(...)
As the Fw 190A was rather bad at higher altitudes I would only use them as Sturmbock. Also for every Fw 190A two Bf 109s could be build (in terms of manhour). As such I would not increase production of the Fw 190 but only of the Bf 109.
But Tank should have been given to go ahead on the Fw 190C-1 with the DB 603 engine. This bird already flew in late 1943 and the DB 603A was sooner available than the Jumo 213A. I see no reason why the Fw 190C couldn't have been in service half a year before the Dora. The Fw 190C would have been slightly inferior to the D but still good enough. Plus, it could carry an extra cannon through the spinner. The Sturmbock versions could also be replaced by an up-armoured Fw 190C with 5 cannons! Sweet...
This whole section is full of the word, could. Unfortunately Kurt Tank wasn't given the go ahead and the rest didn't happen.
The Ta 152 was a great fighter but by 1945 it would have been inferior to the jet fighter and not much better than the Fw 190D-12. The Ta 152H was designed for high altitudes in anticipation for the B-29 which didn't turn out to be a high-altitude bomber (sic!). No reason to stop production of the Fw 190 for this version. Only a small production would suffice.
I don't disagree with this section at all.
The Bf 109G was far from outdated. The G-6 was no match for the P-51 but with the arrival of new engines in the Spring (the AM, AS and combined the ASM) the Bf 109 found its breath again. But only with the arrival of the Bf 109K at the end of 1944 did the Bf 109 become superior to the allied escort fighters. As such the Bf 109 would have been in trouble for most of the year. The only thing which could remedy this was better training or higher numbers. As already explained, a combination of both would have been the best option.
There is a slight contradiction here. In effect the 109G - 6 was outdated until the new engines arrived which only went some way to making up the difference. Only the K version truely made up the gap and the jury is out re it being better than the P51D. Its also worth noting that it was while the G-6 was outmatched that a lot of damage was done and the USAAF was able to build its strength.
As a match the allies had the P51H, P47N, MB5 ready for production, Tempest VI, Tempest II, Spit 21 and 18. These could also match the Ta152.
Zerstörer were on the way out. However the Fw 190 Sturmbock and Bf 109G-6/R6 basically took over their role as heavy fighter, and later the Me 262.
I agree with this
But to me, the Bf 109Z would have been the best stopgap measurement. This aircraft was a Zerstörer like the Me 110 or Me 410 but faster then the P-51 or any other fighter at the time! Armed with up to 5 cannons it could have been highly succesful, and still a cheap option as it would be much cheaper than the Me 410 and have about the same manhours and the Fw 190.
The 109Z as far as I am aware never flew. If it was half as good as it was supposed to be then why wasn't it flown? The prototype was destroyed but that is no excuse for a plane that was supposed to be so easy produce and there were plenty of airframes around. Its another could have/might have that never happened.
Even if it did the Hornet was in production.
Me 262 was a good fighter aircraft but needed time to get operational in numbers. Full priority should be given to this aircraft. Or ... another option would be to go for another jet aircraft. A jet aircraft build out of cheap material, easy to fly, decent armament, easy to maintain, and with a single jet engine, a Volksjäger, but then a year earlier. Also not with that dramatic time frame of a couple of months. Let's give it a year. There were several single-engined jet designs in 1943, like the Focke Wulf P II and P II projects, the Messerschmitt P 1095, the Arado E ??? and perhaps the best choice of all, the Lippisch P 20. Based on the Me 163 but with a landing gear and a turbojet engine, and with 4 guns, it would have been an excellent yet cheap jet interceptor! Best option would be to power it with the more reliable and cheaper BMW 003 which was availabe in the latter half of 1944.
Again nice ideas that never happened, but the P80 and Vampire did happen.
Messerschmitt Me 163 was used in a wrong way in which its limited endurance limited its operations. It should have been placed in areas which saw the most air combat. Place it close to the Ruhr area and that way it can intercept every bomber which bombs this industrial area. Another option are the Hamburg-Bremen-Kiel zone, the München-Nürnberg-Schweinfurt zone and the Northwestern Italian industry zone (Milan, Turin). Instead of building a new Me 163C and Me 263, a standard Me 163B should be used with the new dual-chambered HWK 109-509C engine which at least would have increased endurance by 50%! This version could have been in service before the end of 1944.
50% of not a lot = not a hell of a lot but the basic problems would remain and no doubt the accident would still be very high.
The real Wunderwaffe would have been the Natter though this would have appeared much later. The main advantage is that it didn't need trained pilots at all. Its aircraft were expendable and so were their pilots. And yet their rockets would have been very effective (as proved by the JV 44). Thousands could have been produced and placed near all major cities and industrial zones. Their real value is that they would have freed up the other fighter aircraft of the Reichsverteidiging which could then be redeployed to regular frontline units.
My understanding of the Natter must be flawed but I understood that it was launched from a fixed structure, flew for a very short time using a rocket motor, fired one volley of rockets, pilot leaves the battle, fires the bolts seperating the front from the back, pilot thrown out of the cockpit and depends on his own parachute. Engine comes down on a parachute and the airframe crashes to the ground and is scrap.
Hence my view that its a one shot weapon with a minimal range, and needs to be replaced (airframe).
Its totally impractical.
Then my notion of continued bomber/attack aircraft comes into play. These could then be equiped with the Panzerblitz or guided bombs and rockets. Now escorted by well trained and experienced fighters they could be used to turn the tide on the front. It would have been the only chance to come out of the war in favorable terms
Agree that its the only chance but a very faint one.
Finally, a word on Flak guns. They proved to be very ineffective until the arrival of new ammunition and improved guidance. The biggest problem was that they used an excuberant amount of shells, plus the fact that those guns and personnel could also have been used on the frontlines.
They were mainly used in such high numbers because of Hitler and their popularity among the civilian population. Their main use was to keep the allied bombers from spending more ToT and often disrupting their formations and accuracy.
However, production should be limited in favour of field artillery.
Later Flak guns could be replaced by the Taifun and guided missiles.
The problem with guided weapons has already been mentioned. I wold be interested as to how you believe that they would work given the problems that all nations had in real life.
David