1935-1940: alternative Luftwaffe?

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
728
Reaction score
569
The Germans drew the wrong conclusions that would cost them the next war: the decision not to manufacture four engine strategic bombers prevented them from destroying the Russian factories located behind the Urals in 1942.
Given the relative "success" of the daylight bombing campaign against German industry, I think that is a pretty dubious assessment. Couple that with the fact the four-engine strategic bombers gobbled up disproportionate industrial resources to produce compared to the smaller twins, and I'm not at all sure they made the wrong decision.

Even accepting your premise at face-value, the Soviet Union had nothing but room further east. There is nothing to prevent them from simply moving production farther east out of the range of disruption as they did with the first move.

One area they might have enjoyed more four engine aircraft was something like the "Scourge of the Atlantic" which did not use high-powered and in-demand engines and performed valuable service in maritime patrol and attack.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,707
Reaction score
3,258
The 210 was a mess. I'm not sure that could have been foreseen given Willy's reputation.
There is some evidence that the RLM interfering with the choice of single tail versus twin tail was responsible for some of the aerodynamic issues. Had they maybe left it for Messerchmitt to sort (most probably Willy's underlings as he was more a manager by that time) then it might have turned out ok.
And for my money ditch the barbettes, 90% of two/three-seaters in the war managed just fine with a dorsal gunner with manual guns, this obsession with powered rear guns in smaller aircraft did the Germans no favours.

Does it matter if the Ju 52 was obsolete? It was a workhorse but I agree that a twin-engined transport might have been more economical all-around. Maybe if Lufthansa hadn't of opted for warmed over bomber prototypes (Ju 86, He 111) it might have been able to develop a better DC-2/DC-3 analog before the war to sit alongside its Fw 200 & Ju 90 long-range fleet.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,707
Reaction score
3,258
Given the relative "success" of the daylight bombing campaign against German industry, I think that is a pretty dubious assessment. Couple that with the fact the four-engine strategic bombers gobbled up disproportionate industrial resources to produce compared to the smaller twins, and I'm not at all sure they made the wrong decision.
Agreed and strategic bombing needed thousands of bombers for effectiveness. The Germans barely kept up with Allied twin-engined bomber production let alone anything on the scale of the Lancaster and Halifax production groups or Willow Run.
A couple of hundred Ju 89s wasn't going to cut it.
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
201
Reaction score
126
Not sure that is a fair assessment. They had very long legs for one. They did fairly well in free ranging fighter sweeps using the right tactics. They were abysmal in the "close escort" which both sides dabbled with and was largely ineffective regardless of aircraft quality, but the 110 was particularly ill-suited for it. The biggest complaint seems to be that it cannot get into a turning fight with Spitfires, but there weren't a lot of aircraft that could.

Long legs was useful over the Med and in the Africa campaign, both for sweeps and as Jabos. Similar work in the east where they frequently tore up trains, airfields, vehicles, etc.
It did fine work as an interceptor for daylight bombing raids until long-range escort became available. It had enough power and reserves to lug the 21cm rockets to break up bomber boxes.

The 210 was a mess. I'm not sure that could have been foreseen given Willy's reputation. 310 wasn't much better. 410 was useful, but how do you get there without working through the disaster that was the 210 program? And maybe the biggest problem with the 210 was that it took the 110 essentially out of production and disrupted the lines, while what was finally produced proved ineffective. They would have been better off just leaving the 110 in production for a time until the 410 was finally developed -- but again, the chicken-egg problem.

Bf 110 was the only long-range fighter worth speaking about until the Zero arrived.
With that said, a drop-tank outfitted Bf 109 covers the areas of interest in 1939-40, especially the best part of France and England. It is easier to make them in good numbers for obvious reasons. Unlike the 110, it can also climb and roll every bit as good as Hurricane or Spitfire if not better. Bf 109 also dived better, is/was a very small fighter, while Bf 110 was easier to see and hit due to it's big size.
Fw 190 was also lugging the 21cm rockets, while again being a far better performer all-around, and again cheaper to make. We can also note that Bf 110/210/410 will use the fuel at twice the rate of what Bf 109 will, or a DB-601/605-powered Fw 190.
Me 410 used almost 2400 of DB 603 engines for its production run of just under 1200 pcs. Those 2400 DB 603s in the nose of Fw 190 woud've make these 190s much better fighters than it was the case in late 1943-early 1944, ie. just in time.

