# 1940: the best bomber in service?



## tomo pauk (Dec 9, 2012)

Hello,
1940 saw some major displays of air power, bombers playing major roles. What type should be regarded as the best? The planes in service are to be taken into account, with 2 or more engines, all around the world. Bomb load over distance, speed, protection, gun armament are the main categories here.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 9, 2012)

B-17 has to be in the mix


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 9, 2012)

Likewise, Wellington.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 9, 2012)

i add to B-17 and Wellington the He 111


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2012)

The B-17 was only barely in service in 1940 and certainly wasn't combat capable. Personally, I'd go with the Ju-88 - it was truly superb and, IMHO, the best bomber in the world in 1940.


----------



## davebender (Dec 9, 2012)

I agree. Ju-88 was very capable by 1940 standards.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 9, 2012)

B-17 was in service also in 39. and why not combat capable? also w/o SS and armour is combat capable many bombers had not in 1940


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2012)

The JU-88 was a capable bomber but in 1940 I think I'd rather be over London in a B-17B or C if given a choice. BTW, the B-17B first flew in 1939, the B-17C first flew in mid 1940. "Combat capable" by 1939 standards or 1944 standards?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2012)

In 1940, I think I would have to go with the Ju 88. Only because of its versatility. 

Still there a lot of others though that one could argue for.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2012)

There were a whopping 10 B-17Bs in USAAF service by March 1940, the next order for 517 aircraft only being issued in July of that year. As to the combat readiness of the B-17, I would point out the RAF's experience with the Fortress MkI (equivalent to the B-17C) was pretty negative, with combat highlighting the need for much greater defensive firepower. Given that the C-variant didn't enter service until late 1940 I think my comment about the combat readiness of the B-17 in 1940 is valid, and that the Ju-88 was a much better candidate as the best bomber of that timeframe.


----------



## Readie (Dec 9, 2012)

Maybe not the 'best' but, one could argue the one of most versatile and longest serving bombers..the Wellington.

Vickers Wellington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cheers
John


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 9, 2012)

the B-17 available to end 1940 were
13 B-17
1 B-17A 
39 B-17B (delivery completed in march)
18 B-17C (delivery completed in november)

2 B-17 were loss for accident in 1940 (12/11 and 18/12), a few were used as test planes.
the B-17 and 17B had 5 .30 mg the C had 4 .50 and 1 .30., the 88 had 4 .30.

Imho the 111H is a best bomber of 88A, specifically of the original A-1. The 111 is more versatile as level bomber (example can load 250 kg bombs internally)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2012)

Wiki comparison

B-17C
Armament: One .30-cal. and six .50-cal. machine guns and 4,800 lbs. of bombs 
Engines: Four Wright R-1820-65 turbo-supercharged radials of 1,200 hp each 
Maximum speed: 323 mph at 25,000 ft. 
Cruising speed: 227 mph 
Service ceiling: 37,000 ft. 
Range: 3,400 miles (maximum ferry range)
Span: 103 ft. 9 in. 
Length: 67 ft. 11 in. 
Height: 15 ft. 5 in. 
Weight: 48,500 lbs. gross weight (actual - normal load) 


Junkers Ju 88A-1 

Crew 4
Engine (Type) 2: Junkers Jumo 211B/G3, 2: Junkers Jumo 211 B4 
Cylinders Inverted V 123, V 124 
Cooling Liquid
HP 1,200 each
Propeller blades 3 each
Fuel capacity 
Dimensions 
Span 59' 11"3, 60' 3"4 
18.26 m
Length 47' 1"4, 47' 2"3 
8.43 m
Height 15' 11"3, 17' 5"4 
4.85 m
Wing area 
Weight 
Empty 
Loaded 22,840 lb
Maximum load 
Performance 
Speed 
Speed @ 18,050' 280 mph4 
Cruising speed 
Climb 
Service ceiling 28,250'
Range 1,056 miles
Armament 3: MG4 
Bombs (internal and external) 3,960 lb4

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 9, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> There were a whopping 10 B-17Bs in USAAF service by March 1940, the next order for 517 aircraft only being issued in July of that year. As to the combat readiness of the B-17, I would point out the RAF's experience with the Fortress MkI (equivalent to the B-17C) was pretty negative, with combat highlighting the need for much greater defensive firepower. Given that the C-variant didn't enter service until late 1940 I think my comment about the combat readiness of the B-17 in 1940 is valid, and that the Ju-88 was a much better candidate as the best bomber of that timeframe.



RAF was flying Fortresses from mid 1941 on, so whatever their experiences were, that does not seem to have bearing here? Was there any interceptor capable to reliably catch it in 1940?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 9, 2012)

I would put forth the Whitley. Not many bombers could hit Genoa Italy from England.

In 1940 there were very few 4 engine bombers. The available B-17s have been gone over (and the early ones had 5-6 .30 cal guns, later refitted) and any other 4 engine bombers were even fewer in number (except for the Russian leftover TB-3s). First British 4 engine bombers reach the squadrons at the end of the year but don't fly first combat missions until 1941. 

Most engines in 1940 were about 1200hp give or take a bit. SO you have about 2400hp hp for the bomber,( Italian tri-motors were under 900hp each). You could either have schnell bomber or you could have a load carrier, not both.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 9, 2012)

Didn't the early B-17s received by the British, get assigned to less hazardous duties because they weren't combat ready?


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 9, 2012)

Regardless of which individual aircraft was the best, the Luftwaffe had the most accurate, with the use of radio navigation/bombing aids years before the RAF/USAAF and with the most combat experience by the end of that year, most likely the best bomber force in 1940. Thankfully for the rest of the world, the LW was let down by inadequate reconnaissance and a nincompoop at the top. Although I do agree about the Ju 88.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 9, 2012)

In 1940, was the Ju-88 better than He-111?



Milosh said:


> Didn't the early B-17s received by the British, get assigned to less hazardous duties because they weren't combat ready?



By second half of 1941, early B-17s they were not up to standard. Again, we need to compare them with what was available in 1940.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> RAF was flying Fortresses from mid 1941 on, so whatever their experiences were, that does not seem to have bearing here? Was there any interceptor capable to reliably catch it in 1940?



That's precisely my point. People are saying the B-17 was combat ready in 1940 and hence should be considered the best bomber in that year. I'm saying that even in 1941 the B-17 still had significant flaws from a combat effectiveness standpoint and so it can't have been the best bomber in 1940. And there weren't huge differences between mid/late 1940 fighters and early/mid 1941 fighters so, given the performance of the Fortress in RAF service, the answer to your second question has to be "Yes".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> That's precisely my point. People are saying the B-17 was combat ready in 1940 and hence should be considered the best bomber in that year. I'm saying that even in 1941 the B-17 still had *significant flaws* from a combat effectiveness standpoint and so it can't have been the best bomber in 1940.



And what were those flaws when compared to say the JU.88 A-1, Wellington or He.111? Armor plate? Self sealing tanks? Compare what those early WW2 bombers had that made them "combat effective" with early B-17s....


----------



## davebender (Dec 9, 2012)

Ju-88 was a purpose built bomber. He-111 was a modified transport aircraft. 

I suspect the purpose built aircraft has all sorts of small advantages that don't necessarily show up by reading Wikipedia data. For instance the Ju-88 probably had superior crew protection and a sturdier airframe. Ju-88 was probably also more maneuverable so it could take evasive action.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 9, 2012)

Hi, buffnut,
What would be the "significant flaws"?
As for fighters available in 1941, the Bf-109F-4 was there, the 1st 400 mph fighter, above 20000 ft. Spitfire V makes 375 above 20000 ft. Unlike for 1940, when we talk about 350 mph at 17-18000 ft - not going to cut it, reliably, vs. a bomber that can make 320 mph at 25000 ft. So I'd say that 'no' is the answer to the second question.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Regardless of which individual aircraft was the best, the Luftwaffe had the most accurate, with the use of radio navigation/bombing aids years before the RAF/USAAF.


And that equipment was? NDB? Bombsights? The LW most certainly had the combat experience but "radio navigation/bombing aids" didn't vary much between combatants.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And what were those flaws when compared to say the JU.88 A-1, Wellington or He.111? Armor plate? Self sealing tanks? Compare what those early WW2 bombers had that made them "combat effective" with early B-17s....



For its size and speed, the early B-17s lacked defensive armament. The Ju-88 could fly rather faster, was more manoeuverable and could undertake a broad variety of roles. A lot of this argument comes down to an individual definition of "best"...and that's before getting into yet more argument over differing roles. However, at face value, I still think the Ju-88 was, all-round, a better combat machine than the B-17A thru C.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And that equipment was? NDB? Bombsights? The LW most certainly had the combat experience but "radio navigation/bombing aids" didn't vary much between combatants.



I think German use of radio bombing aids preceded pretty much anyone else (at least in an operational sense).


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 9, 2012)

Agreed on that.



davebender said:


> Ju-88 was a purpose built bomber. He-111 was a modified transport aircraft.
> 
> I suspect the purpose built aircraft has all sorts of small advantages that don't necessarily show up by reading Wikipedia data. For instance the Ju-88 probably had superior crew protection and a sturdier airframe. Ju-88 was probably also more maneuverable so it could take evasive action.



For a purpose built bomber, one wonders what kind of bomb size was contemplated for it in design phase? Any bigger bomb must have gotten under wing, compromising the speed.



buffnut453 said:


> For its size and speed, the early B-17s lacked defensive armament. The Ju-88 could fly rather faster, was more manoeuverable and could undertake a broad variety of roles. A lot of this argument comes down to an individual definition of "best"...and that's before getting into yet more argument over differing roles. However, at face value, I still think the Ju-88 was, all-round, a better combat machine than the B-17A thru C.



As the early B-17s significantly differ from late B-17, the same holds true for Ju-88. 
The variants in use in 1940 (A-1, A-5 - Jumo 211B or G engines) were not as fast as A-4 later ones (Jumo 211F and better engines). The speed attained for A-1 A-5 was under 300 mph (only 285? - I'm open for corrections) at less than 18000 ft - the humble Hurricane can get it. Let alone if the bombs are hung outboard. Flying at such height, the bomber is well within a scope of any competent AAA of 1940, unlike the Fortress flying at 25000 ft.


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 9, 2012)

Just to be contrary, the French introduced several bombers during 1940 including the LeO 451, the Amiot 354 and the Bloch MB.175. One of these, probably the MB.175, must have been the fastest bomber in service in 1940. 

I am not sure how effective the MB.175 actually was as a bomber, partly because they were actually used for reconnaissance in 1940, and, although they could carry bombs internally, might not have any advantages over the Bf 110, which does not qualify for this thread.

The problem with the LeO 451 was the armament which included a retractable dustbin, which greatly increased drag if deployed, and a powerfull cannon with only a fairly small magazine. However, I suspect that stripped of its dustbin, it would have been one of the best at night.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2012)

To Tomo Pauk...

But the Ju-88A-4 entered service in 1940 so it still counts. I believe the German 8.8cm Flak gun could reach 25,000ft as an effective ceiling. 

These "best of" discussions are interesting but always hard to quantify, not least because of the incredibly rapid rate of technological advance particularly during the early war years.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 9, 2012)

the 111 was a bomber from design the born of civilian variant was for overtaken the peace treaty.
The B-17C was one of faster bombers available.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 9, 2012)

For 1940, the B-17B was as fast as the Ju-88 and cruised at the same speed. The B-17 had much better load carrying capacity and range. In addition, the B-17 had a much higher ceiling. The B-17C, also available in 1940 and was much faster in top speed (40 mph) and 20 mph faster in cruise speed, along with all the other advantages of the B-17B. And I suspect both were better armed than the Ju-88. As a bomber there seems to be no comparison here. With other planes, haven't looked.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 9, 2012)

i checked the A-4 is available in the fall of 1940.
wheatever the 88A-4 can load 6x250kg bombs under the wing and the full internal fuel 2.6 ton
the 111H can load 8x250kg bomb in the bay and 2.4 ton of internal fuel 
probably despite the less fuel the 111H had more range because of all internal load.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 9, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> To Tomo Pauk...
> 
> But the Ju-88A-4 entered service in 1940 so it still counts. I believe the German 8.8cm Flak gun could reach 25,000ft as an effective ceiling.



"German Combat Planes" by Wagner and Nowarra states, "Late in 1941, the Ju 88A-4 arrived with the 1410 hp Jumo 211J".




buffnut453 said:


> I believe the German 8.8cm Flak gun could reach 25,000ft as an effective ceiling.


I suspect coverage area at 25k ft was very small. Also, the B-17B and B-17C had a service ceiling of 36-37k ft. The Ju-88 ceiling was more than a mile less.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 9, 2012)

And service ceiling with a full bomb load was????


----------



## davebender (Dec 9, 2012)

Could the aircraft dive bomb (70 degree angle) using the bomb bay?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 9, 2012)

As mentioned, the He 111 was a bomber first and a transport second, not the other way around. In the Mid 30s many aircraft companies tried for duel purpose designs to make the most money possible but some of the German "dual purpose" had some rather severe limitations for commercial use. 
Big British bombers of the 30s often had the requirement of carrying 24 troops to parts of the British Empire _in the same aircraft_ not a different version. 

For a brief history of the Early B-17 in British service see : Fortress I for RAF

While the Germans did have some radio navigation systems I think ( and could be corrected) they were used by only a few units? 

"Best" bomber depends on which attributes you favor. The Wellington and Whitley were slow but could carry a large bomb load fairly far. Very few 1940 bombers could operate by day without escort.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> For its size and speed, the early B-17s lacked defensive armament. The Ju-88 could fly rather faster, was more manoeuverable and could undertake a broad variety of roles. A lot of this argument comes down to an individual definition of "best"...and that's before getting into yet more argument over differing roles. However, at face value, I still think the Ju-88 was, all-round, a better combat machine than the B-17A thru C.


If you're comparing a JU.88 A-4 and later, yes, compare a B-17B or C and they offered better performance than the A-1. As far as different roles and maneuverability, I would agree, hands down to the Ju.88 - as far as a level "heavy" bomber, the B-17


buffnut453 said:


> I think German use of radio bombing aids preceded pretty much anyone else (at least in an operational sense).


All "radio bombing" was is an ADF unit, technology that was around before the war.


----------



## Juha (Dec 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> Could the aircraft dive bomb (70 degree angle) using the bomb bay?



IIRC no


----------



## Juha (Dec 9, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> ...While the Germans did have some radio navigation systems I think ( and could be corrected) they were used by only a few units? ...



IIRC Knickebein could be used by at least most LW bomber units but only KGr 100 had equipmnt and training for the use of the more accurate X-Verfahren


----------



## davparlr (Dec 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> Could the aircraft dive bomb (70 degree angle) using the bomb bay?


So, the only thing that makes a great bomber is dive bombing, vs max speed, cruising speed, altitude, load carrying, and range? Interesting.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 9, 2012)

davparlr said:


> "German Combat Planes" by Wagner and Nowarra states, "Late in 1941, the Ju 88A-4 arrived with the 1410 hp Jumo 211J".



this source is sure best of mine Aircraft Database


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 9, 2012)

From that site...

JU.88 A-4

Country of Service : Germany 
Role : Medium Bomber 
First Flight : September 1939 
Production Date : March 1940 
In-Service Date : October 1940 
Manufacturer : Junkers Flugzeug Motorenwerke A.G. 
Number Produced : 
Crew : 4 
Length : 14.4 meters 
Height : 4.85 meters 
Empty Weight : 9860 kilograms 
Operational Weight : 12105 kilograms 
Maximum Weight : 14000 kilograms 
Wing Span : 20.13 meters 
Wing Aspect Ratio : 7.34 
Wing Area : 54.5 square meters 
Wing Load : 222.11 kg per square meter 
Engine Number : 2 
Engine Name : Junkers Jumo 211 J1 
Coolant : Water 
Cylinders: I-12 
Capacity: 34.97 Liters 
Power : 1340 hp @ 2600 rpm 
Power / Weight Ratio : 221.4 hp per tonne 
Max Speed : 470 kph @ 5300 meters 
Cruising Speed : 399 kph @ 5000 meters 
Climb : 400 
Service Ceiling : 8200 meters 
Range : 1790 kilometers 
Range (Droptank) : 2730 kilometers 
Fuel Capacity : 2900 liters 
Machinegun Armament : 2x 7.92mm MG81 (Trainable Forward)
2x 7.92mm MG81 (Upper Rearward)
2x 7.92mm MG81 (Rear Ventral Gondola)

Cannon Armament : None 
Payload : 500 kg (Internal Centerline) 
2000 kg (External Wingroots)
1000 kg (External Wings) 
Gunsight : Revi 
Avionics : FuG 10P HF Radio 
FuG 16ZY VHF Radio 
FuG 25 IFF 
Pilot Armor : Yes 
Self-Sealing Fuel Tanks : Yes 
Armored Windscreen : No 

B-17B

In-Service Date : March 1940 
Manufacturer : Boeing Aircraft Company 
Number Produced : 39 
Crew : 9 
Length : 22.68 meters 
Height : 4.7 meters 
Empty Weight : 12543 kilograms 
Operational Weight : 17235 kilograms 
Maximum Weight : kilograms 
Wing Span : 31.62 meters 
Wing Aspect Ratio : 7.585 
Wing Area : 131.92 square meters 
Wing Load : 130.65 kg per square meter 
Engine Number : 4 
Engine Name : Wright R-1820-51 Cyclone 
Coolant : Air 
Cylinders: R-9 
Capacity: 29.88 Liters 
Power : 1200 hp @ 2200 rpm 
Power / Weight Ratio : 278.5 hp per tonne 
Max Speed : 470 kph @ 5900 meters 
Cruising Speed : 433 kph @ 5000 meters 
Climb : 407 
Service Ceiling : 7504 meters 
Range : 3862 kilometers 
Fuel Capacity : 10637 liters 
Machinegun Armament : 1x 7.7mm Browning (Trainable Nose)
1x 7.7mm Browning (Dorsal Turret)
1x 7.7mm Browning (Ventral Turret)
1x 7.7mm Browning (Beam Positions - 500 rounds each) 
Cannon Armament : None 
Payload : 2176 kg Bombs (Centerline Internal) 
Gunsight : None 
Avionics : Nordon Bombsight 
Pilot Armor : Yes 
Self-Sealing Fuel Tanks : No 
Armored Windscreen : Yes


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 9, 2012)

{quote]The LW most certainly had the combat experience but "radio navigation/bombing aids" didn't vary much between combatants.[/quote]

The Germans were the only ones with this sort of stuff. It gave them a technological edge over contemporaries. No other bomber force in the world in 1940 had anything similar.

Battle of the Beams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## parsifal (Dec 10, 2012)

I agree with Cherry blossom. The best bomber in 1940, was probably one of the three main french bombers....Leo45 series (which includes the superb Leo455 and 459 prototypes....these would have entered service in 1940 if France had not surrendered), AM 354 and prototype 359, and MB 175.

I would also suggest the twin SE100 although doubtful that it would make service in 1940. Estimated top speed of 360 mph, fully loaded, with an estimated bombload of around 2000lb for the projected bomber variant. Another version of the Mosquito concept.....who knows possible that it might have entered squadron service


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> The LW most certainly had the combat experience but "radio navigation/bombing aids" didn't vary much between combatants.
> The Germans were the only ones with this sort of stuff. It gave them a technological edge over contemporaries. No other bomber force in the world in 1940 had anything similar.
> 
> Battle of the Beams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I saw that article - It's an ADF unit. While the LW was the first AF to use it, it wasn't a great breakthrough in technology and similar systems were being developed and deployed in 1940, similar systems were being used by airlines prior to the start of the war. It also wasn't very accurate (LF Nav aids have limitations) and was effected by weather condition.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 10, 2012)

Sure the LeO 451 is a challenger, the MB.175 it's too light for a true challenger, the Amiot 354 imho had not advantage on LeO 451.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 10, 2012)

> It's an ADF unit.



Lorenz was a blind landing aid, yes and you're right in everything you state there Joe, but no other country was employing the technology to guide bombers to their targets in the same manner in 1940. In this the LW was unique and also the most accurate at finding their way to the target area. X- and Y-Gerat however, applied a different principle to Knickebein based on Lorenz and used higher frequencies and were more sophisticated. Here's a description of how X-Gerat worked by R.V. Jones, involved in determining German technological breakthroughs with British Scientific Intelligence:

"In principle, the aircraft had to fly along a beam that was laid directly over the target(the director beam) and release its bombs at a point rather short of the target. The information needed to compute the release point involved the height and speed of the aircraft and where it was at any instant relative to the target and the type of bombs. The way this information was derived in the X-beam system was to lay two beams across the director beam, crossing it at pre-determined distances before the target. In general, one, the main signal crossed the director beam five kilometres before the target and the other, the fore signal at twenty kilometres.

