Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A 1940 4 engine bomber is going to be rather different in capability compared to a a 1942 4 engine bomber. For instance a 1939-40 B-17B could carry only eight 600lb bombs and was defended by five .30cal MGs. The Germans were waiting on the 1340-1400hp Jumo 211s and were fitting 1200hp Jumo 211s in the summer of 1940 to some of their bombers.
Unless you are considering the Germans to be several years ahead of everybody else in engine, supercharger and airframe development I don't think a German 4 engine bomber force is going to do much better against the British in 1940 than the force they used.
The He 111 was arguably one of the better "strategic" bombers available in numbers in 1939.
If the Germans had the equivalent of 1000 B-17Fs in the summer of 1940 it might be a different story but that doesn't require just a shift in policy/resource management but a shift in the development history of aircraft engines.
Because I doubt it would have changed anythingWhat if the Luftwaffe had adopted a completely different doctrine when they began structuring. If they had opted for long range, 4 engine, high altitude heavy bombers like the 17s, 24s, lancs, etc? and of course then followed up designing a long range fighter escorts to cover them...in addition to shorter range fighters? basically, what if the Allies had to face down the the airforce that Germany did from the very beginning?
RAF Bomber Command cost something like 20% of the total British war effort. That's a lot of resources.If they had opted for long range, 4 engine, high altitude heavy bombers
The LW should have appointed the grandfathers of the resident experts here to produce from a hat new planes pilots fuel spares and airfields as they do on this forum unfortuantely the same experts grandfathers will produce the USAAF to dash them from the skies at the last moment.
RAF Bomber Command cost something like 20% of the total British war effort. That's a lot of resources.
if germany had been able to throw together a thousand 4 engine heavy bomber flight like the allies did... capable of the flight characteristics bomb loads similar to that of the B17s, B24s, Lancasters, etc....complete with long range escort with the characteristics of a p51 MERLIN....prior to the BoB.
bobbysocks - the 'strategy' Germany pursued was made up on the run - opportunistic to the nth. That's what blitzkrieg was - a fast smashing blow (because Germany couldn't afford to fight a prolonged war). And the 'strategy' for bombers was sheer capitalistic cronyism - the Junker 88. The cronies 'decided' back in 1938 that Junkers was going to be the 'focus' of bombers and the 88 was the chosen 'platform' (Source Adam Tooze - "The Wages of Destruction", 2006)
In THAT kind of an environment - questions like yours are too rational.
MM
What if the Luftwaffe had adopted a completely different doctrine when they began structuring. If they had opted for long range, 4 engine, high altitude heavy bombers like the 17s, 24s, lancs, etc? and ofcourse then followed up designing a long range fighter escorts to cover them...in addition to shorter range fighters? basically, what if the allies had to face down the the airforce that germany did from the very beginning?
MM... too rational.. or too irrational??