1940: Luftwaffe's ideal heavy fighter?

The Basket · Aug 22, 2012

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Who cares about a prototype? A prototype is in development and not operational.

When the Fw 190 became operational, it pretty much took control of the skies, and was superior to the Spit V. If I recall correctly, the only thing the Spit had an advantage over the 190 in, was turn radius.

The quote was in reference to the idea the 190 was developed as a rival design to the Spitfire or that the 190 was influenced by the Spitfire. Both I believe to be false. Since the 190 was a mid to late 1930s design and the Spitfire only a few years younger and a single flying prototype, Tank would have very little to go on design wise or even performance wise.

spicmart · Aug 22, 2012

CobberKane said:
Maybe the P-38 did it for the last year of the war, which confirms Kelly Johnson as a genius in my books but what else?

What special characteristics does the P-38 have that sets it apart from the other twin-engined heavy fighter designs e.g. regarding development potential ?
The Genius of its designer!?

CobberKane · Aug 22, 2012

spicmart said:
What special characteristics does the P-38 have that sets it apart from the other twin-engined heavy fighter designs e.g. regarding development potential ?
The Genius of its designer?

You mean, what was it about the P-38s design that made it better than any of the other twin engine fighters of the war? Good question. Im sure there are plenty of Lightning buffs out there with thoughts to offer

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 22, 2012

The Basket said:
The quote was in reference to the idea the 190 was developed as a rival design to the Spitfire or that the 190 was influenced by the Spitfire. Both I believe to be false. Since the 190 was a mid to late 1930s design and the Spitfire only a few years younger and a single flying prototype, Tank would have very little to go on design wise or even performance wise.

Ooops my apologies...

Shortround6 · Aug 22, 2012

Ah, which twin engine fighters?

The single seat ones?

Or the two and three seaters?

Single seat twin engine production fighters with decent ( much over 1000hp) engines were few and far between for most of the war.

And I like the Whirlwind

The Lighting was "designed" to be a long endurance interceptor and was adapted for it's other roles. For some reason this design for one purpose and adapt for others seems to work a lot better than designing for 2-3 or more roles to begin with.

Most of the "multi-role" multi seat twin engine fighters wound up with bigger wings and bigger fuselages which meant more drag than the Lighting and most of the mass produced ones (over a few dozen) used lower powered engines (especially considering altitude). Japanese Ki 45, anything Italian with twin engines, anything French with twin engines. Russian PE-3? Bristol Beaufighter had more powerful engines down low but was about as streamline as Buckingham palace and so on.
By the end of the war some rivals showed up in small numbers and the Hornet and F7F had the power to go with their bigger size.

Tante Ju · Aug 23, 2012

CobberKane said:
The BF110got chewed up in the BoB. The Bf109 did not. For much of the time they were used for the same role so clearly the 110 was inferior to it's single engine opposition.

I have to disagree, its an old myth perpetuated. Look up the combat result stats, the 110 actually had the best record of all four main fighters - Spit, Hurri and 109. It was hardly such an inferior plane, the existing types were about as fast as the 109 or the Spit, carried heavier armament and had slightly greater range, and more important: the ability to extend that range with external tanks. The British tested this aircraft, and in most ways it was very similar in handling to the 109, rolling ability was practically the same, the turning radii being slightly greater at 1000 feet compared to 885 feet. Even that 1000 feet was quite similiar to later Fw 190 actually...

CobberKane said:
I mentioned that 210s and 410 got chewed up by single engine opposition and you noted that so did Yaks and late war zeros. How is that relevant? Yaks and Zeros took a hammering at different times in the war because they faced superior opposition, but they also had their periods of ascendency.

I think its the same case the Zero. 210s and 410s were indeed "cheewed up" in 1944, but during the same period SE 109s and 190s were chewed up as well by superior opposition.

CobberKane said:
Name me a twin engine fighter that dominated single engine opposition for any period during the war? The only example I can think of that comes close would be the P-38 in the Pacific against Japanese Zeros and Oscars that were well behind contemporary German fighters in those areas where the lightning held an advantage.

Like I said, the actual combat record of the 110 was pretty impressive in 1939-1940.

If my comment that all attempts to create a competitive twin engine design during the war were 'what ifs' or failures is a sweeping generalisation, please list the successes. No, wait – I'll do it for you:
1. P-38
2. Daylight.
I think the twin engine heavy fighter was a useful concept for most air forces, particularly in areas like bomber destroyer and night fighter, but the reality of the twin engine fighter that could match it with the best single engine opposition in combat just didn't happen.

