# Luftwaffe vs. IJA



## wiking85 (Apr 10, 2015)

What if after the victory in the Spanish Civil War the Germans opt to continue and expand their contributions to the Chinese resistance to the Japanese invasion; let's say Hitler dies after violating the Munich Agreement in March 1939 and the war with Poland doesn't happen, but Germany still has issues with hard currency and Chinese payments of minerals are deemed vital to German economic health. So they send their version of the Flying Tigers to help China. Modeled on the Condor Legion, they send a large Air Corps, bigger than the Condor Legion, comprised of Me109s, Bf110s (Destroyer and fighter/bomber), He111s, Ju87s, and Ju88s. WW2 does not happen in the meantime. How does this Luftwaffe contingent perform from May 1939 (when they are dispatched) to say 1942-43 against the IJA and IJN? 
Second Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sino-German cooperation until 1941 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Flying Tigers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Condor Legion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## davebender (Apr 10, 2015)

Ki-27 is no match for Me-109E during 1939 to 1941. Ki-43 is no match for Me-109F and Me-109G from 1941 onward. German radar was state of the art. So as long as Germany isn't massively outnumbered they will own the sky above China.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 10, 2015)

davebender said:


> Ki-27 is no match for Me-109E during 1939 to 1941. Ki-43 is no match for Me-109F and Me-109G from 1941 onward. German radar was state of the art. So as long as Germany isn't massively outnumbered they will own the sky above China.



Would it be enough to do more than stalemate the Japanese or actually drive them back? Plus logistics will be an issue in 1940 when the Japanese grab all of China's port unless the French are willing to let Indo-Chinese ports to be used.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 10, 2015)

Would German support/involvement with Finland in the Continuation War complicate logistics for material transport to/from China due to Soviet aggression?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 10, 2015)

davebender said:


> Ki-27 is no match for Me-109E during 1939 to 1941. Ki-43 is no match for Me-109F and Me-109G from 1941 onward. German radar was state of the art. So as long as Germany isn't massively outnumbered they will own the sky above China.


The A6M entered service in 1940...the Bf109E would have serious difficulty in matching it in a turning fight, although the Bf109 (much like the Wildcat) would have better survivability because of it's armor.

And by 1943, the KI-61 was coming into service as well as the N1K, both strong performers, especially the N1K-J. This one in particular, would have been serious trouble to both the Bf109 and Fw190.

Even the Bf110 would have seen it's nemesis in the KI-45 and KI-46.

The overall problem with Germany being in China, is logistics. The Japanese own the region and for Germany to get into the area, they would have to pass through Russia or violate neutral territory of other nations, running the risk of dragging them into war. Then there's the problem of German aircraft's traditional short range versus the long range capabilities of the Japanese aircraft. The German navy would be hard pressed to defend against the Japanese fleet and without a carrier of their own, would be in serious trouble.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 10, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The A6M entered service in 1940...the Bf109E would have serious difficulty in matching it in a turning fight, although the Bf109 (much like the Wildcat) would have better survivability because of it's armor.
> 
> And by 1943, the KI-61 was coming into service as well as the N1K, both strong performers, especially the N1K-J. This one in particular, would have been serious trouble to both the Bf109 and Fw190.
> 
> Even the Bf110 would have seen it's nemesis in the KI-45 and KI-46.


Including IJN aircraft complicates matter, but weren't the majority of aircraft over mainland China Army and not Navy? (like those the Flying Tigers encountered)

The Ki-44 might be a consideration too.

Also, without the German alliance, there's likely no Ki-61. No He-100s used for inspiration, no DB-601 license. Granted, Kawasaki already had the earlier Ki-28 as arguably a more serious inspiration than the He 100, but they still needed a newer inline engine to use and it didn't seem like Kawasaki was going the direction of Mikulin had followed on with from their BMW VI/IX production. (perhaps a license for the Hispano Suiza 12Y might have been possible early war, or just focusing on radial designs like the Ki-100 later did)




> The overall problem with Germany being in China, is logistics. The Japanese own the region and for Germany to get into the area, they would have to pass through Russia or violate neutral territory of other nations, running the risk of dragging them into war. Then there's the problem of German aircraft's traditional short range versus the long range capabilities of the Japanese aircraft. The German navy would be hard pressed to defend against the Japanese fleet and without a carrier of their own, would be in serious trouble.


This wouldn't be all that different from Germany's alliance with Japan, except if/when Japan invaded French or British colonies, Germany would likely have them as allies and fairly straightforward passage through India and Indochina.

Aside from that, with the political structure in Germany shifting, and a greater need for long-range aircraft in general, the Fw 187 (especially as a single-engine fighter) might have fared better both in its Jumo and DB powered forms. (the existing jumo powered A-0 models were about as fast as A6Ms and faster than F4F-3s at low/medium altitudes -F4F3 had an advantage closer to 20,000 ft, but had better acceleration and rate of climb than the wildcat and better dive acceleration and high speed control than the Zero -lighter controls and better roll rate at high speeds than the Bf 109 as well)

A single seat DB-601 (or possibly Jumo 211) powered Fw 187 should have out-paced and out-climbed pretty much everything the IJA and IJN had up to 1942, and with the likes of the DB 601E and Jumo 211F it likely would have retained the edge in speed and climb. (and later gains with the DB-605)
Somewhat like the P-38 managed in that theater, but in active service significantly earlier and gradually developing into something roughly as capable as the P-38J of 1943/44. (assuming the conflict lasted that long)


And that said, if Russia got involved ... particularly if they allied with Japan or ended up as a 3rd front independent of Japan, and Japan still attacked American soil, a rather different Second World War may have developed.



So far, in this scenario, we've only radically changed German politics, not Soviet or Japanese, or anyone else. (a shift in Germany likely would have impacted Italy enough to upset politics there -and obviously, Germany not invading all of western Europe would be a big difference)


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 11, 2015)

There's almost zero chance that Japan and Russia would be allies, considering that tensions between Japan and Russia had been simmering for decades.

As far as the KI-61 goes, it was a follow-on to the KI-60 design. A refinement if you will. And yes, the Japanese Navy had a considerable amount of land-based units and often operated in conjunction with the Army.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 11, 2015)

Japan and Russia would become strange bedfellows in response to Germany being in China. And the UK might have some issues about it to. As for German radar being state if the art in 1939/1940? It was the UK that was the world leaders at that time and it was still primitive and short ranged.

And what German Navy? Whatever task force they could assemble for a sea battle, the IJN would put the KM to Davy Jones locker with ease. The IJN was that good, just as the allies discovered in 1941 and 1942.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Apr 11, 2015)

This is quite an interesting what if.

The short version, in my opinion, would be that until the introduction of the ki-44 the luftwaffe would have it pretty much on its own in a straight fight, at least on the defensive. On the offensive there is the familiar problem with short range and the fighters being tied to close escort, and would probably result in a repetition of battle of britain. Likevise, the japanese would probably get a bloody nose on a counterpush, much like the RAF did over german (occupied) territory in 41. In general, die Luftwaffe would be able to use the same tactics as the americans historically did, if willing.

Hitler didn't dictate luftwaffe tactics, strategies and production in detail, are we to remove Göring and Udet too? A convincing case has to be made that die Luftwaffe would change tactics, and focus on other aircraft like Fw 187. Anyway, what German government would see an interest in spending scant resourses helping out the chinese government? And how would that go down with other governments with intersts in china?

The logistics becomes as usual an issue. Even with agreements with the land powers to move German material and personel, not to mention supplies, all the way over land to Chana, seems difficult at least. By sea the Germans, unassisted, would have little chance of squeezing enough past the impirial Japanese Navy. And here indeed the Navys types of aircraft comes into play, and considering the lack of range of German types, the outcome would be very different from that over land. (I don't see a massive commitment of navy types to inland China as likely, though quite a few may appear along points at the coast, and bomber types on long range 'strategic' raids). And even on land the distances would dictate that often air raids wouldn't be opposed, as anything like the rader coverage southern england, and 1 or 2 years later north western europe, possesed is out of the question. Unless Germany really makes a push, aggrevating the logistical problems. Of course die Luftwaffe showed some interest in long range transports, but if memory serves it wasn't until 44 that Ju 290's made (a few) round trips to Manchuria. A massive capability in the early fourties seems unlikely.

On the stategic level it seems questionable whether France or Britain would be supportive of German efforts. A German government who showed that kind of global ambition would probably see them worrying, anyway the strategic geography in Europe wouldn't have changed. Stalin, on the other hand, was already to some degree involved in supporting the chineese, and with typical cynycism not the communists but the nationalists. It's concievable that he would make some kind of deal with the Germans, reconing that in the long run the cost would be bigger than the benefits for the Germans, and hoping for a conflict to arise between the 'capitalist' powers, to which the fascist was counted. But the soviets had no real interest in dividing Japan in the same way as they would Poland. Ah, Poland...

Had the USSR and germany gone into some kind of partnership, there is every reason to believe that they would have realized they had a historical interest in dividing up poland. That was not just Hitlers idea, or even the Nazies, but a deeply rooted sentiment in the German military in general, and the right in particular, in as much as these can be divided. Had the USA stuck to their historical policies, and put the oil squeese on Japan, the German (and soviet) commitment in China would end, it being effiocient or not. Either because Japan had no other alternative than to back down, or because they embroiled themselves in a war with the (other) western powers. I can't speculate to which side they would swing, even though historically Japanese aggresion was spurred on by the ongoing European war.

So maybe in 42/43 the Soviet and german governments, ready to lay aside for the time being their long term plans of world revolution or lebensraum (again I stress that it wasn't a nazi invention), could agree on dividing up Poland, making the european war quite another thing than what it historically became. The French and British rearmament would have taken effect, and the German and Soviet armaments would not have had several years of urgency because of actual full scale war behind them. As even an upsized Condor legion in China, for the reasons indicated abowe, could not count as full scale war.

This is pure speculation, and dependent upon ANY kind of German government wishing to commit themselves to a substantial Chinese adventure.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 11, 2015)

Assuming Germany and the USSR still work out a deal, even if Hitler dies, because of mutual trade needs, then Germany could get a supply route to China, just as the USSR provided a link to Japan from 1940-41. With Germany messing around with Czechoslovakia here France and Britain are not going to be too happy about Germany's work in China, but given the international concern about Japan the US might actually be a dark horse enabler here for Germany; by perhaps negotiating with the Allies to give Germany the chance to fight Japan by allowing supply through Indochina with Allied or US shipping and there is no WW2, while the US works on sanctions, then that pulls Germany back into more acceptable international relations, gets Japan out of China, and costs the US/Allies little to do so. Plus at this time Stalin was partial to Chiang over Mao as a more viable leader for China. Once the ports open back up in some way then China can export to the world again, while perhaps being able to ship Germany payment with raw materials (Tungsten and Antimony historically) to pay for the German support via Indochina or the USSR. With Hitler dead and not a factor the replacement, Goering, would be too timid to drive for war in Europe due to the lack of completed armaments plans and by the time they were completed then the Allies also would be rearmed and make war impossible. So Germany would effectively not launch WW2, Japan would be driven out of China by increasing international pressure, China wouldn't go communist, while the USSR might even move into Manchuko and Korea if the Japanese get enough of a bloody nose in China and suffer major international isolation in the meantime.

How much though would an early contribution of German aircraft have played in that though? I expect disproportionate casualty infiction on the Japanese due to the superior speed and firepower of the German fighters over the Japanese Army and Navy (even the Zero), plus modern combat experience gained in Spain, making the LW the most experienced and effective air force in the world at the time. The international situation would be a bigger factor in getting the Japanese out of China, but would a larger earlier contingent of foreign airpower including bombers have opened up one of the captured ports and caused the Japanese to retreat from parts of China they held historically?


----------



## davebender (Apr 11, 2015)

Equipment and supplies for army ground troops are the only things which will drive IJA out of China. 

Establish a Chinese factory to produce 300 Panzer III and/or StuG III per month by 1937 and they will be in business. However since real world Germany didn't begin construction of their first modern tank factory before 1940 the Chinese will need to look elsewhere for such assistance. Other 1930s German army production was equally limited.

Propaganda aside, Marxist Soviet Union and France were the only European nations which made serious preparations for a ground war during 1930s. Stalin might help but not for free. For instance the large arms shipments to communist Spain were paid for with Spanish gold reserve (4th largest in the world at that time). 1936 KMT had no such financial reserves.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 11, 2015)

The Japanese dominated China in spite of resistance from Communist and Nationalist Chinese opposition and ran rough-shod all over the far east for over a decade before the war turned in the Allies' favor. Even still, Japan had a considerable amount of troops that remained in mainland Asia for nearly a year after the war, waiting to be repatriated. 

In otherwords, if the Japanese weren't committing their forces against Allied opponents, as was historic, then the might of the Empire would have been dedicated to the Asian mainland. Germany would have had one hell of a time getting any sort of toe-hold against the Japanese.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 12, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> As far as the KI-61 goes, it was a follow-on to the KI-60 design. A refinement if you will. And yes, the Japanese Navy had a considerable amount of land-based units and often operated in conjunction with the Army.


The Ki-60 relied on the same engine as well, so anything in that vein would still be different and mostly likely radial engine powered like the later Ki-100. (unless there were further indigenous Kawasaki V-12 developments that were canceled in favor of the DB 601 license)





Just Schmidt said:


> Unless Germany really makes a push, aggrevating the logistical problems. Of course die Luftwaffe showed some interest in long range transports, but if memory serves it wasn't until 44 that Ju 290's made (a few) round trips to Manchuria. A massive capability in the early fourties seems unlikely.


Derivatives of the Fw 200 might have been usable, though it may have required a turbocharged (or Jumo turbodiesel) variant to manage the ceiling and range needed. (though perhaps Jumo 211 or DB 601 engines would have had the performance needed without turbos)



> So maybe in 42/43 the Soviet and german governments, ready to lay aside for the time being their long term plans of world revolution or lebensraum (again I stress that it wasn't a nazi invention), could agree on dividing up Poland, making the european war quite another thing than what it historically became. The French and British rearmament would have taken effect, and the German and Soviet armaments would not have had several years of urgency because of actual full scale war behind them. As even an upsized Condor legion in China, for the reasons indicated abowe, could not count as full scale war.
> 
> This is pure speculation, and dependent upon ANY kind of German government wishing to commit themselves to a substantial Chinese adventure.


The majority of this would hinge on Hitler (and possibly a more comprehensive segment of the Nazi regime) being replaced by generally competent if not exceptional leadership in all respects. (that might not necessarily include replacing a large number of the Generals themselves, but perhaps moderating politics a great deal more than was historically the case) Perhaps even someone of Otto Von Bismark's stature.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 12, 2015)

It was not unusual for an "enemy" to use a foe's engine deisgn. Japan was using Pratt Whitney engines and derivatives and if they didn't get a pre-war copy of the DB engine, then they could get a captured example.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 12, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> It was not unusual for an "enemy" to use a foe's engine deisgn. Japan was using Pratt Whitney engines and derivatives and if they didn't get a pre-war copy of the DB engine, then they could get a captured example.


Given the Japanese had trouble reliably copying the DB-601 as it was, that seems unlikely to be a straightforward process. Reverse engineering French or Russian designs seems somewhat more plausible. (aside from a possible indigenous design or further development of the BMW derived Ha-9)

Regardless, an earlier version of the Ki-100 would make plenty of sense as well, to go along with the Ki-44.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 12, 2015)

The Japanese did well enough with the DB601 that the KI-61 remained a formidable fighter to the very last days of the war. There were problems with the Ha-40 and Ha-140 but in spite of that, the KI-61 was considered a dangerous opponent, including conventional attacks on B-29s.

Also, the idea of installing a radial in the KI-61 had been kicked around for some time, however it became a priority after an Allied bombing raid destroyed Kawasaki's engine plant, leaving almost 300 KI-61s sitting without engines.

As far as foreign engines go, the Japanese had access to a variety of water-cooled engines pre-war, including the Allison V-1710-39, Rolls-Royce Type F (Kestrel), Klimov M-105 and a few others. The list of Foreign radials is much much larger.

Japan had a long history of taking a design, analyzing it and adapting it to their own needs. They did this with their navy and you can see they had a history of purchasing foreign-made ships two at a time, so they had one to compare against as they made improvements.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 13, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> As far as foreign engines go, the Japanese had access to a variety of water-cooled engines pre-war, including the Allison V-1710-39, Rolls-Royce Type F (Kestrel), Klimov M-105 and a few others. The list of Foreign radials is much much larger.
> 
> Japan had a long history of taking a design, analyzing it and adapting it to their own needs. They did this with their navy and you can see they had a history of purchasing foreign-made ships two at a time, so they had one to compare against as they made improvements.


Starting with the M-105 and adapting/developing from there seems like one of the more attractive options. The Mikulin AM-35 might have been interesting too in as far as a large inline with high altitude capabilities, but I'm not sure that would have been among the captured engines the Japanese had access to. (perhaps the older AM-34 -which itself might have provided a basis for followon developments from the older Ha-9) But in terms of a direct alternative to the 601, the M-103/105 seems a good option.


Additionally, in general terms of operations over China, Fw 187 aside, drop-tank capable Bf 109s would be significant for expanding the critically limited range of those aircraft. The Flying Tigers P-40Bs had major advantages in range an endurance as well as better control and maneuverability in high speed dives. (bigger disadvantage in climb and level acceleration compared to the 109, though) Then again, by the time the Flying Tigers were in action, the 109F could have been in service as well.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 14, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> Japan and Russia would become strange bedfellows in response to Germany being in China. And the UK might have some issues about it to. As for German radar being state if the art in 1939/1940? It was the UK that was the world leaders at that time and it was still primitive and short ranged.
> 
> And what German Navy? Whatever task force they could assemble for a sea battle, the IJN would put the KM to Davy Jones locker with ease. The IJN was that good, just as the allies discovered in 1941 and 1942.



The IJN were pretty crap at sinking merchant ships, the handful of German U-boats that were based in Japanese occupied Malaya probably sank more merchant ships than the entire Japanese navy. The German U-boats were very tough, generally able to dive twice as deep as Japanese and Allied subs and could survive a depth charging that would crush the other types. Germans had excellent night vision optics better than allied optics though not as good as the Japanese, they even infrared detection and ranging (it worked to perhaps 10km but was out ranged by radar) in the optical conditions of the pacific it might give them an advantage. The latter German radar, Seetakt, from FuMO 26,25 onwards had blind fire by lobe switching the receive aerial. Unlike allied systems this didn't broaden the beam leading to reduced resolution. (US capital ship radar had a width of 15 degrees which made it hard to select a target).

Generally the Germans had a tactical issue: they didn't switch on their radar out of desire to remain stealthy but were then often surprised (this is what happened to Scharnhorst) as their passive sensors were just not good enough. Their navy was designed to fight in the poor visibility of the Nth Atlantic and to operate as a stealthy raider till they developed a fleet with aircraft carriers.

The German Seetakt was perhaps a little short ranged, it might locate a target accurately but it was essential to detect gun splash for effective long range fire and since Tirpitz and Prinz Eugen was the extent of their fleet they were a little slow in upgrading, nevertheless the 1944 fit out of Tirpitz would have included microwave surface search radar FuMO 81 with PPI and a Seetakt power increased from 8kW to about 120kW. It compared favourably with Iowa Class and King George V.

It's true that the UK had deployed a crude, in terms of frequency terms, but effective radar generally known as Chain Home in the late 30s that had been well integrated in to a reporting system. This long wave radar was practical to implement fast due to its low frequency (around 10m-15m) but had significant limitations over land. Such a limitation would be very unattractive to the Luftwaffe with their need to detect aircraft flying over land (rising out of France) rather than intercepting over the coast.

The two radars the Luftwaffe deployed were Freya and Wurzburg. Freya(named after the F wave frequency rather than the Nordic goddess) which was a version of the German Navy's Seetakt (Sea Tactical) radar with wavelength increased initially to 1.8m instead of 60cm in order to increase power and range.

Freya was demountable and participated in the 1938 Sudeten crisis in Czechoslovakia and one was flown by Ju 52 and erected during Fall Gelb, the invasion of Norway, that arose when Vidkund Quisling informed Hitler that the Norwegian Cabinet had decided to surrender to Britain when the UK's pre-emptive strategic invasion of Norway occurred.

The other radar was Wurzburg A of late 1939, a marvel of portability , it could be towed after folding in half the 3m dish and brought quickly to operation. It was intended as an early warning radar. Wurzburg-A had three operators: one tracked range, the other two would wobble the dish in elevation and traverse to track the target. This gave about +/-2 degrees bearing accuracy and about 120m range that had allowed some crude but successful blind fire. It had Height finding and an ability to move with the troops, rare among portable radars. It was very useful at directing search lights and measuring target range.

By Early 1941 the next edition came out: Wurzburg-C. It introduced conical scan so only one operator was required for elevation and bearing tracking and they could do so to within 0.3 degrees. By June 1941 the Wurzburg-D came into service with 80 on the production line that month. It reduced range accuracy to 25m and transferred the data directly to a FLAK predictor. At the same time Wurzburg-Riesse came into service at several locations using a 7m dish and offering 0.2 degree accuracy and a range of about 140km.

The Allies had nothing like it in service till the US made SCR-584 entered service in late 1943. For two years, between 1941 to 1943, the only decent FLAK/AAA radar was Wurzburg. In late 1943 the Luftwaffe introduced Wurzburg-D's intended replacement, Manheim, which reduced range accuracy to 6m, introduced automatic tracking for the range gate and much more accurate circuitry. If it had locked on to a target even in the worst windows and carpet jamming it could still track though it was hard to find the target.

One technique used on German radars was the locking of the oscillator via a frequency divider/multiplier to a stable quartz crystal that allowed coherent pulse Doppler radar. This allowed the Wurzburg to see through windows. This wasn't possible with magnetron radar. Doppler radar had been developed as part of programs to detect low flying aircraft and weather radar research that proved fortunately suitable to avoid windows. Wurzburg however couldn't cope with simultaneous carpet jamming and windows from hundreds of aircraft until a circuit called k-laus was introduced.

The British radar advance was the use of multicity magnetrons with circular cavities and narrow slits to produce 9cm and latter 3cm radar. The Germans had in fact developed this type of magnetron (multicavity, narrow slits) but had failed to appreciate its uses in radar. In parts this was because their existing naval radars were so satisfactory at around 50cm-80cm. For instance in 1938 both German light cruisers and destroyers could carry 60cm Seetakt that gave a narrow beam able to detect submarine periscopes and conning towers, a problem British radar was still struggling with at the beginning of the war. Latter a special type of receive only lobe switching gave true blind fire to German cruisers.

Ironically the Japanese had Beaten Britain's Randal and Boot to developing the multicavity magnetron by at least one year. They even deployed them on cruisers before Britain deployed them on sub hunting warships, however they were slow to deploy and invest in the technology and to add refinements such as PPI till late 1945.

Being a Japanese Navy sponsored project the magnetron didn't make it to the Japanese Army Air force or the Germans (who ironically shared self calibrating technology called Rehbok that made it practical to deploy Japanese microwave radar on ships to small to carry electronics technicians.

The Germans immediately understood how British microwave radar worked and deployed about 100 radars during 1944/1945, they were hard to deploy because the bombing campaign had massively uped..

They had their own path to microwaves via something called a disk triode, Soviet radar used the German designs till the 1970s. The Germans shared their Wurzburg design with the Japanese, the copy was a bit late: it had been troublesome to make the precision vacuum tubes.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 14, 2015)

The Japanese didn't have much of a need for foreign engines. The Nakajima Homare used on the Ki 84 for instance could produce 2000hp yet was only 46 inches in diameter. The Bristol Hercules and CW R-2600 were both 55 inches for less power. The PW R-2800 maybe 52.5 inches and the BMW801 51.5 inches. late war the Japanese seem to have developed several functional turbo supercharger designs.

They seem to have had trouble mass producing efficiently. Their designs tended to emphasise manoeuvrability via big wings, which means nothing if your opponent is faster and doesn't want to engage. To truly exploit a speed advantage you need a fast bomber as well as a fast fighter. An Me 410 while slower than a Spitfire or Mosquito might be a real trouble maker for the slower Japanese if used to dive bomb shipping or IJN outposts.

Overall the IJN is simply much bigger and would win, just as the Heers masses Panther tanks would demolish the Japanese armour.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 14, 2015)

I'm just wondering how the Germans would manage to get heavy armor into the far east. We can't just say that the Germans manage to wander into China, set up massive factories and start producing an endless stream of Tigers, Panthers, StuGs and the like without being challenged by the Japanese at some point.

And the Japanese had small tanks because the predominant terrain dictated smaller tanks. If the Japanese felt the need to manufacture and deploy heavy armor, they would have done so.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 14, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The Japanese didn't have much of a need for foreign engines. The Nakajima Homare used on the Ki 84 for instance could produce 2000hp yet was only 46 inches in diameter. The Bristol Hercules and CW R-2600 were both 55 inches for less power. The PW R-2800 maybe 52.5 inches and the BMW801 51.5 inches. late war the Japanese seem to have developed several functional turbo supercharger designs.
> 
> They seem to have had trouble mass producing efficiently. Their designs tended to emphasise manoeuvrability via big wings, which means nothing if your opponent is faster and doesn't want to engage. To truly exploit a speed advantage you need a fast bomber as well as a fast fighter. An Me 410 while slower than a Spitfire or Mosquito might be a real trouble maker for the slower Japanese if used to dive bomb shipping or IJN outposts.
> 
> Overall the IJN is simply much bigger and would win, just as the Heers masses Panther tanks would demolish the Japanese armour.



The Homare was a troubled engine and wasn't able to generate near its spec in practice until 1944-45, but still only producing around 1800hp. 
Nakajima Homare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also without a war with the Soviets there is not going to be a Panther design, rather a VK3001.



GrauGeist said:


> I'm just wondering how the Germans would manage to get heavy armor into the far east. We can't just say that the Germans manage to wander into China, set up massive factories and start producing an endless stream of Tigers, Panthers, StuGs and the like without being challenged by the Japanese at some point.
> 
> And the Japanese had small tanks because the predominant terrain dictated smaller tanks. If the Japanese felt the need to manufacture and deploy heavy armor, they would have done so.



They won't. At best they are going to field a substantial air element with ground defense for it. If they cozy up to the Soviets then they can get an uninterdictable supply line around the IJN. If somehow they can work out their issues with the Allies then they could use Indochina, because without the war in Europe Japan is not going to move into there.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 14, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The Japanese didn't have much of a need for foreign engines. The Nakajima Homare used on the Ki 84 for instance could produce 2000hp yet was only 46 inches in diameter. The Bristol Hercules and CW R-2600 were both 55 inches for less power. The PW R-2800 maybe 52.5 inches and the BMW801 51.5 inches. late war the Japanese seem to have developed several functional turbo supercharger designs.



Lets do some timeline here; power vs. altitude would0ve helped us also.
The Homare was next to incapable to produce 2000 CV prior 1945? By what time Hercules 100 series can do 1800 CV in 1st gear and 1650 CV at 20000 ft (link), while finally having the 'proper' ejector stacks installed. 1900 HP R-2600 is also there, though it is not that good at higher altitudes. P&W 2-stage 'C' series engine is vastly superior at any altitude.
Japanese aircraft with turbo charged engines never flew a combat sortie, let alone scored a hit on something?



> They seem to have had trouble mass producing efficiently.



Very true. 



> Their designs tended to emphasise manoeuvrability via big wings, which means nothing if your opponent is faster and doesn't want to engage. To truly exploit a speed advantage you need a fast bomber as well as a fast fighter. An Me 410 while slower than a Spitfire or Mosquito might be a real trouble maker for the slower Japanese if used to dive bomb shipping or IJN outposts.



Yep, Japanese have had no answer for a fast bomber until 1945, even then for the Mossie with a 2-stage engine. 
Mid- and late-war Japanese fighters did not have such a big wings, though, however the engine power meant those fighters were hard pressed to beat 600 km/h mark, let alone 650 km/h (Ki-84 in 1945 maybe?). 



> Overall the IJN is simply much bigger and would win, just as the Heers masses Panther tanks would demolish the Japanese armour.



Masses of Panther tanks in Asia? That's a good one


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 14, 2015)

If the Germans are somehow going to get Panthers as far as China they had better have a lot of bridging equipment and heavy movers, even a PzII tankette would be too heavy for most bridges.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 14, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Masses of Panther tanks in Asia? That's a good one



Easy, they are shipped in on cargo submarines. 

Lots and lots of cargo submarines.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 14, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> If somehow they can work out their issues with the Allies then they could use Indochina, because without the war in Europe Japan is not going to move into there.


Doubtful...The area in and around Indochina had a large French colony presence and they would want to avoid involvement. This would include Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Burma and several other areas were British. On the otherhand, Thailand (Siam) was aligned with Imperial Japan. 

In otherwords, allowing German access through their colonial territory would be taken as complicity by the Japanese and upset the "neutrality". If Russia allowed access to the far east, the "difficult peace" between Japan and Russia would be upset. 

So Germany would really be having a hard time in getting any substantial assets into the China theater without upsetting the applecart.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 14, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Doubtful...The area in and around Indochina had a large French colony presence and they would want to avoid involvement. This would include Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Burma and several other areas were British. On the otherhand, Thailand (Siam) was aligned with Imperial Japan.
> 
> In otherwords, allowing German access through their colonial territory would be taken as complicity by the Japanese and upset the "neutrality". If Russia allowed access to the far east, the "difficult peace" between Japan and Russia would be upset.
> 
> So Germany would really be having a hard time in getting any substantial assets into the China theater without upsetting the applecart.



Without a threat from Germany the Soviets have little to fear from the Japanese and in fact stand to gain quite a bit by having China ultimately win, as their assistance (which historically was only called off due to the German-Japanese alliance and Soviet work with the Germans) would be remembered and until 1945 Chiang and Stalin were closer than Mao and Stalin. In fact Mao and Stalin disliked each other. Japan and the USSR had issues with each other and Stalin stood to gain from their weakening due to the war in China. So Stalin, assuming that the Germans and Soviets cut a deal in 1939, would be totally on board and in fact may well facilitate the move west of Chinese raw materials to pay for German weapons and aid, while getting the Germans to fulfill their historical trade deals as payment.


----------



## Conslaw (Apr 14, 2015)

The Germans would have had the same logistical problems in getting supplies into China that the Western Allies had. Maybe worse, because they wouldn't have India as a jumping-off point. Even if they could have used Russia's Trans-Siberian railroad, they wouldn't have had the capacity for an unfettered campaign in China. 

As far as aircraft go. The zero would have likely held its own in 1-1 battles with the bin Bf-109E. The Zero was similar to but superior to the Curtis Hawk 75 that the French used successfully. The problem is numbers. The handful of pre-production zeros that fought in China so successfully in the summer of 1940 were all that were in existence at the time. Production was ramped up slowly, but by December 1941, there were only about 300 deployed. The IJA's Ki-43 (Oscar) was not even in service at that level. Those aircraft, and a handful of service-test Ki-44s were all the modern fighters that Japan had. By December 1941, the Germans had the Bf-109F and production models of the FW-190A.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 14, 2015)

Conslaw said:


> The Germans would have had the same logistical problems in getting supplies into China that the Western Allies had. Maybe worse, because they wouldn't have India as a jumping-off point. Even if they could have used Russia's Trans-Siberian railroad, they wouldn't have had the capacity for an unfettered campaign in China.
> 
> As far as aircraft go. The zero would have likely held its own in 1-1 battles with the bin Bf-109E. The Zero was similar to but superior to the Curtis Hawk 75 that the French used successfully. The problem is numbers. The handful of pre-production zeros that fought in China so successfully in the summer of 1940 were all that were in existence at the time. Production was ramped up slowly, but by December 1941, there were only about 300 deployed. The IJA's Ki-43 (Oscar) was not even in service at that level. Those aircraft, and a handful of service-test Ki-44s were all the modern fighters that Japan had. By December 1941, the Germans had the Bf-109F and production models of the FW-190A.



Unfettered no, which is why I think they will only get a reinforced air corps into China. The Zero was significantly slow, so as long as they don't dog fight and learn as well as the Flying Tigers, which shouldn't be hard given that the LW was far more experienced at this point, they would do great. Also the Zero was just with the IJN, so as long as they stay away from the coast they aren't going to encounter them. And it wasn't introduced until July 1940, so the Germans wouldn't encounter it until then and probably only in limited numbers due to the fact it was just introduced, as you note. Really the E and then F would have the rule of the roost. Plus the Ju88 when it shows up would be so fast as to give the early Japanese fighters a run for their money. The Fw190 would just dominate anything the Japanese produced. Later when the fighter-bomber variant shows up it can outrun anything the Japanese had until 1944-45.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2015)

Tactics, Tactics, Tactics....

In this hypothetical situation, if the Germans would have engaged the Zero below 250 mph, they would have been mauled, just like everyone else at the beginning of the war. Something tells me however, given this hypothetical situation, they would have learned very quickly!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 14, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Tactics, Tactics, Tactics....
> 
> In this hypothetical situation, if the Germans would have engaged the Zero below 250 mph, they would have been mauled, just like everyone else at the beginning of the war. Something tells me however, given this hypothetical situation, they would have learned very quickly!!!



Given the same situation would exist with existing Japanese fighters prior to the Zero, they'd probably keep the same tactics learned in 1939-40 and apply them to the Zero. As it was the Soviet fighters in Spain had the same advantage and the Bf109 was able to dominate anyway.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2015)

Assuming the Germans have a supply route they can probably keep a Condor legion type air group going in China. 

This air group could very well dominate the IJA _where_ it met in combat. 

What effect this would have on the overall campaign/war might be subject to question. China is a big country. It is almost the same distance from Beijing to Hong Kong as it is from Stockholm to Rome. The Japanese have the advantage of choosing _where_ they will strike (at least to some extent). The German Legion, without multiple bases and complicated logistics would be much more tied to a few areas. Radar is somewhat less important than in Europe. You need a lot more of it and since most of the air attacks took place over land a telephone based observer system actually worked fairly well for early warning/raid tracking. 

The greater range of the Japanese aircraft allow for greater flexibility in target choices.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 15, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> The Homare was a troubled engine and wasn't able to generate near its spec in practice until 1944-45, but still only producing around 1800hp.
> Nakajima Homare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The 1200~1600 HP class engines would be the ones to realistically look at for the early.mid war period. Namely the Mitsubishi Kinsei, the larger Kasei, and Nakajima's Ha41/Ha109. The only reason engines really came up was in regards to the Ki-60/61 and whether they'd use an alternate inline design or resort to an earlier counterpart to the Ki-100. (the Kasei would have delivered similar power much earlier than the Ha-112 the Ki-100 used, but was bulkier and heavier. A lighter engine in the 1200-1300 hp range should have been possible earlier (at least around the time the Ki-44 came online). Either way these sorts of developments aren't really going to be relevant until around 1942.

With stronger opposition from faster, more heavily armed aircraft, some developments might have been pushed sooner, maybe with earlier engines but still some gains from greater emphasis on armor, self sealing, and speed over maneuverability. If the Ki-27 was taken down in droves by significantly less maneuverable aircraft in 1939/1940, the Ki-43 might have not existed as it did in 1941 (armament included), and the A6M might have seen design modifications earlier.

That or the Ki-43 might have been passed over in favor of some (hypothetical) competing design, say the 1940 counterpart to the Ki-28 that lost to the significantly slower Ki-27.



> Also without a war with the Soviets there is not going to be a Panther design, rather a VK3001.


Given the timing, even STUG IIIs wouldn't be available initially, regardless of the ability to actually get them to the front lines. Panzer IIIs would be the only thing available, and even those would have been scarce if production hadn't ramped up (and ramping up production to support China is a bit different than planning to invade France).

That said, with the lighter Japanese tanks as the main opposition, the Panzer III seems like it would fit fairly well even as a tank destroyer. It might actually be too heavy for some of the terrain being dealt with in the region, and with the older Panzer II and Panzer 35 available in greater numbers (and easier to transport to the front lines), those might have been the more significant tanks of the early war. (the Panzer I seems less useful, but might have been pressed into service as well)





GrauGeist said:


> Doubtful...The area in and around Indochina had a large French colony presence and they would want to avoid involvement. This would include Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Burma and several other areas were British. On the otherhand, Thailand (Siam) was aligned with Imperial Japan.
> 
> In otherwords, allowing German access through their colonial territory would be taken as complicity by the Japanese and upset the "neutrality". If Russia allowed access to the far east, the "difficult peace" between Japan and Russia would be upset.
> 
> So Germany would really be having a hard time in getting any substantial assets into the China theater without upsetting the applecart.


How different would that be than support (or merchant ships) originating from other officially neutral countries during early WWII? (particularly all the countries American firms were selling weapons to) Or various countries supplying Finland with military equipment during the Winter War. Hell, I'm not even talking about Britain/France/etc SELLING weapons to China, but allowing passage through their territory ... or at very least for allowing certain material transports to pass through, including any return payment from China.

More so if there was also a passage available though Russia, meaning the indochina route would be auxiliary.

It seems like getting troops clear passage would be the bigger issue. Though some political finagling with merchant ships and trade routes supplying military equipment being /sold/ to China along with /volunteer/ personnel taking whatever passage they could arrange, more options might open up.




Shortround6 said:


> Easy, they are shipped in on cargo submarines.
> 
> Lots and lots of cargo submarines.


And yes ... in jest or not, some supplies could be sent by submarine ... more so if dedicated transport submarines were emphasized ... and if they were allowed to stop at neutral ports as 'merchant ships.'

But that's of course only remotely realistically useful if merchant shipping to China was totally impossible to manage without unsustainable losses. (and either way, you need access to secure ports on the Chinese coast to unload the cargo and vector it to where it's needed)




wiking85 said:


> Unfettered no, which is why I think they will only get a reinforced air corps into China. The Zero was significantly slow, so as long as they don't dog fight and learn as well as the Flying Tigers, which shouldn't be hard given that the LW was far more experienced at this point, they would do great.


