AHC: the best possible Luftwaffe for 1940

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.

For a more minimalist way of moving bombs, roughly half the empty weight of the Ju-88
Specifications (Maryland Mk I)
General characteristics

  • Crew: three (pilot, navigator/bomb aimer/gunner and radio operator/gunner)
  • Length: 46 ft 8 in (14.2 m)
  • Wingspan: 61 ft 4 in (18.7 m)
  • Height: 16 ft 3 in (5.0 m)
  • Wing area: 537 ft² (49.9 m²)
  • Empty weight: 10,586 lb (4,802 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 15,297 lb (6,939 kg)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 16,809 lb (7,624 kg)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S1C3-G "Twin Wasp" radial engine, 1,050 hp (783 kW) each
  • Propellers: 10 ft 11 in (3.3 m) Hamilton Standard 3T50 three-bladed constant-speed metal propellers
  • Fuel capacity: 514 imperial gallons (2,336 litres)

Performance


  • Maximum speed: 304 mph (489 km/h) at 13,000 ft (3,962 m)
  • Cruise speed: 248 mph (399 km/h)
  • Range: 1,300 miles (2,100 km)
  • Service ceiling: 29,500 ft (8,991 m)
  • Rate of climb: 2,400 ft/min (12 m/s)
  • Wing loading: 28.5 lb/ft² (139.1 kg/m²)
  • Power/mass: 0.157 hp/lb (259 W/kg)

Armament


  • Guns: 4 x .303 (7.7 mm) Browning Mk II machine guns in outer wings with 750 rpg, 1 × .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers K machine gun in dorsal and ventral step positions each with 5 x 97-round magazines
  • Bombs: 2,000 lb (907 kg) internally; (Usually 4 x 500 lb (227 kg) bombs)
 
He 100 is a non starter and should not even be in the discussion.
I agree that the Bf-110 should be repurposed as a ground attack/air defense suppression asset.
The machines already exist so you can't make them go away, you need to use them better.
Flying balls out at low level these machines are going to be a serious problem for the RAF. Just run straight at 300 mph at 200 AGL. Stopping this would be (almost) impossible.
Hurricanes wouldn't be able to close unless the vectors were flown very accurately. Spitfires could but that creates a void up above.
The Fw-187 deserves a serious look in such an ATL. The machine was air tested and proven, so it's definitely applicable within this proposal.
Problems abound however. Primary is the evaporative cooling system (as designed), the other is the DB601 production "problem".
There could have been a mandated program to split allocation of DB601 production between SE (109) fighters and TE(187).
It all comes back to how on earth anyone should be able to predict the rapid collapse of France. This (above all else) is why the Luftwaffe got caught with their pants around their ankles.
Trying to improve their position is fraught with a whole pile of intangibles.
Trying to hypothesize based on a floating set of "whatevers" is an exercise in futility...
In my opinion.
 

Deleted member 1487

For a more minimalist way of moving bombs, roughly half the empty weight of the Ju-88
Specifications (Maryland Mk I)
General characteristics

  • Crew: three (pilot, navigator/bomb aimer/gunner and radio operator/gunner)
  • Length: 46 ft 8 in (14.2 m)
  • Wingspan: 61 ft 4 in (18.7 m)
  • Height: 16 ft 3 in (5.0 m)
  • Wing area: 537 ft² (49.9 m²)
  • Empty weight: 10,586 lb (4,802 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 15,297 lb (6,939 kg)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 16,809 lb (7,624 kg)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S1C3-G "Twin Wasp" radial engine, 1,050 hp (783 kW) each
  • Propellers: 10 ft 11 in (3.3 m) Hamilton Standard 3T50 three-bladed constant-speed metal propellers
  • Fuel capacity: 514 imperial gallons (2,336 litres)

Performance


  • Maximum speed: 304 mph (489 km/h) at 13,000 ft (3,962 m)
  • Cruise speed: 248 mph (399 km/h)
  • Range: 1,300 miles (2,100 km)
  • Service ceiling: 29,500 ft (8,991 m)
  • Rate of climb: 2,400 ft/min (12 m/s)
  • Wing loading: 28.5 lb/ft² (139.1 kg/m²)
  • Power/mass: 0.157 hp/lb (259 W/kg)

Armament


  • Guns: 4 x .303 (7.7 mm) Browning Mk II machine guns in outer wings with 750 rpg, 1 × .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers K machine gun in dorsal and ventral step positions each with 5 x 97-round magazines
  • Bombs: 2,000 lb (907 kg) internally; (Usually 4 x 500 lb (227 kg) bombs)
Sounds similar to the Do17, but somehow having significantly better performance without being much lighter and about the same powered engines. I'd be curious to know if the performance is with or without bombs.
 
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.

This, the Luftwaffe's problem was not capability it was capacity. It simply could not stand up the attritional rigor of a sustained campaign. It started the Battle of France with 5349 aircraft of all types. Through the Battle of France and Battle of Britain it lost 3046 aircraft to all causes with over 1100 more damaged to one degree or another. In 1940 the Luftwaffe was already in a brutal war of attrition and this was before Hitler decided to take on the Soviet Union and the United States.
 
Sounds similar to the Do17, but somehow having significantly better performance without being much lighter and about the same powered engines. I'd be curious to know if the performance is with or without bombs.
13-69n.jpg

That's the original French version, set with 87 Octane

and this factoid
During the Battle of France, four Groupes with Glenns saw combat. Although designed more for close support, the Armee de l’Aire used the Martins as level medium bombers, and worked them hard in that role. Despite the workload, the Martin 167A-3’s had the lowest loss rate (around 5%) of any French bomber.
 
Last edited:

NoMommsen

Donor
snip

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

snip
Sry but ... no
Most likely you talk about the second batch of the 25 by Heinkel on his own account produced He-100 "D" variant, production numbers D-020 to D-025, equiped with 'normal sized permanent' cooler instead of the surface cooling with retractable auxillary cooler for take-off, the first batch, D-01 to D-019 were made alike.

snip
Main source : Heinz J. Novarra "Die Deutsche Lüftrüstung 1933-1939" vol. 2

I also might add : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_100#He_100_D-1
... But the big change was the eventual abandonment of the surface cooling system, which proved to be too complex and failure-prone. Instead an even larger version of the retractable radiator was installed, and this appeared to completely cure the problems. The radiator was inserted in a "plug" below the cockpit, and as a result the wings were widened slightly


He 100 is a non starter and should not even be in the discussion.
...
Why ?
I may direct you to my post from another thread also. But for a possible shortness of time :
...
So, in 1939 the He-100 D had the performance of the not even yet thought about follow-up model Me-109 F.

...

As often with the 'switch' from test to production there will be some loss of power-to-mass ratio and therefore speed.
But such a He-100 E will still - with around 600 km/h - outpace a Spitfire Mk I and be at least on par with a Mk II and being at least on par with both in terms of agility. With other engines 'in-the-pipe' as with the Mk III the He-100 will at least keep up with the former.
It will have a greater range as the Me-109 and therefore be able to stay longer in combat while sporting a heavier weaponry than its opponents.

Harder times for fighter command.
German bombers better escorted deper into Britain.
...
 
Last edited:
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.

The task of improving LW starts in 1936, per post #1. Thus there is no Bf 110, so all of the resources spent on it can be spent on a LR performer, whether we call it He 110 or otherwise.
LW needs numbers, going massed 2-engined A/C will not help them.

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

Test reports > Wikipedia figures. Ju-88 prototype also was not a production machine.
B-25H and late A-20G show what happens once you start adding macnine guns in turrets, blisters and even in hand-held version - speed takes a nose dive.
B-26G never used more than 2000 HP engine.

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.

Of course the Ju-88 was not planned to be tactical bomber, nobody designs tactical bombers that can fly 1500+ km bombed-up (goes also for Do-17 and He-111) - tactical use is what Hs 123 and Ju 87 were for. Douglas changed wing position on the DB7 per wishes of French purchasing comission, no problems.



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.
I think that would be a mistake, especially with a shittier Ju87 that you're proposing.

I'm not trying to turn Ju-87 into Mosquito, Stuka was already anti-thesis of streamlining with fixed U/C, huge wing for a 1-engined A/C, fixed tail Wheel, strutted tailplane etc. Reason for using the 323 on Stuka was specified in early posts here, namely to provide Jumo 211s for the early start of Ju 88 programme, while still having a good bomb-truck of tactical/operational tasks.

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:

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.

Hmm, yes, I've probably jumped the gun on this one.

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.

The Breda HMG was Italian piece of kit, ergo it is by default crappy per non-Italians unless proved otherwise.
Arrogance seldom worked, the earlier Germans part with it the better (for them). Waiting for a piece of kit is self-defeating, MG 131 didn't shot down a single Allied aircraft before 1942.

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 13mm round will still be more destructive, and 20mm still much more destructive. Both German and Japanese bagged hundreds, if not thousands Allied fighters even with low MV cannons.

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.

British AM was of opinion that HMG will work beyond 300 yards once computing sights are introduced, despite the BMG firing one of fastest bullets in use in ww2. Germans switched from very fast 15mm cannon to slower MV MG 151/20 within 6 months and never looked back.

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

Without air superiority and without actually fast bombers, LW bombers will take prohibitive losses against RAF above UK. Be that Stukas or He 111s.
 

Deleted member 1487

Sry but ... no
Main source : Heinz J. Novarra "Die Deutsche Lüftrüstung 1933-1939" vol. 2

I also might add : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_100#He_100_D-1
When did they first fly and what was the performance loss especially when coupled with armor, weapons, and ammo?
The fact is it wouldn't really enter service even in small numbers until 1940 at best. When was the D-1 series even production ready?
 

Deleted member 1487

LRDG thought well enough of them to use them
Might that be a function of access to ammo in the field, access to stocks of the weapon thanks to Operation Compass, and helping to confuse the enemy when they used them, as it would sound like they were Italians based on the report of their weaponry?
 

Deleted member 1487

The task of improving LW starts in 1936, per post #1. Thus there is no Bf 110, so all of the resources spent on it can be spent on a LR performer, whether we call it He 110 or otherwise.
LW needs numbers, going massed 2-engined A/C will not help them.
The Bf110 was flying in 1936, the He100 was still a napkin waffe in October 1937, while the Bf109 was already adopted. The prototype was delivered in January 1938, but it started a mess and remained so IOTL through 1939. Without ASB intervention I don't see how it can get ready in time for 1940 in significant numbers, nor do I see anywhere it stated that it lived up to it's prototype performance without armor, ammo, and weapons/other equipment. It's range was no better than the Me109F and Fw190 and probably only available in significant numbers about the same time, i.e. after 1940 when it would be needed. Even without the Bf110 something else is going to absorb the resources spent on the Bf110 by 1939 when the proposed compromised 'production' He100 might start to be available to begin phasing in to production. As it was in 1936 the He112 was the He100 of the time and it wasn't the performer the He100 was.
At that point you're better off proposing the Fw187 instead, as getting the He100 in any version earlier would violate your OP restrictions. We can also write off the Me109Z early for that reason too for consistency, though technologically it was possible at the time if asked for (though it would be based on the E series air frame and engine rather than the 1941 OTL version being based on h F series), while the He100 still needed time to be technically ready. Unless I'm misreading the restrictions you put on us in the OP.

Test reports > Wikipedia figures. Ju-88 prototype also was not a production machine.
B-25H and late A-20G show what happens once you start adding macnine guns in turrets, blisters and even in hand-held version - speed takes a nose dive.
B-26G never used more than 2000 HP engine.
Sure, but the production machine had a weight increase to make it dive capable, plus the ventral gondola, which added weight and drag. It compromised the design's speed and original purpose, which is not what happened with the transition to production models of the B25, B26, and A20.

