AHC: the best possible Luftwaffe for 1940

When in 1940?

Battle of France (and other campaigns) or the Battle of Britain?

Arguably they had a very good airforce for the Battle of France but needed a different one for the Battle of Britain (or maybe not - more below)

The difficulty here is some one in the Luftwaffe in a position to make these changes making an airforce that is suitable for both the French campaign and a follow on Battle of Brtiain type campaign which would require a very specific foresight

Now rather than focus on aircraft types or bits of equipment etc what is actually needed for the Battle of Britain is a concise plan that they stick too and not the ever changing ADHD approach to a strategy that they had OTL

So focus on Chain home and the fighter command stations as wel as targeting the industries supporting it and keep doing it - obviously this requries a better understanding of the Fighter command system (which is arguably impossible)

Ultimately unless the Luftwaffe is 2 or 3 times sronger than OTL I cannot see it winning regardless of airframe or tactic used and in the LWs defence no one had attacked an Air Defence before and they had to make up a strategy or I their case an ever changing strategy to deal with it.

Lets face it in May 1940 they arguably had the best or one of the 3 best fighters in the world - and starting the battle their pilots and personnel had the most experiance of any airforce in the world

The one thing it did not have was depth in personnel - the LW was quite lean - there was no allowance for the rotation of pilots and crews - Bungay in his book wrote that the only way a Luftwaffe pilot or aircrew could get a break was to have their tonsils removed as this was the only 'simple' procdure that could only be done in Berlin - and this took 2 weeks - and so the only way a LW doctor could give a pilot a much need break was to claim that they needed their tonsils removed. Lots of BoB LW Pilots and crews had their tonsils removed.

I am not being critical of this, only critical that there was no system of rotation - but then this was a theme throughout the war for the LW

And because of this lack of Depth there was limited ability to replace losses and teh BoB turned into an attritional fight that the British won

So before we start suggesting German A6ms instead of ME110s or some such lets look at the above issues first - because 'better' aircraft will not over come them

A quick note on ME110 - it gets a bad rep - but then it was designed as a 'destroyer' - its job was to hunt bombers and unescorted ones at that (pretty much like the Beaufighter and Baulton Paul Defiant turret fighter both of which continued to be built during 1940) - that it (and the BP Defiant) sucked in a Interceptor Fighter heavy environment is down to lack of foresight and for me it is understandable why there was such a lack of foresight - I don't think anyone thought that France would fall liek it did and that the LW and RAF would be facing off across the Channel like it did bringing the ligher shorter ranged fighters into 'just distance' of each other.
 
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.

Admittedly, I didn't put my focus on the 'systems', but then again I've referred to "Task is set to begin in year of 1936, obviously there are 4 years to fine tune gear, tactics and strategy" stuff. Gear, tactics and startegy are interweaved.
I've also said "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." in my next post here.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Admittedly, I didn't put my focus on the 'systems', but then again I've referred to "Task is set to begin in year of 1936, obviously there are 4 years to fine tune gear, tactics and strategy" stuff. Gear, tactics and startegy are interweaved.
I've also said "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." in my next post here.

Nope nope nope.

The key thing for the UK wasn't anything to do with gear, tactics or strategy - after all, they survived Big Wings, the Boulton Defiant, finger-fours and Bomber Command.

In the short term, it was Fighter Command's command and control systems. In the longer term, it was the Empire Air Training Scheme - the idea of using all the human resources of the Empire to make good-enough pilots, and in quantity.

Stop thinking about gear, strategy and tactics. Start thinking about systems, and how things fit together.

Ignore wunderwaffe. Ignore experten. Ignore the triumph of the will.

Concentrate on getting things working together.
 
Nope nope nope.

The key thing for the UK wasn't anything to do with gear, tactics or strategy - after all, they survived Big Wings, the Boulton Defiant, finger-fours and Bomber Command.

In the short term, it was Fighter Command's command and control systems. In the longer term, it was the Empire Air Training Scheme - the idea of using all the human resources of the Empire to make good-enough pilots, and in quantity.

Stop thinking about gear, strategy and tactics. Start thinking about systems, and how things fit together.

Militaries around the world relied, among other stuff, on gear, strategy and tactics for perhaps 5000 years, so let's not be exclusive.
Beating the RAF is the aim, as stated in post #1. FC was part of the RAF.

Ignore wunderwaffe. Ignore experten. Ignore the triumph of the will.

I've never suggested wuderwaffe (I've actually suggested against it in the post #1), nor I've suggested that will alone will triumph. Having no will leads to defeat, however. Experten were not yet experten in mid-1940.

Concentrate on getting things working together.

I don't think that anyone wanted that in any military for the last 5000 years.
 
The key thing for the UK wasn't anything to do with gear, tactics or strategy .....

Ignore wunderwaffe. Ignore experten. Ignore the triumph of the will.

