AHC: the best possible Luftwaffe for 1940

tomo pauk

The latest two aircraft-related what-ifs kinda put the 2nd favorite AH.com in focus. Since I'm not sold on a idea that small change in LW gear will bring the RAF Fighter Command on their knees (and the French AF in the process), here starts the task of shaping the LW into a hammer that will do that.
People can mix & match historical pieces of kit, or desgin (even 'design') their own stuff. However, since a good fiction, unlike reality, must make sense, I'll advise against the fighters with 2000 HP engines (Germany already has useful engines), or jets, or 700 km/h bombers for 1940. No aerodynamics of tomorrow, no revolver or Gatling cannons.
Also note that German economy is overheated alredy by 1938, so ideas of LW getting hundreds of new A/C on a whim is a no-go - cancel/delete/axe something in order to have something other produced. Or don't even go with stuff you consider bad/unsitable/waste of resources.
Task is set to begin in year of 1936, obviously there are 4 years to fine tune gear, tactics and strategy.
Talk about Sealion is discouraged - the task is just to beat the AdA and RAF in the pulp in 1940.
 

The Wooksta!

Fw 187 instead of Bf 110 and use the latter as a fast bomber - the RAF were terrified that the Luftwaffe was going to do that, according to Simon Bungay(?)
 

Deleted member 1487

I should also add have the RLM foot the bill for the Daimler Benz factory expansion in 1936 and continue to fund the DB603 from 1937 on rather than cutting it from 1937-39. It also wouldn't hurt to never order the DB604 either and not to waste engines on the DB606/10 coupled monstrosity.
I'd also say having aircraft MGs in either the 8mm Swedish or have developed a 9mm heavy caliber MG like the French did, which could be easily mounted in the nose of fighters or as defensive armament for bombers, more easily than the latter 13mm MG, but still be flatter firing and could use heavier bullets (including HE versions) thanks to the bigger case. The 9x66mm MG could easily replace the wing 20mm cannons with drum magazine with at least 2, but probably even 3 per wing and fire much faster moving bullets and carry more ammo, making hit scoring quite a bit easier at longer ranges.
An Me109E with 6-8x 9mm heavy MGs would chew up the fighters and bombers of 1940 quite easily, especially if it uses an explosive round like the 7.92.
The 11mm French aircraft MG that they were experimenting with in the 1930s would have also been a decent project for the Luftwaffe to get into as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Viper81

wiking said:
He cancelled the Ju89 as a production model before he died. He only ordered a handful of that model and the Do19 as trainers and was banking on the He177, which would only be ready in 1941 at the earliest.
Click to expand...
Okay, in that case, bonk Wever on the head and have the Ju 89 produced.
 

Deleted member 1487

Viper81 said:
Okay, in that case, bonk Wever on the head and have the Ju 89 produced.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a viable heavy bomber. Designed around weak engines it was a pretty flawed design with low payload (less than the He111 IIRC) and heavy wings to help generate the lift the engines had trouble producing. It took a lot of redesigning to turn it into the Ju290 and a viable bomber.
 

trurle

Banned
Rule 1 for good fighter: wrap a smallest possible airframe around most powerful engine
Rule 2 for good fighter: high quantity is high quality

Germans should take Italian Nardi-315 trainer (which was low-drag and very light for high-speed aircraft of era)
Modifications: fit DB-601 engine to it, replacing rear seat with fuel tanks and moving wings forward to keep center of lift balanced
The results with 1000hp engine would be the following:
Speed 540km/h
Weight about 1700kg (i.e. about 40% lighter and cheaper than Bf-109)
Range 600-900 km
Climb rate: ~30-40 m/s
Armament: 2x7.7mm MG, upgrade-able to 2x12.7 or 1x20mm

The main problem is if skin of Nardi-315 have enough margin for 5-times loads with larger engine. I bet it have (or will have with the minimal reinforcement) - after all it was fighter trainer designed to survive a lot of mishandling and full stick input maneuvering. Unlike many fighter trainers, Nardi 305/315 seems to have low accidents frequency (2 accidents i can find)
 
Last edited:

Viper81

wiking said:
It wasn't a viable heavy bomber. Designed around weak engines it was a pretty flawed design with low payload (less than the He111 IIRC) and heavy wings to help generate the lift the engines had trouble producing. It took a lot of redesigning to turn it into the Ju290 and a viable bomber.
Click to expand...
The He 111 and Do 17 weren't very impressive in their first iterations either (nor the B-17 for that matter). Sure it'll need some fixing, and maybe there were better options on the drawing board, but for a campaign against the UK and/or USSR (granted Hitler thought both would be short), they needed a strategic bomber. Once they have one built and gain some experience on it, they can improve the design to build something matching or exceeding the Allied powers' options.
 

Gudestein

Goering decides in 1930's that Nazis will come to power and that he will be head of the Luftwaffe. To also be able to grasp power he need to delegate the management of Luftwaffe to someone who is competent and with military aspirations only (not dangerous). Without an existing Luftwaffe, he sniffs around and find the upcoming management profile: Walther Wever.
From 1932, Wever plans the takeover and a strategic effort in pilot training, doctrine development, R&D and capacity building can start in a coordinated fashion already in 1933.
 

b0ned0me

Viper81 said:
Have Wever live and the Ju 89 produced to give the Luftwaffe a strategic capability. I'm sure losing a few Do 17s in return is worthwhile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_89
Click to expand...
I’m honestly mystified what the “Luftwaffe strategic bombing” is supposed to achieve, given the questionable results from allied efforts and what the LW did OTL.

Poland, Norway, France, Greece etc - kippered just fine with twin-engine bombers.
UK - bombed all over with twin-engines, even Belfast. Campaign abandoned due to excessive losses, a result that won’t be affected by having half the number of bombers which are twice as expensive (or more).
USSR-No conceivable way of having enough strategic bombers to knock out soviet industry without surrendering advantage on land and in tactical air.

So 1940-1943 strategic bombing looks like just an extra attritional dimension for the LW with little benefit, and past that the war is lost.

Absolute best case would be a tiny force of “silver bullet” strategic precision bombers to hit critical targets, which could probably be achieved by being a bit more focused with existing resources/programs. But IMO that requires some handwaving given how often allied efforts in that direction simply shat the bed.

I’ve seen it argued that any long war is a war the Nazis will lose, and strategic bombing is definitely a long-term effort IMO. It took hypertrophied Bomber Command from 1939 to 1944 to become a genuinely destructive force and even with the power of Hugo Boss uniforms the LW equivalent is probably going to need at least a couple of years in combat to get effective. Meanwhile where do the LW find all the bombers to work over the battlefield and in the enemy’s logistics areas?
 

tomo pauk

I'll try some 'rules' in order for the LW to improve vs. OTL, IMO.
1st - save on the engines. Meaning no 2-engined fighters, no 4-engined bombers (as noted just above, He 111 have had exellent range vs. payload capability, while being produced in good numbers ), see whether some non-fancy engines can be shoehorned in a good airframe to still produce a viable aircraft
2nd - no reinventing the whell, pick up low-hanging fruits. Meaning that drop tanks work, HMGs are already in offering from USA and Belgium to Italy and UK, use 90 rd drum on the MG FF and FFM while having the belt-fed version in design phase
3rd - try to realistically asses targets, enemy bottlenecks and threats (this one might be hardest to pull out succesfully). This will provide that attacks hurt.

Low-hanging fruit might be the original Ju-88 fast bomber. I'd propose relocating the wing upwards, so it can have a better bomb-bay, with other details keeping it firm on the fast bomber route.
Ju-87 will need to switch to Bramo 323 engine of 1000 HP instead of Jumos - saves engines for the Ju-88, the lift capacity for such Stukas is still almost there, aircraft is lighter, unlucky bullet will not have liquid cooling as a target.
90 rd drum for the cannons obviously offers longer firing time. The HMG (I prefer licencing either Belgian or Italian gun) means better defensive fire for bombers, and greater firepower for fighters. 4 of them will look good on fighters of 1940.
Longer range can be provided by at least having fighters outfitted with drop tanks, however I'd also propose a fighter with 500-600 L of internal fuel as a more reliable solution - kinda German Ki-61.
Use the Polish and Avia factory better (make radials ans HS 12Y engines, respectively). Perhaps use the Fi-167 desing more, as close support, frees up the 2-engined aircraft doing more of strategic/operational targets?
 

Ian_W

Banned
tomo pauk said:
Since I'm not sold on a idea that small change in LW gear will bring the RAF Fighter Command on their knees (and the French AF in the process), here starts the task of shaping the LW into a hammer that will do that.
People can mix & match historical pieces of kit, or desgin (even 'design') their own stuff.
Click to expand...

You've outlined the problem, but it's not about stuff.

It's about systems.

New pilots are important. Command and control are important. Systems for analysing operational results are important.

Gear ? Thats not important.
 

b0ned0me

Ian_W said:
You've outlined the problem, but it's not about stuff.

It's about systems.

New pilots are important. Command and control are important. Systems for analysing operational results are important.

Gear ? Thats not important.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent the gear and the systems are intertwined though. Tomo’s last post outlined a couple of sensible changes to the system objectives and the technical changes that might plausibly drive. One must assume that a functional system would result in reasonably appropriate “stuff” to carry out its goals otherwise you end up trying to do CAS with JU-52s or whatever, which is self-defeating.

But definitely, the tool and the utilisation should come from the requirement rather than vice versa, although even the allies did a fair amount of “build a better bomber and victory will inevitably follow, somehow”.

The issue, as always, is that The Thousand Year Ratsack was not the ideal environment for people to take carefully considered decisions on how to most cost-effectively achieve practical strategic objectives. Comparing e.g. the UK and nazi technical base in radar vs what they got out of them is a genuinely WTF experience.
 

Ian_W

Banned
b0ned0me said:
Comparing e.g. the UK and nazi technical base in radar vs what they got out of them is a genuinely WTF experience.
Click to expand...

It's not just radar.

If you have a look at what the UK got out of the Mk 1 Eyeball, and the Mk 1 Ears for during cloud cover, and you realise you could give the Luftwaffe better aircraft, better weapons, better engines and better pilots and it still wouldn't make a difference, because they would still do dumb things like 'The enemy aircraft are in Sector X, therefore Sector X's fighters need to fight them'.
 

sonofpegasus

Completely overhaul the Luftwaffe intelligence and signals service from day one, Oops this is the Nazi air force so political interference will be rife and bad news not acceptable!!! No sane man will want the job!
 

b0ned0me

Ian_W said:
It's not just radar.

If you have a look at what the UK got out of the Mk 1 Eyeball, and the Mk 1 Ears for during cloud cover, and you realise you could give the Luftwaffe better aircraft, better weapons, better engines and better pilots and it still wouldn't make a difference, because they would still do dumb things like 'The enemy aircraft are in Sector X, therefore Sector X's fighters need to fight them'.
Click to expand...
Indeed, one can list such examples all day long.

The real point is that all the combatant air forces had more of these head-up-bunghole moments than one can easily count, but the Nazis were especially terrible with them because their entire political system revolved not around getting things done but around violently kissing up and shitting down, and being in favour with The Boss was much more important than actually winning the war.
Also somewhat of a problem for the Allies but not nearly to the same extent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top