Mass produced HS-123s

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The idea of a lightweight CAS aircraft is quite ok, but maybe not like the outdated Hs 123, but like more modern the Blohm & Voss Ha 137.
We have a prototype with optional 2x MG/FF or 4x7.9mm (and the same bombload on slightly less powerful IE earlier Hornet / BMW 132)
Interestingly, Richthofen almost managed to push Ha 137 through, before Udet took the helm, as a schlacht component (along with a stuka Ju 87 ) for ground support.
 
Funny the pilots using it and asking for it to be put back into production didn't think it was outdated. In fact the HS129 was a step backwards.
The BV was a worse Ju87 and it wasn't put into production, as the Ju87 did the same job better and still required the Jumo 211, rather than the surplus BMW 132.
What did the BV have to offer that the Hs123 didn't already do better?
 
The difference is that the newer construction carries more and faster and ... better. Given that the Ha 137 was a prototype, we will never be sure about that, but... (this is for the Ha 137B - Jumo 210 variant) with approx. 30% less power, it carries 2x more machine guns/cannons and the same amount of bombs. The Hs 137A had a PW Hornet (that is, the predecessor of the BMW 132 with 230 horses less power).
Besides, it's not my idea, but of the man in charge of developing and testing new aircraft for the Luftwaffe ie Wolfram von Richthofen. And that was after the Ju 87 was adopted - (and Hs 123 was in production) as its supplement and CAS counterpart. The Ha 137 is more of a CAS than a dive aircraft (like the Hs 123).
I'm not saying that the Hs 123 was not a good and usable plane, but that the BMW 132 could have powered something a little better.
 
I am not so sure about the Ha 137.

The Basic idea may have been good, or not. But the implementation may have been subject to revision.
With the low powered engines on the prototypes bomb load might have been increased a lot on production models with higher powered engines but that puts in competition with the Ju 87 for engines.
The landing gear trousers have to go, they make the Hs 123 look good even with their full trousers.

The bigger problem is figuring out what they actually want the planes to do. The actual weapons are the bombs, machineguns (bullets) and other stuff dropped from the planes. The Planes are the delivery system. A pair of 20mm MG FF cannon are not that great a ground attack weapon. May have looked good in 1936-39 but in actual practice? They don't actually work on armored vehicles very well. A low velocity 20mm doesn't work well on armor, about 1/2 as well as a high velocity 20mm. Might work on trucks pretty good but is one 20mm shell worth 10-15 7.9mm machine gun bullets? A standard 20mm shell has 1/17th the amount of HE as a German stick hand grenade. It is a poor way of getting HE to a stationary target.
The Biplane Hs 123 might work as well as the monoplane for this mission. Lower wing but not too low, works for hanging bombs on. Mounting a gun in each lower wing (ease of reloading ) doubles the rounds per second while strafing.
The problem comes back to pilots, and stories about ease of flying are just that, stories. Unless somebody has actual numbers? Just like Chuck Yeager loved the P-39, He did, lots of other pilots hated it. Others like to fly it but didn't want to fight in it. Lots of stories. Few facts.

Low level ground support is not a place for low time pilots. The chances for hitting the ground with the aircraft are rather high. Trying to dodge ground fire or enemy fighters.
 

If the Ha 137 is continued with radials, it does not compete with the Ju 87s for engines. Redesigning the U/C to retract like on the Il-2, Gloster F.4/35 or even like Re 2005 should not be a problem, with such short U/C legs.
 
tomo pauk said:
If the Ha 137 is continued with radials, it does not compete with the Ju 87s for engines. Redesigning the U/C to retract like on the Il-2, Gloster F.4/35 or even like Re 2005 should not be a problem, with such short U/C legs.
Click to expand...
But then you're just replicating the HS123.
 
Since this is a what-if, how about the RLM leaders put aside the petty politics and posturing, while stepping out of their WWI glory days and embrace the jet program when it fell in their lap in the late 30's?

This way, types like the Hs132 would have been a way foreward sooner with no need to keep antiquated types like the Hs123 in service so late in the war.
 
Completely different roles and outside the scope of this what if. If you'd like to start your own thread on your topic be my guest.
 
wiking85 said:
Completely different roles and outside the scope of this what if. If you'd like to start your own thread on your topic be my guest.
Click to expand...
Actually no - not out of this thread's scope.

So far, there has been an attempt to justify retaining a mid-30's design into an evolving battlefield where enemy ground forces have improved armor, AA and air support.

The Ju87D-5, G-1, G-2 and Hs129B had the ability to defeat much of their armor with the BK.37 by utilizing a 30° dive, attacking top, side and rear positions.

There was absolutely no piece of ordnance the Hs123 carried, that provided the same capability.

Accurately dropping bombs on infantry lines and emplacements were better suited to the Ju88, which had better speed as well as loadout.

The Hs129's MG/Cannon compliment was well suited for parallel trench/battle line strafing as well as the Ju88A-13.

As far as the request for restarting Hs123 production, this was by Richtofen in 1943 and NOT because it was a favorite of pilots (which it wasn't), but because of it's ability to operate in deplorable weather conditions that kept other Luftwaffe aircraft grounded.
 
The Luftwaffe did come up with a weapon that might have rather useful against tanks. But I don't think it was ever deployed on the HS 123 or on any plane using the 50kg bomb rack.

They came up with a shaped charge bomb

Splitterbombe SD-4 HL
With a 90mm diameter and a 310mm length.
They were dropped in clusters from things like the Abwurfbehalter Ab-250 (210kg with 40 SD-4 HL bombs).

Perhaps the safe drop height was too great for acceptable accuracy from small loads (9/12 bombs per 50kg rack?)
having the tail fin assembly blown back into the dropping aircraft is not a good idea.
Given a decent hit (not on a fender) this should have taken out just about any tank in WW II.
 
wiking85 said:
But then you're just replicating the HS123.
Click to expand...

I am not.
The Ha 137 might've been able to lug around two MK 101/103 cannons much better than it would've been the case with the Hs 123. Not being the slowest thing on the sky means that I-153s, I-16s, Gladiators and even Il-2s will not be able to make pot shots at it.
 
Well, the MK 101 is sort of no go, yes this is a what if, but I think they only built about 100 of them?
It also weighed about 139kg just for the gun.

Gun is hanging from the Hs 129 for servicing/reloading?
Gun is fitted with a 30 round drum. Maybe on a single engine plane with two guns you can cut holes in the wing?
In the Hs 129 the drum was inside the fuselage.
It would also take a 6 round box, much smaller hole in the wing.
Since it only fired at 230-260rpm 6 round would last 1.5 seconds. 30 rounds will last around 7 seconds, enough for 3-4 attack runs?

Hang two of these even under an 1100hp Ha 137 and you are just about the slowest thing in the sky. We are getting away from the "cheap" aspect here.

And close air support does NOT mean anti tank only.
The MK 103 is about the same weight but the belt feed and faster firing rate means getting the gun closer to the wing and not having to cut holes in it. The faster firing rate means at least 50% more rounds fired per attack unless it was found that single fire gave better accuracy. British 2pdrs generally fired single shots (in pairs)?
The Hs 129 could be fitted with the gun or it could drop the gun and be fitted with a bomb rack for a 250kg bomb (or container) or a rack for four 50Kg bombs. This is in theory. Many Allied ground attack aircraft kept the same armament and did not switch back and forth from mission to mission.
 

Gun in the gondola (wing is probably too small for the 101/103 to fit comfortably, drum in the wing is my idea. If the gun can fit in the wing, all the better.
140-ish kg is half of the weight of the BK 3.7.

Shortround6 said:
Hang two of these even under an 1100hp Ha 137 and you are just about the slowest thing in the sky. We are getting away from the "cheap" aspect here.
Click to expand...

We're also the cheapest way to have a gun-toting tankbuster.
I never expected from a 1000+- HP aircraft to be an all-singing all-dancing thing.

All good.
 
tomo pauk said:
We're also the cheapest way to have a gun-toting tankbuster.
Click to expand...
Part of the question is when???
The Ju-87G showed up in Spring of 1943.

We are talking about keeping the Hs 123 in production in 1938 or coming up with a substitute (?) in 1938-39 for ground attack/close support.
In 1939 the German Mark III panzer didn't have quite as powerful a gun as the Flak 18 AA gun.
Granted the 20mm MG FF was not what was wanted but Ground AT rifles were using more powerful 20mm ammo in the years right before WWII.

Perhaps a pair of 20mm German AA guns with 20 round magazines? Same rounds as the 2cm guns in the MK II tanks and armored cars.
guns are 64kg. One was used in an He 112 in Spain but the feed arrangement was rather awkward.

This will not get you a gun armed panzer buster in 1943 but without a time machine you don't know what kind of panzer buster you need in 1943 back in 1938-39.

If you knew that the Germans would have stuffing high velocity 5cm guns in MK IIIs in 1939 and stuffing high velocity 7.5cm guns in MK IVs in 1940.
 
The conversation does seem to have become somewhat fixated upon tank killing for which x2 37mm guns under a Ju87 is appropriate but the Hs 123 role was more lobbing small bombs right on machine guns and so forth. Low level tactical support. More airborne infantry than airborne artillery. Slinging more weight of armament means more aeroplane and more aeroplane means more complexity and higher quality airfields. What the Hs 123 brought was a minimum effective firepower for that infantry task coupled with the minimum effective aeroplane to carry it at a maximum speed that can be actual used at these very low heights and easily maintained in the open even in winter and rain from muddy short fields. Whatever the intended role when designed and ordered it was not used either as a lightweight Ju87 alternative nor a heavy night nuisance bomber. If the Ju87 was an airborne artillery piece (which was what it was meant to be) then the Hs123 became an airborne mortar.

Whether the pilots liked it or not the Luftwaffe command liked the ready combat availability in all weathers and explored its return to production for that reason. I am therefore reminded of modern operational experiences where air support is very effective but not when it has to go away to refuel and rearm or the weather is awful etc. whilst artillery can always be available unless on another fire mission regardless of weather and time of day.

The peer counterparts of the Hs123 were the much larger and multi mission army co-operation class that almost all air forces had in their inventory in 1939 such as the Hs126, Westland Lysander etc. but focused solely upon the tactical air support task at extreme low level. Albeit it came in as a dive bomber. I doubt if it did much actual dive bombing in Russia. The Ju87 and Hs129 comparison is a red herring and the Fw190 only more so. The Hs129 being diverted to tank killing so more in the Ju87 mode. I would controversially question whether one could usefully improve upon the Hs123 without weakening its principal advantages.

To make best use of it then it should become an army resource not an air force one. Far too controversial for the infighting cliques of the day and remains a controversial question even now. A good radio system with forward observation officers in direct contact with their aeroplanes clearing the way for the ground troops and covering retreats with fire. Schlachtgeschwader not Sturzkampfgeschwader.
 
Last edited:

Seems like that MK 101 has been trialed as early as 1940, with 1st actual combat use in late1942 (at El Alamein?).
You know me, I'm not championing the Hs 123

German problem with MK 101 and 103 was that it took a lot of time to figure out that they actually want from these.


I guess you mean the MG 30 C/L? I'd certainly go with the big drum magazine, there is no much worth in going 'Winchester' in the 1st seconds of the firefight
Interestingly enough, it seems like the Flak 30 and the MG 30 C/L were 2 separate designs.


The 5 cm gun was supposed to be installed on the Pz-III, but that was overruled, the 3.7cm was installed at 1st, and the Pz-III received the 5cm after a few years - talk about the self-inflicted wound.
Germans knew well by mid-1940 that their hole-punching devices were in dire need of overhaul, there was no need to wait until 1943.
 
I did find a monograph that did mention using cluster bombs for the HS123 instead of 4x 50kg bombs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Non-turbo P-38 is also series-produced
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
GrauGeist
The Hs 129 idea done 'right', and for everyone
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
8K
Shortround6
S
W-I: no Hs 129?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Dimlee
A massive rationalization at Messerschmitt post Battle of Britain?
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Dimlee
G
Metal Mosquito built massively in the US
5 6 7
Replies
132
Views
12K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register