Luftwaffe uses French aircraft after June 1940?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

IOTL the Luftwaffe captured a number of French aircraft and used them as trainers or in some cases stripped them of engines for their own aircraft like the Hs129B:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129#Hs_129_B-1
Even before the A-1s were delivered, the plane was redesigned with the Gnome-Rhône 14M radial engine, which were captured in some number when France fell and continued to be produced under German occupation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potez_630#Second_World_War
On 27 November 1942, German military units occupied Vichy Air Force bases and seized their aircraft: around 134 Potez 630s of several variants were taken.[22] Of the seized aircraft, 53 were refurbished and dispatched to Romania for use as trainers and target tugs; spare engines were also reused to power a number of Luftwaffe Henschel Hs 129Bs.[22] Production of the type was resumed under German control; significant numbers of aircraft appear to have been pressed into service by the Germans, mostly in liaison and training roles. The last three Potez 631s in service were recaptured examples; these made a final contribution following the cessation of hostilities in their use as trainer aircraft at the Centre d'Essais en Vol for the revived French Air Force.[23]

Still the HS129 wasn't ready for use until 1942!:
B-1s started rolling off the lines in December 1941, but they were delivered at a trickle. In preparation for the new plane, I./SchlG 1 had been formed up in January with Bf 109 E/Bs (fighter-bomber version of Bf 109 E) and Hs 123s, and they were delivered B-0s and every B-1 that was completed. Still, it wasn't until April that 12 B-1s were delivered and the 4th staffel (squadron) became ready for action. They moved to the Eastern Front (to the Crimea) in the middle of May 1942, and in June they received a new weapon, the 30 mm (1.2 in) MK 101 cannon with armor-piercing ammunition in a centerline pod.

Rather than wasting time with the ultimately unsuccessful Hs129B, the Germans had just used captured French aircraft in 1941 and on instead? They already were using the engines, had the air frames, the aircraft weren't as slow as the Hs129B and had decent bomb capacity and range, in fact the Potez 630 was a Bf110 with smaller, less powerful engines in most ways.

Looking at the performance of the Potez 630 it is actually a pretty good aircraft if you've got air superiority, such as the Germans had in most place in the East in 1941-42 where they used ground attack aircraft. Even the French ground attack/dive bomber, the Bre 693, wasn't half bad and no worse than the Ju87 in terms of air survivability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_693

It seems remarkably silly that the Luftwaffe didn't take advantage of quality aircraft they didn't have to build, were already using the engines for, and were in fact better than the aircraft they used historically for ground attack missions. In fact they could have freed up resources from having to make Hs129s at all and have the French continue to make their own existing designs. As it was the French continued to make engines for the Germans and ended up making something like 5000 aircraft for the Germans during the occupation, so even with sabotage issues, which didn't stop the Germans from using French production IOTL, they could have had better aircraft for less cost than the crap they made IOTL.

So what if they did this and never made the Hs129? The choice could have been made LONG before they tooled for the Hs129, so they wouldn't have to disrupt production of whatever else they were making, while having existing production lines running in France enough to probably outsource all ground attack aircraft production to. 865 Hs129s were made IOTL and even allowing for the Prototypes in 1940 they'd probably save 855 aircraft worth of engines and raw materials to use on French lines in addition to using what they already captured IOTL. Given that the Me109 was being used as a fighter-bomber and was pretty crappy in that role too, the French aircraft would be a step up in that role as well and free up even more fighters for air superiority missions.
The only shortage potentially would just be pilots.
 
There was a similar discussion about French submarines recently and the conclusion was too many types, hard to maintain as they would be dissimilar to existing types and more of an adjustment to crew.

Not sure why that applies to submarines and not to trucks (where they did use captured French vehicles).
 
To do this leaving skilled labor with the French factories is required. The the materials must be provided. Both those items were badly needed by the German factories.
 

Deleted member 1487

There was a similar discussion about French submarines recently and the conclusion was too many types, hard to maintain as they would be dissimilar to existing types and more of an adjustment to crew.

Not sure why that applies to submarines and not to trucks (where they did use captured French vehicles).
Well I'm talking about aircraft the Luftwaffe already used IOTL as trainers and army liaison aircraft, plus they used the French engines (which the Germans had the French keep producing for them BTW) for the Hs129, which I am suggesting is replaced by the French aircraft. So the Germans used them anyway, just not on the front lines. All I'm suggesting in fact is removing one type of German aircraft and using more of aircraft and engines the Germans were using anyway IOTL.

To do this leaving skilled labor with the French factories is required. The the materials must be provided. Both those items were badly needed by the German factories.
They did both IOTL. The French produced aero-engines and airframes for the Germans IOTL, 5000 aircraft between 1940-44, plus IIRC thousands more for Vichy France. So the French labor and machinery was already there IOTL, actually mostly idle. The raw materials come from not making the HS129 or using Me109s as fighter bombers. Perhaps they even delay making the He177 if needed. The bottleneck in 1940-42 was not actually raw materials or labor, it was lack of factories to make things; they had just captured heaps of factories, raw materials, and skilled labor in France in 1940, so it's there, they just don't need to waste time tooling for and producing the HS129. They could actually save a fair bit more by limiting Ju87 production and just using the French engines they were making anyway in France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome_et_Rhône#The_Inter-War_years
The 14N-series was itself replaced by the ultimate pre-war evolution of the line, the Gnome-Rhône 14R. The first versions introduced in 1939, the 14R-4/5, produced 1,291 hp (950 kW) for takeoff and was only slightly heavier than the 14N. By 1940 the improved 14R-8/9 was delivering 1,578 hp (1,161 kW) by increasing RPM from 2,400 to 2,600. Although this was a good figure for the era, British and German design had already passed this mark, and would soon be pressing on 2,000 hp (1,500 kW).

With the fall of France in 1940, Gnome et Rhône was ordered to produce the BMW 801 under license, while the 14M and 14N saw limited use on some German designs, such as the Henschel Hs 129B, Gotha Go 244B, and Messerschmitt Me 323. The company became infamous for slow production, building only 8,500 engines by May 1944, when the Germans had been estimating 25,000.
Don't have them make BMW 801s and send Heydrich to organize labor like he did in Bohemia but before he goes to Bohemia ITTL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Archibald

Banned
eeerh... no. The Potez 630 series was even more vulnerable than a Battle or Blenheim in a bad day. Even the Soviets would have a field day against them.

More generally, I'm quite confident the Nazis looted as much as they could from France aviation factories.

Fighter aircrafts: most of them crap, except for D-520. Scores of D-520 (think 300 or so) were sold to Italy and Bulgaria which did their best with them. But 910 hp was already obsolete by 1940, so by 1942 or '43...
And yes, Bulgaria D-520 tried (and managed) to shot down B-17s and B-24s, as late as 1943 or even 1944.

Curtiss H-75s were good, but lack of spares, even more after December 1941.

Bombers: Potez were crap, too few Br. 690 and Amiot 350 survived the battle of France, 167F and DB-7 were american aircrafts.
Mind you, the LeO 451 superb performance attracted the Luftwaffe and a number of them were build but used as transports.

Also, the Armée de l'air evacuated a good number of aircraft to North Africa, starting June 15. Most of them ended with Vichy France and fought the allies in November 1942.

In fact Vichy made desperate efforts to keep a meaningful Air Force, keeping a mumber of D-520. The masquerade ended in november 1942...

for the record, most produced French aircrafts of 1940 were Potez 630 and MS-406, a thousand of them in both case.
So it wasn't as if they were 5000 fighters or bombers to be taken over by the Luftwaffe. A large chunk of the French Air force was either obsolete or shot down (for the most modern types) or american types.
 
Last edited:
To do this leaving skilled labor with the French factories is required. The the materials must be provided. Both those items were badly needed by the German factories.

Should have had existing sources in place.
Makes more sense to keep an intact factory producing than shipping material a long distance away for an untested design.

Keep making LeO 451-01s
 

Deleted member 1487

eeerh... no. The Potez 630 series was even more vulnerable than a Battle or Blenheim in a bad day. Even the Soviets would have a field day against them.

More generally, I'm quite confident the Nazis looted as much as they could from France aviation factories.

Fighter aircrafts: most of them crap, except for D-520. Scores of D-520 (think 300 or so) were sold to Italy and Bulgaria which did their best with them. But 910 hp was already obsolete by 1940, so by 1942 or '43...
Curtiss H-75s were good, but lack of spares, even more after December 1941.

Bombers: Potez were crap, too few Br. 690 and Amiot 350 survived the battle of France, 167F and DB-7 were american aircrafts.
Mind you, the LeO 451 superb performance attracted the Luftwaffe and a number of them were build but used as transports.

Also, the Armée de l'air evacuated a good number of aircraft to North Africa, starting June 15. Most of them ended with Vichy France and fought the allies in November 1942.

In fact Vichy made desperate efforts to keep a meaningful Air Force, keeping a mumber of D-520. The masquerade ended in november 1942...

