# B-17 vs. He-177 vs. Lancaster



## B-17engineer (Jan 10, 2008)

I am going with Lancaster, did a lot to win the war, what are your thoughts and why?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2008)

Of the 3 I go with the Lancaster. The Lancaster was a great aircraft and overall a better bomber in my opinion.

The B-17 comes in with close second for me. She carried less of a bomb load but she was one tough lady. The B-17 is my personal favorite bomber of the war, but again for me the better of the 3 has to be the Lancaster.

The He 177 in my opinion was a could have, should have, but did not aircraft. It had great potential but never achieved it. Had she started out with 4 seperate engines, she might have proven to be the better of the 3. She had a great bomb load and great performance.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jan 10, 2008)

Voted for my sentimental favorite, the B-17. The Fort and the Lancaster are very close; the Lancaster could carry a heavier bomb load and was probably every bit as good, or slightly better. But far more B-17s were built and flew, and although I have no stats to back this up, I would guess the Flying Fortress could absorb more punishment and return it's crews safely. Anyway, the pictures I've seen of battle-damaged B-17s that made it back to base makes me give the Fort the nod. Like I said, a thoroughly sentimental vote for my favorite aircraft of all time. 

TO


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 10, 2008)

The B24 was best. I decisely proved it back in that thread from last year.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 10, 2008)

I agree we should renew this poll but we should add the 24 and the P108 Halifax and stirling as second best heavy of WW2


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, to answer your question, I'd go with the Lancaster. But I'm not clicking on the poll until I see if your going to add the B-24. If you do, I'm changing my vote.

As far as comments to all, I 100% agree with Adler.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 10, 2008)

How do i add B-24?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 10, 2008)

I hate these 'Best' discussions because they don't pose the selection criteria - lol.

Best in context of payload, speed, survivability, firepower, range? 

Best in context of relative comparison of achievement in similar roles? How are we to judge a Lanc in context of daylight strategic bombing campaign from 1942 - 1945, or B-17 in Night raids? 

I agree w/Syscom about the B-24 being ultimately better - but Tooey Spaatz argued the B-17 as the most important..why is my opinion better than his?

Best in combined attributes? I would tend to go Lanc but don't know how it would have performed survivability wise in 8th AF in 1943? Better/worse? How do we know? 

And, like Chris why even bring the potentially very nice He 177 in the form of He 277 when it was largely a failure because of intial (and stupid) design specs


----------



## comiso90 (Jan 10, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> How do i add B-24?



If you do that, you'll have to add the B-29 and then we may as well re-visit the heavy bomber thread.

.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 10, 2008)

Okay i will add them when i find out how

And to answer your question drgondog yes best means basically the General Characteristics and simply what was a better bomber.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 10, 2008)

The answers on which was best lay in the USSBS surveys.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 10, 2008)

I made a new post with all the other bombers u mentioned


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2008)

If you had searched the forums you would have seen that there is allready thread covering bombers.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 10, 2008)

Hi B-17engineer,

The German test pilot Werner Lerche considered the airframe of the He 177 excellent, but after flying a captured B-24 which he didn't like much, he said that he'd have preferred a He 177 with the reliable, turbo-supercharged B-24 engines.

He also flew a captured B-17 and enjoyed it so much that he improvised a low-level airshow over a Luftwaffe field. He considered it so docile that it could give a "misleading" impression of great manoeuvrability  Sheer inertia took its toll, which is the reason for the "misleading" bit of his comment ... but he considered the B-17's flying qualities equal to that of the Heinkel He 111, which appears to have had a great reputation as a pilot's aircraft in the Luftwaffe.

So much for the "enemy" perspective ... I hope that as a B-17 enthusiast, you'll find it interesting! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## V-1710 (Jan 11, 2008)

I think the Lancaster was the finest low-altitude heavy bomber of the war, the B-17 was the best high altitude heavy bomber of the ETO, and the 177 could have been great if the paired engine idea was given up after the first test flight (cut short due to engine overheating).


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 11, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> Okay i will add them when i find out how
> 
> And to answer your question drgondog yes best means basically the General Characteristics and simply what was a better bomber.



General characteristics-wise, the He 177 is the best of the three, it does well every field. It`s operational record was limited, and it suffers from a very bad (overdone, IMHO) williamgreen-press. IMHO the He 177 was never given the opportunity to prove itself. It just came into operational service by 1944 and right away when the oil campaign denied fuel for it`s service. IMHO the circumstances it was forced into shouldn`t detract from the qualities o_f the plane itself._

The B-17 comes in as a second for me. It had good overall qualities, it was quite fast, very well armed, rugged and good sighting devices. It`s greatest negatives is IMHO the crew size which was luxurious, and modest practical bombload for it`s size.

The Lancaster never struck me as a particularly attractive choice. It`s butt ugly, workmanlike, and looking at it makes you understand why the LW slang referred to a heavy bomber as a 'furniture van'. The Lancaster was just that, the cheap solution for delivering a large amount bombs to the target, or it`s immidiate 12-mile vicinity.  It was a bomb truck, it could do that, take off with big bombs, fly to Germany, drop it, return. Otherwise it was just insufficiently armored, it`s bomb sight was simplistic compared to the other two, and I feel the defensive armament was simply lacking for a plane of this size. It`s worst feature of all was the lack of sufficient number escape hatches for the crew - when the Lanc went down, it became a death trap. The Halifax was incomparably better in this regard (and imho, overall, too).


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 11, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> General characteristics-wise, the He 177 is the best of the three, it does well every field. It`s operational record was limited, and it suffers from a very bad (overdone, IMHO) williamgreen-press. IMHO the He 177 was never given the opportunity to prove itself. It just came into operational service by 1944 and right away when the oil campaign denied fuel for it`s service. IMHO the circumstances it was forced into shouldn`t detract from the qualities o_f the plane itself._


That is about the same time the best bomber of WW2 came into service, the *B-29*.  

Kurfurst, why are you always so negative on the British?

Talking about over done press, only early in the war was British bombing bad. Later it was just as accurate, or better, than the American day light bombing.

The average B-17 bomb load was 4-5000lb. Not much better than of the Mosquito.

The hand held guns in the waist and radio compartment were pretty much useless in the B-17. Early, than late war Lancs had ventral turrets. They were .303 though.

Bombsights used on Lancasters included:

Mark IX Course-Setting Bombsight (CSBS).
This was an early preset vector bombsight that involved squinting through wires that had to be manually set based on aircraft speed, altitude and bombload. This sight lacked tactical flexibility as it had to be manually adjusted if any of the parameters changed and was soon phased out in favour of the bombsights below.

Mark XIV bombsight
A vector bombsight where the bomb aimer input various details of the bombload, target altitude and wind direction, and the analogue computer then continuously calculated the trajectory of the bombs and projected an inverted sword shape onto a sighting glass on the sighting head. Assuming the sight was set correctly, when the target was in the cross hairs of the sword shape, the bomb aimer would be able to accurately release the bombs.

T1 bombsight
A Mark XIV bombsight modified for mass production and produced in the USA. Some of the pneumatic gyro drives on the Mk XIV sight were replaced with electronic gyros and other minor modifications were made.

Stabilizing Automatic Bombsight
Also known as "SABS", this was an advanced bombsight mainly used by 617 Squadron for precision raids. Like the American Norden bombsight it was a tachometric sight.


----------



## Glider (Jan 11, 2008)

I found this posting that outlined the combat history of the He177. I think its fair to say that it did have the oppertunity to prove itself to some degree but failed. Re operation Steinbock I think the He177 lost around 18 out of 45 aircraft in the raid's (exact figures are hard to find) which when you consider being London only 50 miles from the French Coast, isn't a good record. not when you compare it to the distances that the Allied forces had to fly behind the German Lines. 

_The He 177 had a short combat career that lasted from the winter of 1942 until the summer of 1944. It first saw action on the eastern front, when a number of A-3s were pressed into service as part of the desperate air-lift of supplies to Stalingrad. The He 177 made a poor transport plane, with limited space for supplies, and was not well suited for use from the rough airstrips in use in Russia. This was quickly realised, and the surviving A-3s were used to attack the Russian positions around Stalingrad, either as a conventional bomber or with a 50mm BK 5 anti-tank gun under the nose. Once again it was not a great success, with engine fires causing several loses.

The He 177 was then withdrawn from the front line until the A-5 was ready. This aircraft was issued to KG 40 in the summer of 1943, to be used in combination with the Henschel Hs 293 glider-bomb. This was a small radio controlled powered glider designed for use against merchant ships. The He 177 could carry one under each wing, and in theory the Hs 293 could hit a target from a range of up to five miles.

KG 40 began operations with the He 177 in November 1943. Their first major operation came on 21 November and was an attack on a British convoy in the Bay of Biscay. Twenty five aircraft took off, two had to return to base early, one crashed thirty miles away, one was lost in the attack, and two more on the return journey. In return one small merchant ship was sunk, although the crew escaped. One successful aspect of the He 177 was its range. Five days later the same unit launched an attack on an allied convoy off the coast of Algeria, with 21 aircraft. This time they ran into fighters, and six aircraft were lost, although a German troop ship was sunk. 

The heavy loses suffered on these two missions forced KG 40 to abandon daylight attacks. Night attacks, with the target ships illuminated by flares, took their place, with even less success, although loses to enemy activity were reduced. 

Two He 177 units took part in Operation Steinbock, the last Luftwaffe bombing campaign over Britain. Experienced crews were able to carry a 5600kg/ 12346lb payload on these missions, which took place between January and April 1944. Standard tactics for the He 177 was to climb to its service ceiling before crossing the British coast, then carry out the rest of the mission in a shallow full power dive, which allowed the aircraft to reach a diving speed of over 400mph. The dive would continue all the way to the French coast, by which time the aircraft would have dropped down to 2,500 feet. The higher speed and constant change of altitude made the aircraft harder to intercept, increasing the survivability of the aircraft, but the operation was generally unsuccessful. 

Operation Steinbock trailed off in the spring of 1944 as the Luftwaffe began to husband its strength in preparation for the allied invasion of Western Europe, which was clearly going imminent. In the days after D-Day, II./KG 40 took part in the desperate attempts to attack in the invasion fleet. In ten days the unit lost half of its 26 aircraft, before being withdrawn to rest._
Heinkel He 177 Greif (Griffon)


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 11, 2008)

Glider said:


> I found this posting that outlined the combat history of the He177. I think its fair to say that it did have the oppertunity to prove itself to some degree but failed.



I don`t think so. Looking at HoHun`s research table of LW strenght of types, it`s striking how few He 177s were around until very late 1943. Ie. avarage number of He 177s with units on six monthly basis :

42 2half : 14.2
43 1st half : 50
43 2nd half : 69 (deliveries in numbers starting in November 1943, when the 100 mark is exceeded the first time)
44 1st half : 205 (peaking up in June-July 1944 with 269-258 respecitively)
44 2nd half : 137

So what are you expecting, some 50 aircraft around should have bring salvation to the World in 1943...? Or in the first half of 1944, before most bombers were grounded due to the lack of fuel in the automn..?

The type simply did not get into operational status in meaningful numbers until 1944, by when the overall situation in the air - well we all know it wasn`t exactly kind to the Luftwaffe types.



> Re operation Steinbock I think the He177 lost around 18 out of 45 aircraft in the raid's (exact figures are hard to find) which when you consider being London only 50 miles from the French Coast, isn't a good record. not when you compare it to the distances that the Allied forces had to fly behind the German Lines.



Depends on which part of the _French Coast_. Bordeaux-Merignac, KG 40`s base at the time, is something like 500 miles from London - same distance as say, East Anglia and _Nürnberg_ *caugh* *caugh*. Others operated from the German border. Surely single unsuccessful raids can be picked, but Steinbock lasted several months, so I don`t think the figures show much, without knowning the sortie rates and how other bomber types fared against the same opposition. Looking at KG 40s actual loss list, it doesn`t strike me as particularly bad - it would b e interesting to know the cause of losses, IIRC there were some strafing losses, which again can hardly blamed on the plane.

The general trouble seems to be the lack of detailed research of the He 177s operational history. Basically you can always read the same tidbits of information which appearantly highlight the _most unsuccessfull_ operations, and these keep circling around over the internet - most of them originiating to William Green`s decade year old books. Many operation theatres are just not noted - there are tidbits for example about KG 100s operations in the East in large, Combat Box-like formations against Russian RR stations, and generally these seem to be quite successfull. There were also high flying recce-raid missions above Britain in the summer 1943 as far as to Leeds and Manchaster in broad daylight, and the He 177 could do it unpunished.

I wouldn`t judge the plane based on only Green`s decades old comments when much of the aircraft operational history is yet to be written.

P.S. : 
_ It`s best to ignore banned flameboys _ 8) 
Not meaning you, Glider, of course.


----------



## Glider (Jan 11, 2008)

The point was that the He177 only had to go to London, around 20 miles behind the Allied Lines with no navigational problems, but the Allies went hundreds of miles behind the German lines with loads of of navigational problems. However the German forces (all of them incl Bomb carrying 190's) had heavy losses. 

