Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
To be honest even if the Luftwaffe had the 262 in 1942 the battle for the air would have been longer, the war itself drawn out, the number of lives lost increased and the end result would have been the same. In practical terms the RAF would have had Meteors and Vampires much earlier, plus the USA would have the P80. Having the 262 will do nothing to increase the threat to the UK which will still be secure in strategic terms and I have little doubt that Berlin would have been the first target for the nuclear bomb.
However, the U.S. had a jet fighter that first flew on 1 October 1942...just a few months after the Me262's first flight under jet power on 18 July 1942 (first physical flight was 18 April 1942 with piston power). There were still several problems to work out, one of them being that the Me262, unlike the He280 and P-59, was a tail-dragger in it's original design.I hope you are aware that P-80 did not make it's first flight until 1944, and wasn't introduced in combat until 1945. By then Germany's jet fighter would have been more advanced and would have been in fair supply to compete with the US's planes, since most of them would have been piston engined planes. Besides, Britain's jet fighters were still making test flights by the time the Me 262 would have reached operational status in this alternate time period. Germany could have made jets to win the air war over Britain and therefore make American involvement in the war substantially difficult than it could have been.
The Germans were a couple of years ahead of the British and the Americans. If they channeled more energy into the project with overwhelming support from Hitler, then the air war could have been a different scenario.However, the U.S. had a jet fighter that first flew on 1 October 1942...just a few months after the Me262's first flight under jet power on 18 July 1942 (first physical flight was 18 April 1942 with piston power). There were still several problems to work out, one of them being that the Me262, unlike the He280 and P-59, was a tail-dragger in it's original design.
So if we're doing a "what-if" scenario, then *if* Heinkel was able to get satisfactory performance from it's Hirth engines and *if* the RLM had fully supported it's development, the He280 could have been in production easily before 1942 (the He280 first flew on 22 September 1940). Same could be said of the P-59 that *if* the engine performance could have been addressed early on, it could have been into the war by 1943-44.
In certain areas, the Germans were certainly pushing the envelope, but keep in mind that the bulk of aircraft engineers either knew one another or knew of each other due to aircraft design before the war. So there really weren't too many true secrets as far as aircraft concepts, jet engines and such.The Germans were a couple of years ahead of the British and the Americans. If they channeled more energy into the project with overwhelming support from Hitler, then the air war could have been a different scenario.
In certain areas, the Germans were certainly pushing the envelope, but keep in mind that the bulk of aircraft engineers either knew one another or knew of each other due to aircraft design before the war. So there really weren't too many true secrets as far as aircraft concepts, jet engines and such.
Yes, if the U.S. and Germany unleashed jet fighters on each other mid-war, it may have changed the face of the war, but not the outcome. The industrial capacity of the U.S. was such, that the U.S. was the only nation in world history to successfully fight a two-front global war, it was pumping out battleships, aircraft carriers, thousands of tanks and vehicles and during the peak of the war, the U.S. in one year produced more fighter aircraft than the Soviet Union and Germany combined for that same year. Not only was the U.S. bringing more troops and equipment to the fronts, but supplying more and more equipment to it's Allies.
So Germany may have changed the way the war was fought or perhaps even prolonged it, but in the end, Germany would still be defeated.
The Germans were a couple of years ahead of the British and the Americans. If they channeled more energy into the project with overwhelming support from Hitler, then the air war could have been a different scenario.
Re engines I would disagree with the observation that the Germans were ahead at all. Had the UK given the jet fighter the same priority the Germans gave the development who knows what would have appeared. Germany had to give it a high priority as the writing was on the wall as far as the air war was concerned and they had little choice.
The Meteor FIV was only just behind as it was and it wouldn't have taken much to get it into service during 1944.
I feel as if in this case, in an alternate 1940, the Germans would have outproduced the British in terms of jet fighters, and having only focus on fighters might have defeated the RAF.
Damn Koopernic, your answer kicks ass! I was a little concerned with there being only one post. But your post is detailed and gives great honest data as to what would have been the effect in combat! Also, really Gatling-type guns are immune to G Loads? I knew they could handle long belts but being able to handle G loads are just fantastic!
Also, you answered my second question about the naval version. Yeah, well I was wondering if maybe U-Boats could have been fitted with a single 30 mm version of the Gatling gun, having a barrel several meters in length, having cases with extra powder to produce a more powerful charge, along with the tip of the shells being tungsten, as the higher density of tungsten would provide longer range, similar to the naval version of M61 Vulcan, as those rounds include tungsten to increase the range.
Would that also prove to be effective in combat? I would expect the 30 mm Gatling gun to be out of the rockets range to successfully engage anti-sub aircraft and fighters.
It could be devastating but there are several disadvantages. It takes around a 1/2 second or more to get the gun up to full speed. The gun takes a fair amount of power to run. They did get later versions to be self powered by taping gas off the barrels but I am not sure those guns run at full speed. Getting the gun to feed was a much bigger problem than just getting it to shoot. Even on large, heavy jets the empty cases are returned to the magazine, in part to help maintain the CG of the aircraft.
Now consider one Gatling taking over 1/2 second to wind up and weighing about twice as much as a Hispano and almost 3 times what a MG 151/20 weighs and still needing a power source and feed mechanism. ALso consider that a Hawker Tempest with four MK V Hispanos could fire 52-54 shells per second with no delay. Use enough regular cannon and target effect is about the same.
You are welcome. The German navy did indeed begin to introduce the MK303 30mm canon as a FLAK defence to partially replace the 20mm C38. The MK303 was essentially the 30mm long barrelled MK103 adapted for naval and ground use. The ballistics was not better however the destructive capability was significantly better and that was the most important factor: it was no point getting one or two 20mm hits on an enemy aircraft if it could still press home its attack or fly away to fight another day after some repairs.
...
The Soviets seem to have built 2 barrel 'Gatling' type guns. I think this might work quite well. You cojoin the barrels so that they look like a figure 8 and then support the barrel/s at the breach end with a outer bearing. It fits well into the fuselage mounts of modern jets without the bulk of the original Gatling configuration.
The MK 108 supposedly required 3-4 hits to bring down a B-17/B24 (average hits from German studies). The MK103 was a much longer round and I would presume it more destructive.
My mistake was to assume the MK103 and MK303 were related. The MK303 was a Czech development that the German continued to father along and intended to introduce as a defensive weapon on the Type XXI U-boot and other German ships. The Mauser MK103 was an also a powerful round but nowhere near as heavy or as fast as the MK303. The Germans did use or plan to use the MK103 as a FLAK weapon, it would have been far lighter than the MK303.
You can compare rounds here.
An introduction to collecting 30 mm cannon ammunition
The German had also developed the powerful geraete 58 5.5cm round also at 1000m/s that became soviet era 57mm guns and most late war German navy destroyers designs Featured this computer directed weapon along with the 30mm guns as a tertiary defence.
The MK303 would I think have ballistics akin to the 40mm bofors so powerful does it seem.
Hey guys, let's discard my theory of a Gatling gun on a Me 262, as GrauGeist, shortround6 and Koopernic exploited as implausible. How about, let's say that the German navy use a 30mm Gatling weapon on a destroyer or U-Boat as a replacement for the 20mm and 37mm guns. It would be more powerful than the 20mm version and would have a farther range being heavier than the 20mm and, as Koopernic stated, would produce a less smoke than the 37m/40mm cannons.
I believe a navy application would be excellent as weight would not be a problem such as aircraft. Whereas aircraft could rarely carry more than half a ton in the nose, ships could have multiple 30mm Gatling guns being able to fire at rates of around 5000-6000 RPM, along with a huge amount of space(well for the destroyers and later U-Boat models) have potential room for being able to fire for at least several minutes. They would be able to house powerful mechanical engines in order to make the Gatling cannons work well and enough to make them maneuverable for combat. Or at least that is what I can infer. Please state whether this plausible or not.
Soviets were good in developing the automatic cannons themselves, this article is worth a reading.
At least as good as the 3.7cm Flak, with greater RoF and lighter weight.