The Potez 630 was less vulnerable than the Ju87 and it continued to operate into 1943 in the East; even the horribly outdated He111 was still operating successfully into 1944 in the East. In 1941-42 in the ground attack role they'd have free skies. It seems we just disagree on the basic facts of French aircraft quality and utility.
 

Archibald

Banned
Nah, Potez losses in the campaign of France were appaling. The type was as vulnerable as a Battle.
also, the bomb bay was too small and only 50 kg bombs could be carried.
 

Deleted member 1487

Nah, Potez losses in the campaign of France were appaling. The type was as vulnerable as a Battle.
also, the bomb bay was too small and only 50 kg bombs could be carried.
Right, because they ran into German fighters and the best AAA in the world at the time. The Russians of 1941-42 are VASTLY less deadly than Luftwaffe was in 1940 (or in 1941-42). I mean the Ju87, even more vulnerable than the Potez or Bre 693, thrived in France in 1940 because the Allies were no where near as effective at shooting them down. The Soviets were even less capable than the Allies were in 1940 at inflicting losses on the Luftwaffe in 1941-42 (and arguably beyond). The Fairey Battle would have been fine for the Eastern Front in 1941-42! The Bf110F fighter-bomber was only carrying 50kg bombs (they could take 250s but that wasn't necessary for ground support, instead they wanted 10kg bombs to cover even more ground), so with engines the Germans didn't need to make and were half the weight of the DB605s 50 kg would be fine for a light bomber/ground attack aircraft.

Edit-also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potez_630#Bomber_variants
The bomb bay could house eight 50 kg-class or two 200 kg (440 lb) -class bombs.

(Final armament)
  • 3× fixed forward firing machine guns under fuselage
  • 4× fixed, forward firing machine guns under outer wings
  • 3× semi fixed, rearward firing machine guns in ventral mount
  • 2× flexibly mounted machine guns in aft cockpit
So besides the bombs it had the ability to strafe pretty damn hard if the Germans strapped on their 20mm cannons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...
Rather than wasting time with the ultimately unsuccessful Hs129B, the Germans had just used captured French aircraft in 1941 and on instead? They already were using the engines, had the air frames, the aircraft weren't as slow as the Hs129B and had decent bomb capacity and range, in fact the Potez 630 was a Bf110 with smaller, less powerful engines in most ways.

Looking at the performance of the Potez 630 it is actually a pretty good aircraft if you've got air superiority, such as the Germans had in most place in the East in 1941-42 where they used ground attack aircraft. Even the French ground attack/dive bomber, the Bre 693, wasn't half bad and no worse than the Ju87 in terms of air survivability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_693
....

Installing the G&R 14M on the slightly modiifed Henschell fuselage was making the best out of bad situation. The Hs 129B was ultimately succesfull.

From a ground attack aircraft people want that it can either lug a suitable bomb load, and/or to have plenty of frontal firepower (heavy MGs or/and cannons), and/or to be well protected. The Potez 60 series does not offer either of it, though we can discuss removal of the front glasshouse and a crew member from there, installing a suitable firepower in the 'solid nose' instead. But, two 700 HP engines is really a small horsepower for ww2. Perhaps have the 14N engines retrofitted? Or - install the 14N on the Bf 110 or Ju 87?

The smaller Breguet 693 looks like a good choice however, it was considerably faster.
The LeO 451 also looks like a fine aircraft, as are the members of Amiot 350 family, and Bloch 170 family. Plus the bomber like Germany never had - the 4-engined Bloch 162.

Fighters - D.520 is obvious candidate, so is the beautyful VG-33.

Perhaps install the mysterious G&R 14R on the Fw 190, if not buying the complete MB 157? By all means have the 14R replace the earlier G&R radials in the production lines.
 
in the context of signing some type of treaty with Vichy regime (beyond OTL armistice) it seems plausible? although (just opinion) since the LW was always starved for modern transports THAT might have been easier project(s) for both sides to stomach?

There was a similar discussion about French submarines recently and the conclusion was too many types, hard to maintain as they would be dissimilar to existing types and more of an adjustment to crew.

Not sure why that applies to submarines and not to trucks (where they did use captured French vehicles).

posted that thread because the subs were already in the Med and (IMO) the French would never have been allowed to keep them under a final treaty (the Germans were not under Treaty of Versailles.)

it was pointed out several times complexity of sub operations and possible ongoing sabotage.
 
