PDA

View Full Version : How much potential did the Dornier Do 19 have?



mynameisroland
04-21-2006, 07:41 AM
Ive just finished reading a speculative Luftwaffe book called Luftwaffe Victorious by Mike Spick ( the Germans still lose so dont worry boys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )and it poses a few questions and what ifs.

There was a GeneralLeutnant named Walter Wever who was responsible for the development of the Strategic bomber requirement for the Luftwaffe. Under this requirement the Germans came up with the Do 19 and the Ju 89 four engined heavy bombers. The Do 19 first flew in 1936 and had clear potential for further development ie by the time WW2 began it would logically be using engines in the 1200/1500 hp class either Bramos or BMW 132's and would be capable of carrying a very heavy load to the south coast of England or bombing anywhere in the British Isles from bases in France or Norway.

Now it would certainly not have won the BoB but it would have been the best 4 engined bomber in service at the time and would have been capable of strategically bombing factories deep withing Russia - it was nicknamed the Ural bomber- thus disrupting Soviet fuel, tank, and aircraft production. The Soviets would not have relished having to intercept 4 engined heavies flying at 20,000ft plus in their Mig 3s!

So apart from bombing British industrial facilities, London, Scapa Flow and other strategic targets the Do 19 would have been an excellent anti shipping platform flying from bases in France and would cause the RAF and RN lots of problems that would need to be countered.

The reason this aircraft did not come in to production was that GeneralLeutnant Wever died in an air accident and the short sighted gurus of the Luftwaffe decreed that the Luftwaffe only needed Tactical bombers.

Specifications from Wiki

Do 19

General characteristics

Crew:

Length: 25.4 m (83 ft 6 in)

Wingspan: 35.00 m (114 ft 10 in)

Height: 5.77 m (19 ft 0 in)

Wing area: 162 m² (1,744 ft²)

Empty: 11,865 kg (26,158 lb)

Loaded: 18,500 kg (40,785 lb)

Maximum takeoff: kg ( lb)

Powerplant: 4x BMW 132F radials, 604 kW (810 hp) each

Maximum speed: 315 km/h (196 mph)

Range: 1,600 km (994 miles)

Service ceiling: 5,600 m (18,370 ft)

Rate of climb: m/min ( ft/min)

Wing loading: 114 kg/m² (23 lb/ft²)

Power/Mass: 0.13 kW/kg (0.08 hp/lb)

These are specs for an aircraft that flew in October 1936. The Do 19 was slightly larger than the B17 and possessed great potential for further development.

ImpStarDuece
04-21-2006, 08:16 AM
As a long range bomber it had fantastic potential, and would of been invaluable to the LuftWaffe if they had wished to engage in a long range bombing campaign.

However, the pressing needs of Germany's rearmament, the development of the Luftwaffe, German national pride, the tactical concepts of Germany's war aim all precluded the purchase of a large 4 engined bomber.

The Luftwaffe and Germany's high ups wanted as many bombers and fighters as possible. In 1936 and 1937 the LuftWaffe was a fledgling force, struggling to scrape planes together from whereever it could. So, when the chance to swap 2 heavy bombers for 3-4 medium bombers came along, they jumped at it. They were cheaper and easier to build, required smaller production and maintence facilities

Strategic bombing was never really as much of an obsession in the Luftwaffe as it was in the RAF or USAAF. The Do-19 and Ju-89 heavies were Wevers babies, and gave Germany the potential to develop the worlds first effective long range strategic bombing force. But they died with him, Kesslering, Milch and Georing perfering mediums and Udet dive bombers, despite the objections of a cadre of offices lead by General Wimmer.

The Heer wanted aircraft that could be operated in support of army operations. That meant that they placed pressure on the LuftWaffe to get as many aircraft as possible for ground support. So the Stuka went into mass production, as did the medium bombers.


Looking at German sucess in ground-air co-ordination during the Polish and French campaigns, I wonder if they actually didn't make the right choice afterall. The RAF and USAAF stratgic bombers consumed a MASSIVE amount of resources, something that may well of been beyond Germany's reach to sustain.

To me, it seems that the strategic bomber wouldn't of helped Germany that much. Even on the industrial scale of the USA and RAF, unescorted strategic bombing was something of a failure. It took MASS and concentration to use strategic bombing properly. Even then, without a fighter with sufficient escort range, any German 4 engine bombers may of just been thrown away to RAF or VVs interceptors.

mynameisroland
04-21-2006, 08:40 AM
The Do 19 was a large aircraft but I dont think it would have been excessively expensive. It used traditional construction methods, unpopular engines and a manufacturer whos production capacity was not even remotely maxed out.

As for prestige and numbers I see your point but the prestige attached to possessing the worlds first true strategic bomber force would have had immense value and one that The Fat One would have been stupid to overlook. Had Dornier stopped concentrating on the rather obsolete Do 17 series they could have devoted time and resources to the Do 19. The Luftwaffe was a tactical force but Wever had the foresight to see that in conjunction to Blitzkrieg tactics a Strategic force would balance and complement the Luftwaffe.

The presence of a capable fleet of heavies would have begged for the redistribuition of RAF fighters and would have caused the 8 x machine gun armed RAF fighters major headaches. 4 engined heavies would have been extremely difficult to bring down with only rifle calibre guns. If used on targets such as London where the Bf 109 could and did escort bombers to and fro the Do 19 would have had a lesser casualty rate than any of the German medium bombers used and would have carried more bombs to boot.

This is 1940 we are talking about and the RAF were not equipped to shoot down formations of 4 engined bombers. When the USAAF tried their luck against the Luftwaffe the Germans had single engined and twin engined fighters in service that were armed with cannons. The RAF did not have this luxury yet only the Beaufighter comes close and that was employed as a night fighter.

The Soviets had no counter to heavy bombers either. I do not doubt that one could have been developed but for a critical period they would have no answer. I-16's and Migs would have been totally inadequate. Bombing targets beyond the front line would cause the VVS to commit fighters and AAA resources to parts of their interior at the expense of their frontline strength.

I am not saying this would have caused Germany to win the war, I do think it would have caused the RAf and the VVS in particular major problems.

ImpStarDuece
04-21-2006, 09:08 AM
Look at it from a LuftWaffe generals perspective:

You can have 10 Gruppen of strategic bombers, 20 Gruppen of mediums and 15 Gruppen of stukas on one hand. The other option is that you can have 40 Gruppen of medium bombers and 20 of stukas for the same price.

At the present time, your main medium bombers have sufficient range to hit any target in continental Europe (call it France, Poland, the Low Countries, the Balkans, and European Russia, and the vast majority of strategic targets in England as well.

Your main doctrine is based around 3 pillars:
1. Destruction of enemy air assets.
2. Direct support of the army in combat operations.
3. Indirect support of the armed forces through interdiction of supply/communication lines.

Given this, do you choose more medium bombers or smaller numbers of heavies? Would you rather have 200-300 He-111s and Ju-88s hitting London, or 100-150 Do-19s and Ju-89s?

Germany planned for a short war. It didn't consider the need to strike tractor plants in the Urals, or fighter trainig bases in Northern Wales. The notion of the blitzkried precluded the accquisition of a strategic bombing force, at least in the mass required to be effective.

Long range bombing is not something that the European powers really considered vital to air-warfare, or thier war efforts in general, in the 1930s. Russia, Italy, Germany and France all made fairly half hearted stabs at strategic bomber forces. Europe is small and your enemies are close at hand. Sea-powers like Japan, the USA and, to a lesser extent, Britain, with long coastlines, extended sea routes and overseas colonies, needed more range and ended up developing their 4 engined forces (or in Japans case, very long range twin engined forces).

mynameisroland
04-21-2006, 09:29 AM
That the Do 19 was know in Luftwaffe circle as the Ural bomber and that Hitler plainly states in his 'manifesto' Mein Kampf that Russia was the main enemy he intended to sort out. The requirement for a strategic bomber was there it was paid attention too and that it failed to materialise was the sole result of the death of Wever in an air accident.

The Luiftwaffe in the 1930's was all about egos and Wever was a powerful man who had qualities of foresight and charisma that other lacked. The 1930's was also the prime period where all of the major European countries held the maxim ' The bomber will always get through'. The RAF fighters were anti bomber interceptors not anti Bf 109 fighters. The Do 19 was a bomber and it adhered to the bomber minded strategies of the period. Stating that only the US understood the true potential of Strategic bombing is the fashionable thing to do but that ignores the fact that most European countries had thought about the concept and had actually tried to implement it also. Britain for embraced the bomber fully and had 4 engined bombers like the Stirling and Halifax in service in numbers earlier than the US did. The fact that the Luftwaffe was filled with medium bombers is because of Wevers premature death, the fact that the war began several years early and the fact that the Luftwaffe was filled with aircraft disguised initailly as airliners ie the Do 17 and He 111.

The only way the Do 19 becomes feasible is if you imagine its benefactor Wever surviving long enough for the establishment of some Ural bombers Gruppen. It is a slim margin and one that makes perfect technical sense considering the aircraft flew and Hitler would have certainly saw a need for such an aircraft come BoB time and if it was not feasible to attack Britain in numbers with the Do 19 then Russia would become the prime and original target of the aircraft.

I also dont understand your argument that only the US and Japan understood the requirements of range. Britain was the worlds first Sea power and had the most far flung bases. That ist carrier aircraft did not possess great range was not down to a lack of appreciation but based on the fact that the Fleet Air Arm did not gain control over its own aircraft specifications until way too late and that the RN was going to be dealing with large land based airforces in waters like the Med and the North Sea. The US and Japan faced no similar threat and their aircraft and their carriers consequently had different qualities and requirements.

Back on topic the requirement for range was there. Thats why the requirements of the design for a long range bomber were given to German manufacturers. They didnt make the Do 19 or Ju 89 as private ventures. Bombing targets deep within the Soviet Union was a requirement for the Germans maybe not for the French or the Italians or the Brits. Wevers death and the involvement in the Spanish civil war distracted the RLM and the need for the Ural bomber died with Wever.

badhat17
04-21-2006, 10:35 AM
It doesn't seem anything special to me looking at the performance stats, is that range correct? Compare it with a Wellington and it looks incredibly average.

luftluuver
04-21-2006, 10:52 AM
http://www.lietadla.com/lietadla/nemecke/do-19/do-19_vyk.jpg

photos, http://www.lietadla.com/lietadla/nemecke/do-19.htm

ImpStarDuece
04-21-2006, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
That the Do 19 was know in Luftwaffe circle as the Ural bomber and that Hitler plainly states in his 'manifesto' Mein Kampf that Russia was the main enemy he intended to sort out. The requirement for a strategic bomber was there it was paid attention too and that it failed to materialise was the sole result of the death of Wever in an air accident.

But the vast majority of production in the Urals was moved there after the German invasion of Russia, not before it. The Do-19 'Urals bomber' was designed to tote a 1500 kg bombload about 1500 km, in order to destroy Russian production in that area on the eve of an outbreak of war. This was an unrealistic ambition for the mid 1930s. It took until the middle years of the 1940s for the strategic bomber to become properly effective, with a combination of heavy firpower, heavy bombload and long-range escort.

To create a strategic bomber force that is capable of effectively hitting targets in the Ural basin, you need to divert a huge amount of LuftWaffe resources. A 4 engine bomber like a Halifax or B-17 cost roughly 3 times that of a 2 engine bomber like a B-25 or a Wellington. As weight increases, so does cost, but exponentially. So to get 200-300 'Urals bombers', you would need to sacrifice 600-900 twin engined bombers. I wonder if the LuftWaffe was really committed enough to the concept to make that trade-off?


The Luiftwaffe in the 1930's was all about egos and Wever was a powerful man who had qualities of foresight and charisma that other lacked. The 1930's was also the prime period where all of the major European countries held the maxim ' The bomber will always get through'. The RAF fighters were anti bomber interceptors not anti Bf 109 fighters. The Do 19 was a bomber and it adhered to the bomber minded strategies of the period.

It may well of adhered in geeral theory but probably not in the particular case of Germany. There was always a very strong push for tactical aircraft in the Luftwaffe, even when Wever was alive. The was extened to silly proportions, right up to the point where the LuftWaffes eventual choice of a 4 engined bomber, the He-177 'Grief' was supposed to be capable of divebombing.


Stating that only the US understood the true potential of Strategic bombing is the fashionable thing to do but that ignores the fact that most European countries had thought about the concept and had actually tried to implement it also. Britain for embraced the bomber fully and had 4 engined bombers like the Stirling and Halifax in service in numbers earlier than the US did.

Most European nations concentrated on mediums, and Britain was no exception. She began the war with no 4 engined bombers in service, and didn't start bombing with a heavy bomber until 1941.

B-17s were operational well before the Stirling and Halifax. The B-17B entered regular squadron service in July 1939. The Sterling entered service in early September, 1940 and began combat operations in February 1941. The Halifax was delivered even later: service began in November 1940 and the first operational sorties were recorded in March, 1941.

The B-17 suffered from a torturously long development compared to the British heavies, a product of Army-navy in figthing. It was designed in 1934 and first flew in 1935, but took 4 years to get into service from there. It could of (and should of) been operation around 12-18 months earlier. The Sterling was desingned in 1938, the prototype flew in 1939 and was in service by 1940. The same is true of the Halifax, its gestation from design to service was less than half that of the B-17, even though it was slightly larger and 10% heavier.



The fact that the Luftwaffe was filled with medium bombers is because of Wevers premature death, the fact that the war began several years early and the fact that the Luftwaffe was filled with aircraft disguised initailly as airliners ie the Do 17 and He 111.

...

I also dont understand your argument that only the US and Japan understood the requirements of range. Britain was the worlds first Sea power and had the most far flung bases. That ist carrier aircraft did not possess great range was not down to a lack of appreciation but based on the fact that the Fleet Air Arm did not gain control over its own aircraft specifications until way too late and that the RN was going to be dealing with large land based airforces in waters like the Med and the North Sea. The US and Japan faced no similar threat and their aircraft and their carriers consequently had different qualities and requirements.

My argument was that "Sea-powers like Japan, the USA and, to a lesser extent, Britain, with long coastlines, extended sea routes and overseas colonies, needed more range and ended up developing their 4 engined forces (or in Japans case, very long range twin engined forces)."

The Continental powers (Italy, Germany, France, Russia, Poland) generally focused on short range tactical aircraft, long range being the exception, not the rule. The sea-powers (Japan, America) generally concentrated on longer ranged aircraft as a function of their need to project power over long distances. Britain was caught in the middle, an island nation close to continental Europe, reliant on seapower. So she designed short range tactical fighters for home defence in Europe and long range bombers to protect her interests elsewhere.

The British didn't develop a strategic bomber until well after he Americans, and their twins never had the range of the Japanese land based bombers.


Back on topic the requirement for range was there. Thats why the requirements of the design for a long range bomber were given to German manufacturers. They didnt make the Do 19 or Ju 89 as private ventures. Bombing targets deep within the Soviet Union was a requirement for the Germans maybe not for the French or the Italians or the Brits. Wevers death and the involvement in the Spanish civil war distracted the RLM and the need for the Ural bomber died with Wever.

I'd argue that the requirement for a heavy bomber force didn't die with Wever, but the desire for one did.

The LuftWaffe knew that a war was coming. Milch knew it, Udet knew it and Georing and Kesselring were helping to plan it. A long range striking force at the expense of tactical bombers simply didn't fit in with their notions of a European airwar.

I can see an effective case for a small dedicated long range bomber force, say 2-3 Gruppe size. As patrol, maratime and night bombers they could of been highly effective, particularly over the Atlantic.

Treetop64
04-21-2006, 05:15 PM
The He177, and the proposed FW-300, were Germany's best chances of possesing an effective long-range bomber force.

Of course, most of us know of the thermal problems with the 177, and the 300 never even came to fruition. It's too bad for Germany that her military leadership didn't have the forsight to develop a production and employment strategy for these, and similar types, until it was too late.

Sordid_Sinister
04-21-2006, 06:49 PM
Long-range strategic bomber:
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html

Treetop64
04-21-2006, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Sordid_Sinister:
Long-range strategic bomber:
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html

As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating..."

Looks like a weird mix of a He-111, B-24, and a B-29.

Sergio_101
04-22-2006, 10:56 AM
Looks like a Sterling......
I'll bet it would have been as "successful"....

But there is logic in making a plane
look like a "stick plane".

If you don't get to creative it will fly well
and be stable.

Just like a Sterling, it's butt ugly.

Sergio

airdale1960
04-22-2006, 11:10 AM
Looks like a target for P-47s.

mynameisroland
04-23-2006, 12:28 PM
For people who looked at the stats and compared a 1936 aircraft with a B17 G or a B29 more fool you. These are stats for the initial version not one that could have feasibly been in service by 1940/41. As a maritime bomber it would have cause headaches for RN convoys as one or two Cat launched Hurricanes or Fulmars from an escort carrier woulnt do much to scare a rotte of Do 19s off.

The Stirling wasnt a bad aircraft, its bomb load to range was more impressive than the B17 had to offer in 1941 and as such had it been given a larger wing like Sunderland had origionally specified it would have done even better. As it was Britain had two bombers superior to the B17 in the Halifax and Lancaster.

The Do 19 was not an aircraft that used expensive components, engines, maqnufacturing techniques or extra scarce raw materials. If Britain could produce heavies in the thousands a country with the industrial potential of Germany was also capable. Just because they didnt didnt mean they couldnt have. The requirement for aircraft like the He 177 and also the Ju 88 to be able to dive bomb stems from idiots in positions of authority ignoring technical advice and instead imposing their own mad cap ideas.

What this thread was meant to stir up was a comparison of 1930's heavy bombers and maybe tracing the possible development of the Do 19 had it not been still born. That the thread has become a hypothetical discussion about why it did not enter service although interesting is pretty pointless. We know it wasnt used it is a what if thread not a why not.

mynameisroland
04-23-2006, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by airdale1960:
Looks like a target for P-47s.

Wow time travelling P47's mind you 196mph sitting deucks are about the most P47's can handle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ploughman
04-23-2006, 01:43 PM
Best potential for a mid 30s 4 engine bomber would have been to give design teams, manufacturers, air force planners, ground crew, air crew etc., lots of experience so when they built the next generation of planes they got everything they got wrong the time before right. Looking at it it just looks Whitley instead of Lancaster if you know what I mean. But as you say, Luft 'Ural' bombers never really made it on to the top table.

Oddly enough, perhaps the fall of France and the ability of German 'tactical' bombers to reach strategic targets in the UK also helped nullify any requirement for a long range strategic bombing capability.

There's so much about German strategic thinking during World War Two that's just barmy, no heavy bombers (really) but V2s out the yanker!?!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Sergio_101
04-23-2006, 03:56 PM
Roland, pull your head out.
The Sterling was a colossal flop.
It had nothing going for it.

B-17 was not a super bomber.
But for a 1935 design it was a world beater.
And, keep in mind, the B-17 could
carry over 17,000 lbs of bombs.
It never did because it's day light
long range role required a lot of fuel and
defensive armrament.

Roland, want to argue super bombers?
The Lancaster and Halifax were dwarfed by
the B-29. And when the B-29 was converted
to the night bombing role it was able to
carry 20,000 lbs of bombs from Guam to Tokyo.

The Brits buit some fine bombers.

Germany fell face first in it's mashed potatos
when it came to long range bombers.

Also, one more point Roland.
The reason for the German insistance on dive bombing
was more for economic reasons than anything.
They did not have the resources to carpet
bomb and get a 5% effectivness.
Dive bombing is far more accurate.

Making a big plane like a He-177 a dive bomber
was a bit silly I agree.

Sergio

ImpStarDuece
04-23-2006, 04:26 PM
The Sterling was hardly a 'flop' and saw heavy operational usage for around 2-3 years. The Sterling flew bomber ops from February 1941 until June 1944, minelaying ops until Setember 1944 and electronic warfare and spoofing raids until the end of the war

Its just that there were aircraft in development at the time of it's deployment better suited to Bomber Command requirements and the specifications it was written to hampered its performance more than the actual design itself did.

The main drawbacks for the Sterling were smallish bomb bays and a short wingspan with a thick profile, both of which were imposed on it by the Air Ministry, not by its designers.

The bomb bays couldnt carry anything larger than a 2000lbs weapon. The restriction on the wing length meant that service ceiling was reduced to around 17,000 feet, and the thickish wing profile cut cruise speed down to about 200 mph.


At short ranges the Sterling was cleared to lift a massive 25,500 lbs of bombs internally and on special wing racks. On bombing operations it dropped an average of over 5,600 lbs per sortie and its loss rate was just under 4%. Pilots reportedly found it much better than the Halifax to fly, and commented on its very crisp handling and excellent manouverability. Empty Sterlings were known to out manouver German night fighters. In 1942 one example evaded attacks by 4 night fighers and managed to shot down 3 of its attackers in return.

I_KG100_Prien
04-23-2006, 05:09 PM
The German High command and it's lack of foresight into the benefit of strategic bombing will forever be one of it's glaring lapses in tactical judgement. What is the benefit of destroying 10 enemy planes on the ground when 15 more are rolling off of the assembly line right behind them? Not to mention refineries producing fuel/lube oils to power those 15 planes?

Whereas the RAF and USAAF were not only destroying the 10 planes on the ground, they were also destroying the factories that produced the replacements for those plane, and the support facilities needed to provide the means to operate them.

Take a look at the major differences between the Sherman and Tiger tanks.. One was a complex beast of war that took time to build and had a heavy support requirement in it's operation. Germany's industry was hard pressed to produce and support sufficient numbers for it to do any good, because of the strategic bombing that was destroying such means.

The Sherman on the otherhand was a simple, mass produced machine that had better endurance and was less reliant on support. Add that to the fact that it's production/support was unhampered because the facilities were safe and sound across the Atlantic and always able to run at 100% capacity. (You can also apply this same analogy to German A/C against US/UK/USSR aircraft)

It's spilled milk, and 60+ years later we have the luxury of hindsight.

WarWolfe_1
04-23-2006, 05:11 PM
The Stirling wasnt a bad aircraft, its bomb load to range was more impressive than the B17 had to offer in 1941 and as such had it been given a larger wing like Sunderland had origionally specified it would have done even better. As it was Britain had two bombers superior to the B17 in the Halifax and Lancaster.

A shame everyone seems to forget the B-24 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Would the Lanc and Halifax have been as sucsessful in the daylight role? Since this is a "what if" thread.

ImpStarDuece
04-23-2006, 05:43 PM
I think it all depends on whether they had a decent escort or not.

The Halifax and Lancaster could carry far heavier bombloads than their US counterparts. 10-12,000 lbs to Berlin instead of the 4-6,000 lbs. However, the tradoff was ceiling and defensive firepower.

With a sufficient escort the Lanc and Halibag wouldn't of had to worry about defending themselves and their lighter defensive armament wouldn't of proved such a handicap. They could come in at 20,000 feet and drop with very similar accuracy to the USAAF heavies.

However, in an unescorted, or even a lightly escorted, situation, the Halifax and Lancaster lack the defensive firepower and difficult to reach altitude of the B-17 and B-24. In this situation, the US bombers are superior as they are more difficult and costly to attack.

As an aside, the British 4 engine bombers were suprisingly nimble for such large aircraft. This was an advantage against lone night fighters, where a sharp roll or bank turn could throw off a pursure long enough for the bomber to escape contact. In a massed formation daylight raid, this manouverability is rendered essentailly useless and it deprives the British heavies of one of their better assests.

Sergio_101
04-23-2006, 05:44 PM
Yes, I do believe the lanc and Halifax would have
been just fine in a daylight role with a heavy
escort.
They did in fact get used that way. They worked
just fine as long
as there was adequate escort.
To attempt the long unescorted daylight suicide runs
that the USAAC did would have required much
heavier armamant. That would have limited
bomb load and range to a similar, perhaps a
bit higher, load as a B-24 or B-17.

B-17s and B-24s were used at night as well.
They had one big advantage, their turbo chargers
acted as VERY effective flame dampeners.

It would have been interesting to see Lancasters
used in the final assult on Japan.
Their bomb load to range factor would have
made them a whole lot less effective than
over Europe. Perhaps they could have been
flown off of Okinawa or Iwojima.

Another interesting "What Iff"

Sergio

LEXX_Luthor
04-23-2006, 05:53 PM
roland::
The Soviets would not have relished having to intercept 4 engined heavies flying at 20,000ft plus in their Mig 3s!
Taran

The historical Relish shown by VVS pilots in successfully ramming, with intent of pilot survival, German twin engine bombers would be multiplied a thousand times given a Do-19 offensive deep against the Urals.

Also, other than Taran, the MiG's best weapon here would be the RS-82 rockets which would have taken an expensive toll against the very large bombers.

However, Hitler's idea was to advance the German Army to the Volga far beyond Moscow, and it remains to be really proven if the Soviets could still mass produce in the Urals enough war fighting material, including defensive MiGs, to prevent a rather small (compared to later USAAF/RAF) conventional strategic bombing campaign from keeping the remaining Soviets out of the war. This is not proven one way or the other, but can only be .... simulated in a really cool dynamic campaign with Flyable Do-219. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif -- The second most ultimate dynamic campaign OF ALL TIME (second only to SAC-vs-PVO in the 1950s and early 1960s, a true "LeMay" sim).

Where Do-19 And Beyond would have made a difference is over the Atlantic. Visualize the small number of weak Fw-200s replaced by larger numbers of much improved D-219s or something like that.

As posted last page, Germany did not have the manufacturing resources to make conventional strategic bombing work against the Soviet Union. Where the Do-19 (and beyond) could have played a war winning role in the East is through Nerve Gas attacks on relocated Soviet production centers. These could possibly have severe enough effects that even large losses against MiG-3 Taran or rocket attacks would have shut down the Soviets.

...or did they have the resources? As we all know, Germany kept a limited "peacetime" war production at least until what, 1942/1943? -- when they started to lose? It still stuns me that during Battle of Britain, England made more Spits and Hurris than Germany made -109s (and I assume -110s). Perhaps if Germany fully prepared for a long war, they would have had the resources for a large conventional strategic bombing campaign. Tiny England certainly made a huge strategic bomber force, although its possible that England sacrificed alot of tactical air power to do so -- just thought of this, and so I'm probably making it up.

Takata_
04-23-2006, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
B-17 was not a super bomber.
But for a 1935 design it was a world beater.
And, keep in mind, the B-17 could
carry over 17,000 lbs of bombs.
It never did because it's day light
long range role required a lot of fuel and
defensive armrament.

S~
I don't think the B-17 early design from 1935 could carry such a payload (17.000 lbs). In 1936, a contemporary challenger - that nobody noticed - was flying... in the French Air Force!
Ok, it was not the most sexy aircraft ever designed, however, it was a good performer at this time:

French bombers were consistently and technically excellent. The Lioré et Olivier 20 of 1924 was the fastest medium bomber in the world for three years, and it gave birth to a half -dozen derivative designs. The Potez 542 of 1934 was the fastest bomber in Europe until 1936. In 1935, the Amiot 143, which equipped eighteen squadrons, carried a two-ton bomb load at 190 mph at 25,920 feet. Its German contemporary, the Dornier Do 23G, carried half the bomb load thirty miles per hour slower at 13,780 feet. During the following year, the Bloch 210, with a service ceiling of 32,480 feet, began to equip what would ultimately be twenty-four squadrons. No foreign bomber built before 1939 reached 30,000 feet.

The Farman 222 of 1936 was the. first modern four-engine heavy bomber. Production models reached operational units at the same time that the service test examples (Y1B-17) of the Boeing Flying Fortress were delivered and two years ahead of the production version(B-17B). Typical performance envelopes--5510 pounds of bombs, 1240 miles, at 174 mph for the Farman, versus 2400 pounds of bombs, 1500 miles, at 238 mph for the YIB-17--showed the designs to be technically comparable, with the French emphasizing loadcarrying and the Americans emphasizing speed. Design evolution of the two types tended to increase the speed of the Farman derivatives (to 239 mph for the model 223.4 of 1939) and the load-carrying capacity of the Boeing (to 4000 pounds of bombs, 1850 miles at 211 mph for the B-17G of 1943). Neither design was capable of long-range daylight bombing operations in its 1940 form. The Farman was used exclusively for night raids.

The Lioré et Olivier 451, at 307 mph, and the Amiot 354, at 298 mph, were the fastest medium bombers during the opening phases of World War II, outpacing the 1940 operational versions of the German Schnellbomber types--the Dornier Do 17K (255 mph), Heinkel He 111E (261 mph), and Junkers Ju 88A (292 mph). The Bloch 174 reconnaissance bomber of 1940 was, in operational configuration, the fastest multiengine aircraft in the world (329 mph).

Author:
Lieutenant Colonel Faris R. Kirkland, USA (Ret) (A.B., Princeton University; M.A., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania), is a lecturer in history at Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania. Formerly he was director of the Social Science Research Group at the University City Science Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Full article:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aurevi...ep-oct/kirkland.html (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/kirkland.html)

luftluuver
04-23-2006, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Yes, I do believe the lanc and Halifax would have
been just fine in a daylight role with a heavy
escort.
They did in fact get used that way. They worked
just fine as long
as there was adequate escort.
To attempt the long unescorted daylight suicide runs
that the USAAC did would have required much
heavier armamant. That would have limited
bomb load and range to a similar, perhaps a
bit higher, load as a B-24 or B-17.

Sergio The American heavies were mauled when not escorted. In fact it was so bad, the Americans considered switching to night bombing after the disasterous S and R mission.

The Brit heavies never got the 2s/2s engines that the Brit fighters did. That would have increased their operational altitude.

Replacing some of the Lancs bomb load with an aux tank gave it a range of 2680 miles with 7000lb of bombs. Still further than the B-17.

LEXX_Luthor
04-23-2006, 08:50 PM
Best Do-219 escort -- 109Z http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif At least according to the range given in our Aircraft Viewer.

This would make very interesting campaign.

Sergio_101
04-24-2006, 03:16 AM
various sources say a max bombload of 17,900 lbs
for the B-17E, F and G.

I have never seen any evidence that this bomb load
was ever carried in combat.

USAF Museum pegs the normal combat load
for long range at 6,000lbs. The trade off
is fuel to bombs.

Yes, the daylight bombing campaign was a disaster
until escorts could be provided.
But it did achieve one thing, an unexpected side effect.
It chewed up the German day and night fighters.
Argue about the exaggerated claims by the gunners.
The bombers delt the Germans heavy fighter losses.

Sergio

mynameisroland
04-24-2006, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Stirling wasnt a bad aircraft, its bomb load to range was more impressive than the B17 had to offer in 1941 and as such had it been given a larger wing like Sunderland had origionally specified it would have done even better. As it was Britain had two bombers superior to the B17 in the Halifax and Lancaster.

A shame everyone seems to forget the B-24 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Would the Lanc and Halifax have been as sucsessful in the daylight role? Since this is a "what if" thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Start your own thread if you want to discuss B24

mynameisroland
04-24-2006, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Roland, pull your head out.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sergio_101:

Sorry Serg but Im still blinded by the s hite you were talking in that Reno post you made a while back

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sergio_101:
The Sterling was a colossal flop.
It had nothing going for it.

B-17 was not a super bomber.
But for a 1935 design it was a world beater.
And, keep in mind, the B-17 could
carry over 17,000 lbs of bombs.
It never did because it's day light
long range role required a lot of fuel and
defensive armrament.

Roland, want to argue super bombers?
The Lancaster and Halifax were dwarfed by
the B-29. And when the B-29 was converted
to the night bombing role it was able to
carry 20,000 lbs of bombs from Guam to Tokyo.

The Brits buit some fine bombers.

Germany fell face first in it's mashed potatos
when it came to long range bombers.

Also, one more point Roland.
The reason for the German insistance on dive bombing
was more for economic reasons than anything.
They did not have the resources to carpet
bomb and get a 5% effectivness.
Dive bombing is far more accurate.

Making a big plane like a He-177 a dive bomber
was a bit silly I agree.

Sergio

The only one talking SUPER bombers is you why not bog off and start your own thread where you can whine about why B 17s in game dont have waxed wings and uber duper Allisons with 5000 hp like the Mustangs do at Reno.

You dont have a clue about anything the Short Brothers made or infact anything about the D0 19. You are trying to draw invalid comparisons between a 1936 spec aircraft and late war bombers.

mynameisroland
04-24-2006, 04:13 AM
I dont think air to air rockets would be a very good counter to heavy bombers. The Russians were equipped with rockets since the start of the war yet it did not greatly impede any other Luftwaffe bomber type from flying. It wasnt until late 44 that the Germans came up with anything that was half useful and even then guns were still the main killing weapons.

Taran attacks are fine but I-16s would have a tough time reaching 20,000ft plus and the Mig3 was a flying can of lighter fluid.

ImpStarDuece
04-24-2006, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
various sources say a max bombload of 17,900 lbs
for the B-17E, F and G.

I have never seen any evidence that this bomb load
was ever carried in combat.

USAF Museum pegs the normal combat load
for long range at 6,000lbs. The trade off
is fuel to bombs.

Yes, the daylight bombing campaign was a disaster
until escorts could be provided.
But it did achieve one thing, an unexpected side effect.
It chewed up the German day and night fighters.
Argue about the exaggerated claims by the gunners.
The bombers delt the Germans heavy fighter losses.

Sergio

Little known fact is that the 8th AF in Europe gave ace status to more bomber gunners than they did to fighter pilots.

The 8th AF officially recognised 305 gunner aces and 261 fighter aces.

The USAAF Statistical digest lists enemy Aircraft destroyed by Heavy Bombers as 6,098 in the ETO alone. Current estimates (because thats all they can ever really be due to the incomplete nature of LuftWaffe records) suggest that this figure is inflated somewhere in the order of 6-10 times.

Most gunner claims were allowed to stand during the war, mostly for morale purposes, even when the intelligence picture discerened from wireless and ENIGMA brodacasts suggested that gunners were around 1/10th as effective as they claimed. There was no independent verification process: no guncam, no ground witnesses and no secondary confirmations.

luftluuver
04-24-2006, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
various sources say a max bombload of 17,900 lbs
for the B-17E, F and G.

I have never seen any evidence that this bomb load was ever carried in combat.
Sergio The bombload of the 17E was 4200lb. The 17E had no external bomb racks which is the only way 17,900lb could be carried.

The typical mission the load for the 17F was 4000-5000 pounds over operating ranges of 1400 miles. Only the B-17F-30-BO, B-17F-20-DL, and B-17F-20-VE had external bomb racks.

Range of the 17G was 2000mi at 10,000ft at 182mph with 6000lb of bombs.


And when the B-29 was converted
to the night bombing role it was able to
carry 20,000 lbs of bombs from Guam to Tokyo. Saipan, Tinian, and Guam are ~1600mi from Yokyo, a range which the B-29s could just about manage. A medium altitude mission could carry 12,000lb for this radius of action. At high level, the bombload was reduced to 5000lb.

Kurfurst__
04-24-2006, 07:06 AM
Few things... heavy bombers are not neccesarily better than mediums for all operational needs. The heavy loading enables them to strike deep and hard into enemy territory, with considerable bombload.

However when the striking distance is only a few hundred kilometers (such was in the case of all of Germany's potential enemies in 1930s, and never forget FRANCE was the main adversary to be expected), mediums could carry large enough bombloads for typical operational-level targets - it's a pretty big myth about the LW being a tactical airforce, when in fact the only true tactical bomber they possessed was the Stuka, in small numbers of a few hundred compared to the WW2 myth of them swarming the skies. The true fashion was their medium bombers severing the arteries between the factories and the frontline, on the operational level. And in this role, consider that a railway station won't be better demolished above a given tonnage dropped on it, and it also produces immidiate effect that can be exploited. If two mediums could be produced for every heavy, it means two targets can be struck instead of one, and mass raids are always much harder to intercept.

Most of the strategic bombing brough very slow results, and as far as severing the production in did not succeed, expect when striking the fuel industry on an unprecedented scale after years of buildup... something totally unsuited for Germany, surrounded by indivually lesser foes, destined to wage fast wars against them seperately before they can form a coalition - one could hardly imagine a war on France won by the Germans with 5 years of strategical bombing of the French industry instead of a 5 weeks campaign.. And, if one looks on the effect of Allied strategic bombing, it's effect could be greatly decreased by dispersion. The German industrial was most hurt when the Reichbahn and the infrasturcture was reduced to rubble, directly bombing factories, or just trying to level whole cities didn't have 1/10th the effect. Naturally, the Allies did not have much of a choice after the fell of France, if they wanted to wage war on the Germans. Invasion of continental Europe on the land was a big no-no for the British alone, and also for the Americans who had to build an army first from scratch.

Against Russia, probably the same thing was true. Bombing the Urals would have little immidiate effect on the front, but the primitive infrastructure of Russia meant that knocking out the single railroad in 200 km radius equalled the effect of completely demolishing a factory, the war material would not get to the front.

mynameisroland
04-24-2006, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Few things... heavy bombers are not neccesarily better than mediums for all operational needs. The heavy loading enables them to strike deep and hard into enemy territory, with considerable bombload.

However when the striking distance is only a few hundred kilometers (such was in the case of all of Germany's potential enemies in 1930s, and never forget FRANCE was the main adversary to be expected), mediums could carry large enough bombloads for typical operational-level targets - it's a pretty big myth about the LW being a tactical airforce, when in fact the only true tactical bomber they possessed was the Stuka, in small numbers of a few hundred compared to the WW2 myth of them swarming the skies. The true fashion was their medium bombers severing the arteries between the factories and the frontline, on the operational level. And in this role, consider that a railway station won't be better demolished above a given tonnage dropped on it, and it also produces immidiate effect that can be exploited. If two mediums could be produced for every heavy, it means two targets can be struck instead of one, and mass raids are always much harder to intercept.

Most of the strategic bombing brough very slow results, and as far as severing the production in did not succeed, expect when striking the fuel industry on an unprecedented scale after years of buildup... something totally unsuited for Germany, surrounded by indivually lesser foes, destined to wage fast wars against them seperately before they can form a coalition - one could hardly imagine a war on France won by the Germans with 5 years of strategical bombing of the French industry instead of a 5 weeks campaign.. And, if one looks on the effect of Allied strategic bombing, it's effect could be greatly decreased by dispersion. The German industrial was most hurt when the Reichbahn and the infrasturcture was reduced to rubble, directly bombing factories, or just trying to level whole cities didn't have 1/10th the effect. Naturally, the Allies did not have much of a choice after the fell of France, if they wanted to wage war on the Germans. Invasion of continental Europe on the land was a big no-no for the British alone, and also for the Americans who had to build an army first from scratch.

Against Russia, probably the same thing was true. Bombing the Urals would have little immidiate effect on the front, but the primitive infrastructure of Russia meant that knocking out the single railroad in 200 km radius equalled the effect of completely demolishing a factory, the war material would not get to the front.

Yeah knock out one rail road and Russia is out of the war. If only you had told the Luftwaffe that my destroying rail depots they would criple the Red Army. Unfortunately the Russians were not as incompetent as you suggest as they proved very speedy at repairing destroyed rail sections and railway bridges.

the Luftwaffe had special units of Ju 88 C heavy fighters devoted to killing trains and they were very successful at it too. Still didnt stem the tide in the same way knowcking out the Fuel industry would have.

Kurfurst__
04-24-2006, 07:24 AM
Yeah knock out one rail road and Russia is out of the war.

Just for the record, you are the one saying this, not me.

As for the infrastructure, if anybody studies the EF in a little more details sees that eventually all Soviet offensives stopped at the end of the supply line, and it was not until they were aduquately equipped with trucks that could make up for the infrastructure they were able to grab the initiative from the Germans.

Also I wonder what was the reason of the extremely poor supply of the troops at the gates of Moscow : perhaps Germany's industry broke down all the sudden, or was it just huges stocks of war material being stuck at rear supply depos awaiting the (lack of) transport capacity to get warm clothes, fuel, cold season lubricants and ammunition for the troops for example?

mynameisroland
04-24-2006, 07:50 AM
I understand the logistics of the Eastern front more than most people who post here on these forums. I would have expected that you would also know enough about the context of the Eastern front to see that your own statement was over simplifying the task of interdicting Soviet production of men and material.

The Luftwaffe even in its prime did not have enough resources to destroy the Red Army in combat or before it got to the front line. Destroying the infrastructure of the supply network was no easy task and one that was attempted. The medium bombers of the Luftwaffe carried this out as one of their main tasks. The lack of interuption to the constant stream of vehicles and supplies coming from the East was not stemmed by the Luftwaffe and arguing that it could have been by existing forces seems foolhardy as the Luftwaffe was actually very good at this type of warfare but still failed.

Strategic bombing had its place. Just because you feel it had no place in a Blitzkrieg scenario in central Europe does not mean it had no place in an all consuming war on the Eastern Front.

Sergio_101
04-24-2006, 04:05 PM
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_16.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher2/b17_16.html)

My error in lumping the B-17E in the lot.
I have information on the B-17E that varys
from 8,000 max to 12,000lbs. Normal was
the same as the F and G models, that is 4,000-6,000lbs.
One more error.
The max bomb load with externals for the B-17F
was 20,800lbs.
B-17G was 17,600lbs max with no mention of externals.

Normal bomb load depended on range as you might expect.
Typicaly with ideal weather the bomb load was 6,000lbs
and, as I stated before, I have never heard of
a B-17 used with more than the 9,600lb loadout.

But if it could be done, it probibly was.
This was a war after all.

Bombays in a B-17 remained un changed in size
for the B-17E through B-17G.
Bomb racks were adaptable and bomb bay fuel tanks
could be carried.

Not bad for a 1935 design.

Sergio

WarWolfe_1
04-24-2006, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Stirling wasnt a bad aircraft, its bomb load to range was more impressive than the B17 had to offer in 1941 and as such had it been given a larger wing like Sunderland had origionally specified it would have done even better. As it was Britain had two bombers superior to the B17 in the Halifax and Lancaster.

A shame everyone seems to forget the B-24 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Would the Lanc and Halifax have been as sucsessful in the daylight role? Since this is a "what if" thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Start your own thread if you want to discuss B24 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Sergio_101
04-24-2006, 04:50 PM
Truth is that the B-24 and it's many sub types
were an excellent weapon.
Long range, good cruise speed and good bomb load
at long range made it more effective as a
long range bomber, and as the PB4Y/PB4Y-2
an excellent long range naval patroll bomber.

If the B-24 had no equal in one arena it
was as a land based long range naval patrol bomber

Over Europe it was also very effective.
The only advantages the B-17 had was the
maximum bomb load and structural toughness.

B-24s were built for a massive bomb load
but range was more important and the bomb bay
was usualy full of fuel tank(s).

18,000+ B-24s and it's sub types were built.
I believe that's the most produced 4 engine
aircraft in history.
"Only" 12,700+ B-17s were built.

By the way, has anyone heard of the US navy
and USAAF using B-24s and B-17s as "fighters"
to intercept Japanese bombers and flying boats?
They in fact did just that!

Sergio

luftluuver
04-24-2006, 05:34 PM
Since you are using the Baugher site

B-17E

Maximum bomb load was:
26 100-pound bombs = 2600lb
16 300-pound bombs = 4800lb
12 500-pound bombs = 6000lb
8 1000-pound bombs = 8000lb
4 2000-pound bombs = 8000lb

So if the bombay did not change in size, how did the 17G carry an extra 10,000lb internally? Would say it would have to be external.

Please don't be like another poster here and leave out parts.

B-17F
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The maximum short-range bombload was 17,600 pounds. Under certain conditions, eight 1600-pound bombs could be carried internally and two 4000-pound bombs externally, raising the total load to 20,800 pounds. However, with such a load the effective range was quite small and all maneuvers were severely restricted.</span>

Sergio_101
04-24-2006, 05:53 PM
As I said, there is no mention of externals on the B-17G.

I am well aware that all B-17G's had the ability to
mount the external racks.

Since you are in attack mode, I will remind
you that there is no mention of externals.

Most bomb bays are and were configurable.
We could change the load out capability
in out B-52Ds. While different the B-17
could also be re-configured.

I sense a bit of jealousy that the Luftwaffe
never developed a 4 engined bomber nearly
as effective as the B-17.

Best 4 engined bomber in the Luftwaffe was
the 40 B-17s they had in service.
Yes, 40+ captured and re-built "Do-200s".....

Sergio

luftluuver
04-24-2006, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
As I said, there is no mention of externals on the B-17G.

I am well aware that all B-17G's had the ability to mount the external racks.

Since you are in attack mode, I will remind
you that there is no mention of externals.

Most bomb bays are and were configurable.
We could change the load out capability
in out B-52Ds. While different the B-17
could also be re-configured.

I sense a bit of jealousy that the Luftwaffe
never developed a 4 engined bomber nearly
as effective as the B-17.

Best 4 engined bomber in the Luftwaffe was
the 40 B-17s they had in service.
Yes, 40+ captured and re-built "Do-200s".....

Sergio Jealousy? Don't confuse with being realistic about capabilities.

So how did an extra 10,000lb get stuffed in the bomb bay? <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Common sense</span> says that there had to be external racks, for 8x1600 could barely fit.

MLudner
04-24-2006, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by airdale1960:
Looks like a target for P-47s.

Wow time travelling P47's mind you 196mph sitting deucks are about the most P47's can handle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting comment considering that the P-47 was one of - if not THE first - the first 400+ MPH fighters over the ETO and was the fastest prop fighter in any airforce at war's end (M & N variants; 1 MPH faster than the Ta-152). It's roll rate was bested only by the FW-190; out-dived only by jets, and while not the best turner it was still a good aircraft in that category as well

LEXX_Luthor
04-24-2006, 06:39 PM
Good points roland. Hitler in Directive-21 thought well enough of existing German bombers to order them to eventually attack the Urals once the German Army would reach the Volga.
The last surviving industrial area of Russia in the Urals can then, if necessary, be eliminated by the Luftwaffe.
:
:
In order that we may concentrate all our strength against the enemy Air Force and for the immediate support of land operations, the Russian armaments industry will not be attacked during the main operations. Such attacks will be made only after the conclusion of mobile warfare, and they will be concentrated first on the Urals area.

~ http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1084/hitler_directives/dir21.htm

That would make a very interesting Air War Simulation (sometimes called "dynamic campaign" for flight sim)

roland::
Taran attacks are fine but I-16s would have a tough time reaching 20,000ft plus and the Mig3 was a flying can of lighter fluid.
What does I-16 or lighter fluid have to do with Taran or rocket attacks in 1942? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Spitfires could easily reach that altitude. And Spitfires were used in Taran attacks against heavily escorted tactical air targets that needed to be destroyed at all costs -- I'm thinking of that Fw189 calling in artillery on Soviet troops that was rammed over the Kuban by a Spit that ran out of ammo because the Spits were themselves intercepted by -109s on their way to intercept the -189.

RS-82 rockets worked fairly well against air targets, and against much larger Do-19+ that would need to be destroyed at any cost would (or could perhaps) have worked even better.

All this "would" makes for good discussion of strategic warfare. Thanks!!

WarWolfe_1
04-24-2006, 06:47 PM
I sense a bit of jealousy that the Luftwaffe
never developed a 4 engined bomber nearly
as effective as the B-17.

Best 4 engined bomber in the Luftwaffe was
the 40 B-17s they had in service.
Yes, 40+ captured and re-built "Do-200s".....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif



LuftLuvers have been called out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Ratsack
04-24-2006, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by airdale1960:
Looks like a target for P-47s.

Wow time travelling P47's mind you 196mph sitting deucks are about the most P47's can handle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting comment considering that the P-47 was one of - if not THE first - the first 400+ MPH fighters over the ETO </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even close to being the first. Does the Fw 190 ring a bell? Or the Hawker Typhoon? What about the Spitfire MkIX? Didn€t the Bf 109 G-2 max out at about 410 mph as well?

Not to denigrate the P-47, but let€s not get carried away by claiming precedence for it.

Ratsack

LEXX_Luthor
04-24-2006, 07:38 PM
B17 romantic, naive looking. B24 utilitarian mass destruction, nothing pretty. The American WW2 experience ~ jds1978

ImpStarDuece
04-24-2006, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:

Interesting comment considering that the P-47 was one of - if not THE first - the first 400+ MPH fighters over the ETO and was the fastest prop fighter in any airforce at war's end (M & N variants; 1 MPH faster than the Ta-152). It's roll rate was bested only by the FW-190; out-dived only by jets, and while not the best turner it was still a good aircraft in that category as well

Fw-190A, Typhoon Ib, Spitfire IX, Bf-190G all hit 400mph + in ETO combat service 10-12 months before the first P-47 combat operations.

And the P-47s roll rate wasn't anything special, at least not according to the NACA data. Clipped wing and late model Spitfires, the Tempest V, P-63 and the P-40 could all handily out-roll the P-47 across a vide range of speeds.

EDIT: opps, I see Ratsack beat me too it.

Sergio_101
04-25-2006, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
So how did an extra 10,000lb get stuffed in the bomb bay? <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Common sense</span> says that there had to be external racks, for 8x1600 could barely fit.

Common sense says your grasping at straws.
I have several reference books here.
Funny thing they, and the USAF Museum
fail to agree.
Truth is that those B-17s all should carry
roughly the same max bomb load
internaly.
Like you I am tied to the printed reference books
and the better web sites.

Having been in, and flown in a B-17G the bomb bay
looks so small, but bombs are dense.
There are four sets of racks. As far as I know
and have read, usualy the front set was used
and the rear was used for fuel.

The US alone built over 33,000 4 engined bombers.
Got a tally for the Luftwaffe?

Sergio

Aaron_GT
04-25-2006, 03:24 AM
It's roll rate was bested only by the FW-190; out-dived only by jets,


And Tempest V.

ImpStarDuece
04-25-2006, 03:34 AM
4 engine bombers of the LuftWaffe:

Fw 200 Condor: 276

He 177 Grief: 908

Ju 290: 66


As the US built more 4 engined bombers than all the rest of the nations in WW2 put together, its a bit pointless really to get into a p*ssing contest about numbers. You may as well ask how many jet fighters and bombers the USA built in WW2?

For those interested the British built:

7377 Lancasters (some built in Canada)
6176 Halifaxes
2371 Stirlings
748 Sunderlands

The Soviet Union built:

82 Pe-8s

Italy built:

182 P.108s

France built:

53 F.222s

Japan built

217 H6Ks
175 H8Ks

mynameisroland
04-25-2006, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by airdale1960:
Looks like a target for P-47s.

Wow time travelling P47's mind you 196mph sitting deucks are about the most P47's can handle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting comment considering that the P-47 was one of - if not THE first - the first 400+ MPH fighters over the ETO and was the fastest prop fighter in any airforce at war's end (M & N variants; 1 MPH faster than the Ta-152). It's roll rate was bested only by the FW-190; out-dived only by jets, and while not the best turner it was still a good aircraft in that category as well </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well Those pesky Germans had the 400mph plus Fw 190 flying over the ETO before the USA even decided to join the party. It was one of the first AMERICAN built 400mph plus fighters along with the P38.

luftluuver
04-25-2006, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
So how did an extra 10,000lb get stuffed in the bomb bay? <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Common sense</span> says that there had to be external racks, for 8x1600 could barely fit.

Common sense says your grasping at straws.
I have several reference books here.
Funny thing they, and the USAF Museum
fail to agree.
Truth is that those B-17s all should carry
roughly the same max bomb load
internaly.
Like you I am tied to the printed reference books
and the better web sites.

Having been in, and flown in a B-17G the bomb bay
looks so small, but bombs are dense.
There are four sets of racks. As far as I know
and have read, usualy the front set was used
and the rear was used for fuel.

The US alone built over 33,000 4 engined bombers.
Got a tally for the Luftwaffe?

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What are you blithering on about? Crasping at straws? No just not dense. How stupid does one have to be to relize if only 8 1600lbers can be shoe horned in, then another 10,000lbs sure ain't going to fit in the bbay. The only place was external.

your words:
As I said, there is no mention of externals on the B-17G.

I would not go by what the USAF Museum, nor the NASM, have to say for I have noticed errors in their info.

Who cares how many 4 engine bombers the Germans built? If it helps you ego that 33,000 were built by the USA, good. But I will say the Mosquito should have replaced the American heavies in Europe.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The British heavies would be enough for any heavy lift requirements.

Ratsack
04-25-2006, 07:18 AM
The problem with this topic is that it assumes two things that are probably not true. The first assumption is that strategic bombers were a useful €" or even war winning - asset to have in World War Two. The second assumption is that, if strategic bombers were good for the U.S. and U.K., it therefore follows that possession of strategic bombers would have been good for the Nazi war effort.

In the first instance, a strong argument can be made that the resources poured out by the U.S. and U.K. in pursuit of their strategic bombing campaigns could have been applied far better elsewhere. I know this is heresy to many air power enthusiasts, but that€s just a function of who wrote the English-language histories of the WWII air campaigns (and the Strategic Bombing Survey in particular). If one examines the outcomes, the results of the bombing are ambiguous at best. We can get into a series of long and abstruse arguments about the effects on production, oil supply, and the attrition of the Jagdwaffe, but none of these arguments is all that solid. They€re certainly not solid enough to be assuming it as a truism, particularly when one considers that the modern USAF has formally abandoned strategic bombing as a doctrine.

Leaving aside the first assumption for a moment, let€s consider the second. Does it naturally follow that strategic bombing would be a useful tool for Nazi Germany? I would argue not. The 1920s theorists of strategic bombing grossly overestimated the amount of damage the heavy bomber would do. By the time the results of actual combat were in (1942, at the latest), it was clear that strategic bombing was a medium-term exercise at least. That is, it would not cause acute paralysis of the enemy in days, weeks or even months. Time frames for effective strategic bombing would have to be measured in years at least.

Germany, however, is practically a land-locked nation and her most likely enemies were all either near or immediate neighbors: France, Poland, USSR, Czechoslovakia. France and the USSR possessed the largest armies and air forces in the world, and the USSR had more tanks than all the other armies of the world combined. The Czechs were very well armed, and had an extremely well fortified frontier (before Munich) that would tie up large chunks of the German army simply to ensure they were kept defensive. In addition, in their recent history the Germans had been opposed by an encircling coalition that forced them to disperse their army. Any future war would therefore require the German army to be fast and flexible, or they would simply be overwhelmed by their more numerous enemies.

Under these circumstances, it would be incumbent upon Germany€s strategists to ensure in the first instance that Germany survived the first weeks of war. This meant the development of an air arm that could deliver the sort of flexible, heavy firepower to the battlefield that the army required. This necessarily meant a concentration on tactical and operational air power as the first priority.

However, this did not mean the German air force commanders were not interested in strategic bombing. On the contrary, they remained interested in it as late as 1944, until the Soviet Operation Bagration ripped German Army Group Center to pieces and permanently put all strategic targets beyond German reach. The problem for the Germans, and the reason they never pursued the €˜Ural Bomber€, was not the death of Wever, but rather the fact that urgent tactical and operational pressures meant that resources could never be spared to develop and deploy this kind of weapon. To do so would have meant the defeat of their armies in the field, and given that Germany is a land power, this would have meant the defeat of Germany, too. There would be no time for a strategic bombing campaign to bite (assuming it could, which is the separate argument I€ve alluded to above).

The German situation was simply that without survival in the short term, there was no long term.

Ratsack

mynameisroland
04-25-2006, 08:09 AM
Your argument takes the line of thought that Germany had no choice but to fight World War 2 when they did. That the war started in September 1939 was by Britain and France finally standing their ground not because Germay was running out of time or resources.

No poster or line of thought here suggests for one minute that Strategic bombing could or would have won the war for Germany. Please direct me to a post where you take that conclusion ? If it is from one of the posters who belive this is a p issing contest about whose 4 engined heavy is better than whose please ignore them.

The significance of Germany possessing a slightly more balanced Luftwaffe air arm is very hard to quantify. By just having a few Gruppes of a few hundred heavy bombers Germany would have posed the Russian and the British a whole host of different problems than they actually did. I do not think it would have won the war but the capability would have caused the Allies to redistribute their own defences accordingly to deal with a threat real or imagined.

Also, having a force of long range heavy bombers does not mean you are limited to a static bombing campaign of the type the RAF and USAAF waged against Germany. The war Germany fought was very fluid and there were dozens of viable targets at anyone time all of which would have been difficult to defend and potentially disaterous had they been targetted. For instance Britain was badly over stretched for most of the 1st half of the the war. A heavy bomber force based on the lineage of the Do 19 would have let Germany attack places like the Suez Canal, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Allied convoys in the Atlantic, Allied ships at Scapa Flow, Murmansk Convoys, then switch to intermittently bomb targets in London or other industrial sites. Any of the above would be major cause for concern for the UK government and would beg for a re allocation of fighters and a formation of an even larger AAA force.

Germany did have a real potential need for heavy bombers. You cannot dispute that even if 5-10% effective at disturbing production of weapons or fuel 5-10% could make the difference between the Wehrmacht being victorious or mauled in the field. Had the Soviets not had undisturbed production to replace ther massive losses the salient at Kursk would not have been as well perpared, Stalingrad would have been even more difficult to have rescued and the battle at the gates of Moscow in winter 1941 may have been more static in the Spring of 42 if Soviet replacement tanks and aircraft were not as forthcoming.

The worst mistake Germany made in my opinion was to leave the destruction of vastly more numerous opponents soley to their front line troops. Yes the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht performed amazing heroics and pulled off incredible victories but they could have been more successful and decisive if they didnt start of against as hopeless odds in the 1st place.

mynameisroland
04-25-2006, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Good points roland. Hitler in Directive-21 thought well enough of existing German bombers to order them to eventually attack the Urals once the German Army would reach the Volga. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The last surviving industrial area of Russia in the Urals can then, if necessary, be eliminated by the Luftwaffe.
:
:
In order that we may concentrate all our strength against the enemy Air Force and for the immediate support of land operations, the Russian armaments industry will not be attacked during the main operations. Such attacks will be made only after the conclusion of mobile warfare, and they will be concentrated first on the Urals area.

~ http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1084/hitler_directives/dir21.htm

That would make a very interesting Air War Simulation (sometimes called "dynamic campaign" for flight sim)

roland::
Taran attacks are fine but I-16s would have a tough time reaching 20,000ft plus and the Mig3 was a flying can of lighter fluid.
What does I-16 or lighter fluid have to do with Taran or rocket attacks in 1942? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Spitfires could easily reach that altitude. And Spitfires were used in Taran attacks against heavily escorted tactical air targets that needed to be destroyed at all costs -- I'm thinking of that Fw189 calling in artillery on Soviet troops that was rammed over the Kuban by a Spit that ran out of ammo because the Spits were themselves intercepted by -109s on their way to intercept the -189.

RS-82 rockets worked fairly well against air targets, and against much larger Do-19+ that would need to be destroyed at any cost would (or could perhaps) have worked even better.

All this "would" makes for good discussion of strategic warfare. Thanks!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good information about Taran Spitfires I had never heard anything about that !

The Soviets may have used the Pe2 fighter derivatives as bomber interceptors in the same way as the Germans used Bf 110s and Ju 88Cs. I would forsee the Luftwaffe fighters using drop tanks but only really fighting over the front line area and distracting Soviet fighters in the immediate vicinity. After that the Bombers would fly on 1000s of km in to enemy territory on their own. The Soviet Union was so vast it would be impossible for the short ranged VVS fighters to reach everywhere and with absolutely no radar detection predicting where a bomber raid was going could have proved very difficult.

One can only imagine the impact on the Soviets, they would no doubt counter such raids but at what expense to other areas of the front and war effort? If the US and Britain sent more high alt fighters like Spits and P47's this has an indirect effect on their own effort. Once the Russian resistance stiffens to unnacceptable levels change your target! One thing Germany was not short of was suitable targets.

Ratsack
04-25-2006, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Your argument takes the line of thought that Germany had no choice but to fight World War 2 when they did. That the war started in September 1939 was by Britain and France finally standing their ground not because Germay was running out of time or resources.

Not entirely, but you've got to start your what-if somewhere, otherwise we end up back at 1871! If we take the strategic outlook of Hitler as a given, we are stuck with a war starting by 1939-41. That assumption includes Hitler's mistaken assessment of British resolve in 1939.




Originally posted by mynameisroland:
No poster or line of thought here suggests for one minute that Strategic bombing could or would have won the war for Germany. Please direct me to a post where you take that conclusion ? If it is from one of the posters who belive this is a p issing contest about whose 4 engined heavy is better than whose please ignore them.

I have ingored the phuckwits. Be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The significance of Germany possessing a slightly more balanced Luftwaffe air arm is very hard to quantify.

This sentence demonstrates how air power discussions since WWII tend to assume the argument about 'strategic' bombing. You're suggesting or asserting that an airforce without heavy bombers is not 'balanced'. That's only the case if you accept one or more of the doctrines of strategic bombing. I don't. They're all flawed for one reason or another, and all have failed.

If we want to discuss long range, precision strikes, that's a different matter. But in that case, the Do-19 is an inappropriate tool (as is the B-17, for that matter).



Originally posted by mynameisroland:
....By just having a few Gruppes of a few hundred heavy bombers Germany would have posed the Russian and the British a whole host of different problems than they actually did. I do not think it would have won the war but the capability would have caused the Allies to redistribute their own defences accordingly to deal with a threat real or imagined.

I think this overestimates the likely effect of this kind of weapon. The actual damage inflicted would be relatively light with only a few Kampf Gruppen. The distortion of allied effort would be likely to be light also. To evaluate this argument, you have to weigh up the cost of the heavy Kampfgeschwadern against the effect - in losses and defensive effort - on the enemy. Just because it might have been done, doesn't mean it would have been worth it. Evidence the V2 rocket, for example!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Also, having a force of long range heavy bombers does not mean you are limited to a static bombing campaign of the type the RAF and USAAF waged against Germany. The war Germany fought was very fluid and there were dozens of viable targets at anyone time all of which would have been difficult to defend and potentially disaterous had they been targetted. For instance Britain was badly over stretched for most of the 1st half of the the war. A heavy bomber force based on the lineage of the Do 19 would have let Germany attack places like the Suez Canal, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Allied convoys in the Atlantic, Allied ships at Scapa Flow, Murmansk Convoys, then switch to intermittently bomb targets in London or other industrial sites. Any of the above would be major cause for concern for the UK government and would beg for a re allocation of fighters and a formation of an even larger AAA force.

As above, I think this overestimates the effect of the bombers.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Germany did have a real potential need for heavy bombers. You cannot dispute that even if 5-10% effective at disturbing production of weapons or fuel 5-10% could make the difference between the Wehrmacht being victorious or mauled in the field.

Actually, I can, and I do. The Germans were beaten by far wider margins than these. I also argue that you are implicitly overestimating the effect of bombing. Consider the ambiguous effects of allied bombing, even with fleets of thousands of heavies. A couple of hundred of this sort of plane would be able to deliver either one heavy raid and a few lighter follow ups, or a series of sustained pin ***** raids. Neither would acheive the 5-10% production drops you speak of, even if margins this small were decisive,which I dispute.



Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Had the Soviets not had undisturbed production to replace ther massive losses the salient at Kursk would not have been as well perpared, Stalingrad would have been even more difficult to have rescued and the battle at the gates of Moscow in winter 1941 may have been more static in the Spring of 42 if Soviet replacement tanks and aircraft were not as forthcoming.

This is argument is the same as the lost-production argument used by the proponents of allied strategic bombing, and it's no stronger. The reason it's no better is that the resources used up putting together the strategic force have to be counted as resources forgone by the operational and tactical forces. For the Germans this was critical. Given their chronic shortage of motorised transport of all kinds, the Luftwaffe's operational and tactical capability did not merely provide firepower in the schwerpunkt, it made the whole concept of mobile warfare possible for an army that was still predominantly horse-drawn. Without Luftwaffe tactical support, there'd have been no battle at the gates of Moscow, much less a 1942 or 43 campaign.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The worst mistake Germany made in my opinion was to leave the destruction of vastly more numerous opponents soley to their front line troops. Yes the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht performed amazing heroics and pulled off incredible victories but they could have been more successful and decisive if they didnt start of against as hopeless odds in the 1st place.

I agree with the last part of this paragraph. However, rather than put resources into a heavy bomber, I would instead argue that they needed to harness occupied Europe to their war machine in 1940, and that their failure to do so by mid 1941 doomed the Third Reich. However skilful the Nazis may have been as politicians, they were a pack of p1ss-ant dilettantes when it came to strategy. It doesn€t matter how good your armed forces are if you fail to support them with appropriate production plans. This is particularly pertinent if you€re stupid enough to fight the three most powerful countries on Earth simultaneously.

cheers,
Ratsack

LEXX_Luthor
04-25-2006, 10:53 AM
roland::
I would forsee the Luftwaffe fighters using drop tanks but only really fighting over the front line area and distracting Soviet fighters in the immediate vicinity.
I used to think ALOT about this in my fitful, and abandoned, starts on air war simulation (or "dynamic campaign") building. Fw-190A could go a fairly decent way with tanks, although high alt performance leaves alot to be desired. And as I also enjoyed planning a "1940" Barbarossa campaign -- no Yaks no LaGGS no MiGs -- the Bf-110 would have made a very good escort until the MiG showed up in 1941. Just wondering -- if the Germans needed a decent range high altitude escort, the Dora or Ta *maybe* could have been developed earlier -- I don't know my later Fw history here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

roland::
The Soviet Union was so vast it would be impossible for the short ranged VVS fighters to reach everywhere and with absolutely no radar detection predicting where a bomber raid was going could have proved very difficult.
I'm thinking defence of the relocated factories would have assigned local air defences anyways, since they were located in a much wider area than was possible to cover with area defense. Also, Soviets could develop decent ground observer telephone networks which the Chinese had used with brutal effectivness against large formations of long range Japanese bombers under both the Soviet volunteers and later the American volunteers (Flying Tigers).

Ratsack has a point -- the historical need to support the German Army did not leave any ability to conduct strategic bombing. However, under the scenario I'm talking about, the German bombers operate out of the Volga well east of Moscow, or at airfields just west of the Volga. In this case, as Directive21 states, the bombing starts when the German Army ceases offensive operations along the Volga.

roland::
One can only imagine the impact on the Soviets, they would no doubt counter such raids but at what expense to other areas of the front and war effort? If the US and Britain sent more high alt fighters like Spits and P47's this has an indirect effect on their own effort.
The Soviet war effort then would be on strategic air defence of Urals and such, just to keep open a possibility of later going on the offensive again. I think Hitler's goal was to get a "peace" agreement after Germany taking everything up to the Volga.

One more of my Fave history topics...Do-19 could force a "retouch" of Stalin's classic "bread" letter to aircraft and AM-35/AM-38 engine manufacturers demanding more IL-2s...

Stalin, retouched::
MiG-3 is needed by Red Army more than sliced bread! THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

~ Stalin

The Soviets went lax on the high altitude MiG just because Germany did not field a threat that needed it. The request for a "improved" MiG-3 was not made until Fnebuary 1943, and this MiG-3U used a hybrid AM-38/AM-35 since AM-35s were sacrificed for AM-38s to power IL-2s.

Under this scenario, I assume MiG-3U in early 1942, a whopping year earlier. MiG development was basically dumped at the latter part of 1941. Not so if Do-19 operates from the Volga.

mynameisroland
04-25-2006, 10:55 AM
The time and effort spent manufacturing useless obsolete types such as the He111 but especially the Do 17 could have profitably been spent on a more capable bombe rlike the D0 19. You are right when you state that a few hundred D0 19's would inclict 5-10% losses on production but as a force in being they may cause the redsistribution of 5-10% of the enemies forces on to the defensive.

Fighting the Luftwaffe the VVS only had to worry about the frontline and the immediate vicinity.

Ruy Horta
04-25-2006, 11:14 AM
Time and again this subject pops up.

1. The Germans were well aware of strategic warfare. They even made a lot of plans, based on operational requirements. But like Britain, they were forced to make a choice. Britain as an island, could afford a strategic bomber force, Germany as a continental power had to place priority on a large army. Only after securing the continental position could the war economy shift towards a strategic bomber force and likewise a strong navy.

Germany might have done so in 1941, if they had believed their eastern borders to be secure, however that was not the case.

2. The Do 19 would have been obsolete by 1940. It might have been able to carry bombs at long range, but that's not enough.

The He 177 could have been the heavy bomber for 1942, if it had been designed as a heavy level bomber - with four conventional engines (see He 177 B). Note that Heinkel prefered a more conservative approach, unlike the RLM and Heinkel's chief designer on the 177.

Again I must point towards Von Rohden's Vom Luftkriege for the theoretical side of this discussion and the need for Germany to choose between either big army or strategic airforce / navy and the inability to cover both like the US.

Overall this operational model was very succesfull until Germany overstretched itself against the Soviet Union in the fall and winter of 1941.

Perhaps the Nazi hierarchy were relatively ignorant when it came to grand strategy, the same can not be said for germans in general.

Ruy Horta
04-25-2006, 11:17 AM
I don't know where people get the idea that the Do 19 was a potent design, or even capable of influencing strategy.

If it couldn't have operated at long range during the daylight without escorts, its range is pretty much a moot point. Forced to bomb at night, it would have faced the same difficulties as Bomber Command did in the first half of the war.

mynameisroland
04-25-2006, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
roland:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would forsee the Luftwaffe fighters using drop tanks but only really fighting over the front line area and distracting Soviet fighters in the immediate vicinity.
I used to think ALOT about this in my fitful, and abandoned, starts on air war simulation (or "dynamic campaign") building. Fw-190A could go a fairly decent way with tanks, although high alt performance leaves alot to be desired. And as I also enjoyed planning a "1940" Barbarossa campaign -- no Yaks no LaGGS no MiGs -- the Bf-110 would have made a very good escort until the MiG showed up in 1941. Just wondering -- if the Germans needed a decent range high altitude escort, the Dora or Ta would have been developed much earlier instead of the A (I don't know my later Fw history here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ).

roland::
The Soviet Union was so vast it would be impossible for the short ranged VVS fighters to reach everywhere and with absolutely no radar detection predicting where a bomber raid was going could have proved very difficult.
I'm thinking defence of the relocated factories would have assigned local air defences anyways, since they were located in a much wider area than was possible to cover with area defense. Also, Soviets could develop decent ground observer telephone networks which the Chinese had used with brutal effectivness against large formations of long range Japanese bombers under both the Soviet volunteers and later the American volunteers (Flying Tigers).

Ratsack has a point -- the historical need to support the German Army did not leave any ability to conduct strategic bombing. However, under the scenario I'm talking about, the German bombers operate out of the Volga well east of Moscow, or at airfields just west of the Volga. In this case, as Directive21 states, the bombing starts when the German Army ceases offensive operations along the Volga.

roland::
One can only imagine the impact on the Soviets, they would no doubt counter such raids but at what expense to other areas of the front and war effort? If the US and Britain sent more high alt fighters like Spits and P47's this has an indirect effect on their own effort.
The Soviet war effort then would be on strategic air defence of Urals and such, just to keep open a possibility of later going on the offensive again. I think Hitler's goal was to get a "peace" agreement after Germany taking everything up to the Volga.

One more of my Fave history topics...Do-19 could force a "retouch" of Stalin's classic "bread" letter to aircraft and AM-35/AM-38 engine manufacturers demanding more IL-2s...


MiG-3 is needed by Red Army more than sliced bread! THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

~ Stalin

The Soviets went lax on the high altitude MiG just because Germany did not field a threat that needed it. The request for a "improved" MiG-3 was not made until Fnebuary 1943, and this MiG-3U used a hybrid AM-38/AM-35 since AM-35s were sacrificed for AM-38s to power IL-2s.

Under this scenario, I assume MiG-3U in early 1942, a whopping year earlier. MiG development was basically dumped at the latter part of 1941. Not so if Do-19 operates from the Volga. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting scenario, I have looked in to it in the past and what struck me was the whole Russian transport system seemed to hinge on Moscow. Had the Germans taken Moscow where would the Red Armies tanks and reinforcements have decamped? The rail network converged there. All of the communications seemed to be centralised in Moscow too. So I imagined the Germans taking Moscow and that being that as far as an effectively co ordinated Soviet counter offensive being organised.

For the long term strategic bombing concept to have worked the Germans would have needed to have secured the Caucus oil fields. This would have enable them to fuel a long campaign if required. As for the German state not being capable of supporting a large airforce I would argue against this on two main points.

-Firstly Germany did not commit to total war until circa 42/43 ? The state was capable of manning and supplying a vast army by this stage already. Had Germany had the -foresight- ( we keep assuming this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) to begin max war production earlier then why not throw in some heavy bombers in to the mix? Technically the Do 19 was not a complex aircraft the engines were used in alternate types and the construction methods appear suitable to mass production. This was no Spitfire or B29 it seemed almost agricultural by comparison.

-Secondly the Do 19 could have utilised the capacity existing types already occupied. Twin engined bombers were used with little success to try and interdict communications and industrial areas throughout the Bliztkrieg campaign. The Luftwaffe had bomber crews and a bomber ethos just not the equipment. Had a number of factors not gone against the Ural bomber concept it would have been in service it is not a big what if it is more to do with Udet Goering and Wever - no real technical obstructions stood in its way. By substituting German bomber production for the D0 19 while leaving the Ju 88 production untouched Germany would have had a mass of crews, resources and engines that could be utilised in a more productive way. Any shortfall in the medium or light bomber category could be taken up by Bf 110 Jaobs.

LEXX_Luthor
04-25-2006, 11:22 AM
Ruy::
I don't know where people get the idea that the Do 19 was a potent design, or even capable of influencing strategy.
Well, from the side, it does look like a TB-3. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I was thinking more like "Do-119" or "219." But ya, a *real* He-177 level bomber would have been smooth.

Oh roland, your point about Pe-2 (or I guess Pe-3) for strategic bomber intercept. You know, I never really thought about this much, maybe because we only now get Flyable Pe-2/3 and if I recall, the original V100 design was for high altitude fighter but the built Pe series of bombers suffered performance loss at high altitude. But still, something could be interesting here. Thanks for reminding me of this.

mynameisroland
04-25-2006, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
I don't know where people get the idea that the Do 19 was a potent design, or even capable of influencing strategy.

If it couldn't have operated at long range during the daylight without escorts, its range is pretty much a moot point. Forced to bomb at night, it would have faced the same difficulties as Bomber Command did in the first half of the war.

Then you dont see the possibility of Soviet War production being interuppted instead of being left untouched to grind down the Wehrmacht.

Show me anywhere in this thread it is portrayed as some sort of uber plane? You came up with that assumption.

LEXX_Luthor
04-25-2006, 11:31 AM
roland::
The Luftwaffe had bomber crews and a bomber ethos just not the equipment.
Very Interesting way to put it!!

Have you heard of Marshall Tukhachevsky (Red Army) and General Alksnis (VVS) who tried to modernize the Soviet military? Alksnis was the Soviet "General Weaver" with great strategic airpower ideas, but was executed in the late 1930s along with everybody else.

mynameisroland
04-25-2006, 11:49 AM
Do 19 to get the ball rolling in 1936 then further developments or even a new type. No design remains static imagine a 4 engined bomber with either 4 BMW 132 s running at 1550 HP or the later BMW 801 used in the Fw 190 A series.

With either of these engines the bomber would have excess power levels and be capable of either going down the heavy armour / armament development line, the heavy bomb load line or the high speed high altitude route.

Any development would result in a complete re think on the part of the Russians who got away with massing fighters whose only role was to fight with the ground forces and the tactical IL2s. With a growing force of heavy bombers to contend with aircraft like the Mig 3 would be given priorty as suggested by Lex and then the prodcution of La s and Yaks would be reduced.

The D0 19 , as the thread states had potential! How much potential is a moot point but I see an aircraft that is a capable 1936 bomber that given 4 or 5 years development could have easily been a very good heavy bomber capable of playing out any of these scenarios.

Bremspropeller
04-25-2006, 12:05 PM
Luthor, Fw actually had spend thoughts on improving the 190's high alt performance as early as '42.
However, this project wasn't considered as "high priority" yet.
Only allied bombing-raids loudened the calls for an improved high-alt performace at the RLM - at least those calls were loud enough to push the 190's evolution up to the D series.

Ruy Horta
04-25-2006, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Then you dont see the possibility of Soviet War production being interuppted instead of being left untouched to grind down the Wehrmacht.


It is highly debatable if the Do 19 would have been capable of independant long rang bombing missions, without sustaining catastrophic losses during the daytime.

It's a bit like sending TB-3s to bomb Berlin in 1942 at daylight and expecting them to be a success.

By 1941/42 the Do 19, or even close derivatives, would have been obsolete...

With potent, I mean a design capable of doing its mission with a good level of success. If people think that the Do 19 was such a design, they are wrong.

If far more potent designs had difficulties surviving daylight ops in 1943, I see no reason why the Do 19 would have faired much better.

As for the assumption that it would have been able to counter the RN at its bases, its even more far fetched. Look at the stats for B-17 vs Japanese shipping in 1941/42 - it is very sobering.

Even if the Luftwaffe had been equipped with a Do 19s instead of the twins they had in 1940/41 it wouldn't have made much difference - well there would have been fewer of them, that's all.

Its design was obsolete, it doesn't matter if it got refinements and more powerfull engines.

Just look at the TB-3 or Stirling.

mynameisroland
04-25-2006, 04:05 PM
Wish I your cristal ball Ruy, its amazing you can predict whether a design 'would' have been obsolete after 5 years of development. The B17 was no great shakes compared to developments 7 years down the line.

I dont think you have a great appreciation of German Bomber design or tactics or the greater socio economic situation of the Third Reich.

LEXX_Luthor
04-25-2006, 05:17 PM
Ruy::
If far more potent designs had difficulties surviving daylight ops in 1943, I see no reason why the Do 19 would have faired much better.
Agreed. A Luftwaffe night bombing campaign against Urals would be interesting. One thing to remember, I assume some possibility of nerve gas usage, given insufficient quantities of long range bombers.

"historically" I can generally agree with Ruy -- I have found Ruy has superb appreciation for European history in World War 2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Non-historically, with Germany fully preparing for war, developing Do-119, -219, or correct designed He-177 early in the war, and the German Army not stalling at the gates of Moscow which kept Luftwaffe confined to support the Army (a role favouring 2 engine bombers), etc... who knows, it would be interesting to simulate.

ImpStarDuece
04-25-2006, 06:07 PM
Just thinking about it, the Do-19 strongly reminds me of enlarged version of the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley twin engined bomber that the British had in service at the start of the war, most particularly the early Tiger radial powered Marks.

Both have a long, rectangular, 'slab' fuselage, a bluntish, stepped nose and that same unusual twin tailplane configuration with the bracing struts. In fact, the more and more that I look at pictures of the two side by side, it's almost like the Dornier it the larger brother of the Whitley.

Actual performance is suprisingly similar between the two aircraft, especially given that the Whitley was just a twin and some 7-8,000 lbs lighter. For a pre war Mk III Whitley vs a Dornier-19, top speed is within 5 mph of each other, ceiling is within 400m, but the Whitley actually had better range and carrying capacity than the Dornier, able to carry 3500lbs around 1200 miles vs the 3520 lbs for 1000 miles of the Do-19. Later Merlin powered Whitleys could also carry a very useful 7000lbs load around 500 miles.

Actually, I think that the other 'Ural Bomber' the Ju-89, had far more potential than the Do-19. It could carry a similar bombload faster and higher, to greater range.

Sergio_101
04-25-2006, 07:09 PM
There is no doubt Germany could have easily
built viable strategic bombers. The He-177
had great potential as a 4 engined bomber.
That is with 4 nacells.......

But Germany was fighting a defensive battle
by the time the US entered the war.
Nearly all fighting in the west was over
German controled territory.
Obviously strategic bombing is nearly useless
in that situation.

Bombs are very expensive in the use of natural
resources. Iron cases and the explosives are some
sort of nitrated petroleum product.
Germany could not afford the massive effort
of a 1941 style strategic bomber offensive.

Dive bombing was very efficent by the standard of the day.
Fighters in huge numbers were needed to defend
against those bombers.

Argue the loss rates all you like.
The statistics say the strategic bombing offensive
was more effective in destroying the German
day and night fighters than stopping German industry.
Albert Speer, in "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"
gives the clear indication that the strategic bombing
offensive was very effective.
The error was chosing the wrong targets and not re-bombing
critical targets such as ball bearings and
hydrogenation/synthetic fuel plants.

The Third Reich was fighting a lost battle in the
sky over the Reich.
Nothing short of having developing an atomic bomb by 1943
would have saved them.
And, as we know now, Germany was on the wrong track
and years behind in the development of an atomic bomb.
That's partly because of Hitler's dismissal of "Jewish Physics".

You Germans should be thankful for the failure by May of 1945.
It saved you a Hiroshima style attack.

Sergio

luftluuver
04-25-2006, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The D0 19 , as the thread states had potential! How much potential is a moot point but I see an aircraft that is a capable 1936 bomber that given 4 or 5 years development could have easily been a very good heavy bomber capable of playing out any of these scenarios. Yes be sure Roland.

There was a third bomber, the He177, that was a legacy of Wever's of a long range strategic bomber. Should have been 4 seperate motors though.

I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but a strategic bomber would have forced the Germans to develope long range escort fighters. Later when the war started going badly with the Allied SBC, the Germans would have had fighters more capable of taking on the heavies. Now I am not picking on the 109 but the Germans would have had heavier armed fighters that were not just 'up, intercept and down' a/c. They could have been waiting to intercept instead of waiting till the last moment when the intended target was known. Over simpliction I know. Fighter raids could have been made on the bomber formating areas over England and the North Sea. This would have forced the Allies to have more fighters in the air; less on escort. Others can build further.

Ruy Horta
04-26-2006, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but a strategic bomber would have forced the Germans to develope long range escort fighters.

To quote myself:

If it couldn't have operated at long range during the daylight without escorts, its range is pretty much a moot point. Forced to bomb at night, it would have faced the same difficulties as Bomber Command did in the first half of the war.

It is highly debatable if the Do 19 would have been capable of independant long rang bombing missions, without sustaining catastrophic losses during the daytime.

Even if the Do 19 had not been obsolescent by 1941, which I strongly doubt, it would have been very difficult to operate in day light without escort.

Such a long range escort would, by german state of the art, have been an a/c like the Bf 110 or single seat Fw 187 (at best), certainly a twin engine (heavy) fighter.

I am arguing from pre-war planning and not based on wartime experience and lessons learned.

Yet, as events would proof, those heavy escorts would have been handicapped against single engine interceptors they'd have to counter.

OTOH, if the RLM had thought their bombers capable of independent bombing, they'd soon be forced to operate at night - where the effectiveness against point targets is greatly, if not drastically reduced, certainly by 1940/41 standards of navigation and target acquirement.

This Ural Bomber myth is almost as strong as the Hitler and Blitz Bomber...

Finally if Mike Spick can have an opinion, so can I.

mynameisroland
04-26-2006, 03:50 AM
The Ju 89 was a larger aircraft that did have seemingly greater potential. Unfortunately because of its larger all up weight it used the DB 600 engine to give it decent performance. This added to the fact that Junkers would be at max capacity producing the excellent Ju 88 had precluded this bomber from being chosen in my mind.

The He 177 was a decent bomber however it appears too late, a developed Do 19 with bigger engines would have been a decent bomber. As I said if they had chosen to clean up the airframe and go for speed it would have been able to fly at a high altitude and been difficult to intercept for Russian aircraft.

LEXX_Luthor
04-26-2006, 04:34 AM
Sounds good to me. I'd maybe call a later much more modernized version "Do-219."

Its kinda like I've been thinking how to use a hypothetical (cancelled, never built) B-59 for the SF if it can be modded into a 'lite' strategic sim. B-59 would have greater range than B-58, although with less maximum speed. Interestingly, SAC commander LeMay never wanted the B-58 as it was too short ranged for his taste. Shucks, LeMay himself was the "ural bomber."

luftluuver
04-26-2006, 04:51 AM
Ruy, you forget why the 110 was a 'failure' during BoB.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The Fw187 was a much better a/c than the 110. Willies hold on the manufacture of fighters would have to be broken though. I was thinking of se fighters not 2e fighters.

The B-17 was obsolete in 1941, as it was initially designed, so why could not the Germans have not improved on the 19s design?

The Russians had only one a/c capable of intercepting the 19 and it is debatable how well it would have done with only 2 lmg and 1 hmg. It would have forced the Russians to devert (more) resources to develope a better high altitude fighter. Sure the Russians were working on the MiG220/230 series but this was only half hearted.

The psychological effect of seeing large 4 engine bombers instead of 2 engine bombers over your city is something to think about.

LEXX_Luthor
04-26-2006, 05:45 AM
luft::
Sure the Russians were working on the MiG220/230 series but this was only half hearted.
For good reasons -- no Do-219 -- no need for them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

mynameisroland
04-26-2006, 06:20 AM
This Ju 89 looks pretty imposing, note it shares the same massive wing area and what look like fowler flaps as the Do 19.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/ju89_1.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-26-2006, 09:14 AM
Awssum pic. Wings look 1930~esque, like that big Maxim Gorky thing!!! Eventually it would need to evolve with high aspect ratio wings like -177, -24, and -29.

ploughman
04-26-2006, 09:36 AM
I was going to say those wings look like they could lift alot but they'd need re-designing if they wanted to take it very long distances.