AHC: 1935-42 Luftwaffe 'sanity options'

True, I suppose (though it could do this in theory IOTL, if with a fairly limited range).

Though I question the actal utility of it. The SC 1800 and SD 1400 were quite rare munitions from everything I've been able to find. More for attacking very specific hard targets, and ships than for general utility.

Frankly I'd rather take that extra weight and expand the fuselage for a proper bomb bay. Or hell, use the weight for an actual turret instead of that stupid ventral gun.

If 1400 or 1800 kg bombs are too much, then it could carry 4 x 1000 kg bombs instead of 2 x 1000.
But yes - bomb bay defines a bomber.

I'm given to understand that it was more of a "where can we cram an extra tank" than "fuck, it's too heavy" problem.

The Ju-88 isn't a particularly large aircraft. The fuselage is only about P-47 sized, and noticeably shorter (and very slightly shorter wingspan as well) than a B-26, which was quite a bit heavier in both MTO and empty weight, despite having similar wing area.

With fuselage tanks in the bomb bays, Ju 88A-4 was carrying 3580 L of fuel, or 956 US gals of fuel. Almost 480 gals per reasonably frugal Jumo engine. One drop tank upped the fuel to 4480 L. Ju 88 was bigger than Mosquito or A-20.
B-26 wasted too much of space and weight for crew. With fuselage tailored for reasonable accomodation for just 5 crew members, it would've been far lighter bomber, with benefits to low speed handling, speed and range/payload.
 
B-26 wasted too much of space and weight for crew. With fuselage tailored for reasonable accomodation for just 5 crew members, it would've been far lighter bomber, with benefits to low speed handling, speed and range/payload.

The B-26 really should have been more of an upscaled Maryland
 
I still think that Germany could have built more aircraft 1938-42 had Milch or someone better than Udet been in charge of aircraft production and without reducing production of anything else. IOTL aircraft production 1934-44 was according to Vajda & Dancey:
1934 ― 1,968
1935 ― 3,183
1936 ― 5,112
1937 ― 5,606
1938 ― 5,235
1939 ― 7,350
1940 ― 10,247
1941 ― 12,401
1942 ― 15,551
1943 ― 25,527
1944 ― 40,593​

What I think is feasible is bringing the numbers produced 1939-43 forward a year, thus:
1938 ― 7,350 ― an increase of 2,115
1939 ― 10,247 ― an increase of 2,897
1940 ― 12,401 ― an increase of 2,154
1941 ― 15,551 ― an increase of 3,150
1942 ― 25,527 ― an increase of 9,976​

What I think the real problems would have been were:
  1. Whether the Luftwaffe had the personnel to make use of the extra aircraft.
  2. If they did have the people whether the extra aircraft would have been grounded for want of fuel.
I think the personnel issue can be got around because AFAIK the Luftwaffe field divisions were formed because they service had more ground crew than it had aircraft.

There is also the option of producing more spare parts instead of finished aircraft to improve the serviceability rates of the aircraft they did have. The other option is to pass on the aircraft the Luftwaffe couldn't absorb to their allies. The Finnish, Hungarian and Romanian air forces might have made a better contribution to the war on the Eastern Front had they been equipped with better aircraft.

It has been written in the thread that Germany had to give priority to building up a tactical air force to support the army. I agree with that, but I also think that Germany had built up a tactical air force strong enough to defeat Poland and France by 1939-40 so any aircraft production over and above OTL could have been spared for more anti-shipping squadrons, a larger transport force and a small strategic bombing force.

