Luftwaffe in 1936-41 improvements?

Shortround6 · Mar 10, 2020

JAG88 said:
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:

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.

You are correct, the short range boats did not comprise the majority, they were only 26 out 54 boats available at the start of the war. In the next year the Germans added 18 boats (?) pf which only 8 were the long range MK VIIs and IXs. 10 were the MK IIs although 6 of the ones added in that first year had a considerably extended range of 5650 N miles at 8knts. First one of these showed up in June of 1940. These IID boats still carried a total of 5 torpedos (3 in the tubes and 2 reloads) so extended patrols were still a bit problematic.

The MK VIIB with a range of 8700 N miles at 10kts had 9 completed at the start of the war but only 3 more were completed in the next year compared to 5 MK IXs.

designing and building a specialized long range maritime patrol plane to coordinate with such small numbers of U-boats seems to be a luxury. At least to have in service in 1939-30. As the Numbers and ranges of the U-boats grew the need also grew, filled for a while by Fw 200.

And for 1936-41 we are back to what engines were available. The first Liberator MK Is only entered service in June of 1941, they had no turbos, they also had no power turrets, defensive armament was six .303 machine guns, two in the tail, one in the nose, one out each side and one out the belly (no dorsal gun) four 20mm guns were carried in a belly pack for strafing U-boats. A German long range MPA of 1939-41 would have what for engines (and 1941 could be very different from 1939) and what for defensive armament? a few hand aimed MG 15s?
Better defensive armament could only be had at the expense of speed/range. The hope of any really long range MPA to out run even a poor fighter being rather limited by the aeronautics of the day.

JAG88 · Mar 10, 2020

Shortround6 said:
You are correct, the short range boats did not comprise the majority, they were only 26 out 54 boats available at the start of the war. In the next year the Germans added 18 boats (?) pf which only 8 were the long range MK VIIs and IXs. 10 were the MK IIs although 6 of the ones added in that first year had a considerably extended range of 5650 N miles at 8knts. First one of these showed up in June of 1940. These IID boats still carried a total of 5 torpedos (3 in the tubes and 2 reloads) so extended patrols were still a bit problematic.

The MK VIIB with a range of 8700 N miles at 10kts had 9 completed at the start of the war but only 3 more were completed in the next year compared to 5 MK IXs.

Which is why I was talking about building more VIIBs and even skipping the IXs which is actually what Dönitz wanted. 10 were made for the 1935 program and then they had to compete with the IXs and other programs for resources, in this scenario you could get 12xVIIAs in 1935 and then ramp up production with 16xVIIBs for the following programs, that way the KM could have had 60 type VIIs by late 1939. Or keep it at 12 annually, that still means 48 boats, almost twice than IRL and a far more serious threat.

Type IIs were never intended for Atlantic operations.

designing and building a specialized long range maritime patrol plane to coordinate with such small numbers of U-boats seems to be a luxury. At least to have in service in 1939-30. As the Numbers and ranges of the U-boats grew the need also grew, filled for a while by Fw 200.

The US used converted bombers, the LW axed the Ju 89 heavy in 1937, this aircraft could lift a 10t payload on 4x900hp engines. And, IRL the KM did ask the LW to provide one, they did see the need.

And for 1936-41 we are back to what engines were available. The first Liberator MK Is only entered service in June of 1941, they had no turbos, they also had no power turrets, defensive armament was six .303 machine guns, two in the tail, one in the nose, one out each side and one out the belly (no dorsal gun) four 20mm guns were carried in a belly pack for strafing U-boats. A German long range MPA of 1939-41 would have what for engines (and 1941 could be very different from 1939) and what for defensive armament? a few hand aimed MG 15s?
Better defensive armament could only be had at the expense of speed/range. The hope of any really long range MPA to out run even a poor fighter being rather limited by the aeronautics of the day.

The Ju 89 flew to 6.000m with a 10t payload on 4x900hp DB600s, by 1938 those would have been 1.200hp Jumo 211Bs or, I prefer, 5x880hp Jumo 205D diesels for better range. On weapons it had four turrets, top and bottom ones had 20mm cannons, or were intended to since it got cancelled. I am pretty sure they could have put a 20mm on the others too, they eventually did so on the He 111.

Then of course a truly nice LW could have pulled a "He 111" and order the Fw 200 as a covert MPA from the start, and since the Condor made do with 1.000hp engines for its whole career, it might have been able to use diesels plus RATOs.

Lets not forget the Do 26 with 4x880 Jumo 205Ds and a range of 9.000Km, there certainly were options and the need was understood, but the political will was missing.

JAG88 · Mar 10, 2020

Correction, it was a 10t payload to 7.242m by the Ju 89V2.

tomo pauk · Mar 10, 2020

nuuumannn said:
...
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.

I'd certainly rate higher the British heavy bombers of 1939-40 than I will rate the German bombers. Especually the Do-17Z comes in short here - same engine power as the Wellington I or Hampden, while providing a much smaller bomb load. 20x 50 kg or 2 (two) 250 kg bombs were simply too light when compared with 9 x 500lbs (or 2X 2000 lbs) on the WellingtonI, or vs. Hampden ( a torpedo and 2x 500 lb bombs, or 6x 500 lb bombs, or even 2x 2000 and 2x500 lbs when carried externally).
Do 17 was not so speedy once defensive postions were added, and indeed defensive firepower of the German bombers was weak. He 111 was a much more capable bomb truck than Do 17.

So - there is a thing or two to suggest here for German bomber force - they were quality-wise second best in bomb-load vs. distance vs. investment

Kevin J · Mar 10, 2020

tomo pauk said:
I'd certainly rate higher the British heavy bombers of 1939-40 than I will rate the German bombers. Especually the Do-17Z comes in short here - same engine power as the Wellington I or Hampden, while providing a much smaller bomb load. 20x 50 kg or 2 (two) 250 kg bombs were simply too light when compared with 9 x 500lbs (or 2X 2000 lbs) on the WellingtonI, or vs. Hampden ( a torpedo and 2x 500 lb bombs, or 6x 500 lb bombs, or even 2x 2000 and 2x500 lbs when carried externally).
Do 17 was not so speedy once defensive postions were added, and indeed defensive firepower of the German bombers was weak. He 111 was a much more capable bomb truck than Do 17.

So - there is a thing or two to suggest here for German bomber force - they were quality-wise second best in bomb-load vs. distance vs. investment

I'd have to disagree. Your Do 17 takes off from France climbs to altitude then goes into a shallow dive at 370 mph over SE England. The Hurricane I with metal wings can only do 410 mph in a dive, with fabric wings even less. It certainly can't catch the Ju 88. The Do 17 is a difficult target to catch.

tomo pauk · Mar 10, 2020

Kevin J said:
I'd have to disagree. Your Do 17 takes off from France climbs to altitude then goes into a shallow dive at 370 mph over SE England. The Hurricane I with metal wings can only do 410 mph in a dive, with fabric wings even less. It certainly can't catch the Ju 88. The Do 17 is a difficult target to catch.

If only RAF was using Spitfires in the BoB...

JAG88 · Mar 10, 2020

tomo pauk said:
I'd certainly rate higher the British heavy bombers of 1939-40 than I will rate the German bombers. Especually the Do-17Z comes in short here - same engine power as the Wellington I or Hampden, while providing a much smaller bomb load. 20x 50 kg or 2 (two) 250 kg bombs were simply too light when compared with 9 x 500lbs (or 2X 2000 lbs) on the WellingtonI, or vs. Hampden ( a torpedo and 2x 500 lb bombs, or 6x 500 lb bombs, or even 2x 2000 and 2x500 lbs when carried externally).
Do 17 was not so speedy once defensive postions were added, and indeed defensive firepower of the German bombers was weak. He 111 was a much more capable bomb truck than Do 17.

So - there is a thing or two to suggest here for German bomber force - they were quality-wise second best in bomb-load vs. distance vs. investment

True, specially about the Do 17Z.

Which is why I would have done away with it, replace it with Bf 110s, I think you can fit 12xSC50s inside in ESAC-type racks while keeping its high speed, the Dornier fell short, and so did the Ju 88, specially when considering it was conceived as a bomber and yet was unable to carry anything other than SC50s internally and still had weak defensive armament.

Honestly, having crew siting side by side on an aircraft intended for speed is nonsense (relax Mosquito fans...).

I rather have a smaller bomb load (with the option for 1.500Kg external) and high speed, maneuverability and frontal guns than the extra weak defensive guns that wont do the crew much good anyway.

It was one of the concepts behind the Bf 110 and could have been better used in that regard.

That would cover one side of the spectrum, the fast interdictor, on the other end the LW would have been better served by developing the Ju 89... as the bomber it was intended to be, instead of making it into an airliner and then back into a bomber with just a few dozen aircraft to show for it. They could have improved the design and obtained a heavy bomber capable of using 500Kg bombs and acting as MPA over the Atlantic assisting the Uboats.

It wouldnt have been the best, but it would have had turrets, cannon, large bombs and the ability to extract the most out of the LW radio bombing tactics.

Shortround6 · Mar 10, 2020

trouble is for the Germans you are flying in contested airspace, perhaps not very contested but some fighters might show up. And/or you have to detour around the British Isles.

The Ju 89 was interesting airplane, so was the Boeing B-15. Doesn't mean either of them should have been pursued.

A few renegade French designers involved?

It would fly the required distances but at a rather low speed.

record setting flights were usually done at weights far exceeding normal gross weights so, while interesting, are not something to base a service load on. (XB-15 got 35 short tons to 2500 meters, this payload exceeded the design normal gross weight, on four 1000hp engines).

The Do 26 that set that record was carrying a minimal crew, about 500kg of cargo(?) and needed to be launched from a catapult in order to get airborne. It was also a commercial plane with no gun mounts (drag).

The need was understood. The ability of the aviation industry to satisfy it in the late 30s was a bit lacking. The need to devote a large amount of design time to a plane needed in small quantities in the late 30s and 1940 (and into 1941) given the existing submarine fleet or any likely variation of it is questionable. What doesn't get built? (well...the Fieseler Fi 167 for one

Shortround6 · Mar 10, 2020

Kevin J said:
Your Do 17 takes off from France climbs to altitude then goes into a shallow dive at 370 mph over SE England.

You better hope your navigation is spot on, unless the goal is scatter bombs all over SE England.

As for the Do 17, remember that it came from this.

It could do 220mph at sea level but unfortunately the engines were NOT supercharged (really) and the plane got slower with altitude. It did carry about 30-60% more max bomb load than a Blenheim. It went into service in early 1937.

JAG88 · Mar 10, 2020

Shortround6 said:
trouble is for the Germans you are flying in contested airspace, perhaps not very contested but some fighters might show up. And/or you have to detour around the British Isles.

The point would be flying over the islands under cover of darkness, spend the day over the Atlantic, nocturnal fly back. Hence the need for a LONG range which is where the diesels shine.

The Ju 89 was interesting airplane, so was the Boeing B-15. Doesn't mean either of them should have been pursued.

View attachment 572871
View attachment 572868
View attachment 572872

It is what they had at hand and they did end up making a useful aircraft out of it... sort of... in the form of the Ju 290, even though by then the only thing they had in common was the 9 in the name.

A few renegade French designers involved?

Dont get it.

It would fly the required distances but at a rather low speed.

Better than nothing...

record setting flights were usually done at weights far exceeding normal gross weights so, while interesting, are not something to base a service load on. (XB-15 got 35 short tons to 2500 meters, this payload exceeded the design normal gross weight, on four 1000hp engines).

True, but the Ju 90 with its heavier and bigger fuselage could lift almost the same so the number should not be that misleading.

The Do 26 that set that record was carrying a minimal crew, about 500kg of cargo(?) and needed to be launched from a catapult in order to get airborne. It was also a commercial plane with no gun mounts (drag).

True as well, still, better than nothing and it got amazing range making it all the way to Chile to deliver medicines after a record earthquake, not likely to find many fighters in the Atlantic in 1939-40 anyway... but it did get some guns, for whatever is worth.

Besides, she is cute.

The need was understood. The ability of the aviation industry to satisfy it in the late 30s was a bit lacking. The need to devote a large amount of design time to a plane needed in small quantities in the late 30s and 1940 (and into 1941) given the existing submarine fleet or any likely variation of it is questionable. What doesn't get built? (well...the Fieseler Fi 167 for one

Hence the point of trying to use the already designed Ju 89, or piggyback on the private Fw 200 and Do 26 in order to ensure they are suitable for military use when the time comes instead of trying to wing it in 1939. It is not tailor made, but better than just scrambling for whatever is available when the crap hits the fan.

No worries, they can use the He 118 instead...

The Basket · Mar 11, 2020

My view that any blockade of the British isles will need a force to blockade it with. And the Kriegsmarine was never in a position to be that force.

The Basket · Mar 11, 2020

The problem in 1930-1940 is that aviation design and technology was moving so quickly that the line between obsolete and excellent was only a few years.

The Flying Pencil is a good example of what happens when you try and design something and the goalposts keep moving.

tomo pauk · Mar 11, 2020

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).
...

Thank you for the feedback.
So I'd like still to suggest that tooling from French engine companies is to be shipped in the 'greater Germany'. From Hispano-Suiza, ship them to the Avia factory in Czechia - they already have experience in making HS engines. From G&R - either in western part of Poland, to the factory prevously making the Mercury and Pegasus engines (so the Polish workers can work there), or in Strassburg area, so the French workers can work there. Or, ship the tooling to Argus or Hirth companies; Hirth were/are located in the SW Germany so French workers might be option.
Another locations might be Austria, Hungary, Romania, or barter with Italians.

JAG88 · Mar 11, 2020

The Basket said:
My view that any blockade of the British isles will need a force to blockade it with. And the Kriegsmarine was never in a position to be that force.

Again, what blockade? Strawman...

The Basket · Mar 11, 2020

Strawman. I've been insulted better by a toddler. Surely u can do better.

tomo pauk · Mar 11, 2020

I've looked a bit about what other bombers of the day were doing on 2000 HP or less engine power. The Polish PZL P.37B Los was carrying more than twice the bombload of the Do 17, on less engine power and similar defensive armament.

JAG88 · Mar 11, 2020

The Basket said:
Strawman. I've been insulted better by a toddler. Surely u can do better.

Insult?

I was pointing out that your argument was a strawman, understand? A mis-representation of an argument in order to attack it, and that is all you have done here for whatever reason, ignorance, lack of arguments, whatever...

Strawman

Somebody else blocked you already in this thread, there you go into the bin again.

TheMadPenguin · Mar 11, 2020

The MOST EFFECTIVE thing the LW could do in 1936 is shoot Hitler.

Second most effective thing (assuming you don't do the 1st thing) would be to wait on Poland invasion until the Soviets go in first, then go in as Polish Friend and Soviet Opponent. This, however, would have required shooting Hitler.

Third is, upon winning the 1st Battle of France (1940), to skip BoB until you win the BotA. Again, shooting Hitler is essential to implement this notion. With Brittany as an unsinkable carrier, send planes (e.g. Condor or BF110 with wing tanks) to find convoys, then radios to tell the submarines where the feast is, then call in the Stukas to destroy the escorts vessels while the submarines gather.

YES, put wing/drop tanks on the 109/190 aircraft so they can protect the Stukas, and the Condor/BF110's acting as Torpedo Bombers.

(N.B. to BF 110 lovers and haters: I mean 2 engine multi-role capable aircraft, BF110 is merely an implementation of the idea. ONE MORE THING to do is cut down the number of types of planes to "just the best for each needed role". This is another point where shooting Hitler would have done the LW a world of good).

Shortround6 · Mar 11, 2020

tomo pauk said:
I've looked a bit about what other bombers of the day were doing on 2000 HP or less engine power. The Polish PZL P.37B Los was carrying more than twice the bombload of the Do 17, on less engine power and similar defensive armament.

Unfortunately the Polish PZL P.37B Los may not be well documented in Western (English language books) and while WIki has an extensive entry some of the numbers seem a bit too good.

ANd then all sorts of restrictions pop up in the bomb load. The PZL P.37B Los (according to wiki) could only carry a pair of 300kg bombs, every thing else was limited to 100kg bombs or smaller.

"The bomber's offensive payload was spread across a two-section bomb bay set within the fuselage (providing space for up to 4 bombs) and a total of 8 compact bomb bays located in the central section of the wings (which had space for a maximum of 16 bombs). This arrangement of bomb bays imposed considerable restrictions on the types of bombs that could be carried, especially in the wing bays which were quite small due to the need to fit between the ribs of the wing. The maximum load was 2,580 kg (2 × 300 kg and 18 × 110 kg). Apart from a pair of 300 kg bombs in one of the fuselage bomb bays, it could not carry bombs larger than 110 kg. "

it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as to why the Fuselage bomb bay/s could only carry two 300kg bombs and not four,
The other thing is the drastic reduction in bomb load when operating from rough (unprepared) airfields where the bomb loads used dropped to as low as 800kg.

Also from wiki" As a consequence of there only having been a few months available to train the crews and complete the equipping of the bombers, the planes were not fully ready when the war broke out. For example, the extra internal fuel tanks for the type were not yet in service, thus the maximum range of the bomber that had been quoted in specifications was in practice not achievable"
"Range: 2,600 km (1,600 mi, 1,400 nmi) "

Now how big were these extra internal tanks?
How long was the range without them?
What was the range with the 800kg bomb okay

The Do 17Z may not be the gold standard of 2000hp bombers but some better details might help the P.37B's case.

Shortround6 · Mar 11, 2020

TheMadPenguin said:
Third is, upon winning the 1st Battle of France (1940), to skip BoB until you win the BotA.

Trouble is that winning the BotA without putting some sort of extreme pressure on the RAF/Britain might not happen. It didn't happen even with putting the pressure on.
Allowing the British to switch more of their production to anti sub efforts (and with less damage to British factories) The Germans chances for improvment seem small.

The Germans didn't have anywhere near the number of U-boats needed in 1940, nor will small changes to the production schedule provide the numbers.

Luftwaffe in 1936-41 improvements?

Lieutenant General

Banned

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Lieutenant General

Lieutenant General

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Senior Airman

Lieutenant General

Lieutenant General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads