WI: A strong Polish interceptor, 1939

The PZL-50 interceptor project began late in 1936. There were flying prototypes in early 1939, and variants powered by Gnome-Rhone 14N21 and Bristol Taurus engines were planned. These planned variants could reach 350mph, roughly equivalent to the Bf-109 E fighter of the Luftwaffe. IRL, the Polish PZL 11 interceptors, the aircraft they had in numbers at the time, were no match for the Luftwaffe, being even slower than German bombers, much less Bf 109 fighters.

But what if the Poles had been able to quickly run the PZL 50 program through the design processes and produce a powerful interceptor in time to supply the air force for the defense of Poland? While the Wehrmacht would likely still be able to overcome the smaller Polish army, if the skies were more fiercely contested by more modern machines, the Poles may have been able to put up a much more effective fight, and perhaps delay Hitler's rapid expansion through Europe following their collapse.
 
Can we include a HS-12Y powered fighter in this thread?
Bristol Taurus is too late for 1939, even for the British themselves; the Bloch fighters, powered by late versions of G&R 14N engines were incapable for more than 320 mph. Planned variants of anything can't reach anything, to put it bluntly.
 
PZL-50 was quickly run through design process - that's why there were so many problems with that plane (max speed of the prototype was only 85% (430 km/h - 270mph) of designed one, for example; and the design speed was 500km/h (312,5mph), not 560km/h (350mph).

If you want a Bf109 level fighter in Polish airforce in 1939, you'd have to get back a bit more - to 1934 and the program that gave birth to PZL-38; at the start of it wasn't specified whether the resulting craft would have one or two engines - just make it so the winning design have a single engine or that there's a back-up to OTL PZL-38 (like in case of PZL-37 Łoś (PZL-30 Żubr) and PZL-23 Karaś (PWS-19) programs OTL). Resulting plane (Bristol Mercury VIII, 450-470 km/h, 4 mg) would probably have a first flight in late 1936/early 1937, with adoption into first-line squadrons in 1938.
 
They should/could have done what romanians did with IAR-80, namely use as many components of PZL-11/24 as possible to speed things up. Given that Poland's aeronautical capability was much larger compared to Romania, i see no reason why they can't fly a PZL-24 based PZL-50 monoplane, retractable gear fighter in 1937 and even in 1936! Also use the GR14K/N engine, the Mercury is simply too weak. If they still make some PZL-24s meanwhile, forget about export and use them to augment the PZL-50. So you can have a decent number of these PZL-24 (50-60?) and ATL PZL-50 ( 100+?) in 1939, and the germans will lose at least twice as many aircraft as they lost OTL.

Oh and about the PZL-38, i like the thing, or at least what it could have been, whatever they want to do with it they HAVE to plan with with the most powerful engines they can get, the absolute minimum being GR-14M but even better, HS-12Y. Don't know how many they could build if flight testing starts in 1937 (50+?), but they would be deadly against the german bombers.
 
Even with better planes, could they avoid getting destroyed on the ground at the start of hostilities? I assume they'd at least take heavy casualties at that point, and probably get frustrated by escort fighters later.
 
Better fighters are not much use if they get caught on the ground and have no direction when in the air, is a Polish Chain Home system possible. The early British Radars were fairly simple not a lot more than a modified radio transmitter, was this something Polish industry was capable of. Maybe Britain swaps the technology for Enigma.
 
Even with better planes, could they avoid getting destroyed on the ground at the start of hostilities? I assume they'd at least take heavy casualties at that point, and probably get frustrated by escort fighters later.

that the Polish airforce was supposedly destroyed on the ground is a myth. Polish planes had mostly been tranferred to smaller airfields and camouflaged before the invasion and they gave the Germans heavy casualties in the air.

With better planes the German casualties in the air would be much higher.
 
I can't believe that 'destroyed on the ground' BS is still bought off on. Gobbles was a hell of a propagandist. His crap is still swallowed 85 years later.

Between accidents and combat losses the German air force lost roughly 20 percent of its strength in three weeks over Poland.
 
Better fighters are not much use if they get caught on the ground and have no direction when in the air, is a Polish Chain Home system possible. The early British Radars were fairly simple not a lot more than a modified radio transmitter, was this something Polish industry was capable of. Maybe Britain swaps the technology for Enigma.

You don't even need radar - an integrated defence network of ground watch stations / listening posts and redundant command stations would serve just as well given Radar tech in 39 - was not as good as it was in 40 and anyway there was no way Britain was sharing it with anyone before the fall of France!
 
I can't believe that 'destroyed on the ground' BS is still bought off on. Gobbles was a hell of a propagandist. His crap is still swallowed 85 years later.

Between accidents and combat losses the German air force lost roughly 20 percent of its strength in three weeks over Poland.

Well, considering how the other two big surprise attacks of the war did see planes destroyed on the ground (apparently), it could have something to do with not sounding ASB, and being consistent with other campaigns in the same conflict. Sounds crazy, I guess.
 
But what if the Poles had been able to quickly run the PZL 50 program through the design processes and produce a powerful interceptor in time to supply the air force for the defense of Poland?
I'd argue that an interceptor is not what is needed, but instead a fighter is what's called for. We're not intercepting strategic bombers, but trying to kill single and twin engine strike aircraft and fighters while support ground action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_aircraft

Certainly an interceptor like the Spitfire would help, but its short range, fragile-build and lack of ground support capability (little bullets, no bombs until later marks) is not ideal. Instead, let's give the Poles a strike-fighter, not an interceptor, sort of a 1939 P-47. Or at least get an interceptor with a cannon, like the Arsenal VG-33
 
Last edited:
As to the Poles needing a strike fighter, not an intercepter, you have to intercept invaders to gain air superiority before you can strike back. The P-47 wasn't built as a strike fighter, the speed requirement specified a critical altitude of 25,000 feet, and it carried no bombs. The P-38 was actually built to an intercepter specification, Strike fighters of the era were generally unknown, until intercepter fighters got old and couldn't cut the mustard air-to-air. The problem in Poland was that P-47s and P-38s didn't exist and all the in service Spitfires in England that September wouldn't have changed the outcome had they been based in Poland.

