AHC: 1930s/40s airforce on a budget

Good point Jukra, I would say the Russians were pawning off an obsolete 1934 light bomber design on the Czechoslovak Air Force (the Pe-2 was their nextgen light bomber). I would have gone the route of the Finns and bought the license to make the Blenheim but even that aircraft was obsolete by 1940. Granted, without escorts all bombers were extremely fragile to 6-8-gun or cannon armed fighters from 1939-1945. The ability for a nation to have air superiority over the battlefield enabled light bombers and dive bombers to do their job. Poorly planned Douhet tactics in the aviation world allowed those same bombers to be unescorted and led to needless aviation losses. That is why the P-36 was just good enough to provide air superiority, be upgraded with 6-guns, and fast enough to escort light/medium bombers in the 1939-1941 period when most of the air battles were at low or medium altitudes.

In Czech case, if there's no will by politicians to fight there's no need to invest in defense anyway. As for bombers, were they a waste of money for Czechoslovakia? They were planning to fight against Germany, a much stronger aerial power. They had good artillery and short distances. As a land locked country there were no possibilities of naval landings. More fighters would make better sense, IMHO.

Ironically, whatever we could design for a low-cost air force for 1938-39 would only survive to 1941 unless you could throw it away and then buy new equipment in 1941 or had the industry that could upgrade those same aircraft. Unfortunately there weren't many countries with the industrial capability to make their own powerplants or even upgrade existing powerplants, let alone upgrade a bought aircraft like England, Russia, Germany, France, & USA.

Exactly, that's why AAA investments make more sense, while of course some aircraft need to be bought anyway.
 
Add 250 kg of armor to the A-17, another 100 kg worth of guns and ammo - bomb load drops to 300 kg, and it will still be hacked to pieces to a cannon-wielding fighter. The Battle, Skua or Hs 123 appear like war-winning proposals vs. A-17.

If you keep it in 1935 trim with an R-1535

Lets look at the 1940 export version of the A-17, the A-33
Pretty much the same aircraft, but with a 1200 HP Wright. Following that, a Stuka

General characteristics
  • Crew: two
  • Length: 32 ft 6 in (9.91 m)
  • Wingspan: 47 ft 9 in (14.55 m)
  • Height: 9 ft 4 in (2.84 m)
  • Wing area: 363 sq ft (33.7 m²)
  • Empty weight: 5,510 lb (2,499 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 8,600 lb (3,901 kg)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 9,200 lb (4,173 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Wright GR-1820-G205A Cyclone radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 248 mph (216 knots, 399 km/h) at 15,700 ft (4,785 m)
  • Service ceiling: 29,000 ft (8,840 m)
  • Climb to 10,000 ft (3,050 m): 5.8 min
  • Range 900 miles
Armament
  • Guns:
    • 4 × forward .30 machine guns
    • 2 × .30 machine guns in rear cockpit
  • Bombs: 1,800 lb (820 kg)
Specifications (Ju 87 B-2)

General characteristics
  • Crew: 2
  • Length: 11.00 m (36 ft 1.07 in)
  • Wingspan: 13.8 m (45 ft 3.30 in)
  • Height: 4.23 m (13 ft 10.53 in)
  • Wing area: 31.90 m² (343.37 ft²)
  • Empty weight: 3,205 kg (7,086 lb)
  • Loaded weight: 4,320 kg (9,524 lb)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 5,000 kg (11,023 lb)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Junkers Jumo 211D liquid-cooled inverted V12 engine, 1200 PS (1,184 hp (883 kW))
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 390 km/h @ 4,400 m (242 mph @ 13,410 ft)
  • Cruise speed: 198 mph
  • Range: 500 km (311 mi) with 500 kg (1,100 lb) bomb load
  • Service ceiling: 8,200 m (26,903 ft) with 500 kg (1,100 lb) bomb load
  • Rate of climb: 2.3 m/s ()
Armament

  • Guns: 2× 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine gun forward, 1× 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 15 machine gun to rear
  • Bombs: Normal load = 1× 250 kg (550 lb) bomb beneath the fuselage and 4× 50 kg (110 lb), two bombs underneath each wing.
 
Last edited:
If you keep it in 1935 trim with an R-1535

Lets look at the 1940 export version of the A-17, the A-33
Pretty much the same aircraft, but with a 1200 HP Wright. Following that, a Stuka

Thank you, the A-33 is a much better thing.
The Stuka is interesting - excellent bomb load (-B could carry a 1000 kg bomb if no armor is installed, -D the 1800 kg bomb and armor), very accurate as a dive bomber, featured drop tanks with R and D variant. Eiher of those A/C will need fighter escort, while some faster bomber might not need that much.
 
Thank you, the A-33 is a much better thing.
The Stuka is interesting - excellent bomb load (-B could carry a 1000 kg bomb if no armor is installed, -D the 1800 kg bomb and armor), very accurate as a dive bomber, featured drop tanks with R and D variant. Eiher of those A/C will need fighter escort, while some faster bomber might not need that much.
Add 3,7 cm cannons under the wings and you have a tank buster too.
 
Perhaps you'd be so kind to point to the loaction where is proven without doubt that alternative to P-36 and/or the hopeless A-17 is what you've suggested. Nobody in his right mind was buying half a squadron of this and then half a squadron of that.
Add 250 kg of armor to the A-17, another 100 kg worth of guns and ammo - bomb load drops to 300 kg, and it will still be hacked to pieces to a cannon-wielding fighter. The Battle, Skua or Hs 123 appear like war-winning proposals vs. A-17.

To answer your question, the author asked a question about how to buy a cheap & effective air force. To be effective you can't follow Douhet's tenet that a bomber will make it through. I offered the A-17 (which could be upgraded to the A-33 version) because 200+ were cast off Army Air Corps surplus in late 1938 (original new cost was $22K each, so you could all of them for much much less), add a new radial engine ($8K each at most), upgrade the guns to .50 cal, and you have an effective anti-armor platform that can dive bomb. Never, Never should you allow those aircraft to operate without fighter cover (like the Dutch, Russians, RAF in France, and other historical bad idea air leaders did in 1939-1941). The bomb load was either a 20 x 30lb anti-personnel bombs in the fuselage (perfect to take out artillery positions or infantry in the open) or up to 4 x 250lb bombs. The 4 x .50 cal's with AP could easily penetrate any top/rear tank armor of the 1939-1940 period other than the Matilda, Char-B, KV-1.

But with that idea of escorting, you need enough fighter aircraft to support them. The CV-21 never ever had wing guns unlike the P-36 which had 4 of them without needing rebuilt wings.

Honestly though, the German's are never going to provide a cheap Stuka nor will the UK provide the Skua cheap to meet the objective of a cheap/effective air force design. Not to mention those 2 aircraft had gov't controls to ensure their own countries squadron's were being outfitted in 1938-1940. You'd be better off going to the USA and buying the SBC Helldiver (the bi-plane not the SBC2). Those were effective, relatively cheap, and already designed with upgradeability to the engine and could carry a 1,000lb bomb. But again, any bomber type aircraft really needs an effective escort aircraft.
 
Nobody in his right mind was buying half a squadron of this and then half a squadron of that.

Sorry Tomo Pauk, I didn't answer this question. Actually many countries either bought or were gifted smallish quantities of different airframes of the same type (e.g., fighters). Take for example the French who's industry couldn't produce what they needed so they bought the P-36. Norway and Dutch bought a small quantity of A-17's. French were gifted/bought the spare US SBC-4's. UK even bought smallish quantities of aircraft as a stop gap measure. The Bulgarians bought 32 Russian SB's, 12 French Bloch MB.200, 14 Polish fighters, 12 Polish bombers, and then turned around and bought more Polish aircraft a year later of a different version/type.

The examples of panic buying after the German success in Czechoslovakia were profound and led to many smallish orders. I in no way support small orders of aircraft because it complicates maintenance and training but when you think you are going to war the politicians do what they must to protect their country.
 
