# More advanced aircraft during WW2? Germany or Japan?



## machine shop tom (Jan 23, 2010)

This was touched on the Stuka thread.

Which country fielded the most advanced aircraft during WWII? 

Germany had the jet aircraft and the FW190D/Ta152 series and others.

Japan had the Ki84 Hayate, the N1K2-J Shiden Kai, and others.

Each had effective medium bombers, but both lacked good strategic bombers.

Japan had the lead in direct-injection radial engines. Germany's DB 605 was a marvel.

Etc.

Any thoughts?

tom


----------



## davebender (Jan 23, 2010)

WWII era German industry was overall more advanced then Japanese industry. This shows up in all sorts of ways:
- Japan could not make a reliable copy of the DB601 engne because they could not heat treat the crankshaft properly. Copying the even more powerful DB603 engine was out of the question.
- Japan had difficulty copying the MG151 cannon.
- Japanese radios, radar and AA fire control were inferior.
- Germany had superior supercharger systems.

Many of the Japanese aircraft designs per se were quite good. The Ki-61, Ki-84 and D4Y (Judy) dive bomber come to mind. But they were handicapped with inferior engines, weapons, electronic equipment etc. Low power engines in turn resulted in a lack of pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks as weight had to be kept as low as possible.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 23, 2010)

I have to agree with Dave, I have to give the edge to Germany. Another advantage is her manufacturing base - which I think was a serious handicap to Japan.


----------



## machine shop tom (Jan 24, 2010)

Why is the fact that they couldn't copy the DB such an indication of lesser technology? That they didn't embrace the in-line engine as the Europeans did is because they preferred and had more advanced radial technology. Had they actually needed better in-line technology, they probably would have developed it.

tom


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 24, 2010)

If by advanced you mean more capable, then with respect to the fighter role I will cut and past my post from that thread:

*For 1942, 43, 44 and 45, would you rather fly Japan's best against Germany's best or would you rather fly Germany's best against Japan's best?*


----------



## davebender (Jan 24, 2010)

Apparently not. Otherwise the Ki-61 would have been powered by a radial engine from the beginning. And the A6M2 engine would have produced more then 950hp during 1941, at a time when the typical German fighter engine produced 1,350hp.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2010)

Japan had larger, more powerful radial engines available in 1941. They would not have given the required range however. 

The Kawasaki Ha-40 may not have used the same supercharger drive as the DB-601, at least the figures in most books give a critical altitude of only 3,900 meters. 

Japan was behind the major western nations in technology, but that is not surprising given Japans smaller industrial base. Production of iron and steel is sometimes used to compare nations industrial base at those times and Japan produced about 1/4 the amount of crude steel as Germany. 

Japan had built the BMW V-12 under license but this was the last gasp of WW I technology and needed massive redesign to be a useful WW II engine.


----------



## davebender (Jan 24, 2010)

> Kawasaki Ha-40 may not have used the same supercharger drive as the DB-601


That may be true but it hardly matters if the poor quality crankshaft causes the engine to throw a rod after 100 hours of service. Places like New Guinea and Rabaul were at the end of a very long supply line. Your Ki-61 is likely to remain inoperable for months while waiting for a spare engine to arrive.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 25, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> If by advanced you mean more capable, then with respect to the fighter role I will cut and past my post from that thread:
> 
> *For 1942, 43, 44 and 45, would you rather fly Japan's best against Germany's best or would you rather fly Germany's best against Japan's best?*



In December 1941, German fighters could not undertake the missions required of the Japanese aircraft. German fighter aircraft could not fly from Formosa to the Phillipines, and German fighters could not have covered the landings in Malaya. Their strike aircraft could not have hit and sunk the Prince Of Wales and Repulse, and they had no aircraft comparable to the B5N and D3A.

The roles for Japanese and German theartres were fundamantally different, and each would have had difficulty in fulfilling the others mission profiles.

There is no question in my mind that as a generalization German technology was more advanced than the Japanese, but the wquation about what you would rather fly is far more complicated than that....


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 25, 2010)

_There is no question in my mind that as a generalization German technology was more advanced than the Japanese, but the quation about what you would rather fly is far more complicated than that...._

Good point. Let's simplify. Pretend they are meeting to do combat at 15-25K feet at mid point where their respective bases are 400 miles apart.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2010)

I do no think that the two aircraft can be compared that way. If the Germans were in the position of the Japanese, I am sure the German aircraft would have been designed with further range in mind. The Germans would not have designed aircraft with 400 miles radius if they were living on an island in the middle of the pacific. The German doctrine was different and they designed their aircraft based off of that doctine.

I have no doubt in my mind that the German aircraft were more advanced. 

Try comparing the aircraft one on one in actual combat.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 25, 2010)

This is no different than any of the P-51 vs. (insert German fighter here) comparisons that you have contributed to.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> This is no different than any of the P-51 vs. (insert German fighter here) comparisons that you have contributed to.



That I have contributed to? I don't think I have ever said that all German aircraft were more advanced or superior than allied aircraft. I think you have me confused with Soren. How insulting...


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 25, 2010)

"_I don't think I have ever said that all German aircraft were more advanced or superior than allied aircraft._"

???

I don't think I ever said that you did. Just that in the past, you have contributed to threads where the topic was P-51 vs. __________ and where the same hampering considerations of design / range were present.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 25, 2010)

The German industry was more advanced in general, but the *degree* is routinely exaggerated, often seriously. As Parsifal said, German fighters of early 1942 could not have accomplished the missions assigned to Japanese fighters, were very seriously deficient in range. 400 mile radius? the Bf109 certainly didn't demonstrate any such practical radius, nowhere remotely near that. Relying on license built Bf109E's (which isn't so far fetched) the Japanese could not possibly have achieved the huge miiltary successes of Dec 41-thru mid 1942, successes which wounded the Western pscyche to the extent we *still* after all these decades tend to kneejerk skip ahead to 'well we got them in the end didn't we?' rather than acknowledge how large and shocking those victories were, vast territories conquered in remarkable little time. No way to do that with Bf109 as your main fighter, just too short ranged.

Just taking the question as asked in terms or real a/c not 'woulda/coulda' imaginary long range German fighters, then in 1941-1942 to perform offensive missions at any significant range, you'd have to take the Zero. The Bf109 was an excellent *defensive* fighter, as well as for combats offensive/defensive over a ground front, where both sides flew from airfields just out of artillery range of the front (like Western Front 1914-18, Eastern in WWII, Western Desert in most periods, etc). The Bf109 had a much spottier record as escort against other than such battlefield targets. Its shorcomings in protecting bombers in both BoB and over Malta were mainly a function of its very short endurance and persistence in combat at ranges where a Zero could hang around literally for hours; it wasn't that the opposing fighters had any inherent advantage, as shown by much better record in kill ratio terms when the British came back over France with *their* very short legged fighters ca. 1941-42, and in Western Desert in same period with both sides on a similar footing when it came to endurance: commanding kill ratio advantages for the Bf109 in those cases v closer ratios (though still in 109's favor when only considering fighter-fighter) in BoB and Malta.

For 1943 for the (now usually defensive) missions required for all Axis AF's it's the German fighters, and similarly for 1944 except for the new Japanese fighters introduced from then, in limited numbers, which were more comparable to German (and Western for that matter) ones, not altogether as advanced, but again not a huge difference.

But then 'the a/c industry' or 'advaned a/c' isn't the whole story anyway. The general British impression going into Pac War that Japanese fighter opposition would be far easier than German was very questionable in terms of the results; a/c like Hurricane were by then typically getting badly beaten up by German fighters in Med/North Africa, but they did no better or evenr worse v the Japanese; in a few cases that was same units which had fought both places, and it included Brit pilots who were veterans of relatively successful action v the Germans. Again the leftover propaganda kneejerk is to basically say 'OK some German fighter units were very formidable and Hurricane an obsolescent a/c by 1942' but then make all kinds of excuses for similar setbacks by Hurricanes (or later on, Spitfires) against the Japanese. IMO, it's not at all clear Japanese Navy fighter units in 1942 were any less formidable than German, in air combat considering all factors not just 'advanced industry', and the Japanese fighters could range much further from any given set of bases which made them a lot more difficult to deal with when they were on the offensive.

Joe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> "_I don't think I have ever said that all German aircraft were more advanced or superior than allied aircraft._"
> 
> ???
> 
> I don't think I ever said that you did. Just that in the past, you have contributed to threads where the topic was P-51 vs. __________ and where the same hampering considerations of design / range were present.



Excuse me for misunderstanding you. 

I do however stand by what I said. Mission profile helps dictate the design of an aircraft. If the roles had been reversed, you would have seen Luftwaffe aircraft with greater ranges.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2010)

It might depend on what is meant by more advanced.

The Japanese might very well be equal to the Germans in ideas or patents.

They might be slightly behind in in the ability to turn ideas in prototype aircraft, in part because of a smaller industry. Few engineers and suppliers.

They may be a bit further behind in turning ideas into squadron service fighters, again in part because of the smaller industry and even more raw material shortages than the Germans.

In regards to piston engines there may be a fuel difference. We are told the German fuel was equal or close to that of the Allies. Japanese fuel is usually called 92 octane I believe (welcome a correction) but since a fair amount of it came the Java oil fields that had supplied the British pre-war and had a high amount of aromatics that would tend to push up the rich mixture rating I don't know how it really compares. 

The Japanese were also more fragmented than the Germans, with a complete inability to standardize guns and/or ammo they spent an awful lot of resources on developing parallel guns that might have been better spent on developing one series of guns. 

Many late war Japanese designs of guns, engines and aircraft were let down by a lack of good raw materials and quality control rather than by out dated designs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Excuse me for misunderstanding you.
> 
> I do however stand by what I said. Mission profile helps dictate the design of an aircraft. If the roles had been reversed, you would have seen Luftwaffe aircraft with greater ranges.




I am quite sure you would have seen Luftwaffe aircraft with greater ranges. But then the resulting aircraft would have had poorer performance, speed and climb, or sacrificed protection. You don't get something for nothing. would the resulting Luftwaffe aircraft performed significantly better than the Japanese aircraft?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 25, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I am quite sure you would have seen Luftwaffe aircraft with greater ranges. But then the resulting aircraft would have had poorer performance, speed and climb, or sacrificed protection. You don't get something for nothing. would the resulting Luftwaffe aircraft performed significantly better than the Japanese aircraft?



Agreed 100%. I believe that overall the Germans aircraft still would have been a bit more advanced. I think that the German industrial base and R&D program would have contributed to that however. 

Not trying to knock the Japanese, but the Germans were ahead in the development of jet powered aircraft. This alone puts German aircraft design ahead. The Germans were already working on the next generation of Jet aircraft when they the Japanese were still playing around with Me 262 and Me 163 knock offs.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 25, 2010)

Germany's main aviation fuel still was 87 octane B4 almost from start to finish. If Germany had had the need for longer ranges, different engines would've been produced and the well-known engines probably wouldn't exist in the forms they did.



As for the original question: Look at how many technology transfer attempts from Germany to Japan were there as opposed to the other way around?

Now some may explain that by lack of interest due to overconfidence or racism (certainly partially true), but of the top of my head I can't think of too many technologies from Japan at the time that were worth copying.


----------



## machine shop tom (Jan 25, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Germany's main aviation fuel still was 87 octane B4 almost from start to finish. If Germany had had the need for longer ranges, different engines would've been produced and the well-known engines probably wouldn't exist in the forms they did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While not airplane-related, Japananese submarine technology was the equal to Germany's and the Allies and in some ways were superior. Also, the Long Lance torpedo put all others to shame in reliability and effectiveness.

tom


----------



## riacrato (Jan 25, 2010)

I meant aviation related of course. With the status the navy held in Japan, it's not surprising they had some quality technology there, but it's not my expertise.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 25, 2010)

While I'll agree with the German Air Industry being superior to the Japanese in the late 1930s and to the middle of 1940s, I think the Japanese did more with less than the Germans. You have to keep in mind that Japanese industry was on the same level as Italy in regards to GDP at the start of WW2. Yet the produced a range of excellent aircraft, an excellent battlefleet and very competent army. 

Granted, there were a lot of gaps (armor forces, rifle and light machine guns, AAA arraingements, ect) but they did an amazing job with a relatively small industrial base.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 25, 2010)

Might this be an answer within a question:

What did each country import to the other in terms of war technology? I believe that Germany was importing engines, planes, even submarines for the Japanese to check out. Might say alot about who was more advanced.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 25, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I am quite sure you would have seen Luftwaffe aircraft with greater ranges. But then the resulting aircraft would have had poorer performance, speed and climb, or sacrificed protection. You don't get something for nothing. would the resulting Luftwaffe aircraft performed significantly better than the Japanese aircraft?


Moreover there's the issue of choosing a concept for longer ranged fighters. As it was the Germans tended to go for the wrong concept: twin engine fighters which proved too vulnerable to singles. So again I don't see much validity in comparing theoretical long range single engine German fighters to the Zero, that's really just assuming what you want to conclude, for those whose gut feel is 'German much better'. 

Joe


----------



## davebender (Jan 25, 2010)

I wonder if the Luftwaffe would use diesel engines for long range maritime attack aircraft?

I am thinking along the lines of tandem diesel engine pods on the Do-26 seaplane. Only this would be a land based aircraft like the Do-217. Rather then being powered by a pair of BMW801 radial engines, each wing would contain a pod with a pair of 880 hp Jumo 205D diesel engines. Total hp will be about the same.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 26, 2010)

timshatz said:


> While I'll agree with the German Air Industry being superior to the Japanese in the late 1930s and to the middle of 1940s, I think the Japanese did more with less than the Germans. You have to keep in mind that Japanese industry was on the same level as Italy in regards to GDP at the start of WW2. Yet the produced a range of excellent aircraft, an excellent battlefleet and very competent army.
> 
> Granted, there were a lot of gaps (armor forces, rifle and light machine guns, AAA arraingements, ect) but they did an amazing job with a relatively small industrial base.



I agree with the basic point you are making here, and apologize for nitpicking, but Japans share of the world GDP was about 4 or 5 times that of Italy. I dont know if that tranlates to to military outpu, but economically, Italy was responsible or controlled about 1% of world GDP. Japan controlled about 4-5%.

France controlled about 3%. Canada controlled about 1.5%. The US controlled about 35% from memory. Britain (excluding the commonwealth about 10%, Germany roughly 20%. The Russians were difficult to quatify, but were about 15% of the world economy. Between them, Britain, Germany, Russia, the US and Japan controlled something like 80% of world GDP, with Canada and the Commonwealth controlling about 4-6% in total. Only 14-15% of the world GDP was outside these major power blocs

Ahilst aas an overall effort one is drawan inexorably to the conclusion that German technology outclassed that of Japan, viewed as a percentage of world GDP I think the reverse is true. Whilst not an issue of technology, the production outputs is very telling about who was putting greater effort into their aereronautics industry, as a percentage of their toatal miliatary effort. With ostensibly access to more than 20% of the world economy (if you include the conquered territories of europe, the Germans were able to build something like 35000 aircraft in 1944. Pretty impre4ssive, I agree. But in that same time frame the Japanese pushed out something like 16000 airframes. You could argue that germany was diverting more resource to ther land forces and was being bombed to the stone age, but the Japanese awere pouring vast amount of their military capital into building ships, and were being strangled by a crippling blockade. Who was in the worse position....I dont know.


----------



## DonL (Jan 26, 2010)

Comparing the LW to the Japanese Airforce is to compare apples with beans.

As machine shop tom described both lacked in good strategic bombers. 
And Japanese airforce has developed carrier aircraft as the only advanced point to the LW

In all other categories the german Aircrafts are superior.
If you want range, which mission or sortie couldn't be fight or better fight by japanese aircraft compare to a FW 187, ME 110 and JU 88 in 1941?



> I am quite sure you would have seen Luftwaffe aircraft with greater ranges. But then the resulting aircraft would have had poorer performance, speed and climb, or sacrificed protection. You don't get something for nothing. would the resulting Luftwaffe aircraft performed significantly better than the Japanese aircraft?



I disagree! The developed prototyps like the FW 187 had no poorer performance in speed or climb if anything than better compare to the Me 109 or FW 190 and a range of 1500km as one example.



> Japan had the lead in direct-injection radial engines. Germany's DB 605 was a marvel.



And what is about the BMW 801with direct-injektion,which radial engine of the Japanese ist better?
And beside to the DB 601/605 are the Jumo 212, 213 and the DB 603.
To my knowledge Japan had no inline engine state of the art the whole war.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 26, 2010)

In all other categories the german Aircrafts are superior.
If you want range, which mission or sortie couldn't be fight or better fight by japanese aircraft compare to a FW 187, ME 110 and JU 88 in 1941?

In terms of naval strike, carrier aviation, and torpedo bombing the Luftwaffe lagged behind Japan considerably. Ju 88s did not carry torpedoes until 1942, and whilst far more durable lacked the range to be effective in the Pacific. If it had been Ju88s based at Rabaul, they would not have had the range to hit targets in Moresby and Cooktown. German seaplanes, whilst very good, were not as good as the latest Japanese aircraft, and would not have been able to deliver accurate fleet recon as the Japanese were able to do until the very end of the war. 

Dont know much about the FW187, as it was not an operational type. A zero would have made mincemeat against an Me 110 at any time in the war, plus it stil had greater range and endurance. 

_I disagree! The developed prototyps like the FW 187 had no poorer performance in speed or climb if anything than better compare to the Me 109 or FW 190 and a range of 1500km as one example._


Still a prototype that was not adopted. But to look at the range you are quoting....1500 km, this is still small in the Pacific context. You have not stated if this is an operational range, a ferry range, or something else. A Zero had a ferry range in excess of 3000 miles, thats about 4800 km. Its operational range was about 1200 miles, or about 1900 km


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I agree with the basic point you are making here, and apologize for nitpicking, but Japans share of the world GDP was about 4 or 5 times that of Italy. I dont know if that tranlates to to military outpu, but economically, Italy was responsible or controlled about 1% of world GDP. Japan controlled about 4-5%.
> 
> France controlled about 3%. Canada controlled about 1.5%. The US controlled about 35% from memory. Britain (excluding the commonwealth about 10%, Germany roughly 20%. The Russians were difficult to quatify, but were about 15% of the world economy. Between them, Britain, Germany, Russia, the US and Japan controlled something like 80% of world GDP, with Canada and the Commonwealth controlling about 4-6% in total. Only 14-15% of the world GDP was outside these major power blocs



here some on gdp in WWII Allied and Axis GDP


----------



## DonL (Jan 26, 2010)

For the FW 187

Luftwaffe Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site - Focke Wulf Fw 187
Focke-Wulf 187 archive file
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fw_187

There are enough informations.
The 1500km are with inline fuel and no drop tanks.
To my kowledge the Zero had 1580km with inline fuel.



> In terms of naval strike, carrier aviation, and torpedo bombing the Luftwaffe lagged behind Japan considerably



And what was the operation purpose of the LW?
If the major operation purpose is in terms of naval strike, carrier aviation, and torpedo bombing, than a JU 88 had carried a torpedo with the first prototype. Beside to this a ME 110 or FW 187 can also carrie a torpedo or bombs.



> A zero would have made mincemeat against an Me 110 at any time in the war, plus it stil had greater range and endurance.


If the ME 110 would be a fighter than i agree, but as a bomber or a torpedobomber it was very fast and the fighter mission is for the FW 187.

Sorry but i could not see any advanced technologie compare to the german LW at Japanese Aircrafts.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Ahilst aas an overall effort one is drawan inexorably to the conclusion that German technology outclassed that of Japan, viewed as a percentage of world GDP I think the reverse is true. Whilst not an issue of technology, the production outputs is very telling about who was putting greater effort into their aereronautics industry, as a percentage of their toatal miliatary effort. With ostensibly access to more than 20% of the world economy (if you include the conquered territories of europe, the Germans were able to build something like 35000 aircraft in 1944. Pretty impre4ssive, I agree. But in that same time frame the Japanese pushed out something like 16000 airframes. You could argue that germany was diverting more resource to ther land forces and was being bombed to the stone age, but the Japanese awere pouring vast amount of their military capital into building ships, and were being strangled by a crippling blockade. Who was in the worse position....I dont know.



Parisfal, all the info I've seen (and Vincenzo's post confirms) that the Japanese economy was a lot closer to Italy's or (or maybe France based on V's post) than that of any other major combatant. Can you post where you got your numbers from 'cause all the data I've seen shows Japan at that lower level rather than 3x to 4x Italy.

That being said (and it really is a point of symantics), I agree with your premise about putting resources in the important places. Germany was a continental power, Japan was an island nation. Different strategic viewpoint and goals. Armor thickness is far more important to a continental power than aircraft range. Also, Japan had to fight a naval war, Germany did not. So ships and airframes are more important than anti-tank guns, sub machine guns, mechinized infantry, ect. 

Who was in a worse position? No idea either. But given the forces arrayed against both of them and their base of industry, a better way to put it might've been "You just can't get there from here".


----------



## machine shop tom (Jan 26, 2010)

The FW-187 is pretty moot unless we also include promising Japanese designs that were also not used operationally (other than the 3 examples that enede up in Norway).

tom


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2010)

If we include naval aircraft there is another huge difference between 1930s Germany and Japan.

The Japanese Navy fully supported maritime airpower. Admiral Raeder (CiC of the German Navy) did not. Consequently the German Navy began the war with no maritime aircraft to speak of besides seaplanes for recon. 1939 Germany didn't have effective torpedoes (either aerial or submarine) nor did they have an adequate stockpile of aerial mines. The situation did not change significantly until control of German maritime airpower was transferred from Admiral Raeder to the Luftwaffe. A good discussion of the issue at the below site.

German Torpedo Bombers? What Were they? - WW2 in Color History Forum


----------



## timshatz (Jan 26, 2010)

Good point Dave, the Luftwaffe was a land force, not designed or though of with Naval implications. Similar to the RAF/Fleet Air Arm relationship, the Naval air services were the poorer stepchild of the two. 

I often wondered how well the plan for putting Ju87 and Me109s on their carrier would have faired. I think the problems the Brits had with the Seafire would've been multiplied with the sea version of the 109.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 26, 2010)

well I am at a loss as to how the range and capabilities of the FW 187 could be so dogmatically claimed. The aircraft is very intersting, and did show great potential in my opinion, but it remained very much a prototype with none of those completed with their final powerplants or even aiframe structure finalised. I dont think that any definitive number as to the range of the type, or indeed its final performance can be clearly stated at all to be honest, because it remained very much a prototype. Several of the sources I looked at said that it was designed not as a Zerstorer, but as a longer ranged fighter, with one source stating that 

_"When it was test-flown, it outsped the Messerschmitt Me109B by 50mph, (80km/h) despite the fact that it was almost double the weight and had *twice the range*! 
The V1 prototype had a cramped cockpit, although not as much so as the 109. It was superbly maneuverable, making it immensly superior to the slow Bf 110."_

If this is correct, the type did not have anything like the range of the zero. Even if it was eight times the operational range of the Bf 109B it would still have a lesser range than an A6M Model 21.

I dont think it all valid to try to compare an incomplete prototype, for which the final design and powerplant were never tested, and for which reliable range figures dont seem to exist, to an aircraft that entered service and deployed in the thousands in the service of its country

Another source had this to say about the type

"_The first prototype Fw 187 V1 (D-AANA) was ready to fly in spring 1937, and was powered by two 680 hp Jumo 210Da engines. Even with these low powered engines the aircraft attained 326 mph (525 kmh) at 13,123 ft (4,000 m), a full 50 mph (80 kmh) faster than the latest Bf-109B-2 production single-seat fighters.

The aircraft was lost on May 14, 1938 during a low level high speed pass at the test facility in Bremen. The pilot was believed to have pulled up to sharply at the end of the pass, the aircraft stalled, and spun into the ground.

The second prototype Fw 187 V2 was flying by summer of 1937 and it was destined to be the last single seat version. Earnst Udet had replaced von Richtofen by this point in time, and while Udet was a visionary in some respects, he was a total conventionalist when it came to fighter planes. Two engined fighter planes were less maneuverable than single seat fighters so all further development of the Fw 187 was to be as a "Zerstorer" (destroyer) having two or three seats and heavy armaments for attack and defence. History later showed that this category, (Bf-110 day fighters) to be totally out classed by modern monoplane single seat fighters in daylight encounters...

The third prototype Fw 187 was radically altered, but to save weight and dimensional changes the extra position was as a radio operator with no defensive guns. This third Fw 187 V3 (D-ORHP) flew in spring 1938 and had a short troubled career. It suffered a starboard engine fire during one of the initial test flights culminating in a landing that damaged both main landing gear.

The next two prototypes Fw 187 V4 (D-OSNP) V5 (D-OTGN), completed summer and autumn 1938 respectively, were built as two seaters. Both airframes were powered by Jumo 210Da engines and while both received sufficiently favorable flight test results, the top speed achieved was less than expected.

The next prototype Fw 187 V6 (CI-NY) was able to utilize two 1000 hp Daimler-Benz DB 600A liquid cooled engines and was outfitted with surface evaporation cooling to reduce the drag of coolant radiators. While Kurt Tank had a very fast airplane, clocked at 394.4 mph (635 kmh) in level flight, this cooling system was found to be problematic and the aircraft skin was prone to buckling and distortion.