This is a subject i also like to ponder about. In my opinion though, the best use of the french engines and combat aircraft would be mostly to equip Germany's allies like Romania, Hungary, Finland, even Italy, freeing Germany from doing so at least in part. If i'm not mistaken, the germans froze french engine and airframe development after the occupation, a big mistake. If nothing else, Vichy France could have better aircraft to oppose the allies even if briefly, i imagine HS-12Y-51 and even HS-12Z powered D-520 developments would be more potent opponents for the US/UK in late 1942, same goes for GR14R powered Leo-451s. They also imposed severe limits on pilot training, another mistake, at least let the french get moderately effective and teach them schwarm tactics.

Many also point to the remarcable MB-157, if they'd let Bloch develop it and the GR14R engine as well they at least be very useful machine for the smaller allies and Italy. The poor italians were still flying biplanes and G-50 and MC-200 in 1943! They would have been thrilled to get their hands on something like MB-157 or even the MB-155, D-523/524/525 or the lightweight thoroughbred D-551/552. Oh and ofcourse the VG-33/36 and other members of the family would have been excellent performers too. In fact instead of the bumbling about with the unsuitable SAI-207 and 403 which never got anywhere, give them the license for the D-550 or VG-33 series.

As for the smaller allies, any number of the moderns french machines like D-520, MB-155, LeO-451, MB-175 or Potez-63.11 would have been enthusiastically welcomed, for instance the poor romanians were still flying IAR-37 biplanes and PZL-23s at Stalingrad! At this stage they were also desperately trying to improve the IAR-80 but couldn't find any suitable engines as the germans couldn't give them the DB-605. They received a GR14R to test on a IAR-80 in 1944 but it was far too late, the aircraft was destroyed in the factory. Give them the GR14R and indeed the licence as they were building the 14K engine already and the 14R and N were not THAT far from it, and they would get a very potent GR14R equipped IAR-80 derivative in 1943, much more formidable against either the soviets or the americans.

The finns, arguably some of the best Axis pilots were only given second rate aircraft like MS-406 and H-75 in 1943 (!), they were forced to improvise with things like Morko-Morani or even copying the Buffalo (a complete waste of time) eating time and resources for no gain. Give them some D-520s with HS-12Z engines and the licence to build the wooden VG-33 instead of the unsuccessful Myrsky.

Same goes for the hungarians, HS-12Z or GR14R engines would have helped make their Re-2000 Hejja much more potent, they build 200 of them until 1944 but still with 14K engines, being totaly obsolete. And the list can go on and on.

The germans as stated above used a number of combat aircraft like D-520 for training, LeO-451 for transport and ex-czech SB-2 for target towing, when they would have been more useful in combat units with any of the smaller allies. Also, and i'm sure some of you know more, they were converting french factories to build german designs (mostly trainers, transports etc.), which took time and effort, probably better not to do that at least with those building combat types and let them churn as many existing french modernized designs as possible mainly for the smaller allies?

Finally, i agree that the HS-129B should have been powered by a GR14N and/or Jumo-211.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Installing the G&R 14M on the slightly modiifed Henschell fuselage was making the best out of bad situation. The Hs 129B was ultimately succesfull.

From a ground attack aircraft people want that it can either lug a suitable bomb load, and/or to have plenty of frontal firepower (heavy MGs or/and cannons), and/or to be well protected. The Potez 60 series does not offer either of it, though we can discuss removal of the front glasshouse and a crew member from there, installing a suitable firepower in the 'solid nose' instead. But, two 700 HP engines is really a small horsepower for ww2. Perhaps have the 14N engines retrofitted? Or - install the 14N on the Bf 110 or Ju 87?

The smaller Breguet 693 looks like a good choice however, it was considerably faster.
The LeO 451 also looks like a fine aircraft, as are the members of Amiot 350 family, and Bloch 170 family. Plus the bomber like Germany never had - the 4-engined Bloch 162.

Fighters - D.520 is obvious candidate, so is the beautyful VG-33.

Perhaps install the mysterious G&R 14R on the Fw 190, if not buying the complete MB 157? By all means have the 14R replace the earlier G&R radials in the production lines.
This was the fighter-bomber variant:
potez-63-fighter-bomber-01.png


The glass nosed version was an army liaison/recon aircraft. It basically was a Bf110, but lighter in the fighter-bomber configuration.
 
This was the fighter-bomber variant:

Indeed, thanks for the picture.

The glass nosed version was an army liaison/recon aircraft. It basically was a Bf110, but lighter in the fighter-bomber configuration.

