The Germans needed a better tactical bomber in 1942 (1 Viewer)

[Steamed_Banana]

I pointed this out already close to the start of the thread, but the Ju 188...

... has a huge "head". That massive cockpit, even though it's nicely shaped, is just a drag-making anchor on the whole airframe.

They trimmed it down, finally removing the ventral gondola completely, for the (much faster and also generally aerodynamically cleaner) Ju-388 but that was again, too little / too late

The Ju 188 (and 388) also got even bigger wings than the Ju 88 , growing from 65' 7" / 20 m to 72' 2" / 22m. That's moving in the wrong direction IMO.

I think you will notice in WW2 the fastest bombers tended to have rather narrow wingspans and few major obstructions to airflow.

The DH 98 Mosquito has a 54' 2 " / 16.51m wingspan. And a much less massive cockpit. Makes 360-400 mph depending on variant.
The Pe-2 "Peshka" has a 56' 4" / 17.16m wingspan. Makes 330 mph.
The A-20 / DB-7 Boston has a 61' 3.5" / 18.68m wingspan. Makes 340-350 mph.
The Martin 187 Baltimore has a 61' 4" / 18.7m wingspan. Makes 305 mph. (Martin 167 has similar dimensions and is a bit slimmer)
The Tu-2 has a 61' 11" / 18.86m wingspan, and makes ~330 mph at altitude
The Do 217 has a wingspan of 62' 4" / 19m. Also rather fast (~350 mph at altitude)

Notice a pattern here?

The also quite fast A-26 you've been talking about (~359 mph at altitude) has a 70' / 21m wingspan but is extremely well streamlined and slim. And has 2,000 hp engines.

Now the considerably slower B-26 has a 71' / 21.64m wingspan. And a much stouter body. This is post extending the wing of course.
The B-25 has 67' 7" / 20.6m wingspan

Wingspan and wing area will matter less for bombers with engines that perform very well above 20,000 ft, but while that might be Ok for a recon plane, a tactical / operational bomber needs to perform pretty well down low.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Getting a bit off track here but the A-26 was significantly faster than the B-26 that used pretty much the same engines, both top speed and cruise. A-26 was about 40mph faster at max cruise while carrying 33% more bombload and the result was that the B-26 had about 70% of the range while holding about 35 more gallons of fuel. Both could hold over 900 gallons so that part is not that different.

A-26 is probably the second best prop powered bomber design of the war, after the Mosquito, but it arrived way too late to matter. So it may be useful as a kind of stretch goal for design features but not really relevant to the 1943 scenario.

But getting back to a "tactical bomber" the need for a bomber to fly 700-800miles at a high cruising speed (over 300mph) the entire distance while carrying four 1000lbs inside seems to be a fair amount of overkill. But it seems that the Mosquitos with single stage superchargers were only about 20-30mph faster top speed.

For internal bomb bay, I think even one 1,000 lb bomb or 2 x 500 lb or 4 x 250 lb would be pretty good. 4 x 500 lb would be excellent. More can be carried on external mounts for a short range mission.

But you know me I think accuracy matters much more for bombers / bombing than payload size.

The JU-87s made their reputation, such as it was, with single 1100lb bombs or one 550lb and four 110lbs most of the time. Yes, they could carry more at times or special missions.

Case in point. What sunk more ships B-17, B-24s or Ju 87s? All three types were used to make the attempt probably about the same number of times.

Which type could k/o a bridge? Or hit a supply dump? Or a heavy AA emplacement? Or an artillery position?

It seems that something closer to the mid-point could be rather useful. The Ju-88/Ju-188 is not it. Size of the cockpit is not the problem.

The cockpit is a big part of the problem.

The plane was just about the same size (wing area) and weight as both the B-26 and the A-26. A smaller cockpit on the 188 would help (that two-story dorsal gun set up takes some explaining) but that is not reason it was so much slower than the A-26. It was barely faster than than a B-26B (large wing, not tilted and without cheek guns)

The wing is also too wide, and also the engines were not as powerful. BMW 801 vs R-2800 on the A-26.

Back to the Germans,
What is the desired bomb load? A pair of 1100lb GP bombs?

I think that would be 'stretch goal'. Again, I think a single 1,000 lb or a pair of 500 lb bombs or close equivalent would be pretty good.

What is the desired range? 200-300 miles for tactical targets?
What are the desired speed/s.
Is one twin 7.9mm or one 13mm gun manually operated enough?

That's a big question.

The more guns or more directions they point in the heavier everything gets. The gun system in the Me 210/410 was a lot of weight for not much effect.
It could cover a large area but only one gun fired at a time and the German 13mm was about 3/4 the power of an American .50 cal and a bit shorter ranged (time of flight to target).

My understanding is that those remote guns in the Me 210 / 410 were somewhat effective.

The Me 210 does seem like a pretty decent choice or something close. Move the wing up and bomb bay back or????

Me 210 is small compared to a Ju 388, (53' 6" / 16.3m wingspan) and has a decent internal bomb capacity but I'd want to know what is the real range carrying bombs, and how accurate was it as a bomber.

They did have a few Me 210s in the MTO in early 1943, but I thought they were using them for maritime patrol or as heavy fighters, not sure if they were using them as a bomber but that is worth looking into.

 

[tomo pauk]

Back to the Germans,
What is the desired bomb load? A pair of 1100lb GP bombs?
What is the desired range? 200-300 miles for tactical targets?
What are the desired speed/s.
Is one twin 7.9mm or one 13mm gun manually operated enough?
The more guns or more directions they point in the heavier everything gets. The gun system in the Me 210/410 was a lot of weight for not much effect.
It could cover a large area but only one gun fired at a time and the German 13mm was about 3/4 the power of an American .50 cal and a bit shorter ranged (time of flight to target).

The Me 210 does seem like a pretty decent choice or something close. Move the wing up and bomb bay back or????

The long-fuselage Me 210C seems to check an awful lot of boxes.
Reasonably fast on the mass-produced engines, it carried a lot of fuel so there is no need to stick drop tanks on it, crew of only two so the aircraft size is kept in check, the defensive firepower is reasonable enough so the enemy fighters must worry about (more independent guns that are supposed to fire in the same time will mean bigger crew and a bigger aircraft, and we probably don't want that). That fire can also be directed down by some measure, a thing that 'normal' rear gunners are bad in. A pair of 500 kg bombs fits in the bomb bay as is. Adding a smaller bomb bay just behind the main spar, for two 250 kg bombs, should not be a tough thing to ask. By 1943, Germans, at least in the East, concluded that bombs bigger than 250 kg are not needed for tactical targets.
For the tactical needs, fuel weight can be reduced for the bigger payload, guns' firepower or armor.

It can be also turned into a 'Me 310' - the BMW-801 powered sibling that never existed. Adds a lot of engine power and resistance to the enemy bullets, with cost in weight, drag and consumption (the 'no free lunch' rule applies as ever). It would've been probably the smallest aircraft where the BMW 801 still reasonably fits?

An alternative to this might've been the Me 110 that has a small bomb bay instead of weapon's bay under the cockpit.

 

[Shortround6]

The long-fuselage Me 210C seems to check an awful lot of boxes.
Reasonably fast on the mass-produced engines, it carried a lot of fuel so there is no need to stick drop tanks on it, crew of only two so the aircraft size is kept in check, the defensive firepower is reasonable enough so the enemy fighters must worry about (more independent guns that are supposed to fire in the same time will mean bigger crew and a bigger aircraft, and we probably don't want that). That fire can also be directed down by some measure, a thing that 'normal' rear gunners are bad in. A pair of 500 kg bombs fits in the bomb bay as is. Adding a smaller bomb bay just behind the main spar, for two 250 kg bombs, should not be a tough thing to ask. By 1943, Germans, at least in the East, concluded that bombs bigger than 250 kg are not needed for tactical targets.
For the tactical needs, fuel weight can be reduced for the bigger payload, guns' firepower or armor.

Yes, the Me 210C does check a lot of boxes. I do wonder if they could have gotten rid of that crappy rear gun set up to their advantage. The guns and ammo boxes were in large drum and the ammo boxes elevated and depressed with guns. It meant the ammo belt feeds didn't have to bend. But it means that entire thing wasn't much lighter than a real turret.
The only way both guns could fire at the same time was if the target aircraft was directly in line with the aircraft or very to the line. Extreme elevation and depression seems to rather a waste. For any chance of hits and not just spraying tracers near the enemy the pilot has to fly a fairly steady course. That is one thing for bombers flying in formation to do. It doesn't seem like a good idea for fighters/fighter bombers to do, making themselves a better target for the interceptors.
One source (could be wrong) says there were 3 sights in rear cockpit. One for each side and one pretty much down the middle to the rear. It just seems like a lot of weight and complication for a single MG 131 to cover most of the rear arc/s.
We are also back to the definition of "tactical targets". Yes using 500kg bombs against a row of tanks or trucks is rather wasteful. Using 250kg bombs against some railroad targets might not do the desired damage. Rail line on flat ground is fairly easy to repair. Bridges, embankments, rail cuts

are much harder to repair if hit by big bombs.
That or perhaps being able to use four 250kg bombs would be a good thing?

Germans did have a different problem than the British and Americans up until the summer of 1944. Germans didn't have to fly over the English channel to hit tactical targets
Granted planes with an extra 200-300km of radius allows for planes based further away from a particular battlefield to participate with having to stage to closer airfields.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

In 1942-43 nobody had to fly over the English channel to hit tactical targets Plenty of them all over the Med

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Yes, the Me 210C does check a lot of boxes. I do wonder if they could have gotten rid of that crappy rear gun set up to their advantage. The guns and ammo boxes were in large drum and the ammo boxes elevated and depressed with guns. It meant the ammo belt feeds didn't have to bend. But it means that entire thing wasn't much lighter than a real turret.
The only way both guns could fire at the same time was if the target aircraft was directly in line with the aircraft or very to the line. Extreme elevation and depression seems to rather a waste. For any chance of hits and not just spraying tracers near the enemy the pilot has to fly a fairly steady course. That is one thing for bombers flying in formation to do. It doesn't seem like a good idea for fighters/fighter bombers to do, making themselves a better target for the interceptors.
One source (could be wrong) says there were 3 sights in rear cockpit. One for each side and one pretty much down the middle to the rear. It just seems like a lot of weight and complication for a single MG 131 to cover most of the rear arc/s.
We are also back to the definition of "tactical targets". Yes using 500kg bombs against a row of tanks or trucks is rather wasteful. Using 250kg bombs against some railroad targets might not do the desired damage. Rail line on flat ground is fairly easy to repair. Bridges, embankments, rail cuts
View attachment 873240
are much harder to repair if hit by big bombs.
That or perhaps being able to use four 250kg bombs would be a good thing?

Germans did have a different problem than the British and Americans up until the summer of 1944. Germans didn't have to fly over the English channel to hit tactical targets
Granted planes with an extra 200-300km of radius allows for planes based further away from a particular battlefield to participate with having to stage to closer airfields.

It seems like a two or three-tier solution is in order.

Tier 1 would be a long / medium range single-engined fighter - probably the Fw 190G - which can act both as a Jabo and as an escort to the other two.
Tier 2 would be a fast twin-engine fighter-bomber good for low-level strikes, Me 210C seems to fit this niche without much development needed (once the stability issue is sorted) and makes a very nice tactical / operational bomber for smaller targets, (assuming bombing accuracy is decent).
Tier 3 would be a fast twin-engine bomber. This can be a larger type which will be used for medium altitude level-bombing. I'm still thinking one of the French types like the LeO 451. This gives longer range and heavier bomb carrying capacity.

Being relatively small the tier 1-2 are a bit less vulnerable to light AA etc.


Now lets think a bit about what kind of targets they need to hit in the middle* of the war, 1943.

We are talking Russia, North Africa, Sicily, Southern Italy and various Mediterranean islands (Malta), and the Med itself here. Maybe a little around Norway and the North Sea, with some of the North sea convoys too.

In North Africa, there aren't a lot of rail targets. As far as logistics go, a lot of the supplies are coming in first by ship, and then on the roads. MT are vulnerable on the roads which don't have much cover. There are port facilities, supply depots, ammo dumps, staging areas, truck parks. Another big target category is airfields. Tactical targets would include artillery positions, AAA emplacements, concentrations of tanks and other military vehicles, etc. Some bridges.

In Sicily / Italy / Malta and the larger Mediterranean Islands (Sardinia, Corsica) there are more operational and logistics targets- more rail, towns, port facilities. There is also more cover and the weather is going to be slightly rougher, so hitting MT on the roads is not as easy. There are a lot more bridges to target. Rail and road tunnel entrances. There is also more AAA making tactical strikes more risky. Everything else is pretty similar to North Africa I think.

In the Med itself shipping is going to be a big target for the Axis. The Allies want to invade all the islands. They are moving supplies around the Med, and there are the big convoys that go to Malta. Here fighter bombers are going to be the main weapon, unless they can figure out how to use Tier 3 planes to carry torpedoes. They can also use Ju-87R long range dive bombers as long as your Tier 1 fighters can act as long-range escorts to contend with land based Allied fighters and possible British Carrier aircraft. Same or similar considerations for the North Sea.

Russia is like a mix of North Africa and the Med Islands, it's a very, very wide front. Things change immensely across the seasons. Soviets don't have as much or as good of AAA as the Western Allies do, nor do they have many long range fighters themselves. And very few which are good at higher altitude. So the Axis, given better range, can pick targets and avoid strong points when they want to, and can achieve local air superiority against isolated areas. Here there will be more operational and logistics targets which can be targeted by the Tier 3 heavier bombers, as well as plenty of tactical targets for the Tier 1 and Tier 2.


I think of the Germans had this capability in substantial numbers in North Africa in 1943 it would have been a much tougher fight and they might not have been pushed out. As it was, in the reality, they were not able to consistently use their bombers due to high loss rates. When they did use them they often had dramatic results, as was the case a couple of times during the Battle of Kasserine Pass. Same is true for the convoy battles for Malta and big fights leading up to the invasion of Sicily.

If they had large numbers of Fw 190Gs in say, Crete and Sicily, and almost any kind of long range bomber that could hit maritime targets (Ju-87R definitely qualifies) they could probably have destroyed / defeated Pedestal and maybe taken Malta.

The one weakness that still remains here is the lack of a a torpedo bomber. That would really help close the nose on Allied shipping in the Med. The old SM 79 had it's day but it was obsolete and too vulnerable by 1943. Ju 88s had some remarkable successes (the infamous Air Raid on Bari had nightmarish ramifications for the Allies) but success on that scale was pretty rare and there were usually a lot of losses. Maybe that would change if you had a long range fighter to protect them and Ju 88 moves back into the viable slot for Maritime strikes at least if you had a bunch of Fw 190Gs.

* I'm well aware some people will hate calling 1943 the middle of the war, and point to Manchuria or BoB or Spanish Civil War etc., here I mean middle as in 'tipping point.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

In Russia and Sicily / Italy you will also start to have some strategic targets like factories, railyards etc., and the Tier 3 bombers could be helpful once again, especially if you can provide some fighter escort. Certainly better than He 111 or He 177.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tier 1 would be a long / medium range single-engined fighter - probably the Fw 190G - which can act both as a Jabo and as an escort to the other two.
Tier 2 would be a fast twin-engine fighter-bomber good for low-level strikes, Me 210C seems to fit this niche without much development needed (once the stability issue is sorted) and makes a very nice tactical / operational bomber for smaller targets, (assuming bombing accuracy is decent).
Tier 3 would be a fast twin-engine bomber. This can be a larger type which will be used for medium altitude level-bombing. I'm still thinking one of the French types like the LeO 451. This gives longer range and heavier bomb carrying capacity.

