saturncanuck
Any landing you can walk away from, is a good one.
Hey all, any info and pics on the Luftwaffe's pre-war four-engine bomber program?
Wurger said:The two known contenders were the Do 19 and the Ju 89. They got to hardware stage, and flew for some time, not being much appreciated. References were made ( Manfred Griehl in "Luftwaffe Over America") that other companies applied to the "Ural Bomber" program, including Rohrbach. Herr Griehl, unfortunatelly, never answered my questions on this topic, leaving me quite puzzled.
The death of General Walter Wever killed the project in 1936. Germany would lack a strategic air force for the entire lenght of WW2. Big mistake, luckily for us.
Jemiba said:"weren`t the Bf 165 posterior to the "Ural Bomber" programme? "
The Do 19 and Ju 89 were ordered in 1935, because these two companies were
regarded as the most experienced in the field of such heavy aircraft. The Ju 89
made its maiden flight in December 1936, the Do during summer 1936, whereas
the Bf 165 project is said to be "from 1937" in the mentioned book. But as the
start of the program was surely known to Messerschmitt, too, I could imagine,
that even earlier some thoughts were spent on a heavy bomber and that the
year 1937 only marks the official order for development.
In the pdf-file I just tried to summarise my thoughts about the Bf 165.
interesting statement. Anything more on this "Bomber A" programme? I recall something on the Junkers Ju 85I have read a RLM comparative evaluation in the time frame of the Bf 165. BFW was heavily criticised because of the poor quality of engineering drawings and documentation, as well as the inability to meet schedule committments
pometablava said:I can't match the third pic to any He-277 variant. Anybody can?.
Vietcong, I deleted two of the drawings you posted to avoid copyright issues. Could you please identify your sources?.
Many thanks,
Antonio
pometablava said:I can't match the third pic to any He-277 variant. Anybody can?.
Vietcong, I deleted two of the drawings you posted to avoid copyright issues. Could you please identify your sources?.
Many thanks,
Antonio
Jemiba said:Another design, which never proceeded to more than the mock-up stage, was
the Bf 165, see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1180.105.html,
#115.
Info and images of the Bf 165 design are available at the following thread:Jemiba said:Another design, which never proceeded to more than the mock-up stage, was
the Bf 165, see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1180.105.html,
#115.
Unfortunatly I can't access this web link I'm very interested in this Messerschmitt Bf-165 design
Regards
Pioneer
Back then Germany was more interested in building short-range dive-bombers to support Panzers in their new blitzkrieg style of warfare.
Back then Germany was more interested in building short-range dive-bombers to support Panzers in their new blitzkrieg style of warfare.
I believe there was also an economic element - i.e. smaller aircraft translates into more of...
During WW2, only Britain and America could afford to build large fleets of 4-engined bombers. Even those proved vulnerable to flack and interceptors.
Italy, Russia, Germany and Japan all built handfuls of 4-engined, heavy bombers, but they could not afford to build them in sufficient numbers to affect the outcome of the war.
<snip>
Russia built about 99 Petyakov Pe.8 heavy bombers. Slow development of super-chargers limited altitude to 30,000.' They could carry up to 11,000 pounds of bombs. They bombed Berlin, Helsinki, etc. focusing on railyards and similar strategic targets. After suffering heavy losses in combat, they were replaced by American-built B-25 Mitchel medium bombers.
<snip>
The war-winning advantages of the strategic bomber were and remain theoretical (and suspect, as post-war, USAAF strategic bombing surveys showed).
The war-winning advantages of the strategic bomber were and remain theoretical (and suspect, as post-war, USAAF strategic bombing surveys showed).
Interesting. I've just been reading Albert Speer's 'Inside the Third Reich', where he mentions the evaluation and want of attacking Russia's powerplants, with the realisation of its strategic importance to Russia's heavy industry, as well as its vulnerability. But alas, by this stage Speer, in his capacity as Minister of Armaments and Munitions, knew better than anyone, that Germany/Luftwaffe had lost the opertunity for it had failed to develop and field a heavy long-range bomber....
One of the reasons Id asked earlier for the specifications for the Heinkel He 177B-0, was that I was going to try and ascertain 'in theory' how many actual independent four-engine He 177B-0's German aircraft industry might have been able to have fielded, for that of the contemporary and troublesome coupled-engine He 177....
Saying this and appreciating Nazi Germany's methodical adherence to documentation, does anyone know of any production figures, in terms of man-hours taken to build a He 177??
Regards
Pioneer
The war-winning advantages of the strategic bomber were and remain theoretical (and suspect, as post-war, USAAF strategic bombing surveys showed).
