Luftwaffe, a bit better in 1939-40

Why am I building He 112 for? Didn't that lose?

Isn't that more complex and more expensive? Help me out here.

So basically what is going on is that we have to reject the Bf 109 in 1935 because it won't be competitive against the Mustang in 1944.

And in 1940 we invade France in 6 weeks, throw out the BEF and launch huge air armadas against England?

The officer in 1936 who came up with that scenario is not getting promotion but a padded cell.

The Basket said:

Yeah tried to.

Moonbeams and Wishdreams.

Basically it's saying if I was Brad Pitt and was a millionaire then I could win the Battle of Britain.

It's absolute stupid.

It's like saying the Kriegsmarine should have built 100 Bismarcks. Well yeah but in the real world that's a big no.

Click to expand...

You criticise something you haven't read ? It's not what you are assuming and it definitely doesn't go the way you think it does. I am not going to critique the writing style the author isn't a professional writer and English isn't his first language. However his ideas are spot on and I can't fault his alt history facts and figures.

Try reading it you might be surprised.

I have read it.

And I am not surprised.

It's garbage.

The Basket said:

I have read it.

And I am not surprised.

It's garbage.

Click to expand...

Fair enough if you have read it and understand the ending then I won't try and change your mind.

However I would still recommend that anyone else interested in a story that starts from the facts goes off on a 180 degree alternative tangent but then comes back to a very believable ending should have a look. Anyone reading the first page and deciding they know what happens has not understood the ideas of alternative history.

tomo pauk said:

He 111 is in volume production well before ww2, so is the Do 17, while Junkers was producing the Ju 86. The change in production can't happen without delays, that is why it took years for Ju 88 to became 'standard' bomber of Luftwaffe, despite it's shortcomings. If Luftwaffe wants to phase out any other 2-engined bomber but Ju 88 in early 1939, willy-nilly, that will meant that LW is down by hundreds of bombers by the time war starts.
We also have a thing that Ju 88A-1 was not able to carry the 'blockbuster' bombs the He 111 carried already by 1939.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed, completely agree, that's why I'd initiate a better standard bomber before the war since the He 111 and Do 17 are compromises with a raft of things that are gonna make them approaching obsolescence by 1941. The He 111 can carry the big bombs, which the Do 17 can't, but only under the wings. It's segmented bomb bays, essentially cell structures mounted in the fuselage to exit out of holes cut in the aircraft's underside between its two wing spars limit what it can carry internally. The He 111 is a small aircraft built for speed at the expense of internal design, but it can by virtue of its strong structure carry large loads externally, with the resultant penalty of drag, which degrades both useable radius and speed.

Marcel said:

But then they could have focussed on the He111 instead maybe?

Click to expand...

Possibly, but for the reasons above and for a number of others, the He 111 is perhaps not the best bomber to do this with and thus the RLM was best beginning with a better bomber to begin with (perhaps another what-if thread, design a better Luftwaffe bomber in the late 1930s?). It has little future beyond 1940/1941 as a frontline bomber and to all intents and purposes the RLM had intended on replacing it with the He 177 and the result of the Bomber B specification. All things considered, the He 111 was a good compromise for a pre-war air arm, but it's slow, ill-defended and with its concessions to performance and its oddities, a not ideal choice going forward.

I've mentioned the He 111s quirks before on this forum, but to reinforce them, its bomb bay is nothing short of a compromise, with its rubber doors, to prevent damage from bomb tails striking them on the way out, as they fell tail first and the fact that the doors are spring loaded rather than hydraulic, its defensive armament positions looked like an afterthought, because essentially that's what they were, the novel glass frontage gave bad visibility in certain lighting conditions, its instrument layout was haphazard owing to the glass tunnel and there wasn't much room in that nose area except in head room, which lead to the really curious way of dealing with a terrible view from the pilot's seat on the ground; sliding the hatch above the pilot rearwards, and jacking his seat up so he can see over the top of the canopy from the outside, effectively making the He 111 an open cockpit bomber on the ground! The pilot did have a flip up windshield when doing this though!

This is why I don't like what ifs.

In 2020 He 111 bad. But in 1937 He 111 good .

Any mid 1930s vintage bomber is going to look 2nd rate very quickly.

You have to compare it against a Wellington and not a B-52.

The Basket said:

You have to compare it against a Wellington

Click to expand...

Let's compare them, then. The Wellington was designed as a bomber from the outset. It had no pretences to being an airliner (not to begin with, although the post-war Viking was based on the Wellington), both carried a similar load, but the Wellington is slower at all altitudes since it is bigger and not as streamlined, but it can carry an equivalent load to the He 111 over a greater distance and higher depending on which variants we are comparing, it has better defensive armament in the form of power operated turrets and it has a more sensible cockpit layout and you don't have to pop your head above and outside the canopy to see where you are going. You can open the quarterlights and peer out while taxying though. It doesn't have rubber bomb bay doors because the bombs are likely to hit them on the way out (!) and the bomb bay is a proper bomb bay, not a steel framework inside the fuselage, within which bombs are stored vertically, because the fuse was also designed to carry passengers.

(It should also be added that both bombers were designed for the needs of their respective air forces at the time, so they are bound to be different in performance and requirement - both also served their respective air forces well and the Wellington was replaced by bigger and better bombers in frontline squadrons when expected, as the He 111 should have been done, but wasn't, but that's not its fault).

The Basket said:

You have to compare it against a Wellington and not a B-52.

Click to expand...

I mean, a pop-top so the pilot can see where he's going? That's odd even for the late 30s...

On the transport side is there anyway to get the ju252 in worthwhile numbers ?

The Ju252 and Ju352 were a bit late in the war, the Luftwaffe would have done better to copy the DC-3 like Japan (Nakajima L2D) or the Soviets (Lisonov Li-2).

yep but i was trying to stick to home grown

Germans could have copied the Handley Page Harrow and been ahead of the JU 52.

Unfortunately for the Germans the He 111 used pretty much the world standard for bomber defensive armament in the mid 30s. That is to say, next to no change from many WW I twin engine bombers.
1 gun in the nose,
1 gun on top (or top rear)
1 gun out the bottom or bottom rear.

Compare to Hamden, or American B-10 or early Ki 21 or....................
trying to upgrade shouldn't have been hard, except they didn't want to spend the effort while waiting for the uber bombers.

Any possible upgrade wouldn't have made the He 111 anywhere near invulnerable (no bomber was) but at least it wouldn't have been quite so pathetic.
A lot of german bombers seem to have sacrificed ease of operation/flying for a negligible decrease in drag. WHile others seem to have been cursed with built in airbrakes.

why somebody thought this was a good idea at the same time Henkiel was sticking that long tapered stepless nose on the He 111 is certainly puzzling.
This almost makes a Blenheim I look good.

As for the He 111 bomb bay doors.







I would note that a number of British bombers, while using metal doors, used rubber (or elastic?) cords to hold them shut and the weight of the bomb leaving the rack pushed them open. This is not a feature that is impossible to change.

Interior pictures.


the bomb cells do not appear to be structural. However the low wall separating the bomb bay from the cockpit is the forward spar or spar connector.
I don't know if you could fit a single 500 kg bomb in lengthwise in the same space as four 250kg bombs side by side. The 205kg bombs had fins bigger than the body of the bomb but since the fins go in the corners of the boxes I don't know what the size of the bomb cell is.

Shortround6 said:

As for the He 111 bomb bay doors.



View attachment 596592

View attachment 596593

I would note that a number of British bombers, while using metal doors, used rubber (or elastic?) cords to hold them shut and the weight of the bomb leaving the rack pushed them open. This is not a feature that is impossible to change.

Click to expand...

Not all British bombers had the bungee cord spring loaded doors - you can get away with that in a small aeroplane, but not a big one. The larger the doors and bomb bay area necessitates hydraulics. The Hampden, Wellington, Manchester and Halifax had hydraulically operated bomb bay doors, not sure about the Whitley and Stirling, quite probably. All these British bombers had purpose built bomb bays and in many of the British designs were segmented, mainly because early British bombs were not so big.

Lancaster bomb bay looking forward, note the hydraulic jacks on the bulkhead - it was little changed from the Manchester and was the biggest bomb bay in non-segmented area in a production bomber at the time the Manchester entered service, owing to a requirement to be able to carry two torpedoes side by side.

Lancaster bomb bay

Wellington bomb bay, note that it has three separate bays length ways - it could also carry a torpedo internally. The doors were also hydraulically actuated.

Wellington bomb bay

The Anson had spring loaded bomb doors and the bombs were designed to strike the doors as they left their bays and they'd snap shut afterwards. In this image you can see the doors from the outside and their springs - they are being propped open, note the 'Remove Before Flight' tag at the front end.

Anson bomb bay doors

Inside the Anson's left bomb bay looking forward, designed for the small bombs only. The bays were located in the wing roots aft of the spar; note the curvature of the wing-to-fuselage fairing to the left.

Anson bomb bay

It is worth mentioning that the Anson was also designed around a civil transport, and its structure was based on the Avro Ten, which was a licence built Fokker F.VIIb trimotor, so is very much a product of an earlier time.

It's interesting to note that the original HP.52 design, which became the Hampden, that most German looking of all British bombers was drawn up in response to a British requirement, but with a Swedish order for a torpedo bomber in mind also and its designer, Gustav Lachmann, a German, wanted to emulate the German tendency to build bombers out of airliners, but the Air Ministry said no and a civil variant was not produced. Initially the HP.52 was to be fitted with HP designed power turrets with Frazer Nash working gear - although not fitted to the eventual Hampden, these were fitted to the Harrow.

He 111 bomb bay doors. Note the rubber material.

