# He.177 combat history



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

im looking at the he.177 combat history. it says alot about how it bombed and caught fire. but i see very little on encounters between enemy fighters and the greifs. i understand soviet pilots were a bit thrown back by the altitude and heavy armament of the greif. but how did spitfires and mustangs cope with them? what were allied tactics regarding luftwaffe bombers, like the he.177 and do.217?


----------



## krieghund (Nov 24, 2011)

As I recall most of their action against the west was at night over Britain. A few were casualties of the Mosquito's Guns. Far more were lost due to accidents and on board fires. They also were employed against convoys with mixed results. Their action was sporadic at best and had more action in the east but poor serviceability and lack of fuel kept them out of action. 

I recommend the book, "Heinkel He177 Grief, Heinkel's Strategic Bomber", by J. Richard Smith Eddie J. Creek which I believe gives a proper appraisal of the aircraft.


----------



## Juha (Nov 24, 2011)

Hello
not many encounters with western day fighters, He 177s tried to avoid them by operating outside their ranges or by night. There were at least one encounter over Med, when during their dusk attack He 177s found out that day fighters were still covering the convoy, IIRC US and Free French fighters shot down appr 5 He 177s and a night fighter one.

Typhoons met Do 217s at least twice and in short order shot down 4-5 Do 217s in both cases before rest escaped into clouds or crash-landed in hurry.

Juha


----------



## mhuxt (Nov 24, 2011)

Griel and Dressel's book has a long listing of known He 177 fates. 

Mosquitos put in claims (that's CLAIMS) for 44 He 177s destroyed air-to-air, another on the ground, three probables and a few damaged. In some cases these can be tied back to specific 177 losses, however when the claims are made over water, on nights when more than one 177 was reported missing, things are less clear.

I supoose there may be a claim or two from Beaufighters, not sure.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Hmm for 1,700 he.177s built, the actual combat losses appear to be far lower than any other wwii bomber i know of, other than the mosquito


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

if the loss rate to combat is indeed low, then could it be said that, engine troubles aside, the he.177 was a successful bomber design?


----------



## mhuxt (Nov 24, 2011)

Certainly wasn't a successful bomber program, if you see what I mean.

Aerodynamically, I think it was a touch on the slow side, though the strengthened wings apparently let it egress from the UK quite rapidly.

I think Griehl and Dressel believe it would have been far more successful as a regular 4-engine buff, but by the time it got round to making the changes, it was all too little too late with too few resources. That goes into the tiresome woulda coulda shoulda category though.

Apparently the second CO of the first unit to use them in the east (the first CO was lost in action...) made very positive noises about the aircraft itself.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Was the He.177 a potential war winner? because the germans manufactured a fair number of them, and if they stuck with a separate four engined design and maybe downplayed the divebombing in the airframe, the luftwaffe would have their own strategic bomber, which is what most people agree was what germany didnt have and was a factor in them losing the war


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 24, 2011)

On one Steinbock mission the HE-177 participated in 14 aircraft were schedualed for the mission, 13 took off, 8 turned around during the climb to altitude because of inflight fires or overheating engines, one more aborted befofe crossing the French coast, 4 reached Britain, one of which was shot down by a nightfighter .

I've never seen figures as high as 1700 He-177's made, I've seen as low as 900, other sources put it at a little over 1100. No matter which is correct it's a drop in the bucket compared to over 12,000 B-17's and 18,000 B-24's.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Well it seemed like it had a lot of potential. Im not saying about the mechanical losses. Im saying losses in combat seemed to be far lower than any other steinbock bomber. plus, the fact that the He.177 pilots developed tactics to bomb the target and speed away quite quickly, showed that it had something good as a bomber.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Its ventral armament though, needed serious redesign. only one little machine gun covered the rear ventral area. thats not good for a high altitude bomber


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 24, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Was the He.177 a potential war winner? because the germans manufactured a fair number of them, and if they stuck with a separate four engined design and maybe downplayed the divebombing in the airframe, the luftwaffe would have their own strategic bomber, which is what most people agree was what germany didnt have and was a factor in them losing the war



No single aircraft is a "war winner", particularly not a four-engined heavy bomber for the Luftwaffe that can only be manufactured in any numbers after about mid 1943.

For a Germany heavy bomber to have a strategic impact, it needs to be available, in numbers, from the beginning of the war. It also needs an appropriate doctrine and - as UK and US experience showed - a sufficiently capable escort if it wants to operate in congested airspace in daylight.

One of the main problems lies in the fact that manufacturing a heavy bomber is exceptionally costly and labour intensive. Looking at the UK experience, a four engine bomber is anywhere from 15-40% more labour intensive per lb of aircraft weight than a medium bomber. As a heavy bomber weighs around 50-75% more than a medium bomber, this means you can manufacture more than two mediums for the same cost as a single heavy.

The Luftwaffe built around 3500 bombers between 1939 and 1940. Supposing that the He-111 - 1200 produced in 1939 1940 - is replaced with a proper heavy bomber. The Luftwaffe is going to lose around production of around these mediums in exchange for building around 500 of our theoretical heavy. 

Given the intensity of the French and BoB campaigns, I don't think that's sufficient weight of production to satisfy Luftwaffe requirements.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 24, 2011)

I believe the engine problems had been resolved halfway through the project and overall was a good aircraft. It certainly had a lot of potential, but like most bombers if you don't have adequate fighter cover....


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

Well the He.177 had adequeate armament to defend itself, but i keep asking this question. how effective were bomber's defensive guns really in the second world war? whats the point of putting weighty guns on the bombers if you're going to die without fighter cover anyways?


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 24, 2011)

The He177 did have the lowest loss rate on the Steinbock missions, but it was still 10%, think what that means, statistically no crew or aircraft is going to last more than 10 missions.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 24, 2011)

No bomber carried enough armament to defend itself. In 1939 many bombers could only point a single rifle caliber machine gun in some directions. later bombers increased the covered arcs and roughly doubled the guns but fighters were carrying 2-8 times teh number of rifle caliber machine guns or a single/dual cannon and several RCMGs. By the time the later B-17s and the He 177 showed potential interceptors were using multiple cannon. A single 20mm in a turret ( few bombers were able to concentrate fire from more than one gun position at a time) does not equal 3-4 20mm (or larger) cannon in the fighters. The B-29 came closest but even it was switched to night attacks. 
Trading one or two fighters for a four engine bomber is in favor of the fighters. 
The big problem is that if you wanted a big bomb load and long range the plane wasn't going to be able to out run fighters anyway. 

Something else to consider is that not all power turrets are equal. the power drive systems need both speed to track targets and fine control for good aim, and they need to be combined in the same control. 

For a bomber to be truly successful it needs to have a low loss rate from *ALL* causes while delivering worthwhile payloads onto actual targets. Having a low loss rate to enemy fighters while suffering a horrendous loss rate due to accidents and malfunctions while delivering mediocre payloads to the general area of a worthwhile target is hardly the sign of a major success unless the goal is just to cause a lot of lost sleep to your opponent. 

That may sound harsh and the RAF had nothing to brag about in the first part of the war as far as even finding the right city at night but by the time the He 177 was bombing England just dumping bombs in the right county could no longer be called a success.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

lol. and i understood that the heinkels had only a few big bombs as opposed to the allied method of many small or medium bombs, so the 177s would have to be very accurate with their bombing to have any effect at all


----------



## krieghund (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Its ventral armament though, needed serious redesign. only one little machine gun covered the rear ventral area. thats not good for a high altitude bomber



Actually Heinkel did have a design for a ventral gun turret system but it could only cover the lower rear and side quadrants and wasn't normally fitted to save weight except that the turret fire control mount had better visibility than the flex mount.

I also included a fuel/bomb load/range chart I compiled from various sources.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

ive heard of 177s with twin 30mm cannon, quad gun tail turrets, and henschel missiles, but ive never heard about a ventral gun turret for the heinkel


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

in rendition to your assessment that no bomber ever carried enough armament to defend itself, id like to direct you to the Junkers Ju.290A variant some call the porcupine






surely this one could dish out some damage to any attacking fighters


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 25, 2011)

That's very interesting, I've never heard of a ventral turret for the He-177 either. 

The Ju 290 above is the A-8 model and only 2 or 3 were completed before being captured. While this plane carried 11 x 20mm MG151s, on average 3 of 4 might be trained onto 1 target, which would be the equivalent fire power of a single fighter. While it would be able to defend itself, IMO the advantage still lays with the fighter. 

Now have a massed formation of these (or He-177's) and they would help even the odds.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

can you imagine the ordeal of a pilot who made a foolish decision to attack an he.177 or ju.290a-8 from above? i imagine if the gunners were good enough theyd make short work of an attacking fighter


----------



## Juha (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> can you imagine the ordeal of a pilot who made a foolish decision to attack an he.177 or ju.290a-8 from above? i imagine if the gunners were good enough theyd make short work of an attacking fighter


 
Not necessarily so foolish
Now on 26.11.43 Spitfires of GC I/7 claimed 4 bombers during the attack against Convoy KMF-26, Beaufighters (from 135Sqn and 416 NFS) 4 bombers, naval AAA one. LW lost 6 missing He 177s and 3 He 177s crashed on landings, of the latter at least one was damaged by AAA. Allied a/c losses were limited to one Beaufighter.

26.5.1944 Sea Hurricanes from escort carrier Nairana shot down 2 Ju 290s in two combats, one was A-3 subtype another was A-7. 

So IMHO its seems that odds were still against LW bombers.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> in rendition to your assessment that no bomber ever carried enough armament to defend itself, id like to direct you to the Junkers Ju.290A variant some call the porcupine
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lets think about this one for a minute or two shall we?

What was the impact on performance of all those turrets and guns? What was the loss in speed and ceiling (or bomb load) compared to a 'standard' (if there every was such a thing) JU 290?
With several fighters attacking at once (something a lot of people forget, fighters vs bombers were seldom one on one) how do you co-ordinate the four top turrets to engage even a pair of fighters? 4 turrets on one fighter? two on each? 3 on one and one on the other? 

And who says the fighters have to attack from the top? pulling up from the bottom might be able to be outside the arc of fire of the tail gun leaving the defense to to a single hand aimed gun from the rear of the gondola.

the US tried using heavily armed variants as escorts for the normal B-17s and B-24s (YB-40 XB-41), it didn't work. according to Wiki: 48 sorties were credited. Five German fighter kills and two probables (likely kills) were claimed, and one YB-40 was lost, shot down on the 22 June mission to Hüls, Germany> 

That is five claimed, not confirmed, kills and the YB-17 could not carry any bombs.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> That is five claimed, not confirmed, kills and the YB-17 could not carry any bombs.



Or keep up with the bombers on the run home....


----------



## riacrato (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Hmm for 1,700 he.177s built, the actual combat losses appear to be far lower than any other wwii bomber i know of, other than the mosquito.


