Long range Luftwaffe bomber: attack on the USA

[swampyankee]

replaced by later post

 

[swampyankee]

Understand, but if the result of WW2 were reversed, you can see pretty much how the Nazis would have handled the leaders of the losing countries. To the victor goes the spoils.

I don't wish to engage in the morality of strategic bombing here; that's not what this thread is about, but if we are going to point fingers, every one of the major protagonists of WW2 were guilty of it. The fact is, that it happened meant that the leadership of each of the countries involved felt it was a necessary means to achieve their aims, rightly or wrongly and as observers of history we should deal with that as rationally and thoughtfully as we can.

There's a reason why the Allied civilian casualties were almost 8 times those of the Axis. There were more civilian deaths just in Poland than in the entire Axis. Killing civilians was German policy in WW2.

 

[swampyankee]

That was my thinking as well. Without WMD nor hundreds of available aircraft this sounds about as effective as the Japanese balloon bombs.

If the Germans did assemble a few hundred long range bombers the US would soon install radar to detect them. And a hundred or more Junkers Ju 390-sized bombers plodding along at about 190 knots IAS (and ground speed will be less as they're flying into the jet stream) at 25,000-30,000 feet or so would be detected by US ground-based radar many miles out, sufficiently that a massive Air Force interception would be ready to meet these poor, unescorted bastards. And how do you keep a fleet of bombers together through thousands of miles flying into often bad weather, night, etc?

But this does present some questions on the US response, and possible overreaction. What fighters does the US divert from the ETO, PTO and Lend Lease to protect its shores? And then we must consider what the Germans give up to build a long range bomber force.

As for radar, can the US stick it the top of skyscrapers to get the best distance? And could we see any early NORAD with Canada-USA cooperation on continental air defence, since the Germans may fly the curvature to come across Newfoundland to hit NYC?

There are things taller than skyscrapers in the US Northeast.

 

[Zipper730]

Civilians make the guns civilians make the tanks civilians feed the troops and i am guessing most of the troops where made by civilians.

I figured that was more an excuse to make the idea more palatable, than an actual justification. Many air-power types largely wanted to hammer the population because they figured the population was the political center of gravity and was the weakest chain in the link, so of you kill huge numbers rapidly and brutally, we'd cry uncle and force a surrender.

ethics and war are strange bed fellows

More like loose friends in peace, and strangers/enemies in time of war.

Were there no P-38's stationed as interceptors on either the west or east coast in 1943? Not sure it would divert that much from the AAF inventory that was already there for just that purpose.

I was under the impression that we had them based on the coast.

Uh, Guys, look at maps, to get to New York the great circle routes are going to come in over Boston and/or down the Maine coast. yes they can dog leg around a bit. But unless you appouch New York from the South east you have 60-100 miles of land to fly over or next to (counts flying down the south side of long Island).

True enough and, considering most of the approach to North America would be in airspace that's contested by nobody, there wouldn't be much to distract from navigation.

Germans try this stunt more than about twice and the US puts radar picket ships 60-100 miles off shore.

And I already was under the assumption that we had radar sites placed in various areas of the United States as well. Not sure how well arranged they were, but Gordon Saville supposedly reconfigured them prior to 1943.

Long range V-2 is the way to go.

The A9/A10 rocket would have had the range. It was a V-2 like rocket that had the fins extended to the nose (it was kind of like a chine, similar to the SR-71), atop a booster stage that connected the tail and fins for launch.

Not sure what their error rates were with gyroscopic navigation systems but even if they got within 100 miles of NYC they'd probably be able to produce quite a scare. I'm not sure if radar operators at that time could have connected blips that far apart on the radar scopes (the A-4 would top out at Mach 5, this would go faster).

It ultimately was all for nought because of the fact that the designer was taken out during the Peenemunde raid, and the rocket wouldn't have been ready until after the V-2's were operational (and as of 8/17/43, they were just about ready to go).

The Japanese were the ones who actually managed to land hits on the US (with little effect, save for the "Battle of Los Angeles") with their Subs, sub-launched aircraft and of course, the Fu-Go balloons.

One even hit one Oak Ridge and slowed down the nuclear program.

Understand, but if the result of WW2 were reversed, you can see pretty much how the Nazis would have handled the leaders of the losing countries. To the victor goes the spoils.

Generally that's the rule: Right lies in the ability to impose your will on other people. It's why predatory personalities naturally gravitate to power (they lack the restraints most people have to pursue power -- concern for other human beings, obligations or commitments, morality and shame -- a group of people without virtue only know fear and force).

 

[pbehn]

If the plane performed like a B-17, how long would the mission last?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey pbehn,

The distance from New York city to Berlin is just under 4,000 miles. IIRC the US XBLR intercontinental bomber project in the late-1930s originally sought a 4,000 mile operational radius. (They never came close.)

If we use the performance of a B-17F at max TOGW for a performance comparison, the best cruise speed would be a TAS of about 180/225 mph at SL/30,000 ft. If we use an average TAS of 200 mph for both legs it would require a minimum of 40+ hours for the round trip from Berlin to New York. The total range could be decreased somewhat by using airfields closer to the US than Berlin, but not by more than about 200 miles if the base is located in Germany. When you add in time for correction of navigational errors and required reserves you can figure a total flight time capability of at least 48 hrs.


Hey several other guys,

Are you saying that the Doolittle raid on Tokyo was silly/pointless/stupid/counter-productive? And only served to strengthen the Japanese resolve?

 

[GrauGeist]

IIRC the US XBLR intercontinental bomber project in the late-1930s originally sought a 4,000 mile operational radius. (They never came close.)

The B-19 (XBLR-2) had a range of over 5,000 miles with a load and over 7,500 miles in ferry mode. The B-15 (XBLR-1) was close to the B-19 in range, but slower.

In regards to the Doolittle raid, it was successful in several ways. It was a huge moral booster for the Allies, it shook the Japanese high command and more importantly, diverted Japanese resources as they installed flak batteries (and personnel) throughout the home island at strategic locations.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey GrauGeist,

So that would make the XB-19 (R-3350) short on operational radius (re bombing Germany) by ~1,500 miles?

re: "In regards to the Doolittle raid, it was successful in several ways. ..." I agree, but some others up thread seem to think that it was not, either that or they think that there is a significant difference between how the US, Germany, or Japan would react to such an attack.

 

[GrauGeist]

In regards to the XBLR program, that predated the war and the need to attack Germany proper. The B-29 was a natural follow-on to the XBLR program. However, the B-36 was conceived as a platform with which to strike targets in Europe in the event Britain fell.

As far as bombing Japan goes, the attack was contained by Japanese media and so the public didn't really have a reaction. Germany did the same until the obvious outweighed the propaganda.

 

[rednev]

or they think that there is a significant difference between how the US, Germany, or Japan would react to such an attack.
The americans had the resources to indulge themselves plus with luck supply some b25's to china.
The germans didnt have the resources to raid america without robbing the rest of their forces.
How many 109 sorties could be flown with the amount of fuel required by one round trip to america ?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey GrauGeist,

Everything I have read, and heard/seen, says that the Japanese government did not manage any coverup of the attack. In one interview, a Japanese native of Hokkaido (the northern island) said that they heard about the attack 3 days later, with casualties greatly exaggerated. What I have read and heard/seen is that the the Japanese government used it as a form of propaganda against the US - portraying it as an indiscriminate attack on civilians (approximately 300 of the casualties were civilians).

 

[GrauGeist]

I didn't say the media covered it up, I said they contained it. Big difference.

Also, I should have mentioned that the biggest result of the Doolittle raid, was the retaliation of Japan on China, the Japanese laying waste to coastal towns in the areas where the Raiders landed. Men, women, children and livestock killed on sight, towns looted, bombed and burned to the ground, infrastructure (power plants, irrigation systems, etc.) destroyed and railroad lines torn up (and the rails hauled off).
This retaliation was of course, a terrible waste of human life but it also was a costly temper tantrum, consuming precious resources and manpower in order to slaughter a quarter million civilians.

 

[swampyankee]

Are you saying that the Doolittle raid on Tokyo was silly/pointless/stupid/counter-productive? And only served to strengthen the Japanese resolve?

Did any Japanese official or subject call for an end to hostilities or was there a call for more effort against this barbaric attack? I'm betting the latter, even among those who were (quite privately) not fans of Japan's imperialism.

The US was a much larger economy than Japan, and could devote more to local defense than it did. Routes from Europe to the US are constrained, so it's pretty easy to decide where to put the fighters to destroy those unescorted bombers.

 

[Glider]

I think simply put. The effort in time, resources, training would be simply huge, the losses substantial. The damage done negligible, and retribution both swift and ruthless.

 

[pbehn]

Hey pbehn,

The distance from New York city to Berlin is just under 4,000 miles. IIRC the US XBLR intercontinental bomber project in the late-1930s originally sought a 4,000 mile operational radius. (They never came close.)

If we use the performance of a B-17F at max TOGW for a performance comparison, the best cruise speed would be a TAS of about 180/225 mph at SL/30,000 ft. If we use an average TAS of 200 mph for both legs it would require a minimum of 40+ hours for the round trip from Berlin to New York. The total range could be decreased somewhat by using airfields closer to the US than Berlin, but not by more than about 200 miles if the base is located in Germany. When you add in time for correction of navigational errors and required reserves you can figure a total flight time capability of at least 48 hrs.

Any flight from Berlin and almost all of the rest of Germany by the shortest route takes you over the UK. Brest in France seems to be closer at about 3,350 miles. However the shortest route takes you over Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and pretty much the route taken by convoys too. The time taken means if a raider ever did hit New York US and UK forces have almost day to bring it down trying to get back. With aviation in 1943 it would be a considerable achievement as a peacetime stunt just to build a plane to go from Brest to New York and back unopposed and without defensive armament or a bomb load.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Are you saying that the Doolittle raid on Tokyo was silly/pointless/stupid/counter-productive? And only served to strengthen the Japanese resolve?

I don't know if the April 18, 1942 raid had a great impact on Japan; though having just returned from March 31 to April 10, 1942 attack on Ceylon and the British Eastern Fleet, Nagumo never again ventured into the Indian Ocean. So, that's something Churchill and Sommerville might thank FDR and Doolittle for.

Coincidently, per Wikipedia April 18, 1942 is the same day British "naval planning accorded the Eastern Fleet the highest priority for reinforcement, which also included transferring most of the carriers from the Home Fleet and the Mediterranean, with the intention of returning to Ceylon in September." After Midway made it clear that Japan would now be on the defensive, this decision was reversed.

Other than staying in the Pacific, I don't think Doolittle forced much change in Japanese tactics. They still went on the offensive at Coral Sea and Midway. Regardless of its impact on the Japanese, Doolittle was good propaganda for the American public.

 

[Shortround6]

The B-25 raid was obviously a stunt.
However the US, I don't believe, had never made any claims about enemy aircraft never being able to fly over America, The US, at times, had imposed a black out(not soon enough in some coastal areas).

As mentioned above the raid did result in different distribution of AA guns and crews and also affected the Deployment of some fighter squadrons.

Whether or not a single (or even a few) German raids would have changed US deployments is certainly subject to Question. The US kept around four hundred 120mm AA guns at home, only 4 went overseas. I have no idea how many smaller AA guns were kept in the US. The East Coast of the US was home to a number of fighter squadrons and airbases used for operational training with combat aircraft. With Chance Vought, Republic and Grumman all within a 100 miles of New York it often helped to have new squadrons working up with operational fighters close to the factories.

I am not sure that such small scale raids would really affect US planning or deployments to any extent.

With Ships being torpedoed within sight of the coast the US citizens were aware of how close things might get.

 

[GrauGeist]

The U.S. did have AA batteries (although dated) situated in coastal areas early on. How effective they may have been, however is questionable.
A good example would be the afore-mentioned "Battle of Los Angeles" which was a wild debacle and was even touched on in Spielberg's movie "1941".

 

[tyrodtom]

One even hit one Oak Ridge and slowed down the nuclear program.

.

That balloon hit near Hanford, Washington, NOT Oak Ridge, Tn.

 

[Zipper730]

That balloon hit near Hanford, Washington, NOT Oak Ridge, Tn.

I stand corrected... that makes a lot more sense