I agree more or less that SE fighters were overall superior in tactical performance. Still TEF should not be written off so easily. Usually TEF were far more versatile than SEF.

CobberKane · Aug 23, 2012

There is one inherent flaw in the conventional twin engine design - it will always be playing catch-up to single engine designs in rate of roll. A twin engine design might achieve the same or better power to weight ratio and the same wingloading figure and therefore match single engine fighters in climb, acceleration, speed etc. But when it begins a roll a twin engine fighter must overcome the inertia of those two heavy engines hung on either side of its rotational axis. Roll rate is very important for a fighter as every aerobatic manouver except a loop involves a roll. The slower the roll rate, the more time you are vulnerable before you can change direction. Inversely, having a faster roll rate means you will be into your turn while the guy on your tail is still waiting to get the wings over far enough to follow.
I'm not suggesting that every single engine fighter could out-roll every twin engine fighter but I suspect this may be one reason why twin engine designs, even ones with competitive power to weight ratios and similar speed and climb, tended to struggle against single engine opposition in combat.

stona · Aug 23, 2012

I never said that the Luftwaffe/RLM didn't want a heavy fighter. I said it was wed to the zerstorer concept. The Fw 187 did not meet the RLM's "advertisement" for a zerstorer. If someone asks for an apple and you offer them an orange there is a good chance that they will not accept it. Focke-Wulf's attempt at a zerstorer was the Fw 57 which was rightly rejected because it was a terrible aeroplane. I believe that the addition of the second seat was a vain attempt by Focke-Wulf to make the Fw 187 fit the specification better.

Tank is quoted by Richard Smith,Eddie Creek,Edward Shacklady,Albert Price amongst others.The quotes I lifted were either from the Smith and Creek book or Shacklady,I frankly can't be bothered to look them up again. If these are not reputable sources simply because they don't agree with your point of view there is no point in having this discussion.

I'm aware of some early Focke-Wulf proposals for what was to become the Focke-Wulf 190. The RLM number 190 was first applied on the contract for the first three prototypes and these were to have a radial engine. Anything else is just a concept. Aviation history is littered with paper covered in design proposals that never made it off the drawing board.

Finally a couple of simple questions that none of the FW 187 supporters have answered.
If the Fw 187 was such a remarkable machine,and it was undoubtedly a good design,why didn't the RLM leap at the opportunity it presented and put it into production?
What do you see in the Fw 187 that all the men of the Luftwaffe and RLM did not.......or vice-versa?

Cheers

Steve

spicmart · Aug 23, 2012

CobberKane said:
You mean, what was it about the P-38s design that made it better than any of the other twin engine fighters of the war? Good question. Im sure there are plenty of Lightning buffs out there with thoughts to offer

Yes, I thought you (or anyone else) can tell me.

CobberKane · Aug 23, 2012

Tante Ju said:
I have to disagree, its an old myth perpetuated. Look up the combat result stats, the 110 actually had the best record of all four main fighters - Spit, Hurri and 109. It was hardly such an inferior plane, the existing types were about as fast as the 109 or the Spit, carried heavier armament and had slightly greater range, and more important: the ability to extend that range with external tanks. The British tested this aircraft, and in most ways it was very similar in handling to the 109, rolling ability was practically the same, the turning radii being slightly greater at 1000 feet compared to 885 feet. Even that 1000 feet was quite similiar to later Fw 190 actually...

Tante, are you serious? Everything I've ever read about the Bf110 has told me it was badly outclassed when it met modern single seat fighters, particularly in the BoB and over Europe. Suggesting it was the equal of Hurricanes and Spitfires smacks of revisionism. Galland thought it was a dog, Bader thought it was easy meat and I remember a quote from the leading 110 ace of the BoB (nine kills I think); "You had to be good and lucky to survive in a Bf110" Like you said, twin engine fighters had their uses but hoding up the 110 as an example of one that could compete with single engine designs in combat? C'mon!

stona · Aug 23, 2012

Tante Ju said:
I have to disagree, its an old myth perpetuated. Look up the combat result stats, the 110 actually had the best record of all four main fighters - Spit, Hurri and 109.

You will not find a bigger fan of the Bf 110,nor a man more knowledgeable about it than John Vasco and yet even he concedes that.

"The Western campaign of May/June 1940 exposed the shortcomings of the aircraft."

