JU 88 wreckage
ArtKramr
One thing that stirikes one immediately is how lightly it was built. The metal
looked very thin and the armor plate was also quit thin. Compared to the B-26
Marauder, the JU 88 was a tin can. And that was apparent when you examined one
close up on the ground. I don't envy the Luftwafe guys who had to fly into
Allied flak in a JU- 88.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
robert arndt
In fairness though you should remember that the Ju-88 was not just a
level bomber. It was a true multirole aircraft, highly versatile, and
the greatest night fighter aircraft of WW2, with more nocturnal kills
than all the other night fighters combined. The Ju-88 also DID set a
world record in March 1939, carrying a 4,409 lb bombload at an average
speed of 321.25 mph over 1000 km- the almost same maximum speed of the
Hurricanes being delivered to the RAF at the time. A true
Schnellbomber.
Over 15,000 of the aircraft were ultimately produced and the only
Allied aircraft that comes close to its versatility is the Mosquito.
Rob
ArtKramr
>From: teut...@aol.com (robert arndt)
>Date: 5/16/03 10:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9b35beb1.03051...@posting.google.com>
into Allied Flak in a JU-88. (grin)
Yama
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20030516204939...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> I saw a lot wrecked JU 88's on the ground in Europe during and after the
war.
> One thing that stirikes one immediately is how lightly it was built. The
metal
> looked very thin and the armor plate was also quit thin. Compared to the
B-26
> Marauder, the JU 88 was a tin can. And that was apparent when you
examined one
> close up on the ground. I don't envy the Luftwafe guys who had to fly
into
> Allied flak in a JU- 88.
Ju-88 did not have heaviest armour or defensive armament, but it was pretty
strongly built otherwise (remember it was equipped to be a dive bomber). In
addition it could haul a good bomb load and most importantly, drop it with
pin-point accuracy.
When Ju-88 drops 4*500kg bombs in the middle of tank formation, that
formation ceases to exists...
clif...@netdoor.com
>artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote in message news:<20030516204939...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
>> I saw a lot wrecked JU 88's on the ground in Europe during and after the war.
>> One thing that stirikes one immediately is how lightly it was built. The metal
>> looked very thin and the armor plate was also quit thin. Compared to the B-26
>> Marauder, the JU 88 was a tin can. And that was apparent when you examined one
>> close up on the ground. I don't envy the Luftwafe guys who had to fly into
>> Allied flak in a JU- 88.
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>In fairness though you should remember that the Ju-88 was not just a
>level bomber. It was a true multirole aircraft, highly versatile, and
>the greatest night fighter aircraft of WW2, with more nocturnal kills
>than all the other night fighters combined. The Ju-88 also DID set a
>world record in March 1939, carrying a 4,409 lb bombload at an average
>speed of 321.25 mph over 1000 km- the almost same maximum speed of the
>Hurricanes being delivered to the RAF at the time. A true
>Schnellbomber.
Whoop-de-doo. In 1939 the US had three fighters that could exceed
400mph in level flight; the XP47, XP38, and XF4U. The Nazi's had
z-e-r-o.
I agree that the JU88 was an extremely versatile design, even if it
was German. It, along with the FW190, are perhaps the two most
brilliant designs the Nazi's produced that WORKED.
It is quite fortunate for us that the Germans were otherwise
incompetent. Their failure to develope a workable four
engine strategic bomber, as well as a viable transport system,
allowed the Russians to stay behind the Urals and rebuild.
The Nazi's made some extremely interesting toys, to be sure.
But they still lost the war. And most people don't lament that loss.
Yama
<clif...@netdoor.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3ec614c8...@news.netdoor.com..
> Whoop-de-doo. In 1939 the US had three fighters that could exceed
> 400mph in level flight; the XP47, XP38, and XF4U. The Nazi's had
> z-e-r-o.
If USA had all those fighters 1939, where were they when Pearl Harbour was
bombed two years later?
Those fighters were PROTOTYPES. It took until later part of 1942 until they
were in service. By that time, Germans had plenty of 400mph fighters of
their own.
Another way to look at it: 1939 Germany had over 1000 single-engined
fighters capable of exceeding 500km/h in level flight by comfortable
margin. USA had 0.
> It is quite fortunate for us that the Germans were otherwise
> incompetent. Their failure to develope a workable four
> engine strategic bomber,
It's more like "success of not wasting limited resources to expensive
4-engined bombers".
> as well as a viable transport system,
What?
Cub Driver
>A true
>Schnellbomber.
The Germans called it their Wonder Bomber.
Pity they never had a chance to inspect the B-29.
all the best -- Dan Ford (email: web AT danford.net)
see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub
Cub Driver
>remember it was equipped to be a dive bomber).
This was a requirement, and one that pretty much ensured that the
Luftwaffe would never develop a bomber with a payload and range
necessary to win the war.
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/17/03 2:50 AM Pacific
>When Ju-88 drops 4*500kg bombs in the middle of tank formation, that
>formation ceases to exists...
Whene ANY bomber formation drops 4 500kg bombs in the middle of a tank
formation that formation ceases to exist.
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/17/03 5:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <i2bccv0gqfuqidrfv...@4ax.com>
>
>
>
>>remember it was equipped to be a dive bomber).
>
>This was a requirement, and one that pretty much ensured that the
>Luftwaffe would never develop a bomber with a payload and range
>necessary to win the war.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford (email: web AT danford.net)
The German were obsessed with versatility. The Americans were just the
opposite, We designed planes to do specific jobs very well. Heavy bombers,
medium bmbers, light bombers, long range fighters, dive bombers, super heavies
with long range....each to fill a need and solve specific problems. We never
designed the B-17 to dive bomb and we never designed the P-51 as a daylight
bomber. Versatility is a dirty word that might have dramaticaly lessened the
effectiveness of the Luftwaffe.
David Lentz
clif...@netdoor.com wrote:
<snip>
> It is quite fortunate for us that the Germans were otherwise
> incompetent. Their failure to develope a workable four
> engine strategic bomber, as well as a viable transport system,
> allowed the Russians to stay behind the Urals and rebuild.
I disagree a bit.
The German did develop large long range bombers, maritine
bombers. The failure, omission, to develop land versions of
these bombers was certainly not technical.
Given the size of the German industrial base, I question the
wisdom of an heavy investment in strategic bombers. I do admit
that the idea of being able to attack Soviet war industry would
be appealing. It might not have been practical. The Soviet
could always build factories beyond the range of German bombers.
The German had no where to which to retreat. The Soviets did.
David
Keith Willshaw
<clif...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:3ec614c8...@news.netdoor.com...
Incorrect - the FW-190 first flew on 1 June 1939
Moreover while they had 3 PROTOTYPES that could exceed 400 mph
The USAAC fighters in service at that time were certainly not capable
of that and would have been totally outclassed by the aircraft in
service with the Luftwaffe. The best fighter in service was the P-36 Hawk
which was hardly a match for the Bf-109E as for bombers the USAAC
medium bomber was the B-18.
> I agree that the JU88 was an extremely versatile design, even if it
> was German. It, along with the FW190, are perhaps the two most
> brilliant designs the Nazi's produced that WORKED.
>
The Me-109, He-111, Do-17 were pretty good aircraft too
and well in advance of theie US contemporaries. Of course
the US would produce better aircraft in time but in 1939
the USAAC was in pretty poor shape.
>
> It is quite fortunate for us that the Germans were otherwise
> incompetent. Their failure to develope a workable four
> engine strategic bomber, as well as a viable transport system,
> allowed the Russians to stay behind the Urals and rebuild.
>
They simply hadnt the resouces to both build a massive 4 bomber
strategic air arm and invade Russia.
> The Nazi's made some extremely interesting toys, to be sure.
> But they still lost the war. And most people don't lament that loss.
>
Agreed but pretending the Luftwaffe werent a powerful and dangerous
enemy is hardly sensible. It took many thousands of lives and
several years todefeat them when all is said and done.
Keith
Yama
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:20030517084549...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: JU 88 wreckage
> >From: "Yama" tjama...@paju.oulu.fi
> >Date: 5/17/03 2:50 AM Pacific
>
> >When Ju-88 drops 4*500kg bombs in the middle of tank formation, that
> >formation ceases to exists...
>
> Whene ANY bomber formation drops 4 500kg bombs in the middle of a tank
> formation that formation ceases to exist.
However, Ju-88 has bit better chance to hit tank formation with those bombs
than most other bombers...like Stuka, just much more punch and
survivability.
In addition, most light and medium bombers could not carry bombs bigger
than 250kg.
Gordon
>I agree with all you say but I still would hate to be luftwaffe crew flying
>into Allied Flak in a JU-88.
I wouldn't want to deal with flak in anything but an A-10! :)
v/r
Gordon
good to have you back on RAM, Art.
Gordon
>formation that formation ceases to exist.
LOL I agree. When I saw that comment, my first thought was what happens if
some other a/c dropped those four bombs?
The one time that a Ju 88's bombing abilities ever jumped off the page at me,
it was Hajo Herrmann's famous "magic bullet" -- he virtually wrecked the entire
harbor of Pireas (sp) when he singled out a moored ammo ship for attack. The
rest of his formation held back, counting the wrecked and sinking allied ships
and the burning harbor facilities. Bad guy or not (postwar, he became
Germany's premier criminal law attorney...?), he accomplished a hell of a lot.
Only bomber pilot I know that was given a staff job, in which he flew as a
nightfighter pilot in combat. Guy Gibson too, now that I think about it. In
fact, those two were cut of very similar cloth. As his boss, Sir Basil (THE
baddest badass in the RAF) Embry said, "Thank God that Gibson was not born of
Teutonic stock!". Anyone else you all can think of?
Anyone that thinks your war ends when you get shot down and captured needs to
read up on Sir Basil. The Germans should have just let him go - it would have
hurt less. :)
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew
"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."
Gordon
>In addition, most light and medium bombers could not carry bombs bigger
>than 250kg.
Agree. Many exceptions however.
I have a photo that shows a bombed-up Ju 88 A-4 departing on a sortie with a
really odd collection of different sized bombs on its external hardpoints. I
guess it wouldn't matter, but it sure looked odd.
ArtKramr
>However, Ju-88 has bit better chance to hit tank formation with those bombs
>than most other bombers..
Do you have any evidence of that? How better is a "bit better" 1%, 2%....what?
And why?
Gordon
>>than most other bombers..
>
>Do you have any evidence of that? How better is a "bit better" 1%,
>2%....what?
>And why?
I'd say the opposite -- it had far less defensive armament than US medium
bombers, so more Ju 88s were attrited en route or over the target. The Lofte
(what - 7?) bombsite was inferior to the Norden too.
The reason he may feel the Ju 88 would have a better chance of hitting would be
its dive bombing capability. Unfortunately, dive bombing also solves every
math problem for the defenses -- Point upwards. Shoot. Repeat. Wait for the
burning dive bomber to pull out of its dive at ultra-slow speeds, then allow
the worst shot in your outfit to shoot the dive bomber down as it departs at
freeway speeds.
Now, granted, a lot of dive bombers got through, but a hell of a lot more level
bombers survived. By 1945, who was still dive bombing? Certainly no one in a
Ju 88, not even the nightfighters reverted back into service in their former
role of bomber. These end-of-war mayflies either bombed level or came in
absolutely on the deck, trying to stop Soviet armor or take out the Elbe
bridges.
v/r
Gordon
Chris Mark
>>However, Ju-88 has bit better chance to hit tank formation with those bombs
>>than most other bombers..
When the Herman Goering panzer division made the mistake of trying to advance
down the Liri Valley in daylight, figuring the low cloud deck would make them
safe from air attack, in May 1944, it was wiped out by B-25s flying at
tree-tip level dropping 500 pounders with 5 sec delay and parafrags. Not to
mention firing massive amounts of .50 cal and the 75mm on the Gs that got in on
the action. Tanks, troop carriers, trucks----all so much burning junk blocking
the road. Plenty accurate enough for government work.
Chris Mark
Yama
"Gordon" <krzta...@aol.comint> kirjoitti
viestissä:20030517204304...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> I'd say the opposite -- it had far less defensive armament than US medium
> bombers, so more Ju 88s were attrited en route or over the target. The
Lofte
> (what - 7?) bombsite was inferior to the Norden too.
Fairly insignifant, as Ju-88's seldom level bombed. Max internal bombload
was only 900kg (as opposed to 2800kg external) and required removing some
of the fuel system.
> The reason he may feel the Ju 88 would have a better chance of hitting
would be
> its dive bombing capability. Unfortunately, dive bombing also solves
every
> math problem for the defenses -- Point upwards. Shoot. Repeat. Wait for
the
> burning dive bomber to pull out of its dive at ultra-slow speeds, then
allow
> the worst shot in your outfit to shoot the dive bomber down as it departs
at
> freeway speeds.
>
> Now, granted, a lot of dive bombers got through, but a hell of a lot more
level
> bombers survived. By 1945, who was still dive bombing?
Well, US and Japanese naval air arms, for starters. Theory that AAA would
shoot down flocks of dive bombers existed before the war, but that didn't
prevent Ju-87 to be effective, neither seemed naval dive bombers (SMB, Val)
suffer extraordinary attrition.
In addition, "pure" dive bombing was abandoned in favour or bombing from
more shallow dive (~45 degrees) ("slide bombing"). This was almost as
accurate but lessened risks and stress for the plane and crew. This method
was used for example by Finnish Ju-88's at 1944 with devastating results.
Ju-88 proved far more effective than FAF level bombers (Blenheim, Do-17,
DB-3).
Gordon
>was used for example by Finnish Ju-88's at 1944 with devastating results.
>Ju-88 proved far more effective than FAF level bombers (Blenheim, Do-17,
>DB-3).
But that's the Finns! Same folks that turned the Buffalo into a world beater.
:)
(Not trying to be offensive, pointing out that Finnish pilots had a well-earned
reputation for being able to accomplish far more with average aircraft than
most airmen.)
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/17/03 5:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>However, Ju-88 has bit better chance to hit tank formation with those bombs
A dive bomber can pinpoint one bomb load. I'll take 56 Marauders in tight
formation from 8,000 feet using the Norden and dumping a quarter of million
pounds of bombs on the target in one pass any day. Visit my website and
double click on Wurzburg. it ain't a pretty picture.
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/17/03 6:17 PM Pacific
>Ju-88 proved far more effective than FAF level bombers (Blenheim, Do-17,
>DB-3).
Any evidence of this?
Geoffrey Sinclair
>In fairness though you should remember that the Ju-88 was not just a
>level bomber. It was a true multirole aircraft, highly versatile, and
>the greatest night fighter aircraft of WW2, with more nocturnal kills
>than all the other night fighters combined.
What source claims the JU88 outscored all the other nightfighters
put together, especially the Bf110? In the book The German Night
Fighter Force by Adders he notes as late as 31 January 1944 the
Nachtjagd had 592 Bf110Gs and 342 Ju88C/R/G, by 31 May 1944
the numbers were 580 Bf110G and 486 Ju88s. By 31 July the
Ju88 finally made up just under 50% of the force, 650 aircraft versus
663 of all the other types. By 30 September there were 739 Ju88s
versus 661 of all other types.
This is reflected in the night fighter production figures, Ju88s
made up 10% of the 1940 production, 28% in 1941, 41% in
1943 and 61% in 1944.
The other point is NJG1, with 2311 kill claims, mainly operated
the Bf110 (the next best kill claims was NJG5 with around 850
claims).
Simply if you simply note the Bf110 kill claims it is highly unlikely
the Ju88 night fighters scored more kill claims than all other
night fighters put together.
Then note the Luftwaffe kill claim system became less rigid in
the 1944 period, the list of kill claims versus RAF losses in
Adders gives the Bomber Command night losses versus
Luftwaffe kill claims as year / losses / write offs / kill claims /
% of RAF total losses + write offs claimed by night fighters
1940 / 271 / 124 / 42 / 10.6%
1941 / 756 / 333 / 421 / 38.7%
1942 / 1390 / 89 / 687 / 46.5%
1943 / 2255 / 94 / 1816 / 77.3%
1944 / 2349 / 85 / 2235 / 91.8%
1945 / 507 / 61 / 529 / 93.1%
The effectiveness of the Flak force did not decline that much,
and Bomber Command still had accidents resulting in write
offs that had nothing to do with combat. The accident rate
declined during the war but the number of sorties per month
went up. In late 1944 nightfighter operations became restricted
by the fuel shortage, the loss of early warning radars and better
RAF jamming.
>The Ju-88 also DID set a
>world record in March 1939, carrying a 4,409 lb bombload at an average
>speed of 321.25 mph over 1000 km- the almost same maximum speed of the
>Hurricanes being delivered to the RAF at the time. A true
>Schnellbomber.
To note the text in German Aircraft of the Second World War
by Smith and Kay.
"The JU88V5, D-ATYU, which first flew on 13 April 1938 was
originally similar to the V4 but powered by two 1,200 HP Jumo
211B-1 engines. It was later modified by the removal of the
ventral gondola, the lowering of the cockpit roof line and the
fitting of a streamlined unglazed nose for record breaking
purposes. Widely publicised as the Ju88S, the machine,
piloted by Ernst Seibert and Kurt Heintz, established a new
closed circuit record in March 1939, carrying a 2,000 kg
payload over a distance of 1,000 km of 517 km/h (321.25
mph). Four months later, the machine, with the same crew,
achieved an average speed of 500 km/h (310.6 mph) over
a 2,000 km closed circuit."
The Ju88A-1 production bomber top speed was 280 mph
at around 18,000 feet, the A-4 model top speed was 292
mph at around 17,500 feet. Making it the fastest bomber in
production in 1939 and early 1940. The B-17C delivered
from October 1940 onwards was credited with a top speed
of 323 mph at 25,000 feet. The August 1940 B-25A could
to 315 mph at 15,000 feet, as could the November 1940 B-26.
In late 1940 the Do217E, 320 mph at 17,000 feet. I have
not checked the Japanese designs of the time
The mid war real Ju88S bomber top speed was around the
350 mph mark. Like the A-26.
The prototype of the never built Spitfire III flew in March 1940,
top speed 400 mph at 21,000 feet. It required too many
production changes compared with the evolution of I to II to V
to IX.
