Generally, you develop counters to what you know the enemy CAN do, what you THINK the enemy can do, and what YOU can do.
The USA also had many coastal artillery units that hindsight says were a 'waste of resources,' but then, hindsight is 20-20.
P-61 alternatives
- Thread starter pinehilljoe
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Generally, you develop counters to what you know the enemy CAN do, what you THINK the enemy can do, and what YOU can do.
The USA also had many coastal artillery units that hindsight says were a 'waste of resources,' but then, hindsight is 20-20.
The 120mm guns make my point: the mere fear of a Luftwaffe bomber tied up resources such as these.
The Me 264 could have worked. Although 2500 meter (8200ft) sealed runways are common these days for transatlantic flight they were a problem for the Germans since they were bombing targets. Hence until the 2400hp DB603H became available RATO would be needed so that 1500m runways were an option. The alternative was in flight refuelling immediately after take-off (to shorten the take-off) which the Luftwaffe had proven in 1942/42 in hose/drogue style refuelling between JU 290 and Ju 252 in 1942.
I don't see either RATO or In flight refuelling a problem in 1943.
US defences would have been formidable. SCR-272 early warning radar, SCR-584 AAA radar, proximity fuses and picket ships (themselves targets that needed protection).
My view is that the US would need to obtain Mosquitos. The turbosuperchargerless P-61A and B couldn't cut it. The P61C was not in service before June 1945.
Two main options.
1 Shortly after a reduced weight takeoff, to allow a shorter runway to be used, immediately after cruise altitude is established.
2 A buddy to buddy refueling 1/3rd of the nominal maximum range (say 3000 miles out) to add 3000 miles range. A failed rendezvous would still allow an abort.
3 A combination of the above.
Schwann-Luft or Schwann-See radio marker transmitters could be used or the aircraft could be flown In formation till transfer.
By the time the Me-264 could become operational the US would be guarded by P-61C (430mph) and P-82E & P-82F.
As for the Me-264 "working," you're talking about 40-47 hour missions with a crew of 7. There is a reason it was dropped by the German Navy and Airforce; it didn't "work."
Where are these airfields located?
3000 miles would put the a/c just off the coast of the USA.
Shortround6
Major General
Trouble is they will take one look at the Plans for the P-61E and sayThe best P-61 alternative would be to take your friendly neighborhood TARDIS to Northrup late in the war to copy the P-61E drawings and then hop back to the beginning of the program at Northrop and swapping them for the P-61 prototype drawings...
1. Where is the Turret????
2. How do we fit the radar in the nose????
XP-61E was an escort fighter, not a night fighter.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,994
- Jun 25, 2013
In-flight refuelling had been trialed since 1923 (https://www.amc.af.mil/Portals/12/documents/AFD-141230-027.pdf) and, shockingly, nobody used it.
In any case, any significant raid would be noticed because many routes from western Europe to the continental United States cross the UK. I'm sure that the RAF would completely ignore a large number of German bombers overflying their territory, so that's not a problem. Nor is the fact that that HM Government would send a cable or a phone call to the US Government to the effect of "hey, guys, there's a big bunch of nazi bombers heading in your direction. The RAF got a few, but we couldn't get all of them" likely to cause any trouble.
As mentioned earlier, the US had several airframes that could be converted to night-fighters had there been an immediate need. NACA ginned up a two-seat, instrumented P-38 in a few months. Lockheed could produce a two-seat nacelle with adequate room for an AI radar. All the waste heat from the plethora of vacuum tubes could be used to heat the cockpit, thereby reducing the risk of frostbite. In other words, was there a need, the US Government would reset priorities and spend some time yelling at airframe manufacturers to get the behinds in gear and get this done now, otherwise the USAAF cuts some contracts and buys Mosquitoes from Canada.
The Early Me 264 airframe, based on the Me 264V3 using DB801 radial engines of about 1700-1900hp , would have a range of 14,000km. The latter versions based on the using DB603H engines (essentially a DB603L of 2400hp) would have 17,000km range.
I have no photographs of the successful in flight refuelling equipment in 1942/43 between Ju 290/252 aircraft and actually order for the He 177A1 (till it ran into engine problems) but there are sketches. The receiver had a hose drogue and trailed it down to the tanker, optionally a boom to ensure good separation from turbulence. The Tanker had a telescoping probe with a Y fork and a hook that snagged the drogue ball, this was taken into the tanker aircraft and attached. Results were good.
Erhard Milch was as cynical as you, due to his acrimony against Messerschmitt but the only issue I see is rendezvous and that could be done with a variation of the Schwann-See and Schwann luft navigation beacons.
There would be reconnaissance by radar and ELINT capable aircraft to route around allied picket ships and carriers. A Fw 190 has a range of about 500 miles so can escort and fight out to 500km/300 miles (usually the first dog leg). Fitting 12.5 gallon tanks in the outer gun bays and a 25 gallon tank in the tail would add 50 gallons and probably extend range 40%. to 450 miles.
Below are a number of routes.
The first one departing Brest is 5668km or 11300km. Anything less than 6250km leaves 1500km reserve for a round trip in the 14000km version. The 17000km version can pretty much attack direct from German territory.
View attachment 604725View attachment 604725
Last edited:
The route via Greenland is interesting. Probably the refuelling over the landmass could be the best option since the beacons could be placed at German weather stations. Air crews had more chance to survive. Another topic for "what if" section.
Not 'what if" but "fantasy".
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,994
- Jun 25, 2013
The route via Greenland is interesting. Probably the refuelling over the landmass could be the best option since the beacons could be placed at German weather stations. Air crews had more chance to survive. Another topic for "what if" section.
I'm quite sure that the US would take no notice of German radio transmissions from Greenland.
I think all of this talk of Germany fielding trans-Atlantic bombers to attack the mainland US relies on the US doing absolutely nothing in response. While there were certainly Americans who were (and are) living under figurative rocks regarding nazi Germany, they were largely not in positions of power. They'd be even farther from those positions had a German bombing raid hit a minor US city, let alone someplace major. Penny-packet nuisance raids could be handled by a couple of fighter squadrons. Raids numerous enough to inflict real damage could be handled by reallocating resources being devoted to the war against Japan.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Whether or not the ME-264 existed or not, the US would have had those heavy duty anti aircraft guns anyway. I can't imagine the Arsenal of Democracy not anticipating that need.
Last edited:
And the bases would have been bombed that were in range. Someone also forgot that "range" is not "combat range" which is typically 1/3 of "range".
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Me264 existed, but only in prototype form.
The U.S. did have considerable AA batteries installed in strategic locations on both coasts.
The U.S. also had fighter squadrons, both Army and Navy (plus Marines) situated in key locations on both coasts.
Add to that constant ASW patrols by Navy, Coast Guard and Civil Air Patrol, inner coastal patrols by Army and Civil Air Patrol on both coasts PLUS patrols by RCAF that interlaced with US patrols at the border on either coast.
Not much was going to get through.
The only way the Japanese managed to bomb the West Coast, was with a sub-launched aircraft - It acheived zero success.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
re the P-70 and P-61 vs night attacks by bombers.
From: Air Defense Command Historical Study No.14 "History of Air Defense Weapons 1946-1962"
P-70 TTH was 45 min to 22,000 ft "and at that altitude Japanese medium bombers could outrun it."
"In one of the few instances where the P-61 was used for air defense purposes, the results were not encouraging. Between October 1944 and January 1945 the Japanese made 63 night bombing raids on Morotai, an important AAF base approximately midway between New Guinea and the Philippines. GCI radar detected 33 of these and P-61 aircraft went aloft to make the interception 61 times. On only five occasions was the raiding bomber destroyed. Malfunctions in the airborne radar were most often blamed for unsuccessful interceptions."
From: Air Defense Command Historical Study No.14 "History of Air Defense Weapons 1946-1962"
P-70 TTH was 45 min to 22,000 ft "and at that altitude Japanese medium bombers could outrun it."
"In one of the few instances where the P-61 was used for air defense purposes, the results were not encouraging. Between October 1944 and January 1945 the Japanese made 63 night bombing raids on Morotai, an important AAF base approximately midway between New Guinea and the Philippines. GCI radar detected 33 of these and P-61 aircraft went aloft to make the interception 61 times. On only five occasions was the raiding bomber destroyed. Malfunctions in the airborne radar were most often blamed for unsuccessful interceptions."
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Did you forget the balloons?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
No, I didn't include the FuGo ballons because they were random events, not a conventional attack via bomber(s).
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
