The Germans needed a better tactical bomber in 1942

[tomo pauk]

Getting 'Mosquito fast' is tricky, though presumably they did it with the Arado 234. It just needed to arrive earlier, and maybe a bit more debugged. Could they do some equivalent earlier with piston engines? Not sure. Tomo's idea of FW 187 is fairly convincing. Fw 190G looks pretty good too for at least part of the problem.

Not quite 'Mosquito fast', but say, 'A-20 fast' plus some decent defensive guns seems also like a viable route to go. It would have been better than what they had with the Ju 88.

There were two levels of 'Mosquito fast', depending on engine line. Versions powered by the Merlin 20 and 30 series were good for 350-370 mph ('gunned', FB versions being a bit slower), and versions powered by the 2-stage Merlins (mostly bombers in ww2), going 400+ mph above 25000 ft. Achieving the 1st 'level'* should've been achievable came mid-1941, with DB 601E and BMW 801C coming online, especially if the number of guns sticking out is kept under control.
Achieving the 2nd level might've been perhaps achievable, even if at 20000 ft and not at 25000ft, with the fully rated BMW 801D, ie. from the late 1942 on? The resulting aircraft will need to be of modest proportions, talk half-way between the Fw 187 and Bf 110/Me-210? Or, have the Fw 187 being powered by the DB 605A?
FWIW, Focke Wulf was offering the fighter-bomber spin-off from the Fw 187 with either DB 605A (supposed to do ~650 km/h with a 1000 kg bomb, or 680-690 km/h clean) or BMW 801 engines, RLM was not interested.

* the early A-20s were supposed to be almost as fast, clocking 349 mph

How good or bad were the remote defensive guns like on the Me 210 or 410? On the Grief? Did they work?

From what I was able to gather, these worked well, and were scoring some kills.

 

[ssnider]

so the ju 88 s-1 365 mph at 20,000 ft not good ebough

 

[Steamed_Banana]

so the ju 88 s-1 365 mph at 20,000 ft not good ebough

Seems like it was pretty promising, if not fully ideal, but they also showed up a bit too late and in too small of numbers. By the time it arrived it was being used for recon and night-time pathfinder missions for the most part, and by then even though it was fast it was vulnerable to Mosquito night fighters.

They needed something like that at least six months earlier, in some numbers, and with a redesigned bomb-bay that could hold large bombs.

 

[andy1967]

The Allies also developed more variety of Ordnance, Napalm, An M40 Parafrag ,Tall boy,Grandslam, Cookie Bomb etc I know the Germans also had Butterfly bombs and Sc 2500 Bomb but the Allies had more options for specific operations.

 

[tomo pauk]

so the ju 88 s-1 365 mph at 20,000 ft not good ebough

Bombed-up or clean?

 

[Zmauky]

I think the biggest problem is the timing, or rather the change of generations of both aircraft and engines in particular.

The Jumo 211 (as the main engine for the He 111 and Ju 88) was an engine of around 1000 hp until the F/J (i.e. until the Ju 88A-4 and He 111H). The Bramo 323 and BMW 132 - even weaker.
This is best illustrated by the development of the Dornier Do 217 which started in early 1938 and by late 1941 they had tried/planned: DB 601, Jumo 211, Bramo 329 and BMW 139. In the end they flew on the DB 603 and BMW 801 - practically with a 50% more powerful engine - and let's not lament that Do 217 needed engines of around 2000 hp.
So the replacement for the Do 17 (admittedly, some time was lost (as with the Ju 88) on the development of the dive variant) was delayed due to (too) weak engines.
It's a similar thing with the He 111 - when Wellington got the Hercules the '111 stayed on the (relatively) weak Ju 211F/J.
Bottom line - a powerful (bomber) engine was missing.
And answer ... everyone else managed to develop 14 a and 18 cylinder radial engines before the war. Both the Japanese series of Ho-5 and Piaggio and GR developed 14/18 versions of the Jupiter/Wasp (only - similarly - Bristol messed with the Hercules - admittedly because of the valves).
RLM snorted and demanded invert V-12 inline (both 20 and 30 liter and not 40l ie DB603).

And now let's imagine that in 1938-39 there was a 14/18 cylinder Bramo 323 / BMW 132 version with 1200/1500 HP. By 1941-42, those versions could go up to 1500/2000 KS (if we compare the development in the world).
And we can mention the BMW 139 and the mythical Bramo 14/18 cylinders, but those were new generations of engines.
We can imagine the Ju 88 with the performance of the Ju 188 but in '41-42. Or Do 217 in the same period if not earlier.
Another mistake - we can mention the Volture as an example but then we have to mention the Saber - so maybe the 24 cylinder engines should have been pushed after all. A functional 2000 hp Jumo 222 during '42 would certainly have solved the medium bomber performance crisis (and the B program might not have failed).

So, as with fighters, stronger engines earlier.

 

[tomo pauk]

And answer ... everyone else managed to develop 14 a and 18 cylinder radial engines before the war. Both the Japanese series of Ho-5 and Piaggio and GR developed 14/18 versions of the Jupiter/Wasp (only - similarly - Bristol messed with the Hercules - admittedly because of the valves).
RLM snorted and demanded invert V-12 inline (both 20 and 30 liter and not 40l ie DB603).

It was the other way around - RLM demanded by 1937-38 that BMW cancels their V12 developments and start making radials. The Ho-5 was no great shakes, 850-1000 HP. The Piaggio 14 cyl engines were also meh, so were the G&R 14K, while the 14N were no better than the Merlin III or DB 601A.
Also, not everyone managed to develop a service-worthy 18 cyl radial before ww2 - we have Piaggio with the P.XII and that's it, and even that engine is barely better than the better V12s of the day, while weighting more and having a much greater drag.
Granted, RLM dropped the ball because they didn't supported the DB 603.

And now let's imagine that in 1938-39 there was a 14/18 cylinder Bramo 323 / BMW 132 version with 1200/1500 HP. By 1941-42, those versions could go up to 1500/2000 KS (if we compare the development in the world).
And we can mention the BMW 139 and the mythical Bramo 14/18 cylinders, but those were new generations of engines.

BMW 139 was designed with the heart failure built-in, because BMW tried to be too smart with the layout of the bearings. How much worth would've been the 18 cyl sibling of the BMW 132 with such a design flaw?

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The little G&R engines, and French engines in general, don't seem to get a lot of love around here but the French seemed to believe that they still had substantial potential for further increase in power, they were planning several aircraft around that. They were also experimenting with a lot of fancy superchargers too.

It's an interesting point about the engines, but I'm not sure I buy it. The Soviets had the Pe-2 flying faster than the Ju 88 with what, 1,100 hp engines? The early Mosquito didn't have huge engines, basically Merlin XXI. Not much more powerful than a DB 601 or a late Jumo 211. The Martin 167 Maryland was flying at 300 mph / 490 km/h with 1,000 hp R-1830 engines.

The US relied on the R-2600 which was great (and had a two speed supercharger (with an 11 inch impeller and ratio ranging from 7.06:1 in low gear to 10.06:1 in high gear), but I'm not sure how much better that is than say, a BMW 801.

Ultimately engines in the ~1,300 -1,400 hp range should have been enough to make a fast bomber, at least initially, until the DB 603 and BMW 801 were available. Bigger engine might make things easier but I am not sure I buy that it was necessary for a fast bomber.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

There were two levels of 'Mosquito fast', depending on engine line. Versions powered by the Merlin 20 and 30 series were good for 350-370 mph ('gunned', FB versions being a bit slower), and versions powered by the 2-stage Merlins (mostly bombers in ww2), going 400+ mph above 25000 ft.

I think the Mosquito Mk IV, the first significant bomber variant, once they had the stub exhausts was making around 370-380 mph for top speed, and cruising art 320-330 mph at 15,000 - 25000 ft, which posed further challenges for interceptors.

The later versions with two stage engines went over 400 mph as you say, and could operate at 30,000 ft or more. Making them very hard to catch, or evade, especially in the night bombing realm.

So this is performance which exceeded anything else that I know of, barring perhaps the Ar 234 and other jets, and maybe some one-offs or experimental types.

