The Luftwaffe and "four engined" bombers

I retract one point and that is the cancellation of the Me-264, i would continue the Me-264 project but not for production but for testbed projects.

I would also allow other manufacturers to get in on the act by either building entire aircraft or components.

And if this could be done and that supply of four engined strategic bombers matched or exceded attritian i would maintain 1,000 heavies in Western Europe and a further 2,500 on the Eastern Front.

My tatics in dealing with Britain would be that i would use my strategic bomber force on British industry and weapons manufacturer, i would then use my tatical bomber force with taking on the elimination of the RAF, with attacks on airfields etc..., while i would use my maritime bomber command in the subjugation of the Royal Navy within the English Channel, and convoy interdiction (With cooperation with the U-Boat Fleets).

 

The 390 would have been the my horse in that race.

I think to solve all of the problems spawned by Hitler, I would have taken all of Germanies war industry converted it to bakeries and made enough Brownies to feed the world so that the war never would have happened.

 

The problem with the 290 and 390 both is that they are essentially transport conversions rather than designed outright as bombers. For example, the low wing placement is a bad thing in terms of bomber design (no room for a large bomb bay).
I would think that, as I already stated, the Ju 488 would be a better choice. The aircraft is basically just a stretch version of a standard Ju 88/188 with two more engines and new wing inserts for them.
It is a minimal engineering design. It uses most of the already existing jigs and tools to manufacture it. Commonality and interchangability would be a plus.

The other two choices I would go with are the Do 217 and the Hs 130C.

 

I somewhat agree T.A. but I am trying to figure who had the best distance covered, no doubt the LW A/C even early in the war had this been tried, would have to fly as low as they could over ocean if heading for the US as well as low over the mountain ranges in the Urals. would there been a whole scale response by 4 engines over Britain, it's anyones game

 

The problem in this i think is that we are doing exactly what the Germans did and that was to wring out as much varients from obsolete designs rather than plan new designs to do the job, but i understand where you are coming from because in reality the Germans did not have the time to implement wholesale change from Tatical to Strategic bombing, they may have had the capacity to do it but the system they had prevented this.

And as i said previously, i would have stuck with the Fw-200 and the He-177/277.

 

How about I keep General Wever alive and Field Marshall Blomberg doesn't get outed because General Keitel burns some incriminating evidence against Blomberg's wife.

This prevents a lot of wasteful and destructive policies of Udet, Guderian, and others.

Now for a four engine bomber, I'll go with the Ju-89. LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe

Language Tools This will translate the page.

online conversion calculators for temperature, length/ distance, area, volume and weight This will convert the numbers to what you are used to dealing with.

By my calculations with Wever and Blomberg, the Germans could build 400 of these planes without sacrificing anything else as Udet's Dive Bombing Fetish doesn't infect the Air Force beyond the Stuka and his general incompetence in research and production doesn't hamstring the Luftwaffe.

Now during the Battle of Britain these bombers operating from France would be able to by stripping out their armament be able to operate 2,000 feet above the RAF's interceptors ceiling and carry as much as 11 U.S. Tons each as far as London.

Imagine 11 tons from 400 bombers falling every night on London, or elsewhere in Southern Britain...

 

I can imagine say the Luftwaffe had these aircraft and did indeed launch a four hundred bomber night raid on London. 4,400 tonnes on London every night for several weeks would certainly destroy the capital, but would it get a British surrender, i don't think so.

 

Is this the WW2 jokes thread?

 

No, although as usual there are some jokers.

On a serious note. The remark about 4,400 tons per night delivered by 400 bombers: It seems to assume 100% availbility, none lost from pilot error, weather, or mechanical failure, that all the challenges of night navigation and target location are solved. Also that losses during the Polish, Norwegian, or May/June campaign are made up.

Combat losses are a additional factor.

There is also the assumption the Luftwaffe leaders have these same calculations at hand, understand this specific attack program and so build 400 bombers, rather than build 1200 & cripple the tactical air support, or build just 200 and not have enough for more than terror raids.

 

I doubt that the Ju 89 would have turned out to be a winner in service. Looking at the specs for it one finds that is doesn't have that much range or bombload and is a fairly slow and ungainly aircraft. It is likely that in service it would not have remained a frontline aircraft for long.

 

I would agree with you however the early B-17's and B-24's were not winners either. The RAF used a squadron of early model B-17's and they got short down in shot order. As with most weapon systems you have to keep up grading them to meet the needs of combat. The first part of WWII the Germans defeated everbody they came up against so I guess they figured they could keep going with what they had.