I also found this 

_I was intrigued by Alan Smith’s reference to “The Steinbock Operation”, in his
“Museum Jottings”
Most people think of the “Blitz” as that period from September 1940 to May
1941. However during 1943 deciphered Enigma messages alerted the British
authorities that the Luftwaffe was planning a major new bombing offensive.
This was to become known as the “Mini Blitz”.
The Germans had assembled a total of 524 bombers, including 46 of the new
HE 177 Greif four engined heavy bomber that were to attack Britain for the
first time.
The first air raid occurred on the night of 21 st January 1944 when 227 bombers
were involved. They used “Dueppel”, which was the German equivalent of our
“Window”. These were strips of metal foil designed to confuse radar defences.
Then a repeat raid was made during the latter part of the same night. Some of the returning Luftwaffe bombers had been refuelled and these were joined by other bombers. In this second raid a total of 220 bombers took part.
London had been the target of both raids but only 44 incidents in the London
area were logged. The bombs fell mostly in Sussex, Kent and Essex. The
Luftwaffe admitted losing 25 aircraft on the two raids. British sources claimed
18 fell victim to the lethal De Havilland Mosquito night fighters. Most or all of
the remaining 9 bombers were downed by antiaircraft flak. A further 18
bombers were destroyed in noncombat accidents, including mishandling,
navigation errors or crashes at dimly lit bases.
More raids occurred in February and caused little damage, apart from a raid on
18/19 th of that month. About 200 German bombers dropped 140 tons of bombs in the London area on that night.
Further attacks continued in March and Hull and Bristol were also targeted. In
May Weymouth, Torquay and Falmouth received attention from Operation
Steinbock before the offensive was abandoned.
Air raid casualties in Britain totalled 1556 killed and 2916 seriously injured.
During that five month period the Luftwaffe lost 330 bombers. For every 5
citizens killed, the Germans lost 1 bomber and four trained aircrew either killed
or captured. It had been a costly failure._

Notice the 220 bombers trying to bomb London 20 miles behind the coast and only 44 seem to have got through, not good.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 12, 2008)

> The first air raid occurred on the night of 21 st January 1944 when 227 bombers were involved. They used “Dueppel”, which was the German equivalent of our “Window”. These were strips of metal foil designed to confuse radar defences. Then a repeat raid was made during the latter part of the same night. Some of the returning Luftwaffe bombers had been refuelled and these were joined by other bombers. In this second raid a total of 220 bombers took part. London had been the target of both raids but only 44 incidents in the London area were logged. The bombs fell mostly in Sussex, Kent and Essex.


Glider, do these 44 incidents mean bombs dropped from 44 bombers out of the total of 447 bombers taking part or just the 220 taking part in the second raid for it does say _London had been the target of *both raids*_?

Not that it makes much difference, it is still bad. Do you know what caused the breakdown in the much heralded superior German system we hear about of placing bombers over the target?



> More raids occurred in February and caused little damage, apart from a raid on 18/19 th of that month. About 200 German bombers dropped 140 tons of bombs in the London area on that night.



That averages ~2800lb per bomber. We see claims the He177 could carry ~11,000lb of bombs and the Ju88 and He 111 could carry ~5500lb of bombs.

B-17s and B-24s averaged around 5000lb and the Halifax and Lancaster averaged around 10,000lb, yet were capable of carrying heavier loads.



> The Germans had assembled a total of 524 bombers





> During that five month period the Luftwaffe lost 330 bombers.


That is some attrition rate, 63% of the force the LW started with.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2008)

> However the German forces (all of them incl Bomb carrying 190's) had heavy losses.



By what standard? The worst losses I can see per raid is about a dozen aircraft lost. That`s hardly 'heavy'.



> I also found this
> 
> _I was intrigued by Alan Smith’s reference to “The Steinbock Operation”, in his
> “Museum Jottings”
> ...



This is actually stems back to a WW2 being a study ordered by Churchill and which I believe he quoted in his WW2 book. I wouldn`t put much faith in it`s accuracy, but it`s another one of those thing quoted enthusiastically ever since.



Glider said:


> The point was that the He177 only had to go to London, around 20 miles behind the Allied Lines with no navigational problems, but the Allies went hundreds of miles behind the German lines with loads of of navigational problems. ...
> 
> Notice the 220 bombers trying to bomb London 20 miles behind the coast and only 44 seem to have got through, not good.



Yes, the date is 1944, and both sides are doing active jamming. The bomber units were pulled from the Mediterrenian, and for most of them, this was their first mission over England, which kinda explains why they did have troubles finding their targets at first. The results improved however, wheater was bad for about a week which limited attacks to FW190/Me 410 nuisance raids, and some Gruppen had went back to Italy due to the Anzio landings. 

On 29 January, however _'a 285 strong raid was mounted, starting a major fire in the Surrey Commercial Docks'_ [Beale].

4/5 Feburary, another raid was mounted, which _'failed to achive concentration but costing 15 aircraft'_ (whatever that means).

_Things went little better with the next operation, but on 18/19 and 20/21 February, the 200 bombers dispatched each night caused damage assessed by the British authorities as the worst since 1941 : a total of over 400 dead, over 1000 fires started and widespread damage to the rail network._

etc. I am not going to quote the whole book, but it would appear to me Steinbock has been highly propagandized as something completely ridiculus and sad, by the Churchill goverment for his own political ends, and this found it`s way to history books as well. On several raids, serious damage was done, on others, the targets were not found or were completely missed. This again is not much different from the record of Bomber Command over Germany at the same time, some raids failed, other succeeded. Nurnberg on the 30/31 March was a complete failure, with 106 bombers lost with 545 aircrews, whereas Nurnberg itself suffered insignificant damage (something a dozen casulties IIRC - most bombers couldn`t find it appearantly). Point is, single bad examples can be easily find and than enthaustically quoted. They don`t quite tell the whole story, or a typical story.

Anyway, I don`t think discussing a complex operation such as _Steinbock_ would tell a great deal about the qualities bombers that participated in them. 

Nick Beale however has an interesting bit about the He 177, however, which I will quote below :

_'..Although the He 177 had a troubled development history and has received a bad press from the historians, prisoners from these particular machines spoke highly of them. High altitude performance was good, with speeds of 600-650 km/h 'easily attained'; the He 177 A-3 was rated 'more manouverable than any other GAF bomber' and :

' Both crews are most enthusiastic about the engines, which appear to function smoothly and efficiently over incredibly long journeys. The disengaging [to save fuel] and re-engagings of motors now takes place without any risk of fire, a tendency known to have rife when the motors first used.'_

I would say with the bomb capacity of 7 tons, remote controlled defensive turrets and it`s tail cannon it was an impressive piece of machinery.

PS : Flameboy still trying...


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 12, 2008)

30/31 March 1944

This would normally have been the moon stand-down period for the Main Force, but a raid to the distant target of Nuremberg was planned on the basis of an early forecast that there would be protective high cloud on the outward route, when the moon would be up, but that the target area would be clear for ground-marked bombing. A Meteorological Flight Mosquito carried out a reconnaissance and reported that the protective cloud was unlikely to be present and that there could be cloud over the target, but the raid was not cancelled.

795 aircraft were dispatched - 572 Lancasters, 214 Halifaxes and 9 Mosquitos. The German controller ignored all the diversions and assembled his fighters at 2 radio beacons which happened to be astride the route to Nuremberg. The first fighters appeared just before the bombers reached the Belgian border and a fierce battle in the moonlight lasted for the next hour. 82 bombers were lost on the outward route and near the target. The action was much reduced on the return flight, when most of the German fighters had to land, but 95 bombers were lost in all - 64 Lancasters and 31 Halifaxes, 11.9 per cent of the force dispatched. It was the biggest Bomber Command loss of the war.

Most of the returning crews reported that they had bombed Nuremberg but subsequent research showed that approximately 120 aircraft had bombed Schweinfurt, 50 miles north-west of Nuremberg. This mistake was a result of badly forecast winds causing navigational difficulties. 2 Pathfinder aircraft dropped markers at Schweinfurt. Much of the bombing in the Schweinfurt area fell outside the town and only 2 people were killed in that area. The main raid at Nuremberg was a failure. The city was covered by thick cloud and a fierce cross-wind which developed on the final approach to the target caused many of the Pathfinder aircraft to mark too far to the east. A 10-mile-long creepback also developed into the countryside north of Nuremberg. Both Pathfinders and Main Force aircraft were under heavy fighter attack throughout the raid. Little damage was caused in Nuremberg.

49 Halifaxes minelaying in the Heligoland area, 13 Mosquitos to night-fighter airfields, 34 Mosquitos on diversions to Aachen, Cologne and Kassel, 5 RCM sorties, 19 Serrate patrols. No aircraft lost.

3 Oboe Mosquitos to Oberhausen (where 23 Germans waiting to go into a public shelter were killed by a bomb) and 1 Mosquito to Dortmund, 6 Stirlings minelaying off Texel and Le Havre. 17 aircraft on Resistance operations, 8 OTU sorties. 1 Halifax shot down dropping Resistance agents over Belgium.

Total effort for the night: 950 sorties, 96 aircraft (10.1 per cent) lost.

RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

Lets looks at RAF BC for the same time as the The Steinbock Operation Jan-Apr 1944

29,355 night sorties
1010 missing
123 crashed

A loss rate of 3.44% and with the crashed loss added in, 3.85%.
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/bc-Stats1.htm#1944


Knickebein, X-Gerät and Y-Gerät were like the British "GEE-H" navigation/bombing system. The LW even used 'pathfinders' to indicate the target. Sounds like an excuse that some bombers came from the Med and had trouble finding their target(s).

The Jan 21 raid was a disaster for the Luftwaffe, and only 32 tons of bombs of the 282 dropped fell on London that night.  Peltz had just 144 operational aircraft left by May 1944 when the raids ceased.

Certainly looks like Steinbock was a disaster for the LW.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2008)

Peltz`s bombers were simply deployed elsewhere, as occured numerous times during Steinbock. Mostly they went to the Mediterranean, KG 40`s He 177s amongst them.

Keep trying. You`ll only get yourself banned, like your previous logins on this board.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

Thanks HoHun


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2008)

Kurfurst said:


> Keep trying. You`ll only get yourself banned, like your previous logins on this board.


 U are going to have to back that up Kurfurst... I IP searched him, and the 4 IP addys that come up for him are for him and only him... Making accusations like that will get ur ass banned from here....

Stop being a crybaby pus*y and stick to the facts...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2008)

Yeah what other logins has he had, I cant find any either.


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2008)

I only know what I found but taking the points one at a time.

Navigation
The reason proposed for the poor performance by Kurfur't, that it was due to jamming and the crews being newly drawn from other areas doesn't hold up. From the French Coast at altitude you can easily see the Thames Estury. How difficult can it be to follow the Thames and find London, a distance of 20 miles from the coast?

Accuracy of the report
I don't know where or when this was first produced but what matters is how accurate is it. A blanket statement of 'I wouldn't trust it' is useless without some effort being spent to look into it.
I have continued to look into it and the results are very similar and I will end this posting with another example. Kurfurst, you have access to a lot of data, what evidence have you that its inaccurate?
Germany and the Second World War - Google Book Search
Pages 416-418 are those relating to this topic. The whole book look like its worth a read with plenty of references.

Effects of the Raid
29th January - 285 planes to start one major fire, not exactly the gutting of the centre of London.
4th - 5th February failed to achieve concentration and 15 aircraft lost. This would equal bombs scattered and 15 aircraft lost. 
Later February did do better without question but the raids were much smaller and no longer a serious threat. By mid April only 50 tons of bombs fell on London in one night and the raids were over.


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2008)

PS If Kurfurst is referring to me, I am not aware of being banned here or anywhere else either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2008)

Dont worry about it Glider. He is not referring to you.

As Dan said, this will have to be backed up, because that is a serious accusation.


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2008)

AL Schlageter said:


> Glider, do these 44 incidents mean bombs dropped from 44 bombers out of the total of 447 bombers taking part or just the 220 taking part in the second raid for it does say _London had been the target of *both raids*_?
> 
> Not that it makes much difference, it is still bad. Do you know what caused the breakdown in the much heralded superior German system we hear about of placing bombers over the target?


I took it to be 44 for the night i.e. 10% of the bomber force

I know the weather wasn't good and the Germans were limited in the number of pathfinders that they had. Jamming probably did play a part in it, but as I said the distances were small and the Thames is a big arrow pointing at the heart of London. 




> That averages ~2800lb per bomber. We see claims the He177 could carry ~11,000lb of bombs and the Ju88 and He 111 could carry ~5500lb of bombs.
> 
> B-17s and B-24s averaged around 5000lb and the Halifax and Lancaster averaged around 10,000lb, yet were capable of carrying heavier loads.


The He177 was able to carry close to is maximum load for these raids but the other aircraft didn't. Its worth remembering that FW190's carring bombs were used in the attack so this alone would have reduced the average load by a fair margin.



> That is some attrition rate, 63% of the force the LW started with.


Definately a huge loss considering that the actual number of raids doesn't seem to have been that many.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2008)

AL Schlageter said:


> B-17s and B-24s averaged around 5000lb and the Halifax and Lancaster averaged around 10,000lb, yet were capable of carrying heavier loads.



If I recall correctly the average bomb load for a Lancaster was 8,000lb. At 10,000 lb and above its range was restricted quite a bit.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2008)

I guess Mr. AL Schlageter`s IP will still show a *Canadian* one... Krazi*Kanuk*..?  Same style, feuding the same people : me, Hohun, Crumpp..

You have to wonder why he claims to be from the US on this board... to be from Germany on my board... to be from Gloucester on Axishistory board.

More in PM not to pollute the thread with matters about a troll. Crumpp probably knows too as well who he is, we just don`t bother with his baits too much.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2008)

Al and Kurfürst - you are both being sent PMs - I suggest you answer them.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 12, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If I recall correctly the average bomb load for a Lancaster was 8,000lb. At 10,000 lb and above its range was restricted quite a bit.


Range with standard fuel load and 10,000lb of bombs was 1040miles.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2008)

AL Schlageter said:


> Range with standard fuel load and 10,000lb of bombs was 1040miles.



KK - you're an idiot - it seems you moved to Ottawa - I hope you get hit by a bus while going into your favorite gay bar.

Kurfürst - disregard my message unless another mod PMs you.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2008)

Adler already PMd me, and I responded. Well that kinda sorts out the mystery isn`t it...? 

Let`s forget about this troll, and let`s get back to the subject, shall we?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Adler already PMd me, and I responded. Well that kinda sorts out the mystery isn`t it...?
> 
> Let`s forget about this troll, and let`s get back to the subject, shall we?


Right on!


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2008)

I'm surprised
Kurfürst is giving a rozy picture on LW plane.
Now max LEVEL speed of He 177 A-3 was 480km/h
7 t bombload was for nahbomber ie for short range ops only, for Mittelbomber max bombload was 4t.
Some A-3s were still lost because of engine fires but that was not usual.
"remote controlled defensive turrets" I'm aware only one remote controlled defensive turret in He 177, the forward upper, Kurfürst can you advise were the other remote controlled defensive turret(s) were?

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2008)

Juha, can you give a source about that 480 km/h speed claim, and what range would be 'short range ops only'?

Ie. the Nähbomber configuration meant 7 tons of bombs and _8800_ liters (out of 12 660 l) of fuel carried ie. some 2/3s of the maximum fuel capacity. Maximum range was listed as 5500 km, so your so-called 'short range' would be 3500-3800 km I believe. Perhaps less like 3200 km? Still, to put it into perspective, it`s double the range of the Lancaster and with 50% higher bombload, on a bomber that is something like 100 km/h faster and much better armed.

As for rozy picture, I can`t help if my views don`t fit into your conceptions, nor do I care if you feel offended when the qualities of He 177 are mentioned; I realize that your have that kind of hostile attitude for people not properly 'trashing' German equipment, the same attitude as in that arty thread where you even went and accused some of us with symphaties to Nazi ideology just for not sharing your anglophil preferences in artylerry, IIIRC. Are going to do the same here, too? If so, consider yourself ignored in advance.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2008)

So just what was the combat record of the -177 as compared to the Lanc?

Combat operations speak volumes on performace.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2008)

No comparison....


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> So just what was the combat record of the -177 as compared to the Lanc?
> 
> Combat operations speak volumes on performace.



If you look at my earlier postings you will get a fair idea.


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 12, 2008)

Personally I would take the Lancatser over the He-177 anyday. 

Reliabilty in engines if nothing else. Every thing that I have read on the DB 606 engines used with the He-177 was that they where prone to catching fire. Below is a picture of a Db 606 engine from the book He-177 by Kev Darling.

Lancasters used Rolls Royce Merline engines. Proven to be reliable.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> So just what was the combat record of the -177 as compared to the Lanc?
> 
> Combat operations speak volumes on performace.



Google 'Battle for Berlin', 'Nuremburg Raid', 'Lancester Daylight Ardennes' and you will get a pretty fair idea. 8) 

Bomb truck.


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2008)

Kurfürst
480km/h: plenty of sources, but knowing your bias, what about Manfred Griehl - Joachim Dressel: Heinkel He 177, 277, 274. No British sounding names among authors, just for your peace of mind, Kurfürst.
Still wondering where they hid all those other remote contolled turrets, Kurfürst?
I have no problems with the quality of He 177 but IMHO You seems to have. Otherwise difficult to see the reason giving the speed of over 600km/h or claiming multiple remote controlled turrets.

Juha


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Google 'Battle for Berlin', 'Nuremburg Raid', 'Lancester Daylight Ardennes' and you will get a pretty fair idea. 8)
> 
> Bomb truck.



And there was nothing for the -177.

That speaks volumes.


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2008)

On bombload/range of He 177
according to both A. Price (He 177 Profile) and M. F. Bowyer (Air Raid!), sorry Kurfürst, British authors but neither to my knowledge germanophoby, the usual load of He 177s in early 44 against london was 4*1000kg but some experienced crews carried 2*1000kg+2*1800kg = 5600kg or 2*2500kg=5000kg. And according to Bowyer p. 306, according to British info based on found wrecks and papers, max possible load was 7,6 tons of which 2*1000kg externally, but then the range was only 400mls.

Juha


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2008)

And what was the useful bomb load on a 1600 mile (one way) mission?

B24's were on 3200 mile missions in 1943 (Darwin to Balikpapen) with a payload of 4000 pounds.


----------



## Glider (Jan 12, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Google 'Battle for Berlin', 'Nuremburg Raid', 'Lancester Daylight Ardennes' and you will get a pretty fair idea. 8)
> 
> Bomb truck.



Kurfurst
I did as you suggested and searched on Lancaster Ardennes and found the following link. Its interesting
RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary

It gives the record for the Month of December which I am sure you will agree is better than concentrating on one raid.

Total Lancaster Sorties 8,351
Total Lancaster Losses 92

You can read the posting, as you would expect some raids went very well others very wrong, but the vast majority achived some damage, often fairly serious damage.

It does give the war record of Lancasters and Bomber Command in some detail.


----------



## Negative Creep (Jan 12, 2008)

I would go with the Lancaster. It's primary weakness was it's lack of defensive armament, but then as the B-17 showed, any unescorted bomber is vulnerable to interception. The 177 could avoid interception by going into a shallow dive, but used in small numbers mean it was never anything more than a nuisance. Whilst the B-17 and Lancaster were great airplanes, the Lancaster could carry larger loads and special bombs with little modification to the basic design. Regarding losses, it must be remembered that Bomber Command aircraft operated essentially on their own and without fighter escort


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2008)

At nighttime, the Lancs defensive guns were adequate.

After all, why do you need long range MG's when you couldn't even see your target.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

You certainly got a point


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 13, 2008)

Juha said:


> Kurfürst
> 480km/h:* plenty of sources,*



 



Juha said:


> ...but knowing your bias,



Vile bile.



Juha said:


> what about Manfred Griehl - Joachim Dressel: Heinkel He 177, 277, 274. No British sounding names among authors, just for your peace of mind, Kurfürst.



More vile bile. What Juha is selling as _maximum speed_ appears to be the _range at a given cruising speed_ for the He 177A-3. IE. 3700 km range while cruising _at_ 480 Km/h _at_ 9000m...

Sorry to say, but it would appear that if Juha doesn`t like the facts, he simply changes them, peppered with some personal attacks.

As for the He 177`s top speed, it varies in secondary sources. Sometimes 480 is given, sometimes 488, sometimes 510, sometimes 565 km/h. Take your pick. Secondary sources tend to give specs (488)for a A-5/R2 which was a variant with external pilons and stores however, and neither make it clear what engine powers are used.

It would be best to get an original German datasheet which would make clear what figure is for what but I have not yet came accross one.



Juha said:


> Still wondering where they hid all those other remote contolled turrets, Kurfürst?



He 177A-5/R5, He-177A-5/R6, He 177A-5/R8. A couple were produced IIRC. Basically the thing here is that you are attacking me like a rabid dog over a _typo_. Shows a lot of things about your character.



Juha said:


> I have no problems with the quality of He 177 but IMHO You seems to have.



No, you have problems with honesty, reading comprehension and discussing things in a civilized manner. 



> Otherwise difficult to see the reason giving the speed of over 600km/h or claiming multiple remote controlled turrets.



Ah, I see. Now you`re also claiming I have given speeds over 600km/h.. can you tell me where? A new low for Juha it would appear.. Gentlemen, this will be interesting. 

In the left corner Mr. Juha. 
In the right corner, _Nick Beale, wartime intelligence papers and German crews of the He 177_. 

To quote *my earlier post Juha has distorted* :



Kurfürst said:


> *Nick Beale* however has an interesting bit about the He 177, however, *which I will quote below* :
> 
> '..Although the He 177 had a troubled development history and has received a bad press from the historians, *prisoners from these particular machines spoke* highly of them. High altitude performance was good, with speeds of 600-650 km/h 'easily attained'; the He 177 A-3 was rated 'more manouverable than any other GAF bomber' and :
> 
> ' Both crews are most enthusiastic about the engines, which appear to function smoothly and efficiently over incredibly long journeys. The disengaging [to save fuel] and re-engagings of motors now takes place without any risk of fire, a tendency known to have rife when the motors first used.'



Just try to understand what he wrote, and please, don`t lie next time about my statements, attributing nonsense to me when it`s your inability to grasp what was written there, what it means, and from whom/where it was quoted..



Juha said:


> On bombload/range of He 177 according to both A. Price (He 177 Profile) and M. F. Bowyer (Air Raid!), sorry Kurfürst, British authors but neither to my knowledge germanophoby, _the usual load of He 177s in early 44 against london_ was 4*1000kg but some experienced crews carried 2*1000kg+2*1800kg = 5600kg or 2*2500kg=5000kg.



And this proves... what ? note the change in subject from max bombload and range at 7 tons carried of the He 177 to what aircraft carried in given raids.

Of course. If a plane could carry 7 tons, it could carry _less_, too.



Juha said:


> And according to Bowyer p. 306, according to British info based on found wrecks and papers, max possible load was 7,6 tons of which 2*1000kg externally, but then the range was only 400mls.



I have never seen 7.6 tons mentioned anywhere, nor did you specify the conditions. Looking how you quote data from books, how you misquote me, I am afraid I just don`t believe any of your interpretation at all. I would like to see Bowyer`s statement in their completeness, and even better, a scan of the page. 

This is what German datasheets give for the He 177 :






ie. 

Loadout A : 7 tons / 8800 liter (max bombs, 70% fuel)
Loadout B : 4 tons / 10 730 liter
Loadout C : 1 tons / 12 660 liter (max fuel)

The aircraft`s range is given at 3700 km (other sources give 5500 km, but this is probably with extra fuel tanks in the bomb bay). 

Given the ratios of fuel carried (ie. 100% for 1 ton bomb, 70% for 7 tons of bombs), the range was about 2600 km with the full 7 ton bomb load.

Unless, of course, someone wants to believe that decreasing fuel load _to 70 %_ will decrease range _to 17%_, as Juha claims.

Please also note that Juha is appearantly well versed with these figures, as he clearly referred to this table in his post :



Juha said:


> 7 t bombload was for *nahbomber* ie for short range ops only, for Mittelbomber max bombload was 4t.



I am afraid if you don`t present something VERY convincing about your claims Juha, I will have to ignore you on this board from now on. You see I am not interested in your distortion of my posts, vile bile, and pitiful personal attacks, and that you react to discussing jerry hardware of WW2 like a bull to a red canvas waved in front of him.

Start with supporting your dismissal of 7 tons bombload as _'for short range ops only'._


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 13, 2008)

Glider said:


> Kurfurst
> I did as you suggested and searched on Lancaster Ardennes and found the following link. Its interesting
> RAF History - Bomber Command 60th Anniversary
> 
> ...



Thanks, it`s a very good and detailed link. I`d like to see something like that about Steinbock, giving a more complete picture, but to my knowledge it has been never seriously researched (ie. accurate sortie / loss / loss cause figures, bombs dropped, damage done). Not that if Steinbock on the whole would tell you a great lot about the He 177, which formed something like 10% of the varying force Peltz has commanded.

The RAF Bomber Command operations does not strike me as very different - apart from scale, far larger formations were used/were available - from Steinbock, don`t you agree? Some raids, like 3 December, wouldn`t even find the target, others a few days later would and hit it hard. Sometimes formations got aways with very low losses, at other times they were cought pants down by Flak and Fighters, like during the daylight Cologne raid which 'went very badly', being caught by the Doras of JG 26 IIRC.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Jan 13, 2008)

I believe that the lancaster could have benifited from a) .50 BMG's in all turrents instead of the .303 BMG's much more lead being thrown out syscom i disagree bigger guns means more lead flying faster, and i believe it was possible to see aircraft at night due to exhaust flames coming from the engines and other illuminating sources ie. searchlights, burning bombers etc.
b) A gun turret _underneath_ the bomber as the this would make it a lot less vulnrable to the germans Slanting music affair with their cannons and guns. c) more escape hatches to allow easier exit for the pilot as it was often impossible for him to get out for various reasons ie. massive wing spar through the middle of the fuselage and the g's the bomber might be pulling.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 13, 2008)

Didn`t a few Lancasters towards the end of the war received a twin .50 BMG gun in the rear turret, with some advanced sight for the gunner...?


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Jan 13, 2008)

Yes, some Lancasters retrofitted with Rose-Rice Turrets late ’44 and production switched to FN 82 turrets with or without AGLT (“Village Inn”) fire control radars. Both turrets fitted with 2 x .5s but with much reduced ammunition supplies.

Mk 7 10 Lancs thus retro fitted/equipped would have toted 4 x .5s, a much better situation. However, Mk 7s were too late for the war. I don’t believe that FN 82s made it to Canada and their Sqns were not in the Rose-Rice retrofit programme that seems to have been focused on the Lincolnshire Sqns, which is understandable as that is where the Rose Bros Engineering firm was based.

Lancaster = bomb truck no argument. It was what was needed and it delivered in spades.


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 13, 2008)

This does not cover all the bomb layouts of the He-177 but shows how they would be in the bomb bay.

Second one is how the He-177 remote turrent worked.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 13, 2008)

Ah, so the 7000 kg bombload is 2x 1800 kg = 3600 + 2 x 1700 kg = 3400 == 7000kg. Thanks Mic'.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 13, 2008)

Nice pics Micdrow....


----------



## Glider (Jan 13, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Thanks, it`s a very good and detailed link. I`d like to see something like that about Steinbock, giving a more complete picture, but to my knowledge it has been never seriously researched (ie. accurate sortie / loss / loss cause figures, bombs dropped, damage done). Not that if Steinbock on the whole would tell you a great lot about the He 177, which formed something like 10% of the varying force Peltz has commanded.
> 
> The RAF Bomber Command operations does not strike me as very different - apart from scale, far larger formations were used/were available - from Steinbock, don`t you agree? Some raids, like 3 December, wouldn`t even find the target, others a few days later would and hit it hard. Sometimes formations got aways with very low losses, at other times they were cought pants down by Flak and Fighters, like during the daylight Cologne raid which 'went very badly', being caught by the Doras of JG 26 IIRC.



I don't disagree with your points and I would love to see a detailed breakdown of Operation Steinbock, but the two main differences are obviously:-

a) Range, these are all a lot further than 50 miles away from Allied lines unlike French Coast to London
b) The frequency with which the bombers found the targets. 

The loss ratio is impressive but not a fair comparison with Steinbock, as by the end of 1944 German defences were under huge pressures from fuel etc, unlike British defences in early 1944.


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 13, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Nice pics Micdrow....



Thanks Les,


----------



## Negative Creep (Jan 13, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> At nighttime, the Lancs defensive guns were adequate.
> 
> After all, why do you need long range MG's when you couldn't even see your target.






But it did have a massive blindspot under the belly. Couldn't have used schrage musik on a B-17 (or 177 for that matter)


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 13, 2008)

Negative Creep said:


> But it did have a massive blindspot under the belly. Couldn't have used schrage musik on a B-17 (or 177 for that matter)



So add in a tunnel gun setup.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 13, 2008)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> Yes, some Lancasters retrofitted with Rose-Rice Turrets late ’44 and production switched to FN 82 turrets with or without AGLT (“Village Inn”) fire control radars. Both turrets fitted with 2 x .5s but with much reduced ammunition supplies.



The Rose R No 2 turret.





...and the Fraser Nash FN82 turret.


----------



## Negative Creep (Jan 13, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> So add in a tunnel gun setup.



But isn't this topic about what was the best bomber as opposed to 'with x y could have been the best'? I'd still go for the Lanc anyway but for me this has always been it's main weakness


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Jan 13, 2008)

Some more information on the Rose turret from the June 1980 (!) edition of Air International...

The turret was big enough to accommodate 2 gunners; see second picture,


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 13, 2008)

Cool!

THe He-177 looks like such a big bomber for such a small crew.......Not really though........COuld've been a great bomber


----------



## Seawitch (Jan 13, 2008)

I tossed a coin between B17 and Lancaster, B17 won.
I studied the thread for upward firing the guns I knew the Luftwaffe fitted to exploit the blind spot on the Lancaster, and found it at the end, I didn't know the name of it.
I know a very few Lancaster's did have a ball turret below, that would suggest it was needed.....so the Lancaster was a good ship spoilt for a Pennies worth of tar?
The heavily B17 on the other hand was supposed to be able to look after it self but was taking unsustainable losses in daylight raids until the Mustang was developed to fly with it.
For this purpose I'd deem the Mustang an extension of the B17.
If a gunner was a look out first on the Lancaster then it should have carried one below.


----------



## Juha (Jan 14, 2008)

Heh Kurfürst
on the table in Appendix 2 in the Griel’s and Dressel’s book the specs to different protos and production machines
for all three He 177A-3 versions (/R1, /R2 and /R3) max speed is given as 480km/h, Cruising speed as 410km/h, that for A-5/R2 was 440 max and 380 cruising and A-5/R-7 as 520 and 440km/h but A-5/R-7 had reduced/much reduced armament (the book gives 2 different armament specs to A-5/R7). And in Eric Brown’s Wings of the Luftwaffe He 177A-5 specs are given as following Max speed at max loaded weight 440km/h at 5700m, how it happened to be the same as that for A-5/R2 in Griel’s and Dressel’s book with same armament than given in Brown’s book.
Browm gives also the speed at 80% max loaded weight as 487km/h at 5700m.

Griel’s and Dressel’s book gives 510km/h max speed for V9 and V14 ie for a couple prototypes.

And explanation for 565 km/h. From A. Price He 177 Profile.
After turning towards London at 17.000ft halfway between Wash and London...crews dropped bombs over London at 15500ft and after that continued their descent at appr. 600ft per min and by such means we able to keep up speeds of over 350mph during their withdrawal phase…The bombers crossed the French coast at Boulogne at an altitude of 2500ft. So 565 km/h is a speed attained during A LONG SHALLOW DIVE. One can find the same also from Griel’s and Dressel’s book.

Those speed 600-650km/h were attained in a bit steeper dive, one can look that for ex. Price’s Luftwaffe Handbook. I wonder why to post max speeds attained in dive without clearly stating that they were speed attained in dive.

“note the change in subject from max bombload and range at 7 tons carried of the He 177 to what aircraft carried in given raids.

Of course. If a plane could carry 7 tons, it could carry less, too.”

If you sometimes bothered to read on subject on question, 4 t was a load for average service pilots, some experienced pilots could took of with higher t/o weights but IMHO what counts was the load average service pilot could deliver.

“I will have to ignore you on this board from now on.”
Oh, nice to hear that, much appraised! And not surprising, I’m not mind if you want to continue your rosy dreams.

Juha


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 14, 2008)

That is intereting, 400mi range at maximum load.

Taking off from Bordeaux at that weight, the He177 could barely reach the English coast. I reality it could maybe reach Tours and be able to return to Bordeaux.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 14, 2008)

Juha said:


> Heh Kurfürst
> on the table in Appendix 2 in the Griel’s and Dressel’s book the specs to different protos and production machines
> for all three He 177A-3 versions (/R1, /R2 and /R3) max speed is given as 480km/h, Cruising speed as 410km/h, that for A-5/R2 was 440 max and 380 cruising and A-5/R-7 as 520 and 440km/h but A-5/R-7 had much reduced armament. And in Eric Brown’s Wings of the Luftwaffe He 177A-5 specs are given as following Max speed at max loaded weight 440km/h at 5700m, how it happened to be the same as that for A-5/R2 in Griel’s and Dressel’s book with same armament than given in Brown’s book.
> Browm gives also the speed at 80% max loaded weight as 487km/h at 5700m.
> ...



In brief, the popular books list all sorts of specs for the plane, there`s only one thing common, and that is that the power output used, the altitude, loading it refers to is rather obscure. Groehler, for example, lists the A-5 at 565 km/h. 

I wouldn`t put much faith in Griehl`s accompanying text and specs. They have proven to be most unreliable in cases, ie. Griehl/Drassel on one of their books appearantly believes things like the 109K-8 with the MK 103, K-10, K-12 and K-14 being delivered in 'small numbers' in the 'closing months of the war'.

Which is pure hogwash of course.



Juha said:


> And explanation for 565 km/h. From A. Price He 177 Profile.
> 
> After turning towards London at 17.000ft halfway between Wash and London...crews dropped bombs over London at 15500ft and after that continued their descent at appr. 600ft per min and by such means we able to keep up speeds of *over 350mph* during their withdrawal phase…The bombers crossed the French coast at Boulogne at an altitude of 2500ft.



Compare with :



Juha said:


> *So 565 km/h is a speed attained during A LONG SHALLOW DIVE*. One can find the same also from Griel’s and Dressel’s book.



Reading comprehension troubles, appearantly.

Alfred Price - appearantly qoting Greif crews? - notes _over_ 350mph/565kph were kept up during shallow dives. You would wonder if they specify that 350 mph... and why speeds_ over 350 mph_ could be reached in shallow dives. Why not 300... or 330? 




Juha said:


> Those speed 600-650km/h were attained in a bit steeper dive, one can look that for ex. Price’s Luftwaffe Handbook. I wonder why to post max speeds attained in dive without clearly stating that they were speed attained in dive.



Because that would be a lie, and that`s appearantly your department, see above.



Juha said:


> If you sometimes bothered to read on subject on question, *4 t was a load for average service pilots,*



Source for that please.



Juha said:


> “I will have to ignore you on this board from now on.”
> Oh, nice to hear that, much appraised!



I certainly I won`t miss this frustrated ruckuss. So please consider yourself ignored from now on, and please note that also means I will not respond if you start your barking at me next time only point out that you have a short memory or trouble understanding what 'being ignored' means.



Juha said:


> And not surprising, I’m not mind



Well, _THAT_ is certainly the last thing I would accuse you with.

Cheerio.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2008)

Folks - I'm stepping in now, I want the jabbing to stop or I shut down the thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2008)

They bitch like little girls dont they?


----------



## Juha (Jan 14, 2008)

Kurfürst
350mph=c. 565kmh, very simple!
Why that speed, probably tried to make life as difficult as possible to British night-fighters. Again simple.
4t sources already given.

And there are some text on Oper Steinbock
for ex Ken Wakefield's article in The Blitz then and Now and according to it
in Jan loss rate was 7,8%, 57a/c lost
in Feb 5,2%, 72a/c
in March 8,3% , 75a/c
in April 8,7%, 75a/c

so the operation seemed to be a disaster to LW bomber arm, as has been claimed.

Juha


----------



## Udet (Jan 14, 2008)

Off-topic type of start but as i have commented on other threads the Steinbock raids were an unwise decision that further contributed to dramatize the situation of Germany´s dwindling resources (fuel -precious-, pilots/crews/groundcrews/, raw materials, aviation labor force, etc)....i however will agree with Kurfurst the Steinbock raids are yet to be fully researched and published. Other than the classical allied prescription of "utter failure" and "repulsed with catastrophic losses" we do not come across any indepth analysis.

I will agree the Luftwaffe achieved little if anything but something´s missing about such episode 

In the dozens of books i have about aerial warfare in the ETO, the Steinbock raids deserve only a few lines or paragraphs. Something that i could compare with Luftflotte 4 -under von Richtofen- devastating bombing raids against soviet oil facilities in Grozny during the advance to the Caucasus...hardly known, hardly mentioned yet brutally successful taking minimum losses (less than 1% of bomber force committed).

In this type of threads there will always be this sort of automatic tendency to consider the Allied hardware the best.

I am sure the He 177 was a very fine craft with lots of potential -and not necessarily more technical problems than the B-29- but saw service in limited numbers and did not have any chance for making any measurable contribution in favor of Germany´s war effort.

I have studied operations of KG 40 and KG 100 in the past -two units that used the He 177 in operations- and their loss ratio seemed anything but "catastrophic". In fact, and as i seem to recall, loss rate for the B-29 is worse: a total of ~1,950 ships delivered losing ~650 from all causes...consider timeframes for B-29 operations in the PTO and the result ain´t very flattering: first bombing runs were flown from India and China (June 1944); first combat missions flown in the Pacific did not occur until late 1944 (October) involving B-29s based in the Marianas...during said period of time the Japanese aerial forces of the time were in real poor shape, nowhere near close to the type of fighter opposition faced by the 8th and 15th AFs in the ETO during the same time. Of the approximate ~650 B-29´s lost in operations, something around ~120 were due to enemy action, less than 25% of the total losses...this leaves a 75% of losses due to causes other than enemy actions: accidents, technical problems...could this lead us to assume the B-29 was not as good as portrayed?

Correct me if necessary but while i could not mention details on the matter, there were some technical problems on the B-29 that were never solved during the time the model saw combat operations.

If you consider the fact a large number of the He 177s deployed in operations flew their missions over the sea it would then be reasonable to assume the He 177 was a reliable plane, reliable enough to allow for such type of missions -this to counter the other classical tale of "never ending engine problems that plagued the bomber"-.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2008)

Excellent points Udet....

I think when all gathered the B-29 had an overall combat loss rate of something like 10% in both WW2 and Korea. The aircraft did have a high accident attrition rate (when compared to day's world) as much was asked of it in it's early deployment. I would also throw in that some of those lost to "accidents" might of been subjected to destruction while performing ferret missions - this may only take up a small amount but may play slightly into that attrition rate.

Imagine being a 22 year old 1Lt. with maybe 300 hours and maybe with 100 hours in B-17s or B-24s and then suddenly finding yourself in an aircraft like the B-29. As the old saying goes "an accident waiting to happen." But that was the way of the world 60 years ago.


----------



## Juha (Jan 14, 2008)

Udet
if you are interested in KG40 and Kg 100 in Griehl's and Dressel's book there are pp. 123-137 on He 177 in service with KG 40 and pp. 137-150 on He 177 in service with KG 100, some of the pages has only pictures. If you can read German then IMHO the original is better than the English translation.

While checking the service history pages I found the info on he 177's Reichweite bei 1000 kg Bomben 4750 km for A-3 and 4650 km for A-5.

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 14, 2008)

There`s some interesting info popping up in a thread over TOCH boards started by one of the alts of KK/ALS, appearantly in search of a bit fuel.

Since he is either unable/unwilling to share this information with this board, let me quote the reply of 'Adam' from over TOCH about *LW Steinbock sorties and losses.*

Operation Steinbock question - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum



> Between 1 Jan and 31 May '44 the Luftwaffe launched about 4,426 bomber sorties and lost 243 of these (to enemy action). In addition, 227 Jabo sorties were launched (10 losses) while the RAF put up at least 4,400 night fighter sorties to counter these operations during the five months.
> 
> As to whether it was worth it or not - depends entirely upon which side you a referencing for an answer. For the Luftwaffe it killed civilians and military personal alike (satisfying Hitler's call for vengence), it disrupted to a degree the British production base and diverted a/c otherwise useful in offensive operations away from such operations. For England it was a minor inconvenience that did well to sap the already over-taxed kampfwaffe in the build up for Overlord and at the same time diverting units away from the Russian and southern theatre of operations.



A reasonable summary IMHO. This works out as :

1 January - 31 May 1944, LW Steinbock operations

4,426 bomber sorties
243 lost to enemy action
5.49 % loss rate

227 Jabo sorties 
12 lost to enemy action (+ 7 crashed, +1 friendly fire)
5.28% enemy / 8.81 % total loss (though the statistical base is very small

4400 + RAF night fighter sorties

This in five month period. To put it into context, in the four month period of BoB (July-October) 488 level bombers were lost to enemy action.

The RAF BC`s parallel campaign on Berlin : Battle of Berlin (air) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_The 16 raids on Berlin cost Bomber Command more than 500 aircraft, with their crews killed or captured, which was a loss rate of 5.8%, well above the 5% threshold that was considered the maximum sustainable operational loss rate by the RAF.[11] Daniel Oakman makes the point that "Bomber Command lost 2,690 men over Berlin, and nearly 1,000 more became prisoners of war. Of Bomber Command’s total losses for the war, around seven per cent were incurred during the Berlin raids. In December 1943, for example, 11 crews from No. 460 Squadron RAAF alone were lost in operations against Berlin; and in January and February, another 14 crews were killed. Having 25 aircraft destroyed meant that the fighting force of the squadron had to be replaced in three months. At these rates Bomber Command would have been wiped out before Berlin."[12]_


----------



## delcyros (Jan 14, 2008)

I unfortunately have no scanner here but here are some stats for the He-177A5 (Nowarra, Vol.2, p.230f.): 
max. fuel: 12.400l. (overloaded)
long range fuel: 9.610l
middle range fuel: 7.610l 
short range fuel: 5.610l (=max. bombload: 7.2t.)
-from these number it should be possible to verify the range with the DB-610A/B fuel consumption figures-

payloads: max: 7.2t.
normalinternal: 48 x 70Kg, or 10 x 500Kg, or 6 x 1000Kg or 2 x 2500Kg
external hardpoints for 3 x Hs 293/4 or 3 x PC 1400FX or torpedoes

Ferry range is specified with 5.600Km.
The range is given with 3.700 Km, payload not specified.
Cruise speed is given with 510 Km/h, payload not specified.
top speed is given with 540 Km/h, payload not specified.

The 3.700Km range is from my understanding the range with normal payload (5t.), short range would be ~2.500-2.800Km at 7.2t. payload and long range would be 4.200-4.400Km at 3t.? perhaps someone could verify this with He-177 Werksausgabe, Bed.-Vorschrift, 1943, 
Operating instruction, flight manual. D(Luft)T2177A5?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 14, 2008)

delcyros said:


> I unfortunately have no scanner here but here are some stats for the He-177A5 (Nowarra, Vol.2, p.230f.):
> 
> ...
> The range is given with 3.700 Km, payload not specified.
> ...



Interesting. I did some calculations to figure out what engine rating the 510 and 540 figures refer to. The difference is 5,88 %. Power requirements increase on the cube, so to get 510 -> 540 km/h, you will need appx. 18.7% power.

Assuming 'cruise' means maximum continous cruise settings (Höchtz. Dauerl.), this would mean 1080 PS at rated altitude, increasing this by 18.7% yields 1282 PS (and there`s some inaccuracy with these rough calculations).

The 30-min rating was 1250 PS (stating) at altitude.

*It would seem thus the 540 km/h figure is understood for 30-min Military power, or 100% Steig und Kampfleistung in German terms.* Given that, the 565 km/h figure seems reasonable at 110%, 5-min WEP rating or Startleistung.

It should be noted though that with a plane of such size, the top speed would be more sensitive the loading than with fighters.

In any, 510 km/h _for cruise_ is _massively_ impressive for a bomber of this size. The Mosquito FB VI, for example, was measured at 544 for cruise.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 14, 2008)

Udet said:


> In fact, and as i seem to recall, loss rate for the B-29 is worse: a total of ~1,950 ships delivered losing ~650 from all causes...consider timeframes for B-29 operations in the PTO and the result ain´t very flattering: first bombing runs were flown from India and China (June 1944); first combat missions flown in the Pacific did not occur until late 1944 (October) involving B-29s based in the Marianas...during said period of time the Japanese aerial forces of the time were in real poor shape, nowhere near close to the type of fighter opposition faced by the 8th and 15th AFs in the ETO during the same time. Of the approximate ~650 B-29´s lost in operations, something around ~120 were due to enemy action, less than 25% of the total losses....


I think your general point is reasonable, but I'd question the numbers somewhat on B-29's. The USAAF Statistics Digest gives 414 B-29's lost on combat missions (how I would interpret 'on operations') of which 147 were specifically attributed to enemy action. (that represented a 1.3% per sortie loss rate for the total; and it includes both China and Marianas operations; 8th/15th sortie loss rate was 1.6%). Maybe your total includes training including in the US? Also, some B-29 losses to 'other cause on combat mission' might be planes damaged over Japan by enemy action. On a tangent, it's often said that that's true of B-29 loss accounting in Korea but tracking down each one I found it was rarely true, the official combat loss number was approximately correct in that war, but I've seen several examples in WWII where damaged planes that couldn't make it back all the way to the Mariana's were counted as 'other'. The % might be higher than in Korea also, though I'm not sure how high. At some point somebody may go through all the WWII B-29 losses from original records and reclassify their causes (or maybe somebody has, but not that I know of); AFAIK the details still exist.

Also turning your point around about opposition, lack of consisently highly tough opposition is one reason the proportion of operational losses was higher for the B-29; the more difficult operational conditions, distance particularly, were another. Also, the opposition varied a lot, was not consistently weak. The intial campaign from the Marianas v Japan Nov '44-Feb '45 was unescorted in daylight, with no 'milk runs' available v targets in occupied Europe like the 8th could do when it needed a break from its attempt at unescorted raids over Germany ca. 1943. And the Japanese rammed extensively, see Henry Sakaida's "B-29 Hunters of the JAAF" for two-sided treatment; that accounted for most of the B-29's downed by hostile action in that initial phase, and was quite a difficult tactic the 8th and 15th seldom had to deal with. Later on opposition waned, both in the night raids from March 1945 for which Japan was less prepared and when daylight ops resumed alongside night from April to the end of the war.

But I agree with you, the B-29 in its early WWII operation mid 1944- early 45 was a pretty buggy airplane, I don't think anyone familiar with its history would contest that as general statement. And not all those bugs were ever competely ironed out; it still suffered a somewhat elevated operational loss rate even in Korea, though much lower by then, and lower even as 1945 went on.

Joe


----------



## delcyros (Jan 15, 2008)

The official post war Very heavy bomber investigation (only B-29) give the following numbers:

Losses B-29 during it´s ww2 career:
in combat:
to enemy action (confirmed): 148
to operational factors: 151
to unknown causes: 115 (some been rammed)
to training accidents / ferry flights on theatre of action: 97
written off / canibalized due to damage received in action: 286
in the US:
to training accidents: 260

total on theatre of action: 809
total during ww2: 1069

production B-29:
B-29: 2513=
Boing -Wichita: 1620, producing the last B-29 in oct. 45.
Martin-Omaha: 536
Bell Marietta: 357
B-29A: 1119, the last beeing produced ?
B-29B: 339, the last been produced ?
total: 3.971 (including production after VJ-day)

This is about 1/3 to 1/4 of all B-29 produced in ww2 beeing lost or written off. All training accidents ca. 33%, operational losses ca. 39% (all causes) and written off due to damage received ca. 27%.


----------



## model299 (Jan 15, 2008)

I realize that overall, the Lanc is probably the superior plane technically, but my screen name and a look at my avatar will tell you which plane got my vote.


----------



## Juha (Jan 15, 2008)

Hello Delcyros
a bit strange that Novarra gives exactly 100km/h greater max speed than that given in Griehl's and Dressel's book or in matter of fact in Brown's book. From G's D's book is clearly seen that they have went through a lot of original technical documents on He 177. In my copy of Brown's book I have noted on mariginal that on p. 207 of Roderich Cescotti's Kampfflugzeuge and Aufklärer in Die Deutsche Luftfahrt series, which I have understood is rather authorative book, gives the same specs than those in Brown's book but some ammo figures plus some extra info, propeller diameter etc. Now I cannot recall exactly what the He 177 pages looked in Cescotti's book but I recall that in Do 17 part he had reproduced pages from original pilot's notes and speed graps because some of them were the same that can be found from Finnish Air Force papers. What's your opinion on Cescotti's book?

Juha


----------



## Udet (Jan 15, 2008)

JoeB said:


> I think your general point is reasonable, but I'd question the numbers somewhat on B-29's. The USAAF Statistics Digest gives 414 B-29's lost on combat missions (how I would interpret 'on operations') of which 147 were specifically attributed to enemy action. (that represented a 1.3% per sortie loss rate for the total; and it includes both China and Marianas operations; 8th/15th sortie loss rate was 1.6%). Maybe your total includes training including in the US? Also, some B-29 losses to 'other cause on combat mission' might be planes damaged over Japan by enemy action. On a tangent, it's often said that that's true of B-29 loss accounting in Korea but tracking down each one I found it was rarely true, the official combat loss number was approximately correct in that war, but I've seen several examples in WWII where damaged planes that couldn't make it back all the way to the Mariana's were counted as 'other'. The % might be higher than in Korea also, though I'm not sure how high. At some point somebody may go through all the WWII B-29 losses from original records and reclassify their causes (or maybe somebody has, but not that I know of); AFAIK the details still exist.
> 
> Also turning your point around about opposition, lack of consisently highly tough opposition is one reason the proportion of operational losses was higher for the B-29; the more difficult operational conditions, distance particularly, were another. Also, the opposition varied a lot, was not consistently weak. The intial campaign from the Marianas v Japan Nov '44-Feb '45 was unescorted in daylight, with no 'milk runs' available v targets in occupied Europe like the 8th could do when it needed a break from its attempt at unescorted raids over Germany ca. 1943. And the Japanese rammed extensively, see Henry Sakaida's "B-29 Hunters of the JAAF" for two-sided treatment; that accounted for most of the B-29's downed by hostile action in that initial phase, and was quite a difficult tactic the 8th and 15th seldom had to deal with. Later on opposition waned, both in the night raids from March 1945 for which Japan was less prepared and when daylight ops resumed alongside night from April to the end of the war.
> 
> ...



Joe, hello.

I did the numbers from memory. I am sure more than 2,000 B-29s were produced during the war -around 2500- but no more than that (2,000) were sent into combat operations in the PTO.

One person told me once that nearly 4,000 B-29s were built during WW2, but i did not believe the figure; after further asking i was confirmed the 4,000 airplane figure was for the entire B-29 production era, which of course includes post WW2 versions of the B-29 that were produced.

Now, the ~650 B-29s lost from all causes during WW2 did not include training losses that ocurred in the U.S.A.

Now according to numbers posted by Herr Delcyros here total losses are somewhat higher, quote:

Losses B-29 during it´s ww2 career:
in combat:
to enemy action (confirmed): 148
to operational factors: 151
to unknown causes: 115 (some been rammed)
to training accidents / ferry flights on theatre of action: 97
written off / canibalized due to damage received in action: 286

*Total: 798 B-29´s lost*

It´d be interesting to know what should we understand by "operational factors" though; losses from engine or other technical problems (bugs) perhaps?

As for those lost in training flights in the U.S.A. i was familiar with the figure of ~260 ships lost, consistent with the number on Herr Delcyros´ posting.

This should be critical in comprehending how buggy and complex the aircraft was in reality: ~260 planes lost in training flights in the U.S.A. would account for nearly 10% of the approximate total number of B-29s produced during WW2...not what you´d call a low figure eh?

So the poor He 177, which was pressed into service during a time when it was not really required, and in limited numbers only -also belonging into the defeated "evil" side- gets all the rotten eggs and tomatoes thrown at. This is bizarre, the Germans seemed to have finally fixed all bugs on the He 177, while U.S. engineers seemed uncapable of solving their own for the most part of the operational history of the B-29 during WW2.

I was of course referring to loss % examined against total number of B-29s deployed in operations; yes, it is only one approach, but it is exactly the same thing done by the Allied boys when referring to the Steinbock raids of the Luftwaffe against Great Britain in the first 5 months of 1944, when a bomber force of ~550 planes was assembled and launched against England. They say that by the end of May, 1944 that from the initial number (~550) only a few bombers remained, thus the "catastrophic" nature of the Steinbock raids.

We seem to agree here Joe, the B-29 was not a less buggy plane than the He 177, but for some "odd" reason such details are oftenly overlooked in the case of the B-29 focusing mainly on his battle exploits (ie. incinerating Japan´s paper and wood housing and cities, slamming their industry, the atomic bomb, etc.); we can not say the same about the He 177...search the internet for "He 177" and you will find loads of crappy webpages focused mostly -and mainly- on those "troublesome engines catching fire"; someone first came across such data, put it on a webpage, then like a virus spreading across the land, many others simply copied the same data without bothering to read or research further and put it on several other webpages. Selective use and manipulation of information that is, tainted with the vision of the victors.

As for operational conditions i agree: the B-29´s flying from the Marianas had to fly across a vast extension of ocean but the He 177s too had to operate in the open sea, and they did it in the majority of missions flown, mainly in KG 40 and KG 100; acknowledged is the fact distances covered by He 177s of KG 40 and KG 100 over the sea were not of the dimension observed in the PTO, but its still open sea and the plane performed very well in that scenario losing only a few from technical problems.

Finally Joe, i came along with this to state my view that ~30% of B-29s deployed against Japan were lost from all causes. Overall that´s certainly high. Understood are your arguments of operational conditions and enemy oppossition (fighter force and AA defence), but i believe you will agree with me that by the time the B-29 commenced flying from the Marianas (late 1994) the Japanese were horribly mauled and their home defence systems were way behind those of Germany; if the enemy they confronted was not strong enough to threaten B-29 formations, perhaps the B-29 itself was its own most dangerous enemy; they were lucky the Japanese proved uncapable of organizing and developing a more effective fighter/AA system. 

Also do you have any numbers of B-29 losses over Japan during the time they flew unescorted...i do not, but i am confident to affirm that any B-17 or B-24 pilot that flew over the Reich prior to the arrival of long rage escorts (P-51s) in 1943 and early 1944 would have found flying unescorted bomber missions over Japan the most joyous of the rides.

Had the B-29 then faced the type of Flak defence systems and fighter strength similar to that of the Germans, then it is not daring to assume their losses could of been quite higher.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 15, 2008)

3895 B29's were built between July 1943 and Sept 1945. Only 9 B29's were built in Oct, Nov and Dec 1945.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2008)

Again interesting points Udet but a few things to consider....

The B-29 was a weapons' system that HAD to work - the US was depending on its success and even though there were bugs that were never worked out they were accepted as "collateral flaws" something I think every aircraft has. As far as the 177 - a promising airframe that had a lot stacked against it. First off you had the Luftwaffle not embracing the four engine strategic bomber concept. I don't believe the He-177 never had the strategic importance behind it. Combine that with limited strategic resources and the "dive bombing" requirement and you have set a recipe for failure - and maybe not the fault of the initial design.

As far as the losses of the B-29 - you had a "state of the art aircraft" being rushed into production and deployment during a wartime urgency and flown by kids. Considering those factors I'm surprised the losses weren't more. As far as those "unknown" losses - I doubt the majority of those could really be attributed to Japanese interceptions and "rammings." I don't know what kind of numbers JoeB could come up with from the Japanese camp but I would have a hard time believing that they were a majority of that 115.

It's hard to say how the 177 would of played out and allowed to mature and then subjected to the same production numbers and urgency the B-29 went through. I still believe the B-29 was technically superior but the 177 wasn't that far behind. Also consider those post war training accidents that occurred during the formation of SAC - little risk mitigation, LeMay wanted results and nothing more - I think there were a lot of unnecessary risks that resulted in the loss of many men and aircraft.

Written off aircraft that made it back to their base - I don't consider them losses in the sense of being lost to fighters or flack. If the crew makes it back with the "asset" and that asset can be utilized to keep other assets flying - then it has served a purpose - it relieved part of the "supply chain."


----------



## drgondog (Jan 15, 2008)

Udet said:


> In this type of threads there will always be this sort of automatic tendency to consider the Allied hardware the best.
> 
> *All too true*
> 
> ...



I think the major issue with all these comparisons, as you have put out before is that aren't comparable mission profiles.. how many want to fly a He 177 from Guam to Tokyo and bomb from 28,000 feet in a headwind of 200mph? with a 9,000 pound bomb load?

I'm glad I didn't fly either one at the edge of their performance profiles.

Tip of the hat A,

Bill

PS we had snow on New years and the wolfhounds were hysterical dashing about like kids!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2008)

Also consider the airframe itself. Was their room for growth? The B29 added a crew member with specialized eqmt (radar and ECM) *AFTER* the design had been frozen and it was in production. Could the German design do that? It looked awfully cramped in there. Hardly any room to add all new weapons systems and additional aircrew.

What about the bomb bay? Could it handle oversize bomb loads without airframe modifications? The B29 could handle internal stowage of any bomb the allies had, save two.... the Grand slam and A-Bomb.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 16, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello Delcyros
> a bit strange that Novarra gives exactly 100km/h greater max speed than that given in Griehl's and Dressel's book or in matter of fact in Brown's book. From G's D's book is clearly seen that they have went through a lot of original technical documents on He 177. In my copy of Brown's book I have noted on mariginal that on p. 207 of Roderich Cescotti's Kampfflugzeuge and Aufklärer in Die Deutsche Luftfahrt series, which I have understood is rather authorative book, gives the same specs than those in Brown's book but some ammo figures plus some extra info, propeller diameter etc. Now I cannot recall exactly what the He 177 pages looked in Cescotti's book but I recall that in Do 17 part he had reproduced pages from original pilot's notes and speed graps because some of them were the same that can be found from Finnish Air Force papers. What's your opinion on Cescotti's book?
> 
> Juha



Hi Juha,

I don´t think the numbers necessarely contradict each other. That´s because the payload isn´t specified but has a huge impact on top speed. The He-177 tested in England was reported to have a top speed of 483 Km/h at something like 80% gross weight at slightly different altitude. I could imagine that the Nowarra figure belongs to top speed in it´s original sense (i.e. without payload, as none is specified-he specified the load on other bombers), while other figures belong to loaded conditions. This would be in within typical margins of other bombers. However, as I pointed out above, the flight instruction manual, which I haven´t seen so far, contains the information You want to get.

best regards,
delc


----------



## Juha (Jan 16, 2008)

Thanks Delcyros
I'm still a bit sceptical. IMHO the weight itself should not have very big influence on speed, but of course I might be wrong. 177A-3 usually carried its bombs internally, IIRC only 2*SC2500 load was carried externally, so dropping the bombs should not have very big effect on speed. But not being expert on this I can be in error. I'm very busy now so I don't have time to check but IIRC max speed of Do17Z-2 at max load was 425km/h and 433km/h at 75% load according to German tests. So the speed difference wasn't big. It was different thing with a/c carrying most of their load externally, again IIRC Ju88A-4 max speed at max weight was 435km/h but after dropping its bombs its max speed was 475km/h.

Best Regards
Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Also consider the airframe itself. Was their room for growth? The B29 added a crew member with specialized eqmt (radar and ECM) *AFTER* the design had been frozen and it was in production. Could the German design do that? It looked awfully cramped in there. Hardly any room to add all new weapons systems and additional aircrew.
> 
> What about the bomb bay? Could it handle oversize bomb loads without airframe modifications? The B29 could handle internal stowage of any bomb the allies had, save two.... the Grand slam and A-Bomb.



good points...


----------



## delcyros (Jan 16, 2008)

Juha said:


> Thanks Delcyros
> I'm still a bit sceptical. IMHO the weight itself should not have very big influence on speed, but of course I might be wrong. 177A-3 usually carried its bombs internally, IIRC only 2*SC2500 load was carried externally, so dropping the bombs should not have very big effect on speed. But not being expert on this I can be in error. I'm very busy now so I don't have time to check but IIRC max speed of Do17Z-2 at max load was 425km/h and 433km/h at 75% load according to German tests. So the speed difference wasn't big. It was different thing with a/c carrying most of their load externally, again IIRC Ju88A-4 max speed at max weight was 435km/h but after dropping its bombs its max speed was 475km/h.
> 
> Best Regards
> Juha



You are welcome. I don´t want to convince anybody, just proposing what I have read. Everybody is free to draw his own conclusions, of course.
Adding 7t. of weight will have notable effects on performance. More if aerodynamic drag is induced by external loads. However, not weight per see reduces performances but cog-shift and, more important, the amount of power necessary to achieve a cruise speed / cruise altitude profile. This can be seen on the B-29 charts provided by HoHun.
A further notable difference is that the powersetting is not known for the top speed figures. I doubt that the DB-610 was ever cleared for 110% WEP, it was to troublesome (I might be wrong here), and it isn´t impossible that early engines possibly might have been limited even further artificially. I haven´t the necessary knowledge on this matter. A thoroughly made study of the engine and primary sources of the He-177 would be highly welcome to clear this. Perhaps someone can obtain a copy from the instruction manuals of the He-177 from the Luftarchiv Hafner.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 16, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>I'm still a bit sceptical. IMHO the weight itself should not have very big influence on speed, but of course I might be wrong. 

The size of the influence strongly depends on the altitude as well as on the relative load difference.

I just made a quick calculation based on a top speed of 520 km/h @ 5.7 km for a 31 t Heinkel He 177A-5/R2 using 1.3 ata/2600 rpm - these figures are from Heinkel datasheets, reprinted in the datasheet collection "Heinkel" (Aviatik-Verlag, no author/editor attribution).

With no payload, 50% fuel, 50% oil, I get a weight of 23915 kg, which gives a top speed of 545 km/h @ 5.8 km at the same power settings as above. (Ram effect is responsible for the slight increase in best altitude.)

However, if we look at altitudes above full throttle height, the difference is even more striking - at 31 t, the He 177 does 440 km/h @ 8 km according to my calculation, but at 23915 kg the possible top speed increases to 510 km/h at this height.

The reason for this large difference is that the large coefficients of lift necessary for flight at high altitude and heavy weights translate into very high induced drag, and getting rid of this weight increases the available excess power considerably.

If you ever wondered why high-altitude aircraft tend to have large wings - this is it 

(From the perspective of performance analysis, the large influence of flying weight makes it very difficult to come up with accurate figures as there are few good sources that give the complete data required for an accurate analysis. So take my speeds for the He 177 as illustrations for the principle only, I don't really have enough data on the type to make any bullet-proof statements.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Udet (Jan 16, 2008)

Syscom...can you confirm the figure for B-29s produced *during ww2*?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2008)

Udet said:


> Syscom...can you confirm the figure for B-29s produced *during ww2*?



The figure is very accurate. Its from my B29 production book thats a trove of information. production essentially ended in Sept 1945. I beleive the AAF was already comtemplating production of the B-50 and saw no reason to build the B-29 as it was.


----------



## Juha (Jan 17, 2008)

Thanks a lot Delcyros and HoHun
your answers made things clearier. I had wondered why they gave 80% of max weight performance but after reading HoHun's message I saw the light.

I had time to take a brief look on Do17Z and my memory had made one trick, the 433km/h speed wasn't for 75% load but for 7400kg which is nearer to 85% of max weight. And I admit that Do17Z was a bit different a/c than He177A.

Thankfully
Juha


----------



## albion (Oct 19, 2008)

Best ww 1 bomber Vickers Vimy.First plane to fly non stop across the Atlantic.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2008)

albion said:


> Best ww 1 bomber Vickers Vimy.First plane to fly non stop across the Atlantic.


*Brilliant! Just Brilliant!*


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 20, 2008)

I think people in general read far to much into the defensive arguments on bombers, if trying to avoid interception speed and altitude are the crucial factors IMHO. For example take a look at arguably the Allies hardest planes to intercept. The Mosquito (speed) and the B29 (altitude). Obviously air superiority is the most important factor and even the heavily armed B17's were massacred before adequate fighter support.

Kurfust I agree that the Lancaster was a bomb truck. However in IMO that's what makes a good bomber. The Lancaster dropped a lot of bombs over Europe in WW2 and it gets my vote. 

Personally I don't see the point in a lot of the 'heavy bombers'. The B17 had a crew of 10, normal bomb load of 4000lbs and a speed of 500km/h give or take, while a plane such as the Mosquito had a crew of 2 and could carry the same payload at 550 km/h give or take? Why not send faster more agile Mossies and save yourself the risk of losing 8 more trained crew members.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 20, 2008)

The B-29 was pretty fast as well.

It should be noted that the B-17 could fit in the "altitude" category as well, (technically) being able to operate at the same high altitudes as the B-29 (the B-17 actually had a higher ceiling), but the operating conditions were much worse for the B-17 crews. (particularly for the gunners) 


The defensive armament vs performance argument for bombers is an interesting one in its own right, something I'm not quite sure on, but I tend to lean toward the performance side. 

However, besides smaller, agile aircraft like the Mossie, you could still argue the "performance" issue for aircraft like the B-17. Given it's fairly impresseve speed performance at altitude, immagine it stripped of all armament, reduced to minimum crew and possibly a pressurized cabin. Performance and range would significantly increase, and the crew would be half (or less).


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 20, 2008)

That is true, but they didn't operate operational in that specification. It would be very interesting. The only thing counting against the B17 is its payload. You also mentioned the altitude capabilities of the B17, was the B29 able to fly higher than the bulk of German late war interceptors? I know the Japanese really struggled to find a fighter with altitude to intercept the B29. I think the Germans had the perfect idea with the Arado 234.


----------



## panthergreen (Oct 20, 2008)

lancaster for bombload, range and quality of engines.


----------



## Glider (Oct 20, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *Brilliant! Just Brilliant!*



Better still when you realise that the Vimy missed the war.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 20, 2008)

Watanbe said:


> You also mentioned the altitude capabilities of the B17, was the B29 able to fly higher than the bulk of German late war interceptors? I know the Japanese really struggled to find a fighter with altitude to intercept the B29. I think the Germans had the perfect idea with the Arado 234.



I don't see whay the Ar 234 would be a particularly good choice. The High altitude versions of the Bf 109 with the AS/D engine (and/or GM-1) should have been fine at B-29 altitudes, granted it would take longer to intercept due to the added climbing time.

The Me 262 (and He 162) would also have been quite capable of combat at these altitudes.

The Ta-152H, being specifically designed for use at extreme altitudes, would obvioulsy perform well there, though its high altitude capabilities were a bit more than necessary for B-29 altitudes. (its ceiling being ~15,000 ft higher than the B-29's)

The Fw 190D-11/13 (and 152C) would also have worked fine. (though few were built)


The lower altitude rated Bf 109s (without the high-alt engine or GM-1) might have some problems there. (the ceilig was still quite high, but the performance was somewhat marginal at 30,000 ft) 
I think the Fw 109D-9 would be underperforming as well, with the A-8/9 even worse.
In these cases they would be quite vulnerable to escorts (particularly the P-47N, or P-51 with the V-1650-3) which had superior high altitude performance. Moreso the Fw 190's than the 109s, again with the A-8/9 being worst. (the A-8 absolute worst)



And on the B-17 in the 30,000 ft area, I don't know of the USAAF ever operating at this altitude on bombing missions, iirc they operated between ~25,000-27,000 ft. The British did attempt 30,000 ft runs (mid 1941) with their Fortress I's (B-17C) but were unsucessful at hitting anything, along with extreme cold leading to frozen guns. (it should be noted that these were fitted with the old Sperry, rather than the Norden bombsight)


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 20, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I don't see whay the Ar 234 would be a particularly good choice. The High altitude versions of the Bf 109 with the AS/D engine (and/or GM-1) should have been fine at B-29 altitudes, granted it would take longer to intercept due to the added climbing time.
> 
> The Me 262 (and He 162) would also have been quite capable of combat at these altitudes.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that Kitty I was unsure how it would perform against the German fighters. The source I have in front of me indicates the Ar 234B-2 max speed is 460mp/h (740km/h) at 26,250 ft. I would assume a plane capable at those speeds would be very hard to intercept. 

I see the purpose of a plane such as the B29 or Lancaster due to high payloads, but as much as I love them I cant seem to justify the purpose of B17's. I understand they were designed to operate without fighter protection but this was quickly proven unrealistic.

Interested to hear your response!


----------



## Soren (Oct 20, 2008)

Remember when the B-17 was designed, it wasn't really an up to date design by 1944.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Remember when the B-17 was designed, it wasn't really an up to date design by 1944.



That's the point I'm trying to make. With the benefit of hindsight, I believe it would have been better to produce larger amount of planes such as the Mosquito to fulfill the roll.


----------



## Waynos (Oct 20, 2008)

I have some old Flight magazines and it is very interesting to read the appraisals of the US aircraft being supplied to Britain during 1939-40.

In one 1939 edition the B-17 is described as being 'obsolete by any standard' (when the RAF was depending on the Whitley as its chief heavy bomber !!!!) and then goes on to make the astonishing claim that 'a B-17 might well be brought down by a single bullet'


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 20, 2008)

The Mosquito does not have the payload at long range as does any of the heavy bombers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2008)

Watanbe said:


> Personally I don't see the point in a lot of the 'heavy bombers'. The B17 had a crew of 10, normal bomb load of 4000lbs and a speed of 500km/h give or take, while a plane such as the Mosquito had a crew of 2 and could carry the same payload at 550 km/h give or take? Why not send faster more agile Mossies and save yourself the risk of losing 8 more trained crew members.


Because based on the technology of the time a squadron of heavy bombers still did more wide spread damage than a small number of fast moving bombers like the Mossie. And as far as carrying the same payload, it depended on the mission. A B-17 could carry up to 17,000 pounds on a short range mission.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 21, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Because based on the technology of the time a squadron of heavy bombers still did more wide spread damage than a small number of fast moving bombers like the Mossie. And as far as carrying the same payload, it depended on the mission. A B-17 could carry up to 17,000 pounds on a short range mission.



As I said, with the benefits of hindsight! I'm not doubting with the technology of the time that the B17 wasn't the best choice available. However I think with the benefit of hindsight it raises and interesting argument!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 21, 2008)

So, for example, had the USAAF used ~2x the number of high performance medium bombers (ie modified B-25, B-26, or the XB-28 ) instead of heavy bombers. It would still depend on cost too, the medium bomber would have to cost ~1/2 to be worth it. (in the previously mentioned "stripped down" configuration, the B-17 would be down to 4-5 crew members)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2008)

Watanbe said:


> As I said, with the benefits of hindsight! I'm not doubting with the technology of the time that the B17 wasn't the best choice available. However I think with the benefit of hindsight it raises and interesting argument!


In what way? You have large 4 engine bombers that could deliver a huge amount of bombs over a wide area verses a small fast bomber that was designed for pinpoint attack - its a matter of tactical vs. strategic and in the end a strategic approach prevailed.

Additionally there may of been some cost benefits in operating a mass of twin engine bombers as opposed to 4 engine, but additionally the structure of the Mossie did not lend it self for long term longevity. Working with wood in the field is difficult when compared to aluminum aircraft.

In the end I believe the heavy bomber prevailed and in a direct comparison the Mossie could not of accomplished the B-17's mission and visa-versa. Also consider the B-24 was side by side the 17 on the American effort over Europe, in fact over all, the B-24 was more widely used than the B-17.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 21, 2008)

Waynos said:


> I have some old Flight magazines and it is very interesting to read the appraisals of the US aircraft being supplied to Britain during 1939-40.
> 
> In one 1939 edition the B-17 is described as being 'obsolete by any standard' (when the RAF was depending on the Whitley as its chief heavy bomber !!!!) and then goes on to make the astonishing claim that 'a B-17 might well be brought down by a single bullet'



The RAF did NOT want to buy B-17s, did NOT believe daylight bombardment was possible, and IIRC even experimented with some 33-34,000 ft missions.

By the same token the USAAF would have balked at using the Mossie or Lanc in daylight missions.

It ultimately (national selection and commitment) to the best as combined air offensive did put a heavy strain on the Luftwaffe - much heavier than all daylight or all night strategic missions.

My personal belief is that LW does not lose air superiority had USAAF switched to night missions only. Escort fighters (with B-17 and B-24 as bait) were required to defeat German airpower and this doctrine would largely be ineffective over Germany at night.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 21, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In what way? You have large 4 engine bombers that could deliver a huge amount of bombs over a wide area verses a small fast bomber that was designed for pinpoint attack - its a matter of tactical vs. strategic and in the end a strategic approach prevailed.
> 
> Additionally there may of been some cost benefits in operating a mass of twin engine bombers as opposed to 4 engine, but additionally the structure of the Mossie did not lend it self for long term longevity. Working with wood in the field is difficult when compared to aluminum aircraft.
> 
> In the end I believe the heavy bomber prevailed and in a direct comparison the Mossie could not of accomplished the B-17's mission and visa-versa. Also consider the B-24 was side by side the 17 on the American effort over Europe, in fact over all, the B-24 was more widely used than the B-17.



I'm aware of that and not doubting the role of the B24, B29 and Lancaster. They are all excellent bombers with a high payload. The B17 IMO doesn't seem to have a large enough payload to justify itself, the key to the B17's success was its numbers. 

However, other reading your responses and further sources particularly on range with high payloads I am willing to concede my argument and accept that I'm wrong that a formation of Mossies would do a better job.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 22, 2008)

While I believe the course chosen with the B-17 and B-24 were correct, It's interesting to think how much aluminum could have been saved if Mossies were used. America had no shortage of lumber and If the Mossie were built in the US a lot of metallurgy resources would have been freed up...

Perhaps resulting in 30% more fighter aircraft???

It's also worth noting that even if the allies used huge numbers of lower altitude mosquitoes the Germans would have countered with appropriate medium altitude AA weapons and less 88s.

.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 22, 2008)

I think the B-17 still had its advantages, (the whole performance vs protection tradeoff asside) the B-17 was a lot more capable of defending isself than the Lancaster or Halifax, and due to the characteristics of these British bombers I don't think they were capable of being equipped with the same kind of armament. 

Also, I think the high altitudes the US bombers operated at also was necessary for the "bait" function for successful air battles of enemy fighters and escorts to gain air superiorety. At lower altitudes, it would have been much easier for the enemy fighters to get organized and attack from an advantageous position. (with the bombers taking much less time to reach) Also, flack would me much more of a problem the lower you go. Not to mention many LW fighters would be more in their element at medium altirudes (particularly the Fw 190s) further tipping the situational advantage.


And even though the B-24 isn't a contender in this list, I think the B-17 has some significant advantages. (though iirc the Liberator was cheaper and certainly more widely used) 
I think the B-17 was more rugged (at leat in some aspects), easier to fly, better ability for emergency landings (belly landings or heavy damage with control dificulties), better performance at altitude (particularly after bombs were dropped), slightly better overall armament configuration, higher max bombload (and capable of carrying larger indiviual bombs), higher operating altitude, and higher ceiling.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 22, 2008)

On the Mosie's construction: It was not of typical wooden aircraft construction, DH had been working with wooden aircraft or some time and had developed specialized materials. They used birch plywood sanwiched over balsa. Additionally their construction methods required skilled labor for much of the construction with furnature companies contracted for many parts of the airframe. Significant changes to the manufacturing would be necessary to make it suitable for the large scale US pruduction methods.

Additionally (as mentioned by FLYBOYJ) the construction of the Mossie would have meant repairs and maintence would be more difficult. Service life would also likely be shorter, with aircraft becoming "war weary" more quickly than metal counterparts. Finally, tropical climates would not be very friendly to it, so the CBI and PTO would be problematic.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 22, 2008)

AFAIK the Mossie's airframe life was indeed very short, ca 150 hours only, about 1/3 of that of all-metal single engined fighters.


----------



## Waynos (Oct 22, 2008)

De Havilland had a problem will ALL of their wooden aircraft coming unglued. Bill Gunston writes very scathingly of it in his book 'Back to the Drawing Board' which includes this picture of a DH 91 'in difficulty'. This picture caused much embarrassment for De Havilland when it was sent to a newspaper by a local shopkeeper, but in the 1960's Hawker Siddeley cleared it for release again!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2008)

We've discussed this several years ago....

When a mechanic repairs wood the environment has to be clean and sometimes temperature and humidity controlled, so you could see the problems an aircraft like the Mossie would have experienced in the long term. Additionally working with wood does require a special set of skills and many times repairs actually weaken the over-all structuer. Repairing aluminum structures is much easier IMO and because an aircraft is riveted together, large sections could be replaced without worrying about structutral compromise.


----------



## airboiy (Oct 22, 2008)

the mossie was a good plane, but small. go to the Air force Museum to see one.

about the poll, i'd have to go with the lancaster cause of it's ruggedness in the face of danger. it was also very manuverable for a heavy bomber


----------



## slaterat (Oct 26, 2008)

I voted for the lanc, it carried the biggest bomb load with great reliability, combined with adequate armour and defense for the role it was designed for, a heavy night bomber.


As a concept ,ie a heavily armed and unescorted day bomber, the B-17 was a failure. Its employment as an effective weapons system required a long range fighter escort component.

The Heinkel 177 was plagued by unreliable engines and never achieved its full potential due to developments in the war.

Slaterat


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 27, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> On the Mosie's construction: Finally, tropical climates would not be very friendly to it, so the CBI and PTO would be problematic.



This is true as the reports coming from operational Mosquito squadrons in the Pacific List skin mould as one of the major reasons for unserviceability of their A/C. In europe however this A/C was a formidable opponent, but as you also mentioned it was suseptible to airframe stress. 

A sad indication of this was when two Pilots rotating out from 617Sqdn Took one of the units Mosquitoes up for a "one last spin" this particular A/C had been part of the Famous Munich Raid and had probably been stressed beyond its limits by the requirements of that extremely dangerous Mission. During a turn the Mainspar on the DH 98 collapsed sending the A/C into the ground Killing both men whose names I unfortunately cannot remember at this time.

I have previously voted elswhere on the DH 98 being the best A/C of the War and if it was on the list here i would vote for it again.

This not being the case i feel its a no brainer Avro Lancaster again for versatility bomb capacity range and crew survivability. This should begin a few discussions, Cheers


----------



## drgondog (Oct 27, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> We've discussed this several years ago....
> 
> When a mechanic repairs wood the environment has to be clean and sometimes temperature and humidity controlled, so you could see the problems an aircraft like the Mossie would have experienced in the long term. Additionally working with wood does require a special set of skills and many times repairs actually weaken the over-all structuer. Repairing aluminum structures is much easier IMO and because an aircraft is riveted together, large sections could be replaced without worrying about structutral compromise.



Dead on. Before I got out of the Biz, we also had a similar conundrum regarding the 'new' composite' tailboom on the Hueys. A bitch to fix battle damage, whereas a 'c' ration can top can patch aluminum skin hole in an emergency.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2008)

I know it's getting a bit off topic, but did the Vampire's partially wooden fuselage construction give any problems in service? (or limit airframe longevity)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I know it's getting a bit off topic, but did the Vampire's partially wooden fuselage construction give any problems in service? (or limit airframe longevity)


I knew 2 people who operated them and they never had problems, but from what I remember a small portion of the nose was the only area made from wood along with the gun bay doors.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 27, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I knew 2 people who operated them and they never had problems, but from what I remember a small portion of the nose was the only area made from wood along with the gun bay doors.



Australia is aboriginal for "Vampire on a pole". They're everywhere!

This one is close by and regularly maintained by RAAF apprentices. You know its time for more work when the nose paint peels exposing wood rot. Of course our harsh environment doesn't help...


----------



## Timppa (Oct 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Additionally (as mentioned by FLYBOYJ) the construction of the Mossie would have meant repairs and maintence would be more difficult. Service life would also likely be shorter, with aircraft becoming "war weary" more quickly than metal counterparts. Finally, tropical climates would not be very friendly to it, so the CBI and PTO would be problematic.



This is actually worth a topic of its own.
Most of the Soviet fighters were all or partially wooden. LaGG-3/La-5/La-7 practically all wooden stuctures, Yaks had wooden wings and (later) wooden fuselage skins. Kept in front line conditions, which meant rain, mud, snow, ice. Late 109's had wooden tails.
Shores describes couple of incidents of structural failures of Mosquito, which caused temporary grounding in Burma. On the other hand, in one time two Mustangs were lost every week due to structural failure. Similar incidents with Spitfires, 109's etc.

I've never seen solid numbers of serviceability or failure rates of wooden planes compared to others.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2008)

Timppa said:


> This is actually worth a topic of its own.
> Most of the Soviet fighters were all or partially wooden. LaGG-3/La-5/La-7 practically all wooden stuctures, Yaks had wooden wings and (later) wooden fuselage skins. Kept in front line conditions, which meant rain, mud, snow, ice. Late 109's had wooden tails.
> Shores describes couple of incidents of structural failures of Mosquito, which caused temporary grounding in Burma. On the other hand, in one time two Mustangs were lost every week due to structural failure. Similar incidents with Spitfires, 109's etc.
> 
> I've never seen solid numbers of serviceability or failure rates of wooden planes compared to others.


You'll probably never know to what extent Soviet wooden aircraft had structural failures but I would gamble it was a lot higher than experienced by the rest of the allies. I could tell you one thing however - wood will maintain as long as the temperature and humidity environment remains close to constant. I seen wood aircraft brought from a cool environment into a desert environment. Many of the wood components shrunk and dry rotted while sitting in a hangar!


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 29, 2008)

My father was on board the HMS Eagle Operating Sea Venoms off inchon do they have the same construction as the Vampires


----------



## Waynos (Oct 29, 2008)

Yes they do


----------



## Graeme (Nov 3, 2008)

Watanbe said:


> That's the point I'm trying to make. With the benefit of hindsight, I believe it would have been better to produce larger amount of planes such as the Mosquito to fulfill the roll.



G'day Watanbe.

This is what De Havilland thought as well. They were working on a scaled-up version of the Mosquito, the DH-99, with high-altitude Sabre engines in early 1941. According to De Havilland two DH-99s could be built for the cost of one Short Stirling.

By their reckoning two DH-99s compared to a Stirling carried _"more bombs to the target in less time, for less crew hours, for less journey hours and less engine hours, and with much higher performance and manoeuvrability, though without guns."_





("Mosquito" Sharpe/Boyer 1971)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 3, 2008)

Was't the designation DH.99 also applied to the initially (all metal) proposal version of the Vampire? (the designation seems to have been recycled a couple times, earlier DH.99 had been used for a twin engined light civil aircraft project)


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 3, 2008)

Graeme said:


> G'day Watanbe.
> 
> This is what De Havilland thought as well. They were working on a scaled-up version of the Mosquito, the DH-99, with high-altitude Sabre engines in early 1941. According to De Havilland two DH-99s could be built for the cost of one Short Stirling.
> 
> ...



Very interesting thanks!


----------



## Waynos (Nov 3, 2008)

DH further developed the DH99 into the DH 101 to meet specification B.14/41 which broadly called for a bomber that could carry a 6,000lb load at 430 mph for 1,750 miles, it was not alone either for its chief rival to this spec was Sydney Camm's Hawker P.1005. 

According to the history of these projects in my posession these two designs were abandones due to the low production rate and non availability of Napier Sabre engines. DH initially designed a slightly scaled down Griffon powered deriviative called the DH 102 but eventually further development of the Mosquito itself met most of the requirement.


----------



## alejandro_ (Nov 16, 2010)

I have attached some data on He-177 speed and climb, its a bit blurry but readable.


----------



## davebender (Nov 16, 2010)

A good find as your data is for the mass production He-177A3 and He-177A5 models.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 18, 2010)

Very cool, where did you get that from?


----------



## alejandro_ (Nov 19, 2010)

National Archives at Kew. There are many documents with data on German aircraft.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 20, 2010)

But the whole problem with the bomber aircraft was that it needed the teeth to go into enemy territory and come back alive. This was an ability that the B-17 had in spades. B-17s had the ability to dish up potential hurt on enemy fighters. 

The Lancasters mainly became night-bombers because they didn't have the range and the ability to punch through into enemy territory in daylight hours. That is the mark of a good bomber especially now that radar means bombers can be picked up day or night...

The He-177 could really have given Germany an advantage in the Battle of Britain used wisely, escorted to take out the airfields and radar sites. Then the Germans would have had the run of the air if a large number of these were used in raids. The Allieds didn't really have that many really heavy bombers.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 20, 2010)

> The Allieds didn't really have that many really heavy bombers.



At what time?

and what is your definition of 'many'?

Even in 1943, the Allies were operating 400+ bombers during missions while the LW could only muster about 200 at best.


----------



## Glider (Nov 20, 2010)

HealzDevo said:


> But the whole problem with the bomber aircraft was that it needed the teeth to go into enemy territory and come back alive. This was an ability that the B-17 had in spades. B-17s had the ability to dish up potential hurt on enemy fighters.



The B17 was tough no question but it still had to wait for escort before it became effective.


> The Lancasters mainly became night-bombers because they didn't have the range and the ability to punch through into enemy territory in daylight hours. That is the mark of a good bomber especially now that radar means bombers can be picked up day or night...


The Lancaster had the range and as for daylight raids they were only really tried in numbers after control of the air had been won. How they would have performed with an escort earlier, we don't really know. There were some pretty good dayight raids but these could have been one off's.




> The He-177 could really have given Germany an advantage in the Battle of Britain used wisely, escorted to take out the airfields and radar sites. Then the Germans would have had the run of the air if a large number of these were used in raids.


While this is true its a bit like saying the Japanese wouldn't have got very far if the US had B29's at the time of Pearl Harbour. BOB 1940, reliable He 177 at least 1943. Pearl Harbour Dec 1941 B29 1944.



> The Allieds didn't really have that many really heavy bombers.



They had a heck of a lot more than any one else. A few thousand in operation depending on your timescale.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 20, 2010)

HealzDevo said:


> The He-177 could really have given Germany an advantage in the Battle of Britain used wisely, escorted to take out the airfields and radar sites. Then the Germans would have had the run of the air if a large number of these were used in raids. The Allieds didn't really have that many really heavy bombers.



With out a total time warp the He 177 would have simply provided the British with large, high value targets that the Germans could not afford to loose. If the Germans could have operated 1943 He 177s in 1940 you might have a point but a 1940 He 177, even assuming the engine fire thing was solved, would be using 1940 Luftwaffe guns for defense. No power turrets and either 7.9mm MG 15s or 20mm MG FF cannon with tiny drums (15-20 rounds?) in single hand held mounts. 
Engines would be another problem. a 1940 He 177 production plane would probably have had 2200hp 606 engines. They would also have had a lower critical hight than the engines used in later He 177s. Think of joining two of the 601s used in either the 109E or the 110C, not the later 601 'N's or 'E' engines let alone the 605s. Cutting 800-1000hp from the He 177 is going to seriously affect the performance as is lowering the critical hight ( Full throttle hight) of the engines down to around 13,000ft. Granted the 1940 He 177 might be little lighter due to not carrying the defensive armament of a 1942-43 model but I think we can see that it is going to need a LOT of escorting to have a hope of succeeding in a mission over the British Isles.
What does it do for the Luftwaffe in 1940 that double the number of Do 215s or Me 110s fitted with bomb racks do not?

edit> as for "heavy bombers" in 1940. I think that is what Whitleys were? Granted they were called a medium but being able to carry 7000lbs for short distances and 4,000lbs for 1650 miles kind of puts them in a rather rare class in 1940 for a plane in squadron service.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 21, 2010)

I am talking about in the Battle Of Britain. That is where I am saying that the Allied forces (Britain) at this stage had very few heavy bombers. I am saying that the He-177 could have been in service for BOB if it had been better thought out. I really do think it could have turned things used properly.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 24, 2010)

HealzDevo said:


> I am talking about in the Battle Of Britain. That is where I am saying that the Allied forces (Britain) at this stage had very few heavy bombers. I am saying that the He-177 could have been in service for BOB if it had been better thought out. I really do think it could have turned things used properly.



Things could have been 'turned' had the LW persevered on attacks against the Radar sites and RAF early and often... having said that the purpose was to achieve air superiority over England to support an invasion, and its not clear how Hitler was going to invade.... God knows Crete didn't work out, or any other Island that I am aware of.

Even with relative air superiority over the Channel and England, attempting to transport troops from France to England remained a LARGE question of 'how'?


----------



## Njaco (Nov 24, 2010)

> God knows Crete didn't work out, or any other Island that I am aware of.



With the possible exception of Guernsey Island. 




> I am talking about in the Battle Of Britain.



ok, with the possible exception of the attacks on London and the ports, against what targets would you employ these He 177s? I don't think you would need such a large machine to attack radar sites and airfields. As Bill pointed out, the purpose was to achieve air superiority over England to support an invasion and the radar and airfields would be priority one. But you also have to hit the RIGHT airfileds. Too many times during the Battle, the LW concentrated on satelite or Coastal Command airfields which brought nil to the objective.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 24, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Things could have been 'turned' had the LW persevered on attacks against the Radar sites and RAF early and often... having said that the purpose was to achieve air superiority over England to support an invasion, and its not clear how Hitler was going to invade.... God knows Crete didn't work out, or any other Island that I am aware of.
> 
> Even with relative air superiority over the Channel and England, attempting to transport troops from France to England remained a LARGE question of 'how'?



Agreed. I suspect Hitler wasn't planning a full frontal assault. He wanted the UK to invite Germans across the Channel. One likely scenario would involve the destruction/neutralisation of Fighter Command over Southern England which would have put London on the receiving-end of an unopposed LW air offensive, resulting in the evacuation of Government and, potentially, an opportunity for peace negotiations. Despite all Churchill's rhetoric, things would have looked exceedingly bad if the British Empire proved itself incapable of defending its capital city. Following peace negotiations, there would have been the inevitable "election" resulting in a pro-German parliament which could have "invited" the Germans over to help mop up isolated bands of resistance.


----------



## Gixxerman (Nov 26, 2010)

drgondog said:


> God knows Crete didn't work out



True but Crete was a near total disaster for the Germans because of Ultra (and according to something I read recently amongst the detritus of the defeated British forces, had they looked properly, the secret of Ultra was there to be seen, thankfully the Germans missed it, apparantly).

In the BoB Ultra had not really come of age and wouldn't, across the German forces, for at least another year....in fact Creet was probably the first major battle effected by it.


----------

