Better German Aircraft in 1943 Inflict Crucial Losses of Allied Air Power in Britain?

[tomo pauk]

No, but in reality the LW didn't need to "convert" an existing type, with the exception of the Bf 109 Emil. At the outbreak of the war the LW had the largest fleet of reconnaissance aircraft of any air force. It had dedicated tac recon, strategic recon and all manner of aircraft capable of doing the job. Perhaps there wasn't a need for the Fw 187 to do the job when Bf 109s and Bf 110s were already doing it?

It is one thing to do a job, another thing is do a job in a great fashion. Bf 109s and 110s were excellent against 2nd tier air defence (French), let alone 3rd tier (Polish, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian). Not so much against the top-tier air defence that was the case with what UK had with RAF FC.

Me - I'd forget both Bf 110 and Fw 187, and go with Bf 109 only. Recon job to be done by V12-powered Do-17 (the version with streamlined canopy). If we must have a force of 2-engined fighters, I'd do it in the same way (fighters 109s, recons Do 17s), with Fw 187 + DB 601 in 2-engine fighter role.

 

[nuuumannn]

Not so much against the top-tier air defence that was the case with what UK had with RAF FC.

You're presuming a whole lot of foresight the Germans didn't have before the war. Let's also not forget that the German approach to attacking the UK was hubristic and the LW heads, with the exception of Osterkamp were not completely aware of what they were up against in attacking the UK, after all, France, the Low countries, Norway and Poland had been successful, so the belief from the albeit faulty intel was that Britain should roll over to the same degree.

 

[tomo pauk]

You're presuming a whole lot of foresight the Germans didn't have before the war. Let's also not forget that the German approach to attacking the UK was hubristic and the LW heads, with the exception of Osterkamp were not completely aware of what they were up against in attacking the UK, after all, France, the Low countries, Norway and Poland had been successful, so the belief from the albeit faulty intel was that Britain should roll over to the same degree.

Germans have had a good foresight to insist on a long-range offensive fighter in the time such a thing was anathema to anyone in the world, bar Japanese. That they haven't insisted that a 2-engined fighter reliably outperforms a 1-engined (ie. half-price and uses half as much fuel) fighter is what they did wrong.

 

[nuuumannn]

Germans have had a good foresight to insist on a long-range offensive fighter in the time such a thing was anathema to anyone in the world, bar Japanese.

The problem was, they overestimated the specification and couldn't foresee that a big twin capable of being a fighter/bomber/recon platform was no match against single-seat fighters in that long-range escort role. In assuming that they should have bought the Fw 187 as a long-range escort fighter is again attributing the RLM with foresight they simply could not have possessed in 1937.

 

[nuuumannn]

Many of Germany's problems in WW2 came about from attempts to be too clever. It is one thing to make the most of what you have, but one size can't fit all and fit well.

You are right about that, but unfortunately the Germans were not the only ones to fall into that trap. The multi-role combat aircraft has a long and chequered history with success and failure in equal measure.

 

[Shortround6]

And again, the single seat 187 was NOT really designed to be a long range/escort fighter.
The initial specifications and/or the specifications for the Fw 187V1/V2/V3 maybe subject to question.

The "specifications" for the V1 are for a much, much lighter plane than the late 2 seat versions.
Loaded weight for the V1 was close to what the V-4 weighed empty.

Fuel is listed as 710 liters vs 610 liters for the Westland Whirlwind.
Range is listed as 1000km but neither cruise speed nor altitude is listed.
While this is much better than a Bf 109 C/D this is nowhere near what many proponents of the Fw 187 dream of when talking about a "long" range escort.
The 187 V4 was given 1110 liters and the the later paper versions had as much as 1300 liters in the internal tanks for proposed higher powered engines.

The pair of MG 17s was not likely to find favor as 109s being deployed to Spain were subject to experiments to increase the fire power over the initial cowl mounted MG 17s.

Of course when you are dealing with a 3850kg aircraft with a wing area of 30 m2 and a pair of 680PS engines the climb and handling can be rather remarkable.
When you are dealing with a 4900kg aircraft with the same wing (or very close) and with 700PS engines (and a higher FTH) the climb and handling maybe some what different?
By the time you stuff DB 601s inside the cowls even leaving the 2nd crewman at home is unlikely to get the early maneuverability back even if the climb and speed get better

 

[swampyankee]

Hi all,

maybe you remember this thread: What if lots of B-29-like bombers with glide bombs had attacked very well protected convoys?
and the endless discussion with my friend, whom some of you don't believe he exists. He does, be sure.

The next thesis he utters is this (always remember there is no Eastern Frontier, so peace or armistice bertween Germany + USSR, after Hitler was toppled in early autumn 1942):

"German air power (including in reality "nearly ready" types like He 100 and Fw 187) will prevent Allied air power to fully establish in 1943 on British ground."

I say no to this once more. Sources say, in 1943 GB built 4.270 Spitfires and some Typhoons. US built around 23.000 fighters. Surely they needed a couple for the Pacific theater, but should still be enough to concentrate an even greater fighter force in Britain than was in reality. I made a plan calculating around 5.400 fighters for Germany in 1943 (this number can be less than in reality, but the quality should be better).
My friend says, the dislocation of US fighters in Britain was already the top of what could have been expected. German attacks (by better bomber and fighter force than in reality) on the Allied fighter force would attrite it (contrary to reality).

My friend says, there were not much more than 1000 fighters in active service on British ground. I mean, in direct conflict the odds would turn against Germany, even if better aircraft were employed. The number of Allied fighters is way more than the German one, so better German quality will not have a crucial effect. And then we were back to the convoy problem. Only if there were no more gasoline, the Allied aircraft in Britain would be grounded, and the Allied side on the loose.

Please tell me a word to this, if you like, although I know the constellation is highly theoretical.

Thank you, and regards,
RT

"Highly theoretical" is an incredibly optimistic view of this position. "Utterly fantastic" is a bit more accurate. Invasion of Eastern Europe -- including the Soviet Union -- was a core tenet of national socialism. So leaving that aside, German technology in 1943 was, overall, not significantly superior to that of UK or US. Germany could not build aircraft "good enough" to fulfill this nightmare scenario: they had lost to the unassisted RAF in 1940, before they attacked the USSR.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You are right about that, but unfortunately the Germans were not the only ones to fall into that trap. The multi-role combat aircraft has a long and chequered history with success and failure in equal measure.

It's only my opinion, but I've always thought that the best multirole a/c came from a specification for one mission and then when brought into service, superior performance inspired a bunch of what-ifs, some of which panned out and others didn't.

So we see F4Us and T-bolts becoming ground-attack, Mustangs becoming LR escorts, B-25s becoming attack a/c, FW-190s replacing Stukas, Tiffies busting up convoys, and so on. But trying to design in multirole from the outset seems to me to be a hodge-podge with as you imply very mixed results.

 

[SaparotRob]

And the Allies could've had it all if they had just stayed with the P-39.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

And the Allies could've had it all if they had just stayed with the P-39.

Is it true they were experimenting with anti-satellite capabilities on it?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Howard Gibson]

I remember reading somewhere that USN direction only started catching up with the Brits during and after the Sara's cruise with USS Robin. I can't say how accurate that may be -- but it couldn't be any worse than the 1942 system.

Screw fighter direction. Did the Saratoga adopt the rum ration? Did the HMS Victorious start stocking ice cream?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Screw fighter direction. Did the Saratoga adopt the rum ration? Did the HMS Victorious start stocking ice cream?

A man's gotta have priorities.

 

[nuuumannn]

It's only my opinion, but I've always thought that the best multirole a/c came from a specification for one mission and then when brought into service, superior performance inspired a bunch of what-ifs, some of which panned out and others didn't.

You're probably right, Thump, the Mosquito evolved that way too; it was conceived as a bomber but the Air Ministry stipulated that it should become a night fighter and PR aircraft, and so it did.

The F-111 is one that was not so adaptable despite the promise of a fighter variant, nevertheless, aside from all the issues with wing boxes and intake config it became a superfine low-level striker, if not the best deep penetration interdictor of its time. Looked damn menacing, too.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're probably right, Thump, the Mosquito evolved that way too; it was conceived as a bomber but the Air Ministry stipulated that it should become a night fighter and PR aircraft, and so it did.

The F-111 is one that was not so adaptable despite the promise of a fighter variant, nevertheless, aside from all the issues with wing boxes and intake config it became a superfine low-level striker, if not the best deep penetration interdictor of its time. Looked damn menacing, too.

The Aardvark is one of the classic examples of multirole design hampering facets of its missions. That's why the USN scuppered it as a fleet-defense fighter and went with the F-14 instead; McNamara dictated that USAF opinions should take precedence.

It wound up being a damned good strike a/c and was even pushed into light strategic bombing with SAC for a while. But it was no fighter.

On the other hand, it was replaced in USAF strike service by the F-15E, which supports my point that a damned good basic airframe being adapted to another mission is often more useful than a designed multirole airframe being, as the phrase goes, "jack of all trades and master of none".

 

[BlackSheep]

Is it true they were experimenting with anti-satellite capabilities on it?

Asking for a friend.

Ask your friend, "how many Axis satellites were in orbit during WW2?" Exactly. The P-39s rid the sky of them.

 

[SaparotRob]

Exactly.

 

[GrauGeist]

Odd...then why wasn't it able to catch the V-2 at it's azimuth?

 

[BlackSheep]

Odd...then why wasn't it able to catch the V-2 at it's azimuth?

My notes say that it successfully intercepted 90% of all V2s launched toward England. Ballistic missiles are, understandably harder to hit than satellites on a near Earth orbit I would hope that any critics would concede that 90% is better than nothing at all.

 

[SaparotRob]

Odd...then why wasn't it able to catch the V-2 at it's azimuth?

'Cause azimuths are so slippery.

 

[BlackSheep]

'Cause azimuths are so slippery.

True, the only P-39 pilot know to consistent catch azimuths is……get ready for it…….Chuck Norris, of course..