# Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Continued from old topic, now in archive forum.


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 5, 2005)

So, with all the previous posts packed away, we're agreed then, that because of the Lancaster's superb design, rapid development, very reliable performance and economy of materials, fuel, firepower and crew, and the lengthy and deadly service it performed, bombing the German War Machine to rubble,... exemplary, in fact, that's why it's a bloody legend,.... that it EARNED the title of '' BEST BOMBER ''........

I mean, they were all set to fly off to Japan after that, as ''Tiger Force'', to bomb them to dust too, but it took from 1940 until June 1944 before a B-29 was built and starting to drop a bomb there, but using RAF Bomber Command tactics, B-29's started to get the job done, and then they decided to try out a couple of nukes, and that was the 2nd World War over...........


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 5, 2005)

Dude, just because the thread is locked away and gone does not mean that the Lancaster was the best bomber of WWII. An assumption like that is a bit naieve.

I will give you that it was a great design (although it needed a copilot).

When Tiger Force would have been involved in the Pacific it would have been operating off of Okinawa and eastern India. The Lancasters destined there had an 1800 liter fuel tank installed in the rear part of the bombbay and were limited to just over 7000 pounds of bombs to enable them to get the range to make it to Japan.

While I'm sure the effort would have been greatly appreciated and sucessful, the PTO wasn't the area where the Lancaster would have excelled, especially compared to the B-29.

You state that the B-29's only started to get the job done until they switched to firebombing. This is only about half true as I submitted in the last thread that even when firebombing was adopted it was only used about 50% of the time. I know you can bring up the Yawata mission and how it failed but I think you assume that all high altitude GP/HE missions were a failure as well when this was not the case.

I'll give you that the Lancaster was best bomber of the ETO at night, but nothing more.


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 6, 2005)

Yeah, I accept the Lancaster was the ''Best Night Bomber in the ETO'', although I feel it did pretty well later in the War as a Day-bomber too, with escort....
- The bombing-radar worked well in the daytime too, and defensive armament was moving into .50 cals in the rear, and the real shine on the coin was that Allied air supremacy was finally making the 'Strategic Bombing Offensive' a successful campaign......

I feel that Lanc would accept that....?...........

I accept that the B-29 was much more advanced with greater capacities, and that it's service in destroying the Japanese ability to further wage war was it's accolade.........by the end of the War, it was the biggest, most advanced bomber of the War.......some would say it should therefore be the 'Best Bomber'......

In saying that, about the only thing these two aircraft had in common was they both had 4 engines and were bombers......

I feel that the Lancaster and Bomber Command's whole contribution should be recognised for it's overall advancement to the Strategic Bombing Offensive, because the big lesson was learned by the British early, doing daylight raids, and the 8th's supreme effort may have been at less cost if Air Supremacy had been established first.....Germany could not have sustained a successful night defence for long if both Allies night-bombed;..... even initially just for awhile, while the day-fighters continued to draw up the Luftwaffe fighters....The volume of Allied fighters would have run them down, despite the Luftwaffe's incredible production, that was what was being bombed.....

This is all great in hindsight, I guess, it was a shame that getting the B-29 on stream took so long......plans were even made to base a heap of them in N.Ireland for the ETO, but they were never ready in time..... 
US Aircraft development was ever advancing, there were other excellent aircraft that could've been on stream quicker, and may have greatly shortened the War, I believe.....the A-26 in mumbers, for example........or there was one called a Republic 'Rainbow', that was a fast 4 engined bomber design, although not of the B-29's capacity.......

And capacity was the one other thing the Lancaster and B-29 had, that made them 'Best', in their theatre's, respectively,........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2005)

we agreed the lanc was the best bomber in the ETO as a whole and the most successfull having the most impact on the war................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

Yep...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

I think in terms of significance and impact though that the B-17 runs in pretty close.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2005)

perhaps but not in ability..............

it's not in the running for best bomber of the war.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

I think the Lancaster was better but I think it is in the Running...I dont see why it shouldnt be...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 6, 2005)

A Mosquito could carry a B-17s bombload over short distances- and the mossie's a LIGHT bomber


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

B-17's normal bombload that is...it couldnt carry 17,600lbs.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 6, 2005)

in kilograms please


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 6, 2005)

When they talked of stationing the B-29's in North Ireland I always wondered why they'd want to do that. Why not place them closer and load them with more bombs.

The Rainbow was the F-12. It was meant to be a fast recon aircraft. It was powere by 4 R-4360's and had a top speed over 450mph. Pretty slick aircraft!!

http://www.air-and-space.com/Republic XF-12.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

Nice! 8)

You work in Kilos MM? I cant stand metric...


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 6, 2005)

Mosquito just divide by 2.2 to get pounds into kilograms.

17600/2.2=8000kg


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 6, 2005)

Thanks, I'm just used to metric


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 6, 2005)

Heres a picture of a Tiger Force Lancaster with a 1500 gallon tank faired in behind the cockpit.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 6, 2005)

Nice pic 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 6, 2005)

Interesting. 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 6, 2005)

Thanks Dave, for the website on the Republic Rainbow....I've just a small article on it in a book, but it's specs greatly aroused me, as also it's nice sleek lines....it did have real potential, even as a light/medium bomber too, perhaps, especially indicative of some of the great ideas going on the US Aircraft industry.....just a shame they took so long to produce.....

As to the B-29's in N.Ireland.....In Aug. 1943, they had the Quadrant Conference in Quebec, where Arnold submitted his 'Air Plan for the Defeat of Japan'...- This document contained the first reference in strategic policy for the B-29. - Up to that time a rather vague proposal for committing the new bombers to Europe had existed, and it was envisaged that 12 Groups would be stationed in N.Ireland, and 12 more would be stationed near Cairo, in Egypt....- Arnold's plan though, was much more specific, proposing the deployment of the 58th Bombardment Wing [Very Heavy], newly activated under Wolfe's command, organised to contain 4 Groups of B-29's, to the CBI by years end.... Only one B-29 went to the UK, as mentioned, on the way to the CBI, to confuse the Axis Intelligence as to the actual theatre of operations.....

In regard to Bomber Command Mosquitos;.... RAF 139 Sqn. wasn't actually a Pathfinder Sqn. but due to 5 Group's [Cochran] depletion of some of the Pathfinder Force's Sqn.'s, they did the target-marking for the Pathfinders Mosquito 'Light Night Strike Force', as they were fitted and trained with H2S....Alot of folk thought they were just a 'nuisance-raiders', but with about a 100 Mossies each carrying 4000 lb 'cookies', their average raid on Berlin dropped about 400,000 lbs on the German Capital. After the War, it was discovered that Berliners regarded these attacks as anything but 'nuisance raids', realising also that it wasn't 'Main Force' either, but still nonetheless, genuine heavy raids.....

AVM Don Bennett, the Commander of Pathfinder Force commented in his book....'' The experts on the Air Staff who turned down the Mosquito as a type, in the early days, might be interested in the argument which subsequently became current, to the effect that one Mosquito was worth 7 Lancasters....For those mathematically-minded, here is the exercise :...... A Mosquito carried a little over half the bomb load of a Lancaster to Berlin. It's casualty rate was about 1/10th of that of a Lancaster. It's cost was 1/3rd of the Lancaster, and it carried two people in it's crew instead of seven....'' Bennett went on to say it's a little hard to get an exact mathematical result from those figures, but it was quite clear that in value for War effort, it was certainly well in favour of the Mosquito, compared with ANY other aircraft ever produced in the then history of flying......And the still sobering thought, that ALL Bomber Command and No.1409 Meteorlogical Flight Mosquitos were totally UNARMED.....At the late stages of the War, the Met. Flights were often intercepted by Me-262's, that could always out-pace them, but never out-manoevre them......there was nearly always a Met. Flight in the air, 24 hours, around the clock, keeping weather updated for the bombers.....brave, consistent, reliable men........


----------



## Chiron (Feb 18, 2005)

"the effect that one Mosquito was worth 7 Lancasters....For those mathematically-minded, here is the exercise :...... A Mosquito carried a little over half the bomb load of a Lancaster to Berlin. It's casualty rate was about 1/10th of that of a Lancaster. It's cost was 1/3rd of the Lancaster, and it carried two people in it's crew instead of seven....'' Bennett went on to say it's a little hard to get an exact mathematical result"

ya, I wonder if a pack of Lancasters are more effective than a group of Mosquitos. I meant it is more important to have your bombs to drop on precise destination than relying on chance and on quantities of bombs. Mosquito has the modern sense of precise bombing and character of today's bomber as fast and lethal.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

> I wonder if a pack of Lancasters are more effective than a group of Mosquitos



depends what you mean by "effective" for carpet bombing the mossies were great for target marking, but the lanc will always deliver the greater punch, for precision raids the mossie will obviously be the first choise, unless something heavier was needed (operation chastise for example) in which case the lanc would always be able to step up to the cause..........


----------



## Chiron (Feb 19, 2005)

so, what planes were responsible for escorting Lancaster's bombing mission to Berlin? and was there any regular Monsquito esxorting team in war?
I know P-51 was later reponsible for the safeguarding the bombers as a result of request from British Air Force, but why didnt British considered to assign Mosquitos to do that task, insead of P-51?????


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 19, 2005)

Everybody wanted mosquitos so there just weren't enough to go around, Coastal Command, Bomber Command, Fighter Command and Recce squadrons had mossies


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 19, 2005)

Essentially Chiron, the Mosquito and Lancaster worked 'hand-in-glove' in Bomber Command, the Mosquitos did PR/ Met. work, the weather-forecasting prior to night raids, they did the Pathfinding and Target-marking, and their Best Role was as the Nightfighter's Nightfighter...they were superb at that.....the Light Night Strike Force [LNSF] Mosquitos flew in groups to both either 'select' targets, or created 'spoof' or dummy attacks, to draw the German Nightfighters off the Main Force of Bomber Command.....

They were very hardy for a wooden aircraft, and fast and manoevrable, and became essential to all the work the Lancasters, Halifaxes, Stirlings and Wellingtons did, of Bomber Command....


----------



## Chiron (Feb 20, 2005)

can someone tells me how effective were those numerious air guns on Lancaster or the B-17???? Since there were so many bombers destroyed from enemy's fighters in each mission, it seemed those defenses were uselsess. Instead of keep, why didnt they reduce the numbers of guns and increase the speed of the plane.


----------



## trackend (Feb 20, 2005)

I have to agree with Chiron on the point about bomber air to air fire power a machine gun is not a very accurate device it uses weight of shot and rate of fire for effect add this too an unstable gun platform + closing speed of target + size of target + limited target acquisition time it becomes a deterrent weapon rather than highly effective. Even fighters had as many guns piled into them as could be fitted because target acquisition time was short so ordinance impact had to be hard and effective with a limited on target period. The onset of base to target escort aircraft being able to match enemy fighter speeds and maneuverability the target acquisition time increased, thus bomber losses reduced from fighter attack however having said that flak remained the major problem it always had been.
Close formation cross cover wings had some effect but every fighter pilot new the weak points of every model of aircraft or formation be it Lanc's, B17's,etc


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

but you have to remember the british didn't rely on defensive armourment as much as the yanks, we used evasive manouvers and electronic counter measures as well as the guns................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Electronic counter measures? EMP's?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

EMPs?? do you mean ECMs??

and yes, the british were world leaders in electronic warfare, we were jamming their signals all over the place, sending them off in all different directions, radars, the lot............


----------



## trackend (Feb 20, 2005)

I only know of window/chaff prey tell me more Lanc.
As for evasive maneuvers I always thought cork screwing was about it with a fully laden bomber and then only to evade search lights 
I don't know but I would have thought it was damn nigh impossible to shake off a fighter once it had you in its sights other that is to throw some lead at it and hope you got lucky or put his aim off.
ps youve just answered the first bit thanks Lanc


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

101 Squadron's Lancaster's had 8 crewmen, one german speaker who found the frequencies that the german nightfighter controllers used so a microphone in one of the engines could be played to block everything out


----------



## trackend (Feb 20, 2005)

Clever olds sods Wern't they


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

yep


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

You're correct MM however they didn't just speak german, they could speak almost all European languages, however they merely had to be able to identify the languages. baisiclly they scanned through radio frequencies listening for the German ground controllers guiding night fighters, once they've found a transmission, they simply send out pure noise on that frequency, so the germans cannot hear what's going on. 101 Sqn became the largest sqadron in bomber command, at one point being 42 aircraft strong!! they flew dispersed in the formations however they often suffered huge casualties. they still carried and dropped a full payload and were amoung the first sqns. to have the Rose Rice rear turret fitted, however they had many proplems and the 4x.303 were prefered...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

> EMPs?? do you mean ECMs??



Nopw, I mean EMP's...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

explain............


----------



## trackend (Feb 20, 2005)

I think he may be talking of electro magnetic pulse


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 20, 2005)

100 Group specialised in Radio Counter-measures to disrupt German ground control....Also, in my reading, it wasn't THAT easy for German Nightfighters to just cruise-up behind a British Bomber and shoot it down, the gunners were very 'on-the-ball', and they gave as good as they got...in fact, they were bloody courageous, faced with multiple cannon and mgs coned to kill, their alertness often saved the aircraft, along with the 'corkscrew' manoevre....It's very revealing when you read books of actual combat histories, and humbling when one realises the balls these men had, to conquer their fears and do the work they did......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

finally someone on my wavelength (see what i did there) welcome to my world and my side of the argument...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

trackend said:


> I think he may be talking of electro magnetic pulse



Yep, thanks for that 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2005)

electro-magnetic pulses are what you get after the explosion of an atomic bomb, they're not a form of electronic counter measure.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2005)

Obviously never heard of them before...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 22, 2005)

yes but only in the context of atomic bombs............


----------



## trackend (Feb 22, 2005)

I think you can produce an electro magnetic pulse in other ways too lanc even your washing machine creates a small field but I'm not ofay with how these are utilized in counter measures 
( perhaps Hotpoint or Zanussi missile's)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2005)

Im sure its a device that immobilises all electronic components of a machine...


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 22, 2005)

Perhaps what Lanc is referring to is the EMP that emanates from a nuclear explosion, that stuffs-up electronic equipment....- Say, if one went off, it would disable my Nissan Skyline, which has about 10 computers in it, but my 1973 Datsun 1200 wouldn't be affected because it doesn't have computers as it's just a basic vehicle...all this applying to aircraft, of course....
Again, the magnetic mines the RAF were sowing off the coast of Europe in 1942, had their own dormant magnetic field....being sown in quite shallow water, an enemy ship with it's own magnetic field passes over, and the light current it's generated, will cause the sensitive solenoid switch in the mine's wiring to close, thus setting off 1,500 lb of explosive mine.....
.....is this the sorta things you mean??.......


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 23, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Perhaps what Lanc is referring to is the EMP that emanates from a nuclear explosion, that stuffs-up electronic equipment....- Say, if one went off, it would disable my Nissan Skyline, which has about 10 computers in it, but my 1973 Datsun 1200 wouldn't be affected because it doesn't have computers as it's just a basic vehicle...all this applying to aircraft, of course....
> Again, the magnetic mines the RAF were sowing off the coast of Europe in 1942, had their own dormant magnetic field....being sown in quite shallow water, an enemy ship with it's own magnetic field passes over, and the light current it's generated, will cause the sensitive solenoid switch in the mine's wiring to close, thus setting off 1,500 lb of explosive mine.....
> .....is this the sorta things you mean??.......



Transistors of any kind are effected. Even thin wires of short length can be effected. Your 1973 Datsun would likely be at least partially disabled, you'd have to go back to an early 60's vintage car to be completely safe (no transitors).

EMP pulses can be generated by means other than nuclear explosions. There is for instance, a device that would allow a police car to disable another car using an EMP generator. However, because the power of the pulse diminishes with the cube of the distance, only nuclear explosions can generate EMP's of sufficient power to be destructive beyond a very short distance. 

EMP's could be used as a form of electronic countermeasure. Supposedly the Soviets had a system designed to detonate 3 large nukes in space above the USA to wipe out communications across North America. It is concievable that some of the existing non-nuclear high energy chemical systems (such as those used to power laser weapons) could generate enough energy to emit a directed EMP pulse that could be considered a "counter-measure".

Technically, all radio wave emmissions are EMP's of a sort, though generally when we say "EMP" we mean the level of magnetic energy generated by a nuclear explosion.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 24, 2005)

Thanks RG, that makes it abit more clearer....

Britain did use 'pulses' in the War, it came in the form of 'Oboe', a name given to a ground-controlled blind-bombing device of unique accuracy....From 30,000 ft at speeds of over 300 mph, the average operational error was only 300 yds; for lower heights it was even less....

'Oboe', [named so, as one navigator thought the 'note' of the CHL set sounded like an oboe, and the name stuck], was a system using two stations each with a different role: one, the tracking station - code name 'Cat' - sent dot-dash signals to the pilot; - The other, the releasing station - code name 'Mouse' - measured the groundspeed of the aircraft, warned the navigator of the approx; time before bomb release and gave the release signal...Both stations operated on the same wavelength but used different pulse radio frequencies [PRFs]. A pulse repeater in the aircraft responded to both PRFs so each station could measure the aircraft's range independently...The purpose of the repeater was to boost the signals to increase the range...The track to the target was along an arc of the Circle of Constant Path Range passing through the point of bomb release [R/P] with the 'Cat' at the centre....To avoid jamming it was proposed to operate in the centimetre  band and, to avoid German interference with the information sent to the crews, it was incorporated in the pulse frequencies.....As the 'beam' [technically it wasn't a beam in the accepted sense of the word, because of it's aural similarity it is referred to as a beam...] was an arc it was estimated that the average time for the pilot to settle on it and fly it accurately would be 10 mins. flying time....A position on the track, called point A, equal to 10 mins. fly-time, was measured back from the R/P, and given to the crews at briefing, together with the height and airspeed at which the run must be made...Height and airspeed were vitally important because they were part of the complicated formula to calculate the R/P, and were used to determine point A....The navigator's job was to get the aircraft to point A, 10 mins. before time on target...Each crew had their own call-sign and this was transmitted from both stations, so when they heard their own call-sign, then and only then, the nav switched-on the repeater....Almost immediately the pilot would receive dots or dashes, depending on which side of the track they were on...When he settled on the beam, he got an equi-signal tone, in other words, a steady note....depending on where he was in relation to the target, and he would receive Morse letters that indicated by code his drift and time to correct, to get on line for the target....Finally, he would receive the release signal, 5 dits and a 2.5 second dah, and when the navigator pressed the bomb-release, it automatically cut-out the aircraft transmitter, so the ground stations knew the exact time of release...He would then switch-off the transmitter as soon as possible after bombing, so the next aircraft could be called.....

Alot more was involved to get the system ironed-out, but that's the initial rudiments of 'Oboe', and they started this around late 1941.....In time, to extend it's range, it was fitted into high-flying pressurised Wellingtons, and eventually in Mosquitos, about July 1942, so they could bomb right over to Berlin and other distant targets...It's value was huge to Bomber Command, along with the aid , H2S, that allowed them to bomb through cloud, and alot of this work was created in parallel with the US, both swapping valves and sets etc., to forward the accuracy and volume of the bombing of Germany.........


----------



## trackend (Feb 24, 2005)

Thanks for that interesting Gem, Gem.  
I never knew that , have you got any source material you could recommend I read for more details on OBOE please.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2005)

love the siggy trackend......


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2005)

Gem,

Oboe was not effective from 30,000 feet, nor was it as accurate as you've claimed. No British bomber could fly at that altitude, typical bombing was from well below 20,000 feet.

Oboe took over two years for Britain to develop, and like the other radar bombing systems employed, was defeated by German counter-measures in a couple of months.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2005)

we were still world leaders in electronic warfare however........


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> we were still world leaders in electronic warfare however........



Yes and British accomplishments were signficant. My point is that Britain had to deploy a new radar assisted bombing system regularly because it was much easier to counter such a system than to deploy it. Typically the British spent 2+ years developing a system and it was defeated in 2-3 months. What is impressive is that the British had overlapping development of such systems and had the next system ready to come on line within a few months of the previous system's being defeated.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2005)

exactly so it wasn't a huge problem, we always stayed ahead of the Germans, and the rest of the world...............


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 25, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Gem,
> 
> Oboe was not effective from 30,000 feet, nor was it as accurate as you've claimed. No British bomber could fly at that altitude, typical bombing was from well below 20,000 feet.



Ever heard of Pathfinder Mosquitos? They did the marking for everyone else to bomb, the only reason that it faded at lower altitudes was the curvature of the Earth. It was called Oboe because the pulse sounded like an oboe


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2005)

hell lancs were used in the low level pathfinder role aswell..............


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 25, 2005)

They probably used Gee, G-H or H2S


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 25, 2005)

RG- I thought the Halifax bombed from 25,000ft? If that is wrong please let me know.

But I agree that Oboe could not be that good. Even the USAAC bombsight never worked that good in the field. In testing on clear nights some did get great marks


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 25, 2005)

MkIII Halifaxes could bomb at 29,000 feet if I remember correctly


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> hell lancs were used in the low level pathfinder role aswell..............



Yep, ive seen clips of em 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 25, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> MkIII Halifaxes could bomb at 29,000 feet if I remember correctly



Perhaps, I'm not that up on British bombers other than the Lancaster. But the point remains that British night bomber missions were almost always carried out at bombing altitudes below 20,000 feet.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> exactly so it wasn't a huge problem, we always stayed ahead of the Germans, and the rest of the world...............



Actually it was a problem, since each system was very expensive and several months passed between updates when the RAF bombing was not very effective (except for terror bombing of cities).

Also, the British radar bombing systems were very specific for use against Germany. They were of no use against Japan.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## reddragon (Feb 25, 2005)

I'm under the impression that night bombing was pretty much ineffective. I can't remember where I saw it but I saw something along the lines that less than 5 percent of the bombs dropped at night hit within 5 miles of the target. 

I'm impressed by the B-29.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 25, 2005)

American bombing was not that impressive either, in the ETO. They did their own share of terror bombing.

One case I remember reading about was an attack on some target in France, in daylight. Not one bomb landed within miles of the intended target.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 25, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> American bombing was not that impressive either, in the ETO. They did their own share of terror bombing.
> 
> One case I remember reading about was an attack on some target in France, in daylight. Not one bomb landed within miles of the intended target.



That is not really true. American daylight bombing devastated German oil and aircraft production, and wiped out their communications centers (such as rail yards), grinding much of the rest of their industry to an effective halt. By late 1944, it was very common for the Germans to have everything necessary to assemble a plane or tank or whatever, but they were unable to bring the parts together in the same place.

The mission to which you refer probably involved a target obscured by clouds - a common problem for daylight bombing.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Feb 26, 2005)

re: Bomber accuracy
I'm Quoting this not to upset anyone only because it was a common saying in the war. I just wonder what was behind it perhaps a few too many friendly fire incidents ?

" When the British bomb the Germans duck.
When the Germans Bomb the British duck.
When the Americans Bomb everybody ducks"


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 26, 2005)

trackend said:


> re: Bomber accuracy
> I'm Quoting this not to upset anyone only because it was a common saying in the war. I just wonder what was behind it perhaps a few too many friendly fire incidents ?
> 
> " When the British bomb the Germans duck.
> ...



They even killed one of their own generals because they were so accurate.

"_Perhaps the best example is the scandal of COBRA, the code-name for the immense bombing operation of July 24 and 25, 1944, designed to assist the break-out of the ground forces from the Normandy beachhead near Saint-Lo. The plan was for some 1800 bombers to pulverise the German defenders, after which the Americans were to press forward with, it was hoped, considerable ease. The bombing attack was to occur on July 25, but through a communications blunder many planes dropped their bombs the day before, and so inaccurately that 25 American soldiers were killed and 131 wounded. "Some enraged American units," says Max Hastings, "opened fire on their own aircraft, a not uncommon practice among all the armies in Normandy when suffering at the hands of their own pilots.

But worse was to come next day, when the operation was re-mounted.

This time the American line was secretly withdrawn thousands of yards to avoid its being bombed a second time, and this time the bombing was even more incontinent, the bombs now failing on the American line to the tune of 111 killed, including Lt. General Lesley McNair, observing from a forward position, and almost five hundred wounded. Men were torn apart, tanks were tossed around like toys, and troops were driven insane._"

Another example of the precion bombing.

"_Weeks before, on D-Day, 480 B-24s had dropped 1,285 tons of bombs before the landings on Omaha Beach.
This performance had been, as Bradley notes, "completely ineffective," the 13,000 bombs falling well inland to kill only French civilians and their livestock._"

It should be noted that there was very little opposition unlike what would be found over Germany.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 26, 2005)

If I remember correctly, distress flares were lit by the troops under the bombing by their own planes but it was the same colour as the target markers being used that day.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

trackend said:


> re: Bomber accuracy
> I'm Quoting this not to upset anyone only because it was a common saying in the war. I just wonder what was behind it perhaps a few too many friendly fire incidents ?
> 
> " When the British bomb the Germans duck.
> ...


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

Please - don't confuse communications errors which told the bombers to bomb the wrong places with "inaccuracy".

Also, weather had a lot to do with some of the bad bombing near the coast.

And besided, the British also participated in this bombing, with similar results.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Feb 26, 2005)

It was only an observation Loony thats why it was in the form of a question I'm sure you are right personally I believe a lot of the problems the British had was due to poor communications when my father was in hospital not long after d-day he recounted being laid up along side a tank commander whom had suffered server burns (as was the norm for Sherman crews) they had been bombed in a woods by US planes because the chain of command was so long that by the time a message had reach the US flight control via British HQ etc ,etc that the objective had already been taken and it was too late to stop the raid taking place but of course to the lads who got shit on from a great height it was the end result that was all that concerned them to-wit "the Yanks bombed the crap out of us" possible this is why in modern warfare direct ground to air communications are the norm thats not to say friendly fire still doesn't happen (gulf war 90-91 for example)


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 26, 2005)

Bombing over the coarse of the war was not that great. Radio or flare communication was at times very shoddy. 

As for friendly fire, saddly it did and will continue to plage war.

Now this being about the best bomber, may I say the B-24


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

dude the americans "terror bombed" just as much as us, and remember we were bombing by night, it's allot harder............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

I wouldnt say it was very much harder...judging by the loss rates of American bombers and British bombers id say day bombing was harder to get a successful mission...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

but we're talking accuracy not mission success rates, there's a difference, and finding the target by day is much easier than it is by night.........


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 26, 2005)

CC, when it was available the Day bombing was held for military targets. But there was always targets of Oprotunity and of coarse if yu bomb out the house you break the spirit, or well what the USAAC thought. But Germany and Britten both had cities flattened and production not greatly hurt.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> dude the americans "terror bombed" just as much as us, and remember we were bombing by night, it's allot harder............



That's true - vs. Japan. Not against Germany.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but we're talking accuracy not mission success rates, there's a difference, and finding the target by day is much easier than it is by night.........



We wasnt talking about accuracy, nor mission success rates...But I will agree with that. However By day fog and heavy cloud cover can cause problems.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but we're talking accuracy not mission success rates, there's a difference, and finding the target by day is much easier than it is by night.........



That's only partially true. As you know European skies tend to have a lot of clouds. Quite often it was impossible for the USAAF bombers to visually locate their actual IP's, and this effected average "accuracy" tremendously, since they dropped the bombs at that point as best they could. When the weather was clear, US bombing was generally much more accurate than RAF night bombing. RAF night radar bombing was not much effected by clouds, and they flew lower too.

In general, the British considered they'd hit the target if they put a bomb within the city targeted, the US considered they'd hit the target if they put a bomb within about 500 meters of the structure targeted. Different standards entirely!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

but different stratagies for the most part...........

America still carpet bombed though...........


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but different stratagies for the most part...........
> 
> America still carpet bombed though...........



Yes, espeically against Japan. Against Germany it was either done as part of dumping bombs when the target point could not be seen, or at British request.

The British actually wanted the USAAF to night bomb with them, in 1943 Bomber Command believed the German people could be broken in 6 months if the USAAF would do so.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Feb 27, 2005)

There's been a lot of talk of terror bombing mass civilian targeting etc etc I think you,ll find that London was the first target picked for long term mass civilian demoralization raids, the aim being to turn London into a pile of rubble, although it now seems that the old excuse of it was a strategic important target rears its head from ex axis sources as a reason to request an apology for Dresden etc. Sorry but this gaul's me it was total and I mean total war its really easy to sit back and analise the rights and wrongs of the raids sixty years on, hind sight is a wonderful thing but I believe if any of us had been stuck in the blitz or on convoy duties or in the Pacific, island hopping from one slaughter to another the thought of laying waste the enemies home land in revenge would seem like a great idea. (and that includes pushing the atomic button)
There I feel much better for that  

Carry on the discussion lads Im off for a cup of tea


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 27, 2005)

I have no problem with having "terror bombed" the Germans or the Japanese. Both were evil empires who deserved worse than they got.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2005)

altough after the way we treated them after the great war they proberly felt the same about us.............


----------



## trackend (Feb 27, 2005)

Is that why they persecuted their own Jewish,mentally ill, homosexual,ect,ect population to get back at the Evil Allies.
I agree with RG if any war can be called just WW2 was about as close as can be measured.
Oh by the way Lanc bought a double DVD called RAF at war yesterday
great footage of the Tirpitz getting the chop and the submarine pens at Brest having a dose of tallboys as well 2 right through the roof.


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 28, 2005)

Tracked I agree that the war was total and that if you talk with those who did serve most will agree thatin the war all was fair. But after that some made up and old fows were friends. 

But I do not think he area or fire bombing of Germany or Britten was very effective. Japan on the otherhand was!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

well it was decisive but it played a major part, i mean the bombing of germany..........


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 1, 2005)

Yes it did, but it could not slow production. Quality was hurt, and tranportation crippled. But the plans and tanks still were built in caves and underground, they just could not get to the fight.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 1, 2005)

original poster, T. Williams

Professor Richard Overy is one of the foremost historians of WW2 and this was the full conclusion of a lecture about the Allied bombing campaign he gave recently:

"Bombing: The Balance Sheet

The effects of the bombing campaign went far beyond the mere physical destruction of factories and dwelling-houses, although these effects should not be underestimated in a complex and technically sophisticated industrial economy stretched taut by the demands of war. The bombing produced serious social dislocation and a high cost in terms of man-hours (or woman-hours in many cases). Evacuation, rehabilitation and welfare provision were carried out on the largest scale in an economy struggling with serious manpower losses and cuts in civilian production. Bombing also encouraged a strategic response from Hitler which placed a further strain on the war economy by diverting vast resources to projects of little advantage to the German war effort.

The net effect of the many ways in which bombing directly or indirectly impeded economic mobilisation cannot be calculated precisely. But in the absence of physical destruction and dislocation, vvithout expensive programmes for secret weapons and underground production and without the diversion of four-fifths of the fighter force, one-third of all guns and one-fifth of all ammunition to the anti-bombing war the German armed forces could have been supplied with at least 50% more equipment in the last two years of war, perhaps much more. In an environment entirely free of bomb attack the German authorities and German industrial managers would have had the opportunity to exploit Germany’s resource-rich empire in Europe to the full. In 1942 the air force had begun to plan the production of 7000 aircraft a month, yet at the peak in 1944 a little over 3000 were produced, of which one-quarter were destroyed before even reaching the front-line.

Bombing took the strategic initiative away from German forces, and compelled Germany to divert an ever-increasing share of its manpower and resources away from production for the battlefield. As it was, German forces proved a formidable barrier to the end of the war. With more men, more heavily armed, an intact transport system and an uninterrupted flow of industrial resources Germany might well have kept the Allies at bay in 1945. Then the Allies would have faced the agonising decision about whether or not to drop atomic weapons on German cities rather than on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."


----------



## trackend (Mar 3, 2005)

Hes deffinately got a point there Krazi


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 3, 2005)

Definitely, think of all the 88mm used as flak guns when they could have been knocking out tanks


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 3, 2005)

Thanks for that! It is a lot to take in


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

trackend said:


> re: Bomber accuracy
> I'm Quoting this not to upset anyone only because it was a common saying in the war. I just wonder what was behind it perhaps a few too many friendly fire incidents ?
> 
> " When the British bomb the Germans duck.
> ...



I can say this because I am in the US Army right now and it is still a problem today. Today even more so since we have better precision weapons that should not allow this to happen, but we the United States have a problem with killing our own and everyone else whether they be the enemy or our allies when we go to war. It happens all the time, and it happened while I was in Iraq last year. We just have a really bad problem with friendly fire. It sucks.

As for the terror bombing against the Axis. It was done more toward Japan then German. However and I am saying this as a German citizen it was justified, the Germans bombed London and other cities so the Allies bombed Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo and other cities. As was stated by other people in the thread it was total war and total war is ugly and bad things happen. I think it is a shame that it came down to all sides killing civilians (especially the way us Germans did).

As for the Germans demanding apologies for Dresden. (which was covered in another thread a while back) I dont think you realize who is actually asking for this apology. It is not the German government or the average German citizen. It is the NDP and neo nazis. I know this as I live in Germany and see what is going on here. The NDP is basically the Nazi party today, however it is not an official party in the German government and is banned from the German government. As for the neo nazis believe it or not they are just a minority in Germany, there are far many more in places like Russia and the United States. The minority of the neo nazis in Germany are in the former East Germany and I think there hatred comes from the Russian influenced East Germany. Believe the wanted apologies for Dresden are not from the average German, not to say that some are asking for it.

Okay now that that is done. I have to go and eating dinner, when I get back I am going to post some pictures of a B-17G and a B-24 that I took when it came to Hendersonville NC when I lived there a few years ago.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2005)

cool........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

Alright that was good, here are the pics. It was pretty cool, we were able to climb inside and walk around the aircraft. It was extremely cramped inside. The B-17 was called Nine O Nine and the B-24 was called ALL American.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2005)

Very nice! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

that last shot's great.............


----------



## evangilder (Mar 14, 2005)

I saw those last year when they visited Camarillo as well. It is quite an experience to be able to walk through them and see how small they really are inside.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

Ypu should have a look in a Sunderland- they're massive inside. They've even got a galley


----------



## evangilder (Mar 14, 2005)

I'd love to, but I don't think there are any here in the states.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

I think Kermit Weeks has one but I'm not that sure


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2005)

I think these are the ones we were talking about earlier Even.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 14, 2005)

Yes, I do remember that. I don't recall seeing the beer bottle though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2005)

I think there is only one flying Sunderland, owned by RyanAir, but im not sure.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2005)

Well if you are talking about he Short Sunderland flying boats there are actually a few survivors still in flying condition. This link shows you were they are at.

http://www.creationtrek.com/AVIATION/SUNDERLAND.htm


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 14, 2005)

Some great pictures of the B-24 
For al of you interested that plane is owned by the collings foundation and is being repainted to honor the 8th airforce and the ETO as "Witchcraft".
It lived through 130 bomb missions. If you visit the site: http://www.collingsfoundation.org/tour_b-24j.htm you can read more about the bomber.

I am looking forward to seeing this new paint job and have enjoyed reading about the bomber it is honoring and all the others of the ETO and 8th airforce. D)


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

The one I've seen is at Duxford, apart from the Kermit Weeks one I don't know of any others


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Some great pictures of the B-24
> For al of you interested that plane is owned by the collings foundation and is being repainted to honor the 8th airforce and the ETO as "Witchcraft".
> It lived through 130 bomb missions. If you visit the site: http://www.collingsfoundation.org/tour_b-24j.htm you can read more about the bomber.
> 
> I am looking forward to seeing this new paint job and have enjoyed reading about the bomber it is honoring and all the others of the ETO and 8th airforce. D)



Yeah I did not think it would stay All American much longer. The crew was saying something about it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 15, 2005)

i think CC's right, the ryan air example is the only one still left flying...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

I do not know if the other ones fly but they are in flying condition and could fly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 15, 2005)

well there are no sunderlands registered as able to fly on UK registers.............


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 15, 2005)

Were's the RyanAir one stationed?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 15, 2005)

not in the UK i'm pretty sure of that.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

Isn't Ryan Air in Ireland?


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 15, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet: It was "All American" for two years I think, then"Dragon and Tails" for a while. I like the Idea of changing the paint to honor different bombers and crews.

As for the Sunderland Kermit's is flying, but I am not shure of others. His colection is quit nice.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 15, 2005)

Willow, the B-24 has both markings, one on each side. Left side is All American, right side is Dragon and it's Tail. I wonder if the new scheme will be 2 different ones again, or all one scheme.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

Back in 1995 when I saw them it was All American on one side and on the other I cant remember the name. I have a picture of it somewhere but it was a pin up girl sitting on the world and holding a Schlitz Beer.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 15, 2005)

Now that makes sense, Adler, the side with the pinup is now the Dragon holding the topless girl in it's tail. At least it is for now!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

I am going to have to find that pic.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 15, 2005)

I'd love to see it. I will dig out the shots I took of it last year and post them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2005)

Okay I found it, I dont know why I did not scan it. I will scan it tomorrow and put it online. On All American on the other side it is a non nude pin up girl holding a beer, sitting on the world that has wings behind it and the world has a banner draped over it and it says Schlitz.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

Here is the art on both sides as it appeared in April of 2004. I am looking forward to seeing what it looked like when you saw it, Adler. These are crops so that you can see the artwork a bit better.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

Forgot to mention that the vertical stabilizers have different paint as well.

*BTW, These are pictures that I took, so no worries over copyrights.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 16, 2005)

What's all the writing on it?


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

Names of people who sponsored the aircraft by donating money.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

it is a bit of a shame they're on there though............


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

Why? There is an old Hebrew adage that says "It's better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than to not do the right thing at all." I am sure that it was people who donated a substantial amunt of money. I think it is a fitting way to thank them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2005)

Here it is, sorry this is the best pic I have of that side of the bomber.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

i'm not saying it's a bad thing they're on there, it's just it doesn't exactly look original..........


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

Cool shot, Adler. I wonder if Schlitz had some sort of corporate sponsorship to get the logo. Could be the crew chief liked Schlitz though, I suppose.

The names may not look original, Lanc, but there are shots of American bombers with peoples signatures on them for a variety of reasons; 1000th one made, one that has completed 50-100 missions and is sent back to the states for war bonds drives, etc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

i've seen a picture of the B-17 "5-Grand", the 5,000th B-17 produced, signed by employees of boeing, man that thing looks goofy...........


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

Yes, it does look odd, but it was done. They did not fly them into combat that way, that I know of though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

no i wouldn't think they would.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2005)

I think it is a fitting tribute.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 21, 2005)

Thanks all 
I have seen the "Shultz" girl before while looking for nose art but never thought it was the same bomber. I will try to find out if the bomber will be painted all new or just one side. Your pictures are all nice.

Lanc, the names are of volunteers who have worked on the plane and also those who crew her over the summer. It can look odd, but remember how much work gose into this and well the names are a fitting way to say thanks.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

I know how much work it is to keep our aircraft flying on a day to day basis so I can only imagine how one of these grandma's has to be.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 22, 2005)

It must have been quite a workload for these maintenence crews... It's a shame they had to turn to this, and send all the capable men into battle...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

hellmaker said:


> It must have been quite a workload for these maintenence crews... It's a shame they had to turn to this, and send all the capable men into battle...



I am sorry I am dumb, what are you refering to with that last part.


----------



## P-38 Raptor (Mar 23, 2005)

OOOhh, the best bomber of world war 2? That's hard... The B-17, the
B-25, B-29... I don't know.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

oh god he thinks the B-17's a good bomber..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

It was a great bomber, not the best but a great bomber. Sorry man just because it is not built by England or not a Lancaster does not make it a bad bomber.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

yes i'll agree she was a great bomber in the sence that i think of great, but my definition of great isn't the same as how good it was..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

well how good was it then.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

well it's no lancaster...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

It would still take more of a beating and bring its crew home better then a Lancaster, that says alot and you know what I would rather have survivability over speed and bomb load.


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 25, 2005)

Great pics, Evan and Adler !... I really like the B-24, and I thoroughly endorse the signatures idea, so much goes into restoring and maintaining these fine old warbirds......

I too am a staunch fan of the Lancaster, as mentioned I guess, through ALL the posts on this topic....I don't see anything gained by disparaging comments of aircraft, a case of ''mud thrown is ground lost''....We all defend our 'favourites', and rightly so, but one thing that comes up in this instance of 'B-17 vs Lancaster', is it's hard for some to understand why these two aircraft that served at the same time, same place, one at night, one in day, can be so different.....

It was the strategy involved.....

- Those of British ancestry that flew the Lancaster at night, had to follow this course because numerically it was suicidal to fly in daylight .... The Luftwaffe then, held Air Supremacy over Europe, and as they had found-out by bombing England in daylight during the BoB, it was a devastating exercise against a determined RAF Fighter Command.... So the Luftwaffe switched to the 'Blitz' night-bombing.... In reply, the British copied them by bombing at night....

Then the US 8th Air Force arrived in Britain, convinced that with a numerical advantage of heavily-armed and crewed bombers, they could fight their way into Europe to accurately bomb enemy targets....it didn't quite work out, did it ?...the bombers needed fighter escorts, long-range escorts in fact, and the P-38 started in this role, that eventually the P-51 excelled in.....

Meanwhile, RAF Bomber Command with it's lighter-armed, 7 crewed bombers continued night-bombing, always developing and often succeeding in thwarting Luftwaffe Air Defences with radar and radio counter-measures, ever improving it's bombing technique and accuracy...having less crew and guns, they could carry a greater bombload......

It was a battle of two fronts, one by day, one by night...Britain HAD to win, it could not allow Germany to bomb them to defeat and invade, and retaliated by ever increasing destruction via bombing....
To the US, it was a challenge, to try and knock-out the Air Superiority of the Luftwaffe with 10 crewed, multi-gunned bombers while daylight offered 'accurate bombing conditions' in which to hammer German industry.....

Thankfully, both Britain the US won......but the cost was great; - For the 8th AF, escort fighters should perhaps have been a part of their original plan from the beginning....and some see that as a sole reason for the huge losses the 8th AF suffered.... For Britain, while the attrition rate was high, it was usually within a reasonable margin, and Bomber Command used this as a means to judge whether their tactics were working or not...
One thing's for sure, both the Lancaster B-17 aquitted themselves well in terms of absorbable damage, and are both legends in their own right for the destruction they gave and received....
For Britain, it was always about 'economy'....For the US, it's industrial might mean't they could eventually overwhelm the enemy by sheer volume and numbers, as was seen in both the ETO and the PTO..........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 25, 2005)

The shame is that the USA did not devote itself to the idea of fast bombers, rather than heavily armed bombers, before the war started. Had they done so, by the start of 1944 there is no reason they could not have had a 375+ mph cruise (while over contested airspace) @ 30,000 foot bomber capable of carrying a 6,000 lbs bombload. Such a bomber would then decend a little and sprint through its bomb run at speeds in excess of 400 mph. For guns, remote dorsal and belly turrets and a manned 4 gun tail turret would have been sufficient. Fast figthter escorts would of course also have been desirable, but I think a truely fast bomber would have done better than the gunship concept.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2005)

you aint gonna get all them gun turrets on the type of bomber you're talking about, you wouldn't need them either............


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 25, 2005)

Yeah, that's a really good point RG, and the first that springs to mind would be the A-26....There is also the F7F we were talking about, and even the P-38, since it has a good bomb capacity....All these aircrafts' inception and early designs occurred in the late 1930's - 1940, but there was no urgency then, I guess, as the US wasn't involved directly in Europe, and the age of the Long-range heavy bomber was upon the strategic stage....only Germany and Japan figured they wouldn't need them, each anticipating a quick War....

For Britain, there was great urgency, and aircraft like the A-20 Havoc and B-25 certainly helped, what with the Lend-Lease program....Delving through old Aviation books, it's amazing what was going on in US designers' offices....

The advent of the Mosquito was very important, as it heralded the birth of a fast twin-engined bomber to evenly match, if not better the Luftwaffe's Ju-88, an aircraft they never really improved enough on, in Germany, despite the Ju-188, 288, 388 etc...and including the Dorniers and Heinkels.
The Mossie went on to eventually form the LNSF, which was an elite force that not only matched some heavy bombers in capacity, but demonstrated a bombing and attack versatility that was hard to match.

Aircraft like the B-25 did great work and it needed more support earlier than it got with the B-26 Marauder and definately the A-26. Even the US's first jet bomber could have seen service well before WWII finished, but I guess this is where the British and American systems of Aviation development differ...Both the Lancaster and Mosquito came on stream fairly quickly once decisions were made to have them, the UK's need was definately greater than the US at that stage, but I would have thought that with Japan gobbling-up the whole NW Pacific and eyeballing the rest, would've accelerated the B-29 program more, faced with the need for a VLR Bomber to tackle Japan....
It's fascinating to study in hindsight, I guess, it all worked-out in the end, but there were many great designs that could have been developed earlier nonetheless, and that's abit of a shame....In many ways I think we were all quite lucky really, it's one thing if Germany had really got into the 'heavy-bomber', and another if Japan had, but imagine if Russia HAD !!!!


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 25, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you aint gonna get all them gun turrets on the type of bomber you're talking about, you wouldn't need them either............



Why not? Two small remote turrets would not make much drag. They could even be designed only to fire toward the rear. The tail turret would not make much drag at all.

But in all truth, only the tail turret would be needed. It would be very hard to stage any other kind of attack on such a plane.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 26, 2005)

Why didn't the USAAF just have a reverse lend-lease on Mossies and use them as fast bombers, that would've worked a treat


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2005)

Not really big enough. Also, it was not accurate enough to execute high altitude bombing.

The Mossies worked great but only within the context of their usage. Had masses of them been the only opponent, the Luftwaffe could have adapted to them easily, shooting them down when they gave up altitude to bomb their targets.

However, something along the lines of a larger scale Mossie, probably using radial engines, made of metal, is exactly what I was suggesting.

=S=

Lunatic.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

it's not just drag with a turret, it's the extra weight involved......


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's not just drag with a turret, it's the extra weight involved......



Remote turrets were not that heavy, about 500 lbs including two .50's and ammo. Manned turrets were much heavier.

If the tail turret were designed to have good very good coverage, the turrets could be dispensed with. But you don't want high angle diving attacks or especially belly attacks to be able to easily avoid the zone of fire.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2005)

yes that's the turrets plus gunners though........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes that's the turrets plus gunners though........



Yes but two gunners can include the navigator and bombadier. With remote turrets, one gunner can operate two guns if the sighting stations are setup right. Even possibly the tail gunner could have control of the turrets except for when he cannot see the enemy because they are too far forward.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

i still say he's not gonna get two remote turrets, a tail turret, ammo and gunners in a attack bomber and cruise at 375mph+.............


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 27, 2005)

Then the remote turrets would have to go. The tail turret is a must however, and it must have a traverse of at least +/- 80 degrees in all directions.

If the tail turret were in a rotating ball on rotating fork of some kind, and the gunner able to sight from at least two stations (hi and low, maybe two gunners with the ability to flip who controls the turret), it could easily have very large traversal.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

it's still unlikely to happen............


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 27, 2005)

LOL - it's never gonna happen! Unless, that is, we suffer a serious dark ages, enough time goes by for the spent oil under the ground to be reformed, and then somehow humans again rise to the technology of WWII.

 

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)




----------



## Anonymous (Mar 27, 2005)

Umm... the age of sub-sonic prop driven combat aircraft is over!

 

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 27, 2005)

Found this map for range/bombload for the Lanc.

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/range.jpg

Only a couple of miles short of Budapest with 12,000lb.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2005)

yes i too have found that map and find it extremely interesting.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Dont take me wrong in all this argument above, I think the Lanc was a wonderful bomber.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2005)

because she was........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

No argument here, I just dont think she was the greatest thing since Bread and Butter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 29, 2005)

well no that's peanut butter..........


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 29, 2005)

The real problem with this thread is that There were many bombers that were very good at what they did. At face value The Best Bomber can only be the B-29 but there were many truly excellent bombers that did everything asked that contributed to the war.


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 29, 2005)

Lanc or B-17, why not say the B-24 

aS for the A-26 beig the fast atack bomber or B-25 and B-26, of the three the B-25 was the oldest, and the B-16 and A-26 had design problums. I have no dout that the B-24 could have been your fast tour engine bomber if the P-38 program for escorts were used from the start, but operation Torch, needed them more. And the Air Core had a bad idea they were not needed. Yes the USA could put out more aircraft then any other but they two were gettig hit with horific loses in crews. 100,000+ bomber crewman were being held by wars end. 

I was watching Tora. Tora, Tora and had to be sad for the B-17s flying into that mess with now guns and no gas. They got mostly riped appart as they were desperate to land.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

The TU2 was a very good attack bomber too.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 29, 2005)

Yeah, I agree wmaxt....I still gripe about the huge losses initially incurred with the B-29's introduction, but it was it's service that neutralised Japan, and for that we're all grateful.....it does puzzle me why the US didn't get it's first jet-bomber into WWII, it was capable of doing it, and it was the answer in many ways to RG's and my discussion of a 'Fast Bomber'....it's only bomber-competition was the Ar-234, the Bf-262 was a far better interceptor than a bomber....What do you reckon ?........

And Willow, my favourite is the B-24, if it was a choice between the B-17 or B-24...much better range...and it did great Maritime work, indispensable in fact.........


Gemhorse


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2005)

Jets were still too new when the B-29 project was started. A big part of the motivation behind the B-29 was to have something capable of delivering the A-Bomb to any target necessary. This required a range in excess of 3000 miles - something no jet design could hope to achieve within the WWII timeframe.

Actually, the B-29 was very fast - 364 mph @ 25,000 feet. Had it been available in 1943, the German's would have had a very very hard time intercepting it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 29, 2005)

Agreed, the figures I have for the first US Jet bomber only give a range of 1,100 miles, a bombload of 8,000 lb, max speed of 503 mph and ceiling of 38,200 ft.....
The B-29 was really only destined for Japan, but that visit of one to the UK while east-bound certainly worked, as far as what German Intelligence thought...they were worried.......

Gemhorse


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

> Lanc or B-17, why not say the B-24



well what's the point the lanc's better than both...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Lanc or B-17, why not say the B-24
> 
> 
> 
> well what's the point the lanc's better than both...........



I dont buy that, what can you base this argument on? And dont say because it is British or because you say so.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2005)

The Lanc was better - as long as it flew at night.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 30, 2005)

The best Bomber hast to go to the B-29, no doubt. There are a few bombers, which were faster, some could go more precisely and so on but I really don´t see why we should give the title to a faster Ar 232 C (560 mp/h) or the more precisely Lanc (ground radar, wow!). The B-29 remained "state of the art" even years after ww2.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 30, 2005)

The Lanc was the best night bomber for Europe, the B-24 was the best day bomber for Europe and the B-29 was the best bomber for the Pacific


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

i'd also say the lanc was the best in europe overall as well, the lanc bombed by day more than most people think........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

I think the Liberator was better then a Lanc anyday, even though I do think the Lanc was a great aircraft and as RG said if she bombed at night then maybe she was the best LOL.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

how would you say the B-24 was better than the lanc??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

Sure the Lanc could carry more bomb load however the Liberator had better defensive armament and a longer range. But then again if you are going to Bomb at night what do you need the defensive armament for? Plus hey the Liberatior could be used as an inflight refueler!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 1, 2005)

so could the lanc............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Oh really that I did not know?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

yes and here's a picture of a picture to prove it (sorry no scanner)

This picture shows Glostor Meteor F.III EE397 being refueled (the first of it's type to make a "drogue-and-probe" refueling)on April 24th 1949 by the lancaster formally known as PB972

Source for the picture and information- "Avro Lancaster- The Definitive Record" by Harry Holmes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Okay that I did not know but the Lancasters did not even start testing until 1944. The British were the first to play around with inflight refueling, however a B-24 was used as a refueler before the Lancaster in 1943.



> The British Air Ministry, having supported development of in-flight refuelling first by RAE then by Flight Refuelling Limited before WW.2, retained its interest when war broke out. A study was made in 1939 using a Short Stirling bomber, but no tests were conducted; further proposals over the next couple of years were considered impracticable for large scale operations by Air Staff and interest waned.
> 
> Plans were under consideration for airborne attacks on Japan in 1943, but there were no Allied bases near enough to bring the plans to fruition. The Air Ministry decided that conversion of the versatile Avro Lancaster to a tanker would offer a solution, and in February 1944 was prepared to authorise 50 sets of equipment for training and development. The vision of a Very Long Range bomber force of 500 bombers and an equal number of tankers to equip Tiger Force, was never achieved. Two prototype tanker and receiver Lancasters (PB972 and ND648) flew by November, but official enthusiasm was lacking, and during 1945 Pacific bases for Allied air operations became available in increasing numbers.
> 
> ...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

wow didn;t know that either, but the lanc could still do it...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Yes it could, which is something that I did not know.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

so we have both learned something..........

and yes i'm struggling badly to think of stuff to say.............


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 2, 2005)

Hi all this little bit about the B-24 and the Lancaster is great! I would say the two were able to do anything that they were asked of  They both were great for the bombing, supplys, and even troops. The B-24 did have the edge in range, arms and the Costal and Convoy work. I just wish they would have been used sooner. 

As for the B-29, it was great, but the B-24 and the never say die Marienes got the island bases that the B-29 needed! If it was ready and needed the B-29 could have been used and I think would have been, in Europe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

The B-29 was built for a different kind of bombing in mind. It was built to fly higher then anything that could intercept it and it was built to fly at high speeds and carry a high bomb load. It is hard to compare a B-29 to a Lanc, B-17 or B-24. I do agree with you though that the Marines got the bases for the B-29.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

> The B-24 did have the edge in range, arms and the Costal and Convoy work



hey lancs were used extensively in coastal command, admitidly post-war but they still were used, the only reason they weren't used during the war was because bomber command was getting all the lancs for obvious reasons............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 3, 2005)

I believe some Lanc's were used for ASW operations.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

yes and for search and rescue...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2005)

I will admit the Lanc was quite good at coastal work such as ASW and search and rescue.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

amoung other roles........


----------



## GT (Apr 3, 2005)

Liberator was as told before week in the wing. 

Cheers
GT


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

wow they're amazing pictures...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 3, 2005)

To say the least!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 3, 2005)

the 2cd pic - a/c that took a direct flak hit in the wing

*Stevonvitch II* a B-24L 44-49710 of the 779thBD/464thBG 15th AF


----------



## GT (Apr 3, 2005)

It is a draw between B-17 or Lancaster.

Cheers
GT


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 3, 2005)

GT said:


> Liberator was as told before week in the wing.
> 
> Cheers
> GT



The Liberator was "weak in the wings" comapred to the B-17. Compared to the Lancaster, it was probably about equal. The Lancaster was no B-17 either when it came to surviving damage.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

no compared to a B-17 she couldn't take that much damage, but she could take quite a bit..........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no compared to a B-17 she couldn't take that much damage, but she could take quite a bit..........



Probably less than the B-24 though. Where the B-24 carried armor and redundant structure... the Lanc carried bombs.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Apr 4, 2005)

Nice shot, GT! I have been through that airplane several times. That one is based in Mesa Arizona at the CAF chapter there. It is on Falcon Field. For you Brits, Falcon Field was used to train RAF pilots during the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

yes it proberly could take less damage than the B-24, but it also carried more bombs, to me, that makes a better bomber............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes it proberly could take less damage than the B-24, but it also carried more bombs, to me, that makes a better bomber............



Well, that's good for a night bomber. In daylight ops, durability is important too.

It's a series of tradeoffs - no doubt about that! But you really cannot say that a bigger bombload on a more fragile airframe is "better", or the other way around either. They're just different.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes it proberly could take less damage than the B-24, but it also carried more bombs, to me, that makes a better bomber............



You say this only because you would be bombing at night. If you were bombing during the day I would take a B-17 anyday. You forget Lanc during the day you had to contend with more FLAK and more fighters. What you would you rather be sitting on then explosive bombs or armor to keep shrapenel from flying up your ass?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

can i just point out here the lanc made 0ver 40,000 daylight raids, she could bomb by day as well as night.........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 4, 2005)

Um, the Lancaster made 40,000 daylight sorties - big difference.

Most of these were at the very end of the war when there was little Luftwaffe' opposition, or into Northern France or Italy where at least temporary air supremancy could be obtained earlier in the war.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said, "What you would you rather be sitting on then explosive bombs or armor to keep shrapenel from flying up your ass?"

I always thought that Lanc quite fancies things flying up his ass. The Lancaster would be his obvious choice.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

OUCH that would hurt.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

an interestong experience though...........

and i was simply pointing out that the lancaster did bomb by day as well, contrary to popular belief...........


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 5, 2005)

GT, the B-24 was created for range and that wing, thin Mr. Davis had a great vision for the design. the wing worked and the aircraft was used for everything the air core and Navey could come up with.

I am a little sad for this heavy Lancaster bashing even though I am not a great fan


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said, "What you would you rather be sitting on then explosive bombs or armor to keep shrapenel from flying up your ass?"
> 
> I always thought that Lanc quite fancies things flying up his ass. The Lancaster would be his obvious choice.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

Welcome back CC, I hope for you sake you left your GF satisfied.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

turns out it was because he fried his modem............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Which may be related


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Yeah so I heard, I doubt it though if it was related.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 8, 2005)

But you are back 
On the thought of ladies, how could be get more to talk here? I would like to know what they think.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

of who??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

People of the female variety.

