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

[GrauGeist]

I think Tkdog was referring to aircraft navigation, not pre-flight intelligence gathering.

Prior to planning a mission, they get the factory's location (through methods I mentioned), then it's co-ordinates are calculated and given to the Navigator who uses time/speed in conjunction with compass headings to guide the bomber(s) to the target.
Waypoints are usually based on landmarks (lakes, villages, geological features, etc.) and roads/rail lines also aid in their ingress/egress.

 

[gjs238]

I think Tkdog's question was rhetorical.

 

[swampyankee]

I doubt if German navigators were significantly superior to those of the USAAF and RAF, who completely missed cities and, on occasion, entire countries. Without effective aids to navigation, which would be subject to jamming and other countermeasures, while Soviet aircraft are trying to shoot them out of the sky, may be a tad harder than doing so in peacetime, with various local aids-to-navigation that are both maintained and not actively trying to mislead.

 

[pbehn]

I took a train from Moscow 200-250 east to Vyksa, didn't see anything except trees and one stop in a small town on the way, you can navigate by rail lines as long as you choose the right one, in Russia if you choose the wrong one you are following it for many miles before you know it.

 

[swampyankee]

I took a train from Moscow 200-250 east to Vyksa, didn't see anything except trees and one stop in a small town on the way, you can navigate by rail lines as long as you choose the right one, in Russia if you choose the wrong one you are following it for many miles before you know it.

This would give the VVS and PVO-Strany a good idea of where to put their fighters to intercept the bomber stream. I wonder if the Soviets had a large-bore aircraft cannon of some sort...hmmm.

 

[RW Mk. III]

Prior to planning a mission, they get the factory's location (through methods I mentioned), then it's co-ordinates are calculated and given to the Navigator who uses time/speed in conjunction with compass headings to guide the bomber(s) to the target.
Waypoints are usually based on landmarks (lakes, villages, geological features, etc.) and roads/rail lines also aid in their ingress/egress.

So simple! Why didn't bomber command and the 8th air force think of that!

 

[Dimlee]

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.

Regarding the low precision of the bombing and impossibility to destroy the Soviet factories. This theory has been disproved by history.
Please see my earlier comment:
WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?
The number of engines probably was not the most important factor, since the above-mentioned operation was done by He 111 and Ju 88. And carefully planned but never fulfilled Eisenhammer was to be conducted by Mistels.

Some more about the precision - an episode during the Operation Frantic, quoted from Wiki:
"On the night of 21 June, the Combat Wing of B-17s which earlier landed at Poltava sustained severe losses in a German air attack. ...
For almost two hours, an estimated 75 Luftwaffe bombers attacked the base, exhibiting a very high degree of accuracy. Nearly all bombs were dropped in the dispersal area of the landing ground where only B-17s were parked, indicating without question that the B-17s constituted the specific objective of the raiders.
Of the 73 B-17s which had landed at Poltava, 47 were destroyed and most of the remainder severely damaged. ...
The stores of fuel and ammunition brought so laboriously from the United States were also destroyed. Three days after the attack, only nine of the 73 aircraft at Poltava were operational. ...
Red Air Force losses included 15 Yak-9s, 6 Yak-7s, three trainers, a Hawker Hurricane, and a VIP DC-3. ...
The well-planned German attack was led by Oberstleutnant Wilhelm Antrup of KG 55 and carried out by He 111Hs and Ju 88s of KG 4, KG 53, KG 55, and KG 27 operating from bases at Minsk. The operation was nicknamed Zaunkoenig. After the He 111s left, the Ju 88s strafed the field at low altitude. He 177s from Night Reconnaissance Squadrons performed target reconnaissance, pathfinder duties and bomb damage assessment. There were no German losses."
Operation Frantic - Wikipedia

 

[Dimlee]

Attacking Russia with a strategic bombing campaign is almost the opposite of attacking Britain.
No radar net for warning and control of interceptors.
Targets are hundreds of miles apart so the ability of the defending squadrons to be mutually supporting is not there.

This is an interesting scenario, indeed. But if Germany begins to invest in the heavy bomber force, the Soviets would notice and will adjust their air strategy accordingly. Would they succeed in building up a decent home defense (without lend leased tech) against the "heavy" Luftwaffe, is a subject of speculation.

 

[Dimlee]

I doubt if German navigators were significantly superior to those of the USAAF and RAF, who completely missed cities and, on occasion, entire countries. Without effective aids to navigation, which would be subject to jamming and other countermeasures, while Soviet aircraft are trying to shoot them out of the sky, may be a tad harder than doing so in peacetime, with various local aids-to-navigation that are both maintained and not actively trying to mislead.

I don't know if German navigators were superior but they had little trouble locating the Soviet factories in the operation I mentioned in my post #171.
In the same period He 111s of I./KG100 flew at night over the Volga and Caspian Sea dropping magnetic mines and bombing the shipping. Just one bomber was lost in 3-4 weeks of anti-shipping operations.
Lack of ECM on the Soviet side and "light" summer nights has helped Luftwaffe in the navigation, of course.

 

[Shortround6]

Unlike the Boing B15 the Ju 89 had a successful history of evolution to the Ju 90 airliner/transport and then to the Ju 290 transport/bomber.

Actually the Boeing 314 "Clipper" used a very similar wing to the B-15, a trick Boeing did a number of times. The flying boat wing was 3 feet longer (152ft vs 149) and about 3% bigger in area. Boeing also used the wing of the B-17 on the Boeing 307 Strato-clipper/Stratoliner. And then used the B-29 wing on the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser. And actually the B-29 wing was based off the wing used on the Boeing 344 ( XPBB-1 Sea Ranger ) or at least showed Boeing moving away from large wing areas for large/heavy aircraft.

First some dates:
Manchester I: first flight July 39, entry into service Nov 40, power Vulture 1750hp, first missions Feb 41
Lancaster I : first flight Jan 41, entry into service Feb 42, power Merlin XX 1280hp, first missions March 42
Sterling I : first flight May 39, entry into service Aug 40, power Hercules 1500hp, first mission Feb 1941
Halifax I : first flight Oct 39, entry into service Nov 40, power Merlin XX 1280hp, first mission March 1941

Well, the Stirling got delayed because the Germans managed to bomb both production lines. Otherwise there may have been a squadron or two in service in the fall of 1940.
British seem to have taken a long time with most everything.
BTW the Halifax went into service with the Merlin X engine.
Had the Germans started in the last 1/2 of 1937 they may have had service bombers in 1940.

 

[RW Mk. III]

Regarding the low precision of the bombing and impossibility to destroy the Soviet factories. This theory has been disproved by history.
Please see my earlier comment:
WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?
The number of engines probably was not the most important factor, since the above-mentioned operation was done by He 111 and Ju 88. And carefully planned but never fulfilled Eisenhammer was to be conducted by Mistels.

Some more about the precision - an episode during the Operation Frantic, quoted from Wiki:
"On the night of 21 June, the Combat Wing of B-17s which earlier landed at Poltava sustained severe losses in a German air attack. ...
For almost two hours, an estimated 75 Luftwaffe bombers attacked the base, exhibiting a very high degree of accuracy. Nearly all bombs were dropped in the dispersal area of the landing ground where only B-17s were parked, indicating without question that the B-17s constituted the specific objective of the raiders.
Of the 73 B-17s which had landed at Poltava, 47 were destroyed and most of the remainder severely damaged. ...
The stores of fuel and ammunition brought so laboriously from the United States were also destroyed. Three days after the attack, only nine of the 73 aircraft at Poltava were operational. ...
Red Air Force losses included 15 Yak-9s, 6 Yak-7s, three trainers, a Hawker Hurricane, and a VIP DC-3. ...
The well-planned German attack was led by Oberstleutnant Wilhelm Antrup of KG 55 and carried out by He 111Hs and Ju 88s of KG 4, KG 53, KG 55, and KG 27 operating from bases at Minsk. The operation was nicknamed Zaunkoenig. After the He 111s left, the Ju 88s strafed the field at low altitude. He 177s from Night Reconnaissance Squadrons performed target reconnaissance, pathfinder duties and bomb damage assessment. There were no German losses."
Operation Frantic - Wikipedia

A remarkable operation. This would seem to be one of the single most successful bombing raids of all time. (Wikipedia mind you, but still!)

