Hs 123 remains in production

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#76

Post by kfbr392 » 12 May 2016, 16:21

True, you would have had fewer Do 17 in the Kampfgeschwader (now only with 100 Do 17E-1 and 32 Do 17M-1 on 01.09.39, and no further production) and a lower number of bombers in total.
Thats the trade-off. But I'd take 5 Hs 123C over 2 Do 17 every day.

And true, you have a gap of ca. 100 photo recon Do 215 in 1940 which you need to fill, I suggest by:
- modifying other older aircraft (Do 17E?, He 111E?) to fill that gap in the first half of 1940
- accelerating Ju 88D production in the second half of 1940 to the detriment of Ju 88A-5

Btw you would still have 213 Do 17P-1 in the recon role on 01.09.1939 because I am only talking about axing Do 17Z and Do 215.

Lastly, the Do 17Z (Bramo 323), Do 215 (DB 601) and Hs 123 (BMW 132) did not share the same engine type, but this is not a show-stopper, it's mearly another production planning issue.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#77

Post by stg 44 » 12 May 2016, 16:32

Well in 1939 and in France the Do17Z was pretty critical. I'd say the Hs123 was useful in Poland and France, but the Do17 was necessary. That inverts for Russia, where the Hs123 was necessary, but the Do17 unnecessary. In terms of production resources there is no major problem keeping Hs123 production going from 1938 onward so long as you don't shut it down. It was cheap and easy to make, so just keep it going and when the order comes to shut down the Do17 pass those resources to the Hs123 and ramp up production in the year between the Fall of France and Barbarossa. Especially if you're not making the Hs129 at all that means a lot of historical resources can then be plowed into the HS123 and there is little to no problem finding pilots for them prior to the 1942 fuel famine for training.

For Do215s by 1940 when they shut down Do17 production you can make Do215s from existing Do17s by adding the DB601 engine and some minor modifications of the wings. I'd say the rest of the Do17s then just use for flight training.

As to shutting down the Do17 according to Edward Homze's "Arming the Luftwaffe" the reason it wasn't stopped historically was the lag in the Ju88 getting ready and the need to keep up production to get medium bomber numbers up to what Hitler demanded AND intense lobbying by the Dornier firm that would likely have gone out of business without the contract, as their next major aircraft, the Do217, wasn't ready for mass production until 1941.

And to the engine issue the Bramo 323 and BMW engine that the Hs123 used were basically the same thing and made by the same company after the forced merger in 1938. Had the RLM made the effort to standardized production of the 9 cylinder radial engine types that would have meant more production for the BMW engines as the Bramo could be shut down once the Do17 is out of production. IIRC it was the last type that really used it.


User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#78

Post by T. A. Gardner » 12 May 2016, 19:33

If the utility of the Hs 123 was so high, why did no other combatant produce anything like it? I think the closest equivalent to it might be something like the Japanese Ki 51(Sonia). The Westland Lysander has similar performance but was withdrawn from tactical battlefield use by the end on 1940 at the latest. The Ki 51 stayed in service because the IJAAF could manage to keep the plane flying in harsh conditions (eg., in the face of limited resources, poor airfields, and maintenance).
The Western Allies got past those problems so such planes held little or no value to them. The Soviets, likewise, had sufficient resources to not have to resort to such an aircraft.

So, the best I can see is that the Hs 123 has usefulness in a limited role on the Eastern Front and only when not heavily opposed or facing serious AAA. Such aircraft didn't work for anyone else when they faced those conditions so why should it be different for the Germans?

It seems to me that the Hs 123 was a "poor man's" choice of better than nothing rather than the desired aircraft to do the job.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#79

Post by stg 44 » 12 May 2016, 19:55

The Soviets had the IL-2 and they produced it in huge numbers. The Lysander was in use throughout WW2 and was only retired in 1946.
The Ki-51 then was kept in service for the same reasons that the Hs123 should have been. The Wallies didn't need something like that because for one thing they faced a more technologically advanced foe than the Soviets and they were operating in Western Europe and in areas that were easy to logistically support so they could operate more modern aircraft and produce then in effectively unlimited numbers. They had a very different situation than the Germans did on the Eastern front.
So, the best I can see is that the Hs 123 has usefulness in a limited role on the Eastern Front and only when not heavily opposed or facing serious AAA. Such aircraft didn't work for anyone else when they faced those conditions so why should it be different for the Germans?

It seems to me that the Hs 123 was a "poor man's" choice of better than nothing rather than the desired aircraft to do the job.
The situation in 1941-45 in the East made it the ideal CAS aircraft; it was easy to maintain, rugged, could fly in any weather, use any airfield, and was very logistiically easy to support. It was a very low threat environment in terms of air and ground defenses in 1941-42 and even in late 1943 Richthofen said it was so useful that they should put it back into production and make heaps of them. So really it had use throughout the war in the East because it was a lot less demanding to face the Soviets than the Wallies in terms of aircraft survivability. Even the heavily out of date He111 was able to keep fighting in the East with tolerable losses due to the relatively low threat level they faced.

The 'poor man's choice' was actually an ideal aircraft for the demands of the front. It would have been a wildly poor choice against the Wallies except perhaps at night, but during the day given the situation it was perfect for the East because it was so low tech and the threat levels so low that it could function during daylight hours to get effect. I say that because of its historical record from the 1941-44 period when it was only withdrawn due to lack of spare parts.

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#80

Post by kfbr392 » 13 May 2016, 09:12

stg 44 wrote:Well in 1939 and in France the Do17Z was pretty critical. I'd say the Hs123 was useful in Poland and France, but the Do17 was necessary.

Disagree! The Do 17 was the "low performer" in the early war years. A Do 17Z with 1000kg of bombs (the maximum load!) had only a 330km combat radius.
When you call the Do 17Z critical, I suppose you mean those first day low level surprise attacks by Do 17's on Allied airfields?

Assume the ATL laid out, Hs 123C instead of Do17 Z and Do 215.
Germany would have had an extra ca. 1200 Hs 123C for the Westfeldzug!
The Ju 87 are now free to do (even more) tactical bombing. They would do most of the missions the Do 17Z did in OTL.
Some Hs 123's could also have done Do 17Z missions; a "what if" Hs 123C could have had a 250km combat radius with 450-700kg of bombs.
But forget about airfield attacks. What about all the other missions? There, 5 Hs 123C would have been much more valuable than 2 Do 17. The Westfeldzug was a Blitzkrieg; additional direct CAS would have been highly valuable.
Bombing French villages and factories using level bombers was not that productive in OTL.


One more "what if":
what if ... 700 Hs 123 had been operational and in action over Dunkirk 1940?
At an avg of 4 sorties/plane/day (a realistic figure for the Hs 123) that would have been 2800 sorties/day. Assuming a 16 hour day, that is 3 fresh Hs 123 arriving over Dunkirk every minute. With an avg time on station of 20min, you would have had 60 Hs 123 over Dunkirk at any time during the daylight hours.
They could have operated during bad weather (low and slow, dipping in and out of the low clouds).
They would have presented difficult targets for the Spitfires (as we discussed ealier in this thread).
They could have accurately dive bombed even small ships and ground targets.
They could have machine gunned individual "soft targets" ... (one of the Hs 123's nicknames was "fliegendes MG-Nest" - "flying machine gun nest")
Consider the sheer number of Hs 123 in the sky, the noise, the effect on Allied troops...

stg 44 wrote: ... intense lobbying by the Dornier firm that would likely have gone out of business without the contract, as their next major aircraft, the Do217, wasn't ready for mass production until 1941.
The Dornier plant could well have produced a Henschel aircraft under license 1938-41 and stayed in business that way. That's what many other producers did before and during the war (Siebel, Arado, Fieseler, etc.)
Last edited by kfbr392 on 13 May 2016, 18:05, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#81

Post by stg 44 » 13 May 2016, 18:04

Agree to disagree on the Do17. It was nearing the end of its useful life in 1940, but had an important role to play before the Ju88 was around in enough numbers and refined enough to replace it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... ern_Europe
Frankly the Battle of France was its last gasp, but without it the Kampfgeschwader would have been severely understrength for their operational missions. Perhaps you could have replaced them with somewhat more Heinkels, but there weren't enough Jumo and Daimler engines to go around for them; the Bramo engines were available in abundance though and the smaller Do17 was able to make better use of them.

There is no way that the Hs123C could have had the combat range of the Do17, nor equivalent payload over that range. Yes the Hs123 would have been better able to to CAS, but not at the ranges the Do17 was able to do low level strikes and interdiction attacks. As to the notion that the Luftwaffe could have supplied 700 Hs123s near the front at Dunkirk over the Ardennes (the only way to be close enough to have it in range) is absurd. Supply lines were stretched to the max supplying the Panzers and as it was the Me109 was having a severe problem being able to get close enough to the front due to having to fly from Germany. Having say 100 to maybe 200 Hs123s following with the Panzers is perhaps doable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_ ... _123A-1.29
Range: 860 km (463 nmi, 533 mi with drop tank; 480 km (298 mi) with 200 kg of bombs) [9]
And licensed aircraft production provides minimal profit due to the need to pay licensing fees for every unit of another company's design produced.

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#82

Post by kfbr392 » 13 May 2016, 20:25

stg 44 wrote: There is no way that the Hs123C could have had the combat range of the Do17, nor equivalent payload over that range. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_ ... _123A-1.29
Range: 860 km (463 nmi, 533 mi with drop tank; 480 km (298 mi) with 200 kg of bombs)
Those are the specs of the Hs 123A-1. It had 270l internal fuel and a 130l drop tank. Total of 400l of fuel.
The Hs 123V6 would have been the basis for the C series. The V6 is stated to have had a "vergrößerter Rumpftank" (enlarged fuselage tank).
Source: Höfling, Rudolf - Flugzeug Profile 42 - Henschel Hs 123, p.6
It is not stated how large this tank/ tanks would have been. But looking a cut-aways of the Hs 123A you see a lot of free space there.
Anyway, range of a Hs 123C with 200kg of bombs and the 130l drop tank should have been above 1000km. Oh, and wasn't there a 300l drop tank in August of 1940? Too late for Dunkirk, but since this is a "what if": what if the 300l drop tank had been available in August 1939 for the Hs 123C?
At short ranges, 700kg would have been able to be carried with the drop tank omitted since the engine was 40% stronger that the Hs 123A engine. Range should have been around 500-700km on internal fuel with 700kg of bombs I estimate.


Agree to totally disagree with you on the Do 17Z, a plane obsolete in 1940
Attachments
hs123-2.gif
Hs 123A-1
hs123a-1.jpg
Hs 123A-1

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#83

Post by stg 44 » 13 May 2016, 20:50

kfbr392 wrote:
stg 44 wrote: There is no way that the Hs123C could have had the combat range of the Do17, nor equivalent payload over that range. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_ ... _123A-1.29
Range: 860 km (463 nmi, 533 mi with drop tank; 480 km (298 mi) with 200 kg of bombs)
Those are the specs of the Hs 123A-1. It had 270l internal fuel and a 130l drop tank. Total of 400l of fuel.
The Hs 123V6 would have been the basis for the C series. The V6 is stated to have had a "vergrößerter Rumpftank" (enlarged fuselage tank).
Source: Höfling, Rudolf - Flugzeug Profile 42 - Henschel Hs 123, p.6
It is not stated how large this tank/ tanks would have been. But looking a cut-aways of the Hs 123A you see a lot of free space there.
Anyway, range of a Hs 123C with 200kg of bombs and the 130l drop tank should have been above 1000km. Oh, and wasn't there a 300l drop tank in August of 1940? Too late for Dunkirk, but since this is a "what if": what if the 300l drop tank had been available in August 1939 for the Hs 123C?
At short ranges, 700kg would have been able to be carried with the drop tank omitted since the engine was 40% stronger that the Hs 123A engine. Range should have been around 500-700km with 700kg of bombs I estimate.

Totally agree to disagree with you on the Do 17Z.
Agree to disagree on the Do17. Now the problem in 1940 with a drop tank equipped Hs123C is the lack of drop tanks available due to shortages of Aluminum in Germany and really not having one in production until later; the plywood models they had leaked and would explode as a result. So its not really an option in 1940 and dropping the ones they did have would have been a serious waste. Having an external tank makes them insanely vulnerable to ground fire and moots the entire purpose of the Hs123C being a tough CAS aircraft. So while the C series would have had a bigger fuel tank internally, it would have also had a more powerful/thirsty engine that might well moot the extra fuel in terms of range.

Historically the most forward Hs123s were at Cambrai as of May 23rd and stayed there until Fall Rot. In this scenario extra Hs123s would have been also with the armies advancing through the Netherlands and Belgium, as well as the Panzer thrust through the Ardennes (where they were historically), but wouldn't have all been available for Dunkirk in late May-early June.

But if you don't take the Hs123 out of production you really don't need a reduction in Do17 strength due to the general production accumulation that would build up between 1938-40. Plus the pilot situation wasn't a problem due to the large reserve that was in place prior to the Battle of France. Really we could have our cake and eat it too in terms of this What If

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#84

Post by kfbr392 » 13 May 2016, 20:53

stg 44 wrote:As to the notion that the Luftwaffe could have supplied 700 Hs123s near the front at Dunkirk over the Ardennes (the only way to be close enough to have it in range) is absurd.
Alas, wrong again.
Distance from Aachen to Dunkirk is 263km as the crow flies.
A Hs 123C can make it there with 200kg of bombs and a 130l drop tank or even on internal fuel with 200-450kg of bombs.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#85

Post by stg 44 » 13 May 2016, 21:01

kfbr392 wrote:
stg 44 wrote:As to the notion that the Luftwaffe could have supplied 700 Hs123s near the front at Dunkirk over the Ardennes (the only way to be close enough to have it in range) is absurd.
Alas, wrong again.
Distance from Aachen to Dunkirk is 263km as the crow flies.
A Hs 123C can make it there with 200kg of bombs and a 130l drop tank or even on internal fuel with 200-450kg of bombs.
Since you cannot quote the range of the Hs123C on internal fuel and historically there wasn't a drop tank available, this is unsupportable, just an assertion you're making without evidence. Also the distance as the crow flies is meaningless in terms of aircraft range, because it assumes that the aircraft will only fly in a straight line without deviation/navigation problems or wind/weather issues, which is rarely the case. Plus the Hs123s would also be wrapped up supporting all Army Groups in 1940, not just focusing on Dunkirk alone. Then there are serviceability and losses to factor in as well in terms of aircraft availability. Plus even assuming the entirely flight was perfect there is no chance for any linger time due to how far Dunkirk is from Aachen; they cannot even take time to form up and orient if the range numbers quoted are correct, due to the range. The operational radius of the Hs123 is more likely around 100km than 230km.

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#86

Post by kfbr392 » 13 May 2016, 21:04

stg 44 wrote:Having an external tank makes them insanely vulnerable to ground fire and moots the entire purpose of the Hs123C being a tough CAS aircraft. So while the C series would have had a bigger fuel tank internally, it would have also had a more powerful/thirsty engine that might well moot the extra fuel in terms of range.
well, drop the tank before you drop down to drop the bombs then.

as for extra fuel consumption:
the specific fuel consumption does not change increase that much when an engine is upgraded.
Specific fuel consumption: 322 g/(kW•h) (0.53 lb/(hp•h))
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_132 )

Fuel consumption is thus mainly a factor of how how high you rev the engine up. If you run a 660hp BMW132A engine at 500hp output, you have about the same fuel consumption as running a 960hp BMW132K at 500hp. Thus, if you run it a cruise speed, the delta in consumption is less pronounced that you assume.

But lets get back to topic: what do you say to my Dunkirk scenario, now that it is not absurd anymore?

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#87

Post by kfbr392 » 13 May 2016, 21:07

stg 44 wrote: Since you cannot quote the range of the Hs123C on internal fuel and historically there wasn't a drop tank available, this is unsupportable, just an assertion you're making without evidence.
Ok, assume 360l internal tank in Hs123C (not a stretch), and assume it carries the same 130l drop tank as the Hs 123A, and assume it has 4x50kg of bombs to go with that. Why are you finding this far fetched?
stg 44 wrote: Also the distance as the crow flies is meaningless in terms of aircraft range, because it assumes that the aircraft will only fly in a straight line without deviation/navigation problems or wind/weather issues, which is rarely the case.

no need to state the obvious.
and not all will be based in Aachen. Some will be closer.
stg 44 wrote: Then there are serviceability and losses to factor in as well in terms of aircraft availability
That is why from the "what if" 1200 Hs 123C available on May 9th I reduced it to 700 operational in Dunkirk.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#88

Post by stg 44 » 13 May 2016, 21:15

kfbr392 wrote:
stg 44 wrote:Having an external tank makes them insanely vulnerable to ground fire and moots the entire purpose of the Hs123C being a tough CAS aircraft. So while the C series would have had a bigger fuel tank internally, it would have also had a more powerful/thirsty engine that might well moot the extra fuel in terms of range.
well, drop the tank before you drop down to drop the bombs then.

as for extra fuel consumption:
the specific fuel consumption does not change increase that much when an engine is upgraded.
Specific fuel consumption: 322 g/(kW•h) (0.53 lb/(hp•h))
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_132 )

Fuel consumption is thus mainly a factor of how how high you rev the engine up. If you run a 660hp BMW132A engine at 500hp output, you have about the same fuel consumption as running a 960hp BMW132K at 500hp. Thus, if you run it a cruise speed, the delta in consumption is less pronounced that you assume.

But lets get back to topic: what do you say to my Dunkirk scenario, now that it is not absurd anymore?
Of course drop the tanks...if they exist to be dropped and it wouldn't be the plywood model that leaked and was too dangerous to use. And yes upgrading the power of an engine tends to consume more fuel, especially if it has to lift more weight, which precludes running the same engine at the same hp to get the same speed and range. Wikipedia's quote if for the D-series of the BMW132, not the K series that would equip the HS123C. We'd need to know its fuel consumption rate.

As to Dunkirk you're not going to get all Hs123s vectored in because they will be tasked with supporting units in combat all over the front, which is why they are a short legged CAS aircraft. You could perhaps get 100-200 of the closest ones to bomb the Allies at Dunkirk, but the rest will either have other tasks, be lost in combat/accidents, or be out of commission due to serviceability issues and damage.
kfbr392 wrote:
stg 44 wrote: Since you cannot quote the range of the Hs123C on internal fuel and historically there wasn't a drop tank available, this is unsupportable, just an assertion you're making without evidence.
Ok, assume 360l internal tank in Hs123C (not a stretch), and assume it carries the same 130l drop tank as the Hs 123A, and assume it has 4x50kg of bombs to go with that. Why are you finding this far fetched?
Why are we assuming an internal tank of that size? Where is that drop tank coming from in 1940? If that is the historical plywood model, it has the problems I already mentioned. Historically the Hs123 had to be based as close as possible to the front and due to the problems of supply through the Ardennes there is a limited amount that can be supplied near the tip of the spear.

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#89

Post by kfbr392 » 13 May 2016, 21:24

Look, you are totally hung up on the drop tank and range issue.

A military organization that had organized the march though the Ardennes, Maas crossing, and subsequent exploitation could surely have supplied fuel and bombs for 700 Hs 123C in lets say, the Brussels area. To a place where no drop tank would have been necessary.
Last edited by kfbr392 on 13 May 2016, 21:34, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

Re: Hs 123 remains in production

#90

Post by kfbr392 » 13 May 2016, 21:32

stg 44 wrote:Wikipedia's quote if for the D-series of the BMW132, not the K series that would equip the HS123C. We'd need to know its fuel consumption rate.
292 g/ kWh - its more fuel efficient.
Attachments
image1.jpg

Post Reply

Return to “What if”