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

RW Mk. III said:

The battle at Surigao basically produced nothing but to confirm the status quo to both sides: BB's were too vulnerable in direct action with the enemy, and too valuable to risk. Basically the theme of Battleships for the entire first and second world wars.

ANY of the principal combatant navies, given a moment of profound foresight many years prior, would drastically have increased their effectiveness had they scrapped or converted every single BB and BC into carriers. Had Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sailed into the Denmark Straight and been intercepted by two fast carriers, it would have been pretty one sided show. The same had PoW and Hood been trying to intercept Eugen and a fast German Carrier.

Similarly, had PoW and Repulse been two fast fleet carriers, they would have stood a much better chance at surviving the South China Sea. Provided they kept the Fulmars up and prowling for every daylight hour the ships were under Japanese airfields.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. Submarines and aircraft could easily sink lone merchant ships or small convoys with nothing but sloops and corvettes and maybe a destroyer for escort. It seems that a that a Battleship could likely completely sink an entire convoy in an hour or so. Hence the battleship raiders complemented submarines. The convoy provided protection against u-boats and aircraft but probably increased vulnerability to battleships. As you are no doubt aware arctic Convoy PQ17, which was heavily escorted including a battleship (Duke of York) was scattered for fear of Tirpitz being around and PQ 17 lost 24 of its 35 merchant ships during a week of daylight attacks by U-boats and aircraft.

One of the problems with Battleships was that anti-aircraft defences had not developed yet. PoW had 4 Type 282 50cm anti aircraft ranging radars but 3 out of the 4 were out of action when she came into action against the japanese. In addition she was mainly armed with the 40mm Pom Pom.

Had their radars been working and had the 40mm boffors replaced the POM POM the outcome may have been different since the Japanese level and torpedo bombers were mostly out of reach from the POM POM. Battleships were severely underarmed in AAA field and the level of fire control expended on their main guns should have been expended on their light and medium guns.

Reluctant Poster said:

For those who are interested in the nut and bolts (literally), the attached Bureau of Mines paper goes into lurid detail on the Bergius process.
Also I previously posted a wartime booklet which includes illustrations of the processes used to produce avgas in the USA and I am posting it again. The enormous size of the US avgas becomes apparent. Without it the Combined Bomber Offence literally never gets off the ground. The Germans could never hope to have a bomber fleet remotely comparable to the USAAF and RAF.

Click to expand...

Of the top of my head the Germans expended 4 million tons of steal in coal to oil tech. That is 100 Bismarck sized Battleships and 3000 u-boats and about 10,000 Panther Tanks. It's about 1/4 of the US Navy. Much of he steel were special nickel chrome alloys. The efficiency of the process is much greater now. I believe there is one Bergius Plant in Chinese occupied Mongolia and another planned in Mongolia proper. It's a good thing as the efficiency of nearly 70% when combusted in a low speed diesel (55%) is as good as direct burning in steam or heating plant and is much safer from the perspective of keeping lungs healthy. Better heating oil for people than char and coal.

Fischer Tropsch is the main synthetic fuel technology today mainly because small plants can be built to operate of natural gas or ethane/propane/butane gases that would be flared of. They are converted and pumped out with the crude.

There is the rapidly developing field a "carbon neutral fuels" that combine CO2 extracted from the atmosphere and Hydrogen from electrolysis to create fuels. Obviously wind/solar/geothermal/nuclear must be used. There is a 5000 ton per year plant in Iceland using geothermal and a 8000 ton per year plant in Norway that should startup next year. (Nordic Blue)

One of the more interesting uses was the USN plans to manufacture synthetic aviation fuel on its nuclear aircraft carriers. It turns out that CO2 can be taken out of sea water fairly easily.

Deleted

Koopernic said:

I don't disagree with you. Submarines and aircraft could easily sink lone merchant ships or small convoys with nothing but sloops and corvettes and maybe a destroyer for escort. It seems that a that a Battleship could likely completely sink an entire convoy in an hour or so. Hence the battleship raiders complemented submarines. The convoy provided protection against u-boats and aircraft but probably increased vulnerability to battleships. As you are no doubt aware arctic Convoy PQ17, which was heavily escorted including a battleship (Duke of York) was scattered for fear of Tirpitz being around and PQ 17 lost 24 of its 35 merchant ships during a week of daylight attacks by U-boats and aircraft.

One of the problems with Battleships was that anti-aircraft defences had not developed yet. PoW had 4 Type 282 50cm anti aircraft ranging radars but 3 out of the 4 were out of action when she came into action against the japanese. In addition she was mainly armed with the 40mm Pom Pom.

Had their radars been working and had the 40mm boffors replaced the POM POM the outcome may have been different since the Japanese level and torpedo bombers were mostly out of reach from the POM POM. Battleships were severely underarmed in AAA field and the level of fire control expended on their main guns should have been expended on their light and medium guns.
.

Click to expand...

Whilst I doubt that the outcome would have been different, after all being attacked by such overwhelming air attack without fighter cover was always going to be close to impossible. The biggest problem the POW had was the loss of power early on in the battle due to a torpedo hit by a shaft and poor damage control. Once the power was lost, she lost all the 2pd guns which was the core of her defence as they didn't have a manual backup. All she was left with for close defence were a handful of 20mm and a single army bofor.

RW Mk. III said:

The battle at Surigao basically produced nothing but to confirm the status quo to both sides: BB's were too vulnerable in direct action with the enemy, and too valuable to risk. Basically the theme of Battleships for the entire first and second world wars.

ANY of the principal combatant navies, given a moment of profound foresight many years prior, would drastically have increased their effectiveness had they scrapped or converted every single BB and BC into carriers. Had Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sailed into the Denmark Straight and been intercepted by two fast carriers, it would have been pretty one sided show. The same had PoW and Hood been trying to intercept Eugen and a fast German Carrier.

Similarly, had PoW and Repulse been two fast fleet carriers, they would have stood a much better chance at surviving the South China Sea. Provided they kept the Fulmars up and prowling for every daylight hour the ships were under Japanese airfields.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. Submarines and aircraft could easily sink lone merchant ships or small convoys with nothing but sloops and corvettes and maybe a destroyer for escort. It seems that a that a Battleship could likely completely sink an entire convoy in an hour or so. Hence the battleship raiders complemented submarines. The convoy provided protection against u-boats and aircraft but probably increased vulnerability to battleships. As you are no doubt aware arctic Convoy PQ17, which was heavily escorted including a battleship (Duke of York) was scattered for fear of Tirpitz being around and PQ 17 lost 24 of its 35 merchant ships during a week of daylight attacks by U-boats and aircraft.

One of the problems with Battleships was that anti-aircraft defences had not developed yet. PoW had 4 Type 282 50cm anti aircraft ranging radars but 3 out of the 4 were out of action when she came into action against the japanese. In addition she was mainly armed with the 40mm Pom Pom

Glider said:

Whilst I doubt that the outcome would have been different, after all being attacked by such overwhelming air attack without fighter cover was always going to be close to impossible. The biggest problem the POW had was the loss of power early on in the battle due to a torpedo hit by a shaft and poor damage control. Once the power was last she lost all the 2pd guns which didn't have a manual backup. All she was left with for close defence were a handful of 20mm and a couple of army bofors.

Click to expand...

Having taken an interest in fire control its clear that the Royal Navy was in advance of any other Navy at the outset of WW2 in integrating advanced fire control into their light Anti Aircraft Guns (2 pounder pom pom). The initially tried using DC field controlled DC motors as servo motors. These have a fixed armature current but the field is controlled to obtain the required movement, they used feed forward control to obtain acceleration without lag. They moved on I think to metadynes. I believe they introduced 1000Hz power to obtain the required precision of response. Since 1000Hz power was required backup power was much harder than simply a pack of batteries to keep the guns operating in case of engine room failure.

I think the flaw in the system was the ballistics of the POM POM which gave less than a 5000 yard range at 45 degrees (the same as a Oerlikon). Had the fire control used on the POM POM been combined with the ballistics of the Boffors (which had over twice the range at 45 degrees as the POM POM the PoW may have been able to engage the torpedo bombers that crippled her before they released their weapons.

Other navies had different issues. The German Navies 3.7cm SK30 had excellent ballistics but the gun was manually loaded and a pair of guns could achieve only 60RPM and as far as I can see was aimed by a reflector sight from a stabilised platform without much computing assistance. The 2.0cm C30 guns they had on Bismarck, which had excellent ballistics for a 20mm, were in single and duel mounts rather than the highly effective quads (only two vierlings were on Bismarck though Tirpitz was almost completely converted over). The US was using a 28mm gun which had excellent ballistics but a low rate of fire.

So it seems Navies could see the problems and were making preparations but just couldn't quite keep up.

While i have no doubt that many admirals did realize too late that battlesships were no longer the only gig in town, I do believe they had their use, much in line with what have already been mentioned.

it is worth noting that battleships can operate in whether which will keep aircraft on ground or deck, and do not face comparable problems at night. One example I'd like to add is the sinking of Scharnhorst (forgoing the discussion whether that was a battleship or a battlecruiser). Had the convoy not had battleship support, it may well have fallen prey to Scharnhorst, though the British cruisers (and destroyers+Stord) performed well on that occasion.

If you had battleships, they were another string on your bow.

Greyman said:

The FN64 turret's lack of success had more to do with the fact that Bomber Command operated mainly at night -- not any problem inherent with periscopically-sighted under turrets.

By all British accounts the Bendix K turret was markedly inferior to the FN64 and after testing in the Mitchell recommended that "... this turret should be replaced by the F.N.64 under turret at the earliest possible date."




Must .. resist ... further ... thread derailment ....

Click to expand...

If forced to choose between a Yugo or a Trabant I would choose the Yugo, but in reality I would take an Uber.

But seriously, the FN-64 was not a roaring success. The bulk of Lancaster production did not have them.

From British Aircraft Armament Volume 1 by R Wallace Clark
"The first production Lancasters were fitted with a ventral turret which was based on the Blenheim's FN60 rearward-firing under-turret. This turret was reintroduced when daylight operations were resumed in June 1944. It was not in widespread use, but four of No. 5 Group's Polish squadrons were fitted with the FN 64 in place of the H2S scanner………………….The turret had a 180 traverse and offered little drag compared with the 'dustbin' turrets when were extended, but the old problem of sighting difficulty led to the decision to cancel its installation on the main production aircraft. However, several squadrons did use the turret later: it was thought that, although not ideal, it would prevent a fighter from sliding in under the tail during daylight operations, even if the gunner had to be instructed by the tail or mid upper gunners when they could see an attack being mounted, but could not easily aim their guns in the direction of attack."
Note the poor situational awareness requiring coaching.

I believe all the FN-64s had been removed by January 1944 and as noted above were reinstated on a limited basis by June 1944. It seems that most Mark IIs were produced with FN-64s (and bulged bomb bays).

By the way I had intended to say the Martin turret was arguably the best turret of the war. It was certainly a contender.

Here is a website showing an actual FN64 that is to be restored
Lancaster Restoration And Fabrication - FN64 Turret

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

My father was a navigator in the RCAF who trained in the empty expanses of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. He told me that following railway tracks was not as easy as it sounds, particularly at night. Even in the prairies there are still plenty of branch lines to confuse you.

Thanks Reluctant Poster, that brought back pleasant memories of work. My tower (signal box) was frequently overflown by helicopters going to and from New York City and eastern Long Island. They were following the tracks.

Reluctant Poster said:

But seriously, the FN-64 was not a roaring success. The bulk of Lancaster production did not have them.

Click to expand...

Right but I'm saying this was due to Bomber Command mostly operating at night. I disagree with what R. Wallace Clark has written.

Both the A&AEE and AFDU were happy with the turret but the light loss through the system at night made it not worth fitting. The turret was still kept in inventory and policy was to be ready to fit them if the general switch to daylight operations was made.

The provision for the FN64 mounting/hydraulics was an explicitly stated requirement and was kept throughout Lancaster development--and was asked to be retained in the Lincoln.

As it happened it all became a moot point as the H2S scanner (which was deemed more important) had to be fitted in the same location.

Reluctant Poster said:

Note the poor situational awareness requiring coaching.

Click to expand...

I think this is the case with all under-defence mountings. As I posted earlier ( https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ww2-bombers-if-germany-had-the-allies-heavy-bombers-would-they-have-won-the-war.29105/page-15#post-1557675 ) I have my doubts that the Sperry turret was much better in that respect.

Greyman said:

Right but I'm saying this was due to Bomber Command mostly operating at night. I disagree with what R. Wallace Clark has written.

Both the A&AEE and AFDU were happy with the turret but the light loss through the system at night made it not worth fitting. The turret was still kept in inventory and policy was to be ready to fit them if the general switch to daylight operations was made.

The provision for the FN64 mounting/hydraulics was an explicitly stated requirement and was kept throughout Lancaster development--and was asked to be retained in the Lincoln.

As it happened it all became a moot point as the H2S scanner (which was deemed more important) had to be fitted in the same location.




I think this is the case with all under-defence mountings. As I posted earlier ( https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ww2-bombers-if-germany-had-the-allies-heavy-bombers-would-they-have-won-the-war.29105/page-15#post-1557675 ) I have my doubts that the Sperry turret was much better in that respect.

Click to expand...

The FN64 seems to have been an effective ventral turret arrangement with a good optical system. The problem seems to have been entirely one of night visibility caused by the type of optical glass and lenses. The Germans, mainly due to Zeiss, had made breakthroughs in the clarity of optical glass which transmitted a higher proportion of light. The main breakthrough was multicoat optics which eliminated the tiny proportion of reflection at each lenses that then scattered and rescattered though the multiple lenses of a sophisticated arrangement to accumulate into significant blurding. So the quality of the lenses and the sophisticating of the lense arrangment wasnt an issue but the nature of the optical glass was.

German naval night fighting optics was thus vastly better (on naval vessels) than American or British. Sophisticated allied fire control radar made this significant advantage in optics a moot advantage. The Japanese optics (Pentax) was apparently even better than German. It seems to have had the effect of deprioritising development of Japanese radar.

The Japanese actually had functioning high power multicavity magnetrons (with circular cavities, narrow slits and latter strapping) before Randall and Boot in the UK and were testing at the same time as the UK. There the story diverges, Whereas Britain rapidly invested in developing microwave radar of increasing power and sophistication deployed in escort vessels the Japanese microwave radars were produced only slowly and confined to surface search on main line military ships. They performed well in this role. The Japanese companies struggled even to be allocated the nickel to produce permanent magnets. The Japanese success in this area was never shared with the Germans it seems.

Koopernic said:

The problem seems to have been entirely one of night visibility caused by the type of optical glass and lenses.

Click to expand...

That was a factor -- Nash & Thompson tackled this by;

I'm not sure how satisfactorily these actions dealt with the issues -- and I think there were still problems with glare/internal reflections re: searchlights/flares (not sure on this point).

Problems not able to be dealt with were;

Koopernic said:

The FN64 seems to have been an effective ventral turret arrangement with a good optical system. The problem seems to have been entirely one of night visibility caused by the type of optical glass and lenses.

Click to expand...

I was always told the ventral turret was difficult to sight.

The Japanese actually had functioning high power multicavity magnetrons (with circular cavities, narrow slits and latter strapping) before Randall and Boot in the UK and were testing at the same time as the UK.

Click to expand...

When did the British do this?

Greyman said:

Right but I'm saying this was due to Bomber Command mostly operating at night. I disagree with what R. Wallace Clark has written.

Both the A&AEE and AFDU were happy with the turret but the light loss through the system at night made it not worth fitting. The turret was still kept in inventory and policy was to be ready to fit them if the general switch to daylight operations was made.

The provision for the FN64 mounting/hydraulics was an explicitly stated requirement and was kept throughout Lancaster development--and was asked to be retained in the Lincoln.

As it happened it all became a moot point as the H2S scanner (which was deemed more important) had to be fitted in the same location.




I think this is the case with all under-defence mountings. As I posted earlier ( https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ww2-bombers-if-germany-had-the-allies-heavy-bombers-would-they-have-won-the-war.29105/page-15#post-1557675 ) I have my doubts that the Sperry turret was much better in that respect.

Click to expand...

The 8th AF studied the combat activity of B-24 turrets in the spring of 1944 and concluded that under turrets were not all that useful



As a result of this study a program of removal of Sperry ball turrets from B-24s was instituted