Replace Me-109 with Me-155?

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


I'd say that, if the 129 was not being underpowered, it would've have performance figures of contemporary twins (Beaufighter, A-20), or at least some kind of self-defence (like Ju-87, or Il-2 from 1942/43), or both. Yet, it did not have any of those properties.
The attempts to mount yet another foreign engine (Isota-Frachini Asso) point to lack of power, too.
As for 1400 HP to drag around a 1000 kg of weaponry, SBD Dauntless was able to do the same. Ju-87D ditto.
And yes, Germans were desperate in time 7,5cm was being mounted on the 129.
 
IMO the Fw-190F killed the Hs-129 program. What can the Hs-129 do that a Fw-190F cannot do better?
Click to expand...

Having a central heavy antitank cannon is the only one I think.

By the way an DB 603G powered alternative to the Me-109/me-155 would be this one. It had heavier armament than the standar Me-109 and longer wingspan to improved maneouvrability.

Fiat G56:
 

Attachments

  • g56-1.jpg
    29.7 KB · Views: 168
  • g56-4.jpg
    60.3 KB · Views: 168
Hello Davebender
Quote:"Wing mounted 3cm Mk103 cannon on a Fw-190F would slice through it at essentially any range they could score a hit."

Nope, that was tested but found impractical.

Juha
 
I'd like to see a source for that. Really, I never read anything on why the project was abandoned. I would guess it had much more to do with the stress applied to the wings than with concerns about accuracy. And of course when the project was underway, the MK 103 was barely a viable anti-tank gun. I don't think the fighter bomber could really hope to get a top down shot: The Fw 190 builds up way too much speed in a dive, only a real hot shot could hope to hit a tanks roof. IIRC for practical purposes most fighter bombers usually attacked at a rather shallow angle (see the Hs 129 video I posted above). In those situations a Mk 103 could only destroy lightly armored mid-war vehicles. It's for a reason the Hs 129 was upgunned from the early MK 101 carrying versions.
 
Last edited:
To do a top down shot the plane has to dive at better than a 45 degree angle.

To pull out the plane needs to start pulling out at a much higher altitude than the pull out from a shallower dive. Once you are pulling out you are no longer on target. The plane is firing from further away which reduces penetration a bit and reduces accuracy a lot.

The high step dive also gives more warning to the target/s and exposes the aircraft for a longer time to AA fire.

I doubt the Fw 190 had much to do with the end of the HS 129 program. The Hs 129 production ended in the summer of 1944 along with a number of other programs when the priorities of aircraft production changed to almost all fighters. This 18 months or more after the FW 190s start showing up in squadrons. Was any Hs 129 unit re-equipped with FW 190F's?
 
Good question, I think not. But one might argue because of the limited numbers of the Henschel that were ever available in the first place there was never the need for a transition program as with the Ju 87. It simply took itself out of service when production stopped.

There were groups flying the Hs and the Fw in parallel thought, so they at least on paper served in the same roles. Then again so did the Ju 87. Since the LW had the glorious idea to simply rename the Stuka squadrons to "battle" squadrons in late '43 it is very hard to discern between the individual roles.
 
I would too. The slower flying Ju-87G was undoubtedly more accurate as a cannon platform but I suspect the faster (and consequently more survivable) Fw-190F could also hit targets.

Speaking of the Ju-87G...
This aircraft is another reason not to produce the Hs-129. What can a Hs-129 do that a Ju-87G cannot? Like the modern day A-10, the Ju-87 had the sort of low speed maneuverability that makes for very accurate CAS. That holds true both when dropping bombs and when equipped with anti-tank cannon.
 
For what I know the Ju 87 had a very limited ammo supply and was not armored nearly as well. And of course the Hs 129 flew long before the Ju 87 G came to being (even if it could've] been built earlier). All in all it's difficult to assess the true effectiveness of the G with the massive overclaiming vs tanks that was commonplace. And for lightly armored targets, locomotives and troops the MG151 does the job while firing faster and being less draggy installation-wise.
 
The HS 129 used French built radial engines which means that it didn't compete for Jumo 211s or other high powered German engines. It had no liquid cooling system which reduced it's vulnerability a bit and it had two engines so a few planes probably made it back with one engine out.
 
Germany produced zillions of Jumo211s and DB605s. From 1942 onward there shouldn't have been a shortage. Not to mention that the Ju-87 required only 1 engine.

As for battle damage, I have read statements to the effect that Ju-87s had a better survivability rate then the Fw-190F. However I have not seen historical statistics to substantiate this claim.
 
Some points:
The Hs 129B was not underpowered but this depends on what you compare it with. Also the Hs 129 didnt need to be that fast. It was designed to fly low, take enemy fire and drop cliuster bombs or strafe targets. Only the Il-2 is comparable.
As the Fw 190 was designed for completely different specs one cannot compare the two. The Fw 190 was indeed faster but also less accurate because of it. There have always been two types of ground attack aircraft, think MiG-27 vs Su-25. F-16 vs A-10. Never ending discussion.
The Hs 129 had a centrally mounted gun while the Ju 87 or Fw 190 had converging guns. Less accurate unless at a specific range.

Then one more thing: the MK 103 was definitely not enough because there is one very important thing you forget. AP figures are against a 0 or 30 degree angle from vertical while hitting a tank will more likely be at an angle of at least 45 degrees. So for instance for a 20 mm armour you'll need an AP of 40 mm.

Kris
 
But due to the sloping armor of tanks you'll hit it closer to perpendicular than fired from the ground.
 
looney said:
But due to the sloping armor of tanks you'll hit it closer to perpendicular than fired from the ground.
Click to expand...

The difference isn't enough to get excited about. A plane in a 3 degree "dive" will be 150 ft above ground at a range of 1000yds. Or 500ft for a 10 degree "dive" . This also shows how the "thin" roof armor would stand up pretty well to planes using a strafing attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
2K
PAT303
P
Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not?
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
4K
SaparotRob
Z
Large gun Me 109
2 3
Replies
47
Views
8K
Engineman
E
Bf-109 vs Bf-109 23 December 1944 [SOLVED]
Replies
1
Views
2K
CHen10
S
Me 262s seen at Flugplatz Nordhausen April 1945
Replies
6
Views
2K
Daggerr
Menu
Log in
Register