1933 RLM heavy fighter split into a long range fighter and an AT CAS plane

[Gudestein]

In OTL the RLM requested the following in 1933:

• Rüstungsflugzeug I for a multi-seat medium bomber
• Rüstungsflugzeug II for a tactical bomber
• Rüstungsflugzeug III for a single-seat fighter
• Rüstungsflugzeug IV for a two-seat heavy fighter

ITTL flugzeug IV is split into a long range heavily armed fighter (no priority for Ground attack role) and an anti-tank capable CAS aircraft.
The POD could be the realization that the SU planned massive tank armies as the Army would learn on their joint exercises.
How would it look? What would it develop into? What would be the consequences?

 

[tomo pauk]

Unless we say to the LW otherwise, the Bf 110 probably happens as-is, while an anti-tank capable A/C is a Ju 87 with two 2cm Flak under wings at 1st, with MK 101 following.

 

[Gudestein]

Thats quite underwhelming. 2 cm is possible but a very short range and fortunate angle as an anti tank gun. In addition to the gun there is the requirement to operate around enemy AA guns. Neither bf110 nor ju88 fit that role perfectly.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thats quite underwhelming. 2 cm is possible but a very short range and fortunate angle as an anti tank gun. In addition to the gun there is the requirement to operate around enemy AA guns. Neither bf110 nor ju88 fit that role perfectly.

What do you suggest?

 

[kmmontandon]

Thats quite underwhelming.

It's entirely in line with the thinking of the time. You aren't going to have designers in '33-'39 coming up with '44 solutions.

 

[Gudestein]

What do you suggest?

At least armor and 30 mm. So a smaller airframe (easier to armor).

It's entirely in line with the thinking of the time. You aren't going to have designers in '33-'39 coming up with '44 solutions.

Hs129 started in 1940, the pod is a earlier realized requirement for the need to shoot up tanks. The Char B being designed then went for 40 mm armor. Requires more than 20 mm guns.

 

[AdA]

The world's first dedicated AT CAS aircraft was the Polikarpov VIT of 1937, that had two HV 37mm guns and was heavily protected.
It was designed for a Tukhachevsy requirement for use within the framework of his Aeromechanization doctrine. It was the closest you can get to a A-10 in the 30s and a German analogue would suit the OP premisse quite well.

 

[Gudestein]

The world's first dedicated AT CAS aircraft was the Polikarpov VIT of 1937, that had two HV 37mm guns and was heavily protected.
It was designed for a Tukhachevsy requirement for use within the framework of his Aeromechanization doctrine. It was the closest you can get to a A-10 in the 30s and a German analogue would suit the OP premisse quite well.

Yes, that’s it. Proves the requirements are within conceptual reach. How would the German version be?
And how would it perform.

 

[tomo pauk]

At least armor and 30 mm. So a smaller airframe (easier to armor).

German 30mm program is a bit too late for 1940 (talking about series production, not prototypes), so the 37mm will be needed. Have the Fw 187 powered by BMW 132 radial engines of 900+ HP by 1938, outfitted with a pod containing a 37mm gun (probably either Flak or the AT gun; my prefered gun here is the naval 37mm C/30 actually) with magazine in fuselage. The MGs or MG FFs will probably have to be deleted, however.
Alteratively, one 37mm gun in one side blister, another in other side blister, staggered, ammo in fuselage, MG FFs and MG-17s deldeted, MG pack under fuselage.

Alternative to this is Ju 87 with Bramo 323 engine of 1000 HP and two 37mm guns (as light as possible) - cheaper that the Fw 187, but will be sluggish in flight.

Long-range fighter question: 1-engine type, or strictly 2-engine type?

 

[Gudestein]

German 30mm program is a bit too late for 1940 (talking about series production, not prototypes), so the 37mm will be needed. Have the Fw 187 powered by BMW 132 radial engines of 900+ HP by 1938, outfitted with a pod containing a 37mm gun (probably either Flak or the AT gun; my prefered gun here is the naval 37mm C/30 actually) with magazine in fuselage. The MGs or MG FFs will probably have to be deleted, however.
Alteratively, one 37mm gun in one side blister, another in other side blister, staggered, ammo in fuselage, MG FFs and MG-17s deldeted, MG pack under fuselage.

Alternative to this is Ju 87 with Bramo 323 engine of 1000 HP and two 37mm guns (as light as possible) - cheaper that the Fw 187, but will be sluggish in flight.

Long-range fighter question: 1-engine type, or strictly 2-engine type?

I like the attack aircraft here although it’s a 1933 call, so would likely be a new purpose built aircraft.
For the long range fighter it actually is a bit tricky. The bf110 could do a bit of everything, but was also a heavy fighter with regard to armament. I wonder what the heavy cannon of OTL bf110 were for. If ground attack, then range is the requirement remaining, if shooting bombers, then that role still needs to be filled.
They will need a night fighter later, but they don’t know that.
So I’m open for either one or two engines, but the requirements I could need somebody’s insight.

 

[tomo pauk]

So I’m open for either one or two engines,

1-engined: easiest might be to do a Bf 109 with a wing of greater span and area (perhaps via installing the wing plugs like it was done on the 109H but not as wide, or by using the wing from 109T as base), eight MG 17s (vs. 2 MG 17s carried by 109B), DB 600C engine while waiting for the DB 601A, 500L of internal fuel, drop tank facility.
2-engined: a Fw 187 equivalent (300-330 sq ft wing, not too big a fuselage), DB engines, twelve MG 17s, 1000 L of fuel, drop tanks capable.

MG 17s are suggested because they are belt-fed and because they are available from day 1.

 

[Gudestein]

1-engined: easiest might be to do a Bf 109 with a wing of greater span and area (perhaps via installing the wing plugs like it was done on the 109H but not as wide, or by using the wing from 109T as base), eight MG 17s (vs. 2 MG 17s carried by 109B), DB 600C engine while waiting for the DB 601A, 500L of internal fuel, drop tank facility.
2-engined: a Fw 187 equivalent (300-330 sq ft wing, not too big a fuselage), DB engines, twelve MG 17s, 1000 L of fuel, drop tanks capable.

MG 17s are suggested because they are belt-fed and because they are available from day 1.

Wasnt there problems fitting bigger fuel tanks in bf109?
what do you think the range would be?

 

[tomo pauk]

Wasnt there problems fitting bigger fuel tanks in bf109?
what do you think the range would be?

They went from 250-something liters from Jumo-powered types to 400L with 109E. The tank for MW 50 (85L) was installed behind that tank later in the war.
Range with 500+300L of fuel should be about 1200-1300 km with DB 601A engine. Bf 109E was rated up to 665 km on 400L of fuel, the Bf 110C with 635L per engine was rated for 1040 km; all for internal fuel.