Achieving the 1st 'level'* should've been achievable came mid-1941, with DB 601E and BMW 801C coming online, especially if the number of guns sticking out is kept under control.
Achieving the 2nd level might've been perhaps achievable, even if at 20000 ft and not at 25000ft, with the fully rated BMW 801D, ie. from the late 1942 on? The resulting aircraft will need to be of modest proportions, talk half-way between the Fw 187 and Bf 110/Me-210? Or, have the Fw 187 being powered by the DB 605A?
FWIW, Focke Wulf was offering the fighter-bomber spin-off from the Fw 187 with either DB 605A (supposed to do ~650 km/h with a 1000 kg bomb, or 680-690 km/h clean) or BMW 801 engines, RLM was not interested.

* the early A-20s were supposed to be almost as fast, clocking 349 mph

The A-20s, more than one variant, topped out at around 340- 350 mph for sprint speed but at a lower altitude around 13,000 ft, and a typical cruising speed around 230-270 mph depending on the variant. The earlier and fastest versions (like A-20A) also had limited fuel and quite short range for a bomber of 675 miles. The most common type from the mid 1942-43 period, A-20C / Boston III, made around 330 mph with about a 1,000 mile nominal range.

From what I was able to gather, these worked well, and were scoring some kills.

That's pretty much what I'd gathered as well. So this probably needed to be the approach for a theoretical mid-war schnellbomber, rather than multiple power turrets.

 

[tomo pauk]

The little G&R engines, and French engines in general, don't seem to get a lot of love around here but the French seemed to believe that they still had substantial potential for further increase in power, they were planning several aircraft around that. They were also experimenting with a lot of fancy superchargers too.

Little G&R engine was the 14M (19L), most know for it's use on the German HS 129 attacker.
'Normal' G&R engines, like the 14K, N and R (double displacement vs. the 14M, or 38.67L, or 2360 cu in) were better stuff, and I'll acknowledge that the 14K have had problems with reliability. G&R gotten the 'power section' right with the 14R (three bearings instead of two etc.), and also the supercharger, that was probably the best supercharger on a radial engine until the 1943 and the still-born BMW 801E? The S/C on the G&R 14R 04 and 05 employed the recipe from the V12s - the intake elbow was not squished, it fed directly, axially to the impeller, and the impeller was outfitted with the curved inducer vanes. Combine the proper 'power section' and a proper S/C, and result was excellent for 1940-1943. More about the 14R can be read here.

It's an interesting point about the engines, but I'm not sure I buy it. The Soviets had the Pe-2 flying faster than the Ju 88 with what, 1,100 hp engines? The early Mosquito didn't have huge engines, basically Merlin XXI. Not much more powerful than a DB 601 or a late Jumo 211. The Martin 167 Maryland was flying at 300 mph / 490 km/h with 1,000 hp R-1830 engines.

Bomb-up the Bf 110 and presto, there is a fast bomber for 1939-41. Similar size, weight, engine power and legacy (started out as a fighter) to the Pe-2. Bomb-up the DB-powered Fw 187 and we'd be faster still.
Ju 88 was too big & too heavy for the engines it had, both Bf 110 and Pe-2 were much smaller, less draggy and lighter. Let alone when we compare the Ju 87 with the Fw 187 or P-38.

The US relied on the R-2600 which was great (and had a two speed supercharger (with an 11 inch impeller and ratio ranging from 7.06:1 in low gear to 10.06:1 in high gear), but I'm not sure how much better that is than say, a BMW 801.

At lower level, the R-2600 was as good as the BMW 801C/D. Above 15000 ft, the 801 was better.
BMW was a bit heavier, but it was also less draggy, the exhaust thrust was better due to the better layout of the exhaust stacks, and it have had the armored oil system as an option. R-2600 was more reliable, unless the crew have had a bad luck and gotten a lemon from the Lockland factory, that was ripe with corruption (luckily for the brass there, Stalin was not in charge).

Ultimately engines in the ~1,300 -1,400 hp range should have been enough to make a fast bomber, at least initially, until the DB 603 and BMW 801 were available. Bigger engine might make things easier but I am not sure I buy that it was necessary for a fast bomber.

