WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?

Shortround6 · May 18, 2020

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
These articles are discussing rifle and pistol rounds fired at ground level where wind velocity is most likely much less than at the altitudes our aerial warriors are playing around in.

The wind velocities are much lower but the air density is higher. At 20,000ft or so the air density is about 1/2. the bullets slow down less due to the lower drag and and ability of the same speed wind would be roughly 1/2 also.

We may be worrying too much about minor details. In the example given by Sierra they are talking about a change in impact of around 3 feet at 600ds with the just over 10mph wind example. about 1 man in 1000 (or less) had any business at all it shooting from one airplane to another at 600yds in WW II. If I am right about the difference in air density then even a 40mph wind at 20,000ft is only going to move the bullet about 6 ft at 600yds.
The major problem was figuring out where the target was going to be when the bullets reached it. A 300mph airplane is moving 440ft a second or so. If the bullets take 0.5 seconds to reach the target the target has moved 220ft in that space of time. Even if you are in a plane doing 300mph and aiming at a plane doing 300mph that is even a little of to the side of 6 o'clock you need to shoot at where it will be and not where it is.
given some of the less than precision sights most air gunners had to work with aiming was more a matter of 1/2 a plane length or so (against fighters) than really particular spots. Tales of aiming for oil coolers notwithstanding

On the ground a rough rule of thumb for cross winds is if the distance is doubled the wind drift goes up be around 3.5 or 3.6? I have forgotten but it is a bit under 4 times. Dispersion due to range also goes up with the square of the distance. As in if all bullets had landed in a 20 in circle at distance A then all bullets should land in a 40 in circle at distance 2A, at first look it seems to be doubled but the target area is actually 4 time bigger. If the intended target is only 10in in diameter what are the chances of hitting it?

This why a lot of aces said to fill your windscreen with the target plane or when you thought you were to close to get closer.

British thought that a power operated mount increase the effectiveness of a gun by between 2 and 4 times.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 18, 2020

Shortround6 said:
The wind velocities are much lower but the air density is higher. At 20,000ft or so the air density is about 1/2. the bullets slow down less due to the lower drag and and ability of the same speed wind would be roughly 1/2 also.

We may be worrying too much about minor details. In the example given by Sierra they are talking about a change in impact of around 3 feet at 600ds with the just over 10mph wind example. about 1 man in 1000 (or less) had any business at all it shooting from one airplane to another at 600yds in WW II. If I am right about the difference in air density then even a 40mph wind at 20,000ft is only going to move the bullet about 6 ft at 600yds.
The major problem was figuring out where the target was going to be when the bullets reached it. A 300mph airplane is moving 440ft a second or so. If the bullets take 0.5 seconds to reach the target the target has moved 220ft in that space of time. Even if you are in a plane doing 300mph and aiming at a plane doing 300mph that is even a little of to the side of 6 o'clock you need to shoot at where it will be and not where it is.
given some of the less than precision sights most air gunners had to work with aiming was more a matter of 1/2 a plane length or so (against fighters) than really particular spots. Tales of aiming for oil coolers notwithstanding

On the ground a rough rule of thumb for cross winds is if the distance is doubled the wind drift goes up be around 3.5 or 3.6? I have forgotten but it is a bit under 4 times. Dispersion due to range also goes up with the square of the distance. As in if all bullets had landed in a 20 in circle at distance A then all bullets should land in a 40 in circle at distance 2A, at first look it seems to be doubled but the target area is actually 4 time bigger. If the intended target is only 10in in diameter what are the chances of hitting it?

This why a lot of aces said to fill your windscreen with the target plane or when you thought you were to close to get closer.

British thought that a power operated mount increase the effectiveness of a gun by between 2 and 4 times.

Good points...

Admiral Beez · May 18, 2020

Readie said:
WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war? (2 Viewers)

No. Germany needs to take and hold ground, you do that with tanks, artillery, plain old soldiering and most importantly supply chain and logistics. Forget heavy bombers, if the Soviets have enough time to pick up their factories and carry them over the Caucuses to where the Luftwaffe needs heavy bombers to strike them, well Germany's already lost the war.

Now, give Germany triple the tanks, artillery, IFVs, trucks, etc. and supply chain they had on Day 1 of Barbarossa and you can make due with the Luftwaffe's twin engined bombers just fine. The Allies didn't win the war with heavy bombers, but with boots.

RW Mk. III · May 18, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
No. Germany needs to take and hold ground, you do that with tanks, artillery, plain old soldiering and most importantly supply chain and logistics. Forget heavy bombers, if the Soviets have enough time to pick up their factories and carry them over the Caucuses to where the Luftwaffe needs heavy bombers to strike them, well Germany's already lost the war.

Now, give Germany triple the tanks, artillery, IFVs, trucks, etc. and supply chain they had on Day 1 of Barbarossa and you can make due with the Luftwaffe's twin engined bombers just fine. The Allies didn't win the war with heavy bombers, but with boots.

I very much agree with the main thrust of your post. Particularly the point about the successful relocation of the factories being a decent indicator of the inevitability of defeat.
But if you are going to triple your tanks and fighting vehicles etc. etc. etc. You're better off to just double them, and then produce a commensurate number of tactical air support aircraft, fighters, reconnaissance aircraft and perhaps most importantly, transport aircraft. Having treble the mechanized army is great. But airpower is a major force multiplier. You get significantly more bang for your buck out of a tank that has better aerial reconnaissance, is better protected from air attack, can call on more airstrikes and can move in to support paratroops dropped in advance of it.

Admiral Beez · May 18, 2020

RW Mk. III said:
I very much agree with the main thrust of your post. Particularly the point about the successful relocation of the factories being a decent indicator of the inevitability of defeat.
But if you are going to triple your tanks and fighting vehicles etc. etc. etc. You're better off to just double them, and then produce a commensurate number of tactical air support aircraft, fighters, reconnaissance aircraft and perhaps most importantly, transport aircraft. Having treble the mechanized army is great. But airpower is a major force multiplier. You get significantly more bang for your buck out of a tank that has better aerial reconnaissance, is better protected from air attack, can call on more airstrikes and can move in to support paratroops dropped in advance of it.

I agree, and the place to get those extra aircraft is clear. The Battle of Britain was a waste of German air power. Once Britain was pushed out of France and Norway the Brits couldn't anything offensively to the Germans. So, take the 2,000 bombers and fighters you would have lost in the BoB and throw them eastwards into Russia.

pbehn · May 18, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
I agree, and the place to get those extra aircraft is clear. The Battle of Britain was a waste of German air power. Once Britain was pushed out of France and Norway the Brits couldn't anything offensively to the Germans. So, take the 2,000 bombers and fighters you would have lost in the BoB and throw them eastwards into Russia.

They didn't take part with the intention of losing.

PAT303 · May 18, 2020

RW Mk. III said:
I don't think anyone was debating that point. More that the effects of wind on trajectory and other nuances are moot when precision-aim simply isn't happening/possible.

That's my argument, it doesn't matter if the gun is more powerful or shoots more streamlined wind bucking bullets in 1940 you still have a gunner swinging off the back of vibrating gun connected to a vibrating aircraft trying to hit a maneuvering target as it flashes by in sub zero temperatures, with the target shooting back.

Admiral Beez · May 18, 2020

pbehn said:
They didn't take part with the intention of losing.

Of course, but the Luftwaffe took part in support of a lie, Sealion or the amphibious invasion of Britain, defended by the then most powerful navy in human history, with tug-towed river barges. The coming massacre of the German invasion fleet would have gone down into the annals of history's amphibious disasters, like the 1588 Spanish Armada (20,000 dead or 1/3 of Spanish troops/sailors) or the 1281 "divine wind," or kamikaze typhoon that wiped out the Mongol invasion of Japan (70,000 dead or 1/2 of Mongol troops/sailors). Can you imagine the poor bastards on the barges when a dozen capital ships, over 200 hundred cruisers and destroyers plus dozens of MTBs, all with RAF cover, plus at min. four dozen submarines and their lethal perisher-qualified commanders come to meet you.

Had the fallacy of Sealion been abandoned as impossible, the 2,000 Luftwaffe bombers and fighters lost in this mission to nowhere could have gone to Barbarossa. It is in the east that Germany could have won the war. Ignore distractions in Britain, North Africa, the Mediterranean or Greece. Go straight for Russia in spring, not summer 1941 with everything you've got. Either you'll crush the Soviets and gain time for the coming war with USA and Britain or you'll end up dead like you did anyway.

And forget about heavy bombers. Swap out every He.111, Ju.88 and Do.17 at the Battle of Britain with four engined heavy bombers like the Heinkel He 177 and the Germans still can't win the Battle of Britain or the war. You need boots on the ground.

RW Mk. III · May 18, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
Of course, but the Luftwaffe took part in support of a lie, Sealion or the amphibious invasion of Britain, defended by the then most powerful navy in human history, with river barges. Had the fallacy of Sealion been abandoned as impossible, the 2,000 Luftwaffe bombers and fighters lost in this mission to nowhere could have gone to Barbarossa.

Swap out every He.111, Ju.88 and Do.17 at the Battle of Britain with four engined heavy bombers like the Heinkel He 177 and the Germans still can't win the Battle of Britain or the war. You need boots on the ground.

I agree with you. Quite a lot.

But questioning a German war plan....

Admiral Beez · May 18, 2020

RW Mk. III said:
I agree with you. Quite a lot.

But questioning a German war plan....

I made a few edits before I saw this post. Gotta love Sean Bean.

gjs238 · May 18, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
I agree, and the place to get those extra aircraft is clear. The Battle of Britain was a waste of German air power. Once Britain was pushed out of France and Norway the Brits couldn't anything offensively to the Germans. So, take the 2,000 bombers and fighters you would have lost in the BoB and North Africa and throw them eastwards into Russia.

