German logistics, purchase programs and war booty, reality and alternatives 1935-43 (1 Viewer)

Seems like that Germans didn't know what to actually do with the G&R 14N engines. The report from 19th March 1943 says:



Roughly: out of 1400 of the 14N engines 'found' in France, 1000 are the complete engines, and 400 is the equivalent in the spare parts. Further engines 'found' will be delivered to the GL/E. Repair capacity is in both Germany (in Hameln) and in France.

Report that predates that, dated at 12th February, notes the intention to outfit the Me 323 with the 14N engines, and asks about the repair facility in Germany to cover these engines:



The even earlier report, from December 1942, is talking about the winterization of the Me 323/14N and the Ju 52/BMW 132 (because "sooner or later the Me 323 transporters will be going to the East"), especially about the oil system of the 14N:



Report from November 1942:



... comments that the further increase of Ju 52 production is not possible because of (lack of?) engines. The Me 323 is mooted as to be powered by the Alfa Romeo engines (radials?).
Idea for the AR engines for the Me 323 is mentioned in the October report.
Report from late July 1942 says that Me 323 'has not yet started' (presuming start of production?).

What might be a tl;dr from all of this?
Seems like it took Germans almost 2.5 years to figure out what to do with the war booty of 1000+400 of G&R 14N engines. Engines that, while not being roses and unicorns, were perfectly suitable to install in the transport aircraft, or to be send to Italy to bolster their feeble output of the aero engines. The attempt to make anything from the from the 14R series, that landed in the German lap in 1940, was all theory.
Germans felt the need to use the weakest of the meaningful French engines, the 14M; granted, these saved the Hs 129 program - lets give credit where credit is due. OTOH, a Ju 87 with a 14N in the nose might've been armed with two MK 101 or 103 guns and still give a fine service.

tomo pauk said:

Seems like that Germans didn't know what to actually do with the G&R 14N engines. The report from 19th March 1943 says:

View attachment 821795

Roughly: out of 1400 of the 14N engines 'found' in France, 1000 are the complete engines, and 400 is the equivalent in the spare parts. Further engines 'found' will be delivered to the GL/E. Repair capacity is in both Germany (in Hameln) and in France.

Report that predates that, dated at 12th February, notes the intention to outfit the Me 323 with the 14N engines, and asks about the repair facility in Germany to cover these engines:

View attachment 821796

The even earlier report, from December 1942, is talking about the winterization of the Me 323/14N and the Ju 52/BMW 132 (because "sooner or later the Me 323 transporters will be going to the East"), especially about the oil system of the 14N:

View attachment 821797

Report from November 1942:

View attachment 821798

... comments that the further increase of Ju 52 production is not possible because of (lack of?) engines. The Me 323 is mooted as to be powered by the Alfa Romeo engines (radials?).
Idea for the AR engines for the Me 323 is mentioned in the October report.
Report from late July 1942 says that Me 323 'has not yet started' (presuming start of production?).

What might be a tl;dr from all of this?
Seems like it took Germans almost 2.5 years to figure out what to do with the war booty of 1000+400 of G&R 14N engines. Engines that, while not being roses and unicorns, were perfectly suitable to install in the transport aircraft, or to be send to Italy to bolster their feeble output of the aero engines. The attempt to make anything from the from the 14R series, that landed in the German lap in 1940, was all theory.
Germans felt the need to use the weakest of the meaningful French engines, the 14M; granted, these saved the Hs 129 program - lets give credit where credit is due. OTOH, a Ju 87 with a 14N in the nose might've been armed with two MK 101 or 103 guns and still give a fine service.

Click to expand...

You might be interested in my recent uploads of the boxes AI 3 D 334 1 and GR 3 P 141 here:

The former deals with Vichy era aircraft production plans and agreements with Germany, while the latter rather deals with licenses/production plans and requests for ground equipment, either requests from Vichy itself or from the Germans. IIRC some of the spare parts weren't even intended stock or new production, but simply parts that were supposed to go in production materiel in 1940 that were left idle.

It says a lot that some mid 1941 and 42 OKW requests are still about refitting Hotchkiss tanks, completing unbuilt turrets and guns or refitting Somua S35s with S40 engines...All stuff that could have been made almost immediately after the Armistice.

