Luftwaffe "sanity options 2.0", 1935-43

There's been no discussion of whether anything can be done to improve German radar. Therefore, can anything be done to improve German radar? AIUI German radars in the early part of the war were better than Britain's because they used lower wavelengths. However, the British were ahead in the application of radar and that lead would increase as the war progressed.

Could Germany have put a 50cm airborne interception radar into service by 1939? IOTL they only had a handful of night fighter squadrons when the war broke out which were equipped with Ar68s and Bf109s so a twin-engine night fighter is needed to fit it to.

I also want an ASV radar in large scale service with the Maritime Luftwaffe by September 1939. Is that feasible?

And finally, the big one, VT fuses in service by 1943? They already had 2,600 heavy AA guns in September 1939 so enough I think they can mass produce the VT fuses for the ammunition. Did Germany have access to enough of the raw materials needed to make them?
 
From what I can gather, it will take 1st sorting out the jet engine program, since the gas turbine has the jet engine as a core.
FWIW when I wrote gas turbines, I meant jet engines.

However, having Damler Benz & Junkers Jumo develop turboprop in the 3,000shp class and put them into production in 1943 ITTL with the resources devoted to the DB coupled engines and the Jumo 222 IOTL seems feasible to me. However, I can imagine @Just Leo spinning in his grave because I remember the number of times he poured scorn (as only he could) on my suggestions that Germany could have developed jet engines and gas turbines sooner.
 
To answer the question if Germany could build more aircrafts. Yes they can and you don't need an equivalent exchange of one type for another.

This was a very big problem with the German industry, the constant changing of manufacturing orders or tasking companies to build small amounts of completely different types. I remember reading how a company from 1935 to 1939 had to retool their factory more than 10 times and only built less than 100 aircrafts for each type. The RLM needs a better manufacturing plan. The months lost on tooling for completely similar aircrafts is completely avoidable.

Their OTL RLM production plans (which were never achieved) were based in reality and could have been possible if they had a better organization plan.

Example:
1938 Plan No.6
Planned: 5800 (all types), 4129 (combat)
Produced: 5235, 3350

1939 Plan No. 8
Planned: 9957, 7095
Produced: 8295, 4733

Also, the FW 187 could not do everything the Bf 110 could, even if the Bf 110 could not do everything it was meant for. It lacked growth potential like the Bf 110, and from what I've seen it discussed online, every promised variant was in reality a completely different aircraft. Honestly, they should have build two hundred and no more as a long range escort fighter, afterwards replace it with the FW 190 or some other long range fighter.
 
And finally, the big one, VT fuses in service by 1943? They already had 2,600 heavy AA guns in September 1939 so enough I think they can mass produce the VT fuses for the ammunition. Did Germany have access to enough of the raw materials needed to make them?
VT fuses will probably reduce the number of shells required for a kill by a sizable factor, thus saving on war material like steel, copper, aluminium, explosives and propellants. It also lowers the wear and tear of the cannons (by 1944, about 10000 of 88mm and bigger Flak were in use West of Berlin). Westermann in his thesis notes that it was required 4000 of heavy shells to down an aircraft in 1942, skyrocketing to 16000 (!!) in 1944. Luftwaffe was receiving some 1.4 millions of heavy Flak shells in some months of ww2, and many months they received more than 1 million. Just a reduction by a factor of two is a huge relief for the German raw material needs, as well as manpower and energy needs.

Also, the FW 187 could not do everything the Bf 110 could, even if the Bf 110 could not do everything it was meant for. It lacked growth potential like the Bf 110, and from what I've seen it discussed online, every promised variant was in reality a completely different aircraft. Honestly, they should have build two hundred and no more as a long range escort fighter, afterwards replace it with the FW 190 or some other long range fighter.

Neither the Bf 110 nor Fw 190 can take a pair of MK 103s in the air and look god while doing that. By 'look good' I mean still no being dead meat at 25000 ft when P-47s arrive.
If Bf 110 have had the growth potential, it had hard time showing it in performance department.
You can take a look on the baubeschreibung of the 'heavy fighter-bomber' Fw 187, the main difference being the engines (BMW or DB) and required strenthening of the wing for the radial-powered version since BMW 801 was very heavy.
 
I have a question...
What would be a suitable fighter for a German aircraft carrier. I'm writing a new story and Germany has a small training aircraft carrier in service in late 1937. The capacity of the aircraft carrier is around 22-26 aircraft. I don't want a Bf 109T, the short range bothers me and additional fuel tanks are not a solution. I was considering the He 112, but the local discussions about this aircraft have somewhat challenged my opinion. Is there a solution other than the He 112 or Bf 109T in 1937 or 1938? And I don't want a Czech Avia, that is, no biplane as a fighter.
Thank you in advance for any opinions and recommendations.
Was that influence by my many suggestions that Germany do that on this forum. I'm not complaining and if it's true I'm flattered.

I suggest that you start in the early 1920s by having the Reichsmarine make contingency plans for the conversion of a suitable merchant ship into an experimental aircraft carrier when the legal situation allows it, i.e. when the Treaty of Versailles is amended or repealed. These plans are regularly updated and implemented in January 1933, i.e. when the Nazis come to power because time is off the essence. The conversion takes about 2 years and her existence is announced in March 1935 when Hitler denounced the military, naval and air clauses of the Treaty of Versailles.

I wanted the experimental carrier to be a conversion of the MV Hanover, but she was launched on 23.03.39.

Germany developed a bespoke carrier based fighter called the Arado Ar 197 IOTL which first flew in the Spring of the 1937. The Mitsubishi A5M the predecessor the Zero made its first flight in February 1935. So my advice is buy some of them. And for the replacement buy some Zeros from Japan and/or get a manufacturing licence.

You haven't mentioned the Ju87T, but Heinkel designed the He50 dive bomber for the IJN. That aircraft first flew in 1931 and it was the basis of the Aichi D1A which made its first flight in 1934. Meanwhile, in 1932, the the German Defence Ministry ordered 3 development and a production batch of 60 He60A-1s which were delivered in the summer of 1933. So there's your first carrier strike aircraft. I think the Fiesler Fi167 which first flew in November 1937 would be a better strike aircraft than the Ju87T because it had excellent STOL characteristics which would be invaluable when operating from aircraft carriers in the North Atlantic and its paper performance statistics were better than the Fairey Albacores. However, I don't know if the Fi167 could dive bomb. Does anyone know if it could?

IOTL some Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe officers were sent to Japan to learn how to "aircraft carrier" and I advise you to send more officers to do that ITTL. And while you're at it have the Kriedsmanine's naval architects get more advice on how to design an aircraft carrier from the IJN's naval architects so they design a better Graff Zeppelin.
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.
Again, is that because of comments made by me on this forum over the years? That is, the characteristics of the Dithmarschen class were remarkably similar to the American Cimarron class oilers, some of which were converted to Sangamon class escort carriers and upon which the keep-up Commencement Bay class escort carriers were based. If so, I'm flattered.
 
Last edited:
Neither the Bf 110 nor Fw 190 can take a pair of MK 103s in the air and look god while doing that. By 'look good' I mean still no being dead meat at 25000 ft when P-47s arrive.
If Bf 110 have had the growth potential, it had hard time showing it in performance department.
You can take a look on the baubeschreibung of the 'heavy fighter-bomber' Fw 187, the main difference being the engines (BMW or DB) and required strenthening of the wing for the radial-powered version since BMW 801 was very heavy.
I don't really get what you want to say here, in the first place, why would they have to take a pair of MK103s? Or why would the FW 190 be dead meat? It did pretty well OTL against the P-47, plus, it was not meant as a high altitude fighter so if there's a need, get a 190C, D14 or a Ta 152H.

The Bf 110 was supposed to be replaced by the Me 210 by 1942, when that did not happen they had to continue building more, and, any upgrade that could have increased its performance were deemed unjustified to the disruption it could cause to the production. The Bf 110 could act as a heavy fighter, long range escort, light bomber, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, ground attacker, bomber hunter, reconnaissance and night fighter. The FW 187 could not do half of those roles in the same aircraft. The heavy fighter bomber you are talking about is a complete different aircraft to the base FW 187, it is not just a wing strengthening but a complete redesign to the wing and body shape.

However, by that time the Bf 110G/H or FW 190A sees the P-47 in 1943, the 110 should be no longer in production and replaced by the actually better FW 187, less wooden Ta 154/254 and the FW 190 has nothing to do at that altitude, leaving the high altitude fighting to the Bf 109 or the FW 190C.

The FW 190C or D could very well use a MK103 motor cannon if it was required, or in wing pods. But the armament would already be overkill in 1 x 30 mm MK103 motor cannon, 2 x 30 mm MK 103 gunpods, 2 x 20 mm MG 151 and 2 x 7.92 mm MG or 13 mm MG 131.
 
VT fuses will probably reduce the number of shells required for a kill by a sizable factor, thus saving on war material like steel, copper, aluminium, explosives and propellants. It also lowers the wear and tear of the cannons (by 1944, about 10000 of 88mm and bigger Flak were in use West of Berlin). Westermann in his thesis notes that it was required 4000 of heavy shells to down an aircraft in 1942, skyrocketing to 16000 (!!) in 1944. Luftwaffe was receiving some 1.4 millions of heavy Flak shells in some months of ww2, and many months they received more than 1 million. Just a reduction by a factor of two is a huge relief for the German raw material needs, as well as manpower and energy needs.
You and @BlackDragon98 (who I have on ignore) ninja'd me. See this section of Post 62 by you, which was in reply to Post 61 by him.
Good call on the need to develop the proximity fuses.
We'd probably see the see-saw battle between Allies trying to jam the fuses and Germans trying to find the ways of frequency-hoping. Acoustic proximity fuses were also tested in Germany, so that is perhaps another thing worth pursuing.
Proximity fuses might also be a way to make efficient all the unguided AA rockets Germany was developing.

Another thing of interest are the AA missiles.
Are the AA missiles SAMs or AAMs or both. The improvements to the AA guns will force the Allies to develop bombers that can fly at higher altitudes sooner which in turn will force the Germans to develop a high altitude SAM sooner.

How efficient was German AA gun and ammunition production methods? The source saying that the Luftwaffe had 2,600 heavy AA guns in September 1939 also said that it had 6,700 light AA guns in September 1939 as well. Were more efficient production methods available? It might not be possible to save raw materials, but it might be possible to save workers that can be used to make something else.
 
Germany developed a bespoke carrier based fighter called the Arado Ar 195 IOTL which first flew in the Spring of the 1937. The Mitsubishi A5M the predecessor the Zero made its first flight in February 1935. So my advice is buy some of them. And for the replacement buy some Zeros from Japan and/or get a manufacturing licence.

You haven't mentioned the Ju87T, but Heinkel designed the He50 dive bomber for the IJN. That aircraft first flew in 1931 and it was the basis of the Aichi D1A which made its first flight in 1934. Meanwhile, in 1932, the the German Defence Ministry ordered 3 development and a production batch of 60 He60A-1s which were delivered in the summer of 1933. So there's your first carrier strike aircraft. I think the Fiesler Fi167 which first flew in November 1937 would be a better strike aircraft than the Ju87T because it had excellent STOL characteristics which would be invaluable when operating from aircraft carriers in the North Atlantic and its paper performance statistics were better than the Fairey Albacores. However, I don't know if the Fi167 could dive bomb. Does anyone know if it could?
The He 112 and He 118 were both considered for carrier duties and they would probably be a better choice than employing three types as originally envisioned. Fighter, bomber and reconnaissance with Bf 109T, Ju 87T and Fi167. Easier for maintenance if both types used the same DB600/601 engine.

(If the He 112B was built from the start as a carrier fighter it could perhaps used more Elektron alloy in its composition and lower its dry weight further than the original B-0, and with a DB600 or DB601 it would have achieved excellent performance in terms of speed, maneuverability and range)
 
Indeed, the drop tank is a must for the 109s; drop tank was standard issue eg. on the Hs 123 already in 1936-37. The 300L drop tanks should've enable the 109 to escort bombers through almost all England and Wales, instead of just past London.
Speaking of which, the Hs 123 should have been much more widely produced.
It was robust, easy to maintain, inexpensive, an accurate bomber, and it had the best turn around time of any German bomber during the Battle of France according to Generaloberst Guderian.
It would have been a great export plane as well, more units sold to Nationalist Spain (they bought every Hs-123 used by the Condor Legion), as well as exports to countries like Finland.
Luftwaffe should also seriously consider the big drum for the MG FF & FFM to increase the combat endurance, their 60 rd drums will be empty in 7 seconds of firing. Big drum was a low hanging fruit.
MG FF and derivatives were merely a stopgap till a cannon with belted ammo could be developed.
Which too far too long.

An in-between solution for the draggy 109E was mooted, the project that had retractable tailwheel, strut-less tail, better ram air intake, new cockpit and oil cooler.
side elevation
Note sure what were the results, but even halving the difference vs. the 109F would mean a ~580 km/h 109E on the DB 601 engine, and probably ~590 with the 601N? This way the 109E is the fastest fighter now, not the Spitfire, with Hurricane dropping on an even lower level.
Lower drag also improves mileage.
By the same logic, a DB 601 engined Fw 187 single seater would have better range than a Bf 110 C-4.

Göring, Schmid and Udet receive most of the blame for the Luftwaffe's avoidable problems. Can anything be done to make them better at their jobs?
Schmid never should have been given the position he held, same as Udet.
Both of their unworthy promotions stem from Goering.

As for Goering, even without the morphine he was nothing but a bully, a thug, and an uneducated egotist.
He was despised by the pilots of the Red Baron's Jasta after he took command for the very same reasons.

I'll say it once and I'll say it again.
"Why the hell does that fat turd have the Baron's job?"
"Because the Baron was dead and the fat turd had all the right friends.

Re the thread "Luftwaffe focused on Liverpool docks". Does most of England include Liverpool?

Is an production exchange rate of two Bf109s for one Bf110 feasible? The reduction in types may help by allowing larger scale production techniques to be used.
No.
An aircraft is much more than just an engine.

For a bunch of Henry Ford admirers, Nazi Germany took for too long to convert their war production to the assembly line method.

Operationally two Bf109s may use the same fuel as one Bf110 and I think there would be enough ground crew because AFAIK the Luftwaffe had a surplus IOTL which was one of the reasons why some of them became ground troops in the Luftwaffe's field divisions.
The surplus was largely from bomber squadrons which no longer existed or were needed after the Reich was forced on the defensive.
And the bomber squadrons that were still existing were gutted in a fit of madness known as Operation Steinbock.
And it wasn't just ground crew.
Meterological personnel, cooks, medical personnel, etc.
And they were all squandered by the fat turd and his ego.
Finding twice as many pilots may be a problem. However, some of them could be given to the Bulgarians, Finns, Hungarians, Romanians or even the Italians. which aught to improve the effectiveness of their air forces.
Indeed.
As I recall, the Hungarians used the otherwise maligned Me 210 to great effectiveness.

But what does the Luftwaffe do for a night fighter if it doesn't have the Bf110? Can more Ju88s be built in their place?
Probably.
The Ju 88 was actually a better nightfighter than the Bf 110.

"Build more aircraft, and Erhard Milch will beat a path to your door!”

Could Germany have built more aircraft (and spares) 1935-43 ITTL? However, as the Nazis came to power in January 1933 that would be a better time to start.

AFAIK the German aircraft industry wasn't as well organised as it could have been and productivity wasn't as good as it could have been. That is (1) mass production methods could not be used because too many models & too many marks were in production and individual factories were building too many models & marks. And (2) there were too many changes in production plans, some of which were dictated by the enemy & the rest were self-inflicted and all led to a lot of lost production,

Are the "AFAIKs" correct? And if they are how many aircraft could Germany have built 1935-43 with the raw materials that were available?
Another book many here would find interesting.
"Arming the Luftwaffe - The German Aviation Industry in World War II"

AFAIK the Luftwaffe had the ground crew to absorb the extra production. E.g. I mentioned the transfer of some of the ground crew to form the field divisions in Post 137. However, a shortage of aircraft (rather than a shortage) of personnel retarded the growth of the Luftwaffe since before the POD.

The Luftwaffe would need more aircrew for the extra aircraft. Some of the extra aircraft would be trainers, but where do the instructors come from? OTOH the Luftwaffe borrowed aircraft & instructors from the training schools to bring the first-line units to full strength for major operations, which reduced the output of trained aircrew. The infamous was Stalingrad. Here the Luftwaffe has more aircraft and if it can find more instructors to train more aircrew there's less need to borrow aircraft & instructors from the training schools. Therefore no reduction in the output of trained aircrew and over time the gap between the number of extra aircrew and the number of extra aircraft narrows. The vicious circle of OTL is replaced by a virtuous circle ITTL.

The extra aircraft won't fly without fuel. Therefore, what can be done to increase Germany's supply of aviation fuel between 1935 and 1943?
The recruitment training and selection process was too complex, by the time it was simplified it was too late.
The initial batch of pilots were Lufthansa pilots trained in secret.
The selection process was too complex and the requirements far too high.
I blame Milch for that load of nonsense.
What use is a small number of elite personnel against the might of the British Empire, France, the USSR, and the USA?

Instructors - that is easy, rotate the experienced pilots from the operative units (after a few hours of weeding out of pilots that are likely to be bad instructors). Stalingrad is too late to matter, LW needs to get it's training to the high gear by late 1930s.
Easier said than done.
The Luftwaffe was stretched from the start and it only worse as more fronts opened up.

German trainers strike me as gold-plated, like the Ar 96 - sheet metal contruction, a V12 engine (no less; RLM was expecting 700/month of these to be produced in plans from 1938, and ended with 30000 such engines made). Compare with the Miles trainers, or he American stuff, where 9 cyl radials were used, and a lot of time the canvas-clad fuselages were deemed just fine.
So that's another avenue of possible save to make more - simple engine in the nose, use steel sheet, wood and fabric to make best part of a trainer.

Worthy of it's own thread :)
The Ar 96 was definitely a big waste of valuable resources.

Fw 187 was a long range fighter. Internal fuel carried was about 1100L (187 V4 baubeschreibung says: 2x 245 L in the wings, 620L in fuselage), or in ballpark with the Bf 110C.
Curious.
Do you have files about it similar to the He 100 ones?

I've had another idea about what to do with the extra pre-war production if the Luftwaffe wasn't able to absorb it. Export it.

Not just to the other Axis countries, (to make their air forces better) but to Switzerland, Sweden & anyone else who will buy it to earn foreign currency. The foreign currency so earned is then used to buy the raw materials Germany needed to import to make more aircraft and to import more oil to make the extra aircraft fly.
A weapons for resources/semi-finished goods deal with Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland would have helped greatly.

That would have the side effect of being a form of economic warfare because it would reduce the amount of foreign currency that Britain and France earned by reducing their aircraft exports. E.g. Sweden buying 55 Bf109s instead of 55 Gladiators. However, the downside is that reducing the number of aircraft Britain and France exported allows their aircraft industries to concentrate on completing their domestic contracts so more aircraft for the AA, RAF and Dominion air forces.

Italy's main shortcoming was that their aero engine industry was unable to keep up in the "horsepower race" so could Germany have sold licences to build its engines to Italy sooner?
Sure - sell them licence for the DB 600 by some time 1937-38, so they have an easier time to make a switch to the 601s a few years later.
Sell/barter the machine tools from the Avia engine factory in 1939 - ww2 Germany was lacking in many things, machine tools they have had a surplus of.
That and buy the P.108 plans ASAP.
 
I don't really get what you want to say here, in the first place, why would they have to take a pair of MK103s? Or why would the FW 190 be dead meat? It did pretty well OTL against the P-47, plus, it was not meant as a high altitude fighter so if there's a need, get a 190C, D14 or a Ta 152H.

A pair of MK 103s can kill heavy bombers from longer ranges than the MK 108 (so it does not have to enter the .50 BMG defense willy-nilly), and more reliable/faster than the 4 MG 151/20 battery. Fw 190 didn't do well against the P-47s at high altitudes (where B -17s and -24s were cruising and P-47 thrived), prefering to retreat beyond the radius of the P-47s.
D14 and Ta 152H depended on 2-stage supercharged Jumo 213 or DB 603 around, that was per OTL in early 1945. If RLM buys the 187 before the ww2, they can have it carrying two MK 103s already by early 1943, even on the restricted DB 605s. Better timing means a lot.
The Fw 190C requires that DB 603A is debugged (= at least via fixed valves and oil system). Could it be done earlier than winter of 1943/44? Probably yes (and with it also the DB 605, so again the 187 reaps benefits) . Gondolas with MK 103s will still hurt speed, and will require that a way to mitigate recoil of the 103s is found. We can recall that, after the 1st experimenst on such guns' det-up on the Fw 190, there was no follow-up with gondolas on the 190D or Ta 152.
A pair of MK 103s will also make a short work of Il-2 and plethora of 2-engined bombers the Allies used.

Lastly, RLM can buy both Fw 187 and Fw 190.

The Bf 110 was supposed to be replaced by the Me 210 by 1942, when that did not happen they had to continue building more, and, any upgrade that could have increased its performance were deemed unjustified to the disruption it could cause to the production. The Bf 110 could act as a heavy fighter, long range escort, light bomber, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, ground attacker, bomber hunter, reconnaissance and night fighter. The FW 187 could not do half of those roles in the same aircraft. The heavy fighter bomber you are talking about is a complete different aircraft to the base FW 187, it is not just a wing strengthening but a complete redesign to the wing and body shape.

If a ww2 aircraft is supposed to do half a dozen of tasks, it is probably bad in half of these tasks. Long range Bf 110 will not work against a decent opposition, as a heavy fighter and bomber hunter it will not work if a token of escort is provided by the enemy. As a recon - not above UK. Fw 187 will do better in the roles that LW was lacking: LR escort, heavy fighter/bomber hunter, recon over contested airspace. Bomb it up so it can bomb stuff. Probably don't ask from the 187 to be a night fighter and a torpedo bomber, and that's it (even if the even smaller 190 was tested as both)?
Fw 187 does not need to go away from the DB 601/605 engines, so there is less of wandering from the initial design.

However, by that time the Bf 110G/H or FW 190A sees the P-47 in 1943, the 110 should be no longer in production and replaced by the actually better FW 187, less wooden Ta 154/254 and the FW 190 has nothing to do at that altitude, leaving the high altitude fighting to the Bf 109 or the FW 190C.
Ta 154, even in metal, was a bigger aircraft with a thicker fuselage, and used engines giving lower power* at high altitudes than the DB 605 family*, even with restrictions as per OTL.
* the Jumo 211Ns as flown; it will take some time for the 213 to became available
Bf 109 with two MK 103s? Better not.

The FW 190C or D could very well use a MK103 motor cannon if it was required, or in wing pods. But the armament would already be overkill in 1 x 30 mm MK103 motor cannon, 2 x 30 mm MK 103 gunpods, 2 x 20 mm MG 151 and 2 x 7.92 mm MG or 13 mm MG 131.

One engine, even as good as the DB 603A or Jumo 213A, was already hard pressed with meagre 2x MG 151 + 2x MG 131. Add two gondolas with the MK 103s and the ammo needed, another in the Vee + it's ammo, and see the 109D-9 doing 650 km/h at 7 km instead of 680, and climbing in a sedate fashion. Just along the P-47's alley, let alone P-51's.
As above, it will need that DB 603 (and/or Jumo 213) is debugged, and that 2-stage supercharged engine is developed at least 20 months earlier so it can be used in 1943 and thus be a competition for a Fw 187. Tall order, these 20 months IMO.
 
Using more electron is quite simply insane, as it is exceedingly fire prone once hit. The Hungarians had this issue with their He 170s and grounded their entire fleet.

The Ar 195 was a biplane carrier borne torpedo bomber that looked like a bag of hammers and flew twice as badly. The Ar 197 was a navalised Ar 68H, which is the aircraft I assume you meant.
 
A pair of MK 103s can kill heavy bombers from longer ranges than the MK 108 (so it does not have to enter the .50 BMG defense willy-nilly), and more reliable/faster than the 4 MG 151/20 battery. Fw 190 didn't do well against the P-47s at high altitudes (where B -17s and -24s were cruising and P-47 thrived), prefering to retreat beyond the radius of the P-47s.
D14 and Ta 152H depended on 2-stage supercharged Jumo 213 or DB 603 around, that was per OTL in early 1945. If RLM buys the 187 before the ww2, they can have it carrying two MK 103s already by early 1943, even on the restricted DB 605s. Better timing means a lot.
Fair enough, but I don't really see the FW 187 remaining in production by 1943. Though what stopped them from having a two stage supercharger earlier? Or using 2 different superchargers? From what I understand the DB601/603/605 had the possibility of adding another supercharger to the engine and it was tested in the Hs 130 I think? Or was it in a Junkers?
The Fw 190C requires that DB 603A is debugged (= at least via fixed valves and oil system). Could it be done earlier than winter of 1943/44? Probably yes (and with it also the DB 605, so again the 187 reaps benefits) . Gondolas with MK 103s will still hurt speed, and will require that a way to mitigate recoil of the 103s is found. We can recall that, after the 1st experimenst on such guns' det-up on the Fw 190, there was no follow-up with gondolas on the 190D or Ta 152.
A pair of MK 103s will also make a short work of Il-2 and plethora of 2-engined bombers the Allies used.
If the RLM was more interested in intermediary engines (1200-1800 HP) during 1936-1940 then maybe the DB603 and Jumo 213 would have seen production sooner. Maybe install the MK 103 in the wing roots then? That would get rid of the 20 mm guns but having a 3 x MK 103, 2 x 13 MG 131 configuration seem like a stronger armament.
If a ww2 aircraft is supposed to do half a dozen of tasks, it is probably bad in half of these tasks. Long range Bf 110 will not work against a decent opposition, as a heavy fighter and bomber hunter it will not work if a token of escort is provided by the enemy. As a recon - not above UK. Fw 187 will do better in the roles that LW was lacking: LR escort, heavy fighter/bomber hunter, recon over contested airspace. Bomb it up so it can bomb stuff. Probably don't ask from the 187 to be a night fighter and a torpedo bomber, and that's it (even if the even smaller 190 was tested as both)?
Fw 187 does not need to go away from the DB 601/605 engines, so there is less of wandering from the initial design.
The Beaufighter, P-38, Mosquito and every multirole aircraft would beg to differ. The Bf 110 and FW 187 were 1936 aircrafts, one was slightly larger and could be upgraded more easily than the smaller, cramper one. In my opinion the Bf 110 gets too much hate/scorn while the FW 187 gets too much praise/wonderweapon vibes which neither deserves. The FW 187 would have excelled as a long range light fighter while the Bf 110 excelled as a long range heavy fighter.
Ta 154, even in metal, was a bigger aircraft with a thicker fuselage, and used engines giving lower power* at high altitudes than the DB 605 family*, even with restrictions as per OTL.
* the Jumo 211Ns as flown; it will take some time for the 213 to became available
Bf 109 with two MK 103s? Better not.



One engine, even as good as the DB 603A or Jumo 213A, was already hard pressed with meagre 2x MG 151 + 2x MG 131. Add two gondolas with the MK 103s and the ammo needed, another in the Vee + it's ammo, and see the 109D-9 doing 650 km/h at 7 km instead of 680, and climbing in a sedate fashion. Just along the P-47's alley, let alone P-51's.
As above, it will need that DB 603 (and/or Jumo 213) is debugged, and that 2-stage supercharged engine is developed at least 20 months earlier so it can be used in 1943 and thus be a competition for a Fw 187. Tall order, these 20 months IMO.
The Ta 154 even if a bigger aircraft would have been a much capable one than either the Bf 110, Me 210 or FW 187, if it was built as a 60% metal, 40% wood then it could have been more successful than OTL.

Perhaps using some other engines if those are unavailable? Honestly they should have gotten the Jumo 222A/B into production as it was at 2000 HP in 1942 than Milch upping the requirements. Or maybe Deutz, Argus or FKFS could make a better engine?

Also, I see the answer to the P-51H, Griffon Spitfire and whatever P-47 late war variant is there to be in the form of jet fighters, it is honestly useless to keep trying for better piston aircrafts if you can get a jet in production by 1942-43 (that it did not happen OTL doesn't mean it can't in TTL)

Using more electron is quite simply insane, as it is exceedingly fire prone once hit. The Hungarians had this issue with their He 170s and grounded their entire fleet.

The Ar 195 was a biplane carrier borne torpedo bomber that looked like a bag of hammers and flew twice as badly. The Ar 197 was a navalised Ar 68H, which is the aircraft I assume you meant.
Weren't there some non-flammable variants of it? Also, not sure how big of a problem this actually was as most engines had their casings made out of electron in addition to the engine support and landing gear.
 
Fair enough, but I don't really see the FW 187 remaining in production by 1943. Though what stopped them from having a two stage supercharger earlier? Or using 2 different superchargers? From what I understand the DB601/603/605 had the possibility of adding another supercharger to the engine and it was tested in the Hs 130 I think? Or was it in a Junkers?
Junkers did it in early 1930s. DB was experimenting in late 1930s (the 601C and D were to be outfitted as such), but that eventually materized in late 1944/early 1945.
What stopped them - who knows?
At the end, both DB and Jumo figured out that the simple, single-shaft system (for both of the impellers; basically what RR did good 1st) was the most suitable way.

If the RLM was more interested in intermediary engines (1200-1800 HP) during 1936-1940 then maybe the DB603 and Jumo 213 would have seen production sooner. Maybe install the MK 103 in the wing roots then? That would get rid of the 20 mm guns but having a 3 x MK 103, 2 x 13 MG 131 configuration seem like a stronger armament.

The early push with DB 603 was certainly a missed opportunity, with RLM support not being consistent, and with DB allowed to pilfer their time, resources and manpower on a host of fancy engines that went nowhere. Even de-rated it would've have the advantaged over the BMW 801, like better mileage, lower drag, use of 87 oct fuel, and ability to carry a motor cannon.
MK 103 needs to be designed as suitable for motor-cannon installation from day one (not to require a redesign that was udnertaken some time in second half of 1944), so the V12 engines can take advantage of that. Even the 109 would've been benefit from this.
I'd forget anything under 20mm from 1941 on, especially if the 103 can be installed on a desired fighter type.
MK 103 in the wing roots of the Fw 190 is/was probably a missed opportunity, since it would've represented a far lower drag than the gondolas, and recoil would've impacted the sturdier part of the wing.

The Beaufighter, P-38, Mosquito and every multirole aircraft would beg to differ. The Bf 110 and FW 187 were 1936 aircrafts, one was slightly larger and could be upgraded more easily than the smaller, cramper one. In my opinion the Bf 110 gets too much hate/scorn while the FW 187 gets too much praise/wonderweapon vibes which neither deserves. The FW 187 would have excelled as a long range light fighter while the Bf 110 excelled as a long range heavy fighter.

Beaufighter was not flying over the German-held Europe as a day fighter, at least not intentionally looking for trouble. It fared badly when LW showed, even during the coastal strikes. It was a bad recon to use above Germany. P-38, as a night fighter and bomber, together with the Beaufighter, was much less capable than Mosquito. Mosquito as a day fighter was - not even the staunchest partisans of it will say that it was good in that role. Ju 88 was carrying two torpedoes, Beaufighter and Mosquito just one.
Bf 110 was a good aircraft, even if it was not stellar in some roles, like mixing it out with modern 1-engined fighters.
My point - the more tasks are required from a single design, the less it will be capable of doing them.

For a fighter to excel as a long range fighter, it also needs performance to be comparable with what enemy deploys. That was not the area where Bf 110 excelled, to be polite. Bf 110 was with a bigger wing than the 187, wing was thick (both in % and in absolute), fuselage was long and generous for a fighter - fine for a number of roles, bad if one wants to cut drag and weight in order to gain speed and drag. We can see the Fw 187 being faster than the Bf 110B by 60 km/h, while both using same engines.