Interesting. I've just been reading Albert Speer's 'Inside the Third Reich', where he mentions the evaluation and want of attacking Russia's powerplants, with the realisation of its strategic importance to Russia's heavy industry, as well as its vulnerability. But alas, by this stage Speer, in his capacity as Minister of Armaments and Munitions, knew better than anyone, that Germany/Luftwaffe had lost the opertunity for it had failed to develop and field a heavy long-range bomber....
One of the reasons Id asked earlier for the specifications for the Heinkel He 177B-0, was that I was going to try and ascertain 'in theory' how many actual independent four-engine He 177B-0's German aircraft industry might have been able to have fielded, for that of the contemporary and troublesome coupled-engine He 177....
Saying this and appreciating Nazi Germany's methodical adherence to documentation, does anyone know of any production figures, in terms of man-hours taken to build a He 177??
Regards
Pioneer
Moreover, if power plants really were that important, bombers were not the way to go. Britain is said to have had some major successes against German electrical plants using cheap balloons trailing wires---Project Outward. The wires shorted high-tension powerlines, overloading transformers and generation facilities, something that demolition bombs simply could not do.The war-winning advantages of the strategic bomber were and remain theoretical (and suspect, as post-war, USAAF strategic bombing surveys showed).
Interesting. I've just been reading Albert Speer's 'Inside the Third Reich', where he mentions the evaluation and want of attacking Russia's powerplants, with the realisation of its strategic importance to Russia's heavy industry, as well as its vulnerability. But alas, by this stage Speer, in his capacity as Minister of Armaments and Munitions, knew better than anyone, that Germany/Luftwaffe had lost the opertunity for it had failed to develop and field a heavy long-range bomber....
One of the reasons Id asked earlier for the specifications for the Heinkel He 177B-0, was that I was going to try and ascertain 'in theory' how many actual independent four-engine He 177B-0's German aircraft industry might have been able to have fielded, for that of the contemporary and troublesome coupled-engine He 177....
Saying this and appreciating Nazi Germany's methodical adherence to documentation, does anyone know of any production figures, in terms of man-hours taken to build a He 177??
Regards
Pioneer
Considering:
I'm guessing on top of its heavy long-range bomber role, the He 177B-0 would have been far more effective than the ad-hoc Fw 200 in the anti-shipping role...I'm not sure how important electricity production would have been as a target in reality. The fact the Soviets were able to move their important factories to the middle of nowhere behind the Urals suggests that power infrastructure must have been built pretty rapidly alongside the factories and of such a scale to provide sufficient power. Most of the major sources of power in the western USSR were lost, including coal and hydro and yet this loss must have been pretty quickly replaced. So the idea that even a modest force of German bombers could have done much to interrupt power supplies seems highly optimistic.
Even if a 1,000 He 177s had been built they would have been frittered away, probably against Britain's aerial defences in the main and as the Eastern Front rolled back, Soviet targets would be getting further and further away out of range. Plus you need fuel in large quantities for such operations, something the Luftwaffe didn't have.
Was Wever right or wrong? One could argue that the USA and Britain were outliers and that resources sucked up by bombers might have been better used in other classes of aircraft.
I'm not sure how important electricity production would have been as a target in reality. The fact the Soviets were able to move their important factories to the middle of nowhere behind the Urals suggests that power infrastructure must have been built pretty rapidly alongside the factories and of such a scale to provide sufficient power. Most of the major sources of power in the western USSR were lost, including coal and hydro and yet this loss must have been pretty quickly replaced. So the idea that even a modest force of German bombers could have done much to interrupt power supplies seems highly optimistic.
Even if a 1,000 He 177s had been built they would have been frittered away, probably against Britain's aerial defences in the main and as the Eastern Front rolled back, Soviet targets would be getting further and further away out of range. Plus you need fuel in large quantities for such operations, something the Luftwaffe didn't have.
Was Wever right or wrong? One could argue that the USA and Britain were outliers and that resources sucked up by bombers might have been better used in other classes of aircraft.
Given that page 9 the bookazine Luftwaffe: Secret Bombers of the Third Reich lists Messerschmitt as one of the companies bidding for the Fernbomber/Bomber A contract, the Bf 165 was almost certainly submitted to the Fernbomber competition given the timeframe in which it was designed (1936/1937). Remember that the BFW company that designed the Bf 109 did not change its name to Messerschmitt AG until 1938, two years after the Fernbomber requirement was issued.Hi,
I too think that these are from different programmes, but I`m not sure if the Bf 165 relates to the "Bomber A" one. The sources I have rule out any BFW tender.
interesting statement. Anything more on this "Bomber A" programme? I recall something on the Junkers Ju 85I have read a RLM comparative evaluation in the time frame of the Bf 165. BFW was heavily criticised because of the poor quality of engineering drawings and documentation, as well as the inability to meet schedule committments
About other tenders on the "Bomber A", please take a look here: