# On German bombers



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2014)

Deep in the shade that the LW fighters non-intentionally created, the LW bombers reside. How good they were? The missed opportunities? Claims that became 'facts' after years, if not decades of repeating?

To start the ball rolling, here is the excerpt from the He-177 A-3 manual (open the pic separately for hi res). My translation, so you know whom to blame:


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2014)

From current thread:



stona said:


> So now you want the Luftwaffe to develop a strategic bombing force.



LW wanted it. From the Do-19, He-111, He-177. 



> The reason the British and Americans deployed thousands of four engine bombers is because they needed that many to be sure of damaging German production. To hit a 200' by 200' structure they needed, statistically, to drop nearly 1000 bombs


. 

The bomb raid does not need to go during the night only, so the navigators can actually guide the bomb stream to the target and bomb-aimers can actually hope to hit something. The LW heavy bomber will not do the 25000 ft bombing run either (like the B-17s did), but more likely from 17-18000 ft. The escorts need to kill VVS in process.



> It worked, the Anglo-American campaign seriously curtailed German production, we can argue about the figures, but at a cost that the Germans simply could not afford.
> There is no point in building a few hundred strategic bombers and going after Soviet production, you won't do enough damage.



There was almost 1200 of the He 177s built, not a few hundreds. 


> Many facilities, or their infra structure like machine tools, were very resilient against bombing. If the Soviets react by dispersing production in the vast expanses of the USSR you'll be lucky to find it, even with thousands of bombers.



That would mean that Soviets will relocate their factories twice. Not very good for the output of the war material. The dispersed production is lessefficient than huge factories.
The Baku oil fields cannot be relocated, it will took a while to start or increase production on other oil fields.



> It's a complete dead end. The RLM had limited resources and had to martial them to best effect. Strategic bombers were a waste of those resources.
> Cheers
> Steve



The ww2 for the Nazi Germany was the dead end anyway.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Nov 16, 2014)

I wonder what 'payload' (Zuladung) really means here. 11 tonnes is way beyond any value I can find quoted for the bomb load of the He 177, but it is very hard to interpret the term payload as applied to a dedicated bomber, as meaning anything other than the bomb load. I guess it really depends on what "Rüstgewicht" means. Tomo has translated it as "Equipped" (and my German is nowhere near good enough to dispute that), and Google offers nothing at all.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2014)

11 tons is the weight of the fuel plus bombs.

The bomb carrying capability of the He 177A-0. Caption on the low left corner: Mischlast-Sonderfall = mixed payload, special case. It allows for the bombs between 50 and 1700 kg to be carried on the 'Schlossebene I' (roughly = row one racks). If only 2 SC 1800 bombs are to be carried, they will be mounted at 'Schlossebene II'. As above - open the pic separately.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Nov 16, 2014)

Thanks Tomo, that makes sense now.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 16, 2014)

Some sources give the 13 tons to be the payload (fuel + bombs), like Griehl's book about the He 177. This is the early He 177A-0, it does have less gun armament vs. the A-3 and subsequent, the engine should be lighter, too. The Beh.4 and Beh. 5 are two front fuselage fuel tanks, that can be replaced by two bigger tanks instead of bombs. Beh. 7 and 8 are outer wing tanks, Beh. 2 and 3 are inner wing tanks. Beh. = Behalter = Tank:


----------



## davebender (Nov 16, 2014)

He-177A3 was probably the best overall heavy bomber in the world during 1943. However only a few hundred were produced that year. Not enough to amount to a hill of beans for a war stretching from Kharkov to the English Channel.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2014)

Do 19 never flew as an operational bomber. Mentioning it smacks of desperation. The He 111 was hardly a strategic bomber comparable with those fielded by the Anglo-Americans. 2,000 Kg bomb load is barely adequate, and early versions carried even less.
They might have wanted such a force, certainly before Wever's demise, but they were not capable of building it. They weren't later either, as demonstrated perfectly by the He 177 saga.

1200 He 177 constructed is not the relevant number. The Germans needed something like that number in service at any given time to provide a genuine and meaningful strategic bombing force. They rarely even had a double figure number operational on any given day.

The He 177 was certainly not the best bomber operating (I use the term loosely for the He 177) in 1943. That was the Lancaster and by a country mile.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2014)

stona said:


> Do 19 never flew as an operational bomber. Mentioning it smacks of desperation. The He 111 was hardly a strategic bomber comparable with those fielded by the Anglo-Americans. 2,000 Kg bomb load is barely adequate, and early versions carried even less.



In the very important time of 1938-41, the He 111 was one of the best strategic bombers in service. RAF have had the Wellington, Hampden and Whitley as strategic bombers in that time, not the Lanc and Halifax. 
Mentioning of the Do 19 is to show that LW kept a whether eye on the strategic bombers even before shooting started.



> 1200 He 177 constructed is not the relevant number. The Germans needed something like that number in service at any given time to provide a genuine and meaningful strategic bombing force. They rarely even had a double figure number operational on any given day.



The 'simple He 177' should enable more examples both produced and in service.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 17, 2014)

> Do 19 never flew as an operational bomber. Mentioning it smacks of desperation. The He 111 was hardly a strategic bomber comparable with those fielded by the Anglo-Americans. 2,000 Kg bomb load is barely adequate, and early versions carried even less.



The He 111 was pretty comparable to the Wellington. It was a strategic bomber, just an early one and not overly large. Germans then sat on it and never gave it a 1500-1600hp engine until waaaayyyy to late. It doesn't get a "power" turret until late 1942 and that is powered in traverse only with one gun (a year after the same turret is used on the DO 217). 



> 1200 He 177 constructed is not the relevant number. The Germans needed something like that number in service at any given time to provide a genuine and meaningful strategic bombing force. They rarely even had a double figure number operational on any given day.


Full agreement there.



> The He 177 was certainly not the best bomber 'flying' in 1943. That was the Lancaster and by a country mile.



Lets see about the He 177

1. restricted bomb bay for some missions/loads............Check
2. Crappy defensive armament for 1943.......................Check
3. Low ceiling for daylight raids....................................Check
4. Poor engine reliability (after the 'fix')........................Check

Yep, it is hitting all the check marks for "best" 

To be best it would have had to have been *as good* or better than the American or British bombers doing the same missions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2014)

The He 177 needed to switch to 4 individual engines ASAP, along with increase of defensive firepower in the same time, in order to became a more useful (day) bomber. 
The fuel and bombs weight for the Lanc (here):
-9774 liters, 4540 kg of bombs (vs. 10730 liters and 4000 kg for the He 177A-0; DB 606 - coupled 601E)
-7387 liters, 6350 kg of bombs (vs. 8800 liters and 7000 kg for the A-0)

Cruising speed - 410 km/h (per Griehl) vs. 365 (Lanc, on max lean mixture; how much at max. cont. power?). Max speed 480 kmh @ ~18000 ft vs 447 km/h @ 11500 ft (Lanc on combat power; 435 km/h @ 20000 ft). Granted, switching to individual engines would lower the Heinkel's speed, unless those engines are DB 605A or BMW 801s.
Lanc has more powerful armament for rear hemisphere, but none for 'belly' defense.