Poland had no radar, and they also had no Dowding or Chennault. The Philippines, Oahu, and Ceylon had radar, better than Britain had in 1939.

Polish fighter pilots proved their worth in WWII. Polish fighter aircraft did not. The IAR80 was better than any Polish fighter, but wasn't timely, nor was the Rogozarski IK3. Nor was any suitable other proprietary engine, nor was it likely that the numbers required for success in the coming battle had been on the minds of those responsible, or their best fighter would not have been for export only.

Gobbles was a turkey, but the myth was propaganda. However, it's only 77 years old.

Statistics are dubious, but while the Germans lost maybe 20%of their force, the Poles lost over 70% of their force, and a larger number of aircraft.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
that the Polish airforce was supposedly destroyed on the ground is a myth. Polish planes had mostly been tranferred to smaller airfields and camouflaged before the invasion and they gave the Germans heavy casualties in the air.

With better planes the German casualties in the air would be much higher.
The question, however, is can it make a difference? The WAllies had several hundred Hurricanes (which could literally fly circles around the PLZ-50) in France. Didn't matter.

The Poles could have 300 modern fighters and still be swamped by the Luftwaffe.
 
The question, however, is can it make a difference? The WAllies had several hundred Hurricanes (which could literally fly circles around the PLZ-50) in France. Didn't matter.

The Poles could have 300 modern fighters and still be swamped by the Luftwaffe.

Another question is how are they going to do this? They would have to get very, very lucky. There is a reason why most of the best weapons came from the Great Powers and not the Middle Powers, they have the money and manpower to throw into R&D.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Another question is how are they going to do this? They would have to get very, very lucky. There is a reason why most of the best weapons came from the Great Powers and not the Middle Powers, they have the money and manpower to throw into R&D.
Middle powers came up with some VERY good weapons. The Czech LT vz. 38 was arguably the best tank in the world when it entered service, vastly superior to the Pz I & II (the Reich kept it in production until 1942) The Oerlikon 20mm (Switzerland) and Bofors 40mm (Sweden) were the gold standard for light/medium AAA for most of WW II, while the ZB vz. 26 was rechambered and became the Bren Gun. The Finns made the best SMG of WW II in the Suomi KP/31

The Great Power produced the best weapons during most of the war because the Middle Powers were under heel or just trying to stay the hell out of the way.
 
Middle powers came up with some VERY good weapons. The Czech LT vz. 38 was arguably the best tank in the world when it entered service, vastly superior to the Pz I & II (the Reich kept it in production until 1942) The Oerlikon 20mm (Switzerland) and Bofors 40mm (Sweden) were the gold standard for light/medium AAA for most of WW II, while the ZB vz. 26 was rechambered and became the Bren Gun. The Finns made the best SMG of WW II in the Suomi KP/31

The Great Power produced the best weapons during most of the war because the Middle Powers were under heel or just trying to stay the hell out of the way.

I stand corrected but you have to admit huge wads of cash help.
 
Perhaps, the Gloster f.5/34 has a mock-up at the 1936 Hendon Air Show, representatives from Sweden, Finland, and Poland are impressed. The Nordic countries say that providing the prototypes flies without any problems, they would like have it instead of the Gladiator. The prototype flies six-month earlier than OTL, no problems, with orders production starts up. Poland sees this as a less risky option, than going it alone, orders a small quantity + license production. Their initial version is with their version of the Mercury, but the next version has a more powerful Gnome-Rhone engine.
Does it make a difference - certainly some, but not enough, while later the French Air Force & RF won't look down on the Polish pilots so much because of the antiquated aircraft they flew.
OTL - I think the finance just wasn't there - the Poles had to put up with the P-11, while the slightly better P-24 went for export. It's as if the RAF flew Gauntlets, while the Gladiators went for export!
 
The question, however, is can it make a difference? The WAllies had several hundred Hurricanes (which could literally fly circles around the PLZ-50) in France. Didn't matter.

The Poles could have 300 modern fighters and still be swamped by the Luftwaffe.

Well like i said they would increase the German casualties. Maybe instead of 20 percent loss it increases to 30 percent. Not sure how much that would impact future campaigns by Germany though, but their air capabilities are strained, perhaps trying to rebuild puts starain on other projects as well. In any case it will cause strain...

Also, if you add 300 modern fighters i'd guess you have to add 300 skilled pilots too. Thats more pilots that could escape to England and help fight the battle of Britain(Polish pilots were the best pilots yes?). All in all, this means good business for the Allies.

Unless of course you take into account the Germans might be able to capture 1 or 2 of these planes intact and adapt the technology to their own planes....
 
I'm not sure that Germans can add anything to the LW from our powerful Polish interceptor, since their current generation of fighters is very good/excellent (Bf 109, He 112) and it is quickly followed with much improved next generation (Fw 190, He 100). There is also no engine where the Germans could learn something they don't know in 1939 (apart from certain design apects from the RR Merlin, like the low compression ratio and relatively big supercharger).
 
Top