While the pilot flew along the director beam, either by listening to it or watching a direction indicator, the bomb aimer listened for the cross beams. The time interval between crossing the two beams would be the time taken to cover fifteen kilometres, which gave the aircraft's speed and the main signal also told him that he was five kilometres away. The problem of determining the release point was simplified by a small mechanical computer involving a stop clock that was started by the bomb aimer as he crossed the fore signal and stopped as he crossed the main signal; and then, if he had fed in the correct height information from his altimeter, the mechanism would work out by itself when the bombs ought to be released."



> it wasn't a great breakthrough in technology


 It might not have been, but its application was enough to cause the British intelligence community and even Churchill himself many anxious nights attempting to figure out how it worked. At the time there was quite a crisis over its discovery.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 10, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> this source is sure best of mine Aircraft Database


 
Even with this configuration the B-17B was as fast as the Ju 88 and the B-17C was faster by 20mph, both with better range and load carrying capacity.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 10, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> And service ceiling with a full bomb load was????


The Brits bombed from 30k, not that they could hit anything, but, they could carry a bomb load up there.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 10, 2012)

davparlr said:


> The Brits bombed from 30k, not that they could hit anything, but, they could carry a bomb load up there.




And that is a big problem comparing 1940 bombers. Operational altitudes (or _effective_ altitudes) were very different from "service" ceilings. Many British and German bombers could fly 3-6,000ft higher returning from a mission than heading towards the target. Range with maximum bomb load was waaay shorter than max range for some planes. 

Using planes not even in "penny packets" but in Ha'penny packets (3 plane bombing mission?????) isn't likely to get results no matter what the plane used was. 

Everybody started with defense armament best described as " BEYOND PATHETIC" as evidenced by the rapid doubling of the number of guns on many aircraft. The increase in guns carried got some planes _into_ the pathetic category. Expecting one man to aim and fire _four_ different guns each with a 75 round magazine is a solution born of desperation. 

The aircraft with the best defensive armament were usually the the biggest and slowest and so in the most need. They were quickly tasked with night bombing with much reduced chance of interception.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 10, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Lorenz was a blind landing aid, yes and you're right in everything you state there Joe, but no other country was employing the technology to guide bombers to their targets in the same manner in 1940. In this the LW was unique and also the most accurate at finding their way to the target area. X- and Y-Gerat however, applied a different principle to Knickebein based on Lorenz and used higher frequencies and were more sophisticated. Here's a description of how X-Gerat worked by R.V. Jones, involved in determining German technological breakthroughs with British Scientific Intelligence:
> 
> "In principle, the aircraft had to fly along a beam that was laid directly over the target(the director beam) and release its bombs at a point rather short of the target. The information needed to compute the release point involved the height and speed of the aircraft and where it was at any instant relative to the target and the type of bombs. The way this information was derived in the X-beam system was to lay two beams across the director beam, crossing it at pre-determined distances before the target. In general, one, the main signal crossed the director beam five kilometres before the target and the other, the fore signal at twenty kilometres.
> 
> ...



Agree all but in reality, until the RAF found out what this was, the same thing could have been done with 2 ADF units crossfixing in the same manner used. I believe later in the was this was done quite frequently by all combatants.


----------



## Denniss (Dec 10, 2012)

The Ju 88 A-4 was certainly not available in 1940, especially not with the Jumo 211J engine. Dates may match the A-5 though. A-4 was introduced somewhere in 1941, initially with the 211F engine.

I can only assume it hadn't a larger internal bomb bay because of the dive bomber requirement.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 10, 2012)

Would that imply that dive bombing was possible only with externally mounted bombs?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 10, 2012)

davparlr said:


> The Brits bombed from 30k, not that they could hit anything, but, they could carry a bomb load up there.


But they learned, very quickly, not to do so, since the contrails, even at night, gave the fighters a white finger, pointing straight to each aircraft. That was why they dropped their operational altitude, to keep out of the contrail band, not because of any inability to fly that high.


----------



## davebender (Dec 10, 2012)

Why have a bomb bay at all if it cannot hold 250kg bombs and is useless for the dive bombing role? Just use external bomb racks and carry more fuel internally.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 10, 2012)

> the same thing could have been done with 2 ADF units crossfixing in the same manner used.



Yep, when you think about it, the technology for a useful blind bombing aid was already in place in a number of countries. The Germans started work on X-Gerat in 1937, with the first aerials built in 1939. Amazingly the Germans had at their disposal a device that enabled them to carry out precision attacks against vital strategic targets under cover of darkness at a time when Britain's night fighter force was at its weakest, yet they wasted their efforts on area bombing cities using the equipment. Once Knickebein was rendered useless, X-Gerat was of greater concern because of its latent potential. Post war, Churchill expressed his fright he received to R.V.Jones in private about when he first head about it, at the thought that the RAF just about had the better of the LW by day by mid late 1940, ony to discover they could bomb virtually any target in Britain unimpeded with this equipment.


----------



## ShVAK (Dec 11, 2012)

Although I doubt it's better than the B-17B/C, I wonder where the SM.79 Sparviero would fit into this discussion. Fast for a bomber in 1940, torpedo capable, already had a proven record coming into WWII, and didn't suffer for armament by early war standards (though the lack of turrets was a pretty big handicap).


----------



## stona (Dec 11, 2012)

How many B-17s would have been available for real offensive operations in 1940? Say "Adlertag". Not enough to be worthy of consideration.
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 11, 2012)

ShVAK said:


> Although I doubt it's better than the B-17B/C, I wonder where the SM.79 Sparviero would fit into this discussion. Fast for a bomber in 1940, torpedo capable, already had a proven record coming into WWII, and didn't suffer for armament by early war standards (though the lack of turrets was a pretty big handicap).



It wasn't _that _fast for a bomber. Many of the early ones were about as fast as as Blenheim. The 1200-1250kg bomb load is a bit on the light side for a "medium" bomber.


----------



## Denniss (Dec 11, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Would that imply that dive bombing was possible only with externally mounted bombs?


Most likely. You don't want to have armed bombs in your bomb bay while you are diving more or less straight down - if one breaks loose it may hit your aircraft and you're gone. Even if you're able to release them from the bomb bay, this would have to be done while pulling up and the forces may jam the bombs in the bay and accuracy would not really be good.


----------



## yulzari (Dec 11, 2012)

I think we need to redefine the question. Best bomber for what? This is the first decision an Air Force should make. You don't dive bombs front line targets with a Wellington nor bomb London from Milan with an SM79.

For a 1940 close support bomber with local air superiority then the Ju87. For daylight tactical bombing the Ju88. For night bombing the Whitley can haul a surprising amount of bombs quite a long way, albeit slowly. For daylight strategic bombing nothing in 1940 can survive without substantial fighter escort so you want a fast bomb hauler as the defensive fire won't make that much difference. Possibly the He111. 

I have stuck with those in quantity production in 1940. The list displays the thinking of the respective air staffs. There was a good reason why British bombers had black paint and German ones blue. The French had a chaotic mix which again matched the Air Staff. Some designs had daylight promise and some obsolescent ones capable of adequate period night bombing at medium ranges. The Italians had the best all rounder with the SM79 and should have made it the sole standard until they could make a reliable larger engine (Alfa-Romeo double Pegasus?) 

For the non combatants the USA Maryland and Bostons were capable. There is a big difference from having an aeroplane sitting on it's home field to one in daily combat so I don't rate the B17 as a bomber to use in 1940. Simply not enough of them, needs daylight escort at useable heights and too few bombs per engine to compete at night with British twins.

In Japan there were some very capable designs and experience over China had taught them that daylight escort was necessary so the tactical thinking was in place. Range is vital in the Pacific so the sacrifices to achieve light weight made them vulnerable so I wouldn't choose to be in one.

The Soviets were in that awkward period in 1940 where their old star items were becoming obsolete and the star new ones not really in service.

The touchstone here is what would you prefer to be in, assuming it were a standard production item. For an undefined sortie I would plump for either a Martin Maryland or a Ju88. If I wanted the most night options then either the Whitley or Wellington with the turrets and gunners removed.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 11, 2012)

1940 bombers ("modern" only, not very light), list for design country.
France: LeO 451 (17,2x22,5WA66), Amiot 354 (14,5x22,8WA67)
U.K: Hampden (16,3x21,1WA64), Wellington (19,7x26,3WA78 ), Whitley (21,5x25,6xWA106)
U.S.: DB-7 (14,6x18,7WA43), Maryland (14,2x18,7WA50), Martin 139/166 (13,6x21,5WA63), B-17 (22,7x31,6WA132), B-18 (17,6x27,3WA89) , B-23 (17,8x28WA92)
Italy: B.R.20 (16,7x21,6WA74), S.M.79 (16,2x20,2WA62), Z.1007 (18,4x24,8WA70), Ca.135 (14,4x18,8WA60)
Japan: G3M (16,5x25WA75), Ki-21 (16x22,5WA70)
Germany: Do 17 (15,8x18WA55), Do 215 (15,8x18WA55), He 111 (16,4x22,6WA88 ) , Ju 86 (16,5x32WA82), Ju 88 (14,4x20,1WA55), Fw 200 (23,5x32,9WA120)
Soviet Union: DB-3 (14,2x21,4WA66)
Poland: PZL.37 (12,9x17,9WA54)
Netherlands: T.V (16x21WA66)


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 12, 2012)

Try to give other info 
load (bombs&fuel) rounded to half ton, clean configuration.
LeO 451 4
Amiot 354 3,5
Hampden 4
Wellington 4,5
Whitley 5,5 (this is with bomb in the wings maybe not directly comparable with the others)
DB-7 2 (so was too light)
Maryland i've not found enough info for a evaluation but i thin again was too light
Martin 139 2? or less? so again too light
B-17 7
B-18 4
B-23 4?
B.R.20 3 (italian data for normal load)
S.M.79 3 (idem)
Z.1007 3 (idem)
Ca.135 2 (idem)
G3M 3,5
Ki-21 3
Do 17 2 (too light)
Do 215 3
He 111 4,5 
Ju 86 2 or 3 (P)
Ju 88 2,5
Fw 200 7 
DB-3 2 (for the russian wiki, 1 ton bombs and 0.81 ton of fuel but i think too few fuel for a "long range" bomber maybe some can help?? 
PZL.37 3,5 (very high for so light plane maybe too high it's possible that the full bomb load was not loadable with the full "normal" fuel)
T. V 2 ? (too light)


----------



## wuzak (Dec 12, 2012)

Vincenzo, B-17B or C could only carry 4800lbs of bombs (<2.5t).

B-18 was rated for 4400lb (~2.0t)
B-23 less at 4000lb (<2.0t)


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 12, 2012)

wuzak 2nd line: load (bombs&fuel)


----------



## wuzak (Dec 12, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> wuzak 2nd line: load (bombs&fuel)



Ok. So that's the load including fuel?


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 12, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Ok. So that's the load including fuel?


yes, i thinked was clear


----------



## wuzak (Dec 12, 2012)

Not sure that it is a very useful measure.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 12, 2012)

Throw in crew weight and you pretty much have the _useful_ load of the plane in question. 

The gun armament wasn't that far apart on these early bombers. 

Nobody carried the full bomb load to max range but some planes did not have extra built in tankage that really allowed too much trading of bombs for fuel, more like tanks could not be filled with max bomb load.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> 1940 bombers ("modern" only, not very light), list for design country.
> France: LeO 451 (17,2x22,5WA66), Amiot 354 (14,5x22,8WA67)
> U.K: Hampden (16,3x21,1WA64), Wellington (19,7x26,3WA78 ), Whitley (21,5x25,6xWA106)
> U.S.: DB-7 (14,6x18,7WA43), Maryland (14,2x18,7WA50), Martin 139/166 (13,6x21,5WA63), B-17 (22,7x31,6WA132), B-18 (17,6x27,3WA89) , B-23 (17,8x28WA92)
> ...



Hi vincenzo

I notice you dont have the Beafort, included in the list, or the later marks of Blenheim. blenheim might not make it because it was a light bomber, but Beafort was in the same class as many of the others you listed.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 12, 2012)

i ve forgotten so
Beaufort 13,5x17,6WA47 load 3


----------



## yulzari (Dec 13, 2012)

Doesn't the Whitley come out well. 

With extra tanks a 3,500km range (albeit with a small weapon load) too. Bless those little wing cells. Mind you an economical cruising speed of 250km/hr means a short winter night can be the range restriction rather than fuel load. 

6 hours of darkness lets you get 750km in enemy airspace before you have to come back. 12 gets you 1500km in. Best not to mention headwinds.

A couple of 2,000lb bombs and wing cells full of fuel gives a useful combination: if only you could find the ..**! target at night. Probably easier to use the fuselage bay for the fuel and carry 250lb bombs in the cells though. Ditch the turrets. Save on the weight, drag and crew at night.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2012)

Whitleys not only raided northern Italy from England but attacked the Skoda works in Czechoslovakia ( I don't know if they actually hit it.) Due to the above noted slow speed they had to fly for several hours over enemy held territory in daylight on the trip to the target before night fell. 

Cutting the turrets from the Whitley might not have saved much. Plane was pretty high drag to begin with and with just nose and tail turrets they didn't increase the frontal area any. In the days before radar equipped night fighters (or many of them) having a rear "look out" who also had guns wasn't so bad. Yanking 600-800lbs out of the extreme tail might have required shifting other stuff around to get the CG back. Do-able but perhaps not at squadron level?


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 13, 2012)

Whitley is a good bomber, for late 30s, but imho it's not significally superior to Wellington. 

i need to add an other "bomber"
the S.M.82 22,9x29,7WA119 load 5? (this is evaluation for normal load like the other italian bombers, the plane can load 4 ton of fuel and 4 ton of bombs not both, no italian bomber has at "normal load" more of 1 ton of bomb (also the larger P.108 ).


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2012)

The Whitley was certainly a "dated" design and may not be better than the Wellington but make sure you are comparing the MK I Wellington at about 28,500lbs MTO. Later Wellington IIIs (and MK X) got more powerful engines and MTO went to 34,000lb (36,500lb for X). 

One old book says MK I could fly 3200 miles at 180 mph at 15,000ft with 1020 Imp Gal and _NO_ bombs.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 13, 2012)

I've used data for I 4500 lbs of bombs and 5400 of fuel (750 imp gals) if you can check is fine


----------



## davparlr (Dec 13, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Not sure that it is a very useful measure.


 
I think this is an excellent measure to determine the ability of a bomber. Bombers, like cargo planes typically trade off range with cargo/bombs as the mission requires. For example, a B-36 had a range of 9500 miles with a 10,000 lb bomb load (one nuke) or it could fly 3850 miles with a 77,784 lbs bomb load. The B-17C could carry 4000 lb of bombs 2000 miles. The Ju-88A-1 (only one I have data on) could carry 4000 lbs 620 miles. I think it is plain to see that if you down loaded B-17 fuel for a 620 mile trip, you could upload a considerably larger bomb load. Just bomb load without the fuel load/range is of little use when comparing bombers or cargo planes and, to a lesser extent fighters.


----------



## yulzari (Dec 13, 2012)

The Whitley may have been dated but it could carry more than a 1940 Pegasus Wellington. That the Wellington continued to be made when the Whitley ceased production in 1943 was due to the the Wellington factories being only able to make this unusual form of construction, whereas Armstrong Whitworth could carry their stressed skin skills and tools to make the 4 engined stressed skin bombers. 

Not to knock the Wellington, but there was no other reason to still be using it as a main Mediterranean night bomber in 1945. The 1940 production Whitley's maximum takeoff weight was over 15,000kg like a post 1940 Hercules Wellington. Don't fall into the trap of using data from the earlier pre 1940 Whitleys with their awful Tiger radials.

The Whitley was a weird piece of ugly aerodynamics with the cruising speed and rate of climb of a penguin but it chugged along and did the job. More of a double deck bus than a motorway coach. I always feel it is looked down on simply for not looking cool.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 13, 2012)

i used data for Whitley with RR engine, i take from a my old search and i don't remember the source


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2012)

From what I can find so far the Wellington could carry 750 Imp gal in the wing/nacelle tanks. Early versions could carry 140 imp gal in each of the outer bomb cells. 1020-1030 imp gallons carried means 2/3 of the bomb bay is blocked off. I have no idea what the Weight capacity of the remaining 1/3 is. 







Apparently the MTO of the MK varied depending on if it was a MK 1, MK 1A, or MK 1C, at 24,850 lbs, 27,100 lbs and 30,000 lbs. Empty weights went 18,000 lbs, 18,500 lbs and 18,800 lbs. 

183 MK 1s, 187 Mk 1As and 2865 MK 1Cs ???

Taking out 1200 lbs for a 6 man crew leaves 10,000 lb for fuel, oil, bombs, ammo and whatever else isn't in the empty weight for the MK 1C. But operating at 30,000 lbs requires a much longer runway and a much worse rate of climb.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 13, 2012)

yulzari said:


> The Whitley was a weird piece of ugly aerodynamics with the cruising speed and rate of climb of a penguin but it chugged along and did the job. More of a double deck bus than a motorway coach. I always feel it is looked down on simply for not looking cool.



The Whitley was designed when not all aircraft used flaps, and its designer knew little about flaps so he left them off. Thus to get the takeoff performance the wing was at an angle to the fuselage, meaning that in level flight the fuselage wasn't level, and caused a great deal of drag. Add flaps to the wings (whihc may have happened to later Whitleys - I'm not sure) and fix the angle of attack issue (which didn't happen) and the Whitley's performance would be improved.


----------



## stug3 (Dec 13, 2012)

yulzari said:


> A couple of 2,000lb bombs and wing cells full of fuel gives a useful combination: if only you could find the ..**! target at night. Probably easier to use the fuselage bay for the fuel and carry 250lb bombs in the cells though. Ditch the turrets. Save on the weight, drag and crew at night.



Sounds like a Mosquito.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 13, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I think this is an excellent measure to determine the ability of a bomber. Bombers, like cargo planes typically trade off range with cargo/bombs as the mission requires. For example, a B-36 had a range of 9500 miles with a 10,000 lb bomb load (one nuke) or it could fly 3850 miles with a 77,784 lbs bomb load. The B-17C could carry 4000 lb of bombs 2000 miles. The Ju-88A-1 (only one I have data on) could carry 4000 lbs 620 miles. I think it is plain to see that if you down loaded B-17 fuel for a 620 mile trip, you could upload a considerably larger bomb load. Just bomb load without the fuel load/range is of little use when comparing bombers or cargo planes and, to a lesser extent fighters.



But it isn't directly comparable between two aircraft.

A Whitley, for example, could haul the same bomb load as the B-17C a similar distance and use less fuel. So the "useful load" as defined here is less, but the bomb load it could deliver to the same point is the same.

Also, doesn't matter how much fuel you take out of a B-17C, the maximum bomb load was still on 4800lb - due to space considerations and the type of bomb available at the time.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 14, 2012)

The point of use of fuel is right, but is a major trouble only when you compare a 4 engine planes with a 2 engine. 
Yes 17C max load is 4800 (8x600) but is one of larger load in bomb bay of this time bombers, the Whitley (&Hampden) had 4000, Wellington 4500, He 111 4400, B-18 4400, only the PZL.37 had 5200 (and i've doubt on accuracy of this data)


----------



## yulzari (Dec 14, 2012)

The Whitley could carry 7,000lb of bombs 660km. Actually acheivable had France not fallen.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 14, 2012)

yes but not in the bomb bay, 3000 lbs were in the wings. 660 km of range are probably not enough for bombing Paris, yes enough for bombing the Rhur from France but with airfield within the range of enemy fighters so no so good.


----------



## Rogi (Dec 14, 2012)

Do-17, yes she was light but she did the job  introduced in 1937 and went through the war, a true testament to the bomber itself and how amazing she was


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 14, 2012)

Do 17 was completely obsolete by the start of war, like the Blenheim.. very small bomb load of 1 ton, and even that to a very very limited range. And it still needed two engines..

Don't get me wrong it was likable and well conceived plane in the 1930s, but by 1940 it was simply too old. Later Dorniers like the 217 had only superficial resemblance.


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2012)

Sorry to be late to this thread. Its a personal view but if you are talking 1940 then the choice is between the Ju88 and Maryland in one weight catagory and the Wellington in the medium with the He111 running close behind.

A lot of the fighters in 1940 would find it difficult to catch the Ju88 and Maryland and they were pretty robust machines. The Wellington and the he111 were very close in paper performance but the Wellington with its powered turrets had a better defence and its bomb bay was more flexible giving it the edge in my mind.

The B17 wasn't combat ready in 1940. On paper it looks realistic but when the RAF tried to use them in 1941 the list of problems fundamental to safe let alone effective deployment was significant. 


Just a view


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2012)

Hi, Glider,
Maybe you could shed some light at issues RAF had with Fortresses? Several times it was brought to attention here, yet no particulars so far.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 14, 2012)

One of the problems was the RAF attacked and bombed from 30,000 feet, had turbo problems bomb aiming problems and IIRC didn't have self sealing tanks.

Notably they didn't use any other bomber the same way.

'Combat ready' is a subjective term. The Fort was ready for combat and would see steady improvement as every bomber and fighter ever introduced.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 14, 2012)

But the Fort was designed to operate at 30,000ft, hence the turbos.

The RAF probably didn't have anything else designed for, or capable of, bombing at 30,000ft at the time.


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 15, 2012)

IMHO it was the He 111. The plane had nice handling qualities, good range. More importantly, it was very well armored with self sealing tanks (something that early Wellingtons lacked). Bombing equipment was also state of the art, all of them had Knickebein blind bombing aids, and the Lofte 7 bombsight was also as good as it can get for 1940.. RAF bombers had AFAIK through most of the war only vector sights. Externally the aircraft could carry some very large bombs up to 2500 kg.

The downside was the fairly weak defensive armament, as although there were numerous MGs, they were all single barrel and drum fed.

The Ju 88 was a good alternative, but since the bomb bay was very limited in size, it could not carry as many 250 kgers as the 111, and would limit its usefullness for conventional bombing tasks.


----------



## yulzari (Dec 15, 2012)

The RAF found with the early Flying Fortresses that at maximum altitude the cold affected various components, the crew suffered in the cold, low air pressure and continuous piped oxygen and the vaunted accuracy still wasn't there even in daylight. As lesser altitude night bomber it carried no more than the British twins so they were taken off after trial sorties. 

Essentially as an airframe it was good for 30,000' but as a weapons system it was not.


----------



## Juha (Dec 15, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> IMHO it was the He 111. The plane had nice handling qualities, good range. More importantly, it was very well armored with self sealing tanks (something that early Wellingtons lacked). Bombing equipment was also state of the art, all of them had Knickebein blind bombing aids, and the Lofte 7 bombsight was also as good as it can get for 1940.. RAF bombers had AFAIK through most of the war only vector sights. Externally the aircraft could carry some very large bombs up to 2500 kg.
> 
> The downside was the fairly weak defensive armament, as although there were numerous MGs, they were all single barrel and drum fed.
> 
> The Ju 88 was a good alternative, but since the bomb bay was very limited in size, it could not carry as many 250 kgers as the 111, and would limit its usefullness for conventional bombing tasks.



Hello Ju
I mostly agree, He 111 and Wimpy had surprisingly similar performance. 111 had better bomb-sight for good weather daytime bombing but because BC adapted night bombing very early during WWII Wimpy's vector sight wasn't a drawback. IIRC Wimpys got self-sealing fuel tanks soon after Dec 1939 debacle, but were they as good as German ones, which were excellent, I cannot remember. Wimpy's power operated nose and tail turret were a big plus, even if the tail turret had only twin mg before Mk III. And as Glider wrote Wimpy's bombay was more flexible but of course late 111Hs had the option of external loads. So IMHO it is very difficult to say which was better.

Juha

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2012)

The deficiencies the RAF experienced performing operations at 30,000 feet doesn't diminish the B-17s capability in 1940.

If you believe this, then contrast the operating capability of the He 111 and Ju 88 in context of range, bomb load and defensive capabilty when they operate at 30,000 feet.... oops they can't get there. Well compare them at 25,000 feet... oops they didn't do that either - that isn't what they were originally designed to do.

Well compare them at 15,000 feet. At least all three may now be compared.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 15, 2012)

I thought the B-17 hardly ever operated at 30K, even in its later dubtypes. B-17s in 1944 attacked at a median altitude of 26k, maybe +/- 2000ft


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2012)

I will do what I can.
The radius of action for the B17 in RAF hands was 450 miles with 4 x 1,100lb bombs but for some reason only US could be used. 

On 4th June 1941 a test mission was flown but there were problems with the Radio, intercom and oxygen. On 6th June 1941 a demo was set up for Churchill, General Royce of the USAAF and various other senior people. At this demo the British wanted to try the B17 in combat but it was the Americans who urged caution saying that it might be premature.

Oil leaks were a continual problem during this period. As for bombing accuracy test range missions averaged 150yard from 10,000 ft. A major dissapointment. 

First Mission was flown on 8th July against Wilhelmshaven from 30,000 ft with two aircraft. Astrodome froze at 18,000ft, all guns and mountings froze. Two me109's intercepted but couldn't maintain height and never fired. One aircraft had oil leaks from all four engines which froze on the tailfin one inch thick.
Missions to berlin were planned but never undertaken and due to the fuel that was used in the climb, the payload to berlin would only have been 2,200lb. Missions also had to take into account the weather, two of the first eight (AN534 and AN521) aircraft breaking up in turbulance both losing a wing.

On 6th August two aircraft tried to bomb the Scharnhorst and on one the bomb sight froze.

On 12 August four tried to bomb various targets one abandoned the mission due to turbo problems

On 16th August a b17 was intercepted at 32,000 ft and was destroyed in a crash landing.

On 19th August a mission was abandoned due to the guns freezing and the same happened on the 21st

Bombing accuracy was very dissapointing so much so that on the 21 one bomber took up Mr Voss of the Sperry company as the bomb aimer and the bombs still fell wide of the target. As well as this the aircraft was considered to be very vulnerable to fighter attack as it caught fire easily.
To be fair if it didn't catch fire then it could take a lot of damage, and if the weather was perfect and opposition slight then the accuracy could be exceptional, but these situations over Germany were rare.

To go back to my original point. These are the sort of things that should have been sorted by the USAAF when it was introduced into service. To have these things going wrong 12-18 months later tells me that in 1940 the B17 couldn't be considered an operational aircraft. On paper it might but for the crews that had to fly it, it wasn't


----------



## AirWolf (Dec 15, 2012)

For me it has to be the he111, because it had already seen some action during the spanish civilwar


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2012)

Bombers operated at widely varying heights even for the _SAME_ bomber. 

Figures from an old William Green book ( updates welcome) for a He 111P-4 with DB 601A-1 engines and an empty weight "equipped" of 17,670lbs are a service ceiling of 26,250ft at 23,590 lbs and a service ceiling of _just_ 14,765 ft at 29,762 lbs. Cruising speed (85% power) at 6560 ft drops from 212 mph to 190 mph. Perhaps a combination of increase drag due to increase lift needed *AND* increased drag due to max bomb load including a pair of 500kg bombs being slung externally? 

Raids by 1-4 aircraft can be done at higher altitudes than raids by 50-100 planes because altitude will be governed by _worst_ plane in the formation _and_ the need for the plane/s on the edge of the formation to have a reserve of power to maintain formation. Even a 45 degree turn means the outer planes have to speed up in relation to the inner planes to avoid the formation breaking up.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 15, 2012)

For me its between the He 111 or the Wellington. Both tough, both for there day good load haulers with good range and I imagine if they had a bomb off in daylight they both would have got roughly the same accuracy. For obvious reasons the Wellington lasted in service longer training versions lasted till 1953 and one Welli was fitted with Dart Turboprops.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 15, 2012)

I bet the tail gunner got a warm backside


----------



## cimmex (Dec 15, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> For obvious reasons the Wellington lasted in service longer training versions lasted till 1953 and one Welli was fitted with Dart Turboprops.


The Spanish build He111(CASA 2.111) was in service till late sixties.
cimmex


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 15, 2012)

cimmex said:


> The Spanish build He111(CASA 2.111) was in service till late sixties.
> cimmex



Your right I forgot about the Merlin engined CASA 111s


----------



## beitou (Dec 15, 2012)

Was there ever an attempt made to fit a mid upper turret to the wellington, it seemed very vulnerable with just front and rear turrets?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2012)

Aside from the one with the 40mm cannon? 






It took the British awhile to come up with a low profile top turret. The Wellington may have been better off with no top turret than a large one with only two .303s.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 15, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> IMHO it was the He 111. The plane had nice handling qualities, good range. More importantly, it was very well armored with self sealing tanks (something that early Wellingtons lacked). Bombing equipment was also state of the art, all of them had Knickebein blind bombing aids, and the Lofte 7 bombsight was also as good as it can get for 1940.. RAF bombers had AFAIK through most of the war only vector sights. Externally the aircraft could carry some very large bombs up to 2500 kg.
> 
> The downside was the fairly weak defensive armament, as although there were numerous MGs, they were all single barrel and drum fed.
> 
> The Ju 88 was a good alternative, but since the bomb bay was very limited in size, it could not carry as many 250 kgers as the 111, and would limit its usefullness for conventional bombing tasks.



The Ju88 mounted big bombs externally, had greater range and payload with external hardpoint mounts than the He111, because they used the same engine, but the Ju88 was lighter by 2000kg. The Ju88 was superior to the He111 in every performance area except for cockpit space.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 15, 2012)

The 88 has not more payload and range of 111, also the 111 can use external bomb load. the 88 is 2 tons lighter ?? afaik no.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2012)

Care to explain _which_ models of the Ju-88 and He-111 you are comparing? 

While the Ju-88 was an amazing aircraft, being able to fly further on a lot less fuel ( 762 imp gal for the He 111 wing tanks vs 369 Imp gallons for the Ju-88 wing tanks ?) is truly amazing. 

While the Ju-88A-4 usually had an extra 268 Imp gallon tank in the forward bomb bay the He-111s with an external bomb rack carried 183 Imp gallons in the blocked off half of the bomb bay for a fuel capacity of 945 Imp gallons to 636 Imp gallons in the Ju-88. 

He-111 could still carry up to 2200lb (4 X 550) inside. Ju-88 could carry 1100lbs (10 X 110) in rear bomb bay. 

Ju-88 could carry a bigger bomb load _IF_ configured right but carry an _average_ bomb load as far????


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2012)

Which I think supports my view that the Wellington was more flexible than the He111 carrying considerably more innternally. Including the 4,000lb bomb and two torpedo's


----------



## drgondog (Dec 16, 2012)

parsifal said:


> I thought the B-17 hardly ever operated at 30K, even in its later dubtypes. B-17s in 1944 attacked at a median altitude of 26k, maybe +/- 2000ft



Parsifal - you are correct. My single point is that many of the problems encountered by RAF in their trials were due to operating the B-17s at max operational altitude with a bombload - and that comparing performance of a Weelington, He 111 and Ju 88 flying operationally most of the time at 15-18000 feet to the B-17 at 30-32,000 feet is not valid.

The modifications resulting from these experiences produced the B-17E which was a much better combat ready airplane produced in 1941. There was very little difference between the B-17C and B-17D


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2012)

Bomber performance is much more variable than fighter performance as we seldom see fighter performance while carrying a bomb load. And for the most part, bomber weight varies much more than fighter weight. 

Bomber "service" ceiling can vary by around 10,000ft from "light" (no bombs, under 1/2 fuel) to full overload (max bombs and fuel and restricted flight maneuvers), _standard operational_ height is somewhere in between. 

B-17s used by the 8th Airforce not only gained a slight bit in bomb load but gained power turrets, extra guns and much more ammo which all added to the weight and the extra drag of the turrets also affects the ceiling. The B-17 gained very little power over it's career.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 16, 2012)

Glider said:


> Which I think supports my view that the Wellington was more flexible than the He111 carrying considerably more innternally. Including the 4,000lb bomb and two torpedo's



The internal laod of Wellington are 4,500 lbs of bombs and 5400 lbs of fuel (probably not all with all the bombs), the internal bomb load of 111 is 4,400 lbs and 5600 lbs of fuel (again not both contemporary can load around 4000 lbs of bomb with full fuel) so no actual advantage. The Wellington as TB was not a 1940 plane, the bomb bay of Wellington was actually 2 bomb bay so as standard can not load a 4000 lb bomb.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 16, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Care to explain _which_ models of the Ju-88 and He-111 you are comparing?


Since we are talking about 1940 that would be the Ju88A1 and the He111H1:
I can not find specs for these models online to repost here. I know that the Ju88A1 was at least 1 ton lighter than the A4 version. 



Shortround6 said:


> He-111 could still carry up to 2200lb (4 X 550) inside. Ju-88 could carry 1100lbs (10 X 110) in rear bomb bay.


As far as internal capacity goes the HE111 wins. It total ability to haul bombs and how far that matters.



Shortround6 said:


> Ju-88 could carry a bigger bomb load _IF_ configured right but carry an _average_ bomb load as far????


Don't know, can't find the information online.


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> The internal laod of Wellington are 4,500 lbs of bombs and 5400 lbs of fuel (probably not all with all the bombs), the internal bomb load of 111 is 4,400 lbs and 5600 lbs of fuel (again not both contemporary can load around 4000 lbs of bomb with full fuel) so no actual advantage. The Wellington as TB was not a 1940 plane, the bomb bay of Wellington was actually 2 bomb bay so as standard can not load a 4000 lb bomb.



I live and learn, thanks for this its much appreciated,


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 16, 2012)

wiking85 said:


> Since we are talking about 1940 that would be the Ju88A1 and the He111H1:
> .



afaik 111H-2 was available for the polish canpain


----------



## Juha (Dec 16, 2012)

To be precis the first Wimpy version to be able to carry a 4000lb bomb was Mk III


----------