The initial batch of three pre-production Fw 187 A-0 fighters were completed in the summer of 1939 with a rear facing radio/gunner position, and had 700 hp Jumo 210Ga engines. The armament consisted of two 0.787 in (20 mm) MG FF cannons and four 0.312 in (7.92 mm) MG 17 machine guns. The Luftwaffe had by this point decided that the rear defensive gun position of the aircraft was inadequate and unsuited for combat purposes. All three aircraft were returned to Focke-Wulf."_

I dont profess to know much about the FW 187, I am sure that the supporters of this aircraft will rush to correct my misreading of the potentialities of their pet aircraft, but I also can see dodgy research and claims when they are made, and this appears to be one of those occasions


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2010)

If Admiral Raeder had been serious about CV based naval airpower I would expect purpose built CV aircraft. Not standard land based aircraft that have been hastily modified. 

Personally I think the He-112B fighter and He-118 attack aircraft are good candidates for CV use due to low stall speed. The German Navy could have funded both programs after these aircraft were rejected for land based use. They would be fully compatible with CV service as the German Navy would be writing the specifications and funding the programs.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 26, 2010)

If the major operation purpose is in terms of naval strike, carrier aviation, and torpedo bombing, than a JU 88 had carried a torpedo with the first prototype. Beside to this a ME 110 or FW 187 can also carrie a torpedo or bombs.

Ah, the Germans did not have an effective air launched torpedo bomber until October 1941, and that was initially the He 111. At the time the Ju88 was being designed and tested, they deid not even have an effective aerial torpedo. .

Me 110s aand FW 187s never carried torpedoes


----------



## parsifal (Jan 26, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Parisfal, all the info I've seen (and Vincenzo's post confirms) that the Japanese economy was a lot closer to Italy's or (or maybe France based on V's post) than that of any other major combatant. Can you post where you got your numbers from 'cause all the data I've seen shows Japan at that lower level rather than 3x to 4x Italy.
> 
> That being said (and it really is a point of symantics), I agree with your premise about putting resources in the important places. Germany was a continental power, Japan was an island nation. Different strategic viewpoint and goals. Armor thickness is far more important to a continental power than aircraft range. Also, Japan had to fight a naval war, Germany did not. So ships and airframes are more important than anti-tank guns, sub machine guns, mechinized infantry, ect.
> 
> Who was in a worse position? No idea either. But given the forces arrayed against both of them and their base of industry, a better way to put it might've been "You just can't get there from here".



My source is Overy, who wrote a book dealing with the economics of the war some years ago. I lent it to a "friend" who never returned it, so I am working from memory. Even if the Japanese economy is closer to Frances , its still going to be at least three times greater than the italian economy. The Italian economy was in bad shape even in 1939, with low levels of strategic reserves, low levels of cash reserves, old and worn out toolmaking capabilities....all the product of suffering years of League economic sanctions. Under Mussolini its economic potential was dropping dramatically in the latter part of the '30's. The Japanese were also in a similar plight, but not quite as dire.....they were still trading with the US in 1939, and had a much larger and more economically feasible empire that actually produced raw materials for them unlike the Italian empire which never turned a profit for the Italians, and did not produce anything of significance for them


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2010)

i'm not full agree also the french economy it's not good, and lira was, at time, a strongest value of franc (french). You give too importance at sanction they are not on vital source and only for 8 months, and there are many breaks, and Germany don't take it. as the all the GDP comparison they are strong influenced from structure of prices and level of "monetary" of society, idk japan situation but maybe possible that money was less widespread in japan that in italy (already low in cpmparison with US) and france.
imho the gdp simple comparison are not good today and near useless for '30s


----------



## DonL (Jan 26, 2010)

> 1939 Germany didn't have effective torpedoes (either aerial or submarine) nor did they have an adequate stockpile of aerial mines.



Ah ok! Then I imagine the G7e Torpedo (Produktion 1936)and the LT F 5b / LT I (Produktion 1939).
What do you mean with effective?
The only Problem (Torpedokrise 1940 for 3 month) was the change from piercing fuze to magneto. 



> Ah, the Germans did not have an effective air launched torpedo bomber until October 1941, and that was initially the He 111. At the time the Ju88 was being designed and tested, they deid not even have an effective aerial torpedo. .
> 
> Me 110s aand FW 187s never carried torpedoe


 


> I dont profess to know much about the FW 187, I am sure that the supporters of this aircraft will rush to correct my misreading of the potentialities of their pet aircraft, but I also can see dodgy research and claims when they are made, and this appears to be one of those occasions



Ah parsifal I have nothing else expected from you.
Because a Me 110 and FW 187 never carried a torpedo but for example a FW 190 caried one, so for you it's a matter of fact that there is no technological chance for the other birds and also no technological chance for Germany to develope an effective aerial torpedo bomber earlier when needed.

What was the operation purpose of the LW?

And wow the FW 187 is a dodgy research and claim.
This bird is fact and the flight and the speed of the FW 187 V6 (1939) too. 
It's major problems were more political and not technological and the statements from a lot of members that Germany could not develop technological a state of the art long range fighter simply isn't true. 
And this bird was not a promising design it was fact and ready to go in production.
There is no technological advantage from other nations compare to the LW in the area range.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2010)

DonL

I think you need to consider what time periods you are talking about. For instance there is no doubt that Germany had significant problems with the fuses on her torpedos for at least the first 12 months of the war. They were fixed that is true but the million dollar question is when.

It is also true to say that Germany didn't have an effective aerial torpedo and they did use the Italian torpedo's first. Not a lot of good developing an aerial torpedo bomber without a torpedo. Don't underestimate the difficulty involved in such a development. So again for the first 12 months Germany had a problem.

The Me110, I don't believe that this aircraft ever carried a torpedo in action. I am not aware of the payload of an early Me110 but to carry a torpedo you are looking at the best part of 2,000lb which is pushing it for a Me110 C/D and as for the impact on range, it would have been significant. Just because it might in theory be able to get into the air with a torpedo doesn't mean that it was a practical idea.

I admit I hadn't heard of the Ju88 carrying a torpedo in action but it had the payload to do this job. 

As for the FW 187 carrying a torpedo I don't think this is a goer. The aircraft is light and as far as I am aware didn't have the payload for a torpedo bomber. Imagine a Whirlwind with a torpedo and you will see what I mean.
The He111 carried two torpedo's for training but IIRC only carried one on missions. They are big heavy lumps of metal and not easy to fit onto aircraft not designed for the role or without a large internal bomb bay.


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2010)

Why would you use fighter aircraft as a torpedo bomber when the Ju-88 and He-111 are available? Not to mention the Ju-87 which can carry a torpedo ILO dive bombing. Just because things are technically possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

You might make a case for turning the Me-110 into a light naval attack aircraft. However I think the Ju-88A is an inherently better choice. In fact the Ju-88A is almost ideal as it can dive bomb, torpedo bomb and perform the "Swedish Turnip" skip bombing method. By attacking with all three methods at once you split the defending flak and make it more difficult to dodge all the incoming weapons.


----------



## DonL (Jan 26, 2010)

For the G7e torpedo and "Torpedokrise"
G7e torpedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> It is also true to say that Germany didn't have an effective aerial torpedo and they did use the Italian torpedo's first. Not a lot of good developing an aerial torpedo bomber without a torpedo. Don't underestimate the difficulty involved in such a development. So again for the first 12 months Germany had a problem.



No it's not true! The LT F 5b / LT I (Produktion 1939) was a german developed arial torpedo and has no problems.
Lack of success and lack of emphasis on the part of the Navy during the first days of the war led to a decision adopted by leader("Führerentscheid") to cancel the complete production of the LT F 5b / LT I, so the stock to plummet in the LT operational in October 1940 to less than 40 pieces . Successes of other nations (LTs British against the French battleships Strasbourg "and" Richelieu "in July 1940, paralysis of the" Bismark "by British LT in May 1941, use of LTs Japanese at Pearl Harbor and the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse in December led 1941) for a review of this decision, as though not enough of their own aerial torpedoes were available, delivered Italy from 1940 to the German Air Force aerial torpedoes that were introduced as LT and LT R 5w F 5i.



> You might make a case for turning the Me-110 into a light naval attack aircraft. However I think the Ju-88A is an inherently better choice. In fact the Ju-88A is almost ideal as it can dive bomb, torpedo bomb and perform the "Swedish Turnip" skip bombing method. By attacking with all three methods at once you split the defending flak and make it more difficult to dodge all the incoming weapons.



I agree.
But the ME 110 can also dive bomb and torpedo bomb but is also very fast and it's very difficult to intercept her. The same is for the FW 187. The two birds can easily carry 2000lbs.
The FW 187 was also heavily discussed 1942 by the RLM to go in production as Nightfighter for the 110 but the decision was made for the HE 219 and a Nightfighter FW 187 could carry 2000lbs Bombs plus drop tanks.

For more Information:
Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History
by Dietmar Harmann, Peter Petrick


----------



## Marcel (Jan 26, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think you have me confused with Soren. How insulting...


That would be difficult as he is banned again and you're not 

BTW I think Soren deserves an award for "most often banned member" or we should put him in the battle of the aircraft in the HOS 

Sorry for side-tracking, couldn't resist...


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 26, 2010)

From January 1943 U.S. Intelligence Bulletin on the Savoia-Marchetti 79 torpedo bomber:

*Torpedo squadrons are believed to have the highest morale of all units of the Italian Air Force. Their efficiency is such that Germany has sent squadrons to Italy for instructions in torpedo tactics. Italian aircraft torpedoes are believed to be superior to those of German design and are probably used by the German Air Force.*​


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2010)

> FW 187 was also heavily discussed 1942 by the RLM to go in production as Nightfighter


Like the single engine Me-109, the twin engine Fw-187 was made as small as possible to achieve the best possible power to weight ratio. That works great for a day fighter but is a handicap for a night fighter. Hardly any room for the radar operator and his equipment. The Me-110 is a better choice as it has more internal space.

The Fw-187 was a superb long range day fighter. If Germany elects to mass produce the Fw-187 it should be escorting bombers ILO the marginal (for that mission) Me-110.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2010)

DonL said:


> For the G7e torpedo and "Torpedokrise"
> G7e torpedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> ...


The LT F 5b entered service from late 1941 so as I said earlier, it depends on what your timescale is.
German Torpedoes of World War II

I agree.
But the ME 110 can also dive bomb and torpedo bomb but is also very fast and it's very difficult to intercept her. The same is for the FW 187. The two birds can easily carry 2000lbs.
The FW 187 was also heavily discussed 1942 by the RLM to go in production as Nightfighter for the 110 but the decision was made for the HE 219 and a Nightfighter FW 187 could carry 2000lbs Bombs plus drop tanks.

For more Information:
Focke-Wulf FW 187: An Illustrated History
by Dietmar Harmann, Peter Petrick [/QUOTE]

As for the Fw 187, my understanding is that it had an empty weight of 3,700 Kg and a max take off weight of 5,000 Kg. As a torpedo and its launching equipment plus additional beefing up of the structure will be in the region of 1,000 kg, it leaves you with 300 Kg which isn't enough for pilot fuel and other items such as ammo.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> From January 1943 U.S. Intelligence Bulletin on the Savoia-Marchetti 79 torpedo bomber:
> 
> *Torpedo squadrons are believed to have the highest morale of all units of the Italian Air Force. Their efficiency is such that Germany has sent squadrons to Italy for instructions in torpedo tactics. Italian aircraft torpedoes are believed to be superior to those of German design and are probably used by the German Air Force.*​



idk the reliability of intelligence source...

the first sucessfull (so claimed) air torpedo attack of italian air force came the 17th (just before of 18th) september 1940 versus the british cruiser Kent


----------



## DonL (Jan 26, 2010)

@ davebender



> Like the single engine Me-109, the twin engine Fw-187 was made as small as possible to achieve the best possible power to weight ratio. That works great for a day fighter but is a handicap for a night fighter. Hardly any room for the radar operator and his equipment. The Me-110 is a better choice as it has more internal space.
> 
> The Fw-187 was a superb long range day fighter. If Germany elects to mass produce the Fw-187 it should be escorting bombers ILO the marginal (for that mission) Me-110.



I agree with you.
But there is also a lot of dicussion about the FW 187 as a night fighter or as a true multirole plane.
But to my opinion it would be an superb long range fighter and i have take her in the discussion to show, that the LW have had no technological problems with a very good long range fighter early in the war.