But to play Devil's advocate: Was it posssibly the exception, and not the rule?


Had the Japanese visited the same sort of damage they did at Pearl Harbor every time they showed up, things would have had a different flavor in the PTO.

The FAA, delivering a Taranto raid success reliably suddenly becomes a totally different animal.

I'm just saying the mean and average of bombing raid effectiveness is the real data. Cherry picking the runaway successes shows maximum potential capability, but I suspect the LW also bombed their share of fields and non-strategic buildings.

 

[gjs238]

A remarkable operation. This would seem to be one of the single most successful bombing raids of all time. (Wikipedia mind you, but still!)

But to play Devil's advocate: Was it posssibly the exception, and not the rule?

Had the Japanese visited the same sort of damage they did at Pearl Harbor every time they showed up, things would have had a different flavor in the PTO.

The FAA, delivering a Taranto raid success reliably suddenly becomes a totally different animal.

I'm just saying the mean and average of bombing raid effectiveness is the real data. Cherry picking the runaway successes shows maximum potential capability, but I suspect the LW also bombed their share of fields and non-strategic buildings.

It's an interesting subject to explore.
- Perhaps the LW was operating at low altitudes, which aids navigation and accuracy.
- Perhaps the LW, very well aware of their limitations, cherry picked this raid (and others?)

 

[Shortround6]

The Germans were less likely to confuse one city for another because the next city was a considerable distance away. Not 10-20-30 miles but hundred miles or more.

Following rail lines works better, not infallible but the rail lines are nowhere near as closely spaced as they were in England or Western Europe.
Many Russian cities were located on rivers and/or major bodies of water.

 

[Dana Bell]

Over the years I've seen a number of threads on a number of websites wondering if World War II might have ended differently had the Germans done X or Y. I suspect that had Germany won, right now there'd be discussions about the Allies would have won if only Roosevelt hadn't insisted on turning all the P-59s into trainers...

But in the end, I suspect all the technical revisions could never have seen Germany prevail. My reasoning is simple -- God hates Nazis.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[Greyman]

To me it looks like the FN.64 was a power driven turret aimed by a the single lower rear gunner through a periscope. I cant find much on line information on it. The gunner sat in the belly of the aircraft and had no direct view out, not even a downward looking window behind the turret. All target acquisition and aiming had to be done exclusively through a periscope. It would probably work during the day to close of a blind spot.

For what it's worth re: periscope sights ...

FN54 (Blenheim): 20° view
FN64 (Stirling, Lanc): 60° view
Bendix 'K' (Mitchell): 40° view
German periscope sights all appear to be 40° view and 1.8 magnification

Goertz PVE6​

Zeiss PVE8 & 11​

Steinheil ZFE1a​

Steinheil PV1b​

Steinheil RF2a & b​

Somewhat curious on the subject I attempted to fumble around with some geometry -- assuming the B-17's ball turret is 44 inches in diameter and the sighting window is 13 inches, it seems that the turret only had about a 20.3° view. I'm not sure but I don't think the extra windows in the turret were much use for picking up targets. Perhaps more for orientation / lighting.

Found an interesting reference to a German paper that reported on the average gunner accuracy:

- free guns, 50% of the most accurate strikes within 2.86 degrees​

- remotely controlled guns and periscopic sights, 50% of the most accurate strikes within 1.15 degrees​

Note: this is 'aim wander', to use the British term -- completely separate from any errors in sighting (deflection, range, etc).

EDIT: typo fixed in the eye-to-viewport distance

 

[Elmas]

Regarding the low precision of the bombing and impossibility to destroy the Soviet factories. This theory has been disproved by history.
Please see my earlier comment:
WW2 bombers. If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?
The number of engines probably was not the most important factor, since the above-mentioned operation was done by He 111 and Ju 88. And carefully planned but never fulfilled Eisenhammer was to be conducted by Mistels.

Some more about the precision - an episode during the Operation Frantic, quoted from Wiki:
"On the night of 21 June, the Combat Wing of B-17s which earlier landed at Poltava sustained severe losses in a German air attack. ...
For almost two hours, an estimated 75 Luftwaffe bombers attacked the base, exhibiting a very high degree of accuracy. Nearly all bombs were dropped in the dispersal area of the landing ground where only B-17s were parked, indicating without question that the B-17s constituted the specific objective of the raiders.
Of the 73 B-17s which had landed at Poltava, 47 were destroyed and most of the remainder severely damaged. ...
The stores of fuel and ammunition brought so laboriously from the United States were also destroyed. Three days after the attack, only nine of the 73 aircraft at Poltava were operational. ...
Red Air Force losses included 15 Yak-9s, 6 Yak-7s, three trainers, a Hawker Hurricane, and a VIP DC-3. ...
The well-planned German attack was led by Oberstleutnant Wilhelm Antrup of KG 55 and carried out by He 111Hs and Ju 88s of KG 4, KG 53, KG 55, and KG 27 operating from bases at Minsk. The operation was nicknamed Zaunkoenig. After the He 111s left, the Ju 88s strafed the field at low altitude. He 177s from Night Reconnaissance Squadrons performed target reconnaissance, pathfinder duties and bomb damage assessment. There were no German losses."
Operation Frantic - Wikipedia

Of course there's a great difference in between destroying a nearby airport crowded of bombers ( a tactical operation, in wich Germans were masters) and a very far tank factory (a strategic operation, which the Germans were not equipped to perform ).

 

[Dimlee]

Of course there's a great difference in between destroying a nearby airport crowded of bombers ( a tactical operation, in wich Germans were masters) and a very far tank factory (a strategic operation, which the Germans were not equipped to perform ).

Could you please read my earlier comment about operation Carmen II. It is about the tank production as well. We can argue about the operational or strategical nature (or aim) of the operation itself, but its consequences were strategic.

 

[Dimlee]

A remarkable operation. This would seem to be one of the single most successful bombing raids of all time. (Wikipedia mind you, but still!)

But to play Devil's advocate: Was it posssibly the exception, and not the rule?


Had the Japanese visited the same sort of damage they did at Pearl Harbor every time they showed up, things would have had a different flavor in the PTO.

The FAA, delivering a Taranto raid success reliably suddenly becomes a totally different animal.

I'm just saying the mean and average of bombing raid effectiveness is the real data. Cherry picking the runaway successes shows maximum potential capability, but I suspect the LW also bombed their share of fields and non-strategic buildings.

Very good question, indeed.
I'd call this operation an exception if Luftwaffe does not do other successful night raids on the Eastern Front. Please note my earlier comments about Carmen II. And Carmen II was just the last but not the first of air raids against the Soviet industry located far away. There were failures or low effective operations as well, as the most raids against Moscow, for example.

 

[Shortround6]

One does wonder what the Luftwaffe could have done if they had not lost so many Bombers against England and gone into Russia with 200-300 bombers more than needed for the mostly tactical duties. Some raids on certain factories before or during their evacuation? Tanking out a few RR bridges at critical times? Gone after more production facilities in 1942?

Forget the Urals, what was within actual strike distance of the Luftwaffe in 1942? and yes I understand that the target list could shift by the month if not the week and the logistics for even 200-300 twin engine bombers is quite a task but people are talking about hundreds of German 4 engine bombers.

 

[swampyankee]

Over the years I've seen a number of threads on a number of websites wondering if World War II might have ended differently had the Germans done X or Y. I suspect that had Germany won, right now there'd be discussions about the Allies would have won if only Roosevelt hadn't insisted on turning all the P-59s into trainers...

But in the end, I suspect all the technical revisions could never have seen Germany prevail. My reasoning is simple -- God hates Nazis.

Cheers,



Dana

Talking about how the Allies could have won would result in a few days of torture followed by death.