Top five Axis bombers

[Vincenzo]

As title
Bomber: land, with bomb bay, multi-engine, actual bombing in WW 2

ranks for max internal bomb load (if same weight smaller bomb preference, if again same the older)
He 177: 7000 kg (2x1800 kg + 2x1700 kg)
S.M. 82: 4000 kg (8x500 kg)
Do 217: 4000 kg (4x1000 kg)
P.108: 3500 kg (7x500 kg)
He 111: 2000 kg (8x250 kg)

ranks for Take Off power available (if same power lesser engine preference, if again same the older)
P. 108: 6000 (4x1500)
He 177: 5900 (2x2x1475)
Fw 200: 4400 (4x1100)
Ki 67: 3800 (2x1900)
G4M: 3700 (2x1850)

ranks for max internal fuel available, excluding tanks in bomb bay (if same the older)
P. 108: 13879 liters
He 177: 12800 liters
Fw 200: 8060 liters
G4M: 6490 liters
S.M.82: 5954 liters

 

[Browning303]

Hi Vincenzo, it was good to meet you the other night on Zoom! Hope you enjoyed some of the discussion!

Thanks for sharing the technical stats on the different bombers, I've always had a soft spot for the Axis aircraft. Just to add to this discussion, I would be interested to see numbers produced for each aircraft type as well as contrasting the maturity of each aircraft and technical problems experienced. For example, the P108 was a very capable heavy bomber but produced in such small numbers that surely the HE 111 was far more useful to the Axis on the whole (despite being inferior on many metrics)? Same could be said for HE 177, that it had so many technical issues and took so much time and resources to become a reliable bomber that other more mature platforms were more useful even if less capable in terms of performance? I'm sure its a discussion that will have taken place before, the debate between having a technically advanced aircraft in limited numbers versus a less sophisticated design which can be produced and deployed in large numbers. And in hindsight should the Axis have even put resources into developing aircraft like the HE 177 or would they have been better served by making many more HE 111s instead?

It reminds me of an article I read recently that was looking at the performance of the Sherman tank in the European theatre. It did not dispute that the Sherman was technically inferior to German designs such as the Panther and Tiger. Instead, it looked at the US production which was capable of churning out Shermans in large numbers, as well as the sophisticated logistical operation to ship them over to Europe in large numbers, train crews on them and maintain them in the field. In theory the US would have been better off desiging and building a better tank to rival or be superior to the Tiger but in reality the best option was to keep putting more and more Shermans into Europe and maintain their high tempo of production and deployment. Of course this is debatable but I personally find it a persuasive argument. I can't dispute the conclusion of the article: the side with the Sherman won the war.

 

[GregP]

I have a book reference (German AIrcraft of World War II In Color) that shows the typical bomb load of the He 177 as 1,000 kg, not 7,000 kg. But, in fairness, when I look at 3 - 4 websites, I get 3 - 4 difference numbers. But, so far, only Wiki, our favorite reference, says 7,000 kg (15,430 lbs).

Of course, a B-17 could carry 17,600 lbs for a very short mission, if the bomb load was carefully selected. For internal carriage only, the bomb load was about 8,000 lbs. But, if you were going to take off from the U.K., hit Berlin and get home, the typical bomb load was more like 4,000 lbs due to the requirements for fuel.

Perhaps the 7,000 kg for the He 177 above was absolute maximum load, as with the B-17 specs above. I'd say 95+% of the B-17s flown in the ETO never carried much more than 4,500 lbs. if that much. More likely, 4,000 lbs because the armament was pretty standardized and specific loadouts to get a B-17 loaded for bear for very short missions were not commonly available.

Either way, thanks for the spec comparison, Vicenzo.

 

[Vincenzo]

i just noted i missed the word max in both the bomb and fuel load, i corrected
however the 1 ton load for the He 177 was for the maximum range, this is a already did discussion so i don't continue in this issue

 

[Vincenzo]

Browning303, obviously the data that i presented not show the real impact on the war
for the production number i try
top 5 axis bomber by production (recce variant included)
Ju 88 around 11,200
He 111 around 7,600
Ju 52 around 4,500, this was a transport/bomber the Luftwaffe used it as bomber only in the September '39
G4M around 2,200
Ki 21 and Do 17 around 2,050

 

[nuuumannn]

It'll be interesting to see what comes of this. It does depend on what you want to do with your bomber fleet as to how these aircraft stack up practicality wise. A sustained campaign like what the Luftwaffe was forced to undertake during the Blitz in 1940 to 1941 required a large fleet of big bombers, but realistically the Germans had a sizeable fleet of medium size bombers. Their advantages were that with the electronic navigation aids they were very accurate.

The Ju 88 was an outstanding aircraft, not just for its versatility and it is interesting that it doesn't feature at all in the first three entries. Out of the German bombers of the period, if I had to choose, the Ju 88 would be top of the list, followed by the Do 217. The Ki-67 was also exceptional and would be among my choice as well. Despite its longevity and subsequent history, I would not select the He 111 for my air force.

And in hindsight should the Axis have even put resources into developing aircraft like the HE 177 or would they have been better served by making many more HE 111s instead?

That's pretty much what happened as a result of the failure of the He 177, but technology has to advance. By 1940 the He 111 was showing its age and by the law of things should have been replaced around a year later if not sooner. It was something of a makeshift bomber, even if it was designed with this role in mind. That it soldiered on in the Luftwaffe was because of circumstantial requirement rather than exceptional ability. It remained capable, but compared to advanced technology being introduced in more modern bombers, was decidedly pre-war. That the He 177 was a failure was a combination of poor design and too ambitious expectation - the reason why the Bomber B aircraft never got far, too; engine choice. The engines for these aircraft were beyond what the Germans could adequately produce at the time. Nonetheless, the He 177 could have succeeded with a bit of foresight; the four independently nacelled engines and subsequent redesigns to produce the He 277 are evidence of this.