Category Archives: WW2

World War 2 saw the airplane rise to even greater importance than in the first World War. Air superiority became a crucial component of battlefield operations and air forces were massively expanded during the conflict.The Allied and Axis sides of the war developed enormous war machines, capable of developing and rolling out unprecedented numbers of advanced new military equipment in rapid response to changing conditions on the battlefield, as well keeping up with the technological advances of adversaries.

High altitude bombing raids and night fighting were hallmarks of the War for Europe, whilst aircraft carrier battles pitched the American and Japanese fleets against one another. The technology of the day was pushed to it’s limit with the use of superchargers in aircraft engines, the introduction of radar, and the rapid development of the jet engine by the war’s end.

The period ended as the Nuclear Age and subsequent Cold War were ushered in by the tremendous and tragic blows to Japan’s wearied people.

Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C/T

italian flag Italy (1936-1943)
Racing Aircraft – 6 Built

The line-up of the Savoia Marchetti S.79C and the Fiat Br.20A (last two) in Istres before the start of the race on 20 August 1937. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]
The Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 was a three-engine medium aircraft developed by Savoia-Marchetti, also known as the Società Idrovolanti Alta Italia (SIAI) later SIAI-Savoia. Initially developed as a fast passenger transport aircraft, it was later adapted for use as a racing aircraft, and later as a medium bomber. From 1936 until 1939 it broke several records, both in the civil and military spheres with the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Royal Air Force), also becoming the fastest medium bomber in the world at the time. It was one of the most produced aircraft by Italy during the Fascist dictatorship and was used by 12 different air forces, both civil and military and remained in service until 1951 as a bomber for the Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force), and until 1959 as a bomber for the Lebanese Air Force.

History of the Project

During the 1930s, the Italian Air Force was among the world’s leading air forces, with cutting-edge manufacturing and designers.

Italo Balbo, a fervent fascist and Air Marshal, managed to break several records aboard several seaplanes of the Società Idrovolanti Alta Italia (Northern Italy Seaplane Company). In 1928 he made a bold request for the time, asking SIAI for an aircraft capable of taking off from Italy and reaching any location in Libya carrying 8 to 10 passengers. All in the shortest possible time.

It must be emphasized that the Italian fascist regime tended to support domestic efforts in any field or industry in order to bolster publicity and popular support, which is why Italo Balbo required a fast plane, to be able to outcompete French and British air transports on Africa-bound routes to Libya, Somalia, and Eritrea.

In early 1933, Australian nobleman Sir Mac Pherson Robinson created a challenge to reach Melbourne from London in a single intercontinental flight. In 1933 the SIAI decided to compete for the Mac Robinson Cup, and at the same time to satisfy Balbo. Seasoned engineer Alessandro Marchetti (1884-1966) was put at the helm of the project.SIAI put so much emphasis on the project, that Marchetti’s initial blueprints for the new S.79 were dated February 21, 1933.This cutting-edge project featured low wings, retractable landing gear, Handley Page flaps and three Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 engines of 900 hp each.

Subsequently Marchetti was forced to modify the blueprints, first with three FIAT A. 59 RC engines developed by the American Pratt & Whitney R-1690, finally ending up on Piaggio P. IX R.C. 40 engines of 610 hp developed from the French Gnome-Rhône 9K ‘Mistral’.

History of the Civilian Prototype

In May 1934, the last modifications to the project, and design of the first prototype were completed. The new plane was identified as S.79P or Passeggeri ( Passenger). It received the serial number 19001 and codename I-MAGO.

Through August and September of 1934, various parts of the aircraft were produced in SIAI factories in Sesto Calende in Lombardy, and were sent to the Novara Air Base in Piedmont . After being reassembled on October 8, 1934, and with SIAI test pilot Adriano Bacula and engineer Merizzi at the controls, the 19001 prototype made its first test flight.

The first Savoia-Marchetti S. 79 prototype, the I-MAGO with Piaggio engines at Cameri in the winter of 1934. [stormomagazine.com]
The aircraft proved promising during the tests. There were excellent results as the aircraft had excellent handling, was easy to fly, and had a comfortable passenger cabin. On the other hand the engines, with only 610 hp at maximum power was not enough for SIAI and Alessandro Marchetti.

Piaggio sent one of its technicians during flight tests, engineer Risaliti, to try to increase the power of the engines, but he failed, managing to bring the aircraft to only 360 km/h at an altitude of 100 meters, and 390 km/h at 3,000 meters, while carrying 3 tons of ballast.

These results were impressive for the time, the Junkers Ju 52 for example had a top speed of 290 km/h, but not enough for a modern plane like the S. 79.

These problems forced the Italian technicians to change the engines with more powerful and reliable ones.

This decision was taken also because the Piaggio P. IX R.C. 40 engines led to two different incidents. The first occurred on 28 October when they attempted a record Novara-Rome route which had to be canceled due to engine failures and the plane returned to Novara.The second accident led to the fire of the engines which fortunately was shut down before the prototype was destroyed.

SIAI therefore decided to remove the Piaggio engines in February 1935, and replaced them with the 650 hp Alfa Romeo 125 RC.35, developed from the British Bristol Pegasus.

Due to the larger diameter, the engines received a new cowling, and finally, on April 5, 1935 Bacula and Merizzi took the re-engineered prototype into the air again.

The new tests yielded very favorable results and the plane claimed several records, the first was to be the first three-engine civil transport to break 400 km/h, and the second to travel from Novara to Rome (500 km) in just 70 minutes, which they accomplished on May 10, 1935.

In Rome, Adriano Bacula had the opportunity to familiarize some Italian pilots on the S. 79. Interestingly a delegation of French aviators led by Minister of the Air Denain with the aces Mermoz and Rossi was in the Italian capital. The French pilots admired the new three-engine plane for its modern design and maximum velocity.

Among the Italian aviators who tested the aircraft there were Maggior Biseo and his colleagues, elites of the 1st Experimental Center who expressed much praise for the Chief of Staff of the Regia Aeronautica, General Valle, on the new vehicle.

Returning to Novara to receive some modifications, such as increased range, on May 26, 1935 the S. 79 was back in Rome with all the required changes including 2 new tanks in the wings for a total of 820 liters of fuel.

The aircraft was registered by the Royal Air Force MM. 260 (Matricola Militare /Military Serial Number) and assigned on June 14 to the 1st Experimental Center.

On August 1, 1936 General Valle flew from Rome to Massawa, Eritrea in just 12 hours of actual flight with a stopover in Cairo for refueling, and returned to Italy 4 days later.

On October 3, 1935 the Kingdom of Italy start the invasion of the neutral Ethiopian Empire to colonize it. The Savoia-Marchetti S. 79 prototype was deployed as liaison plane by General Valle.

The second flight was made on January 6, 1936 when the plane carried General Valle, Biseo, Tondi as well as technicians and specialists Gadda, Ghidelli and Bernazzani.

During the representative trip to Ethiopia which ended on January 18 in Grottaglie, Puglia, the plane traveled 15,000 km proving to be very fast and efficient.

The prototype, MM. 260, was assigned to the Experimental Center but was employed by the 12° Stormo Bombardamento Terrestre (12th Ground Bombing Wing), and was modified to carry 6 100 kg bombs. It was tested on 20 May 1936 by Lieutenant Colonel Biseo and Captain Lippi on the Furbara shooting range.

The tests were repeated with captains Paradisi and Moscatelli of the 12° Stormo who demonstrated that the aircraft was an excellent platform for bombing.

Bomber Variant

A pair of Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79M flying in formation over Sicily during the Second World War. [Wiki]
In December 1935, SIAI-Savoia proposed a military version of the S. 79 powered by the powerful Gnome-Rhône 14K Mistral Major 14 cylinders with a output of 725 hp at 2,000 rpm, hence the name of the prototype S. 79K. However, the General Staff of the Regia Aeronautica rejected the idea of powering their bombers with foreign engines, and ordered 24 S. 79Ms (M for Militare / Military) to be equipped with Italian-made engines.

Schematic showing the differences between the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C and the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79M. [Facebook]

S.M. 79 Racing Aircraft or Medium Bomber?

From the first batch of the S.M. 79M, 5 aircraft were modified during production to be used in the civil field, and initially renamed Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 83C, and then returned to the designation Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C for Corsa (Racing).

The Savoia-Marchetti flown by pilots Tondi and Moscatelli

This variant flew without armament, the observer gondola and bomb bay also lost its characteristic hump to increase the aerodynamics of the fuselage.

The autopilot system was then enhanced, the on-board instrumentation adjusted, the door on the left side replaced by a smaller hatch above the wing, and its range was increased by adding tanks instead of the bomb bay for a total of 7,000 liters of fuel.

Other improvements concerned the compressors which, when upgraded, allowed the use of 100 octane petrol Also the transceiver system was replaced with a Telefunken model of greater power and reliability. The propellers were substituted with new variable pitch propellers produced by the French Ratier. New larger radiators were added to better cool the engines and finally, the landing gear was fitted with tires capable of withstanding the maximum weight of the plane fully loaded.

This version was created to participate in the tender organized by the French Aero Club for August 1937 which was to fly to the Istres (Southern France) – Damascus – Le Bourget (near Paris) route for a total of 2,900 km.

For the race it was planned to involve a Caproni Ca. 405 ‘Procellaria’ and two FIAT B.R. 20 but due to delays the Ca. 405 could not participate and the SIAI-Savoia produced a sixth S.M. 79C.

Flying the six aircraft were all pilots of the 205ª Squadriglia da bombardamento “Sorci Verdi” of the 12° Stormo Bombardamento Terrestre, the only Italian pilots who had received a pilot’s license for this aircraft.

Apart from the eight Italian aircraft, there were four French aircraft, a Bloch M.B.160, a Farman F.223, a Caudron C-640 and a Breguet 470 Fulgur, the only English one, the De Havilland D.H.88 Comet.

All took off from 1725 hrs on 20 August 1937, the first plane to land in Damascus was the I-FILU after 6 hours and 51 minutes at an incredible speed of 426.42 km/h.

Partial ranking in Damascus
Pilots Aircraft Name Racing Number Qualified Average Speed
Biseo and Mussolini I-BIMU I-5 Terzo
Cupini and Paradisi I-CUPA I-11 Secondo 415 km/h
Fiori and Lucchini I-FILU I-13 Primo 426.42 km/h
Lippi and Castellani I-LICA I-7 Ottavo 352 km/h
Rovis and Trimboli I-ROTR I-12 Quinto
Tondi and Moscatelli I-TOMO I-6 Quarto

The partial ranking podium was all Italian, in fact in Damascus five to six of the S. 79Cs arrived before the other aircrafts, the sixth and seventh were the FIAT B.R. 20s with an average speed of 299 km/h and 382 km/h.

I-LICA had problems with the constant pitch of the right propeller forcing the drivers Lippi and Castellani to travel the Istres-Damascus route for another six hours with only two engines.

The ninth plane to arrive in Damascus was the De Havilland D.H.88 Comet with an average of 356 km/h while the first French plane landed with an average speed of 305 km/h.

During the stop, the planes refueled and fixed the propeller. Due to bad weather it was decided to change course for the return and to fly in formation, thus loading an additional 500 liters of fuel.

One of the six S. 79Cs refueled at Damascus, though unfortunately it’s impossible to determine which one it is. In the background the French four-engined Bloch M.B.160 is visible. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]
During take-off, one of the two FIAT B.R. 20 experienced rudder damage while the unfortunate I-LICA ended up hitting a pothole on the runway with the left wheel, breaking the landing gear and yawing violently to the left and making take-off impossible.

One hour after departure, the I-TOMO reported that it had a deficiency of 2,000 liters of fuel, while I-ROTR reported that it had to land in Ronchi due to excessive fuel consumption.

It was therefore decided to have the three remaining SM-79s arrive in Paris in formation. The plan was about to succeed, in fact I-BIMU sighted I-FILU and the I-CUPI but due to the lightning storms masking the transmissions, they could not make radio contact.

Biseo and Bruno Mussolini then decided to overtake the other two S.M. 79 to be recognized and make the formation, but when they reached the Alps they had to climb to 6,500 meters. However in doing so, they were forced to reduce the pitch of the propeller, and during the movement the central propeller went to the minimum pitch and jammed.

The two pilots then decided to land in Cameri where there were technicians who could repair their Ratier propellers. However, after a careful examination, during which the plane was refueled, the two pilots were informed that the propeller problem could not be repaired quickly. It was therefore decided to bring the central propeller to maximum pitch and the plane that had stopped for about 30 minutes took off again towards Paris.

The I-ROTR was unable to reach Ronchi due to lack of fuel and had to land in Pula where, after refueling, it was unable to restart because the electrical circuit of the starter magnet of the central engine had been damaged by hail.

Having repaired the fault, the plane continued the next morning to Bourget and was classified in 8th and last place.

The I-TOMO was unable to reach Ronchi and, again due to bad weather, had to land at the Lido of Venice where it ran aground, as the field was reduced to a quagmire by torrential rain, but thanks to the joint efforts of the airport staff and crew, the aircraft was able to leave after refueling.

The two FIATs also had to land due to problems.

Despite the bad weather and the unsatisfactory reliability of the propellers, at Le Bourget there were three S.M. 79s in the first three positions. The I-CUPI arrived at 1547 hrs on the 21st and circled up to 1602 hrs before running out of fuel, waiting in flight for the I-BUMU as the victory of Benito Mussolini’s son would have been a great benefit for the fascist propaganda. Then it was the turn of the I-FILU which landed at 1617 hrs, and finally at 1637 hrs Biseo and Mussolini arrived who, despite the stop, took a significant third place.

Four ground crew members ran to the I-11 S. 79C piloted by Cupini and Paradisi. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]
Fourth was the De Havilland D.H.88 Comet which landed at 1701 hrs; fifth the Fulgur Breguet at 1737 hrs; then came the Bloch 160, but having started much earlier than the I-TOMO which arrived at 2002 hrs it was ranked seventh, while the I-TOMO was sixth. The others were all withdrawn or unclassified.

Final ranking in Paris
Pilots Aircraft Name Racing Number Qualified Average Speed
Biseo and Mussolini I-BIMU I-5 Third
Cupini and Paradisi I-CUPA I-11 First 350 km/h
Fiori and Lucchini I-FILU I-13 Second
Lippi and Castellani I-LICA I-7 Unqualified
Rovis and Trimboli I-ROTR I-12 Eighth
tondi and Moscatelli I-TOMO I-6 Sixth

On 29 August from 1500 hrs to 1530 hrs all the Corsa type planes and the I-MAGO, which had been brought to Paris to witness the triumph of the other S.M. 79 returned to Italy at the Littorio Airport.

From Damascus, however, on 22 August, the organization of the return of the I-LICA to Italy began. The plane was disassembled and the fuselage, engines, tailings and systems were recovered and sent to Beirut, Lebanon and embarked on a merchant ship bound for Italy. The wing, not transportable by road, and other material, was sold in Damascus.

The victory was celebrated in Italy as overwhelming as both the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C and FIAT B.R. 20A were bomber aircraft adapted to racing aircraft while British and French aircraft were specially developed aircraft for air racing.

Italian pilots and ground crew members that participated in the race near the I-ROTR plane. Source: [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]
Despite the victory there were, especially abroad, those who criticized the planes, claiming that the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C would not have been able to participate in the New York – Paris (race which was canceled in favor of Istres – Damascus – Paris).

The front page of the French newspaper Paris-Soir with the news of the Italian victory [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]
SIAI brochure celebrating the victory of the Istres – Damascus – Le Bourget race [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]

The Decisive Test: Rome – Dakar – Rio

It was decided for various reasons to make a second record setting flight with the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C. This was mainly to disprove some articles that appeared in newspapers and magazines of the sector of foreign nations that had stated that the S.M. 79 were:

“expressly built for a vain policy of prestige and therefore unsuitable for military uses, difficult to maneuver, excessively loaded, too delicate: in short, devices unable to withstand comparisons of practical use with similar foreign ones”

The French newspapers accused the Savoia-Marchettis saying that they could never win in a Paris – New York race due to limited range.It was also decided to test the possibility of transporting passengers and letters from Italy to South America with land based planes.The 3 S.M. 79Cs, I-BIMU, I-FILU and I-CUPA were taken and modified by SIAI-Savoia technicians, Direttorato Generale Costruzioni Aeree or DGCA (General Directorate of Aeronautical Construction) and the aeronautical military engineers.

The changes concerned the replacement of the propellers with the classic SIAI-Savoia propellers, a complete overhaul of the engines, an enlargement of the fuel fillers to reduce refueling time, improved radio, navigation aids, and autopilot.

The maximum take-off weight of the new version, now renamed Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79T for Transatlantico (Transatlantic) was now nearly 14,000 kg, 3.5 tons more than the S.M. 79M.

After numerous test flights and tests carried up to December 1937, it was decided that the flight could be done.

The three aircraft were reassigned to different teams of pilots, Biseo and Paradisi took the I-BIMU now renamed I-BISE (MM. 359). Bruno Mussolini and Mancinelli took the I-FILU renamed I-BRUN (MM. 356) while Moscatelli and Castellani took the I-CUPA now named I-MONI (MM. 358).

The I-BISE during the Rome – Dakar route. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]
On the morning of January 24th and at 0728 hrs, the three S.M. 79T took off from Guidonia airport for Dakar, the first leg of the Italy – Brazil.

The planes would have been in constant radio contact with Guidonia and Rio de Janeiro, periodically communicating their position.

At 0830 hrs the planes reported that they had flown over Capo Carbonara in Sardinia and at 0915 hrs they flew over Bona starting to fly over the mountains of the Saharan Atlas. At 1130 hrs the formation commander announced that he had slightly changed the planned route, turning north due to strong wind. At 1330 hrs the devices signaled strong wind with sand clouds and at 1530 hrs they communicated that they were within sight of the Atlantic at Villa Cisneros. At 1630 hrs they flew over Port Etienne and at 1745 hrs San Louis.

Landing in Dakar took place regularly at 1845 hrs Italian time. All navigation took place at an altitude ranging between 4,000 and 5,000 meters where the engines gave maximum power.

The actual distance traveled by the aircraft was over 4,500 km in 10 hours and 50 minutes, the average speed of 419 km/h.

After refueling in Dakar the I-BISE it’s ready to start the transoceanic flight. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]
On the morning of January 25 at 0910 hrs (Italian time) the three planes left Dakar for Rio de Janeiro with a wing load of 220 kg due to the greater quantity of fuel and lubricant transported.

The navigation was done in close formation, which took place at an average altitude of 3,800 meters, but was disrupted in the central area of ​​the Atlantic by thunderstorms, headwinds, lightning and sudden showers of rain that forced the pilots to instrumental flight.

The I-MONI, due to a failure of the usual propeller, was forced to continue the flight with only two engines for 2,000 km of the crossing, significantly slowing its average speed to 312 km/h.

At 1730 hrs I-BISE and I-BRUN sighted the Brazilian coast and continued towards Rio de Janeiro, arriving at 2245 hrs at Dos Afensos airport in the midst of a crowd of people who arrived to celebrate the event.

Following a direct order from the commander of the I-MONI formation it headed to Natal where it landed at 1919 hrs for the necessary repairs. It should be noted that the plane could have made it to the finish line without any problems but the crew, tired from the crossing, preferred to land and repair the plane.

I-BISE and I-BRUN had thus completed an effective route of over 5,350 km (of which 5,150 km offshore) in 13 hours and 35 minutes at an average speed of 395 km/h.

The Rome – Rio de Janeiro connection took place within 39 hours and 17 minutes with 24 hours and 22 minutes of actual flight for an average of about 406 km/h on a route of 9.800 km. The I-MONI departed from Natal at 1158 hrs on January 28, and arrived regularly in Rio de Janeiro at 1742 hrs on the same day.

This showed that the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 were not “too delicate” aircraft as foreign press had claimed, capable of reaching South America even with a failed engine.

Photos of the crew of the three S.M. 79T that had made the transoceanic flight. Compare the propeller cap with the photos of the S.M. 79Cs and you could clearly see the difference from the SIAI-Savoia propellers and the Ratier ones. [modellismoitalia.altervista.org]
It should be emphasized that the crossing was not a mere move by fascist propaganda, in fact, it was specifically chosen to lengthen the journey going from Dakar to Rio de Janeiro (5,350 km) instead of Natal (3,150 km).

Another factor was the speed, an average of 406 km/h for 9,800 km had never been sustained, in a single crossing the S.M. 79T broke two records, the speed one on the Rome – Rio de Janeiro route and the highest average speed one on the 5,000 km journey.

Brazil

After the 24 January 1938 race, the three S.M. 79 Transatlantico were then presented to the Aviacao Militar Brasileira (Brazilian Military Aviation). On 27 April 1938 I-BISE, I-BRUN were bought and renumbered K-422, K-420 while I-MONI was donated by Italy and renumbered K-421.

On 9 May 1938 they were assigned to the Escola de Aviacão Militar (Military Aviation School), where Maggiore Nino Moscatelli acted as instructor on at least three flights on 28 June (serial not reported) and then 1 July 1938 with K-421 and 8 July 1938 with K-420 before to returning in Italy acting as a bomber pilot.

On 28 October 1938 K-420 (Italian military serial number MM. 356) was flown by Brazilian pilot Loyola Daher, experienced an accident during a take off but luckily was later repaired, for it was recorded as flying in September 1941. The K-420 retired from service from the Escola de Aviacão on 12 February 1943.

On 9 July 1939 an unidentified S.M. 79T flown by Major Rubens Canabarro Lucas set a speed record by flying from Porto Alegre to Rio in 2 hours and 50 minutes at an average speed of 423 km/h (263 mph).

On 29 June 1943 was the last flight of an S.M. 79T for the Brazilian Air Line made by K-422 piloted by pilot Maldonado.

The service of the S.M. 79T as a training aircraft ended on 25 October 1944 when K-421 and K-422 were officially grounded by the Escola de Aeronautica.

Civil Service

The I-TOMO, I-ROTR and the reconstructed I-LICA aircraft were modified with a cabin for 4 passengers, the rest of the plane was used for cargo transport. They were used for the Rome – Rio de Janeiro route since 1939 by the Italian civil airline Linea Aerea Transcontinentale Italiana or LATI (Eng: Italian Transcontinental Airlines) part of the Ala Littoria.

The three aircraft, whose name does not seem to be clear since some sources call them Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C, others S.M. 79T and others S.M. 79I, were used mainly for the transport of mail on the route Rome – Seville (Spain) – Lisbon (Portugal) – Villa Cisneros (Morocco) – Ilha do Sal (Cape Verde) – Recife (Brazil) – Rio de Janeiro.

At least one was diverted to the Regia Aeronautica in June 1940 when the Kingdom of Italy joined the Nazi Germany in the Second World War. The aircraft, I-ALAN was requisitioned by the Regia Aeronautica and used to transport military equipment from Italy to Abyssinia (Italian name for Ethiopia) while maintaining its civilian livery.

Unfortunately only 6 days after the beginning of the war, on the 16th of June 1940 the I-ALAN had some problems during a take-off from Benghazi in Libya and was forced to abort the departure.

During re-landing the undercarriage collapsed and the aircraft crashed on the runway without causing too much damage and without casualties.

The aircraft, impossible to repair due to lack of parts, was moved to the side of the runway and probably cannibalized for spare parts to be used on other Savoia-Marchetti.

The carcass of the I-ALAN remained abandoned on the side of the runway of Benghazi for a long time and the British troops found it there in February 1941 when they conquered the Libyan city.

The I-ALAN among numerous other abandoned fuselages at Benghazi Airport in 1941. [sites.google.com/site/lgarey/benghazigraveyard]
The I-ALAN when the British troops conquered the Benghazi Airport in 1941. [sites.google.com/site/lgarey/benghazigraveyard]
Not much is known about the other two aircraft, but they were probably used on the Atlantic route together with the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 83 (civil version of the S.M. 79) and the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 75.

At the beginning the crossing was carried out weekly: departure on Thursday from the Italian territory and collecting the Italian mail on the way, then, landing in the two Iberian countries, the Spanish and Portuguese mail was collected, arriving in Brazil, the Brazilian mail directed to the three European countries was loaded and the return journey was made.

After June 10, 1940, with the Italian declaration of war against France and the United Kingdom, the transatlantic flight had to be reduced to only one crossing per month. They were finally stopped on December 19, 1941 as a result of the entry into war of the United States, which controlled the Atlantic airspace and especially because the US government forced Brazil to break all diplomatic relations with Fascist Italy and therefore also to block the possibility of using their airports.

Italian civil airline Ala Littoria’s Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C in 1939 in the standard blu and white livery. [Wiki]

Camouflage and Markings

The planes were painted in a very flamboyant livery: Ruby Red with green and white lines.

The rudder had the Italian tricolor with the Savoia coat of arms in the center.

The lictor beams, symbol of the Italian Fascist Party, were painted on the engine cowlings, while on the fuselage, under the cockpit was written “S.M. 79. Savoia-Marchetti”.

In the center of the fuselage, the aircraft codes were written on the sides, inside a white rectangle with black borders.

Also on the sides were painted three green mice intent on laughing at each other, this was the symbol of 205ª Squadriglia da bombardamento “Sorci Verdi”, and in fact, in Italian, “Sorci Verdi” means green mice.

This symbol will then also be painted on the S.M 79M of the squadron during the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War.

On the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79T the livery was the same except for the codename written bigger without the white rectangle, and also because on the tail was added a small white rectangle with the codename of the aircraft during the first race.

After being delivered to the Aviacao Militar Brasileira, the aircraft were repainted green, with a yellow rudder. Brazilian serial numbers were then applied, painted in black on the sides and the “Brazilian Stars” on the wings.

The livery of S.M. 79C converted for civilian use was on an ivory white background with a blue line on the side.

Behind the cockpit was the inscription ‘ALA LITTORIA S.A. LINEE ATLANTICHE’, S.A. stands for “Società per Azioni” in English Joint-stock Company, the identification mark (in that case) I-ALAN and a Kingdom of Italy flag on the tail.

Gallery

Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 Transatlantico former I-BRUN in service with the Aviacao Militar Brasileira
Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79C, I-ALAN converted in mail plane before June 1940.
Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 Transatlantico former I-FILU piloted by Bruno Mussolini and Mancinelli during Rome – Dakar – Rio Race
Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79 Corsa with the livery of Cupini and Paradisi plane for the Istres – Damascus – Le Bourget Race
Savoia-Marchetti S. 79 prototype, the I-MAGO

Credits

  • Written by Arturo Giusti
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
  • Illustration by Godzilla

Sources

8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1933)
Anti-Aircraft Gun – 19,650 Built

8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role

With the growing use of aircraft during the First World War, many nations developed their own anti-aircraft weapons. Initially, these were mostly crude adaptations of existing weapons systems. During the interwar period, the development of dedicated anti-aircraft guns was initiated by many armies. Germany, while still under a ban on developing new weapons, would create the 8.8 cm Flak 18 anti-aircraft gun. The gun, while originally designed for the anti-aircraft role, was shown to possess excellent anti-tank firepower. This gun would see action for the first time during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and would continue serving with the Germans up to the end of World War II.

This article covers the use of the 8.8 cm Flak gun in the original anti-aircraft role. To learn more about the use of this gun in its more famous anti-tank role visit the Tank Encyclopedia website.

 

World War One Origins

Prior to the Great War, aircraft first saw service in military operations during the Italian occupation of Libya in 1911. These were used in limited numbers, mostly for reconnaissance, but also for conducting primitive bombing raids. During the First World War,  the mass adoption of aircraft in various roles occurred. One way to counter enemy aircraft was to employ one’s own fighter cover. Despite this, ground forces were often left exposed to enemy bombing raids or reconnaissance aircraft that could be used to identify weak spots in the defense.

To fend off airborne threats, most armies initially reused various artillery pieces, sometimes older, or even captured guns, and modified them as improvised anti-aircraft weapons. This involved employing ordinary artillery guns placed on improvised mounts that enabled them to have sufficient elevation to fire at the sky. These early attempts were crude in nature and offered little chance of actually bringing down an enemy aircraft. But, occasionally, it did happen. One of the first recorded and confirmed aircraft kills using a modified artillery piece happened in September of 1915, near the Serbian city of Vršac. Serbian artilleryman Raka Ljutovac managed to score a direct hit on a German aircraft using a captured and modified 75 mm Krupp M.1904 gun.

A captured Krupp gun was modified to be used for anti-aircraft defense by the Serbian Army during the First World War. Other warring nations also employed similar designs during the war. [telegraf.rs]
On the Western Front, the use of these improvised and crude contraptions generally proved ineffective. Dedicated anti-aircraft guns were needed. This was especially the case for the Germans who lacked fighter aircraft due to insufficient resources and limited production capacity. The Germans soon began developing such weapons. They noticed that the modified artillery pieces were of too small a caliber (anything smaller than 77 mm caliber was deemed insufficient) and needed much-improved velocity and range. Another necessary change was to completely reorganize the command structure, by unifying the defense and offensive air force elements, into a single organizational unit. This was implemented in late 1916. This meant that the anti-aircraft guns were to be separated from ordinary artillery units. The effect of this was that the new anti-aircraft units received more dedicated training and could be solely focused on engaging enemy aircraft.