Further about the tank busters.
The Fw 190 armed with two MK 103s was found to not to be such a good idea since the stress from the recoil was too harsh. Or that is my understanding of the matter. However - perhaps have it carry two MK 101s? Rate of fire is far smaller (talk 60% of what the MK 103 was doing), so the total stress on the wing might be not that bad? Install an even bigger muzzle brake for each gun.

Seems like that Panzerschreck fired from the Fw 190s stood a good chance for killing tanks - 52 190s supposedly destroyed 14 tanks, and damaged another 4 (although we don't know in how many sorties, and how many actual rockets were used):



That is despite the low MV (105 m/s); each Fw 190 carried 12 Panzerschreks.
Panzerblitz was to be available in two flavors, the initial (325 m/s initial velocity) and improved (385 m/s).
The rocket-dispenser, that deployed 14 SD4s via two missiles and while using timed fuse was also considered.

Some alternative German fighters, that might represent the resources better spent:
- initial small & light Fw 190 powered by a V12 engine (DB 601 preferably) already in 1941 - leaves a lot of good features of the 190 (rate of roll, small drag, good cockpit, good if not great internal volume for such a small fighter, excellent fuel load), and removes the main problem before late 1942 - unreliable, heavy and gas-guzzling engine
- He 100 with the normal cooling
- Fw 187 with good V12s - should combine the agility of the Bf 109 with the protection and powerful firepower of the Fw 190 for the day fighter duties, and might be the best platform for another step in firepower, talk 2-3 MK 103 cannons or the equivalent; also, it should do well bombed-up, or as a recon

Something gets axed - obviously the whole Bf 110/210/410 series, as well as many Bf 109s past 1942?

tomo pauk said:

- He 100 with the normal cooling

Click to expand...

I would take the He112B over any He100 (as much as I like the He100) because the 112 held much more potential.

Longer range, better firepower potential and it's performance was comparable to the Bf109 at the time.

It may not have been a world speed record setter, but it would have made a solid adversary.

GrauGeist said:

I would take the He112B over any He100 (as much as I like the He100) because the 112 held much more potential.

Longer range, better firepower potential and it's performance was comparable to the Bf109 at the time.

Click to expand...

I'd say that He 100 have had far greater potential. Aerodynamics (even when surface cooling is replaced with 'normal' cooling) + installed horsepower = it will out-fly a He 112, but even more importantly the Hurricane and Bf 109E, and even the Spitfire.
Getting rid of it's historical cooling system also allows for extra fuel, guns and ammo to be carried.
By the time 112B is in production, the 109E is in production, too, offering the superior performance across the board, as well as the faster production. Stick a drop tank on the EMil and it can cover England up to Wales and Liverpool. The He 100 stands even better chances for the long range due to it's aerodynamics.
He 112 longer range vs. the Bf 109E came as a result of having a small and not powerful engine in the nose. Stick the DB 601A on the He 112B and range is down badly.

If we want a really long range fighter out of the box, the original Fw 187 with Jumo 210G engines and 1200L of fuel is already there.

Bring the firepower on, with 20mm as a minimum:
- any 20-30mm cannon needs to be designed to be suitable for the motor cannon installation; if a small 37mm gun suitable for air fighting is thinkered about, it also needs to be suitable for motor-cannon installation
- a 25-30mm cannon that can be synchronised should be a good, if not great fit for something like a Fw 190; the MK 103 that was mooted for the Fw 190 as a wing root weapon:



- the MK 108 was a good idea, but it will be probably even better with a greater MV - perhaps trading off some shell weight should be worth it, to up the MV - talk 250 g shell at 650 m/s?
- concurrently, a 'MK 108/25', firing a 25mm 200g shell should up the MV even further

As much as I think that the 2-engined fighters would not be the best use of German resources, ability to both perform and to provide outstanding firepower cannot be denied for these.

Attack aviation and light bombers options:
- The German equivalent of the SBD Dauntless - can put the legacy radials to a good use, thus freeing up the Jumo 211 production to the sexi€r aircraft. Bomb load still can be good/great (SBD-2 was rated for a ~750 kg bomb and ~1000L of fuel in protected tanks on 1000 HP radial engine), and dive bombing should not be a problem.
- If something like the Hs 129 is still mooted, don't shackle it to the Argus 12 cyl engines, that brought neither power nor were cheap for the power they offered, while two were required per aircraft. Have RLM specifying two normal radial engines instead, so both power and survivability can be had, thus allowing both for good guns' firepower and good loadout of bomb/rockets in the same time.
- Something size and shape of CW 21, perhaps based on a Bf 109(X) or the Fw 190. No much of a fighter, but mostly to be used as a strafer and a light bomber. Upgrade with G&R 14N when available.

By 1943, LW noted that tanks can be attacked as the ships are attacked by flying at very low altitudes, bomb dropped at 20-30 m of altitude to hit the ground 1st, 1-2m before the tank, and then to 'skip' and hit the tank. Fuse needs to be set to 'MV' setting to do it (presumably so the bomb detonation does not happen too early?).



For the attack aviation, the 30mm as an flying anti-tank cannon is stipulated, when firing the cored ammunition. Ditto for the bundles of SD2 bombs, as well as the bundles of 10 kg bombs, the 50 kg bombs, smoke and incendiary bombs. 'Normal' HE bombs of 250 and 500 kg can be used by the attack aviation. Attack altitude is from tree-top up to the medium heights, besides for the onboard guns that need to be employed at the shortest distances to kill small targets.

tomo pauk said:

As much as I think that the 2-engined fighters would not be the best use of German resources, ability to both perform and to provide outstanding firepower cannot be denied for these.

Click to expand...

For most nations, the 2 engined fighter should only be considered if a single engine fighter cannot do the job as in they can't carry the desired weapons load or carry enough fuel for the desired range or, late in the war, carry the desired weight/volume of electronic equipment.
One of the reasons for the P-38 was that the US was limiting it's "Pursuit" planes to 500lbs of guns and ammo max. Calling the requirement that lead to the P-38/P-39 "interceptors" was a way around that. The initial proposals for the future P-38 called for 1000lbs of guns/ammo. They didn't which cannon they would use, there were several contenders some of which only existed on paper.
The FW 187 was sort of the opposite. It was designed for high performance and better endurance than the single engine fighters. The first FW 187s only carried two 7.9mm machine guns. Hardly an improvement over an early Jumo powered 109. Once they went to a 2 seat version the armament increased to two 20mm and two 7.9mm and finally to the more well known two 20mm and four 7.9mm guns. Which is not that much of an improvement over the 109E with a 20mm in each wing.
The 'wasteful' Bf 110 carried not only the long range radio and operator but three times the amount of ammo for the 20mm guns. The radio operator changed the drums on the 20mm cannon.
Granted a lot of pre-war and early war aircraft were burdened by unrealistic requirements and theories. Sometimes existing hardware required compromises.
The US P-61 Night-fighter was screwed up by two requirements. One was the idea that the plane should be able to 'loiter' for about 8 hours on night patrol waiting for the enemy to show up. The 2nd was that it needed powerful armament in a turret to engage targets that were not aligned with the nose (off axis). Problems/requirements that faded during the aircrafts design/development period but short of starting over what do you do to make a significant change? The Fuselage was sized to hold a four .50 cal power turret and remote gunner. You can take the turret and gunner out but you are stuck with the basic large fuselage and the size wing to support the gun package and fuel tankage.
Sometimes twins were overtaken by the development of engines. Increasing engine power by 30-50% on some existing engines was not foreseen.

Shortround6 said:

For most nations, the 2 engined fighter should only be considered if a single engine fighter cannot do the job as in they can't carry the desired weapons load or carry enough fuel for the desired range or, late in the war, carry the desired weight/volume of electronic equipment.
One of the reasons for the P-38 was that the US was limiting it's "Pursuit" planes to 500lbs of guns and ammo max. Calling the requirement that lead to the P-38/P-39 "interceptors" was a way around that. The initial proposals for the future P-38 called for 1000lbs of guns/ammo. They didn't which cannon they would use, there were several contenders some of which only existed on paper.
The FW 187 was sort of the opposite. It was designed for high performance and better endurance than the single engine fighters. The first FW 187s only carried two 7.9mm machine guns. Hardly an improvement over an early Jumo powered 109. Once they went to a 2 seat version the armament increased to two 20mm and two 7.9mm and finally to the more well known two 20mm and four 7.9mm guns. Which is not that much of an improvement over the 109E with a 20mm in each wing.

Click to expand...

The Fw 187 needs to be more ambitious if RLM is to buy it, and of course ae modicum of RLM's support is also needed. So the basic guns' set-up need to be either 4 MG FFs, or two MG C 30/L (much lower RoF, but much greater MV and firing duration).
Engines at 1st can be the Jumo 210s, but it should became a really good fighter with DB 601 engines. Also possible the Jumo 211s, for a lot of things that are not that of air superiority fighter against the 'West'.

Shortround6 said:

Sometimes twins were overtaken by the development of engines. Increasing engine power by 30-50% on some existing engines was not foreseen.

Click to expand...

Many times, that jump in engine power on the engines was achieved in the 1930s. Kestrel grew by ~250 HP IIRC (if we also consider the Peregrine, that is another 140 HP, and at better altitude, plus what was gotten by high octane fuel), similar with the Mercury - percetange-wise, 40+-% growth. Jumo 210 gotten about 150 HP extra, the BMW 132 went from 650+- to 850 even before ww2.

Plus, there is a thing of installing another engine, again a thing that was bound to give yet another boost in performance, added to what can be gotten in the near future (2-3 years; faster during the wartime).

tomo pauk said:

The Fw 187 needs to be more ambitious if RLM is to buy it, and of course ae modicum of RLM's support is also needed. So the basic guns' set-up need to be either 4 MG FFs, or two MG C 30/L (much lower RoF, but much greater MV and firing duration).

Click to expand...

You sometimes have to go with the guns of the time, not what you wish for and/or what was in the development shops.
The quad MG FFs is an interesting 'solution'. Do you just use two guns at a time and switch in the 2nd pair when the 1st pair runs out of ammo? Weight of the extra guns vs the weight of the 2nd crewman/loader?
One crewman frantically trying to switch drums on 4 guns? British never managed to do it on the 400 drum fed Beaufighters. Despite carrying 3 spare drums per cannon (4 total) they rarely had 3 guns loaded after the first drums on cannon ran dry.
Fitting 75 or 90 round drums in a twin engine plane does not seem difficult. Problems may be supply (too many different drums?) and feeding failures in larger drums?
The MG C 30 is an interesting possibility but requires a bit of work on the feed. Basically it is pretty much a standard Flak 30 fitted with a barrel almost 50% longer (where the extra velocity/power comes from), speed up just a little and fitted with a very large drum hanging underneath the gun. Maybe the drum can be located above or to side for streamlining?
You can fit a shorter barrel if you are not firing through an engine/prop? Cut 50cm off the barrel and get the ballistics of the Flak 38?
You still have the weight and rate of fire issues. One MG 30 vs two MG FFs as far as weight. Three MG 30s vs two MG FFs for rate of fire?

tomo pauk said:

Engines at 1st can be the Jumo 210s, but it should became a really good fighter with DB 601 engines. Also possible the Jumo 211s, for a lot of things that are not that of air superiority fighter against the 'West'.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Fw 187 was facing many problems switching to the DB 601 engines. Prototypes got Jumo's basically because there weren't enough DB engines. first two Bf 110s had DB engines, the Jumo's came later for the 110s because there weren't enough DBs.
An Fw 187 with DB 601s is going to be very good, just not quite as good as the fans believe using the figures from the evaporative cooling prototype.

tomo pauk said:

Many times, that jump in engine power on the engines was achieved in the 1930s. Kestrel grew by ~250 HP IIRC (if we also consider the Peregrine, that is another 140 HP, and at better altitude, plus what was gotten by high octane fuel), similar with the Mercury - percetange-wise, 40+-% growth. Jumo 210 gotten about 150 HP extra, the BMW 132 went from 650+- to 850 even before ww2.

Click to expand...

Some of this was from better fuel, some was due to better materials. Some was due to better design.
Air cooled and liquid cooled engines had somewhat different development paths, Liquid cooled engines often just had to make more power and not break. Cooling could mostly take 3rd place. For air cooled engines cooling was often in 2nd place or even 1st place. If you can't keep the engine cool for even 1-2 minutes there isn't much sense in figuring out how to make more power (stronger parts for longer life does make sense).
Higher RPM was often dependent on better bearings and/or lubrication.

Early Kestrels maxed out at 2250rpm. But Kestrels are a rather interesting history as they started in 1927-28 and so span the period of 73 octane to fuel to 87 octane and later 100 on the Peregrine. They also see the introduction of sodium cooled valves and much better valve springs and other improved materials.
Kestrels also came unsupercharged and supercharged and mostly with fixed pitch props which often limited the power (usable rpm) that could be used.
All Jumo 210s came supercharged and all had the 'improvements' (better valves and springs and....) from the 1927-32 already incorporated.
In 1938 an engine designer had to proceed using some of the same paths (more rpm/greater displacement) as before and try to use new paths (really high rpm/more cylinders/trick valves). Fuel companies may tell the engine guys there is new/better fuel coming but actual large quantity delivery is not guaranteed by certain date/s.

Shortround6 said:

You sometimes have to go with the guns of the time, not what you wish for and/or what was in the development shops.
The quad MG FFs is an interesting 'solution'. Do you just use two guns at a time and switch in the 2nd pair when the 1st pair runs out of ammo? Weight of the extra guns vs the weight of the 2nd crewman/loader?

Click to expand...

All four can be used in defensive role, when the expected opponent is a bomber that you want to kill and kill fast, while two and then another two can be fired over enemy territory, when the fire duration is more important, and the most likely enemy aircraft might be a bomber?

Shortround6 said:

Fitting 75 or 90 round drums in a twin engine plane does not seem difficult. Problems may be supply (too many different drums?) and feeding failures in larger drums?

Click to expand...

Yes, the bigger drums would've been a boon.

Shortround6 said:

The MG C 30 is an interesting possibility but requires a bit of work on the feed. Basically it is pretty much a standard Flak 30 fitted with a barrel almost 50% longer (where the extra velocity/power comes from), speed up just a little and fitted with a very large drum hanging underneath the gun. Maybe the drum can be located above or to side for streamlining?
You can fit a shorter barrel if you are not firing through an engine/prop? Cut 50cm off the barrel and get the ballistics of the Flak 38?
You still have the weight and rate of fire issues. One MG 30 vs two MG FFs as far as weight. Three MG 30s vs two MG FFs for rate of fire?

Click to expand...

One 20mm was much more than many land defenses had in 1939-40, and was still a threat to the aircraft of the day (cue Battles and Blenheims in 1940).
Two 20mm cannons, even at that sedate RoF, should've been killing the bombers even better. Yes, the RoF of all 4 MG FFs vs. two C 30s will be like 3:1? Weight is a wash.
A 100 rd drum on the C 30 offers about 20 seconds of firing time, might come in handy over the enemy territory. The extra muzzle velocity should improve the hit rate a bit, especially against the small and nimble targets like the fighters.
The C 30 firing the AP shots (talk, 1 in every 3 rounds?) should also deal a lot of damage to the lightly armored vehicles and ships.

A Fw 187 with DB 601A and with three C 30 cannons (two at the sides, third in a pod under the fuselage that requires metal sheeting instead of the 'feet' window') might've been interesting.

Shortround6 said:

An Fw 187 with DB 601s is going to be very good, just not quite as good as the fans believe using the figures from the evaporative cooling prototype.

Click to expand...

I've never believed the fancy performance figures for the DB Fw 187.
IMO - probably around 600 km/h with normal cooling and with DB 601A engines, ie. something that the Ro.58 did. It will take the DB 601E or the (restricted) 605A to touch 650 km/h.

Perhaps go back to the Junkers A 48 (K 47) and start from there to develop a prewar dive bomber design. It initially used the P&W Hornet and eventually the BMW132.

I have spoken with a Beaufighter night fighter observer who graphically described the 'fun' of heaving about large heavy sharp edged drums of Hispano cannon ammunition at sub zero temperatures withe aeroplane swing about adding extra weight in the form of G forces on the drums. Which G forces were altering by the second in both effective mass and direction whilst attempting not to lose fingers in the process of loading and sometimes avoiding the old lose drum wandering about the fuselage at all heights. Now go on and do another one, four times. Not to mention the observer not being strapped in to do the task so being thrown about as the pilot manoeuvres the fighter around the sky desperately trying to maintain visual contact with the prey as his radar operator is playing 3d weightlifting with the drums.

Deep joy as Stanley Unwin would say.

Shortround6 said:

The MG C 30 is an interesting possibility but requires a bit of work on the feed. Basically it is pretty much a standard Flak 30 fitted with a barrel almost 50% longer (where the extra velocity/power comes from), speed up just a little and fitted with a very large drum hanging underneath the gun. Maybe the drum can be located above or to side for streamlining?

Click to expand...

A bit about this.
Seems like that there were three different 20mm guns (3 verschiedenen Waffen) developed by Solothurn, that ended up in the German use. Luftwaffe's gun for aircraft (MG C/30L) started out as the ST 28, that used Motorlafette ST 29 for the engine mount. Their Flak 30 started out as ST 5, while KM's 2cm MG C/30 started out as ST 52.



Total of 180 of the C/30Ls was produced in 1937 and 1938. However, the introduction of the lightweight MG FF as an airborne cannon relegated the C/30L as redundant (überzählig):



Thus production of the C/30L ended, prompting Rheinmetall to suggest that the gun should became a pintle-mounted Flak.
So almost all of these guns were modified in such a fashion (Rhm received a contract for all 180 pintle mounts), that used the motor mounting as an 'interface' between the gun and pintle (ie. it was not just the case of 'okay, let's just install it on the normal Flak mount').

Both the Flak 30 (and 38) and the MG C/30L were with same barrel length, 130cm (plus the length of the muzzle device).

source: Waffen revue 55 & 56 for the excerpts and details about the C/30L, Waffen revue 1 for the Flak 30.

Unless the German text says otherwise, the 3 guns were closely related. So was the early 2cm gun in the Panzer II. The guns used in the tanks/armored cars used a shorter barrel.
Different model guns may have had slightly different bodies/receivers to accommodate different mounts rather than use adapters to make one gun fit different uses.
The different German services may have used different designations for what was basically (but not exactly) the same gun.
The Navy and Army adopted the gun in 1930. for AA use.
The C/38 guns built by Rheinmetall modified the locking system in addition to just modifying the weight of the parts and the springs. Again the guns used the AFVs had shorter barrels and smaller magazines.
You couldn't just bolt a C/30 aircraft gun into an anti-aircraft mount but that was a matter of bolt hole location/s or mounting lugs, not difference inside the gun. Using the standard length barrel made the gun easier to aim in an manual AA mount.
Once Rheinmetall had sorted out the faster cycle rate in the C/38 there is no reason the Germans couldn't have used the higher cycle rate in an aircraft version.
Except that the MG 151 was already being worked on. Some sources say work started in 1934 so 6 years before it showed up in small numbers in 1940?

There was only so much money to had for R&D even in Germany in the 1930s. A 60 kg gun with a low rate of fire (even 480rpm) might not have been high on the priority list?

Shortround6 said:

Unless the German text says otherwise, the 3 guns were closely related. So was the early 2cm gun in the Panzer II. The guns used in the tanks/armored cars used a shorter barrel.
Different model guns may have had slightly different bodies/receivers to accommodate different mounts rather than use adapters to make one gun fit different uses.
The different German services may have used different designations for what was basically (but not exactly) the same gun.

Click to expand...

Article literary says '3 different weapons' - '3 verschiedenen Waffen' - in the 1st excerpt in the post #276.

Shortround6 said:

Except that the MG 151 was already being worked on. Some sources say work started in 1934 so 6 years before it showed up in small numbers in 1940?

There was only so much money to had for R&D even in Germany in the 1930s. A 60 kg gun with a low rate of fire (even 480rpm) might not have been high on the priority list?

Click to expand...

Germans choosing the Oerlikon L instead of the FF might've saved them a pretty penny? Upgrade it with belt feed by 1939 + make it faster by 1941 = any other 20mm for the aircraft looks redundant.
The people working on the MG 151 can do something else instead in the late 1930s, like a balanced 25-30mm gun.

tomo pauk said:

Article literary says '3 different weapons' - '3 verschiedenen Waffen' - in the 1st excerpt in the post #276.

Click to expand...

3 different weapons or only 1?
The 1919A2 was sometimes known as the M1922 when mounted on a light tripod for use by cavalry.
So you can find manuals, documents that will refer to 1917, 1919 and 1922 weapons/guns. The 1919A2/1922 guns use an 18in barrel and jacket.
Some of the old guns will not use a disintegrating metal belt.
Not even getting into the aircraft versions.
Some of the 1919A2s were used in the Philippines.