# Most Promising Amerika Bomber?



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 5, 2015)

Hello, I was wanting the forums opinion on the most promising Amerika Bomber design. Which aircraft do you think would've been the "best" if properly developed?

Here are some pictures of the contenders:

Me 264








Ju 390







He 277







Fw 238







Ta 400







Fw 300







Here's a small table comparing the performance of the bombers:


Me 264Ju 390He 277Fw 238Ta 400Fw 300Max Speed (in mph)350314357416447394Max Range (in miles)9,3157,4526,9006,3965,5895,465Payload4,408 lbs @ max range *11,020 lbs @ 6,200 miles/22,046 lbs @7,452 miles6,612 lbs @ 6,900 miles or 13,224 lbs @ 5,340 miles22,040 lbs @5,278 miles or 11,020 lbs @ 6,396 miles22,040 lbs at 5,589 milesn/aService Ceiling (in feet)26,00029,19230,000n/a30,000n/a

*Conflicting Data

My personal pick would have to be either the Me 264 or He 277 since they were actually in development and had prototypes up and running (although there has been this whole He 177B/He 277 naming controversy that has left me completely confused), the Ju 390 just isn't cut out to be a bomber but could make a great maritime patrol craft/transport, and ditto for the Fw 300. On the other hand, the Ta 400 and Fw 238-albeit purely paper designs-look extremely promising.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2015)

There is what was claimed/proposed and what was actually possible. 

See Boeing B-50 and Convair B-36 for actual flying hardware. 

Initial B-36As had : "Six Pratt Whitney R-4360-25 Wasp Major air cooled radial engines, each rated at 3250 hp for takeoff and 3000 hp at 40,000 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 345 mph at 31,600 feet. Cruising speed 218 mph. Stalling speed 113 mph. Initial climb rate 1447 feet per minute. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 53 minutes. Service ceiling 39,100 feet. Combat ceiling 35,8000 feet. Combat radius 3880 miles with 10,000 pound bombload. Ferry range 9136 miles. Armament: No defensive armament initially fitted. Maximum bomb load 72,000 pounds."
From Joe Baughers website. These B-36s were delivered in 1948.
What the Army had 'asked for" in 1941 was " 450 mph top speed, a 275 mph cruising speed, a service ceiling of 45,000 feet, and a maximum range of 12,000 miles at 25,000 feet. It had to be able to carry a 10,000 pound bombload a distance of 5000 miles away and return." Granted post war work was slower than war time work.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 7, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> There is what was claimed/proposed and what was actually possible.
> 
> See Boeing B-50 and Convair B-36 for actual flying hardware.
> 
> ...



Very true Shortround, I guess I'll delete the more "Luft '46" proposals such as the Ta 400, Fw 238, and He 277. Do you have any idea how to delete poll options? I can't figure out how.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 7, 2015)

No need to delete them...

Instead, examine why they weren't built and if they had been, what would have been the advantage to their operation versus historical aircraft/operations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 7, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> No need to delete them...
> 
> Instead, examine why they weren't built and if they had been, what would have been the advantage to their operation versus historical aircraft/operations.



I'm honestly a bit confused as to what you mean GrauGeist, as most of them (Me 264/364, He 277, Ju 390) were cancelled by the Jägernotprogramm, the Ta 400 was supposed to be a backup to the Me 264, but the RLM deemed its development as "a waste", the Fw 238 (all versions) were cancelled in early 1943 by the RLM (not exactly sure why, but wiki says the RLM "required companies to focus as a priority on the development of models to be used in the air defense of German territory."), and finally, the Fw 300 was simply not on the priority list of development and was virtually stillborn.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 7, 2015)

You originally said:



SpicyJuan11 said:


> ...Which aircraft do you think would've been the "best" if properly developed?



Which is a valid question. The Germans had quite a few good designs, but it takes time to properly develop an aircraft (look how long it took the B-29 from concept to combat) and the Germans simply did not have this luxury.

Had they put off the start of the war and fully developed a long-range strategy along with a sound design, I'm sure they would have come up with a winner. As it turns out, they jumped into the water without looking and all the designs they worked on from 1940 - 1941 onwards, were done in a halfassed rush, because of shrinking raw materials, deteriorating war situation and a change from the offensive to defensive...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 7, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> You originally said:
> 
> Which is a valid question. The Germans had quite a few good designs, but it takes time to properly develop an aircraft (look how long it took the B-29 from concept to combat) and the Germans simply did not have this luxury.
> 
> Had they put off the start of the war and fully developed a long-range strategy along with a sound design, I'm sure they would have come up with a winner. As it turns out, they jumped into the water without looking and all the designs they worked on from 1940 - 1941 onwards, were done in a halfassed rush, because of shrinking raw materials, deteriorating war situation and a change from the offensive to defensive...



Ah ok, I get it, sorry for being a little slow So which aircraft do you vote for?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 7, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> You originally said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dont even think the LW embraced strategic bombing as part of doctrine like the US and UK.

Regardless, the only military use for an aircraft like that would be to bomb Russian industrial plants in the Urals. The loss rate for all reasons against the US would be unsustainable after the first couple missions.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 7, 2015)

syscom3 said:


> I dont even think the LW embraced strategic bombing as part of doctrine like the US and UK.
> 
> Regardless, the only military use for an aircraft like that would be to bomb Russian industrial plants in the Urals. The loss rate for all reasons against the US would be unsustainable after the first couple missions.



Yes, but the Amerika Bomber plan was not the destruction of important miitary/industrial/civilian bombings of the Allies, rather "nuisance" raids that could have a severe psychological effect on the American population like that of the Doolittle raids on Japan.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2015)

The Doolittle raid weren't demoralizing to the Japanese, but rather a wake-up call challenging the myth of Imperial invincibility.

Remember, in Imperial Japan, the people were told what they needed to know, so the public at large weren't affected. The raid did do some damage but it was more of a morale booster for the Allies than a blow of Japan. In addition, the Japanese now knew they weren't immune from attack and the raid did succeed in diverting manpower and equipment to the defense of Tokyo and other important areas that otherwise would have been lightly protected until later in the war.

Just as the Amerika Bomber would have just pissed off the American public, much like Pearl Harbor did and would have been a huge waste of manpower and materials that could have been used on more strategic programs.

But in regards to the earlier points: had the Germans developed a solid heavy bomber (prewar) with decent range and payload and provided an escort that could at least cover most of the bombers range AND develop a solid plan for the fighters to adequately protect the bombers, then the bombing of British and other targets might have more serious consequences.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 8, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> The Doolittle raid weren't demoralizing to the Japanese, but rather a wake-up call challenging the myth of Imperial invincibility.
> 
> Remember, in Imperial Japan, the people were told what they needed to know, so the public at large weren't affected. The raid did do some damage but it was more of a morale booster for the Allies than a blow of Japan. In addition, the Japanese now knew they weren't immune from attack and the raid did succeed in diverting manpower and equipment to the defense of Tokyo and other important areas that otherwise would have been lightly protected until later in the war.
> 
> ...



I don't doubt that it wouldnt have knocked the U.S. out of the war, but as you said with Japan, it would cause large psychological effects among the population. For example, the war so far was only in the newspapers and the radios and most thought that the vast expanse of the Atlantic would protect them. Then, suddenly, without warning, a large cluster of four-engined birds are barely visible in the distance. Few notice at first, but more lookup soon, perplexed. Many think that they are US Bombers training, but why were they training directly over NYC? Then the horrific happens and much of Manhattan is set ablaze.

Not only would it scar the American mindset that the war was far away, but it possibly could bring a certain psychological element to large projects (like the B-29) to get them done as soon as possible furthering the risk of it ending in a disaster.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> I don't doubt that it wouldnt have knocked the U.S. out of the war, but as you said with Japan, it would cause large psychological effects among the population. For example, the war so far was only in the newspapers and the radios and most thought that the vast expanse of the Atlantic would protect them. Then, suddenly, without warning, a large cluster of four-engined birds are barely visible in the distance. Few notice at first, but more lookup soon, perplexed. Many think that they are US Bombers training, but why were they training directly over NYC? Then the horrific happens and much of Manhattan is set ablaze.
> 
> Not only would it scar the American mindset that the war was far away, but it possibly could bring a certain psychological element to large projects (like the B-29) to get them done as soon as possible furthering the risk of it ending in a disaster.



Sounds OK in theory but to set a city ablaze you need something like 1000 of them unless it is a city made of wood. America was perfectly capable of taking out such a force since it produced so many aircraft and aircraft carriers. If Germany was ever to produce such bombers and the fuel to use them I cannot see any more than one raid being a success.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 8, 2015)

If the Bombers could reach Kansas it might have some validity. The East coast of the United States has seen ships torpedoed within sight of shore and many people there were certainly aware that the war could come to their shores. 
Next you are assuming the coast of America was totally defenseless and the Germans could achieve the same sort of surprise the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. Like the US kept no radar sets at home, there were no patrol boats at sea, there were no aircraft performing anti-sub patrols of the coast that might spot the "intruders", that several years of magazines, newspapers and movie news reels publishing recognition posters/ features of axis and allied aircraft (more in the hope of stopping false alarms ?) will be ignored by ALL possible visual sightings. That the defense authorities had no idea what training flights were being conducted in their area/s. 

Picture of 16" gun mounted during WW II Protecting NEW York.





These emplacements mounted the guns in pairs several hundred ft apart and a number of shuch batteries were built on Long Island, Rhode Island, Massachusetts shores (and other places) along with spotting towers, fire control stations and a few local defense Pill boxes. With that amount of money and effort spent for anti-ship defense ( and these are NOT WW I left overs) thinking that Air defense would have stayed the same as it was in 1939-40 takes a LOT of wishful thinking. 
You had several Aircraft Factories East of NYC and aircraft training schools dotted all over the place So while air traffic was high, it was controlled and it also means that there were probably several squadrons of fighters working up that could supplement the 'normal' squadrons assigned to area defense, (you really think the US shipped ALL it's aircraft over seas?).

Assume the flip side, the German air armada gets spotted and identified while still around 200 miles from New York, say around Nantucket. What happens as the German bombers are shot down by the dozens? 
Both by fighter defenses and AA guns? 

Setting Manhattan ablaze is going to be a good trick too, It has been mostly masonry construction for much of the last 100-150 years and had a large, well equipped fire dept with a good system of water mains and hydrants. Burn down building yes, burn square miles? Not without hundreds and hundreds of bombers.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 8, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> If the Bombers could reach Kansas it might have some validity. The East coast of the United States has seen ships torpedoed within sight of shore and many people there were certainly aware that the war could come to their shores.
> Next you are assuming the coast of America was totally defenseless and the Germans could achieve the same sort of surprise the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. Like the US kept no radar sets at home, there were no patrol boats at sea, there were no aircraft performing anti-sub patrols of the coast that might spot the "intruders", that several years of magazines, newspapers and movie news reels publishing recognition posters/ features of axis and allied aircraft (more in the hope of stopping false alarms ?) will be ignored by ALL possible visual sightings. That the defense authorities had no idea what training flights were being conducted in their area/s.
> 
> Picture of 16" gun mounted during WW II Protecting NEW York.
> ...



The whole "setting Manhattan ablaze" thing was not meant to be used literally. And yes, I did give the German's a "best case" scenario.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 8, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> The whole "setting Manhattan ablaze" thing was not meant to be used literally. And yes, I did give the German's a "best case" scenario.




It is more than "best case"as it ignores US coastal defenses or assumes that mid to late war US coastal defenses are either non-existent or have made zero improvements since 1939-40. 

For example the US made over five hundred 120mm AA guns in WW II, most late in the war, one Battalion went the Philippines in March of 1945, 4 went to Norther Ireland and the rest stayed home, emplaced around US cities/ports. Granted there is an awful lot of the US and no one city would have more than a few dozen but there would also be 90mm guns and these were being given one radar set per battery fairly early in the war even if the radar wasn't good enough for tracking (it was good enough for range) but by 1944 a new radar set was being issued on the battery level that was good enough for tracking/directing the guns. 

Even such aircraft as the Grumman Widgeon flying boat (two 200hp engines) were being used for anti-sub patrols at times. 

You can go to a Casino and bet on the zero at roulette 7 times in row. You _might_ win


----------



## pbehn (Jun 8, 2015)

Any air Armada hitting New York would also have to return. Any time after mid 1944 they would have to pass within range of fighters based in UK or N Africa and have its home bases given round the clock 100% effort raids from all suitable bombers in the RAf and USAAF. 
The only place for an Amerika Bomber is in a scenario where Germany controls all of Europe and N Africa.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 8, 2015)

Also, late in the war, there was a considerable presence of U.S. Jeep Carriers in the Atlantic.

While some were assigned to escort duties, there were also "hunter-killer" groups that were roaming the Atlantic waters in search of U-Boats and their "milch cows". This means that not only would an "Amerika Bomber' have to make it's way to North America, deliver it's load while avoiding coastal defenses and return but it had to do so running the gauntlet of the CVEs and their fighter compliment in both directions.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 8, 2015)

Ok, could we please get back on topic about the Bombers themselves, and not about the Amerika Bomber as an operation? Only one person has voted so far...


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 19, 2015)

The Luftwaffe drew up a list of targets in the USA. They were after the Aluminium industry and Pratt+Whitney.


The Me 264 always had sceptics in the Luftwaffe concerned by something, runway length, take-off speed, armament levels, penetration speed, even how could it make use the plentiful Jumo 211. As a result the aircraft split into what must be 50 different variants. The variants in the Creek/Forsyth book are bewildering. Technology such as more powerful engines or new control systems for the guns addressed all of these concerns in good time.

The interesting thing is that when not forced to carry a massive load of fuel for a mission to America the aircraft could perform shorter missions with most of the issues such as runway length and armament alleviated by absence of the prodigious fuel load required for a return mission to the US East Coast. It might have been an effective substitute for the He 177 for shorter 2000 mile range missions.

The aircraft however was the only aircraft that had flown as a prototype that could do the job. Had it been given the resources it needed it would have been successful.
Me 264 could do the job but required a long runway or RATO or more powerful engines.
Ju 290 couldn't do the job
Ta 400 never built, required 6 engines.
He 277B7, never built, radical modification, essentially new aircraft could carry out a recon mission to the US east coast, barely.
Possibly Ju 290B variants with Jumo 222C/D engines could do the job.


The aircraft flew in December 1942, some 2.4 years before the end of the war.

Imagine this scenario: Someone pulls the plug on the He 177 and the DB606 and DB610. Heinkel looses a few of his engineers and workers but gets to do the He 219. The 16000 workers at Arado dedicated to manufacturing He 177 go and do other useful things like the Ar 234. The poor bastards who had to work on the coupled DB606 and DB610 work on a proper engine.

The Me 264 flies, as before, with the 1700hp BMW801 in December 1942 or better still with the DB603A, the tests reveal the minor action necessary, dampers and masses to stop control surface flutter, increased tail area, changed tailplane incidence, extended wing tips for better range. Lots of minor tidying up work that is made light work by many hands.

Many variations of armament are explored but they settle on a pair of twin 20mm dorsal/ventral turret aimed by a combined upper lower periscope aimed by a single gunner in an upper sighting blister, he can see and shoot over the tail. The system has been successfully developed by Arado for the Ar 240 and 440 and is considered a success.

There is a another manned dorsal turret with a single 13.2mm gun just behind the cockpit and a pair of optional waist guns. The latter manned positions I should think are optional.

Perhaps 13 months latter Me 264 start conducting maritime patrols with radar replacing Ju 290's in that role, their performance and radar allows them to detect convoys and easily detect and evade allied aircraft.

16 months latter, 40 RATO equipped Me 262 roar down a runway at 20 second intervals at night and head in the direction of the US East Coast. Some 16 hours latter after penetrating in a thinly populated stretch of coast and curling around 180 degree they appear put of the sun over a poorly defended industrial target and drop incendiaries and one SC2500 'satan' bomb. 

In response the USAAF and USA divert several fighter squadrons, SCR-584 radars and M3 guns leaving Britain open to V1 attacks. 1 year earlier the RAF handed the Luftwaffe H2S ground mapping radar and the Me 264 is bigt enough to carry the copies. Subsequent raids keep up the pressure, the Me 264 carrying 750kg of GM-1 to approach at high speed at high altitude befor entering a dive that evades interception. Coastal targets are hit, the ME 264 crews take losses but they are compensated by a reduced presence in Europe.

If the resources used for the He 177 truly are made available for the Me 264 by 1941 the Me 264 aircraft probably flies a few months earlier, say early to mid 1942 and missions in early 1944 (when 2050hp BMW radials are available) might have occurred.

Griehl's book "Luftwaffe over America" talks of several successful in flight refuelling experiments conducted between Ju 252 and Ju 290 aircraft in 1943. That technique is of course considered completely standard but many in the Luftwaffe remained sceptical yet it can easily extend range by 33.33% and would have completely solved the Me 2624 problems with takeoff weight, armanet load, range. In flight refuelling kits had in fact been ordered for a short time for the He 177A1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 19, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The Luftwaffe drew up a list of targets in the USA. They were after the Aluminium industry and Pratt+Whitney.
> 
> 
> The Me 264 always had sceptics in the Luftwaffe concerned by something, runway length, take-off speed, armament levels, penetration speed, even how could it make use the plentiful Jumo 211. As a result the aircraft split into what must be 50 different variants. The variants in the Creek/Forsyth book are bewildering. Technology such as more powerful engines or new control systems for the guns addressed all of these concerns in good time.
> ...



Thanks for the well thought out post Koopernic, but could the Me 264 really compete with the He 277 at shorter ranges, I thought it only had a max payload of ~11,000 lbs? Also, wouldn't the Me 264 need larger, redesigned wings as I thought that it extremely high wing loading?


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 22, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Thanks for the well thought out post Koopernic, but could the Me 264 really compete with the He 277 at shorter ranges, I thought it only had a max payload of ~11,000 lbs? Also, wouldn't the Me 264 need larger, redesigned wings as I thought that it extremely high wing loading?



I don't think that the Me 264 could carry more than 11000bs, I believe 2 x 3000kg bombs was considered ideal for an America mission though only SC2500 existed. Clearly the Luftwaffe were serious about getting heavyweight loads down. Much depends on how safe RATO could be made.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 22, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> I don't think that the He 177 often carried more than 11000bs, I believe 2 x 3000kg bombs was considered ideal for an America mission though only SC2500 existed. Clearly the Luftwaffe were serious about getting heavyweight loads down. Much depends on how safe RATO could be made.



A couple things here:

Do you mean He 277? Also, I seriously doubt the figure that the 277 (801 powered) only had a max bomb load of 13,228 lbs with a larger bomb bay than the He 177, which could carry up to around 15,000 lbs.

I was originally referring to the Me 264 having a max bomb load of around 11,000 lbs.

What was the problem with RATO? Was it not reliable?


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 22, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> A couple things here:
> 
> Do you mean He 277? Also, I seriously doubt the figure that the 277 (801 powered) only had a max bomb load of 13,228 lbs with a larger bomb bay than the He 177, which could carry up to around 15,000 lbs.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I had a brain event, I'd meant the Me 264.

If enough RATO rockets failed there would not be enough speed to get of the ground, some RATO rockets couldn't be stopped so you might find yourself committed to,an impossible takeoff. My rules for RATO safey would be:
1 one rocket failing is to be tolerable.
2 although ignition before V1 (point of no return on runway) is not ideal the rockets must be ignited before then, should any rocket fail it must be detected automatically and the functioning rockets shutdown automatically and an alarm inform the pilot to abort. There is still danger of a failure of a rocket after it has run, hence the system must be safe with a single rocket failing.
3 a drogue parachute to slow the bomber down by allowing an increased V1.

The Bombay of the Me 264 when configured as a short range bomber could accommodate 2x SC2500 and 4 x SC1800 internally so it was actually bigger than the He 177. That's 13200kg ie 29000lbs.

RATO was probably the only way besides in flight refuelling to make raids with decent armament feasible. It was probably safer than the he 177 engine issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 22, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Sorry, I had a brain event, I'd meant the Me 264.
> 
> If enough RATO rockets failed there would not be enough speed to get of the ground, some RATO rockets couldn't be stopped so you might find yourself committed to,an impossible takeoff. My rules for RATO safey would be:
> 1 one rocket failing is to be tolerable.
> ...



Ok, thanks Koopernic, how did the Me 264's bomb bay compare to that of the He 277 (thinking the nearly completely new a/c with 7m long, 1.9m wide, and 1.75m high bomb bomb rather than the He 177B)? Also, did the German's ever use anything close to the RATO system that you proposed? Finally, what was the Me 264's range with 29,000 lbs of bombs? Many thanks


----------



## razor1uk (Jun 26, 2015)

For dual RATO's with big loads, would the Me.324 Gigant be comparable in some aspects regarding take-off?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 27, 2015)

It really comes down to only 2 sensible options the Me264 and the Ju390 being the other. The rest were Napkinwaffe which wouldnt have flown till well after 1945 even if given high priority.

The 390 flew and handled quite well from what I have read, it didnt use unreliable twinned engines like some designs planned to use, it had good range from the start that would be able to be increased relatively easily, 6 engines means plenty of redundancy if 1 engine burns out, it would also make an excellent maritime recon and heavy transport.

The 264 also flew but lacked power which would have needed twinned engines to be fitted, it had marginal handling at altitude, poor climb and takeoff, a smaller volume fuselage and a very high wing loading. Compared to a B29 it was a poor 2nd and no one was going to be flying to Europe and return with any sort of bombload in a B29.

I voted the 390 as the best of an uninspiring bunch that would have been chopped down in droves if they had ever got anywhere near the US. The US would know they were coming because of Ultra maybe not the exact day or route but would know they are coming. Plus any base containg the Amerika bombers can expect round the clock surveillance and regular visits from Medium bombers.

Your going to have a line of Picket Destroyers sitting say 3 to 400 miles off shore then Half a dozen Jeep carriers with fast climbing fighters on board could sit 200 miles off shore and wait for business. The fighters would probably have to be Seafires with 60 series Merlins till the F8 Bearcat got into service in mid/late 45 as I dont think the Corsair or Hellcat had any business being above 25,000 ft unless there was a high altitude two stage supercharged R2800 I dont know about. Then you will probably have another line of Destroyers or Light Cruisers not far off shore acting as Radar direction for P61s, P38s, P51s, P47s. Then to top all that Radar guided VT fused shell firing AA batteries. I hope Hitler planned to hand out the medals in advance as not many if any would be collected till well after the war.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 27, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> It really comes down to only 2 sensible options the Me264 and the Ju390 being the other. The rest were Napkinwaffe which wouldnt have flown till well after 1945 even if given high priority.
> 
> The 390 flew and handled quite well from what I have read, it didnt use unreliable twinned engines like some designs planned to use, it had good range from the start that would be able to be increased relatively easily, 6 engines means plenty of redundancy if 1 engine burns out, it would also make an excellent maritime recon and heavy transport.
> 
> ...



Comparing the B-29 and the Amerika bombers is like comparing apples to oranges, they're meant for different roles (not to mention that it's never good to compare a prototype to a production a/c), also the scenario you described works vice versa too, in an alternate world where Britain is out, and the German's have defeated the Soviets, I wouldn't expect the American Amerika Bombers to not be torn to shreds either after their first sortie, if that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Comparing the B-29 and the Amerika bombers is like comparing apples to oranges, they're meant for different roles, also the scenario you described works vice versa too, in an alternate world where Britain is out, and the German's have defeated the Soviets, I wouldn't expect the American Amerika Bombers to not be torn to shreds either after their first sortie, if that.


Actually, the B-29 was intended to be a very long range bomber from the onset.

Aircraft development in the U.S. followed a different doctrine than Europe for the sole reason that the U.S. was separated by great distances unlike Europe, where warring nations were often times only a few hundred (or less) miles apart. The same can be said for Japan, who needed long range as part of the bomber's criteria, however, heavy bombers were not a priority.

