Post Battle of Britain: Luftwaffe/Axis options

Calum Douglas

Piston engine designer
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
205
Reaction score
581
Website
www.calum-douglas.com
Hi Pioneer,

With respect, from all that I've read over the years, as powerful as the MK 108 30mm cannon was against allied bombers, it was not as effective against allied fighters because of it's lower rate of fire when compared to the 20mm.

Well, Tony Williams has the MG 151/20 at 12 rounds per second, and the MK 108 at 10 rps, so the difference really is nothing to write home about:


At the same time, the MK108 shell has about 4 times the destructive power of the MG 151/20's, so it's clearly a more effective weapon.

Tony in "Rapid Fire" (or maybe "Flying Guns") also mentions British trials to establish the effect of the MK 108 shell on target aircraft, using derelict Spitfire and Blenheim airframes. If I remember the data correctly, 9 out of 10 Spitfires were certain kill from a single MK 108 round, the last one was a probable. With regard to the Blenheim, I believe there were "only" 7 certain kills from a single round, and I'm not sure if there was any one in the remaining 3 that was not considered a "probable".

In any case, against fighters the MK 108 had a very high probability of a kill with a single hit, so a rate of fire giving 9 or 10 chances of that sort every second isn't what I'd consider an indication of an "ineffective" gun :)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

In the photos a single 30mm round blew the whole tail off a Spitfire, it was left "hanging on" by a few strands of fuselage stringers.

Interestingly the materials shortages I`m always banging on about also had a negative impact on the destructive capability of the German HE rounds, as the shell cases had to be made quite a bit thicker than desirable as they were forced to use much weaker material than that wanted (which would then deform or crush during firing). This of course, means you cant put as much explosive into the shell as you want, and also means that there is a significant muzzle velocity/HE content problem (ie. they become mutually exclusive goals).

Annoyingly I was just "casually" reading archive files and I cant remember which damn file it was all in, there were figures given about how much extra explosive would have been possible.

Also, yaw stability became more critical as the war went on as fighters had to fire from ever longer range. This was a primary driver for the ever increasing tail sizes of the 109. From memory, in one test with an enlarged tail the 109 with engine mounted cannot achieved a shot grouping of under 5meters at a range of 1000m. (dont even ask me how they measured that ! - I`m guessing ground targets?)
 

Calum Douglas

Piston engine designer
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
205
Reaction score
581
Website
www.calum-douglas.com
Hi Tomo,

Think that we can agree that a Soviet fighter, Bf 109 or P-39 will be hard pressed to carry aloft more than one 30mm cannon until/unless the major power increase happens. IMO that cannon better be as powerful as it is practically possible.

For comparison, the Fw 190A-8's armament weight could be broken down as follows:

168 kg - 4 x MG 151/20
167 kg - 880 rounds 20 mm ammunition
34 kg - 2 x MG 131
74 kg - 950 rounds 13 mm ammunition
-------
443 kg

The Me 109G-6/R6:

42 kg - 1 x MG 151/20 nose gun
43 kg - 200 rounds 20 mm ammunition for nose gun
84 kg - 2 x MG 151/20 wing guns
58 kg - 270 rounds 20 mm ammunition
34 kg - 2 x MG 131
47 kg - 600 rounds 13 mm ammunition
-------
308 kg

The Me 109G-6/U4:

60 kg - 1 x MK 108
48 kg - 65 rounds 30 mm ammunition
34 kg - 2 x MG 131
47 kg - 600 rounds 13 mm ammunition
-------
189 kg

The Me 109G-6:

42 kg - 1 x MG 151/20
43 kg - 200 rounds 20 mm ammunition
34 kg - 2 x MG 131
47 kg - 600 rounds 13 mm ammunition
-------
166 kg

Considering that the Me 109G-6/R6 was perceived as too heavy for air-to-air combat, while the /U4 modification doesn't seem to have raised any objections, we can probably say that for the Me 109, 308 kg of armament weight is too mich, but 189 kg is OK. I'll set the limit at a nice round 200 kg.

This gives us the following options:

1 x MK 103 with 60 rounds: 200 kg, 425 rpm
1 x Tomo Gun with 124 rounds: 200 kg, 503 rpm
2 x MK 108 with 76 rounds per gun: 200 kg, 1200 rpm

So the MK 108 battery has the highest rate of fire by far, and the biggest round count. Admittedly, it again requires wing guns.

In this case, I'd be tempted to take the Tomo Gun because having centreline armament is a significant advantage, even if the slow rate of fire is a bit inconvenient. Considering that historically, the Me 109 seems to have been used more often to cover the bomber-killing Fw 190s against escort fighters than as a bomber killer, maybe I would prefer a MK 108 with a smaller mine shell so that a higher rate of fire is possible at the increased muzzle velocity that seems inevitable if this thread is ever to go anywhere! ;-)

Usage of silver is in the crankshaft bearings, S/C was away from it. Someone still needs to make the GM-1 system and the mixture it uses. If used, it can also be added to a 2-stage engine for even better performance at altitude.

Usage of silver is from Calum's book, I didn't actually know that before looking it up :)

Calum's book also has a description of the production and logistics of GM-1, so that was pretty much covered. I'm not quite sure why it wasn't used at a larger scale to fight the USAAF though - maybe it's in the book, I only read it once so far, and there are a lot of details that I couldn't commit to memory on the first go.

You can use it with a two-stage supercharger, but you'll be alone at the altitudes where it's useful, and you'd probably need a spacesuit as well! :-D Even the bog-standard Gustav could get up to around 13 km with GM-1 only, and GM-1 could only be used above full throttle height. Accordingly, with a two-stage supercharger that would not have yielded much of a useful operational envelope.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
GM1 usage was restricted by several factors, but serious issues were that:

1) The effort of making insulated tanks took a lot of work, when nearly the same thing was needed for the MW50 tanks.

2) Making GM1 is in competition with other Nitrogen compounds, like fertilisers and explosives, so the supply of Nitrogen
was a bottleneck.

3) The supply logistics since they ended up using nitrogen stored at low temperature, but atmospheric pressure, were very complicated. A really difficult thing to organize the supply of to airfields and you had to take off within a few hours of having it filled or it boiled off!
 

HoHun

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 9, 2021
Messages
142
Reaction score
85
Hi Tomo,

Like - what about the ground attack job? Keep the developement close to historical (Ju-87, Hs 129B, Fw 190F), or re-hash that too past late 1940?

Build more Hs 123s! ;-)

Actually, I think the ground attack planes were all pretty good, including the Ju 87, despite its reliance on local air superiority - something that was also required by most other ground attack aircraft of the time. The Hs 129B was fine as well, if you want to do the job of aerial anti-tank gunning at all ... which might not be necessary if better anti-tank bombs are fielded earlier. But I'm out of my element there!

Attached some graphs on the air-to-air situation, which I prepared from Tony Wood's database of Luftwaffe claims in the West. A lot of data gardening was required to weed out typos, inconsistent designations etc., and I gave up the attempt to translate all Luftwaffe map square references into geo coordinates because they were historically recorded in a very unsystematic fashion, but there are some interesting statistics one can derive from them that highlight the problems the Luftwaffe faced in WW2 historically.

I particularly like the victory claims over altitude graphs since they show where air combat usually took place. There might be some bias to it because if you're flying in an altitude band where the enemy has superior performance, you're less likely to be able to claim a victory, but basically, not much combat took place above 8 km, judging from the Luftwaffe claims.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Attachments

  • Luftwaffe Claims Fighters vs Bombers.png
    Luftwaffe Claims Fighters vs Bombers.png
    28.3 KB · Views: 11
  • Tony Woods Western Front Bomber Claims per Altitude Band.png
    Tony Woods Western Front Bomber Claims per Altitude Band.png
    8.7 KB · Views: 11
  • Tony Woods Western Front Claims per Altitude Band.png
    Tony Woods Western Front Claims per Altitude Band.png
    13.4 KB · Views: 13

HoHun

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 9, 2021
Messages
142
Reaction score
85
Hi Calum,

GM1 usage was restricted by several factors, but serious issues were that:

1) The effort of making insulated tanks took a lot of work, when nearly the same thing was needed for the MW50 tanks.

2) Making GM1 is in competition with other Nitrogen compounds, like fertilisers and explosives, so the supply of Nitrogen
was a bottleneck.

3) The supply logistics since they ended up using nitrogen stored at low temperature, but atmospheric pressure, were very complicated. A really difficult thing to organize the supply of to airfields and you had to take off within a few hours of having it filled or it boiled off!

Thanks a lot for the summary!

