Wehrmacht `47

[centman]

Hi
who wargames or collects this line as there do not seem to be much in the forums, and no new releases lately.?
Is this a dying subject / line.?

[Guroburov]

I have a few packs but not a lot...yet. I'm hoping to get more later this year or next year. I'd like to have troops to run 1939-modern. But it's a slow building collection as I'm more focused on other areas first.

[CG2]

I think it's a dead area - no comments and no new releases. I even put some packs on ebay last year and there was not a single bid on any of them!

[MechCommander]

I think I did ask GHQ on their Facebook page to do some W47 Aircraft like the XF4-U Flying Flapjack.

[CG2]

I think it may be the same for the 1/1200 Napoleonic ships which are in a similar position.

[Donald M. Scheef]

I have posted this before, but I would repeat that there are numerous Wehrmacht '47 possibilities.
Getting down to “serious” discussion, let us consider the possible offerings in a Wermacht ’47 series. E-100, Maus, Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger, Tiger II, Panther IIF, and Flakpanther Coelion are already available. In fact, I feel that there is already a good inventory of German vehicle models available for combat in 1947. The allies need 1947-type vehicles more than do the Germans.

In passing, does anyone else think that the E-100 and Maus would have been better with the 12.8 cm Pak 43 L/55 than with the shorter 15 cm gun?

The VK 16.02 (second design for a 16-ton fully-tracked vehicle class) Gefechtsaufklaerer “Leopard” was a larger and improved replacement for the Panzerspaehwagen II “Luchs”. The major version carried the 5 cm Kw.K.39/1 L/60 in a turret (This turret was later used for the SdKfz 234/2 8x8 armored car “Puma.”). Other versions could be hypothesized; for example, a 7.5 cm gun/howitzer in a limited-traverse mounting, a twin 2 cm anti-aircraft turret, etc. The turret and other adaptations could be fitted to the E-10 chassis described below.

Although production of the Panzerkampfwagen IV had ceased before the end of the war, there would probably have been survivors in service up through 1947. This allows consideration of modified versions of the Pz.Kpfw.IV:
The Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.H was similar to the Ausf.J; but with sloped and thicker hull armor. Retaining the same type of running gear, the tracks were wider to account for increased weight. The Panzerkommission decided that the disadvantages of higher weight and production interruption were greater than the benefits of better armor.
The Panzerkampfwagen auf Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV placed the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.J turret on a totally new hull. The armor was sloped on all surfaces and thicker than that of the Pz.Kpfw.IV. The suspension had three pairs of leaf-spring mounted roadwheels on each side with tracks based on those of the Tiger II. Series production was considered but abandoned in mid-1944 in favor of more Panthers.
The Sturmgeschutz auf Einheitsfahrgestell (Panzerjaeger mit L/70, later renamed Panzer IV lang E) used the same chassis as the Panzerkampfwagen auf Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV. This mounted the 7.5cm Pak L/70 gun in a superstructure similar to earlier Sturmgeschutze.

Late in 1944, the Panzerkommission decided to limit tank production to just three types of vehicles; the Tiger, the Panther, and the Pz 38(t) chassis. Since the Pz 38(t) originated as a Czech design, it didn’t fit well with German production standards. To rectify this situation, a Panzer 38D was developed using the basic Pz 38(t) design but enlarged slightly (weight up to about 20 tons), improved suspension details, and German standard components. Versions included Aufklaerer 38D mit 2 cm Haengelafette (I think GHQ’s g530, SdKfz350/9, will represent this), Aufklaerer 38D mit 7.5 cm AKF L/48 (GHQ’s g529, SdKfz 350/13?), Jagdpanzer 38D mit 7.5 cm Pak 42 L/70 (GHQ’s g535, SdKfz 351/22), and Sturmgeschutz 38D mit 10 cm haubize 42/2. There was also a proposed version with the twin 3 cm anti-aircraft turret as mounted on the Flakpanzerwagen 604/4 “Kugelblitz.” For this, I would simply replace the turret on GHQ’s g534, SdKfz 350/17 with the turrets from g149.

There was a proposed alternate design for the Jagdpanther with the engine forward and fighting compartment in back (same arrangement as Elefant/Ferdinand, but much better shaped). This mitigated the excessive length of the Jagdpanther, produced a better weight distribution, and would have been much better in close quarters. I do not know why this design was not adopted. In fact, this arrangement could be applied to any of the hypothetical German tank hunter vehicles.

The E-100 is the upper end of an entire series of rationalized armored vehicles, identified by their approximate weight. I have seen a reference to the E-100 as “Tiger III S.” Other members included E-75, E-50, E-25, E-10 (all now available from GHQ), and the E-5. I recently came across a drawing of an E-90 (Tiger III L) with the 12.8 cm gun. This is the only reference to an E-90 I have seen. I am reasonably certain that the “S” in Tiger III S is “schwere” (heavy) and the “L” in Tiger III L is “leichte” (light). Can anyone provide additional information on the E-90?

For hypothetical purposes, turreted versions of the E-25 and E-10 could be extrapolated. I would suggest the 7.5 cm Kw.K. L/70 for a turreted E-25 and the 5 cm Kw.K.L/60 for a turreted E-10. For hypothetical Jagdpanzer types; one of the 15 cm anti-aircraft guns being developed or a 5.9 inch naval gun would work for the Panzerjäger E-100, although I have seen some suggestions that a 17.5 cm KwK was in development for this beast.

Self-propelled gun designs included:
The 8.8 cm PaK 43 auf Panzerjäger 38(d) was an expansion of the widely-employed PzKw 38(t) chassis. It carried the gun in an open-topped turret. The illustrations I have seen of this arrangement seem impractical. The turret is too small for recoil, crew, and ammunition storage. Traversing the turret seems likely to tip the chassis on its side. GHQ’s g579, 88mm PaK 43 Waffentraeger II seems to place this turret on the larger Waffentraeger chassis. Although there is no historical evidence of this design, it looks much more appropriate to me. For the Panzerjäger 38(d) chassis, a 7.5cm PaK or a 10.5cm LeFH 43/35 seem much more appropriate armament.
The 8.8 cm PaK 43 auf Rheinmetall-Borsig/Ardelt Selbstfahrlaffette 38(d) was an alternate version. This vehicle mounted the gun in a limited-traverse mount with open top and back. GHQ’s g544, Waffenträger I with 8.8cm PaK43 seems to represent this vehicle. Even with just a shielded weapon rather than a turret, it looks excessively top-heavy to me.
The 8.8 cm PaK 43 auf Krupp/Steyer Selbstfahrlaffette 38(d) was similar to the Rheinmetall-Borsig design, but used components from the Raupenschlepper Ost chassis.
The Grille series of self-propelled guns included the Grille 10, Grille 12, Grille 15, and Grille 17/21/30/42; each identified by the weapon size in cm.
There were several variants of the Grille 10. A Grille 10 based on Pz IV chassis components mounted an 8.8 cm antiaircraft gun (Flak 38 L/56 or Flak 41 L75) or the 10.5 cm LeFH 43/35 and was assigned the designation SdKfz.9. Another Grille 10 design used Panther components with a 10 cm KwK.
The Grille 12 and Grille 15 were based on the Panther chassis components and mounted the 12.8cm K43/44 and 15 cm sFH 43/44, respectively.
The Grille 21/30/42 used Tiger II chassis components, with the 21 cm Morser M.18/L33, 30.5 cm GrW (mortar) L/16, and 42 cm GrW. Now that GHQ has produced a model of the Grille 17, which mounted the 17 cm K 72 L/50, it would be easy to make the Grille 21 by replacing the barrel with that from GHQ’s G500. I expect that the Grille 30 and Grille 42 would have had a slightly different superstructure (no opening in the front shield of the gun compartment) and a totally different weapon mount. Perhaps GHQ will produce one of these in the future.

Waffenträger series: GHQ has produced a Waffenträger I mit 3.7 cm FlaK43. I would like to see this chassis with a 10.5 cm leFH or sIG for artillery support and a 7.5 cm PaK for anti-tank support of infantry. The gun mount from GHQ’s g117 or g555 should do for the former and that from g72 or one of the Marders for the latter. What I originally listed as Waffenträger Große II (with 12.8 cm/L55 gun or 15 cm L/29.5 howitzer), GHQ has produced as Mittlere Einheitswaffenträger. I would also place a single 5.5 cm, twin 3.7 cm, or quad 2.0 cm antiaircraft gun mount on this chassis.

For anti-aircraft defense, the Flakpanzer V with an 8.8 cm gun would be useful. The same turret would fit on the E-50 hull. An E-50 hull with twin 5.5 cm antiaircraft guns was identified as “Falke.” I think that a Panther chassis could carry a single 5.5 cm gun or twin 3.7 cm guns. The “Alligator” was a twin 8.8 cm antiaircraft mount on the E-100 chassis. I would consider this as more of a semi-mobile flak tower than a fighting vehicle. A fully-enclosed mount with four 2cm guns (not the well-known Flakfierling) was proposed for the Panther chassis. Eventually, this was rejected as insufficient firepower for such a large hull. A slightly larger turret with four 3cm guns in a similar arrangement would be impressive. For the quad 2cm mount, the E-25 chassis seems a good match.

“Buffel” (buffalo) and “Bison” seem to be armored personnel carrier/infantry fighting vehicle versions of the E-50 and E-100 (or E-90?). The Buffel mounted an automatic 3 cm gun; the Bison a 5.5 cm automatic gun in a main turret and two separate remote-`control turrets with MG42s. The drawings I have seen indicate a forward mounted engine, central main turret and infantry space in the back. To me, the Buffel is a bit too much vehicle and the Bison way overboard. I think that the E-25 chassis would have been more appropriate to this type of vehicle. (I have doubts about the historical reality of these designs. They do not appear in any of the standard references to which I have access and seem too much of a good thing. On the other hand, if I hadn’t read “Paper Panzers,” I would have had similar thoughts about E-100 and Maus. I would appreciate any clarification or additional information.)

A more likely APC is the Katzchen – an open-topped hull built on the chassis of the Panzer 38D (BMM version). This at least has photographs of a prototype built in 1944. (GHQ’s models of SdKfz 350 and 351 vehicles seem to cover this.) I have also seen a single photograph of an Auto-Union version that seems to be on the Gefechtsaufklaerer “Leopard” chassis. Post-war the Swedish made an enclosed APV (the Pansarbandvagn 301) with a chassis very similar to the Panzer 38D. It had light armor, a 20 mm cannon in a turret, and room for eight infantry.

Another questionable design is the “Schwartzwolf” (black wolf) tank. Supposedly, this was a medium (about 50-ton) tank designed exclusively for the Waffen SS, incorporating the most advanced technology (night vision, super-velocity gun, reactive armor, adjustable suspension, gas-turbine propulsion, etc.). The illustrations show a really nasty-looking vehicle with general resemblance to the E-50 design in the body but totally different suspension and turret. According to the accompanying text, all prototypes, models, drawings, etc. were destroyed by the Germans to keep them out of the hands of the Soviets (raising the issue of origin for the illustrations provided). Can anyone provide more information or confirm my suspicion that this is a fictional vehicle dreamed up by an inventive artist?


Hungary developed a series of armored vehicles:
- 44M Tas: this was a medium tank. Initially intended to carry a modified 8.0 cm Bofors AA gun, it later was redesigned to mount a 7.5 cm gun. The only prototype completed was destroyed by an American bomber raid on the factory. The Hungarians did not have access to either the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 Panther gun or the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 Tiger gun.
- 45M Tas Arpad: this was a (probably fictional) assault gun version of the TAS 44M. The intended armament was the 8.0 cm gun initially proposed for the TAS 44M.
- 43M Lahel A: this was a design for a fully-tracked armored personnel carrier based on the 43M Zrínyi chassis. The personnel compartment was essentially an open-topped armored box.


Italian armored vehicle design lagged behind other major combatants even at the start of the war and completely collapsed in 1943.

Carro Armato P 26/40 – The best tank produced by the Italians in the WWII era, this was not an outstanding design even by 1943 standards and was produced only in small numbers. I don’t think anyone would have used them in 1947 even if they were available.

Carro Armato P 30/43 – This was a design for an improved version of the P 26/40; enlarged and more heavily armed and armored. The armament may have been a version the Cannone da 90/53 anti-aircraft gun.


If Germany had survived until 1947, it seems reasonable that additional US forces would have been siphoned from the Pacific theater to Europe and that the Japanese might also have continued to this time. After all, the Japanese lasted longer than the Germans in the historic war. The following vehicles could have been active in a 1947 campaign, either on the Asian mainland, for a Japanese invasion of Australia, or in defense of the Home Islands:

Self-propelled anti-aircraft gun So-Ki: This was a twin 20 mm mount on the modified chassis of a Ha-Go (Light Tank Type 95). Historically, a small number were built but there is no record of extensive use.

Chi-Ha (Medium Tank Type 97), flail attachment: This was a late-model Chi-Ha tank (retaining turret and armament) with a mine-clearing flail attachment (similar to Sherman Crab). Since this would have been useful primarily in offensive operations and was not developed in time for the Japanese expansion of early 1942, these saw little use.

Chi-Ha (Medium Tank Type 97), bulldozer attachment: This was a late-model Chi-Ha tank (retaining turret and armament) with a bulldozer blade. Since this would have been useful primarily in offensive operations and was not developed in time for the Japanese expansion of early 1942, these saw little use.

Chi-Ha (Medium Tank Type 97), “jungle cutter” attachment: This was a late-model Chi-Ha tank (retaining turret and armament) with a large wedge-shaped attachment on the front of the hull (purpose similar to Culin hedgerow device, but appearance totally different). Since this would have been useful primarily in offensive operations and was not developed in time for the Japanese expansion of early 1942, these saw little use.

Chi-Ha (Medium Tank Type 97), bridgelayer: This was a Chi-Ha tank chassis with the turret removed and a roller-mounted bridge set on top. Since this would have been useful primarily in offensive operations and was not developed in time for the Japanese expansion of early 1942, these saw little use.

Se-Ri armored engineer/recovery vehicle: This was a Chi-Ha tank chassis with the turret replaced by a low cupola. Various versions had either an A-frame or jib crane on the back decking. Some had earth-moving equipment (shovel-buckets) mounted on the jib crane. Since these would have been useful primarily in offensive operations and were not developed in time for the Japanese expansion of early 1942, these saw little use.

Ho-Ni I self-propelled anti-tank gun Type 1: This was a Chi-Ha tank chassis with the turret replaced by a high-velocity 75 mm gun in a three-sided shield. A small number were encountered in the Philippines and Okinawa, but most were reserved for defense of the Home Islands.

Ho-Ni II self-propelled howitzer Type 1: This was the same chassis and shield as the Ho-Ni I, but with a 105 mm howitzer in place of the 75 mm gun. The small number built was reserved for defense of the Home Islands.

Ho-Ni III self-propelled anti-tank gun Type 1: Generally similar to the Ho-Ni I, but with a top and back added to the shield and a higher-powered 75 mm gun. Very few were built and none saw combat.

Ho-Ro self-propelled howitzer Type 4: This was a 150 mm howitzer mounted on a modified Chi-Ha tank chassis. The concept was similar to the German Hummel, but the Japanese version was badly over-weight and not successful. Apparently, only a very small number were built.

Chi-He (Medium Tank Type 1): This was an improved Chi-Ha with welded armor, lengthened wheelbase and wider tracks. Some may have seen combat in China.

Chi-Nu (Medium Tank Type 3): A further improvement of the Chi-Ha with a larger turret and a high-velocity 75 mm gun. Only 60 were completed, all of which were reserved for defense of the Home Islands.

Chi-To (Medium Tank Type 4): [No, this is not a pun on the Cheetos Cheetah.] The Japanese considered this their equivalent of the German Panther. The chassis was similar to the Chi-Ha with a seventh wheel added to each side. A well-shaped turret mounted a high-velocity 75 mm gun. Only six were completed; none of which left the immediate vicinity of the factory.

Chi-Ri (Medium Tank Type 5): The Japanese considered this their equivalent of the German Tiger. The chassis was similar to the Chi-Ha but with eight wheels on each side. The turret was to contain an 85-to-100 mm gun. Only one prototype chassis was completed, with no armament fitted.

Ho-Ha (Half-tracked armored personnel carrier Type 1): This was similar in concept to the German Sd.Kfz.251, but less sophisticated and slightly larger. A small number were encountered in the Philippines and in China. The total number built was relatively small.

Ho-Ki (Fully-tracked armored personnel carrier Type 1): Same engine and tracked chassis as the Ho-Ha with an open-topped rear compartment. The total number built was relatively small.

20 cm rocket launcher Type 4: This was an army design for launching unguided rockets. It had the appearance of a giant mortar. Small numbers were encountered by US forces late in the island-hopping campaign, but many more were reserved for defense of the Home Islands.

Rocket motor and launching trough Type 10: This was a naval design consisting of a crude launching trough, a 150-pound aircraft bomb and a rocket booster. These were encountered late in the island-hopping campaign wherever Naval Infantry were based.

44.7 cm rocket and launcher: This was a spin-stabilized rocket with a crude wooden or metal launching trough. A large number were to be built and emplaced to cover likely landing areas in the Home Islands.



If GHQ is going to provide advanced armored vehicles for the Axis, it seems fair that the Allies also receive some of the vehicles they had planned (and in many cases, actually produced in post-war years). Here are some of my suggestions:


GHQ has already produced an IS-3, T-54, and T-44 for the Soviets. Unfortunately for Wehrmacht ’47 fans, W103 is a later model T-54 (T-54-3 or T-54A?). An early T-54-1 would have been better for Wehrmacht ’47.
The Soviets also had several prototype vehicles under development at the end of the war that were then abandoned for lack of any urgent need. These could very well have been available in 1947 if the war had continued. The Su-101 and Su-102 mounted the 100 mm D-10S gun and the 122 mm D-25-44S gun in an assault gun arrangement on a modified T-35/T-44 chassis. With the fighting compartment mounted on the rear part of the chassis, gun hang-over was not the serious problem as it was in the Su-100, etc.
Another assault gun design was the Object 704. This was a modification of the ISU-152 with sloped and angled armor for improved protection. It looked really nasty but apparently the existing ISU-152 was good enough.
The IS-4 was a contemporary to the IS-3. Similar in design concept and appearance to the IS-3, the IS-4 had an additional pair of road wheels, was longer and carried heavier armor. The Soviets built 200 of the IS-4 in the post-war years.
The IS-7 was an additional development from the IS-3 and IS-4. The hull shape was similar to that of the IS-3, but lengthened with seven pair of road wheels, like the IS-4. The gun was a 130-mm S-70 naval gun with an autoloader. It looked very nasty, but only three prototypes were built.

Although there were several prototypes and low-production examples before the war, the Soviets only wartime self-propelled artillery gun (as opposed to the heavily-armored assault gun types) was the Su-76. There’s just nothing that would fit into a Wehrmacht ’47 organization. On the other hand, multiple rocket launchers were widely employed. GHQ has already produced the M-13 (16 x 130 mm) launcher on Studebaker, ZIS-6, and Zil-151 chasses. The same launcher system was also mounted on GAZ-AA truck chassis and T-60 & T-70 light tank chasses during the war and the GAZ-63 truck chasses in the late ‘40s. Other wartime launchers included the M-8 (36 x 80 mm) based on aircraft-mounted rockets and the M-31 (12 x 300 mm) – this was the same rocket as the M-13 but with a much larger warhead that required a frame launcher rather than the rails of the M-13.. These would have been mounted on the same chasses as the M-13.
Post-war rocket launchers superior to the wartime versions did not start to appear until the 1950, but could have been developed in time to participate in a 1947 extension of the war. Some of these included the BM-14-16 (two rows of eight tubes each) [GHQ’s W75] and the BM-24-12 (two rows of eight – initially framework racks and later enclosed tubes). Either could be mounted on the GAZ-63 or the ZiS-151.

Although it did not actually enter service until 1950, the Soviets could have produced something like the BTR-152 for Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios. GHQ’s W71 covers this.


For the British, GHQ has already produced the A41 Centurion Mk I. The Centurion Mk II or Mk III should have been available by 1947. With British discarding sabot ammunition, the Mk III’s 20-pounder gun would stand up to the larger German guns. (The Israeli Ben Gurion (GHQ IS-1) may cover the Mk III adequately, but has only two 20-pounder turrets per package.) The Brits also built (or at least considered) several variations of the basic FV (Fighting Vehicle) 3800 vehicle:
- FV3801: gun tractor
- FV3802: 25-pdr gun/howitzer; I have two differing descriptions. One was a turret mount on the standard tank chassis. The other mounted the gun in a semi-turret (engine moved to front, back of vehicle hull built up, gun in rotating “turret” set into the front of the built-up area with about 150 degree traverse) – no production. In my opinion, this was severely under-gunned, but it was completely armored and had plenty of room for crew and ammunition. Mounting the US 105 mm howitzer in this arrangement would have been better but still too much vehicle for the firepower. See the FV3805, FV3807, and FV3808 below for better matches between chassis and armament.
- FV3803: Command vehicle – similar to second version of FV3802 but without gun mount. This could have been the basis of an armored personnel carrier as well, but was not intended as such.
- FV3804: ammunition vehicle – same chassis as FV3803
- FV3805: 5.5-inch gun/howitzer on same chassis as second version of FV3802
- FV3806: 7.2-inch gun/howitzer on modified chassis – different from FV3802/3805
- FV3807: 120-mm anti-tank gun in casemate (similar to German Panzerjäger and Soviet Su- types)
- FV3808: a different artillery piece on same chassis as FV3806, possibly US 155-mm gun or 8-inch howitzer
- FV3809: 155-mm anti-tank gun, possibly same chassis as FV3807
- FV4001: mine clearing vehicle
- FV4002: bridge layer on standard tank chassis with no turret
- FV4003: AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers) with dozer blade and turret-mounted 165-mm demolition gun
- FV4004: Conway tank destroyer; 120-mm anti-tank gun in high turret – only one built
- FV4005: Conway tank destroyer; 183-mm anti-tank gun; initially in an open, limited-traverse mounting with prominent rotary magazine and later in a large, light enclosed full-traverse turret – prototypes only
- FV4006 and FV4013: Centurion armored recovery vehicle
- FV4008: Centurion duplex drive
- FV4010: Malkara anti-tank guided missile carrier
- FV4013: Centurion ARV Mk 1
- FV4016: Centurion ARK (Armoured Ramp Carrier)
- FV4018: Centurion BARV (Beach Armoured Recovery Vehicle)
- FV4019: Centurion bulldozer

In parallel with the “universal” (or medium) A41 Centurion tank, the British developed a family of heavy tanks and a family of light tanks.

The heavy-weight FV200 series originated with the FV201 (A45) Caernarvon infantry tank. The hull looked much like the contemporary A41 Centurion but had a Horstman-type suspension with eight small road wheels on each side, heavier armor, and a 20-pdr (83-mm) gun in place of the Centurion Mk I’s 17-pdr. When the Centurion Mk III took the 20-pdr, the FV201 went to a newly-designed 105-mm gun. When the British installed the 105-mm gun in the Centurion Mk 5/2, the Caernarvon was enlarged to become the FV214 Conqueror with a 120-mm gun. An armored recovery version of the Conqueror (FV222) was produced in small quantities, but numerous other proposed modifications of the Caernarvon (self-propelled artillery, personnel carrier, etc.) never left the drawing board.
- FV201: Caernarvon tank (FV201 through FV213 based on Caernarvon chassis)
- FV202: AVRE(T)
- FV203: AVRE(L)
- FV204: Flail tank
- FV205: Self-propelled medium anti-tank mounting
- FV206: Self-propelled medium artillery
- FV207: Self-propelled heavy artillery
- FV208: Bridge layer
- FV209: Armoured recovery vehicle
- FV210: Artillery tractor
- FV211: [unknown]
- FV212: Assault personnel carrier
- FV213: Beach armored recovery vehicle
- FV214: Conqueror tank (FV214 through FV219, FV222, and FV223 based on Conqueror cassis)
- FV215: AVRE
- FV216: Self-propelled anti-tank gun, 183 mm
- FV217: Flail tank
- FV218: Self-propelled anti-tank gun, 120 mm
- FV219: Armoured recovery vehicle
- FV220: [unknown]
- FV221: Caernarvon Mk 2
- FV222: Armored recovery vehicle
- FV223: Bridge layer

The light-weight FV300 series included the following designs, none of which advanced beyond the prototype stage:
- FV301: a 21-ton tank mounting the 17-pdr gun. The general appearance was a smaller version of the Centurion crossed with a Comet.
- FV302: a command vehicle using components of the FV301 but with the engine moved to the front and an enlarged armored compartment at the rear.
- FV303: a 20-pdr self-propelled anti-tank gun in a semi-turret (back of vehicle hull built up, gun in rotating “turret” set into the front of the built-up area with about 150 degree traverse).
- FV304: a 25-pdr self-propelled gun/howitzer in body similar to FV303. This seems a much more reasonable item than the FV3802.
- FV305: a 5.5-inch self-propelled gun/howitzer in an open mount.
- FV306: an armored recovery vehicle
- FV307: radar vehicle
- FV308: an artillery tractor
- FV309: an artillery section vehicle
- FV310: an armored personnel carrier
- FV311: an armored load carrier

The A30 Avenger self-propelled 17-pdr anti-tank gun would be nice to have. I never have liked the appearance of the Challenger (GHQ’s UK21) with its high boxy turret.
The Charioteer tank destroyer (FV4101 Cromwell heavy AT gun) mounted a 20-pdr gun on the chassis of the WWII Cromwell tank. Although it did not enter service until the 1950s, it certainly could have been available for Wehrmacht ’47.
The Black Prince (an enlarged Churchill infantry tank with 17-pdr gun) was a dead-end design and totally outclassed by the Centurion. Nonetheless, it would be interesting in some 1947 scenarios. In particular, its slow-but-certain cross-country ability would have made it useful in infantry support roles. Possible variants include a turret-mounted 105-mm howitzer, an AVRE version, a Toad flail tank, and a Kangaroo infantry carrier. (We could also use a Churchill Toad and Kangaroo).

Commonwealth nations built several tanks. These never saw significant combat (because of massive production in the USA). They may have been useful in peripheral areas of a Wehrmacht ’47 world. The Canadian Ram tank was similar in design to the US Sherman. The Skink anti-aircraft vehicle had and enclosed turret with four 20-mm cannon mounted on either a Ram chassis or a Sherman chassis. Several saw combat late in the European war. The turret could be mounted on any similar-sized Allied tank and would have been useful into 1947. The Australian Sentinel tank used many components from existing Allied designs. It could have been fitted with a 25-pdr gun/howitzer for infantry support or a 17-pdr gun in the anti-tank role.

The British probably would have continued their preference for wheeled vehicles in the reconnaissance role. The Coventry was a 4x4 replacement for the wartime Humber and Daimler vehicles in this range. Historically, it entered production in 1945 but was just too late for combat. For heavier wheeled vehicles, we can assume that the Brits purchased US vehicles, as they did the Staghound. The 6x6 M38 Wolfhound would be a good replacement candidate. Although it looks appropriate, the 6x6 Alvis Saladin/Saracen series is simply too late in time (~ 1960s) to include in a 1947-era scenario.


The US had a large number of projects in hand at the end of the war. Most of these were cancelled at the end of hostilities but could have been produced in large numbers by a war-time American industry. Others actually entered service in small numbers.

GHQ already makes a model of the M24 Chaffee light tank and has released some of the many support vehicles based on the M24 chassis. (GHQ released the M19 twin-40mm mount in 2010, the M37 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage in 2014, and the M41 155mm Howitzer Motor Carriage in 2015.)
The T38 Mortar Motor Carriage mounted a 4.2 inch mortar in a superstructure similar to the M37, but was not produced. The T96 (not produced) mounted a breech-loading 155 mm mortar in a different M24-based superstructure. The T16E1, which mounted a 4.5 inch (~ 114 mm) gun on the same carriage as the M41, was not produced. If production of the M41 (&/or T16) had continued, there probably would have been an ammunition carrier version of the same chassis.
The T77E1 and T85E1 were anti-aircraft gun mounts on M24-style hulls. The T77E1 had six 0.50-inch machine guns in an enclosed mount on a standard tank hull. The T85E1 had four 20 mm cannon in an open mount on a hull similar to the M19. Neither was produced in quantity. The M19 is enough coverage for this type vehicle.
The T6E1 was a recovery vehicle based on the M24 hull. It did not enter production. If development of the recovery vehicle had continued, an armored engineer version could easily have been produced as well.
The M44 armored utility vehicle was based on an enlarged M24 chassis. This is a very impressive vehicle for its time, but production was limited to a small number for testing. Tactically, it would have been limited by excessive size and lack of amphibious capability. A smaller APC based on a minimally modified M24 chassis (e.g., the M41 HMC) probably would have been more useful.
The M75 armored personnel carrier was based on the M41 chassis rather than that of the M24, but design was started in 1945. It would fit in with the concept of 1947 European combat.

Although they were not produced until 1951 in the historical world, the M41 Bulldog could have started replacing the M24 as early as 1947 in the hypothetical Wehrmacht ’47 world. Likewise, the M41-based M42 Duster would replace the M19 and other modified versions of the M41 would start to replace the M37 HMC (the M52 105 mm self-propelled howitzer mounted the weapon in a rotating, fully-enclosed turret on a modified and lengthened M41 tank chassis), T38 MMC, T96 MMC, M41 HMC (the M44 155 mm self-propelled howitzer used a modified and lengthened M41 tank chassis with an enclosed crew compartment), T16 GMC, T6 ARV, etc. GHQ already makes a model of the M41 (VN15) and placing the gun mount of a M19 on the hull of a M41 produces a reasonable M42. The other vehicles require extensive reworking or (preferably) GHQ producing the item.

Immediately after approval of the Medium Tank M4 (Sherman), the US Army began development of a similar-sized successor. The most promising of these were the T20E3 and the T23E3, both of which were lower than the Sherman with better-angled armor and torsion bar suspension (similar in appearance to the M18 Hellcat, but six wheels each side). These are good-looking vehicles, much like a reduced M26 Pershing. In fact, the turret of the T23 became the 76 mm gun turret of the M4s. Transmission problems in the T20/T23 and demand for quantity over quality kept the Sherman in production, but either of these could have been in mass production by mid-1944 (as the M27). If so, the entire range of vehicles based on the Sherman chassis would have been produced on the new chassis. A hypothetical 1947 scenario should include M27 medium tanks and their derivatives.

Examples of vehicles that would have had the M27 chassis include equivalents of the following M4 types: up-armored “Jumbo” type with 105 mm howitzer; Duplex drive amphibious assault; with dozer blade; with mine exploder rollers; Crocodile flame thrower; with T34, T40, or T72 rocket launcher; M32 tank recovery vehicle; M36 tank destroyer with 90 mm gun (perhaps the 90mm/L70 T15E1 fitted to the T32 tank) (the M10 tank destroyer is irrelevant since the M27 already carried the 76 mm gun); M40 Gun Motor Carriage with 155 mm gun; M43 Howitzer Motor Carriage with 8 inch howitzer; T94 Mortar Motor Carriage with 240 mm breach-loading mortar; and T30 cargo carrier. The M7 Priest would not have been produced on the M27 chassis because the M37 105 mm HMC on the M24 chassis was seen as an equally effective and much more economical mounting for this gun.

British types on the same hull would have included: Achilles with 17 pdr (or perhaps 20 pdr), Ark, Kangaroo, Firefly, and Scorpion.

GHQ makes a model of the M26 Pershing (T26E3) as it appeared in 1945. If the war had continued, improved versions and a series of associated vehicles would have appeared:
T26E1: Improved T54 90 mm gun; none built because of end of war.
T26E2: Infantry support version with 105 mm howitzer replacing M3 90 mm gun, built in small numbers. (I think the hull and turret could have accommodated a 120 mm or 155 mm howitzer. The British armed their Centurion AVRE with a short-barreled 165 mm gun, which later was used in the M728 variant of the M60.)
T26E5: Up-armored assault design; 26 built.
M28A1: Improved M3A1 gun – post-war production version.
T29: Hull lengthened from six to eight road wheels, armor increased, more powerful engine & transmission and new larger turret with 105 mm T5 gun; only a few produced.
T30: [produced by GHQ in 2013] Hull similar to T29, different turret with 155 mm L/40 gun.
T32: Hull lengthened (relative to M26), seven road wheels, armor increased and 90mm/L70 T15E1 gun fitted, more powerful engine & transmission; only a few prototypes built. T32 had cast hull front with machine gun; T32E1 had welded front hull without machine gun.
T34: Same hull and turret as T29 but with 120 mm gun T53 (same barrel as the heavy anti-aircraft gun); only a few were produced, but this led to the post-war M103 heavy tank.
GHQ has produced the 240mm T92 Howitzer Motor Carriage. With the hull available, simple substitution of a longer barrel produces the 8-inch gun armed T93 Gun Motor Carriage.
T31 cargo carrier: Support for T92 and T93 but same size hull as M26; only one built but more planned until end of war.
Eventually, there would have been armored engineer and tank recovery versions of the M26.
Although the automotive components were based upon the M47 Patton tank and were not produced until the 1950s, the following self-propelled weapons could have been produced earlier under the pressure of war conditions using components from the M26: The M53 self-propelled 155 mm gun and M55 self-propelled 8-inch howitzer were significant advances on the earlier M40 GMC and M43 HMC in that they provided enclosed semi-turrets for the weapons.


