1940: the best bomber in service?

[FLYBOYJ]

From that site...

JU.88 A-4

Country of Service : Germany
Role : Medium Bomber
First Flight : September 1939
Production Date : March 1940
In-Service Date : October 1940
Manufacturer : Junkers Flugzeug Motorenwerke A.G.
Number Produced :
Crew : 4
Length : 14.4 meters
Height : 4.85 meters
Empty Weight : 9860 kilograms
Operational Weight : 12105 kilograms
Maximum Weight : 14000 kilograms
Wing Span : 20.13 meters
Wing Aspect Ratio : 7.34
Wing Area : 54.5 square meters
Wing Load : 222.11 kg per square meter
Engine Number : 2
Engine Name : Junkers Jumo 211 J1
Coolant : Water
Cylinders: I-12
Capacity: 34.97 Liters
Power : 1340 hp @ 2600 rpm
Power / Weight Ratio : 221.4 hp per tonne
Max Speed : 470 kph @ 5300 meters
Cruising Speed : 399 kph @ 5000 meters
Climb : 400
Service Ceiling : 8200 meters
Range : 1790 kilometers
Range (Droptank) : 2730 kilometers
Fuel Capacity : 2900 liters
Machinegun Armament : 2x 7.92mm MG81 (Trainable Forward)
2x 7.92mm MG81 (Upper Rearward)
2x 7.92mm MG81 (Rear Ventral Gondola)

Cannon Armament : None
Payload : 500 kg (Internal Centerline)
2000 kg (External Wingroots)
1000 kg (External Wings)
Gunsight : Revi
Avionics : FuG 10P HF Radio
FuG 16ZY VHF Radio
FuG 25 IFF
Pilot Armor : Yes
Self-Sealing Fuel Tanks : Yes
Armored Windscreen : No

B-17B

In-Service Date : March 1940
Manufacturer : Boeing Aircraft Company
Number Produced : 39
Crew : 9
Length : 22.68 meters
Height : 4.7 meters
Empty Weight : 12543 kilograms
Operational Weight : 17235 kilograms
Maximum Weight : kilograms
Wing Span : 31.62 meters
Wing Aspect Ratio : 7.585
Wing Area : 131.92 square meters
Wing Load : 130.65 kg per square meter
Engine Number : 4
Engine Name : Wright R-1820-51 Cyclone
Coolant : Air
Cylinders: R-9
Capacity: 29.88 Liters
Power : 1200 hp @ 2200 rpm
Power / Weight Ratio : 278.5 hp per tonne
Max Speed : 470 kph @ 5900 meters
Cruising Speed : 433 kph @ 5000 meters
Climb : 407
Service Ceiling : 7504 meters
Range : 3862 kilometers
Fuel Capacity : 10637 liters
Machinegun Armament : 1x 7.7mm Browning (Trainable Nose)
1x 7.7mm Browning (Dorsal Turret)
1x 7.7mm Browning (Ventral Turret)
1x 7.7mm Browning (Beam Positions - 500 rounds each)
Cannon Armament : None
Payload : 2176 kg Bombs (Centerline Internal)
Gunsight : None
Avionics : Nordon Bombsight
Pilot Armor : Yes
Self-Sealing Fuel Tanks : No
Armored Windscreen : Yes

 

[nuuumannn]

{quote]The LW most certainly had the combat experience but "radio navigation/bombing aids" didn't vary much between combatants.[/quote]

The Germans were the only ones with this sort of stuff. It gave them a technological edge over contemporaries. No other bomber force in the world in 1940 had anything similar.

Battle of the Beams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[parsifal]

I agree with Cherry blossom. The best bomber in 1940, was probably one of the three main french bombers....Leo45 series (which includes the superb Leo455 and 459 prototypes....these would have entered service in 1940 if France had not surrendered), AM 354 and prototype 359, and MB 175.

I would also suggest the twin SE100 although doubtful that it would make service in 1940. Estimated top speed of 360 mph, fully loaded, with an estimated bombload of around 2000lb for the projected bomber variant. Another version of the Mosquito concept.....who knows possible that it might have entered squadron service

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The LW most certainly had the combat experience but "radio navigation/bombing aids" didn't vary much between combatants.
The Germans were the only ones with this sort of stuff. It gave them a technological edge over contemporaries. No other bomber force in the world in 1940 had anything similar.

Battle of the Beams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I saw that article - It's an ADF unit. While the LW was the first AF to use it, it wasn't a great breakthrough in technology and similar systems were being developed and deployed in 1940, similar systems were being used by airlines prior to the start of the war. It also wasn't very accurate (LF Nav aids have limitations) and was effected by weather condition.

 

[Vincenzo]

Sure the LeO 451 is a challenger, the MB.175 it's too light for a true challenger, the Amiot 354 imho had not advantage on LeO 451.

 

[nuuumannn]

It's an ADF unit.

Lorenz was a blind landing aid, yes and you're right in everything you state there Joe, but no other country was employing the technology to guide bombers to their targets in the same manner in 1940. In this the LW was unique and also the most accurate at finding their way to the target area. X- and Y-Gerat however, applied a different principle to Knickebein based on Lorenz and used higher frequencies and were more sophisticated. Here's a description of how X-Gerat worked by R.V. Jones, involved in determining German technological breakthroughs with British Scientific Intelligence:

"In principle, the aircraft had to fly along a beam that was laid directly over the target(the director beam) and release its bombs at a point rather short of the target. The information needed to compute the release point involved the height and speed of the aircraft and where it was at any instant relative to the target and the type of bombs. The way this information was derived in the X-beam system was to lay two beams across the director beam, crossing it at pre-determined distances before the target. In general, one, the main signal crossed the director beam five kilometres before the target and the other, the fore signal at twenty kilometres.

While the pilot flew along the director beam, either by listening to it or watching a direction indicator, the bomb aimer listened for the cross beams. The time interval between crossing the two beams would be the time taken to cover fifteen kilometres, which gave the aircraft's speed and the main signal also told him that he was five kilometres away. The problem of determining the release point was simplified by a small mechanical computer involving a stop clock that was started by the bomb aimer as he crossed the fore signal and stopped as he crossed the main signal; and then, if he had fed in the correct height information from his altimeter, the mechanism would work out by itself when the bombs ought to be released."

it wasn't a great breakthrough in technology

It might not have been, but its application was enough to cause the British intelligence community and even Churchill himself many anxious nights attempting to figure out how it worked. At the time there was quite a crisis over its discovery.

 

[davparlr]

this source is sure best of mine Aircraft Database

Even with this configuration the B-17B was as fast as the Ju 88 and the B-17C was faster by 20mph, both with better range and load carrying capacity.

 

[davparlr]

And service ceiling with a full bomb load was????

The Brits bombed from 30k, not that they could hit anything, but, they could carry a bomb load up there.

 

[Shortround6]

The Brits bombed from 30k, not that they could hit anything, but, they could carry a bomb load up there.

And that is a big problem comparing 1940 bombers. Operational altitudes (or effective altitudes) were very different from "service" ceilings. Many British and German bombers could fly 3-6,000ft higher returning from a mission than heading towards the target. Range with maximum bomb load was waaay shorter than max range for some planes.

Using planes not even in "penny packets" but in Ha'penny packets (3 plane bombing mission?????) isn't likely to get results no matter what the plane used was.

Everybody started with defense armament best described as " BEYOND PATHETIC" as evidenced by the rapid doubling of the number of guns on many aircraft. The increase in guns carried got some planes into the pathetic category. Expecting one man to aim and fire four different guns each with a 75 round magazine is a solution born of desperation.

The aircraft with the best defensive armament were usually the the biggest and slowest and so in the most need. They were quickly tasked with night bombing with much reduced chance of interception.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Lorenz was a blind landing aid, yes and you're right in everything you state there Joe, but no other country was employing the technology to guide bombers to their targets in the same manner in 1940. In this the LW was unique and also the most accurate at finding their way to the target area. X- and Y-Gerat however, applied a different principle to Knickebein based on Lorenz and used higher frequencies and were more sophisticated. Here's a description of how X-Gerat worked by R.V. Jones, involved in determining German technological breakthroughs with British Scientific Intelligence:

"In principle, the aircraft had to fly along a beam that was laid directly over the target(the director beam) and release its bombs at a point rather short of the target. The information needed to compute the release point involved the height and speed of the aircraft and where it was at any instant relative to the target and the type of bombs. The way this information was derived in the X-beam system was to lay two beams across the director beam, crossing it at pre-determined distances before the target. In general, one, the main signal crossed the director beam five kilometres before the target and the other, the fore signal at twenty kilometres.

While the pilot flew along the director beam, either by listening to it or watching a direction indicator, the bomb aimer listened for the cross beams. The time interval between crossing the two beams would be the time taken to cover fifteen kilometres, which gave the aircraft's speed and the main signal also told him that he was five kilometres away. The problem of determining the release point was simplified by a small mechanical computer involving a stop clock that was started by the bomb aimer as he crossed the fore signal and stopped as he crossed the main signal; and then, if he had fed in the correct height information from his altimeter, the mechanism would work out by itself when the bombs ought to be released."

It might not have been, but its application was enough to cause the British intelligence community and even Churchill himself many anxious nights attempting to figure out how it worked. At the time there was quite a crisis over its discovery.

Agree all but in reality, until the RAF found out what this was, the same thing could have been done with 2 ADF units crossfixing in the same manner used. I believe later in the was this was done quite frequently by all combatants.

 

[Denniss]

The Ju 88 A-4 was certainly not available in 1940, especially not with the Jumo 211J engine. Dates may match the A-5 though. A-4 was introduced somewhere in 1941, initially with the 211F engine.

I can only assume it hadn't a larger internal bomb bay because of the dive bomber requirement.

 

[tomo pauk]

Would that imply that dive bombing was possible only with externally mounted bombs?

 

[Edgar Brooks]

The Brits bombed from 30k, not that they could hit anything, but, they could carry a bomb load up there.

But they learned, very quickly, not to do so, since the contrails, even at night, gave the fighters a white finger, pointing straight to each aircraft. That was why they dropped their operational altitude, to keep out of the contrail band, not because of any inability to fly that high.

 

[davebender]

Why have a bomb bay at all if it cannot hold 250kg bombs and is useless for the dive bombing role? Just use external bomb racks and carry more fuel internally.

 

[nuuumannn]

the same thing could have been done with 2 ADF units crossfixing in the same manner used.

Yep, when you think about it, the technology for a useful blind bombing aid was already in place in a number of countries. The Germans started work on X-Gerat in 1937, with the first aerials built in 1939. Amazingly the Germans had at their disposal a device that enabled them to carry out precision attacks against vital strategic targets under cover of darkness at a time when Britain's night fighter force was at its weakest, yet they wasted their efforts on area bombing cities using the equipment. Once Knickebein was rendered useless, X-Gerat was of greater concern because of its latent potential. Post war, Churchill expressed his fright he received to R.V.Jones in private about when he first head about it, at the thought that the RAF just about had the better of the LW by day by mid late 1940, ony to discover they could bomb virtually any target in Britain unimpeded with this equipment.

 

[ShVAK]

Although I doubt it's better than the B-17B/C, I wonder where the SM.79 Sparviero would fit into this discussion. Fast for a bomber in 1940, torpedo capable, already had a proven record coming into WWII, and didn't suffer for armament by early war standards (though the lack of turrets was a pretty big handicap).

 

[stona]

How many B-17s would have been available for real offensive operations in 1940? Say "Adlertag". Not enough to be worthy of consideration.
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Although I doubt it's better than the B-17B/C, I wonder where the SM.79 Sparviero would fit into this discussion. Fast for a bomber in 1940, torpedo capable, already had a proven record coming into WWII, and didn't suffer for armament by early war standards (though the lack of turrets was a pretty big handicap).

It wasn't that fast for a bomber. Many of the early ones were about as fast as as Blenheim. The 1200-1250kg bomb load is a bit on the light side for a "medium" bomber.

 

[Denniss]

Would that imply that dive bombing was possible only with externally mounted bombs?

Most likely. You don't want to have armed bombs in your bomb bay while you are diving more or less straight down - if one breaks loose it may hit your aircraft and you're gone. Even if you're able to release them from the bomb bay, this would have to be done while pulling up and the forces may jam the bombs in the bay and accuracy would not really be good.

 

[yulzari]

I think we need to redefine the question. Best bomber for what? This is the first decision an Air Force should make. You don't dive bombs front line targets with a Wellington nor bomb London from Milan with an SM79.

For a 1940 close support bomber with local air superiority then the Ju87. For daylight tactical bombing the Ju88. For night bombing the Whitley can haul a surprising amount of bombs quite a long way, albeit slowly. For daylight strategic bombing nothing in 1940 can survive without substantial fighter escort so you want a fast bomb hauler as the defensive fire won't make that much difference. Possibly the He111.

I have stuck with those in quantity production in 1940. The list displays the thinking of the respective air staffs. There was a good reason why British bombers had black paint and German ones blue. The French had a chaotic mix which again matched the Air Staff. Some designs had daylight promise and some obsolescent ones capable of adequate period night bombing at medium ranges. The Italians had the best all rounder with the SM79 and should have made it the sole standard until they could make a reliable larger engine (Alfa-Romeo double Pegasus?)

For the non combatants the USA Maryland and Bostons were capable. There is a big difference from having an aeroplane sitting on it's home field to one in daily combat so I don't rate the B17 as a bomber to use in 1940. Simply not enough of them, needs daylight escort at useable heights and too few bombs per engine to compete at night with British twins.

In Japan there were some very capable designs and experience over China had taught them that daylight escort was necessary so the tactical thinking was in place. Range is vital in the Pacific so the sacrifices to achieve light weight made them vulnerable so I wouldn't choose to be in one.

The Soviets were in that awkward period in 1940 where their old star items were becoming obsolete and the star new ones not really in service.

The touchstone here is what would you prefer to be in, assuming it were a standard production item. For an undefined sortie I would plump for either a Martin Maryland or a Ju88. If I wanted the most night options then either the Whitley or Wellington with the turrets and gunners removed.