# FW 200 Condor



## carman1877 (May 27, 2009)

Need good pictures or videos of the Condor I couldnt find to may on search engines. Any interesting facts always wanted.

Also did it ever srafe targets? Pictures or videos if you can

Thanks


----------



## johnbr (May 27, 2009)

There is a new book coming out very soon on it.


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 27, 2009)

Try this video

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuF4wGkHA5g_

Hey by the way, found your post on defense talk... I think that the Condor could carry a torp


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 27, 2009)

I wonder why the FW 200 condor wasn't used during the Battle of Britain. Did it not operate well at high altitudes?


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2009)

the book has already been published via Ian Allan/Classic Publications

go pick up a copy, also a couple of you tube vids are in place for your enjoyment as well

check old book dealers for other books on the big K, use amazon it is your friend


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 27, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I wonder why the FW 200 condor wasn't used during the Battle of Britain. Did it not operate well at high altitudes?



That might be it, but it also might be because it was primarily designed for maritime duties. It also may not have had a very good net effectiveness. I mean this by that the Fw-200 could carry 3,000kg of bombs while much smaller aircraft such as the Ju-88 and He-111 could carry 3,600kg (overload) and 2,500kg respectively. It may not have been as cost effective to use a four engined bomber that could carry almost as much as two engined bombers could. Just a theory, maybe some more knowledgable people can chime in.


----------



## carman1877 (May 27, 2009)

Thanks Everybody, and that video helped to clear everything up. Flyboy thanks for the torpedo answer.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 27, 2009)

Here is a nice little book:

Aircraft Profile 099 - Focke Wulf Fw 200 Condor

Youtube has some really nice videos on it.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2009)

it could NOT carry a torpedo by the way. the unit KG 40 bombed shipping as well as strafed as much of the decking of Allied ships as possible once it flew over the intended target to keep the AA gunners down if at all possible. also it was a rarity to see two Kondors anywhere close to one another in flight or on the attack, primarily if at all possible to fly out of the sun low or even low over the white caps in foul weather

you best bet for answers is focus on composing a library and not depend on the net.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 27, 2009)

Never heard of them carrying a standard topedo, only bombs, mines, and missles. I'd heard of some tests on special guided torpedos (Henschel IIRC) - not sure if that what being thought of.


----------



## Watanbe (May 28, 2009)

"The scourge of the Atlantic"

I imagine a convoy would of shat themselves when they saw a Condor above!


----------



## Graeme (May 28, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Never heard of them carrying a standard topedo, only bombs, mines, and missles. I'd heard of some tests on special guided torpedos (Henschel IIRC) - not sure if that what being thought of.



G'day VB. The first photo in your post above is a Junkers Ju-290.

Some artwork by Mike Bradrocke for AE No.67.

From top to bottom;
200C-3
200C-4
200C-4/U1-U2
200C-4/U3
200C-6
200C-8/U10.


----------



## A4K (May 28, 2009)

Fantastic info guys!


----------



## ChrisMAg2 (May 28, 2009)

FYI
in post #10 the first photo *does not* depict a Fw 200 C, but a Ju 290 A.


----------



## Njaco (May 28, 2009)

Everybody beat me to it!! 

I would venture a guess that at the time of BoB, the Luftwaffe still wasn't convinced about using heavy bombers w/ 4 engines. RIP General Wever.


----------



## imalko (May 28, 2009)

Structural weakness of Fw 200 design also must be considered. This aircraft was primarily designed as airliner and only later military version was developed as maritime recon-bomber. There was many times when Fw 200 broke her back on landing. I think that this is the main reason why this aircraft was never considered by the Luftwaffe as heavy bomber.


----------



## davebender (May 28, 2009)

> why FW 200 condor wasn't used during Battle of Britain


German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What Fw-200s would they use? Germany produced 1 x Fw-200 during 1939 and 36 x Fw-200s during 1940. That's not even enough for long range maritime recon.


----------



## Erich (May 28, 2009)

correct Vikings pic is a late Ju 290A of FAGr 5, I have a couple of photos including full length fuselage shot in my base.

the maritime recon was a joke and it is interesting that KG 40 was able to kick out as much success as they had. FAGr 5 took over armed recee but was not really in the attack mode but in surveliance only allowing the KM to use it's U-Boot force to it's fullest, at least that was what was proposed in theory. This indeed was one of the worst blunders of the war for the Third Reich as little to no working capabilities between the Luftwaffe and the Kreigmarine.

Grame thanks for the schematics of the Kondor variants, although the C-6 depicted would of carried the FuG 200 "H" radar as standard

E ~


----------



## Watanbe (May 28, 2009)

The biggest asset the Condor had was its range. It could track the convoys so the U-Boats and surface ships could attack.


----------



## Erich (May 28, 2009)

but it was not enough this is reason why FAGr 5 although in too limited numbers replaced the KG 40 units Fw 200's on the maritime recon role


----------



## carman1877 (May 28, 2009)

Found a great video showing a bomb run out to a Britsh Convoy. Really shows how they used guns as offensive weapons and not just defensive. Also shows the bomb bay in the gondola, along with the gunners in the gondola.



German Condor Bomber - Captured Fim Titled Long Range Bomber Over the Atlantic


----------



## davebender (May 29, 2009)

The biggest asset the Condor had was it's availability (albeit in tiny numbers) as the German Navy failed to purchase long range maritime patrol aircraft during the late 1930s.


----------



## carman1877 (May 29, 2009)

The Condor's most have used time delay fuses on bombs becuase in the video they drop bomb 50 feet over ship and it should have blown up the ship and the plane instead it took about 3-4 seconds to detonate. Just a thought, could be wrong.


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jun 25, 2009)

I have a book with great pictures and specs on the planes which is one of my favorites. I will hopefully be uploading them soon.


----------



## flakhappy (Jun 26, 2009)

Erich said:


> correct Vikings pic is a late Ju 290A of FAGr 5, I have a couple of photos including full length fuselage shot in my base.
> 
> the maritime recon was a joke and it is interesting that KG 40 was able to kick out as much success as they had. FAGr 5 took over armed recee but was not really in the attack mode but in surveliance only allowing the KM to use it's U-Boot force to it's fullest, at least that was what was proposed in theory. This indeed was one of the worst blunders of the war for the Third Reich as little to no working capabilities between the Luftwaffe and the Kreigmarine.
> 
> ...


Good observation. We in 15th AF bomber crews speculated repeatedly that the only reason we were winning the war was because the Germans made many more goofs than we did. It was instructive to watch.
Our enemy couldn't seem to wind a watch without poor results.


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jun 26, 2009)

here is two Fw 200 Condor pics..one is from the invasion of Norway in 1940 ( F8+BH ) and the other is from one that emergencylanded in sweden at the end of the war in 1945 ( that is a C-5K version )


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Jun 26, 2009)

another shoot of a civilian Fw 200 Condor for Lufthansa


----------



## Juha (Jun 27, 2009)

Hello
I liked most the 3rd picture Flyboy2 posted, looks like the old cover of the old Revell Fw 200C 1/72 scale model from early 60s.

Juha


----------



## Deanimator (Jun 29, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I wonder why the FW 200 condor wasn't used during the Battle of Britain. Did it not operate well at high altitudes?


Production statistics aside, it was not a particularly robust airframe. Even for maritime missions, it wasn't strong enough to carry the weapon loads attempted.

The relevant volume of the old Doubleday Aircraft of WWII series had a very pertinent picture that demonstrates why the FW-200 wasn't used as a general purpose bomber. It shows an FW-200 sitting on a runway with the trailing edge of its wing sitting on the tarmac,the wing spar(s) having failed before or during takeoff. There are unexploded bombs scattered all over the runway around the aircraft. There's another photo of one whose back broke for the same reason.

