WI: A strong Polish interceptor, 1939

No need to fumble about with the Gloster F5/34 imo, the poles would have been perfectly capable of building a competent and comparable fighter if thing would have a bit a little different (especially inspired leadership/sound technical decissions), after all they created the PZL-37, arguably one of the best bombers of it's day, and much harder to design and build than a fighter. Even if they would have trouble at first with sourcing a retractable undercarriage, like the czech did with their B-35 they could still fly a fixed gear low wing monoplane in 1936 with a GR14K engine (speed 430-450kph) and build some of those first, then switching to a GR14N retractable gear fighter, some with cannons too (speed 500-530kph) by say 1938. Probably export orders will flood for their low wing fighter too replacing some OTL PZL-24 orders, but like i said, better to keep as many of those as possible for the AF when things start to look gloomy.

Considering that in OTL all the poles had were completely primated PZL-7 (327kph) and PZL-11 (375kph), off the top of my head well over 200 in total, can you image what effect would have having a similar number of far faster and better armed machines? Yes, this will not save Poland from defeat, but the germans will lose at least twice, and possibly even more aircraft, perhaps 500 or 600 not to mention loss of aircrew.

Btw, i think Poland has enough pilots already to man 300 modern fighters as suggested above, and even more so if they would avoid somehow very wasteful decissions like building large numbers of PZL-23s of a flawed concept (250 of them!) or giving top priority to bomber development. A leaner line and bomber aviation and an increased and especially MODERN fighter (PZL-50) and fighter-bomber (PZL-38) forces is the best they could and should have done.
 
...
Considering that in OTL all the poles had were completely primated PZL-7 (327kph) and PZL-11 (375kph), off the top of my head well over 200 in total, can you image what effect would have having a similar number of far faster and better armed machines? Yes, this will not save Poland from defeat, but the germans will lose at least twice, and possibly even more aircraft, perhaps 500 or 600 not to mention loss of aircrew.

....

If the German combat losses are indeed doubled there may be a important long term effect. That is in the spring of 1940 & again in 1941 aircraft production and aircrew training were ramped down. A significant portion of the instructor staff from the schools were redeployed to combat units. This had longer term effects when recovering from victories & preparing for the next campaign. Perhaps, its not certain, a substantially higher loss of air craft/crew in 1939 would lead to less of a reduction in production & training in April/May 1940, & again in 1941?
 
Didn't one of the best Polish aircraft designers die in an aircrash in the first half of the 30s? I remember Dale Cozort doing a short WI about him living... Always struck me as an interesting idea.

Poland shifting resources from bomber design+production to fighter design+production almost certainly means a big boost in the numbers and quality of fighters available in '39.

Also, Poland doing better could have big effects. The original Polish plan was to make a fighting retreat to the hilly country in the Southeast quarter of the country, getting supplies through Romania and holding on until Britain and France got into gear and Romania could enter on their side.

Instead the Germans got inside their decision loop and cut them apart so fast the fighting retreat became a mess and the country was occupied before the Western Allies could do anything.

A better fighter could do a few things:

*It would be a better export good - that means more money for more basic weapons and supplies - especially so if it is good enough that a major like the Brits, French or Americans get interested in licensing it for producing for themselves. That could strengthen the Polish hand even if they don't actually have any of the planes flying for them.

*Slowing the Germans down and keeping the skies contested for longer means less confusion, less army units encircled, and generally a more organized and tough fight for the Germans. German casualties rise sharply and more Polish units reach the Romanian border where they are able to slip away and join the Western Allies.

*Slowing down the Germans even more, might mean the Poles succeed in forming a bastion in the South East, with progressively larger effects the longer that bastion holds out.

*If the Germans have a tough enough fight, Stalin could decide to delay his intervention. Likely, Stalin rushed his invasion of Poland in OTL due to being afraid the Germans would take all of Poland and then not honour their deal with him. If he delays, that means the Germans have to fight on their own for longer. That means alot more dead Germans (the Soviets hitting the Polish rear pretty much ended all serious resistance and all hope for the Poles). Also, Stalin could decide that Germany is having such a hard time that it is worth invading to "liberate" Poland and destroy the German aggressors.

