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

[swampyankee]

http://chapters.scarecrowpress.com/08/108/0810857766ch3.pdf

"operational research", norden bomb site, cep - Google Search

down load [PDF] "Precision Guided Munitions: History and Lessons for The Future" ; Kaufman


I read these two files it appears that the USA did have access to guided munitions designs prewar, but were so convinced of the soundness of surgical strategic bombing that they opted for what they believed was the cheaper option. Predictions in 1940 were that Japan and German industry could be reduced to ashes in 6 months.

The Germans on the other hand had the Spanish Civil war experience to show them the limitations of level bombing and instead invested in Dive Bombing in the short term and guided muntions in the long run. However as with most such programmes the war got in the way and on going development was suspended until after Stalingrad when Hitler finally seems to have gotten the point that they 'might be' loseing the war.

Do remember that the USMC first started dive bombing in 1928, and the USN and USMC were quite adept. The USAAC/USAAF also had dedicated dive bomber units in service, e.g., those flying the A-36A or A-24. Germany most certainly was not the only practitioner of dive bombing -- the USMC, USN RN/FAA, and others had dive bomber units and used dive bombing. Just ask the crew of the Königsberg.

 

[Shortround6]

30 min rating:
DB 601Aa - 950-1050 PS from SL to 4 km (1940)
DB 601E - 1200 PS or better from SL to 4.9 km (mid 1941)
BMW 801A - 1470 PS at 1 km, 1300 PS at 4.5 km (mid 1941)
Jumo 211B - 1000 PS at 2 km, 920 PS at 5 km (early 1940)
Jumo 211F - 1200 PS at 2 km, 1060 PS at 5.2 km (early 1941), 211J from early 1942 is
Re. weight increase - the 'no free lunch' rule applies as always.



I don't recall suggesting anything like 'super bomber'. I will suggest a normal, plain vanilla 4 engined bomber, designed around Jumo 211 engines, since they are in best supply in 1940-41.



Yes, lets do it

Thank you.
1st point is that in order to have, say, 500 4 engine bombers for the BoB in Aug of 1940 Production would have had to start in the summer of 1939 with the engines available in the summer/fall of 1939. Yes some of the last ones made could have engines from spring/summer of 1940.
Same for Russian campaign. 500 bombers for May/June of 1941 means production starting in the spring/summer of 1940 with engines available at that time.
500 bombers for the spring/summer of 1942 follows the same path, production starting in the SPring/summer of 1941 with available engines.

Some people seem to want 500-1000 bombers to pop into existence on a certain date ALL with the latest and greatest engines and guns.
didn't happen for the Allies, wasn't going to happen for the Germans.

2nd point, the 4 engine German was only a "super bomber" in comparison to Do 17s, He 111 Ps and early Hs, The H-O and H-1 having Jumo 211A-1 engines and these started leaving the production lines in the summer of 1939. Also early JU-88s.

3rd point, forgetting about decrease in German twin engine bombers.
What are these things supposed to do?
I have said it before, The He 111 can cover most of France from German bases, it can hit south east England from German bases and hit Scotland and Ireland from French/Belgian bases. Nothing you can build short of a B-29 is going to work in Russia. It is further from Berlin to Moscow than from London to the Polish/ Russian border. Forget the Urals. Even from Stalingrad it is almost beyond the ability of many ALlied four engine bombers to make a round trip. And planning bombers with idea you operate them from hundreds of miles inside enemy territory 1-2 years in the future is a big gamble. Yes the US did it with the B-29.

 

[pbehn]

The thing about four engine bombers is that every one that gets lost is another four engines. By the time of the BoB the LW had passed its peak strength it couldn't keep pace with loses even with twin engine bombers.

 

[Propellorhead]

The thing about four engine bombers is that every one that gets lost is another four engines. By the time of the BoB the LW had passed its peak strength it couldn't keep pace with loses even with twin engine bombers.

With four engined bombers the safety of altitude may have negated losses

early MARK-l Spitfire K9795


Equipped with say two dozen JU-89 every British port could have been blocked by sunken hulks in the first week of hostilities preventing re-supply of the UK.


Tactical advantage of the Ju89

German use of high altitude aircraft

The JU-89 could easily have bombed factories by daylight at 23,000ft whilst the guns of early Spitfires froze & jammed at 15,000ft altitude. whilst later Spitfires eventually did get heated guns, this Did not entirely prevent guns jamming. Galitzine's attempt in in September 1942 to shoot down a JU86P with a specially modified Spitfire still resulted in guns jamming and an uncontrollable spinning Spitfire. Swap a defenceless JU86P for a Ju89 with a tail gunner & just imagine it.



Galitzine's attempt in in September 1942 to shoot down a JU-86P at high altitude with a highly modified mark V Spitfire in which his guns jammed five times, tends to prove the JU89 would have been an elusive quarry in the opening weeks of the BoB against early 8 gun Mark l Spitfires

early MARK-l Spitfire K9795

Early Spitfires would have suffered frosted canopies much less, frozen guns






The JU-89 was roughly equivalent to the Shorts Sterling. The JU89 would have ruled uncontested in UK skies if used early in the Battle of Britain.

 

[Propellorhead]

The Luftwaffe was limited by fuel and the Allies were not. This underlies all.

There were significant oil fields producing in Germany through the war not to forget Romania too. Oil shortages began in 1944 with determined US bombing of refineries.

 

[nuuumannn]

The JU-89 could easily have bombed factories by daylight at 23,000ft whilst the guns of early Spitfires froze & jammed at 15,000ft altitude. whilst later Spitfires eventually did get heated guns, this Did not entirely prevent guns jamming. Galitzine's attempt in in September 1942 to shoot down a JU86P with a specially modified Spitfire still resulted in guns jamming and an uncontrollable spinning Spitfire. Swap a defenceless JU86P for a Ju89 with a tail gunner & just imagine it.

Someone's left the keys of the Ubermench koolaid cupboard out again!

 

[Propellorhead]

Someone's left the keys of the Ubermench koolaid cupboard out again!

utterly uncalled for personal insults , debate the issue , not the person

 

[nuuumannn]

Don't take it personally mate, not meant as an attack, but to comment on your post, it is just so blindly unrealistic that it's laughable.

The Ju 89 could not reach the same altitudes as the Ju 86P - the example that held the altitude record was not a standard bomber fitted out as such. Not only that, RAF guns did not all freeze at 15,000 ft and the Ju 89 was sloooooow. Slower than an He 111. Spitfire Mk.Is and IIs were easily capable of exceeding 300mph at 30,000 feet and the Ju 89's maximum altitude was just under 23,000 feet (according to Wikipedia), so bearing this in mind, I can easily guess the result.

Take a look at this assessment of a Spitfire Mk.I against a Bf 109E for confirmation of performance:

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

There is no evdence at all that the outcome would have been any different to what it was during the Battle of Britain had the Luftwaffe put the Ju 89 into service. Remember that the Germans lost as much as the British won - their tactics were flawed and the British had many advantages to their tactics that won over at the end of the day - a four engined bomber would not have made much of a difference to the outcome.

Since you've mentioned the Spit Mk.V versus the Ju 86 in September 1942, let me also remind you that a Spitfire V intercepted and shot down a Ju 86P at an altitude of 42,000 ft over Cairo a month earlier. Also, by that time the first Spit Mk.IXs and HF.VIIs with pressurised cockpits had entered service and they had two-speed, two-stage superchargers fitted to their Merlins, which meant they could not only reach the Ju 86's altitude but they could intercept them. Let's not forget that although no Ju 86Ps were shot down over Britain, the LW stopped operations over the UK in 1943 because the Ju 86s were being intercepted. Also, the number they had was so small they could never launch any type of meaningful offensive, nor could they determine exactly how much damage was being done with single aircraft raids from altitude. The higher you are, the more diffcult it is to put a bomb where you want it.

And you mention the Ju 89 with a tail gunner at altitude? Did he have a pressure suit? Was the entire aircraft pressurised (I know it wasn't)? How did his gun stop from freezing over? Is the entire thing a fabrication based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation? Quite probably.

It's clear you have relied solely on that one paper for your assessment and that it omits several key details surrounding the story shows in your write-up. It pays to use more than one person's slightly biased assesment of a particular situation as your basis of logic when applying hypotheticals to a known situation.

 

[nuuumannn]

utterly uncalled for personal insults

And to clarify, it isn't a personal insult, but a commentary on your statement.

 

[Propellorhead]

Don't take it personally mate, not meant as an attack, but to comment on your post, it is just so blindly unrealistic that it's laughable.

The Ju 89 could not reach the same altitudes as the Ju 86P - the example that held the altitude record was not a standard bomber fitted out as such. Not only that, RAF guns did not all freeze at 15,000 ft and the Ju 89 was sloooooow. Slower than an He 111. Spitfire Mk.Is and IIs were easily capable of exceeding 300mph at 30,000 feet and the Ju 89's maximum altitude was just under 23,000 feet (according to Wikipedia), so bearing this in mind, I can easily guess the result.

Take a look at this assessment of a Spitfire Mk.I against a Bf 109E for confirmation of performance:

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

There is no evdence at all that the outcome would have been any different to what it was during the Battle of Britain had the Luftwaffe put the Ju 89 into service. Remember that the Germans lost as much as the British won - their tactics were flawed and the British had many advantages to their tactics that won over at the end of the day - a four engined bomber would not have made much of a difference to the outcome.

Since you've mentioned the Spit Mk.V versus the Ju 86 in September 1942, let me also remind you that a Spitfire V intercepted and shot down a Ju 86P at an altitude of 42,000 ft over Cairo a month earlier. Also, by that time the first Spit Mk.IXs and HF.VIIs with pressurised cockpits had entered service and they had two-speed, two-stage superchargers fitted to their Merlins, which meant they could not only reach the Ju 86's altitude but they could intercept them. Let's not forget that although no Ju 86Ps were shot down over Britain, the LW stopped operations over the UK in 1943 because the Ju 86s were being intercepted. Also, the number they had was so small they could never launch any type of meaningful offensive, nor could they determine exactly how much damage was being done with single aircraft raids from altitude. The higher you are, the more diffcult it is to put a bomb where you want it.

And you mention the Ju 89 with a tail gunner at altitude? Did he have a pressure suit? Was the entire aircraft pressurised (I know it wasn't)? How did his gun stop from freezing over? Is the entire thing a fabrication based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation? Quite probably.

It's clear you have relied solely on that one paper for your assessment and that it omits several key details surrounding the story shows in your write-up. It pays to use more than one person's slightly biased assesment of a particular situation as your basis of logic when applying hypotheticals to a known situation.

The entire thread invites speculative discussion of varying opinion however by your protest that there is no proof of a diffent outcome to WW2 you have stepped outside the spirit & intent of this thread to police the opinions of people with different view points from your open and done so by means of personal attacks. totally boorish behaviour
Speed is irrelevant if fighter guns don't fire at 23,000ft altitude

 

[Propellorhead]

When the Luftwaffe dropped the Ju89 FROM ITS Ural bomber competition. Junkers turned to Japan to salvage their investment. The third Ju89 prototype was partially completed when the Ural bomber project stalled in 1937. This aircraft was rebuilt as an airliner, retaining wings and tail from the original design but incorporating a new, wider passenger-carrying fuselage.

The problem facing Japan at this time was that Hitler did not wish to embroil Germany in the Sino-Japanese War attached conditions to the export of military equipment to Japan. It was also stipulated all exports to Japan must be paid in full in foreign currency before goods were exported. These limitations however still did not prevent the export of civil airliners.
[Source]: Japanese-German Business Relations: Co-operation and Rivalry in the Interwar by Akira Kudo

A little known fact is that Japan wanted to order the JU89, but intentionally completed as JU90 airliners so that Mitsubishi could reinstate them at their Mitsubishi fatory in Harbin to the bomber role as the Ki-90 bomber. Specifically he deal involved a proposal for Manshukoku National Airways to acquire ten Ju90 aircraft powered by DB 600Cengines & operate the Ju90 on a non-stop route over Russian airspace between Harbin and Berlin. The deal would be paid for by the export of Soy Beans from Manchukuo. For the Ju90's redesign, 30 technicians from the Imperial Japanese Army and 20 from Mitsubishi were to be selected and dispatched. Furthermore a Ju90 production line would be tooled up in Harbin. Stalin however mistrusted the deal and opposed their delivery flights.