 
The figure you need is not how many were lost out of how many built, but how many losses occured per mission. And I assume that number was still pretty high in the west. The reason not many were shot down is because they were sparsely used in the west and in the east they flew too high to be intercepted. But also too rarely seen for the VVS to care too much about them, or that's what I've benn told.





tyrodtom said:


> The He177 did have the lowest loss rate on the Steinbock missions, but it was still 10%, think what that means, statistically no crew or aircraft is going to last more than 10 missions.


I may be wrong because my statistics courses were a long time ago but if the chance to go down on a mission is 10%, that means the chance to survive 10 missions ist still 34.8%.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

Well yes, the ju.290a-8 was a reconnaissance plane i believe, not a bomber, so i guess its my fault i presented it as an argument for bomnber defensive argument. what i guess im looking for, is whether the he.177 had any positive aspects of its design and career to lighten its failures as a bomber. i always like to think that every airplane has at least one good thing about it. most books say they achieved moderate success as glide bomb and anti-ship missile carriers. can this be deemed as true, or was maintenance issues so bad that no chapter of the 177's career would ever been considered even close to adequately successful? To me its a wonderfully beautiful aircraft, and id hate to think that its looks were the only good thing about it.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 25, 2011)

I may be wrong because my statistics courses were a long time ago but if the chance to go down on a mission is 10%, that means the chance to survive 10 missions ist still 34.8%.[/QUOTE] 

I think maybe you are wrong. If you have a group of 10 aircraft, if on the first mission they lose 1, The next mission, their still 10 aircraft because they've got a replacement, they again lose 1, and so on for 10 missions. in effect you will have replaced them all. I know in real life the bad fate might befall the replacement aircraft and crew instead of a veteran crew, but a 10% loss rate per mission cannot be sustained for long.
The 8th Air Forces blackest day was their 2nd raid on Schwienfurt, they had a 20% loss rate on that mission. It was a daylight mission of course, and unescorted. After that mission all unescorted daylight missions were stopped.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 25, 2011)

One He 177 was brought down by a Beaufighter on the first day of the Anzio landings.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 25, 2011)

I think the only failure of the He 177 was how they were deployed. IMO once the engine issues were solved it was a pretty decent aircraft. I think if the B-17 or Lancaster was deployed in the same way the results would not have been that different.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

when did they solve the engine issues, and how? in what model?


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 25, 2011)

One of the reasons the He-177 had the speed it had was because of it's engines, it had the power of a 4 engine aircraft, but the engine drag just a little more than a two engine aircraft. But those paired engines were it's achilles heel. The engines were 2 DB601's side by side. The exhaust manifold between the two engines was a very hot spot, and the lowest part of the nacelle was also closeby. The little leaks that most engines have are going to gather at the lowest point. So you've got the hottest part of the engine close to the same place oil leak, and other leakage tend to gather.

If they had redesigned the He-177 with 4 separate engines it would not have been as fast, it would then have the same engine nacelle drag as any other 4 engine bomber.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

I heard that they first tried a surface evaporation cooling system, but that didnt work out so well


----------



## cimmex (Nov 25, 2011)

engine issues were solved with the new motor DB610 (2x DB605) instead of the DB606 (2x DB601) starting at the A-3 version
Regards 
Cimmex


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 25, 2011)

I believe by the time the A-3 model was released. The problems has been identified before the first A-1 had left the production line but they didn't want to delay it. The problems identified were (from _Warplanes of the Third Reich _by Willian Green):

1 - Engine mountings be extended 8"
2 - fuel/oil lines be rerouted
3 - Fire wall installed
4 - Oil tank related to a less dangerous position
5 - Redesign of the exhaust system

Only the oil tank was relocated at first. Later crews demanded flame dampners for night operations so the exhaust system was redesigned. The A-3 model had the engine mounts extended 8" and the engine fires issue appeared to be solved. I didn't see where a fire wall had ever been installed, but I assume it had been. The A-3 was produced late autume of 1942.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 25, 2011)

ummm, pobably the most unusual combat witha He 177 was this.....

20 February 1944

A B-17 flown by Lt. Guy Reed and specially-equipped for recon and weather reporting took off to determine the weather conditions over Germany and the North Sea. While enroute, Lt. Reed picked up a ghost radio signal and decided to investigate. A ghost signal had been causing havoc among the bomber groups and misdirecting many bombers away from airfields until their fuel was exhausted and they ditched their bombers. Dropping through cloud cover, Reed's B-17 found the source of the radio signal - a He 177 recon plane. Coming up alongside the big bomber, the B-17 started firing at the Heinkel, beginning a battle across the North Sea as the two lumbering giants fired at each other. Lt. Reed brought the B-17 around the Heinkel and the crew fired on the German bomber at almost point-blank range. The Heinkel dove then appeared to stall alongside the Fortress. As the American bomber came alongside, the German gunners opened up on the B-17, killing the right waist gunner, knocking the cover off the top turret and jamming the rudder. A .50 cal shell from the B-17 nearly killed the German pilot and he decided to break off the battle. As he banked away, a volley of gunfire from the Fortress damaged one of his engines and the He 177 tumbled out of the sky out of control. Nobody survived the crash. Lt. Reed was able to bring his damaged plane back to Scotland for a crash landing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

.50 cals always seem to beat 20mm cannon.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 25, 2011)

One .50 cal?


----------



## Gixxerman (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> when did they solve the engine issues, and how? in what model?



Having a bit of an interest in the Greif myself, I have the J Richard Smith Eddie J Creeks book 'Heinkel He 177 Greif Heinkel's Strategic Bomber' and the Manfred Griehl Joachm Dressel book 'Heinkel He 177, 277 274' and whilst each talks about significant improvements being made by the A3 version each seems to agree that the A5 was 'the cure'.
However even with the A5 they both talk about fires continuing to plague the aircraft.
I suppose it has to be remembered that sabotage was also a constant factor German crew just had to live with.

Hows this for an outsized load? During the first Steinbok raids the He 177's were carrying an SC2500 - under each wing.
I knew the bomb bay was big but for sheer load 11,000lbs under the wings is mighty impressive for a bomber of that period.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 25, 2011)

Gixxerman said:


> ......
> 
> Hows this for an outsized load? During the first Steinbok raids the He 177's were carrying an SC2500 - under each wing.
> I knew the bomb bay was big but for sheer load 11,000lbs under the wings is mighty impressive for a bomber of that period.



maybe because they were designed with the requirement that they had to be able to 'dive-bomb'!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gixxerman (Nov 25, 2011)

Indeed Njaco......just like the ability to go into a shallow dive vacant hostile airspace, after all that trouble messing around with diving an aircraft that size I suppose you can at least say they got something tangible for it!

The one plane from the family I'd love to know more about was the He 274, if there's such a thing as Germany's B29 this was it.
The French built the prototypes as AAS 01A (and I believe there was a 2nd as AAS 01B).
Some performance data is noted in the Smith Creek book, 360mph @ 36,000 and a ceiling of 46,922ft when run with DB603A-2 engines and the Hirth 9-2281 turbo-superchargers.
Presuming the load carrying abilities at least match the 177 that would make for one very dangerous enemy plane.
Happily the chances of it being made in numbers in the 2nd half of the war - or Germany at that stage having the fuel to train, work up and fly on a significan number of operations - were pretty much zero.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 25, 2011)

...and the French used them into the 50's then scrapped them.. DOH!!!!


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 25, 2011)

Gixxerman said:


> Having a bit of an interest in the Greif myself, I have the J Richard Smith Eddie J Creeks book 'Heinkel He 177 Greif Heinkel's Strategic Bomber' and the Manfred Griehl Joachm Dressel book 'Heinkel He 177, 277 274' and whilst each talks about significant improvements being made by the A3 version each seems to agree that the A5 was 'the cure'.
> However even with the A5 they both talk about fires continuing to plague the aircraft.
> I suppose it has to be remembered that sabotage was also a constant factor German crew just had to live with.



Maybe their cure was not quite the cure they thought it to be, it a little too easy to blame the continuance of the same problem on sabotage.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

Well it doesnt matter how big your bombs are, you have to hit the target. you have a better chance of hitting the target with 10 500lb bombs than 2 2500kg bombs


----------



## Njaco (Nov 25, 2011)

anybody thinking Scharnhorst and Gneisnau on that one?


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 25, 2011)

if the thing about the 2 2500kg bombs on the wings alone are true, then wouldnt that make the he.177(including in this assessment that the he.177 could also carry mines, and anti-ship missiles) the bomber with the second best payload of a wwii bomber(one that actually was mass produced and used operationally, im sure several prototypes had much larger bomb loads), after the b-29?


----------



## Hop (Nov 25, 2011)

Bombs are normally carried externally when they won't fit internally. 2 5,500 lbs bombs isn't a bad load, but bear in mind Lancaster _routinely_ carried 14,000 lbs internally, could routinely carry a 12,000 bomb (more than 1,000 dropped during the war) and probably _averaged_ more than 11,000 lbs per bombing sortie.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Well it doesnt matter how big your bombs are, you have to hit the target. you have a better chance of hitting the target with 10 500lb bombs than 2 2500kg bombs



But what's the point if 500lb bombs do insufficient damage?

The USAAF tended to use smaller bombs in large quantities using similar thinking to yours. But it meant that for many targets that repairs were relatively easy, and thus had to be hit repeatedly.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 25, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> .50 cals always seem to beat 20mm cannon.



How so?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 25, 2011)

It would have been interesting to see what the He177 would have been capable of doing had more reliable engines been available. 

Unfortunately the alternative engines weren't going so well either. The Jumo 222 was also unreliable and never made it to production, The DB604 was less powerful, and cancelled. The DB603 was less powerful and running late.


----------



## Tante Ju (Nov 25, 2011)

Hop said:


> Bombs are normally carried externally when they won't fit internally. 2 5,500 lbs bombs isn't a bad load, but bear in mind Lancaster _routinely_ carried 14,000 lbs internally, could routinely carry a 12,000 bomb (more than 1,000 dropped during the war) and probably _averaged_ more than 11,000 lbs per bombing sortie.



I doubt Lancaster can carry two 5,500 lbs bombs in bomb bay either. Bomb of such size are simple too big to fit more than one.

One perhaps, or a single 12,000 lbs bomb also (though I believe - Tallboy Lancaster was special modify, no armor, no guns, so hardly a "routine" standard version.. I say if you do same for any bomber - throw off lots of "not neccessary" weight like armor, guns etc. it can no doubt carry more than routine version. Nobody else of course did such size bomb design, it is absolute stupid choice for any other than special target like sub bunker.)

Book say Heinkel can carry 15 859 lbs weight, so thats more than Lancaster, only less than B-29, so Saggitario seems right in statement. That is standard version of Heinkel, not light/special/rare version of Lancester, which is useless for most duties - no guns and armor mean aircraft cannot survive.

Intern or extern bombload is only important because external is cause of speed loss (greater drag). But Heinkel was good deal faster than any other but not B-29, so its not particular concern..


----------



## Milosh (Nov 25, 2011)

Various bomb loads for the Lancaster

Bomb Loads

Two 8000lb HC could be fitted in the bomb bay but would have a hard time lifting such a bomb load.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 25, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> One perhaps, or a single 12,000 lbs bomb also (though I believe - Tallboy Lancaster was special modify, no armor, no guns, so hardly a "routine" standard version.. I say if you do same for any bomber - throw off lots of "not neccessary" weight like armor, guns etc. it can no doubt carry more than routine version. Nobody else of course did such size bomb design, it is absolute stupid choice for any other than special target like sub bunker.)



Since the normal bomb load was 14,000lb, and the Tallboy was 12,000lb I don'tthink it needed any special modifications other than needing bulged bomb bay doors to clear the bomb. The Grand Slam, nominally 22,000lb, on the other hand, required that turrets and armour was removed, and bomb bay doors were no fitted.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 25, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I doubt Lancaster can carry two 5,500 lbs bombs in bomb bay either. Bomb of such size are simple too big to fit more than one.



The SC2500 was 32in in diameter and 152.25in long. Luftwaffe Resource Page Bomb Annex - SC 2500

The Lancaster bomb bay had sufficient length to accomodate two of them end to end, and certainly had enough space for them (the 8,000lb HC and 12,000lb HC bombs were 38" long).

So, I think that two SC2500 bombs, or an equivalent RAF weapon if it existed, could easily fit inside the Lancaster.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 26, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> I think maybe you are wrong. If you have a group of 10 aircraft, if on the first mission they lose 1, The next mission, their still 10 aircraft because they've got a replacement, they again lose 1, and so on for 10 missions. in effect you will have replaced them all. I know in real life the bad fate might befall the replacement aircraft and crew instead of a veteran crew, but a 10% loss rate per mission cannot be sustained for long.


Sure they can't since the squadron of 10 will statistically speaking lose 1 bomber per mission.

But for the individual aircraft ("statistically no crew or aircraft is going to last more than 10 missions") it is different:
If your chances to be downed are 10% for each mission, that means your chances to survive any mission are 90% or 0.9. Your chances of surviving 10 missions are 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9=0.9^10=0.34868 or ~34.9%

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hop (Nov 26, 2011)

> One perhaps, or a single 12,000 lbs bomb also (though I believe - Tallboy Lancaster was special modify, no armor, no guns, so hardly a "routine" standard version.. I say if you do same for any bomber - throw off lots of "not neccessary" weight like armor, guns etc. it can no doubt carry more than routine version. Nobody else of course did such size bomb design, it is absolute stupid choice for any other than special target like sub bunker.)



As Wuzak said, the only modification necessary for the Tallboy was slightly bulged bomb bay doors. The weight was well inside normal loads.

The RAF also had the 12,000 lb HC bomb, which was simply an enlarged 8,000 lb bomb. Lancasters dropped getting on for 200 of those as well, no modification necessary.

The modifications you describe were those required for carrying the 22,000 lb Grand Slam bomb. 



> Book say Heinkel can carry 15 859 lbs weight, so thats more than Lancaster



We know for a fact Lancasters actually dropped 22,000 lb bombs. Do we know how often, if ever, the 177 carried 15,859 lbs? On paper the B-17 could carry 17,600 lbs, but it seems it never did so on operations.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 26, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Book say Heinkel can carry 15 859 lbs weight, so thats more than Lancaster.



Which book everything I have read says 6,000kg internally, perhaps those extra 1,200kg includes the guns and ammunition. 

It doesnt matter what you can lift off the runway if you cant carry it any distance or get any altitude. Anything else is just wikipedia numbers.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 26, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The SC2500 was 32in in diameter and 152.25in long. Luftwaffe Resource Page Bomb Annex - SC 2500
> 
> The Lancaster bomb bay had sufficient length to accomodate two of them end to end, and certainly had enough space for them (the 8,000lb HC and 12,000lb HC bombs were 38" long).
> 
> So, I think that two SC2500 bombs, or an equivalent RAF weapon if it existed, could easily fit inside the Lancaster.



The SC2500 is made of aluminium according to the link you posted so presumably it was a blast bomb. The British HC 4,000lb cookie is probably the equivalent.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 26, 2011)

riacrato said:


> Sure they can't since the squadron of 10 will statistically speaking lose 1 bomber per mission.
> 
> But for the individual aircraft ("statistically no crew or aircraft is going to last more than 10 missions") it is different:
> If you're chances to be downed are 10% for each mission, that means your chances to survive any mission are 90% or 0.9. Your chances of surviving 10 missions are 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9=0.9^10=0.34868 or ~34.9%



I don't follow your math. but a 1 in three chanch of surviveing 10 missions are not good odds.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 26, 2011)

No it isn't. But it's by far better than the "10 missions and you're dead"-thing you said. I'm pretty sure my math is right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Nov 26, 2011)

I agree with riacrato in his statistical analyze.

Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 26, 2011)

I didn't say that after 10 missions your are dead. It could be the new replacement that get's it. It could be one of the other veterans, or it could be you. But no unit can exist for very long with a well trained veteran core with a 10% lose per mission.


----------



## Juha (Nov 26, 2011)

IIRC British thought that 3% loss rate was the max sustainable at long run.

Juha


----------



## mhuxt (Nov 26, 2011)

riacrato said:


> I'm pretty sure my math is right.


 
It is.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 26, 2011)

Jagdgeschwader 26 lost 701 pilots in combat (killed, missing, or taken prisoner.)

As for the bombers, it depended on the time period.

Average Probability of Survival over the whole war, 1939-1945.

40 Survived Unharmed
7 Survived but were wounded
8 Survived but were taken Prisoners of War
38 Killed in Action, or Missing presumed killed
7 Killed in Crashes and Accidents

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varley/Strategic_Air_Offensive.pdf


----------



## wuzak (Nov 26, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> The SC2500 is made of aluminium according to the link you posted so presumably it was a blast bomb. The British HC 4,000lb cookie is probably the equivalent.



It is listed as a GP bomb. So its closest equivalent would be the 4000lb MC bomb.

We could equally have said the SB2500, which is similar in size to the SC2500, but is made from steel and is an armour piercing bomb. I don'tthink the RAF had an equivalent AP bomb of that weight range.


----------



## Maximowitz (Dec 3, 2011)

Those interested in the Heinkel 177 would do well to pick up a copy of this book.







A bigger comedy of errors would be difficult to imagine....


----------



## krieghund (Dec 3, 2011)

wuzak said:


> It would have been interesting to see what the He177 would have been capable of doing had more reliable engines been available.
> 
> Unfortunately the alternative engines weren't going so well either. The Jumo 222 was also unreliable and never made it to production, The DB604 was less powerful, and cancelled. The DB603 was less powerful and running late.



It wasn't the engines at fault it was their installation that caused the problems....examine the history of other aircraft with the DB606 or DB610 installed properly.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 4, 2011)

Juha said:


> I agree with riacrato in his statistical analyze.
> 
> Juha



Ditto.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 4, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> I don't follow your math. but a 1 in three chanch of surviveing 10 missions are not good odds.



If you think that is bad, think about 25 missions! Not a lot of optimism in the bomber ranks, at least until the P-51B arrived.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Dec 5, 2011)

All this information is really helpful towards refining my view of the He.177. I still need to know two things. How many 177s(including all variants) were built? Wiki says the number built was 1,169(originally i said 1,770 but i must have mixed up the digits from 1,170), but some of you have suggested a number around 900. Second, was the 177 successful in regards as a carrier for the Henschel 293 anti-ship missile and the Fritz X glide bomb?


----------



## Sagittario64 (Dec 5, 2011)

And a second thought: was the He.177 well-armored compared to bombers like the S.79, He.111, and Ju.88? like was it fairly protected against heavy caliber machine guns like the .50cal M2?


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 18, 2014)

Dressel/Griehl Heinkel Heinkel He177,277,274

Note this: not a lot of engine trouble as direct known course.

*He 177A-ls known to have been converted to A-3s.
NB: This list does not cover all He 177s build

AA Anti-Aircraft (fire)
CTO Crashed an Take-Off
DLH Deutsche Luft Hansa
DWT Damaged White Taxying
EA Enemy Action
EF Engine Failure
EHAG Ernst Heinkel AG
EK Erprobungskonnuanclo (Proving/Test Command)
FlUGr Flugzeugüberführungsgruppe (Aircraft Ferry Group)
PE Pilot Error
MIA Missing In Action
TOA Take-Off Accident
TS Technische Schule (Technical School)
U/C Undercarriage

332217 A-3 5J+HL 24-1-1944 3./KG100 AA kill
332355 A-3 6N+GK Unknown 2./KG100 AA kill
550074 A-5 KM+UX 10-6-1944 5./KG40 AA kill
535457 A-3 GJ+RQ 27-3-1944 II/KG40 Air raid
535732 A-3 CJ+FF 27-3-1944 II/KG40 Air raid
535854 A-3 GR+ML 27-3-1944 II/KG40 Air raid
535868 A-3 GR+MY 27-3-1944 I1/KG40 Air raid
550048 A-5 KM+TX 27-3-1944 II/KG40 Air raid
550052 A-5 KM+UB 27-3-1944 II/KG40 Air raid
550065 A-5 KM+UO 21-3-1944 5./KG40 Air raid
550069 A-5 KM+US 27-3-1944 II/KG40 Air raid
550071 A-5 KM+UU 27-3-1944 II/KG40 Air raid
550073 A-5 KM+UW 27-3-1944 II/KG40 Air raid
550081 A-5 ??+?? 27-3-1944 II/KG40 Air raid
550084 A-5 ??+?? 27-3-1944 Unknown Air raid
550157 A-5 ??+?? ??/05/44 II/KG40 Air raid
6 V6 BC+BP 28-6-1943 6thprototype Belly-landed
332484 A-3 ??+?? 5-4-1944 I/KG1 Belly-landed
535575 A-3 ??+?? 23-1-1944 II/KG40 Belly-landed
535740 A-3 CJ+FN 20-2-1944 II/KG40 Belly-landed
535749 A-3 CJ+FW 24-3-1944 I/KG100 Belly-landed
550061 A-5 KM+UK Unknown II/KG40 Blown up
550147 A-5 F8+LP ??/08/44 11/KG40 Blown up
550149 A-5 ??+?? ??/08/44 II/KG40 Blown up
550155 A-5 ??+?? ??/08/44 II/KG40 Blown up
550202 A-5 F8+KH ??/08/44 V31,II/KG40 Blown up
550220 A-5 ??+?? ??/08/44 11/KG40 Blown up
550225 A-5 ??+?? ??/08/44 II/KG40 Blown up
22 A-07 GA+QP 10-2-1942 ESt177 Burned out
15155 A-1 GI+BP ??/05/43 V29(guntrials) Burned out
24 A-09 GA+QR 20-6-1944 V10 Cannibalised
550003 A-5 KM+TC 22-2-1944 4./KG100 Collided
332146 A-3 VD+XV 15-6-1944 5./KG1 Collision
1 V1 CB+RP 3-10-1941 lstprototype Crashed
2 V2 CB+RQ 27-6-1940 2ndprototype Crashed
3 V3 D-AGIG 24-4-1940 3rdprototype Crashed
19 A-04 GA+QM 24-4-1943 V26,KdE Crashed
28 A-013 GA+QV 16-7-1942 ESt177 Crashed
15161 A-1 GI+BV 2-9-1942 Long-range recce Crashed
15164 A-1 GI+BY 23-5-1942 KG100 Crashed
15180 A-1 BL+FJ 29-1-1943 I/FKG50 Crashed
15191 A-1* BL+FU 2-2-1943 DVL,trials Crashed
15197 A-1 DH+CW 15-3-1944 2./KG1 Crashed
15199 A-1* DH+CY ??/05/43 I/KG1 Crashed
15203 A-1* V4+UC 5-4-1944 V27,1./KG1 Crashed
15207 A-1 VE+UG 23-11-1943 IV/KG40 Crashed
15215 A-1 VE+UO 21-12-1942 ESt177 Crashed
15250 A-1 VD+HY Unknown Unknown Crashed
15252 A-1* E8+FK 13-1-1943 I/FKG50 Crashed
15263 A-1 VF+RM 27-1-1943 I/FKG50 Crashed
332101 A-1" VF+QA 13-11-1943 V19(DB610s) Crashed
135006 A-3 ND+SA 15-6-1944 FFS(B)16 Crashed
135010 A-3 ND+SE 2-6-1944 ESt177 Crashed
332198 A-3 5J+DL 22-1-1944 3./KG100 Crashed
332204 A-3 5J+AK 15-11-1943 3./KG100 Crashed
332212 A-3 5J+NK 8-1-1944 2./KG100 Crashed
332216 A-3 ??+?? 2-1-1944 I/KG40 Crashed
332235 A-3 6N+HK 22-4-1944 2./KG100 Crashed
332241 A-3 SL+WW 28-1-1944 I/KG100 Crashed
332251 A-3 5J+DH 18-2-1944 I/KG100 Crashed
332394 A-3 6N+BM 8-5-1944 I/KG100 Crashed
332471 A-3 V4+GH 20-3-1944 I/KG1 Crashed
332475 A-3 V4+FL 1-4-1944 3./KG1 Crashed
332495 A-3 V4+JS 1-8-1944 8./KG1 Crashed
332507 A-3 DW+CK 30-4-1944 1/KG100 Crashed
332518 A-3 DW+CV 15-6-1944 4./KG1 Crashed
332555 A-3 ??+?? 25-2-1944 I/KG100 Crashed
335003 A-3 ??+?? Unknown DBtrials Crashed
535460 A-3 GJ+RS 23-1-1944 II/KG40 Crashed
535680 A-3 F8+LH 29-2-1944 I/KG40 Crashed
535683 A-3 ??+?? 21-11-1943 II/KG40 Crashed
535745 A-3 CJ+FS 21-1-1944 1./KG40 Crashed
535755 A-3 ??+?? 28-11-1944 EK36 Crashed
535848 A-3 6N+AU 27-5-1944 10./KG100 Crashed
535670 A-3 F8+SK 9-6-1944 2./KG40 Crashed (EA) Dressel/Griehl are wrong its the 10-6-44 Airwar ww2 The Pilots.
20 A-05 GA+QN 13-6-1942 KdE Crashed (EF)
26 A-011 GA+QT 17-2-1942 KdE Crashed (EF)
15247 A-1 VD+UV Unknown I/FKG50,I/KG40 Crashed (EF)
15269 A-1 VF+RR 23-1-1943 I/KG40 Crashed (EF)
535446 A-3 GJ+RH 15-9-1943 KdE Crashed (EF)
535730 A-3 CJ+FD 22-1-1944 I/KG40 Crashed (EF)
550079 A-5 F8+FM 2-5-1944 4./KG40 Crashed (EF)
550142 A-5 ??+?? ??/05/44 II/KG40 Crashed (icing)
15259 A-1 VF+RI 28-11-1942 I/KG40 Crashed (PE)
535694 A-3 F8+GH 3-5-1944 1./KG40 Crashed (PE)
535748 A-3 CJ+FV 29-1-1944 1./KG40 Crashed (PE)
550141 A-5 6N+BC 14-5-1944 11/KG100 Crashed (PE)
15220 A-1 VE+UT 5-7-1943 Unknown Crash-landed
15230 A-1 VD+UE Unknown I/FKG50 Crash-landed
15278 A-1 BF+TC 12-6-1944 FFS(B)31 Crash-landed
332121 A-1" ??+?? 1-2-1944 V36,KdE Crash-landed
332154 A-3 ??+?? 22-4-1944 12./KG100 Crash-landed
332157 A-3 ??+?? Unknown I/KG1 Crash-landed
332203 A-3 ??+?? 14-11-1943 III/KG100 Crash-landed
332225 A-3 5J+VL 21-1-1944 2./KG40 Crash-landed
535371 A-3 GP+WV 26-11-1943 II/KG40 Crash-landed
535533 A-3 NN+QA ??/01/44 11/KG40 Crash-landed
535549 A-3 NN+QP 14-1-1944 KdE Crash-landed
535554 A-3 NN+QU 17-12-1943 II/KG40 Crash-landed

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 18, 2014)

part 2

535559	A-3	NN+QY	28-12-1943	II/KG40	Crash-landed
550031	A-5	6N+LM	15-5-1944	4./KG100	Crash-landed
550082	A-5	??+??	??/06/44	I/KG40	Crash-landed
550258	A-5	6N+MP	27-7-1944	6./KG100	Crash-landed
135016	A-3	ND+SK	28-6-1943	ESt177	CTO
332540	A-3	V4+HL	18-7-1944	3./KG1	CTO
550257	A-5	GM+DA	7-7-1944	6./KG40	CTO
27	A-012	GA+QU	14-10-1942	ESt177	Damaged
35	A-020	??+??	16-4-1942	ESt177	Damaged
32001	A-0	DR+IJ	Unknown	EHAG	Damaged
32003	A-0	DR+IL	6-11-1942	IV/KG40	Damaged
32012	A-0	DR+IT	Unknown	IV/KG40	Damaged
332200	A-3	??+??	21-3-1944	I/KG100	Damaged
550006	A-5	6N+DM	9-5-1944	4./KG100	Darnaged
550153	A-5	??+??	24-5-1944	II/KG40	Ditched
332193	A-3	??+??	??/01/44	I/KG40	DWT
332218	A-3	??+??	??/01/44	I/KG40	DWT
335002	A-3	??+??	Unknown	TS2	DWT
535692	A-3	??+??	24-3-1944	II/KG40	DWT
550041	A-5	KM+TQ	Unknown	II/KG40	DWT
15240	A-1	VD+UO	28-1-1943	I/FKG50	Enemy action
15242	A-1	VD+UQ	17-1-1943	I/FKG50	Enemy action
15256	A-1	VF+RF	21-2-1944	EK25	Enemy action
15262	A-1	VF+RL	21-2-1944	EK25	Enemy action
332195	A-3	??+??	5-3-1944	II/KG40	Enemy action
332229	A-3	V4+PT	28-7-1944	9./KG1	Enemy action
332351	A-3	V4+CN	28-7-1944	8.KG1	Enemy action
332364	A-3	KP+PN	21-5-1944	I/KG1	Enemy action
535448	A-3	GJ+RJ	23-1-1944	II/KG40	Enemy action
535555	A-3	NN+QV	23-1-1944	II/KG40	Enemy action
535562	A-3	F8+LM	24-12-1943	II/KG40	Enemy action
535747	A-3	F8+HH	21-1-1944	I/KG40	Enemy action
550034	A-5	6N+FM	17-5-1944	4./KG100	Enemy action
550087	A-5	??+??	14-6-1944	6./KG40	Enemy action
550255	A-5	GP+RX	5-7-1944	6./KG40	Enemy action
21	A-06	GA+QO	20-2-1942	KdE	Engine failure
15171	A-1	BL+FA	15-5-1943	KdE,ESt177	Engine failure
15172	A-1	BL+FB	14-4-1942	Arado	Engine failure
15275	A-1	VF+RX	7-5-1944	11./KG40	Engine failure
15280	A-1	5J+EH	21-11-1943	1./KG4	Engine failure
332104	A-1"	VF+QD	12-1-1943	V22,KdE(to	Engine failure
332110	A-1	VF+QJ	30-1-1943	Unknown	Engine failure
332366	A-3	V4+EN	27-6-1944	5./KG1	Engine failure
332474	A-3	V4+LP	27-6-1944	6./KG1	Engine failure
332477	A-3	??+??	8-4-1944	I/KG1	Engine failure
332497	A-3	V4+HS	26-6-1944	8./KG1	Engine failure
332536	A-3	??+??	10-6-1944	I/KG1	Engine failure
332610	A-3	V4+IN	28-7-1944	5./KG1	Engine failure
550191	A-5	F8+BB	23-5-1944	I/KG40	Engine failure
15154	A-1	GI+BO	8-2-1942	KdE	Engine fire
15271	A-1	VF+RT	??/06/44	DLH	Engine fire
332201	A-3	??+??	30-1-1944	I/KG100	Engine fire
332209	A-3	??+??	30-1-1944	I/KG100	Engine fire
535445	A-3	GJ+RG	21-11-1943	II/KG40	Engine fire
535556	A-3	NN+QW	26-11-1943	II/KG40	Engine fire
332189	A-3	5J+AL	25-2-1944	3./KG100	Fighter kill
332214	A-3	5J+RL	5-3-1944	3./KG100	Fighter kill
332224	A-3	6N+TL	22-3-1944	I/KG100	Fighter kill
332232	A-3	TM+IO	5-1-1944	2./KG40	Fighter kill
535459	A-3	F8+LK	8-4-1944	2./KG40	Fighter kill
535695	A-3	??+??	??/02/44	II/KG40	Fighter kill
535696	A-3	??+??	23-11-1944	II/KG40	Fighter kill
550067	A-5	F8+BN	10-6-1944	4./KG40	Fighter kill
550173	A-5	??+??	9-7-1944	4./KG40	Fighter kill
550198	A-5	F8+BK	7-6-1944	2./KG40	Fighter kill
550204	A-5	F8+FK	7-6-1944	2./KG40	Fighter kill
535672	A-3	??+??	25-12-1943	II/KG40	Fighter victory
535862	A-3	GR+MT	10-3-1944	10./KG100	Flying accident
15258	A-1	5J+CK	23-10-1943	I/KG100	Force-landed
332143	A-3	VD+XS	21-12-1943	4./KG100	Force-landed
332147	A-3	V4+IV	26-6-1944	10./KG1	Force-landed
332210	A-3	5J+IL	20-2-1944	3./KG100	Force-landed
332220	A-3	5J+IH	4-2-1944	I/KG100	Force-landed
535436	A-3	GP+WX	15-3-1944	12./KG100	Force-landed
535442	A-3	GJ+RD	10-11-1943	II/KG40	Force-landed
535794	A-3	??+??	25-3-1944	I/KG40	Force-landed
4	V4	??+??	8-6-1941	4thprototype	Ground contact
332407	A-3	??+??	16-4-1944	10./KG100	Ground contact
332511	A-3	V4+BK	29-4-1944	2./KG1	Ground contact
332543	A-3	V4+KL	28-6-1944	3./KG1	Ground contact
335001	A-3	??+??	24-6-1944	V15	Ground contact
332410	A-3	??+??	13-4-1944	I/KG1	Instrument failure
32	A-017	GA+QZ	6-5-1942	ESt177	Landing accident
15225	A-1	VE+UY	Unknown	I/FKG50	Landing accident
15241	A-1*	VD+UP	20-1-1943	I/FKG50	Landing accident
332401	A-3	??+??	16-4-1944	I/KG1	Landing accident
535551	A-3	NN+QR	21-11-1943	II/KG40	Landing accident
535553	A-3	NN+QT	26-11-1943	II/KG40	Landing accident
15233	A-1*	E8+FH	16-1-1943	I/FKG50	MIA
332206	A-3	5J+KK	2-3-1943	2./KG100	MIA
332227	A-3	5J+QL	22-2-1944	3./KG100	MIA
535447	A-3	F8+EN	23-1-1944	5./KG40	MIA
535557	A-3	F8+IN	28-12-1943	5./KG40	MIA
535569	A-3	??+??	??/01/44	II/KG40	MIA
535731	A-3	F8+LK	8-6-1944	2./KG40	MIA
535735	A-3	CJ+FI	23-1-1944	II/KG40	MIA
535741	A-3	CJ+FO	21-1-1944	1./KG40	MIA
550080	A-5	??+??	14-6-1944	4./KG40	MIA
550117	A-5	F8+HN	7-6-1944	5./KG40	MIA
550175	A-5	F8+11-1	10-6-1944	1./KG40	MIA
550197	A-5	F8+KK	8-6-1944	2./KG40	MIA
550199	A-5	F8+DH	10-6-1944	1./KG40	MIA
550206	A-5	F8+MH	7-6-1944	1./KG40	MIA
550210	A-5	??+??	5-7-1944	4./KG40	MIA
550211	A-5	F8+MK	8-6-1944	2./KG40	MIA
550215	A-5	F8+FH	13-6-1944	1./KG40	MIA
535679	A-3	F8+PN	12-2-1944	5./KG40	Night-fighter kill
535743	A-3	CJ+FQ	21-1-1944	1./KG40	Night-fighter kill
550068	A-5	KM+UR	27-3-1944	II/KG40	Night-Fighter kill
550083	A-5	??+??	8-6-1944	6./KG40	Night-fighter kill
550098	A-5	??+??	14-6-1944	4./KG40	Night-fighter kill
550195	A-5	??+??	5-7-1944	6./KG40	Night-fighter kill
550203	A-5	TM+IG	5-7-1944	6./KG40	Night-fighter kill
332222	A-3	5J+PK	24-2-1944	2./KG100	Operational loss
332231	A-3	5J+ZL	22-1-1944	2./KG40	Operational loss
332357	A-3	6N+IK	20-4-1944	2./KG100	Operational loss
332375	A-3	6N+OK	19-3-1944	2./KG100	Operational loss
332379	A-3	6N+AK	19-4-1944	2./KG100	Operational loss
332506	A-3	??+??	26-4-1944	3./KG100	Operational loss
535367	A-3	F8+KM	26-11-1943	4./KG40	Operational loss
535369	A-3	F8+MM	26-11-1943	4./KG40	Operational loss
535443	A-3	F8+BN	21-11-1943	5./KG40	Operational loss
535444	A-3	F8+EP	26-11-1943	II/KG40	Operational loss
535566	A-3	F8+IM	26-11-1943	II/KG40	Operational loss
535677	A-3	F8+DM	26-11-1943	II/KG40	Operational loss
535684	A-3	F8+BP	26-11-1943	II/KG40	Operational loss
15229	A-1	VD+UD	??/05/43	Trainer	Pilot error
332408	A-3	??+??	10-5-1944	I/KG1	Pilot error
332478	A-3	??+??	17-4-1944	I/KG1	Pilot error
332538	A-3	??+??	23-5-1944	I/KG1	Pilot error
332546	A-3	??+??	5-6-1944	I/KG1	Pilot error
535365	A-3	GP+WO	23-8-1943	KdE	Pilot error
535439	A-3	GJ+RA	??/01/44	II/KG40	Pilot error
332221	A-3	??+??	21-1-1944	I/KG100	Propeller ciamage
550002	A-5	KM+TB	8-5-1945	V38,KdE	Remains at Prague-Rusiye
23	A-08	GA+QQ	28-6-1943	V9,V102	Scrapped
31	A-016	GA+QY	Unknown	EHAG	Scrapped
535550	A-3	NN+QQ	30-8-1944	V101(B-5)	Scrapped
550036	A-5	KM+TL	26-6-1944	V103,KdE	Scrapped
16	A-01	DL+AP	8-7-1941	EHAG	TOA
29	A-014	GA+QW	4-7-1942	ESt177	TOA
15208	A-1	VE+UH	3-4-1943	4./KG1	TOA
34	A-019	??+??	16-4-1942	KdE	Total loss
15157	A-1	GI+BR	9-10-1943	Zerstörer	Total loss
15214	A-1	VE+UN	28-5-1943	KdE	Total loss
15231	A-1	VD+UF	13-11-1942	KdE	Total loss
15232	A-1	VD+UG	14-11-1942	KdE	Total loss
332109	A-1	VF+QI	2-6-1943	Unknown	Total loss
535560	A-3	NN+QZ	21-1-1944	I/KG100	Total loss
332539	A-3	??+??	15-5-1955	1/KG1	Tyre defects
332187	A-3	??+??	??/01/44	I/KG40	U/C failure
332389	A-3	??+??	10-5-1944	I/KG1	U/C failure
535438	A-3	GP+WZ	??/01/44	II/KG40	U/C failure
535561	A-3	??+??	??/01/44	II/KG40	U/C failure
550056	A-5	KM+UF	??/05/44	II/KG40	U/C failure
550086	A-5	??+??	??/06/44	II/KG40	U/C failure
7	V7	SF+TB	28-6-1943	7thprototype	Unknown
8	V8	SF+TC	28-6-1943	8thprototype	Unknown
17	A-02	DL+AQ	28-6-1943	KdE	Unknown
18	A-03	DL+AR	12-11-1941	EHAG,KdE	Unknown
25	A-010	GA+QS	26-6-1944	V11	Unknown
30	A-015	GA+QX	28-6-1943	V18(Zerstörer)	Unknown
33	A-018	??+??	15-4-1942	EHAG	Unknown
32002	A-0	DR+IK	17-8-1943	11./KG40	Unknown
32004	A-0	F8+DV	3-2-1944	11./KG40	Unknown
32011	A-0	DR+IS	30-11-1943	KdE	Unknown
15151	A-1	GI+BL	22-7-1943	V12(armament)	Unknown
15152	A-1	GI+BM	??/05/43	V14(Kehl111)	Unknown
15153	A-1	GI+BN	28-4-1944	V25,ESt177	Unknown
15156	A-1	GI+BQ	??/05/43	I/FKG50	Unknown
15159	A-1	GI+BT	??/05/43	2ndKehlIIIa/c	Unknown
15160	A-1	Gl+BU	??/05/43	Zerstörer	Unknown
15162	A-1	GI+BW	28-5-1943	3rdKehlIIIa/c	Unknown
15163	A-1	GI+BX	??/05/43	Zerstörer	Unknown
15165	A-1	GI+BZ	??/05/43	Zerstörer	Unknown
15166	A-1	??+??	Unknown	I/KG40	Unknown
15167	A-1	??+??	Unknown	I/KG40	Unknown
15168	A-1	??+??	??/05/43	I/KG40	Unknown
15169	A-1	??+??	??/05/43	KG100	Unknown
15170	A-1	??+??	??/05/43	Zerstörer	Unknown
15173	A-1	BL+FC	??/06/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15174	A-1	BL+FD	Unknown	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15175	A-1	BL+FH	15-7-1943	I/KG40	Unknown
15176	A-1	BL+FF	Unknown	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15177	A-1	BL+FG	Unknown	TS2	Unknown
15178	A-1	BL+FH	Unknown	I/KG40	Unknown
15179	A-1	BL+FI	??/05/43	Zerstörer	Unknown
15181	A-1	BL+FK	Unknown	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15182	A-1	BL+FL	Unknown	I/KG40	Unknown
15183	A-1	BL+FM	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15184	A-1	BL+FN	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15185	A-1	BL+FO	??//43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15186	A-1	BL+FP	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15187	A-1	BL+FQ	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15188	A-1	BL+FR	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15189	A-1	BL+FS	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15190	A-1	BL+FT	8-2-1942	KdE,trials	Unknown
15192	A-1	BL+FV	14-5-1943	DB,trials	Unknown
15193	A-1	BL+FW	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15194	A-1	BL+FX	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 18, 2014)

15195	A-1	BL+FY	25-1-1943	KdE,trials	Unknown
15196	A-1	BL+FZ	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15198	A-1	DH+CX	??/05/43	I/KG1	Unknown
15200	A-1	DH+CZ	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15201	A-1	VE+UA	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15202	A-1	VE+UB	??/02/44	II/KG40	Unknown
15204	A-1	VE+UD	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15205	A-1	VE+UE	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15206	A-1	VE+UF	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15209	A-1	VE+UI	??/05/43	Kehltrainer	Unknown
15210	A-1	VE+UJ	Unknown	Long-rangerecce	Unknown
15211	A-1	VE+UK	Unknown	Long-rangerecce	Unknown
15212	A-1	VE+UL	Unknown	Long-rangerecce	Unknown
15213	A-1	VE+UM	Unknown	ESt177	Unknown
15217	A-1	VE+UQ	??/05/43	KdE,Rechlin	Unknown
15218	A-1	VE+UR	14-1-1943	KdE,DBtrials	Unknown
15219	A-1	VE+US	Unknown	KdE,trials	Unknown
15221	A-1	VE+UU	Unknown	EHAG,I/KG40	Unknown
15222	A-1	VE+UV	10-4-1944	I/FKG50,FFS(B)15	Unknown
15223	A-1	VE+UW	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15224	A-1	VE+UX	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15226	A-1	VD+UA	24-6-1944	FFS(B)31	Unknown
15227	A-1	VD+UB	??/05/43	Trainer	Unknown
15228	A-1	VD+UC	??/06/43	KdE	Unknown
15234	A-1	VD+Ul	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15235	A-1	VD+UJ	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15236	A-1	VD+UK	30-1-1943	I/FKG50	Unknown
15237	A-1	VD+UL	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15238	A-1	VD+UM	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15239	A-1	VD+UN	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15243	A-1	VD+UR	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15244	A-1	VD+US	26-6-1943	ESt177,I/FKG50	Unknown
15245	A-1	VD+UT	??/05/43	I/FKG50	Unknown
15246	A-1	VD+UU	??/05/43	I/FKG50	Unknown
15248	A-1	F8+HU	Unknown	10./KG40	Unknown
15249	A-1	VD+HX	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15251	A-1	VF+RA	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15253	A-1*	VF+RC	??/05/43	Trainer	Unknown
15254	A-1*	VF+RD	11-2-1944	V20,DVL	Unknown
15255	A-1	VF+RE	??/05/43	I/KG4	Unknown
15257	A-1	VF+RG	Unknown	I/FKG50	Unknown
15260	A-1	VF+RJ!	??/05/43	FFS(B)16	Unknown
15261	A-1	VF+RK	??/05/43	I/KG4	Unknown
15264	A-1	VF+RN	??/05/43	I/KG40	Unknown
15265	A-1	VF+RO	12-8-1943	I/KG40	Unknown
15266	A-1	VF+RP	??/05/43	Trainer	Unknown
15267	A-1	VF+RQ	Unknown	Trainer	Unknown
15270	A-1	VF+RS	??/05/43	Trainer	Unknown
15272	A-1	VF+RU	2-5-1944	I/FKG50,FFS(B)31	Unknown
15273	A-1	VF+RV	??/05/43	FFS(B)31	Unknown
15274	A-1	F8+OV	24-4-1944	11./KG40	Unknown
15276	A-1	F8+NV	2-4-1944	11./KG40	Unknown
15277	A-1	BF+TB	Unknown	KdE(A-3pattern)	Unknown
15279	A-1	BF+TD	??/05/43	I/KG40	Unknown
332102	A-1*	VF+QB	2-3-1944	V21(Kehl)	Unknown
332103	A-1	VF+QC	5-5-1943	lstKehla/c	Unknown
332106	A-1	VF+QF	??/01/43	EHAG	Unknown
332111	A-1	VF+QK	18-4-1944	F1UGr1	Unknown
332112	A-1*	VF+QL	??/06/44	V23(DB610s)	Unknown
135007	A-3	ND+SB	Unknown	Luftwaffe	Unknown
135008	A-3	ND+SC	28-1-1943	ESt177	Unknown
1350(19	A-3	ND+SD	Unknown	Luftwaffe	Unknown
135011	A-3	ND+SF	Unknown	Luftwaffe	Unknown
135012	A-3	ND+SG	Unknown	Luftwaffe	Unknown
135013	A-3	ND+SH	Unknown	Luftwaffe	Unknown
135014	A-3	ND+SI	Unknown	Luftwaffe	Unknown
135015	A-3	ND+SJ	Unknown	Luftwaffe	Unknown
135018	A-3	ND+SM	Unknown	V30	Unknown
135020	A-3	ND+SO	Unknown	LTtrials	Unknown
135024	A-3	ND+SS	6-11-1943	V24,KdE	Unknown
332169	A-3	??+??	22-1-1944	I/KG100	Unknown
332226	A-3	??+??	22-12-1943	I/KG100	Unknown
332230	A-3	6N+WL	??/10/44	3./KG100	Unknown
332365	A-3	KP+PO	21-3-1944	I/KG100	Unknown
332367	A-3	KP+PQ	??/10/44	2./KG100(6N+EK)	Unknown
332385	A-3	??+??	24-3-1944	I/KG100	Unknown
332444	A-3	F8+EP	26-11-1943	6./KG40	Unknown
332473	A-3	D7+BK	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
332618	A-3	6N+AS	Unknown	I/KG100	Unknown
332628	A-3	??+??	Unknown	Wekusta2/0bdL	Unknown
332629	A-3	??+??	Unknown	Wekusta2/01IL	Unknown
355055	A-3	??+??	3-3-1943	KdE	Unknown
355056	A-3	??+??	22-7-1943	V28,KdE	Unknown
355078	A-3	??+??	26-6-1943	KdE	Unknown
535352	A-3	GP+WB	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
535353	A-3	GP+WC	Unknown	V32	Unknown
535354	A-3	GP+WD	Unknown	V33	Unknown
535364	A-3	GP+WN	20-12-1943	V34,KdE	Unknown
535366	A-3	GP+WP	28-6-1944	V35,KdE	Unknown
535370	A-3	GP+WU	29-11-1943	I/KG40	Unknown
535372	A-3	F8+GH	12-9-1943	4./KG40	Unknown
535437	A-3	GP+WY	28-10-1943	KdE	Unknown
535441	A-3	GJ+RC	??/02/44	II/KG40	Unknown
535454	A-3	GJ+RP	17-12-1943	2./KG40	Unknown
535552	A-3	NN+QS	??/09/43	KdE(toA-5)	Unknown
535673	A-3	F8+DX	8-6-1944	12./KG40	Unknown
535674	A-3	??+??	??/02/44	II/KG40	Unknown
535675	A-3	??+??	Unknown	II/KG40	Unknown
535678	A-3	F8+CV	27-3-1944	11./KG40	Unknown
535682	A-3	??+??	??/02/44	II/KG40	Unknown
535687	A-3	F8+KH	Unknown	1./KG40	Unknown
535689	A-3	??+??	??/02/44	II/KG40	Unknown
535690	A-3	F8+MK	26-3-1944	1./KG40	Unknown
535733	A-3	F8+PV	28-1-1944	11./KG40	Unknown
535736	A-3	CJ+FJ	21-1-1944	I/KG100	Unknown
535751	A-3	CJ+FY	??/02/44	I/KG40	Unknown
535752	A-3	F8+AU	2-6-1944	10./KG40	Unknown
535753	A-3	??+??	23-1-1944	II/KG40	Unknown
535758	A-3	F8+MK	22-3-1944	2./KG40	Unknown
535849	A-3	GR+MG	Unknown	III/KG100	Unknown
535850	A-3	GR+MH	28-6-1944	V40,KdE	Unknown
535852	A-3	F8+QU	20-5-1944	10./KG40	Unknown
535857	A-3	F8+AX	3-6-1944	12./KG40	Unknown
535865	A-3	GR+MW	Unknown	II/KG40	Unknown
535866	A-3	GR+MX	Unknown	8./KG100	Unknown
535869	A-3	GR+MZ	??/01 /44	II/KG40	Unknown
535870	A-3	F8+TV	3-2-1944	11./KG40	Unknown
550001	A-5	6N+FM	9-10-1944	4./KG40	Unknown
550004	A-5	6N+CM	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550033	A-5	6N+EM	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550035	A-5	KM+TK	30-6-1944	KdE	Unknown
550038	A-5	KM+TN	25-5-1944	V37,KdE	Unknown
550039	A-5	KM+TO	Unknown	II/KG10	Unknown
550040	A-5	KM+TP	Unknown	II/KG100	Unknown
550042	A-5	6N+IM	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550043	A-5	6N+HM	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550044	A-5	6N+HN	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550045	A-5	6N+KM	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550046	A-5	6N+BM	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550047	A-5	6N+GM	??/10/44	EK36	Unknown
550049	A-5	KM+TY	2-5-1944	V39,KdE	Unknown
550054	A-5	KM+UD	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550055	A-5	KM+UE	??/06/44	EHAG	Unknown
550057	A-5	KM+UG	??/09/44	II/KG40	Unknown
550060	A-5	KM+UJ	Unknown	II/KG40	Unknown
550072	A-5	6N+MM	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550076	A-5	6N+LP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550090	A-5	??+??	13-7-1944	II/KG40	Unknown
550120	A-5	6N+AN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550121	A-5	6N+HP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550122	A-5	6N+BN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550123	A-5	F8+CU	26-5-1944	10./KG40	Unknown
550125	A-5	6N+IP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550127	A-5	6N+CC	9-10-1944	II/KG100	Unknown
550128	A-5	6N+CN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550129	A-5	F8+DX	20-6-1944	11./KG40	Unknown
550130	A-5	6N+MM	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550131	A-5	6N+DN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550132	A-5	6N+EN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550133	A-5	6N+AC	9-10-1944	II/KG100	Unknown
550134	A-5	6N+FN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550135	A-5	6N+MN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550136	A-5	6N+HN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550137	A-5	6N+IN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550138	A-5	6N+KN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550139	A-5	6N+GN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550140	A-5	6N+LM	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550145	A-5	??+??	Unknown	II/KG40	Unknown
550146	A-5	??+??	14-6-1944	4./KG40	Unknown
550150	A-5	6N+FP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550151	A-5	6N+KP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550158	A-5	6N+DM	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550159	A-5	6N+CP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550160	A-5	6N+EP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550161	A-5	6N+LN	9-10-1944	5./KG100	Unknown
550162	A-5	6N+BP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550166	A-5	6N+GP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550168	A-5	F8+AX	14-5-1944	13./KG40	Unknown
550170	A-5	6N+AP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550172	A-5	6N+HP	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550213	A-5	??+??	5-7-1944	5./KG40	Unknown
550230	A-5	GP+RA	13-7-1944	I/KG40	Unknown
550235	A-5	GP+RE	Unknown	I/KG40	Unknown
550263	A-5	6N+AM	9-10-1944	4./KG100	Unknown
550266	A-5	GM+DJ	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550319	A-5	DV+OL	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
550324	A-5	DV+OQ	9-10-1944	6./KG100	Unknown
32013	A-0	DR+IU	??/09/44	IV/KG40	War booty
550256	A-5	GP+RY	mid-1945	RebuilttoA-7	War booty
15158	A-1	GI+BS	21-2-1942	Arado	Wing fracture
5	V5	PM+OD	23-6-1943	5thprototype	Wrecked
15216	A-1	VE+UP	Unknown	KdE,(diving)	Wrecked
332237	A-3	??+??	27-6-1944	EK25	Wrecked
332476	A-3	??+??	Unknown	I/KG1	Wrecked
332491	A-3	V4+IS	1-8-1944	8./KG1	Wrecked
332515	A-3	DW+CS	3-5-1944	I/KG1	Wrecked
335004	A-3	??+??	Unknown	V16(trials)	Wrecked
335005	A-3	??+??	Unknown	V17(trainer)	Wrecked
550221	A-5	??+??	13-6-1944	6./KG40	Wrecked

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 18, 2014)

The He 177 IMO never was given the credit it deserved. According to _Heinkel He 177 Greif: Heinkel's Strategic Bomber _by Smith and Creek at least 918 were built based on their research, though the official German records put that at 1,170.

I know this is several several years late in answering, but yes it was well armored ranging from 6mm to 18mm. Tests were successful in launching Fritz-X, Hs 239, Hs 294 and possibly the Hs 295 but per the authors was rarely actually launched in combat.

It truly is a pity that no example survive today.


----------



## davebender (Jan 18, 2014)

> 918 were built based on their research, though the official German records put that at 1,170.


Numerical difference probably involves early model He-177s which were later modified to He-177A3 or He-177A5 configuration. So higher figure is counting some airframes twice.

Early Me-210s have the same issue. Many were converted to Me-410 so it's easy to count the aircraft twice if you don't note difference between new construction and conversions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 18, 2014)

That is a logical explanation, well done.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 18, 2014)

davebender said:


> Numerical difference probably involves early model He-177s which were later modified to He-177A3 or He-177A5 configuration. So higher figure is counting some airframes twice.
> 
> Early Me-210s have the same issue. Many were converted to Me-410 so it's easy to count the aircraft twice if you don't note difference between new construction and conversions.


Stored Me 210 fuselages were completed as Me 410, they have never been a Me 210 so they weren't counted twice.
He 177 A-1 upgraded to A-3 standard would not have been counted as A-3 again.
Actually german records count 1135 of which 8 were pure prototypes and 35 the preseries A-0

Does the quoted book have a breakdown by model and manufacturer?


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 18, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> I may be wrong because my statistics courses were a long time ago but if the chance to go down on a mission is 10%, that means the chance to survive 10 missions ist still 34.8%.



I think maybe you are wrong. If you have a group of 10 aircraft, if on the first mission they lose 1, The next mission, their still 10 aircraft because they've got a replacement, they again lose 1, and so on for 10 missions. in effect you will have replaced them all. I know in real life the bad fate might befall the replacement aircraft and crew instead of a veteran crew, but a 10% loss rate per mission cannot be sustained for long.
The 8th Air Forces blackest day was their 2nd raid on Schwienfurt, they had a 20% loss rate on that mission. It was a daylight mission of course, and unescorted. After that mission all unescorted daylight missions were stopped.[/QUOTE]

He's right. A 10% loss rate means that 90% of the aircraft are not lost. Assuming that losses are independent (which will be mostly true in different missions), plane X has a 90% chance of surviving the each mission. The chance of surviving two missions is 0.9 time 0.9 or 81%, three about 73%, etc. The chance of surviving 10 is 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9=0.349=34.9%. Even a 2% loss rate means that plane X (and its crew) has only about a 50% chance of surviving 35 missions.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 18, 2014)

Denniss said:


> Stored Me 210 fuselages were completed as Me 410, they have never been a Me 210 so they weren't counted twice.
> He 177 A-1 upgraded to A-3 standard would not have been counted as A-3 again.
> Actually german records count 1135 of which 8 were pure prototypes and 35 the preseries A-0
> 
> Does the quoted book have a breakdown by model and manufacturer?



Page 203:











The 2 rows in yellow have errors. First one states 30 aircraft but the Wrk Numbers range only show 20. The 2nd shows 5 but 6 Wrk Numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Jan 19, 2014)

Book information doesn't seem to be complete, they grossly underestimate the A-5 production. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177 has a good breakdown based on Bundesarchive/RLM data.
HWO did not build any A-1 because they started series production of He 177 just in december 42 (A-1 finished by Arado then).
1944 production is given as 234 for HWO and 276 for ArB

Heinkel was building the land bomber A-3 and some A-5, Arado the glide-bomb capable variants A-3 (with Kehl III and IV) and A-5 (Kehl IV).
HWO stopped production in 7/44, ArB in 8/44


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 19, 2014)

Denniss said:


> Book information doesn't seem to be complete, they grossly underestimate the A-5 production. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177 has a good breakdown based on Bundesarchive/RLM data.
> HWO did not build any A-1 because they started series production of He 177 just in december 42 (A-1 finished by Arado then).
> 1944 production is given as 234 for HWO and 276 for ArB
> 
> ...





Please tell me you are not using Wikipedia for your sources.

My books shows December of 1941 being the start day of production

Since it appears our sources differ, who do you show producing Wrk Numbers 332101-332142? 

What are the Wrk Numbers you show for the A-5?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Jan 19, 2014)

478 Me-210s were rebuilt into Me-410s. Did Messerschmitt assign new work numbers to these aircraft when they arrived at the factory for rebuilding?


----------



## stona (Jan 19, 2014)

davebender said:


> 478 Me-210s were rebuilt into Me-410s. Did Messerschmitt assign new work numbers to these aircraft when they arrived at the factory for rebuilding?



My figures are slightly different. When Me 210 production was halted in April 1941 there were 540 Me 210s in varying states of completion across the Regensburg and Augsburg plants. 352 Me 210s had been completed across both plants.

The incomplete aircraft were finished with the lengthened fuselage, but remained Me 210s. Of roughly 100 aircraft stored at Obertraubling some were broken for salvage, but this was around a dozen aircraft (some say as many as 15). The rest were also lengthened. 

None of the lengthened Me 210s received a new werknummer. 

A substantial number of converted and completed 'long' Me 210s were further converted to Me 410s at Augsburg, but much later, starting in January 1943. These always retained their original werknummer too.

Production of new Me 410s at Augsburg started a bit later, I'd need to check exactly when.

The designation Me 410 for the fully modified and differently powered aircraft doesn't even start to appear until around August/September 1942.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Denniss (Jan 19, 2014)

davebender said:


> 478 Me-210s were rebuilt into Me-410s. Did Messerschmitt assign new work numbers to these aircraft when they arrived at the factory for rebuilding?


You have it wrong again, these Me 210 fuselages were never completed as Me 210 aircraft, RLM ordered Mtt to stop Me 210 assembly and Mtt decided to build fuselages for storage anticipating a quick and easy cure for the Me 210 problems.
It is possible these converted Me 410 carried the original Werknummer of the former Me 210 fuselages and the new built a/c got 5- or 6-digit numbers

He 177 dates I gave is for a/c assembled/delivered, not production start. The US survey obviously did not count prototypes or preseries. See Exhibit I-A at Aircraft Industry Report Exhibits
Griehl/Dressel list 332101-332148 as A-3 built by HWO
Book has a list of known losses for A-5 ranging from 550001 to 550324

And yes, I use Wikipedia as source because of the Bundesarchive/RLM production data. Many german wiki articles have Bundesarchive/RLM production info and there are other transcripts matching this data. See Luftwaffe in Norway for the first 3 months of 44 + the data listed further above.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 19, 2014)

Denniss said:


> You have it wrong again, these Me 210 fuselages were never completed as Me 210 aircraft, RLM ordered Mtt to stop Me 210 assembly and Mtt decided to build fuselages for storage anticipating a quick and easy cure for the Me 210 problems.
> It is possible these converted Me 410 carried the original Werknummer of the former Me 210 fuselages and the new built a/c got 5- or 6-digit numbers.



The work to lengthen the Me 210 fuselages started shortly after the first test reports on the lengthened Me 210 issued on 27th April 1942. It was at this time that the recommendation none of the existing fuselages be scrapped, which would explain why the axing (literally) of aircraft at Obertraubling was stopped.

Aircraft WERE completed as Me 210s throughout 1942 with a lengthened fuselage. A lengthened Me 210 is not an Me 410. From April until August 1942 the designation Me 410 didn't exist officially and only starts to appear in documents around August/September.

The first Me 410 was delivered in December 1942. Some lengthened Me 210s, actually a significant number which I haven't added up from the lists, were then further converted to Me 410 standards starting in early 1943.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 19, 2014)

Hi Tyrodtom,

Your statistical recollection is correct. If losses were 10%, then the probability of survival is 0.9 and the probability of surviving 10 missions would be (0.9)^10, or 34.867%.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 19, 2014)

151 Me 210 A-1 and 4 B-1 were built with short fuselage. A further 106 A-1 were completed with short fuselage but never issued to units, awaiting rebuilt to long fuselage.
148 Me 210 were rebuilt with long fuselage, assuming the 106 mentioned above + 42 further Me 210 sent back from units.
36 A-1 and 16 C-1 (typo, should be B-1?) were built anew with long fuselage.

According to the US survey, based on RLM data, the first 5 Me 410 production aircraft were delivered by MttA/accepted by RLM in 1/43.
The last production Me 210 were delivered/accepted in 2/42 so for most of 42 they were rebuilding Me 210s and working on the Me 210C and Me 410.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 2, 2016)

The He-177 was initially as proposed was supposed to be able to do shallow to moderate level dives; later on they changed it to 60-degrees of dive (which was stupid, but let's not get into that).

1. What dive level was specified early on, and if not that; what constitutes low/mid-level diving? Normal dive bombing if I recall was 55-60 degrees.

2. What was the maximum g-load intended for the aircraft?

3. What was the maximum g-load initially produced in prototype and production models?


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 2, 2016)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think the only failure of the He 177 was how they were deployed.


How?



tyrodtom said:


> One of the reasons the He-177 had the speed it had was because of it's engines, it had the power of a 4 engine aircraft, but the engine drag just a little more than a two engine aircraft.


Until I read about the He-177, I was under the impression that if you doubled the horsepower and doubled the propeller area, the thrust doubled. 

The reason cited though had to do with it's dive performance, not level cruise performance (originally the dive performance was based around a low/moderate level dive): I still find the idea strange as an aircraft with a top speed over 300 mph would naturally pick up speed fairly easy even in dive angles of 30-40 degrees, and I'd have assumed having some drag from the propeller would be quite useful from keeping the speed from building up too much.[/quote]



James W. said:


> I don't have those figures, but both the He 177 & later Do 217 models with the similar shaped cockpit/nose structure were wind-tunnel tested & had high Vne ratings - for bombers - of 700 km/h.


The He-177's Vne was 435 mph?


----------



## stona (Jul 3, 2016)

There is no doubt that the He 177 was required to dive, but the only evidence for the 60 degree requirement comes from Ernst Heinkel in 'Sturmisches Leben' published after the war in 1956. Like many of his generation he was seeking to place the blame for the many failures in the German aircraft industry, including the He 177 debacle (because that's what it was) on fellow Nazis and men like Udet, Goering and Jeschonnek, who were not alive to offer a counter argument. Everyone has to decide for themselves how much weight to attach to Heinkel's memory.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 3, 2016)

James W. said:


> Do 217M Vne was 700 km/h, & AFAIR, the He177 was similarly rated, they certainly operated at those speeds.


Okay, so it was in the ballpark of 700 km/h if not faster?



> Incidentally, that was close to the Mosquito's Vne too.


While on the subject, do you have any idea what the maximum Mach for the He-177, or Mosquito were?



stona said:


> There is no doubt that the He 177 was required to dive, but the only evidence for the 60 degree requirement comes from Ernst Heinkel in 'Sturmisches Leben' published after the war in 1956.


Was there any test data or documentation (manuals) regarding the He-177?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2016)

stona said:


> There is no doubt that the He 177 was required to dive, but the only evidence for the 60 degree requirement comes from Ernst Heinkel in 'Sturmisches Leben' published after the war in 1956. Like many of his generation he was seeking to place the blame for the many failures in the German aircraft industry, including the He 177 debacle (because that's what it was) on fellow Nazis and men like Udet, Goering and Jeschonnek, who were not alive to offer a counter argument. Everyone has to decide for themselves how much weight to attach to Heinkel's memory.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


During testing, they found that the He177 also needed a great deal of strengthening in order to pull out of the dive without catastrophic failure. When the 60° requirement was issued, they had to strentghen it's structure even more - and it was at this point that the structural problems were not fully resolved.

V4 was destroyed during dive trials at Ribnitz on 8 June 1940, although it was a mechanical failure in the pitch control and not a structural event. (V5 however, appears to have survived the trials.)

In light of that, Goering rescinded the dive-bombing requirement for the He177 in September of 1942 and the dive-flaps (wing fences) were omitted from production at the tail-end of the A-0 series.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2016)

stona said:


> There is no doubt that the He 177 was required to dive, but the only evidence for the 60 degree requirement comes from Ernst Heinkel in 'Sturmisches Leben' published after the war in 1956...


Wasn't this inclusive in the same OKL directive for the Ju88 dive-bomber requirements?

I believe that was done around Fall of 1937.


----------



## stona (Jul 4, 2016)

The P.1041 mock up was inspected on 6th August 1937 and various problems high lighted. A revised mock up, addressing these issues, now with the RLM designation He 177, was inspected and approved on 11th November 1937.
According to Heinkel it was AFTER this approval that the 60 degree dive requirement was introduced. The requirement for the Ju 88 to dive had been introduced earlier, but not by much.
Once again, we only have Heinkel's word for this.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 4, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> During testing, they found that the He177 also needed a great deal of strengthening in order to pull out of the dive without catastrophic failure. When the 60° requirement was issued, they had to strentghen it's structure even more - and it was at this point that the structural problems were not fully resolved.


God, that seems like you'd need an awful high g-load to pull out of such a dive if your release height was reasonably low.

On that note, do you know what release heights were done in testing, and/or the dive-speeds typically reached?


----------



## stona (Jul 5, 2016)

As far as I can tell the V5 was the first to attempt any diving trials and these are described as 'shallow diving trials', undertaken in late 1940.
Diving tests were limited and the aircraft never could dive at anything like 60 degrees. The wing was never strong enough. Heinkel seems to have been in denial, at least until the wing of the A-013 failed catastrophically in a diving test, killing pilot (Scheeding) on 16th July 1941.
To put the debacle into some perspective, by the end of 1942 170 'improvements' and 1,395 structural modifications had been applied to the He 177...and it still couldn't dive.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GregP (Jul 5, 2016)

I did a short analysis of the data presented above in Excel. The data account for 488 losses.

221 had an unknown cause.

41 were listed as “crashed.”

21 were listed as “engine failure” and 6 were listed as “engine fire.” 5.5% for engine-related stuff.

18 were listed as “missing in action.”

6 were listed as “undercarriage failure.”

So … there COULD be up to 320 with engine-related losses if you assume unknown, crashed, and missing in action could be engine related but, that would be speculation as the data just don’t support that conclusion as given.

It would be nice to know how many sorties were represented in these loss figures, including those that returned home safely, but those data are not present and I have never seen a sortie breakdown for the He 177.

Of the 488 losses, 198 were He 177 A-3, 126 were He 177 A-1, and 116 were He 177 A-5, leaving 48 losses for the rest of the combined 31 variants. So 90% of the losses were from the A-1/A-3/A-5 variants alone. They lost 7 He 177 A-0.

I have seen a total built as 900 and as 1,169. 488 of 1,159 is a 41.75% loss rate for all units constructed and a bit higher if 900 is more correct. I have also seen that 1,137 units comprised 8 prototypes, 35 A-0, 130 A-1, 615 A-3, and 349 A-5 units. That leaves 32 planes to fill out the 48 remaining losses above, making me think the numbers are either wrong or the production total was slightly higher than 1,169, perhaps 1,185 if the numbers were to add up. They definitely lost almost all of the A-1 variants!

So the analysis mostly brings up questions, especially with so many lost to unknown causes.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 5, 2016)

German Bundesarchive records hold the following production data:
8 prototypes
35 A-0
130 A-1
350 A-5
612 A-3
for a total of 1135

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 5, 2016)

Thanks, Denniss. My data was from some source I saw maybe 15 years ago and I'm sure your data are better.

The losses add up to 140 He 177 A-1 comprising 126 He 177 A-1, 10 He 177 A-1*, 1 He 177 A-01 and 3 He 177 A-1". I am assuming the *, ", and 01 were He 177 A-1 airframes. Also reported as lost are 32 other types including an A-02, -03, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11,A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-19, and A-20 all with 1 loss each, for 19 more, adding up to 1,154 units if the losses are to be believed.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 5, 2016)

That 41% is about the same (40%) as for American heavy bomber losses.


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

There were 12,731 B-17s built. According to Ray Wagoner's "American Combat Planes," we lost 4,688 of them, or 36.8%. So, the loss rates were close as you say.

We built 18482 B-24s and lost 3626. or 19.6%. Combined the rate is 26.6%.

If you add the B-29, the combined loss rate for our heavy / super heavy is 24.8%.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2016)

GregP said:


> There were 12,731 B-17s built. According to Ray Wagoner's "American Combat Planes," we lost 4,688 of them, or 36.8%. So, the loss rates were close as you say.
> 
> We built 18482 B-24s and lost 3626. or 19.6%. Combined the rate is 26.6%.
> 
> If you add the B-29, the combined loss rate for our heavy / super heavy is 24.8%.



The USAAF states that 12007 heavy bombers were lost in WW2.

The B-29 was classed as a very heavy bomber.


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

Hi Milosh,

Ray Wagoner is an old reference. I'm OK with your number, I just don't have a reference for it. I have no agenda here and do not claim Ray is right. It's just the numbers I have at this time from an old source. Perhaps his numbers were for ETO alone or something like that. Sometimes the old (1950s / 1960s) authors used to do that and not specify it in the notes ... and you only found out later. As i happens, I've been looking at loss figures, but mostly for fighters. I haven't updated my bomber numbers for a few years.


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2016)

The percentage of He 177s lost must be related to the number of sorties flown to have any meaning. 

There were never many He 177s operational and they never flew operations at the intensity of the Allied bombing forces in the ETO. An awful lot of He 177 losses listed in Smith and Creek seem to be non operational crashes for various technical and/or mechanical reasons.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

I am aware of the relationship between sorties and losses, but have no data whatsoever on He 177 sorties flown.

I was attempting to look at the data posted above only since it is the best He 177 data I have seen yet.

Sometimes, good data is hard to find, especially if you don't read German.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2016)

Greg, have you factored in the He177's losses due to Allied bombing and/or strafing attacks?

I also see that several of the prototypes were destroyed by retreating Luftwaffe forces during the tail end of the war, like these, for example:
V101 (NN+QQ)
V103 (KM+TT)
V104 (KM+TE)


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

Hi Graugeist,

The numbers I posted above were from the data posted earlier in this thread. NN+QQ is there as "scrapped." I suppose destroying one might be called scrapping it.

KM+TT and KM+TE do not show up.

I bet Denniss has all the data somewhere. He usually checks in when we talk German production or losses.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2016)

Going by memory, V101 (NN+QQ) was destroyed at Eger, I believe in April '45 as U.S. forces approached.

But I agree, Denniss would most likely have better details.

Regarding KM+TT and KM+TE, their WkNmrs are as follows:
KM+TT (V103) - WkNmr 550036
KM+TE (V104) - WkNmr 550055

Perhaps that might help?


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

Thanks!


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 6, 2016)

Dave, in "Heinkel 177, 277, 274" by Manfred Griehl & Joachim Dressel, 550036 was "scrapped" and was coded KM+TL. 550055 fate is unknown and was coded KM+UE. Don't know how accurate the book is


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2016)

Geo, add another 0 in your WkNmrs 

The two I mentioned: 550036 and 550055 were prototypes being developed for the intended "B" series.

And my list is also from Manfred Griehl's research


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 6, 2016)

Ooops, 0s added...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2016)

That's certainly interesting...what do they have for the WkNmrs for V103 and V104?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2016)

ahh...I see what happened, I just went and double-checked the list and here's what happened:
V103 KM+TT (WkNmr 550036) was an He177A-5 *rebuilt* as an He177B-5, fitted with a an HL131 Vtail turret.
V104 KM+TE (WkNmr 550055) was an He177A-5 *rebuilt* as an He177B-5, pattern aircraft for the series.

The other He177 destroyed by retreating Luftwaffe forces, as I mentioned earlier, V101, was an A-3 rebuilt as a B-5, fitted with 4 separate engines.

In this short list of B-5 conversions, one other: GA+QQ (WkNmr 0100 0023) was a rebuilt A-0 series fitted with a twin fin/rudder assembly, but it was destroyed in a collision on 22 April 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2016)

Good info, guys. Thanks again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Jul 8, 2016)

GregP said:


> Also reported as lost are 32 other types including an A-02, -03, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11,A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-19, and A-20 all with 1 loss each,


This all smells like A-0 albeit with incorrect numbering (missing leading zero, correct would be A-05, A-020, etc)


----------



## GregP (Jul 8, 2016)

Hi Denniss,

Could be. I might have shortened them up myself since, to me, 05 = 5. It's just the data that were posted a few pages back. I don't know where it came from. I'll go back and check. 

Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it.

If you or anyone else has a better list of He 177 fates, it would be appreciated if you would share it. I've always liked the He 177 or, to be more correct, the He 274 / 277, 4-engine aircraft. The 2-propeller version might have been fine if the engines had not been the weak links, but the 4-engine unit could easily have been fielded from the start, giving Germany a good, reliable strategic heavy bomber. The basic design seem sound and when everything worked, it carried out its missions easily.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 8, 2016)

Do you have this book Greg?


----------



## GregP (Jul 8, 2016)

No, but it looks like a good one to look for. Thanks!

I'll check amazon.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 10, 2016)

The leading zero is a must-have for zero-series pre-production aircraft, otherwise this would indicate wrong subversion numbers.
Most/all zero-series aircraft were sequentially numbered from -01 to whatever was the highest number in this subseries. They even kept this for the He 219 A-0 which evolved into a production version with 104 built.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