BTW:



> 1. restricted bomb bay for some missions/loads............Check



Still capable to lug 2 x 1800 kg (~7940 lbs) or 4 x 1000 kg (~8820 lbs) bombs in the bomb bay, with increased fuel.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> .
> 
> The bomb raid does not need to go during the night only, so the navigators can actually guide the bomb stream to the target and bomb-aimers can actually hope to hit something. The LW heavy bomber will not do the 25000 ft bombing run either (like the B-17s did), but more likely from 17-18000 ft.



In 1944, bombing from altitudes averaging about 17,000 feet, in daylight, totally unopposed, the average radial standard deviation of bomb patterns attained by the RAF over 10 raids in Normandy was 620 yards. The average displacement of the mean point of impact over the ten raids was 408 yards. The very best was 100 yards and that is exceptional. Even with an average displacement of the mean point of impact of 100 yards the chances of hitting that 200' x 200' warehouse or machine shop are not good.
Your Luftwaffe bomb aimers will indeed be _hoping_ to hit something.

100 RAF Lancasters achieved a bomb density of 10 bombs per acre _at the centre of their bomb pattern_.

The same rules applied to any other WW2 bombing force with comparable equipment and this is why the idea that a relative handful, even 40 or 50 heavy bombers could mount a precision type raid to destroy Soviet production facilities, factories , power stations, dams etc is just pie in the sky thinking.

It is historically demonstrated that a concerted campaign by hundreds or even thousands of bombers was required to have a significant impact. How significant that impact was is still the subject of debate seventy years later.

The Germans could never have afforded such an investment, even if they had had the means to build the force. They should never have attempted a half arsed programme like the He 177 and instead cut their losses and invested in something that might actually have proved useful to their war effort. The contribution of the He 177 to the German war effort was as near to zero as makes no difference.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 17, 2014)

Early He 177A3 continued to use the DB606 (paired DB601) as it was feared the DB610 would be unreliable, however the latter He 177A3 received the larger DB610 (Paired DB605) both being essentially the same engines used with fair reliability in the Me 109 and Me 110. All He 177A5 used the larger DB610. By early 1944 the engine was giving reliable service according to Griehl with MTBO of 220 hours. The solution being a combination of pilot training, maintenance procedures and most of all making sure the maintenance crews have the proper equipment. More or less the same solution as applied to the B-29. Obviously the 'fix' took far too long and its obvious that the Germans could have done very well with 4 equally distributed Jumo 211 and then transitioning to larger engines such as the Jumo 213, DB603, BMW801.

The maximum speed of the DB610 version 550kmh, that is 343mph, certainly faster than the Lancaster, Halifax or B-17. It was fast enough to avoid Soviet fighters.

The next version was the He 177A7 which had DB613 engines (twined DB603) and a larger wing. The wing had been designed structurally to allow 4 separate engines and in this form was known as the He 277A7. I suspect the engine issues would have been resolved in the He 177A7 but no one had the Stomach for it and they were going to head direct for the He 277 version.

It would have been in every way as magnificent as the B-29.

I don't see that the bomb bay was 'restricted', the criticism being valid perhaps for the He 177A1

There is no point 'gunning' a bomber engine to full power from the initiating of take off roll. It is best to wait until half of take-off speed is reached, to get a good airflow, and then go for full power. The increase in take off run is negligible as improved acceleration helps more in the second half of the take-off. B-29 crews were eventually trained to do their spark plug checks during the initial roll. They had been doing them waiting in line and also had the bad habbit of going to full power with brake on and then releasing rather than easing forward the throttles so that air was flowing.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2014)

He 177 A-3s and A-5s still had a bomb bay divided into three separate compartments. The Lancaster's bomb bay was 33' long and had width of 5'. Given that the entire aeroplane was only 68' 10" long that is nearly half the total length

No A-7 was ever built, so hardly relevant to WW2. 

We can compare an estimated performance of an He 277 with that of a B-29 but not the actual performance and that's the point. The US built nearly 4,000 B-29s and many saw operational service, the same can't be said for the He 277 which was little more than a paper project.

When Major Kurt Schede who commanded I./FKG 50 refused to take responsibility for sending his He 177s out on operations in October 1942, due to on going problems he had some sympathy from Milch who is reported to have said.

"What good is a racehorse that displays its best speed over 200 metres but drops dead after 300."

The remarkable thing is that it was nearly another two years before the He 177 programme was finally abandoned. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2014)

There bomb bay was divided longitudinally (=halved), but there were no divisions within those halves. See diagram above.



stona said:


> In 1944, bombing from altitudes averaging about 17,000 feet, in daylight, totally unopposed, the average radial standard deviation of bomb patterns attained by the RAF over 10 raids in Normandy was 620 yards. <snip>



Thanks for that data.



> The same rules applied to any other WW2 bombing force with comparable equipment and this is why the idea that a relative handful, even 40 or 50 heavy bombers could mount a precision type raid to destroy Soviet production facilities, factories , power stations, dams etc is just pie in the sky thinking.



I'm sure that nobody will suggest a 40-50 bomber raid for a factory complex or oil processing facilities, stretching out at many square meters.



> It is historically demonstrated that a concerted campaign by hundreds or even thousands of bombers was required to have a significant impact. How significant that impact was is still the subject of debate seventy years later.



Even if we just calculate the expenses Germany had on the air defense (AAA, fighters, radars, shelters, communications), the impact was surely felt.



> The Germans could never have afforded such an investment, even if they had had the means to build the force.



Here we disagree.



> They should never have attempted a half arsed programme like the He 177 and instead cut their losses and invested in something that might actually have proved useful to their war effort. The contribution of the He 177 to the German war effort was as near to zero as makes no difference.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



The He 177 was not a half-arsed programme. That might be said for, say, turning the Fw 200 into a combat aircraft. The Germans wanted too much of an aircraft, instead to go for a classic-layout 'horizontal' bomber with 4 separate engines.



> Koopernic said:
> 
> 
> > Early He 177A3 continued to use the DB606 (paired DB601) as it was feared the DB610 would be unreliable, however the latter He 177A3 received the larger DB610 (Paired DB605) both being essentially the same engines used in the Me 109 and Me 110. All He 177A5 used the DB606.
> ...


----------



## wiking85 (Nov 17, 2014)

stona said:


> In 1944, bombing from altitudes averaging about 17,000 feet, in daylight, totally unopposed, the average radial standard deviation of bomb patterns attained by the RAF over 10 raids in Normandy was 620 yards. The average displacement of the mean point of impact over the ten raids was 408 yards. The very best was 100 yards and that is exceptional. Even with an average displacement of the mean point of impact of 100 yards the chances of hitting that 200' x 200' warehouse or machine shop are not good.
> Your Luftwaffe bomb aimers will indeed be _hoping_ to hit something.
> 
> 100 RAF Lancasters achieved a bomb density of 10 bombs per acre _at the centre of their bomb pattern_.
> ...



Which is why they shifted to planning to use the Fritz-X bombs for their He-177s in strategic bombing, but didn't get the engines worked out in time. With the guided bomb the Germans would get much better accuracy per bomber during daylight.


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2014)

No, it was divided into three compartments. I don't know the origin of the diagram above, but this is a German original for the A-5.






When I said half arsed I was really meaning attempting to create a 60 degree dive bomber of the size of the He 177 and subsequently never really having any clear idea of what it was supposed to be.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2014)

wiking85 said:


> Which is why they shifted to planning to use the Fritz-X bombs for their He-177s in strategic bombing, but didn't get the engines worked out in time. With the guided bomb the Germans would get much better accuracy per bomber during daylight.


.

WW2 era guided munitions just weren't very reliable. You still need a lot of He 177s and a lot of Fritz Xs to do any meaningful damage to the production capacity of an entire nation.

Hundreds of human guided bombs couldn't stop an American fleet, never mind destroy entire industries in an enemy country.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2014)

Here is the part of the previously posted diagram. It can be seen that 3 lower bombloads would be impossible if the bomb bay way cut in 3 sections. The picture is from the manual of the He-177A-0.






The 'Shlossebene' 1 and 2 were removable, so the fuel tanks 4 and 5 (fuselage front pair of tanks) can be replaced with bigger tanks, as can be read in the post 5 in this forum. 
Also this diagram shows it, the 3rd case would be impossible with a 3-sectioned bomb bay (Nahbomber - short range bomber; Fernbomber - LR bomber):


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2014)

Well, frames (spant) 13 and 19 on the drawing I posted are not solid bulkheads to the bomb doors so I suppose the loads illustrated above would be feasible with some jiggery pokery.

A 'rustzustande' is not something that could be done in the field but was a factory modification. It is a sub-designation of a sub-type.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2014)

If I'm getting it right - in case we have a LR bomber, but now there is a need for the SR bomber, we need to either order the SR bomber from Heinkel, or send the LR bombers back to the factory and let them modify them accordingly? I don't think so, and the diagram posted earlier does not agree with that either. It clearly says that tanks 4 and 5 can be replaced with bigger tanks if neded.



> so I suppose the loads illustrated above would be feasible with some jiggery pokery.



Not the jiggery pokery


----------



## stona (Nov 17, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> If I'm getting it right - in case we have a LR bomber, but now there is a need for the SR bomber, we need to either order the SR bomber from Heinkel, or send the LR bombers back to the factory and let them modify them accordingly? I don't think so, and the diagram posted earlier does not agree with that either. It clearly says that tanks 4 and 5 can be replaced with bigger tanks if neded.



No it doesn't. It describes the different versions as 'Rustzustande' and that is a factory applied modification. It might not be done at the time of production, but could be done at a suitable facility later. It was not something that could be done in the field. It would have involved some major modification of the tankage, bomb bay and associated fuel feeds, pressure lines etc. 

The tankage could be altered as shown in the document although I don't know whether it represents proposals (all German manufacturers were keen on proposing all sorts of different sub-types) or actual existing rustzustand. In other words, were any aircraft actually built to those standards?

There are differing degrees of modifications, umbau, rustzustand and rustzatz. Only the last could be supplied as a field kit.

Examples:

A Bf 109 G-10/U4 was fitted with a Mk 108 cannon (umbau 4) which could only be done at the factory. 

A Bf 109 G-2/R3 is a reconnaissance version and rustzustande 3 is a factory designation. A standard G-2 could not be converted at the front.

A Bf 109 G-2/RIII is a standard G-2 with rustzatz 3, a drop tank and rack which could be fitted in the field. The plumbing was already factory fitted as standard (since the E-7). 

Confusion arises between rustzustande and rustzatz because both are often written in the same way with an upper case 'R' and Arabic numeral. For example if you just see Bf 109 G-2/R3 which of the two above does this mean? It should refer to the reconnaissance version, but.....

There is no confusion in the He 177 document posted.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 17, 2014)

i'm agree that the 'Rustzustande' is different from Rüstsätz, but i'm also agree with tomo the bomb bay is divided only in 2 
the "jiggery pokery" are obscure words also a translator can not help can put the mean in a different way?


----------



## davebender (Nov 17, 2014)

Four engine He-177B was offered as alternative to coupled engine He-177A during 1938. Someone with a lot of clout rejected the idea but no one wants to admit it was his decision. 

Personally I think Goering deserves the blame even if original decision wasn't his. As CiC of Luftwaffe he could have over ruled decision for He-177A.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 17, 2014)

There are several major problems with the Germans trying to combine some of these super weapons into a strategic bombing campaign.
While you could fit a guidance package to a demolition bomb instead of the armor piercing bomb like the Fitz-X, the bomb system has a few drawbacks. The fitting of the wings and new tail assembly cuts the load to about two weapons per plane, and they have to go outside with the rise in drag/loss of speed and range.
The bomb-aimer has to steer the bomb to the target using a joystick while watching flare in the tail of the bomb. He can only aim/steer one bomb at a time meaning two bombs need two bomb runs. Perhaps OK for shipping attacks but a sure set up for land based AA. Best altitude for dropping/aiming is well within AA range.
To have a "sustained" bombing campaign you need to keep the losses somewhat below 10% per mission. Trading even 2-3 bombers for under a dozen hits might not be that good a trade. And hitting factories (often camouflaged) is lot different than spotting and hitting a ship at sea. High visual contrast?
Something else consider for the Germans trying to bomb the Russians (the so called Ural mission) is just where the missions were supposed to launched from. In the summer of 1941 just reaching Moscow would have been doing good. Trying to fly hundreds of miles further with a worthwhile bombload is a whole different thing. On the face of it the summer of 1942 looks much better, bases much closer to the Urals (but look at a map, it is still a long mission) BUT now the Germans have to get the supplies to the bomber fields. A few raids are one thing but a sustained bombing campaign using even 200 bombers per mission requires about 500,000 U.S. gallons (2,000,000 liters?) Per mission.
Each He177 with tankage for a "medium" range mission holds enough fuel to fill 27 Bf 109s without drop tanks and this fuel has to brought from Germany/Romania by rail. Plus bombs + ammo. How many trains per mission on an already overloaded railnet?


