Allied airframes, German parts

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk:

What makes you think it would've been impossible for Germans to install their cannons into P-51/-47? Or DB-605 into P-51 airframe?

ctrian:
1.Why on earth would they need to do such a thing ?
2.What prevented them from using their own aircraft ?
3.What possible advantage could they gain by such hypothetical experiments?

1. P-47 with 4 x MG151/20 looks like much better (not only) bomber-destroyer than contemporary Fw-190A.
P-51 needs 900-950HP @ 15,750ft to achieve 385 mph; the BF-109G-14 (ASC engine) needs 1700 to achieve just 17 more (data from Kurfurst's site). P-51B with 1500 HP @ that altitude was doing more than 420 mph. And that's for a heavier plane, with greater combat range. Conclusion: P-51 was less a draggy airplane, hence the installation of an DB onto P-51 airframe would've produced a plane with greater speed, than the Bf-109.
2. Errm... nothing?
3. Better fighter planes.

 

[ctrian]

I respect your persistence . A P-51 would only give an advantage in range which the Germans could get from drop tanks while in terms of cost and fuel it would be definitely more expensive than the Bf.I just don't see why the LW would need a long range escort .Same problems apply to your hypothetical P-47.It's huge (flying bucket) and i don't think it would have any advantage over the Fw190 sturm ( with more heavy armor and heavy guns).The solution is not some 1% increase in quality but quantity. If the Germans had twice the number of fighters the Bomber Offensive would have to stop.

 

[tyrodtom]

In the real world of the 3rd Reich, I wonder how fat Herman could have justified using a mixture of German engines and weapons, with decadent American airframes, to Hitler.

I remember a article from a flying magazine from 20 or more years ago, it had a picture of a Spitfire, with a DB 60? engine, I don't remember if it was a fake picture ( this was way before Photoshop), or a real experiment, seem like it even had Luftwaffe markings.

 

[davebender]

I cannot think of any German aircraft that would benefit from an American airframe mass produced during the same time frame. What they need are American radial engines for the Fw-190. The Butcher Bird could enter service a year earlier powered by the R2600 engine. More reliable too during 1941 and 1942.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Originally Posted by ctrian
So you mean that the LW would need an aircraft with 1).Range 2).Firepower to take on the B-17.Something like the Bf110 or Ju88 ? The versions used as nighfighters had these characteristics but they couldn't face single engined fighters.If the Germans had the P-47 or P-51 how would they attack bombers? With the weak 0.5 inch guns?
Originally Posted by ctrian
Why on earth would they need to do such a thing ? What prevented them from using their own aircraft ? What possible advantage could they gain by such hypothetical experiments?

During forty years of experience with firearms both in and out of the military, you are the first person I have ever encountered that described John Browning's .50 caliber with the word "weak".
Expense, redundancy, ease of maintenance, rapid fire, ammunition capacity, and most importantly sufficient power are qualities to be balanced against raw power.

From "Flying Guns, World War II" page 98 referring to the BoB

"In a comparison between the British fighters and the Bf109E, the striking difference in ammunition supply must be noted. The British fighters carried 300 rounds for each of their eight machine-guns, enough for sixteen seconds of fire. The Messerschmitt's 20 mm cannon were restricted to 60-round drums, a supply for seven seconds. On the other hand it carried 1,000 rounds for each of the two rifle-calibre guns (this was reduced to 500 if an engine cannon was installed), and because the MG 17 was not particularly fast-firing, and synchronised as well, this supply was good for about a minute of fire! Because the cannon were far more destructive weapons that the machine-guns, the effectiveness as a fighter of the Bf 109 decreased sharply when they ran out of ammunition: but the German pilot still had some guns to defend himself with."
"Clearly the low-velocity, low-rate-of-fire MG-FF was more suitable for dealing with bombers than with fighters, and the RAF would probably have benefited more from such a gun than the Luftwaffe did. Aside from this weapon and the very limited use of the Hispano by the RAF, both sides relied (too much) on rifle-calibre weapons. It has been claimed that Goring later said that the Luftwaffe could have won the battle if it had had the Browning .50 in.; even if he indeed said so he was probably wrong. But there was an awareness, on both sides, that the armament was not what it should have been. That there was an alternative was demonstrated in Belgium, where Avions Fairey completed two or three license-built Hurricanes with four 12.65 mm FN-Browning (.50 in. M2) guns before the country was overrun."

Of course merely having the .50 would not have changed the outcome of the Battle of Britain! The Americans were not the only nation thinking four .50s was the way to go for balance of power and firing time. Fabrique Nationale could have easily provided rifle caliber guns. Perhaps if the Luftwaffe's single engine fighters carried heavy machineguns with lots of ammunition and had the fuel efficiency of a Mustang for longer patrol times to shoot down the escort fighters, it would have allowed the twin engined bomber destroyers to be more effective. The .50 caliber MG with sufficient ammunition supply was a very good compromise of firing time and power for shooting down any WW2 aircraft. It was not weak, it was sufficient in power and efficient in all other areas of performance.

 

[ctrian]

Against 4-engine bombers like the B-17 it would be useless ,only canons could take it down

 

[tomo pauk]

I respect your persistence .

Learned to be persistent too late :\

A P-51 would only give an advantage in range which the Germans could get from drop tanks while in terms of cost and fuel it would be definitely more expensive than the Bf.

With a plane that has capability for long range, one can take advantage of it when needed. Not possible for plane lacking the capability. Cost of fuel is only calculated when fuel is used. As for production costs, Luftwaaffe pilots would've been better served with planes doing 690-700 km/h from winter 1943/44, then with another thousand of planes doing 650-660.

I just don't see why the LW would need a long range escort .

The better ombat range doesn't translate in long range escort only. The side with short-burn fighters has less options than one with long-burn ones. The 109, 190, most of the Spits Yaks were fine fighters, yet problems arose when an air superiority task away from airfield was required. See Crete, Malta, Salerno, Anzio, Stalingrad, Op Bagration, not to say anything about Asia/Pacific (okay, not the battlefield of LW, but paints the picture how good an asset a decent combat range was, or shortcoming the lack of it was).

Same problems apply to your hypothetical P-47.It's huge (flying bucket) and i don't think it would have any advantage over the Fw190 sturm ( with more heavy armor and heavy guns).

The flying bucket was way better performer at 25K than most of the Fw-190s, esp. than the Sturm versions.

The solution is not some 1% increase in quality but quantity. If the Germans had twice the number of fighters the Bomber Offensive would have to stop.

Nope.
Twice the number of planes would've been cool in 1941, perhaps (750 SE fighters at start of Op Barbarossa?) In 1944, it would've needed twice the number of pilots (in thousands) - non starter. Perhaps double the quantity of fuel - out of question.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Against 4-engine bombers like the B-17 it would be useless ,only canons could take it down

NONSENSE!

 

[Shortround6]

I believe there was a Spitfire re-engined with a DB engine. It might have been to assess the Spitfire and they had no working Merlin at the time or it might have been for another reason.

The Germans trying to use the R-2600 as a fighter engine might have been one of the greatest gifts they could have given the RAF. The BMW was about 3 in smaller in diameter than the R-2600. The R-2600 was over 54in without a cowling. The R-2600 ran about 200rpm slower than the BMW and so needed higher boost to get the same power. An R-2600 at 1700hp was using 1.48 AT of manifold pressure. It also used a slightly higher compression ratio in the cylinder than the BMW but that could easily be lowered.
The R-2600 needed more supercharger work to make a good fighter engine. It's critical hight was 3-4,000ft lower than BMW 801D.


The .50 cal question needs very careful analysis. All to often anecdotes are brought in to try to prove a point but because of changed conditions they actually don't prove much of anything. It is often brought up that the USAAF still used the .50 in Korea.
True but the guns used in Korea cycled at 1200rpm not the 850rpm of the WW II guns, you need 8.4 WW II .50s to equal the fire power of 6 Korean era .50s. and that is if they are using the same ammo. F-86 Sabre jets carried 267 rounds per gun. Or under 13.5 seconds of firing time. F-86s also used not only a gyro gunsight but had a radar rangefinder coupled to the gunsight.

 

[razor1uk]

Providing a critical piece of equipment wasn't damaged by the 0.5 that is - like the pilot/co-pilot...
I don't think 12.7/13mm would be as ineffective against bombers as rifle calibers, but it would require more firing-time /or better aiming at the targets weaknesses to achieve similar damage-inflicted Vs. area-of-damage-size to macth a 15, 20 or a 30, but definately it's better than 7.5, 7.62, 7.65, 7.7/.303, or 7.92 cal, or pistol/flare gun.

Its true he smaller the caliber the less chance of a critical damage, but from a parallel viewpoint, is this true as well, there's more room for the smaller bullet to pass (or ricochet) through any gaps in the armour design/layout to hit something else?

I'm sure some allied bomber crews were injured/damaged or lost to the amount of .50 cal lead flying about around a box in a 'furball'. Against flesh, I've heard of .50 cal HMG/M2 wounds as either being as big as plug holes or amputating limbs at best.

 

[ctrian]

Learned to be persistent too late :\



With a plane that has capability for long range, one can take advantage of it when needed. Not possible for plane lacking the capability. Cost of fuel is only calculated when fuel is used. As for production costs, Luftwaaffe pilots would've been better served with planes doing 690-700 km/h from winter 1943/44, then with another thousand of planes doing 650-660.

Actually the more aircraft the better.Small difference in performance was not important .Remember No1 target was the bombers not the fighters.

The better ombat range doesn't translate in long range escort only. The side with short-burn fighters has less options than one with long-burn ones. The 109, 190, most of the Spits Yaks were fine fighters, yet problems arose when an air superiority task away from airfield was required. See Crete, Malta, Salerno, Anzio, Stalingrad, Op Bagration, not to say anything about Asia/Pacific (okay, not the battlefield of LW, but paints the picture how good an asset a decent combat range was, or shortcoming the lack of it was).

Again Bf destroyed opposition but thanks to small numbers was bound to lose war of attrition.This is again question of quantity .

The flying bucket was way better performer at 25K than most of the Fw-190s, esp. than the Sturm versions.

Yes but Fw was good enough against bombers.A heavily armed and armored P-47 would also be a poor performer against fighters plus it would be very expensive to bulid and operate.

Nope.
Twice the number of planes would've been cool in 1941, perhaps (750 SE fighters at start of Op Barbarossa?) In 1944, it would've needed twice the number of pilots (in thousands) - non starter. Perhaps double the quantity of fuel - out of question.

Well duh , i thought this was a hypothetical post

NONSENSE!

Why do you think LW invested in 20mm and 30mm guns?

 

[Lighthunmust]

"Why do you think LW invested in 20mm and 30mm guns?"

For too many reasons to list.

History has may examples where theoretical superiority did not translate to actual superiority. The middle way is sometimes the most prudent path to follow.

 

[ctrian]

In general i would agree with you but against heavy bombers lighter guns proved ineffective .Both day and night fighters were upgraded with heavy cannons this is fact .

 

[Lighthunmust]

I believe there was a Spitfire re-engined with a DB engine. It might have been to assess the Spitfire and they had no working Merlin at the time or it might have been for another reason.

The Germans trying to use the R-2600 as a fighter engine might have been one of the greatest gifts they could have given the RAF. The BMW was about 3 in smaller in diameter than the R-2600. The R-2600 was over 54in without a cowling. The R-2600 ran about 200rpm slower than the BMW and so needed higher boost to get the same power. An R-2600 at 1700hp was using 1.48 AT of manifold pressure. It also used a slightly higher compression ratio in the cylinder than the BMW but that could easily be lowered.
The R-2600 needed more supercharger work to make a good fighter engine. It's critical hight was 3-4,000ft lower than BMW 801D.


The .50 cal question needs very careful analysis. All to often anecdotes are brought in to try to prove a point but because of changed conditions they actually don't prove much of anything. It is often brought up that the USAAF still used the .50 in Korea.
True but the guns used in Korea cycled at 1200rpm not the 850rpm of the WW II guns, you need 8.4 WW II .50s to equal the fire power of 6 Korean era .50s. and that is if they are using the same ammo. F-86 Sabre jets carried 267 rounds per gun. Or under 13.5 seconds of firing time. F-86s also used not only a gyro gunsight but had a radar rangefinder coupled to the gunsight.

Is anyone here trying to prove the effectiveness of .50s in Korea? If you are referring to a posting of mine about there use on early american jets; that was to indicate that obviously the USAAF/USAF were still satisfied with the effectiveness of the projectile size from experience with the M2 to think the M3 would meet more demanding future needs. Of course they were indeed wrong about future needs. The power of multiple .50s, with higher ammunition capacity in comparison to 20mm cannon, was a good compromise of power and firing time when considering all the air weapons available for combat in WW2.

 

[tomo pauk]

Actually the more aircraft the better.Small difference in performance was not important .Remember No1 target was the bombers not the fighters.

Actually, the defending fighters were lower performers than escort fighters @ W. Europe in 1944 by wide margin @ 20K above. Plus, the defender lacks fuel and experienced/any pilots. Any increase in fighter production is not followed by more fighter sorties. Even so, you say "to hell with 40km/h bonus"? Great way to turn hunters into hunted.

Again Bf destroyed opposition but thanks to small numbers was bound to lose war of attrition.This is again question of quantity .

The importance of Bf-109 for German war effort was surely great. Saying that "Bf destroyed opposition" is exaggeration, however.
As for numbers game, it depends WHEN one wants to build WHAT kind of hardware. Ie. I'm all for more produced 109s in the time 109 was world beater (1939-42, maybe 'till 1943). But mass production in 1944 speaks more about the lack of suitable replacement, than about 'great' qualities of it at that time. Plus (sorry to repeat myself), the extra thousand or two produced in '44 don't automatically make an increase of fighter sorties.

Yes but Fw was good enough against bombers.A heavily armed and armored P-47 would also be a poor performer against fighters plus it would be very expensive to bulid and operate.

P-47 was already carrying great load of armament ammo (even greater weight than 190A-8?), and it's durability was proven time again. So no extra weight penalty, meaning that performance at interesting altitudes remains. Even vs. fighters.
As for costs involved (providing Germany can build a reliable turbo in 1943), having a plane that has enough of armament, durability performance saves both planes pilots. A plane that a burst of .50cal ammo can easily bring down is hardly cheap to build operate.

Well duh , i thought this was a hypothetical post

What post was hypothetical?

 

[ctrian]

Actually, the defending fighters were lower performers than escort fighters @ W. Europe in 1944 by wide margin @ 20K above. Plus, the defender lacks fuel and experienced/any pilots. Any increase in fighter production is not followed by more fighter sorties. Even so, you say "to hell with 40km/h bonus"? Great way to turn hunters into hunted.



The importance of Bf-109 for German war effort was surely great. Saying that "Bf destroyed opposition" is exaggeration, however.
As for numbers game, it depends WHEN one wants to build WHAT kind of hardware. Ie. I'm all for more produced 109s in the time 109 was world beater (1939-42, maybe 'till 1943). But mass production in 1944 speaks more about the lack of suitable replacement, than about 'great' qualities of it at that time. Plus (sorry to repeat myself), the extra thousand or two produced in '44 don't automatically make an increase of fighter sorties.



P-47 was already carrying great load of armament ammo (even greater weight than 190A-8?), and it's durability was proven time again. So no extra weight penalty, meaning that performance at interesting altitudes remains. Even vs. fighters.
As for costs involved (providing Germany can build a reliable turbo in 1943), having a plane that has enough of armament, durability performance saves both planes pilots. A plane that a burst of .50cal ammo can easily bring down is hardly cheap to build operate.



What post was hypothetical?

Double the fighters means significantly more losses for bombers leading to cancellation of bomber offensive.The role of the day fighters was to shoot down bombers not dogfight with P-47 and P-51.Obviously the Luftwaffe would need to be much larger with more pilots, fuel ,airports etc that has a chance of happening similar to adopting allied airframes ie 0,00%

 

[Lighthunmust]

In general i would agree with you but against heavy bombers lighter guns proved ineffective .Both day and night fighters were upgraded with heavy cannons this is fact .

