Did the LW make a heavy bomber that was substantially better than a Stirling?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Did the LW make a heavy bomber that was substantially better than a Stirling?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?
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.Perhaps the He177.
They had potential with the Me264, but it was back-burnered and never saw production.Did the LW make a heavy bomber that was substantially better than a Stirling?
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.
I think the biggest problems with glide weapons is the name. It was a controlled decent hardly a glide at all.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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!!!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
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.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