Contenders in German "Bomber A" Program

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

GrauGeist said:
The Luftwaffe training was meticulous, there is no doubt about that. However, it was extensive and was not providing pilots fast enough as the war wore on.

In regards to their "lots of aircraft", no...they did not have "lots" of them. They started the war with 737 bombers, 614 fighters, 134 dive bombers and others for a total of 1,928.

How can one reasonably justify starting a war with fewer than 2,000 aircraft?
Click to expand...

The rest had less... all is relative.

By the time of the main campaign in the west they had close to 3.000, most of them newer and better than the opposition, with better tactics and training.

They did of course FAIL to adapt their training and production programs to make up for loses (usually by screwing up with the next gen aircraft, Me 210, He 177), but, I am responding to the quoted post, 4-engined bombers use LESS crew and LESS materials when considering bomb tonnage carried, they are cheaper...

If the LW had replaced 1000 He 111 with a 5 crew and a 2t payload, with 500 4-engined bombers with a 6 man crew and a 4t payload... you would have the same capabilities and save in aluminum, crew and fuel for training... or make more 4-engined bombers for the same expense, IIRC Kesselring mentioned they could have gotten 2 heavies x 3 mediums.

A good trade if you ask me.
 
JAG88 said:
Please do name a bomber force better trained and equipped than the LWs in 1939-1940... thx.

And apparently they did manage to build lots of aircraft and fuel them... odd.
Click to expand...

1939-1940 as you said...
What about in 1943-1944?
What was the full load weight of a He-111?
And what was the full load weight of a B-29?
How many crew members for an He-111?
And how many those of a B-29?
Let's not compare oranges to apples.
 
JAG88 said:
The rest had less... all is relative.

By the time of the main campaign in the west they had close to 3.000, most of them newer and better than the opposition, with better tactics and training.

They did of course FAIL to adapt their training and production programs to make up for loses (usually by screwing up with the next gen aircraft, Me 210, He 177), but, I am responding to the quoted post, 4-engined bombers use LESS crew and LESS materials when considering bomb tonnage carried, they are cheaper...

If the LW had replaced 1000 He 111 with a 5 crew and a 2t payload, with 500 4-engined bombers with a 6 man crew and a 4t payload... you would have the same capabilities and save in aluminum, crew and fuel for training... or make more 4-engined bombers for the same expense, IIRC Kesselring mentioned they could have gotten 2 heavies x 3 mediums.

A good trade if you ask me.
Click to expand...

"When amateurs talk about strategy, Professionals study logistics." From a manual of U.S. Army.
 
JAG88 said:
The rest had less... all is relative.
Click to expand...
Great Britain, 1939: 7,940 aircraft
Soviet Union, 1939: 10, 380
Japan, 1939: 4,467
And for contrast, United States (who was, of course, not at war), 1939: 2,141

So it doesn't matter how many 4 engined, 2 engined or even 3 engined bombers Germany had in 1939, they simply did not take the war they started seriously otherwise they would have started with not only more numbers, but bombers that weren't airliners or "fast mail planes".
 
GrauGeist said:
Great Britain, 1939: 7,940 aircraft
Soviet Union, 1939: 10, 380
Japan, 1939: 4,467
And for contrast, United States (who was, of course, not at war), 1939: 2,141

So it doesn't matter how many 4 engined, 2 engined or even 3 engined bombers Germany had in 1939, they simply did not take the war they started seriously otherwise they would have started with not only more numbers, but bombers that weren't airliners or "fast mail planes".
Click to expand...

Germany started a war with Poland, the UK and France started a great power war...

...and then proceded to do nothing, just sit and watch the Germans and Soviets crush the Poles, didnt they?

Remember, the French and Brits DECLARED war on Germany and went to war with these...

1584918882302.png


1584918988625.png


Now, be so kind as to provide the source for your numbers? What are they for? Production? Actual serviceable planes?

Please tell me you are not quoting wikipedia... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Not wanting to hijack Zipper's thread any further, the fact goes back to the statement of:
JAG88 said:
And apparently they did manage to build lots of aircraft and fuel them... odd.
Click to expand...
which is simply not the case, the numbers for Germany bear out that they did not think this thing through.

And yeah...wiki...

This book is worth having in anyone's library if they are into wartime production figures of the major belligerents:
"Aircraft of World War II" by Stewart Wilson.
 
GrauGeist said:
Not wanting to hijack Zipper's thread any further, the fact goes back to the statement of:

which is simply not the case, the numbers for Germany bear out that they did not think this thing through.

And yeah...wiki...

This book is worth having in anyone's library if they are into wartime production figures of the major belligerents:
"Aircraft of World War II" by Stewart Wilson.
Click to expand...

Really? Wikipedia... the "source" any idiot can go and butcher at will? :rolleyes:

Again, the UK and France declared war, not Germany... they didnt think it through and sat and let Poland be crushed, according to you... you may be right.

Your source is wrong, the ridiculously low number should have tipped you off, but it didnt, you will have to wonder why... these are the actual production numbers, your author... if it is his mistake and not somebody else's, took the Sep-Dec 1939 production numbers and used them as the total 1939 numbers... likely taken from Vajda, pp. 135 which mentions the 2.518 SUBtotal for 1939, your number is even lower:

1584924977589.png


Now, there are slightly different numbers available depending on source, none of them make such an absurd claim as you did.

Btw, you have been all over the place, confusing production and force strength numbers.

Could you quote the page for your source? Because if it says what you or wiki says... then it may be the solution for the current toilet paper shortage.
 
One does have to be rather careful when comparing aircraft TOTALS, as some/many air forces included training planes in the totals.

Like for the US in 1939, 2,141 planes? total aircraft in service or number built in 1939?

I can believe it but only if were include the trainers, the first production P-40s and P-39s were not yet delivered and the bulk of the US fighters were P-36s and P-35s.

1940 gets worse. 6086 planes built in 1940 of which 1685 were fighter?
Source Curtiss Fighter aircraft 1917-1948.

Anybody believe the US built 4400 bombers and recon aircraft?
If you count T-6 Texans and other trainers right down to hundreds of Piper cubs the number becomes believable.

But the number of front line combat aircraft at the end of 1940 was a fraction of what the 1939 and 1940 numbers would suggest.
 
JAG88 said:
Really? Wikipedia... the "source" any idiot can go and butcher at will? :rolleyes:

Again, the UK and France declared war, not Germany... they didnt think it through and sat and let Poland be crushed, according to you... you may be right.

Your source is wrong, the ridiculously low number should have tipped you off, but it didnt, you will have to wonder why... these are the actual production numbers, your author... if it is his mistake and not somebody else's, took the Sep-Dec 1939 production numbers and used them as the total 1939 numbers... likely taken from Vajda, pp. 135 which mentions the 2.518 SUBtotal for 1939, your number is even lower:

View attachment 574520

Now, there are slightly different numbers available depending on source, none of them make such an absurd claim as you did.

Btw, you have been all over the place, confusing production and force strength numbers.

Could you quote the page for your source? Because if it says what you or wiki says... then it may be the solution for the current toilet paper shortage.
Click to expand...
It appears that my sarcasm was lost on you (not surprised, really) as I RARELY go to wiki.

And I posted the name and author of the book I refer to for numbers.

Now *hopefully* we can get back on topic or maybe not...
 
GrauGeist said:
It appears that my sarcasm was lost on you (not surprised, really) as I RARELY go to wiki.

And I posted the name and author of the book I refer to for numbers.

Now *hopefully* we can get back on topic or maybe not...
Click to expand...

You are right I missed the sarcasm, must have been hiding under all those attempts at deflection... :salute:

No page number? Not surprised, it isnt on the wikipedia page...
 
JAG88 said:
I thought Heinkel was pretty much handed the A project, I didnt know there was a contest with the Junkers project being a private venture that ended up being the basis for Bomber B, the Ju 288.
Click to expand...
There was a competition for the program. It's possible Heinkel was favored above the others, but I can't really confidently say that for sure.
 
Zipper730 said:
There was a competition for the program. It's possible Heinkel was favored above the others, but I can't really confidently say that for sure.
Click to expand...

What I find interesting, is that without Udet they would have likely ended with a Ju 288-type bomber A instead of the 177, both the Junkers and early Heinkel projects had a similar basic layout, and the 288s that did fly did it mostly with DB606-610s, the likely powerplant of such an hypothetical aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

MiTasol
German Aircraft Instruments
Replies
0
Views
199
MiTasol
MiTasol
F
German WW2 ammo
Replies
2
Views
197
Wurger
Wurger
P
German aircraft catapults
Replies
4
Views
721
MiTasol
MiTasol
W
Wellington torpedo-bomber - crude sight?
Replies
9
Views
713
WATU
W
M
Public NASA 1970s Apollo Program and early space shuttle partial historical old manuals from museums
Replies
0
Views
668
m13katyusa2020
M
Back