AHC: the best possible Luftwaffe for 1940

SwampTiger

Banned
I wonder why the Germans, specifically Ikaria, did not put earlier emphasis on developing a belt loading system for the Mg FF. The gun and cartridge are adequate for the needs of 1938-42. A more aerodynamic shell would help, as well as a faster rate of fire. Overall, it is better than the HMG alternatives. By using the 20x110RB case, shortened to 80mm, you could improve the velocity. Thus a short, light, hard hitting gun for the mid/late war fighters and flex gunners. The French and British modified the Oerlikon system to develop the HS404 and later variants into a smaller, faster firing gun with belt feed during the war.
 
I wonder why the Germans, specifically Ikaria, did not put earlier emphasis on developing a belt loading system for the Mg FF. The gun and cartridge are adequate for the needs of 1938-42.

Germans/RLM were probably hoping that their indigenous belt-feed projects - MG 131 and MG 151 - will materialize before a major war erupts? Thus not wanting to spent the cash on the belt feed MG FF?
Oerlikon was proposing a 75-rd drum for Spitfire (and other British fighters), while Japanese used 100 rd drum on some Zeroes, Germans themselves used 90 rd drum on some Fw 190s - so there is a middle way. Eventually Japanese developed mechanical belt feed for their Oerlikon-type cannons, while Germans developed belt feed via Electric motor for the MG FFM and used it on Do 217 night-fighters, 200 rounds per gun being carried.

Oerlikon API cannons

By using the 20x110RB case, shortened to 80mm, you could improve the velocity. Thus a short, light, hard hitting gun for the mid/late war fighters and flex gunners. The French and British modified the Oerlikon system to develop the HS404 and later variants into a smaller, faster firing gun with belt feed during the war.

There was the 20x100RB cartridge, too, for a cannon that was in-between of the F (or FF) and S - the Oerlikon L. Offered 750 m/s muzzle velocity with a 'classic' ~130g shell.
Only users were the IJA, mostly on Zeroes, Shindens and Raidens. Belt feed version was developed in Japan. Tony Williams likes it very much: link2
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Yes, I've read both of those. My issue is with the failure of Ikaria Werkes and the Luftwaffe to attempt to improve the MG FF similar to the OTL Hispano Mark I through Mark V. Thus, a lighter, faster firing, and more powerful MG FF, which is substantially lighter than the MG 151/20. Sort of a smaller version of Tony Williams' 'Ideal WW2 Fighter Armament'. I have no evidence the Germans licensed the FFL variant.
 
With 28 kg, the MG FF(M) was already borderline too light. Increasing both muzze velocity and rate of fire will likely bring weight up, not down. Let's recall that Hisso V cut muzzle velocity vs. Hisso I/II.
Ikaria did developed a 'MG FFM on steroids' - the MG FF Ausf.L. Ammo was of same dimension as on the MG FFM, but with 'hotter' loading (max pressure increased from 2600 to 3100 kg/cm). Longer barrell, Weight went up to 32 kg empty, rate of fire upped to 600 rpm, MV upped to 825 m/s, used drums and box from MG FF(M). Not yet with belt feed. Overall length went from 1366 to 2063mm. All data from datasheet from 1941.
MG 151/20 was pretty close to the Tony's 'ideal 20 mm', and with 800 rpm and ability to be synchronised with just a small loss of RoF was still better than the over-grown FFM. However, shortcoming of the MG 151 was that it was too big to be easily installed into wings of Bf 109, or as trainable defensive weapon.
Germans indeed never licensed the FFL from Oerlikon.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
It was tooled up for and started production in September 1939. Production problems then resulted from the redesigns forced by the dive requirement, which meant mass production was only able to start once they identified and corrected the factory production issues (initial units had malfunctioning landing gear).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_88#Design_and_development
Production was delayed drastically by developmental problems. Although planned for a service introduction in 1938, the Ju 88 finally entered squadron service (with only 12 aircraft) on the first day of the invasion of Poland in 1939. Production was painfully slow, with only one Ju 88 manufactured per week, as problems continually kept cropping up.

Had the dive requirement not been added it could have entered production 6 months earlier and the Do17 phased out by the end of 1938 so that the Ju88 could replace it in the production plan for 1939. Of course that wasn't possible due to the dive requirement modifications and then things were even more delayed due to the problems in production resulting from complexities added to the design as a result of the dive modification, including a rotating nose wheel, which was the major problem that took until either late 1939 or very early 1940 to fix on the production lines. That type of landing gear was not needed for the original design, so had it stuck to that the production problems of OTL would either be far less severe or nearly nonexistent and the Do17 phased out in 1938.

As to the Me109F, its early problems were only discovered after combat pilots put it through some pretty radical maneuvers that took time to identify and correct, but was easily corrected once they were sure there was a problem rather than it being a result of combat damage. The Me109E had the issue of very limited ammo capacity, so depending on how far away pilots actually opened fire to avoid defensive fire from bombers they might have run out of ammo before scoring lethal hits. The primary bomber killer IOTL was actually the Bf110, as it was designed for that role and had greater weight of fire, bigger drum mags, and the ability to reload in flight due to the cannons being mounted in the nose of the aircraft and the radioman being able to access it to replace the drums.

Why can't FW make the Fw187? Though lacking the ability to reload it still could handle more guns and the bigger drum magazines to heavier bomber killing firepower as well as far greater range and probably comparable speed to the He100.

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.
https://www.boeing.com/history/products/p-82-twin-mustang.page
With a speed of more than 475 mph (764 kph), the Twin Mustang had a combat range of more than 1,600 miles (2,574 kilometers) with full armament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang_variants#P-51H
The P-51H used the new V-1650-9 engine, a version of the Merlin that included Simmons automatic supercharger boost control with water injection, allowing War Emergency Power as high as 2,218 hp (1,500 kW). With a new airframe several hundred pounds lighter, extra power, and a more streamlined radiator, the P-51H was faster than the P-51D, able to reach 472 mph at 21,200 ft.[55]

There was no shortage of DB601s for fighters in 1940, just for bombers. Still they had enough to produce over 600 He111P with the DB601 engines.
The 109Z would solve the problem of range, as it was estimated to have a range of 1995km. Even if we assume that was for the F-series airframe so that an E-series would be relatively as limited as compared to the F-series, then we are looking at no worse than 1200km, which is still better than the He100D-1.


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 dive bomber modified, heavier, and aerodynamically compromised version with the ventral gondola? Yes, it was very different than the V1-V3 versions beyond adding armor and armaments.
Why would elevating the wings do anything of the sort? The wings didn't run through the bomb bay. Even with the historical design had they simply not divided the bomb bay you'd have all the necessary space for 250kg bombs, but they did that on purpose to give it a separate compartment to carry extra fuel for greater range if needed. Having a larger bomb bay for bigger bombs means not having space to mount the extra fuel tanks, which means a much shorter range. The big bombs have a niche use. 250kg bombs are probably the max you'd need for most jobs and the US and RAF did just fine with bombs of the 100/200/500lbs categories.
sg4cpv.jpg


post-6828-1277838215.jpg


You're probably right here.
ITTL having the non-modified Ju88 ready, potentially with bombs of the 100kg variety (which apparently existed pre-war, but were phased out at some point for some reason) to fit in the Ju88 bomb bay as needed, would have meant the Do17 phased out in 1938 and the Ju88 replacing it entirely by 1940 and being substantially faster than the OTL version and therefore much tougher to intercept at altitude.

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.
Max continuous is not economical cruising, where bombers spent the vast majority of their time. On sustained sprint you're burning fuel fast to get max power without overheating, which is not what bombers are going to be doing 90% of the time. Reiseleistungen would be the setting you're looking for and for the Jumo 211 is listed as just under 200 g/pseh below 2.5km and jumps up to 210 or less at about 2.75km and drops as it gets to 3km or higher. It is not listed for the 323P engines. Though I hope you'll note that the PS (horse power) rating for the 323P on max Dauerleistung mit stau is at least 100-150ps less than the Jumos. So for significantly higher power the Jumos are getting better or at worst equal fuel consumption on the max continuous rating.

There ain't such thing as free lunch. I was trying to get more food for the lunch, for same money spent.
Same here, which with fuel stock concerns is a pretty significant factor.

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.
Apparently the greatest aerodynamic improvements were with the new wings:
https://www.chuckhawks.com/evolution_ME-109.html
Messerschmitt's next generation, the 109F, did not appear in any numbers until the spring of 1941. It incorporated some controversial changes. Great attention was paid to reducing aerodynamic drag.

The main factor was a new wing. The aerofoil was changed and the span was initially reduced, but with add-on rounded tips it ended-up slightly greater than the Emil. The new wing used ducted bypass radiators, which greatly reduced cooling drag.

New shorter span, deeper chord, Frise type ailerons, rather than the original slotted type, were fitted and smaller flaps were used. Rolling inertia was reduced by the elimination of the wing guns. The net result was a 15-20 mph speed improvement in level flight with the same power.

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
Not in the wings, just the external mount in the gondolas. The entirely new wing design, which included a new radiator set up, preventing the use of internal wing armament.
The RAF was also fighting bombers; in that case the 20mm cannons were especially necessary as they never fielded explosive rounds below 20mm caliber, which was not a problem the Germans had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British#Tracer,_armour-piercing_and_incendiary
Explosive bullets were not produced in the UK after 1933 due to the relatively small amount of explosive that could be contained in the bullet, limiting their effectiveness, their role being taken by the use of Mark 6 and 7 incendiary bullets.

A more powerful round in the MG17 would actually speed up the rate of fire due to the greater power relative to the weight of the bolt. They would probably have to increase the weight of the bolt and strength of the spring, but if they maintained the same power to bolt weight/spring strength ratio they'd have the same ROF. The probably means the MG17 gains a bit a weight, but not enough to increase it even 1kg.
The move to the HMGs and cannons was a move that was coming, but in the meantime while the substantial research is done on those weapon systems they could have had something of increased power with little modification of existing weapons and could have used more powerful HE rounds and even used a minengeschoss if they wanted.
BTW it seems like proportionally the 9.3x64 cartridge matched the 13x64 MG131 cartridge in proportional power.

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.
You can't fit them in the fuselage due to the size and weight; the only reason the MG131 could fit where the MG17s did was due to being exceptionally small and light for the size of the weapon, i.e. barely more than the MG17. The Breda is substantially larger and heavier, as was the Browning it was based on, because much older designs with a mechanical ignition system rather than an electrical one. So you're stuck with 7.92s or 9-9.3s in the fuselage and some combo of either MGs or an HMG/cannon in the wing.
As a bomber defensive weapon I'm skeptical of it with the ridiculous weight and size (80% greater than the MG131) and limited muzzle velocity and ROF. Not to mention the substantial increase in ammo weight. Why not the 9.3mm MG17?

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.
Do you have any info about that? Internet searches aren't turning up anything specific, though it seems you're right from what I've found. Also it seems they considered the resulting fall in round velocity a problem, but one they could tolerate for the resulting explosive power of the 20mm minengeschoss and cheap conversion of the 15mm to 20mm with basically a barrel change. Ironically they did with the MG 151 what I'm proposing with the MG17 conversion to the 9.3x64 cartridge, albeit probably with a bit more modification.

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
There were no lack of Jumos for the Ju88 program that I've ever read about. The Ju88 was delayed by production problems during 1939, namely the redesign of the nose landing gear to make it retract sideways as a result of the dive modifications.

I agree that the Ju87 would still be viable as a short range dive bomber, though not as capable as IOTL up to and including being able to lift and carry heavier bombs/bomb loads/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

I wonder why the Germans, specifically Ikaria, did not put earlier emphasis on developing a belt loading system for the Mg FF. The gun and cartridge are adequate for the needs of 1938-42. A more aerodynamic shell would help, as well as a faster rate of fire. Overall, it is better than the HMG alternatives. By using the 20x110RB case, shortened to 80mm, you could improve the velocity. Thus a short, light, hard hitting gun for the mid/late war fighters and flex gunners. The French and British modified the Oerlikon system to develop the HS404 and later variants into a smaller, faster firing gun with belt feed during the war.
I'm guessing they considered it easier to simply start 'clean' and develop a fresh weapon with all the attributes they were looking for hence the MG131 and 151; as the war went on they became enamored with the impressive impact of the HE 20mm shells and considered them more effective than the 13-15mm weapons they had developed. So they retrofitted their 15mm guns/cartridge with a 20mm barrel/projectile to match their combat conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_151_cannon
The pre-war German doctrine for arming single-engine fighter aircraft mirrored that of the French. This doctrine favored a powerful autocannon mounted between the cylinder banks of a V engine and firing through the propeller hub, known as a moteur-canon in French (from its first use with the Hispano-Suiza HS.8C engine in World War I, on the SPAD S.XII) and by the cognate Motorkanone in German by the 1930s. The weapon preferred by the French in this role was the most powerful 20mm Oerlikon of the time, namely the FFS model, but this proved too big for German engines. Mauser was given the task of developing a gun that would fit, with a minimum sacrifice in performance. (As a stop-gap measure, the MG FF cannon was developed and put in widespread use, but its performance was lackluster.[3]
If the above is true, the link says it is from Anthony Williams' book "Rapid Fire", then the issue was the fact that the MG FF was simply too big even with a belt feed mechanism, for a motor cannon layout. The Allies apparently didn't mind the heavy cannon or HMG layout in their fighters' wings, but per OTL in 1940 this caused a lot of issues initially to the point that they were basically not available through the Battle of Britain due to their malfunctioning.
 
Going back to the main challenge and given it some more time as required by the POD I chose.
With a POD of Hitler never believing he can dislodge Britain and France.
For the Kriegsmarine: The OTL building plan is miniscule as compared to the task. Raeders requirements are unrealistic. Hitler goes with the leader offering him a different path=Dönitz. The purpose of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet now becomes 1) area denial (E-boats, minelayers, submarines, etc), 2) eventually the ability to capture Norway (realistically more an issue of air lift, area denial subsequently), and 3) prestige/fleet in-being to divert British ressources.
The twins, heavy cruisers and B&T are changed for just two BB's and oone carrier to be constructed when permitted by international treaties. The german knows this is when the London Naval treaty expires and order the guns and engines in advance. Destroyers as per OTL with even a little more focus. They make 5 new light cruisers as permitted by the ToV. The rest is focused on the primary task with submarines as the primary weapon. R&D is increased, crew training on rotations, a rapid expansion is prepared for assembly when politically opportune and various submarine pens are constructed making it impossible to actually see how many sub are present in German harbors.
For the Luftwaffe:
A subdivision in the Luftwaffe is created specifically for supporting the Kriegsmarine. Long range reconnaissance and strike power is the aim, as is torpedo floatplanes (eg He-115's). Effects? what types would be chosen. Its an early POD so doesnt have to be FW-200 and JU-290. Armor piercing bombs and airborne torpedoes would be emphasized which is a major effect.
Regular Luftwaffe: Supporting a bomber war is essential in the POD, so fighter range and bomber survivability is emphasized. Lets assume the need of a long range single engine fighter is realized, which means Heinkel gets allowed to redesign/make a new single engine aircraft with his runner up He-112 after the Bf-109 wins as the point interceptor. Much more rapid next generation Heinkel fighters. FW-187 might go through as a Heinkel back-up. Bf110 is a fast low level bomber.
The JU-88 is designed as a fast bomber from the onset to do what Bf110 cannot, which is among other things to include a larger bomb bay.
Industrial: The Luftwaffe is preparing for a war of attrition and fund new factories for the major and airframe producers. A plan for pilot losses and aircrew training is instigated.
If the POD is implemented in 1936, the effects are likely smaller but the KM focus might prevail. Training and engine capacity would be expanded, albeit a little too late. The mentioned design changes might still come about, but there will be a shortage of engines. The Brama to JU-87 might be useful in this regard, and you could imagine Heinkel designing his next generation He-100/He-112C with a Jumo engine from the onset.
 
As to the Me109F, its early problems were only discovered after combat pilots put it through some pretty radical maneuvers that took time to identify and correct, but was easily corrected once they were sure there was a problem rather than it being a result of combat damage. The Me109E had the issue of very limited ammo capacity, so depending on how far away pilots actually opened fire to avoid defensive fire from bombers they might have run out of ammo before scoring lethal hits. The primary bomber killer IOTL was actually the Bf110, as it was designed for that role and had greater weight of fire, bigger drum mags, and the ability to reload in flight due to the cannons being mounted in the nose of the aircraft and the radioman being able to access it to replace the drums.

Why can't FW make the Fw187? Though lacking the ability to reload it still could handle more guns and the bigger drum magazines to heavier bomber killing firepower as well as far greater range and probably comparable speed to the He100.

Fighter aircraft are flown through 'pretty radical maneuvers' by default.
Daimlerized Fw 187 is all good and well if you can have them in at least twice the number of BF 110s, before BoF ends, and keep production up after that. With historical DB 601 production, that was half of Jumo 211 production in 1940, that might be an impossible task. Fw 187 will stil need drop tanks, one of key items that turned Bf 109 from hopeless into half-decent fighter when it is about range/radius.
Bf 110C also used 60 rd drums for MG FF(M)s, and I've suggested greater ammo capacity and firepower for the 109E already several times.



There are several graphs that put P-51H into 480+ mph zone - link1, link2.
But lets say that P-82 was indeed 3 mph faster than P-82 - the 109Z being 3, or 5 or even 10 mph faster than 109E is still a bad economy.

There was no shortage of DB601s for fighters in 1940, just for bombers. Still they had enough to produce over 600 He111P with the DB601 engines.
The 109Z would solve the problem of range, as it was estimated to have a range of 1995km. Even if we assume that was for the F-series airframe so that an E-series would be relatively as limited as compared to the F-series, then we are looking at no worse than 1200km, which is still better than the He100D-1.

He 100D was supposed to have 1000+ km range without drop tank.
DB, along with licence factories, was making 1/3rd of what RR and licence factories were making Merlins in 1940. By mid-1940, most of the Merlins were going into fighters, and UK was out-producing Germany by handsome margin in Hurricanes+Spitfires vs. Bf-109s+110s. Insisting on even greater production of twin engined fighters than OTL will not help the LW.

The dive bomber modified, heavier, and aerodynamically compromised version with the ventral gondola? Yes, it was very different than the V1-V3 versions beyond adding armor and armaments.
Why would elevating the wings do anything of the sort? The wings didn't run through the bomb bay. Even with the historical design had they simply not divided the bomb bay you'd have all the necessary space for 250kg bombs, but they did that on purpose to give it a separate compartment to carry extra fuel for greater range if needed. Having a larger bomb bay for bigger bombs means not having space to mount the extra fuel tanks, which means a much shorter range. The big bombs have a niche use. 250kg bombs are probably the max you'd need for most jobs and the US and RAF did just fine with bombs of the 100/200/500lbs categories.
ITTL having the non-modified Ju88 ready, potentially with bombs of the 100kg variety (which apparently existed pre-war, but were phased out at some point for some reason) to fit in the Ju88 bomb bay as needed, would have meant the Do17 phased out in 1938 and the Ju88 replacing it entirely by 1940 and being substantially faster than the OTL version and therefore much tougher to intercept at altitude.

Wings did not run through bomb bay, but the frame that supported rear spar did.
RAF was so not using 100 or 200 lbs bombs on anything bigger than a Battle or Belnheim (two types classified as 'light bmbers'), they preferred 500 lb bomb pre-war, jumping to 2000 lb bomb early in the war, and then jumping into 4000/8000/12000 lb cookies when those became available. LW used 250 kg bombs on He 111 and Ju 87, 250 and 500 kg on Ju 87 (and/or 50 kg in bomb bay), 1000-1800 kg on Ju 88 (one per A/C, under a wing), or 2200 for He 111 (under fuselage). Do 217 was also able to carry big bombs, but it could've carried them inn bomb bay.
If you put fuel tanks in bomb bay, bombs must go out, speed goes down. Having bombs inside helps mileage, speed and hebnce survivability. Then there is option of drop tanks, that can be dropped before entering dangerous area; doing same thing with bombs is a mission kill.

Max continuous is not economical cruising, where bombers spent the vast majority of their time. On sustained sprint you're burning fuel fast to get max power without overheating, which is not what bombers are going to be doing 90% of the time. Reiseleistungen would be the setting you're looking for and for the Jumo 211 is listed as just under 200 g/pseh below 2.5km and jumps up to 210 or less at about 2.75km and drops as it gets to 3km or higher. It is not listed for the 323P engines. Though I hope you'll note that the PS (horse power) rating for the 323P on max Dauerleistung mit stau is at least 100-150ps less than the Jumos. So for significantly higher power the Jumos are getting better or at worst equal fuel consumption on the max continuous rating.

Indeed, the 323P will have lower power than Jumo 211A, let alone B/D/H. That will mean no combination of 1000 kg bomb + drop tanks on the Ju 871R-1, so we will reduce it to 500 kg + drop tanks, or 1000 kg and no drop tanks.

Consumption per hour per engine:
Bramo 323: 220 g/PSh x 600 PS = 132 kg/h. Jumo 211B: 209 g/PSh x 750 PS = 157 kg/h. So the Jumo 211B will use almost 20% more fuel per hour on max cont power. Granted, economical cruise powers will be used for the best part of flight.

Same here, which with fuel stock concerns is a pretty significant factor.

Me too. Hence my distaste for twin engined fighters of LW, they tend to double the fuel consumption vs. 1-engined fighters.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Fighter aircraft are flown through 'pretty radical maneuvers' by default.
Sure and as soon as the problem was identified it was fixed very rapidly.

Daimlerized Fw 187 is all good and well if you can have them in at least twice the number of BF 110s, before BoF ends, and keep production up after that.
Why would you need twice the numbers? IOTL the major problems was their short range and slow speed, as well as lack of maneuverability in addition to their slower acceleration, which got them slaughtered in August 1940. That is far less of a problem for the Fw187 if it had kept it's original configuration with the Daimler engines even with the 2nd crew member added. So you do in effect double them IOTL as you don't lose hundreds stupidly early on in the BoB:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_110_operational_history#Battle_of_Britain
The worst day of the battle for the Bf 110 was 15 August 1940, when nearly 30 Bf 110s were shot down, the equivalent of an entire Gruppe. Between 16–17 August, 23 more were lost.[30]

After the 18 August there was a marked reduction in the number of Zerstörer operations. Their seeming absence has often been equated with the simultaneous disappearance from the Battle of the Ju 87. But wereas the Ju 87 had to be withdrawn because it simply could not survive in the hostile environment over southern England in the late summer of 1940, the reason for the decrease in Bf 110 activity was much more mundane. Replacements were not keeping pace with losses. There were just not enough Zerstörer available.

— Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstörer Aces, World War Two[31]

The last day of August proved to be a rare success for the Messerschmitt Bf 110. ZG 26 claimed 13 RAF fighters shot down, which "was not far off the mark", for three losses and five damaged. However, on 4 and 27 September, 15 Bf 110s were lost on each day.[32] The Luftwaffe had embarked on the battle with 237 serviceable Bf 110s. 223 were lost in the course of it.[33]

With historical DB 601 production, that was half of Jumo 211 production in 1940, that might be an impossible task. Fw 187 will stil need drop tanks, one of key items that turned Bf 109 from hopeless into half-decent fighter when it is about range/radius.
That is not correct. Daimler produced half of Germany's aero engines in 1939-40. Jumo started to pull away in 1940 and was making more engines by 1941.
https://books.google.com/books?id=E...QAQ#v=onepage&q=db601 production 1940&f=false
Plus there is the issue of the DB603 engine potentially being ready in 1940 if not cancelled in 1940.


Also the Fw187 did not need drop tanks, I don't know where you got that from, it had longer range than the Bf110 when equipped DB601 engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_187
In testing it demonstrated a speed of 523 km/h (325 mph) despite the use of the low-powered Jumo engines; 80 km/h (50 mph) faster than the contemporary Jumo-powered Messerschmitt Bf 109B, despite having twice the range, more than twice the weight, and using two of the same engines.

Bf 110C also used 60 rd drums for MG FF(M)s, and I've suggested greater ammo capacity and firepower for the 109E already several times.
It could reload them in combat:
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2623916-Messerschmitt-Bf-110
2 × 20 mm MG FF/M cannons (180 rpg - 3 drums with 60 rpg, cannon were reloaded by rear gunner or radio operator during flight)
Not an option in the Me109.

There are several graphs that put P-51H into 480+ mph zone - link1, link2.
So at best it had top speed parity with the longer ranged, heavier fire powered F-82.

But lets say that P-82 was indeed 3 mph faster than P-82 - the 109Z being 3, or 5 or even 10 mph faster than 109E is still a bad economy.
Not if it gets you the range that was lacking IOTL without drop tanks, plus much better performance and fuel use than the Bf110. At this point anything that is a major improvement on the Bf110 is a win over OTL. The extra weight of the design would also enhance it's ability to dive, while the extra wing span improves performance at higher altitudes.

He 100D was supposed to have 1000+ km range without drop tank.
DB, along with licence factories, was making 1/3rd of what RR and licence factories were making Merlins in 1940. By mid-1940, most of the Merlins were going into fighters, and UK was out-producing Germany by handsome margin in Hurricanes+Spitfires vs. Bf-109s+110s. Insisting on even greater production of twin engined fighters than OTL will not help the LW.
Supposed to. Yet what sourcing is there that it actually did so considering that so much info about it was used as disinformation against the Allies in the war to convince them there was a new hyper performing fighter the Germans had? Plus of course there is the issue that it wouldn't be ready except for perhaps a handful of them by mid-1940 if you're lucky.

IOTL the Luftwaffe had sufficient DB601s to equip all the Bf110s, Me109s, and hundreds of He111s in 1940. The problem wasn't the engine supply, it was the number of aircraft they had and pilots to actually use them. So we could theoretically eliminate the Bf110 and still be short fighter pilots to actually man all those extra Bf109Es.


Wings did not run through bomb bay, but the frame that supported rear spar did.
Yet in the pictures the wings and spars did not obstruct the bomb bay.

RAF was so not using 100 or 200 lbs bombs on anything bigger than a Battle or Belnheim (two types classified as 'light bmbers'), they preferred 500 lb bomb pre-war, jumping to 2000 lb bomb early in the war, and then jumping into 4000/8000/12000 lb cookies when those became available. LW used 250 kg bombs on He 111 and Ju 87, 250 and 500 kg on Ju 87 (and/or 50 kg in bomb bay), 1000-1800 kg on Ju 88 (one per A/C, under a wing), or 2200 for He 111 (under fuselage). Do 217 was also able to carry big bombs, but it could've carried them inn bomb bay.
If you put fuel tanks in bomb bay, bombs must go out, speed goes down. Having bombs inside helps mileage, speed and hebnce survivability.
The cookies were only used in specific situations where the blast was needed to open up roofs for incendiaries. Mosquitos used 220kg bombs with specially modified tails to fit in their small bomb bays as well, which would be probably the max you'd want to use in the Ju88 except for short range missions in which having external bomb racks might be useful a la the Mossie fighter-bomber variant. Also I don't think though the Luftwaffe wanted to get sucked into RAF style city carpet bombing period, especially with Ju88s.
So talking about the RAF as a model is rather pointless as they primarily were making bombs to help them burn up cities with their heavy bombers. If we were talking about that then forget the Ju88 entirely and let's talk about the He111, He177, and Do217. If not and we are talking about tactical/operational bombing then we have to consider the utility of smaller bombs like the USAAF was using:
https://b17flyingfortress.de/en/details/bombentypen-bombenzielgeraet/
In 1943, a new set of GP bombs were produced: the M57 250lb, M64 500lb, M65 1000lb and M66 2000lb. These accounted for most of the bombs dropped in the final year of the war. In January 1945, experts recommended 250lb GP bombs to be used against synthetic oil plants, ammunition dumps and oil storage factilities. the 100lb bomb was recommended for attacking railway yards and runways.
http://www.303rdbg.com/bombs.html

The 100 lbs is smaller than the 50kg bombs the Luftwaffe used, the 250 lbs bomb is smaller than the 100kg one the Luftwaffe had pre-war and I suggested could work in the Ju88. For for our Ju88 attacking airfields, rail targets, and ammo dumps the 100kg bomb would be plenty and should fit it in the OTL bomb bay. The 250kg bomb is overkill and fine for leaving in the He111/Do217/He177. In 1940 the 50-100 and anything in between would be more than adequate for the Ju88 and the missions it historically took on in 1939-42 other than area bombing cities to start fires. But then the He111 could externally mount heavier payloads and the type we should be talking about for that sort of mission if we're going to have TTL's Luftwaffe engage in such a campaign as the Blitz. Fast bombers aren't necessary or desireable for that, as this isn't 1943 Germany with an excellent night air defense system.

Of course since we are talking about the purpose of the Ju88 ITTL the ground attack variants with gun pods were exceedingly interesting and deserve mention:
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/172511-mg81-gunpod-modification-39gießkanne39/
https://frontsector.be/index.php/materiaal/vliegtuigen/40-de-waffen-behalter-81-gieskanne

Then there is option of drop tanks, that can be dropped before entering dangerous area; doing same thing with bombs is a mission kill.
That is utterly insane for bombers given the size and cost of the disposable aluminum tanks Germany would need for bombers...which they didn't even make for fighters in most of 1940 because they couldn't apparently afford it. If extra tanks are necessary we should really then talk about tip tanks to increase fuel capacity:
130610300.jpg



Indeed, the 323P will have lower power than Jumo 211A, let alone B/D/H. That will mean no combination of 1000 kg bomb + drop tanks on the Ju 871R-1, so we will reduce it to 500 kg + drop tanks, or 1000 kg and no drop tanks.

Consumption per hour per engine:
Bramo 323: 220 g/PSh x 600 PS = 132 kg/h. Jumo 211B: 209 g/PSh x 750 PS = 157 kg/h. So the Jumo 211B will use almost 20% more fuel per hour on max cont power. Granted, economical cruise powers will be used for the best part of flight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumption
Brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) is a measure of the fuel efficiency of any prime mover that burns fuel and produces rotational, or shaft power. It is typically used for comparing the efficiency of internal combustion engines with a shaft output.

