# WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?



## Readie (May 20, 2011)

We have discussed the pros and cons of the allied bombers (and agreed to differ ) Lets look at the situation should the Luftwaffe have had the allied heavy bombers, escort fighters etc and 'we' had the German aircraft.
Given the resources of the Americans and ingenuity of the British would we have still won the war?

Starting with the Blitz....I'm not necessarily convinced that we would have won the BoB as the factories and airfields could have been totally destroyed. 

Could Japan have hit mainland America?

Being an island nation is always an advantage from the defence point of view.

What do you all think?
Cheers
John


----------



## davebender (May 20, 2011)

*Port of Liverpool Weekly Cargo Throughput.*
181,562 tons. Week ending 26 April 1941.
1 to 7 May 1941. 681 Luftwaffe bomber sorties attack the Port of Liverpool.
35,026 tons. Week ending 10 May 1941.

681 Luftwaffe medium bomber sorties reduced Port of Liverpool cargo throughput by 80%. Would it make a difference if Germany had enough bombers (heavy or otherwise) to continue the attacks every week? I think so.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 21, 2011)

No matter what bomber they had, they never had a fighter with enough endurance to escort them.


----------



## Readie (May 21, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> No matter what bomber they had, they never had a fighter with enough endurance to escort them.



But if the German's had had the likes of the P51?


----------



## ctrian (May 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> We have discussed the pros and cons of the allied bombers (and agreed to differ ) Lets look at the situation should the Luftwaffe have had the allied heavy bombers, escort fighters etc and 'we' had the German aircraft.
> Given the resources of the Americans and ingenuity of the British would we have still won the war?
> 
> Starting with the Blitz....I'm not necessarily convinced that we would have won the BoB as the factories and airfields could have been totally destroyed.
> ...


 
Ehm what was the He-177 a tactical bomber? When they got ~300 of them in operation in mid 1944 they realized one thing ...they didn't have enough fuel for them AND the rest of their fleet.Germany never had the fuel and industrial infrastructure to produce thousands of 4 engine bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> We have discussed the pros and cons of the allied bombers (and agreed to differ ) Lets look at the situation should the Luftwaffe have had the allied heavy bombers, escort fighters etc and 'we' had the German aircraft.
> Given the resources of the Americans and ingenuity of the British would we have still won the war?



That depends, In this scenario do the Germans also get the British, American, Canadian production capability or just the Allied aircraft designs or just German equivalents? 


Readie said:


> Starting with the Blitz....I'm not necessarily convinced that we would have won the BoB as the factories and airfields could have been totally destroyed.



Again, what are the conditions. DO the Germans get 1943 allied bombers (or german equivalents) to use in 1940 or do they get 1940 allied bombers (or German =) in 1940? 


Readie said:


> Could Japan have hit mainland America?



NO. or at least not without bases in Alaska

Being an island nation is always an advantage from the defence point of view.


----------



## Readie (May 21, 2011)

Just for the purpose of a discussion I imagined the scenerio where the Germans had the allies bombers instead of the ones they actually did have and the allied fighters to protect them. I know its all ifs and buts and easy to pick to bits.

Having seen pictures of Plymouth pre and post blitz we can be glad that the Germans only had the medium bombers they did have !

If no one wants to chew the cud then that's ok with me, the idea follows on from a discussion between Stanford Tuck, Galland and other notable fliers about given a change of aircraft etc whether the Germans could have prevailed.

There have been other discussions about the ultimate success of any German invasion of Britain.I choose my words carefully as the Romans invaded Britain but, never fully conquered.

Happy for a moderator to delete the thread if you consider it a blind alley.8)

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (May 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> Just for the purpose of a discussion I imagined the scenerio where the Germans had the allies bombers instead of the ones they actually did have and the allied fighters to protect them. I know its all ifs and buts and easy to pick to bits.
> 
> Having seen pictures of Plymouth pre and post blitz we can be glad that the Germans only had the medium bombers they did have !
> 
> ...



Just wanted to know the conditions. If the Germans get several thousand B-17Gs, and several thousand B-24s and several thousand Lancasters III's in 1940 and get thousands P-51C&Ds to protect them of course they win.

If, in 1940 they get a few hundred Wellingtons and a few hundred Whitleys and a few hundred Hampdens with a sprinkling of B-23s escorted by P-36s it becomes a rather different story. 

If you shift the time to, say 1943, to allow for the better bombers you also have to allow for the better defenses. Better radar, better radios, more AA guns Defensive fighters are Spitfire MK Vs and IXs, Typhoons, P-47s and Mustangs fighting over home ground. Baled out pilots back in the air in a day or two. Beaufighters and Mosquitoes for night fighters. 
In this scenario do the Germans also get the allied radar?

We have a thread on "what if" the Germans had pursued a different strategy (4 engine bombers).

Now maybe I am too narrow minded but while I enjoy a discussion on what was possible (4 engine vs twin engine bombers) when you start mixing times (1945 fighters in 1940) it starts to get silly.


----------



## davebender (May 21, 2011)

You don't need an escort fighter when bombing at night. Which is how the Luftwaffe attacked the Port of London during the fall of 1940 and the Port of Liverpool during May 1941.

Of course nothing prevents Germany from placing the long range Fw-187 into mass production as a bomber escort.


----------



## Readie (May 21, 2011)

'Now maybe I am too narrow minded but while I enjoy a discussion on what was possible (4 engine vs twin engine bombers) when you start mixing times (1945 fighters in 1940) it starts to get silly'

I too enjoy a discussion Shortround but, not an aguement over semantics.

I have obviously hit the wrong button with this thread.

Cheers

John


----------



## davebender (May 21, 2011)

It makes little difference whether the bombers are Whitleys or He-111s.

The key point is that Britain poured huge sums of money into building replacement aircraft and aircrew. Consequently RAF Bomber Command flew over 17,000 sorties at night during May to December 1940 while losing about 340 aircraft. The RAF
shrugged off the losses and just kept on bombing week after week. Give the Luftwaffe bomber force a similiar budget and they will keep on bombing week after week also.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 21, 2011)

Germany never had the infrastucture in place to replace big numbers of flight crew loses, it would take more than just money to correct that.
But in this fantasy I suppose that is magically corrected too.


----------



## davebender (May 21, 2011)

If you want the Luftwaffe to have an equivalent to RAF Bomber Command then the "Luftwaffe Bomber Command" must have a similiar level of funding. If they have the money then German infastructure will be built just as RAF Bomber Command paid to build infastructure.


----------



## syscom3 (May 21, 2011)

I think the outcome in Russia might have been a bit different if the LW could hit the factories in the Urals.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> I too enjoy a discussion Shortround but, not an aguement over semantics.
> 
> I have obviously hit the wrong button with this thread.
> 
> ...



Sorry if I came on a bit strong but maybe the 'button' instead of being wrong was too big? 

Some people ask the question "what was the best fighter of WW II?" Now in a war that was 6 years long and considering the progress made during the war the list gets short real quick. The fighters coming into use in 1945 make the list and everything else doesn't. One might as well ask "what was the best late war fighter" or "what was the best fighter of 1945?" because the list of candidates would be about the same. 

Sort of the same thing applies to this question. Of course if the Germans are "given" 1943-45 bombers and fighters vs an allied 1940 defense things are going to be much different but "give" the Allies 1943-45 bombers and fighters in 1940-41 vs 1940-41 German defenses and the early British bomber offensive would be much different also. 

If you want to propose a "second" BoB or blitz in 1943 or 44 based on the idea that Russia collapsed or something, allowing the Germans to concentrate on the west using bombers of similar capabilities to the British-American bombers that might be worth discussing. My narrow mind can play "suspend disbelieve" somewhat but the time travel bit for one side pushes it over the edge. 
Discuss "what if" the Germans had more resources and built 4 engine bombers in 1939-40 and used drop tanks on the 109 or had a Me 209 with bigger wings and more internal fuel or what ever.

Right now we seem to be discussing (or not discussing) "What if" the Germans had 4 engine bombers with turbochargers and multiple gun turrets armed with fast firing .50 cal mg and night bombers with 1400-1600hp engines with power gun turrets and blind bombing radar and 1600-2000hp escort fighters with big fuel tanks and batteries of .50cal mgs and/or 20mm cannon vs 1940 allied 1000-1300hp fighters armed with eight .303s.
Or discussing how much better such a force would have done compared the historical twin 1000-1200hp engine bombers armed with a handful of manually aimed 7.9 mgs and escorted by small 1100hp fighters and big 3 seat twins with 1100hp engines. 
Considering the allies didn't get such bombers or fighters until several years after the BoB it seems rather obvious that that such a major change in the capabilities and/or balance of forces would make a major change.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> I think the outcome in Russia might have been a bit different if the LW could hit the factories in the Urals.



I was thinking the same thing, but I think the Russians would have just moved the factories back further.


----------



## davebender (May 21, 2011)

How many aircraft did RAF Bomber Command have as of June 1941?


----------



## tyrodtom (May 21, 2011)

The allies or soon to be allies arms rebuilding increase in the late 30s was in response to the arms buildup they saw occuring in Germany.
If you're going to magically advance the Luftwaffe into B-17s and P-51s, seems like it could only be fair to apply the same magic to the allies, B-36s, P-80s, Mig 9s, etc.


----------



## davebender (May 21, 2011)

World War 2 Bombers


> In July 1941 Bomber Command had 732 operational bombers


----------



## Readie (May 21, 2011)

"Sorry if I came on a bit strong but maybe the 'button' instead of being wrong was too big? 

Some people ask the question "what was the best fighter of WW II?" Now in a war that was 6 years long and considering the progress made during the war the list gets short real quick. The fighters coming into use in 1945 make the list and everything else doesn't. One might as well ask "what was the best late war fighter" or "what was the best fighter of 1945?" because the list of candidates would be about the same. 

Sort of the same thing applies to this question. Of course if the Germans are "given" 1943-45 bombers and fighters vs an allied 1940 defense things are going to be much different but "give" the Allies 1943-45 bombers and fighters in 1940-41 vs 1940-41 German defenses and the early British bomber offensive would be much different also. 

If you want to propose a "second" BoB or blitz in 1943 or 44 based on the idea that Russia collapsed or something, allowing the Germans to concentrate on the west using bombers of similar capabilities to the British-American bombers that might be worth discussing. My narrow mind can play "suspend disbelieve" somewhat but the time travel bit for one side pushes it over the edge. 
Discuss "what if" the Germans had more resources and built 4 engine bombers in 1939-40 and used drop tanks on the 109 or had a Me 209 with bigger wings and more internal fuel or what ever."

Right now we seem to be discussing (or not discussing) "What if" the Germans had 4 engine bombers with turbochargers and multiple gun turrets armed with fast firing .50 cal mg and night bombers with 1400-1600hp engines with power gun turrets and blind bombing radar and 1600-2000hp escort fighters with big fuel tanks and batteries of .50cal mgs and/or 20mm cannon vs 1940 allied 1000-1300hp fighters armed with eight .303s.
Or discussing how much better such a force would have done compared the historical twin 1000-1200hp engine bombers armed with a handful of manually aimed 7.9 mgs and escorted by small 1100hp fighters and big 3 seat twins with 1100hp engines. 
Considering the allies didn't get such bombers or fighters until several years after the BoB it seems rather obvious that that such a major change in the capabilities and/or balance of forces would make a major change.



Point accepted Shortround.

May I explain why I posted the thread...

I talking to the in-laws about the blitz in Plymouth when they were children and how the evacuation and destruction affected people at the time and more poignantly how the much vaulted post war dream failed to be delivered in the rebuilding of Plymouth.

This led me to wonder what would have happened *if* the Germans had had bombers with the capacity of Lancasters et al and whether Britain could have withstood the onslaught.

Maybe this isn't the right forum to speculate on such matters and anyone would be quite to say it doesn't really matter anyway as the German's had the aircraft they had.

Time to move on methinks...

Cheers
John


----------



## davebender (May 21, 2011)

Axis Order of Battle for Operation Barbarossa
65 x Do-17Z. KG2
36 x Do-17Z. KG3
24 x He-111H. KG4
86 x He-111H. KG53
87 x He-111H. KG27
84 x He-111H. KG55
31 x He-111H. KG26
…………………………..
413 total German level bombers supporting Operation Barbarossa.

So...
In this scenerio I assume 413 German medium level bombers would be replaced by at least 600 heavy level bombers. A nice strength increase.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 21, 2011)

A force of 600 4-engined bombers would've required 2400 engines, compared with 826 used by historical bomber force. Meaning almost 1600 more engines built, say, in six months prior Barbarossa? We can compare that with ~750 single-engined Bf-109 taking part in the operation. A major mobilisation of German industry would've been required to produce such bomber force, at least to say.


----------



## ctrian (May 21, 2011)

davebender said:


> Axis Order of Battle for Operation Barbarossa
> 65 x Do-17Z. KG2
> 36 x Do-17Z. KG3
> 24 x He-111H. KG4
> ...


 
Are you sure about those stats? I get 829 2-engine bombers in 24 June'41 .Source: Luftwaffe Data Book.


----------



## Hop (May 21, 2011)

> The key point is that Britain poured huge sums of money into building replacement aircraft and aircrew. Consequently RAF Bomber Command flew over 17,000 sorties at night during May to December 1940 while losing about 340 aircraft. The RAF
> shrugged off the losses and just kept on bombing week after week. Give the Luftwaffe bomber force a similiar budget and they will keep on bombing week after week also.



The Luftwaffe bomber force was larger and flew a lot more sorties than that. About 15,500 night sorties in October, November and December 1940 alone. In total about 33,000 night bomber sorties during the 8 month Blitz.



> Are you sure about those stats? I get 829 2-engine bombers in 24 June'41 .Source: Luftwaffe Data Book.



The Ju88 is missing from the figures. Whilst you can argue it was a dive bomber, I believe it was mostly used as a level bomber.


----------



## davebender (May 21, 2011)

So are some RAF aircraft such as the Beaufighter. I'm trying to compare level bomber strength.


----------



## Messy1 (May 23, 2011)

No, because Germany still would lack control of the sea.


----------



## Milosh (May 23, 2011)

davebender said:


> So are some RAF aircraft such as the Beaufighter. I'm trying to compare level bomber strength.


 
The Beaufighter is a bomber?


----------



## bobbysocks (May 23, 2011)

control of the sea didnt help britian with norway. the blockade didnt fair too well against the bombers. the US had a pretty decent fleet in the pacific and less than 200 aircraft negated them. owning the sea does you no good if you dont own the skies overhead and if your adversary can do that you are in a world of hurt.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2011)

Japan needed entrenched and defensible bases in Mexico or west coast to threaten US industrial strength in NE with B-29s, much less so with B-24s.. of course reducing west coast takes out much US fighter and bomber production by and of itself.


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> the US had a pretty decent fleet in the pacific and less than 200 aircraft negated them. owning the sea does you no good if you dont own the skies overhead and if your adversary can do that you are in a world of hurt.


 
True on December 7, 1941 - never true after that - simply because the Japanese quickly lost control of the skies from mid 1942 onward.


----------



## Readie (May 23, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> control of the sea didnt help britian with norway. the blockade didnt fair too well against the bombers. the US had a pretty decent fleet in the pacific and less than 200 aircraft negated them. owning the sea does you no good if you dont own the skies overhead and if your adversary can do that you are in a world of hurt.


 
What about the Battle of the Atlantic?
Fighting the U boat menace in the mid Atlantic winter storms was a challenge for the Royal Navy aided with a few CAM's to deal with the FW Condors but, the real fighting was on and under the ocean.

By the end of the war, German U-Boats in the Battle of the Atlantic had sent over 2,900 ships and 14 million tons of Allied shipping to the bottom of the sea. In exchange, the Allies sank almost 800 U-Boats and over 30,000 of the 39,000 German sailors who put to sea, never returned – the highest casualty rate of any armed service in the history of modern war. 

During the early war, German U-Boat successes against British and American shipping were so remarkable, that on January 1943, the Allies issued a decree in Casablanca which made the defeat of German U-Boats a number one priority. Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister of Britain was most noted in his speech summarizing the German U-boats and the Battle of the Atlantic as "The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril". 

Grand Admiral Karl Donitz, commander of the German U-Boat force understood the potential of the submarine’s unconventional ability, and believed Germany could fight a naval power like Great Britain, and win. He was the only officer in the German High Command who viewed that victory in the Battle of the Atlantic could only be achieved by German U-Boats, and such a victory would lead to an early conclusion of the Second World War. Others did not share his view and held the notion that big guns and the unsinkable battleship was key for control of the high seas. 

In fighting for supremacy in the Battle of the Atlantic, the Admiral was proven right, as the super battleships of Germany such as the Bismarck and Graf Spee had only made headlines as being hunted down and sunk by the Royal Navy, while the German U-boats continued to inflict heavy losses on Allied shipping. The most famous element of the Battle of the Atlantic was the “Wolf Pack”, or Rudeltaktik as the Germans called it. It had brought such devastation on the high seas and was based mainly upon the works of the Admiral. 


Cheers
John


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (May 23, 2011)

The thing is though is that Germany wouldn't have been able to achieve the same amount of air power that the Americans and the British (with American help) had. Germany lacked the resources to construct these very large four-engine bombers which is why they focused on the procduction of twin engine bombers; 1 four-engine bomber equals 2 twin-engine bombers. When talking about the BoB, the Luftwaffe was actually very close to winning the Battle; switching from military to civilian targets would be the main cause for losing the battle.

It was possible for the Germans to create a long-range fighter but the problem was that not a lot of focus was put into fighters in the early stages of the war. The Bf 110 was quickly created without any true planning and throughout the rest of the war, German fighter pilots would almost always be outnumbered. It was only until 1943-44 that fighter production was dramatically increased. But by then, the Luftwaffe lacked a sufficient amount of fuel and experienced fighter pilots.

To be honest I think that, other than an insufficient fighter force, the Luftwaffe was an effective fighter force. Sure the blitzkrieg had many problems, but for the most part it proved to be very effective. Plus it made it much easier for the Luftwaffe to impact the war. The Ju 88 was a fantastic aircraft; simple and versatile. The Ju 87 was devastating in the ground attack and tank-busting role (and could have been even more if it had more fighter protection). And the Fw 190, which gave itself a reputation of a tough, mean fighter with great multi-functionality.

The main places I would say that the Luftwaffe needed some serious work on was to have the majority of the Luftwaffe combrised of mostly fighters (the Germans frequently used heavy fighters like the Bf 110, Me 410, and particularly Ju 88C all of which proved to be effective in the fighter-bombesr, train-busters, and to a certain extent ground attack aircraft). Increase the production of the Do 217 which although was a pain, was the closest thing that the Luftwaffe had to a heavy bomber; one that carried a very good defensive armament. And not postpone or slow down the Me 262 project; if everything had gone smoothly, the Me 262 could have entered service as early as 1943.


----------



## Freebird (May 24, 2011)

Readie said:


> We have discussed the pros and cons of the allied bombers (and agreed to differ ) Lets look at the situation should the Luftwaffe have had the allied heavy bombers, escort fighters etc and 'we' had the German aircraft.
> Given the resources of the Americans and ingenuity of the British would we have still won the war?
> 
> Starting with the Blitz....I'm not necessarily convinced that we would have won the BoB as the factories and airfields could have been totally destroyed.
> ...



No, it wouldn't have had much effect, other than a drain on German resources.



davebender said:


> You don't need an escort fighter when bombing at night. Which is how the Luftwaffe attacked the Port of London during the fall of 1940 and the Port of Liverpool during May 1941.



Indeed, but night bombing produced very poor results vs losses in 1940 - 1941.
A British report (Butt Report) in the summer of 1941 found that only 10% of the bombers which reported attacking the Ruhr bombed within 5 miles of the target.
On the whole, the British night bombing from June 1940 - June 1942 was very costly for poor results. 

While it was easier to attack ports, the Germans would still need to fly many hundred miles over Britain (to Liverpool, Glasgow, Bristol, Belfast etc) while dealing with British radar equipped defences. 



syscom3 said:


> I think the outcome in Russia might have been a bit different if the LW could hit the factories in the Urals.



It's unlikely in the extreme that they could ever find the blacked-out factories in the middle of a Siberian (or Ural) forest, after flying 1,000+ miles with no geographical markers.



davebender said:


> How many aircraft did RAF Bomber Command have as of June 1941?



About 500 - 600 or so. They had just over 1,000 for Operation Milennium (Cologne) on 30/31 May 1942, but only by using some Training Command aircraft.



In the final analysis, would it make much difference? No

If Germany produced similar heavy bombers that the British did, it would be swapping Ju88's (4 crew, 7 - 8,000lb bombs, 1,400 mile range) for something similar to Short Stirlings (7 crew, 14,000 lb bombs, 2,300 mile range)
This is likely what the He177B would have been, had it not had design engine problems, and not been intended as a dive bomber.

Not really much savings in crew or fuel. The greater ranges of the British "heavies" was useful to the British to bomb Germany from the UK, but not as important for Germany. (with nearer French bases)

The big downside is that the German mediums were much more useful in ground attack army support missions, compared to the British bombers. This was vital to the LW, as it was able to switch it's bombers to the Eastern front.


----------



## davebender (May 24, 2011)

IMO swapping Ju-88A dive bombers for Short Sterling level bombers would just make things worse for Germany. The Luftwaffe would lose most of their precision bombing capability.

Swapping He-111 level bombers for Short Stirling level bombers makes more sense. Bombing accuracy is similiar but the Stirling has twice as much payload. 

*Short Stirling I*
Short Stirling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
11,800kg payload (Max take off weight minus empty weight).

*He-111 H6*
Heinkel He 111 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5,320kg payload.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 24, 2011)

Germans might have loved to have just He 111H-6 for the Battle of Britain instead of the H-1 through H-4 they actually used. The difference being the H-6 used Jumo 211F engines which were only introduced on the last of the H-4s. The majority of the He 111s used in the summer of 1940 used Jumo 211D engines (some planes might still have had Jumo 211A's) with 240-300hp less for take-off depending on who you believe, with proportionately less power at at altitude. take-off rpm was 200rpm lower than the later "F" engine and they used a different supercharger. One source (war time) gives a maximum HP of 975hp at 2300rpm at 4,500meters for a "B" series engine which wasn't much different than a "D" and still in use in the summer of 1940. I would imagine that operating planes with 15-20% less take off power than the H-6 would impact their operational capabilities.


----------



## Readie (May 24, 2011)

You take no account of the psychological effects of bombing.
The Zeppelin raids in WW1 caused pandemonium and the Blitz caused damage but, also enraged the general public.
My contention is that the level of infrastructural damage and psychological terror is exponential to the tonnage of bombs delivered.
Cheers
John


----------



## davebender (May 24, 2011)

19 million tons of food was imported vie the Port of Liverpool. Keep the port closed and Britain will have something more important to worry about then "psychological terror".


----------



## Freebird (May 24, 2011)

Readie said:


> You take no account of the psychological effects of bombing.
> The Zeppelin raids in WW1 caused pandemonium and the Blitz caused damage but, also enraged the general public.
> My contention is that the level of infrastructural damage and psychological terror is exponential to the tonnage of bombs delivered.
> Cheers
> John



Actually the level of terror _decreases_ over time, as the shock value wears off.



davebender said:


> 19 million tons of food was imported vie the Port of Liverpool. Keep the port closed and Britain will have something more important to worry about then "psychological terror".


 
Not unless they could close all the other ports as well.
British imports fell from 50 - 60 million tons pre-war to about 28 million tons in 1942, so there was more port capacity than ships available.

What makes you think that swapping He111's for Stirlings would be any more effective?
It's about 250 - 300 miles to Liverpool, well within reach of all German bombers.
The Stirling has twice as many engines, 7 crew vs 4, probably uses twice as much (or more) fuel resources to put in the air, for twice as much bomb tonnage.

The Germans could still only deliver the same tonnage of bombs over the UK, so no real difference, *unless* they wanted to divert production manpower from other areas, such as fighters, U-boats or Panzers. (bad idea)


----------



## Readie (May 24, 2011)

U boats very nearly won the Atlantic battle. That was the only WW2 concern that Churchill had lose the Atlantic conveys and Britain was in as spot of bother.

With respect, I disagree about the shock wearing off over time. Consider that no country can be be bombed all over all the time and 'who's next' when you all know what's coming with firestorm's etc is hardly conducive to good public morale.
The harder the hit, ie the bigger the bomber payload, the more fear is generated.
Dresden was carefully selected for an incendiary attack , the Dam Busters was planned for maximum effect and so were the mass RAF USAAF raids on Hamburg and were all a success.

Now, back to original point, *if* the Luftwaffe had been able to deliver these blows with heavy bombers or more medium bombers would Britain have been able to take the punishment?

Or, *if* Japan had been able to deliver these blows to you Americans how would that have been received?

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (May 24, 2011)

The Germans would have needed to deliver a lot more than they did. An awful lot more. 

I don't want to get into a debate about national courage or fortitude but the German civilians certainly stood up to much worse than the British received as a whole as did the Japanese. A few large Russian cities stood up long sieges/bombardments lasting over months. Individual blocks or city sections may have been equally hard it all those countries but Germany and japan had more sq mileage and more civilians killed by far. 
The pre-war theories of mass panic in the streets caused by a few hundred bombers were shown to be bunk. People lost homes, businesses, family members and even their own lives, civilians in many nations paid a terrible price due to bombing raids but only in Japan did bombing alone (or nearly alone)bring a nation to surrender. and that took hundreds of bombers of double the capacity of the bombers used in Europe against a defense of less effectiveness than used in Europe plus the submarine campaign plus atomic bombs. 

In addition to fear there was a lot of revenge being motivated. People stood up to bombing better if they thought the bombers were being hurt. Shot down by AA fire or interceptors. Or that the bombers bases and homeland were being bombed, or at least could be bombed in the not too distant future. 

while individuals may have broken (and everyone has a different breaking point) the populations as a whole did not break. At least not until the infrastructure was such a wreck that it didn't matter. If the morale doesn't really crack until the power to the run the factories is no longer there and the road/rail transportation system no longer can get raw materials to the factory or finished goods away from the factory does it really matter if the morale cracked or not? 

The Japanese had exactly ZERO chance of mounting a bomber campaign against the United States that would accomplish anything. 

Unless they could base out of Mexico or Canada. Give them 1000 B-29s and Hawaii and all they could do would be to tick off the west coast.


----------



## Readie (May 24, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The Germans would have needed to deliver a lot more than they did. An awful lot more.
> 
> I don't want to get into a debate about national courage or fortitude but the German civilians certainly stood up to much worse than the British received as a whole as did the Japanese. A few large Russian cities stood up long sieges/bombardments lasting over months. Individual blocks or city sections may have been equally hard it all those countries but Germany and japan had more sq mileage and more civilians killed by far.
> The pre-war theories of mass panic in the streets caused by a few hundred bombers were shown to be bunk. People lost homes, businesses, family members and even their own lives, civilians in many nations paid a terrible price due to bombing raids but only in Japan did bombing alone (or nearly alone)bring a nation to surrender. and that took hundreds of bombers of double the capacity of the bombers used in Europe against a defense of less effectiveness than used in Europe plus the submarine campaign plus atomic bombs.
> ...


 
Well said Shortround,
The general effect of the German Blitz was to stiffen British resolve. 
The bomber campaign had its seeds in the British desire to 'hit back at Germany' however suicidal the mission proved to be.
Cheers
John


----------



## davebender (May 25, 2011)

> What makes you think that swapping He111's for Stirlings would be any more effective?


Greater bomber payload means fewer bombers are required to get the job done. Unless the Stirling was such a fuel hog that all the additional payload was to carry fuel.


----------



## syscom3 (May 25, 2011)

What about the LW having several B17 type heavy bomber groups in 1941; some based in Crete for night activities to bomb the Suez and other British targets in Egypt. And a couple based in North Africa to do the same to Gibraltar. How does that impact British operation in the Med? Enough to force the collapse of Malta? Add to the RN losses? Maybe even disrupt British activities in Libya to the point they give up?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2011)

Ah, what kind of B-17s? 1943-44 B-17Gs in 1941 or 1941 B-17C&Ds in 1941? A few squadrons of radar equipped Beaufighters should put a halt to any low level (under 20,000ft) night bombing shenanigans in the summer of 1941.


----------



## davebender (May 25, 2011)

> few squadrons of radar equipped Beaufighters should put a halt to any low level (under 20,000ft) night bombing shenanigans in the summer of 1941.



1 to 7 May 1941.
681 Luftwaffe bomber sorties struck the Port of Liverpool.

Historically how many of those Luftwaffe night bombers were shot down by radar equipped Beaufighters?


----------



## syscom3 (May 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Ah, what kind of B-17s? 1943-44 B-17Gs in 1941 or 1941 B-17C&Ds in 1941? A few squadrons of radar equipped Beaufighters should put a halt to any low level (under 20,000ft) night bombing shenanigans in the summer of 1941.


 
The Germans were quite competent in aircraft technology to develop their own heavy bombers. Read what I said . "B17 type". That is not saying to build duplicates.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 26, 2011)

Well, that does simply things for the Beaufighters, no turbos so the Germans are not going to be flying too high. Also more time spent in range of the AA guns. 

The Germans were certainly capable of building their own equivalents if they wished but that also means they are 'stuck' with what they could accomplish in the year/s in question. No power turrets for defense. Not so important for night bombers I grant you. 7.9mm mgs and 20mm FF cannon pretty much for guns. The 1941 German engine altitude capability mentioned above. 

1941 bombing aids?

It doesn't matter if they are German bombers or exact copies of the equivalent B-17s, what does matter is that the capabilities of a 1943-44 bomber are not the same as a a 1941 bomber and the results expected, even in a "what if" should reflect that.


----------



## davebender (May 26, 2011)

The German decision to employ dive bombers and low altitude level bombers has nothing to do with lack of turbochargers. German bombers were expected to hit the target and that cannot be accomplished from 30,000 feet using iron bombs.


----------



## Readie (May 26, 2011)

davebender said:


> The German decision to employ dive bombers and low altitude level bombers has nothing to do with lack of turbochargers. German bombers were expected to hit the target and that cannot be accomplished from 30,000 feet using iron bombs.


 
The Germans employed Blitzkrieg tatics in the early part of the WW2.This involved lightning strikes with Stuka's and medium bombers basically supporting the army's advance.History shows how successful this tatic was.
The German bomber offensive against Britain was damaging but,did not have the desired effect of defeating us.
The Luftwaffe never had a 'bomber command' in the way that the RAF and latterly the USAAF had, they never saw the need for one as most of the battles were over land and it was only the 'Blitz' on Britain that brought out the shortcomings with the bomber type aircraft the LW had available.
It true to say that the LW never gained the upper hand again in WW2...gave us a run for our money on occasions but, never dominated in the way that Goering had boasted they would.
Cheers
John


----------



## Messy1 (May 26, 2011)

If you consider the war to be over had Germany been able to defeat England, than possibly. My main point was that if Germany had heavy bombers, they still would not have the high seas fleet in enough numbers to combat the US or England. Heavy bombers would take the fight further and further into England, but then what would Germany do about the US and it's Navy, and also the royal Navy as well. Germany did not have carriers, nor a carrier capable airplane, dive bombers, etc. to take the fight to the US. Nor would they be able to match industrial output of the US, nor be able to to reach the mainlands of the US in enough number to be able to halt, or even disrupt that production. Just the addition of a heavy bomber would not have won the war for Germany.


----------



## davebender (May 26, 2011)

Germany had no dispute with the USA that I am aware of. If Britain quits the war there is unlikely to be a war between Germany and the USA.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 26, 2011)

Germany had no dispute with the USA ??

You seem to be forgeting in the real world Germany declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor. Just because Germany had heavy bombers doesn't necessarily mean Britain would have been defeated before Dec. 7 ,1941.


----------



## Messy1 (May 26, 2011)

I strongly believe a war between the US and Germany was inevitable, just as inevitable as war with Japan was. We believed stong enough in supporting England that we risked our sailors and ships transporting goods in support of England. Are we just going to concede all of Europe and Great Britain to Germany if they managed to defeat the UK? I highly doubt it.


----------



## Readie (May 26, 2011)

Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an interesting article showing America's stance in the early years of WW2.
America and Britain were closer culturally in those days and I agree that it was unlikely that the Americans would have stood by and let Hitler win.
Cheers
John


----------



## Freebird (May 26, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The Germans would have needed to deliver a lot more than they did. An awful lot more.
> 
> I don't want to get into a debate about national courage or fortitude but the German civilians certainly stood up to much worse than the British received as a whole as did the Japanese. A few large Russian cities stood up long sieges/bombardments lasting over months. Individual blocks or city sections may have been equally hard it all those countries but Germany and japan had more sq mileage and more civilians killed by far.
> The pre-war theories of mass panic in the streets caused by a few hundred bombers were shown to be bunk..



Great post Shortround (as usual!)



davebender said:


> Greater bomber payload means fewer bombers are required to get the job done*. Unless the Stirling was such a fuel hog * that all the additional payload was to carry fuel.



Yes they were.
The Stirling is about 20,000 kg empty, vs about 9,000 for the He111.
So to get a heavy bomber with double the payload of the He111, you use twice as many engines, twice as much strategic materials (which were in short supply) and at least twice as much fuel. I'm pretty sure at least twice as much labour. 

So a bigger bomber doesn't really help you.



syscom3 said:


> What about the LW having several B17 type heavy bomber groups in 1941; some based in Crete for night activities to bomb the Suez and other British targets in Egypt.



Its about 450 - 500 miles from Suez to Crete or Rhodes, well within range of Ju88 or He111. Did they ever try to bomb the canal?

I think it would be almost impossible to hit the canal at night, and even if they got a lucky hit to damage the canal, it wasn't a critical transportation link like Panama was



> And a couple based in North Africa to do the same to Gibraltar.



Not much chance to hit anything bombing Gibraltar at night, and day bombing without escort would probably result in high losses.
The French also bombed Gibraltar, with little effect.

What would be the purpose of the raid?
Night bombing is unlikely to do much damage to the defences. 
The analysis of the bombing of the attack on Pantelleria in 1943 with pinpoint daylight bombing by 14,000 bombs only destroyed 10 of 80 guns. (with 33 more temporarily knocked out)

You might be able to damage the runway, but all of the hangers were under the rock. However, bombing the runway runs the risk of killing Spanish civilians in the adjacent town.



> How does that impact British operation in the Med?



Not that much I think.
By the time that Gibraltar could be neutralized, neither the Germans nor Italians have much naval strength to make passage into/out of the Med a possibility.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2011)

TyroT - While I don't disagree I also don't support your thesis - rational decisions are made based on value and probability (the evaluator perception). So, switching aircrew focus from fighters, Panzer crews, sub crews, etc.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2011)

Parsifal - I might have to take exception that destruction of Suez wasn't as important as Panama. The US had the ports to deploy from west to west and east to east had panama gone down. 

IF GB wanted to go east they had only one short time avenue (Suez) to bypass a long trip around Africa . Had they (LW) expended the resources to cripple Suez, and deployed woldpacks on the west coast of Africa, they could dramatically alter logistics from GB to the Commonwealth.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 26, 2011)

Germany's decisions don't appear to have been rational, but seeing as how Hitler had the final say on so many decisions, that's not a surprise.

They staked everything on WW2 being a short war, put a lot of advanced projects on the back burner. Too many Nazi were working too hard to please Hitler, and realized too late that the common sense things they needed to do to win the war, and satisfying the fuehrer, was often different.

I'll paraphrase a famous statement made by Goring in, I think the late 30's " The fuehrer doesn't ask me how big my bombers are, he ask how many bombers I have."

To get these magical 4 engine bombers, you'd also have to apply the same magic to the Nazi hierarchy's mindset, all the way to the top.


----------



## Hop (May 27, 2011)

The Suez canal is rather difficult to "bomb" as it has no locks. All a bomb is going to do is change the shape of the bank. 

The Germans did drop mines in the canal. The British countered by putting nets over the surface so that they could see where a mine had gone through, and by using divers to walk the bottom of the canal looking for mines. 



> IF GB wanted to go east they had only one short time avenue (Suez) to bypass a long trip around Africa .



Once Italy entered the war the Med was pretty much off limits for convoys. Nearly all British shipping went around Africa.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (May 27, 2011)

Bombing the Suez is academic.
There were much bigger battles to be fought and won.
Cheers
John


----------



## stan reid (Jun 16, 2011)

According to a TV program I viewed, (It may have been _Wings of the Luftwaffe_ on the History Channel) the German aircraft that flew the mission to within sight of New York City and returned was the six-engine Blohm Voss BV 238 flying boat.


----------



## Erich (Jun 16, 2011)

in a word NOPE ! history channel has it wrong.......again. BV 238 was only in the prototype stage and never flew operationally. the ehaviest a/c in the world at the time supposedly how far do you think it could travel; ? ...............well not far enough


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jun 16, 2011)

according to wiki, it had a range of 7,200 km. yikes!


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 16, 2011)

It's about 6000 km from Brest, France, to N.Y. City.


----------



## stan reid (Jun 16, 2011)

As per HC, (or whatever channel it was on) they refueled once mid-ocean from a U-boat.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 16, 2011)

stan reid said:


> As per HC, (or whatever channel it was on) they refueled once mid-ocean from a U-boat.


 
Those guys sure had big brass ones if they did! Planning a mission using an expensive limited production aircraft that involves a mid North Atlantic landing at sea to refuel is for crew that expect to die. I think I saw the same program you did. I don't think it was presented as fact, at most it was presented as possibly happening or a plan never really more than a slim possibility.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 16, 2011)

Landing a flying boat on the open ocean is almost impossible, except in the most calm of conditions. I doubt this ever happened.

Having said that I have seen a photo of a Japanese single engined float plane landing in the arctic, in the open ocean, in the wake of the seaplane tender, which is moving through light floating ice. The Japanese had the most advanced float plane force throughout the war, and unlike much of the rest of their air force, retained an experienced cadre of pilots. To undertake a mission like that took exceptional courage, and luck


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 16, 2011)

It think landing in the wake of a ship was a common Seaplane technique. If I am not mistaken American capital ship scouts practiced this as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2011)

In a book I have at home about the "Amerika Bomber", they talk about this supposed mission of the Bv 238 to within sight of New York. My understanding from the book, the mission was planned to see if it would be possible, but was never undertaken. According to the book, U-Boots were planned for refueling. The idea was to use the plane to Bomb New York. As I said though the mission never took place (If I recall the book correctly, it might be time to read it again. ).


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 17, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In a book I have at home about the "Amerika Bomber", they talk about this supposed mission of the Bv 238 to within sight of New York. My understanding from the book, the mission was planned to see if it would be possible, but was never undertaken. According to the book, U-Boots were planned for refueling. The idea was to use the plane to Bomb New York. As I said though the mission never took place (If I recall the book correctly, it might be time to read it again. ).


 
If I recall correctly the TV program may have mentioned that the risks involved were to be balanced against the terror of a raid using what is now called a "dirty bomb". By bombing at night, the U.S. would be forced divert significant resources to air defense and evacuate people, and critical industry and administrative functions from irradiated areas. Again this is if I am recalling this show correctly. I too may have read something years ago Adler. Its funny how these threads trigger old memories both clear and hazy.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 17, 2011)

So the Germans had 2 a/c that flew to New York.

Btw, the Bv238 was sunk in Sept 1944 by Lt Urban Drew.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 17, 2011)

Milosh said:


> So the Germans had 2 a/c that flew to New York.


 
I am confused by your statement. I don't think they had any aircraft that actually flew to New York during the war. I believe Drew was flying a Mustang when he sunk the Bv238, is that correct?


----------



## Readie (Jun 17, 2011)

Big
Blohm Voss Bv 238 Flying Boat - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft

Better
Boeing 314 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting threads. Some of these are new to me.

Flying Boat Aircraft

WW2 Japanese Fighter Aircraft

There was a Catalina that used to make landings in Plymouth sound on airshow days. an impressive sight to say the least.

Cheers
John


----------



## psteel (Jun 20, 2011)

In 1936 Hitler redirected the German rearmament drive. Up until this point the strategy was a long-term programme geared towards fighting a lightning war for a couple of years backed up with total war capability after this. The foundation upon which the LW was created in the mid 1930s ,was to be a force of 400 multi engined strategic bombers to be used as a deterrents force against neighbors countries. The initial capability was formed with the rapid redesign of the fleet of Lufthansa Ju-52 planes into bombers as an interim measure. 

This was to be replaced by a purpose designed 20 ton , 4 engined bomber at the end of that decade. This was to be either the Do-19 or the Ju-89, with a follow on bomber which became the He-177. Parallel with this was the development of a 7 ton schnell bomber capable of bombing carrying a 1000kg load 2000km at speeds of 500kph and was better than the Me-110 as a long range escort fighter....which was to be the original design for the Ju-88.

However about the time all this was to come together, Hitler redirected the war effort into an enlarged army to be ready for a limited war at the end of the decade. Hitler was convinced a total war capability was not needed. To meet the new target of over 100 land divisions plus the Westwall by the end of the 1930s, both the German navy and air force were sacrificed in the process. 

The Multi engined bomber was scrapped and the Ju-88 was redesigned into a 12 ton medium slant bomber, since that was the only way Goering could keep up with Hitler’s constant demands for more. The construction of all navy warships was also delayed a year in the process, while the army had to shelve their plans for more Panzer divisions and the motorization of the Heer as well, in order to meet Hitler’s constant demands for more.

Once the war began the overriding logic of needs of an ongoing developing totalwar took over and much that was possible was scrapped. Reportedly 1/2 of the planned navy capital ships were scrapped along with the prewar mobilization surface fleet inorder to meet Hitlers demand for more and more Uboats, inspite of the fact that prewar wargames showed the Uboat offensive would fissle out within a couple of years without surface fleet to back it up and massive LW support.

The demands for massive investment in expanding the ammunition industry , when the war began put an end to any plans for mobilization of the Heer . But Hitlers constant ADD approach to prioritizing armaments programms meant little 'economy of scale' could be brought into the armaments programmes in general so cost per weapon remained high, further limiting armament programmes. 

The costs of building barraks plus training and equipping millions of men in arms , consumed the bulk of the defense budget spending for years to come.LW planning had to make do with slow production of existing designs, while the bulk of all next generation special weapons were all shelved.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I am confused by your statement. I don't think they had any aircraft that actually flew to New York during the war. I believe Drew was flying a Mustang when he sunk the Bv238, is that correct?



Yes Drew was in a Mustang.

A Ju390 was supposed to have flown to within sight of New York City.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 20, 2011)

Milosh said:


> A Ju390 was supposed to have flown to within sight of New York City.


 
Most of us do not believe that actually happened.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 20, 2011)

My take on this is that however you divide the German cake up the underlying fact under all of these 'what if....' discussions is that Germany simply did not have the resources to operate a large heavy bomber force anything like that which the allies had.
Not if they are going to do the other stuff they did too.
They just do not ever have the fuel to operate them along with their fighters etc etc (they actually built a lot of He 177s many if not most of which appear to have done very little) or enought of the properly trained crews to fly them.

I suppose one might wonder what a small-ish well trained force of properly developed Do17/Ju90's might have achieved in the BoB had they been able to mount heavier attacks the UK's aircraft factories, oil refining, national transport and power production assets but the list of targets required to hit to create severe sustained dislocation, nationally, is so huge that I don't think it makes much odds either way - and it has to be remembered that the window of opportunity is small, from 1941 the UK's advantage in radar intelligence (especially Ultra) is always going to be a major 'force multiplier'. 
One only has to look at how Germany did not instantly fall to pieces after so many of those enormous night day bomber raids to see it would most likely be no quick solution to anything for them.

I can imagine a heavy enough simultaneous attack on the Russian power plants (Operation Dynamo, IIRC) had it happened at an opportune time (say a few months before the Stalingrad disaster) might have led to a more desperate situation for the Russian with Stalingrad perhaps falling something like Kursk being impossible for the Russians.
But even then (political possibilities aside) I don't really see this as doing anything but dragging out the horror of the eastern front further.
I just don't see (again politics aside) any way Germany can defeat hold Russia, not if the Russians retreat into their vast interior to regroup.....at all times aided helped by the UK USA in material intel.

Mind you, I do have a history book which talks about Stalin "offering to negotiate with Hitler in Dec 1942 and again in summer 1943" which I have not seen elsewhere, but the book is by Paul Johnson and some might say he can be a little unreliable, in terms of being politically neutral.
So perhaps a forced political halt to hostilities might have been possible, if only for a time.


----------



## Readie (Jun 20, 2011)

Gixxerman;795262
Mind you said:


> I have read books that imply any cessation of hostilities with Herr Hitler would have only lasted as long as it took the Nazi's to defeat the rest of Europe and /or the Communists to gather themselves for an assault on the territory they wished to acquire.
> In truth we needed the Russians to grind down the Germans more than the Russians needed us....
> Cheers
> John


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2011)

Hello
Drew didn't sunk the Bv 238, he sunk a big French flying boat, Latecoere Late something.

Juha


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> I have read books that imply any cessation of hostilities with Herr Hitler would have only lasted as long as it took the Nazi's to defeat the rest of Europe and /or the Communists to gather themselves for an assault on the territory they wished to acquire.
> In truth we needed the Russians to grind down the Germans more than the Russians needed us....
> Cheers
> John



I think you're right John, it would have been incredibly cynical.
But given the looming German technical advances a years pause on the eastern front might have dragged it all out for a lot longer than it took.
I'm actually more surprised Stalin would have allowed that to happen as late as '43 but I guess nothing looked certain until much later (although Stalingrad was a huge defeat for Hitler they did have Kharkov soon after to give the Russian serious pause for thought).


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 22, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello
> Drew didn't sunk the Bv 238, he sunk a big French flying boat, Latecoere Late something.
> 
> Juha


 
This of course could be wrong, but this is from wikipedia:

"The sole completed BV 238 was strafed and sunk while docked on Schaal Lake in September 1944 by three P-51 Mustangs of the 361st Fighter Group. Named "Detroit Miss", the lead Mustang was piloted by World War II ace Lieutenant Urban "Ben" Drew, and another was piloted by William D. Rogers. This represented the largest single aircraft to be destroyed during the war.
Drew was told after the raid that he had destroyed a BV 222 Wiking (another large flying boat). He continued to believe this was the case until he was contacted by the BBC in 1974 for a documentary, and told that their research had determined that the aircraft he had destroyed was actually the BV 238 V1, undergoing flight tests at the seaplane base at Schaal Lake."

What source do you have stating "he sunk a big French flying boat, Latecoere Late something"?


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2011)

Hello
my source was an article on the subject in a Aeroplane Monthly maybe 10 years ago, the writer had done fairly good research on the subject and had also contacted Drew who, after seeing the evidence admitted that his victim was the big French flyboat not Bv 238. It was simply misidentification on the part of Drew, after all he was first identified his victim as Bv 222.

Juha


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

Gixxerman said:


> I think you're right John, it would have been incredibly cynical.
> But given the looming German technical advances a years pause on the eastern front might have dragged it all out for a lot longer than it took.
> I'm actually more surprised Stalin would have allowed that to happen as late as '43 but I guess nothing looked certain until much later (although Stalingrad was a huge defeat for Hitler they did have Kharkov soon after to give the Russian serious pause for thought).


 
It may be cynical, but we supplied the Russian's through convoys giving them supplies we could ill afford and, I think I'm right in saying, the Russians never formally acknowledged. We desperately needed the Russians to engage the Germans to give us a breathing space.
You are right about advances too...within a year the Germans could have perfected the V2, Jet fighters etc.

Footnote.
Churchill was one of the great cynics.

Cheers
John


----------



## wuzak (Jun 22, 2011)

Gixxerman said:


> They just do not ever have the fuel to operate them along with their fighters etc etc (they actually built a lot of He 177s many if not most of which appear to have done very little) or enought of the properly trained crews to fly them.



It would have been interesting if the Germans had got their aviation steam turbines working, which could be run on anything that burns, basically.

There were at least two projects - the Junkers turbines, rated at 3000hp, that were being worked on in the first half of the war, but cancelled in 1942, and the later 6000hp turbines being developed for the Me264 from about 1944, and designed to run 70% coal dust/30% petrol..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 22, 2011)

We seem to act as if Germany was the only ones with advanced projects that just needed more time to develope.

America had the ultimate advanced project, and the means to deliver it, and did exactly that, just a few months after Germany surrendered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> We seem to act as if Germany was the only ones with advanced projects that just needed more time to develope.
> 
> America had the ultimate advanced project, and the means to deliver it, and did exactly that, just a few months after Germany surrendered.


 
Hooray. You are right and we had the Mr Whittle beavering away with the Jet engine too.
What else was on offer?
VW, we turned that down ( big mistake)
Rockets, you encompassed that knowledge into NASA.
Two stroke engines, BSA used that for the Bantam.

Ummm.... you guys get rocket technology and we get a two stroke motorcycle engine.
You couldn't write the script 
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 22, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello
> my source was an article on the subject in a Aeroplane Monthly maybe 10 years ago, the writer had done fairly good research on the subject and had also contacted Drew who, after seeing the evidence admitted that his victim was the big French flyboat not Bv 238. It was simply misidentification on the part of Drew, after all he was first identified his victim as Bv 222.
> 
> Juha


 
Thank you. That is very interesting. I shall look into this when I have time and keep an open mind. Any one else heard this about Drew and the French Flying Boat?


----------



## rank amateur (Jun 22, 2011)

According to A. Prices "last year of the luftwaffe" KG 200 used some Lioré et Olivier 246's, a pretty big plane but I can't imagine anyone mistake this with a Bv 222. Shame I can't supply a pic.


----------



## psteel (Jun 22, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> We seem to act as if Germany was the only ones with advanced projects that just needed more time to develope.
> 
> America had the ultimate advanced project, and the means to deliver it, and did exactly that, just a few months after Germany surrendered.


 
"Nessecity is the mother of invention"


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 23, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> We seem to act as if Germany was the only ones with advanced projects that just needed more time to develope.
> 
> America had the ultimate advanced project, and the means to deliver it, and did exactly that, just a few months after Germany surrendered.


 
Well, as much as I agree that that seems a general attitude I think it's only fair to say that here lots of people are very well aware that the allies also had some incredibly advanced stuff in their labs too.

From the bomb to the T28 super heavy tanks to advanced radar to jets (including axial flow jets) and not forgetting the huge impact the proximity fuse had (and would have had if things had gone on much longer) the allies had pretty much everything Germany had.
Physics not being owned by any nation.

The 2 exceptions, I think, being the V2 large liquid fuelled rockets and the V1 cruise missile.

Allied AAA coupled with proximity fuse seems to have drastically curtailed the V1's impact (although it was incredibly cheap, £125 a time being mentioned).
But I can recall reading that allied strategists were actually happy to see Germany devote such huge resources on the V2 because at that cost and with only a 1000kg warhead it was a hugely expensive means to achieve very little.
Obviously that would all have changed had they been able to put an atomic bomb on the tip but even if Germany did get the bomb in time in those days it would have been vastly more weight than the 1000kg the V2 could carry.

The reason why I mentioned a delay and what might have come was really in regard to the eastern front, as that would have been where a truce, or more likely pause, would have occurred.
The Russians also had their effective spy rings so how much they would have found things like say several hundred/thousand V1s lobbed in their direction a surprise and one they had no counter to is open to question.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 23, 2011)

The V1 never had the range to threaten anything vital in Russia, and wasn't accurate enough to target supply points, munition or fuel depots.

The Russians probably could have just ignored them.


----------



## psteel (Jun 23, 2011)

http://chapters.scarecrowpress.com/08/108/0810857766ch3.pdf

"operational research", norden bomb site, cep - Google Search

down load [PDF] "Precision Guided Munitions: History and Lessons for The Future" ; Kaufman


I read these two files it appears that the USA did have access to guided munitions designs prewar, but were so convinced of the soundness of surgical strategic bombing that they opted for what they believed was the cheaper option. Predictions in 1940 were that Japan and German industry could be reduced to ashes in 6 months.

The Germans on the other hand had the Spanish Civil war experience to show them the limitations of level bombing and instead invested in Dive Bombing in the short term and guided muntions in the long run. However as with most such programmes the war got in the way and on going development was suspended until after Stalingrad when Hitler finally seems to have gotten the point that they 'might be' loseing the war.


----------



## Readie (Jun 28, 2011)

psteel said:


> http://chapters.scarecrowpress.com/08/108/0810857766ch3.pdf
> 
> "operational research", norden bomb site, cep - Google Search
> 
> ...


 
Interesting informative. Thanks for posting it.

Hitler should have taken the hint earlier in WW2..when he remarked "Failure has had the healthy effect of once more compressing Italian claims to within the natural boundaries of Italian capabilities''
With axis allies like the Italians the game was up.

Cheers
John


----------



## Juha (Sep 7, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> According to A. Prices "last year of the luftwaffe" KG 200 used some Lioré et Olivier 246's, a pretty big plane but I can't imagine anyone mistake this with a Bv 222. Shame I can't supply a pic.



According the Shores' Thomas' 2nd TAF Vol 4 the a/c Drew destroyed was the 6-engined Potez-CAMS 161 proto.

Juha


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 19, 2018)

Dunno how I stumbled on this thread, but I might as well chuck in my two cents. John's question is not a bad one. The Germans certainly had the technology that, had it been applied in a more cohesive way, could have had a more positive outcome for the Nazis. Thankfully, their own approach let their side down, though not for lack of trying. At the outbreak of WW2 the Germans had the best and largest aerial reconnaissance capability in the world, and with its development and use of radio navigation and bombing aids, potentially the most accurate bombing force. Both these capabilities were squandered during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. The use of navaids for bombing out the centres of cities like Coventry were a waste of a superb capability - the RAF would not adopt such sophistication for another couple of years after Coventry, and it didn't take the British long (in the scheme of things) to come up with a deterrent, but this didn't detract from how clever the German equipment was. Had the Luftwaffe been more succinct and targetted industrial sites from the outset, the results might have had a far worse impact on the war for the British.

This is where reconnaissance comes into the picture. The German resources that Theodore Rowehl and Canaris of the Abwehr had assembled was very effective, including having overflown and taken photographs of just about every pre-war military installation in the country, but Britain's use of radar meant that anything entering British airspace was able to be tracked almost immediately, intercepted and shot at. Putting it succinctly, during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, the Germans had little opportunity to quantify the results of their bombing raids, which made determining how well they were doing very difficult. This meant they had to rely almost solely on what the bomb aimers and pilots were telling them to gauge their raids' effectiveness, which naturally allowed for error, and gave an uneven and inaccurate picture of the strategic situation. Obviously, there were breakthroughs that meant aerial recon assets got through, such as the quest for speed and altitude - the Ju 86P and the Ar 234, but ultimately fixes for these were found with high flying interceptors and in the Arado's case, ending the war (!), but jet interceptors were around the corner in wartime Britain by 1945.

The denial of the use of aircraft over Britain throughout the rest of the war, with a co-ordinated and effective air defence network in place against them, as well as the dawning realisation that neither the British, Americans or Russians were going to relent as the war wore on led the Germans to take a different approach, hence the V weapons. There was little the Allies could have done to prevent the V 1 and V 2 campaigns that they historically didn't do. The V 1 and V 2 programmes were set back by bombing and interdiction campaigns throughout their development. The V 1s could be caught in flight, but their biggest problem was that they were terribly inaccurate and it is arguable that they consumed resources that should have been spent elsewhere and that this meant the whole V 1 campaign was a waste of time, effort and resources with little practicable result for the Germans. The same could be argued regarding the V 2 campaign, but for the fact that it was unstoppable once launched and was truly an advanced terror weapon with enormous potential. Again however, the use of resources dedicated to the programme certainly advanced technology - the V 1 could have been designed and built by any country with its own aviation industry - it was not very advanced, but militarily the V 2 campaign was misguided for several reasons, not least was that by the time the V 2 offensive began, Germany had neither the resources nor the time left to launch an offensive with weapons that might have resulted in an outcome it sought, in hindsight of course.

Technology was not the Germans' problem, it was the attempted attaining of unachieveable strategic goals - see Ops Sealion and Barbarossa, for example, and the material waste that these entailed, as well as a general underestimation of their enemies. The one thing we can be thankful for is that the Nazi hierarchy was what it was; there was much infighting, currying of favour and general lack of knowledge of the strategic situation for various reasons. This all induced a level of chaos at a managerial level that meant that focus was lacking and those who knew better of a lesser rank were ignored.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Mar 19, 2018)

The Luftwaffe was limited by fuel and the Allies were not. This underlies all.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2018)

yulzari said:


> The Luftwaffe was limited by fuel and the Allies were not. This underlies all.



The Germans were limited by fuel in two ways.

The allied bombing campaign would have been very different if the allies had been limited to 87 octane fuel. 
Any talk of German long range massive bombing campaigns has to be looked at in that light. 
Less efficient engines (from a power to weight ratio) means heavier engines in given gross weight aircraft which means fewer bombs per aircraft sortie. 
Which goes back to the German lack of fuel in general. More German sorties to carry the same amount of bombs as the allies carried while facing the German lack of fuel?

As examples the B-17 and B-24 would not have worked with 87 octane fuel. The take -off power would have been several hundred HP less per engine and the engines would not have made the power at altitude that they did. This could be "solved" by fitting R-2600 engines but they weigh about 500-600lbs more per engine and that weight has to come out of the gross, either fuel or bombs. 
British bombers with 1375HP Hercules engines?
Merlins limited to 6lbs of boost? (or a bit more?) 

Germans _might _have speed up development of the DB 603 but that is a 1900-2000lb engine and not a 1400-1500lb engine so you have the same problem. 
Lets remember it is the 30 minute or 1 hour rating that counts with bombers. You have to get off the runway and climb to operational heights. 5 min sprint ratings don't work. 

Hundreds more sorties to drop the same tonnage of bombs when you don't even have enough 87 octane fuel for 100hp trainers is not a way to win a war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Germans were limited by fuel in two ways.
> 
> The allied bombing campaign would have been very different if the allies had been limited to 87 octane fuel.
> Any talk of German long range massive bombing campaigns has to be looked at in that light.
> ...



German engines were making very useful level of power on 87 oct fuel, be it for take off, or long-time (30 min) climb, or economical cruise. They certainly don't need DB 603 to equal power and payload of most of Lancasters, Halifaxes or Stirlings. A 34-42 liter engine chioce has it's strong sides vs. a 27-36 liter engine choice.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2018)

when?
The 601s were pretty much under 1000hp for 30 minute ratings.
The 601N needed 96 octane.
The 605 makes decent power but doesn't show up until 1942???
and the 605 gained about 100 kg in weight over the 601? 

Please remember that it takes time for these large fleets of bombers to show up.
The B-17 is a special case in that it took years of dribs and drabs before production was started in earnest but it took until late summer of 1942 for the 1000th B-17 to be built, the last 500 in about 4 months.
It took from the end of 1940 until early summer of 1942 to build the first 500 B-24s but the next 500 showed up in 3-4 months. It helps if you have 3-5 factories making an airplane. 

When is this German super-bomber designed and around what engines? 

Some of the early British 4 engine bombers with early engines weren't really all that good. Halifax Is with Merlin X engines, Short Stirling Is with Hercules II engines (1375hp for take-off) Later Mk Is got 1500hp Hercules Xis and the MK IIIs of 1943 got 1635hp Hercules VI and XVIs. 

Lets make sure we are comparing the same capabilities.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> when?
> The 601s were pretty much under 1000hp for 30 minute ratings.
> The 601N needed 96 octane.
> The 605 makes decent power but doesn't show up until 1942???
> and the 605 gained about 100 kg in weight over the 601?



30 min rating:
DB 601Aa - 950-1050 PS from SL to 4 km (1940)
DB 601E - 1200 PS or better from SL to 4.9 km (mid 1941)
BMW 801A - 1470 PS at 1 km, 1300 PS at 4.5 km (mid 1941)
Jumo 211B - 1000 PS at 2 km, 920 PS at 5 km (early 1940)
Jumo 211F - 1200 PS at 2 km, 1060 PS at 5.2 km (early 1941), 211J from early 1942 is 
Re. weight increase - the 'no free lunch' rule applies as always.



> Please remember that it takes time for these large fleets of bombers to show up.
> The B-17 is a special case in that it took years of dribs and drabs before production was started in earnest but it took until late summer of 1942 for the 1000th B-17 to be built, the last 500 in about 4 months.
> It took from the end of 1940 until early summer of 1942 to build the first 500 B-24s but the next 500 showed up in 3-4 months. It helps if you have 3-5 factories making an airplane.
> 
> When is this German super-bomber designed and around what engines?



I don't recall suggesting anything like 'super bomber'. I will suggest a normal, plain vanilla 4 engined bomber, designed around Jumo 211 engines, since they are in best supply in 1940-41.



> Lets make sure we are comparing the same capabilities.



Yes, lets do it


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 19, 2018)

psteel said:


> http://chapters.scarecrowpress.com/08/108/0810857766ch3.pdf
> 
> "operational research", norden bomb site, cep - Google Search
> 
> ...


Do remember that the USMC first started dive bombing in 1928, and the USN and USMC were quite adept. The USAAC/USAAF also had dedicated dive bomber units in service, e.g., those flying the A-36A or A-24. Germany most certainly was not the only practitioner of dive bombing -- the USMC, USN RN/FAA, and others had dive bomber units and used dive bombing. Just ask the crew of the _Königsberg._


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> 30 min rating:
> DB 601Aa - 950-1050 PS from SL to 4 km (1940)
> DB 601E - 1200 PS or better from SL to 4.9 km (mid 1941)
> BMW 801A - 1470 PS at 1 km, 1300 PS at 4.5 km (mid 1941)
> ...



Thank you. 
1st point is that in order to have, say, 500 4 engine bombers for the BoB in Aug of 1940 Production would have had to start in the summer of 1939 with the engines available in the summer/fall of 1939. Yes some of the last ones made could have engines from spring/summer of 1940.
Same for Russian campaign. 500 bombers for May/June of 1941 means production starting in the spring/summer of 1940 with engines available at that time. 
500 bombers for the spring/summer of 1942 follows the same path, production starting in the SPring/summer of 1941 with available engines. 

Some people seem to want 500-1000 bombers to pop into existence on a certain date _ALL _with the latest and greatest engines and guns. 
didn't happen for the Allies, wasn't going to happen for the Germans.

2nd point, the 4 engine German was only a "super bomber" in comparison to Do 17s, He 111 Ps and early Hs, The H-O and H-1 having Jumo 211A-1 engines and these _started _leaving the production lines in the summer of 1939. Also early JU-88s. 

3rd point, forgetting about decrease in German twin engine bombers. 
What are these things supposed to do? 
I have said it before, The He 111 can cover most of France from German bases, it can hit south east England from German bases and hit Scotland and Ireland from French/Belgian bases. Nothing you can build short of a B-29 is going to work in Russia. It is further from Berlin to Moscow than from London to the Polish/ Russian border. Forget the Urals. Even from Stalingrad it is almost beyond the ability of many ALlied four engine bombers to make a round trip. And planning bombers with idea you operate them from hundreds of miles inside enemy territory 1-2 years in the future is a big gamble. Yes the US did it with the B-29.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2018)

The thing about four engine bombers is that every one that gets lost is another four engines. By the time of the BoB the LW had passed its peak strength it couldn't keep pace with loses even with twin engine bombers.


----------



## Propellorhead (May 14, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The thing about four engine bombers is that every one that gets lost is another four engines. By the time of the BoB the LW had passed its peak strength it couldn't keep pace with loses even with twin engine bombers.









With four engined bombers the safety of altitude may have negated losses





early MARK-l Spitfire K9795


Equipped with say two dozen JU-89 every British port could have been blocked by sunken hulks in the first week of hostilities preventing re-supply of the UK.


*Tactical advantage of the Ju89*

German use of high altitude aircraft

The JU-89 could easily have bombed factories by daylight at 23,000ft whilst the guns of early Spitfires froze & jammed at 15,000ft altitude. whilst later Spitfires eventually did get heated guns, this Did not entirely prevent guns jamming. Galitzine’s attempt in in September 1942 to shoot down a JU86P with a specially modified Spitfire still resulted in guns jamming and an uncontrollable spinning Spitfire. Swap a defenceless JU86P for a Ju89 with a tail gunner & just imagine it.



Galitzine’s attempt in in September 1942 to shoot down a JU-86P at high altitude with a highly modified mark V Spitfire in which his guns jammed five times, tends to prove the JU89 would have been an elusive quarry in the opening weeks of the BoB against early 8 gun Mark l Spitfires





early MARK-l Spitfire K9795

Early Spitfires would have suffered frosted canopies much less, frozen guns






The JU-89 was roughly equivalent to the Shorts Sterling. The JU89 would have ruled uncontested in UK skies if used early in the Battle of Britain.


----------



## Propellorhead (May 14, 2020)

yulzari said:


> The Luftwaffe was limited by fuel and the Allies were not. This underlies all.


There were significant oil fields producing in Germany through the war not to forget Romania too. Oil shortages began in 1944 with determined US bombing of refineries.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 14, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> The JU-89 could easily have bombed factories by daylight at 23,000ft whilst the guns of early Spitfires froze & jammed at 15,000ft altitude. whilst later Spitfires eventually did get heated guns, this Did not entirely prevent guns jamming. Galitzine’s attempt in in September 1942 to shoot down a JU86P with a specially modified Spitfire still resulted in guns jamming and an uncontrollable spinning Spitfire. Swap a defenceless JU86P for a Ju89 with a tail gunner & just imagine it.






Someone's left the keys of the Ubermench koolaid cupboard out again!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Propellorhead (May 15, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Someone's left the keys of the Ubermench koolaid cupboard out again!



utterly uncalled for personal insults , debate the issue , not the person

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 15, 2020)

Don't take it personally mate, not meant as an attack, but to comment on your post, it is just so blindly unrealistic that it's laughable.

The Ju 89 could not reach the same altitudes as the Ju 86P - the example that held the altitude record was not a standard bomber fitted out as such. Not only that, RAF guns did _not _all freeze at 15,000 ft and the Ju 89 was sloooooow. Slower than an He 111. Spitfire Mk.Is and IIs were easily capable of exceeding 300mph at 30,000 feet and the Ju 89's maximum altitude was just under 23,000 feet (according to Wikipedia), so bearing this in mind, I can easily guess the result.

Take a look at this assessment of a Spitfire Mk.I against a Bf 109E for confirmation of performance:

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

There is no evdence at all that the outcome would have been any different to what it was during the Battle of Britain had the Luftwaffe put the Ju 89 into service. Remember that the Germans lost as much as the British won - their tactics were flawed and the British had many advantages to their tactics that won over at the end of the day - a four engined bomber would not have made much of a difference to the outcome.

Since you've mentioned the Spit Mk.V versus the Ju 86 in September 1942, let me also remind you that a Spitfire V intercepted and shot down a Ju 86P at an altitude of 42,000 ft over Cairo a month earlier. Also, by that time the first Spit Mk.IXs and HF.VIIs with pressurised cockpits had entered service and they had two-speed, two-stage superchargers fitted to their Merlins, which meant they could not only reach the Ju 86's altitude but they could intercept them. Let's not forget that although no Ju 86Ps were shot down over Britain, the LW stopped operations over the UK in 1943 because the Ju 86s _were_ being intercepted. Also, the number they had was so small they could never launch any type of meaningful offensive, nor could they determine exactly how much damage was being done with single aircraft raids from altitude. The higher you are, the more diffcult it is to put a bomb where you want it.

And you mention the Ju 89 with a tail gunner at altitude? Did he have a pressure suit? Was the entire aircraft pressurised (I know it wasn't)? How did his gun stop from freezing over? Is the entire thing a fabrication based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation? Quite probably.

It's clear you have relied solely on that one paper for your assessment and that it omits several key details surrounding the story shows in your write-up. It pays to use more than one person's slightly biased assesment of a particular situation as your basis of logic when applying hypotheticals to a known situation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> utterly uncalled for personal insults



And to clarify, it isn't a personal insult, but a commentary on your statement.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Propellorhead (May 15, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Don't take it personally mate, not meant as an attack, but to comment on your post, it is just so blindly unrealistic that it's laughable.
> 
> The Ju 89 could not reach the same altitudes as the Ju 86P - the example that held the altitude record was not a standard bomber fitted out as such. Not only that, RAF guns did _not _all freeze at 15,000 ft and the Ju 89 was sloooooow. Slower than an He 111. Spitfire Mk.Is and IIs were easily capable of exceeding 300mph at 30,000 feet and the Ju 89's maximum altitude was just under 23,000 feet (according to Wikipedia), so bearing this in mind, I can easily guess the result.
> 
> ...



The entire thread invites speculative discussion of varying opinion however by your protest that there is no proof of a diffent outcome to WW2 you have stepped outside the spirit & intent of this thread to police the opinions of people with different view points from your open and done so by means of personal attacks. totally boorish behaviour
Speed is irrelevant if fighter guns don't fire at 23,000ft altitude


----------



## Propellorhead (May 15, 2020)

When the Luftwaffe dropped the Ju89 FROM ITS Ural bomber competition. Junkers turned to Japan to salvage their investment. The third Ju89 prototype was partially completed when the Ural bomber project stalled in 1937. This aircraft was rebuilt as an airliner, retaining wings and tail from the original design but incorporating a new, wider passenger-carrying fuselage.







The problem facing Japan at this time was that Hitler did not wish to embroil Germany in the Sino-Japanese War attached conditions to the export of military equipment to Japan. It was also stipulated all exports to Japan must be paid in full in foreign currency before goods were exported. These limitations however still did not prevent the export of civil airliners.
[Source]: Japanese-German Business Relations: Co-operation and Rivalry in the Interwar by Akira Kudo






A little known fact is that Japan wanted to order the JU89, but intentionally completed as JU90 airliners so that Mitsubishi could reinstate them at their Mitsubishi fatory in Harbin to the bomber role as the Ki-90 bomber. Specifically he deal involved a proposal for Manshukoku National Airways to acquire ten Ju90 aircraft powered by DB 600Cengines & operate the Ju90 on a non-stop route over Russian airspace between Harbin and Berlin. The deal would be paid for by the export of Soy Beans from Manchukuo. For the Ju90's redesign, 30 technicians from the Imperial Japanese Army and 20 from Mitsubishi were to be selected and dispatched. Furthermore a Ju90 production line would be tooled up in Harbin. Stalin however mistrusted the deal and opposed their delivery flights.

Manshukoku National Airways however did acquire several JU86 airliners on a similar premise


----------



## at6 (May 15, 2020)

Having read many of the comments, if Germany had built an air force similar the the U.S. Air Force, it would have been quit possible to change the outcome of the war. Long range bombers would have been able to take out Soviet factories in the Urals and beyond. The Battle of Britain could have had a different outcome had Hitler realized just how near the bottom the RAF was. By not concentrating of Fighter Command Air Fields, Goering totally screwed up.


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> View attachment 581393
> 
> 
> With four engined bombers the safety of altitude may have negated losses
> ...


Early Spitfires guns jammed that's why they introduced a ducted heating system. The JU 89 service ceiling was 23,000 ft, 25,000 ft was patrol height during the Battle of Britain. If you are talking high altitude you need to be discussing 40,000ft+, from that height you are lucky to hit a city let alone individual ships moored in ports. The British stopped using the Channel ports before the Battle of Britain got properly started. The UK has a huge number of ports, to think about putting them out of action with a couple of dozen bombers is fantasy, the same goes for factories. To reach extreme altitude Spitfires had everything stripped out and extended wing tips fitted. Some even had the radio taken out and were flown in pairs so the one with the radio could guide the other into visual range. The Germans had to do the same with their recon aircraft, the Ju 86 may have got to 42,000 feet, it was not carrying enough bombs to wreck a port or factory when it did so. These articles are masterpieces of omission and confused incidents and time lines. There is another that "proves" that half the people killed in London in 1940 died because of British defensive fire, based on reports and events in 1938 and 1917.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> View attachment 581393
> 
> 
> With four engined bombers the safety of altitude may have negated losses
> ...





nuuumannn said:


> Someone's left the keys of the Ubermench koolaid cupboard out again!





Propellorhead said:


> utterly uncalled for personal insults , debate the issue , not the person





nuuumannn said:


> And to clarify, it isn't a personal insult, but a commentary on your statement.





Propellorhead said:


> The entire thread invites speculative discussion of varying opinion however by your protest that there is no proof of a diffent outcome to WW2 you have stepped outside the spirit & intent of this thread to police the opinions of people with different view points from your open and done so by means of personal attacks. totally boorish behaviour
> Speed is irrelevant if fighter guns don't fire at 23,000ft altitude



Relax everyone. Play nice. Quit bickering. All of you.


----------



## Propellorhead (May 15, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Early Spitfires guns jammed that's why they introduced a ducted heating system. The JU 89 service ceiling was 23,000 ft, 25,000 ft was patrol height during the Battle of Britain. If you are talking high altitude you need to be discussing 40,000ft+, from that height you are lucky to hit a city let alone individual ships moored in ports. The British stopped using the Channel ports before the Battle of Britain got properly started. The UK has a huge number of ports, to think about putting them out of action with a couple of dozen bombers is fantasy, the same goes for factories. To reach extreme altitude Spitfires had everything stripped out and extended wing tips fitted. Some even had the radio taken out and were flown in pairs so the one with the radio could guide the other into visual range. The Germans had to do the same with their recon aircraft, the Ju 86 may have got to 42,000 feet, it was not carrying enough bombs to wreck a port or factory when it did so. These articles are masterpieces of omission and confused incidents and time lines. There is another that "proves" that half the people killed in London in 1940 died because of British defensive fire, based on reports and events in 1938 and 1917.



I am not posting about the Ju86, I am posting about the Ju89!

23,000ft is high altitude especially against early Mark l or Mark ll Spitfires, before the Mark lX, which appeared Feb 1942, Spitfires couldn't fight anything above 15,000ft,

Spitfires patrolled at 25,000ft, to allow them to gain speed with a dive on their quarry. It did not mean their guns worked at 25,000ft!


*No Luftwaffe bomber needed altitudes of 40,000ft until late 1942. *

Modification 420 provided additional heating for Browning guns," but it was only applied to the Mark IIb & Vb, Mod 420 only went into production from 6-2-42; until 20-8-42, Modification 666 introducing gun heating was applied to the type IX, From 26-1-43, mod 710 "To blank off hot air exits and the extractor of both outer gun bays on Mk.Vb aircraft" went into service, followed fairly swiftly (5-2-43) by 741 "To introduce a branch pipe in the gun heating system to prevent overheating of ammunition" again on the V & VI, with no sub-Marks indicated; this was matched by mod 88 on the Seafire Ib & IIc.






*My claim still stands, no Spitfire ever appeared with heated guns before September 1942 so the JU89 would have been invincible over the UK 1939-1942*

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> I am not posting about the Ju86, I am posting about the Ju89!
> 
> 23,000ft is high altitude especially against early Mark l or Mark ll Spitfires, before the Mark lX, which appeared Feb 1942, Spitfires couldn't fight anything above 15,000ft,
> 
> ...


You can claim all you like, you don't seem to realise what the word "additional" means in your post. The Battle of Britain took place at altitudes up to 25,000 ft, the Ju 88 had an operational ceiling of 29,000ft and that was not "invincible" at any time during the war. You may need another diagram that includes the 20mm cannon which started to be fitted experimentally in 1940 and as standard in 1941. The Spitfire Mk 1 had a service ceiling of 32,000 ft, I really love the idea that for three years of the war the British used it unarmed above 15,000ft and you are the person to realise the mistake in Germanys strategy.
Concise Guide To Spitfire Wing Types — Variants & Technology | Reference
The original wing design, the basic structure of which was unchanged until the arrival of C type wing in 1942. The only armament able to be carried was eight .303-calibre Browning machine guns with 300 rounds per gun.

The one major alteration made to this wing soon after production started was the incorporation of heating for the gun bays to prevent the guns from freezing at altitude. Open structures around the gun bays were blocked off and ducting, drawing hot air from the back of the radiators, was added to the wings. The heated air was exhausted through underwing vents, covered by streamlined triangular blisters, just inboard of the wingtips.

The Spitfire Society - Technical - Spitfre | The Spitfire Society
It was soon discovered that simple changes to the ejector exhausts from simply blowing out to the side to being directed back would increase speed. The exhausts evolved from round outlets to fishtail in appearance which also had the bonus of reducing exhaust glare during night flying. These changes resulted in harnessing the exhaust gases provided an additional 10mph or 70 horsepower. The exhausts alongside forward facing intake ducts were used to heat the guns in the wing which were prone to stoppages at altitude as a result of the colder temperature, and superior to the earlier heating from the engine coolant radiator.


----------



## Koopernic (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> When the Luftwaffe dropped the Ju89 FROM ITS Ural bomber competition. Junkers turned to Japan to salvage their investment. The third Ju89 prototype was partially completed when the Ural bomber project stalled in 1937. This aircraft was rebuilt as an airliner, retaining wings and tail from the original design but incorporating a new, wider passenger-carrying fuselage.
> 
> 
> View attachment 581406
> ...




Without extreme good luck at the beginning of the war the Germans nor axis in general didn't have the resources to win the war unless someone provided them with the equal of lend lease. Imagine them not having to build thousands of Panzer III/IV tanks and being given Shermans, imagine not building Ju 52 and being given the much faster longer ranged DC3/C54 consider what a thousand P39 or P40 might have been used for in the low altitude role, imagine being given Liberator and Catalina patrol aircraft plus a few hundred B25. Having a design doesn't mean having the resources to make them. The Italians had some good designs, including 4 engine bombers with remotely powered guns, but lacked the ability produce large numbers. (Italy lacked not only oil but coal as well)

The lack of 4 engine bombers was not the cause of the failure to defeat RAF fighter command in the BoB. The operational range of a bomber is determined by the range of its escorts. Had Luftwaffe Bf 109E and Bf 110C fighters been equipped with drop tanks they would have achieved numerical parity with the RAF over Britain, inflicted far greater losses and escorted bomber raids far deeper into Britain, including perhaps the aviation "Shadow Factories" around Birmingham, Coventry which though on the fringe of range of drop tank Bf 109E4/B and Bf109E7/B were within range of Bf 110C4 with drop tanks. More important than a 4 engine bomber would be an escort. The BoB is usually told in terms of pats on the back for spitfires, radar, pilot training but it could never be won without an escort by the Luftwaffe. The Germans actually invented the drop tank on the Siemens-Schuckert D.VI and they used them on Several Heinkels in the Spanish civil war so they really didn't plan for a war with Britain.

But a 4 engine 'bomber' with long range such as a developed Ju 89 would still have been critical.

The Ju 89 prototypes from the abandoned Ju 89/Do 19 bomber program evolved into the Ju 90 transport by addition of a new fuselage. One of the Ju 90 transports was given a new wing & BMW 801 radial engines and tail and became the excellent Ju 290 transport. This excellent transport had a C130 Hercules style rear ramp door "trappoklappe" capable of taking an armoured half track and an easy 10 ton lift capability. The Ju 290 transport evolved into the Ju 290 maritime reconnaissance aircraft which showed what might have been achieved by 1942. Its final variant could carry two 20mm dorsal turrets, 20mm waist guns, twin 20mm rear guns and a ventral gun bombola that provided downward protection in a streamlined form. It had everything but a bomb bay, a speed of 278mph and a range of 3200 miles.

It clear that the Ju 89 could have been a 4 engine bomber about as good as the Lancaster or Halifax especially as better engines became available and it might directly evolved into a Ju 289 with a 4000 mile range. Even of only a dozen underpowered Ju 89 units with 1000hp Bramo 323 radials would have been available it would better than the Fw 200C airliners in supporting the u-boats, informing the U-boats of the size and direction of the target convoys, their defensive escorts and size and far more capable of defending itself from fairly slow Hurricanes and Martlets and also of prosecuting an attack. Maybe helped the Bismarck. That would leave the Fw 200 in its role as a pure transport. The Heinkel He 177 abandoned or rather not pressed into premature service. Targets within the Urals become possible and nuisance raids even in the North of Scotland become possible forcing the RAF to spread its fighters.

There would certainly not be the resources to build 7300 Lancaster's, 6100 Halifax's, 2300 shorts sterling, 17000 B17, 25000 B24 liberators and 4000 B29 but they could definitely build 100-150 month,

So the Luftwaffe was severely limited in its ability and paid a big price but even if 1/3rd of the above allied were directed against the Japanese I suspect the capability to produce enough was really the problem. Other big what if would be capturing and holding the Grozny oil fields and securing their cyphers. Its worth noting that the German high command thought they could do no more than capture 30% of the Soviet Union and hold it. The part after Moscow all the way to Siberia would have remained in Russian hands. They knew they didnt have the manpower.


----------



## Sturzkampfflugzeug (May 15, 2020)

Hard to say. Giving the fact that we had more supplies ,are you trying to say that basically the Axis and the Allies completely swap places, or just in terms of aircraft? If completely swapping in terms of positions, they may have won the war using our aircraft, but if not swapping completely, just with aircraft, probably not. They wouldn't have enough supplies to fuel them, nor _RE-FUEL_ them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Freebird (May 15, 2020)

at6 said:


> . The Battle of Britain could have had a different outcome had Hitler realized just how near the bottom the RAF was. By not concentrating of Fighter Command Air Fields, Goering totally screwed up.




When exactly was the "bottom"?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 15, 2020)

To put some factors into perspective: in 1940, the US had a larger economy _by any measure _than any two countries in Europe. I think one could also argue that its _usable_ level of aviation technology was also greater. One of the major reasons for the existence of the NACA was to provide aeronautical technology to industry at no cost to the company. This is why, for example, so many aircraft designed in many of the countries of Europe, including Germany, used NACA airfoils: they were well-characterized and their characteristics and coordinates were freely available. 

Four-engined bombers forcing the defeat of the UK is a fantasy. The Luftwaffe wasn't able to put enough two-engined bombers into the air to do so; they'd be able to put far fewer four-engined bombers up as Germany, even with seized foreign production capacity and slave labor, was running into resource limits. So, for these mighty four-engined bombers, what does Germany give up? Which fighters don't get built? What submarines aren't launched? What tanks don't come off the assembly lines? 

The other issue is, of course, that high altitude bombers couldn't reliably hit a target much smaller than a major city. Before PGM, accurate high-altitude bombing was more myth than reality. 

As for the invulnerability of four-engined bombers? Could you tell the 8th AF and Bomber Command about that? It would have saved them so much grief during WW2. The idea that Germany had significantly better technology, overall, is false. While they had some areas of superiority to the Allies, the reverse was also true.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2020)

Is there any proof, whatsoever, that *ALL *Spitfire MK I guns jammed at 15,000ft and up year round? that is every day of every month regardless of weather conditions? 

Posting pretty pictures of an eight gun wing while quoting modifications for heating the "B" wing which use four Brownings and two drum fed 20mm guns doesn't actually prove anything about the ability of the 8 gun wing to function at altitude. MK II*b* and Mk V*b *aircraft used the 20mm guns with drums. C wings got the belt feed 20mm guns. 
The MK Va used eight .303s, the MK Vb used the two 20mm drum feed guns and four .303s and the MK Vc used two 20mm belt feed guns and four .303s.
All MK V aircraft but rather different wings and gun heating setups even without late r modifications. BTW the C wing could take four 20mm guns but it was rarely used that way. 
The larger 20mm guns and the different feeds required different heating arrangements and on the early B wings blocked or partial blocked heat to the outer machine guns.
However only one squadron flew with 20mm guns during the BoB and then only for a few weeks so it is sort of a non issue. 

Spitfire was not the only interceptor during the BoB. Hurricanes made up about 2/3 of the fighters. So far nobody has claimed that their guns froze at 15,000ft and up. 
The JU 89 needed rocket engines to outrun a Hurricane, heck, it needed rocket engines to outrun a Gloster Gladiator. 

Using a Ju 89 or 90 or any other close variation on it and using the engines that were *available* in quantity in the spring/summer of *1940, *(not 1942/43) leaves you with a slow, low altitude bomber that is an easy target for any number of British aircraft (Bristol Blenheim fighters?) 

BTW they were flying at 30,000ft and above during the BoB. One of the reasons for building the Hurricane MK II (first squadron issue was in Sept 1940) was for better performance at the higher altitudes to better counter the Bf 109. The fights often wound up much lower but one side or the other was trying to get the bounce from above. 

