This is the way it should have been from the beginning....

Clayton Magnet said:

two 12.7mm machine guns could hardly be considered adequate. The B-20 cannons were not available until 1945, so the pre "P" model Yak-3 is dependent on the center line cannon to be effective.

So maybe the B-20 cannon modification to the UB should have been done earlier, replacing all the cowl machine guns.
A Merlin 60 powered Yak-3 armed with two 20mm cannons in the cowl would have been a short ranged rocket ship

Click to expand...

I think 2 x 12.7mm HMG is actually fine if they are in the nose - at least against enemy fighters in say 1942. Russian P-40's were stripped down to this armament and did very well. The Bf 109 F-2 only had a 15mm "cannon" and 2 light machine guns in the nose and it was obviously quite effective right? A lot of the early Russian fighters just had one cannon and one machine gun, or just the cannon only.

Anyway as I think you were alluding you could also just do two nose cannons like in the La 5.

S

tomo pauk said:

The Fw 190 'Made in Japan' makes sense, even with Japanese engines and guns.
Late-war Japanese or Italian fighters' designs don't solve Lutwaffe's problems of early ww2. A drop-tank facility on the Bf 109E just two months earlier than historically improves odds for the Luftwaffe during the BoB, but it will not make them win it.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is much that could be done for the BoB, but I think for the 'second turning point' of late 1942 through Spring 1943, it would have been helpful for the Germans to have had some longer ranged fighters. Fiat G.55 was deployed to combat units in March 1943, first flight was in April 1942. It was obviously very promising already by then. You could have a parallel German / Italian development from that point on. Or developed the Re 2000 series from 1940 or the MC 202 from 1941. I think the Re 2000 series was maybe the most promising of all them but also probably the most difficult to perfect. The Re 2001 was around in 1941 flying with a DB 601, with 1,100 km range (without drop tanks) and was already clearly a very promising design. They could have started with that.

The He 219 without working DB 603A will not be possible. Kill the Me 210 instead of the 110?

Click to expand...

Kill them both, waste of effort. 219 was a much better design. Or develop the Ta 154 if you prefer.

Germans need jet fighter from late 1943 on, whether the 262 or something 1-engined, or both. Ditto for a better transport A/C.

Click to expand...

Jet transport in WW2 seems a bit out of reach but I'm willing to listen

The flotplane fighter is a death trap vs. P-40s, let alone something more capable.

Click to expand...

It wasn't in the Pacific so I don't know why you would think so. The main thing though is that especially with the ability to operate from forward / remote airfields, that plane could engage well beyond the operational radius of any allied land based fighters available in 1942, except maybe P-38's. And it was maneuverable enough (even with the floats) to still have a pretty good chance against it.

He 111 was one of best bombers before 1943.

Click to expand...

Disagree. They were highly vulnerable (shot down a lot whenever fighters were around) very inaccurate like all level bombers, and way too slow. It's a Spanish Civil War era relic way past it's prime by 1942. The niche the Ju 87 had was that in spite of it's sluggishness, because it was a dive bomber at least it was extremely accurate and useful on a tactical level. What the Germans needed was another, faster dive bomber. The Aichi I suggested was a perfect fit - it even had gull wings.

Martlets that FAA got in 1941/42 are under-performers. Perhaps go for Sea Hurricanes ASAP?

Click to expand...

Sea Hurricanes as far as I know did not really have the range to be useful naval aircraft, except for CAP (i,.e. no escort missions). This would make for a debate I'm sure but I think the Martlets were much more effective fighters than Hurricanes - (which is why the FAA went with them instead of relying on Sea Hurricanes)

Soviet fighters can kill tanks once they got bigger cannons, 23 and then 37mm. Other will need napalm or Class S cannons.

Click to expand...

Or rockets...

A-26 was too late to matter. Both British and US 4-engined bombers can destroy German fuel industry, but bot before the technology and training are improved, along with advent of escort fighters for the US bombers.

Click to expand...

Mosquitoes didn't need escort fighters. Which is the point.

A lot of this depends on timing and which country/gun you are talking about.
The US .50 didn't take to synchronizing well and had a poor rate of fire. The Russian 12.7mm fired much faster (and was lighter)
The Italian 12.7mm may have been between the two but used a low powered round. However it also used exploding bullets.
So which is better?

Schweik said:

I think 2 x 12.7mm HMG is actually fine if they are in the nose - at least against enemy fighters in say 1942. Russian P-40's were stripped down to this armament and did very well. The Bf 109 F-2 only had a 15mm "cannon" and 2 light machine guns in the nose and it was obviously quite effective right? A lot of the early Russian fighters just had one cannon and one machine gun, or just the cannon only.

Anyway as I hink you were alluding you could also just do two nose cannons like in the La 5.

S

Click to expand...

2 heavy machine guns as the sole armament would have been a big step backward, and well behind the curve in 1942, let alone 1944 when the Yak-3 actually entered service.
La-5 had 2 ShVAK cannons in the nose, which would not have fit in the Yak-3 cowling. I purpose a Yak-3, modified with western equipment and manufacturing expertise ( no plywood ) which should lighten the airframe somewhat. Powered by a Merlin 60, and armed with the substantially smaller and lighter B-20 20mm cannons. It would be next to useless in Western Europe do to its tiny range, but would have been a UFO on the Eastern front.

Shortround6 said:

A lot of this depends on timing and which country/gun you are talking about.
The US .50 didn't take to synchronizing well and had a poor rate of fire. The Russian 12.7mm fired much faster (and was lighter)
The Italian 12.7mm may have been between the two but used a low powered round. However it also used exploding bullets.
So which is better?

Click to expand...

I propose the Soviet UB machine gun could have been necked up to 20mm sooner than it was, when it became the B-20 cannon.

pbehn said:

Why not just hand over the UK military production to the USA and forget about any naval aircraft too. Cancelling all British bombers means bombing effort on Germany starts for real in 1944 in daylight. The Hawker Hurricane should have been out of production and would have been if the Typhoon didn't have problems, just cancelling Hurricanes means less Hurricanes, whatever you want more of come about two years later.

Click to expand...

So when the Typhoon ran into problems, start shipping over P-38's, P-39's and P-40's and swapping the engines out with those superb Merlins. Simple. And nobody goes out of work.

I believe world production capacity of Mosquito's was running close to capacity, just because of the special woods it used.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the US could have built them.

In addition to the aircraft sent on lend lease from UK £1.5billion worth of aero engines, the Russians could have just asked for engines but actually they asked for aircraft.

Click to expand...

I didn't say cancel all British bombers, I said cancel everything except Mosquitoes. What is the point of bombing Germany, i.e. what military goal can Lancasters accomplish that Mosquitoes can't to and at less risk to aircrews and much more precision? I know there are probably some ( the dam busting perhaps?), but I don't think many.

Same for US daylight bombing. They didn't actually reduce German production capacity much did they? Ever read Speer? The main accomplishment was the destruction of the Luftwaffe but at great cost. Could have done that more efficiently with fighters and fighter-bombers.

S

We have conflicting theories about the effectiveness of the bombing. We have some saying it was useless because it didn't reduce German production. However we have no estimates as to how much more production the Germans would have achieved if there was no bombing.

Also things don't happen in a vacuum. A much reduced bombing campaign means the Germans can shift AA gun production to something else. AA shell production to something else. AA manpower to other things. It means some Luftwaffe squadrons can redeploy.

America doesn't grow balsa wood so no help there.

America also would NOT bother with the PE-2. It doesn't do anything the A-20 won't do.

Schweik said:

1. So when the Typhoon ran into problems, start shipping over P-38's, P-39's and P-40's and swapping the engines out with those superb Merlins. Simple. And nobody goes out of work.

2. I'm sure the US could have built them.

3. I didn't say cancel all British bombers, I said cancel everything except Mosquitoes. What is the point of bombing Germany, i.e. what military goal can Lancasters accomplish that Mosquitoes can't to and at less risk to aircrews and much more precision? I know there are probably some ( the dam busting perhaps?), but I don't think many.

4. Same for US daylight bombing. They didn't actually reduce German production capacity much did they? Ever read Speer? The main accomplishment was the destruction of the Luftwaffe but at great cost. Could have done that more efficiently with fighters and fighter-bombers.

Click to expand...

1. The USA had need of all those P38s, P40s and P-39s and the UK found a use for Hurricanes too as catapult launched planes, defence of Malta north Africa and far east.
2. The Balsa and Hardwoods came from USA via various routes, cutting down trees is not like smelting aluminium, you quickly run out of trees like Europe did in the Napoleonic era.
3. The bombing of Germany involved massive defence expenditure, just in 88mm guns, and munitions manpower expended it was worth the effort. That apart from the devastation of major cities and loss of production involved. In addition the Tirpitz is still a threat the Atlantic submarine pens are unmolested etc etc etc. In 10/10s cloud conditions the RAF could bomb as accurately at night as the USAAF could in daylight. You cannot replace a strategic bomber with a Mosquito although Mosquitos massively increased the effectiveness of Bomber Command.
4. They reduced the increase in German capacity, and by the end very little of anything was being produced.

Just for clarification Balsa wood comes from the 'Americas' but not from the United States. It comes from South or Central America and was not being commercially cultivated (grown on plantations) at that time. Balsa trees do not grow in forests or groves but were more spread out. Only a few Balsa trees per acre interspersed with other trees.

Shortround6 said:

Just for clarification Balsa wood comes from the 'Americas' but not from the United States. It comes from South or Central America and was not being commercially cultivated (grown on plantations) at that time. Balsa trees do not grow in forests or groves but were more spread out. Only a few Balsa trees per acre interspersed with other trees.

Click to expand...

I cant remember where I read it S/R but what I meant was the shipping trading route and the biggest issue was hardwood laminates, there was some sort of cottage industry in the USA producing them. Pre war it was mainly concerned with coffee tables and wardrobes, not 1000x bombers. The rejection rate of materials was so high it is a bit like the Napoleonic warships, you clear a complete oak forest to build one ship.

Schweik said:

I think 2 x 12.7mm HMG is actually fine if they are in the nose - at least against enemy fighters in say 1942. Russian P-40's were stripped down to this armament and did very well. The Bf 109 F-2 only had a 15mm "cannon" and 2 light machine guns in the nose and it was obviously quite effective right? A lot of the early Russian fighters just had one cannon and one machine gun, or just the cannon only.

Anyway as I think you were alluding you could also just do two nose cannons like in the La 5.

S

Click to expand...

Remember that the two HMG in the nose were a lot slower firing due to the prop, the Italians estimated it halved the ROF.
The Bf109 F2 with the 15mm was very lightly armed proven by the fact that any pilot with influence had the 15mm replaced by a 20mm . The first F2 captured by the British had already had the gun replaced.

Spruce, which is the other main wood used in the Mosquito comes in a number of varieties and came mainly from the US and Canada. Any European/Russian sources being cut off.
Spruce was a common wood for building a number of light aircraft during the 20s and 30s. But getting long, straight grain, knot free pieces sutiable for spars and such is not easy.

Glider said:

Remember that the two HMG in the nose were a lot slower firing due to the prop, the Italians estimated it halved the ROF.
The Bf109 F2 with the 15mm was very lightly armed proven by the fact that any pilot with influence had the 15mm replaced by a 20mm . The first F2 captured by the British had already had the gun replaced.

Click to expand...

and here we have the difference between what an "expert" might want and what an average pilot needed. The German 15mm gun was about the flattest shooting, shortest time of flight gun put in an airplane (short of the big 30mm) making it easy to get hits with. Unfortunately it didn't mate well with the 7.9mm guns and the 15mm shell didn't have anywhere near the effect of a 20mm shell.

Shortround6 said:

Spruce, which is the other main wood used in the Mosquito comes in a number of varieties and came mainly from the US and Canada. Any European/Russian sources being cut off.
Spruce was a common wood for building a number of light aircraft during the 20s and 30s. But getting long, straight grain, knot free pieces sutiable for spars and such is not easy.

Click to expand...

That's what I meant S/R, I saw it on a programme on TV which showed a small cottage industry in USA, women ironing woods with heavy irons. Pre WW2 it was a small artisan niche, very difficult to expand the industry and a plane needs long wide sheets with no faults. Same with Norwegian Spruce there are thousands of tons of it all over the place but density humidity grain knots etc etc mean only a small percentage of the wood cut is used.

Shortround6 said:

and here we have the difference between what an "expert" might want and what an average pilot needed. The German 15mm gun was about the flattest shooting, shortest time of flight gun put in an airplane (short of the big 30mm) making it easy to get hits with. Unfortunately it didn't mate well with the 7.9mm guns and the 15mm shell didn't have anywhere near the effect of a 20mm shell.

Click to expand...

Also the difference between what you are required to shoot down and how much time you have to do it. From the start the RAF wanted as many MGs as possible firing as fast as possible, then they wanted cannon. However effective rifle calibre guns are at taking down a fighter when it came to taking down bombers they wanted ever more powerful MGs, cannon and even rockets (now called Air to Air missiles).