To answer your question, the author asked a question about how to buy a cheap & effective air force. To be effective you can't follow Douhet's tenet that a bomber will make it through. I offered the A-17 (which could be upgraded to the A-33 version) because 200+ were cast off Army Air Corps surplus in late 1938 (original new cost was $22K each, so you could all of them for much much less), add a new radial engine ($8K each at most), upgrade the guns to .50 cal, and you have an effective anti-armor platform that can dive bomb. Never, Never should you allow those aircraft to operate without fighter cover (like the Dutch, Russians, RAF in France, and other historical bad idea air leaders did in 1939-1941). The bomb load was either a 20 x 30lb anti-personnel bombs in the fuselage (perfect to take out artillery positions or infantry in the open) or up to 4 x 250lb bombs. The 4 x .50 cal's with AP could easily penetrate any top/rear tank armor of the 1939-1940 period other than the Matilda, Char-B, KV-1.

Buying "A-17s as-is" is a very different thing vs. buying "A-17s and then outfitting them with new engines, propellor, cowling, oil system, new guns, while reinforcing the airframe so it can withstand a greater load while operating so it does not desintegrate in mid-air". The .50 cal can't kill any French tank from R-35 upwards, against those even the 20mm is marginal.

But with that idea of escorting, you need enough fighter aircraft to support them. The CV-21 never ever had wing guns unlike the P-36 which had 4 of them without needing rebuilt wings.

Honestly though, the German's are never going to provide a cheap Stuka nor will the UK provide the Skua cheap to meet the objective of a cheap/effective air force design. Not to mention those 2 aircraft had gov't controls to ensure their own countries squadron's were being outfitted in 1938-1940. You'd be better off going to the USA and buying the SBC Helldiver (the bi-plane not the SBC2). Those were effective, relatively cheap, and already designed with upgradeability to the engine and could carry a 1,000lb bomb. But again, any bomber type aircraft really needs an effective escort aircraft.

Bowers in his book 'Curtiss aircaft 1907-1947' states 4 guns for the CW-21.
UK was selling Battles and Blenheims abroad, Germans were selling He 111 and Do 17 (plus fighters sold by both countries plus lighter A/C, like Hs 123), thus trying to buy Skuas or Stukas is not that far-fetched. I actually agree with the SBC, as-is it looks like and useful dive bomber, I've stated before that unescorted bomb-raids are thing of the past against any capable opponent.
Germany needed cash and whatnot, both coutries needed allies to their cause, here the another country wanting to buy their A/C has it's chance.
 
Sorry Tomo Pauk, I didn't answer this question. Actually many countries either bought or were gifted smallish quantities of different airframes of the same type (e.g., fighters). Take for example the French who's industry couldn't produce what they needed so they bought the P-36. Norway and Dutch bought a small quantity of A-17's. French were gifted/bought the spare US SBC-4's. UK even bought smallish quantities of aircraft as a stop gap measure. The Bulgarians bought 32 Russian SB's, 12 French Bloch MB.200, 14 Polish fighters, 12 Polish bombers, and then turned around and bought more Polish aircraft a year later of a different version/type.

The examples of panic buying after the German success in Czechoslovakia were profound and led to many smallish orders. I in no way support small orders of aircraft because it complicates maintenance and training but when you think you are going to war the politicians do what they must to protect their country.

:)
This is one of the reasons I've started this thread - an airforce on budget of 1930s/40 means that a small/mid-sized country can afford a reasonably effective airforce before a major crisis erupts. Not expensive A/C are usualy both small and light, so it might make sense for a production in a country like Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Spain, Romania. All of those countries produced A/C historically, mostly those of reasonable price, but mostly squandered opportunity through out-dated layouts or wrong engines or both.

I have probably proposed this earlier, my pick for fighter's airframe of 1930s would've been the I-16, then Bf 109. Engines, OTL choice that depends on availability: HS 12X then Y, RR Kestrel then Merlin, P&W Twin Wasp, Bristol Mercury, G&R 14N (not the earlier K), I-F Asso IX, some of the Japanese radials (they produced decent stuff when it is about radials), maybe the Wright Cyclone; use those engines also for bombers.
The alternative engines, ie. not produced: inline 6 cyl 25-30L, whether air- or liquid-cooled; V8 ~25-30L, again both cooling mehtods; V12 of 30-35L air-cooled. A provision for a prop gun is nice to have, while good S/C is a must. 'On a budget' qualifier probably rules out a 2-engined fighter?
Bombers: 1-engined, i like the Henley myself, Hart/Hind will do until the monoplane arrives. Big countries and/or those with plenty of sea to cover will need 2-engined bombers at least. Tupolev SB or Martin B-10 will do, though I'd prefer a 'pre-Mosquito'.
 
Tomo Pauk, please note I stated rear/top armor of tanks. Pre-war and early war tanks had armor focused on the front and turret. When attacking from above, a .50 cal AP round can penetrate about 19-22mm of armor which is plenty to impact even the rear/top Souma S35, Pz III, and even a Pz IV.
 
Tomo Pauk, please note I stated rear/top armor of tanks. Pre-war and early war tanks had armor focused on the front and turret. When attacking from above, a .50 cal AP round can penetrate about 19-22mm of armor which is plenty to impact even the rear/top Souma S35, Pz III, and even a Pz IV.

To pierce the roof in that fashion, A/C will need to dive vertically, fire a burst from a favorable distance, and manage to level up before hitting the ground. Dive slow, and AAA gets you. Dive fast, and hit the ground. SBD was, at least per this drawing, diving at 340 mph and 70 deg, release bomb from ~1800 ft, while needing 1300 ft to level out. Firing from 2000 ft at 70 deg will make a ww2-era .50 to pierce 10-15mm?
 
To answer your question, the author asked a question about how to buy a cheap & effective air force. To be effective you can't follow Douhet's tenet that a bomber will make it through. I offered the A-17 (which could be upgraded to the A-33 version) because 200+ were cast off Army Air Corps surplus in late 1938 (original new cost was $22K each, so you could all of them for much much less), add a new radial engine ($8K each at most), upgrade the guns to .50 cal, and you have an effective anti-armor platform that can dive bomb. Never, Never should you allow those aircraft to operate without fighter cover (like the Dutch, Russians, RAF in France, and other historical bad idea air leaders did in 1939-1941). The bomb load was either a 20 x 30lb anti-personnel bombs in the fuselage (perfect to take out artillery positions or infantry in the open) or up to 4 x 250lb bombs. The 4 x .50 cal's with AP could easily penetrate any top/rear tank armor of the 1939-1940 period other than the Matilda, Char-B, KV-1.

But with that idea of escorting, you need enough fighter aircraft to support them. The CV-21 never ever had wing guns unlike the P-36 which had 4 of them without needing rebuilt wings.

Honestly though, the German's are never going to provide a cheap Stuka nor will the UK provide the Skua cheap to meet the objective of a cheap/effective air force design. Not to mention those 2 aircraft had gov't controls to ensure their own countries squadron's were being outfitted in 1938-1940. You'd be better off going to the USA and buying the SBC Helldiver (the bi-plane not the SBC2). Those were effective, relatively cheap, and already designed with upgradeability to the engine and could carry a 1,000lb bomb. But again, any bomber type aircraft really needs an effective escort aircraft.
Germany sold Stukas to Romania, Hungary and Italy.
 

Driftless

Donor
To pierce the roof in that fashion, A/C will need to dive vertically, fire a burst from a favorable distance, and manage to level up before hitting the ground. Dive slow, and AAA gets you. Dive fast, and hit the ground. SBD was, at least per this drawing, diving at 340 mph and 70 deg, release bomb from ~1800 ft, while needing 1300 ft to level out. Firing from 2000 ft at 70 deg will make a ww2-era .50 to pierce 10-15mm?

An attack such as that would require some brass cojones to complete.... :hushedface: At 340 mph, you've got roughly 3 seconds between release and bottoming out of the dive (by the diagram), Not much margin for error.
 
...
Not much margin for error.

I certainly agree with that.
We also can recall that British installed the 40mm cannon on their Hurricanes despite the 20mm being there in 1941, and despite the 40mm representing drag & weight penalty. I read it as the top attack on enemy tanks was not considered as workable option.
 
Top