Only three types of aircraft necessary in WW2?

[Civettone]

Like I said, things were different for the Americans. They needed aircraft for a larger variety of roles. Three basic aircraft performed the majority of the required capabilities of Germany and Soviet Union.

This does not mean that this is the path to follow. It is very risky to put all your money on those three horses. For the same amount Russia had gone for the MiG-3, Su-2 and Pe-8. You cannot predict the future and you cannot know in advance what the development potential is of an aircraft. Spitfire production was to be stopped after a couple of hundred produced.

Kris

 

[Shortround6]

A good example, given those three Russian aircraft and nothing else the Germans might very well have won on the Eastern Front.

But it also shows that Even the Russians had more roles for aircraft than just 3 designs could cover. The Mig-3 was a high altitude interceptor. It was not intended to fight at low and medium altitudes. That was the job of the Yak-1 and Lagg-1/3.

The Yak-1 and Lagg-1/3 were too small to fit the Mikulin AM-35A engine to turn them into high altitude fighters. The Mig was about 1000lbs heavier than a Yak-1 despite carrying lighter armament.

The SU-2 was smaller than the IL-2 (about 3/4 the wing area) and most were produced with a 1000-1100hp 1500lb air cooled engine. You are going to need a LOT of them to equal the effect of the IL-2s and once again, the plane may be too small to upgrade much,

 

[davebender]

1938 Luftwaffe adopted a two aircraft strategy with Ju-88 and Me-109 getting 75% of airframe construction resources. Everything else got crumbs.

 

[razor1uk]

People and especially politicians (..of any party, irrespective of ideology) usually forget that plans are made so you have an idea what to do when things go awry/against what you thought, not as they often think, that plans and planning means that is how it will go - they rarely remember the the 5 P's ..Planning (helps) Prevents Piss Poor Pre/Per-formance let alone KISS - Keep It Simply Stupid.

 

[Civettone]

1938 Luftwaffe adopted a two aircraft strategy with Ju-88 and Me-109 getting 75% of airframe construction resources. Everything else got crumbs.

No, they didn't.

Didn't have a two aircraft strategy.
And those two did not get 75% of airframe construction.

Please don't present your opinion as official Luftwaffe policy.
Kris

 

[davebender]

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf
The above analysis states Ju-88 program received about 50% of 1938 German airframe construction resources. Do you have a source which offers a different percentage?

 

[wiking85]

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf
The above analysis states Ju-88 program received about 50% of 1938 German airframe construction resources. Do you have a source which offers a different percentage?

Considering that the Ju88 didn't enter production until the end of 1939, then it didn't get 50% of 1939 airframe construction resources...

 

[davebender]

Considering that the Ju88 didn't enter production until the end of 1939, then it didn't get 50% of 1939 airframe construction resources...

You don't go from nothing to full production just like that. A bunch of German aircraft factories spent over a year tooling for Ju-88 production and training the workforce. During that time those factories produced nothing (or very little).

 

[wiking85]

You don't go from nothing to full production just like that. A bunch of German aircraft factories spent over a year tooling for Ju-88 production and training the workforce. During that time those factories produced nothing (or very little).

Sure, but production had expanded to greater levels than those of 1938 by 1939, so saying they had 50% of 1938 levels in 1939 doesn't mean they had 50% of 1939 levels of airframe capacity, just 50% of the previous year's capacity.

 

[Civettone]

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf
The above analysis states Ju-88 program received about 50% of 1938 German airframe construction resources. Do you have a source which offers a different percentage?

Junkers did NOT receive half of the airframe construction resources but ...

The firms which took part in the original plan of 1938 employed more than half of the workforce engaged in German airframe production. Even in 1943, when the focal point of air armament began to shift to fighters, the participants in the Ju 88-program still employed a third of it (Budraß, 1998, p. 834).

It required a lot of labour, but this is not the same as "airframe construction resources". It only proves that the Ju 88 was difficult to produce and required a lot of labour and probably materials. It is a far cry to assume that the Ju 88 and Bf 109 were part of a two-type Luftwaffe strategy.

There is only one thing I dislike more than people who fail to provide sources to back up their arguments and that is people who deliberately falsify their sources just to prove their point. I hope you did this unintentional, because else, I have better things to do.

Kris

 

[Dogwalker]

Even if the Germans invested heavily in the Ju88 and Bf109 construction, that's not a "two aircraft strategy". They continued to build the He111, and never thought that, building Bf109 and Ju88, they could do without Ju87 and Me110, to name only other three, and we saw in another topic that probably a fast light bomber, like the Mosquito, would have been useful to them.
To invest heavily in the main fighter and medium bomber was a logical and cost-saving strategy for the kind of war the Germans had in mind (even if, in the end, this could have held those airframes in production more than it would have been desideabile, to not lose a few weeks of production for retooling), but this does not means that one can do without other kind of aircrafts for specialized tasks.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The analysis provided by Dave states for Ju-88 production: "The firms which took part in the original plan of 1938 employed more than half of the workforce engaged in German airframe production."

That does not translate to the Ju-88 consuming more than 50% of German aircraft production resources, as those comapnies were also involved in the production of other aircraft and products.

 

[swampyankee]

Given the technology leading up to ww2, it's simply not possible to have a single-engined aircraft that would be capable in attack (torpedo dive bomber) and fighter roles. A few high performance aircraft, like the F4U (there were others) could perform some attack roles (but not dive bombing; this required a specialized airframe) and remain a successful fighter (I do not see the LW pilots chortling with glee at seeing bent-wing birds over Berlin vs Mustangs), but with the engine and aerodynamics technology for aircraft available in 1941, not possible.

At the other end, the 4-engined aircraft, heavy bombers have two main advantages: passengers are low-density cargo, so the fuselage needs to be bulkier, and one does tend to want to keep them aboard until landing (unless they're airborne troops), unlike bombs, so transport aircraft actually need to have beefier landing gear (see some of the history of the C-87).

So, I can't see fewer than a half-dozen types:

For single-engined:

A fighter-bomber and a dive bomber, both of which would need to be able to operate off carriers

For twins:

A medium (C-47 class) transport and a fast bomber/heavy fighter (Mosquito, F7F)

For four-engined

A heavy bomber (B-24/B-17/Lancaster) and heavy transport (DC-4, Constellation)

 

[tomo pauk]

Given the technology leading up to ww2, it's simply not possible to have a single-engined aircraft that would be capable in attack (torpedo dive bomber) and fighter roles. A few high performance aircraft, like the F4U (there were others) could perform some attack roles (but not dive bombing; this required a specialized airframe) and remain a successful fighter (I do not see the LW pilots chortling with glee at seeing bent-wing birds over Berlin vs Mustangs), but with the engine and aerodynamics technology for aircraft available in 1941, not possible.
...

The F4U was able to dive bomb, at angles greater than 80 deg, the A-36 was a swift modification of the fighter airframe.
The engines in excess of 1500 HP were available in 1941, flap technology was there to allow for good take off performances even on higher weight (torp or a big bomb attached), but it took some time for the belligerents to connect the dots and produce a good fighter that was able to do torp- or dive-bombing, even with engine under 1500 HP and without extensive flap system.

added: more about G.55S, by our member gekho: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/italian-fighters-training-liaison-aircrafts-33172-2.html#post914783

 

[Civettone]

The F4U was able to dive bomb, at angles greater than 80 deg, the A-36 was a swift modification of the fighter airframe.

Tomo, how was the F4U able to do so without dive brakes? Diving vertically would result in a terrific acceleration. I am sure the Corsair was structurally able to hold this, but how would it pull out of a vertical dive in time?

The A-36 had dive brakes.

Kris

 

[tomo pauk]

Kris, the F4U would extend it's undercarriage in order to keep speed within limits.

 

[gumbyk]

Also, it works as insurance against production flaws/delays, and enemy advancements.
With only one fighter, enemy aircraft development has only one aircraft to try to match, and if they can produce two ariframes, each superior in different altitude bands, suddenly you find your only fighter beaten by two aircraft that aren't necessarily the best.

 

[gumbyk]

Kris, the F4U would extend it's undercarriage in order to keep speed within limits.

AFAIK, there was a selector labelled 'dive brakes', which only lowered the mains.