He.177 combat history

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

That's very interesting, I've never heard of a ventral turret for the He-177 either.

The Ju 290 above is the A-8 model and only 2 or 3 were completed before being captured. While this plane carried 11 x 20mm MG151s, on average 3 of 4 might be trained onto 1 target, which would be the equivalent fire power of a single fighter. While it would be able to defend itself, IMO the advantage still lays with the fighter.

Now have a massed formation of these (or He-177's) and they would help even the odds.
 
can you imagine the ordeal of a pilot who made a foolish decision to attack an he.177 or ju.290a-8 from above? i imagine if the gunners were good enough theyd make short work of an attacking fighter
 
Sagittario64 said:
can you imagine the ordeal of a pilot who made a foolish decision to attack an he.177 or ju.290a-8 from above? i imagine if the gunners were good enough theyd make short work of an attacking fighter
Click to expand...

Not necessarily so foolish
Now on 26.11.43 Spitfires of GC I/7 claimed 4 bombers during the attack against Convoy KMF-26, Beaufighters (from 135Sqn and 416 NFS) 4 bombers, naval AAA one. LW lost 6 missing He 177s and 3 He 177s crashed on landings, of the latter at least one was damaged by AAA. Allied a/c losses were limited to one Beaufighter.

26.5.1944 Sea Hurricanes from escort carrier Nairana shot down 2 Ju 290s in two combats, one was A-3 subtype another was A-7.

So IMHO its seems that odds were still against LW bombers.

Juha
 
Sagittario64 said:
in rendition to your assessment that no bomber ever carried enough armament to defend itself, id like to direct you to the Junkers Ju.290A variant some call the porcupine


surely this one could dish out some damage to any attacking fighters
Click to expand...

Lets think about this one for a minute or two shall we?

What was the impact on performance of all those turrets and guns? What was the loss in speed and ceiling (or bomb load) compared to a 'standard' (if there every was such a thing) JU 290?
With several fighters attacking at once (something a lot of people forget, fighters vs bombers were seldom one on one) how do you co-ordinate the four top turrets to engage even a pair of fighters? 4 turrets on one fighter? two on each? 3 on one and one on the other?

And who says the fighters have to attack from the top? pulling up from the bottom might be able to be outside the arc of fire of the tail gun leaving the defense to to a single hand aimed gun from the rear of the gondola.

the US tried using heavily armed variants as escorts for the normal B-17s and B-24s (YB-40 XB-41), it didn't work. according to Wiki: 48 sorties were credited. Five German fighter kills and two probables (likely kills) were claimed, and one YB-40 was lost, shot down on the 22 June mission to Hüls, Germany>

That is five claimed, not confirmed, kills and the YB-17 could not carry any bombs.
 
Sagittario64 said:
Hmm for 1,700 he.177s built, the actual combat losses appear to be far lower than any other wwii bomber i know of, other than the mosquito.
Click to expand...

The figure you need is not how many were lost out of how many built, but how many losses occured per mission. And I assume that number was still pretty high in the west. The reason not many were shot down is because they were sparsely used in the west and in the east they flew too high to be intercepted. But also too rarely seen for the VVS to care too much about them, or that's what I've benn told.



tyrodtom said:
The He177 did have the lowest loss rate on the Steinbock missions, but it was still 10%, think what that means, statistically no crew or aircraft is going to last more than 10 missions.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong because my statistics courses were a long time ago but if the chance to go down on a mission is 10%, that means the chance to survive 10 missions ist still 34.8%.
 
Well yes, the ju.290a-8 was a reconnaissance plane i believe, not a bomber, so i guess its my fault i presented it as an argument for bomnber defensive argument. what i guess im looking for, is whether the he.177 had any positive aspects of its design and career to lighten its failures as a bomber. i always like to think that every airplane has at least one good thing about it. most books say they achieved moderate success as glide bomb and anti-ship missile carriers. can this be deemed as true, or was maintenance issues so bad that no chapter of the 177's career would ever been considered even close to adequately successful? To me its a wonderfully beautiful aircraft, and id hate to think that its looks were the only good thing about it.




 
I may be wrong because my statistics courses were a long time ago but if the chance to go down on a mission is 10%, that means the chance to survive 10 missions ist still 34.8%.[/QUOTE]

I think maybe you are wrong. If you have a group of 10 aircraft, if on the first mission they lose 1, The next mission, their still 10 aircraft because they've got a replacement, they again lose 1, and so on for 10 missions. in effect you will have replaced them all. I know in real life the bad fate might befall the replacement aircraft and crew instead of a veteran crew, but a 10% loss rate per mission cannot be sustained for long.
The 8th Air Forces blackest day was their 2nd raid on Schwienfurt, they had a 20% loss rate on that mission. It was a daylight mission of course, and unescorted. After that mission all unescorted daylight missions were stopped.
 
I think the only failure of the He 177 was how they were deployed. IMO once the engine issues were solved it was a pretty decent aircraft. I think if the B-17 or Lancaster was deployed in the same way the results would not have been that different.
 
One of the reasons the He-177 had the speed it had was because of it's engines, it had the power of a 4 engine aircraft, but the engine drag just a little more than a two engine aircraft. But those paired engines were it's achilles heel. The engines were 2 DB601's side by side. The exhaust manifold between the two engines was a very hot spot, and the lowest part of the nacelle was also closeby. The little leaks that most engines have are going to gather at the lowest point. So you've got the hottest part of the engine close to the same place oil leak, and other leakage tend to gather.

If they had redesigned the He-177 with 4 separate engines it would not have been as fast, it would then have the same engine nacelle drag as any other 4 engine bomber.
 
engine issues were solved with the new motor DB610 (2x DB605) instead of the DB606 (2x DB601) starting at the A-3 version
Regards
Cimmex
 
I believe by the time the A-3 model was released. The problems has been identified before the first A-1 had left the production line but they didn't want to delay it. The problems identified were (from Warplanes of the Third Reich by Willian Green):

1 - Engine mountings be extended 8"
2 - fuel/oil lines be rerouted
3 - Fire wall installed
4 - Oil tank related to a less dangerous position
5 - Redesign of the exhaust system

Only the oil tank was relocated at first. Later crews demanded flame dampners for night operations so the exhaust system was redesigned. The A-3 model had the engine mounts extended 8" and the engine fires issue appeared to be solved. I didn't see where a fire wall had ever been installed, but I assume it had been. The A-3 was produced late autume of 1942.
 
ummm, pobably the most unusual combat witha He 177 was this.....

20 February 1944

A B-17 flown by Lt. Guy Reed and specially-equipped for recon and weather reporting took off to determine the weather conditions over Germany and the North Sea. While enroute, Lt. Reed picked up a ghost radio signal and decided to investigate. A ghost signal had been causing havoc among the bomber groups and misdirecting many bombers away from airfields until their fuel was exhausted and they ditched their bombers. Dropping through cloud cover, Reed's B-17 found the source of the radio signal - a He 177 recon plane. Coming up alongside the big bomber, the B-17 started firing at the Heinkel, beginning a battle across the North Sea as the two lumbering giants fired at each other. Lt. Reed brought the B-17 around the Heinkel and the crew fired on the German bomber at almost point-blank range. The Heinkel dove then appeared to stall alongside the Fortress. As the American bomber came alongside, the German gunners opened up on the B-17, killing the right waist gunner, knocking the cover off the top turret and jamming the rudder. A .50 cal shell from the B-17 nearly killed the German pilot and he decided to break off the battle. As he banked away, a volley of gunfire from the Fortress damaged one of his engines and the He 177 tumbled out of the sky out of control. Nobody survived the crash. Lt. Reed was able to bring his damaged plane back to Scotland for a crash landing.
 
Sagittario64 said:
when did they solve the engine issues, and how? in what model?
Click to expand...

Having a bit of an interest in the Greif myself, I have the J Richard Smith Eddie J Creeks book 'Heinkel He 177 Greif Heinkel's Strategic Bomber' and the Manfred Griehl Joachm Dressel book 'Heinkel He 177, 277 274' and whilst each talks about significant improvements being made by the A3 version each seems to agree that the A5 was 'the cure'.
However even with the A5 they both talk about fires continuing to plague the aircraft.
I suppose it has to be remembered that sabotage was also a constant factor German crew just had to live with.

Hows this for an outsized load? During the first Steinbok raids the He 177's were carrying an SC2500 - under each wing.
I knew the bomb bay was big but for sheer load 11,000lbs under the wings is mighty impressive for a bomber of that period.
 
Gixxerman said:
......

Hows this for an outsized load? During the first Steinbok raids the He 177's were carrying an SC2500 - under each wing.
I knew the bomb bay was big but for sheer load 11,000lbs under the wings is mighty impressive for a bomber of that period.
Click to expand...

maybe because they were designed with the requirement that they had to be able to 'dive-bomb'!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
fiatG.55 combat history
Replies
0
Views
712
Jerrybandit67
J
The real combat history of the Ki-43
19 20 21
Replies
411
Views
36K
MiTasol
Aircraft comparison for operational-level wargames and alt history forums
Replies
8
Views
316
SaparotRob
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
C
PR He 100
Replies
3
Views
331
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register