I have no intentions to make Fw 187 to be a do-all aircraft. I want it to excel in a very small number of tasks, and let other A/C do other jobs.

Perhaps using some other engines if those are unavailable? Honestly they should have gotten the Jumo 222A/B into production as it was at 2000 HP in 1942 than Milch upping the requirements. Or maybe Deutz, Argus or FKFS could make a better engine?

Even with 1800 HP, it means that LW does not need to wait until 1944 to get something better than the BMW 801D.
I'm not sure that other German companies have the wherewithal to design and produce very powerful engines.

Also, I see the answer to the P-51H, Griffon Spitfire and whatever P-47 late war variant is there to be in the form of jet fighters, it is honestly useless to keep trying for better piston aircrafts if you can get a jet in production by 1942-43 (that it did not happen OTL doesn't mean it can't in TTL)

IMO, only the jet power makes sense, and already for second half of 1943. LW cannot be helped by a 2-5% performance advantage over the best Allied fighters since they fight badly out-numbered by some time in 1943 (if not earlier), they need a game changer.
 

thaddeus

Donor
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/flying boat handling capacity, this was something they had experience with.

Again, is that because of comments made by me on this forum over the years? That is, the characteristics of the Dithmarschen class were remarkably similar to the American Cimarron class oilers, some of which were converted to Sangamon class escort carriers and upon which the keep-up Commencement Bay class escort carriers were based. If so, I'm flattered.

actually my interest in the Dithmarschen-class began with a few throwaway lines on the German-Navy.de site about their use as raiders, and have tried various speculative scenarios since then.

my preference would be for seaplane and flying boat handling, for the areas the KM operated in, and to not require a more complete rebuild(?), further out on the speculative limb would be operating the Flettner helicopters https://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/flettner_kolibri.php

but I read your posts generally in broad agreement, everything on the KM and Spain is detailed and well explained (so I would offer thanks instead of flattery)

my view the Dithmarschen-class could have been built in some fairly large numbers, with Germany leveraging them in the oil transport market, with the Dutch and Iran maybe? during wartime they could be converted to various uses.
 
The Maritime Luftwaffe Part 3
"Create a Maritime Luftwaffe, that co-operates effectively with the Kreigsmarine and Erich Raeder & Herman Göring will beat a path to your door!"
"Raeder to shake you warmly by the hand!"
"Göring to shake you warmly by the neck!"


ITTL all the Luftwaffe's maritime units were under a single command which in 01.02.39 was named Luftflotte See, which in turn had been under the operational control of the Reichsmarine and then Kriegsmarine's since its creation on 01.04.34.

According to Michael Holm's website Luftkreis-Kommando VI at Kiel was formed at Kiel on 01.04.34, but used the cover designation Gehobenes Luftamt VI from then until 31.03.35. It was renamed Luftkreis-Kommando 6 on 12.10.37, Luftwaffenkommando See on 04.02.38 and IOTL disbanded & was replaced by replaced by General der Luftwaffe beim O.b.d.M. on 01.02.39. Konrad Zander a former Reichsmarine officer had been its commander throughout its existence. However, Luftwaffenkommando See wasn't disbanded on 01.02.39 ITTL and was instead renamed Luftflotte See.

Luftflotte See had a number of Seefliegerkorps, one for each of the Kreigsmarine's Marine Group Commands to which they were subordinated. For example, the 8 anti-shipping squadrons that the Luftwaffe had in September 1939. IOTL they were part of what would become X. Fliegerkorps which was under Luftflotte 3. ITTL they were part of Seefliegerkorps West , which was subordinated to Marine Group Command "West".

IOTL the General Reconnaissance Groups of RAF Coastal Command had Area Command Headquarters (A.C.H.Q.) with the RN Local Home Command that they served and ITTL the Seefliegerkorps of Luftflotte See had the equivalent of a British A.C.H.Q. with the Kriegsmarine Marine Group Command to which it was subordinated.

This continued downwards with each level of the Maritime Luftwaffe's command structure subordinated to the equivalent level of the Kriegsmarine's command structure. The result was that co-operation between the Maritime Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine was at a level that RAF Coastal Command and the Royal Navy wouldn't achieve until 11.04.41 when Coastal Command was put under the operational control of the Admiralty. This was to the considerable delight of Raeder and the considerable annoyance of Göring, hence the subtitle of this post.

This is simultaneously one of the easiest and hardest Luftwaffe sanity options. It's the easiest because it doesn't cost money Germany didn't have, require the used of raw materials Germany that didn't have & couldn't obtain, have to be made in factories that Germany didn't have & couldn't build, or be made by skilled labour that Germany didn't have & couldn't train, all without having to do less of something else. It's the hardest because Herman Göring has to agree to it.
 
Again, is that because of comments made by me on this forum over the years? That is, the characteristics of the Dithmarschen class were remarkably similar to the American Cimarron class oilers, some of which were converted to Sangamon class escort carriers and upon which the keep-up Commencement Bay class escort carriers were based. If so, I'm flattered.
actually my interest in the Dithmarschen-class began with a few throwaway lines on the German-Navy.de site about their use as raiders, and have tried various speculative scenarios since then.
FWIW

The relevant dimensions of Dithmarschen class from the German-Navy.de site.
174.65m waterline x 22.00m, performance 22,000shp, geared turbines driving 2 shafts 21.1 knots.​

The relevant dimensions of the Sanagamon from Chesneau.
168.55m waterline x 22.86m, performance 13,500shp, geared turbines driving 2 shafts, 18.0 knots.​

The Dithmarschens were 6.10m longer, had 0.86m less beam and were 3 knots faster than the Sanagamon class.

Correction.
The Dithmarschen class had 4 x MAN 9-cyl diesels producing 22,000bhp, not steam turbines.
 
Last edited:
Junkers did it in early 1930s. DB was experimenting in late 1930s (the 601C and D were to be outfitted as such), but that eventually materized in late 1944/early 1945.
What stopped them - who knows?
At the end, both DB and Jumo figured out that the simple, single-shaft system (for both of the impellers; basically what RR did good 1st) was the most suitable way.