Is MW50 of much use above full throttle height? I believe I once saw a British diagram showing that the BMW 801D would gain 4% in power above full throttle height through MW50 injection - however, I have no idea if that's accurate, as intelligence information sometimes is not.

(I noticed that in the first video you made with Chris of Military Aviation Visualized, you mentioned that MW50 injection alone, even without increased boost pressure, increased power by a certain amount. That's something I don't quite understand as from Hooker et al.'s booklet, I'd expect the amount of charge air to be a limiting factor for power. However, from the graphs on the V-1650-9, it appears that such an increase was indeed expected at 80" and 90" Hg boost pressure with anti-detontant injection.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Calum Douglas

Piston engine designer
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
205
Reaction score
581
Website
www.calum-douglas.com
Hi Calum,

GM1 usage was restricted by several factors, but serious issues were that:

1) The effort of making insulated tanks took a lot of work, when nearly the same thing was needed for the MW50 tanks.

2) Making GM1 is in competition with other Nitrogen compounds, like fertilisers and explosives, so the supply of Nitrogen
was a bottleneck.

3) The supply logistics since they ended up using nitrogen stored at low temperature, but atmospheric pressure, were very complicated. A really difficult thing to organize the supply of to airfields and you had to take off within a few hours of having it filled or it boiled off!

Thanks a lot for the summary!

Is MW50 of much use above full throttle height? I believe I once saw a British diagram showing that the BMW 801D would gain 4% in power above full throttle height through MW50 injection - however, I have no idea if that's accurate, as intelligence information sometimes is not.

(I noticed that in the first video you made with Chris of Military Aviation Visualized, you mentioned that MW50 injection alone, even without increased boost pressure, increased power by a certain amount. That's something I don't quite understand as from Hooker et al.'s booklet, I'd expect the amount of charge air to be a limiting factor for power. However, from the graphs on the V-1650-9, it appears that such an increase was indeed expected at 80" and 90" Hg boost pressure with anti-detontant injection.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
There is a VERY slight gain above full throttle height, depending on where you inject it. This is entirely due to the cooling/density increase of the air and nothing to do with what the methanol or water are doing once combustion starts. I cant possibly quantify the exact amount as it depends entirely on the specific engine and what altitude you`re at, so it would be more time than I have to sit and do the maths !

But a few percent sound about right.
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
333
Reaction score
206
Thanks a lot for the summary!

Is MW50 of much use above full throttle height? I believe I once saw a British diagram showing that the BMW 801D would gain 4% in power above full throttle height through MW50 injection - however, I have no idea if that's accurate, as intelligence information sometimes is not.

(I noticed that in the first video you made with Chris of Military Aviation Visualized, you mentioned that MW50 injection alone, even without increased boost pressure, increased power by a certain amount. That's something I don't quite understand as from Hooker et al.'s booklet, I'd expect the amount of charge air to be a limiting factor for power. However, from the graphs on the V-1650-9, it appears that such an increase was indeed expected at 80" and 90" Hg boost pressure with anti-detontant injection.)

The Jumo 213F (2-stage 3-speed S/C, no inter- or after-cooler) used MW 50 in 3rd gear all the time (= both above and under the rated alt for 3rd gear) to help out with high temperatures of compressed air, both in Notlesitung and in Kampfleistung (see here, scroll a bit down to the Jumo 213F chart kindly provided by Calum along the other ones). Granted, it was using the B4 fuel there.

Not quite the answer to the question of MW 50 above the rated altitude, but the DB 605L used MW 50 as well as the C3 fuel both for "Start- & Not-leistung" and "Steig- & Kampf-leistung". No intercooler or aftercooler, the compression ratio was very high for a supercharged engine (8.5:1 or 8.3:1, for different engine banks).
 

HoHun

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 9, 2021
Messages
142
Reaction score
85
Hi Calum,

There is a VERY slight gain above full throttle height, depending on where you inject it. This is entirely due to the cooling/density increase of the air and nothing to do with what the methanol or water are doing once combustion starts. I cant possibly quantify the exact amount as it depends entirely on the specific engine and what altitude you`re at, so it would be more time than I have to sit and do the maths !

But a few percent sound about right.

Ah, thanks for the confirmation! :)

I had a look at the video again, and your comment was actually addressing the situation below full throttle height (the link has the exact timestamp, not sure if the forum engine will allow that ... 1473 s):

View: https://youtu.be/stL8eSyieSU?t=1473


However, I'm not sure that the additional power really was achieved at the same boost ... the Jumo 213 was not regulated to a constant boost power, but had what Jumo called "Füllungsregelung", 'charge (mass) control'.

I can't even make up my mind in which direction the charge mass control would change the boost pressure, though - I presume it had an "MW 50" mode of sorts, to account for the increased calorific value of MW50. Otherwise, I'd think that a temperature decrease of the charge would lead to a reduction in boost pressure to keep indicated power constant, which I presume is what the charge control was meant to do.

(The early MW50 systems on the Jumo 213A seem to have been the result of quick and dirty manipulation of what basically was an analog computer, so all bets are off. I presume your graph is for a fully developed system, though.)

With regard to "GM-1", I once came across a document showing that it was initially to be called "MG-1". I can't quite remember the source - it might have been an issue of Flugzeug Classic -, but it showed the installation of N2O containers in the wings of a Fw 190A. It was quite confusing because the wings also house various machine gun "MGs", and it seems that the acronym was switched around pretty quickly to avoid that confusion. "MG-1" probably would refer to "Mona-Gerät", but I can't really help with the origin of "Mona". My hypothesis is that it is a contraction of some contemporary chemical term that's no longer in use today, like "Mononitrodioxide" for N2O (purely illustrative example ... it's not genuine German).

"Göring's Mixture" surely has to be a "backronym", ambiguously alluding at Göring's morphine addiction. I don't think it would have been acceptable for the WW2 Luftwaffe, not even in the fighter arm. However, I once came across a mention of "Ribbentropin" injection ... this referred to an ethanol-water mixture, which in theory would have been suitable for human consumption. As Ribbentrop was jokingly referred to as "Champagne salesman" in reference to his past as a business man, this basically added another layer to a well-known joke. (Of course, this was nothing official, either.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
333
Reaction score
206
Build more Hs 123s! ;-)

Actually, I think the ground attack planes were all pretty good, including the Ju 87, despite its reliance on local air superiority - something that was also required by most other ground attack aircraft of the time. The Hs 129B was fine as well, if you want to do the job of aerial anti-tank gunning at all ... which might not be necessary if better anti-tank bombs are fielded earlier. But I'm out of my element there!

If we want the Hs 129B, better have Henschel expedite their work ASAP, so the 129B can be in service by early 1942? Probably also skip the single 30mm, go with the 37mm from the day one? The self-loading 5cm Pak before we jump on the 7.5cm BK?
If the 30mm is insisted upon, the Ju 87B and D can carry two of those.
Granted, the ground attack task is much more than just tank plinking. One wonders how close the Luftwaffe was to the napalm idea?

For the theaters and occasions where air superiority can't be granted, the Fw 190 and Bf 109 Jabos will be a better solution than the Hs 123, 129 or Ju 87.
 

HoHun

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 9, 2021
Messages
142
Reaction score
85
Hi Tomo,

If we want the Hs 129B, better have Henschel expedite their work ASAP, so the 129B can be in service by early 1942? Probably also skip the single 30mm, go with the 37mm from the day one? The self-loading 5cm Pak before we jump on the 7.5cm BK?
If the 30mm is insisted upon, the Ju 87B and D can carry two of those.
Granted, the ground attack task is much more than just tank plinking. One wonders how close the Luftwaffe was to the napalm idea?

The problem with "tank plinking" according to the German experience was that it required specialist skills and equipment and was only applicable in certain tactical conditions, and if the weather permitted, while the rest of the time the units could not be used for other tasks. The Soviets also found that the Il-2 with 37 mm cannons were not worth it, as their anti-tank bomblets were just as effective without requiring special training for the pilots, and with no restrictions to the general-purpose ground attack nature of their mounts.

That's why I mentioned anti-tank munitions ... not sure if there's an English equivalent to the German "Abwurfmunition", basically everything that's dropped from an aircraft, rather than fired from it.

Generally speaking, the development of folding-fin rockets might is something that certainly would pay off. In the anti-bomber role, the R4M certainly worked extremely well, and though I'm not sure how the anti-tank variant of the same rocket worked, it might be an alternative to the extremely heavy cannon. (I am aware that the "Rocket Typhoon" probably wasn't quite as deadly as it was thought for a long time, but an R4M type rocket would offer more shots per salvo, and even if the destructiveness per hit might not be as great, maybe the effectiveness against anything but a tank might be even greater.)

I'm not aware of any Luftwaffe developments in a direction comparable to napalm, but the cluster bombs probably were roughly comparable in providing an area effect that didn't rely on splinters from a single large bomb which was not a weight-efficient way of attacking battlefield targets.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
333
Reaction score
206
The problem with "tank plinking" according to the German experience was that it required specialist skills and equipment and was only applicable in certain tactical conditions, and if the weather permitted, while the rest of the time the units could not be used for other tasks. The Soviets also found that the Il-2 with 37 mm cannons were not worth it, as their anti-tank bomblets were just as effective without requiring special training for the pilots, and with no restrictions to the general-purpose ground attack nature of their mounts.

From what I was able to gather wrt. the Il-2 with 37mm is that the cannons were always firing a split second difference between the two, thus making the accurate fire nigh impossible. A look at the footage of the Ju 87G shows a lot of recoil shaking the camera, although the Ju-87G seems like it was giving much better results than it's Soviet counterpart. Hurricane IID was IIRC also good in landing shots at tanks, though it didn't get a fraction of 'fame' the Ju-87G did.
Probably the best way to have an accurate cannon-armed tank buster is to have something like the LaGG-3-37 or Yak-9T - there is just one cannon mounted on centreline, weight penalty is as small as possible, drag penalty is very small.
Granted, the bomblets can turn any aircraft into a tank-buster.

That's why I mentioned anti-tank munitions ... not sure if there's an English equivalent to the German "Abwurfmunition", basically everything that's dropped from an aircraft, rather than fired from it.

"Abwurfmunition" = bombs? Small bombs = bomblets. Or at least that's how I get it.

Generally speaking, the development of folding-fin rockets might is something that certainly would pay off. In the anti-bomber role, the R4M certainly worked extremely well, and though I'm not sure how the anti-tank variant of the same rocket worked, it might be an alternative to the extremely heavy cannon. (I am aware that the "Rocket Typhoon" probably wasn't quite as deadly as it was thought for a long time, but an R4M type rocket would offer more shots per salvo, and even if the destructiveness per hit might not be as great, maybe the effectiveness against anything but a tank might be even greater.)

Is there a good source wrt. effectiveness of the R4M against the aircraft?

I'm not aware of any Luftwaffe developments in a direction comparable to napalm, but the cluster bombs probably were roughly comparable in providing an area effect that didn't rely on splinters from a single large bomb which was not a weight-efficient way of attacking battlefield targets.

Napalm was about incendiary 'paste' spreading and igniting around the impact point, that worked very well against bunkers for example, and worked even with a near miss. Not much of the splinters involved, the 1st napalm weapons were housed in the drop tanks (metalic ones, obviuosly).
video
 

HoHun

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 9, 2021
Messages
142
Reaction score
85
Hi Tomo,

Probably the best way to have an accurate cannon-armed tank buster is to have something like the LaGG-3-37 or Yak-9T - there is just one cannon mounted on centreline, weight penalty is as small as possible, drag penalty is very small.

I'm not sure that with the end of the Battle of Britain as point of departure, you'll get an entirely new type into service early enough to make a difference.

Is there a good source wrt. effectiveness of the R4M against the aircraft?

I'm not sure it was formally investigated, but the rapid pace of adoption after the first trials speaks volumes. A couple of years back there was a Flugzeug Classic article illustrating that, I believe. The effectiveness can also be inferred by the wide-spread adoption of folding-fin rockets as interceptor armament after WW2, with some types being armed with such rockets exclusively. It's certainly not as well documented as the gunnery side, though.

Napalm was about incendiary 'paste' spreading and igniting around the impact point, that worked very well against bunkers for example, and worked even with a near miss. Not much of the splinters involved, the 1st napalm weapons were housed in the drop tanks (metalic ones, obviuosly).

Absolutely, I only mentioned splinters as they are the main mechanism "big" bombs use to achieve area effects.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
333
Reaction score
206
I'm not sure that with the end of the Battle of Britain as point of departure, you'll get an entirely new type into service early enough to make a difference.

We'd probably want less different types, not more :)
Gun might be the MK 101 for starters, engine is obviously a V12 type. The MK 101 has the same problem the MK 103 has, namely that it won't easily fit the blast tube within the engine Vee of Jumo 211 or DB 601.
Fit the latest HS 12Y, those were supposed to make 1000 HP down low, while having the 'clear' Vee? Soviets took advantage of that feature on the M-105 engine in order to install powerful guns.
 

HoHun

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 9, 2021
Messages
142
Reaction score
85
Hi,

I'd consider the avoidance of using silver in the bearings' plating an economical decision, and Calum also points out that the DB 628 installation had additional weight and drag (as the Merlin 61 had in the Spitfire), while a calculated performance comparison showed that the Me 109G with GM-1 system had superior high-altitude performance over its DB 628-engined counterpart, so there was a more economical alternative to the DB 628. (And in 1944, it would have competed against the DB 605D, which gave quite good altitude power too despite being a single-stage supercharged engine only.)

Since Calum's book has a power curve for the DB 628, which I had never seen previously, here's a quick and dirty estimate for a Me 109K with a DB 605DC and MW versus the same aircraft with a DB 628.

I've assumed that the DB 628 has the same reduction gear ratio and the same propeller as the DB 605DB, and that it is integrated into the airframe with the exact same drag as the DB 605DB - assumptions that are almost certainly wrong :)

(I wish engine power graphs were identified in the index, maybe by bold type - Calum, perhaps this is something you could consider for future reprints? Throw away my ideas mercilessly if they're no good, I can always have new ones ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Attachments

  • Me109K Comparison.png
    Me109K Comparison.png
    25.4 KB · Views: 8

lancer21

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
56
Hi guys

Regarding the development of the DB-605, one thing i wondered is if the boring out of the cylinders to increase displacement contributed to the reliability issues which prevented use of full power until 1943? Would they have been better of to just incorporate the improved supercharger alongside whatever other improvements they made and increase the rpm without boring out the cylinders? This engine will be rated at 1400HP, a little bit more than the 601E, with a bit better altitude performace, which if it will be more reliable could be used to full power on the Bf-109G earlier than the OTL 605A, say autumn 1942 instead of mid 1943.

Downside is of course the latewar upgrades would probably only get it to 1850-1900 HP as opposed to the OTL 2000HP, but on the plus side the 109G would have a bit more performance in 1942-1943. There may also be the chance that if the engine is more reliable earlier, then they could perhaps boost the power with MW-50 and/or C3 earlier than OTL, say late 1943?

Also they should put the wheel covers on the Bf-109G from the start, and the refined cowling for the MG-131 asap (the K prototype with refined cowling and Erla hood appeared in mid or autumn 1943 iirc), to gain a few more kph in speed, probably offsetting the lower power of my unbored 605A engine.

If there is another thing they should have done imo, is to put every single Jumo-213 and DB-603 into a FW-190 airframe, all 17,000 of them or however many they built. It's the only chance they could have possibly maintained at least parity in 1944. You'd have the first Fw-190Cs operational in spring/summer 1943, and the Fw-190Ds in early 1944, any engine reliability issues would have to be sorted along the way like they did with the BMW-801. Would this possibly lead to getting the Ta-152B/C/H in service earlier? If so better just build the Ta-152B and C, the H is too specialized even if an awesome machine, just use the same 213E engine, weapons etc coupled with a shorter wing (there were some FW experimental models with a 12,2 m wing) or just the standard 11 m wing.

Cancel the He-177 (more Do-217 or Ju-88 or even He-111, at least they work if not outstanding), Me-210/410 (more Me-110, again at least they work) Ju-288, Ta-154 and Me-163 (resource and design capacity waste), He-219 (beautiful machine but too few to justify production), Hs-129 (useful but too vulnerable, better build more FW-190Fs or even just build more Ju-87Ds, at least is as fast but has a gunner), the V-2 which i know it does not pertain to Luftwaffe but i read that it consumed the resources equivalent to build a high performance fighter (not clear if piston or jet), they would been better of to have 6000 extra fighters than 6000 V-2s isn't it? Does the V-2 rocket engine contain high quality metals that otherwise could be used to make the jet engines more reliable? Probably no He-162 either, project born of desperation that was too late to be of help, just use the engines to build some more Me-262s or Ar-234s.
 

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
483
I'm not sure that with the end of the Battle of Britain as point of departure, you'll get an entirely new type into service early enough to make a difference.
I think this may actually be true for all the nations. If you accept the end date of October 31 1940 as stated on Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised to find that most if not all combat aircraft that saw meaningful production and front-line service during the war had already started their development by this time, even if only at the level of concept sketches and rough performance estimates.
 

HoHun

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 9, 2021
Messages
142
Reaction score
85
Hi again,

Since Calum's book has a power curve for the DB 628, which I had never seen previously, here's a quick and dirty estimate for a Me 109K with a DB 605DC and MW versus the same aircraft with a DB 628.

I've assumed that the DB 628 has the same reduction gear ratio and the same propeller as the DB 605DB, and that it is integrated into the airframe with the exact same drag as the DB 605DB - assumptions that are almost certainly wrong :)

As Calum also shared a DB 605AS power graph, I've added a similar hypothetical Me 109K with DB 605 AS with MW50 and GM-1 to the comparison. I had to guess exhaust thrust values loosely based on the DB 605A figures known from Daimler-Benz data sheets.

Me109K Comparison 2.png

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

T. A. Gardner

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2021
Messages
368
Reaction score
639
Hi Tomo,

IMO - if the LW cannot out-perform the escorts (probem arising already by mid-1943, and became a big one by early 1944), their fighters will became irrelevant.

Very good point, whatever we do with the cannon can only achieve a small improvement of the overall situation, while an improvement of the gun platforms themselves will be necessary to totally change the picture. And I don't believe that achieving parity will be enough - like Galland recognized, it will take a quantum leap!

In other words, the Luftwaffe would be screwed even if in 1944, they'd fly Mustangs with Fw 190-armament.

As I don't believe there's any way a pure jet fighter will be ready by early 1944, when it counts, I wonder if it would have been possible to introduce a lower-developed, radial-flow compressor jet engine in a mixed-propulsion fighter, perhaps based on a Fw 190, with the longer fuselage, the jet in the rear fuselage (where the large diameter of the radial compressor wouldn't affect drag) and a new central wing section containing extra fuel tanks and providing the wing area needed for the increased take-off weight. Sort of a radial-engined Dora with Ta 152-style wingroot re-design ...

It won't provide full Me 262-style performance, but from looking at the (projected) performance figures of post-war US mixed-propulsion fighter, I think it might have made the "Mixwürger" quite dangerous at bomber altitudes, while avoiding the pure-jet typical take-off/landing limitations, the asymmetric thrust issues the Me 262 had, and it would have been more fuel efficient as the jet engine would only have to run once when combat was imminent. Additionally, using only a single jet engine per fighter would have allowed for a quick introduction of jet power in the beginning, when powerplant production wouldn't have been at full pace yet.

(The Ryan Fireball gained 175 km/h top speed from 6.3 kN jet thrust, which really is a leap ahead in performance.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
There's actually two ways to do this:

The first is the hybrid piston engine - jet engine combo like the Ryan Fireball and a few other planes used. The problem with these was the drag off the jet engine intakes, and other issues caused the piston engine performance alone to suffer some while the jet could only be run for a short time due to the amounts of fuel carried by what was still a piston engine sized plane. In order to get the most out of such a combo, the Germans would have to design a new, and larger aircraft just as the US did with the Ryan XF2R Dark Shark or Curtiss XF15C

1641831345150.png

The alternative, and really no better is the use of a motorjet engine. The pinnacle of this is the MiG 13. This system uses a PTO off the piston engine to run a compressor section to power a jet engine.

1641831210993.png

The Russians got this design about as good as you were going to get it, and it suffered both technical and design problems (such as the cockpit becoming hellishly hot because the jet combustion chamber was right under it).
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,244
Reaction score
792
I think with the demonstrated failings of the Bf110 in the Battle of Britain and the inherent range issue of it's premier fighter the Bf109, the Luftwaffe still sees the imperative need for a long range fighter like the Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke.......:rolleyes:


Regards
Pioneer
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
381
OP's Q was Options wef 10/40. So: Germany+Italy: Common aim: economic sovereignty not subservient to (UK+US). No long attrition.

Germany had not intended to expand to the Atlantic, but to the Urals. Turkey option was closer to Planners' thoughts than, say, Spain. Drivers of Policy had been: Germany: rapid dismantling of USSR: European territory, Mine!; Asian, rural backwater, back to tribal lands. Everyone else: no repeat of trench bloodbaths. So: US: Policy was to have no military policy except to keep out of anything. UK Policy:
- before Austria Anschluss 4/38: some sympathy for overharsh Versailles; hope to deflect German ambitions/frustrations eastwardly.
- after Sudetenland, 9/38: prepare Deterrent Heavy Bombers and KGV dreadnoughts to concentrate German minds on the East.

