

A given country will not know against whom it will go against in, say, 3, let alone in 5 years. Eg. Yugoslavia expected Italy as the agressor, the AAA will not cover well a country that is size of Great Britain. Airforces are also a means of retaliation in 1930s-40s. Having no meaningful airforce will mean the agressor can concentrate it's forces on a small area of a defending country one day, thus overwhelming the defences and achieving a degree of success, and then switch on another part, while knowing it's (agressor's) country is as safe as possible.

I'll throw out a couple aircraft not mentioned so far, to get your thoughts. Firstly, the Miles M.20, which seems to fit the bill nicely for a small nation needing an inexpensive fighter. What about the Tucker XP-57? Can the engine problems be fixed, or would another engine be more suitable? The IAR-80?
Lastly, what of the Soviet aircraft? How expensive were they compared to peers? They certainly meet the criteria of heavily armed, rugged and able to operate almost anywhere, yet I seldom see them in these threads. Wouldn't some of them have been worthwhile to obtain?

Miles M.20 used one of most expensive engines of the day, the only cheap thing was probably undercarriage. IAR-80 kinda shows what Poland should've done instead of the P.24 (that eventually was not purchased by the PAF).
Soviet aircraft are interesting. The I-16 + Western engine? I'll again champion the Bristol Mercury for that combo, but obviously other 9-cyl engines will do until 1940. The LaGG-3-37 was probably the cheapest tank-buster that sported a suitable cannon.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
I must include the caveat that even in a WW2 context an efficient air combatant must include both fighter and AA elements. However, one should not underestimate the importance of AAA and especially it's benefits to a minor combatant fighting against a larger one. Especially as second or third rate fighter had very low efficiency rate but even a WWI era AA-gun could be used for a deadly efficiency.

I don't think that a ww1 era AAA could be used with deadly efficiency in ww2, apart from ex-naval guns installed in new carriages. The 'French 75' in AAA carriage is barely worth it, so is the 2 pdr LV pom pom.
The second rate fighter can give a good service, as tested by Finnish or Japanese pilots, and AAA also requires well trained and experienced crews if someone expects from them to perform.

 

[jsb]

A given country will not know against whom it will go against in, say, 3, let alone in 5 years.

This depends very much on geography, many nations only had one or two realistic threats others had many. This and the date will mean the generic best choice may not fit very well with local conditions.