Concentrate on getting things working together.
I would not be sure that its possible without going to ridiculous lucky foresight/ASB, think about what we are asking,
- LW must still win the early fights over Poland/Denmark/Norway
- Then fight a 100% effort v a peer/near peer air force in BoF
- Then finally fight BoB v another peer air force with all the massive advantages of a defensive position behind the channel

All of the above has to be bought without the massive production/economic disparity that Wallies had in 1943-4-5 (not even mentioning the added eastern front)

Sure you could do better (5-10%?) but I'm not sure that even 50% better gets you a win in BoB sufficiently to escort Sea Lion to victory.....
Talk about Sealion is discouraged - the task is just to beat the AdA and RAF in the pulp in 1940.
:-( sorry.....
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
I'm not saying that the Ju89 couldn't have been made into a viable strategic bomber, but the time it would take to make it ready would mean it wouldn't be available until after 1940 per the history of the Ju290; even if we shave off two years it is only entering production in 1941. The Do17 and He111 had that time to evolve and in fact had been around so long by 1940 that they were outdated combat aircraft for the BoB (the Do17 specifically, the He111 was still useful). I don't doubt that having functional strategic bombers on par with the 1940 B17 in 1940 would be useful for the Luftwaffe if that means sacrificing the Do17 and some earlier improvements in investment in aero-engine production, but I don't see how it can actually be ready in sufficient numbers by mid-1940.

He-100 instead of Me-110.
You're entitled to your opinion, but let's agree to disagree on that.
Specifically because the Me109Z would have longer range, be faster, and be considerably cheaper due to sharing 80% of the parts of the standard Me109. If you want production economies of scale that will allow the Luftwaffe to have more without any additional production inputs (extra labor, materials, and factories) then you have to economize by allowing for volume production of certain things (i.e. they become cheaper and easier to make when you're making more of the same parts rather than less of different kinds of parts).

The major thing they could do would be to just follow Bungay's plan on how to defeat Britain, which would arguably work with what they had on had, but require some hindsight and better thinking than the people in charge in 1940 had.

A quick note on ME110 - it gets a bad rep - but then it was designed as a 'destroyer' - its job was to hunt bombers and unescorted ones at that (pretty much like the Beaufighter and Baulton Paul Defiant turret fighter both of which continued to be built during 1940) - that it (and the BP Defiant) sucked in a Interceptor Fighter heavy environment is down to lack of foresight and for me it is understandable why there was such a lack of foresight - I don't think anyone thought that France would fall liek it did and that the LW and RAF would be facing off across the Channel like it did bringing the ligher shorter ranged fighters into 'just distance' of each other.
It was also designed as a long range escort fighter, per Goering thinking the 'Destroyer' could do all of the above against the advice of the technical professionals. As a result Goering's nephew and many others were killed in the BoB while flying escort mission.

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.
Part of the reason the Ju88 had a restricted bomb bay was to help keep it light and fast. But I agree that is a big one, keep it close to the original design without the dive bombing requirement or external mounts for heavy bombers and keep that ventral gondola off the production model. It would have been ready 6 months earlier and phase out the outdated Do17 earlier, which means more bombers of that type and a lot more survivable ones, plus less production problems due to how having to have that modified landing gear.

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.
Yeah, probably not a bad idea, but the Bramo apparently had pretty bad fuel economy and low power at lower altitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramo_323
The team continued work on the basic design, adding fuel injection and a new supercharger. The resulting 323 was just under 27 l in displacement, and produced 900 PS at 2,500 rpm for takeoff, improving slightly to 1,000 PS at 3,100 m (10,200 ft). The reduced power at sea level was inevitable for engines with single-speed, mechanically-driven superchargers, when they were regulated to a constant maximum boost pressure below their critical altitude.

The Fafnir powered a number of German prewar designs, including the Focke-Wulf Fw 200, Henschel Hs 126, Dornier Do 24 and Dornier Do 17, as well as the Focke Achgelis Fa 223 Drache helicopter. Its fairly poor fuel economy kept it from more widespread use, and most designs chose the similar BMW 132 instead, whose specific fuel consumption varied between 220 and 240 g/(kW•h) depending on model, whereas the early versions of the Fafnir got about 255 g/(kW•h), a poor figure for the era. The C/Ds, where the supercharger used less power, improved this to 230 g/(kW•h), but were only useful at lower altitudes.
Might be a better option for the Hs123C.

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.
Apparently the Luftwaffe was testing the 7.92 bullet on the 13mm case in 1939-40. I'd say have something like that with a long heavy HE 9mm bullet and mount two in place of the cannons in the wings of Me109 fighters and you'd have a pretty effective set of weapons on hand for countering enemy fighters in 1939-41 (and beyond). Since it would use the MG131 with a 9mm barrel, you'd have a light weight MG with a belt feed system and a very high rate of fire, plus a very fast moving bullet with excellent sectional density, which means a lot more hits versus the limited ROF/velocity/ammo capacity of the MG/FF, plus probably no weight gain if not even some weight loss in the Me109E. Certainly more weight saved versus a 90mm drum mag version. That means a more maneuverable, faster fighter.
In a defensive mount for bombers that also means more chance for hits against enemy fighters and more ammo capacity.

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.
Me109Z :)

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?
He123C and perhaps a D series with Czech engines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're entitled to your opinion, but let's agree to disagree on that.
Specifically because the Me109Z would have longer range, be faster, and be considerably cheaper due to sharing 80% of the parts of the standard Me109. If you want production economies of scale that will allow the Luftwaffe to have more without any additional production inputs (extra labor, materials, and factories) then you have to economize by allowing for volume production of certain things (i.e. they become cheaper and easier to make when you're making more of the same parts rather than less of different kinds of parts).

Why would a 2-engined Bf 109Z have been considerably cheaper than 1-engined He 100?

Part of the reason the Ju88 had a restricted bomb bay was to help keep it light and fast. But I agree that is a big one, keep it close to the original design without the dive bombing requirement or external mounts for heavy bombers and keep that ventral gondola off the production model. It would have been ready 6 months earlier and phase out the outdated Do17 earlier, which means more bombers of that type and a lot more survivable ones, plus less production problems due to how having to have that modified landing gear.

Restricted bomb bay of the Ju 88 was a bug, not a feature. A host of reasonably fast bombers featured a decent bomb bay (early B-25 and B-26, A-20, Tu-2, Ju-288), so moving the wing up is a win-win situation.

Yeah, probably not a bad idea, but the Bramo apparently had pretty bad fuel economy and low power at lower altitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramo_323

Might be a better option for the Hs123C.

Hs 123B equals small bomb load - 250 kg (no, not 500, not even 450). So it is a no-go. Ju-87R-1 with 1000 HP Jumo 211A carried, all in the same time:
- armor
- up to 1000 kg bomb
- two 300 L drop tanks

(my 'translations' in blue)

87R1 lade.jpg


English-language Wikipedia entry for German stuff - no, thank you. Obvious flaw - power was somehow reduced from 950 HP to 1000 HP?? How does one reduce power by increasing it? Then we have 1000 HP take off power from A/B improved to 1000 (!) HP on C/B?? Improvement of zero HP? Amazing, those German engineers were certainly smoking some illegal stuff.

Apparently the Luftwaffe was testing the 7.92 bullet on the 13mm case in 1939-40. I'd say have something like that with a long heavy HE 9mm bullet and mount two in place of the cannons in the wings of Me109 fighters and you'd have a pretty effective set of weapons on hand for countering enemy fighters in 1939-41 (and beyond). Since it would use the MG131 with a 9mm barrel, you'd have a light weight MG with a belt feed system and a very high rate of fire, plus a very fast moving bullet with excellent sectional density, which means a lot more hits versus the limited ROF/velocity/ammo capacity of the MG/FF, plus probably no weight gain if not even some weight loss in the Me109E. Certainly more weight saved versus a 90mm drum mag version. That means a more maneuverable, faster fighter.
In a defensive mount for bombers that also means more chance for hits against enemy fighters and more ammo capacity.

All good with new MGs, but that still means that a lot of time is spent on development. The 'ordinary' MG 131 was not even in use by 1940. Reason I've mentioned either Belgian or Italian HMGs is that they were around years before ww2 started, purchasing license takes much less time than developing a new gun. The LMG bullet will come out short in killing bombers, 4 LMGs is still worse than 8 LMGs. Nobody yet spoke about how much a barrel burner would've been the 1000+ m/s projectile fired in bursts.
Lower MV of the MG FF can be circumvented via use of lighter projectile, as it was the case with MG FFM. Low ammo count of the MG FF(M) is somewhat negated with use of bigger drums, let alone with introducing belt feed.


Not a 1-engined fighter.

He123C and perhaps a D series with Czech engines.

As above - hopefully no Hs 123 any more than it was produced.
 
So focus on Chain home and the fighter command stations as wel as targeting the industries supporting it and keep doing it - obviously this requries a better understanding of the Fighter command system (which is arguably impossible)

The one thing it did not have was depth in personnel - the LW was quite lean - there was no allowance for the rotation of pilots and crews
The only way I can see to handwave into existence a LW understanding of how Fighter Command works is by mirroring. LW has radars & radios & fighters, have some technical officers work prewar to set up a proper air defence network in case the Anglofrench go on the offensive. Unlikely to come up with the exact same setup but it would give them some idea what they are getting into.

As for the LW being lean, it’s the same issue across the Wehrmacht and Japan too. Absolutely everything has to go into in the shop window and into the fight on day one, otherwise there just isn’t enough combat power for a quick win. Carve out 15% or more for reserves, rotation rest etc and suddenly all the first week objectives take another day to achieve, second week takes 2 days more, and eventually instead of a lightning win everything bigs down into an attritional stalemate that the allies are guaranteed to win. Pilots have to rest between decisive victorious campaigns, or after the war is lost.
For the axis it’s always long war = lost war, and if they end up needing a massive pilot training programme it’s pretty much game over by definition.
 

Deleted member 1487

Why would a 2-engined Bf 109Z have been considerably cheaper than 1-engined He 100?
Little different tooling to make different parts for a different aircraft, no necessary need for a different factory for the design, economies of scale by making mostly the same Me109 parts and assembly, plus there is greater range, firepower, and speed in a 109Z vs. the single engine He100. Not only that there is quite a bit more versatility in the design, so you can have it do the things a long range SE fighter does plus what the 'destroyer' type aircraft is supposed to. What it cannot do in that role the lighter 'fast' Ju88 could.

Restricted bomb bay of the Ju 88 was a bug, not a feature. A host of reasonably fast bombers featured a decent bomb bay (early B-25 and B-26, A-20, Tu-2, Ju-288), so moving the wing up is a win-win situation.
Those were much larger aircraft and considerably slower except for the Ju288, which relied on the Jumo 222 to actually work. If you turn it into something considerably larger, which you'd have to do beyond just moving the wings to match the bombers you listed with 'decent bomb bays', you're slowing it down considerably and defeating the purpose. Granted though the Mosquito had a better bomb bay layout than the Ju88, but a the time the Ju88 was designed, it wasn't supposed to carry heavier bombs internally than 50kg. Also something like the Mossie required specially shortened 230kg bombs to cram them in. Arguably had the Luftwaffe kept making 100kg bombs or had something between 100 and 250kg bombs they could have designed the Ju88 to accommodate them, but they were restricted to the limited bomb set the Luftwaffe produced.

Hs 123B equals small bomb load - 250 kg (no, not 500, not even 450). So it is a no-go. Ju-87R-1 with 1000 HP Jumo 211A carried, all in the same time:
- armor
- up to 1000 kg bomb
- two 300 L drop tanks
They were much simpler aircraft and cheaper to make than the Ju87, could launch any more sorties, were apparently more robust due to their simplicity, and smaller more manueverable targets. The Ju87 didn't have much armor until the ground attack variant G-series, which made it vulnerable to even MG fire. It also used a more complex, expensive engine, not to mention was larger and more complex. It could carry heavier bombs (which is how it reached the heavier total load number as it still had limited numbers of bomb mounting sites), but unless you're attacking special targets that required heavier bombs to knock out, that isn't really that much of an advantage in CAS missions.

I'm suggesting two different roles for the Ju87 and Hs123 though; the latter would be for CAS close to the front lines where it's virtues would be most valuable and wouldn't require as much range, while the Ju87 would play to it's virtues and go for somewhat deeper targets, the longer range tactical and shorter range operational ones as was intended.

English-language Wikipedia entry for German stuff - no, thank you. Obvious flaw - power was somehow reduced from 950 HP to 1000 HP?? How does one reduce power by increasing it?
Then we have 1000 HP take off power from A/B improved to 1000 (!) HP on C/B?? Improvement of zero HP? Amazing, those German engineers were certainly smoking some illegal stuff.
Cite exactly what you're talking about, because in what I posted there is nothing matching what you're claiming. I'm also guessing you're not understanding what the article is actually saying.


All good with new MGs, but that still means that a lot of time is spent on development. The 'ordinary' MG 131 was not even in use by 1940. Reason I've mentioned either Belgian or Italian HMGs is that they were around years before ww2 started, purchasing license takes much less time than developing a new gun. The LMG bullet will come out short in killing bombers, 4 LMGs is still worse than 8 LMGs. Nobody yet spoke about how much a barrel burner would've been the 1000+ m/s projectile fired in bursts.
Lower MV of the MG FF can be circumvented via use of lighter projectile, as it was the case with MG FFM. Low ammo count of the MG FF(M) is somewhat negated with use of bigger drums, let alone with introducing belt feed.
Not really considering it would just mean a barrel change for the MG131 and some minor modifications for the feed system if necessary.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_131
The introduction of the weapon in the Luftwaffe took place in 1940, initially as a defense armament in multi-engine aircraft.
It was probably better used in fighters considering the actual conditions in 1940.
The Belgians probably wouldn't sell the license and I doubt the Germans would want to pay it. The Germans also had some issues using the Italian stuff they had and for aircraft armament the Italian versions were too heavy. Compare the MG131 vs the Italian equivalent, it was 10kg heavier and slower firing. At that point you're just better off using more MG17s. Also since we are proposing realistic changes the Luftwaffe could have made from 1936 on per your OP why not propose some realistic projects for different aircraft armament that was already being developed by Germany's enemies in the 1920s-30s?
Barrel wear would have been an issue for 1000m/s guns, but of course you could tune the load to 900m/s to limit the wear while still making velocity gains and with that improved hit chances. To that end there were proposed lengthened 7.92 cartridge cases to increase velocity by the Germans and Czechs which could have been used in existing machine guns with limited modifications, while potentially adding a 9mm bullet, which allows for greater HE-I loads against enemy aircraft. Given the size/armor of the bombers and fighters of 1939-41 a 9mm HE-I round would be considerably more lethal than the standard 7.92 round and still fit in the same 7.92 MG mountings. So say a modified MG17 in 9mm or 9.3mm in the nose of the fighter, plus 2-3 in each wing gives you 6-8x MGs in a heavier, more destructive caliber with at least the same velocity as the 7.92x57 cartridge and about the same size. With HE-I bullets they'd be considerably more destructive as well, even if only ever 3-4 bullets in the MG belt.
OTL 1930s developed cartridges by Germans for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8×68mm_S
The 8×68mm S rebated rim bottlenecked centerfire rifle cartridge (the S denoting it is intended for 8.2 mm (.323 in) groove diameter bullets) and its necked-down sister cartridge, the 6.5×68mm (no S, or other modifier required), were developed in the 1930s by August Schüler of the August Schüler Waffenfabrik, Suhl, Germany as magnum hunting cartridges that would just fit and function in standard-sized Mauser 98 bolt-action rifles.
So should function just fine with limited modification in the MG17.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9.3×64mm_Brenneke
A 19 gram 9.3mm bullet is roughly 8.25 grams more than the 7.92mm B Patrone HE-I bullet, which means a considerable increased volume for explosive/incendiary filler (82.5%), but still using the MG17 with limited modifications. Granted it would be lighter weight than the lead filled one, so probably more like 17-18 grams for the HE-I version, but that still is a ~70% increase in overall weight and potential chemical filler than the 7.92mm version.

A 9.3mm bullet on the 68mm case would still generate at least a 825m/s muzzle velocity (probably more with a 17 gram version), while still being possible to operate in a modified MG17 without that much of an increase in individual cartridge weight or MG weight. It isn't a .50 cal/13mm of course, but would be considerably more destructive than the .303 the British were using or the 7.92mm MG17 rounds and allow for a lot more hits at longer ranges than say the MG FF, plus considerably longer firing time due to carrying more ammo and having more weight free due to a lower weight MG and ammo belt combo. Weight of fire matters too especially in air combat where your ability to fill a space of air with rounds matters more than the potential destructive ability of a single round of a low velocity cannon (that calculus changes of course when confront heavy bombers like the B17, but that isn't the issue in 1940-41).

Not a 1-engined fighter.
And? It doesn't have to be. Besides given the shortage of fighter pilots and need to have something in the two engine category that is better performing and cheaper than the Bf110, why not fill it with the Me109Z.

As above - hopefully no Hs 123 any more than it was produced.
Why not? It would fill a different role than the Ju87 and Richthofen thought it was worth putting back in production even as late as 1943 despite having Fw190F/Gs and late model Ju87s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

The only way I can see to handwave into existence a LW understanding of how Fighter Command works is by mirroring. LW has radars & radios & fighters, have some technical officers work prewar to set up a proper air defence network in case the Anglofrench go on the offensive. Unlikely to come up with the exact same setup but it would give them some idea what they are getting into.
According to Bungay the Brits gave the French the details of the Dowding system and all of that was in the French ALA archives, the Germans apparently didn't bother to look through ALA intel files and find it. Arguably if they had bothered they could have known all that with a simple POD in June-July 1940.
 
[The Ju-89] 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.

Correct, the strategic bomber program was dead before Weaver. The problem was that both the Ju-89 and Do-19 were seriously underpowered, and the program was shelved until more powerful engines became available.

Maybe instead of the disastrous He-177 build the He-277 with four separate engines? Forget the "all bombers must dive" order, and get the Ju-88 into service earlier.

And I agree with b0ned0me, even if the Luftwaffe has strategic bombers it won't have enough to do the job. And each one is more expensive than two-engine bombers so fewer bombers. I just don't see this being a war-winning strategy...
 

Deleted member 1487

Correct, the strategic bomber program was dead before Weaver. The problem was that both the Ju-89 and Do-19 were seriously underpowered, and the program was shelved until more powerful engines became available.

Maybe instead of the disastrous He-177 build the He-277 with four separate engines? Forget the "all bombers must dive" order, and get the Ju-88 into service earlier.

And I agree with b0ned0me, even if the Luftwaffe has strategic bombers it won't have enough to do the job. And each one is more expensive than two-engine bombers so fewer bombers. I just don't see this being a war-winning strategy...
The problems of the OTL He177 was Udet's demand that it dive bomb, which is part of the reason it switched to the double engine system while gaining lots of weight through structural strengthening for the dives. That of course meant it lost some of the speed and range it would have had had it been lighter and designed around the original spec.
The He277 was a different aircraft than the He177 beyond the switch to 4 engines. IIRC it gained bomb capacity and had considerably stronger and larger wings to accommodate larger, more powerful engines, and generate more lift a higher altitudes. It was more different to the He177 than the Avro Lincoln was to the Lancaster.
 
Little different tooling to make different parts for a different aircraft, no necessary need for a different factory for the design, economies of scale by making mostly the same Me109 parts and assembly, plus there is greater range, firepower, and speed in a 109Z vs. the single engine He100. Not only that there is quite a bit more versatility in the design, so you can have it do the things a long range SE fighter does plus what the 'destroyer' type aircraft is supposed to. What it cannot do in that role the lighter 'fast' Ju88 could.

I still think that you are wrong in asumption that two fuselages, two engines, props and anciliaries, two sets of undercarriages and big wing will be cheaper than one fuselage, one engine, prop and anciliaries, one set of undecarriage and small wing.

Those were much larger aircraft and considerably slower except for the Ju288, which relied on the Jumo 222 to actually work. If you turn it into something considerably larger, which you'd have to do beyond just moving the wings to match the bombers you listed with 'decent bomb bays', you're slowing it down considerably and defeating the purpose. Granted though the Mosquito had a better bomb bay layout than the Ju88, but a the time the Ju88 was designed, it wasn't supposed to carry heavier bombs internally than 50kg. Also something like the Mossie required specially shortened 230kg bombs to cram them in. Arguably had the Luftwaffe kept making 100kg bombs or had something between 100 and 250kg bombs they could have designed the Ju88 to accommodate them, but they were restricted to the limited bomb set the Luftwaffe produced.

Tu-2 was as fast as prototype of the Ju 88, prototypes of Tu-2 with AM-37 engines went well above 600 km/h. Early B-25 and B-26 went to 520 km/h (for B-26: High speed, wide open throttles in high blower ratio, mixture controls automatic rich at 14,250 ft., is 323 mph at 2400 rpm at 1440 bhp per engine; from here). A-20 was smaller than Ju 88, 560 km/h for A-20B.
Engine choice for Ju-288 had nothing to with it's bomb bay layout, that Junkers finally got right after Ju-86 and Ju-88.
I've never suggester increasing the size of Ju-88, but merely to relocate the wing so the bomb bay can now carry bigger bombs. Ju-88 carried 50 kg bombs only in bomb bay.

They were much simpler aircraft and cheaper to make than the Ju87, could launch any more sorties, were apparently more robust due to their simplicity, and smaller more manueverable targets. The Ju87 didn't have much armor until the ground attack variant G-series, which made it vulnerable to even MG fire. It also used a more complex, expensive engine, not to mention was larger and more complex. It could carry heavier bombs (which is how it reached the heavier total load number as it still had limited numbers of bomb mounting sites), but unless you're attacking special targets that required heavier bombs to knock out, that isn't really that much of an advantage in CAS missions.

I've already suggested Ju-87 with Bramo 323.
Ju-87B was also abe to carry 4x50 kg bombs + 1x 250 kg bomb. Your mileage may wary with regard the armor protection of the Ju-87, that indeed was not the best, but it was there. Going radial also avoids one vulnerable system.
The 'could launch any more sorties' thing - yes, if a) enemy is close, and b) one has enough of pilots. I'm not sure that it will be a good idea to suggest Luftwaffe to use their trained & experienced pilots in a bomber that carried 200 kg of bombs, vs. idea that to use them for 500-1000 kg of bombs.
Using Hs 123 vs. targets in UK is a loosing proposal.
BTW - compexity and price of engine matters ;)

I'm suggesting two different roles for the Ju87 and Hs123 though; the latter would be for CAS close to the front lines where it's virtues would be most valuable and wouldn't require as much range, while the Ju87 would play to it's virtues and go for somewhat deeper targets, the longer range tactical and shorter range operational ones as was intended.

No problems with that - I never suggested that Hs 123 is to be cancelled, but merely that it will be produced just in OTL numbers.

Cite exactly what you're talking about, because in what I posted there is nothing matching what you're claiming. I'm also guessing you're not understanding what the article is actually saying.

Okay. The 'germanized' Jupiter was:
The design was then bored out to produce the 950 hp (708 kW) Sh.22 in 1930.
Then:
The resulting 323 was just under 27 l in displacement, and produced 900 PS at 2,500 rpm for takeoff, improving slightly to 1,000 PS at 3,100 m (10,200 ft). The reduced power at sea level was inevitable for engines with single-speed, mechanically-driven superchargers,

So the people at Bramo managed to reduce 950 HP to 1000 PS. Amazing.

Not really considering it would just mean a barrel change for the MG131 and some minor modifications for the feed system if necessary.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_131

It was probably better used in fighters considering the actual conditions in 1940.
The Belgians probably wouldn't sell the license and I doubt the Germans would want to pay it. The Germans also had some issues using the Italian stuff they had and for aircraft armament the Italian versions were too heavy. Compare the MG131 vs the Italian equivalent, it was 10kg heavier and slower firing. At that point you're just better off using more MG17s. Also since we are proposing realistic changes the Luftwaffe could have made from 1936 on per your OP why not propose some realistic projects for different aircraft armament that was already being developed by Germany's enemies in the 1920s-30s?

Germans were paying licences where/when they judged it beneficial. Includes engines and MG FF.
There is no doubt that MG 131 was a better weapon than the Breda SAFAT HMG, however the Italian HMG was in full production 5 years earlier. For a HMG designed in early 1930s, Breda HMG was not too heavy.
I'm okay when people suggest stuff, does not mean that I'll applaud and agree with anything, nor expect the favor.

Barrel wear would have been an issue for 1000m/s guns...
<snip>

No problems with your proposal, but methinks that going with 4 HMGs, or mixed armament (2 HMGs + 2 cannons) is a better bet.

And? It doesn't have to be. Besides given the shortage of fighter pilots and need to have something in the two engine category that is better performing and cheaper than the Bf110, why not fill it with the Me109Z.

The "need to have something in the two engine category" - yes, if one engine can't do it, like when one need to have a night fighter, or when your mighty 2000 HP engine blows up already on the bench tests. Talk 1942 on?
Otherwise, no for German needs of 1940, since a fighter with 500-600 L of fuel + one or two drop tanks can be achieved on one engine.

Why not? It would fill a different role than the Ju87 and Richthofen thought it was worth putting back in production even as late as 1943 despite having Fw190F/Gs and late model Ju87s.

Conditions of Russian winter and lack of infrastructure are not the same as of W. European frontlines of 1940.
 
Can you get the FW-190 into production earlier?

Can you give more support to Focke-Achgelis and get more Fa 223 into production earlier, and in more general use?

Is the Heinkel He 178 stable enough in 1939 to be able to go into limited production?
 
Can you get the FW-190 into production earlier?

Probably.
Avoid the BMW 139 engine, use V12 instead, retain the initial small wing = saves a lot of time & resources. Perhaps the zero series is ready for BoB?

Can you give more support to Focke-Achgelis and get more Fa 223 into production earlier, and in more general use?

Probably doable.

Is the Heinkel He 178 stable enough in 1939 to be able to go into limited production?

Stable enough it was, but suitability for military purpose was lacking. No weapon, small fuel quantity for the thirsty jet engine (200 km range per Wiki), small airframe and especially the wing (half area of the Fw 190A) will not help it to mature.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
He 178 was a proof of concept aircraft, not a fighter design. It would require a much larger influx of money for Heinkel jets to reach production status in mid-1940. Then, you would need an aircraft to use them.

I continue the He-100 with additional fuel tank parade. Push for earlier stress on belt fed MG FF.

Toss the dive bomber requirement for the Ju 88, with the mid-wing design replaced with high-wing and a big belly bomb bay for 500 kg bombs. Drop the D0 17 to concentrate on Ju 88 and He 111. Ju 87 was ineffective over England, too vulnerable and short ranged. If still using Me 110, use as fast fighter bombers.
 
What the LW goal after the fall of France? I mean, suppose they win air superiority over southern England. Then what? The Kriegsmarine still can't invade and terror bombing won't accomplish a cease fire. The factories in the midlands are still beyond fighter range.
 

Deleted member 1487

I still think that you are wrong in asumption that two fuselages, two engines, props and anciliaries, two sets of undercarriages and big wing will be cheaper than one fuselage, one engine, prop and anciliaries, one set of undecarriage and small wing.
On a unit per unit basis of course it would cost more, but as an overall program vs. fielding a totally different SE fighter costs would overall be lower because 80% the parts are already in production with the Me109 and experience already exists with the type and assembly vs having to tool up for a totally new model and then have to make refinements on the basic design from scratch.

Tu-2 was as fast as prototype of the Ju 88, prototypes of Tu-2 with AM-37 engines went well above 600 km/h. Early B-25 and B-26 went to 520 km/h (for B-26: High speed, wide open throttles in high blower ratio, mixture controls automatic rich at 14,250 ft., is 323 mph at 2400 rpm at 1440 bhp per engine; from here). A-20 was smaller than Ju 88, 560 km/h for A-20B.
Engine choice for Ju-288 had nothing to with it's bomb bay layout, that Junkers finally got right after Ju-86 and Ju-88.
I've never suggester increasing the size of Ju-88, but merely to relocate the wing so the bomb bay can now carry bigger bombs. Ju-88 carried 50 kg bombs only in bomb bay.
Are we taking Soviet claimed performance at face value? Also the AM-37 was only ever produced in the low dozens because the Soviets were never able to make it reliable while it was also a larger more powerful engine than the Jumo 211.

The early B-25 and B-26 were clearly not the production models; the service version of the B-25H was producing a max 272mph, much slower than the OTL Ju88 despite using 1700hp engines vs. the Ju88's 1400hp Jumo 211J's. The B-26G used 2000-2200hp engines and had a max speed of 287mph.
The A-20G used 1600hp engines, more powerful than the Ju88's Jumos, but was about as fast that the Ju88A4 clean:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-20_Havoc#Specifications_(A-20G-20-DO)
Performance

  • Maximum speed: 317 mph (276 kn, 510 km/h) at 10,700 ft (3,260 m)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_88#Specifications_Ju_88_A-4
Performance

  • Maximum speed: 510 km/h[69] (317 mph) at 5,300 m (17,389 ft) without external bomb racks

Moving the wings changes the aerodynamics of the design as well as the structural integrity. You'd probably have to add additional weight to the design, plus of course make it more difficult to carry extra fuel tanks as needed internally. The OTL Ju88 bomb bay probably could have carried more than the 50kg bombs if the Luftwaffe made bombs of sizes between 50 and 250, but they didn't and the Ju88 was limited as a result. Of course it was initially planned to be a tactical bomber for which the 50kg bombs were enough, while the He111 would carry the heavy bombs for missions where it was required.

Were it to remain a fast bomber it would have been a more niche aircraft with more limited production, but that would have been fine so long as more He111s were built with the operational/strategic role in mind.


I've already suggested Ju-87 with Bramo 323.
Ju-87B was also abe to carry 4x50 kg bombs + 1x 250 kg bomb. Your mileage may wary with regard the armor protection of the Ju-87, that indeed was not the best, but it was there. Going radial also avoids one vulnerable system.
The 'could launch any more sorties' thing - yes, if a) enemy is close, and b) one has enough of pilots. I'm not sure that it will be a good idea to suggest Luftwaffe to use their trained & experienced pilots in a bomber that carried 200 kg of bombs, vs. idea that to use them for 500-1000 kg of bombs.
Using Hs 123 vs. targets in UK is a loosing proposal.
BTW - compexity and price of engine matters ;)
And I pointed out the resulting aircraft would have worse performance than the OTL Ju87, plus be more draggy due to the type of engine, as well as have worse fuel consumption performance. Still that said I think it would be fine for the role, but with reduced performance and greater weight and complexity than the HS123 it would be limited in what it could do. If we're talking about using them against Britain then as per OTL the Ju87 would have limited use anyway...and it would have even more limited use if i had the Bramo engine due to the lower power and worse fuel consumption, as well as greater drag than the OTL Ju87 with the Jumo engine.

No problems with that - I never suggested that Hs 123 is to be cancelled, but merely that it will be produced just in OTL numbers.
I think that would be a mistake, especially with a shittier Ju87 that you're proposing.

Okay. The 'germanized' Jupiter was:
The design was then bored out to produce the 950 hp (708 kW) Sh.22 in 1930.
Then:
The resulting 323 was just under 27 l in displacement, and produced 900 PS at 2,500 rpm for takeoff, improving slightly to 1,000 PS at 3,100 m (10,200 ft). The reduced power at sea level was inevitable for engines with single-speed, mechanically-driven superchargers,

So the people at Bramo managed to reduce 950 HP to 1000 PS. Amazing.[/QUOTE]
Yeah you're completely misreading/misunderstanding that quote, especially as it is referring to different versions of the engine.
The 950hp of the 1930 version was the max speed possible at altitude, not the sea level take off power. The reduced power at sea level vs. at altitude.
Here is the entire quote for clarity:
Development of the 323 was the end result of a series of modifications to the original Jupiter design, which Siemens licensed in 1929. The first modifications were to "Germanize" the dimensions, producing the Sh.20 and Sh.21. The design was then bored out to produce the 950 hp (708 kW) Sh.22 in 1930. Like the Jupiter, the Sh.22 featured a rather "old" looking arrangement with rather prominent valve pushrods on the front of the engine. In the mid-1930s the Reich Air Ministry (RLM) rationalized engine naming, and Bramo was given the 300-block of numbers, the Sh.14 and Sh.22 becoming the Bramo 314 and 322 respectively. The 322 never matured and remained unreliable.

The team continued work on the basic design, adding fuel injection and a new supercharger. The resulting 323 was just under 27 l in displacement, and produced 900 PS at 2,500 rpm for takeoff, improving slightly to 1,000 PS at 3,100 m (10,200 ft). The reduced power at sea level was inevitable for engines with single-speed, mechanically-driven superchargers, when they were regulated to a constant maximum boost pressure below their critical altitude.
So it improved from a max 950 ps at altitude to 1000 ps at altitude. It couldn't reach it's max power at sea level due to the single speed, mechanically driven supercharger.

Germans were paying licences where/when they judged it beneficial. Includes engines and MG FF.
There is no doubt that MG 131 was a better weapon than the Breda SAFAT HMG, however the Italian HMG was in full production 5 years earlier. For a HMG designed in early 1930s, Breda HMG was not too heavy.
I'm okay when people suggest stuff, does not mean that I'll applaud and agree with anything, nor expect the favor.
Depends, the Germans tried to get their hands on licenses for US engines after the Nazis rose to power, but due to the expense in foreign exchange couldn't afford them. As mentioned in the book "Arming the Luftwaffe" by Edward Homze and E.R. Hooton's "Phoenix Rising". Granted that was for American engines and no doubt some deal could have been worked out with Italy much more easily. The bigger problem is getting over the cultural arrogance (somewhat deserved) that the German military had about the quality of German firearms vs everyone else. I'm guessing that the Luftwaffe though thought that waiting for the MG131 was worth the weight savings vs going with a foreign version (assuming the Italians were even willing to sell the license). Wikipedia has a lot of not-so-nice things to say about the weapon even in 1940.

No problems with your proposal, but methinks that going with 4 HMGs, or mixed armament (2 HMGs + 2 cannons) is a better bet.
For bomber killing sure, which is what should be left to the heavier fighters...like the ME109Z.
Against enemy SE fighters MG caliber weapons were enough, the RAF certainly did a lot of killing of Luftwaffe aircraft with .303 MGs during the BoB. And the 9 or 9.3mm round was quite a bit more destructive than the 7.92, which itself was more destructive than the 7.7mm/.303 using chemical filled rounds due to larger size=more filling.

The problem with the cannons used in 1940 was the low velocity; it certainly was guaranteed destruction if they hit, but with a 700m/s muzzle velcity with the rather less than aerodynamic minengeschoss, to guarantee a hit you have to be within 300m or less. An 800m/s or greater muzzle velocity plus more aerodynamic bullet (as the HE-I B-Patrone bullet utilized the standard shape of the 7.92mm bullet, which was probably the best shaped rifle caliber bullet used in WW2 in terms of aerodynamics) extends the 'point blank' range by at least 100m, but probably more.


The "need to have something in the two engine category" - yes, if one engine can't do it, like when one need to have a night fighter, or when your mighty 2000 HP engine blows up already on the bench tests. Talk 1942 on?
Otherwise, no for German needs of 1940, since a fighter with 500-600 L of fuel + one or two drop tanks can be achieved on one engine.
Yeah the He100D couldn't do it. It's range was no more than the Me109F and it was still in prototype testing by mid-1939 and sounded like a mess with worse landing gear than the Bf109. The prototypes sounded like they had all of the vices of the Bf109, but worse. In fact didn't it rely on wing surface evaporative cooling? That's unworkable and without it kills the claimed advantages of the aircraft.
You might have a handful of the D-1 series ready by mid-1940, which is a huge MAYBE, but that's not really worth the hassle considering the Bf110 is already in production and tooling up for it would be quite expensive. The Me109Z could really have been read to go long before that had anyone bothered to try.
As it was the D-0 series of the He100 only first flew in September 1939 and by then the Luftwaffe was experiencing a resource crunch. Even that model still relied on surface evaporative cooling, which if hit even once in combat would put the machine out of action.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_100

Conditions of Russian winter and lack of infrastructure are not the same as of W. European frontlines of 1940.
Sure, but the Hs123 did very well in France in 1940 and had better response time than the Ju87, while soldiering on very well in the Balkans into Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_123#World_War_II_(service_from_Poland_to_Greece)
The Polish campaign was a success for an aircraft considered obsolete by the Luftwaffe high command. Within a year, the Hs 123 was again in action in the blitzkrieg attacks through the Netherlands, Belgium and France. General Heinz Guderian was continually impressed by the quick turnaround time offered by II.(Schl)/LG 2. Often positioned as the Luftwaffe's most-forward based combat unit, the Hs 123 flew more missions per day than other units, and again proved their worth in the close-support role. With Ju 87s still being used as tactical bombers rather than true ground support aircraft and with no other aircraft capable of this mission in the Luftwaffe arsenal the Hs 123 was destined to continue in service for some time, although numbers were constantly being reduced by attrition.

Literally the only campaign it would unsuited for is the BoB and you'd have far more suitable aircraft for that as per OTL. Besides the Ju87 wasn't really that great for the BoB either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87#Second_World_War
The Battle of Britain proved for the first time that the Junkers Ju 87 was vulnerable in hostile skies against well-organised and determined fighter opposition. The Ju 87, like other dive bombers, was slow and possessed inadequate defences. Furthermore, it could not be effectively protected by fighters because of its low speed, and the very low altitudes at which it ended its dive bomb attacks. The Stuka depended on air superiority, the very thing being contested over Britain. It was withdrawn from attacks on Britain in August after prohibitive losses, leaving the Luftwaffe without precision ground-attack aircraft.[120]
 
Top