No belligerent had much experience attempting to shoot down heavy bombers with fighters armed with 6 to 8 HMG and high rpg. On paper cannons are superior in terms of striking power per second, but there are other equally important factors to consider. I don't recall reading about American fighter pilots having problems shooting down the biggest German and Japanese four engined aircraft. The giant Japanese flying boats had 20mm cannon in their tails and yet four gun F4F-3s brought them down. As I recall the Germans came to the conclusion they could not carry enough 20mm ammunition on the 109 and 190 fighters due to aircraft size to make really significant improvements in effectiveness. Pack on too many cannons and shells on the 109s and 190s and their performance made them easy targets. If the aircraft you are attacking are too difficult to inflict catastrophic damage on, change tactics to killing the pilots. Obviously the Luftwaffe realized this or they would not have resorted to head on attacks on many occasions. Having a greater amount of lethal .50 bullets flying at the pilots has a better chance of hitting them than a lessor quantity of "devastating" 20mm shells. Does anyone here remember Robert Johnson having a 20mm explode in his cockpit and yet still flying home?

 

[davebender]

I'd rather have a reliable R2600 during 1940 then a reliable BMW801 during 1943.

 

[Glider]

No belligerent had much experience attempting to shoot down heavy bombers with fighters armed with 6 to 8 HMG and high rpg. On paper cannons are superior in terms of striking power per second, but there are other equally important factors to consider. I don't recall reading about American fighter pilots having problems shooting down the biggest German and Japanese four engined aircraft. The giant Japanese flying boats had 20mm cannon in their tails and yet four gun F4F-3s brought them down. As I recall the Germans came to the conclusion they could not carry enough 20mm ammunition on the 109 and 190 fighters due to aircraft size to make really significant improvements in effectiveness. Pack on too many cannons and shells on the 109s and 190s and their performance made them easy targets. If the aircraft you are attacking are too difficult to inflict catastrophic damage on, change tactics to killing the pilots. Obviously the Luftwaffe realized this or they would not have resorted to head on attacks on many occasions. Having a greater amount of lethal .50 bullets flying at the pilots has a better chance of hitting them than a lessor quantity of "devastating" 20mm shells. Does anyone here remember Robert Johnson having a 20mm explode in his cockpit and yet still flying home?

Any large four engined bomber on its own was vulnerable to almost any fighter. The difference is when your attacking a bomber stream of three to four hundred bombers plus and are likely to only get one pass at a particular bomber. In this scenario the P47 with its eight x 0,50 has reasonable firepower but not the ideal firepower to take on an aircraft like the B17. Japanese and Germany 4 engined aircraft were normally not just alone but were also far more fragile than a B17 so hardly a fair comparison.
The P47 had roughtly the same punch as a Spit with 2 x 20mm and 2 x 0.5, the Fw190 with 4 x 20mm and 2 x HMG had more firepower and that wasn't considered sufficient for a one pass kill. All forces that went up against massed B17's considered 4 x 20mm to be the minimium and there is no getting away from that.

A couple of observations about the 0.50M2,it was a good weapon but by no means the best of its calibre. If you believe in the HMG as the weapon of choice, then the quckest and easiest way of improving the P47 firepower is to take out the 8 x M2 and replace them with 8 Russian 12.7mm UB. It is lighter, has a much higher rate of fire approx 30% higher, fires a larger projectile at a similar MV.

One other observation, you mentioned earlier that the USAAF were happy with the M3 in Korea. That might be the case with the USAAF but the USN much preferred the 20mm. Even during WW2 the all USN F6F5 Hellcats were capable of being armed with 2 x 20mm and 4 x HMG, that they weren't wasn't a matter of choice, more a matter that the US 20mm guns were very unreliable.

 

[johnbr]

How about the FW 190 with the Bristol Centaurus or the B29 with Sabres with the 2 stage 3 speed supercharger.