- Thread starter
-
- #281
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
From what I can find, all of them from VG.30 to VG.39Bis had the 14 m^2 wing with the sole exception of the VG.60 which was planned with a 17 m^2 wing.The whole VG.30 series seems to have stayed with the 14m2 wing?
The base D.551's wing was 13 m^2, but the D.553 and D.554 (the ones fitted with the 12Z) were planned to have a 2 m^2 extension of the wing surface for a 15 m^2 wing. However the M.520T was based primarily around the D.551 platform and had little in common with the base D.520, so the 17.3 m^2 wing is a reasonable possibility for the D.55x.Disregarding the Caudron series we do have Dewoitine going to a small wing (13m2 ?) with the 551.
(my bold)but the D.553 and D.554 (the ones fitted with the 12Z) had a 2 m^2 extension of the wing surface for a 15 m^2 wing.
Were planned to have.(my bold)
The word "had" might be pushing it.
And this is part of the problem for the French fighters. For weight a single 20mm and four 13.2mm guns is about the same as six 12.7mm/.50 cal guns. And the US screwed up the P-40D/E and Wildcat with that weight armament. They also put in more protection than some other nations did. US self sealing tanks were among the best but they were heavy. P-40 and Wildcat also didn't have their engines improve as much as needed in 1942/43 to stay first rank.
I have spent about 15 minutes just trying to figure out what a VG.60 was. Lots of drawings, You can even buy models.From what I can find, all of them from VG.30 to VG.39Bis had the 14 m^2 wing with the sole exception of the VG.60 which was planned with a 17 m^2 wing.
It may have been closer to 500-600lbs going by "design" weight.the P-39D was with an even greater firpower weight installed when compared with P-40E, yet it was lighter by about 1000 lb.
It's an odd case.I have spent about 15 minutes just trying to figure out what a VG.60 was. Lots of drawings, You can even buy models.
most or all (?) show/indicate a rather large radiator duct inside the rear fuselage, super P-51 style.
They show eight machine guns in the wing and most claim they are .50 cal'13.2mm. Great! 17m2 wing for the armament of a P-47. Wonder how that works.
Proposed engines are all over the place. Including
1,000 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-51 supercharged by a two-stage Sidlowsky-Planiol turbo-charger."
Late war or postwar they talk about a Jumo 213.
Yeah, plane about the size of a 109 with 960kg engine in the nose.
Some drawings show a larger plane than the 1940 version?
There are "what ifs" and there are fantasy planes.
Right now this seems to be leaning well into fantasy.
1,000 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-51 supercharged by a two-stage Sidlowsky-Planiol turbo-charger."
A lot of people, who should have know better, specified too many guns in many planes in 1939-41.The amount of guns isn't impossible per say, but I think the designers at Arsenal were getting a bit too excited.
My main point is the expanded wing, showing that Arsenal did plan for larger wings on the VG.30 platform.
Simplified the original post some.France is a nation that gets swept under the rug when discussing aircraft of WW2, but when looking upon what they had planned, they had a number of strong contenders that likely would have been produced if not for the Fall or if Germany didn't place the embargo on them. Specifically - and the primary aircraft referred to in this discussion - the Dewoitine D.520Z/SE.520Z, Dewoitine D.551, Arsenal VG.39Bis, Bloch M.B.157 andArsenal VB 10.
These 5 planes were planned to be produced around 1942~1943, meaning their competition would be as such:
Germany: Bf 109 F-4, G-2 and G-6 / Fw 190 A-4 and A-5, A-6, A-7
Britain: Spitfire MK V, MK VIII, Mk IX, LF Mk IX, XVII andXIV/ Hawker Typhoon.
Russia: Lagg-3 La-5 and La-5FN / Yak-1, Yak-7B, Yak-9 and Yak-9D and Yak-9T.
USA: P-39D-Q, P-40F. P-40K and P-40N / P-51B and P-51C / P-47C and P-47D /F4F, FM-2/F4U-1and F4U-1C/ F6F-3and F6F-5.
Italy: C.202EC, C.205 Serie III andC.205N2/ G.55 / Re.2001 and Re.2005.
Japan: A6M2, A6M3, A6M5 / Ki-43, Ki-44 / Ki-61-I andKi-61-II/N1K1-JandN1K2-J.
So my question to you fine folks is this:
How would these fearsome French fighters fare facing the fierce foes of the early forties?
An actual answer to the original question! Huzzah!-snip-
According to the recollections of Soviet fighter pilots, they very rarely exhausted all of their ammunition. They considered the ammunition of a Soviets fighter (Yak, LagG/La) to be quite sufficient. I wrote about it earlier, but you repeat the erroneous thesis about insufficiency of the ammunition of Soviet fighters again.Russia: Soviets are fighting to hang on here. The 20mm ShVAK cannon was about 85% as effective as the Hispano. It fired a bit faster but since most Soviet fighters only carried about 120 rounds of cannon ammo, it ran out a bit quicker. The saving grace was the 12.7mm UB machine gun.
And I will keep repeating the this "erroneous thesis".According to the recollections of Soviet fighter pilots, they very rarely exhausted all of their ammunition. They considered the ammunition of a Soviets fighter (Yak, LagG/La) to be quite sufficient. I wrote about it earlier, but you repeat the erroneous thesis about insufficiency of the ammunition of Soviet fighters again.
For no good reason.And I will keep repeainting the this "erroneous thesis".
"Less" is not equal "insufficient".Because it is true that the Soviet aircraft, in general carried less ammo. That is true, it is not erroneous unless 120 is somehow greater than 140 or 150.
Nope. This is exactly the same question: how much ammunition is appropriate for particular air combat conditions?The flip side is if the soviet fighters could perform their missions, for the most part, with the existing ammo under the conditions/missions they were flying.
Which is a different question/problem.
Of course. But there is a good reason to assume that the conditions of air combat in a confrontation between the hypothetical French fighters and the Germans would be similar, if not exactly the same, as on the Eastern Front. As a consequence, the French fighters would be quite sufficient with less ammunition, and they could be lighter, i.e. the engine power demands could be somewhat reduced.When we are comparing aircraft from different nations that flew under different conditions it helps to understand the limitations.
Of course. But there is a good reason to assume that the conditions of air combat in a confrontation between the hypothetical French fighters and the Germans would be similar, if not exactly the same, as on the Eastern Front. As a consequence, the French fighters would be quite sufficient with less ammunition, and they could be lighter, i.e. the engine power demands could be somewhat reduced
If I may go into speculation zone here, the 3 main fighter aircraft they had planned seem to fit into those niches quite nicely.In 1940 that was not the way the French were leaning. Of course being knocked out of the war in 1940 they didn't have much chance to change their minds. They were specifying ridiculous amounts of 7.5mm ammo, more in line with the P-39 and Beaufighter wing guns. I fully agree that the French could have scaled back some of their ammo requirements to benefit of performance.
I do not agree that the French front would have evolved to a repeat of the Soviet front in regards to air combat. While the altitudes for air combat stayed at mid and low level for the phony war and a lot of the May thru June fighting was at low level that is not the way the French wanted the war to go. They wanted to bomb Germany, They wanted to keep the Germans from bombing France (Cities, industry, etc).
Perhaps France would be kept on their back foot and not be able to develop an air offensive while keeping the defense.
Perhaps the Germans would be content with an offensive tactical air operation and not try to bomb French industry and be forced into the altitudes than prevailed during the BoB?
They don't need P-51s but they need fighters with more range/endurance some of the Soviet fighters had. They also needed better altitude capability. In part because they not only wanted to bomb at higher altitudes but because the Germans were going to want to bomb at higher altitudes and/or bomb at night.
French were rather late getting AA guns into production. Would this continue? Would they be able to buy AA guns?
A higher density of AA guns will force air combat higher.
Will France deploy radar in 1941-42?
The French high command had fallen for the same bomber centric thinking that British had (and the Italians) and would probably had tried to pull it off if they could supply enough fighters to defend France. French thinking was pretty bad in 1939/40.
But even forgetting Berlin the French were going to need at least some fighters that could stay in air for 2-3 hours and do it at 15-25,000ft. (escort to Nuremberg or Bremen ?)
Or stop the Germans from getting 100 or miles past Paris or to the south.
The fighting in France is going to be in a higher density area than Russia. With better (French phone system aside) communications. Both sides may resort to large commitments to land battles at certain points but use a lot of the bombers for strategic use during lulls in the land battles ( we are talking about 2-3 years here?)
And we are back to quality over quantity or the other way around. A lot of adequately (?) armed fighters or bit fewer well armed fighters
The French did not have the resources to produce heavy bombers, moreover, not a single prototype of the Br.482 was even completed before the war outbreak, and the few Farman available were of no real value. All that could realistically take part in combat was tactical aviation. While the production of fighters/light and medium bombers/attack aircraft can still be imagined in a fighting France, the production of heavy bombers is a pure fantasy. The French Air Force would remain in a tactical niche, operating at the characteristic altitudes of tactical bombers - 0 to 5000, ok, 6000 meters. Without the Allies, the French could not win, thus all the same Lancasters/B-17/Lightnings etc. would be engaged in strategic bombing. I guess this role distribution would be favorable to both the French and the British-Americans.I do not agree that the French front would have evolved to a repeat of the Soviet front in regards to air combat. While the altitudes for air combat stayed at mid and low level for the phony war and a lot of the May thru June fighting was at low level that is not the way the French wanted the war to go. They wanted to bomb Germany, They wanted to keep the Germans from bombing France (Cities, industry, etc).
Perhaps France would be kept on their back foot and not be able to develop an air offensive while keeping the defense.
Ok, could you please provide the distribution of the altitude for German bomber raids during the BoB?Perhaps the Germans would be content with an offensive tactical air operation and not try to bomb French industry and be forced into the altitudes than prevailed during the BoB?
So why were German bombers flying so low on the Eastern Front? To give Soviet fighters a better chance? Why would German tactics be different in France if the performance of German aircraft was even lower than in the actual battles in the East?They also needed better altitude capability. In part because they not only wanted to bomb at higher altitudes but because the Germans were going to want to bomb at higher altitudes and/or bomb at night.
The biggest problem for the French was the lack of endless territories with industrial potential in the rear a la the USSR.French were rather late getting AA guns into production.
So we are back to the erroneous thesis that only 4 engine bombers can do strategic bombing?The French did not have the resources to produce heavy bombers, moreover, not a single prototype of the Br.482 was even completed before the war outbreak, and the few Farman available were of no real value. All that could realistically take part in combat was tactical aviation. While the production of fighters/light and medium bombers/attack aircraft can still be imagined in a fighting France, the production of heavy bombers is a pure fantasy.
Basically the Soviets would not fight at the higher altitudes, High being 10-20,000ft as a general rule. Accuracy of bombing is always better at low altitudes. And the Germans bombers were doing a lot more tactical or interdiction bombing. With an area as big as the Eastern front there are always exceptions and/or isolated pockets of either land or time.So why were German bombers flying so low on the Eastern Front? To give Soviet fighters a better chance? Why would German tactics be different in France if the performance of German aircraft was even lower than in the actual battles in the East?
True but in the context of AA guns/defense France is sort the same as Germany. Deep penetration (and here we are talking about 2-300 miles for both sides) means flying dog legs to get around AA batteries located close to the border defending closer targets. Once you have a lot of AA guns.The biggest problem for the French was the lack of endless territories with industrial potential in the rear a la the USSR.
Except it would be being compared to Vaught F4U-5s, Grumman F8F-2s, Hawker Fury's and the like. And jets. There was zero chance of the HS 12B showing up in WW II.A theoretical D.554Bis with a 1,850 hp 12B, 17.2 m^2 wing and a triple cannon loadout would be a monster in combat, with performance comparable with the best of the best.
And here the devil is in the details. And the details of the D.520 are a little fuzzy or confused. The US had crap load of long (for 1939-40) range fighters. Problem was that the US learned from others that their range was an illusion. If you want to be able to use that long range you need protected fuel tanks. Not protected from fire (although that helped) , but protected from leaks.The base D.520 had better range than the Spitfire and Bf 109, and given that they maintained those wing fuel tanks on the SE.520Z that allowed for that increased range, the SE.520Z would likely take up that mantle of Escort Fighter. The mediocre high altitude performance is a problem, but the S-P supercharger was a step in the right direction, and two-stage superchargers seem to be on the cards looking at the Spanish 12Z development.
And we are back to pinning all the hopes on that Supercharger, and trusting that the 1946-47 advertising information is good for the 1940-42 engines.The M.B.157 is a shoe-in for the Interceptor role; it had the heaviest armament package of the three with the biggest room for growth along with excellent high-altitude performance owing to its stellar supercharger. Perhaps by late 1943 it'd swap to a quad cannon loadout?
Except that the good maneuverability takes hit when you try to update the plane to most peoples 19442-43 combat standards. More than a thin plate of armor behind the pilot, BP glass, better radios and/or IFF equipment. Fuel tank protection of some sort (even if it is not US type self sealing, I am referring to weight not effectiveness). The same amount of weight takes bigger toll on a smaller fighter.The VG.39Bis had good high-altitude performance but its small wing profile would seriously harm its chances above 6,000 m. However its light weight and good manoeuvrability would likely make for a potent Point-Defence Fighter - stationed at airfields near critical industry to deal with threats below 6,000 m.
Forget the 12B, that is a unicorn.I'm unsure where the D.55x would fall in the mix. The D.551 could likely get by as a pure fighter around late 1940 to 1941 until they get the 12Z up and running, at which point it would evolve into the D.554 or M.520T (either or, they're pretty similar). A pure fighter is perfectly fine, and if the blanket statement of France being pushed back 4~5 years in overall development is true, perhaps the design could evolve to handle either a beefed up 12Z or the 12B around 1944.