@ Glider

Sorry Glider then we have different sources about the LT F 5b / LT I.
From my german sources it was in service late 1939 and solved the heavy problems of the LT F 5a.
Then the complete production was canceld in 1940. So the german navy imports the italien arial Torpedos to have a stock of pieces. The new production of the LT F 5b / LT I from 1941 till end was very small because for most people it was not important enough.
Also I'm a big fan of the navyweaps board but my german sources tells an other story of timeline.

Here are some data for the FW 187 night fighter projekt

Fw 187 - Kampfzerstörer 1942

Wing span: 15,3
Wing Surface Area: 30 qm
Length: 12,45

Crew: 2 (200 kg)
Empty weightt: 5600kg
Maximum weight: 8200 (with 1 x 1000 kg Bombe)

Engine: DB 605 

range: 1200 km without
----------------------2100km with Droptanks

Guns:
4 x 151 / 20 with 250 bullets
2 x 131 mit je 450 bullets - 
1 x MG 81 mit 750 bullets
(gesamt: Waffen 392 kg; Mun 306 kg)

Bombs:
maximal 2.000 kg
1 x 1000 kg + 2 x 500 kg or
1 x 1000 kg + 4 x 250 kg or
10 x 50 kg bzw. 10 x AB 23 / 24


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 26, 2010)

The U.S. Intelligence Bulletins represented the best information and judgments available at the time.

Not sure what the January 1943 report has to do wth "the first sucessfull (so claimed) air torpedo attack of italian air force on the 17th (just before of 18th) september 1940 versus the british cruiser Kent."

Italian Aerial Torpedo technology was impressive.

From U.S. Intelligence Tactical and Technological Trends, November 5, 1942:

*ITALIAN CIRCLING TORPEDO 

The British Navy has recently made known the recovery of an Italian circling parachute torpedo, which has a number of characteristics that distinguish it from any other torpedo of its kind.

After the torpedo had been rendered inoperative and examined, it was found to have no depth-setting device and would therefore travel on the surface of the water with a probable wake. It is 19 inches in diameter, approximately 8 feet long, and weighs about 750 pounds, the weight of the explosive charge being nearly 250 pounds. The torpedo has a running time of about 30 to 40 minutes. It is equipped with a three-blade propeller and a 250-volt electric motor.

This is a highly advanced device. Features of the torpedo that differ externally from other Italian circling torpedoes are listed below:

(a) The position of the impact fuzes.
(b) The use of a ring bolt for the carrying fitting.
(c) The location of the switch on the under side, port quarter.
(d) Propeller streamlined flush with the body of the torpedo.
(e) 19-inch instead of 18-inch diameter.

Internal differences which characterize the torpedo include the following features:
(a) 250-volt instead of 220-volt motor.
(b) Motor speed of 3,700 rpm instead of 2,880 rpm (geared down to 750 rpm).
(c) Mercury switch on the battery. (Hitherto not found.)
(d) Spring-loaded tail switch operated by a spring-loaded rod inside the after-part of the propeller shaft.
(e) Starboard helm setting. (Others are set for port helm only.)

The rudder of the circling torpedo is actuated by the arm bearing on the eccentric projection of the cog-wheel, which is driven by the worm on the propeller shaft. The torpedo moves to starboard in a series of increasing circles.

Of the three fitted switches, one is an external hand switch on the port quarter and one a mercury switch on the battery, cutting out when the torpedo head lies approximately 45 degrees depression to horizontal. The third switch, which is spring-loaded, is placed inside of the after-part and is held open by a roller bearing and a disc fitted around the propeller shaft. The disc is secured by a spring-loaded rod inside the propeller shaft and projecting inside the propeller boss, where it appears to be held by a parachute lug and a plug, which is soluble. When the plug dissolves, the spring-loaded rod ejects the parachute lug, and simultaneously brings the disc further aft, permitting the spring-loaded switch to close and the motor to start.

It is believed that the torpedo had been dropped about two months prior to its recovery, as it was heavily corroded. Since the corrosion prevented the unscrewing of the impact fuze, it was decided to remove the war head complete and recover the propulsion machinery, etc. This was successfully accomplished and the war head rendered inoperative. Following the examination of the torpedo, this new propulsion machinery and other parts of the advanced mechanism were dispatched to London for further study.

It is believed that circling torpedoes have been used only experimentally up to the present time. When employed against convoys, the pilot would probably not have to maneuver his aircraft within close range of antiaircraft fire in order to score a hit, but could drop the torpedo at a reasonably safe distance and immediately resort to evasive tactics. The average running time of the torpedo which is from 30 to 40 minutes, would give an additional advantage. A weapon of this kind would, therefore, present a serious problem to a convoy.

This type of torpedo might also be used against large vessels lying at anchor. They could best be protected against such an attack either by being surrounded with lighters made fast to the ships or by being anchored in an area enclosed by a barrage net extending to a depth of 5 feet.*


----------



## Waynos (Jan 26, 2010)

Having a quick scan through 'Japanese Secret Projects' there are some beautiful and promising aircraft, but nothing that I could see giving difficulties to German manufacturers, there are also several different designs that borrow very heavily from German planes like the Me 163 and 262 and He 162. 

Looking through the Luftwaffe Secret Projects volumes I have not seen anything that came from Japan


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> The U.S. Intelligence Bulletins represented the best information and judgments available at the time.
> 
> Not sure what the January 1943 report has to do wth "the first sucessfull (so claimed) air torpedo attack of italian air force on the 17th (just before of 18th) september 1940 versus the british cruiser Kent."



as intelligence information they are no sure. 
none, i go under see not related with the reply


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 26, 2010)

Glider said:


> The LT F 5b entered service from late 1941 so as I said earlier, it depends on what your timescale is.
> German Torpedoes of World War II



The site is simply wrong... the Germans had 76 F 5b type (German) when the war started (and some time before), and it continued to increase to about 135 when it appears that their own production stopped(?? - Führerbefehl).

Regardless they were using these aerial torps since the start of the war, and rather actively since August 1940.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 26, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Ah, the Germans did not have an effective air launched torpedo bomber until October 1941, and that was initially the He 111.



They had, at the start of the war, the Heinkel 115.

The first He 111 H-4s with torpedo release equipment were issued to III/KG 26 at the start of 1940. 

The Ju 88 was initially not cleared for torpedo bomber missions due to Hitler's decision not to use the aircraft in such role.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 26, 2010)

Vincenzo, if you have some evidence that the U.S. Intelligence Bulletins did not represent the best information and judgments known to the Allies at the time or that the January 1943 Intelligence Bulletin itself presents flawed information (perhaps due to information from the Italians or Germans themselves or later acquired information / judgments by the Allies), please share what you know.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 26, 2010)

The development of every nation's collection of aircraft, prior to and during the earlier phases of WWII, were tailored to the strategic doctrine at the time prior to WWII.

Th Luftwaffe was primarily tailored to a.) supporting control of the air and ground around the Wermacht, and b.) attempting to neutraize the theoretical enemy's advantages. In the case of France and Great Britain, the LW developed aircraft which could find and attack surface ships from land bases but did not develop long range escort for long range bombers.

The Japanes was all about Fleet support, and Army support and its aircraft (long range Zero, amphibians, torpedo bombers, long range land based medium bombers) were tailored to that mission.

Neither aircraft pool was particulary suited to the other country's mission.

I am inclined to think that a.) overall manufacturing base and design (airframe, engines, armament) advantage rested in Germany at the beginning of WWII although Japan would not have had an advantage with all German designs, and b.) increased its advantage as the war progressed.

Additionally Germany started with better access to war materials prior to the war and swiftly expanded its base as the war progressed through 1942 with less vulnerability to disruption of logistic flows of raw materials until 1944. Germany had manufacturing facilities throughout occupied Europe - Japan was a single point manufacturing base surrounded by water and submarines early, and sub, surface and air interdiction late.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 26, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Vincenzo, if you have some evidence that the U.S. Intelligence Bulletins did not represent the best information and judgments known to the Allies at the time or that the January 1943 Intelligence Bulletin itself presents flawed information (perhaps due to information from the Italians or Germans themselves or later acquired information / judgments by the Allies), please share what you know.



i never writing of known to the allies, i think that today what was known to the allies it's near irrilevant we can known as was. The use of intelligence information can give a false immagine of real. i've not nothing on specificy on italian aerosiluranti history/development/morale.


----------



## davebender (Jan 26, 2010)

> Japan was a single point manufacturing base surrounded by water


That isn't quite true.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/txu-oclc-247232986-asia_pol_2008.jpg
By 1941 Japan had a considerable size empire which they have occupied for 10 or more years. Long enough for economic exploitation.
.....Japanese home islands.
.....Japanese Manchuria. Occupied 1905.
.....Chinese Manchuria. Occupied 1931.
.....Formosa. Occupied 1895.
.....Korea. Occupied 1895. (formally annexed 1910).

All of this territory was located relatively close to the Japanese home islands, allowing commercial interaction via coastal freighters. All of this territory has considerable economic value (just look at the modern day GDP of Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria).


----------



## drgondog (Jan 26, 2010)

davebender said:


> That isn't quite true.
> 
> http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/txu-oclc-247232986-asia_pol_2008.jpg
> By 1941 Japan had a considerable size empire which they have occupied for 10 or more years. Long enough for economic exploitation.
> ...



Fully agree the minerals and economic value - so how many ship bbuilding, Mitsibishi, Nakajima, Arisaka, etc plants were in operation offshore from japan?


----------



## machine shop tom (Jan 26, 2010)

Glider said:


> DonL
> 
> I think you need to consider what time periods you are talking about. For instance there is no doubt that Germany had significant problems with the fuses on her torpedos for at least the first 12 months of the war. They were fixed that is true but the million dollar question is when.



Doenitz initiated a temporary fix for the torpedo pistol (detonator) problem by copying the British 21" torpedo contact pistol. This was found on the captured HMS Seal, and the design was copied and used until, 2 years later, a fully reliable German torpedo was perfected.

Japan had no such problems. And nothing by any Navy could compare with the Type 93 torpedo.

But then again, that wasn't an airplane.

tom


----------



## Budman (Jan 26, 2010)

My 2 Cents, During WWII my Dad who was working at Chandler Evans as a Experamental Carburetor Specialist got to examine a captured Zero carburetor. He always said it was a machinists version of a work of art. He noted that very close tolerances were followed in its construction and additional un-needed work that was applied to its exterior, such as polishing, and deburring.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2010)

> =DonL;[email protected] Glider
> 
> Sorry Glider then we have different sources about the LT F 5b / LT I.
> From my german sources it was in service late 1939 and solved the heavy problems of the LT F 5a.
> ...



Thanks for the information, at least you could see where I was coming from. Re the FW187 again it seeems to depend on the timescales, clearly this NF version differed considerably from the early war versions. For whatever reason the Luftwaffe had a hole in their capability for approx the first 18-24 months of the war.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2010)

Kurfurst
Your figures are interesting but all hey prove is that Germany had the F5B and the F5W over this period. The F5W is the german designation for the Italian Torpedo and as we agree the F5B was the German torpedo which according to the NAV site entered service in 1941.
You have to ask the questions
a) If the German Torpedo was effective pre war then why take it out of production?
b) If the German Torpedo was effective why buy the Italian Torpedo in the first place?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 27, 2010)

Well both of your questions were already answered by DonL and partially my post, so I wonder what point is asking them again? 

We have already established that the Germans had their own torpedoes and torpedo bombers at the start of the war; the site is simply wrong in claiming that their own torp did not arrive until late 1941.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jan 27, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Well both of your questions were already answered by DonL and partially my post, so I wonder what point is asking them again?
> 
> We have already established that the Germans had their own torpedoes and torpedo bombers at the start of the war; the site is simply wrong in claiming that their own torp did not arrive until late 1941.



The issue of whether the Germans had air dropped torpedoes in 1939 depends on whether you count useless torpedoes. There are torpedoes that can be used successfully and others that give little chance of success or survival of the aircraft against a target with anti-aircraft guns. The data at NavWeaps - Naval Weapons of the World - 1880 to Present explains the difference by giving for several torpedoes the speed and height at which the attacking aircraft must fly in its straight approach before dropping. The Germans did have the F5 air dropped torpedo in 1939. It was possibly the worse air dropped torpedo of WW2 and could be dropped at up to 75 knots from 15 to 25 m. Its speed was 33 knots. Thus an attacking aircraft needed to approach the target flying at 75 knots or less. It probable had the same defective striker as their other torpedoes. For comparison, the F5b of 1941, which was copied from the Italians, could be dropped from 183 knots and 120 m after some development (I could only find data from the L2 version) and ran at 40 knots. I think that the Japanese Type 91 Mod 1 in service in 1939 was already capable of being dropped faster and higher than the F5b L2 but I have not found the data (the attacks on Prince of Wales and Repulse showed the performance). Later Japanese torpedoes could be dropped from 350 knots. Japanese torpedoes ran at 41-43 knots depending on models. Early American torpedoes were poor but slightly stronger than the early German F5s and could be dropped from 15 m at up to 110 knots and ran at 33.5 knots. However, this improved to 730 m and a speed of 410 knots by 1944 and quoting directly "On one occasion in early 1945, six torpedoes were dropped from altitudes between 5,000 and 7,000 feet (1,500 to 2,100 m). Five out of the six were observed to make their runs hot, straight and normal."