MP, a couple of women do post on the site, "The Jagdflieger Pips" and "Crippen". However they have a tendecy to post more in the Off-Topic section that on the Aviation related topics.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 9, 2005)

C.C thanks, but then how can we bring them to Aviation?
Was the Ju-87 the best Dive Bomer?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

well cripps baisically follows anything to do with me or the lancaster, i propose a bit huge lancaster thread over here just for me, cripps, and anyone else who can only say nice things about the lancaster............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Was the Ju-87 the best Dive Bomer?



No, the Dauntless was better in almost every way that counts. The Stuka was SLOW!


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

How's about the Vultee Vengeance, how does that compare as a dive-bomber?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

it's not too shabby actually..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

What about the He-177...


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> What about the He-177...



Plagued with problems (mostly due to the doubled up engines per prop) and not a very stable bombing platform. Hitler's stupidity in action again!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Yep! Why he wanted it to work as a dive bomber I dont know!


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

The Manchester was supposed to be able to dive-bomb aswell


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

i believe he was making a joke about the -177 being so bad wen it got to it's target (sorry IF it gets there) it would break down and DIVE down onto the target.............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yep! Why he wanted it to work as a dive bomber I dont know!



Because the Stuka was so effective early in the war. Hitler could not wrap his puny drug riddled brain around the concept of anything bigger than the tactical war. With him it was either tactics or knockout punches, nothing in-between.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i believe he was making a joke about the -177 being so bad wen it got to it's target (sorry IF it gets there) it would break down and DIVE down onto the target.............



No, it was actually intended for use as a dive bomber...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

yeah i didn't know that


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i believe he was making a joke about the -177 being so bad wen it got to it's target (sorry IF it gets there) it would break down and DIVE down onto the target.............



To quote your message again, I doubt the plane would even make it to the ground, it would explode before it even reached the ground, resulting in a little light "Shrapnel rain" over the target


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

Not really. Hitler had decreed that all bombers should be capable of being dive bombers, and thus no 4 engine bomber development could be pursued.

Heinkel of course knew this was stupid, so they endevoured to work around the decree. I don't think the He117 was ever really intended to be a dive bomber, it was just made capable enough of dive bombing to cover the engineer's asses. But even so, the increase in structure to support dive bombing (rather than to support stable flight and added durability) and the stuffing of two engines into each nacel to drive one prop made the plane unsuitable for its real roll - strategic bombing.

Heinkel also pursued the He277 but by the time Hitler recanted his foolish decree, it was too late to get the true 4 engine (and prop) design into the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

i've always thought that undercarage was a bit strange.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

It is rather. The tail seems very low to the ground too, did it have a tailwheel?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

yes she did...........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

Yeah I was wonder about it too. It does not seem to have anyplace to retract to. I bet this was just a prototype and they hadn't solved the landing gear issues yet????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Aha I just noticed, I though it had a tricycle undercarriage but at a second glance it is a tail dragger.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> C.C thanks, but then how can we bring them to Aviation?
> Was the Ju-87 the best Dive Bomer?



The Stuka was deffinatly not the best Dive Bomber. It was effective at the start of the war but was too slow to be effective later on. I am with RG and would go with the Dauntless.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i've always thought that undercarage was a bit strange.......



Actually the landing carraige did completely pull up into the wheel well. It just looks like that but as you said it was quite strange looking.

Below is a picture of a 177 which had the same undercarraige and shows that they fully retracted. Interesting this one has bombs under the wings aswell as what looks like 2 torpedos under the fuselage.

As was stated by RG the 277 was too late to be even put into production. The Luftwaffe needed fighters not bombers and yes Hitlers obsession wiht dive bombers was crazy.

Henkel He-277

Type: Heavy Bomber, Recce and Anti-Shipping Aircraft
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Models: V1 to V3, B-5, B-6 and B-7 Series
Production: N/A
First Flight: Late 1943
Engine:
B-5:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

B-6:
Jumo 213F
Horsepower: 2,060hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span (B-5): 31.44m (103 ft. 1¾ in.)
Wing span (B-6): 40.00m (131 ft. 2¾ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 22.15m (72 ft. 8 in.)
Height: 6.66m (21 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty (B-5): 21,800kg (48,067 lb.)
Loaded (B-5): 44,490kg (98,096 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 354 mph (570 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range (B-5): 6000km (3,728 miles)
Range (B-6): 7200km (4,474 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:
An attempt by Heinkel to rectify the problems of the He 177 by mounting four single engines in place of the dual coupled engines, the He 277 was originally met with indifference by Goering. Heinkel was actually banned from developing this aircraft and secretly proceeded by designating it the He 177B. During a meeting with Hitler, Heinkel mentioned the aircraft as a solution to a specification Hitler was making. Hitler ordered the type into production, at which point it reclaimed it's legitimate name of He 277. Numerous prototypes were built but on July 3, 1944 production was halted as the German aviation industry focused on fighter production..


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 10, 2005)

It's undercarriage should retract, if it doesn't my model's all wrong!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

I just ment the undercarriage in the photo I posted didn't look like it could fit into the nacel. I suspect the 277 needed bigger gear than the 177, and that photo is of a test plane with non-retractable landing gear.






How are those wheels going to fit into that nacel?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 10, 2005)

They split in 2 so the individual wheels go either side of the engine nacelle


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

I was thinking that but I cant see any places for them go where they would be covered


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 10, 2005)

I don't think they were


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

well they fitted inside the wing, they simply had no covers, like the B-24..........

and it was because there are four main weels that split and go either side of the engine that i said i thought it was strange, and because they're not straight, if you see them from the side they go straight down them protrude forward........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

How do you know so much about the 277? It isnt British


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

i know nothing about the -277 but i know enough about the -177..........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

The tire appears thicker than the wing, so how would it fit into the wing?


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 11, 2005)

The He-277 could have been trouble! If Hitler did not have an obsesion with Dive bombers 
As for the dauntless, I would agree that it was good, but as the war went on it was getting old as well. And it was a carrier plane. Did it see you in the Army Air Core?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

The Dauntless was followed by the Helldiver, which was clearly superior.

But really, the TBF/M Avenger was the workhorse in the Pacific. It could carry up to 2000 lbs of bombs plus 10 HVAR's. Some also carried up to 4 more 500 lbs bombs on the wings. It was not really a true "dive bomber" but it was capable of a fairly steep divebombing attack and it had a real computing bombsight.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

Well every picture of the 277 ive seen the wheels retract completely but as Lanc said they were uncovered. RG you may be correct that the picture you have does not completly though.

Just a question while we are talking about dive bombers, did the English really have a main dive bomber or did they just mainly use ground attack?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

no we didn't have a dedicated dive bomber that was ever really used...........


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 12, 2005)

Actually, there was a He-274 'High-altitude' with 4 x DB603 A-2's version, that also received alot of the 'forbidden' He-277 attention....the wheels retracted as Mossy says, and they do have retractable doors all-round for the undercarriage, it kinda reminds me of the Fw-200 Condor undercarriage....Anyway, it had a different tail, like a Bf-110 but slightly angled.......Yeah, like Willow says, we would've had problems if they had come on stream, and that one Kiwimac used to mention, a real fast Junkers 4 engined I think.......

Britain had the Skua which I think was a dedicated dive-bomber early-on, but the Spitfire, Typhoon and early Mustangs were used for 70 degree dive-bombing with good results....probably others as well....

Dauntless's were my favourite.....we had a bunch of 'em down here....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> and that one Kiwimac used to mention, a real fast Junkers 4 engined I think.......



You mean the Messerschmitt Me-264? Yeah that would have been bad news too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

but not unstoppable for our fighters.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

Well no, but a lot harder to waste than He-111's or Do-17's.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 12, 2005)

Yep
Another dive-bomber the RAF used in the far east was the Vultee Vengeance, it did quite well but I think they got replaced with Thunderbolts


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

I thought of the Vengence but I wasnt really sure if it was a dive bomber or not.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

yes she was, rather good looking too.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

I wouldnt call it good-looking...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

i would.............


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 12, 2005)

Make up your own mind...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

now that's beautiful...........


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 12, 2005)

The Vengance was a good looking piece of kit. For sheer meanness, I reckon the Barracuda was the nastiest-looking of British aircraft


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 12, 2005)

The Beau looks meaner


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

No no, if I saw a Lancaster with sharks mouths on the nacelles, that would be scary 

I agree that the Barracuda looks mean though 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 12, 2005)

I like the looks of the Barracuda. The Vengence ain't the worst looking I've seen, but it's no Barracuda!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

Yeah the Baracuda looks good 8)

The Fairey Firefly was nice too 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

*NOW THIS IS SCARY!*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

Is that a Skyraider? I cant quite tell from that angle. If it is then hell yeah, I agree! 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 12, 2005)

A Vietnam scene?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

YEP - THAT'S CALLED "SMOKIN CHARLIE"


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 12, 2005)

Mmmm, crispy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

Or well done.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

Or fried beyond recognition...


----------



## evangilder (Apr 12, 2005)

Nice shot, flyboy! I love the Skyraider!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

Thanks! - My brother spent 2 years in Viet Nam and says he owes his life to this plane!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 12, 2005)

I am sure there are other skyraider pilot's that would say the same thing. Damn fine plane! I will dig out and post some pics of the one that comes by Camarillo once in a while.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

My Dad flew the Skyraider in Korea - he loved it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

I think that's Skyraider Bob - He keeps his plane at Ramona, He also has a Beautiful L-39


----------



## evangilder (Apr 12, 2005)

Could be, I have seen his plane many times, but have never talked to the pilot. I will post some pics tonight when I get home and see if they look familiar.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

Here are a few shots of the Skyraider that comes by Camarillo. I took these at the staging area for QB-34 on June 14, 2004. Busy day on the ramp that day!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

Yep - That's Skyraider Bob - great guy! His daughter flies too. Like I said, he has an L-39 and I think he owns a T-28 as well. Hate to see his fuel bill!

Thanks for the photos - great shots! 

And let's not forget - a Skyraider can carry as much as a B-17!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

I have photos of the 2 L-39s that fly out of Camarillo at home somewhere. I will see I can dig them out and scan them in to upload. There are about 12 T-28s down at Camarillo in the old alert hangars. There is at least one more at the EAA area as well. 

You're right, his fuel bill must be huge! None of those airplanes are exactly economical on fuel! 

The Skyraider was and is one awesome plane. Sounds great when it flies over too! 

I probably have seen Bob aroound, just never met him personally. We get so many pilots in and out of the museum, I have a hard time keeping track of them all.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

Has that Skyraider been over to Engand, because I've seen one with a similar paint scheme here


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2005)

At Culdrose airshow last year (which was a distaster) A Skyraider taxied up and down the runway and demonstrated the wings folding. No flying because it was insanely foggy which completely ruined the day...


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

I don't know of it ever going to England, but it may have.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2005)

MM, it's a different skyraider over here in england, she's flown by Kennet Aviation, her registration being G-RADR, the easiest way to tell the difference is that ours has "402" on the nose..........


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

Thanks for clearing that up, Lanc. I didn't think that one had been across the pond, but didn't know for sure.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And let's not forget - a Skyraider can carry as much as a B-17!



Not really. For comparatively short distances it could carry about as much as a B-17 could carry over a much longer distance. For short distances, a B-17 could carry much more than it typically did.

Being a carrier plane, it didn't need the range of a B-17.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

But it carried that much weight with only 1 engine.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

evangilder said:


> But it carried that much weight with only 1 engine.



Ya but that is one damn big engine! It was about the size of TWO B-17 engines!


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

Thanks for that Lanc, it was the same colour scheme
The Mossie could carry the same amount as a B-17 and that had 2 engines of similar size to the B-17's


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 13, 2005)

Nice Skyraider pics, evan! That plane was one mean mother!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Thanks for that Lanc, it was the same colour scheme
> The Mossie could carry the same amount as a B-17 and that had 2 engines of similar size to the B-17's



The engines on the Mossie were larger than those of the B-17 and had about 30% more power.

The Mossie carrying 4,000 lbs of bombs could not carry them as far as the B-17 carrying the same bombload. For the same range, one plane vs. one plane, the B-17 could carry 8,000 lbs of bombs as far as the Mossie could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs. However, in practice, forming up time ate a lot of fuel and reduced the typical B-17 bombloads to 4-6,000 lbs.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

ahh, thanks I didn't know that


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2005)

KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

Which explains why the French were useless...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > And let's not forget - a Skyraider can carry as much as a B-17!
> ...



*YEP SHORT DISTANCE, LIKE FROM DA NANG AB TO HUE*


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

The Skyraider could go further, but to do so it had to carry drop tanks, which reduced the payload.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 14, 2005)

Some nice Skyraider pics 
Saddly the plane was a little tolate for the war, and was probable the last great prop design. 

Now i know you all think the the He-111 was not that great, but I like it and the greenhouse nose has great vision. If they could have been able to clean it up more and get engins and arms, maybe range, then they had a great tatical bomber.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

but they still didn't have a heavy bomber...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

Well they did with the He-177, but that was so damn unreliable theres no point counting it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

exactily, you realise when i say "they didn't have a heavy bomber" i mean they didn't have one that saw allot of service and made an impact on their war effort.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

No, you said "They still didnt have a heavy bomber" which is implying, straight and true, that they didnt have one full stop. I know you meant otherwise though.
The He-177 has to be their only heavy that came close to making an impact though, and I think it saw a fair amount of service.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

i still don't considder it was significant enough to allow us to say the germans had a heavy bomber.........


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 14, 2005)

Great Skyraider pics, Evan !!!....I recall reading an article about the 'Father Daughter' team, in a FLYPAST magazine I think, she also flys a T-28 Fenec too......

Gemhorse


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> exactily, you realise when i say "they didn't have a heavy bomber" i mean they didn't have one that saw allot of service and made an impact on their war effort.........



That you are correct, they had several projects but none that made into service. The whole German heavy bomber program was started too late anyhow and enver would have been able to make an impact on the war.

Dornier Do-217

Type: High Altitude Bomber
Origin: Dornier-Werke GmbH
Models: V1, V2 and B
Production: 6 Prototypes
First Flight: 1941
Engine:
V1 V2: Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted V12
Horsepower: 1,750hp
Number: 2

B: Daimler-Benz DB 610A/B double engines*
Horsepower: 2,870hp
Number: 2
*2 x DB 605

Fuel/Fluids:
Fuel Capacity: N/A
Type: N/A
Lubricant Capacity: N/A
Type: N/A
Hydraulic Fluid Capacity: N/A 
Type: N/A

Dimensions:
Wing span (V1 V2): 20.65m (67 ft. 8.25 in.)
Wing span (B): 25.90m (85 ft.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 16.80m (55 ft. 1.5 in.)
Height: 5.45m (17 ft. 10.5 in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty: N/A
Loaded (B): 24,000 kg (52,910 lbs.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed (V1): 373 mph (600 kph)
Maximum Speed (B): 416 mph (670 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range (B, without auxiliary bomb-bay tank):
3600km (2,237 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
Do 317 V1:
Bombload of six 1,102 lb. (500kg) bombs in internal bomb bay.

Do 317B:
Bombload of 12,346 lb. (5600kg) in internal bomb bay
Plus
Two 3,968 lb. (1800kg) bombs on wing racks.

Avionics:
N/A



> Essentially a development of the Do 217 with a new fuselage and pressurized cabin. The later B model had more powerful engines, long-span wing, remote-control barbette cannons and a much heavier bomb load. Six B model prototypes were built, though only the first included the pressurized cabin. The remaining five were redesignated Do 217R and issued to III/KG 100 at Orleans-Bricy to launch Hs 293 missles. No further examples were built and the Do 317 programme was abandoned.
> http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/do317.html



Heinkel He-277

Type: Heavy Bomber, Recce and Anti-Shipping Aircraft
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Models: V1 to V3, B-5, B-6 and B-7 Series
Production: N/A
First Flight: Late 1943
Engine:
B-5:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

B-6:
Jumo 213F
Horsepower: 2,060hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span (B-5): 31.44m (103 ft. 1¾ in.)
Wing span (B-6): 40.00m (131 ft. 2¾ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 22.15m (72 ft. 8 in.)
Height: 6.66m (21 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty (B-5): 21,800kg (48,067 lb.)
Loaded (B-5): 44,490kg (98,096 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 354 mph (570 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range (B-5): 6000km (3,728 miles)
Range (B-6): 7200km (4,474 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A



> An attempt by Heinkel to rectify the problems of the He 177 by mounting four single engines in place of the dual coupled engines, the He 277 was originally met with indifference by Goering. Heinkel was actually banned from developing this aircraft and secretly proceeded by designating it the He 177B. During a meeting with Hitler, Heinkel mentioned the aircraft as a solution to a specification Hitler was making. Hitler ordered the type into production, at which point it reclaimed it's legitimate name of He 277. Numerous prototypes were built but on July 3, 1944 production was halted as the German aviation industry focused on fighter production..
> http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he277.html



Heinkel He-274

Type: High Altitude Heavy Bomber 
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG (later assigned to SAUF, Suresnes, France)
Models: V1 and V2
Production: Two prototypes
First Flight: December 1945 by the French
Engine:
Daimler-Benz DB 603A-2 inverted turbocharged V12
Horsepower: 1,850hp
Number: 4

Dimensions:
Wing span: 44.20m (145 ft. 2¼ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length: 23.80m (78 ft. 1¼ in.)
Height: 2.10m (6 ft. 10½ in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 21,300kg (46,964 lb.)
Loaded: 38,000kg (83,786 lb.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed (Sea Level): 267 mph
Maximum Speed (11,000m): 360 mph (580 kph)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range: 4250km (2,640 miles)
Initial Climb: N/A
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: 46,915 ft (14,300m)

Armament:
N/A

Avionics:
N/A



> Originally designated He 177 A-4, the He 274 was a high-altitude development of the He 177. Like the He 277, the He 274 dispensed with coupled engines and mounted four single powerplants. While originally considered a version of the He 177, growing incompatability of parts led to the redesignation to He 274 and reassignment of the project to SAUF. French resistance workers conspired to slow down development of the He 274 so that the prototypes were not ready at the time of the German withdrawal in July 1944. The French took possession of the prototypes and redesignated them ASA 01A. The prototypes finally flew in December 1945 with French markings.
> http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he274.html



Henschel Hs-130

Type: High-Altitude research (Hs 128),
Recon (Hs 130A, E) Bomber (Hs 130B, C)
Origin: Henschel Flugzeugwerke AG
Models: Hs 128 V1 and V2, Hs 130A-series, B,
C-series, D, E-series and F
First Flight: V1: 1939, 130E: Sept. 1942
Production: N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine: 
V1: Daimler-Benz DB 600 with DVL turbochargers
Number: Two Horsepower: 1,175hp

V2: Jumo 210 with two-stage turbochargers
Number: Two Horsepower: N/A

C: DB 603
Number: Two Horsepower: 1,850hp

E: DB 603B supercharged by DB 605T in the fuselage.
Number: Two Horsepower: 1,860hp

F: BMW 801TJ
Number: Four Horsepower: 1,800hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions: 
Wing span:
Hs 130V1: 85 ft. 4½ in.)
Hs 130A-0: 29.00m (95 ft. 1¾ in.)
Hs 130E-0: 33.00m (108 ft. 3¼ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Length:
Hs 130A-0: 14.95m (49 ft. ½ in.)
Hs 130E-0: 22.00m (72 ft. 2 in.)
Height:
Hs 130A-0: 4.90m (16 ft. 1 in.)
Hs 130E-0: 5.60m (18 ft. 4½ in.)
Weights:
Empty:
Hs 130A-0: N/A
Hs 130E-0: 12,200kg (26,900 lb.)
Loaded:
Hs 130A-0: 11,680kg (25,750 lb.)
Hs 130E-0: 18,100kg (39,900 lb.) 
Performance: 
Maximum Speed:
Hs 130A-0: 292 mph (470 kph)
Hs 130E-0: 379 mph (610 kph)
Range:
Hs 130A-0: 1,385 miles (2230km)
Hs 130E-0: 1,860 miles (3000km)



Armament: C-Bomber
Two Twin MG 131 barbettes
One MG 15 in tail

Bomb Load: C-Bomber
8,816 lb (4000kg



> This virtually unknown aircraft was the result of a conversation between Dr. Seewalf of DVL and Henshel regarding a high altitude research aircraft. This aircraft would be used to test pressurized cabins and DVL's new turbochargers and led to the Hs 128 V1 being flown in 1939 at Aldershof. The later Hs 128 V2 differed only in the engine choice and was expected to exceed 50,000 feet.
> Three prototypes of the Hs 130A recon airframe flew by November 1940, equipped with remote control cameras. Initially having a shorter wingspan than the Hs 128, this eventually grew to be significantly larger and sported a variety of DB 601 and 605 powerplant configurations. The Hs 130B bomber was never built.
> Three prototype of the Hs 130C bomber were built and included armaments and a crew of 4
> The E model was the final development of the Hs 130, the F model was never completed, and some E variants later flew to nearly 50,000ft.
> http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs130.html



Junkers Ju-287

Type: Heavy Bomber
Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerks AG
Model: V1 to V3
Crew: V3: Three
First Flight:
Ju 287 V1: August 16, 1944
Ju 287 V2: 1947 by Soviet Union
Number of Flights: V1: 17
Number Produced: 2, (V3) not completed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Ju 287 V1 V2:
Model: Junkers Jumo 004
Type: Turbojets
Number: Four Thrust: 1,980lb (900kg)
Note: Four 2,645lb (1,200kg) thrust Walter 501 takeoff
assistance rockets also mounted.

Ju 287 V3:
Model: BMW 003A
Type: Turbojets
Number: Six Thrust: 1,760lb (800kg)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Span: 65 ft. 11¾ in. (20.11m)
Length:
Ju 287 V1: 60 ft. 0½ in. (18.30m)
Height: N/A
Wing Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 12,510kg
Loaded: 20,000kg
Performance:
Maximum speed:
Ju 287 V1: 560km/h (348mph)
Ju 287 V3: 865kn/h (537mph)
Range with max. bombs (est.):
Ju 287 V3: 1585km (985 miles)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Two MG 131 in remote control tail barbette.

Bombs: Ju 287 V3
8,818 lb. (4000 kg)



> One of the strangest Luftwaffe aircraft to ever claw it's way into the air was the Junkers Ju 287. Begun in early 1943, the Ju 287 incorporated many advanced aerodynamic concepts, the most striking being the swept forward wings. This design feature was deemed radical enough to warrent the construction of a testbed aircraft, pictured above. This testbed flew on August 16, 1944. The aircraft was a Frankenstien's monster, pieced together from several diffent aircraft. Included were the nosewheels from two B-24 Liberators, the fuselage of an He 177, mainwheels off a Ju 352, and the tail was constructed of Ju 388 parts.
> 17 test flights proved the concept to have excellent handling characteristics and would have proven a problem had not the allies overrun the testing airfield, capturing the the V1 and the nearly complete V2. The V2 was flown by the Soviet Union in 1947. The V3 failed to get off the drawing board and would have had several improvements.
> http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ju287.html



Junkers Ju-390

Type: Long Range Bomber or Reconnaissance aircraft.
Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke AG
Models: V1 to V3 and A-1
Crew: N/A
First Flight: Prototypes only
Final Delivery: None
Number Produced: V1 and V2 Only

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine: 
Model: BMW 801E
Type: 18-Cylinder two-row radial
Number: Six Horsepower: 1,970 hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span: 165 ft. 1 in. (50.30m)
Length: 112 ft. 2.5 in. (34.20m)
Height: 22 ft. 7 in. (6.89m)
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights: 
Empty: 81,350 lb. (36,900 kg)
Loaded: 166,448 lb. (75,500 kg)
Performance:
Maximum Speed:
Clean: 314 mph (505 kph)
With Max. Eternal Weapons: 267 mph (430 kph)
Initial Climb: N/A
Service Ceiling (Typical): N/A
Range in Recce configuration:
6,027 miles (9700 km)
Endurance in Recce configuration: 32 Hours

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Eight 20mm MG 151.
Eight 13mm MG 131.

Payload:
Transport (V1): 22,046 lb. (10,000 kg)
Bomber (V3): 3,968 lb. (1800 kg)

Avionics:
FuG 200 Hohentwiel Radar.


Junkers Ju-488

Type: Heavy Bomber
Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke AG
Models: V401-406
First Flight: None
Service Delivery: None
Final Delivery: None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerplant:
Ju 488 V401-402:
Model: BMW 801TJ
Type: Radials
Number: Four Horsepower: 1,890 hp

Ju 488 V403-406:
Model: Jumo 222A-3/B-3
Type: Multi-banked liquid cooled
Number: Four Horsepower: 2,500 hp
Dimensions:
Wing span: 31.27m (102 ft. 7¾ in.)
Length: 22.23m (76 ft. 3 in.)
Height: 6.10m (20 ft. 0 in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 21,000kg (46,297 lb.)
Maximum: 36,000kg (79,366 lb.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 690km/h (429mph)
Initial climb: N/A
Range (fully loaded): 2,113 miles (3400km)
Service Ceiling: N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament: N/A



> The Ju 488 could be described as a mad man's jigsaw puzzle. Comprised of pieces from the Ju 88, Ju 188, Ju 288 Ju 388, the 488 was an impressive four-engined bomber. The first two prototypes were destroyed by Maquis in July 1944. The program was dropped in November 1944.
> http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ju488.html



Messerschmitt Me-264

Type: Ultra Long Range Bomber
Origin: Messerschmitt AG
Engines:
Four 1,700 hp BMW 801D or G 18-cylinder radials

Dimensions:
Span: 43m
Length: 20.90m Height: 4.30m

Weights:
Empty 46,627lb.
Max. Loaded 123,460lb.
Performance:
Max. Speed: 565km/h (351mph)
Max range at 217mph 9,321 miles



> The Me 264 was designed from the begining as an 'Amerika' bomber. It's goal was to be able to carry a small load to the United States and return or a heavier load and ditch at sea and the crew picked up by U-boat.
> The first prototype flew in December 1942, but soon allied presure forced Messerschmitt to slow development and the prototypes were eventaullay destroyed by Allied bombing.
> http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me264.html


[/quote]


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

yes i'm aware of some of their ither designs however i'm always doubtfull of figures for planes that never really saw service as we don't know they could have done it in combat.......


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 15, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The engines on the Mossie were larger than those of the B-17 and had about 30% more power.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



Mossie - 3300ci
B-17 - 7280ci

Now which a/c had the greater displacement?

Mossie - 3200hp
B-17 - 4800hp

Now which a/c had the more power?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2005)

Which equates to 1600hp per engine for the Mossie and 1200hp per engine for the B-17, which is less than the Mossie's, which is the point I believe RG was tring to make.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes i'm aware of some of their ither designs however i'm always doubtfull of figures for planes that never really saw service as we don't know they could have done it in combat.......



That is true.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 16, 2005)

Some good work with the bombers. 

I know that you all will not like this but what the hell! The Germans could have used the P-108, taken it made it better and used it. That would have given them a 4 engine bomber in 1943  So now you can all argue about it. Any thoghts for me new sig?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

Ah, MP, Now youre making sense! 8) Hey, they could have had it pre-1943 if they wanted. First flew in 1939, introduced into service in 1941 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Ah, MP, Now youre making sense! 8) Hey, they could have had it pre-1943 if they wanted. First flew in 1939, introduced into service in 1941 8)



I dont think they could have handled the production with the other projects taht they had and needed more.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, I'm sorry folks, my money sticks with the B-29 all-around, its stats, performance and legacy speaks for its self! besides, it's just beautiful! =D>


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

And I agree on the B-29.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

They were so good, the Brits used them in the 50s. (I think they just knew a good thing when they saw it  ) SORRY LANC - I JUST HAD TO GET THAT IN!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

Yeah the B-29 was undoubtedly the best bomber of the war 8) If the P.108 had continued development then I might be inclined to say otherwise...


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 17, 2005)

Boeing B-29 Superfortress


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

> They were so good, the Brits used them in the 50s. (I think they just knew a good thing when they saw it ) SORRY LANC - I JUST HAD TO GET THAT IN!



that is quite alright, and you are correct, we did use about 80 Washingtons (that's what we called them), but we only used them until we got the lincoln into service............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

And remember, the B-29 was so good, the Ruskies had to steal it!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

they didn't steal it, it just so happened they were designing a plane that looked exactly the same as the B-29


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> they didn't steal it, it just so happened they were designing a plane that looked exactly the same as the B-29


Right down to the last bolt. What were the chances of that, eh?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

i know it's amazing isn't it!!


but hey the russians had a lanc as well you know..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

"A" Lanc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

yes, one lancaster, with parts from annother............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

I'd like to see a photo of that!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

sadly there aren't thought to be any in existance


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

Would of loved to see that one


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

I guess when the Ruskies copied the B-29 right down to the rivet, even the rudder pedals (which are a casting) retained the Boeing Logo on them!


----------



## trackend (Apr 18, 2005)

I thinkl the B29 was probabably the best bomber of WW2 due to technolgical advances, but I think the Lanc was the more successfull due to the length of its operational combat service.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2005)

I could live with that!


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2005)

The best bomber to have seen any action during WW2 is the B-29, no doubt.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2005)

> I thinkl the B29 was probabably the best bomber of WW2 due to technolgical advances, but I think the Lanc was the more successfull due to the length of its operational combat service.



good save at the end there..........


----------



## trackend (Apr 18, 2005)

Talk about sitting on the fence I must be somewhere in the Azores


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2005)

to be honest it just sounds like you don't want to upset me


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2005)

From everything I have been told and read Lanc, there were 2 of them used. But I am not very sure of myself on this and you may be right with only one.



> According to the translated article, a combined Soviet and British force took part in 'Operation PARAVAN' in September 1944 against the German battleship Tirpitz which was sheltering in Alten fjord in Norway. Although damaged, Tirpitz still posed a threat to the convoys sailing between Great Britain and the Soviet Union.
> 
> From 0600 hrs on 12 September 1944 - 38 Lancasters, two Liberator transports and a single reconnaissance Mosquito were deployed to YAGODNIK aerodrome in the Archangel area. The Lancasters came from 617 and 9 squadrons and were a mix of Lancaster I's and III's specially adapted to carry 12,000lb 'Tallboy' bombs in a bulged bomb bay.
> 
> ...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2005)

from what i know the second aircraft was used as spares for the first..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2005)

Like I said you may be right.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 18, 2005)

Nice bit on the Lancs in Russian stars. As for the Russian B-29s I have read about that program and well they did a lot of good reverse engineering and origanal work to get the program to work. 

CC the P.108 would have been good under german hands and I think that production could have been available for it. Maybe in Italy but with German engineers!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2005)

i don't think it had what it takes.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2005)

Why not?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

I dont think it was that bad of a bomber.

Piaggio P.108B
The Piaggio P.108 was as good a bomber as any in the world. And was the only four engined bomber used by Regia Aeronautica. First flown Nov 1939, the P.108 went into service in May 1941. Crew conversion took quite awhile, delaying operationl deployment until June 1942. The main area of operations for the P.108's were bombing Gibraltar and Algeria. In Sep 1943 surviving P.108's were seized by the Germans, who never used them operationally. Although less then 40 P.108's were built, it stands as a testimony to the Italians to be able to field such a modern aircraft, while being hamper by a very serious lack of resources. 

POWERPLANT: Four Piaggio P.XII RC 35 18 Cylinder radial air-cooled 
MAXIMUM SPEED: 261 MPH (420 KM/H) 
CEILING: 26,400 ft (8,050 m) 
RANGE: 2,100 miles (3,520 km) 
ARMAMENT: Eight 12.7 mm Breda SAFAT MG 
BOMBLOAD: 7,700 LBS (3,500 KG)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2005)

well how reliable was she?? could she take much damage?? how was the crew accomodation??


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2005)

Lanc, I will try to look for that. but it did have documented engine problums, the Italians could not get that fixed and were never given the funds to realy try.

Damage, it was ok I think, C.C might know better. The raids on "The Rock" and into North Africa did show she could take some hits, but also a spitfire could take her down.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 19, 2005)

Wouldn´t the Fw-191 A be a pretty good bomber? Not produced in numbers because of stupid decisions by RLM. But it was really a capable weapon, comparable, if not better than the He-177. The first prototype has to use electrical power assist (Tank don´t wanted to use that much of it) and became prone to malfunction. The next have been the same, the sixth prototype (Fw-191 V-6, became the origin of the Fw-191 A-series) was redesigned for hydraulic power assist and it proved to be an excellent plane. And very reliable. RLM postponed the design in favour of the Ju-288, lately all bomber -b projects have been cancelled because of the lack of high hp-engines (focke wulf redesigned it for other engines, but RLM refused these ideas, too.)
Fw-191 A
twin engined medium bomber, 1942
Engines: two DB 610 with 2950 hp each
(or two Jumo-222 with 1800 hp or two DB 606 with 2700 hp or four DB 601 E with 1200 hp)
spanwidth: 26,00 m (~85 ft)
length: 19,63 m (~65 ft)
height: 5,60 m (~ 18ft)
wing surface: 70, 50 m² (~235 ft²)
weight: 11545-16300 kg (depends on engine) (~25400 lbs-35860 lbs.)
take off weight: 23600 kg (~51920 lbs) 
top speed (at 5000m / 15000 ft): 605 Km/h (~376 mp/h)
cruise speed (at 5000m / 15000 ft): 505 Km/h (~313 mp/h)
initial (sustainable) climb: 1150 m/min (~3400 ft/min)
time to altitude: 21 min to 6000 m (~19000 ft)
range: 3500 km (2174 miles)
service altitude: 9100 m (~30000 ft)
total armor: 1450 kg (3190 lbs), self sealing fuel tanks 
usual bomb load: 4000 kg ( 8800 lbs, capable to take two Hs-293 or two LT 950) overloaded condition could allow up to 6000 kg (13200 lbs) bombload with reduced range
military equipment: chin turret: 1 MG 151/15
top turret: 2 MG 151/15 (Z) 
gondola remotery controlled guns: 2 MG 81
remotery controlled tail turret: 2 MG 151/15 (Z)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Lanc, I will try to look for that. but it did have documented engine problums, the Italians could not get that fixed and were never given the funds to realy try.
> 
> Damage, it was ok I think, C.C might know better. The raids on "The Rock" and into North Africa did show she could take some hits, but also a spitfire could take her down.



I dont think it was ever used eneugh to really tell.



delcyros said:


> Wouldn´t the Fw-191 A be a pretty good bomber? Not produced in numbers because of stupid decisions by RLM. But it was really a capable weapon, comparable, if not better than the He-177. The first prototype has to use electrical power assist (Tank don´t wanted to use that much of it) and became prone to malfunction. The next have been the same, the sixth prototype (Fw-191 V-6, became the origin of the Fw-191 A-series) was redesigned for hydraulic power assist and it proved to be an excellent plane. And very reliable. RLM postponed the design in favour of the Ju-288, lately all bomber -b projects have been cancelled because of the lack of high hp-engines (focke wulf redesigned it for other engines, but RLM refused these ideas, too.)
> Fw-191 A
> twin engined medium bomber, 1942
> Engines: two DB 610 with 2950 hp each
> ...



I think she could have been capable had she been produced ealier and actually entered service. However I think she would have had to have entered service around 1942.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2005)

thing is we don't know enough about the P.108 to say if it would have been that sucessful or not as stats don't tell you everything...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

However the P.108 saw service.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 20, 2005)

I'm amazed the Luftwaffe didn't use the Fw200 as a heavy bomber- it had the range


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 20, 2005)

Great post earlier, Adler, of Germany's potential heavy-bombers....
I'm abit suspect of the Do-217 performance figures, I've only got the Do-217N-2's figures, but I'm sure they were never ever that quick.....

However, the Ju-287 was destined for greater things, it's unique wing configuration, forward-swept wing [FSW], was later researched and tested as the Grumman X-29 around 1976, and aspects of the technology gained has been used in F-4, F-14 and F-15 developments. The only aircraft to reach a reasonable quantity of production as a FSW design has been the Hamburger HFB-320 Hansa biz-jet, so far, but the Junkers design was certainly years ahead of it's time.......

The B-29 design was 'stolen' by Russia, as I posted awhile back....they really loved that rear turret configuration, you'll notice they've employed that for years afterwards in many designs !!
I agree with Trackend's statement concerning the 'B-29 as Best Bomber'...[mumble, mumble]....

Mossy states the Fw-200 should have been a bomber, which I indeed thought was a good idea, but it's service as a maritime raider was very good, it was a real thorn in the Allies ass in the Atlantic. I think the reason it wasn't further developed as a bomber had a lot to do with a structural weakness peculiar to the Fw, just behind the wing structure in the fuselage; - I've seen photos somewhere in my reading where they had a tendency to 'break-their-back' on heavy landings or such.....

Basically though, Germany failed in the heavy-bomber stakes, not through any bad designs or such, they indeed had some bloody good designs - They failed directly through the dickhead in charge, Hitler, who I guess was consumed by the success of the earlier ''Blitzkreig'' strategy, not forseeing that the day would come when a Bomber Offensive combined with Air Superiority was the only way to win a war....Thank God the Allies were thinking clearly, or we would've been in trouble if some of those good designs saw fruition.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2005)

yes i was going to raise the point about the Fw-200, she did have range but like most german bombers her payload was unimpressive, as was her defensive armourment, and it terms of damage tollerance she was worse than the lancaster!! she really was weak and i too have seem the pictures of them break their backs on landing, structually very weak...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2005)

You know Lanc, you bring up a good point. from what I understand the FW 200 had little structural modification between its civilian and combat configuration. As you said, many FW 200s broke in half on landing and also had other structural failures. I guess it could be said that you can't always take a good civilian plane, hang armament on it and go fight!

During the early 1980s I worked at Lockheed on the P-3. I could tell you that although most of the P-3 looked like the Electra, at least 3/4 of the aircraft was modified with beefier structure. We always knew what was an original Electra part and what was designed specifically for the P-3 by the part number. Except for some quality problems during manufacture, she held up pretty well over the years.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Basically though, Germany failed in the heavy-bomber stakes, not through any bad designs or such, they indeed had some bloody good designs - They failed directly through the dickhead in charge, Hitler, who I guess was consumed by the success of the earlier ''Blitzkreig'' strategy, not forseeing that the day would come when a Bomber Offensive combined with Air Superiority was the only way to win a war....Thank God the Allies were thinking clearly, or we would've been in trouble if some of those good designs saw fruition.....



That you are absolutely correct. They had decent designs but they did not start any soon eneogh. They needed to have a good heavy bomber in service in numbers before the war started.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 21, 2005)

I doubt a little bit:
In general spoken, I denie that Germany (1942-1945) had the industrial capabilities to field a heavy bomber force in numbers. It would take too much fuel, training capabilities (with some bad long range fighter sweeps over Germany from late 1943 on..), ressources and precious time to do so. Remember the He-177. Just think of it as a pretty bomber (it wasn´t thanks to unreliable engines), in mid 1944 with most problems fixed, it was introduced in numbers and: It just played sitting duck for most of it´s time. There simply wasn´t enough fuel to fly multiple sorties a month and continue to train rookies for replacing the losses. A strong heavy german bomber force (containing whatever plane) would reduce the numbers of fighters further. And are there enough targets for them? What reasonable target should they bomb? Cities like London? That´s even more a worse choice..
No, I think Germany simply lacked in basics like strategy, escort fighters, fuel and useful bomber tactics for such operations.
Jet bombers on the other hand, even smaller like the Ar-234 B´s or (my favourite...) the few Ar-234 C´s would easily trace to another story.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2005)

however jet bombers like the -234 we never gonna have much of an impact..........


----------



## delcyros (Apr 21, 2005)

While it is true that you say that jetbombers did not have any significant impact on world war two, it is wrong that they couldn´t have made a bigger impact. Jetbombers allow new tactics, in case of the Ar-234 allowing to ignore air cover over targets and pursuing fighter to a very high degree. It has to be noted that they made really big impressions to air commanders in the closing months of ww2. Thats what we can call future. And the future belongs to jet driven planes... 
(Or are you going to denie this?)
8)


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 21, 2005)

Yes it was the future, but the future didn't come quick enough and in enough numbers to stop the defeat of Nazi Germany


----------



## tail_gunner (Apr 21, 2005)

Best bomber? Has anyone considered, in terms of importance to the outcome of the war, The Dauntless Dive Bomber?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I doubt a little bit:
> In general spoken, I denie that Germany (1942-1945) had the industrial capabilities to field a heavy bomber force in numbers. It would take too much fuel, training capabilities (with some bad long range fighter sweeps over Germany from late 1943 on..), ressources and precious time to do so. Remember the He-177. Just think of it as a pretty bomber (it wasn´t thanks to unreliable engines), in mid 1944 with most problems fixed, it was introduced in numbers and: It just played sitting duck for most of it´s time. There simply wasn´t enough fuel to fly multiple sorties a month and continue to train rookies for replacing the losses. A strong heavy german bomber force (containing whatever plane) would reduce the numbers of fighters further. And are there enough targets for them? What reasonable target should they bomb? Cities like London? That´s even more a worse choice..
> No, I think Germany simply lacked in basics like strategy, escort fighters, fuel and useful bomber tactics for such operations.
> Jet bombers on the other hand, even smaller like the Ar-234 B´s or (my favourite...) the few Ar-234 C´s would easily trace to another story.



I generally agree but they had the oppurtunity before the war and that was a mistake.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2005)

delcyros said:


> While it is true that you say that jetbombers did not have any significant impact on world war two, it is wrong that they couldn´t have made a bigger impact. Jetbombers allow new tactics, in case of the Ar-234 allowing to ignore air cover over targets and pursuing fighter to a very high degree. It has to be noted that they made really big impressions to air commanders in the closing months of ww2. Thats what we can call future. And the future belongs to jet driven planes...
> (Or are you going to denie this?)
> 8)



you are forgetting i said jet bombers like the -234 weren't going to have an impact on the war, simply because their payload was too small, they could deliver little more than a fighter bomber and no i'm not trying to deny that jet bombers were the future...........


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 22, 2005)

The Dauntlass did a lot for the outcome of the war. It also did a little bit of everything and had a good carrier in the Atlantic as well. 

Question on Jet bombers, the speed would be fast for good consistant bomb runs. So I think they would have to slow down into the run and would be caught by fighters or flack.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2005)

well at this stage they weren't suited to mid/high altitude bombing because of their speed.........


----------



## delcyros (Apr 23, 2005)

The Dauntless. Without doubt one of the greatest bomber! The problem with this poll is that anyone will define "best" either technically or historically. While I agree that the dauntless played historically an important role, it also suffered in performance figures (compared to late war designs). The best overall agreed solution might be (in my view) the B-29. It has impact as well as performance, deployment in numbers and historical importance.
The Arado jet bomber isn´t that bad. It has a light payload for the B-model (3300 lbs at 410 mp/h) and the four engined C-model could carry medium payload (overloaded) with 5500 lbs at 453 mp/h. Usual approach tactics included a swallow dive at around 500 mp/h. I estimate that the Lotfe bombsight (could) have problems with such a high airspeed, but Askania finished development of a computing bombsight for high speed purposes in february 1945. This bombsight should be used in Hs-132, too. Beside of this, the B-model could disappear at 462 mp/h and the C- model at 560 mp/h in level flight. In case of the C-model it´s even a high speed to intercept for a P-80 or Meteor MK-IV or isn´t it?
The enlarget He-343 was able to carry 6.600 lbs at decent speed (max 565 mp/h without and 488 mp/h with payload) for a decent range (1000 miles) at a decent altitude (max 50.000 ft, usual 35.000 ft), but the design was in prototype stage, only. 
The largest jetbomber to fly under prototype conditions of ww2, the Ju-287 (V-1 and V-2 testbed,V-3 and following development under soviet controll) with six BMW-003 should carry 9.900 lbs bombload at 505 mp/h and 1000 miles range and (max) 35.000 ft altitude. Development included more powerful engines as well as more bombload in the Soviet Union.
I regard these designs as the "technically" best. However, they not contributed much (better anything..) to the outcome of ww2. Do you think, this should exclude them here?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 23, 2005)

I've always liked the Ar-234, always thought that Hitler's preoccupation with bombers was not only back-to-front, but so was his strategies...The Ar-234 would've been interesting with heavy, forward-firing armament and RP's...But the dream of jets n' nukes n' rockets were Hitler's plan to overide the creeping destruction Allied bombing was inflicting, and otherwise powerless to strike back except for the faithful Ju-88's, 188's etc., you would think Blitzing England would've woken him then to the fact that bigger bombers were immediately necessary, especially galloping-off into Russia....Britain moved out of twins into the Stirlings first, the US already had the B-17, even Russia had a 4-engined wheel-barrow, but both Japan and Germany found it hard to get their heads around big-bombers, but both had jets.......
It's a shame the US didn't have it's first jet bomber ready in time, but being ordered on 31st March, 1944, it didn't give it much time. Although it had no defensive armament then, it had provision for an 8000 lb bombload, a max take-off weight of 40,100 lbs, a max speed of 503 mph [at sea level], service ceiling of 38,200 ft and a full-up range of 1,100 miles.....Much hope and effort had been concentrated into the B-29's development and deployment, perhaps one could say they weren't really in a rush, they had the aces ready if they needed....Big bombers were the go then, and the higher the better, and now today the B-52 capability is still valid, but Air warfare still went on to the smaller, fast jet bombers...Interesting that aircraft like Skyraiders were still needed, until the Harrier and A-10 filled that gap....By the end of WWII, the B-29 was the best and the biggest.....

I also agree about the Dauntless, as while in Europe they were flying bombers back n' forth, trading bombs, so too in the Pacific, only it was in between islands, and floating-islands; the aircraft-carriers. The Dauntless filled that vital gap, along with the Wildcat, as escort.- Yeah, it kinda takes a unique place in history really, there weren't many other types as effective during those carrier battles, Devastators maybe, but IMHO, the Dauntless had a really good shape and look to it and has always been one of my favourites, even if it wasn't all that fast, they had that rear-gunner........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Question on Jet bombers, the speed would be fast for good consistant bomb runs. So I think they would have to slow down into the run and would be caught by fighters or flack.



The Blitz was better suited for low level tactical bombing. I personally think it would have been better used as a ground attack aircraft.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 24, 2005)

Yes, the Arado (as the Heinkel) bomber was kind of a tactical bomber plane. The Ju-287 could be used strategicly if better engines would have been avaiable (Jumo-012 or BMW-018), but as we all know...
Real strategic jet bomber plans were just going to bgin in late 1944. Far away from beeing ready for duties. Most ambitious would have been the Ho-XVIIIb1, the only jet bomber to reach US coast, deliver it´s payload and come back to Germany. However, we can regard these planes rather science fiction than anything else in the possible timeframe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

That is not true there were several aircraft that were desined to reach the east coast of the USA. The Ju-390 actually made a test flight and came within site of the east coast of the USA. No more then prototypes were actually built though.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 24, 2005)

That's worrying, if it actually bombed New York all hell would have broken loose in America


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2005)

It was never close eneogh to actually doing a bombing mission. The aircraft was still in prototype stage and not ready for it. The flight itself is not confirmed. Anyhow over this long of a distance and a 32 hour endurance the 390 would not have been able to carry more 3900lb of bombs which would not make for too much and only a very small nuke if they were able to get one built which would have probably only been a dirty bomb and would have done nothing more then be a terror bombing to scare the US people.

Crew 8 
First Flight October 20, 1943 
Entered Service 1943 
Manufacturer Junkers 
Dimensions 
Length 34.20 m 112 ft 2 in 
Wingspan 50.30 m 165 ft 1 in 
Height 6.89 m 22 ft 7 in 
Wing area 254 m² 2,733 ft² 
Weights 
Empty 39,500 kg 86,900 lb 
Loaded 53,112 kg 116,846 lb 
Maximum takeoff 75,500 kg 166,100 lb 
Powerplant 
Engines 6x BMW 801E 
Power 8,818 kW 11,820 hp 
Performance 
Maximum speed 505 km/h 314 mph 
Range 9,700 km 6,027 miles 
Service ceiling 6,000 m 19,680 ft 
Rate of climb 
Wing loading 209 kg/m² 43 lb/ft² 
Power/Mass 0.17 kW/kg 0.10 hp/lb 
Avionics 

Armament 
Guns 2x 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons in dorsal turrets
1 x 20 mm MG 151/20 in tail
2x 13 mm MG 131 machine guns at waist
2x 13 mm MG 131 in gondola 



> The Junkers Ju 390 was a long-range derivative of the Junkers Ju 290 and was intended to be used as a heavy transport, maritime patrol aircraft, and bomber. It was a design selected for the abortive Amerika Bomber project.
> 
> Two prototypes were created by inserting an extra pair of inner wing segments into the wings of basic Ju 290 airframes and adding new sections to "stretch" the fuselages. The resulting giant first flew on October 20, 1943 and performed well, resulting in an order for 26 such aircraft, to be designated Ju 390A-1. None of these were actually built by the time that the project was cancelled (along with Ju 290 production) in mid 1944. The maritime patrol version and bomber were to be designated Ju 390B and Ju 390C respectively. It was suggested that the bomber could have carried the Messerschmitt Me 328 parasite fighter for self-defence. Some test flights are believed to have been performed by Ju-390 aircraft with the anti-shipping Fritz-X guided smart-bomb.
> 
> ...





> The Amerika Bomber project was an initiative of the German Air Ministry to obtain a long-range bomber aircraft for the Luftwaffe that would be capable of striking the continental United States from Germany. Requests for designs were made to the major German aircraft manufacturers early in World War II, long before the US had entered the war.
> 
> The most promising proposals were based on conventional principles of aircraft design and would have yielded aircraft very similar in configuration and capability to the Allied heavy bombers of the day. These included the Messerschmitt Me 264 (an all-new design), the Focke-Wulf Fw 300 (based on the existing Fw 200), and the Junkers Ju 390 (based on the Ju 290). Prototypes of the Me 264 were built, but it was the Ju 390 that was selected for production. Only two prototypes were constructed before the programme was abandoned, although it is widely claimed (and widely disputed) that the second prototype made a trans-Atlantic flight to within 20km (12 miles) of the US coast in early 1944.
> 
> ...



KG200



> KG 200 (Kampfgeschwader 200 or Bomber Wing 200) was a secret Luftwaffe bomber unit during World War II. The unit was the Luftwaffe's special operations wing that carried out long-distance reconnaissance flights, tested new aircraft designs and tested and flew special missions with captured aircraft.
> 
> History
> The unit's history began in 1934, when the Luftwaffe, impressed with Colonel Theodor Rowehl's aerial reconnaissance missions over Poland, formed a special squadron under Rowehl's lead that was attached to the Abwehr, Germany's military intelligence department. As the Abwehr started to lose the Führer's good will during the war, a new reconnaissance unit, the 2nd Test Formation, was formed in 1942 under the command of Werner Baumbach. This unit was united with 1st Test Formation in March 1944 to form KG 200. From then on, all aerial special-ops missions were carried out by KG 200 under Baumbach's command.
> ...


----------



## trackend (Apr 25, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> That's worrying, if it actually bombed New York all hell would have broken loose in America


I think it would have had terrific psychological effect as you say Mossie same as the Darwin or Dolittle raid


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 25, 2005)

Yes, the removal of fighter squadrons from the Western Front might have given the Luftwaffe a slight advantage. If it had a dirty bomb, the whole of New York would have become uninhabitable aswell.
But this is all one BIG "IF"


----------



## delcyros (Apr 25, 2005)

I originally had jet driven planes in mind, Adler. But your Ju-390 info is highly interesting. KG 200 carried out some very interesting missions, too, but little is known about it in general.
Such a strategic bomber only makes sense in case a nuke would have been ready (same goes for the rocketry).


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 25, 2005)

I think the strategic strike with or with out a radiological atack would have had good and bad results. One more fighters would have been held over US cities, but I do not think they would have been taken from frount line units, more like they would be training patrols or rotatted crews. 

2- with more air cover the U-boats would have had a harder time sitting off the New Jersey coast and dropping shipping with almost no opposition.

3- With a straegic bomber you could if so wish level London or all the RAF bases. Think of the greater carnage then what London did suffer. Could have been like the fire bombing of Japan.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2005)

to be honest during the BoB and the blitz even a larger bomber wouldn't have made any real difference, the germans didn't have the tactics to use them effectively, the only difference would be would be there would be fewer bombers, they may have beem harder to shood down but we'd still get 'em and more crew would be lost per bomber...........


----------



## tail_gunner (Apr 26, 2005)

I say the Mosquito was the best bomber.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2005)

it's cirtainly up there with the best however it's not as good as the lancaster............


----------



## Concorde247 (Apr 26, 2005)

Dont forget that the UK also used the B29 - but after WW2. 

We called it the washington i believe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2005)

yes we did, about 80 of them, however this was only until the lickoln had reached full service............


----------



## Concorde247 (Apr 26, 2005)

Yes, they werent in service for long.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 26, 2005)

Lanc, if the German's developed the 4 engine heavies then they I think would have had some development of doctorine. I know that is my own thought and a strech, but that is my feeling. 

They might have been used more in the East, to reach out over the Urals, or the American sites over the pole.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Yes, the removal of fighter squadrons from the Western Front might have given the Luftwaffe a slight advantage. If it had a dirty bomb, the whole of New York would have become uninhabitable aswell.
> But this is all one BIG "IF"



The likely size of any German Dirty bomb would not have caused too much damage. It would have been one hell of a shock though.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> to be honest during the BoB and the blitz even a larger bomber wouldn't have made any real difference, the germans didn't have the tactics to use them effectively, the only difference would be would be there would be fewer bombers, they may have beem harder to shood down but we'd still get 'em and more crew would be lost per bomber...........



I disagree, if they had designed more heavy bombers before the war they certainly would have come up with better tactics. Where not talking about the Russians here.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2005)

well that's just my thoughts......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

Whew thats a relief, I really thought your thoughts were just some master plan to take the world.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 3, 2005)

I think that a program for havies would have to be in place pre-war because the Germans had limitted recources.

Sustaining this bomber force would be hard in the war I think.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

yes a large bombing campain isn't easy to keep going...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

And that is why the Germans never got one going because they failed to see the importance of it before the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

possibly one of their biggest mistakes.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Possibly, although when they took over half of Europe with no real problems without the bombers, perhaps they thought Britian would be pretty much the same. How wrong they were


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

yes but most of europe cannot be counted as serious opposition realisticlly, as soon as they came up against serious opposition they needed a bigger bomber..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Yep. I must say though that they nearly cracked us, a retarded change in tactics for them was a step backwards though :Wink:


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

however close they came to cracking us it is extremely unlikely they ever would have.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

Yeah. Who knows what the Britis would have done


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I truely believe that Hitler thought the British would sue for peace after France fell.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2005)

yes he did think we were weak, what a idiot


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

It was a mistake.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 3, 2005)

He also didn't count on the stubborn "colonial" help.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I think it was a given that they would help.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 3, 2005)

Yeah, true enough I suppose.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

Well they were greatly influenced.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2005)

by that you mean they had no choise really...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

Basically yes.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 6, 2005)

But the bigger bomber would have helped to get to the Russian production as well. That ability to just pack up and move gave them great life. Hitler should have never stopped bombing the RAF bases!

with out the "Colonials" England would have had hard time in South Asia. then again if they did not have the colonies they would have have been there. Germany and Japan both tried to get India to cast off the British crown. I saw an interesting movie about it centered in Goa.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

That is true, heavy bombers would have really been helpfull on the Eastern Front.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2005)

Actually, I'm rather miffed that Britain gave all that help to Russia....By the War's end, their production figures were almost as impressive as the US, particuarly fighters, but they never really built a decent bomber themselves....and when they started to, post-war, it was a copy of a B-29, a stolen design from 3 that had forced-landed in Russia.....

But from a 'colonial' point-of-view, the aircraft that Churchill 'gushingly' gave Stalin in the early stage of the War, deprived 'Fortress Singapore' of some decent fighters to help defend the invasion of Malaya......
In fact, at the end of August 1941, Churchill gave Stalin 200 Hurricanes in addition to the 40 already supplied, with 200 Tomahawks promised from deliveries due from the US...Consequently, Singapore was refused further proposed reinforcements....In effect, the few RAF, RAAF and RNZAF pilots there, had to tackle a huge Jap invasion force with 170 crapped-out Buffaloes the US had 'off-loaded' on the RAF Purchasing Commission, the odds of 16 to one being fought by the Allies against far superior Jap aircraft.....The RAF High Command were in total denial about the Japanese Aerial abilities, and once again the colonials suffered....it was like another 'Gallipoli'....
In the face of Stalin and Hitler's 'non-aggression pact' earlier, and then Hitler reneges by invading Russia, Churchill chummys-up to Stalin at the great expense of colonial lives.....He could've just let what the US contributed to Russia, the P-39's and P-40's do the job....By the time Hurricanes reached Singapore, were uncrated and ready to fly, and pilots orientated, it was too bloody late....
In my opinion, the best bombers the Allies had in Asia and Pacific, earlier-on, were the Hudson, and then the Venturas.....

The only use Russia was to the rest of the Allies, was as that 'second-front', and we should've let them battle it out, it was obvious that Germany couldn't possibly gobble-up all of Russia; the lessons of Napolean weren't that old to learn from, and for the Lancasters sorting-out the Tirpitz.....apart from that, they were secretive, selfish and greedy buggers......


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

14% of British War Production was sent to Russia.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2005)

That says alot about where Churchill's real priorities lay....The British High Command really had their head in the sand with Singapore, and the totally erroneous information they farmed-out about 'Fortress Singapore'' and the Buffalo bordered on politically criminal....They had a really good chance of putting a spanner in Japan's ambitions right back then, if they had've kept Singapore and India up to sensible strength, but as far as the 'Empire' went, they were a colonial backwater for posting doddering old staff officers to, and even when the fur started to fly up country, they were only working until midday, until the Aussie High Command stirred them up.....it was a large blot on the RAF's relatively clean-sheet.....[mumble, mumble.....]

Russia should've been made to stew in it's own duplicity for awhile, Britain had enough to worry about. Hitler did us a HUGE favour invading them....


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

A lot of the problem with the CBI was mixing up of priorities. Burma was considered low on the list of important areas to hold. By 1943 they realised that Burma was more important to hold the Indian ocean than Malay or Singapore. 

No effort should have been made to save Malay, the primary forces should have been sent to Singapore and Burma. 

With the aid to Russia Churchill was securing a safe perimeter around the British homeland. Allowing the Soviets to tie up significant forces in the East allowed Britain to concentrate on it's plans, rather than bending to Germany's plans. In the West after June 22nd, 1941, Britain was dictating the situation not Germany. I think Churchill was desperate to keep it that way. 

Singapore was a bad loss but it's importance was not as great as it seems. The defeat was extremely important to moral and proving to Japan that Britain was over-stretched but I find that the real important area was Burma and India. That's not just because it was fought in that zone but Burma and India control the Indian Ocean, with them held supplies from Europe can reach the CBI with relative ease compared to the loss of Burmese or Indian ports which would have left Australia isolated. 
If Singapore had been kept but Burma and India lost, Singapore's importance would be zilch.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2005)

Yeah, I acknowledge that, but what were they thinking by sending the 'Prince of Wales and the Repulse' down there, in Dec 1941, when an adequate supply of 'sensible' fighters could've stemmed the invasion of N. Malaya, and consequently Singapore ?....By the time they were approaching Singapore proper, the Japs had overrun 15 odd British airfields, which they called 'Churchill aerodromes', because of all the fuel, ammo and stuff, left in the haste of withdrawl.....they used all that to further clobber us !....If it wasn't for a few Hudsons and Marylands, every other aircraft was a biplane, other than America's first monoplane, the Buffaloes, that could even drop a bomb back on them !....
As far as the capital ships went, they chugged-off to sort-out some alleged landings off up the coast, refusing air escort, and then when they got attacked, radioed for help but it took ages to find the remains...no real sensible inter-service communications........


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2005)

Inter-service communication has always been a problem with British forces. 

I have heard on several occasions that Singapore could have been held if the coastal artillery could be turned inland. The more I hear about Singapore the less I believe that alone could have saved the place, but what do you think?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 14% of British War Production was sent to Russia.



i thought it was 14% of production from britian and her emipre?? and once the empire comes into it we're talking huge ammounts.........


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2005)

Sorry, yes, it was 14% of the British Empire production. All Infantry Mk.III Valentine Tanks produced in Canada (Montreal Locomotive) went straight to Russia in the Arctic Convoys.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 7, 2005)

Did someone say, "The Empire?"






I couldn't resist.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Actually, I'm rather miffed that Britain gave all that help to Russia....By the War's end, their production figures were almost as impressive as the US, particuarly fighters, but they never really built a decent bomber themselves....and when they started to, post-war, it was a copy of a B-29, a stolen design from 3 that had forced-landed in Russia.....



You have to look at the Russian point of view. They were being invaded and losing rather badly at first. They had no need to build a heavy bomber. They needed defensive weapons and weapons to destroy the German Panzers and fighter bombers. They built what they needed. Once they were on the Offensive they still had no need to build heavy bombers. The British and the US were already doing it for them by bombing Germany into the stone age. Why send you own bombers when you can let the US and England do it for you.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2005)

In order of priorities in 1942 for British Empire production, it was Britain first, Middle-East second, Russia third and Malaya fourth. In manpower, it was Middle-East first and Malaya second.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

The Russian priorities were survival in 1942.


----------



## Glider (May 8, 2005)

Remember that the russians had the PE8 which wasn't a bad plane. Also they tried everything they could to get the allies to give them strategic planes as part of the war effort but the USA and UK refused.
I don't know if they were offerred Sterlings which were the only planes in any quantity that we had to offer.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2005)

they had the Pe=8 but very very few of them, and we needed all the bombers would could get in western europe.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

The Pe-8 was not bad but the Soviets only built about 90 of them and they had no plan for Strategic bombing. Rather then wasting resources on the Pe-8 they did the right thing by building defensive not offensive weapons.


----------



## Glider (May 8, 2005)

I totally agree that they had other priorities and the numbers were very small. It was mainly as a reminder that it wasn't because they didn't ahve the ability to build such planes.
I admit, I like the idea of a gun position in the wings as you did get an excellent view of below and behind which is where the nighfighters tended to come from. That said. If the engine was hit you would have to get out pretty damn quickly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

I would not like sitting in there at all. To me it would be like being in the ball turret of a B-17.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 8, 2005)

Or if you wanted you had have remote controlled wing turrets, like that of the P.108 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

That to me would be a better idea, but to me that goes back to the Soviets and what there priorities were.


----------



## delcyros (May 8, 2005)

The soviet strategy needed planes to fulfill tactical roles. And they had the Pe-2, which was quite a good bomber and the Il-2, which succeeded -under heavy losses- to destroy a large quantity of the german forces. Indeed without both planes and with pe-8, only - the soviets would have problems to crush the german army in mid 1944 as they did!
And I think we should mention the excellent late war Tu-2 as well. It was one of the best medium bombers of ww2 in my opinion.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 9, 2005)

The Tu-2 was good, it went on to be the genesis for some of the best post war designs that the Soviets had. The Pe-2 what an interesting thing. Divebomber, attack plane and even fighter on a good day. But the Pe-8 had problums. If they did use them more it might have helped to stem the tied, but as said they needed tank guns and tanks. They did use the P-39 with great love as the USAAC seemed to cast it off as a poor little plane. 

Who would want to sit in the wing and fire at a fighter whom was attacking you and shooting back. The engines were always a top target and a gunner would not last. I do not think you would be able to get out. But think it would be warm. Only the tail would be worse.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

delcyros said:


> The soviet strategy needed planes to fulfill tactical roles. And they had the Pe-2, which was quite a good bomber and the Il-2, which succeeded -under heavy losses- to destroy a large quantity of the german forces. Indeed without both planes and with pe-8, only - the soviets would have problems to crush the german army in mid 1944 as they did!
> And I think we should mention the excellent late war Tu-2 as well. It was one of the best medium bombers of ww2 in my opinion.



I agree, the Soviets were not in the position at the time to build the Pe-8 in quanities. They needed to beat the Germans back on the Front and not back in Germany. I mean they were fighting on there own turf and not like the rest of the allies who were taking the fight to the Germans. The Germans brought the fight to them. They did the right thing by building planes such as the Il-2.


----------



## GT (May 10, 2005)

Last Casualty


There was an unusual sense of anticipation at one of the hardstands at USAAF Station 121, otherwise known as Bassingbourn, that early Monday morning of 17 May 1943 in East Anglia, England. This hardstand was the home of B-17F Flying Fortress, Serial Number 41-24485, “Memphis Belle”, of the 324th Bombardment Squadron, 91st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 1st Bombardment Wing, VIII Bomber Command. The olive drab-painted “Memphis Belle” bore a number of metal patches, replacement surfaces and splotches of newer paint, stark testimony to the mutilations she had endured during earlier missions. A colorful perky bathing-suited girl painted on both sides of the nose lightened these grim reminders of near fatal encounters with enemy flak and fighter aircraft. The paintings had been rendered there by Cpl Tony Starcer, one of the more famous “nose artists” of World War II.

Crew Chief M/Sgt Joseph M. Giambrone was busily overseeing details of the last minute maintenance work of the ground crew. It was doubly important that, today of all days, “Memphis Belle” would not have to abort. For, today's mission to the German U-boat pens at Lorient, France is an extra special one for the crew of the Memphis Belle. If they return, the pilot, Cpt Robert K. Morgan, and five others of the 10-man crew will have completed their 25th combat mission. VIII Bomber Command has decreed anyone completing 25 combat missions can go home on leave and will not fly any more combat. Only one out of three crewmen survive that long. Those manning the other four positions on the plane today are filling in for crew who have already completed their 25-mission quota. “Memphis Bell” would fly her own 25th mission two days later when 1Lt Clayton L. Anderson and his crew would fly her to the U-boat yards at Kiel, Germany.

“Hell's Angels” of the 303rd Bombardment Group stationed at nearby USAAF Station 107, Molesworth, who will also go to Lorient today, completed her 25th mission last Thursday when she flew to the Avions Poltez aircraft factory at Meaulte, France. VIII Bomber Command would decree “Hell's Angels” to be the first B-17 to achieve this unique accomplishment. The pilot of “Hell's Angels”, Cpt Irl E. Baldwin, and three his crew flew their own 25th missions to Keil last Friday. The rest of her crew would complete their missions within a few days. However, for the past three weeks VIII Bomber Command publicity has highlighted the “Memphis Belle.” Accordingly, following the mission to Kiel Wednesday, “Memphis Belle” and her crew would be designated by VIII Bomber Command as the first plane and crew to complete 25 combat missions and ordered to return to the States.

Maj William Wyler (the renown Hollywood movie director, who had directed the 1942 Oscar winning-movie, “Mrs. Miniver”) and Hollywood cameraman, now Cpt, William Clothier were in part responsible for the publicity surrounding the “Memphis Belle.” Assigned to Bassingbourn, they had flown several missions on the “Memphis Belle”, including one to Heligoland Island last Saturday, to film actual air combat action. Yesterday, Maj Wyler had arranged for the “Memphis Belle” and her crew to be visited by and filmed with the King and Queen of England in recognition of their pending accomplishments. On 13 June Cpt Morgan and his crew would leave Bassingbourn to fly the “Memphis Belle” back to the United States. There they would receive three months of well-earned public acclaim at War Bond rallies and other patriotic gatherings throughout the country.

Cpt Morgan and the bombardier, Cpt Vincent Evans, would go on to lead the first B-29 bombing mission to Tokyo. From film taken Saturday and on the other missions, Maj Wyler would produce the highly acclaimed morale-boosting documentary movie, “The Memphis Belle”, extolling the exploits of the Eighth Air Force (as it would be so designated by the time the movie was released). The movie would appear now and then over the following decades on documentary and history TV channels. Maj Wyler would later direct such movies as “The Detective Story”, “Friendly Persuasion”, “Roman Holiday”, and the Oscar-winning, “The Best Years of Our Lives” and “Ben Hur.” “Memphis Belle” eventually would be given a permanent “hardstand” in Memphis, Tennessee, home town of her namesake, Margaret Polk, the fiancée of Cpt Morgan. Forty-seven years later Maj Wyler's daughter, Catherine, would resurrect the “Memphis Belle” and her crew in a commercial movie, “The Memphis Belle.” As a result of all this publicity, “Memphis Belle” deservedly would go down in history as one of the two most famous planes of World War II. The other would be “Enola Gay”, the B-29 from which the first atom bomb would be dropped in August 1945.

At another nearby Bassingbourn hardstand that same Monday morning, another ground crew, headed by M/Sgt Bert “Black Jack” Pierce, 28, from Harrison, Arkansas (who had been working for Modoc Orchards in Medford, Oregon when he enlisted), was also busily engaged. They were preparing another B-17F Flying Fortress, Serial Number 42-29536, “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile”, of the 401st Squadron of the 91st Group, for today's mission to Lorient.

There was no unusual sense of anticipation as the flight crew arrived, just the understandable mouth-drying anxious nervousness prior to flying a combat mission. The crew quietly went about its preflight routines. The flight deck crew: pilot, 1Lt Kenneth L. Brown, 24, Hodgenville, Kentucky, previously an Aircraft Armorer Staff Sergeant; copilot, 2Lt James H. Quenin, 26, Fort Smith, Arkansas, until recently a Signal Corps Sergeant. The nose crew: navigator, 2Lt Vincent J. Bliley, 26, Ottumwa, Iowa, a former staff artist for the Ottumwa Courier; bombardier, 2Lt James P. Feerick, 24, New York City, who earlier had completed a year's enlistment in the 102nd Engineers of the 47th Division, New York National Guard. The rest of the crew: flight engineer and top turret gunner, T/Sgt James O. Akers, 23, Starbuck, Minnesota, doing construction work in Idaho when he enlisted; radioman, T/Sgt Richard O. Maculley, 19, Chester, Pennsylvania, recognized for his artistic abilities, who left High School at the age of 17 to enlist; ball turret gunner, S/Sgt Henry “Maurice” Crain, 41, “Pops” of the group, originally from Canyon, Texas, with a Bachelors Degree in Journalism from the University of Texas, who had been working in New York as a city editor for the Daily News and as a literary agent; left waist gunner, S/Sgt William G. Allen (“Glenn” to his family, “Bill” to the crew), 21, Athens, Georgia, who had just purchased and was operating two small neighborhood grocery stores when he entered the Service; right waist gunner, S/Sgt Raymond Litzo, 22, Denver, Colorado, who was attending the University of Denver where he was majoring in Business Administration and a member of the golf team when he left school to join the Army Air Corps; tail gunner, S/Sgt William R. Brown, 22, Eldorado, Illinois, one of five brothers in the Service and who had been working for a PepsiCola distributorship.

There was nothing unique about “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” to attract the attention of a Hollywood director, nor for her crew to be roused from their beds yesterday morning to meet the King and Queen. Today's mission would be only her third over enemy territory. The nose painting was not sufficiently artistic to warrant inclusion in any of the books that would appear in later years depicting “nose artwork” of military aircraft. There was no Tony Starcer painting of a perky bathing beauty such as “Memphis Belle.” There was no unclad voluptuous woman, such as adorned “Cash and Carrie” of the 569th Squadron of the 390th Group. The name did not represent a famous city, as did “Windy City Challenger” of the 422nd Squadron of the 305th Group; a popular cartoon character of the day, as did “Fearless Fosdick” of the 358th Squadron of the 303rd Group; or a famous personage, “General Ike” of the 401st Squadron of the 91st Group. Nor was the name rendered in flowing script, as was “Mary Alice” of the 615th Squadron of the 401st Group. Rather, there was simply “’Mary Ruth' Memories of Mobile” in plain block dark yellow letters. We are reminded of the lyrics “plain as any name can be” of the George M. Cohan song, “Mary's a Grand Old Name.” Even the name itself did not represent what might at first blush suggest a brief romantic war-time encounter by a member of the crew. No. 536 had been named by an unknown crew back in the States, the reason for which became lost in history. When Lt Brown and his crew were assigned the already-named plane superstition prevented them from making a change.

“’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” would fly four more combat missions. On the 29th of May she would fly to "flak city", St Nazaire, France. On 11 June the “Mary Ruth” would attempt to go to the docks of Bremen, Germany. When Bremen was found to be clouded over, the Group would go on to Wilhelmshaven. The day “Memphis Belle” and her crew would leave Bassingbourn to return home to the United States, “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” once again would fly to Bremen. This time she would be successful. On 22 June “Memphis Belle” and her crew would wind up their three-day “tour kick-off” celebration in Memphis, Tennessee. Earlier that day the now sleek “Mary Ruth” would become a scattered pile of smoking rubble in a forest 4 kilometers west of the small village of Wulfen in the Ruhr Valley of Germany. “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” would not quite make it to her final target that day, the synthetic chemical plant at Huls. She would be shot down by yellow-nosed Focke-Wulf 190 fighters flown by pilots of I Group, led by Captain Emil-Rudolf Schnoor, of the Luftwaffe fighter wing, JG 1, flying from the Schiphol Air Field near Amsterdam, Holland.

Three flights of two FW 190's in a frontal attack from slightly high off the right wing of the “Mary Ruth”, about ten degrees to the right, would set the No. 4 engine afire, damage the cockpit flight controls and knock out much of the electrical system. “Mary Ruth” would drop out of formation. From all sides, other FW 190's would then attack the now alone “Mary Ruth”, their 20 mm cannon shells exploding in the cockpit destroying more controls. The bail-out bell would be rung. Sgt Akers would leave the top turret just before it blew up, throwing exploding ammunition into the cockpit. Lt Brown would struggle to hold the plane level as the right wing burned away, all the while exploding shells sending fragments of the instrument panels into his head and face. Lt Feerick would make two frenzied trips from the bombardier compartment to the bomb bay to work on the shackle mechanisms of two bombs with a screwdriver, eventually causing them to fall free. This would allow the forward crew to escape by squeezing around the unsalvoed bombs. Lt Brown's efforts would buy time for the rear crew to get to their escape hatches. For his efforts on behalf of the crew, Lt Brown would be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. Before all the crew could bail out, the outer wing would blow off throwing “Mary Ruth” into a spinning downward dive, the centrifical force of which would prevent the remaining crew from leaving the plane. Almost immediately thereafter the “Mary Ruth” would explode, throwing free all but Sgts Allen and Maculley, who would remain trapped within the falling fuselage.

In a few minutes it would all be over. “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” would be no more. Sgts Maculley and Allen would lie dead in the wreckage. The remainder of the crew would float to the earth and soon be prisoners of war. Lt Brown and Sgt Crain would manage to evade capture for five days before being taken prisoners. Lt Quenin would sustain compound fractures of both legs when his parachute opened. His legs would escape further injury when landing as he would fall through the tile roof of a farm shed on his shoulder and be held suspended above the floor by the parachute. But, then he would then be shot through one of his legs while being captured by German infantry.

The officers would be sent to the South Compound of Stalag Luft III near the town of Sagan in Silesia, where they would spend most of their time in captivity. Because of the severity of his injuries, Lt Quenin would be removed from Stalag III on 16 February 1944 and repatriated by the Germans through Lisbon, Portugal, arriving back in the United States on the Swedish liner, Gripsholm, 15 March 1944. On 27 January 1945, Lts Bliley, Brown, and Feerick would be forced by the Germans to take part in the freezing cold “Death March” to Stalag VII-A at Moosburg near Munich. They would be held there until liberated by Patton's Third Army on 29 April. The enlisted crew would first be sent to Stalag VII-A at Moosburg. After six months they would be moved in packed railroad box cars to Stalag XVII-B near at Krems, Austria, and be held there until early April 1945. They then would be marched up the Danube River to Braunau, Austria, where they would be liberated by advancing Americans.

There would be no War Bond rallies or heroes' welcome for the crew of “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” when they returned. Only families and friends would be there to celebrate their homecoming. Lt Brown would remain in the Air Force to fly B-29s in Korea and B-52s in Vietnam, eventually retiring as a Colonel. He would then obtain a Masters Degree from the University of Arizona. Afterwards he would serve as an administrator in the University Medical School until retiring again, this time to his golf game in La Jolla, California. Lt Quenin would recover from his injuries to return to flight status to fly in the Berlin Airlift. Later he would serve as Director of Materiel for the 505 Tactical Air Control Group, and fly a few “unofficial” missions, in Vietnam, finally retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel to sell real-estate in Costa Mesa, California. Lt Bliley would return to civilian life to own and operate an oil distributorship in Milwaukie, Oregon. Lt Feerick would become a Captain in the New York Fire Department and later serve as an administrator at Mt. Sinai Hospital, and then as an Ordained Deacon in the Catholic Church.

Sgt Akers would remain in the Army when the Air Force split away, serving in Korea. He would retire as a Warrant Officer to Colorado Springs, Colorado where he would engage in a number of business ventures and work for the U.S. Postal Service. Sgt Brown would remain in the Air Force as a supply sergeant, eventually retiring to become manager of the P. N. Hirsch Department Store in Humbolt, Tennessee. Sgt Crain would return to New York to take up again his prewar activities as a literary agent and to operate his own agency. Sgt Litzo would return to Denver to work for Boyd Distributing, a major appliance distributorship, and to continue his avocation with golf. Sgt Pierce would leave the Service to return to Medford, Oregon to become a manager for Modoc Orchards. Sgt Allen would return to the Oconee Hills Cemetery in Athens, Georgia. Sgt Maculley would remain in the American Cemetery at Margarten, The Netherlands.

“’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” would not survive to take part in the more memorable events of the air war over Europe. She would not participate in the July 1943 “Blitz Week.” She would not fly the Schweinfurt missions of 17 August and 14 October 1943. She would not be there to join in the February 1944 “Big Week.” She would not answer the call to “The Big B”, Berlin. She would not partake in the D-day invasion. And, she would not share in “Operation Chowhound” dropping food rather than bombs to the starving populations of the occupied countries during the final weeks of the war. “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” was not allowed as long a life as was “Nine-0-Nine” of the 323rd Squadron, 91st Group, who successfully completed 140 missions over Europe. “Mary Ruth” was denied the thrill of buzzing the airfield at Bassingbourn, as was allowed upon completion of
the 25th mission.

Still, “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” would be a part of history, even if mainly as an unnoticed participant. Her first mission to Keil, along with Cpt Baldwin and “Hell's Angels” and “Memphis Belle”, flown that day by Lt John H. Miller, on 14 May, had been the longest and farthest of VIII Bomber Command to that date. She, too, would complete the mission to Lorient today, as would “Hell's Angels” on her 28th and Cpt Morgan on his 25th mission, returning unscathed. She also had flown the 91st Group mission last Saturday, along with “Memphis Belle”, officially to Wilhelmshaven. When they found the primary target clouded over, the planes of the 91st dropped their bombs on the submarine pens and other naval installations on Heligoland Island. This latter mission would be used as the setting for Maj Wyler's documentary. “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile”, represented by Lt Brown's name, appears on the flight formation board shown during the mission briefing in the movie. “Mary Ruth's” seventh, and last, mission would also be historic. This would be the first “Maximum Effort” mission against the German fighter plane industry following realization that strategic bombing would not be successful until the threat from fighters was eliminated. The Huls mission would also be the first “Maximum Effort” daytime mission flown by VIII Bomber Command into the Ruhr Valley, which, because of the intense flak, soon would come to be known as “Happy Valley.”

True, “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” and her crew flirted briefly with fame from time to time over the years. John Steinbeck, a prewar friend of Sgt Crain, visited Bassingbourn long enough to write nine newspaper articles about day-to-day life in VIII Bomber Command. These were based on the crew of the “Mary Ruth.” His projected 25-article series would be cut short when the “Mary Ruth” failed to return from Huls. Six of these articles would find their way into Steinbeck's 1958 book, Once There Was a War. In 1992, a color picture of the “Mary Ruth” taken on the Huls mission, just before she was shot down, would appear on the cover of B-17, The Flying Fortress, by William N. Hess. A short while later, there was a chance encounter by the free-lance writer, Chuck Dunning, and Ken Brown. This would result in an article in the July 1995 issue of “Aviation History” describing the events of the final flight and death of the “Mary Ruth.”

In general, however, “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” and her crew, as was true of the thousands of other B-17 Flying Fortresses, B-24 Liberators, B-26 Marauders, B-25 Mitchells, and their “little friends”, the fighter escorts, and their crews, would be destined to do their flying and dying, oftentimes all too soon, during those early years of the air war over Europe, achieving lasting notice only to their families and friends. The airmen associated with the “Mary Ruth” would typify the thousands of “Black Jack” Pierces who worked frantically, often under almost impossible time and physical constraints, to repair and maintain “their” planes so as to “loan” them to the air crews for the next mission; the thousands of Ken Browns and Jim Quenins who wrestled their bomb-laden planes off the runways and struggled to keep them in the air when hit by flak and fighter cannon fire; the thousands of Vince Blileys who made certain the planes slipped into the proper places within their Elements as the formations came together, were on time and on course to the targets, and navigated them back to their hardstands when crippled by flak or fighters and had to leave their formations; the thousands of Jim Feericks who stared into the face of the head-on attacking Luftwaffe fighters and listened to the clatter of flak tearing through the Alclad aluminum skin of the fuselage, all the while keeping a steady hand on the Norden bombsight to make certain the bombs were placed on the target; the thousands of Jim Akers, who kept the planes' flak-shattered equipment working, as well as manning the upper turret guns; the thousands of Bill Browns, Maurice Crains, and Ray Litzos who did their best to keep at bay the Messerschmidt 109 and the Focke-Wulf 190 fighter aircraft; and the thousands of Dick Maculleys and Glenn Allens who all too frequently died with their planes. As such, the crew of “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” epitomizes the unselfish dedication and ultimate sacrifices made by those who struggled to keep the planes flying and who flew and died in relative obscurity in the air over “Fortress Europe” during the period of 1942-1945.

Revisionist historians would argue over the actual contribution of strategic bombing in bringing to an end that conflict. However, the crews of “Memphis Belle”, of “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” and of the hundreds of other planes in VIII Bomber Command were not concerned about history that early Monday morning in East Anglia. Rather, they were there to do a job that had to be done. They had responded to a request by their country to perform a dangerous duty that was deemed necessary and essential, given the knowledge of conditions at the time. They had volunteered for this duty not to seek glory, not to become heroes, not to achieve a place in history, but simply because their country was in trouble and needed them. Circumstances placed some of the planes and some of the crews more in the limelight of fame than others. All, the “Memphis Bells”, the “Nine-0-Nines”, the “Hell's Angels”, and the “Mary Ruths”, flew their missions as they were trained to do. The fate of many would be to be blown to bits at the end of the runways while taking off, to be reduced to rubble in a farmers field in Germany, to be entombed forever in the cold bottom waters of the North Sea, or to be incinerated into nothingness in a fiery ball over Berlin.

Others would survive, to end up a field near Kingman, Arizona, Altus, Oklahoma, or Walnut Ridge, Arkansas. From there they would be converted into aluminum siding to build the Levittowns, into electric skillets, into toasters, into waffle irons, into patio chairs, and into the innumerable other consumer products needed to fulfill the postwar dreams of America. Sentimentalists may feel that to be an ignominious ending for those planes who had endured so much and still had carried the day. However, it was for the very fulfillment of those postwar dreams that they had risked the midair collisions while corkscrewing upward around the Buncher and Splasher homing beacons to assemble their formations in the clouded skies over East Anglia, had braved the box barrages of flak over St. Nazaire and Merseburg, had flown into “Happy Valley”, and had fought off the swarms of Me 109s and FW 190s on the way to Schweinfurt and Berlin. They had done their job and they had done it well. They would no longer be needed as instruments of war. They would then be ready for realization of the peace for which they had fought so valiantly.

The years would flow by swiftly. Soon the planes would all be gone. The only record of their passing this way would consist of photographs of planes and their crews illustrating histories of World War II. For a time, Memorial Associations of veterans of the various Bombardment Groups would keep alive the memories of the planes and events. However, like the planes themselves, one by one their former crews would quietly fold their wings. Soon only impersonal written accounts and fading photographs would remain. Society has a way of assuring that its heroes are not consigned to oblivion. The devotion and dedication, the skills and sacrifices, the convictions and courage of the “Memphis Belles”, the “Nine-O-Nines” and the “Hell's Angels”, and their crews, will not be forgotten so long as there is written history. But, we also have an obligation to ensure that, as generations pass, there will be those who will say of all the “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobiles”, and their crews...”We remember.”

Now, let us return once again to Bassingbourn and to “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile.” Thirty six days have passed. The Lorient mission has been completed. All planes returned safely. Other missions have been flown and “Memphis Belle” and her crew have returned to the States. It is another early morning in East Anglia. Today is Tuesday 22 June 1943, 0630 Double British Summer Time. Another mission is on, the Huls raid.


“’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” will be flying in the No. 3 position (rear outer left) of the last three-plane element of the echeloned left, Low Squadron of the Low Group, “Tail-end Charlie.” The predawn flurry of ground crew activities has ceased and the crews are standing quietly beside their planes. The air crews are aboard, the preflight check lists completed. An apprehensive somber silence lies over Bassingbourn. In Memphis, Tennessee it is late evening 21 June. The crew of the “Memphis Belle” is still being feted by a grateful citizenry.

