Fw 187 for 1939-45

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk said:
A long range escort fighter.
A high-performance heavily-armed day fighter.
A fast daylight bomber.
A fast LR recon.
A night intruder.
A 'helle nachtjagd' fighter, before we stick the radar on it.
A fighter-bomber.
Click to expand...

Not on that original design you're not. As I mentioned, a total redesign is needed. According to the drawings produced by the original manufacturer, every aircraft design to fulfil these objectives was different. The fuselage and wing structure for the dive bomber, the kampfzerstorer, the night fighter and so on, so will there be multiple designs on multiple production lines? Because that is what Tank is proposing. Take a look at the plans in the book. This is where the fantasy element creeps in. There is no way that the original Fw 187 would be able to do all this. As for the night fighter Fw 187, there is no projected radar aerials in the concept art, so no radar. But again, why build this when the Fw 190 can do it with one person and one engine?

tomo pauk said:
What goes away? Bf 110/210/410, Hs 129, later Ju 87; the factories making these can start making the 187s instead ASAP.
All of the listed Fw designs can stay.
Click to expand...

Come on, be realistic. Three different manufacturers abandoning their own designs that have orders for a competitor's design that is a paper aircraft only? I can't see it, frankly. We are relying extensively on hindsight and foreknowledge that the RLM could not have possibly had. When is this cancellation of these projects going to take place? Before the war? How was Willi Messerschmitt to know the Me 210 was gonna be a disaster in 1939? If it was after the problems were discovered, Messerschmitt blamed everyone else for its design faults, eventually building the Me 410, which, while it was an improvement, was late to the party. As for later Ju 87s, the Fw 190F took over as the strike aircraft du jour, which was a better choice than the projected Fw 187. Cheaper to build, cheaper to run.

tomo pauk said:
Be it as it might and FWIW, a DB-601-powered Fw 187 was made in metal.
Click to expand...

Only one. Then the issues with supply of DB engines starts to hit when the Bf 109 is upgraded. Again, what is not being built to supply this aircraft?

tomo pauk said:
LW will want it as-is in 1938, with DB 601 in 1939-42, with DB 605 from late 1942 on etc. No worries, it will not be redundant, German and other Axis airforces were craving for capable fighters.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking, especially given engine supply and demand as it was. Axis nations received the Bf 109, which, regardless of how good your projected Fw 187 is, was a better option. And what of the quality control issues affecting the DB engines in 1941/1942? That's gonna throw a spanner in the works.

All your proposals are relying on things that traditionally happened being magically swept away... Sigh, this is turning into another fantasy thread.
 
Last edited:
1 - In order to also check the Step 2, engine that is not bigger than the DB 605? Will probably need to cut the CR of the DB 605L down to 6:1 so the boost can be upped from 1.75 to 1.95+- ata (with C3 + MW 50), an with it the power. We might not be getting exactly 1840 HP at 17 kft, but might get to about 1750 at that altitude, ie some 10% more than what the 605L offered there.
2 - LE radiators?
3 - Easiest part - there is a lot of real estate outboard of the nacelles, and even more if there is no second cockpit.
 

Let's not forget redesigning the entire aircraft and carefully mating panels to eliminate gaps and perhaps even using very different production and material techniques. The Hornet achieved its aerodynamic cleanliness through its design and structural make up, which, if the Fw 187 was to achieve would need redesigning. But let's be clear, if we want our Fw 187 to match the Hornet's performance it certainly will not be capable of the things you envisage for it. Based on the pre-war design, you have either a high speed escort fighter, OR a high altitude recon platform, OR a low level strike aircraft and so on, and you certainly will not get the Hornet's performance on any of them.
 
nuuumannn said:
Not on that original design you're not.
Click to expand...

The original design of the P-38 was also pretty much single-role fighter. The basic design was later modified to serve in other roles.
Spitfire was also 1-role A/C as designed, it was modified to do a lot of things with the basic design remaining the same.

nuuumannn said:
As I mentioned, a total redesign is needed.
Click to expand...

I still disagree.


Where the dive bomber and night fighter Fw 187 separate versions are suggested in the book?


