Time Machine Consultant : Maximizing the Bf-109 in January 1943

[davebender]

Why does the Me-155 need the DB628 engine? Just use the same DB605 engines which historically powered the Me-109G and Me-109K.

[paradoxguy]

Originally Posted by Civettone

MG 213? That's going to take at least two more years to get it ready for production. The Germans invested a lot of time and money in the project and in the end had nothing to show for it.

Kris

and Bronc, use the standard font please

I just wanted to augment Kris's MG 213 comment with that a few months ago I corresponded with Tony Williams, the air armament expert, about it and he stated that by WWII's end, the MG 213 was not still nearly ready for production.

PG

[Bronc]

HeY Civettone:

Since when does an improved two-stage supercharger on a DB-605 change the center of gravity to anything? That's what the DB-628 was: an improved two-stage supercharger on a DB-605.

Put a DB-603A on it and maybe...

As to the catastrophic effects of the Bf-109's undercarriage, the narrowness of it leading to about 50% of ALL accidents causing unserviceability, I can find the cite for you. I mean, I can embarrass you completely and thoughoughly on the list over this, or maybe I will let it drop to be nice to you and all, but I guess it's up to you dude...

As to the Mk-213, I guess we don't get to use it. However, if I'm going to be a time-travelling consultant for the Luftwaffe, my advice would be to start shooting people just like Stalin did. Stalin didn't have to put up with long development and production delays when it came to weapons. First you got a letter urging you (and the team) to hurry up. Then you got a letter warning you to hurry up. And when you didn't hurry up and deliver then you, and everyone that even remotely looked like you, got shot.

Shoot about half the RLM and a couple of arbitrarily and capriciously picked people from Jumo, DB, BMW and you want really powerful engines with advanced features in production now? WE HAVE THEM. We DO. WE REALLY DO! Can you imagine Willie Messerschmitt pulling all that nonsense on Stalin? Ain't no way. Not in a million years. For the mass-murdering idiot that he was, Hitler had a lot to learn about motivating people from an expert, that is, Joe "I will kill your entire village" Stalin.

Bronc

BTW: What's wrong with this?

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by Bronc

Shoot about half the RLM and a couple of arbitrarily and capriciously picked people from Jumo, DB, BMW and you want really powerful engines with advanced features in production now? WE HAVE THEM. We DO. WE REALLY DO! Can you imagine Willie Messerschmitt pulling all that nonsense on Stalin? Ain't no way. Not in a million years. For the mass-murdering idiot that he was, Hitler had a lot to learn about motivating people from an expert, that is, Joe "I will kill your entire village" Stalin.

That was hillarious

[Burmese Bandit]

I would suggest that it's not just about shooting people - it's shooting the RIGHT people.

And to do that, you have to be a cold-blooded, unsentimental son of a bitch like Iosif 'Koba' Dzugashvili.

Now the RIGHT people to have shot would be Goering, Milch, and a lot of the top bureaucrats in the RLM.

But with the sentimental, emo-Goth Hitler he would have passed them all over and shot...Kurt Tank instead!

Even Stalin got it wrong before 1942 and shot a lot of the wrong people - and imprisoned many wrong ones, too. Look at the great Russian engineers and designers who were working out of prison in WW II!

A common fallacy is that the Russians won WWII BECAUSE of Stalin. I would submit that there is equally as much evidence that the Russians won WW II DESPITE Stalin.

[Bronc]

I'm laughing so hard I can barely type, but honest to God, that's EXACTLY what would have happened: Adolf Hitler would have gotten all confused and shot Kurt Tank and the folks at Focke Wulf!

But seriously, how "the fat man" Goring avoided a firing squad in 1940 is absolutely beyond me. I can't remember the name of the Luftwaffe's Chief of Intelligence (Ic) during the Battle of Britain, wasn't it Oberst Joseph Schmid, good old Beppo. Anyway I would have shot THAT guy twice and he became a Major General(dramatically under-estimating the Soviet Union's pre-Barbarossa military strength and aircraft manufacturing potential and commanding the Herman Goring Division along the way.)

Bronc

[vikingBerserker]

Originally Posted by Burmese Bandit

A common fallacy is that the Russians won WWII BECAUSE of Stalin. I would submit that there is equally as much evidence that the Russians won WW II DESPITE Stalin.

If there ever was a statement so dam true, it would be this one!

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by Bronc

HeY Civettone:

Since when does an improved two-stage supercharger on a DB-605 change the center of gravity to anything? That's what the DB-628 was: an improved two-stage supercharger on a DB-605.

I have seen the drawings of the Bf 109 with DB 628 and it required a couple of changes. Which then resulted in another change, and then another and another and ... and it ended up as the BV 155. The guys at B&V concluded that the Messerschmitt design was seriously flawed and needed much more changes.

Originally Posted by Bronc

As to the catastrophic effects of the Bf-109's undercarriage, the narrowness of it leading to about 50% of ALL accidents causing unserviceability, I can find the cite for you. I mean, I can embarrass you completely and thoughoughly on the list over this, or maybe I will let it drop to be nice to you and all, but I guess it's up to you dude...

Go for it!

Originally Posted by davebender

Why does the Me-155 need the DB628 engine? Just use the same DB605 engines which historically powered the Me-109G and Me-109K.

So what do you get then? A standard Bf 109 with bigger wings? That's pretty much taking away its main advantage. The aircraft will be slower, have lesser roll rate and will be inferior in the vertical. Climb rate will only be better in a sustained climb but not in instant climbs which were far more important in combat. And all of that for some more armament and a wider landing gear.

Kris

[MikeGazdik]

I really think everyone is missing the point. What killed the Luftwaffe was thier total lack of offensive cabability.

If they could, by means of better fighter escort, go on strong offensive of attacking England proper, everything changes.

The British and U.S, rather than spending all of thier time, efforts, thoughts, and equipment on attacking the Germans, now have to also figure out how to defend. Possibly move airfields further away, which would again be advantageous to the Luftwaffe.

We can talk about which plane is faster, better, whatever. But if the Germans could put together an effective strategic bombing campaign, the whole war is changed. At least against the British and Americans.

I am not so sure the existance of a longer range fighter escort would help them against the Russians. I think the Russians could just keep moving thier production East as they did during the war.

[Hop]

The Germans simply didn't have the numbers for a strategic bombing campaign against Britain after 1941.

If you look at July 1943 as an example, the RAF had, in the UK, excluding reserves:

960 heavy bombers
1500 SE fighters
570 TE fighters
approx 400 medium and light bombers

The entire Luftwaffe, deployed not just in W Europe but also in the Med and East, had just 1,849 fighters of all types and 1,663 bombers. The RAF based in the UK was larger than the entire Luftwaffe.

As to making changes to the 109 in 1943, it was all too late. As Williamson Murray says in Strategy for Defeat:

Unfortunately for Trautloff and Germany's cities, there was no method that could
produce enough machines or pilots ; the battle for air superiority was lost because
the battle of production had been lost in 1940, 1941, and 1942-not 1944 .

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Civettone

It's better to keep it simple guys.

In January 1943 the Bf 109G-5/6 was on its way so let's start from there.
Its main problem was the aerodynamical picture. They were partially solved at the end of 1944. These changes could possibly have been introduced much sooner. An aerodynamical hood instead of the bulges. A retractable tail wheel with a long strut.
One more option is adding wheel bay covers which would make the aircraft substantially faster.

Another main shortcoming was the 1.3 ata level of the DB 605. Daimler Benz should make it priority nr 1 to at least bring the ata level back to the level of the DB 601.

These simple changes would bring the max speed of the Bf 109G to at least 670 kmh. Also range would be improved.

Other changes are the Erla Haube and the standard fitting of the cheap MK 108 cannon.

Good post, Civettone, and I agree completely.

Introducing new types is not easy, both production and operational-wise, and I think many underestimate the problems involved. The thesis of this thread is that the Germans know what is coming at them in 1944, so they have a year to try to come up with a solution for this.

Regarding the aerodynamic changes, these were quite simple, and ready to be implemented by mid-1943 the latest. The streamlined cowling was ready, the retractable tailwheel and the wheel well doors (the latter actually already proposed before the Bf 109G, hence the squarish wheel bays) were known. Priority should have been given to fix some of the minor mechanical problems with these improrements, which alone would yield some 20-30 km/h speed increase.

I guess you could not do anything about the DB 605A, DB had a hand on the lubrication problems, and solved these completely between June and September 1943. Since the problem was the engine's mechanical endurance, until the lubrication problem was solved, MW 50 boosting is not possible (since the engine cannot yet take these loads).

I don't think the complete replacement of the 109G with FW 190A is a good solution, for two reasons: 109s could be produced in 2/3rd the time that it took to produce a FW 190.

Secondly, since the RLM knows that for 1944, requirements will be to for fighting at higher altitudes, ca 8km against American bomber streams, they will require a good performance high altitude fighter, which the FW 190 cannot fill, even with the FW 190D with its medium altitude engine.

So IMHO the correct decision would be:

- Priority for aerodynamic improvements for Bf 109G, introducing these on all present aircraft before waiting for the Bf 109K (whichs development BTW started in early 1943, so kinda mirrors it. The failing was the lacking of energetic introduction of these developments into production sooner)

- Most importantly, since we know that the 1944 fights will be about fighting at high altitude, cease production of DB 605A engined Bf 109Gs and produce only fighters with the DB 605AS. This is easily done since in effect it only means fitting existing DB 605A's with a DB 603 supercharger and results in a fighter that is comparable if not superior to any known foreign types at altitude.

- Cancel Me 410 production alltogether. This plane is simply not needed, and its roles can be fullfilled by other types, namely the Ju 88/188. The surplus production capacity at Mtt can be used to produce more 109s, and the surplus DB 603A engines to produce a FW 190D equivalent with the DB 603A (note that DB 603A and Jumo 213 were both interchangable, and of very simimilar output).

- Cancel He 111 production, the type should be replaced by Ju 88. Its a superflous type, as again the Ju 88 can fullfill any of its roles, as well as useful as a night fighter airframe.


Regardless of all the above, by far the most important task would be a large scale expansion of the training programme, which was of far greater concern to the Germans - who never really had a lack of available aircraft - than the lack of pilots.

Simply to put, IF we know that 1944 will be about large defensive fights (and this was not too hard to predict by 1943, with the USAAF starting to deploy in Europe, and giving an edge to the Allied air offensive, which was until then rightfully ignored due to the rather impotent nature of RAF 'probing raids' in France.) the correct strategic decision should have been drawn in 1943, and to tailor the production and the Luftwaffe force to a defensive nature. Fighter production should have received priority, as well as fighter training programmes, instead of waiting with all that until mid-1944.

IMHO there was a fairly good chance to reverse or at least, largely mitigate the devastating air superiority that the USAAF have won, albeit at a great cost in the spring of 1944, largely due to insufficient German fighter forces in the West. That was simply an air war of attrition, and the Luftwaffe, not having sufficient fighters to maintain air superiority on all three fronts, lost the numbers game. With sufficient number of fighters and fighter pilots, they had a fairly good chance to make these offensives so costly that their effects would be largely reduced, either over the Reich or over the battlefields of Normandy. Of course damage would be still done, but given the peaking out of the armament industry in 1944, it would be probably tolerable for them.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Hop

The Germans simply didn't have the numbers for a strategic bombing campaign against Britain after 1941.

If you look at July 1943 as an example, the RAF had, in the UK, excluding reserves:

960 heavy bombers
1500 SE fighters
570 TE fighters
approx 400 medium and light bombers

Source...? What units do these include, first line or second line or both?
What about servicibility rates?

The entire Luftwaffe, deployed not just in W Europe but also in the Med and East, had just 1,849 fighters of all types and 1,663 bombers. The RAF based in the UK was larger than the entire Luftwaffe.

Your figures seem to be largely incomplete on the Luftwaffe side.

As of 30 June 1943, the Luftwaffe had
1849 SE fighters (vs 1500 RAF fighters, which were largely composed of obsolate types btw),
554 night fighters (vs ca 570 RAF TE fighters, again mostly obsolate types),
1663 level bombers and 523 dive bombers and attack aircraft, ie. a total ca 2186 bomber types vs some 1300 RAF heavy, medium and light bombers.

Take note that several types are not included, ie. daylight Zestorer units, which had about 150 heavy fighters at this point.

The complete first line strenght of the Luftwaffe as of that date, not counting a large array of secondsry purpose planes (ie. liason, transport etc.) at this date was 7089 aircradft, not including secondary and reserve units. According to your data, the RAF at this point had about 3430 similiar combat types...

A more complete view on Luftwaffe strenght can be gleaned from the RLM strenght reports. These, as of July 1943, show the following strenght (both 1st and 2nd line units, but not including reserves):

Recon 1237
Bomber 2579
Stuka&Schlacht 975
Transport 908

Zerstörer (daylight TE F) 160
Nachtjagd 688
Tagjagd (daylight SEF) 2018

Grandtotal: 8565, incl. 2nd line units

[Bug_racer]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I guess you could not do anything about the DB 605A, DB had a hand on the lubrication problems, and solved these completely between June and September 1943. Since the problem was the engine's mechanical endurance, until the lubrication problem was solved, MW 50 boosting is not possible (since the engine cannot yet take these loads).

Just to clarify . MW50 is not anything that increases boost . It was a system that was used to allow for the increase of boost . It was a knock preventative . N2O could be considered a boost additive

[davebender]

B&V concluded that the Messerschmitt design was seriously flawed

Personally I trust the aircraft engineers of Messerschmitt over the shipyard engineers of Blohm & Voss.

[jamierd]

surely if you are arriving in jan 1942 the first thing you would want to do is stop Barbarossa this will give you the entire luftwaffe to turn loose on britain again