Luftwaffe "sanity options 2.0", 1935-43

[tomo pauk]

The very first FW190 flew with a BMW 139, a twin-row 132. It gave terrible overheating problems, which is why FW changed to the BMW 801, an engine that was also simpler to make as it had two valves per cylinder instead of four.

BMW 139 was a 14 cylinder engine. BMW never used 4 valve head on either 132, 139 or 801.
The 139 was designed with a heart failure built-in - a single triple bearing was between the crank throws (not the last time German engineers were trying to be too smart for their own good); reference the "BMW flugtreibwerke" book*, pg. 110. BMW redesigned it into the 801, with single bearings on both end and at center, engine gaining 200+ kg and a bit of length in the process.
Germans were of opinion that both R-2600 and Hercules (despite it's sleeve valves) were faster to make than the BMW 801 by some 20-30% in manhour cost, FWIW.

*also available in English language (I've bought the German-language version because it was half price of the English-language version, and was wary of translation issues)

 

[tomo pauk]

Using a radial on the 109T would make it even worse. The tail is way too small and it doesn’t address the real problem of the narrow track u/c - a third of 109s were written off in landing accidents and that’s on land, not on a pitching carrier. Seafires had a marginally wider track and most of those had landing issues.

I'm not sure who suggested using radial on the 109T.
My suggestion is that radial-powered 109 uses the big wings from the 109T, thus coupling more favorable wing loading with the wide-set undercarriage.

Seafires were with the more narrow track than 109s (until 40 series from 1945), let alone when compared with radial-powered 109 prototypes.

 

[Rizcession]

The very first FW190 flew with a BMW 139, a twin-row 132. It gave terrible overheating problems, which is why FW changed to the BMW 801, an engine that was also simpler to make as it had two valves per cylinder instead of four.

BMW139 was an engine developed for bombers in 1935-1936 that got used by the Fw190V1, the earliest prototype, before the Fw190 was properly developed. BMW801 was a completely new engine drawing from the experiences of the Bramo329 and BMW139 with tech and industry available in 1938 that got used by the Fw190V5 alongside the Command Device for the engine. Neither situation is comparable to if the Luftwaffe was planning for an Fw190 style plane in 1935. The BMW and Bramo engines would have turned out different, and there probably wouldn't be a BMW801.

 

[tomo pauk]

BMW139 was an engine developed for bombers in 1935-1936

Source?

BMW801 was a completely new engine drawing from the experiences of the Bramo329 and BMW139 with tech and industry available in 1938 that got used by the Fw190V5 alongside the Command Device for the engine. Neither situation is comparable to if the Luftwaffe was planning for an Fw190 style plane in 1935. The BMW and Bramo engines would have turned out different, and there probably wouldn't be a BMW801.

German engine options and possibilities would've probably took a much different turn if there was no BMW takeover of the Bramo in 1938, and RLM stepping out dictating to BMW that it needs to cancel their 116 and 117 V12 engines and focus on radial engines. Indeed the 801 would never see the light of the day.
The Bramo 329 might, though.
BMW 801 still used bore and stroke of the 139, and presumably supercharger, pistons, rods and cylinders. Completely new were the crankcase and crankshaft.

 

[mack8]

BMW 139 was a 14 cylinder engine. BMW never used 4 valve head on either 132, 139 or 801.
The 139 was designed with a heart failure built-in - a single triple bearing was between the crank throws (not the last time German engineers were trying to be too smart for their own good); reference the "BMW flugtreibwerke" book*, pg. 110. BMW redesigned it into the 801, with single bearings on both end and at center, engine gaining 200+ kg and a bit of length in the process.
Germans were of opinion that both R-2600 and Hercules (despite it's sleeve valves) were faster to make than the BMW 801 by some 20-30% in manhour cost, FWIW.

*also available in English language (I've bought the German-language version because it was half price of the English-language version, and was wary of translation issues)

That sound like a great book. Is there any info whether the Bramo-329 had the built in "heart failure" as well, or it had 3 bearings normally positioned at both ends and center? And did the BMW-139 had the Komandogerat, or this was only added to the 801 based on Bramo's know-how, which i understand was already using such a device on the 323?

I'm always in two minds whether BMW and Bramo should either join earlier, or not at all. In the first option, the joint knowledge could perhaps result in the BMW-801 appearing in 1938-39, with 3 separate bearings, Komandogerat etc., allowing the FW-190 to be designed around it from the start (rather than redesigned later), saving development time.
The second option, they remain separate and ordered to work on complementing rather than competing designs, ie the 14 cylinder BMW-139 but somehow it needs the 3 separate bearings from the start plus the Komandogerat, while Bramo will work on an 18 cylinder 2000 PS class engine, this serving as a back-up/complement to the Jumo-222, which MUST stick to the 2000 PS rating and not get developed to death.

And of course, the DB-603 must NOT be cancelled in 1937, with 1500 PS prototypes ready in 1938-39.

i'm also on two minds regarding the eventually excellent Jumo-213, should it be cancelled altogether with all Jumo hands focusing on the Jumo-222, or on the contrary, the 213 should have the FIRST priority to get it working asap? But this will more or less duplicate the DB-603, which goes counter to my complementing rather than competing approach.

 

[tomo pauk]

That sound like a great book. Is there any info whether the Bramo-329 had the built in "heart failure" as well, or it had 3 bearings normally positioned at both ends and center? And did the BMW-139 had the Komandogerat, or this was only added to the 801 based on Bramo's know-how, which i understand was already using such a device on the 323?

Unfortunately, the info you look for is not to be found in that book.
The 'single lever' engine control system seem to be 1st used on the Bramo 323, however, at least going with what is written in the 'Flugmotoren und strahltriebwerke' book.

I'm always in two minds whether BMW and Bramo should either join earlier, or not at all. In the first option, the joint knowledge could perhaps result in the BMW-801 appearing in 1938-39, with 3 separate bearings, Komandogerat etc., allowing the FW-190 to be designed around it from the start (rather than redesigned later), saving development time.
The second option, they remain separate and ordered to work on complementing rather than competing designs, ie the 14 cylinder BMW-139 but somehow it needs the 3 separate bearings from the start plus the Komandogerat, while Bramo will work on an 18 cylinder 2000 PS class engine, this serving as a back-up/complement to the Jumo-222, which MUST stick to the 2000 PS rating and not get developed to death.

An earlier merger might've open the doors for an imperfect 14 cyl engine to be in service by 1939 instead of 1941. That agian allows for a perfected 14 cyl radial for 1941 (instead of having huge issues with the 801 until the late 1942), and also speeding up an 18 cyl radial doing 2000 HP on 87 oct for mid-war. Meaning that, indeed, Jumo 222 has a workable alternative.
Another path that was not taken might've been an equivalent of the 801E (ie. the one with good S/C), or even the 2-stage version for mid-war, for a 700 km/h Fw 190A.

Seeing that X24 engines were always with a host of problems, how about a H24 (or H16) alternative to be made instead of the 222?

And of course, the DB-603 must NOT be cancelled in 1937, with 1500 PS prototypes ready in 1938-39.

i'm also on two minds regarding the eventually excellent Jumo-213, should it be cancelled altogether with all Jumo hands focusing on the Jumo-222, or on the contrary, the 213 should have the FIRST priority to get it working asap? But this will more or less duplicate the DB-603, which goes counter to my complementing rather than competing approach.

Calum Douglas noted, IIRC 28, engine versions the DB was working on by 1938-39 (including the W24, H24 and V16 engines). Culling that mess, and focusing insead on the 601 and 603 types seems to me like a prudent thing to do. Even having a 1500 HP DB 603 in 1941 is a boon.
Alternative to the 213 should've been the 2-stage 211, IMO.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

I wonder if the Bramo 300 would have been a better choice than the BMW 139 or 801 if there was no merger in the first place.

 

[Rizcession]

Source?

In this case, I take it for granted, the Ural Bomber Do19 used Bramo radials, the Ju89 used inlines, but the successors in the Ju90 and Ju290 used BMW radials, the Twin Wasp and Twin Hornet, also similar to these engines, were also applied to bombers and transports, though the Twin Hornet never got into service. Main point: the use of 14-cylinder radials for fighters was a later development, and therefore the development of the Bramo329 and BMW139 would be changed if this was an earlier development.

 

[tomo pauk]

I wonder if the Bramo 300 would have been a better choice than the BMW 139 or 801 if there was no merger in the first place.

Any details about the Bramo 300?

In this case, I take it for granted, the Ural Bomber Do19 used Bramo radials, the Ju89 used inlines, but the successors in the Ju90 and Ju290 used BMW radials, the Twin Wasp and Twin Hornet, also similar to these engines, were also applied to bombers and transports, though the Twin Hornet never got into service.

People were using what they had. For most of the engine-making countries, 2-row radials became an option some time in second half of 1930.
Italians used the 14cyl radials on their fighters once available, same for the French or Japanese. Polikarpov designed two fighters around 2-row radials in 1940-41. Twin Wasp powered P-35s, 36s, F4Fs.

Main point: the use of 14-cylinder radials for fighters was a later development, and therefore the development of the Bramo329 and BMW139 would be changed if this was an earlier development.

The whole idea of 14 cyl radials - and 2-row radials with fixed cylinders in general - was still new in early 1930s, and a lot of companies made a mess doing it, like G&R with 14K, or Alfa with twinning the Jupiter. Armstrong-Siddeley 14 cyl radials were a mess, eg. the Tiger offering a power of 9 cyl radials coupled with complexity and price of 14 cyl engines. Bristol (Fedden, actually) was of opinion that only sleeve valves will work on 2-row radials.
It took a lot of time, money and effort to iron out the bugs and came out with a reliable, military-grade 14 cyl engine (since we discuss military A/C). Germany was later still, without the domestic-born modern radial as a staring point (yes, both Bramo and BMW much improved the 9 cyl radials they bought licence for).

All of that meant that 14 cyl radials will indeed be later developments, while the V12-powered aircraft were a thing even in the ww1.

added: From Focke Wulf's POV, going with BMW 139 made a lot of sense, since it was supposed to give about 40% more power than the DB 601A, or about 50% more than the Jumo 211A, on a modest weight, and with drag kept at minimum by some smart (sometimes too smart for their own good) design of the installation, with blended intake for the S/C, with fan for cooling and streamlined nose. Slap that engine on a really small fighter (wing on the 1st Fw 190 prototypes was smaller than what Bf 109 had), and there is a great performer. Or at least so they thought.

 

[cortz#9]

Ideal Heinkel He-162.

A late war proposed variant.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

According to my search of the thread nobody's suggested fitting drop tanks to the Bf109s sooner. AFAIK the Luftwaffe had been using them since the Spanish Civil War and fitting the Bf109s with drop tanks in the Battle of Britain is something that they could have easily done. Is my "AFAIK" correct?

And according to my other search of the thread nobody's suggested that the Bf110s should have used boom and zoom tactics during the Battle of Britain, which AFAIK would have greatly improved their effectiveness. Is that "AFAIK" correct too?

 

[mack8]

Fully agree about drop tanks for 109 and 110 too. And can add things like working on the 109F without interruption so at least a part of the JGs would fly F-1 models in summer 1940 (but with two MG FFs in the wings). Between drop tanks and the superior F-1 and then F-2 (with axial 20 mm MG-151, as they should never build the 15mm version), the RAF would be in serious trouble.

 

[mack8]

Any details about the Bramo 300?

As i understand, this was an 18 cylinder engine developed before the merger, the BMW competitor was BMW-140. The Bramo-300 apparently reached 2000PS on the stand, so that would mean prototypes were built.
PS: Look at Wurger's posts here:

Bramo 329 and friends

Hi, Brandenburgische Motorenwerke GmbH, alias BRAMO, succeeded Siemens & Halske, and then SAM in the aero engine business until merged with BMW in 1938. These two were rivals in the radial engine sector and Bramo developed a series of interesting designs stemming remotelly from the Bristol...

www.secretprojects.co.uk

 

[tomo pauk]

According to my search of the thread nobody's suggested fitting drop tanks to the Bf109s sooner. AFAIK the Luftwaffe had been using them since the Spanish Civil War and fitting the Bf109s with drop tanks in the Battle of Britain is something that they could have easily done. Is my "AFAIK" correct?

And according to my other search of the thread nobody's suggested that the Bf110s should have used boom and zoom tactics during the Battle of Britain, which AFAIK would have greatly improved their effectiveness. Is that "AFAIK" correct too?

Indeed, the drop tank is a must for the 109s; drop tank was standard issue eg. on the Hs 123 already in 1936-37. The 300L drop tanks should've enable the 109 to escort bombers through almost all England and Wales, instead of just past London.
Bf 110s used boom and zoom during the BoB when not constrained with dictum of close escort, LW's fighters were supposed to used BnZ anyway. OTOH - I don't see any reason why should RLM buy the Bf 110 in the 1st place, despite the 110 having a positive exhange vs. the RAF (1:1.2 IIRC; 1:1.4 for the 109).

Luftwaffe should also seriously consider the big drum for the MG FF & FFM to increase the combat endurance, their 60 rd drums will be empty in 7 seconds of firing. Big drum was a low hanging fruit.

Fully agree about drop tanks for 109 and 110 too. And can add things like working on the 109F without interruption so at least a part of the JGs would fly F-1 models in summer 1940 ( but with two MG FFs in the wings). Between drop tanks and the superior F-1 and then F-2 (with axial 20 mm MG-151, as they should never build the 15mm version), the RAF would be in serious trouble.

An in-between solution for the draggy 109E was mooted, the project that had retractable tailwheel, strut-less tail, better ram air intake, new cockpit and oil cooler.
side elevation
Note sure what were the results, but even halving the difference vs. the 109F would mean a ~580 km/h 109E on the DB 601 engine, and probably ~590 with the 601N? This way the 109E is the fastest fighter now, not the Spitfire, with Hurricane dropping on an even lower level.
Lower drag also improves mileage.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Maritime Luftwaffe Part 1

Hindsight tells us that Germany should have accumulated a much larger stock of magnetic mines between 1935 & 1939, because we know that war will come in 1939 instead of not until at least 1942. However, did Germany have the industrial resources to do it?

What would become X. Fliegerkorps had 8 staffeln in September 1939 comprising 6 with He111s and the Luftwaffes first 2 staffeln of Ju88s. They would be expanded into two full strength Kampfgeswadern (KG26 & KG30) with a total of 18 staffeln before Germany invaded Norway. This was a massive improvement in terms of quantity and quality to the 2 squadrons of Vickers Vildebeests in RAF Coastal Command. However, the British anti-shipping squadrons had an effective torpedo and their German equivalents didn't & they wouldn't get one until 1942. Therefore, the Luftwaffe has to have an effective torpedo in large scale service by September 1939 ITTL.

Quote from Page 32 of "The Birth of the Luftwaffe" by Hanfried Schleiphake.

After April 1, 1934 the following units were formed as a beginning:

5 reconnaissance squadrons​

3 fighter squadrons​

5 bomber squadrons​

2 auxiliary bomber groups​

the stand-by unit at the disposal of the Ministry​

1 squadron of naval reconnaissance aircraft​

1 naval fighter squadron​

1 multi-purpose seaplane squadron​

1 air service towing plane squadron​

​

The last 4 units in the list were naval squadrons under Luftkreis-Kommando VI which (according to Michael Holm's website) was formed at Kiel on 01.04.34, but used the cover designation Gehobenes Luftamt VI from then until 31.03.35. It was renamed Luftkreis-Kommando 6 on 12.10.37, Luftwaffenkommando See on 04.02.38 and IOTL disbanded & replaced by replaced by General der Luftwaffe beim O.b.d.M. on 01.02.39. Konrad Zander a former Reichsmarine officer had been its commander throughout its existence.

01.02.39 was when the other Luftwaffenkommandos became Luftflotten and I think that Luftwaffenkommando See should have been renamed Luftflotte See instead of being disbanded.

The naval fighter staffel at Kiel became Jagdgeshwader 54 and Trägergruppe 186. The latter was to have been the air groups for Graff Zeppelin & Aircraft Carrier B. It had 2 staffeln of Bf109s and one squadron of Ju87s in September 1939. The Gruppe had was a Geschwader with 2 gruppen in all but name by October 1939, because it had a gruppestab & 3 Bf109 staffeln and a gruppestab & 3 staffeln of Ju87s. The former became III./JG77 & the latter became III./St.G.1 on 05.07.40. NB these units were transferred to the Luftwaffe's mainstream after construction of Graff Zeppelin was suspended and after Aircraft Carrier B was cancelled.

The single staffel of naval reconnaissance aircraft and single staffel of multi-purpose seaplanes had grown to a force of 15 Küstenfliegerstaffeln (literally coastal flying squadrons) under 5 gruppe stabs. This force grew to 19 staffeln under 8 gruppe stabs before by January 1940. However, the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe had agreed on a force of 27 Küstenfliegerstaffeln under 9 gruppe stabs. As we know that war is coming in 1939 instead of 1942 at the earliest the Luftwaffe should have formed as many of the 27 Küstenfliegerstaffeln and 9 gruppe stabs as possible by September 1939. However, Germany may not have the industrial resources to have done more ITTL than it did IOTL.

Also the equipment of the Küstenfliegerstaffeln was adequate to rubbish. The 15 squadrons at September 1939 included 6 with Do 18 twin-engine flying boats, 4 with He 59 twin-engine seaplanes, 2 with a mix of He60 single-engine seaplanes & He115 twin-engine seaplanes and 3 wholly equipped with He 60s singe-engine seaplanes. The He115 (which was replacing the He59) was an excellent example of its type, but He111s would have been better, while the Do18 was a death trap which the Avro Anson & Blackburn Skua could shoot down.

By the time Germany invaded Norway the 19 staffeln consisted of 6 with landplanes (3 with Do17Zs & 3 with He111Js), 5 with Do18 flying boats and 8 with seaplanes (4 with He 115s, one with He59s & He115s, 2 with He60s & He115s and one with He59s). The proportion of landplanes to flying boats & seaplanes increased from 6:13 to 8:11 in March 1941 when there were 3 staffeln with Do17Zs & Ju88As and 5 staffeln wholly equipped with Ju88As. Furthermore, the Bv138 had begun to replace the Do18 and the Ar196 had begun to replace the He60.

According to what I've read about the pre-war Maritime Luftwaffe IOTL the aircrew of the Küstenfliegerstaffeln knew that their aircraft were death traps and wanted to fly landplanes instead. However, when this was suggested to the top brass the reply was that they stood a much better chance of being rescued if shot down in an flying boat or seaplane rather than a landplane. To which the aircrew replied that they'd prefer to not be shot down in the first place and that the probability of rescue from a crashed flying boat or seaplane wasn't as a big an improvement over the probability of being rescued from a crashed landplane as their superiors claimed.

I think the Luftwaffe should have built more Do17s instead of Do18s which is possible because the prototype of the former flew in the autumn of 1934 and the latter few in the latter first flew on 15.03.35. I also think that more He111s should have been built instead of the He115 which is possible because the former made its first flight on 24.02.35 and the latter made its first flight in about October 1935. I was going to write that production of the He59 should have been terminated in favour of the He115 as soon as practicable, according to my source the last He59 was delivered in 1936. Production of the He59 and its replacement the Ar196 should be limited to the number required to equip the Bordfliegerstaffeln. Reducing the number of aircraft in production might allow more aircraft to be produced and therefore make the formation of more
Küstenfliegerstaffeln possible and reducing the loss rates of aircraft & aircrew by converting to landplanes also helps the Luftwaffe form more Küstenfliegerstaffeln.