Same as the original Spitfire was not a recon, not a fighter-bomber, not a long-range fighter.
Fw 190 was bad in following tasks:
- being actually available in the 1st two war years
- being reliable enough in the 1st year of service
- long-range fighter
- ability to lug MK 101/103 cannons and still perform at B-17 altitudes
- being fast while carrying external bomb
- a platform for MK 101/103 for ground attack
- RoC above 5 km


Cancel the Hs 129 when it is proven during the flight tests that it is a greater threat to the LW personnel than to the enemy; that is early 1940.
Bf 110 - cancel it once the 187 is proven better on same engines (= 1938).
Neither of the two cancellations rely on foreknowledge, just simple math.

nuuumannn said:
Only one. Then the issues with supply of DB engines starts to hit when the Bf 109 is upgraded. Again, what is not being built to supply this aircraft?
Click to expand...

'What is not going to be built' question is already answered.


No more spanner in the works than what the Bf 109 and 110 endured.

nuuumannn said:
All your proposals are relying on things that traditionally happened being magically swept away... Sigh, this is tuirning into another fantasy thread.
Click to expand...

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
 

Let's not forget the P-38's gross weight is more than twice that of the original Fw 187. Waving that magic wand is working for you here...


That all occurred over time with different engine options following robust testing and analysis over more than six years, not with a simple paper plane saying this wunderkind will do all this. No one is gonna buy that.


Come on, pick a time and stick with it. The RLM is certainly not going to do this based on your paper plane. And in hindsight by cancelling the Bf 110 you're depriving the LW of one of its most versatile and robust warplanes, and how is the Fw 187 going to prove it is better? The original Fw 187 could not be that aircraft, not without redesigning it from scratch.

tomo pauk said:
'What is not going to be built' question is already answered.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't. You're dreaming if you think the RLM is doing all that for your fantasy aircraft back in 1938.

tomo pauk said:
No more spanner in the works than what the Bf 109 and 110 endured.
Click to expand...

Again, you're magicing engines and solutions out of thin air. Again, the RLM doesn't have an infinite supply of aircraft production facilities. Gearing up for this takes time.

tomo pauk said:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Click to expand...

Yup, because someone has to see sense, because what you are proposing is pure fantasy.
 
tomo pauk said:
Where the dive bomber and night fighter Fw 187 separate versions are suggested in the book?
Click to expand...
Straying away from fantasy for a moment and examining what factual information is available, in the performance and weight figures and the illustrations provided in the book. There were two dive bomber variants, a single-seater and a two-seater. The single-seater had a gross weight of 7500 kgs, while the high altitude fighter/night fighter proposal had a gross weight of 6050 kgs. No figures for the two seater are presented but looking at the illustration provided, it will clearly be a greater weight than the single-seater. While a diagram of the single-seat dive bomber does not exist, the two-seater is clearly bigger with a bulkier fuselage and different cross section than the high altitude fighter/night fighter proposal.

Dimensionally, the single-seat dive bomber and fighter variants are similar, but the dive bomber has a substantially greater wing area, by 6 m sq. The two-seat dive bomber would have been bigger based on the drawing provided. This differs from the Fw 187A-0, whose dimensions were similar to the single-seaters but with a wing area that matches the fighter variant and much lower gross weight, by 1,000, to 1,500 kgs, which is a significant difference. Examining the photos of that aircraft and comparing them with the drawings, it can plainly be seen that the re-work required was considerable and basing these aircraft on the existing fuselage simply wouldn't happen.

The RLM criticised the two-seater's fuselage for being too narrow and the rear gunner's position was too cramped. Not good if you wanna jam radar and other stuff in there. Even then, the kampfzerstorer proposal had no capacity for carrying cameras at all, so it is a fighter bomber only. If you want it to do more and retain the same capability, you are gonna have to make it bigger, or compromise range by removing the rear fuel tank.

This all leads to the proposition that the Fw 187 could be a bomber, or heavy fighter, or long range escort, or dive bomber, or recon aircraft, or night fighter, but existing plans show different structural designs for each role. As with the de Havilland Mosquito, not all of them in the same airframe at the same time, though. It is worth mentioning that to achieve its roles in one airframe, the Mossie was substantially larger in cross section and dimension, and was heavier than the Fw 187.

One thing that cannot be cast aside is that over time, the Fw 190 came to match what was proposed for the Fw 187 in all its various guises and configurations with different wing plans and fuselages. The later Fw 190F and G variants could carry the same warload as the Fw 187 Kampfzerstorer, 1,000 kgs of bombs. Sure, there is a reduction in performance compared to the earlier F variants, but the single engined single-seater aircraft is always going to outperform the bigger twin engined two-seater. Again, bearing this in mind, I don't see the point behind it. Sure the Fw 187 had excellent performance, but dressing it up to be all the things listed earlier and for it to keep its performance is not going to happen, which again begs the question of why do it if the Fw 190 can do what the Fw 187 could do with better performance except range? What this does is highlight how remarkable the Fw 190 was, though. A truly great aircraft.
 
Last edited:
The "original" FW 187 V4 is listed at 3402kg empty.
The FW 187 DB 605 is listed at 5039kg empty
The FW 187 BMW 801 is listed at 5553kg empty

One pages 115-116 there are weight breakdowns of the later two versions and there are some interesting differences.
Like differences in the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, a few differences in the landing gear (11kg on the shock struts out of 210kg)

Everybody's planes gained weight. The FW 187 may have been planned for DB 600/601s and got the Jumo 210s due to engine shortages.
But the later FW 187s gained considerably

A P-38 gained about 728kg empty from the YP-38 to the P-38L. And since the YP-38 was a 5080kg airplane to begin with the % of change was nowhere near what the Fw 187 showed. Granted a DB 600/601 powered version would have been heavier.
 
Shortround6 said:
The FW 187 DB 605 is listed at 5039kg empty
The FW 187 BMW 801 is listed at 5553kg empty
Click to expand...

Those are for the Kampfzerstorer variant. The dive bomber variant has an "equipped weight" of 5440 kg.

The issue is not weight gain but structural design. The different designs were not based on the same airframe and the illustrations demonstrate that.
 
To round off my thoughts on the subject. Based on the data in the book I do think that Tank had the makings of a good design if only he did not maintain the Fw 187 as a basis for the aircraft. The Fw 187 was too small and too light, which clearly restricted its diversification potential. It focussed too heavily on performance at the expense of capability. Even the proposed Kampfzerstorer version could only be used as a fighter bomber and even then it wouldn't have been a match for single-seaters that were emerging in 1942/1943, when it was proposed to have entered service. It had no recon capability at all and could not be used as an all-weather interceptor. The P-38, Bf 110, and de Havilland Mosquito proved adept at fulfilling a multitude of roles, but all of them were bigger and weighed more than the Fw 187.

Tank could have produced a similarly versatile airframe that was capable of all the roles the original poster wanted for the type, but like the P-38, Bf 110, and Mosquito, not in the exact same airframe at the exact same time. Such an aircraft would have been very useful to the Luftwaffe and had it been marketed as such would likely have gained a production order, but Tank's focussing on outright performance at the expense of usefulness hamstrung the original Fw 187's marketability. A multi-role airframe still would have good performance, better than the Bf 110, but to apply all those uses into the Fw 187 without extensive redesign and enlargement was an impossibility. Heck, even call the aircraft an Fw 187 if you like, but based on the original it wouldn't have been.
 
Last edited:
nuuumannn said:
The issue is not weight gain but structural design. The different designs were not based on the same airframe and the illustrations demonstrate that.
Click to expand...
Could you specify which illustrations?


But the British did manage to produce a successful and versatile airframe with the Hornet which was just as small as the Fw 187.
Proving the feasibility of the concept.
How did they manage to cram everything into the Hornet that couldn't be done with the Fw 187 and why?
Was it because equipment became smaller with tech evolution?
Then the Germans might have been able to do that, too, had the F w187 survived until war's end.

There was also the potent Ki-83 as well that is in the same category.
 
spicmart said:
Could you specify which illustrations?
Click to expand...

Page 98 and 99 the dive bomber variant, pp 111 to 125 for the Kampfzerstorer variant, pp 128 to 130 for the high altitude variant. Compare them with any of the images of the existing aircraft that can be found anywhere.

spicmart said:
But the British did manage to produce a successful and versatile airframe with the Hornet which was just as small as the Fw 187.
Proving the feasibility of the concept.
Click to expand...

The Hornet was not designed as a multi-role aircraft and neither, as Tank designed it, was the Fw 187, which almost everyone forgets who tries to fantasise versions of this aircraft based on surviving drawings and so forth. The Hornet was only ever designed as a fighter recon platform. The Fw 187 was designed as a twin engined fighter. There was never any original intent to incorporate versatility of purpose into its original design. Are you confusing the Hornet with the Mosquito? If you are, the Mosquito was quite a bit larger and heavier and still was only able of being a recon platform or a strike fighter or a night fighter or a bomber, not all at the same time in the same airframe.


