About German long range bombers....

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Beni, Jun 19, 2005.

  1. Beni

    Beni Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Occupation:
    Sports teacher
    Location:
    Granada,Spain
    Why do you think germany didnt make bigger efforts to get effective long range bombers, and what would have changed if they had a good number of them??

    I think that He177 and Condor were very good planes,but worse than lancasters,b17 or Libs...

    Maybe it was a lack of good strategy of war, or perhaps they though it was better to keep the war only in europe???
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Smokey

    Smokey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I know that Goering was against four engined long ragne heavy bombers, and if the chief of the luftwaffe is so stupid, then the whole luftwaffe is effectively fubared when it comes to long range bombers.
    There was at least one luftwaffe general, Walther Wever, who was in charge of a 4-engined long range heavy bomber project, but he died, ironically, in an air crash before the war and his heavy bomber program was stopped.

    http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/do19.html

    Along with the Junkers Ju 89, the Do 19 was developed as part of the "Ural Bomber" program championed by Gen. Walther Wever who forsaw the need for long range strategic bombing capability. When Gen. Wever was killed in April of 1936, the goal of a strategic bombing capability died with him. On April 29, 1937, the Ural-Bomber bomber program was cancelled by Kesselring in spite of protests. Kesselring felt the production and development resources would be better used to develop and build tactical bombers such as the Do 17 and He 111. This philosophy would later haunt and severely handicap the Luftwaffes ability to strike at Russia's production capabilities.
     
  3. Beni

    Beni Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Occupation:
    Sports teacher
    Location:
    Granada,Spain
    You are right, Smokey, I knew the history of Wever and Kesserling, and the diferent points of view they had, due to their diferent military education. I try to mean some kin of "What if..." They would had an operative/efective long range bomber...What would have changed??
     
  4. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    well firstly would they have an effective long range escort??
     
  5. plan_D

    plan_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    11,985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Without long range escort the Luftwaffe heavy bombers would fall easy prey to VVS, RAF or USAAF interceptors just like RAF and USAAF heavy bombers suffered heavy defeats in daylight in 1941 and 1943 respectively. (1942 saw little daylight action from either nation).

    If the Luftwaffe developed a long range escort to accompany the heavy bombers on their raids it would have put Soviet production in constant threat and would have seriously hampered their production.

    I doubt they would have been as efficient as the Germans as recovering from raids however I do think they would be capable. The Soviet Union managed to dismantle almost all it's industry in 1942 and move it beyond the reach of the advancing Wehrmacht. An achievement by any nations standards.
     
  6. Smokey

    Smokey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    If they had long range bombers before the war then they probaly would have developed a special long range escort fighter, or put more fuel tanks and lines on the BF109, or used the BF110.
    The air fighting over the UK in 1940 would have been more like the air fighting over europe in 1942 - 1945 but with role reversal.

    If Heinkel had used 4 seperate engines on their He177 instead of coupling the engines, then that would probably have been an aircraft in the B17/B24/Lancaster/Halifax/Sterling class. Later they did make this aircraft-the He 277. This is what the He 177 should have been.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Heinkel He 177
    http://www.simviation.com/fsdcbainhe177.htm

    [​IMG]
    Heinkel He 277
    http://www.luftwaffepics.com/lhe1771.htm

    With long range bombers, Hitler could have beaten Stalin in 1941/1942!

    Cool Site>>http://www.luftwaffepics.com/
     
  7. Erich

    Erich the old Sage
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    13,090
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Platonic Sphere
    but the Luftwaffe did not send out any long range escorts with it's twin and four engine bomber force/recon.........Fw 200 and Ju 290 over the ocean waters. If caught they were sitting ducks by RAF coastal command.

    will have to check on the overall dark upper/RLM 76 lower He 177 with the single MG 151/20 with the flash hider I cannot remember off hand the staffel-wappen shield presented. Neat pic also the line up of the same a/c in another pic on the photo site.
     
  8. plan_D

    plan_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    11,985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    We all know how poor Bf-110s were at the escort duty. During the Battle of Britain they were supposed to be escorts but were found to need their own escorts.

    Bf-109s would have been the most obvious option but the RAF could have forced them to drop their tanks much earlier to avoid escorts going all the way. I'm sure the VVS would have done the same.

    I doubt that heavy bombers would have won the war for the Wehrmacht in Russia. The war could have been won many times without the aid of heavy bombers.

    'Bomber' Harris was certainly proven wrong, bombers don't win wars.
     
  9. Smokey

    Smokey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hitler did'nt need long range bombers to beat Stalin; if he had launched Operation Barbarossa on the original date (ie 2 months earlier) than thw German army could have been in Moscow in August/September/October 1941.
     
  10. plan_D

    plan_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    11,985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    6 weeks earlier. The uprising in Yugoslavia and the British support in Greece stopped that though. Many things halted the defeat of Russia e.g diversion of units to Kiev from Moscow. Attack on Stalingrad etc.
     
  11. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    The Luftwaffe had some good Heavy Bomber designs but there were no good bomber strategies. When the Germans decided to really work on heavy bombers it was already to late for them and would not have changed the course of the war.

    As for the He-177 as many people have stated. It was not a bad design but the engines were crap!

    I think the He-274 could have been quite good as well as the Me-264, Ju-290 and Ju-390.
     
  12. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    He-177 as a dive bomber. That was just ridiculous.
     
  13. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Sure is! Like using a B-24 as a dive bomber! :shock: :rolleyes:
     
  14. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    Agreed that was just plain stupid and I still to this day dont understand the obsession with dive bombers that the Germans had. I dont care what historians say or what people say there just comes a point where you have to realize "This is Dumb!"
     
  15. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    I agree. Sure dive bombers were effective in the early years but were they necessary? No. Britain and America didnt really have any, they had P-38's and Mossies doing low level bombing and being able to escape afterwards and fight their way home, which was much more effective.
     
  16. plan_D

    plan_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    11,985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The USN used torpedo and dive bombers exclusively in the Pacific theatre. The A-36 Apache was a diver bomber. The Hudson and Vengeance were dive bombers.

    The thing is with dive bombers is any fast and agile aircraft that can carry a bomb externally can dive bomb.
     
  17. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    to a cirtain extent, they will never beat a -87 for example in the dive bombing role, but then, atleast they can fight their way home........
     
  18. mosquitoman

    mosquitoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Saffron Walden/Sheffield
    Home Page:
    A Hudson as a dive bomber :shock: :?:
     
  19. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Believe it or not the Hudson (A-28, A-29, PBO-1) were considered maneuvable and easily flown. I have a POH copy and it seems like a real simple aircraft.
     
  20. plan_D

    plan_D Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    11,985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Apparently it was used as one, despite the fact it carried it's bombs internally. The Ju-87 wasn't the best dive bomber, it's just the most famous.
     
Loading...

Share This Page