It is the rate of fuel consumption divided by the power produced. It may also be thought of as power-specific fuel consumption, for this reason. BSFC allows the fuel efficiency of different engines to be directly compared.
That means for the same power it is generated more efficiently by the unit with the lower consumption. So with the same power rating the Jumo will do it for less. At a higher power output it will travel further in the same amount of time, so not needing to fly as long to get where it is going and back, which reduces fuel consumption IF it is going to use fuel power for the entire trip.

Me too. Hence my distaste for twin engined fighters of LW, they tend to double the fuel consumption vs. 1-engined fighters.
They did different things, including carrying heavier weapon and ammo loads, as well as traveling for longer. Unless you needed the heavier firepower there isn't a reason to use a twin engine for a short range mission. Also for the same distance depending on weight and aerodynamics it won't be double the fuel consumption for the same range because of faster climbs to altitude due to the extra power relative to overall weight. The Bf110 came down on the wrong side of that comparison even with the Bf109E because it was heavier loaded and had worse aerodynamics, but the Fw187 was superior in that regard in original single seat configuration. Even the twin seater was 1700kg lighter than the Bf110 and considerably more aerodynamic, as well as less than two Bf109Es, so it would use considerably less than double the fuel of two Bf109s of any configuration while packing more firepower and range.
 
Apparently the greatest aerodynamic improvements were with the new wings:
https://www.chuckhawks.com/evolution_ME-109.html

Wing profile remained the same, 2R14.2 (root) on all Bf 109s, or at least from B to K. (Lednicer's site)

Not in the wings, just the external mount in the gondolas. The entirely new wing design, which included a new radiator set up, preventing the use of internal wing armament.
The RAF was also fighting bombers; in that case the 20mm cannons were especially necessary as they never fielded explosive rounds below 20mm caliber, which was not a problem the Germans had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British#Tracer,_armour-piercing_and_incendiary

Galland's 'special' 109F2 carried MG FFM in the wings, perhaps this might be a good read.
Germans jumped (or jumped back) from 15mm cannon that provided them with 2.8-3.1g worth of eplosive or incendiary content per shell to the 20mm that provided 18.7g in Mine shell. We can just imagine how high they rated the explosive version of the 7.9mm with 0.5g worth of explosive content.
British were right to not put more money into designing & producing explosive bullet for the .303, the incendiary 'De Wilde' worked well enough once supplies were working out (mid-BoB).

You can't fit them in the fuselage due to the size and weight; the only reason the MG131 could fit where the MG17s did was due to being exceptionally small and light for the size of the weapon, i.e. barely more than the MG17. The Breda is substantially larger and heavier, as was the Browning it was based on, because much older designs with a mechanical ignition system rather than an electrical one. So you're stuck with 7.92s or 9-9.3s in the fuselage and some combo of either MGs or an HMG/cannon in the wing.
As a bomber defensive weapon I'm skeptical of it with the ridiculous weight and size (80% greater than the MG131) and limited muzzle velocity and ROF. Not to mention the substantial increase in ammo weight. Why not the 9.3mm MG17?

Going under 12mm for 1940 is a step back for a country with better options, that includes Germany, since LMGs were marginal at best in task of, all in the same sequence, piercing aircraft skin, defeating head armor or BP glass and either killing/wounding the pilot or setting the fuel tank in fire. The LMGs, unless one puts plenty of them in the wing/fuselage (not much of an option for bombers vs. fighters), were also incapable of wrecking enough of aircraft skin in order to structuraly damage the enemy A/C - area where cannons shine.

Nations that used HMG as trainable (hand-operated) defensive wepon:
USSR (Il-2, Tu-2)
USA (B-26 and later A-20s in low-back positions, B-17 waist positions, nose too before chin turret)
Italy (SM.79, Ca 313 & 314 in ventral position)
I've probably missed a few.

Nations that used 20mm cannon as trainable wepon:
Germany (He-111 nose)
France (LeO 451 & Amiot 354 - dorsal position)
Japan (G4M - tail position)

Italians managed to fit the Breda 12.7mm in front fuselage of the diminutive SIAI 207 fighter, my German engineers are at least as capable.

Do you have any info about that? Internet searches aren't turning up anything specific, though it seems you're right from what I've found. Also it seems they considered the resulting fall in round velocity a problem, but one they could tolerate for the resulting explosive power of the 20mm minengeschoss and cheap conversion of the 15mm to 20mm with basically a barrel change. Ironically they did with the MG 151 what I'm proposing with the MG17 conversion to the 9.3x64 cartridge, albeit probably with a bit more modification.

Soviet trials or the '5 gunned' (3 cannons, 2 LMGs) Bf 109G-2 are dicscussed here and here. Facsimile of the original test report can be accesed via Kurfurst's site.
 
Italians managed to fit the Breda 12.7mm in front fuselage of the diminutive SIAI 207 fighter, my German engineers are at least as capable.

Afaik, that gun had low muzzle velocity and rate of fire. So, it might work well vs bombers, but I doubt it's efectiveness vs a fighter, specially in a manouvering fight...
 

Deleted member 1487

Wing profile remained the same, 2R14.2 (root) on all Bf 109s, or at least from B to K. (Lednicer's site)

Galland's 'special' 109F2 carried MG FFM in the wings, perhaps this might be a good read.
I'll check it out later when I have more time. Question was what was the impact on the speed, range, and maneuverability. That one experimental version might have retained much of the E-series wings to keep those cannon, which would have been useful in 1941 when his unit was on the defensive on the Channel Front hitting RAF bombers and fighters like the RAF fighters did to the Luftwaffe in mid-1940.


Germans jumped (or jumped back) from 15mm cannon that provided them with 2.8-3.1g worth of eplosive or incendiary content per shell to the 20mm that provided 18.7g in Mine shell. We can just imagine how high they rated the explosive version of the 7.9mm with 0.5g worth of explosive content.
British were right to not put more money into designing & producing explosive bullet for the .303, the incendiary 'De Wilde' worked well enough once supplies were working out (mid-BoB).
A minengeschoss 9.3mm round, using the same weight ratios to regular bullets as the MG FF bullets, should have had about 2.5 grams of HE. The Italian 12.7mm HE round had only 0.8 grams, which is barely better than the 7.92. Though per this the B Patrone used mostly white phosphorus and a small explosive capsule to ignite it. Still it did this:

A 9.3mm version of the B Patrone should be able to carry as much as or more HE than the Italian 12.7mm incorporated IOTL.

Going under 12mm for 1940 is a step back for a country with better options, that includes Germany, since LMGs were marginal at best in task of, all in the same sequence, piercing aircraft skin, defeating head armor or BP glass and either killing/wounding the pilot or setting the fuel tank in fire. The LMGs, unless one puts plenty of them in the wing/fuselage (not much of an option for bombers vs. fighters), were also incapable of wrecking enough of aircraft skin in order to structuraly damage the enemy A/C - area where cannons shine.
Not even on a per round basis given the limited HE within the Italian 12.7mm HE bullet and it's low muzzle velocity...only 60m/s than the minengeschoss from the Mg FF. Again weight of fire matters, as getting 30 or more hits in with a 9.3mm HE shell per every 2-3 Italian 12.7mm ones means you're getting more total HE content and damage on an aircraft with the 9.3mm MGs. If we were just talking AP rounds then yes you're right the bigger bullets with more momentum due to mass would be better presuming you could get more hits, but we're not talking that, were also talking HE and ROF, which really alters calculations.


