Luftwaffe in 1936-41 improvements?

tomo pauk said:

German women running them.

Click to expand...

Richard Overy and Adam Tooze have both written on how the bombing surveys got this wrong. Germany already had as high a rate of female work in 1939 as the UK and US in 1944. The statisticians looked only at the change once the war actually broke out, and also misread the "servants" category in the census which included farms and small businesses. Can't run double or triple shifts without the workers (hence why so much foreign labour imported later on).

More generally Germany was trying to rebuild a war machine from basically nothing post-Versailles (not just factories but barracks and airfields) with tiny natural resources and population compared to the British (or even French) Empire, US or USSR (hence massive investments in synthetic oil and rubber). Once the war started she had no Lend-Lease and had to pay for very limited imports from allies & neutrals (admittedly looting the occupied territories helped, but you can only do that once and they didn't have everything).

Even more than the American thread the resources here are constrained, by hard physical rather than political facts. And we are not trying to fine tune a winning strategy but fix a hopelessly losing one. So you have to be very specific how much hindsight are you willing to assume and what are you trying to achieve.

• BoB - maybe more 109s with drop tanks let you win air superiority over SE England, but to what end unless you want to invade, which most people think was impossible? (And let's say you pull it off, it's not so easy to sucker punch Stalin next year, so Barbarossa just got even harder.)
• Blockade of British Isles - could help with night bombing & mining of ports, long range recon, but mainly down to U-boats.
• Barbarossa - as argued, you need both large numbers of longer-ranged bombers and a big advance on land to bomb the Urals, what do you want less of?

Did someone suggest killing the Stuka? Then you don't get across the Meuse at Sedan and this whole "BoB" thing remains a hypothetical.

BTW although WW2 Germany generally has a bad reputation for mass production, the 109 at least is an exception.

Designing their bombers with proper tail gunner turrets from the start could have been useful, even if they were meant to be fast bombers too hard to intercept, that actually makes a tail turret even more logical. All the Ju88, Do17/215/217, He111 had pretty large blindspots to the rear.

The RAF seems to have been the world leaders in tail turrets even the Whitley had a quad gun rear turret.

The IJN asked Mitsubishi for a long ranged fighter. When asked how much range? the IJN replied, "All".

The best way to make something fast is to put the biggest engine in the smallest lightest, airframe.

You don't get 360mph out of 1,000bhp by adding fuel tanks.

You would probably end up with a Fairey Fulmar.

hobbes154 said:

Richard Overy and Adam Tooze have both written on how the bombing surveys got this wrong. Germany already had as high a rate of female work in 1939 as the UK and US in 1944. The statisticians looked only at the change once the war actually broke out, and also misread the "servants" category in the census which included farms and small businesses. Can't run double or triple shifts without the workers (hence why so much foreign labour imported later on).

More generally Germany was trying to rebuild a war machine from basically nothing post-Versailles (not just factories but barracks and airfields) with tiny natural resources and population compared to the British (or even French) Empire, US or USSR (hence massive investments in synthetic oil and rubber). Once the war started she had no Lend-Lease and had to pay for very limited imports from allies & neutrals (admittedly looting the occupied territories helped, but you can only do that once and they didn't have everything).

Click to expand...

Yes, and that was both a problem and an opportunity. They could have built everything from the ground up for mass production, they controlled the money so they could have forced producers to adopt more modern production methods, that could have certainly improved their position significantly regarding both output and labor demands.

BoB - maybe more 109s with drop tanks let you win air superiority over SE England, but to what end unless you want to invade, which most people think was impossible? (And let's say you pull it off, it's not so easy to sucker punch Stalin next year, so Barbarossa just got even harder.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, beating the RAF buys you little, you need to...

Blockade of British Isles - could help with night bombing & mining of ports, long range recon, but mainly down to U-boats.

Click to expand...

...beat the RN, so they would have to focus on LW-KM cooperation towards that goal.

Barbarossa - as argued, you need both large numbers of longer-ranged bombers and a big advance on land to bomb the Urals, what do you want less of?

Click to expand...

You need long ranged bombers first and foremost... for the Atlantic, to provide reece for the U boats and even attack merchants until armed. IIRC Kesselring spoke of 2 heavies costing as much as 3 mediums, not a bad trade.

Now, if the UK surrenders, uncle Joe is more likely to launch a preventive strike on May 1941...

Did someone suggest killing the Stuka? Then you don't get across the Meuse at Sedan and this whole "BoB" thing remains a hypothetical.

Click to expand...

I would build more and give it more range...

BTW although WW2 Germany generally has a bad reputation for mass production, the 109 at least is an exception.

