Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well they built 15,000+ Ju-88s. Pretty sure that wasn't all in 1940. The reasoning on not developing say the Ju 188 was that it would cut back on Ju 88 production.
Ju 88 was arguably an excellent bomber in 1941. A bit less so in 1942. Having trouble though still usable in 1943. In big trouble by 1944.
All those planes probably weren't actually deployed and many were destroyed on the ground or broke down, but if say half of them were shot down in combat that's 30,000 crew.
Maybe make 5,000 Ju 88s and who knows? 3-4,000 Ju 188 or 388 models, and possibly you don't lose as many crew, or waste as many machines. Production capacity doesn't help that much when the dualumin and engines and fuel are all ending up in a smoking heap on the ground a few weeks after the plane is built.
A bit early?Ju 88 is cancelled some time in mid-1938.
Trick with Ju 188 was that they still were hanging the bombs in the breeze. Perhaps an earlier go towards the bomb panier might've been beneficial, like it was done on the Ju 388? There is still a question of engines - the Jumo 213, DB 603 or at least the BMW 801 will be needed (the turbocharged 801 like the 388 used is years in the future).I'd still make 2,000 - 3,000 Ju 88s and then shift toward something like the Ju 88B / Ju 188. I'd also cut back on the number of He 111 and wouldn't make 5,000 of those.
Then you can make more Ju 188 / 388 variants with different sized wings (try getting rid of the pointed wingtips), different engines, remote gun turrets, low alt strafer attack versions with no bombardier, high alt recon and night fighter or bomber-destroyer versions and so on.
Jumo was working on the 222, the 223 (diesel), 004, while improving the 211 and 207. This called for a big investment of tallented manpower, time, test cells, 'fancy' metals - meaning that everything will be late, or too late.Junkers was working on the Jumo 213 in 1939 and promising 1500hp for take-off and 1240hp at 18,000ft.
I don't know if "best was the enemy of good" or if the Jumo 222 sucked up too much engineering staff or what was going on.
Junkers couldn't even deliver the Jumo 211J on time in 1940.
If you are stuck with 1000-1200hp engines you either make really small fast bombers or you make lumbering big bombers (Pegasus powered Wellingtons or Whitleys). Trying to split the difference means not enough speed to make much difference and not enough defensive guns to to do much either. The whole three RCMG defense had to go. Having one man trying to use 3-4 guns was not a solution either. Looked good on a postcard
Works for me.Yes a plane that could hold six 550lb bombs inside (or four 1100LB?) with a useable amount of fuel would have been very nice once the engine situation got sorted out.
Having external racks for short range/soft defense would have been nice, (or drop tanks?).
Having better defensive armament would have been nice (what was so hard about using two MG 131s in one mount? or using power for both elevation and traverse?
The 1800kg is too specialized.Hmm - a 400 sq ft winged 2-engined bomber with a bomb bay (or recess) to carry up to a 1800 kg bomb or more of the smaller ones (500 or 250 kg) should come in handy.
See above for the 'Ju 288 minus'The 1800kg is too specialized.
If you want to replace the He 111 you need a bomber than can replace the He 111 and it's eight 550lb bombs (maybe you can get away with six?) and how far it can carry them.
The Germans need a good general purpose bomber, the veering off into specialized roles/requirements is what got them into trouble in the first place.
Ditch the dive bomber requirement, You don't need dive bombers to attack factories that cover many acres, at least you shouldn't
did you mean max individual size bomb (like eight 250kg) or 500kg total bomb load because 500kg is crap for general purpose bomber (attacking factories, infrastructure, shipping and so on.) needed 3-4 fast small bombers does not make things easier than building one good medium bomber.500 kg bomb capacity is probably really good, even 250 kg would be good.
did you mean max individual size bomb (like eight 250kg) or 500kg total bomb load because 500kg is crap for general purpose bomber (attacking factories, infrastructure, shipping and so on.) needed 3-4 fast small bombers does not make things easier than building one good medium bomber.
(take He 111, put newest engines on it, it took about 1 year or more to the get the engines the Ju-88-4 had) put some sort of better gun on the top, it was flying with MG 17 long after other planes had MG 81s and MG 131s.
Put the drop tanks on the 109 and escort the bombers and not make them fly alone or call a fighter sweep "escorting".
Use 110 to lead drop tank 109s to escort the bombers out while the first escorts head for home with low fuel.
Accept the fact that enemy fighters will almost always be enough faster than your bombers to intercept your bombers.
You may get lucky for a few weeks or even a few months, but betting on it continuing is a sucker bet.
You are right, but everything is on a sliding scale.Defensive guns are really only part of what makes a bomber capable of surviving strike missions. Just like bomb load is arguably less important than bombing accuracy and survivability.
You are right, but everything is on a sliding scale.
North Africa is a strange area. There are few, if any, industrial targets, harbor docks?
There are no bridges that needed to be bombed with large bombs. There was only one east-west railroad and that didn't go all the way or didn't after the war started and it got bombed more than a few times.
Just about all missions are tactical. Why fly 300 miles past the front lines to hit truck convoys when in another day or two the truck convoy will be 50-100 miles from the front?
And there are darn few roads to send the convoys over.
The Soviets found that either adding defensive guns or changing defensive guns significantly increased the survivability of some aircraft. We are back to to the sliding scale.
Things like an IL-2 without rear gunner was doing good to survive 10 missions. If they added a rear gunner it might survive well into the teens.
The PE-2 started with a 7.62mm gun in the rear, changing to the 12.7mm increased survivability. Whatever the bigger guns cost in speed or climb they were considered worth it.
Loosing 10-20kph wasn't going to make much difference.
If you are going to use a fat fuselage or carry a 4-5 man crew then don't throw the sacrifice of performance away by using single pea shooter guns with limited ammo supply and no power assist for the gunners.
B-17s and B-24s certainly were not invulnerable but with significantly few guns (not just taking out 2-3) things would have been even worse.
Bombers were supposed to able to hit the enemy in his rear areas.
The fighter bombers had trouble with that. There are photos of Hurricane IVs with a set of rockets on one wing and drop tank on the other in order to reach targets. They did it because they had to, not because was it really effective or efficient.
If your fighter bombers cannot reach the target and return then it doesn't matter how accurate they are or how survivable they are. There are other things you can use them for but they cannot replace the light and medium bombers for certain missions.
Yes, no, maybe?If the Ju88 is nixed early on, then perhaps the Do17 transitions to the Do217 sooner?
If these A/C were powered by same engines and flown in clean configuration, the Do 217 will probably be the slowest of the lot. Do 217 was the best of the 3 if big bombs were carried by the all three of them, since it have had the proper bomb bay to house these bombs.What made the Do 217 so fast compared to say the Ju 88 or Ju 188
Selective quoting of statisticsWhat made the Do 217 so fast compared to say the Ju 88 or Ju 188
The Do 217E using BMW 801 engines of 1580hp for take-off and 1380hp at 15,100ft (old book correction welcome)
If you wait for 1943/44 and the DB 603 engines to show up the numbers get a lot better.