>Over 15,000 of the aircraft were ultimately produced and the only
>Allied aircraft that comes close to its versatility is the Mosquito.
Do217, dive bomber (bad one), level bomber, night fighter,
reconnaissance (small numbers), guided missile launcher
Ju88, dive bomber (but really too big), level bomber, night fighter,
reconnaissance, torpedo bomber.
The Do217 had the room to accommodate a torpedo internally.
It is probably unanimously agreed the Ju88 was a better design
than the Do217.
The point is the Ju88 design had considerable stretch, the 1944
Ju88G was around 100 mph faster than the Ju88A of 1939. The
Ju88 was a very good design.
As for the effects of bombs on tanks Air Power and the Battlefront
notes the relatively few kills of tanks by aircraft. Tanks were meant
to be hard to kill and most bombs simply hit too far away, since their
blast radius was tens of feet. The saturation heavy bomber strikes
in Normandy did do things like flip Tiger tanks but mainly did things
like bury the tanks, misalign sights and cause engines to run rough.
The real aircraft kills were against the support vehicles, the other
effect was the threat of strikes inhibiting movement in the open and
things like the destruction of bridges to deny tactical movement.
The Ju87 tank busters on the eastern front found at times it was a
1 to 1 exchange, an aircraft for a tank, a rather losing proposition.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
>The one time that a Ju 88's bombing abilities ever jumped off the page at me,
>it was Hajo Herrmann's famous "magic bullet" -- he virtually wrecked the entire
>harbor of Pireas (sp) when he singled out a moored ammo ship for attack. The
>rest of his formation held back, counting the wrecked and sinking allied ships
>and the burning harbor facilities.
Actually, there were apparently two major detonations associated with
Clan Frazer, the ship Herrmann bombed at Piraeus, the first being
during the bombing, but the second and more serious happening about
six hours later at 3.15am, when explosives stored on the burning ship
finally blew up and devastated the harbour. Apparently the RN naval
attache at Athens had ordered the burning ships to be removed from the
harbour, but the harbour authorities had prevented this due to the
danger of hitting unswept mines in the process. Nevertheless, it was
all down to the Luftwaffe bombing attack and was a devastating blow.
>Bad guy or not (postwar, he became
>Germany's premier criminal law attorney...?), he accomplished a hell of a lot.
>Only bomber pilot I know that was given a staff job, in which he flew as a
>nightfighter pilot in combat. Guy Gibson too, now that I think about it. In
>fact, those two were cut of very similar cloth. As his boss, Sir Basil (THE
>baddest badass in the RAF) Embry said, "Thank God that Gibson was not born of
>Teutonic stock!". Anyone else you all can think of?
Several RAF/Commonwealth pilots did NF tours as well as bomber tours,
like Gibson did. Martin is another example from 617 sqn, but V.J.
Wheeler went from commanding 157 sqn on Mossies and then moving to
command 207 Sqn, a 5 Group Lancaster unit. John Williams, for
example, flew Hampdens with 408 sqn in 1942 before going on to fly
mossie NFs with 406 RCAF sqn in 1944.
Gavin Bailey
--
"Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer extortion.
The 'x' makes it sound cool." - Bender
Jukka O. Kauppinen
>>DB-3).
>
> Any evidence of this?
Finnish literature is filled with evidence of that.
But primarily:
- highest accurary, especially with glide bombing
- best bombsights
- best performance leading to better survivality
- highest bombload
I've met a number of Finnish bomber vets, who've flown about all the
different bombers in Finnish service. The Ju-88 pilots have been very
much of the same opinion, that attacking in the Ju-88 you was almost
completely sure of hitting the target. Main reason was the highly
advanced mechanical dive bomb computer, Stuvi bombsight, which gave the
88s pin point accuracy. While the level bombers bombed area targets or
point targets with remarkably less accuracy, the Ju-88s could target and
hit the point targets, and with higher bombload.
Some material about that in http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/ and for
example
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-OuluVeteransEnglish.html#interview
.
jok
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/18/03 2:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>The one time that a Ju 88's bombing abilities ever jumped off the page at me,
>>it was Hajo Herrmann's famous "magic bullet" -- he virtually wrecked the
>entire
>>harbor of Pireas (sp) when he singled out a moored ammo ship for attack.
>The
>>rest of his formation held back, counting the wrecked and sink
Any plane that hit that ship would have had the same result.
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/18/03 4:52 AM Pacific
>Main reason was the highly
>advanced mechanical dive bomb computer, Stuvi bombsight, which gave the
>88s pin point accuracy. While the level bombers bombed area targets or
>point targets with remarkably less accuracy, the Ju-88s could target and
Postwar tests of that equipement showed it to be less acurate than the Norden
bombsight by a good margin..And it was the B-26 that held the reputation for
highest bombing acuracy of any bomber in WW II along with lowest losses due to
enemy action..
The Enlightenment
Err those "nazis" held the world speed record untill the 1990s with the Me
209. It took the US 50 years to beat them?
>
> I agree that the JU88 was an extremely versatile design, even if it
> was German. It, along with the FW190, are perhaps the two most
> brilliant designs the Nazi's produced that WORKED.
Most German equipement worked. There are a lot of dead people to prove it.
Although they for instance should have replaced the Me109 in 1942/43 and had
a developement of it called the Me209 ready (not the same as the record
aircraft )they harboured their resources in gambling on Jet aircraft. They
were som out numbered they needed to gamble. Note however at the end of the
war that an Me109K could easily out climb any allied fighter.
>
> It is quite fortunate for us that the Germans were otherwise
> incompetent. Their failure to develope a workable four
> engine strategic bomber, as well as a viable transport system,
> allowed the Russians to stay behind the Urals and rebuild.
Germany after WW1 was extremely restricted. Aircraft over 100hp were not
allowed. Companies like Blaupunkt had to produce crystal radio sets becuase
they weren't allowed to make amplifier valves. Apart from other
resentments like the dishonouring of the terms of the armistice by breaking
up germany after WW1 against assurances of self determination these harsh
economic restrictions fueled huge resentments becuase of the harm they did.
Within a few year of Hitler taking power they were broadcasting TV and
producing some spectacular aircraft it was a spectacular turnaround.
An investigation by the RLM revealed that Germany lacked the sufficient
experienced designers to develop 4 engined bombers. (Though clearly they
could do a Fw200 airliner) So they decided to concentrate their limited
resoruces on fighters and 2 engined aircraft. The one 4 engined design
they did get in to production was the He 177 which had good performace
(better than a lancaster or B17 ) but had teething troubles (perhaps no
worse than say an AVRO manchester). By the time they were sorted out in
1943? in the He177 A5 version it was too late. The fuel consumption was so
high that the resources devoted to the He177 could no longer be supplied.
Some of the problems were of the Germans own making: trying to make their
aircraft a divebomber. The mechanical coupling of 4 engines into 2 nacelles
for aerodynmic reasons achieved little when they could have evenly
distributed their excellent DB603, DB605, BMW801 or jumo 213 evenly over the
wing.
I be;ieve the He177 did conduct some raids behined the Urals.
A 4 engined Focke Wulf Luftwaffe bomber did approach new york to within 10
miles and the Me264 could do this but having a fast long range bomber does
not eqaul having it in production and deployed. Succesfull in flight
refueling was also succesfully conducted.
The bomber B specifcation failed; resources for getting this into production
and free of teething problems did not exist. Nevertheless the designes were
interesting. The German ideal seemed to be a bomber matching any opposing
figher in speed with a small crew of 4 close together in a heavily armoured
cabin. Armament was usually a remotely controlled tail turret.
The idea of the Germans providing as much as 10 crew to man a bomber like
the B17 is quite ludicrous.
>
> The Nazi's made some extremely interesting toys, to be sure.
> But they still lost the war. And most people don't lament that loss.
Thats certainly true but as you watch the decline and almost certain
demograhic disappearence (a mathematical reality happening now) of european
derived peoples its worth considering how that came about. When all is
said and done Roosvelt nor Churchill did us any more favours than Hitler.
I'm only reiterating the views of the majority of americans up untill perl
harbour.
The Enlightenment
"Cub Driver" <lo...@my.sig.file> wrote in message
news:iuaccvkbadi2f6bi0...@4ax.com...
>
> >A true
> >Schnellbomber.
>
> The Germans called it their Wonder Bomber.
>
> Pity they never had a chance to inspect the B-29.
I imagine the inspection would have been more thorough than the Japanese
ones. German low altitude defenses were more lethal and extensive and made
low altitude raids as implemented by LeMay in Japan effectvely impossible
and that would have been left to B26/A26 aircaft that were no so lumbering
while the high altitude capillities of German fighters was also much better.
The japanese had warned the Germans about the B29. The altitude performance
of German fighers was up to intercepting a B29. Versions of the Me109G with
the AS supercharger had a good chance while the Me109K certainly could
opperate at that altitude.
A Ta152 had a speed of about 474 mph, service ceiling 48,000 ft and an
armament of 4 x 20mm cannon and 1 x 30mm cannon. Certainly enough to
threaten a B29. Still B29s would have been a worse headache for the
Luftwaffe.
I think the end of the 4 engined strategic level bomber was comming in WW2.
Its speculation but the SAMs the Germans were developing were perhaps one
half to a year at most away from deployment. Even Me262s firing their 24
R4M unquided missiles were achieving a kill ratio of 1 per sortie.
I'm no expert in B52s but these aircraft now only level bomb against nations
without intact airdefenses. Their only deployment against a half capable
enemy was Vietnam. Their survival seems to have rested on jamming of SA2s.
The Enlightenment
"ArtKramr" <artk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030518085235...@mb-m04.aol.com...
But the Stuvi was a dive bombing computer while the Norden was a level
bombing only device?
Noden Accuracy was dependant on manufacturing quality. I expect part of the
difference of a Lofte vs Norden would have been accuracy of build.
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/18/03 5:45 AM Pacific
>The Ju-88 also DID set a
>> >world record in March 1939, carrying a 4,409 lb bombload at an average
>> >speed of 321.25 mph over 1000 km- the almost same maximum
Those numbers mean nothing. Alt that counts is the actual performance flying
missions where fuel had to be conserved to the last drop and radiuus of action
determined everything. For example, the B-26, a 300 mph bomber never flew over
180mph IAS on auto lean well throttled back to conserve fuel and get max
range. Even then we were always watching the liquidometers fall and calculating
whether we would be able to get home or not. Read "God Bless St. Trond" in my
website to get an idea of ongoing fuel problems . The JU-88 never flew missions
at 321mph hour or anyhere near that. If they did they would never have made it
to the English Channel much less there and back.
Jukka O. Kauppinen
>>advanced mechanical dive bomb computer, Stuvi bombsight, which gave the
>>88s pin point accuracy. While the level bombers bombed area targets or
>>point targets with remarkably less accuracy, the Ju-88s could target and
>
>
> Postwar tests of that equipement showed it to be less acurate than the Norden
> bombsight by a good margin..And it was the B-26 that held the reputation for
> highest bombing acuracy of any bomber in WW II along with lowest losses due to
> enemy action..
Those are two completely different devices. Stuvi is *dive bombing
sight*, which worked on glide and dive bombing attacks. Norden is level
bomber sight. Germany had different sights for level bombing, one of the
most used being Goerz. Therefore I doubt that the tests are really about
comparing Stuvi to Norden, but their level bombing sights to Norden.
Stuvi is this:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/hallinportti2002/stuvi3.jpg
Goerz:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/hallinportti2002/dsc01200.jpg
Compare to these earlier British sights for example:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/hallinportti2002/Picture_027.jpg
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/hallinportti2002/dsc01201.jpg
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/hallinportti2002/Picture_040.jpg
Hm, seems I got no photo of the other German level bombing sight in that
museum, it was very nice item, fully electric and all.
Given the highly advanced state of the late German bombsights, like the
ones installed to Arado 234 jet bomber, I don't think they were behind
Norden in any way in accuracy, more like more accurate, with higher
speeds and bombing altitudes.
jok
Gordon
>Several RAF/Commonwealth pilots did NF tours as well as bomber tours,
<snip great info>
Thanks, Gavin. Personally, I can't imagine going from NF to lumbering along in
a Lanc with bullseyes painted on my wings and fuselage :x These men were
made of stouter stuff than I and god bless them for it.
v/r
Gordon
(currently five years into writing a book about Mosquitos vs elite
nightfighters over Berlin)
Gordon
>>>Ju-88 proved far more effective than FAF level bombers (Blenheim, Do-17,
>>>DB-3).
>>
>> Any evidence of this?
>
>Finnish literature is filled with evidence of that.
Thanks for chiming in, Jukka. I knew you were out there somewhere LOL
Always amazes me the way the Finn military conducted itself. The politics are
all over my head, but the conduct of the rank and file airmen and soldiers was
absolutely top notch.
v/r
Gordon
Urban Fredriksson
Gordon <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote:
>Always amazes me the way the Finn military conducted itself. The politics are
>all over my head, but the conduct of the rank and file airmen and soldiers was
>absolutely top notch.
And the SIGINT and codebreaker departments. Without them,
it wouldn't for example have been very feasible to send up
their own bombers to join the Soviet strategic bombers on
their way back from bombing Helsinki the third time and
bomb *their* bases when they were landing. Or have
fighters ready and waiting at the right time and place
many other times.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
There is always a yet unknown alternative.
Gordon
>What source claims the JU88 outscored all the other nightfighters
>put together, especially the Bf110?
I think the 1-1-Oh would have to be the winner here, strictly by looking at NJG
1 and 2. The 110 remained an effective, efficient nightfighter up to 1944,
when Mosquito Intruders and NFs put all German nachtjägers on the endangered
list. No German twin engine nightfighter could compete with them, until Kurt
and his boys got the 262 in January 45. For a host of reasons, they made no
difference other than a slight rise in Mosquito losses over Berlin.
> By 31 July the
>Ju88 finally made up just under 50% of the force, 650 aircraft versus
>663 of all the other types. By 30 September there were 739 Ju88s
>versus 661 of all other types.
Some of these were even still flying, but most had dry tanks and were waiting
the Grand Finale. Several of the NJGs had switched over to ground attack (the
hybrid groups such as NJG 11 for instance) and most restricted flying to only
the top pilots as fuel was too precious to waste on a Nachwuch pilot with
little hope of scoring multiple victories per sortie. Folks like Altner,
Becker, and a few others were still up and hunting at night, but by the fall of
1944, they spent much of their airborne time looking over their shoulders.
Hajo Herrmann believed himself shot down by a Mosquito; the German people as a
whole believed that the famous anti-Nazi Prinz Sayn von Wittgenstein ace was
killed by a Mosquito, as were many other top crews. Ju 88s or not, by this
time in the war, no German nightfighter was safe.
>
>To note the text in German Aircraft of the Second World War
>by Smith and Kay.
>
My favorite anthology of German aircraft. Careful though - its getting pretty
long in the tooth and more recent research has punched a few holes in Smith &
Kay's masterwork.
>>Over 15,000 of the aircraft were ultimately produced and the only
>>Allied aircraft that comes close to its versatility is the Mosquito.
>Do217, dive bomber (bad one), level bomber, night fighter,
>reconnaissance (small numbers), guided missile launcher.
Bernhard Jope, victor over the Battleship "Roma", proving that in the future,
aircraft could use guided missiles effectively against even the most heavily
armored ships. I think it was as much a wakeup call as Pearl Harbor.
>Ju88, dive bomber (but really too big), level bomber, night fighter,
>reconnaissance, torpedo bomber.
+ night intruder, coastal patrol, pathfinder, etc.
>The Do217 had the room to accommodate a torpedo internally.
>It is probably unanimously agreed the Ju88 was a better design
>than the Do217.
Interesting that no one has mentioned the He 111. What a dog. Yes, the "Yew"
was by far better than the 217 -- haven't met a LW nightfighter pilot yet that
liked the 217 more, although a few have pointed out that you could absolutely
PACK the nose of that thing with guns. Against Stirlings and Wellingtons, not
bad, but with Mossies in the air, best to fly with the canopy already off...
>The point is the Ju88 design had considerable stretch, the 1944
>Ju88G was around 100 mph faster than the Ju88A of 1939. The
>Ju88 was a very good design.
Postwar eval at Wright Field and at various RAF stations agreed. Bee Beaumont
and many other Allied test pilots had a high regard for the type.
>The Ju87 tank busters on the eastern front found at times it was a
>1 to 1 exchange, an aircraft for a tank, a rather losing proposition.
I had no idea it was this bad, but then I have never had an interest in the
Eastern Front. Were the losses due to ground fire, or a general loss rate due
to all causes?
Chris Mark
>The Ju-88 pilots have been very
>much of the same opinion, that attacking in the Ju-88 you was almost
>completely sure of hitting the target. Main reason was the highly
>advanced mechanical dive bomb computer, Stuvi bombsight, which gave the
>88s pin point accuracy. While the level bombers bombed area targets or
>point targets with remarkably less accuracy, the Ju-88s could target and
>hit the point targets,
> and with higher bombload.
Could you describe the types of targets that would receive dive-bombing attacks
as compared to those that received level bombing attacks? And also, what was
the flak like--type, numbers defending various targets?
In the Med, B-25s were used in low level attacks against shipping and sometimes
harbor installations, and sometimes against special targets that had resisted
other methods--railroad tunnels, for example--and against targets of
opportunity such as ground forces on the move. But it was found that for most
targets--bridges, rail yards, airfields, even port facilities--level bombing
from 7,000-9,000 feet actually did a better job and with reduced risk to the
bombers,since they were out of range of much light flak and all small arms.
Going in on the deck means some lucky bastard with a Mauser could theoretically
take out a bomber. Then you have the problem of collision with terrain or
structures at low level.
As far as sea targets, I don't know that there is any particular advantage to
low level v dive bombing with the exception of targets that can be destroyed by
strafing. But since a B-25 couldn't be used as a dive bomber, if it were
tasked with anti-shipping duties, the obvious answer is low level.
What duration was the average Ju-88 mission, by the way, and what payload would
they carry, especially dive-bombing v level---any differences in what they
carried?
Chris Mark
Jukka O. Kauppinen
>>much of the same opinion, that attacking in the Ju-88 you was almost
>>completely sure of hitting the target. Main reason was the highly
>>advanced mechanical dive bomb computer, Stuvi bombsight, which gave the
>>88s pin point accuracy.
