They did, until one was hit by a Spitfire and they did drop a 250kg bomb, which is why I questioned your 3 ton bomb load for Ju488s. Aerodynamics, power generation and cooling at 48,000 ft was experimental. At these altitudes measurement in feet or meters is academic, you are in a different atmosphere at 48,000 ft over Egypt than you are over UK. BTW as you know but didn't say the JU 86 used Nitrous Oxide to get up to 42/44,000 ft, it wasn't a "service altitude"
Best medium bomber of WWII? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ShVAK
- Start date
-
- Tags
- medium bombers wwii
Ju 86R2 managed to get to 50,000ft, presumably with GM-1. The August 28 Spitfire IX intercept seems to have reached over 44,000ft. The Ju 86 was at about 42,000ft when it reacted to the Spitfire and responded by jettisoning their bomb, engaged the GM-1 and began to climb. It's possible that had the Ju 86 begun evasive measures earlier they may still have gone beyond the Spitfires altitude.
Germany's U-2 - WW2s Highest Air Combat - YouTube
The BMW 801TJ-1 was flown on the Ju 388 and Ju 88S2 since 1944 and understood. The Germans had valuable high altitude test chambers wind tunnels that could simulate any temperature, air pressure and air speed to assist in engine development. This greatly helped German axial jet engine development.
You seem to fear the BMW 801 TJ wasn't systematically developed by engineers who knew how to do thermodynamic calculations or without the ability to manage a systematic development and test program.
The BMW 801TJ-1 had some issues with excessive fuel consumption not altitude performance. The BMW 801TJ-2 was already test flying and the BMW 801TQ was soon to follow, all with improved turbo superchargers etc.
The Luftwaffe's high altitude program was more focused on ultra high altitudes to escape interception than the US one which was focused in high speed cruising to high altitudes.
The Ju 488 V401 bomb load is unclear to me. Some sources say 3000kg some say 2000kg. The aircraft inherited its bomb panier from the Ju 388K which was 2000kg but its possible it was longer given the Ju 488 was a fuselage stretch of the Ju 388. The much larger Ju 488 V403 had a wider longer panier and was rated to 5000kg (11000lbs).
Incidentally at the end of the video Mark Felton states that a spitfire V shot down a Ju 86 over the Mediterranean. This never happened and has been debunked. It's technically impossible for a Spit V to reach a Ju 86P however one Ju 86 did crash over 150 miles away the next day due to engine failure
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Since the Ju 488 was supposed to go about 45,000lbs empty equipped (or over) and well into the 70,000lb range for take-off I think most of us would agree it is not a medium bomber no matter how it was derived. Both Prototypes were wrecked by French saboteurs and never flown and the next 4 prototypes never came close to completion. All performance numbers are manufacturers estimates.
Understanding an engine setup and being able to mass produce it are not the same thing.
Being able to build prototypes and small batches of engines (and turbos) are not the same thing as building scores of engines every day.
P & W R-2800 engines.
Understanding an engine setup and being able to mass produce it are not the same thing.
Being able to build prototypes and small batches of engines (and turbos) are not the same thing as building scores of engines every day.
P & W R-2800 engines.
Admiral Beez
Major
When I see these pics of American industrial might in the 1940s I wonder how much of this is left today. If China went full on appearing to attack Taiwan and maybe threaten Japan, or if Russia threatened the NATO Baltic states, how quickly could America covert civilian automotive and other manufacturing over to military production? In today's high tech era, where many of the essential components (semi conductors) and materials (lithium) come from China, I'm not sure.
The US hasn't produced a Main Battle Tank since the early 1990s, and instead refurbishes the old ones. The F-35 production line reminds me of the low volume Axis lines we saw in WW2. I don't think this F-35 line could be scaled up to mass production quantities.
Last edited:
That would make a great model, maybe a subject of a group build?
You remember certain details of the Sept 28 intercept but not all. The Spitfire was spotted when it was at a height others had reached but continued to climb, they used NO2 to try to climb away but didn't manage to, the Spitfire made several attacks but because one cannon was jammed every time the other fired the pilot lost control and altitude. It is quite clear that if the Ju 86 could have climbed away it would have and it had ample time to do so.