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 17, 2014)

@Tomo, Griehl usually isn't a great author to get technically accurate performance data from in the sense of providing all of the conditions such as speed, altitude, engine limits, aircraft fit out and date nevertheless we have an accurate data sheet for the He 177A3 above showing 550kmh as its top speed probably at some kind of WEP rating. One could assume a speed at the Military Rating of at least 500kmh (312mph) which would mean about 30 minutes.

The He 177B was essentially a 4 engine version of the He 177A1 or A3 using the BMW801. (The A3 had a slightly longer fuselage to allow for CofG manipulation due to the heavier engines in new nacelles.) The He 277 was far more radically modified, it did fly, with a 33% greater wing area, twin tail fins to handle the extra torque of the DB603 engines and a much higher MTOW, reconfigured accommodation and bomb bay. The He 277 designation wasn't some slight of hand designation to hide a 4 engine development. Nevertheless the He 177 seems to have been more concerned with streamlining and speed than Allied aircraft.

@Stona The bomb bay subdivision problem isn't really a problem as far as the He 177 performing its primary role of long range maritime bombing or carrying normal loads. Hats of to modified Lancaster in late 1944 and 45 carrying tallboy and grand slam though. AFAIKT the largest Luftwaffe bombs were 2500kg (PC2500) and the above fit out shows the possibility of 4 x SC1700 (15200lbs) or 4 x PC1800 (16000lbs armour piercing). The aircraft showed great promise as a guided weapons carrier that might have greatly multiplied its effectiveness, while its speed and range would have been a massive 'force multiplier' for the Luftwaffe allowing coverage of a large number of long range targets from a minimal number of He 177.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and certainly the RLM/Luftwaffe had warnings of potential engine problems they did not heed. The problem seems to have been overly enthusiastic young engineers at Daimler Benz and Heinkel over promising. The very heavy restriction placed on the Germans by Versailes severely restricted the German aviation industry as well as the Luftwaffe would have reduced the number of experienced officers and engineers with the requisite scepticism. 

A twin engine installation is significantly superior to a quad. The wing intercepts less blade area, the aeroelastic structural issues are reduced by concentrating loads near the fuselage etc so individual engines would have suffered a performance drop, having said that its likely the greater power available would have simply compensated by allowing greater MTOW therefore range and also speed. The Jumo 211J was in oversupply by 1942 and didn't produce a competitive Ju 88 anymore but would have worked well in the He 177 I suspect, the low production numbers meaning that more powerful engines such as the BMW 801 (from 1941), DB603 (from December 1942) and Jumo 213A (from 1944) were available.

I think you'll find the DB613 was intended for the He 177A7, perhaps the DB610 would have been used in the interim much as the DB606 was used in the interim for early He 177A3.

There seem to have been issues beyond just distributing 4 BMW 801 engines over the He 177 wing related to tail area, propeller rotation etc. The production of C3 fuel was quite restricted and the BMW801 was quite a valuable engine. This in my view means that the Jumo 211 or Db605 would need to be used or the BMW801 used sparingly in He 177 production, often with restriction to B4 fuel.


Luftwaffe and Heer plans for doing to Britain what the RAF and USAAF had done to Germany involved the use of missiles such as the Fi 103(V1), A4 (V2) and A4b (winged long range V1) and a few other devices such as the BV 246. These were evolving more accurate guidance packages and in all likelihood would have exceeded the average accuracy of daylight bombing and night bombing. Electronic aids were essential to both the USAAF and RAF. As the V2 and V1 already had autopilots adding a little electronics wasn't going to add much too cost.

The pilot of a 1942 Oboe equipped aircraft only really interpreted an audible dot dash sequence to tell him to nudge the aircraft heading a little left or right. A bit of electronics could have done that and saved having to supply headphones and normal radios. The IFF/Transponder based technology used on Oboe had been developed and used by all combatants.

These methods were expected to be more efficient than building up a manned bomber force.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> @Tomo, Griehl usually isn't a great author to get technically accurate performance data from in the sense of providing all of the conditions such as speed, altitude, engine limits, aircraft fit out and date nevertheless we have an accurate data sheet for the He 177A3 above showing 550kmh as its top speed probably at some kind of WEP rating. One could assume a speed at the Military Rating of at least 500kmh (312mph) which would mean about 30 minutes.



Indeed, Griehl sometimes give 440 km/h as both max and cruise speed for same He 177??
The manufacturer indeed gives 550 km/h at Kampfleistung (30 min rating) and 500 km/h on max. continuous power:









> The He 177B was essentially a 4 engine version of the He 177A1 or A3 using the BMW801. (The A3 had a slightly longer fuselage to allow for CofG manipulation due to the heavier engines in new nacelles.) The He 277 was far more radically modified, it did fly, with a 33% greater wing area, twin tail fins to handle the extra torque of the DB603 engines and a much higher MTOW, reconfigured accommodation and bomb bay. The He 277 designation wasn't some slight of hand designation to hide a 4 engine development.



The He 277 was never built, at least going by Wikipedia.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2014)

A something more down to earth - the He 111H-16:


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 17, 2014)

Thank you.

Notice that the H-16 still only had 1120PS engines for take-off.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 17, 2014)

Nope - the 'Startleistung', ie 'take off power' of the Jumo 211F engines, installed, among others, in the He 111H-16, was 1340 PS. 'Startleistung' is noted in the remark 'Beste steigeschwindligheit im Startzustand mit Nstart' (roughly 'best RoC on full load with take off power'); Nstart is 'Startleistung' or 'take off power'.
The H-16 was outfitted with bigger defensive firepower than earlier subtypes - MG FFM in nose, MG 131 dorsal, MG 81Z ventral, plus possibility for side window/hatch MGs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 17, 2014)

Thank you for the correction. The He 111 never got the 211J though. 
And the increase armament was a year late at best (and 2 years after the BoB) and about 100 marks short. 