It was all the FW-200 could do just to fulfill its role as a maritime patrol aircraft.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 28, 2011)

imalko said:


> Structural weakness of Fw 200 design also must be considered. This aircraft was primarily designed as airliner and only later military version ..................



Yes, I do agree. Structurally speaking, in short terms, the "Safety factor" 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety

of the Condor was that of a civilian airliner, and not that of a military aircraft.


----------



## vanir (Oct 28, 2011)

It was an improvisation, the Condor wasn't a bomber as we know, it was a "very long range" prewar airliner, built to break records but not to take gunfire or combat stresses.

It wasn't about a strategic air force, it was about a maritime one as again we know. Germany had neither a strategic air force nor a maritime one, shocking oversights but reasonable in the industrial environment. The Kriegsmarine had no dedicated air force, the Luftwaffe had to compensate and you have the issue with interservice rivalry for industrial resources in Germany. The Luftwaffe did not want to be subordinated to the Kriegsmarine, the system only worked well in limited engagements involving specialised, small unit formations like Fliegerkorps X. They were given unusual latitude for this role.

The Fw-200 combat modification then was a matter of utilitarian use of a surplus aircraft type valuable enough to a Navy to provide a strategic asset. It wasn't designed for it neither was it very good at it, but it was available and could do it. In a time where the Baltimore was a major British maritime bomber, the Condor seems amazing, but it is not a B-24. To the rest of the Luftwaffe the Condor, in the miniscule numbers it was represented little more than an addition to the transport fleet. So maritime bomber it was. Suits it, they don't normally fly over FlaK, and would never stand up to even a near miss if they did.

Biggest drawback was being a civilian design without being propaganda, really it was just an airliner, all the fuel lines were on the underside of the airframe as opposed to military aircraft which would protect them from groundfire. Rifle calibres with heat-tracers could bring one down if you hit it right. But ships/boats aren't exactly stable AAA platforms.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 28, 2011)

Nice post vanir, but, 



> In a time where the Baltimore was a major British maritime bomber,



Wasn't the Baltimore an American built medium bomber that saw RAF service in North Africa?


----------



## vanir (Oct 28, 2011)

Quite right, dammit, I was thinking of the Hudson. duh.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2011)

Ju 88H-1
Essentially a normal Ju-88 with an additional fuselage section that contained fuel tanks. Historically not funded until late 1942 but there's no reason the program couldn't have been funded by the German Navy during 1939. It could have been built concurrent with the Ju-88A. Makes more sense to me then purchasing converted airliners for about the same price.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 29, 2011)

davebender said:


> Ju 88H-1
> ...................but there's no reason the program couldn't have been funded by the German Navy during 1939. It could have been built concurrent with the Ju-88A. Makes more sense to me then purchasing converted airliners for about the same price.



I think that never, even in the most optimistic dreams, Raeder had in 1939 the idea that in June 1940 the Kriegsmarine was to operate from the harbours of Brest and La Rochelle (and from the surrounding airports) with a completely new perspective for the conduct of the war over (and under) the sea.

No wonder that they were unprepaired, and when the necessity arose, they had to use what they had immediately at hand.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2011)

And with 1200hp engines instead of 1600-1700hp engines a a 1939-1940 version is going to need a _really, really_ long runway to get into the air. With a fuel load of 10,245lbs (not including drop tanks) you are already 1100lbs over the max gross weight of an A-4 and you have no crew, oil for the engines, radar, cameras or guns. 

You know, maybe they went for the Fw 200 because it was a way to get a 3700-4800hp, 40-50,000lb airplane quickly (poor as it may have been) rather than try to cobble together a 2400hp, 35,000lb plane out of bits and pieces and trying to put up with the results. The Fw 200 was used primarily because the He 177 was behind schedule and turned out to be such a lemon. Maybe if they knew it would have been in production for as long as it was they would have done a more thorough job of converting it.


----------



## davebender (Oct 29, 2011)

Then build a 4 engine version of the Do-217. And build it that way right from the beginning so it enters service by 1941.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 29, 2011)

I don't believe the Kriegsmarine had much say in aircraft procurment. 

The Luftwaffe via Hermann Goering was in charge of anything to do with aircraft; hence even the aircraft of the Graf Zeppelin _(corrected from Graf Spee)_ aircraft carrier were to be opperated by the Luftwaffe.

It's somewhat boggling to think of the Bismark having to venture out with such little support. On the early morning of her sinking, crippled and without enough time to make repairs but still able to make a few knots, she was just within Luftwaffe (He 111?) range yet it would seem adaquete support to drive of or delay HMS KGV, Rodney and Nelson just wasn't there. A FW 200 sent later too look for survivors and reconoiter was itself shot down by carrier based Fulmar, a fairly slow aircraft.

Instead of the FW 200 Condor the *Junkers Ju 89 Bomber * could have been ready with adaquet engines (the 4 x Jumo 211J of 1420hp was available by then, a big increase over the 750hp of the prototype Ju 89V1). The Luftwaffe would be then sending out a 280mph aircraft instead of a 210mph aircraft with powerfull tail armament and better armouring and quite capable of surving Fulmars and likely Sea Hurricanes and Martlets. This aircraft by mid 1942 could have become a Ju 289 (instead of a Ju 290)

That would provide martime patrols to over 1100 miles, perhaps more and as much as 1500 miles radious in its Ju 289 form if Ju 290 range is a guide. Level bombing would certainly disrupt a battleship.

There was also no long range fighter escort. A *Focke-Wulf FW 187 * I suspect had a range of about 660 miles with its 1100L fuel, which likely would have been increased considerably by adding wing tanks. 

With 3 x 66 gallon drop tanks it probably could have provided an effective fighter escort with some loitre and considerable combat time out to 500 perhaps 600 miles to protect ships and recon aircraft against Beufighters and Mosquitos and even carrier born corsairs.

The Ju 88A4 had been somewhat knobbled in range and speed by the dive bombing requirement though with adaquet reconaisance and a range of 1420 miles it could probaby threaten shipping out to 600 miles using either dive bombing or topedoes.

The *Henschell Hs 127*, the Ju 88 initial faster more streamline rival of the Ju 88, would if kept lean and free of the dive brakes and structure required for tactical dive bombing should have been able to provide the luftwaffe a fast long range reconaisance aircraft bretter able to opperate in a high threat environment at great distances (I am assuming 900-1000 miles radious, similar to the Mosquito, due to aerodynmic efficiency). Moreover versions armed with forward firing 20mm guns and a internal bomb load it would be a serious threat to both ships as well as Allied maritime patrol aircraft, moreso than the Ju 88 which tried to fullfill this role. Prior to about early 1942 the Lotfe 7 and Stuvi 5B 'shallow slide' bombing sight are not available but after that this aircraft can very accurately bomb without dive bombing. Note however: A lone Me 109 for instance hit HMS Fiji and crippled her enough for Ju 88 to sink her so with training, as proven by the Mosquito, such bombsights are not neccesary.

No allied anti submarine aircraft should be completely secure within 500 miles of the French coast, as they were, and they should be threatened even out to 1000. This at least protects the u-boats in their dangerous transit through the bay of Biscay.

The Luftwaffe just didn't supply the Kriegsmarine the aircraft it needed to have a fair chance. Just keeping the u-boats secure out to 400-500 miles would have been enough. Even the Me 264 "Amerika Bomber" was actually directed at ultra long range martime patrolling with the performance to secure itself against carrier aviation threats.


----------



## Erich (Oct 29, 2011)

don't forget the dribs and drabs of the Ju 290 series of A/C which should have replaced the Fw 200 variants but only FAGr 5 had success with the Junkers over northern waters.