Kinda shows several things:
- how much a Fw 190 was a great combat aicraft
- how much the Mosquito was a great combat aircraft - it basically mated your Tier 2 and 3 into a single airframe
- how much Germans were struggling with design, series production and use of the next-gen 2-engine high-performance combat aircraft (an example of the Me 210C, with problems more or less solved, was available by Spring of 1943, ie. at least 12 months later than it should've been)

Besides the Me 210C (there was no technological reason why it should've not been available already by winter of 1941/42), i have a few contenders, too, like the DB-powered Fw 187, something like made-in-metal Ta-211/154 (again, no great shakes wrt. tech needed, just that lightbulb moment was not there in a timely manner), but also the BMW-powered pre-He 219 (does not even need to be with the nosewheel U/C; bomb bay instead of the guns' bay under the fuselage).
Italian connection can provide the Ro.58, probably the smallest twin powered by the mainstream engines in ww2. Both the Ro.58 and Fw 187 will be carrying the bombs outside, that I don't reckon is a problem with such small and streamlined A/C.

The less conventional bombers/attackers might've been the early Bf 109Z (I favor the populated cockpits spin-off; the original have had extra fuel tankage, however), as well as a push-pull design.

The one weakness that still remains here is the lack of a a torpedo bomber.

Fw 190 was tested with a torpedo, together with the Reggianne and Fiat fighters; the extended tailwheel strut takes care of the ground clearance. Probably a twin-engined aircraft will have even less problems in that task.

 

[tomo pauk]

FWIW, a thread about the next-gen 2-engined German combat aircraft: link

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Kinda shows several things:
- how much a Fw 190 was a great combat aicraft

Very true, especially in light of the long range capability, which I didn't know about until you brought it up. Next question there is how soon could they have made a lot of Fw 190Gs?

- how much the Mosquito was a great combat aircraft - it basically mated your Tier 2 and 3 into a single airframe

Also very true. Totally agree.

- how much Germans were struggling with design, series production and use of the next-gen 2-engine high-performance combat aircraft (an example of the Me 210C, with problems more or less solved, was available by Spring of 1943, ie. at least 12 months later than it should've been)

Again, agreed. The popular image of the Germans and their kit in WW2 is that they did everything right, they just didn't have enough and their enemies (especially the Soviets) won purely via quantity vs quality. But part of the reason I started this thread is to point out just one of the many big holes in their array of military kit. Clearly at this all important tipping point moment in the war (a rather long one, as I'd say really from mid 1942 to early 1944) they pretty much dropped the ball. They didn't get the jets together in time, as good as they were, which was a big missed opportunity for them. They wasted a ton of time on projects like the He 177, I think in part because of political pressure as in, there were people you couldn't say no to or argue with. Which was a flaw in their system. Favoritism of certain companies, ignoring flaws in them.

The huge strategic blunder of not developing longer range capability even when it was apparently easily in reach.

I'm really not trying to figure how to make them win the war here, I'm exploring some of the reasons why they lost. And learning a lot of technical stuff along the way...

To be clear, I'm really glad they lost the war!

Besides the Me 210C (there was no technological reason why it should've not been available already by winter of 1941/42), i have a few contenders, too, like the DB-powered Fw 187, something like made-in-metal Ta-211/154 (again, no great shakes wrt. tech needed, just that lightbulb moment was not there in a timely manner), but also the BMW-powered pre-He 219 (does not even need to be with the nosewheel U/C; bomb bay instead of the guns' bay under the fuselage).

All of those are definitely possibilities, what makes the Me 210C attractive in this context is that it already existed and requires no hypothetical development.

Italian connection can provide the Ro.58, probably the smallest twin powered by the mainstream engines in ww2. Both the Ro.58 and Fw 187 will be carrying the bombs outside, that I don't reckon is a problem with such small and streamlined A/C.

Same here.

The less conventional bombers/attackers might've been the early Bf 109Z (I favor the populated cockpits spin-off; the original have had extra fuel tankage, however), as well as a push-pull design.



Fw 190 was tested with a torpedo, together with the Reggianne and Fiat fighters; the extended tailwheel strut takes care of the ground clearance. Probably a twin-engined aircraft will have even less problems in that task.

Yes that's right, the Re 2005 and Fiat G 55 had torpedo fighter versions, which were likely very good. Just too late and limited by range as single-engined aircraft with a big payload.

 

[Howard Gibson]

If you are curious about WWII German logistics, I recommend Arming the Luftwaffe, by Daniel Uziel. Uziel is an Israeli, and he got pissed off when he saw an exhibition on Heinkel's high speed aircraft that did not mention anything about slavery. In spite of his motivation, the book is professional and informative.

Apparently, in December 1943, Arado figured they needed 9,180 employees to build the new jet bombers. They could only find 750. 12,293 employees were building He177s. The He177 helped the allies win the war.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

wow 12,293 employees to build 1100 planes across 3 years... many of which didn't even see combat.

Somewhere in here we have a system where people who are seeing serious problems don't have the ability to make themselves heard. A bit like the torpedo problem in the US.

 

[tomo pauk]

Very true, especially in light of the long range capability, which I didn't know about until you brought it up. Next question there is how soon could they have made a lot of Fw 190Gs?

Axing the Hs 129 so that Henschel can make the Fw 190s would've helped them in that regard. Ditto for the earlier phasing-out of the Ju 87s.
Obviously, the He 177 was a major resource- and time-sink.
Junkers also wasted a lot with the Ju 288 program, that ended up as stillborn, possibly because they insisted on the Jumo 222 and DB 610? IMO - the early, small-wing 3-men Ju 288 powered by the BMW 801s would've also been a contender for your Tier 3 bomber/attacker.

 

[Dimlee]

Still being obsessed with Ar 234 and not having enough knowledge about the aviation engines and materials they are made of...
I turned to Google Gemini and requested the calculation of the consumption of critical metals.
Sources used by Gemini - under the spoiler:

Spoiler: Sources

1. Primary Sources (Archival)

• The "Mittelwerk" and Junkers Factory Records (1944–1945): These internal documents, many captured by the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) during Operation Lusty, detail the "Material-Soll" (Material Requirement) per engine.
• RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium) Technisches Amt Reports: Specifically the reports from late 1944 which analyzed "Substitute Materials in Turbojet Production." They highlight the transition from the Jumo 004A (which used significant nickel) to the Jumo 004B (which used almost none).
• British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee (BIOS) Reports: After the war, British engineers interviewed Junkers and Daimler-Benz staff. Report No. 291 ("Gas Turbine Development by BMW and Junkers") explicitly lists the alloy compositions of the hollow turbine blades.

2. Key Academic and Technical References

• Schlaifer, Robert (1950): Development of Aircraft Engines. This is considered the "Bible" of engine history. Schlaifer provides a detailed comparison of the alloy weights (Nickel, Chrome, Cobalt) between the German jets and Allied engines (like the Rolls-Royce Derwent).
• Griehl, Manfred (2001): Arado Ar 234 Blitz. Griehl includes technical appendices on the Jumo 004B production, often citing the exact weights of the Cromadur steel used to replace high-nickel alloys.
• Galland, Adolf (1954): The First and the Last. While a memoir, Galland quotes official RLM statistics regarding the "375 man-hours and 10,000 RM" price point to argue why the jet was more sustainable than the piston fighters.
• Kay, Antony L. (2007): Junkers Aircraft and Engines 1913-1945. Kay provides the most granular breakdown of the Jumo 004's evolution and the specific weights of the "hollow blade" components.

Material	Jumo 004B (Jet)	Jumo 213E	DB 603E	DB 605D
Chrome	~0.5 kg	~12.0 kg	~10.5 kg	~7.0 kg
Nickel	~0.2 kg	~4.5 kg	~4.0 kg	~2.5 kg
Molybdenum	0 kg	~1.2 kg	~1.0 kg	~0.6 kg
Copper	~2.0 kg	~25.0 kg	~22.0 kg	~18.0 kg

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Two little interesting tidbits that came up.

I read a bit more about a Fw 190G - it's like learning a new word, they start showing up all over. Quite a few were active around the time of Anzio and some were shot down by Allied fighters. But while it's a bit confusing, I'm not seeing super long range actually achieved by these things, it's looking to me depending on the variant, but it's looking more like 600-700 mile range and maybe a bit more with two wing tanks and one centerline bomb.


On the subject of the LeO 451, this very interesting series which is now getting into RAF vs Vichy French fighting in Syria, shows a case where that great big but apparently not completely useless 20mm Hispano on the back of that particular bomber successfully fended off and seriously damaged a Hurricane in one incident on 12 or 13 June 1941.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N6W9_aBLGE

 

[Shortround6]

It seems like they missed a step in that all important period of 1942-43 when they could have really benefited from either a significantly faster or maybe better armed light or medium bomber, or dive bomber - one with sufficient range to compliment the role of the Fw 190. Could they have done it? Were there any promising designs that they ignored? Did they put too much emphasis on the jets?

They were hoping the war would be over 1942 (actually wished for 1941 but?) so there were a lot of deferring opinions and who knew what and when.
Turns out that jets (at least early ones) were crap for the tactical aircraft role, you need long runways, you need lots of fuel (early jets don't cruise well) and they get crap for range at low altitude. Fast means they hard to shoot down, fast at low altitude means they have crap for bombing accuracy at low altitude. One reason the US was still using Skyraiders and A-26s in Veit Nam. Fast means the AA has trouble hitting the plane/s. Too fast means the pilots don't have enough time to spot the ground targets, line up on them and release the bombs.

The Germans tried to make faster Ju 88s, they developed the Ju 188 and later versions, but though they looked cool as hell, these were not enough of a performance improvement and didn't increase mission survival rates enough when they were around. I don't know that much about the Arado 234 or Me 262 used as a fighter bomber, but these seemed to be in the 'too little / too late' category or just not accurate enough (?) I'm not sure.

Problem the Germans have is they don't have the engines needed in 1942/43. The best they have in 1942/43 is the BMW 801 and they simply do not have enough of them.
A FW 190F is pretty good tactical bomber but it didn't really show up until 1943. Maybe they could have rushed it by 3-6 months but which version/of the 801 did they have when?
Still better than using a DB 601 E ( or two?)
Problem with the Ju 188 wasn't a lack of streamlining, it is you aren't going to go much faster without a new engine. A Ju-88 even with a much more streamlined cockpit with DB 605s in 1942 is going to gain very little.

Tactical bombers fall in a lot of different categories and for the Germans (and Russians) tactical/close support aircraft sometimes had to operate in snow or mud. Ju-87s took the wheel covers off to get off the runways and get back down. They were not the only ones. Having short runways sometimes means the enemy doesn't spot the runway and bomb it.
Short crappy runways does lead to more operational losses, especially with high take-off and land speeds.

Airplanes are just the delivery system/s. The weapons are the bombs/rockets and bullets/shells.
Germans for some reason jumped from 50kg bombs to 250kg bombs. No 100-125kg bombs except for rarities or captured until the SD-70 Splitterbombe. The Germans offered a variety of bombs in the 50kg, 250kg and 500kg weights and often they kept the different bombs very close in size so they would fit the standard bomb racks. Standard HE, bombs with extra fragments, photo-flash bombs, incediaries of different sorts, 50kg bombs also had parachute flares and other specialties.
Germans also used a number of cluster munitions. Small containers were carried by ETC-50 racks and larger containers were carried by racks for 250kg or 500kg depending on container. The AB-250, depending on load, could hold anywhere from 17 10kg sub munitions to 224 1kg sub munitions.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

They were hoping the war would be over 1942 (actually wished for 1941 but?) so there were a lot of deferring opinions and who knew what and when.

That's an interesting point

Turns out that jets (at least early ones) were crap for the tactical aircraft role, you need long runways, you need lots of fuel (early jets don't cruise well) and they get crap for range at low altitude. Fast means they hard to shoot down, fast at low altitude means they have crap for bombing accuracy at low altitude. One reason the US was still using Skyraiders and A-26s in Veit Nam. Fast means the AA has trouble hitting the plane/s. Too fast means the pilots don't have enough time to spot the ground targets, line up on them and release the bombs.

You raise some interesting points, but I think you are also kind of overlapping a couple of issues. There is a range of precision for bombers depending on the type of bombing being done, and an array of targets which can be damaged or destroyed. Here is a list descending from least to most accurate, IMO. I color coded these to more easily distinguish daytime from night attack.

1. Night bombing at medium or higher altitude - Lancaster, Halifax et al, He 111, Do 17
2. High altitude daylight bombing - B-17, B-24, B-29
3. Medium altitude daylight bombing - B-25, B-26, Martin 167 Maryland, Martin 187 Baltimore, G3M, G4M, He 111, Ju 88
4. Low altitude night bombing / intruder, high speed - Mosquito, Ar 234, A-20, A-26, Ki-48, Ki-51, Ki-67 (special Lancaster units ala 'Dambusters')
5. Low altitude night bombing (and torpedo), low speed - Wellington, PBY, Beaufort, G3M, G4M, H6K, H8K, Il-4, B-25 (in Soviet use)
6. Low / medium altitude long range daylight maritime attack and ASW (bombs, strafing, rockets, torpedoes, depth charges), low speed - Wellington, Swordfish, FW 200, Ju 88, Bf 110, B5N, D3A, F1M, TBF, SBD, PBY, PBM
7. Low altitude daylight bombing, high speed - Mosquito, A-20, A-26, Hurricane, P-40, Fw-190, Bf 110, Ar 234, Ju 88, F4U, Pe-2, Su-2, SB
8. Low altitude daylight "attack" (strafing, rockets, torpedoes), high speed - I-16, I-153, LaGG-3, Yak-1, Il-2, F4U, P-38, P-51, A-20, B-25, Typhoon, Tempest, Beaufighter, Mosquito, Bf 110, Do 217, B5N, B6N, Ki-45, TBF / TBN
9. Low altitude daylight bombing*, low speed / loitering CAS - CR 42, I-153, I-16, Hs 123, Ki-51
10. Low angle daylight dive bombing including CAS - Fw 190, P-40, P-47, F4U, SB2C, Ki-48, Ki-51, Su-2, Pe-2, Ju-88, Do 217, Skua, Swordfish, Albacore, Hurricane
11. High angle daylight dive bombing including CAS - Ju 87*, SBD, D3A*, B7A, Vultee Vengeance

* these aircraft also have some short / rough field capability, and can be used in forward areas.

Obviously more aircraft could perform these types of attacks than what I listed, but I listed some of the ones which seemed to do it the most or best (most doesn't mean really best though!). I.e. some of these did these jobs but not necessarily well.

If I missed any important examples let me know and I'll add them in an edit.

Ok so now here's my estimate of what kind of targets you can effectivel damage or destroy by attack type

1. Night bombing at medium or higher altitude - Cities, very large strategic targets (marginal-middling accuracy)
2. High altitude daylight bombing - Cities (high accuracy), factories and middling strategic targets (marginal accuracy) operational targets (marginal accuracy)
3. Medium altitude daylight bombing - Factories, railyards and middling strategic targets, operational targets (marginal-middling accuracy)
4. Low altitude night bombing / intruder, high speed - Airfields, factories, special targets (Gestapo HQ?) (middling accuracy)
5. Low altitude night bombing (and torpedo), low speed - Airfields, supply depots, railyards, military units (middling accuracy)
6. Low / medium altitude long range daylight maritime attack and ASW (bombs, strafing, rockets, torpedoes), low speed - merchant shipping, submarines
7. Low altitude daylight bombing, high speed - Arifields, flak / AAA, enemy ground units (middling accuracy), logistics, maritime ships, warships
8. Low altitude daylight "attack" (strafing, rockets, torpedoes), high speed - Arifields, flak / AAA, enemy ground units (middling accuracy), maritime ships, warships
9. Low altitude daylight bombing*, low speed / loitering CAS - Airfields, enemy ground units, logistics (trucks, trains) maritime ships, submarines (high accuracy)
10. Low angle daylight dive bombing including CAS - Operational and tactical targets, enemy ground units, AAA, logistics, maritime ships, warships (middling accuracy)
11. High angle daylight dive bombing including CAS - Operational and tactical targets, enemy ground units, AAA, logistics, maritime ships, warships (middling to high accuracy)

Obviously lower altitude and daylight = higher risk. Many of the STOL / Short field capable aircraft like the Hs 123, I-153, I-16, Ju 87, D3A, Ki-51 etc. while accurate and reliable, were too vulnerable for heavy use against well defended tactical targets. They tended to be used against less well established sites and units out beyond the concentrated air defenses. Or they could be used anyway but at the cost of a high rate of attrition. This continued to be true for aircraft like the AD Skyraider you mentioned, F4Us in Korea etc..

Problem the Germans have is they don't have the engines needed in 1942/43. The best they have in 1942/43 is the BMW 801 and they simply do not have enough of them.

I'm not sure it was just the engines.

Ju 188 had 1,700 HP BMW 801s but only achieved a bit over 310 mph/ 500 kmh.
It's predecessor, the Ju 88, made 290 mph / 470 km/h with just 1350 hp engines.
A Douglas A-20 with 1,600 hp R-2800 made 325 -350 mph / 510 - 560 km/h depending on the variant.
The Pe-2 made ~ 320 / 510 mph with 1,100 hp engines
The LeO 451 which we'd been discussing, was making 308 mph / 495 km/h with just 1,060 hp engines. Gnome Rhone 14s which you so despise!
The Ki-48 made 314 mph / 505 km/h with just 1,130 hp engines (granted this was both a small and a very light aircraft with a light bomb load, but also very successful.)
The Swedish Saab 18 allegedly made 357-367 mph / 575-590 km/h with just 1475 hp engines (allegedly boosted up to 1700 hp)
The Mosquito as we of course know, was an outlier but as we know was making 380-415 mph with 1500 - 1700 hp engines

Considering all this, i would say that the Ju 188 did indeed have too much drag. This may not just be streamlining so much as size, large cockpit, large wingspan, maybe some other issues. But probably a smaller and more streamlined bomber needed to be made. I'd say it compares especially poorly to an LeO 451, I'd love to see what the 451 could do with a pair of BMW 801s.

A FW 190F is pretty good tactical bomber but it didn't really show up until 1943. Maybe they could have rushed it by 3-6 months but which version/of the 801 did they have when?

Fw 190F was doing the same job that earlier FW 190 marks were doing as much as a year earlier. Taking out two of the wing cannon made it possible to carry quite good ordinance, and it's overall performance and flight characteristics - plus it's armor and radial engine- made for a good fighter-bomber. But the problem is it was very limited in range. The Fw 190G which Tomo introduced me to (I don't know how I missed it!) seems to have been a promising improvement in this regard at first glance, which is theoretically up to 1,000 miles, but when I looked more closely at it, the range increase for actual battlefield missions carrying bombs seems to be more limited, closer to around 600 or so miles. Possible I'm missing something.

Still better than using a DB 601 E ( or two?)
Problem with the Ju 188 wasn't a lack of streamlining, it is you aren't going to go much faster without a new engine. A Ju-88 even with a much more streamlined cockpit with DB 605s in 1942 is going to gain very little.

See above

Tactical bombers fall in a lot of different categories and for the Germans (and Russians) tactical/close support aircraft sometimes had to operate in snow or mud. Ju-87s took the wheel covers off to get off the runways and get back down. They were not the only ones. Having short runways sometimes means the enemy doesn't spot the runway and bomb it.
Short crappy runways does lead to more operational losses, especially with high take-off and land speeds.

Per above, I think this is a specific type of niche. You can have quasi STOL bombers and they are very useful, but you will lose a lot of capability in terms of both performance and payload, and overall survivability in high threat environments. It's a trade-off. But I still think these types were and probably still are useful because they greatly extend the effective operational footprint, and are very accurate especially for CAS type missions, though the niche is being taken over by drones today.

Airplanes are just the delivery system/s. The weapons are the bombs/rockets and bullets/shells.

As we have discussed many times, I am very doubtful of the merits of the "bomb truck" analogy. Tons of payload delivered 'somewhere within enemy territory' actually mean very little in terms of war outcomes. To win battles or damage the enemy, the bombs/rockets/bullets/shells have to hit on or near a target of some importance.

And if "delivery systems" only survive 0-3 missions, they are less valuable and useful to your cause than those which can continue to operate and survive operations say 4-20 times

Germans for some reason jumped from 50kg bombs to 250kg bombs. No 100-125kg bombs except for rarities or captured until the SD-70 Splitterbombe. The Germans offered a variety of bombs in the 50kg, 250kg and 500kg weights and often they kept the different bombs very close in size so they would fit the standard bomb racks. Standard HE, bombs with extra fragments, photo-flash bombs, incediaries of different sorts, 50kg bombs also had parachute flares and other specialties.
Germans also used a number of cluster munitions. Small containers were carried by ETC-50 racks and larger containers were carried by racks for 250kg or 500kg depending on container. The AB-250, depending on load, could hold anywhere from 17 10kg sub munitions to 224 1kg sub munitions.

Interesting. But maybe they weren't so far off. Both small munitions and larger bombs seem to have been useful. By the latter part of the war I think most US units were dropping either small parafrag type bombs or 500 lb + size. The Germans did also use rockets.

 

[Dimlee]

Just a side (but related) question.
Did 50kg bombs make sense for Germany, taking economic constraints into account?
I might be wrong, but I recall that one of the issues with 50kg in the USSR (as an example) was industrial - more machine-hours and logistic costs vs FAB-100 and larger bombs, per the explosive mass per factory shift.

 

[Shortround6]

Fw 190F was doing the same job that earlier FW 190 marks were doing as much as a year earlier.

It took a while to get the Fw 190 fighter bombers in service. They were doing the trials with a few prototypes in the spring/summer of 1942. Late summer of 1942 saw the factories start to make provision for conversion kits on the A-3 models. Bomb rack and a single 250kg bomb cut speed by 28mph at low level.
A-4s got MW 50 power boost system and the A-4/U1 and A-4/U3 (developed into the F-1) and A-4/U8 (developed into the G-1) got more weapon and drop tank combinations but not many kits were actually provided. Some of the A-4/U1s got the older C-2 series engines.
Things could have been sped up some but that also depends on engine availability. FW-190 with the same bomb load as the Bf 109 fighter bombers?

Considering all this, i would say that the Ju 188 did indeed have too much drag. This may not just be streamlining so much as size, large cockpit, large wingspan, maybe some other issues. But probably a smaller and more streamlined bomber needed to be made.

Ju 188E-1 gained just under 20% in normal gross weight over the Ju-88A-4. A lot more than just the big nose. The bigger wing was just a band-aid to try to handle the higher weight.

I'd say it compares especially poorly to an LeO 451, I'd love to see what the 451 could do with a pair of BMW 801s.

amazing what can be done with 25,000lb airplane.
But at least the LeO 451 carried the bombs inside the airplane.
The Ju 88, Ju 188, LeO 451 and others, had some real problems as used and not in Wiki spec sheets.
Had France not surrendered and the LeO 451 got more powerful engines it's weight may have skyrocketed.
It's max bomb load is with 2/3rds the Fuel of a Ju-88 and the Ju-88 had crap for fuel unless fitted with a bombbay tank.
Max range of the Le0 451 may be with a single 1100lb bomb (or 1100lb combination) Granted a number of other 1940 bombers used similar tricks to make their numbers look good.
US Martin B-26 bomber at the Beginning of 1941 had 'normal' gross weight of 26,734lbs. By mid 1944 normal gross was 35,100lbs and max gross was 37,000lbs. Not a big surprise that the heaver versions were a lot slower. But the 26,700lb "version" (performance numbers) was useless as warplane unless the enemy co-operated. With 5 men, minimum armament (two .30cal and three .50cal) and four 500lbs there was less than 1250lbs for fuel and oil. You don't get far on under 1200lbs of fuel feeding R-2800 engines.

BTW we need the power of the engines at working altitude unless we are comparing sea level/ground level performance. Early B-26s gave about 1440-1480hp at 14,250ft where they hit max speed. Engines in the Ju-188E-1 gave 1440hp at 18,700ft. Earlier BMW 801s gave 1380hp at 15,100ft.

The Germans really did need some sort of tactical bomber that just worked as a bomb truck. Something that just sat in the middle of pack and just worked it's butt off.
Fast speed often came at expense of practicality. High speed from small wings that needed hydrogen peroxide rockets to get them out of even medium airfields means more accidents and logistic costs.
Or just use the long fuselage Me 210 and ditch the stupid rear 13mm gun set up. 280-290mph at sea level may be the best you can do and if that is not fast enough then very little is going to work.

 

[tomo pauk]

It took a while to get the Fw 190 fighter bombers in service. They were doing the trials with a few prototypes in the spring/summer of 1942. Late summer of 1942 saw the factories start to make provision for conversion kits on the A-3 models. Bomb rack and a single 250kg bomb cut speed by 28mph at low level.
A-4s got MW 50 power boost system and the A-4/U1 and A-4/U3 (developed into the F-1) and A-4/U8 (developed into the G-1) got more weapon and drop tank combinations but not many kits were actually provided. Some of the A-4/U1s got the older C-2 series engines.
Things could have been sped up some but that also depends on engine availability. FW-190 with the same bomb load as the Bf 109 fighter bombers?

Germans could've been much more adventurous with the 190's bomb load came 1942.
The MW 50 system for the BMW 801 engines never advanced from the experimental phase. Including the Fw 190 installations.
Germans were free to start making the Fw 190s with DB 601E and 605A in 1942, would've gotten them something between the MC.205 and Re.2005 performance-wise, and free the BMW 801s for fighter-bombers (assumes the Me 210s and daylight-role 110s are axed).

US Martin B-26 bomber at the Beginning of 1941 had 'normal' gross weight of 26,734lbs. By mid 1944 normal gross was 35,100lbs and max gross was 37,000lbs. Not a big surprise that the heaver versions were a lot slower. But the 26,700lb "version" (performance numbers) was useless as warplane unless the enemy co-operated. With 5 men, minimum armament (two .30cal and three .50cal) and four 500lbs there was less than 1250lbs for fuel and oil. You don't get far on under 1200lbs of fuel feeding R-2800 engines.

The B-26 is probably an example of how not to make a 2-engined bomber? Too big a fuselage for too many people, that added both weight and bulk, thus necessitating the wing to grow (again, added weight and bulk). One needs the powerful engines just to stay competitive, the powerful engines are gas guzzlers and are heavy. Adding bulk and size (= drag) several times is bad for both performance and fuel mileage.

B-26 really needed to be either 4-engined design from the get-go, or to start with small fuselage and work from there.

Or just use the long fuselage Me 210 and ditch the stupid rear 13mm gun set up. 280-290mph at sea level may be the best you can do and if that is not fast enough then very little is going to work.

We are not in 1940 anymore, Toto

280-290 mph at sea level is badly under the curve in 1942. The better Allied tactical bombers can do 330-350 mph there. A tac bomber doing 350-370 mph was within the scope of German industry in 1942.
The 13mm barbettes kept the crew number low, and with this the bulk and weight.