Again, the Hornet was not a multi-role platform. Timing also had a lot to do with the Hornet's success and performance. The Fw 187 was designed before the war. The Hornet during the war with a ton of experience from developing the Mosquito's material and production techniques. The Fw 187 did not have any of that to fall back on. That also shows in the performance differences between the two. Bear in mind that between the Fw 187A-0 and the Hornet F.1 there is a 149 mph difference between their maximum speeds. That is gargantuan in any respect.
 
Last edited:
spicmart said:
But the British did manage to produce a successful and versatile airframe with the Hornet which was just as small as the Fw 187.
Click to expand...
The Hornet I was 5122kg tare and tare and empty are not quite the same thing.
spicmart said:
How did they manage to cram everything into the Hornet that couldn't be done with the Fw 187 and why?
Was it because equipment became smaller with tech evolution?
Click to expand...
In part because of smaller equipment.
In part because the engines in the Hornet running on 100/130 fuel gave cruising power close to what the FW 187 DB 605 had full power.
Merlin 130 engine
Normal low.................1410hp/2850rpm..............................3200 meters
Normal high...............1325hp/2850rpm..............................6300 meters
Cruise low....................1250hp/2650rpm..............................3300 meters
Cruise high..................1190hp/2650rpm..............................7400 meters

And don't underestimate the 10% greater wing area of the Hornet.
Especially because it was about 5ft shorter in span so there was a lot more cord (and wing thickness) to hide fuel tanks in.

spicmart said:
There was also the potent Ki-83 as well that is in the same category.
Click to expand...
It was also experimental.
Larger, heavier, used turbocharged engines
carried less gun weight than the Hornet (roughly 3 Hispano guns) note gun weight, not firepower.
 
nuuumannn said:
Page 98 and 99 the dive bomber variant, pp 111 to 125 for the Kampfzerstorer variant, pp 128 to 130 for the high altitude variant. Compare them with any of the images of the existing aircraft that can be found anywhere.
Click to expand...
From the Dietmar Hermann book I assume?
Oops, the word "versatile" slipped from me. Such a small and specialized plane can of course not be that versatile.
Performance gap was huge but with hypothetically same tech level could the Fw 187 be brought at least a bit close to the Hornet?

Which DB 605 variant do you mean?

As you said Germans were kind of obsessed with small wings and rarely use wing tanks, at least not in the basic designs.
Might it be because of the better roll rate when fuel is stored in the fuselage.
 
It is worth noting that from the outset the Fw 187 as Tank originally envisaged was only ever intended as a fighter. Full stop. No bomber, no recon, no whatever fever dream fanboys believe.

Tank designed it with the express purpose of emphasising performance and it was based on this that the Techniches Amt under Oberst W. von Richthofen gave Tank a limited production order. There was never a mention of a multi-role aircraft in those early discussions, Tank focussed on maximum performance from a twin-engined fighter. The two-seater came from a re-evaluation of the type as a heavy fighter, which saw the A-0 production variant built. Although the Fw 187 is mentioned in several post-war sources as a potential entry for the Zerstorer concept that was awarded to the Bf 110, it was not formally entered for the tender as the Zerstorer to which the Bf 110 was built was issued in 1934, well before the Fw 187 was conceived. Focke Wulf's entry to the Zerstorer specification was the Fw 57, not the Fw 187.

It is worth noting, that once Udet stepped in at the Technisches Amt, he did not believe the Fw 187's performance figures that Tank presented, but test pilot Hans Sander was able to comnvince Udet of the aircraft's performance at Rechlin during trials. Despite this, no further interest was offered, apart from the development of a high speed aircraft powered by DB 601s that Tank had intended would be a speed record aircraft.

The Fw 187 Kampfzerstorer concept was proposed in 1942 and a production contract was offered, but no aircraft was built to that specification. There are plenty of drawings and specifications that have been published surrounding this aircraft. The fact that different engine configurations were proposed was only natural. The aircraft required better performance and a new airframe to became a strike fighter, also, DB was undergoing quality control issues during 1941/1942, so examining a different powerplant was necessary. The British and the Americans regularly did the same to their wartime designs.

The intent of the Fw 187 Kampfzerstorer was for a high performance fighter bomber. This is interesting because the Kampfzerstorer concept as proposed by the RLM and issued to Messerschmitt for the Me 210 saw the type as high speed reconnaissance aircraft, high speed dive bomber and strike aircraft, the first two roles the Fw 187 Kampfzerstorer as proposed was not capable of carrying out - No space for cameras, no dive brakes; no evidence of any of this on existing drawings of the Kampfzerstorer version.

Tank did produce drawings for a dive bomber Fw 187 in 1940 but no interest was shown by the RLM. This was unconnected to the Kampfzerstorer aircraft by two years. In 1942 Tank tried to interest the RLM in a high altitude fighter and night fighter Fw 187 but again, no interest was shown. As evidenced in Hermann & Petrick's book, these were different in many respects to what was proposed in the Kampfzerstorer design, on which much survives for meaningful comparison.

In conclusion, the whole idea that the Fw 187 was to be an all-singing, all-dancing wnderflugzeug capable of doing everything in one airframe is a postwar internet thing. Before the internet there was no mention of anything except a fighter when exerpts on the Fw 187 appeared in books and what have you. Since then, there is no paper evidence that has since been unearthed on the fighter variant as built or the Kampfzerstorer as proposed that suggests otherwise. The drawings that Tank prepared titled Fw 187 bore the type's name but were intended as being different to the Kampfzerstorer proposition, not the same aircraft. They post date the pre-war Fw 187 fighter so don't even enter the discussion.

Information in this post comes from the following sources: Focke Wulf Fw 187; An illustrated history by Dietmar Hermann & Peter Petrick, The History of German Aviation; Kurt Tank: Focke Wulf's designer and test pilot by Wolfgang Wagner, The History of German Aviation; Bombers and reconnaissance aircraft 1935 to the present by Roderich Cescotti, Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410; An illustrated history, by Hans Mankau and Peter Petrick.
 
Last edited:
spicmart said:
From the Dietmar Hermann book I assume?
Click to expand...

Yes. Focke Wulf Fw 187; An illustrated history by Dietmar Hermann & Peter Petrick.

spicmart said:
Oops, the word "versatile" slipped from me. Such a small and specialized plane can of course not be that versatile.
Performance gap was huge but with hypothetically same tech level could the Fw 187 be brought at least a bit close to the Hornet?
Click to expand...

Tank was certainly aiming to develop a faster aircraft before the war. Of course at that time achieving the performance the Hornet demonstrated was simply not possible in a combat aircraft, not even a pure racer. In April 1937, when the first Fw 187 took to the air for the first time the world absolute speed record was 440. 5 mph (709.209 km/h) attained by the Macchi MC.72. For landplanes it was 354.4 mph (567.12 km/h) achieved by the Hughes H.1. Later in 1937 it became 379.63 mph (610.95 km/h) in the Bf 109 V.13. These speeds fall short of the Hornet F.1's maximum speed by more than/nearly 100 mph.

Tank's original idea for the Fw 187 and the focus on its development before the war was as a high speed aircraft and in 1938 development of a DB 601 engined aircraft was launched, which Tank intended to achieve a world speed record in. It is worth noting that at no time at all before the war does any mention of a multi-role aircraft enter the discussion. Tank's intent for the Fw 187 was always a high speed fighter.
 
Last edited:

And 60mph slower than the 1934 record set by the Macchi MC.72.
 
To go back to the beginning. and to further the idea that there were two different FW 187s, the ones that flew and later 1942 on paper ones.
nuuumannn said:
It is worth noting that from the outset the Fw 187 as Tank originally envisaged was only ever intended as a fighter. Full stop. No bomber, no recon, no whatever fever dream fanboys believe.
Click to expand...
The First 3 were all single seat fighters, with two MG 15 machine guns, which they seldom carried. If you can't see the actual gun barrel/s in a photo, odds are there were no guns fitted at the time the photo was taken.
Initial written specification in April 1936 called for endurance of 2 hours at 6000 meters at full throttle with required fuel capacity of 700 liters.
Please note that the 109s of the time carried around 270 liters of fuel for a single Jumo 210, The V1 was supposed to have a Jumo 210D and the V2 and V3 were supposed to get 210Gs.
First flight was April 10th 1937.
Test report for the V2 dated 16.8.37 says the fluggewicht was 3850kg.
The V4 wound up at 4900-5000kg gross weight.

Now the V4 was mentioned as a nightfighter in late 1937 and was in minutes dated Dec 21 1937. However, actual details as to what constituted a nightfighter in Dec of 1937 are lacking.
Spitfires Is were supposed to be night fighters when fitted with a landing light, a pair of flares and and a couple of metal plates to shield the pilot's eyes from the exhaust flames. That's it.

Specifications for the German nightfighter equipment is lacking, except that the V4 Fw 187 was supposed to get flame dampers for the engine exhaust, a FuG 10 radio with fixed antenna, two transmitters, two receivers an a control box. Antenna mast was increased by 40cm to improve range. Also to be fitted was a FuBL 1 instrument landing aid.
So far it sounds like the V4 was better able to fly at night and get back down on the ground without crashing. Actually finding an enemy plane at night?????
nuuumannn said:
The two-seater came from a re-evaluation of the type as a heavy fighter, which saw the A-0 production variant built.
Click to expand...
As outlined above, testing the V4 began in Oct (?) 1938. Early armament layouts/proposals are all over the place. A lot of mentions of MG 151 and MG 81s in 1938-39 and while they were in development, these guns didn't show up in service aircraft until late 1940 or early 1941. Several hypothetical gun installations (somebody was swiping Goering's drugs?) are given.
But no fighter bomber or recon versions are mentioned in the book.
 
Shortround6 said:
Now the V4 was mentioned as a nightfighter in late 1937 and was in minutes dated Dec 21 1937. However, actual details as to what constituted a nightfighter in Dec of 1937 are lacking.
Click to expand...

What I would like to see is original (source) mention of the Fw 187 considered for the Zerstorer role alongside the Bf 110. There are many mentions of it in various books and Hermann & Petrick do so, too, but with examination of the pre-war Zerstorer concept (not to be confused with the later wartime Kampfzerstorer) in books on the Bf 110 or Me 210 there is no mention of the Fw 187. I suspect this idea might be the work of a post-war author as well.

William Green mentions it in his book Warplanes of the Third Reich, but makes no mention of a possible multi-role machine, only that it was a multiplace fighter. From what I can gather, Tank's original intent for the Fw 187 was a multi-engine fighter that could keep up with and possibly out perform single-engined fighters, not a multi-role competitor to the Bf 110.

Hermann & Petrick rubbish the Bf 110 by stating continuously that the Fw 187 had better performance but nowhere do they elaborate on where the official connection between the Fw 187 and Bf 110 existed pre-war. They spend time saying the Fw 187 was better than the Bf 110 and the Me 210 without justifying whether or not it could fulfil the roles the latter two were capable of. That it couldn't and wasn't intended on doing so seems beside the point to them.

The possibility of it being a competitor to the Bf 110 doesn't match timelines for the evolution of the RLM's Zerstorer concept. The Bf 110 had already been ordered by the RLM (November 1935) and was in production by the time the Fw 187 first flew in April 1937. As early as 1938 the RLM is mentioning the Me 210 in the composition of its future Zerstorer wings, which, as of 11 July 1938 was stipulated as 16 Wings, of which a minimum of 7 to 8 were to be equipped with the Me 210.

What is of interest is that in the book Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410; An illustrated history, by Mankau and Petrick it mentions that the Fw 187 was included in a list of types to be ordered as part of Procurement Plan No.4 dated 1 November 1936. Seven examples are listed, but it includes all types, including Bf 109s, He 111s Go 149s, He 112s etc. By 16 December however, orders for the majority of these 29 types were cancelled, including the Bf 161, Bf 162, Fw 57 and Hs 124 competitors to the Bf 110. There is no further mention of the Fw 187.

While we know that the surviving Fw 187s went to the Zerstorer training station at Vaerlose in Denmark in 1940, although they were used for gunnery training against air and ground targets, that's the extent of the Fw 187's verifyable direct connection to the Zerstorer Bf 110. The Kampfzerstorer Fw 187 was proposed in mid 1942 because of the difficulties with the Me 210, so, when was the Fw 187 considered as a pre-war Zerstorer, and by whom, exactly?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

AA guns + rockets alternatives for 1935-45
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
2K
SplitRz
Radial engines favored for powering the tanks & AFVs, 1935-45
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
2K
bf109xxl
Tank & AFV armament alternatives, 1935-45
6 7 8
Replies
143
Views
4K
bf109xxl
Alternative light and anti-tank guns, 1935-45
10 11 12
Replies
230
Views
9K
peceed
P
Kurt Tank FW 187/ Grumman XP5F 1935/1938 et al.
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register