Advanced French Fighters vs 1942/1943 contemporaries (15 Viewers)

[yulzari]

The truth is probably somewhere in between your position and the US traditional narrative. French and British orders did pay for a lot of US aircraft factory expansion, but perhaps not as much as some people think it terms of percent. British and French paid for very little shipyard expansion in 1938-39-40. British and French paid for very little small arms production expansion or artillery expansion or even ammo expansion (not saying there were no ammo orders, just not new factories built to handle such orders). Not sure that France was interested in American tanks, Britain was or at least the idea of America building British designed tanks. This idea was flatly rejected by the Americans after the fiasco of WW I production when the US joined the war with all of it's factories tooled up for British and French (and Russian) weapons and the US had to either adopt foreign weapons or do without for months after declaring war. The US was happy to take British money for US designed tanks (with a bit of input from the British.
The whole "America would be forced to go to war in 1942 with a 1938 sized arms industry" bit rather ignores the US Navy re-armament plans. The USS Iowa and New Jersey were both ordered on July 1st 1939 and the Iowa was laid down on June 27th 1940.
It also ignores President Roosevelt's May 16th 1940 speech calling for the US to develop the capacity to built 50,000 planes a year and asked for $896,000,000 total for both air and other items. Congress voted some (most) of the money in June (?) and it was this that funded the Ford plant and the Packard Merlin production in part and a number of other projects/plants.
BTW this was a around 1 1/2 years after...................Jan. 12, 1939, he delivered a special message to Congress calling for strengthening of the Air Corps. Congress then authorized $300 million for 5,500 new airplanes.
It took a while for even the 1939 appropriation to kick in. That included the order for the 560 (524 actual aircraft and 36 as spare parts) P-40s but even the April 27th 1939 order tool a while as the first production P-40 didn't fly until April 4th 1940. Orders were placed for other fighters, bombers, recon and trainers.

I do agree with you. I was writing in the most general of terms in as little space as possible. Part of that was alluding to the existence of government level state supported orders and letters of intention which made borrowing the money on the open market to build factories etc. much easier without the US government having to spend anything at all itself. Not that the US government failed to spend at all of course. The presence and expectation of secure orders leveraged the access to funds as well as receiving the direct funding of the purchases themselves.

 

[Elan Vital]

FYI, here are some docs I found at the archives last week on the FN 13.2mm HE ammo:
Trials at Les Sables d'Olonne, report from May 26th, 1940: 13.2mm HE ammo – Google Drive
FN brochure: GR 9 N 280 - FN 13.2mm HE – Google Drive

 

[Elan Vital]

Just some tidbits I gathered since I received last friday a copy of Philippe RICCO's Les Avions MARCEL BLOCH Tome III regarding namely Bloch fighters:


The book reports the following figures for aerodynamic drag (SCx) and frontal surface area (wind tunnel results).

	S	SCx	100Cx
Bloch 150	15.35	0.5680	3.7
Bloch 152	17.35	0.5030	2.899
Bloch 155	17.35	0.4680	2.697
Bloch 157	19.40	0.4260	2.196

So the Bloch 155 improved drag by some 7% over Bloch 152 and Bloch 157 improved drag by some 10% compared to 155. The 157 used a wing profile with a 10% improved Cx over another experimental wing profile which was itself 10% better than the 155 wing. That gives an idea of some of the drag reduction measures meant for 157.

The 155's prototype did indeed reach 550 kph and "overspeed" tests showed 575 kph. The minimum max speed for acceptance trials was set at 550 kph (at 5000m), and this is what RICCO retained for the technical spec sheet of the 155, but he doesn't state if this speed was achieved by production machines, maybe owing to the lack of acceptance reports (as the aircrafts would have been accepted in May/June).
The 155 definitely appears to sit at 530-550 kph on average though (it was also reported as "the fastest French fighter of May-June 1940 fighting"), making it a counterpart to the D520 and VG33 of May-June 1940, although Bloch had no production variant between the 155 and 157 to further increase speed in late 1940/early 1941 while the D520 and VG33 had aerodynamic upgrades, 12Y-49 or 12Y-51 engine versions to fill the performance area between 550 and 620 kph in that period.