----------



## vanir (Oct 29, 2011)

Given Göring was the one who came up with the Nazi economic-industrial plan until Speer took over (Udet was a worshipper not a leader), the Kriegsmarine was buggered from the start.

Wanna know how the German aero industry dealt with Göring, I can document this. They ignored him (citing his projections as fanciful and fictional). Literally, Hitler stepped in and went schizo on them in Dec41 because they were still producing at peacetime industrial capacity, even that late into the war. Yes more loyal but stupid followers went to Dauchau. This was never addressed properly in the aero industry in Germany until late-43.

Mate they had no chance at an encompassing military industry, the whole Nazi basis of government was inherently flawed, these are the ways precisely how.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 30, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> ...hence even the aircraft of the Graf Spee aircraft carrier were to be opperated by the Luftwaffe...


The DKM Admiral Graf Spee was a heavy cruiser...

Perhaps you were thinking of the DKM Graf Zeppelin?


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 30, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> The DKM Admiral Graf Spee was a heavy cruiser...
> 
> Perhaps you were thinking of the DKM Graf Zeppelin?



Yes, that's what I meant. I've corrected my initial post.

The B17E first flight was September 1941, this was the first version with tail guns. The Lancaster entered service in early 1942. So it has to be kept in context that no one really had anything much better than the FW 200 till late 1941. Even the Shorts Stirling didn't achieve opperational capabillity till Jan 1941 and it borrowed the wings, tail empenage and engines from the Shorts Sunderland flying boat.

The He 177 was ambitious and built to the role but it wasn't really reasonably debugged untill late 1943, too late to make a difference. Had the aircraft been built with 4 seperate DB601/DB605 engines etc its likely the aircraft could have achieved reliable service sometime in 1942, even late 1942 would have been helpfull to the u-boats. With this engine arrangment facilitating interchange with more powerfull engines.

A proper 'thinking through' probably would have lead to a different pallet of aircraft than that actually used.


----------



## davebender (Oct 30, 2011)

The Fw-200 proved to be a very capable transport aircraft. The seven Fw-200s which participated in the Stalingrad airlift averaged 5 tons of cargo delivered per trip. 7 cargo aircraft are a drop in the bucket compared to what was needed. But it gives an idea what might have been accomplished if Germany had several hundred Fw-200 transport aircraft.

Price isn't a problem either as the Fw-200 was relatively inexpensive. 273,500 RM each @ a production rate of only four aircraft per month. Put the Fw-200 into mass production (i.e. at least 50 per month) and the price per aircraft should drop well below 250,00 RM. Less then the cost of the smaller American made C-47.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 30, 2011)

Oh the wonders of German aviation, so with 4 engines the FW-200 could only lift less than 1000 lbs more than a C-47, with both aircraft at max overload. The C-47 could carry 28 combat equipped troops, the Fw-200 30 troops. Two more engines to carry two more troops, wow.

Plus the BMW engines the Fw had burned about 15% more fuel per hour per engine than the C-47's engines.

If the Luftwaffe had more Fw-200 doing their heavy cargo, they'd have run out of fuel even quicker.

The C-47 was a bargain at any price.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 30, 2011)

some numbers for discussion. fw200 c1 from 1940 and c47 from 1942


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 30, 2011)

The figures I've seen max take off weight for the C-47 was 31,000 lbs, empty weight 18,135. About a 12,800 lift, fuel, oil, cargo and crew.
For the Fw-200 max take off weight 50,057 lbs. empty weight 37,490. About a 12,550 lift, fuel, oil, cargo and crew.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 30, 2011)

I posted out of the pilots manual of both aircraft. Where did you see yours? Could you place a link or picture of it? Just to get some factual data in on the discussion.


----------



## davebender (Oct 30, 2011)

24 different airlines purchased new DC-3 aircraft. 28 different airlines purchased new Ju-52 aircraft. It's safe to say both aircraft were an outstanding success. Not at any price but because they were considered cost effective.

As for the Fw-200, we will never know as WWII ended commercial sales just as they were beginning. But given the low price tag I think it would have sold well for airlines that operated long distance flights.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 30, 2011)

I'm not much on the cut and paste, but I can give several websites. Of course Wikipedia, and several other sites just reuse their info. But some independant sites are boeing.com aviationtriviainfo.com douglasc-47.com highlandlakessquadron.com pwencyclkgbudge.com. 

Those last two sites list it max allowed take off weight as 33,000 lb.

davebender, me and you both know those prices could not stay the same in a normal competitive world economy.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 30, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> The figures I've seen max take off weight for the C-47 was 31,000 lbs, empty weight 18,135. About a 12,800 lift, fuel, oil, cargo and crew.
> For the Fw-200 max take off weight 50,057 lbs. empty weight 37,490. About a 12,550 lift, fuel, oil, cargo and crew.



I think that data is wrong or simply for the FW 200 in its maritime bomber configuration: guns, armour, self sealing fuel tanks, ventral gondala for bomb aimer, two gunners and a bomb bay. This site gives 28500lbs empty for the bomber version:
http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_fockewulf_fw200_en.php


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 30, 2011)

I think you're right, I don't guess it's quite fair to compare a the C-47 in it's straight cargo version, to a Fw-200 converted to a maritime bomber.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 30, 2011)

The DC-3 may have been over built a bit which allowed for a later change in gross weight or "overload".

The Fw 200 may have been underbuilt just bit which lead to later structural failures and probably limited it's ability to be overloaded to the same extent. 

I would note that this meant that the DC-3 was lugging around extra weight when operated at normal take-off weights which meant that it wasn't quite as profitable as it could have been. I would also note that the FW 200 had been intended for very long range use and needed save every pound it could of structural weight. 

Stress analyses was still in it's infancy in the early/mid 30s and some aircraft designers didn't even have college degrees. Some small companies had ONE "stress" man. Some designers/companies allowed for more of a "fudge" factor than others . A wing failure of a Fokker aircraft that killed Knute Rockne (TWA 599) lead to a number of US regulations for commercial aircraft ( no wooden construction, multiple engines) in addition to near bankruptcy for TWA and the near elimination of Fokker as presence in US aviation. Some may have thought in regards to construction that a little too strong was better than a little too light. The bad publicity from a structural failure could end a company. While there were government mail contracts that was the extent of the subsidy. There was no US government airline or partnership or "national" airline.

The FW 200 may have never been given a proper upgrading. It seems to have always been seen as an _ interim_ solution, to bought and used in the smallest possible numbers while the NEXT GREAT airplane was being worked on. This meant changes were held to an absolute minimum. Perhaps more of a commitment would have lead to a more thorough redesign and eliminated some of the problems or allowed for higher gross weights.

Operating in an over load condition lengthens take-offs, reduces climb rates and ceilings (flying overloaded over the Himalayas was probably not done often, at least at 29-33,000lb over loads figures) and is harder on the landing gear, tires and brakes. Some commercial aircraft (including DC-3s) were OK'ed for higher gross weights after modification or upon application after successful service at existing weights and engineering studies/tests at higher weights. It sometimes took several years to get a gross weight raised.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 31, 2011)

The FW 200C structural problems are generally assigned to metal fatique caused not only by heavier loading but by the consistant heavy combat manouvers it performed in agressive low level bomb runs and sometimes in combat with enemy aircraft. Persistant low level flying in often in rough weather added further fatque cycles. The aircraft was strengthened somewhat in the militerised C0 version and again in the C3 but still could suffer a broken back in a heavy landing. The DC-3 never was called upon to perform this kind of roll so we can really compare. It's worth noting that the maritime recon version was built to a Japanese spec.

The FW 200 was a much larger more powerfull aircraft than the DC3 that could carry several times larger loads and loads over twice the distance. In 1938 a Lufthana FW 200B made the first non stop flight from Berlin to New York and back, the company wanted to open regular flights but was prevented by the Roosvelt administration. Physically the cabin was perhaps not much bigger than the DC3 but the FW had been designed for a different roll; that of long range airliner for routes at least twice the distance the DC3 was optimal for.

It was an unsuitable reconaisance bomber but all that could be had. It soldiered on beyond what it should have due to the slowness of He 177 development and when finally replaced (more supplemented) it was in a double irony replaced by the Ju 290: another airliner/transport that traced its direct lineage, even to actual sheet metal to the Ju 89 bomber that was cancelled in 1938 due to a lack of suitable engines.

The aircraft would have been better built in numbers to assuage the incredible logistics challenges the German military faced: It is 1380 miles from the rather eastern city of Berlin to Stalingrad (Volgograd now) and 2080 miles to Omsk and that's only half way across! It is 1000 miles Berlin to Tunis. Even the trip across the Mediteranean to Nth Africa from Italy could have used this aircraft. However as a long range transport I think the Ju 252 trounced even the FW 200 however the FW 200 could actually have been available in reasonable numbers.

Its fairly obvious the German military simply did not plan for the kind of war they ended up fighting.


----------



## vanir (Oct 31, 2011)

It's pure conjecture, a personal theory (I've a good library tho), but I believe the prussian field marshals/colonel-generals actually believed in 1939 that the scope of permanent conquest would be a central european area plus the ukraine, no more. I think they genuinely believed this until hitler started sacking them, then they turned serious about assassinating him. Particularly in Feb43 when they realised he intended to replace the heer with waffen and to "bin the kriegsmarine" (his own words). In mid 43 the general staff were finally referring to hitler as insane, for the first time openly in their diaries.


----------



## davebender (Oct 31, 2011)

The Ju-252 was an impressive aircraft. Unfortunately RLM wrecked the program by denying it the required Jumo-211 engines. Just as RLM wrecked the Fw-187 and He-100 programs by denying them the required DB601 engines.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 1, 2011)

As Richard Overy now point out, even the invasion/occupation of Poland wasn't planed and tactics and policies had to be made up on the fly.

The German military was set up to defend itself against Poland and France; they were the threat only a stones throw away. At one point in the late 1920s/early 30s Germany had only 50 aircraft on the Luftwaffe and 50,000 troops. France or Poland, acting alone could have easily defeated Germany in that situation and France actually did when it occupied the Rhineland. The nightmare scenario was a simultaneous French, Polish and Lithuanian attack. At the time Suddeten Germans (who had bordered Germany but were part of Austria-Hungary prior to WW1 but were incorporated along with unwilling Slovaks into Czechoslovakia) were being sacked at the rate of 50,000 railway employees, seemed to be denied public service work and larger land holdings were reposseded by the Government and redistributed to non Suddten Germans. Much the same in Poland. It's likely that things were roughly the way Hitler said: he had an issue with Poland, offered her a treaty against Russia in return for railway and autobahn access to Danzig (now Gdansk) and when he couldn't get a treaty (possibly due to British backing) he went to plan B which was the opposit: a treaty with the USSR against Poland. There are many Russian historians now, not just Suvorov who now agree that Stalin was planning an invasion of Western Europe though most now think that the buildup for an attack in 1941 failed its deadlines wildly and had to be rescheduled for 42. Whether true or not if present day Russian academics can beleve it than Hitler certainly could think it likely as well.