> Could you describe the types of targets that would receive dive-bombing attacks
> as compared to those that received level bombing attacks? And also, what was
> the flak like--type, numbers defending various targets?
>
> What duration was the average Ju-88 mission, by the way, and what payload would
> they carry, especially dive-bombing v level---any differences in what they
> carried?
I'm first referring to the answers from Ju-88 pilot Eino Estama to me:
- My question
* Eino answers
- How big was the Ju 88 payload? How many bombs per target? Were they
500 or 1000 kg bombs, perhaps smaller?
* We had 500 kg bombs, but it depended on what the target was. Mostly we
carried 500 and 250 kg bombs.
- The lecturer visiting Ilmasilta air guild told that 2x500 and 2x250 kg
bombs were used a lot in summer '44.
* Yes, it was about the same with us. But it depended completely on the
target, did we use mine bombs, or sensitive or something else. We didn't
much use incensive bombs.
- What were the usual targets besides the summer '44 battles, before the
summer war? 1942, '43?
* The Finnish Army was still in 匿nislinna (Petroskoy) and we held
Carelia, so it was mostly supportive bases and airfields.
(Questions about bombing the Murmansk Railroad)
* Let's say the Murmansk Railroad. The far-patrolling rangers were
allowed to go there and the track was attacked too, but north of
Kuusamo, it was Germans who operated there. They bombed the Railroad and
also the city of Murmansk.
- How often did you fly?
* It depended on the weather. And the HQ, how they ordered. And how much
planes we had available.
- During the summer war you flew as much as you could?
* Yes, constantly.
- What was the normal bombing altitude?
* It depended a lot on the target. Sometimes we bombed at 3000 meters
(10,000'). We usually didn't dive bomb with the Ju 88. 3000-4000 meters
(10,000'-13,500') it usually was. But you can't generalize, it depended
on the target and the weather. Sometimes it was two kilometers (6,500'),
sometimes higher.
- How about glide bombing? How high did you start diving at target, and
when did you pull up?
* It depended on the direction of attack, how high was the cloud cover,
were we above or below clouds. Glide bombings are made so that the
engine sound doesn't give you away. But we did glide bombings very
rarely, usually we bombed level.
- What about the bombing process?
* The navigator calculated the situation all the time and guided the
pilot right, left...
- Eino described the Ju 88 bombing method. The most important detail of
the plane was a good bomb sight, an electronic device where the
bombardier input altitude, wind, speed and so on. It was like a
rudimentary computer. The pilot had the sights and all he had to do was
to keep the aiming reticle over the target. Then you dropped the bombs
and the pilot pushed a button on the stick that activated the autopilot
that pulled the plane out of the dive. The G forces were so high in the
straightening, you weren't strong enough to pull the plane up from the
fast dive by hand anymore.
- All in all, Eino praised the Junkers 88, "wonderful machine." All
systems were electric, you could even turn the propellor blades to rest
from the cockpit if you were flying with one engine only. The Blenheim,
for example, had no such property, but the stopped propellor slowed you
down in single engine flight.
- How were the bombs dropped? Single or cluster? How about aiming, did
you aim in one certain spot like a house, or did you just try to hit the
general area?
* Again, it depended on the target. What your orders were, what are you
trying to hit. We made a precise plan before flight, deciding from what
direction we closed in and how we bombed. The lead plane called the
shots. If there were changes they were told over radio, but usually
there was none. It depended on the situation if we dropped all at once,
in clusters or one by one; you can't generalize.
--
The bomb load of Ju-88 A-4 was 1500-2500 kg, but in Finnish service they
usually were loaded with 1500 kg because the airfields were small. The
inner bomb racks could be fitted with 10 x 50 kg bombs and external
racks with 250/500/1000 kg bombs.
The targets and tactics varied a lot. The first missions of PLeLv 44
(Bomber squadron 44, the Ju-88 unit) in 1943 were recon, railway
bridges, groudn unit bases and Soviet airfield at Lavansaari island.
First major mission of 1944 were 24.2. Russian warehouses and 9.3.
airfield of Kasimovo. The latter mission and other missions flown during
same time were especially remarkable, as the Finnish bombers joined
Soviet night bombers returning from bombing missions against Finland or
Estonia, even joining the landing patterns. The bombers were therefore
able to attack with complete surprise. The result after a number of
similar attacks was that Soviets moved the ADD strategic bomber force
farther and finally away from the Finnish theatre.
AFter first experiences with dive bombing with Ju-88s, the FiAF started
using 45 dive angle instead the original 60-80 degrees. After removing
the dive breaks the bomber accelerated to even 700 km/h speed in the
dive, which made the plane much harder target to the Soviet AA gunners
and fighters. To avoid losses (FiAF had very limited strenght and
getting replacement planes was very hard) the bomb release altitude was
generally 2500 meters. The accuracy of shallower andgle and the high
altitude was still excellent, though. An experienced crew could place
the bombs within 10 meters of the aim point. Largest problem was
naturally visibility and wind.
Bombing mission examples:
22.3. dive bomb mission against ground force base.
30.3. target airfield, level bombing, altitude 3400 meters.
3.4. target airfield, level bombing, 3700 meters.
18.5. airfield, level bombing
19.5. wareshouses, level bombing, 1500 meters.
13.6. ground forces, armour, supply columns. dive bombing.
14.6. dive bombing, tartget soviet concentration of armour in support of
own counter attack.
15.6. dive bombing, target armour and rocket artillery. bombers attacked
by soviet fighters, which were left behind after bombers dove to the
ground level and escaped
16.6. dive bombing, target Soviet invasion fleet
17.6. -""- / dive bombing of troop concentrations, railway, armour
19.6. and 20.6. dive bombing against invasion fleet
22.6. dive bombing target artillery concentrations and Tali-Ihantala
bridges (attack timed to coincide with Soviet attack by radio intelligence)
23.6. dive bombing target invasion fleet at lake Ladoga
The decisive battle of Tali-Ihantala started 25.6. (largest battle in
the Nordic history, over 100.000 soldiers deadlocked into 10x10
kilometers area), with Ju-88s concentrating the efforts there:
28.6. dive bombing at Tali-Ihantala bridges and artillery concentrations
29.6. dive bombing, bridges
30.6. dive bombing, troops and armour
1.7. level bombing, troop movements at road
3.7. dive bombing, armour and artillery
etc.
--
The bomb carrying capability of JU-88 was superior to the other Finnish
bombers. Blenheim carried usually 400 kg and the bomb loads consisted of
50-100 kg bombs. The Ju-88 on the other hand carried 250, 500 and 1000
kg bombs. It was described that when the rest of the bombers were
hammers, Ju-88 was the sledge hammer, whose attacks were seen to be
throwing Soviet tanks over the treetops. One of the "old timers" of the
FiAF bomber fleet, who had flown with Blenheims previously, insisted
flying with the maximum bomb load, at times even with 2 x 1000 kg bombs,
because he "finally could really deliver his message so that it would be
heard"...
Sovet AA varied but it was usually "hellish". The German pilots of the
unit Kuhlmey, Stuka and Focke Wulf jabo pilots, described that they'd
never seen such heavy AA fire in the whole Eastern front, that they
received at the battle of Tali-Ihantala. I have no clue what kind of
guns the Soviets had, but the veterans I've spoken with were most
worried of the 40mm, one of them was shot down in his Dornier Do 17 with
direct 40mm hit to the bomber fuel tanks.
jok
Paul J. Adam
Enlightenment <bern...@yahoo.com.au> writes
>I'm no expert in B52s but these aircraft now only level bomb against nations
>without intact airdefenses.
Not true... check out the B-52s during Allied Force. Lots of arguments
between the BUFF and BONE crews, some of it held here, about who was
hitting the better-defended targets.
Plus they don't just 'level bomb', they're ALCM-shooters, PGM droppers
and maritime attack platforms.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/18/03 6:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Noden Accuracy was dependant on manufacturing quality. I expect part of the
>difference of a Lofte vs Norden would have been accuracy of build.
>
All bombsights were dependant on manufacturing quality.
Chris Mark
<snip>
Thanks for a very informative reply.
>But we did glide bombings very
>rarely, usually we bombed level.
Sounds similar to the situation with B-25 in the Med except replace "glide"
with "low level."
>Bombing mission examples:
<snip>
It looks like what the Finns dive-bombed were the same types of targets the
B-25s would do low-level on---armor and troops and their support, and shipping.
The exception being bridges, I see these were being dive bombed. I believe
some of the fighter bombers tried their hand at dive (or glide) bombing
bridges, but a tight formation of B-25s flying level at medium altitude could
take care of a bridge no problem. Bridges generally had a lot of flak defending
them. They inflicted so much damage on bombers that a part of the attacking
force would be loaded with WP and bomb the flak positions. After that was done
a few times flak crews would abandon their positions when they saw the bombers
closing in.
If fighters were available they provided excellent flak suppression. Shortly
before the bombers would arrive over the target, fighers, P-39s or P-47s
usually, would sweep in and beat up the flak. If any guns fired on the bombers
as they made their approach, escorting fighters would peel off and make it hot
for the gun crews.
The whole system got to work so well that flak losses plunged dramatically.
The P-39s of the 350th were especially good at taking out flak batteries and
bomber crews loved to see those p-39s.
I'm guessing the Finns may not have had enough assets to supply dedicated
anti-flak fighter units for their medium bomber groups.
Incidentally, Ju-88s did one hell of a number on the 340th, hitting their
field in a low level night attack that destroyed more than 40 brand new B-25Js.
Thanks again for the great info on the Ju-88.
Chris Mark
Geoffrey Sinclair
>My favorite anthology of German aircraft. Careful though - its getting pretty
>long in the tooth and more recent research has punched a few holes in Smith &
>Kay's masterwork.
It is inevitable there are errors in any work trying to be comprehensive,
plus the way more of the German Archives are being put into order,
giving us more information. Forums like this, when they really work,
enable you to test the reference information, it makes posting
worthwhile.
I still have a soft spot for Warplanes of the Third Reich, mainly I
suppose for the way it was so comprehensive, even with all the
errors subsequent research has found.
>>The Ju87 tank busters on the eastern front found at times it was a
>>1 to 1 exchange, an aircraft for a tank, a rather losing proposition.
>
>I had no idea it was this bad, but then I have never had an interest in the
>Eastern Front. Were the losses due to ground fire, or a general loss rate due
>to all causes?
Causes of losses are not given, it was Red Army doctrine that
anyone with a weapon that could bear should shoot though so
I suspect the majority losses were to ground fire, the Red Air
Force fighters were not considered major problems. The
source of the quote is from Williamson Murray's book Luftwaffe,
a letter to him from Oberst Walther Krause about the losses
suffered in his squadron. Murray actually uses the words
"specialised anti-tank forces" which I abbreviated to Ju-87,
but it could have been an Fw190 or Hs129 unit.
Murray uses the log book of a He111 pilot to indicate just how
badly used the Luftwaffe in the east was in 1943/44. First
25 missions 8 August to 6 September 1943, no more than
10 minutes per mission over enemy territory. Next 25 missions,
7 to 22 September 2 missions lasted more than 10 minutes
over enemy territory, one was 15 minutes, the other 2 hours.
In the next 50 missions 3 lasted more than 10 minutes over
enemy territory. In his second 100 missions 32 lasted over
10 minutes but many of these were weather reconnaissance
over the Black Sea or transport missions to the Crimea.
Logbook of Leutnant Elmar Boersch from 3./KG4, he survived
the war with 311 combat missions to his credit.
So at a maximum of 5 minutes in and 5 minutes out he was
usually bombing maybe 15 miles behind enemy lines. Given
what the studies have revealed about air power support of
ground operations the Luftwaffe was really backing losers.
John Keeney
The Enlightenment <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1wLxa.37243$1s1.5...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> Err those "nazis" held the world speed record untill the 1990s with the Me
> 209. It took the US 50 years to beat them?
I'm curious, just what "world speed record" did the NAZIs hold "untill the
1990s"?
Keith Willshaw
"John Keeney" <jdke...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3ec87...@news.iglou.com...
Fastest piston engined aircraft. A specially built aircraft the Me 209 V1
set
the absolute world speed record of 469.22 mph on April 26, 1939.
The aircraft was flown by Flugkapitan Fritz Wendel, and powered by
a specially designed Daimler-Benz DB 601 ARJ twelve cylinder inverted
liquid cooled engine of 1,800 hp which could be boosted to 2,300 hp
Needless to say it wasnt a type that saw squadron service as a fighter
Keith
Adam S
>
> > as well as a viable transport system,
>
The Axis war effort had consistently poor logistics. No coordinated effort to
build enough trucks, not taking the different rail gauge in Russia into account,
large amounts of supplies being transported by horsedrawn carriages etc etc
Adam S
> The German did develop large long range bombers, maritine
> bombers. The failure, omission, to develop land versions of
No they didn't, if you're referring to the Focke Wulf Condor. That was
a converted airliner and as such was not designed to be shot at.
A S
Keith Willshaw
"Adam S" <musikint...@yahoo.se> wrote in message
news:3EC89425...@yahoo.se...
All this is true but building trucks would be impractical without securing
the
fuel for them and the Germans suffered from fuel shortages throughout the
war. They were scarcely less reliant on horses and trains for logistics
than the russians,especially when you recall that most of the trucks
the Russians used were supplied by the Aemricans under lend lease.
Keith
Jukka Raustia
> And the SIGINT and codebreaker departments. Without them,
> it wouldn't for example have been very feasible to send up
> their own bombers to join the Soviet strategic bombers on
> their way back from bombing Helsinki the third time and
> bomb *their* bases when they were landing. Or have
On has to remember that German did that earlier (1941?, 1942?) too...
Still, Finnish Air Force "produced" several features which were
among the best in the world.
1.) Pilot training (especially shooting and advanced formations),
www.virtualpilots.fi is filled with material about that.
2.) As you said,_tactical_ use of SIGINT. Also during air combat...
3.) C3 -system which was built with shoestring resources but still
worked during summer of 1944.
4.) Greatest aircraft maintenance personnel in the world. Simply look at
all types FAF flew during WW II... Then look at when they were
manufactured...
terveisin,
Jukka Raustia
--
"Päinvastoin, olisi nähtävä, että Suomen turvallisuus _kaikissa tilanteissa_
nojautuu olennaisesti siihen, että tarpeen vaatiessa Suomi voi tukeutua
Neuvostoliiton apuun koskemattomuutensa säilyttämiseksi."
-s. 57, Kaksiteräinen miekka - 70-luvun puolustuspolitiikkaa"
Jaakko Blomberg, Pentti Joenniemi, Helsinki 1971.
Andrew Chaplin
According to _The Great Planes_ by James Gilbert, Darryl Greenamyer
broke it in August 1969, in a Grumman Bearcat kitted out a DC-3's
engine and an airscrew from a Skyraider, by averaging 483.041 mph over
four runs. Not much of an increase for thirty years' work.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Andrew Chaplin
> According to _The Great Planes_ by James Gilbert, Darryl Greenamyer
> broke it in August 1969, in a Grumman Bearcat kitted out a DC-3's
> engine [....]
[DRAT!] That should read, "a DC-6's engine".
Bumper7
knowing you had 300 mph on tap but couldn't use it because of fuel limits.
Good Luck,
Bumper7
Alan Minyard
wrote:
And it had serious structural deficiencies that would have prevented
its use as a strategic asset.
Al Minyard
IBM
And it wasn't real happy with the loads it got in flight either.
I believe they had bunches of structural failures.
IBM
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/19/03 9:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3EC90B48...@NOSPAMattbi.com>
Well what is fuistrating is the constant misinterpretation of tech specs on the
variuous planes. for example:
It is true that the B-26 had an 1100 mile range.
It is true that it carried a 4,000 pound bomb load,
'It is true that it had a 300 mph top speed.
BUT NOT ALL AT THE SAME TIME !!!
A bomber is worthless unless it can get to the target and back. The guys who
flew the B-17's will tell you that they flew most missions at 125-135 mph IAS
to conserve fuel and go the distance both ways. And that is well below max
speed.
Steve Hix
"John Keeney" <jdke...@iglou.com> wrote:
Absolute airspeed record in level flight for a propeller-driven
aircraft. The 1939 record of 469mph was set by a purpose-built
Messerschmitt design.
The record was broken on 16 August, 1967, by Darryl Greenamyer
flying his modified F8F Bearcat "Conquest I", posting an average
speed over a 3km course of 483mph.
Being typically sulky, apparently the Nazis refused to hand
over the trophy until the 1990s.
You're welcome.
<ducksandrunsforcover>
Peter Stickney
Germany started the war resource-poor. As far bask as 1936, they were
cutting back on aircraft and othe weapons production becase they
didn't have the raw meteriels. It wasn't due to a lack of recognition
of the problem, but they just plain didn't have the stuff they needed,
and didn't have the foreign contacts or merchant shipping to import
enough. This lack of resources caused other problems, as well.
Becasue of the limited resources, Pilot and aircrew training were also
cut back, both in numbers of students, and in flight hours. For
example, with very few exceptions, German Day FIghter Pilots didn't
receive Instrument (Blind FLying) training. That's a real problem
given European weather, and contributed greatly to operational losses.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Peter Stickney
David Lentz <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>
> clif...@netdoor.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> It is quite fortunate for us that the Germans were otherwise
>> incompetent. Their failure to develope a workable four
>> engine strategic bomber, as well as a viable transport system,
>> allowed the Russians to stay behind the Urals and rebuild.
>
> I disagree a bit.
>
> The German did develop large long range bombers, maritine
> bombers. The failure, omission, to develop land versions of
I presume that you're talking about the Fw 200 here. While the Kondor
gained a formidable reputation when attacking single unarmed ships,
shadowing Convoys with no air escorts out in the mid-Atlantic, and
reporting on weather conditions near Iceland, it wasn't as effective
as the initial allied assessments indicated. The airplane was a
converted airliner, and was structurally very weak. It was easy to
break one in the air. While the range was good, the bombload was poor
- about that of a Ju 88. The defensive armament was, as on other
German bombers, optimistic rather than effective.
>
> Given the size of the German industrial base, I question the
> wisdom of an heavy investment in strategic bombers. I do admit
> that the idea of being able to attack Soviet war industry would
> be appealing. It might not have been practical. The Soviet
> could always build factories beyond the range of German bombers.