If you'll notice, long range (heavy) bombers became a mainstay of the U.S. military in the late 1920's and early 1930's and with that ideology, we see such types as the B-17, B-19, B-24 and of course, the B-29 emerge. Even the B-36 has it's roots in the early war, because at that point, there was a real concern that Britain would fall...eliminating the possibility of any bases from which to operate if the U.S. went to war.

So the Amerika Bombers and the B-29 are indeed, birds of the same feather.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 27, 2015)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, the B-29 was intended to be a very long range bomber from the onset.
> 
> Aircraft development in the U.S. followed a different doctrine than Europe for the sole reason that the U.S. was separated by great distances unlike Europe, where warring nations were often times only a few hundred (or less) miles apart. The same can be said for Japan, who needed long range as part of the bomber's criteria, however, heavy bombers were not a priority.
> 
> ...



Sure it's long-range, but not extreme range, hence the continuation of the development of the B-36 as an intercontinental bomber. Also, wasn't there a thread on the feasibility of B-29 sorties from Newfounfland to Germany?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 27, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> also the scenario you described works vice versa too, in an alternate world where Britain is out, and the German's have defeated the Soviets, I wouldn't expect the American Amerika Bombers to not be torn to shreds either after their first sortie, if that.



If your scenario came into being in a Luft46 fantasy world I could see long range B29s or B50s using tanker aircraft to make 1 journey to Europe. Because the Germans had no equivalent of Ultra there is going to be no warning. As a result several of Germanys major cities have a second Sun rise over them. By about 1947 or 8 the B36 makes the journey not long after a Midway carrier group can come along and drop its new buckets of Manhattan Project brand sunshine. Doesnt matter if Germany can build a bomber to reach the east coast of America a few hundreds of HE bombs barely scratch the US economy but the US can turn Germanys economy into glass slag. 

Germany because of bad physics and a lack of Scientists would get an Atomic bomb about the same time as Hitler became a sane humanist.

The Amerika Bomber project was a typical Nazi doodle on the back of an envelope that was never going to work out. It might have led to an excellent very long range patrol and or heavy transport but turning Manhattan into flames fahgedabout it


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 27, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> ...Because the Germans had no equivalent of Ultra there is going to be no warning...



Radar in Brittany, Cork, and Galicia?



fastmongrel said:


> It might have led to an excellent very long range patrol and or heavy transport but turning Manhattan into flames fahgedabout it



Quite right, the goal of the Amerika Bomber wasn't to mount large bombing raids on the US industry a la the Eighth AF, rather to mount a couple of nuisance raids along the Eastern Seaboard.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2015)

Well, I disagree with Fastmongrels lines of radar pickets and fleets of ships waiting in "ambush". 

Since the Germans don't even know where a number of the regular convoys are it is quite possible for the German raiders to be spotted as they overfly a convoy by mistake, Then there is the US fishing fleet. Then there is geography itself. A Great circle route from London to New York crosses Newfoundland, part of Nova Scotia, flys down the Bay of Fundy, is never more than 50-75 miles from the coast of Maine, almost over flies Boston and is over land from the Massachusetts coast until perhaps the last couple of miles before Hells Gate (East River). Avoiding this requires a detour of at least several hundred miles. 

And given any warning at ALL the Amerika Bombers will be hacked out of the sky by P-67s and P-58s and P-54s without any help by the US Navy. 

Hey, if the Luftwaffe can get their crappy engines to work for this scenario than the Americans can get their crappy engines to work


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2015)

From what I have read the B 29 was so expensive in itself and in terms of crew training that previously "normal" loss rates for B17s and B 24 could not be accepted. If Uncle Sam was balking at the cost of losses then Germany could not afford to think about it.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 28, 2015)

pbehn said:


> From what I have read the B 29 was so expensive in itself and in terms of crew training that previously "normal" loss rates for B17s and B 24 could not be accepted. If Uncle Sam was balking at the cost of losses then Germany could not afford to think about it.



That's true, but again, Germany wouldn't attempt massive 1000 Bomber raids on the US as the Allies did on Germany, rather create a limited batch and have them sortie once, or a couple of times.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 28, 2015)

razor1uk said:


> For dual RATO's with big loads, would the Me.324 Gigant be comparable in some aspects regarding take-off?



What do you exactly mean? The MTOW of the 324 was 94,000 lbs, and the 264's was 123,000 lbs, AFAIK, these are without RATO.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2015)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> That's true, but again, Germany wouldn't attempt massive 1000 Bomber raids on the US as the Allies did on Germany, rather create a limited batch and have them sortie once, or a couple of times.



Sortie once???????

Talk about setting records for money spent for very little return. One raid by several hundred bombers would no more knock America out of the war than Pearl harbor did. Throw in the desire for revenge and Germany just might reap much more than it sowed. 

And this is definitely a one trick Pony. If England Still exists then after a the first bombing raid on American soil, the vast majority of American Aircraft in Europe would be making sure that the Germans had no large airplanes left. Hiding single engine fighters is one thing. Hiding Ju 390s under camouflage nets is another thing.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jun 28, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Sortie once???????
> 
> Talk about setting records for money spent for very little return. One raid by several hundred bombers would no more knock America out of the war than Pearl harbor did. Throw in the desire for revenge and Germany just might reap much more than it sowed.
> 
> And this is definitely a one trick Pony. If England Still exists then after a the first bombing raid on American soil, the vast majority of American Aircraft in Europe would be making sure that the Germans had no large airplanes left. Hiding single engine fighters is one thing. Hiding Ju 390s under camouflage nets is another thing.



Hey, I never said that it was a good idea


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Sortie once???????
> 
> Talk about setting records for money spent for very little return. One raid by several hundred bombers would no more knock America out of the war than Pearl harbor did. Throw in the desire for revenge and Germany just might reap much more than it sowed.
> 
> And this is definitely a one trick Pony. If England Still exists then after a the first bombing raid on American soil, the vast majority of American Aircraft in Europe would be making sure that the Germans had no large airplanes left. Hiding single engine fighters is one thing. Hiding Ju 390s under camouflage nets is another thing.



If the UK was still in the game then British resources would be used too in the same way that US A/C countered the V1 threat. Even if Germany had the resources by 1944 I think everyone had seen that bombing cities in nuisance raids was a nuisance and nothing more. Making Uncle Sam mad not just angry would be counter productive. I am sure others here can give the details on a B-29, it was the most expensive military project ever (at the time) this made a B 29 expensive to produce as an aircraft but the most expensive is the first one. The idea of producing a few as a gesture ignores the desperate situation Germany was in. How many fully fueled Bf 109s does a fully fuelled B 29s 9,501 US gallons represent?


----------



## pattern14 (Jul 1, 2015)

The Arado Ar E.555 flying wing was a consideration, and appeared promising, but expense and resources ( as well as time) were against it. Given more favourable conditions it certainly would have out performed the other contenders. Still, these aircraft are best relegated to the Luft 46 basket as has beens that never were. Fascinating stuff, but highly improbable. The Red skull made good use of his in the original Captain America movie, and this is where they really belong. Along with projects like the Daimler Project "C" etc, it remains the stuff of fantasy.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jul 4, 2015)

pattern14 said:


> The Arado Ar E.555 flying wing was a consideration, and appeared promising, but expense and resources ( as well as time) were against it. Given more favourable conditions it certainly would have out performed the other contenders. Still, these aircraft are best relegated to the Luft 46 basket as has beens that never were. Fascinating stuff, but highly improbable. The Red skull made good use of his in the original Captain America movie, and this is where they really belong. Along with projects like the Daimler Project "C" etc, it remains the stuff of fantasy.



The Arado E.555 is really kind of pushing into "Luft '46" territory honestly.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jul 4, 2015)

After giving it some thought, I think that I have changed my mind. The Ju 390 was best for extreme-ranged operations (10,000+ km) and had much potential for medium ranged work, Me 264 was the best of the bunch for medium-long range operations (not to mention pretty good at medium ones), while the Ta 400 and Fw 238 follow close behind to take the spot for best medium ranged. Overall the Me 264 was probably the best due to its performance (and to a lesser extent that it actually flew), while the He 277 in its current form was garbage (but had potential as well).


----------

