Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Cantankerous
Member
Posts: 751
Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
Location: Newport Coast

Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by Cantankerous » 03 Feb 2021 20:16

What would the Luftwaffe's air war against the Eight Air Force over Europe have been like if the Heinkel He 162 Spatz combat jet had been deployed in 1942 rather than 1944, given that the He 162 was designed using non-strategic materials and the He 162 was designed to fly faster than the Me 262?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 9166
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 03 Feb 2021 20:29

The Allies have two extra years to figure out counter measures?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by T. A. Gardner » 03 Feb 2021 21:01

Not happening. What engine would they use? The early BMW 003 was a complete disaster when run on the Me 262 V1 about that time. The compressor section was badly designed and the second the airflow shifted from directly ahead, the engine suffered a compressor stall. This happened on the V1 just after take off when the pilot put the plane into a shallow turn. Both engines compressor stalled and couldn't be restarted the Me 262 prototype almost crashed.
The Jumo 004 wasn't ready, and BMW would spend nearly two years redesigning their compressor section with the help of Swiss turbine firm Brown Boveri.

To make this scenario happen, the Germans have to develop and deploy working, reasonably reliable, jet engines nearly two years early. If this were the case there are better designs already in the works like the He 280 and Me 262.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by maltesefalcon » 04 Feb 2021 01:13

From a strategic point of view the use of non-avgas type fuel was a good selling point. As was the use of wood to reduce the need for aluminum the long run. This may be offset by the need to find more skilled woodworkers for volume production.

The combination of piggy back engine configuration, high wing and twin tails offered a fairly restricted rear view. That being said, its high speed made it potent if handled by a skilled pilot.

But the biggest drawback was as stated, engine development. Not just ironing out the defects in the functional designs. Germany simply did not have a reliable source of the alloying elements sufficient for supplying high-temp alloy engine internals. So German jet engines of the period had very poor reliability. Unless Germany could sort that issue out, jet aircraft would never live up to their potential.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by T. A. Gardner » 04 Feb 2021 05:22

The other problem is the loss of the Tego process gluing factory. This is a problem created by the Nazi government allowing monopolies. Without Tego process bonding of wood, the He 162 becomes a fragile aircraft. Exacerbating this is that Henkel's design is 'twitchy.' That is in the hands of anyone but a very skilled pilot the plane can be a death trap in terms of flying it as a fighter. The roll rate is so high that it could cause the plane to structurally fail, particularly the tail section. The narrow landing gear could create problems during take off and landing.
The He 162 is a plane that when flown to its limits can easily exceed the structural limits of the airframe.

The result would almost certainly be a fairly high rate of non-combat losses due to pilots making mistakes flying a very unforgiving airplane.

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 05 Feb 2016 10:09
Location: Hill Country, Tejas

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by Thumpalumpacus » 04 Feb 2021 05:31

Do-335: Proven technology with superior performance compared to anything the Wallies had. If you're going for anything in 1942, that's the bet, I'd say.

It too came too late, as things unfolded.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 722
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by thaddeus_c » 04 Feb 2021 06:44

they had a better solution to air defense with ME-109Z Zwilling twin fuselage aircraft, the later Twin Mustang proved the concept, just not for the LW.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by T. A. Gardner » 04 Feb 2021 07:21

Thumpalumpacus wrote:
04 Feb 2021 05:31
Do-335: Proven technology with superior performance compared to anything the Wallies had. If you're going for anything in 1942, that's the bet, I'd say.

It too came too late, as things unfolded.
Improving extant technology wasn't going to win the air war for Germany. They needed a paradigm shift. Probably the best bet would be early adoption of a guided AAM. A simple beam rider would have been sufficient initially. Make it large enough to engage a bomber flying in formation on a steady course from say 2 to 4 km riding a beam into the target. Give it command and impact detonation where the pilot can set it off if it doesn't look like a solid hit. With say a 50 to 100 kg warhead and fragmentation, it would cripple or down a bomber even with a near miss.

Have the plane carry say 2 to 4 with the necessary simple radar-- a FuG 218 Neptun set with a more directional antenna would suffice. The radar is locked onto the target and the missile rides it to impact. You remove most of the cannon armament as weight compensation so the plane is still relatively maneuverable and fast.

Even if the plane carried just 2 missiles and the pilot released both on a single target with a high Pk for that combination at say 2 km, it means a bomber goes down and the intercept aircraft normally can evade interception and defensive fire. It would mean that the average pilot using a stern chase or head on attack could shoot down a bomber without much risk.
Against daytime US attacks in 1942 or 43, this would be a complete disrupter of US tactics.

This would give Germany time to develop a more sophisticated AAM to replace the simple beam rider. Sure, the US could evolve evasion tactics as well as possibly ECM against such a missile but it changes the whole dynamic of the air battle. If it is one fighter takes down one bomber per sortie, 60 to 100 fighters armed with these missiles intercepting the raid over time means losses become unsustainable.

Better for Germany, the missiles require less resources and skilled manpower to produce than cannons and ammunition.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 722
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by thaddeus_c » 04 Feb 2021 08:05

T. A. Gardner wrote:
04 Feb 2021 07:21
Improving extant technology wasn't going to win the air war for Germany. They needed a paradigm shift. Probably the best bet would be early adoption of a guided AAM. A simple beam rider would have been sufficient initially. Make it large enough to engage a bomber flying in formation on a steady course from say 2 to 4 km riding a beam into the target. Give it command and impact detonation where the pilot can set it off if it doesn't look like a solid hit. With say a 50 to 100 kg warhead and fragmentation, it would cripple or down a bomber even with a near miss.

Have the plane carry say 2 to 4 with the necessary simple radar-- a FuG 218 Neptun set with a more directional antenna would suffice. The radar is locked onto the target and the missile rides it to impact. You remove most of the cannon armament as weight compensation so the plane is still relatively maneuverable and fast.

Even if the plane carried just 2 missiles and the pilot released both on a single target with a high Pk for that combination at say 2 km, it means a bomber goes down and the intercept aircraft normally can evade interception and defensive fire. It would mean that the average pilot using a stern chase or head on attack could shoot down a bomber without much risk.
Against daytime US attacks in 1942 or 43, this would be a complete disrupter of US tactics.

This would give Germany time to develop a more sophisticated AAM to replace the simple beam rider. Sure, the US could evolve evasion tactics as well as possibly ECM against such a missile but it changes the whole dynamic of the air battle. If it is one fighter takes down one bomber per sortie, 60 to 100 fighters armed with these missiles intercepting the raid over time means losses become unsustainable.

Better for Germany, the missiles require less resources and skilled manpower to produce than cannons and ammunition.
what aircraft are you speculating using? the subtext of my advocating for ME-109Z was that it was enough of an improvement speed wise yet used existing production and (90%) same parts, but it would need the type of weapons you are suggesting, or at the very least an earlier R4M munition.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9866
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by Sid Guttridge » 04 Feb 2021 08:23

How are the Nazis going to "deploy" something in 1942 that did nor make its maiden flight until December 1944?

Cheers,

Sid

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by T. A. Gardner » 04 Feb 2021 09:26

thaddeus_c wrote:
04 Feb 2021 08:05
T. A. Gardner wrote:
04 Feb 2021 07:21
Improving extant technology wasn't going to win the air war for Germany. They needed a paradigm shift. Probably the best bet would be early adoption of a guided AAM. A simple beam rider would have been sufficient initially. Make it large enough to engage a bomber flying in formation on a steady course from say 2 to 4 km riding a beam into the target. Give it command and impact detonation where the pilot can set it off if it doesn't look like a solid hit. With say a 50 to 100 kg warhead and fragmentation, it would cripple or down a bomber even with a near miss.

Have the plane carry say 2 to 4 with the necessary simple radar-- a FuG 218 Neptun set with a more directional antenna would suffice. The radar is locked onto the target and the missile rides it to impact. You remove most of the cannon armament as weight compensation so the plane is still relatively maneuverable and fast.

Even if the plane carried just 2 missiles and the pilot released both on a single target with a high Pk for that combination at say 2 km, it means a bomber goes down and the intercept aircraft normally can evade interception and defensive fire. It would mean that the average pilot using a stern chase or head on attack could shoot down a bomber without much risk.
Against daytime US attacks in 1942 or 43, this would be a complete disrupter of US tactics.

This would give Germany time to develop a more sophisticated AAM to replace the simple beam rider. Sure, the US could evolve evasion tactics as well as possibly ECM against such a missile but it changes the whole dynamic of the air battle. If it is one fighter takes down one bomber per sortie, 60 to 100 fighters armed with these missiles intercepting the raid over time means losses become unsustainable.

Better for Germany, the missiles require less resources and skilled manpower to produce than cannons and ammunition.
what aircraft are you speculating using? the subtext of my advocating for ME-109Z was that it was enough of an improvement speed wise yet used existing production and (90%) same parts, but it would need the type of weapons you are suggesting, or at the very least an earlier R4M munition.
An Fw 190 could have carried two missiles. Any twin engine type could carry 2 to 4. The plane doesn't have to be maneuverable, just relatively fast and capable of reaching the necessary altitude.

If the Germans were to manufacture an AAM based on say a 15 or 21cm army rocket, adding control surfaces and a control section, it is easily conceivable that they could have had a basic beam riding AAM fairly quickly. You paint the target with the radar that now uses a directional antenna, say a conical scan dish similar to Wurtzburg but smaller since you only need a few km of range, and the missile centers on the conical scan.
Add a directional tail antenna for a radio command signal for detonation along with an impact fuze.
While useless against an escort, against a relatively slow, non-maneuvering bomber this could be very effective at 2 to 4 km. The flight time is just a few seconds and you remain out of range of defensive fire. Nail one bomber then evade and head for home.
Like I said, if you have 30 + such planes getting just one bomber each raids become unsustainable.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1702
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by Peter89 » 04 Feb 2021 09:42

The Germans chose the correct development path for the He-162; it should be cheap, easy to produce, it should use cheap fuel and it would require minimal crew training. The problem was that they didn't succeed at all, and ideas like that in 1942 would be well ahead of their time.