> The German had no where to which to retreat. The Soviets did.
I agree with you here. Another problem that plagued the Germans, and
would have rendered any Strategic Bombing effort ineffective was their
intelligence system. The Battle of Britain showed that they really
weren't doing a good job of identifying the appropriate targets (They
spent a lot ot time in the Battle of Britain shooting up Coastal
Commadn bases, for example, while missing fighter airfields), and
evaluating the results of their strikes. Their aerial recon cover was
spotty, and, for some reason that nobody can explain, they didn't make
use of overlapping photography or stereo pairs, which are vital to
proper Aerial Recon. (The reason that it's always struck me as odd is
that the German/Swiss firm of Wild (pronounced "Vildt", for those of
you in the midwest) was a pioneer in producing photogrammetric systems
using stereo pair aerial photos to produce topographic maps.)
Peter Stickney
artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) writes:
>>Subject: Re: JU 88 wreckage
>>From: Bumper7 p.rh...@NOSPAMattbi.com
>>Date: 5/19/03 9:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3EC90B48...@NOSPAMattbi.com>
>>
>>This is a great post, Art. That's must have been quite emmotional,
>>knowing you had 300 mph on tap but couldn't use it because of fuel limits.
> variuous planes. for example:
>
> It is true that the B-26 had an 1100 mile range.
>
> It is true that it carried a 4,000 pound bomb load,
>
> 'It is true that it had a 300 mph top speed.
>
> BUT NOT ALL AT THE SAME TIME !!!
>
> A bomber is worthless unless it can get to the target and back. The guys who
> flew the B-17's will tell you that they flew most missions at 125-135 mph IAS
> to conserve fuel and go the distance both ways. And that is well below max
> speed.
I can't agree more, Art! It is often very hard to make the budding
analysts understand how much context affects everything in flying.
ANd there are other factors, too. You can tell then how
mind-numbingly, deathly cold it is above 20,000', for example, but
most people have no idea. how bad it really is.
John Keeney
Keith Willshaw <keith@kwillshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ba9v30$p5r$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Thanks, Keith. No real suprise that a piston engine record stood for a
while. I'll wager that that the world record for steam engine speed has
stood for a while as well.
Keith Willshaw
>
>
> Thanks, Keith. No real suprise that a piston engine record stood for a
> while. I'll wager that that the world record for steam engine speed has
> stood for a while as well.
>
>
Yep set by the Mallard in 1938 at 125 mph in 1938 it still stands
Keith
ArtKramr
>Date: 5/19/03 9:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>This is a great post, Art. That's must have been quite emmotional,
>>>knowing you had 300 mph on tap but couldn't use it because of fuel limits.
>
>> Well what is fuistrating is the constant misinterpretation of tech specs on
>the
>> variuous planes. for example:
>>
>> It is true that the B-26 had an 1100 mile range.
>>
>> It is true that it carried a 4,000 pound bomb load,
>>
>> 'It is true that it had a 300 mph top speed.
>>
>> BUT NOT ALL AT THE SAME TIME !!!
>>
>> A bomber is worthless unless it can get to the target and back. The guys
>who
>> flew the B-17's will tell you that they flew most missions at 125-135 mph
>IAS
>> to conserve fuel and go the distance both ways. And that is well below max
>> speed.
>
>I can't agree more, Art! It is often very hard to make the budding
>analysts understand how much context affects everything in flying.
>ANd there are other factors, too. You can tell then how
>mind-numbingly, deathly cold it is above 20,000', for example, but
>most people have no idea. how bad it really is.
>
>
>--
>Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must
You remind me of the electric suits we wore in the winter. They had hot spots
under the arms, in the elbows and crotch. You would turn it on and leave it on
until the hot spots were about to burn you to death, then you would turn it off
until you were freezing. Then on,. Then off. Sheeesh.
The Enlightenment
Heinkel and Messerschmitt competed to provide the Luftwaffe's prime
fighter. The Heinkel (110 and 112) that was on offer was, apart from
a few dozen aircraft that entered Luftwaffe service a a result of
failed private exports, not put into production. The Heinkel was a
little like a Spitfire in that relied on refined aerodynamics born of
expensive compound curved metal work rather than the lightweight of
the Me109 and two dimensional wrapped sheets of the Me109.
Heinkel was about to run a flight to beat the Messerchmitt world speed
record but the Luftwaffe (actualy Goering) didn't want it known that
the Luftwaffes main fighter was not the fastest machine on earth. (The
Me209 which was billed as a modified Me109. I'm sure the engine block
and a few bell cranks and instruments were). At that time the Germans
were bluffing the size and capability of their armed forces to thwart
any kind of pre-emptive French or UK attack.
Heinkel always felt hard done by. The international rules for the
speed record demanded that their trial be conducted at (300ft).
Messerschmitt was based in Bavaria and 500ft was more like 1300ft
above sea level. The thinner air helped Messerchmitt over Heinkel
which was based in coastal prussia (now annexed to poland).
I believe that the Me109s metal work required 1/4th the labour of a
Spifires.
(The British developed some outstanding production managment
techniques that closed this gap. These cell based techniques were
rediscovered by the japanese in the 1980s)
The ease of production and cheapness of the 109 was what endeared it
to the Lefwaffe. Maybe the Heinkel fighter would have grown better
than the 109; handling the bigger DB603 engine that was needed better
and carrying more fuel. The Me 109 relied on light weight rather
aerodynamic efficiency. Towards the end of the war one thing a Me109K
pilot could rely upon was his superior rate of climb. His dive was
50mph slower than a P51.
Chris Mark
>Spifires.
>(The British developed some outstanding production managment
>techniques that closed this gap. These cell based techniques were
>rediscovered by the japanese in the 1980s)
>
Golly! Too bad BMC and British Leyland didn't discover them.
Chris Mark
Adam S
> Maybe the Heinkel fighter would have grown better
> than the 109; handling the bigger DB603 engine that was needed better
> and carrying more fuel.
I always wondered why in the later model 109s they didn't move the MG131 machine
guns to where the cannons used to be in the 109E, kept the engine-mounted cannon
where it was and used the extra space in the fuselage to have more fuel? I think
later-model 109s had a thinner wing but surely it must have been thick enough to
mount a machine gun?
A S
The Enlightenment
"Chris Mark" <xmar...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20030520225813...@mb-m07.aol.com...
British managment and engineering was actualy quite good. The problem they
had was the unions. To fix it they needed some Nazi ideology. National
Socialism. (Smile; just wanted to say something shocking). Let me explain.
Britain after the war became a hell hole of marxist class warfare. They
were always at each others throats; suspicious, working against each other
and they elected a great many labour governments. They nationialsed a great
deal of industry (like Leyland) and put up with a lot of stupidity. Its a
tribut to the Brithish they made the whole thing half work.
The core of national socialism was actualy the reconciliation of capital and
labour. Unions/Workers had a right to exist and a right to input under this
system and so did the companies have a right to sensible negotiations.
There was a right to strike but it was regulated and arbitrated.
This system was more or less implemented in Germany after WW2. One element
of Nazis that survived. Unions often had representatives on the board of
directors etc. A company that was experienceing a lull in work could go to
3 or 4 day working week to rather than retrench workers or suffer losses.
Germany had more or less caught up by 1960 when she was the 10th most
prosperous nation on earth. She had recieved half the martial aid of
Britain. Britain I believe rationed and regulated bread into the 1950s. I
think it was Clement Atlee's fault. he wasn't as smart as Adenauer who
implemented someting known as ordo capitalism: This is an explanation of
"Ordo Capitalism" <http://www.vdare.com/misc/zmirak_free_markets.htm>
I once was involved pre thatcher as a graduate engineer at a trade fairin
the UK. For an international trade fair exhibitors had to:
1 Use one of a group of two british tiles lifters who would not work on each
others side of the hall.
2 The tile lfters lifted the tiles so that the electricians could lay the
cable for the interconected machinery.
3 Technicians would then interconect the cables.
All in different unions. It only worked becuase of the bribes of beer and
the good nature of the British workers.
In an equaivlent fair in Germany exhibetors brought their own technicians
who lifted the tiles, layed the cable and conected it in 1/5th the time and
cost. the trade fair provided electricians who ensured power was available.
Is it any wonder that Germany not Britian dominates the lucrative business
of holding trade fairs?
Mind you Germany is in the shitter now. That Schroeder guy they have as
Chancelor is an idiot.
Keith Willshaw
>
> "Chris Mark" <xmar...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> news:20030520225813...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> > >From: bern...@yahoo.com.au (The Enlightenment)
> >
> > >Spifires.
> > >(The British developed some outstanding production managment
> > >techniques that closed this gap. These cell based techniques were
> > >rediscovered by the japanese in the 1980s)
> > >
> > Golly! Too bad BMC and British Leyland didn't discover them.
> >
> >
> > Chris Mark
>
> British managment and engineering was actualy quite good. The problem
they
> had was the unions. To fix it they needed some Nazi ideology. National
> Socialism. (Smile; just wanted to say something shocking). Let me
explain.