Click to expand...

So were the Bf 110 and Ju 88.

taly01 said:

Designing their bombers with proper tail gunner turrets from the start could have been useful, even if they were meant to be fast bombers too hard to intercept, that actually makes a tail turret even more logical. All the Ju88, Do17/215/217, He111 had pretty large blindspots to the rear.

Click to expand...

Both the Do 19 and Ju 89 heavy designs had tail turrets, when dropped so were turret design efforts.

The RAF seems to have been the world leaders in tail turrets even the Whitley had a quad gun rear turret.

Click to expand...

With designs bought from the French...

JAG88 said:

With designs bought from the French...

Click to expand...

Hi

I am presuming you are referring to the de Boysson design that the French Air Force had rejected and it was brought to the attention of Boulton Paul in 1935 (BP had already produced a pneumatic powered turret and were already working on similar powered system). This was useful for BP, however, Frazer-Nash had already produced a hydraulic powered 'turret' and had been fitted to the Demon. It was an FN turret on the rear of the Whitley, the mechanism used was not the same as the de Boysson. There were also Bristol turrets as well. So they were not 'all' based on the French design.

Mike

Er...how do you intend to blockade the UK?

If only the Plan Z occured and Doenitz had his 300 U-Boats. Then the Royal Navy would have been powerless.

Except if that happened the Royal Navy would easily match any naval build up and match it with plenty to spare.

There is no way on this planet that the Kriegsmarine was going to blockade the UK. Not ever.

Interesting discussion.

MikeMeech said:

So they were not 'all' based on the French design.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, Mike. This is where Britain led the world in terms of bomber design. I regularly see bombers like the Whitley and Wellington lambasted on this forum with little thought for comparison with their contemporaries. Both had longer ranges carrying heavier bomb loads than any other bomber at the time, and while the He 111 and Do 17 were faster, they had puny bomb loads by comparison and poor defensive armament. Only the British had bombers equipped with power operated turrets as the war began. It soon became apparent that these were a necessity. That British bombers were shot down in numbers after the war's outbreak is a combination of things, largely tactical use, but the aircraft themselves were actually good at what they did compared to same types equipping foreign air forces. The B-17 was perhaps the bench mark in terms of size and overall performance, but both the Whitley and Wellington could carry a heavier load and they were better defended - if the RAF impressed the early model B-17 into use as it did its own bombers in 1939/1940, the same outcome would have resulted.

As a side note, the first time I got to look at an He 111 close up, including getting on board it, I marvelled at how small it was. Clambering around inside, it is very apparent that it began life not as a bomber, even if it was supposed to be one. The bomb bay doors are rubber and flop open as the bombs hit them on the way out, tail first then snap shut by the use of springs, the bomb bay itself looks like it was made out of tool shed metal shelving, the defensive armament positions look like they were plonked in place because no one had thought of these things beforehand, the cockpit area is confined and cramped, but gives an illusory sense of space because of all that glazing, but then, when you taxi you have this weird thing where you pop the hood above your head and wind your seat up so you can stick your head outside to see where you are going! It's just a bit of a botch job of an aircraft. Don't get me wrong, the He 111 was one of the great all time WW2 aeroplanes, but it doesn't convey the air of a bomber like, say the Wellington, which in person looks and feels like a bomber should. It's got a flight deck, a long purposeful looking bomb bay, gun turrets at each end and a proper bomb aimer's area, who is not sharing a goldfish bowl with the pilot.

0507 RAFM He 111

MikeMeech said:

Hi

I am presuming you are referring to the de Boysson design that the French Air Force had rejected and it was brought to the attention of Boulton Paul in 1935 (BP had already produced a pneumatic powered turret and were already working on similar powered system). This was useful for BP, however, Frazer-Nash had already produced a hydraulic powered 'turret' and had been fitted to the Demon. It was an FN turret on the rear of the Whitley, the mechanism used was not the same as the de Boysson. There were also Bristol turrets as well. So they were not 'all' based on the French design.

Mike

Click to expand...

Yes, not all, but French designs did play an important part as you note.

I would also like to put forward the notion that this discussion could only take place because of what transpired subsequent to the time of the discussion, as obvious as that sounds. The reason why I make particular note of this is because at the outbreak of WW2, the Luftwaffe was likely to have been the best equipped air force in the world, certainly on paper anyway. It had a formidable number of 'heavy' bombers, including the botch job He 111s, but there were lots of these and Do 17s, another mash up type with defensive armament as an afterthought, and some of these aircraft were fitted with Knickebein, which in terms of sophisticated navigation and bombing aids were the last word and potentially made the Luftwaffe the modst accurate bombing force in the world. The Knickebein system for all its faults, undiscovered in 1939, had astonishing accuracy for its time, all things considered - look at the RAF and its sextants and drift sights for navigation and before anyone criticises Bomber Command for that, I dare anyone else to provide evidence that any other air force other than the Luftwaffe could have done better under the operational circumstances it faced at that time.

The Luftwaffe fighter force was formidably equipped with the Bf 109E, which was at the time the best fighter in service in the world, bear in mind the Spitfires and Hurricanes were still largely fitted with big hunks of wood as propellers, which hampered their performance and potential to no end. The Bf 110, despite what has been said was an excellent aircraft designed to a flawed specification, but was able to show its true colours in its versatility - it was also likely the best twin engined fighter in service in numbers anywhere in 1939. The Luftwaffe also had the best and most comprehensive and organised photographic reconnaissance effort at its disposal, it had a coastal reconnaissance fleet of aircraft bringing it up to date reports on weather across battlefields, it had a separate strategic reconnaissance air arm independent of the Luftwaffe under the intelligence branch to give the big picture. In terms of preparedness, no other air force was so well kept in touch with the battlefield ahead. It provided army support in the form of deadly effective dive bombers in the Stuka, which, granted was big, slow and vulnerable in anything but total air superiority, but it was a sledge hammer and its application in the overall 'Blitzkrieg' thing was utterly inspired and brutally successful in 1939/early 1940.

These things made the Luftwaffe a well equipped, modern air force, arguably the best in the world.The crucible was, of course WW2, but in 1939 early 1940 it reigned supreme.

JAG88 said:

Yes, not all, but French designs did play an important part as you note.

Click to expand...

Only the De Boysson turret and its impact on Boulton Paul. The Nash and Thomson turrets and Bristol ones were devised totally independently of French input. Even then, BP refined the De Boysson turret and made it a practical proposition for mass production.

The Basket said:

Er...how do you intend to blockade the UK?

If only the Plan Z occured and Doenitz had his 300 U-Boats. Then the Royal Navy would have been powerless.

Except if that happened the Royal Navy would easily match any naval build up and match it with plenty to spare.

There is no way on this planet that the Kriegsmarine was going to blockade the UK. Not ever.

Click to expand...

Blockade? No.

Generate enough disruption that, in addition to losses on the continent, make war far more unpalatable for the UK. Yes.

For that the KM would have needed to be conceived as a purely commerce warfare force... as far as possible within the frame of the 1935 or a slightly better treaty of course.

More subs would be needed, the treaty did allow the KM to match RN tonnage... at the price of reductions elsewhere, that last bit would need to go. In any case, anything beyond 16 Type VII per year is wishful thinking, so by 1939 at best 70+ Type VII plus 40+ Type IIs. No type IXs.

Surface ships are all diesel and as fast as possible, the Deutschlands did 28 knots with an unfavorable hull design due to the need to fit their large barbettes, so better designs are possible.

Carriers are a must, and the KM should be able to obtain parity with France (60.000t) for 3x20.000t diesel carriers which would be the core of the KM battlegroups.

The available BB tonnage would be used in 4x35.000t fast diesel BBs, hard to convince Hitler of anything more revolutionary, useful to keep the RN content.

Save for the extra carrier, nothing is beyond what the RN expected IRL. Only that some would be laid down sooner... and no Hippers, which is a plus by making the RN less nervous and avoid waste for the KM.

CL and DD tonnage would be used on a variation of the "scout cruisers" the KM designed, 4.000t oceanic escorts, all diesel.

That is it.

Of course, the LW would be needed to provide a true long range MPA in order to assist the KM (specially Uboats) in finding its targets, plus the coastal fighter, torpedo and dive bomber squadrons they were intended to have but never received.

I would expect the RN to lay down a 2nd Ark Royal to match the extra CV (2 in 1935 and 1 in 1937 compared to 1 in 1936 and 1 in 1938 IRL), but nothing beyond that.

It would be far more effective than the mess the KM had in its harbors.

JAG88 said:

It would be far more effective than the mess the KM had in its harbors.

Click to expand...

Better torpedoes. Much better torpedoes.

nuuumannn said:

Only the De Boysson turret and its impact on Boulton Paul. The Nash and Thomson turrets and Bristol ones were devised totally independently of French input. Even then, BP refined the De Boysson turret and made it a practical proposition for mass production.

Click to expand...

Im away from my books and I think it was a bit more than just BP, but until then...

nuuumannn said:

Better torpedoes. Much better torpedoes.

Click to expand...

First and foremost...