6 of the 19 Küstenfliegerstaffeln in March 1940 & March 1941 were actually called Kampfstaffeln which belonged to KGr.606 & 806 the former was a new uint formed in November 1939 & the later was created by renaming Kü.Fl.Gr.506. The Luftwaffe eventually formed 4 Maritime Kampfgruppen (106, 506,606 & 806) of which one (KGr.606) was a new unit and the rest were converted . They were all absorbed into the Luftwafffe's mainstream between June & September 1942 when they became II.KG6, III./KG2, I./KG77 & III./KG54. Although KG77 became an anti-shipping formation.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Göring, Schmid and Udet receive most of the blame for the Luftwaffe's avoidable problems. Can anything be done to make them better at their jobs?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Indeed, the drop tank is a must for the 109s; drop tank was standard issue eg. on the Hs 123 already in 1936-37. The 300L drop tanks should've enable the 109 to escort bombers through almost all England and Wales, instead of just past London.

Re the thread "Luftwaffe focused on Liverpool docks". Does most of England include Liverpool?

Bf 110s used boom and zoom during the BoB when not constrained with dictum of close escort, LW's fighters were supposed to used BnZ anyway. OTOH - I don't see any reason why should RLM buy the Bf 110 in the 1st place, despite the 110 having a positive exchange vs. the RAF (1:1.2 IIRC; 1:1.4 for the 109).

Is an production exchange rate of two Bf109s for one Bf110 feasible? The reduction in types may help by allowing larger scale production techniques to be used.

Operationally two Bf109s may use the same fuel as one Bf110 and I think there would be enough ground crew because AFAIK the Luftwaffe had a surplus IOTL which was one of the reasons why some of them became ground troops in the Luftwaffe's field divisions.

Finding twice as many pilots may be a problem. However, some of them could be given to the Bulgarians, Finns, Hungarians, Romanians or even the Italians. which aught to improve the effectiveness of their air forces.

But what does the Luftwaffe do for a night fighter if it doesn't have the Bf110? Can more Ju88s be built in their place?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

"Build a better Me210, and Erhard Milch will beat a path to your door!”

Were the defects of the Me 210 family avoidable?

If the answer is yes, the lost production of OTL, when Germany stopped building Bf110s and Ju87s to build Me210s and then stop production of the Me210 to resume production of the Bf110 & Ju87 after the Me210 proved to be a failure, would have been avoided.

If the answer is no, then don't put the Me210 into production in the first place build more Bf110s & Ju87s instead. The number of extra Bf110s & Ju87s would have been more than the number of Me 210s, 310s & 410s built IOTL due to the production lost due to the frequent retooling of the factories IOTL.

 

[tomo pauk]

Göring, Schmid and Udet receive most of the blame for the Luftwaffe's avoidable problems. Can anything be done to make them better at their jobs?

Göring - it is my understanding that he was an 'interface' that made Hitler enter the circuit of Germany's top-crop politicians and rich people, who were wary of Hitler as an too aggressive and unstable man, almost a thug? It will take a removal of drugs the Fat Man was using to make him do less damage, so to say?
Udet - again, seems to me that he was not a person of ability to navigate through the politics, strategy, operations, tactics and hardware - all in the same time. Limiting him to propaganda, speed records and similar might've kept him from ending himself at least. Or, add another job, but just one to that?
I'm not familiar enough with Schmid in order to make an estimate.

"Build a better Me210, and Erhard Milch will beat a path to your door!”

Were the defects of the Me 210 family avoidable?

