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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Wellington 1C with 1050hp Pegasus engines had a speed of 235mph. I was going to use that as a point to say that turrets came at a cost in speed. But the rather good performance of the Wellington, given the exceptional range and bombload, likely reflects the efficiency of the geodetic structure plus the effect of integrating the aircraft into the turret (rather than the other way around) and forgoing the unnecessary dorsal turret.

Nevertheless I would say that turrets did make sense until engines in the 1500hp and above range were common.
 
Below are some layouts of the Ju 89. The Ju 89 had the same planed armament layout as the Do 19 which was 1 x 2 man dorsal turret with a single 20mm MG FF plus a 2 man ventral turret with a 20mm MG FF, a tail gun machine gun of either (7.92) or MG131 (13.2MM)
Luftwaffe Resource Center - Bombers - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

The second man I assume would be keeping the 60 or 90 round magazines loaded and likely helping with setting the range and maybe deflection as was the case with ground based light FLAK. This suggest the Luftwaffe may have been serious about long distance hits. I would expect a hydraulic powered turret using an variable displacement swash plate pump.

Note: the early 20mm C30 ground based 20mm guns had available a wind up clockwork gyro sight. This was replaced with an electrical unit, it was somewhat temperamental.

The rifle calibre guns are likely to allow a wide 70 degree arc of fire. Luftwaffe guns were often offset in a rotating structure to allow the gunner to offset the guns to get a good line of sight. I would suggest that by 1939/40 this would have given way to a heavier tail gun and the addition of He 111 style waist guns. As can be seen there is plenty of room for a good quality tail turret and sufficient power to carry the weight and drag. By 1939 engines of 1050hp were available so the estimated speed of the Ju 89 would approach about 260mph, which is about typical of a non turbocharged aircraft operating at low to medium altitude.



The Ju 89 did in a roundabout way develop into the Ju 290 and Ju 390 which was armed to the teeth with 20mm guns and turrets in the final version. Ju 290 used their radar to stay out of the way of allied fighters but they needed 20mm guns in the tail and dorsal as well as all other positions to deal with the 20mm guns of allied fighters such as the Mosquito. They operated alone.
 
Last edited:

I'm not sure what about my quoted text above elicited this statement? Could you clarify the relationship between this remark and the quote above?

And could you clarify the remark itself? It seems terribly close to a proposal that the world would have been much better off had the Germans won? Apparently in that scenario we can welcome a more peaceful world? Vis a vis your mention of middle East wars, Vietnam etc. Also apparently in this alternate future we can expect to see a boom in self-governance and independence? (Mentions of Ireland, Scotland, India).


I am not putting words in your mouth, I am inviting clarification on this. I have to believe the thought became garbled somehow.
 
Agreed. In fact I think the war ends sooner as the Germans would have run out of fuel before the oil campaign even started.
 
Even if the Germans or Japanese had aircraft equal to the United Nations heavy bombers and fighters able to escort them, they could never build enough of them any more than they could build enough Pz IV or Panther tanks. Neither nation had sufficient resources to win in the end.

They would have caused more death and destruction. They might even have lasted into 1946. The ending would have still been the same.

See "The Wages of Destruction" by Tooze for details.
 

The ending may have been worse. Where would you drop the A-bombs in Germany?
 

As near as I can find out (could be wrong) the MG 131 did not show up in any real quantities until early 1941. The Do 217C-0, Do-217 E-1 and Do 217 E-3 did not use it. At least as built. The Do 217E-2 did in both the electric turret at the rear of the canopy (and it was power gross traverse only, manual elevation fine traverse) and in the ventral step. The HE 111 according to one old author didn't get the MG 131 in the dorsal position until the H-11 version and didn't get the same traverse only turret until the H-16 version (and then it may have been a field kit?) Ju-88A-4s did get them but I don't know when. Early A-4s did not get them and the A-1 and A-5 did not have them as built. It doesn't matter when design work started or first test firings. It seems to have been vaporware in the summer/fall of 1940. BTW the link you posted makes no mention of the MG 131 on the pages for the JU 89 and Do 19.
The MG 81 also seems to be a late comer unless somebody has some actual source saying otherwise. What the Luftwaffe was using in the spring of 1941 has no bearing on what several hundred 4 engine bombers would have been armed with in the summer or early fall of 1940. Production would have had to start in the winter of 1939/40.

You are assuming things the way you want them to go. The Germans used few, if any, 90 round drums in 1940 on the MG FF cannon.

Page 128 of "The Warplanes of the Third Reich" by William Green (yes he did get some things wrong) says " However, the two-man cannon turret (one man controlling traverse and the other elevation) design of which had been proceeding in parallel with the construction of the bomber, was found to be weightier and more cumbersome that anticipated. static tests indicating that its installation would demand considerable structural strengthening of the center fuselage, and as weight had escalated" during construction the Do 19 was already under powered. "

Under the section for the JU 89 it does say hydraulically powered turrets for the 20mm, it also says in the text that the turrets were by Mauser and two man. Then it lists MG FF guns.

I really don't care what the prototypes had as a few other countries built some rather ambitious guns and mounts/turrets for aircraft that went nowhere

dorsal turret for the American B-19 with a 37mm automatic gun (mock up of the gun?) the turret anyway disappeared never to be used on an american combat aircraft. Note the .30 cal gun (mock up?) on top of the 37mm. Another 37mm was supposed to go in the nose.
I would be careful about assuming what duties the 2nd man had, The German Ground 20mm AA guns used a 5 man crew, granted one of them did little more than pass new magazines to the actual loader but in the AA gun one man controlled both the elevation and traverse.

Koopernic said:
By 1939 engines of 1050hp were available so the estimated speed of the Ju 89 would approach about 260mph, which is about typical of a non turbocharged aircraft operating at low to medium altitude.
Click to expand...

This seems reasonable, or if not the actual Ju 89 and German 4 engine machine using the engines of the day could reach that speed.
Data Card for the Halifax MK I with Merlin X engines (not XX)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Halifax/Halifax_I_ADS.jpg
The Halifax MK I has no dorsal turret though.

and is a bit sleeker than either of the two German prototypes. Germans do have time to design and build something a bit more modern that either one but it still will be limted bu engines and armament.
 
The Halifax was one of the exceptions to the rule that if it looks right it is right. Aerodynamically it was much worse than the Lancaster, which to my eyes doesn't look as sleek. The low slung nacelles of the Lancaster hanging in the breeze would on the face of it seem to cause more drag than the Halifax nacelles when in fact the opposite was the case. RR Hucknell installed Lancaster style nacelles on a Halifax (to be the Mk II Sr 2) and showed a substantial improvement in performance (additional 26 mph at 25,000 ft), although still not as good as a Lancaster.
 
I believe it had something to do with the placement/location of the propellers in relation to the wing leading edge or airfoil. I believe I have read that the radial engine Halifaxes got a performance boost a bit higher than the simple power rating would indicated despite the higher drag?
Likewise the Hercules powered Lancasters were not quite as speedy as might have been thought?

The centerline of the Props on the Merlin Lancasters are pretty much in line with the wing while on the radial engine planes the prop center line is a bit below the wing?
The centerline of the Props on the Merlin Halifax are above the the line with the wing leading edge while on the radial engine planes the prop center line is pretty much lined up the wing?
 
Yes, the propellers on the Merlin Halifaxs were closer to the leading edge than on the Lancaster. This seems to have been the root of the Halifax vibration issues. Rolls Royce recommended moving the outer engines forward by 12 inches, which was not implemented. In addition due to the high mounting of the Merlin the exhausts impinged on leading edge. Also, the propeller was too close to the front of the radiator, the cooling system was a disaster and the flame damping was ineffective while increasing drag. Rolls Royce redesigned the engine installation for the considerably cleaned up Mark II Series 1A, with fin and tube radiators, new header tank, better oil coolers, better exhausts and shrouds and extended inner nacelles, amongst other changes. Rolls Royce even redesigned the fuel system to make it easier to manage and more reliable. Rolls Royce subsidiary Phillips and Powis (aka Miles) redesigned the bomb bay doors to allow them to close while carrying a 4,000 or 8,000 lb bomb. The Rolls Royce proposal to lower the engines was not implemented as by that time the Hercules powered variant was proving to be an upgrade on the Mark II. That being said the data collected by Bomber Commands showed conclusively that the Halifax IIII was still well behind the Lancaster in operational effectiveness. Sadly Rolls Royce offered to have Alvis manufacture the power plants for the Halifax using the successful design used on the Wellington Mark II which would have eliminated many of the problems. This offer was made in October 1939 but Handley Page rejected it, a mistake that was not repeated by Avro when they adopted the Beaufighter power plants for the Lancaster.
This is all from the excellent book "Rolls Royce and the Halifax" by David Birch.
 
Last edited:
swampyankee said:
The ending may have been worse. Where would you drop the A-bombs in Germany?
Click to expand...

Has anyone seen unclassified documents analyzing the potential German targets for the Bomb? A coastal city seems logical to avoid a deep penetration into the Reich and increase risk of shooting down a B-29 for the first drop. Berlin is also the obvious target. If the War with Germany was still going on, I don't think there would be any debate, if a weapon was available to end the killing.
 

The weapon was developed for use against Germany, but they surrendered before it was needed.
 

The Ju 89 V1 flew in 1936 with 750hp engines, the Ju 89 bomber program was cancelled the day after the aircrafts maiden flight. The same fate befell the Dornier Do 19.
In 1937 the cancellation extended into an order to cease all work. Nevertheless the Ju 89 V2 with 900hp DB600 engines was allowed to fly as part of the Ju 90 transport program. The Ju 89 V3 was under construction at this point and was meant to be the first armed prototype. The Do 19 V1 never got passed its 680hp radial engines.

By December 1939 the Ju 90V5 with its wing span extended 11% and removal of the Junkers double flap was flying with Bramo 139 radial engines. That shows how fast progress could have been. The Ju 90V6 featured the trappoklappe rear loading ramp. These were essentially the Ju 90B. Bomber versions for the Ju 90B were ordered which essentially became the Ju 290 by 1941.

The Ju 89V2 set some spectacular load and load to height records. Luftwaffe Secret Projects gives one of the armament options as MG131 in the tail. It lists speed as 242-255mph with 4400lbs of bombs and a range of 1850miles carrying bombs. The MG 131 was in low rate production by 1938 for experimental purposes so maybe it crept into planning documents The MG34 belt fed MG81 (1300rpm) was available by the BoB and making appearances as a retrofit for the MG15 where suitable.

The Ju 89/Do 19 aircraft had some limitations in that their low wings would have forced a B17/Ju 52/He 111 style bomb bay but doubt this was a serious limitation.

The Do 19 obviously could have enjoyed an aerodynamic clean-up around its braced tail and its 2 dimensional folded nose and glass house. It was after all a prototype.

The lack of turrets on German bombers has little to do with the lack of ability to produce power turrets: it is explained primarily by the factor that the performance penalty of gun turrets on 2 engine bombers starting with 700hp and engines with 1000-1100hp engines by 1940 is simply too much eg He 111 and Do 17. The B25 and B26 needed CW R-2600 of 1600hp+ and the B26 needed PW R-2800 of 1850hp. The Wellington on the 1050hp Taurus was underwhelming at 235mph and needed the Merlin XX or Hercules. The Germans had 1350hp in later 1941 and 1450 in 1942 with Jumo 211F and J. The1560hp BMW 801A couldn't be spared for bombers except in very small numbers.

I can not see a technology problem in producing a hydraulic powered turret in 1838 for the Luftwaffe. Either a pressure compensated hydraulic flow control valve is used to control the traverse rate of a reversible swash plate variable displacement pump is used. These devices are not some unique British technology at the time.

Every indication is that the Luftwaffe wanted to bypass manned turrets completely so did not invest much in power turrets. The Bomber B (Ju 288) was completely defended by remote controlled guns using periscopic sights to eliminate parallax error. The Bomber A (He 177) was likewise to be defended by remote control guns in the dorsal and ventral forward firing area ie anything outside of the manned tail gun and rearward facing bathtub gun.

The Fw 200 was an airliner. The maritime reconnaissance bomber version came out of a private order placed by the Japanese Navy and seized by the Luftwaffe. Until the Bramo 323 received water injection and reached 1200hp a large power driven turret also had a performance penalty.

That leaves the Do 217 as the only bomber sand it seems to have only been an interim and the Ju 90S/Ju 290 which plodded along as an after thought.

The manned power Dorsal turrets used seem to be the 20mm FW 19 (a focke-wulf designed fully hydraulic unit used on the Fw 200 and the 20mm hydraulic HL 151/20 or HL 151/15 used on the Fw 200, Ju 290, BV222, Me 232 and several flying boats).

The MG 131 was in low rate production in 1938, seemingly for testing, The issue of using 30,60,90 round drum magazine for the MG FF gets down to reload times for the bigger magazine versus less frequent reloads.

The single gun EDL 131 was clearly designed for minimum drag. British aircraft might have done well to have this low drag light weight turret. The single MG131 had as much muzzle kinetic energy as twin 303 brownings and as much throw weight with more penetration and a bullet 2.7 x bigger and clearly was a smaller turret. The manual elevation is unlikely to be an issue given the short barrel protrusion into the slipstream.

The Ju 89 can be ready by 1939. Its probably not a spectacularly fast aircraft, due to the low engine power available at that stage but then 260mph seems to have been the norm. I would expect a 20mm power driven dorsal turret, 20 mmm ventral gun in a bathtub, tail gun (possibly MG81) He 111 style waist guns and nose guns. If the dorsal turret isn't possible I would expect a He 111 style installation with an MG15 and a similar installation with a MG FF with limited deflection.

Its a lot better than a Fw 200 and capable of significant development as the Ju 290 showed. The effect on the BoB is to force a greater dispersal of RAF fighter command, an more effective anti shipping weapon and attacks in the North of Scotland.
 
Last edited:
It must be borne in mind that Soviet factories occupied a much larger portion of territory than their English, German and Japan counterparts as, to the contrary, there were no land space problems in the Soviet Union. Given the very low precision of the bombings of those times, the number of missions necessary to destroy the plants of the factories would have been impossible for the Luftwaffe to sustain, because most of the bombs would not have fallen on the sheds but on the surrounding open areas.
A very simple cost / benefit analysis immediately showed the Luftwaffe the futility of the strategic bombing of the Soviet Union, with any type of bomber conceivable at the time, regardless of the numbers of the engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Axis Strategic Heavy Bombers?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
German heavy bombers
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
D
"Self-inflicted" heavy bombers damages in 8th Air Force
Replies
2
Views
999
Daniel BASTIEN
D
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
7K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register