And North Africa

pbehn · May 18, 2020

While we are not taking part in the BoB and N. Africa why not look at history and not invade anywhere?

pbehn · May 18, 2020

Shortround6 said:
The wind velocities are much lower but the air density is higher. At 20,000ft or so the air density is about 1/2. the bullets slow down less due to the lower drag and and ability of the same speed wind would be roughly 1/2 also.

We may be worrying too much about minor details. In the example given by Sierra they are talking about a change in impact of around 3 feet at 600ds with the just over 10mph wind example. about 1 man in 1000 (or less) had any business at all it shooting from one airplane to another at 600yds in WW II. If I am right about the difference in air density then even a 40mph wind at 20,000ft is only going to move the bullet about 6 ft at 600yds.
The major problem was figuring out where the target was going to be when the bullets reached it. A 300mph airplane is moving 440ft a second or so. If the bullets take 0.5 seconds to reach the target the target has moved 220ft in that space of time. Even if you are in a plane doing 300mph and aiming at a plane doing 300mph that is even a little of to the side of 6 o'clock you need to shoot at where it will be and not where it is.
given some of the less than precision sights most air gunners had to work with aiming was more a matter of 1/2 a plane length or so (against fighters) than really particular spots. Tales of aiming for oil coolers notwithstanding

On the ground a rough rule of thumb for cross winds is if the distance is doubled the wind drift goes up be around 3.5 or 3.6? I have forgotten but it is a bit under 4 times. Dispersion due to range also goes up with the square of the distance. As in if all bullets had landed in a 20 in circle at distance A then all bullets should land in a 40 in circle at distance 2A, at first look it seems to be doubled but the target area is actually 4 time bigger. If the intended target is only 10in in diameter what are the chances of hitting it?

This why a lot of aces said to fill your windscreen with the target plane or when you thought you were to close to get closer.

British thought that a power operated mount increase the effectiveness of a gun by between 2 and 4 times.

In terms of the problems I was set at school and college apart from any "weather" there is no wind. Away from any turbulence around the aircraft the air is still and the aircraft is moving with the gun. So a gun firing forward fires a bullet with a muzzle velocity of the gun + the speed of the plane, firing backwards it is the m/v minus the speed of the plane. Firing sideways it has the muzzle velocity in the direction of the gun and a sideways velocity equal to that of the plane. I have no idea what that does to the round in flight, does it keep pointing as aimed or slowly rotate slightly? This got me thinking, for a dorsal gunner firing forward there must be an elevation firing directly forward where the plane flies into its own bullets, no idea how to work that out though.

Shortround6 · May 18, 2020

You have to be flying mighty fast to fly into your own bullets. One Grumman F11 Tiger managed it in the 1950s in near or just over supersonic dive.

But perhaps if the guns were elevated well over 45 degrees?

pbehn · May 18, 2020

Shortround6 said:
You have to be flying mighty fast to fly into your own bullets. One Grumman F11 Tiger managed it in the 1950s in near or just over supersonic dive.

But perhaps if the guns were elevated well over 45 degrees?

That's what I meant, in theory if you fire vertically upwards the bullet comes down and hits you on the shoulder. I was just posing as a mathematical problem not suggesting it happened. I suppose the time of flight of the bullet on its arc and the time taken by the plane to reach the landing point of the bullet would be the same.

Admiral Beez · May 18, 2020

pbehn said:
While we are not taking part in the BoB and N. Africa why not look at history and not invade anywhere?

They're Nazis, they have to invade somewhere. And besides, the Nazis are burning through their economic and industrial reserves, they have to move forward.

pbehn · May 18, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
They're Nazis, they have to invade somewhere. And besides, the Nazis are burning through their economic and industrial reserves, they have to move forward.

Well yes, but any argument against the BoB prompts a similar argument against invading Russia, Adolf didn't have the equipment to do it. Churchill didn't become PM until just before Dunkerque. Without him it is possible to see the UK suing for peace, certainly the Germans could see it as a possibility. Many of the German high command believed they were winning until days before they gave up. "The massed raids on London would wipe out the last 50 RAF fighters" etc etc.

Admiral Beez · May 18, 2020

pbehn said:
Well yes, but any argument against the BoB prompts a similar argument against invading Russia, Adolf didn't have the equipment to do it.

Perhaps, but it was their best shot.

Had the Germans ignored distractions in Britain, the Mediterranean and North Africa and amassed its equipment, and instead of breaking its Barbarossa invasion plan into three directions as shown below (violating the rules of force concentration against a numerically superior foe), the Germans had a chance.

But to circle back to this topic, heavy bombers for the Luftwaffe do nothing to improve Germany's chances at winning the war. It's take Russia or bust.

gjs238 · May 18, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
They're Nazis, they have to invade somewhere.

RW Mk. III · May 18, 2020

gjs238 said:

Looking for the ark no doubt.

WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major

Airman 1st Class

Major

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Major

Airman 1st Class

Attachments

Major

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Colonel

Major General

Colonel

Major

Colonel

Major

Tech Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads