wiking;6175957 The Ju88 was a superior night fighter said:Junkers Ju-88s had a tendency to land on British airfields in perfect operating order, revealing the various electronic gizmos to British scientists. Strange that British test pilots found the cockpit cramped and the visibility poor.
Deleted member 1487
Learned something new about the Bf110 today. The landings had either to do with the way it was used (over Britain, as the Bf110 was not) or defecting crews. British aircraft landed in Europe too by accident and the Germans got their hands on British gear that way. The cavity magnetron was one such gizmo.
Deleted member 1487
Neither the Whirlwind, He100 nor FW17 were napkinwaffe, as they actually made it to pre-production models, while the vast majority of the late war 'ideas' were never built or if they were, were never conceivably able to be introduced in service. All of the above were available, but were just not built.
The FW-187, as was the He-100, is basically a napkinwaffen. The Whirlwind was not a napkinwaffen, nor did I say it was but as weapon it was a disappointment. Its specs as written on a napkin were not matched by its rather lackadaisical record in actual combat. Factors limiting its success include being a .
Face it, any assumptions you make about the FW-187 are going to be hard to support. The plane was not deployed nor even tested extensively. Many of those in the Luftwaffe did not think it was worthwhile. While you have the benefit of hindsight, I still imagine most of those who did not favor the FW-187 know more about airplanes and air combat than you, I, or most of the others posting here know about these subjects. It's easy attribute motives to others but our attributions are often wrong.
Given the lack of knowledge about how the FW-187, particularly about its flaws, the assumptions you make about it being some sort of super plane appear to be just your personal opinion without any support. You stated that the untested "Fw187 was a better aircraft than the P38 for its period." On what basis do you make this claim? Perhaps you could offer some technical support for this.
Deleted member 1487
http://www.amazon.de/Focke-Wulf-187...5660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339344347&sr=8-1
http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index.php/topic,4926.0.html
This German forum post is quite extensive and is legible with google translate. It draws heavily from the book I linked above to demonstrate the technical source that they draw from.
With twin DB601 engines the single seat version of the FW187 could achieve over 400mph fully loaded in level flight. This is from the German book cited above. It also covers the ability to climb and dive, as well as its maneuverability. I don't own the book, otherwise I would flip it open and quote more technical details. Feel free to browse the forum posts in the link above, as it has much of this information.
Note that these weren't projected performance figures, but actual achieved figures from FW and Rechlin testing records.
The P38 finally achieved same speed in its L series variant, which entered service in June 1944, more than 4 years after the FW187 could have been operational and by the P38L using engines at least 500hp more each, so more than 1000hp more together than the twin DB601 engine FW187.
The P38 was more versatile, true, which made it similar to the BF110 in its role, but the FW187 was designed simply as a long range interceptor/escort fighter and excelled at that role due to its high speed relative to the likely opponents (the Spitfire Mk. I having at best 350mph, which is 50mph slower than the FW187) and the superior tactical doctrine/team tactics developed by the Luftwaffe prior the WW2 based on their experience in Spain.
As to those 'who know more than me about air combat', Udet and Goering were the selectors of the Bf110 over the FW187 and had no technical training or modern combat experience after 1918. Udet was a test pilot that never flew the FW187 and he notoriously selected the wrong aircraft and crippled Luftwaffe production by his very poor decisions in just about every facet in the technical branch.
Wolfram von Richthofen, one of the 5% of the Luftwaffe officers that had an engineering degree discovered the Fw187 project and pushed it in his capacity as the head of the development branch, but lost his job after Udet took office as the head of the technical department over Wimmer, perhaps the best technical mind in the Luftwaffe.
as
Basically, everything you note about the P-38 is wrong and reveals your lack of knowledge concerning the P-38, its history and its advantages. Just a couple of quick examples to illustrate my, as I can see how fruitless a further discussion with you would be about this,
The P-38L frequently quoted top speed is 414 mph. However,as well documented in Warren Bodie's Lockheed P-38 Lightning and other sources. this was not at maximum power. The top speed at actual maximum power was 443 mph. Further, the earlier models of the P-38, prior to the P-38 were faster as some of the later mark as they had a cleaner airframe (no scoop) and weighed less due to less combat equipment. Many other planes have speeds that creep downward as combat equipment is added. The napkinwaffen FW-187 undoubtedly would have gained weight, too.
Another thing about the Ligntning you don't seem to understand was that because of the handed engines, it was inherently more maneuverable than most aircraft. In the Allied inventory, only the Spitfire could out manuever it.
Further, it was one of only two turbosupercharged fighters to see service in number in WW II. (The P-47 was the other. No nation other than the US fielded turbosupercharged aircraft due to cost, due to lack of technology and due to lack of needed metals.) Turbosupercharging meant that all altitudes the engines maintained power far better than mechanical supercharging. Thus, the P-38 would be able to maintain high speeds at a far larger range of altitudes.
Yes, the P-38 was very versatile, particularly as ith was originally designed as an interceptor. As JustLeo noted, this popularity prevented the P-38 further. These improvements included such things as high efficiency props tested on P-38K and the pressurized cabin featured on its sibling, the Lockheed XP-49.
Really, the FW-187 is more comparable to the Grumman XP-50 and the related XF5F-1. The turbocharged XP-50 had a top speed of 424mph in prototype form in 1941. Still, this plane was not built. The USAAC found the Lockheed XP-49 superior to it. Of course, the XP-49 was not built because it was not better than the P-38. What looks good on paper and after a few flight tests is not necessarily a great plane. The Westland Whirlwind and the Martin Mauler are two examples of this I can name off the top of my head.
What you posted in no way establishes that FW-187 would have been a practical weapon. Speculation based on a few prototypes does not equal actual use of the weapon. The P-38 was a combat tested weapon that, despite its misuse in northwestern Europe in 1943 and 1944, had an outstanding combat record.
Basically, everything you note about the P-38 is wrong and reveals your lack of knowledge concerning the P-38, its history and its advantages. Just a couple of quick examples to illustrate my, as I can see how fruitless a further discussion with you would be about this,
The P-38L frequently quoted top speed is 414 mph. However,as well documented in Warren Bodie's Lockheed P-38 Lightning and other sources. this was not at maximum power. The top speed at actual maximum power was 443 mph. Further, the earlier models of the P-38, prior to the P-38 were faster as some of the later mark as they had a cleaner airframe (no scoop) and weighed less due to less combat equipment. Many other planes have speeds that creep downward as combat equipment is added. The napkinwaffen FW-187 undoubtedly would have gained weight, too.
Another thing about the Ligntning you don't seem to understand was that because of the handed engines, it was inherently more maneuverable than most aircraft. In the Allied inventory, only the Spitfire could out manuever it.
Further, it was one of only two turbosupercharged fighters to see service in number in WW II. (The P-47 was the other. No nation other than the US fielded turbosupercharged aircraft due to cost, due to lack of technology and due to lack of needed metals.) Turbosupercharging meant that all altitudes the engines maintained power far better than mechanical supercharging. Thus, the P-38 would be able to maintain high speeds at a far larger range of altitudes.
Yes, the P-38 was very versatile, particularly as ith was originally designed as an interceptor. As JustLeo noted, this popularity prevented the P-38 further. These improvements included such things as high efficiency props tested on P-38K and the pressurized cabin featured on its sibling, the Lockheed XP-49.
Really, the FW-187 is more comparable to the Grumman XP-50 and the related XF5F-1. The turbocharged XP-50 had a top speed of 424mph in prototype form in 1941. Still, this plane was not built. The USAAC found the Lockheed XP-49 superior to it. Of course, the XP-49 was not built because it was not better than the P-38. What looks good on paper and after a few flight tests is not necessarily a great plane. The Westland Whirlwind and the Martin Mauler are two examples of this I can name off the top of my head.
as
Basically, everything you note about the P-38 is wrong and reveal your lack of knowledge concerning. Just a couple of quick examples, as I can see how fruitless a discussion with you would be about this, as you fail to address the central question: how can we know that a weapon will be as good as the projections made from a few tests of a prototype. History is littered with such underachieving weapons.
The P-38L frequently quoted top speed is 414 mph. However,as well documented in Warren Bodie's Lockheed P-38 Lightning and other sources. this was not at maximum power. The top speed at actual maximum power was 443 mph. Further, the earlier models of the P-38, prior to the P-38 were faster as some of the later mark as they had a cleaner airframe (no scoop) and weighed less due to less combat equipment. Many other planes have speeds that creep downward as combat equipment is added. The napkinwaffen FW-187 undoubtedly would have gained weight, too.
Another thing about the Ligntning you don't seem to understand was that because of the handed engines, it was inherently more maneuverable than most aircraft. In the Allied inventory, only the Spitfire could out manuever it.
Further, it was one of only two turbosupercharged fighters to see service in number in WW II. (The P-47 was the other. No nation other than the US fielded turbosupercharged aircraft due to cost, due to lack of technology and due to lack of needed metals.) Turbosupercharging meant that all altitudes the engines maintained power far better than mechanical supercharging. Thus, the P-38 would be able to maintain high speeds at a far larger range of altitudes.
Yes, the P-38 was very versatile, particularly as ith was originally designed as an interceptor. As JustLeo noted, this popularity prevented the P-38 further. These improvements included such things as high efficiency props tested on P-38K and the pressurized cabin featured on its sibling, the Lockheed XP-49.
Really, the FW-187 is more comparable to the Grumman XP-50 and the related XF5F-1. The turbocharged XP-50 had a top speed of 424mph in prototype form in 1941. Still, this plane was not built. The USAAC found the Lockheed XP-49 superior to it. Of course, the XP-49 was not built because it was not better than the P-38. What looks good on paper and after a few flight tests is not necessarily a great plane. The Westland Whirlwind and the Martin Mauler are two examples of this I can name off the top of my head.
What you posted in no way establishes that FW-187 would have been a practical weapon. Really, the forum does not address the questions of practicality and reality I posed. The forum just rehashes the claims you make. Speculation based on a few prototypes does not equal actual use of the weapon. The P-38 was a combat tested weapon that, despite its misuse in northwestern Europe in 1943 and 1944, had an outstanding combat record.
Basically, everything you note about the P-38 is wrong and reveal your lack of knowledge concerning. Just a couple of quick examples, as I can see how fruitless a discussion with you would be about this, as you fail to address the central question: how can we know that a weapon will be as good as the projections made from a few tests of a prototype. History is littered with such underachieving weapons.
The P-38L frequently quoted top speed is 414 mph. However,as well documented in Warren Bodie's Lockheed P-38 Lightning and other sources. this was not at maximum power. The top speed at actual maximum power was 443 mph. Further, the earlier models of the P-38, prior to the P-38 were faster as some of the later mark as they had a cleaner airframe (no scoop) and weighed less due to less combat equipment. Many other planes have speeds that creep downward as combat equipment is added. The napkinwaffen FW-187 undoubtedly would have gained weight, too.
Another thing about the Ligntning you don't seem to understand was that because of the handed engines, it was inherently more maneuverable than most aircraft. In the Allied inventory, only the Spitfire could out manuever it.
Further, it was one of only two turbosupercharged fighters to see service in number in WW II. (The P-47 was the other. No nation other than the US fielded turbosupercharged aircraft due to cost, due to lack of technology and due to lack of needed metals.) Turbosupercharging meant that all altitudes the engines maintained power far better than mechanical supercharging. Thus, the P-38 would be able to maintain high speeds at a far larger range of altitudes.
Yes, the P-38 was very versatile, particularly as ith was originally designed as an interceptor. As JustLeo noted, this popularity prevented the P-38 further. These improvements included such things as high efficiency props tested on P-38K and the pressurized cabin featured on its sibling, the Lockheed XP-49.
Really, the FW-187 is more comparable to the Grumman XP-50 and the related XF5F-1. The turbocharged XP-50 had a top speed of 424mph in prototype form in 1941. Still, this plane was not built. The USAAC found the Lockheed XP-49 superior to it. Of course, the XP-49 was not built because it was not better than the P-38. What looks good on paper and after a few flight tests is not necessarily a great plane. The Westland Whirlwind and the Martin Mauler are two examples of this I can name off the top of my head.
