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

[Shortround6]

Is there any proof, whatsoever, that ALL Spitfire MK I guns jammed at 15,000ft and up year round? that is every day of every month regardless of weather conditions?

Posting pretty pictures of an eight gun wing while quoting modifications for heating the "B" wing which use four Brownings and two drum fed 20mm guns doesn't actually prove anything about the ability of the 8 gun wing to function at altitude. MK IIb and Mk Vb aircraft used the 20mm guns with drums. C wings got the belt feed 20mm guns.
The MK Va used eight .303s, the MK Vb used the two 20mm drum feed guns and four .303s and the MK Vc used two 20mm belt feed guns and four .303s.
All MK V aircraft but rather different wings and gun heating setups even without late r modifications. BTW the C wing could take four 20mm guns but it was rarely used that way.
The larger 20mm guns and the different feeds required different heating arrangements and on the early B wings blocked or partial blocked heat to the outer machine guns.
However only one squadron flew with 20mm guns during the BoB and then only for a few weeks so it is sort of a non issue.

Spitfire was not the only interceptor during the BoB. Hurricanes made up about 2/3 of the fighters. So far nobody has claimed that their guns froze at 15,000ft and up.
The JU 89 needed rocket engines to outrun a Hurricane, heck, it needed rocket engines to outrun a Gloster Gladiator.

Using a Ju 89 or 90 or any other close variation on it and using the engines that were available in quantity in the spring/summer of 1940, (not 1942/43) leaves you with a slow, low altitude bomber that is an easy target for any number of British aircraft (Bristol Blenheim fighters?)

BTW they were flying at 30,000ft and above during the BoB. One of the reasons for building the Hurricane MK II (first squadron issue was in Sept 1940) was for better performance at the higher altitudes to better counter the Bf 109. The fights often wound up much lower but one side or the other was trying to get the bounce from above.

Sorry but using the JU 86 with it's turbo diesels and extended wing and pressure cabin as "proof" that the Ju 89 could operate at high altitudes is just false.

I would also strongly advise researching actual altitudes as many times the service ceiling quoted for bombes is either with bombs gone or in some lightly loaded condition.
For instance the JU-88A-1 had a service ceiling of 26,250ft when operating at 19,750lbs. However at 22,840lbs the ceiling dropped to 22,700ft.

And service ceiling means the altitude that a plane can still climb at 100fpm or the metric equivalent using full power. Trying to cruise in a formation (even a small one) would mean the planes are flying thousands of feet lower.

Sorry the whole thing about the Germans using 4 engine bombers and altering the course of the BoB is nonsense.
So is the Ural bomber idea but that is another post or thread.

 

[RW Mk. III]

Spitfires couldn't fight anything above 15,000ft,

So the LW could have flown at 15500 and run away with it?

The guns froze, but not all at once and not as a guarantee. Freezing is a problem but it isn't a drop-dead switch at 15000 ft all the guns break. You're conflating a nuisance with an absolute. A large amount (but not all) of the issue was solved with the dope over the middle ports.

As for block ships in the harbours. Few issues:

1. The JU89 dropping an entire ship from 40000ft is lucky to land it in the harbour in the navigable choke. Let alone sinking a ship that happens to be in a convenient spot for blockage.

2. The UK isn't ringed with harbours and ports with a 1-ship wide bottleneck. You're talking about precisely sinking many, dozens of ships en echelon in the mouths of some of these harbours to actually block them. Port Arthur has a very narrow opening, the Japanese scuttled many ships in the mouth during the Russo-Japanese but never outright blocked it.

3. The effort to remove a blockship is not collossal. It's a problem but explosives, divers, cranes and dredges all exist in quantity in the UK. It is an extremely temporary way to block a port. You'd have to sink blockships in every port simultaneously to make this a major blow.

4. There are actually a -lot- of Deepwater ports in the UK (they don't need to be as deep as in modern times, smaller ships) Portsmouth, Teesport, Southampton, Swansea, Port Talbot, Invergordon, Liverpool, Falmouth, Milford Haven to name a few. It's a lot of work. The physical ports just aren't enough of a bottleneck. Once the ships are in the harbour they can be unloaded by barge and lighter if needed. If you want to take this approach build Uboots not bombers.

5. Mine's yes. But again. At 40000, or 30000 feet you're going to be mining an awful lot of fields and pubs and beaches. The minesweepers and engineers only have to find the ones that land bullseye in the -navigable- parts of the port. And even then they can just stick a marker on them and steer around in the short term.

