# Taking the Hs 123 back in production during WW2 ?



## Civettone (Dec 4, 2009)

I am a big fan of the Hs 123. Even though few were built they served in WW2 under the harshest conditions until 1944. They were simple rugged low flying ground support aircraft though initially used as a dive bomber. 

Its armament was a single 250 kg bomb underneath the fuselage or four 50 kg bombs under the wings and a fuel tank under the fuselage. Or a 20mm pod could be installed under each wing, thereby supplementing the two synchronized light 7.92mm MGs. 
_
The greatest tribute to the Hs 123 usefulness came in January 1943 when Generaloberst Wolfram von Richthofen, then commander-in-chief of Luftflotte 4, asked whether production of the Hs 123 could be restarted because the Hs 123 performed well in a theater where mud, snow, rain and ice took a heavy toll on the serviceability of more advanced aircraft. However, the Henschel factory had already dismantled all tools and jigs in 1940._ (from wiki)

Of course he was not calling the shots but I am sure that if Hitler had ordered producing it again, that is what would have happened. The aircraft was well known and even though it would have taken some time to develop the jigs and set up a new production line, the development of the aircraft had already been done.
The new aircraft would probably have been the Hs 123C with a closed cockpit, armoured headrest and the stronger BMW 132K engine.

One might wonder as to why the Hs 123 would be taken back in production when the Hs 129, Ju 87 and even Fw 190F could do the job even better. The answer to that is simply economics. The Hs 123 was a very simple, easy to produce, operate and maintain aircraft which weight around 2 ton (compared to the 5 tons of the Ju 87) and had a very high survivability rate. It could also be an excellent night harassment aircraft in the West.

One personal idea I have been thinking of is to install a 30mm MK 103 underneath the fuselage. As the Hs 123 could carry a 250 kg bomb it could also carry this gun. The MK 103 was sufficient to penetrate most of the Russian armored vehicles. The gun could also be dropped in case of an emergency after which the nimble Hs 123 could rather easily lose its opponent.

Kris


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 4, 2009)

I've always liked the lines of this plane. Intersting thought, however, when considering the trend through the course of the war on both sides toward faster, more powerful aircraft, it's doubtfull that the ruggedness and serviceablity of this machine alone could have justified continued production. Production facilities should have been geared toward producing more units of fewer types and focusing on fighters and fast ground attack planes. The Eastern Front gradually saw better, more numerous, and better flown fighters on the Russian side and I'm sure the losses of the ground attack aircraft would have been much higher had the 123 taken the place of say more Fw-190's doing a similar role.

Thanks for the post. I'm sure this will be well debated.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 4, 2009)

Well the 30mm MK 103 under the fuselage is a non- starter, they couldn't syncro it to fire through the propeller.
But the Hs 123 also used custer munitions of which the Luftwaffe had a great number (at least cataloged if not in actual inventory) With a cluster bomb under each wing holding 40-90 hollow charge bomblets it wouldn't take that many Hs 123s to make things interesting for a Russian tank formation. 

THe ability of a plane to take-off in muddy or snowy conditions may beat a must faster, heavier armed plane that is stuck on the runway.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2009)

Civettone said:


> The gun could also be dropped in case of an emergency after which the nimble Hs 123 could rather easily lose its opponent.



I think it would have a hard time losing most enemy fighters purely because of its slow speed. It could dodge very well alright, being as nimble as it was, but it would only be delaying the inevitable. A Yak fighter would've made mince meat of it.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 4, 2009)

Crimea_River said:


> I've always liked the lines of this plane. Intersting thought, however, when considering the trend through the course of the war on both sides toward faster, more powerful aircraft, it's doubtfull that the ruggedness and serviceablity of this machine alone could have justified continued production. Production facilities should have been geared toward producing more units of fewer types and focusing on fighters and fast ground attack planes. The Eastern Front gradually saw better, more numerous, and better flown fighters on the Russian side and I'm sure the losses of the ground attack aircraft would have been much higher had the 123 taken the place of say more Fw-190's doing a similar role.
> 
> Thanks for the post. I'm sure this will be well debated.


Thanks for the encouragement 
There was indeed a trend to heavier and faster aircraft. Yet, the Hs 123 remained succesful until 1944. Taking a look at the losses by Schlachtflugzeugen on the Eastern Front in 1944 shows a truly remarkable low number of losses ! This also applies to the Hs 129 and Ju 87 which were easier targets for the Russian fighters.

I was in fact thinking of production. It is a cheap alternative to these heavier aircraft as the emphasis was going to bombers and (night) fighters. Building expensive Fw 190Fs for the Russian front or for night harrassment in Italy seems to be too much to ask. 



Shortround6 said:


> Well the 30mm MK 103 under the fuselage is a non- starter, they couldn't syncro it to fire through the propeller.
> But the Hs 123 also used custer munitions of which the Luftwaffe had a great number (at least cataloged if not in actual inventory) With a cluster bomb under each wing holding 40-90 hollow charge bomblets it wouldn't take that many Hs 123s to make things interesting for a Russian tank formation.


Thanks Shortround, I was wondering about that. Can you elaborate on the MK 103 syncro? I know the Fw 190 had a problem with it but this was because of the different priming IIRC. Does it also apply to the MK 101?

And about the SD-2 bombs, the Germans realized that the cannon (and later rocket) was far superior as it was more accurate. Also, I think it works better against tank formations - as you said - but these were dangerous to attack and the Germans seem to have focused on single tanks or tanks in a convoy. 



Soren said:


> I think it would have a hard time losing most enemy fighters purely because of its slow speed. It could dodge very well alright, being as nimble as it was, but it would only be delaying the inevitable. A Yak fighter would've made mince meat of it.


Fewer Hs 123s were lost to enemy aircraft than the Ju 87. But in general attack aircraft losses to enemy fighters was rather low especially compared to the Western Front. The Hs 123 proved to be very difficult to shoot down because it was more manoeuvrable than any fighter (unless they would crank up an old I-153). It was also rugged and could take quite a bit of punishment.

I do consider both the Ju 87 as Hs 129 to be superior attack aircraft. But the Hs 123 is a cheap solution while production would mainly go to fighter aircraft.
Kris


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2009)

I have no doubt in the fact that the Hs123 was very nimble and rugged, but its slow speed would mean it could never hope to escape enemy fighters but at best hope to throw them off enough times so as to either have them spend all their ammunition or gain enough time for friendly fighters to come in and help. But then again, a Hs129 or Ju-87 wasnt going to outrun any fighter either.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 4, 2009)

I don't know if it works that way Soren. Because then you are also saying that the more nimble fighter would only delay the inevitable: the power fighter would climb and attack again and again. And you know that is not how it worked. Most attacks were single passes after which the opportunity was gone.


Kris


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2009)

In fighter vs fighter scenarios often just a single pass was used, that's true. But here we're talking about a very slow ground attack aircraft, a biplane infact, who's only defence is turning out of the way, it has no rear gunner and very little armour. So it is no fighter vs fighter battle. But I'm neither saying that a nimble fighter will always loose to a power fighter, far from it, but again this is no fighter vs fighter scenario. 

Furthermore attacks on enemy ground attack aircraft were most often not just single passes, they often lasted for several passes until the victim was finally shot down.


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 4, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Yet, the Hs 123 remained succesful until 1944. Taking a look at the losses by Schlachtflugzeugen on the Eastern Front in 1944 shows a truly remarkable low number of losses ! This also applies to the Hs 129 and Ju 87 which were easier targets for the Russian fighters.



Are you looking at straight numbers or percentages? How many of these types were flying in 1944? If there are only a few dozen around, and 5 are lost, the loss of five aircraft sounds like a "remarkably low number" but as a percent, it's pretty bad. I don't have the figures but would be interested in knowing. Same for the 129's and Stukas.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 5, 2009)

Soren, I agree. 
Also note that low speed at this point actually becomes an advantage. 



Crimea_River said:


> Are you looking at straight numbers or percentages? How many of these types were flying in 1944? If there are only a few dozen around, and 5 are lost, the loss of five aircraft sounds like a "remarkably low number" but as a percent, it's pretty bad. I don't have the figures but would be interested in knowing. Same for the 129's and Stukas.


Of course I am talking percentage wise ...
And same for the Panzerknackers and Stukas.

Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 5, 2009)

I'm about to hijack the thread 

The Do-17 adapted for down dirty attacks could be a more viable idea.
It used non-strategic engines*, the twin layout allowed for wide assortment of cannon armament, and the dorsal turret featuring MG-151 would provide a nice punch. Of course, a crew of two in an armored crew department is a must. Some under-wing rockets would make it a good all-round ground attack plane.

*and not the troublesome G&R ones


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 5, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm about to hijack the thread
> 
> The Do-17 adapted for down dirty attacks could be a more viable idea.
> It used non-strategic engines*, the twin layout allowed for wide assortment of cannon armament, and the dorsal turret featuring MG-151 would provide a nice punch. Of course, a crew of two in an armored crew department is a must. Some under-wing rockets would make it a good all-round ground attack plane.
> ...



Might not solve the the muddy runway problem.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 5, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm about to hijack the thread


Nooooooo !!!!!! 


But anyway, the GR 14Ms were not troublesome but very reliable. They got their bad reputation from North Africa but problems were solved by sand filters.
And the Do 17 is not really that cheap ... what is really needed is a cheap and expendable aircraft. 


And no, I am not going to discuss this here with you Tomislav. Start your own damn thread !! 
Kris


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Soren, I agree.
> Also note that low speed at this point actually becomes an advantage.



Well if the enemy fighter holds full throttle then yeah, but I doubt he will against a foe which can't even reach half his top speed. If I was in a Yak for example, I'd throttle down, slip in behind and fire a burst. If I'm lucky the first burst will bring the Hs123 down (biplanes usually can't take much in the way gun fire). If not and the Hs123 turns sharplyaway then I'll simply throttle up, climb away, look around to see if any enemy fighters are around, if not then target him again and go in for another pass.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2009)

I am a 123 fan and I totally agree that the 123 should have been put back into production.

With a few twists. A rear gunner (not just for gunnery, as I said before, his eyes are more valuable than his gun) protection by at leas a few 109s for each Geschwader of 123s, spin stablized rocket aramament, and retractable landing gear. Engine can continue to be the BMW 132 K.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 6, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> I am a 123 fan and I totally agree that the 123 should have been put back into production.
> 
> With a few twists. A rear gunner (not just for gunnery, as I said before, his eyes are more valuable than his gun) protection by at leas a few 109s for each Geschwader of 123s, spin stablized rocket aramament, and retractable landing gear. Engine can continue to be the BMW 132 K.



But then you don't have a 123. 

The 123s may have been operating a fair bit at night in1943/44. 

Retractable landing gear isn't going to give enough speed to save the plane vrs a real fighter. It will increase cost, increase maintainence, and quite possible decrease the ability to operate from really crappy airstrips. ( pull wheel cowlings and fit bigger tires to fixed gear aircraft).

Some sort of rockets would be a good idea though


----------



## Soren (Dec 6, 2009)

How about fitting a rocket motor in the back to be used in an emergency to pull away from enemy fighters ???  *Seeya suuckers!!* 

No I like the idea of bringing the Hs 123 back, mainly because it's cheap, but it needs some modifications first (No, not a rocket  ). Overall though the Ju-87 is a much better choice.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 7, 2009)

Shortround, can you please elaborate on what you said about the MK 103 not being able to be synchro ??


Kris


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2009)

OK, I'll explain. For a full technical explanation, go to Tony Williams' website. Short answer, as you go up into larger and larger cartridges, the variablility in burning time for the propellant in that cartridge makes the exit time for the shell from the barrel more and more unpredictable, which means that there is a real danger that sooner or later one of the shells could hit the propeller.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

I think the Hs 123 should have been left in production. It had a different role than the Ju-87 and the two should not have been confused with each other. The Hs 123 was a cheap, tough, strafing machine that could get in close and act as a force multiplier for the wermacht.


----------



## Soren (Dec 7, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> OK, I'll explain. For a full technical explanation, go to Tony Williams' website. Short answer, as you go up into larger and larger cartridges, the variablility in burning time for the propellant in that cartridge makes the exit time for the shell from the barrel more and more unpredictable, which means that there is a real danger that sooner or later one of the shells could hit the propeller.



Erm, as long as the round goes bang on cue and doesn't loose like 100 m/s or so in MV then I'm quite sure it wouldn't matter to a gun like the Mk103.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> Erm, as long as the round goes bang on cue and doesn't loose like 100 m/s or so in MV then I'm quite sure it wouldn't matter to a gun like the Mk103.


recoil might also disturb the synchronization though, the Mk 103 is less than gentle.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 7, 2009)

I hope I can get some certainty on the cannon synch. But I have to say that I cannot come up with a single aircraft which fired a cannon larger than 23mm through the prop.



Clay_Allison said:


> I think the Hs 123 should have been left in production. It had a different role than the Ju-87 and the two should not have been confused with each other. The Hs 123 was a cheap, tough, strafing machine that could get in close and act as a force multiplier for the wermacht.


Don't know about that. Both were designed as dive bombers but later used as low altitude attack aircraft or strafing machines as you call them.

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

> Don't know about that. Both were designed as dive bombers but later used as low altitude attack aircraft or strafing machines as you call them.


Ju 87 was a great dive bomber. Hs 123 was a great ground attack aircraft. Regardless of the overlap in the purposes they were designed for, they had different strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Soren (Dec 7, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> recoil might also disturb the synchronization though, the Mk 103 is less than gentle.



AFAIK the Mk103 put on aircraft had a built in recoil dampner, and unless the MV was to experience a rather drastic reduction in the likes of 100 m/s or so (highly unlikely), then I don't see how it would become a problem.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> AFAIK the Mk103 put on aircraft had a built in recoil dampner, and unless the MV was to experience a rather drastic reduction in the likes of 100 m/s or so (highly unlikely), then I don't see how it would become a problem.


dampener or not it could blow the wing off a Bf 109.


----------



## Bug_racer (Dec 7, 2009)

It could also serve as a trainer !


----------



## Soren (Dec 7, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> dampener or not it could blow the wing off a Bf 109.



If it hit it, then yeah. Put it wouldn't because of recoil, it was simply just too big to put on the wing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> Erm, as long as the round goes bang on cue and doesn't loose like 100 m/s or so in MV then I'm quite sure it wouldn't matter to a gun like the Mk103.



The problem seems to have been getting the "propellant" to go BANG on cue rather than having the "Primer" go bang on cue. "Bang" being when the powder charge (or most of it) has actually burned and moved the projectile part way down the barrel.

Variations in timing from when the primer is initiated until peak pressure and a certain barrel travel distance occur. Moving the pressure curve could result in a later but only sightly lower peak with an acceptable variation in velocity but an uncceptable variation in "barrel time" for a Synchronized gun.


----------



## Soren (Dec 7, 2009)

Shortround6,

I can understand that a delay from primer ignition to propellant ignition can eventually vary, but that also means that rounds all the way down to a pistol round will be affected. The reason being that once the main charge is sparked, depending on wether the charge is always the same size, the time it takes for it all to burn should remain the same. Atleast to the degree that it wouldn't matter to the sync of the gun prop. If however the primer is at fault then it wouldn't matter if it was a 7.62mm machine gun round or 30mm cannon round, they'd both be affected the same.

The problem could perhaps be that IF such a thing should happen with a machine gun bullet then the damage would be minimal, where'as a cannon projectile to the propeller would be fatal.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> I think it would have a hard time losing most enemy fighters purely because of its slow speed. It could dodge very well alright, being as nimble as it was, but it would only be delaying the inevitable. A Yak fighter would've made mince meat of it.



I understand that the Fw 189 performed very well suffering relatively low losses despite slow speed.
Is it feasible that the Hs 123 enjoyed similar success?


