German Jets introduced in 1941.

Hi all, this is my first post. :D

A German turbojet fighter, the first of all that could have been operational. Maiden flight on April 5th, 1941. Heinkel, always interested in high-speed aircraft, sponsored quite early the turbojet development of von Ohain and had because of this advantage the first experimental turbojet plane (He178) in flight. The He280 was a twinjet fighter developed for two He S8 (also called He109-001) radial turbojet engines. It had a modern bow-wheel landing gear (conventional ones caused problems with lifting up the tail without the propeller air stream on the horizontal fins) and an ejection seat. The German ministry of aviation (RLM) was quite upset of Heinkel´s private initiative and set up its own turbojet program, favouring competitors (that weren’t so far advanced) concerning both engine and airframe development (BMW, Jumo and Messerschmitt). This had as major result that the He S8 hadn’t enough development priority, and that’s why the heavier but stronger Jumo109-004 and BMW109-003 engines and the Me262 fighter (by far not as manoeuvrable as the He280, which outmanoeuvred a Fw190 in a mock dogfight, and in 1941 with conventional wings and landing gear). The He280 was a fighter, the Me262 just a heavy interceptor that could slip through the escorts.

The really interesting thing - except that it could have been operational short after Me262´s maiden flight - is its manoeuvrability. The Me262 was
Designed for top speed, yes, even more speed than useful (with 150km/h twice as much speed advantage than necessary for dogfight superiority).
It wasn’t usual to curve in a Me262 with more than a 45° angle (usual around 80°!), its acceleration was low, its Mk108 armament was especially good for destruction of medium to heavy bombers at close distance only and it had a 50% higher weight and wing load. The Me262 shot down some fighters like P-51D, but in the hands of aces like Galland!
The He280 instead had similar manoeuvrability like the Fw190A (wing load 4125kg: 21.5m2 = 191kg/m2, less than Fw190D!) and was with its speed advantage and good armament most probably the best dogfighter of World War 2, especially in hit-and-run tactics. The HeS08 and BMW109-003 engines had better handling and provided better acceleration than the Jumo109-004.

If the He 280 had been introduced in 1941 in a limited production e.g. 4 group of the JG’s 2 & 26 and the JG7 (instead of 1944/45 with the ME262). I think that Germany would have had a core of trained jet fighter pilots ready for the allied heavy bomber raids of 1943 onwards.
The He280 was at the time a full 18 months ahead of anyone else in jet development.


Specifications for He 280
Type: Single seat jet interceptor
Engines: two Heinkel Hirth HeS 8A 1,540lb/thrust turbojets
Armament: Three 20-mm MG151 cannon
Performance: Maximum speed 570mph; endurance 46 minutes

The allied bombing campaign would have been much less effective that it was. Also other jet designs would have been given more priority e.g. Arado 234 etc.

Any comments :)
 
Russia

The other question is whether enough of them would have been operational to have a squadron or two for the invasion of Russia. That could have made things very interesting.
 
He280 & Ta 183 in russia

Hi

The He280 could only operate from pre prepared airstrips and not the unprepared grass strips of Russia. But they probably have 1 or 2 squadrons for the invasion of Russia, they would have operated from airfields inside Germanys boarders.
Would have come as a nasty shock to the Russians though.

Later on in the war the Germans could have begun the manufacture of the Ta-183 (This would later become the Mig-15 and the Sabre F-86). This would have been an even bigger shock to the allies.

The He280 would have been an interim design until aircraft like the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 came into production.

Development of the Ta 183 started as early as 1942, when the engineer Hans Multhopp assembled a team to design a new fighter. The plane was intended to use the advanced Heinkel HeS 011 turbojet, although the first prototypes were to be powered by the Junkers Jumo 004B. Early studies also included an optional 1000 kgf (10 kN) thrust rocket engine for takeoff and combat boost, fuel for up to 200 seconds of burn time stored in drop tanks under the wings.

The wings were swept back at 40 degrees and were mounted in the mid-fuselage position. The wings appear to be mounted very far forward compared to most designs, a side effect of attempting to keep the centre of pressure (CoP) of the wing as a whole as close to the middle of the fuselage as possible. The main spar consisted of two-tapered aluminium I-beams attached together on the top and bottom with thin steel sheeting. The box-like structure contained six fuel cells, giving the aircraft a total fuel load of 1,565 litres. Wooden ribs were attached to the front and back of the I-beams to give the wing its overall shape, and then covered with plywood.

The original design used a T-tail, with a notably long vertical stabilizer and a seemingly undersized horizontal stabilizer. The vertical tail was swept back at 60 degrees, and the horizontal tail was V-shaped and bent upwards somewhat. The horizontal surface was used only for trimming, the main pitching force being provided by the ailerons, which were well behind the centre of gravity and thus could provide both pitch and roll control.

The Ta 183 had a short fuselage with the air intake passing under the cockpit and proceeding to the rear where the single engine was located. The pilot sat in a pressurized cockpit with a bubble canopy, which provided excellent vision. The primary armament of the plane consisted of four 30 mm MK 108 cannons arranged around the air intake. It was also possible to carry a bomb load of 500 kg (1,100 lb) or a reconnaissance camera.

Specifications (Ta 183, as originally designed)
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 9.20 m (30 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 10.00 m (32 ft 10 in)
Height: m (ft in)
Wing area: 22.5 m² (242 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,380 kg (6,240 lb)
Loaded weight: 4,300 kg (9,480 lb)
Maximum Take-Off Weight: kg (lb)
Power plant: 1× Heinkel He.S 011 turbojet, 15.6 kN (3,500 lbf)
Performance
Maximum speed: 955 km/h (596 mph)
Range: km (miles)
Service ceiling: 14,000 m (45,920 ft)
Rate of climb: 20.4 m/s (4,020 ft/min)
Wing loading: 196 kg/m² (41 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.37
Armament
4× 30 mm MK 108 cannons (this was originally x4 20 mm MG 151)
500 kg (1,100 lb) of bombs
 

Redbeard

Banned
I doubt if a jet fighter will be significant in Barbarossa, as the Luftwaffe already had the airsuperiority. But it will certainly make it a lot more hazardous for the allies to fly over Europe by daytime. So no fighter sweeps over France in 1941 and no daybombing by the USAF later.

The fightersweeps IMHO were a waste anyway, and if they being given up means that fighter aircraft can be spared for Singapore and Malaya, it may have significance there.

No daybombing will save a lot of casualties in the USAF, but as the strategic bombing campaign had very little significance anyway it probbaly won't make a big difference if the bombs miss by day or night.

The Allies will probably postpone any landings on the European continent until a fighter capable of matching the German jets is in service in numbers.

In the later Russian campaign it will be more difficult for the Russians, but their greatest asset - overwhelming numbers - will still be in force.

If the Germans keep up a lead in Jets it could mean the allies eventually giving up the strategic bombing - all other thing being equal - I guess that increases the chances/risk of a separate peace.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
You're still going to be limited by the engines, no matter how good the airframe is. Germany doesn't have the supplies of nickel and chromium that are needed for a good jet engine. Unless you have those supplies, Germany's jet engines are going to have a critically short lifetime. They'll be on the ground far longer than they'll be in the air.

Best case scenario for Germany: Allied air offensive takes high enough casualties that B-29s are deployed to Europe first. Germany survives long enough to get nuked in August before collapsing in anarchy.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, welcome! You certainly came up with an interesting initial post.

One thing that seems to get lost in all the discussions about German jets is the fact that the Allies understood the Jet Engine as well as the Germans. Had the need arisen, the Americans and, especially, the British, could have fielded jets much sooned than occured IOTL. They did not do so because they didn't have too, propeller driven fighters were more than sufficient to win the war.

There was also the fact that early jets had extremely limited range and were, for the most part, only good as point defense weapons. One of the reasons that the -262 was delayed for so long was the search of range that would have allowed it's use as an offensive bomber. Purely defensive weapons did not hold Hitler's and, by extention, Goring's interest for very long. It wasn't until the war was lost that purely defensive aircraft (interceptors that could take no realistic part in offensive operations, even escort duties) were given the go-ahead. This includes the ME-163, ME-262, HE-162, and a number of other interesting, if not quite ready for Prime Time.

The first combat operational American & British Jets had peformance envelopes virtually identical to the ME-262, with the Meteor have slight edges in several categories. Given the inventiveness shown by the Western Allies (and, giving due credit, occasionally the USSR, when Stallin allowed it), it is fair to say that the most famous aircraft of WW II would have included a number of U.S. & U.K. & likely USSR High Performance Jets had the need for them been demonstrated. A quick review of allied breakthroughs, starting with Los Alamos, will prove this.
 
After the War the Swedes took their twin tailed Ground attack Fighter and replaced the Gas/prop engines with Jets, [looked like the British Viper]
Russian did the same with its Yaks.
So if needed Whe could have had jet powereed P38's and Spitfires by late 1942.
 
Jets

Hi.

Yes we could of had jets by the late 30's as Frank Whittle had proposed to the British Air Ministry, but was rejected.

Also the B-29 would not have redressed the blance in 1945 as the germans would of had the GO-229 flying wing fighter that could have reached the B-29. The Go-229 would of had x4 30mm MG 213C cannon, also could have been armed with either the R4M unguided missile or the Ruhrstahl/Kramer X-4 guided air to air missile. This and other type of aircraft would have cause a stalemate.
The Horton brothers were working on a supersonice aircraft in 1945 that was due to go into service in either July/August of 1945, but the war came to an end.

I think that this would have lead to a stalemate and no nukes in europe, only used against Japan. The risk of the Germans shooting down the bomber and captureing a nuke would have been to high.


 
The jet was invented in '30, its just the RAF didn't see the need to invest in such a radical unproven design with the budget constraints being what they were. Really if not for the depression and everything went full speed ahead we could have had it fully operational in the mid 30s.
The Germans on the other hand due to versailles were restricted in what they could do with conventional planes- jets somehow escaped falling under the versailles treaty so they looked straight into them.
Even still Britain managed to get our jets first. They were better too.
 
Redbeard said:
No daybombing will save a lot of casualties in the USAF, but as the strategic bombing campaign had very little significance anyway it probbaly won't make a big difference if the bombs miss by day or night.
Ah, I beg to differ! While it might not appear that the strategic bombing of Germany had any effect on the surface, it most assuredly did if one looks deeper. Luftwaffe used a lot of resources to defend the Fatherland, not only planes, but guns, men, material, munitions etc etc. Just look at the number of guns and men deployed, and their use of ammunition. Could half that number have been used on the Eastern Front or in the Med in another role, then it would have meant a great deal.

Furthermore, the military output of the German industry was lowered due to the bombings as it was forced to disperse and use scarce resources to make up for destroyed infrastruture and what not, not to mention building lots of specialized gear for air defence.

Lots of German pilots got shot to pieces defending the air space above Germany - especially the night fighters sufferede dearly - which meant a steep decline in pilot skill in general as the best died and left the young, untried and tested pilots behind. The kill ratio on the Western Front, incl. Germany itself, was murder, if you'll excuse the pun, compared to the Eastern front.

No, the bombing campaign against Germany did what it was supposed to do (what else could the Allies btw way do?); Divert German attention, so to say, hammer Germany and provide a way to strike back. To claim it did little good is in my view plainly and quite simply wrong. Just look at Hamburg, the city was more or less destroyed, something like that leaves an impression, no matter what armchair historians claim in various books 50 years later.

So, operational jet fighters from around 1941 would cause some serious butterflies as the critical years up until the Normandy invasion would turn out quite differently. Maybe even end in a peace of some sort as Redbeard speculates.

Hmm, this is one of my hobbyhorses (is that the word?), can you tell!? :)

Best regards!

- B.
 
Earlier jets might've prolonged the war in Europe for three months, in which case we would've dropped the A-bomb on Germany.
 
AMBOMB said:
Earlier jets might've prolonged the war in Europe for three months, in which case we would've dropped the A-bomb on Germany.

Every single Abomb dropped on Germany wouldn't be ready to be dropped on Japan...:D
 
Would the bombers have got past a very strong German Air defence.
With Jet Fighter and surface to air missiles like the "Enzian", the first test flights of this missile took place in early 1944.
So it would be more difficult for bombers to bomb the hart of german war industry and the major citys.
I think that the A Bombs would have been used against Japan and not Germany.
 
I'm always doubtful about threads about wonder weapons, etc. Some points-
a. Any such thread tends to underestimate institutional conservatism and inertia. I doubt very much whether jets would have been early introduced on a large scale.
b. If you're going to devote scarce materials and skilled manpower to jets, what other sections of the armed forces are going to be downgraded?
c. When it comes down to it, what the military need is easily produced, easily maintained, weapons. Jets, etc, are glamorous, but what you want are the "work horses". The Concorde is a lovely machine, but in the history of transport the Dakota is much more important.
d. For years people have been trying to claim that the bomber offensive was effective. For myself, I feel the resources and technology devoted could have been far better used elsewhere. It has been argued (I think convincingly) that one reason for the mediocrity of so much British equipment was the deployment of so many skilled technicians and scientists in support of Bomber Command. I've always been dubious about the argument that the effort that went in to anti-aircraft guns, etc, could have been deployed in the East. I suspect that without the Bomber Offensive all this stuff would simply have gone into civilian consumption.

So the argument appears to be that if jets had been introduced early (doubtful), the Bomber Offensive would have been blunted (debatable and probably irrelevant) and anti aircraft guns and men could have been transferred to the East (doubtful).
 

Redbeard

Banned
Mr.Bluenote said:
Ah, I beg to differ! While it might not appear that the strategic bombing of Germany had any effect on the surface, it most assuredly did if one looks deeper. Luftwaffe used a lot of resources to defend the Fatherland, not only planes, but guns, men, material, munitions etc etc. Just look at the number of guns and men deployed, and their use of ammunition. Could half that number have been used on the Eastern Front or in the Med in another role, then it would have meant a great deal.

Furthermore, the military output of the German industry was lowered due to the bombings as it was forced to disperse and use scarce resources to make up for destroyed infrastruture and what not, not to mention building lots of specialized gear for air defence.

Lots of German pilots got shot to pieces defending the air space above Germany - especially the night fighters sufferede dearly - which meant a steep decline in pilot skill in general as the best died and left the young, untried and tested pilots behind. The kill ratio on the Western Front, incl. Germany itself, was murder, if you'll excuse the pun, compared to the Eastern front.

No, the bombing campaign against Germany did what it was supposed to do (what else could the Allies btw way do?); Divert German attention, so to say, hammer Germany and provide a way to strike back. To claim it did little good is in my view plainly and quite simply wrong. Just look at Hamburg, the city was more or less destroyed, something like that leaves an impression, no matter what armchair historians claim in various books 50 years later.

So, operational jet fighters from around 1941 would cause some serious butterflies as the critical years up until the Normandy invasion would turn out quite differently. Maybe even end in a peace of some sort as Redbeard speculates.

Hmm, this is one of my hobbyhorses (is that the word?), can you tell!? :)

Best regards!

- B.

Hi Bluenote - allways a pleasure :)

I would still claim however, that on the bottom line the bombing campaign was a wasted effort.

The effects seen from 1944 on German production mainly was from plain old land armies taking the areas supplying strategic materials.

The manpower put into the airdefence was mainly young, old and cripples not to be utilised at the front anyway.

The material effort put into the airdefence (planes, guns and ammo) certainly would have been welcomed at the front, but the allies could free up far more by deleting (or never forming) their Bomber Commands than the Germans could by no bombing offensive.

The bombing campaign is often excused by "what else could the allies do before D-day?". My immediate suggestion would be: have a tactical airforce actually keen on and capable of supporting land forces much earlier and use some of the resources saved for defending the Empire (in the Far East). In North Africa the Desert Air Force learned to support land forces more by chance than by will from above. With a strong and dedicated allied tactical air force from the start the Axis probably would have been thrown out of Africa a year or two ahead of OTL.

In the Far East a few hundred modern fighters would alone have done the difference in Malaya, and that could have been achieved if just Fighter Command had been less infected by a wish to be "strategic" on their own - i.e. no fighter sweeps over France. But if we also add a tactical airforce in Malaya we are fast appoaching a full feldged disaster for the Japanese. In other words - Harris lost the British their Empire!

IMHO the critical years are not 1944-45, when the biggest effort in absolute terms was put into the bombing campaign, by that time the war was won (by Russian land forces) anyway. But in the years before the relative effort put into bombing simply was tremendous - the Americans could afford it, but it really clapped out the British. Here you also find the reason behind the British Army in WWII being much smaller than during WWI, and even having manpower problems (they were polishing Lancasters).

For those not really daring to completely give up strategic bombing I'll claim that it could have been performed with greater effect for less resources. First initiative would be to reserve heavy four engine planes for Coastal Command and next focus on fast low flying precision bombers like the Mosquito. I'm tempted to claim that the OTL pathfinder squadrons equipped with real bombs instead of flares would have done more damage than OTL Bomber Command - almost ;)

Back to the early jet TL it certainly would have made strategic bombing even more difficult. But then OTH I can imagine Harris: "We need four engine jet bombers right away! Stop all construction of everything else, cut the sausage and tea rations, kill somebody...get me those things nowwww!!!!"

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
AMBOMB said:
Earlier jets might've prolonged the war in Europe for three months, in which case we would've dropped the A-bomb on Germany.
Just for the sake of the argument, would the war actually have gone on til '45 had jets been introduced successfully in '41?

Prunesquallor said:
(...) So the argument appears to be that if jets had been introduced early (doubtful), the Bomber Offensive would have been blunted (debatable and probably irrelevant) and anti aircraft guns and men could have been transferred to the East (doubtful).
Well, most of my readings usually states that the reason why Britain at times fielded rather, shall we say, not quite thought through equipment - mostly seen in their tanks - was down to wierd ideas about deployment and use (as with the tanks, the old cavalry idiots blunted Hobart & Co's attempt to build an effective mechanized army) and, not to forget, limited pre-war resources.

Fact was, as Redbeard often is fond of saying, and rightly so, Britain alone outproduced the Axis. Britain did not lack any weapons, but did lack an overall strategy and some sound ideas for use of their ground forces. Cancelling the Bomber Campaign will not change that.

That said, jets would no doubt wreck havoc on the bombers in 1941. Public opinion and morale would most likely - again it is ALL speculation, afterall it's AH - force Bomber Command to call off their attacks on Germany.

That would mean more focus on offensive weapons, less focus on defensive weapons. Fewer FlaK units, thus more guns, men and vital supplies for the Eastern Front. I really don't think anybody understand how much effort the Germans put intop defending their homeland from the Allied bomber campaign - just the strategic materials for munitions was a major resource drain. The numbers of guns deployed and the numbers of men to man said guns were very high. I seem to recall that at least 400,000 men served in the FlaK units.

Then there is the shift of fighters from the Eastern Front to the west, and deployment of night fighters, and the typical Hitlerisque idea of striking back, which meant that Luftwaffe was forced to conduct the small blitz, and so on... Perhaps even no need for the Germans to devout resources to the expensive V-programmes?!

Oh, and then we have the diplomatic implications. What will the British allies think, if Britain appeares to do nothing? The Soviets will be pissed off royally, and the Americans will most likely think theirs as well...

That said, in general I don't think it that unlikely to have seen jets appear much earlier. The technology was there and as long as we talk jets - not rocket planes -, it was not that demanding to put to use, and it had its proponents - Udet in Germany f.x.

Regards and all!

- B.
 
Redbeard said:
Hi Bluenote - allways a pleasure :)
Hej Steffen! Thank you! And likewise, I might add! :)

Redbeard said:
The manpower put into the airdefence was mainly young, old and cripples not to be utilised at the front anyway.
Hmm, that's correct to a certain degree, but said persons could have found more usefull places in the arms industry or other military related assignments. The German FlaK Batteries were also, one must not forget, commanded by numbers of well trained professionals - at least for most of the war - and they would have found use in various other roles.

Redbeard said:
The material effort put into the airdefence (planes, guns and ammo) certainly would have been welcomed at the front, but the allies could free up far more by deleting (or never forming) their Bomber Commands than the Germans could by no bombing offensive.
The Germans from fairly early began to build up their air defenses. The critical period of 42-43 on the Eastern Front, and in the Med, could have used more resources. Again, the air defense of Germany was a major, major drain on the Germany economy. More so, than the Bombers drain on the British ditto, I'd say.

Lots and lots of Germany's crack fighter pilots died defending Germany from the British Bombing raids, and they could not be replaced! Which again was the direct reason for the rapid decline in Luftwaffe effectiveness in the lattre part of the war.

F.x. think of total German air superiority over Kursk? Without the Bomber Campaign more planes and pilots would have been on hand. Or even Arado-like jets flying recon over the Eastern Front in 42-43....

Redbeard said:
In the Far East a few hundred modern fighters would alone have done the difference in Malaya (...)
That's true! I, however, would claim that to be part of Britains lack of preparation before the war, and simply focusing on a number of wrong things. The early Pacific/South East Asian War was plagued by British mistakes... At least untill Slim (and Wawel, granted) turned up!

Oh, and you are right about Coastal Command getting dips on the heavies would have been way better for the British, but I can't really see what the Brits in general could have used their resouces for if not for a strategic campaign. They did have a very effective tactical airforce etc etc.

Redbeard said:
IMHO the critical years are not 1944-45, when the biggest effort in absolute terms was put into the bombing campaign, by that time the war was won (by Russian land forces)
True, which is why the implications of an aborted Bomber Campaign would have been felt seriously by the Soviets in 42-43. During the 42-43 the British (and Americans) did hammer the Germans with everything they had, and thus forced the Germans to dedicate a lot of resorces to defending the Reich, so much that the Luftwaffe nearly won the air war in 1943 as it were..

And don't forget the raids on Ploesti as well - that sucked in resources from both Germany, Bulgaria and Romania as well, not to mention the campaign angainst Italy etc ect...

Redbeard said:
Back to the early jet TL it certainly would have made strategic bombing even more difficult. But then OTH I can imagine Harris: "We need four engine jet bombers right away! Stop all construction of everything else, cut the sausage and tea rations, kill somebody...get me those things nowwww!!!!"
Well, that I can see... :D However, it might have meant that Harris found himself either not in command at all, or out of command rather quickly!

My very best regards!

- Bluenote.
 
Very interesting posts.
I guess the jets thing might save the germans only if they achieve air superiority in the east in 43-44. I doubt even the soviets could attack under those conditions, as the germans suffered in the west after D-day. The Luftwaffe could avoid the deception of the Maskirova offensives and also could cut off the soviet supply lines. But for this the germans need to have an air force good and big enough to keep the western allies out of their arispace AND mainatin air superiority in the east. Maybe too big a task.
 
Yet again, it all comes down to inertia. I simply don't believe that a large portion of German resources would have been shoved into a program which most of the military would probably have regarded as gambling on an untried and untested tecnology. Oh yes, the Germns could have had jets earlier- but on what scale?

It's perfectly true that Britain produced huge amounts of war material- but it's also true that much of this was useless, production for the sake of production figures. British tanks, for example, were notoriously poor. It's hard not to believe that if a fraction of the technological ingenuity devoted to the bomber had been deployed elsewhere Britain would have been better off.

The effort devoted by the Germans to anti-bomber measures. Had there been no bombing offensive I dont believe that the manpower (leaving aside the question of how much of this was low grade fit only for garrison duties or part time soldiers) and resources would have gone to the east. It would just have contributed to the slack in the German domestic economy.
 
Top