Nations that used HMG as trainable (hand-operated) defensive wepon:
USSR (Il-2, Tu-2)
USA (B-26 and later A-20s in low-back positions, B-17 waist positions, nose too before chin turret)
Italy (SM.79, Ca 313 & 314 in ventral position)
I've probably missed a few.

Nations that used 20mm cannon as trainable wepon:
Germany (He-111 nose)
France (LeO 451 & Amiot 354 - dorsal position)
Japan (G4M - tail position)
It could be done, but we are talking about ideal, ROF and weight of ammo matter. Not sure using the MG FF as a nose gun was great more much besides strafing, which apparently even He111s did some times. Also the US version was faster firing and used more powerful cartridges and they used them in powered turrets and heavy bombers. The Soviet UBT was a lighter gun, faster firing, and more powerful than the Italian gun.

Italians managed to fit the Breda 12.7mm in front fuselage of the diminutive SIAI 207 fighter, my German engineers are at least as capable.
Not really diminutive in terms of fuselage space, especially when considering how small and low powered the engine was. Plus the aircraft had a bunch of problems and they only made a handful. They even saw combat and failed to score any combat successes against heavy allied air raids.

Good luck fitting it into the Me109 fuselage, where the MG131 resulted in bulges so big they impacted speed.

Soviet trials or the '5 gunned' (3 cannons, 2 LMGs) Bf 109G-2 are dicscussed here and here. Facsimile of the original test report can be accesed via Kurfurst's site.
I'll check this out later.
 
Sure and as soon as the problem was identified it was fixed very rapidly.

Yes, they didn't dragged their feet.

Why would you need twice the numbers? IOTL the major problems was their short range and slow speed, as well as lack of maneuverability in addition to their slower acceleration, which got them slaughtered in August 1940. That is far less of a problem for the Fw187 if it had kept it's original configuration with the Daimler engines even with the 2nd crew member added. So you do in effect double them IOTL as you don't lose hundreds stupidly early on in the BoB:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_110_operational_history#Battle_of_Britain

I prefer not to fight out-numbered.
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.


That is not correct. Daimler produced half of Germany's aero engines in 1939-40. Jumo started to pull away in 1940 and was making more engines by 1941.

Indeed, you're right that DB produced about that quantity, my mistake.

Also the Fw187 did not need drop tanks, I don't know where you got that from, it had longer range than the Bf110 when equipped DB601 engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_187

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.



It could reload them in combat:
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2623916-Messerschmitt-Bf-110

Not an option in the Me109.

I know that Bf 110 had option of changing the drums, that option will not be there neither for the Fw 187.

Not if it gets you the range that was lacking IOTL without drop tanks, plus much better performance and fuel use than the Bf110. At this point anything that is a major improvement on the Bf110 is a win over OTL. The extra weight of the design would also enhance it's ability to dive, while the extra wing span improves performance at higher altitudes.

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.


Supposed to. Yet what sourcing is there that it actually did so considering that so much info about it was used as disinformation against the Allies in the war to convince them there was a new hyper performing fighter the Germans had? Plus of course there is the issue that it wouldn't be ready except for perhaps a handful of them by mid-1940 if you're lucky.

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.

IOTL the Luftwaffe had sufficient DB601s to equip all the Bf110s, Me109s, and hundreds of He111s in 1940. The problem wasn't the engine supply, it was the number of aircraft they had and pilots to actually use them. So we could theoretically eliminate the Bf110 and still be short fighter pilots to actually man all those extra Bf109Es.

Several times it was suggested by other people that Germany needs better pilot training program, I agree with that.

Yet in the pictures the wings and spars did not obstruct the bomb bay.

Neither wings nor spars, but fuselage frame that supported rear spar.

The cookies were only used in specific situations where the blast was needed to open up roofs for incendiaries. Mosquitos used 220kg bombs with specially modified tails to fit in their small bomb bays as well, which would be probably the max you'd want to use in the Ju88 except for short range missions in which having external bomb racks might be useful a la the Mossie fighter-bomber variant. Also I don't think though the Luftwaffe wanted to get sucked into RAF style city carpet bombing period, especially with Ju88s.
So talking about the RAF as a model is rather pointless as they primarily were making bombs to help them burn up cities with their heavy bombers. If we were talking about that then forget the Ju88 entirely and let's talk about the He111, He177, and Do217. If not and we are talking about tactical/operational bombing then we have to consider the utility of smaller bombs like the USAAF was using:

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 100 lbs is smaller than the 50kg bombs the Luftwaffe used, the 250 lbs bomb is smaller than the 100kg one the Luftwaffe had pre-war and I suggested could work in the Ju88. For for our Ju88 attacking airfields, rail targets, and ammo dumps the 100kg bomb would be plenty and should fit it in the OTL bomb bay. The 250kg bomb is overkill and fine for leaving in the He111/Do217/He177. In 1940 the 50-100 and anything in between would be more than adequate for the Ju88 and the missions it historically took on in 1939-42 other than area bombing cities to start fires. But then the He111 could externally mount heavier payloads and the type we should be talking about for that sort of mission if we're going to have TTL's Luftwaffe engage in such a campaign as the Blitz. Fast bombers aren't necessary or desireable for that, as this isn't 1943 Germany with an excellent night air defense system.

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.


That is utterly insane for bombers given the size and cost of the disposable aluminum tanks Germany would need for bombers...which they didn't even make for fighters in most of 1940 because they couldn't apparently afford it.

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.

They did different things, including carrying heavier weapon and ammo loads, as well as traveling for longer. Unless you needed the heavier firepower there isn't a reason to use a twin engine for a short range mission. Also for the same distance depending on weight and aerodynamics it won't be double the fuel consumption for the same range because of faster climbs to altitude due to the extra power relative to overall weight. The Bf110 came down on the wrong side of that comparison even with the Bf109E because it was heavier loaded and had worse aerodynamics, but the Fw187 was superior in that regard in original single seat configuration. Even the twin seater was 1700kg lighter than the Bf110 and considerably more aerodynamic, as well as less than two Bf109Es, so it would use considerably less than double the fuel of two Bf109s of any configuration while packing more firepower and range.

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
 
Afaik, that gun had low muzzle velocity and rate of fire. So, it might work well vs bombers, but I doubt it's efectiveness vs a fighter, specially in a manouvering fight...

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

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.

I'll check it out later when I have more time. Question was what was the impact on the speed, range, and maneuverability. That one experimental version might have retained much of the E-series wings to keep those cannon, which would have been useful in 1941 when his unit was on the defensive on the Channel Front hitting RAF bombers and fighters like the RAF fighters did to the Luftwaffe in mid-1940.

Extra guns will always impact performance, no doubt.

A minengeschoss 9.3mm round, using the same weight ratios to regular bullets as the MG FF bullets, should have had about 2.5 grams of HE. The Italian 12.7mm HE round had only 0.8 grams, which is barely better than the 7.92. Though per this the B Patrone used mostly white phosphorus and a small explosive capsule to ignite it. Still it did this:

A 9.3mm version of the B Patrone should be able to carry as much as or more HE than the Italian 12.7mm incorporated IOTL.

Not even on a per round basis given the limited HE within the Italian 12.7mm HE bullet and it's low muzzle velocity...only 60m/s than the minengeschoss from the Mg FF. Again weight of fire matters, as getting 30 or more hits in with a 9.3mm HE shell per every 2-3 Italian 12.7mm ones means you're getting more total HE content and damage on an aircraft with the 9.3mm MGs. If we were just talking AP rounds then yes you're right the bigger bullets with more momentum due to mass would be better presuming you could get more hits, but we're not talking that, were also talking HE and ROF, which really alters calculations.