The same year, trucks armed with 8 to 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns began to appear on the front. While these had relatively good mobility on solid ground, the conditions of the Western Front were generally unsuited for such vehicles, due to difficult terrain. With the development of better anti-aircraft gun designs, their increased weight basically prevented them from being mounted on mobile truck chassis. Instead, for mobility, these were placed on specially designed four-wheeled trailers and usually towed by a K.D.I artillery tractor.

Both Krupp and Ehrhardt (later changing their name to Rheinmetall) would develop their own 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, which would see extensive action in the later stages of the war. While neither design would have any major impact (besides the same caliber) on the development of the later 8.8 cm Flak, these were the first stepping stones that would ultimately lead to the creation of the famous gun years later.

The Krupp 8.8 cm anti-aircraft gun. [Wiki]
As the newer German anti-aircraft guns became too heavy to be used in more mobile configurations by mounting them on trucks, they had to be towed instead. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War

Work after the War

Following the German defeat in the First World War, they were forbidden from developing many technologies, including artillery and anti-aircraft guns. To avoid this, companies like Krupp simply began cooperating with other arms manufacturers in Europe. During the 1920s, Krupp partnered with the Swedish Bofors armament manufacturer. Krupp even owned around a third of Bofors’ shares.

The Reichswehr (English: German Ground Army) only had limited anti-aircraft capabilities which relied exclusively on 7.92 mm caliber machine guns. The need for a proper and specialized anti-aircraft gun arose in the late 1920s. In September 1928, Krupp was informed that the Army wanted a new anti-aircraft gun. It had to be able to fire a 10 kg round at a muzzle velocity of 850 m/s. The gun itself would be placed on a mount with a full 360° traverse and an elevation of -3° to 85°. The mount and the gun were then placed on a cross-shaped base with four outriggers. The trailer had side outriggers that were raised during movement. The whole gun when placed on a four-wheeled bogie was to be towed at a maximum speed of 30 km/h. The total weight of the gun had to be around 9 tonnes. These requirements would be slightly changed a few years later to include new requests such as a rate of fire between 15 to 20 rounds per minute, use of high-explosive rounds with a delay fuse of up to 30 seconds, and a muzzle velocity between 800 to 900 m/s. The desired caliber of this gun was also discussed. The use of a caliber in the range of 7.5 cm was deemed to be insufficient and a waste of resources for a heavy gun. But despite this, a 7.5 cm Flak L/60 was developed, but it would not be adopted for service. The 8.8 cm caliber, which was used in the previous war, was more desirable. This caliber was set as a bare minimum, but usage of a larger caliber was allowed under the condition that the whole gun weight would not be more than 9 tonnes. The towing trailer had to reach a speed of 40 km/h (on a good road) when towed by a half-track or, in case of emergency, by larger trucks. The speed of redeployment for these guns was deemed highly important. German Army Officials were quite aware that the development of such guns could take years to complete. Due to the urgent need for such weapons, they were even ready to adopt temporary solutions.

Krupp’s first 8.8 cm Flak 18 prototype. [8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1]
Krupp engineers that were stationed at the Sweden Bofors company were working on a new anti-aircraft gun for some time. In 1931, Krupp engineers went back to Germany, where, under secrecy, they began designing the gun. By the end of September 1932, Krupp delivered two guns and 10 trailers. After a series of firing and driving trials, the guns proved to be more than satisfactory and, with some minor modifications, were adopted for service in 1933 under the name 8.8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 18 (anti-aircraft gun) or, more simply, Flak 18. The use of the number 18 was meant to mislead France and Great Britain that this was actually an old design, which it was in fact not. This was quite commonly used on other German-developed artillery pieces that were introduced to service during the 1930s. The same 8.8 cm gun was officially adopted when the Nazis came to power.  In 1934, Hitler denounced the Treaty of Versailles, and openly announced the rearmament of the German Armed forces.

Production

While Krupp designed the 8.8 cm FlaK 18, aside from building some 200 trailers for it, was not directly involved in the production of the actual gun. The 8.8 cm Flak 18 was quite an orthodox anti-aircraft design, but what made it different was that it could be mass-produced relatively easily, which the Germans did. Most of its components did not require any special tooling and companies that had basic production capabilities could produce these.

Some 2,313 were available by the end of 1938. In 1939, the number of guns produced was only 487, increasing to 1,131 new ones in 1940. From this point, due to the need for anti-aircraft guns, production constantly increased over the coming years. Some 1,861 examples were built in 1941, 2,822 in 1942, 4,302 in 1943, and 5,714 in 1944. Surprisingly, despite the chaotic state of the German industry, some 1,018 guns were produced during the first three months of 1945. In total,  19,650 8.8 cm Flak guns were built.

Of course, like many other German production numbers, there are some differences between sources. The previously mentioned numbers are according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Dreaded Threat: The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role). Author A. Radić (Arsenal 51) mentions that, by the end of 1944, 16,227 such guns were built. A. Lüdeke (Waffentechnik Im Zweiten Weltkrieg) gives a number of 20,754 pieces being built.

Year Number produced
1932 2 prototypes
1938 2,313 (total produced at that point)
1939 487
1940 1,131
1941 1.861
1942 2.822
1943 4,302
1944 5,714
1945 1,018
Total 19,650

 

Design

The gun 

The 8.8 cm Flak 18 used a single tube barrel that was covered in a metal jacket. The barrel itself was some 4.664 meters (L/56) long. The gun recuperator was placed above the barrel, while the recoil cylinders were placed under the barrel. During firing, the longest recoil stroke was 1,050 mm, while the shortest was 700 mm.

The 8.8 cm gun had a horizontal sliding breechblock which was semi-automatic. It meant that, after each shot, the breach opened on its own and ejected the shell casing, enabling the crew to immediately load another round. This was achieved by adding a spring coil, which was tensioned after firing. This provided a good rate of fire of up to 15 rounds per minute when engaging ground targets and up to 20 rounds per minute for aerial targets. If needed, the semi-automatic system could be disengaged and the whole loading and extracting of rounds done manually. While some guns were provided with a rammer to help during loading the gun, it was sometimes removed by the crew.

This particular gun is equipped with a loading rammer with a new round which is ready to be loaded into the chamber. [Pinterest]
For the anti-tank role, the 8.8 cm Flak was provided with a Zielfernrohr 20 direct telescopic sight. It had 4x magnification and a 17.5° field of view. This meant a 308 m wide view at 1 km. With a muzzle velocity of 840 m/s, the maximum firing range against ground targets was 15.2 km. The maximum altitude range was 10.9 km, but the maximum effective range was around 8 km.

The dimensions of this gun during towing were a length of 7.7 m, width of 2.3 m, and height of 2.4 meters. When stationary, the height was 2.1 m, while the length was 5.8 meters. Weight in firing position, it weighed 5,150 kg, while the total weight of the gun with the carriage was 7,450 kg. Due to some differences in numbers between sources, the previously mentioned 8.8 cm Flak performance is based on T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role).

When stationary, the gun had a height of 2.1 meters, which offered a relatively large target for enemy gunners. Good camouflage and well-selected positions were vital for its crew’s survival. [defensemedianetwork.com]

The Gun Controls

The gun elevation and traverse were controlled by using two handwheels located on the right side. The traverse handwheel had an option to be rotated at low or high speed, depending on the need. The lower speed was used for more precise aiming at the targets. The speed gear was changed by a simple lever located at the handwheel. To make a full circle, the traverse operator, at a high-speed setting. needed to turn the handwheel 100 times. while on the lower gear, it was 200 times. With one full circle of the handwheel, the gun was rotated by 3.6° at high speed and 1.8° at low speed.

Next to it was the handwheel for elevation. The handwheel was connected by a series of gears to the elevation pinion. This then moved the elevation rack which, in turn, lowered and raised the gun barrel. Like the traverse handwheel, it also had options for lower and higher rotation speed, which could be selected by using a lever. During transport, in order to prevent potential damage to the gun elevating mechanism, a locking system was equipped. In order to change position from 0° to 85°, at high speed, 42.5 turns of the handwheel were needed. One turn of the wheel at high speed changed the elevation by 2°. At lower speed, 85 times turns of the handwheel were needed. Each turn gave a change of 1°.

The two control handwheels. The front handwheel is for traverse while the rear one is for elevation. Source: W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military

Sometimes, in the sources, it is mentioned that the traverse was actually 720°. This is not a mistake. When the gun was used in a static mount, it would be connected with wires to a fire control system. In order to avoid damaging these wires, the guns were allowed to only make two full rotations in either direction. The traverse operator had a small indicator that informed him when two full rotations were made.

The 8.8 cm Flak at its maximum elevation. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role

The 8.8 cm fuze setter is located on the left side of the gun. Two rounds could be placed for their time fuse settings. These were usually done manually but the gun controls could also be connected to an external control system.

The 8.8 cm fuze setter. [Pinterest]

The Kommandogerat 36

The fire control system Kommandogerat 36 (Stereoscopic Director 36) was an important device when using the 8.8 cm guns in an anti-aircraft role. This piece of equipment actually is a combination of a stereoscopic rangefinder and a director. It uses a 4-meter-long, stereoscopic rangefinder. It has a magnification of 12 to 14x with a reading case ranging from 500 to 50,000 meters. When the unit was being transported, the stereoscopic rangefinder would be disengaged and placed in a long wooden box. If for some reason the Stereoscopic Director 36 was not available or not working, a smaller auxiliary Stereoscopic Director 35 could be used instead.

The 8.8 cm guns were usually used in a square formation consisting of four guns.  Inside this squire was a command post, which would usually have additional range-finding equipment and instruments. These four gun’s positions were also connected to the battery unit command.

The Stereoscopic Director 36 was a vital piece of equipment that provides the necessary acquisitions of targets. [waralbum.ru]
Common 8.8 cm anti-aircraft employment was a square formation with four guns. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War

Mount

The mount which held the gun barrel itself consisted of a cradle and trunnions. The cradle had a rectangular shape. On its sides, two trunnions were welded. In order to provide stability for the gun barrel, two spring-shaped equilibrations were connected to the cradle using a simple clevis fastener.

Carriage

Given its size, the gun used a large cross-shaped platform. It consisted of the central part, where the base for the mount was located, along with four outriggers. The front and the rear outriggers were fixed to the central base. The gun barrel travel lock was placed on the front outrigger. The side outriggers could be lowered during firing. These were held in place by pins and small chains which were connected to the gun mount. To provide better stability during firing the gun, the crew could dig in the steel pegs located on each of the side outriggers. This cross-shaped platform, besides holding the mount for the main gun, also served to provide storage for various equipment, like the electrical wiring. Lastly, on the bottom of each outrigger, there were four round-shaped leveling jacks. This helped prevent the gun from digging in into the ground, distributing the weight evenly, and to help keep the gun level on uneven ground.

A close-up view of the dismantled 8.8 cm Flak cross-shaped platform. The two folding side outriggers are missing. The central octagonal base would later be replaced with a much simpler square-shaped one. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
The side outriggers could be lowered during firing. In order to provide better stability during firing the gun, the crew could dig in the steel pegs located on each of the side outriggers. At the bottom of each outrigger were round-shaped leveling jacks. Their purpose was to prevent the gun from digging into the ground and to keep the gun level on uneven ground. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
The side outriggers are fully raised during transport. [o5m6.de]
To prevent damaging the gun during transport, a large travel lock was installed on the front outrigger. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual

Bogies

The entire gun assembly was moved using a two-wheeled dolly, designated as Sonderanhanger 201. The front part consisted of a dolly with single wheels, while the rear dolly consisted of a pair of wheels per side on a single axle. Another difference between these two was that the front dolly had 7, and the rear had 11 transverse leaf springs. The wheel diameter was the same for the two, at 910 mm. These were also provided with air brakes. While these units were supposed to be removed during firing, the crew would often not remove them, as it was easier to move the gun quickly if needed. This was only possible when engaging targets at low gun elevations. Aerial targets could not be engaged this way, as the recoil would break the axles. The front and rear outriggers would be raised from the ground by using a winch with chains located on the dollies. When raised to a sufficient height, the outriggers would be held in place by dolly’s hooks. These were connected with a round pin, located inside of each of the outriggers.

The two trailer units were connected to the front and rear outriggers by using simple hooks, which would quite easily be disengaged. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
The front view of the Sonderanhanger 201 dolly could be easily identified by the use of only two wheels. The chain’s winch would be used to raise the outriggers. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual

Firing with both trailer units still connected to the gun as possible, but it raised the height of the gun and prevented it from engaging air targets. [o5m6.de]
Later, a new improved Sonderanhanger 202 model was introduced (used on the Flak 36 version). On this redesigned version, the two towing units were redesigned to be similar to each other. This was done to ease production but also so the gun could be towed in either direction when needed. While, initially, the dolly was equipped with one set of two wheels and the trailer with two pairs, the new model adopted a doubled-wheeled dolly instead.

Protection

Initially, the 8.8 cm Flak guns were not provided with an armored shield for crew protection. Given its long-range and its intended role as an anti-aircraft gun, this was deemed unnecessary in its early development. Following the successful campaign in the West against France and its Allies in 1940, the Commanding General of the I. Flakkorp requested that all 8.8 cm Flak guns that would be used at on the frontline receive a protective shield. During 1941, most 8.8 cm Flaks that were used on the frontline were supplied with a 1.75 meter high and 1.95 meters wide frontal armored shield. Two smaller armored panels (7.5 cm wide at top and 56 cm at bottom) were placed on the sides. The frontal plate was 10 mm thick, while the two side plates were 6 mm thick. The recuperator cylinders were also protected with an armored cover. The total weight of the 8.8 cm Flak armored plates was 474 kg. On the right side of the large gun shield, there was a hatch that would be closed during the engagement of ground targets. In this case, the gunner would use telescopic sight through the visor port. During engagement of air targets, this hatch was open.

Most guns were initially not provided with a shield. Given its original purpose, this is not surprising. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role
Most guns that were issued for field use would be provided with a large 10 mm thick front armored shield. The wire cover on the top was used for camouflage. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role
On the left side of the gun shield, there was a hatch that would be used for the gunner to find his aerial targets. [worldwarphotos.info]

Ammunition

The 88 mm FlaK could use a series of different rounds. The 8.8 cm Sprgr. Patr. was a 9.4 kg heavy high-explosive round with a 30-second time fuze. It could be used against both anti-aircraft and ground targets. When used in the anti-aircraft role, the time fuze was added. The 8.8 Sprgr. Az. was a high-explosive round that had a contact fuze. In 1944 the Germans introduced a slightly improved model that tested the idea of using control fragmentation, which was unsuccessful. The 8.8 Sch. Sprgr. Patr. and br. Sch. Gr. Patr. were shrapnel rounds.

The 8.8 cm Pzgr Patr was a 9.5 kg standard anti-tank round. With a velocity of 810 m/s, it could penetrate 95 mm of 30° angled armor at 1 km. At 2 km at the same angle, it could pierce 72 mm of armor. The 8.8 cm Pzgr. Patr. 40 was a tungsten-cored anti-tank round. The 8.8 cm H1 Gr. Patr. 39 Flak was a 7.2 kg heavy hollow charge anti-tank round. At a 1 kg range, it was able to penetrate 165 mm of armor. The 8.8 cm ammunition was usually stored in wooden or metal containers.

The 8.8 cm Flak used large one-piece ammunition. It was stored in either wooden or metal containers. [defensemedianetwork.com]

Crew

The 88 mm Flak had a crew of 11 men. These included a commander, two gun operators, two fuze setter operators, a loader, four ammunition assistants, and the driver of the towing vehicle. Guns that were used on a static mount usually had a smaller crew. The two gun operators were positioned to the right of the gun. Each of them was responsible for operating a hand wheel, one for elevation and one for the traverse. The front operator was responsible for traverse and the one behind him for elevation. The front traverse operator was also responsible for using the weapon gun sight for targeting the enemy. On the left side of the gun were the two fuse operators. The loader with the ammunition assistants was placed behind the gun. A well-experienced crew needed 2 to 2 and a half minutes to prepare the gun for firing. The time to put the gun into the traveling position was 3.5 minutes. The 8.8 cm gun was usually towed by an Sd.Kfz. 7 half-track or a heavy-duty six-wheel truck.

The 8.8 cm guns that were used for supporting ground units had a fairly large crew. [Pinterest]
The Sd.Kfz. 7 half-tracks were the primary towing vehicles for this gun. [defensemedianetwork.com]
Six-wheeled heavy-duty trucks would sometimes be used due to the lack of half-tracks. They did not offer the same driving performance. [worldwarphotos.info]

Flak 36 and 37

While the Flak 18 was deemed a good design, there was room for improvement. The gun itself did not need much improvement. The gun platform, on the other hand, was slightly modified to provide better stability during firing and to make it easier to produce. The base of the gun mount was changed from an octagonal to a more simple square shape. The previously mentioned  Sonderanhanger 202 was used on this model.

Due to the high rate of fire, anti-aircraft guns frequently had to receive new barrels, as these were quickly worn out. To facilitate quick replacement, the Germans introduced a new three-part barrel. It consists of a chamber portion, a center portion, and the muzzle section. While it made the replacement of worn-out parts easier, it also allowed these components to be built with different metals. Besides this, the overall performance of the Flak 18 and Flak 36 was the same. The Flak 36 was officially adopted on the 8th of February 1939.

As the Germans introduced the new Flak 41, due to production delays, some of the guns were merged with the mount of a Flak 36. A very limited production run was made of the 8.8 cm Flak 36/42, which entered service in 1942.

In 1942, the improved 88 mm Flak 37 entered mass production according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle. On the other hand J. Ledwoch (8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155) state that the Flak 37 was introduced to service way back in 1937. Visually, it was the same as the previous Flak 36 model. The difference was that this model was intended to have better anti-aircraft performance, having specially designed directional dials. The original gunner dials were replaced with the “follow-the-pointer” system. It consists of two sets of dials that are placed on the right side of the gun. These received information about the enemy targets from a remote central fire direction post connected electrically. This way, the gun operator only had to make slight adjustments, such as elevation, and fire the gun.

The necessary information about the enemy targets was provided by a Funkmessgerate ( Predictor) which was essentially a mechanical analog computer. Once the enemy aircraft were spotted, their estimated speed and direction were inserted into this computer which would then calculate the precise position and elevation. This information would be sent to any linked anti-aircraft batteries by a wire connection. One set of the dials would then show the crew the necessary changes that need to be done to the elevation and direction of the enemy approach. The crew then had to manually position the gun elevation and direction until the second dials indicators matched the first one. The funkmessgerate computer also provided correct fuse time settings. In principle, this system eased the aiming task of the crew and at the same time improved accuracy. When used in this manner the Flak 37 could not be used for an anti-tank role.

The last change to this series was the reintroduction of a two-piece barrel design. Besides these improvements, the overall performance was the same as with the previous models. From March 1943 only the Flak 37 would be produced, completely replacing the older models.

The 8.8 cm Flak 37 introduced the use of specially designed directional dials, which help the crew better adjust the gun. Source: Norris 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45

Organization 

German air defense was solely the responsibility of the Luftwaffe, with the majority of 8.8 cm guns being allocated to them. The German Army and Navy also possessed some anti-aircraft units, but these were used in quite limited numbers. The largest units were the Flak Korps (Anti-aircraft corps). It consisted of two to four Flak Divisionen (Anti-aircraft divisions). These divisions, depending on the need, were either used as mobile forces or for static defense. These were further divided into Bigaden (brigades ) which consisted of two or more Regimenter (Regiments). Regiments in turn were divided into four to six Abteilunge (Battalion). Battalion strength was eight 8.8 cm guns with 18 smaller 2 cm guns. To complicate things a bit more, each Battalion could be divided into four groups: Leichte (Light, equipped with calibers such as 2 cm or 3.7 cm), Gemischte (mixed light and heavy), Schwere (Heavy equip with a caliber greater than 88 mm) and Scheinwerfer  (Searchlight).

Mobile War

Initially, operations and crew training was carried out by the Reichswehr. They were organized into the so-called Fahrabteilung (Training Battalion) to hide their intended role. By 1935, the German Army underwent a huge reorganization, one aspect of which was changing its name to the Wehrmacht. In regard to the anti-aircraft protection, it was now solely the responsibility of the Luftwaffe. For this reason, almost all available 8.8 cm guns were reallocated to Luftwaffe control. Only around eight Flak Battalions which were armed with 2 cm anti-aircraft guns were left under direct Army control.

In Spain

When the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936, Francisco Franco, leader of the Nationalists, sent a plea to Adolf Hitler for German military equipment aid. To make matters worse for Franco, nearly all his loyal forces were stationed in Africa. As the Republicans controlled the Spanish navy, Franco could not move his troops back to Spain safely. So he was forced to seek foreign aid. Hitler was keen on helping Franco, seeing Spain as a potential ally, and agreed to provide assistance. At the end of July 1936, 6 He 51 and 20 Ju 57 aircraft were transported to Spain under secrecy. These would serve as the basis for the air force of the German Condor Legion which operated in Spain during this war. The German ground forces operating in Spain were supplied with a number of 8.8 cm guns.

These arrived in early November 1936 and were used to form the F/88 anti-aircraft battalion. This unit consisted of four heavy and two light batteries. Starting from March 1937 these were allocated to protect various defense points at Burgos and Vittoria. In March 1938, the 8.8 cm guns from the 6th battery dueled with an enemy 76.2 cm anti-aircraft gun which were manned by French volunteers from the International Brigades. While the 8.8 cm guns were mainly employed against ground targets they still had a chance to fire at air targets. For example, while defending the La Cenia airfield, the 8.8 cm guns from the 6th battery prevented the Republican bombing attack by damaging at least two SB-2 bombers on the 10th of June 1938. Three days later one SB-2 was shot down by an 8.8 cm gun. In early August another SB-2 was shot down by the same unit. The performance of the 8.8 cm gun during the war in Spain was deemed satisfying. It was excellent in ground operations, possessing good range and firepower.

An 8.8 cm Flak gun in Spain.[weaponsandwarfare.com]

During the Second World War

Prior to the war, the 8.8 m guns could be often seen on many military parades, exercises, and ceremonies. The first ‘combat’ use of the 8.8 cm Flak in German use was during the occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938. The entire operation was carried out peacefully and the 8.8 cm gun did not have to fire in anger.

Prior to the war, the 8.8 cm guns war could have been often seen on military parades, exercises, and ceremonies. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars

The Polish campaign saw little use of the 8.8 cm guns. The main reason for this was that the Polish Air Force was mostly destroyed in the first few days of combat. They were mainly used against ground targets. In one example, the 8.8 cm guns from the 22nd Flak Regiment tried to prevent a Polish counter-attack at Ilza. The battery would be overrun while the crew tried to defend themselves, losing three guns in the process. The 8.8 cm Flak gun also saw service during the battles for Warsaw and Kutno.

The 8.8 cm followed the Germans in their occupation of Denmark and Norway. One of the key objectives in Norway was the capture of a number of airfields. Once captured, the Germans rushed in Flak guns including the 8.8 cm, to defend these as they were crucial for the rather short-ranged German bombers. On the 12th of April 1940, the British Air Force launched two (83 strong in total) bombing raids at the German ships which were anchored at the Stavanger harbor. Thanks to the Flak and fighter support, six Hampden and three Wellington bombers were shot down.

Following the conclusion of the Polish campaign, the Germans began increasing the numbers of the motorized Flak units. Some 32 Flak Batteries were available which the Germans used to form the 1st and 2nd Flak Corps. 1st Corps would be allocated to the Panzergruppe Kleist, while the second was allocated to the 4th and 6th Army. The Luftwaffe, as in Poland (September 1939), quickly gained air superiority over the Allied Air Forces. Despite this, there was still opportunity for the 8.8 cm guns to fire at air targets.  During the period from the 10th to 26th May 1940, the following successes were made against enemy aircraft by flak units that were part of the XIX Armee Corps: the 83rd Flak Battalion brought down some 54, 92nd Flak Battalion 44, 71th Flak Battalion 24, the 91st Flak Battalion 8, 36th Flak Regiment 26, 18th Flak Regiment 27, and 38th Flak Regiment 23 aircraft. During the notorious German crossing near Sedan, a combined Allied air force tried to dislodge them. The strong Flak presence together with air fighter cover, lead to the Allies losing 90 aircraft in the process.

Following the Western Campaign, the 8.8 cm guns would see extensive service through the war. Ironically they would be more often employed against enemy armor than in the original role. Given the extensive Allied bombing raids, more and more 8.8 cm would be allocated to domestic anti-aircraft defense. One major use of 8.8 cm Flak was during the German evacuation of Sicily, by providing necessary air cover for the retreating Axis soldiers and materiel to the Italian mainland.

In the occupied Balkans, the 8.8 cm Flak was a rare sight until late 1943 and early 1944. The ever-increasing Allied bombing raids forced the Germans to reinforce their positions with a number of anti-aircraft guns, including the 8.8 cm Flak. Some 40 8.8 cm Flak guns were used to protect German-held Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia. Most would be lost after a successful liberation operation conducted by the Red Army supported by Yugoslav Partisans. The 8.8 cm Flak guns were also used in static emplacements defending the Adriatic coast at several key locations from 1943 on. One of the last such batteries to surrender to the Yugoslav Partisans was the one stationed in Pula, which had twelve 8.8 cm guns. It continued to resist the Partisans until the 8th of May, 1945.

Some of the 8.8 cm guns were destroyed or abandoned. Source: A. Radić Arsenal 51

Defense of the Fatherland

While the 8.8 cm Flaks would see service supporting the advancing German forces, the majority of them would actually be used as static anti-aircraft emplacements. For example, during the production period of October 1943 to November 1944, around 61% of the 8.8 cm Flak guns produced were intended for static defense. Additionally, of 1,644 batteries that were equipped with this gun, only 225 were fully motorized, with an additional 31 batteries that were only partially motorized (start of September 1944).

When the war broke out with Poland, the Luftwaffe anti-aircraft units had at their disposal some 657 anti-aircraft guns of various calibers. The majority were the 8.8 cm with smaller quantities of the larger 10.5 cm and even some captured Czezh 8.35 anti-aircraft guns. An additional 12 Flak Companies equipped with the 8.8 cm guns were given to the navy for the protection of a number of important harbors. The remaining guns were used to protect vital cities like Berlin and Hamburg. The important Ruhr industry center was also heavily defended.

The majority of the 8.8 cm Flak guns built would be used in static defense without the cross-shaped platform. These would mostly be destroyed by their crews to prevent their capture when the Allies made their advances into Germany. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars

One of the first enemy aircraft shot down over German skies were British Wellington bombers. This occurred on the 4th of September 1939 when one or two enemy bombers were brought down by heavy Flak fire. These intended to bomb vital German naval ports. In early October 1939, in Strasbourg, a French Potez 637 was shot down by the 84th Flak Regiments 8.8 cm guns. One Amiot 143 and a Whitley aircraft were shot down in Germany in mid-October. During December 1939 British launched two bombing raids intended to inflict damage on German ports. Both raids failed with the British losing some 17 out of 36 Wellington bombers.

After Germany’s victory over the Western Allies in June, the Germans began forming the first Flak defense line in occupied territories and coastlines. These  were not only equipped with German guns but also with those captured from enemy forces.

A 8.8 cm by the Atlantic coast in 1941. This crew had already achieved two kills, judging by the kill marks on the barrel. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars

Due to the poor results of their daylight bombing raids, the British began to employ night raids. These initially were quite unsuccessful with minimal damage to Germany’s infrastructure and industry. The Flak defense of Germany was also quite unprepared for night raids, unable to spot enemy bombers at night. The situation changed only in 1940 with the introduction of ground-operated radar. Thanks to this, the first few months of 1941 saw German Flak units bring down 115 enemy aircraft.

In 1942 the British military top made a decision to begin the mass bombing of German cities. The aim was to “de-house” (or kill) workers, damage infrastructure to make urban industrial areas unusable, and try and cause a moral collapse as was the case in 1918. Implementation of this tactic was initially slow due to an insufficient number of bombers. In addition, vital targets in occupied Europe were also to be bombed. In May 1942, the British launched a force that consisted of over 1,000 aircraft causing huge damage to Germany, killing 486 and injuring over 55,000 people.

In 1943 several huge events happened. The German defeats in East and North Africa led to huge material and manpower losses, while the Allies were preparing to launch massive bombing raids mainly intended to cripple Germany’s production capabilities. In response, the Germans began increasing their number of Flak units. At the start of 1943, there were some 659 heavy Flak batteries, which were increased to  1,089 by June the same year. Due to a lack of manpower, the Germans began mobilizing their civilians regardless of their age or sex. For example, in 1943 there were some 116,000 young women who were employed in various roles, even operating the guns. Near the end of the war, it was common to see all-female crews operating Flak batteries. In addition in 1944 some 38,000 young boys were also employed in this manner. Ironically, while all German military branches lacked equipment, the anti-aircraft branch had spare equipment and guns, but lacked the manpower to operate them. To resolve this, foreign Volunteers and even Soviet prisoners of war were pressed into service. The downside was the general lack of training, which greatly affected their performance.

