I prefer not to fight out-numbered.
Given pilot constraints and need for twin engine fighters for missions and single engines were unsuited that probably isn't going to be an option even with a 1936 POD.
Having LR fighters around for the LW in BoB also means that not just Fighter Command's Groups 10 and 11 are engaged, but also full Group 12. Even parts of Group 13, if they stray in north parts of Midlands.
Perhaps, depending on what you're trying to accomplish.
I'm not sure where do you get that Fw 187 had twice the range of Bf 110, the excerpt you've quoted mentions Bf 109B.
I didn't say twice the range of the Bf110, twice the range of the Me109E and more range than the Bf110, which didn't need drop tanks during the BoB as it was. Using the link and quote was to show that it would have double the range of the Bf109 with the same engine and more speed by a pretty significant margin thanks to weight and aerodynamics in conjunction with the two engines. That also means that with the DB601A, Aa, or N engine it would maintain that advantage over the E series in 1940 while heavily out performing the Bf110 with the same engines, indeed outperform the He100D-1 even with it's mythical performance (even more if the 187 also has the surface evaporative cooling system), not to mention the RAF fighters of the day.
I know that Bf 110 had option of changing the drums, that option will not be there neither for the Fw 187.
Sure, though on balance not really that big of a problem considering the virtues of the Fw187. It would be even less of one if they instead had 8 or more belt fed 9.3mm MGs
We don't know several things about the Fw 187: internal fuel for Jumo version, intrnal fuel for DB version, state of self-sealing tanks (has those, or not?) and how much they subtract fuel quantity.
I'm pretty sure this was dealt with on the WW2 aircraft forum as the V6 model was fitted in 1942 with DB605 engines and used for plant defense and a gunnery school in Denmark.
Source for up to 1050 km range on internal fuel is
here, last page, FWIW. Doc states, at bottom, that speed run tests were undertaken between SL and 5000 m, as well as climb tests between SL and 6000m.
My opinion that He 100 will be ready for BoB, in decent numbers, provided it has RLM interest and backing from at least 1938.
Is that the model with the evaporative cooling system though? It says May 1939, which IIRC still had that system in place.
Per English language wikipedia FWIW they had 3 D-0 series with the evaporative cooling system, which they were testing and would match the performance quoted in the document. It says it was only the D-1 models that removed it, but Russian wikipedia says those models still had it and were marketed to the Soviets who examined them extensively and bought 6, citing Russian language sources on the aircraft.
I'm not claiming that it can't be ready in some form in limited numbers by the BoB, but sources are still contradictory on the issue of the cooling system from the people that actually bought the D-1 series aircraft as they were specifically interested in the surface evaporative cooling system, having tested their own version themselves. That system probably kills the aircraft as a combat model.
Several times it was suggested by other people that Germany needs better pilot training program, I agree with that.
Sure, but in what way and what sacrifices are willing to be made in the training program, as they will need significant cuts in hours and quality of personnel.
Neither wings nor spars, but fuselage frame that supported rear spar.
Can you post a picture of what you mean that is obstructing bomb capacity? And an example of a bomb bay without that if you could. It would help clarify things quite a bit.
RAF bombing policy is rightly questioned, especially for the 1st half of war. Their drive for ever bigger bombs was a correct path. I never suggested carpet-bombig of UK cities, big bombs will be needed to destroy factories, marshaling yards, to carry mines, to plant timed bombs.
I'm unlikely to forget the Ju 88, my idea (as a rivet-counter, not as a warmonger) is to have it both earlier and more capable for BoB.
The bigger bombs they developed though were either for special missions like the Tall Boys or for city busting. The Mosquito, which is in the same category as the Ju88 was supposed to have been, only carried the blockbuster bomb for city demolition and used smaller bombs for all other missions and the biggest of those, the 230kg bombs specially shortened for their small bomb bay, were only for very specific targets, and smaller bombs were better for most missions outside of pathfinder operations.
The more the faster bombers with bigger bombs, the merrier. Investing two V12 engines on a 10-13 ton bomber in order just to have 1000 kg (20 x 50 kg) of bombs is a questionable economy.
Internally the Ju88 could carry 1400kg internally, probably more if they had bombs between 50kg and 250kg in weight and size. Some times it's not about the weight of bombs on the target, but the accuracy or spread. Fewer bigger bombs isn't actually appropriate in many cases. Using two engines is actually useful depending on the range of the target and speed you need to avoid interception. See the Mosquito, light bomber, mostly carried less than 1000kg per mission, but very survivable due to speed and range. Lightening the Ju88 would have been even better, which they could do by dropping the dive requirement and not adding an extra crew member and draggy gondola.
Drop tanks were standard outfit on Ju 87R-1/R-2 (versions of the 87B-1/B-2), Ju 88A-4, Do 217E, plus A-20 and Mosquito.
Utterly insane is to design an expensive bomber that has a bomb bay of questionable utility, so one must lug proper bombs out in the slipstream.
It was a limited edition model mostly for naval bombing and it heavily restricted the payload. It also sounded like they didn't actually drop the tanks, as they were strengthened to withstand dives. So what you're calling drop tanks were mostly just extra external fuel tanks that were only dropped in an emergency and actually retained when possible. The extra external bombs of larger size were really only necessary in special cases/targets and even aircraft like the Mosquito had to have draggy special bulges to carry theirs. If you need big bombs just use a He111 or Do217. The 217 actually made more sense if you wanted to carry the big stuff internally, the He111 for up to 250kg bombs, and the Ju88 for the smaller stuff. Why try to make the Ju88 into an He111, 177, or Do217?
Granted, Fw 187 was much better off with size and aerodynamics vs. Bf 110.
Weights with Jumo 210 engines:
Fw 187A-0 weighted 3700 kg empty, ~4990 kg for take-off (per German Wiki); Bf-109D weighted for take off was at 2160 kg (per SAM book of the Bf 109 up to 109E). Bf 110B: empty ~4200 kg, for take off up to 5700 kg (per manual
here); 5405 kg with no extra ammo drums.
With DB 601A:
Fw 187 ??
Bf 109E-3: for take off, clean, 2608 kg. Bf 110C: empty 4900 or 5020 kg, for TO: 6530 (with crew of 3 and extra ammo drums) or 6040 kg (crew of two, no extra drums) (all per data sheets from wwiiaircraftperformance.org)
FWIW
That matches the numbers I had. So why not use that considering it would be ready much sooner than the He110D ever would, plus would carry heavier firepower, as the He100D-1 was restricted to 1 cannon and 2 MGs? You'd have more ready in production in 1939 before the war started and the production, training, and combat experience path already grooved.
This thread was supposed to cover 1936-40 time frame, and needs of Luftwaffe. Let's check out how other countries stack with regard of HMGs in artime part of hat era, obviously Autumn of 1939 to late Autumn of 1940. In service wepons only, installed on aircraft by series:
Soviet Union: 0 m/s muzzle velocity, 0 rpm (= no HMG in service as specified)
Japan: same result
Germany: same result
France: same result (even though the 13.2mm was used on ground, with 450 rpm and 800 m/s; box-feed; heavier than Breda 12.7 mm)
UK: air-cooled
Vickers 0.50 in, 24 kg, belt feed, 700 rpm, 750-775 m/s
USA: M2 air cooled, RoF improved from 600 to 800 by 1940, 840-890 m/s, 27 kg, belt feed.
Belgium: versions of the BMG with RoF improved to 1000-1200 rpm
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/一式十二・七粍固定機関砲
The Japanese introduced the Ho-103 in 1939 and it was all around better than the Italian Breda-SAFAT. In fact if that was the gun you went with I'd have less reservations about that, as it was significantly lighter, faster firing, and IIRC more powerful.
Here is the thing about any version of the Browning based 12.7mm MG...in the sychronized, i.e. fuselage gun configuration, the Browning mechanism is poorly sync-able to the prop movement so they have to really slow the rate of fire down to 4-500 rpm max. That was a problem with the Italian and Japanese versions, as well as the American, which is why the US versions were always wing mounted outside the prop range. So the Italian version, besides having a relative low ROF already got substantially worse (in the range of the MP40's full auto ROF), was too big for the Me109's fuselage mounting space (but would probably work for the motor cannon configuration), had a relatively bad muzzle velocity, and a poor HE round that had to be withdrawn because it had a bad habit of exploding close to the muzzle, and so on. Some of that could be corrected in the German version, namely the HE round, which could use the German 13mm version, but it would still have to deal with all it's major flaws without the upgrades the Japanese gave it.
The Breda 12.7mm with 765 m/s, 700 rpm and 29 kg is bested by US and Belgian HMGs, while Vickers offers lower weight for same RoF and MV. Neither SU, nor Germany nor Japan have anything comparable in service. Germany will have easiest time to get licence from Italians.
The Japanese did as of 1939 and the Germans in 1940, just not in German fighters in 1940. Other than as a motor cannon weapon the Italian version is really a dud. That said...it might actually be a worthwhile option as a motor cannon weapon and only as such. Though putting it into production at all might be a waste of resources.
Talk about level playing field - we are to design and produce Mine shell for LMG, yet not for HMG? 10-15 more bullets for LMG set-up vs. HMG set-up? 760 m/s became low MV, yet 710-750 for the MG 131 is not? Somehow round of LMG is more powerful than the round of HMG?
But, at any rate, I'd avoid HE ammo for HMGs, let alone LMGs. API all the way.
You certainly could and compared to the OTL Italian HE rounds you'd want to, quite badly. The question is what sort of muzzle velocity you'd be looking at. The advantage of the MG (not LMG) set up of the 9.3mm round (even with a B Patrone configuration) is that you'd have a 10.5kg weapon with potentially higher ROF than even the OTL MG17 due to the more powerful round. With a 250 grain 9.3mm HE round (not even minengeschoss) you'd have at least 850m/s at the muzzle, which is 100m/s higher than the Italian gun, as well as a LOT more of them thanks to two for the price of one for weight and size, not to mention weight of fire caused by the much high ROF. The MG131 did have relatively poor muzzle velocity too, I am not claiming it was a winner in that regard. It's virtue though was weight of the weapon and rate of fire, which makes up for the poor velocity of the round, that and the very good HE round explosive and thermite load.
The Italian HE round was withdrawn from service both due to the low HE content and tendency to detonate right after leaving the muzzle. The German version of course could replace the Italian with little to no problem, which then of course ensures the 13mm bullet is quite a bit better than the 9.3mm one, but there is still the rate of fire problem the Italian one has relative to the faster firing MG17 as well as the inability to be mounted in the fuselage outside of the motor cannon configuration. You can really only fit about 3 of the Italian ones in a Bf109E (1 in each wing, 1 in the motor cannon), but have 6-7 of the MG17s each with much higher rate of fire and muzzle velocity, allow for a lot more bullets hitting the enemy aircraft and depositing of HE content on said aircraft.
UB does not solve anything for Germans in 1939-40, even the Soviets will not have many in service before 1941. He 111 as an 1-gun strafer? That is money well spent, and trained men well used. US useage of BMG 0.50 in turrets still does not change the fact that same gun was used on hand-operated positions.
Ideal gun is the one that can be reasonably available. Breda 12.7 has decent RoF and ammo weight.
I have a book that quotes an He111 crew member saying they did strafing attacks with the 20mm nose cannon against targets of opportunity after dropping their bombs.
The US one had a higher rate of fire and was used in the big bomber that could take a lot more ammo and guns.
Thanks for the good luck. I'm not interested here about the combat success of the small fighter, but about the fact that it carried two HMGs above engine. Fuselage was small, 2 meters shorter than already small Bf 109 fuselage.
I'm willing to pay the price of bulges reducing speed in order to get HMGs installed in Bf 109E fuselage in 1940.
It was designed to provide space for the big Brownings, but still have serious problems as an aircraft, while the guns had to be slowed down considerably more to make up for the poor syncing ability of the guns, the Japanese had the same problem with the Ho-103 based on the same gun. Meanwhile the only reason the Mg131 barely fit in the Me109F/G's nose is that they were much smaller than the Breda and only slightly larger than the MG17. So you're not simply going to have big bulges that badly impact performance, you're not going to be able to fit them there.
The reason the Italian fighter could have them was it's engine was considerably smaller than the Db601/5 and it's supercharger.
That said if you really had to have the Breda-SAFAT you could get 3 of them in the Bf109E: one in each wing, one in the motor cannon config, as it wasn't too big like the MG FFL (or even the MG FF drum mag). Delete the MGs in the nose configuration if you've got all that. Not as hard hitting as the MG FFs in the wings, but given the belt config and German 13mm HE bullets and you'd be at least alright with overall firepower. Not ideal in 1940 IMHO at all, but for your plan it should work without running into the problem of the nose mounts.