If the BMW 801TJ-1 performed perfectly well at 50,000 feet having no cooling problems but suffering from huge fuel consumption, a rational person may conclude that they were using "fuel" as a coolant. If Germany had even one plane capable of flying without interception at 50,000 ft they would have used it, if only to get some idea of what was happening in southern England before and certainly after D-Day. I do not fear anything especially the endless tales of WW2 wonder weapons that didn't take flight.
Junkers Ju 86 high-altitude reconnaissance/bomber
According to British records, the first successful interception took place north of Cairo on 24 August 1942, when a Spitfire of No. 103 Maintenance Unit (MU) brought down a Ju 86 from Aufkl. Gruppe 2(F)/123. However, German records show the Ju 86 R-1 returned to base safely, though damaged. One more reconnaissance variant was lost to the RAF on 6 September and one Ju 86 R-1 was recorded by 2(F)/123 as lost due to engine failure on 29 August. Encounters with the high-altitude RAF Spitfires led to the field installation of one rear-firing M 17 machine gun in recon Ju 86s. Still, two more aircraft became operational losses during November and December 1942. The group was down to one Ju 86 R-1 by October 1943 when it completed conversion to the Ju 88 recon variant.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Much of that might did not exist in 1939-40. Part of America's might was the ability to build, equip and man those factories in a short period of time.
Ford went from a bare plot of ground in Sept 1940 to delivering the first R-2800 10/05/41, In Sept of 1942 Ford delivered 640 engines and was still ramping up (and expanding the factory) In Sept of 1943 Ford delivered 1389 engines. Peak production was in July of 1944 with 186 engines per day. By July of 1944 P&W Kansas Ciry was making about 300 engines a month, Chevrolet was in the process of switching form R-1830 production to R-2800 production, P & W Hartford built 532 R-2800s but was also switching to the "C" series engine. Nash-Kelvinator was building around 800 engines a month.
A lot of this might may be gone but the industry to rebuild does exist perhaps also to a lesser extent, but then nobody else really has the ability to ramp up their production very quickly either.
US capacity for large trucks, construction equipment and other equipment remains large.
It started long before 1939-40, the R2800 first ran in 1937, when Ford broke ground for a new factory in Sept 1940 they knew what they would produce and how they would produce it. Preparation for war in USA was not far behind the UK they just had different neighbours. There were many designs and factories planned before Sept 1939, the Merlin Shadow factory was started in 1937. Things like harmonisation of 100 octane fuel didn't happen with a meeting between "bods" in 1940 they had to have been discussed for a long time before. Similarly National Aviation didn't just say "we will build a better fighter than the P-40" they quoted chapter and verse of why their design would be better, based on what they and many others had already seen of the war so far.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
BTW part of Fords contribution to the R-2800 saga was not in developing any new models of the engine but in changing how the the engine was made.
P&W specified a forged cylinder barrel made of SAE 4140 steel.
Ford developed a casting technique that eliminated 50% of the machining needed for a forged barrel. Ford also claimed a better finish and a higher bursting strength.
Molten steel was poured into a centrifugal mold that ran at 750rpm. The Molds were mounted on an indexing table with eight stations. a complete cycle took 3 1/2 minutes.
This may have been the most extreme example but the US auto industry did NOT make aircraft engines or airframes in their old plants (mostly) or on old car machinery.
They did use their expertise in mass production to change the Aircraft Industries low volume production methods to high volume production that used fewer workers (or hours) per unit (engine/airplane/tank) using specialized machinery and better production line flow.
Ford later figured out how to make cast cylinder heads instead of forged. At least for the B series engines. Many companies bought their forgings from sub contractors rather than doing them in house so developments like this had ripple effects. In house casting could free up the sub contractor who supplied forgings for other work/companies.
Not quite, While they did tour the P & W factory in Aug of 1940 and Broke ground less than 30 days later (they basically copied the P & W East Hartford Plant) P & W themselves had built fewer than 10 production R-2800s at the time the Men from Ford toured the plant.
The first engine built with the above mentioned cast cylinders was in the first 100 engines built, if not much earlier in the run. ford was under contract for 10,517 engines at this point.
Ford started casting cylinder heads in March of 1942,
Ford had built just 262 A series before they built their first "B" series. They would build another 692 "A" series engines (ending at the end of Merch 1942) while they got "B" series engines into production. The Bill of materials for the "B" series engine had been given to Ford back on Oct 17 of 1940, just about one month after breaking ground on the factory. there were at least 17 differences between an "A" series and "B" series but many of them were minor.
P&W specified a forged cylinder barrel made of SAE 4140 steel.
Ford developed a casting technique that eliminated 50% of the machining needed for a forged barrel. Ford also claimed a better finish and a higher bursting strength.
Molten steel was poured into a centrifugal mold that ran at 750rpm. The Molds were mounted on an indexing table with eight stations. a complete cycle took 3 1/2 minutes.
This may have been the most extreme example but the US auto industry did NOT make aircraft engines or airframes in their old plants (mostly) or on old car machinery.
They did use their expertise in mass production to change the Aircraft Industries low volume production methods to high volume production that used fewer workers (or hours) per unit (engine/airplane/tank) using specialized machinery and better production line flow.
Ford later figured out how to make cast cylinder heads instead of forged. At least for the B series engines. Many companies bought their forgings from sub contractors rather than doing them in house so developments like this had ripple effects. In house casting could free up the sub contractor who supplied forgings for other work/companies.
Not quite, While they did tour the P & W factory in Aug of 1940 and Broke ground less than 30 days later (they basically copied the P & W East Hartford Plant) P & W themselves had built fewer than 10 production R-2800s at the time the Men from Ford toured the plant.
The first engine built with the above mentioned cast cylinders was in the first 100 engines built, if not much earlier in the run. ford was under contract for 10,517 engines at this point.
Ford started casting cylinder heads in March of 1942,
Ford had built just 262 A series before they built their first "B" series. They would build another 692 "A" series engines (ending at the end of Merch 1942) while they got "B" series engines into production. The Bill of materials for the "B" series engine had been given to Ford back on Oct 17 of 1940, just about one month after breaking ground on the factory. there were at least 17 differences between an "A" series and "B" series but many of them were minor.
I wasn't referring to a particular company or product but the whole of UK and USA industry. The "Spitfire" factory at Castle Bromwich was actually just a factory put up by the UK government to make aeroplanes, since it started in 1936 it was by no means certain that it would make Spitfires or anything at all if politics changed, it would make what the government wanted and in fact also made Lancasters. Technology had moved on but the USA was a similar distance in time from a declared war (Dec 1941) with that Ford R-2800 factory as the UK was with its Glasgow Merlin and Castle Bromwich "spitfire" factory with war declared in Sept 1939.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Part of the advantage the US had was a large number of underemployed people. The UK had come out of the Depression earlier than the US so when the demand for more workers really kicked in mid 39 there wasn't a pool of underemployed.
Many of the workers in the Detroit armament factories were from the agricultural south where the depression had hit the hardest. African American men and women left the south in droves.
Many of the workers in the Detroit armament factories were from the agricultural south where the depression had hit the hardest. African American men and women left the south in droves.
One problem the western world has today is the lack of the 'human element'.
One of mine grand-grandmothers gave birth to 14 children from the age of 16 to the age 42. She was from a poor and rural part of the country although her family, possessing some lots of lland, was still considered wealthy for the time. Of these 14 children, 5 died in young age of illness or accidents, 2 more died as soldiers fighting in WW2. The remaining ones, however lived a long and fulfilling life well into their 80s; I don't recall having seen them falling ill or depressed till the day they died. Those were harsh times, but those times made people hard and industrious; these are the people on whom our wealth is built. All of them and their sons went on to become happy, successful and fulfilled men.
Today we put all 'our eggs' in one basket: we make 1-2 children at most; we take great care that even impaired or weak individuals survive into adulthood. We are hyper-protective parents and we shield our daughters and sons from the 'bad things' of life thinking of doing well, while -in truth- we're raising very weak minded, frail adults. Our sons are arrogant and entitled and, yet, at the first sign of difficulty, they break down like toddlers. Psychologists and antidepressants have become part of our daily life because we've forgotten that a good kick in the ass every once in a while is the best medicine.
I've spoken with many Chinese people and they laugh at our way of rising our children, and they're fundamentally right. Our civilization is past the point of prominence and it's sliding into decadence. In a way, it's history repeating itself. The great Roman Empire, for all its laws, philosophy, science and military might crumbled under the relentless assault of the 'barbarians'.
How would our society fare under the duress of a prolonged war? Why so many soldiers nowadays return from war zones with PTSD? I've heard my fare share of WW2 horror stories from people belonging to the generation of my grandfather, but somehow these people managed to find into themselves the strength to elaborate their losses and go on with life.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
It's been around a long time. It seems possible to me that we're not seeing more soldiers develop PTSD, but that we've improved our ability to detect it.
Did Civil War Soldiers Have PTSD? | History | Smithsonian Magazine
special ed
1st Lieutenant
- 7,080
- May 13, 2018
I suspect Roman soldiers, or others who used spears and swords, esperienced PTSD. My thoughts for this comes from the few WW2 vets I knew who had been in close or hand or hand to hand combat. Also from watching videos of vets. One AVG pilot in a video spoke of his first air combat intercepting Japanese bombers. He said he could clearly see the gunner stand up behind his gun and was close enough to see the fear in his face, see him hit and slide down inside. His comment was that he could see that gunner in his dreams. A supervisor I had, said it was different when you could see the face of the one you killed. He was a heavy drinker. Audie Murphy had PTSD and often could not sleep inside at night.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You didn't nessecarily need to have direct contact with the enemy to suffer PTSD. Both my Mom's older brothers suffered from it to a certain degree from their combat in the Pacific (WWII) - one was a Submariner and was savagely depth-charged in one boat and on one occasion, had his boat sunk (he was a torpedoman and escaped via the foreward tube). My other Uncle served aboard Destroyers and saw considerable action, including the Solomon's where his Destroyer was sunk during a night battle.
My Grandfather (US Army cavalry WWI) lost most of his foot, my Stepdad (USMC, Korea - Chosin survivor) was severely frostbitten, one friend was US 10th Mountain Div. WWII and suffered from the Italian campaign (especially the 88 barrages), another was a Marine in the PTO, having 5 AMTRAKs shot out from under him during the course island campaigns plus brutal hand-to-hand action where even trenching tools and helmets became weapons.
Another was a crewman aboard a Silverplate B-29 that Atom-bombed Japan, which constantly haunted him.
The list goes on, but these people were from a different time, where life was not easy and you had to be tough to get by and so they dealt with it and moved on. Sort of like when I was a kid and got hurt during a game and Coach would tell "come on, get up and walk it off!"
My Grandfather (US Army cavalry WWI) lost most of his foot, my Stepdad (USMC, Korea - Chosin survivor) was severely frostbitten, one friend was US 10th Mountain Div. WWII and suffered from the Italian campaign (especially the 88 barrages), another was a Marine in the PTO, having 5 AMTRAKs shot out from under him during the course island campaigns plus brutal hand-to-hand action where even trenching tools and helmets became weapons.
Another was a crewman aboard a Silverplate B-29 that Atom-bombed Japan, which constantly haunted him.
The list goes on, but these people were from a different time, where life was not easy and you had to be tough to get by and so they dealt with it and moved on. Sort of like when I was a kid and got hurt during a game and Coach would tell "come on, get up and walk it off!"
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
PTSD has always been around. We just hear about it more today.
There are letters written by soldiers from as far back as the B.C. era describing behavior that matches what we call PTSD today.
Here in the US we have letters in the national archives, from the post-Civil War era, that are heart wrenching to read - many of them written by the family of the soldier, describing behavior that fits PTSD.
I am not familiar with the numbers from WWI, but up until the mid-1990s the majority of homeless men in the US were veterans of WWII or the Korean War. The only reason that changed is that they started dying off in large numbers. Reporting on the number of suicides by WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam veterans was actually discouraged/suppressed from post-WWII through the 1970s.
One of my uncles was in Europe in WWII. He once told me that after he came home he had constant nightmares and flashbacks, and often contemplated suicide. He said only his meeting and marrying my aunt kept him going. He had regular nightmares and would often wake up screaming, for about 10 year after the war.
A friend of mine who served in Korea (2nd Infantry) told me he tried to drink himself to death for about 10 years after he got home. He managed to stop drinking and thought he had dealt with the psychological problem, until his late-60s when he started having nightmares and flashbacks again.
There are letters written by soldiers from as far back as the B.C. era describing behavior that matches what we call PTSD today.
Here in the US we have letters in the national archives, from the post-Civil War era, that are heart wrenching to read - many of them written by the family of the soldier, describing behavior that fits PTSD.
I am not familiar with the numbers from WWI, but up until the mid-1990s the majority of homeless men in the US were veterans of WWII or the Korean War. The only reason that changed is that they started dying off in large numbers. Reporting on the number of suicides by WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam veterans was actually discouraged/suppressed from post-WWII through the 1970s.