In 1940 French tanks were equal in quality to other European powers. Their collapse was more due to faulty strategic concepts rather than technical or tactical faults (although the single-person turrets were a deficit). The German occupation lost the French five years of development during a time of rapid evolution in tank design. Because of this, I am including some vehicles that did not actually enter service until the 1950s. In particular, the French developed a series of oscillating turrets with semi-automatic loaders. I think it would be nice to use these in various sizes.

AMX Automoteurs Antichars: These were a series of designs for self-propelled anti-tank vehicles mounting a French 90 mm gun in an open-topped casemate on the chassis of pre-war French tanks. The concept was similar to that of the German 7.5 cm PaK 40 L/48 auf Gw Hotchkiss (f) and Gw FCM (f) vehicles. The Schneider 90 mm gun was an effective anti-tank weapon for its time, but was really too large for the chassis, especially with the top-heavy casemate. Chasses suggested included the Renault R35, Souma 35, FCM 36, Lorraine Tracteur Blinde 38L, and Hotchkiss H 39. None of these designs left the drawing board.

GHQ already makes models of the AMX-13 light tank (N106) and the related AMX-VCI (N540) armored personnel carrier, but there were many derivative vehicles based on the same chasses:
- Char 48FCM – a quadruple 20 mm turret mounted on the AMX-13 chassis. Only one prototype was produced.
- AMX-DCA (AMX-13/S530) – a twin 30 mm turret mounted on the AMX-13 chassis.
- AMX-D (AMX-13 Modéle 55) – a recovery vehicle.
- AMX-13 PDP – a bridge layer.
- AMX-105 – self-propelled 105 mm howitzer on a modified AMX-13 chassis. The A model (AMX Mk 61) mounted the howitzer in an open-topped casemate. The B model (AMX Mk 62) mounted the howitzer in a limited-traverse turret.
- AMX Mk F3 (AMX-155) – a 155 mm howitzer mounted on top of a modified AMX-13 chassis. There was no shielding and no room for ammunition or gun crew.
- AMX-VCA – a support vehicle (crew and ammunition) for the AMX Mk F3 self-propelled howitzer. It would differ from GHQ’s N540 only in details.
- AMX-VTT – the original version of the AMX-VCI with a light machine gun in an open mount instead of the heavier gun in a turret. Enthusiasts could produce this by a minor modification of GHQ’s N540.
- AMX-LT – an artillery fire control version of the AMX-VCI. It would differ from GHQ’s N540 only in details.
- AMX-PC – a command vehicle version of the AMX-VCI. It had a higher roofline than the AMX-VCI.
- AMX-VCG – a combat engineer version of the AMX-VCI. It added a framework hoist, power windlasses, and an earth-mover blade to the basic VCI chassis.
- AMX-VCPM de 81 and VCPM de 120 – mortar carriers based on the VCI; 81 mm and 120 mm respectively. They had an open roof.
- AMX-VCTB – an ambulance version of the AMX-VCI. It had the raised roof of the AMX-PC but no armament.

Immediately after the war, the French used a number of Panther tanks left behind by the Germans. Hypothetically, they might have replaced the turrets with a 90 mm or 100 mm oscillating turret as described in the AMX-50 below.

ARL-44 – this was a heavy tank built in small numbers in the immediate post-war years. The hull was based on the pre-war Char B1 and it carried a 90 mm gun in a boxy turret. The suspension and armor designs were obsolete, and better tanks were already available from the British and US stocks. In overall concept, this reminds me strongly of the British Black Prince.

Batignolles-Chatillon Char 25t – this was a competitor to the AMX-30. Its hull had the engine mounted forward, next to the driver. The armament was a 90mm gun in an oscillating turret. Development ended at the prototype stage because the AMX-30 was selected for full-scale production.

AMX Chasseur de Chars (1945) – this was an early post-war design for a medium tank. It seems to be an early predecessor to the AMX-30, but with significant differences from the vehicle actually built. The chassis had five large wheels on each side (larger than those on the AMX-30), a low hull with thin armor (even thinner than the AMX-30), and a long, low turret mounting a 90 mm gun. The French identified this as a ‘Chasseur de Char’ or ‘tank hunter’ – probably because of the light armor. If GHQ were to build this vehicle, I would prefer for them to use an oscillating turret for consistency with other French tanks described in this list (perhaps the same as on GHQ’s N113).

FCM 50t – This was essentially a Tiger II tank with the German 88 mm gun replaced with a French 90 mm gun.

AMX Project 141 – a medium tank, very similar to the German King Tiger in concept (especially in the chassis and hull) but with reduced armor for improved maneuverability and a 90 mm gun in a French-designed turret.

M4 (AMX-50-100) – these were a series of prototype tanks built in the late 1940s. The first models had hulls that were closely modeled on that of the German Tiger II chassis (they may have been actual German left-overs) with a long 100 mm gun in an oscillating turret.

Canon Automoteur AMX50 Foch – this was a tank-destroyer companion of the AMX-50. It mounted a 120 mm anti-tank gun in a casemate (similar in shape to the German Jagdpanzer IV, but with no step in the front glacis). Development of this vehicle stopped when the AMX-50B mounted the same gun in a full turret.

AMX-50B (AMX-68t?) – Although the running gear remained similar to that of the Tiger II, there were significant changes to the hull. The rear of the hull was lower (allowing greater elevation of the oscillating turret), the ventilation exhausts were moved from the top of the hull to the sides, and the front of the hull was angled in two dimensions (similar to the Soviet IS-10). The armament was a 120 mm gun in an oscillating turret. There was no production because of repeated transmission failure and a decision to emphasize smaller high-speed tanks rather than heavy tanks.

Char SOUMA SM – this was a competing design to the same specifications as the AMX-50. The only major difference was that the SOUMA design did not use the overlapping wheel design that the AMX-50 inherited from the Tiger II. It may have been influenced by the suspension proposed for the E-50 design.

Lorraine 40t – this was another competing design to the AMX-50. The hull was similar in shape to the Tiger II but the armor was thinner and the suspension was totally different. The running gear had metal tracks but the five road wheels on each side had pneumatic tires. The armament appears to be the same oscillating turret as the AMX-50 100.

Canon d’Assaut Lorraine – this was a tank destroyer companion to the Lorraine 40t. On the same chassis it mounted a 90 mm gun in a casemate similar to that of the Canon Automoteur AMX50 Foch.

Lorraine Automoteur 155 – This mounted a 155 mm howitzer in an open-topped box casemate on the Lorraine 40t chassis.

[Donald M. Scheef]

Likewise for aircraft:
Aircraft for Wehrmacht ‘47


I thought I would put forth some of my ideas about what would make good aircraft releases for GHQ in the Wehrmacht ’47 line. Note that this is in the line of a comprehensive listing rather than a wish list. Most of the aircraft listed here were actually produced either late in the historic war or in the following years. There are some exceptions – especially with French, German, Italian, and Japanese designs – for aircraft that reached only prototype stage or never left the drawing board. For the most part, I have tried to limit the list to aircraft that were or could have been ready for combat by 1947, but I have stretched plausibility in some cases. I have not included strategic bombers, naval patrol aircraft, high-altitude interceptors, etc. that would not have been involved in tactical land warfare. I also have avoided (but not totally excluded) swept-wing aircraft. Except for the Germans, I think that the combatants would still have been using straight-wing designs in 1947.

In particular, I believe that the MiG-15 and F-86 that GHQ released in 2011 are not appropriate for Wehrmacht ’47. The first prototypes of each first flew in late 1947. The MiG-15 was primarily a high-altitude interceptor with little or no ground support function. The F-86 remained primarily an air superiority fighter for the first six years of its career.

In 1947, not all the combat aircraft would have been jet propelled and swept-wing, especially in the low-altitude ground support role. Swept-wing aircraft are definitely superior at high speeds, but straight-wing aircraft have better low-altitude maneuverability. Early turbojets lacked power at low speeds and generally required longer, hard-surface, runways.

In this list, I considered piston-engined aircraft (that appeared at the end or just too late for the historic WWII, combined-propulsion aircraft (several were tested but none entered active service), early turbine-powered aircraft, and slightly-later turbine-powered aircraft (not really applicable to Wehrmacht ’47, but contemporary with F-86 and MiG-15).


France: Historically, WWII essentially destroyed the French aircraft industry, which was just beginning to recover by 1947. For the purposes of Wehrmacht ’47, I hypothesize either a German-allowed Vichy French aircraft industry or a French ex-patriot aircraft industry (perhaps in Canada or Louisiana?) I don’t think any of the French colonies in Africa, Asia, or Latin America would have had the industrial base to support any sort of aircraft production. In the 1930s, the French were leaders in the development of rotary-wing aircraft. If they had been allowed to continue development, they could have had effective helicopters in service by 1947.

The Arsenal VB 10 was a single-place fighter powered by two in-line piston engines driving co-axial propellers in the nose. The design was approved in 1940, but the first prototype did not fly until 1945. This could have been an effective fighter-bomber in Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

The Arsenal VG-60 was a single-place single-engine (inline piston) fighter. It was similar in concept to the VG-30 series, but larger and with a more powerful engine (that never came into being). It was unusual in that the cooling air entered a scoop below the fuselage (as in the P-51 Mustang) but discharged at the very tail-end of the fuselage. When I first saw an illustration of this aircraft, I thought it was a mixed-propulsion design with a small turbojet in the aft fuselage. For Wehrmacht ’47 this may be exactly what it was.

The Arsenal VG-90 was a single-engine (turbojet) carrier-based fighter. It had swept wings of elliptical shape – unusual for a swept-wing aircraft. The air intakes were located beneath the wing roots; also somewhat unusual for jet aircraft of this time. Although the VG-90 did not fly until 1949, a smaller prototype (VG-70) flew as early as 1946 using a war-surplus German Jumo engine. Like the contemporary Nord N.2200 and SNCAC NC.1080, the project was abandoned when the Aéronavale decided to purchase a licensed version of the British Sea Venom.

The Bloch MB-157 was a single-place single (radial piston) engine interceptor fighter. It was the ultimate development of the pre-war MB-150 series. The prototype flew in 1942 under German supervision and displayed exceptional performance for an aircraft of this time. In a hypothetical Wehrmacht ’47 world, this aircraft may have seen greater production and survived as a ground support type.

The Bloch 175 was a twin (radial piston) engine attack bomber of conventional layout. Production began in 1940, was interrupted by the German occupation, and resumed for a short time in 1945. Popular with its crew, the Bloch 175 might still be a useful aircraft in Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

The Breguet G.IIE ‘Gyroplane’ was a medium-sized helicopter using co-axial rotors. The fuselage was streamlined with a T-shaped tail. The first flight was not until 1949, but in a hypothetical world, it could have been available for Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

The Dassault MD.450 Ouragan was a single-engine (turbojet) fighter of “conventional” layout (oval air intake in the nose, exhaust at the tail, slightly-swept wings). A distinctive characteristic of the Ouragan was permanently-mounted fuel tanks at the wing-tips. First flying more than a year after the F-86 and MiG-15, the Ouragan used an engine of similar power but had inferior performance. If the aircraft had flown in an alternate ’47 history, it would have been superior to all but some German designs, the F-86, and the MiG-15.

