Luftwaffe "sanity options 2.0", 1935-43

[thaddeus]

it is sort of an outlier, they have no real doctrine for heavy bomber use and no long range escorts. there is no parts commonality, and by the time a "proper" four engine version arrives, they could/should be considering jet bombers? (given the fuels they have available)

Long range maritime patrol aircraft and long range tactical bomber against Soviet deep industry if they can't get the Ju 288 in service. (The He 177 or Ju 288 would be the only planes capable of carrying a German version of Operation Pike)

I alluded to using the HE-111Z (twin fuselage) and FW-200 Condor, they schemed (but never put into production) longer range version of the former and five engine version of the latter, think both would have served them well given the constraints the LW operated within.

when I state they did not have a doctrine for heavy bomber use (and this is coming from a layman's viewpoint), I mean they did not have one developed early enough to prompt building out a heavy bomber force.

in other words they have to scramble to convert aircraft to use but that is not necessarily a bad thing? they could make practical, productive use of the aircraft types I've mentioned, and likely some that I've missed.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

Again, it's the only aircraft capable of being a fighter, AND capable of handling the stress of deck landing. Make modifications to it, the British were doing just that to the Spitfire in the Type 224; give it a gull wing for increased wing area for example. The alternative is two fighter designs that won't ever leave the Aircraft Carrier out of fear the landing gear will break on return, and modifications to such landing gear will require more modifications than the Fw190, itself designed for dirt airfields. Finally, depending on the Aircraft Carrier design, you can use the catapult to launch the planes.

What about the He 112? As for the Bf 109, it is also easier to strengthen the landing gears of plane than turn a wholly unsuited ground fighter into a carrier based one, OTL, they did strengthen the landing gear on the 109G series and K so I don't see what's the problem.

The Spitfire Mk.2 had a stall speed of ~100 km/h, the Bf 109E-3 of around 120 km/h, the FW 190A-5 190 almost 200 km/h. Also, the carrier in question will be in service by 1937, there's no way the FW 190A-0 gets into production by that point.

 

[Petr K.]

Bite the bullet and navalize the big-wing He 112A? Who cares if it is more expensive fighter than the 109, it is not like that hundreds, let alone thousands will be needed anyway.
I'd suggest that it has two racks, each under the wing/fuselage joint, so it can carry 2 drop tanks, or two bombs, or 1+1 (sorta baby Corsair).

Fw 159 with fixed, but detachable U/C perhaps? Should be enough for training.

I will use the Fw 159 as a training plane, thank you. I originally wanted to use a different aircraft (He 51 or Ar 65) in this role, but I'm not an expert in that regard.

I believe it is more likely that there would be another contract for a new aircraft for this supposed carrier, perhaps during the same time as with the 1935 new fighter competition. So it is up to you Peter who you think might win it or what non-OTL design succeed.

Heinkel will certainly try to get his plane selected as the winner in this competition, he had enough support OTL from Udet and a few others, but, there's also the chance Fieseler, Arado, Dornier, B&V and Messerschmitt make something better. The OTL 1935 requirement of a wing loading of under 100 kg/m2 is a must in this case, and the He 112B (which will be different than the one OTL) has a higher chance of success... thought there's also the possibility of a chimera between a Bf 109 X and Bf 109 V31 (and wider wings), using the BMW 132 instead of the Jumo 205 (which will be required by the 109D) or DB600 (109E) to come on top.

Though, there will certainly be two aircrafts as a winner and a maybe loser, having some insurance and field experience on what is better suited for carrier tasks. (10 pre-series aircrafts of both types is likely)

In my story, Udet is not responsible for the development of aircraft. Wolfram von Richthofen is still the head of the development department at the Reich Air Ministry and will remain in this position throughout the war.

Nell_Lucifer, so you think that a small limited production of the He 112B is possible not only for the aircraft carrier project, but also for one Jagdgeschwader within the X. Fliegerkorps. That is, units intended purely to support the Kriegsmarine. I need a long-range single-engine fighter for bomber escort missions over the sea. I am not sure if the RLM would let two projects be implemented, i.e. Bf 109 (90% production capacity) and He 112B (10% production capacity). I understand from your post that the He 112 is too expensive and difficult to manufacture. In addition, the Bf 109 is superior in virtually every way, that is, except for range. Unfortunately, I need a long-range plane for the story. On the other hand, I want it to be a bit realistic... So is there a chance for two projects of different types of single engine fighters?

Fw190. It's the only one robust enough to take the stress of landing on a deck imo.

Unfortunately the Fw 190 will not be available in 1937 and 1938 so I cannot use it. Maybe later, but in the pre-war period it is not possible.

 

[Rizcession]

Unfortunately the Fw 190 will not be available in 1937 and 1938 so I cannot use it. Maybe later, but in the pre-war period it is not possible.

OK, I must have missed that part, my bad.

 

[Rizcession]

What about the He 112? As for the Bf 109, it is also easier to strengthen the landing gears of plane than turn a wholly unsuited ground fighter into a carrier based one, OTL, they did strengthen the landing gear on the 109G series and K so I don't see what's the problem.

The Spitfire Mk.2 had a stall speed of ~100 km/h, the Bf 109E-3 of around 120 km/h, the FW 190A-5 190 almost 200 km/h. Also, the carrier in question will be in service by 1937, there's no way the FW 190A-0 gets into production by that point.

I'm insisting on the Fw190 because the Bf109 is the same type of plane as the Spitfire, the navalised version of which, the Seafire, took until 1942 to develop and had numerous issues related to the strength of the fuselage all the way to, and including, the final variant, the Seafire FR Mk 47, and that's in spite of the fact that Britain had the most experience with Aircraft Carriers than anyone in the world, and had more Aircraft Carriers than anyone in the world. The Bf109 can be expected to fall apart the first time they try. Best you can do is taking a fighter that is structurally sound and modifying it to sidestep these issues as much as possible. I won't comment on the He112 though. Don't know much about it.

 

[Crowbar Six]

It was indeed a good dive bomber, but, boy, was it slow, even with bomb(s) gone.
The Ha 137 have had a better potential for speed, mostly by virtue of being much smaller (size sorta in-between Spitfire and Hurricane) - perhaps give better chance to this aircraft?
Ju 88 flunked the 'fast' part of it's 'fast bomber' role, again something a bit smaller will be needed, with a proper bomb bay to carry big bomb or two. Fat-belly spin off of Do-17/215 line?
Heavy fighter + bomber was the role that Focke Wulf was trying to warm the RML about with their spin-offs from the Fw 187, had RLM/LW bought into that aircraft earlier, Allied would've have more problems shooting it down than it was the case with Bf 110s or Ju 88s, let alone Ju 87s.

In 1940 the JU 88 was considered a speedy opponent and chasing them down was considered sub-optimal by RAF fighter pilots.

 

[Blue cat]

The He 112 is a dead end from an industrial production and maintenance point of view. It required 2 to 3 times as many man hours to build as the 109, it had 2 times the amount of bolts as a 109 and was a pain to repair/do maintenance on it.

This is a reason why Heinkel eventually abandoned it and went with the He 100, which was an even worse dead end than the He 112, though one that halved the number of parts needed.

I honestly don't see what they could do better than OTL, sure, some improvements here and there (not letting Arado design the Me 210 wings; Design the Me 262 with a nose wheel from the start; Do away with the 15 mm MG 151 etc) but the moment the war starts they cannot afford to change the 109 to something else, it would just lead to even worse supply issues as they rework the tools and jigs for mass production.

There's also the corporate interest at play, free capacity and 'don't throw all your eggs in the basket' approach.

Maybe put more effort into their cannon projects to try and come up with a really good cannon(s) and (ammo to fire from them) for the ME 109 engine mount, earlier than they did IOTL ?

That being said in my view they didn’t do to badly IOTL so improvements might be a challenge.

I also agree with the comments re pilots and training for pilots made by others.

 

[Blue cat]

A smattering of alternative guns for the LW, for aircraft use:
- MG 151/23 (uses the Madsen 23mm ammo), synchronised, probably at 60 kg, ~700 rd/min, Germans will make a Mine shell of, probably 150 g for it, at ~730 m/s
- MG FFM/25mm (or maybe MK 108/25) - unsynchronised, half way between the FFM and MK 108, use the French captured 25mm barrels to get the ball going, 600 rd/min, 200 g Mine shell @ 700++ m/s
- MK 108, but firing a 250 g shell, not the 330g one, through a longer barrel - should have the ballistics similar of the Japanese Ha 155 instead of the poor ballistics of the original 108
These 3 should go well as motor-cannons, while also being suitable for outer wing of the Fw 190. 2-engined fighters obviously have more elbow room for installation

- 'MK 105' - talk baby MK 103 or big MK 108, a ~100 kg gun, 330g M-shell at 700-750 m/s, 500 rd/min, casing as slender as on the historical MK 108 ammo
- the 'MK 103/37' - firing the historical 37mm 550g Mine shell at 750+ m/s,
Both of the two designed, again, as suitable for motor cannon installation. I don't favor very high MV guns since these either sacrifice hitting power, or tend to be too big or heavy, or demand a lot of internal volume for the ammo (or a combination). I also don't see the viability of anything bigger than 37mm, even if these were supposed to down a B-17 with just 1 hit.
Obviously, the ammo load is ever smaller as we go upwards with caliber.

Low-hanging fruit was the earlier choice of bigger drums for the MG FFM, people were using 75-90-100 rd drums on 20 mm cannons before ww2 started. Also a belt-fed MG FFM, and it would've been worthy to increase it's RoF to perhaps 600-650 rd/min.

Maybe look at ballistically matched MG’s and ammo for helping with sighting / aiming the cannon. This might have been especially helpful for the ME109 variants that only carried a single cannon ?

 

[Garrison]

Did the Luftwaffe ultimately need a good long range strategic bomber? Obviously it did. Was it remotely sensible for the Luftwaffe to prioritize such an aircraft given the conditions and plans in the late 1930s? Not really. Now yes if they had gone for a simpler design than the too clever for its own good He 177 they could have done better but the resources just weren't there for a decent fleet of heavy bombers and given the strategic goals of the Luftwaffe prior to the Summer of 1940 it was probably correct to focus on twin engine medium bombers.

 

[Blue cat]

And while we're at it: If I look back at the greater picture, if I could give the German Reichsministerium the right foresight and the means to stay out of political infighting: here are my top three long-term strategic choices:

1) More resources into the development of powerful radial engines. For all it's glory, the Damler-Benz inverted V-12 was complex and hard to service compared to even the British sleeve-valve radials. The fact that only a second-tier manufacturer like BMW managed to produce a good radial is a missed opportunity. My first order for 1937 would be to issue a five year plan challenge to all engine manufacturers, not just JuMo and DB, but also BMW, Argus Hirth and even Zundapp to have a 2000 HP radial comparable to the latest American designs by 1942.

2) invest in the development of powered turrets for bombers and transports. Frankly the numerous 'bread basket bulges' slapped under the fuselage of the He.111 and Fw.200's to house a single downward shooting MG are an embarrassment. Messerschmitt had a good idea with the split remotely operated turrets on both sides of its Me.410, but the development took way too long. It might be a pipedream to have remote turrets available as a viable, tested technology to be used in every new light bomber design from 1942 onwards, but even a He.111 with the turret of a Blenheim would already be a waste improvement over the current state.

3) Invest early on in the development of a strategic transport / troop carrier / paratrooper plane / glider tug comparable to the C.47/Dakota. I know, the C.47/DC.3 was a prewar civilian design, just like the Junkers 52. But it was also a design 5 years more modern than the Ju.52. The Luftwaffe should not have to go into Russian with a plane built on 12 year old technology.

(4,5,and 6 are of course the usual suspects: more resources into the development of jet engines so that the Me.262 would not have to be completely overhauled every 10 flight hours, more resources into the development of air to air and air to ground rockets as an alternative to bombs and heavy guns and more resources into the development of radar technology. But that's another point)

I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that WW2 German jet engine reliability / life span were at least partially due to lack of alloying elements for steel ?

Maybe more pre war stockpiling of key materials might have been helpful ?

 

[thaddeus]

the LW and the KM are like two jigsaw puzzles which the interesting pieces cannot be made to fit into place, an unsolvable problem(?)

my sanity option for carriers would, as a result, be planned conversions of Dithmarschen-class supply/tankers (thus the vessel is useful no matter what.) possibly the better option would be to add seaplane/flyingboat handling capacity, this was something they had experience with.

in the same vein, they seemed to eff-around with the Flettner helicopter(s) when they at least seem ready for production, there was an escort planned to employ those for ASW (again pieces from two jigsaw puzzles not fitting together)

 

[tomo pauk]

In 1940 the JU 88 was considered a speedy opponent and chasing them down was considered sub-optimal by RAF fighter pilots.

Seems like Ju 88 suffered the greatest losses among LW aircraft during the BoB (link, FWIW) - perhaps the RAF pilots in reality had no problems with it.

Maybe look at ballistically matched MG’s and ammo for helping with sighting / aiming the cannon. This might have been especially helpful for the ME109 variants that only carried a single cannon ?

I'm not sure that in air battles aiming the cannon was helped by usage of MGs.
My cunning plan is that no German fighter carries fixed LMGs as soon as the belt-fed cannons are available, just like RAF 1-engined fighters carried no .303s if they carried 4 cannons.

 

[Blue cat]

Seems like Ju 88 suffered the greatest losses among LW aircraft during the BoB (link, FWIW) - perhaps the RAF pilots in reality had no problems with it.


I'm not sure that in air battles aiming the cannon was helped by usage of MGs.
My cunning plan is that no German fighter carries fixed LMGs as soon as the belt-fed cannons are available, just like RAF 1-engined fighters carried no .303s if they carried 4 cannons.

I seem to recall reading at least one account of the ME109 machine guns being used to help aim cannon. I am a bit skeptical as to how that might have worked out in practice but thought I would mention it. In some ways the later single Cannon and dual MG ME109 variants might be a bit of a special case. Pilot training (or lack thereof ?) might also play a role ?

One could speculate endlessly I suppose.

I do tend to agree armament using a single type of weapon made a lot of sense.

 

[thaddeus]

my napkinwaffe with jet engines

alt.V-1 flying bomb, JU-86 with the addition of a rear jet (if possible(?) powering the supercharger for the two diesel piston engines), alt.DO-335 with mixed propulsion, push-pull design

a vague idea of adding a third engine to a ME-109Z twin fuselage with a center mounted alt.V-1

 

[tomo pauk]

Plenty of cannons on plenty of aircraft, to be used in a long war, will require millions upon millions of pieces of ammunition. Germans with Mine shells avoided drilling holes in a solid steel rod, since the M-shells used drawn metal to house explosive. Shells were also lighter and were carrying greater weight of explosive content. Good so far.

Cannon ammo required fuses (doh), that were small mechanisms on themselves. Here is where British were better with adiabatic fuses (a.k.a. air column fuses), that were without moving parts while still being very safe (discussion about that). Or, Japanese 20mm shells with pyrotechnic fuses - again without an actual mechanism; granted, that kind of ammo took until 1943/44 to materialize per OTL.
Either way, a lot to be saved with shiploads of ammo.
An earlier switch to the steel-cased ammo is also required, Germany lacked both copper and zinc needed for brass.

Flak and it's ammo etc. will also need overhaul.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

I will use the Fw 159 as a training plane, thank you. I originally wanted to use a different aircraft (He 51 or Ar 65) in this role, but I'm not an expert in that regard.

Wouldn't the Fieseler 167 or Arado 195 be more likely to be used as a training aircraft/torpedo bomber? If they get a working carrier in 1937 then the OTL order that lead to these two planes will arrive much earlier? Maybe a conventional plane design and an unconditional one in case the FW proves to be a failure?

Nell_Lucifer, so you think that a small limited production of the He 112B is possible not only for the aircraft carrier project, but also for one Jagdgeschwader within the X. Fliegerkorps. That is, units intended purely to support the Kriegsmarine. I need a long-range single-engine fighter for bomber escort missions over the sea. I am not sure if the RLM would let two projects be implemented, i.e. Bf 109 (90% production capacity) and He 112B (10% production capacity). I understand from your post that the He 112 is too expensive and difficult to manufacture. In addition, the Bf 109 is superior in virtually every way, that is, except for range. Unfortunately, I need a long-range plane for the story. On the other hand, I want it to be a bit realistic... So is there a chance for two projects of different types of single engine fighters?

Well, that's what they did OTL, Heinkel still produced the 112 for export for a good while. Also, I want to caution that this He 112B won't be the OTL as in this instance the He 112A will be redesigned with carrier operations in mind, so lighter wings is a given.

The RLM will approve the production of competing aircrafts usually in two instances:
1. They offer better performance at a similar cost/effort.
2. They don't utilize strategic resources or engines meant for the main fighters.

Maybe get Hirth to build a lightweight 700-1000 HP engine similarly to the 512, but with bigger cylinders to reach 20 liters like what it was tested at FKFS to power the Naval He 112B. Or get a radial engine Bf naval 109? There will be two aircrafts of comparable role, the more different they are the likelier for the RLM to order a pre-series for testing.

I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that WW2 German jet engine reliability / life span were at least partially due to lack of alloying elements for steel ?

Maybe more pre war stockpiling of key materials might have been helpful ?

Not lack in the sense they did not have it, but by design from the RLM in fear of not having enough to continue building the engines.

Though the average life of ww2 and early post war engines was commonly pretty shit, even with rare alloying elements available. The Jumo and BMW engines got from sth like 200 hours bench test 1940-1941 to 10 hours 1943/44 and then to 20-40 hours 1945, later to reach 50 in 46-50 (Soviet Union use)

 

[Blue cat]

Plenty of cannons on plenty of aircraft, to be used in a long war, will require millions upon millions of pieces of ammunition. Germans with Mine shells avoided drilling holes in a solid steel rod, since the M-shells used drawn metal to house explosive. Shells were also lighter and were carrying greater weight of explosive content. Good so far.

Cannon ammo required fuses (doh), that were small mechanisms on themselves. Here is where British were better with adiabatic fuses (a.k.a. air column fuses), that were without moving parts while still being very safe (discussion about that). Or, Japanese 20mm shells with pyrotechnic fuses - again without an actual mechanism; granted, that kind of ammo took until 1943/44 to materialize per OTL.
Either way, a lot to be saved with shiploads of ammo.
An earlier switch to the steel-cased ammo is also required, Germany lacked both copper and zinc needed for brass.

Flak and it's ammo etc. will also need overhaul.

I suppose at this point one could bring up the concept of using impact fused flak shells vs time fused flak shells (pending the development of effective proximity fuses.) From other debates (perhaps on other sites ?) I seem to recall a concept of somewhat smaller guns firing impact fused shells (perhaps also with tracers to deter, distract etc air crew) seemed to come up as well.

I seem to recall reading about a late war German Study into impact fuses vs time fuses decades ago and also seem to recall reading of very late WW2 German Flak units being instructed to use the impact setting (or maybe just the maximum time on the time fuse assuming they had some form of back impact fuse ?) vs time setting on their fuses. This suggestion seems to come up from time to time and is generally debated somewhat.

At first glance removing the need to manufacture time fuses, set time fuses in action, calculate the needed time fuse setting, likely slow down the rate of fire by the flak guns to allow for a consistent time between fuse setting and shell firing etc seems attractive pending the introduction of proximity fuses. (I am assuming that impact fuses were simpler to make than time fuses (especially mechanical time fuses as opposed to powder train fuses.)

Anyways I figured now was a good time to perhaps re hash this (especially for new comers to this topic.)

Edit to add, maybe some form of time fuse might have been desirable to stop impact fused shells from landing on friendly territory but presumably a fairly simple non adjustable fuse with minimal accuracy requirements could have been used ?

Cheers.

 

[Blue cat]

Wouldn't the Fieseler 167 or Arado 195 be more likely to be used as a training aircraft/torpedo bomber? If they get a working carrier in 1937 then the OTL order that lead to these two planes will arrive much earlier? Maybe a conventional plane design and an unconditional one in case the FW proves to be a failure?

Well, that's what they did OTL, Heinkel still produced the 112 for export for a good while. Also, I want to caution that this He 112B won't be the OTL as in this instance the He 112A will be redesigned with carrier operations in mind, so lighter wings is a given.

The RLM will approve the production of competing aircrafts usually in two instances:
1. They offer better performance at a similar cost/effort.
2. They don't utilize strategic resources or engines meant for the main fighters.

Maybe get Hirth to build a lightweight 700-1000 HP engine similarly to the 512, but with bigger cylinders to reach 20 liters like what it was tested at FKFS to power the Naval He 112B. Or get a radial engine Bf naval 109? There will be two aircrafts of comparable role, the more different they are the likelier for the RLM to order a pre-series for testing.


Not lack in the sense they did not have it, but by design from the RLM in fear of not having enough to continue building the engines.

Though the average life of ww2 and early post war engines was commonly pretty shit, even with rare alloying elements available. The Jumo and BMW engines got from sth like 200 hours bench test 1940-1941 to 10 hours 1943/44 and then to 20-40 hours 1945, later to reach 50 in 46-50 (Soviet Union use)

Okay but presuming the early results with 200 hour life times were at least somewhat due to rare alloying elements being used, would that have been a worthwhile improvement assuming the necessary rare alloying elements were available in 1944-45 ? Maybe build two streams of engines (one stream with a long life that are fitted to the air craft in the factory, another stream with a short life for use as emergency spares to get aircraft combat worthy again after battle damage or what not ?)

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

Okay but presuming the early results with 200 hour life times were at least somewhat due to rare alloying elements being used, would that have been a worthwhile improvement assuming the necessary rare alloying elements were available in 1944-45 ? Maybe build two streams of engines (one stream with a long life that are fitted to the air craft in the factory, another stream with a short life for use as emergency spares to get aircraft combat worthy again after battle damage or what not ?)

Perhaps, though I will have to read on it again to see what were the problems with using rare elements. I know that Krupp offered a 'better' alloy to their Tinidur, one that contained 60% nickel to the 30% of Tinidur but I am unsure if it was worth it, the Tinidur from my memory, because of the 2% Titanium in it, was unweld-able and had problems of fabrication that took time to the no-nickel, chromium alloy with the stamped blades.

I am also not sure how much was the fault of the alloys used and how much the fault of the engine design.

Edit: Also please note that it wasn't that big of a problem the low lifespan of the engine, for the Me 262, it took 30 minutes to replace the engines and they had more spare parts and aircrafts than pilots to fly them anyway.

 

[tomo pauk]

I suppose at this point one could bring up the concept of using impact fused flack shells vs time fused flack shells (pending the development of effective proximity fuses.) From other debates (perhaps on other sites ?) I seem to recall a concept of somewhat smaller guns firing impact fused shells (perhaps also with tracers to deter, distract etc air crew) seemed to come up as well.

I seem to recall reading about a late war German Study into impact fuses vs time fuses decades ago and also seem to recall reading of very late WW2 German Flack units being instructed to use the impact setting vs time setting on their fuses. This suggestion seems to come up from time to time and is generally debated somewhat.

Yes, there was a late-war report or two where Germans claimed that impact-fused shells have had higher chances of downing Allied A/C than it was the case with time-fused ammo.

At first glance removing the need to manufacture time fuses, set time fuses in action, calculate the needed time fuse setting, likely slow down the rate of fire by the flack guns to allow for a consistent time between fuse setting and shell firing etc seems attractive pending the introduction of proximity fuses. (I am assuming that impact fuses were simpler to make than time fuses (especially mechanical time fuses as opposed to powder train fuses.)

Anyways I figured now was a good time to perhaps re hash this (especially for new comers to this topic.)

There were a couple of ways to improve hit probability, at least what Germans were experimenting with, concentrated on achieving greater muzzle velocities. Like sub-caliber shells, 'arrow' shells to be fired from smooth-bore cannons, and squeeze-bore cannons. Expectations were high on these, both due to the improved hit and destruction probablility, as well as for the expected savings in usage of raw materials (in 1944 it took 16000 - 16 thousand - of heavy shells to kill Allied bomber).

Perhaps, though I will have to read on it again to see what were the problems with using rare elements. I know that Krupp offered a 'better' alloy to their Tinidur, one that contained 60% nickel to the 30% of Tinidur but I am unsure if it was worth it, the Tinidur from my memory, because of the 2% Titanium in it, was unweld-able and had problems of fabrication that took time to the no-nickel, chromium alloy with the stamped blades.

I am also not sure how much was the fault of the alloys used and how much the fault of the engine design.

Alloy 'Chromadur' was supposed to be used for the turbine blades. It contained no nickel, but a lot of chromium.