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

[swampyankee]

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

That contradicts entire basis of the nazi ideology: invading foreign countries to murder Jews (and Roma and a few other groups), depopulate Slavic nations, and enslave the relatively few survivors.

 

[gjs238]

They're Nazis, they have to invade somewhere.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Looking for the ark no doubt.

That scene scared my young self.

Movie scenes that would not be OK to film today

 

[GrauGeist]

The premise of attacking Britain was to bring them to the table to negotiate a truce. Hitler even held hopes that Britain may join the Axis.
With Britain at least neutral, he would have had a decent shot at the Soviet Union.

However, history intervened when Mussolini bit off more than he could chew, Britain handed Der Führer his ass and the Japanese attacked the U.S.

From that point onward, he was screwed.

 

[pbehn]

The premise of attacking Britain was to bring them to the table to negotiate a truce. Hitler even held hopes that Britain may join the Axis.
With Britain at least neutral, he would have had a decent shot at the Soviet Union.
.

If Halifax was as good at defeatism as Churchill was at defiance who is to say it wouldn't/couldnt happen? No one knew at that time what a difference the Chain home + Dowding system would make.

 

[pbehn]

That contradicts entire basis of the nazi ideology: invading foreign countries to murder Jews (and Roma and a few other groups), depopulate Slavic nations, and enslave the relatively few survivors.

That's the ideology, it doesn't mean that he has to do it or people thought he would do it, his army that invaded Russia had 120 horses for every tank, and many of those tanks were not tanks in the modern sense with a turret and heavy gun.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The premise of attacking Britain was to bring them to the table to negotiate a truce. Hitler even held hopes that Britain may join the Axis.

Had the USSR attacked Germany (and all of Western Europe) the British likely would have joined the fight alongside Germany. But that would have occurred in the late 1940s, and likely under a Weimar government, not Nazis.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I thought that the whole idea of a turret was to have the guns securely mounted and smoothly traversed. When you see footage of waist gunners in B-17s with the movement of the plane, gun and gunner plus the recoil, the effect is that he is just firing bullets in a general direction.

I have a couple of RAF studies on fitting 12.7`s / 20mm cannon to bombers in early WW2 (lancaster etc), it states on more than one accasion that in their opinion, it was dramatically more effective to have a powered turret than a hand mounted gun of any sort. This was a discussion point because the turrets weighed an absolute ton.

Incredibly annoyingly I cant remember which damn file number it was in !!!

 

[swampyankee]

The IJN used 20 mm guns as defensive armament in all versions of the G4M and other multi-engine aircraft. It did not seem to render them invulnerable.

 

[swampyankee]

That's the ideology, it doesn't mean that he has to do it or people thought he would do it, his army that invaded Russia had 120 horses for every tank, and many of those tanks were not tanks in the modern sense with a turret and heavy gun.

Nazis not rampaging through Europe would a change in policy on the order of Jeff Davis telling the Confederacy to free all the slaves in 1862. It would cause a collapse of the government. Invading France was equally critical to nazi maintenance of power. Once France was invaded, Hitler made the choice, whether he meant to or not, to go to war with the UK and, ultimately, the US

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Good points...

The attached report analyzes Luftwaffe fighter attacks on AAF bombers and fighter vs fighter combat, based on German gun camera films. Range fire was opened, duration, accuracy, etc

 

[Dimlee]

Particularly the point about the successful relocation of the factories being a decent indicator of the inevitability of defeat.

We can call that relocation "successful" because the USSR has won. But it has been very painful for the Soviet economy and it negatively impacted the situation on the front for many months in 1941 and 1942. Also, please note that the relocation itself did not make the factory immune from the German attacks. Please note my comment #171 above.

 

[RW Mk. III]

We can call that relocation "successful" because the USSR has won. But it has been very painful for the Soviet economy and it negatively impacted the situation on the front for many months in 1941 and 1942. Also, please note that the relocation itself did not make the factory immune from the German attacks. Please note my comment #171 above.

I would generally agree that it was unsuccessful had they lost?
The move caused terrible problems in the short term no one would disagree I don't think. But the war materials produced by the factories that were safer (if not invulnerable) from German attack would seem to carry the point of the plan's success I would think. What would the alternative have been? Repel Barbarossa at the outset I suppose.

Edited for additional

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I have a couple of RAF studies on fitting 12.7`s / 20mm cannon to bombers in early WW2 (lancaster etc), it states on more than one accasion that in their opinion, it was dramatically more effective to have a powered turret than a hand mounted gun of any sort. This was a discussion point because the turrets weighed an absolute ton.

Incredibly annoyingly I cant remember which damn file number it was in !!!

According to R Wallace Clark in his book "British Aircraft Armament Volume1" the RAF:
"When the Boulton and Paul Company introduced a new high performance twin-engined bomber, the Sidestrand, it was reported that gunners in the open cockpit were unable to align their guns with any accuracy against the force of the slipstream. The Air Staff were aware of the problem, and a development order was issued to Boulton Paul for a power-assisted enclosed gun turret to be fitted to the nose of the aircraft."
"After a series of trials in 1936, when the latest fighters carried out mock attacks on formations of bombers, the doubts of the Air Staff about the usefulness of gunners in open cockpits was fully confirmed. It was decided that specifications for new bombers would include a requirement for enclosed and powered gun turrets, and that some existing types would be converted."

 

[pbehn]

Nazis not rampaging through Europe would a change in policy on the order of Jeff Davis telling the Confederacy to free all the slaves in 1862. It would cause a collapse of the government

They liked the idea of a good rampage but not many times did he do it. He didnt rampage across North Africa and he didn't rampage into UK. Stalin contributed to Adolfs rampage in Russia which should never have got as far as it did. Germany didn't substantially out produce the UK in military equipment to take on Russia and the USA was just folly.

 

[RW Mk. III]

They liked the idea of a good rampage but not many times did he do it. He didnt rampage across North Africa and he didn't rampage into UK. Stalin contributed to Adolfs rampage in Russia which should never have got as far as it did. Germany didn't substantially out produce the UK in military equipment to take on Russia and the USA was just folly.

Yup, Germany only ever overran and conquered one competitor state. And it wasn't really that the Germans were particularly better equipped or stronger. The French had prepared for an anachronistic war. Their military was dogmatically defensive. The political and social state of the country was fractious. And procurement had been very poor for the preceding years.

The myth of the Nazi juggernaut persists obviously, but it hardly holds water imho.



Are there any similar documents from Japanese sources? Why did they arrive at the 20mm for defensive guns?

 

[swampyankee]

They liked the idea of a good rampage but not many times did he do it. He didnt rampage across North Africa and he didn't rampage into UK. Stalin contributed to Adolfs rampage in Russia which should never have got as far as it did. Germany didn't substantially out produce the UK in military equipment to take on Russia and the USA was just folly.

He didn't rampage into the UK because he was stopped.

The USSR was even more poorly prepared than France. There were several reasons for this, one was the USSR's relative industrial backwardness, second, was Stalin's propensity for killing competent senior military personnel, and, third, Stalin's refusal to believe intelligence reports that his buddy, Hitler, was massing troops on his borders to invade.

 

[Shortround6]

According to R Wallace Clark in his book "British Aircraft Armament Volume1" the RAF:
"When the Boulton and Paul Company introduced a new high performance twin-engined bomber, the Sidestrand, it was reported that gunners in the open cockpit were unable to align their guns with any accuracy against the force of the slipstream. The Air Staff were aware of the problem, and a development order was issued to Boulton Paul for a power-assisted enclosed gun turret to be fitted to the nose of the aircraft."

Just for reference the high performance bomber was this

When fitted with the new turret (and better engines) they got this.

 

[Koopernic]

Chances are, the exact same thing will happen to the Luftwaffe's heavy bombers as happened to their medium bombers historically. The Luftwaffe's inability for the escorts to communicate with the bombers SNIPt.

If You check my earlier posts in this thread I point out that the critical factor in Luftwaffe Success would have been having drop tanks fitted to the Bf 109E and Bf 110C. Historically the Germans had used the drop tank in World War 1 and on several Heinkel's in the Spanish war. The Bf 109E1B was equipped with bomb racks and could carry a tank but was not plumbed. Several could carry a tank there for ferrying but not jettison it.

My argument is that the Luftwaffe 2 engine bombers were adequate given drop tank equipped escorts but that a 4 engine bomber would have been of value primarily because:
1 They could support the U-boats much better than the Fw 200 and this would leave Fw 200 free for transport duties.
2 A 4 engine bomber with 900-1000hp engines could be far more heavily armed than a two engine bomber. The B29 was successful. The B17/B24 was successful in forcing ultra heavy armour and long range armament and even rockets on to German fighters which though successful then rendered them extremely vulnerable to the US escorts.

When the Ju 89/Do 19 flew in 1936 the intention was to arm them with a dorsal 20mm and ventral 20mm, a tail rifle calibre gun and a nose gun. I suggest that by the time of the BoB they would have He 111 style waist guns and likely a 20mm gun or MG81 in the tail by the time of the BoB.

Instead of getting RAF fighters with forced landings the armament produces a few shoot downs, written of aircraft and severely wounded pilots unable to return to service. It's not enough to destroy fighter command but in combination with escorts it does create a problem.

This is all quite true. But so is GrauGeist's point about the USAAF's experience. The defensive armament of a bomber, no matter how good, is not going to substitute good or better fighter cover.
SNIP.

A 4 engine Luftwaffe bombers effect on sea power would have been far more significant.

Nice example but the angle of fire with a drum loaded 20mm would be far less than an LMG plus the poor ballistics of the FF would significantly reduce the chances of a hit. SNIP .

For the MG151/20 I think 23 degrees when seated nearly 40 degrees when prone, it was enough. With the MG131 it was 70 degrees, there was a rotating blister to position the swivel point. An MG FF clearly stops the bomber being shot down. A 20mm hits gets noticed.

Maybe the fall of France took the LW by surprise as much as anyone, did anyone believe that they would be in a position to attack the UK in 1940 until they actually were.

Definetly, there was no emphasis on range. It was a tactical air force to support the army and use fast climbing fighters to intercept French (or Polish) fighters at the border.

fixed and where the Luftwaffe put MG 151 cannon on later bombers is only of moderate interest in 1940

Tony Williams says 11.5 grams for an AP bullet. Maybe he is wrong. Maybe 12.7 grams is for a lead cored bullet used in ground guns?

Here is where things start getting strange. Mathematically you are correct. Except the flexible 20mm MG/FFs guns seldom used a magazine that allowed for 4 seconds of fire. Both 15 round and 30 round magazines were used. 4 seconds at 9 rounds per second (540rpm) is 36 rounds.

SNIP
Add to this the bigger the barrel the more area the slipstream has to push against. SNIP
View attachment 581796
Granted this is the nose gun of a He 111 but you get the idea compared to a MH 15.

SNIP

The MG FF round had 75% of the velocity of the MG15 (600ms vs 750ms) and with a 134 gram explosive armour piercing round had 7.0 times the kinetic energy than the MG 15's 11.5 grams rounds plus they exploded. They had a frontal area of 6 times that of the rifle calibre bullet but 12 times the weight and 7 times the kinetic energy. They're clearly going to slow down far less dramatically in flight which means the ballistics are going to be the same at meaningful distances.

The MG FFM round had 93% of the velocity of the MG15 (700ms vs 750ms) and with a 90 gram explosive round had 6 times the kinetic energy than the MG 15's 11.5 grams rounds.
They had a frontal area of 6 times that of the rifle calibre bullet but 7.8 times the weight and 6.7 times the kinetic energy. They're clearly going to slow down less in flight which means the ballistics are going to be the same at meaningful distances given the velocities are similar.

As has been pointed out, these positions would have been manually operated in 1940 - the Germans did not have a workable power turret at the outbreak of WW2 and did not install such a thing in an aircraft until the maritime patrol variants of the Fw 200 in late 1940/1941. As it was proposed, the Ju 89, by 1940 is not a very potent machine and the
SNIP.

No 4 engine bomber was impressive in 1936 and no 2 engine bomber was impressive in 1936. Speeds of under 220mph were the norm. Given the same performance increase we saw with Do 17, He 111, Ju 86 we could expect the Do 19. What speed did Whitley's and Hampton's did on 750-900hp. Even the Wellington needed 1300hp Merlin or 1500hp Hercules engines. The Stirling needed the 1500hp Hercules.

German engines barely broke the 1000hp barrier in 1940 (Jumo 211A3) or DB601A. Most of their He 111, Do 17 and Ju 88A1 bombers had 900hp. The Merlin only got above 1030hp due to 100 octane fuel.

At the outbreak of the war in Europe the B17D lacked a tail turret and even much latter when the B17E, B26 and B25 came in the rear gun was manually aimed.

The reason the Germans didn't have turrets is because to make it worthwhile you need either 4 engines or at least 2 engines with at least 1500hp. Really you need 1600hp R2600 or 1850hp R2800. Early Wellingtons had a simple turretless MG in a blister in the nose and tail.

Technically there was no problem in German servo mechanism practice producing a power turret. The ones they did develop are characterised by extremely low drag which was necessary given limited engine power, the need to rely on speed and the undesirability of disrupting production to produce the Ju 188B which had a tail turret.

Nevertheless 20mm MG FF/M guns can be installed in the tail, the ventral gondola, the dorsal position behind a He 111 style wind shield. This combined with rifle calibre waist guns is a significant improvement despite the limited traverse of the ventral and dorsal position. Nevertheless power driven turrets were the objective for the Do 19/Ju 89

Everything also shows and intention to bypass manned turrets and proceed with fully remote controlled turrets on Ju 288 and He 177. They of course did show up on the He 177 and Me 210/410.

And


It has nothing to do with air currents and everything to do with trying to hit something flashing by you doing hundreds of miles an hour.

Park would continue his pealing away the fighters tactic so the deeper into England they go the more units they are engaging, you have to remember that they have to fight into the target and back out again,View attachment 581894 that means taking on all three fighter groups the further you go as well as 11 group again on the way back out, .

A win in the BoB means roaming all over Britain and that means drop tank equipped Bf 109/Bf 110. There is no escaping that and having escorts changes things. Two engine bombers have the range but a few 4 engine units more heavily armed, with 20mm guns, would create problems by putting a lot more Hurricanes and Spitfires out of service for long periods. Again Maritime bombing more important.

I think the argument was the projectiles were disturbed by air currents, not the gun barrels?, by your example a bigger 20mm barrel would be harder to train than a thinner shorter .303/7.92mm so the gunners would be further disadvantaged using bigger guns.

The bigger a projectile the less the CdA (Surface Area) to mass ratio and the less the bullet slows in flight or is deflected by winds. Its a simple fact and very significant. That in itself means the MG FFM will be just as long ranged and accurate as a rifle calibre machine gun. Outside of the need for a solid mount and the reduction in accuracy outside of a limited arc due to wind force say +/-45 degrees this wouldn't be a problem. Again I stand by that at least a dorsal turret would have been available by 1939 given that a Do 19/Ju 89 was at least capable of carrying a turret.

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.

I was too busy to read the entire convo, so my apologies if I missed something or the context of this post. But wind does affect the trajectory of a bullet, ANY bullet, and any size round, just as it does to any flying object. It is simple physics and aerodynamics. Some call it Wind Drift.
SNIP

I thought that the whole idea of a turret was to have the guns securely mounted and smoothly traversed. When you see footage of waist gunners in B-17s with the movement of the plane, gun and gunner plus the recoil, the effect is that he is just firing bullets in a general direction.

They fired in short bursts when firing at long range targets. The reason a Leopard II tank doesn't have a 50 and only a 7.62mm NATO MG is because the New German army calculated the reduction in accuracy was not worth a 50 calibre guns given they already had a 120mm guns.

However you need to put a very heavy structure in to handle the recoil. Did the 50 have a recoil recuperator or did it just smash into the backstop.

Without the benefit of experience of any sort in aerial gunnery, I can say that with the little knowledge I do have of the subject that it wasn't simple to just plonk gun positions onto existing aircraft types, even when gun positions and turrets were designed into the aircraft, their impact on aerodynamics had consequences. The Manchester suffered severe vibration when that awful FN.7 . SNIP

I'm sure such things almost certainly would have affected the Germans in their new turrets as well.

If they have 4 engine bombers the weight and drag of a power turrets becomes acceptable and these problems are discovered and solved. The German Navy and the US Navy were the only countries in which firing solutions were passed directly from the computer in the director to the elevation of the guns. They had the ability to solve these problems.

I'm curious about the optimal arc of fire for the 20mm's proposed to be defending the do19's or ju88's. Reading accounts generally indicates to me that one of the RAF favoured approaches was beam attacks on bombers. Given the speed of these two bombers that wouldn't exactly be difficult to position a spitfire or hurricane for even if they were overhauling the bombers.SNIP

I would expect He 111 style waist guns by this time. The MG131 was in production by 1940, the MG81 had been in production since 1938 and was beginning to replaced the MG 15. 1350RPM instead of 1050RPM with 300 round magazines instead of 75 saddle drums.

The Germans used retractable dustbins (Ju 86, Ju 52) and Gondola which had maybe 70 degree arcs of fire with an MG15 given the rotating lens mounting. Waist guns compensate for inadequate dorsal and ventral position.

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.
SNIP.

The moderate ballistics of the MG FF are not much worse than the MG15 at say 300 meters and the MG FFM would be indistinguishable. Until both power operation and gyro sites made it into the turrets I cant see that the accuracy would be different. What I think matters is destructive power so that the fleeting hits by rifle calibre rounds turn into far more damaging hits by 20mm.

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.

The German high Command was not planning on invading the entire Soviet Union, they knew they didn't have resources. They analysed it an realised they could only hold about 1/3rd and drew an arbitrary line just behind Moscow. TIK on YouTube does a good job of explaining this.

Not commonly taught of course. Every member of the high command or attaché says that German intelligence expected a Soviet Invasion the next year. Of course established historians go down other explanations but the fact is they had no expectation of being able to conquer the entire SU.

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.

SNIP

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.

They of course didn't plan for an invasion until the battle of france. The various landing craft the German Navy developed for a hypothetical sea lion were superb, of course they weren't in production. A 4 engine bomber hurts the Royal Navy.

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.

Note: Chamberlin set the ultimatum to Hitler and Chamberlin declared war. He was an ethical and morally firm man. He wont back down. He gets smeared by history because he avoided a war over 3 million Sudden Germans who pretty much unanimously wanted to come back into the now reunited Germany/Austria empire (had been part of Austrian Empire but by way Czech Crown). Britain is supposed to fight a war in 1938 to force Sudeten Germans to be part of a failing state they want to leave by this time?

Either way it has nothing to do with Churchill or Chamberlain. Britain needs to be put on the defensive with a successful trade blockade and a seriously diminished fighter force and damaged production. A 4 engine bomber causes damage to UK trade.

I would generally agree that it was unsuccessful had they lost?
The move caused terrible problems in the short term no one would disagree I don't think. But the war materials produced by the factories that were safer (if not invulnerable) from German attack would seem to carry the point of the plan's success I would think. What would the alternative have been? Repel Barbarossa at the outset I suppose.

Edited for additional

LOL, No endless wars in the middle east, No British-American puppet states, Independence for Ireland, Independence for Scotland, Independence for India, no communist China, no Vietnam war, moon landings a bit earlier, Trade with South America via long range Junkers aircraft.

He didn't rampage into the UK because he was stopped.

The USSR was even more poorly prepared than France. There were several reasons for this, one was the USSR's relative industrial backwardness, second, was Stalin's propensity for killing competent senior military personnel, and, third, Stalin's refusal to believe intelligence reports that his buddy, Hitler, was massing troops on his borders to invade.

Stalin was massing troops on the borders of Romania, preparing to invade Germany's oil supply. They may have been badly prepared but only just. Their Tanks T-34, KV1, their MiGs, Yaks and Lavochkins, their 4 engine bombers were outstanding designs were in production and entering service only in need of debugging. Maybe 6 months is all it would take and they'd have technical superiority. Around 1500 T-34 had been delivered by Barbarossa.

 

[GrauGeist]

The heavily armored Jabos came after the fact.
In 1943, the Luftwaffe nearly stopped the 8th AF dead in it's tracks due to terrible losses during unescorted daylight missions.
The slipper tanks that the RFC used in Africa during WWI weren't drop tanks, but additional fuel storage units to increase range (and weren't jettisonable).
The fact that the IJN and the Luftwaffe (Condor Legion) used drop tanks in the mid-30's seems to be a lesson lost because the Luftwaffe desperately needed longer range for their Bf109 during the Bob.

And we can most likely figure that *IF* the Luftwaffe had a sizable heavy bomber force, they would have screwed that up with their historical slip-shod operating procedures that not only cost them dearly in men and equipment, but ultimately, the war.