....if this thread is ever to go anywhere! ;-)
Like - what about the ground attack job? Keep the developement close to historical (Ju-87, Hs 129B, Fw 190F), or re-hash that too past late 1940?
....if this thread is ever to go anywhere! ;-)
Hi Pioneer,
With respect, from all that I've read over the years, as powerful as the MK 108 30mm cannon was against allied bombers, it was not as effective against allied fighters because of it's lower rate of fire when compared to the 20mm.
Well, Tony Williams has the MG 151/20 at 12 rounds per second, and the MK 108 at 10 rps, so the difference really is nothing to write home about:
At the same time, the MK108 shell has about 4 times the destructive power of the MG 151/20's, so it's clearly a more effective weapon.
Tony in "Rapid Fire" (or maybe "Flying Guns") also mentions British trials to establish the effect of the MK 108 shell on target aircraft, using derelict Spitfire and Blenheim airframes. If I remember the data correctly, 9 out of 10 Spitfires were certain kill from a single MK 108 round, the last one was a probable. With regard to the Blenheim, I believe there were "only" 7 certain kills from a single round, and I'm not sure if there was any one in the remaining 3 that was not considered a "probable".
In any case, against fighters the MK 108 had a very high probability of a kill with a single hit, so a rate of fire giving 9 or 10 chances of that sort every second isn't what I'd consider an indication of an "ineffective" gun
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
GM1 usage was restricted by several factors, but serious issues were that:Hi Tomo,
Think that we can agree that a Soviet fighter, Bf 109 or P-39 will be hard pressed to carry aloft more than one 30mm cannon until/unless the major power increase happens. IMO that cannon better be as powerful as it is practically possible.
For comparison, the Fw 190A-8's armament weight could be broken down as follows:
168 kg - 4 x MG 151/20
167 kg - 880 rounds 20 mm ammunition
34 kg - 2 x MG 131
74 kg - 950 rounds 13 mm ammunition
-------
443 kg
The Me 109G-6/R6:
42 kg - 1 x MG 151/20 nose gun
43 kg - 200 rounds 20 mm ammunition for nose gun
84 kg - 2 x MG 151/20 wing guns
58 kg - 270 rounds 20 mm ammunition
34 kg - 2 x MG 131
47 kg - 600 rounds 13 mm ammunition
-------
308 kg
The Me 109G-6/U4:
60 kg - 1 x MK 108
48 kg - 65 rounds 30 mm ammunition
34 kg - 2 x MG 131
47 kg - 600 rounds 13 mm ammunition
-------
189 kg
The Me 109G-6:
42 kg - 1 x MG 151/20
43 kg - 200 rounds 20 mm ammunition
34 kg - 2 x MG 131
47 kg - 600 rounds 13 mm ammunition
-------
166 kg
Considering that the Me 109G-6/R6 was perceived as too heavy for air-to-air combat, while the /U4 modification doesn't seem to have raised any objections, we can probably say that for the Me 109, 308 kg of armament weight is too mich, but 189 kg is OK. I'll set the limit at a nice round 200 kg.
This gives us the following options:
1 x MK 103 with 60 rounds: 200 kg, 425 rpm
1 x Tomo Gun with 124 rounds: 200 kg, 503 rpm
2 x MK 108 with 76 rounds per gun: 200 kg, 1200 rpm
So the MK 108 battery has the highest rate of fire by far, and the biggest round count. Admittedly, it again requires wing guns.
In this case, I'd be tempted to take the Tomo Gun because having centreline armament is a significant advantage, even if the slow rate of fire is a bit inconvenient. Considering that historically, the Me 109 seems to have been used more often to cover the bomber-killing Fw 190s against escort fighters than as a bomber killer, maybe I would prefer a MK 108 with a smaller mine shell so that a higher rate of fire is possible at the increased muzzle velocity that seems inevitable if this thread is ever to go anywhere! ;-)
Usage of silver is in the crankshaft bearings, S/C was away from it. Someone still needs to make the GM-1 system and the mixture it uses. If used, it can also be added to a 2-stage engine for even better performance at altitude.
Usage of silver is from Calum's book, I didn't actually know that before looking it up
Calum's book also has a description of the production and logistics of GM-1, so that was pretty much covered. I'm not quite sure why it wasn't used at a larger scale to fight the USAAF though - maybe it's in the book, I only read it once so far, and there are a lot of details that I couldn't commit to memory on the first go.
You can use it with a two-stage supercharger, but you'll be alone at the altitudes where it's useful, and you'd probably need a spacesuit as well! :-D Even the bog-standard Gustav could get up to around 13 km with GM-1 only, and GM-1 could only be used above full throttle height. Accordingly, with a two-stage supercharger that would not have yielded much of a useful operational envelope.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Like - what about the ground attack job? Keep the developement close to historical (Ju-87, Hs 129B, Fw 190F), or re-hash that too past late 1940?
GM1 usage was restricted by several factors, but serious issues were that:
1) The effort of making insulated tanks took a lot of work, when nearly the same thing was needed for the MW50 tanks.
2) Making GM1 is in competition with other Nitrogen compounds, like fertilisers and explosives, so the supply of Nitrogen
was a bottleneck.
3) The supply logistics since they ended up using nitrogen stored at low temperature, but atmospheric pressure, were very complicated. A really difficult thing to organize the supply of to airfields and you had to take off within a few hours of having it filled or it boiled off!
There is a VERY slight gain above full throttle height, depending on where you inject it. This is entirely due to the cooling/density increase of the air and nothing to do with what the methanol or water are doing once combustion starts. I cant possibly quantify the exact amount as it depends entirely on the specific engine and what altitude you`re at, so it would be more time than I have to sit and do the maths !Hi Calum,
GM1 usage was restricted by several factors, but serious issues were that:
1) The effort of making insulated tanks took a lot of work, when nearly the same thing was needed for the MW50 tanks.
2) Making GM1 is in competition with other Nitrogen compounds, like fertilisers and explosives, so the supply of Nitrogen
was a bottleneck.
3) The supply logistics since they ended up using nitrogen stored at low temperature, but atmospheric pressure, were very complicated. A really difficult thing to organize the supply of to airfields and you had to take off within a few hours of having it filled or it boiled off!
Thanks a lot for the summary!
Is MW50 of much use above full throttle height? I believe I once saw a British diagram showing that the BMW 801D would gain 4% in power above full throttle height through MW50 injection - however, I have no idea if that's accurate, as intelligence information sometimes is not.
(I noticed that in the first video you made with Chris of Military Aviation Visualized, you mentioned that MW50 injection alone, even without increased boost pressure, increased power by a certain amount. That's something I don't quite understand as from Hooker et al.'s booklet, I'd expect the amount of charge air to be a limiting factor for power. However, from the graphs on the V-1650-9, it appears that such an increase was indeed expected at 80" and 90" Hg boost pressure with anti-detontant injection.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Thanks a lot for the summary!
Is MW50 of much use above full throttle height? I believe I once saw a British diagram showing that the BMW 801D would gain 4% in power above full throttle height through MW50 injection - however, I have no idea if that's accurate, as intelligence information sometimes is not.
(I noticed that in the first video you made with Chris of Military Aviation Visualized, you mentioned that MW50 injection alone, even without increased boost pressure, increased power by a certain amount. That's something I don't quite understand as from Hooker et al.'s booklet, I'd expect the amount of charge air to be a limiting factor for power. However, from the graphs on the V-1650-9, it appears that such an increase was indeed expected at 80" and 90" Hg boost pressure with anti-detontant injection.)
There is a VERY slight gain above full throttle height, depending on where you inject it. This is entirely due to the cooling/density increase of the air and nothing to do with what the methanol or water are doing once combustion starts. I cant possibly quantify the exact amount as it depends entirely on the specific engine and what altitude you`re at, so it would be more time than I have to sit and do the maths !
But a few percent sound about right.
Build more Hs 123s! ;-)
Actually, I think the ground attack planes were all pretty good, including the Ju 87, despite its reliance on local air superiority - something that was also required by most other ground attack aircraft of the time. The Hs 129B was fine as well, if you want to do the job of aerial anti-tank gunning at all ... which might not be necessary if better anti-tank bombs are fielded earlier. But I'm out of my element there!
If we want the Hs 129B, better have Henschel expedite their work ASAP, so the 129B can be in service by early 1942? Probably also skip the single 30mm, go with the 37mm from the day one? The self-loading 5cm Pak before we jump on the 7.5cm BK?
If the 30mm is insisted upon, the Ju 87B and D can carry two of those.
Granted, the ground attack task is much more than just tank plinking. One wonders how close the Luftwaffe was to the napalm idea?
The problem with "tank plinking" according to the German experience was that it required specialist skills and equipment and was only applicable in certain tactical conditions, and if the weather permitted, while the rest of the time the units could not be used for other tasks. The Soviets also found that the Il-2 with 37 mm cannons were not worth it, as their anti-tank bomblets were just as effective without requiring special training for the pilots, and with no restrictions to the general-purpose ground attack nature of their mounts.
That's why I mentioned anti-tank munitions ... not sure if there's an English equivalent to the German "Abwurfmunition", basically everything that's dropped from an aircraft, rather than fired from it.
Generally speaking, the development of folding-fin rockets might is something that certainly would pay off. In the anti-bomber role, the R4M certainly worked extremely well, and though I'm not sure how the anti-tank variant of the same rocket worked, it might be an alternative to the extremely heavy cannon. (I am aware that the "Rocket Typhoon" probably wasn't quite as deadly as it was thought for a long time, but an R4M type rocket would offer more shots per salvo, and even if the destructiveness per hit might not be as great, maybe the effectiveness against anything but a tank might be even greater.)
I'm not aware of any Luftwaffe developments in a direction comparable to napalm, but the cluster bombs probably were roughly comparable in providing an area effect that didn't rely on splinters from a single large bomb which was not a weight-efficient way of attacking battlefield targets.
Probably the best way to have an accurate cannon-armed tank buster is to have something like the LaGG-3-37 or Yak-9T - there is just one cannon mounted on centreline, weight penalty is as small as possible, drag penalty is very small.
Is there a good source wrt. effectiveness of the R4M against the aircraft?
Napalm was about incendiary 'paste' spreading and igniting around the impact point, that worked very well against bunkers for example, and worked even with a near miss. Not much of the splinters involved, the 1st napalm weapons were housed in the drop tanks (metalic ones, obviuosly).
I'm not sure that with the end of the Battle of Britain as point of departure, you'll get an entirely new type into service early enough to make a difference.
I'd consider the avoidance of using silver in the bearings' plating an economical decision, and Calum also points out that the DB 628 installation had additional weight and drag (as the Merlin 61 had in the Spitfire), while a calculated performance comparison showed that the Me 109G with GM-1 system had superior high-altitude performance over its DB 628-engined counterpart, so there was a more economical alternative to the DB 628. (And in 1944, it would have competed against the DB 605D, which gave quite good altitude power too despite being a single-stage supercharged engine only.)
I think this may actually be true for all the nations. If you accept the end date of October 31 1940 as stated on Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised to find that most if not all combat aircraft that saw meaningful production and front-line service during the war had already started their development by this time, even if only at the level of concept sketches and rough performance estimates.I'm not sure that with the end of the Battle of Britain as point of departure, you'll get an entirely new type into service early enough to make a difference.
Since Calum's book has a power curve for the DB 628, which I had never seen previously, here's a quick and dirty estimate for a Me 109K with a DB 605DC and MW versus the same aircraft with a DB 628.
I've assumed that the DB 628 has the same reduction gear ratio and the same propeller as the DB 605DB, and that it is integrated into the airframe with the exact same drag as the DB 605DB - assumptions that are almost certainly wrong
There's actually two ways to do this:Hi Tomo,
IMO - if the LW cannot out-perform the escorts (probem arising already by mid-1943, and became a big one by early 1944), their fighters will became irrelevant.
Very good point, whatever we do with the cannon can only achieve a small improvement of the overall situation, while an improvement of the gun platforms themselves will be necessary to totally change the picture. And I don't believe that achieving parity will be enough - like Galland recognized, it will take a quantum leap!
In other words, the Luftwaffe would be screwed even if in 1944, they'd fly Mustangs with Fw 190-armament.
As I don't believe there's any way a pure jet fighter will be ready by early 1944, when it counts, I wonder if it would have been possible to introduce a lower-developed, radial-flow compressor jet engine in a mixed-propulsion fighter, perhaps based on a Fw 190, with the longer fuselage, the jet in the rear fuselage (where the large diameter of the radial compressor wouldn't affect drag) and a new central wing section containing extra fuel tanks and providing the wing area needed for the increased take-off weight. Sort of a radial-engined Dora with Ta 152-style wingroot re-design ...
It won't provide full Me 262-style performance, but from looking at the (projected) performance figures of post-war US mixed-propulsion fighter, I think it might have made the "Mixwürger" quite dangerous at bomber altitudes, while avoiding the pure-jet typical take-off/landing limitations, the asymmetric thrust issues the Me 262 had, and it would have been more fuel efficient as the jet engine would only have to run once when combat was imminent. Additionally, using only a single jet engine per fighter would have allowed for a quick introduction of jet power in the beginning, when powerplant production wouldn't have been at full pace yet.
(The Ryan Fireball gained 175 km/h top speed from 6.3 kN jet thrust, which really is a leap ahead in performance.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Start with uk75 #27 and cd #97. The strict A to OP was that Luftwaffe could do nothing, 10/40, other than what it did: which was to attempt role-change for its interdictor Medium Bombers, changed from Day deleters of marshalling yards, armour lagers, airfields, POL (Army Co-op), to Night deleters of the ports, Achilles heel to UK's ability to bother anybody, anywhere.
Modest German garrisons would then have been Norway-Pyrenees, Friendship Pacts with Spain/Portugal. Barbarrosa is launched 6/41; Italy, Finland, Balkan Axis equipped and motivated; Greece, Turkey ignored for now - until they see the way the wind blows. Beating General Winter, all over by Christmas.
a) the kit they had would not soon change - so Medium Bombers of modest payload, so the only Night targets would be visible ports.
b) all over by Christmas. It was the deferral of Barbarossa from Spring to July that ran it into General Winter. That delay was caused by Musso's solo diversion into Greece, which, I suggest, would not have happened in my scenario of Luftwaffe taking out UK ports, so causing UK to cease hostiliites, so freeing Axis to go earlier East. Germany would harness all its resources to go straight through Belarus/Ukraine. (and other writers have surmised that If they had treated local civilians better, they would have been seen as liberators).
As someone who favours the Mosquito over the four engined heavies I would suggest a similar route for the Luftwaffe.
Taking out British airfields and key industry with fast low level accurate strikes would have made it much barder for the RAF and RN as well as hampering plans for D Day.