As for the armament, the book confirms that the intended main armament was 4 machineguns and 2 20mm cannons (with drum mags as the belt feed wasn't ready yet), as opposed to the 2 MGs and 2 cannons of the 152. However this was only applied to a couple 155s as the first few ones kept 2 MGs and 2 cannons, albeit MGs with belt-feed as for all 155s while 152 had mag feed. Had the French held it is likely that the later (most) 155s would have got the increased armament, which is beneficial against unarmored aircrafts or unarmored parts of aircrafts.

In contrast, from what I have read the Bloch 152 never exceeded 517 kph in the best production configuration (minimum max speed for acceptance trials was set at 505 kph), which is the configuration that all 152s was being converted to from Spring 1940 onwards with a some aircrafts still being of inferior standard (482 kph minimum max speed or 492 minimum max speed depending on the cowling and engine) in May-June 1940. Apparently the Bloch 151s also got the improved cowling from the late 152 (not all) but no speed is given for this configuration.
Interestingly enough, 20 151s were converted to 152s in 1942 against the orders of the German authorities, and some 152s of that period received extra internal fuel. In theory it may have been possible to convert all 151s to 152s, especially for export, but it would probably have been done only if Bloch had enough spare capacity to do so, which is doubtful even for an hypothetical second semester of 1940. More likely France would have just waited for some 152s and 155s to be replaced by newer aircrafts before exporting them, while exporting plain 151s with the late cowling in the meantime. Notably Greece did ask for 50 Bloch 155s in July 1940 OTL, which was obviously rejected by the Germans.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Really looks like the Bloch 155 and 157 might have fixed the series quite a bit, these included several other improvements as well besides streamlining and speed, right?

Cockpit was moved back a bit and COG improved (?) I think.... (?)

Reinforces my sad cry of "If only 3 more months"

We would have:

At least some Arsenal VG 33 / 36 / 39 fighters in service (with some time for pilots to train on the new type). 700 or 800 were on order, only 20 or so delivered. If available in numbers these could have been a big help for the Armee de L'Air.
More Dewoitine D.520 fighters. 1,280 were ordered, ~440 were manufactured, only 75 got into service with Armee de L'Air. If they had 400-500 in service and a few weeks time for pilots to train on the new type...)
Possibly some D.530 / 551 / 552 produced (maybe a few of these more potent improved D.520 types)
More Breguet 693 series attack planes (total order was 230 vs 124 in service)
More Bloch 170-174 series recon planes (271 ordered, only 52 got into service)
Some MS 410 instead of 406 fighters (there was a conversion program just getting started at the time of the Battle of France, though I don't know how many were converted. Hopefully most of this series gets replaced by VG 33, D.520, or Hawk 75 but for those units still flying Moranes, 410 is better)
More and better Hawk 75 fighters (possibly another ~200 75 / A4 delivered out of a total order of 700 with 172 in service. Another ~500 in service could have been a huge help!)
Maybe some Hawk 81 "Tomahawk" fighters (~230 Hawk 81 were ordered, these ended up being delivered to England late in 1941, theoretically some could have been delivered by September or October though I'm not sure of the timeline)
Wildcat / Martlets (~81 G-36A were ordered, these were delivered to the British at Martlet I in 1940, with 804 Sqn going into service in Aug 1940. Even a few of these could have been helpful I think.)
More Loire 451 series fast bombers (roughly 450 were ordered vs 222 delivered and 94 that got into active service)
More DB-7 series fast bombers (270 were ordered vs 100 delivered and 64 in service)
More Martin 167 series fast bombers (280 ordered, 140 got into service)

So you could have had almost 2-3 times as many modern and quite capable aircraft. I don't know if that is enough to overcome all the institutional problems with France's military but I think the Battle of France as it happened historically already put a bigger dent in the Luftwaffe than is generally recognized (~1,200 aircraft or 28% of operational strength). Theoretically, if France had twice as many modern aircraft they may have inflicted twice as many losses, then who knows what happens.

Did I miss any?

 

[Steamed_Banana]

(and of course all this doesn't also consider German production and improved types between May-August 1940, which is probably pretty scary...)

 

[andy1967]

Really looks like the Bloch 155 and 157 might have fixed the series quite a bit, these included several other improvements as well besides streamlining and speed, right?

View attachment 877577
Cockpit was moved back a bit and COG improved (?) I think.... (?)

Reinforces my sad cry of "If only 3 more months"

We would have:

At least some Arsenal VG 33 / 36 / 39 fighters in service (with some time for pilots to train on the new type). 700 or 800 were on order, only 20 or so delivered. If available in numbers these could have been a big help for the Armee de L'Air.
More Dewoitine D.520 fighters. 1,280 were ordered, ~440 were manufactured, only 75 got into service with Armee de L'Air. If they had 400-500 in service and a few weeks time for pilots to train on the new type...)
Possibly some D.530 / 551 / 552 produced (maybe a few of these more potent improved D.520 types)
More Breguet 693 series attack planes (total order was 230 vs 124 in service)
More Bloch 170-174 series recon planes (271 ordered, only 52 got into service)
Some MS 410 instead of 406 fighters (there was a conversion program just getting started at the time of the Battle of France, though I don't know how many were converted. Hopefully most of this series gets replaced by VG 33, D.520, or Hawk 75 but for those units still flying Moranes, 410 is better)
More and better Hawk 75 fighters (possibly another ~200 75 / A4 delivered out of a total order of 700 with 172 in service. Another ~500 in service could have been a huge help!)
Maybe some Hawk 81 "Tomahawk" fighters (~230 Hawk 81 were ordered, these ended up being delivered to England late in 1941, theoretically some could have been delivered by September or October though I'm not sure of the timeline)
Wildcat / Martlets (~81 G-36A were ordered, these were delivered to the British at Martlet I in 1940, with 804 Sqn going into service in Aug 1940. Even a few of these could have been helpful I think.)
More Loire 451 series fast bombers (roughly 450 were ordered vs 222 delivered and 94 that got into active service)
More DB-7 series fast bombers (270 were ordered vs 100 delivered and 64 in service)
More Martin 167 series fast bombers (280 ordered, 140 got into service)

So you could have had almost 2-3 times as many modern and quite capable aircraft. I don't know if that is enough to overcome all the institutional problems with France's military but I think the Battle of France as it happened historically already put a bigger dent in the Luftwaffe than is generally recognized (~1,200 aircraft or 28% of operational strength). Theoretically, if France had twice as many modern aircraft they may have inflicted twice as many losses, then who knows what happens.

Did I miss any?

Spitfires were also a possibility.

 

[Elan Vital]

Really looks like the Bloch 155 and 157 might have fixed the series quite a bit, these included several other improvements as well besides streamlining and speed, right?

View attachment 877577
Cockpit was moved back a bit and COG improved (?) I think.... (?)

Not everything has been found again on the 157 and it was only at the prototype stage, so it's hard to know if more improvements were intended, but pretty much every change was tied to improved aerodynamics or handling the more powerful 14R engine: enlarged and more aerodynamic wing to maintain the wing loading, bigger tail and modified running gear to maintain good flying characteristics with a more powerful engine, retractable tail wheel, larger diameter prop and modified gear ratio to improve prop efficiency...
Otherwise it is functionally an extrapolation of 155.

Similarly, little has seemingly survived from the Bloch 155 study. Most of the changes are tied to the improved aerodynamics, provisions for 4 wing MGs instead of 2 and the increased fuel capacity:
- ovoid shape for the fuselage and cockpit moved further back to accomodate the larger fuselage fuel tank
- modified wing armament compartments
- for aerodynamics: modified and streamlined 80cm inlet cowling without bulges around the cylinders, and the chin cooling inlet is modified to accomodate the oil cooler which was moved from the intrados of the left wing to under the engine, modified wing and tail chord, replacement of the pitch/elevator trim by servo-tabs, rear-facing exhaust pipes

The only modification not related to what I already mentionned is the cockpit having armored front glass (40mm Triplex), and apparently controls for the cowling flaps and brakes were added/modified.
The only thing from the book I didn't mention is that France was also working on pressurized canopies for aircrafts, with such a variant being designed for the Bloch 155, with an unusual canopy setup to safely evacuate the pilot (a predecessor the idea of ejection seats).

 

[fone]

If you want a decent 1942-43 fighter what do you change? ... Yak's and Lagg/LA, they can't retool in the middle of the war. They limited the armament even as they increased engine power/protection.

This is a misconception. Soviet fighters were thoroughly investigated in a wind tunnel throughout the war and the recommendations of the aerodynamicists led to an increase in maximum speed.
Did France have wind tunnels for testing airplanes?

 

[Steamed_Banana]

This is a misconception. Soviet fighters were thoroughly investigated in a wind tunnel throughout the war and the recommendations of the aerodynamicists led to an increase in maximum speed.
Did France have wind tunnels for testing airplanes?

Yes they did Chalais-Meudon - Wikipedia

 

[fone]

Now if we want to try to compare a French fighter with six MAC 1934s in the wing and factor in the higher effectiveness of the HS cannon things get very close to the 'standard' Soviet one 20mm and two 12.7mm guns.

No, this comparison is not suitable, because you dont take into account the damaging effect. The result of hitting a rifle-caliber bullet is extremely low and does not allow fighting all-metal fighters of the new generation. The increase in the number of 7.5-7.7 caliber machine guns does not play any role in the new air combat conditions. It is required to shoot down an enemy aircraft with two or three hits, a rifle-caliber bullet does not give such an effect. All countries of the world sooner or later abandoned the 7.62 machine guns.
Therefore, any Soviet fighter at the end of 1942 is at least twice as effective in aerial combat than your hypothetical fighter with one cannon and six machine guns 7.5 caliber.

 

[Elan Vital]

This is where I do wonder about French fighter armament beyond 1940 and into 1941: they eventually contemplated replacing the machineguns with one 20mm per wing (which could be belt-fed with a larger ammo capacity), and without a Fall of France the Entente would normally have got supplies of 12.7 or 13.2mm Brownings. 1 or 2 of these in each wing would then become an option.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

No, this comparison is not suitable, because you dont take into account the damaging effect. The result of hitting a rifle-caliber bullet is extremely low and does not allow fighting all-metal fighters of the new generation. The increase in the number of 7.5-7.7 caliber machine guns does not play any role in the new air combat conditions. It is required to shoot down an enemy aircraft with two or three hits, a rifle-caliber bullet does not give such an effect. All countries of the world sooner or later abandoned the 7.62 machine guns.
Therefore, any Soviet fighter at the end of 1942 is at least twice as effective in aerial combat than your hypothetical fighter with one cannon and six machine guns 7.5 caliber.

I would disagree in part, 7.5-7.7 mm caliber machine guns were quite effective in fighters like the F1M, A5M, Ki-27, Ki-43, Il-2, Hawk 75 / Mohawk IV, Gloster Gladiator, Fulmar I, Spitfire and Hurricane Mk I etc. Eventually as armor etc. became more prevalent the efficacy of lighter guns diminished but it never disappeared. IJN A6M Zero pilots were still claiming most of their fighter kills in 1942 and through mid 1943 with just their 7.7mm machine guns.

Certainly cannon and heavy machine guns were better, but that is no guarantee that the fighter that carried them was better. The Bf 109F2 was quite lightly armed with a single 15mm and two 7.92mm machine guns, but it completely dominated the Hurricane IIC with it's much heavier armament of four 20mm cannon. Same is true for early Ki-43-I which often had just two 7.7mm machine guns it had about a 3-1 victory ratio against Hurricane IICs.

Fighter design is about more than armament. If it was just down to that, it would have been dead simple.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

This is where I do wonder about French fighter armament beyond 1940 and into 1941: they eventually contemplated replacing the machineguns with one 20mm per wing (which could be belt-fed with a larger ammo capacity), and without a Fall of France the Entente would normally have got supplies of 12.7 or 13.2mm Brownings. 1 or 2 of these in each wing would then become an option.

I think French fighter and tactical bomber design was very advanced overall at the time they were developed in 1940. Not all of their designs were successful, but aircraft like the D.520, VG 33 / 36 / 39, Leo 451, Bloch 174, Br 693 etc. showed great promise as tactical military aircraft designs by world standards. If they had been developed even a little bit more they would likely have been extremely formidable.

Same is also possible for some of the other more flawed or incomplete designs. The Swiss eventually made a pretty good fighter out of the MS 406 / 410 (the D-3801 etc.), the Bloch 155 also showed promise as a development of the 152 though we will never know.

 

[Shortround6]

No, this comparison is not suitable, because you dont take into account the damaging effect. The result of hitting a rifle-caliber bullet is extremely low and does not allow fighting all-metal fighters of the new generation. The increase in the number of 7.5-7.7 caliber machine guns does not play any role in the new air combat conditions. It is required to shoot down an enemy aircraft with two or three hits, a rifle-caliber bullet does not give such an effect. All countries of the world sooner or later abandoned the 7.62 machine guns.
Therefore, any Soviet fighter at the end of 1942 is at least twice as effective in aerial combat than your hypothetical fighter with one cannon and six machine guns 7.5 caliber.

7.5-7.9mm machine guns were not harmless. Yes, they were roughly 1/3 to 1/5 less destructive than 12.7mm guns (depending on the 12.7mm gun in question) but they were often 1/3rd the weight of 12.7mm guns.
In example I gave the Soviet 20mm gun is about 85% as effective as a British 20mm Hispano. Rate of fire for the French Hispano may have been faster. That leaves the soviet 12.7mm guns not only trying to equal 3 of the smaller guns each (which they can do) but make up the difference of the lower powered soviet 20mm gun. Which they can do, barely. The soviet combination is about 3-4% better than a 20mm Hispano firing at 600rpm and the six MAC 1934s firing at 1200rpm (some say they fired a bit faster).
100-200lbs of armor plate does not make a single engine fighter bullet proof. It reduces the chances of a single bullet (or small number of bullets) from bringing down a fighter (or small bomber) but does not eliminate it.
Bigger guns, like the 12.7mm guns, were more effective for a given amount of weight in general but that also depends on the exact models of the guns in question and the ammo used. US .50 cal (12.7mm) did not get good incendiary ammo until sometime in 1943 (late?). US .50/12.7 and soviet 12.7mm never got HE ammo during WW II. Of course most WW II 12.7mm ammo (Italian and Japanese) wasn't all that effective.

For the French the problem is that they don't have a suitable 12.7-13.2mm aircraft gun so it is some combination of 20m guns and 7.5mm guns or trying to buy guns (or be gifted them) and in 1941-42 there isn't enough production capacity in the US (or Belgium) to supply the needed guns to the French (arming hundreds fighters per month?).

We can get into arguments as to exact mix of ammo in the belts/feeds of different guns but then we are arguing about a few percentage points. Soviet 20mm gun fired fast, but each shell was about 96 grams vs the 128-130grams of Hispano shells and the Soviet gun had about 10% less velocity (?) so each round was only about 60-70% as effective.

 

[Elan Vital]

For the French the problem is that they don't have a suitable 12.7-13.2mm aircraft gun so it is some combination of 20m guns and 7.5mm guns or trying to buy guns (or be gifted them) and in 1941-42 there isn't enough production capacity in the US (or Belgium) to supply the needed guns to the French (arming hundreds fighters per month?).

Originally the intent was to produce some of the guns in a British factory but with the sheer need for 0.303 brownings they only built that, and probably would have done so even with the French Metropole still involved. IIRC no French factory was to be made since the British were chosen.

Colt was to provide the HMGs as well, and in the case of continued French aircraft production, the only positive factor is that the US wouldn't be at war nor would it need to offset the loss of France, so more of the US HMG production could go to the Entente. At the very least the French H-81s would have got them.

 

[Shortround6]

Colt was to provide the HMGs as well, and in the case of continued French aircraft production, the only positive factor is that the US wouldn't be at war nor would it need to offset the loss of France, so more of the US HMG production could go to the Entente.

The US had eight other production centers aside from Colt.
High Standard Company.
Savage Arms Company.
Frididare.
Buffalo Arms Company
AC Spark Plug
Brown-Lipe-Chappin
Saginaw Division of GM
Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company.
The US got to a point in 1944 where they were making 45,000 guns a month. But that is in 1944, not late 1940 or 1941.
I don't know when these companies joined in the production schedule or how long before getting a contract and starting to deliver guns.
UK's experience with .50 Browning's was not good in the spring and summer of 1941. Got better later.

 

[Shortround6]

I think French fighter and tactical bomber design was very advanced overall at the time they were developed in 1940. Not all of their designs were successful, but aircraft like the D.520, VG 33 / 36 / 39, Leo 451, Bloch 174, Br 693 etc. showed great promise as tactical military aircraft designs by world standards. If they had been developed even a little bit more they would likely have been extremely formidable.

French designs may have been good but the in some ways they were not great. French designs were often small, which was needed due the small engines. Small meaning low powered.
French designs were often not the newest. The mid 30s through the mid 40s were a period of rapid development. Some designs lasted well, some didn't. The Bf 109 lasted but it peaked in 1941-42. The French designs face similar challenges. There is only so much space to put things (larger engines, more fuel to feed larger engines, more guns and/or more ammo, better protection). The 109 got two redesigns. I don't know what could have been done with the D 520. It was about the same size as the 109 and there were limits. The VG 33 and later used a 150 sq ft wing so there is a real limit how far you can stretch that. Yes you can stick a bigger wing on it but then all the estimates really turn into guesses.
Problem for the French in 1940 was that matching the 109E-4 is not good enough. The Germans were slowly installing DB 601N engines into 109s and 110s but the Germans were working on the F model with much better aerodynamics. Without better aerodynamics just going to 1200-1300hp engines in existing airframes is not going to good enough. Granted the Germans screwed up by not installing more armament in the F models.
Leo 451 may have had potential. The Bloch 174 not so much. A bit smaller than a Douglas DB 7 and about the same wing as a Bf 110. You need more powerful engines and then you need more fuel and a better weapons load and that means increasing the gross weight by at least several thousand lbs. (DB-7 gained 5000lbs when it got the 1600hp Wight engines)
The Br 693 was a bad joke. It looks cool (cute?) but with a 314sq ft wing and gross weight of 10,800lbs it was too much plane for too little bang. (not enough guns or bombs) but there is only so much you can do with 700hp engines. Paying for 28 cylinders to get 1400hp seems like a bad deal. The Bre 697 was supposed to solve that by sticking in the larger diameter, heavier, thirstier GR 14N engines (same ones used in the Leo 451?). Unknown how much airframe and landing gear beefing up was needed.

Same is also possible for some of the other more flawed or incomplete designs. The Swiss eventually made a pretty good fighter out of the MS 406 / 410 (the D-3801 etc.), the Bloch 155 also showed promise as a development of the 152 though we will never know.

It took a while for the D-3801. Perhaps the French could have been faster. One does wonder how much the Swiss changed to get the D-3802 to go over 50mph faster than the D-3801 using and engine not a lot more powerful?

 

[Steamed_Banana]

French designs may have been good but the in some ways they were not great. French designs were often small, which was needed due the small engines. Small meaning low powered.
French designs were often not the newest. The mid 30s through the mid 40s were a period of rapid development. Some designs lasted well, some didn't. The Bf 109 lasted but it peaked in 1941-42. The French designs face similar challenges. There is only so much space to put things (larger engines, more fuel to feed larger engines, more guns and/or more ammo, better protection). The 109 got two redesigns. I don't know what could have been done with the D 520. It was about the same size as the 109 and there were limits. The VG 33 and later used a 150 sq ft wing so there is a real limit how far you can stretch that. Yes you can stick a bigger wing on it but then all the estimates really turn into guesses.
Problem for the French in 1940 was that matching the 109E-4 is not good enough. The Germans were slowly installing DB 601N engines into 109s and 110s but the Germans were working on the F model with much better aerodynamics. Without better aerodynamics just going to 1200-1300hp engines in existing airframes is not going to good enough. Granted the Germans screwed up by not installing more armament in the F models.
Leo 451 may have had potential. The Bloch 174 not so much. A bit smaller than a Douglas DB 7 and about the same wing as a Bf 110. You need more powerful engines and then you need more fuel and a better weapons load and that means increasing the gross weight by at least several thousand lbs. (DB-7 gained 5000lbs when it got the 1600hp Wight engines)
The Br 693 was a bad joke. It looks cool (cute?) but with a 314sq ft wing and gross weight of 10,800lbs it was too much plane for too little bang. (not enough guns or bombs) but there is only so much you can do with 700hp engines. Paying for 28 cylinders to get 1400hp seems like a bad deal. The Bre 697 was supposed to solve that by sticking in the larger diameter, heavier, thirstier GR 14N engines (same ones used in the Leo 451?). Unknown how much airframe and landing gear beefing up was needed.

It took a while for the D-3801. Perhaps the French could have been faster. One does wonder how much the Swiss changed to get the D-3802 to go over 50mph faster than the D-3801 using and engine not a lot more powerful?

I see what you are getting at here regarding larger is better, but this is a big issue and I don't think i actually agree with it. The US is in fact the stand-out when it comes to very large aircraft. Most other nations making significant aircraft designs during WW2 - the Japanese, Germans, Soviets, and Italians, made smaller aircraft. And I think there are good reasons for that. The US and UK had more secure, robust (and in terms of processing into aviation fuel) sophisticated petroleum resources of oil than any other nation involved in the conflict. This is one reason why the bigger is better mindset took hold in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK.

This "bigger is better" assumption is a big issue though and worthy of it's own thread.

I'll note that up above, you say Bf 109 peaked in 1941-42, then you say the F model doesn't have enough armament. Maybe those two concepts don't mesh so well...?

For late Spring 1940, a ~ 930 hp inline engine on D.520c in a relatively low drag airframe is quite good for a fighter. The French had up to 1,100 hp radial engines in warplanes flying in combat at the time of the Battle of France.

The Arsenal VG 33 was already in production, with 160 near completion at the time of the armistice. In terms of performance, it was already competitive with a top speed of 346 mph and an initial rate of climb of ~ 3,000 fpm. Newer types were already in the works. Arsenal VG 36 (one prototype built) was tested with a 1,000 hp 12Y-51 and made 367 mph, while the VG 39 was tested with a 1,184 hp 12Y-89ter. The prototype flew with this engine on 15 June 1940, reaching speeds of 388 mph.

The Dewoitine D.523 was successfully tested with a 1,100 hp hp 12Y-51 and a Szydlowski supercharger, the prototype was nearing completion of pre-production trials in June 1940 and reached a speed of 354 mph. The even more promising D.551, a redesign of the 520 with smaller size with improved streamlining and a 1,000 hp 12Y51, reached 438 mph in testing, with three prototypes completed by June 1940.

The MB 157, here as tested by the Luftwaffe, also had a change in the cockpit location and some other modifications to improve handling.

A prototype of the Bloch MB.157 with a 1,590 Gnome Rhone 14R-4 with two stage supercharger was completed around the same time. The prototype reached 459 mph.

So some version of these would have very likely been been the the next phase of French fighter production by late 1940 or early 41 at the latest, which IMO puts them well into highly competitive territory.

And yes, the French had a vastly larger aircraft industry and ten times the population and considerably more resources than the Swiss (especially as the Swiss were constrained in receiving strategic materials during wartime, surrounded by German occupied territory) so I think it's a safe bet they could have developed their own original design faster than the Swiss did.