It was not a 'light Bf 110'.
It lacks extra 100 km/h and frontal firepower (that should be the easiest problem to rectify?) in order to be called as such, while still requiring a trained man to fly it. Even the fixed-prop Hurricane I operating on 87 oct fuel can trash it easily, and so can even the lightest AAA. Reversely, it can't catch Battles or Wellingtons reliably. Will use 50% more fuel than Bf 109.
Perhaps stick the HS 12Y on it, provided the structure can handle it? But then, the D.520 has a cannon, can already do 530 km/h (and 560 with minor modifications), while using just a single engine, pilot only, and much less fuel.
 
As to the Potez-63, i agree it was nowhere near the Me-110 in any iteration, and can't really see it being useful except with the smaller allies, replacing even older and unsuitable machines that they used in OTL. I suppose it's possible for Luftwaffe to use some Potez-63 and Breguet-693 in the east for ground attacks, could fit them with 30 or 37mm gun pods and fragmentation bombs or something, but i presume they would be very vulnerable to soviet flak as they are unarmoured.

PS: Regarding Vichy France production, i have some figures showing just over 4000 aircraft of both french and german designs built 1940-1944 (roughly half of each). I suppose this could be improved significantly if workforce organization is improved and especially sabotage is kept in check.
 
Last edited:
That is excellent suggestion - make them tankbusters. Eg. the max bomb load for the Potez 630 bomber variants was 400 kg, and they already have had some armor. So install the 3.7cm (obviously a version of the Flak), and some extra armor. Shaves a year from the Hs 129B (meaning it is useful aredy by start of Op. Barbarossa), and has a rear gunner that can deny comfortable shots to the enemy fighters, while also can warn the pilot.
 

Deleted member 1487

It was not a 'light Bf 110'.
It lacks extra 100 km/h and frontal firepower (that should be the easiest problem to rectify?) in order to be called as such, while still requiring a trained man to fly it. Even the fixed-prop Hurricane I operating on 87 oct fuel can trash it easily, and so can even the lightest AAA. Reversely, it can't catch Battles or Wellingtons reliably. Will use 50% more fuel than Bf 109.
Perhaps stick the HS 12Y on it, provided the structure can handle it? But then, the D.520 has a cannon, can already do 530 km/h (and 560 with minor modifications), while using just a single engine, pilot only, and much less fuel.
But again we are talking about use on the Eastern Front where in 1941 the Hurricane I would have been a step up. Compared to the Hs129 that wasn't even available it is a great step up. Plus it could mount a belly 30mm or 37mm autocannon for tank busting. The slow speed and maneuverability is actually an asset for ground attack. Getting trained pilots in sufficient quantity is the biggest issue. Of course the Baltic pilots they eventually recruited to fly ground attack missions would have been useful beyond summer 1941...

As to the Potez-63, i agree it was nowhere near the Me-110 in any iteration, and can't really see it being useful except with the smaller allies, replacing even older and unsuitable machines that they used in OTL. I suppose it's possible for Luftwaffe to use some Potez-63 and Breguet-693 in the east for ground attacks, could fit them with 30 or 37mm gun pods and fragmentation bombs or something, but i presume they would be very vulnerable to soviet flak as they ar unarmoured.

PS: Regarding Vichy France production, i have some figures showing just over 4000 aircraft of both french and german designs built 1940-1944 (roughly half of each). I suppose this could be improved significantly if workforce organization is improved and especially sabotage is kept in check.
That's what I'm suggesting. Being specialised ground attack aircraft.

Certainly French production could have been greatly increased if the Germans were willing to put in the necessary work to ensure slow walking and sabotage of production stopped; it worked in Bohemia after all.
 
Hmm... well now that i see where this goes, perhaps they might be made more useful, but still the lack of proper armour like Hs-129 is a big drawback, even the Hs-129 were taking heavy losses to soviet flak. If you uparmour the Potez or Breguet or even the Bloch-175 to something similar to the Hs-129 though they too will become pigs to fly, so the only advantage will remain in having a rear gunner.
 
But again we are talking about use on the Eastern Front where in 1941 the Hurricane I would have been a step up. Compared to the Hs129 that wasn't even available it is a great step up. Plus it could mount a belly 30mm or 37mm autocannon for tank busting. The slow speed and maneuverability is actually an asset for ground attack. Getting trained pilots in sufficient quantity is the biggest issue. Of course the Baltic pilots they eventually recruited to fly ground attack missions would have been useful beyond summer 1941...
That's what I'm suggesting. Being specialised ground attack aircraft.

Bingo - I'm all for an earlier no-nonsense tank-buster.
 
Top