Sorry but using the JU 86 with it's turbo diesels and extended wing and pressure cabin as "proof" that the Ju 89 could operate at high altitudes is just false. 

I would also strongly advise researching actual altitudes as many times the service ceiling quoted for bombes is either with bombs gone or in some lightly loaded condition. 
For instance the JU-88A-1 had a service ceiling of 26,250ft when operating at 19,750lbs. However at 22,840lbs the ceiling dropped to 22,700ft.

And service ceiling means the altitude that a plane can still climb at 100fpm or the metric equivalent using full power. Trying to cruise in a formation (even a small one) would mean the planes are flying thousands of feet lower. 

Sorry the whole thing about the Germans using 4 engine bombers and altering the course of the BoB is nonsense. 
So is the Ural bomber idea but that is another post or thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> Spitfires couldn't fight anything above 15,000ft,


So the LW could have flown at 15500 and run away with it?

The guns froze, but not all at once and not as a guarantee. Freezing is a problem but it isn't a drop-dead switch at 15000 ft all the guns break. You're conflating a nuisance with an absolute. A large amount (but not all) of the issue was solved with the dope over the middle ports.

As for block ships in the harbours. Few issues:

1. The JU89 dropping an _entire ship_ from 40000ft is lucky to land it in the harbour in the navigable choke. Let alone sinking a ship that happens to be in a convenient spot for blockage.

2. The UK isn't ringed with harbours and ports with a 1-ship wide bottleneck. You're talking about precisely sinking many, dozens of ships _en echelon_ in the mouths of some of these harbours to actually block them. Port Arthur has a very narrow opening, the Japanese scuttled many ships in the mouth during the Russo-Japanese but never outright blocked it.

3. The effort to remove a blockship is not collossal. It's a problem but explosives, divers, cranes and dredges all exist in quantity in the UK. It is an extremely temporary way to block a port. You'd have to sink blockships in every port simultaneously to make this a major blow.

4. There are actually a -lot- of Deepwater ports in the UK (they don't need to be as deep as in modern times, smaller ships) Portsmouth, Teesport, Southampton, Swansea, Port Talbot, Invergordon, Liverpool, Falmouth, Milford Haven to name a few. It's a lot of work. The physical ports just aren't enough of a bottleneck. Once the ships are in the harbour they can be unloaded by barge and lighter if needed. If you want to take this approach build Uboots not bombers.

5. Mine's yes. But again. At 40000, or 30000 feet you're going to be mining an awful lot of fields and pubs and beaches. The minesweepers and engineers only have to find the ones that land bullseye in the -navigable- parts of the port. And even then they can just stick a marker on them and steer around in the short term.

This reminds me of the posts earlier about bombing the Suez. Bombing the what?? There are no locks. It's a long ditch in the sand. You may as well bomb the North Sea to prevent allied shipping. Water has some properties that make it an unsuitable bombing target...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> There were significant oil fields producing in Germany through the war not to forget Romania too. Oil shortages began in 1944 with determined US bombing of refineries.



You have become really confused between "I found a map of oil" and "here is where the Luftwaffe got *aviation* fuel from".

The vast majority of Luftwaffe fuels came from three sources only:

1) Prewar imports (gone by 1941)
2) Captured stocks (all used up in Russia)
3) The hydrogenation plants

A *miniscule* proportion came from crude oil obtained from Germany or other nations, its actually so small that I cant even quantify it
because it resides in the "other" category of the charts and graphs.

The shortage of aviation fuel in German dates from WW1, and was the entire reason why Germany BUILT a set of hydrogenation plants
to make fuel from coal in the and 30`s after having spent a huge amount of time developing the process from WW1 onwards. The overwhelming majority of fuel used in German aircraft in WW2 from 1940>1945 was synthetically produced from coal and tar-slurry by Hydrogenation.

The fuel attacks in 1944 on the hydro plants turned a grave shortage into total annihlation of the operational airforce. To claim there was
no shortage before 1944, or that the Luftwaffe got any militarily significant volume of fuel from indiginous German oil is utterly false.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 15, 2020)

tyrodtom said:


> The V1 never had the range to threaten anything vital in Russia, and wasn't accurate enough to target supply points, munition or fuel depots.
> 
> The Russians probably could have just ignored them.



The V1 had a guidance system called Ewald II under testing, the 3 ground stations for the first one had already been built. Ewald I was a beacon mounted on 5% of V1 at the beginning of the campaign and 50% at the end. Ewald was a simple beacon meant to allow correction of the aim of subsequent missile. However Ewald II was a proper midcourse guidance system. At a certain point on the missiles flight path Ewald would emit a single coded radar pulse at a predetermined time and 3 ground stations would calculate the missiles position from the time difference. There are few if any ways of jamming this kind of transmission since there is no IFF interrogation pulse to trigger spoofing of . The ground stations would then calculate a correction and this would be sent as single set of impulses and recorded on an endless loop magnetic tape on the V1. Accuracy would depend on how close to target the course correction was made but if actual midcourse of the V1 max range it was probably 2km but if within say 10km I imagine about 1% of that.

Ewald II had been developed for the BV246 Haggelkorn (Hailstone) glide bomb but was not ready in time. The missile was developed with the "Radischien" (Raddish) radio/radar homing seeker but I think it would have made a reappearance when the Ewald II system was operational. Range was about 150km when launched from a Fw 190.

Extended range versions of the V1 either used a reduced warhead or a disposable turbojet that Porsche and BMW were developing 109-005. The reduced vibration would have increased accuracy. Vibration caused difficulty.

The plain pulse jet was also receiving improvements and was expected to exceed 830km (500mph) at sea level. Most V1 developed reed valve faults within minutes of launch that dropped their speed from 390 mph to within the interception envelop of allied aircraft.

The most accurate long range missile probably would have been the A4b winged version of the V2. Not only could it be guided midcourse it could be manoeuvred during it terminal phase and was to have an accuracy of better than 80m. It used a giant Wassermann early warning radar laid on its side. The early V2 with the LEV-3 guidance system had a theoretical capability of 4.5km accuracy when tested (worse due to double cross system) but the SG-66 gimballed system with better gyros was expected to get a CEP of 500m radius as was the vollzirkel boost phase beam riding guidance system. 

The V1 and V2 put in to service with interim guidance systems nearly 9 times less accurate than the ones they were intended to ultimately receive.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2020)

As a note to not all oil is good for Aviation fuel. 
In the US during WW I it was found that gasoline made from California crude gave little or no trouble. Aviation fuel made from Pennsylvania crude and refined using the same methods gave all kinds of trouble with pre-ignition, knocking and holed pistons. In the late 20s with development of the octane scale they found the California gasoline was about 70 octane as refined with no additives. The Pennsylvania gasoline was about 38-40 octane as refined with no additives. You may be able to re-refine the Pennsylvania gas and mix in additives work on it until you get 70-80 octane fuel but obviously if you any other choices it is simpler and cheaper to use other sources. 
I would also note that in wartime you sometimes don't have the choices you have in peacetime. Toluene is an aromatic compound that can be blended with gasoline to make a higher octane aviation fuel. However it is the same toluene that is used in trinitrotoluene (TNT) so you may have a choice between aviation fuel and bomb/shell fillings.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> There were significant oil fields producing in Germany through the war not to forget Romania too. Oil shortages began in 1944 with determined US bombing of refineries.
> ...



Oil shortages began with attack on Soviet Union. Whoops - perhaps it is not such a good idea after all?


----------



## gjs238 (May 15, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> You have become really confused between "I found a map of oil" and "here is where the Luftwaffe got *aviation* fuel from".
> 
> The vast majority of Luftwaffe fuels came from three sources only:
> 
> ...



Should the US and British bomber offensives have unequivocally concentrated on the hydrogenation plants?


----------



## Propellorhead (May 15, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Is there any proof, whatsoever, that *ALL *Spitfire MK I guns jammed at 15,000ft and up year round? that is every day of every month regardless of weather conditions?
> 
> Posting pretty pictures of an eight gun wing while quoting modifications for heating the "B" wing which use four Brownings and two drum fed 20mm guns doesn't actually prove anything about the ability of the 8 gun wing to function at altitude. MK II*b* and Mk V*b *aircraft used the 20mm guns with drums. C wings got the belt feed 20mm guns.
> The MK Va used eight .303s, the MK Vb used the two 20mm drum feed guns and four .303s and the MK Vc used two 20mm belt feed guns and four .303s.
> ...



You need to work on improving your reading comprehension skills. The original quesion posed was:"
*If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?*

Clearly, self evident Germany had that option in 1937 of entering the war with 4 engined bombers, so we are not discusssing URAL bombers pitted against Spitfire Mk. XIV WITH 20mm cannon in 1940 , or 1941. 

Logically,

*We are only discussing the JU89 v Spitfire Mk l, or Mk ll with 8 browning guns*.

If you cant deal with logical development of an argument please go and debate this with your own fevered imagination. So opposing the Ju89 flying missions over England pilot officer Biggles roars up to 23,000ft , but because, his guns are frozen he has no option other than to slide back his canopy and throw his shoe at the mighty Junkers bomber: Reality, deal with it.








On On 4 June 1938, the Junkers Ju89 achieved a new Payload/Altitude World Record using the second prototype D-ALAT with 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) payload at an altitude of 30,500 ft.
Deal with it.
this is not a strawman hypothesis debate about how fast or high a Hurricane could fly


----------



## Propellorhead (May 15, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Should the US and British bomber offensives have unequivocally concentrated on the hydrogenation plants?


NOPE , I excerpted maps from a declassified report on wartime oil production capacity. Oil production from Romania exclusively provided fuel for all fighting on the eastern front according to that report.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> You need to work on improving your reading comprehension skills. The original quesion posed was:"
> *If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?*
> 
> Clearly, self evident Germany had that option in 1937 of entering the war with 4 engined bombers, so we are not discusssing URAL bombers pitted against Spitfire Mk. XIV WITH 20mm cannon in 1940 , or 1941.
> ...


But where is the proof that all guns failed reliably above 15k? Where are the Air Ministry memos? There should be literally hundreds of vettable pilots statements in letters and diaries. The distinction between freezing guns and _all guns freezing all the time above altitude x _is significant and seems oddly unnoticed by history? How is this news to all of us that the freezing problem was in fact neutering all the Spitfires? You're making a statement, where's the proof? It's much harder for the opposite side to find the Air Ministry memos regarding all the guns that _didn't freeze._

I think it remarkable that's the Luftwaffe need have only flown a bit higher (15000plus is completely doable in a 111) and the RAF Spitfires were reduced to spectators. And that this is not literally the first thing everyone mentions everytime pen is put to paper regarding the BoB. It would have to be the single biggest intelligence failure ever in the history of war if the Germans never caught on to this!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Propellorhead (May 15, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> But where is the proof that all guns failed reliably above 15k? Where are the Air Ministry memos? There should be literally hundreds of vettable pilots statements in letters and diaries. The distinction between freezing guns and _all guns freezing all the time above altitude x _is significant and seems oddly unnoticed by history? How is this news to all of us that the freezing problem was in fact neutering all the Spitfires? You're making a statement, where's the proof? It's much harder for the opposite side to find the Air Ministry memos regarding all the guns that _didn't freeze._
> 
> I think it remarkable that's the Luftwaffe need have only flown a bit higher (15000plus is completely doable in a 111) and the RAF Spitfires were reduced to spectators. And that this is not literally the first thing everyone mentions everytime pen is put to paper regarding the BoB. It would have to be the single biggest intelligence failure ever in the history of war if the Germans never caught on to this!



So you suggest Supermarine wasted all that effort to duct heating to guns for nothing? Frankly your thinking is bizarre!


----------



## tomo pauk (May 15, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Is there any proof, whatsoever, that *ALL *Spitfire MK I guns jammed at 15,000ft and up year round? that is every day of every month regardless of weather conditions?
> ...



Nope, the guns jammed just when it suited to the Luftwaffe. Now you know why Luftwaffe won the BoB.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Propellorhead (May 15, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> You have become really confused between "I found a map of oil" and "here is where the Luftwaffe got *aviation* fuel from".
> 
> The vast majority of Luftwaffe fuels came from three sources only:
> 
> ...


no you can't quantify it because you have not read the oil production report. That's okay, I can wait whilst you guess...


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> So you suggest Supermarine wasted all that effort to duct heating to guns for nothing? Frankly your thinking is bizarre!


There was a freezing issue. Well documented, but not all the time reliably. Not 100% freeze rate above altitude x. You're proposing that any improvements or modifications made to an airframe must, by necessity, mean the problem being corrected was occuring 100% of the time. Or else the change would not be made. That is a very black and white assessment.

Air Ministry: "Supermarine, we are finding that pilots report at least one gun freezing per flight above 15000 feet for 20% of sorties (made up numbers). On future designs can we prevent this?"

Supermarine: "Until that figure is 8 guns freezing on 100% of sorties we just don't see the point."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> So you suggest Supermarine wasted all that effort to duct heating to guns for nothing? Frankly your thinking is bizarre!


Bearing in mind the number of German bombers and fighters shot down by the RAF between 15,000 and 25,000 ft in 1940 the discussion is strange to say the least, an improvement in a heating system doesn't mean the previous system didn't work at all, and a incidence of guns jamming is not proof that all guns jammed all day every day.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Propellorhead (May 15, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Nope, the guns jammed just when it suited to the Luftwaffe. Now you know why Luftwaffe won the BoB.







When you create an objection relevant to nobody but yourself & then attack your own objection to make it appear as if it was relevant, that is a fraudulent way to answer the original question posed. Gazeltine proved that whilst only one of his guns failed, it caused his Spitfire to spin out of control, meaning that just 50% gun failure can cause 100% failure to intercept a target.
It is of utter irrelevance whether all guns fail above 15,000ft, except to you


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> View attachment 581529
> 
> When you create an objection relevant to nobody but yourself & then attack your own objection to make it appear as if it was relevant, that is a fraudulent way to answer the original question posed. Gazeltine proved that whilst only one of his guns failed, it caused his Spitfire to spin out of control, meaning that just 50% gun failure can cause 100% failure to intercept a target.
> It is of utter irrelevance whether all guns fail above 15,000ft, except to you




That anecdote is your main datapoint on the freezing issue?

To be absolutely clear. If the combat records for the BoB are examined, you are saying there should be zero (or a statistically similar number) kills/damaged aircraft/aircrew casualties from Spitfires -above 15000- recorded by either the RAF or the LW? That's the assertion?


Edited for omission


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> View attachment 581529
> 
> When you create an objection relevant to nobody but yourself & then attack your own objection to make it appear as if it was relevant, that is a fraudulent way to answer the original question posed. Gazeltine proved that whilst only one of his guns failed, it caused his Spitfire to spin out of control, meaning that just 50% gun failure can cause 100% failure to intercept a target.
> It is of utter irrelevance whether all guns fail above 15,000ft, except to you


It is actually the crux of your argument, claiming that the Spitfire couldn't shoot down anything above 15,000ft until 1942 and that any plane that could get to such high altitudes would be invincible. 15,000 ft wasn't particularly high in WW1, British aircraft were shooting down the enemy above that, a chap called McCudden made a habit of it. The mission you claim was a failure because one gun froze, took place at 42,000 ft against a Ju 86 and scored a hit, that was enough to stop all future operations which is a complete success in my book.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 15, 2020)

To be clear I'm not really arguing (at least I don't feel like I am) so much as challenging the assertion and requesting supporting information. It's not really what I'd call a straw man position? I don't think it really rests on me to prove the negative. That they DIDN'T freeze. It's a remarkable assertion and I'm open to it. But not solely on your say-so.

Edited for quoted wrong person


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

duplicate


----------



## Propellorhead (May 15, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> That anecdote is your main datapoint on the freezing issue?
> 
> To be absolutely clear. If the combat records for the BoB are examined, you are saying there should be zero (or a statistically similar number) kills/damaged aircraft/aircrew casualties from Spitfires -above 15000- recorded by either the RAF or the LW? That's the assertion?
> 
> ...


That is your assertion , not mine
show me your database for interceptions in the Battle of Britain tabulated by intercept altititudes and I shall be greatly impressed if such records even exist.
you telling me what you think I am saying is yet another polemic employed in your strawman attacks:
..In which you completely refute or defeat a fictitious proposition which I never uttered, only one which you accuse me of
You are attacking your own assertion.

so again I doubt that your record of BoB interceptions tabulated by altitudes which you alluded to ever existed. You have no database to inform you what altitudes attacks took place at, otherwise please produce it.


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> no you can't quantify it because you have not read the oil production report. That's okay, I can wait whilst you guess...



Current Book: The Secret Horsepower Race - Calum Douglas

Feel free to buy my book on the subject, but what do I know.

Total Luftwaffe fuel made from crude refining (NB this is crude from ALL sources... so German crude will be a small percentage of this):
= 43,000 tons

As above but from synthetic hydrogenation of coal and coal-tars:

= 5,540,000 tons

*0.77%* , before you even slice off how much of that was German crude.

Page 159 of the report below:

PS. You`re RIGHT that there was German crude, but it all went into Diesel oil and MT gasoline, because it wasnt suitable for making aviation fuel.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (May 15, 2020)

To be honest, I don't see how the Luftwaffe having 4 engine heavy bombers changes the outcome of the war. The Battle of Britain wasn't lost because there weren't enough bombers. It was lost because the LW didn't have a long range fighter that could be used to establish air dominance. Assuming that this thread respects contemporaneous technologies, the long range fighter didn't exist in 1940 that could have carried out such a mission. It also doesn't affect the outcome in the Soviet Union either. As was stated earlier, the USSR can relocate their factories as far away from the front as needed to be kept out of range from any bomber force. Assuming a critical 1941-1943 timeline, there is still no long range fighter escort in existence that would be able to mitigate mission losses. Respecting the timeline of the war, 1942 also means that Germany is at war with an enemy that is significantly larger in area, population, natural resources, and production capacity. Mathematically, victory is out of reach regardless of whether they can field a meaningful strategic bombing force or not.


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> That is your assertion , not mine
> show me your database for interceptions in the Battle of Britain tabulated by intercept altititudes and I shall be greatly impressed if such records even exist.
> you telling me what you think I am saying is yet another polemic employed in your strawman attacks:
> ..In which you completely refute or defeat a fictitious proposition which I never uttered, only one which you accuse me of
> ...


Who needs a database, try any book with "Battle of Britain" in the title, any book written by a BoB pilot or person involved in the battle. The Battle of Britain was observed by civilians, they could see the vapour trails. The records from the battle are very extensive.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 15, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> To be honest, I don't see how the Luftwaffe having 4 engine heavy bombers changes the outcome of the war. The Battle of Britain wasn't lost because there weren't enough bombers. It was lost because the LW didn't have a long range fighter that could be used to establish air dominance.



Lack of LR fighters was one, big part of a reason why RAF won. Other reasons include numbers game - RAF was receiving more fighters, both to cover the losses and to expand, than it was so for LW. Then there is an old, good reason of under-estimating your enemy.



> Assuming that this thread respects contemporaneous technologies, the long range fighter didn't exist in 1940 that could have carried out such a mission.



Requirements for the Luftwaffe LR fighters that are staged in France & Belgium against UK are far easier than for the perspective RAF fighters staged in Kent or East Anglia vs. Germany poper. The Bf 109E with drop tank can cover a good part of England, but it was too late and too few to matter.



> It also doesn't affect the outcome in the Soviet Union either. As was stated earlier, the USSR can relocate their factories as far away from the front as needed to be kept out of range from any bomber force. Assuming a critical 1941-1943 timeline, there is still no long range fighter escort in existence that would be able to mitigate mission losses. Respecting the timeline of the war, 1942 also means that Germany is at war with an enemy that is significantly larger in area, population, natural resources, and production capacity. Mathematically, victory is out of reach regardless of whether they can field a meaningful strategic bombing force or not.



Germany is against the odds once they attacked Soviet Union.
For 1941-43, there are certainly fighters capable for long range work. But neither of those are in German service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> That is your assertion , not mine
> show me your database for interceptions in the Battle of Britain tabulated by intercept altititudes and I shall be greatly impressed if such records even exist.
> you telling me what you think I am saying is yet another polemic employed in your strawman attacks:
> ..In which you completely refute or defeat a fictitious proposition which I never uttered, only one which you accuse me of
> ...


But you did utter it? You are absolute in your assertion the guns didn't work above 15000 are you not?

And you have yet to produce proof of _your assertion._ Heating ducts were added to the wings. That is evidence of some freezing, to no definite degree. One, single, anecdote of a Spitfires being thrown into a spin by frozen guns is not a huge amount of evidence, in fact it is somewhat wobbly evidence. I am simply questioning it, I am unconvinced based on what you have put forward.

Here is the position:

You say they froze completely at 15k. 

I say I would certainly like to see that fleshed out. Would you care to? Because I tend to disagree.

You call me a strawman and accuse me of attacking you. Demand I provide proof, despite your refusal to so so.

Here's the deal man. When you make an assertion (this is a bit of strong one too). It is not up to your interlocutor to disprove it when you have presented next to zero supporting evidence.

I'm generally interested at this point. Seriously. Show me them freezing reliably. I have to believe you have a good amount of evidence as you are so emphatic. I am genuinely curious about this now. I will absolutely change my opinion if presented with reliable and vettable evidence of some sort.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 15, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Should the US and British bomber offensives have unequivocally concentrated on the hydrogenation plants?



No, they should have bombed the German Tetraethyl-Lead plant in Froese, which was the biggest of the only TWO in Germany, and was so specialised it would have been immensely difficult to replace, without which you could have ANY amount of oil or aviation fuel base stock and been totally unable to do anything sensible with it for high performance fighters - thus basically ending the luftwaffe. However the intelligence necessary to pinpoint the production flow of fuels and blending wasnt really solidified until near the end of the war. However strategists afterwards considered it to have been a very serious tactical mistake to have not tried to destroy. So being fair - its maybe a "with hindsight" mistake, the Allies had very good intel on German fuels but didnt really understand the manufacturing processes and sites for a long time. The US intel people thought the Germans were blending fuels at many remote locations, the British thought the Germans were making finished fuels at each refinery.

This really hampered descision making on which sites to bomb, because if the americans were right, bombing the refineries might not stop fuel blending, unless you put the whole lot out of action, and they didnt know where many of the remote blending sites were.

(the Americans were right)

- The sole two German TEL plants were in *Froese* and *Gapel-Doberitz*

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (May 15, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> No, they should have bombed the German Tetraethyl-Lead plant, of which there was only TWO until the end of the war (one of which was much more significant), and was so specialised it would have been immensely difficult to replace, without which you could have ANY amount of oil or aviation fuel base stock and been totally unable to do anything sensible with it for high performance fighters - thus basically ending the luftwaffe. However the intelligence necessary to pinpoint the production flow of fuels and blending wasnt really solidified until near the end of the war. However strategists afterwards considered it to have been a very serious tactical mistake to have not tried to destroy. So being fair - its maybe a "with hindsight" mistake, the Allies had very good intel on German fuels but didnt really understand the manufacturing processes and sites for a long time. The US intel people thought the Germans were blending fuels at many remote locations, the British thought the Germans were making finished fuels at each refinery.
> 
> 
> (the Americans were right)



I'm trusting my memory here, but I believe that post war analysis by the 8th Air Force discovered that the weak link in German strategic materials was actually coal and that the Americans incorrectly believed that Germany was on an oil infrastructure hence why they targeted oil production targets so heavily. The destruction of coal reserves had a far greater influence on the entire industrial complex and war effort than any other target.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 15, 2020)

In a similar vein, weren’t the Japanese air fleets hampered by low octane fuel? I don’t have the memory that you guys have but weren’t they using something akin to turpentine towards the last few months? I know this off the stated topic.


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 15, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> I'm trusting my memory here, but I believe that post war analysis by the 8th Air Force discovered that the weak link in German strategic materials was actually coal and that the Americans incorrectly believed that Germany was on an oil infrastructure hence why they targeted oil production targets so heavily. The destruction of coal reserves had a far greater influence on the entire industrial complex and war effort than any other target.



They (the Allies) didnt really understand the sources of German aviation Gasoline until very late in the war (although many guessed correctly). They knew there were synthetic plants, but didnt know which ones were being used and in what capacity for which fuel type. (eg. almost none of the Fisher-Tropsch synthetic plants output went into aviation fuel).

Its a bit difficult to separate bombing coal and the sythetic fuel plants as they BUILT the synthetic plants next to all the major coal mines. (for obvious reasons).

As an aside, before the war one engineer (Professor Steinmann at Berlin Hochschule) said "hmm maybe we shouldnt put all the fuel plants OVER ground next to the coal mines as it will be really obvious were they are..."

The Nazi leadership replied "Nah.. it`ll be fine!"

Research tip, if you want to understand Luftwaffe fuels - read up on the "_Wirtschaftliche Forschungsgesellschaft_", which had NOTHING to do with Economic Research and was basically a cover-name for the Luftwaffe/Wehrmacht/Kriegsmarine fuel distribution network; but in reality ended up basically mostly a tool of the Luftwaffe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> That is your assertion , not mine
> show me your database
> .


here (my bold) from this thread in this forum This Day in the Battle of Britain >>>> At 1100 hours the first wave of German bombers - hundreds of Ju 88s and Do 17s - flew across the Channel and up the Thames towards London. Just as the first Fighter Command squadrons approached the southern coast of Kent, the leaders of the German formation still had a few miles to go before they crossed the tall cliffs of the British coastline. The German bombers consisted of practically the whole of I./KG 76 flying Dornier Do 17s. These had met up with the Do 17s of III./KG 76 and KG 3 behind Calais and now the combined force, escorted by Bf 109 formed a vast armada almost two miles wide crossing the coast. All the Luftwaffe aircraft departed from bases in the Brussels and Antwerp areas. *The heights of the German formations were between 15,000 and 26,000 *feet and the Observer Corps reported that they were crossing the coast just north of Dungeness, to the south of Dover and at Ramsgate.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 15, 2020)

pbehn said:


> here (my bold) from this thread in this forum This Day in the Battle of Britain >>>> At 1100 hours the first wave of German bombers - hundreds of Ju 88s and Do 17s - flew across the Channel and up the Thames towards London. Just as the first Fighter Command squadrons approached the southern coast of Kent, the leaders of the German formation still had a few miles to go before they crossed the tall cliffs of the British coastline. The German bombers consisted of practically the whole of I./KG 76 flying Dornier Do 17s. These had met up with the Do 17s of III./KG 76 and KG 3 behind Calais and now the combined force, escorted by Bf 109 formed a vast armada almost two miles wide crossing the coast. All the Luftwaffe aircraft departed from bases in the Brussels and Antwerp areas. *The heights of the German formations were between 15,000 and 26,000 *feet and the Observer Corps reported that they were crossing the coast just north of Dungeness, to the south of Dover and at Ramsgate.


Same thread further along. My bold. 


_ were s*tepped between 25,000 and 26,000* feet. As the 'Big Wing' closed in, they were joined by RAF No.41 Sqd (*Spitfires*), RAF No.46 Sqd (Hurricanes), RAF No.504 Sqd (Hurricanes) and RAF No.609 Sqd (*Spitfires*). The Bombers were confronted by British fighters on all sides, and one of the biggest combat actions ever seen over London developed.

Perfectly positioned, with the bombers *3,000* feet *below* them they were about to make their attack, when a formation of Bf 109s came out of the sun. Bader immediately ordered the Spitfires of RAF No.19 and RAF No.611 Sqds to take on the German fighters, which they did, scattering them by a surprise attack so effectively that they left the bomber formation and flew off to the south-east. While the 'Big Wing_



it goes on. Controversially(?) Indicating a the Spitfires were there for more than moral support.


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> Same thread further along. My bold.
> 
> 
> _ were s*tepped between 25,000 and 26,000* feet. As the 'Big Wing' closed in, they were joined by RAF No.41 Sqd (*Spitfires*), RAF No.46 Sqd (Hurricanes), RAF No.504 Sqd (Hurricanes) and RAF No.609 Sqd (*Spitfires*). The Bombers were confronted by British fighters on all sides, and one of the biggest combat actions ever seen over London developed._
> ...


The theory that British aircraft guns didn't work above 15,000ft until 1942 has to be placed in the "special" category.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (May 15, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The theory that British aircraft guns didn't work above 15,000ft until 1942 has to be placed in the "special" category.



Please, no one bring up the P-38 cockpit heat issue...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Please, no one bring up the P-38 cockpit heat issue...


If they were so hot all of the time why didn't they open a window? Or just whitewash the glass inside, my dad did that with his tomatoes and it worked well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> You need to work on improving your reading comprehension skills. The original quesion posed was:"
> *If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?*



For someone who was rather sensitive about being insulted earlier you seem pretty quick to throw out insults of your own.
I would question whether you have actually read the 5 or so pages that preceded your post here.



> Clearly, self evident Germany had that option in 1937 of entering the war with 4 engined bombers, so we are not discusssing URAL bombers pitted against Spitfire Mk. XIV WITH 20mm cannon in 1940 , or 1941.
> 
> Logically,
> 
> *We are only discussing the JU89 v Spitfire Mk l, or Mk ll with 8 browning guns*.



Please show me where I referred to Spitfire MK XIVs 

From you own post.
"Modification 420 provided additional heating for Browning guns," but* it was only applied to the Mark IIb & Vb*, Mod 420 only went into production from 6-2-42; until 20-8-42, 
So you referenced a modification done to the MK IIb and Vb which usually had a single 20mm and two .303s in each wing, NOT the gun set up in the picture you provided. This weapon set up was not used until the spring of 1941 so it is also irrelevant to whether the eight gun set up had adequate heating or not in 1940. As I tried to explain in the early post the larger 20mm cannon and feed system blocked some of the heating system of the eight machine gun wing. 



> If you cant deal with logical development of an argument please go and debate this with your own fevered imagination. So opposing the Ju89 flying missions over England pilot officer Biggles roars up to 23,000ft , but because, his guns are frozen he has no option other than to slide back his canopy and throw his shoe at the mighty Junkers bomber: Reality, deal with it.


Actually Biggles would have used his Webley-Fosbery revolver. 
And the Luftwaffe could not pick and chose which British fighters intercepted theri formations. deal with it. 






> On On 4 June 1938, the Junkers Ju89 achieved a new Payload/Altitude World Record using the second prototype D-ALAT with 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) payload at an altitude of 30,500 ft.
> Deal with it.



AH yes, a record setting flight, tell me, were any defensive guns fitted? I believe the answer is no.
How many crewmen on the flight? the full crew of nine or fewer?
What was the duration of the flight? 1 1/2 or 2 hours? 
Carry just enough fuel to reach the desired altitude and get back down again? 

Service ceiling (which is usually for normal gross weight) is given as 22,960 ft for the unarmed V2 prototype. Granted service versions would have had more powerful engines but they also would have had more drag (or no defensive guns?) and more operational equipment. 

That is reality. 



> this is not a strawman hypothesis debate about how fast or high a Hurricane could fly



You are right, it is not a strawman argument. The last sentence in your first post.
"The JU89 would have *ruled uncontested* in UK skies if used early in the Battle of Britain" 

Since the Hurricane made up almost 2/3s of the interceptors in the BoB wither the guns on the Spitfire froze or not (not) the Ju 89 would have faced a number of squadrons/groups of fighters contesting it's flights in UK skies regardless if it was used early or late in the Battle of Britain.

Reality, deal with it.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## B-25 Pilot (May 15, 2020)

I don't think that the axis would've won the war because Germany didn't have any escort fighters that would've' had the range to cover the bombers. But, Germany would've gotten some early hits on factory's and that might've slowed down production of allied interceptors and fighters.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 15, 2020)

K5053. The_ sixty-first_ mki to roll off the line had exhaust heating to the guns. This modification was applied to all subsequent mki and mkii Spitfires. Dope over the muzzle holes ensured any chance of freezing would have to wait until they had been fired at least once. Only then could moisture possibly condense on the open bolt of the guns. Please see my _supporting documents._

Per Alfred Price (first), and Jeff Webb (second)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 15, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> K5053. The_ sixty-first_ mki to roll off the line had exhaust heating to the guns. This modification was applied to all subsequent mki and mkii Spitfires. Dope over the muzzle holes ensured any chance of freezing would have to wait until they had been fired at least once. Only then could moisture possibly condense on the open bolt of the guns. Please see my _supporting documents._
> 
> Per Alfred Price (first), and Jeff Webb (second)


You may have hit on something there. It is often said that the Spitfire wing was hard to produce, it had to be produced with wings that could hold guns that could fire at altitude.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (May 15, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Please, no one bring up the P-38 cockpit heat issue...



So....how was the F-15 cockpit heat?


----------



## BiffF15 (May 15, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> So....how was the F-15 cockpit heat?



Heat worked great! Just don't forget to heat the windscreen if descending after a long cruise at high altitude (no window heat like an airliner). The plane used bleed air air for that heat. The cooling was the problem. The crew chief had the ability to give more cooling air to the cockpit or to the avionics which he had to repair. Pilot lost that battle. Usually we left it on full cold and never moved it. In the winter time we would heat things up on the ground, but once airborne it pretty much was moved to full cold.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:

1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (May 15, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The V1 had a guidance system called Ewald II under testing, the 3 ground stations for the first one had already been built. Ewald I was a beacon mounted on 5% of V1 at the beginning of the campaign and 50% at the end. Ewald was a simple beacon meant to allow correction of the aim of subsequent missile. However Ewald II was a proper midcourse guidance system. At a certain point on the missiles flight path Ewald would emit a single coded radar pulse at a predetermined time and 3 ground stations would calculate the missiles position from the time difference. There are few if any ways of jamming this kind of transmission since there is no IFF interrogation pulse to trigger spoofing of . The ground stations would then calculate a correction and this would be sent as single set of impulses and recorded on an endless loop magnetic tape on the V1. Accuracy would depend on how close to target the course correction was made but if actual midcourse of the V1 max range it was probably 2km but if within say 10km I imagine about 1% of that.
> 
> Ewald II had been developed for the BV246 Haggelkorn (Hailstone) glide bomb but was not ready in time. The missile was developed with the "Radischien" (Raddish) radio/radar homing seeker but I think it would have made a reappearance when the Ewald II system was operational. Range was about 150km when launched from a Fw 190.
> 
> ...



Every combatant in WW2 had fantastic weapons in their R&D sections, but what matters is what they managed to get into actual combat, in enough numbers and in time to make a difference.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 15, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> So....how was the F-15 cockpit heat?


Isn’t it pressurized and air conditioned? They need the air for the g-suit, and the electronics like to be kept comfy. 

Wait! Am I getting my F-15s confused?


----------



## BiffF15 (May 15, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Isn’t it pressurized and air conditioned? They need the air for the g-suit, and the electronics like to be kept comfy.
> 
> Wait! Am I getting my F-15s confused?



It is pressurized and air conditioned. Good ole MacAir looked out for us pilot types. Bleed air was used for pressurization, external tanks to force them to feed, heating & cooling, G suit and chest suit (I never plugged that damn thing in), as well as canopy defog and external water removal (no windshield wiper, just high speed air blown over the exterior windscreen). If you left the canopy heat on too long you could melt the windscreen.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (May 15, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Just don't forget to heat the windscreen if descending after a long cruise at high altitude ...



Unlike the gun freezing issue, of which I can find no mention from Battle of Britain Spitfire pilots -- the windscreen misting up in situations like this was a constant complaint. Jeffrey Quill described it as 'a very serious defect' after his stint of combat in 1940.

Zero mention of guns freezing, though.

First mention I find of that is A&AEE testing of the 'B' wing in early 1941 -- where the .303s consistently fail to fire above 30,000 feet. The Hispanos worked fine, for what it's worth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 15, 2020)

Propellorhead said:


> My claim still stands, no Spitfire ever appeared with heated guns before September 1942 so the JU89 would have been invincible over the UK 1939-1942





As has been pointed out to you, Spit Is and IIs did have gun heating in 1940, also, how do you account for the fact that much BoB combat took place *above* the maximum altitude of the Ju 89? Just...



Koopernic said:


> It clear that the Ju 89 could have been a 4 engine bomber about as good as the Lancaster or Halifax especially as better engines became available and it might directly evolved into a Ju 289 with a 4000 mile range.



So, why didn't it happen? The Ju 89 was far too slow, terribly defended and with a bomb load less than that of an He 111, I doubt it most sincerely.

Would'a could'a should'a. Ask yourself why the Germans winning the Battle of Britain is such a good thing anyway?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2020)

Friendly reminder...

Play nice everyone.


----------



## Koopernic (May 16, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The other issue is, of course, that high altitude bombers couldn't reliably hit a target much smaller than a major city. Before PGM, accurate high-altitude bombing was more myth than reality.



High altitude bombing would require a wind correcting computing bomb sight such as the Norden or a blind bombing system such as X-gerate. The Lotfe 7 entered Luftwaffe service in 1942. There was nothing magical about the Norden, it used the same computing and gyro techniques that Navies had used in big capital ship guns, torpedo computers and AAA/FLAK directors but the USN had though to apply it to level bomb sights and so it seems only the US was equipped. My understanding is that the German BoB bombsights were gyro stabilised and had optical magnification but lacked a computing mechanism to calculate wind drift etc, they were just set for the correct bomb trail error. Interestingly X-geraet calculated head winds and potentially I imagine side winds.


----------



## Koopernic (May 16, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> You have become really confused between "I found a map of oil" and "here is where the Luftwaffe got *aviation* fuel from".
> 
> The vast majority of Luftwaffe fuels came from three sources only:
> 
> ...



I believe German and Austrian oil wells provided about 3% of German crude oil requirements. I probably got that from the fischer-tropsch.org archives.

Other sources are
1 Coal Pyrolysis (heat coal without air by steam or direct heat) that drives of liquids and gases. With certain types of coal provides about 5% by weight liquids. This was the main source of aviation fuel for the Japanese after the naval blockade and the first source of fuel after bombing of the German synthetic fuel plants

2 Bergius Hydrogenation. Hydrogen was pressurised into a coal toluene slurry at 700 bar with a few iron filings as a catalyst. This produced a good quality 72 octane fuel that was upgraded by addition of TEL and iso-octane. All aviation fuel came from these giant plants.

3 Fischer-Tropsch, coal was gasified and passed over cobalt catalysts to make diesel fuel and lubricants. The diesel fuel cetane rating was rather high and it had to be diluted down with the diesel obtain from the hydrogenation plants. The hydrogen and fischer-tropsch plants complemented each other. There was a 45 octane by-product. I suppose it could run in a model T era engine with CR less than 3.9 perhaps with some TEL or alcohol. The quality of gasoline that came out when using iron catalysts was too low for aviation but they seem to have developed uranium based catalysts. The FT plants could be much smaller. about 1/5th the size.

4 There was a fischer tropsch like plant that produced pure iso-octane and used a chromium catalyst to produce butanol which was dehydrated to butylene which was converted to iso-octane by polymerisation. The butylene was needed for production of n-buna and s-buna synthetic rubber so production of iso-octane had to be lower than rubber production leaving the Luftwaffe without the ability to convert to 100% 100 octane. The Germans did start to implement other techniques such as acid alkylation and hydroforming. An acid alylation plant was started in 1940 but only 1 completed by 1943.

5 The Japanese had school children collecting pine tree cones as pine oil can produce a nice 100 octane fuel. I know that the Germans did collect pine tree oil from the paper industry before WW1. You get about 16L of pineol for each ton of paper pulp produced. The Finns had an agreement to produce hesselman engines to power Saab and Talbot cars that were to use kerosene derived from fischer tropsch using pete in Sweden and pine oil in Finland. It worked quite well but some socialist government in Finland made the tax for pineol the same as petrol and the industry died out.


----------



## Glider (May 16, 2020)

At the end of the day, even if the Luftwaffe had the B29 in 1942, they still wouldn't have had the economic capacity or the industrial capability to produce it in the numbers needed. So the brief and accurate response to the question, is no, they wouldn't have won the war


----------



## Dimlee (May 16, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> As was stated earlier, the USSR can relocate their factories as far away from the front as needed to be kept out of range from any bomber force. Assuming a critical 1941-1943 timeline, there is still no long range fighter escort in existence that would be able to mitigate mission losses.



It was not so simple. Please consider what has happened in real history.
1. USSR has relocated a lot of factories that were threatened by German ground advances, indeed. At the same time, the industry in non-occupied areas remained where it was, with very little exception. To move all factories just to avoid bombing raids was a luxury the Soviets could not afford economically. Aviation works, for example, once moved, could not return to normal production schedule for many months. I dare say that such a project would be more costly and longer than the relocation of the UK factories to Canada.

2. USSR had vast territories but with poor infrastructure. There were not so many places in the rear where the factories could be relocated or built up from scratch. Power supply, raw materials, reliable railway link, enough rolling stock, qualified labour force, etc... It was all in deficit.

3. Historically, Luftwaffe bomber force operated almost with impunity against major Soviet industrial centres within the range, except Moscow and Leningrad. 
Soviet PVO has failed to protect factories even in such important cities as Gorky (including its famous GAZ), Yaroslavl, Saratov. 
According to this excellent book (I wish it was translated in English) www.shorturl.at/hnop1 operation Carmen II of Luftwaffe in June 1943 resulted in the loss of production of almost 2,000 tanks (mostly T-34) and of 20,000 metric tons of fuels in that year, complete stoppage of T-80 tank production, immediate loss of _31,000_ metric tons of fuel, etc. Just for comparison: combined fuel stock of 5 fronts of the Red Army before the Kursk Battle was about _21,000_ metric tons. 
Tire factory in Yaroslavl (the main supplier of tires and wheels for artillery) did not resume production until September 1943. 
GAZ has stopped for almost 2 months and its annual output of tanks, trucks, APC, and of various supplies to other plants has dropped by from 150% to 400% between the categories, according to official statistics (which were considered too "optimistic" by post-Soviet historians). 
Saratov air factory No.292 has reached the pre-bombing rate only in October. 
Flour mills in Gorky stayed idle until September leaving the Red Army and Leningrad without 200,000 metric tons of flour. 
Critically affected was the production of ball bearings, artillery units, ammunition, components of aircraft and tank, and not just in the bombed areas but all across the network of the factories. Etc...
Losses of Luftwaffe: 17 aircraft of 733. Bombing raids from 04th to 22nd June, in the night time, without fighter escorts.

So, in the nutshell.
Yes, the relocation was possible but it was of enormous difficulty for the USSR.
German bomber force consisting of Ju-88 and He-111, once given the task, could hit the Soviet industry very hard and met very little opposition.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 16, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> It is pressurized and air conditioned. Good ole MacAir looked out for us pilot types. Bleed air was used for pressurization, external tanks to force them to feed, heating & cooling, G suit and chest suit (I never plugged that damn thing in), as well as canopy defog and external water removal (no windshield wiper, just high speed air blown over the exterior windscreen). If you left the canopy heat on too long you could melt the windscreen.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Su 34 toilet, Sukhoi comfort.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 16, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> They (the Allies) didnt really understand the sources of German aviation Gasoline until very late in the war (although many guessed correctly). They knew there were synthetic plants, but didnt know which ones were being used and in what capacity for which fuel type. (eg. almost none of the Fisher-Tropsch synthetic plants output went into aviation fuel).
> 
> Its a bit difficult to separate bombing coal and the sythetic fuel plants as they BUILT the synthetic plants next to all the major coal mines. (for obvious reasons).
> 
> ...



Albert Speer rejected the building of underground coal to fuel plants on the grounds that the effort and resources would best be put elsewhere presumably such as building more synthetic fuel plants to get production up and building offensive and defensive weapons. At the time many of the plants were out of each of allied bombers. In the end allied bombing timed to disrupt fuel supplies in the lead up to overlord lead to the Geilen plan to restore production and this envisaged 1 or 2 massive underground hydrogenation plants plus a dozen or underground fischer-tropsch plants. Not cheap.

I imagine the TEL plants were extremely well camouflaged. Messerschmitt's Oberammergau plant had a pine forest trees planted on its roof and was indistinguishable from the srounding forrest.

A complete destruction of the TEL facilities would have left iso-octane production intact and a certain amount of production of B4 fuel could probably be achieved by a 50:50 blend of iso-octane with the 72 octane that came out of the hydrogenation plants. There is some kind of a lubricating effect with TEL but doubt it would be significant. I suspect no TEL would drop B4 production to about 20% and C3 production to 10%. Methanol was used in production of the A4 aviation fuel (I think 30%) used in trainers and was available from the chromium catalysts that produced butanol, so it might have been used as an up blending agent as the chromium catalyst produced 17% butanol and 80% methanol. (the methanol was simply cycled through till it all became butanol).

There was some work on uranium based catalysts to produce high octane fuel from the fischer-tropsch plants. This uranium was to be transported to Japan on U-boat U235 and was marked U235 leading to the claim that the Germans were gifing the Japanese weapons grade uranium.


----------



## Koopernic (May 16, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> It was not so simple. Please consider what has happened in real history.
> 1. USSR has relocated a lot of factories that were threatened by German ground advances, indeed. At the same time, the industry in non-occupied areas remained where it was, with very little exception. To move all factories just to avoid bombing raids was a luxury the Soviets could not afford economically. Aviation works, for example, once moved, could not return to normal production schedule for many months. I dare say that such a project would be more costly and longer than the relocation of the UK factories to Canada.
> 
> 2. USSR had vast territories but with poor infrastructure. There were not so many places in the rear where the factories could be relocated or built up from scratch. Power supply, raw materials, reliable railway link, enough rolling stock, qualified labour force, etc... It was all in deficit.
> ...



I recall reading that when He 177 operated over the Soviet Union and Urals their performance at high altitude was such that they were not actually bothered by Soviet fighters much.

In terms of a hypothetical Ju 89 (and maybe Do 19) during the BoB there is no doubt that they would have been much tougher to bring down. Both these aircraft would have had a 20mm tail gun or two and caused considerably times more loses to the RAF fighters than the rifle calibre MG15 and MG81 on the He 111, Do 17Z and Ju 88A1. The rifle calibre guns had minimal effect and one imagines the MG131 had it been in service might have caused more harm and been more effective.

The problem you have is one of production. The DB601 and Jumo 211 were in extremely short supply. That means you have to take engines away from He 111, Ju 88, Ju 87, Bf 109 or Bf 110 unless you settle for the Bramo 323. 

The Do 17 was meant to be powered by the DB601 and the DB601 powered Do 17 was known as the Do 215 could do 290mph (Later 316mph with DB601N on WEP 2800rpm) yet the shortage forced the Do 17 to use the Bramo 323 which gave it a top speed of only 255-265. That made it much easier to intercept at medium altitude had it had the DB601.

So if you sacrifice the Do 17 and swap them out say 1.5:1 with the Ju 89 or Do 19 this becomes possible. Junkers can abandon the Ju 90 and Ju 252 to find the resources or Dornier can abandon the Do 17. A Bramo 323 powered Ju 89/Do 19 would probably be slightly faster than a Do 17Z and certainly much longer ranged, armed and armoured. In due course of time when DB601, Jumo 211 and eventually Jumo 213,DB605,DB603 engines are supplied the performance would grow but its hard to see that more than.

The main effect is probably support of the U-boats. Such an aircraft is much better than the Fw 200.

There were about 420 Do 17Z made with about 140 looses in the BoB and 105 Do 215 so potentially ypu could swap out 520 Do 17/215 with about 300-350 Ju 89/Do 19

They key however, as I see it is you need a long range escort, that could be the drop tanks on the Bf 109 and Bf 110 but I suspect the Fw 190 with Jumo 211 or DB601 would be needed for long range.



nuuumannn said:


> So, why didn't it happen? The Ju 89 was far too slow, terribly defended and with a bomb load less than that of an He 111, I doubt it most sincerely.
> SNIP



The engines available were not powerful enough. They had available to them Jumo 210, early Bramo 323 and the 900hp DB600. Had they have waited for the Jumo 211A or DB601 the performance would have been adaquet.


----------



## PAT303 (May 16, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Both these aircraft would have had a 20mm tail gun or two and caused considerably times more loses to the RAF fighters than the rifle calibre MG15 and MG81 on the He 111, Do 17Z and Ju 88A1. The rifle calibre guns had minimal effect and one imagines the MG131 had it been in service might have caused more harm and been more effective.



The trouble is you would still have a bloke standing behind the gun trying to calculate the lead and deflection angles of a Spit or Hurri flying in three dimensional space in the fractions of a second it took them to flash by while he himself is doing the same, the most likely outcome of fitting 20mm cannons in a 1940's bomber would be the gunners would miss with bigger bullets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 16, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The trouble is you would still have a bloke standing behind the gun trying to calculate the lead and deflection angles of a Spit or Hurri flying in three dimensional space in the fractions of a second it took them to flash by while he himself is doing the same, the most likely outcome of fitting 20mm cannons in a 1940's bomber would be the gunners would miss with bigger bullets.


I totally agree with this plus the slower rate of fire and the gun being far more cumbersome to handle. In addition the arc of fire of a 20mm would be far less due to the much bigger bulk of the 20mm breach inside the very limited space inside the bomber. Reloading the gun would be a major issue as well as early war 20mm were drum fed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (May 16, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> They key however, as I see it is you need a long range escort, that could be the drop tanks on the Bf 109 and Bf 110 but I suspect the Fw 190 with Jumo 211 or DB601 would be needed for long range.



You also have to remember that the long range escorts would be flying into a well organised and controlled integrated air defense network, worlds best at that time, you also have to contend with Dowding and Park, Park's organisation and tactic's during the BoB were exemplary and he poses a formidable opponent to any commander facing him. Giving the Bf 109 extra fuel to range over England with the bombers just exposes them to more intercepts from more fighter groups further from home with the same 9 seconds of 20mm ammunition. The RAF fighters on the other hand hit you crossing the channel coast, again inland over the target and a third time at the coast after they have landed and rearmed refueled, even relaying has them getting bounced at any point before they get on station. Bf 109's flying over England in 1940, likewise, Spitfires over France in 1941 faced a much different situation than P51's in late 1944-45.


----------



## swampyankee (May 16, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The trouble is you would still have a bloke standing behind the gun trying to calculate the lead and deflection angles of a Spit or Hurri flying in three dimensional space in the fractions of a second it took them to flash by while he himself is doing the same, the most likely outcome of fitting 20mm cannons in a 1940's bomber would be the gunners would miss with bigger bullets.



How did that work in the He177, at least some of which had a 20 mm gun for the tail gunner?

Since the _Luftwaffe_ is now flying heavier bombers over Britain, how much earlier will the RAF get 20 mm guns into its Spitfires?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2020)

A lot of times the discussions seem to assume the Germans would somehow have 1941-42 guns and mounts for their hypothetical 1940 4 engine bombers. 
Germans fought the vast majority of the BoB with 7.9mm MG 15s with 75 round saddle drums and 20mm MG/FF or MG/FFM cannon with 15 or 30 round round drums in the flexible positions. The Ju 89 prototypes never got guns and the Do 19 might have had guns on the last aircraft (?) but descriptions paint a dismal picture. two man turret with one man controlling traverse and the other man controlling elevation. 

The planes would have been little, if any faster, flown very little higher and not been a whole lot better armed than the twin engine planes. Hard to see any real advantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 16, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> How did that work in the He177, at least some of which had a 20 mm gun for the tail gunner?
> 
> Since the _Luftwaffe_ is now flying heavier bombers over Britain, how much earlier will the RAF get 20 mm guns into its Spitfires?


 He 177 didn't show up until they had the Mg 151, however the very early He 177s only had an MG 131 in the tail.


----------



## PAT303 (May 17, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Since the _Luftwaffe_ is now flying heavier bombers over Britain, how much earlier will the RAF get 20 mm guns into its Spitfires?



It would have been easier to harmonise the brownings to have the inner four shoot within a 1 meter box at 200 meters and the outer four the same at 250, ditch the Mk VII ball, it was designed to shoot deer not aircraft, have the belts with two AP, two incendiary and the fifth a tracer. The Hispano and it's ammunition have a lot of ironing out to get the reliability up to an acceptable standard so are a no go for the BoB so use what you have, eight RMG's sighted to give a higher concentration of fire onto a given point with more effective ammunition.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 17, 2020)

Chances are, the exact same thing will happen to the Luftwaffe's heavy bombers as happened to their medium bombers historically.
The Luftwaffe's inability for the escorts to communicate with the bombers and the escorts short range was the German's Achilles Heel and cost them the needed success in their offensive.
No German bomber was well defended and the B-17/B-24 loss rates shows that even the war's heaviest armed bombers were dead-meat without a solid escort.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 17, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The trouble is you would still have a bloke standing behind the gun trying to calculate the lead and deflection angles of a Spit or Hurri flying in three dimensional space in the fractions of a second it took them to flash by while he himself is doing the same, the most likely outcome of fitting 20mm cannons in a 1940's bomber would be the gunners would miss with bigger bullets.



There is no evidence for that that, larger rounds are far less disturbed by air currents. The Ikara MG FF (basically the Oerlikon with the shorter medium velocity cartrige) weighed only 23kg and was successfully used on hand swivel mounts on a number of Luftwaffe aircraft as was the MG151/20. MG FF (and MG151) found themselves on swivel mounts on the nose of the He 111 and Do 217 and rear canopy of Ju 188.




Glider said:


> I totally agree with this plus the slower rate of fire and the gun being far more cumbersome to handle. In addition the arc of fire of a 20mm would be far less due to the much bigger bulk of the 20mm breach inside the very limited space inside the bomber. Reloading the gun would be a major issue as well as early war 20mm were drum fed.



The MG15 fired 1050 rpm of rifle calibre bullets from a 75 round magazine. A 4 second burst with say 5% hits would put about 4 rifle calibre rounds weighting 12.7 grams into a target.
The MG FF fired 540 rpm of 20mm bullets from a 60 round magazine. A 4 second burst with 5% hits would put about 2 x 20mm rounds weighing 134 grams in to the target.

If a 12.7 gram bullet hits a Hurricane bullet proof widescreen it gets scratched. If it hits an oil cooler or radiator the engine looses power 5-10 minutes latter.

If a 20mm bullet hits the windscreen the pilot dies or gets injured enough to make him loose interest. If it hits the shank of a propeller blade it gets blown of, if it hits the engine block it starts leaking oil and stops working.




PAT303 said:


> You also have to remember that the long range escorts would be flying into a well organised and controlled integrated air defense network, worlds best at that time, you also have to contend with Dowding and Park, Park's organisation and tactic's during the BoB were exemplary and he poses a formidable opponent to any commander facing him. Giving the Bf 109 extra fuel to range over England with the bombers just exposes them to more intercepts from more fighter groups further from home with the same 9 seconds of 20mm ammunition. The RAF fighters on the other hand hit you crossing the channel coast, again inland over the target and a third time at the coast after they have landed and rearmed refueled, even relaying has them getting bounced at any point before they get on station. Bf 109's flying over England in 1940, likewise, Spitfires over France in 1941 faced a much different situation than P51's in late 1944-45.



Luftwaffe fighters sometimes had no more than 5 minutes over Britain and never more than 15 minutes. Drop tanks mean they turn up at high altitude near the UK coast with a full tank of internal fuel having used the jettison tank to form up, gain altitude, find the bombers they are escorting and cruise. The ammunition problem is over stated, 60 rounds at 540rpm is 11 seconds which still leaves plenty of (30-45) seconds of 7.92mm from accurate central guns. If you assume an Me 109E4 has an range of 400 miles its operational radius will be 1/3rd of that which is 133 miles. With a drop tank the range goes to around 650 miles and the operational radius goes to about 220-240 miles. The bombers are much safer, the Hurricanes and Spitfires take greater losses.



swampyankee said:


> How did that work in the He177, at least some of which had a 20 mm gun for the tail gunner?
> 
> Since the _Luftwaffe_ is now flying heavier bombers over Britain, how much earlier will the RAF get 20 mm guns into its Spitfires?



The 20mm MG FF was in service but the 40% faster firing higher velocity MG151/20 was not. The 20mm tail gun on the He 177 had about 55 degrees swing to either side if the tail gunner was in the prone position or about 30 degrees if he chose to sit. Glass looks optically clear, nice and flat and bullet proof.

The Hispano was not yet ready by the BoB and was particularly finicky in wing installations (OK in mosquito).














The rear gun on the He 177 was effective:
P-61 Black Widow vs. He 177 Greif (spoiler alert happy ending)
FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog: P-61 Black Widow vs. He 177 Greif




Shortround6 said:


> A lot of times the discussions seem to assume the Germans would somehow have 1941-42 guns and mounts for their hypothetical 1940 4 engine bombers.
> Germans fought the vast majority of the BoB with 7.9mm MG 15s with 75 round saddle drums and 20mm MG/FF or MG/FFM cannon with 15 or 30 round round drums in the flexible positions. The Ju 89 prototypes never got guns and the Do 19 might have had guns on the last aircraft (?) but descriptions paint a dismal picture. two man turret with one man controlling traverse and the other man controlling elevation.
> 
> The planes would have been little, if any faster, flown very little higher and not been a whole lot better armed than the twin engine planes. Hard to see any real advantage.



The proposed armament for the Do 19 and Ju 89 when they flew in 1936 on miserable 600hp engines was twin 20mm guns in the dorsal and ventral bathtub (presumably forward and rearward facing)

The MG FF and MG FFM could use 30,45,60,90 magazines and I think the 30 could come as a clip or drum. Choice of magazine seemed to depend on installation (nose, ventral bombola facing forward etc). I know the 90's were for the Fw 190 but pictures suggest both 30 and 60 were used on Luftwaffe aircraft in flexible mounts. It would depend on the space available.

_"and not been a whole lot better armed than the twin engine planes"_ Yeah, sure, you are serious. A hit by a 134 gram 20mm bullet is likely to be devastating to a pilots bullet proof wind screen, engine block or propeller shank whereas a 12 gram 7.92mm round will likely do next to nothing other than a 20 minute repair. The rear guns, even if only a MG15 at least got a very clear shot at the approaching fighter and likely would have been a 20mm gun by 1939/40. Both the MG131 and MG81 were in production by 1940.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 17, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> There is no evidence for that that, larger rounds are far less disturbed by air currents. The Ikara MG FF (basically the Oerlikon with the shorter medium velocity cartrige) weighed only 23kg and was successfully used on hand swivel mounts on a number of Luftwaffe aircraft as was the MG151/20. MG FF (and MG151) found themselves on swivel mounts on the nose of the He 111 and Do 217 and rear canopy of Ju 188.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is all quite true. But so is GrauGeist's point about the USAAF's experience. The defensive armament of a bomber, no matter how good, is not going to substitute good or better fighter cover. 

The 4 engine bomber/higher altitude bomber/better armed bomber is misdirected resources in my opinion. The Germans would have been better off to just use 111's as they were. But develop more range into the 109, and better communication and tactics for escorting bombers. The easiest way to get the technological edge to win the BoB is improving fighter cover. Heavier bomb loads are great for strategic bombing, but Sealion (the feasibility of which is a whole seperation discussion) needed air superiority. The smaller two engine bombers were if anything, better suited to the tactical bombing requirements of the strategy. Flatten the airfields, then support the landing force as it crosses the channel, then support troops on the ground. Thus was right up the LW's alley as-equipped. But the air space was far too contested.


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The MG15 fired 1050 rpm of rifle calibre bullets from a 75 round magazine. A 4 second burst with say 5% hits would put about 4 rifle calibre rounds weighting 12.7 grams into a target.
> The MG FF fired 540 rpm of 20mm bullets from a 60 round magazine. A 4 second burst with 5% hits would put about 2 x 20mm rounds weighing 134 grams in to the target.
> 
> If a 12.7 gram bullet hits a Hurricane bullet proof widescreen it gets scratched. If it hits an oil cooler or radiator the engine looses power 5-10 minutes latter.
> ...


Nice example but the angle of fire with a drum loaded 20mm would be far less than an LMG plus the poor ballistics of the FF would significantly reduce the chances of a hit. I think you are also losing sight of the main aim of the bombers guns. The primary objective wasn't to shoot down the fighter, it was to stop the bomber being shot down. Your LMG hitting the windscreen would seriously craze it and almost certainly the fighter pilot would pull away, job done. It was very unusual to continue attacking a bomber once you have started to take hits.
The statistics of the He177 are interesting but it wasn't a drum fed FF cannon, you would be lucky to get 20 degrees.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 17, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> This is all quite true. But so is GrauGeist's point about the USAAF's experience. The defensive armament of a bomber, no matter how good, is not going to substitute good or better fighter cover.
> 
> The 4 engine bomber/higher altitude bomber/better armed bomber is misdirected resources in my opinion. The Germans would have been better off to just use 111's as they were. But develop more range into the 109, and better communication and tactics for escorting bombers. The easiest way to get the technological edge to win the BoB is improving fighter cover. Heavier bomb loads are great for strategic bombing, but Sealion (the feasibility of which is a whole seperation discussion) needed air superiority. The smaller two engine bombers were if anything, better suited to the tactical bombing requirements of the strategy. Flatten the airfields, then support the landing force as it crosses the channel, then support troops on the ground. Thus was right up the LW's alley as-equipped. But the air space was far too contested.


Maybe the fall of France took the LW by surprise as much as anyone, did anyone believe that they would be in a position to attack the UK in 1940 until they actually were.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> There is no evidence for that that, larger rounds are far less disturbed by air currents. The Ikara MG FF (basically the Oerlikon with the shorter medium _realy short low velocity_ cartrige) weighed only 23kg and was successfully used on hand swivel mounts on a number of Luftwaffe aircraft as was the MG151/20. MG FF (and MG151) found themselves on swivel mounts on the nose of the He 111 and Do 217 and rear canopy of Ju 188.



fixed and where the Luftwaffe put MG 151 cannon on later bombers is only of moderate interest in 1940.






> The MG15 fired 1050 rpm of rifle calibre bullets from a 75 round magazine. A 4 second burst with say 5% hits would put about 4 rifle calibre rounds weighting 12.7 grams into a target.


Tony Williams says 11.5 grams for an AP bullet. Maybe he is wrong. Maybe 12.7 grams is for a lead cored bullet used in ground guns?



> The MG FF fired 540 rpm of 20mm bullets from a 60 round magazine. A 4 second burst with 5% hits would put about 2 x 20mm rounds weighing 134 grams in to the target.



Here is where things start getting strange. Mathematically you are correct. Except the flexible 20mm MG/FFs guns seldom used a magazine that allowed for 4 seconds of fire. Both 15 round and 30 round magazines were used. 4 seconds at 9 rounds per second (540rpm) is 36 rounds.



> The ammunition problem is over stated, 60 rounds at 540rpm is *11 seconds *which still leaves plenty of (30-45) seconds of 7.92mm from accurate central guns.


No, 540rpm from a 60 round ammo supply is 6.66 seconds.



> The 20mm tail gun on the He 177 had about 55 degrees swing to either side if the tail gunner was in the prone position or about 30 degrees if he chose to sit. Glass looks optically clear, nice and flat and bullet proof.


Early He 177s used an MG 131 in tail with a smaller tail cone and no raised top for sitting position.
Here we run into limits of traverse of the mount and practical limits imposed by airflow and the gunners muscles/body mechanics. Most countries finally figured out that trying to fire more than 45 degrees to the fuselage was not possible with any degree of accuracy as the gunner was spending so much effort fighting the slipstream on the barrel/s.
Granted this is a generality, but you have about 4 basic position for the gunners. Standing with feet on floor or braces, gunner can use his body and leg muscles to help gross aim the gun while using the arm/should muscles for fine aim. Seated upright position, a bit less movement of the body, and bit less leverage for the legs, gunner can still twist in seat or swivel.
Seated on floor or kneeling. Leg muscles and movement are pretty much out of it. Upper body from waist up? shoulder and arm muscles doing more of the work. Laying prone with chest on pad. Now we are down to pretty much the shoulder and arm muscles. arms are out over the head and the head itself has a limited range of motion to stay lined up with the sight.
Add to this the bigger the barrel the more area the slipstream has to push against. A long barrel is worse than short barrel due to leverage but a short fat barrel and spring housing/sight has a lot of "sail" area.




Granted this is the nose gun of a He 111 but you get the idea compared to a MH 15.



> The Hispano was not yet ready by the BoB and was particularly finicky in wing installations (OK in mosquito* Beaufighter*).





> The proposed armament for the Do 19 and Ju 89 when they flew in 1936 on miserable 600hp engines was twin 20mm guns in the dorsal and ventral bathtub (presumably forward and rearward facing)



I don't much care what was _proposed. _The British were proposing quad 20mm turrets and single 40mm turrets before the war.
To me what matters is what was used at the time in question or very shortly (a few months?) after.



> _"and not been a whole lot better armed than the twin engine planes"_ Yeah, sure, you are serious. A hit by a 134 gram 20mm bullet is likely to be devastating to a pilots bullet proof wind screen, engine block or propeller shank whereas a 12 gram 7.92mm round will likely do next to nothing other than a 20 minute repair. The rear guns, even if only a MG15 at least got a very clear shot at the approaching fighter and likely would have been a 20mm gun by 1939/40. Both the MG131 and MG81 were in production by 1940.



AS above, what was the Luftwaffe actually using in service aircraft in the summer and early fall of 1940? Most people that support this idea of German 4 engine bombers want hundreds of bombers (production had to start in 1939, but want them *ALL* equipped with the lastest, greatest guns, engines and equipment from the last week of the campaign. 

So yes I am serious.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 18, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> In terms of a hypothetical Ju 89 (and maybe Do 19) during the BoB there is no doubt that they would have been much tougher to bring down. Both these aircraft would have had a 20mm tail gun or two and caused considerably times more loses to the RAF fighters than the rifle calibre MG15 and MG81 on the He 111, Do 17Z and Ju 88A1. The rifle calibre guns had minimal effect and one imagines the MG131 had it been in service might have caused more harm and been more effective.



As has been pointed out, these positions would have been manually operated in 1940 - the Germans did not have a workable power turret at the outbreak of WW2 and did not install such a thing in an aircraft until the maritime patrol variants of the Fw 200 in late 1940/1941. As it was proposed, the Ju 89, by 1940 is not a very potent machine and the RLM was best sticking to the twin engined bombers they chose, rather than the four engined heavies it had planned before the war. The Do 19 and Ju 89 were singularly unimpressive and would not have offered anything more than what the LW had available in the BoB, except that the LW would have had fewer aircraft available. Also, there's that perennial argument that LW fanboys always ignore; if Junkers puts the Ju 89 [or insert favourite aircraft of choice here] into production, what is it _not _building in quantity that it probably needed?

Establishing a production line for big heavy bombers is a massive undertaking and requires enormous resources, space and labour. Yes, Junkers had built big aircraft before, but on a production line like what it was doing with the Ju 86, Ju 87 and Ju 88? Never. It took the British vast amounts of time, space and effort to going from building the likes of the Handley Page Harrow and Hampden to the Halifax, then from the Avro Anson to the Manchester/Lancaster.

Sure, with better engines, better defensive armament, the Ju 89_ might _have been a headache for the RAF, but I doubt it. It was slow, poorly defended and had a pitifully small bomb load for such a big aeroplane. Again however, the outcome would probably not have been much different. The Germans lost the Battle of Britain NOT because of the types of aircraft they operated, but they never were able to quantify the damage being done to their targets - German reconnaissance aircraft got intercepted and shot down, and reports from fighter pilots of RAF losses were exaggerated and unfortunately the LW hierarchy believed what they were being told and then based their strategic decision making on false information. The Germans had no real perception of what they were achieving, or not as the case was. That's not going to change with four engined bombers.

This is the part of the argument that always rears its head with these sorts of discussions, as I've pointed out before. "The [insert aeroplane type here] WOULD have been better than anything the Allies had, IF it received the more powerful engines [insert scenario that actually took place that the aircraft in question's designers had no control over]" The Bomber B programme and the aircraft built to it were destined to delay and eventual failure _because_ the Germans could not develop the engines they wanted for them.



Shortround6 said:


> I don't much care what was _proposed. _



Pretty much. You can't hinge an argument's success on something that was promised but never took place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (May 18, 2020)

And


Koopernic said:


> There is no evidence for that that, larger rounds are far less disturbed by air currents.



It has nothing to do with air currents and everything to do with trying to hit something flashing by you doing hundreds of miles an hour.



Koopernic said:


> Luftwaffe fighters sometimes had no more than 5 minutes over Britain and never more than 15 minutes. Drop tanks mean they turn up at high altitude near the UK coast with a full tank of internal fuel having used the jettison tank to form up, gain altitude, find the bombers they are escorting and cruise. The ammunition problem is over stated, 60 rounds at 540rpm is 11 seconds which still leaves plenty of (30-45) seconds of 7.92mm from accurate central guns. If you assume an Me 109E4 has an range of 400 miles its operational radius will be 1/3rd of that which is 133 miles. With a drop tank the range goes to around 650 miles and the operational radius goes to about 220-240 miles. The bombers are much safer, the Hurricanes and Spitfires take greater losses.



Park would continue his pealing away the fighters tactic so the deeper into England they go the more units they are engaging, you have to remember that they have to fight into the target and back out again,

that means taking on all three fighter groups the further you go as well as 11 group again on the way back out, with every loss being not only a lost plane but pilot. I don't agree on the ammunition being overstated, eight .303 brownings in the spit and hurri are considered by many to be to light so two 8mm's in the 109 aren't going to win you many friends. Lastly as per the BoB, the Luftwaffe airman became increasingly dismayed at the RAF's ability to find and engage them from what appeared to be out of nowhere, and many times bad weather, bad timing or bad luck had fighters not meeting up with bombers or formations becoming scattered do to bad weather, like has been posted the outcome would be the same, a British win.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 18, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> It has nothing to do with air currents and everything to do with trying to hit something flashing by you doing hundreds of miles an hour


I suggest you take a ride in a Cessna 172 and once leveled off and cruising, open the windscreen and hold a broomstick out about three feet and try and hold it steady.
When you've mastered that, come back and let us know how that worked out.


----------



## PAT303 (May 18, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I suggest you take a ride in a Cessna 172 and once leveled off and cruising, open the windscreen and hold a broomstick out about three feet and try and hold it steady.
> When you've mastered that, come back and let us know how that worked out.



I think the argument was the projectiles were disturbed by air currents, not the gun barrels?, by your example a bigger 20mm barrel would be harder to train than a thinner shorter .303/7.92mm so the gunners would be further disadvantaged using bigger guns.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> It has nothing to do with air currents and everything to do with trying to hit something flashing by you doing hundreds of miles an hour.



I was too busy to read the entire convo, so my apologies if I missed something or the context of this post. But wind does affect the trajectory of a bullet, ANY bullet, and any size round, just as it does to any flying object. It is simple physics and aerodynamics. Some call it Wind Drift.

Wind has an affect on anything traveling in the air. Even aircraft. When navigating you have to correct for wind.

3.2 Effects of Winds - Sierra Bullets

http://www.physics.utah.edu/~mishch/wind_drift.pdf

https://www.rifleshootermag.com/editorial/ammunition_rs_bulletvwind_200906/84226

These articles are discussing rifle and pistol rounds fired at ground level where wind velocity is most likely much less than at the altitudes our aerial warriors are playing around in.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 18, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was too busy to read the entire convo, so my apologies if I missed something or the context of this post. But wind does affect the trajectory of a bullet, ANY bullet, and any size round, just as it does to any flying object. It is simple physics and aerodynamics. Some call it Wind Drift.
> 
> 3.2 Effects of Winds - Sierra Bullets


I don't think anyone was debating that point. More that the effects of wind on trajectory and other nuances are moot when precision-aim simply isn't happening/possible. 

I think it could be conceded that an attacked making a direct and steady tail-on approach would give an opportunity for a marksman but pilots favouring this method probably wouldn't last long between tailgunners and escort fighters. But that's only my 2 cents.


----------



## pbehn (May 18, 2020)

I thought that the whole idea of a turret was to have the guns securely mounted and smoothly traversed. When you see footage of waist gunners in B-17s with the movement of the plane, gun and gunner plus the recoil, the effect is that he is just firing bullets in a general direction.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> I don't think anyone was debating that point. More that the effects of wind on trajectory and other nuances are moot when precision-aim simply isn't happening/possible.
> 
> I think it could be conceded that an attacked making a direct and steady tail-on approach would give an opportunity for a marksman but pilots favouring this method probably wouldn't last long between tailgunners and escort fighters. But that's only my 2 cents.



While I was never a fighter pilot, or bomber gunner, I think it does play a role in aiming. I do have 6 years of experience in aerial gunnery, including actual combat time doing so. Our gun sights were not precision gunsights either. We had to learn the way winds affect the tragectory none the less to determine how and when to aim. In our case we did not have to learn just the affects of the natural wind, but the wind created by the rotor wash. I would suspect prop wash would have an affect as well. I would also suspect that fighter pilots and bomber gunners would have to take these things into account when aiming at a moving aerial target regardless of its precision or not. A gunner/pilot has to take everything into account otherwise they are just shooting in the wind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 18, 2020)

Without the benefit of experience of any sort in aerial gunnery, I can say that with the little knowledge I do have of the subject that it wasn't simple to just plonk gun positions onto existing aircraft types, even when gun positions and turrets were designed into the aircraft, their impact on aerodynamics had consequences. The Manchester suffered severe vibration when that awful FN.7 mid upper turret was turned, turning the rear turret also caused buffeting. The Halifax suffered increased drag with the installation of the turrets designed for it, that had a detrimental impact on its overall performance.

Another issue that the British discovered with the installation of gun turrets on its pre-war bombers (the Blenheim, Wellington and Whitley) was that during exercises, gunnery accuracy actually decreased, as gunners did not receive sufficient gunnery training to adequately take advantage of the benefits the new power turrets offered. In 1939 the head of RAF Bomber Command, Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt, in a general rant about how poorly prepared his service was for a shooting war commented on the poor accuracy of the gunners in their new powered turrets and advocated a central gunnery training school to cater for the demands of the new technology. This was taken up.

I'm sure such things almost certainly would have affected the Germans in their new turrets as well.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 18, 2020)

I'm curious about the optimal arc of fire for the 20mm's proposed to be defending the do19's or ju88's. Reading accounts generally indicates to me that one of the RAF favoured approaches was beam attacks on bombers. Given the speed of these two bombers that wouldn't exactly be difficult to position a spitfire or hurricane for even if they were overhauling the bombers.

What kind of coverage would the defensive guns have on a long sweeping turn culminating in a beam-on attack?


----------



## GrauGeist (May 18, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> I think the argument was the projectiles were disturbed by air currents, not the gun barrels?, by your example a bigger 20mm barrel would be harder to train than a thinner shorter .303/7.92mm so the gunners would be further disadvantaged using bigger guns.


Of course wind currents will have an effect on the trajectory of a bullet (or cannon shell) in flight.
On a bomber, the gun positions are not in "clean" air like the nose or wings of a fighter and then you have to factor in my commemt about the broomstick to understand that defensive weapons on a bomber are terribly inaccurate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 18, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I thought that the whole idea of a turret was to have the guns securely mounted and smoothly traversed. When you see footage of waist gunners in B-17s with the movement of the plane, gun and gunner plus the recoil, the effect is that he is just firing bullets in a general direction.



Was there any examination by the USAAF of how effective different gunner's stations were? I would suspect that the waist gunners were the least effective, but I've no data.


----------



## Dimlee (May 18, 2020)

PAT303 said:


> The trouble is you would still have a bloke standing behind the gun trying to calculate the lead and deflection angles of a Spit or Hurri flying in three dimensional space in the fractions of a second it took them to flash by while he himself is doing the same, the most likely outcome of fitting 20mm cannons in a 1940's bomber would be the gunners would miss with bigger bullets.



Initial argument is about the tail gun, so in some (or most?) cases the fighter will remain under the gunner's fire longer than the fractions of a second unless attacking from 6 o'clock high.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 18, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> These articles are discussing rifle and pistol rounds fired at ground level where wind velocity is most likely much less than at the altitudes our aerial warriors are playing around in.


 The wind velocities are much lower but the air density is higher. At 20,000ft or so the air density is about 1/2. the bullets slow down less due to the lower drag and and ability of the same speed wind would be roughly 1/2 also. 

We may be worrying too much about minor details. In the example given by Sierra they are talking about a change in impact of around 3 feet at 600ds with the just over 10mph wind example. about 1 man in 1000 (or less) had any business at all it shooting from one airplane to another at 600yds in WW II. If I am right about the difference in air density then even a 40mph wind at 20,000ft is only going to move the bullet about 6 ft at 600yds. 
The major problem was figuring out where the target was going to be when the bullets reached it. A 300mph airplane is moving 440ft a second or so. If the bullets take 0.5 seconds to reach the target the target has moved 220ft in that space of time. Even if you are in a plane doing 300mph and aiming at a plane doing 300mph that is even a little of to the side of 6 o'clock you need to shoot at _where it will be_ and _not where it is_. 
given some of the less than precision sights most air gunners had to work with aiming was more a matter of 1/2 a plane length or so (against fighters) than really particular spots. Tales of aiming for oil coolers notwithstanding  

On the ground a rough rule of thumb for cross winds is if the distance is doubled the wind drift goes up be around 3.5 or 3.6? I have forgotten but it is a bit under 4 times. Dispersion due to range also goes up with the square of the distance. As in if all bullets had landed in a 20 in circle at distance A then all bullets should land in a 40 in circle at distance 2A, at first look it seems to be doubled but the target _area_ is actually 4 time bigger. If the intended target is only 10in in diameter what are the chances of hitting it? 

This why a lot of aces said to fill your windscreen with the target plane or when you thought you were to close to get closer. 

British thought that a power operated mount increase the effectiveness of a gun by between 2 and 4 times.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The wind velocities are much lower but the air density is higher. At 20,000ft or so the air density is about 1/2. the bullets slow down less due to the lower drag and and ability of the same speed wind would be roughly 1/2 also.
> 
> We may be worrying too much about minor details. In the example given by Sierra they are talking about a change in impact of around 3 feet at 600ds with the just over 10mph wind example. about 1 man in 1000 (or less) had any business at all it shooting from one airplane to another at 600yds in WW II. If I am right about the difference in air density then even a 40mph wind at 20,000ft is only going to move the bullet about 6 ft at 600yds.
> The major problem was figuring out where the target was going to be when the bullets reached it. A 300mph airplane is moving 440ft a second or so. If the bullets take 0.5 seconds to reach the target the target has moved 220ft in that space of time. Even if you are in a plane doing 300mph and aiming at a plane doing 300mph that is even a little of to the side of 6 o'clock you need to shoot at _where it will be_ and _not where it is_.
> ...



Good points...


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 18, 2020)

Readie said:


> WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war? (2 Viewers)


No. Germany needs to take and hold ground, you do that with tanks, artillery, plain old soldiering and most importantly supply chain and logistics. Forget heavy bombers, if the Soviets have enough time to pick up their factories and carry them over the Caucuses to where the Luftwaffe needs heavy bombers to strike them, well Germany’s already lost the war. 

Now, give Germany triple the tanks, artillery, IFVs, trucks, etc. and supply chain they had on Day 1 of Barbarossa and you can make due with the Luftwaffe’s twin engined bombers just fine. The Allies didn’t win the war with heavy bombers, but with boots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 18, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> No. Germany needs to take and hold ground, you do that with tanks, artillery, plain old soldiering and most importantly supply chain and logistics. Forget heavy bombers, if the Soviets have enough time to pick up their factories and carry them over the Caucuses to where the Luftwaffe needs heavy bombers to strike them, well Germany’s already lost the war.
> 
> Now, give Germany triple the tanks, artillery, IFVs, trucks, etc. and supply chain they had on Day 1 of Barbarossa and you can make due with the Luftwaffe’s twin engined bombers just fine. The Allies didn’t win the war with heavy bombers, but with boots.


I _very_ much agree with the main thrust of your post. Particularly the point about the successful relocation of the factories being a decent indicator of the inevitability of defeat.
But if you are going to triple your tanks and fighting vehicles etc. etc. etc. You're better off to just double them, and then produce a commensurate number of tactical air support aircraft, fighters, reconnaissance aircraft and perhaps most importantly, transport aircraft. Having treble the mechanized army is great. But airpower is a major force multiplier. You get significantly more bang for your buck out of a tank that has better aerial reconnaissance, is better protected from air attack, can call on more airstrikes and can move in to support paratroops dropped in advance of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 18, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> I _very_ much agree with the main thrust of your post. Particularly the point about the successful relocation of the factories being a decent indicator of the inevitability of defeat.
> But if you are going to triple your tanks and fighting vehicles etc. etc. etc. You're better off to just double them, and then produce a commensurate number of tactical air support aircraft, fighters, reconnaissance aircraft and perhaps most importantly, transport aircraft. Having treble the mechanized army is great. But airpower is a major force multiplier. You get significantly more bang for your buck out of a tank that has better aerial reconnaissance, is better protected from air attack, can call on more airstrikes and can move in to support paratroops dropped in advance of it.


I agree, and the place to get those extra aircraft is clear. The Battle of Britain was a waste of German air power. Once Britain was pushed out of France and Norway the Brits couldn‘t anything offensively to the Germans. So, take the 2,000 bombers and fighters you would have lost in the BoB and throw them eastwards into Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 18, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I agree, and the place to get those extra aircraft is clear. The Battle of Britain was a waste of German air power. Once Britain was pushed out of France and Norway the Brits couldn‘t anything offensively to the Germans. So, take the 2,000 bombers and fighters you would have lost in the BoB and throw them eastwards into Russia.


They didn't take part with the intention of losing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (May 18, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> I don't think anyone was debating that point. More that the effects of wind on trajectory and other nuances are moot when precision-aim simply isn't happening/possible.



That's my argument, it doesn't matter if the gun is more powerful or shoots more streamlined wind bucking bullets in 1940 you still have a gunner swinging off the back of vibrating gun connected to a vibrating aircraft trying to hit a maneuvering target as it flashes by in sub zero temperatures, with the target shooting back.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 18, 2020)

pbehn said:


> They didn't take part with the intention of losing.


Of course, but the Luftwaffe took part in support of a lie, Sealion or the amphibious invasion of Britain, defended by the then most powerful navy in human history, with tug-towed river barges. The coming massacre of the German invasion fleet would have gone down into the annals of history’s amphibious disasters, like the 1588 Spanish Armada (20,000 dead or 1/3 of Spanish troops/sailors) or the 1281 “divine wind,” or kamikaze typhoon that wiped out the Mongol invasion of Japan (70,000 dead or 1/2 of Mongol troops/sailors). Can you imagine the poor bastards on the barges when a dozen capital ships, over 200 hundred cruisers and destroyers plus dozens of MTBs, all with RAF cover, plus at min. four dozen submarines and their lethal perisher-qualified commanders come to meet you.

Had the fallacy of Sealion been abandoned as impossible, the 2,000 Luftwaffe bombers and fighters lost in this mission to nowhere could have gone to Barbarossa. It is in the east that Germany could have won the war. Ignore distractions in Britain, North Africa, the Mediterranean or Greece. Go straight for Russia in spring, not summer 1941 with everything you’ve got. Either you‘ll crush the Soviets and gain time for the coming war with USA and Britain or you’ll end up dead like you did anyway.

And forget about heavy bombers. Swap out every He.111, Ju.88 and Do.17 at the Battle of Britain with four engined heavy bombers like the Heinkel He 177 and the Germans still can’t win the Battle of Britain or the war. You need boots on the ground.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 18, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Of course, but the Luftwaffe took part in support of a lie, Sealion or the amphibious invasion of Britain, defended by the then most powerful navy in human history, with river barges. Had the fallacy of Sealion been abandoned as impossible, the 2,000 Luftwaffe bombers and fighters lost in this mission to nowhere could have gone to Barbarossa.
> 
> Swap out every He.111, Ju.88 and Do.17 at the Battle of Britain with four engined heavy bombers like the Heinkel He 177 and the Germans still can’t win the Battle of Britain or the war. You need boots on the ground.


I agree with you. Quite a lot. 

But questioning a German war plan....


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 18, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> I agree with you. Quite a lot.
> 
> But questioning a German war plan....


I made a few edits before I saw this post. Gotta love Sean Bean.


----------



## gjs238 (May 18, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I agree, and the place to get those extra aircraft is clear. The Battle of Britain was a waste of German air power. Once Britain was pushed out of France and Norway the Brits couldn‘t anything offensively to the Germans. So, take the 2,000 bombers and fighters you would have lost in the BoB *and North Africa* and throw them eastwards into Russia.



And North Africa


----------



## pbehn (May 18, 2020)

While we are not taking part in the BoB and N. Africa why not look at history and not invade anywhere?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 18, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The wind velocities are much lower but the air density is higher. At 20,000ft or so the air density is about 1/2. the bullets slow down less due to the lower drag and and ability of the same speed wind would be roughly 1/2 also.
> 
> We may be worrying too much about minor details. In the example given by Sierra they are talking about a change in impact of around 3 feet at 600ds with the just over 10mph wind example. about 1 man in 1000 (or less) had any business at all it shooting from one airplane to another at 600yds in WW II. If I am right about the difference in air density then even a 40mph wind at 20,000ft is only going to move the bullet about 6 ft at 600yds.
> The major problem was figuring out where the target was going to be when the bullets reached it. A 300mph airplane is moving 440ft a second or so. If the bullets take 0.5 seconds to reach the target the target has moved 220ft in that space of time. Even if you are in a plane doing 300mph and aiming at a plane doing 300mph that is even a little of to the side of 6 o'clock you need to shoot at _where it will be_ and _not where it is_.
> ...


In terms of the problems I was set at school and college apart from any "weather" there is no wind. Away from any turbulence around the aircraft the air is still and the aircraft is moving with the gun. So a gun firing forward fires a bullet with a muzzle velocity of the gun + the speed of the plane, firing backwards it is the m/v minus the speed of the plane. Firing sideways it has the muzzle velocity in the direction of the gun and a sideways velocity equal to that of the plane. I have no idea what that does to the round in flight, does it keep pointing as aimed or slowly rotate slightly? This got me thinking, for a dorsal gunner firing forward there must be an elevation firing directly forward where the plane flies into its own bullets, no idea how to work that out though.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 18, 2020)

You have to be flying mighty fast to fly into your own bullets. One Grumman F11 Tiger managed it in the 1950s in near or just over supersonic dive. 

But perhaps if the guns were elevated well over 45 degrees?


----------



## pbehn (May 18, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> You have to be flying mighty fast to fly into your own bullets. One Grumman F11 Tiger managed it in the 1950s in near or just over supersonic dive.
> 
> But perhaps if the guns were elevated well over 45 degrees?


That's what I meant, in theory if you fire vertically upwards the bullet comes down and hits you on the shoulder. I was just posing as a mathematical problem not suggesting it happened. I suppose the time of flight of the bullet on its arc and the time taken by the plane to reach the landing point of the bullet would be the same.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 18, 2020)

pbehn said:


> While we are not taking part in the BoB and N. Africa why not look at history and not invade anywhere?


They're Nazis, they have to invade somewhere. And besides, the Nazis are burning through their economic and industrial reserves, they have to move forward.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 18, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> They're Nazis, they have to invade somewhere. And besides, the Nazis are burning through their economic and industrial reserves, they have to move forward.


Well yes, but any argument against the BoB prompts a similar argument against invading Russia, Adolf didn't have the equipment to do it. Churchill didn't become PM until just before Dunkerque. Without him it is possible to see the UK suing for peace, certainly the Germans could see it as a possibility. Many of the German high command believed they were winning until days before they gave up. "The massed raids on London would wipe out the last 50 RAF fighters" etc etc.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 18, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Well yes, but any argument against the BoB prompts a similar argument against invading Russia, Adolf didn't have the equipment to do it.


Perhaps, but it was their best shot.

Had the Germans ignored distractions in Britain, the Mediterranean and North Africa and amassed its equipment, and instead of breaking its Barbarossa invasion plan into three directions as shown below (violating the rules of force concentration against a numerically superior foe), the Germans had a chance.






But to circle back to this topic, heavy bombers for the Luftwaffe do nothing to improve Germany’s chances at winning the war. It’s take Russia or bust.


----------



## gjs238 (May 18, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> They're Nazis, they have to invade somewhere.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 18, 2020)

gjs238 said:


>


Looking for the ark no doubt.


----------



## swampyankee (May 18, 2020)

pbehn said:


> While we are not taking part in the BoB and N. Africa why not look at history and not invade anywhere?



That contradicts entire basis of the nazi ideology: invading foreign countries to murder Jews (and Roma and a few other groups), depopulate Slavic nations, and enslave the relatively few survivors.


----------



## gjs238 (May 18, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> They're Nazis, they have to invade somewhere.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 18, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> Looking for the ark no doubt.


That scene scared my young self.

Movie scenes that would not be OK to film today


----------



## GrauGeist (May 19, 2020)

The premise of attacking Britain was to bring them to the table to negotiate a truce. Hitler even held hopes that Britain may join the Axis.
With Britain at least neutral, he would have had a decent shot at the Soviet Union.

However, history intervened when Mussolini bit off more than he could chew, Britain handed Der Führer his ass and the Japanese attacked the U.S.

From that point onward, he was screwed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 19, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The premise of attacking Britain was to bring them to the table to negotiate a truce. Hitler even held hopes that Britain may join the Axis.
> With Britain at least neutral, he would have had a decent shot at the Soviet Union.
> .


If Halifax was as good at defeatism as Churchill was at defiance who is to say it wouldn't/couldnt happen? No one knew at that time what a difference the Chain home + Dowding system would make.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 19, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> That contradicts entire basis of the nazi ideology: invading foreign countries to murder Jews (and Roma and a few other groups), depopulate Slavic nations, and enslave the relatively few survivors.


That's the ideology, it doesn't mean that he has to do it or people thought he would do it, his army that invaded Russia had 120 horses for every tank, and many of those tanks were not tanks in the modern sense with a turret and heavy gun.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 19, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The premise of attacking Britain was to bring them to the table to negotiate a truce. Hitler even held hopes that Britain may join the Axis.


Had the USSR attacked Germany (and all of Western Europe) the British likely would have joined the fight alongside Germany. But that would have occurred in the late 1940s, and likely under a Weimar government, not Nazis.


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 19, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I thought that the whole idea of a turret was to have the guns securely mounted and smoothly traversed. When you see footage of waist gunners in B-17s with the movement of the plane, gun and gunner plus the recoil, the effect is that he is just firing bullets in a general direction.



I have a couple of RAF studies on fitting 12.7`s / 20mm cannon to bombers in early WW2 (lancaster etc), it states on more than one accasion that in their opinion, it was dramatically more effective to have a powered turret than a hand mounted gun of any sort. This was a discussion point because the turrets weighed an absolute ton.

Incredibly annoyingly I cant remember which damn file number it was in !!!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 19, 2020)

The IJN used 20 mm guns as defensive armament in all versions of the G4M and other multi-engine aircraft. It did not seem to render them invulnerable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 19, 2020)

pbehn said:


> That's the ideology, it doesn't mean that he has to do it or people thought he would do it, his army that invaded Russia had 120 horses for every tank, and many of those tanks were not tanks in the modern sense with a turret and heavy gun.



Nazis not rampaging through Europe would a change in policy on the order of Jeff Davis telling the Confederacy to free all the slaves in 1862. It would cause a collapse of the government. Invading France was equally critical to nazi maintenance of power. Once France was invaded, Hitler made the choice,_ whether he meant to or not,_ to go to war with the UK and, ultimately, the US


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 19, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Good points...


The attached report analyzes Luftwaffe fighter attacks on AAF bombers and fighter vs fighter combat, based on German gun camera films. Range fire was opened, duration, accuracy, etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (May 19, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> Particularly the point about the successful relocation of the factories being a decent indicator of the inevitability of defeat.



We can call that relocation "successful" because the USSR has won. But it has been very painful for the Soviet economy and it negatively impacted the situation on the front for many months in 1941 and 1942. Also, please note that the relocation itself did not make the factory immune from the German attacks. Please note my comment #171 above.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 19, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> We can call that relocation "successful" because the USSR has won. But it has been very painful for the Soviet economy and it negatively impacted the situation on the front for many months in 1941 and 1942. Also, please note that the relocation itself did not make the factory immune from the German attacks. Please note my comment #171 above.


 I would generally agree that it was unsuccessful had they lost?
The move caused terrible problems in the short term no one would disagree I don't think. But the war materials produced by the factories that were safer (if not invulnerable) from German attack would seem to carry the point of the plan's success I would think. What would the alternative have been? Repel Barbarossa at the outset I suppose.

Edited for additional


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 19, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> I have a couple of RAF studies on fitting 12.7`s / 20mm cannon to bombers in early WW2 (lancaster etc), it states on more than one accasion that in their opinion, it was dramatically more effective to have a powered turret than a hand mounted gun of any sort. This was a discussion point because the turrets weighed an absolute ton.
> 
> Incredibly annoyingly I cant remember which damn file number it was in !!!


According to R Wallace Clark in his book “British Aircraft Armament Volume1” the RAF:
”When the Boulton and Paul Company introduced a new high performance twin-engined bomber, the Sidestrand, it was reported that gunners in the open cockpit were unable to align their guns with any accuracy against the force of the slipstream. The Air Staff were aware of the problem, and a development order was issued to Boulton Paul for a power-assisted enclosed gun turret to be fitted to the nose of the aircraft.” 
“After a series of trials in 1936, when the latest fighters carried out mock attacks on formations of bombers, the doubts of the Air Staff about the usefulness of gunners in open cockpits was fully confirmed. It was decided that specifications for new bombers would include a requirement for enclosed and powered gun turrets, and that some existing types would be converted.”

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 19, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Nazis not rampaging through Europe would a change in policy on the order of Jeff Davis telling the Confederacy to free all the slaves in 1862. It would cause a collapse of the government


They liked the idea of a good rampage but not many times did he do it. He didnt rampage across North Africa and he didn't rampage into UK. Stalin contributed to Adolfs rampage in Russia which should never have got as far as it did. Germany didn't substantially out produce the UK in military equipment to take on Russia and the USA was just folly.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 19, 2020)

pbehn said:


> They liked the idea of a good rampage but not many times did he do it. He didnt rampage across North Africa and he didn't rampage into UK. Stalin contributed to Adolfs rampage in Russia which should never have got as far as it did. Germany didn't substantially out produce the UK in military equipment to take on Russia and the USA was just folly.




Yup, Germany only ever overran and conquered _one_ competitor state. And it wasn't really that the Germans were particularly better equipped or stronger. The French had prepared for an anachronistic war. Their military was dogmatically defensive. The political and social state of the country was fractious. And procurement had been very poor for the preceding years. 

The myth of the Nazi juggernaut persists obviously, but it hardly holds water imho. 



Are there any similar documents from Japanese sources? Why did they arrive at the 20mm for defensive guns?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 19, 2020)

pbehn said:


> They liked the idea of a good rampage but not many times did he do it. He didnt rampage across North Africa and he didn't rampage into UK. Stalin contributed to Adolfs rampage in Russia which should never have got as far as it did. Germany didn't substantially out produce the UK in military equipment to take on Russia and the USA was just folly.



He didn't rampage into the UK because he was stopped.

The USSR was even more poorly prepared than France. There were several reasons for this, one was the USSR's relative industrial backwardness, second, was Stalin's propensity for killing competent senior military personnel, and, third, Stalin's refusal to believe intelligence reports that his buddy, Hitler, was massing troops on his borders to invade.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 19, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> According to R Wallace Clark in his book “British Aircraft Armament Volume1” the RAF:
> ”When the Boulton and Paul Company introduced a new high performance twin-engined bomber, the Sidestrand, it was reported that gunners in the open cockpit were unable to align their guns with any accuracy against the force of the slipstream. The Air Staff were aware of the problem, and a development order was issued to Boulton Paul for a power-assisted enclosed gun turret to be fitted to the nose of the aircraft.”


Just for reference the *high performance bomber* was this




When fitted with the new turret (and better engines) they got this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 20, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Chances are, the exact same thing will happen to the Luftwaffe's heavy bombers as happened to their medium bombers historically. The Luftwaffe's inability for the escorts to communicate with the bombers SNIPt.



If You check my earlier posts in this thread I point out that the critical factor in Luftwaffe Success would have been having drop tanks fitted to the Bf 109E and Bf 110C. Historically the Germans had used the drop tank in World War 1 and on several Heinkel's in the Spanish war. The Bf 109E1B was equipped with bomb racks and could carry a tank but was not plumbed. Several could carry a tank there for ferrying but not jettison it.

My argument is that the Luftwaffe 2 engine bombers were adequate given drop tank equipped escorts but that a 4 engine bomber would have been of value primarily because:
1 They could support the U-boats much better than the Fw 200 and this would leave Fw 200 free for transport duties.
2 A 4 engine bomber with 900-1000hp engines could be far more heavily armed than a two engine bomber. The B29 was successful. The B17/B24 was successful in forcing ultra heavy armour and long range armament and even rockets on to German fighters which though successful then rendered them extremely vulnerable to the US escorts.

When the Ju 89/Do 19 flew in 1936 the intention was to arm them with a dorsal 20mm and ventral 20mm, a tail rifle calibre gun and a nose gun. I suggest that by the time of the BoB they would have He 111 style waist guns and likely a 20mm gun or MG81 in the tail by the time of the BoB.

Instead of getting RAF fighters with forced landings the armament produces a few shoot downs, written of aircraft and severely wounded pilots unable to return to service. It's not enough to destroy fighter command but in combination with escorts it does create a problem.




RW Mk. III said:


> This is all quite true. But so is GrauGeist's point about the USAAF's experience. The defensive armament of a bomber, no matter how good, is not going to substitute good or better fighter cover.
> SNIP.


A 4 engine Luftwaffe bombers effect on sea power would have been far more significant.



Glider said:


> Nice example but the angle of fire with a drum loaded 20mm would be far less than an LMG plus the poor ballistics of the FF would significantly reduce the chances of a hit. SNIP .


For the MG151/20 I think 23 degrees when seated nearly 40 degrees when prone, it was enough. With the MG131 it was 70 degrees, there was a rotating blister to position the swivel point. An MG FF clearly stops the bomber being shot down. A 20mm hits gets noticed.



pbehn said:


> Maybe the fall of France took the LW by surprise as much as anyone, did anyone believe that they would be in a position to attack the UK in 1940 until they actually were.



Definetly, there was no emphasis on range. It was a tactical air force to support the army and use fast climbing fighters to intercept French (or Polish) fighters at the border.



Shortround6 said:


> fixed and where the Luftwaffe put MG 151 cannon on later bombers is only of moderate interest in 1940
> 
> Tony Williams says 11.5 grams for an AP bullet. Maybe he is wrong. Maybe 12.7 grams is for a lead cored bullet used in ground guns?
> 
> ...



The MG FF round had 75% of the velocity of the MG15 (600ms vs 750ms) and with a 134 gram explosive armour piercing round had 7.0 times the kinetic energy than the MG 15's 11.5 grams rounds plus they exploded. They had a frontal area of 6 times that of the rifle calibre bullet but 12 times the weight and 7 times the kinetic energy. They're clearly going to slow down far less dramatically in flight which means the ballistics are going to be the same at meaningful distances.

The MG FFM round had 93% of the velocity of the MG15 (700ms vs 750ms) and with a 90 gram explosive round had 6 times the kinetic energy than the MG 15's 11.5 grams rounds.
They had a frontal area of 6 times that of the rifle calibre bullet but 7.8 times the weight and 6.7 times the kinetic energy. They're clearly going to slow down less in flight which means the ballistics are going to be the same at meaningful distances given the velocities are similar.




nuuumannn said:


> As has been pointed out, these positions would have been manually operated in 1940 - the Germans did not have a workable power turret at the outbreak of WW2 and did not install such a thing in an aircraft until the maritime patrol variants of the Fw 200 in late 1940/1941. As it was proposed, the Ju 89, by 1940 is not a very potent machine and the
> SNIP.



No 4 engine bomber was impressive in 1936 and no 2 engine bomber was impressive in 1936. Speeds of under 220mph were the norm. Given the same performance increase we saw with Do 17, He 111, Ju 86 we could expect the Do 19. What speed did Whitley's and Hampton's did on 750-900hp. Even the Wellington needed 1300hp Merlin or 1500hp Hercules engines. The Stirling needed the 1500hp Hercules.

German engines barely broke the 1000hp barrier in 1940 (Jumo 211A3) or DB601A. Most of their He 111, Do 17 and Ju 88A1 bombers had 900hp. The Merlin only got above 1030hp due to 100 octane fuel.

At the outbreak of the war in Europe the B17D lacked a tail turret and even much latter when the B17E, B26 and B25 came in the rear gun was manually aimed.

The reason the Germans didn't have turrets is because to make it worthwhile you need either 4 engines or at least 2 engines with at least 1500hp. Really you need 1600hp R2600 or 1850hp R2800. Early Wellingtons had a simple turretless MG in a blister in the nose and tail. 

Technically there was no problem in German servo mechanism practice producing a power turret. The ones they did develop are characterised by extremely low drag which was necessary given limited engine power, the need to rely on speed and the undesirability of disrupting production to produce the Ju 188B which had a tail turret.







Nevertheless 20mm MG FF/M guns can be installed in the tail, the ventral gondola, the dorsal position behind a He 111 style wind shield. This combined with rifle calibre waist guns is a significant improvement despite the limited traverse of the ventral and dorsal position. Nevertheless power driven turrets were the objective for the Do 19/Ju 89

Everything also shows and intention to bypass manned turrets and proceed with fully remote controlled turrets on Ju 288 and He 177. They of course did show up on the He 177 and Me 210/410.




PAT303 said:


> And
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with air currents and everything to do with trying to hit something flashing by you doing hundreds of miles an hour.
> ...



A win in the BoB means roaming all over Britain and that means drop tank equipped Bf 109/Bf 110. There is no escaping that and having escorts changes things. Two engine bombers have the range but a few 4 engine units more heavily armed, with 20mm guns, would create problems by putting a lot more Hurricanes and Spitfires out of service for long periods. Again Maritime bombing more important.



PAT303 said:


> I think the argument was the projectiles were disturbed by air currents, not the gun barrels?, by your example a bigger 20mm barrel would be harder to train than a thinner shorter .303/7.92mm so the gunners would be further disadvantaged using bigger guns.



The bigger a projectile the less the CdA (Surface Area) to mass ratio and the less the bullet slows in flight or is deflected by winds. Its a simple fact and very significant. That in itself means the MG FFM will be just as long ranged and accurate as a rifle calibre machine gun. Outside of the need for a solid mount and the reduction in accuracy outside of a limited arc due to wind force say +/-45 degrees this wouldn't be a problem. Again I stand by that at least a dorsal turret would have been available by 1939 given that a Do 19/Ju 89 was at least capable of carrying a turret.

These articles are discussing rifle and pistol rounds fired at ground level where wind velocity is most likely much less than at the altitudes our aerial warriors are playing around in.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was too busy to read the entire convo, so my apologies if I missed something or the context of this post. But wind does affect the trajectory of a bullet, ANY bullet, and any size round, just as it does to any flying object. It is simple physics and aerodynamics. Some call it Wind Drift.
> SNIP





pbehn said:


> I thought that the whole idea of a turret was to have the guns securely mounted and smoothly traversed. When you see footage of waist gunners in B-17s with the movement of the plane, gun and gunner plus the recoil, the effect is that he is just firing bullets in a general direction.



They fired in short bursts when firing at long range targets. The reason a Leopard II tank doesn't have a 50 and only a 7.62mm NATO MG is because the New German army calculated the reduction in accuracy was not worth a 50 calibre guns given they already had a 120mm guns.

However you need to put a very heavy structure in to handle the recoil. Did the 50 have a recoil recuperator or did it just smash into the backstop.



nuuumannn said:


> Without the benefit of experience of any sort in aerial gunnery, I can say that with the little knowledge I do have of the subject that it wasn't simple to just plonk gun positions onto existing aircraft types, even when gun positions and turrets were designed into the aircraft, their impact on aerodynamics had consequences. The Manchester suffered severe vibration when that awful FN.7 . SNIP
> 
> I'm sure such things almost certainly would have affected the Germans in their new turrets as well.



If they have 4 engine bombers the weight and drag of a power turrets becomes acceptable and these problems are discovered and solved. The German Navy and the US Navy were the only countries in which firing solutions were passed directly from the computer in the director to the elevation of the guns. They had the ability to solve these problems.




RW Mk. III said:


> I'm curious about the optimal arc of fire for the 20mm's proposed to be defending the do19's or ju88's. Reading accounts generally indicates to me that one of the RAF favoured approaches was beam attacks on bombers. Given the speed of these two bombers that wouldn't exactly be difficult to position a spitfire or hurricane for even if they were overhauling the bombers.SNIP



I would expect He 111 style waist guns by this time. The MG131 was in production by 1940, the MG81 had been in production since 1938 and was beginning to replaced the MG 15. 1350RPM instead of 1050RPM with 300 round magazines instead of 75 saddle drums.

The Germans used retractable dustbins (Ju 86, Ju 52) and Gondola which had maybe 70 degree arcs of fire with an MG15 given the rotating lens mounting. Waist guns compensate for inadequate dorsal and ventral position.



Shortround6 said:


> The wind velocities are much lower but the air density is higher. At 20,000ft or so the air density is about 1/2. the bullets slow down less due to the lower drag and and ability of the same speed wind would be roughly 1/2 also.
> 
> We may be worrying too much about minor details. In the example given by Sierra they are talking about a change in impact of around 3 feet at 600ds with the just over 10mph wind example. about 1 man in 1000 (or less) had any business at all it shooting from one airplane to another at 600yds in WW II. If I am right about the difference in air density then even a 40mph wind at 20,000ft is only going to move the bullet about 6 ft at 600yds.
> SNIP.



The moderate ballistics of the MG FF are not much worse than the MG15 at say 300 meters and the MG FFM would be indistinguishable. Until both power operation and gyro sites made it into the turrets I cant see that the accuracy would be different. What I think matters is destructive power so that the fleeting hits by rifle calibre rounds turn into far more damaging hits by 20mm.




Admiral Beez said:


> No. Germany needs to take and hold ground, you do that with tanks, artillery, plain old soldiering and most importantly supply chain and logistics. Forget heavy bombers, if the Soviets have enough time to pick up their factories and carry them over the Caucuses to where the Luftwaffe needs heavy bombers to strike them, well Germany’s already lost the war.
> 
> Now, give Germany triple the tanks, artillery, IFVs, trucks, etc. and supply chain they had on Day 1 of Barbarossa and you can make due with the Luftwaffe’s twin engined bombers just fine. The Allies didn’t win the war with heavy bombers, but with boots.



The German high Command was not planning on invading the entire Soviet Union, they knew they didn't have resources. They analysed it an realised they could only hold about 1/3rd and drew an arbitrary line just behind Moscow. TIK on YouTube does a good job of explaining this. 

Not commonly taught of course. Every member of the high command or attaché says that German intelligence expected a Soviet Invasion the next year. Of course established historians go down other explanations but the fact is they had no expectation of being able to conquer the entire SU.




Admiral Beez said:


> Of course, but the Luftwaffe took part in support of a lie, Sealion or the amphibious invasion of Britain, defended by the then most powerful navy in human history, with tug-towed river barges. The coming massacre of the German invasion fleet would have gone down into the annals of history’s amphibious disasters, like the 1588 Spanish Armada (20,000 dead or 1/3 of Spanish troops/sailors) or the 1281 “divine wind,” or kamikaze typhoon that wiped out the Mongol invasion of Japan (70,000 dead or 1/2 of Mongol troops/sailors). Can you imagine the poor bastards on the barges when a dozen capital ships, over 200 hundred cruisers and destroyers plus dozens of MTBs, all with RAF cover, plus at min. four dozen submarines and their lethal perisher-qualified commanders come to meet you.
> 
> SNIP
> 
> And forget about heavy bombers. Swap out every He.111, Ju.88 and Do.17 at the Battle of Britain with four engined heavy bombers like the Heinkel He 177 and the Germans still can’t win the Battle of Britain or the war. You need boots on the ground.



They of course didn't plan for an invasion until the battle of france. The various landing craft the German Navy developed for a hypothetical sea lion were superb, of course they weren't in production. A 4 engine bomber hurts the Royal Navy.



pbehn said:


> Well yes, but any argument against the BoB prompts a similar argument against invading Russia, Adolf didn't have the equipment to do it. Churchill didn't become PM until just before Dunkerque. Without him it is possible to see the UK suing for peace, certainly the Germans could see it as a possibility. Many of the German high command believed they were winning until days before they gave up. "The massed raids on London would wipe out the last 50 RAF fighters" etc etc.



Note: Chamberlin set the ultimatum to Hitler and Chamberlin declared war. He was an ethical and morally firm man. He wont back down. He gets smeared by history because he avoided a war over 3 million Sudden Germans who pretty much unanimously wanted to come back into the now reunited Germany/Austria empire (had been part of Austrian Empire but by way Czech Crown). Britain is supposed to fight a war in 1938 to force Sudeten Germans to be part of a failing state they want to leave by this time?

Either way it has nothing to do with Churchill or Chamberlain. Britain needs to be put on the defensive with a successful trade blockade and a seriously diminished fighter force and damaged production. A 4 engine bomber causes damage to UK trade.



RW Mk. III said:


> I would generally agree that it was unsuccessful had they lost?
> The move caused terrible problems in the short term no one would disagree I don't think. But the war materials produced by the factories that were safer (if not invulnerable) from German attack would seem to carry the point of the plan's success I would think. What would the alternative have been? Repel Barbarossa at the outset I suppose.
> 
> Edited for additional



LOL, No endless wars in the middle east, No British-American puppet states, Independence for Ireland, Independence for Scotland, Independence for India, no communist China, no Vietnam war, moon landings a bit earlier, Trade with South America via long range Junkers aircraft.



swampyankee said:


> He didn't rampage into the UK because he was stopped.
> 
> The USSR was even more poorly prepared than France. There were several reasons for this, one was the USSR's relative industrial backwardness, second, was Stalin's propensity for killing competent senior military personnel, and, third, Stalin's refusal to believe intelligence reports that his buddy, Hitler, was massing troops on his borders to invade.



Stalin was massing troops on the borders of Romania, preparing to invade Germany's oil supply. They may have been badly prepared but only just. Their Tanks T-34, KV1, their MiGs, Yaks and Lavochkins, their 4 engine bombers were outstanding designs were in production and entering service only in need of debugging. Maybe 6 months is all it would take and they'd have technical superiority. Around 1500 T-34 had been delivered by Barbarossa.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 20, 2020)

The heavily armored Jabos came after the fact.
In 1943, the Luftwaffe nearly stopped the 8th AF dead in it's tracks due to terrible losses during unescorted daylight missions.
The slipper tanks that the RFC used in Africa during WWI weren't drop tanks, but additional fuel storage units to increase range (and weren't jettisonable).
The fact that the IJN and the Luftwaffe (Condor Legion) used drop tanks in the mid-30's seems to be a lesson lost because the Luftwaffe desperately needed longer range for their Bf109 during the Bob.

And we can most likely figure that *IF* the Luftwaffe had a sizable heavy bomber force, they would have screwed that up with their historical slip-shod operating procedures that not only cost them dearly in men and equipment, but ultimately, the war.


----------



## Koopernic (May 20, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> I have a couple of RAF studies on fitting 12.7`s / 20mm cannon to bombers in early WW2 (lancaster etc), it states on more than one accasion that in their opinion, it was dramatically more effective to have a powered turret than a hand mounted gun of any sort. This was a discussion point because the turrets weighed an absolute ton.
> 
> Incredibly annoyingly I cant remember which damn file number it was in !!!



Wellington 1C with 1050hp Pegasus engines had a speed of 235mph. I was going to use that as a point to say that turrets came at a cost in speed. But the rather good performance of the Wellington, given the exceptional range and bombload, likely reflects the efficiency of the geodetic structure plus the effect of integrating the aircraft into the turret (rather than the other way around) and forgoing the unnecessary dorsal turret. 

Nevertheless I would say that turrets did make sense until engines in the 1500hp and above range were common.


----------



## Koopernic (May 20, 2020)

Below are some layouts of the Ju 89. The Ju 89 had the same planed armament layout as the Do 19 which was 1 x 2 man dorsal turret with a single 20mm MG FF plus a 2 man ventral turret with a 20mm MG FF, a tail gun machine gun of either (7.92) or MG131 (13.2MM)
Luftwaffe Resource Center - Bombers - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

The second man I assume would be keeping the 60 or 90 round magazines loaded and likely helping with setting the range and maybe deflection as was the case with ground based light FLAK. This suggest the Luftwaffe may have been serious about long distance hits. I would expect a hydraulic powered turret using an variable displacement swash plate pump.

Note: the early 20mm C30 ground based 20mm guns had available a wind up clockwork gyro sight. This was replaced with an electrical unit, it was somewhat temperamental.

The rifle calibre guns are likely to allow a wide 70 degree arc of fire. Luftwaffe guns were often offset in a rotating structure to allow the gunner to offset the guns to get a good line of sight. I would suggest that by 1939/40 this would have given way to a heavier tail gun and the addition of He 111 style waist guns. As can be seen there is plenty of room for a good quality tail turret and sufficient power to carry the weight and drag. By 1939 engines of 1050hp were available so the estimated speed of the Ju 89 would approach about 260mph, which is about typical of a non turbocharged aircraft operating at low to medium altitude.










The Ju 89 did in a roundabout way develop into the Ju 290 and Ju 390 which was armed to the teeth with 20mm guns and turrets in the final version. Ju 290 used their radar to stay out of the way of allied fighters but they needed 20mm guns in the tail and dorsal as well as all other positions to deal with the 20mm guns of allied fighters such as the Mosquito. They operated alone.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 20, 2020)

> LOL, No endless wars in the middle east, No Anglo-British puppet states, Independence for Ireland, Indepenance for Scotlamd, Independence for India, no communist china, no Vietnam, moon landings a bit earlier, Trade with South America via long range junkers aircraft.



I'm not sure what about my quoted text above elicited this statement? Could you clarify the relationship between this remark and the quote above?

And could you clarify the remark itself? It seems terribly close to a proposal that the world would have been much better off had the Germans won? Apparently in that scenario we can welcome a more peaceful world? Vis a vis your mention of middle East wars, Vietnam etc. Also apparently in this alternate future we can expect to see a boom in self-governance and independence? (Mentions of Ireland, Scotland, India).


I am not putting words in your mouth, I am inviting clarification on this. I have to believe the thought became garbled somehow.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 20, 2020)

For those interested in the history of USAAF turrets I have attached:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 20, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The heavily armored Jabos came after the fact.
> In 1943, the Luftwaffe nearly stopped the 8th AF dead in it's tracks due to terrible losses during unescorted daylight missions.
> The slipper tanks that the RFC used in Africa during WWI weren't drop tanks, but additional fuel storage units to increase range (and weren't jettisonable).
> The fact that the IJN and the Luftwaffe (Condor Legion) used drop tanks in the mid-30's seems to be a lesson lost because the Luftwaffe desperately needed longer range for their Bf109 during the Bob.
> ...


Agreed. In fact I think the war ends sooner as the Germans would have run out of fuel before the oil campaign even started.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (May 21, 2020)

Even if the Germans or Japanese had aircraft equal to the United Nations heavy bombers and fighters able to escort them, they could never build enough of them any more than they could build enough Pz IV or Panther tanks. Neither nation had sufficient resources to win in the end. 

They would have caused more death and destruction. They might even have lasted into 1946. The ending would have still been the same. 

See "The Wages of Destruction" by Tooze for details.


----------



## swampyankee (May 21, 2020)

wlewisiii said:


> Even if the Germans or Japanese had aircraft equal to the United Nations heavy bombers and fighters able to escort them, they could never build enough of them any more than they could build enough Pz IV or Panther tanks. Neither nation had sufficient resources to win in the end.
> 
> They would have caused more death and destruction. They might even have lasted into 1946. The ending would have still been the same.
> 
> See "The Wages of Destruction" by Tooze for details.



The ending may have been worse. Where would you drop the A-bombs in Germany?


----------



## PFVA63 (May 21, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> For those interested in the history of USAAF turrets I have attached:...



Hi,
Thanks for posting. It looks interesting.
Pat


----------



## gjs238 (May 21, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The ending may have been worse. Where would you drop the A-bombs in Germany?



Somewhere in the "eastern" part.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 21, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Somewhere in the "eastern" part.



Well, that would include Berlin.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 22, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Below are some layouts of the Ju 89. The Ju 89 had the same planed armament layout as the Do 19 which was 1 x 2 man dorsal turret with a single 20mm MG FF plus a 2 man ventral turret with a 20mm MG FF, a tail gun machine gun of either (7.92) or* MG131 (13.2MM)*
> Luftwaffe Resource Center - Bombers - A Warbirds Resource Group Site
> 
> The second man I* assume *would be keeping the 60 or* 90 round magazines *loaded and likely helping with setting the range and maybe deflection as was the case with ground based light FLAK. This suggest the Luftwaffe may have been serious about long distance hits. I *would expect* a hydraulic powered turret using an variable displacement swash plate pump.



As near as I can find out (could be wrong) the MG 131 did not show up in any real quantities until early 1941. The Do 217C-0, Do-217 E-1 and Do 217 E-3 did not use it. At least as built. The Do 217E-2 did in both the _electric_ turret at the rear of the canopy (and it was power gross traverse only, manual elevation fine traverse) and in the ventral step. The HE 111 according to one old author didn't get the MG 131 in the dorsal position until the H-11 version and didn't get the same traverse only turret until the H-16 version (and then it may have been a field kit?) Ju-88A-4s did get them but I don't know when. Early A-4s did not get them and the A-1 and A-5 did not have them as built. It doesn't matter when design work started or first test firings. It seems to have been vaporware in the summer/fall of 1940. BTW the link you posted makes no mention of the MG 131 on the pages for the JU 89 and Do 19. 
The MG 81 also seems to be a late comer unless somebody has some actual source saying otherwise. What the Luftwaffe was using in the spring of 1941 has no bearing on what several hundred 4 engine bombers would have been armed with in the summer or early fall of 1940. Production would have had to start in the winter of 1939/40. 

You are assuming things the way you want them to go. The Germans used few, if any, 90 round drums in 1940 on the MG FF cannon. 

Page 128 of "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green (yes he did get some things wrong) says " However, the two-man cannon turret (one man controlling traverse and the other elevation) design of which had been proceeding in parallel with the construction of the bomber, was found to be weightier and more cumbersome that anticipated. static tests indicating that its installation would demand considerable structural strengthening of the center fuselage, and as weight had escalated" during construction the Do 19 was already under powered. "

Under the section for the JU 89 it does say hydraulically powered turrets for the 20mm, it also says in the text that the turrets were by Mauser and two man. Then it lists MG FF guns. 

I really don't care what the prototypes had as a few other countries built some rather ambitious guns and mounts/turrets for aircraft that went nowhere 




dorsal turret for the American B-19 with a 37mm automatic gun (mock up of the gun?) the turret anyway disappeared never to be used on an american combat aircraft. Note the .30 cal gun (mock up?) on top of the 37mm. Another 37mm was supposed to go in the nose. 
I would be careful about assuming what duties the 2nd man had, The German Ground 20mm AA guns used a 5 man crew, granted one of them did little more than pass new magazines to the actual loader but in the AA gun one man controlled both the elevation and traverse. 



Koopernic said:


> By 1939 engines of 1050hp were available so the estimated speed of the Ju 89 would approach about 260mph, which is about typical of a non turbocharged aircraft operating at low to medium altitude.



This seems reasonable, or if not the actual Ju 89 and German 4 engine machine using the engines of the day could reach that speed. 
Data Card for the Halifax MK I with Merlin X engines (_not_ XX) 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Halifax/Halifax_I_ADS.jpg 
The Halifax MK I has no dorsal turret though. 




and is a bit sleeker than either of the two German prototypes. Germans do have time to design and build something a bit more modern that either one but it still will be limted bu engines and armament.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 23, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> As near as I can find out (could be wrong) the MG 131 did not show up in any real quantities until early 1941. The Do 217C-0, Do-217 E-1 and Do 217 E-3 did not use it. At least as built. The Do 217E-2 did in both the _electric_ turret at the rear of the canopy (and it was power gross traverse only, manual elevation fine traverse) and in the ventral step. The HE 111 according to one old author didn't get the MG 131 in the dorsal position until the H-11 version and didn't get the same traverse only turret until the H-16 version (and then it may have been a field kit?) Ju-88A-4s did get them but I don't know when. Early A-4s did not get them and the A-1 and A-5 did not have them as built. It doesn't matter when design work started or first test firings. It seems to have been vaporware in the summer/fall of 1940. BTW the link you posted makes no mention of the MG 131 on the pages for the JU 89 and Do 19.
> The MG 81 also seems to be a late comer unless somebody has some actual source saying otherwise. What the Luftwaffe was using in the spring of 1941 has no bearing on what several hundred 4 engine bombers would have been armed with in the summer or early fall of 1940. Production would have had to start in the winter of 1939/40.
> 
> You are assuming things the way you want them to go. The Germans used few, if any, 90 round drums in 1940 on the MG FF cannon.
> ...


The Halifax was one of the exceptions to the rule that if it looks right it is right. Aerodynamically it was much worse than the Lancaster, which to my eyes doesn't look as sleek. The low slung nacelles of the Lancaster hanging in the breeze would on the face of it seem to cause more drag than the Halifax nacelles when in fact the opposite was the case. RR Hucknell installed Lancaster style nacelles on a Halifax (to be the Mk II Sr 2) and showed a substantial improvement in performance (additional 26 mph at 25,000 ft), although still not as good as a Lancaster.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 23, 2020)

I believe it had something to do with the placement/location of the propellers in relation to the wing leading edge or airfoil. I believe I have read that the radial engine Halifaxes got a performance boost a bit higher than the simple power rating would indicated despite the higher drag? 
Likewise the Hercules powered Lancasters were not quite as speedy as might have been thought? 

The centerline of the Props on the Merlin Lancasters are pretty much in line with the wing while on the radial engine planes the prop center line is a bit below the wing?
The centerline of the Props on the Merlin Halifax are above the the line with the wing leading edge while on the radial engine planes the prop center line is pretty much lined up the wing?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 23, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe it had something to do with the placement/location of the propellers in relation to the wing leading edge or airfoil. I believe I have read that the radial engine Halifaxes got a performance boost a bit higher than the simple power rating would indicated despite the higher drag?
> Likewise the Hercules powered Lancasters were not quite as speedy as might have been thought?
> 
> The centerline of the Props on the Merlin Lancasters are pretty much in line with the wing while on the radial engine planes the prop center line is a bit below the wing?
> The centerline of the Props on the Merlin Halifax are above the the line with the wing leading edge while on the radial engine planes the prop center line is pretty much lined up the wing?


Yes, the propellers on the Merlin Halifaxs were closer to the leading edge than on the Lancaster. This seems to have been the root of the Halifax vibration issues. Rolls Royce recommended moving the outer engines forward by 12 inches, which was not implemented. In addition due to the high mounting of the Merlin the exhausts impinged on leading edge. Also, the propeller was too close to the front of the radiator, the cooling system was a disaster and the flame damping was ineffective while increasing drag. Rolls Royce redesigned the engine installation for the considerably cleaned up Mark II Series 1A, with fin and tube radiators, new header tank, better oil coolers, better exhausts and shrouds and extended inner nacelles, amongst other changes. Rolls Royce even redesigned the fuel system to make it easier to manage and more reliable. Rolls Royce subsidiary Phillips and Powis (aka Miles) redesigned the bomb bay doors to allow them to close while carrying a 4,000 or 8,000 lb bomb. The Rolls Royce proposal to lower the engines was not implemented as by that time the Hercules powered variant was proving to be an upgrade on the Mark II. That being said the data collected by Bomber Commands showed conclusively that the Halifax IIII was still well behind the Lancaster in operational effectiveness. Sadly Rolls Royce offered to have Alvis manufacture the power plants for the Halifax using the successful design used on the Wellington Mark II which would have eliminated many of the problems. This offer was made in October 1939 but Handley Page rejected it, a mistake that was not repeated by Avro when they adopted the Beaufighter power plants for the Lancaster.
This is all from the excellent book “Rolls Royce and the Halifax” by David Birch.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (May 23, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The ending may have been worse. Where would you drop the A-bombs in Germany?



Has anyone seen unclassified documents analyzing the potential German targets for the Bomb? A coastal city seems logical to avoid a deep penetration into the Reich and increase risk of shooting down a B-29 for the first drop. Berlin is also the obvious target. If the War with Germany was still going on, I don't think there would be any debate, if a weapon was available to end the killing.


----------



## swampyankee (May 23, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> Has anyone seen unclassified documents analyzing the potential German targets for the Bomb? A coastal city seems logical to avoid a deep penetration into the Reich and increase risk of shooting down a B-29 for the first drop. Berlin is also the obvious target. If the War with Germany was still going on, I don't think there would be any debate, if a weapon was available to end the killing.



The weapon was developed for use against Germany, but they surrendered before it was needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (May 23, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The weapon was developed for use against Germany, but they surrendered before it was needed.


 or before the bomb was ready?


----------



## Koopernic (May 24, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> As near as I can find out (could be wrong) the MG 131 did not show up in any real quantities until early 1941. The Do 217C-0, Do-217 E-1 and Do 217 E-3 did not use it. At least as built. The Do 217E-2 did in both the _electric_ turret at the rear of the canopy (and it was power gross traverse only, manual elevation fine traverse) and in the ventral step. The HE 111 according to one old author didn't get the MG 131 in the dorsal position until the H-11 version and didn't get the same traverse only turret until the H-16 version (and then it may have been a field kit?) Ju-88A-4s did get them but I don't know when. Early A-4s did not get them and the A-1 and A-5 did not have them as built. It doesn't matter when design work started or first test firings. It seems to have been vaporware in the summer/fall of 1940. BTW the link you posted makes no mention of the MG 131 on the pages for the JU 89 and Do 19.
> The MG 81 also seems to be a late comer unless somebody has some actual source saying otherwise. What the Luftwaffe was using in the spring of 1941 has no bearing on what several hundred 4 engine bombers would have been armed with in the summer or early fall of 1940. Production would have had to start in the winter of 1939/40.
> 
> You are assuming things the way you want them to go. The Germans used few, if any, 90 round drums in 1940 on the MG FF cannon.
> ...



The Ju 89 V1 flew in 1936 with 750hp engines, the Ju 89 bomber program was cancelled the day after the aircrafts maiden flight. The same fate befell the Dornier Do 19.
In 1937 the cancellation extended into an order to cease all work. Nevertheless the Ju 89 V2 with 900hp DB600 engines was allowed to fly as part of the Ju 90 transport program. The Ju 89 V3 was under construction at this point and was meant to be the first armed prototype. The Do 19 V1 never got passed its 680hp radial engines.

By December 1939 the Ju 90V5 with its wing span extended 11% and removal of the Junkers double flap was flying with Bramo 139 radial engines. That shows how fast progress could have been. The Ju 90V6 featured the trappoklappe rear loading ramp. These were essentially the Ju 90B. Bomber versions for the Ju 90B were ordered which essentially became the Ju 290 by 1941.

The Ju 89V2 set some spectacular load and load to height records. Luftwaffe Secret Projects gives one of the armament options as MG131 in the tail. It lists speed as 242-255mph with 4400lbs of bombs and a range of 1850miles carrying bombs. The MG 131 was in low rate production by 1938 for experimental purposes so maybe it crept into planning documents The MG34 belt fed MG81 (1300rpm) was available by the BoB and making appearances as a retrofit for the MG15 where suitable.

The Ju 89/Do 19 aircraft had some limitations in that their low wings would have forced a B17/Ju 52/He 111 style bomb bay but doubt this was a serious limitation.

The Do 19 obviously could have enjoyed an aerodynamic clean-up around its braced tail and its 2 dimensional folded nose and glass house. It was after all a prototype. 

The lack of turrets on German bombers has little to do with the lack of ability to produce power turrets: it is explained primarily by the factor that the performance penalty of gun turrets on 2 engine bombers starting with 700hp and engines with 1000-1100hp engines by 1940 is simply too much eg He 111 and Do 17. The B25 and B26 needed CW R-2600 of 1600hp+ and the B26 needed PW R-2800 of 1850hp. The Wellington on the 1050hp Taurus was underwhelming at 235mph and needed the Merlin XX or Hercules. The Germans had 1350hp in later 1941 and 1450 in 1942 with Jumo 211F and J. The1560hp BMW 801A couldn't be spared for bombers except in very small numbers.

I can not see a technology problem in producing a hydraulic powered turret in 1838 for the Luftwaffe. Either a pressure compensated hydraulic flow control valve is used to control the traverse rate of a reversible swash plate variable displacement pump is used. These devices are not some unique British technology at the time.

Every indication is that the Luftwaffe wanted to bypass manned turrets completely so did not invest much in power turrets. The Bomber B (Ju 288) was completely defended by remote controlled guns using periscopic sights to eliminate parallax error. The Bomber A (He 177) was likewise to be defended by remote control guns in the dorsal and ventral forward firing area ie anything outside of the manned tail gun and rearward facing bathtub gun.

The Fw 200 was an airliner. The maritime reconnaissance bomber version came out of a private order placed by the Japanese Navy and seized by the Luftwaffe. Until the Bramo 323 received water injection and reached 1200hp a large power driven turret also had a performance penalty.

That leaves the Do 217 as the only bomber sand it seems to have only been an interim and the Ju 90S/Ju 290 which plodded along as an after thought.

The manned power Dorsal turrets used seem to be the 20mm FW 19 (a focke-wulf designed fully hydraulic unit used on the Fw 200 and the 20mm hydraulic HL 151/20 or HL 151/15 used on the Fw 200, Ju 290, BV222, Me 232 and several flying boats).

The MG 131 was in low rate production in 1938, seemingly for testing, The issue of using 30,60,90 round drum magazine for the MG FF gets down to reload times for the bigger magazine versus less frequent reloads. 

The single gun EDL 131 was clearly designed for minimum drag. British aircraft might have done well to have this low drag light weight turret. The single MG131 had as much muzzle kinetic energy as twin 303 brownings and as much throw weight with more penetration and a bullet 2.7 x bigger and clearly was a smaller turret. The manual elevation is unlikely to be an issue given the short barrel protrusion into the slipstream.

The Ju 89 can be ready by 1939. Its probably not a spectacularly fast aircraft, due to the low engine power available at that stage but then 260mph seems to have been the norm. I would expect a 20mm power driven dorsal turret, 20 mmm ventral gun in a bathtub, tail gun (possibly MG81) He 111 style waist guns and nose guns. If the dorsal turret isn't possible I would expect a He 111 style installation with an MG15 and a similar installation with a MG FF with limited deflection.

Its a lot better than a Fw 200 and capable of significant development as the Ju 290 showed. The effect on the BoB is to force a greater dispersal of RAF fighter command, an more effective anti shipping weapon and attacks in the North of Scotland.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 24, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> I can not see a technology problem in producing a hydraulic powered turret in *1838* for the Luftwaffe.


Steam powered, perhaps?


----------



## Elmas (May 24, 2020)

It must be borne in mind that Soviet factories occupied a much larger portion of territory than their English, German and Japan counterparts as, to the contrary, there were no land space problems in the Soviet Union. Given the very low precision of the bombings of those times, the number of missions necessary to destroy the plants of the factories would have been impossible for the Luftwaffe to sustain, because most of the bombs would not have fallen on the sheds but on the surrounding open areas.
A very simple cost / benefit analysis immediately showed the Luftwaffe the futility of the strategic bombing of the Soviet Union, with any type of bomber conceivable at the time, regardless of the numbers of the engines.


----------



## Koopernic (May 24, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Steam powered, perhaps?




There were proposals for steam turbine powered Me 264 and He 177 that used a 70% coal, 30% diesel slurry. So it makes sense to tap of some of the steam to power the various servo mechanisms of the aircraft.


----------



## PAT303 (May 24, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The single gun EDL 131 was clearly designed for minimum drag. British aircraft might have done well to have this low drag light weight turret. The single MG131 had as much muzzle kinetic energy as twin 303 brownings and as much throw weight with more penetration and a bullet 2.7 x bigger and clearly was a smaller turret.



As proven by the B17, just fitting more guns of a bigger caliber to bombers doesn't work, they need effective fighter escort which is not possible over England during the BoB. Just look at the hardest day, the 18th Aug, the weather caused delays, fighter groups didn't meet up or couldn't find the bomber groups, final attacking waves went in first after the first waves got lost or attack secondary targets and all were intercepted by the RAF. The outcome of the BoB doesn't change except you loose more crews the deeper you go inland.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 24, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Ju 89 V1 flew in 1936 with 750hp engines, the Ju 89 bomber program was cancelled the day after the aircrafts maiden flight. The same fate befell the Dornier Do 19.
> In 1937 the cancellation extended into an order to cease all work. Nevertheless the Ju 89 V2 with 900hp DB600 engines was allowed to fly as part of the Ju 90 transport program. The Ju 89 V3 was under construction at this point and was meant to be the first armed prototype. The Do 19 V1 never got passed its 680hp radial engines.
> 
> By December 1939 the Ju 90V5 with its wing span extended 11% and removal of the Junkers double flap was flying with Bramo 139 radial engines. That shows how fast progress could have been. The Ju 90V6 featured the trappoklappe rear loading ramp. These were essentially the Ju 90B. Bomber versions for the Ju 90B were ordered which essentially became the Ju 290 by 1941.
> ...


Periscope sighted turrets proved to be virtually useless in combat. The extremely limited field of vision made target acquisition very very difficult and even if acquired, tracking proved to be a problem. The British had little success with their various Frazier Nash turrets. The Americans abandoned the Bendix ventral turret developed for the B-25. Sperry developed the ball turret to replace their periscope sighted ventral turret. The USSAF tried to reuse existing Bendix ventral turrets as the original B-17 chin turrets, but found that while the front nose position would make acquisition easier, tracking was stiil too difficult. The sighting arrangements had to be completely redesigned before the chin turret was introduced.
Low drag turrets were comprised by the limited field of vision. The USAAF enlarged both the Sperry upper turret of the B-17 and the best turret of the war, the Martin upper turret, to improve visibility and they were larger than the German turrets to begin with.
Remote turrets introduce problems of their own. Two separated devices must be synchronized to operate in harmony. This is further complicated by the parallax problem requiring a more accurate assessment of range. The remote mounting had to point in a somewhat different direction than the sight. These calculations had to be made by analog vacuum tube computers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 24, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Periscope sighted turrets proved to be virtually useless in combat. The extremely limited field of vision made target acquisition very very difficult and even if acquired, tracking proved to be a problem. The British had little success with their various Frazier Nash turrets. The Americans abandoned the Bendix ventral turret developed for the B-25. Sperry developed the ball turret to replace their periscope sighted ventral turret. The USSAF tried to reuse existing Bendix ventral turrets as the original B-17 chin turrets, but found that while the front nose position would make acquisition easier, tracking was stiil too difficult. The sighting arrangements had to be completely redesigned before the chin turret was introduced.
> Low drag turrets were comprised by the limited field of vision. The USAAF enlarged both the Sperry upper turret of the B-17 and the best turret of the war, the Martin upper turret, to improve visibility and they were larger than the German turrets to begin with.
> Remote turrets introduce problems of their own. Two separated devices must be synchronized to operate in harmony. This is further complicated by the parallax problem requiring a more accurate assessment of range. The remote mounting had to point in a somewhat different direction than the sight. These calculations had to be made by analog vacuum tube computers.



Sperry must have produced an ill-conceived or half executed periscope system One would have thought that any decent project manager would have tested and solved issues of target acquisition before preceding down the route of developing a system.

The Germans systems had development problems on the servo mechanism side but target acquisition was not one of the issues that dogged them. I note the B-29 used a General Electric system not a Sperry System (I presume the Sperry system was on the A-26?. Whatever the problems that Sperry or the USAF found it doesn't speak to the units developed for the Luftwaffe which developed differently.

In most of the German developed systems the gunner was situated in a sighting station and could see the target and could acquire it normally. He wasn't hidden inside using the periscope like he was in a submarine. I'll describe the Arado 240/440 (Ar 440 was a competitor to the Me 410) system which received a positive reviews from the Luftwaffe in combat usage (a few recon flights over Britain). Rudiger Kosin provides this description in "The German Fighter 1914-1975". He was the aerodynamicist responsible for the Ar 240/440 and Ar 234 jet. He had done work experience as a student at Zeiss and had a chance to play with a high end U-boat periscope and realised it could be used in aircraft. After listening for aircraft using hydrophones type of periscope called an episcope allowed U-boats to search the sky for threatening aircraft.






The periscope outlet was placed near the gun turret, this simplifying the maintenance of the alignment of the sighting head with the boresight of the gun and also gave a clear view of the target around objects such as they tail for any target the guns could fire at and eliminating parallax error. The gunner could coarsely align the target with the crude sight on his pistol grip and then switch to the optics. In the Ar 440 the periscope had an upper and lower outlet and in the lower outlet. For the lower outlet crude alignment wasn't possible since it was in a blind spot and it was found providing zoom magnification provided an answer to target acquisition. The combat reports say that the periscopic sight gave superior night vision to looking through optical glass. There were no reflections for instance from iside the sighting blister. It also allowed the gunner to be completely behind bullet proof glass.

The secret of target acquisition was
1 Good optics. The Germans had multi-coat optics and very clear optical glass.
2 Both a wide field of view and magnification zoom.
3 Orienting the gunner is a good sighting station.

On the Me 410 there were no periscopes. There were just 3 pistol grip revi sights; left, centre and right which have a wide field of vision due to the bug eyes. It worked very well but the problem was that one 13.2mm MG 131 was usually going to loose out to 6/8 browning or 4 20mm Hispano. The Me 410 needed two MG 152/20 guns to replace the MG 131.

When entering turning combat with a more manoeuvrable aircraft on its tail the pursuing aircraft invariably ends below and to one side of the chased aircraft. The Me 110 could not get its guns on to such a target but the Me 410 could. The gunner also didn't have to struggle with heavy guns or reloading magazines while under G (which proved inpossble). It just wasn't powerful enough.






For the Rear Armament on the Ju 388 (2 MG 131) or Ju 488 (MG 151) the system was different. The gunners had a duel head periscope with an upper and lower sighting head. Positioning a pistol grip aimed the tail guns hydraulically by opening spool valves. Rotating shafts for elevation and traverse communicated the guns piston back to the body of the spool valve to cut of the flow of oil. Tricks like a micron size bleed kept the system pressurised. That wasn't the magic. The guns themselves a second remote control system that positioned the sighting head, this eliminated alignment issues.

For the lower chin gun in the Ju 488 the gunner was seated in a side blister. He had a periscope, about 70cm long below the aircraft but he could search through the side blisters but he aimed through the periscope.

The remote control turret on the He 177 dorsal and chin position did not use a periscope.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 24, 2020)

Elmas said:


> It must be borne in mind that Soviet factories occupied a much larger portion of territory than their English, German and Japan counterparts as, to the contrary, there were no land space problems in the Soviet Union. Given the very low precision of the bombings of those times, the number of missions necessary to destroy the plants of the factories would have been impossible for the Luftwaffe to sustain, because most of the bombs would not have fallen on the sheds but on the surrounding open areas.
> A very simple cost / benefit analysis immediately showed the Luftwaffe the futility of the strategic bombing of the Soviet Union, with any type of bomber conceivable at the time, regardless of the numbers of the engines.




The Lofte and StuVi are available from 1942 and the Hs 293 and Fritz-X sometime thereafter some accuracy can be expected.

I don't think the 4 engine bomber would have changed the outcome of the BoB nor would it have allowed death blows to Soviet Production behind the Urals due to the resource issues of the Luftwaffe and Axis. I placed Bf 109 and Bf 110 escorts with drop tanks as far more important in the BoB.

However it is a big positive for the Luftwaffe and German Navy.

The 4 engine bomber provides much better support for the U-boats and German Navy. A properly developed Ju 89/Do 19 is faster and far better defended than the early Fw 200 and can develop into a Ju 289 of much greater range (3400 miles for the Ju 290). A 260mph Ju 89 with a tail guns can likely deal with a 280mph Fairy Fulmar sent to shoot it down. 

The British produced about 14000 Lancaster's and Halifax, 2000 Sterling, 11000 Wellingtons and maybe 1200 Warwick's and Manchester's. The US I think 17,000 B17, 25,000 B24 and 4000 B29 and innumerable B25, B26, A20 Havoc I don't think the Germans can match that more than 15%, it depends how much they can mobilise and enrol the people of the parts of Europe they occupy. 

I was thinking along the lines of up to 100/month (planed He 177 production rate). Even starting with 100 operational aircraft in September 1939 changes things. The German Navy has better reconnaissance, the bombers threaten the RN itself at times. Fulmars and even Martlets/Wildcats are far less effective than they are against a Fw 200 making the smaller escort carriers perhaps unviable. Parts of Britain in the North can be threatened with raids forcing a dispersal of defences. The whole Bismarck saga changes because the Luftwaffe now has aircraft supporting and even threatening the Royal Navy.

There is perhaps one circumstance the Luftwaffe can afford to operate against the Soviet factories behind the Urals. That is if the Ju 288 is a success. (Note Wiki data is wrong, range of aircraft is 2300 miles). It is economical to use due to low fuel burn for a big bomb load and its speed, needs only 4 crew, will seldom be intercepted due to its near 400mph speed. It would only take the Jumo 222E/F or DB606 or DB610 to work or the smaller Jumo 222A/B if the smaller 3 man Ju 288A is accepted. it is no surprise they expended so much effort into a long shot as is efficiency allows them to operate a sizeable heavy bomber fleet. The Russians did have the amazing MiG 3 ready at the outset of the conflict and its DB603/Griffon sized engine and excellent high altitude capability. 

The Ju 288 was manufactured in giant presses and use very little man power. Eg the 4 taper spars of the wing were pressed in one operation.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 24, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> properly developed Ju 89/Do 19



Properly developed means throw out and start over. 
The US had the Boeing B-15 flying in 1937, They weren't stupid enough to put it into production even with better engines.

They took what they learned from it in regards to structures and aerodynamics and designed new airframes. Consolidated didn't want to build the B-17 under license when approached by the AAF in 1938. In Jan 1939 they made a proposal to the AAF that lead to the B-24. Consolidated just managed to get the prototype completed and first test flight on Dec 29th 1939. 

The Germans should have flown the prototypes they had and started over in late 1937/early 1938.
The two bombers had too many problems what with oversized wings and questionable airfoils/aerodynamics. Even Junkers gave up on the double wing system with the JU 88 for high speed flight and using the double wing system on the elevators? The Fuselages were oversized for the job of bomber and undersized for a transport. The Ju 89 had 14% more wingarea than a B-29 and just under 40% more area than a B-17. That is a lot of extra drag (and weight) to be carting around with the available engines if you are trying for speed

I would note that the Blenheim used a power operated gun mount even if not a true "turret" (it did not revolve 360 degrees) so the idea that you needed more than 1200hp engines in order to carry a power turret needs a rethink. 
Lockheed Hudsons used a power turret, Not a particularly good one from an aerodynamic point of view. 

If you want hundreds of 4 engine bombers for the BoB they need to use guns and mounts in use at the time, not experimentals or guns available by the dozen. 
For the invasion of Russia you have another year to get the German act together. And it may have been a better area/theater to try strategic bombing in anyway.

The Americans did manage to get remote gun turrets to work but not until the A-26, B-29 and P-61 and they had several years of experience with a number of designs of manned turrets. 

They also had experience with several failed designs. The Germans tried to jump the gap. 

The thing with defensive guns is not if they can provide immunity but if they can reduce losses to acceptable levels, The Russians found that for some of the ir aircraft, improved defensive guns did reduce losses. Perhaps not enough but if you can get the average number of missions to go from 7-8 missions to around 20 before being shot down that is a not a minor improvement even if it is not enough. And pulling the guns from an existing design is not going to get enough speed to reduce losses by very much. 
For the Russians I have no idea if the change in losses also coincided with a change in escort procedures or not.


----------



## Greyman (May 24, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Periscope sighted turrets proved to be virtually useless in combat. The extremely limited field of vision made target acquisition very very difficult and even if acquired, tracking proved to be a problem. The British had little success with their various Frazier Nash turrets. The Americans abandoned the Bendix ventral turret developed for the B-25. Sperry developed the ball turret to replace their periscope sighted ventral turret. The USSAF tried to reuse existing Bendix ventral turrets as the original B-17 chin turrets, but found that while the front nose position would make acquisition easier, tracking was stiil too difficult. The sighting arrangements had to be completely redesigned before the chin turret was introduced.



The FN64 turret's lack of success had more to do with the fact that Bomber Command operated mainly at night -- not any problem inherent with periscopically-sighted under turrets.

By all British accounts the Bendix K turret was markedly inferior to the FN64 and after testing in the Mitchell recommended that "... this turret should be replaced by the F.N.64 under turret at the earliest possible date."




Reluctant Poster said:


> ... the best turret of the war, the Martin upper turret ...



_Must .. resist ... further ... thread derailment ...._

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (May 24, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Lofte and StuVi are available from 1942 and the Hs 293 and Fritz-X sometime thereafter some accuracy can be expected.



How many of them would be needed to destroy a Russian tank factory?




Koopernic said:


> The Ju 288 was manufactured in giant presses and use very little man power. Eg the 4 taper spars of the wing were pressed in one operation.



It was not only a matter of the manpower necessary to build them: it was the "manpower" to operate that planes that Luftwaffe could not afford (and, of course, the avgas...).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 24, 2020)

Looking at this question from a different angle. If Germany had a four engine bomber and had attacked Russia instead of France, then that could have ultimately been a winning strategy.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 24, 2020)

Glider said:


> Looking at this question from a different angle. If Germany had a four engine bomber and had attacked Russia instead of France, then that could have ultimately been a winning strategy.


 Possibly. 

Maybe I am interpreting too much but according to one of Dimlee's posts the the Luftwaffe managed to do quite a bit of damage to a number of Russian factories in 1943.

Not everything got moved back to the Urals and beyond. How much was vulnerable and when in 1941/42 might be an interesting discussion. 

Attacking Russia with a strategic bombing campaign is almost the opposite of attacking Britain. 
No radar net for warning and control of interceptors. 
Targets are hundreds of miles apart so the ability of the defending squadrons to be mutually supporting is not there. 

as an illustration: distances from Minsk to other Russian cities

Leningrad...700km/430 miles
Moscow...... 675km/415miles
Odessa..........855km/530 miles
Kiev.................435km/270 miles
Kharkiv...........740km/460 miles 

A strong, somewhat centrally located bomber force could hit a variety of targets in different directions in short order making things really difficult for the defenders. 

I may be wrong but my impression is that the Soviets did not have a lot of redundancy/back up in their industry. only a few factories making trucks and no (or very few ) car factories. 
only a few locomotive shops and so on. Each city needs a number of defending fighters that are useless to most other (or any other?) city. 

There is too much area for defensive belts of AA guns that the bombers would have to go through to hit even number number of targets so again, each city is on it's own. 

Granted the cities are so far apart that once the attacking formation is spotted a few times it probable destination is pretty easy to guess.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 25, 2020)

Greyman said:


> The FN64 turret's lack of success had more to do with the fact that Bomber Command operated mainly at night -- not any problem inherent with periscopically-sighted under turrets.
> 
> By all British accounts the Bendix K turret was markedly inferior to the FN64 and after testing in the Mitchell recommended that "... this turret should be replaced by the F.N.64 under turret at the earliest possible date."
> 
> _Must .. resist ... further ... thread derailment ...._



To me it looks like the FN.64 was a power driven turret aimed by a the single lower rear gunner through a periscope. I cant find much on line information on it. The gunner sat in the belly of the aircraft and had no direct view out, not even a downward looking window behind the turret. All target acquisition and aiming had to be done exclusively through a periscope. It would probably work during the day to close of a blind spot.

This is in stark contrast to the practices seen on the B29 where the gunners were in side sighting stations and aimed through a sighting blister via a reflector sight.

The side blisters on the Ju 288 differed in concept to that of the B29 in that a short periscope allowed a view clear of obstructions etc and possible issues with reflections from the blister.

To make a periscope work at night you need a large aperture to gather that light. You need optical glass that is very transparent. You also need multicoat optics to stop reflections. If you have 10 lenses to achieve all of the functions required reflections build up and blur the imagine. Because of Zeiss they had very good multicoat optics.


----------



## Koopernic (May 25, 2020)

Glider said:


> Looking at this question from a different angle. If Germany had a four engine bomber and had attacked Russia instead of France, then that could have ultimately been a winning strategy.


 France declared war on Germany and invaded the Saar part of Germany and occupied it for nearly a month. Wasn't really a choice by then. There was an attempt by Hitler, as part of territorial dispute resolution, to offer a mutual Polish-German anti Soviet pact with the Polish government against the Soviets. Poland and Germany invading Russia is quite plausible.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 25, 2020)

Elmas said:


> How many of them would be needed to destroy a Russian tank factory?
> 
> It was not only a matter of the manpower necessary to build them: it was the "manpower" to operate that planes that Luftwaffe could not afford (and, of course, the avgas...).



I specifically mention the Ju 288 because it had force multiplier effects. It was classified as a heavy bomber by the Luftwaffe and carried more than a B17.
1 Only 4 crew for the Ju 288B and Ju 288C. For the original Ju 288A it was 3 crew and less demanding engines.
2 It's speed of around 400mph (more or less the three models had speeds of 388, 402, 428) and a very high cruising speed means missions of 900 miles radious will take less than 6 hours allowing aircraft to operate multiple missions. One reason the Jumo 222 was chosen over the DB604 was apparently faster cruise the Jumo offered.
The aircraft seems a lot cheaper to man and operate than a big 4 engine aircraft. Of course we know the engines didn't come to maturity in time and the plan B engines failed as well.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 25, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Properly developed means throw out and start over.
> The US had the Boeing B-15 flying in 1937, They weren't stupid enough to put it into production even with better engines.
> 
> They took what they learned from it in regards to structures and aerodynamics and designed new airframes. Consolidated didn't want to build the B-17 under license when approached by the AAF in 1938. In Jan 1939 they made a proposal to the AAF that lead to the B-24. Consolidated just managed to get the prototype completed and first test flight on Dec 29th 1939.
> ...



Unlike the Boing B15 the Ju 89 had a successful history of evolution to the Ju 90 airliner/transport and then to the Ju 290 transport/bomber.
I don't see the 180sqm wing of the Ju 89 as a problem (Lancaster was 120sqm) but a benefit, it gave a big lift and good take-off landing characteristics. The problem for Luftwaffe aircraft was runway length. The good speed of 242mph for 1937 shows that neither the large wing nor air foil was a performance impediment.

First some dates:
Manchester I: first flight July 39, entry into service Nov 40, power Vulture 1750hp, first missions Feb 41
Lancaster I : first flight Jan 41, entry into service Feb 42, power Merlin XX 1280hp, first missions March 42
Sterling I : first flight May 39, entry into service Aug 40, power Hercules 1500hp, first mission Feb 1941
Halifax I : first flight Oct 39, entry into service Nov 40, power Merlin XX 1280hp, first mission March 1941

So the RAF heavy bombers completely missed the Battle of Britain and the Night Blitz (technically ended May 11 1941).

There is no time to start over on Ju 89 Do 19 in a major way, there is time to refine it.

Some dates on the Ju 89:
The Ju 89V1 flew on May 1937 with 750hp Jumo 210 engines( a few months after the Ju88V1). The 4 engine bomber program was cancelled two weeks latter but the Ju 89V2 flew a short time latter on 960hp DB600A engines and soon broke a world record by lifting 10000kg to nearly 15000ft (it could have lifted a grand slam). The Ju 89 was reengineered with a new fuselage but the same wings as the Ju 90 and became a successful airliner with Lufthansa and a transport for the Luftwaffe.

The wing was always smooth skin but an aerodynamic clean up occurred in the tail which had previously had a corrugated stabiliser and fin became flat sheet and the double rudder, elevator disappeared.

The Ju 90V5 (Ju 90B) flew in September 1939. This version had a new wing and got rid of the double wing flap.

The Ju 89V2 achieved 410kmh/242mph. By September 1939 it could have the 1200hp Jumo 004B as used on the Ju 88A1. The speed increase is 242mph x cuberoot(1200/960) = 242 x 1.077 = 260. At this speed of about 110m/s and at 25 tons the aircraft is consuming about 343kW on induced lift (assuming 80:1 L/D ratio for a typical wing) out of the 3200kW so the increase in power available for overcoming parasitic drag is actually 12% more so you end up with more like 270mph. Add some armament and a little aerodynamic clean-up in the tail you can probably have this bomber doing 260mph and well armed and in mass production 1.5 years after its may 1937 flight (ie early 1939) and in September 1939 you can change the wing out while already in production much as Manchester/Lancaster transition went smooth.

It's a lot better than the Fw 200 for maritime reconnaissance and that huge wing leaves much potential for growth. When the 1450hp Jumo 211 and 1700hp BMW 801 became available the aircraft will begin to shine. Its at its core a much bigger aircraft than lancaster.


----------



## swampyankee (May 25, 2020)

Unlike the Ju90, Boeing (and Douglas) had real, built-for-the-purpose airliners, so they didn't need to convert a failed bomber to a transport aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> France declared war on Germany and invaded the Saar part of Germany and occupied it for nearly a month. Wasn't really a choice by then. There was an attempt by Hitler, as part of territorial dispute resolution, to offer a mutual Polish-German anti Soviet pact with the Polish government against the Soviets. Poland and Germany invading Russia is quite plausible.


I admit to not remembering that. My logic was that a large proportion of Russian industrial strength would have been in range and Russia didn't have much in the way of defences at altitude. The Mig 3 is the obvious exception, but 1 x HMG and 2 x LMG it's effectiveness must be in question.
Naturally Russia could do what it did, i.e. move its production base out of range but that took literally over 1 million good wagons to achieve, nearly all of it without interference as Germany didn't have the long range strike capability to interdict the rail network. Germany wouldn't have to destroy the factories, just disrupt the process and the chaos would have added months to the rebuild the factories and restart production.


----------



## Tkdog (May 25, 2020)

That is hardly fair. The Russians didn’t have defense at altitude because they didn’t have a significant need for it. If the Germans get new planes then the allies do too.

Though with half as many bombers (they don’t get more engines) it isn’t clear how much need there would be. That’s half as many planes with targets being spread out over an even larger spread than in original time line. So do they continue the blitz or try and find targets in Russia? You aren’t hitting railways with 4 engine bombers at altitude in WW2. Rail yards, maybe. If you go during the day and get down lower. Whole cities were missed in WW2.

Which does beg the question of how they find factories that are scattered far from the front so they can try to bomb them.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2020)

Tkdog said:


> Which does beg the question of how they find factories that are scattered far from the front so they can try to bomb them.


How any military of the day did:
Aerial recon
Transmission interception
Information gathered from captured personnel


----------



## Elmas (May 25, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> I specifically mention the Ju 288 because it had force multiplier effects. It was classified as a heavy bomber by the Luftwaffe and carried more than a B17.
> 1 Only 4 crew for the Ju 288B and Ju 288C. For the original Ju 288A it was 3 crew and less demanding engines.
> 2 It's speed of around 400mph (more or less the three models had speeds of 388, 402, 428) and a very high cruising speed means missions of 900 miles radious will take less than 6 hours allowing aircraft to operate multiple missions. One reason the Jumo 222 was chosen over the DB604 was apparently faster cruise the Jumo offered.
> The aircraft seems a lot cheaper to man and operate than a big 4 engine aircraft. Of course we know the engines didn't come to maturity in time and the plan B engines failed as well.



How many resources are needed to train one bomber pilot?
How many ground crews, engineers, fitters, radiomen, armourers to service a four engine airplane?
What about the airfields?
And of course continuing the production of the existing models, the Red Army is pushing forward and RAF and 8th Air Force are flying over Germany...


----------



## gjs238 (May 25, 2020)

Tkdog said:


> <SNIP>
> Which does beg the question of how they find factories that are scattered far from the front so they can try to bomb them.





GrauGeist said:


> How any military of the day did:
> Aerial recon
> Transmission interception
> Information gathered from captured personnel



I think Tkdog was referring to aircraft navigation, not pre-flight intelligence gathering.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 25, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> I think Tkdog was referring to aircraft navigation, not pre-flight intelligence gathering.


Prior to planning a mission, they get the factory's location (through methods I mentioned), then it's co-ordinates are calculated and given to the Navigator who uses time/speed in conjunction with compass headings to guide the bomber(s) to the target.
Waypoints are usually based on landmarks (lakes, villages, geological features, etc.) and roads/rail lines also aid in their ingress/egress.


----------



## gjs238 (May 25, 2020)

I think Tkdog's question was rhetorical.


----------



## swampyankee (May 25, 2020)

I doubt if German navigators were significantly superior to those of the USAAF and RAF, who completely missed cities and, on occasion, entire countries. Without effective aids to navigation, which would be subject to jamming and other countermeasures, while Soviet aircraft are trying to shoot them out of the sky, may be a tad harder than doing so in peacetime, with various local aids-to-navigation that are both maintained and not actively trying to mislead.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2020)

I took a train from Moscow 200-250 east to Vyksa, didn't see anything except trees and one stop in a small town on the way, you can navigate by rail lines as long as you choose the right one, in Russia if you choose the wrong one you are following it for many miles before you know it.


----------



## swampyankee (May 25, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I took a train from Moscow 200-250 east to Vyksa, didn't see anything except trees and one stop in a small town on the way, you can navigate by rail lines as long as you choose the right one, in Russia if you choose the wrong one you are following it for many miles before you know it.



This would give the VVS and PVO-Strany a good idea of where to put their fighters to intercept the bomber stream. I wonder if the Soviets had a large-bore aircraft cannon of some sort...hmmm.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Prior to planning a mission, they get the factory's location (through methods I mentioned), then it's co-ordinates are calculated and given to the Navigator who uses time/speed in conjunction with compass headings to guide the bomber(s) to the target.
> Waypoints are usually based on landmarks (lakes, villages, geological features, etc.) and roads/rail lines also aid in their ingress/egress.


So simple! Why didn't bomber command and the 8th air force think of that!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (May 25, 2020)

Elmas said:


> It must be borne in mind that Soviet factories occupied a much larger portion of territory than their English, German and Japan counterparts as, to the contrary, there were no land space problems in the Soviet Union. Given the very low precision of the bombings of those times, the number of missions necessary to destroy the plants of the factories would have been impossible for the Luftwaffe to sustain, because most of the bombs would not have fallen on the sheds but on the surrounding open areas.
> A very simple cost / benefit analysis immediately showed the Luftwaffe the futility of the strategic bombing of the Soviet Union, with any type of bomber conceivable at the time, regardless of the numbers of the engines.



Regarding the low precision of the bombing and impossibility to destroy the Soviet factories. This theory has been disproved by history.
Please see my earlier comment:
WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?
The number of engines probably was not the most important factor, since the above-mentioned operation was done by He 111 and Ju 88. And carefully planned but never fulfilled _Eisenhammer _was to be conducted by Mistels.

Some more about the precision - an episode during the Operation Frantic, quoted from Wiki:
"On the night of 21 June, the Combat Wing of B-17s which earlier landed at Poltava sustained severe losses in a German air attack. ...
For almost two hours, an estimated 75 Luftwaffe bombers attacked the base, exhibiting a very high degree of accuracy. Nearly all bombs were dropped in the dispersal area of the landing ground where only B-17s were parked, indicating without question that the B-17s constituted the specific objective of the raiders.
Of the 73 B-17s which had landed at Poltava, 47 were destroyed and most of the remainder severely damaged. ...
The stores of fuel and ammunition brought so laboriously from the United States were also destroyed. Three days after the attack, only nine of the 73 aircraft at Poltava were operational. ...
Red Air Force losses included 15 Yak-9s, 6 Yak-7s, three trainers, a Hawker Hurricane, and a VIP DC-3. ...
The well-planned German attack was led by Oberstleutnant Wilhelm Antrup of KG 55 and carried out by He 111Hs and Ju 88s of KG 4, KG 53, KG 55, and KG 27 operating from bases at Minsk. The operation was nicknamed _Zaunkoenig_. After the He 111s left, the Ju 88s strafed the field at low altitude. He 177s from Night Reconnaissance Squadrons performed target reconnaissance, pathfinder duties and bomb damage assessment. There were no German losses."
Operation Frantic - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (May 25, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Attacking Russia with a strategic bombing campaign is almost the opposite of attacking Britain.
> No radar net for warning and control of interceptors.
> Targets are hundreds of miles apart so the ability of the defending squadrons to be mutually supporting is not there.



This is an interesting scenario, indeed. But if Germany begins to invest in the heavy bomber force, the Soviets would notice and will adjust their air strategy accordingly. Would they succeed in building up a decent home defense (without lend leased tech) against the "heavy" Luftwaffe, is a subject of speculation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (May 25, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> I doubt if German navigators were significantly superior to those of the USAAF and RAF, who completely missed cities and, on occasion, entire countries. Without effective aids to navigation, which would be subject to jamming and other countermeasures, while Soviet aircraft are trying to shoot them out of the sky, may be a tad harder than doing so in peacetime, with various local aids-to-navigation that are both maintained and not actively trying to mislead.



I don't know if German navigators were superior but they had little trouble locating the Soviet factories in the operation I mentioned in my post #171.
In the same period He 111s of I./KG100 flew at night over the Volga and Caspian Sea dropping magnetic mines and bombing the shipping. Just one bomber was lost in 3-4 weeks of anti-shipping operations.
Lack of ECM on the Soviet side and "light" summer nights has helped Luftwaffe in the navigation, of course.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Unlike the Boing B15 the Ju 89 had a successful history of evolution to the Ju 90 airliner/transport and then to the Ju 290 transport/bomber.



Actually the Boeing 314 "Clipper" used a very similar wing to the B-15, a trick Boeing did a number of times. The flying boat wing was 3 feet longer (152ft vs 149) and about 3% bigger in area. Boeing also used the wing of the B-17 on the Boeing 307 Strato-clipper/Stratoliner. And then used the B-29 wing on the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser. And actually the B-29 wing was based off the wing used on the Boeing 344 ( XPBB-1 Sea Ranger ) or at least showed Boeing moving away from large wing areas for large/heavy aircraft. 


Koopernic said:


> First some dates:
> Manchester I: first flight July 39, entry into service Nov 40, power Vulture 1750hp, first missions Feb 41
> Lancaster I : first flight Jan 41, entry into service Feb 42, power Merlin XX 1280hp, first missions March 42
> Sterling I : first flight May 39, entry into service Aug 40, power Hercules 1500hp, first mission Feb 1941
> Halifax I : first flight Oct 39, entry into service Nov 40, power Merlin XX 1280hp, first mission March 1941



Well, the Stirling got delayed because the Germans managed to bomb both production lines. Otherwise there may have been a squadron or two in service in the fall of 1940.
British seem to have taken a long time with most everything. 
BTW the Halifax went into service with the Merlin X engine. 
Had the Germans _started _in the last 1/2 of 1937 they may have had service bombers in 1940.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 25, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> Regarding the low precision of the bombing and impossibility to destroy the Soviet factories. This theory has been disproved by history.
> Please see my earlier comment:
> WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?
> The number of engines probably was not the most important factor, since the above-mentioned operation was done by He 111 and Ju 88. And carefully planned but never fulfilled _Eisenhammer _was to be conducted by Mistels.
> ...


A remarkable operation. This would seem to be one of the single most successful bombing raids of all time. (Wikipedia mind you, but still!)

But to play Devil's advocate: Was it posssibly the exception, and not the rule?


Had the Japanese visited the same sort of damage they did at Pearl Harbor every time they showed up, things would have had a different flavor in the PTO.

The FAA, delivering a Taranto raid success reliably suddenly becomes a totally different animal.

I'm just saying the mean and average of bombing raid effectiveness is the real data. Cherry picking the runaway successes shows maximum _potential_ capability, but I suspect the LW also bombed their share of fields and non-strategic buildings.


----------



## gjs238 (May 25, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> A remarkable operation. This would seem to be one of the single most successful bombing raids of all time. (Wikipedia mind you, but still!)
> 
> But to play Devil's advocate: Was it posssibly the exception, and not the rule?
> 
> ...



It's an interesting subject to explore.
- Perhaps the LW was operating at low altitudes, which aids navigation and accuracy.
- Perhaps the LW, very well aware of their limitations, cherry picked this raid (and others?)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 25, 2020)

The Germans were less likely to confuse one city for another because the next city was a considerable distance away. Not 10-20-30 miles but hundred miles or more. 

Following rail lines works better, not infallible but the rail lines are nowhere near as closely spaced as they were in England or Western Europe. 
Many Russian cities were located on rivers and/or major bodies of water.


----------



## Dana Bell (May 25, 2020)

Over the years I've seen a number of threads on a number of websites wondering if World War II might have ended differently had the Germans done X or Y. I suspect that had Germany won, right now there'd be discussions about the Allies would have won if only Roosevelt hadn't insisted on turning all the P-59s into trainers...

But in the end, I suspect all the technical revisions could never have seen Germany prevail. My reasoning is simple -- God hates Nazis.

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (May 25, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> To me it looks like the FN.64 was a power driven turret aimed by a the single lower rear gunner through a periscope. I cant find much on line information on it. The gunner sat in the belly of the aircraft and had no direct view out, not even a downward looking window behind the turret. All target acquisition and aiming had to be done exclusively through a periscope. It would probably work during the day to close of a blind spot.



For what it's worth re: periscope sights ...

FN54 (Blenheim): 20° view
FN64 (Stirling, Lanc): 60° view
Bendix 'K' (Mitchell): 40° view
German periscope sights all appear to be 40° view and 1.8 magnification
Goertz PVE6​Zeiss PVE8 & 11​Steinheil ZFE1a​Steinheil PV1b​Steinheil RF2a & b​
Somewhat curious on the subject I attempted to fumble around with some geometry -- assuming the B-17's ball turret is 44 inches in diameter and the sighting window is 13 inches, it seems that the turret only had about a 20.3° view. I'm not sure but I don't think the extra windows in the turret were much use for picking up targets. Perhaps more for orientation / lighting.








Found an interesting reference to a German paper that reported on the average gunner accuracy:
- free guns, 50% of the most accurate strikes within 2.86 degrees​- remotely controlled guns and periscopic sights, 50% of the most accurate strikes within 1.15 degrees​
Note: this is 'aim wander', to use the British term -- completely separate from any errors in sighting (deflection, range, etc).

*EDIT*: typo fixed in the eye-to-viewport distance

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (May 26, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> Regarding the low precision of the bombing and impossibility to destroy the Soviet factories. This theory has been disproved by history.
> Please see my earlier comment:
> WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?
> The number of engines probably was not the most important factor, since the above-mentioned operation was done by He 111 and Ju 88. And carefully planned but never fulfilled _Eisenhammer _was to be conducted by Mistels.
> ...



Of course there's a great difference in between destroying a nearby airport crowded of bombers ( a tactical operation, in wich Germans were masters) and a very far tank factory (a strategic operation, which the Germans were not equipped to perform ).


----------



## Dimlee (May 26, 2020)

Elmas said:


> Of course there's a great difference in between destroying a nearby airport crowded of bombers ( a tactical operation, in wich Germans were masters) and a very far tank factory (a strategic operation, which the Germans were not equipped to perform ).



Could you please read my earlier comment about operation Carmen II. It is about the tank production as well. We can argue about the operational or strategical nature (or aim) of the operation itself, but its consequences were strategic.


----------



## Dimlee (May 26, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> A remarkable operation. This would seem to be one of the single most successful bombing raids of all time. (Wikipedia mind you, but still!)
> 
> But to play Devil's advocate: Was it posssibly the exception, and not the rule?
> 
> ...



Very good question, indeed. 
I'd call this operation an exception if Luftwaffe does not do other successful night raids on the Eastern Front. Please note my earlier comments about Carmen II. And Carmen II was just the last but not the first of air raids against the Soviet industry located far away. There were failures or low effective operations as well, as the most raids against Moscow, for example.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 26, 2020)

One does wonder what the Luftwaffe could have done if they had not lost so many Bombers against England and gone into Russia with 200-300 bombers more than needed for the mostly tactical duties. Some raids on certain factories before or during their evacuation? Tanking out a few RR bridges at critical times? Gone after more production facilities in 1942? 

Forget the Urals, what was within actual strike distance of the Luftwaffe in 1942? and yes I understand that the target list could shift by the month if not the week and the logistics for even 200-300 twin engine bombers is quite a task but people are talking about hundreds of German 4 engine bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 26, 2020)

Dana Bell said:


> Over the years I've seen a number of threads on a number of websites wondering if World War II might have ended differently had the Germans done X or Y. I suspect that had Germany won, right now there'd be discussions about the Allies would have won if only Roosevelt hadn't insisted on turning all the P-59s into trainers...
> 
> But in the end, I suspect all the technical revisions could never have seen Germany prevail. My reasoning is simple -- God hates Nazis.
> 
> ...



Talking about how the Allies could have won would result in a few days of torture followed by death.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 26, 2020)

Breaking the post down


Tkdog said:


> That is hardly fair. The Russians didn’t have defense at altitude because they didn’t have a significant need for it. If the Germans get new planes then the allies do too.


It takes a lot of time to develop a fighter and even more to develop a fighter for a task where you have little experience which would push the technology to the limit. Time is the one thing Russia wouldn't have had, neither did they have the technology.


> Though with half as many bombers (they don’t get more engines) it isn’t clear how much need there would be. That’s half as many planes with targets being spread out over an even larger spread than in original time line. So do they continue the blitz or try and find targets in Russia? You aren’t hitting railways with 4 engine bombers at altitude in WW2. Rail yards, maybe. If you go during the day and get down lower. Whole cities were missed in WW2.


Germany had from early in the war sophisticated blind bombing aids, which were very accurate. It's often known as the battle of the beams. It's a threat that Russia would have struggled to deal with. Goods yards and factories were prime targets also should Russia try to move its production base just disrupting the transport would have one significant damage.


> Which does beg the question of how they find factories that are scattered far from the front so they can try to bomb them.


Pre war Germany and Russia were very close and I have little doubt that Germany would have had sufficient intelligence to know where the target were.

It's worth remembering that will all the almost unlimited aid given to Russia, the one thing they asked for on a number of occasions and didn't get, were four engined bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 26, 2020)

Glider said:


> Breaking the post down
> 
> It takes a lot of time to develop a fighter and even more to develop a fighter for a task where you have little experience which would push the technology to the limit. Time is the one thing Russia wouldn't have had, neither did they have the technology.
> 
> ...



German intelligence also had a way into the Soviet Union and of course having a 4 engine bomber means you need a high performance photo recon (Ju 86R, Fw 187?) but this is not beyond Luftwaffe/German capabilities.

The Soviets Union is not helpless by any means, they had the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 capable of 400mph at altitude at the outset of operation Barbarossa which was June 22 1941. There are no Me 109G or Spitfire IX with two stage Merlin 60's. The Luftwaffe has the Me 109F2 and RAF has the Spitfire V and maybe the VI (high altitude wings but still single stage supercharger, pressurised) The Russian fighter is 30mph faster than an allied fighter at high altitude. The VVS are technically ahead of the USAAF, Luftwaffe, RAF. 

The MiG 3 weakness is unremarkable speed performance at low altitude and unpleasant spin/stall and departure characteristics. That can be fixed, you can lengthen the tail, enlarge tail surfaces, put in a stall strip, try slats, alter wing twist, supercharger settings can be altered. The reason the type was not developed seems to be more related to the fact that is massive Mikulin V12 engine was needed for the IL-2 Stormovik.

In 1941 the He 177 is not ready, it of course never really matured till the second half of 1943 at the earliest so the Luftwaffe would need to go in with a less ambitious aircraft well within the capabilities of the MiG 3. The Ju 89 and or Dornier Do 19 could be ready if developed and the engines quite reasonable. (Jumo 211A (1100hp, Jumo 211B, 1200hp, Jumo 211E (pressurised cooling circuit) and Jumo 211F (pressurised cooling circuit 1350hp) and Jumo 211J (1450hp) The Luftwaffe does not get two stage superchargers till late 1944 though its single stage superchargers are very good. The BMW 801 TJ (turbo supercharged BM801) has very good high altitude performance due to retaining its two speed mechanical supercharger and having very large intercoolers and is making an appearance in early 1944. There were plans to fit these to pressurised bomber versions of the Ju 290 (Ju 290B) and they were expected to operate at 11000m (36,000ft). This is the operational ceiling (climb rate at or below 500 feet per minute or so) not the service ceiling (climb rate below 100 fpm) which was higher still.

It's hard to asses the performance of the putative Luftwaffe strategic bombers, the Ju 89/Do 19 as they are physically larger than the allied bombers with larger wing areas and need higher power levels to be as fast, on the other hand the low wing loading has its own advantages. If the right decisions are made in time there is the possibility of the so called He 177B which is just a He 177A with 4 engines (Jumo 211, DB601/605) evenly distributed over the wings. A BMW 801 version has to wait till 1942 as the engine is not yet fully reliable.

As I see it the main function of such an aircraft is maritime reconnaissance and bombing. It also become a ""force in being" by forcing the Soviet Union and allies to disperse defences widely. The Russians have access to British 5m and 2.5m radar to warn of raids.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 26, 2020)

Glider said:


> It's worth remembering that will all the almost unlimited aid given to Russia, the one thing they asked for on a number of occasions and didn't get, were four engined bombers


The Soviets were given a B-24 for trials and they aparently weren't impressed, although they did operate B-24s (and B-17s) salvaged from wrecks.
Their native 4-engine bomber, the TB-7 (Pe-8) was a fairly capable heavy bomber, but they were never able to provide a solid escort strategy and the TB-7s suffered terribly at the hands of the Luftwaffe.
My guess is that any Allied 4-engine bombers given to them would have suffered the same fate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 26, 2020)

In terms of navigation and pathfinding for the Luftwaffe.

1 There is firstly celestial navigation. At night with 3 stars (or moon, Venus) a good navigator can find longitude and latitude within 2-3 nautical miles using an aeronautical sextant or periscopic sextant, probably takes 2 years to get that good. These generally have a bubble in them to help find the horizon. It can be done in a cassena or single engine fighter if you know what you are doing.

2 If over friendly German controlled territory and maybe 200km inland a direction find aerial can be used to locate the direction of beacons which can be used to triangulate position.

3 There were also the hyperbolic system 'sonnenstrahl" or sunshine which sent out a beam that spoke (in a human voice) ones direction from the antenna, no need to working angles. There was also the Bernhard/Berhnhardine system which was used for night fighter navigation that sent out a telemetry as to direction. These systems didn't need a direction finding aerial. In fact when the Germans started upgrading sonnenstrahl and making it unusable for the allies they sent a few bombing raids and the Germans decoded it again. It was usefull for both sides, especially for rescues.

4 Luftwaffe bombers had an "odograph" which is a device similar to an odometer but uses the TAS true air speed from pitot static and main compass to calculate the X and Y distance travelled between navigation fixes. Some of these even had a moving map display. In between navigation fixes the odograph could help keep track. Instruments such as the Lofte 7 bomb sight could be used to measure ground speed and therefore offset wind drift in the odograph.

5 Famously the Luftwaffe used radio beams to guide bombers, these consisted of a pair of overlapping antenna beams that gave signal in the pilots headphones if he was more left vs right from the centreline of the beam overlap. The Knickbein system used over Britain was related to blind landing system itself that came out of a night navigation system. Lufthansa was the first airline in the world to operate scheduled nigh time flights using these Lorentz beams from 1926 using Junker G24 trimotors. There was still a navigator in the cabin taking navigation fixes but the beam system was much easier than taking fixes or homing on to a becon that was probably too far away and did didn't need a skilled navigator.

The two systems used in the BoB was Knikcbein, really more a navigation system for ordinary crews and X-Geraet used by patfinders which was extremely accurate even taking into account headwinds for bomb release. Famously the British claimed to have jammed X-geraets successor Wotan before its first use. The Luftwaffe developed a portable beam riding system called Zyklops which simply required two small trailers and also a system called EGON (which used a transponder and a Freya radar) and EGON-II which used two Freya radars like Oboe.

Deep raids would likely not allow radio navigation but there was always celestial navigation.

In terms of pathfinding there could be an expert crew flying high in say a Ju 88S or Ju 86R (50,000ft) able to access radio guidance that could drop markers flare parachutes.

One of the most remarkable guidenace systems was the Schwann Radio markers dropped by German pathfinders for other aircraft to home on to. This is how the airborn launches of V1 were made.

There were three versions
Schwann See was a floating radio marker buoy that could be dropped by aircraft (or placed by U-boat)
Schwann Luft was a parachute dropped radio marker dropped by a pathfinder.
Schwann Land could be dropped on to land as a way point.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 26, 2020)

Having access to a few radar sets is still nothing like the Germans faced against the British in 1940. The Russian front could be 1000 miles or longer depending on the bends/bulges. 
That is a lot of radar sets. Perhaps the Russians don't need continuous coverage but only a few sets at the most important cities? Of course if your interceptores don't have functioning radios then the Radar doesn't do much more than give a warning that a raid is coming. British had IFF so the ground controllers could figure out who was who and direct the fighters to the raiding formations. Where do the hundreds (or thousands) of IFF sets come from? Or the good radios? 

The Mig 3 was not a real good bomber interceptor. It had performance but it had lousy armament. A single 12.7mm machine gun with 300 rounds and two 7.62mm guns with 375 round per gun. Some did have a 12.7mm gun under each wing but just like the Bf 109 gunboats, they cut into the performance. 
The 12.7mm machine gun in the cowl of Mig did not fire through the prop hub. It had to be synchronized. 
A few late production examples were supposed to have gotten a pair of 20mm cannon in the cowl with 100rpg. Some or all of these had the M-38 engine out of the IL-2 so performance at altitude was ????
The engines were rather short lived.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 26, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Their native 4-engine bomber, the TB-7 (Pe-8) was a fairly capable heavy bombe



That is a matter of some debate.
Basically the engines sucked. It was a concept in search of even semi decent hardware. One if not two different diesels were tried in the plane and these were so bad that the crews were said to have looked fondly on the versions powered by the AM-35 engines, which sometimes didn't last 50 hours in the Mig-3. using them on 6-10 hour missions seems a bit chancy. 
The last ones built used radial M-82s but the exhaust situation forced the removal of the gunner/gun station in the rear of the inner nacelles 
Full credit to the Soviet crews that used these aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 27, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Soviets were given a B-24 for trials and they aparently weren't impressed, although they did operate B-24s (and B-17s) salvaged from wrecks.
> Their native 4-engine bomber, the TB-7 (Pe-8) was a fairly capable heavy bomber, but they were never able to provide a solid escort strategy and the TB-7s suffered terribly at the hands of the Luftwaffe.
> My guess is that any Allied 4-engine bombers given to them would have suffered the same fate.


I admit I see this differently. The fact that Russia went to the huge effort to make B24 and B17 operational in small numbers from wrecks implies that they certainly did see some benefit and were impressed at least to some degree.
With the vast expanse of the Russian front and the very limited numbers of Luftwaffe fighters to defend it. Raids of any size would be very difficult to defend against.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 27, 2020)

The USSR was not flush with equipment, so it would make sense that they would put the salvaged bombers into service when and where possible.

The B-17s and B-24s they cobbled together were not in any great numbers, though.

None of the American bombers impressed them enough to build on their own except the B-29, which was reverse-engineered to make the Tu-4.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 27, 2020)

The MiG-3 get in the last block 2 20mm Shvak in the nose, they are synchronized but it's no a trouble, all the soviet fighters, with the exception of the MiG-3 with 2 UB under the wings, had only synchronized weapons

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 27, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> It can be done in a* cassena* or single engine fighter if you know what you are doing.


Now that's reading the tea, or yaupon leaves of navigation, but can you elaborate what you mean by cassena?


----------



## Just Schmidt (May 27, 2020)

Glider said:


> Looking at this question from a different angle. If Germany had a four engine bomber and had attacked Russia instead of France, then that could have ultimately been a winning strategy.



There's a small Strategic problem called Poland. You need to march through that to reach the Soviet border, the detour through Balkan or overseas invasion of the Baltic will be logistic nightmares. France and Great Britain had guaranteed Polands borders, of course you _could_ make a temporary deal with Stalin and attack Poland, gambling that the French and the British don't declare war on you...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 27, 2020)

If the Germans had come up with the B-17 there would have been several variations designed and produced as prototypes before production began, with a myriad of equipment and armament configurations.

And it probably would have been a dive bomber, at least at some point.

Later in the war it would become a bomber destroyer with a 75mm recoil-less rifle strapped to its belly. There would be, of course, the long range maritime patrol aircraft version and the torpedo bomber. Maybe even a night-fighter version.

One version may even be a dedicated bomber.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 27, 2020)

wuzak said:


> If the Germans had come up with the B-17 there would have been several variations designed and produced as prototypes before production began, with a myriad of equipment and armament configurations.
> 
> And it probably would have been a dive bomber, at least at some point.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I like how you haven't focused on a long range variant. With all of Germany's intended opponents within a short distance, I'd think they'd want a heavier bombload rather than longer range.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 27, 2020)

Simple, eight 500kg bombs inside and 2 bombs (your choice up to 1800kg each) outside. Maybe the Germans would have hung four smaller bombs outside?


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 27, 2020)

Just Schmidt said:


> There's a small Strategic problem called Poland. You need to march through that to reach the Soviet border, the detour through Balkan or overseas invasion of the Baltic will be logistic nightmares. France and Great Britain had guaranteed Polands borders, of course you _could_ make a temporary deal with Stalin and attack Poland, gambling that the French and the British don't declare war on you...


If Germany had marched into Poland (without Stalin’s participation) and then straight into Russia both France and Chamberlain’s Britain would do nothing but protest. Did either do anything when the USSR invaded Poland, violating those same security guarantees made to Poland? No.

If Germany marches straight through Poland (provoking GB and France DoW) and then continues into Russia, Germany needn’t worry about its western borders, GB and France will wait to see how the Russian invasion turns out. But Germany had better worry about its eastern border as they are very ill equipped in 1939 to advance much further than Warsaw. There’s a good chance Britian and France will be facing a USSR tidal wave first overcoming the Germans and then marching to the English Channel.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 27, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> If Germany had marched into Poland (without Stalin’s participation) and then straight into Russia both France and Chamberlain’s Britain would do nothing but protest. Did either do anything when the USSR invaded Poland, violating those same security guarantees made to Poland? No.
> 
> If Germany marches straight through Poland (provoking GB and France DoW) and then continues into Russia, Germany needn’t worry about its western borders, GB and France will wait to see how the Russian invasion turns out. But Germany had better worry about its eastern border as they are very ill equipped in 1939 to advance much further than Warsaw. There’s a good chance Britian and France will be facing a USSR tidal wave first overcoming the Germans and then marching to the English Channel.


Oh they would declare war on Germany alright, hedging bets. But you're right they'd just sit at the Western border of France for a while to see what happened. They're in a win win. Germany might start to defeat the Soviet Union. But it's backdoor and industrial heartland would be virtually undefended and under the nose of a continually building Franco-English force with untouched war economies spooling up behind them. If the USSR starts winning they nip into Germany and deliver the coup de gras as the Germans desperately fend of a wrathful Soviet advance. It's a dream-scenario for the French and English.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 27, 2020)

Or Germany could proceed as historically to attack France, then put a holding force to pin the British down (occasional air raids and such) and gear up to attack Russia without the full scale BoB and Night Blitz (or the gathering of thousands of barges, disrupting German river traffic) and the resulting losses. 
Britain was in no shape to invade any part of France and low countries after Dunkirk and would not be for quite some time to come (like 1 to 2 years. the longer time the much more likely). Let the British try to mount an offensive air campaign sooner and defend against with numbers more in the Germans favor.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 27, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> If the USSR starts winning they nip into Germany and deliver the coup de gras as the Germans desperately fend of a wrathful Soviet advance. It's a dream-scenario for the French and English.


A united Wally German offensive against Russia was Patton's dream scenario. But without the USA involvement I can't see the remnants of Germany and the armies of Britain and France preventing a Soviet onslaught.

Circling back on topic, I don't see a role for German long range, high altitude bombers here, but definitely for heavy strike aircraft.


----------



## Koopernic (May 27, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually the Boeing 314 "Clipper" used a very similar wing to the B-15, a trick Boeing did a number of times. The flying boat wing was 3 feet longer (152ft vs 149) and about 3% bigger in area. Boeing also used the wing of the B-17 on the Boeing 307 Strato-clipper/Stratoliner. And then used the B-29 wing on the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser. And actually the B-29 wing was based off the wing used on the Boeing 344 ( XPBB-1 Sea Ranger ) or at least showed Boeing moving away from large wing areas for large/heavy aircraft.
> 
> Well, the Stirling got delayed because the Germans managed to bomb both production lines. Otherwise there may have been a squadron or two in service in the fall of 1940.
> British seem to have taken a long time with most everything.
> ...




Manchester I: first flight July 39, entry into service Nov 40, power Vulture 1750hp, first missions Feb 41. *Time between first flight and first mission 15 months.*
Lancaster I : first flight Jan 41, entry into service Feb 42, power Merlin XX 1280hp, first missions Mar 42. *Time between first flight and first mission 14 months.*
Sterling I : first flight May 39, entry into service Aug 40, power Hercules 1500hp, first mission Feb 41. *Time between first flight and first mission 20 months.*
Halifax I : first flight Oct 39, entry into service Nov 40, power Merlin XX 1280hp, first mission Mar 41. *Time between first flight and first mission 17 months.*

The Ju 89 V1 (with Jumo 210) flew April/May 1937. The Ju 89 V2 (with DB600) flew July 37.
The Dornier Do 19 first flew in 28th October 1936 on Bramo (Siemens) 323H-2 of 715hp (the V2 and V3 with more powerful engines never flew.)

If we give the Luftwaffe 6 more months than the British needed under wartime conditions, ie 24 months the Ju 89 (or Do 19) could be in service March 1939 and Ready for Missions in July 1939 (2 months before war broke out).

Im under no illusions as to the performance of the aircraft. Their relatively large wings preclude hid speed in 1939/40 but they've be at a par with mist 1939/1940 bombers and perhaps faster than a Taurus Wellington or Whitley, I'm thinking maybe 250-260mph. They're most profound effect would be a sea and in night raids. A signicantly boost to Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine capabilities and would become a good maritime reconnaissance aircraft. They shouldnt be built in large numbers.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 27, 2020)

On the other hand if the Luftwaffe had looked at the prototypes and said nice try, but................lets start over.

Design starts March/April of 1937
First flight Sept/Oct 1938, 
Into service Feb/March 1940
First Combat mission ?????Summer of 1940? 

And again, the reason for the 20 month gap for the Stirling between first flight and first mission are the facts that the Luftwaffe hit the Shorts factory in the late supper or fall of 1940 and wrecked up to a dozen Sterling's either on the production line or parked outside the factory. Sometime in the fall/winter they also managed to hit other Shorts factory which was building the Stirling. 

The FW 200 first flew at the end of July 1937 and shows that the huge wing was going out of fashion at about this time, even if you don't want to use the fW 200 as a bomber the way it existed.


----------



## swampyankee (May 27, 2020)

There is no way that Poland would allow Germany free transit to attack the USSR: the Polish government was not run by people with an excess of naiveté. They knew that Germany had a similarly long and deep antipathy to a sovereign Poland, exacerbated by Hitler's expressed desire to invade and enslave Slavic lands. The Polish government knew that this antipathy to Poland's existence was shared by the USSR, which inherited its dislike from Russia. (I find the idea that a victorious czarist government would _not_ attack Poland to be unbelievable. Indeed, if you look at the invasions launched by the USSR, all of them were into territory that a Russian government would claim. The Soviet invasions were at least as revanchist as bolshevik).

One wonders how the Polish Army would do resisting the German invasion if the Soviets were not simultaneously invading from the east.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 27, 2020)

ctrian said:


> Ehm what was the He-177 a tactical bomber? When they got ~300 of them in operation in mid 1944 they realized one thing ...they didn't have enough fuel for them AND the rest of their fleet.


I remember that popping up in a book about the He 177. I'm surprised that would have been a problem despite having poor oil resources, they did start using synthetic POL as early as 36.


> Germany never had the fuel and industrial infrastructure to produce thousands of 4 engine bombers.


Plus they were producing so many different aircraft designs and didn't seem to have a central clearinghouse to weed out designs that couldn't hack it.


----------



## wuzak (May 27, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> And again, the reason for the 20 month gap for the Stirling between first flight and first mission are the facts that the Luftwaffe hit the Shorts factory in the late supper....



Attacked during late supper?

That's just uncivilised old chap!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 27, 2020)

You know I can't type for Shirt

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 27, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Attacked during late supper?
> 
> That's just uncivilised old chap!


----------



## Airframes (May 28, 2020)

Could have been worse ........ if they'd attacked at breakfast, then everyone would have been slightly irritated !!


----------



## Koopernic (May 28, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I remember that popping up in a book about the He 177. I'm surprised that would have been a problem despite having poor oil resources, they did start using synthetic POL as early as 36.
> Plus they were producing so many different aircraft designs and didn't seem to have a central clearinghouse to weed out designs that couldn't hack it.



There was certainly a serious oil problem, having to supply not only themselves but occupied Europe and Axis allies with fuel, however they had enough to run a small fleet of 4 engine aircraft. The fuel shortage became acute in the lead up to operation overlord when allied bombers began targeting the German oil industry around March/April/May to cause maximum shortages prior to the invasion. They had in fact avoided targeting the German oil industry so that it didn't have time to take measures. After the oil industry campaign and D-day created severe shortages there was no point keeping any bombers and they were mostly scrapped. 

Note also that one objective of the German Army was to capture the Caucasian Oil fields. Had they been captured, put into production and held German oil problems would be over. The German high command (under Halder) and Hitler were at odds. Hitler wanted to conduct a campaign to capture materials, Halder though that capturing Moscow would cause a political collapse.

The Germans had planned to produce 100 heavy bomber aircraft per month from when the latter batch of He 177A3 received DB610 engine (paired DB605) replacing the DB606(paired DB601). The He 177A5 with the engines was achieving 220 hours MTBO by later 1943. 100/month is 1200 Year is perhaps 5%-10% of allied production. They would have been very useful in reconnaissance, special missions especially with the various guided weapons they were continuously improving. The He 177A5 had the lowest attrition rate of any Luftwaffe aircraft during the baby blitz.

After the oil industry campaign and severe shortages there was no point keeping any bombers and they were mostly scrapped. Bombers for the 1945 Luftwaffe was Ju 388 or Do 335 with maybe the Ju 488 (service ceiling over 48500ft with the BMW801TJ, probably more with the BMW801TQ and jet aircraft. A few piston designs were kept for special missions (long range or ultra high altitude) 

The Plans for the He 177 were the He 177A7 which incorporated the improvements such as powered tail turrets with much more powerful DB613 engines (paired DB603) however by this time everyone wanted to move away from paired engines as fast as possible so the wing for the He 177A7 was engineered to be able to take 4 separate engines which is the He 277 Similar to what Airbus did with the A330/A340.

I dont think the Germans were producing too many prototypes, they were producing too few. The allies were able to produce a myriad of prototytpes.
The backups to the Ju 288 nor He 177 never got past a single prototype whereas the UK produced Manchester, Lancaster, Sterling, Warwich. The US had B17 B24, B29, B32 etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 28, 2020)

Airframes said:


> Could have been worse ........ if they'd attacked at breakfast, then everyone would have been slightly irritated !!


What is the appropriate time for one to be attacked? Apologies for being a bit of a lout.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> What is the appropriate time for one to be attacked? Apologies for being a bit of a lout.


I would imagine sometime after breakfast but before lunch.
There is perhaps a small window between two and four, but certainly not at four in the afternoon.
Anytime after four and through dinnertime is unacceptable and anytime between bedtime and morning is simply barbaric...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 28, 2020)

Thank you sir and thank you for not pointing out it’s “when is the appropriate time..” and not “what”.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> I dont think the Germans were producing too many prototypes, they were producing too few. The allies were able to produce a myriad of prototytpes.
> The backups to the Ju 288 nor He 177 never got past a single prototype whereas the UK produced Manchester, Lancaster, Sterling, Warwich. The US had B17 B24, B29, B32 etc.



It is hard to make simple comparisons. 

The US and British tended to produce fewer prototypes of each design. Granted both countries did grab production aircraft and use them for tests without giving them special designations (no V numbers as such) which is different that make a a lot of designs. 

For the US especially, comparing number of designs worked on to other countries gets a bit distorted. The US had more engineers and engineering staff, especial as the war went on. 
I am not getting into an argument over if they were better, just that there were more of them so multiple projects could proceed at a reasonable pace. A big problem the British had, companies were being picked to make projects sometimes depending on how much free engineering capacity they had (how soon prototypes could be made) and not just on how good the proposal looked. 

And there is timing. A Lancaster is not a whole new airplane, it is a Manchester with a new wing and engine mounts/nacelles. The B-17 was pretty much designed/engineered before the work on the B-29 really started. Sure there was ongoing "product improvement" but they didn't design a new wing for the B-17 or new landing gear or much of anything else after 1940/41. chin turret on the "G"? 
Same with Consolidated, although they did do more with the B-24 late in the war. Get the B-24 up to production status and being produced in multiple factories and then move many of the engineers over to the next project, the B-32. 

Perhaps the Americans did spread themselves a bit too thin, but there were a lot more people to spread around before it was obvious that things weren't going well.


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I would imagine sometime after breakfast but before lunch.
> There is perhaps a small window between two and four, but certainly not at four in the afternoon.
> Anytime after four and through dinnertime is unacceptable and anytime between bedtime and morning is simply barbaric...


Any attacks in Yorkshire, Devon and Cornwall should be over before consumption of scones, jam and cream commences, no self respecting despot would interfere with high tea.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 28, 2020)

K
 Koopernic


I'm curious how long it took for the Manchester, Stirling, and Halifax to go from RFP to first flight?


----------



## Zipper730 (May 28, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> There was certainly a serious oil problem, having to supply not only themselves but occupied Europe and Axis allies with fuel, however they had enough to run a small fleet of 4 engine aircraft. The fuel shortage became acute in the lead up to operation overlord when allied bombers began targeting the German oil industry around March/April/May to cause maximum shortages prior to the invasion. They had in fact avoided targeting the German oil industry so that it didn't have time to take measures.


Why didn't they target oil more extensively earlier? I remember there was a misguided belief in them having underground stocks


> Note also that one objective of the German Army was to capture the Caucasian Oil fields.


Is that why they tried to go for Stalingrad? If they succeeded the war could have gone very differently...


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 28, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I remember there was a misguided belief in them having underground stocks..



It wasnt misguided, they had about a million cubic meters underground, but it wasnt so far underneath it was bomb-proof. It was the refineries which they failed to put underground (believe it or not, its quite possible).


----------



## Zipper730 (May 28, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> It wasnt misguided, they had about a million cubic meters underground, but it wasnt so far underneath it was bomb-proof. It was the refineries which they failed to put underground (believe it or not, its quite possible).


They though they had underground refineries?


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 28, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> They though they had underground refineries?



No they knew they had not entered the war with any underground refineries, but suspected that they would attempt to construct some

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (May 28, 2020)

If the Germans would have Allied types of the same period - but in the same respective numbers and gross production capability as Germany had, Germany would still be at a disadvantage. In terms of production possibilities, 34,000 bf-109 and 20,000 fw-190 equates to what, 10,000-15000 4 engined bombers? The US alone built 100,000 fighters, 18,000 B-24 alone. In terms of pounds of aircraft, the US put more pounds of aircraft into B-24 production than Germany did for all their fighters. 

We had a similar discussion about what-if Pacific theater aircraft, what if the US Navy only had the F4F Wildcat and never had the F6F or F4U, would that have changed the outcome? I think there was a pretty strong consensus that it wouldn't have changed materially. Another 24,000 F4Fs would have gotten the job done.


----------



## wuzak (May 28, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> There was certainly a serious oil problem, having to supply not only themselves but occupied Europe and Axis allies with fuel, however they had enough to run a small fleet of 4 engine aircraft. The fuel shortage became acute in the lead up to operation overlord when allied bombers began targeting the German oil industry around March/April/May to cause maximum shortages prior to the invasion. They had in fact avoided targeting the German oil industry so that it didn't have time to take measures. After the oil industry campaign and D-day created severe shortages there was no point keeping any bombers and they were mostly scrapped.



The Oil Plan officially started after the invasion.

The Transport Plan was in place in the lead up to the invasion.

The two plans were put forward by the British and the 8th AF. The British (Portal?) pushed the Transport Plan and the the 8th AF the Oil Plan (Spaatz). The Transport Plan was chosen, but Spaatz was given permission to bomb oil facilities when the transport targets could not due to weather.

The Transport Plan was aimed at restricting movement of men and materials in occupied Europe, particularly in and around the invasion area. There may have been some effect on oil production because transport of coal to the synthetic oil plants was restricted.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 28, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Why didn't they target oil more extensively earlier?



The RAF had tried bombing oil facilities from 1940.

The effectiveness was not great.

As for the USAAF, there was not sufficient bombers in the UK for a sustained attack on oil until mid to late 1943. 

And the USAAF planners had overlooked oil in favour of another target - ball bearings.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The Oil Plan officially started after the invasion.
> 
> The Transport Plan was in place in the lead up to the invasion.
> 
> ...


In the build up to D Day there was also a requirement to bomb targets away from Normandy more than Normandy itself which means targets were bombed for psychological not military reasons. It is very difficult to destroy a refinery, you can damage it and it can be repaired. It should not be forgotten how much the Russian advance removed oil capacity from the Nazis or how much it concentrated the remaining targets to be hit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> They though they had underground refineries?


I spent 3 great months in Mexico working on the UNDERGROUND piping for the Aramco Berri project in Saudi Arabia. Most of it was the water supply pipe work but there is no reason at all why most of a refinery cant be built below ground level, we have been building railways underground for over 150 years.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 28, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Why didn't they target oil more extensively earlier?


No one seemed to bomb the oil facilities early on. At Taranto and Pearl Harbour, the fuel farms left essentially untouched. Sumatran oil fields, left intact for the coming Japanese.


----------



## swampyankee (May 28, 2020)

Oil refineries, like a lot of industrial targets are actually pretty hard targets.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Sumatran oil fields, left intact for the coming Japanese.


Very few oil production and transfer facilities were left intact for the Japanese as the Dutch, British and Australians withdrew from the East Indies.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (May 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I spent 3 great months in Mexico working on the UNDERGROUND piping for the Aramco Berri project in Saudi Arabia. Most of it was the water supply pipe work but there is no reason at all why most of a refinery cant be built below ground level, we have been building railways underground for over 150 years.



In terms of the synthetic oil plants in Germany, moving them underground would probably have required starting the process well before WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 28, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> No one seemed to bomb the oil facilities early on. At Taranto and Pearl Harbour, the fuel farms left essentially untouched. Sumatran oil fields, left intact for the coming Japanese.


Why was that?


----------



## Koopernic (May 29, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I spent 3 great months in Mexico working on the UNDERGROUND piping for the Aramco Berri project in Saudi Arabia. Most of it was the water supply pipe work but there is no reason at all why most of a refinery cant be built below ground level, we have been building railways underground for over 150 years.



The ventilation, explosion and evacuation issues would be considerable and challenging. The plan to move some oil production plant underground was called the "Geilenberg Plan"

From Wikipedia:
*Edmund Geilenberg* (born 13 January 1906, Witten-Buchholz-Kaempen – died 19 October 1964, Bassum[1]) was a German official of World War II who headed an emergency 1944 decentralization program, the _Geilenbergstab_ or _Geilenbergprogramm_ (Geilenberg Special Staff), to disperse Nazi Germany oil production.[_citation needed_] The program included the Cuckoo project[_citation needed_] for an underground oil plant to be "carved out of the Himmelsburg" North of the Mittelwerk,[2] as well as plans for an oil facility at Ebensee.[3] "Geilenberg used as many as 350,000 men for the repair, rebuilding, and dispersal of the bombed plants and for new underground construction [which] were incomplete when the war ended".[4]

Defenses included a 21 June 1944, order for a minimum number of flak guns to be placed at Pölitz (200), Auschwitz (200), Hamburg (200), Brüx (170, Gelsenkirchen (140), Scholven (140), Wesseling (150), Heydebreck (130), Leuna (120), Blechhammer (100), Moosbierbaum (100), and Böhlen (70);[1] and the Ruhland Fischer-Tropsch plant and other synthetic oil plants were upgraded to be "hydrogenation fortresses" (e.g., the plants in the Leipzig area were protected by over 1,000 guns). In addition to increased active defenses, the facilities (German: _Hydrierfestungen_) incorporated blast walls and concrete "dog houses" around vital machinery. Similar to the technical experts transferred for the V-2 rocket program, 7,000 engineers were released from the German Army to provide technical support for oil facilities.

As you can see a lot of resources were tied up.


The plan was to decentralise and disperse most of the plants but only 1 may 2 Bergius plants would go underground . The Germans used two major processes:
1 Bergius high pressure hydrogenation. 
2 Fischer-Tropsch catalysis.

Bergius hydrogenation involved pressurising an oil coal slurry at up to 700 atmospheres. (10,000psi). The special alloy developed to this was called bondur and resistant corrosion and embrittlement. (Useful for the order for 300 Uranium Centrifuges order pace an the Bamag firm at the end of the war)

The issue was that you need a Lurgi coal gasifier to make syngas which is then converted to hydrogen by pressure swing absorption. The Gasifier needs a liquid oxygen plant. The production of oxygen is associated with the production of nitrogen which can be used to make ammonia (using some of the hydrogen). The ammonia helps desulpherise the coal but is also an important co product in itself for explosives and fertiliser etc. The reactors and piping were so strong they were unaffected by direct bomb hits. However the hydrogen plant was very vulnerable. The plants continued to operate during allied bomb raids with the operators being given special pill boxes. When the plants were shutdown it was on the side that produced syngas. These plants produced 74 RON fuel out of the hydrogenation that could be upgraded with TEL to make 87 octane.

he Fischer Tropsch plants also needed gasifiers, syngas but it didn't need to be conditioned to hydrogen and after desulphurisation was reavted over catalysts to produce diesel or lubricants, the gasoline tended to be low grade, about 46 RON but I think with addition of TEL, some 30% methanol and a little upblending.

These fischer tropsch plants could be only 1/5th the size and dispersal could work with them. 

There was a process that looked like fischer-tropsch but produced butanol which could be converted to butylene which could make both synthetic rubber and pure iso-octane. About 22% iso-otane was added to 87 octane fuel to make 97/130 fuel.

Improvements in gasifier and fischer tropsch such as fluidised bed reactors and new catalysts looked like increasing output and making higher octane fuel would have greatly improved the productivity of the system and reduced its costs. If the Germans had the technology they had in 1943 in 1937 their production would be higher due to improved efficiency.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 29, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The ventilation, explosion and evacuation issues would be considerable and challenging. The plan to move some oil production plant underground was called the "Geilenberg Plan"


How hard would it be to take out underground oil-refineries and oil-stocks with bombs and technology used in WWII?


> The Germans used two major processes:
> 1 Bergius high pressure hydrogenation.
> 2 Fischer-Tropsch catalysis.


While I remember reading that Germany was using the Fischer Troppsch process as early as 1936. When did the Bergius high-pressure catalyzation process come online?


----------



## swampyankee (May 29, 2020)

See https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/bergius-lecture.pdf

He got the 1931 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the process, so it was known before then (indeed, it was known before WW1). It appears to have been applied at an industrial scale for fuel production in the 1930s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 29, 2020)

This I admit is partly a guess but synthetic oil d


Zipper730 said:


> How hard would it be to take out underground oil-refineries and oil-stocks with bombs and technology used in WWII?
> While I remember reading that Germany was using the Fischer Troppsch process as early as 1936. When did the Bergius high-pressure catalyzation process come online?


Tallboys and Grand slam stood a decent chance depending on the depth of the plants


----------



## swampyankee (May 29, 2020)

Glider said:


> This I admit is partly a guess but synthetic oil d
> 
> Tallboys and Grand slam stood a decent chance depending on the depth of the plants



Depending on the feedstock (it would be tougher if they were using slurried coal, for example), there's going to be an entrance. If its feedstock is coal or lignite, we're talking about rail cars and a pretty big hole. Using something to shut it -- it may not need a Tallboy (although there is no overkill; there's only "that worked quite well."), but it would need accuracy.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 29, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Why was that?


Sumatra is covered by others above, but Taranto was a night attack and the Brits were short of carriers and aircraft, with CAGs optimized for torpedo strike. Had Cunningham had more than just HMS Illustrious and sufficient fighters to allow a daylight raid with Skuas armed with incendiary bombs, or if still at night, pathfinder flare drops, then hitting the bunker farms would have been possible.

As for Pearl Harbour, the IJN strategy was about gaining a six month window, so hitting the ships, not the fuel they use was the priority. But this was poor planning and understanding of logistics, they should have destroyed the bunker farms, thus reducing the USN's ability to operate far from the US west coast. In what they already knew was a campaign of naval aviation, sinking old battleships did almost nothing to help the IJN's cause.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 29, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Sumatra is covered by others above, but Taranto was a night attack and the Brits were short of carriers and aircraft, with CAGs optimized for torpedo strike. Had Cunningham had more than just HMS Illustrious and sufficient fighters to allow a daylight raid with Skuas armed with incendiary bombs, or if still at night, pathfinder flare drops, then hitting the bunker farms would have been possible.
> 
> As for Pearl Harbour, the IJN strategy was about gaining a six month window, so hitting the ships, not the fuel they use was the priority. But this was poor planning and understanding of logistics, they should have destroyed the bunker farms, thus reducing the USN's ability to operate far from the US west coast. In what they already knew was a campaign of naval aviation, sinking old battleships did almost nothing to help the IJN's cause.


Just curious how much of the six months that would have bought. How much of a reduction in the ability of the Navy and aaf to mount air operations would have resulted? Presumably aviation fuel could have been tankered to Hawaii. Logistics would be a major problem but the fuel and the tankers did exist no?


----------



## gjs238 (May 29, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Oil refineries, like a lot of industrial targets are actually pretty hard targets.



Please remind (who?) that when a weather event hits the US SE, refineries shutdown or are claimed to receive damage and fuel prices spike.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 29, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> In what they already knew was a campaign of naval aviation, sinking old battleships did almost nothing to help the IJN's cause.


No, but it made Japanese admirals happy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 29, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Please remind (who?) that when a weather event hits the US SE, refineries shutdown or are claimed to receive damage and fuel prices spike.



One is that they're being shut down to protect the workers who would be in less than robust office buildings and workshops. The US Strategic Bombing Survey has some information about this: it took a _year_, over 6,000 sorties, and over 18,000 tons of bombs to put _one_ refinery out of operation. See pp 22-23 of https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a421958.pdf.

The _Tirpitz_ was a far easier target to destroy.

---
Edit: corrected grammar error: "they're being*s* shut down" to "they're being shut down"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 29, 2020)

Destroying the bunker farm at Pearl has been discussed several times before. It could have been done but it would have been a lot harder than many people realise. It may have required a 3rd strike, not just a few planes detached from strike one or two. 
Most of the tanks contained bunker fuel which is about two steps above tar. (a bit of joke) but the stuff is thick and hard to ignite. The tanks (and ships fuel tanks) have to heated with steam pipes to get the stuff to flow, let alone burn. Each tank was inside a berm to contain spills. You can't rupture one tank and have flaming fuel run all over and set the other tanks on fire one after another. 






I have no idea if there were any fire protection systems like pre-piped water cannon or deluge systems or even sprinklers in the tanks. 

Bunker fuel in a jar.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 30, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> One is that they're beings shut down to protect the workers who would be in less than robust office buildings and workshops. The US Strategic Bombing Survey has some information about this: it took a _year_, over 6,000 sorties, and over 18,000 tons of bombs to put _one_ refinery out of operation. See pp 22-23 of https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a421958.pdf.
> 
> The _Tirpitz_ was a far easier target to destroy.


That is an excellent read, thanks for posting the link it's much appreciated


----------



## Reluctant Poster (May 30, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The ventilation, explosion and evacuation issues would be considerable and challenging. The plan to move some oil production plant underground was called the "Geilenberg Plan"
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> *Edmund Geilenberg* (born 13 January 1906, Witten-Buchholz-Kaempen – died 19 October 1964, Bassum[1]) was a German official of World War II who headed an emergency 1944 decentralization program, the _Geilenbergstab_ or _Geilenbergprogramm_ (Geilenberg Special Staff), to disperse Nazi Germany oil production.[_citation needed_] The program included the Cuckoo project[_citation needed_] for an underground oil plant to be "carved out of the Himmelsburg" North of the Mittelwerk,[2] as well as plans for an oil facility at Ebensee.[3] "Geilenberg used as many as 350,000 men for the repair, rebuilding, and dispersal of the bombed plants and for new underground construction [which] were incomplete when the war ended".[4]
> ...


Bergius was greatly favored over Fischer-Tropsch

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 30, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> How hard would it be to take out underground oil-refineries and oil-stocks with bombs and technology used in WWII?
> While I remember reading that Germany was using the Fischer Troppsch process as early as 1936. When did the Bergius high-pressure catalyzation process come online?



The first Commercial Bergius Hydrogenation plant was built in Germany in 1919 operated by Goldschmidt AG near Rheinau. By 1922 Fredrich Bergius had it producing 1 ton per day.
See this link.
New Scientist

It seems to have sent poor Friedrich Bergius Broke and a Balif chased him to Sweden to collect the money from his 1931 Nobel Prize.

German Government supported synthetic fuel plants began before 1930 under autarky programs in Germany well before Hitler became Chancellor.

Germany did not have significant oil resources or control and empire with oil. It had faced trade blockades and continued to face trade boycotts, financial boycotts, trade barriers and other problems accessing markets to create foreign exchange. The breakup of markets that came with break up of the Austro Hungarian empire and German empire even the Munro Doctrine created market access problems Autarky was promoted by the left as much as the nationalists not just in Germany or Italy but other countries as a way of avoiding the worst damage free trade to do to economies and provide security against blockades and boycotts. It was a matter of energy security and even food security.

ICI began construction of a 100,000/ton year Bergius Hydrogenation plant in Billingham England in the 1930s. Billingham Manufacturing Plant - Wikipedia . It is somewhat famous for the fact that that in the 1980s it proved nearly impossible to demolish due to the bomb proof concrete it was built out of. There was also a synthetic fuel program in the USA based around natural gas.

I know you are good at digging up material: the fischer-tropsch.org library has enormous amounts of documents related to this. Fischer-Tropsch Archive

A word of caution. Many 'pop' histories of the oil industry give fly away statistics such as that it took 6 tons of coal to produce 1 tone. Thermochemically the Bergius Hydrogenation process was about 50-55% efficient. Modern plants can be 70% efficient. The Fischer-Tropsch plants were probably just under 40% efficient. The FT plants often used brown coal which has 1/3rd the energy content of Black coal. Fossil and Alternative Fuels - Energy Content
In addition these plants used a lot of their input of coal to produced co-products such as ammonium nitrate for fertiliser and explosives.

In the last months of the war Albert Speer, realising the war was lost, ordered the chemical plants to focus on production of ammonia to ensure that there was fertiliser for next years food crop. This reduced mass starvation in occupied Germany.

Modern Bergius hydrogenation plants would be able to produce oil at $50/barrel. This is competitive with global oil prices most of the time, Such plants however have high capital costs and long payback periods, they must be big to be efficient and near coal fields to minimise transport costs and coal reserves big enough to support them through their payback period.

The real problem is that should someone build a coal to oil plant the oil cartels (eg Saudies) would sinply have lowered the prirce to damage the industry then jacked up the price again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (May 30, 2020)

Virtually none of the output from the Fischer Tropsch plants went into any direct use for the Luftwaffe.

If you want to investigate LUFTWAFFE, you will be quite safe to ignore Fischer Tropsch plants.

NB, this does NOT mean ignoring the FT archive, which contains general material on German synthetic production
of all sorts and despite the name isnt a collection of papers only on the Fischer Tropsch process. Incidentally,
the FT online archive went down for a period of at least 6months (maybe more) quite recently, so anyone
who feels like a hero, have a go at downloading the lot before it vanishes again !

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 30, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> Virtually none of the output from the Fischer Tropsch plants went into any direct use for the Luftwaffe.
> 
> If you want to investigate LUFTWAFFE, you will be quite safe to ignore Fischer Tropsch plants.
> 
> ...



The Fischer-Tropsch process started out with catalysts that were discovered to produce alcohols. One of these fischer-tropsch like alcohol processes was used to 17% butanol and about 80% methanol. The methanol was recirculated through so that the output was predominantly butanol because it could be turned into iso-butylene which could be polymerised to iso-octane. Curiously these facilities seem to have been only built at the Bergius Hydrogenation plants. Latter they used butene byproduct to make the iso-butylene. 

A question you might be able to help me understand is why nobody in the 1920s and 1930s developed engines to run of methanol. ICI considered building a coal to methanol plant in the 1930's. The catalyst is just copper/zink. After all Indianapolis racing has proven the practicality of methanol as a fuel and the early Rolls Royce Schneider trophy engines (R-type) used a methanol based fuel. Also butanol is almost a 1 for 1 drop in replacement for petrol. It could even be produced by fermentation at the time.

One reason British could produce so much 100/130 was the introduction is acid alkylation by BP in the early 30s. The American 100 octane program pushed by the USAAC I believe came out of iso-butylene that came out oil. Latter they added an alumina based regenerative cracking catalysts that further improved yields. German acid alkylation plants were started in 1940. I read only 1 was completed by 1943.


----------



## wuzak (May 30, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> A question you might be able to help me understand is why nobody in the 1920s and 1930s developed engines to run of methanol. ICI considered building a coal to methanol plant in the 1930's. The catalyst is just copper/zink. After all Indianapolis racing has proven the practicality of methanol as a fuel and the early Rolls Royce Schneider trophy engines (R-type) used a methanol based fuel. Also butanol is almost a 1 for 1 drop in replacement for petrol. It could even be produced by fermentation at the time.



It would have been really difficult to get long range using methanol fuel.

The stoichometric air fuel ratio for methanol is 6.25:1 compared to petrol's 14.7:1. A rich mixture for petrol is around 12.5:1 while methanol is 4:1. So you will be using 2 to 3 times the amount of fuel for the power.

Also, methanol has a specific gravity ~ 6-7% greater than petrol.


----------



## wuzak (May 30, 2020)

6% doesn't sound much, but is about 36kg (79lb) increase for fuel in a P-51D (184USG).

But the fuel burn is the killer. While the P-51D might burn 65GPH on petrol in a normal cruise setting, a Methanol fueled version would be 130GPH or more for the same power setting. Endurance is basically halved.


----------



## gjs238 (May 30, 2020)

wuzak said:


> 6% doesn't sound much, but is about 36kg (79lb) increase for fuel in a P-51D (184USG).
> 
> But the fuel burn is the killer. While the P-51D might burn 65GPH on petrol in a normal cruise setting, a Methanol fueled version would be 130GPH or more for the same power setting. Endurance is basically halved.



That is one of the reasons why for backpacking stoves, Coleman fuel/white gas is more practical than alcohol.


----------



## Dimlee (May 30, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Forget the Urals, what was within actual strike distance of the Luftwaffe in 1942?



Most of the industrial sites in the Povolzhye (Volga Region) and the Volga River itself as the major shipping route.


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 30, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> No, but it made Japanese admirals happy.


IDK, if I was a Japanese admiral I'd be asking about the intel failure, as the raid was conducted when the USN carriers should have been known to be elsewhere. 

Lexington (CV-2): 5 December 1941 sailed from Pearl Harbour. On Dec 7th was located 500 miles southeast of Midway
Saratoga (CV-3): being overhauled at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, WA
Ranger (CV-4): Atlantic Fleet
Yorktown (CV-5): Atlantic Fleet
Enterpise (CV-6), 28 November 1941 sailed from Pearl Harbour to reinforce Wake Island. On Dec 7th located 215 miles west of Oahu 
Wasp (CV-7): Atlantic Fleet
Hornet (CV-8): Atlantic Fleet


----------



## Just Schmidt (May 30, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> I would imagine sometime after breakfast but before lunch.
> There is perhaps a small window between two and four, but certainly not at four in the afternoon.
> Anytime after four and through dinnertime is unacceptable and anytime between bedtime and morning is simply barbaric...


I'm kind of under the impression that at dawn is traditional?


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2020)

Just Schmidt said:


> I'm kind of under the impression that at dawn is traditional?


Always a terrible faux pas, one is in no condition to enjoy afternoon tiffin after a dawn attack.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 30, 2020)

Just Schmidt said:


> I'm kind of under the impression that at dawn is traditional?


Terrible time for an attack - disrupts coffee (or tea), breakfast and especially paper delivery.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 30, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Terrible time for an attack - disrupts coffee (or tea), breakfast and especially paper delivery.


No modern influencer would advise a dawn attack, it just isn't the done thing if you want to network and project an image.


----------



## wuzak (May 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> IDK, if I was a Japanese admiral I'd be asking about the intel failure, as the raid was conducted when the USN carriers should have been known to be elsewhere.
> 
> Lexington (CV-2): 5 December 1941 sailed from Pearl Harbour. On Dec 7th was located 500 miles southeast of Midway
> Saratoga (CV-3): being overhauled at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, WA
> ...



You don't think getting intelligence on Pearl Harbour was going to be difficult for the Japanese in the lead up to the attack?


----------



## swampyankee (May 30, 2020)

....and Sunday morning attacks? Breaking the Sabbath is _extremely _rude.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 30, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> ....and Sunday morning attacks? Breaking the Sabbath is _extremely _rude.


Not to mention disturbing those who were healing from Saturday night's debauchery.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> IDK, if I was a Japanese admiral I'd be asking about the intel failure, as the raid was conducted when the USN carriers should have been known to be elsewhere.


People today in this world of spy satellites, instant global communication, and massive data processing have a hard time understanding the limitations that existed in 1941. Without a mole in Naval HQ there's no way the US carriers future schedules could have been communicated to Kido Butai before they departed on their radio silent nearly month long voyage to Oahu. The constraints of time, fuel, distance, USN patrol/search ability, and rigid planning set the date and time of the attack cast in concrete.
It's a bit harsh to call an intel impossibility an intel failure.
Nagumo was a battleship admiral, not an aviator, and depended on a Lt. Commander for guidance in aviation matters. Lt Cdr Genda advocated for a strike on the fuel facilities and a search for the carriers, but was over ruled by the surface warriors who feared damage to their precious ships.
You've got to realize, Yamamoto was a maverick, who had risen through the ranks on sheer competence and good diplomacy and was way ahead of other aviators in the rank structure, whose rise was resisted by the traditionalist surface warriors. He had paid his dues and established his contacts in the surface fleet before getting involved in aviation.
So, yes, most all Japanese admirals other than Yamamoto were big gun admirals, didn't understand the implications, and rejoiced at the decimation of USN's battleship fleet. Yamamoto was their Billy Mitchell and Pearl Harbor was their Ostfriesland.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 30, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Without a mole in Naval HQ there's no way the US carriers future schedules could have been communicated to Kido Butai before they departed on their radio silent nearly month long voyage to Oahu.





wuzak said:


> You don't think getting intelligence on Pearl Harbour was going to be difficult for the Japanese in the lead up to the attack?


It doesn't take a lot of intel to know that at the very best only two USN CVs could possibly be at PH. The rest were publicly known to be either in the Atlantic or under refit in Washington state.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> It doesn't take a lot of intel to know that at the very best only two USN CVs could possibly be at PH. The rest were publicly known to be either in the Atlantic or under refit in Washington state.


Catching more than 2 carriers in the same place would be a good trick under any circumstances. Even if 4 of them were supposed to be at Pearl harbour. They are carriers, if they want to practice flight operations they need to sail. And given the arrival of new aircraft types, and the general state of the world at the time, I think they would have been under some pressure to drill.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 30, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> It doesn't take a lot of intel to know that at the very best only two USN CVs could possibly be at PH. The rest were publicly known to be either in the Atlantic or under refit in Washington state.


So, Admiral Y, what should we do, cancel Pearl Harbor and send Kido Butai to the Atlantic, or let The Empire run out of fuel in 6 months? Do you think those gaijin yankees will send the rest of their carriers to our doorstep before we run out? What do you say, Admiral?


----------



## gjs238 (May 30, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> So, Admiral Y, what should we do, cancel Pearl Harbor and send Kido Butai to the Atlantic, or let The Empire run out of fuel in 6 months? Do you think those gaijin yankees will send the rest of their carriers to our doorstep before we run out? What do you say, Admiral?



Quite the opposite.
They stuck the knife in... now twist it


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 30, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Quite the opposite.
> They stuck the knife in... now twist it


Sorry gjs, that wasn't YOUR empire in question.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 30, 2020)

Key word: "known".

The IJN had spies in various locations (including Pearl) and the Japanese intelligence community knew the areas where the carriers *might* be, but they did not know exact locations or destinations.
As it turns out, the spy at Pearl did communicate the departure of the two carriers out of Pearl, but word did not reach the IJN task Force.
So yes, the IJN was most likely aware that the Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet, Long Island and Saratoga were in port.
They also most likely knew that the Ranger was in the Atlantic and that the Lexington and Enterprise were in the Pacific - but they did not know where.
The third planned attack wave was cancelled because the Japanese did not know where the carriers were. *IF* the Lexington and Enterprise were in Pearl the morning of the attack, you can rest assured the third wave would have been executed.
Also of note: of the 15 Heavy Cruisers assigned to the Pacific, only one was in Pearl that morning (CA-32) with 11 at sea, which also made Nagumo nervous.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 30, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> So, Admiral Y, what should we do, cancel Pearl Harbor and send Kido Butai to the Atlantic, or let The Empire run out of fuel in 6 months?


Carry on with the attack, but hit the fuel farms. If you can't critically wound the USN's offensive capability (carriers, not old battleships) then do your utmost to destroy Pearl Harbour's utility as a base. By not taking out Pearl Harbour, the base was ready to field the USN at Coral Sea and ultimately at Midway. Permanently disabling PH is not feasible, the fuel farms would be rebuilt and replenished in a few months, but leaving the base essentially intact was nuts. Imagine sending your best troops to attack an enemy's primary, yet isolated fortification and supply depot, after you hit the fort and disable its defences, you then leave the magazines and supplies for the inevitable reinforcements?

And put some IJN submarines off Puget Sound to torpedo or mine USS Saratoga. The Japanese know the ship is there.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 31, 2020)

Those "old battleships" were still a very real threat to the IJN.
As it tuens out, some of the USN's oldest battleships participated in the largest surface battle of WWII, at Surgaio Straight:
USS West Virginia (BB-48) sunk at Pearl
USS Maryland (BB-46) damaged at Pearl
USS Tennessee (BB-43) damaged at Pearl
USS Mississippi (BB-41) wasn't at Pearl
USS California (BB-44) sunk at Pearl
and the Grand Daddy of them all:
USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) at Pearl, light damage.

A so tell me about those "old battleships" again?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (May 31, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> Most of the industrial sites in the Povolzhye (Volga Region) and the Volga River itself as the major shipping route.



Where would Luftwaffe heavy bombers be based? Berlin to Moscow as the crow lies is 1600km. Berlin to the Ural region is 3000km You can save maybe 1000km by operating out of occupied territories. Berlin to Vladivostok is 7500km by air. Soviet factories can presumably be setup anywhere in between. The Ju 290 had a range of between 6000 and 6600km and was available by 1942 as the BMW 801 became reliable. 1942 also the 1450hp Jumo 211J is available.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 31, 2020)

Germany did have bases in Bulgaria (Plovdiv, Varna, Krambol, Sofia etc.) as well as Romania and Hungary.
They also had bases throughout Austria, Czechslovakia and Poland.

Not sure why the general consensus is German bombing raids into the Soviet Union would be flown from German proper.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (May 31, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Where would Luftwaffe heavy bombers be based? Berlin to Moscow as the crow lies is 1600km. Berlin to the Ural region is 3000km You can save maybe 1000km by operating out of occupied territories. Berlin to Vladivostok is 7500km by air. Soviet factories can presumably be setup anywhere in between. The *Ju 290 had a range of between 6000 and 6600km* and was available by 1942 as the BMW 801 became reliable. 1942 also the 1450hp Jumo 211J is available.



Range is Point A to Point B. Combat radius is what counts, Pt A to Pt B to Pt A. The range stated is for the recon version.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (May 31, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> Where would Luftwaffe heavy bombers be based? Berlin to Moscow as the crow lies is 1600km. Berlin to the Ural region is 3000km You can save maybe 1000km by operating out of occupied territories. Berlin to Vladivostok is 7500km by air. Soviet factories can presumably be setup anywhere in between. The Ju 290 had a range of between 6000 and 6600km and was available by 1942 as the BMW 801 became reliable. 1942 also the 1450hp Jumo 211J is available.



The initial comment was about the existing 2-engine bomber force in 1942. In the real history that force did strike the industrial areas I mentioned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 31, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Those "old battleships" were still a very real threat to the IJN.
> As it tuens out, some of the USN's oldest battleships participated in the largest surface battle of WWII, at Surgaio Straight:
> USS West Virginia (BB-48) sunk at Pearl
> USS Maryland (BB-46) damaged at Pearl
> ...


The battle at Surigao basically produced nothing but to confirm the status quo to both sides: BB's were too vulnerable in direct action with the enemy, and too valuable to risk. Basically the theme of Battleships for the entire first and second world wars.

The Pacific (and Atlantic, and Mediterranean) war had already demonstrated that BB's were assets that had to be protected from air power, submarines and carriers at all costs. 
They were kept around as long-shot insurance against a carrier coming too close to an enemy BB, for shore bombardment, but mostly to satisfy admiralty on all sides that couldn't cognitively overcome 100 years of battleship doctrine. But the real material strategic value in these roles is debatable. Shore bombardment can be accomplished by aircraft and cruisers at less penalty. A BB will rapidly run out of primary ammunition in this role, not to mention wear out it's guns. Then it's back to port for new barrels. 
Battleship to battleship combat never materialized as envisioned. For any contributions BBs made they still had to be gingerly shepherded around their theatres drawing off considerable resources in aircraft, carriers, cruisers and destroyers. Hardly offset by actual combat gains *imho*. (This applies to the BBs of all nations in WWII, not just the US).

After Bismark and PoW/Repulse, no commander was going to risk it. The symbolic defeat of a BB sunk was too great. They were, and still are, overly romanticized symbols of national might.

I would argue that the most successful BB, and least if a hindrance to it's own navy, was the Tirpitz. It existed as a threat in being tying up considerable allied resources and intelligence for a long while. 
The best use of a BB was to park it somewhere where it couldn't really sink and force the enemy to fret over it.

ANY of the principal combatant navies, given a moment of profound foresight many years prior, would drastically have increased their effectiveness had they scrapped or converted every single BB and BC into carriers. Had Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sailed into the Denmark Straight and been intercepted by two fast carriers, it would have been pretty one sided show. The same had PoW and Hood been trying to intercept Eugen and a fast German Carrier.

Similarly, had PoW and Repulse been two fast fleet carriers, they would have stood a much better chance at surviving the South China Sea. Provided they kept the Fulmars up and prowling for every daylight hour the ships were under Japanese airfields.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (May 31, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> ANY of the principal combatant navies, given a moment of profound foresight many years prior, would drastically have increased their effectiveness had they scrapped or converted every single BB and BC into carriers. Had Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sailed into the Denmark Straight and been intercepted by two fast carriers, it would have been pretty one sided show. The same had PoW and Hood been trying to intercept Eugen and a fast German Carrier.
> 
> Similarly, had PoW and Repulse been two fast fleet carriers, they would have stood a much better chance at surviving the South China Sea. Provided they kept the Fulmars up and prowling for every daylight hour the ships were under Japanese airfields.


Indeed, had the entire KGV class never been built, and instead five more Ark Royals or Illustrious class the RN would have brought much destruction to its enemies. Imagine Taranto not with just Illustrious and 20 Swordfish, but five carriers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 31, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> The battle at Surigao basically produced nothing but to confirm the status quo to both sides: BB's were too vulnerable in direct action with the enemy, and too valuable to risk...


The Battle of Surigao Strait provided a consoderable amount of irony even while a chapter was closing in Naval history.

Firstly, all but one of the USN Battleships present were attacked at Pearl Harbor and they were the key players in the battle. These very warships the Japanese had intended to eliminate at the start of the war.

The balance of these Battleship were WWI vintage yet still proved their worth both in many surface battles as well as providing taskforce protection (including AA) and attacking enemy ground targets.

And most importantly, the Japanese Naval doctrine had always been to draw out the USN for one great battle and when that glorious moment came, they were not prepared for it.

So in the end, the attack at Pearl Harbor was a wasted exercise.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 31, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> So in the end, the attack at Pearl Harbor was a wasted exercise.



You get no argument from me there.


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 31, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Battle of Surigao Strait provided a consoderable amount of irony even while a chapter was closing in Naval history.
> 
> Firstly, all but one of the USN Battleships present were attacked at Pearl Harbor and they were the key players in the battle. These very warships the Japanese had intended to eliminate at the start of the war.
> 
> ...


To be clear I am not saying the battleships weren't effective and valuable. I am saying I believe the resources and logistics they represented, having been redirected at least ten years prior to the war (in the case of any battleship navy in WWII), into heavy cruisers or preferably carriers, would have been better spent and created a more potent force.


Edit: reading this I realize I've brought us wayyy off topic. Sorry!


----------



## swampyankee (May 31, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Those "old battleships" were still a very real threat to the IJN.
> As it tuens out, some of the USN's oldest battleships participated in the largest surface battle of WWII, at Surgaio Straight:
> USS West Virginia (BB-48) sunk at Pearl
> USS Maryland (BB-46) damaged at Pearl
> ...



By the time the _Iowa_ class came into service, the IJN's surface fleet was broken. Not having them would have made essentially no difference to the outcome of the war, except there wouldn't have been a cool new battleship to use as a place for the surrender documents to be signed. 




GrauGeist said:


> The Battle of Surigao Strait provided a consoderable amount of irony even while a chapter was closing in Naval history.
> 
> Firstly, all but one of the USN Battleships present were attacked at Pearl Harbor and they were the key players in the battle. These very warships the Japanese had intended to eliminate at the start of the war.
> 
> ...



As far as Japan was concerned, in the long run, the attack on Pearl Harbor was probably a net negative for Japan. The invasion of the Philippines and mandated US territories in the Pacific would not generate the sort of fervid emotional response as did the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US would declare war over the Philippines, but I doubt if people would particularly care, which may permit the IJN to attack a USN battlefleet at sea.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (May 31, 2020)

Those BBs also gave good shore bombardment, which allowed more fighters to be carried on carriers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RW Mk. III (May 31, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Those BBs also gave good shore bombardment, which allowed more fighters to be carried on carriers.


Although it's important to remember that battleships usually shipped about 100 rounds per gun on the main batteries. (Iowa's had ~130 I think?) And somewhere around 300 shots per gun was the barrel life before you have to put in to port to replace the barrels, a major task. I believe the safety and accuracy of the barrels also really started to deteriorate on the back leg of that lifespan but I could be mistaken. 
Battleships would also generally not go anywhere near depleting their main gun ammunition as then they would be a pretty toothless dog. So shore bombardment, although very effective, has some definite limitations compared to aerial attack. As a carrier generally carries much, more bombs, and is not really limited in how many attacks it can launch before it heads back to port in the same way big guns are.


----------



## swampyankee (May 31, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> Although it's important to remember that battleships usually shipped about 100 rounds per gun on the main batteries. (Iowa's had ~130 I think?) And somewhere around 300 shots per gun was the barrel life before you have to put in to port to replace the barrels, a major task. I believe the safety and accuracy of the barrels also really started to deteriorate on the back leg of that lifespan but I could be mistaken.
> Battleships would also generally not go anywhere near depleting their main gun ammunition as then they would be a pretty toothless dog. So shore bombardment, although very effective, has some definite limitations compared to aerial attack. As a carrier generally carries much, more bombs, and is not really limited in how many attacks it can launch before it heads back to port in the same way big guns are.



Carriers do have a limit on sorties, and would be less effective in poor weather. Battleship guns would also tend to be more effective on well-hardened targets, when fire can be corrected.


Experience with shore bombardment showed that the effect of individual shells increased much more slowly than shell weight. RN experience with their monitors found four six inch shells had similar effect to one 15 inch shell, despite the 15 in shell weighing about 17 times as much as the six inch;(Buxton, _Big Gun Monitors_) one would expect the USN's results would be similar. 

Replacing the _Iowa _class battleships with a mix of carriers and cruisers could have been a more effective use of resources.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 1, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Fischer-Tropsch process started out with catalysts that were discovered to produce alcohols. One of these fischer-tropsch like alcohol processes was used to 17% butanol and about 80% methanol. The methanol was recirculated through so that the output was predominantly butanol because it could be turned into iso-butylene which could be polymerised to iso-octane. Curiously these facilities seem to have been only built at the Bergius Hydrogenation plants. Latter they used butene byproduct to make the iso-butylene.
> 
> A question you might be able to help me understand is why nobody in the 1920s and 1930s developed engines to run of methanol. ICI considered building a coal to methanol plant in the 1930's. The catalyst is just copper/zink. After all Indianapolis racing has proven the practicality of methanol as a fuel and the early Rolls Royce Schneider trophy engines (R-type) used a methanol based fuel. Also butanol is almost a 1 for 1 drop in replacement for petrol. It could even be produced by fermentation at the time.
> 
> One reason British could produce so much 100/130 was the introduction is acid alkylation by BP in the early 30s. The American 100 octane program pushed by the USAAC I believe came out of iso-butylene that came out oil. Latter they added an alumina based regenerative cracking catalysts that further improved yields. German acid alkylation plants were started in 1940. I read only 1 was completed by 1943.


For those who are interested in the nut and bolts (literally), the attached Bureau of Mines paper goes into lurid detail on the Bergius process.
Also I previously posted a wartime booklet which includes illustrations of the processes used to produce avgas in the USA and I am posting it again. The enormous size of the US avgas program becomes apparent. Without it the Combined Bomber Offence literally never gets off the ground. The Germans could never hope to have a bomber fleet remotely comparable to the USAAF and RAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jun 1, 2020)

By my personal point of view certain questions of the what-if kind can be interesting, but always when they have at least a small amount of correspondence with reality.
The German aviation industry was stretched to the limit and far beyond: one of the reasons of the decline of the German pilots skill during the WWII was the lack not only of the avgas allocated to the flying schools, but also of trainers, that in those circumstances are of course exposed to a very rapid wear.

So Lufwaffe was more than happy to put his hands, after the Italian surrender Sept. 1943, on some hundreds of trainers used by Regia Aeronautica, say Saiman, Caproni of various kinds etc., that certainly were not as cool as Macchi 205 or Fiat G55 (or even SM82...), but nevertheless very useful, given the circumstances.
So a good part of the German pilots training was made, after 1943, in Northern Italy, also to profit of the better weather than that of Germany. But Italian planes had the throttle to the contrary of the German standard, and accidents were frequent.
After all, even in the mid ‘30s, German pilots went (secretly) to Italy to train (Adolf Galland).

A huge fleet of German 4-engine bombers, where not even a sufficient number of trainers could be built? Uhmmm...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 1, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> Battleships would also generally not go anywhere near depleting their main gun ammunition as then they would be a pretty toothless dog. So shore bombardment, although very effective, has some definite limitations compared to aerial attack. As a carrier generally carries much, more bombs, and is not really limited in how many attacks it can launch before it heads back to port in the same way big guns are.




This is rather time (and ship) dependent. During WW I the main limitation was barrel wear, As a gun got near the end of it's life the velocity and accuracy both fell off which greatly reduced the effective range of the guns. In WW I this could be in as little as 120 full charge rounds, 

By WW II they had better steel in the barrels and better propellants (this varied from Navy to Navy) and gun life was sometimes double what it was in WW I. The US in particular developed high capacity bombardment ammunition and accepted different ballistics than the AP ammunition. This allowed for smaller charges and greatly increased barrel life. The capacity of the magazines became a real thing as opposed to barrel life. In WW I the rule of thumb had been to fire few enough rounds that the ship could still engage in ship to ship combat and expend her magazines without exceeding the barrel life. This also meant some ships went years without firing their guns. 
A battleship might hold 800-1000 shells for it's main guns. Most Battleship shells actually carried a rather small amount of explosive. 

It was a rare or very large carrier that carried that quantity of large bombs. 
Load out for the Range in 1941 was given as 
100lb bombs=600 (used by fighters)
500lb bombs=515
1000lb bombs=177
325lb DB..........=200 (Depth Bomb)
No torpedoes. 

Battleships could also use secondary guns for shore bombardment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 1, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> The battle at Surigao basically produced nothing but to confirm the status quo to both sides: BB's were too vulnerable in direct action with the enemy, and too valuable to risk. Basically the theme of Battleships for the entire first and second world wars.
> 
> ANY of the principal combatant navies, given a moment of profound foresight many years prior, would drastically have increased their effectiveness had they scrapped or converted every single BB and BC into carriers. Had Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sailed into the Denmark Straight and been intercepted by two fast carriers, it would have been pretty one sided show. The same had PoW and Hood been trying to intercept Eugen and a fast German Carrier.
> 
> Similarly, had PoW and Repulse been two fast fleet carriers, they would have stood a much better chance at surviving the South China Sea. Provided they kept the Fulmars up and prowling for every daylight hour the ships were under Japanese airfields.



I don't disagree with you. Submarines and aircraft could easily sink lone merchant ships or small convoys with nothing but sloops and corvettes and maybe a destroyer for escort. It seems that a that a Battleship could likely completely sink an entire convoy in an hour or so. Hence the battleship raiders complemented submarines. The convoy provided protection against u-boats and aircraft but probably increased vulnerability to battleships. As you are no doubt aware arctic Convoy PQ17, which was heavily escorted including a battleship (Duke of York) was scattered for fear of Tirpitz being around and PQ 17 lost 24 of its 35 merchant ships during a week of daylight attacks by U-boats and aircraft.

One of the problems with Battleships was that anti-aircraft defences had not developed yet. PoW had 4 Type 282 50cm anti aircraft ranging radars but 3 out of the 4 were out of action when she came into action against the japanese. In addition she was mainly armed with the 40mm Pom Pom.

Had their radars been working and had the 40mm boffors replaced the POM POM the outcome may have been different since the Japanese level and torpedo bombers were mostly out of reach from the POM POM. Battleships were severely underarmed in AAA field and the level of fire control expended on their main guns should have been expended on their light and medium guns.





Reluctant Poster said:


> For those who are interested in the nut and bolts (literally), the attached Bureau of Mines paper goes into lurid detail on the Bergius process.
> Also I previously posted a wartime booklet which includes illustrations of the processes used to produce avgas in the USA and I am posting it again. The enormous size of the US avgas becomes apparent. Without it the Combined Bomber Offence literally never gets off the ground. The Germans could never hope to have a bomber fleet remotely comparable to the USAAF and RAF.



Of the top of my head the Germans expended 4 million tons of steal in coal to oil tech. That is 100 Bismarck sized Battleships and 3000 u-boats and about 10,000 Panther Tanks. It's about 1/4 of the US Navy. Much of he steel were special nickel chrome alloys. The efficiency of the process is much greater now. I believe there is one Bergius Plant in Chinese occupied Mongolia and another planned in Mongolia proper. It's a good thing as the efficiency of nearly 70% when combusted in a low speed diesel (55%) is as good as direct burning in steam or heating plant and is much safer from the perspective of keeping lungs healthy. Better heating oil for people than char and coal.

Fischer Tropsch is the main synthetic fuel technology today mainly because small plants can be built to operate of natural gas or ethane/propane/butane gases that would be flared of. They are converted and pumped out with the crude.

There is the rapidly developing field a "carbon neutral fuels" that combine CO2 extracted from the atmosphere and Hydrogen from electrolysis to create fuels. Obviously wind/solar/geothermal/nuclear must be used. There is a 5000 ton per year plant in Iceland using geothermal and a 8000 ton per year plant in Norway that should startup next year. (Nordic Blue)

One of the more interesting uses was the USN plans to manufacture synthetic aviation fuel on its nuclear aircraft carriers. It turns out that CO2 can be taken out of sea water fairly easily.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 1, 2020)

Deleted


----------



## Glider (Jun 2, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> I don't disagree with you. Submarines and aircraft could easily sink lone merchant ships or small convoys with nothing but sloops and corvettes and maybe a destroyer for escort. It seems that a that a Battleship could likely completely sink an entire convoy in an hour or so. Hence the battleship raiders complemented submarines. The convoy provided protection against u-boats and aircraft but probably increased vulnerability to battleships. As you are no doubt aware arctic Convoy PQ17, which was heavily escorted including a battleship (Duke of York) was scattered for fear of Tirpitz being around and PQ 17 lost 24 of its 35 merchant ships during a week of daylight attacks by U-boats and aircraft.
> 
> One of the problems with Battleships was that anti-aircraft defences had not developed yet. PoW had 4 Type 282 50cm anti aircraft ranging radars but 3 out of the 4 were out of action when she came into action against the japanese. In addition she was mainly armed with the 40mm Pom Pom.
> 
> ...



Whilst I doubt that the outcome would have been different, after all being attacked by such overwhelming air attack without fighter cover was always going to be close to impossible. The biggest problem the POW had was the loss of power early on in the battle due to a torpedo hit by a shaft and poor damage control. Once the power was lost, she lost all the 2pd guns which was the core of her defence as they didn't have a manual backup. All she was left with for close defence were a handful of 20mm and a single army bofor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 3, 2020)

RW Mk. III said:


> The battle at Surigao basically produced nothing but to confirm the status quo to both sides: BB's were too vulnerable in direct action with the enemy, and too valuable to risk. Basically the theme of Battleships for the entire first and second world wars.
> 
> ANY of the principal combatant navies, given a moment of profound foresight many years prior, would drastically have increased their effectiveness had they scrapped or converted every single BB and BC into carriers. Had Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sailed into the Denmark Straight and been intercepted by two fast carriers, it would have been pretty one sided show. The same had PoW and Hood been trying to intercept Eugen and a fast German Carrier.
> 
> Similarly, had PoW and Repulse been two fast fleet carriers, they would have stood a much better chance at surviving the South China Sea. Provided they kept the Fulmars up and prowling for every daylight hour the ships were under Japanese airfields.



I don't disagree with you. Submarines and aircraft could easily sink lone merchant ships or small convoys with nothing but sloops and corvettes and maybe a destroyer for escort. It seems that a that a Battleship could likely completely sink an entire convoy in an hour or so. Hence the battleship raiders complemented submarines. The convoy provided protection against u-boats and aircraft but probably increased vulnerability to battleships. As you are no doubt aware arctic Convoy PQ17, which was heavily escorted including a battleship (Duke of York) was scattered for fear of Tirpitz being around and PQ 17 lost 24 of its 35 merchant ships during a week of daylight attacks by U-boats and aircraft.

One of the problems with Battleships was that anti-aircraft defences had not developed yet. PoW had 4 Type 282 50cm anti aircraft ranging radars but 3 out of the 4 were out of action when she came into action against the japanese. In addition she was mainly armed with the 40mm Pom Pom


Glider said:


> Whilst I doubt that the outcome would have been different, after all being attacked by such overwhelming air attack without fighter cover was always going to be close to impossible. The biggest problem the POW had was the loss of power early on in the battle due to a torpedo hit by a shaft and poor damage control. Once the power was last she lost all the 2pd guns which didn't have a manual backup. All she was left with for close defence were a handful of 20mm and a couple of army bofors.



Having taken an interest in fire control its clear that the Royal Navy was in advance of any other Navy at the outset of WW2 in integrating advanced fire control into their light Anti Aircraft Guns (2 pounder pom pom). The initially tried using DC field controlled DC motors as servo motors. These have a fixed armature current but the field is controlled to obtain the required movement, they used feed forward control to obtain acceleration without lag. They moved on I think to metadynes. I believe they introduced 1000Hz power to obtain the required precision of response. Since 1000Hz power was required backup power was much harder than simply a pack of batteries to keep the guns operating in case of engine room failure.

I think the flaw in the system was the ballistics of the POM POM which gave less than a 5000 yard range at 45 degrees (the same as a Oerlikon). Had the fire control used on the POM POM been combined with the ballistics of the Boffors (which had over twice the range at 45 degrees as the POM POM the PoW may have been able to engage the torpedo bombers that crippled her before they released their weapons.

Other navies had different issues. The German Navies 3.7cm SK30 had excellent ballistics but the gun was manually loaded and a pair of guns could achieve only 60RPM and as far as I can see was aimed by a reflector sight from a stabilised platform without much computing assistance. The 2.0cm C30 guns they had on Bismarck, which had excellent ballistics for a 20mm, were in single and duel mounts rather than the highly effective quads (only two vierlings were on Bismarck though Tirpitz was almost completely converted over). The US was using a 28mm gun which had excellent ballistics but a low rate of fire.

So it seems Navies could see the problems and were making preparations but just couldn't quite keep up.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jun 9, 2020)

While i have no doubt that many admirals did realize too late that battlesships were no longer the only gig in town, I do believe they had their use, much in line with what have already been mentioned.

it is worth noting that battleships can operate in whether which will keep aircraft on ground or deck, and do not face comparable problems at night. One example I'd like to add is the sinking of Scharnhorst (forgoing the discussion whether that was a battleship or a battlecruiser). Had the convoy not had battleship support, it may well have fallen prey to Scharnhorst, though the British cruisers (and destroyers+Stord) performed well on that occasion.

If you had battleships, they were another string on your bow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 27, 2020)

Greyman said:


> The FN64 turret's lack of success had more to do with the fact that Bomber Command operated mainly at night -- not any problem inherent with periscopically-sighted under turrets.
> 
> By all British accounts the Bendix K turret was markedly inferior to the FN64 and after testing in the Mitchell recommended that "... this turret should be replaced by the F.N.64 under turret at the earliest possible date."
> 
> ...


If forced to choose between a Yugo or a Trabant I would choose the Yugo, but in reality I would take an Uber.

But seriously, the FN-64 was not a roaring success. The bulk of Lancaster production did not have them.

From British Aircraft Armament Volume 1 by R Wallace Clark
_“The first production Lancasters were fitted with a ventral turret which was based on the Blenheim’s FN60 rearward-firing under-turret. This turret was reintroduced when daylight operations were resumed in June 1944. It was not in widespread use, but four of No. 5 Group’s Polish squadrons were fitted with the FN 64 in place of the H2S scanner………………….The turret had a 180 traverse and offered little drag compared with the ‘dustbin’ turrets when were extended, but the old problem of sighting difficulty led to the decision to cancel its installation on the main production aircraft. However, several squadrons did use the turret later: it was thought that, although not ideal, it would prevent a fighter from sliding in under the tail during daylight operations, even if the gunner had to be instructed by the tail or mid upper gunners when they could see an attack being mounted, but could not easily aim their guns in the direction of attack.”_
Note the poor situational awareness requiring coaching.

I believe all the FN-64s had been removed by January 1944 and as noted above were reinstated on a limited basis by June 1944. It seems that most Mark IIs were produced with FN-64s (and bulged bomb bays).

By the way I had intended to say the Martin turret was *arguably *the best turret of the war. It was certainly a contender.

Here is a website showing an actual FN64 that is to be restored
Lancaster Restoration And Fabrication - FN64 Turret


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jun 27, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The Germans were less likely to confuse one city for another because the next city was a considerable distance away. Not 10-20-30 miles but hundred miles or more.
> 
> Following rail lines works better, not infallible but the rail lines are nowhere near as closely spaced as they were in England or Western Europe.
> Many Russian cities were located on rivers and/or major bodies of water.


My father was a navigator in the RCAF who trained in the empty expanses of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. He told me that following railway tracks was not as easy as it sounds, particularly at night. Even in the prairies there are still plenty of branch lines to confuse you.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

Thanks Reluctant Poster, that brought back pleasant memories of work. My tower (signal box) was frequently overflown by helicopters going to and from New York City and eastern Long Island. They were following the tracks.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 27, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> But seriously, the FN-64 was not a roaring success. The bulk of Lancaster production did not have them.



Right but I'm saying this was due to Bomber Command mostly operating at night. I disagree with what R. Wallace Clark has written.

Both the A&AEE and AFDU were happy with the turret but the light loss through the system at night made it not worth fitting. The turret was still kept in inventory and policy was to be ready to fit them if the general switch to daylight operations was made.

The provision for the FN64 mounting/hydraulics was an explicitly stated requirement and was kept throughout Lancaster development--and was asked to be retained in the Lincoln.

As it happened it all became a moot point as the H2S scanner (which was deemed more important) had to be fitted in the same location.




Reluctant Poster said:


> Note the poor situational awareness requiring coaching.



I think this is the case with all under-defence mountings. As I posted earlier ( https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ww2-bombers-if-germany-had-the-allies-heavy-bombers-would-they-have-won-the-war.29105/page-15#post-1557675 ) I have my doubts that the Sperry turret was much better in that respect.


----------



## Koopernic (Jul 3, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Right but I'm saying this was due to Bomber Command mostly operating at night. I disagree with what R. Wallace Clark has written.
> 
> Both the A&AEE and AFDU were happy with the turret but the light loss through the system at night made it not worth fitting. The turret was still kept in inventory and policy was to be ready to fit them if the general switch to daylight operations was made.
> 
> ...



The FN64 seems to have been an effective ventral turret arrangement with a good optical system. The problem seems to have been entirely one of night visibility caused by the type of optical glass and lenses. The Germans, mainly due to Zeiss, had made breakthroughs in the clarity of optical glass which transmitted a higher proportion of light. The main breakthrough was multicoat optics which eliminated the tiny proportion of reflection at each lenses that then scattered and rescattered though the multiple lenses of a sophisticated arrangement to accumulate into significant blurding. So the quality of the lenses and the sophisticating of the lense arrangment wasnt an issue but the nature of the optical glass was.

German naval night fighting optics was thus vastly better (on naval vessels) than American or British. Sophisticated allied fire control radar made this significant advantage in optics a moot advantage. The Japanese optics (Pentax) was apparently even better than German. It seems to have had the effect of deprioritising development of Japanese radar. 

The Japanese actually had functioning high power multicavity magnetrons (with circular cavities, narrow slits and latter strapping) before Randall and Boot in the UK and were testing at the same time as the UK. There the story diverges, Whereas Britain rapidly invested in developing microwave radar of increasing power and sophistication deployed in escort vessels the Japanese microwave radars were produced only slowly and confined to surface search on main line military ships. They performed well in this role. The Japanese companies struggled even to be allocated the nickel to produce permanent magnets. The Japanese success in this area was never shared with the Germans it seems.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 3, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The problem seems to have been entirely one of night visibility caused by the type of optical glass and lenses.



That was a factor -- Nash & Thompson tackled this by;
a) 'blooming' the lenses​b) increasing magnification from x1 to x2​c) luminising the aiming graticule​
I'm not sure how satisfactorily these actions dealt with the issues -- and I think there were still problems with glare/internal reflections re: searchlights/flares (not sure on this point).

Problems not able to be dealt with were;
a) the fact that it's just damn hard to spot a 2-engine aircraft below the horizon vs. a 4-engine aircraft above, even with a 100% unobstructed, clear view​b) it's very tiring to search for hours on end through a periscope​​


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 4, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The FN64 seems to have been an effective ventral turret arrangement with a good optical system. The problem seems to have been entirely one of night visibility caused by the type of optical glass and lenses.


I was always told the ventral turret was difficult to sight.


> The Japanese actually had functioning high power multicavity magnetrons (with circular cavities, narrow slits and latter strapping) before Randall and Boot in the UK and were testing at the same time as the UK.


When did the British do this?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 17, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Right but I'm saying this was due to Bomber Command mostly operating at night. I disagree with what R. Wallace Clark has written.
> 
> Both the A&AEE and AFDU were happy with the turret but the light loss through the system at night made it not worth fitting. The turret was still kept in inventory and policy was to be ready to fit them if the general switch to daylight operations was made.
> 
> ...


The 8th AF studied the combat activity of B-24 turrets in the spring of 1944 and concluded that under turrets were not all that useful







As a result of this study a program of removal of Sperry ball turrets from B-24s was instituted

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