That would be Sitka Spruce.

DeHavilland Canada built just over 1000 Mosquitoes.

Well there is at least one guy who is involved in the restoration of a Mosquito just how easy is it to source the various woods required.

Sourcing wood for one airplane is one thing, have to hunt down vendor/s.
Sourcing wood for thousands MORE aircraft when you are already building thousands is a bit different.

Shortround6 said:

We have conflicting theories about the effectiveness of the bombing. We have some saying it was useless because it didn't reduce German production. However we have no estimates as to how much more production the Germans would have achieved if there was no bombing.

Click to expand...

Again, keep in mind - I am not suggesting they should not have dropped any bombs, it's more by what kind of aircraft would drop the bombs, and against what targets. Rather than "de-housing" however many million German, Belgian, French, Italian and other Western and Central European civilians, and incinerating a lot of nice Medieval architecture in the process simply because your bombers are too vulnerable to fly during the daytime and can't hit anything from 30K' anyway, send in precision bombers (by WW2 standards) i.e. Mosquitoes and anything else you can find or build with equivalent speed and accuracy, and use a ton of fighter bombers.

Fast bombers like Mosquitos and Fighter bombers, my theory goes, seem to do a better job than the big 4 engine heavies for most strategic, operational and tactical purposes.

Also things don't happen in a vacuum. A much reduced bombing campaign means the Germans can shift AA gun production to something else. AA shell production to something else. AA manpower to other things. It means some Luftwaffe squadrons can redeploy.

Click to expand...

This is a poor excuse for incinerating scores of cities. And more importantly, the same result is achieved by a massive fast-bomber and fighter bomber campaign. For example, instead of building 19,256 B-24's, you could put Consolidated to work making 25,000 mosquitoes (or Pe-2s) and still have enough engines left over to make 15,000 Corsairs. How would that benefit the war effort?

I can promise you the Ploesti raid would go a lot smoother.

(Plus you could still make the 1,256 remaining B-24's which you would actually have a use for in maritime patrol.)

America doesn't grow balsa wood so no help there.

Click to expand...

I'm sure they could find some useful equivalent somewhere in the Americas, for example basswood

America also would NOT bother with the PE-2. It doesn't do anything the A-20 won't do.

Click to expand...

Agree with the first part, but I think the reason is "because it's Commie" not because the A-20 was just as good - Pe-2 was 40 mph faster for one thing, right?

pbehn said:

1. The USA had need of all those P38s, P40s and P-39s and the UK found a use for Hurricanes too as catapult launched planes, defence of Malta north Africa and far east.

Click to expand...

1. The US didn't get much use out of the P-39 in any Theater. They got much more value for every one they sent to the Soviets than any they used. There was only one USAAF P-39 ace in the whole war and I don't think any from any other non-Russian ally.
   
2. They ended up putting Merlin engines in the P-40 for use in North Africa
3. They did benefit from the P-38's (especially in the Pacific) but would have got much more use out of them in Europe with Merlin engines. Especially the ones flying from UK
4. Hurricanes did not do much good in Malta, North Africa or the Far East after 1941. They never did much good in the Far East to be honest.

2. The Balsa and Hardwoods came from USA via various routes, cutting down trees is not like smelting aluminium, you quickly run out of trees like Europe did in the Napoleonic era.
3. The bombing of Germany involved massive defence expenditure, just in 88mm guns, and munitions manpower expended it was worth the effort. That apart from the devastation of major cities and loss of production involved. In addition the Tirpitz is still a threat the Atlantic submarine pens are unmolested etc etc etc.

Click to expand...

The FAA debacle with the Tirpitz could have been handled some other way, see the US destruction of the entire Japanese Pacific fleet and it's much more powerful battleships (i.e. Yamato and Musashi)

In 10/10s cloud conditions the RAF could bomb as accurately at night as the USAAF could in daylight.

Click to expand...

= not very accurate. See my comment on the Norden bombsight.

You cannot replace a strategic bomber with a Mosquito although Mosquitos massively increased the effectiveness of Bomber Command.

Click to expand...

I am saying you could. What Strategic bomber mission(s) can a Stirling do better than a Mosquito?

4. They reduced the increase in German capacity, and by the end very little of anything was being produced.

Click to expand...

You should really read this book