UK had then made a self-inflicted wound of Anglo-French Guarantees to Turkey, Greece, Romania, Poland, 31/3/39 -12/5/39, incapable of fulfilment, merely stimulating the Pact of Steel and advancing Drang nach Osten NOW! before all that spend in US delivered good inventory. So Germany must remove Threat to the rear by dismantling French Force and isolating UK's. Done by 15/9/40. Now what?

Start with uk75 #27 and cd #97. The strict A to OP was that Luftwaffe could do nothing, 10/40, other than what it did: which was to attempt role-change for its interdictor Medium Bombers, changed from Day deleters of marshalling yards, armour lagers, airfields, POL (Army Co-op), to Night deleters of the ports, Achilles heel to UK's ability to bother anybody, anywhere. Luftwaffe entered that winter with enough Force to do that, but lost focus, split resources to area/morale, achieved little except fatally to compromise Army Co-Op, 7/41. If they had plodded diligently to close Glasgow, then on to Liverpool, Hull, London....UK would have been neutered.

Modest German garrisons would then have been Norway-Pyrenees, Friendship Pacts with Spain/Portugal. Barbarrosa is launched 6/41; Italy, Finland, Balkan Axis equipped and motivated; Greece, Turkey ignored for now - until they see the way the wind blows. Beating General Winter, all over by Christmas.

Friendship Pact with Japan, who tidies up their Asian Mainland market garden, oil/resources interests. UK and US must either accommodate to the new normal and trade with it...or not, and attempt Economic Warfare with a Land behemoth.
 
Last edited:

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
333
Reaction score
206
Start with uk75 #27 and cd #97. The strict A to OP was that Luftwaffe could do nothing, 10/40, other than what it did: which was to attempt role-change for its interdictor Medium Bombers, changed from Day deleters of marshalling yards, armour lagers, airfields, POL (Army Co-op), to Night deleters of the ports, Achilles heel to UK's ability to bother anybody, anywhere.

Luftwaffe could do nothing other than what it did?

Modest German garrisons would then have been Norway-Pyrenees, Friendship Pacts with Spain/Portugal. Barbarrosa is launched 6/41; Italy, Finland, Balkan Axis equipped and motivated; Greece, Turkey ignored for now - until they see the way the wind blows. Beating General Winter, all over by Christmas.

How does one beat General Winter? Has German logistics improved by factor of 2, or the Soviets all of the sudden lost 1/2 of their army, population, resources and war-making potential
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
381
a) the kit they had would not soon change - so Medium Bombers of modest payload, so the only Night targets would be visible ports.
b) all over by Christmas. It was the deferral of Barbarossa from Spring to July that ran it into General Winter. That delay was caused by Musso's solo diversion into Greece, which, I suggest, would not have happened in my scenario of Luftwaffe taking out UK ports, so causing UK to cease hostiliites, so freeing Axis to go earlier East. Germany would harness all its resources to go straight through Belarus/Ukraine. (and other writers have surmised that If they had treated local civilians better, they would have been seen as liberators).
 

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
333
Reaction score
206
a) the kit they had would not soon change - so Medium Bombers of modest payload, so the only Night targets would be visible ports.
b) all over by Christmas. It was the deferral of Barbarossa from Spring to July that ran it into General Winter. That delay was caused by Musso's solo diversion into Greece, which, I suggest, would not have happened in my scenario of Luftwaffe taking out UK ports, so causing UK to cease hostiliites, so freeing Axis to go earlier East. Germany would harness all its resources to go straight through Belarus/Ukraine. (and other writers have surmised that If they had treated local civilians better, they would have been seen as liberators).

a) Soon - talk winter of 1941/42 - Luftwaffe kit can change, both the fighters and bombers.
b) General Mud reigned supreme in the Spring, and again in Autumn; Op Barbarossa started in June, not in July. It will take a great leap of faith to assume the Luftwaffe can shut down UK ports at any time, let alone in winter of 1940/41. Treating civilians better is no prerogative of Luftwaffe, and it requires the Nazis to became Notzis.
Leaving Musso to stew in it's own sauce makes Mediterranean the British lake by mid-1941, with British help arriving via coast of the Black Sea to the Soviets.
 

Similar threads

Top