The 109

[Juha]

I disagree. You cannot pre plan for years when the situation is constantly changing. The German lost the strategic initiative by 1942 and were reacting the Allied developments and strategy. They simply did not have the luxury of sitting comfortably in England and steadily building up their forces according to the planes they hatched. There was a war going on in Russia, which had to be fought and won. Firefighting was exactly because the original plans were constantly rendered obsolate by the events. There was no such pressure, ever, on the Western Allies. Sure they would need to get back on the continent, but there was never any deadline for that.

I mostly agree but 40-mid 42 was full of crises from British PoV. And if Germany didn't invest enough to jet engine development GB had the same problem, maybe worse. For ex jet a/c airframe design was given to Gloster, not because it was known to be high speed a/c specialist but because it had free design capacity, partly because it had not produced succesful fighter since Gladiator.

 

[Juha]

Generally I don't like what if discussions because they usually are rather simplistic, one must remember that one of the key assumption in economics is the scarcity of resources. In principle, if one wants more jets, the aluminium needed to them was away from some other planes produced in real world at that time, construction troops building extra paved runways were away from some other projects, roadmaking, railway construction etc. Look the Eastern Front, Heer had enormous logistical difficulties there because of poor road and rail networks. If you moved construction troops from road and rail maintenance you might well found T-34s rolling over your new runways sooner than you had expexted. Now RLM had very generous aluminium quotas per airframe and engine produced which allowed for ex Messerschmitt AG to make good profit with aluminium garden utilities in 1942 but that was how the system worked and I doubt that Willy and his board members would have been easily persuated to give up that profitable side business in order to give his old rival Heinkel more aluminium for he 280 production. It simply was how the Nazi Germany was run.

Juha

 

[stona]

I disagree. You cannot pre plan for years when the situation is constantly changing.

If the Germans had made plans which accepted that they weren't going to win every campign in weeks or months and had put in place the mechanisms to supply the men and materiel which would enable them to fight the long haul things might have been different,particularly in the East.
Planning strategically for years ahead is precisely what the Anglo-American Alliance did. It was made perfectly clear to the British people in 1940 that they were in for a long haul. At no point during WW2 was that kind "revelation" made to the German people. This,once again,is the crippling effect of nazi ideology on German prosecution of the war.
Steve

 

[davebender]

If the Germans had made plans which accepted that they weren't going to win every campign in weeks or months

The September 1939 Ango-French declaration of war caught Germany off guard. It shouldn't have but it did. That's why 1939 Germany was not prepared for a major war. Once the war started the German Government continued to stumble forward without realistic plans for either military victory or a diplomatic resolution. That's what happens when you have a bunch of rookies running the national government during a period of rising international tensions.

1933 Germany needed Otto Bismarck but no one of his calibre was willing to serve as Chancellor.

 

[bob44]

Many good points here. And very much agree that Germany was not prepared for a long war.

 

[GregP]

I see the Me 309 has been proposed, but the Me 309 could be out-turned by the Me 109G and, when armament was added, the speed was not good. It was fundamentally flawed. Perhaps correctable, but flawed. The standard Me 109 was correctbale, too, and it wasn't corrected either.

I think the changes I suggested would not have been all that difficult and would have made a difference in the basic aircraft capacilities. Of course, that is a "what if," and I really don't like them to start with. But I can say, that making the changes I suggested would have corrected many of the Me 109 shortcomings, which is the essecnce of making it better.

They actually produced a raidal-powered Me 109 airframe and it flew quite well. With the changes I suggested, that one would have been better, too.

 

[davebender]

Me-109 was designed during 1934 to 1935. It could out turn most 1940s fighter aircraft designs at slow speed. What difference does that make? Newer designs such as the P-51 and Me-309 employ different aerial tactics which take advantage of higher speeds.

 

[GregP]

That's the point Dave ... the Me 309, when armament was added wasn't faster by much if any. So it is about the same speed and turns worse.

Doesn't sound like a good replacement.

 

[GrauGeist]

Greg, one of the reasons Willy wanted that undercarriage configuration, was to conserve space and weight.

It may have been tricky to a novice pilot, but it was a sound idea and allowed the aircraft to be serviced (i.e.: wings removed for maint. or transport) in conditions where other aircraft weren't. The gear also distributed the aircraft's weight through the fuselage, not the wings, making the wing structure lighter.

 

[Shortround6]

Like most engineering problems it is a trade-off, since you seldom get something for nothing. What made good sense when designing a plane with 700-1100hp engines and high time pilots doesn't look so good when using 1500hp engines and low time pilots.

 

[davparlr]

Just talking about the Bf-109, and not some of the other well stated issues, what they needed was the G-10/K aircraft in sufficient quantities, with pilots, to address the P-51B/D threat in early '44. While flawed, primarily in endurance, these 109s had the performance that gave even average pilots a good chance against the Mustang. I think they were technically capable of doing so.

Another question is why were the Germans so unprepared for the Mustang. When the Mustang appeared over Germany it almost completely out-classed the main Luftwaffe opposition, certainly at bomber altitudes and above, something they not really experienced before. But they must have had knowledge of the Mustang way before this. They had to have reports of the P-51 and P-51A's speed and range in that I believe it had been raiding Germany. They probably had examples very early. Just a simple analysis and questions, like what if they put in a high altitude engine like, say, the Merlin, of this very capable airframe, should have generated concern about a deep penetration fighter with exceptional performance. I would have thought red flags should have been thrown.

 

[stona]

They had to have reports of the P-51 and P-51A's speed and range in that I believe it had been raiding Germany. They probably had examples very early.

The first one flown by the Luftwaffe and tested at Rechlin was a P-51 B in early 1944,so not that early.

The one aspect of P-51 performance that should have worried them above all others would be its range and I don't know when they became aware of that.

Steve

 

[drgondog]

The first one flown by the Luftwaffe and tested at Rechlin was a P-51 B in early 1944,so not that early.

The one aspect of P-51 performance that should have worried them above all others would be its range and I don't know when they became aware of that.

Steve

If IIRC the first P-51B captured by LW was during Normandy Campaign. On the morning of June 7, Hans-Werner Leche took off near Cambrai. I think the 51 was a 4th FG ship 43-24825 (Lt. Thomas Fraser) which was hit by flak and landed wheels down but I will have to check. The action was captured in "Luftwaffe Test Pilot"

Bill

 

[stona]

I'm referring to this one T9+CK. It's origin is unclear.

Maybe it's the one captured in Normandy?

Another one,T9+HK, was captured in September 1944. That was definitely from the 4th FG flown by Capt. Thomas E Joyce. I'm not sure of its tail number. I've seen it given as 43-24825. I haven't checked extensively either

There's a couple of pictures of T9+HK in Jean Louis Roba's "Foreign Planes in the Service of the Luftwaffe".

Steve

 

[bob44]

Just talking about the Bf-109, and not some of the other well stated issues, what they needed was the G-10/K aircraft in sufficient quantities, with pilots, to address the P-51B/D threat in early '44. While flawed, primarily in endurance, these 109s had the performance that gave even average pilots a good chance against the Mustang. I think they were technically capable of doing so.

Yes, this might give the LW a chance.

But...

[QUOTEAnother question is why were the Germans so unprepared for the Mustang. When the Mustang appeared over Germany it almost completely out-classed the main Luftwaffe opposition, certainly at bomber altitudes and above, something they not really experienced before. But they must have had knowledge of the Mustang way before this. They had to have reports of the P-51 and P-51A's speed and range in that I believe it had been raiding Germany. They probably had examples very early. Just a simple analysis and questions, like what if they put in a high altitude engine like, say, the Merlin, of this very capable airframe, should have generated concern about a deep penetration fighter with exceptional performance. I would have thought red flags should have been thrown. ][/QUOTE]

That is a question I have been pondering. Certainly there were indications of the Allies using long range fighters, and by late 1943, these fighters were escorting bombers into Germany.

So why did the LW not intercept these long range fighters before they got into Germany? Forcing the Allied fighters to drop their fuel tanks for combat, and limiting their range. Thus a better chance of destroying the bombers.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Mustang appeared before 1944 in the Med and Italy, both the RAF and U.S. versions as well as the A-36 Apache.

The Germans knew it was coming...

 

[davebender]

Me-309 was designed for a DB603 engine. However RLM ordered all but the first prototype to be powered by a DB605 engine. The V4 prototype was then loaded down with 4 MG131, 2 Mk108 cannon and a MG151/20 cannon. Does that sound like a fair competition to you?

Rather like the Fw-187 competition. The Falke was required to use an obsolete Jumo 210 engine and then compared to a DB600 powered Me-110.

If the Me-309 program receives high priority from 1940 onward then it should be designed for a DB605 engine. Which means it will be considerably lighter and a bit smaller then the historical Me-309. Should be more streamlined too with a smaller nose and smaller radiator.

If the Me-309 is not intended to start production before August 1944 (i.e. same time as Fw-190D9) then it should have the historical size airframe powered by a Jumo 213 engine.

 

[GregP]

Hi Dave,

If you replace the 3-bolt wing mount with a 4-bolt unit, you go a long way to making the wing strong enough for a more outboard gear mount, even 1 - 2 feet would have been a lot better.

Sorry, I do not buy into the gear being a good thing at all. It was very bad a caused a LOT of takeoff and landing accidents. That is NOT a good design and it never WAS a good design. It could be lived with if flown by competently trained pilots (and largely WAS), but was BAD to start with ... sort of like the canopy. The Erla canopy was a partial fix for the pivoting portion of the canopy, but was never a fix for the forward and left-or-right visibility, or rather lack thereof. A well-designed windscreen with small framing and a blow rear portion of the canpy would go a LONG way to maiking it more fighter pilot friendly.

I say that with the experience of having sat in the P-51 (have flown in this one), F4U, F6F, P-38, Yokosuka D4Y, SBD, AT-6 (have flown in this one many times), Aichi D3A, Fw 190, and Me 109 cockpits and having looked out of all in every direction. Sometimes you get to do that when you volunteer at a museum that has all these aircraft. The windscreen and canopy of the Me 109 is a BAD one compared with the others. Even the Japanese planes, with seemingly a LOT of small framing, were better for visibility since the framing was small. The only worse windscreens I have lookoed out of were the stock MiG-15 and MiG-21. I don't see how they ever shot anything down! All you can see out front of a MiG21 is the gunsight! ... but they aren't WWII aircraft and don't count. Of course, once operated as civilian aircraft, you can REMOVE the guinsights and can then see a bit forward.

 

[kettbo]

I too would hit the fighters early on with the stripped-down Hohen flights. Then hit the fighters again. And again,,,throw the escort timetables off so the Sturm guys can get at the bombers. Bf109G6/ASM spring of 1944 IIRC.....need lots of them before Big Week. Progressively more Mustangs, pilots growing skills and experience vs progressively fewer good German pilots and with replacements, fewer well-trained fliers.

Why were the twin 13mm guns not discarded for wing-mounted 20mm guns? 3x 20mm seems better to me then redesign the cowl and canopy

 

[stona]

So why did the LW not intercept these long range fighters before they got into Germany? Forcing the Allied fighters to drop their fuel tanks for combat, and limiting their range. Thus a better chance of destroying the bombers.

They did attempt to do this.
The Allied fighters operated a relay system. The fighters that would appear with the bombers at the target were rarely the same ones that had escorted them across the North Sea and into continental Europe which makes a succession of interceptions necessary. It's a lot easier said than done.
Steve