Therefore if increases in aircraft production of the magnitude I have proposed aren't possible I'd like priority to be given to the following:
  • Re-equipping the existing squadrons of the Luftwaffe's naval air arm with Do17Z and He111H/P aircraft by 1939. That would partially be done by taking the Do18 and He115 flying boats out of production and building more Do17s and He111s instead. Reducing the number of types in production might make it feasible to use larger scale production methods.
  • Build 4 times as many Fw200C and Ju290. AFAIK these aircraft were hand built due to them being built in small quantities. If that is correct then building them in larger numbers would have facilitated the use of less labour intensive production methods.
  • Build at least twice as many Ju52/3m to train more bomber crews and a have larger standing force of transport aircraft.
  • Build up the Wehrmacht's airborne force at a faster rate.
  • Allied to the above issue a specification for a very large glider 2 years earlier so the Me321 (or a glider like it) is in service 2 earlier and the Me323 (or an aircraft like it) is in service sooner.
  • I have also read that after the Ju86 was cancelled as a bomber there was enough material left to build 1,000 aircraft. IOTL someone proposed completing them as advanced trainers to supplement the Ju52s. I think they should have done that.
The purpose of re-equipping the Luftwaffe's maritime squadrons with medium bombers and more Fw200s is to make the Luftwaffe's contribution to the Battle of the Atlantic and the maritime war in the Mediterranean more effective.

The purpose of more airborne troops, Ju52s, gliders and an earlier Me323 like aircraft is to make the possibility of Germany winning the war through a series of short campaigns more likely. That's through direct air assaults and by giving the German Army better logistical support.

I have read that during Operation Barbarossa and the Caucasus Offensive the panzers could often advance further than they could be supplied. I think having more Ju52s, Me323s and gliders which would be used to fly supplies to the spearheads would reduce that problem. I also read in Liddel Hart that the plan for the Caucasus offensive included an airborne landing (IIRC) to capture the Black Sea coast road, but Hitler called it off. The landing if undertaken ITTL would stand a greater chance of success if Germany had more paratroops and more aircraft to carry them.
 
Last edited:
...
The purpose of more airborne troops, Ju52s, gliders and an earlier Me323 like aircraft is to make the possibility of Germany winning the war through a series of short campaigns more likely. That's through direct air assaults and by giving the German Army better logistical support.
...

I agree with most of the post, but the suggestion for more Ju 52s.
The transport aircraft for ww2 Germany need to carry much more than 18 armed troops on 2000+ HP installed. Bristol Bombay and HP Harrow could carry more, or same but farther, before we said anything about the DC-3 and it's Soviet- and Japanese-produced copies. The An-2, with one 1000 HP radial, carried barely less than Ju-52 with three 715 HP engines.
Using a 3-engined A/C as trainer for bomber crews was pretty vasteful.
So IMO the Germans might be well advised to go with high-low mix - produce an 1-engined biplane transport, and 3-4 engined widebody transport with rear ramp, something akin historical the Ju 352 or a bigger Budd Conestoga. Both of them before ww2 start, and with application of wood, fabric and non-aluminium metals where possible.
The Jumo could go with the 204 all the time, improving it with time; no small 205 this time. Use them on the transports.
 
I agree with most of the post, but the suggestion for more Ju 52s.

The transport aircraft for ww2 Germany need to carry much more than 18 armed troops on 2000+ HP installed. Bristol Bombay and HP Harrow could carry more, or same but farther, before we said anything about the DC-3 and it's Soviet- and Japanese-produced copies. The An-2, with one 1000 HP radial, carried barely less than Ju-52 with three 715 HP engines.

Using a 3-engined A/C as trainer for bomber crews was pretty vasteful.

So IMO the Germans might be well advised to go with high-low mix - produce an 1-engined biplane transport, and 3-4 engined widebody transport with rear ramp, something akin historical the Ju 352 or a bigger Budd Conestoga. Both of them before ww2 start, and with application of wood, fabric and non-aluminium metals where possible.
The Jumo could go with the 204 all the time, improving it with time; no small 205 this time. Use them on the transports.
In that case how about getting a licence on the S.M.82? And/or producing more Me323s at the expense of the extra Ju52s I proposed?

Would the Fw200A or Ju90 be a better transport than the Ju52? If engines are the denominator could 3 Ju90 or Fw200 (12 engines) carry more cargo than 4 Ju52 (12 engines). Could they be modified to incorporate a rear ramp?