I have my doubts about how good the MG FFM in the nose was. Pretty good against ground targets or ships/boats, against fighter planes????

Manual for earlier He 111 armament. Including 20mm MG FFM firing out the front of the gondola.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/other-mechanical-systems-tech-/121769d1266024485-iii-manual-upload-111-bedienungsvorschrift-schusswaffe.pdf

I don't know how valid this drawing is as it is from a wargaming site:





Posed picture? no magazine/drum is visible.


----------



## Greyman (Nov 17, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> A something more down to earth - the He 111H-16:



Handily outpaced by a Wellington X. Ouch.


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> "jiggery pokery" are obscure words also a translator can not help can put the mean in a different way?



Sorry Vincenzo, I shouldn't really have used such a slang expression on a forum where English is not everyone's first language.

'Jiggery pokery' just means messing about or having to do some work to make something happen. It actually has origins in the sleight of hand used by conjurers to do something like produce a rabbit from a hat if I remember correctly.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 18, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> I have my doubts about how good the MG FFM in the nose was. Pretty good against ground targets or ships/boats, against fighter planes????



The 30-round drum used for the MG FFM here does not help the things out either.



> I don't know how valid this drawing is as it is from a wargaming site:


It is taken from the manual, 1st such gun layout seem to date from the He 111H-11. S means side angle/arc, H means elevation:








> Posed picture? no magazine/drum is visible.



Probably, the drum comes atop the cannon, the empty casings go through the sleeve visble.



Greyman said:


> Handily outpaced by a Wellington X. Ouch.



Wellington have had the advantage of a far less restricted bomb bay; the introduction of the Hercules engines was also a major boon.
We could use the thread about the RAF's bombers (especially about the early war types), BTW, there is wast number of threads that deal with fighters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 18, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> The 30-round drum used for the MG FFM here does not help the things out either.



The manual for the earlier planes shows a box magazine of 15 rounds(?). enough for a pass when strafing but not so good for defending against fighters, but then those 75 round magazines for the MG 15s weren't so good either and some of them were out of reach of the gunner if he kept one hand on the gun. See the manual for the 20mm stowage when the gun was in the gondola, gunner fired laying down on stomach but reloaded when kneeling (or standing to reach spare magazines(?)
Getting the listed 38 degrees of traverse to one side may take a bit of work from the gunner.


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2014)

The true workhorse of Bomber Command during the early 12-18 months of the war was the very often over looked Whitley. It could carry 7,000lbs of bombs, the heaviest load for any RAF bomber since the Handley Page V/1500 of 1918.

That what early Luftwaffe bombers should be compared to.

I don't think you can overestimate the doctrinal differences between the two sides. The RAF as an independent service was more or less established as a bombing force. Bomber Commands separate roots lie in the 'Independent Force of the Royal Air Force' commanded directly by Trenchard.

The Luftwaffe was established and developed in the 1930s on entirely different principles and that's why aircraft like the He 111, Do 17, Ju 88 were developed. Aircraft like the Do 19 and Ju 89 (based on the Ju 86, Manchester/Lancaster parallels here) were not.

The Americans were also on a different course producing the Boeing 229 for example.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2014)

Greyman said:


> Handily outpaced by a Wellington X. Ouch.



We should beware of quoted performance figures.

For example, a Wellington Mk 1C is quite rightly credited with a maximum speed of 235 mph at 15,500 ft with a service ceiling of 18,000ft. These figures bear no resemblance to operational performance. This aircraft with four 1000lb bombs and full fuel tanks could just about make 12,000ft and cruise at just 165 mph. It's optimum operational altitude was in fact just 11,300ft.
The Manchester 1 could make 205 mph at 13,650ft under the same conditions (90% of take of weight). It could also carry a heavier load than the Halifax further than the Sterling, so it was by no means a bad aircraft to develop the Lancaster from. 

The same to a greater or lesser extent applies to all operational aircraft, including of course the He 177.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 18, 2014)

The max range often quoted for the MK I Wellington is with 1500lb of bombs and the Whitley could only carry 7000lbs over a rather short distance.
The He 111s bomb load of 4400lbs has to be looked at that context (or 2200lbs and 1/2 the bomb bay full.of fuel.)
The He 111 was every bit a strategic bomber in 1939/40. Germans just did only the most minor of modifications/improvements for the next 2-3 years.


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2014)

My data for a Wellington Mk 1 are, _maximum radius _1,000 miles with 2,500lbs of bombs and a_ maximum bomb load _of 4,500 lbs with an equivalent radius, with one hour loiter reserve, of 560 miles

For the Whitley those figures are 725 miles with 3,000lbs and a mere 240 miles with 7,000lbs. The one hour loiter reserve is common sense really.

What are the _operational figures _for a 1940 He 111? 

These may have been built as heavy or strategic bombers but they were downgraded to medium bombers with the advent of the four engine types. The Manchester was the last twin heavy.

It's often forgotten that the Independent Force in WW1 bombed Baalon, Badon, Black Forest, Bonn, Coblenz, Cologne, Darmstadt, Dillingen, Duren, Forbach, Frankfurt, Hagenau, Hargendingen, Heidelburg, Kaiserslautern, Karlsruhe, Karthaus, Lahr, Landau, Lugwigshafen, Lumes, Luxembourg, Mainz, Mannheim, Oberndorf, Offenburg, Pforzheim, Pirmasens, Rastatt, Rombas, Rottweill, Saarbrucken, Saarburg, Salingen, Stuttgart, Treves, Volkingen, Wadgassen, Worms and Zweibrucken. This was done mostly by night flying Handley Page 0/004s It was hardly a new idea in the inter war years, nor at the beginning of the second war.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 18, 2014)

Time ago were put on this forum the RAF chart for some british twins, i'm sorry but not remember the name probably like Stirling 
data for the Wellington IA-IC range at most economical speed (165 mph at 10,000) (with 69 galls of fuel allowance): with 4500 lbs of bomb, 1200 (miles i suppose) , with 2750 lbs of bomb, 1805 (miles), with 1000 lbs of bomb, 2550 (miles).
Wellington X range (180 mph at 15,000)(125 gals of allowance): with 4500 lbs, 1325 miles, with 1500 lbs, 1885 miles
Manchester range (185 mph at 15,000) (110 gals of allowance): with 10350 lbs, 1200 (miles), with 8100 lbs, 1630 (miles)
Whitley VII range (135 mph at 5,000) (45 gals of allowance): with 5500 lbs, 1360 (miles), with 4500 lbs, 1630 (miles), with 3500 lbs, 1900 (miles), with 2500 lbs, 2170 (miles)
Whitley V range (165 mph at 15,000) (115 gals of allowance): with 8,000 lbs, 630 (miles), with 5,500 lbs, 1370 (miles), with 4,500 lbs, 1645 (miles), with 3,500 lbs, 1930 8miles)


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2014)

From Mason, who gives the sources.







Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 18, 2014)

Let's not forget the Germans bombed England in WW I using Gotha bombers ( among others, including zepplins) so the idea of strategic bombing wasn't British alone.
An He 111 should have had a radius of about 750km (450miles?) With a 4400lb bomb load and one hour reserve.
Not quite as good as the Wellington but not too shabby for a "tactical" bomber.


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> An He 111 should have had a radius of about 750km (450miles?) With a 4400lb bomb load and one hour reserve.
> Not quite as good as the Wellington but not too shabby for a "tactical" bomber.



About the same as a Hampden, which soldiered on with Bomber Command into 1942. Important to note that Air Ministry Specification B.9/32 to which it was initially built was for a medium bomber and that is how I'd describe the He 111 too.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 18, 2014)

This is for the Wellington IA -IC the other are similar






the attach of Warwick was a wrong, i don't know as delete it

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 18, 2014)

For the Hampden i've range (155 mph at 15,000*) (60 gals of allowance) with 5,000 lbs (1,000 on wings) 775 (miles), with 2,000 lbs 1820 (miles)



*the speed and altitude to most economical cruise is give to mean weight for all the bombers


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 18, 2014)

stona said:


> What are the _operational figures _for a 1940 He 111?



I have only this, for bombs/mines hanged on the rack. Will try to translate it a sector a time, it would be too messy to attempt in on a whole document. Total range is the 'Strecke gesamt' column; open the pic separately:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 18, 2014)

1st segment, again open it separately:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 18, 2014)

Great stuff, thanks for posting it!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Denniss (Nov 18, 2014)

Please note that this chart is with external bombs and additional fuel/oil in the bomb bay. Standard fuel is 3450l


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2014)

Indeed, any bomb bigger than a 250 kg one would not fit in the fuselage. 

View of the bomb racks is attached. 'Windgitter' is the spoiler that was deployed prior the release of bomb(s) from the ESAC (as mentioned eleswhere, max load a 250 kg bomb per one ESAC); 'Notzughebel' should be the handle for emergency bomb release. 'Bombenklappen' are the ESAC dors. Between two rows of the ESAC there was a walkway for the crew.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2014)

Part 2 of the document posted above:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2014)

Part 3


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 19, 2014)

Thank you


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 24, 2014)

Since I plan to add some data sheets about the Ju 88, here is a translation of one such a sheet, so you people can quickly understand the others (open the pic separately):


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 24, 2014)

One thing overlooked in this thread is the rationale behind the development of the strategic bomber arm. The luftwaffe was not developed with the foresight that encompassed long range massed bombing formations. Blitzkreig was the order of the day, achieved with Ju 87's for close support, good light/medium bombers like the the JU 88, and short range escort fighters like the Bf 109, which was the equal of anything else out there in 1940. The war was planned to be over in a short time, and there was simply no long term need envisaged. I know this sounds overly simplistic, but it does basically cover it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 24, 2014)

The He 111 was fielded in vastly greater numbers than the Ju 88 prior 1941, especially against the France and Low countries in mid 1941. Ditto for the Do 17. From Wikipedia (I know..):

_Some 133 Ju 88s were pressed into the Blitzkrieg [against France], but very high combat losses and accidents forced a quick withdrawal from action to re-train crews to fly this very high-performance aircraft_

There was only 12 Ju 88 deployed against Poland.



> The luftwaffe was not developed with the foresight that encompassed long range massed bombing formations. Blitzkreig was the order of the day, achieved with Ju 87's for close support,



In 1939 and 1940 combined, there was less that 740 of the Ju 87 produced. Against 475 Do 17 and 1200+ He 111. Had not the 2-engined bombers attacked air other military bases, supply dumps, railroad junctions and other operational and strategic targets, the Ju 87 would've had far more trouble and less success. The 2-engined bombers were an integral part pf the Blitzkrieg every bit as Ju 87, and then some more.
Again from Wikipedia:

_Battle of France

The Luftwaffe's order of battle for the French campaign reveals all but one of the Luftwaffe's Fliegerkorps (I. Fliegerkorps) contained Ju 88s in the combat role. The mixed bomber units, including the Ju 88, of Kampfgeschwader 51 (under the command of Luftflotte 3) helped claim between 233 and 248 Allied aircraft on the ground between 10–13 May 1940.[26] The Ju 88 was particularly effective at dive-bombing. Between 13–24 May, I. and II./KG 54 flew 174 attack against rail systems, paralysing French logistics and mobility._


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 24, 2014)

Thanks for all the data, but my point was that 4 engined bombers were not considered to be a necessary addition to the existing types in service. The Ju 88 was picked out at random as being a good medium twin engined bomber, although the He 111 was produced in greater numbers etc. The battle of Britain showed up some obvious flaws in the strategic level, as well as proving the vulnerability of the JU 87 without adequate escort. Like so many of the major mistakes made ( like invading Poland in the first place),the Luftwaffe could never had delivered what was required of it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 24, 2014)

The He 177 was able to de-couple a desired 'half' of one of it's coupled engines, the performance chart posted recently on the forum shows the climb conditions on 3 engines, as well as two 'halves' running on each side. So it was technically a 4-engined job, and it was featured in Luftwaffe's plans. However, someone in the RLM or/and LW brass thought there is a good thing to couple the engines, while the dive bombing for such a heavy bomber is a must - a self inflicted wound.



> The battle of Britain showed up some obvious flaws in the strategic level, as well as proving the vulnerability of the JU 87 without adequate escort.



Not only the Ju 87 was vulnerable, all of the LW bombers were fair game for the RAF if unescorted. 



> Like so many of the major mistakes made ( like invading Poland in the first place),the Luftwaffe could never had delivered what was required of it.



Invading Poland was not LW's mistake. The LW delivered what was required prior the BoB, and then against the Balkans and Soviet Union prior 1943.


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 24, 2014)

In my book "luftwaffe secret projects;Bombers", there is a relatively good section on the He177, which showed that that the aircraft was basically flawed from the outset. Using two coupled engines to drive one prop was a mechanical absurdity, leading to extensive maintainence and cooling issues. Even Goering is quoted as stating that asking a 4 engine bomber to dive was " complete lunacy". The He 277 was a far better proposition but nothing ever came of it. I didn't say that the Luftwaffe decided to invade Poland, but need to clarify that mistakes were made during the war from start to finish, by the people at the top, and the Luftwaffe would never have had the capability to affect the outcome.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 24, 2014)

> Using two coupled engines to drive one prop was a mechanical absurdity, leading to extensive maintainence and cooling issues.



Not just that. The exhaust pipes were on the lower portion of the nacelle, just waiting for to ignite the leaked oil. Mostly solved when DB 610 was installed, though, but they never should've went for coupled engines on the 1st place.
The requirement to dive bomb was not helping either.



> Even Goering is quoted as stating that asking a 4 engine bomber to dive was " complete lunacy".



Goering was the costumer. It was his mistake for allowing the coupled engines on a bomber at the 1st place - suddenly it is someone else's fault??
But then, expecting from Goering to make sound decisions is probably asking too much.


----------



## stona (Nov 24, 2014)

'Coupled' engines did prove problematic (think Rolls Royce Vulture, and others) but were tried as a seemingly easy way of getting more power.

13th September 1942 in a speech at the Karinhall is the closest Goring came to calling the requirement for the He 177 to dive lunacy. 

First Goering somewhat sarcastically reproached the assembled industrialists for the Germans lack of a four engine bomber _"I asked them 'why not go over to a four engined type?' and they told me, 'No, four engined types are passé now; it is far better to have two propellers.' So I said 'Well, well, the enemy is proving quite a nuisance to me with his four engined types." _

He continued, _"It is complete idiocy to ask that a four engined bomber should dive. Had I been told of this for one moment, I should have exclaimed at once 'what kind of nonsense is this?' but now we are stuck with it"._

Idiocy/lunacy...depends on the translator 

He was still moaning about it at another conference on 23rd May 1944.
_"The driving obsession to make even this heavy bomber capable of dive bombing resulted first of all in the scrapping of the four engined design in favour of the twin engined type and, as there were no engines with sufficient power available, this led, as I have already mentioned, to the use of doubled engines."_

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Nov 24, 2014)

'Coupled' engines did prove problematic (think Rolls Royce Vulture, and others) but were tried as a seemingly easy way of getting more power.

13th September 1942 in a speech at the Karinhall is the closest Goring came to calling the requirement for the He 177 to dive lunacy. 

First Goering somewhat sarcastically reproached the assembled industrialists for the Germans' lack of a four engine bomber _"I asked them 'why not go over to a four engined type?' and they told me, 'No, four engined types are passé now; it is far better to have two propellers.' So I said 'Well, well, the enemy is proving quite a nuisance to me with his four engined types." _

He continued, _"It is complete idiocy to ask that a four engined bomber should dive. Had I been told of this for one moment, I should have exclaimed at once 'what kind of nonsense is this?' but now we are stuck with it"._

Idiocy/lunacy...depends on the translator, though my limited German would tell me that the German for lunacy or madness is different to that for idiocy 

He was still moaning about it at another conference on 23rd May 1944.
_"The driving obsession to make even this heavy bomber capable of dive bombing resulted first of all in the scrapping of the four engined design in favour of the twin engined type and, as there were no engines with sufficient power available, this led, as I have already mentioned, to the use of doubled engines."_

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 24, 2014)

All that aside, the only German bomber to have any sort of impact ( pardon the pun),by the end of the war, was the Arado Ar234. By 44/45, allied air supremacy made every conventional Luftwaffe bomber ( and most of their other aircraft) well and truly obsolete, and the Ar234 was the ONLY luft bomber to have any chance of survival. Although their bombing capability was neglible by allied standards, their performance was far in advance of any other German bomber. The potential for further development was a real possibility, much more so than the limited resources being thrown away in desperation designs and such. Operationally,while they achieved very little, they were still the best German bomber available at the end of hostilities.


----------



## stona (Nov 24, 2014)

My question would be, what exactly were 'luft' bombers going to bomb in 1944/5?

It was too late to develop any kind of strategic force. The existing tactical force had been almost abandoned and virtually no bomber crews were being trained, others were being transferred to the fighter arm. Even if you manage to produce a few bombers, who is going to fly them?
Developing these aircraft and providing the men to fly them was simply beyond the means of the Germans after 1943.

The single engine ground attack aircraft had little effect on the outcome of any campaign, and the dafter weapons (like Mistel combinations) even less. 

As early as the final quarter of 1942 the Anglo-American production of twin engine aircraft was 196% that of Germany. In terms of four engine types this figure is 20,078%.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 24, 2014)

strategic bombers without a long range escort is useless. had the germans developed a strategic wing that would/could work in conjuntion with the blitzkrieg it may have had some success. but that probably would have taxed the german resources beyond their capabilites. so they had to decide and put all their eggs in the blitzkrieg basket...which works well until you reach a coast.


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 24, 2014)

As far as I can tell, the AR234 could only carry out nuisance raids on advancing troops; ie "the Bridge at Remagen", advanced allied airfields, and such like. Carried externally, their bomb capacity was not large enough for anything more. The Recon versions actually flew over the UK without detection, even though allied air superiority was total. J2 Jet fuel was more available than expensive synthetic fuel needed for piston engines, and the Ar234 carried a number of "firsts" in aerial warfare, but that is probably best left for another thread. I've always considered them very under rated, and in the shadow of the Me 262.


----------



## stona (Nov 24, 2014)

Fw 190s could carry out the same nuisance raids, they might have had a better chance of actually hitting the bridge!

The Ar 234 undoubtedly had potential, but so did a lot of late war RLM projects. I don't think the type is under rated, I just don't think that it is really rateable due to its late arrival and limited use. Less than twenty of the one hundred and forty eight so far delivered were in service (12 as bombers) at the end of 1944. We'll never know how the allies would have reacted to its introduction in numbers.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Nov 24, 2014)

stona said:


> 'Coupled' engines did prove problematic (think Rolls Royce Vulture, and others) but were tried as a seemingly easy way of getting more power.



The Vulture wasn't a coupled engine. 

The Sabre had two crankshafts, but I still would not consider it a coupled engine.

The V-3420 is closer, but unlike the DB606 and DB610 the two halves shared a crankcase and had only one set of accessories.

I guess the Fairey P.24 was a coupled engine - both crankshafts shared a crankcase, but each half was operated independent of the other.


----------



## stona (Nov 25, 2014)

wuzak said:


> The Vulture wasn't a coupled engine.