In the first few months of 1944, the Allied 8th and 15th Air Forces lost some 315 bombers with 10,573 damaged, all attributed to the heavy Flak. In 1944 (date unspecified in the source) during an attack on the heavily defended Leuna synthetic oil refinery, some 59 Allied bombers were brought down by the heavy Flak guns. By 1944 the number of heavy anti-aircraft guns that were intended for the defense of Germany reached 7,941. By April 1945 the Flak guns managed to shoot down 1,345 British bombers. The American 8th lost 1,798, while the 15th Air Force lost 1,046 bombers due to German Flak defence by the end of the war.

The last action of the 8.8 cm Flak guns was during the defense of the German capital of Berlin. Due to most being placed in fixed positions, they could not be evacuated and most would be destroyed by their own crews to prevent capture. Despite the losses suffered during the war, in February 1945, there were still some 8,769 8.8 cm Flak guns available for service.

The Flak provided necessary and crucial defense of vital industrial centers. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars

Effectiveness of the 8.8 cm Guns in Anti-aircraft Role

Regarding the effectiveness of the 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns with the necessary number of rounds needed to bring down enemy aircraft. Author E.B. Westermann (Flak German Anti-Aircraft Defenses 1914-1945) gives us a good example and comparison between three main German anti-aircraft guns. The largest 12.8 cm Flak on average fired some 3,000 rounds to take down an enemy aircraft. The 10.5 cm gun needed 6,000 and the 8.8 cm 15,000 rounds (some sources mentioned 16,000). This seems at first glance like a huge waste of available resources, but is it right to conclude that?

According to an Allied war document dated from early 1945, they mentioned a few interesting facts about German flak defense. According to them, in 1943 some 33% of bombers destroyed by Germany were accredited to heavy Flak gunfire. In addition, 66% of damage sustained by their aircraft was also caused by the heavy Flak fire. In the summer of 1944, this number increased. The majority (some 66%) shot down enemy bombers were accredited to the heavy Flaks. And of 13,000 damaged bombers some 98% were estimated to be caused by the Flaks. Here it is important to note that by this time, Luftwaffe fighters lacked the ability to attack bomber formations en mass. Therefore this increase of aircraft shot down by the Flaks may be explained by this.

In addition, we must also take into account two other functions that these guns had which are often overlooked. They did not necessarily need to bring down enemy bombers. It was enough to force the enemy fly at higher altitudes to avoid losses. This in turn led to a huge loss of accuracy for the bombers. Secondly, the enemy bombers were often forced to break formation when sustaining heavy Flak fire, which left them exposed to German fighters. The shrapnel from the Flak rounds could not always directly bring down a bomber, but it could cause sufficient damage (fuel leaks for example) that the aircraft, later on, had to make an emergency landing, even in enemy territory. The damaged aircraft that made it back to their bases could spend considerable time awaiting repairs. Lastly, the Flak fire could incapacitate, wound or even kill bomber crews. Thus there was a huge psychological effect on enemy bomber crews. B-17 gunner Sgt W. J. Howard from the 100th Bomb Group recalled his experience with the German Flak. “All the missions scared me to death. Whether you had fighters or not you still had to fly through the flak. Flak was what really got you thinking, but I found a way to suck it up and go on.”

Hitler was quite impressed with the 8.8 cm performance. On the 28th of August 1942, he stated:  “The best flak gun is the 8.8 cm. The 10.5 has the disadvantage that it consumes too much ammunition, and the barrel does not hold up very long. The Reich Marshall Göring continually wants to build the 12.8 into the flak program. This double-barreled 12.8 cm has a fantastic appearance. If one examines the 8.8 from a technician’s perspective, it is to be sure the most beautiful weapon yet fashioned, with the exception of the 12.8 cm”.

Despite the best German efforts, the Flak’s effectiveness greatly degraded by late 1944. The reason for this was the shortage of properly trained crews. At the start of the war, the Germans paid great attention to crew training, which lasted several months. As the Flak guns were needed on the front, less experienced and trained personnel had to be used instead. In the later stages of the war, these crews received only a few weeks of training, which was insufficient for the job they had to perform. Lastly, Allied bombing raids eventually took their toll on German industry, greatly reducing the production of ammunition, which was one of the main reasons why the anti-aircraft defense of Germany ultimately failed. Of course, a proper analysis and conclusion could not be easily made and would require more extensive research, a wholly different topic on its own.

Self-Propelled Versions

When used as anti-aircraft weapons, the 8.8 cm guns were in most cases used as static defense points. Despite this, the Germans made several attempts to increase their mobility by placing the 8.8 cm guns on various chassis. One of the first attempts was by mounting the 8.8 cm gun on a VOMAG 6×6 truck chassis. The small number built was given to the 42nd Flak Regiment which operated them up to the end of the war.

The VOMAG truck was armed with 8.8 cm guns. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War

The truck chassis offered great mobility on good roads, but their off-road handling was highly problematic. So Germans used half-tracks and full-track chassis.  Smaller numbers of Sd. Kfz 9 armed with the 8.8 cm gun were built. Attempts to build a full-track vehicle were made but never went beyond a prototype stage. The 8.8 cm Flak auf Sonderfahrgestell was a project where an 8.8cm gun was mounted on a fully tracked chassis with a folding wall, but only one vehicle would be built.  There are some photographs of Panzer IV modified with this gun, and while not much is known about them they appear to be a field conversion, rather than dedicated design vehicles. There were even proposals to mount an 8.8 cm gun on a Panther tank chassis, but nothing would come from it in the end.

Some 12 Sd. Kfz. 9 were modified by receiving an 8.8 cm gun. [worldwarphotos.info]
The 8.8 cm Flak auf Sonderfahrgestell Pz.Sfl.IVc prototype.[uofa.ru]
The strange-looking Panzer IV armed with this gun. [armedconflicts.com]
Mounting the 8.8 cm gun on railroad cars was a common sight in Germany at early stages of the war. There was various design that may differ greatly from each other. [defensemedianetwork.com]

Usage after the war

With the defeat of Germany during the Second World War, the 8.8 cm Flak guns found usage in a number of other armies. Some of these were Spain, Portugal, Albania, and Yugoslavia. By the end of the 1950s, the Yugoslavian People’s Army had slightly less than 170 8.8 cm guns in its inventory. These were, besides their original anti-aircraft role, used to arm navy ships and were later placed around the Adriatic coast. A number of these guns would be captured and used by various warring parties during the Yugoslav civil wars of the 1990s. Interestingly, the Serbian forces removed the 8.8 cm barrel on two guns and replaced them with two pairs of 262 mm Orkan rocket launcher tubes. The last four operational examples were finally removed from service from the Serbian and Montenegrin Army in 2004.

The 8.8 cm Flak in the Yugoslavian People’s Army service, during military training near the capital in 1955. Source: A. Radić Arsenal 51
Two 8.8 cm Flak guns were reused by replacing the gun with two 262mm rocket launchers. While not a success, these two remained in use up to 1998. [srpskioklop.paluba.info]

Conclusion

The 8.8 cm Flak was an extraordinary weapon that provided the German Army with much-needed firepower during the early stages of the war. The design as a whole was nothing special, but it had a great benefit in that it could be built relatively cheaply and in great numbers. That was probably its greatest success, being available in huge numbers compared to similar weapons of other nations.

Its performance in the anti-aircraft role was deemed satisfying, but still stronger models would be employed to supplement its firepower. The 8.8 cm anti-air gun’s effectiveness was greatly degraded toward the end of the war, which was caused not by the gun design itself but other external forces. These being mainly the lack of properly trained crews and shortages of ammunition.

8.8 cm Flak 18 Specifications:
Crew: 11 (Commander, two gun operators, two fuze setter operators, loader, four ammunition assistants, and the driver)
Weight in firing position: 5150 kg
Total weight:  7450 kg.
Dimensions in towing position: Length 7.7  m, Width 2.2 m, Height 2.4 m,
Dimensions in deployed position: Length 5.8  m, Height 214 m,
Primary Armament:  8.8 cm L/56 gun
Elevation: -3° to +85°  

 

Gallery

The Flak 88 mm gun in towing postion

 

Flak 88 in firing position

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by by Ed Jackson & Henry H.
  • Illustrations by David B.

Sources

  • J. Norris  (2002) 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45 Osprey Publishing
  • D. Nijboer (2019) German Flak Defences Vs. Allied Heavy Bombers 1942-45, Osprey Publishing
  • T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle  Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/41 in the Anti-Tank role
  •  T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2014) Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak
  • W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military
  • E. D. Westermann (2001) Flak, German Anti-Aircraft Defense 1914-1945, University Press of Kansas.
  • German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel (29th June 1943) War Department Technical Manual
  • T. Anderson (2018) History of Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-45, Osprey publishing
  • T. Anderson (2017) History of Panzerjager Volume 1 1939-42, Osprey publishing
  • S. Zaloga (2011) Armored Attack 1944, Stackpole book
  • W. Fowler (2002) France, Holland and Belgium 1940, Allan Publishing
  • 1ATB in France 1939-40, Military Modeling Vol.44 (2014) AFV Special
  • N, Szamveber (2013) Days of Battle Armored Operation North of the River Danube, Hungary 1944-45
  • A. Radić (2011) Arsenal 51 and 52
  • While A. Lüdeke, Waffentechnik im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Parragon
  •  J. Ledwoch 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155
  • S. H. Newton (2002)  Kursk The German View, Da Capo Press
  • W. Howler (2002 France, Belgium and Holland 1940, Ian Allan
  • J. S. Corum (2021) Norway 1940 The Luftwaffe’s Scandinavian Blitzkrieg, Osprey Publishing
  • https://uofa.ru/en/zenitnoe-orudie-88-vermaht-strashnaya-vosemdesyat-vosmaya/

 

Weiss Manfred WM 21 Sólyom

Hungarian Flag Kingdom of Hungary (1938)
Reconnaissance Aircraft & Light Bomber – 128 Built

The Weiss Manfrédfrom WM 21 two-seat reconnaissance aircraft. [lasegundaguerra.com]
The Hungarian Aviation industry was rather small in scope in comparison to many in Europe. Regardless, it managed to introduce a number of domestic development projects. One of these was the Weiss Manfréd from WM 21, a two-seat reconnaissance aircraft of which some 128 were produced during the Second World War.

History

In the years after the First World War, Hungary was strictly forbidden from developing combat aircraft. To overcome this limitation, the Hungarians did what the Germans did and began developing a civil aircraft industry to help gain valuable experience in aircraft design. One of these companies that would emerge during the late 1920s was Weiss Manfréd, from Csepel near Budapest. In 1928 this company began working on the design and construction of gliders and engines.

Due to an initial lack of funds, the Hungarian Air Force was forced to rely on foreign aircraft that were bought in relatively small numbers. For example, by 1937 Hungarians had only around 255 operational aircraft. To help gain more experience, Weiss Manfrédfrom began producing Fokker F.VIII and C.V aircraft under license. When sufficient funds and experience were gained, Weiss Manfrédfrom engineers in 1935 began working on a new reconnaissance biplane design.  They decided on a simple design, reusing some components that were already in production, and it would be a further development of the already produced WM 16 model, which was heavily based on the D version of the Fokker C.V.

The WM 21 predecessor was the WM 16 model which in turn was based on the C.V aircraft. [Wiki]
When the prototype of the new short-range reconnaissance aircraft, WM 21 “Sólyom” (Falcon) was completed, it was presented to Hungarian Air Force officials, who were generally satisfied with its performance and gave an order for some 36 WM 21 in 1938. At that time, massive funds were being allocated to the development of the aircraft industry. In addition, Hungarian Air Force officials wanted to decentralize aircraft production. For this reason, the WM 21 was to be built by various other companies, including twelve to be built by MÁVAG  and MWG

It was estimated that the production would commence during April and March 1939. It took longer to do so, with the first aircraft being available at the end of 1939. While the aircraft was slowly put into production, the Hungarian Air Force asked for more aircraft to be built.

In Combat

The WM 21 was primarily designed as a reconnaissance aircraft but due to a general lack of other aircraft types, it would be adopted for other roles. Its first combat use was during the so-called Transylvanian Crisis. Namely, in June 1940 Hungarian government demanded that Romania return the Transylvania region to them. Since it looked like war was coming, Hungarian Air Force began relocating its aircraft close to the Romanian border. Thanks to the commencement of negotiations, no war broke out. But by late August the Hungarians ordered a complete mobilization as the negotiation led nowhere.

While primarily intended to be used as a reconnaissance airfare it would be also used in other roles even as a light bomber. [lasegundaguerra.com]
Germany did not want to lose its vital Romanian oil supply and forced both countries to begin new negotiations under German and Italian supervision. While the negotiations were underway, some smaller air skirmishes occurred. On the 27th of August, a Romanian He 112 attacked a Hungarian Ca 135 aircraft, which was heavily damaged and one crew member was killed. The following day a WM-21 piloted by Captain János Gyenesin, dropped bombs on the Romain Szatmárnémeti airfield in retaliation for the lost airman. On its way back it crash-landed, damaging the aircraft. In the end, Hungary emerged as the victor, gaining large territorial concessions over the Romanians.

When the April War broke out on the 6th of April 1941, between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Axis, the Hungarians joined the offensive. They employed their 1st Air Brigade which had some 60 aircraft. By the 17th of April, the war was over, and the Hungarian Air Force had lost 6 aircraft including one WM 21.

A colorized picture of the WM 21 rearview. [all-aero.com]
On the 26th of June 1941, the Hungarian town of Kassa was bombed by three aircraft. The circumstance of this incident is not clear even to this day, but the Hungarian government asserted that it was a Soviet attack. The decision was made to declare war on the Soviet Union as a response.  For the initial operation in the war against the Soviets, the Hungarian Air Force allocated 25 bombers (Ju 86 and Ca 135), 18 CR 42 fighters, and the 8th and 10th reconnaissance squadrons each equipped with 9 WM 21.

By 1942 most WM 21’s were allocated for use by training schools and as liaisons. Some would be used in later years for anti-partisan operations. By the end of the war, some WM 21 pilots managed to reach Austria where they hoped to surrender to the Western Allies.

Technical Characteristics 

The WM 21 was a mixed-construction, biplane aircraft, designed to fulfill multiple roles. The fuselage and the wings were of metal construction which was covered in fabric. The lower and the upper wings were connected with each other by one “N” shaped metal strut on each side. In addition, there were two “V” shaped metal brackets that were connected with the fuselage and the upper wing.  Lastly, there were two larger metal struts on each side that connected the landing gears to the top wing.

The WM 21 was a biplane two-seater aircraft. The lower and upper wings were held in place by various smaller metal bars, connecting them to each other and to the fuselage. [all-aero.com]
The landing gear consisted of two fixed road wheels and a rear-positioned landing skid. Partly-covered front wheels were connected to the aircraft fuselage by three large metal bins.

Initially, the WM 21 was powered by an 870 hp Weiss WM K-14A radial piston engine. With this engine, the WM 21 could reach a maximum speed of 320 km/h. Later produced aircraft were equipped with a stronger 1,000 hp WM K-14B engine. With this engine, the maximum speed was increased to 380 km/h.

The pilot and the observer/machine gunner were placed in two separate open cockpits, the front for the pilot, and the rear for the observer.  For better downward visibility the observer was provided with two fairly large glass panels, placed just under him on both fuselage sides.

Side view of the WM 21. Note the small glass panel located under the observer cockpit. [lasegundaguerra.com]
The WM 21 was armed with two forward-firing 7.92 mm Gebauer machine guns. One additional defensive machine gun was placed in a flexible mount which was installed in the rear cockpit. Additionally, the offensive capabilities of the aircraft could be increased by adding bombs. The bomb bay was placed between the two crew members. To release the bomb the crews would use a release mechanism. The bomb load could consist either of 12 10kg anti-personnel bombs, or 60 1kg incendiary bombs. Later versions increased the bomb load to around 300 kg.

To the rear an additional 7.92 mm Gebauer machine gun was placed in a rotating mount for self-defense. [airwar.ru]

Production and Modifications

The WM 21 was produced in four small series. When the production ended in 1942 some 128 aircraft would be constructed. While designed by Manfred Weiss, this factory produced only 25 aircraft. The MAVAG produced 43 with the 60 being built by MWG. Due to the relatively low production numbers, only one modification of the original aircraft was ever made:

  •  WM 21A – Powered with an 870 hp Weiss WM K-14A engine,
  • WM 21B – Slightly improved version powered by 1.000 hp  WM K-14B engine
Some 128 WM 21 would be built by 1942 when the production ended. [all-aero.com]

Conclusion

The WM 21 was a Hungarian reconnaissance aircraft that would see service on several different fronts. While initially used in its intended role, it quickly became obsolete and was allocated to secondary missions, as a training aircraft or for liaison missions. Due to a lack of adequate aircraft, some WM 21would even see service as combat aircraft against Partisans forces, mostly in the Soviet Union.

WM-21A Specifications
Wingspan 12.9 m / 42 ft 4 in
Length 9.65 m / 31 ft 8 in
Height 3.5 m / 11 ft 5 in
Wing Area 32.75 m² / 352.53 ft²
Engine One 870 hp (649 kW) Weiss WM K-14A radial piston engine
Empty Weight 2,450 kg / 5,400 lb
Maximum Takeoff Weight 7,606 kg / 3,450 lb
Maximum Speed 320 km/h / 200 mph
Cruising Speed 275 km/h / 170 mph
Range 750 km / 466 mi
Maximum Service Ceiling 8,000m / 26,245 ft
Climb speed Climb to 6,000 m (19,700 ft) in 7 minutes and 30 seconds
Crew One pilot
Armament
  • Three 7.92mm machine guns
  • Total bomb load of some 100-300kg

Gallery

Weiss Manfred WM 21 “Sólyom”

Credits

  • Written by: Marko P.
  • Edited by:
  • Illustrations by Carpaticus

Sources:

  • D. Monday (1984, 2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft Of World War II, Aerospace Publishing Ltd.
  • G. Sarhidai, G. Punka, and V. Kozlik (1996) Hungarian Eagles, Hikoki Publication
  • G. Punka (1994) Hungarian Air Force, Squadron Publication
  • S. Renner. (2016) Broken Wings The Hungarian Air Force, 1918-45, Indiana University Press
  • http://all-aero.com/index.php/56-planes-v-w/15565-weiss-wm-21-solyom 

 

 

 

 

 

Fiat G.50 in Independent State of Croatia Service

Independent State of Croatia flag Independent State of Croatia (1942)
Fighter –  16 Operated

In NDH service the Fiat G.50 did not receive any modifications, with the original Italian camouflage remaining. The only change was the addition of Croatian military markings and new identification numbers. [Wiki]
Following the creation of the Nezavisna Država Hrvatska (Independent State of Croatia), its Air Force was plagued with many problems from the start, including a lack of modern aircraft. While generally heavily reliant on the Germans to provide them with better equipment, they were unwilling to secure any deliveries of aircraft. To resolve this issue the NDH’s Air Force officials managed to persuade Italy to sell them 10 Fiat G.50bis fighters, which remained in use up to 1945.

A Brief History of the NDH

Following the end of the First World War, Kraljevina Srba Hrvata i Slovenaca (The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes – SHS) was formed in December of 1918 with the aim of uniting all Southern Slavs. This new state was, at least in theory, based on the principles of equality for these three nationalities. In reality, this Kingdom was a politically and ethically divided country. During the 1920s, there were huge political disagreements between the major parties which brought about questions regarding the continued existence of the Kingdom of SHS. This division was especially noted between the Serbian and Croatian politicians, which ultimately culminated in the assassination of several Croatian Peasant Party members, including the leader, Stjepan Radić, by a Serbian Politician in 1928.

On 6th of January, 1929, King Aleksandar Karađorđević, in an attempt to avoid the incoming political crisis, led the country into a dictatorship by abolishing parliament. He also introduced a number of political changes, including changing the name of the country to Kraljevina Jugoslavija (Kingdom of Yugoslavia.) This essentially did not resolve any of the existing problems, as inter-ethnic tensions persisted. During the early 1930s, the first mentions of Croatian Ustaše (the precise meaning is unknown, but could be roughly translated as insurgent) ultranationalist revolutionary organizations began to appear in Yugoslavia. Their main aim was the liberation of the Croatian people from Yugoslavia, by all means necessary, even by force. One of the most prominent figures of this organization was Ante Pavelić.

Ante Pavelić was a high-ranking Ustaša member from the start, and later de facto leader of the NDH. [Wiki]
The Ustaše organization participated in the assassination of the Yugoslav King, Alexander Karađorđević, in Marseille in 1934. This assassination backfired to some extent for the Ustaše organization. Not only did it not lead to the collapse of Yugoslavia, but relations with Italy also improved under the Regent Prince Pavle Karađorđević in the following years. This led the Italian authorities to effectively end their support for the Ustaše and even arrested some of its members, including Pavelić.

After years of inactivity, the Ustaše benefited when the Yugoslavian government, which supported the Axis, was overthrown by pro-Allied officers in a military coup at the end of March 1941. Adolf Hitler almost immediately issued an order that Yugoslavia should be occupied. The Italians, preparing to join the war against Yugoslavia, began to support the Croatian Ustaše movement once again. With the collapse of the later Kingdom of Yugoslavia during the Axis invasion after the short April War of 1941, Croatia, with German aid, was finally able to declare independence, albeit becoming a fascist puppet state. Ante Pavelić was chosen as the leader of this puppet state. Officially, the NDH was announced on 10th April 1941. The new state received a significant territorial expansion by annexing most of western Yugoslavia, including Bosnia, parts of Serbia, and Montenegro. The Adriatic coast, while nominally part of the NDH, was actually controlled by the Italians until 1943.

The NDH took over a large portion of the Yugoslavian territories. [Wiki]

Formation of the NDH Air Force

Following the collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, NDH began organizing its newly-created armed forces. Its Air Force was created on the 19th of April, 1941. The leadership of the new Air Force was given to Colonel Vladimir Kren. Immediately, work began on creating adequate structural organization, acquiring manpower, and procuring equipment. Initially, plans for arming this Air Force were ambitious, including some 140 modern aircraft, such as the Ju 88 and Me 109. Its officials were quite disappointed as Germans were not willing to provide these. Instead, the NDH officials had to make do with the leftovers of the Former Royal Yugoslav Air Force, which was in German hands. NDH officials made a request that included over 50 aircraft. The Germans once again disappointed them and gave NDH only those aircraft that were mostly obsolete, while transferring the better aircraft, like the Hurricanes, to Romania instead. The only other way to acquire more capable aircraft was to ask the Italians. This is what the NDH Air Force officials did in early 1942.

The NDH Air Force was initially equipped with surviving Yugoslavian aircraft, in this case, Rogožarski P.V.T. [The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War]

The Fiat G.50 brief history

During the thirties, the Italian Ministry of Aviation (Ministero dell Aeronautica) was interested in adopting a new, all-metal monoplane fighter and ground-attack aircraft for the Italian Air Force. In April of 1935, engineer Giuseppe Gabrielli began working on a new low-wing, all-metal plane named G.50. On 28th September 1935, Gabrielli submitted his project to the Ministry of Aviation. Military officials were impressed by the design and asked him to proceed with its work. As Fiat’s production capacities were overburdened, work on this new project was instead moved to the CMASA works at Marina di Pisa, part of Fiat since 1931. Giuseppe Gabrielli was finishing his last drawings and the list of needed materials and equipment in June 1936.

The prototype was finally ready at the beginning of 1937 and was transported to the city of Turin for further testing. This prototype, under registration number MM 334, made its first test flight on 26th February 1937. Once accepted for service, the Fiat G.50 would become the first Italian all-metal fighter. Between 1938 to 1943 some 774 to 791 of all versions of the G. 50 would be built. These saw combat service starting from the Spanish Civil War, until 1943 when the few surviving aircraft were reassigned to secondary roles.

A G.50 flying together with a German Bf-110, possibly during the Battle of Britain. [Wiki]

In Yugoslavia

The Fiat G. 50 participated during the short Invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. Two fighter groups, the 24th, and 154th, which had 53 G.50 fighters in total were allocated for this operation. They mostly performed a few escort missions. Due to the rapid collapse of Yugoslavia’s Royal Army, these saw limited actual combat use, if any. Afterward, the Fiat G.50 was allocated to other fronts. During 1942 and 1943, limited numbers of these aircraft were used for ground attack operations against the Yugoslavian Partisans.

In NDH’s Hands

By 1942, most of the available aircraft in NDH Air Force were in poor condition, mostly due to a general lack of spare parts. NDH Army officials approached Italy with a request for 9 improved Fiat G.50 and one two-seater version. The Fiat G.50bis were slightly modified versions that had an increased fuel load, a redesigned rear fuselage and vertical stabilizer, better glazing of the cockpit, and other minor changes. But in essence, it did not offer many improvements compared to the basic version. The G.50 B bipost (two-seater) was a modified G.50 fighter version with a new cockpit and dual controls for a pilot and trainer. The front section of the cockpit was fully enclosed, in contrast with the rear which was open. The main armament was removed on the G.50 B. This version was very successful, as it was easy to build and offered almost the same flying performance as the single-seat version.

The Fiat G.50 B version with a longer cockpit design for the instructor and the student. [alieuomini.it]
A group of six NDH pilots was sent to the Fiat company in Torino for training in January 1942. The entire acquisition process of new aircraft took several months to complete. The 9 Fiat G.50bis (serial number MM.6178 to 6186) were finally allocated to the NDH. These arrived in Croatia in April 1942. The Fiat G.50B two-seater took even more time to be delivered, arriving in late June 1942. These would be stationed on the Borongaj airfield near Zagreb. Initially, these were used for pilot training. Due to the poor condition of the airfield, two were lightly damaged during landing.

The Fiat G.50bis in NDH service. [asisbiz.com]
For the necessary pilot training, one modified Fiat G.50B two-seater was also acquired. [The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War]

Combat Use

Almost from the start, the new NDH regime began the persecution of all non-Croatian citizens. The Serbian, Roma, and Jewish populations were especially targeted, with numerous atrocities and arrests. Croatians who did not agree with this regime were also persecuted. In response to the NDH’s actions against Yugoslavian civilians, resistance movements began to emerge on its territory. Their Air Force was used in various roles during this time, but due to generally obsolescence of equipment, their impact would be quite limited.

The acquisition of more aircraft like the Fiat G.50 offered a slight increase in its offensive capabilities. Once in service, these received new registration numbers ranging from 2501 to 2509. The single Fiat G.50B received the 3510 designations. In July, five would be allocated to the Rajlovac airfield near Sarajevo. In September three were moved to the Banja Luka to be part of the 16th squadron.

After April 1943 most were pulled back to Zagreb where they were attached to the 1st Squadron. When Italy capitulated to the Allies, all warring parties in Yugoslavia rushed in to take over the abandoned Italian weapons, armored vehicles, and a few remaining aircraft. At Zadar airfield, there were six Fiat G.50 aircraft. These would be captured by the NDH forces. Three of them received 5686, 5956, and 5186 designations. The newly acquired fighters were primarily positioned at Kurilovac and Velika Gorica airfields.

By 1944 it was becoming obvious that the Axis would lose the war, as a result many soldiers and pilots from the NDH Army and Air Force tried to escape to the Partisans. On the 2nd of September 1944, air force pilot Andrija Arapović with a Fiat G.50 (reg. Num. 3505) escaped to the island of Vis, under the control of the Yugoslav communist Partisans. Partisan forces put the captured G.50 to use during the war and it would remain in service up to 1946. An interesting fact about Andrija Arapović’s G.50 aircraft is that it still exists today and can be seen in the Belgrade Military Aviation museum near the Nikola Tesla Airport in Serbia. This is the only surviving example of a G.50 in the world. Another Fiat G.50 escaped joining the Allies in Italy.

The Fiat G.50bis was piloted by pilot Andrija Arapović. On the 2nd of September 1944, he fled to the Partisan side. [The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War]
By this point the Allies had achieved almost complete air supremacy over southern Eastern Europe, thus flying the slower Fiat G.50 became quite dangerous. In April 1944 several NDH aircraft, including two Fiat G.50, were destroyed in an Allied bombing run on Borongaj. Due to their obsolescence, even the NDH’s best fighters could do little against Allied bombers. In addition, the chronic lack of fuel led to a reduction in combat flights. By mid-September 1944, only 7 aircraft were listed as operational. In October most were allocated to the 2nd Squadron, which was also equipped with MS 406 fighters. When the Partisans liberated Zagreb, some 9 aircraft in various conditions would be captured. Some would be put to use after the war, but their use would be limited.  These would be removed from service by the 1st of April 1946.

The Fiat G.50bis were often used to protect Zagreb but could do little against more modern Allied bombers. [The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War]

Technical Characteristics 

In NDH service no known modifications were made on the Fiat G. 50. The G.50 was a single-seat, low-wing, all-metal fighter plane. The main fuselage was made from four angular-shaped longerons. The wing construction consisted of a center section which was made of a steel tube connected to the lower fuselage and two metal spars connected with ribs. The fuselage, wing, and tail were covered with duralumin sheets. The only fabric-covered parts were the movable control surfaces in the wings and the tail. It was powered by the 840 hp (626 kW) Fiat A 74 RC 38, a 14-cylinder radial piston engine. An all-metal three-blade propeller produced by Fiat was used.

The G.50 was equipped, like most modern aircraft of the time, with inward retracting landing gear, but the rear tail wheel was fixed. In later improved versions, the rear tail wheel was changed to a retractable type.

The main armament consisted of two forward-firing 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns, with some 150 rounds of ammunition for each machine gun. The guns were placed behind the upper engine cowl and were synchronized in order not to damage the propeller.

Conclusion

The Fiat G.50 was one of few modern fighters available for NDH service. Their use would be greatly hampered by ever-increasing Allied Air supremacy, lack of fuel, and fear of their pilots defecting. Despite being acquired in relatively small numbers many of them would survive the war albeit in poor condition, while some would see a few more years of service by the newly created Yugoslav Air Force.

Fiat G.50 Specifications
Wingspan 10.9 m / 35 ft 11 in
Length 8 m / 26 ft  3 in
Height 3.28 m / 10 ft 7 in
Wing Area 18.25 m² / 196.5 ft²
Engine One 840 hp (626 kW) Fiat A.74 RC.38, 14 cylinder radial piston
Empty Weight 1,975 kg / 4,350 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight 2,415 kg / 5,324 lbs
Fuel Capacity 316 l
Maximum Speed 470 km/h / 292 mph
Range 445 km / 267 mi
Maximum Service Ceiling 10,700 m / 35,100 ft
Climb speed Climb to 6,000 m (19,700 ft) in 7 minutes and 30 seconds
Crew One pilot
Armament
  • Two 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
  • Illustrated by Haryo Panji

Sources:

  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Italija, Beograd.
  • G. Cattaneo, The Fiat G.50, Profile Publications number 188
  • P. Verganano (1997), Fiat G.50,, La Bancarella Aeronautica – Torino.
  • D. Monday (1984, 2006), The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft Of World War II, Aerospace Publishing Ltd.
  • V. V. Mikić, (2000) Zrakoplovstvo Nezavisne Države Hrvatske 1941-1945, Vojno  istorijski institut Vojske Jugoslavije.
  • T. Likso and Danko Č. (1998) The Croatian Air Force In The Second World War, Nacionalna Sveučilišna Zagreb.
  • I. Černiševski (2012) Maketar Plus, IPMS Srbija

 

Heinkel He 176

Nazi flag Germany (1937)
Rocket Powered Aircraft – 1 Prototype Built

For many years artists often imagined that the He 176 would have looked something like this. [luft46.com]
Prior to, and during the war, the German aviation industry developed a series of operational and prototype aircraft designs. Among the leading new technologies, rocket-powered aircraft were being developed. The concept was initially tested prior to the war on a smaller scale, including limited theoretical tests and prototyping. But further development would lead to the creation of the first rocket-powered aircraft known as the He 176. While it wasn’t accepted for service, it proved that such a concept was feasible and set the stage for the later Me 163 rocket-powered aircraft.

History of Rocket Engine Development in Germany

Following the end of the Great War, Germany was forbidden to have an Air Force. This also included the development of aircraft designs, though this did not stop the Germans from experimenting with new aviation technology. One such new technology was rocket propulsion. One of the first such flights using rocket propulsion occurred in June of 1928, when aviation enthusiast Fritz Stramer took to the sky his rocket-powered glider. Another pioneer in rocket-powered flight occurred at the end of September 1929. A pilot named Fritz von Opel managed to take to the sky in his rocket-powered glider, named Ente (Duck). Von Opel was assisted by another prominent aircraft designer Alexander Martin Lippisch. While technically speaking these were not real rocket-powered flights, given that these gliders did not take to the sky using purely the rocket engine but were towed to altitude. Nevertheless, these flights showed that flight using rocket engines was possible.

Von Opel experimental take-off using a rocket propulsion. [L. Warsitz The First Jet Pilot]
Over the following years, Lippisch became quite interested in rocket technology and would join the Deutsche Forschungsinstitut DFS, where he worked as an engineer. There, he developed a series of new glider designs, like the DFS 40. This work would eventually lead to the creation of the Me 163 rocket-powered aircraft. The Junkers Aircraft company also was interested in rocket development as they built and tested rocket take-off boosters. One such engine was ground tested in 1936.

Another stepping stone in rocketry research was the work of Wernher von Braun. In 1932 and 1934 von Braun managed to successfully launch two rockets using liquid-fuel rocket engines. In 1935 he managed to come into contact with Dr. Ernst Heinkel 1935. After von Braun presented his work, Dr. Ernst was highly impressed and promised to provide von Braun with any assistance in his work. For this, he appointed a young and energetic aircraft engineer named Walter Wenzelunzel to assist von Braun. In order to properly test the installation of rocket engines in aircraft designs, a special test center was established at Kummersdorf in 1936.

The He 112 prior to the start of testing with the von Broun rocket engine. [luft46.com]
Dr. Ernst supplied this research team with a few He 112 airframes. The first He 112 was used for ground testing. For this reason, its fuselage was retained while its wings and the original engine were removed. The rocket engine, which ran on a combination of liquid oxygen and alcohol, would be placed in the rear of the fuselage, with the engine nozzle being placed just beneath the tail unit. Von Braun’s team installed the oxygen tanks in front of the cockpit, with the alcohol tank behind the pilot seat. The engine (the sources do not specify its precise designation) could provide a thrust of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) with an endurance of 30 seconds. During the testing the engine exploded, destroying the aircraft in the process.

Despite this setback, the project went on. By this time, German Army Officials were becoming interested in the project. In order to maintain its secrecy, von Braun and his team were instructed to find a remote auxiliary airfield where these tests could continue to be conducted away from prying eyes. The team, wanting to be close to Berlin, chose a small field at Neuhardenberg, which was covered on most sides by dense forest. Temporary housing, cabins, and tents were quickly set up in 1937 and the work could finally go on.

In 1937 von Braun began close cooperation with another enthusiast of rocket engine development, Helmuth Walter. This cooperation was partly initiated by the German Air Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) who intended to use the rocket engines for other proposals, like assistance during take-offs. Walter was a young scientist who was highly interested in rocket propulsion. He managed to obtain military funding, which greatly helped in his work. In 1936 he used a Heinkel He 72 to test this engine. In 1937, he even managed to get the attention of the RLM. The RLM formed a Special Propulsion System department (Sondertriebwerke) with the aim of experimenting with rocket engines in the aircraft industry. While this department was mainly focused on developing rocket engines for short take-off assistance, Walter wanted more than that. He intended to develop a strong rocket engine that could replace the standard piston engines of the day. Walter managed to develop such an engine, named Walter TP-1, which was fueled by the so-called ‘T-Stoff’ (hydrogen peroxide) and ‘Z-Stoff’ (water solution of either calcium or sodium permanganate).

Von Braun requested another aircraft which Henkel provided, this was the He 112 V8 (during these trials it received a slightly changed designation V8/U). The test pilot Erich Warsitz managed to take it to the sky using the aircraft’s original piston engine. Warsitz was a crucial pilot for the German early rocket and jet engine development, being heavily involved in testing and helping with the overall design of both the He 176 and He 178. At about 450 meters Warsitz activated the rocket engine, and during the 30 seconds of the engine burn phase, a speed of nearly 400 km/h (or 460 km/h (286 mph) depending on the source) was reached. Due to the dangerous leakage of the engine, the flight had to be aborted, but otherwise, the flight has deemed a success. This He 112 V8 would be returned to Heinkel, but two more aircraft (H7/U and A-03) would be donated to the rocket research program.

Test pilot Erich Warsitz whose experience and work proved to be vital for both He 176 and 178 aircraft development. [firstjetpilot.com]
After this flight, all further tests were conducted using the Walter TP-1 rocket engine. In contrast to the von Braun engine which used alcohol and liquid oxygen as fuel, Walter’s own engine used hydrogen-peroxide and calcium permanganate as a catalyst. This engine was deemed safer too, which is somewhat ironic given the corrosive and volatile fuel. To avoid accidentally coming into contact with the Walter engine fuel, the pilot had to wear a highly protective suit. If exposed to the corrosive fuel, it caused disintegration without actually burning.

More tests were conducted at this location until the end of 1937, when the research was to be moved to Peenemunde. Due to some delays, the tests on the He 112 continued on from April 1938.

Heinkel’s First Rocket-Powered Aircraft

Following the series of tests on the He 112, some officials from the RLM began showing great interest in the prospect of using a rocket-powered aircraft interceptor. It was originally hoped that this aircraft would be capable of vertical, or nearly vertical take-off. When sufficient altitude was reached, the aircraft was then to make a swift dive on its target, firing a volley of its full weapon load. After this attack run, it was simply to glide away once it was out of fuel, to its base of operation.

The work on the project was conducted under a veil of secrecy and began in 1936 at the Heinkel Rostock-Marienehe work. The following year the first drawings of the He 176 V1 (derived from “Versuchsmuster 1” meaning “Experimental Model”) were completed by Hans Regner. Interestingly the designers set a huge task in front of them, by actually trying to reach a blistering speed of 1000 km/h (620 mp/h). An astonishing and difficult feat to achieve with such a novelty design. This set a number of challenges that had to be overcome. One of them was a proper wing design able to withstand the pressure of such high speed. For this reason, it had to be designed to be flat, at only 90 millimeters thick, with very sharp leading edges. This in turn caused further problems, as this design would cause the aircraft to stall at low speeds. In addition, the installation of wing fuel tanks would be difficult.

In order to make the whole design smaller and thus save weight, the pilot had to be placed in a rather unpleasant semi-recumbent position, with his legs stretched out in front and the pilot’s seat reclined. This was also done to help the pilot better cope with the extreme G-forces that he would be subjected to during the extremely high forward acceleration. The fuselage had a very small diameter of only 0.8 meters (2ft 7in) and was specially designed according to the height of the test pilot, Warsitz.

The construction of the first prototype was undertaken at the Heinkel’s aircraft works in Marienehe. Once the aircraft was completed, it was to be transported to Peenemunde. The aircraft’s testing was conducted under great secrecy and was transported there via military escort in June 1938. Just prior to the actual testing, Warsitz was informed by RLM officials that given the experimental nature of the design, and Warsitz’s valued status as an experienced test pilot, he was advised not to fly it. Warsitz, who was heavily involved in the He 176 design, protested to Air Minister (Reichsluftfahrtministerium) Ernst Udet, who gave him permission to undertake the first flight. After this was settled, there were some delays with the assembly and engine adjustment.

The initial tests were undertaken on the ground. Due to unsuitable terrain and lack of a proper towing vehicle, ground testing proved ineffective. So it was decided to use the aircraft’s own engine for these tests, which were conducted at the end of 1938. Using the He 178’s own engine on the ground presented a new problem, namely the rudder could not provide steering during take-off. As the aircraft had no propellers to generate airflow, steering the aircraft using the rudder on take-off was ineffective, thus the only way to maintain the aircraft’s heading was by using the left and right brakes on the main wheels. This was quite dangerous for the pilot and the aircraft, as an imbalanced braking force could potentially lead to an accident. The result of the initial testing showed that some changes to the overall structural design were needed. For this, the Heinkel crews spent the winter of 1939 modifying the He 178.

First Flights

During the Spring of 1939, a series of small test flights were conducted with the He 178. Somewhat unexpectedly, the Heinkel team was visited by an RLM delegation led by Udet himself. After observing the He 178 on the short flight they were quite impressed, but surprisingly for the Heinkel team, Udet forbade any more flights on it. Mostly due to fear for the pilot’s life. After some delays, Warsitz visited Udet in Berlin and filed a plea that the project should go on. Udet finally accepted this and gave a green light.

A military delegation led by Udet observed the He 176’s initial short flight attempts. The man in the white suit is the test pilot Warsitz who is speaking with delegation members about the flight, with Dr. Ernst just behind him. [luft46.com]
While the first official flight of the He 176 was to be conducted under the supervision of many RLM officials, feeling that something might go wrong, Erich Warsitz and Heinkel’s team (without the knowledge of Dr. Erns) decided to perform the flight in secrecy. The date for this was set on the 20th of June, 1939. After a rough take-off, the pilot managed to take the He 176 to the sky. Given the small fuel load, the flight lasted around a minute. Overall, the first test flight was deemed a success. The following day, Udet and his delegation visited the site and observed another test flight.

The Fuhrer Inspects the He 176

Hitler during his inspection of the He 176.[L. Warsitz The First Jet Pilot]
A couple of days later Warsitz and Heinkel’s team were informed that any further flights were forbidden. The reason was that Hitler himself became interested in the project and wanted to personally see the aircraft. The He 176 was to be transported to the Rechlin Secret Test Center and shown to many high-ranking members of the Luftwaffe. On the 3rd of July 1939, the aircraft was to be demonstrated to a large delegation including Hitler himself. First, a flight of a He 111 equipped with rocket-assisted take-off was shown to Hitler, which greatly impressed him. Another Heinkel innovative design, the He 178 jet-engine powered aircraft, was also present. While it was not yet capable of taking to the sky it was used for ground testing. Next in the line for inspection was the He 176, after a brief examination of its interior by the delegation, the stage was set for it to take to the sky. The flight initially went well, but the pilot miscalculated and shut down the engine too soon. While still at high speed, he began descending rather rapidly. After several attempts to restart the engine, he finally succeeded, just before hitting the ground. The plane took an almost vertical climb of some 50 meters before the pilot regained control and landed it safely. Hitler and his delegation were under the impression that the pilot performed this maneuver intentionally to demonstrate the aircraft’s potential. For his flight, the pilot was awarded 20,000 Reichsmarks.

The End of the Project

After this exhibit, Heinkel’s team tried to prepare the He 176 for reaching speeds up to 1,000 km/h. Structural analysis of the design, on the other hand, showed that this would not be possible. For this reason, preparation for the construction of a second prototype was underway. It was to be powered by a von Braun rocket engine, which suggested that the aircraft could be launched vertically. This was possible thanks to weight reduction efforts sufficient to enable vertical take-off.

Ultimately the whole project would be canceled. The order was given by Adolf Hilter, who insisted that designs that could not enter production in less than a year, be canceled. Despite Heinkel’s attempt to win over Udet’s support, it went nowhere and the project was officially terminated.

The He 176 V1 was disassembled and transported to the Aviation Museum in Berlin to be exhibited. Sadly it would be later on destroyed in one of many Allied bombing raids. The He 176 V2 was almost complete, but its parts were eventually scrapped. The V3 had also been under construction, but was ultimately abandoned in its early stages.

Technical Characteristics

The He 176 was designed as an all-metal, high-wing rocket-powered experimental reconnaissance aircraft. Its fuselage had a simple circular cross-section design. The wings had an asymmetrical profile and were quite thin. During take-off, there was a significant chance of the wingtips contacting the ground, due to the fuselage’s small diameter and extreme vibrations during take-off. To avoid damaging them, Heinkel engineers added a “U” shaped metal bar under each wingtip as a temporary solution. The wings were also initially to act as fuel tanks, but this feature had to be abandoned on the prototype, and fuel was instead stored behind the cockpit. The tail and rudder design was more or less conventional.

To avoid causing damage to the wings during take-off, Heinkel engineers added a “U” shaped metal bar under each wingtip.

The rocket engine chosen for the He 176 was the Walter RI type. It provided thrust ranging between 45 kg to 500 kg (100 to 1,1100 lb) with an endurance of one minute. Due to the weight issues combined with a relatively weak propulsion unit, the desired speed of 1,000 km/h (620 mph) was never reached. The maximum speed reached by this aircraft differs greatly between sources. For example, D. Nešić mentioned that the maximum speed was only 345 kmh, while authors J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay quoted a figure of 700 kmh. Lastly, the test pilot himself in his own logbook mentioned that he managed to reach a speed of 800 kmh (500 mph).

The landing gear consisted of one front smaller wheel, two larger wheels 700 mm in diameter, and one more to the rear. While the front wheel was fixed the remaining three were completely retractable.

The He 176 during take-off [L. Warsitz The First Jet Pilot]
The cockpit provided the pilot with an excellent forward view and was made of plexiglass. Given the experimental nature of this aircraft, great attention was given to pilot safety. As in case of emergency, bailing out of the fast-moving and cramped aircraft was almost impossible. Heinkel engineers designed the entire cockpit section to be jettisonable. The cockpit assembly was connected to the fuselage by four locks which were equipped with small explosive charges. When the pilot was jettisoned from the fuselage his parachute would open automatically and allow him to land safely. This system was tested by using a wooden cockpit containing a dummy pilot. This trial cockpit was then taken to the sky by a He 111 and at sufficient height, it was released. The parachute opened without an issue and it landed on the ground intact. The results of the dummy pilot showed that this system was safe if the cockpit landed on soft ground.

The small size of the cockpit prevented the use of a standard instrument panel, as it would severely affect the pilot’s forward visibility. Instead, the instruments were placed to the left and the right of the pilot. Interestingly, while Heinkel did not intend to arm the aircraft, RLM officials insisted that two machine gun ports be placed beside the pilot. Due to the cramped cockpit interior, the two machine guns had to be placed where the pilots’ side controls were positioned. As this would cause delays and much-needed redesign work, the Heinkel engineers simply placed machine gun ports (without the actual machine guns equipped) and kept the original control units in place. The RLM officials, when visiting the work, were told that these were just temporary measures.

The Only Photograph

The real He 176 was quite different in design. [luft46.com]
Given the secretive nature of the project, RLM officials effectively gathered all films and photos for themselves. All persons involved in the project were also forbidden from taking any pictures. At the war’s end, the Soviets either destroyed or captured these and their final fate is unknown. Sometime after the war, many artists attempted to produce sketches of how the He 176 may have looked. These greatly differed from the original design, but given the lack of information and general obscurity of the He 176, this is understandable.

Conclusion

The He 176 project arose as a collaboration of several different parties. It was heavily influenced by rocket engine testing and development done by von Braun and Walter. Heinkel Flugzeugwerke provided the necessary resources and production capabilities, while test pilot Erich Warsitz provided valuable feedback which guided necessary changes and improvements to the design.

It was a novel idea to use rockets to power aircraft, which offered numerous advantages, such as reaching high speed and altitude very quickly. Given that this project was more or less a Heinkel private venture in the development of new technologies it likewise did not find a place in German military service. It, however, did set the stage for future designs like the Me 163, which actually saw some combat during the war.

He 176 Specifications

Wingspans 4 m / 13 ft 1 in
Length 5 m / 16 ft 4 in
Height 1.4 m / 4 ft 7 in
Wing Area 8 m² / 53 ft²
Engine Walter RI rocket engine
Empty Weight 1,570 kg / 3,455lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight 2,000 kg / 4,400 lbs
Maximum Speed 700 km/h / 435 mph
Endurance flight Range 60 seconds
Crew One Pilot
Armament
  • None

Gallery

Illustration by Godzilla

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
  • Illustration by Godzilla

Sources

  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata Nemačka Beograd
  • M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945, Frontline Book
  • D. Mondey (2006). The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
  • D. Donald (1998) German Aircraft Of World War II, Blitz Publisher
  • J. R Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the Second World War, Putnam
  • Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage (2009), Aircraft Of The Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland & Company Inc
  • L. Warsitz (2008) The First Jet Pilot The Story of German Test Pilot Erich Warsitz Pen and Sword Aviation

Sack AS 6

Nazi flag Germany (1943)
Experimental Circular Wing Aircraft – 1 Prototype Built

The unusual Sack AS-6 circular-wing aircraft [falkeeins.blogspot.com]
In the history of aviation there were many designers who had ambitious ideas and concepts for new designs, but never had the chance to bring their ideas to fruition. On the other hand, there were those who had radical or even completely impractical designs that did manage, at least to some extent, to be built. Germany had a fair share of such individuals, especially during the later stages of the Second World War. These designers may have proposed their projects out of desperation to save their country or in fear of being sent to the front. There were also those that were simply enthusiasts in aircraft development but lacked a better understanding of how aerodynamics actually work. One such person was Arthur Sack (1900-1964), who prior to the war came up with the idea of building a circular-wing aircraft known simply as the Sack AS-6.

History

Prior to the war, Germans were prohibited from developing and building military aircraft. The Germans simply bypassed this prohibition by instead focusing on gliders, but also on civilian aircraft which if needed would be quickly converted for military use and conducted secret experiments. They especially took great care in the development and investment of manned gliders, but also scale model-building competitions and organizations. While this may seem like a waste of time and money, it actually helped gain initial and valuable experience in aircraft development which proved vital for the later Luftwaffe.

One such model competition was the National Contest of Aero Models with combustion engines, held in late June 1939 at Leipzig-Mockau. Here, aviation enthusiast Arthur Sack presented his model of an unusually circular-wing-shaped aircraft named AS-1. It is sadly unclear why Sack pursued the design of such an unusual aircraft design. Due to engine problems, the AS-1 was unable to take off from the ground, so the small model had to be launched by hand instead. The Air Minister (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) Ernst Udet, who was present at the event, seemed to be impressed with this design and advised Sack to continue its development.

Arthur Sack and his AS-1 model. [lvz.de]
Thanks to financial support from the RLM, Sack was able to proceed with the development and even the construction of a few scale models, a process that lasted some three years. In 1943 he submitted a fully operational model SA-5 to the RLM. The presentation went well for Sack and the RLM commission provided the necessary funds for the construction of a fully operational prototype. Interestingly, at some point Sack came into contact with another unusual aircraft designer Dr. Alexander Lippisch. While not completely clear, it appears that Sack received some design tips from Lippisch, to better improved his work.

With the order secured, Sack initiated the construction of a prototype. He named this aircraft the AS-6 V1 (Versuchs – version). As he had no proper workshop to build the aircraft himself, the glider manufacturer Mitteldeutsche Metallwerke was tasked with this instead. The initial work for the assembly of the aircraft began in the autumn of 1943. It took nearly half a year to complete the working prototype. Interestingly, due to the general shortage of materials, the AS-6 was constructed by utilizing a considerable amount of salvaged components from other damaged aircraft. For example, the cockpit canopy and parts of the interior were taken from a Bf 109B. Once the prototype was ready, it was allocated to the Luftwaffe for initial tests in early 1944.

AS-6 side view. [lvz.de]

Technical Characteristics

A good view of the AS-6 internal wooden frame construction.[all-aero.com]
The AS-6 was designed as an experimental prototype to test the idea of using circular-wing design. Sadly, this aircraft is quite obscure and poorly documented so not much is known about its overall design. It was a single-seater aircraft that was mostly built out of wood. It did not have a classical fuselage, instead, the majority of the aircraft consisted of two large circular wings. The internal design is more or less conventional with a wooden construction frame being covered with canvas. Two large elevators were installed on the rear of the wings. The tail assembly is a conventional design as well, consisting of one vertical stabilizer and two horizontal stabilizers.

The AS-6 rearview. The two elevators were too small, poorly designed, and did not provide adequate control during initially limited test flights. [all-aero.com]
The AS-6 was powered by an Argus As 10C-3 engine, which ultimately proved to be inadequate [all-aero.com]
The AS-6 was powered by a 240 hp Argus As 10C-3 engine driving a two-blade wooden propeller. The engine was housed in a metal frame, which was then bolted to the AS-6 fuselage. The engine was salvaged from a Bf 108 aircraft.

The cockpit canopy and its interior, as already mentioned, were taken from a Bf 109B. The cockpit was slightly elevated above the fuselage and provided the pilot with an excellent all-around view. The landing gear was also salvaged from a Bf 109B, but in the case of the AS-6, it was fixed. Initially, a landing skid was used on the rear, which was later replaced with a landing wheel instead.

The canopy and landing gear was taken from a damaged Bf 109 aircraft [ufxufo.org]

Testing the Prototype

Initial evaluation tests of the AS-6 prototype were conducted at the Luftwaffe Brandis Airbase. The flight tests were conducted by Rolf Baltabol Junkers test pilot. While several short take-offs were made, there were no attempts to actually take the aircraft to the sky. The test pilot noted that the aircraft had an overall poor design and was difficult to control. He urged that the control surfaces and rudder be completely redesigned. The engine was also deemed too weak. During the last short take-off, one of the two landing gear assemblies was damaged.

The AS-6, following its unsuccessful start, spent several weeks in repairs and received a number of modifications in an attempt to improve its performance. These included adding an additional 70 kg of weight to the rear, installation of brakes taken from a Ju 88, and repositioning the landing wheels to the rear by about 20 cm. Sack proposed moving the landing wheels further back, but the test pilot Rolf simply refused to fly it if this change was implemented. He argued that placing the landing gear to the rear would imbalance the aircraft potentially leading to tipping forward during a take-off. For this reason, the modification was not implemented. While the engine was underpowered, there were simply no alternatives available at that time.

The AS-6 during testing [falkeeins.blogspot.com]
The next test was scheduled for April 1944. During these tests, Rolf tried to take it to the sky, but failed again to do so. This time it was noted that the wings were simply too short. Further tests were canceled, the AS-6 was to await more modifications, and was to be tested in a wind tunnel; if possible with a completely new engine.

The fate of the AS-6

Following the unsuccessful testing, the AS-6 was stored at the Brandis airfield. In the summer of 1944, this airfield became the main operational base for the experimental Me 163 rocket-powered aircraft. The pilots of the I./JG 400 (charged with testing the Me 163) found the AS-6. One of its pilots, Franz Rossle, expressed a desire to attempt flying the unusual plane. But when the ground crew was preparing the aircraft for take-off, one of its landing gear units simply broke due to rough terrain, effectively preventing the test flight to be conducted. After this, it was once again stored at Brandis. It would remain there until early 1945 when it was lost in an Allied bombing raid.

The AS-7 project

While not clear when (possibly during early 1945), Sack approached Messerschmitt company with a proposal to use his circular-wing design on the Bf 109K-4 aircraft. The aircraft marked as SA-7 would be powered by a DB 605 2,000 hp engine. Fitted with circular wings it was theorized that it would be capable of carrying more armament inside the wings. It is believed (but not clear) that Messerschmitt was interested in this proposal and designated the project Me 600. Due to the war’s end, nothing really came from this project.

Conclusion

While certainly an unusual and interesting design, due to poor quality and salvaged materials used during its construction, the AS-6 performed poorly and never actually achieved flight. We will never know if the AS-6 circular-wing design offered any major advantage over more conventional wing designs. It appears that Arthur Sack did not continue with his idea after the war and passed away in the mid-1960’s. While his work was never implemented in mass production, his unusual design was often mistakenly taken as some advanced and secret German World War II project, which ironically, it never was.

AS-6 Specifications

Wingspan 16 ft 5 in / 5 m
Length 21 ft / 6.4 m
Wing Area 19.62 ft² / 211 m²
Engine One 240 hp Argus As 10C-3 engine
Maximum Take-off Weight 1,984 lbs / 900 kg
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • None

Gallery

Illustration by Ed Jackson

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. & Blaze
  • Illustrated by Ed Jackson

Sources

  • B. Rose and T. Butler (2006) Secret Projects Flying Saucer Aircraft, Midland Publishing
  • J. Dennis G.G. Lepage (2009) Aircraft of the Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland and Company
  • Duško N. (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemacka. Beograd.
  • http://www.luft46.com/misc/sackas6.html

Messerschmitt Me 163D Komet

Nazi flag Germany (1944)
Rocket-Powered Interceptor Prototype – 1 Built

The Me 163D prototype [luftwaffephotos.com]
The Me 163 showed to have great potential as a fast rocket-powered interceptor, but its design had some shortcomings. These included a limited view from the cockpit, lacking of landing gear, increased fuel storage, etc. The German companies Messerschmitt and later Junkers tried to resolve this by implementing a number of improvements to its design leading to the Me 163D of which only a few prototypes were built given the late start of the program.

History 

The Me 163 small size, while reducing the overall cost of the aircraft, enforced limitation of the fuel that could be stored inside which in turn led to a limited operational powered flight time of fewer than 8 minutes. In combat operations, this proved to be insufficient but no auxiliary tanks could be added to the Me 163 wings not inside of it. Another issue was the lack of proper landing gear. The Me 163 was instead forced to use a two-wheel dolly. Once the aircraft was in the air, the dolly was jettisoned. On occasion, there were accidents regarding this system when for example the dolly refused to be detached from the aircraft or even worse when it bounced off the ground and hit the aircraft from below. On the landing, the Me 163 were to use a simple retractable landing skid, placed beneath the fuselage. After landing the aircraft was immobile and essentially an easy target for enemy crafts.  For this reason, a normal retracting landing gear unit was desirable but once again due to Me 163 small size impossible to install.

To redress the previously mentioned issues engineers at Messerschmitt began working on an improved version named Me 163C. It incorporated a longer fuselage, extended cockpit, having an engine with two combustion chambers, and other modifications. The work on this version was rather slow and by war end not much was done on it besides a few incomplete airframes.

Illustration of a Me 163C aircraft, which was to replace the Me 163B. [walterwerke.co.uk]
One or two Me 163B prototypes had their fuselage extended in order if such modification was possible. [walterwerke.co.uk]
Parallel with the Me 163C development another project was carried out in early 1944 once again by Messerschmitt. This project was initially designated as Me 163D and was to have substantial numbers of improvements mostly regarding the overall shape of the aircraft, engine use, weaponry etc. For testing this new concept of substantially extending the aircraft fuselage if it was feasible at all. One or two (depending on the source) Me 163 (BV13 and BV18) was to be experimentally modified with an extended fuselage. In addition, experimental landing gear was also to be added. The testing of this rebuilt aircraft proved to be feasible and so the work on a fully built prototype began in earnest.

Name

The Me 163D project, due to Messerschmitt being simply overburdened with the Me 262 production, would instead be given to Junkers company. Once in their hands, the project was renamed Ju 248. The Me 163D obviously had an identity crisis as in late 1944 it was once again given back to Messerschmitt. Once back to its original designers, the project once again changed its name, this time to Me 263. As all three designations are basically correct for this aircraft, this article will use the original Me 163D designation for the sake of simplicity and to avoid any possible confusion.

First Prototype

Despite being originally designed by Messerschmitt, it was actually assembled in Junkers factories sometime during August 1944 or in early 1945 (the sources are not clear here). After that it would be returned to Messerschmitt where it was planned to examine and test its overall performance. While it was intended to have an increase in fuel capacity and an improved engine, the first prototype had actually no engine installed at that time. The Me 163D V1 (DV-PA) prototype was also provided with a new retractable tricycle landing gear which was to help with the mobility during the ground drive.

Given that no engine was fitted to the Me 163D, first flight testing was done as a glider, in late 1944. After these were conducted the prototype was in a series of wind-tunnel testings. The results of these two test trials (flight and wind tunnel) showed that the Me 163D was not capable of safely achieving dive speeds that were greater than its normal flight speed. In this regard, it was inferior to the original Me 163 aircraft which could achieve extensive dive speed but still managed to preserve good flight controls. The Messerschmitt engineers at this phase even considered redesigning the rear tail unit, but nothing came of it. The tricycle landing gear units did not offer good mobility on the ground, this was mainly due to it being too narrow. The Germans had plans to test using a parachute that was to be released during landing to help reduce the need for a long airfield. If this was tested or even installed on a Me 163D is unknown.

Technical characteristics

The Me 163D like its predecessor was designed as a high-speed, rocket-powered, swept-wing tailless aircraft. Given its experimental nature and its late development into the war, not much is known about its precise technical characteristics. Its overall construction would probably be similar to the previous versions, with a fuselage being built of metal and wooden wings.

The semi-monocoque construction fuselage was longer and was now 7.88 m ( 25 ft 10 in) compared to the original 5.84 m (9 ft 2 in) length. It had a good overall aerodynamic shape. The wings were swept to the back at a 19° angle, compared to the Me 163B 23.3° angle.

The Me 163D like its predecessor had wings that were swept to the back at a 19° angle. The fuselage had an excellent aerodynamic shape. [forum.warthunder.com]
The pilot cockpit received a new ‘bubble-shaped canopy. This provided the pilot with a much greater field of view. Given that it was intended to operate at great heights, the Me 163 D cockpit was to be pressurized and for this was bolted to the fuselage.

The Me 163D received a much better canopy which offered a much better all-around view. It was also completely pressurized so that the pilot could effectively fly it, on great heights. [forum.warthunder.com]
Interior of the Me 163D pilot cockpit. [forum.warthunder.com]
The Me 163D was to be powered by an improved Walter 109-509C rocket engine. It was provided by two combustion chambers.  While the sources are not clear if this engine was ever installed in the Me 163D, the estimated maximum speed was noted to be 950 km/h (590 mph) or up to 1,000 km/h (620 mph) depending on the source. It should also provide more economical consumption of fuel providing an operational range of some 160-220 km (100-140 mile) once again depending on the source. The operational flight endurance was increased from 7 minutes and 30 seconds to 15 minutes.

To overcome the previous Me 163B version’s lack of proper landing gear, the Me 163D was provided with the retractable tricycle landing gear. It consisted of a forward smaller and two larger wheels in the rear, just below the wing roots. All three of these retracted to the rear into the fuselage.

The fuel load consisted of 1040 liters (229 gallons) of T-Stoff and 492 liters of C-Stoff. The Me 163 was notorious for having only a limited endurance flight ofOnce the fuel was spent the pilots were to simply glide the aircraft back to the base.

The armament consisted of two 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannons, which were placed in the wing roots. Depending on the source the ammunition storage for each cannon ranged between 40 to 75 rounds.

Production

It is often mentioned in the sources that one complete and one partially complete prototype were built, by the war’s end. According to M. Griehl (Jet Planes of the Third Reich)  on the other hand, mentioned that at least three prototypes were built with less than 20 aircraft being in various states of construction when these were captured by the Allies in 1945.

Service

The limited operational test use of the Me 163D  and the German plans for it is not clear. Once again depending on the sources, there are mostly two versions. It appears that despite some faults in its design the Germans were willing to proceed with its further development. Given the end of the war, it should not be surprising that this was ever achieved. In another version, the work on the Me163D after some testing flight in February 1945 was officially terminated by the Luftwaffe officials. Mostly due to the fact that production of its unique and dangerous fuel is no longer possible.

The fate of these aircraft is not clear, given either information that these were either destroyed or captured by the Soviets. The latter option seems more likely as some sources suggest that the Soviets based on the Me 163D after the war developed their own version of it, the I-270. The project led nowhere and it would be abandoned.

    • Me 163D V1 – Completed prototype
    • Me 163D V2 –  Incomplete second prototype
    • Me 163D V3 –  Possible third prototype being built with additional 18 airframes

Conclusion

Given its experimental nature and its late introduction, it is quite difficult to make the final decision on the general properties of this aircraft. While it introduced some improvements in comparison to the previous version it also had issues regarding its reaching speed during dive flights. Despite offering the Germans a relatively cheap aircraft the whole Me 163 project by 1945 was essentially over given the general impossibility of production of its unique fuel. Nevertheless despite its downsides, the Me 163 whole series was certainly an interesting concept that had some merits that unfortunately for the Germans were never completely implemented.

Me 163D V1 Specifications

Wingspans 31 ft 2 in / 9.5 m
Length 25 ft 10 in / 7.88m
Height ft  in  /  3.17 m
Wing Area 192.6 ft² /  17.91 m²
Engine HWL 509  rocket engine
Empty Weight 4,400 lbs / 2,000 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 11,660 lbs / 5.300 kg
Maximum Speed 590 mph / 950 km/h
Operational range 100 mil / 160 km
Engine endurance 15 minutes
Maximum Service Ceiling 52,480 ft /  16,000 m
Crew One pilot
Armament
  • Two 30 mm MK108 cannons

Gallery

Artist Conception of the Me 163C – by Carpaticus

Artist Conception of the Me 263 – by Carpaticus

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed J.
  • Illustrated by Carpaticus

Source:

  • D. Nešić (2008)  Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemcaka. Beograd.
  • E. T. Maloney and U. Feist (1968) Messerschmitt Me 163, Fallbrook
  • M. Emmerling and J. Dressel  (1992) Messerschmitt Me 163 “Komet” Vol.II, Schiffer Military History
  • J.R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1990) German AIrcraft of the Second World War, Putham
  • http://www.walterwerke.co.uk/walter/me163d.htm
  • W. Spate and R. P. Bateson (1971) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet , Profile Publications
  • M. Ziegler (1990) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Schiffer Publishing
  • D. SHarp (2015) Luftwaffe secret jets of the Third Reich, Mortons Media Group
  • M. Griehl (1998) Jet Planes of the Third Reich, Monogram Aviation Publication

Dewoitine D.520

French flag France (1936-1953)
Fighter – 900 Built

A restored D.520 in GC I/3 camouflage. [le blog du lignard]
The Dewoitine D.520 was the most advanced French fighter aircraft of the World War II period to have been employed in large numbers during the Battle of France. It was superior to the Morane-Saulnier MS.406 and Bloch MB.152. Often considered the only French fighter able to challenge the dominance of the Luftwaffe’s Bf 109E, the D.520 garnered a strong reputation and popularity among the general public in France. Though this aspect of its history is typically overlooked, the Dewoitine would also see extensive service after the Battle of France, particularly in the air force of the Vichy Regime, but also with Germany’s Italian and Bulgarian allies.

Dewoitine: French Pioneer of Interwar Metal Monoplanes

The Constructions Aéronautiques Emile Dewoitine (Emile Dewoitine Aeronautical Manufacturing) society was founded in 1920 under the lead of the eponymous engineer. Dewoitine had previously been employed by Latecoere during the First World War, which gave him experience on the subject of military aviation.

Dewoitine’s company was located in South-Western France, in Toulouse – an ideal location for strategic industry, as it was about as far as one could be in France from what was still viewed as a potential future adversary in 1920, namely Germany.

Dewoitine’s main products quickly became monoplane fighters. Though other types of planes were also developed, it was with parasol wing monoplanes that Dewoitine met its initial success. While the company failed to procure major domestic orders, Dewoitine fighters such as the D.1, D.9, or D.25 were export successes, seeing service in a number of countries such as Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Italy or Argentina. Dewoitine’s fighters were occasionally quite innovative – for example, the Dewoitine D.9 was an entirely metal parasol wing fighter, which was quite remarkable for a plane which first flew in 1924. While rejected by France, it was licence-produced by Italy as the Ansaldo AC.3, with 150 being manufactured for the Regia Aeronautica. Dewoitine also manufactured small numbers of D.9s for Belgium, Switzerland, Yugoslavia and Hungary.

Dewoitine’s D.9 metallic parasol monoplane fighter. [Aviafrance]
In large part due to none of its planes being adopted by France’s military, Dewoitine faced considerable woes in the late 1920s, being liquidated in January of 1927, before being re-founded the next year. The 1930s would prove more fruitful for Dewoitine. Most notably, the company won some sizeable contracts in the mid 1930s for its Dewoitine D.500, D.501 and D.510, which were low wing, or cantilever-wing, monoplanes, the latter two featuring, a 20 mm autocannon firing through the propeller hub. With more than 300 aircraft ordered for French service, and some limited export contacts, the Dewoitine cantilever wing monoplanes powered the company through the 1930s, and formed the bulk of France’s fighter force all the way up to 1938-1939.

A Dewoitine D.510 in flight. The D.500/501/510 fighters were a great achievement for, Dewoitine which helped cement the manufacturer’s credibility as a major French fighter manufacturer. [avion-légendaires]
Dewoitine first experimented with a cantilever-wing monoplane fighter with a retractable landing gear in the form of the D.513 fighter which first flew in January of 1936. It generally proved quite disappointing, suffering from instability, and was unable to reach the speed that was expected of it, while also suffering from cooling and landing gear problems, leading to the fighter quickly being discontinued.

The Birth of the “520”

In the French Air Force’s nomenclature, the role of single-seat fighters was classified “C1” (C for chasseur, the French equivalent of fighter, and 1 for single-seat). The air force department in charge of equipment procurement, the Service Technique Aéronautique (STAé – ENG : Aeronautical technical service), would regularly publish calls for aircraft manufacturers to design fighters to fill this role along with a series of required specifications. By late 1936, the last design request had been formulated more than two years prior, in March of 1934. The aircraft from this program, which was being considered for adoption, Morane-Saulnier’s MS.405 (which would become the MS.406), was still in the prototype phase, and had yet to receive orders for production.The MS.405 was already a fairly modern fighter, being a cantilever wing monoplane with a retractable landing gear. But Dewoitine believed that more advanced fighters using the same features could be developed. Anticipating a new design request for the C1 role, Dewoitine began development of a single-seat fighter in late 1936. It was not long before the STAé issued a new request. On the 12th of January 1937, aircraft manufacturers were asked to design a fighter able to reach a maximum speed of 520 km/h, climb to 8,000 meters in less than 15 minutes, land on a runway of 400 meters, and featuring a centerline Hispano-Suiza 20 mm HS.9 autocannon and two 7.5 mm MAC 34 machine-guns, equivalent to the armaments on the D.520 and MS. 405/406.

As the Dewoitine fighter project was still very early in development when the specifications were issued, its design took them into account. The requested maximum speed, 520 km/h, ended up being the project’s number designation.

Another major event happened in March of 1937, when Dewoitine’s Constructions aéronautiques Emile Dewoitine was nationalized by the French state. This was part of a massive nationalization plan that concerned all aspects of France’s defense industry, which was being run by the socialist-leaning popular front government in power since May 1936. Though this meant Dewoitine’s company was now state property, Emile Dewoitine was not displaced in his function as main engineer and leader of the company. The company, however, took a new name – Société Nationale des Constructions Aéronautiques du Midi (SNCAM – ENG: National Society of Aeronautical Constructions of the Midi -‘Midi being the area allotted to the company near Toulouse).

Though Dewoitine was still in full control of his company, all of the reorganization that took place in 1937 meant that work on the D.520 was mostly postponed or paused, resuming only in 1938. On the 3rd of April 1938, SNCAM obtained a contract for the construction of a prototype. Production of the first D.520 began and the prototype, D.520-01, would take off for the first time on the 2nd of October 1938.

Design of the Dewoitine fighter

The first D.520 prototype in flight. [joseph bibert fichiers]
The fighter aircraft designed by Dewoitine and his team was a low, cantilever-wing monoplane fighter that used an Hispano-Suiza 12Y in-line engine. The plane used riveted duralumin construction, both in structure and skinning.

The D.520’s wings used a one-piece, reinforced single-spar structure. Two MAC 34 7.5 mm machine-guns with gun cameras were installed towards the front, closer to the fuselage, while further inboard in the wings, a 120 liter fuel tank was located. To the rear were the flaps, which were also the only part of the aircraft covered with fabric instead of duralumin. Without the flaps, the wings had a surface of 13 square meters. The flaps had a surface area of 1 square meter, and each wing had a surface area of 14 square meters in total. When counting the wing root, where the fuselage and wings meet, the surface area was 16 square meters. On the first prototype, there was no radiator in the fuselage, and instead a radiator was installed under each wing.

The D.520-01 prototype used a Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31 V12 890 hp engine, without the cannon installed, though later prototypes, followed by production models would use more powerful versions of the Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine with provision for a 20 mm gun firing through the propeller hub. Between the engine and pilot, a 396 liter fuel tank was located (though typically it would only be filled for ferrying, and not combat operations). With a total fuel capacity of 636 litres, the D.520 had high endurance, with a ferrying range of up to 1,500 km in good weather.

The landing gear of the D.520 opened outwards. The definitive production model of the D.520 had a length of 8.6 meters, a wingspan of 10.2 meters, and a height of 3.435 meters.

Prototype Testing

The first prototype, D.520-01, was in some ways more of a demonstrator than a true prototype. From the start, the prototype had a number of differences from the standard models. The model of Hispano-Suiza 12Y that was used, the 12Y-21, did not have a provision for a propeller-hub-firing cannon, and with 890 hp, was less powerful than what was later installed. The wing machine-guns were not mounted either. During its first flight, the prototype failed to reach the desired speed of 520 km/h, not exceeding 480, and several issues were found. The two wing radiators caused too much drag, and a fuselage-mounted radiator was chosen instead. The tail’s control surfaces were found to be too small, and were enlarged. New exhaust pipes were also installed. The 12Y-21 engine was replaced by a 12Y-29, which produced 910 hp. Lastly, a variable pitch propeller was also installed.

A view of D.520-01 in flight. [Guerre et Histoire – Sciences et vie]
The first D.520 prototype undertook a second flight on the 11th of January 1939. This second attempt was much more successful, and showed great promise. It possessed good dive capabilities, with the prototype reaching more than 800 km/h in a dive, and reached 525 km/h in level flight, exceeding the 520 km/h required of the specifications.

A formidable view of the second D.520 prototype in flight over fields, France, 1939. [WW2aircrafts.net]
The second prototype of the D.520, D.520-02, had its first flight on the 28th of January, 1939. This prototype was much closer to the production model. It was fully armed, including the 20 mm propeller mounted autocannon, and had incorporated all the changes the D.520-01 had undertaken, as well as some new ones: a new landing gear and larger empennage. On the 5th of May, the third prototype, D.520-03, took to the air for the first time. This example featured the 12Y-31 engine, with full armament.

With successful trials of the second prototype, a production order for the D.520 was first placed on the 7th of April 1939, with 200 fighters ordered. The successful trials of the third prototype led to an additional order, initially for 600 aircraft, though reduced to 510 in June. In September, France entered into conflict with Germany, which saw widespread industrial mobilization and orders for new equipment. The total number of D.520s on order rose to 1,280 and through most of 1939, production was being set up at SNCAM’s facilities at Toulouse. Orders continued to accumulate, with 2,250 aircraft on order in April of 1940, including 120 for the navy.

In the meantime, testing continued on the D.520 prototypes. On the 11th of January 1940, D.520-02 was flown by pilot Leopold Galy in diving trials. During a dive from an altitude of 8,000 meters, the aircraft reached a speed of over 900 km/h – Leopard Galy indicated that the instruments showed the speed that the aircraft reached as 920 km/h.

Production Model: Features and Performance

Plans of the Dewoitine D.520 production model. [joseph bibert fichiers]
The first D.520s from the production run took to the air in November of 1939. A number of additional features had been added to Dewoitine’s fighter. The newer Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 engine was chosen, as this model produced 935 hp and featured a much improved Szydlowski-Planiol supercharger, providing the Dewoitine with better high-altitude performance.

The armament of the production model consisted of a Hispano-Suiza HS.404 20 mm autocannon firing through the propeller hub (the prototypes used the earlier HS.9). The HS-404 had a rate of fire of 700 rpm, with a drum magazine holding only 60 rounds, the D.520 could expend its 20 mm ammunition in 9 seconds of continuous fire. The MAC 34 machine-guns were provided with more ammunition. Chambered for the 7.5×54 mm French cartridge adopted in 1929, the MAC 34 machine-guns had 675 rounds each. With a rate of fire of 1,200 rounds per minute, the MAC 34 would expend their ammunition in a little over half a minute. These machine-guns were electrically heated to avoid ice jamming the gun action at high altitudes.

The mounting of the MAC 34 machine-guns in the D.520’s wings. [L’Armement des avions de chasse français]
Empty, the D.520 had a weight of 2,050 kg. The aircraft had a structural weight of 892 kg, the engine block empty 517 kg, additional engine accessories 373 kg, empty fuel tanks 56.4 kg, and additional equipment 252 kg. 650 kg would be added on average to get the plane into operation: 337 kg of fuel (the aircraft’s fuel tanks had a capacity of 636 litres), 226 kg including the guns and their ammunition, and an average of 87 kg for the pilot and his equipment. The weight of the plane in operation would therefore be 2,740 kg. With a wing surface of 16 square meters, this meant the D.520 had a quite high wing load of 195 kg/cm2. The D.520 used a three-bladed Ratier variable pitch propeller, with a diameter of 3 meters.

The plane had an automatic fire extinguishing system controlled from the cockpit. As for fuel capacity, the plane featured a 396 liter self-sealing fuel tank located between the cockpit and the engine. Each wing featured a 120 liter fuel tank. The D.520’s fuel capacity of 636 liters was fairly considerable by 1940, and would give it a better range than most one-engined fighters used in Western Europe, with a ferry range of about 1,500 km.

The D.520 could reach a maximum speed of about 535 km/h at the altitude of peak engine performance, which was 6,750 m, and with the engine running at 2,400 rpm. Cruising speed at the same altitude was of 400 km/h with the engine running at 2,000 rpm. The stall speed was 125 km/h.

The rate of climb was 12 meters per second for the first 1,000 meters of flight. 4,000 meters could be reached in a little under 6 minutes, and thanks to its supercharger, the D.520 retained a good climb rate at high altitude. It reached 6,000 meters in 9 minutes and 8,000 meters in a little under 14 minutes. The D.520 would typically be capable of reaching those altitudes before the Bf 109E. The ceiling of the Dewoitine fighter was 11,000 meters.

Though the first examples of the D.520 were completed in November of 1939, some changes were still made, notably, the engine block was lengthened by 16 cm, meaning the first examples produced had to be retrofitted. The D.520 would only commence delivery to the air force in January of 1940, and by May, only a single fighter group had been equipped, though several would receive the new type as production was hastened during the Battle of France.

The aircraft were painted in the standard French air force camouflage scheme of brown, green, and gray color during their manufacturing process. The rudder section was painted in the colors of the French flag. The type of the aircraft (Dewoitine D.520) as well as the aircraft’s production number were indicated in black letters over this French flag-colored tail. French roundels were featured on the wings and on the central fuselage. The underside was typically painted in the same metallic gray color as parts of the fuselage and wings. The propeller hubs and propeller were painted in black.

Two completed D.520s outside of Dewoitine’s factory, 1940. [Archives Départementales de la Haute-Garonne, Airbus collection]
D.520s that have just been delivered to the air force, aligned before they are tested, 1940. [Archives Départementales de la Haute-Garonne, Airbus collections]
The D.520 assembly lines at Saint-Martin du Touch in February of 1940 [sam40.fr]

Future Production Models as Planned in 1940

Improved versions of the D.520 were quickly scheduled for production, and it was planned that these improved models would quickly be introduced to the production lines in the summer of 1940, if everything went well.

The D.521 was an experimental aircraft which mated the D.520 fuselage with the British Merlin III engine. Only one prototype was built, and it was not meant for serial production. The D.522, 523, 524 and 525, however, were D.520s powered by more powerful versions of the Hispano-Suiza 12Y engine.

The D.522 actually went back to the old Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31 860 hp engine block, which was significantly less powerful than the 12Y-45 on paper. It would, however, be fitted with a new Hispano-Suiza supercharger, larger in size than the Szydlowski-Planiol and providing better high-altitude performance. The planned production run for the D.522 was of 75 aircraft, from the 526th to the 600th Dewoitine fuselages, which would likely have meant the production run would have commenced in July of 1940. The D.522 would then have been succeeded by the D.523.

The D.523 used the 12Y-51 model of the 12Y engine, but retained the Szydlowski-Planiol supercharger. This new model of the 12Y produced up to 1,000 hp at optimal altitude. One D.523 prototype was produced (using the 45th D.520 fuselage), and underwent trials from the 9th to the 14th of May 1940. It was able to reach a maximum speed of 570 km/h at the optimal altitude, and climbed faster than the D.520 by a significant margin. This would have made this model a powerful rival to German Bf 109E and F fighters.

Though the D.525 was nominally the last, it was to be produced between the 523 and 524, and was more closely related to the 523 than the 524 was. The D.525 merely combined the 12Y-51 engine from the D.523 and the Hispano-Suiza supercharger from the D.522. Just 30 were to be produced, fuselages 751 to 780.

Finally, the D.524 was to be the last direct derivative of the D.520 scheduled for production by 1940. Its main improvement over previous models was to be the Hispano-Suiza 12Z engine – the most refined model of Hispano-Suiza’s 12Y engine yet, it was to produce 1,300 hp. While very promising in concept, the D.524 was yet to reach the prototype stage by the Invasion of France. While D.520 variants using the 12Z would come to be built at prototype stage later, the D.524 was canceled with the fall of France. It was expected to reach a maximum speed of around 616 km/h at 7,000 m, and climb to 8,000 m in 8’20’’.

By the armistice of June 1940, which put a temporary end to the D.520’s production run, about 440 aircraft had been manufactured, of which closer to 350 had been accepted by the French Air Force. This meant that no further D.520-derived models would see production, and plans to produce them were indefinitely shelved and never revisited.

A rear view of the HD 780 prototype, which featured a significantly redesigned wing as well as the necessary provisions to enable the land-based monoplane into a floatplane fighter. The HD 780 never flew and, as such, its performance data is not known. An estimate placed its maximum speed at around 440 km/h. [war thunder forums]
A floatplane fighter version of the D.520, the HD 780, had also been designed, with one prototype being produced. It incorporated many differences, such as folding, gull-shaped wings, a larger engine block, and two large floats. The prototype was completed in March of 1940, but remained inside its factory and would never take flight.

Into GC I/3

While the first serial-production D.520 had been delivered in November of 1939, these aircraft would later have to be revised and were by no means ready for service.

Dewoitine D.520 n°12 of GC I/3 in early 1940. The plane was flown by French pilot Commandant Thibaudet. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
The D.520 would start effectively entering service during the first months of 1940, with the first squadron, GC I/3, being entirely outfitted with the type in the months of April and early May 1940. There, the D.520 replaced the Morane-Saulnier MS.406. Although another monoplane fighter with a retractable landing gear, the Morane was a plane which had noticeably lower performance in comparison to the Hawker Hurricane or Bloch MB.152, let alone the “triad” of modern fighters available by 1940, which would consist of the Spitfire Mk.I, the Bf 109E and the D.520.

As such, by the start of the campaign, the French Air Force had one squadron fully outfitted with the new fighter type. This fact, however, was tempered to a considerable extent. As mentioned previously, the fighters had only just been delivered to the squadron by the time fighting began in May of 1940. In other words, there had been little to no time for the pilots to accommodate with the newer fighter and become properly accustomed to it – which would prove a larger issue than anticipated, as the D.520 would prove a quite complicated and technical plane to pilot. Many of the pilots which flew the D.520 into combat during the Battle of France – perhaps even more so in the squadrons which would receive the plane during the campaign, would engage in combat during some of their first ten or even five flights of the D.520. Under these circumstances, one could hardly expect good performance with the pilots under such duress.

As hostilities began on the 12th of May, GC I/3 quickly moved into position at the airfield at Wez-Thuisy, in the Marne region of North-East France. From this point, the squadron would be engaged for the rest of the campaign all the way until the 17th of June, when it would retreat to the other side of the Mediterranean to avoid the capture of its planes.

The typical missions of the squadron were defensive, as simply put, the French Armée de l’Air struggled to impose any form of threat against the Luftwaffe. A large number of reasons for this can be attributed to this defensive role of the French air force. One could easily identify the comparative lack of modern fighters in comparison to a Luftwaffe that now universally operated the Bf 109E, a lack of coordination between the French air and ground forces, and many other limiting factors. As such, the D.520 would typically be used to try and intercept flights of German bombers, typically Heinkel He 111s or Dornier Do 17s, as these harassed French logistical centers and cities. In this role, the D.520 would enjoy some successes. It was faster at straight and level flight, and a better climber than previous French fighters, which was quite significant as the German bombers were moderately fast aircraft. The Morane Saulnier MS.406, notably, always struggled to catch the fast German bombers, while the D.520 could do so with relative ease.

Four pilots of the 2nd flight of GC I/3 in front of D.520 n°73 in 1940. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
An MS.406 of GC III/6 before the squadron converted to the D.520. The older Morane monoplane was already fairly lacking by its introduction in the late 1930s, outperformed by the Hawker Hurricane or early variants of the Bf 109. Still fielded in large numbers during the campaign of France, the fairly sluggish monoplane would often struggle to intercept German fast bombers, particularly the Dornier Do 17 and Junkers Ju 88. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
The D.520 was credited with its four first victories on the 13th of May, when planes from GC I/3 shot down an He 111 bomber from KG 55 as well as three Henschel Hs 126 reconnaissance planes. The next two days, 14th and 15th, would see very heavy engagements for the squadron. On the morning of the 14th, the squadron would be engaged against a strike force of Dornier Do 17 and He 111 bombers under escort by Bf 109Es. The D.520 of GC I/3 would claim six confirmed kills in the morning, two on He 111s, two on Dornier Do 17s and two on Bf 109s, plus a claimed but unconfirmed kill on another Bf 109. In the late afternoon, D.520s of the squadron would engage in combat against a flight of Bf 110 heavy fighters from ZG 26. As often when the Bf 110 was faced with single-engine fighters without backup from Bf 109s, this ended up fairly bloody for the German squadron which lost four planes, with an additional probable Bf 110 killed claimed by the French.

On the 15th, defence against German raids in the morning would see the squadron claim three confirmed and a probable Dornier Do 17 kills, as well as a confirmed Bf 110 and He 111. In the early hours of the afternoon, D.520s would claim one confirmed and two probable Bf 109s.

The squadron’s actions would wind down in the following days, as it retreated from its first airfield to a new one in Meaux-Esbly, closer to Paris. With German pressure now concentrating against the encircled French and British forces in the North, action would be more sporadic. Between the 15th of May and the 3rd of June, the squadron would claim confirmed kills on an He 111, a Bf 109 and a Do 17, as well as further probable kills for another He 111 and another Dornier 17.

From early June onward, with the Dunkirk pocket liquidated by German advance, attention would shift towards the south once again as Germany progressed further into France, while the French organized a fairly desperate defense on the so-called “Weygang Line.” On the 3rd of June 1940, the squadron claimed its first Ju 88 kill, as well as claiming another Bf 109, and probable shoot downs on three Dornier Do 17s and a Heinkel 111. The 5th and 6th of June were particularly intense in terms of combat with German fighters, with the D.520 claiming four Bf 109s and an Hs 126 on the 5th, and a further two confirmed and two probable 109s as well as a confirmed Do 17 on the 6th. The 7th saw the squadron claim a confirmed Do 17 and Bf 109, and two further probable Do 17s.

A flight of German Dornier Do 17Z during the Campaign of France. Variants of the Do 17, alongside with the slower He 111 and the lighter Ju 87, were the most common bombers encountered by the French air force in 1940. The fairly fast Dornier could prove hard to catch for the MS.406. The later MB.152 and Curtiss H75 were already more effective in such a task, but the D.520 was clearly the best equipped French fighter to deal with fast enemy bombers. [Asisbiz]
German soldiers pose in front of a shot down D.520 of GC I/3. This particular plane was flown by Lieutenant Clarisse and shot down on the 21st of May 1940, the pilot being killed. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
The 9th of June 1940 saw the D.520 make the most claims of the Battle of France. The squadron was engaged against a raid of Dornier Do 17s escorted by Bf 109s around noon, claiming four fighters and a bomber. In the late afternoon, the squadron was engaged again against Dornier Do 17s and Junkers Ju 87s once again escorted by Bf 109s, seeing the French fighters down a confirmed Do 17 and Bf 109 as well as two Ju 87s, with a further two probable Do 17 and Bf 109.

The 9th of June 1940 would also begin to see the squadron retiring from its airfield near Paris to go further south, to avoid the now very threatening German advance on the ground. Though a further few engagements were fought fromt the 14 to 16th, most of the action was now behind the squadron. From the 17th to the 21st of June, the squadron would jump from airfield to airfield, from Southern France, to Algeria, finally settling in Kaala-Djerda and later Tunis-El Aouina in French Tunisia.

GC I/3 had claimed a considerable number of victories during the campaign, showing the qualities of the aircraft despite the general lack of training that was to be found in a squadron only recently introduced to its fighter. In total, the squadron claimed 55 confirmed and 19 probable victories. This was at the cost of 32 D.520s lost – of which 21 were lost in aerial combat, the rest being victims of either bombing runs or accidents. This was a rather decent success for a unit which had just received the new fighter type.

Other Squadrons

A number of other squadrons did receive the Dewoitine D.520 during the campaign and used it against German and later Italian forces.

A D.520 of GC II/3 in flight in 1940. The squadron’s emblem, a greyhound, can be observed on the tail. GC II/3 was the second most successful squadron flying the D.520 during the campaign of France. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]

The first squadron to receive D.520s after GC I/3 was GC II/3, which transitioned to the D.520 in 10 days from the 10th to the 20th of May. This was a very short transition for the new fighter, which many would imagine to be fairly worrying for the performance of the squadron. Nonetheless, GC II/3 would perform quite admirably during the campaign. Engaged heavily from the 20th of May onward, it would claim a single victory, an He 111, on its first day of combat, five confirmed and two probable victories on Dornier Do 17s, He 111s and Me 110s on the 21st, and ten confirmed victories (eight Ju 87s and two Hs 126s) on the 22nd. During the entire duration of the campaign, GC II/3 would claim 31 confirmed and 15 probable victories at the cost of 20 D.520s, though only three pilots were killed. The squadron notably counted on Czechoslovak pilot Cukr Vaclav, who would claim two confirmed kills and six shared kills, as well as French Capitaine Raymond Clausse, with three confirmed, and two probable kills on his own, as well as two confirmed, and two probable shared kills.

D.520 n°273, flown by GC II/7 in June of 1940. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
D.520 n°119 of GC II/7, shot down on the 15th of June 1940. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
Other squadrons received their D.520s later in the campaign and would see the fewer kills , among other factors, due to the D.520 being received later in the campaign, at which point German air superiority had more or less been established, and sometimes having to work in mixed squadrons that still incorporated slower Morane-Saulnier MS.406s. GC II/7 was one such mixed squadron, receiving their first D.520s around the 25th of May, while at the same time retaining Moranes until at least the 1st of June. The D.520s of the squadron would still claim more than a dozen victories at the cost of nine of their own aircraft.

GC III/3 fought the most intense parts of its campaign with MS.406s, but was refitted with the D.520 in late May, seemingly not engaged from the 20th of May to the 5th of June, during the transitional period. Going back into action with the Dewoitine, pilots of the squadron would go on to claim eight confirmed, and one probable victory in June, with three confirmed Bf 109s shot down, and another probable, one each of the He 111, Me 110, Dornier Do 17, and two Hs 126s.

Pilots of GC III/3 plot their next mission on the tail of a D.520, June of 1940. [AeroVFR.com]
GC III/6 is one of the most well known of the D.520 squadrons despite receiving the aircraft late into the campaign. By mid-June 1940, the squadron was in the process of converting from the MS.406 to the D.520, when the entry of Italy into the war forced it to be put into action against Italian aircraft. Under these conditions, French pilot Capitaine Pierre le Gloan would first shoot down two Fiat BR.20 bombers on the 13th of June. On the 15th, Le Gloan took off on a routine patrol around 11:45 pm, originally comprised of three Dewoitines, but soon reduced to two due to technical issues of one aircraft forcing it to return to base. The two remaining fighters, operating near Saint-Tropez on the Mediterranean coast, encountered a force of twelve Fiat CR.42 biplanes of the Italian squadron 23e Gruppo CT. The two D.520s engaged the biplanes. Le Gloan damaged two, one that caught fire and was later written off, and the other pilot ejected, before the faster French fighters broke off. Le Gloan’s wingman’s guns jammed, forcing him back to base as well. Not content with merely two CR.42 shot down though, Le Gloan encountered a further patrol of CR.42s from 18e Gruppo, shooting one down before evading the others in a dive using the largely superior speed of the 520. Le Gloan then returned to Luc airfield, where GC III/6 was stationed, shooting down a CR.42 attempting strafing runs. Lastly, he would down a BR.20 attempting photo reconnaissance of the airfield, attempting to identify the effects of Italian strafing. The Dewoitine was out of cannon ammunition by this point and the BR.20 had to be shot down by machine-gun fire, requiring a total of five passes. This action would have been sufficient to make Le Gloan an ace not just in a day, but in a single sortie, though he had already scored two victories previously. While it was performed using the higher speed of the D.520 against slower biplanes, which would not effectively pursue the French fighter, it remains an impressive feat and likely the most famous action of the D.520 during the campaign of France. Le Gloan’s victories also appear to be the only confirmed ones scored by GC III/6 with the D.520.

A D.520 of GC III/6 during the Battle of France. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]

Two other French army squadrons, GC II/6 and III/7, began transitioning to the D.520 in June but could not be made operational on the aircraft in time to meaningfully take part in the Battle of France. This was also largely the case for two ground-based squadrons of the French navy’s Flottile F1C, AC 1 and AC 2, which received a few D.520s in the later stages of the Battle of France.

The Tricolor Cockade and the Balkenkreuz: Dewoitine versus Messerschmitt

A topic which inevitably comes up when discussing the D.520 is its comparison with the mainstay German fighter at the time, the Bf 109E. This comparison has been a considerable subject of debates, particularly in France, where a significant amount of pride has often been instilled in the D.520 as the only modern indigenous French fighter that saw intense action and was able to challenge the German fighter.

In practice, the duel between the two aircraft was a rather complicated matter – which was known to the French air force, as a Bf 109E captured during the Phoney War was quite extensively tested in comparison to the D.520 in April of 1940.

A Bf 109E-1, previously of JG 76, which was forced to make a landing in France in November of 1939 and was subsequently tested by the French. [asibiz]
The Bf 109 had a clear climb rate advantage over the D.520, which was particularly felt at low altitude, due to being better engined than the French fighter, which was sometimes found to be lacking in horsepower. German engine cooling was also found to be superior, which allowed the aircraft to run for longer at full throttle, while French pilots would often have to temporarily limit running the engine at full throttle to avoid overheating. This would usually allow the German fighter to dictate the terms of engagement, but considering the mostly defensive use of the D.520s, the Bf 109s were forced to provide cover to German bombers, and were often operating in escort, and not air superiority sweeps.

Where the D.520 is often said to have had an advantage is in maneuverability. The D.520 had the advantage of more subtle and less abrupt controls in comparison to the Bf 109E, which would typically give an advantage to the French fighter in a prolonged dogfight. The Dewoitine also enjoyed good engine torque, and in comparison to the BF 109E the cockpit of the D.520 offered far greater visibility which would prove an advantage in such a situation. This was not, however, a massive advantage, and the comparative trials held in April of 1940 saw a duel typically last for several minutes before one of the two aircraft could mount an advantage over the other. In turning fights, the D.520 had a known issue where it was vulnerable to stalling and temporary loss of control during some turns. This was an issue if the enemy fighter was in a favorable position at the moment, though in some engagements it was found that the stalling could be used as an evasive maneuver if the enemy fighter was at a considerable speed advantage. In general, the D.520 was found to still be more comfortable to pilot than the 109 in prolonged dogfights. In turnfights, the D.520 would typically win when the turns were towards the right, but the Bf 109 could be expected to win those towards the left.

In general, while French patriotism would encourage many French authors to claim the D.520 as equal or sometimes even superior to the Bf 109, in practice, the German fighter could arguably be claimed to usually have a slight edge – its ability to dictate the terms of engagement was not entirely compensated for by the maneuverability of the French fighter. This, however, does not paint the full picture. While one may ponder at length over whether the D.520 could be considered equal or slightly inferior to the Bf 109E, it remains clear that it was highly superior to the pre-existing fighters in the French air force, such as the Curtiss H75, Bloch MB.152, and particularly the Morane-Saulnier MS.406, when it came to intercepting fast German bombers such as the He 111, and particularly the Do 17 and Ju 88. The MS.406, notably, would often struggle to catch up with German bombers, while the D.520 could do so relatively easily – giving the French air force a far better tool against enemy bombers, though obviously one which arrived way too late. As such, the D.520 represented a major improvement in the capability of the French air force – which would have been further reinforced by additional new fighter types entering service in June of 1940, the Bloch MB.155 and Arsenal VG.33, with the later managing even better performance than the D.520, with a less powerful engine of the same type, and likely offering a serious competitor to the Bf 109 and Spitfire had the war not abruptly interrupted for the French Third Republic.

An Arrow through the Cockade: Vichy’s Workhorse

Absolutely defeated on the ground by a better equipped, led, and coordinated German army, France was forced into an armistice with Germany, negotiated on the 22nd of June 1940 and going into effect on the 25th of June 1940. In this Compiègne Armistice, the Third Reich inflicted on its French archenemy what was, in many ways, a revenge and repeat of Versaille, with the French as the victim, seriously limiting the size of the French army and its ability to produce new equipment.

However, strategic requirements are a more important matter than symbolism. The French government was in control of many colonial areas around Africa and Asia which Great-Britain was now interested in seizing to further their situation and, with the sinking of the French fleet of Mers-El Kébir on the 2nd of July 1940, this set a major precedent of hostility between the new French regime and the British. Under these conditions, allowing the new Vichy French government to retain a military that could offer resistance to British and Free French attempts to seize colonial territories and naval assets was a useful prospect for Germany. As such, France was allowed to keep a number of squadrons and military units operational – most notably in French North Africa and the French Levant, but also Metropolitan France to an extent.The air force was allowed more strength than the army, which could not operate any armored vehicles outside of Panhard 178s downgraded to a machine-gun armament in mainland France.

D.520 n°277 of GCIII/6, the personal plane of French ace Pierre le Gloan, in flight in French North Africa during the early months of the Vichy regime. One can observe the identification arrow, which in this case extended all the way to the propeller hub, but on other aircraft stopped around or slightly in front of the cockpit. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]

Dewoitine D.520 of GC III/7 in Chateauroux, France, August 1940. The planes are yet to receive any Vichy identification markings and were likely not used operationally at this point. [Pinterest]
As such, authorization was given for the Vichy regime to maintain squadrons I/3, II/3, III/6, II/7 and AC1 operating the D.520. All would be stationed first in French North Africa, with all being located in Algeria outside of II/7 operating in Tunisia. The motive behind putting Vichy’s best fighters in French North Africa was that this location was now the most valuable colony still in the hands of the regime, and was much more vulnerable than the French mainland to potential attack attempts by the Allies. At the same time, while the D.520’s range could allow it to comfortably ferry over the Mediterranean and generally operate in a theater where longer ranges could be desirable, Vichy did retain a number of squadrons operating the shorter-ranged Bloch MB.152 in Metropolitan France. With the Bloch fighter unable to reasonably make the crossing, and ill-equipped to reasonably protect French North Africa, the D.520 was pretty much the only possible choice outside of a now incredibly outdated MS.406 that was on its way out of Vichy’s air force.

During their service life, Vichy aircraft were given a number of recognition markings to differentiate them from British or Free French aircraft and avoid friendly fire incidents from German or Italian planes. At first, this manifested in the form of a white line going through the rear and center of the fuselage, with the cockade superimposed on top and an arrowhead in the direction of the front of the plane. This was put on from the late summer of 1940 onward. From early 1941 onward, these were judged insufficient to reasonably identify Vichy’s aircraft, and they saw their tail sections and propeller hubs painted yellow to further ease identification; it is with these identification markings that the Vichy D.520 would fight during the Levant campaign in May of 1941. In the summer of 1941, the recognition markings were pushed even further, with orange stripes included within the yellow sections, and in many cases, parts of the engine cover painted in the same yellow and orange scheme as the tail.

A magnificent colorized photograph of GC III/6 D.520 fighters. This photo was taken at Eleusis airfield, Athens, in May of 1941, a refueling stop for the French fighters heading to the Levant. It gives a formidable view of the D.520’s camouflage, the yellow tail section, and the identification arrow. [Flickr]
A good view of a Vichy D.520 in the markings which were now standard by 1942, with the white identification line no longer featuring an arrowhead, and yellow-and-orange stripes on the empennage and engine fairing. [Asibiz]
In April of 1941, with German approval, production of the D.520 resumed to fulfill an order for 550 new planes for Vichy’s air force. The goal was now to make the D.520 the standard fighter of the French air force to the greatest extent possible, first replacing the MS.406 in the squadrons then operating it, and in the further future the MB.152 and MB.155 operated by the fighter groups in Metropolitan France. Two new fighter groups operating the D.520 were created, GC I/2 in Châteauroux, Metropolitan France, and GC II/6 intended for French Occidental Africa, while four squadrons operating other types were re-equipped with the D.520 in Metropolitan France, these being GC I/1, GC III/9 and GC II/1. The last squadron, GC II/5, located in Casablanca, Morocco, was in the process of switching during the Allied invasion of French North Africa, Operation Torch, in November of 1942.

A number of Dewoitine D.520 fighters in the SNCAM-Dewoitine factories of Toulouse/Saint-Martin-du-Touch in 1942. The planes are now being completed with the identification white band, the arrowhead no longer featured, and with the orange and yellow sections at the empennage and around the engine block. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
In a fairly cruel twist of irony, what was once the only fighter able to offer resistance to Germany’s Luftwaffe, by 1940 now flew for the Vichy Regime, and only truly became the most common French fighter under this collaboration government. The D.520 would see considerable action in defending Vichy’s colonial territories against British, Free French and American intervention, now fighting a whole different set of aircraft. However, this would once again be under lackluster conditions; pilot training under Vichy was not as extensive and long as under the pre-armistice conditions, partly due to lack of fuel restricting the flight hours which would be performed. While the pilots who fought under Vichy during the Levant campaign and Operation Torch had had more time to accustom themselves to the D.520 than those flying during the Battle of France, these were often the same men from the same squadrons which had now made the switch to the D.520 during the Battle of France. They flew fewer hours per year overall, and as such had their skills not as “well maintained” as their Allied counterparts that were regularly flying combat missions against the Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe over North Africa and the Mediterranean.

Another view of the Toulouse/Saint-Martin-Du-Touch facilities, showing the considerable industrial effort by Vichy at manufacturing the D.520. Still present in only moderate numbers in the Battle of France, it is only under Vichy that the D.520 would truly become the mainstay fighter of the French air force. [aérothèque.com]
Under the Vichy regime, studies were also performed in outfitting the D.520 with more powerful engines in order to make the Dewoitine a viable fighter for later in the war. This resulted in the D.520Z, fitted with a Hispano-Suiza 12Z 1,600 hp engine. This project would result in work on a prototype, completed in February of 1943 with German approval, but would only fly in 1947. A project modernizing the D.520 further, the M.520T, would never even reach prototype stage. Vichy had hoped the D.520Z would be serially produced, and postwar trials indeed indicated the fighter had respectable performance even by mid-war standards, being able to reach 659 km/h at 9,150 meters, and could climb to 4,000 meters in 4 minutes 10 seconds, to 8,000 meters in 8 minutes 22 seconds, and to 11,000 m in 14 minutes 19 seconds. This was a very significant improvement in comparison to the D.520, though it came at the cost of the 12Z being a sometimes unreliable engine that would require a lot of maintenance. The occupation of the Vichy regime would prevent any further development, despite a production of up to 230 having been hoped for in the middle of 1942.

A view of the D.520Z prototype postwar. Had production been undertaken in the mid-war, the D.520Z would have been a decent fighter, but by the post-war era, it could only really be used as a testbed. [Pinterest]
A profile view of the M.520T. While on the loose technical basis of the D.520, it would in many ways have been a new aircraft. [War Thunder Forums]

Dewoitines Against Hurricanes: The Levant Fiasco

On the 1st of April 1941, a coup in previously British-influenced Iraq brought to power a pro-Axis government, the Golden Square, which would result in the Anglo-Iraqi War lasting for much of the month of May. Germany and Italy, eager to use this opportunity to open another front against the British Empire in the Middle-East, pushed Vichy France to allow Axis planes to use the French colonies of Syria and Lebanon as a base to get to Iraq and support their troops against British Commonwealth forces.

After the end of this campaign, this breach of Vichy’s non-belligerence in favor of Axis support would lead to British, Australian, Indian, and Free French troops invading the Vichy colonies of the Levant. The Vichy regime attempted to put up a defensive effort, which, in the air, relied on Dewoitine fighters.

Prior to May of 1941, only the older MS.406 were located in Levant. With the rise of tensions as the colony now hosted Axis planes, GC III/6 was relocated from Algeria to Rayack in Lebanon on the 27th-28th of May 1941. This airfield would be used until late June, when the squadron would move to Alep. During the Levant campaign, GC III/6 would be joined by GC II/3, which moved into the Levant, transiting through Axis-occupied Greece and would operate from Homs and later Alep during the campaign. The French Navy’s AC 1 squadron would be deployed to the Levant as well.

The opposition the French would face consisted of Hawker Hurricane and Curtiss Tomahawks (P-40), as well as occasionally older Gloster Gladiators, escorting bomber formations typically composed of Blenheim bombers.

Dewoitine D.520 N°383 of GC III/6 at Rayack airfield, Lebanon, May 1941. The aircraft features the yellow recognition tail as well as a recognition arrow stopping in front of the cockpit. This aircraft, flown by Capitaine Rival Mazières, second in command of GC III/6, was shot down by British Curtiss Tomahawk fighters on the 23rd of June 1941 with the pilot, at this time Sergent Savinel, killed. [ww2aircraft.net]
The mangled wreck of the same Dewoitine, shot down on the 23rd of June 1941. [joseph bibert fichiers]
The French squadrons put up considerable opposition in the air, with the D.520 still being a decent adversary for the fighter aircraft they were facing. GC II/3’s scoreboard was fairly moderate, with two Blenheims and a Tomahawk shot down on the 2nd of July, with one confirmed and one probable Tomahawk on the 11th of July. GC III/6, present in the operations for longer, would feature a much more accomplished score-board during the campaign. They claimed 16 confirmed and 2 probable Hurricanes, a Fulmar, a Maryland, a Tomahawk, and three Gladiators. Pierre le Gloan, still flying with GC III/6, claimed seven victories: six Hurricanes and a Gladiator. As for the Navy’s AC 1 squadron, it would claim seven confirmed and one probable kill.

Though these were some considerable victories, the D.520 suffered some significant losses during the campaign, with about 40 planes lost, though only eight pilots were killed. Most of these were not shot down in flight. The issue the French faced in Levant were limited aviation facilities that featured little to no anti-aircraft defenses. Against a considerably numerically superior adversary, this resulted in the French being unable to defend their airfields against strafing runs, which decimated the fleet of Dewoitine aircraft. As British forces were progressing through the region swiftly, the three D.520 squadrons were redeployed to Algeria transiting through Greece in early July, so that the remaining fighters, and most importantly their pilots, could participate in the defense of French North Africa, now that the French Levant was irredeemably lost.

A Navy D.520 during the early Vichy area. The aircraft’s branch can be identified by the anchor present on the rudder section. [Cols bleus : hebdomadaire de la Marine française, French Navy, September 1985]
It should be noted that two D.520s left behind by Vichy’s air force in the Levant would be captured by the Free French and re-used for a short while in order to train the pilots of Free French GC 3 “Normandie.” This squadron would, from late 1942 onward, be deployed to the Soviet Union, operating with great success using Soviet Yak fighters for the remainder of the war, and gaining great fame as the only Western Allied fighting unit on the Eastern Front, and a highly successful squadron by both Free French and Soviet standards. Previously, the Free French had operated three D.520s that had defected from France to England in June of 1940. Two were conscripted into the force which attempted to seize Dakar in September of 1940, and following the failure of this attempt, they were unloaded in French Equatorial Africa, a colony which joined the Free French. One was lost in an accident, and the other left at its airfield when Free French pilots moved to Egypt to be equipped with Hawker Hurricanes.

Dewoitine D.520 n°302, one of the two D.520s captured by the Free French in the Levant. The two fighters were used by GC 3 Normandie before it moved to the USSR and eventually became the famous “Normandie-Niémen”. [warisboring.com]
The Free French D.520 n°139, by this point in time the only one in service, preparing for take-off in Chad, January of 1941. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
 

French Droplets on the Torch

A Vichy D.520 of an unidentified squadron in French North Africa, 1941. [ww2aircraft.net]
In November of 1942, with the war in the desert in Libya clearly going to the advantage of the Allies, French North Africa appeared as an increasingly appealing territory to seize to further the position of the Allies in North Africa. The large colony, comprising Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, was however fairly well defended, with the heaviest military forces still in the hands of the Vichy Regime located there. In terms of squadrons using the Dewoitine, these being GC I/3, II/3, III/3, III/6, II/7 and AC 1.

The Anglo-American landings were performed on the 8th of November. For air cover, they relied on large numbers of Grumman F4F Wildcat/Martlet and some Hawker Sea Hurricanes, which were still fighters the D.520 could hope to challenge – and the French squadrons did put up some considerable opposition to Operation Torch.

US Navy F4F Wildcat aboard USS Ranger CV-4 during Operation Torch. The American carrier fighter was about a match for the D.520, with a fairly similar maximum speed, likely slightly superior manoeuvrability but lower climb rate. [World War Photos]
GC I/3, operating near Oran, racked up a considerable score on the 8th of November, shooting down six Fairey Albacore light naval bombers, five Douglas C47 transport planes, five Hurricanes or Sea Hurricanes, and even a Spitfire. GC III/3, operating near Oran, appears to have claimed nine victories for seven D.520s lost. GC II/3, III/6 and II/7 were not located in areas as hot as the major Algerian harbour of Oran, and appear not to have claimed any victories during the battle. The French Navy’s AC 1 operating in Morocco claimed two F4F Wildcats for no aerial losses.

A D.520 of squadron 2AC of Flottila 1F on the runway in French North Africa, 1942. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]

However, while the French Dewoitines could still put up quite a fight against an F4F in the air, the numerical superiority of Allied fighters, and lack of French airfield defences would once again come back to haunt the French air force, with the AC 1 losing 19 of its 27 D.520s against strafing and bombing runs during the three-days of fighting during Operating Torch.

Luckily for the French, the colonial authorities of North Africa swiftly decided not to continue a vain opposition to Allied advances, and instead sided with the Allies against the Axis. With this, the Vichy squadrons, comprising a little over 130 D.520s, were now fighting against Axis troops. One was repainted in American colors and tested by the US Army Air Corps.

However, the end of the service of the D.520 in North Africa would be fairly swift, with the squadrons soon refitted with fighters such as Hurricanes and Spitfires for further operations, the D.520 no longer being seen as an up-to-date fighter and they lacked the facilities in France likely necessary for the manufacture of spare parts. The Dewoitine was relegated to a training role, in which it was still used in early 1944.

A flight of Free French D.520s over North Africa, early 1944. The planes received a roundel, and no other markings. Due to their operation in an area now void of Axis activity, no risk of confusion with an aircraft of a now nonexistent Vichy air force was considered. [joseph bibert fichiers]

Case Anton: The Dewoitine Under the Balkenkreuz

Days after French North Africa was invaded by the Allies, attention would now turn to the unoccupied part of France under the jurisdiction of the Vichy Regime. On the 11th of November 1942, Germany launched Case Anton, the Wehrmacht rushing to take control of Southern France, facing no resistance from Vichy troops that had been ordered to stay in their barracks and not oppose the Germans invaders. With this swift move, Germany captured around 250 Dewoitine D.520 fighters as well as the facilities which were in the process of producing more.

D.520 n°95 of JG 101 at Pau airfield, France, 1944. The German D.520s were repainted in a camouflage fairly similar to what could be found on other German aircraft by that point in the war. [Asisbiz]
The French production facilities would continue to work during German occupation, albeit at a reduced rate, seeing as the D.520 was a very low priority by late 1942. About 60 further fighters would be completed under German occupation.

Within the Luftwaffe, the D.520 was put to use as a trainer aircraft. Though now obsolete as a frontline fighter, it could still provide a decent introduction to modern, metal monoplanes with retractable landing gear. For this purpose, JG 101 was outfitted with the D.520 and operated in occupied France, mostly from Pau, in the South, where it would be free from sweeps and raids performed from the British Isles. JG 103, operating during the remainder of the war in the Netherlands or Austria, also used the D.520, as did JG 105, operating near Paris and Chartres, and JG 107 in Nancy. In German service, the D.520s were painted in a light gray color with darker gray spots on much of the aircraft, something typically found on many late-war German aircraft. The underside of the aircraft, and in some cases the nose and tail sections, were painted in a garish yellow color, likely for identification purposes as a training aircraft. The planes received a Balkenkreuz marking on the central fuselage and a swastika on the tail.

German maintenance crews at work near a D.520 in occupied France. [Pinterest]
The D.520 was noted to not always be a very easy plane to pilot, as it had some unforgiving flight characteristics and suffered from some mechanical issues, such as landing gear which at times failed to retract completely. However, in comparison to German fighters of the time, it offered much smoother and lighter controls for the pilot in comparison to the now quite heavy Bf 109G which were being operated by this point. There would nonetheless be several accidents, with at least three German pilots killed and two wounded on the Dewoitine. A number were also destroyed by Allied bombings of French airfields used by the Luftwaffe.

Outside of a training aircraft, there was another use the Germans could find to the D.520 by the second half of the war. It offered a convenient ‘hand-me-down’ aircraft to outfit the air forces of Axis states which requested fighters from Germany, without diverting any frontline German fighters being manufactured by this point. Two German allies would be outfitted with considerable numbers of D.520 in this fashion, Italy and Bulgaria, though it is sometimes claimed some outfitted Romania as well.

The French Fighter of the Regia Aeronautica

The Regio Esercito (Italian Army) captured 30 Dewoitines during the Battle of France, with many more being transferred to Italy after German capture in France.

The D.520s were assigned to various Regia Aeronautica (Italian Air Force) fighter groups, tasked with intercepting American bombers in the defense of various major cities, an endeavor which was met with mixed results. As Italy began to fall, some Dewoitines were destroyed by retreating Italians, or recaptured by the Germans.

It is of note that the Italians regarded the D.520 largely inferior for various reasons, but did praise the aircraft’s armament, making mention of the formidable 20mm cannon.

Regia Aeronautica D.520 of an unidentified squadron. The planes have by this point received Italian markings, such as the cross and the white band, but the base camouflage appears to remain the one featured on the original French planes, outside of perhaps the red propeller hub. [Pinterest]

The Shield of Bulgaria

A magnificent view of a Bulgarian D.520 in front of a mountain range. The camouflage used by the Bulgarian air force was similar to the Luftwaffe’s, but using Bulgarian markings and stripping their planes of any garish yellow paint. [Pinterest]
The other Axis air force which received a large number of D.520s was the Bulgarian Air Force. Though a member of the Axis powers, Bulgaria had chosen to remain out of Operation Barbarossa, and to not declare war on the Soviet Union, with its contribution to the war effort mostly consisting of its occupation of parts of Greece and Yugoslavia as well as economic cooperation with the Reich. As such, providing fighters for the Bulgarian Air Force may have seemed to be a lower priority for Germany in comparison to other allies, such as Hungary and Romania, which were actively fighting on the Eastern Front. However, Bulgaria was nonetheless at war with the Western Allies and, from 1943 onward, the subject of air raids increasing in frequency and intensity.

The D.520 seemed to be an appropriate hand-me-down for this lower priority but not insignificant part of the Axis, especially as the aircraft, while obsolete against modern fighters by 1943, could still be used against bombers and Bulgaria was still mostly out of reach of Allied single-engined fighters. Up to 150 D.520s appear to have been offered to Bulgaria, of which 120 would be ordered and 96 effectively delivered, the first 48 in August of 1943.

6th Fighter Regiment D.520s at a hangar at Karlovo airfield, Bulgaria, September of 1943. While the Avia fighters which shared the same engine family as the D.520 were no longer frontline fighters by this point, the experience gained by Bulgarian mechanics working on them likely simplified the transitional period to the D.520. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]

A major advantage of the D.520 for Bulgaria was that the old Czechcoslovak fighters already in use by the Bulgarian air force, the Avia B-71 and B-135, already used engines of the Hispano-Suiza 12Y family, albeit older models. This meant that Bulgarian mechanics would already have some experience with engines similar to those found on the Dewoitines, and that some amount of parts commonality could be expected, easing the logistical burdens Bulgaria would suffer in comparison to obtaining a fighter with an unrelated engine.

The Bulgarian Dewoitines were painted in schemes generally similar to the German ones, with a light gray base, dark upper, along with mottled spots in between. They, however, made more use of brown and green colors as well. The cross of the Bulgarian air force was painted on the aft fuselage, with the individual fighter number behind it. A yellow or white band was sometimes featured in front of the cross, behind the cockpit. The tips of the wings and sometimes the propeller hub were also painted in yellow.

The Bulgarian Dewoitines were delivered to the 6th IP (Fighter Regiment), where they formed the core of the 1st and 2nd groups. They would be operated in intercept missions, fighting along with Bf 109G-2 fighters also operated by the Bulgarians. American raids at this time typically consisted of B-24 bombers escorted by P-38 twin-engine fighters. While these escorts were significantly faster and better armed than the Dewoitines, the Bulgarian fighters could still count on their superior maneuverability to avoid being shot down. It appears the first victories by Bulgarian Dewoitines were scored on the 24th of November 1943, when three to four American planes were shot down by a Bulgarian fighter force composed of 24 D.520s and 16 Bf 109s. The first loss in combat appears to have been on the 10th of December, when one of 22 D.520s flying to intercept a flight of 60 B-24s and 60 P-38s was shot down. Ten days later, on the 20th, D.520s would score two victories, including an escorting P-38. On the 10th of January, Bulgarian pilots, flying 23 D.520s and 16 Bf 109s, in cooperation with 30 German Bf 109s, would claim four B-17s and four P-38s for the loss of a D.520.

Bulgarian air force personnel in front of a D.520 at Karlovo airfield in 1943. The D.520 would form a considerable portion of the Bulgarian air force’s fighter complement in late 1943 and early 1944, though it would progressively be superseded by the more modern Bf 109G. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
The 30th of March 1944 saw the largest air raid of the war on Bulgaria, with more than 360 B-17s and B-24s attacking Sofia. The Bulgarian air force scrambled all aircraft it could muster, including some Avia B-135s from training schools in addition to 28 D.520s from the first group of 6th Fighter Regiment (I/6) and 6 from the 2nd group (II/6). The Dewoitine-equipped groups claimed a B-17 for I/6, and two bombers and a P-38 for II/6. By this point however, losses were starting to increase for Bulgarian fighters, with 4 to 5 D.520s lost against P-38s and defensive fire from the bombers. By the spring of 1944, American air raids now included P-51 and P-47 escorts in addition to the P-38, further complicating the task of Bulgarian pilots. The D.520s appear to have been falling out of favor in comparison to Bf 109s for interception purposes by this point. While 44 Dewoitines were still available to the Bulgarian air force on the 1st of May 1944, they would claim their last victory on 5th of May with a B-17 shot down. Losses started to mount at this point, mostly due to bombing runs against Bulgarian airfields as well as lack of spare parts to support continued operation. By the 1st of September 1944, only 32 D.520s were still in Bulgarian hands, with only about half in flying condition. Overall, the D.520s appear to have claimed 5 B-17s, 2 B-24s and 4 P-38s, attacking in intercept missions against the USAAF, at the loss of seven D.520 in combat. Eight to ten were actually lost in accidents, and overall, eight Bulgarian pilots were killed flying the Dewoitine.

Bulgarian air force personnel of the 6th Fighter Regiment in front of a row of parked D.520s. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
As Soviet forces reached Bulgaria, a communist coup took over on the 9th of September 1944 and Bulgaria joined the war on the side of the Soviet Union. Remaining Bulgarian D.520s would operate against German forces from September to November, with a further two planes being lost, before the type was sent away from the frontlines in November of 1944. D.520s would remain in use by Bulgarian flight schools until 1947, when the type was finally retired from the service of the Bulgarian air force, and surviving aircraft were scrapped.

Bulgarian air force cadets stand on a D.520 during the plane’s last year of service in Bulgaria, 1947. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]

The Dewoitine into Liberation

By the 6th of June 1944, the D.520 was no longer used as a frontline fighter by any air force in the West. The Luftwaffe and Free French air force both operated the type as a trainer, with many of the Luftwaffe’s fleet of Dewoitines based in France.

While in the first two months following Operation Overlord, Allied progress would remain fairly slow and confined to Normandy, the breakthrough of Operation Cobra in late July saw a lightning-fast liberation of France by a combination of Allied mobile troops, and uprisings by the Forces Françaises de l’Intérieur (French Forces of the Inside or FFI) the leading organized French resistance. This would result in many D.520s being left behind on overrun airfields.

A first use of the D.520 by the FFI would be by a group of resistance fighters taking over the German occupied airfield at Châteauroux on the 20th of August 1944, where they found several damaged aircraft. Cannibalizing parts from different planes, the FFI managed to repair a single Dewoitine. Repainted in French colors, with a Cross of Lorraine on the tail, a French flag on the empennage, and “FFI” painted on the central fuselage, the Dewoitine was flown by a pilot that had not flown since the Battle of France, but ended up belly-landing. Two days later, German troops fleeing Southern France temporarily occupied Chateauroux again, with the FFI camouflaging their plane, and going into hiding until German forces finally left on the 10th of September.

The belly-landed FFI D.520 of Chateauroux, 27th of August 1944. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]

A more organized and professional use of the Dewoitine by the Free French, or French Forces of the Interior (FFI) would be accomplished by the Marcel Doret fighter group. Following the Allied Landings in Provence on the 15th of August 1944, much of Southern France was liberated by Allied troops and FFI uprisings in the following days, including at German airfields in Southern France, the facilities of the Morane-Saulnier, the SNCASE-Dewoitine factories in Toulouse, and the surrounding area. This resulted in a considerable number of Dewoitines falling into the hands of the FFI, which would very swiftly put them to use. Under the command of Marcel Doret, the most prolific French test pilot in the pre-war era, a fighter group was established, operating two squadrons of D.520s, one in Toulouse and one in Tarbes, both in Southern France. This group was grown as the “1er Groupe de Chasse FFI” (1st FFI fighter group), or more colloquially as the “Doret group”. It appeared to have had a strength of 18 D.520s.

Doret fighter group D.520s in late 1944. This photo shows how different markings co-existed at the time. The aircraft towards the left features a Cross of Lorraine on the tail and “FFI” inscribed within the invasion stripes, which the aircraft to the right as well as the one in the background lack. [Association des Amis du musée de l’Air]
A Free French D.520 with an unusual-looking, dotted camouflage pattern. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]
 

The Doret group was officially dissolved on the 1st of December 1944 – in practice, it was integrated into the formal structure of the French army as GC 2/18 “Saintonge.” The group was deployed to the Western French coast and used in recon missions as well as escorting Douglas A-24 Banshee bombers over the remaining German “pockets”, areas on the coast which remained under German control due to the presence of highly fortified U-Boat bases the Allies preferred to blockade, rather than attempt a costly take-over. In February of 1945, the D.520s were transferred to GC I/18 Vendée, continuing to see use in similar operations. This fighter group, the last operating the D.520 as a frontline fighter, was dissolved in October of 1945.

The camouflages used by the FFI were based on the German camouflages the D.520 were found with when captured, meaning a lighter gray base with darker gray spots. In some cases, the same brown as present on the D.520 previously in the service of the French air force was reintroduced on parts of the plane. Green could sometimes also be found. The FFI repainted the plane’s tail control surface with the French flag, as found on French air force aircraft prior to the armistice and the capture of the French fighters. A red cross of Lorraine was often found in the white stripe of this tail making. In the first months of operation, the D.520s also received the black and white invasion stripes in order to avoid any form of friendly fire incidents. In some cases, “FFI” appears to have been written in black letters in the white parts of the invasion stripes on the central fuselage. The D.520s also received French roundels on their wings, and later had their invasion stripes removed, with the space left on the central fuselage used for another roundel. A number in a circle was also present on the tail of many aircraft for identification purposes.

GC I/18 “Vendée” D.520s in flight in the spring of 1945. [WWII aces e-monsite]
A number of FFI D.520s were also exhibited during an aviation exhibition in Paris in the spring of 1945.

D.520s exhibited on the Champs-Elysées, Paris, Spring of 1945. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]

The Undying Trainer

One would expect the conclusion of the war to finally have buried the old D.520, by this point completely obsolete against modern prop fighters, let alone jets. Nonetheless, the plane saw continued use in the training role it had often been relegated in the later phases of the war.

This trainer role saw a final variant of the D.520 be designed and produced, the D.520 DC, double commande (dual control.) As the name suggests, this was a D.520 with an extended cockpit to the rear, intended for two men, a cadet and an instructor. The plane would receive dual controls allowing the instructor to take over control of the plane.

The unusual-looking D.520DC trainer conversion seen in 1946. This plane is D.520 n°243, the first of the 13 D.520DC, arguably the “prototype” of the series of conversions. [ww2fighters.e-monsite.com]

The modification had been devised by a French air force adjutant, with a first D.520, n°243, converted in the autumn of 1945. This was a very much makeshift conversion, using pedals from an Fw 190, a control stick from a no longer flyable D.520, and seemingly a seat from an A-24 Banshee for the instructor. Nonetheless, after a first flight in October of 1945, impressions were positive, and after a few modifications were performed, a dozen of D.520s were converted to the DC standards in early 1946. These planes would be used to train a number of French air force cadets, including the first few women to obtain military pilot licenses in the French air force.

The training service of both DC and single-seat D.520s would continue in the following year, though the type was progressively retired as more modern aircraft, including jets, were introduced. The last flight of a D.520 in the French air force was performed on the 30th of September 1953.

Surviving Aircraft

A D.520 is present on static display at France’s Musée de l’Air et de l’Espace du Bourget (ENG: Museum of Air and Space of the Bourget) near Paris. It is painted as a fighter of GC III/6, the squadron of the type’s most successful pilot, Pierre le Gloan.

A restored D.520 in GC I/3 camouflage. [le blog du lignard]
A D.520 in flyable condition is currently in the hands of the Conservatoire de l’Air et de l’Espace d’Aquitaine (Air and Space Conservatory of Aquitaine). It was restored to airworthiness from 2005 onward, after having been in storage for decades. A third D.520 is present in a hangar of the French navy, awaiting restoration alongside a number of other aircraft.

A fourth D.520, n°408, was part of the Musée de l’air et de l’espace as soon as it was phased out of service in 1957. Surviving as a warbird, it tragically crashed in July 1986, killing the pilot.

Variants

  • D.520-01 – The first prototype, utilizing a Hispano-Suiza 12Y-21 generating 890hp. No armament fitted. Numerous modifications included changes to the radiators, tail, exhaust, a 12Y-29 engine, and propeller.
  • D.520-02 – A fully armed prototype. Implemented all prior modifications, along with improved landing gear, and a larger empennage.
  • D.520-03 – Prototype with upgraded 12Y-31 Engine
  • D.520 – Main Production Version, fitted with the Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 engine. Around 900 produced.
  • D.521 – Prototype utilizing the British Merlin III Engine.
  • D.522 – Version fitted with the slightly older Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31, fitted with a new Hispano-Suiza supercharger, providing better high-altitude performance. Production was scheduled to start in July 1940, but never occurred due to the German invasion of France.
  • D.523 – Fitted with the improved Hispano-Suiza 12Y-51 mated to a Sydlowski-Planiol supercharger, producing up to 1,000 hp at altitude. Also offered significant speed and climb advantages over the original D.520. Only one prototype produced.
  • D.524 – Scheduled for 1940 production, would have used the Hispano-Suiza 12Z engine, a refined version of the 12Y engine, expected to have produced 1,300 hp. None built.
  • HD 780 – Prototype floatplane naval version of the D.520 featuring foldable, angled, gull wings, increased engine size, and two floats. Was completed in March 1940 but never flown.
  • D.525 – Combined the Hispano-Suiza 12Y-51 engine with the Hispano-Suiza supercharger used on the D.522. Only 30 produced.
  • D.520Z – Produced under the Vichy Regime in 1943 with German approval, this prototype installed the Hispano-Suiza 12Z engine, making 1,600 hp, a considerable boost in power. First flight didn’t take place until 1947.
  • M.520T – Project to further modernize the D.520, never reached the prototype stage.
  • D.520DC – A two seat trainer version developed immediately post-war. DC roughly indicates ‘dual control.’

Operators

  • French Armée de l’Air (French Air Force) – The French Air Force hastily produced and deployed to active squadrons mere months before hostilities broke out between Germany and France. After the conclusion of the Battle of France, and subsequent armistice, the aircraft would continue to serve under the air force the Vichy Regime.
  • Forces Françaises de l’Intérieur (FFI / Free French Forces) – Organized FFI forces operating in recaptured areas of France after Allied breakthroughs in 1944 assembled a few small squadrons and began flying reclaimed D.520s, most notably the “Doret Group,” before being reabsorbed into the formal structure of the revitalized French Army.
  • Regia Aeronautica (Italian Air Force [Axis]) – The Italians managed to acquire several dozen D.520s throughout the course of the war, and pressed them into domestic service defending and intercepting allied bombers over the Italian mainland.
  • Luftwaffe (Nazi Germany) – During Germany’s various incursions into France, several hundred D.520s came under their control, in addition to continuing serial production under German occupation. The Dewoitines that found their way into German service were primarily used as trainers, or were transferred to Axis allies, namely Italy and Bulgaria.
  • Bulgarian Air Force – As Bulgaria was an ally of the Axis powers, upwards of 98 D.520s were transferred to the country’s air force, and used to intercept Allied bomber raids.

Conclusion – The Incarnation of “Trop peu et trop tard”: The D.520 in French Mythos

Since the end of the Second World War, the D.520 has progressively gained a near-mythical status in French military enthusiast circles. The reasons for this are quite easy to identify. The D.520 was the best performing French fighter introduced in large numbers during the Battle of France, and seemingly the only one which posed a credible threat to the Bf 109. However, it arrived too late, and numbers too small to Germany’s advance. In this regard, it was one of a considerable amount of fairly advanced pieces of equipment the French army was close to introducing in 1940, but never could due to the Armistice, similar in this fashion to its fellow Bloch MB.155 and Arsenal VG.33 fighter aircraft, the two Richelieu-class battleships, and the MAS 40 semi-automatic rifle of the French army.

This massive place in French mythos, reinforced by Pierre Le Gloan’s commendable combat record with the type, could be said, however, to have caused some bias to exist in some French analysts, where placing the D.520 as an equal to the Bf 109 has become sort of tradition. While the D.520 was much closer to competing with the German fighter in comparison to the previous MS.406 or MB.152, in some ways, the German fighter could be said to still be a little better performing. It is also questionable whether or not the D.520 could have evolved to become a mainstay fighter for the French air force for the rest of the war, as the Spitfire was for the Royal Air Force and the Bf 109 for the Luftwaffe. In some ways, the VG.33 airframe, which slightly outperformed the D.520, with a previous and weaker version of the same engine, may eventually have provided a better long-term mainstay fighter for France. In any case though, difficult circumstances prevented the VG.33 from ever reaching service, but the D.520 would have the opportunity to live an active service life in a number of air forces, one which saw it in action against both Axis and Allied forces alike.

Dewoitine D.520C-1 specifications

Wingspan 10.18 m /
Length 8.75 m /
Height 2.55 m /
Wing Area 16 m² /
Engine Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45
Power at Critical Altitude 935 hp at 4,200 m
Max RPM 2,400 RRM
Propeller Three-bladed Ratier or Chauvière (3 m diameter)
Empty Weight 2,050 kg /
Maximum Takeoff Weight 2,740 kg /
Wing Load 195 kg/m²
Fuel Capacity 400 liters standard

640 liters with wing fuel tanks

Time to Altitude 4,000 m in 5’13”

6,000 m in 7’57”

8,000 m in 13’24”

Maximum Speed 425 km/h at sea level

535 km/h at 6,750 m

Cruising Speed 400 km/h
Stall Speed 125 km/h
Range Around 900 km with standard fuel load

1,500 km at max fuel fuel load (equipped w/ wing tanks)

Maximum Service Ceiling 11,000 m /
Crew 1 Pilot
Armament 20 mm HS-404 firing through the propeller hub with 60 rounds

4x MAC34M39 machine-guns with 675 rounds per gun in the wings

Number Completed Around 900 (produced 1939-1944)

Gallery

D.520 No.12 Cdt Thibaudet – GC I/3, Cannes-Mandelius, March 1940
D.520 No.90 Sergent Michel Madon who would go on to be credited with 11 confirmed kills during the war – GC I/3, Suippes, France, May 1940
D.520 No.61 Czechoslovak Pilot Cukr Vaclav – GC II/3, Oran-La-Senia Airfield, July 1940
D.520 No.277 flown by “Ace in One Day” Pierre Le Gloan – GC III/6, Prior to Armistice 1940
D.520 No.343 Cdt Moriat – GC II/3, Alep-Nerab Syria, July 1941
Free French D.520 – Not long after the Invasion of Normandy

Credits

  • Written by Marisa Belhote
  • Special Thanks for Contributions to the Italian Section by Arturo Giusti
  • Edited by Henry H., Stan L. and Ed J.
  • Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Sources

Messerschmitt Me 163B Komet

Nazi flag Nazi Germany (1944)
Rocket Powered Fighter – Around 370 Built

The Me 163B in standard camouflage. Note the brightly colored nose. [militaryimages.net]
Following the successful testing of the previous Me 163A series, the Germans began developing a new improved version that was intended for operational use. This would lead to the Me 163B series, which was the first, and last, operational rocket-powered aircraft to be used in active combat. In comparison to its predecessor, the Me 163B offered a number of improvements to its design and shape. By the war’s end, less than 400 aircraft of this type would be built.

History

Work on the second series of the Me 163, which would be built in greater numbers than the experimental A-series, began at the start of September 1941. In comparison to the predecessor, the B-version had a number of modifications. The most obvious change was the completely redesigned fuselage, which was larger and had an overall more aerodynamic shape. Its armament was installed in the wing roots, the engine was replaced with an improved version, and the pilot cockpit was enlarged.

The differences between the Me 163A (on the left) and the main production version are clearly evident here. [acesflyhigh.wordpress.com]

Initial plans for this aircraft were quite ambitious, as Messerschmitt had predicted that the production of four operational prototype aircraft with additional airframes should commence in October 1941. Once the first few prototypes were completed, a small series of 66 aircraft were to follow. The actual responsibility of building these was given to Messerschmitt production plants at Regensburg with assembly at Obertraubling. It was estimated by RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium – Ministry of Aviation) officials that, after the first batch of 70 aircraft was built, it would take some 7 months to actually begin mass production of fully operational aircraft.

One of the first few Me 163B prototypes built. [luftwaffephotos.com]
As was the case with many German wartime projects, it suffered from delays due to a lack of resources. The work on the initial group of prototypes started only at the end of 1941. Once again, further delays due to the slow delivery of engines postponed production until March of 1942. At this stage, the Germans were replacing the R II 209 rocket engines with the modified RII 211. The new engine used different types of fuel tanks which necessitated the redesign of the fuselage interior. This engine used a combination of T-Stoff and C-Stoff (a mixture of hydrazine hydrate, water, and methanol). As the construction of the Me 163B V1 prototype was approaching completion, it was proposed to switch to the older R II 203 engine to save development time, but this modification was not carried out. The development of the rocket engines was very slow and plagued with many setbacks, especially the limited production of fuel, which eventually led to huge delays in the Me 163 production. Finally, for the Me 163 production aircraft, the improved HWK-509 engine was chosen.

In May 1942, Me 163 B-0 V1 (KE+SX) was completed, minus the engine, and was tested as an unpowered glider. By 1943, it was obvious that Messerschmitt alone could not cope with the wartime demands, so RLM officials decided to bring aboard another aircraft manufacturer. They chose Klemm’s Stuttgart-Boeblingen factory, with a monthly goal of some 30 Me 163 aircraft. Klemm was also tasked with providing additional workers for Messerschmitt. Delays in delivering essential parts, such as weapons, caused setbacks in the Klemm Me 163 production.

Despite the problems with the Me 163 production, a small number of available aircraft were allocated to the Erprobungkommando (EKdo) 16 unit from April 1942 onward.

First Flights by EKdo 16

Once the first prototype was available, it was flight-tested as a glider by Heini Dittmar in late June, or May of 1942, depending on the source. Heini Dittmar had plenty of experience as a test pilot flying the Me 163A aircraft. The BV1 prototype would be, from this point on, mainly used as a training glider aircraft. From this point forward all aircraft built would be transported to Bad Zwischenahn near Oldenburg. Once there, they would be flight-tested by a number of pilots under the command of Karl Voy from EKdo16. This unit, which was formed in April of 1942, had the primary function of testing and evaluating the newly built Me 163 and helping in the development and improvement of its overall design. Another purpose that this unit had to fulfill was the training of new pilots for the Me 163.

An interesting episode in EKdo 16’s history is connected to the well-known German test pilot Hanna Reitsch. After a number of attempts to get permission to flight test the Me 163, she was finally allowed to do so at the end of 1942. Shortly after she took off, the jettisonable takeoff dolly refused to successfully detach from the aircraft, preventing it from using the landing skid. She managed to land the aircraft but was badly wounded and was placed in a hospital for some time. She later requested permission to fly the Me 163 again, but was explicitly rejected and was forbidden from flying it.

In early 1943, this unit was also tasked with testing jet-powered aircraft that were currently in development. These included the Me 262 and the He 280. EKdo 16 began receiving the first operational Me 163Bs only in July, or February of 1943. Due to extensive Allied Air Force activity near EKdo 16’s base of operation, the unit began the process of relocating its aircraft to Anklam. By this time, the unit had some 7 Me 163A and 1 of the B version. Due to poor ground conditions for Me 163 operations, the aircraft was relocated back to Bad Zwischenahn in late August. The delays with the construction of auxiliary support buildings on this airfield meant that crew training could not begin until October 1943. These initial training flights were carried out using two-seater gliders. Due to a lack of C-Stoff fuel, another series of delays impacted progress on training. In November, the Me 163As were used for crew training. In November and later in December, two aircraft were lost in accidents with the loss of life of both pilots.

In the following months, due to a number of factors like slow production, bad weather, and Allied activity, the Me 163 training program progressed at a slow pace. By May 1944, only a small group of fewer than 50 pilots had a chance to fly either the powered or towed versions of the Me 163. Once these were successfully tested, they would be then allocated to the 1./J.G. 400. unit.

The first combat action of the Me 163 was conducted on 14th May 1944, piloted by Major Spate. Amusingly, just prior to the first flight, his Me 163 BV 41 (PK-QL) aircraft was painted in red. This was done by the unit mechanics, who wanted with this small gesture to bring good luck to their pilots. Seeing no harm in it, Major Spate gave instruction that his aircraft be fully fueled and armed. During his flight, he attempted twice to attack Allied bombers but failed to properly engage them. It seems the red paint did not help with the luck.

During May, a number of unsuccessful combat flights with the Me 163 were undertaken. At the end of May, the airfield at Bad Zwischenahn was heavily bombed. During this attack, several Me 163s were damaged. This attack left the airfield at Bad Zwischenahn unusable for some time. To continue the training of pilots, the whole operation was temporarily moved to Brieg on the Oder. As this airfield lacked any proper workshops, the dismantled aircraft could not be assembled again and, for this reason, no test flights were ever carried out from Brieg.

Interestingly, on the 12th and 13th June 1944, three Me 163s from the EKdo 16 were demonstrated to the Japanese and Italian military delegations. As, at that time, EKdo 16 could not provide a fully operational Me 163, these were instead taken from 1./J.G. 400.

On 15th June 1944, the unit was once again back to Bad Zwischenahn. At their disposal, there were 2 prototypes, 7 gliders and 11 fully operational Me 163 aircraft. A few days later, another accident occurred when the towing aircraft lost power to one of its engines. The towed Me 163 was released at some 50 meters of altitude and the pilot was forced to land at a nearby lake. While the aircraft was heavily damaged, the pilot managed to survive.

In July 1944, a second auxiliary unit (Erganzumgsstaffel) was formed. It was also subordinated to the 1./J.G. 400. It had 6 Me 163s, of which only one was equipped with a rocket engine. It was intended to supplement the training of pilots for 1./J.G. 400.

In mid-August 1944, the airfield was once again attacked by Allied bombers. This caused further delays in training operations, until August 23rd. On that day, another accident led to the death of a pilot and the loss of yet another aircraft. Not wanting to waste the parts of the destroyed Me 163, these were collected and then sent to the training school at Fassberg.

At the start of September, Luftwaffe Generalmajor Adolf Galland told EKdo 16’s Commander Hauptmann Thaler, that the unit was to be disbanded and all personnel and equipment were to be relocated to Brandis. While the commanders of EKdo 16 were against such a decision, there was little they could do and, by the end of September, the unit was on its way to Brandis.

An Me 163 from EKdo 16. While some combat flights were undertaken, the primary purpose of this unit was to provide necessary pilot training. [aviationshoppe.com]

Technical Characteristics

The Me 163 was a high-speed, rocket-powered, swept-wing tailless aircraft. Its fuselage was constructed of metal, while the wings were wood. The fuselage could be divided into three sections, the cockpit, the central fuel tanks, and the rear engine compartment. In order to help the ground crew with repairs, the fuselage was specially designed to contain a large number of removable panels. Thanks to this, the replacement of damaged parts or even the whole engine could be done relatively quickly.

The wings were quite simple in design, consisting of two spars covered in 8 mm thick fabric. The Me 163 wings were swept to the rear at a 23.3° angle. At the wing’s trailing edges, ailerons were placed, which the pilot used for pitch and roll. For landings, large hydraulically operated flaps were added on the wings.

In order for the pilot to enter the cockpit, a ladder was placed on the left side of the aircraft. While the cockpit was not pressurized, it could be jettisoned to help the pilot escape the aircraft in case of emergency. Being unpressurized actually placed time limits for how long the pilot could endure without losing consciousness at altitude and during high-speed maneuvers. For this reason, the pilot had to endure altitude chamber training and had a specially designed diet. Despite attempts to improve visibility compared to the previous version, the Me 163B suffered from poor visibility, especially to the rear and in front of the aircraft’s nose.

In order to enter his flight position, the pilot used a small ladder placed on the left side of the aircraft. [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]
Close-up view of the Me 163 cockpit and instruments. [luftwaffephotos.com]
The Me 163 was equipped with various onboard equipment, including a FuG 16 ZE radio transmitter and receiver. In addition, a FuG 25 IFF (identification friend or foe) transmitter and receiver was installed. Given its small size and limited overall weight, the onboard batteries had a limited capacity. In order to provide the necessary power, the Germans simply added a small windmill generator which was placed on the nose of the fuselage.

During its development, the Me 163B was tested with a series of different rocket engines. Ultimately, for the main production version, the HWK (Helmuth Walter Kiel) 109-509A rocket engine was chosen. This had a thrust power ranging from 100 kg (220 lbs) to 1,500 kg (3,300 lbs) or 1,700 kg (3,750 lbs), depending on the source.

The Me 163 initially used a fuel mixture of the T and Z-Stoff. T-Stoff consisted of a mix of hydrogen peroxide with oxyquinoline or phosphate. Z-Stoff was an aqueous solution of calcium permanganate. Z-Stoff would later be replaced with C-Stoff, which was a mix of methyl alcohol, hydrazine hydrate, and water. T-Stoff was stored in one main and two smaller auxiliary tanks. The smaller tanks were placed on both sides of the cockpit. The C-Stoff fuel tanks were placed in the Me 163’s wings. In order to help circulate the fuel, two centrifugal pumps were placed inside the Me 163.

These chemicals were extremely flammable and dangerous to handle and thus required safety procedures to be used properly. Before each flight, the fuel tanks had to be thoroughly washed with water. During refueling, the ground and the aircraft had to be sprayed with large amounts of water. If the safety procedures were not followed, there was a great risk of explosion, which happened on occasion. Due to the volatile nature of the fuel, any harsh landing with fuel still onboard offered a great chance of explosion as well, which led to a number of pilots being lost. Being highly corrosive and deadly to the touch, the maintenance crews and pilots had to wear specially designed protective clothing and gloves. Preserved photographs seem to indicate that these precautions were not always strictly adhered to. Given that the Me 163 operated in late 1944 were shortages of all kinds of equipment and materials were common, this should not come as a surprise. Still, handling the Me 163 fuel without this kind of protection was highly dangerous for the ground maintenance crews.

This Me 163 is in the process of being refueled. [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]
The fuel load consisted of 1040 liters (229 gallons) of T-Stoff and 492 liters of C-Stoff. The Me 163 was notorious for having only a limited powered flight endurance of 7 minutes and 30 seconds before its fuel reserve was spent. The actual flight could be much longer, however, since at sufficient altitude, the pilot could switch off the engine, and reactivate it as needed. After all rocket fuel had been spent, the pilot would then use the Me 163 as a glider to fly back to its base, or to any nearby German airfield.

The initial armament consisted of two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons, which were positioned in the wing roots. To increase the firepower these would be replaced with the stronger 30 mm MK 108 cannons. The Me 163B-0 series was armed with the weaker 20mm cannon while the Me 163 B-1 with the stronger 30mm cannon. While the Mk 108 had sufficient firepower to outright destroy or heavily damage enemy aircraft, it was plagued with low velocity. This combined with the extraordinary speed of the Me 163 made engaging targets difficult. For this reason, the Me 163 was tested with some experimental weapon systems. These include the 5.5 cm R4M air-to-air rocket, and the more revolutionary SG 500 Jagdfaust. This weapon consisted of five rockets usually placed under each wing, but on the Me 163 it was actually mounted vertically in the wings. It was provided with an optical sensor that activated its weapon load once it detected shadow, in theory, a shadow of an enemy plane. This was an automated weapon firing mechanism capable of friendly fire if not managed properly. But this situation would be rare given the fact that Me 163 was a short-range and unique interceptor that operated on its own without support from other aircraft.

The Me 163 was armed initially with two MG 151 and later with MK 108 cannons which were placed in the wing roots. The left-wing cannon muzzle brake is visible in this picture. The pilot in this picture is Heini Dittmar was a vital test pilot for the whole Me 163 project. [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]
The Me 163 utilized an auxiliary landing gear unit. This was mainly done to reduce the overall weight of the aircraft. Take-offs and landings were divided into two phases. For take-off, the Me 163 sat on a simple two-wheel dolly unit. Once at sufficient altitude the dolly was jettisoned from the bottom of the aircraft. On occasion, there were accidents involving this system, when, for example, the dolly refused to release from the aircraft, or even worse, it could bounce off the ground and strike the aircraft from below. Therefore the Germans worked on developing safer types of dollies. On landing, the Me 163 were to use a simple retractable landing skid, placed beneath the fuselage. In addition, to the rear of the aircraft, a small steerable tail wheel was added to help during take-off and landing.

Close-up view of the Me 163 landing skid. [Wiki]
The rear wheel was completely steerable and was added to help during take-off and landing. [warbirdphotographs.com]
 

Once at a sufficient height, the two-wheel dolly would jettison from the aircraft (in the left corner). While in theory, this should work without any issue, in some cases the dolly would simply bounce off the ground and hit the aircraft from below potentially causing damage to it. [luftwaffephotos.com]
While this takeoff and landing system offered the desired reduction in weight, it was not without its problems. Besides the issues previously mentioned, after a successful landing, the Me 163 was immobile and vulnerable to possible enemy attacks. To move it across the airfield the Germans designed and built a small specialized aircraft tug, called the Scheuchschlepper, especially for this task.

The Scheuchschlepper is specially designed to either tow or lift the Me 163 aircraft. [warbirdphotographs.com]
The Scheuchschlepper essentially fulfilled two roles. Initially, in the three-wheel configuration, it was to tow the Me 163 along the airfield, using its own dolly, to a designated takeoff position on the airfield (upper picture). After the Me 163 returned from a sortie, the Scheuchschlepper rear wheel would be replaced with a tracked platform which supported a cradle that fully supported the entire aircraft at its wing roots, to move the Me 163 for refueling and to be refitted on a takeoff dolly for the next flight. [wiki]

Operational Combat Use

The first operational unit that was to be equipped with the Me 163 was the Staffel of Jagdgeschwader 20./JG 1 located at Bad Zwischenahn. According to initial plans, this unit was to be formed at least by the end of 1943 or in early 1944 depending on the sources. In its inventory, there were some 12 fully operational Me 163 available. In addition, the Germans planned for the Me 163 to be positioned at a series of auxiliary airfields along Allied bomber routes. These would be fully equipped with spare parts, ammunition, and fuel, and positioned close to each other. This way, after an attack run, the Me 163 pilots could simply choose on which airfield to land, knowing that they could resupply without any problems.

But in reality, it took a few more months before the unit was actually officially formed at the start of March 1944. The development of a network of supporting airfields for the Me 163 was also never completed. The unit was by that time being renamed to Jagdgeschwader 1./JG 400 and stationed at Deelen. The commander of the unit was Oberleunant Rober Olejnik. They were relocated to Wittmundhafen as the airfield at Deelen proved unfit for the Me 163 aircraft’s operation.

The unit received its first operational Me 163 on the 10th of March, and seven more were to arrive by late April 1944. Concurrently, pilots were beginning to arrive from the EKdo 16 training unit. More test flights were carried out until mid-March 1944 when they had to be temporarily stopped. The reason for this was the lack of sufficient water supply which was essential for flushing the Me 163 fuel tanks in order to avoid any accidental explosion. To resolve this issue the unit personnel began drilling wells to collect water.

1./JG 400 was at this stage prohibited from making combat flights in order to avoid the attention of the Allies. However, the unit was permitted to conduct live firing trials during flights in order to test the Me 163 weapons systems. While generally successful, during sharp maneuvers at a speed of some 800 km/h, the ammunition belts proved prone to malfunction. While Olejnik suggested using a drum magazine, which was even tested successfully, his idea would not be adopted. On the 21st of April Olejnik had an accident during a forced landing where he spent some time in hospital thereafter.

In April and May, 1./JG 400 took delivery of a group of 10 aircraft, but one had to be returned to Klemm for modifications. That particular aircraft would be destroyed in an Allied bombing raid on Klemm. These were still prototype aircraft of the B pre-production version. The first Me 163B-0 series aircraft began to arrive from May 1944. At this time the Luftwaffe officials were determined to introduce the Me 163 to service. For this reason, the work on testing and experimenting with the Me 163 was stopped in favor of increasing the overall production of the Me 163 B-1.

With the expected increase in production, another unit, 2./J.G.400, was to be formed in May 1944. It was initially to be involved with crucial crew training. At that time, the size of both units was to be increased to 14 instead of 12 operational aircraft.

In July 1944, 1./JG 400 received permission to make combat flights. The Me 163 were then used in several failed attempts to intercept the Allied reconnaissance aircraft that made frequent flights over the base. At the same time, 1./JG 400 and other available Me 163 were being relocated to new positions at Brandis. The original plans to build numerous connected airfields were abandoned in favor of concentrating all available Me 163 in a few selected airfields. For this reason, Brandis would become the main key point for the Me 163 combat operations. It is from there that the Me 163s attempted to intercept a huge Allied air formation of some 766 bombers, supported with over 14 groups of cover fighters. The Me 163 did not engage the Allies probably due to the small number of available aircraft and the heavy fighter cover. By the end of July, the 1./JG 400 had only four operational aircraft out of 16 available.

In mid-August, Me 163s from this unit attacked an Allied B-17 bomber formation. While evading the fighter cover, they managed to heavily damage at least one bomber, killing two crew members. On the 16th of August, five Me 163 attacked a group of B-17s, and even managed to shoot down two of the bombers. The Germans lost one Me 163 during this engagement being hit by an Allied P-51. On the 24th of August, eight Me 163 managed to shoot down three more bombers while successfully evading enemy fighter cover.

While this aircraft managed to fly back to Allied Air Bases in England, the damage inflicted by the Me 163 cannons is evident here. The rear gunner position was completely destroyed while the right tail unit was heavily damaged. [. Ransom and H.H. Cammann Jagdgeschwader 400]
On the 8th of September, the Me 163 were officially taken into service. Given the previous success, of destroying 5 enemy bombers with a limited number of available Me 163, attempts were made to increase the number of squadrons with 20 aircraft. This was never achieved, as the Allies destroyed the vital C-Stoff fuel production facility at Kiel in August. On the 11th of September, a single Me 163 attacked and destroyed a lone B-17.

During these initial combat engagements with the Allied bombers, German pilots noticed that the Me 163s armament had a huge flaw. The weapons were difficult to use with the standard attack tactics of the aircraft. This involved getting the Me 163 high above the Allied bombers and then plunging down at them with a dive speed of 885-930 km/h (550-580 mph). Due to its main cannon’s low velocity, and in order to avoid collision with the target, the pilot had only a few seconds available to engage the enemy. This meant that only the highly experienced Me 163 pilot had a chance of hitting the enemy aircraft. The Me 163 also had another flaw, as it could be only used when the weather was clear.

At the end of September 1944, II./JG400 was formed, under the command of Lieutenant Peter Gerth (3/JG 400) and Oberleutnant Franz Woidich (4/JG 400). These units were renamed in November or December 1944 to 5. and 6./JG 400. During this time the 7/JG 400 was also formed, which was stationed at Stettin-Altdamm. In late 1944 II./JG400 was repositioned at Stargard. Few sorties were carried out mostly due to lack of fuel. In November 1944 a Me 163 engaged a British Mosquito, damaging it and forcing its crew to abandon the aircraft.

An Me 163B is engaging Allied B-17 bombers. The Me 163, despite its small number, proved to be a shock to the Allies pilots. Given that they could do little against it when the Me 163 was in its dive attack. [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]
Bad weather, lack of fuel and the rapid Allied advance on the West and East temporarily stopped all Me 163 combat operations. Combat operations began again in March of 1945. For example on the 16th March, an Me 163 managed to damage another Mosquito on a reconnaissance mission. While the Mosquito pilot managed to fly back to France, he was forced to crash land. A quite interesting Me 163 air victory was achieved on the 10th April 1945 while piloted by Leutnant Fritz Kelb. This aircraft was equipped with the experimental SG 500 Jagdfaust and managed to shoot down a British Lancaster bomber.

In late April I/.J.G.400 would be disbanded and its remaining few operational Me 163 were allocated to the J.G 7. The former I/.J.G.400 commander Wolfgang Spate, flying one of the remaining operational Me 163, managed to destroy 5 additional Allied bombers by the end of the war. The remaining ground personnel from the I/.J.G.400 were dispatched to the East to fight as infantry in Bavaria. There, they allegedly managed to destroy a Soviet tank using a MK 108 cannon removed from an Me 163, which was placed on makeshift undercarriage wheels, also taken from a Me 163. Given the chaotic state of Germany in 1945, it’s conceivable that the crew operating this gun may have found a way to make it work.

After the War

In May 1945 the Allied forces were rapidly advancing into Germany, capturing many airfields in the process. The crews of the Me 163 were often instructed to destroy their own aircraft to prevent them from falling into the enemy’s hands, but despite this, the Allies managed to capture a number of intact Me 163. This was the case of the II./J.G.400, which surrendered its 48 aircraft to the Allies on the 8th of MAy 1945. Of these, some 25 were transported back to the UK to be properly examined. The Americans also managed to capture a number of Me 163 in various working conditions across occupied Germany. The French Air Force received at least 4 Me 163 from the British after the war. The Soviets were not idle either as they also managed to acquire unknown numbers of the Me 163 including the rare two-seater trainer version Me 163S.

One of the 25 aircraft that were shipped to the UK by the English after the war. [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]

Me-163C

In an attempt to increase the Me 163’s performance, Junkers cooperated with Dr. Lippisch. This resulted in the development of a modified Me 163 (based on the BV6 prototype) which was slightly larger, had greater fuel capacity and had two engines. In theory, during take-off, both engines would be activated until a certain altitude was reached. This project would eventually evolve into Me 163C. This aircraft was to have a redesigned fuselage and cockpit. It was to be powered by HWK 109-509A-2 and HWK 509C engines. By the end of the war, only a few incomplete airframes were built.

The Me 163B V6 was tested with two engine configurations It was to serve as the basis for the planned Me 163C version which was never completed, aside from a few airframes. [E. T. Maloney and U. Feist Messerschmitt Me 163]
An Me 163C illustration of how it may have looked given that only few uncompleted airframes were built. [walterwerke.co.uk]

Japanese Me-163B

In 1944, on Adolf Hitler’s instructions, a number of previously secret projects were to be shared with the Japanese. For this reason, several submarines were to transport parts of a disassembled Me 163B to Japan. While the one carrying the aircraft parts was sunk, the others that were carrying technical manuals managed to reach the German ally. Based on these, the Japanese managed to build a slightly modified copy of the Me 163. It was known in Japan as J8M1 Shuri (Rigorous Sword). During the first test flight, there was an accident in which the prototype was lost.

During negotiations between Japanese and German military officials, it was agreed to hand over to Japan a production license for many weapons including the Me 163 and Me 262. It was named Mitsubishi Ki-200, for the army, and J8M1 for the navy. The first Me 163B flew in July 1945 but was lost in an accident. Several more were built but the end of the war led to the end of the project.

While the Japanese experimented with their own copy of the Me 163, they did not manage to put it into production. [Wiki]

Production

The production of Me 163 was initially allocated to the Messerschmitt Regensburg factory. As it was overburdened with other projects, it would then be allocated to a much smaller Klemm factory where less than 60 aircraft were built in total. Some sources also mentioned that the production was carried out at the Dornier factory in Oberpfaffenhofen and the Bachmann von Blumenthal factory in Fürth. On the 1st of September 1944, the production of the Me 163 was officially handed over to Junkers. To avoid concentrating the production in one location, given the Allied bombing campaign, Junkers dispersed it across numerous smaller companies. Each of these was tasked with the delivery and production of parts before being finally assembled at Brandenburg-Briest. This, in theory, would increase the overall production and avoid potentially being targeted by Allied bombers. In reality, this backfired, as it caused huge confusion and chaos with the delivery of parts, and poor quality in production. Junkers managed to produce around 299 aircraft of this type by the end of the war.

The question of how many Me 163B were produced during the war is difficult to pinpoint precisely. The sources give different numbers, for example, most state around 400 of all models, of which some 370 were estimated to be of B-version, were built by the war’s end.

  • Me 163B-0 – Pre-production aircraft
  • Me 163B-1 – Main production aircraft
  • Me 163C – Experimental twin-engine modifications of the Me 163B aircraft but only few incomplete airframes were ever built

Operators

  • Germany – Built less than 400 aircraft of which only a smaller number were ever used in combat
  • Japan – Built a small number of slightly modified Me 163B by the end of the war.
  • Soviet Union – Several Me 163B and one Me 163S, captured, were used for many different tests after the war. The results of these tests will lead to the development and creation of several different projects (The Lavochkin I-162 and Mikoyan-Gurevich I-270).
  • UK – Managed to capture some 48 or so Me 163 aircraft of which 25 were sent to the UK for testing and evaluation.
  • France – Received four aircraft from the British after the war.
  • USA – Acquired an unknown number of Me 163 at the war’s end.
  • Australia and Canada – Both received one aircraft from the British after the war.

Surviving Aircraft

Today at least several Me 163 are known to still exist. One could be found in the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, and one in the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa. Two are located in German museums: Luftwaffenmuseum at Berlin-Gatow and Deutsches Museum in Munich. Few more are in the USA Flying Heritage Collection, National Museum of the USAF, and Smithsonian National Air and Space Museums. And in the UK, RAF, Science and National Museum of Flight. The one captured by the Soviets existence is currently unclear.

Luftwaffe Museum at Berlin-Gatow [acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com]

Conclusion

The Me 163 was designed to be light and relatively cheap to build. This was certainly a strength if we take into account the huge shortage of resources and materials that the Germans endured during the later stages of the war. It also used special fuel that was specially designed for it, and thus there was no need for allocating the vital German fuel reserves to it.

With the two MK 108 cannons, the Me 163 was formidably armed given its small size. Just a few rounds of this cannon was enough to destroy or heavily damage an enemy target. Given its phenomenal speed during dive attack at the enemy formation, the Me 163 was essentially immune to enemy fighter cover and was unable to do much against it. That is until it ran out of fuel, at that point it was completely helpless and could only glide back to base.

On the other hand, it was overshadowed by a number of critical faults that were never corrected. For example, while the Me 163 was cheap, due to many reasons it was never produced in any sufficient numbers to cause any serious threat to the Allies. While the number of some 400 aircraft built seems significant, in reality only a dozen or so aircraft were ever used at any given time in combat. Most were used for training, either as gliders, or with an operational engine. Not all built aircraft would be delivered to the operational units, given the great confusion and chaos that the Germans were surrounded with from 1944 on. The fuel could never be produced in sufficient quantities. The problem with fuel was even complicated by the increase in production of the Me 163. Because of this the Germans simply had to reduce the number of aircraft that they used for combat, as there wasn’t enough fuel for all of them. The volatile nature of its fuel, occasionally lead to accidents and explosions, losing aircraft in the process, but more importantly the vital pilots. While its speed was great, its maximum burn time for the engine was only slightly longer than 7 minutes, however this capability could be stretched by the pilot’s ability to switch the engine on and off throughout the flight. Once the engine consumed all the fuel reserves, the aircraft essentially became a simple glider that was vulnerable to enemy fighter cover.

In the final analysis, the Me 163 theoretically possessed great potential for a rocket-powered aircraft. In reality, due to many delays, lack of unity in German aviation circles, and problems with its design and production, the Me 163 never managed to fulfill the role that its designer had intended for it. Its achilles heel was its dangerous and volatile fuel from which a number of planes and pilot lives were lost. Probably its greatest contribution was that it provided a good experimental platform for flight tests at transonic speeds. But due to its unusual design the Me 163 certainly deserves a great place in the history of the development of aviation.

Me 163B Specifications

Wingspans 30 ft 7 in / 9.32 m
Length 19 ft 2 in / 5.84 m
Height 9 ft 1 in / 2.77 m
Wing Area 199.4 ft² / 18.5 m²
Engine One HWL 509A rocket engine
Empty Weight 4,200 lbs / 1,900 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 9.060 lbs / 4.110 kg
Fuel Capacity 1,530 liters / 400 US gallons
Maximum Speed 600 mph / 960 km/h
Engine endurance 7 minutes and 30 seconds
Maximum Service Ceiling 39,700 ft / 12,100 m
Crew One pilot
Armament
  • Two 20 mmMG 151
  • Or two 30 mm MK108 cannons

Gallery

Me 163BV 41 PK+QL 1./J.G. 400. This aircraft, painted in red and piloted by Major Wolfgang Spate, flew its first combat mission on May 14th, 1944.
Me 163B V45 PK+QP Erpobungskommando 16 at Bad Zwischenahn, May 1944
Me 163B V52 GH+UI ‘Yellow 1’ 7./JG 400, Stettin-Altdamm, October 1944
Me 163B
Me 163B

Credits

  • Written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Henry H. & Ed Jackson
  • Illustrated by Carpaticus

SourcesMe

  • D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemcaka. Beograd.
  • W. Spate and R. P. Bateson (1971) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet , Profile Publications
  • M. Ziegler (1990) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Schiffer Publishing
  • M. Emmerling and J. Dressel (1992) Messerschmitt Me 163 “Komet” Vol.II, Schiffer Military History
  • E. T. Maloney and U. Feist (1968) Messerschmitt Me 163, Fallbrook
  • S. Ransom and H.H. Cammann (2010) Jagdgeschwader 400, Osprey publishing.
  • D. Donald (1990) German aircraft of the WWII, Brown Packaging books ltd
  • D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
  • D. SHarp (2015) Luftwaffe secret jets of the Third Reich, Mortons Media Group
  • H. Morgan and J. Weal (1998) German Jet Aces of the World War 2 , Osprey Aerospace

Belyayev DB-LK

USSR flag USSR (1938-1940)
Experimental Long-Range Bomber – 1 Prototype Built

The Belyayev DB-LK [airwar.ru]
In the late thirties and early forties, the Soviet aviation industry had developed and tested a variety of aircraft design concepts, some quite peculiar. While generally unknown around the world, a number of these strange aircraft would represent a serious departure from anything resembling their contemporaries. Such is the case with Victor Nikolayevich Belyayev’s DB-LK experimental long-range bomber.

History

Victor Nikolayevich Belyayev, March 1896 – July 1953, began working for the Department of the Marine Experimental Aircraft Construction, OMOS, in 1925, where he gained his first experience in aircraft design. In the following years, he worked for the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, TsAGl, and Tupolev. During this time, he became an advocate for tailless aircraft designs. He also argued that the so-called “batwing”  or “butterfly”, offered better performance, due to their reduced drag and better stability, than regular wing designs.

The “batwing” design possessed a slightly forward-swept wing with back curved tips. Belyayev managed to construct a glider, designated BP-2, which was equipped with this kind of wing design in 1933, on which he tested this concept. During its test flight, it was successfully towed in the air from Crimea to Moscow, where it proved to have good stability and control during flight.

The BP-2 glider in flight. [airwar.ru]
The next year, Belyayev participated in the competition for a new Soviet military transport plane design. His design was unusual, as it consisted of a large wing and two nacelles,  powered by Tumanskii M-87B 950 hp (708 kW) engines. His design was not approved nor did he build a working prototype. However, four years later, he would reuse this project and adapt it for the role of a long-range bomber. In 1938, he designed the DB-LK long-range flying wing bomber, which the TsAGl approved and ordered the construction of a fully operational prototype. The prototype was built the following year by factory No.156 and by November 1939 it was ready for testing.

Technical Characteristics

The DB-LK had an unusual overall design with no classical fuselage. Instead, the crew, armament, and other equipment were located in the two extended engine nacelles that ended in glazed tail cones (gondolas), somewhat similar to the later German Fw 189. The two extended engine nacelles were, technically speaking, the plane’s fuselage. The semi-monocoque fuselages were constructed by using a combination of metal frames and longerons covered with a duralumin sheet. The DB-LK was designed in this unusual configuration in the hope of reducing the overall drag and weight and thus increasing its speed and range.

The DB-LK’s wings had a unique design, where beside the “batwings” there was an additional center wing section between the two fuselages. Also, the wings were slightly swept to the front with back curved tips. The wings consisted of an airframe covered with light metal stressed-skin. The outer wings had a Gottingen 387 profile, while the center section had a CAHI (TsAGI) MV-6bis profile. The wing edges were curved at an angle of -5° 42′.

A side view of the DB-LK. The strange wing design can be seen. [elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com]
The rear tail was located on the middle section wing between the two fuselages. The tail consists of one fin and a large 20 ft2 (1.9 m2) rudder. Above the rudder, a smaller tailplane with two, one on each side, large elevators was placed.

A rear view where the large tail and the left glazed rear cone can be seen. [airwar.ru]
One Tumansky M-87B 950 hp (708 kW) 14-cylinder radial engine was installed at the front of both nacelles. For these engines, three-bladed propellers with variable pitch were used. It was planned to upgrade these two with much stronger 1,100 hp (820 kW) M-88 engines, or even the 1.700 hp M-71, but this was never implemented. The fuel was stored in the wing and fuselage tanks, with a total fuel load of 3.444 l.

The landing gear retracted rearwards, with one wheel (900 x 300 mm) in each fuselage. During later testing, the landing gear design was changed with a forward retractable one. This whole landing gear system was operated hydraulically. There was a small fixed rear wheel (450 x 150 mm) located at the bottom of the tail unit.

The DB-LK was to be operated by a crew of four: the pilot, navigator, and the two rear gunners. The pilot position was in the left cockpit and the navigator in the right. The gunners were positioned in both rear glazed cones. One of the two gunners was also the radio operator. The crews entered their positions through roof hatch doors. The two glazed cones could be mechanically rotated 360° by using a small electric engine located at the fuselage top, but the sources do not specify why this was done.

Inside the pilot cockpit [авиару.рф]
The interior of one of the two fuselages. In the picture on the right, the rear machine gun mount can be seen. On the left, the radio and the mechanism that rotated the whole glazed cone can be seen. [авиару.рф]
Both rear glazed tail cones had a recess where a twin  7.62 mm (.30 caliber) ShKAS machine gun mount was installed. These machine guns had a -10 to +10 field of fire in all directions.  Besides these four machine guns, there were two additional ones forward mounted in the leading edge of the center section. These two machine guns were operated by the pilot. In total, around 4,500 rounds of ammunition were provided for these machine guns. The bomb bays were located behind the landing gear doors in each of the two nacelles.

Depending on the sources, the load capacity of the bomb carried is different. The authors Yefim G. and Dimitri K. note that the bomb load was 1000 kg (2,200 lb) with another 1000 kg that could be carried on external racks. According to Bill G., the capacity of each bomb bay (in each fuselage) was one 1000 kg (2.200 lb), two 500 kg (1.100 lb), or smaller bombs with a total of 1000 kg (2.200 lb) weight.

 

Both front and rear views of the DB-LK’s unusual design. [авиару.рф]

Flight Tests

While being completed in November 1939, the first extensive flight test would only begin the following year. This was due to the unwillingness of the test pilot to fly this plane. He did not believe that it was safe to fly due to its unorthodox design. During this time, the plane received the nickname “Kурица” (chicken).

In order to move the entire project testing through this roadblock, the Soviet Direction of the Air Force Scientific test institute, GK Nil WS, appointed M. Nyuikhtikov as the main test pilot, supported by aircraft engineer and test pilot T. T. Samarin and N. I. Shaurov. Under the new leadership, the tests were carried out in the spring of 1940. During the new leadership, the DB-LK was extensively tested in over 100 flights.

During these flights, the pilots managed to reach speeds of 245 mph (395 km/h) at sea level and 300 mph (490 km/h) at an altitude of 16,400 ft (5,000 m). The DB-LK needed a 2,030 ft (620 m) long airfield for landing and taking off. However, the  DB-LK was never truly trialed with a fully loaded payload. The numbers presented above would have likely been different with a full payload of equipment.

The test pilot Nyuikhtikov, after flying on the DB-LK, pointed out some issues with the plane’s design. The main problems were the inadequate overall flight-control system, poor visibility for the pilot and the navigator, especially on the ground. He also noted the poor construction of the landing gear. These reports were examined by the Nil WS Commission led by A. I. Filin. They agreed that the control system should be improved, but Filin had a positive opinion on the landing gear construction. Ironically, during a test flight, where Filin was the pilot, there was a landing gear malfunction during the landing when one of the front wheels broke free, after a possible collision with a treetop. The aircraft was only lightly damaged and the testing continued, but this led to a change in the landing gear design.

There were also other problems mentioned during the tests, like uncomfortable cockpits, low-level of fire protection, structural problems, a limited firing arc of the rear-mounted defense machineguns, and the tendency for the crew compartments to be filled with exhaust fumes from the engines. To solve these issues, there were plans for the DB-LK improvements, with stronger engines, wings, and various other modifications, to be completed by late 1940 but they were probably never implemented.

Rearview of the accident. [авиару.рф]

Conclusion

Despite plans for more testing and improvements, unfortunately for the DB-LK design team, they never got a chance to do so. In late 1940, the Nil WS Commission gave orders for the cancellation of the DB-LK program. The main reason for this was the decision for the production of the Il-4 as the main Soviet long-range bomber.

 

Belyayev DB-LK specifications
Wingspan 70 ft 10 in / 21.6 m
Length 32 ft  1 in /  9.8 m
Wing Area 612 ft² / 65.9 m²
Engine 2x Tumanskii M-87B 950 hp (708 kW) 14 cylinder radial engines
Empty Weight 13,230 lbs / 6,000 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight 23,530 lbs / 10,670 kg
Fuel Capacity 3.444 l
Maximum Speed 300 mph / 490 km/h
Cruising Speed 245 mph / 395  km/h
Range 790 mi /  1.270 km
Maximum Service Ceiling 27,890 ft / 8,500 m
Climb speed Climb to 3,000 m in  8 minutes
Crew Pilot, navigator, gunner and radio operator/gunner
Armament
  • Six 7.62 mm ShKAS machine gun
  • Two 1,000 kg bombs or Four 500 kg bombs

Gallery

Illustration by Godzilla

Credits

  • Article written by Marko P.
  • Edited by Stan L. & Henry H.
  • Illustration by Godzilla

Sources

  • Y. Gordon, D, Khazanov (1999), Soviet Combat Aircraft Of The Second World War, Midland Publishing
  • Yefim G. and Bill G (2000), Soviet X-Planes, Midland Publishing
  • Peter G. D. (2015), Soviet Aircraft Industry, Fonthill Media
  • D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata SSSR, Beograd.
  • Aviamuseum