JAG88 said:

The available BB tonnage would be used in 4x35.000t fast diesel BBs, hard to convince Hitler of anything more revolutionary, useful to keep the RN content.

Click to expand...

Actually nothing could be counted on more to the stir the British to a frantic amount of activity should even the details you give become public.
The RN was ever mindful of an commerce raiding force. 35,000ton diesel battleships could have no other purpose and so, contrary to keeping the RN content the RN would have been asking for some sort of battle cruisers/fast battleships (in quantity) to run down any of these possible raiders.

Please note that the idea of diesel power had been around since before WW I and the British had a pretty good idea of what it was capable of and what it was not capable of.
The existing technology was known and even if the Germans managed to better the British guesses in some cases their were some serious limitations. The Graf Spee's had engine rooms of about 240 ft in length or a bit over 1/3 of the ships length. This made for a large target that needed to be protected (armoured) and while the diesels provided great fuel economy they were large and heavy for the power provided. They also required more armor for protection of the large engine rooms.

The British were planning on building six of the Lion class, 16in armed slight larger (and slightly faster?) KGVs. Other priorities over took them bu had the Germans been build multiple 35,000 diesel powered battleships the British priorities would have shifted.

BTW the need for German long range reconnaissance aircraft to work with the U boats in 1939-40 didn't exist. The majority of the German U boats at the time could NOT stay past Ireland for more than a couple of days. British naval architects weren't stupid and they could estimate the range-speed-endurance of a sub based on it's size and a few details fairly well. Had the Germans tried to build a U-boat fleet 4-6 times the sizeof the one they had the British would also have changed their building priorities.

Shortround6 said:

Actually nothing could be counted on more to the stir the British to a frantic amount of activity should even the details you give become public.
The RN was ever mindful of an commerce raiding force. 35,000ton diesel battleships could have no other purpose and so, contrary to keeping the RN content the RN would have been asking for some sort of battle cruisers/fast battleships (in quantity) to run down any of these possible raiders.

Click to expand...

The RN fully expected the KM to keep making diesel warships, they were fairly surprised when they found out they were going over to turbines, but then again they also found out the KM did so because they expected to get comparable range from their new turbines/boilers, so no, the RN had no reason to change their expectations from the KM ships regarding range.

Please note that the idea of diesel power had been around since before WW I and the British had a pretty good idea of what it was capable of and what it was not capable of.
The existing technology was known and even if the Germans managed to better the British guesses in some cases their were some serious limitations. The Graf Spee's had engine rooms of about 240 ft in length or a bit over 1/3 of the ships length. This made for a large target that needed to be protected (armoured) and while the diesels provided great fuel economy they were large and heavy for the power provided. They also required more armor for protection of the large engine rooms.

Click to expand...

But overall, they required less fuel for the range and provided power on demand.

The British were planning on building six of the Lion class, 16in armed slight larger (and slightly faster?) KGVs. Other priorities over took them bu had the Germans been build multiple 35,000 diesel powered battleships the British priorities would have shifted.

Click to expand...

As I said, the RN knew the KM were changing propulsion systems and expected no loss of range, the RN was already operating under the assumption the KM ships would have long range, not even the Germans knew what kind of a fiasco the whole thing turned out to be, much less the RN who needed to plan for a worst case scenario anyway and expect KM ships to have long legs.

And keep an eye on the IJN, RM and USN... cant simply focus on the KM.

BTW the need for German long range reconnaissance aircraft to work with the U boats in 1939-40 didn't exist. The majority of the German U boats at the time could NOT stay past Ireland for more than a couple of days. British naval architects weren't stupid and they could estimate the range-speed-endurance of a sub based on it's size and a few details fairly well. Had the Germans tried to build a U-boat fleet 4-6 times the sizeof the one they had the British would also have changed their building priorities.

Click to expand...

No, the initial Type VIIAs had a range of 6.200 nautical miles an 10kts, they patrolled for 35-50 days at a time, the following subtypes had even longer ranges, you can see one such patrols here:

Patrol of German U-boat U-28 from 18 Feb 1940 to 23 Mar 1940 - Kriegsmarine U-boat patrols - uboat.net

They made it to Cherbourg the long way and back, plenty more patrols to see there too.

So yeah, an MPA would be handy, which is why they asked the LW for one at the time and they even agreed... but then kinda sat on it, Göring had no use for the KM.

UK naval architects had full plans of the Type VII and thought they were "rotten"... they were kind of wrong, werent they? They also thought ASDIC gave them a decisive edge and were not very concerned, hence why the UK allowed the KM to match the RN in sub tonnage and even increased their own tonnage later on knowing the KM could match that.

In this scenario the KM builds towards the SAME tonnage as IRL, only there are no long range Type IXs (as Dönitz wanted) which will make the RN happy, since those were the only ones they were concerned about.

Remember in 1930s if your enemy is France and UK then navy wise the Kriegsmarine was on a non starter from day dot.

The idea the Plan Z or 300 subs is simply going to be unrivaled by the Royal Navy is again going to be a non starter.

Navy strategy is about time and lots of it. It's a built strategy. If the Germans had the ships of the High Seas Fleet and could modernise them then fair enough.

But a carrier force takes time and money. Lots of it. So ten years at least.

And if you build up the Navy then the army or air force would suffer and even if the Plan Z was fully realised then the Germans didn't have the oil for them.

Yes the Kriegsmarine were very good but they were never a true threat. If you look at how much tonnage they had to sink v how much they did sink then not really.

JAG88 said:

Im away from my books and I think it was a bit more than just BP

Click to expand...

The following are the British companies building powered gun turrets at the outbreak of WW2. Aircraft listed as fitted with the turrets in service in late 1939 only.

Boulton Paul, as mentioned, technology based on SAMM turrets and refined and expanded on, including in-house designed interrupter gear and turret control system by Hele-Shaw Beecham, as well as the use of .303-inch Browning machine guns instead of the Darne guns. Fitted to the Blackburn Roc, entering service in April 1939 for trials at training, the Defiant entered service in December that year, and an Overstrand for trials only. BP C.II mid-upper turret fitted to Lockheed Hudson.
Bristol, entirely in-house, novel stem design controlled by bicycle handles and actuated by a multi-stage gear type hydraulic pump of indigenous origin and produced by Integral Engineering. Bristol B.I mid-upper fitted to the Blenheim, B.II and B.III fitted to the Bombay in the nose and tail respectively. B.IV mid-upper fitted to the Beaufort, which entered service in November 1939.
Handley Page designed the Harrow's turrets, which incorporated Frazer-Nash designed hydraulics. See below.
Nash and Thompson, named after the two directors of the firm, Archie Frazer-Nash and Gratton Thompson used a hydraulic actuation system designed by Frazer-Nash, hence the turrets being 'FN', despite the company name of Nash and Thompson. This firm was a part of Parnall Aircraft at Yate, as Frazer-Nash and Thompson were on the board of directors of the aircraft company. Hele-Shaw Beecham provided pumps for the hydraulics. Lobster back FN.1 fitted to Hawker Demon, FN.4 tail turret fitted to Armstrong Whitworth Whitley Mk.IV and V, with Armstrong Whitworth unpowered turret in the nose, later fitted with FN.5, FN.7 fitted to the Blackburn Botha, FN.11 nose turret and FN.13 tail turret in the Short Sunderland Mk.I, FN.14 nose turret and FN.15 tail turret were the first hydraulic power operated turrets fitted to a heavy bomber, the Handley Page Harrow Mk.II. FN.16 nose turret fitted to Whitley Mk.III with Armstrong Whitworth unpowered tail turret.
Vickers designed the Wellington Mk.I's single gun positions in the nose and tail, which were designed by Barnes Wallis and fitted with Nash and Thompson hydraulic gear. These were called Gunnery Windscreens by Wallis and were, although streamlined, not a success in service, the Mk.Ia, Mk.Ic and Mk.II, all in service by 1940 were fitted with Nash and Thompson FN.5 nose and tail turrets, which were a vast improvement over the earlier turrets fitted to the Mk.Is.

nuuumannn said:

The following are the British companies building powered gun turrets at the outbreak of WW2. Aircraft listed as fitted with the turrets in service in late 1939 only.

Click to expand...

Well, in the face of such detail I have to accept I was mistaken, thanks for the info.

The Basket said:

Remember in 1930s if your enemy is France and UK then navy wise the Kriegsmarine was on a non starter from day dot.

The idea the Plan Z or 300 subs is simply going to be unrivaled by the Royal Navy is again going to be a non starter.

Navy strategy is about time and lots of it. It's a built strategy. If the Germans had the ships of the High Seas Fleet and could modernise them then fair enough.

But a carrier force takes time and money. Lots of it. So ten years at least.

And if you build up the Navy then the army or air force would suffer and even if the Plan Z was fully realised then the Germans didn't have the oil for them.

Yes the Kriegsmarine were very good but they were never a true threat. If you look at how much tonnage they had to sink v how much they did sink then not really.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I dont see how that has anything to do with what I wrote. Z plan? 300 subs?

No worries JAG88, after what you had written I had to go back through the research and double check!