You mentioned the DC-3s licence produced by the Japanese and Soviets. Fokker had a licence on the Douglas airliners and sub-licenced them to Airspeed. So the Germans getting a licence on the DC-3 via Douglas or Fokker is feasible, but might not be possible on political grounds.
 
You mentioned the DC-3s licence produced by the Japanese and Soviets. Fokker had a licence on the Douglas airliners and sub-licenced them to Airspeed. So the Germans getting a licence on the DC-3 via Douglas or Fokker is feasible, but might not be possible on political grounds.

Really don't see why they couldn't get a license for the DC-2/3, Douglas sold the rights to produce the larger DC-3 to Japan in 1938, when relations were not great, for only $90,000 and a Royalty for each made.

Yeah, NIH might be a factor, but the Douglas superiority in transport was obvious to everyone in the world, it was a true game changer.

That said, Germany would have better off with Curtiss Condor Biplanes than the Ju-52

200 miles more range, 50 mph faster on two engines if they wouldn't spring for 400 miles more and 100 mph faster with the DC-2
 
In that case how about getting a licence on the S.M.82? And/or producing more Me323s at the expense of the extra Ju52s I proposed?

Would the Fw200A or Ju90 be a better transport than the Ju52? If engines are the denominator could 3 Ju90 or Fw200 (12 engines) carry more cargo than 4 Ju52 (12 engines). Could they be modified to incorporate a rear ramp?
...

Rear cargo ramp idea is a 'lightbulb moment'.
SM.82 and Ju 352 show much better return of investment than Ju 52. Number of engines is a pretty good cue, since engines (plus props, plus oil and cooling system) are most expensive part of aircraft. Thus my comment on UK and US transports being far better value for money. The 4-engined transports are also good, they will need less pilots to carry cargo over distance. 4-engined jobs usualy carry more payload per engine than 3- or 2-engined ones. The 4-engined types can also be less picky with regard to engine choice, even the 2-nd rate engines will do just fine. The DH Albatros being a good example, the engines can be described as 3-rd rate.
 
Rear cargo ramp idea is a 'lightbulb moment'.

SM.82 and Ju 352 show much better return of investment than Ju 52. Number of engines is a pretty good cue, since engines (plus props, plus oil and cooling system) are most expensive part of aircraft. Thus my comment on UK and US transports being far better value for money. The 4-engined transports are also good, they will need less pilots to carry cargo over distance. 4-engined jobs usualy carry more payload per engine than 3- or 2-engined ones. The 4-engined types can also be less picky with regard to engine choice, even the 2-nd rate engines will do just fine. The DH Albatros being a good example, the engines can be described as 3-rd rate.
Could the "light bulb moment" be in 1936 when RLM/Lufthansa were writing the specifications for the Fw200A and Ju90 airliners.

Part of the greater POD has to be that the Luftwaffe is told in 1933-34 to prepare for war around 1940 rather than 1942-44. Therefore the specifications for the Fw200 and Ju90 were issued ITTL they would be for aircraft that would have greater utility as a military transport. So the RLM specifies provision for a rear cargo door although it may not be included in the aircraft built for Lufthansa before the war. The specification would also include shoulder mounted wings and if possible the undercarriage in pods in the fuselage so that the fuselage is closer to the ground.

Wait a minute! I'm effectively reinventing the Arado Ar232 or more accurately inventing it in 1936 instead of 1939.
 
Last edited:
I agree with most of the post, but the suggestion for more Ju 52s.
The transport aircraft for ww2 Germany need to carry much more than 18 armed troops on 2000+ HP installed. Bristol Bombay and HP Harrow could carry more, or same but farther, before we said anything about the DC-3 and it's Soviet- and Japanese-produced copies. The An-2, with one 1000 HP radial, carried barely less than Ju-52 with three 715 HP engines.
Using a 3-engined A/C as trainer for bomber crews was pretty vasteful.
So IMO the Germans might be well advised to go with high-low mix - produce an 1-engined biplane transport, and 3-4 engined widebody transport with rear ramp, something akin historical the Ju 352 or a bigger Budd Conestoga. Both of them before ww2 start, and with application of wood, fabric and non-aluminium metals where possible.
The Jumo could go with the 204 all the time, improving it with time; no small 205 this time. Use them on the transports.
IOTL the Luftwaffe had 552 transport aircraft at the outbreak of World War II. Nearly all of them were Ju52/3m but IIRC only 150 were in front-line transport aircraft, the rest were in training schools or other second-line units.

According to Vajda & Dancey Germany built 3,079 transport aircraft from September 1939 to the end of 1944 including 2,804 Ju52s. The rest consisted of 201 Me323, 43 Go244 and 31 Ju352. In Post 383 I suggested doubling that so that there were 1,104 transport aircraft in September 1939 and 6,158 built from then to the end of 1944. Except that Me323 production would begin in 1940 with 54 being built and then about 280 a year 1941-43 and 68 in 1944 for a total of about 580 vice the 201 built 1942-44 IOTL.

According to Munson the Ar232 was designed to a 1939 RLM specification and flew for the first time in the early summer of 1941. The V1 and V2 prototypes each powered by a pair of BMW801s. The V3 prototype which flew in May 1942 had a quartet of BMW-Bramo 323R-2 engines. According to this source 8 pre-production Ar232B-0 (V4-V11) were known to have been built, though 10 more B-series aircraft were ordered.

ITTL if the specification was issued in 1936 could a pair of prototypes powered by 4 Bramo 323 engines (probably less powerful than the 1,200hp engines fitted to the OTL Ar232V3) have been flown in 1937 with the type replacing the Ju52/3m on the production lines in 1939? Instead of 5,608 Ju52/3m with 3 engines built September 1939 to the end of 1944 there would have been 4,206 Ar232B with 4 engines over the same period.

For the big wide body transport with a rear ramp is a scaled up Ar232 with 4 BMW801 or 6 Gnome-Rhone 14N or 6 Bramo 323 engines feasible? If it is it would have been built instead of the 580-odd Me323s previously suggested.
 
I guess there were many options around. For example the Go 244 - carried as much as Ju 52, but with two 700 HP engines.

the simplest POD is to convert more Gotha gliders to powered transports, convert more HE-111s to Zwilling tow planes (for the GO-244 overloaded), build more FW-200s (earlier if not in total), gain more production of the SM.82, and some modest improvements to JU-52.
 
Could the "light bulb moment" be in 1936 when RLM/Lufthansa were writing the specifications for the Fw200A and Ju90 airliners.

Part of the greater POD has to be that the Luftwaffe is told in 1933-34 to prepare for war around 1940 rather than 1942-44. Therefore the specifications for the Fw200 and Ju90 were issued ITTL they would be for aircraft that would have greater utility as a military transport. So the RLM specifies provision for a rear cargo door although it may not be included in the aircraft built for Lufthansa before the war. The specification would also include shoulder mounted wings and if possible the undercarriage in pods in the fuselage so that the fuselage is closer to the ground.

Wait a minute! I'm effectively reinventing the Arado Ar232 or more accurately inventing it in 1936 instead of 1939.
People have been suggesting the importance of advanced logistic support. For that purpose, the AR232 is really the Best choice.
 
"Targeting" does not equal "hitting": AAF bombing accuracy was no better than RAF's, about 3mi.

On average: in clear skies US bombing could be quite accurate, but with cloud cover it was worse than the RAF. Hence why the Germans put effort into smoke screens for key targets.
 

Deleted member 1487

On average: in clear skies US bombing could be quite accurate, but with cloud cover it was worse than the RAF. Hence why the Germans put effort into smoke screens for key targets.
Generally because it was flying much higher than the RAF and using worse bombing methods. By mid-1944 that wasn't the case due to improved bombsights/radar assists and improved bombing methods.
 
Top