Of course the Ju-88 was not planned to be tactical bomber, nobody designs tactical bombers that can fly 1500+ km bombed-up (goes also for Do-17 and He-111) - tactical use is what Hs 123 and Ju 87 were for. Douglas changed wing position on the DB7 per wishes of French purchasing comission, no problems.
We may be differing in our definitions of 'tactical' here, I don't mean it was CAS, rather this concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_bombing
Tactical bombing is employed for two primary assignments. Aircraft providing close air support attack targets in nearby proximity to friendly ground forces, acting in direct support of the ground operations (as a "flying artillery"). Air interdiction, by contrast, attacks tactical targets that are distant from or otherwise not in contact with friendly units.
It was supposed to be a speed bomber like the Mosquito with a limited payload to hit targets that were ideally engaged with 'light' bombs.

I'm not trying to turn Ju-87 into Mosquito, Stuka was already anti-thesis of streamlining with fixed U/C, huge wing for a 1-engined A/C, fixed tail Wheel, strutted tailplane etc. Reason for using the 323 on Stuka was specified in early posts here, namely to provide Jumo 211s for the early start of Ju 88 programme, while still having a good bomb-truck of tactical/operational tasks.
I'm not arguing it should be a Mosquito either, just pointing out that changing the aircraft from the OTL version with the liquid cooled Jumo engine means altering the aerodynamics as well as lowering the available power, raising the fuel consumption, and as result reducing OTL aircraft's range and carrying capacity. I don't necessarily think that would be a bad idea, just pointing out the trade offs that come with that move and that it would have consequences for the utility and survivability in 1940, which was already pretty bad in a contested air environment.


The Breda HMG was Italian piece of kit, ergo it is by default crappy per non-Italians unless proved otherwise.
Arrogance seldom worked, the earlier Germans part with it the better (for them). Waiting for a piece of kit is self-defeating, MG 131 didn't shot down a single Allied aircraft before 1942.
I don't think history necessarily proved that it was worth it, even if available earlier. In the ground role where the weight and firing rate weren't a problem it certainly would have behooved the German army to use it as they were severely deficient in the HMG category. I'd even argue that it might be useful for a ground attack aircraft like the HS123 or your proposed radial Ju87 for 1940 given the OTL lack of a 12.7/13mm HMG.

The 13mm round will still be more destructive, and 20mm still much more destructive. Both German and Japanese bagged hundreds, if not thousands Allied fighters even with low MV cannons.
If you can get a hit. That's the problem with the low rate of fire for both the Italian 13mm and the MG/FF, plus for the FF there was the issue of the low muzzle velocity/poor aerodynamic shape rounds (and low weight of the grenade rounds, which means it loses velocity even more quickly than standard bullets) and of course the poor drum magazine capacity of the design in 1940. That's ok to a degree for slow aircraft like bombers (depending on the defensive firepower) or the Shturmovik or when getting lucky and bouncing an enemy fighter, but there is a reason the Luftwaffe switched to the much heavier MG151/20 ASAP when it became available. Besides the Italian 13mm was slightly heavier than the MG FF, so no savings there, while being substantially less damaging than the MG FF with a slightly higher ROF and muzzle velocity. That said it was probably just enough better than the MG FF due to the lighter ammo and belt feed for 1940 that it would be an advantage to use instead, but that advantage would be gone as soon as the MG151 appears.

The thing is since we are talking about optimizing what is available in 1940 for the threats having multiple fast and flat firing MGs of a larger caliber than OTL MGs with an OTL off the shelf cartridge that could work in a modified, existing Luftwaffe MG and not only saved on weight, which would improve maneuverability and speed, but also increase ammo capacity and firing time in the air it would be an improvement. After all the RAF did bag thousands of Luftwaffe aircraft in 1940 with .303 rounds, as their 20mm cannons weren't available except in tiny numbers during part of the BoB. The proposed 9mm round would be even more effective than their 7.7mm bullets, due to higher velocity and having a higher explosive content (IIRC the British didn't field an explosive 7.7mm round), while not being overall that much heavier, certainly not as heavy as a 13mm cartridge. Plus you could have two of them for the weight of 1x Italian 13mm. 6x 9mm high velocity MGs would be as effective if not more than 8x .303.

British AM was of opinion that HMG will work beyond 300 yards once computing sights are introduced, despite the BMG firing one of fastest bullets in use in ww2. Germans switched from very fast 15mm cannon to slower MV MG 151/20 within 6 months and never looked back.
I'm not exactly sure what weapon you're referring to there to be able to comment on it.
As to the Luftwaffe's use of the MG151 vs 151/20, they did use both throughout the war. The 20mm was preferred for killing heavy bombers like the B17 because of their capacity to absorb punishment...which is not an issue in 1940 given the aircraft the Luftwaffe was facing from France and Britain. Plus if really needed the 'destroyer' or whatever they field in it's place/role can carry the 20mm cannons. SE fighters can carry the 9mm MGs and upgrade to the heavier guns as the MG151 becomes available.

Without air superiority and without actually fast bombers, LW bombers will take prohibitive losses against RAF above UK. Be that Stukas or He 111s.
Considering they withdrew the Stukas in August, but not He111s through the entire campaign, it is clear that the medium bombers were much more surviveable in contested airspace, especially when you consider the He111 was the primary bomber used in the campaign.
 
The Bf110 was flying in 1936, the He100 was still a napkin waffe in October 1937, while the Bf109 was already adopted. The prototype was delivered in January 1938, but it started a mess and remained so IOTL through 1939. Without ASB intervention I don't see how it can get ready in time for 1940 in significant numbers, nor do I see anywhere it stated that it lived up to it's prototype performance without armor, ammo, and weapons/other equipment. It's range was no better than the Me109F and Fw190 and probably only available in significant numbers about the same time, i.e. after 1940 when it would be needed. Even without the Bf110 something else is going to absorb the resources spent on the Bf110 by 1939 when the proposed compromised 'production' He100 might start to be available to begin phasing in to production. As it was in 1936 the He112 was the He100 of the time and it wasn't the performer the He100 was.
At that point you're better off proposing the Fw187 instead, as getting the He100 in any version earlier would violate your OP restrictions. We can also write off the Me109Z early for that reason too for consistency, though technologically it was possible at the time if asked for (though it would be based on the E series air frame and engine rather than the 1941 OTL version being based on h F series), while the He100 still needed time to be technically ready. Unless I'm misreading the restrictions you put on us in the OP.

Resources spent on Bf 110 will be better spent on more Bf 109s early on, and on He 100 later on. He 112 was not He 100 of it's time - He 112 was underperformer. I'm not sure why do you mention the 109F, since it not just lagged behind the He 100, but it was also a problematic A/C with tails and wings detaching themselves under high G loads (later modified to remedy those shortcomings). The Bf 109G, with more weight and HP, was good for 700-1100+ km of range without drop tanks, and 1150-1950 km of range with 300 L drop tank, depending on power setting.
Anything that is in pipeline from 1936-40 is in for this time line, that includes He 100.
I'm okay with Fw 190 project if we speed up it, like retaining the small wing and having V12 to power it, though it will still be probably too late for the BoB, apart from token examples.
I propose cancelling the Bf 110 (and Fw 187).
Bf 109Z that uses Bf 109E as parts donor sitll has to do with blocky nose, deep radiators, strutted tail, fixed U/C - all drag-inducing items, this time x2. Still 400 L of fuel per engine, unless we think that asymetrical fuel load is a good thing.

Sure, but the production machine had a weight increase to make it dive capable, plus the ventral gondola, which added weight and drag. It compromised the design's speed and original purpose, which is not what happened with the transition to production models of the B25, B26, and A20.

A-20G-20 was the draggiest of the A-20s, featuring a turret for 2 HMGs, that also required fuselage widening. It was also the heaviest. Still with 1600 HP engines as it was the case with A-20 (no suffix).
B-25H (and most of earlier examples) also featured turret, 4 HMG blisters, each version got heavier. B-25 (no suffix) was without turret and protection. Engines remained the same from B-25 to B-25J.
B-26 was also without turret. Later versions have gotten a bigger wing, that also got bigger incidence, plus HMG blisters. Engines got several % of extra power, less than 5% extra above 12000 ft.
Having LMGs replaced by HMGs on most of hand-held positions will increase drag & weight.
Net result of all of this was a reduction of speed. This might be a start of a good read.

We may be differing in our definitions of 'tactical' here, I don't mean it was CAS, rather this concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_bombing

It was supposed to be a speed bomber like the Mosquito with a limited payload to hit targets that were ideally engaged with 'light' bombs.

'Ideally engaged with 'light' bombs' - even if there was such a thing, a fast bomber that can lug both bigger and smaller bombs is a greater asset than a fast bomber that can carry just light bombs. As before, restricted bomb bay is a bug, not a feature, even the Germans tried and incorporated bigger and unrestricted bomb bays when He 177, Ju 288 and Do 217 were to replace He 111, Ju 88 and Do 17.

I'm not arguing it should be a Mosquito either, just pointing out that changing the aircraft from the OTL version with the liquid cooled Jumo engine means altering the aerodynamics as well as lowering the available power, raising the fuel consumption, and as result reducing OTL aircraft's range and carrying capacity. I don't necessarily think that would be a bad idea, just pointing out the trade offs that come with that move and that it would have consequences for the utility and survivability in 1940, which was already pretty bad in a contested air environment.

For take-off, Jumo 211A was making 1000 HP, Bramo 323P (2-speed S/C, as installed on Do-17Z from 1938 on) was also making 1000 HP. Installed 323P was lighter than Jumo 211A: 580 kg vs 615 kg + liquid cooling system.
Reason I've suggested re-engining the Ju 87 with 323 is not beacuse the 323 was a wonder engine, but because that way we still have more than useful short-range dive bomber, while having enough of engines to support the early start of Ju 88 program where each bomber will obvoiusly require two engines.

If you can get a hit. That's the problem with the low rate of fire for both the Italian 13mm and the MG/FF, plus for the FF there was the issue of the low muzzle velocity/poor aerodynamic shape rounds (and low weight of the grenade rounds, which means it loses velocity even more quickly than standard bullets) and of course the poor drum magazine capacity of the design in 1940. That's ok to a degree for slow aircraft like bombers (depending on the defensive firepower) or the Shturmovik or when getting lucky and bouncing an enemy fighter, but there is a reason the Luftwaffe switched to the much heavier MG151/20 ASAP when it became available. Besides the Italian 13mm was slightly heavier than the MG FF, so no savings there, while being substantially less damaging than the MG FF with a slightly higher ROF and muzzle velocity. That said it was probably just enough better than the MG FF due to the lighter ammo and belt feed for 1940 that it would be an advantage to use instead, but that advantage would be gone as soon as the MG151 appears.

People were getting hits, even with 540 m/s slow MG FF, even on fighters or small bombers or recons. Many made themselfs aces.
Italian HMG fired at 700 rpg 'free', that makes it 100 rpg faster than the American BMG before 1940. Much better were Belgian HMGs (advertising RoFs of 1000-1200 rpg), Soviet DSHK is not used as aircraft HMG, German MG 131 is not available until way too late. I'm not trying to save on weight vs. MG FF(M), the cannon was already lightest available.
MG 151 is too early for 1940, and it it was no easy fit in confines of the Bf 109, meaning just one per Bf 109 unless we want to pay drag & weight penalty of the gondoly weapon. The DB 601A didn't agreed well with motor-cannon until Autumn of 1940 anyway.
Italian HMG will be much more damaging than 7.5-9mm MG.
Luftwaffe still needs to shoot down Allied bombers trying to bomb German columns.

The thing is since we are talking about optimizing what is available in 1940 for the threats having multiple fast and flat firing MGs of a larger caliber than OTL MGs with an OTL off the shelf cartridge that could work in a modified, existing Luftwaffe MG and not only saved on weight, which would improve maneuverability and speed, but also increase ammo capacity and firing time in the air it would be an improvement. After all the RAF did bag thousands of Luftwaffe aircraft in 1940 with .303 rounds, as their 20mm cannons weren't available except in tiny numbers during part of the BoB. The proposed 9mm round would be even more effective than their 7.7mm bullets, due to higher velocity and having a higher explosive content (IIRC the British didn't field an explosive 7.7mm round), while not being overall that much heavier, certainly not as heavy as a 13mm cartridge. Plus you could have two of them for the weight of 1x Italian 13mm. 6x 9mm high velocity MGs would be as effective if not more than 8x .303.

I hear you loud & clear. I'd still pick 4 x Breda 12.7 for the Bf 109s, or 2 x 12.7 + 2 x MG FFM (with at least 90 rd drums) for 1940.

I'm not exactly sure what weapon you're referring to there to be able to comment on it.
As to the Luftwaffe's use of the MG151 vs 151/20, they did use both throughout the war. The 20mm was preferred for killing heavy bombers like the B17 because of their capacity to absorb punishment...which is not an issue in 1940 given the aircraft the Luftwaffe was facing from France and Britain. Plus if really needed the 'destroyer' or whatever they field in it's place/role can carry the 20mm cannons. SE fighters can carry the 9mm MGs and upgrade to the heavier guns as the MG151 becomes available.

I'd avoid anything under a HMG.
LW used perhaps zero 15mm cannons on Fw 190s, and again zero on Bf 109s bar F1 and F2. 15mm cannons represented perhaps 1% of all guns/cannons on dive bombers, night fighters or attack A/C, if even as much?
MG 151 is no drop-in replacement for LMGs, not even for MG 131s. A fighter with two 20 mm cannons is not picky when it is about targets.

Considering they withdrew the Stukas in August, but not He111s through the entire campaign, it is clear that the medium bombers were much more surviveable in contested airspace, especially when you consider the He111 was the primary bomber used in the campaign.

The 2-engined jobs were indeed more survivable than Ju 87s.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the He-100 was only armed with a single 20mm MG FF cannon plus two 7.92mm MG's, one cannon less than the Bf-109E. It required a good marksman to get hits, the Bf-109F replaced the wing-mounted MG FF's with a single 20mm MG 151 in a similar layout and many pilots complained about how hard it was to get hits on their targets...
 
Sure, to think of a short decisive war is cool, but reality is often disappointing as the last war showed them. So hope for the best and prepare for the worse with an efficient training program, rr and a reserve pool of air crews.
What is the main target? The Soviet Union.
But to get a chance at it, first the UK must be dealt with. So how to do that?
There is no chance in hell to catch the UK in the naval race so cancel the heavy ships all together and focus on a small coastal navy but with a strong naval aviation. It will be best if it could be done in secret.
 

Deleted member 1487

Sure, to think of a short decisive war is cool, but reality is often disappointing as the last war showed them. So hope for the best and prepare for the worse with an efficient training program, rr and a reserve pool of air crews.
What is the main target? The Soviet Union.
But to get a chance at it, first the UK must be dealt with. So how to do that?
There is no chance in hell to catch the UK in the naval race so cancel the heavy ships all together and focus on a small coastal navy but with a strong naval aviation. It will be best if it could be done in secret.
They did have a large pool of reserves in May 1940; per van Creveld they had a 10,000 man aircrew reserve, but between May-October 1940 they suffered huge losses and pretty heavily depleted the reserve pool of pre-war well trained and more importantly highly experienced pilots. The USSR wasn't considered a target until after France was defeated and wasn't confirmed as one so soon until December 1940 by which time the Luftwaffe was heavily depleted and trying to rebuild itself; repeated attrition in campaigns across Europe and the Mediterranean in the lead up to Barbarossa certainly did not help and even stocks of non-damaged/destroyed aircraft air frames had been worn down.

R&R happened, but generally it was short and at the point there was a breakdown or they had hit some uncommon milestone. Casualty rates prevented anything else. People tend to forget that the Wallies were only able to pull that off because they had a FAR less intense conflict compared to the Germans and Soviets, so they could afford to rotate personnel, especially as they invested proportionally more in their air forces than ground forces.

Yeah the navy thing would be wise, but then Hitler and Raeder had a thing for big weapon systems. Maybe Wegener somehow becomes the head of the navy? Raeder dying early wouldn't hurt.

Resources spent on Bf 110 will be better spent on more Bf 109s early on, and on He 100 later on. He 112 was not He 100 of it's time - He 112 was underperformer. I'm not sure why do you mention the 109F, since it not just lagged behind the He 100, but it was also a problematic A/C with tails and wings detaching themselves under high G loads (later modified to remedy those shortcomings). The Bf 109G, with more weight and HP, was good for 700-1100+ km of range without drop tanks, and 1150-1950 km of range with 300 L drop tank, depending on power setting.
Anything that is in pipeline from 1936-40 is in for this time line, that includes He 100.
How do you get around Goering? Or the need to have weapon systems in place before WW2 started? Technically the He100 wasn't ready until after the shooting started and competed with the Bf109 for engine and duplicated it's role. The Fw190 at least used a different engine and a relatively underutilized aircraft company's design that didn't disrupt production.
What of the Fw187? Or need to have a heavier fighter to carry the big guns in enough mass to down a heavy bomber? The F series Me109 did everything the He100 did, just somewhat later and was already very well grooved in the production cycle without disrupting anything, which the He100 would certainly do. The F-series was fixed pretty quickly all things considered once the problem was even realized.
The G was largely much the same as the F in terms of the aerodynamics, just strengthened for a more powerful engine and for field mods, the range gains were from the F upgrades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants#Aerodynamic_improvements

I'm okay with Fw 190 project if we speed up it, like retaining the small wing and having V12 to power it, though it will still be probably too late for the BoB, apart from token examples.
I propose cancelling the Bf 110 (and Fw 187).
Bf 109Z that uses Bf 109E as parts donor sitll has to do with blocky nose, deep radiators, strutted tail, fixed U/C - all drag-inducing items, this time x2. Still 400 L of fuel per engine, unless we think that asymetrical fuel load is a good thing.
Then an earlier Fw190 offers no benefit to this TL. So we've got the Fw187, why cancel it, especially when it would have a lot more range than the He100 and would be available in greater numbers due to being in production before the war starts, which helps work out production bugs too, as well as get pilot experience with the aircraft. The He100 at best will be somewhat of a help in 1941, but by then the Me109F already does what the He100 does.
The Me109Z based on the E of course will have it's own issues as you point out. Unlike the Bf110 it doesn't have the third drag inducing item, the central fuselage, while has plenty of production advantages, can be ready before the war and available in even greater numbers than the Bf110, and be faster than a single engine version, as the historical Me109Z was as was the F-82 vs the Mustang it was based on. So even with the drag inducing elements of the E-series air frame the extra speed and power will reduce the time spent on the fuel wasting parts of flight, like climb to altitude.

A-20G-20 was the draggiest of the A-20s, featuring a turret for 2 HMGs, that also required fuselage widening. It was also the heaviest. Still with 1600 HP engines as it was the case with A-20 (no suffix).
B-25H (and most of earlier examples) also featured turret, 4 HMG blisters, each version got heavier. B-25 (no suffix) was without turret and protection. Engines remained the same from B-25 to B-25J.
B-26 was also without turret. Later versions have gotten a bigger wing, that also got bigger incidence, plus HMG blisters. Engines got several % of extra power, less than 5% extra above 12000 ft.
Having LMGs replaced by HMGs on most of hand-held positions will increase drag & weight.
Net result of all of this was a reduction of speed. This might be a start of a good read.
Alright sure, yet the Ju88 IOTL will all those elements itself was still faster in bomber configuration with weaker engines; lighten the aircraft and cut the drag by eliminating the gondola and dive bombing feature and you've got a significantly faster Ju88.

'Ideally engaged with 'light' bombs' - even if there was such a thing, a fast bomber that can lug both bigger and smaller bombs is a greater asset than a fast bomber that can carry just light bombs. As before, restricted bomb bay is a bug, not a feature, even the Germans tried and incorporated bigger and unrestricted bomb bays when He 177, Ju 288 and Do 217 were to replace He 111, Ju 88 and Do 17.
Sure, but then you don't have a fast bomber any more, which makes it vulnerable to interception even more. Besides the Ju88 was also imagined as somewhat of a multirole aircraft where the speed and limited space spent on bomb bay capacity would increase it's ability to function and I'm sure that had the Luftwaffe made bombs of intermediate capacity between 50 and 250kg they could have fit in bigger, heavier bombs without modification of the bay. Plus the He111 could handle the bigger stuff as needed, while the HE177 was supposed to handle the biggest bombs and loads.
The Ju288 was supposed to replace the need for the He177 and be a universal bomber; the Ju88 was supposed to replace the Do17, while the He177 was supposed to fill a role the Luftwaffe had left unfilled as yet. The Do217 was supposed to replace the He111 in conjunction with the He177.

For take-off, Jumo 211A was making 1000 HP, Bramo 323P (2-speed S/C, as installed on Do-17Z from 1938 on) was also making 1000 HP. Installed 323P was lighter than Jumo 211A: 580 kg vs 615 kg + liquid cooling system.
Reason I've suggested re-engining the Ju 87 with 323 is not beacuse the 323 was a wonder engine, but because that way we still have more than useful short-range dive bomber, while having enough of engines to support the early start of Ju 88 program where each bomber will obvoiusly require two engines.
Fuel consumption of the Bramo was worse and IIRC the Jumo could sustain higher speeds at altitude for longer too, plus the nose configuration was more aerodynamic and less drag inducing than the wider radial.

Again, I get the point of what you were suggesting, just pointing out the trade off that comes with it.

People were getting hits, even with 540 m/s slow MG FF, even on fighters or small bombers or recons. Many made themselfs aces.
Italian HMG fired at 700 rpg 'free', that makes it 100 rpg faster than the American BMG before 1940. Much better were Belgian HMGs (advertising RoFs of 1000-1200 rpg), Soviet DSHK is not used as aircraft HMG, German MG 131 is not available until way too late. I'm not trying to save on weight vs. MG FF(M), the cannon was already lightest available.
MG 151 is too early for 1940, and it it was no easy fit in confines of the Bf 109, meaning just one per Bf 109 unless we want to pay drag & weight penalty of the gondoly weapon. The DB 601A didn't agreed well with motor-cannon until Autumn of 1940 anyway.
Italian HMG will be much more damaging than 7.5-9mm MG.
Luftwaffe still needs to shoot down Allied bombers trying to bomb German columns.
Certainly the MG FF was workable, though the Minengeschoss was firing 700m/s instead of the 540m/s AP and regular bullets.
The Italian gun was less powerful, so shorter ranged with less energy, though that is less important due to the HE rounds it could fire (which were still substantially less full of explosives than the German 13mm rounds).
Weight savings are important, a big part of the reason the performance of the Me109F improved was removing the weight of armament from the wings, which allowed for improved wings.
Yes a 9-9.3mm round would be less powerful than a 12.7mm one, even with it's own minengeschoss round, but we are talking about weight of fire, which would be substantially heavier given than the MG17 fired 1200 RPM and you can fit 2 in for the size and weight of the Breda, plus carry more ammo AND have weight savings to spare (improving speed and fuel usage). Having the weight of fire of faster and flatter firing 2x more guns will mean more damage per burst than one by a single slower firing 12.7mm. We're talking potentially 4x as many hits per second just from the wing guns to rip the aircraft apart. Any RAF and ALA bomber of the time is going to vulnerable to that. Even with 'just' a regular HE round that weight of fire is going to do the damage necessary and more.