This reminds me of the posts earlier about bombing the Suez. Bombing the what?? There are no locks. It's a long ditch in the sand. You may as well bomb the North Sea to prevent allied shipping. Water has some properties that make it an unsuitable bombing target...

 

[Deleted member 68059]

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.

You have become really confused between "I found a map of oil" and "here is where the Luftwaffe got aviation fuel from".

The vast majority of Luftwaffe fuels came from three sources only:

1) Prewar imports (gone by 1941)
2) Captured stocks (all used up in Russia)
3) The hydrogenation plants

A miniscule proportion came from crude oil obtained from Germany or other nations, its actually so small that I cant even quantify it
because it resides in the "other" category of the charts and graphs.

The shortage of aviation fuel in German dates from WW1, and was the entire reason why Germany BUILT a set of hydrogenation plants
to make fuel from coal in the and 30`s after having spent a huge amount of time developing the process from WW1 onwards. The overwhelming majority of fuel used in German aircraft in WW2 from 1940>1945 was synthetically produced from coal and tar-slurry by Hydrogenation.

The fuel attacks in 1944 on the hydro plants turned a grave shortage into total annihlation of the operational airforce. To claim there was
no shortage before 1944, or that the Luftwaffe got any militarily significant volume of fuel from indiginous German oil is utterly false.

 

[Koopernic]

The V1 never had the range to threaten anything vital in Russia, and wasn't accurate enough to target supply points, munition or fuel depots.

The Russians probably could have just ignored them.

The V1 had a guidance system called Ewald II under testing, the 3 ground stations for the first one had already been built. Ewald I was a beacon mounted on 5% of V1 at the beginning of the campaign and 50% at the end. Ewald was a simple beacon meant to allow correction of the aim of subsequent missile. However Ewald II was a proper midcourse guidance system. At a certain point on the missiles flight path Ewald would emit a single coded radar pulse at a predetermined time and 3 ground stations would calculate the missiles position from the time difference. There are few if any ways of jamming this kind of transmission since there is no IFF interrogation pulse to trigger spoofing of . The ground stations would then calculate a correction and this would be sent as single set of impulses and recorded on an endless loop magnetic tape on the V1. Accuracy would depend on how close to target the course correction was made but if actual midcourse of the V1 max range it was probably 2km but if within say 10km I imagine about 1% of that.

Ewald II had been developed for the BV246 Haggelkorn (Hailstone) glide bomb but was not ready in time. The missile was developed with the "Radischien" (Raddish) radio/radar homing seeker but I think it would have made a reappearance when the Ewald II system was operational. Range was about 150km when launched from a Fw 190.

Extended range versions of the V1 either used a reduced warhead or a disposable turbojet that Porsche and BMW were developing 109-005. The reduced vibration would have increased accuracy. Vibration caused difficulty.

The plain pulse jet was also receiving improvements and was expected to exceed 830km (500mph) at sea level. Most V1 developed reed valve faults within minutes of launch that dropped their speed from 390 mph to within the interception envelop of allied aircraft.

The most accurate long range missile probably would have been the A4b winged version of the V2. Not only could it be guided midcourse it could be manoeuvred during it terminal phase and was to have an accuracy of better than 80m. It used a giant Wassermann early warning radar laid on its side. The early V2 with the LEV-3 guidance system had a theoretical capability of 4.5km accuracy when tested (worse due to double cross system) but the SG-66 gimballed system with better gyros was expected to get a CEP of 500m radius as was the vollzirkel boost phase beam riding guidance system.

The V1 and V2 put in to service with interim guidance systems nearly 9 times less accurate than the ones they were intended to ultimately receive.

 

[Shortround6]

As a note to not all oil is good for Aviation fuel.
In the US during WW I it was found that gasoline made from California crude gave little or no trouble. Aviation fuel made from Pennsylvania crude and refined using the same methods gave all kinds of trouble with pre-ignition, knocking and holed pistons. In the late 20s with development of the octane scale they found the California gasoline was about 70 octane as refined with no additives. The Pennsylvania gasoline was about 38-40 octane as refined with no additives. You may be able to re-refine the Pennsylvania gas and mix in additives work on it until you get 70-80 octane fuel but obviously if you any other choices it is simpler and cheaper to use other sources.
I would also note that in wartime you sometimes don't have the choices you have in peacetime. Toluene is an aromatic compound that can be blended with gasoline to make a higher octane aviation fuel. However it is the same toluene that is used in trinitrotoluene (TNT) so you may have a choice between aviation fuel and bomb/shell fillings.

 

[tomo pauk]

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.
...

Oil shortages began with attack on Soviet Union. Whoops - perhaps it is not such a good idea after all?

 

[gjs238]

You have become really confused between "I found a map of oil" and "here is where the Luftwaffe got aviation fuel from".

The vast majority of Luftwaffe fuels came from three sources only:

1) Prewar imports (gone by 1941)
2) Captured stocks (all used up in Russia)
3) The hydrogenation plants

A miniscule proportion came from crude oil obtained from Germany or other nations, its actually so small that I cant even quantify it
because it resides in the "other" category of the charts and graphs.

The shortage of aviation fuel in German dates from WW1, and was the entire reason why Germany BUILT a set of hydrogenation plants
to make fuel from coal in the and 30`s after having spent a huge amount of time developing the process from WW1 onwards. The overwhelming majority of fuel used in German aircraft in WW2 from 1940>1945 was synthetically produced from coal and tar-slurry by Hydrogenation.

The fuel attacks in 1944 on the hydro plants turned a grave shortage into total annihlation of the operational airforce. To claim there was
no shortage before 1944, or that the Luftwaffe got any militarily significant volume of fuel from indiginous German oil is utterly false.

Should the US and British bomber offensives have unequivocally concentrated on the hydrogenation plants?

 

[Propellorhead]

Is there any proof, whatsoever, that ALL Spitfire MK I guns jammed at 15,000ft and up year round? that is every day of every month regardless of weather conditions?

Posting pretty pictures of an eight gun wing while quoting modifications for heating the "B" wing which use four Brownings and two drum fed 20mm guns doesn't actually prove anything about the ability of the 8 gun wing to function at altitude. MK IIb and Mk Vb aircraft used the 20mm guns with drums. C wings got the belt feed 20mm guns.
The MK Va used eight .303s, the MK Vb used the two 20mm drum feed guns and four .303s and the MK Vc used two 20mm belt feed guns and four .303s.
All MK V aircraft but rather different wings and gun heating setups even without late r modifications. BTW the C wing could take four 20mm guns but it was rarely used that way.
The larger 20mm guns and the different feeds required different heating arrangements and on the early B wings blocked or partial blocked heat to the outer machine guns.
However only one squadron flew with 20mm guns during the BoB and then only for a few weeks so it is sort of a non issue.

Spitfire was not the only interceptor during the BoB. Hurricanes made up about 2/3 of the fighters. So far nobody has claimed that their guns froze at 15,000ft and up.
The JU 89 needed rocket engines to outrun a Hurricane, heck, it needed rocket engines to outrun a Gloster Gladiator.

Using a Ju 89 or 90 or any other close variation on it and using the engines that were available in quantity in the spring/summer of 1940, (not 1942/43) leaves you with a slow, low altitude bomber that is an easy target for any number of British aircraft (Bristol Blenheim fighters?)

BTW they were flying at 30,000ft and above during the BoB. One of the reasons for building the Hurricane MK II (first squadron issue was in Sept 1940) was for better performance at the higher altitudes to better counter the Bf 109. The fights often wound up much lower but one side or the other was trying to get the bounce from above.

Sorry but using the JU 86 with it's turbo diesels and extended wing and pressure cabin as "proof" that the Ju 89 could operate at high altitudes is just false.

I would also strongly advise researching actual altitudes as many times the service ceiling quoted for bombes is either with bombs gone or in some lightly loaded condition.
For instance the JU-88A-1 had a service ceiling of 26,250ft when operating at 19,750lbs. However at 22,840lbs the ceiling dropped to 22,700ft.

And service ceiling means the altitude that a plane can still climb at 100fpm or the metric equivalent using full power. Trying to cruise in a formation (even a small one) would mean the planes are flying thousands of feet lower.

Sorry the whole thing about the Germans using 4 engine bombers and altering the course of the BoB is nonsense.
So is the Ural bomber idea but that is another post or thread.

You need to work on improving your reading comprehension skills. The original quesion posed was:"
If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?

Clearly, self evident Germany had that option in 1937 of entering the war with 4 engined bombers, so we are not discusssing URAL bombers pitted against Spitfire Mk. XIV WITH 20mm cannon in 1940 , or 1941.

Logically,

We are only discussing the JU89 v Spitfire Mk l, or Mk ll with 8 browning guns.

If you cant deal with logical development of an argument please go and debate this with your own fevered imagination. So opposing the Ju89 flying missions over England pilot officer Biggles roars up to 23,000ft , but because, his guns are frozen he has no option other than to slide back his canopy and throw his shoe at the mighty Junkers bomber: Reality, deal with it.

On On 4 June 1938, the Junkers Ju89 achieved a new Payload/Altitude World Record using the second prototype D-ALAT with 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) payload at an altitude of 30,500 ft.
Deal with it.
this is not a strawman hypothesis debate about how fast or high a Hurricane could fly

 

[Propellorhead]

Should the US and British bomber offensives have unequivocally concentrated on the hydrogenation plants?

NOPE , I excerpted maps from a declassified report on wartime oil production capacity. Oil production from Romania exclusively provided fuel for all fighting on the eastern front according to that report.

 

[RW Mk. III]

You need to work on improving your reading comprehension skills. The original quesion posed was:"
If Germany had the allies heavy bombers would they have won the war?

Clearly, self evident Germany had that option in 1937 of entering the war with 4 engined bombers, so we are not discusssing URAL bombers pitted against Spitfire Mk. XIV WITH 20mm cannon in 1940 , or 1941.

Logically,

We are only discussing the JU89 v Spitfire Mk l, or Mk ll with 8 browning guns.

If you cant deal with logical development of an argument please go and debate this with your own fevered imagination. So opposing the Ju89 flying missions over England pilot officer Biggles roars up to 23,000ft , but because, his guns are frozen he has no option other than to slide back his canopy and throw his shoe at the mighty Junkers bomber: Reality, deal with it.

View attachment 581525


On On 4 June 1938, the Junkers Ju89 achieved a new Payload/Altitude World Record using the second prototype D-ALAT with 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) payload at an altitude of 30,500 ft.
Deal with it.
this is not a strawman hypothesis debate about how fast or high a Hurricane could fly

But where is the proof that all guns failed reliably above 15k? Where are the Air Ministry memos? There should be literally hundreds of vettable pilots statements in letters and diaries. The distinction between freezing guns and all guns freezing all the time above altitude x is significant and seems oddly unnoticed by history? How is this news to all of us that the freezing problem was in fact neutering all the Spitfires? You're making a statement, where's the proof? It's much harder for the opposite side to find the Air Ministry memos regarding all the guns that didn't freeze.

I think it remarkable that's the Luftwaffe need have only flown a bit higher (15000plus is completely doable in a 111) and the RAF Spitfires were reduced to spectators. And that this is not literally the first thing everyone mentions everytime pen is put to paper regarding the BoB. It would have to be the single biggest intelligence failure ever in the history of war if the Germans never caught on to this!

 

[Propellorhead]

But where is the proof that all guns failed reliably above 15k? Where are the Air Ministry memos? There should be literally hundreds of vettable pilots statements in letters and diaries. The distinction between freezing guns and all guns freezing all the time above altitude x is significant and seems oddly unnoticed by history? How is this news to all of us that the freezing problem was in fact neutering all the Spitfires? You're making a statement, where's the proof? It's much harder for the opposite side to find the Air Ministry memos regarding all the guns that didn't freeze.

I think it remarkable that's the Luftwaffe need have only flown a bit higher (15000plus is completely doable in a 111) and the RAF Spitfires were reduced to spectators. And that this is not literally the first thing everyone mentions everytime pen is put to paper regarding the BoB. It would have to be the single biggest intelligence failure ever in the history of war if the Germans never caught on to this!

So you suggest Supermarine wasted all that effort to duct heating to guns for nothing? Frankly your thinking is bizarre!

 

[tomo pauk]

Is there any proof, whatsoever, that ALL Spitfire MK I guns jammed at 15,000ft and up year round? that is every day of every month regardless of weather conditions?
...

Nope, the guns jammed just when it suited to the Luftwaffe. Now you know why Luftwaffe won the BoB.

 

[Propellorhead]

You have become really confused between "I found a map of oil" and "here is where the Luftwaffe got aviation fuel from".

The vast majority of Luftwaffe fuels came from three sources only:

1) Prewar imports (gone by 1941)
2) Captured stocks (all used up in Russia)
3) The hydrogenation plants

A miniscule proportion came from crude oil obtained from Germany or other nations, its actually so small that I cant even quantify it
because it resides in the "other" category of the charts and graphs.

The shortage of aviation fuel in German dates from WW1, and was the entire reason why Germany BUILT a set of hydrogenation plants
to make fuel from coal in the and 30`s after having spent a huge amount of time developing the process from WW1 onwards. The overwhelming majority of fuel used in German aircraft in WW2 from 1940>1945 was synthetically produced from coal and tar-slurry by Hydrogenation.

The fuel attacks in 1944 on the hydro plants turned a grave shortage into total annihlation of the operational airforce. To claim there was
no shortage before 1944, or that the Luftwaffe got any militarily significant volume of fuel from indiginous German oil is utterly false.

no you can't quantify it because you have not read the oil production report. That's okay, I can wait whilst you guess...

 

[RW Mk. III]

So you suggest Supermarine wasted all that effort to duct heating to guns for nothing? Frankly your thinking is bizarre!

There was a freezing issue. Well documented, but not all the time reliably. Not 100% freeze rate above altitude x. You're proposing that any improvements or modifications made to an airframe must, by necessity, mean the problem being corrected was occuring 100% of the time. Or else the change would not be made. That is a very black and white assessment.

Air Ministry: "Supermarine, we are finding that pilots report at least one gun freezing per flight above 15000 feet for 20% of sorties (made up numbers). On future designs can we prevent this?"

Supermarine: "Until that figure is 8 guns freezing on 100% of sorties we just don't see the point."

 

[pbehn]

So you suggest Supermarine wasted all that effort to duct heating to guns for nothing? Frankly your thinking is bizarre!

Bearing in mind the number of German bombers and fighters shot down by the RAF between 15,000 and 25,000 ft in 1940 the discussion is strange to say the least, an improvement in a heating system doesn't mean the previous system didn't work at all, and a incidence of guns jamming is not proof that all guns jammed all day every day.

 

[Propellorhead]

Nope, the guns jammed just when it suited to the Luftwaffe. Now you know why Luftwaffe won the BoB.

When you create an objection relevant to nobody but yourself & then attack your own objection to make it appear as if it was relevant, that is a fraudulent way to answer the original question posed. Gazeltine proved that whilst only one of his guns failed, it caused his Spitfire to spin out of control, meaning that just 50% gun failure can cause 100% failure to intercept a target.
It is of utter irrelevance whether all guns fail above 15,000ft, except to you

 

[RW Mk. III]

View attachment 581529
When you create an objection relevant to nobody but yourself & then attack your own objection to make it appear as if it was relevant, that is a fraudulent way to answer the original question posed. Gazeltine proved that whilst only one of his guns failed, it caused his Spitfire to spin out of control, meaning that just 50% gun failure can cause 100% failure to intercept a target.
It is of utter irrelevance whether all guns fail above 15,000ft, except to you

That anecdote is your main datapoint on the freezing issue?

To be absolutely clear. If the combat records for the BoB are examined, you are saying there should be zero (or a statistically similar number) kills/damaged aircraft/aircrew casualties from Spitfires -above 15000- recorded by either the RAF or the LW? That's the assertion?


Edited for omission

 

[pbehn]

View attachment 581529
When you create an objection relevant to nobody but yourself & then attack your own objection to make it appear as if it was relevant, that is a fraudulent way to answer the original question posed. Gazeltine proved that whilst only one of his guns failed, it caused his Spitfire to spin out of control, meaning that just 50% gun failure can cause 100% failure to intercept a target.
It is of utter irrelevance whether all guns fail above 15,000ft, except to you

It is actually the crux of your argument, claiming that the Spitfire couldn't shoot down anything above 15,000ft until 1942 and that any plane that could get to such high altitudes would be invincible. 15,000 ft wasn't particularly high in WW1, British aircraft were shooting down the enemy above that, a chap called McCudden made a habit of it. The mission you claim was a failure because one gun froze, took place at 42,000 ft against a Ju 86 and scored a hit, that was enough to stop all future operations which is a complete success in my book.

 

[RW Mk. III]

To be clear I'm not really arguing (at least I don't feel like I am) so much as challenging the assertion and requesting supporting information. It's not really what I'd call a straw man position? I don't think it really rests on me to prove the negative. That they DIDN'T freeze. It's a remarkable assertion and I'm open to it. But not solely on your say-so.

Edited for quoted wrong person

 

[pbehn]

duplicate