Air power Belguim 1940

1) Could the allies have achieved air superiority over the Nazis in May 1940 (possibly by having built more fighters and fewe bombers)

2) If they did would this have changed the outcome of events May June 1940?
 
French fighter design was unfortunately compromised by politics but they had some nice fighters coming into service that were a match for the Me (sorry BF) 109s. More D.520s with a more powerful engine as intended and an earlier introduction of the Bloch 152 might help. Even the Moranes and Hawks didn't do too badly.

RAF Hurricanes were fine. It's a shame noone thought of putting 20mm cannons into those big thick wings sooner. A Hurricane with even 2 x Hispanos and 2 or 4 x Brownings in each wing would have been effective against bombers. The hurribomber was quite feasible technically in the first year of the war and would have made a handy alternative to the Fairey Battles.

Maybe better tactics and training to match the veteran Luftwaffe pilots who already had experience in Spain and Poland.

Allied air superiority means less chance of using the Ju87 as flying artillery if the 109s are otherwise preoccupied. It also means a better chance of allied interdiction against the panzers.
 
Belgium had in Time a Aircraft Industry
unfortunately they produce double decker
to make matters worse, the Belgium army concentrated money on Defence Bunker
and ignore Airforce

maybe if things had wend other way...
POD King Albert I stay alive and in 1934 read the books of Charles de Gaulle
"Vers l’Armée de Métier" (The Army of the Future) wat is early vision of Blitzkrieg
Albert I realized that Defence Bunker are became obsolete
the plans for Bunker are canceld, the money is put in mobile armoured divisions and Aircaft.

Belgium found the ideal Aircraft at Dutch aircraft manufacturer Fokker
the world's largest aircraft manufacturer in that time

The Belgium Airforce bulk orders Fokker G.I heavy fighter and Fokker D.XXI fighter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.XXI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_G.1
D.XXI who cheap, rugged aircraft, with respectable performance was very popular in Belgium
but Fokker run into production capacity problem
wat Belgium solve by licence the production at Belgium Aircraft Industry and FN Herstal

is that good base for 1940 ?
 
The Allies could have had better aereal performance had Britain brought more squadrons to France and had the Air Force been used for tactical bombing, working closely to the Army (as happened in the German military).

This would have disminished the performance of the Stuka.

However, there was a thing that was missing in France. Barely no air defenses as there were in the Low Countries. With these and a better air force they could have battled the Germans in the skies.
 
I have a diary of a Belgian pilot who flew a Fiat CR-42 on that day in May. The problem faced was that the Germans had the right aircraft, tactical doctrine, intelligence, and a plan. The Allies were reactive and defensive. They were slow to react. The Germans were making a second strike before the Allies reacted to the first. The delay in attacking the Sedan bridges is an example.
 
Belgium had in Time a Aircraft Industry
unfortunately they produce double decker
to make matters worse, the Belgium army concentrated money on Defence Bunker
and ignore Airforce

maybe if things had wend other way...
POD King Albert I stay alive and in 1934 read the books of Charles de Gaulle
"Vers l’Armée de Métier" (The Army of the Future) wat is early vision of Blitzkrieg
Albert I realized that Defence Bunker are became obsolete
the plans for Bunker are canceld, the money is put in mobile armoured divisions and Aircaft.

Belgium found the ideal Aircraft at Dutch aircraft manufacturer Fokker
the world's largest aircraft manufacturer in that time

The Belgium Airforce bulk orders Fokker G.I heavy fighter and Fokker D.XXI fighter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.XXI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_G.1
D.XXI who cheap, rugged aircraft, with respectable performance was very popular in Belgium
but Fokker run into production capacity problem
wat Belgium solve by licence the production at Belgium Aircraft Industry and FN Herstal

is that good base for 1940 ?
Wrong we did have promising fighter it needed just more support from the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renard_R-36
fot234.jpg

renard_r-36.gif
 
1) Could the allies have achieved air superiority over the Nazis in May 1940 (possibly by having built more fighters and fewe bombers)?
Of course they could, the question is how late (and how big) a POD do you want?

Going for small changes from a mid 1930s start begin with the AdA and RAF send observers (proper ones who just look, not the euphemistic fighting ones) to Spain during the civil war and notice the changes in fighter tactics is a good start. Just forcing the RAF leadership to admit that bombers will be escorted by fighters would probably prompt enough changes in itself.

At about the same time the RAF start obsessing over the HS.404, this was a bad idea as it was not really suitable despite being technically excellent. Have them instead pick one of the many competing Oerlikons that could actually be in mass service reliably by 1940. Keep the HS as a long term project, but use an FF/FFL/whatever as an interim (.50" had already been dismissed as lacking punch).

Finally have Stanley Hooker start straight at Rolls Royce and not waste all those months at the Admiralty scientific office. That gets you a far more efficient supercharger on the Merlin considerably earlier, something like 30% more power at a minimum.

Take it all together and you could have cannon armed, ~1,500hp Spits and Hurricanes using modern tactics in time for May 1940. I'd imagine something similar could be done for France and that really should tilt the balance in favour of the Allies.
 
Actualy the King Albert I had strong interest in the air force that his son didn't share. If he didn't die in 1934 the war in Belgium could change completely.
piloot.jpg
 
Of course they could, the question is how late (and how big) a POD do you want?

Going for small changes from a mid 1930s start begin with the AdA and RAF send observers (proper ones who just look, not the euphemistic fighting ones) to Spain during the civil war and notice the changes in fighter tactics is a good start. Just forcing the RAF leadership to admit that bombers will be escorted by fighters would probably prompt enough changes in itself.

At about the same time the RAF start obsessing over the HS.404, this was a bad idea as it was not really suitable despite being technically excellent. Have them instead pick one of the many competing Oerlikons that could actually be in mass service reliably by 1940. Keep the HS as a long term project, but use an FF/FFL/whatever as an interim (.50" had already been dismissed as lacking punch).

Finally have Stanley Hooker start straight at Rolls Royce and not waste all those months at the Admiralty scientific office. That gets you a far more efficient supercharger on the Merlin considerably earlier, something like 30% more power at a minimum.

Take it all together and you could have cannon armed, ~1,500hp Spits and Hurricanes using modern tactics in time for May 1940. I'd imagine something similar could be done for France and that really should tilt the balance in favour of the Allies.

I can just imagine a Spitfire IX fitted with a fixed-pitch two-blade wooden prop. The higher power outputs from supercharging required higher octane fuels, available later, thanks to Jimmy Dolittle. Germany was limited in fuel octane and had to resort to larger engines, and water-methanol injection for higher boost pressures.

The Oerlikon was far less effective than the Hisso. However, it could have come in handy for army and navy units which sorely lacked anti-aircraft defenses. The dreaded Stuka wouldn't have been nearly as scary if it were faced with adequate AA defenses. The German Army certainly found them effective.

You are correct that the RAF should have been more observant. However, high-ranking officers don't like to admit that their way of doing things is wrong, or dated, and would, or probably did suppress such valuable intelligence. Am I pessimistic?
 
the allies where only slightly numerically inferior... and their technical inferiority wasn't too marked (considering that the ME-109 and LW bombers in service where all mid 30's designs)

the problems where several fold

1. The LW pilots had a lot of combat experience from Spain and Poland and have solved a lot of teething problems
2. France didn't have an early warning system
3. France didn't have a credible AA system
4. Germany had one of the greatest tactical AA systems ever deployed (Guderian's two flak regiments had over 300 confirmed kills during the campaign)
5. Allied fighter doctrine was behind the curve
6. Allied bomber doctrine was behind the curve
7. Allied sortie rates where grossly behind the curve (The Germans flew as many as 10 missions a day in the Stukas and ME-109s which acted as a huge force multiplied)

solve that and you can have the allies do better
 
I can just imagine a Spitfire IX fitted with a fixed-pitch two-blade wooden prop. The higher power outputs from supercharging required higher octane fuels, available later, thanks to Jimmy Dolittle.

The Oerlikon was far less effective than the Hisso.
No you are confusing two points. The original Merlin supercharger had internal aerodynamic problems that were limiting it's output and would have regardless of fuel octane. Certainly high octane fuel mitigates problems of fuel detonation, but the octane of a fuel has no automatic effect on the power output of an engine.

The HS was designed to be top mounted on an engine, as such it really didn't like being fitted sideways into a moving aircraft wing and was a complete nightmare to get working reliably. In contrast a simpler Oerlikon would be far, far easier to fit. The best is the enemy of the good and all that, a working "OK" cannon is preferable to a "better" cannon that you can't get to work reliably.

And you are just being silly about the prop. :p
 
No you are confusing two points. The original Merlin supercharger had internal aerodynamic problems that were limiting it's output and would have regardless of fuel octane. Certainly high octane fuel mitigates problems of fuel detonation, but the octane of a fuel has no automatic effect on the power output of an engine.

The HS was designed to be top mounted on an engine, as such it really didn't like being fitted sideways into a moving aircraft wing and was a complete nightmare to get working reliably. In contrast a simpler Oerlikon would be far, far easier to fit. The best is the enemy of the good and all that, a working "OK" cannon is preferable to a "better" cannon that you can't get to work reliably.

And you are just being silly about the prop. :p

The octane available as of March 1940 was 100 octane. Prior to that, it was 87. Later, 150 octane was available, plus mono-methyl aniline for spurts. High octane didn't make engines go faster, but it allowed for higher combustion pressures and higher boost pressures to be utilized and that made airplanes faster. Not just semantics.

I wasn't being silly about the Watts propellor. The Air Ministry et al was being silly for using it on Hurricanes in France, and changing all Hurri's and Spits, sometimes after the last moment, to two-speed DH and finally constant-speed units in a mad circusshow program. The Me-109 had a VDM unit licensed from Hamilton Standard, before the war. The Japanese Zero that crashed in Alaska had it's propellor unit repaired with Hamilton Standard parts off the shelf.
 
THX for Info
that Aircraft is better as Fokker D.XXI
the question is: how much can be build from 1938 until 1940
50 units ?
What if back in 1929, after Albatros went bankrupt, Kurt Tank got a job with Renard? Likelihood of an earlier, better/more reliably designed R-36? More units then produced?

(Though I think if Tank took a job outside of Germany, Fokker would seem a better bet)

Any POD with Tank leaving Germany for anywhere throws a lot of butterflys at the LW.
 
What if back in 1929, after Albatros went bankrupt, Kurt Tank got a job with Renard? Likelihood of an earlier, better/more reliably designed R-36? More units then produced?

(Though I think if Tank took a job outside of Germany, Fokker would seem a better bet)

Any POD with Tank leaving Germany for anywhere throws a lot of butterflys at the LW.

The questions were: the will to proceed with haste, the industrial capacity, and a good foreign engine of latest design, available in immediate numbers. It's harder to build a national aircraft industry without a national engine industry.
 
a look in Wikipedia show that Belgium had order Aircraft in foreign countries

32x Breguet 693 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_693
had Licence to build in Belgium
40x Brewster F2A Buffalo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Buffalo
only one deliverd to Belgium, the rest transferred to RAF after Belgium surrender
16x Grumman F4F Wildcat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_Martlet
all transferred to RAF after Belgium surrender
??x PZL.37 Łoś http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.37_Łoś
had Licence to build in Belgium
24x Caproni Ca.313 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.313
none delivered by italy
 
Top