>
> Britain after the war became a hell hole of marxist class warfare. They
> were always at each others throats; suspicious, working against each other
> and they elected a great many labour governments. They nationialsed a
great
> deal of industry (like Leyland) and put up with a lot of stupidity. Its a
> tribut to the Brithish they made the whole thing half work.
>
British Leyland was nationalised 30 years after the war in 1975 for
the simple reason it was going bust after decades of mismanagement.
The option for the government was bail it out to the extent of Ł1.4 Billion
or watch it go bankrupt. They should have let it go bust and sold off the
profitable bits like LandRover, effectively thats what happened in the
long run anyway since Rover have a tiny fraction of the old BL market
share and heavily rely on technology licensed from Honda.
Keith
The Enlightenment
"Adam S" <musikint...@yahoo.se> wrote in message
news:3ECB48AC...@yahoo.se...
Apparently this configuration was used on the Me109H3
http://www.bf109.com/armament.html
Presumably something to do with the pressurised fueselage or the engine.
The handlely page automatic slats on the wings forced the Me109 to carry
removable cannon in underslung pods. When the guns were only machine guns
or the early MG FF oerlikon cannon this did not effect performance and I
think they just manged to fit them into the wing. From the Me109F the
aircraft carried a MG151/15 or MG151/20 (15mm or 20mm cannon) or a 30mm
Mk108 cannon. The removable cannon were optional from the Me109G.
I think the issue with German fighters was fire power because of the heavy
target they had to hit. It wasn't much sense flying a dangerous mission and
not fatally destroy the target.
In 1942 the Me209 was ready for testing. This had the following
modifications form what I can see.
-The engine was a DB603 sort of like a FW190D with an annular radiator for
both ease of production (modular power egg) and reduced drag.
-High vertical fin which was used in later versions of the Me109G and K.
-The wings were replaced with inward folding wide undercarriage.
The wing would have solved a lot of problems; high drag and stiff aelerones.
It was rejeted because it required to many production changes. I don't know
what this meant 500 aircraft maybe? Two months production?
I know this was a problem for the spitfire mods as well. Didn't the MkIX
precede the VIII.
The Enlightenment
The subject of Leyland and British industry is an intersting one for
study. I think it would have been better to let companies like that
go to the wall as you say. They are sick, full of bad managers, or a
bad set up or mad unions or maybe just in an industry that is no
longer needed and is not worth preserving. Who knows? Who will ever
know? The important thing is to let them die or KNOW that they will
die so that new and effective companies can take their place. These
are likely to not only be profitble but pay good wages and be good
places to work. Keep the organisation going and you keep down the
emergence of good companies.
Political realities probably prevented that. The British people were
just not ready for that kind of thinking because their politicians had
not prepared them with the correct ideology. The Germans had no
choice, though they ahd quite a few technicaly interesting white
elephants in the aviation industry.
Leyland had a lot going for it technology wise. Mini producxtion were
already using robot vision to locate the windshield of the car when
they came out. In Australia a Leyland subsiary came up with a car
called the P76 in its final year of life. The car was actualy
outstanding but it was too late for the reputation of the company.
I've read that the VC10 for instance was quite an effective airliner
but BOAC was motivated to smear it as expensive to run so that it
could get subsidies for buying British aircraft. Therefor no one else
purchased on the basis of its BOAC derived reputation.
Oddly it was a tiny bit less fuel efficient (this is controversial)
but only becuase BOAC was involved with writing the spec and called
for good short field performance from hot an high airfields where the
707 could not.
Peter Stickney
artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) writes:
> You remind me of the electric suits we wore in the winter. They had hot spots
> under the arms, in the elbows and crotch. You would turn it on and leave it on
> until the hot spots were about to burn you to death, then you would turn it off
> until you were freezing. Then on,. Then off. Sheeesh.
Sounds like the electric blanket my folks had when I was a kid. I've
heard that the heated suits had a habit of shorting out under damp
donditions (Such as sweating into the suit) and, of course, adding to
the discomfort of the poor guy weariing it.
--
Pete Stickney
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <2d7kab...@Mineshaft.local>
>
>In article <20030520100122...@mb-m24.aol.com>,
> artk...@aol.com (ArtKramr) writes:
>> You remind me of the electric suits we wore in the winter. They had hot
>spots
>> under the arms, in the elbows and crotch. You would turn it on and leave it
>on
>> until the hot spots were about to burn you to death, then you would turn it
>off
>> until you were freezing. Then on,. Then off. Sheeesh.
>
>Sounds like the electric blanket my folks had when I was a kid. I've
>heard that the heated suits had a habit of shorting out under damp
>donditions (Such as sweating into the suit) and, of course, adding to
>the discomfort of the poor guy weariing it.
>
>--
>Pete Stickney
Don't get me wrong. In spite of the discomforts we would rather have the
electric suits than not. It got cold up there.
Peter Stickney
Cub Driver <lo...@my.sig.file> writes:
>
>
>>remember it was equipped to be a dive bomber).
>
> This was a requirement, and one that pretty much ensured that the
> Luftwaffe would never develop a bomber with a payload and range
> necessary to win the war.
Oddly enough, I was just thumbing through some of my early WW 2 notes,
working on y reply another post, and I cam across this tidbit:
The specification for the Avro Manchester included, as a requirement,
that it be stressed for dive bombing. And, oddly enough stressed for
catapult launching as well. (No folding wings, though). When you add
in the twinned-Perigrine Vulture engines, it sounds quite a lot like
the Me 177's specification and layout.
Emmanuel Gustin
news:spluab...@Mineshaft.local...
> The specification for the Avro Manchester included, as a requirement,
> that it be stressed for dive bombing. And, oddly enough stressed for
> catapult launching as well. (No folding wings, though).
Specification P.13/36 did not call for dive bombing, but it did
require the aircraft to be able to carry two torpedoes. So in both
cases the potential naval role of the aircraft had a strong influence
on the design. In the case of P.13/36 this was beneficial, because
it gave these aircraft a roomy and undivided bomb bay.
The catapult launched requirement was not intended for carrier
ops, but you probably guessed that :-) At the time RAF bomber
runways were grass only and a 500-yards take-off run requirement
was in place. Catapult launch was seen as a way to get bombers
in the air with overload bombs or fuel. Later, of course, common
sense prevailed and longer, hardened runways were laid out.
> When you add in the twinned-Perigrine Vulture engines, it sounds
> quite a lot like the Me 177's specification and layout.
The concept of a twin-engined heavy bomber had much to
recommend to it, and coupling engines together was not an
novel idea either. However, everybody who tried this concept
failed. The problem was that the engine technology of the time
was not good enough to get 3000 hp from a single engine.
The R-3350 finally achieved it, but only matured after the war.
Allison even made a mock-up of a DV-6480 --- four V-1710
engines, coupled in pairs to V-3420s (used with reasonable
success on some bombers and on 'fighters' such as the
dreadful XP-75 and the horrible XP-58) and then to a single
DV-6480.
--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet.be
Flying Guns Page:
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
Peter Stickney
"Emmanuel Gustin" <REMOVE.Emma...@skynet.be> writes:
> "Peter Stickney" <pe...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:spluab...@Mineshaft.local...
>
>> The specification for the Avro Manchester included, as a requirement,
>> that it be stressed for dive bombing. And, oddly enough stressed for
>> catapult launching as well. (No folding wings, though).
>
> Specification P.13/36 did not call for dive bombing, but it did
> require the aircraft to be able to carry two torpedoes. So in both
> cases the potential naval role of the aircraft had a strong influence
> on the design. In the case of P.13/36 this was beneficial, because
> it gave these aircraft a roomy and undivided bomb bay.
It took a bit long to find a reference, but I've been able to at least
dig up something. The Halifax, during its development to the same
specification (Since Handley Page had a bit less pull than Vickers
Armstrong, they weren't able to get any allocation of Vultures, and
the Napier Sabre was horribly late, so they swithced from 2 nominally
2,000 HP engines to 4 Merlins before the first flight - sometimes,
political influence isn't a good thing) was granted a wiver during
its design to reduce the dive angle for bombing attacks to 26 degrees.
This is mentioned in the latest copy of Aeroplane Monthly that I've
been able to get (We run a month or two behind) While a dive angle of
30 degrees or so may not be Stuka terretory, it sounds might like as
close to dive bombing that a Medium/Heavy (It's sort of hard to say
just where the initial proposals for the Manchester and Halifax fell.)
is going to get.
>> When you add in the twinned-Perigrine Vulture engines, it sounds
>> quite a lot like the Me 177's specification and layout.
>
> The concept of a twin-engined heavy bomber had much to
> recommend to it, and coupling engines together was not an
> novel idea either. However, everybody who tried this concept
> failed. The problem was that the engine technology of the time
> was not good enough to get 3000 hp from a single engine.
> The R-3350 finally achieved it, but only matured after the war.
I think that the R4360 got there first, but at the cost of a lot of
complexity.
> Allison even made a mock-up of a DV-6480 --- four V-1710
> engines, coupled in pairs to V-3420s (used with reasonable
> success on some bombers and on 'fighters' such as the
> dreadful XP-75 and the horrible XP-58) and then to a single
> DV-6480.
Yes. It might be worth pointing out that Allison had more experience
than anybody else designing shafting and remote gearboxes. Not just
for the P-39/P-63, but also for the U.S, Navy rigid airships.