What if the LW had adopted a different doctrine/strategy?

[bobbysocks]

it is my uneducated belief that had the LW devoted some of their resources to 4 engine high altitude bombers and developed drop tanks for fighter escort the battle for the uk and ussr would have taken a completely different complexion. the end result would still be up for conjecture but.....just as in another thread about who defeated the LW. when the usaaf bombers and fighters were able to conduct deep raids into germany denying the LW safe haven and demanding they re-station forces that were needed on the front lines....multiplied their attrition rate. in the BoB the LW was taking more losses than the RAF....but the RAF was near the end of the road. in one of the battles churchill was in the ops room and asked how many planes were in reserve...the answer was none. but then the focus of the bombing went to london and gave the RAF a much needed break and chance to resupply. had the LW had longer range bombers/fighter escort the same scenario but in reverse would have surfaced...where the RAF would have no safe haven. bases as far as ireland could have been raided. in the east soviet aircraft development would have had to evolved differently. the soviet ac were great at low level but up high...the MEs and FWs would have proved better. the LW bombers may have not reached the urals but would have had the ability to recon hundreds of miles beyond the front. this would have denied the soviets the ability to mass large amounts of troops and armor beyond the eyes of the germans and bring them to bear like they did in kursk. the devastation done by bigger bombers with larger and more numerous bombs would have come into play. london took a pounding but look at hamburg, munich, even berlin before the soviets entered. the damage to the large german cities far exceeded that of most any allied city attacked only from the air. if that had been the opposite early on.....and if "Fatty" would have understood radar and its significance......????

 

[fastmongrel]

...but the RAF was near the end of the road. in one of the battles churchill was in the ops room and asked how many planes were in reserve...the answer was none.

That famous quote was when Churchill was visiting No 11 group control room. It is however always taken out of context No11 group was not the entire RAF strength. I am not sure of the exact figures but I believe 11 group had approx half the operational fighter squadrons in the RAF that does not include operational training squadrons and squadrons that had been rotated out of combat ops for rebuilding because of heavy losses of personel. No 12 and No10 groups were the reserve for 11 group and No13 group was the reserve for the reserve.

The day of that quote was the day when the LW threw everything it had into bombing London. It was not a success for the LW and directly led to the night blitz. Park his pilots and his controllers were working hard that day but at no time did they run short of aircraft. All available 11 group squadrons for a brief time were either in the air or being refueled and rearmed, 10 and 12 group squadrons were fed into the battle as 11 group controllers required them mostly to protect the 11 group airfields.

My facts and figures are approximate but for the definitive information read Njacos brilliant Battle of Britain daily thread. It is an eye opener and explodes some cherished myths.

 

[Shortround6]

it is my uneducated belief that had the LW devoted some of their resources to 4 engine high altitude bombers and developed drop tanks for fighter escort the battle for the uk and ussr would have taken a completely different complexion. the end result would still be up for conjecture but.........had the LW had longer range bombers/fighter escort the same scenario but in reverse would have surfaced...where the RAF would have no safe haven. bases as far as ireland could have been raided.

Belfast was bombed, one large raid killed more people and caused more damage than the the raid on Coventry. The Idea that the Germans NEEDED 4 engined bombers to reach most of the British Isles is a myth.

in the east soviet aircraft development would have had to evolved differently. the soviet ac were great at low level but up high...the MEs and FWs would have proved better.

A matter of conjecture, the Mig-3 was a high altitude fighter for it's time and the Russians were working on a lot of prototypes. It turned out they weren't needed and the effort went into the low altitude planes.

the LW bombers may have not reached the urals but would have had the ability to recon hundreds of miles beyond the front. this would have denied the soviets the ability to mass large amounts of troops and armor beyond the eyes of the germans and bring them to bear like they did in kursk.

The Germans had planes that could reach hundreds of miles beyond the front. More range doesn't do much good for tactical reconnaissance. Knowing what the enemy has 1000 miles behind the lines doesn't tell you were he plans to use it.

the devastation done by bigger bombers with larger and more numerous bombs would have come into play. london took a pounding but look at hamburg, munich, even berlin before the soviets entered. the damage to the large german cities far exceeded that of most any allied city attacked only from the air. if that had been the opposite early on.....and if "Fatty" would have understood radar and its significance......????

These Cities were done in in by raids of may hundreds of bombers if not thousands and in many cases by bombers that simply were not build-able in 1940-41.

By 43-44 Lancaster's and Halifax's were powered by engines totaling of 6400hp+. To get similar load carrying and range capabilities in 1940 would have required 6 engines.

 

[buffnut453]

Good posts Fastmongrel and Shortround. I agree we need to be careful of overstating the myths associated with "The Few". However, I still maintain that a concerted effort against the radar stations and airfields in southeast England would have cause Britain major issues.

Despite having reserves of fighters in the Midlands and further north, the presence of Keith Park's 11 Gp right in the front-line, the buffer between the Luftwaffe and London. Disrupting 11 Gp's operations such that it ceased to be that viable defensive perimeter would have had major consequences for London and might, after the fall of France, have forced the UK Government into some form of accommodation with Germany.

I've focussed on the BoB because my knowledge of the Eastern Front is very limited. Removing Britain as a combatant would have released more resources for Barbarossa but it remains a matter of conjecture whether that would have made a substantive difference to the outcome.

 

[parsifal]

My opinion is that Germany's lack of a true heavy bomber and an effective long range escort fighter were critical to her defeat in England.

The heavy bomber issue revolves arounfd two sub-issues....the lack of defensive capability, and the limited warloads that could be carried. The inadequate defensive capability isnt so much a lack of guns, rather the lack of turretted defences. Perhaps you guys will disagree with that, but IMO German bombers were vulnerable. British fighters found it relatively safe to close German bomber formations to relatively close ranges, with no great threat posed by the bomber defences. This was the primary purpose of those defences.....to keep the attackers at arms length, and thereby reduce losses. The US B-17s and B-24s were the best at this. British bombers were less capable, though it needs to be acknowledged that night bombing was done with a stream, and not a defensive box formation, which inherently reduced the effectiveness of the defences.

With regard to lack of warload, figures are often misquoted for german bombers. Their maximum warloads are impressive, and are often quoted as what could be carried. But a closer examination shows that at the ranges the germans were engaging the RAF, the bomb loads were often much reduced. Typically a german bomber might redcue its warload to 2000lbs or sometimes even less. This just was not enough to be effective. Put another way, you would need about four times as many German bombers as you would British ones to be effective. That means to match the firepower of a 1000 bomber raid, you would need 4000 german bombers. The germans never had the ordinance delivery to undertake a true city busting strategy...

With regard to Night bombing, the germans had superior navigational technology in the beginnig, and the british defences were woefully weak for night combat. Whilst I acknowlwdge the many differences, I do think the german beam riding technologies are similar to those developed by the British later on, and found to be very effective....lioke OBOE....So the ability of the Germans to hit city sized targets at night in 1940-41 was actually pretty good.

However the British were rapidly developing their night defences, such that about March 1941, it was becoming unecomic for the Germans to continue massed night operations. By that time their bomber losses could be counted in the hundreds, and the LW simply lacked the replacement system to maintain those sort of losses....

So we dont really know what might have happened if the Germans had developed a proper heavy bomber, and an effective long range escort fighter. I think it may have made a difference to be honest. Better defences, bettter war loads, greater losses for the RAF....these are all factors to consider.

German bombers . true

 

[tomo pauk]

Besides the long-range, the 'strategic' fighter for LW would've needed the performance, combat abilities and numbers produced. It is questionable if all of that was feasible for Germans prior 1941.
Same applies for 4-engined bombers.

 

[Shortround6]

Besides the long-range, the 'strategic' fighter for LW would've needed the performance, combat abilities and numbers produced. It is questionable if all of that was feasible for Germans prior 1941.
Same applies for 4-engined bombers.

I think that puts the problem in a nut shell.

The long range, performance and combat abilities weren't feasible for the Germans at that time. They weren't feasible for anybody.
that is one reason behind the Me 110.
With the engines available in 1938-41 there just wasn't enough power to get the performance, combat capability (guns, ammo, armor and self sealing tanks) that was needed from a single engine. Twin engined fighters would be needed but that meant less maneuverability.

While 4-engined bombers could certainly be built, with the lower powered engines their capabilities were going to be well under what 1943-45 bombers could achieve. Something has to go, bomb load or range or defensive armament or a combination.
While a 4-engine bomber will have more capability than 2-engined bomber and may have more capability than two 2-engined bombers (bomb load over a given range or ?) but the late war bombers that devastated German cities had 40-60% more power than a 1940 bomber would have had.