The SNCAC NC-270 was a design for a twin-engine (turbojet) medium bomber. It had slightly swept wings and swept T-tail control surfaces. The engines were in very large housings at the wing roots. It looked good by 1940s standards but would have had a relatively low limiting Mach number because of the bulbous wing roots. The manufacturer failed before the first flight, so no aircraft of this design actually flew. This at least gives the French a jet bomber for Wehrmacht ’47.

The SNCAC NC-1071 was a twin-engine (turbojet) carrier-based attack bomber/night fighter. In my opinion, it is a contender for the most hideous jet-propelled aircraft design. The engines were in very large pods mounted below the wings. Each engine pod had a vertical tail at the end with the horizontal stabilizer mounted between the tops of these vertical tails. The manufacturer entered bankruptcy soon after the first prototypes flew.

The SNCAC NC.2001 ‘Abeille’ was a medium-sized helicopter using intermeshing rotors. It had a streamlined fuselage with twin tails for directional control. Although only one prototype was built, it could have been useful in Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

The SNCAC NC.1080 was a single-engine (turbojet) carrier-based fighter design that first flew in 1949. It had slightly-swept wings and half-round air intakes on the side of the forward fuselage. The project was abandoned when the Aéronavale decided to purchase a licensed version of the British Sea Venom.

The Nord N.2200 was a single-engine (turbojet) carrier-based fighter bomber. It had slightly-swept flying surfaces and a nose air intake. The top of the air intake was flattened to improve the pilot’s view over the nose. The project was abandoned when the Aéronavale decided to purchase a licensed version of the British Sea Venom.

The SNCAC (ex-Sud-Est) SE.100 was a twin-engine (radial piston) heavy fighter of unusual configuration – a very short fuselage with large twin tails. One wheel of the landing gear was in the nose and the other two were in the base of the tail fins. Only one prototype was completed before the German occupation intervened and no more development followed. As built, it probably would have been outdated by 1947, but an up-powered successor could have survived as a ground attack type.

The Sud-Est SE.700 was a gyrocopter developed during the war years and first flown in 1945. It had a streamlined fuselage with an in-line engine mounted in the rear driving a nose-mounted propeller. The nose-wheel was retractable; the rear wheels were in large fins mounted on the end of a low tail (similar to the SE 100 fighter). Although the design did not progress beyond a prototype, it looked good and could have been useful in a Wehrmacht ’47 scenario.

The Sud-Est SE.3120 ‘Alouette’ was a small helicopter of conventional configuration (one large rotor with a smaller anti-torsion rotor on the tail). It had a framework fuselage with an enclosed, highly-glazed, cabin. Early models were powered by piston engines. Successor versions with turbine engines were very successful in the 1950s, but these were too late for Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

The Sud-Ouest SO-1221 Djinn was a light helicopter historically used for training, observation, liaison, and medical evacuation. It was unusual in that the rotor did not have a powered shaft; instead, a turbine-driven compressor forced air through nozzles at the tips of the blades. The lack of rotor torque removed the requirement for a tail rotor, producing a relatively compact fuselage with a fixed vertical tail for stability.

The Sud-Ouest SO-2410 Grognard was a twin-engine (turbojet) attack/medium bomber. It had an unusual body with a dorsal intake feeding superimposed engines in the rear of the fuselage. The wings and tail surfaces were slightly swept. Early stability problems and a decision to concentrate on interceptor and fighter-bomber types led to no production beyond prototypes. Actually too late for Wehrmacht ’47, I am including this for its weirdness factor.

Sud-Ouest SO-6020, SO-6021, SO-6025 Espadon (Swordfish): This was a series of designs for a single-engined (turbojet) swept-wing fighter. Initiated soon after the end of the war, the project continued for eight years but failed to produce an effective combat aircraft. Among other problems, the initial location of the air intakes (on the lower fuselage behind the wings) did not produce sufficient smooth air flow and the engines were always underpowered. For the purposes of a hypothetical Wehrmacht ’47 world, the French might have gotten this to work.

The Sud-Ouest SO-8000 Narval was a fighter/bomber design with a pod-and-boom layout, pusher propeller, and slightly-swept wings. The prototype had an in-line piston engine, but it was proposed to fit a turboprop in later versions. The layout was bulky for a ship-based aircraft but it might have made a worthwhile land-based attack type. The design did not enter production, but it could have participated in Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.


Germany:

Before listing any of the aircraft specific to Wehrmacht ’47, I will repeat my complaint that GHQ has not yet produced a radial-engined Fw 190. Considering the excellent low-altitude performance of this aircraft it almost certainly would have remained in use well past 1945. Therefore, it would be useful for both historical and hypothetical scenarios.

The Arado Ar 234 was a twin turbojet light bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. Although the aircraft was conventional (no swept surfaces), its high speed and ceiling in the clean configuration made it almost immune to interception by piston-engined aircraft. It was less useful in the attack role because armaments had to be mounted externally, reducing speed.

Blohm & Voss P179, P194, P204, and Bv 237: These were designs for asymmetric ground support and attack aircraft; advanced developments of the Bv 141. I think that Wehrmacht ’47 should include at least one of these highly-original designs. The P179 had a single radial engine and relatively short-chord wings. The P194 added a turbojet mounted in the rear of the cockpit pod. The P204 put the cockpit in the major fuselage along with the radial engine and put a turbojet in the separate pod. The Bv237 returned the cockpit to the separate pod and made the turbojet optional (if installed, it would be under the mid-wing; if not installed, there is more space for weapons carriage.

‘Bomber-B’ project: These were advanced twin-engine medium bomber types with high-power piston engines, either DB 604 or Jumo 222. Contenders included the Dornier Do 317, Focke-Wulf Fw 191, and Junkers Ju 288. Historically, neither of the engines reached their potential, so none of the aircraft entered production. If any of these aircraft had reached production, they probably would have been replaced from their original high-altitude bomber role by turbine-driven aircraft and relegated to the interdiction role by 1947.

Dornier Do 335: This twin engine (in-line piston engines; one in the nose with a conventional propeller and another in the back of the fuselage driving a pusher propeller) heavy fighter was one of the fastest piston-engined aircraft ever built. With heavy gun armament and a sizable weapons bay, this would have been a formidable attack aircraft in Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios. Later (unbuilt) versions with turbojets under the wings or with a turbojet replacing the rear engine also could be applicable to Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

Flettner Fl 282: A light helicopter with two intermeshing sets of blades. Several examples saw service as spotter craft flying from German warships during WWII. The small size and low-power engine precluded any more aggressive combat role.

Focke Achgelis Fa 223: A medium-weight helicopter with two sets of blades mounted wide on either side of the fuselage (not intermeshing or overlapping). With significant load capacity, several were used (at least at a trial stage) for supply and medical evacuation purposes.

Focke-Wulf Ta 183: This was a single-engine (turbojet) fighter with all-swept surfaces. Intended as a primary air-superiority fighter, the Ta 183 was not really suitable for ground support. Several versions were proposed as design requirements evolved, but none was ever built. GHQ should provide the Germans with this aircraft or the Messerschmitt P.1101 to offset the currently-available F-86 and MiG-15.

The Gotha/Horton Ho 229 was a twin-engine (turbojet) fighter. This flying wing design had the potential for outstanding performance. Flight testing had just begun when engine failure destroyed the first powered prototype and the war ended soon after. Single-seat fighter/bomber and two-seat all-weather fighter versions were planned. I believe that the Go 229 would have been most effective at high altitude, and doubt its application to ground support.

The Heinkel He 162 Volksjäger (project Salamander) was a single engine (turbojet) fighter. Designed late in the war for mass production, this aircraft proved difficult to fly. The turbine intake immediately aft of the cockpit made unassisted emergency exit unattractive, promoting adaptation of one of the first ejection seats. Perhaps the most revealing fact is that no operational post-war combat aircraft followed this design format. Forward-swept and back-swept wings were offered as options but never flew.

Henschel Hs 132: Similar in layout to the He 162, this design for an attack/dive bomber did not reach flying status before the end of the war. Its prone pilot positioning was attractive in limiting G-forces during pull-up from a diving attack, but never reached implementation in an operational aircraft.

Junkers ‘nameless’ ground attack project: This was a proposed armored attack type with a large fuselage-mounted cannon, twin turbojet engines in the wing roots, and a twin tail. It reminds me of the much later Su-25 Frogfoot and A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft. The design never left the sketch pad; much less the drawing board, but it would have been a possibility in Wehrmacht ’47.

Messerschmitt P.1101: This was more of a research prototype than a combat aircraft, but it set the format for the subsequent generation of fighter aircraft (single turbine engine with nose intake, swept wings, etc.). With more development (and without the weight of variable wing sweep), it could have stood up with MiG-15 and early F-86 models.

Messerschmitt P.1099 and P.1100: These were designs for modifications of the Me 262 with a larger fuselage for two crew in a forward cockpit, internal weapons carriage, and increased fuel capacity. These would have been more appropriate in the fast attack role than the original Me 262.

Messerschmitt Me 410: This was a twin-engine (in-line piston engine) multi-role aircraft. Used mostly as a heavy interceptor during the later part of the actual war, the Me 410 would have been useful as an interdiction or heavy ground attack type in Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

Messerschmitt Me 329: This was a flying-wing design contemporary with the Me 410. It had slightly-swept wings with pusher propellers. Although more capable than the Me 410 (at least on paper), it was seen as too speculative and did not progress to the flying prototype stage.


Italy: The Italian aircraft design and production organizations broke down and almost completely disappeared by the end of their participation in the war. The examples given here are extrapolations of preliminary designs.

S.A.I. (Ambrosini) S.S.4: This was a pre-war design for a canard-configuration single-engine fighter. The original, pre-war, design used a relatively low-power engine and the prototype crashed early in the test program. Lack of official support led to termination of the project. I am including this as a hypothetical development with much greater power (e.g., Italian derivatives of the Jumo 213 or DB 603).

Caproni Bergamaschi CA.380: This was a heavy fighter of twin-boom configuration, with the cockpit in the right-hand boom.

Siai-Marchetti S.M.91: This was a twin-engine (in-line piston) heavy fighter of pod-and-boom configuration. Flight testing had begun, but the collapse of Italian forces prevented any production.

Siai-Marchetti S.M.92: Closely related to the S.M.91, the S.M.92 replaced the central pod with a cockpit in the left-hand fuselage. With DB 603 engines, this could have remained an effective attack aircraft into the 1947 time span.


Japan: Many of the late-war advanced Japanese designs were influenced by German assistance. The aircraft described here are those of domestic origin.


Japan Army:

Kawasaki Ki-96, Ki-102, and Ki-108 [Randy]: These formed a series of twin-engine (radial piston) heavy fighter designs, all of similar conventional configuration. The Ki-96 started as a single-seat incremental improvement of the Ki-45 but evolved to a much-improved design. Only three prototypes were completed. The Ki-102 was a two-seat design optimized for ground attack. About 200 were completed before the end of hostilities. The Ki-108 was the high-altitude version with extended wings and a pressurized single-place cockpit. Only a few prototypes were completed before the end of the war.