Longer fuselage seem to made the 210 useful, while not trying to kill it's crew.
We're still saddled with 18% t-t-c at root, similar as with Bf 110 (P-38 was at 16% and was still criticized sometimes as having a too thick profile, Mosquito was at 15%). Thick wings kill speed, even if the NACA 320 series (on 210) was more modern than the NACA 2R1 series (on the 110).

If the answer is yes, the lost production of OTL, when Germany stopped building Bf110s and Ju87s to build Me210s and then stop production of the Me210 to resume production of the Bf110 & Ju87 after the Me210 proved to be a failure, would have been avoided.

If the answer is no, then don't put the Me210 into production in the first place build more Bf110s & Ju87s instead. The number of extra Bf110s & Ju87s would have been more than the number of Me 210s, 310s & 410s built IOTL due to the production lost due to the frequent retooling of the factories IOTL.

If RLM buys the DB-powered Fw 187, both 110 and 210 will not be bought in the 1st place (only perhaps a pre-series Jumo-210 powered BF 110B get to be manufactured?). They gain a far superior long-range day fighter, that can be also bombed-up.

Is an production exchange rate of two Bf109s for one Bf110 feasible? The reduction in types may help by allowing larger scale production techniques to be used.

Operationally two Bf109s may use the same fuel as one Bf110 and I think there would be enough ground crew because AFAIK the Luftwaffe had a surplus IOTL which was one of the reasons why some of them became ground troops in the Luftwaffe's field divisions.

Finding twice as many pilots may be a problem. However, some of them could be given to the Bulgarians, Finns, Hungarians, Romanians or even the Italians. which aught to improve the effectiveness of their air forces.

I think that two 109s can be manufactured for each 110 that is not. Stick a drop tank on them so there is a reasonably long range to be had.
Germany needs to stop thinking they can do it all. Italians, Finns, Romanians etc. don't need to field obsolete MS.406s, Fokkers, PZLs and even biplane fighters if they can get 109s in good numbers early enough, that again has knock-on effects on how they fare in the air battles etc.

But what does the Luftwaffe do for a night fighter if it doesn't have the Bf110? Can more Ju88s be built in their place?

Make a tad more of Do 215s, or indeed Ju 88s.
Luftwaffe will need night fighters numbers increase long time after the BoB anyway.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

"Build more aircraft, and Erhard Milch will beat a path to your door!”

Could Germany have built more aircraft (and spares) 1935-43 ITTL? However, as the Nazis came to power in January 1933 that would be a better time to start.

AFAIK the German aircraft industry wasn't as well organised as it could have been and productivity wasn't as good as it could have been. That is (1) mass production methods could not be used because too many models & too many marks were in production and individual factories were building too many models & marks. And (2) there were too many changes in production plans, some of which were dictated by the enemy & the rest were self-inflicted and all led to a lot of lost production,

Are the "AFAIKs" correct? And if they are how many aircraft could Germany have built 1935-43 with the raw materials that were available?

AFAIK the Luftwaffe had the ground crew to absorb the extra production. E.g. I mentioned the transfer of some of the ground crew to form the field divisions in Post 137. However, a shortage of aircraft (rather than a shortage) of personnel retarded the growth of the Luftwaffe since before the POD.

The Luftwaffe would need more aircrew for the extra aircraft. Some of the extra aircraft would be trainers, but where do the instructors come from? OTOH the Luftwaffe borrowed aircraft & instructors from the training schools to bring the first-line units to full strength for major operations, which reduced the output of trained aircrew. The infamous was Stalingrad. Here the Luftwaffe has more aircraft and if it can find more instructors to train more aircrew there's less need to borrow aircraft & instructors from the training schools. Therefore no reduction in the output of trained aircrew and over time the gap between the number of extra aircrew and the number of extra aircraft narrows. The vicious circle of OTL is replaced by a virtuous circle ITTL.

The extra aircraft won't fly without fuel. Therefore, what can be done to increase Germany's supply of aviation fuel between 1935 and 1943?