Manshukoku National Airways however did acquire several JU86 airliners on a similar premise

 

[at6]

Having read many of the comments, if Germany had built an air force similar the the U.S. Air Force, it would have been quit possible to change the outcome of the war. Long range bombers would have been able to take out Soviet factories in the Urals and beyond. The Battle of Britain could have had a different outcome had Hitler realized just how near the bottom the RAF was. By not concentrating of Fighter Command Air Fields, Goering totally screwed up.

 

[pbehn]

View attachment 581393

With four engined bombers the safety of altitude may have negated losses

View attachment 581392
early MARK-l Spitfire K9795


Equipped with say two dozen JU-89 every British port could have been blocked by sunken hulks in the first week of hostilities preventing re-supply of the UK.


Tactical advantage of the Ju89

German use of high altitude aircraft

The JU-89 could easily have bombed factories by daylight at 23,000ft whilst the guns of early Spitfires froze & jammed at 15,000ft altitude. whilst later Spitfires eventually did get heated guns, this Did not entirely prevent guns jamming. Galitzine's attempt in in September 1942 to shoot down a JU86P with a specially modified Spitfire still resulted in guns jamming and an uncontrollable spinning Spitfire. Swap a defenceless JU86P for a Ju89 with a tail gunner & just imagine it.



Galitzine's attempt in in September 1942 to shoot down a JU-86P at high altitude with a highly modified mark V Spitfire in which his guns jammed five times, tends to prove the JU89 would have been an elusive quarry in the opening weeks of the BoB against early 8 gun Mark l Spitfires

View attachment 581392
early MARK-l Spitfire K9795

Early Spitfires would have suffered frosted canopies much less, frozen guns
The JU-89 was roughly equivalent to the Shorts Sterling. The JU89 would have ruled uncontested in UK skies if used early in the Battle of Britain.

Early Spitfires guns jammed that's why they introduced a ducted heating system. The JU 89 service ceiling was 23,000 ft, 25,000 ft was patrol height during the Battle of Britain. If you are talking high altitude you need to be discussing 40,000ft+, from that height you are lucky to hit a city let alone individual ships moored in ports. The British stopped using the Channel ports before the Battle of Britain got properly started. The UK has a huge number of ports, to think about putting them out of action with a couple of dozen bombers is fantasy, the same goes for factories. To reach extreme altitude Spitfires had everything stripped out and extended wing tips fitted. Some even had the radio taken out and were flown in pairs so the one with the radio could guide the other into visual range. The Germans had to do the same with their recon aircraft, the Ju 86 may have got to 42,000 feet, it was not carrying enough bombs to wreck a port or factory when it did so. These articles are masterpieces of omission and confused incidents and time lines. There is another that "proves" that half the people killed in London in 1940 died because of British defensive fire, based on reports and events in 1938 and 1917.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

View attachment 581393

With four engined bombers the safety of altitude may have negated losses

View attachment 581392
early MARK-l Spitfire K9795


Equipped with say two dozen JU-89 every British port could have been blocked by sunken hulks in the first week of hostilities preventing re-supply of the UK.


Tactical advantage of the Ju89

German use of high altitude aircraft

The JU-89 could easily have bombed factories by daylight at 23,000ft whilst the guns of early Spitfires froze & jammed at 15,000ft altitude. whilst later Spitfires eventually did get heated guns, this Did not entirely prevent guns jamming. Galitzine's attempt in in September 1942 to shoot down a JU86P with a specially modified Spitfire still resulted in guns jamming and an uncontrollable spinning Spitfire. Swap a defenceless JU86P for a Ju89 with a tail gunner & just imagine it.



Galitzine's attempt in in September 1942 to shoot down a JU-86P at high altitude with a highly modified mark V Spitfire in which his guns jammed five times, tends to prove the JU89 would have been an elusive quarry in the opening weeks of the BoB against early 8 gun Mark l Spitfires

View attachment 581392
early MARK-l Spitfire K9795

Early Spitfires would have suffered frosted canopies much less, frozen guns






The JU-89 was roughly equivalent to the Shorts Sterling. The JU89 would have ruled uncontested in UK skies if used early in the Battle of Britain.

Someone's left the keys of the Ubermench koolaid cupboard out again!

utterly uncalled for personal insults , debate the issue , not the person

And to clarify, it isn't a personal insult, but a commentary on your statement.

The entire thread invites speculative discussion of varying opinion however by your protest that there is no proof of a diffent outcome to WW2 you have stepped outside the spirit & intent of this thread to police the opinions of people with different view points from your open and done so by means of personal attacks. totally boorish behaviour
Speed is irrelevant if fighter guns don't fire at 23,000ft altitude

Relax everyone. Play nice. Quit bickering. All of you.

 

[Propellorhead]

Early Spitfires guns jammed that's why they introduced a ducted heating system. The JU 89 service ceiling was 23,000 ft, 25,000 ft was patrol height during the Battle of Britain. If you are talking high altitude you need to be discussing 40,000ft+, from that height you are lucky to hit a city let alone individual ships moored in ports. The British stopped using the Channel ports before the Battle of Britain got properly started. The UK has a huge number of ports, to think about putting them out of action with a couple of dozen bombers is fantasy, the same goes for factories. To reach extreme altitude Spitfires had everything stripped out and extended wing tips fitted. Some even had the radio taken out and were flown in pairs so the one with the radio could guide the other into visual range. The Germans had to do the same with their recon aircraft, the Ju 86 may have got to 42,000 feet, it was not carrying enough bombs to wreck a port or factory when it did so. These articles are masterpieces of omission and confused incidents and time lines. There is another that "proves" that half the people killed in London in 1940 died because of British defensive fire, based on reports and events in 1938 and 1917.

I am not posting about the Ju86, I am posting about the Ju89!

23,000ft is high altitude especially against early Mark l or Mark ll Spitfires, before the Mark lX, which appeared Feb 1942, Spitfires couldn't fight anything above 15,000ft,

Spitfires patrolled at 25,000ft, to allow them to gain speed with a dive on their quarry. It did not mean their guns worked at 25,000ft!


No Luftwaffe bomber needed altitudes of 40,000ft until late 1942.

Modification 420 provided additional heating for Browning guns," but it was only applied to the Mark IIb & Vb, Mod 420 only went into production from 6-2-42; until 20-8-42, Modification 666 introducing gun heating was applied to the type IX, From 26-1-43, mod 710 "To blank off hot air exits and the extractor of both outer gun bays on Mk.Vb aircraft" went into service, followed fairly swiftly (5-2-43) by 741 "To introduce a branch pipe in the gun heating system to prevent overheating of ammunition" again on the V & VI, with no sub-Marks indicated; this was matched by mod 88 on the Seafire Ib & IIc.

My claim still stands, no Spitfire ever appeared with heated guns before September 1942 so the JU89 would have been invincible over the UK 1939-1942

 

[pbehn]

I am not posting about the Ju86, I am posting about the Ju89!

23,000ft is high altitude especially against early Mark l or Mark ll Spitfires, before the Mark lX, which appeared Feb 1942, Spitfires couldn't fight anything above 15,000ft,

Spitfires patrolled at 25,000ft, to allow them to gain speed with a dive on their quarry. It did not mean their guns worked at 25,000ft!


No Luftwaffe bomber needed altitudes of 40,000ft until late 1942.

Modification 420 provided additional heating for Browning guns," but it was only applied to the Mark IIb & Vb, Mod 420 only went into production from 6-2-42; until 20-8-42, Modification 666 introducing gun heating was applied to the type IX, From 26-1-43, mod 710 "To blank off hot air exits and the extractor of both outer gun bays on Mk.Vb aircraft" went into service, followed fairly swiftly (5-2-43) by 741 "To introduce a branch pipe in the gun heating system to prevent overheating of ammunition" again on the V & VI, with no sub-Marks indicated; this was matched by mod 88 on the Seafire Ib & IIc.

View attachment 581485

My claim still stands, no Spitfire ever appeared with heated guns before September 1942 so the JU89 would have been invincible over the UK 1939-1942

You can claim all you like, you don't seem to realise what the word "additional" means in your post. The Battle of Britain took place at altitudes up to 25,000 ft, the Ju 88 had an operational ceiling of 29,000ft and that was not "invincible" at any time during the war. You may need another diagram that includes the 20mm cannon which started to be fitted experimentally in 1940 and as standard in 1941. The Spitfire Mk 1 had a service ceiling of 32,000 ft, I really love the idea that for three years of the war the British used it unarmed above 15,000ft and you are the person to realise the mistake in Germanys strategy.
Concise Guide To Spitfire Wing Types — Variants & Technology | Reference
The original wing design, the basic structure of which was unchanged until the arrival of C type wing in 1942. The only armament able to be carried was eight .303-calibre Browning machine guns with 300 rounds per gun.

The one major alteration made to this wing soon after production started was the incorporation of heating for the gun bays to prevent the guns from freezing at altitude. Open structures around the gun bays were blocked off and ducting, drawing hot air from the back of the radiators, was added to the wings. The heated air was exhausted through underwing vents, covered by streamlined triangular blisters, just inboard of the wingtips.

The Spitfire Society - Technical - Spitfre | The Spitfire Society
It was soon discovered that simple changes to the ejector exhausts from simply blowing out to the side to being directed back would increase speed. The exhausts evolved from round outlets to fishtail in appearance which also had the bonus of reducing exhaust glare during night flying. These changes resulted in harnessing the exhaust gases provided an additional 10mph or 70 horsepower. The exhausts alongside forward facing intake ducts were used to heat the guns in the wing which were prone to stoppages at altitude as a result of the colder temperature, and superior to the earlier heating from the engine coolant radiator.

 

[Koopernic]

When the Luftwaffe dropped the Ju89 FROM ITS Ural bomber competition. Junkers turned to Japan to salvage their investment. The third Ju89 prototype was partially completed when the Ural bomber project stalled in 1937. This aircraft was rebuilt as an airliner, retaining wings and tail from the original design but incorporating a new, wider passenger-carrying fuselage.


View attachment 581406

The problem facing Japan at this time was that Hitler did not wish to embroil Germany in the Sino-Japanese War attached conditions to the export of military equipment to Japan. It was also stipulated all exports to Japan must be paid in full in foreign currency before goods were exported. These limitations however still did not prevent the export of civil airliners.
[Source]: Japanese-German Business Relations: Co-operation and Rivalry in the Interwar by Akira Kudo

View attachment 581405

A little known fact is that Japan wanted to order the JU89, but intentionally completed as JU90 airliners so that Mitsubishi could reinstate them at their Mitsubishi fatory in Harbin to the bomber role as the Ki-90 bomber. Specifically he deal involved a proposal for Manshukoku National Airways to acquire ten Ju90 aircraft powered by DB 600Cengines & operate the Ju90 on a non-stop route over Russian airspace between Harbin and Berlin. The deal would be paid for by the export of Soy Beans from Manchukuo. For the Ju90's redesign, 30 technicians from the Imperial Japanese Army and 20 from Mitsubishi were to be selected and dispatched. Furthermore a Ju90 production line would be tooled up in Harbin. Stalin however mistrusted the deal and opposed their delivery flights.

Manshukoku National Airways however did acquire several JU86 airliners on a similar premise

View attachment 581404

Without extreme good luck at the beginning of the war the Germans nor axis in general didn't have the resources to win the war unless someone provided them with the equal of lend lease. Imagine them not having to build thousands of Panzer III/IV tanks and being given Shermans, imagine not building Ju 52 and being given the much faster longer ranged DC3/C54 consider what a thousand P39 or P40 might have been used for in the low altitude role, imagine being given Liberator and Catalina patrol aircraft plus a few hundred B25. Having a design doesn't mean having the resources to make them. The Italians had some good designs, including 4 engine bombers with remotely powered guns, but lacked the ability produce large numbers. (Italy lacked not only oil but coal as well)

The lack of 4 engine bombers was not the cause of the failure to defeat RAF fighter command in the BoB. The operational range of a bomber is determined by the range of its escorts. Had Luftwaffe Bf 109E and Bf 110C fighters been equipped with drop tanks they would have achieved numerical parity with the RAF over Britain, inflicted far greater losses and escorted bomber raids far deeper into Britain, including perhaps the aviation "Shadow Factories" around Birmingham, Coventry which though on the fringe of range of drop tank Bf 109E4/B and Bf109E7/B were within range of Bf 110C4 with drop tanks. More important than a 4 engine bomber would be an escort. The BoB is usually told in terms of pats on the back for spitfires, radar, pilot training but it could never be won without an escort by the Luftwaffe. The Germans actually invented the drop tank on the Siemens-Schuckert D.VI and they used them on Several Heinkels in the Spanish civil war so they really didn't plan for a war with Britain.

But a 4 engine 'bomber' with long range such as a developed Ju 89 would still have been critical.

The Ju 89 prototypes from the abandoned Ju 89/Do 19 bomber program evolved into the Ju 90 transport by addition of a new fuselage. One of the Ju 90 transports was given a new wing & BMW 801 radial engines and tail and became the excellent Ju 290 transport. This excellent transport had a C130 Hercules style rear ramp door "trappoklappe" capable of taking an armoured half track and an easy 10 ton lift capability. The Ju 290 transport evolved into the Ju 290 maritime reconnaissance aircraft which showed what might have been achieved by 1942. Its final variant could carry two 20mm dorsal turrets, 20mm waist guns, twin 20mm rear guns and a ventral gun bombola that provided downward protection in a streamlined form. It had everything but a bomb bay, a speed of 278mph and a range of 3200 miles.

It clear that the Ju 89 could have been a 4 engine bomber about as good as the Lancaster or Halifax especially as better engines became available and it might directly evolved into a Ju 289 with a 4000 mile range. Even of only a dozen underpowered Ju 89 units with 1000hp Bramo 323 radials would have been available it would better than the Fw 200C airliners in supporting the u-boats, informing the U-boats of the size and direction of the target convoys, their defensive escorts and size and far more capable of defending itself from fairly slow Hurricanes and Martlets and also of prosecuting an attack. Maybe helped the Bismarck. That would leave the Fw 200 in its role as a pure transport. The Heinkel He 177 abandoned or rather not pressed into premature service. Targets within the Urals become possible and nuisance raids even in the North of Scotland become possible forcing the RAF to spread its fighters.

There would certainly not be the resources to build 7300 Lancaster's, 6100 Halifax's, 2300 shorts sterling, 17000 B17, 25000 B24 liberators and 4000 B29 but they could definitely build 100-150 month,

So the Luftwaffe was severely limited in its ability and paid a big price but even if 1/3rd of the above allied were directed against the Japanese I suspect the capability to produce enough was really the problem. Other big what if would be capturing and holding the Grozny oil fields and securing their cyphers. Its worth noting that the German high command thought they could do no more than capture 30% of the Soviet Union and hold it. The part after Moscow all the way to Siberia would have remained in Russian hands. They knew they didnt have the manpower.

 

[Sturzkampfflugzeug]

Hard to say. Giving the fact that we had more supplies ,are you trying to say that basically the Axis and the Allies completely swap places, or just in terms of aircraft? If completely swapping in terms of positions, they may have won the war using our aircraft, but if not swapping completely, just with aircraft, probably not. They wouldn't have enough supplies to fuel them, nor RE-FUEL them.

 

[Freebird]

. The Battle of Britain could have had a different outcome had Hitler realized just how near the bottom the RAF was. By not concentrating of Fighter Command Air Fields, Goering totally screwed up.

When exactly was the "bottom"?

 

[swampyankee]

To put some factors into perspective: in 1940, the US had a larger economy by any measure than any two countries in Europe. I think one could also argue that its usable level of aviation technology was also greater. One of the major reasons for the existence of the NACA was to provide aeronautical technology to industry at no cost to the company. This is why, for example, so many aircraft designed in many of the countries of Europe, including Germany, used NACA airfoils: they were well-characterized and their characteristics and coordinates were freely available.

Four-engined bombers forcing the defeat of the UK is a fantasy. The Luftwaffe wasn't able to put enough two-engined bombers into the air to do so; they'd be able to put far fewer four-engined bombers up as Germany, even with seized foreign production capacity and slave labor, was running into resource limits. So, for these mighty four-engined bombers, what does Germany give up? Which fighters don't get built? What submarines aren't launched? What tanks don't come off the assembly lines?

The other issue is, of course, that high altitude bombers couldn't reliably hit a target much smaller than a major city. Before PGM, accurate high-altitude bombing was more myth than reality.

As for the invulnerability of four-engined bombers? Could you tell the 8th AF and Bomber Command about that? It would have saved them so much grief during WW2. The idea that Germany had significantly better technology, overall, is false. While they had some areas of superiority to the Allies, the reverse was also true.