Some napkins are bigger than others
The Fw187 did fly with DB600, but never as Kurt Tank intended it, as a twin engined long range light fighter. Kurt Tank had meant to enter it as a privately developed alternative to the Aircraft IV (that led do the Bf109) and aircraft III ( that led to the Bf110) requirements. In that sense it is a german equivalent to the P38. The LW had not asked for anything of the kind, and compromised the design by insisting on a second crew member and other changes. In that compromised shape, three pre-production aircraft were built, extensively tested at Rechlin, and operationally tested in Norway in the winter of 40. Given Kurtz Tank brilliance, the fact that even the compromised aircraft did very well on tests, and that the DH Hornet is extremely similar and worked very well, I think we might resonably expect that a Fw187 with DB601s and developed as it's creator had intended for the single seat long range fighter role would have been credible contender. Can we be sure of that? No, but napkins are sturdier than butterflies and this is AH.
Regarding the He100D it was tested, and on paper had advantages over the Bf109. Here the napkin is backed by the fact that nearly everybody who built fighters with DB601/605 engines seems to have done better than the Bf109, which was a too early design that served for too long. The Hien, the Sagitario, the Centauro, hell, even the Saab J21 all prove that a better fighter than the Bf109 could have been built with the same engines, giving credit to those who want to get a AH single engined german fighter into their alternate BoBs.
The Fw187 did fly with DB600, but never as Kurt Tank intended it, as a twin engined long range light fighter. Kurt Tank had meant to enter it as a privately developed alternative to the Aircraft IV (that led do the Bf109) and aircraft III ( that led to the Bf110) requirements. In that sense it is a german equivalent to the P38. The LW had not asked for anything of the kind, and compromised the design by insisting on a second crew member and other changes. In that compromised shape, three pre-production aircraft were built, extensively tested at Rechlin, and operationally tested in Norway in the winter of 40. Given Kurtz Tank brilliance, the fact that even the compromised aircraft did very well on tests, and that the DH Hornet is extremely similar and worked very well, I think we might resonably expect that a Fw187 with DB601s and developed as it's creator had intended for the single seat long range fighter role would have been credible contender. Can we be sure of that? No, but napkins are sturdier than butterflies and this is AH.
Regarding the He100D it was tested, and on paper had advantages over the Bf109. Here the napkin is backed by the fact that nearly everybody who built fighters with DB601/605 engines seems to have done better than the Bf109, which was a too early design that served for too long. The Hien, the Sagitario, the Centauro, hell, even the Saab J21 all prove that a better fighter than the Bf109 could have been built with the same engines, giving credit to those who want to get a AH single engined german fighter into their alternate BoBs.
AdA, good points, though napkins are not necessarily sturdier than insEcts. Butterflies routinely migrate thousands of moles and survive thunderstorms. Napkins do not.
A number of points to consider if the FW 187 served as a single seat fighter.
A successful FW-187 might have unintended consequences. First, the success of the FW-187 might actually have negative effective for the Germans. This success would probably delay the development of the FW 190--or even result in it being stillborn. As the twin engined FW 187 would undoubtedly be more expensive to build, Germany would likely find itself with far fewer fighters. Germany might also find itself without its only effective fighter bomber.
And twin engined planes are not only more expensive to build, they require more maintenance and more fuel. The latter would exacerbate a an already severe problem.
All things being equal, a high performance twin require a lot more training than a single. The German training system was not up to the task IOTL. This would worsen it.
A single seat twin usually require a better field. No unprepared dields for the FW 187. This makes dispersal more difficult if the plane is tied to concrete fields or even to hard rolled unpaved fields.
Then, of course, there is the Allied response. If a single seat FW 187 turns out to be a success, then more resources may be dumped into Allied equivalents. The development of the DH Hornet or some similar Mosquito based may be pushed forward. Similarly, the Lightning might be second sourced and the Lightning's potential might be more quickly and fully developed.
Now, if the FW replaces the Me-110, that raises a whole other set of issues....
A number of points to consider if the FW 187 served as a single seat fighter.
A successful FW-187 might have unintended consequences. First, the success of the FW-187 might actually have negative effective for the Germans. This success would probably delay the development of the FW 190--or even result in it being stillborn. As the twin engined FW 187 would undoubtedly be more expensive to build, Germany would likely find itself with far fewer fighters. Germany might also find itself without its only effective fighter bomber.
And twin engined planes are not only more expensive to build, they require more maintenance and more fuel. The latter would exacerbate a an already severe problem.
All things being equal, a high performance twin require a lot more training than a single. The German training system was not up to the task IOTL. This would worsen it.
A single seat twin usually require a better field. No unprepared dields for the FW 187. This makes dispersal more difficult if the plane is tied to concrete fields or even to hard rolled unpaved fields.
Then, of course, there is the Allied response. If a single seat FW 187 turns out to be a success, then more resources may be dumped into Allied equivalents. The development of the DH Hornet or some similar Mosquito based may be pushed forward. Similarly, the Lightning might be second sourced and the Lightning's potential might be more quickly and fully developed.
Now, if the FW replaces the Me-110, that raises a whole other set of issues....
Deleted member 1487
Considering the title of the thread is the FW187 replaces the Bf110, that's been given the whole time. All the resources poured into the Bf110, including pilot training, as the Bf110 units got the best pilots IOTL, and both aircraft used the same engines, so there would be no reduction of single engine fighters if the FW replaces the BF. Also how would a twin engine fighter cause the Fw190 to be cancelled? There were different design teams working on the two projects once Kurt Tank completed the initial work IOTL, so he could and did design both at different times.
The ME109 was a first generation monowing airplane and was clearly needing to be replaced, which is why the Fw190 was designed in the first place; a two engine escort fighter fills a different role than the ME109 and Fw190 did/would, so there would be absolutely no reason to butterfly the Fw190, especially as it used a different engine than either the Me109 or the Fw187.
Ummm, wiking, I realize I wrote I would not reply to you but you are so off base I feel a reply is merited.
My answer was not in regards to original question but to a statement that AdA made to my post.
Specifically, I posted in response to AdA's statement "that a Fw187 with DB601s and developed as it's creator had intended for the single seat long range fighter role would have been credible contender" not to the orignial question.
That my intent to respond to AdA can easily ascertained by going back and reading my post. There you will find that I quoted AdA's post not the original question. Then reread my post in the context of it being a response to AdA's post and it then should be clear to you that I was addressing something not addressed in the original post but in another post.
Given I was addressing the idea of FW 187 being used not as a replacement for the Me 110 but in its intended role as a long distance seat fighter, the point you raise are irrelevant to my post. I did not address the possibility of the FW 187 replacing the Me 110. Indeed, my last line stated this.
Next time, before replying, I suggest you read try reading a post in its clearly intended context rather than taking the taking the post out of context. That way you will avoid making embarrassing misstatements and mischaracterization about a post and/or looking as if you are avoiding addressing the merits of another person's arguments by setting up a straw man to knock down to obscure the merits.
My answer was not in regards to original question but to a statement that AdA made to my post.
Specifically, I posted in response to AdA's statement "that a Fw187 with DB601s and developed as it's creator had intended for the single seat long range fighter role would have been credible contender" not to the orignial question.
That my intent to respond to AdA can easily ascertained by going back and reading my post. There you will find that I quoted AdA's post not the original question. Then reread my post in the context of it being a response to AdA's post and it then should be clear to you that I was addressing something not addressed in the original post but in another post.
Given I was addressing the idea of FW 187 being used not as a replacement for the Me 110 but in its intended role as a long distance seat fighter, the point you raise are irrelevant to my post. I did not address the possibility of the FW 187 replacing the Me 110. Indeed, my last line stated this.
Next time, before replying, I suggest you read try reading a post in its clearly intended context rather than taking the taking the post out of context. That way you will avoid making embarrassing misstatements and mischaracterization about a post and/or looking as if you are avoiding addressing the merits of another person's arguments by setting up a straw man to knock down to obscure the merits.
BlairWitch749
Banned
I don't disagree that the JU-88 was a formidable night fighter and versitile aircraft, the problem was there was enormous impossible to fill demand for them which made the slightly less capable but still extremely versitile and benign handling 110 useful...Jochim Helbig (the biggest JU-88 ace of the war and one of the original test pilots) could hold it in a 60 degree dive... your average pilot in his opinion could barely hold it in a 30 degree dive
shotting up the sutherlands and later b-24's patrolling into the bay of biscay could have been and was done by ju-88's, the effect is negligable and sending fighters all the way north in daylight or any raids all the way north in daylight is not worth the risk
the germans had 250ish 110's for the start of BOB if memory serves, even if every single one of those plus 50 more are FW's the tangible effect will be negligable as the Germans simply couldn't put out the number of sorties (especially after 6 weeks of such high tempo operations in france) to gain air superiority even if their aircraft were a bit more technically superior
i think i didn't explain my point about the daylight penetration raids well enough.... if sealion wasn't going to happen then there was no point to them in the first place as the LW could never generate the necessary sorties to subdue britain's entire war effort into submission (the allies couldn't do this 4 years later with 5x the number of the aircraft against germany); if sealion is out then the only raids that need to take place are on ports and ship yards, the rest is irrelevent and the northern ports due to british early warning were only worth the risk to attack at night which eliminates the need for the fw anyway; so the train part is out to... the LW treated train raids as operational to support ground forces and were good at it with HE-111's flying at dusk armed with 4 20mm cannons in the nose and 32 sc50 fragmentation bombs(they were successful in Russia with these sorts of attacks and it delayed movement of troops and material to the front)... the value of those attacks if you are not going to do sealion is 0
faster is moot, it will be tied to defending bombers; and it's speed advantage isn't so unbelievable that it couldn't be engaged and shoot down especially given it's projected poor manuevering; also it's range like the range of all german aircraft was based on ~no fuss stream take off/form up.. cruise to target, 10 minutes of combat at full throttle, cruise home~ when you are being engaged all the way in and out of the target, and compelled to fight (which means fuel sucking full throttle to take advantage of the aircraft's speed capabilities) it would find itself getting the fuel light almost as quickly as the 109's did in otl.... the allies didn't overcome this until they brought decisive numbers to bear... they would flood raids with fighters so even if a great deal were engaged, had to drop tanks and head home early there were still hundreds left over to escort the raid, the germans just won't have that luxery
I believe that the Falke could have been built and that it would have been better than the Me-110 in the BoB. It could have been developed with an Erla Haube canopy to address visibility from the cockpit, and it could carry drop tanks. It could have a proper cooling system, and effective an effective armaments fit. It required will, approval, and resources. Replacing the Me-110 would give it the resources, but OTL, the Me-110's failings in the BoB were unacknowledged. The Falke would not be adaptable as a night fighter when the time came, and the Ju-88c would have the available engine problems, being too slow without the FW-190's BMW 801s. But that's another story. The question of speed is critical.
Speed was a fighter aircraft's most critical asset. Not the only one, but essential in determining the ability to engage and disengage at will, to catch at a disadvantage, or to flee and re-establish an advantage. The Falke could conceivably have an insurmountable speed advantage. It couldn't change the outcome of the BoB, due to the failings of the strategic premise. It could have caused a lot of trouble.
Speed was a fighter aircraft's most critical asset. Not the only one, but essential in determining the ability to engage and disengage at will, to catch at a disadvantage, or to flee and re-establish an advantage. The Falke could conceivably have an insurmountable speed advantage. It couldn't change the outcome of the BoB, due to the failings of the strategic premise. It could have caused a lot of trouble.
Bf110 real role
The Bf110 real role seems to have been missunderstood by a lot of people. It was not seen by the LW as a fighter, but as a "destroyer". This idea was paraled in France, were the Potez 630 won the contest for a "multiplace legere de defence" in a contest very similar to the "Armed Aircraft III" LW request. essencialy modern versions of the WW1 Bristol fighter, this were meant to be multi-role aircraft that could intercept, reccon, and, in the day before radar and GCI, control the air battle. The idea was not wrong (a modern day version of the same request being the Phantom) but premature before the AAM age.
The Fw187 was a totally diferent bird. Kurt Tank did the math, and realised that a single engined fighter would be lacking in range, and tried to build a long range fighter with two engines that would have the hability to dice with single engined types. Since nobody in the LW (and let's face it, nowere) antecipated the need for escort fighters, the LW could not understand the concept and tried to alter it to fit its destroyer role, a task for wich the Fw187 had not been design. So when we talk of the the LW replacing the Bf110 with the Fw187, we are really talking of the LW abandoning the premature multirole aircraft concept and embracing the long range interceptor/escort fighter concept, something the USAF and the IJN/IJAAF had done out of necessity (the Pacific demanding great range) not out of inovative tactical thinking. The only way to get that range with 1939/40 engines was by a lightweight fighter (the Zero aproach) or a twin engined one. (The P38/Fw187 aproach).
Since the LW was in essence a tactical AirForce (like the later VVS) to give it the Fw187 in its design form we need a different LW (one with long range quad engined bombers as well)
The Spanish war more than anything would have prevented it. A civil war by its nature denies strategic air force use (nobody wanting to destroy its own country before ruling it) so Spain gave all the parties involved the wrong lessons. The one lesson the LW could have taken from Spain, after the initial success of the Tupolev SB2, would have been that a very fast bomber can avoid interception, and build the Ju88 accordingly.
The Bf110 real role seems to have been missunderstood by a lot of people. It was not seen by the LW as a fighter, but as a "destroyer". This idea was paraled in France, were the Potez 630 won the contest for a "multiplace legere de defence" in a contest very similar to the "Armed Aircraft III" LW request. essencialy modern versions of the WW1 Bristol fighter, this were meant to be multi-role aircraft that could intercept, reccon, and, in the day before radar and GCI, control the air battle. The idea was not wrong (a modern day version of the same request being the Phantom) but premature before the AAM age.
The Fw187 was a totally diferent bird. Kurt Tank did the math, and realised that a single engined fighter would be lacking in range, and tried to build a long range fighter with two engines that would have the hability to dice with single engined types. Since nobody in the LW (and let's face it, nowere) antecipated the need for escort fighters, the LW could not understand the concept and tried to alter it to fit its destroyer role, a task for wich the Fw187 had not been design. So when we talk of the the LW replacing the Bf110 with the Fw187, we are really talking of the LW abandoning the premature multirole aircraft concept and embracing the long range interceptor/escort fighter concept, something the USAF and the IJN/IJAAF had done out of necessity (the Pacific demanding great range) not out of inovative tactical thinking. The only way to get that range with 1939/40 engines was by a lightweight fighter (the Zero aproach) or a twin engined one. (The P38/Fw187 aproach).
Since the LW was in essence a tactical AirForce (like the later VVS) to give it the Fw187 in its design form we need a different LW (one with long range quad engined bombers as well)
The Spanish war more than anything would have prevented it. A civil war by its nature denies strategic air force use (nobody wanting to destroy its own country before ruling it) so Spain gave all the parties involved the wrong lessons. The one lesson the LW could have taken from Spain, after the initial success of the Tupolev SB2, would have been that a very fast bomber can avoid interception, and build the Ju88 accordingly.
The lesson that should have been learned from the Brisfit was that fighters are meant to attack and not to defend, which gives up initiative. During it's initial operations, the Bristol's defensive flexible gun was put into operation, and losses were typically staggering. When pilots turned into the attack and relied on bringing their fixed forward firing guns to bear, a legend was born. Successful fighter tactical doctrine equates defensiveness as losing.
Presuming that a fighter should carry a radio operator has benefits for the tactical control function, but it is a drawback for every other function, and a single defensive gun, while a comfort to the crew, is nothing but a diversion to keep them busy while they are being shot down. People might misinterpret the Zerstorer role, because the role is flawed. When the Me-110 was employed in the BoB, the aircraft was an escort fighter, and it failed because it lacked the Spitfire's speed. When it became a fighter bomber in the BoB, it still failed. It would always fail as a day fighter against faster, more agile fighter aircraft. The Spit was that faster fighter.
The problem with building fast bombers at the time was that it was a time of new engine technology as well as aircraft refinement. The Ju-88 was a fast bomber with Jumo 211 engines, in that by escaping to France in a shallow dive, they could out-pace Hurricanes. BMW 801 engines made them fast again, but, as with DB601s earlier, there was a line-up, and the FW-190 was at the front of the line.
like I said...
The concept was more than flawed. It was plainly wrong with 30s tech and only France and Germany built aircraft for that role. The French 630s were wiped out by te Bf109s and the Bf110s were wiped out by Spitfires.
Regarding the fast bomber concept, the Mosquito proved the validity of it in the relevant time frame.
The concept was more than flawed. It was plainly wrong with 30s tech and only France and Germany built aircraft for that role. The French 630s were wiped out by te Bf109s and the Bf110s were wiped out by Spitfires.
Regarding the fast bomber concept, the Mosquito proved the validity of it in the relevant time frame.
The RAF did operate Blenheim IF and IVF heavy fighters to prove the belief that long range fighters were dogmeat against single-engine fighters, self-fulfilling their prophecy. Both the Potez and the Blenheim were shot down in large numbers by friendly fire, the Potez as the Me-110, the Blenheim as the Ju-88.
Converted bombers
The Blenhein was not designed to be a fighter, it was converted into one. The "destroyer" concept was diferent. Most relevant "destroyers" are the Potez 630, the Bf110, the Fokker G1, the Kawasaki Ki45 and maybe the Fiat CR25. The G1 was little used, the Fiat mostly used as a naval recce aircraft and the Kawasaki as an attack aircraft and later as a night figter. My previous statment shoul more acuratly read as "only France and germany built and used them as such". Mixing bombers into the discussion only confuses the issue.
The Blenhein was not designed to be a fighter, it was converted into one. The "destroyer" concept was diferent. Most relevant "destroyers" are the Potez 630, the Bf110, the Fokker G1, the Kawasaki Ki45 and maybe the Fiat CR25. The G1 was little used, the Fiat mostly used as a naval recce aircraft and the Kawasaki as an attack aircraft and later as a night figter. My previous statment shoul more acuratly read as "only France and germany built and used them as such". Mixing bombers into the discussion only confuses the issue.
Last edited:
Although some have compared the Fw-187 with the Whirlind, I think it more appropriate to compare it with the Gloster twin F.9/37. The dimensions more closely match these aircraft, indeed the later Gloster twin development the 'Reaper' increased the similarity.
It was the last prototype - the Fw-187V6 that had the DB600A engines of a 1,000 hp which reached in the summer of 1939 390 mph but that was with surface evaporation cooling - which was unreliable - ok for a record attempt but not for a service (production) aircraft.
Three pre-production aircraft were built - with the 700 hp Jumo 210G engine - max speed 326 mph service pilots in Norway when the loaned were loaned there were said to be delighted with the aircraft - but they were returned to the factory when the RLM found out!
Just like the Gloster twin it could take a bigger engine, and events could have turned out differently - for either aircraft
IMHO it is not a question of 187 or 110, the 110 was slightly earlier, but it could be possible to construct events - so that the 110 was less a fighter, and more a light bomber e.g. no Do-17, for the 187 to fill the gap.
It was the last prototype - the Fw-187V6 that had the DB600A engines of a 1,000 hp which reached in the summer of 1939 390 mph but that was with surface evaporation cooling - which was unreliable - ok for a record attempt but not for a service (production) aircraft.
Three pre-production aircraft were built - with the 700 hp Jumo 210G engine - max speed 326 mph service pilots in Norway when the loaned were loaned there were said to be delighted with the aircraft - but they were returned to the factory when the RLM found out!
Just like the Gloster twin it could take a bigger engine, and events could have turned out differently - for either aircraft
IMHO it is not a question of 187 or 110, the 110 was slightly earlier, but it could be possible to construct events - so that the 110 was less a fighter, and more a light bomber e.g. no Do-17, for the 187 to fill the gap.