There is not point building strategic bomber and transports to harrass Britain if French Polish tanks and troops are already in Saarbrucken and the Rhineland and harrasing Berlin. In that context high speed fighters, medium bombers and dive bombers make sense as does a cheap but inefficient transport aircraft that works well at delivering cargo over a radious of 220 miles or so.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2011)

Lets not get too deep in revisionist history here.
At one point in the 1930s Germany had one of the largest air forces in world. Maybe if they hadn't spent so much money on He 51s and Arado 68s and the like they would have had a bit more money to spend on a newer transport than a 1920's hold over. In 1935 England barley had a squadron of bombers that could reach Germany. AS for a "strategic" bomber, it was a matter of context. With France as an enemy I would note that is further from Strasbourg to Marseilles than it is from Bonn to London. If the Germans had built a bomber that could reach Bordeaux from Germany they would have had one that could reach Southampton, Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester from Germany. And guess what? they had such a plane. The HE 111. When moved into France it was able to reach Belfast. In the late 1930s NOBODY had more than a handful of bombers that could carry more than 2 tons of bombs more than 6-700 miles.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 1, 2011)

I don't think I'm being too revisionist here; expecially if someone like Overy acknowledges tentatively that the Nazi government didn't really have an organised plan to invade Poland. It stumbled into it; sure it was agressive triggered by ethnic tensions as much and it was rearming rapidly, but the experience of being helpless with a French Army in the Rhineland had something to do with that as well. Anyway the point is that there was no plan to fight Britain in anything but a vague secondary way. Land war with Poland and France is what the problem was and where the priority lay. Attacking Germany by air did preoccupy the RAF; hence we have no less than 3 types able to do so (Halifax, Lancaster/Machester, Stirling and to a lessor extent Whitley and Wellington. If the Germans were at all serious more than just Heinkel would be tendering the He 177 for Bomber A, not to mention its maritime roll.

I take your point regarding distances: however do you really think that with the French army trundling its Char B's into the Saarland hoping to add it to Metropolitan France along with Elsass and Loire that the Luftwaffe would a/ Want to bomb Marselais or the vinyards of Bordeux with an inaccurate level bombers or b/ have tactical aircraft to support its frontline troops?

I also can't see a bombers flying Bonn to London: it means overflying Holland which is not a sure bet unless the Dutch agree or get invaded. You have to fly out from Bremen, thereabouts, which is a longer over water flight.


----------



## davebender (Nov 1, 2011)

Perhaps so if you count all the transport and training aircraft but the 1939 Luftwaffe had little in the way of offensive capability.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 1, 2011)

The Versailles Treaty limilted the German armed forces to 100,000, a very well known stipulation, can you verify in any way that their numbers ever got down to 50,000 Siegfried?
And there was no Luftwaffe during the 20's, the treaty allowed NO armed aircraft.

What the treaty allowed, and what Germany actually did was two different things. When Hitler formally stated Germany would no longer confine itself by the limits set down by the Treaty of Versailles, it was just a statement of fact as to what had already been going on for years.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 1, 2011)

Deutscher Luftsportverband, was an organisation set up by the Nazi Party in March 1933 to establish a uniform basis for the training of military pilots. Its chairman was Hermann Göring and its vice-chairman Ernst Röhm. In 1935 Hilter announces that Germany would no longer be bound by the ToV. Britian, France, the League of Nations did nothing about it, thus putting a nail in the coffin for a second conflict in Europe, and the Wehrmacht was born.


----------



## davebender (Nov 1, 2011)

> 1935 Hilter announces that Germany would no longer be bound by the ToV. Britian, France, the League of Nations did nothing about it, thus putting a nail in the coffin for a second conflict in Europe


The Versailles Treaty was so poorly written that the U.S. Government refused to ratify it. Numerous nations violated the treaty and thumbed their noses at the League of Nations throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Why would you expect Germany to take the Versailles Treaty more seriously then anyone else?

The real problem is France refused to grant Germany a better treaty during the 1920s and early 1930s. If the Weimar Government had been allowed to make German citizens feel secure within their borders they may not have turned to communism and anti-communism (i.e. facism).


----------

