It looks quite plausible to me the the Germans would try to improve on their existing designs. Though I think that they would more likely concentrate their efforts on the cheaper and simpler single engine interceptors just for the greater numbers. Also as the Germans would like to intercept Allied bombers and avoid as much as possible dealing with the bomber's escorts they will push the development of rocket planes like the Me. 163 and other exotic death-traps.
The issue with that is the extended engine development required to get better high-altitude performance out of a single engine OR having to substantially redesign the wings. These problems are what kept the high-altitude versions of the FW-190 and the Ta 152 (respectively) from coming on line earlier IOTL. I think the quickest solution is, indeed, a twin-engine design. IOTL Hitler himself made the Do 335 top priority in May '44 (effective July '44) and that was a twin-engine design. It may be reasonable that the Bf.109Z is given similar priority in, say, Jan '44 as a quick measure to fill the gap until the Do 335 and Me.262 can become available. Of course, in this case, the He 219 would be cancelled earlier to free up DB603s for the Zwilling, which in turn might be cancelled in summer '44 for the Pfeil. The idea of adapting the Ta 154 is more because it seems a common "What if..." for fans of WWII aviation but the increased bombing pressures ITTL will make it even more likely the adhesive supply gets killed just as it did IOTL.
I had considered this and it seems possibly viable considering the 163 went operational in May '44. However, I don't think it is really a solution to the problem. Its short burn and limited range mean that the bombers have to fly almost directly over the airfield to even consider using them and by summer of '44 the problems of actually hitting a slow bomber in one of them would have already become apparent.
My thought was, make the Interlude into a bond drive, so you get a look at both the civilian side & their view of the war at large, & by doing that, you get to see the *P-38's impact. Yes, it's a roundabout way of doing it... (I wanted to avoid my fallback, which is TV news clips, or, in this era, newsreel.
)I would pick the FW-190D. I think the Germans would probably pick the FW-190C or Ta-154.
You can probably guess why.On the exotics like the M3-163, I wonder if you can't get a hybrid: Na-144 with fixed nose & *FFARs, or RATO VTOL for the 163 (& drop tanks with C/T-Stoff?). Too much to ask?
Last edited:
I got to admit I wouldn't mind seeing that Twin Bf-109Z developed. A quick, dirty and mean way to get a faster interceptor and largely by using existing airframes and engines. See who would prevail in a battle between them and the P-38 J/Ks. Pilots, air gunners and AAA gunners will have to polish up their aircraft recognition skills.
At work.
Been following this awesome/amazing tale and am really stoked reading through.
As for comments about the Me-163? If bombing is as much a problem this TL as real life then it's the peroxide et,al factories that go 'Ka-bloowey' because the Brits want to stop the Duddle-bugs from dropping on old London town.
No fuel is what kept the Baron Maunchhousen riders on the ground more than anything else.
As for alternate weird rocket science? Why not have Prof Lippisch 'P-12' or the simpler 'Delta' machine take to the skies burning coal?
While not interceptable at speed (They were projected to operate at around Mach 1) the descriptions of the P-38 jockeys as the soot contrails race by as they do battle against the Do-335's should make excellent/exciting reading.
Much cheers!
Been following this awesome/amazing tale and am really stoked reading through.
As for comments about the Me-163? If bombing is as much a problem this TL as real life then it's the peroxide et,al factories that go 'Ka-bloowey' because the Brits want to stop the Duddle-bugs from dropping on old London town.
No fuel is what kept the Baron Maunchhousen riders on the ground more than anything else.
As for alternate weird rocket science? Why not have Prof Lippisch 'P-12' or the simpler 'Delta' machine take to the skies burning coal?
While not interceptable at speed (They were projected to operate at around Mach 1) the descriptions of the P-38 jockeys as the soot contrails race by as they do battle against the Do-335's should make excellent/exciting reading.
Much cheers!
Here is an idea to show fighting the P-38 from the Luftwaffe POV:
Write a chapter that is presented as a postwar report written by the USAAF. The report would be compiled from the interrogation of Luftwaffe pilots who faced the Lightning. The German pilots would give their critique of the P-38 and tell us how it affected the Luftwaffe in late 1944.
You could have someone like Adolf Galland describing various countermeasures introduced to deal with the twin P-51/P-38 threat. Galland could describe how precious resources were used up testing the various designs you mentioned.
Write a chapter that is presented as a postwar report written by the USAAF. The report would be compiled from the interrogation of Luftwaffe pilots who faced the Lightning. The German pilots would give their critique of the P-38 and tell us how it affected the Luftwaffe in late 1944.
You could have someone like Adolf Galland describing various countermeasures introduced to deal with the twin P-51/P-38 threat. Galland could describe how precious resources were used up testing the various designs you mentioned.
I am actually really looking forward to post war analysis ITTL but am also trying to get it out chronologically.
I won't argue against that.
My thought is, you can take a postwar or modern work & use it to deal with whatever year you want, & foreshadow (if you want, or not...) what's coming, as well as offer a perspective the chronologically-appropriate post can't.
That said, foreshadowing could amount to spoilers, too...
I've never been really good with telescoping time (I'd pretty much have to tell the story of the war a day at a time, making War & Peace look like a novelette
), so far be it from me to be critical whatever way you do go.That is a fair point. Maybe I will consider it, after all. Although, I think that I have a good plan to move forward now but the idea of using an "historical excerpt" from a future analysis is an approach I will undertake for a later chapter. Of course, the one problem that it may have is that it is in some ways "telling" rather than "showing" and may break the narrative a little.
If I am telling the right story I have little trouble with bouncing around in time. Sometimes it can make the story more interesting and surprising than a strictly chronological telling (I did a little of it in Chapter 19 "Bounced!").
If it's told well, I have no problem following it. I mean, if I'm telling it, I have a problem with how to reasonably "break" a narrative with gaps of time; I'm much better with shorter periods, like a few days, than with months or years, especially if not much happens in between.
EverKing's NACA P-38 "what if?" has gone into great detail about some very plausible ways the Lockheed P-38 could have been improved earlier and more comprehensively to make it the premier piston engined fighter of WW2. But it could also have been improved in one other area too.
That one aspect that could have been greatly improved, not only for the P-38 but for many Allied aircraft was armament. There already existed a method to massively increase the rate of fire and hitting power of aircraft mounted HMGs that the West did not develop shortly before the War or after WW2 began. But the Russians did. Here is an example of the Soviet ShKAS 7.62 machine gun first produced in 1933. It is an example of the revolver machine gun or revolver cannon in the case of larger caliber weapons using that principle.
These guns could fire about 30 rounds a second with a muzzle velocity approaching 2700 feet per second. Later versions could fire 50 rounds a second. The use of a revolving multi-chambered breech was an effective and proven technology pre-War. The Germans also developed a revolver cannon during the war. The Mauser MG 213. The revolver cannon design is still currently being used in several aircraft mounted gun design.
A better weapon could have been developed for Allied aircraft in WW2. What I think would have been a big advantage over the adequate but improvable .50 Caliber Browning is a revolver machine gun using the same .50 ammunition. In particular the .50 API. It wouldn't be a direct copy of the Russian ShKAS as there are other design features that optimize the .50 caliber gun for fixed mounted fighter aircraft installation.
Instead of having the revolving breech and ammunition feed being driven by recoil as in the ShKAS instead each gun powered by a motor. Either electric or hydraulically driven. This ensure that all the energy released during each firing is used for propelling the bullet. Which means an increase in muzzle velocity. I think. Readers who have a much better understanding of ordnance and firearms then I do might see this differently.
Driving the breech and ammo feed by motor is the method used in modern revolver guns. This also maintains the high rate of fire as the ammunition feed is robustly driven. It also eliminates misfires or hot firing because when the breech stops revolving no unfired ammunition will be placed in line with barrel and the last live round that was rolled inline would be fired off.
Speculating from historical and existing revolver cannons guns my proposed .50 caliber revolver machine gun could produce a rate of fire of about 40 rounds a second/2400 rounds per minute.
With an increased muzzle velocity of maybe 3100 to 3200 feet per second.
This is a significant enough improvement to warrant the mass production and replacement of the Browning .50 M2AN with this weapon. For example let's use the P-38 (of course) to demonstrate the advantages.
Instead of carrying the weight and space of 4 HMGs and the 20mm cannon two of the .50 revolver cannon are installed. Mounted with the two barrels space only about a foot or so apart when fired these guns are sending 80 rounds a second in a narrow stream with a higher kinetic energy and with the more accurate aiming that the higher muzzle velocity permits. A big plus if facing a head on attack with cannon armed Luftwaffe fighters.
On the P-38 carrying only two guns instead of 5 frees up more space for a larger ammunition load per gun. It's hard to say if there would be any large changes in the weight. Of course the revolver machine guns with their motors are heavier than the Browning M2s but there is only two of them
and the 20mm is removed also as the improvement in firepower negates the advantage of keeping the 20mm. In fact if weight and space permits install a third revolver gun. I would guess ammunition storage might be the limiting factor here. With two guns I think about 37 seconds of firing is possible. That's about 3000 rounds. Not bad. The OTL P-38 carried 2000 rounds for the M2s. Here we have the space freed up by having two guns and no cannon.
The .50 caliber revolver machine gun could be wing mounted in any fighter plane that has room for 4 or 6 or 8 M2s in it's wing. You can replace 4 M2s with one revolver gun and reduce weight and free up room for the larger ammunition magazines. A P-47 would have two per wing. When firing that's 160 rounds per second. Quite a punch.
What would be a realistic point of departure that would spur American and/or British interest in pursuing this advancement?
That one aspect that could have been greatly improved, not only for the P-38 but for many Allied aircraft was armament. There already existed a method to massively increase the rate of fire and hitting power of aircraft mounted HMGs that the West did not develop shortly before the War or after WW2 began. But the Russians did. Here is an example of the Soviet ShKAS 7.62 machine gun first produced in 1933. It is an example of the revolver machine gun or revolver cannon in the case of larger caliber weapons using that principle.
These guns could fire about 30 rounds a second with a muzzle velocity approaching 2700 feet per second. Later versions could fire 50 rounds a second. The use of a revolving multi-chambered breech was an effective and proven technology pre-War. The Germans also developed a revolver cannon during the war. The Mauser MG 213. The revolver cannon design is still currently being used in several aircraft mounted gun design.
A better weapon could have been developed for Allied aircraft in WW2. What I think would have been a big advantage over the adequate but improvable .50 Caliber Browning is a revolver machine gun using the same .50 ammunition. In particular the .50 API. It wouldn't be a direct copy of the Russian ShKAS as there are other design features that optimize the .50 caliber gun for fixed mounted fighter aircraft installation.
Instead of having the revolving breech and ammunition feed being driven by recoil as in the ShKAS instead each gun powered by a motor. Either electric or hydraulically driven. This ensure that all the energy released during each firing is used for propelling the bullet. Which means an increase in muzzle velocity. I think. Readers who have a much better understanding of ordnance and firearms then I do might see this differently.
Driving the breech and ammo feed by motor is the method used in modern revolver guns. This also maintains the high rate of fire as the ammunition feed is robustly driven. It also eliminates misfires or hot firing because when the breech stops revolving no unfired ammunition will be placed in line with barrel and the last live round that was rolled inline would be fired off.
Speculating from historical and existing revolver cannons guns my proposed .50 caliber revolver machine gun could produce a rate of fire of about 40 rounds a second/2400 rounds per minute.
With an increased muzzle velocity of maybe 3100 to 3200 feet per second.
This is a significant enough improvement to warrant the mass production and replacement of the Browning .50 M2AN with this weapon. For example let's use the P-38 (of course) to demonstrate the advantages.
Instead of carrying the weight and space of 4 HMGs and the 20mm cannon two of the .50 revolver cannon are installed. Mounted with the two barrels space only about a foot or so apart when fired these guns are sending 80 rounds a second in a narrow stream with a higher kinetic energy and with the more accurate aiming that the higher muzzle velocity permits. A big plus if facing a head on attack with cannon armed Luftwaffe fighters.
On the P-38 carrying only two guns instead of 5 frees up more space for a larger ammunition load per gun. It's hard to say if there would be any large changes in the weight. Of course the revolver machine guns with their motors are heavier than the Browning M2s but there is only two of them
and the 20mm is removed also as the improvement in firepower negates the advantage of keeping the 20mm. In fact if weight and space permits install a third revolver gun. I would guess ammunition storage might be the limiting factor here. With two guns I think about 37 seconds of firing is possible. That's about 3000 rounds. Not bad. The OTL P-38 carried 2000 rounds for the M2s. Here we have the space freed up by having two guns and no cannon.
The .50 caliber revolver machine gun could be wing mounted in any fighter plane that has room for 4 or 6 or 8 M2s in it's wing. You can replace 4 M2s with one revolver gun and reduce weight and free up room for the larger ammunition magazines. A P-47 would have two per wing. When firing that's 160 rounds per second. Quite a punch.
What would be a realistic point of departure that would spur American and/or British interest in pursuing this advancement?
marathag
Banned
Gas or recoil operation really doesn't cost anything. The gas port is the size of toothpick, and that tap is a drop in the ocean vs the huge muzzle flash at the end of the barrel.
The GE Minigun at 3000RPM required 24 - 28 VDC, with 58 amps draw.
The P-51 generator could supply 100 amps, so that will nearly need to be doubled so there is enough capacity for all electrical systems.
This is a right brilliant idea.
I wish I'd thought of it. I do agree with marathag, making them recoil- or gas-operated seems the way to go, not least for avoiding added strain on the electrical system, & added complexity.
If this did become standard, it strikes me it would be in bombers, too...
That's what I've been trying to find out. The cost versus benefit of recoil driven against using an external motor to power the guns. The modern revolver cannon or rotary cannon aircraft guns are motor driven. So I'm inclined to think there is some advantage there even though I can't define it accurately.
This is a right brilliant idea.
I do agree with marathag, making them recoil- or gas-operated seems the way to go, not least for avoiding added strain on the electrical system, & added complexity.
If this did become standard, it strikes me it would be in bombers, too...
Thanks @phx1138 You're always quick to appreciate an innovative idea.
I'm thinking why not use a hydraulically driven motor? The airplane's hydraulic system is always pressurised and ready to go. You are not likely to be lowering the landing gear or flaps just at the point of firing at the enemy.
Last edited:
Agreed. It would have been very useful to have the M2-AN3 ready in time for WW2. 20 rounds a second rate of fire. It's development should have been pushed faster.
My purported gun would be 40 rounds a second and I think a higher muzzle velocity.
I would think so. With a powered rotary breech if there is a bad round or a misfire you won't have the loss of recoil stopping the action. The breech keeps turning and any unfired round would be ejected just like the fired cases. Also the powered feed might overcome any minor hitches or snags in the ammunition belt travel due to G-loading or dirt. At least to a point. But overall I think it would be much more reliable.
Last edited: