German long-range torpedo bombers

BlondieBC

Banned
As I said earlier:

...

There are ways to get all of this done and indeed there were several officers in the LW pushing for all of this, the most important was Felmy. It would require an early POD in 1935-6, killing off Goering and saving Wever, but it could be done. Certain aircraft would have to be nixed early on and others built, with different priorities and investments being made in the aviation industry, but without Goering its all very plausible.

Ok, say all of this was done, how big an impact do you think it would have had on the war? Goering abused prescription drugs, so Goering dead/incapacitated is quite easy to see. Assume France still falls roughly on schedule and Hitler still attacks Russia in 1941.
 

abc123

Banned
Also the 1500km range was from Bordeaux. From Brest it would extend their range about 300 miles.



From Brest the range is extended significantly into the Northern Waters.


Also, let not forget bases in Norway.
That should cover the area between UK and Iceland, especially good for intercepting convoys to Murmansk and Arhangelsk.

I wonder, would Bf 110 D version could be used as some sort of torpedo-bomber?
Maybe little larger aircraft, more efficient engines, larger fuel tanks ( maybe even external fuel tanks )...
 

Deleted member 1487

Ok, say all of this was done, how big an impact do you think it would have had on the war? Goering abused prescription drugs, so Goering dead/incapacitated is quite easy to see. Assume France still falls roughly on schedule and Hitler still attacks Russia in 1941.

Without Goering and several structural changes I'd purpose, then its unlikely that the Germans would turn East in 1941. They'd be in it to win it against Britain. This is critical because OTL after the fall of France the Germans put their resources in preparing the army by May 1941 to invade Russia (delays obviously changed the timing), which meant the Navy and LW were badly under-capitalized to fight Britain at the most critical point.

Assuming all of this is done and after France falls the LW and Kriegsmarine work together under Wever its plausible that the British could be strangled enough to come to terms. It wouldn't be easy and the British are a formidable foe, but in the mid-1940 to mid-1941 period they are at their most vulnerable and the Germans have their best shot to take out the British. I am planning a TL about this one day, not soon, for I have too much other things to focus on right now, but with everything I've read, which is quite a lot, there is a path that can be taken that would end up with the British bowing out of the war in 1941.


I wonder, would Bf 110 D version could be used as some sort of torpedo-bomber?
Maybe little larger aircraft, more efficient engines, larger fuel tanks ( maybe even external fuel tanks )...
No, it was a dog of an aircraft, very unmaneuverable except near 20mph of its top speed. A torpedo aircraft needs to be reasonable maneuverable at slower speeds.
 
Hmmm, that sort of disagrees with what I have seen (and linked to earlier). For example, the official US figures for 1938 show that US produced 165,200 tons aluminum out of a total world production of 579,000 tons or about 28.5%. I imagine Germany's went down as a percent total from there on in. US production, of course, skyrocketed.

Historically, aluminum was in short in Germany during the war. Germany was forced to resort to such measures as hunting down drop tanks for recycling.
Huh, I have figures from 1938-1939 that has Germany at about 28% of world production and the Us at 25%, which changed once the US started to rearm.
 

Rubicon

Banned
Historically, aluminum was in short in Germany during the war. Germany was forced to resort to such measures as hunting down drop tanks for recycling.

Which is actually strange, because the European Axis had an abundance of bauxite, and a production greater the British Empire and the USA combined.

I think it rather is a question of not enough labour being allocated to aluminium production instead of lack of raw material in this particular case. You can actually see if you study labour allocation that the production of aluminium rises (and falls) when labour is allocated to it (o withdrawn)
 
No, it was a dog of an aircraft, very unmaneuverable except near 20mph of its top speed. A torpedo aircraft needs to be reasonable maneuverable at slower speeds.

The only version which handled like a dog was the Me-110E which was overloaded with armor. Other versions handled normally for an aircraft of it's size.



Re: aluminum. The Me-109 troubles with drop-tanks stemmed from the fact that they were made of wood. Why would they do that? The USAAF ordered P-47 units to stop using British paper-and-paste drop tanks in 1943, and use only approved aluminum tanks.
 
Do you have a cite that supports your assertion that the European Axis had a greater production of either aluminum or bauxite than the US and the Commonwealth? I find the idea hard to believe based on the figures I have seen and to which I posted a link. These figures show that in 1938 the US had produced around 28.5% of the world's aluminum. By 1942 the US was producing over 45% of the world's aluminum. Somehow I think that in 1942 the UK, Canada, and the Soviet Union were responsible for more than 5% . Of course, Japan would have to be taken into account, too. This makes it seem unlikely that the European Axis, even with seized Norsk Hydro assets produced more aluminum than the US, let alone the US and the Commonwealth.
Which is actually strange, because the European Axis had an abundance of bauxite, and a production greater the British Empire and the USA combined.

I think it rather is a question of not enough labour being allocated to aluminium production instead of lack of raw material in this particular case. You can actually see if you study labour allocation that the production of aluminium rises (and falls) when labour is allocated to it (o withdrawn)
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Do you have a cite that supports your assertion that the European Axis had a greater production of either aluminum or bauxite than the US and the Commonwealth? I find the idea hard to believe based on the figures I have seen and to which I posted a link. These figures show that in 1938 the US had produced around 28.5% of the world's aluminum. By 1942 the US was producing over 45% of the world's aluminum. Somehow I think that in 1942 the UK, Canada, and the Soviet Union were responsible for more than 5% . Of course, Japan would have to be taken into account, too. This makes it seem unlikely that the European Axis, even with seized Norsk Hydro assets produced more aluminum than the US, let alone the US and the Commonwealth.

This thread seems to support your figures:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=161206
It seems the Germans produced electricity second only to the US, which means they had plenty and didn't really need to tap into coal, as they had lots of hydroelectric plants in the Alt- and Grossreich.

Also: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O129-rawandsyntheticmaterials.html
Part of the problem with the 1938 figures though is that they don't indicate trade deals that Germany had set up with the Balkan states, Turkey, and Spain, which met her needs for most metals that Germany did not produce herself.

Part of the problem with Aluminum in Germany was that the manufacturers were requesting double what they needed to complete airframes, which meant they were hoarding it. When Speer found out in 1942 he requisitioned it, which helped boost production of aircraft to over 40,000 by 1944. Also major inefficiencies wasted a fair amount of materials: aircraft frame plants were scattered and did not centralize component construction to make it harder to bomb from the air. This badly affected efficiency, which prevented large scale assembly lines, like the one in Detroit that was over 1 miles long.

Also the constant emphasis on craft production over mass manufacturing, plus numerous, non-compatible variants to aircraft, contrary to suggestions by manufacturing experts in the LW and other economic planning offices, further wasted raw materials. It wasn't until 1943-44 that raw material usage became much more efficient.

The article about deconstructing Speer's armaments 'miracle' I posted earlier gets into all this and more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Bauxite_Province
Also Germany had access to Yugoslav bauxite from 1938 on and from 1940 on the southern French deposits.
Mediterranean Bauxite Province - a major region of high-quality bauxite ores that stretches for 3,000 km along the northern shore of the Mediterranean Sea from Spain to Turkey, encompassing parts of southern France, Italy, Yugoslavia, and Greece. The province covers an area of about 2 million sq km.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rubicon

Banned
Do you have a cite that supports your assertion that the European Axis had a greater production of either aluminum or bauxite than the US and the Commonwealth? I find the idea hard to believe based on the figures I have seen and to which I posted a link. These figures show that in 1938 the US had produced around 28.5% of the world's aluminum. By 1942 the US was producing over 45% of the world's aluminum. Somehow I think that in 1942 the UK, Canada, and the Soviet Union were responsible for more than 5% . Of course, Japan would have to be taken into account, too. This makes it seem unlikely that the European Axis, even with seized Norsk Hydro assets produced more aluminum than the US, let alone the US and the Commonwealth.

Statistical Yearbook of League of Nations 1937-38 p.151
Aluminum production
USA 102K metric tons
Germany 97,2K metric tons
Italy 16,9K metric tons
Great Britain 16,2K metric tons

Statistical yearbook of League of Nations 1939-40 p.152
Bauxite Prouduction 1936
USA 378K metric tons
Great Britain 0
Malay States 13,8K metric tons (1937)
Germany 63K metric tons
Italy 386,5K metric tons
Hungary 532,7K metric tons


Unless of course I am reading those tables wrong
 
Last edited:
So your figures support what I had felt was true--Germany was not producing more aluminum than the US, let alone the US and the Commonwealth. You forgot to add in Canada's aluminum production, btw, which was substantial.

Actually, if you look at the chart again, I think you copied the figures incorrectly. The way I read the chart, Germany, after seizing Austria and part of Czechoslovakia, did briefly out produce the US. But only briefly as the later figures during the war years show.

Bottom line is that by the end of 1942 Germany is short of aluminum. Think about it--that's why later in the war they try to build planes with non-strategic materials.

Statistical Yearbook of League of Nations 1937-38 p.151
Aluminum production
USA 102K metric tons
Germany 97,2K metric tons
Italy 16,9K metric tons
Great Britain 16,2K metric tons

Statistical yearbook of League of Nations 1939-40 p.151
Bauxite Prouduction 1936
USA 378K metric tons
Great Britain 0
Malay States 13,8K metric tons (1937)
Germany 63K metric tons
Italy 386,5K metric tons
Hungary 532,7K metric tons


Unless of course I am reading those tables wrong
 

Rubicon

Banned
So your figures support what I had felt was true--Germany was not producing more aluminum than the US, let alone the US and the Commonwealth. You forgot to add in Canada's aluminum production, btw, which was substantial.

Actually, if you look at the chart again, I think you copied the figures incorrectly. The way I read the chart, Germany, after seizing Austria and part of Czechoslovakia, did briefly out produce the US. But only briefly as the later figures during the war years show.

Bottom line is that by the end of 1942 Germany is short of aluminum. Think about it--that's why later in the war they try to build planes with non-strategic materials.

I said bauxite production, not aluminium, that was what you said and I never disagreed.
However I forgot to add in the bauxite production of British Guiana which was 212,7K metric tons.
 
Ok, I see what you mean in your original post. I read that they had an abundance of bauxite but the aluminum production was greater (as we had been discussing the actual production was of aluminum, not bauxite). You meant the bauxite in both clauses. English is not good with pronouns.
I said bauxite production, not aluminium, that was what you said and I never disagreed.
However I forgot to add in the bauxite production of British Guiana which was 212,7K metric tons.
 
Top