About German long range bombers....

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i was just using it as an example, that's why i said

for example

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

Agreed the Stutas were very effective at the beginning the war with the fast Blitzkrieg but the Fw-190's and Me-262's doing low level ground attack and bombing was just as effective and the aircraft were better.

 

[Monkeysee1]

I have heard, and correct me if I am wrong, most of you are far better scholars than I on these subjects..., anyway, that the Germans wanted every bomber to be a dive bomber and the engineering limitations of the day prevented a heavy bomber from accomplishing that.

That the Germans started looking at a heavy bomber for NY when the US entered the war.

That Goering hated the idea.

That the Luftwaffe plan involved dive bombers because they thought of airpower as tactical not strategic. Harris was wrong, bombers don't end wars but they end them sooner.

 

[Jabberwocky]

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.

He couldn't of launched earlier really. Unseaonal rains during the period had turned many of the roads the German Army wanted to use into mud. At the earliest he couldof launched maybe 3 weeks earlier, and even then with some difficulty in large sections of the steppe.

 

[syscom3]

For Germany to have an effective long range bomber to destroy the Ural factories, they would have needed to deploy dozens of bomb groups, just like the RAF and 8th AF had to do. And if the Russians dispersed the factories or put them underground, then the bomber would be for naught.

I think the key would be to hammer away at the oil fields in the Caspian Sea. Its a recurring theme for every theatre and combatant. No fuel = no tanks or planes.

I also agree that the Luftwaffe emphysis on dive bombing almost ammounted to a fetish. It has its place, but at a certein point, you have to say its not going to work for this strategy or doctrine.

For the long range bombing of America, as I stated in another thread (and this also applies to American strategy), does anyone think that a long range bomber that WILL take battle damage can successfully fly over 2000 miles back home? Look at the B29's against Japan before Iwo Jima, and you have your answer. Nope!

 

[reddragon]

I was under the impression that the Luftwaffe was developed to support the army, meaning they felt there was no need for long-range aircraft. I'm also under the impression that many of their aircraft were built on the lessons learned from the Spanish civil war and the designs and tactics they used in that conflict worked very well against the enemy so little thought was given to taking on a stronger opponent.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have heard, and correct me if I am wrong, most of you are far better scholars than I on these subjects..., anyway, that the Germans wanted every bomber to be a dive bomber and the engineering limitations of the day prevented a heavy bomber from accomplishing that.

That the Germans started looking at a heavy bomber for NY when the US entered the war.

That Goering hated the idea.

That the Luftwaffe plan involved dive bombers because they thought of airpower as tactical not strategic. Harris was wrong, bombers don't end wars but they end them sooner.

Yes Hitler ordered that every aircraft be able to be a dive bomber or bomber. That is what limited many of his aircraft like the Me-262. When it first went into production he ordered that it be be built as a bomber.

The Germans were actually looking for a Heavy Bomber to attack the US before the ware even started in Europe. I have more info on this like copies of documents listing prospeected targets and what not. It is rather interesting.

Goering was not too keen on the concept because he felt the Luftwaffe was more needed against Russia at the time. He felt that long range bombers would be better suited there. I guess it was one thing that he was right with but it did not matter anyhow.

As for the long range aircraft that Germany should have developed sooner. Hitler believed that the War would be over quickly and that long range aircraft were not needed. The Stukas would do fine with Blitzkrieg tactics. Also when the war broke out Germany had Ju-88's and Dornier Do-17 which were fast bombers and at the time could out run almost any fighter the allies had, notice I said almost not all of them. Due to the fact that Hitler thought that the war would end quickly he ordered that no new designs be developed that can not be produced by 1942 because the war would be over by then and they would not be needed. By 1941 he knew he was wrong and then they started with new designs but it was too late.

Hope this helps you some.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

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

Disagree, I had figures for entire German oil production before and after a raid by B17's, dropped like a stone.

With it went the planes, Panzers etc.

Also I think the Enola Gay might have helped win it, just a tad?


A lot of Germanys heavy bombers were ex-civilian craft, though I think the Ju290 started as a bomber, became a Lufthansa airliner, then a bomber again!

Anyway these were not sturdy craft and made of corrugated iron etc were not in the B17 or Lancs league.

The thing is with dive bombers is any fast and agile aircraft that can carry a bomb externally can dive bomb.

Ah, ah, ah!

The Mustang was considered for dive-bombing, but was deemed far too fast.

The A-36 Apache was a diver bomber. The Hudson and Vengeance were dive bombers.

You forgot the Dauntless, how could you!

Was the Apache ever used operationally? I doubt it was.

to a cirtain extent, they will never beat a -87 for example in the dive bombing role

Unnecessary with rockets, dunno about with cannons.

Think it would be an advantage with rockets though? certainly with cannons.

 

[syscom3]

Didnt the 332FG, the famous "tuskegee airmen" fly the A36 in Italy?

And I could be wrong, but the Hudson was a naval patrol aircaft used in "glide bombing". I dont think it was used as a dive bomber.

 

[SM79Sparviero]

Didnt the 332FG, the famous "tuskegee airmen" fly the A36 in Italy?

A36 dive bomber was born as a "lark mirror", a pretext to get money for P51 fighter. I don't know if it really performed well as a dive bomber on the battlefield.
A36/p51 was originally linked to a request from RAF for a fighter .USAAF soon acknowledged the superlative performances of the new aircraft due to its technological innovations(ex.: laminar profile wing; a cooling system with a nearly futile drag thanks to "Meredith effect";Merlin engine ) but they could not have a further budget for a new fighter, so they formally required P51( or A36A) as "dive bomber".

 

[Lunatic]

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.

This is not entirely true. The TBF and SBD were both used in the Atlantic to interdict uboats, using both depth bombs and torpedos. As far as I know you are correct if you mean none were ever used in Europe proper.

Calling the Hudson a dive bomber is kinda like calling the B-25 a dive bomber 8)

The thing is with dive bombers is any fast and agile aircraft that can carry a bomb externally can dive bomb.

Not really. A true dive bomber has dive brakes and can dive much more steeply to a much lower altitude and still recover. They often also had more specialized bombsights. Fighters with bombs on them were generally steep glide bombers, and multi-engine planes like the Hudson a dive bomber is really just wrong, the were level bombers or glide bombers. It takes more than a slight decent to qualify as a dive bomber. In my opinion for a plane to be considered a true dive bomber it requires that it go below 5000 feet before releasing the bomb and that the bomb be released onto an actively sighted target. Most fighter bombers either released above 5000 feet or were in the act of pulling out of their dive when they released the bombs (and the pilot could no longer actually see the target over the nose).

=S=

Lunatic

 

[schwarzpanzer]

IIRC the Stuka had a kind of primitive auto-pilot, in case the pilot blacked-out?

 

[Piaggio108]

The Fw-200 was good in the role it was used for: long range missions attacking convoys. I don't think it would have done well as a bomber attacking well defended targets.

The germans probibaly favored dive bombers so much because of the Ju-87. It was very sucessful early in the war, and was used frequently in propaganda. Then, the Ju-88 is also capable of dive-bombing. The idea was to scale it up, produce a dive-bomber with an even larger bomb load.

The Ju-87 had an automatic pull out system, so the plane could pull out of a dive itself if the pilot blacked out. It was introduced on the B series.

 

[Lunatic]

As I think has already been pointed out, Hitler and Goering did not really believe in strategic air war. To them the Luftwaffe' was just an extension of the Army. They viewed bombers as airborne artillery.

Lots of Allied (and probably German) fighter bomber pilots would trim their aircraft to automatically pull out of the dive should they black out. I know this was the case particularly with the Typhoon.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[syscom3]

Didnt the first G-Suits get their first trials with the US dive bomber pilots? It worked well enough that it was then adopted for the fighter pilots.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Thanks Piaggio108 for the Ju87 info.

- I thought it was a myth I'd bought!

I didn't know Typhoons dive-bombed?

I suppose dive-bombing saves HE material?

 

[Lunatic]

Didnt the first G-Suits get their first trials with the US dive bomber pilots? It worked well enough that it was then adopted for the fighter pilots.

As far as I know the Berger G-suit was designed from the get-go for fighters. The develper (Berger) was a Candian WWI ace.

The British had a hydrolic G-suit which was basically like wearing two sets of chest high rubber waders one inside the other with water between. When under G force the water would be forced down squeezing the lower body. I'm not sure if these were tried for dive bombing (the Brit's didn't really have a dive bomber) but in any case the thing was so uncomfortable pilots refused to use it. Furthermore, it made it impossible to bail out because of the weight unless you could roll the plane upside down.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Lunatic]

I didn't know Typhoons dive-bombed?

I suppose dive-bombing saves HE material?

Well again it depends what you define as "dive bombing". Typhoons really just did a steep gilde bombing attack as I define things.

The stuka was very accurate. It could reliably hit a slow or stationary enemy tank, or a pill box. Allied fighter-bombers by comparison typically missed there targets by more than 100 meteres.

In the Pacific the Dauntless was an accurate dive bomber. Attacking an evading ship using a fighter-bomber glide bombing attack would most likely be a wasted effort.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[schwarzpanzer]

I don't know, I would've thought rockets could sink a moving target fairly easily?

Not torpedoes though, which is what I supppse was the only other option?

I suppose dive-bombing would be good for HEAT or HEAC rounds or (those things, forgot what they're called, but kinda like darts or flechettes, but for anti-tank usage. )

 

[Lunatic]

I don't know, I would've thought rockets could sink a moving target fairly easily?

Not torpedoes though, which is what I supppse was the only other option?

I suppose dive-bombing would be good for HEAT or HEAC rounds or (those things, forgot what they're called, but kinda like darts or flechettes, but for anti-tank usage. )

True dive bombing can be pretty accurate, especially if there is not strong AAA defending the target area.

As it turns out, rockets were not very effective against tanks.
The best anti-tank aircraft weapon by a huge margine was NAPALM. Next would be large caliber anti-tank cannon, then dive bombing, then rockets, glide bombing, and finally level bombing.

=S=

Lunatic