----------



## Civettone (Dec 7, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Ju 87 was a great dive bomber. Hs 123 was a great ground attack aircraft. Regardless of the overlap in the purposes they were designed for, they had different strengths and weaknesses.


The Ju 87D was one of the finest close support attack aircraft there was, and definitely more powerful and better armored than the Hs 123. 



Bug_racer said:


> It could also serve as a trainer !


You are reading my mind! 
I was thinking of a monthly production of at least 300 of these cheap attack aircraft. A quarter could go to training units and another 50 to their axis allies so they too would have some kind of attack aircraft without giving them the precious Hs 129 or Ju 87.



gjs238 said:


> I understand that the Fw 189 performed very well suffering relatively low losses despite slow speed.
> Is it feasible that the Hs 123 enjoyed similar success?


More than feasible. I didn't want to push this further but yes, being slow but nimble is usually enough to dodge the fighters. Though Soren's idea of the fighter keeping the upper hand and being able to attack tme after time is valid, in practice the smaller aircraft, think observation aircraft, would make a sharper turn than any fighter aircraft could and would hit the deck and get away. 

I also believe the Hs 123 was more nimble than any Yak though I don't have figures on that.
Kris


----------



## riacrato (Dec 7, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> OK, I'll explain. For a full technical explanation, go to Tony Williams' website. Short answer, as you go up into larger and larger cartridges, the variablility in burning time for the propellant in that cartridge makes the exit time for the shell from the barrel more and more unpredictable, which means that there is a real danger that sooner or later one of the shells could hit the propeller.



I am pretty sure the MK103 could be synchronized and that it even was done on prototypes. IIRC the prototypes for the never realized Ta 152 A had an armament of three MK103s two of which were mounted in the wing roots. I think I have a picture, I'll try too look it up.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> If it hit it, then yeah. Put it wouldn't because of recoil, it was simply just too big to put on the wing.



MK 103 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



wiki said:


> Unless mounted on the aircraft's centerline, the asymmetric shock from the cannon's recoil tended to tear the wings from the fuselage apart with repeated firing.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 7, 2009)

It's wiki ... with lots of unsourced claims. E.g. the same article claims ground attack versions of the Fw 190 used the gun, but as far as I know that was never realized past some prototypes.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 7, 2009)

riacrato said:


> It's wiki ... with lots of unsourced claims. E.g. the same article claims ground attack versions of the Fw 190 used the gun, but as far as I know that was never realized past some prototypes.


maybe, but his claim is equally unsourced for the time being. If he quotes a source I'll believe him and cease to believe Wiki.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> Shortround6,
> 
> I can understand that a delay from primer ignition to propellant ignition can eventually vary, but that also means that rounds all the way down to a pistol round will be affected. The reason being that once the main charge is sparked, depending on wether the charge is always the same size, the time it takes for it all to burn should remain the same. Atleast to the degree that it wouldn't matter to the sync of the gun prop. If however the primer is at fault then it wouldn't matter if it was a 7.62mm machine gun round or 30mm cannon round, they'd both be affected the same.
> 
> The problem could perhaps be that IF such a thing should happen with a machine gun bullet then the damage would be minimal, where'as a cannon projectile to the propeller would be fatal.



It does happen but the variations seem to be greater with larger capacity cartridges. Magnum rifle cases seem to suffer from this more than "standard" rifle cases as in .300 magnums vrs 30-06 and 7.92x57 cases. Short powder powder columns might be less suseptible than longer ones. In long range target shooting large case magnums have a reputation for dropping an occasional shot low. not a lot (8 ring) and not often (less than one in 20, maybe a lot less) but more often than random fliers would indictate. 
THe problem may be in the early part of the "burn", not all primers have the same amount of "flash". Smokeless powder also has the characteristic of burning faster the more pressure it is under. A 'weak' primer may generate a bit less pressure in the case and it's flame may not extend as far into the spaces between the powder and so igniting less of the powder intially. Uniformity of crimp helps here as with a low pressure situation the projectile will tend to stay in place rather than move. this fixed volume will raise the pressure to a certain point at which time the projectile starts moving. The pressure-burn rate curve may be back on track (or close to it) giving a uniform muzzle velocity (or at least within tolerance) but the actually timing of the cap initation (pin or electric) to muzzle exit time may be off. THe way the propellent (powder) "sticks" are jumbled together in the rear of the case may affect things too. How much volume of space between the "sticks" is there for the "flash" to move thrugh and ignote the same amount of powder on each shot?

THe only peaple who worry about the time between firing pin fall (or electric spark) and muzzle exit are Olympic target shooters and peaple who are spinning blades in front of a gun muzzle.


----------



## paradoxguy (Dec 7, 2009)

I am reading this thread with avid interest--the debate over whether production of the Hs 123 should have continued beyond 1940 will likely not be resolved. I am particularly interested in the sub-debate over the ability of the Hs 123 to keep its losses low through nimbleness and maneuverability. I think two valid questions for this debate are:

1. Did the Hs 123 encounter strong modern (i.e., contemporary monoplane fighters) fighter opposition and if so, how did they fare? Did the Hs 123 encounter the same fighter opposition as the Ju 87 and Hs 129?

2. How did the Fiat CR32/CR42 biplane fighters do against Hawker Hurricanes, P-40's, and other faster, better-armoured, better-armed monoplane fighters?

Admittedly my knowledge base for these questions is very small and limited, so I'd be appreciative if those who do know could chime in.

On a related topic, I know the Hs 123 is celebrated for its ability to carry out its missions with relatively low losses and for being "obsolete" while doing so, but how effective really was the Hs 123? Was the Hs 123 primarily effective at disrupting troop formations, or did were they also effective against tanks, armoured vehicles, and other targets of value? How did they compare with the Ju 87 and Hs 129 in these tasks?

Again, admittedly I'm asking these out of ignorance, but I also feel they are important in assessing the value of the Hs 123--an underdog warplane I have a soft spot for--and that I don't believe were addressed much in this thread so far, although I may simply have misread the posts and overlooked the data contained within them.

Just some proverbial food for thought.

Thanks,
PG


----------



## Civettone (Dec 7, 2009)

That is an awesome idea PG! I am looking forward to this.

Here is something I quickly picked up: _
In 1942 II. Gruppe had flown 3,128 Hs 129 sorties, 1,532 Hs 123 sorties, and 1,938 Bf 109 sorties, claimed 107 aircraft shot down or destroyed, and losing 20 Hs 129s, 16 Bf 109s, and 5 Hs 123s to enemy action._

Btw, what is usually not known ... the Hs 123 was inadequate as a dive bomber. Operaitonal tests in Spain showed that the Hs 123 was unable to maingtain sufficient steadiness in a dive. So from that point on they used the Hs 123s for low-level ground attacks ... with great success.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Mar 2, 2012)

It appears that people consider the Hs-123 to be an inexpensive solution for CAS. However I have yet to see the historical production cost for a Hs-123. So how do we know it was less expensive then a Ju-87B, which cost 131,175 RM (including engine) during early 1941? 

Don't get me wrong, I am intrigued by the concept of producing a modified Hs-123 ILO the historical Hs-129. But production cost would be the deciding factor and we don't know what that is.


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 2, 2012)

riacrato said:


> I am pretty sure the MK103 could be synchronized and that it even was done on prototypes. IIRC the prototypes for the never realized Ta 152 A had an armament of three MK103s two of which were mounted in the wing roots. I think I have a picture, I'll try too look it up.



I read once, I'm not sure where, It might have been a Tony Williams site, that the Germans tried synchronisation of 30mm weapons however the larger cartridges tended to burn unevently or inconsistantly compared to the smaller ones. 20mm seems to have been about the practical limit.


----------



## davebender (Mar 2, 2012)

I wouldn't take that approach.

The Hs-123 had a hardpoint under each wing. Can they be modified to accept a 3cm Mk103 gun pod? If not then the Hs-123 is hopeless for CAS vs WWII era armor even if Henschel will sell the aircraft for 1 RM each.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 2, 2012)

The Hs 123 would be hopeless with a 3cm Mk103 gun pod under each wing. Normal load was a pair of 50 kg bombs under each wing, or one cluster bomb or one 20mm MG/ff cannon. Trying to double the under wing load isn't going to give very good flight performance. 

The cluster bomb might be an idea though??

Not all CAS missions are anti-tank.


----------



## davebender (Mar 2, 2012)

The Fw-189 army liason aircraft could carry that much ordnance under the wings. Newer versions of the Fw-189 powered by As411 engines could also carry a pair of MG151/20 cannon in the wing roots.






*Fw-189 Production.*
6. 1939.
38. 1940.
250. 1941. First year of mass production.
327. 1942.
208. 1943.
17. 1944. Production ends. 
.....The Fw-189 was in mass production only three years (1941, 1942, 1943). During those three years production averaged only 22 aircraft per month. Why not increase Fw-189 production to 100 aircraft per month and forget about the Hs-123? I haven't seen a production cost for the Fw-189 but army liason aircraft are normally inexpensive.

Half of the Fw-189s could be a purpose built light CAS variant with more powerful engines. Perhaps the same French built 700 hp Gnome-Rhone radial engines that powered the Hs-129B. With 1,400 total hp you could probably install something in the nose more powerful then the MG151/20.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 2, 2012)

there was a version of the Fw 189 built in competition with the Hs 129.

The Fw189C:





It was not a success. 

The Hs 123 was out of production by 1940. Part of it's success was due to it's ability to operate from really crappy airstrips, which the heavily armoured twins might not be able to manage.


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2012)

They COULD have just bought Fiat CR.42 biplanes and would have had a faster, more maneuverable biplane.

I am a CR.42 fan, as far as biplanes go anyway, and think it was probably the best of the bunch ... although a 600 HP Boeing F4B-4 was probably a better dogfighter and definitely climbed better.


----------



## davebender (Mar 3, 2012)

So could the Fw-189. It's essential for army liason aircraft to have that ability.

I'm under the impression the Hs-129 beat the Fw-189 for the 1937 CAS contract only because Henschel promised a very low production cost. But the Hs-129 prototype required so many upgrades to make it mission capable that the production version probably cost more then the Fw-189. Anyway the entire CAS procurement process goes against standard Luftwaffe practise.

Late 1930s Germany opted for a single low cost fighter aircraft (Me-109) that was to be produced in large numbers. They also opted for a single low cost light bomber / recon aircraft (Ju-88) that was to be produced in large numbers. Why produce small numbers of Fw-189s plus small numbers of Hs-129s plus small numbers of Hs-123s? Variants of the well liked Fw-189 can accomplish all these missions. So set the Fw-189 up for large scale production and support it with a proper development program. An engine more powerful then the As410 should have top priority. If Argus cannot deliver the 592 hp As411 engine by 1939 the Luftwaffe should look elsewhere. There were all sorts of small air cooled radial engines available during that time frame. The 592 hp Bramo 322 engine would probably work just fine ILO the As411 engine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2012)

davebender said:


> If Argus cannot deliver the 592 hp As411 engine by 1939 the Luftwaffe should look elsewhere. There were all sorts of small air cooled radial engines available during that time frame. The 592 hp Bramo 322 engine would probably work just fine ILO the As411 engine.



DO you even look at some of these engines??

A Bramo 322 is an early version of the Bramo 323, it was not noted for it's reliability and every single 592hp Bramo 322 you make is one 900-1000hp Bramo 323 you don't have. 
Both are 9 cylinder radials of 28.62 liters displacement. 
It would be like Wright making 750hp Cyclones instead of 1000-1200hp Cyclones.


----------



## davebender (Mar 3, 2012)

Widely used by German aircraft manufacturers during the early to mid 1930s. I've got to assume companies such as Heinkel and Dornier knew what they were doing when they selected the Bramo 322 over competing aircraft engines.



> every single 592hp Bramo 322 you make is one 900-1000hp Bramo 323 you don't have.


Baloney. The number of aircraft engines available to Germany was determined by RLM funding for engine factory construction. If RLM doesn't screw up (again!) then Bramo engine production will match demand.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2012)

davebender said:


> Widely used by German aircraft manufacturers during the early to mid 1930s. I've got to assume companies such as Heinkel and Dornier knew what they were doing when they selected the Bramo 322 over competing aircraft engines.
> 
> 
> Baloney. The number of aircraft engines available to Germany was determined by RLM funding for engine factory construction. If RLM doesn't screw up (again!) then Bramo engine production will match demand.



Hardly baloney.

The 323 was simply a late model 322. Just like a R-1820-G200 is a late model R-1820F. It takes almost the identical raw materials and man-hours to make one version or the other. If the RLM had spent more money on another factory to make Bramo radials why would they make the 592hp version when they could make the 900-1000hp version for just about the same cost?

The ONLY competing German engine was the BMW 132.


----------



## davebender (Mar 3, 2012)

315 kg. 459 hp. Argus As410. 
385 kg. 592 hp. Argus As411. More advanced version of As410.
410 kg. 700 hp. Gnome-Rhone 14M. French engine used to power Hs-129.
465 kg. 592 hp. Bramo 322B. 
525 kg. 789 hp. BMW132D. 

The inexpensive BMW 132 would be fine if it will fit on the Fw-189. However it was quite a bit heavier then an As410 engine. 

The French radial is probably about perfect for the Fw-189. 700 hp with a weight of only 410 kg. Perhaps BMW could be tasked with making a similiar engine to replace the Bramo 322. That would give Argus some commercial competition, which is always a good thing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 4, 2012)

The only competing engine for the Bramo 322/323 was the BMW 132. The Bramo was 26.8 liters while the BMW was 27.7 liters. 

Some of your horse power ratings are way off as they come from rather different years. Comparing an out of production early 1930s engine to a late 30s/early 40s engine for an early 40s aircraft isn't quite accurate. 

The Argus 410 was a 12 liter engine. The Gnome-Rhone 14M a 19 liter engine. They were in no way, shape or form in competition with each other. A comparison of the rated power at altitude will show a much larger difference than even the take-off power does.
Hirth already offered an inverted V-12 air cooled engine of 12 liters and 450 hp take off to compete with Argus although shop size and construction features may have priced it significantly higher.


----------



## davebender (Mar 4, 2012)

What difference does that make? It's engine weight and hp that count.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 4, 2012)

*What difference does that make? It's engine weight and hp that count.*


Quite right

BUT HOW DO YOU GET POWER??

Displacment X rpm X manifold pressure. 

Those are the basics. Other do enter into it but those three pretty much cover it ( manifold pressure covers a multitude of variables including fuel quality) 

The G-R 14M had a 58% displacement advantage so the Argus has a lot of ground to try to make up. Since the G-R 14M could run up to 3,030 rpm it doesn't leave much room for the Argus to make it up using RPM. 

The Post war French S.N.E.C.M.A. 12S , which was what they called the Argus 411, ran at 3,300rpm. only a 10% increase. It did use 11.1lbs of boost at take-off using 100/130 fuel. 

What _IS_ telling is that even this post war data (from a 1953 book when the S.N.E.C.M.A. 12S was still being built) gives a _rated_ power of 440hp at 3250rpm at 8,000ft (max cruise 350hp/3,100rpm/8,500ft) compared to the G-R 14M was rated at 660hp at 13,100ft and a Cruise of 455hp at 2,350rpm at 13,100ft. 

While a 13,000foot critical altitude may not be needed for a ground support aircraft it does mean that the 14M could have been fitted with a lower supercharger gear to improve power at low altitude. 

For a warplane different choices are made if you have 1300-1400hp available from a twin than if you have 900-1200hp available. Same for a civil transport. The larger engines allow for a bigger plane with a bigger payload. Trying to use the same airframe for the two different classes of engine, while not impossible, usually leads to less than optimum performance with one class engine or both. 

The two 9 cylinder radials are in another class altogether. Not only in weight and power but in size, their vastly larger diameter (in proportion to the other engines on your list) require substantially different engine cowlings and nacelles which can seriously affect pilot vision in some cases.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2012)

I stay by statement that for a german 2-engined ground attack to work, the engines need to be no less than 1000 HP power. That means 9-cyl radials indeed. We are still as aerodynamic as a brick, but at least we can lift BOTH bombs and some decent cannon, while having god armor. Do-17 was faster than Hs-129, despite being almost twice the size and 50% heavier, with 9 cylinders aboard.


----------



## davebender (Mar 5, 2012)

Engine power is good but engine weight isn't. A CAS aircraft must be as small a target as possible. That's why the Ju-88 didn't work well for CAS. Any aircraft with two 1,000 hp engines is likely to be quite large as the engines will be heavy.

Perhaps Germany should stick with the tried and true Ju-87 for CAS. Relatively inexpensive, decent armor protection and an excellent gun platform. RLM would need to increase Ju-87 airframe production. Jumo 211 engines aren't a problem as Germany was awash in those engines by 1942.

*Historical Ju-87 production.*
134. 1939
603. 1940
500. 1941
960. 1942
1,672. 1943
1,012. 1944


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2012)

An aircraft with 2 radials of 1000 hp does not to have wing area greater than 350 sq ft - in league with US R-2800 fighters, Ju-87, twin-engined Ki-45. Ideally 2 crew members, cannon from 30mm up, plus bombs.
Ju-87 was either bombs, either cannons - not both. Maybe it was a mistake to pass on 30mm cannons, while retaining dive brakes, so the real top attack on tanks is feasible? The lower weight of MK-101/103 leaves some wight allowance for bombs.
The 2 engines, plus being air cooled, offer a significiant redundancy re. the battle damage vs, a single liquid cooled engine of the Ju-87.


----------



## davebender (Mar 5, 2012)

I agree. That's why I'm intrigued by using a pair of those 700 hp but lightweight French radial engines on the Fw-189 airframe. That should be enough power for a single 3cm or 3.7cm cannon mounted on the centerline.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2012)

The advantages of the HS 123 were subtle, like the ability to operate from strips that 109s and JU 87 could not. Either due to length or field conditions. Poor CAS beats NO CAS. Reliability and low maintenance were also pluses, less need for skilled manpower in terms of hours of maintenance per hour of flight. It was never a tank buster and even the suggestion to bring it back was not a request for a tank buster. 
A quick look at the stats (speed, bomb load, guns) doesn't show the true value of the aircraft. 

If someone wants a true German tank buster then perhaps a plane the size of a Bf 110 or a bit smaller with two radial engines would work. 2/3 the size of a DO 17 or JU 88. But it is a specialty type and not cheap per plane unless it gets started early and built in very large numbers in place of something else. It will NOT be a HS 129.


----------



## davebender (Mar 5, 2012)

Me-109s and Ju-87s routinely operated from airfields that were a sea of mud. You're not going to improve much on their ability to operate from crude airfields.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2012)

Why don't you tell that to the officers who claimed that the Hs 123 could as justification for wanting more?


----------



## jim (Mar 5, 2012)

Perhaps production of Hs 123 should continiue in 1940. Empty weight 1500kgr Empty weight Fw 190 3200kgr Given the simpler consruction of the Hs 123 and the simpler equipment cost should be 1/3 to 1/4 of a Fw190 F .If so then 
Use Bramo 323C/D of 1000ps and similar weight with Bmw 132. (If available)
Use a canopy for less drug and -basically- for fewer sick pilots
Mass produce it if factories unsuitable for main battle types could be used
Missions
1) Anti partisan missions in occupeid Europe and rear areas on the eastern front
2) Night attacks
3) Front line surveillance. Eastern front was huge. Front lines were not continiues. Frequently, russians penetrated through gaps
4) Army cooperation and support on quite sectors. Would be a nice aircraft to complete Fieseler Storch and Fw 189 in this role
5) Delivery of supplyies on isolated units using 500 kgr containers
6) Normal CAS mission on sectors with german fighter presence . Attacks only in front lines, if caught unprotected, form a tight defensive cycle and try to cross german lines and reach protection from german flak . Russians usually did not continiue pursuit behine german lines anyway. Casualties to fighters -of course- would be inevitable. I think could operate in this role until late 43 or early 44

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Mar 5, 2012)

What's the point if a Hs123 carries a smaller payload then the Fw-189 army liason aircraft?


----------



## jim (Mar 5, 2012)

davebender said:


> What's the point if a Hs123 carries a smaller payload then the Fw-189 army liason aircraft?


 
a) Hs 123 is smaller , 1000 kgr lighter and conventional= cheaper to built = more could be built
b) requires only ONE crew
c) the historical aircraft could carry up to 450kgr payload
d) Fw 189 was more appopriate for specialized missions as artillery spotting ,photo reconaissance etc and was wasted in missions like partisans hunting or night attacks
e) a smaller target 
f ) since production lines already existed since 1938 why destroy them and not take advantage of them? In war times destroying production lines of usefull aircrafts is not very smart. At least could transef the tools to Hungary 
g) Hs 123 could not replace Fw 189 , could serve along it

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Mar 5, 2012)

Not necessarily. Many newer German weapons designed for low cost mass production such as the V1 cruise missile, Jumo 004B jet engine, StuG44 assault rifle, MG42 machinegun and Me-109 fighter aircraft were dirt cheap.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 6, 2012)

Any plane requires a pilot, and putting a pilot into a lesser plane only gets to kill it easily. Germany was short of the pilots more than it was short of the planes. Hs-123 was not featuring a rear gunner - not that one would've killed much of the fighters, but can provide the pilot with a warning of incoming danger towards incoming to their slow plane.

Fw-187 seems like a vastly better choice than Hs-123 for ground support.


----------



## davebender (Mar 6, 2012)

Not as historically designed.

A Fw-187 with DB601E engines would be a 400+ mph aircraft with a wing loading of about 35lbs / sq foot and minimal armor protection. Perfect for engaging enemy aircraft at 20,000 feet but the wrong tool for engaging enemy bunkers or tanks from an altitude of 200 meters.

*Wing Loading* (approximate).
19.5 lbs / sq ft. Hs-123A.
21 lbs / sq ft. Fw-189A.
28 lbs / sq ft. Ju-87B.
37 lbs / sq ft. Hs-129B.
37.5 lbs / sq ft. Ju-87D.

The Hs-129 and Ju-87 were Germany's two most successful CAS aircraft. Fully loaded aircraft with generous armor protection had a wing loading of about 37 lbs / sq foot. The Fw-187 had a similiar wing loading in fighter configuration. Add heavy cannon, bombs and significant pilot armor and the Fw-187 would be incapable of the low speed maneuverability essential for a CAS aircraft.

It might be possible to give the Fw-187 CAS variant a different wing with more surface area. The new wing must also be strong enough for a 250kg hardpoint.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 6, 2012)

My mistake, it's the Fw-*189*, Uhu, I was thinking of


----------



## davebender (Mar 6, 2012)

If the Luftwaffe could do things over I think they would have produced a CAS variant of the Fw-189 rather then the Hs-129. The Hs-129 is one of those aircraft that looked better on paper then in actual combat. Pilot visibility was poor and I think they went overboard with armor to the extent that the aircraft was underpowered even with 700 hp engines.

Gnome-Rhône radial aircraft engines were very popular in Europe during the 1930s. Nations such as Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania produced copies under license. So I don't see why Germany would have trouble acquiring these engines if they want something more powerful then the As410 / As411 for a CAS aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 6, 2012)

The CAS version of the Fw 189 was armored like the Hs 129 had had the same or worse poor vision. It had the Argus engines and was, no surprise, considered under powered. Gnome-Rhône engines about a generation behind "good" radials like the R-1830. Sort of like the Hispano V-12. light in weight but low powered for displacement with limited scope for development without a major redesign. The number/letter designation is a bit confusing. There were 14K, 14M, 14N and 14R. All 14 cylinder engines but the K, N, R were all 38.7 liter engines compared to the 19 liter M. Ks and Ns used different cylinders although kept the same bore and stroke. The R added a center bearing which allowed for both higher rpm and higher pressures in the cylinders. Most of the license engines were the older K series. Quite useful to countries that had no real aviation industry of their own giving them a good starting point (Russian M-88 started as a licensed 14K). However in actual bulk the 14K,N and R were the size of a Hercules even if lighter. 
The Gnome-Rhône factories managed to deliver about 1/3 of the number of engines the Germans estimated they could during the war years putting a serious crimp in German engine production plans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 6, 2012)

Don't think Yugoslavia was producing G&R 14 engines, they were merely importing them. Along with Merlin, DB-601 HS 12Y.


----------



## davebender (Mar 6, 2012)

> CAS version of the Fw 189 was armored like the Hs 129 had had the same or worse poor vision. It had the Argus engines


Perhaps so but it didn't need to happen that way.

Like most army liason aircraft the normal Fw-189 had excellent pilot vision. Focke Wulf engineers need to retain most of that vision when they design the CAS aircraft center fuselage. With more development I am confident this problem can be overcome.

Armor can be adjusted until they get a good balance between weight and pilot protection.

Manfred Weiss of Hungary made several radial engines which might have worked ILO the As410 / As411.
.....Bristol Jupiter VI 420hp radial
.....Gnome-Rhône 9K 520hp radial
.....Gnome-Rhône 14K 870 to 910 hp radial.


----------



## davebender (Mar 6, 2012)

The He-112B was produced in small numbers and apparently performed well for ground attack. The relatively low wing loading of only 27 lbs / sq foot undoubtedly contributed to the CAS success.

Manfred-Weiss was working on a locally produced He-112 variant powered by a licensed version of the 1,000 hp Gnome-Rhone radial engine. The project was cancelled after one prototype was built. I suspect Hungary lacked resources to see the project through to completion.

Germany had the resources to do what Hungary couldn't - convert the He-112 into a radial engine CAS aircraft. 
- BMW132 or Bramo 323 radial engine producing 950 to 1,200 hp.
- 250 kg hardpoint under each wing. Can carry cannon pod ILO bomb.
- Some pilot armor but not so much the aircraft is underpowered.
. He-112B had a bubble canopy for good visibility.
With these changes the He-112 would probably have a max speed around 300 mph. Which is pretty good for a WWII era CAS aircraft. The most important thing is to keep wing loading below 35 lbs / sq ft so the aircraft has good low speed maneuverability.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 7, 2012)

davebender said:


> Perhaps so but it didn't need to happen that way.
> 
> Like most army liason aircraft the normal Fw-189 had excellent pilot vision. Focke Wulf engineers need to retain most of that vision when they design the CAS aircraft center fuselage. With more development I am confident this problem can be overcome.
> 
> ...



Good vision came from large areas of transparent panels. Impossible to bullet proof using existing technology without an unacceptable increase in weight. The Fw 189C used a much smaller center nacelle/fuselage with just two crew members to cut down the area needed to be armored. Transparent sections were held to a minimum and they over did it. Vision was like trying to fly a plane looking out a tank drivers vision slots. Larger transparent areas could have been provided at increased cost and weight. Google for pictures to see what they were working with.

Once again you have selected engines that are non-starters. The Bristol Jupiter And it's Gnome-Rhone clone were engines from the 1920s. They were the size and close to the weight of a Bristol Pegasus which means that they are actually slightly larger in diameter than either a BMW 132 or Bramo 323 and the only reason they are cheaper to make is that they might not use some of the latest alloys. In fact some of the construction details might make them more ex waive to make. The 14K is a 38.7 liter engine that weighs 1100-1200lbs and is 13-14 inches larger in diameter than the 14M engine used on the HS 129.


----------



## davebender (Mar 8, 2012)

Focke-Wulf Fw 189 Uhu (Eagle Owl)


> The Fw 189G would have been powered by two 950hp Argus As 402 engines. It was estimated that its top speed would have been 270mph, a significant improvement on the 208mph of the A-1, but the As 402 engine never entered production and so the Fw 189G was abandoned


That pretty well makes my mind up for a German CAS aircraft. If the Fw-189 airframe can handle 950 hp engines then it gets the mission. However I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Argus to deliver the As402. 1937 Germany already has plenty of inexpensive and reliable BMW132 radial engines. Now it's just a matter of getting the design right. 1,900 total hp should provide a decent payload. 

Bottom of the fuselage gets the same 3cm Mk101 cannon installation that was designed for the Me-110. Later this can be upgraded to the more powerful 3.7cm cannon if desired.









Real world Ju-87Gs were escorted by Ju-87Ds. Bomb carrying Ju-87s suppressed enemy light flak before cannon carrying Ju-87s went to work on enemy vehicles. With 1,900 hp I think we can combine both features on a single aircraft. 




Germany was the world leader in cluster bomb technology. Put an AB 250 cluster munition container under each wing. They get dropped on enemy flak positions first. Then the Fw-189G can employ it's cannon against enemy vehicles.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 8, 2012)

Hmm, the Bf-110 with BMW-801 seem like a good combination, at least on paper. A German Beaufighter, but faster? A tough game at least for Soviet fighters.
Alas, we need a surplus of 801s to have it that way. Another nod for Fw-190 + DB-603?


----------



## davebender (Mar 8, 2012)

155,800 RM. 1941 price for Me-110 without engines.
130,000 RM. early 1942 price for two BMW801 engines.
.....285,800 RM total price for one Me-110 powered by unreliable 1,539 hp BMW801a engines.
Capable but such an aircraft would be too expensive. Only the USA paid that much for aircraft during WWII. 

Two Ju-87s complete with reliable Jumo 211 engines cost about 262,000 RM during early 1941.

The 960 hp BMW 132 was one of the least expensive aircraft engines. 12,400 RM per engine during 1941 and it's about 10 times as reliable as early model BMW801 engines. I suspect you could mass produce two Fw-189Gs complete with engines for the price of a single Me-110 powered by unreliable BMW801 engines.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 8, 2012)

That is no way to do the math.
For 2 millions, you have 7 'Bf-110Rs', or 15 Ju-87s. You need 14 crew for Bf, and, 30 for Ju-87. The Bf can operate unescorted, unlike the Ju, so we toss in a staffel of 109s, costing us another 670 thousands. Plus 12 pilots, so we are at 14 vs. 42. For a same assigment, we will consume maybe 50% more fuel (for 7 110s, vs. 27 of Stukas and 109s). Sure enough, where Bf-110 can go, neither Stuka nor 109 can follow - hence we need to base them well within enemy's reach. The 110'R' can carry bombs AND a 30-37mm cannon in the same time, unlike the Ju-87.
After the bombing is done, 110 can increase power and vanish, not so for Ju-87. Escorts can help, but not if the enemy has the numerical superiority. So despite more people trained and fuel spent (for Ju-87 option), would the result show anything for it?
In case we are operating vs. Western opposition, Stuka is no-go, unlike a Bf-110 + BMW.

US was building far more expensive thins than twin engined bombers, and IIRC you are the fan of many of German twin engined planes anyway. By late 1943, the BMW is a reliable machine, just when it's needed. Further, Germany was lacking mostly fuel and pilots, then the war material.


----------



## davebender (Mar 8, 2012)

The CAS aircraft specification which eventually produced the Hs-129 dates to 1937. The BMW801 engine wasn't even a gleam in Goering's eye at that time. Thanks to RLMs October 1935 decision to cut Genshagen factory funding from 50 million RM to 20 million RM Germany didn't have enough DB601 engines either. So if additional Me-110 airframes are built for the CAS role they must be powered by Jumo 211 or BMW 132 engines.

The Fw-189 specification dates to 1937 and BMW 132 engines have been in production since 1933 or 1934. What could be more sensible then producing a CAS variant of the Fw-189 powered by BMW132 engines? You get the cost benefits of mass production, which Goering considered so important when establishing Ju-88 light bomber production during 1938.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 8, 2012)

I am all for a type of the attack aircraft you propose. The one I propose should replace it by 1943.


----------



## davebender (Mar 8, 2012)

Why would it need to be replaced? If the Fw-189G program is fully supported then it will receive upgrades. 

By 1943 the Fw-189G would probably carry a BK 3.7cm cannon ILO the original 3cm Mk101 cannon. Rudel specifically mentions destroying IS-2 tanks with this weapon so it's powerful enough. AB 250 cluster munitions don't require replacement. I don't think anything better was available until the Vietnam era. Maybe RLM will even upgrade the BMW132 radial engines. I believe there was discussion of a 1,200 hp version.

And it will still cost half as much as a BMW801 powered Me-110. 8)


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 8, 2012)

Still needs crew, escort (or falls to the Yaks and stuff), fuel, maintenance. With all the expenses, 'my' 110 will at least be able to operate without escort, while able to kill any Il-2, Pe-2 or B-25, instead to worry that they might get him. The Fw-189, even with 2 x 1200 HP (3 times more than for the real examples!) is still a non starter for the ETO and MTO for 1943 on.


----------



## davebender (Mar 8, 2012)

A cannon armed CAS aircraft operates at an altitude of 200 meters. It's dead meat for any enemy fighter aircraft in the vicinity. Even a modern day Super Tucano CAS aircraft (which the U.S. almost purchased) could be intercepted by WWII era fighter aircraft flying @ 3,000 meters.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 8, 2012)

We can keep this into ww2 - what I'm suggesting is a faster A-20/Beaufighter for LW, what you are suggesting is the faster Hs-129, that features a tail gunner. 
The 'original' DB-7 was proven to be able to survive vs. fighters Flak of 1940, fighters being some 30 mph faster. How much we need to add to 253 mp/h the Hs-129 was capable, in order to evade the Soviet oposition flying at 370 mp/h, let alone the western at 400 mph?

I admit that I don't follow your logic that a CAS plane flying at 200m is dead meat to the enemy fighter flying 3000m; the ground-creeping plane will far easier spot the plane above than vice versa, not only since the fighter above lacks the floor window


----------



## davebender (Mar 8, 2012)

IMO speed has little to do with CAS aircraft effectiveness. More engine power = more payload. You can carry a more powerful cannon for destroying tanks, more bombs for suppressing flak and more armor to protect the pilot while still retaining an acceptable level of acceleration and climb. 

Consider the A-1 Skyraider. Probably the best CAS aircraft in the world during the 1950s and 1960s yet maximum speed was only 322 mph. About 25 mph slower then a 1939 Me-110C.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 8, 2012)

It is a whole world of difference if the plane is to operate with or without the air superiority achieved. Ju-87 is a point in case here. If there was the air superiority, Stukas were a potent weapon, if not, the losses were unacceptable. Even the flying tank, the Il-2, was a cold meat for fighters. The plane that is fast can, once the air superiority is achieved, trade the speed for payload. Not the case for a plane that is already slow.
The USA gained the upper hand in WW2 as far the air superiority was the case, and they wouldn't let it slip away in the future. They had all the reason to tailor a slow, but good hauler CAS planes, from AD-1 to A-10. Not the case for the air force that cannot expect such a favorable environment; if they miscalculate, the losses are there in no time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 8, 2012)

Getting bock on topic, or closer too it. Stick a 1000hp 9 cylinder radial in the HS 123, enclose the canopy, stick a 7.9mm machine gun in each wing in addition to the cowl guns, stress the wing for 150-200kg on each side, ditch the wheel spats and fit over sized tires. maybe just a tad more armor. 
Should be able to operate out of a field or good sized meadow. Will be able to out turn practically any intercepting fighter if the bombs are gone thus frustrating a lot of attacks. Slow speed (stalling) means it can fly in conditions that many other planes cannot. Rate of climb on the original was almost 3,000fpm. it's ability to maneuver close to the ground should be good. 

The original was prized for it's ability to operate from really crappy airstrips, often at night. it was never a tank buster. GO with it's strengths. Improve it's ability to strafe unprotected or lightly protected targets, increase it's bomb load or ability to use cluster bombs, install flare chute if not there already. Bomb and/or strafe enemy positions at night or in conditions so bad most enemy aircraft are grounded. Wing loading was 18.3lb/sq.ft. at 4884lbs. 

Try to improve serviceability for fast turn around. Multiple strikes per night or time period.


----------



## davebender (Mar 9, 2012)

> Stick a 1000hp 9 cylinder radial in the HS 123, enclose the canopy, stick a 7.9mm machine gun in each wing in addition to the cowl guns, stress the wing for 150-200kg on each side, ditch the wheel spats and fit over sized tires. maybe just a tad more armor.


That's not an upgrade. You've created an entirely new aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 9, 2012)

Not really. the enclosed canopy, machine guns in the lower wing and a higher powered BMW 132 (if not quite 1000hp) were all installed on the Hs 123V6, a prototype of the Hs 123C series. Along with an armored headrest which was fitted to existing aircraft. 
The wheel spats were ditched in service although I don't know if bigger tires were fitted. All I am asking for is a little more bomb load under the wing and a bit more seat armor. that doesn't sound like an "entirely new aircraft" to me.


----------



## davebender (Mar 9, 2012)

Will the Hs-123 wing support a standard 250 kg bomb / drop tank rack?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 9, 2012)

Geez, you want to stick 1000hp engines on planes designed for 465hp engines, sling 37mm AA guns under them add bombs and armor and you take me to task for asking for another 50-100kg under each wing of plane? Surely those German engineers could figure out how to beef up the spars a little. Drop tanks are not needed except for deployment flights if then. Proper place for this airplane is as close to the front line as you can get it without the field being hit by artillery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Mar 10, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why would it need to be replaced? If the Fw-189G program is fully supported then it will receive upgrades.
> 
> By 1943 the Fw-189G would probably carry a BK 3.7cm cannon ILO the original 3cm Mk101 cannon. Rudel specifically mentions destroying IS-2 tanks with this weapon so it's powerful enough. AB 250 cluster munitions don't require replacement. I don't think anything better was available until the Vietnam era. Maybe RLM will even upgrade the BMW132 radial engines. I believe there was discussion of a 1,200 hp version.
> 
> And it will still cost half as much as a BMW801 powered Me-110. 8)


How should a small aircraft like a Fw 189 be able to carry the spacious and heavy BK 3.7 or even absorb the enormous recoil?
I also doubt could could fit a radial engine to the Fw 189 without a lot of redesigning/strengthening the engine carrier and/or wing structure..


----------



## davebender (Mar 10, 2012)

Dr. Tank designed the Fw-189G, not me. I trust he knew what he was doing when he modified the existing Fw-189 design for 950 hp engines.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 10, 2012)

Denniss said:


> How should a small aircraft like a Fw 189 be able to carry the spacious and heavy BK 3.7 or even absorb the enormous recoil?
> I also doubt could could fit a radial engine to the Fw 189 without a lot of redesigning/strengthening the engine carrier and/or wing structure..



The Hs-129 was able to 'deal' with 7,5cm, so I have no objections for the Fw-189 carrying the 3,7cm. Hurricane was carrying 2 cannons of similar properties, despite being a smaller airframe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 10, 2012)

davebender said:


> Dr. Tank designed the Fw-189G, not me. I trust he knew what he was doing when he modified the existing Fw-189 design for 950 hp engines.



Do you have any details of the "number of structural changes" that are mentioned for this version? 

100lbs worth, 200lbs worth, 500lbs worth? 

Some people claim the Grumman F5F was "modified" into or developed into the F7F. 

Lockheed managed to stick 2000hp engines on an airframe that started with 750hp engines but it went through several intermediate steps and I have no idea how much of some the structure was actually interchangeable or how much just looks alike from a distance. A bit like a Bf 109C and a 109G, want to try to turn a C into a G just because you have a DB605 engine?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 10, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The Hs-129 was able to 'deal' with 7,5cm, so I have no objections for the Fw-189 carrying the 3,7cm. Hurricane was carrying 2 cannons of similar properties, despite being a smaller airframe.



were the "properties" the same? one of the big factors in sticking big guns in aircraft is the recoil impulse transmitted to the air fame. Recoil impulse can be held down by the weight of the gun, or the weight of the recoiling parts, and the length of the recoil or time taken for the moving weight to reach the fully recoiled position. That is for the recoil of one shot, higher cycle rates increase the total recoil load on the plane. The big guns (50mm and above) were essentially single shots (OK 2-3 shots per attack) and the ones adapted from anti-tank guns had recoil distances of several feet. A big muzzle brake, a heavy barrel, 3-4 ft of recoil and a second or more between shots can do a lot to cut stress on the airframe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 10, 2012)

German 3,7cm BK has had many properties, a great RoF was not one of them. With under 3 rounds per second, the recoil was hardly something to worry about when compared with 7,5cm. And the Fw-187 still has only a half of the recoil forces the Hurri IID is experiencing.


----------



## Denniss (Mar 11, 2012)

The Hs 129 was designed as a ground attack aircraft so it already had a strengthened/stiffened and partially armored fuselage able to absorb recoils of big guns. They may have required some further strengthening to cope with the BK 7.5 recoil.
The Fw 189 was never designed to carry lots of big guns or bombs, even the armored attack prototypes did not carry heavier stuff than 2cm guns.
The Hurricane was known as good and stable gun platform and the wing was capable of holding lots of bombs or guns although it could't carry much more than the 4cm gun + one MG at the same time.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 11, 2012)

Good enough, so we'll strengthen the Fw-189 so it can withstand the recoil. We will not try to carry the 7,5cm, though.
As for Hurricane, no matter how the wings are strong, the fuselage is always stronger.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 11, 2012)

Somewhere I have seen a discussion on this and the Peak recoil load of the Vickers S gun wasn't much worse than a 20mm Hispano. The Vickers S gun was _designed_ as an aircraft gun and was first mounted in a turret on top of a Wellington bomber. It used the long recoil method of operation in which the barrel recoils the entire length of the cartridge, the breech block is held back while the barrel returns forward and the Breechblock is released to move forward picking up the new round. SLow cycle rate but lower peak recoil force because of the time/distance the barrel is recoiling.


----------



## davebender (Mar 11, 2012)

Fuselage mounted weapons are also more accurate and some mounts (i.e. Me-110 3cm Mk 101 cannon) allow the rear gunner to clear weapon jams.







If I were running RLM.....
Ju-87 specifications would have required the pilot to be seated relatively high, similiar to the proposed Ju-187. The pilot has superior visibility but the primary purpose would be to allow a heavy cannon such as the 3cm Mk 101 to fit beneath aircrew seats and fire through the prop.

A normal bomb carrying Ju-87 would probably have a lightweight 2cm MG FF cannon for self defense firing through the hub. But any Ju-87 could be field converted to a tank killer by omitting the 500+ kg bomb and mounting a heavy hub cannon.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 23, 2012)

This has been a while but I need to correct some people here...

- The Hs 123 was a very simple aircraft, which made it so reliable in service. The same reasons apply for making it easy to produce. No advanced production lines were needed. The Fw 189C was more expensive than the Hs 129C, which makes me believe that the Fw 189A was - at least - not an extraordinary cheap aircraft. As such the Fw 189 will definitely have been more difficult to produce than the Hs 123.
- The Hs 129 was a superior aircraft to the Fw 189C. Not only because it was cheaper but also because the Fw 189C was even worse to fly than the Hs 129. The Hs 129 has a bad reputation as people believe that its engines were unreliable and underpowered. Neither of the two is true. It is one of those horrible stories which keep lingering on throughout history, kinda like the Me 163 incinerating pilots in their seats ... The Hs 129 was the best armoured aircraft of WW2, it had reliable engines. Its only vice was that it was difficult to fly because of the high forces on the stick. The Hs 129 was going to get improved GR 14M engines with bigger power. The Hs 129C with these engines or Isotta Frasschini Delta engines was going to get a double MK 103 installation or a bombload of a 1000 kg. 
- The Do 17 was a great bomber, and in Croatian colours, a great attack aircraft. But it was hardly armoured and would have been a big slow and easy target for dedicated Flak like on the Russian front. 
- The Hs 123C - with the BMW 132K, close to 1000 hp - was going to get a cockpit hood, two extra wing MG's and a total bombload of 500 kg.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2012)

I agree with much of what you say. 

"The Hs 129 has a bad reputation as people believe that its engines were unreliable and underpowered. Neither of the two is true. It is one of those horrible stories... The Hs 129 was the best armoured aircraft of WW2, it had reliable engines."

I think part of this story is from it's use in North Africa. ANYBODY'S aircraft in NA were unreliable and short lived without good air filters. Lack of spare engines and parts ( no other aircraft in the theater used the engine?) meant that serviceability would be low, contributing to the story? 
However power was, shall we say, _marginal?_ 1400hp for a 10,500-11,500lb twin engine plane is not particularly good. It is better than than the Blenheim V but not as good as the Blenheim IV. Adding high drag large gun pods underneath didn't help. the 30mm pod might not be too bad but the "famous" or _infamous_ Bordkanone BK 7,5 cannon ( it's reputation far exceeds it's actual use) was pushing things over the top.
Worn engines producing less than book power ( and I don't doubt there was _some_ sabotage) can contribute to the story. 
Many aircraft acquired reputations based of a relatively few incidences, for good or bad. 

For a low altitude gun armed "strike" aircraft a number of things come into play that are not shown by a short list of performance numbers. How fast an aircraft responds to the controls is _VERY_ important, both for aiming and avoiding unintentional contact with the ground. Good throttle response is helpful. Not in the sense of absolute performance numbers but in the sense that when the pilot does something the plane responds _right NOW!_ with no hesitation or delay.


----------



## davebender (Sep 23, 2012)

Ju-87D.
1,340 hp.
Good armor protection.
1,000 kg normal bomb load. Or equivalent weight in underwing cannon pods.
Rear gunner provides some self defense.
Considered an excellent gun platform.

Why was the Ju-87D so good despite having no more total power then a Hs-129?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 23, 2012)

Good at what? 

Dive bombing? not the same thing is it?

Night raiding? 

Gun ship? 
Got any performance figures for the Ju-87G-1 that you like to share? It has been described as "extremely slow and unwieldly". By the Autumn of 1944 only one Gruppe was still using the Ju-87 on daylight operations. hardly a ringing endorsement of it's handling qualities or performance.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 27, 2012)

The handling of the Ju 87 deteroriated due to the increase in armour. Yet, the Ju 87 prototype was praised for its good handling. As such, I conclude that the Ju 87D handling was probably still good enough. Of course the Ju 87 is extremely slow and vulnerable compared to the Fw 190F, but I guess it's no less than the celebrated Ilyushin Il-2.

So it seems to me that 1945 was no different than 1940: the Stuka was extremely vulnerable when engaged by enemy fighters. The only difference is that in 1945 those were much more numerous. But this says more about that type of aircraft. All dedicated ground attack aircraft and bombers were vulnerable when not properly escorted by fighters.

But what is also striking is that the vast majority of Ju 87s and Hs 129s on the Eastern front were lost to enemy ground fire, and relatively few fell a victim to enemy fighter planes. Rudel was able to fly his Ju 87Gs till the end of the war.

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Sep 29, 2012)

One more element I would like to add to the discussion is the possible use of Panzerblitz rockets for the Hs 123. Even though the Hs 123 would normally be limited to night harassment and strafing missions in low activity theaters, the possible use of Panzerblitz rockets would turn the Hs 123 overnight into a dangerous tank hunter! Of course it would still be vulnerable to dedicated Flak but a mass use of Hs 123 each with a volley of several spin stabililized AT-rockets would inevitably lead to serious enemy tank losses, disrespectful of the number of Hs 123 losses.

Kris


----------