The most successful Bf 110 unit of the BoB was the bomb carrying ErPr.Gr. 210 with its Ds and Es. It was the only Bf 110 unit which was itself escorted and it success in a fighter bomber capacity pointed the way to the future use of the type,particularly on the Eastern Front.

By 1941 the Bf 110 had effectively disappeared,as a day fighter,from the skies of Western Europe. There must be a reason for this and if as you suggest,it was the best of the four main fighters engaged in the BoB I'm struggling to find one.

Cheers

Steve

Tante Ju · Aug 23, 2012

I suggest reading this post: Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Me110: Ill-used in BoB

The relevant part:

The blatant failure of the Bf 110 in air to air fighting in the BoB is often repeated in literature. Christer Bergström in his book "Luftstrid över kanalen"(1), 2006, has analyzed the victory and loss statistics in the BoB and presents a different picture to the usually repeated "Bf 110 fighter BoB disaster" scenario.

The confirmed aerial victories achieved by Bf 109 units amounted to 815 while the Bf 110 units gathered 407 confirmed victories.
A comparison between confirmed victories and operational losses due to air battles gives at hand that in the period 8 August to end of October 1940:
Bf 109 units scored 815 victories to 489 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
Bf 110 units scored 407 victories to 185 losses – a ratio of 2,2:1

In October the Bf 110 units even had a ratio of 3:1 while the Bf 109 units dropped to 1,4:1.

Christer Bergström continues to discuss the matter as well as comparing Spifire and Hurricane relative performances and some of the RAF unit's performance, RAF Bomber command losses, coastal command and the Fleet Air Arm..
When finally comparing the scores by Bf 109 and Bf 110 units as mentioned above with the estimated true losses by each side for the period July-October 1940 it turns out that in approximate figures the authentic victories versus actual air battle losses where:

Spitfire 550 victories to 329 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
Hurricane 750 victories to 603 losses – a ratio of 1,2:1
Bf 109 780 victories to 534 losses – a ratio of 1,5:1
Bf 110 340 victories to 196 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1

Worth pondering on IMHO.

stona said:
By 1941 the Bf 110 had effectively disappeared,as a day fighter,from the skies of Western Europe. There must be a reason for this and if as you suggest,it was the best of the four main fighters engaged in the BoB I'm struggling to find one.

Cheers

Steve

I think the reason is that most of them were needed in the newly formed Nachtjagd, where most 110s units went for the lack of any other suitable aircraft (Jumo engined 109s were also pressed into this role, though obviously were not super-fitting for such task).

tomo pauk · Aug 23, 2012

CobberKane said:
Hello Tomo,
Re your comments, my reputation as a P-38 hater should be firmly established by now. But without rehashing all my previous rantings on the subject, no the P-38 did not do whatever the 'best fighter could do'. The 'best fighters' were 109Gs and Fw190s in the ETC. The P-38 had the range to get to them when contemporary single engine designs did not, but in combat it struggled until the L models arrived – by which time single engine designs were doing the same job for much less cost.

Hi, Cane,
For the starters, I don't believe in 'haters' of any plane
Re bolded part, yes, P-38 was able to do, at least in 1942 to end of 1943, what ever the best single engined planes were capable to. From escorting bombers, intercepting enemy planes (both above home turf and above enemy held territory, type of the plane notwithstanding), mixing it against SE oposition. Opposite was not true (SE fighters doing whatever P-38 was capable to do); Zero and Yak-9D were firmly in 350 mph speed capability, 109, 190 and Spit lacking the combat range.
If you could provide firm evidence that P-38 struggled, or suffered vs. Luftwaffe, please post your data.

The BF110got chewed up in the BoB. The Bf109 did not. For much of the time they were used for the same role so clearly the 110 was inferior to it's single engine opposition.

Bf-109 was able to fly above S. England, do some fighting, and then scoot back to France since the fuel gauge is disturbing the pilot. Not the case for 110*. Then we need to look at the tactics - Bf-110 suffered far more for flying at bomber speeds and altitude (ie. slow and at 15000 ft, give or take) - not a bright prospect for an heavy fighter. You can note that, once the USAAF escorts abandoned such an escort (close escort), their scores soared, while B-17/24 losses dwindled. Then we return to the fact that Bf-110 wan NOT an ideal heavy fighter, it was simply too big heavy (yet faster than anything SE, bar Spit 109), and as such it should be flown above in front of the bombers, at higher speeds, so it's able to dive at defenders. Again, close escort rules forbade that, with known consequences.
Btw, what were the accomplishments of the Bf-109 units in the BoB? Like none, maybe?

Regarding my comparison between the Whirlwind and the Typhoon, I'm happy for you that you smile so easily but my point was that when the Whirlwind was withdrawn from service it was replaced by the Typhoon, not an improved Whirlwind or some other twin engine design.

RAF did not have on it's disposition, say, 7 single engined and 4 twin engined fighters, capable to carry 4 cannons, while being of high performance, to replace Whirlwind. The only plane to do that was Typhoon. In my book, having only one choice means that there is no choice.

I mentioned that 210s and 410 got chewed up by single engine opposition and you noted that so did Yaks and late war zeros. How is that relevant? Yaks and Zeros took a hammering at different times in the war because they faced superior opposition, but they also had their periods of ascendency.

210 and 410 were planes with outdated wing profiles, bomb bay, movable MGs, tailored for the crew of two, and simply too big - hardly a recipe for a competitive day fighter. I mean, 3500 HP, yet under 390 MPH?? Same power in a push-pull configuration yields what, 450-470 mph, but Germans were too late to employ such a design.
Zeros Yaks are very relevant - proving that it's not enough to design produce a SE fighter, it need to be very good if one does not want to send his trained pilots to die. Same as 210 410.

Name me a twin engine fighter that dominated single engine opposition for any period during the war? The only example I can think of that comes close would be the P-38 in the Pacific against Japanese Zeros and Oscars that were well behind contemporary German fighters in those areas where the lightning held an advantage.

Why not to name a single engined fighter, from early 1942 to late 1943, that was able to, say, escort the bombers some 500 miles, then dominate the P-38 (from SL to 40000 ft), and then return to it's base?

If my comment that all attempts to create a competitive twin engine design during the war were 'what ifs' or failures is a sweeping generalisation, please list the successes. No, wait – I'll do it for you:
1. P-38
2. Daylight.
I think the twin engine heavy fighter was a useful concept for most air forces, particularly in areas like bomber destroyer and night fighter, but the reality of the twin engine fighter that could match it with the best single engine opposition in combat just didn't happen.

Reality was the P-38.
British missed the train with Whirlwind (tailored for the wrong Rolls Royce engine type), Gloster's TE fighter (too bad no Merlin there), but scored with Hornet. German Bf-110 was a very useful machine, yet messed up by low numbers wrong tactics in BoB, 210 410 were woo big, Fw-187 was not given a chance with DB-601s, Do-335 was great, but too late. Soviet Pe-2I/3 was again a tad too big for engine power.

*added: seems like 110 was not suffering too much, as noted in the above post

stona · Aug 23, 2012

Tante Ju said:
I think the reason is that most of them were needed in the newly formed Nachtjagd, where most 110s units went for the lack of any other suitable aircraft (Jumo engined 109s were also pressed into this role, though obviously were not super-fitting for such task).

You could take Theo Boiten's view,particularly regarding the expansion of the night fighter force,as opposed to Christer Bergstrom's.

"...The defensive Nachtjagd was being expanded rapidly by the end of 1940. Many units flying the twin engined Messerschmitt Bf 110 C Zerstorer aircraft were converted to night fighting duties after the types debacle during the Battle of Britain."

The most obvious specific debacle would be the failiure of the Bf 110 to protect the bombers of Luftflotte 5 on 15/10/40. 12 and 13 Groups had themselves a field day,shooting down 16 bombers and 7 of the escorting Bf 110s.

It is fair to say that the Bf 110 formed the backbone of Germany's night fighter force for the rest of the war. It was a good aeroplane,of that there is no doubt.

They were also needed in the East where they performed very well in more of a fighter bomber role.
This new role was also found for the Hurricane,another aircraft which,for entirely different reasons,was becoming uncompetitive as what we would today call an air superiority fighter.

Cheers

Steve

Milosh · Aug 23, 2012

Me110: Ill-used in BoB - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

This is thread Tante Ju took his quote from. Juha's comment in Post #7 should be read.

tomo pauk · Aug 23, 2012

spicmart said:
What special characteristics does the P-38 have that sets it apart from the other twin-engined heavy fighter designs e.g. regarding development potential ?
The Genius of its designer?

Well, Kelly Johnson's CV is as an impressive one
Part of the success of the P-38 was it's size - people at Lockheed wanted a plane that would be just big enough to mount 2 engines, pilot, lethality package fuel (plus accessories). 2 engines of 1000 HP (initially) were chosen since the one engine that was to deliver 1500 HP* (as it would be needed in an single engined fighter that would be able to do things required) was not present in late 1939s in the USA.
As noted elsewhere, other nation's TE fighters were either too big, or were using dead end engines - Lockheed was right about plane's size choice of powerplants for their P-38.

*turbo R-2600, maybe (ducks for cover )?

spicmart · Aug 23, 2012

tomo pauk said:
Well, Kelly Johnson's CV is as an impressive one
Part of the success of the P-38 was it's size - people at Lockheed wanted a plane that would be just big enough to mount 2 engines, pilot, lethality package fuel (plus accessories). 2 engines of 1000 HP (initially) were chosen since the one engine that was to deliver 1500 HP* (as it would be needed in an single engined fighter that would be able to do things required) was not present in late 1939s in the USA.
As noted elsewhere, other nation's TE fighters were either too big, or were using dead end engines - Lockheed was right about plane's size choice of powerplants for their P-38.

*turbo R-2600, maybe (ducks for cover )?

Thank you for a least giving an answer.
While the P-38 had the luck of being at the right time in the right place (engine and design wise) as you stated I cannot see why the P-38 design per se (without engines) should be superior to any of its counterparts (Fw 187, Ki-83, DH Hornet, F7F) which are all of similar size (with the exception of the Tigercat of course but which had the right engines to make it not less than competitive).
I have yet to see an explanation for the alleged superiority of the P-38 design (against TE oppsition) including late war models which had impressive performance and a rate of roll matching or surpassing those of SE fighters thanks to boosted ailerons.
A feature sometimes mentioned to illustrate the awesomeness of the late P-38s.
At that time the late war versions of the Fw 190D and Ta 152 were equipped with these ailerons.

Cheers

DonL · Aug 23, 2012

I never said that the Luftwaffe/RLM didn't want a heavy fighter. I said it was wed to the zerstorer concept. The Fw 187 did not meet the RLM's "advertisement" for a zerstorer. If someone asks for an apple and you offer them an orange there is a good chance that they will not accept it. Focke-Wulf's attempt at a zerstorer was the Fw 57 which was rightly rejected because it was a terrible aeroplane. I believe that the addition of the second seat was a vain attempt by Focke-Wulf to make the Fw 187 fit the specification better.

So you know what Wever and Wimmer wanted? The men who initiated the Ural Bomber and at 1936 the He 177, and both with a strategic plan for the LW? And the advertisement at 1936 was from Wever and Wimmer!
I'm with you that the Bf 110 won 1936 but as I told in my posts before, Bf wasn't able to get a real production on the way (we are not talking of a mass production, we are talking simply of any production). Bf were noobies with the production issue and very busy with the Bf 109! The initiation of the Bf 110 production took at least 3 years with major help from Gotha and that brought the FW 187 in game.

It's clearly documented from original documents that Udet didn't believe that the Bf 110 could achieve all requirements from the advertisement of 1936, he had real doubts of the fighter ability's of the Bf 110 and with the lacking production of the Bf 110 and the DB 600/601 engine, he ordered the prototypes of the FW 187 after the flight of the V1!
The comparation flights of the FW 187 V4 at Rechlin September/Oktober 1938 against the Bf 109B and the Bf 110B are documented!
The FW 187 clearly outclased the Bf 110 at speed, climb and rolling with absolute the same armament as the Bf 110 with nearly the same internal fuel and payload and also outclased the Bf 109B at speed and rolling and was equal at climb and turning!
After that Udet ordered the preproduction series of the FW 187A and also ordered the FW 187B (with DB 601 engines) as first mass produced model.
Göring canceled this order of the FW 187B and overruled Udet!

Tank is quoted by Richard Smith,Eddie Creek,Edward Shacklady,Albert Price amongst others.The quotes I lifted were either from the Smith and Creek book or Shacklady,I frankly can't be bothered to look them up again. If these are not reputable sources simply because they don't agree with your point of view there is no point in having this discussion.

Do you want to joke with me?
The drawing dated 18.07.1938 and the 1:1 blank were the reasons of the order of the three prototypes from the RLM!
Focke-Wulf FW 190 A. Die ersten Baureihen: Amazon.de: Dietmar Hermann,Ulrich Levernez,Eberhard Weber: Bücher
from Dietmar Hermann!

Tank is quoted by Richard Smith,Eddie Creek,Edward Shacklady,Albert Price amongst others.The quotes I lifted were either from the Smith and Creek book or Shacklady,I frankly can't be bothered to look them up again. If these are not reputable sources simply because they don't agree with your point of view there is no point in having this discussion.

There is nothing to discuss, because the development of the FW 190A is very well documented from original documents from FW and the RLM!
Focke-Wulf FW 190 A. Die ersten Baureihen: Amazon.de: Dietmar Hermann,Ulrich Levernez,Eberhard Weber: Bücher Dietmar Hermann!
The mandate to develope a second fighter next to the Bf 109 was given to FW exclusive 1937, the decission to built with a radial engine was at the beginning of 1938 and the order of the three prototypes was at summer 1938 after the drawing dated 18.07.1938 and the 1:1 blank were shown to the RLM! So you should explain, how a team which was developing a fighter since the end of 1937 to summer 1938 has any link to the Spitfire! That's are facts from original documents and to say it clear:

Tank is quoted by Richard Smith,Eddie Creek,Edward Shacklady,Albert Price amongst others

this is total equal to me, or you show me primary sources, because Mr. Hermann has shown primary sources in his book!

Finally a couple of simple questions that none of the FW 187 supporters have answered.
If the Fw 187 was such a remarkable machine,and it was undoubtedly a good design,why didn't the RLM leap at the opportunity it presented and put it into production?
What do you see in the Fw 187 that all the men of the Luftwaffe and RLM did not.......or vice-versa?

That' very easy to explain, the FW 187 wasn't as popular at and after the war as for example the He 100 and didn't achieve a world speed record. Many primary sources were forgotten!
Dietmar Hermann had done the research which his very good connections to FW, to find primary sources of the FW 187 at the FW company itself or from former FW engineers at private. Also he had done the research to the official documents of the RLM and the Luftwaffe about the FW 187. The FW 187 wasn't at any time any propaganda a/c and only the insider of the RLM/LW and the pilots from Norway and Denmark knew real facts about the FW 187!
He was the first who formed a complete picture of the FW 187 with primary sources and the personnel reviews of the pilots.
Also the performance of the testflight's of the FW 187V are from primary sources next to the performance of the FW 187A's at Norway.
Today there are several possibilitys to estimate the performance potential of an a/c with the right software, if you have clear data's from primary sources. This analys was done with the primary source data's of the FW 187 and so you can get a good picture of the possible performance, also this analys is very equal to the estimations of the FW engineers which were working on the FW 187!

1. Göring denied the Fw 187 and he played the big decider after the dead of Wever, because he was jealous of the success of Wever, Wimmer and Milch, so he introduced himself back as the great chief and decider!
2. Also Stumpf and Kesselring stated that Görings attitude to work and his attitude to facts was nil and also his whole attitude was more like a child which lived from old memorys and making decision under the influence of alcohol or don't make decisions because he hadn't any desire to make decisions.
3. Also I want to mention that Göring was a Junkie since the end of the Twentys, who get regulary a clean morphine shot, that's from primary sources
4. Some Officers also Kesselring and Stumpf claimed that Göring had some very special relationship to the ZG's with Bf 110, some said he loved the Bf 110 and prefered it over the Bf 109!
5. The pilots at 1940/41 at Norway preferd the FW 187A's over the Bf 110C.
As Göring get knowledge about this issue he ordered the FW 187's to Denamark
6. After the debacel of the Bf 110 at BoB and Norway some Officers mentioned to Göring, that this had not to be happened, if the FW 187 would be in production. After that Göring gave the direct order that nobody ever mentioned the FW 187 to him and ordered the FW 187A's back to Bremen

davebender · Aug 23, 2012

Having superior weapons is a great deterrent to hostile nations. Hence the large scale deception to convince Britain and France the He-100/He-113 was operational and in mass production.

During 1939 the Fw-187 was clearly superior to all other fighter aircraft. If Germany managed to get a Jagdgeschwader of Fw-187 operational by the summer of 1939 it has the potential to deter Britain and/or France from declaring war during September 1939. How soon could the Fw-187 enter mass production if Germany gave the program top priority?

tyrodtom · Aug 23, 2012

WOW, so now the Fw 187 could have prevented WW2!!!
Dave, you've come up with something so far out there, I don't have a effing clue how to respond.

1940: Luftwaffe's ideal heavy fighter?

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Banned

Banned

Major

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Major

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Staff Sergeant

Banned

1st Lieutenant

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads