On German bombers

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

'Coupled' engines did prove problematic (think Rolls Royce Vulture, and others) but were tried as a seemingly easy way of getting more power.

13th September 1942 in a speech at the Karinhall is the closest Goring came to calling the requirement for the He 177 to dive lunacy.

First Goering somewhat sarcastically reproached the assembled industrialists for the Germans lack of a four engine bomber "I asked them 'why not go over to a four engined type?' and they told me, 'No, four engined types are passé now; it is far better to have two propellers.' So I said 'Well, well, the enemy is proving quite a nuisance to me with his four engined types."

He continued, "It is complete idiocy to ask that a four engined bomber should dive. Had I been told of this for one moment, I should have exclaimed at once 'what kind of nonsense is this?' but now we are stuck with it".

Idiocy/lunacy...depends on the translator :)

He was still moaning about it at another conference on 23rd May 1944.
"The driving obsession to make even this heavy bomber capable of dive bombing resulted first of all in the scrapping of the four engined design in favour of the twin engined type and, as there were no engines with sufficient power available, this led, as I have already mentioned, to the use of doubled engines."

Cheers

Steve
 
'Coupled' engines did prove problematic (think Rolls Royce Vulture, and others) but were tried as a seemingly easy way of getting more power.

13th September 1942 in a speech at the Karinhall is the closest Goring came to calling the requirement for the He 177 to dive lunacy.

First Goering somewhat sarcastically reproached the assembled industrialists for the Germans' lack of a four engine bomber "I asked them 'why not go over to a four engined type?' and they told me, 'No, four engined types are passé now; it is far better to have two propellers.' So I said 'Well, well, the enemy is proving quite a nuisance to me with his four engined types."

He continued, "It is complete idiocy to ask that a four engined bomber should dive. Had I been told of this for one moment, I should have exclaimed at once 'what kind of nonsense is this?' but now we are stuck with it".

Idiocy/lunacy...depends on the translator, though my limited German would tell me that the German for lunacy or madness is different to that for idiocy :)

He was still moaning about it at another conference on 23rd May 1944.
"The driving obsession to make even this heavy bomber capable of dive bombing resulted first of all in the scrapping of the four engined design in favour of the twin engined type and, as there were no engines with sufficient power available, this led, as I have already mentioned, to the use of doubled engines."

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
All that aside, the only German bomber to have any sort of impact ( pardon the pun),by the end of the war, was the Arado Ar234. By 44/45, allied air supremacy made every conventional Luftwaffe bomber ( and most of their other aircraft) well and truly obsolete, and the Ar234 was the ONLY luft bomber to have any chance of survival. Although their bombing capability was neglible by allied standards, their performance was far in advance of any other German bomber. The potential for further development was a real possibility, much more so than the limited resources being thrown away in desperation designs and such. Operationally,while they achieved very little, they were still the best German bomber available at the end of hostilities.
 
My question would be, what exactly were 'luft' bombers going to bomb in 1944/5?

It was too late to develop any kind of strategic force. The existing tactical force had been almost abandoned and virtually no bomber crews were being trained, others were being transferred to the fighter arm. Even if you manage to produce a few bombers, who is going to fly them?
Developing these aircraft and providing the men to fly them was simply beyond the means of the Germans after 1943.

The single engine ground attack aircraft had little effect on the outcome of any campaign, and the dafter weapons (like Mistel combinations) even less.

As early as the final quarter of 1942 the Anglo-American production of twin engine aircraft was 196% that of Germany. In terms of four engine types this figure is 20,078%.

Cheers

Steve
 
strategic bombers without a long range escort is useless. had the germans developed a strategic wing that would/could work in conjuntion with the blitzkrieg it may have had some success. but that probably would have taxed the german resources beyond their capabilites. so they had to decide and put all their eggs in the blitzkrieg basket...which works well until you reach a coast.
 
As far as I can tell, the AR234 could only carry out nuisance raids on advancing troops; ie "the Bridge at Remagen", advanced allied airfields, and such like. Carried externally, their bomb capacity was not large enough for anything more. The Recon versions actually flew over the UK without detection, even though allied air superiority was total. J2 Jet fuel was more available than expensive synthetic fuel needed for piston engines, and the Ar234 carried a number of "firsts" in aerial warfare, but that is probably best left for another thread. I've always considered them very under rated, and in the shadow of the Me 262.
 
Fw 190s could carry out the same nuisance raids, they might have had a better chance of actually hitting the bridge!

The Ar 234 undoubtedly had potential, but so did a lot of late war RLM projects. I don't think the type is under rated, I just don't think that it is really rateable due to its late arrival and limited use. Less than twenty of the one hundred and forty eight so far delivered were in service (12 as bombers) at the end of 1944. We'll never know how the allies would have reacted to its introduction in numbers.

Cheers

Steve
 
'Coupled' engines did prove problematic (think Rolls Royce Vulture, and others) but were tried as a seemingly easy way of getting more power.

The Vulture wasn't a coupled engine.

The Sabre had two crankshafts, but I still would not consider it a coupled engine.

The V-3420 is closer, but unlike the DB606 and DB610 the two halves shared a crankcase and had only one set of accessories.

I guess the Fairey P.24 was a coupled engine - both crankshafts shared a crankcase, but each half was operated independent of the other.
 
The Vulture wasn't a coupled engine.

Not in engineering terms, but it was still essentially two Peregrines bolted together, admittedly driving a common crankshaft. It still represents a version of the same short cut to achieving more power.

Cheers

Steve
 
Not in engineering terms, but it was still essentially two Peregrines bolted together, admittedly driving a common crankshaft. It still represents a version of the same short cut to achieving more power.

Cheers

Steve

That was not the case. Angle between the Vulture's banks was 90 deg, there is no way to achieve that angle while using a V12 that has 60 deg angle. The crankpins were different. The bore spacing was also greater in Vulture than in Peregrine, so the blocks were also different. Supercharger was different, along with the 2-speed drive. Crankshaft and valvetrain are different.
Vulture basically used, maybe, the pistons and valves from Peregrine.
 
Good job it never got fitted to a German bomber then :)
Cheers
Steve
 
Fw 190s could carry out the same nuisance raids, they might have had a better chance of actually hitting the bridge!

The Ar 234 undoubtedly had potential, but so did a lot of late war RLM projects. I don't think the type is under rated, I just don't think that it is really rateable due to its late arrival and limited use. Less than twenty of the one hundred and forty eight so far delivered were in service (12 as bombers) at the end of 1944. We'll never know how the allies would have reacted to its introduction in numbers.

Cheers

Steve
True, we will never know. On the subject of the FW190 doing the same job, I doubt if it could have done any better. As it was, the Me262 flew as escort in the Flak suppression role, and did provide a modicum of protection for the Ar234 which had to hold straight and level for a bit to achieve any kind of bombing accuracy. It was in these few minutes it became vulnerable to interception or AA fire. At one point a flight of P38's were used to counter the jets, but failed to achieve anything, even killing their own pilots in a mid air collision. As it was, even the fastest allied fighter would be hard pressed to keep pace with the Ar234 once it had dropped its load and was heading home. Some allied piston driven fighters downed several, but usually by diving from a superior altitude, which was the norm anyway. There is a really good narrative from the American perspective in Smith and Creeks 4 volume series on the Me 262, describing the jet bomber attacks on Remagen if you get a chance to read it. Considering the ammount of AA firepower and over whelming allied air superiority, no conventional Luftwaffe aircraft would have stood a chance. Same old story, too little, too late.......
 
True, we will never know. On the subject of the FW190 doing the same job, I doubt if it could have done any better. As it was, the Me262 flew as escort in the Flak suppression role, and did provide a modicum of protection for the Ar234 which had to hold straight and level for a bit to achieve any kind of bombing accuracy. It was in these few minutes it became vulnerable to interception or AA fire. At one point a flight of P38's were used to counter the jets, but failed to achieve anything, even killing their own pilots in a mid air collision. As it was, even the fastest allied fighter would be hard pressed to keep pace with the Ar234 once it had dropped its load and was heading home. Some allied piston driven fighters downed several, but usually by diving from a superior altitude, which was the norm anyway. There is a really good narrative from the American perspective in Smith and Creeks 4 volume series on the Me 262, describing the jet bomber attacks on Remagen if you get a chance to read it. Considering the ammount of AA firepower and over whelming allied air superiority, no conventional Luftwaffe aircraft would have stood a chance. Same old story, too little, too late.......
I'm curious...which missions included Me262s as escorts for the Ar234?

If you're referring to the attacks on the Ludendorf bridge at Remagen (and the pontoon bridge), those Me262s are A-2/a bombers from II./Kg51 that were coordinated with the Ar234s of Kg76 (Stab, 6., II. and III.)...otherwise, the Luftwaffe simply didn't have resources to dedicate escort for the Ar234, which was capable of flying unescorted as it was.

I assume that's also the reference you made about the P-38s trying to intercept and break up the jet's bombing runs being made on the bridges, also?
 
I've promised some tables about the Ju 88, so here they are. A 'Betriebdatentafel' (roughly: 'limitation performance table') is translated earlier in this thread, so people can know what is in the rest. I Intend to translate also one 'Ladeplan' (roughly: loading table), for same purpose. Each Ladeplan is laid on two pages - even, THEN odd.
 

Attachments

  • 88sheets.zip
    13.3 MB · Views: 123
Here is one translated Ladeplan, open separately for hi-res:

LDv2088A4 Ju88 Baumuster Fl_01 small.JPG
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back