----------



## Glider (Jan 27, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> Well both of your questions were already answered by DonL and partially my post, so I wonder what point is asking them again?
> 
> We have already established that the Germans had their own torpedoes and torpedo bombers at the start of the war; the site is simply wrong in claiming that their own torp did not arrive until late 1941.



Kurfurst
Cherry has covered the main points. The site points out that the Germans did have a very poor aerial torpedo pre war, that the Germans own torpedo came into service in 1941 and that the Germans used Italian torpedo's.

If you have support for your statement that Germany had an effective home grown torpedo in service at the start of the war then supply your evidence. Your chart was interesting, but only showed the stocks of the Italian and later German torpedo's.

My questions were for you to think about and they key part of the question was *Why*.

a) If the German Torpedo was effective pre war *then why *take it out of production?
b) If the German Torpedo was effective *why* buy the Italian Torpedo in the first place? 

Do you really think that you are going to war against one of the largest Navies in the world and take your only effective torpedo out of production. I don't think so.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 27, 2010)

I am relying on three principal sources 

1) , Naval Weapons Of WWII, John Campbell Conways Maritime Maritime Press, 1985
2) NavWeaps - Naval Weapons, Naval Technology and Naval Reunions - Navy Weapons
3)	The Luftwaffe and the War at Sea 1939–1945: As Seen by Officers of the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe, D.C. Isby (ed.), Journal For Maritime research 

Campbell states at Page 262….” Airborne 45 cm torpedoes had been used by the German Navy to a limited extent in the First World War, and had sunk three merchant ships….it was manifestly impossible to develop them in secret (in the interwar years). (The Germans) decided that the Noregians at Horten were ahead of other countries in the area of Torpedo attitude and roll during the drop and a contract was placed in March 1934. The target was 600 by 1939, but this figure was never reached in delivery. Production at the outbreak of the war was only 5 per month (Campbell states elsewhere the German stockpile of air torpedoes was less than 100, which accords to the list provided by Kurfurst, except that they are F5as and not F5bs). 

In October the torpedo stocks underwent a series of trials. In a practice exercise, of 52 drops there were 26 failures. Attempts were made to purchase Italian Fiume torpedoes, but there were difficulties over the supply of scarce materials, and the contract was not signed until March 1939 Eventually (source three says 1941) about 1000 of these torpedoes were delivered. At the beginning of the war there thus only the modified Horten torpedo F5 carried by the slow He 115 seaplane, and neither inspired much confidence. 

From March 1940, all further development (of aerial torpedoes) was stopped altogether by the Navy… (Some time after this) the Luftwaffe took air launched torpedo development over from the Navy. Development continued at a slow pace, resulting in late 1941 in the development of the F5b, which with some modifications remained in service until the end of the war. . The F5B was a compromise solution"…..

Campbells technical data reveal in glaring terms why the F5a was a failure. This torpedoe had a effective range of 2000 metres @ 33 knots. Launch speed was 75-80 knots, and drop height could not exceed 25 metres, explosive charge 200 kg

The F5b which was introduced in November 1941, though it took some time to build up stocks. I still think it was inferior to the Italian Fiume Torpedo. The characteristics of the two torpedoes according to Campbell are

F5b:	2000 metres @ 40 knots, 6000 metres @ 24 knots, launch speed 120 knots (later increased to 150 knots in 1942 with the K3 tail). With further modifications (the L2 tail) in 1944, the F5b achieved safe drop speeds of 183 knots. Drop heights also increased. In 1941 it was 30 metres, increasing to 40 metres in 1942, and finally reaching 120 metres in 1944. Explosive charge 200 kg

F5w (Italian type) 3000 metres @ 40 knots, 8000 m @ 30 knots , launch heights and speeds not stated. Explosive Charge 200 kg 

None of these sources ever make reference to the g7e torpedoes being used in the aerial role.

The Japanese 18 inch aerial torpedoes had the following characteristics. 
Type 91

Model I (introduced 1931) 
2000 metres @ 43 knots, launch speeds 260 knots, warhead size 150 kg

Model 2 (introduced April 1941)
Same as above but with 205 kg charge

Model 3 (introduced October 1941)
Same as above, except charge is 240 kg, and launch speed of 350 knots

The Model Type 94 increased the torpedo speed to 48 knots, and the effective range to 3000 metres (at that speed) warhead size was eventually 553 lbs. Drop speed was over 400 knots

Launch heights for all Japanese torpedoes were about the same, at 100 metres altitude, or less

Isbys book, which is really a collection of wartime and postwar accounts by German Naval and air officers, along with some intelligence reports by the US Navy, has been reviewed by the eminent Richard Harding (University Of Westminster ) who makes the following pertinent observation “The review of air operations 1939–40 by the German officers of the US Naval Historical Team and by Gaul is again narrative, but highlights the tactical and operational limitations of the air campaign, from lack of proper co-ordination and the political disputes that led to the Luftwaffe’s assumption of complete responsibility for offensive war at sea, to the lack of mines, the slow development of the aerial torpedo and the lack training of airmen for operations over the sea”.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 27, 2010)

Deleted Repeat Post.


----------



## DonL (Jan 27, 2010)

> My questions were for you to think about and they key part of the question was Why.
> 
> a) If the German Torpedo was effective pre war then why take it out of production?
> b) If the German Torpedo was effective why buy the Italian Torpedo in the first place?



@ Glider

The major problem was with the LT F 5a.
The LT F 5b / LT I solved all the problems and was an major improvement and in service late *1939*.
The whole production was cancelled 1940 bei "Führerentscheid" (decision direct from Adolf Hitler) because he and other people (consultants) are thinking that arial torpedos didn't do their job and lack on success and raw materials, manpower and productiontime can get to other weapons.

I realy understand that is very difficult to believe but it's true.
After succesfull missions of the RAF/RN in 1940 with arial torpedos the decision was cancelled and a new production of the LT F 5b / LT I begins. But at that time the germans had only 40 pieces in stock and the production output was so small that they import the italian torpedo to have more pieces. The production output was small the whole war so they import additional italien torpedos to have enough pieces in stock.

And no the LT F 5b / LT I was no cover version of an italien torpedo.
The LT F 5 1934 was a cover version of the norwegian "Horton Torpedo"
The LT F 5a was a german developement and the b too.
The b had no problems and was good and in service end 1939!

Data of the LT F 5b 1939
2.300 Metern @ 40 Knoten, 3.500 m @ 33 kn or 7.500 m @ 24 kn.
launch 50m high; speed 260km/h
200kg explosive


----------



## parsifal (Jan 27, 2010)

The F5b was not in production, or even under development in 1939, according to three independant sources. Its development was not begun until aerial torpedo development was taken over by the Luftwaffe, in March 1940. It entered service, late in 1941, according to these sources. I have not seen any conclusive evidence from either Kurfurst or yourself to refute these sources


----------



## renrich (Jan 27, 2010)

In late 1942 the US conducted comparison tests with the latest US fighters and the captured Zero Model 21 from the Aleutian campaign. The US fighters were the P38, P39, P40, P51, F4F4 and F4U1. During the tests, the Allison powered P51 had mechanical problems and failed to complete the tests, the P40 also had major problems so no data was gathered, the P39 ran out of fuel before the tests were completed. The Zero continued to operate flawlessly during all the tests. One could come to several conclusions from this comparison:

The Allison engine was troublesome and perhaps radial engines were more reliable?
The tech people on the Zero were better than those on the US fighters?
The Zero was on the whole a more reliable design than the US fighters?

One conclusion impossible to avoid during the tests was that the Zero was overall a well built and well designed aircraft.

It would be interesting to be able to compare the reliability of the Japanese AC versus those of all the other combatants.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

renrich said:


> In late 1942 the US conducted comparison tests with the latest US fighters and the captured Zero Model 21 from the Aleutian campaign. The US fighters were the P38, P39, P40, P51, F4F4 and F4U1. During the tests, the Allison powered P51 had mechanical problems and failed to complete the tests, the P40 also had major problems so no data was gathered, the P39 ran out of fuel before the tests were completed. The Zero continued to operate flawlessly during all the tests. One could come to several conclusions from this comparison:
> 
> The Allison engine was troublesome and perhaps radial engines were more reliable?
> The tech people on the Zero were better than those on the US fighters?
> ...



I remember reading a post on here a while back that quoted a former Japanese fighter pilot who stated that in the field, many Japanese fighters suffered from unreliability, lack of spares and interchangeability was poor.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 27, 2010)

renrich said:


> In late 1942 the US conducted comparison tests with the latest US fighters and the captured Zero Model 21 from the Aleutian campaign. The US fighters were the P38, P39, P40, P51, F4F4 and F4U1. During the tests, the Allison powered P51 had mechanical problems and failed to complete the tests, the P40 also had major problems so no data was gathered, the P39 ran out of fuel before the tests were completed. The Zero continued to operate flawlessly during all the tests. One could come to several conclusions from this comparison:
> 
> The Allison engine was troublesome and perhaps radial engines were more reliable?
> The tech people on the Zero were better than those on the US fighters?
> ...



While there may be something to the test data, it would be ill advised to judge too much about the aircraft in question regarding mechanical reliability due to one test only. There seems to have been only one of each type used. 

Maybe they got a very well made Zero. 

The inverse is true as well. Maybe the Allied birds were all dogs (odd but not impossible to happen, especially with mass production and an expansion in the production capacity) of the production run. 

In short, the size of the test sample is on the small side to derive conclusions. 

On a different note, it's odd they didn't test the F6F in that sample.


----------



## davebender (Jan 27, 2010)

> The Allison engine was troublesome and perhaps radial engines were more reliable?


Allison engine unreliability is an easy conclusion to reach. However by 1942 the U.S. has plenty of test data for the RR Merlin, DB601 and Jumo211. There was no reason to think that all liquid cooled V12s were as crappy as the Allison. Unless American military leadership were living in a state of denial, refusing to believe that some other nations built superior liquid cooled aircraft engines.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jan 27, 2010)

Firstly, I must apologise for confusing the F5b and F5w torpedoes in my previous post. 
Secondly, may I mention a discussion of shipboard anti-aircraft gunnery in the RN by Philip Pugh, in "The Royal Navy, 1930-2000: innovation and defence" by Richard Harding, p19-41. He notes that the RN's main failure in its pre-war planning was to underestimate the speed of attackers and mentions that ships could generally defend themselves from slow attacks, giving the example of the Channel Dash. This doesn't seem true of Bismarck or of the Italian Fleet but would any reader volunteer to fly a Ju 88 towards a British battleship in a straight line at the speed and height required for a successful launch of an early F5b?


----------



## renrich (Jan 27, 2010)

I agree that no valid conclusions could be drawn as far as reliability is concerned, which is why I used the question marks, but it is strange that two of the four Allison engined aircraft had engine performance problems and it certainly points out one of the flaws in the P39 design. One wonders why the AAF aircraft were not seemingly well prepped for the tests. I suspect that when the tests were conducted that a production F6F was not available. The Aleutian Zero, according to this book, had an unseemly end. In 1944 a SB2C, Helldiver, inadvertently taxied into the Zero and destroyed it from the tail to the cockpit. "The Beast" strikes again.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2010)

renrich said:


> In 1944 a SB2C, Helldiver, inadvertently taxied into the Zero and destroyed it from the tail to the cockpit. "The Beast" strikes again.




It was hungry.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It was hungry.



Or flown by the pilot commonly known around the base as "Herr Jackass"

There's at least one on every base.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 27, 2010)

renrich said:


> I agree that no valid conclusions could be drawn as far as reliability is concerned, which is why I used the question marks, but it is strange that two of the four Allison engined aircraft had engine performance problems and it certainly points out one of the flaws in the P39 design. One wonders why the AAF aircraft were not seemingly well prepped for the tests. I suspect that when the tests were conducted that a production F6F was not available. The Aleutian Zero, according to this book, had an unseemly end. In 1944 a SB2C, Helldiver, inadvertently taxied into the Zero and destroyed it from the tail to the cockpit. "The Beast" strikes again.



Gotcha. Agreed that a 50% failure rate is pretty high, even if it is allegorical. Depending on where the tests were done, it might've (and this all idle speculation) been the aircraft were all training birds that were just plucked off the line. Student pilots beat the crap our of an aircraft. 

But that is a high number for failure. Didn't think the Allsion was that bad of an engine. Always heard it was fairly reliable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2010)

davebender said:


> Allison engine unreliability is an easy conclusion to reach. However by 1942 the U.S. has plenty of test data for the RR Merlin, DB601 and Jumo211. There was no reason to think that all liquid cooled V12s were as crappy as the Allison. Unless American military leadership were living in a state of denial, refusing to believe that some other nations built superior liquid cooled aircraft engines.




Any source for this lack of reliability?

Many engines had trouble in their early years and got better as time went on only to go through troubles again in later models are the last bits of power were dragged out of the design.

Some Allisons racked up close to 1000hrs before overhauls in US training commands.

British noted that Allison engines were much more reliable in P-40s in North Africa than Merlins in P-40s. Some people believe it had to do with the difference in air intakes with Merlin P-40s ingesting much more dust due to it's lower carb intake. 
Differences in radiator, oil cooler and even spark plug and magneto cooling can affect reliability from plane to plane ore from one theater to another.


----------



## renrich (Jan 27, 2010)

The book states that the Allison engine P51 failed to operate properly above 15000 feet so the tests were not completed. The P40F tests were suspended because the engine would not produce maximum power. Besides wondering why the two AAF birds were not prepped properly I wonder why they were not repaired so that maximum performance could be obtained. This info is from "The Great Book of World War II Airplanes" and it has a good section on the Zero with a lot of the history behind it's development. Also has P38, P51, B17, Hellcat, Corsair, Spitfire, Mosquito, Lancaster, 109, 190s through the vaunted TA152, Ju87.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 27, 2010)

parsifal said:


> The F5b was not in production, or even under development in 1939, according to three independant sources.



The Navweapons site you rely on state the F5B was developed from 1935..




> Its development was not begun until aerial torpedo development was taken over by the Luftwaffe, in March 1940. It entered service, late in 1941, according to these sources. I have not seen any conclusive evidence from either Kurfurst or yourself to refute these sources



The list of torpedo stocks show the F5b and F5W stockpiles. You said there were no (italian) F5Ws until 1939 (or 1941 the latter seems a doubtful and contrary to your other claims).

Now the situation in 1939 was then either:

a, There were no improved German F5bs around, which means all of the torps were equally good Italian Whitehead aerial torps, or
b, There were no improved Italian Whitehead F5W aerial torps around, which means all of the torps were German F5bs (which I suspect to be true, and the Italian torps were only brought in the meantime to increase the meager stocks)

You can't have it both way, that there were neither F5b nor F5w, though there is a list clearly showing 76 F5b and/or F5W around..

BTW you are shifting your argument, the original claim was that there were no German torpedo bombers around at the start of the war (wrong - He 115), no long range German dive bombers around (again wrong - Ju 88), and no aerial torpedoes whatsoever and they were not used until something like 1942 (very obviously wrong after reviewing all these sources).


----------



## parsifal (Jan 27, 2010)

You must be reading a different part of the site. I think you are mixing the F5a with the F5b. With regards to the F5b, the site in its "notes section says as follows:

_Notes: The F5b was in service from *late 1941 *to the end of the war with relatively minor changes. To control flight in the air a wooden K3 tail was used that broke off when entering the water. This was replaced in 1944 with L2 which was similar but had ailerons operated via a heavy gyro. The L2 tail permitted increased dropping speeds and heights, the maximums actually achieved were 183 knots and 390 feet (120 m). The differences in weights and lengths in the table above are due to the different warheads.B_


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 28, 2010)

and a bit over "Date Of Design 1935"


----------



## parsifal (Jan 28, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> and a bit over "Date Of Design 1935"



Yes, and Campbell explains this in a lot more detail. The F5B was a development of the f5a. The F5a began development in 1935, with the intention of having stockpiled 600 by 1939. In the end the Germans had ammassed less than 100 of these by 1939, with production at a very low level of 5 per month. It appear that the German Navy had 76 aerial torpedoes in stock, and that 52 of these were expended in trials in October 1939. In September 1939, they did not have a completed delivery system. Dedvelopment was then all but abandoned, until March 1940, when torpedo development was taken over by the Luftwaffe. They began the processes that led to the introduction of the F5b, but this type was not operational until November 1941. In the meantime and as an interim measure the Luftwaffe adopted the F5w, with operational delivery in mid to late 1941.

This means that from 1939 through to the latter part of 1941, the Luftwaffe was without any effective aerial torpedo delivery system. The He 115 was not an effective carrier, and the ordinance was defective until later in 1941. It also took the Luftweaffe some time to develop the specialist skill needed in the anti-shipping units for effective delivery to be considered.

All of this is consistent with my originaql statements 

Of the 52 torpedoes expended in the trials no less than 26 were defective. Reason is not stated, but given that the usual procedure was to remove the exploder from the front in trial units, it was unlikley to be in the firing mechanism. Given the extremely narrow launch parameters, I think the there would most likley have been errors in the ignition depth keeping or gyro mechanisms, but these are only gueses. 

The Ju 88 was not a true divebomber incidentally. It could undertake shallow dives, but not in the same manner as Ju87s. This was certainly true in 1939, perhaps its delivery was improved later in the war. The first Ju-88s torpedo bombers were not available until 1942.

Until the end of 1941, the main aerial menace for the RN were Ju87Rs ( effectively, long range stukas....there would have been no need to develop these types, if the claim that the Ju88 was an effective long range "true" divebomber were correct. Manifestly they arent). Level bombers such as the Condor were effective against shipping, as were the tactical bombers like the Ju88. They enjoyed very little success against warships, which further reinforces the argument that they were not true divebombers. If they had, they would have been far more dangerous than they actually were


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 28, 2010)

Parsifal do you read the table posted fro Kurfuerst? so i think that Campbell take a ohax


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 28, 2010)

I think its futile to comment any further on the torpedoes, since you simply ignore the sources posted. Basically running in circles...

As for Ju 88, you are rather alone with your opinion that it was not a dive bomber. The Germans, however, funnily insisted on describing the Ju 88A-1 as "Zweimotoriges Sturzkampf-Schnellflugzug". Perhaps you can give a translation of that for us.

As for its dive bombing capabilities, the type was cleared for dives up 70 degrees with dive bomb sight and a pull-out autopilot. If you believe that a 70 degree dive is a shallow one, I'd like to know your definition of what constitutes a steep dive..


----------



## parsifal (Jan 28, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Parsifal do you read the table posted fro Kurfuerst? so i think that Campbell take a ohax




No not at all. since there are at least three accepted sources that refute Kurfurst original post. Also the translation of this table is quite revealing. Augang = "received", Verbrauch = "expenditure", Best am front ja monat = "stock on hand in that month". If you take a detailed look at the table, they were not using their stock of torpedoes, except for a few here and ther until the latter part of 1940. This provides clear evidence that there was something wrong. If they had functional torpedoes, why did they not use them?

I think Kurfursts table is wrong. I think that where it refers to F5b and F5w it is in fact referring to f5a. As far as I know there were no real problems with the F5b, though comnpared to their Japanese counterparts they were very pedestrian, and of limited capability. The F5a was basically a failure, as far as I am aware it was never used operationally, and this is entirely consistent with Kurfursts table

One possible solution is that the stock of torpedoes on hand in 1939 began as F5a standard, but were later converted. I suspect the main differences in the two subtypes might be in the tail assemlies, and it is quite possible the Germans fixed the reason for the failure of the F5a, and then in their records simply recorded them as F5b


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 29, 2010)

i see nothing the strange in the traduction of german words, if LW don't give credit at the arial torpedo why must ised its? your are supposition, and on german fact i'm on the side of a german book and not a english/us book (idk Campbell nationality)


----------



## parsifal (Jan 29, 2010)

_I think its futile to comment any further on the torpedoes, since you simply ignore the sources posted. Basically running in circles...

As for Ju 88, you are rather alone with your opinion that it was not a dive bomber. The Germans, however, funnily insisted on describing the Ju 88A-1 as "Zweimotoriges Sturzkampf-Schnellflugzug". Perhaps you can give a translation of that for us.

As for its dive bombing capabilities, the type was cleared for dives up 70 degrees with dive bomb sight and a pull-out autopilot. If you believe that a 70 degree dive is a shallow one, I'd like to know your definition of what constitutes a steep dive.._

I dont think it futile at all, and I dont think we are running in circles.....what we arent getting is an acceptance that the Germans had a viable torpedo force from the beginning of the war, or that the Ju88s were a viable dive bomber against naval targets at the beginning of the war. I would have thought you would be interested in finding out the truth rather than simply mouthing nationalistic claptrap....

I never said the Ju88 was not effective in the naval attack role, at least not in the beginning. However, if you read the detailed action reports of the Royal Navy at the time, virtually all the effective attacks on RN warships delivered were done so by Ju-87s. Successful attacks were carried out by Ju88s but were undertaken using level bombing techniques for the most part, and the percentage of successful strikes is much lower than those delivered by Ju87s. Only a minority of attacks show the Ju88 (according to the RN after action reports I have read), being used in the divebombing role up to the end of 1941. I am fully aware of its description as a divebomber, but its results dont support its claim as such, at least not in that early period. Later, when it was re-equipped with a functional torpedo and low level bombing techniques were perfected it did become very effective. The question begs…if it was so successful as a divebomber, why were most of its attacks against RN heavy ships undertaken using level bombing techniques

Its very telling that in the most successful raid by Ju-88s that I know of, the raid at Bari in late 1943, the Germans did not employ divebombing, but instead opted for low level bombing - the so-called “swedish turnip” method of attack. if the Ju88 was effective as a Ju-87 at divebombing (naval targets) it surely would have used divebombing over level bombing......the argument becomes illogical and unconvincing to me to say it was the scourge of the oceans, only to find there are no tangible result to back that claim up. 

To this end I checked the war loss section of my Janes 1945 edition, as well Conways, and other material I have on the RN actions in 1939-41. There were no ships larger than a cruiser lost to the European Axis air attacks. A total of five cruisers were lost in the specified time period, of which two were attributable to Ju88s, and a further two partially attributable. One of these was the HMS Curlew, sunk off Narvik whilst either covering an amphibious operation, or covering the withdrawal of the ships, and therefore constrained in her ability to maneouvre and by the speed that she could move. She was sunk by a stick of bombs in a level bombing attack by Ju88s of the elite KG 30 (which included the test pilot Francke)

The other vessel of cruiser size sunk by Ju88s was HMS Calcutta, off Crete, whilst engaged in evacuation loading from the island of Crete. On this occasion the Ju88s were efficient and deadly, and I do not know the method of attack used. She was hit by 2 x 500 lb bombs from just two Ju88s, On 01-Jun-1941. There unit responsible for this loss was Ii/LG1 about 100 miles north of Alexandria. By this time the germans were employing low level attacks as opposed to medium and high level attacks of the early war period. It is just as likley that Calcutta was hit by a low level level bombing attack as a shallow dive that the the Ju 88s could deliver. But I would give it the benefit of the doubt in this case

HMS Fiji and Gloucester were sunk 22-5-41 off Crete, by sustained and heavy air attacks. The ships repelled a series of heavy air attacks during withdrawal from Kithera Channel. Fiji and Gloucester had been detached to provide AA protection to destroyers Kandahar and Kingston picking up survivors from HM Destroyer Greyhound. The entire Task Group was subjected to further air attacks during which HMS Gloucester was hit and set on fire. These attacks were from Ju87s, Fiji left area with the two destroyers because of continuing air threat. During passage she suffered further damage by near miss from single aircraft (a Ju88 ) causing flooding in the engine room, which reduced speed and caused listing. In subsequent attack she was hit by three bombs (from Ju87s) which increased the list, and she eventually rolled over and sank an hour later in position 34.35N, 23.10E. The immediate rescue of survivors by HM Destroyers Kandahar and Kingston was impossible because of continuing acute danger of air attacks, however rafts and boats left for those able to escape by swimming. 523 members of ship's company were picked up after nightfall. Both cruisers had low stocks of AA ammunition and the judgement to send them to provide defence during rescue is one of the many criticisms made after WW2 in respect of the disastrous operations off Crete in 1941. The attackers in this case were units from LG-1 (Ju88s) and St. G-2 (Ju87s) as well as Me 109s operating as Fighter Bombers. The general consensus is that the mortal blows for both ships was from the Ju-87s rather than the Ju-88s. The Ju 88s may have been operating as as divebombers or as low altitude level bombers in these attacks, but in either scenario were not nearly as accurate as the Ju87s in these attacks. In the case of the hits on the Fiji, three out of the four hits were by Ju87s. Aircraft numbers were approximately equal (Ju88s and Ju87s) in these attacks. 

HMS Southhampton was sunk 11-01-41 from attacks by Ju87s. According to the Uboat.net site, “_HMS Southampton (Capt. Basil Charles Barrington Brooke, RN) was heavily damaged in the Central Mediterranean about 195 nautical miles east-south-east of Malta in position 34º54'N, 18º24'E by German Ju-87 divebombers. 81 men were killed. The ship was finally sunk by torpedoes from HMS Orion and HMS Gloucester. 

At 1522 hrs of 11 January, Southampton, in company of Gloucester and destroyer Diamond were at position 34.56 N, 18.19 E, some 220 miles east of the Sicilian coast. At that time they came under attack of a German Squadron consisting of 35 Ju-87s belonging to II/St.G.2. The planes were led by the Group Commander, the famous Oberst (Major) Werner Ennecerus. (]It should be noted that at this time FK X from which the attacking formations were drawn had on strength 50 Ju87Rs and 20 Ju88s). 
In this attack the Ju-87s scored a hit with a 500-kg bomb on Gloucester: it was a dud and went through 5 decks, exiting the hull without detonating. Southampton, on the other hand, sustained 2 500-kg bomb hits: the first detonated in the wardroom and the second in the Officer's mess. Huge fires broke out and isolated some of the control for flooding the magazines, rendering the situation immediately critical. After 4 hours of fruitless efforts to bring the conflagration under control, Southampton was abandoned at 1900 hrs, the crew being rescued by Gloucester and Diamond. Subsequently, the wreck received a coup de grace from Orion, which had been despatched to the area to increase the AA protection for the damaged vessels. In the sinking there were 52 dead, 27 of whom officers. The cruiser sank at 2000 hrs in approximate position 34º54'N, 18º24'E_.”

As can be seen,, whilst the effectiveness of the Ju88 in the aeronaval role is undeniable, the majority of its attacks on major units was using conventional level bombing techniques (at least in the 1939-40 period), and it s effectiveness as a divebomber, compared to Ju87s was limited, judging by the number of attacks and the number of hits achieved. This suggests to me that the label “divebomber” in its role description is somewhat misleading when applied to naval attack. In my opinion it was primarily a level bomber, with a secondary or subsidiary capability as a quasi divebomber…..

It is also interesting to note that the first subtype of the Ju88 capable of launching torpedoes was the A-17 subtype, introduced at the end of 1941. The first subtype of the He 111 capable of carrying a torpedo was the He 111 H-6, first produced in November 1941. Apart from the he 115, which was more a theoretical capability than an actual one, given the numbers of torpedoes actually fired from this platform (less than twenty by the look of it up to the end of 1940), I think it entirely valaid to say that the Germans had no aerial torpedo capability in 1939, and that her first reall capability arose after October 1941.


----------



## Glider (Jan 29, 2010)

Good information.

One observation about the use of the Ju88 as a dive bomber. What the aircraft is capable of doing, such as the 70 degree dive may well not be what the crew are trained to do. Level bombing and dive bombing take a lot of practice and its quite possible that the crews were only trained for level bombing.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 29, 2010)

_i see nothing the strange in the traduction of german words, if LW don't give credit at the arial torpedo why must ised its? your are supposition, and on german fact i'm on the side of a german book and not a english/us book (idk Campbell nationality) _

And the nav weapons is run by a European (german I think, not that that matters one bit), and the book by Isby is a collection of first hand accounts by the people that were there, German officers mostly.

It is possible that the Germans were stockpiling their torpedoes. 76 is so close to zero that it is almost laughable. The Germans produced so many F5bs that by the end of 1943 they had ammassed more than 10000 of them, which is more than the entire US stock at that time.

So apart from not trusting English sources ( I dare not ask why, for your sake) why do you think the Germans had a viable torpedo force and the means to deliver it in 1939


----------



## parsifal (Jan 29, 2010)

Glider said:


> Good information.
> 
> One observation about the use of the Ju88 as a dive bomber. What the aircraft is capable of doing, such as the 70 degree dive may well not be what the crew are trained to do. Level bombing and dive bombing take a lot of practice and its quite possible that the crews were only trained for level bombing.



I believe Kurfurst when he says that the Ju88 was capable of a 70 degree dive. Whether it was efficient at that angle, I dont know. What I am certain of is that it was not as dangerous as the Ju87 ion that periuod 1939-41. I think your suggestion may have a lot to do with it, but it might also be that they simply were not that efficient as divebombers against ships


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jan 29, 2010)

Put it this way, Both nations had great planes for the theatre they were a part of. But, to answer the question, I would have to sayGermany by far. Sure japan made many good planes, i. e. the ledgenary zero, but germany made one hell of a great invention, the jet. The Me 262 was one great fighter, although it didn't save the Nazis. But it lead to, thanks to captured german enginers, the earlier creation of the modernized USAF jets about a decade earlier than we(the US) origanally may have done so. Another reason for my choice is than Japan's planes may have been light weight and highly menoverable, they were highly vunerable. So vunerable, one .50 calibre round to the gas tank from an ailled plane could down it.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 30, 2010)

(Following text represents a selection From "Hitler's Luftwaffe" by Tony Wood and Bill Gunston, 
[1997], "The Story of the Torpedo Bomber" By Peter C. Smith, [1974],and Die grossen Luftschlachten des Zweiten Weltkriegs : Flugzeuge, Erfolge, Niederlagen. [1993], ISBN: 3704360295). I have relied on a secondary source to produce this transcription. 

The most successful German torpedo-bomber in WW2 was the He 111 H-6. The most enviable results of this type have been achieved through combat actions that were undertaken from Bardufoss and Banak airfields in Norway - predominantly by KG 26 (Löwen Geschwader) - against allied convoys plying the North Cape route from mid-June 1942 onwards.

Although slightly outdated, the He 111 possessed some very good flight characteristics. First of all, old "Doppel-Blitz" (double lightning) was a steady machine, unwavering in level flight, completely predictable within cruise regime, with a possibility to be smoothly trimmed, as well as with quite handy low-level cornering speed. The plane was initially designed to be an unyielding bombing platform and its behavior has completely reflected that assignment. 

He 111H-6 produced from late 1941 was the first torpedo-variant of the type able to carry heavy external loads, including bombs larger than 250 kg, or a pair of torpedoes, beneath the fuselage. The He 111H-6 was both versatile and well liked by its crews, serving on all fronts with the Luftwaffe.

Potentials of air-launched torpedoes, however, were discovered commensurately very late, because the German torpedo development had been completely in the hands of the Kriegsmarine since 1932, which had actually purchased the Horten naval torpedo patents from Norway in 1933 and the Whitehead-Fiume patents from Italy in 1938. Germans, essentially, had used a variant of the Norwegian aircraft-dropped torpedo – the 450mm Schwarzkopf F5 with a range of 2000 meters and maximum speed of 33 knots. It was armed with a 200 kg Hexanite explosive warhead. Subsequent German derivative, improved LF 5B travelled at a speed of 40 knots, and was armed with a 180 or 250 kg warhead filled also with Hexanite.

It has to be mentioned, however, that the technical development toward German air-launched torpedoes was pursued in a rather leisurely manner, mainly because it was conducted by the Seeluftstreitkrafte (naval air division of the Kriegsmarine), and the results of trials and reports of combat operations were jealously guarded by the navy. During extensive torpedo-dropping trials, carried out in 1939, both the He 59 and He 115 floatplanes were used, and the failure rate of the torpedoes was a amazing 49 percent!

In 1941, the Luftwaffe decided to pursue its own development trials with the intention of setting up a powerful force of torpedo-bombers. The first torpedo development establishment was formed at Grossenbrode, on the Baltic coast. Several aircraft types were intensively tested and it was soon apparent that the proven and long-established He 111, as well as the faster Ju 88 were the most suitable types. 

Luftwaffe unit Kampfgeschwader 26 was anticipated to play the leading role in this new torpedo plan, and Stab, I and III/KG 26 were selected as the specialized torpedo-units, while II/KG 26 remained in the classicist level-bomber role. It sounds almost unbelievable, but the tactical detachment of a few of KG 26’s He 111s to Flieger Korps X in the autumn of 1941 for torpedo operations was short-lived due to lack of torpedoes!

In January 1942, the Luftwaffe’s demands for the centralization and control of all German and Italian torpedo development were finally granted. Colonel Martin Harlinghausen was appointed as the head of all Luftwaffe torpedo development, supply, training and operational organizations, with the TorpedoTraining School established at Grosseto in Italy. During the early months of 1942, I/KG 26 underwent torpedo conversion-courses, lasting between three and four weeks. The Gruppe’s He-111H-6’s could carry two torpedoes slung on racks beneath the belly; the standard torpedoes used were the German LT F5 and LT F5W, both of 450-mm caliber, with the latter based on the Italian model made by Silurificio Whitehead di Fiume.

While I/KG 26 underwent conversion at Grosseto, its future and the bases from which it would operate had already been decided. Luftflotte V, based in Norway and Finland, needed additional bomber support to interdict Allied convoys on the Murmansk/Archangelsk route. In March, Göring ordered Luftflotte V to collaborate with the aerial reconnaissance units of the Kreigsmarine and to attack the convoys when they came into range, and also to shift bomber forces from the Finnish front to accomplish this task. Within I/KG 26, based at Banak and Bardufoss, there were 12 crews available for torpedo operations with the Heinkel He 111H-6 planes. 

During March and April, various PQ [and retuning QP] convoys were succesfully attacked. Although the Luftwaffe claimed all 35 ships sunk, they had only sunk seven. New lessons had been learned, however, which were to form the basis of later tactics when greater torpedo forces were expected to be available. Coordinated torpedo and bomber attacks sowed confusion among the defensive screen. The most favorable time was at dusk, with the torpedo-bombers coming in from the darker hemisphere aided by the ships' pre-occupation with dive bombers and level bombers by the Ju-88’s of KG 30, thus affording the low-flying Heinkels of KG 26 an element of surprise. The tactic known as "Golden Zange" (Golden Comb) consisted of a mass torpedo attack by as many as 12 He-111’s flying in wide line-abreast, with a simultaneous release of torpedoes to obtain the maximum spread while dividing defensive fire.

Aircrafts have been spaced about 200-300 meters apart, and both LT F5b (improved version) and Italian LT F5W torpedoes were used. The F5W was preferred as the F5b’s whisker-type detonating pistol seldom operated when the target was hit at an sharp angle. Torpedoes were launched at a range of 1000 meters, and usually from a height of 40 meters (125 feet), the parent aircraft flying dead straight and level in order for the weapon to enter the water at the stipulated 12 degrees. AA fire, particularly that of 20mm Oerlikon guns, was considered a greater threat than escorting RN fighters. Observation of torpedo-tracks or hits was next to impossible, as the parent aircraft had to execute violent evasive action as soon as the weapon was dropped. The Ju-88’s of KG 26 had considerably more success than the Ju-88’s of KG 30, and sunk the majority of the merchant ships claimed.

Ill-fated convoy PQ-17 was set upon for five days, in which 23 out of 33 ships were sunk, and Luftflotte V accounting for fourteen of them. This action saw the use of a few He-115 floatplane torpedo-bombers too, but mainly the He-111’s of I/KG 26 and the Ju-88’s of KG 30 were in action.

By the end of July, III/KG 26, under captain Nocken, had completed the course at Grosseto and had transferred its Ju 88A-4 torpedo-bombers to Rennes-St.Jacques. They eventually wound up at Banak along with a considerable anti-shipping force of bombers, torpedo-bombers and reconnaissance aircraft.

Convoy PQ 18, which came under attack in mid-September 1942, differed from previous Arctic convoys in that its anti-aircraft defenses included an aircraft carrier. Though the Luftwaffe achieved its greatest success to date by sinking a large number of ships, they lost 41 bombers. Royal Navy Hurricanes and Martlets [Grumman F4F Wildcats in British service], the long and strenuous flights of the bombers, and intense AA fire made torpedo-bombing mostly hazardous. Chances of rescue for a downed crew were practically non-existing, and life in the freezing waters of the Arctic was measured in minutes only.

The above mentioned attack saw the last of the massed torpedo attacks by the Luftwaffe, and never again were the concentration and results achieved in subsequent actions in the Mediterranean or elsewhere. With the Allied landings in North Africa, the Mediterranean became the pivot of Axis anti-shipping operations, but Allied air superiority forced massive casualties. The poor performance of torpedo-bombers thereafter was partly due to inexperienced replacement aircrews, Allied air supremacy, and relegation to night attacks where air opposition was weaker. The deepening fuel crisis and shortages further curtailed training. During the first ten days of the Normandy operation with hundreds of targets, only five vessels were sunk. Norwegian air strength was supplemented by the Ju 188, but during a four-day attack where 200 torpedoes were launched, all failed to hit. By early 1945 KG 26 had all but lapsed into inactivity. 

Despite heavy losses, however, the experiences of KG 26 in Norway had confirmed the effectiveness of aerial torpedoes in maritime warfare. Ten of the thirteen ships destroyed were the victims of torpedoes delivered by KG 26. Of the 860 sorties flown by Stumpff's Luftflotte V aircraft against PQs 16, 17, and 18, over 340 were made by torpedo bombers. German assessments of these operations confirmed that the torpedo bomber was the most efficient mean of destroying enemy merchant ship. The calculations undertaken by Luftwaffe's 8th Abteilung have proved that while only one vessel was sunk for every 19 bombing sorties undertaken, torpedo missions sank an Allied vessel on every 8 sorties, that is, they were on average twice as effective as high-level or dive-bombing attacks, and one-quarter of all the torpedoes launched struck their targets.

...says it all, and better than I could really


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 30, 2010)

_In January 1942, the Luftwaffe’s demands for the centralization and control of all German and Italian torpedo development were finally granted. Colonel Martin Harlinghausen was appointed as the head of all Luftwaffe torpedo development, supply, training and operational organizations, with the TorpedoTraining School established at Grosseto in Italy. During the early months of 1942, I/KG 26 underwent torpedo conversion-courses, lasting between three and four weeks. The Gruppe’s He-111H-6’s could carry two torpedoes slung on racks beneath the belly; the standard torpedoes used were the German LT F5 and LT F5W, both of 450-mm caliber, with the latter based on the Italian model made by Silurificio Whitehead di Fiume.
...

Aircrafts have been spaced about 200-300 meters apart, and both LT F5b (improved version) and Italian LT F5W torpedoes were used. The F5W was preferred as the F5b’s whisker-type detonating pistol seldom operated when the target was hit at an sharp angle._

Like I said, from a January 1943 U.S. Intelligence Bulletin:

*Torpedo squadrons are believed to have the highest morale of all units of the Italian Air Force. Their efficiency is such that Germany has sent squadrons to Italy for instructions in torpedo tactics. Italian aircraft torpedoes are believed to be superior to those of German design and are probably used by the German Air Force.*


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 30, 2010)

On the use of the Ju-88 as a dive bomber, an allied intelligence report published April 22, 1943 notes that the German Air Ministry had issued new instructions establishing restrictions on flying the Me-109, Fw-190, He-177 and Ju-88. These restrictions concerned damage to airframes due to "overtaxing their capabilities."

Specifically with respect to the Ju-88, reference is made to the difficulty of controlling Ju-88 aircraft at a dive angle of 60°, and it is stated that in the future they are to be rigged for a dive angle of 50° only. This will limit the indicated air speed in the dive to between 329 and 341 mph as against 341 to 354 mph obtained in a 60° dive.

An earlier August 27, 1942 intelligence report indicated observations of German air attacks over Malta:

*All heavy attacks were by day, with a few light raids by night. The Germans never employed straight, high-level bombing. Full use was made of the sun and any available cloud cover. The practice of feinting was used--starting to dive towards one objective and then turning to attack the real target.

Until the middle of March, with one exception, only JU 88's were used by the Germans. Later JU 87's were also constantly used. The JU 88's approached between 12,000 and 18,000 feet and came in at angles that varied between 30° and 60°, releasing their bombs at 6,000 to 9,000 feet, sometimes pulling out as low as 4,000 feet. Generally, the JU 87's dived very steeply, pulling out at the same height as the JU 88's. *
...
*At least in the bombing attacks on Malta, Germans showed the trait, observed in the last war, of doing the same thing at the same time every day. During the heavy raids it was normal routine to receive an attack of about 75 bombers soon after breakfast, a second at lunch time, and a third at about 6 in the evening. This regularity was found to be a great convenience. *


----------



## parsifal (Jan 30, 2010)

Thanks Davidicus

Makes me think the Ju88 was too heavy to operate as a true dive bomber in the sense of the Ju87. Basically, the greater the weight of the aircraft, the more stresses on the airframe. 

Also those dive speeds seem very high. I thought the reason for the great accuracy of the Ju87 was a combination of its slow dive speed and the steep angle of the dive


----------



## davebender (Jan 30, 2010)

I suspect that it true. However until the invention of better bomb sights which allowed accurate shallow angle bombing there was no choice. It's pointless to bomb at all unless you have a reasonable chance to hit the target.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 30, 2010)

Uhm, imo 50 to 60 degrees is easily qualify as dive bombing. That the Ju 87 could dive at steeper angles is a given.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2010)

parsifal said:


> So apart from not trusting English sources ( I dare not ask why, for your sake) why do you think the Germans had a viable torpedo force and the means to deliver it in 1939



oh can easily reply they aren't not reliable on not anglosasons things (obv. this is not true for all). i don't think they had a viable torpedo force in '39, and i never tell so, few torpedoes and little used. i think they have a working torpedo (F5b) in little number (76) with no/very few train on it and limited to seaplane unit.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 30, 2010)

But the more shallow the dive angle, the less accurate the bomb runs. And if the dive speed was 300-350 knots this would also have an adverse effect on the accuracy of the bomb runs.

Now, whether people choose to say the Germans did not have a viable torpedo force, or want to argue semantics and say that 76 torpedoes being delivered by a force of 20-30 planes still leads to the conclusion that the Germans lagged badly behind the Japanese in terms of their airborne torpedo technology, and despite quite massive efforts later in the war were never close to them (the Japanese) in terms of force effectiveness. 

Ive done some further research on Luftwaffe torpedo operations in 1940. 

The first operation use of airborne torpedoes by the Luftwaffe was in the Spanish Civil War. From mid 1936 a small number of Heinkel He 59 seaplanes served with the Seeflieger Gruppe AS/88 of the Condor Legion, operating from the island of Majorca. This unit was operational until the spring of 1939, and during this time launched a number of airborne torpedoes in combat. However due to problems with the LT F5 torpedo only one was successful. An attack on the British merchant ship Thropeness (4,700 GRT) which on the night of 21st July 1938 was entering the Spanish port of Valencia loaded with grain. At the time it was claimed by the Spanish Nationalists that this ship had been sunk by a mine.

By the start of WW2, the Seeflieger possessed 30 operational He 59s in four Staffeln. At this time the He 115 was starting to come into service, but due to the fragility of the LT F5 torpedo it couldn’t be carried, as the He 115 couldn’t fly slow enough, without stalling, to release the LT F5 torpedo successfully.
From October 1939 the few He 59s flew a limited number of torpedo operations against Allied shipping, but the only success recorded by He 59s using torpedoes in WW2 was the sinking of the British fishing steamer, Active (185 GRT) on the 18 December 1939.

In March 1940 with technical improvements to the LT F5 torpedo (including a new rudder) commenced, the He 115 B was earmarked for torpedo operations. The B subtype had some minor issues with carrying the 1600 lb torpedoes, since the original ETC racks were not rated to carry such a heavy load, and the chin mounted defensive armamanet tended to get in the way of the torpedo launches. These problems were addressed in the c-4 subtype, introduced from Spring 1941, which deleted the chin armamanet and strengthened the ordinance racks

It was intended to replace the He59 with the He 115, but this could not be done until the F5 torpedo was modified so that its launch speeds and heights were suited to the faster He 115. Though the redesigned torpedo was still far from outstanding, it was at least functional. The new mark of torpedo still required the He 115 to fly as slow and low as it possibly could, and even then failures were common, due primarily tio the weaknesses in the exploder that had been fitted.

Over the next few months due to limited available supplies of the torpedo (135 in March) few operations were undertaken. In July 1940 the only operational airborne torpedo Staffel ready for action was 3/Ku.Fl.Gr 506 based at Stavanger, to be followed by 1./Ku.Fl.Gr 106 from mid August based at Norderney

From August as other He 115 torpedo attack units became operational, combat sorties increased though the limited number of torpedoes available was always a problem ( in September the figure was down to 38 at one point)

The first successes of the He 115 units may have been the sinking of Llanishen (5,035 GRT) and the Makalla (6,680 GRT) of Convoy CA 203 in the Moray Firth on the 23 August 1940, but some sources put their loss down to bombs not torpedoes.

The first confirmed success of He 115 torpedo bombers was the sinking of the Remuera (11,445 GRT) by Ku.Fl.Gr 506 on the 26 August 1940.

Over the next 4 months until the end of the year the Luftwaffe used about 160 airborne torpedoes in operations against British shipping in Northern waters, Luftwaffe claims were high (one unit alone, 3./Ku.Fl.Gr 506 was credited with sinking 124,000 GRT) but when checked against British losses, Luftwaffe torpedo bombers probably sank a total of 7 or 8 Allied merchant ships of around 50-60,000 GRT in 1940.

During this period there were attempts to use both the He 111 and Ju 88 in the torpedo bomber role, but due to problems with inter service rivalry, and the LT F5 torpedo, none became operational in 1940. It would be late 1941 before the He 111 H-6 subtype and the Ju88 A17 torpedo aircraft were ready, and some months into 1942 before crews for these aircraft were proficient in their use. The Italians were generally ahead of the germans in the development of their torpedo squadrons. 

Source:
Luftwaffe Aerial Torpedo Aircraft and Operations in World War II, by Harold Thiele 

This whole discussion arose because people wanted to claim that the Germans had the capability to undertake all of the roles demanded of the Japanese air forces in 1941. Torpedo bombing was just one of the areas suggested that they could not have fulfilled. Clearly all this debate has shown that the germans were not up to undertaking a torpedo bombing role to anywhere near the proficiency displayed by the Japanese in their offensive operations. Until the latter part of of 1941, and in fact extending well into 1942, they possessed only a handful of operational airgroups, equipped with a torpedo not even close in terms of capability to the aerial torps being used by the Japanese at that time. Maybe they could have, but the fact is they didnt......as i said in my originall postings, each nation developed aircraft to suit the needs of their respective theares and operations they were carrying out


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2010)

Parsifal both good extract, this is not i'm agree with its, but H-6 was not the first 111 variant can load over 250 kg bombs extern, H-4 can load two 1000 kg load (this from manual in cockpitinstrument.de)


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 30, 2010)

The intelligence report regarding new flying restrictions was imposed to "reduce the loss of, or damage to, particular planes by overtaxing their capabilities." 


*The He-177 combines light elevator control with good elevator effect, but has a comparatively low factor of safety, with the result that wrinkling of the skin on the wings or wing failures may occur from careless flying. Permissible pull-out acceleration at the present time amounts to 2.3g with a flying weight of 27 tons, and crews are reminded that high stresses may be caused when pulling out of a glide at high speed, by sharply pulling up out of horizontal flight at any speed, and in steep turns or by strong vertical gusts at high speed. A warning is issued that the automatic pull-out apparatus can unintentionally cause a strain of over 2.5g by tail-heavy trimming before the release of the bombs, by pulling back on the control column at the time of the automatic pull-out if the centre of gravity lies too far to the rear, or when dive-bombing is done in very gusty air. In the latter case, speed should be reduced to 186 mph. The pilot must be trained to watch closely the air speed indicator and the acceleration warning apparatus during every pull-out.*

...
*
In the case of all aircraft of the Me-109 series, including the Me-109G, attention is called to the numerous accidents caused by wing breakages, resulting from strains induced by air speeds in excess of the permissible maximum limits. A notice is to be placed on all airspeed indicators in these aircraft.

Warning is also given against yawing in a dive, which under certain conditions leads to high, one-sided wing stresses which the wing tips cannot support. When yawing occurs, the dive is to be broken off gradually, without exercising force. Wing tips must be examined and checked frequently for signs of failures. When yawing is encountered during turning, correction must be made with the rudder only and not with the ailerons. Mention is also made of high-wing stresses caused by the unintentional unlocking of the landing gear especially the dropping of one side in a dive. It is stated that steps are being taken to prevent this. *


The report also discusses the directive to reduce the maximum permissible speed of the Fw-190. It did not go into specific structural liabilities as with the Me-109.
.
.
.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 30, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Parsifal both good extract, this is not i'm agree with its, but H-6 was not the first 111 variant can load over 250 kg bombs extern, H-4 can load two 1000 kg load (this from manual in cockpitinstrument.de)




Thankyou for the correction, and you are correct. Some sources state that some H-4s were converted to the torpedo role later in 1941, and that some H-5s were also converted in this way. No sources that I could find listed the first operational units earlier than October November 1941, though there were a couple that said He 111s were converted to torpedo roles in early 1941. I discarded these entries because of their non-specivity. Perhaps the aircraft became available, but time was needed to train the crews, in any event it was not until the latter part of 1941, that the first torpedo squadrons began deployment


----------

