Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
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.
Against 4-engine bombers like the B-17 it would be useless ,only canons could take it down
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.
Why do you think LW invested in 20mm and 30mm guns?NONSENSE!
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.
Actually the more aircraft the better.Small difference in performance was not important .Remember No1 target was the bombers not the fighters.
Again Bf destroyed opposition but thanks to small numbers was bound to lose war of attrition.This is again question of quantity .
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.
Well duh , i thought this was a hypothetical post
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?
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?