The early push with DB 603 was certainly a missed opportunity, with RLM support not being consistent, and with DB allowed to pilfer their time, resources and manpower on a host of fancy engines that went nowhere. Even de-rated it would've have the advantaged over the BMW 801, like better mileage, lower drag, use of 87 oct fuel, and ability to carry a motor cannon.
MK 103 needs to be designed as suitable for motor-cannon installation from day one (not to require a redesign that was udnertaken some time in second half of 1944), so the V12 engines can take advantage of that. Even the 109 would've been benefit from this.
I'd forget anything under 20mm from 1941 on, especially if the 103 can be installed on a desired fighter type.
MK 103 in the wing roots of the Fw 190 is/was probably a missed opportunity, since it would've represented a far lower drag than the gondolas, and recoil would've impacted the sturdier part of the wing.
It is probably because there was no need for a high altitude fighter at the time, I think Junkers and DB did experiment with high altitude rated Jumo 211 and DB601 in 1940 and 1941 but that went nowhere. Though I find the 2 supercharger configuration to be more efficient than a single 2 speed one, imagine if it later uses two 2 speed superchargers? Rated for 4 different altitudes. Or, using a supercharger and turbocharger? This is probably one of the most obscure topic of the Luftwaffe I've seen so far: Turbocharger and superchargers.

Another thing I don't understand is why they obsessed so much over the 14 cylinder radial engine? Both Bramo and BMW were testing 18 cylinders in the late 30s, Bramo 300 and BMW 140 but those went nowhere, and it feels so mind-boggling when they knew they could not easily get the performance out of the 14 cylinder compared to the Allies. Adding 4 more cylinders is the 'dumb' way of getting more power in the 2000 hp class.
Beaufighter was not flying over the German-held Europe as a day fighter, at least not intentionally looking for trouble. It fared badly when LW showed, even during the coastal strikes. It was a bad recon to use above Germany. P-38, as a night fighter and bomber, together with the Beaufighter, was much less capable than Mosquito. Mosquito as a day fighter was - not even the staunchest partisans of it will say that it was good in that role. Ju 88 was carrying two torpedoes, Beaufighter and Mosquito just one.
Bf 110 was a good aircraft, even if it was not stellar in some roles, like mixing it out with modern 1-engined fighters.
My point - the more tasks are required from a single design, the less it will be capable of doing them.

For a fighter to excel as a long range fighter, it also needs performance to be comparable with what enemy deploys. That was not the area where Bf 110 excelled, to be polite. Bf 110 was with a bigger wing than the 187, wing was thick (both in % and in absolute), fuselage was long and generous for a fighter - fine for a number of roles, bad if one wants to cut drag and weight in order to gain speed and drag. We can see the Fw 187 being faster than the Bf 110B by 60 km/h, while both using same engines.

I have no intentions to make Fw 187 to be a do-all aircraft. I want it to excel in a very small number of tasks, and let other A/C do other jobs.
Point.
Even with 1800 HP, it means that LW does not need to wait until 1944 to get something better than the BMW 801D.
I'm not sure that other German companies have the wherewithal to design and produce very powerful engines.
This is probably a problem I've seen with alt-history, the tendency to use OTL engines or designs, completely rejecting the possibility of another manufacturer making a similar or better engine.

After looking through their engines, or what I've been able to find, I think Deutz, has the best chance of getting a 2000 HP V12 or a more powerful 2500 HP Deutz 710 V16 into production.

FKFS and Hirth could get a 48 cylinder, 2000 HP engine the soonest into production as it was basically 4 Hirth 512 coupled together using 90% of already existing parts by 1940.

The Bomber A competition specified what engines the aircraft could use and there was a mention of the Argus 412, a 1000 HP H24 engine by 1937, that might be increased by 1942 to 1500 HP, maybe.

Porsche also designed a high power aircraft engines.
IMO, only the jet power makes sense, and already for second half of 1943. LW cannot be helped by a 2-5% performance advantage over the best Allied fighters since they fight badly out-numbered by some time in 1943 (if not earlier), they need a game changer.
They only need to get one design right for a good jet, I've come to the conclusion that it wasn't the lack of nickel or chromium that made the German jets so shitty but bad blade design, in comparison, German turbochargers operating in similar environments as with jet engines had a much higher lifespan and efficiency.

They also need more powerful jets than 8 kN, at least a 10 kN one. I imagine that they could get a good mixed propulsion long range fighter in the form of the Dornier 335 or its predecessors, with a normal, DB601, 603 or 605 engine in the front and a BMW 003A, Jumo 004A or even a HeS 6a in the rear, working only when in combat as to conserve fuel.

Later on, more powerful and efficient engines could be used in jet only aircrafts.
 
Was that influence by my many suggestions that Germany do that on this forum. I'm not complaining and if it's true I'm flattered.
Partly yes, you have quite a big influence on my work, I have already used some of your ideas. I have no problem admitting it, I like to be inspired. However, the very first time I encountered this idea was here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/diesel-kriegsmarine.440313/post-16768086
You had many good points in this thread.
I suggest that you start in the early 1920s by having the Reichsmarine make contingency plans for the conversion of a suitable merchant ship into an experimental aircraft carrier when the legal situation allows it, i.e. when the Treaty of Versailles is amended or repealed. These plans are regularly updated and implemented in January 1933, i.e. when the Nazis come to power because time is off the essence. The conversion takes about 2 years and her existence is announced in March 1935 when Hitler denounced the military, naval and air clauses of the Treaty of Versailles.

I wanted the experimental carrier to be a conversion of the MV Hanover, but she was launched on 23.03.39.
I have similar thoughts, I was already advised to use a former passenger ship for the conversion, due to the higher speed. The first training vessel will not be perfect, nor can it be expected. The second training ship will be a little better, but still won't be a ship that will ever see combat. Rebuilding the Dithmarschen class tankers is a great idea, I want to implement this idea as well. They will be aircraft carriers with a capacity of around 40 aircraft, which can already be deployed in combat.
 
It is probably because there was no need for a high altitude fighter at the time, I think Junkers and DB did experiment with high altitude rated Jumo 211 and DB601 in 1940 and 1941 but that went nowhere. Though I find the 2 supercharger configuration to be more efficient than a single 2 speed one, imagine if it later uses two 2 speed superchargers? Rated for 4 different altitudes. Or, using a supercharger and turbocharger? This is probably one of the most obscure topic of the Luftwaffe I've seen so far: Turbocharger and superchargers.
For the topic of German superchargers, I can recommend two books: "Secret horsepower race" and "Flugmotoren und strahltriebwerke". Granted, there is much more to read there, than just about the superchargers, and the 1st book is also about the 'western' engines in general. There is also a book specifically about the Junkers motors, in German, but it is long out of print and very pricy.
Number of superchargers is not related to the number of supercharger speeds. A 2-stage supercharger (ie. two superchargers working in series) is indeed superior to a 1-stage supercharger (ie. just one S/C on an engine). Engine with 4 rated altitudes will make less power for each higher rated altitudes - there is no such thing as a free lunch.
We can take a look on the DB engines with 2-stage superchargers (605L, 603L and LA) - single-shaft layout, infinite number of speeds (okay, in theory) due to the variable-speed drive for the S/C. The 2-stage 3-speed S/C on the Jumo 213E and F was also very capable.
Being big engines (unlike the Merlin or V-1710), already having a big supercharger instead of the 'normal' unit helps a lot with DB and Jumo engines (not the 210). Eg. the DB 605AS (with bigger S/C, taken from the 603A) was making about the same power above 7 km as the Merlin 60 series; yes, the 605L was even better.

As for the need for high-altitude fighters - LW was putting a lot of hope in the GM1 system already in 1940 - points out that a good high altitude engine had it's place even back then. Having a good high altitude engine on the back burner in case that need arises should've been prudent. Even a DB 601E with the S/C from the 603A gets them a high altitude engine on the cheap, and already in 1942.
In the similar vein, have Jumo not wait until 1944 to came out with the 211R (high alt version of the 211 line), do it by some time in 1942, or at least early 1943. Should've helped with night fighters performance a lot.
Use MW 50 on either of these engines for better low and medium altitudes, combined with the swirl throttle, historically copied from the AM-35 and -38 engines.

Another thing I don't understand is why they obsessed so much over the 14 cylinder radial engine? Both Bramo and BMW were testing 18 cylinders in the late 30s, Bramo 300 and BMW 140 but those went nowhere, and it feels so mind-boggling when they knew they could not easily get the performance out of the 14 cylinder compared to the Allies. Adding 4 more cylinders is the 'dumb' way of getting more power in the 2000 hp class.
Yes, a working 18 cyl engine was really a no-nonsense approach. It would've given the LW an equivalent of the Ha-42, that was good for 2000 HP on 87 oct and was under 1000 kg. Serves as an excellent 'cushion' against the problems with the fancy engines, and can get another 300-400 HP via MW 50.
Too bad BMW was interested in reinventing the wheel with the BMW 800, and aiming for the moon with the 803.

Another missed opportunity was the BMW 801E, with it's improved S/C and other improvements, 80 pcs were made some time around winter of 1942/43; it took them until late 1944 to slap it's S/C on the 801D to make the 801S.

This is probably a problem I've seen with alt-history, the tendency to use OTL engines or designs, completely rejecting the possibility of another manufacturer making a similar or better engine.
After looking through their engines, or what I've been able to find, I think Deutz, has the best chance of getting a 2000 HP V12 or a more powerful 2500 HP Deutz 710 V16 into production.
FKFS and Hirth could get a 48 cylinder, 2000 HP engine the soonest into production as it was basically 4 Hirth 512 coupled together using 90% of already existing parts by 1940.
The Bomber A competition specified what engines the aircraft could use and there was a mention of the Argus 412, a 1000 HP H24 engine by 1937, that might be increased by 1942 to 1500 HP, maybe.
Porsche also designed a high power aircraft engines.

Many times, going complicated doomed the engine designs, and not just in Germany. Or at least made the designs mature too late, still a big problem for a piece of military hardware. If something can be done with a relatively simple V12 or R14 engine, aiming for 24, let alone 48 cylinders to do it will not find the buyers, especially if the buyer looks for many, many thousands of engine to be produced.
Have some good link on Porsche's high power aircraft engines?

Now that we're at engines - plans from 1938 were aiming for 700/month of Argus 12 cyl air-cooled engines to be produced. Make a simple 7 cyl ~500 HP radial instead; gold-plating the trainers is fool's errand. Even short-stroking the BMW 132 (resulting in the 'German Mercury' equivalent ) is a more economically viable approach. Have these being made in Poland or Bohemia from 1939.

They only need to get one design right for a good jet, I've come to the conclusion that it wasn't the lack of nickel or chromium that made the German jets so shitty but bad blade design, in comparison, German turbochargers operating in similar environments as with jet engines had a much higher lifespan and efficiency.
They also need more powerful jets than 8 kN, at least a 10 kN one. I imagine that they could get a good mixed propulsion long range fighter in the form of the Dornier 335 or its predecessors, with a normal, DB601, 603 or 605 engine in the front and a BMW 003A, Jumo 004A or even a HeS 6a in the rear, working only when in combat as to conserve fuel.
Later on, more powerful and efficient engines could be used in jet only aircrafts.

I have no problems that a jet fighter is designed around just one engine, like the Jumo 004M; a short-range fighter, in league of the Fw 190, just start in early 1943. Use the wing and tail bits and pieces from the Fw 190 or Bf 109 (but remove the thickest, innermost part of the wing, resulting in a ~15 sqm wing), and main wheels of the Bf 109 to expedite the work. Main wheels of the 109 were to be used on the OTL He 162.
Going with two engines has it's shortcomings (mainly on fuel supply and supply of engines), but it can offer a possibility of lugging around three MK 103s or equivalent (don't go for the MK 108s there, for Pete's sake).
Mixed propulsion is a good idea, can combine long range with the hefty punch and competitive performance. A mixed propulsion bomber or/and attacker should've been great.
 
Some good points made above, i kinda missed the elephant in the room ie the german great interest in GM1 equalling great interest in high alt performance even in 1940, so for ATL scenarios there is a good basis in high altitude german engines appearing earlier. What kind of power levels can we expect from a DB-601E with the DB-603A supercharger? I'm looking at this combo as an ALT-DB-605, instead of boring the engine, slap the bigger supercharger instead.

Can they get a better supercharger on the BMW-801C/D? Am i correct in saying that the initial supercharger on the BMW was so basic it didn't even have curved blades? Never mind a two-stage one and never mind more power (yet anyway) , can the BMW-801C/D get a better supercharger that even if not equalling the Merlin-60's 2-stage unit in capability, at least get it closer to it in maintaining high alt power? Something like the E supercharger but on the C/D?

All this of course still has a major barrier to it, the crippling lack of high quality materials which as known led to huge amount of time and effort just to get the engines to work with inferior/substitute materials at the design power settings. Can anything be done to improve the high quality metals situation? I guess the absolute minimum is better communication between RLM and the manufacturers when trialling substitutes and finding solutions to valve, sparkplugs, lubrication and other major faults.
 
Top