Mansyu Ki-98: This ground-attack aircraft had a pod-and-twin-boom configuration with a single radial engine mounted in the back of the pod driving a pusher propeller. A single prototype was under construction at the end of the war.

Mitsubishi Ki-83: This was a twin (radial piston) engine two-place heavy fighter. Of conventional layout, the Ki-83 was highly streamlined and powered by the largest engines available to the Japanese. At the end of hostilities, only four prototypes had been completed.

Nakajima Ki-87 or Tachikawa Ki-94-II: These were high-altitude interceptors designed in response to the B-29 threat. They were of similar conventional configuration, with a large, fan-cooled, radial engine and pressurized cockpit. The major difference was that the Ki-87 had a turbo-supercharger mounted on the right-hand side of the nose while the Ki-94-II mounted a multi-stage mechanical supercharger below the engine. One prototype of the Ki-87 was completed and flown before the end of the war; the first prototype Ki-94-II was completed but not flown.

Rikugun Ki-93: This was a twin-engine (radial piston) multi-role fighter aircraft for low- to medium- altitude operation. The design featured an exceptionally narrow fuselage with a 57-mm cannon mounted in a ventral bulge. The first prototype was destroyed on the ground by a US air attack and the war ended before the second prototype could be flown.


Japan Navy:

Aichi S1A Denko (Lightning Bolt): This was a twin-engine land-based night fighter of conventional configuration. Two prototypes were under construction, but both were destroyed in bombing raids before reaching flight status.

Kyushu J7W Shinden (Magnificent Lightning): This was a canard design with a radial (piston) engine driving a pusher propeller. Intended for use as a land-based interceptor, the Shinden theoretically had excellent performance, but flight testing started only a few days before the end of the war. A turbine-propelled version (J8W) was considered but never produced.

Mitsubishi A7M ‘Reppu’ (Hurricane) [Sam]: This was a single engine (radial piston) single-place carrier-based fighter design. Intended as a replacement for the A6M ‘Zero,’ the A7M was comparable to late-war Allied types such as the Grumman F8F Bearcat and Hawker Sea Fury. Production of the A7M was just beginning as the war ended.


Soviet Union: For obvious reasons, the Soviet Union was more concerned with production of the adequate during the war as opposed to development of advanced designs. After the war, however, anticipated conflict with the US led to significant design advances. Although there was some obvious benefit from seized German plans and engineers, much of the development was domestic.

Alexseyev I-218: This was a design for a single-engined (in-line piston) armored attack aircraft. The configuration was a pod-and-twin-boom type with the engine driving a coaxial propeller at the back of the pod. The front of the pod was occupied by the pilot and a defensive gunner (with the remotely-controlled guns mounted on the outside of the booms). A heavy payload of cannon, bombs, and rockets could be carried. A prototype was flown after the war, but no production ensued.

Ilyushin Il-10 [Beast]: This was the final production version of the basic Sturmovic concept that started with the Il-2. Similar in layout to the Il-2, the Il-10 was actually a totally-different aircraft with numerous improvements. Several thousand were built, with some seeing combat in 1945 against the Japanese and others in the early stages of the Korean conflict. It almost certainly would have been in use for a Wehrmacht ’47 history.

Ilyushin Il-20: This represented a significant modification of the Sturmovic concept. A relatively large single-engine (in-line piston) aircraft, the armored cockpit was located directly above the engine. This provided excellent visibility but gave a really ugly profile, leading to the nickname ‘hunchback.’ The gunner was provided with a remote-control dorsal turret. Only one prototype was flown.

Ilyushin Il-28 [Beagle]: This was a twin turbojet bomber with straight wings (although the tail surfaces were swept). Although it was really too late for Wehrmacht ’47 (it was a contemporary of the Canberra and B-45), I have included it so that the Soviets have a jet-propelled bomber. GHQ has scheduled this for production in February, 2017.

Kamov Ka-15 [Hen]: Light general purpose helicopter (coaxial counter-rotating rotors); several hundred were built, some of which were used for shipboard liaison and spotting. The payload was insufficient for effective combat use.

Lavochkin La-9 [Fritz] and La-11 [Fang]: These were the final versions of the Lavochkin radial-engine fighter series. Generally similar in appearance to the La-5 and La-7, the later fighters had lighter all-metal structures, more powerful engines, and refined aerodynamics. A number of La-11 saw combat in Korea.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9 [Fargo]: This was the first Soviet-designed jet-propelled fighter. It had twin engines fed from a nose intake and discharging below the rear of the wings. The number built was relatively small because the benefits of swept-wing designs were already recognized. For Wehrmacht ’47, it could have entered large-scale production.

Mil Mi-1 [Hare]: Light general-purpose helicopter. This early helicopter was built in very large numbers. They were useful in observation, scouting, and liaison roles, but armed versions were unsuccessful because of inadequate payload.

Sukhoi Su-8: This was a twin-engine (radial piston) attack aircraft. The airframe was of conventional straight-wing configuration with a twin tail. No production was undertaken because authorities believed that existing designs (such as Il-10) would be sufficient to win the war and turbojet types were anticipated within a few years. It could have been an effective type in a Wehrmacht ’47 world.

Tupolev Tu-2 [Bat]: This was a twin-engine (radial piston) bomber/attack aircraft. Entering service late in 1944, production continued well after the end of the war until turbine-propelled types became available in significant numbers. It almost certainly would have been in widespread service in a Wehrmacht ’47 world.

Tupolev Tu-12: This was a minimally-modified adaptation of the Tu-2 with the piston-powered propeller engines replaced by turbojets (and a few other changes, such as tricycle landing gear). The initial flight was in 1947, but production numbers were small. The Soviets saw this as a test and familiarization type until airframes optimized for turbojet propulsion were developed.

Yakovlev Yak-15 [Feather]: Single-engine (turbojet) straight-wing fighter; essentially the airframe of the Yak-3 with an under-slung turbojet replacing the previous piston engine. It was notable because this was the lightest jet fighter to enter service. There were several reported cases of the hot exhaust from the turbojet engine melting the aft fuselage. About 300 were built, most of which were used to convert experienced piston-engine pilots to jets. The Yak-17UTI [Magnet] was an improved Yak-15 with tricycle landing gear. Although some were combat-capable single-place types, most of the 430 built were dual-control versions used for training.

Yakovlev Yak-23 [Flora]: Fully-developed endpoint of Yak-15 series with larger engine and laminar-flow wings. Large-scale production considered but only several hundred were completed because the superior MiG-15 became available.


Sweden

SAAB 29 Tunnan: This was a single-engine (turbojet) fighter/bomber with all-swept surfaces. Having access to German aerodynamic developments during WWII and to British turbojet designs after the war, the Swedes were able to produce an aircraft in the same class as the F-86 and MiG-15 (although about a year later in first flight).


United Kingdom: Like the Soviet Union, the war-time UK was more concerned with producing immediately-available aircraft than with advanced designs. Then, at the end of the war, exhaustion led to widespread abandonment of military development. The British aircraft produced in the immediate post-war years were generally inferior to those of the Soviet Union and US, especially in that no swept-wing fighters became available until well after 1950. On the other hand, they did have good turbojet engines and there were several interesting aircraft designs that never reached production.


RAF:

Bristol Type 164 Brigand: This was a twin-engine attack bomber, intended to replace the highly-successful Beaufighter. Similar to the Beaufighter in concept (except for twin tails), the Brigand was larger and used more-powerful Centaurus radial engines. The end of the war reduced orders to fewer than 150 aircraft. Those built proved useful in various post-war conflicts associated with the breakup of the British colonial empire.

Bristol Sycamore: This small helicopter of conventional layout was used for search-rescue and light transport.

Commonwealth CA-15 Kangaroo: This was a late-war design by the Australians for a single (piston) engined fighter. Originally designed with a radial engine (P&W R-2800), the prototype had an in-line RR Griffon. It never entered production because jet-powered fighters became available at the end of the war, but it could have been an effective fighter-bomber in Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

de Havilland Vampire: The Vampire was a single-engine turbojet fighter/bomber with a pod-and-twin-boom configuration. Vampires entered service just too late for combat in the historic WWII. Although they were capable of high-altitude operation, most Vampires were optimized for low-level operation (such as reducing the wing span for increased speed and roll rate). A small number of Sea Vampires were built and were successful in trials, but did not see extensive service. The later two-seat night-fighter version is not appropriate to Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

de Havilland Hornet: This was a twin-engine (in-line piston) heavy fighter similar in configuration to the larger Mosquito bomber. Delivery of production models began just too late for combat in the historic WWII. With the end of the war, production was curtailed. A small number of navalized Sea Hornets were built for carrier service. The later-model two-seat all-weather fighter version is not appropriate to Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios.

English Electric Canberra: twin-engine (turbojet) tactical bomber; built in a variety of versions and sold to many nations, this aircraft was an outstanding design. Although the Canberra had excellent high-altitude performance, its low-altitude maneuverability was also very good. Technically too late for Wehrmacht ’47, Canberras could have been available years earlier if not for post-war cutbacks in military expenditures.

Gloster Meteor: This was a twin-engine turbojet fighter; the first to enter operation for the Allies. Similar in general layout to the Messerschmitt Me 262, the Meteor had less-advanced aerodynamics (e.g., no swept surfaces). The first generation Meteors were 100 mph slower than the Me 262. Later versions, flown after 1945, had more powerful engines and were actually faster than the Me 262. The British used the Meteor only as a high-altitude fighter and reconnaissance aircraft, but the stubby-winged Mk 4 would have made a good high-speed attack aircraft. The later-model two-place all-weather interceptors are not applicable to Microarmor scenarios.

One experimental version of the Meteor replaced the turbojet engines with turbo-prop propulsion. This reduced the top speed but significantly increased range and payload. It would have been even better in the low-altitude attack role than the turbojet powered version.

The Gloster E.1/44 ‘Ace’ was a single-engined design developed in parallel with the twin-engined Meteor, with which it shared many design details. Early accidents and official preference for the Meteor delayed flight testing until the design was obsolete, but it could have been an effective fighter and in mass production by 1947.

Hawker Tempest I: The Tempest was an evolutionary development of the Typhoon with a thinner wing and other improvements. The Tempest I had a Sabre in-line engine with wing-root radiators. The fastest of the Tempest models, it remained a prototype only when Napier decided to abandon further development of the troublesome Sabre engine.

The Hawker Tempest II had a Centaurus radial engine. Production was terminated shortly after the end of the war with about 400 examples delivered. If the war had lasted longer, production almost certainly would have continued. Eventually, it would be replaced by jet-powered fighters in the air combat role, with survivors continuing as ground attack aircraft.

The Hawker Tempest V and VI had an early-model Sabre engine with the radiator under the nose. This was the only Tempest model to see combat in WWII. Historically, the Tempest was dedicated to air-to-air combat while the older Typhoon performed the low-level attack function.

Hawker Fury: The Fury was a smaller, lighter version of the Tempest. The major visual difference was elimination of the wing center section. The shorter wing span gave higher speed at low level, but limited high-altitude performance. One Fury had a Sabre engine with wing-root radiators, similar to the Tempest I. Most Furies were carrier-qualified Sea Furies with a Centaurus radial engine, as on the Tempest II.

Hawker P.1081: This was a land-based development of the Sea Hawk (see under Fleet Air Arm) with swept wings and control surfaces, a more powerful engine, and the exhaust changed to a single tailpipe. Not progressing beyond the prototype stage, the P.1081 was clearly an initial step towards the much better (and later) Hawker Hunter. Technically too late for Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios, I am including this as a balance to the German swept-wing fighters, MiG-15, and F-86. It could have been a contemporary of these aircraft if the UK had not abandoned almost all weapons development in 1945.

The Martin-Baker M.B.5 was one of the most advanced piston-engine aircraft built. It was powerful, fast, and highly maneuverable. Only one prototype was built because of the impending introduction of much faster turbojet-powered aircraft but the M.B.5 could have been useful in low-altitude combat of Wehrmacht ’47.

The Supermarine Spiteful was the ultimate development of the Spitfire concept. It had a Griffon engine and laminar-flow wings. A small number were built late in WWII, but production ended with the end of the war and the introduction of jet-propelled fighters.


Fleet Air Arm:

Blackburn B-37 Firebrand Mk I: This was a large single-engine carrier-based fighter of conventional design using the powerful Sabre in-line engine. The limited supply of Sabre engines (mostly dedicated to the land-based Typhoon) and marginal handling characteristics (especially for carrier deck landing) limited Firebrand Mk I production to about two dozen aircraft.

Blackburn B-46 Firebrand III, IV, and 5: These were a redesign of the Firebrand concept as a torpedo strike aircraft. An additional center section was added to the wings, providing clearance for a torpedo as the landing gear retracted, a radial Centaurus engine replaced the in-line Sabre, a bubble canopy replaced the previous razor-back style, and the vertical stabilizer was increased in size. They were effective, but not well liked because, despite the larger rudder, they still had sluggish directional control.

Blackburn B-48 Firecrest: This was a significant upgrade of the Firebrand design. The cockpit was raised to improve visibility on landing, the airframe was cleaned up, and control surfaces were optimized. No production was undertaken because the improvement was not great enough and even better designs were anticipated.

Fairey Spearfish: This was a large single-engined (radial piston) aircraft intended as a carrier-based torpedo/attack type. Although this was a significant improvement on the current torpedo/attack type (the Barracuda), the cancellation of the large Malta class aircraft carriers and the prospect of facing turbojet fighter opposition led to cancellation of the project at the end of the war.

Hawker ‘Sea Fury’: This was a navalized version of the Fury with a Centaurus radial engine. They saw extensive use in Korea from the relatively small British carriers. Although they could not stand up against turbojet designs at high altitudes, the Sea Fury’s acceleration and maneuverability made it effective at low altitude.

Hawker Sea Hawk: Initially intended as a land-based interceptor, the Sea Hawk finally appeared as a single engine (turbojet) carrier-based fighter/bomber. It had an unusual configuration to reduce ducting losses – twin air intakes at the wing roots and bifurcated exhaust at the rear of the wing roots. Its straight wings limited speed but provided good maneuverability and load carrying ability.

Saunders-Roe SR.A/1: This was a design for a turbine-propelled flying boat fighter. Intended for use in the Pacific, the SR.A/1 did not enter production because of the success of carrier-based aircraft and the end of the war.

Short Sturgeon: The Sturgeon was a twin-engine (in-line piston) carrier-based torpedo-bomber-reconnaissance aircraft. Cancellation of the large Malta-class aircraft carriers and a decision that single-engine aircraft would be sufficient for the torpedo attack role led to severe restrictions in Sturgeon production. Although they proved well-suited to carrier duty on the largest existing British carriers, they never served as combat aircraft.

The Supermarine Seafang was the carrier-based equivalent of the Spiteful. Fewer than two dozen were completed.

The Supermarine Attacker used Spiteful/Seafang wings on a new jet-powered fuselage. The design started as a land-based fighter/bomber, but a carrier-based modification was the only production version. Although the Attacker did not enter service until 1951, it could have been available much earlier if the British had pushed development under wartime conditions.

The Westland Wyvern was a single-engined single-place carrier-based attack fighter. Initially powered by a massive H-24 3500 hp piston engine, it eventually entered service (after 1950) with an even more powerful turboprop engine. If WWII had continued, Wyverns (at least the piston-engined variety) could have been in service before 1947.


United States: US aircraft development advanced in fits and starts. Initially inferior to British and German designs (compare P-36 to contemporary Spitfire Mk.I and Bf 109), the US produced excellent piston-engined aircraft later in the war (e.g., P-51 Mustang, A-26 Invader, B-29 Superfortress, etc). At the end of the war, however, the Germans were superior in airframes (particularly, introduction of swept wings for high-speed flight) and the British were superior in propulsion plants (the first US turbojets were of British design). Fortunately for the US, they were able to adapt and improve on wartime developments.


US AAC:

Beach XA-38 ‘Grizzly’: This twin-engine attack type used the same engines as the B-29; making it faster than the A-26 but leading to priority conflicts in provision of the power plants. Because of this, only two prototypes were built. With a 75 mm cannon mounted in the center of the nose, it would have been effective in the anti-armor attack role. On the other hand, contemporaries had similar effectiveness using rockets.

Bell H-13 Sioux (HTL): the classic “M*A*S*H helicopter; actually used more for training than as an effective combat type.

(By the way, I haven’t forgotten the Bell P-59A. I just didn’t think it was good enough to include.)

Consolidated-Vultee XP-81: This aircraft combined a turboprop in the nose (for range) with a turbojet in the tail for speed. Although the airframe displayed good flight characteristics, the turboprop engine failed to develop its intended power and the design was abandoned. In a Wehrmacht ’47 scenario it could have been an effective fighter-bomber.

Douglas XA-42 (later re-classified as XB-42) ‘Mixmaster’: This medium bomber (initially intended as an attack type) had two piston engines buried in the fuselage driving coaxial propellers in the tail. About the same size as the A-26, it was over 50 mph faster, with greater range and payload. This would have been a very good heavy ground support type in 1947. The post-war XB-42A added turbojets (one under each wing), which raised the top speed by 50 mph but reduced range by 20%. I wonder if anyone considered replacing the piston engines with turboprop types. This would have provided more speed without reducing the range capability.

Douglas XB-43 ‘Jetmaster’: This was the XB-42 with turbojets replacing the in-fuselage piston engines. It was 40 mph faster than the mixed-propulsion XB-42A but range was considerably reduced. In addition, more-advanced aircraft (with swept wings) were on the way. It could have been the best US attack bomber available in 1947.

Fisher XP-75 ‘Eagle’: This was a large long-range fighter with a single high-powered piston engine buried in the fuselage. Production did not continue past two prototypes, since the less-expensive P-51 proved capable of the long-range escort role. They might have been effective as a large ground attack aircraft in Wehrmacht ’47.

Hiller OH-23 ‘Raven’; this was a light helicopter of conventional design. Functionally similar to the Bell H-13, the OH-23 had smaller dimensions intended to provide better maneuverability and access to restricted landing areas.

Lockheed L-133 ‘Starjet’: This was an early design for a turbojet fighter. It had canard- configuration control surfaces on a blended wing-body fuselage containing two axial-flow turbojets. Since both the aerodynamics and the engine design were beyond the existing state-of-art, it is unlikely that this could have been developed into a viable aircraft. This design never left the drawing board, but I have included it as a unique concept.

Lockheed P-80 / F-80 ‘Shooting Star’: This was a single-engine (turbojet) fighter. Its straight-wing design gave it performance similar to that of the Me 262. Thousands had been ordered in 1945, but production was cut back by the end of the war. When F-80s arrived in Korea, they quickly gained air dominance over North Korean piston-engine types but in turn were outclassed by the appearance of swept-wing MiG-15s. Later in the war they were used in the light attack role.

Lockheed project L-181 (XF-80E): This was a proposed swept-wing version of the F-80. The front of the fuselage was essentially the same as the F-80C, the wings looked like those of the XF-90 (but smaller), and the aft part of the fuselage was similar to that of the F-94. Under the pressure of war, this could have been in service by 1947, but no aircraft of this type were actually built.

McDonnell XP-57 ‘Moonbat’: This was a twin-engine (in-line piston) fighter with an unusual ‘blended fuselage’ appearance. Only one prototype was built, and this suffered from inadequate engine power and lack of stability. I have included this in my list only because I like the appearance and think it could have been a good fighter-bomber with more powerful (turboprop?) engines.

North American P-82 ‘Twin Mustang’: Initially intended as a long-range escort for B-29 Superfortresses, this was basically two P-51 Mustangs with a common central wing section and horizontal tail. The second pilot provided some relief during the extra-long range missions. Later versions had a large radar pod under the central wing section, with one of the pilots converted to a radar operator. The pod could also mount a large number of guns in place of the radar. This is not my choice for a ground attack aircraft because of the vulnerability of the liquid cooling system to ground fire (although having two independent engines would help).

Piasecki H-21 Shawnee: tandem-rotor transport/rescue helicopter; one of the first helicopters with an effective payload. First used in the Korean War, it could have been in service by 1947.

Republic XP-72: This was a development of the P-47 Thunderbolt with a 3,450 hp R-4360 engine. Development ended with the second prototype because of the impending introduction of turbojet engines, but in a Wehrmacht ’47 world it may have been built as a ground attack aircraft.

Republic P-84 / F-84 Thunderjet: This was a typical first-generation turbojet fighter with the exception that it employed a relatively thick wing section to provide greater fuel capacity. The thick wings gave greater range but limited top speed. The early models (B through D) were relatively unreliable and produced in small numbers. Intermediate models (E & G) were effective in the fighter-bomber role during the Korean War. Note that the swept-wing F-84F was a much later development, not appropriate for Wehrmacht ‘47.


USN: Because of the extended take-off distances required by early jets, the US Navy continued development of piston-engined combat aircraft after other military organizations had transitioned to turbine engines.

Boeing XF8B: This was a very large single-place, single (radial piston) engined fighter-bomber. Probably too large to be an effective fighter, its high speed and load-carrying capability would have made it effective as a carrier-based attack bomber.

Curtiss XF15C: This was a mixed-propulsion design (radial piston engine in the nose, turbojet in the lower fuselage). It had somewhat better performance than purely piston-engined aircraft, but pure jets were better yet and proved capable of operating from aircraft carriers.

Douglas AD (later A-1) Skyraider: single-engine (radial) carrier-based attack aircraft; this highly-adaptable aircraft served from shortly after the end of WWII through the Viet-Nam war. Initially designed for anti-ship torpedo and dive-bombing, it achieved its greatest reputation in the ground support role. Skyraiders would have been challenged to survive in an environment populated by German turbojet fighters.

Douglas A2D ‘Skyshark’: This was a development of the Skyraider; larger and with a much more powerful turboprop engine. In practice, the turboprop engine had severe reliability problems and development stopped. If the engine had been successful, the Skyshark could have been an excellent ground attack type.

The Grumman F7F ‘Tigercat’ was a twin (radial) engine heavy fighter. Initially intended for carrier basing, the Tigercat could have operated effectively only from the large Midway class carriers. Relatively fast for a piston-engined aircraft and heavily-armed, Tigercats would have been effective in the ground attack role. Later two-place night fighter versions were used from ground bases during the Korean War.

The Grumman F8F ‘Bearcat’ was designed as the smallest combat airframe that could be fitted behind an R-2800 engine. Although never tested in air-to-air combat, the highly-maneuverable and lightly-loaded Bearcat could have held its own against first-generation jets at low altitude. The French used them as fighter-bombers in Indochina.

The Grumman F9F ‘Panther’ was a single engine (turbojet) carrier-based fighter-bomber. Actually a bit too late for Wehrmacht ’47, the Panther could have entered production earlier under wartime pressure. As a GHQ product, this has the advantage that it saw wide-spread service in the Korean War. Note that the swept-wing F9F-6 ‘Cougar’ was a much later development and not appropriate for Wehrmacht ’47; it did not enter service until after the end of the Korean War.

Martin AM Mauler: This single-engine (radial piston) attack bomber was a compatriot of the Douglas Skyraider but was produced in much smaller numbers and had a shorter career. The Marauder was larger and more powerful than the Skyraider, but also required more maintenance and took up more room on crowded carrier decks.

McDonnell FH ‘Phantom’: This was a twin turbojet engine carrier-based fighter; the first pure jet designed for shipboard operation. Successful in this role, the number of FHs produced was small because of the end of the war and the promise of even better aircraft in the near future. In a Wehrmacht ’47 scenario, the FH probably would have been a first-line navy fighter.

McDonnell F2H ‘Banshee’: This was an enlarged and up-powered Phantom. Doubling the engine power raised top speed by about 100 mph. Historically too late for Wehrmacht ’47 scenarios, under wartime pressure, Banshees could have been replacing Phantoms in 1947. Banshees saw significant combat over Korea.

North American FJ-1 ‘Fury’: This was a single-engine (turbojet) carrier-based fighter. A totally new fuselage using wings based on those of a P-51 Mustang, the Fury’s performance was a modest improvement over the most-recent piston-engined fighters. Production was curtailed by the end of the war, but probably would have continued if the war had lasted longer. Note that the swept-wing FJ-2 Fury was a much later and significantly different aircraft that does not belong in a Wehrmacht ’47 scenario.

Ryan FR ‘Fireball’: This was a mixed-propulsion carrier-based fighter design, featuring a moderately-small radial engine in the nose with a turbojet in the aft fuselage. The engine combination was not effective (at full speed with the turbojet in operation, the piston engine produced almost as much drag as thrust), so production was curtailed in favor of the XF2R.

Ryan XF2R ‘Dark Shark’: This was basically the fuselage of the FR with the radial engine replaced by a turbo-prop with significantly greater power and less drag. (Refer to Douglas A2D ‘Skyshark’) Since pure-turbojet aircraft had demonstrated their effectiveness, the XF2R was not fully developed, but it would have been an effective ground-attack aircraft for Wehrmacht ’47.

Sikorsky H-5 Dragonfly (HO2S): This light helicopter was used in the search/rescue role.

Vought XF5U ‘Flying Flapjack’: This fighter-bomber design had highly unusual airframe and propellers. The entire semi-circular body was the lifting surface and extremely large propellers were mounted at the extremes. The intent was to produce an aircraft with both high top speed and the ability to land in restricted flight decks. The only full-scale prototype never flew.

[Guroburov]

Wow, that's an amazingly detailed report there Mr. Scheef. Any way we can get that pinned for future reference?

[Donald M. Scheef]

I wouldn't pin it. It's just not that important. If a person is that interested, they'll take the effort to search for it.
Don S.

[CG2]

I don't think it's lack of options for W47 - it's lack of sales. If people aren't buying the range then you'll just end up with another Sherman with a fuel can on the left side, 3 bolts on the commmander's hatch instead of 2 and a driver named Al instead of Joe.

Donald - sounds like you need a visit to Bovington Tank Museum in Dorset, England. Some of the prototypes you mention are right there! I'd post pictures but we all know how that went when I tried it before.......

[centman]

Fantastic reply's but will GHQ produce any new models for this range if people don't support this with purchases.

[centman]

So many items now 3D printed but at at a cost on various sites !.
Deep pockets needed.

[chrisswim]

I use the Panther AA, Flak Panther, from this line in a kitbash.
I use that turret on CV90 mortar. I cut the barrels down almost flush. The CV90 mortar has two 120mm barrels.

[Splod]

It's a fantastic what-if period that I find thoroughly enjoyable. I've got a small skirmish project in 20mm using 1/72 armour, however I've always been tempted to game larger conflicts with the GHQ line.

My main barrier to entry has been the lack of interesting kit on the side of the Allies. The Germans have a wide range of paper panzers, however the Allies end up with mostly the same kit they used in Korea with the exclusion of a handful of superheavies.

[Donald M. Scheef]

Kriegsmarine ’47 possible ships
To go along with my listings for Wehrmacht ’47, here are some ships for Micronaut Kriegsmarine ’47. Some of these, such as USS Des Moines (CA 134) are real ships that were just a bit too late for WWII. Some are real projects that were cancelled by the end of the war, such as the Japanese project G-15 aircraft carrier. Some are pure fantasy, such as Japanese “super-Yamato” with four triple 20-inch gun mounts. I have also included some ships completed in the early 1950s to designs that are based on WWII concepts.
Aircraft carriers:
• Germany: Hypothetical H-class battleship conversion to an aircraft carrier, as the Japanese did with Shinano.
• Japan: Ibuki, conversion of a heavy cruiser hull to an aircraft carrier
• Japan: G-15 design, Hull No. 801 – an enlarged and improved Taiho
• UK: HMS Eagle, as completed post-war
• UK: HMS Malta design, an equivalent to USS Midway
• USA: Saipan (CVL 48)-class
• USA: Ess*x-class, SCB-27A reconstruction of the early 1950s
Battleships and battlecruisers:
• France: Jean Bart, as completed in the early 1950s with enhanced AA
• France: Gascogne design (two quad 15-inch mounts, one forward, the other aft)
• France: Alsace design Type 2 (three triple 16-inch mounts)
• France: Alsace design Type 3 (three quad 15-inch mounts)
• Germany: H-42, H-43, H-44 designs – battleships of increasing absurd size
• Germany: O, P and Q battlecruiser designs
• Germany: Gneiseneau, planned reconstruction with 15-inch guns
• Italy: Ansaldo U.P.41 design (three triple 16-inch mounts)
• Italy: hypothetical enlarged Roma with four triple 15-inch mounts
• Italy: hypothetical battlecruiser with three triple 12-inch mounts
• Japan: “ultimate Yamato” – four triple 18.1-inch mounts or four twin 20-inch mounts
• Japan: No. 798, No. 797 – Yamato class with modified anti-aircraft and twin 20-inch gun mounts in place of triple 18.1-inch
• Japan: No. 111, No. 797 – Yamato class with modified anti-aircraft
• Japan: B64/B65 designs – Japanese response to USS Alaska class
• Netherlands: 1047 design large cruiser or battlecruiser
• Soviet: Stalingrad design (Project 82) battleship
• Soviet: Sovyetskiy Soyuz design (Project 23) battleship
• Soviet: Kronstadt design (Project 69) battlecruiser
• UK:16E36 design – equivalent to Montana and H in terms of size
• UK: Lion (1946 design)
• USA: Hypothetical enlarged Montana with ten or twelve 18-inch main armament and twin 6-inch secondary (as on Worcester-class cruisers), 28 kt @ 75,000 tons
• USA: BB 65-8A design, “fast” Montana with four triple 16-inch mounts, 33 kt @ 67,000 tons
• USA: BB 65-8B design, “fast” Montana with four twin 18-inch mounts, 33 kt @ 68,000 tons
Cruisers
• France: St. Louis design, similar to Algerie but with three triple 8-inch mounts in place of four twin mounts
• France: C5-A3 design, improved St. Louis with significant provisions for aircraft
• France: C5-SA1 design, similar to C5-A3 design but with more anti-aircraft armament replacing aviation facilities
• France: De Grasse design, as originally intended
• France: De Grasse as completed post-war as an anti-aircraft ship
• Germany: heavy cruiser Seydlitz, as designed with 150mm guns
• Germany: “M” class light cruisers
• Germany: Spahkreuzer design
• Italy: Ansaldo ‘Crucero Acorazado’ heavy cruiser design
• Japan: Ibuki design 1940 Type A heavy cruiser
• Japan: Hypothetical anti-aircraft cruiser design with twelve twin 100mm
• Netherlands: Eendracht-class, as designed pre-war
• Netherlands: De Ruyter-class, competed post-war
• Soviet: Project 22 heavy cruiser
• Soviet: Project 65 cruiser with 180mm guns
• Soviet: Project 66 cruiser with 228mm guns
• Soviet: Project 68, Chapayev-class
• Soviet: Project 68B Sverdlov-class
• Soviet: Project 82 cruiser with 220mm guns
• Soviet: Light cruiser design МЛК-8-130, МЛК -10-130 or МЛК -12-130
• Sweden: Tre Kronor-class light cruisers, completed post-war
• UK: 1940 ‘Admiral’ design with three triple 9.2-inch guns
• UK: 1940 ‘Admiral’ design with four triple 8-inch guns
• UK: light cruisers Superb, Swiftsure and Ontario, as completed post-war
• UK: light cruiser Minotaur (1947 design) with five twin 6-inch gun mounts
• USA: CA2-D design – enlarged Alaska with four triple 12-inch mounts
• USA: CL 144, Worcester-class
• USA: CA 134, Des Moines-class
• USA: Hypothetical follow-on to Des Moines class with four triple 8-inch mounts
• USA: CL 154, scheme C of 1944 with eight twin 5”/54 mounts plus six single and two twin 3”/70 mounts
• USA: CL 154, scheme C’ of 1944 with six twin 5”/54 mounts plus six single and four twin 3”/70 mounts
Destroyers
• Australia: modified ‘Battle’ class
• Australia: Voyager-class, modified ‘Daring’
• Denmark: Najaden-class
• France: Mogador-class
• France: Le Fier-class, as originally designed
• France: Surcouf (T-47)-class, post-war enlarged Mogador
• France: Le Corse (E-50)-class, post-war
• Germany: Z 1944 design
• Germany: Z 1936c design (intended as Z.46 – Z.50)
• Germany: T 1941 design (intended as T.37 – T.51)
• Germany: T 1940 design (intended as T.61 – T.84)
• Italy: ‘Comandanti’ (3rd group) design
• Italy ‘Comandanti’ (1st and 2nd groups) design
• Japan: Shimakaze (additional ships of this design intended)
• Netherlands: Holland class, as originally designed with five 57mm anti-aircraft guns
• Sweden: Oland-class, post-war
• Spain: Audaz-class, similar to French Le Fier-class as completed by Germans
• UK: ‘G’ class design
• UK: ‘Daring’ class, post-war
• UK: ‘Battle’ class, group I
• UK: ‘Battle’ class, group II
• UK: ‘Weapon’ class
• USA: Mitscher (DL 2)-class fleet escorts
• USA: hypothetical Sumner/Gearing modification with three single 5”/54 (as on Midway-class aircraft carrier) and three twin 3”/70
• USA: Sumner/Gearing post-war modifications with 3”/50 replacing 40mm Bofors
• USA: Fletcher-class, anti-Kamikaze modification with three quad and two single 40mm Bofors