Everything is a trade-off. A small, say 300-350 sq ft wing bomber shaped like Whirlwind, Fw 187 or the Ro.58 will do just fine with 1000 HP engines in 1938-41. If one wants an all-singing all-dancing (= long range + heavy payload + high speed) bomber, engine power is the key.
Luckily, tactical bombers shave one of those requirements, so the mass-produced engines still make them great.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The other bomber design issue which does seem to be tricky, and maybe harder than I tend to assume, is the size of internal bomb bays. If you have a large internal bomb bay with the capacity for bigger bombs, say at least four 500 lb / 227 kg sized bombs, the bomber is going to be much faster on ingress and could maintain a high cruising speed, and will also have much better range. This was one of the advantages of the Mosquito Mk IV.

One of the biggest flaws of the early Ju 88 was that the internal bay was designed to carry a bunch of 50kg bombs so almost useless for wartime needs, and though this was improved (and I don't know the detailed history), internal bomb capacity was limited unless a second bomb bay was opened up which required removing a lot of fuel. So Ju 88 was usually carrying most of it's ordinance on external pylons which really slowed it down until the bombs were dropped.

Many WW2 bombers seemed to have similar issues - bomb bay configured for bombs much smaller than those actually needed during the war- so this was not unusual by any means. It was one of those pre-war issues of the actual conflict turning out to be bigger and more violent than anyone predicted.

If you had internal bomb bay of decent capacity and still ability for relatively high-angle dive bombing then you really have something useful, IMO. Another really neat trick though difficult to achieve is a bomb bay long enough to carry a torpedo or even one bigger bomb like a 2,000 lb / 900 kg. Then you have a real ship killer which is hard to catch.

 

[tomo pauk]

I think the Mosquito Mk IV, the first significant bomber variant, once they had the stub exhausts was making around 370-380 mph for top speed, and cruising art 320-330 mph at 15,000 - 25000 ft, which posed further challenges for interceptors.
The later versions with two stage engines went over 400 mph as you say, and could operate at 30,000 ft or more. Making them very hard to catch, or evade, especially in the night bombing realm.
So this is performance which exceeded anything else that I know of, barring perhaps the Ar 234 and other jets, and maybe some one-offs or experimental types.

Yeah, beating the Mosquito in it's own game (we hope for 420+ mph?) will probably require jet engines, once the Merlin 70 series are aboard the Mossie from the mid/late 1943 on.
Equaling the Mossie - say, speed & altitude between the 'normal' and 'super' Mossies - should be possible with the piston engines, IMO. Just keep the size of the bomber modest. Having some sort of bomb bay or recess will help to keep the speed up when bombed-up.

That's pretty much what I'd gathered as well. So this probably needed to be the approach for a theoretical mid-war schnellbomber, rather than multiple power turrets.

Going with the multiple power-operated turrets drives up the size and weight of the aircraft, and that is not a good direction to go.

 

[Shortround6]

One of the biggest flaws of the early Ju 88 was that the internal bay was designed to carry a bunch of 50kg bombs so almost useless for wartime needs, and though this was improved (and I don't know the detailed history), internal bomb capacity was limited unless a second bomb bay was opened up which required removing a lot of fuel. So Ju 88 was usually carrying most of it's ordinance on external pylons which really slowed it down until the bombs were dropped.

The JU-88 is another overrated German aircraft.
It had two bomb bays. It also had limited fuel so one bomb bay was often used for fuel.
For comparison the Ju-88 often carried about 443 US gallons in the wings.
An A-20 carried 400 gallons in the wings.
Ju-88 could put a fuel tank in either bomb bay but only at the cost of bomb storage.
A-20 could put fuel tanks in the upper bomb bay and not interfere with common bomb loads (like four 500lb bombs).
Ju-88 with a fuel tank in the forward bay (larger) could only hold ten 110lb bombs inside.
Not sure if the CG would accept it but swapping bomb bays means less fuel but up to Eighteen 100lbs bombs.
Ju-88s pretty much carried their bombs outside. Which, as been noted, turns their "book" speeds into rubbish.

 

[Shortround6]

If you had internal bomb bay of decent capacity and still ability for relatively high-angle dive bombing then you really have something useful, IMO. Another really neat trick though difficult to achieve is a bomb bay long enough to carry a torpedo or even one bigger bomb like a 2,000 lb / 900 kg. Then you have a real ship killer which is hard to catch.

But now you have a really big aircraft and you need really big engines.
B-25s and B-26s could carry a torpedo but they carried it outside. Please note that the US torpedo was much shorter than other arial torpedoes, it also fatter.

The high bomb load for the B-26 often quoted is a complete joke. To do it you need',
1, a US torpedo, assuming your airbase has any or can get some in time for the strike.
2. US 1600lb AP bombs, assuming your airbase has any or can get some in time for the strike.
3. An attack plan that provides for a sea level attack run to drop the torpedo and then a climb to 7,000-10,000ft (hopefully out of AA range) to drop the AP bombs from enough height to actually penetrate armor. What is climb rate of a B-26 with 1/2 fuel and a pair of 1600lb bombs on board?

5,800 lbs sounds good in the spec sheet thou

If you want fast you are usually not looking at large loads or large devices.

A lot of airstaffs screwed up wanting one hit/one kill anti large ship weapons. You hit anything short of a Battleship with 2-3 1000lb bombs and you have at least a mission kill and more than likely a sunken cruiser/aircraft carrier. Even the battleship is going to need a shipyard.

 

[Shortround6]

The little G&R engines, and French engines in general, don't seem to get a lot of love around here but the French seemed to believe that they still had substantial potential for further increase in power, they were planning several aircraft around that. They were also experimenting with a lot of fancy superchargers too.

The French were congratulating themselves on their cleverness after to many lunches that included more than one bottle of wine for each man
There a few reasons for using two engines. The main one is if you don't have a big enough single engine. Due to the weight, cost and drag of two engines the single engine doesn't need to twice as powerful, roughly about 50% more powerful (1050hp instead of 2 X 700) adjust a bit as anyone sees fit.
In service the small engines seemed to have short lives and/or reliability problems. The G&R engines only seemed to get love from the French because the H-S small radial was really, really bad. Planning fancy superchargers for even the G&R engines might not end well unless basic engine life problems were fixed to handle the extra strain.
And why are we trying to figure out how to improve plains that carried eight 100lbs inside?
We want more/larger bombs, bigger engines, more fuel, protection and more guns?
We need a new plane.

It's an interesting point about the engines, but I'm not sure I buy it. The Soviets had the Pe-2 flying faster than the Ju 88 with what, 1,100 hp engines? The early Mosquito didn't have huge engines, basically Merlin XXI. Not much more powerful than a DB 601 or a late Jumo 211. The Martin 167 Maryland was flying at 300 mph / 490 km/h with 1,000 hp R-1830 engines.

The P-2 is another plane that sounds better in spec sheet.
Internal bomb load was four 220lbs inside the fuselage bomb bay and a single 220lb in the rear of each engine nacelle. It was quickly found that the plane would get more weight off the ground so the standard trick of hanging bombs of the outside was used.
From Wiki, take it as you will.
The Pe-2 had an internal capacity for six 100 kg bombs, for a total of 600 kg; this was no better than that of the older Tupolev SB bomber. The internal capacity consisted of a fuselage bomb bay capable of carrying four 100 kg bombs or an additional fuel tank, with two small internal bomb bays in the rear of the engine nacelles for a single 100 kg bomb each.[22]​ This was supplemented by four external underwing racks. These were capable of carrying four 100 kg or 250 kg bombs, or two 500 kg bombs in overload configuration, giving a maximum bombload of 1,000 kg.[22]​ Only the bombs in the external racks could be used in a dive-bombing attack; the internally carried bombs had no dive release gear and could not be dropped in a steep dive.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Yeah, beating the Mosquito in it's own game (we hope for 420+ mph?) will probably require jet engines, once the Merlin 70 series are onboard the Mossie from the mid/late 1943 on.
Equaling the Mossie - say, speed & altitude between the 'normal' and 'super' Mossies - should be possible with the piston engines, IMO. Just keep the size of the bomber modest. Having some sort of bomb bay or recess will help to keep the speed up when bombed-up.


Going with the multiple power-operated turrets drives up the size and weight of the aircraft, and the is not a good direction to go.

Though there does seem to be a sweet spot with the one smallish / well shaped power turret, like on the back of the A-20G and Baltimore V. Another is to have power turrets but remote (as opposed to individual remote guns) as on the B-29 but also the late war A-26 Invader

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The French were congratulating themselves on their cleverness after to many lunches that included more than one bottle of wine for each man

Having lived in both countries, I can say pretty categorically that lunch, and quality of life in general, is a lot better in France. Americans love to go on at length about the French getting K/O in WW2 pretty quick, but our own W/L track record is looking less and less impressive over time...

There a few reasons for using two engines. The main one is if you don't have a big enough single engine. Due to the weight, cost and drag of two engines the single engine doesn't need to twice as powerful, roughly about 50% more powerful (1050hp instead of 2 X 700) adjust a bit as anyone sees fit.

Agreed

In service the small engines seemed to have short lives and/or reliability problems. The G&R engines only seemed to get love from the French because the H-S small radial was really, really bad. Planning fancy superchargers for even the G&R engines might not end well unless basic engine life problems were fixed to handle the extra strain.

Not sure I'm convinced by that

And why are we trying to figure out how to improve plains that carried eight 100lbs inside?

Not necessarily. You seem to keep assuming i want a Ju 88, I don't necessarily (though I do acknowledge that the Ju-88S looks promising if they could have made it 6-12 months earlier)

We want more/larger bombs, bigger engines, more fuel, protection and more guns?

We often debate this, but I'm personally pretty unconvinced that the American penchant for bigger / heavier planes / moar guns moar bombs etc. was always better.

In the Pacific and MTO the A-20 (61' span, 2-3 crew, 2-3 gun positions) was at least competitive in terms of overall usefulness with the much larger and heavier B-26 (71' span, 7-10 crew, 4-5 gun positions). Even with big engines, size and weight have a downside. Generally slower, larger logistical footprint, larger base, bigger target, a variety of engineering challenges.

A lot of the most effective, useful and successful bombers of WW2 - Mosquito, DB-7 / A-20, Martin 187 / Baltimore, Ki-48, Pe-2, were all quite small as bombers go. As were most (not all) of the fighter-bombers.

We need a new plane.

Probably. How do you like the Fw 187 as the basis for a new one?

The P-2 is another plane that sounds better in spec sheet.
Internal bomb load was four 220lbs inside the fuselage bomb bay and a single 220lb in the rear of each engine nacelle. It was quickly found that the plane would get more weight off the ground so the standard trick of hanging bombs of the outside was used.
From Wiki, take it as you will.
The Pe-2 had an internal capacity for six 100 kg bombs, for a total of 600 kg; this was no better than that of the older Tupolev SB bomber. The internal capacity consisted of a fuselage bomb bay capable of carrying four 100 kg bombs or an additional fuel tank, with two small internal bomb bays in the rear of the engine nacelles for a single 100 kg bomb each.[22]​ This was supplemented by four external underwing racks. These were capable of carrying four 100 kg or 250 kg bombs, or two 500 kg bombs in overload configuration, giving a maximum bombload of 1,000 kg.[22]​ Only the bombs in the external racks could be used in a dive-bombing attack; the internally carried bombs had no dive release gear and could not be dropped in a steep dive.

The Pe-2 was another with the internal bomb bay problem, and typically carried a very small bomb load. Nevertheless, in the hands of a skilled crew, I'd personally rank it as one of the best bombers of the war. YMMV.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

But now you have a really big aircraft and you need really big engines.
B-25s and B-26s could carry a torpedo but they carried it outside. Please note that the US torpedo was much shorter than other arial torpedoes, it also fatter.

To carry a torpedo internally yes probably requires a big plane, but quite a few later WW2 bombers had a big enough bomb bay for a 1,000+ lb bomb.

The high bomb load for the B-26 often quoted is a complete joke. To do it you need',
1, a US torpedo, assuming your airbase has any or can get some in time for the strike.
2. US 1600lb AP bombs, assuming your airbase has any or can get some in time for the strike.
3. An attack plan that provides for a sea level attack run to drop the torpedo and then a climb to 7,000-10,000ft (hopefully out of AA range) to drop the AP bombs from enough height to actually penetrate armor. What is climb rate of a B-26 with 1/2 fuel and a pair of 1600lb bombs on board?

5,800 lbs sounds good in the spec sheet thou

I quoted a more realistic bomb load, they often carried around 3,000 lbs and a bit more.

If you want fast you are usually not looking at large loads or large devices.

Sure but there is a sweet spot

A lot of airstaffs screwed up wanting one hit/one kill anti large ship weapons. You hit anything short of a Battleship with 2-3 1000lb bombs and you have at least a mission kill and more than likely a sunken cruiser/aircraft carrier. Even the battleship is going to need a shipyard.

1,000 lb is definitely enough for ships, IMO. The issue is accuracy. Torpedoes (if they work) are both more likely to hit and to kill, unless you have a dive-bomber.

 

[Shortround6]

As far as defensive guns go, the Germans screwed this on up badly.
Mid 30s everybody was using a single rifle caliber machine gun of under 1000rpm pointed in any give direction. Many had small magazine, a few used belts. This is strange as the Allies ended the war with

2 X 600rpm with 97rpg. British went back to single Lewis guns with the same drum for much of the 30s.
But the British were working on things, the 1000rpm plus Vickers K gun with a similar drum.
They were also working on powered mountings as were the French, British bought some French patents (?).
Japanese kept the Lewis guns or used something not much better.
Americans shifted to the Belt feed Browning .30 cal and were heading for 1200rpm, dual guns were still in future.
Germans went for the MG 15 in 1930s

1000rpm and 75 round double drum and stayed with it far too long. As a gun it was pretty good, as a weapons system it had problems. The Germans often just added more guns for 1 or 2 men to use. Sometimes as many as 4 guns for one man. Trying to change guns to follow one attacking plane didn't work very well even if barrels sticking out in many directions looked impressive. More travers and larger ammo supply might have been better?
This gun was rarely (never?) used in a twin mount. Use any powered mount was rare.
Germans then went in two directions. A faster firing belt fed 7.9mm gun, the MG 81 and the 13mm MG 131.
The MG 81 fired at anywhere from 1400rpm to 1800rpm according to source. At any rated much better than the MG 15 and the belts could be quite long. It was also light and short, in part because it used a short barrel and lost a little velocity but even at the time of its introduction it was seen to be falling behind what was need for 1940 warfare. Quick solution was to make handed guns (right and left) so the paired guns could feen from either side and be operated by a single trigger. Compact gun with over 3000rpm and good ammo supply,
Unfortunately, it was never used in a powered mount or mounts that offered wide traverse (mostly)
Which leads us to the MG 131 which again is a good gun but the weapons system start letting it down.
It is, without question, the weakest 12.7-13mm gun used in WW II. It does have a good rate of fire (900rpm) but not great. It is compact and light and here the Germans failed to take advantage of it. It is used in single mounts for almost all of the war until the very end. And the mounts, when powered, are often complicated remote-control affairs of great size and weight. Was that contraption in the Me 210/ME 410 really any better than a pair of MG 131s sticking out the rear of the canopy? Great field of fire but a single 13mm MG 131 was not that powerful or fast firing enough in 1943 and later.
The single MG 131 in the top turret of the Do 217, late He 111s or some Ju-188s needs closer inspection. Electric rough traverse only? fine aim in both traverse and elevation by crewmen's arms? Roughly 1/3 the firepower of an American twin .50 power turret with more problems trying to aim? And that is the best the Germans could do for most of their bombers?
Anything with bigger guns used an airbrake for a turret.
Skip the tricky remote-control crap and just come with a power turret (two directions) using a pair of compact, light MG 131s.

 

[Elan Vital]

And why are we trying to figure out how to improve plains that carried eight 100lbs inside?
We want more/larger bombs, bigger engines, more fuel, protection and more guns?
We need a new plane.

I'm not sure exactly what kind of payload is desired here. From my understanding of what a tactical bomber is here, the French indeed had no domestic project between the Bloch 175 series (up to 600 kg of bombs, e.g 3x200kg or single 500kg + twin 40kg) and the Amiot 35X/LeO 45X (up to 1350kg of bombs). None of these aircrafts were designed around a heavier gun armament either.

One indeed needs a new plane. This is why the French bought the DB-7 in the first place, which filled a neat niche between the bigger twin-engine bombers and the smaller Blochs.