One of my uncles was in Europe in WWII. He once told me that after he came home he had constant nightmares and flashbacks, and often contemplated suicide. He said only his meeting and marrying my aunt kept him going. He had regular nightmares and would often wake up screaming, for about 10 year after the war.
A friend of mine who served in Korea (2nd Infantry) told me he tried to drink himself to death for about 10 years after he got home. He managed to stop drinking and thought he had dealt with the psychological problem, until his late-60s when he started having nightmares and flashbacks again.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I've had two step-fathers. Both were Vietnam vets, one a Marine recon radioman, the other a PBR gunner. Both saw intense combat at times. Both had PTSD. Bob, the Marine, would wake up at night screaming from what I imagine were horrific dream-memories. Kevin would startle at any sharp, loud noise; he'd been in enough ambushes. And I know other vets who suffer it as well.
I experienced the 1978-79 revolution in Iran that overthrew the Shah (I was 12 at the time) and saw several bloody scenes of rioters being attacked by government troops. I was also a firefighter in the USAF (89-93) and saw some gruesome stuff there too. Though I don't seem to have PTSD, I can't exclude the possibility. I did have a major drinking problem through much of my adulthood. Sobriety has been good to me and I seem to be at peace with my own non-combat experiences now.
I'm no mental-health professional, but I suspect PTSD is more common than thought in the military (as well as some other professions). The military ethos of not displaying "weakness" would tend to tamp down on the diagnosis numbers, but it seems to me that PTSD may be the mind's way of dealing with extreme events. At any rate, I sure don't regard it as a sign of weakness. I look at it as a coping mechanism in some circumstances, and the result of mental scarring in others. And of course it could actually be both coping and scarring.
Last edited:
special ed
1st Lieutenant
- 7,080
- May 13, 2018
As GG pointed out, it was not necessary to be in physical combat. One young guy I worked with in the 70s was on a cruiser off Vietnam. His job was in the turret to squeeze the grips to fire the big naval rifles. He made sure I knew they were "naval rifles". What bothered him was that he could sit in safety and kill the enemy 20 miles away. He told me that fire control was so accurate they normally used three rounds or less to eliminate the threat to Marines inland. Once Marines called rounds on their position as they were about to be overrun. Firecontrol Officer refused but the reply was it was NVA or USN. John said they fired on the coordinates and asked for correction for next round and were told "Thanks You got them". I think the precision with which they killed is what got to him while in safety. John was already married twice, and as a heavy drinker, drove his car into a canal and nearly drowned.
PTSD can be explained with two basic instincts humans posses: fear and guild. Fear is what keep all animals alive in the face of unknown situations, guilt is proper of social animals because it tempers aggression towards members of the same group/pack (that's why a dog can be scolded, a cat doesn't 'understand'). War pushes fear and guilt to the extreme, so it's not surprising that it scars the psyche. However context is equally important in how your brain react to these 'scars'. Cultural values, hardship, the context in which one grows up all can have a 'soothing' effect on these extreme emotions..
I can only imagine the terror of a foot soldier in a 18th century battlefield; being forced to march into a square while seeing cannonballs slowly tumbling towards his unit and horribly maiming the bodies of men like a meat grinder. Officers on ships were expected to hold their position even when a shell landed close to them and waiting for the paper fuze to ignite the powder. It would be hard to imagine these men returned home without any nightmarish memory constantly pounding in the back of their head. But they lived in a time when loss o life was all too common. Many died young to illness. Mothers died giving birth. Work conditions were harsher than we can even imagine today. So, yes, PTSD might have been a thing even then, but typically people were better prepared to live with it.
I can only imagine the terror of a foot soldier in a 18th century battlefield; being forced to march into a square while seeing cannonballs slowly tumbling towards his unit and horribly maiming the bodies of men like a meat grinder. Officers on ships were expected to hold their position even when a shell landed close to them and waiting for the paper fuze to ignite the powder. It would be hard to imagine these men returned home without any nightmarish memory constantly pounding in the back of their head. But they lived in a time when loss o life was all too common. Many died young to illness. Mothers died giving birth. Work conditions were harsher than we can even imagine today. So, yes, PTSD might have been a thing even then, but typically people were better prepared to live with it.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
This has to be one of the best thread-drifts I've read here. Lots of stuff to chew on.