Not to mention the MGFFs of the 109E would shred Zeros, Ki-43s, and Ki-27s even faster than the .50s on the P-40B/C. (and significantly easier than the Hurricane, Spitfire, and some of the French aircraft the 109 historically faced)

That said, the 109 probably wouldn't have been able to absorb the damage the P-40 could, and range/endurance was substantially less, as was maneuverability at high speeds. (albeit still considerably better than the japanese fighters -along with higher G limits and maximum allowable dive speeds)



> The Fw190 would just dominate anything the Japanese produced. Later when the fighter-bomber variant shows up it can outrun anything the Japanese had until 1944-45.


With conflicts in Europe foregone or delayed indefinitely (along with political changes within Germany), development of the Fw 190 may have changed as well, on top of the Fw 187.

With the relative performance of Japanese aircraft and requirements for that theater of operations, aside from the Fw 187 being reconsidered as a single-seat long-range fighter (and also one able to use up remaining stock of Jumo 210 engines and still provide compelling performance), you also have potentially greater emphasis on extending the Fw 190's range, or at least developing long range derivatives. Making room for more fuel and/or possibly even replacing the BMW 801 with a DB 601E (with ease of flying, range, armament and cockpit visibility all being advantages over the 109F) should have been realistic options, and even if eliminating the wing root or outer wing guns in favor of more fuel tankage, you'd still have some margin for a heavier armament than the 109. (even before the MG 151 was available, you could eliminate the inner wing guns in favor of fuel tanks and -in the case of the 601E, add a 3rd MG-FF/M in the nose, to be replaced by 151 or 151/20 later -or again, use the outer wings for fuel and focus on the centerline armament)

A DB-601E powered Fw-190A derivative might not have been as fast as the 109F (and almost certainly would climb worse), but it should have comprehensively outperformed the P-40B/C/E and even F while having more firepower and similar range. (probably similarly easy to fly, definitely easier than the 109, and likely easier than the 801 powered 190 due to lower weight/wing loading and torque)





wiking85 said:


> Given the same situation would exist with existing Japanese fighters prior to the Zero, they'd probably keep the same tactics learned in 1939-40 and apply them to the Zero. As it was the Soviet fighters in Spain had the same advantage and the Bf109 was able to dominate anyway.


The Jumo 210 powered 109 variants employed there were significantly lighter than the 109E and were much slower. That said, the situation with the Bf 109E compared to the Hurricane Mk.I should at least be relevant as well, at least in terms of turn ability and roll performance being compromised at high speeds. (though not quite the same structural issues as the Japanese fighters, aside from very early Hurricane I's having wing fabric deformation issues, they probably handled high speed dives better than these japanese fighters, and certainly took more structural damage) The 109E would similarly have better dive acceleration than any of those, hurricane included. (better level acceleration and climb compared to some of them as well)


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 15, 2015)

I'd just add that the Bf110 would be the first heavy fighter with range to be available, which would be faster than any Japanese aircraft other than the Zero until the F-series is available. It would have serious trouble with the Zero, but that wouldn't really be that much of an issue until 1941-42, but by then the F-series is available. It would be a solid fighter-bomber and long range fighter/bomber destroyer until enough Zeros show up.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 15, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> I'd just add that the Bf110 would be the first heavy fighter with range to be available, which would be faster than any Japanese aircraft other than the Zero until the F-series is available. It would have serious trouble with the Zero, but that wouldn't really be that much of an issue until 1941-42, but by then the F-series is available. It would be a solid fighter-bomber and long range fighter/bomber destroyer until enough Zeros show up.


The BF-110 still had a pretty limited range without drop tanks, just not as terrible as the 109. Speed was decent enough to run away from most early Japanese fighters and firepower would make it good in the bomber destroyer and ground attack roles at least. (and actually useful in the bomber destroyer role) The defensive armament might be a bit more deadly to IJA forces than it was against the British and French as well, especially given how long on target the lightly armmed IJA fighters would need to be to take down a 110) The ability to re-load MGFF drums in-flight was the sole practical advantage of the 110 over the 187, and as an early-war bomber interceptor it might have actually fared well over China.

Early war, the Ju 88 would still be the fastest airframe capable of carrying radar for night fighting abilities, though.


Edit:
One additional note on the Fw 187 that's not usually argued in its favor would be that it's the only historical early war aircraft that stood any chance of being a competitive day fighter using the remaining stock of Jumo 210 engines, and the only fighter that could likely stay competitive using Jumo 211s. (on top of the advantages in range and -at least hypothetically- firepower) In this scenario, with no European War and production scaled back, the use of the Jumo 210 is probably more significant. (adapting it to use stocks of the 1000/1200 PS Bramo 323 might have been attractive too -also likely the only fighter design in Germany that could have been competitive using that engine)


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 15, 2015)

Messerschmitt Bf 110 â€“ Wikipedia


> Range: 1300 km


Better than the Fw190. With external tanks that increased to 1500 miles.

Also we forgot to mention the advantage the DB601 with its supercharger had over the Japanese engines. That gives fighters equipped with it a distinct height advantage. Same with any He111Ps equipped with it too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2015)

I am not sure what advantage the DB601's supercharger had over the Japanese engines in 1939-41.

The early DB 601 engines had critical (FTH) altitudes of 3700-4900 meters. Granted that beats the 9 cylinder radials by a fair amount but the early single speed 14 cylinder radials had similar FTLs. Ki-43-I was 3400 meters and the similar engine in the A6M2 was rated at 4200 meters. Engine in the early service trial Ki 44s was rated at 3700 meters ( 1260hp). Engines in the early Ki 21 bombers (in service 1938?-1940) were good for 4000 meters. Single speed Kinsei radials were good for up to 1070hp at 4200 meters although that cut take-off power to 930hp compared to the 1000hp take-off but 990hp at 2800 meter model. 

DB601 didn't really have a _very_ good supercharger. Putting a powerful engine in a light airplane can give good altitude results but then that's what the Japanese were doing anyway.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 15, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure what advantage the DB601's supercharger had over the Japanese engines in 1939-41.
> 
> The early DB 601 engines had critical (FTH) altitudes of 3700-4900 meters. Granted that beats the 9 cylinder radials by a fair amount but the early single speed 14 cylinder radials had similar FTLs. Ki-43-I was 3400 meters and the similar engine in the A6M2 was rated at 4200 meters. Engine in the early service trial Ki 44s was rated at 3700 meters ( 1260hp). Engines in the early Ki 21 bombers (in service 1938?-1940) were good for 4000 meters. Single speed Kinsei radials were good for up to 1070hp at 4200 meters although that cut take-off power to 930hp compared to the 1000hp take-off but 990hp at 2800 meter model.
> 
> DB601 didn't really have a _very_ good supercharger. Putting a powerful engine in a light airplane can give good altitude results but then that's what the Japanese were doing anyway.



The 601N had a rated altitude of 4900m in 1940, while the two speed Sakae 21 didn't show up until April 1942 in limited numbers. That gives the Me109 a pretty solid height advantage, especially with the F-series' other serious advantages.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 15, 2015)

Also, as already noted by another poster China is big and there aren't enough Zeroes to go around for all the IJA and IJNs demands, especially if they get into a conflict with the US or other European powers over sanctions in 1941-42.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> Given the same situation would exist with existing Japanese fighters prior to the Zero, they'd probably keep the same tactics learned in 1939-40 and apply them to the Zero. *As it was the Soviet fighters in Spain had the same advantage and the Bf109 was able to dominate anyway*.



And again, a lot of that was based on tactics.

From another forum...

"The I-16 Type 5 was about 20 kph slower than the BF-109B (390 kph vs 405-410 kph at SL, 445 kph vs 460-465 kph best att), it had an inferior dive speed and early models suffered from wing structure failures during dives (particullary while pulling up from them), although this was latter corrected (most I-16's the BF-109's confronted were latter production Type 5's and Type "6's") the I-16 remained a worse diver than the heavier and more aerodynamic BF-109's, the I-16 Type 5 had also a quite obtrusive cockpit (which is the reason why pilots usually flied with it open as well as because it's tendency to snap open when maneuvering) and a had more crude telescopic gunsight with a much smaller FOV than the BF-109's reflector sight, the BF-109's Jumo 210Da engine had a better performance than the I-16's M-25A at high attitude too.

The I-16-5 did however hold a few important advantages over the BF-109B, it had a noticeably better climb rate up to at least 5,000 meters (850 m/min to 3,000 meters and 701 m/min to 5,400 meters vs 612 m/min to an unspecified att), a better power-to-weight ratio (0,464 hp/kg vs 0,32 hp/kg both at combat weight), a lower wing-loading (103,7 kg/sqm vs 131 kg/sqm), had a better roll rate, was an overall smaller target and it's radial engine was overall sturdier than the BF-109's in-line.

Armament was comparable, the BF-109 carried more ammo and the I-16 had guns with a faster fire rate, the BF-109B was sometimes equipped with a third MG-17 that fired through the propeller hub but it was unreliable and sometimes damaged the engine, the I-16 guns sometimes suffered from jamming problems and sometimes they freezed when flying at high attitude, both problems were eventually fixed, the former by putting the Shkas machineguns upside down and the latter by pouring engine exhaust fumes via plumbing to the gun mounts, some I-16's were apparently fitted with a third Shkas machinegun under the engine cowling.

All in all it could be said that the BF-109 could disengage by diving away but so could the I-16 by climbing higher (particullary at low attitudes), if the BF-109 dived away it would have a harder time climbing up to attitude again. The I-16 would also had an advantage in a horizontal fight while the BF-109 would had the advantage in a sustained vertical one, however in a short vertical engagement the superior power-to-weight ratio of the I-16-5 might be enough to keep up and/or catch up with the BF-109B (as combat experience showed, but that's another matter), also, pilots from both sides noted that, in general, the I-16 held most advantages over the BF-109 other than speed up to 3,000 meters while the BF-109 started to take the lead above that attitude.

The BF-109C was fitted with a slightly more powerful engine the Jumo 210Ga with direct injection which had an additional 20HP at take-off power and was also slightly more powerful at higher attitudes, it also had a superior armament, two over the cowling and two on the wings those changes however made the plane somewhat heavier, that meant that it was inferior to it's predecessor in most horizontal maneuvers while better at energy tactics due to it's better engine performance and slightly heavier weight, it also was slightly faster (420 kph vs 405-410 kph at SL and 470 kph vs 460-465 kph at best attitude). All in all it was the first BF-109 that had a better armament than "contemporary" I-16's (4 MG-17's vs 2 Shkas on Type 5 and 3 on Type "6"), and it held over them more or less the same exact advantages the B had, however only a handful (5?) were sent to Spain and shortly after they arrived the I-16 Type 10 made it to the front line (Early 1938 ).

*Now the I-16 had regained armament parity with the best armed BF-109's (it carried 4 Shkas machineguns with a faster fire rate, but still a little bit less ammo) while it had received a more up to date reflector gunsight, a better structural integrity and a better climb rate and top speed than previous I-16's, now the difference of speed with the BF-109'Bs was narrowed even further (395 kph vs 405-410 kph at SL and 450-455 kph vs 460-465 kph best att), while they were not enough BF-109C's to replace them, so it's no coincidence that the arrival of the Type 10 was more or less coincident with an increase of BF-109's combat losses, only the introduction of the finger four tactics and more refined energy fighting tactics allowed the Condor Legion to still fight effectively, regardless by Mid 1938 the number of operational BF-109's was in it's lowest since the plane entered service in Spain*.

Then the Condor Legion received a batch of 37 BF-109D's (Mid 1938 ) this model was designed to be able to mount with a much more powerful DB600Aa engine but due to the fact that this engine was scarce, it seems that most (if not all) BF-109D's sent to Spain were equipped with the same carbureted Jumo 210Da as the BF-109B's (although some of them may had been fitted with Jumo 210Ga’s as those used on the C variant), they were also considerably heavier and draggier than previous BF-109's and as such the top speed performance remained the same or slightly worse than the BF-109B, however the performance of the aircraft at high attitudes was still noticeably better than that of the I-16's which was to became the main asset of the Condor Legion from now on, *at low attitudes they couldn't outclimb the I-16 and they could barely outspeed them but up-high they hold a speed and even climbrate advantage as well as having enough space to dive away if they had to.*

The Republicans didn't stand with they're arms crossed however, by September 1938 they had managed to illegally import several American built Wright - Cyclone SGR 1820 F-54 engines which were equipped with superchargers, although the engine somewhat decreased the plane's performance at low att it also increased it by quite a big margin at high attitude, now the BF-109D's could still outrun (barely) but not outclimb the I-16 Type 10's with this engine even at high attitudes, it is unknown how many I-16's with this modification were built although it is thought that there were probably about a dozen, those modified planes cause a great deal of concern to the Condor Legion which saw them as a considerable threat, however they were too few of them and *the Condor Legion still employed superior tactics and had overall more skilled pilots than the Republic did by that time.*

By January-February 1939 a shipment of BF-109E's (around 40) was sent to Spain, by that time all major combat operations had ceased but they still were employed to strafe retiring enemy columns and airfields, the plane had a considerably superior top speed to the I-16's and previous BF-109's and was the first BF-109 that could outclimb them even at low attitude which left the I-16 with very few chances (like forcing the BF-109 in a horizontal turnfight), ironically, while I haven't managed to find any confirmed I-16 air victory over an Emil in Spain, there was at least one acknowledge loss by the Legion Condor to an I-15 whose pilot actually claimed to shot down two Emils during the engagement (?!), but again that's another matter.

TL;DR Version: The BF-109 and the I-16 had, through most of the Spanish Civil War (until 1939) a comparable performance with one holding some advantages over the other that they could exploit to beat each other, however the Condor Legion had developed superior tactics and had overall better pilots. I also would add that it's pretty hard to compare the victory and loss claims done by both sides since they used a different systemology to classify combat losses and there was a significant case of over-claiming by both sides during the war."

Bf 109 B/C/D vs. Polikarpov I-16 type 5/10 - Axis History Forum


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> The 601N had a rated altitude of 4900m in 1940, while the two speed Sakae 21 didn't show up until April 1942 in limited numbers. That gives the Me109 a pretty solid height advantage, especially with the F-series' other serious advantages.



All very good in theory but in practice the DB601N was spread pretty thin. From Kurfurst's site. A report at a meeting on the 22nd of Jan 1941 detailing the numbers of aircraft equipped with DB601Ns as of Jan 1 1941.

in Bf 109s
Bf 109E-1 : 16 pcs, Bf 109E-3 : 1 pc, Bf 109E-4 : 54 pcs, Bf 109E-6 : 1 pc, Bf 109E-7 : 34 pcs, Bf 109E-8 : 2pcs. Bf 109F-1 : 5 pcs.
total 112 Bf 109s with DB601N engines.

in Bf 110s
Bf 110C-1 : 4 pcs, Bf 110C-4 : 40 pcs, Bf 110C-5 : 12, Bf 110C-7 : 14 pcs, Bf 110D-0 : 18 pcs, Bf 110D-2 : 20 pcs, Bf 110D-3 : 8 pcs, BF 110E-1 : 176 pcs, Bf 110E-2 : 14 pcs.
total 153 Bf 110s with DB601N engines. 306 engines. 

and in Misc. types
He 111P : 8 pcs, Do 215 : 68 pcs. another 76 engines. 

Will German send their _best_ to China or keep the best at home?

The DB601N also needs C3 fuel. 

And how big is this _China_ Legion? A group of bombers (3-4 squadrons) and a Group of fighters (3-4 squadrons) with a few auxiliary squadrons, similar to the Condor Legion in size or a Massive Luftflotte? 

China was a logistical nightmare. And just getting supplies to China (anywhere in China) was no picnic. From the US to Karachi could take 2 months by ship, getting across India from Karachi to Assam could take another 2 months and then you have to get the supplies into China and then from the Chinese supply base/s to the front lines. Things were a bit easier while the Burma road was open but that was no picnic either and required _lots_ of trucks ( which frequently broke or were wrecked).


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 15, 2015)

Well, then we're all agreed that Germany couldn't take Russia, but will easily overcome Japan.

So what's the next "what if"?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 15, 2015)

One vs one, LW fighters have a substantial lead in performance historically. In 1940, the 109E (350 mph) is ahead of early Zero (320-330 mph), the 109F1/F2 is at ~620 km/h (plus 10-15 km/h when over-revving the DB 601N at 2800 rpm), with 109F4 to extend this performance over 30 minutes vs. 3 min only with 109F1/F2. 
The Fw-190, assumed it is ready to be deployed and used that much away from tidy bases, will bring another performance boost vs. the Japanese, something like what Marine Corsairs and USAF Lightnings were providing, but without the legs and without P-38-intristic problems; ditto the Bf-109G2 and fully rated Bf-109F4.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 15, 2015)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And again, a lot of that was based on tactics.
> 
> TL;DR Version: The BF-109 and the I-16 had, through most of the Spanish Civil War (until 1939) a comparable performance with one holding some advantages over the other that they could exploit to beat each other, however the Condor Legion had developed superior tactics and had overall better pilots. I also would add that it's pretty hard to compare the victory and loss claims done by both sides since they used a different systemology to classify combat losses and there was a significant case of over-claiming by both sides during the war."
> 
> Bf 109 B/C/D vs. Polikarpov I-16 type 5/10 - Axis History Forum


That's my point, the Condor Legion devised tactics to deal with the enemy and had excellent, experienced pilots with much superior equipment as of 1939, so when they show up in China they would have all that going for them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2015)

There is little doubt that the Luftwaffe planes/pilots in 1939-42 could handle the Japanese planes/pilots (Army or Navy) on a one for one basis or even on a squadron to squadron basis. The question starts to become one of _if_ the Germans could sustain a *big* enough effort _inside_ China to make practical difference in the war. The Japanese had 27 divisions in China at the start of WW II (1941?) from the American perspective. The Chinese army was almost 10 times that size by division count but many of it's divisions were woefully under strength and ill equipped. 
The Chinese infrastructure had few railroads. Few, if any, paved roads outside of cities and rather restricted river traffic, at least the type of boats/barges that could deal with Vehicles, artillery and the like. 

A "China Legion" might be able to help defend one major city or province.


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 15, 2015)

necessity is the mother of invention. the LW may and probably would have had a whole different criteria for ac specs were it facing japan. the 190 may not have even been put into production. the 109 may have been drasticly modified or even phased out. you may have seen heinkels as the main ac or complete different MEs or FWs.


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 15, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Well, then we're all agreed that Germany couldn't take Russia, but will easily overcome Japan.
> 
> So what's the next "what if"?



what if bacon had never been invented???

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 15, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> what if bacon had never been invented???


The world as we know it would have ceased to exist, the western world would have collapsed and we would most likely have never been born.

It's just a terrible thing to even think about...


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 15, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> what if bacon had never been invented???



You watch your mouth.


----------



## Glider (Apr 15, 2015)

Germany in my opinion had the advantage over both the IJAF and the IJN. The Me109e was a clear advantage over the Japanese fighters. The A6M2 was only built in very small numbers I think it was about 100 in 1940 so in practical terms it should be considered to be a 1941 fighter in which case the 109F still held the advantage. Of course in 1941 the Fw190 entered service cementing the advantage.
Japanese bombers were very vulnerable and German fighters were well armed with cannon. 
The Me110 would come into its own as a strike aircraft having a good speed advantage over Japanese fighters and the Me410 would be very, very, effective. 

On the ground the German army was well equipped to deal with the Japanese Army, only at sea was there a serious risk to German dominance. Even here the IJN were very poorly equipped for anti sub warfare and the German Navy were very good at submarine warfare so on balance I would edge it to the German fleet.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 15, 2015)

The Germans may have had a much better submarine force, but how many of those submarines had enough range to perform a useful patrol in Japanese waters ?

Transporting to Condor legion to Spain was what ? Less than 1000 miles by sea.
Transporting arms to China, how many miles ? 10,000 ?

It was a tremendous strain on the USA to supply China, and we're at about half that distance.
Germany did a poor job supplying it's troops in Russia, Africa. Where ever German troops went they lacked logistics.

And now nobody sees any problem with Germany supplying troops half a world away.

And Germany is going to make money doing this ?


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 15, 2015)

There was actually a joint combat simulation among Ki-43, Ki-44, A6M2 and He100-D in January, 1941.
A6M2 was a winner. Wiki says He100-D was superior to Me109. If so, Me109 could have been a loser.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2015)

Glider said:


> On the ground the German army was well equipped to deal with the Japanese Army, only at sea was there a serious risk to German dominance. Even here the IJN were very poorly equipped for anti sub warfare and the German Navy were very good at submarine warfare so on balance I would edge it to the German fleet.



The Germans had a total of 22 MK IX ocean going U-boats in Service by the end of 1940, not including losses. Germans were no great shakes at anti sub warfare even if they were good at submarine warfare. Japanese troubles with submarine warfare were pretty much doctrine/tactics and not equipment. The German surface ships were, for the most part (there were exceptions) short ranged and unreliable. Even with tankers and/or friendly harbors (refuel/replenish, not repair) the idea that the Germans could have gotten more than a handful of surface combat ships to Asian waters in condition to actually engage in combat is pretty far fetched. and then they are rather badly out numbered.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 15, 2015)

Since Germany is not at war in this scenario, where are all these hoardes of experienced pilots coming from? Did Germany start ramping up their wartime production just to go to China to fight?

And saying that Stalin would just let a massive army and supply-line snake across his country is ridiculous. Not only is Stalin dangerously paranoid, but that is asking a tremendous amount of trust on behalf of Hitler, who was dellusional beyond beleif. Also, how well would Germany be able to move this tremendous amount of equipment all the way over to China during winter and spring? They couldn't even move equipment on the road to Stalingrad.

Also saying that the Japanese were ill equipped to deal with submarine warfare is not close to correct. The Japanese were extremely adept with submarine warfare and the German surface fleet would be in serious trouble if they attempted to engage the Japanese navy. The U.S. navy and Allied elements weren't able to defeat the Japanese navy because the Japanese navy was ill equipped or poor performers, but because of tactical errors and a "great showdown" ideaology. Add to that the overwhelming amount of assets the U.S. pumped into the theater and the end was inevitable. On the other side of the world, the Kreigsmarine wasn't known for their tactical prowess, either. Far too many blunders wasted a good fleet and the growing weight of numbers from the Royal Navy, the U.S. Navy (and Allied elements) was just too much for the Germans in the end.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 16, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure what advantage the DB601's supercharger had over the Japanese engines in 1939-41.
> 
> DB601 didn't really have a _very_ good supercharger. Putting a powerful engine in a light airplane can give good altitude results but then that's what the Japanese were doing anyway.



As you know the early DB601s didn't need a good supercharger because they didn't rely on supercharging to increase engine power, the superchargers job was almost purely altitude compensation. Daimler Benz pulled every trick In the book to extract maximum power and economy from the engine via high compression ratio's of around 7.0:1.0 to 7.5:1.0 (latter even 8.5:1) while every other engine was around 6.0:1.0 and 6.5:1.0

Since the superchargers wasn't being used to over boost the engine it had plenty of reserve for compensating the altitude of the engine.

The DB601 also had a form of construction in which the cylinder liners were used as a giant hollow bolt that was threaded to attach the integral head/cylinder block to the crankcase. Since space for the 4 usual bolt holes were not needed it had thinner cylinder walls and higher swept volume in the same sized engine and could thus process the same mass of air without compressing it.

The trick that DB used was direct multipoint fuel injection which allowed large valve overlaps that scavenged the engine thereby getting rid of end gasses and hot spots that caused pre ignition. (if not done properly direct injection can lead to carbon deposits on the cylinder). Fuel injection seems to have added about 10% over the DB600.

When the DB601N was introduced on the Me 109E4/N and Me 109E7/N towards the end of the Battle of Britain in 1940 it used early C3 fuel (about 93/110) and it was noted that the supercharger was inadequate so latter DB601N improved the supercharger. Daimler Benz continued to improve supercharger fluid dynamics throughout the war but it became more critical as higher performance C3 fuel (96/125 and likely 100/130) became available as well as Water Injection allowed increased over boost.

No doubt the Japanese Naval aircraft and Army aircraft (to a lessor extent) had extremely impressive ranges which were obtained predominantly by cutting back on armour and self sealing fuel tanks. However the Me 109 range limitations need to be considered in context.

Range of an Me 109E4 was about 410 miles at maximum cruise inclusive of climb and reserves. Slow the aircraft to economical cruise and the range goes up to around 1100km (650 miles). Add a 300L drop tank to supplement the 400L internal fuel the ranges are about 650 miles and 1000 miles respectively.

Me 109's also seem to be able to cruise at speeds almost as fast as Japanese maximum speeds: this is what was essential in the European context. The Me 109 like the Spitfire was designed to intercept an enemy aircraft that might have risen from an airfield only a few dozen kilometres away.

Note, I believe the DB601Aa (a for ausland (foreign export) had a different supercharger ratio setup that gave a lower FTH) they were used on Luftwaffe aircraft nevertheless.


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 16, 2015)

How Germans saw Japanese Navy and how Japanese saw German Navy circa 1940.
Here is an insight.

Article of Weekly Photos 165th issue written by Photography Association of Japan in 1941 introduces several German local magazines with this caption: "Germany has been obstructed its possession of naval power as thoroughly as possible since the 1st World War was over. It is no surprise that they see our navy with their absolute trust and are glad to introduce our photos in local magazines repeatedly".

I don't think they were confident with their naval power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 16, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> The Chinese infrastructure had few railroads. Few, if any, paved roads outside of cities and rather restricted river traffic, at least the type of boats/barges that could deal with Vehicles, artillery and the like.
> 
> A "China Legion" might be able to help defend one major city or province.


What about airfields? How many airfields would have been able to accommodate large, long-range transport aircraft? The likes of converted Fw-200s and, slightly later, Ju 252s would be very useful, albeit more costly for fuel used and unlikely practical to supplant land/sea supply routes. (perhaps enough to fill the gaps for whatever materials/resources/personnel were least possible to move on the ground or at sea)





GrauGeist said:


> Since Germany is not at war in this scenario, where are all these hoardes of experienced pilots coming from? Did Germany start ramping up their wartime production just to go to China to fight?


Most of Germany's most skilled/experienced early-war pilots were already around in 1939. We're basically talking starting with the same sort of personnel and equipment that Germany had online just before invading Poland.



> And saying that Stalin would just let a massive army and supply-line snake across his country is ridiculous. Not only is Stalin dangerously paranoid, but that is asking a tremendous amount of trust on behalf of Hitler, who was dellusional beyond beleif. Also, how well would Germany be able to move this tremendous amount of equipment all the way over to China during winter and spring? They couldn't even move equipment on the road to Stalingrad.


No Hitler, possibly not a Nazi government as we know it at all.



wiking85 said:


> What if after the victory in the Spanish Civil War the Germans opt to continue and expand their contributions to the Chinese resistance to the Japanese invasion; let's say *Hitler dies after violating the Munich Agreement in March 1939 and the war with Poland doesn't happen*, but Germany still has issues with hard currency and Chinese payments of minerals are deemed vital to German economic health.



That said, managing supply routes through British/French (possibly some Dutch) held territories might be more practical, especially if they weren't sending equipped troops, but unequipped personnel with military equipment being sold to China separately and the supplemental forces being equipped once they reached Chinese soil.







bobbysocks said:


> necessity is the mother of invention. the LW may and probably would have had a whole different criteria for ac specs were it facing japan. the 190 may not have even been put into production. the 109 may have been drasticly modified or even phased out. you may have seen heinkels as the main ac or complete different MEs or FWs.


They also may have cut back funding for new designs without the war in Europe pushing the need, but indeed shifting the targets for what needs they did have (for both home defense if hostilities should flare up and for actions in China). The He 100 and Fw 187 were already there in development pre-war as were Heinkel's Jets (though not really relevant for action in China). Some cuts to designs originally made to focus on volume production in war-time may have been kept in development though, like the DB-603, Ju 252, Fw 206, and re-evaluating the merits of the He 100 and Fw 187 against the competition in service or to supplement existing designs. (the Bf 110 did have advantages over the 187 and ones that might have proven much more useful against Japan than they had against Britain)

The Fw 190 may have totally supplanted the Bf 109 and perhaps led to the He 100 being dropped as well. The combination of utility, performance, adaptability, and good flying characteristics (reducing losses due to training and operational accidents would be a huge deal) could make an array of Fw 190 derived aircraft the standard multi-role single engine fighter/fighter-bomber in Germany.

I overlooked it before, but if range was seriously considered during the initial design phase, the early small wing might have been replaced by a wing with more attention given to fuel storage capacity and be even more useful than the suggestions for swapping some of the gun bays for fuel tanks.

The DB 605 also might not have been developed and, instead just followon designs more closely based on the 601E. (perhaps with the 603 supercharger and/or WM/50)

The He 177 and Ju 290 projects may have been canceled entirely in favor of more cost-conscious modifications to the Fw 200 for long range patrol and transport duties, and the Do 217 possibly retained as the front line 'heavy' bomber along with the Do 215, Do 17, Ju 88, and He 111. The He 111 might have been more efficiently used for maratime patrol as well, with better coordination. (assuming the post-Hitler government cut out a lot of the Nazi political BS dysfunctionality in the military)


The need for long-range single seat fighters should have forced a re-think on the Fw 187 as well. (on top of the points I made about that airframe likely being adaptable to be pretty good with a number of otherwise useless-for-fighter engines) Adapting the Bf 110 or Fw 187 to the tank-busting role with an MK-101 gun pod might have been useful too. (the Bramo powered 187 variant I suggested might fit better there due to better resistance to ground fire while still likely fast enough to out-run most early war Japanese fighters)

Even the MG c/30L might have been useful against some of the light Japanese armor in use, and certainly offer less of a performance detriment.


Aside from possibly the Fw 190, I think there's a reasonable argument for a greater preference for developments and adaptations of existing 1930s designs and scaling back/cancellation of the likes of the Me 210/410, Ju 188/288/388, Ju 290, He 177, etc, probably excepting some private ventures and possibly some long-term government investment in gas turbine development.




Glider said:


> The Me110 would come into its own as a strike aircraft having a good speed advantage over Japanese fighters and the Me410 would be very, very, effective.


As above, I think development of existing (or well into development) types of 1939 might have made more sense, and besides that, the Me 110 did have room for growth on its own. (tasks the 410 could do that the 110 couldn't at al1 would likely fall to Ju 88 variants)

But on the Bf 110 in particular:



wiking85 said:


> Messerschmitt Bf 110 â€“ Wikipedia
> 
> Better than the Fw190. With external tanks that increased to 1500 miles.



I'd forgotten the 110C had significantly longer range than the 110G, that and the 633 km/h at 7000 m for the Bf 110G-2 is a bit surprising.

The figures on English wikipedia and especially on this site seem very different though. Messerschmitt Bf 110C


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 16, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> No doubt the Japanese Naval aircraft and Army aircraft (to a lessor extent) had extremely impressive ranges which were obtained predominantly by cutting back on armour and self sealing fuel tanks. However the Me 109 range limitations need to be considered in context.
> 
> Range of an Me 109E4 was about 410 miles at maximum cruise inclusive of climb and reserves. Slow the aircraft to economical cruise and the range goes up to around 1100km (650 miles). Add a 300L drop tank to supplement the 400L internal fuel the ranges are about 650 miles and 1000 miles respectively.
> 
> Me 109's also seem to be able to cruise at speeds almost as fast as Japanese maximum speeds: this is what was essential in the European context. The Me 109 like the Spitfire was designed to intercept an enemy aircraft that might have risen from an airfield only a few dozen kilometres away.


This is very significant and may clear up some of the range discrepancies for the Bf 110 figures as well.

It seems range at economical cruise with drop tank wasn't much worse than the P-40C or P-39D, and possibly better than the Spitfire Mk.II.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 16, 2015)

Just Schmidt said:


> This is quite an interesting what if.
> 
> The short version, in my opinion, would be that until the introduction of the ki-44 the luftwaffe would have it pretty much on its own in a straight fight,
> snip
> ...



The book "Hitlers Table Talk" by Hugh Trevor Roper, a compilation of fireside talks that Martin Bormann supposedly compiled Hitler says many positive things about the Chinese and notes they have a considerably more illustrious history of civilisation than his own. There as no intrinsic problem between Germans and Chinese or with Hitler (dead in this scenario). 

Nevertheless as the Japanese-German allegiance strengthened the head of the Siemens company in China, a kindly Nazi by the name of *John Rabe*, had become very concerned by the misbehaviour of Japanese troops towards the Chinese and used all his influence to protect as many as he could while directly writing to Hitler, eloquently using his knowledge of National Socialist ideology and party membership appealing to for Hitler's humanitarian intervention. Of course the Japanese allegiance was becoming critical this could be an embarrassment to the Japanese and Rabe was shutdown and ended up having an interview with the Gestapo.

With the treaty of Versailles having created an economically ridiculous and impoverishing situation for overall trade and economic wellbeing of Europe, not only Germany, Germany turned to China, Japan, Sth America and the Middle East for trade often using barter arrangements to avoid entanglement in "Allied" controlled banking systems.

Germany had many friends, though they were not militarily powerful. The Germans had done nothing horrible to the Arabs or Turks. They had tried 'peaceful imperialism' by building the Berlin Baghdad railway(Orient Express) which was supposed to connect central Europe to the Persian Gulf thus bypassing the Suez. (Paranoia over this probably caused British, French and Russian involvement in WW1). They hadn't split the Middle East into politically, economically and ethnically incompatible regions, embarrassed Muslims, manipulated regime change or become embroiled in the morally ambiguous Belfour declaration. China and Germany had good relations, and so did Germany with the Middle East.

Japan had been an Western Allie during WW1 and had taken German trading colonies in Asia as war booty. Stalin was wary of the Japanese and might turn a blind eye to clandestine supply flights over the Soviet Asian Regions.

In terms of logistics: the German navy can transport a few hundred tons per each U-boat. Without the Royal Navy or Coastal Command to worry about they can refuel on the way or at sea and make a cracking pace travelling on the surface. They may even be able to use the Suez canal. The deep diving U-boats with outstanding passive sonar would easily avoid the IJN as they submerged through the straights of Malacca etc.

By 1939 Lufthansa has the Fw 200 kurrier/condor which can carry about 3 tons cargo 2200 miles and maybe 4400 miles with special tanks in the cabin and a small load. If one wanted to fly to Bejing/Peking or Shanghai 2 refuelling stops.

However if you can fly out of Baghdad Iraq, Iran or even the Capitals of the Balkan states you can reach the Sth Western Provinces of China by flying over the Himalayas. Who in Afghanistan or Tibet will notice? 

Tehran(Iran) to Xinjian(China) is 2900km (1700 miles)
Mashhad(Iran) to Kashgar(China) is 2200km (1400 miles)
Baghdad(Iraq) to Kashgar(China) is 2850km (1350 miles)
Mosul or Erbil(Turkey)to Kashgar(China) is 2800km 1320 miles.

Northern Parts of Finland or the Baltic states get to Mongolia in 4800km/3000 miles by flying over the Nth Pole (Partially Soviet Airspace). Don't ask me how you work a magnetic compass or even keep a gyro compass aligned.

Besides the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 there is the Blohm Voss BV 142 with about 4000km/2400 miles range with cargo using its Diesels and the Dornier Do 26 Flying Boat offering ranges of nearly 9000km/5500 miles. The Seaplane version of the BV142, the Ha 139, like the Dornier Do 26 can be catapult launched from ships. There might also be a sea plane route using rivers and lakes.

Higly capable transports such as the Ju 252 and Ju 290 would ease the problem considerably though these are 1942 aircraft not 1939 aircraft. A Me 109 can easily be broken down by removing both wings, removing the engine and propeller and the horizontal tail. it might fit in the Fw 200.

If the cooperation of the states of the middle east can be secured this can be done by airlift. I would imagine an aircraft would require 3 days for a round trip and 1 day maintenance suggesting 4 aircraft would be required to get 3 tons in by air per day. Hence a fleet of 40 would be required to transport 30 tons per day. 

The Chinese would need to supply fuel and food in most scenarios. This would be for essential supplies, replacements and spare parts, personnel transport etc.

Missions to the Northern provinces of china via Helsinki or Bergen might be possible.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> As you know the early DB601s didn't need a good supercharger because they didn't rely on supercharging to increase engine power, the superchargers job was almost purely altitude compensation. Daimler Benz pulled every trick In the book to extract maximum power and economy from the engine via high compression ratio's of around 7.0:1.0 to 7.5:1.0 (latter even 8.5:1) while every other engine was around 6.0:1.0 and 6.5:1.0
> 
> Since the superchargers wasn't being used to over boost the engine it had plenty of reserve for compensating the altitude of the engine.



In 1938-40 _nobody's_ supercharger could be classed as _very_ good. And with most of the world using 87 octane fuel most countries/companies were using superchargers for altitude performance with 2 speed superchargers used to boost take-off performance or low altitude performance. Even the Americans weren't _over boosting_ their engines at this point. The American 100 octane was pretty much 100/100 so while better than 87 octane it didn't allow for the overboost the British 100 octane did. The DB 601 supercharger (compressor) wasn't bad and it might have even been above average. Many countries/companies improved the supercharger fluid dynamics of their superchargers as the war went on even on single/two speed-single stage versions. 
A lot of people think that it was the supercharger (and supercharger drive system) that gave early 109s (E F) their altitude performance. It wasn't, it was the fact that the Germans used a high powered engine in a small/light aircraft. Swap a P-40's 1150hp Allison for a 1100-1175hp DB601 and you would still get a dog at altitude. Reverse the swap and the 109 with Allison would do pretty good. Making the DB601 try to haul almost a ton more aircraft would kill it's altitude "performance" pretty quick while lightening the Allison's load by the same amount would do wonders for it's climb rate at 25,000ft and above. Some people are confusing cause and effect.
The DB was a bit ahead of the curve with the variable speed drive (which actually does nothing for the actual performance of the compressor) as P W was only introducing 2 speed superchargers _into service_ in 1940, however much they had fooled around with 2 speeds and 2 stages before then. The French had NO 2 speed superchargers in squadron service. And so on, and please note that 2 speed superchargers do very little for altitude performance that couldn't be done with with a single speed supercharger using the same or similar gear ratio as the high gear. 




> Range of an Me 109E4 was about 410 miles at maximum cruise inclusive of climb and reserves. Slow the aircraft to economical cruise and the range goes up to around 1100km (650 miles). Add a 300L drop tank to supplement the 400L internal fuel the ranges are about 650 miles and 1000 miles respectively.



This seems to be at odds with at least one book showing range/fuel consumption charts ( or facsimile) for a 109E. Using a cruise setting of 2200-2400rpm and 1.15 ATA and speeds are about 455/520kph at 3000/5000meters and fuel used in 0.64/0.63 liters per km. or just under 400 miles *not* inclusive of take-off,climb and reserves. Using 1400/1600rpm and 0.76/0.63 ata at 3000/5000 meters gives speeds of 350/360kph and a fuel burn of 0.43 liters per km at both altitudes. range is now 576 miles *not* inclusive of take-off,climb and reserves


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 16, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> This is very significant and may clear up some of the range discrepancies for the Bf 110 figures as well.
> 
> It seems range at economical cruise with drop tank wasn't much worse than the P-40C or P-39D, and possibly better than the Spitfire Mk.II.



Me 109 fuel tankage never increased much beyond the 400 Litre 87 Imp Gallon fuselage tank unless one counts the 130L supplementary tank from 1944 onwards that could carry either MW50 or extra fuel, the latter not quite compensating for the increasingly more powerful and therefore thirsty engines. Nevertheless the DB601/DB605 somewhat compensated by remaining very economical in high speed cruise. The Fw 190 had room for fuel in the wings where the outer gun stations were though I know that this was to be used only on the Fw 190D13 (which had deleted the outer guns and compensated with a motor gun). The Me 109G with a 1320hp engine was faster than a P-40F or N with a more powerful engine.

The Me 109 wings seem to have been full of the pilots liquid oxygen supply though there must have been some room as I believe the Nitrous Oxide might be carried there as well.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 16, 2015)

No Doras had out wing cannons.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 16, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> One vs one, LW fighters have a substantial lead in performance historically. In 1940, the 109E (350 mph) is ahead of early Zero (320-330 mph), the 109F1/F2 is at ~620 km/h (plus 10-15 km/h when over-revving the DB 601N at 2800 rpm), with 109F4 to extend this performance over 30 minutes vs. 3 min only with 109F1/F2.
> The Fw-190, assumed it is ready to be deployed and used that much away from tidy bases, will bring another performance boost vs. the Japanese, something like what Marine Corsairs and USAF Lightnings were providing, but without the legs and without P-38-intristic problems; ditto the Bf-109G2 and fully rated Bf-109F4.




Do you have power versus altitude charts for the DB601 vs Allison?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> What about airfields? How many airfields would have been able to accommodate large, long-range transport aircraft? The likes of converted Fw-200s and, slightly later, Ju 252s would be very useful, albeit more costly for fuel used and unlikely practical to supplant land/sea supply routes. (perhaps enough to fill the gaps for whatever materials/resources/personnel were least possible to move on the ground or at sea)



See the troubles the Americans had flying "the hump". 
It was estimated that B-24s flying into China needed to fly 3-4 cargo missions for every operational bombing mission. 

The Americans were able to fly out of bases in India. Without a seaport or rail head within 500-800 miles air transport just wasn't going to work for most WW II aircraft. You have to fly into all the intermediate bases to extend the range and pretty soon you are using _way_ more fuel to get "stuff" to the last base in the chain than you are getting to the last bases/s. 






> That said, managing supply routes through British/French (possibly some Dutch) held territories might be more practical, especially if they weren't sending equipped troops, but unequipped personnel with military equipment being sold to China separately and the supplemental forces being equipped once they reached Chinese soil.



Trouble is you need divisions, not battalions or a few regiments.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 16, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> And saying that Stalin would just let a massive army and supply-line snake across his country is ridiculous. Not only is Stalin dangerously paranoid, but that is asking a tremendous amount of trust on behalf of Hitler, who was dellusional beyond beleif. Also, how well would Germany be able to move this tremendous amount of equipment all the way over to China during winter and spring? They couldn't even move equipment on the road to Stalingrad.


Historically Stalin allowed millions of tons of trade between Germany and Japan via the USSR's railroads from 1940-41:
https://books.google.com/books?id=p...erman japanese trade via soviet union&f=false

Hitler is also dead in this scenario due to a heart attack or something innocuous (hence no WW2), yet historically he let the Soviets trade for him; plus the Soviets wanted the Japanese to lose without having to fight them, so they win on this too. Stalin was able to supply Chiang with weapons historically:
Second Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In September 1937, the Soviet leadership signed the Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact and approved Operation Zet, the formation of a Soviet volunteer air force. As part of this secret operation, Soviet technicians upgraded and ran some of China's transportation systems. Bombers, fighters, supplies and advisors arrived, including Soviet general Vasily Chuikov, the future victor of the Battle of Stalingrad. Prior to the entrance of the Western Allies, the Russians provided the largest amount of foreign aid to China, totalling some $250 million in credits for munitions and other supplies. In April 1941, Soviet aid ended as a result of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact and the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.



If anything Stalin might well get in on the action if relations and trade with Germany are still good. Both the Germans and Soviets had interest in post-war trade/business deals with China, so even if they run a deficit during the war they stand to make serious bank post-war due to their efforts. In fact a Germany that honors its agreements with the USSR would probably make the two anti-Capitalist allies for quite some time, as Germany trades modern equipment for Soviet raw materials; the two countries has since the 1800s had a lot of trade back and forth that was interrupted by the Nazis from 1933-38, but resumed and expanded considerably. Both had need of that trade and would for some time, especially given German foreign exchange issues in 1939 due to rearmament. They would have to scale down rearmament without Hitler planning war and find some trade after they burned so many bridges over Czechoslovakia, so Soviet and Chinese trade would be quite important.

Plus the US is still going to run its own embargo and aid program for China during all of this and in fact without war in Europe everyone may gang up on the Japanese and make it economically impossible for them to continue the invasion past 1942-43. Then the scramble for post-war Chinese contracts by the West starts.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> This is very significant and may clear up some of the range discrepancies for the Bf 110 figures as well.
> 
> It seems range at economical cruise with drop tank wasn't much worse than the P-40C or P-39D, and possibly better than the Spitfire Mk.II.



Any time figures look too good to be true, they probably are. The P-40 was heavy and couldn't climb worth rotten apples ( using normal power, ie non WEP) but it had a rather similar drag to the 109E ( about the same speed for about the same power) so cruise power should be about the same. P-40 carried about 40% more internal fuel than a 109, once you figure in warm up, take off and reserves it is hard to believe that the 109 can go as far on that much less fuel. 

A P-40 clean running 375kph at 12,000ft (3636 meters?) was burning one gallon for every 5.5 miles traveled or about 0.43 liters per km, just about the same as a 109E. Even if this figure is off by 10% it doesn't make up for the 40% more fuel in the P-40.
Granted the US drop tank is smaller so with external tanks things equalize somewhat.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 16, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Any time figures look too good to be true, they probably are. The P-40 was heavy and couldn't climb worth rotten apples ( using normal power, ie non WEP) but it had a rather similar drag to the 109E ( about the same speed for about the same power) so cruise power should be about the same. P-40 carried about 40% more internal fuel than a 109, once you figure in warm up, take off and reserves it is hard to believe that the 109 can go as far on that much less fuel.
> 
> A P-40 clean running 375kph at 12,000ft (3636 meters?) was burning one gallon for every 5.5 miles traveled or about 0.43 liters per km, just about the same as a 109E. Even if this figure is off by 10% it doesn't make up for the 40% more fuel in the P-40.
> Granted the US drop tank is smaller so with external tanks things equalize somewhat.



I thought the P-40B was actually pretty hampered by its modifications:
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Revised versions of the P-40 soon followed: the P-40B or Tomahawk IIA had extra .30 in (7.62 mm) U.S., or .303 in (7.7 mm) machine guns in the wings and a partially protected fuel system; the P-40C or Tomahawk IIB added underbelly drop tank and bomb shackles, self-sealing fuel tanks and other minor revisions, but the extra weight did have a negative impact on aircraft performance. (All versions of the P-40 had a relatively low power-to-weight ratio compared to contemporary fighters.)


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 16, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> This seems to be at odds with at least one book showing range/fuel consumption charts ( or facsimile) for a 109E. Using a cruise setting of 2200-2400rpm and 1.15 ATA and speeds are about 455/520kph at 3000/5000meters and fuel used in 0.64/0.63 liters per km. or just under 400 miles *not* inclusive of take-off,climb and reserves. Using 1400/1600rpm and 0.76/0.63 ata at 3000/5000 meters gives speeds of 350/360kph and a fuel burn of 0.43 liters per km at both altitudes. range is now 576 miles *not* inclusive of take-off,climb and reserves



Fuel Charts for the Me 109F4 with DB601E are Here, the Gothic German might be hard to decipher.
Beim-Zeugmeister: Page 4 - Range table

Here is one scenario:
Altitude 3000m, speed 370kmh(230mph), fuel burn 130L/hr. This would consume 390L of the 400L in 3 hours to give a range of 1110km or about 682 miles with 10L to spare, that would be easily used in warm up.

The table seems to indicate that it would take 4 minutes to climb to 3km altitude, at 280kmh the kraftstoff verbrauch is 15L to get to 1km and 20L to 3km at maximum climb power at a speed of 280kmh (seemingly the figures must be cumulative so we might need 35L for climb which in 4 minutes moves us 20km down the road.

So assuming 10% reserves (40L) and 35L for climb we have 315L in the tank to use for cruise. This gives 2.42 hours cruise at 370kmh at 130 Litres hour or a range of 896km plus about 20km achieved during climb so 916km which is 568 miles. If the reduced fuel consumption (1/5th) in the glide and the 10% reserves is considered it should get to around 620-640 miles. 

If you now go to maximum cruise you get 315L/hr at 520km/h(324mph) and your range with allowance for climb and 10% reserves is 540km (336 miles)

The 66 imp gallon 300L drop tank thus almost doubles usable fuel.

some translation:
steigflug (climbing flight from step up)
gleitflug (gliding flight)
horizontflug (level flight)

I believe the Bf 109E actually had more fuel than the Me 109F


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 16, 2015)

Russia is not going to forget it's own recent history. 
Read about the Czech Legion, and all the trouble it caused Russia just after WW1.

They might, might, ship some unaccompanied arms across their rail system, but troops are going to have to get to China some other way.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> I thought the P-40B was actually pretty hampered by its modifications:
> Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sorry, see here for P-40E:
http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40FOIC.pdf

The earlier versions might actually do a bit better fuel consumption wise. Point is that 600 miles plus for a 109E without drop tank is pretty much a fantasy. 

The 109F is somewhat better.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 16, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Sorry, see here for P-40E:
> http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40FOIC.pdf
> 
> The earlier versions might actually do a bit better fuel consumption wise. Point is that 600 miles plus for a 109E without drop tank is pretty much a fantasy.
> ...



Why is the E having that range fantasy given the post by Koopernic? Also your charts for the D&E, not the B that the Flying Tigers flew.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> This seems to be at odds with at least one book showing range/fuel consumption charts ( or facsimile) for a 109E. Using a cruise setting of 2200-2400rpm and 1.15 ATA and speeds are about 455/520kph at 3000/5000meters and fuel used in 0.64/0.63 liters per km. or just under 400 miles *not* inclusive of take-off,climb and reserves. Using 1400/1600rpm and 0.76/0.63 ata at 3000/5000 meters gives speeds of 350/360kph and a fuel burn of 0.43 liters per km at both altitudes. range is now 576 miles *not* inclusive of take-off,climb and reserves



FWIW, the table about DB 601A and B, both with old and new S/C (end result is difference of 500 m in FTH, among other things). Approx 315 L/h is used on 5-min setting, 255 L/h on max continuous.









Koopernic said:


> ... The Fw 190 had room for fuel in the wings where the outer gun stations were though I know that this was to be used only on the Fw 190D13 (which had deleted the outer guns and compensated with a motor gun). The Me 109G with a 1320hp engine was faster than a P-40F or N with a more powerful engine.



The Fw-190D13 lost cowling HMGs in order to have MK 108 installed; the resulting installation was a little less draggy than what D-19 have had. Only Dora that was supposed to have outer wing guns from factory was the D-11.

Where the Bf 109G have had 1320 HP ( actually 1355 PS = 1336 HP, at 5700 m/18700 ft), the P-40F have had some 1110 HP. 
I'd really appreciate when the 'power at altitude' is stated, instead just 'power' - makes people coming to wrong conclusions 
P-40F sported a heavier gun ammo load (just weight, without entering the discussion about target effect) and fuel load, while also having a wing bigger by ~1/3rd. P-40E have had all of that, along with a 15% power deficit vs. the P-40M/N at 18700 ft - only 950 HP was available. A P-40 without a 2-stage V-12 will never be able to compete vs Bf-109 above 10-15 kft, but it will enjoy a better combat radius.



> The Me 109 wings seem to have been full of the pilots liquid oxygen supply though there must have been some room as I believe the Nitrous Oxide might be carried there as well.



Nitrous oxide was a problematic thing to hold in cylindrical tanks, not sure the wing installation would've offered anything more.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 16, 2015)

Allowing overflights and "tons of trade" to pass through the Soviet Union is one thing, but to move entire Armies (men and equipment) is another. And again, even *if* Uncle Joe was to set aside his paranoia and allow Germany to move the bulk of it's army through Soviet proper, how would the German logistics handle the unforgiving Russian winters and the swampy quagmires of the Russian spring? Or perhaps the war with Japan would only be a seasonal affair? 

Hitler or not, the Germans of the time viewed Russia with a cautious eye and the historic "neutrality" between Germany and the Soviet Union was a facade and both knew that a showdown was inevitable.

There is a subdued enmity between Japan and the Soviet Union that had been simmering for years and it flared up briefly along the Mongolian border. The the Soviet Union was able to press a victory out of the confrontation with Japan is because the Northern Army was not authorized by Tokyo to engage the Soviets and was therefore not on a full battle footing nor supported. There was also the issue to the northern Japanese islands that Japan always felt that Russia "stole" from them and they intended to have them back. So the peace with the Soviet Union was an uneasy one. Allowing Germany access to China by way of the Soviet Union would most certainly antagonize the fragile peace and most likely lead to a declaration of war.

In 1940, Japan historically had 29 divisions of IJA in mainland Asia with a large reserve. The IJA air service had well over 1,600 aircraft. The IJN had 10 Battleships, 6 Carriers, 16 Heavy Cruisers, 17 Light Cruisers, 99 Destroyers, 63 Submarines and IJN had over 1,400 aircraft. The IJN also had Imperial Marines stationed in mainland Asia.

All these numbers were being added to by a large number, especially prior to 7 December 1941.

Now even assuming that the Germans were able to establish a route across the Asian continent, how would they protect the transports from Japanese interceptors? The Germans would need to establish forward bases to allow for air support and these would not go unchallenged by the Japanese. We can use the AVG as an example of a "toe-hold" in Japanese territory, but even with the AVG's successes, it did not stem the tide of the Japanese and even the AVG was handed setbacks. Considering in this case, the Japanese are not tied down against Allied targets and were able to focus their strategy against the incoming Germans, it's really hard to envision any reasonable success of a German expedition.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> I believe the Bf 109E actually had more fuel than the Me 109F



I believe they both had 400 liters of internal fuel. The 109F was a _much_ cleaner airframe than the 109E which did a lot for range. 
From Wiki so usual disclaimer: " Thanks to the improved aerodynamics, more fuel-efficient engines and the introduction of light-alloy versions of the standard Luftwaffe 300 litre drop tank, the Bf 109 F offered a much increased maximum range of 1,700 km (1,060 mi)[35] compared to the Bf 109 E's maximum range figure of only 660 km (410 miles) on internal fuel,[36] and with the E-7's provision for the 300 litre drop tank, a Bf 109E so equipped possessed double the range, to 1,325 km (820 mi)"

From Green comparing a 109F-0 with DB601N engine to a 109E-4/N with the same engine. " A 360 degree turn at 3280ft could be completed in 18 seconds as compared to 25 seconds of the earlier fighter, and from the same altitude 2900ft could be gained in a combat turn as compared with 1970ft. Initial climb rate was increased from 3420ft/min to 3,730ft.min and an altitude of 16,400 was reached in 5.2 minutes compared with 6.1 minutes. 

Speed at sea level for a an E-3 with DB 601Aa (1175hp Green didn't convert to PS) engine was supposed to be 293mph, Speed at sea level for a an T-2 (big wing/carrier gear?) with DB 601N (1200hp Green didn't convert to PS) engine was supposed to be 295mph. Speed at sea level for a an F-2 with DB 601N (1200hp Green didn't convert to PS) engine was supposed to be 321mph while the 109F-4 with DB601E and 1350hp was supposed to be 334mph. 

The large gain in speed using pretty much the same power (1175-1200) certainly points to a very large reduction in drag as does the improved turning performance and climbing performance. 

BTW US and British planes could easily use up 50-90 liters of fuel between warming up, taxing, take-off and climb to 5000ft depending on test. I have no idea why a P-40E needed 28 gallons to do that and P-39Q needed only 16 gallons unless test procedure/criteria changed?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> Why is the E having that range fantasy given the post by Koopernic? Also your charts for the D&E, not the B that the Flying Tigers flew.




I have no idea where those figures came from. Some planes change a lot from one model to another and and others don't. Trying to find charts/manuals for the early P-40s isn't quite as easy but for the P-40B there is this report on the WWW.aircraftperformance.com website. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_41-5205_PHQ-M-19-1227-A.pdf

Please note that the P-40B was _supposed_ to cruise at 236mph using 400hp. it needed 720hp to cruise at 310mph. The P-40s used the Flying tigers may have been a little off from these numbers but not by much. 
Also note that the P-40 was supposed to do 352mph at 15,000ft using 1090hp. It as fast or a bit faster than a 109E but no match for a 109F even if the F is using DB601N engine. This points to the relative drag of the aircraft and their cruising ability. 
See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_C_Specific_Operating_Instructions.jpg

for some P-40 fuel flows at different power outputs even if speeds are not given. The German engines may have been more efficient at the higher power levels but at the lower cruise settings there may not have been much more than 10% between them.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Do you have power versus altitude charts for the DB601 vs Allison?



This is for the V-1710-33 (thin red line) vs. DB 601A (with new S/C, FTH at 4500m). The data used for the -33 is 1040 HP at 14500m (1055 PS at 4420m; 38.9 in Hg at 3000 rpm), take off power was the same (thick red line) but with greater boost); source being the chart at pg. 124 of Vee's (a low-quality copy can be d-loaded from Perlil's P-40 site). The duration for max power and TO power was 5 minutes.
It does not cover 1090 HP @ ~13500 ft rating that can be found sometimes in official documents, nor it does cover the (unauthorized) over-boosting that might brought low level power above 1600 HP. Not sure when it was used prior 1942 anyway. It also does not cover the DB 601 over-revving at 2600 rpm (from Autumn 1940) nor at 2800 rpm (from Summer 1941) that was allowed above rated height - both mean significant boost of altitude power.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> This seems to be at odds with at least one book showing range/fuel consumption charts ( or facsimile) for a 109E. Using a cruise setting of 2200-2400rpm and 1.15 ATA and speeds are about 455/520kph at 3000/5000meters and fuel used in 0.64/0.63 liters per km. or just under 400 miles *not* inclusive of take-off,climb and reserves. Using 1400/1600rpm and 0.76/0.63 ata at 3000/5000 meters gives speeds of 350/360kph and a fuel burn of 0.43 liters per km at both altitudes. range is now 576 miles *not* inclusive of take-off,climb and reserves



The range table for the Bf-109E: link.
At 5 km, it is supposed to do 460 km (286 miles) on max continuous power (1.15 ata, 2400 rpm) while making 520 km/h TAS (440 km/h IAS), or 665 km (413 miles) on 'max range' setting (0.76 ata, 1400 rpm) while making 350 km/h TAS (270 km/h IAS).


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> ...
> Range of an Me 109E4 was about 410 miles at maximum cruise inclusive of climb and reserves. Slow the aircraft to economical cruise and the range goes up to around 1100km (650 miles). Add a 300L drop tank to supplement the 400L internal fuel the ranges are about 650 miles and 1000 miles respectively.



Please look at the above post. With a drop tank the range would be at around 1000 km (not miles).



> Me 109's also seem to be able to cruise at speeds almost as fast as Japanese maximum speeds: this is what was essential in the European context. The Me 109 like the Spitfire was designed to intercept an enemy aircraft that might have risen from an airfield only a few dozen kilometres away.



There is no doubt that LW fighters would've enjoyed a performance advantage vs. IJA/IJN, problem would be combat radius in vast Asian expanses.


> Note, I believe the DB601Aa (a for ausland (foreign export) had a different supercharger ratio setup that gave a lower FTH) they were used on Luftwaffe aircraft nevertheless.



Yep, the advantage of the 601Aa over 601A is some 8% of greater power under 3.7 km. In LW service Jabo versions of Bf-109 and 110 were main users?



Koopernic said:


> ...
> I believe the Bf 109E actually had more fuel than the Me 109F



Both have had 400 liters of internal fuel.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 16, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The range table for the Bf-109E: link.
> At 5 km, it is supposed to do 460 km (286 miles) on max continuous power (1.15 ata, 2400 rpm) while making 520 km/h TAS (440 km/h IAS), or 665 km (413 miles) on 'max range' setting (0.76 ata, 1400 rpm) while making 350 km/h TAS (270 km/h IAS). Of course, those figures don't cover the fuel used for warm-up, climb, combat and reserves.



I suggest this chart you link to DOES have allowances for climb and generous reserves. The chart I linked to is a chart for fuel consumption calculations for the Me 109F4 for planning purposes. The link you provided is a simpler to consult table and is "Reichweite" roughly translated "reachable distance" 

For instance if we run our db601a at dauerleistung (max sustainable power) your earlier engine chart in this thread gives a consumption of 250L hour. This would give the Me 109E1 with 400 litres 1.6 hours at 455kmh ie 680km range yet the chart gives only 450km range. The chart you linked to,above, thus gives the eqivalent of 1/2 hour reserve at maximum cruise. This is your climb time and reserves and is very generous. I doubt fuel injected engines need any warm up. I'm old enough to remember cars with chokes and the 30 seconds of fiddling with them, now I just drive off.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2015)

Hmm - think you're right about the table from Williams' site showing a practical range. I'll edit the post #76 accordingly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> I doubt fuel injected engines need any warm up. I'm old enough to remember cars with chokes and the 30 seconds of fiddling with them, now I just drive off.



Try just driving off with a 10-15 gallon dry sump oil system full of SAE 60 (or thicker) oil. You will be looking at bearing and/or ring failure real quick. 

If you can remember manual chokes you may be old enough to remember changing oil from summer to winter oils in the days before multi-grade and the slooooow cranking if you forgot or didn't change early enough. 

The "engine" warm up isn't for the fuel system (carbs) to work properly, it is to bring the oil up to temperature so it lubricates properly. Some engines used gas dilution (10-20% gas mixed with the oil on shut down) to thin the oil enough to start the engine. Lubrication was ok at 800-1200rpm with no real load on the engine (stationary or slow taxi) but trying to use take off power before the oil was hot enough to evaporate out the gasoline could get real interesting (and real expensive) real quick.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> I doubt fuel injected engines need any warm up. I'm old enough to remember cars with chokes and the 30 seconds of fiddling with them, now I just drive off.



A car fuel injected engine is a lot different from and aviation fuel injected engine. You'll find very specific operating parameters in flight manuals with reagrds to start up and engine warming.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2015)

From a P-51 -1. You should see these numbers before take off...

Check the instruments for the following limitations: Desired Maximum 
Oil Pressure 70-80 lbs/sq. in. 90 lbs/sq. in. 
Oil Temperature 70 deg C - 80 deg C 90 deg C 
Coolant Temperature 100 deg C - 110 deg C 121 deg C 
Fuel Pressure 12-16 lbs/sq. in. 19 lbs/sq. in


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 16, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> By 1939 Lufthansa has the Fw 200 kurrier/condor which can carry about 3 tons cargo 2200 miles and maybe 4400 miles with special tanks in the cabin and a small load. If one wanted to fly to Bejing/Peking or Shanghai 2 refuelling stops.
> 
> However if you can fly out of Baghdad Iraq, Iran or even the Capitals of the Balkan states you can reach the Sth Western Provinces of China by flying over the Himalayas. Who in Afghanistan or Tibet will notice?


Even is range isn't the limiting factor (which would heavily depend on the configuration of the Fw 200), altitude is. With BMW 132 or Bramo 323 engines, the Fw 200 would bve hard pressed to navigate the high Himalayas than the C-47, let alone C-46 or B-24. (B-17 might have fared better still, but that's a separate topic).

Turbocharged variants using similar engines, or perhaps Jumo turbo diesels (though the 207 wouldn't be available early on), or adopting DB 601 or Jumo 211s might have been enough to make the difference. (and offer better cruise performance over the radials)



> Besides the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 there is the Blohm Voss BV 142 with about 4000km/2400 miles range with cargo using its Diesels and the Dornier Do 26 Flying Boat offering ranges of nearly 9000km/5500 miles. The Seaplane version of the BV142, the Ha 139, like the Dornier Do 26 can be catapult launched from ships. There might also be a sea plane route using rivers and lakes.


I overlooked all three of those aircraft in my previous comments about pre-war designs possibly attractive to develop in this scenario (for civil or military use). BV The 142, 139, and Do 26 all have merits there, and the 142 has a high enough ceiling to make it more useful for crossing the Himalayas.



> Higly capable transports such as the Ju 252 and Ju 290 would ease the problem considerably though these are 1942 aircraft not 1939 aircraft. A Me 109 can easily be broken down by removing both wings, removing the engine and propeller and the horizontal tail. it might fit in the Fw 200.


I'm still not sure the Ju 290 would have been economically attractive to develop in this scenario, but the 252 likely would be, and perhaps the Fw 206 would see continued development. (... or work out a license for the DC-3)

If the cooperation of the states of the middle east can be secured this can be done by airlift. I would imagine an aircraft would require 3 days for a round trip and 1 day maintenance suggesting 4 aircraft would be required to get 3 tons in by air per day. Hence a fleet of 40 would be required to transport 30 tons per day. 




Koopernic said:


> Me 109 fuel tankage never increased much beyond the 400 Litre 87 Imp Gallon fuselage tank unless one counts the 130L supplementary tank from 1944 onwards that could carry either MW50 or extra fuel, the latter not quite compensating for the increasingly more powerful and therefore thirsty engines. Nevertheless the DB601/DB605 somewhat compensated by remaining very economical in high speed cruise.


At optimal cruise power/speed, the DB 605 shouldn't have reduced range over the 601 on its own, though the overall increase in weight (and resulting drag) would be significant. 



> The Me 109 wings seem to have been full of the pilots liquid oxygen supply though there must have been some room as I believe the Nitrous Oxide might be carried there as well.


In an alternate history where more range was needed, the redesigned wings of the 109F might have taken fuel capacity into account as well. (in addition to possibly adopting the rear tank sooner) How that would fare against similarly engined 190 derivatives being developed around the same time, I'm not sure ... aside from the 190 likely being easier to fly and land.







wiking85 said:


> I thought the P-40B was actually pretty hampered by its modifications:
> Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The P-40B had a capacity of 160 US gallons in metal tanks with external self sealing material somewhat similar to the sort of protection used late in the BoB. The P-40C switched to totally new self-sealing tanks that reduced capacity to 134 US gal but added provisions for a 52 US gal drop tank to be fitted, more or less restoring maximum range. (though added empty weight and weight/drag losses from the drop tank may have lessened this somewhat)

The P-40B had a rather ambitious maximum ferry range claimed of 1230 miles (compared to a more plausible max range spec of 945 miles for the P-40C). US range figures tend to be calculated with zero allowance and the 1230 mile figure was for ideal minimum cruising conditions likely with the engine at 1600 RPM and being manually leaned down.

The P-40E increased its internal and external fuel capacity ( to approximately 149 US gal I believe), but gained a lot of weight and a bit of drag from the larger radiator. 

At high speed, the drag of the P-40 might have been vaguely similar to the 109E, but at economical cruise speeds, I'd think the weight induced drag of the P-40 would hamper it more than the 109. (both aircraft have fairly efficient cruise engines, somewhat more or less depending on the specific model compared -the Allison might have gained a bit more from 100 octane fuel allowing leaner mixtures without risking detonation, DB-601N aside)

601A vs 601N fuel consumption figures (and cruise altitudes) might be a significant factor in range as well.







Koopernic said:


> Fuel Charts for the Me 109F4 with DB601E are Here, the Gothic German might be hard to decipher.
> Beim-Zeugmeister: Page 4 - Range table


Using those figures to apply to the somewhat higher drag 109E airframe and the altitude/fuel consumption performance of the DB 601A using B4 fuel (not the 109E-4N), performance will likely have been somewhat worse either in range or cruise speed, or both. That said, I'd still believe the useful maximum range was well beyond 400 miles ... ferry range around 700 miles on internal fuel would be believable at optimal speed/altitude (probably more believable than the 1230 miles for the P-40B) and perhaps over 500 miles, maybe approaching 600 in combat.

But also remember that cruising at lower speeds increases vulnerability, though cruising at higher altitudes can partially mitigate this. But also consider that you can perhaps count on being able to patrol at high alt, but entering combat and losing lots of altitude and energy means either making the return trip at lower altitude or expending more fuel to climb. (either is going to cut range significantly) Practical combat radius with a drop tank would probably be less than 400 miles, maximum ferry range with a 300 L drop tank might be over 1000 miles though. (for cases of patrol, recon, and scouting, long range, relatively low speed, long endurance mission profiles might skew figures somewhat)

It would be useful to compare the cruise speeds of contemporary Japanese aircraft as well. (I know the likes of the F2A at least achieved its long range at pretty modest cruise speeds well below 200 MPH)






Shortround6 said:


> The large gain in speed using pretty much the same power (1175-1200) certainly points to a very large reduction in drag as does the improved turning performance and climbing performance.


The drag reduction in the low power low speed flight envelope might not have been as extreme between the 109E and F, though as above there's also the greater differences between the models using the 601A vs 601N. I still think the 410 mile figure is a bit conservative if lower cruise speeds are considered (or that ranges of Japanese aircraft cruising at higher speeds should be considered -as well as the metrics generally used for Japanese range performance), but approximately 800 miles (combat) with drop-tank to the 109F's >1000 miles seems reasonable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Even is range isn't the limiting factor (which would heavily depend on the configuration of the Fw 200), altitude is. With BMW 132 or Bramo 323 engines, the Fw 200 would bve hard pressed to navigate the high Himalayas than the C-47, let alone C-46 or B-24. (B-17 might have fared better still, but that's a separate topic).
> 
> Turbocharged variants using similar engines, or perhaps Jumo turbo diesels (though the 207 wouldn't be available early on), or adopting DB 601 or Jumo 211s might have been enough to make the difference. (and offer better cruise performance over the radials)
> 
> ...



Please look up the Americans actually flying the Hump. It took C-87s (cargo B-24s), C-54s, C-46s to really bring in the tonnage. It also took special C-47s, hundreds if not several thousand C-47s were built with *two-stage* supercharged R-1830 engines for this duty. Granted other theaters were siphoning off aircraft but it took quite a while to build up enough airlift to actually support an _offensive_ air force. This was flying from forward airfields in India. While you can reach China from Iran it is well over double the distance and cargos would be small( minuscule?) as most of the 'payload' would be fuel. 
The Germans may have had suitable designs (or designs that could be modified) but you needed transports by the hundreds if not several thousand for such an air lift scheme even with Indian air fields. 

A C-54 had about 10,000lbs more payload capacity (fuel and cargo) than a FW 200. 






> At optimal cruise power/speed, the DB 605 shouldn't have reduced range over the 601 on its own, though the overall increase in weight (and resulting drag) would be significant.
> 
> In an alternate history where more range was needed, the redesigned wings of the 109F might have taken fuel capacity into account as well. (in addition to possibly adopting the rear tank sooner) How that would fare against similarly engined 190 derivatives being developed around the same time, I'm not sure ... aside from the 190 likely being easier to fly and land.



The 109 was only so big. If you are trying to build a long range plane to take-off from crappy airfields keeping the small wing was probably _not_ the way to go. Using something more like the 109T wing or even bigger might have worked better. 109s with the extra tank in the fuselage were using heavier engines than the early 109s (and bigger oil coolers and such.) sticking in the rear tank with the small engine, even if there was room might not work out so well. 
Crashing planes on landing and take-off isn't good when you are only a few hundred miles from the factory and replacements. When you are thousands of miles away and replacement aircraft are weeks if not months in coming using planes or modifications with dubious handling qualities takes on a whole new aspect. 






http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109e-b-2.jpg

Fuel consumption figures for a 109E. rows across are manifold pressure, rpm, kph and liters/km. Upper 4 rows are with external load (?) lower 4 are without (?). 

Changes in range/cruising speed with altitude are often due to increased power needed to drive supercharger in high gear vs lower drag at high altitude. US Navy planes with 2 stage superchargers had the 2nd stage in neutral (no power being used to drive the aux stage) at low levels. 

Max range is often NOT the same as max endurance as best climbing speed is usually the lowest drag speed, most surplus power to be devoted to climb. However flying at climb speed in formation is tricky as as you are flying on and "edge". just a few mph slower and drag goes up as a higher angle of attack is needed to maintain lift. a few mph faster and drag starts to rise also. You also have a problem with some engines and/or engine controls. What rpm and boost pressures give the best power to the prop for fuel burned? Internal friction is related to the square of the rpm but boost pressure is not. low rpm and high boost (relative) gives better cruise due to lower internal friction. However not all engines/control setups allowed for the same amount of manual leaning of the mixture and the same amount of independent boost control vs rpm. Some American engines allowed for a number of varied adjustments. This worked well for impressive "book" ranges but assumed pilots well versed in the varied combinations. It also meant over-worked pilots in combat as the early control systems were often independent. Pilots in combat had to keep adjusting a variety of levers/knobs vs single lever or two lever control systems. 
I am assuming that most pilot's manuals gave a good recommendation for max range and flying slower than recommended wasn't going to get you much, if any further. In fact you might not make it as far. 

Go back to the P-40E chart just for illustration sake: 
http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-40/P-40FOIC.pdf

Go to column IV. at sea level the plane is doing 203mph IAS ( and at sea level that is pretty much the true airspeed) while running 1950rpm and 28 MAP. It is burning 40 US gallons an hour so it's "nominal" range is 630 miles on 120 gallons after deducting the 28 gallon allowance for warm-up, take of climb to 5000ft. 
Now go to 15,000ft. plane is running 2100rpm at 27in MAP (probably all the supercharger will provide at that rpm and altitude.) and is burning 51 US gallons and hour. It is doing the same 203mph IAS but it's true airspeed is something over 250mph (one conversion formula gives 264mph) so while the fuel burn went up 27.5% the distance traveled per hour went up 28-30%. it does take an extra 12 US gallons to get to 15,000ft (from 5,000ft)however and the plane is traveling at and average 140mph IAS while climbing and it takes 7 minutes. This is at 7500lbs. 

I would note that the Allison was a single speed supercharger so power to the supercharger only went up a little bit. When cruising many 2 speed engines stayed in low gear at higher altitudes than when operated for max power. Planes with automatic supercharger change over may or may not have an override or control that measures/compares ambient air to desired manifold pressure. 

You also have to be rather careful about comparing different planes. A P-40B needed 600hp at 15,000ft to "cruise" at 286mph according to one test. A P-36A at 15,000ft using 600hp went 264mph and needed 750hp to reach 285mph. 
Extra drag of the R-1830 required 25% more power to go the same speed. and from the fire wall back they were pretty much the same plane (OK different landing gear doors and few more MGs in the wing a a lot more weight) Trying to compare V-12 powered planes to things like the Brewster Buffalo gets rather difficult. The Buffalo changed over to high gear in the supercharger when looking for best power at around 7500-8000ft so it is doubtful that it used low gear even for cruise at 15,000ft. High gear took roughly double the power to drive the supercharger than low gear did. 

Many countries put out these "book" or 'yardstick' ranges as a way of comparing designs (and sometimes with bias) but they were in no way used for operational planning. 

We may not have good information on Japanese test results but we do know what they were capable of on operations and their operational results/capabilities were in excess of what US/British aircraft were capable of. Since the German aircraft didn't seem to enjoy any such marked difference in range/radius over the American/British aircraft in Europe it is a bit puzzling why people think they would magically gain such an increase in range/radius when flying in China? Ginseng root extract added to the fuel?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 17, 2015)

The Focke-Wulf Fw 200 was designed to cruise passengers at 10,000ft, the highest it was regarded as comfortable to fly passengers without oxygen or pressurisation.

One reason it was not produced in great numbers was that the 'cell' was built as a lightweight single piece that required a large area factory. It couldn't be broken down into sections and that's not how things had to be done in WW2 Germany. It's service ceiling of just under 20,000ft might presumably be improved with a two speed supercharger but since the 123 and 323 engines weren't for frontline combat aircraft why would anyone invest.

The Ju 252 was to be pressurised from the beginning and its Jumo 211F engines had two stage superchargers with even more power available at high altitude with the Ju 211J. It's hard to find a service ceiling for this aircraft, one site gives 21000ft which seems rather to low and probably refers to operational ceiling (where climb rate drops to 500ft/minute). Either way this aircraft with 4,410 lbs. (2000 kg) of payload had a range of 4,100 miles (6600 km) and would make air supply quite plausible but with First Flight in October 1941 its hard to see it in service till May 1942. The wooden built follow on to the Ju 252, the Ju 352, was slated for the BMW 801 and would have had cracking performance with that engine.

The long range Heinkel He 116 was actually designed to fly over the Himilays but its Turbo charged Hirth engines never seem to have entered production and it was only a 4 seat mailplane.

The Me 109F4 range with climb and 10% reserves, which I calculated, as 916km/568 miles would be about the same for the Me 109E1 given the low cruising speed 0f 370kmh/224mph wouldn't give an big advantage to the slipperier 109F. To put this in context the air miles from Hamburg to Munich, close to the entire length of Germany is only 320 miles. An Me 109 could be ferried that distance in less than an hour with reserves at maximum cruise. It must have seemed enough.

Recon versions for the Me 109G could carry 3 external 66Imp gallon 300L drop tanks and I suspect this would increase the range to about 1700 miles if the tanks were dropped and maybe about 1400 if carried. This would allow the Me 109 to self deliver with its own drop tanks, though I doubt the Me 109E would be up to it unless stripped down.

In regards to the Me 109, its DB601 has a reputation of high fuel efficiency at high speed cruise. I consider it somewhat of a technical accomplishment that it was competive in power to engines using 100 octane instead of 87 and seemed to have better fuel consumption outside of the turbocharged engines.

My view has been that the Heinkel He 112 would have been an excellent fighter for the Luftwaffe and might have forestalled some of the latter issues. No one complained of difficult take-off and landing characteristics. It had a wide track undercarriage, outward retracting at the point that the gull wing inflected. When powered by a 960hp DB600 its speed was 350mph and not slower than the Me 109. It carried a pair of synchronised 20mm canon in the cheeks and future versions could have carried a motor gun; 3x 20mm canon is more than enough for most missions. Although the wing was metal (to the chagrin of heinkel) it could easily have been built of wood, as Heinkel wanted to and had done on the He 70. This would have been Germany's metal saving wooden wonder. The aircraft had a clear view bubble canopy. The wings were free of slats and guns and no doubt could have carried significant quantities of fuel. It could take the more available Jumo 211. Rejecting this aircraft is somewhat reminiscent of Dumb and Dumber rejecting the Swedish Bikini squads offer of a lift.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 17, 2015)

A rough comparison between V-1710-39, or V-1710 F3 (chart taken from manual for the Mustang I) and DB-601N. Figures used for the 601N are 1175 PS at 4.9 km (1159 HP at 16080 ft), 1260 PS at 2.1 km (1243 HP at 6890 ft) and 1175 PS for TO; all from this graph.
Plenty of caveats for this graph. The authorized WER figure for the F3 engine should be about 1490 HP at 4300-4500 ft, the subsequent engines with same S/C gearing and reinforced crankcase (like the F4R and E6) will have 1580 HP at 2500 ft - there was a reason why the P-40 and P-39 were very good fighters under 10000 ft.

The Db 601N is one tricky engine  The graph is for 2600 rpm and max boost of 1.35 ata. The 601N installed in the Bf 109F was supposed to be rated for 1.42, however the Kennblatt notes that 1.35 ata is to be used as max boost? Hopefully someone could translate the footnote at pg. 6 of the Kennblatt for the Bf 109F1/F2, that can be downloaded from here. With 1.42 ata, the power should be easily above 1220 HP (above 1240 PS), since the Kennblatt says that engine on 1.35 ata will have 6% less power than when on 1.43 ata? The chart also does not show the power values when over revving at 2800 rpm is used, allowed above rated height - that would significantly boost altitude power. 
Further to the Bf-109F: this table (notes as of 1939) says, in the bottom sentence, that engines installed in this aircraft have an improved supercharger. Maybe the same one from late 601A model? The 601N in the Bf-109F is allowed for 3 min of max power, not just 1 min of duration.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 17, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> ...
> The Ju 252 was to be pressurised from the beginning and its Jumo 211F engines had two stage superchargers with even more power available at high altitude with the Ju 211J. ...



Not two stage, but 2-speed supercharger. The Jumo 211J have had more power at any altitude than 211F.



> In regards to the Me 109, its DB601 has a reputation of high fuel efficiency at high speed cruise. I consider it somewhat of a technical accomplishment that it was competive in power to engines using 100 octane instead of 87 and seemed to have better fuel consumption outside of the turbocharged engines.



The 33L engine should be at least as good as a 27L engine, when using similar technology  The 'seemed to' sequence seem to be redundant  - the numbers are posted several times on this board alone, and give 10% better mileage to the DB 601 vs. single stage Merlin or V-1710.
The Bf-109 was a small aircraft, many times it was also well streamlined (F and early G at least), those two properties make it cruise fast with modest power. It still need like 50% more internal external fuel (talk what Zero have had) to be really useful for vast Asian expanses. 



> My view has been that the Heinkel He 112 would have been an excellent fighter for the Luftwaffe and might have forestalled some of the latter issues. No one complained of difficult take-off and landing characteristics. It had a wide track undercarriage, outward retracting at the point that the gull wing inflected. When powered by a 960hp DB600 its speed was 350mph and not slower than the Me 109. It carried a pair of synchronised 20mm canon in the cheeks and future versions could have carried a motor gun; 3x 20mm canon is more than enough for most missions.



Did the DB-powered He-112 carried anything more than 3 MGs any time? The cannons (in versions that have those) were either in wings (MG FF cannons) or as an motor-cannon (that heavy 20mm). 
The undercarriage was probably a far better thing than what Bf-109 have had. The cockpit should be far better than what Bf 109 offered, the tailwheel was retractable from day one, though the wings do look thicker. More drag, but MG 151 can fit?
Once the Bf-109F is available, I'm not that sure that Daimlerized He-112 would offer better performance.



> Although the wing was metal (to the chagrin of heinkel) it could easily have been built of wood, as Heinkel wanted to and had done on the He 70. This would have been Germany's metal saving wooden wonder. The aircraft had a clear view bubble canopy. The wings were free of slats and guns and no doubt could have carried significant quantities of fuel. It could take the more available Jumo 211. Rejecting this aircraft is somewhat reminiscent of Dumb and Dumber rejecting the Swedish Bikini squads offer of a lift.



But could it be easily mass produced from wood? Further, the fuel was 101+101+115 liters = 317 liters total in 2 wing and 1 fuselage tanks - not going to cut it for anything than local defense once 1100+ HP engine is installed. Better to go with more Bf-109s?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The Focke-Wulf Fw 200 was designed to cruise passengers at 10,000ft, the highest it was regarded as comfortable to fly passengers without oxygen or pressurisation.
> 
> One reason it was not produced in great numbers was that the 'cell' was built as a lightweight single piece that required a large area factory. It couldn't be broken down into sections and that's not how things had to be done in WW2 Germany. It's service ceiling of just under 20,000ft might presumably be improved with a two speed supercharger but since the 123 and 323 engines weren't for frontline combat aircraft why would anyone invest.
> 
> The Ju 252 was to be pressurised from the beginning and its Jumo 211F engines had two stage superchargers with even more power available at high altitude with the Ju 211J. It's hard to find a service ceiling for this aircraft, one site gives 21000ft which seems rather to low and probably refers to operational ceiling (where climb rate drops to 500ft/minute). Either way this aircraft with 4,410 lbs. (2000 kg) of payload had a range of 4,100 miles (6600 km) and would make air supply quite plausible but with First Flight in October 1941 its hard to see it in service till May 1942. The wooden built follow on to the Ju 252, the Ju 352, was slated for the BMW 801 and would have had cracking performance with that engine.



Ok, can we have a reality check please? 

It is 2500 miles from even Western Afghanistan to the Chinese city of Kunming (base of the flying Tigers and Chinese Air Force). For an effective air lift you have to bring in more supplies (like fuel) than it takes to complete the round trip. The C-54 came in several different models which varied a bit in fuel capacity but a basic rating had the C-54 carrying 16,500lbs of cargo over 1500 miles. With max fuel (around 3600 gallons/21600lbs) it could carry 5400lbs of cargo 3900 miles. It was roughly 500 miles from the air bases in Assam to Kunming (there were at least 4 bases, some a little closer some a little further) which meant a C-54 could lug in 16,500lbs (or more) and _turn around and fly out *without refueling*_. Or least only a minor addition to the fuel needed for the return trip depending on weather. 

Flying transport planes on one way trips is certainly unsustainable. Please remember that the source of aviation fuel in Kunming was what was brought by the air transports. No railroad, no river traffic and no truck road after the Burma road falls. Granted the Japanese do not close off the Burma road until early 1942 (aside from the British closing for 3 months in 1940 due to Japanese diplomatic pressure) but the Burma road was no picnic either. Rail from Rangoon to Lashio and then hundreds of miles of dirt road through a number of mountain ridges and rivers. 
Germans in 1939-41 would do better to send heavy duty trucks to Burma than fool around with air transport. Unless they can get air bases in India air supply is just not a realistic option.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2015)

The B-29 raids on Japan from Chinese bases had to be put on hold after a few missions because they couldn't get enough fuel fast enough from India. What does this say about that "fly in fuel and supplies" theory?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 17, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Please look up the Americans actually flying the Hump. It took C-87s (cargo B-24s), C-54s, C-46s to really bring in the tonnage. It also took special C-47s, hundreds if not several thousand C-47s were built with *two-stage* supercharged R-1830 engines for this duty.


My comments regarding C-47 like aircraft were more an aside and should have been prefaced better. It was more in terms of general purpose medium range wide body transports, I was getting off topic.

Otherwise yes ... and the Ju-290 was more in the range of the DC-4/C-54, but wouldn't have been available early on (perhaps some earlier derivatives of the Ju-90 adapted to higher altitude) and the Ju 252 would be the closest counterpart to the C-46.




> The 109 was only so big. If you are trying to build a long range plane to take-off from crappy airfields keeping the small wing was probably _not_ the way to go. Using something more like the 109T wing or even bigger might have worked better. 109s with the extra tank in the fuselage were using heavier engines than the early 109s (and bigger oil coolers and such.) sticking in the rear tank with the small engine, even if there was room might not work out so well.
> Crashing planes on landing and take-off isn't good when you are only a few hundred miles from the factory and replacements. When you are thousands of miles away and replacement aircraft are weeks if not months in coming using planes or modifications with dubious handling qualities takes on a whole new aspect.


All that is also reasons that shifting priority to the Fw 190 family (likely developed more heavily with range requirements in mind) would have more likely been the sensible option.

The 109T is interesting at least, and even without the wider gear it could have improved takeoff/landing performance somewhat due to lower wing loading. Aside from the possible range modifications, there's also the potential of actually establishing a Naval air arm and continuing aircraft carrier development, but with just one carrier online in 1939/1940, use against the IJN would be pretty limited. (plus building up their naval air arm might strain things further with Britain ... maybe if they shifted priorities to escort carriers specific to defending merchant and military transport fleets it would have posed a different image?)

But on the topic of Bf 109 wing modifications, adding wing-root extensions more akin to the Bf 109H may have been more useful for expanding fuel tankage, easier to protect and plumb into the fuel system, and move the landing gear outward. 

The existing tooling and manufacturing infrastructure for the Bf 109 in 1939 would be a cost/time advantage to consider, of course, over other alternatives. Perhaps supplanting 109E production with 109T derivatives followed by introducing 109H (or somewhat smaller) root extensions on the 109F?





Koopernic said:


> It's service ceiling of just under 20,000ft might presumably be improved with a two speed supercharger but since the 123 and 323 engines weren't for frontline combat aircraft why would anyone invest.


Some of the 132 and 323 engines were already tuned for higher altitudes at the expense of take-off power, with critical altitudes around 10,000 ft. The 323-R series used on several of the military variants of the Fw-200 had 2-speed superchargers allowing 1200 PS on take-off with WM/50 and 940 PS at 4,000 m. (the R-1 lacking WM/50 injection was limited to 1000 PS on take-off)

Power and fuel consumption are still poorer at altitude than Jumo 211B-D series or DB 601A engines, though. (low-alt tuned supercharger models aside)



> My view has been that the Heinkel He 112 would have been an excellent fighter for the Luftwaffe and might have forestalled some of the latter issues. No one complained of difficult take-off and landing characteristics. It had a wide track undercarriage, outward retracting at the point that the gull wing inflected. When powered by a 960hp DB600 its speed was 350mph and not slower than the Me 109. It carried a pair of synchronised 20mm canon in the cheeks and future versions could have carried a motor gun; 3x 20mm canon is more than enough for most missions. Although the wing was metal (to the chagrin of heinkel) it could easily have been built of wood, as Heinkel wanted to and had done on the He 70. This would have been Germany's metal saving wooden wonder. The aircraft had a clear view bubble canopy. The wings were free of slats and guns and no doubt could have carried significant quantities of fuel. It could take the more available Jumo 211. Rejecting this aircraft is somewhat reminiscent of Dumb and Dumber rejecting the Swedish Bikini squads offer of a lift.


Is there any indication it would have been able to accept the Jumo 211 more easily than the He 100 would have? The relatively tight design of the latter apparently limited re-engining options, or at least the modifications were overall unattractive enough to turn Heinkel off to the idea. (at least on top of conflicts with RLM negotiations)

Given the timeframe we're discussing, the He 100 as a whole seems more attractive than the He 112, and Heinkel did address several of the shortcomings of the He 112 (particularly parts count and manufacturing complexity) and would have already invested in development prior to any changes in government in this thread's premise.

That said, with a radical shift in 1939, continued development of the He 100 itself may have changed. Earlier abandoning of the surface cooling system and possibly considering a longer span wing would have been significant. (not just for potential weight growth, but general handling and potential to handle smaller, rougher airfields) The wider track, outward opening landing gear already seem at least as good as the He 112.

Though one more point would be Heinkel compromising the historical He 100 design's practical improvements by focusing far too much on making a record setting aircraft rather than an efficient, practical military design. For that matter, it's rather a shame the He 100 wasn't developed with a modular engine approach, particularly one using an installation as similar as possible to that used for the DB/Jumo powered He 111. (itself somewhat mirroring the He 112 models using the retractable radiator) This would be a fantasy aircraft at this point, but having something with better than Bf 109 performance and still close to equal performance using the less ideal Jumo 211 while having friendlier handling, range, and cockpit visibility would be very significant. (advantages of a true bubble canopy over the He 100's arrangement depend on the design in question, and a bulged hood type canopy would probably be a more significant upgrade than the full bubble configuration)

The existing He 100 supposedly could have mounted MG 151s in the wing roots, meaning potentially 3 cannons in the DB powered models (but 2 with the Jumo -and no ability to use the MGFF), whether the weight of 3 cannons was worth it over lighter armaments is another matter though. (including provisions for cannon outboard of the landing gear on a longer span wing may have been useful)


That said, this is all just brining the design closer to the Fw 190 itself, and unless Heinkel's design remained significantly lighter and still competitive in range to similarly engined 190 variants, there doesn't seem to be too much advantage there. Plus, the Fw 187 had been on the scene earlier and more certainly could have been adapted to a wide variety of engines and roles along with heavier armaments and certainly long range. (the ability to use even the Jumo 210 or -likely- Bramo 323 and still have useful all-around performance would be very significant, though the Jumo 211 would be better, and DB 601 ideal -aside perhaps for durability advantages of the bramo)










Shortround6 said:


> Germans in 1939-41 would do better to send heavy duty trucks to Burma than fool around with air transport. Unless they can get air bases in India air supply is just not a realistic option.


Agreed.

Honestly, hypothetical tech discussion tangents aside, I was initially suggesting air routes specifically for transporting personnel and working around the diplomatic niggles of trying to transport them otherwise.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 18, 2015)

I presume the Japanese will just sit back whilst Germany transports its "Condor Legion" to China. Doesnt anyone think that as soon as the Japanese hear about a transport plane landing or Ship docking they will go and plaster it with bombs. 

I like what ifs but they have to make some sense this is about as likely as Japan invading California.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2015)

Actually the Japanese have a better chance of "invading" California. Stick a bunch of troops on merchant ships, sail to California and unload/invade (best done _before_ Pearl Harbor). Actually being able to sustain the invasion force/succeed is another story. 

Germans need to send ships to India or Burma(best case scenario) unload, use exiting crappy rail system/s to move to jump off point and then use trucks over really crappy local road system for hundreds of miles to reach a Chinese city of any size. Partial air lift requires Indian air bases. Once Japan has Burma it can use land based air + ships to block traffic in the Bay of Bengal forcing ship traffic to unload on west side of India.

Trans Siberian railway is hundreds (many hundreds) of miles from the Chinese border let alone any significant Chinese city. Trans Mongolian railway didn't exist before/during WW II. Trying to move supplies by truck (or build hundred of miles of rail line) through Kazakhstan or Mongolia would be a massive undertaking. Truck traffic would be limited by weather ( summer offensive has to wait for spring thaw as no/few trucks make it through in winter? It may be around 1200 miles from Kunming to the southern Mongolian border. 

Air lift without a jump off point is a joke. It is just under 4400 miles from Bucharest to Kunming. The Germans have planes that can make the distance (given good winds or at least not adverse winds) but carrying minuscule cargo and no fuel to get back out again. Even a single intermediate airfield just means you can deliver 1/2-2 tons per trip while burning thousand of gallons of fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2015)

There is little doubt that _*IF*_ a force of 109Es, 110s and He 111s had been able to arrive in 1939 they would have dominated the area they were in (assuming adequate fuel/ammo/etc). What happens as time goes on gets _iffier_. 
With the Ki 27 and A5M both shown to be totally obsolete how fast can the Japanese replace them? DO the Japanese change design philosophy? 

The German air industry was larger and in general, more capable than the Japanese industry, and may be able to react or introduce new designs faster, Germans shot themselves in both feet by trying to be too revolutionary rather than evolutionary. Japanese did the same thing and it is a fine line when you only have a certain amount of design teams or staff. DO you try to make a big leap forward so you are not left behind and then stumble leaving you producing old designs or do you improve old designs knowing at some point you will be beating dead horses?

What if the Japanese give up on the Ki-43 and build a big wing Ki-44. Not as fast as the Ki-44 and not as maneuverable as the Ki-43 but as fast as a 109E and more maneuverable while carrying two 7.7mm and two 12.7mgs for starters? 
What if, the Japanese facing stiffer opposition in 1939/40, decide a Kinsai powered Zero might be a good idea for early 1942? 

Assuming (logistics aside) that a German "Legion" shows up in 1939 and stays until 1942 or after and the Japanese change _nothing_ in their aircraft design/procurement is a mighty big assumption.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 18, 2015)

The Germans shipping materials through British controlled India or Burma sounds complicated. Politically it might be possible but I think Japanese sea power even would preclude much in that way.

American 1942/43 transports flying the hump are definitely sound superior to German 1939/40 transports. Nevertheless they have the aircraft do a reasonable job.

Case 1 the Blohm and Voss BV.142, could transport 30 fully equipped soldiers over 4,000km /2480 miles.

Case 2 the Dornier Do 26A had a range of 9000km / 5400 miles. One 14 February 1939 the veteran Lufthansa pilot Flight Captain Siegfried Graf Schack von Wittenau embarked on a mercy flight from Germany to Chile, taking 580 kg (1,279 lb) of medical supplies for earthquake victims in Chile. The 10,700 km (6,600 mi) flight lasted 36 hours.

Case 3 is the Fw 200S which flew over 4000 miles from Berlin to New York. Surely shorter routes with several tons of cargo are practical, more so if the more powerfull engines applied the the Fw 200C are used.

It is extremely difficult to find data for the Fw 200B (civilian version) most often data given is for the Fw 200C3 Kurrier which had the extra weight of two dorsal guns positions, a massive ventral gondola for guns, gunners, bombardier and bombs and protected fuel tanks as well as reinforcement to help the extra weight. In that configuration it could fly over 2200 miles though it could carry drop tanks and internal tanks.

The most plausible link I can find is 1600km/1000 miles from Mashhad in Eastern Iran to a city in Xinjiang such as Kashgar China. A round trip by Fw 200 without need to refuel in China is possible.

These are both Silk route cities with substantial populations and cultural links. Politically it might be possible in 1939/41.

Rezā Shāh had ascended the throne in 1925. Iran had been invaded by the British in an attempt to use it as a route to interfere with the Soviet Revolution, as a result the Soviets annexed all of those so called Southern Soviet Provinces.

Rezā Shāh tried to balance the influence of the imperialist countries such as Britain and Russia. For instance he disallowed British Imperial Airways and gave Lufthansa European rights to fly to Iran. He worked to maintain good relations with Nazi Germany and many hundreds of German technicians helped build the Iranian economy.

Rezā Shāh fought to keep his country neutral. A combined British and Soviet Invasion in 1941 made him a captive of the British for the rest of his life and made him abdicate in favour of his son, the final Shah of Iran who was deposed by the Iranian Islamic Revolution of Khomeini. The final shah was little more than a puppet at this time and the reputation for his regime being a puppet of Anglo American oil interests remained and lead to his over throw.

Britain was not regarded as benign in the middle east and if the Germans offered an escape it would be taken.

Other possible routes are from Turkey, neutral but Friendly and helpful to Germany. A direct flight from the Eastern Provinces of Turkey to Western China might be 1400 miles.

The Ju 252 could carry 2.5 tons 4100 miles more cargo. It had been held up due to WW2 in 1939 and 1940 but might have been flying in 1940 if the trappo klappe is not used.

This is definitely the most economical aircraft possible. The Ju 290 would also be a capable beast.


You might try flying by Sea plane such as the Do 26 from Eastern Turkish Lakes to Lakes in China such as Bosten Lake or a city on the Tarim River which then immediately gives navigation. This would provide a supplementary service to regions deeper into China.

The short range of the German fighters is somewhat compensated for by their speed as interceptors, the advantages of German Radar in portability and accuracy. In 1940 aircraft such as the Ju 88A1 are also available, they can self deliver with ferry and drop tanks and provide a unique way of accurately delivering bombs. They would be hard to intercept by the relatively slow Japanese fighters.

I understand we are talking of only 2 tons per flight so hundreds of aircraft and several take-off and landing fields would be required.

The bare minimum of 650 tons per day (20000 tons month) that was regarded as necessary to keep the 6th Army at Stalingrad barely going gives an indication that 330 successful missions per day would be required and suggest that almost twice as many aircraft would be needed.

Hence only a few squadrons of fighters and light bombers and 2-3 divisions could be realistically maintained by the Germans. Assuming they scrape together 100 Fw 200 and fly in 50 sorties of 2.5 tons per day we are delivering 125 tons.

You probably need 700kg per Me 109 mission of fuel, oil, ammunition, spares, drop tank (on most occasions) giving you about 180 missions/day
A Ju 88 mission probably would take 4 times as much giving you 45 missions/day.

Split the difference and you can maintain two squadrons of 16 Ju 88 flying a daily mission and 5 squadrons of Me 109 (80) flying daily missions. 

Of course you then need to maintain the air base, air base security, FLAK, radar, maintenance crews which double the transport requirements from 100 to maybe 150-200 plus another 100 to supply a few German Battalions.

It's tremendously expensive.

This would become a lot easier with the Ju 252 as it would be shifting in twice as much cargo. It could also take in small trucks and AFV. 

I believe the USAAF achieved 50,000 tons/ month in the last year of the war flying the hump.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 18, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> There is little doubt that _*IF*_ a force of 109Es, 110s and He 111s had been able to arrive in 1939 they would have dominated the area they were in (assuming adequate fuel/ammo/etc). What happens as time goes on gets _iffier_.
> With the Ki 27 and A5M both shown to be totally obsolete how fast can the Japanese replace them? DO the Japanese change design philosophy?
> 
> The German air industry was larger and in general, more capable than the Japanese industry, and may be able to react or introduce new designs faster, Germans shot themselves in both feet by trying to be too revolutionary rather than evolutionary. Japanese did the same thing and it is a fine line when you only have a certain amount of design teams or staff. DO you try to make a big leap forward so you are not left behind and then stumble leaving you producing old designs or do you improve old designs knowing at some point you will be beating dead horses?
> ...



The Ki-44 though would be running into the Fw190 and Me109F/G in 1942.



Shortround6 said:


> Actually the Japanese have a better chance of "invading" California. Stick a bunch of troops on merchant ships, sail to California and unload/invade (best done _before_ Pearl Harbor). Actually being able to sustain the invasion force/succeed is another story.
> 
> Germans need to send ships to India or Burma(best case scenario) unload, use exiting crappy rail system/s to move to jump off point and then use trucks over really crappy local road system for hundreds of miles to reach a Chinese city of any size. Partial air lift requires Indian air bases. Once Japan has Burma it can use land based air + ships to block traffic in the Bay of Bengal forcing ship traffic to unload on west side of India.
> 
> ...



Yet the Soviets managed to get huge amounts of aid to the KMT between 1937-40, how did they do so when the ports were blocked?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

I'll repost my earlier sentiments about this scenario and add to it that establishing a transport route across Asia to supply an expeditionary force is a perilous gamble. Like I mentioned in this post, the Japanese have a considerable amount of assets and personnel (many with combat experience) throughout the region.

Even if the Germans were to get fighters into the area, how many would it take to be able to achieve the upper hand against the superior numbers of IJN and IJA fighters? How would the Wehrmacht be able to gain a toe-hold against the numerous divisions of IJA that would be ready to oppose them?

Might also mention that the monsoon season and violent weather also restricted Allied flights between India and China by a great deal...this needs to be considered as well.



GrauGeist said:


> Allowing overflights and "tons of trade" to pass through the Soviet Union is one thing, but to move entire Armies (men and equipment) is another. And again, even *if* Uncle Joe was to set aside his paranoia and allow Germany to move the bulk of it's army through Soviet proper, how would the German logistics handle the unforgiving Russian winters and the swampy quagmires of the Russian spring? Or perhaps the war with Japan would only be a seasonal affair?
> 
> Hitler or not, the Germans of the time viewed Russia with a cautious eye and the historic "neutrality" between Germany and the Soviet Union was a facade and both knew that a showdown was inevitable.
> 
> ...


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

Let's also look at the what the Japanese had available by 1940:

Fighters:
KI-10 
A5M 
A6M 
KI-27 
KI-43 

Attack:
D3A Type 99
KI-15
KI-51
B5M Type 97
B5N Type 97
KI-36
B4Y Type 96

Bombers:
KI-48
G3M Type 96
KI-21
KI-30

Recon:
E7K Type 94
H6K Type 97
F1M Type 0
E8N Type 95
E14Y Type 0

Granted, some of these aircraft were nearing the end of their front line usefulness and there were also many types that were in the last stages of development or preparing for production/introduction in 1940.

The point being that Japan had a considerable amount of types that were on hand or soon to be available to challenge anything the Germans would have tried to get into theater.

Since Japanese assets weren't occupied and drawn away against Allied points, the IJN/IJA would be able to concentrate against a German expedition.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2015)

It is not enough just to land a plane somewhere in China. It is over 1800 miles from Kashgar to Kunming. It is about 1000 miles from Berlin to Moscow. 1400 miles from Berlin to Stalingrad. In Eastern Europe you had railroads at least part way. There was no railroad connecting Kashgar with the rest of China. The ONLY railroad connecting Kunming to _anywhere_ went to Hanoi, Veitnam. The "silk road" was a network of camel trails. It doesn't matter what size Kashgar was or any other city in far western China if their connection to eastern China was an over 1000 mile camel journey, and more likely 2000 miles. 

The Tarim River doesn't actually go anywhere, it used to dead end in a salt encrusted lake bed in a dessert area. How navigable the western ends of rivers that reach the more populated areas of eastern China may be subject to question. Yibin is considered the head of navigation on the Yagtze river at 305 meters above sea level. It is about 280 miles NNE of Kunming and in a different river valley. The Yangtze starts in the Himalayas at over 4900 meters. White water rafting may be a good sport, it is a lousy way to move fuel drums and spare aircraft engines. 

Since China was producing just about zero gasoline of any sort, let alone av-gas, any ranges of transports have to be cut in half if not to about 1/3 to allow for round trips ( and warm-ups, take-off and climbs when flying back-out plus reserves for weather/wind changes). 

You also have to figure out supply routes/areas of operation that avoid the Chinese communist dominated areas. 

The German aircraft are just not going to be up to the job. The American aircraft were barely up to the job and had several advantages. The C-54 used P W R-2000 14 cylinder engines (32.7 liters) compared to the German 9 cylinder engines which would have been R-1690s (27.7L) or R-1640s (26.8L) using US designations. The R-2000 also maxed out at 2700rpm. Throw in the 100/130 fuel and there was no way the German 9 cylinder radials were going to come close in power (initial rating was for 1300hp take-off on 87-91 octane) And in fact the R-2000 could match the Jumo 211 pretty well for power, Not only 1450hp for take-off at sea level (for high airfields take of 2% per 1000ft and for hot airfields it gets worse) but 1100hp at 16,000ft military power and 1000hp max continuous at 14,000/17,000ft depending on model/fuel. A tri-engine plane using Jumo 211s wasn't going to match a C-54.
The C-46 with it's pair of 2000hp R-2800s was considered under powered. Max continuous of 1450hp per engine at 13,000ft left them a bit lacking in altitude performance too. and that is a true max continuous, as long as the fuel lasts, not a 30 minute climb rating. They could pull 1600hp at 13,500ft military power. 

BMW 132J had a 810hp climb rating at 12,400ft and the Bramo 323 with two speed supercharger was rated at 770hp climb rating at 14,700ft. One R-2800 was worth a bit under two of the German 9 cylinder engines.

The american planes were newer, had newer engines and had better fuel. They are not direct comparisons with the German older transport designs. I am not trying to argue which was better, just use the American planes as a bench mark. If they had trouble with air supply over a 500 mile stage then how can older, lower powered aircraft actually form and air bridge over triple or quadruple the distance?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> The american planes were newer, had newer engines and had better fuel. They are not direct comparisons with the German older transport designs. I am not trying to argue which was better, just use the American planes as a bench mark. If they had trouble with air supply over a 500 mile stage then how can older, lower powered aircraft actually form and air bridge over triple or quadruple the distance?


And even still, the "hump" is still littered with numerous wrecks to this day, of those flights that never made it...


----------



## Just Schmidt (Apr 19, 2015)

This is so beautiful it makes my eyes water.

Instead of launching Europe into a six year nightmare, the Germans suddenly decides to embark upon an unparallelled sustained humanitarian effort to save their asiatic brethren from the vile Japanese agressor. Discarding any narrow Eurocentric notions about strategic georgraphy, they then fine tune their development programmes for asiatic warfare, and devote most of their national resources, the very best in aircraft and their finest pilots, to at any given time denying the Japanese the satisfaction of terror bombing two or three Chinese cities, of their choice.

In the process, by infusing incredible amounts of money and resources into the numerous staging points on the (by neccessity seasonal) several supply routes to inland China, they help the world economy to finally overcome the depression, without the need for grinding away unfathomable amounts of human lives and materiel.

Everyone is happy (With the possible exception of the Japanese), and Deutschland über alles is played worldwide on a daily basis throughout the rest of the milennium on every radio station.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2015)

A site with information on the "hump" operation.

FLYING THE HUMP

A few highlights;

"In July, 1945, 77,306 tons of supplies were flown over the Hump to China. At that time the ATC was operating 622 aircraft, supported by 34,000 U. S. military personnel and 47,000 civilian personnel."

That is an average of 124 tons per plane per month. And at this point many/most of the flights were going over the southern "low hump" with most missions not going over 12,000ft. This total tonnage _may_ include cargo flown in by other commands on occasion.

Cost was----" Official records of Search and Rescue were closed at the end of 1945. Their final records showed 509 crashed aircraft records "closed", and 81 lost aircraft still classified as "open". Three hundred twenty-eight (328 ) of the lost aircraft were ATC. Thirteen hundred fourteen (1,314) crew members were known dead, 1,171 walked out to safety, and 345 were declared still missing."

Granted the "high hump (15-16,000ft)" had not only high altitude but bad weather conditions and a longer, more circuitous route may have lost fewer aircraft per mile flown but at the cost of thousands more miles flown per ton of of cargo delivered.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 19, 2015)

I think its pretty conclusive that "The Hump" is not a viable supply option for Germany in 1940 or beyond. Nor is sea transport once the coast is seized by mid-1940. So that leaves either the USSR or French Indochina. The only option for shipping is Haifong, which was a rail link with China that the Japanese cannot attack without triggering war with France and Britain.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 19, 2015)

Maps of the connections between Russia and China:





http://www.emersonkent.com/images/china_1944.jpg
map-japadvancesinchina1938-39.jpg Photo by CougarGA7 | Photobucket

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Apr 19, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> A site with information on the "hump" operation.
> 
> FLYING THE HUMP
> 
> ...




Good grief, 502 aircraft and 1314 confirmed dead!
That's probably a more dangerous activity than being a bomber crewman in the Battle of Britain!


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 19, 2015)

the german "blitzkreig" concept would be no existant in a war like this. they would have no choice but to model their airforce and army along different tactics and strategies.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 20, 2015)

bobbysocks said:


> the german "blitzkreig" concept would be no existant in a war like this. they would have no choice but to model their airforce and army along different tactics and strategies.



I don't think that the Germans would change their overall tactics based on the Chinese experience, given that they recognized that the SCW wasn't enough of a modern experience to alter their doctrine. Also I highly doubt they could get any ground forces in unless perhaps France agreed to supply them and transit them. As we can see from the map above they either need the French to allow supply or the Soviets and in the latter case it would only be brought so far by rail, the rest would need to be motored in over hundreds of miles, which would be far too much for ground force supply and would seriously limit air force supply. Basically the French are needed to get supplies in. Maybe if the Germans are able to appeal to the US to get the French to allow supplies in, or get the US to sell to China, which in turn is used by the Germans to get around the French's issues with Germany?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2015)

You also had two "China's" even before WW II started. The Communist party and the Nationalists (or what would become the Nationalists) plus more than few somewhat independent warlords. An outside country sort of had to pick which one they were going to ally with and plan supply routes accordingly as they two groups did NOT share well even when co-operating to defeat the Japaneses. Trying to transit hundreds of miles of the other groups territory could mean large percentages of the supplies going _missing_. The Communists tended to be in the North and the Nationalists in the South. In part perhaps because the Communists were supported more by the Russians? There tended to be a fair amount of hording of supplies to be used against each other rather than the Japanese.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 20, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> You also had two "China's" even before WW II started. The Communist party and the Nationalists (or what would become the Nationalists) plus more than few somewhat independent warlords. An outside country sort of had to pick which one they were going to ally with and plan supply routes accordingly as they two groups did NOT share well even when co-operating to defeat the Japaneses. Trying to transit hundreds of miles of the other groups territory could mean large percentages of the supplies going _missing_. The Communists tended to be in the North and the Nationalists in the South. In part perhaps because the Communists were supported more by the Russians? There tended to be a fair amount of hording of supplies to be used against each other rather than the Japanese.



After the long march the ChiComs were pretty well smashed and barely surviving. Their powerbase was well outside the Eastern or Southern supply routes. The KMT controlled bother pretty well.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Apr 22, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Freya was demountable and participated in the 1938 Sudeten crisis in Czechoslovakia and one was flown by Ju 52 and erected during Fall Gelb, the invasion of Norway, that arose when Vidkund Quisling informed Hitler that the Norwegian Cabinet had decided to surrender to Britain when the UK's pre-emptive strategic invasion of Norway occurred.



Fall gelb was the invasion of the low contries and France, the code name for the invasion of Denmark and Norway was weserübung. Quisling did warn Hitler that he _feared_ a Norwegian surrender to the allies, should they invade. However, Hitler didn't let himself persuade at that time though others, like Raeder, pressed for an occupation of Norway. The allies didn't plan to invade more of Norway than Narvik, and the railroad from there to the Swedish ore mines. Like the Germans, they assumed the Norwegians (and the Swedes), wouldn't resist invasion from anyone. In any event, it wasn't a pure british invasion, it was as much a french one. Usually, the Altmark affair is seen as the event that swayed Hitler. There certainly hadn't at that time been made any decision in the Norwegian cabinet that they would surrender to a british, or any, invasion.

Anyway the Norwegian government didn't know that the alliea planned a pre-emptive strike, or for certain that the german invasion was underway. At least not until thye day before 9th of april. Even then, it was unclear who were entering Norwegian territorial waters. As so many early war german adventures, it was hard to fathom that germany would dare undertake such an operation. The role aircraft would play was only anticipated by few.

Now the information about the rader set may be correct, but with so many other errors in the source, I'm willing to doubt it. Then again, your source may have information that is not generally known to Norwegian historians.


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 23, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually the Japanese have a better chance of "invading" California. Stick a bunch of troops on merchant ships, sail to California and unload/invade (best done _before_ Pearl Harbor). Actually being able to sustain the invasion force/succeed is another story.



Not if John Belushi has anything to say about it... *wink*


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 23, 2015)

Maybe a throw-away idea, but the thought came up regarding using Zeppilins for long-range transport hauling. With WWII never starting, and a different German government in power, the Zeppelin program may not have been dismantled. Logistically speaking (at least in terms of fuel, range, and operational costs) airships break away from a lot of the limiting factors for large, long-range heavier than air transports.


----------



## wiking85 (May 23, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Maybe a throw-away idea, but the thought came up regarding using Zeppilins for long-range transport hauling. With WWII never starting, and a different German government in power, the Zeppelin program may not have been dismantled. Logistically speaking (at least in terms of fuel, range, and operational costs) airships break away from a lot of the limiting factors for large, long-range heavier than air transports.



Their transport capabilities are pretty minimal and they are extremely dangerous with the lack of Helium to make them safe. Plus they take a long time to take a minimal load the necessary distance and require specific infrastructure at both ends of the trip.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 23, 2015)

I you think the weather was harsh on the transports and bombers flying the "hump", just imagine how a Zepplin would do in that situation...


----------



## Shortround6 (May 23, 2015)

I think you have been reading Greatheart Silver one too many times. 

As I understand it (and I could be way wrong on this) the airships greatest load lifting ability is at sea level and falls off with altitude. World record for altitude on a commercial zeppelin flight was 5500ft. What route are you using into China?


----------