I hear you loud & clear. I'd still pick 4 x Breda 12.7 for the Bf 109s, or 2 x 12.7 + 2 x MG FFM (with at least 90 rd drums) for 1940.
Actually you're not reading me right, the Breda was HEAVIER than the MG FF (28kg vs 26). So only 2 Bredas in the wings (1 per wing) with even more weight than OTL and potentially less for ammo.

I'd avoid anything under a HMG.
LW used perhaps zero 15mm cannons on Fw 190s, and again zero on Bf 109s bar F1 and F2. 15mm cannons represented perhaps 1% of all guns/cannons on dive bombers, night fighters or attack A/C, if even as much?
MG 151 is no drop-in replacement for LMGs, not even for MG 131s. A fighter with two 20 mm cannons is not picky when it is about targets.
I'm not sure why you'd think that about the Fw190. Are you really claiming the MG151 was barely ever used at all? Later on given the light armament of the Me109F and beyond, plus need to fight B17s and 24s they had to have the 20mm, though even against fighter with only 1 gun beyond a 7.92mm they needed to maximize firepower. That's not an issue in the 1940 Me109E though. Now if we could find some plausible way to have a motor cannon and drop the wing guns altogether, then we'd have a REAL advantage in 1940 for the BoB. If the Breda could work for that, then it is indeed a winner, especially if you then have 9-9.3mm MG17s as the fuselage MGs. Though light by later standards, for 1940 it would be sufficient if the Fw187 was around for the heavy firepower for bomber killing.


The 2-engined jobs were indeed more survivable than Ju 87s.
Yes, so what point are you trying to make? Making an even lower performing Ju87 isn't going to make them any more useful for the BoB.
 
Yes, so what point are you trying to make? Making an even lower performing Ju87 isn't going to make them any more useful for the BoB.

The slightly lower speed won't make much difference from being easy meat to a Hurricane: any 1940 dive bomber will get chewed up when bounced by fighters

And a radial may make the Stuka more survivable without a liquid cooled engine and radiator in place
 
How do you get around Goering? Or the need to have weapon systems in place before WW2 started? Technically the He100 wasn't ready until after the shooting started and competed with the Bf109 for engine and duplicated it's role. The Fw190 at least used a different engine and a relatively underutilized aircraft company's design that didn't disrupt production.
What of the Fw187? Or need to have a heavier fighter to carry the big guns in enough mass to down a heavy bomber? The F series Me109 did everything the He100 did, just somewhat later and was already very well grooved in the production cycle without disrupting anything, which the He100 would certainly do. The F-series was fixed pretty quickly all things considered once the problem was even realized.
The G was largely much the same as the F in terms of the aerodynamics, just strengthened for a more powerful engine and for field mods, the range gains were from the F upgrades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants#Aerodynamic_improvements

Ju 88 in OTL was not in place before ww2 started, so that qualifier was not around historically in Germany.
109F series wings and tails shedding off was sorted out indeed, but way in 1941. I know that gains in range were a product of aerodynamic iprovements the 109F had vs. 109E.
The OTL Bf 109E carried enough of firepower to kill any Allied bomber of 1939-40, I don't plan on ALT Bf 109 carrying any less.
Focke Wulf was making trainers, Bf 110s, Fw 189s Fw 200s before Fw 190 was introduced. Here, they can make Bf 109s instead of Bf 110s.


Then an earlier Fw190 offers no benefit to this TL. So we've got the Fw187, why cancel it, especially when it would have a lot more range than the He100 and would be available in greater numbers due to being in production before the war starts, which helps work out production bugs too, as well as get pilot experience with the aircraft. The He100 at best will be somewhat of a help in 1941, but by then the Me109F already does what the He100 does.
The Me109Z based on the E of course will have it's own issues as you point out. Unlike the Bf110 it doesn't have the third drag inducing item, the central fuselage, while has plenty of production advantages, can be ready before the war and available in even greater numbers than the Bf110, and be faster than a single engine version, as the historical Me109Z was as was the F-82 vs the Mustang it was based on. So even with the drag inducing elements of the E-series air frame the extra speed and power will reduce the time spent on the fuel wasting parts of flight, like climb to altitude.

P-82 was not faster than P-51H.
Granted, we can expect the twinned Bf 109 being slightly faster than the version of the 109 that serves as base. Bf 109Z in 1939-40 still does not solve the problem of short range , nor the acute problem of lack of DB 601s in 1939-40.

Alright sure, yet the Ju88 IOTL will all those elements itself was still faster in bomber configuration with weaker engines; lighten the aircraft and cut the drag by eliminating the gondola and dive bombing feature and you've got a significantly faster Ju88.

Sure, but then you don't have a fast bomber any more, which makes it vulnerable to interception even more. Besides the Ju88 was also imagined as somewhat of a multirole aircraft where the speed and limited space spent on bomb bay capacity would increase it's ability to function and I'm sure that had the Luftwaffe made bombs of intermediate capacity between 50 and 250kg they could have fit in bigger, heavier bombs without modification of the bay. Plus the He111 could handle the bigger stuff as needed, while the HE177 was supposed to handle the biggest bombs and loads.

Ju-88A-1, series-produced bomber, was slow with 460 km/h per German Wikipedia; Ju-88A-4, with better engines, did 480 km/h. Sticking bombs under the wings will slow it further.
With 'elevated' wing that enables better layout of the bomb bay I still have equaly fast Ju-88, that is now also capable of carrying bigger bombs = being a more useful bomber.
He-111 was a good bomber, having more useful Ju-88s in good numbers improves overall LW ability to destroy the targets it attacks. Luftwaffe was rightly focused on the bombs of 250-500-1000-1400-1800 kg weight.

The Ju288 was supposed to replace the need for the He177 and be a universal bomber; the Ju88 was supposed to replace the Do17, while the He177 was supposed to fill a role the Luftwaffe had left unfilled as yet. The Do217 was supposed to replace the He111 in conjunction with the He177.

You're probably right here.

Fuel consumption of the Bramo was worse and IIRC the Jumo could sustain higher speeds at altitude for longer too, plus the nose configuration was more aerodynamic and less drag inducing than the wider radial.

Manual for the Do-17Z with Bramo 323P engines states specific consumption of 215-226 g/PSh at max continuous power (here, pg. 35). Jumo 211B/D went between 209 and 220 g/psg, also for max contiuous (here, post #6). All values are for altitudes under 6 km. 3% of bigger specific consumption for the 323. If you think that 460 L of fuel will not cut it for brickhouse Ju-87/323, we can just wonder how far the Hs 123 with 270 L will go.
Do 17Z was not noted as slow bomber either.

Again, I get the point of what you were suggesting, just pointing out the trade off that comes with it.

There ain't such thing as free lunch. I was trying to get more food for the lunch, for same money spent.


The Italian gun was less powerful, so shorter ranged with less energy, though that is less important due to the HE rounds it could fire (which were still substantially less full of explosives than the German 13mm rounds).
Weight savings are important, a big part of the reason the performance of the Me109F improved was removing the weight of armament from the wings, which allowed for improved wings.
Yes a 9-9.3mm round would be less powerful than a 12.7mm one, even with it's own minengeschoss round, but we are talking about weight of fire, which would be substantially heavier given than the MG17 fired 1200 RPM and you can fit 2 in for the size and weight of the Breda, plus carry more ammo AND have weight savings to spare (improving speed and fuel usage). Having the weight of fire of faster and flatter firing 2x more guns will mean more damage per burst than one by a single slower firing 12.7mm. We're talking potentially 4x as many hits per second just from the wing guns to rip the aircraft apart. Any RAF and ALA bomber of the time is going to vulnerable to that. Even with 'just' a regular HE round that weight of fire is going to do the damage necessary and more.

Bf 109 performance, E->F, was mostly improved via a) aerodynamical improvements (mostly the nose, tail, radiators, tailwheel) and b) better powerplant (includes engines, props, ram air intake). Granted, no cannon barrels protruding from wings also earned a few mph.
All Bf 109s were already very light, and 109Fs were also capable to carry either MG FFM in wings (as it was done on several 'specials') or gondolas under the wings.
Ripping aircraft apart didn't worked for the RAF with 8, even with 12 LMGs, they switched to cannons in due haste and when available. Just because MG 17 weights 10 kg and fires at 1200 rpm does not mean that 50% more poweful 9-9.3 mm will do same rpm at same weight.
People all around the world were switching to either HMG or cannons and never looked back at LMG, even the Soviets with their Skash

Actually you're not reading me right, the Breda was HEAVIER than the MG FF (28kg vs 26). So only 2 Bredas in the wings (1 per wing) with even more weight than OTL and potentially less for ammo.

Two Bredas in fuselage synchronised (MG 17 is obviously deleted), either one Breda or one MG FFM in each wing.
Bredas also make for a far better bomber defensive weapon than LMG, so we can have at least 3 trainable on early He-111, 1 on Ju-87 etc.

I'm not sure why you'd think that about the Fw190. Are you really claiming the MG151 was barely ever used at all? Later on given the light armament of the Me109F and beyond, plus need to fight B17s and 24s they had to have the 20mm, though even against fighter with only 1 gun beyond a 7.92mm they needed to maximize firepower. That's not an issue in the 1940 Me109E though. Now if we could find some plausible way to have a motor cannon and drop the wing guns altogether, then we'd have a REAL advantage in 1940 for the BoB. If the Breda could work for that, then it is indeed a winner, especially if you then have 9-9.3mm MG17s as the fuselage MGs. Though light by later standards, for 1940 it would be sufficient if the Fw187 was around for the heavy firepower for bomber killing.

Yes, MG 151/15 was barely used at all after 1941.
Bf 109F4s and G2s were rarely if ever were pitted against B-17s/24s, despite that the G-2 already in 1942 have had option for gondola cannons as standard. Even on Eastern front.

Yes, so what point are you trying to make? Making an even lower performing Ju87 isn't going to make them any more useful for the BoB.

My points are:
- no lack of engines for earlier start of Ju 88 program
- Ju 87 is still a viable and usable short range bomber, even with linitations of OTL, like the need for fighter cover

The slightly lower speed won't make much difference from being easy meat to a Hurricane: any 1940 dive bomber will get chewed up when bounced by fighters

And a radial may make the Stuka more survivable without a liquid cooled engine and radiator in place

Agreed all the way.
 
Last edited:
Visit a fortune teller in 1933 and believe her when she tells you that by some weird tactical magic the LW will have bases in northern France in 1940.
Then change evrything accordingly only to find out the problem with butterflies when your new "made for BoB LW" fails to deliver tactical support and the Allies defeat plan yellow.
 
Vastly remade training and manpower-management. Rotate veteran aircrews to training schools, to provide instructors with hands-on combat experience, like the RAF and USAF did. Greatly improves overall quality, at the expense of loosing those huge kill scores only a few managed.
 
Top