*More Germans - and particularly German aircrew - being dead means that the close-run parts of the Battle of France aren't so close run. Obviously which things depends very much on how badly things went in Poland. IMO even a fairly minimal change with the Poles being able to offer a slightly more organized fight, Stalin coming in a little bit later and a lot more men escaping to Romania would mean France can't be overrun. Germany's manpower can only replenish so fast, and the Brits and French are re-arming at a certain rate... If Germany doesn't have the strength to knock France out before re-armament reaches a critical point (maybe 3 months after the Germans invaded France in OTL), Hitler's goose is basically cooked.

fasquardon
 
Forget the interceptor, lets' give the Poles the tech for anti-tank mines and the ability to mass produce them. Then, pack the border 100 yards deep in mines and barriers. That'll hold up the boch until they work around them.
 
No need to fumble about with the Gloster F5/34 imo, the poles would have been perfectly capable of building a competent and comparable fighter if thing would have a bit a little different (especially inspired leadership/sound technical decissions), after all they created the PZL-37, arguably one of the best bombers of it's day, and much harder to design and build than a fighter. ...

Snag is they tried and failed, the Pzl-50 - it wasn't overweight, it wasn't a big aircraft, but it was slow, its manoeuvrability was poor, and its rate of climb slow. That's a lot to fix with 'sound technical decisions'. The Gloster fighter was a plausible way, of getting around that - though I would Gloster would require a larger license fee for any aircraft exported!
 
A factor to consider is that Polish fighter strength has to be in place by Sept. 1, 1939. The second Gloster flew in May, 1938. I just read a bit about French efforts to get the Bloch 152 into service, and mostly, it occurred following the Polish defeat. French Blochs managed just under 190 victories against just under 90 shot down. It seems a curious fact that they had over 300 less Blochs when the smoke had cleared. I was never good at statistics. I sometimes feel that I'm not the only one. The French also had problems getting all the parts together for their airplanes, although they, unlike the Poles, made their own.
 
A factor to consider is that Polish fighter strength has to be in place by Sept. 1, 1939. The second Gloster flew in May, 1938.....

Yes, but that's OTL, if you re-read post 18, you see that such events are brought forward! They may still have to get a move on, but not impossible - IMHO.
 
Snag is they tried and failed, the Pzl-50 - it wasn't overweight, it wasn't a big aircraft, but it was slow, its manoeuvrability was poor, and its rate of climb slow. That's a lot to fix with 'sound technical decisions'. The Gloster fighter was a plausible way, of getting around that - though I would Gloster would require a larger license fee for any aircraft exported!

I was contending that the sound technical decision was to use as many PZL-24 parts as possible to create a modern low wing fighter in the shortest time, like IAR-80. The IAR-80 was light years away compared to any gull winged PZL, and according to german pilots who flew the IAR, it was no slouch against a Bf-109E, inferior yes but not helpless. An equivalent PZL fighter could have been at least as good, and even slightly more so.

Oh and about that F5/34, don't forget it had the same weak engine as the PZL-50, a partly retractable and more draggy landing gear, and with 8 MGs in the wings, wonder if it actually would be any better that the OTL PZL-50? Is the speed credited to it achieved at representative combat weight, or it was striped down, no guns, no armour etc.
 
A factor to consider is that Polish fighter strength has to be in place by Sept. 1, 1939. ....

License build a modified P35? True it had a slow climb rate & lacked altitude in the US version. It was maneuverable tho. If the Poles adopted it early enough maybe a better engine and heavier MG could be fitted?
 
Oh and about that F5/34, don't forget it had the same weak engine as the PZL-50, a partly retractable and more draggy landing gear, and with 8 MGs in the wings, wonder if it actually would be any better that the OTL PZL-50? Is the speed credited to it achieved at representative combat weight, or it was striped down, no guns, no armour etc.

Its hard to believe such a speed was done with a full warload. Similar radial engined fighters with the same horsepower seem to have been around the 280mph mark. It had quite a few things going against it, Draggy engine cowling and exhausts, thick wing and that undercarrige what were the designers thinking of its horrendous like dragging an anchor around.
 
I'd reiterate: design a fighter around the HS-12Y engine.
Plenty of money and other resources can be saved by not designing & producing the PZL.23 (250 pcs produced historically); also more pilots are thus available.
 
Apart from the well known french fighters, there were some other HS-12Y powered fighters made by small countries with competitive performance like the yugoslav IK-3, belgian R-36 or czech B-35, so the poles could make a decent one too. Concentrating on the HS-12Y would also allow the PZL-38 to be designed with it for commonality, the OTL HS-12Z powered PZL-54 was planned for 640kph, now we're talking. The PZL-55 project was based on a HS-12Y/Z engine, with the Y engine it would have been much slower than the 660 kph planned for the full spec HS-12Z variant, but still, probably one of the top 3 fighters in the world in 1939. Same applies for a HS-12Y powered PZL-38.

Btw, the PZL-55 was designed based on the PZL-26 civilian plane which flew in as far back as 1934! So yes, the "building bricks" are there for a strong polish fighter force in 1939, it's just they arranged those bricks in the completely wrong way. But boy what an aerial carnage would have been if the poles would have somehow managed to build these things in time.
 
Last edited:
One of appeals of the HS 12 engines is that they allow for a powerful cannon to be installed, firing through the prop shaft. Basically makes a short work of any aircraft of the day if/when burst hits home.
 
One of appeals of the HS 12 engines is that they allow for a powerful cannon to be installed, firing through the prop shaft. Basically makes a short work of any aircraft of the day if/when burst hits home.

The French were having teething problems with the motorcannon until iirc 1939. The Poles are going to be a few months behind the French so Sept 39 might be too early for a successful HS 12 engine with Motor Cannon.
 
The French were having teething problems with the HS-12Z in 1940. The Spanish had teething problems with it in 1951,

The French lost 400 MS-405/406 fighters in 1940, equipped with HS-12Y and motor-cannon. Many of these were not yet in service in 1939, Sept.
 
The appeal of motor cannon is not that it has a fancy name, but that one can have a powerful weapon with just 800-850 HP on board. Otherwise the weight and praobably drag penalty looks excessive for such a small engine power. That French lost plenty of MS-405/406 fighters can be attributed to many factors, and state of French aircraft industry in 1930s is a really sad story.

The French were having teething problems with the motorcannon until iirc 1939. The Poles are going to be a few months behind the French so Sept 39 might be too early for a successful HS 12 engine with Motor Cannon.

Interesting - can you point me to some further reading re. bolded part?
 
The appeal of the motor-cannon didn't strike engineers at Derby as being significant enough to trade off the significant power increase allowed by improved induction flow allowed by forgetting about it, even before Stanley Hooker joined the company.

The French lost plenty of MS-405/406 fighters because of Germans.
 
The Germans (both in Munich and where was it - Dessau?) have had no problem with low/medium/high powered V-12s capable for motor cannon - so it is more a function of design practice and philosophy, rather than it is connected with some real problems.

...
The French lost plenty of MS-405/406 fighters because of Germans.

Could not agree more.
 
The appeal of motor cannon is not that it has a fancy name, but that one can have a powerful weapon with just 800-850 HP on board. Otherwise the weight and praobably drag penalty looks excessive for such a small engine power. That French lost plenty of MS-405/406 fighters can be attributed to many factors, and state of French aircraft industry in 1930s is a really sad story.



Interesting - can you point me to some further reading re. bolded part?

Typical I cant find the info, I never can when I try to go back and read again. iirc it was a problem with the empty cases jamming up the works manouvering stopped them falling freely away. Hopefully someone with more or the correct info will come along.
 
The Germans (both in Munich and where was it - Dessau?) have had no problem with low/medium/high powered V-12s capable for motor cannon - so it is more a function of design practice and philosophy, rather than it is connected with some real problems.

I think you mean Stuttgart and Dessau, because Munich gave up up-right V-12s, without motor cannon and went round. It was a function of deliberate design philosophy, to enable an engine to grow in capabilities.
 
Top