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.

It could be done, but we are talking about ideal, ROF and weight of ammo matter. Not sure using the MG FF as a nose gun was great more much besides strafing, which apparently even He111s did some times. Also the US version was faster firing and used more powerful cartridges and they used them in powered turrets and heavy bombers. The Soviet UBT was a lighter gun, faster firing, and more powerful than the Italian gun.

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.

Not really diminutive in terms of fuselage space, especially when considering how small and low powered the engine was. Plus the aircraft had a bunch of problems and they only made a handful. They even saw combat and failed to score any combat successes against heavy allied air raids.

Good luck fitting it into the Me109 fuselage, where the MG131 resulted in bulges so big they impacted speed.

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.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
 
The topic of an improved LW has appeared in these forums several times over the past few years. While nothing is likely able to change the eventual outcome of Germany's war, early LW results, such as a victory in the BoB, might have been within reach.

In these early responses I recall suggesting a series of force multipliers- for example basic modification of the Bf/Me 109, to include a stub wing centersection, increasing landing gear separation by three to four feet (with existing wings- possibly slightly clipped). Landing gear camber would be more upright, and the worst ground-handling aircraft I've ever heard its pilots describe, substantially tamed. I mentioned references indicating that about 1/3 of these aircraft, along with many low time pilots, were lost during landing and takeoff. Spacing of LG would permit installation of a large drop tank fabricated of paper or linen layup in a plastic resin glue (WeldWood comes to mind) for much increased range and time over target..

Similarly, as noted earlier, looser pilot selection criteria, both physical and geneologic , together with primary flight training methods which allow several students to simultaneously go up with an instructor (like present day ab initio airline training) would allow them to at least be evaluated and stand a better chance to survive checkout in a standard 109. I stress that, as a pilot who started out in relatively powerful tail-dragger aircraft, ground handling skills must be developed fast, in an unforgiving environment.

Last, with the exit of Dr Heinrich Hertel to Junkers in May 1939 (where he inflicted surface condenser cooling on the Ju288 program), the the Heinkel He100D series, which had adopted an under fuselage coolant heat exchanger, proposed abandoning wing surface condensers entirely. At this time "Meridith effect" ducts were known generally and could readily been included, as Art Chester did with the slightly later P-51.

I certainly believe that the He100D+ would have been an improvement over the 109.

Dynasoar
 
Most of the 1940 luftwaffe aircraft will need to be replaced.
The BF 109 is a great interceptor but the luftwaffe needs a dedicated air superiority fighter. The BF 109 to not have the range of the ammo load to operate effectively over Britain. As for the me-110 a long arranged single engine fighter would make it redundant.
The Do 17 in the He-111 need to be replaced with the Ju-88 and Germany needs a 4 engined heavy bomber if they want to conduct a strategic bombing campaign.
 
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.

The need for 2-engined fighters will quickly diminish once drop tanks are specified for 1-engined fighters, as well as better ammo supply for cannons.

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.

The claimed range advantage on the Wikipedia article, either on English nor on German, is not backed by any source.
Mythical performance of the He 100 was only matched by mythical performance of Daimerized Fw 187.


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.

Unfortunatley, the sourced data, even photo of that is sorely lacking.

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.

I don't intend to sacrifice anything in training program, but to expand it and train much more pilots to be ready for 1939-40.

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.

Check out the pic you've posted of the Ju 88 bombed-up. Also this ladeplan, translated by yours truly, in this thread page.

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?

So I'm the one calling them drop tanks? Point is a) people were making them for the bombers in at least 3 coutries, and b) they were specified by users.
Somehow I cant use Do 217s or He 117s in 1940, perhaps because there was none of them available. So I need Ju 88s, pronto and with big bombs.
Draggy special bulges were designed for Ju 88 and 388, Mosquito's bulged bomb bay gave a whole new level of usability to it, for a small loss of speed.


A really rough Google transation reveals:
In 1940 (Showa 15), as a result of the examination, the central industrial maker H 103 was excellent, so this was adopted as a set of twelve, seven and eight fixed arms guns in 1941 (Showa 16).

1941 will not cut it here.

To move a bit from beating the dead horse, Germany will need to adress this problem:

194041 prod.jpg


When focused just to the 4 crucial months of the BoB, we can see that UK made ~1900 fighters (mostly Hurricanes, then Spitfires, plus a handful of Defiants and Whirlwinds) while Germany made less than 800. Coupled with thing that RAF will be recovering and/or canibalizing much greater percentage of damaged fighters than LW, I'd say the imperative is that German production of fighters is at least doubled, if not tripled.
RAF is also far more likely to recover a pilot from a badly damaged or downed A/C than LW, so once again the German pilots' 'production' needs to be stepped up.
 

Deleted member 1487

The need for 2-engined fighters will quickly diminish once drop tanks are specified for 1-engined fighters, as well as better ammo supply for cannons.
If only the Luftwaffe had put resource into making decent ones before 1940. That said there is still the need for a heavy bomber destroyer, as relying on a single engine fighter for that is risky. The Bf109Z would solve that problem, as it uses mostly existing parts, has over 1000km range and could carry heavier weapons in the inboard wing spar to reliably blast apart bombers.

The claimed range advantage on the Wikipedia article, either on English nor on German, is not backed by any source.
Mythical performance of the He 100 was only matched by mythical performance of Daimerized Fw 187.
Not really, as models without the evaporative cooling system of the Fw187 actually flew. We don't know that any non-evaporative cooling He100s were ever made or what their performance actually was. The DB Fw187 can be estimated from data from the Jumo 210 187, but I'll find out what there is in the one book on the Fw187 that is out about the performance of the later iterations that had the DB605.

Unfortunatley, the sourced data, even photo of that is sorely lacking.
I've ordered Dietmar's book on the Fw187, so when I get the info I'll let you know what I can confirm.

I don't intend to sacrifice anything in training program, but to expand it and train much more pilots to be ready for 1939-40.
See the bottom of my answer for the problems with that. Expanding training programs without making cuts to training time is impossible given the resources of 1933-41 without cutting front line numbers of pilots; in 1939 the Germans had to mobilize instructors and students in training to get their front line numbers up because they simply did not have the resources to train up enough staff in the 1930s to create a large enough Luftwaffe. They were planning on war in 1942, not 1939-40 and were keeping up quality of both instructors and pupils to ensure a flow of quality combat pilots. Check out Edward Homze's, Jame Corum's, and E.R. Hooton's books on the build up of the Luftwaffe in the 1930s and they were producing what they could with what they had without cutting corners in training or sacrificing output of combat pilots to build up the training establishment much larger, which would have ensured a major deficit of pilots available in 1939 as resources would have been plowed into training expansion instead of output of actual combat pilots.

Check out the pic you've posted of the Ju 88 bombed-up. Also this ladeplan, translated by yours truly, in this thread page.
I did, it doesn't show what you're claiming. They were separated into two bomb bays because one was supposed to mount extra fuel internally for longer range missions and be sealed. They could have either fit heavier bombs designed around the Ju88s bomb bay internally or altered the bomb bay design if they wanted with the existing wing layout, they just didn't want to because of the original design purpose. The addition of dive bombing later to the mission profile was easier service by adding more external bomb racks so that bombs could be dropped in a dive without having to worry about how the angle of dive would impact the exit of bombs from the bay, so they just didn't worry about altering the bomb bay. Plus apparently it impacted the design's speed less to carry drop munitions externally rather than make the air frame larger and heavier to store the bombs internally. See the Do217 for what having high wings and a deep bomb bay for internal carry of big bombs did to the aircraft weight. It left the design seriously underpowered given the engines available in 1940-42.

So I'm the one calling them drop tanks? Point is a) people were making them for the bombers in at least 3 coutries, and b) they were specified by users.
Somehow I cant use Do 217s or He 117s in 1940, perhaps because there was none of them available. So I need Ju 88s, pronto and with big bombs.
Draggy special bulges were designed for Ju 88 and 388, Mosquito's bulged bomb bay gave a whole new level of usability to it, for a small loss of speed.
You referred to them as drop tanks. If we are talking about the metal ones for bombers they weren't meant to be dropped except in emergencies, while the paper-wood ones were meant to be dropped ASAP, but those weren't AFAIK used for bombers. US and UK use was different than German use for drop tanks, as they had reserves of aluminum the Germans did not, but even they used a LOT of disposable wooden ones for fighters.

The He111 was available in 1940 and could have been produced in larger numbers had the choice not been made to focus on a Ju88 that was pressed into doing universal service and consequently delayed in production due to design issues; anything that gets the Do17 out of production and service before the war is ideal, which means getting the Ju88 into service before the war starts, which in turn means not modifying it to dive and adding extra defensive armament among other things; you can either have it earlier without big bombs or later with them. Since the design and spec were issued before 1936 changing it in 1936 only delays introduction into 1940, which fucks up your entire scheme of improving the Luftwaffe. Having it earlier means keeping it a speed bomber which means then that is is restricted in what roles it could do. Let the bigger, heavier He111 carry the big bombs even externally, as it did IOTL and have the Ju88 focus on army support tasks in conjunction with the Ju87 and Hs123; just make enough He111s that it can do the big bomb jobs.

The only thing bulged Mosquito could do that it couldn't before was take a cookie, which is only for city busting. The Cookie bomb was specifically a block buster to open up roofs for incendiaries to fall in. Are you really going on about producing Ju88's for city bombing AGAIN????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb

A really rough Google transation reveals:
In 1940 (Showa 15), as a result of the examination, the central industrial maker H 103 was excellent, so this was adopted as a set of twelve, seven and eight fixed arms guns in 1941 (Showa 16).

1941 will not cut it here.
You are correct, I misread the translation part round the year 1939, which I thought was the introduction year. Regardless 1939 is probably even too late for the Germans to buy and introduce the design given that the MG131 is available in 1940.

To move a bit from beating the dead horse, Germany will need to adress this problem:

When focused just to the 4 crucial months of the BoB, we can see that UK made ~1900 fighters (mostly Hurricanes, then Spitfires, plus a handful of Defiants and Whirlwinds) while Germany made less than 800. Coupled with thing that RAF will be recovering and/or canibalizing much greater percentage of damaged fighters than LW, I'd say the imperative is that German production of fighters is at least doubled, if not tripled.
RAF is also far more likely to recover a pilot from a badly damaged or downed A/C than LW, so once again the German pilots' 'production' needs to be stepped up.
Not necessarily something they could fix without sparing Walter Wever and keeping Udet out of the technical branch. Even then there is the problem of the British buying themselves into bankruptcy in 1940 to boost production, while focusing on fighters, as the Germans have to mainly focus on bombers, which the British took until 1941 to really push. That and Germany hitting their own resource crunch and needing to cut their own production to pay the Soviets for their trade (the Soviets played hardball and cut back deliveries in August to encourage prompt payment).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germa...d_assistance_during_the_Agreement's_operation
In the summer of 1940, Germany grew even more dependent on Soviet imports.[62] German occupations of France, the Netherlands, and Belgium created additional demand while decreasing avenues for indirect supply.[62] Compared to 1938 figures, the expanded "Greater Germany" and its sphere of influence lacked, among other items, 500,000 tons of manganese, 3.3 million tons of raw phosphate, 200,000 tons of rubber and 9.5 million tons of oil.[62] Hitler believed that an eventual invasion of the Soviet Union increasingly looked like the only way in which Germany could solve its resource crisis.[62] The Soviet invasions of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia[27][63] in June 1940 resulted in the Soviet occupation of states on which Germany had relied for 96.7 million Reichsmarks of imports in 1938.[13] While no concrete plans were yet made, Hitler told one of his generals in June that the victories in western Europe "finally freed his hands for his important real task: the showdown with Bolshevism",[64] though German generals told Hitler that occupying Western Russia would create "more of a drain than a relief for Germany's economic situation."[65]

In August 1940, the Soviet Union briefly suspended its deliveries after their relations were strained following disagreement over policy in the Balkans, the Soviet Union's war with Finland (from which Germany had imported 88.9 million Reichsmarks in goods in 1938[13]), Germany falling behind in its deliveries of goods under the pact and with Stalin worried that Hitler's war with the West might end quickly after France signed an armistice.[66] By the end of August, relations improved again as the countries had redrawn the Hungarian and Romanian borders, settled Bulgarian claims and Stalin was again convinced that Germany would face a long war in the west with Britain's improvement in its air battle with Germany and the execution of an agreement between the United States and Britain regarding destroyers and bases.[67] Soviet raw material deliveries increased well over prior figures.[64]

On top of that Hitler was also having his army prepare for the invasion of the USSR in 1940:
Hitler had been considering war with the Soviet Union since July 1940.[52] Regarding a potential Soviet Axis entry, Ribbentrop wrote a letter promising Stalin that "in the opinion of the Führer … it appears to be the historical mission of the Four Powers-the Soviet Union, Italy, Japan and Germany-to adopt a long range-policy and to direct the future development of their peoples into the right channels by delimitation of their interests in a worldwide scale."[68] On November 12, 1940, Hitler issued secret "Instruction No. 18", directing his forces to prepare for war in the east "irrespective of the results yielded by these discussions", while Hitler, Molotov and Ribbentrop conferenced in Berlin to discuss a potential Soviet entry as a fourth Axis power.[52]

Plus IOTL Erhard Milch didn't take over production planning again until late 1941 and in 1940-41 production barely increased at all, both because of Udet's failures and the resource crunch caused by the blockade and annexations of part of Germany's trade base by the USSR, while the Soviets demanded the Germans export war and industrial materials that Germany needed right during the BoB to keep up their deliveries of raw materials.

So with all of that and the need to make bombers to replace the losses in May-June 1940 (as well as those lost in the BoB), I don't know how Germany could make 2-3x as many fighters, even SE fighters. A Bf109Z would certainly make it easier to get economies of scale in production as the long range twin engine fighter would share between 80-90% of parts with the existing SE fighter. That would help for sure. How do you propose stepping up pilot production? Certainly helping improve the Bf109's landing gear would keep accidents down, but cutting training hours and letting in lesser quality pilots to expand numbers would increase the accident rate, as it did IOTL from 1942 on when they did just that. More accidents means more loss of aircraft in training and outside of combat. Already there were noted quality control issues in new aircraft, supposedly due to the influx of Polish PoW labor in aircraft factories. And as it was the simplifications in production that come from longer experience did not yet exist in German factories as it did in 1942 or 1944 when production was dramatically increasing despite not major raw material or labor increases in the airframe industry.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
...

Not really, as models without the evaporative cooling system of the Fw187 actually flew. We don't know that any non-evaporative cooling He100s were ever made or what their performance actually was.
...
First I would like to remind you of my post #46. Of the 25 built He 100 D-1s 6 were buiilt without any surface cooling, "only" with a partially retractable "full-size" cooler on its belly at the same position as on the P-51 Mustang.
These were finished in september 1939.
The speed of these are recorded in several sources for all versions of armament, armor and other equipment between 628 km/h and 675 km/h. ... in september 1939.

Even the first number has still quite some margin to everything else in the air at that time.
 
Top