The big issue here is the 252 uses the engines that are in much higher demand for combat aircraft. The 352 is fine, but comes too late to make much of a difference, and is not as capable as the 252.

German military transport aviation, while excellent for the time of late 1930s/early 1940s, was in shambles by mid-1941. Combat losses were very high in the Netherlands and in Crete, while new aircraft were slow to materialize. Why the Ju 52 soldiered too long with three 660-700 HP engines is anyone's guess.
I'd suggest that transports are to be made predominantly from wood and steel, with aluminium alloys used sparingly. A low-high mix: simple, 1-2 engined aircraft (like the An-2 biplane, Bellanca Aircruiser, Noorduyn Norseman; Bristol Bombay, HP Harrow), and capable 3-4 engined A/C.
But, granted, the DC-3/C-47 is such a tempting role model, even if the engines are just 1000 HP types.

Engines are the big bottleneck in Germany.

For this time frame - 1935-40 - probably no.
Eg. DB 601 and Jumo 211 were about as good as Merlin, and much better than what other people are making. Bramo 323 and BMW 132 were as capable as Pegasus and Mercury, respectively. Production of engines in Germany was on the mass scale, helping the LW number about the same number of capable aircraft as France and UK combined by 1939?

How these engines were used was ... less than ideal, though. It was very much feasible to make a long-range fighter that performs around a DB-601 or Jumo 211, so the Bf 110 can be skipped.
The Hs 126, made in more than 900 copies, was 'Germany's Lysander'- too heavy and expensive for a close-range recon, but incapable to carry a bomb load despite the 900 HP engine, so you still nedd to call Ju 87s in. Better slap these engines on Ju 87s, and make another hundred or two of Storchs.
I've already mentioned the Ju 52 with 3 engines, unable to emulate the humble Bombay or Harrow that used two.

But then again, every country made their number of flops (some unusable clunkers amounted in many hundreds), so we might probably look at German purchase decisions in that light.
 
Last edited:

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
728
Reaction score
569
But then again, every country made their number of flops (some unusable clunkers amounted in many hundreds), so we might probably look at German purchase decisions in that light.
That is very true.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
1,174
Not sure that is a fair assessment. They had very long legs for one. They did fairly well in free ranging fighter sweeps using the right tactics. They were abysmal in the "close escort" which both sides dabbled with and was largely ineffective regardless of aircraft quality, but the 110 was particularly ill-suited for it. The biggest complaint seems to be that it cannot get into a turning fight with Spitfires, but there weren't a lot of aircraft that could.

Long legs was useful over the Med and in the Africa campaign, both for sweeps and as Jabos. Similar work in the east where they frequently tore up trains, airfields, vehicles, etc.
It did fine work as an interceptor for daylight bombing raids until long-range escort became available. It had enough power and reserves to lug the 21cm rockets to break up bomber boxes.

The 210 was a mess. I'm not sure that could have been foreseen given Willy's reputation. 310 wasn't much better. 410 was useful, but how do you get there without working through the disaster that was the 210 program? And maybe the biggest problem with the 210 was that it took the 110 essentially out of production and disrupted the lines, while what was finally produced proved ineffective. They would have been better off just leaving the 110 in production for a time until the 410 was finally developed -- but again, the chicken-egg problem.

Bf 110 was the only long-range fighter worth speaking about until the Zero arrived.
With that said, a drop-tank outfitted Bf 109 covers the areas of interest in 1939-40, especially the best part of France and England. It is easier to make them in good numbers for obvious reasons. Unlike the 110, it can also climb and roll every bit as good as Hurricane or Spitfire if not better. Bf 109 also dived better, is/was a very small fighter, while Bf 110 was easier to see and hit due to it's big size.
Fw 190 was also lugging the 21cm rockets, while again being a far better performer all-around, and again cheaper to make. We can also note that Bf 110/210/410 will use the fuel at twice the rate of what Bf 109 will, or a DB-601/605-powered Fw 190.
Me 410 used almost 2400 of DB 603 engines for its production run of just under 1200 pcs. Those 2400 DB 603s in the nose of Fw 190 woud've make these 190s much better fighters than it was the case in late 1943-early 1944, ie. just in time.

The big issue here is the 252 uses the engines that are in much higher demand for combat aircraft. The 352 is fine, but comes too late to make much of a difference, and is not as capable as the 252.

German military transport aviation, while excellent for the time of late 1930s/early 1940s, was in shambles by mid-1941. Combat losses were very high in the Netherlands and in Crete, while new aircraft were slow to materialize. Why the Ju 52 soldiered too long with three 660-700 HP engines is anyone's guess.
I'd suggest that transports are to be made predominantly from wood and steel, with aluminium alloys used sparingly. A low-high mix: simple, 1-2 engined aircraft (like the An-2 biplane, Bellanca Aircruiser, Noorduyn Norseman; Bristol Bombay, HP Harrow), and capable 3-4 engined A/C.
But, granted, the DC-3/C-47 is such a tempting role model, even if the engines are just 1000 HP types.

Engines are the big bottleneck in Germany.

For this time frame - 1935-40 - probably no.
Eg. DB 601 and Jumo 211 were about as good as Merlin, and much better than what other people are making. Bramo 323 and BMW 132 were as capable as Pegasus and Mercury, respectively. Production of engines in Germany was on the mass scale, helping the LW number about the same number of capable aircraft as France and UK combined by 1939?

How these engines were used was ... less than ideal, though. It was very much feasible to make a long-range fighter that performs around a DB-601 or Jumo 211, so the Bf 110 can be skipped.
The Hs 126, made in more than 900 copies, was 'Germany's Lysander'- too heavy and expensive for a close-range recon, but incapable to carry a bomb load despite the 900 HP engine, so you still nedd to call Ju 87s in. Better slap these engines on Ju 87s, and make another hundred or two of Storchs.
I've already mentioned the Ju 52 with 3 engines, unable to emulate the humble Bombay or Harrow that used two.

But then again, every country made their number of flops (some unusable clunkers amounted in many hundreds), so we might probably look at German purchase decisions in that light.
Every nation built a few flops: Blackburn Botha, etc. The key is to build a handful of prototypes and learn from your mistakes. Take the lessons learned and apply them to make the next generation better.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
1,174
Cancel Messerschmitt Bf. 110, 210 and 310 because they did not really have a role. By late war, they were pressed into service as night-fighters, but that was purely in desperation.
Not sure that is a fair assessment. They had very long legs for one. They did fairly well in free ranging fighter sweeps using the right tactics. They were abysmal in the "close escort" which both sides dabbled with and was largely ineffective regardless of aircraft quality, but the 110 was particularly ill-suited for it. The biggest complaint seems to be that it cannot get into a turning fight with Spitfires, but there weren't a lot of aircraft that could.

Long legs was useful over the Med and in the Africa campaign, both for sweeps and as Jabos. Similar work in the east where they frequently tore up trains, airfields, vehicles, etc.
It did fine work as an interceptor for daylight bombing raids until long-range escort became available. It had enough power and reserves to lug the 21cm rockets to break up bomber boxes.

The 210 was a mess. I'm not sure that could have been foreseen given Willy's reputation. 310 wasn't much better. 410 was useful, but how do you get there without working through the disaster that was the 210 program? And maybe the biggest problem with the 210 was that it took the 110 essentially out of production and disrupted the lines, while what was finally produced proved ineffective. They would have been better off just leaving the 110 in production for a time until the 410 was finally developed -- but again, the chicken-egg problem.

. Ju. 52-3 trimotor was obsolete by the start of WW2. The Ju. 252 and 352 were ...
The big issue here is the 252 uses the engines that are in much higher demand for combat aircraft. The 352 is fine, but comes too late to make much of a difference, and is not as capable as the 252.

Engines are the big bottleneck in Germany.
Messerschmitt 210 was a mess because of turbulent airflow over wing roots. That turbulent airflow also degraded tail surfaces. It seems that the Messerschmitt works was busy with other projects, so called in some engineers - from another company (Arado?) - to design wings for 210.
It took them until the 410 version to smooth out airflow problems.

Like Il-2 and Lancaster rear gunners, I suspect that the second crew member's real role was warning the pilot about enemy airplanes attacking from the rear. IOW rear-firing guns were more of a formality.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
1,174

Does it matter if the Ju 52 was obsolete? It was a workhorse but I agree that a twin-engined transport might have been more economical all-around. Maybe if Lufthansa hadn't of opted for warmed over bomber prototypes (Ju 86, He 111) it might have been able to develop a better DC-2/DC-3 analog before the war to sit alongside its Fw 200 & Ju 90 long-range fleet.
Ju52's limited load-carrying capability hampered operations in Crete, North Africa, Eastern Front, Battle of the Bulge, etc. The Luftwaffe was always short of transport airplane tonnage.
Yes, keeping an old design in production is better than nothing. But the problem was more about engine production. Ju.52 was powered a trio of BMW321 radial engines developing 725 horsepower for take-off. FW 200 Condor used 4 of the same engine.
Ju.252 was powered by a trio of Junkers Jumo 211F, V-12 liquid-cooled engines generating 1,300 hp. each. That engine was also used on: Ju.87, Ju88 and Heinkel 111. So the Jumo engine was too valuable for bombers.
Finally, Junkers 352 was powered by a trio of BMW-Bramo Fafnir engines generating 1,000 hp. That engine was also installed on Arado232 "thousandfooter" transport, Dornier 17, Dornier 24 flying boat and FW 200 Condor.
Which raises the question of which engine was best for a mid-war transport with 2 or 3 engines??????
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
1,174
May I suggest that the Luftwaffe was correct in not building large numbers of large, 4-engined bombers?

All those turrets were a tremendous drag and did not reduce vulnerability. RAF Bomber Command suffered up to 25 percent casualties among their Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling bomber fleets. In comparison, RAF Mosquito fast bombers only suffered light casualties.
Following that logic, the Luftwaffe was wise to focus on Ju.88, 188, etc. light, fast bombers.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
728
Reaction score
569
Like Il-2 and Lancaster rear gunners, I suspect that the second crew member's real role was warning the pilot about enemy airplanes attacking from the rear. IOW rear-firing guns were more of a formality.
I don't know. I wouldn't underestimate the psychological effect of seeing a guy in the back seat aiming a gun in one's general direction. Certainly discourages getting in close. Maybe the flash or tracers makes a guy break off his run just a little bit earlier. Maybe the guy opts for more difficult deflection shots. Maybe he uses that much more time, gas, and ammo making his passes.
But the extra pair of eyes telling you when to break, as you said, is a nice function.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
728
Reaction score
569
May I suggest that the Luftwaffe was correct in not building large numbers of large, 4-engined bombers?

All those turrets were a tremendous drag and did not reduce vulnerability. RAF Bomber Command suffered up to 25 percent casualties among their Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling bomber fleets. In comparison, RAF Mosquito fast bombers only suffered light casualties.
Following that logic, the Luftwaffe was wise to focus on Ju.88, 188, etc. light, fast bombers.
Even ignoring the losses and the limited effectiveness of strategic bombing, there's no way Germany can make enough of them to make a real difference. That's the crux.
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
201
Reaction score
126
Messerschmitt 210 was a mess because of turbulent airflow over wing roots. That turbulent airflow also degraded tail surfaces. It seems that the Messerschmitt works was busy with other projects, so called in some engineers - from another company (Arado?) - to design wings for 210.
It took them until the 410 version to smooth out airflow problems.

Cure to the Me 210 problems was lengthening of the fuselage, that happened for the 210C version (made both in Germany and Hungary). All of that took the most precious commodity - time - when Nazi Germany didn't have a day to spare.
Should've cancelled the whole 110/210/410 idea and concentrated on Bf 109 andfast bomber/night fighter production instead (Ju 88 or something better), while later siphoning any extra DB engine on Fw 190 production.

Ju.52 was powered a trio of BMW321 radial engines developing 725 horsepower for take-off. FW 200 Condor used 4 of the same engine.
Ju.252 was powered by a trio of Junkers Jumo 211F, V-12 liquid-cooled engines generating 1,300 hp. each. That engine was also used on: Ju.87, Ju88 and Heinkel 111. So the Jumo engine was too valuable for bombers.
Finally, Junkers 352 was powered by a trio of BMW-Bramo Fafnir engines generating 1,000 hp. That engine was also installed on Arado232 "thousandfooter" transport, Dornier 17, Dornier 24 flying boat and FW 200 Condor.
Which raises the question of which engine was best for a mid-war transport with 2 or 3 engines??????

Ju 52 used the 660 HP BMW 132A or T engine until well into the ww2 (yes, English-language Wikipedia is misleading on German hardware). Even the Ju 86s and Hs 126 used 820-860 HP versions, ditto for Fw 200. On 100 oct fuel, the 132H was capable for 1000 HP; granted, we don't want to use the 100 oct fuel on measly transports; the 132H will do 900 HP on 87 oct fuel.
Bramo 323 was a bit more powerful, already the Do-17Z have had a 1000 HP version, 323P (later 323Rs, used on mid-war Fw 200F, on 100 oct fuel were good for 1100, and then 1200 HP ).
Jumo 211s were indeed too valuable for combat aircraft.

So all in all, the difference was small, just forget the early 132s. The Ju 52 can do more than good on just two 900 HP engines - already one complete powerplant less equals to 700-800 kg saving per aircraft.
 

HoHun

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 9, 2021
Messages
73
Reaction score
45
Hi,

And for my money ditch the barbettes, 90% of two/three-seaters in the war managed just fine with a dorsal gunner with manual guns, this obsession with powered rear guns in smaller aircraft did the Germans no favours.

According to Mankau/Petrick's book on the German destroyers, the Me 210 was really meant to replace the Me 110 and the Ju 87 in one fell stroke, and making the type more capable of defending itself by adding the capability to fire at attackers in the lower hemisphere, against which the older types had been defenseless.

So unlike the British, they did not expect increased accuracy from powered guns, but they needed them to make a capability work that would otherwise have required a third crewmember and a ventral gunnery position, resulting in a larger, heavier and lower performing aircraft.

That the barbettes didn't work as well as had been hoped was part of the development risk that's inherent when you're trying to push the state of the art forward. If you only build stuff that you can be sure will work, you'll end up with obsolescent products.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
201
Reaction score
126
Another possible engine for the transports might've been the (Jumo) dieseles. Fuel consumption was around 20% lower than for the gasoline engines, a major thing for arm of military that is using the fuel stocks like there is no tomorrow. So I'd probably have two of 205s on a "Ju 52/2m", lowering the installed weight and improving the streamlining - less drag & weight is beneficial for fuel mileage, too.
For the big transport, probably the 'baby Me 323', that uses technology of yesterday for airframe (= more steel, wood and canvas, and less light alloys), has a cavernous cargo bay, and uses 4 engines. Yes, it needs to be produced by late 1930s.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
1,174
Another possible engine for the transports might've been the (Jumo) dieseles. Fuel consumption was around 20% lower than for the gasoline engines, a major thing for arm of military that is using the fuel stocks like there is no tomorrow. So I'd probably have two of 205s on a "Ju 52/2m", lowering the installed weight and improving the streamlining - less drag & weight is beneficial for fuel mileage, too.
For the big transport, probably the 'baby Me 323', that uses technology of yesterday for airframe (= more steel, wood and canvas, and less light alloys), has a cavernous cargo bay, and uses 4 engines. Yes, it needs to be produced by late 1930s.
Another advantage of diesels is that they do not need precious high-octane gasoline. Diesels are like jets in that they can burn almost any flammable liquid that can be pumped through injectors.
 

lordroel

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
224
Reaction score
181
Kill Goering, for a start.
I always wonder if Manfred von Richthofen had survive and took over Goering position but then i realize , i do not know what Richthofen views are on Jews and the Nazi party would be.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,348
Reaction score
6,352
Kill Goering, for a start.
I always wonder if Manfred von Richthofen had survive and took over Goering position but then i realize , i do not know what Richthofen views are on Jews and the Nazi party would be.

He had surviving brothers, cousins (Lothar, Wolfram - from memory) all over the Nazi LW and... they were devoted nazis. Not sure Manfred would have been any better.
Plus the case of fat Goering himself, that miserable SOB.
 

BB1984

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
44
Reaction score
52
May I suggest that the Luftwaffe was correct in not building large numbers of large, 4-engined bombers?

All those turrets were a tremendous drag and did not reduce vulnerability. RAF Bomber Command suffered up to 25 percent casualties among their Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling bomber fleets. In comparison, RAF Mosquito fast bombers only suffered light casualties.
Following that logic, the Luftwaffe was wise to focus on Ju.88, 188, etc. light, fast bombers.
Even ignoring the losses and the limited effectiveness of strategic bombing, there's no way Germany can make enough of them to make a real difference. That's the crux.
Focusing on the Ju-88/188 etc. was what Germany wound up doing, but it was not their plan. They wanted the Bomber B program to work and, if it had, the Ju-288 or FW-191 would have been in the same class as the allied four engine bombers (much as the Manchester/Lancaster were roughly equivalent) and the Ju-188 would never have entered production.

In some ways, Bomber B, was the "have your cake and eat it too" solution: much higher speed than, for instance, a B-17 but still with good defensive armament and a heavy load.

For "what-if" purposes, there were two ways to go:
  1. Put enough resources into engine development and production to get the Ju222/DB609 class engines working and in production on time, or . . .
  2. Give up on those engines early and push for faster, better twin engine bomber development. Accelerating the Ju-88/188/388 development line is the most obvious choice and would also allow accelerating the Ju-88C to Ju-88G heavy fighter version, which would be part of an Me-110 replacement strategy that would have sidestepped the Me-210 debacle. Dumping the Ju-288 would have also freed up Junkers resources to do that acceleration.
More and better engine development / production was an issue in any case (as others have pointed out as well).

Just as an aside, it's easy to pick on the Me-210, but the competing Arado 240 went through a very similar path, needing massive re-design before emerging as the very good, but too late, Ar-440. At least the 210C/410 gave good service.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
230
Reaction score
367
The Germans drew the wrong conclusions that would cost them the next war: the decision not to manufacture four engine strategic bombers prevented them from destroying the Russian factories located behind the Urals in 1942.
Given the relative "success" of the daylight bombing campaign against German industry, I think that is a pretty dubious assessment. Couple that with the fact the four-engine strategic bombers gobbled up disproportionate industrial resources to produce compared to the smaller twins, and I'm not at all sure they made the wrong decision.

Even accepting your premise at face-value, the Soviet Union had nothing but room further east. There is nothing to prevent them from simply moving production farther east out of the range of disruption as they did with the first move.

One area they might have enjoyed more four engine aircraft was something like the "Scourge of the Atlantic" which did not use high-powered and in-demand engines and performed valuable service in maritime patrol and attack.
Re the last paragraph...

Would 275-odd Do19s or Ju89s using BMW132 or Bramo 323 engines been better LRMP aircraft than the "real world's" 275-odd Fw200Cs?
 

Similar threads

Top