Luftwaffe after BoB: strategy, tactics, tecnology?

[gjs238]

Steal the designs for and manufacture the NA-73X

 

[tomo pauk]

Strap the DB-601N or E on the Mustang and you have some fighter indeed.

As for more dow-to-earth proposals, here are some:
- dust off the Fw-187, this time with either DB-601 or Hispano Suiza Y12 engines. Main shortcoming is the cost, both to produce and operate it; in case DB engines are installed something else does not get the engines, with HS engines the performance would not be that sparkling. Benefit is the great fuel tankage, possiblity to install heavy weapon load, can double as fast bomber
-install the rear tank on the Bf-109, on the place where the GM-1 or MW-50 tank was located in future versions of the 109. A straight forward thing, though it might get tricky to fly until a good deal of that fuel is not consumed. Alernative for that might be a modification of the wing, outboard of wheel wells, in order to install fuel tanks there. Shortcoming is that it would take some time for the modification, the wings of the Friedrich were not that strong to begin with.
-wing tanks in the Fw-190, more than double the fuel tankage. Shortcoming is the late introduction of the Fw-190, that, coupled with low reliabilty of it's powerplant, meaning it would be available for such tasks only in late 1942. The BWW 801 is not that frugal with fuel as the DB either.

 

[stona]

One of the things not touched by this thread - a proper long-range fighter for the LW? If it did anything, the BoB underscored that LW lacks such an item. Despite the addition of a drop tank to the Bf-109.
The upcoming needs for the Mediterranean and Eastern front need to be addressed.

The Luftwaffe did have such an item in the zerstorer concept and that was the Bf 110. It struggled to cope with the RAF's single seat fighters, particularly as they were fighting on their own terms, but did pretty well elsewhere.

If it's successor had worked then the Me 210 would have been a fairly formidable aircraft in 1941/42. I should have been available in plenty of time for the second summer of fighting in the east. Experienced pilots, who had not yet become the rarity that they would after 1942, liked the Me 210 very much. Johannes Kaufmann of ZG 1 recalled his disappointment when the Me 210 was withdrawn.

"The Me 210 was withdrawn, and we had to revert back to the Bf 110 and go along with it to Russia in the summer offensive of 1942. The whole airfield was gripped with deep disappointment."

The problem was not that the RLM/Luftwaffe hadn't planned for a suitable long range aircraft, it was that the aircraft in question didn't work.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

Hence my proposals

 

[stona]

This means you're proposing a suitable aircraft developed in the light of the Me 210 debacle. The true nature of the fiasco didn't become apparent until late 1941/early 1942 so that is your starting date. Why that was the case is due to the dishonesty of Messerschmitt and the incompetence of the RLM.
By late 1942 (when the first modified Me 210s were delivered to the Luftwaffe) how can you hope to have a viable alternative ready to deliver to the Luftwaffe?

The impact of the Me 210 fiasco is often underestimated. Not only did it leave the Luftwaffe without a replacement for the Bf 110, and limited options, it had a severe impact on other production. In 1941-2 only 94 Me 210s were produced at Regensburg and no Bf 110s at all. Between October 1941 and March 1942 not a single Bf 109 left Regensburg for the front line, the nine produced in the first three months of 1942 went to Rechlin. The RLM suddenly discovered that not only did it have no replacement for the Bf 110 but that it was short of at least 200 Bf 109s!

Cheers

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

But I'm not counting on the Me-210 debacle. I'm counting on the fact that a main fighter, the Bf-109, proved to be incapable to provide a wide footprint over enemy territory that was several hundred Km away. LW will need a long range fighter already in 1941, no much point to wait for 1942.
Mtt can surely go with a replacement for the Bf-110, but that must be a smaller and lighter airframe, not just featuring the short fuselage, if we want it to compete with S/E opposition on equal footing. So forget the bomb bay, engineer a thiner wing, don't bother with barbettes, also forget the LMGs and go straight with cannons.

 

[Njaco]

.....The true nature of the fiasco didn't become apparent until late 1941/early 1942 so that is your starting date....

The true nature was apparent and revealed during test trials in late 1939. The LW didn't "believe" them until 1941/1942.

 

[stona]

The true nature was apparent and revealed during test trials in late 1939. The LW didn't "believe" them until 1941/1942.

Absolutely right, that would be the bit I wrote about Messerschmitt's dishonesty and the RLM's incompetence

Cheers

Steve

 

[wiking85]

Well then guys we need a change in LW leadership prior to the BoB. Say have Walter Wever live and you then probably get the FW187, as it was under Udet that the project was first changed into a zerstörer and then dropped altogether; that was primarily a function of Richthofen leaving the Technical Branch when Udet was promoted. Wever and Richthofen understood as early as 1935-36 that they needed a long range escort fighter and the Bf110 was not that aircraft; in fact Wever was adamantly against the Zerstörer concept according to E.R. Hooton's books on the LW, but Goering wouldn't let go of the idea, being his baby and all. However if Wever lives and Udet does not replace Wimmer in the TB, then Richthofen stays in the Development Department and continues to push the single seat long range escort fighter in the form of the Fw187 (and no dive bombing requirement for everything else too).

 

[parsifal]

Just about everybody in Europe believed a long range escort with SE fighter agility was impossible to achieve. you see that in spades in both the RAF and LW procurement. Spitfire and ME109 were both fantastic aircraft, except in one area....range. Eventually both had their ranges improved, but compared to a Zeke or a P-51 they were just not in the race.

So what is it that made it possible for the japanese, and then the Americans, able to build very effective long range fighters, able to travel hundreds of kilometres and still fight effectively against the opposition. For the Japanese it was a matter of compromises....small engine size for economic cruise, ultra light weight construction, and an absence of excess weight including fire suppression and other protection. US were able to produce a rather more balanced approach, but not in 1940....it was 1943 before that was possible.

So, by extrapoltion, my guess is that the RAF or the LW could have a long range fighter option with adequate manouver in 1940 only by sacrificing something else in their designs. Try for an everything package, and you are likely to lose everything...sacrifice something and you get something that might compensate for that other weakness.

So what weakness can the RAF or the LW afford to get a long range fighter?

 

[Shortround6]

Part of it depends on what you call long range. Even with drop tanks you can only fight and return home over a certain distance with 90-100imp gallons of internal fuel.

Since engines (and the entire powerplant) is pretty much a constant, and the pilot/cockpit can't be shrunk you are left with cutting structural weight, protection, performance or firepower. Or some combination.

While your performance doesn't have to be better than the defenders it can't be inferior by very much. Question starts to become by how much. 5-10mph might be OK, 15-20mph might be iffy, 25-30mph and maybe you shouldn't be there? Same with climb or turn.
How much armament can you sacrifice? The escort fighter doesn't need a heavy cannon armament but it does need enough to take-out (at least heavily damage) an enemy interceptor without having to chase it all over the sky, taking multiple firing opportunities getting out of position and burning too much fuel.

As the war went on engines improved so they were giving more power per pound/kg of powerplant weight. This opened up opportunities that didn't exist in 1938-40 as it changed the power to weight ratio of the entire aircraft. A Merlin 63 for example was giving a bit over 50% more power (at 18lbs boost) a bit higher up than the Merlin III gave but the entire power plant (engine, prop, radiators, oil system etc) didn't weigh 50% more. It allowed the plane to weigh about 50% more with the only real loss in performance being the turning circle. For the Germans a DB 605A offered just about 50% more power at 6,000 meters ( at ata 1.42) than a DB601A-1 did. Once again installed weight did NOT go up 50%.

 

[KiwiBiggles]

I wonder how possible it is to make an effective long-range fighter in Europe before about 1943. Nothing to do with aircraft technology as such, it's just that if you're going to range out to 500 miles across cloud-covered Europe, you'd better have some pretty good navigation systems in place.

By 1943-1944, the Allies had a significant infrastructure of electronic navigational aids installed, reaching all the way to Berlin. A single-seat pilot out by himself somewhere over Germany had at least a reasonable chance of finding his way home. Without these aids, you'd really need at least a part-time navigator tucked in behind you, to help you get back. So we need two seats, and the weight starts to go up. None of the attempts at single-engine two-seat fighters (prior to the Firefly, anyway) were very successful, so take it that we have to go with two engines. And you're looking at the Bf 110 (or Me 210 or whatever).

I just don't think making a long-range fighter to project right across Europe is simply a matter of pouring a whole lot more petrol into it.

 

[stona]

Just about everybody in Europe believed a long range escort with SE fighter agility was impossible to achieve. you see that in spades in both the RAF and LW procurement. Spitfire and ME109 were both fantastic aircraft, except in one area....range.

And neither side needed them in any projected scenarios.

The Spitfire was a point defence fighter which emerged as a compromise of the two types used in the old 'Fighting Area' and ADGB.The operative word is defensive, they were supposed to intercept and shoot down enemy bombers IF the RAF's bomber force had failed to deter an attack. RAF bombers were not going to be escorted. The RAF didn't see a need for a long range fighter and the Government certainly didn't want to pay for one.
British defence procurement was governed by Lloyd George's 1919 'Ten Year Rule' which had told the service chiefs that they need not anticipate another major war in the next ten years. In 1928 they were told that the ten year rule renewed itself each morning! It was only revoked in 1932.

The Bf 109 might have been designed with a more offensive role in mind but this did not involve operating at range across bodies of water. It involved operating over or close to the front from forward airfields, something the Luftwaffe was particularly adept at doing.
Luftwaffe bombers were to be accompanied by 'zerstorer' which did therefore have more range but have evidently not been classified as long range fighter in the terms of this thread.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

FWIW, here some fighters that no one considered as push-overs, their engines of 1939-40 vintage, no great shakes in aerodynamics, while offering a useful combat radius:
-Re.2001, 540 liters (143 US gals) internal fuel, 545 km/h (339 mph)
-Ki.61, 199 US gals internally + drop tanks, 360 mph
-P-40B, 160 US gals int fuel, 350 mph
-D.520, range on internal fuel 777 miles, 330 mp/h, later almost 350 mph due to aerodynamic refinements.

Since our long range LW fighter will enter service some time in 1941, the Germans have better engines to offer, like the DB-601N and -E, closely followed by the BMW 801, that was offering some 30-50% more power than what was available in 1939/40. Both the 601N and -E (in 1941) offer almost 20% more power above 5 km than the DB-601A.

The Fw-190 with, say, 800 liters, instead of 525 would still be a great performer, but with a far greater range capability. Ditto for the Bf-109F-4 with 600 instead of 400 liters, especially vs. Soviet and N.African opposition.

 

[Njaco]

Part of it depends on what you call long range....

How about starting with from capital to capital? That was much of the focus (along with other targets) during attacks. If I can make it to your capital................

 

[gjs238]

Fuel also provides endurance, it's not just an issue of range.

 

[Shortround6]

PLease, please, please......

No pushovers? maybe not push overs but some on that list were certainly second rate and some were barely considered suitable for combat in 1941.

A P-40B? rudimentry self sealing tanks and a poor armament. Performance at altitude is hardly up to European standards in 1940 let alone 1941. Many combats in the BoB started with one side or the other (or both) at some altitude between 25,000 and 30,000ft. A lot didn't but allowing the enemy interceptors to bounce your fighters (and bombers) with a 5,000ft (or more) height advantage is going to bring your operational losses to an unsustainable level pretty quick.

Did the D.520 even have self sealing tanks? without them your escort fighters could be on a one way trip from only a few 7.6-8mm bullet holes. Performance for the D.520 is all over the place due to different engines, different power quotes even for the same engine. Very little data that has solid support and a lot of wild speculation on the web and from old books ( like this in wiki: "the 12Y-45 and -49s fitted to production D.520s used either 92 or 100 octane fuel.")

Now where the French were going to get 100 octane fuel is not mentioned. Nor is there any mention of what performance improvements there might be, and the Hispano design was getting pretty close to maxed out. The engines in the D520 may have require 91 octane fuel not the 85-87 octane of some of the earlier Hispano engines. ( most of the 860hp engines used a 5.8 compression ratio and ran on 85 octane, most of the over 900hp engines used 7:1 compression ratio and needed the 91 octane) The Hispano company had a lot of prototype engines or very low production number engines during the summer of 1940 and trying to figure out which airplane had which engine resulting in what for performance numbers is rather difficult.

And just so we are all on the same page here:

US 55 gal drum, 208 liters. 55 US gallons of fuel is about 330lbs or 150kg.

 

[Shortround6]

How about starting with from capital to capital? That was much of the focus (along with other targets) during attacks. If I can make it to your capital................

Not even capitols, At the beginning 1936 the British didn't have a bomber that could fly from England with a 500lb bomb, drop it anywhere in Germany, like the western Ruhr area/French border and make it back to England. A bit over 200miles (although that might have been a bit of an exaggeration) and British 1935 bombers were pretty much about 1930 left overs.

4-5 years later people want single fighters that can go from, say London to Hanover or Frankfurt? 424-396 miles

Lille to Birmingham is 248 miles and Lille to Liverpool is 325miles.

Canterbury to Cologne is 256 miles.

Granted the US liked to fly higher and faster than some other countries might need to but a P-38J with 410 gallons had an operational radius of 275miles, A P-47 with with 370 gallons was good for 225 miles and a P-47 with 305 inside and 300 gallons outside was good for 425 miles (Might make Hanover or Frankfurt?) A P-51 with 184 gallons inside was good for............150mile radius, the climb and form up can be killers for radius, Sticking in the rear tank got you to 375miles OR using two 75 gallon drop tanks got you 450-460 miles.

Canterbury to Cologne is 256 miles.

Sticking an extra 50 gallons in a Spitfire or 109 AND sticking another 75-80 gallons in a drop tank is NOT going to get you even 400 mile radius planes.

 

[tomo pauk]

PLease, please, please......

No pushovers? maybe not push overs but some on that list were certainly second rate and some were barely considered suitable for combat in 1941.

A P-40B? rudimentry self sealing tanks and a poor armament. Performance at altitude is hardly up to European standards in 1940 let alone 1941. Many combats in the BoB started with one side or the other (or both) at some altitude between 25,000 and 30,000ft. A lot didn't but allowing the enemy interceptors to bounce your fighters (and bombers) with a 5,000ft (or more) height advantage is going to bring your operational losses to an unsustainable level pretty quick.

The P-40B was using a technology of 1940 (and earlier), it's armament was far more suitable for long range duties than of the Bf-109E, it's protection was on par, if not better than of the BoB trio. At 15000 ft it was good for 350 mph, that compares well with Bf-109E, if not with Spitfire I/II. If we assume the P-40B will be long range fighter flying escort, it will already be at 20000 ft, the presumed lack of RoC is hardly an issue. It is a defender that must climb.

The Ki-61 was surely fit for combat when introduced.

Did the D.520 even have self sealing tanks? without them your escort fighters could be on a one way trip from only a few 7.6-8mm bullet holes. Performance for the D.520 is all over the place due to different engines, different power quotes even for the same engine. Very little data that has solid support and a lot of wild speculation on the web and from old books ( like this in wiki: "the 12Y-45 and -49s fitted to production D.520s used either 92 or 100 octane fuel.")

Who had the s-s tanks in 1940, that are of comparable quality with what was available in 1944? I'd say no-one, but will bow to the superior data.

Now where the French were going to get 100 octane fuel is not mentioned. Nor is there any mention of what performance improvements there might be, and the Hispano design was getting pretty close to maxed out. The engines in the D520 may have require 91 octane fuel not the 85-87 octane of some of the earlier Hispano engines. ( most of the 860hp engines used a 5.8 compression ratio and ran on 85 octane, most of the over 900hp engines used 7:1 compression ratio and needed the 91 octane) The Hispano company had a lot of prototype engines or very low production number engines during the summer of 1940 and trying to figure out which airplane had which engine resulting in what for performance numbers is rather difficult.

The reasons of the improved performance of the D.520 'Ameliore' (= Improved) were: going to individual exhaust stacks (ie. one per cylinder), introduction of boundary layer splitter to the radiator housing, introduction of a a 'hidden' oil cooler, installation of main wheel well covers.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-40B was using a technology of 1940 (and earlier), it's armament was far more suitable for long range duties than of the Bf-109E, it's protection was on par, if not better than of the BoB trio. At 15000 ft it was good for 350 mph, that compares well with Bf-109E, if not with Spitfire I/II. If we assume the P-40B will be long range fighter flying escort, it will already be at 20000 ft, the presumed lack of RoC is hardly an issue. It is a defender that must climb.

The last is a common misconception. If your climb rate at 20,000ft or so is significantly worse than the defenders it means you get one firing pass at them and then you are out of the fight. It is also a misconception because it assumes that the defenders have a limited amount of warning time and are struggling to reach combat altitude as the bombers and escorts arrive. It is 165miles from Dover to Birmingham, over 45 minutes at the cruising speed of many bombers. Granted the defenders may not know which target/s the raid is going after but even without radar, deep penetration raids are going to find interceptors in the air and above them.

And like I keep saying, climb rate is an indicator of how well a plane can maneuver and fight at a given altitude. Many countries figured you needed a climb rate of 500 fpm just to fly in formation, let alone fight. Squadron of planes does a 180 degree turn at 25,000ft and above, outside planes have to speed up to maintain formation, using more power, all planes loose lift as they bank and need more power just to hold altitude as they turn. To actually engage in combat might require a climb rate of 1000fpm and a tight turn (anything around 2-3 Gs depending on altitude) will cause you to loose either height or speed.

P-40s were faster than F4Fs even above 20,000ft. They just slowed down faster or lost altitude quicker (or both) once the fight started.

Who had the s-s tanks in 1940, that are of comparable quality with what was available in 1944? I'd say no-one, but will bow to the superior data.

I don't care if the quality was the same, I do care if we are comparing planes with self sealing tanks to planes without them, And the P-40C gained a lot of weight (and lost fuel) with it's self sealing tanks which were hardly of a 1944 type. Adding several hundred pounds of self-sealing tanks to some of these planes will affect their performance, climb and turn.

The reasons of the improved performance of the D.520 'Ameliore' (= Improved) were: going to individual exhaust stacks (ie. one per cylinder), introduction of boundary layer splitter to the radiator housing, introduction of a a 'hidden' oil cooler, installation of main wheel well covers.

Thank you, apparently the Bf 109 was a real dog when it came to aerodynamics as it is about the same speed as a D.520 despite having around 20% more power. The D.520 carried more armament (weight) and more fuel for greater range too. Good thing for the Germans not many got into service.