Not in engineering terms, but it was still essentially two Peregrines bolted together, admittedly driving a common crankshaft. It still represents a version of the same short cut to achieving more power.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Nov 25, 2014)

The DBs and Allisons were *W* engines while the Vulture was a *X* engine.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 25, 2014)

stona said:


> Not in engineering terms, but it was still essentially two Peregrines bolted together, admittedly driving a common crankshaft. It still represents a version of the same short cut to achieving more power.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



That was not the case. Angle between the Vulture's banks was 90 deg, there is no way to achieve that angle while using a V12 that has 60 deg angle. The crankpins were different. The bore spacing was also greater in Vulture than in Peregrine, so the blocks were also different. Supercharger was different, along with the 2-speed drive. Crankshaft and valvetrain are different.
Vulture basically used, maybe, the pistons and valves from Peregrine.


----------



## stona (Nov 25, 2014)

Good job it never got fitted to a German bomber then 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## wuzak (Nov 25, 2014)

stona said:


> Not in engineering terms, but it was still essentially two Peregrines bolted together, admittedly driving a common crankshaft. It still represents a version of the same short cut to achieving more power.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Like adding rows to radials?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 26, 2014)

wuzak said:


> Like adding rows to radials?



In a way. That didn't always go so well either.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattern14 (Nov 29, 2014)

stona said:


> Fw 190s could carry out the same nuisance raids, they might have had a better chance of actually hitting the bridge!
> 
> The Ar 234 undoubtedly had potential, but so did a lot of late war RLM projects. I don't think the type is under rated, I just don't think that it is really rateable due to its late arrival and limited use. Less than twenty of the one hundred and forty eight so far delivered were in service (12 as bombers) at the end of 1944. We'll never know how the allies would have reacted to its introduction in numbers.
> 
> ...


True, we will never know. On the subject of the FW190 doing the same job, I doubt if it could have done any better. As it was, the Me262 flew as escort in the Flak suppression role, and did provide a modicum of protection for the Ar234 which had to hold straight and level for a bit to achieve any kind of bombing accuracy. It was in these few minutes it became vulnerable to interception or AA fire. At one point a flight of P38's were used to counter the jets, but failed to achieve anything, even killing their own pilots in a mid air collision. As it was, even the fastest allied fighter would be hard pressed to keep pace with the Ar234 once it had dropped its load and was heading home. Some allied piston driven fighters downed several, but usually by diving from a superior altitude, which was the norm anyway. There is a really good narrative from the American perspective in Smith and Creeks 4 volume series on the Me 262, describing the jet bomber attacks on Remagen if you get a chance to read it. Considering the ammount of AA firepower and over whelming allied air superiority, no conventional Luftwaffe aircraft would have stood a chance. Same old story, too little, too late.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2014)

pattern14 said:


> . At one point a flight of P38's were used to counter the jets, but failed to achieve anything, even killing their own pilots in a mid air collision


Where? When?


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 29, 2014)

pattern14 said:


> True, we will never know. On the subject of the FW190 doing the same job, I doubt if it could have done any better. As it was, the Me262 flew as escort in the Flak suppression role, and did provide a modicum of protection for the Ar234 which had to hold straight and level for a bit to achieve any kind of bombing accuracy. It was in these few minutes it became vulnerable to interception or AA fire. At one point a flight of P38's were used to counter the jets, but failed to achieve anything, even killing their own pilots in a mid air collision. As it was, even the fastest allied fighter would be hard pressed to keep pace with the Ar234 once it had dropped its load and was heading home. Some allied piston driven fighters downed several, but usually by diving from a superior altitude, which was the norm anyway. There is a really good narrative from the American perspective in Smith and Creeks 4 volume series on the Me 262, describing the jet bomber attacks on Remagen if you get a chance to read it. Considering the ammount of AA firepower and over whelming allied air superiority, no conventional Luftwaffe aircraft would have stood a chance. Same old story, too little, too late.......


I'm curious...which missions included Me262s as escorts for the Ar234?

If you're referring to the attacks on the Ludendorf bridge at Remagen (and the pontoon bridge), those Me262s are A-2/a bombers from II./Kg51 that were coordinated with the Ar234s of Kg76 (Stab, 6., II. and III.)...otherwise, the Luftwaffe simply didn't have resources to dedicate escort for the Ar234, which was capable of flying unescorted as it was.

I assume that's also the reference you made about the P-38s trying to intercept and break up the jet's bombing runs being made on the bridges, also?


----------



## Njaco (Nov 30, 2014)

wow....just, wow.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 4, 2014)

I've promised some tables about the Ju 88, so here they are. A 'Betriebdatentafel' (roughly: 'limitation performance table') is translated earlier in this thread, so people can know what is in the rest. I Intend to translate also one 'Ladeplan' (roughly: loading table), for same purpose. Each Ladeplan is laid on two pages - even, THEN odd.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 4, 2014)

Here is one translated Ladeplan, open separately for hi-res:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 5, 2014)

The never much lowed, but still an useful bomber in the LW arsenal was the Do-217. That bomber type finally offered a sizable bomb bay, decent cruise and top speed and more than token defensive armament. 

The performance chart for the Do-217E-1, engines BMW 801A, 'Kampfleistung' power setting (30 min rating; up to 1460 PS in low gear, up to 1300 PS in high gear). Germans rarely, if ever, used the 'Notleistung' (~'emergency power', usually a 5 min rating) for their bombers' engines, other than for take off ('Startleistung'). For the early BMWs, that also probably meant that engine reliability was greater than the fighters' engines (801C as equivalent here). (open the pics separately)







The Do-217E-2 introduced a bit a longer bomb bay, meaning that more bombs could be carried internally, or a decent bombload and fuel in the same time (all internally).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 5, 2014)

Tomo pauk nothing on K or M variant? i like much this later variants


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 5, 2014)

Unfortunately, I was only able to find the performance data for the Do 217N-2, the night fighter variant. 
I'll post the table from a book about the Do-217 (for most important variants), though it is not a primary source.

edit: picture

edit2: He-177*B*-5, the 4 engined one: picture

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 6, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Where? When?


 Been away for a while, but I will dig out my reference material tomorrow about the P38 incident, as well as the Me 262 escort mission(s). I'll post it tomorrow night sometime.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 6, 2014)

The table about th Do 217 sub types. Some values stated are in collision with other data available (max power at altitude for the BMW 801A, max internal bomb loads), so use the table with grain of salt.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Unfortunately, I was only able to find the performance data for the Do 217N-2, the night fighter variant.
> I'll post the table from a book about the Do-217 (for most important variants), though it is not a primary source.
> 
> edit: picture
> ...



People - anybody has the linked pictures saved?


----------