In 1942 the He-162s would not be deployed primarily in the defense of the Reich, but in Africa, Leningrad and the Caucasus, thus making it's design less and less relevant. The Messerschmitt factories produced aluminium ladders in 1941.

Most of the Germans' improvements in efficiency were forced upon them; they did not plan to do such improvements on their own.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

Russ3Z
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 19:49
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by Russ3Z » 04 Feb 2021 14:00

maltesefalcon wrote:
04 Feb 2021 01:13
Germany simply did not have a reliable source of the alloying elements sufficient for supplying high-temp alloy engine internals. So German jet engines of the period had very poor reliability. Unless Germany could sort that issue out, jet aircraft would never live up to their potential.
Was this true in 1942, when the Germans still controlled larger portions of Russia and therefore more mining areas? I don't know if said areas contained the ores needed for such elements, or if the mines were intact and shipping to Germany if so, but it does seem to make the question of earlier jet deployment, if possible, a bit more interesting.

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 05 Feb 2016 10:09
Location: Hill Country, Tejas

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by Thumpalumpacus » 04 Feb 2021 16:12

T. A. Gardner wrote:
04 Feb 2021 07:21
Thumpalumpacus wrote:
04 Feb 2021 05:31
Do-335: Proven technology with superior performance compared to anything the Wallies had. If you're going for anything in 1942, that's the bet, I'd say.

It too came too late, as things unfolded.
Improving extant technology wasn't going to win the air war for Germany. They needed a paradigm shift. Probably the best bet would be early adoption of a guided AAM. A simple beam rider would have been sufficient initially. Make it large enough to engage a bomber flying in formation on a steady course from say 2 to 4 km riding a beam into the target. Give it command and impact detonation where the pilot can set it off if it doesn't look like a solid hit. With say a 50 to 100 kg warhead and fragmentation, it would cripple or down a bomber even with a near miss.

Have the plane carry say 2 to 4 with the necessary simple radar-- a FuG 218 Neptun set with a more directional antenna would suffice. The radar is locked onto the target and the missile rides it to impact. You remove most of the cannon armament as weight compensation so the plane is still relatively maneuverable and fast.

Even if the plane carried just 2 missiles and the pilot released both on a single target with a high Pk for that combination at say 2 km, it means a bomber goes down and the intercept aircraft normally can evade interception and defensive fire. It would mean that the average pilot using a stern chase or head on attack could shoot down a bomber without much risk.
Against daytime US attacks in 1942 or 43, this would be a complete disrupter of US tactics.

This would give Germany time to develop a more sophisticated AAM to replace the simple beam rider. Sure, the US could evolve evasion tactics as well as possibly ECM against such a missile but it changes the whole dynamic of the air battle. If it is one fighter takes down one bomber per sortie, 60 to 100 fighters armed with these missiles intercepting the raid over time means losses become unsustainable.

Better for Germany, the missiles require less resources and skilled manpower to produce than cannons and ammunition.
Yeah, I was talking about fighters, where unreliable jet engines rendered them irrelevant, for the most part. I wasn't advocating the eschewal of all tech (especially guided weapons!), just saying that if I'm going for an advanced fighter in 1942, I'm going for one whose engines are proven tech.

User avatar
Cantankerous
Member
Posts: 751
Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
Location: Newport Coast

Re: Nazis deploy He 162 in 1942 rather than 1944

Post by Cantankerous » 04 Feb 2021 17:18

T. A. Gardner wrote:
03 Feb 2021 21:01
Not happening. What engine would they use? The early BMW 003 was a complete disaster when run on the Me 262 V1 about that time. The compressor section was badly designed and the second the airflow shifted from directly ahead, the engine suffered a compressor stall. This happened on the V1 just after take off when the pilot put the plane into a shallow turn. Both engines compressor stalled and couldn't be restarted the Me 262 prototype almost crashed.
The Jumo 004 wasn't ready, and BMW would spend nearly two years redesigning their compressor section with the help of Swiss turbine firm Brown Boveri.

To make this scenario happen, the Germans have to develop and deploy working, reasonably reliable, jet engines nearly two years early. If this were the case there are better designs already in the works like the He 280 and Me 262.
The He 280 and Me 262 had the turbojets slung under the wings, which was somehow a problem because it made plane a bit too heavy to fly faster than 530 miles per hour. Heinkel simply could have simply used the jet engine layout developed for the He 178 in a future jet fighter made from wood and fitted it with a more powerful version of the HeS 8, like the HeS 30, along with air intakes for the turbojet in the wing roots.

Return to “What if”