Two green flares form an arch over the field. From dispersal points scattered about the base there comes an erratic chorus of sputtering coughs as planes come to life. Soon the ragged rumblings coalesce into a penetrating ear-rendering roar as the multitude of engines are run-up and additional instruments checked. Slowly the olive drab graceful, but deadly, low-winged fortresses begin moving down the taxiways in two weaving, snaking, nose to tail columns, brakes squealing, toward the end of the runway. The columns pause. Two flares arc upwards from Flying Control on the second story balcony outside the control room--green-green. The first B-17, No. 453, “The Bearded Beauty—Mizpath”, belches a cloud of blue smoke and rumbles down the 6,000 foot Runway 25, slowly struggling to clear the trees at the end of the runway. At 30-second intervals another follows, another, another, and yet another. No. 797, “Old Ironsides”, leaves on her journey to the bottom of the North Sea. No. 132, “Royal Flush!,” lifts off on her final flight. No. 998 (she has not yet been named) tucks in her wheels one last time. No. 789, “Golden Bear”, heads for her long hibernation.

There is a hectic scramble around “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile”. The No. 3 engine supercharger is not working. Sgt Pierce clambers aboard and works rapidly. The pressure comes up seconds before an abort is declared. He has done his job. Brakes released, “Mary Ruth” jerks away from her hardstand, rolls along the taxiway, pivots, and lumbers quickly down runway No. 25. She is the last plane of the Group to depart Bassingbourn today. For the last time her wheels lift away from what later generations will refer to as the “hallowed grounds” of East Anglia. “Mary Ruth” rises hurriedly and disappears into the distance as she heads for her nirvana and the obscurity of history. We watch her vanish with the confidence that those same later generations will say of “’Mary Ruth’ Memories of Mobile” and of the others who will not return today, and all the days to come, "We remember...we still remember." / Kevin M. Pearson

Cheers
GT/


----------



## 16KJV11 (May 10, 2005)

WWII American bomber strategists found a great need to have powered turrets on most US bombers. It seemed like this was a successful tool for US gunners. They also found it profitable to insert these turrets in several areas of the aircraft, ventral, belly, etc. Does anyone know why most Axis bombers didn't have powered turrets, ie. HE 111, JU's and Dorniers? Even the Japanese didn't, I don't believe, have these powered turrets. Also, why didn't the Brits, for the most part, not believe in protecting the underbellies of their bombers? The night fighters made easy meat of most Brit bombers because of this! I guess I've never understood Axis and Bomber Command's logic in this area.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 10, 2005)

Some early Lancs had ventral tuurets, but it restricted the bomblift, so they were removed


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

i have, in the past, posted the reasoning for this move by bomber command but whilst i don't have time now, i shall do so again when i come back on later...........


----------



## MP-Willow (May 11, 2005)

Please read over some of the pages in this tread or a quick serch willfind a little. For my thoughts, Lanc can correct me if I am really off, the Ventrile turrent made it harder to hold torpeados, and was latter removed for the radar systems.

As for the Japanese, I think the H6K and H8K did use powered turrets. The problum is more weight and things to go wrong. 16KJV11 I wih you welcome to our world and hope that you will keep comming back.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

right well the main reasoning for the RAF's removal of the ventral turret from it's bombers, primarily the lancaster, as mainly as follows:

Weight- the turret itself, plus ammo caused allot of extra weight, which in turn led to:

Reduced range and payload- because of carrying the extra weight for the turret, not as heavy a payload could be carried, and then over a sorter range

The extra air resistance caused by the turret reduced range and speed further.

Reduced manouverability- the extra weight and the change in the center of gravity caused marked reductions in the lancaster's infamous manouverability, respensible for saving countless lives

The turret sucked anyway- the turret could only traverse through 180 degrees, only had 500 rpg (well that's not so bad), and had poor depression, and was slow to traverse to boot, so it had limited use even when fitted

the turret had no dedicated gunner- the turret was manned either by the mid-upper gunner or even the radio operator, and so this caused these men to be less focused on their proper tasks, which isn't so good for the 'craft's servival.

It took up space- the space used for the ventral turret was also where the H2S system would later be fitted, still using the turret would mean H2S couldn't be carried and H2S was a very nice peice of kit to have

i think that's the bulk of it, any more questions just ask


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

Just a question Lanc, You say the British bombers had no dedicated gunner for the belly guns. If I am correct the US bombers did have a dedicated gunner, he flew the whole mission in the belly turret and not anywhere else. I may be wrong but I think is true of American bombers. Basically what I am getting at, is why did the British bombers not do this?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

I think that a Ju-88 style ventral turret, ie right near the front would have worked.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

extra weight, an extra man to train, an extra man to loose, and the ventral turret was not seen as a major defensive position, only really as a back up..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

How about a retractable ball turret? Surely this would solve 50% of the problems you listed?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

Well as was stated, many fell victom to night fighters because of a lack of it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

CC a retractible turret would be even heavier, the only problem it would solve would be the air resistance, and if we did use the turret, bang goes a few thousand pounds off the payload and H2S.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

Ok then...cut a hole in the floor and dangle a guy on a rope out of it holding a browning


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

Some how I dont think that would go over to well with the guy with the browning.


----------



## 16KJV11 (May 11, 2005)

What about the goose steppers? Were they so locked into the tactical aspect of bombing that they used so few powered turrets or had such weak defensive armament. It seems that every bomber they used lacked real defensive fire power save maybe the HE 177. Check out the belly of this bird. The gunners lacked a 360 degree field of fire which again, was so typical of every German bomber. However, as I see an early German attempt (JU 86) at a belly gunner, maybe they couldn't get anyone stupid enough to be a belly gunner on future bombers!


----------



## DaveB.inVa (May 11, 2005)

That method was sortof employed on a lot of B-24's. Some field modified and some production models did away with the ball turret and used a "tunnel" gunner firing a single browning downward and to the rear. The B-24's ball turret when so equipped was retractable too. This wasn't to decrease drag or anything though. Since the B-24 had a tricycle landing gear the ball would scrape when the aircraft rotated on takeoff if it wasn't retractable. This is why the B-17's ball didn't need to be retracted as the tail dragger suspended the ball far enough off the ground.


----------



## Glider (May 11, 2005)

I think I am right in saying that a number of Halifax III had a ventral gun and had less loss's than those that didn't.
If the worry was the weight I would ditch the nose turret as Halifax III and even the dorsal turret to put one underneath. Nightfighters tended to come from underneath for a number of reasons
1 we didn't have ventral guns (pretty obvious)
2 the bomber would be against the sky which was often lighter
3 as pilots had less visibility front and down due to the nose getting in the way

It might have looked odd but turrets rear and below would proabably have served the RAF better.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 11, 2005)

H2S wouldn't have been that much of a loss, Lanc. German nightfighters could home in on it's signals so only Pathfinder aircraft used it- mainly Mossies as they were fast enough to escape detection normally


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

16KJV11 said:


> What about the goose steppers? Were they so locked into the tactical aspect of bombing that they used so few powered turrets or had such weak defensive armament. It seems that every bomber they used lacked real defensive fire power save maybe the HE 177. Check out the belly of this bird. The gunners lacked a 360 degree field of fire which again, was so typical of every German bomber. However, as I see an early German attempt (JU 86) at a belly gunner, maybe they couldn't get anyone stupid enough to be a belly gunner on future bombers!



Well basically the Germans just never got into the Heavy Bomber concept that required such. The Luftwaffe tactics at the beginning of the war were to have fast medium bombers that swept in dropped there bombs and got out. Obviously these bombers were outclassed very early in the war and the whole fast Blitzkrieg thing ended. There Germans tacticly used more dive bombers such as the Stukas. This idea for the medium bombers worked at first but once the mainland was taken over and they turned there attention to the British they need heavy bombers which they did not have. They had some great designs however they were too late to do anything and nothing really left the table.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

Glider said:


> If the worry was the weight I would ditch the nose turret as Halifax III and even the dorsal turret to put one underneath. Nightfighters tended to come from underneath for a number of reasons
> 1 we didn't have ventral guns (pretty obvious)
> 2 the bomber would be against the sky which was often lighter
> 3 as pilots had less visibility front and down due to the nose getting in the way
> ...



dude think about it, you say ditch the dorsal turret and put in a ventral as fighters normally attacked from underneath, if there's no dorsal turret wouldn't they just attack from above??

i agree a heavier all round defensive armourment would have been useful, but how can you stay angry at such a beauty with such a huge payload...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

The dorsal turret was one of the most important turrets, I would think. Most fighters would come in from high and above.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

yes the dorsal turret was seen as the second most important turret after the tail...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

Those two spots is where the most attacks came from.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

exactily........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

I was just reading about a version of the Komet with I think it was 5 vertically firing 50mm cannons. The plane would fly under a formation and a light sensor would detect the shadow of the bombers and fire off the guns. As far as I know only one plane was shot down with this system.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

Great discussion, you two. I feel like I've learnt nothing at all...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Hopefully you learned something from my post then


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

We try. 
CC I have heard of the system that you are talking about but I am not sure of it being fit on a Me-163. I have heared of it on Fw-190's, and Ju-88's but not on 163's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

yeah that system would have to have been used by day and there's no way you're gonna sucessfully get 5x50mm in a Komet...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

It was definately used. There were problems with the 30mm (MK108?) because of the slow rate of fire and high closing speeds of the Komet on the bombers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

what are you trying to say by that??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Im trying to say:



cheddar cheese said:


> It was definately used. There were problems with the 30mm (MK108?) because of the slow rate of fire and high closing speeds of the Komet on the bombers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

yes but what point are you trying to make by saying there were problems with the 30mm??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Im trying to say



cheddar cheese said:


> It was definately used. There were problems with the 30mm (MK108?) because of the *slow rate of fire and high closing speeds of the Komet on the bombers.*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

but how the hell is that even remotely linked to what you were saying about the upward firing guns?? you have made no link between the two thing's you're talking about!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Im saying that because thats the reason the 50mm's were tried out  How long does it take to register?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

well you didn't make that link, when you said it there was no link!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

So there wasnt...I still think it would be pretty obvious though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

well that's what i thought but without the link it still makes little sence...........

man us both getting broadband wasn't good for the site


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

No way  Well you getting broadband wasnt, me getting it makes no difference to my time on the site


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

but atleast we wouldn't have conversations like this...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

"Ive had worse"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

no, we've had worse........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Right lets make a half-arsed attempt for on topic discussion. Best Axis bomber?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

axis bombers, that's a good one


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Pft, I try to get some discussion going and you just post worthless tat  Seriously though, as an Admin I have to do this kinda thing.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 12, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> It was definately used. There were problems with the 30mm (MK108?) because of the slow rate of fire and high closing speeds of the Komet on the bombers.



I'd have though it would be better to get the German equivalent of the 20mm and pack about 6 in the nose, that way you get a high rate of fire and a serious punch together


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

That would have made more sense to me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

but 6x20mm in the nose of a komet is gonna be a bit of a squeeze.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Yeah, the plane is small enough as it is really.


----------



## 16KJV11 (May 12, 2005)

6x20mm in the Komet's nose? What kind of drugs are y'all on? I'm from Bammy, I can say that.


----------



## 16KJV11 (May 12, 2005)

The Germans should have made large quantities of JU 290's and blitzed England and New York with them! Had they had air to air refueling and a few good aircraft carriers to carry fighter escorts, it could have been a chilling reality!


----------



## Glider (May 12, 2005)

sorry to go back to my last post but the top turret was the most useful in DAYLIGHT. Most nightfighters came from underneath for all three of my reasons not just the first.
Anyway if your that concerned just drop the front turret and put a gun underneath. Weight would be less, crew the same and guns better proportioned.

One question probably for Yank. Does anyone know the loss ratio for the Lanc compared to the Halifax III a plane I admit to having a soft spot for. I know that overall Halifax's had a higher loss ratio but the III was a big improvement and I am trying to find out how it compared.

Any ideas welcome


----------



## 16KJV11 (May 12, 2005)

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate specific British aircraft losses during WWII. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to where to find these stats. I understand that the Lanc was a superior a/c though.


----------



## Glider (May 12, 2005)

The Lanc certainly had a better range / bombload but as for the rest, I am not so sure which is why I am asking.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2005)

16KJV11 said:


> The Germans should have made large quantities of JU 290's and blitzed England and New York with them! Had they had air to air refueling and a few good aircraft carriers to carry fighter escorts, it could have been a chilling reality!



Or Heinkel should have been allowed to make the 277


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2005)

Air-to-air re-fueling? You'll be lucky if you're talking 1940-'45. It was only really developed in the 50s and 60s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Air-to-air re-fueling? You'll be lucky if you're talking 1940-'45. It was only really developed in the 50s and 60s.



Although experimented with in the 1920s, the air refueling concept was revitilized in the post war years when it was realized how thirsty the early jets were. Here's a great site on this stuff:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/refueling/Tech22.htm


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2005)

I didn't know when it was first tested, so I covered my back by saying _developed_. Great site, I never knew it was that old.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I didn't know when it was first tested, so I covered my back by saying _developed_.



God you're crafty


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

Wasn't one of the first refuelings done with a plane called "question mark"?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

Yep, Doolittle, Spaatz and MacCready I think


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2005)

Sounds about right. Those gusy did some amazing things for their day. Real guts there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Sounds about right. Those gusy did some amazing things for their day. Real guts there.



Yep - and look at their careers! Amazing!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2005)

During WW2 in-flight refuelling was experimented on with a P-38, but the USAAF discarded the idea because they thought it was impractical.


----------



## 16KJV11 (May 13, 2005)

That sounds about like the US military of old. Remember Gen. Billy Mitchell?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 13, 2005)

16KJV11, 

I like your signatiure saying.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (May 13, 2005)

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/forever/preww2.php
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/forever/improvisations.php
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/forever/long_range_fliers.php
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/forever/ww2.php


Heres some really good stuff about early inflight refueling. Heres another describing the flight of Lucky Lady II becoming the first nonstop circumnavigation of the globe. Its obvious that they used inflight refuelling but the method they used wasn't anything like the modern flying boom or even the probe and drogue system.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b4/b4-40.htm
http://www.afa.org/magazine/march1999/0399luckylady.asp
This article also references the Fokker C-2 named "Question Mark".


----------



## wmaxt (May 13, 2005)

I've found some interesting information relating to the worst position in a bomber and rather than bringing te thread back I thought I'd post it here.

According to the 8th Air Force 95th BG
The following per position:
Position KIA POW
Pilot 58 81
C-Pilot 56 76
Nav. 56 87
Bomb 47 83
Top T 51 90
Radio 58 83
Ball T 56 85
Waist G 102 157
Tail G 57 89

The Site is 8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS Powers. http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

This site has loss numbers for all 8th AF aircraft and a lot of other stull.

wmaxt


----------



## 16KJV11 (May 13, 2005)

Looks like the waste gunners had a very short life span!


----------



## evangilder (May 14, 2005)

Keep in mind that there are 2 waist gunners, one of each side, so the number to be more realistic should be divided by 2.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 14, 2005)

Taking that into account, it's one of the safer positions


----------



## 16KJV11 (May 14, 2005)

How do you put pictures as a signature and under your user name?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Well just back to the Best Axis Bomber thingy! That is kind of funny because the Axis never really developed any great bombers. I would however for the best in service go with the Ju-88. It could not carry a whole lot of bomb load but it was versatile as hell! For straight up innovativeness and potential I would go with the Ar-234, just because it was the first jet bomber.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

Ju-88 would make a good bet. He-111 was ok in early years but rapidly became outclassed. There was the Ju-86 high altitude bomber, but I know very little of it. How did it fare?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

The Ju-86 was not too great. And was it really a high alltitude bomber?

Type:
Ju86D, E, G, and K: bomber
Ju 86P: Bomber/Reconnaissance
Ju 86R: Reconnaissance
Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke AG
First Flight:
Ju 86V-1: November 4, 1934
Ju 86V-5 (bomber prototype): January 1936
Ju 86D-1: Late 1936
Ju 86P prototype: February 1940

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Ju 86D:
Model: Junkers Jumo 205C
Type: 6-cylinder opposed-piston diesels
Number: Two Horsepower: 600hp

Ju 86E G
Model: BMW 132
Type: 9-cylinder radials
Number: Two Horsepower: 800 or 880hp

Ju 86K:
Model: Mercury XIX
Type: 9-cylinder radials
Number: Two Horsepower: 905hp

Ju 86P R:
Model: Junkers Jumo 207A-1 or 207B-3/V
Type: turbo-charged opposed-piston diesels
Number: Two Horsepower: 1,000hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span:
Typical: 22.6m (73 ft. 10 in.)
Ju 86P: 25.6m (84 ft.)
Ju 86R: 32m (105 ft.)
Length:
Typical: 17.9m (58 ft. 8½ in.)
Ju 86G: 17.2m (56 ft. 5 in.)
Ju 86P, R: 16.46m (54 ft.)
Height: 4.7m (15 ft. 5 in.)
Wing Surface Area: 882.67 sq. ft. (82.00m²)

Weights:
Empty, Equipped:
Ju 86E-1: 5,200kg (11,464 lbs.)
Ju 86R-1: 6,700kg (14,771 lbs.)
Normal, Loaded:
Ju 86E-1: 8,200kg (18,080 lbs.)
Ju 86R-1: 11,530kg (25,420 lbs.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance: Normal,Loaded
Maximum Speed: 
Ju 86E-1: 202 mph (325 kph)
Ju 86R-1: 261 mph (420 kph)
Range:
Ju 86E: 746 miles (1,200 km)
Ju 86R-1: 980 miles (1,577 km)
Initial climb: Ju 86E: 918 ft/min (280m/min)
Service Ceiling:
Ju 86E-1: 22,310 ft. (6,800 m)
Ju 86R-1: 42,650 ft. (13,000 m)

Armament:
Ju 86D, E, G, K:
Three 7.92mm MG 15 manually aimed from nose, dorsal and retractable ventral positions
Internal Bomb Load of four 551 lb. (250kg) bombs or 16 110lb. (50kg) bombs.

Ju 86P:
Single fixed 7.92mm MG 17 Same bomb load

Ju 86R: None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variant list:
Ju 86abl: First prototype, bomber configuration. Originally powered by Siemens SAM 9 radials.

Ju 86bal: Second prototype, transport configuration. Originally powered by Jumo 205C diesels.

Ju 86cb: Third prototype, bomber configuration. Later powered by Jumo 205C diesels.

Ju 86V4: Production prototype for commercial Ju 86B.

Ju 86V5: Production prototype for Ju 86A bomber.

Ju 86A-0: 13 pre-production bombers.

Ju 86B-0: 7 pre-production transports.

Ju 86C-1: Six Lufthansa transports with Jumo 205C diesels.

Ju 86E-1: Luftwaffe bombers with BMW 132F radials.

Ju 86E-2: Uprated version of E-1.

Ju 86G-1: 40 aircraft modified from Ju 86E-2s with round, glazed nose.

Ju 86K-1: Export version for Sweden South Africa.

Ju 86K-2: 66 aircraft built for Hungary.

Ju 86K-4: Built for Sweden (B 3A) with Pegasus III radials.

Ju 86K-5: Built for Sweden (B 3B) with Pegasus XII radials.

Ju 86K-6: Export version for Chile and Portugal.

Ju 86K-13: Swedish built with Pegasus radials.

Ju 86P-1 P-2: High Altitude reconnaisance. Converted from Ju 86D.

Ju 86R-1 R-2: As P series but with higher aspect wing.



> The Junkers Ju 86 was a German monoplane bomber and civilian plane. The civilian transport model Ju 86B could carry ten passengers. Two were delivered to Swissair and five to Lufthansa.
> 
> The bomber had defensive armament of 3×MG15 and could carry a 1,000 kg bomb load. Early models (Ju 86-D1, 1936) had two Jumo 205C-4 diesel engines, but the Ju 86E replaced those with the BMW 132F.
> 
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

Thanks for that. Yep it was used as one, as it says in your notes. The Recon versions could sure fly high.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Yeah but other then the recon versions, the Ju-86 fully loaded could not top the 25,000ft mark.


----------



## Glider (May 16, 2005)

I thiknk that you will find that the Ju86 was also used by the SAAF for maritime recce off South Africa. You won't be suprised that they were armed civilian planes.
As for the best German Bomber, I have had a soft spot for the Do217. It was quite fast, had a good defensive armament and a decent bomb load. One of my contenders for the most underrated planes of the war


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

The Spitfire Mk.VI (High Altitude) was developed to counter the Ju-86.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Yes the 86 was exported to many countries including Chile, Sweden, and South Africa.


----------



## 16KJV11 (May 16, 2005)

The S.M. 79 was said to be a good bomber. It was used into the 1950's. Maybe Italy's finest contribution to bombers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Maybe as a Torpedo Bomber however as a bomber it was quite obsolete.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (May 16, 2005)

I always liked the 86 especially the P and R versions. They truly are an odd looking creature with the entire glazed nose and "pressure vessel" for the pressurized cockpit as opposed to the original stepped cockpit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

I think it was an interesting looking aircraft however she was obsolete compared to the He-111 and the 111 was not the greatest bomber ever to see the light of day.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2005)

and cirtainly not suited to large scale strateigic and tactical bombing..........


----------



## mosquitoman (May 17, 2005)

Everyone's going to disagree with me but, the He-177 was quite good (when the engines weren't on fire)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2005)

well that's like saying the Roc would have been good if it didn't have a turret sitting on the back.........


----------



## mosquitoman (May 17, 2005)

But that's the point, put some decent engines in and Germany would have a decent heavy(ish) bomber


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2005)

again, that's like saying if you put an ultra light-weight and unbelievably drag-free turret in a Roc it would have been amazing!! the fact is they didn't and it was never going to happen, you could however propose it as a "what if"..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

No I see where MM was coming from. Its similar in respect to the Komet, a good airframe badly let down by its engines.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2005)

yes but he said it was a decent bomber, it can't be good if the engine sucks, the airframe can but the plane itself, if the engine sucks, so does the plane.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

I fail to see the logic in that at all.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

What lanc is saying is; the He-117 wasn't a good aircraft because the engines were a mess. He probably agrees that the airframe had the potential to be a good aircraft but the He-117 never did have better engines, so it's a poor aircraft.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 17, 2005)

Well, to put this into Lanc's terms. The Manchester was a good bomber as long as they put 4 Merlins in instead of 2 Vultures


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2005)

no, the manchester was a bad bomber. the airframe was good, but the engines were bad, as such the manchester was a bad bomber...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

Ok then, the engines were bad, but they didnt blow up on every sortie. does that mean that on the missions where the engines prove reliable, that its a bad bomber? I think not...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

If they had just put better engines in the He-177 or even made the He-277 they would have had a great bomber. Imagine a He-177 with BMW-801's. I dont know if that would have been possible but hey just something to think about.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

I agree that would be quite formidable.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

Even when the He-117s engines weren't on fire it was still a bad aircraft because it had a tendency to set on fire at any moment. Would you want to fly in an aircraft that's well known to just catch fire!?!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

But thats the point, if they had modified the aircraft to use different engins such as the BMW 801.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Even when the He-117s engines weren't on fire it was still a bad aircraft because it had a tendency to set on fire at any moment. Would you want to fly in an aircraft that's well known to just catch fire!?!



Early B-29s did  But no "D" I have to agree with you. I thinh the 177 must of been another "Mechanic's Nightmare!"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

That I will agree with you. As a mechanic I dont think I would have wanted to work on one, especially a 277 the frankenstein of bombers.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

You wouldn't want to work on an EE Lightning either.  

The He-117 had potential in it's airframe but what it was, it was a pile of burning junk. And that's when it was flying.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2005)

Well this has been a great read! Sorry I have been away. The Ju-88 was used everywhere and if they could hve got the 288 organized more there might have been hope. Also the He-111 had more potantial and I think could have been developed into a 4 engine heavy. 

16KJV11: You said that raide on New York would have been posible with in-flight refueling and some carriers for fighter cover. That would have been an incredible capital cost and the Graft Zeplin was scrapped because the Navy was focused on U-boats. Also a few German Carriers would have drawn a lot of American carriers say a few Large fleet carriers that would have almost ouble the compliment of aircraft and those would be a lot better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You wouldn't want to work on an EE Lightning either.



I'VE HEARD!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Well this has been a great read! Sorry I have been away. The Ju-88 was used everywhere and if they could hve got the 288 organized more there might have been hope. Also the He-111 had more potantial and I think could have been developed into a 4 engine heavy.
> 
> 16KJV11: You said that raide on New York would have been posible with in-flight refueling and some carriers for fighter cover. That would have been an incredible capital cost and the Graft Zeplin was scrapped because the Navy was focused on U-boats. Also a few German Carriers would have drawn a lot of American carriers say a few Large fleet carriers that would have almost ouble the compliment of aircraft and those would be a lot better.



Interesting stuff, but I think we put too much stock in the chance that Germany was able to develope a 4 engine bomber that could reach North America, and I don't care how advanced they might of been, without fighter escort, they would of been doomed.

The Germans were bearly able to keep a fighter over London for 1/2 hour, you think they would of done better over New York?!?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Well this has been a great read! Sorry I have been away. The Ju-88 was used everywhere and if they could hve got the 288 organized more there might have been hope. Also the He-111 had more potantial and I think could have been developed into a 4 engine heavy.
> 
> 16KJV11: You said that raide on New York would have been posible with in-flight refueling and some carriers for fighter cover. That would have been an incredible capital cost and the Graft Zeplin was scrapped because the Navy was focused on U-boats. Also a few German Carriers would have drawn a lot of American carriers say a few Large fleet carriers that would have almost ouble the compliment of aircraft and those would be a lot better.



The Do-317 looked damn promising too. 8)


----------



## BombTaxi (May 17, 2005)

I think there are several factors affecting the possibility of an LW raid on NY. 

Firstly, it simply was not within the doctrine and operational mentality of OKL to launch such a raid. The LW was a close support arm - even it's heaviest bombers were meant to operate in support of a Blitzkreig war. The LW didnt try to destroy industrial infrastructure like the 8th AF; instead, it tried interdict material operating in the field. Hence the importance of a/c like the Stuka and Ju88, which were capable of delivering relatively small warloads against point targets. By slashing communications arteries and destroying specific enemy forces in the field, the LW tried to sidestep the issue of destroying the factories making war materiel.

Secondly, and as a result of the previous point, the LW, RLM and German aircraft manufacturers never put any serious effort into developing a capable strategic bomber. As in most things, such research works on a basis of supply and demand. If there is a real demand for a given technology, it can be developed fairly quickly and simply - for example, radar, sonar, or even the RAF's heavy night bombers. All of these technologies were evolved over relatively short timescales to meet the urgent demands of a specific threat environment. I believe that had there been a real demand for a strike capability against the US mainland by early 1943 (at the very latest), programs such as the AmerikaBomber and possibly the nuclear weapon systems to accompany them, could have been developed in time to seriously affect the course of the war. But by the time such a capability would have been really useful, (say, mid-1944), the aero industry was totally committed to building airframes and weapon systems that could be used to stem the combined bomber offensive and re-establish air superiority on the Eastern Front as a prelude to a possible Wehrmacht counter-offensive...in short, they had to build fighters, and bigger guns to attach to them. Thus, any chance of an intercontinental weapon system being developed was lost forever.

Of course, this is a somewhat speculatory account, but dealing with "what-ifs" is always that way 

And for my money, the best Axis bomber was the Ju88. Tough, fast and extremely versatile. It was the only LW bomber that showed true developmental flexibility - the others simply lapsed into obsolescence.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

Well as for the "Amerika Bomber" as you are all talking about. There was an ongoing project that included the Junker Ju-390, Me-264, and Fw-300.

There are unconfirmed reports that the Ju-390 made a test flight to within sight of the East Coast of the United States. I too dont believe that such a raid would have succeeded with out fighter cover (which was not going to happen). But one thing to think about is the Element of Surprise? Did the United States really think it was going to get hit? They may have thought safe eneogh not to even worry about it. This is all theoretical though and more then likley the easiest way for the Germans to hit New York would have been with rocket firing U-Boots.

Anyway info:

*Amerika Bomber*



> The Amerika Bomber project was an initiative of the German Air Ministry to obtain a long-range bomber aircraft for the Luftwaffe that would be capable of striking the continental United States from Germany. Requests for designs were made to the major German aircraft manufacturers early in World War II, long before the US had entered the war.
> 
> The most promising proposals were based on conventional principles of aircraft design and would have yielded aircraft very similar in configuration and capability to the Allied heavy bombers of the day. These included the Messerschmitt Me 264 (an all-new design), the Focke-Wulf Fw 300 (based on the existing Fw 200), and the Junkers Ju 390 (based on the Ju 290). Prototypes of the Me 264 were built, but it was the Ju 390 that was selected for production. Only two prototypes were constructed before the programme was abandoned, although it is widely claimed (and widely disputed) that the second prototype made a trans-Atlantic flight to within 20km (12 miles) of the US coast in early 1944.
> 
> ...



*Messerschmitt Me-264*



> The Messerschmitt Me 264 Amerika (America) was a long-range strategic bomber aircraft developed during World War II for the Luftwaffe under the Reichsluftfahrtministerium's "Amerika Bomber" programme.
> 
> The bomber was to be capable of flying from Germany to New York City and back. One prototype was made but production was abandoned to allow Messerschmitt to concentrate on fighter production and because the Junkers Ju 390 had been selected in its place for the Amerika Bomber.
> 
> ...



Crew: 
Length: 20.9 m (68 ft 7 in) 
Wingspan: 43.0 m (141 ft) 
Height: 4.3 m (14 ft) 
Wing area: 127.8 m² (1,376 ft²) 
Empty: 21,150 kg (46,620 lb) 
Loaded: 23,000 kg (50,000 lb) 
Maximum takeoff: 56,000 kg (123,000 lb) 
Powerplant: 4× BMW 801G/H, 1,272 kW (1,730 hp) each 

Maximum speed: 560 km/h (350 mph) 
Range: 14,900 km (9,260 miles) 
Service ceiling: 8,000 m (26,000 ft) 
Rate of climb: 120 m/min (390 ft/min) 
Wing loading: 180 kg/m² (36 lb/ft²) 
Power/mass: 0.23 kW/kg (0.14 hp/lb)

4× 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131 machine guns 
2× 20 mm (0.79 in) MG 151 cannon 
2,000 kg (4,400 lb) of bombs 

*Junkers Ju-390*



> The Junkers Ju 390 was a long-range derivative of the Junkers Ju 290 and was intended to be used as a heavy transport, maritime patrol aircraft, and bomber. It was a design selected for the abortive Amerika Bomber project.
> 
> Two prototypes were created by inserting an extra pair of inner wing segments into the wings of basic Ju 290 airframes and adding new sections to "stretch" the fuselages. The resulting giant first flew on October 20, 1943 and performed well, resulting in an order for 26 such aircraft, to be designated Ju 390A-1. None of these were actually built by the time that the project was cancelled (along with Ju 290 production) in mid 1944. The maritime patrol version and bomber were to be designated Ju 390B and Ju 390C respectively. It was suggested that the bomber could have carried the Messerschmitt Me 328 parasite fighter for self-defence. Some test flights are believed to have been performed by Ju-390 aircraft with the anti-shipping Fritz-X guided smart-bomb.
> 
> ...



Role Transport 
Crew 8 
First Flight October 20, 1943 
Entered Service 1943 
Manufacturer Junkers 

Length 34.20 m 112 ft 2 in 
Wingspan 50.30 m 165 ft 1 in 
Height 6.89 m 22 ft 7 in 
Wing area 254 m² 2,733 ft² 

Empty 39,500 kg 86,900 lb 
Loaded 53,112 kg 116,846 lb 
Maximum takeoff 75,500 kg 166,100 lb 

Engines 6x BMW 801E 
Power 8,818 kW 11,820 hp 

Maximum speed 505 km/h 314 mph 
Range 9,700 km 6,027 miles 
Service ceiling 6,000 m 19,680 ft 
Rate of climb 
Wing loading 209 kg/m² 43 lb/ft² 
Power/Mass 0.17 kW/kg 0.10 hp/lb 

2x 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons in dorsal turrets
1 x 20 mm MG 151/20 in tail
2x 13 mm MG 131 machine guns at waist
2x 13 mm MG 131 in gondola


----------



## delcyros (May 19, 2005)

Some points in bomb taxis´post are not without good reasons. He is right about the intentions of the Luftwaffe as a short range bomberfleet. Without doubt that was a key factor in the Blitzkrieg conception (with General Wever´s heavy bomber fleet consisting of Do-19 and Ju-89 the Luftwaffe could have succeeded against Britain but would fail against France in 1940) and the reason for favouring the cheaper twin engined bombers. However, from mid 1943 on the Luftwaffe tried to carry out a strategic bombing campaign against the Soviet Union (..and found that it has not the right planes to do so, resulting in a demand for a heavy bomber..). The last efforts in this way would have been KG-200 Mistel attacks against Gorki and Moscow in 1945 (which have been postponed in order to destroy the River-Oder bridges). The strategic bomber campiagn was somehow unsuited for the Luftwaffe in general, right. However your timeframes are false, bomb taxi, since you don´t need one and a half year to get a heavy bomber design from the drawing boards to operational use. This is impossible. It took almost seven years in case of the B-17 or B-36 (partly under peacetime conditions) and no less than four years in case of the B-24, B-29, He-177 or Lancaster! The main problem for a german heavy bomber was the avaiability of advanced, powerful engines. This postponed the promising Ju-288 or Do-317 (which are indeed medium bombers with a comparably high payload). The He-177 B is not that a bad plane as I feel it is shown here. While it is true that it was prone to flame, most engine problems have been fixed in mid 1944 and the plane is really aweful from this date onwards. Also if you look to it´s losses than you find out that most losses in a single dutie come from desperate (ordered by Göring..)LOW LEVEL tank hunting missions in June 1944 on the eastern front, where KG 1 lost 9 out of 40 He-177. These kind of missions is obviously unsuited to such a big plane. During the unsuccesful Baby Blitz raids against London the He-177 had the lowest loss ratio of all involved planes, thanks to it´s speed and excellent protection. It´s records in Russia are very well, also. It lost 2(one by Flak, another due to damage inflicted by crash landing) out of 90 planes in a single medium range attack against Velikije Luki. The reason why the He-177 units have been grounded in fall of 1944 was not because it was a bad plane but because it had a terribly high fuel consumption. A single attack in group strenght against a target in medium range needed 480 tons of high grade fuel, during the bad days of june and jule 1944(...at the peak of the allied oil bombing campaign...) this is a days fuel production. Supporting a regularly operating Geschwader and training for new crews in just a single month would take nearly all high grade fuel produced in june or jule 1944. This implies that it was simply not possible for the Luftwaffe to field further He-177 units. (it´s also the reason why they shifted to jet planes, since they run on more avaiable low grade fuel, also)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

I believe the main reason as you stated that they did not have Heavy Bombers at first was the fact that it was not part of there strategy at the beginning of the war. Also you have to take into account the fact that the German Bombers He-111 and Do-17 were originally desquised and used as Lufthansa transports before the war. It would have been hard to build a plane like a B-17, B-24, and Lancaster and disquise it as a commercial airliner.


----------



## delcyros (May 19, 2005)

That´s right, Adler, but both, Ju-89 and Do-19 have been flown prior to outbreak of ww2(1936 Do-19V1 and 1937 Ju-89V1)Both planes are capable to do the same job of a B-17. They suffered in the mid 30´s from engines with low performances (as did theBf-109), but with concrete improvements both planes could be ready in 1940 at a larger scale for operational use. With more advanced engines they could carry a decent bombload over a decent range at decent altitude and medium speed. The defense gunnery was also excellent. However, those planes would have been too expansive for the quickly growing Luftwaffe....


----------



## Glider (May 19, 2005)

Delcryos has a number of good points in his posting. I believe the He177 to have been a missed oppertunity and considering the amount of interference from on high, its a credit that it did what it could do. Apart from the engines which could have been solved with four individual engines. The airframe also weighed more than it would have done due to the requirement to give it a dive bombing role. I agree that it was more of a steep glide bomb but the extra strength and resulting weight couldn't have helped.
If Germany had been able to field 200 bomber raids in late 1943 then the war could have turned out very differently. After their intial evacuation Russia concentrated its manufacturing into large almost self contained towns a long way behind the lines. These were strategic targets the USA and UK heavy bomber fleets could only dream of. Had the Germans been able to launch raids on these centers, then the effect on Russian Production could have been significant. Russian fighters were generally low -medium altitude and anti aircraft guns ineffective as radar was almost unheard of so losses were likely to be low.

Bombing the USA would have been usless. It might have worked once with surprise but no more than that and the resources required way beyond what was available. The Russians were wide open and if the professionals had been allowed to get on with it, then the 177 would have been a better plane and almost certainly earlier into service.


----------



## delcyros (May 20, 2005)

As long as they had fuel, KG 1 flew succesful He-177 strikes at medium distance against railway knots in Russia.
The problem with Russia is pointed out above by yourself. It´s to big. Even He-177 could not hope to strike targets in central Sibiria and hope to return (or make it to japanese lines, it´s a comparable distance). And there a many targets to hit, I doubt that Stalin would not try to relocate them even further to the east. Best strategy in my mind would be to cutt the SU off from supply routes (take Murmansk for example) and seize the important oil fields at Baku. Both would have a great effect on the ability of the Soviets to feed them all and to operate armor divisions in a huge scale. 
No geman plane was able to strike deep within sibiria, nor to attack the US coast on a larger scale. It wouldn´t have been worthy the manpower and ressources, I believe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2005)

Don't forget lack of fighter escort, I think that would of made theses raids disastrous!


----------



## delcyros (May 20, 2005)

Indeed. Even with the poor soviet high altitude flak and those very few planes able to operate properly in high altitudes in mind, the soviets could easily upgrade an engine for these tasks or refit a known design. Not to speak of the US forces, which already can deal with such a thread.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2005)

How come the Luftwaffe didn't use the B-17s they had? I mean, they had loads! A lot of them were airworthy too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2005)

Depends when they had them. If its the later half of the war there wouldnt be much point.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2005)

Of course it'd be the later part of the war! They weren't going to have 'em in '39. 

Anyway, it wouldn't have been pointless against the Soviet Union. Just do what the FAF did and make the SU think it's U.S B-17s coming in from a shuttle-bombing. 
Then a little diversion to their factories and flatten them. Or flatten the oil plants in Caucasus.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 20, 2005)

Flayboyj> the fighter cover in the America bomber raid was said to be from German carriers but that would never happen as the US Libs, and fleet air arms would sniff them out then stuff them out. 

As for the 177 the design team tried everything they could to get it better and worked on their own for the 277, but the comand failed to see it. The B-17s and other captured bombers could be used, but they suck a lot of fuel and manhours that could be used eltsehere and if I am right the bombers were not in Europe in numbers until spring 1943?

One last bit, I like the Idea of useing the He-177 to try and cut off Russian supply and rail lines. That would be the best way to try to control and strangle Russian production. The shutle bombing thing sounds interesting.


----------



## evangilder (May 20, 2005)

The Germans captured the first B-17 in December of 1942. they did use them for a number of different missions.


----------



## trackend (May 20, 2005)

Im not an expert but as the US took very few measure to protect their east coast mechantile fleet from U-boat attack until they had suffered significant losses and even then black outs of coastel towns never took place. Do any of you guys think fighter escort would have been needed for a suprise raid on say NY.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2005)

trackend said:


> Im not an expert but as the US took very few measure to protect their east coast mechantile fleet from U-boat attack until they had suffered significant losses and even then black outs of coastel towns never took place. Do any of you guys think fighter escort would have been needed for a suprise raid on say NY.



I would guess not for a surprise raid (similar to the Doolittle Raid) but anything more serious would of required some type of escort. As MP pointed out, the only place they could of come from was aircraft carriers, and that attempt would of been disastrous.


----------



## evangilder (May 20, 2005)

The first raid would have been a surprise, but I doubt subsequent raids would have been successful.


----------



## trackend (May 20, 2005)

Good point Fly I wonder if the V3 was a more viable possibility


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2005)

trackend said:


> Good point Fly I wonder if the V3 was a more viable possibility



I would say so!


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2005)

Are you talking about the A-10 ICBM? I don't think it would have been named the V-3 unless you are talking about the actual V-3 cannon.


----------



## trackend (May 20, 2005)

Probable D You know the one. Two stage Jobie, why not V3 ? it seems logical Plan I don't know about the V3 cannon I'm not religious (I've heard of pope Gregory the 3rd)


----------



## Gemhorse (May 20, 2005)

I believe the He-177 was a flawed design from day-one, the He-277 a continuation of the flawed dream.....

Some time ago, I read Capt. Eric Brown's book on Luftwaffe aircraft, and he was scathing in his assertion of firstly it's handling, let alone it's projected capabilities....[While there are some who may pour scorn on Capt. Brown's writings, he was THERE during the War, and he did actually FLY them and I feel his experiences give him full justification to write what he did in his unbiased manner....]

The He-177 was really an after-thought, because as stated by others, the German technique was Stukas and twin-engined 'Blitzkreig' bombing; they had no vision of 'long-range heavy bombing', and only started to dabble with it once things started to go awry in Russia......and couple that with the fact they were getting hammered day night by the USAAF and Bomber Command, it was really a 'retalitory idea' in that light....
Germany had lots of 'bright-ideas', and bombing the US with uniquely-special bombers, supported by fighters from aircraft-carriers they never succeeded in building was desperate pipe-dreams.....The US was bombed, albeit very lightly, by the insidious Japanese 'jetstream-balloons', which could have become a real problem, but only a few reached that far....

Through 1943 into 1944, Germany was already doomed by Allied bombing, and if we're talking 'Best Bombers', I found this comment interesting, from Gordon Musgrove's book, ''Pathfinder Force''.....

''With the advent of the P-51D Merlin Mustang the USAAF was able to operate deep into Germany with fighter cover. By attacking aircraft factories it compelled the German Air Force to defend itself and, by it's victories, broke the back of the Luftwaffe [not numerically; in quality and experience.] Shortly after D-Day Bomber Command turned to daylight attacks over Northern France and later, when the British fighters were based on the Continent, they accompanied the bombers to targets in Germany. British bombers were the most economical: they carried a greater load and, by dropping larger bombs, they caused even more devastation. Now, because the force could bomb with precision by day or night or in conditions of 10/10ths cloud, Bomber Command became the most versatile...'' 

This again highlights the Lancaster and Mosquito in particular, as in these latter stages, these are what aircraft Bomber Command were using more exclusively, plus Halifax's; - the Stirlings and Wellingtons were not by then used in great numerical strength.
From my reading, what Germany WAS then using to good advantage, was the Ju-88, as a Nightfighter, and they were still very lethal....more so than the Bf- 109/110/210/410 and Fw-190, as their speed and firepower [including the 'Schrage Muzik'] and with twin-engined ability, appear to have admirably defended the Reich as best they could...The single-engined fighters seemed more dangerous in the day raids overall.....

For Germany, it was the Ju-88....
For Britain, it was the Lancaster Mosquito.....
For the US, it was the B-17 B-24.....

Over Japan, that was the B-29's ballpark.......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2005)

yep i'd go along with that, and i've spent the whole of this morning compiling some information and figures that i hope you will find interesting, i cirtainly did, i'll post them sometime...........


----------



## delcyros (May 21, 2005)

V-3 = fleißiges Lieschen, kind of a supergun

A huge complex build in northern France at Mimoyecques and Pihue-les-Guines. One complex consisted of five barrels with a length of max. 150 m (~420ft, extendable to 500 ft) and an elevation of between 40 and 50 degrees. It´s purpose was to fire 5.9 inch grenades (7 feet, 9 inch long) to London or other targets in up to 100 miles distance.
The muzzle velocity was about 1600 m/sec. (~5.300 ft./sec). 
Both places have been widely protected by concrete steel and Beton. Actually Lt. Joe Kennedy died by training for a PBY4-1 radio controlled attack on Mimoyecques known as project Anvil. Each bomber had over 20.000 lbs of Torpex on board, once on course, both crewman should bail out and let the plane crash into the target. None of those places ever fired a shot since the working delayed considerably by french workers and 14 Lancaster of No.617 squadron dropped Tallboys on the sites. Damage was only minor but one of the Tallboys got a lucky hit and moved through an small opening (call it Luke Skywalker!) and detonated on the deep inside, where it´s schockwave opened water bearing chalks in the lower level and killing some thousend french worker.
Two smaller guns have been fired on Antwerpen and Luxemburg in january and february 1945.


----------



## trackend (May 21, 2005)

Cheers Del now I know. dont I


----------



## mosquitoman (May 21, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> For Britain, it was the Lancaster Mosquito...



Don't forget the Hally, she was a major player aswell


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

The A-10 ICBM was the ony that had many V-2s attached and as one ran out of fuel it would fall away, like on a space rocket. It would have probably been named the V-4 because as you see, V-3 was already taken. 

Von Braun designed it, he also designed most post-war ICBMs and he also headed the design team of the Saturn 5 rocket. It was him in 1967 that announced to the U.S (and World) "I do believe we can put a man on the moon, yes" - Which became Saturn 5 on Apollo 11.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2005)

ok before i post them figures, what was the normall maximum payload for the PBY-5A??


----------



## delcyros (May 22, 2005)

Officially the V-4 was not determined to any weapon. Could be that the A-10 would get a V-number but in the probable timeframe we would be in 1946 with the first A-10 launches, if even. At this time the V-4 would surely have given to another project (nerve agents, subcritical nukes and so on..).
According to a british aerospace magazine, publishing the performances of the captured He-177, there was good luck for the allies that the plane did not came to operational service sooner.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ok before i post them figures, what was the normall maximum payload for the PBY-5A??



I think it was around 2000lbs


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2005)

well i have sorces saying between 2,000 and 4,500lbs.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2005)

Max. Payload may well have been 4,500lbs but everything ive seen says the Max. normal payload is 2000lbs.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 22, 2005)

A lot depends on the role you have in mind. The PBY had 4 hardpoins, IIRC, two under each wing. For a/s work, the max payload _carried_ would be 1000-2000lb (as depth bombs generally came in 250lb and 500lb varieties). As a bomber, 2000-4000lb (assuming 500lb or 1000lb GPs are used). I believe a 1000lb GP was the largest weapon the hardpoints could carry.


----------



## evangilder (May 22, 2005)

Interesting question. I have 2 books that say it was 4,000 lbs (David Mondey- American Aircraft of WWII and Charles Catton- WWII Warplane Guide). Then I have a Bill Gunston book that says 2,000 lbs. (Encyclopedia of the World's Combat Aircraft) and another Gunston book that says 4,000 lbs.! (Encyclopedia of World Air Power). I am guessing that it is probably capable of 4,000 lbs., but would typically carry 2,000.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

No one stated that A-10 got an official V-4 designation but I imagine it would. Nerve Gas wouldn't be considered a vengeance weapon.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

Glider said:


> Bombing the USA would have been usless. It might have worked once with surprise but no more than that and the resources required way beyond what was available.



And thats the point I was trying to make. I think they could have pulled off one raid with one aircraft (and complete loss of the aircraft) because of surprise. No one would have thought it would be possible. She woudl have been lost certainly right after the raid because of US fighters and thats even saying she had the fuel to get back. And other attempt at a raid would not have worked.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 23, 2005)

Lanc: For the PBY-5A I have 4,000lb max for bombs/torpedos It will depend on the mission type. More airtime less arms, but that is basic.

DearAdler, the US coast was patroled of sorts with B-18s, but not well. I want to read more about US Coastal deffence in the war. It was not up to the Brithish standards, or should it have been?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2005)

ok i'll go with 4,000lbs??


----------



## BombTaxi (May 23, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Lanc: For the PBY-5A I have 4,000lb max for bombs/torpedos It will depend on the mission type. More airtime less arms, but that is basic.
> 
> DearAdler, the US coast was patroled of sorts with B-18s, but not well. I want to read more about US Coastal deffence in the war. It was not up to the Brithish standards, or should it have been?



Try this book: Homer J. Hickham Jr., _Torpedo Junction_, Bluejacket Books, Annapolis, MD (1996). ISBN 1-55750-362-1. About $20.00.

While it mainly focusses on the Coast Guard in 1942/3, it provides a very thourough account of the forces (or lack of) available to the US for the defence of the Atlantic seaboard. Even with requisitioned Army and civilian aircraft and two dozen Royal Navy trawlers, the US was hard pressed to combat the U-boat menace until convoys were finally introduced in 1942. It's excellently written too, and is fast-paced enough to convey deatil without becoming dry. Highly rcommended  8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

And that is why the Civil Air Patrol was originally formed. To fly the coast line looking for U-Boots. Now it is a civil search and rescue group that also works like ROTC as an Airforce Auxillary to teach young people about Aeronautics and such not.


----------



## evangilder (May 24, 2005)

Here in California, the CAP also assists the DEA for catching drug runners and the border patrol.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Thats good stuff. I was in the CAP when I was younger. I really loved it and would love to get back into it as a cadre.


----------



## superunknown (May 26, 2005)

I think the B-24 was the best, it may have flown "like a slab sided lorry" but it served in every theatre and did the job perfectly where ever it went. Plus the fact it was brilliant for anti shipping duties, did you know that Liberators dropped the first "guided" bomb during WW2. The Azar (or something like that) was used for knocking out bridges in the CBI theatre.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 26, 2005)

It was the Azon (Azimuth and something else) It was also instrumental in the Convoy Escort- Terence Bulloch in Liberator AM929 is the only person to have sunk 2 submarines in 1 sortie


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Yes but it was guided by azmithuth only.

The Fritz X was the first operational "guided" bomb.



> The Fritz-X was a 1400 kg (3,300 lb) armor-piercing bomb with control fins and a radio data link usually launched from Do 217 and He 177 bombers. This weapon was the first operational guided bomb and proved quite effective. Released from an altitude of 16,000 to 20,000ft (4875 - 6095 m) the bomb reached a terminal velocity approaching sound. Half of the pre-production Fritz X bombs hit within a 197 in ( 5m square. ) III/KG 100, formed from Lehr und Erprobungskommano 21, was the first unit to use the Fritz-X. Equipped with Do 217K-2s each plane could carry two of the guided bombs on ETC 2000/XII racks. On September 9, 1943 two hits scored on the Italian battleship Roma sent her to the bottom. The Italia, also part of this fleet sailing out to surrender to the Allies, was hit and severely damaged. A British battleship, the Warspite was knocked out of the war for a year when a single Fritz-X penetrated all six decks and blew a hole through the bottom. The new weapon also sank the cruiser Spartan and damaged the cruisers Savannah and Uganda. Aggressive fighter patrols and electronic jamming disrupted the control signals from the launch aircraft to the bomb. A total of 1,386 Fritz-X bombs were manufactured, 602 of these being expended in tests.
> http://www.ww2guide.com/missiles.shtml#fritzx


----------



## DaveB.inVa (May 26, 2005)

PB4Y-2 Privateers (the Naval Liberator with the single big tail) dropped a glide bomb called the Bat. This thing was one of the most technological innovations of the war as it was a radar guided homing glide bomb. Set it and forget it.... it did not have to be guided at all by an operator like the Azon and Fritz X. 

On the open ocean it was deadly as when dropped the radar only had one real target to home in on, the ship. If dropped near land however the radar was easily confused and would glide toward the object with the largest return, like mountains and land. These were used with pretty good success from January 1945 onward.


----------



## wmaxt (May 26, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> PB4Y-2 Privateers (the Naval Liberator with the single big tail) dropped a glide bomb called the Bat. This thing was one of the most technological innovations of the war as it was a radar guided homing glide bomb. Set it and forget it.... it did not have to be guided at all by an operator like the Azon and Fritz X.
> 
> On the open ocean it was deadly as when dropped the radar only had one real target to home in on, the ship. If dropped near land however the radar was easily confused and would glide toward the object with the largest return, like mountains and land. These were used with pretty good success from January 1945 onward.



There was a group of B-25s that flew into the Yellow sea andthe sea of Japan at night with the Bats. They were quite successful but I've only seen the details once several years ago. The missions were 12-14 hours long.

wmaxt


----------



## mosquitoman (May 26, 2005)

Coastal Command Liberators and Avengers off the escort carriers had the Mk.24 mine. It wasn't a mine at all but a homing torpedo used as a U-Boat was diving because it was a sitting duck at that point


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

That has got to be one of the most frightening experieces to be attacked from the air while on a sub.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 27, 2005)

You would be absolutely helpless in a crash-dive waiting for the hull to be ripped apart


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

Yeap the only thing worse I believe is beign depth charged.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 27, 2005)

Dear Alder, and how much different from depth charges is it?

Thanks for the help with the East Coast diffence, I did noe know the CAP was formed for U-boat work. I still have a lot of reading to do. It seems hard to beleave that the US coast could be so open like that


----------



## PGH (May 29, 2005)

You're a bomber crewmen, Mission for today is Berlin or Merseburg...A thousand Flak batteries and a thousand German fighters await you..You can fly in a squadron B-17s, B-24s or Lancs...You'd really like to see your family again...Which do you choose??????If range, fuel economy and payload are to be the primary considerations, perhaps we should send in a fleet of zepplins...They have greater payloads then Lancs or B-29s even and use very little fuel to get there..Their range is unlimitted.....If you can't fight thru the defences to the target, it hardly matters how many bombs you can carry.....5000# of bombs delivered on target is better then 20000# in smouldering wreakage in a Bavarian cornfield....


----------



## mosquitoman (May 29, 2005)

Zeppelins are very slow and would be VERY vulnerable to flak and enemy fighters, they would work on short channel-hops but that's about it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2005)

One incendiary, a giant cigar!


----------



## mosquitoman (May 29, 2005)

Yep!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2005)

> a fleet of zepplins...They have greater payloads then Lancs



my God! you actually believe that!! there's no way a zepplin could carry a grand slam.......


----------



## MP-Willow (May 31, 2005)

I will take B-24s with P-47's as my escort! Just as long as we do not fly to Polesti I will go anywhere


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > a fleet of zepplins...They have greater payloads then Lancs
> 
> 
> 
> my God! you actually believe that!! there's no way a zepplin could carry a grand slam.......



I think THAT would look very funny! A Zepplin trying to carry a grand slam!  If it did get off the ground, I'd like to see what happens when the Zepplin releases it! 40,000 feet in 3.2 seconds!  Talk about ballast!


----------



## mosquitoman (May 31, 2005)

I'd take a LNSF Mossie to Berlin with a cookie and still be back in time to do another trip the same night!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Dear Alder, and how much different from depth charges is it?



Well personally I thinkt he sitting there and listening to the sonar of the destroyers overhead and waiting for the explosions would be a lot worse then listening to a torpedo swish through the water. Just my opionion though.

As for the taking of what aircraft I would have to go with the Liberators. Mostly out of spite for Lanc.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (May 31, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > a fleet of zepplins...They have greater payloads then Lancs
> 
> 
> 
> my God! you actually believe that!! there's no way a zepplin could carry a grand slam.......



I don't know... some late war Zeppelins were quoted to carry around 40~50 tons. You can do a whole lot with 65,000 cubic meters of hydrogen!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Yes, like blow it up  Zep's would be damn vulnerable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yes, like blow it up  Zep's would be damn vulnerable.



Blow up with a Grand Slam slung underneath? Imagine that! 

1 incendiary!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

Yeah I dont think it would be very wise to do a bombing raid with Zeppelins. The whole force could go up in flames.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (May 31, 2005)

Hey man we're not talking about blowing up, just lift.... and it would lift it! Although I do agree burning could easily happen and I really wouldn't want to try a raid.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

And thats the point. What is the real chances of success with Zeppelins in WW2? About......... 0


----------



## delcyros (May 31, 2005)

simple answer: none.


----------



## delcyros (May 31, 2005)

But maybe someone here played Crimson skies for a time....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

Only in fantasy my friend just like crimson skies.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2005)

COULDN'T RESIST


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

Thats about what it would look like.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (May 31, 2005)

Oh, sorry I never really thought about this being in WWII... I heard Zeppelin and automatically went to WWI.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

That is actually what I thought at first. They were used in WW1 for bombing raids. I believe there were even some over London but I am not sure.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2005)

yes they were, but they were easily shot down and so not used much, they had a greater moral impact than military.......


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2005)

German Gotha Bombers were more effective, faster and harder to shoot down


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2005)

which is why they were prefered to zepplins.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2005)

Obviously


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

now shall we get back on topic??

i spent a whole morning doing this, not sure how usefull the info will be though..........

I'm a big beliver in making the best of what you've got, and this is no different bombers, obviously the payload you can carry will be affected by the horsepower you've got, but sometimes you can have lots of horsepower but a small payload, in doing these stats i hope to show in some way the actual lifting abilities of these planes, as this puts all planes on the the plane (no pun intended), it just shows their ability to lift payloads, obviously tell me if some of the data is wrong, what i've done is taken the plane's payload, and divided it by the total horsepower of all the engines combined, to give the payload in lbs that is lifted for each horsepower the plane has, i hope this all makes sence

i am not intending this to prove the best bomber, i just found it interesting......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

ok i just tried downloading it and when you do, if you wish to sort the data, highlight all the data and go to the data option at the top of the window, then sort, you can then sort the data by any of the catagories.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Nice list, but you put the P-38's max payload at 4000lbs when its 5200lbs...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

i just use the most widely accepted data, the normall combat load......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Is that why you used 17,600 for the B-17? And 22,000 for the lanc?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

naturally..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

You put some odd planes in there. How come you used the MC.205?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

i just went through a book with about 300 WWII planes and picked out the ones people had really heard off, but what do you think about what it shows??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Well its pretty much as one would expect it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2005)

yeah, although the B-29 didn't do as well as many people would think it would do i think.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2005)

Yeah it probably has the ability to carry a whole load more to be honest, its probably restricted by the size of the bomb bay.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jun 2, 2005)

I believe however that your logic for this is flawed. You totally ignore the weight of the aircraft as well. These values are using max overload figures.

B-29 15.34 lbs per hp

Avro Lancaster 10.7 lbs per hp

B-17G 15 lbs per hp

Also you use given rated military or takeoff power levels. Note that these power levels are not maintained throughout the flight, just as no aircraft flew at its maximum speed throughout the flight. These power levels may also greatly differ due to altitude. In short those figures arent nearly as important as you think!

Just as a note as well, by use of different shackle arrangements and a combination of incendiary and general purpose high explosive bombs the B-29 could carry an internal load of 22,800 pounds. The B-29 was also equipped with 4 underwing hardpoints that could accomodate up to a 4000 lb bomb per hardpoint. 

Plus you can't forget this picture. I originally got the picture from the B-29 Superfortress Yahoo group however the picture is also seen at this site. http://members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yeah, although the B-29 didn't do as well as many people would think it would do i think.....



I believe under 300 B-29s were lost between 44 and 45, the worse was 29 in a 525 plane raid. In the beginning it had lots of engine problems, but by June 45 it was King!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2005)

Dave i was using the figures to simply show how much payload the planes could take per Hp, i should not have taken into account all up aircraft weight, as this is no indication of anything!! 

and do you think i am so mind numbingly stupid that i do not know that aircraft don't fly at full power for the whole flight?? but i used the maximum horse power as that's the maximum available, which figured would you rather i used? would it make you happy if i tried to find an average horse power from every flight of every aircraft in the war?? 

and i couldn't give a shit about what thye B-29 could or could not carry, fact is, she never carried and dropped two tallboys in combat it WWII, as such i aint counting it, all my sources state the maximum payload of the B-29 as 20,000lbs, why?? because that's the generally accepted combat maximum, all the planes could carry more than the listed maximum if they wanted, but i'm using very widely accepted figures, i'm willing to trust my figures given the accepted combat maximum over one person, who, if i might add, has a shocking manner when talking to people, that says the B-29 could carry more with, however he does not give any source, and does not even say if it carried that ammount in comabt, what is your source?? i will gladly post a list of mine if you so wish, i'm willing to bet good money that my sources are more numerous and reliable than yours..........

furthermore the figures were not meant to be anything definitive, i stated that very clearly when i posted them, i simply did it to give poeple an idea of the figures, but obviously you did not get that, and you strive for something more definitive, well if you want something better, you're more than welcome to bog off and do it yourself rather than complain to me, i'll look forward to see your much improved version..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2005)

You're contradicting yourself big time lanc...you say the most widely accepted combat maximum but that means you should alter the B-17's to ~6000lbs...not 17,600lbs as I severly doubt it carried this much in combat...and not every Lancaster could carry 22,000lbs, just the specially modified Dambusters ones, I believe the general max. payload for a normal Lancaster was 18,000lbs...

And no need to get so stressed out about it...I often wonder why everyone here is so touchy?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2005)

I'm not touchy, NS won't let me.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2005)

Ok, my immense ESP skills detect that this thread is degrading into category WRONG....


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2005)

I think the fact that lanc has used 17,600 lbs and 22,000 lbs as maximum combat loads is right. The maximum combat load is different from maximum load, the B-29 never carried those loads into combat so it's not a combat load. 

Although, I do think the P-38 load should be changed to 5,200 lbs because it did carry it in combat.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 3, 2005)

Lanc, thanks for the list. I will try to look about the B-17G and also question when looking at this load to Hp we sould take into account the model. When you Say Lancaster is it the mark One or Ten?

The B-24 normally carried 8 to 12 thousdand for combat, that is for G to L models. But then crews took up icecream to chill for desert as wel


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jun 3, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Dave i was using the figures to simply show how much payload the planes could take per Hp, i should not have taken into account all up aircraft weight, as this is no indication of anything!!



How do you figure you shouldn't figure the aircraft weight as well? Do the engines not have to carry the whole aircraft or just the playload?



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and do you think i am so mind numbingly stupid that i do not know that aircraft don't fly at full power for the whole flight?? but i used the maximum horse power as that's the maximum available, which figured would you rather i used? would it make you happy if i tried to find an average horse power from every flight of every aircraft in the war??



Never did say you were mind numbingly stupid, however at times like this I do wonder.  



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and i couldn't give a s**t about what thye B-29 could or could not carry



I feel the exact same towards the Lancaster. 



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> fact is, she never carried and dropped two tallboys in combat it WWII, as such i aint counting it



Sounds like a case of jealousy. 




the lancaster kicks ass said:


> all my sources state the maximum payload of the B-29 as 20,000lbs, why?? because that's the generally accepted combat maximum, all the planes could carry more than the listed maximum if they wanted, but i'm using very widely accepted figures



Why not tell the whole story with the Lancaster. You know very well the Lancasters modified to carry one tallboy or grand slam were modified to reduce weight. I do have no doubt however that they could carry the bomb without these modifications.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i'm willing to trust my figures given the accepted combat maximum over one person who, if i might add, has a shocking manner when talking to people, that says the B-29 could carry more with, however he does not give any source, and does not even say if it carried that ammount in comabt, what is your source?? i will gladly post a list of mine if you so wish, i'm willing to bet good money that my sources are more numerous and reliable than yours..........



Maybe your sources are more numerous for the Lancaster, I do however doubt it for the B-29. 

Heres my source http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_5.html
Also I own references 1-3 on that page, plus 3 more that do reference to the B-29 carrying the aforementioned load. I also have 3 other great references that focus only on the B-29 and the 509th Composite Group. This may not be a large number of references but these are complete books that deal only with the B-29 and not a plethora of books that provide "general information" with a story. I do have some books however that do provide "general information" and a story, usually these mention the Lancaster in there somewhere. I also can get just about any bit of information you'd like from the B-29 Yahoo group. I've met quite a few of these great veterans and have been extremely honored to be able to view the volumes of reference material they possess. I also respect and greatly appreciate the time and knowledge they are willing to give freely to anyone who asks. 

One such veteran lives just a few miles from my college apartment. His home and life revolves more around the B-29 than any one person I know and dare I say revolves even more around the B-29 than your life revolves around the Lancaster. He has two full rooms and a garage absolutely filled with technical manuals on the B-29 along with an almost complete history of the B-29 program. His material covers everything from the part numbers and diagrams for the B-29's Minneapolis Honeywell electronic turbo controls all the way to the crew names and mission lists for the Boeing "Washington" that your country used after WWII. I have had the joy of browsing all of this at will. He is just happy that someone else besides him appreciates the B-29 and the veterans that fought with her. 

Please elaborate on the "shocking manner" in which I talk to people.




the lancaster kicks ass said:


> furthermore the figures were not meant to be anything definitive, i stated that very clearly when i posted them, i simply did it to give poeple an idea of the figures, but obviously you did not get that, and you strive for something more definitive, well if you want something better, you're more than welcome to bog off and do it yourself rather than complain to me, i'll look forward to see your much improved version..............



I'm not complaining at all, I'm just stating the facts. I really am not out to get you and am not at all opposed to your views of the Lancaster or its abilities. I do notice however that anytime anyone mentions the B-29 that it sends you into a complete mental breakdown. I don't know why this happens, though at times I suspect you are slightly envious of the B-29 or are perhaps reluctant to recognize any figures that may trump the figures of the Lancaster. That is fine by me. I do not envy the Lancaster nor its crews. I also do not envy that the Lancaster was used for certain missions. I do however disagree when someone states that no other aircraft would have been able to perform such operations. .

In conclusion Im not out to get you and I feel no animosity toward you. I dont even want to anger you in any way. Im just about the facts and would wish to debate these facts in a calm civil manner that does not degrade to profanity. I like your posts and am actually glad your around because you're one of the few "bomber people" on this board even if I don't see eye to eye with some of your posts.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 3, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I'm not touchy, NS won't let me.


Hey, hey, don't point that thing at me! I just don't want people here to kill each other. Beyond that, you be as touchy as you like! :-"


----------



## Soren (Jun 3, 2005)

Nice post DaveB.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 3, 2005)

Agreed. Well said.


----------



## trackend (Jun 4, 2005)

I sometimes feel guys that threads go a bit off course more through Passion about our favourite aircraft or subject than anything else. I am as much to blame as anyone else, why we pick on certain planes as our personel choice perhaps would make an interesting thread finding out what makes use feel this way about particular aircraft.
Regarding the two aircraft in question I think the B29 probably was a better plane but as its introduction was towards the latter part of the war (I think April 1944) the Lancaster and the B17 played far more significant roles in the conflict and of these two I think the Lanc probably carried a bigger payload overall to the enemy which at the end of the day is what a bomber is supposed to do.
As far as which could carry what between the B29 the Lanc I'll leave that to you guys to sort out.
Can I just ask you to be nice as it does tend to detract from ( for me) an interesting topic and I would like to learn more. As it stands I already know all the insults available in the English language (and a few I've invented myself) and that includes Les's colourful turn of phrase's (well almost all of Les's )  
Cheers fellas.
Uncle Lee


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2005)

Well said DaveB.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2005)

hey hey hey, when did this turn into lanc Vs. B-29?? i never turned this into a lanc Vs. B-29 contest, in actual fact i have in the past admitted that the B-29 is a better bomber than the lancaster, however as you all seem to be so quick to judge to judge me when you know nothing of my posting history, you assume that i automatically think the lanc was the best thing since sliced bread, i know this is not the case and that the B-29 was a better bomber, get my full opinion before you judge me like that.......


----------



## trackend (Jun 4, 2005)

Blimey Lanc If I read all nearly 12000 posts I wont have time for anything else.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 5, 2005)

i'm just asking him to get my full opinion before he makes judgements like that..........


----------



## trackend (Jun 5, 2005)

Fair enough.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

I don't judge you, lanc. I think your knowledge on the Lancaster is quite remarkable [and certainly unbias as the Lancaster was an amazing machine] but...

...I still hate you.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 5, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2005)

coming from pD that's quite a compliment.........


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 6, 2005)

We can al agree that as Tracked said the two bombers were almost in two different wars. The B-29 was never in europe so, we have a hard time to compaire the two, I think.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2005)

the way i see it is, technically the B-29 was the best bomber of the war, the lancaster however achieved more, was the best in Europe and the best by night.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

Yep...


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2005)

Another way to look at it is to say that the Lanc was the best of its generation and the B29 the first of the next Generation. In many ways technically it was that kind of leap


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

Glider said:


> Another way to look at it is to say that the Lanc was the best of its generation and the B29 the first of the next Generation. In many ways technically it was that kind of leap



A BIG leap although its teething pains were horrible!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 7, 2005)

he is right though, they are different generations of bombers........


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 8, 2005)

Yes, true.


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2005)

FJ as they say at work, the leading edge of technology is sharp and at times, it hurts.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 8, 2005)

Exactly. That´s why the B-29 can be taken as the best, which saw service.
But if we are talking about generations, the B-29 had it´s advent in the time of the appearence of the first jets. A very uncomfortable company...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Exactly. That´s why the B-29 can be taken as the best, which saw service.
> But if we are talking about generations, the B-29 had it´s advent in the time of the appearence of the first jets. A very uncomfortable company...



Yep - and the clash of those generations met over Korea. Fast, small, relatively short range jets meeting highly advanced large reciprocating turbo-boosted bombers with radar and other advanced systems. Classic!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

German designed airframes with British engines and Korean pilots (and Russians...they'll still deny it) against an All-American big bastard! The MiG-15 made the B-29 obselete very quickly but the old bird didn't go down without a fight in a lot of cases.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2005)

Yep, I think the 29 gunners got over 20 mig kills ( I got the number posted somewhere on here).

My uncle was a B-29 radio operator in Korea. He crashed in Japan after a mission, got shot up by Migs! Cracked his face on the radio panel.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

Four 30mm cannons never did any bomber any good. I find it remarkable though that the F-86 and MiG-15 were so close in comparison yet people, to this day, claim the F-86 was far-far superior. 

For anyone that wants to jump in with "The F-86 destroyed over 786 MiG-15s..." No it didn't! I've had more people say that to me than "Good morning"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2005)

I could tell you I worked on both of them, privately owned here in the states. The 86 was better built, more complex and just plan more advanced. The 15 was simple and easy to operate. The guy that owned them said the 15 accelerated quicker but wasn't as stable and was a b*tch to land. The 86 was generally faster and more stable, The MiG he owned was Chinese built....

As far as Korean war MiG kills, I think the 86 still mauled the MiG, but I think the numbers were a lot less. The Russians who were there fought well as we are now finding out. I think the touted 10 to 1 or 14 to 1 kill ratio was more like 4 to 1, and that's including Korean and Chinese pilots!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

Many websites state that 786 MiG-15s were shot down by F-86s during the Korean conflict. In fact, the Korean air force lost just over 400 aircraft altogether and not all were MiG-15s. 

The F-86 had the better record out of the two but the MiG-15 was a bomber destroyer, and did it's job well. The U.S pilots and tactics were superior to that of the Korean (and Russian) pilots. 

We always knew there were Russian pilots flying. They were told not to speak Russian while on the inter-com and to kill themselves if shot down. They caught some Russians on the ground and intercepted radio transmissions in Russian...

...we knew.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

Here is a comparison between the two (F-86A-5 Vs. MiG-15); 

_The MiG could outclimb the Sabre at all altitudes, although the latter was marginally faster in level flight. The MiG's greater operational ceiling gave it an initial advantage in combat, yet although it had a greater initial acceleration in a dive, the heavier Sabre had the advantage in a sustained dive. The MiG's zoom climb and tight turning characteristics (except at high speeds) were valuable, but the fighter's good points were counterbalanced by such undesirable features as poor control at high speeds, a low rate of roll and directional instability at high altitudes. Its heavy armament (two 23mm and one 37mm cannon) was better suited to bomber interception than to fighter-vs-fighter combat; but the Sabre's six 0.5 cal MGs, while having a faster rater of fire, lacked the range and hitting power necessary for jet combat. On the plus side, the Sabre had the marvelous K14 radar gun-sight, which gave enormous assistance to our pilots, particularly in derivative movement information of enemy aircraft, which gave invaluable lead-time in dog-fights._

There were 900 claimed victories, 792 MiG-15s, by the U.S during Korea. Post-war documentation from both sides shows that only 379 Korean aircraft were shot down, not all MiG-15s and not all by F-86s. 78 Sabres were lost.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2005)

Great stuff D! This is my fav subject! Love both aircraft, although I would of loved to be flying an F-86 in Mig Alley, 1953!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

I've read a few articles about how the F-86 overcame the MiG-15s, in some ways, technical advantage. They would fly into MiG-Alley in 5 minute intervals, four aircraft per flight at varying altitudes from 22,000 feet to 35,000 feet. The MiGs would bounce the first flight only to be pounced on by the flight behind, if other MiGs were close by they'd bounce the second flight only to be pounced by the third flight. And so on and so forth, so the MiGs would throw away their initial height advantage and suffer a terrific counter-attack from the Sabres. 

There were normally four flights of four aircraft, cruising at a usual Mach 0.87.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I've read a few articles about how the F-86 overcame the MiG-15s, in some ways, technical advantage. They would fly into MiG-Alley in 5 minute intervals, four aircraft per flight at varying altitudes from 22,000 feet to 35,000 feet. The MiGs would bounce the first flight only to be pounced on by the flight behind, if other MiGs were close by they'd bounce the second flight only to be pounced by the third flight. And so on and so forth, so the MiGs would throw away their initial height advantage and suffer a terrific counter-attack from the Sabres.
> 
> There were normally four flights of four aircraft, cruising at a usual Mach 0.87.



Yes, also head that even with superior numbers, the Migs would get suckered into this a lot. The Mig performed better at certain higher altitudes than the 86, so the key was to bring them lower and blast them before they ran to the Yalu.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and i couldn't give a s**t about what thye B-29 could or could not carry, fact is, she never carried and dropped two tallboys in combat it WWII,.....



Your right but tell me if the Lancaster dropped the only 2 atom bombs to be dropped in combat? Let me think......Nope it was a B-29!!! 8) 

Sorry Lanc but you can not even compare your beloved Lancaster to the B-29. As stated 2 different generations and the 29 completely outlcassed the Lancaster. The Lancaster was great thought. I will give you that.

Sorry I know this was late but I had to throw this in.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2005)

MY GOD MAN!!!! i've admitted the B-29 was a better bomber!! but also remember the lanc achieved more, was the best in Europe and the best by night.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

Im just ruffling your feathers man. You know that.   

I will give you the best in Europe and the best at night. But it is not hard to be the best at Europe when you are bombing at night and the Liberators are bombing at day. LOL  

Still just ruffeling your feathers.


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2005)

Tell me lanc whats your honest opinion of the Avro Lancaster do you like it

A. Passionately with a slight hint of sexual excitement.

B. Aloofly in a distant yet loving way. or

C. You actually prefer the Vickers Vimey but don't like being too retro


Please answer A.B.C. or tell me to Bog Off. thankyou


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

I bet its C


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2005)

The Lancaster was the best over Europe (any airforce) and the B-29 the best over the pacific, technically the best of both.
Just a question: Is the XB-15 or XB-19 discussed yet? They do sound very promising.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

Nope, not heard of these projects? Tell more!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 10, 2005)

The XB-15 was the predecessor to the B-17. It was bigger than the B-17.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

delcyros said:


> The Lancaster was the best over Europe (any airforce) and the B-29 the best over the pacific, technically the best of both.
> Just a question: Is the XB-15 or XB-19 discussed yet? They do sound very promising.



Both layed the groundwork for lots of technology, but had they been sent over Europe they would of been dead meat!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 10, 2005)

trackend said:


> Tell me lanc whats your honest opinion of the Avro Lancaster do you like it
> 
> A. Passionately with a slight hint of sexual excitement.
> 
> ...



none of these actually...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

We all know its C lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 10, 2005)

i honestly can't explain my love of the lancaster, i can explain what got me into liking it...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Info on the XB-15 and XB-19 for those who wanted it:

*Boein XB-15*



> The Boeing XB-15 (Boeing Model 294) bomber aircraft was first designed in 1934 as a test for the United States Army Air Corps to see if it was possible to build a heavy bomber with a 5,000-mile range. It was originally designated the XBLR-1 (experimental bomber, long range, model 1). When it first flew, it was the most massive and most voluminous aeroplane ever built in the United States. It set a number of load-to altitude records, including a 31,205-pound flight to 8,200 feet (1939 July 30). One notable product of this size was that the crew could use passages in the wing to make minor repairs while the plane was flying. Due to limits on the technology it used, a 5,000 mile flight took several days. Thus, the crew had bunks to sleep on between shifts. It was meant to use liquid-cooled 1,000 hp (750 kW) engines. Unfortunately, these were not available, so 850 hp (637 kW) engines were used instead. These engines significantly underpowered the plane; its top speed of 200 mph (322 km/h) was far too slow for an acceptable bomber, and the project was eventually scrapped. No B-15s were put into service; the USAAC converted the only XB-15 to a cargo carrier, designated the XC-105.
> 
> Despite its failure, the XB-15 did have a number of significant features:
> 
> ...



*General Characteristics*
Crew: 10 
Length: 87 ft 7 in (32.6 m) 
Wingspan: 149 ft 0 in (45.5 m) 
Height: 18 ft 0 in (5.5 m) 
Wing area: ft² ( m²) 
Empty: 65,000 lb (30,001 kg) 
Loaded: 69,000 lb (31,000 kg) 
Maximum takeoff: 77,000 lb (37,000 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Pratt Whitney R-1830-11 of 850 hp (640 kW) each 

*Performance*
Maximum speed: 200 mph (346 km/h) 
Cruising speed: 152 mph (294 km/h) 
Combat Range: 3,400 miles (2,200 km) 
Ferry Range: 5,130 miles (8,250 km) 
Service ceiling: 18,900 ft (7,380 m) 
Wing loading: lb/ft² ( kg/m²) 
Power/Mass: 0.0490 hp/lb (0.0813 kW/kg)

*Armament*
3× .30-calibre (7.26 mm) machine guns, 3× .60-calibre (14.5 mm) machine guns 
12,000 lb (5,400 kg) bombs 

*She was deffinatly underarmed and would have been and easy target for Luftwaffe fighters.*

*Martin XB-16*

The XB-16 was pretty much the same only larger then the XB-15 but was never built.



> Like the Boeing XB-15, the Martin XB-16 was designed to meet the U.S. Army's request for a bomber that could carry 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs 5,000 miles (8045 km). Its design was very similar to that of the XB-15, but it was 30% longer.
> 
> The XB-16 was to use four Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled inline engines. (All other contemporary aircraft used radial air-cooled engines.)
> 
> ...



*General Characteristics*
Crew: 11 
Length: 115 ft (35.0 m) 
Wingspan: 173 ft (52.7 m) 
Empty: 104,880 lb (47,573 kg) 
Powerplant: 6× Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled inline engines of 850 hp (640 kW) each 

*Performance (estimated)*
Maximum speed: 190 mph (310 km/h) 
Cruising speed: 140 mph (230 km/h) 
Combat Range: 3,300 miles (5,300 km) 
Wing loading: lb/ft² ( kg/m²) 
Power/Mass: 0.0486 hp/lb (0.0800 kW/kg)

*Douglas XB-19*



> The Douglas XB-19 was the largest bomber built for the United States Army Air Corps prior to 1938. Its combined length and wingspan of 344 ft (105 m) was only 12% less than that of the Convair B-36 with 392 ft (119 m), the largest bomber ever made for the United States. It was originally given the designation XBLR-2 (eXperimental Bomber, Long Range, model 2).
> 
> The purpose of the XB-19 project was to test the flight characteristics and design techniques associated with giant bombers. Douglas Aircraft Company strongly wanted to cancel the project, because it was extremely expensive. Despite advances in technology that made the XB-19 obsolete before it was even completed, the Army felt that it would be very useful for testing. Its construction took so long that competition for the contracts to make the XB-35 and XB-36 occurred two months before its first flight.
> 
> ...



*General characteristics*
Crew: ≤18 
Length: 132 ft 2 in (40.2 m) 
Wingspan: 212 ft 0 in (64.6 m) 
Height: 42 ft 9 in (13.0 m) 
Wing area: 4,492 ft² (417 m²) 
Empty: 140,230 lb (63,500 kg) 
Loaded: 158,930 lb (72,000 kg) 
Maximum takeoff: 164,000 lb (74,400 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Allison V-3420-11 inline engines, 2,600 hp (1940 kW) 

*Performance*
Maximum speed: 265 mph (427 km/h) 
Cruise speed: 165 mph (266 km/h) 
Combat range: 7,750 miles (12,500 km) 
Service ceiling: 39,000 ft (12,000 m) 
Rate of climb: ft/min ( m/min) 
Wing loading: 35.4 lb/ft² (173 kg/m²) 
Power/Mass: 0.0654 hp/lb (108 W/kg) 

*Armament*
5× .50 calibre (12.7 mm) machine guns 
6× .30 calbre (7.62 mm) machine guns 
2× 36 mm cannon 
18,700 lb (8,480 kg) of bombs 

Just in my opinion the XB-19 had some promise. Her armament was not that bad and she could have upgraded to better armaement and even better engines. This aircraft had promise.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2005)

I assume the heavy cannon is in the nose of the XB-19. Although formidable, I think a -190 would of obviated it. As a crew member I would of hated to be there!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

Cool! 8) I like the XB-19.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

Good post, Adler.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

I think the 19 had promise. It just needed some work. The armament for sure was not that bad and had it been upgraded to more armament and better engines I think she may have okay.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

but then no ammount of armourment will really save you, as the B-17 proved..........


----------



## BombTaxi (Jun 11, 2005)

Having said that, putting up a wall of lead does make the inteceptors job more difficult, and more likely to end in a shoot-down...while an unescorted Combat Box wasnt viable, it was still more viable than a Combat Box made up of more lightly armed a/c...like the Lanc or Halifax for instance. Heavy defensive armament, IMHO, is essential for a bomber of this period.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

A Day bomber anyway.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

yes it's a different story by night.........


----------



## Beni (Jun 11, 2005)

I woulnt like to have all this fuel behind my head.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

what are you talking about??


----------



## delcyros (Jun 11, 2005)

Great infor, Adler!
I certainly agree, with the XB-19 in service, the allies could cover the Atlantic for example or strike the japanese mainland. With reduced range, these planes could carry an impressive payload! All in all, it´s not a comparison to the Lanc or B-29 but they are technically intersting, particularly for the early timeframe of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> it was still more viable than a Combat Box made up of more lightly armed a/c...like the Lanc or Halifax for instance. Heavy defensive armament, IMHO, is essential for a bomber of this period.



Which is why the Lancaster hid at night!  

Waiting for Lanc to flip out!


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2005)

Towards the end of the war Lancasters and Halifax's were opperating in daylight as well as at night. I am sure Lanc will confirm or otherwise this but losses to air attack were about the same for British bombers as for American. 
One difference as I understand it was the tactics. When a British bomber was attacked it was encouraged to manouver, not sit and slug it out. 
The reccomended approach was to lose a little height and try to go under the rest of the bombers in the 'box'.

The theory was: -
a Losing height will throw the initial aim of the fighter out so you would be hit by fewer shells (note not all)
b It will gain you a little extra speed to manouver
c going under the box will bring the fighter into the fire of the other bombers in the unit.

Can I ask if anyone else has heard of this?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 11, 2005)

I have, although I haven't actually seen it written anywhere. I've heard it from my grandfather, and I remember it being talked about in a documentary on Bomber Command that I once saw. That's about it.


----------



## trackend (Jun 12, 2005)

That sounds fair to me Glider each aircraft required different tactics to combat fighter attacks Stringbags used their low stall speed , standing the plane on its tail in a stalled port turn then diving and repeating the maneuvers this could be done at very low heights and the under shooting fighters had trouble maintaining the target although obviously in general the poor old Stringbag suffered heavy losses when confronted with vastly superior fighter aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2005)

we didn't hide at night, the lancaster was designed with the intention of bombing at night...........

and yes the lanc did rely just as much on her manouverability than her guns, she was very forgiving on the controlls and easy to fly, there were numerous manouvers she could pull to loose a fighter, and she had space to because she was not in tight formation in a box, she was part of a bomber "stream", there's even an account of a lancaster going up to start a loop-the-loop, however it's not know if she made it all the way around, even with a full payload pilots would say she handled more like a fighter than a bomber............


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 13, 2005)

XB-19 was a god idea that did help with future work, but these realy heavy bombers were even to much for the US to work with. But more to the point bomber designs were evolving very vast


----------



## evangilder (Jun 13, 2005)

For the time, the XB-15 wasn't bad. But with the fighter developments, it certainly would have been easy meat for German fighters, as Adler said. Talk about a BIG target!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2005)

evangilder said:


> For the time, the XB-15 wasn't bad. But with the fighter developments, it certainly would have been easy meat for German fighters, as Adler said. Talk about a BIG target!



Big target?!? If the B-15 saw combat it would of taken more hits than Mike Tyson!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

6th Round!


----------



## delcyros (Jun 14, 2005)

At all it was some kind of superlative in correspondence to Douhets aerial war doctrine (which turned out to be flawed) of a strategic daylight bombing camapign against the enemy´s morale. But such a big target, while impressive, is quite easy to hit: by AA as well as by interceptors.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

Very true, I would not have wanted to have been in any bomber night or day either way.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 15, 2005)

Me neither. Id much rather be the guy in the 190 pummeling the bombers.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 15, 2005)

But you have to respect the bomber crews who flew into all that flack 

Question for you what was the best medium range bomber? I am going for the B-26, lowest loss rate, speed, and could have bombs and guns. Worked well in North Africa and France.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2005)

Both situations are hell. It always reminded me of two 18th or 19th century traditional armies in line blasting away at each other with muskets!


----------



## kiwimac (Jun 15, 2005)

Closed and srchived and continued!

Kiwimac


----------