Bomb doors

The new Luftwaffe bomber I'm proposing doesn't have to be completely invulnerable, the fastest, the biggest, the bestest, but to do what the He 111 and Do 17 did but better and perhaps a little more sophisticated - since this is a what-if, perhaps the Germans could work on a power turret. The points I've made all along about the He 111 are quirks and were probably avoidable if the bomber wasn't a compromise between an airliner and a bomber, but they add built-in-obsolescence. The He 111 airliner was a fine looking machine and made an excellent fast transport. Obviously that careful streamlining, aerodynamics and sleek appearance goes out the window when militarising the design. The early He 111s still had a modicum of their airliner pedigree in their appearance, but couldn't match the later H model's performance. It is worth mentioning that the Ju 88 was an outstanding aircraft and was definitely more sophisticated than her fellow Luftwaffe contemporaries. Ju 88 bomb bay. This is the RAF Museum's night fighter.

bomb bay doors

bomb bay

Thank you for the pictures.

The He 111 was never going to equal the large British bombers but for some reason/s it seemed to get 'stuck' in development. Both in regards to defensive armament and in engine power. So did a few British bombers, like the Hamden.

For the Germans the successors or replacements for the 111 didn't show up anywhere near on time. I have my own reservations about the Ju 88. It really wasn't as fast as needed or as long ranged as needed when carrying a heavy bomb load. It was adaptable and quite useful in a number of other roles but in 1940 in the A-1/A-2 and A-5 (to a lesser extent) versions it left something to be desired.

It doesn't look like it would have been that hard to set up the He 111 with power actuated bomb doors. What practical difference that makes I don't know.
The B-17 (and few other American bombers) had short bomb bays with vertical stacking, I don't know if that could have been adopted for the He 111 or allowed 500kg bombs inside.
A better dorsal position sooner couldn't have hurt. power traverse at least and/or twin guns (belt fed). The German technique of adding multiple single guns to be fired by the same man may look cool but I doubt it was a good return on investment, even if easy to do in the field.

nuuumannn - thanks for the pics.
What exact parts of He 111 bomb 'bays' were made of the rubber?

tomo pauk said:

Bf 109E as standard fighter for this time, no surprises. Some changes, though:
- the 109E1 gets another pair of MGs in the wings, for 6 total

Click to expand...

Why more machine guns? Just bring them all up to at least E3 standard with wing cannon and stop producing E-1s until the end of August 1940.
It seems something that could be practically done at little expense with better planning. It certainly doesn't need a TARDIS.

Make a bigger effort to introduce drop tanks for the Bf 109. We know some aircraft were using them at and immediately after the Battle of Britain period, it only needs development to be brought forward by 12-15 weeks. Again, not asking for the impossible.

stona said:

Why more machine guns? Just bring them all up to at least E3 standard with wing cannon and stop producing E-1s until the end of August 1940.
It seems something that could be practically done at little expense with better planning. It certainly doesn't need a TARDIS.

Click to expand...

Cannons are great, but 60 rd drums and need for long 'fighting endurance' don't mix well. The 6 LMG set-up with 500 rd/gun will still keep the defending fighters off the Heinkels' back even after several burst were fired previously.
You can note that I've also suggested the early introduction of 90 rd drum for the MG FF & FFM, as well as trying to get belt feed for the MG FFM (instead of waiting for 1943, as per historically; only the Do 217 NFs received those at the end). Neither requires TARDIS, and the 6 LMG E-1 set-up is a 'plan B', that still can get cannons if/when the ammo count is improved from 60 rd/gun.

Make a bigger effort to introduce drop tanks for the Bf 109. We know some aircraft were using them at and immediately after the Battle of Britain period, it only needs development to be brought forward by 12-15 weeks. Again, not asking for the impossible.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is needed, and really low-tech - the Hs 123 used drop tanks well before ww2, so did the He 51.

tomo pauk said:

Cannons are great, but 60 rd drums and need for long 'fighting endurance' don't mix well. .

Click to expand...

Luftwaffe pilots were very keen to get cannon armament. When JG 52 received two cannon armed Bf 109s on 12 September 1940 Steinhilper and his Staffelkapitan managed to bag them. Steinhilper wrote to his mother the following day.

"Yesterday we received two aircraft which are fitted with the cannons in the wings. I'm taking one and the 'Chief' is taking the other. Therefore it is with a broken heart that I am abandoning my '16'. It's sad because it was the most loyal aircraft in the squadron, but cannons are cannons."

I have read dozens of accounts in recent weeks as I have been compiling a day by day account of the BoB. I don't remember any Luftwaffe pilot complaining about a 60 round drum for the cannon. What they appreciated was the power of the cannons, they had after all been fighting aircraft with double their weight of armament. I have read several accounts in which British pilots were shot down by just one cannon strike.

Fitting another machine gun in each wing might be more difficult than fitting a cannon, given the nature of the MG 17s ammunition feed, extending out almost to the wing tip.