What if lots of B-29-like bombers with glide bombs had attacked very well protected convoys?

[pbehn]

Many if massed bomber waves would have to overfly the UK. The RAF, USAAF, and others would get lots of aces.

The Luftwaffe tried and repeatedly failed to get bombers as capable as the B-24 or B-17. Does anyone really think they have a chance to match the B-29?

Did the LW make a heavy bomber that was substantially better than a Stirling?

 

[swampyankee]

Did the LW make a heavy bomber that was substantially better than a Stirling?

Perhaps the He177.

 

[pbehn]

Perhaps the He177.

I had that in mind, but is it substantially better? The Stirling was being phased out as the He177 was being phased in. The Stirling was a poor plane and downgraded to secondary roles vey quickly but still around twice as many made and while the Stirling had its issues, nothing like the serviceability issues of the 177.

 

[GrauGeist]

Did the LW make a heavy bomber that was substantially better than a Stirling?

They had potential with the Me264, but it was back-burnered and never saw production.

 

[swampyankee]

I had that in mind, but is it substantially better? The Stirling was being phased out as the He177 was being phased in. The Stirling was a poor plane and downgraded to secondary roles vey quickly but still around twice as many made and while the Stirling had its issues, nothing like the serviceability issues of the 177.

While there were problems with the Stirling's performance, but I don't think there was anything wrong with its serviceability. Daimler-Benz or Heinkel or both failed in the design of the engine installation. I don't know how many of the service problems of the He177 were due to the engines, per se, or the engine installation. The aircraft's weight issues can be placed, at least somewhat, on the RLM, with the odd requirement for dive-bombing.

 

[Romantic Technofreak]

When I overlook this thread, only TKDog gives the slightest chance to my/my friends scenario. I turned to him in a personal message, but he did not answer. The only two responses which really give an answer to my question are the following ones:

Dinger (#3):
"Each bomber could only control one glide-bomb at a time and while it was doing so it had to fly straight and level and keep in visual contact with the target, making it an easy target for defending fighters."

Swampyankee (#16):
"Since the Allies had this invention called "radar," the nazi bombers would have been intercepted beyond their weapons' stand-off ranges."

Well, I mean, it is as easy as that. Even if an aircraft like the B-29 approaches a convoy at possible top speed, it is lowered by at least 20 km/h by the missile to be carried outboard. And a number of Corsairs or similar stuff, going nearly 100 km/h faster than the bombers, could already wait to go to dive at them. Even well-armed bombers like the B-29 would have no big chance. Remember the Japanese used Kawasaki Ki-45s to chase them, and these were even considerably slower.

I might forward this to my friend, although I fear he won't think over his position. Anyway, thank you for your answers.

Regards, RT

 

[Dinger]

That's a very gracious response- much appreciated. I found this excellent Youtube video covering both the Hs glide-bomb and Fritz X. - It shows up well the capabilities and limitations of both.



The one thing in the video I would take issue with is the comment that the HS293 could be "released and guided outside the range of the AA". It would certainly be outside the range of 20mm and 40mm AA guns but still well within the range of the larger 4 and 5.6-inch guns. The lethality of these weapons increased towards the end of the war with the introduction of proximity fuses and radar prediction fire control.

 

[pbehn]

I think the biggest problems with glide weapons is the name. It was a controlled decent hardly a glide at all.

 

[RCAFson]

I think the biggest problems with glide weapons is the name. It was a controlled decent hardly a glide at all.

That was true for Fritz X but the HS293 was a true glide bomb and it had an initial rocket engine boost.

 

[pbehn]

That was true for Fritz X but the HS293 was a true glide bomb and it had an initial rocket engine boost.

That's my point with a rocket motor it had a range of 28,000 ft when launched from 16,000 ft. The word "glide" gives the impression it can float for 30 or 40 miles.

 

[RCAFson]

That's my point with a rocket motor it had a range of 28,000 ft when launched from 16,000 ft. The word "glide" gives the impression it can float for 30 or 40 miles.

I don't think the word 'glide' implies more than what it says and even 9300yds was just at the outer limit of AA accuracy.

 

[pbehn]

I don't think the word 'glide' implies more than what it says and even 9300yds was just at the outer limit of AA accuracy.

With a rocket motor it is descending at about 60 degrees, without at about 45 degrees, the OP is talking about launching from B-29 type aircraft at carriers.

 

[TheMadPenguin]

ALL of the scenarios in which the Nazi Reich prevails in the second world war start out with shooting Hitler in 1938 (post Munich) or 1939 (before 1 Sep).
Then, we/they must wait for Stalin to storm into Poland/Finland/Baltics before launching the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe.

 

[Dinger]

ALL of the scenarios in which the Nazi Reich prevails in the second world war start out with shooting Hitler in 1938 (post Munich) or 1939 (before 1 Sep).
Then, we/they must wait for Stalin to storm into Poland/Finland/Baltics before launching the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe.

Or Hitler never existed at all - Making History (novel) - Wikipedia

 

[xylstra]

Hi all,

please imagine the following: lots of very fast and resistable bombers, equipped with Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs, perform attacks on convoys which show themselves even resistable. At the date of Dec. 1, 1943, USA and Britain posessed a number of 85 aircraft carriers of all kind. On the expense of other operations, I mean they could have grouped an number of 30 and more to protect a convoy if needed. So, if Germany had an aircraft comparable to the B-29, and this in numbers, an interesting situation had been possible to arise.

I say, even if Wildcats and Hellcats would prove insufficient against such attackers, the Allies easily could have switched their equipment to Corsairs and Seafires, whoch would have coped with the situation. A friend of mine says no. In his opinion, this combination of bombers and weapons would wear down the Allied carrier force, even for the expense of own losses. He says the loss of carriers and crews for the Allies would weigh much more than the loss of aircraft and crews for Germany.

So, what would you say? Thank you for answers!

Regards, RT

The US Army Air-force didn't have Henschel glide bombs. They had the GB series with a crude, primitive and mainly ineffective stabilisation system. They were a miserable failure primarily due to the de-stabilising turbulence from the carrier aircraft as they exited the bomb-bay. The principle of 'stand-off' is fine but the execution sucked. It also forces a big juicy target like a B-29 to fly low and slow. NOT a smart attack startegy!!!

 

[Koopernic]

The USN glide bomb was called the BAT

This weapon missed the war in Europe by several months but it did sink one Japanese destroyer. The weapon was completely autonomous once launched. The bomb aimer locked the active radar seeker on to the target and released the bomb. The weapon had been designed to destroy u-boats at night. By the time it was in service it wouldn't have worked well. The German Navy had begun deploying stealthy mast heads with radar absorbing material, they had begun deploying both 9cm and 3cm radar warning receivers and would simply have dived. They had rockets to deply chaff to blur the image as well though not deplloyed.

The track lock function was similar to that used on the SCR-584 AAA radar but ultra minurised. It was vulnerable to seduction by shoals and reefs.

The Germans had the Henschell Hs 293 glide bomb which used MCLOS but a TV seeker had been developed called Tonne-Seedorf carefully encoded to reduce jamming. Ive seen pictures of the TV display, looks pretty good but that was taken in summer. The idea was that the carrier aircraft could launch the missile and then immediately turn around and hide in clouds.

The Germans also had track lock on their Manheim radars and could have developed something similar but the effort to miniaturise 100-140 vacuum tubes is enormous.

Seekers the Germans could have applied to either Hs 293, Firtz-X and the BV246 Hagglekorn glide bomb are
MAX-P a passive microwave homer originally developed to attack H2S ground mapping radar and allied night fighter radar using the Wasserfall SAM missile. Could presumably be used to attack warships.
MAX-P a simple active radar doppler terminal homing device agains developed for a SAM with a range of a few km.
Hamburg a infrared hommer and seeker for shipping
Tonne-Seedorf
"Pirat" don't no much about this but the name but it was developed anti shipping missiles and used active radar.

The USAAF also had developed a glide bomb, I think Gargoyle. Most were simple dead reckoning guidance using an odograph but some had TV homing.

 

[Romantic Technofreak]

Hi all,

I have to tell you that my friend keeps on repeating the same arguments. These are:

1) The Allies are not able to group 30 carriers for protecting a single convoy nor to supply them.

2) The Allied side is not able to launch a satisfying number of fighters once the radar system detected the approaching German bombers.

3) The Allies are not able to keep a permanent overhead patrol of ~100 fightes airborne.

4) Yes, the German bombers will suffer losses. But: the Allies will loose carriers instead, for multiple losses of lives.

I mean, any of these arguments is the same nonsensical. E.. if a Hs 293 hits a carrier, it would nearly never sink ist, so the main number of the crew would survive. If you are not bored too much, you might like to answer in details. Thank you for your understanding.

Regards, RT

 

[Tkdog]

At this point I don't think it is a matter of convincing your friend of anything. It's a matter of changing the subject.

 

[GrauGeist]

I have to agree about switching the conversation, because if a person has an idea in their head that they beleive is infallible, you won't change their mind, no matter how many facts you bring to the conversation.

In regards to massed carriers, you simply cannot have that many in one group. If you did, you left other combat areas unprotected. The Allies were able to provide escort carriers to convoys, but in singles because they were in great demand across the globe.
One can look at the Battle of Midway, which involved 7 fleet carriers, a large portion of all the world's aircraft carriers at the time. Level bombers could not turn the tide of that battle and Japan's 4 carriers could not prevail against America's 3 carriers.
Your friend's theory of keeping 100 fighters in the air at all times is not possible. The fleet's CAP needs to land and refuel, which means that the carrier is not able to protect itself while the decks are covered in aircraft being refilled. This is one of the reasons Japanese suffered at Midway, some of their carriers had aircraft on the decks being re-armed and could not launch additional fighters for protection.

The list goes on, but you get the idea.

Perhaps have your friend read about the Battle of Coral Sea, Battle if Midway and the Battle of Leyte to get an idea of how Aircraft carriers actually perform in a combat situation.

 

[pbehn]

Hi all,

I have to tell you that my friend keeps on repeating the same arguments. These are:

1) The Allies are not able to group 30 carriers for protecting a single convoy nor to supply them.

2) The Allied side is not able to launch a satisfying number of fighters once the radar system detected the approaching German bombers.

3) The Allies are not able to keep a permanent overhead patrol of ~100 fightes airborne.

4) Yes, the German bombers will suffer losses. But: the Allies will loose carriers instead, for multiple losses of lives.

I mean, any of these arguments is the same nonsensical. E.. if a Hs 293 hits a carrier, it would nearly never sink ist, so the main number of the crew would survive. If you are not bored too much, you might like to answer in details. Thank you for your understanding.

Regards, RT

Why need a carrier at all? What is a satisfying number of fighters? What sort of B-29 fleet is this scenario having that needs 100 fighters above every convoy to repel? Make smoke and launch latest Spitfire marque from a catapult on a freighter, problem solved.