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

[Propellorhead]

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

That is your assertion , not mine
show me your database for interceptions in the Battle of Britain tabulated by intercept altititudes and I shall be greatly impressed if such records even exist.
you telling me what you think I am saying is yet another polemic employed in your strawman attacks:
..In which you completely refute or defeat a fictitious proposition which I never uttered, only one which you accuse me of
You are attacking your own assertion.

so again I doubt that your record of BoB interceptions tabulated by altitudes which you alluded to ever existed. You have no database to inform you what altitudes attacks took place at, otherwise please produce it.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

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

Current Book: The Secret Horsepower Race - Calum Douglas

Feel free to buy my book on the subject, but what do I know.

Total Luftwaffe fuel made from crude refining (NB this is crude from ALL sources... so German crude will be a small percentage of this):
= 43,000 tons

As above but from synthetic hydrogenation of coal and coal-tars:

= 5,540,000 tons

0.77% , before you even slice off how much of that was German crude.

Page 159 of the report below:

PS. You`re RIGHT that there was German crude, but it all went into Diesel oil and MT gasoline, because it wasnt suitable for making aviation fuel.

 

[NevadaK]

To be honest, I don't see how the Luftwaffe having 4 engine heavy bombers changes the outcome of the war. The Battle of Britain wasn't lost because there weren't enough bombers. It was lost because the LW didn't have a long range fighter that could be used to establish air dominance. Assuming that this thread respects contemporaneous technologies, the long range fighter didn't exist in 1940 that could have carried out such a mission. It also doesn't affect the outcome in the Soviet Union either. As was stated earlier, the USSR can relocate their factories as far away from the front as needed to be kept out of range from any bomber force. Assuming a critical 1941-1943 timeline, there is still no long range fighter escort in existence that would be able to mitigate mission losses. Respecting the timeline of the war, 1942 also means that Germany is at war with an enemy that is significantly larger in area, population, natural resources, and production capacity. Mathematically, victory is out of reach regardless of whether they can field a meaningful strategic bombing force or not.

 

[pbehn]

That is your assertion , not mine
show me your database for interceptions in the Battle of Britain tabulated by intercept altititudes and I shall be greatly impressed if such records even exist.
you telling me what you think I am saying is yet another polemic employed in your strawman attacks:
..In which you completely refute or defeat a fictitious proposition which I never uttered, only one which you accuse me of
You are attacking your own assertion.

so again I doubt that your record of BoB interceptions tabulated by altitudes which you alluded to ever existed. You have no database to inform you what altitudes attacks took place at, otherwise please produce it.

Who needs a database, try any book with "Battle of Britain" in the title, any book written by a BoB pilot or person involved in the battle. The Battle of Britain was observed by civilians, they could see the vapour trails. The records from the battle are very extensive.

 

[tomo pauk]

To be honest, I don't see how the Luftwaffe having 4 engine heavy bombers changes the outcome of the war. The Battle of Britain wasn't lost because there weren't enough bombers. It was lost because the LW didn't have a long range fighter that could be used to establish air dominance.

Lack of LR fighters was one, big part of a reason why RAF won. Other reasons include numbers game - RAF was receiving more fighters, both to cover the losses and to expand, than it was so for LW. Then there is an old, good reason of under-estimating your enemy.

Assuming that this thread respects contemporaneous technologies, the long range fighter didn't exist in 1940 that could have carried out such a mission.

Requirements for the Luftwaffe LR fighters that are staged in France & Belgium against UK are far easier than for the perspective RAF fighters staged in Kent or East Anglia vs. Germany poper. The Bf 109E with drop tank can cover a good part of England, but it was too late and too few to matter.

It also doesn't affect the outcome in the Soviet Union either. As was stated earlier, the USSR can relocate their factories as far away from the front as needed to be kept out of range from any bomber force. Assuming a critical 1941-1943 timeline, there is still no long range fighter escort in existence that would be able to mitigate mission losses. Respecting the timeline of the war, 1942 also means that Germany is at war with an enemy that is significantly larger in area, population, natural resources, and production capacity. Mathematically, victory is out of reach regardless of whether they can field a meaningful strategic bombing force or not.

Germany is against the odds once they attacked Soviet Union.
For 1941-43, there are certainly fighters capable for long range work. But neither of those are in German service.

 

[RW Mk. III]

That is your assertion , not mine
show me your database for interceptions in the Battle of Britain tabulated by intercept altititudes and I shall be greatly impressed if such records even exist.
you telling me what you think I am saying is yet another polemic employed in your strawman attacks:
..In which you completely refute or defeat a fictitious proposition which I never uttered, only one which you accuse me of
You are attacking your own assertion.

so again I doubt that your record of BoB interceptions tabulated by altitudes which you alluded to ever existed. You have no database to inform you what altitudes attacks took place at, otherwise please produce it.

But you did utter it? You are absolute in your assertion the guns didn't work above 15000 are you not?

And you have yet to produce proof of your assertion. Heating ducts were added to the wings. That is evidence of some freezing, to no definite degree. One, single, anecdote of a Spitfires being thrown into a spin by frozen guns is not a huge amount of evidence, in fact it is somewhat wobbly evidence. I am simply questioning it, I am unconvinced based on what you have put forward.

Here is the position:

You say they froze completely at 15k.

I say I would certainly like to see that fleshed out. Would you care to? Because I tend to disagree.

You call me a strawman and accuse me of attacking you. Demand I provide proof, despite your refusal to so so.

Here's the deal man. When you make an assertion (this is a bit of strong one too). It is not up to your interlocutor to disprove it when you have presented next to zero supporting evidence.

I'm generally interested at this point. Seriously. Show me them freezing reliably. I have to believe you have a good amount of evidence as you are so emphatic. I am genuinely curious about this now. I will absolutely change my opinion if presented with reliable and vettable evidence of some sort.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

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

No, they should have bombed the German Tetraethyl-Lead plant in Froese, which was the biggest of the only TWO in Germany, and was so specialised it would have been immensely difficult to replace, without which you could have ANY amount of oil or aviation fuel base stock and been totally unable to do anything sensible with it for high performance fighters - thus basically ending the luftwaffe. However the intelligence necessary to pinpoint the production flow of fuels and blending wasnt really solidified until near the end of the war. However strategists afterwards considered it to have been a very serious tactical mistake to have not tried to destroy. So being fair - its maybe a "with hindsight" mistake, the Allies had very good intel on German fuels but didnt really understand the manufacturing processes and sites for a long time. The US intel people thought the Germans were blending fuels at many remote locations, the British thought the Germans were making finished fuels at each refinery.

This really hampered descision making on which sites to bomb, because if the americans were right, bombing the refineries might not stop fuel blending, unless you put the whole lot out of action, and they didnt know where many of the remote blending sites were.

(the Americans were right)

- The sole two German TEL plants were in Froese and Gapel-Doberitz

 

[NevadaK]

No, they should have bombed the German Tetraethyl-Lead plant, of which there was only TWO until the end of the war (one of which was much more significant), and was so specialised it would have been immensely difficult to replace, without which you could have ANY amount of oil or aviation fuel base stock and been totally unable to do anything sensible with it for high performance fighters - thus basically ending the luftwaffe. However the intelligence necessary to pinpoint the production flow of fuels and blending wasnt really solidified until near the end of the war. However strategists afterwards considered it to have been a very serious tactical mistake to have not tried to destroy. So being fair - its maybe a "with hindsight" mistake, the Allies had very good intel on German fuels but didnt really understand the manufacturing processes and sites for a long time. The US intel people thought the Germans were blending fuels at many remote locations, the British thought the Germans were making finished fuels at each refinery.


(the Americans were right)

I'm trusting my memory here, but I believe that post war analysis by the 8th Air Force discovered that the weak link in German strategic materials was actually coal and that the Americans incorrectly believed that Germany was on an oil infrastructure hence why they targeted oil production targets so heavily. The destruction of coal reserves had a far greater influence on the entire industrial complex and war effort than any other target.

 

[SaparotRob]

In a similar vein, weren't the Japanese air fleets hampered by low octane fuel? I don't have the memory that you guys have but weren't they using something akin to turpentine towards the last few months? I know this off the stated topic.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I'm trusting my memory here, but I believe that post war analysis by the 8th Air Force discovered that the weak link in German strategic materials was actually coal and that the Americans incorrectly believed that Germany was on an oil infrastructure hence why they targeted oil production targets so heavily. The destruction of coal reserves had a far greater influence on the entire industrial complex and war effort than any other target.

They (the Allies) didnt really understand the sources of German aviation Gasoline until very late in the war (although many guessed correctly). They knew there were synthetic plants, but didnt know which ones were being used and in what capacity for which fuel type. (eg. almost none of the Fisher-Tropsch synthetic plants output went into aviation fuel).

Its a bit difficult to separate bombing coal and the sythetic fuel plants as they BUILT the synthetic plants next to all the major coal mines. (for obvious reasons).

As an aside, before the war one engineer (Professor Steinmann at Berlin Hochschule) said "hmm maybe we shouldnt put all the fuel plants OVER ground next to the coal mines as it will be really obvious were they are..."

The Nazi leadership replied "Nah.. it`ll be fine!"

Research tip, if you want to understand Luftwaffe fuels - read up on the "Wirtschaftliche Forschungsgesellschaft", which had NOTHING to do with Economic Research and was basically a cover-name for the Luftwaffe/Wehrmacht/Kriegsmarine fuel distribution network; but in reality ended up basically mostly a tool of the Luftwaffe.

 

[pbehn]

That is your assertion , not mine
show me your database
.

here (my bold) from this thread in this forum This Day in the Battle of Britain >>>> At 1100 hours the first wave of German bombers - hundreds of Ju 88s and Do 17s - flew across the Channel and up the Thames towards London. Just as the first Fighter Command squadrons approached the southern coast of Kent, the leaders of the German formation still had a few miles to go before they crossed the tall cliffs of the British coastline. The German bombers consisted of practically the whole of I./KG 76 flying Dornier Do 17s. These had met up with the Do 17s of III./KG 76 and KG 3 behind Calais and now the combined force, escorted by Bf 109 formed a vast armada almost two miles wide crossing the coast. All the Luftwaffe aircraft departed from bases in the Brussels and Antwerp areas. The heights of the German formations were between 15,000 and 26,000 feet and the Observer Corps reported that they were crossing the coast just north of Dungeness, to the south of Dover and at Ramsgate.

 

[RW Mk. III]

here (my bold) from this thread in this forum This Day in the Battle of Britain >>>> At 1100 hours the first wave of German bombers - hundreds of Ju 88s and Do 17s - flew across the Channel and up the Thames towards London. Just as the first Fighter Command squadrons approached the southern coast of Kent, the leaders of the German formation still had a few miles to go before they crossed the tall cliffs of the British coastline. The German bombers consisted of practically the whole of I./KG 76 flying Dornier Do 17s. These had met up with the Do 17s of III./KG 76 and KG 3 behind Calais and now the combined force, escorted by Bf 109 formed a vast armada almost two miles wide crossing the coast. All the Luftwaffe aircraft departed from bases in the Brussels and Antwerp areas. The heights of the German formations were between 15,000 and 26,000 feet and the Observer Corps reported that they were crossing the coast just north of Dungeness, to the south of Dover and at Ramsgate.

Same thread further along. My bold.


were stepped between 25,000 and 26,000 feet. As the 'Big Wing' closed in, they were joined by RAF No.41 Sqd (Spitfires), RAF No.46 Sqd (Hurricanes), RAF No.504 Sqd (Hurricanes) and RAF No.609 Sqd (Spitfires). The Bombers were confronted by British fighters on all sides, and one of the biggest combat actions ever seen over London developed.

Perfectly positioned, with the bombers 3,000 feet below them they were about to make their attack, when a formation of Bf 109s came out of the sun. Bader immediately ordered the Spitfires of RAF No.19 and RAF No.611 Sqds to take on the German fighters, which they did, scattering them by a surprise attack so effectively that they left the bomber formation and flew off to the south-east. While the 'Big Wing



it goes on. Controversially(?) Indicating a the Spitfires were there for more than moral support.

 

[pbehn]

Same thread further along. My bold.


were stepped between 25,000 and 26,000 feet. As the 'Big Wing' closed in, they were joined by RAF No.41 Sqd (Spitfires), RAF No.46 Sqd (Hurricanes), RAF No.504 Sqd (Hurricanes) and RAF No.609 Sqd (Spitfires). The Bombers were confronted by British fighters on all sides, and one of the biggest combat actions ever seen over London developed.

Perfectly positioned, with the bombers 3,000 feet below them they were about to make their attack, when a formation of Bf 109s came out of the sun. Bader immediately ordered the Spitfires of RAF No.19 and RAF No.611 Sqds to take on the German fighters, which they did, scattering them by a surprise attack so effectively that they left the bomber formation and flew off to the south-east. While the 'Big Wing



it goes on. Controversially(?) Indicating a the Spitfires were there for more than moral support.

The theory that British aircraft guns didn't work above 15,000ft until 1942 has to be placed in the "special" category.

 

[BiffF15]

The theory that British aircraft guns didn't work above 15,000ft until 1942 has to be placed in the "special" category.

Please, no one bring up the P-38 cockpit heat issue...

 

[pbehn]

Please, no one bring up the P-38 cockpit heat issue...

If they were so hot all of the time why didn't they open a window? Or just whitewash the glass inside, my dad did that with his tomatoes and it worked well.

 

[Shortround6]

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?

For someone who was rather sensitive about being insulted earlier you seem pretty quick to throw out insults of your own.
I would question whether you have actually read the 5 or so pages that preceded your post here.

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.

Please show me where I referred to Spitfire MK XIVs

From you own post.
"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,
So you referenced a modification done to the MK IIb and Vb which usually had a single 20mm and two .303s in each wing, NOT the gun set up in the picture you provided. This weapon set up was not used until the spring of 1941 so it is also irrelevant to whether the eight gun set up had adequate heating or not in 1940. As I tried to explain in the early post the larger 20mm cannon and feed system blocked some of the heating system of the eight machine gun wing.

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.

Actually Biggles would have used his Webley-Fosbery revolver.
And the Luftwaffe could not pick and chose which British fighters intercepted theri formations. 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.

AH yes, a record setting flight, tell me, were any defensive guns fitted? I believe the answer is no.
How many crewmen on the flight? the full crew of nine or fewer?
What was the duration of the flight? 1 1/2 or 2 hours?
Carry just enough fuel to reach the desired altitude and get back down again?

Service ceiling (which is usually for normal gross weight) is given as 22,960 ft for the unarmed V2 prototype. Granted service versions would have had more powerful engines but they also would have had more drag (or no defensive guns?) and more operational equipment.

That is reality.

this is not a strawman hypothesis debate about how fast or high a Hurricane could fly

You are right, it is not a strawman argument. The last sentence in your first post.
"The JU89 would have ruled uncontested in UK skies if used early in the Battle of Britain"

Since the Hurricane made up almost 2/3s of the interceptors in the BoB wither the guns on the Spitfire froze or not (not) the Ju 89 would have faced a number of squadrons/groups of fighters contesting it's flights in UK skies regardless if it was used early or late in the Battle of Britain.

Reality, deal with it.

 

[B-25 Pilot]

I don't think that the axis would've won the war because Germany didn't have any escort fighters that would've' had the range to cover the bombers. But, Germany would've gotten some early hits on factory's and that might've slowed down production of allied interceptors and fighters.

 

[RW Mk. III]

K5053. The sixty-first mki to roll off the line had exhaust heating to the guns. This modification was applied to all subsequent mki and mkii Spitfires. Dope over the muzzle holes ensured any chance of freezing would have to wait until they had been fired at least once. Only then could moisture possibly condense on the open bolt of the guns. Please see my supporting documents.

Per Alfred Price (first), and Jeff Webb (second)

 

[pbehn]

K5053. The sixty-first mki to roll off the line had exhaust heating to the guns. This modification was applied to all subsequent mki and mkii Spitfires. Dope over the muzzle holes ensured any chance of freezing would have to wait until they had been fired at least once. Only then could moisture possibly condense on the open bolt of the guns. Please see my supporting documents.

Per Alfred Price (first), and Jeff Webb (second)

You may have hit on something there. It is often said that the Spitfire wing was hard to produce, it had to be produced with wings that could hold guns that could fire at altitude.

 

[gjs238]

Please, no one bring up the P-38 cockpit heat issue...

So....how was the F-15 cockpit heat?