Other examples would be early Halifax's, the Manchester, the B-26, and the P-38 fighter.

Also look at todays V-22. After over 20 years of trying it still does not work right !

 

Service ceiling of the Spitfire I was around 34 - 35,000 ft.

I have great difficulty in accepting a 1940 bomber carrying 22,000 lbs of bombs at over 35,000 ft.

I have difficulty accepting that, too.

The busiest month of the Blitz for the Luftwaffe was November, with just over 6,000 bomber sorties. That's an average of 200 sorties a night, from a force of over 1,000 medium bombers.

The heavies have more to go wrong, require more fuel, spares and crews, so are not going to be able to keep up as high a sortie rate.

And fuel is critical here. The Blitz saw the Luftwaffe using slightly more fuel than Germany was producing at the time. The Blitz with twice as many sorties, by four engined bombers rather than twins, is going to see the Luftwaffe consuming fuel about 5 times as fast as Germany can make it. By the end of the Blitz the Luftwaffe would have exhausted their fuel reserves.

The proposal is beyond the Luftwaffe's technical and logistical capabilities.

 

Absolute Cieling yes, but not its combat ceiling which is in the 20,000 feet area.

The test results speak for themselves, just be glad Wever died as he gave stats just before his death for a new bomber that would have been between the B-29 and B-36 in capability!

True somewhat, but that is due to the incompetence of Goering and Udet in not adequately planning for the future and trashing Wever's policies.

 

Are we reading the same specs? All the sources I read on the Ju-89 consistently cite 1.8 ton bombload to 1,800 miles. That was way ahead of everyone else at that time.

 

No, 34 - 35,000 ft was service ceiling, not absolute ceiling.

The Spitfire I still had a ROC of 650 ft/min at 30,000ft, so the idea they could not intercept a bomber at that altitude is a bit silly.

The Spitfire II was even better, with a service ceiling of 37,000 ft and a climb rate of about 1,000 ft/min at 30,000 ft.

That's about on par with the Whitley, which was retired from front line duties in 1942.

 

What I have for the Ju 89 is as follows (in round numbers rather than picking nits):

Cruising speed: 200 kts or about 220 mph
Range with 3,500 lb / 1600 kg bombload: 990 miles or about 450 miles operational radius
Maximum range without load: 1200 miles or about a 600 mile radius.
Bombload 3,500 lb / 1600 kg.
Service ceiling: 23,000 feet meaning it would be flying between 15,000 and 20,000 feet operationally.

Even the page you listed earlier gives these figures.
With further development the Ju 89 would no doubt have gotten somewhat better but, it was not going to be a really useful strategic bomber for the expense and complexity of manufacturing it.

 

As far as an air war was concerned, Hitler was a laymen and completely dependent on his air force experts in all questions relating to the complex field of aeronautics.
Of the seven bureau chiefs in his ministry of aviation, four were army officers who had not had the slightest contact with aviation before.

Under the influence of a dominant army, German strategists created an air force which, was mainly intended for the tactical support of ground troops.
The air force leadership, aware of the Luftwaff's limited potential, and oriented toward quick successes, planned the war to depend on an initial powerful and lightning-fast air strike.

At the same time that the Germans were emphasizing development of tactical twin-engined medium range bombers, the British and Americans were working to produce heavy strategic bombers which when war came, would enable the Allies to carry the war to Germany.

 

Uh when I converted the Reichweite (range) of 2980 kmwith a warload of 2 x MG/FF, 2 x MG 15, and a 1600 kg(1.76369 U.S. Tons) bombload, it came to1851.686 mi at 239.849 mph at 22965.879 feet.

That is what its operational setting is. So once again what specs are you reading as that more accurately reflects the Do-19?

P.S. something is screwing with my formats, so sorry for the bolding.

 

The Ju 89 is listed as having a top speed of 242 mph at 16,400 feet (5,000 meters) not at its service ceiling of 22,965 feet (7,500 meters). These are non-payload figures. The sustained cruising speed is given as 196 mph.

We can start with the venerable Green Warplanes of the Third Reich. He gives far more detail than the listed website does about the aircraft.

Basically, it is a pretty much middle of the pack bomber in 1939 compared to other nation's entries. It also has at least some potential for upgrading. The DB 600 engines could no doubt be replaced easily with more powerful 601s improving performance for starters.

 

Was it for the V1 prototype which is the one I'm quoting from the website?