“Germany Had No Interest in Heavy Bombers” - The Junkers Ju 89
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2022
- Because the Luftwaffe never deployed an effective heavy bomber during World War Two, it isn't realised just how close they came to making strategic bombing a key doctrine - nor how potentially good one of the aircraft they developed for the role may have proven.
Subject Reading: amzn.to/3n5sd9H
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatters.online/
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/ednashmilitarymatters
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO 
Наука
Finally someone who talks about Wever, so many people dont get how different the Luftwaffe could have been with him as a driving force. Great video Ed! This could also have led to a bomber that could attack Britain way better than what ended up happening. Germany would still have lost in the end, but its an interesting alternate history scenario to think about.
In an alternate universe Mr. Nash's channel is in German...
I didn't know even know him until this very day!
Wever or not, Germany didn't have enough resources to build a significant fleet of heavy bombers, nor did she had the fuel to keep them running. Germany was a one-punch boxer in WW2. If that one punch failed, the fight was up for her ...
@@javiergilvidal1558perhaps, but Britain may well of been knocked out. What then.
@@rob5944 You confirm what I have just said. Britain may well HAVE (not "of") been knocked out, but she wasn't, in the single punch Germany was in the position to deal. Failing that, it was curtains for Gerry on the Western front. And, between you and me, Germany NEVER had a chance against Britain ....
That 22,000 pound world record is astonishing. If they put it into production it would have eventually received engines with double the power. Junkers knew what they were doing with those fat wings and Junkers flaps.
Yes they were creating a slow, vulnerable aircraft that could lift a lot.
@@nerome619 So, like the RAF bombers you mean.
1. The "dual DB605" or DB615 was 2 separate engines in each nacelle (a "four engine bomber") but the rear DB605 would overheat and catch fire. (Same as rear DB605 in the Do-339 "Arrow" aka "Pfeil'. I believe that the planned engine was cancelled and emphasis on DB-605 for Me-109 defense of Germany. The German RLM (military purchase authority) was pro-industry and made some poor decisions. The RLM and lack of effective logistics killed Germans.
@@stephenjacks8196 The engines were mounted side by side, there was too much heat where the exhaust manifolds were next to each other, they fixed the problem later in the war, it was really a good idea when done right
@@shawns0762 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177_Greif
The nacelles weren't wide enough for 2 engines side by side. Why would the engine fires from the rear engine translate to side by side? Corrected engine to DB610.
Many years ago I bought the book "Luftwaffe Secret Projects", which featured some interesting info about the Ju-89. Obviously, it looked on paper the perfect German weapon to the defeat the RAF during the Battle of Britain but overtime I noticed that even with much improved defensive weapons, it wouldn´t have mattered. Yes, it could fly way higher that the Heinkel He-111, but without fighter protection, the Germans would face losses comparable to the Americans over Germany before the introduction of the P-51 Mustang. I honestly don´t believe that it was as sturdy built as the B-17 to withstand the firepower of a Spitfire for example. Also, I don´t think the Germans would have improved it´s defensive firepower over the years; the Germans sent their Heinkels to fight over Spain, Poland and France with only three defensive machine guns and they thought it was enough over Britain. Most likely, they would have kept the original defensive weapons of the Ju-89. However, it could have been the perfect night bomber for the blitz, since it could carry a much heavier bomb load (and farther) or a more capable long-range oceanic patrol plane than the Fw-200 Condor.
I also loved the Junkers 290/390
It is good to remember that many in the Luftwaffe knew the importance of strategic bombers like the Ju 86 but would have required immense resources and manpower to build up fleet. Already one of the main issues that the Luftwaffe and the factories was facing in the early thirties was the lack of resources like aluminium and important alloys not to mention the ever present shortage of fuel. Another important issue was that the factories producing airplanes in Germany were all relatively small and narrow, as seen in many period photos that could not handle very well the production of the big bombers unless they were enlarged and there were actually few of those big factories like the Junkers factory in Dessau. With the death of General Walther Wever, the Luftwaffe with the approval of Göring and other people could finally shift to medium sized twin-engine bombers to build up the required numbers and shifting to Tactical support with the limited resources and manpower available. I agree fully with some guys that stated that in the long run it didn't much difference if it hadn't been produced or even produced....
In the Russian theatre long range heavy bombers WOULD have made a huge difference. Crippling energie supply to factories deep in the Ural mountains for instance would have hampered Russian resupply immensely. Medium bombers just didn't have the range and we're first of all needed for close air support.
Wow that early Boeing B-17 was a good looking machine! Amazing how forward thinking or advanced how the JU 89 appeared.
The early B-17 had too small fin area which induced spinning and rudder-lock. The British "Halifax" bomber had similar problems in its early models.
Now look up the Boeing XB-15 or Douglas XB-19 - and realise the Americans thought the B-17 was too big so actually ordered the DC-2 derived B-18 instead.
Great video! In the end, Germany made the best choice for itself. Heavy strategic bombers are for "wars of attrition" and such a war was one Germany could only lose if it tried to fight it. Germany simply hadn't the resources to sustain such a type of fighting. The only hope the Reich had of defeating its enemies in 1939 was to quickly overwhelm before they could muster their superior strengths against the Reich and grind Germany down.
It was to the advantage of the Allies to fight a war of attrition against Germany. We had the depth of resources that Germany lacked. Thus, fielding huge fleets of heavy strategic bombers was a necessary part of the strategy and type of war fighting.
Had the Germans attempted to field a heavy strategic bomber force in World War Two they'd have lost the war even faster than they did without one. The diversion of resources would've been so grand as to have blunted the effectiveness of their conventional attacks and that was the only hope they had of winning.
So, despite the power of the Ju 89 and its potential, the Germans made the right choice for their war aims in not pursuing its development as a bomber any further.
Another point is that the allies suffered disgusting loss rates when they attempted unescorted daytime bombing. Night bombing was too inaccurate to realistically hit anything smaller than a city, and bombing cities just isn't that impactful on a nations ability to keep fighting. Long range heavy bombers are mostly for show unless you also have some competitive long-range escort fighters to accompany them. And even then you need a awful lot of expensive bombers to meaningfully suppress enemy industry. I'ts quite interesting how many German factories continued to produce at a respectable capacity despite being the targets of regular bombing raids.
True. But having a few hundred heavy bombers at hand would have been useful in certain campaigns.
You are right, but I think also wrong. This was before the war when Germany was able to buy whatever resources were required. Massively increasing aircraft production capacity should have been a top priority before the war. I have always been surprised that no meaningful attempt was made at attacking Soviet (strategic) rear areas. For this and other reasons I would have wanted the JU 252 AND 352 to have been built in much larger numbers but that was during the war when production facilities and abilities were pretty much set. Germany with a fleet of 250-350 upgradable long bombers Plus long range transport aircraft would have enabled heavy strikes against Soviet production. Of course this would have required enough restraint not to use them in the BoB else they would have lost most if them. But remember Russia was always the goal - - I acknowledge that I have used the word restraint and the idea of long term thought and planning neither of which were Mr Hitler's strong points.
But had Germany used that heavy bomber force early in the war against Britain, bombing them into submission or destruction, then the USA would have been forced to operate from much greater distances, which would have denied their bombers the much needed air support of fighters. A German heavy bomber force could have won the war for Germany had it been done right.
I read somewhere it was FW190 tip and run, fighter bombers that could have done real damage to Britain, if the Germans had kept them up. Apparently the Germans did not realise how effective they were. Attrition rates were quite high, but they hit their targets. Much better than dropping 5000 Ibs of bombs on a muddy field from four miles up in the night-time. Probably cheaper on fuel too, which the Germans were always short of.
The problem with Germany's strategy was that they were really obsessed by dive bombing's capability, not only by dedicated aircrafts, such as the Stuka, but also by other models. Think that the JU88 lost about 100km /h for modifying the original project to allow dive bombing, or the trobles with the HE177, they wanted an heavy bomber capable of a 60* dive!. Ironically were the allies that were capable to field either strategical and tactical support aircrafts.
German RLM ordered more Tigers because profit per tank was higher than 4 Panzers. Allies had P47s with 3900 rounds of 50 cal. Nazis dive-bombed. Allies ammo couldn't kill Tiger but destroyed it's required fuel and maintenance vehicles. (The 50 cal ammo could penetrate Tiger top and rear armor thickness over engine.)
Everyone forgets 2 things about the Luftwaffe. 1. Wever studied Billy Mitchell, the rest bought into Blitzkrieg. 2. Goehring was expecting the war to begin in 1945. They went to war with what G looked on as stepping stones, not the actual weapons, and by then Germany would have built up an aircraft industry like the US.
this is what i call new, informative and at the same time entertaining content. gives new insight as to how germany adopted a rapidly outdating dive bombing plan over strategic bombing.
Always informative, great video Mr. Nash.
Love the videos and content. Love the subject matter always learn something I did not know.
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Another excellent analysis, Ed! But there's something left out.
The Germans never mass produced engines that provided reliable power at high altitude and, in the context of heavy bombers, no one but the USA did. Even the awesome Merlin fell short, which I'll get to.
Every bomber and more than 60% of fighters to fly long range, high altitude, mass raids had turbo superchargers. B-17s, B-24s, and B-29s all flew missions that no other production bombers could fly and, before the Merlin Mustang, P-47s and P-38s were similarly unique. All equipped with turbos and, though there were many engine issues for various engines, the turbos themselves were extraordinarily reliable. No one else, mostly due to lack of key metallurgy, could produce a single turbo that could last the lifetime of an airplane much less mass produce them. While the rest of the world was trying to figure out how to build a blower that wouldn't blow the engine in 8 hours, we just let the engines blow the horsepower out the exhaust and into the intake. LOL!
No other engines in the world, especially bomber engines, could do it.
What about the Merlin? What about the Mustang? Well, the Merlin, like any engine with a mechanical supercharger, will tear itself apart at high boost (engine stress) and, to provide much power at high altitude,, must run at high boost. A turbo, on the other hand, doesn't stress the engine itself so it can run longer at high boost. The Mustang and a few very well maintained Mosquitos managed to beat the system but that's because they were so clean they could nearly cruise at idle. I don't think even the two stage Merlins could have held up to the demands of a heavy bomber in formation at 25,000 feet. There's a reason why they didn't stick two stage Merlins in all the Lancasters and I think that's it.
Oh, yeah. The Germans couldn't really mass produce competitive engines at all. Lack of materials, lack of quality fuel, lack of lots of stuff.
Cheers!
Interesting thoughts Mr Nash.
1936 also saw the issuing of the P13/36 mefium bomber specification which produced the Avro Manchester and Handley Page Halifax.
This old fighter pilot never heard of this aircraft either till now....Thanks Ed Nash....Shoe🇺🇸
Other 4 engined German aircraft includes Me264 the Amerikabomber programme, Junkers Ju-920 was a four-engine long-range transport and heavy bomber used by the Luftwaffe. The Junkers Ju 287 a four engined jet bomber, Heinkel He 277 which going to replace the Heinkel He 177, with fours engines driving 4 propellers. The Heinkel He 274 was a German heavy bomber design developed for high-altitude bombing and the Junkers Ju 488, four engined design based on the Junkers Ju 188. These aircraft were build in very small numbers or didn't get off the drawing board.
Politics getting involved with strategic planning and vision. Thanks Ed another what if!
In an alternate universe Mr. Nash's channel is in German...
You are slightly off. Politics are impeding with clear military strategy thinking . Butthurt Nazis are still around.
Without long range fighter escort it wouldnt have really made any difference over Britain. The B 17s experience in 42/43 over Germany bears that out.
Germany would not have been able to sustain a heavy bomber campaign. Fuel alone was already an issue in the Luftwaffe we knew. Even if a bombing campaign similar to the Allied one could have been mounted against Britain, it would not have managed to defeat them. So an opportunity to force Britain to sue for peace or to conquer it would not have presented itself. Germany's strategy was centered around quick maneuvre warfare. This planned around Germany's lack of manpower and resources. A strategic bomber campaign wasn't needed in this framework.
Germany simply did not have the resources for as intensive a heavy bombing campaign as it would have taken to knock out Russian heavy industry past the Urals. Their population was half the US, more or less, and they were missingsome resources altogether (oil, specialty steel additives); they could have had half of both tactical and strategic air forces, or one or the other, but not both. Since strategic air forces were not needed until two years after the invasion of Poland, they would reduced tactical air forces and lengthened the Polish and French campaigns considerably; the French campaign especially might well have turned into a repeat of WW I, or foundered altogether.
@@michaelbizon444 Disagree, they kept up counter pressure on the Germans by hitting factories, ports and airfields destroying a dozen aircraft on the ground, their main success however was in the destruction of over 200 large barges (10% of the total Germany had been able to gather from across Europe for Sea Lion and 25% of the barges which could move under their own power). Proportionally it would be equivalent to Germany destroying between 300 and 750 of the 3000 landing craft ahead of D-Day.
@@michaelbizon444 Alright, they would win the air... but could they win over the morale of Sir Alan Brooke, general Weygand et al.? The ground forces were heading for a defeat, with or without the spitfires.
@@michaelbizon444 The early Spitfires barely had the range to cross the channel, they only had a few minutes endurance over France and its doubtful they would have prevented the Fall of France with the main limitation already being pilots rather than aircraft (RAF producing 300 fighters a week but only 200 pilots), 50% of the 6,600 trained pilots available were training fresh pilots (30%) or type training and advanced pilot courses (20%) to elevate their combat skills.
@@michaelbizon444 They didnt really lose the air war in the battle of France however and its not really clear what more fighters which didnt have ground attack capability at the time would have achieved. Only 15% of the German airforce were CAS, the rest were evenly split between bombers and fighters, the Allies already outnumbered the Germans in fighters and had more undeployed in reserve but had only 200 bombers. The Germans only gained air superiority over France after Dunkirk finished as the French had limited numbers of modern fighters.
How about a video on the Ju89’s competitor, the Dornier Do 19. Only one was built, but a very interesting aircraft. Bore a passing resemblance to the short Stirling.
I originally started doing that one, but decided the Junkers was more interesting :)
I'll do the dornier one day.
Thanks a lot. Makes me think of the Bloch MB.162
I have a quibble. The B-17, contrary to popular belief, was not named the Flying Fortress because of its defensive armament. It got its name because it was conceived, mostly, as an anti-shipping weapon that would function like the fortresses used for coastal defense. Since the only serious threat of attack on the US was by sea...?
I strongly recommend "Flying Forts" by Martin Caiden.
Cheers!
Good content
I don't think it would've made a colossal difference, the more pressing concern was fighter escorts with drop tanks that could follow the bomber stream all the way to enemy fighter interception and stay in the fight for long enough so the heavy bombers could deliver their payload. The heavy bomber is an impressive piece of kit no doubt about that but defensive guns have shown to be no substitute to proper escort fighters.
Could the Ju 89 have made a difference? Not much I'd say, the war in the air was one of clashing doctrines and the machines reflected that doctrine, history has shown which one was better.
With a need for long range escort fighter, the main Luftwaffe fighter would have probably been more similar C.202, Ki-61 and P-51. Still it would have been several years before any of those and by a German company, so it is hard to imagine what it would have looked like. With engines of that time, they would have needed to cut many corners.
Well if it should have made some kind of difference, it would require the ressources to have them built. But it is an intriguing what if, because what could have happened if the Germans had been able to effectively strike Russian factories deep inside Russia? Better start up som HoI4 and test the theory!
That's the thing--how would a 4-engine heavy bomber have supported Wehrmacht doctrine? Arguably, it wouldn't have helped much in the Battle of Britain (medium bombers were perfectly capable of reaching England from northern France), unless they were used to slow down fighter production in the north of England that the medium bombers couldn't reach. In order for the Ju-89 to have made a difference, Wever or somebody like him would have had to survive and have an impact in promoting strategic bombing of production assets.
This seems like a big reach for the Luftwaffe, an institution that didn't even really embrace deep interdiction missions and viewed itself mostly as "flying artillery" and air defense.
@@SwingNeil Fair point. The Wehrmacht was based around the medium/dive bombers it had. Also, heavy bombers may need difficult to obtain metals in their construction, which Germany always struggled with. As the Allies found, accuracy when bombing at higher ceilings and longer ranges was also an issue. The German X/Y beam transmitter wasn't developed until 1940, acceptable for cities, but you would still have the issues the Allies had trying to hit smaller targets.
Slower, larger, unescorted bombers in daylight would have been shot down like the Allied bombers were in 1939/1940 when attacking German ports.
The Allies struggled to use heavy bombers to support ground troops in Normandy, even with all the extra years cooperation & development.
Basically, the Germans couldn't produce all the weapons they needed for a long term & strategic war. They went for their best compromise.
G'day,
The Luftwaffe had Drop-Tanks, in the Spanish Civil Waaauuugh(!), for their He-51 Ground Attack Biplanes, which Galland was flying, thereinat.
But Udet, Milch, and Goring between them never managed to have any built, or stockpiled, for the Me-109, and the ones for the Me-110 and He-51 would not fit, or could not be mounted on the 109.
In 1940 Galland was begging for Droptanks, during the Kanalkampf, but Herman and Adolf were prioritising their suicidal attack against the Soviet Union - within which the Luftwaffe was slated as Flying Tactical Artillery, not for escorted long range Strategic Bombing missions.
Therefore, thus, and because..., the nastier group of Arseholes in the Shitfight contrived to cripple and sabotage their own "best efforts", and thus they lost the Waaauugh(!) which they initiated.
Karma..., mate.
Arseholes
ALWAYS get their
Just(ifiable ?)
Deserts.....!
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Some must have realised what a missed opportunity the Junkers Ju 89 was when they were having to build the Mistel to do the job which the Ju 89 could have done. Some 250 Mistels were built with limited success. Operation Iron Hammer was to knock out Soviet power stations around Moscow and Gorky. But these were never attacked because the Red Army had entered German and the Mistels no longer had the range. The Ju 89 could have carried out these raids.
When looking at the Allied bomber raids one thing which is often overlooked is that they tried up some 5,000 aircraft, about the same number of AAA guns and one million men. Stalin may have dismissed the idea that this was the second front but just imagine have having all of that to send to the east.
Another consideration was, in spite of bombed German facilities sometimes being put back in service relatively rapidly, it took manpower and resources that could have been used elsewhere.
Thats always been my take on the effectiveness of the Allied bombing campaign. Given how close Germany ran its opponents at various points in the war, even a few extra men, guns and aircraft in crucial spots could have made significant differences. And while German war production rose despite the Allied bombing, how much higher would it have been if it hadn't been constantly bombed?
Very true. People tend to think of "bombing efectiveness" as "what blew up", and forget the 10s of thousands of guns, hundrends of thousands of gunners and millions of rounds diverted from front live duty. Not to mention forcing the acelerated production of fighters at the expense of (almost) all bomber production.
Probably more, dramatically more if you add in light anti-aircraft weapons.
Imagine trying to fight your way into Germany against that sort of firepower?
@@leighrate I can't find my data, but I know that, in 1944, there were over 10700 88mm flak guns in service. I can't find the numbers of 105 and 128. Each 88 required a crew of 10. So.. do the math, add the support personnel...
He177 "Grief" was a 4 engined bomber The DB615 used was a doubled DB605.
("Greif")
@@None-zc5vg Doesn't 'grief' translate to 'greif'? What's important is my spell check prefers "Grief".
@@stephenjacks8196 No it does not, different languages are more than just minor spelling differences. it means Griffin, the mythical eagle headed flying horse.
Hi! I'd love it if you could make a video on Junkers 86 sometime in the future :)
An excellent video Ed. There has always been a big debate that Germany’s economy couldn’t support a Luftwaffe strategic airforce on the lines of Bomber Command and the Mighty Eighth. Professor Adam Tooze’s book the wages of destruction, undertakes a detailed analysis of the Nazi economy and its ability to wage war and Professor Philips P O’Brien’s book How the War was won the economic operation of Allied and Axis war operations, particularly air and sea.
Neither Germany or Japan had the economic strength or more importantly access to resources fuel, specialist material to fight a sustained war, so the resources for a Strategic Bomber units on the Allied principle. Consequently both sort to focus on a short war approach with highly trained units, so the original Luftwaffe until the Battle of Britain, by the end of which they had lost 72% of the aircraft and majority of crews they started with. Similarly at Midway the Japanese lost 4 of the 6 aircraft carriers of the infamous Kidō Butai both used these forces in a strategic strategy to hit the Allies strategic location of supply, though with aircraft the Allies would consider for use in tactical support. So a Lancaster to the British was Strategic, however the Heinkel 111 to the Germans was also considered Strategic.
In the 1930s, the USSR had the world's largest heavy bomber force, with over 800 four-engine planes. In WWII, however, Stalin followed the German example with mainly twin-engine mediums. As the end of the war neared, he looked with favor on the American heavies and tried to obtain B-29s, but the US refused and the Soviets wound up copying those that had wandered into Russian territory.
Interestingly, the choice of the staff officer to be sent to the Luftwaffe was either Walther Wever or Erich von Manstein, who declined the posting and stayed in the Army
A interesting point is most people think of it as a either or situation with the allies using heavy and axis light and med but in reality the allies used everything the axis used and on top of that used heavy bombers!
Because Germany built super long range rockets with radio guidance as A9/A10 , A10/A11 and Skoda V101 for carrying a nuclear warhead. Missiles were developed in Thuringina at Luisenthal and under Tambuch Forst Ohrduf. Warheads came from Kurt Diebners team.
no, they _designed_ most of those rockets, with only some basic prototypes built, and far too late in the war. Those were just part of the wild dreams of the "wonder weapons". They abandoned heavy bombers in 1936/37.
Long range strategic bombers operating in daylight typically suffered huge losses without fighter escort.
Very interesting story of the German aircraft's thanks 🙂👍
Thanks, and I don't know if you know, but the photo of the Stirling is in fact a photo of the half sized proof of concept model, #31.
Liked the video!!
More Japanese and Italian aircraft please 🙏 two favs
Yes please!!!
Excellent data. I always wondered about this plane and its background.
The Ju89 would have been a failure in the Battle of Britain.
Biggles would have landed his Hurricane on the substantial wing of the bomber, and, revolver in hand and with great daring do, capture the aeroplane and crew.
Not criticism, but the term is 'derring-do' ... it is a term that is rapidly being lost into obsolescent English. I trust that you will take this comment in good nature ...
@@Jester-Riddle centurion! strike him roughly!
The Jumo 211a was a 750 HP (continuous) class engine, not 1000 HP, about the same as the DB 601 that came a little later. The Germans did not have very powerful light weight aero engines in the 1930's which is why the Bf-109, Bf-110, He-112 and Ju-87 first ran with Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines bought to enable the prototypes to be evaluated with something like a definitive power plant. The Jumo 211 was improved with fuel injection and became a keystone engine for the Luftwaffe. The Daimler-Benz was a little lighter and more powerful, but it only came into its own after about 1938. The DB 601 had a power-to-weight ratio of 0.88 hp/lb, the RR Merlin had 0.96 hp/lb and the American Allison V-1710 had 1.05 hp/lb.
@@michaelbizon444 Correct up to a point. There were some very interesting in-line designs from the USA that promised huge potential but they were axed in favour of concentrating on big radials. The Bristol sleeve-valve designs had a bumpy start with engines like the Taurus and Perseus but came of age with the Hercules, one of the truly great engines of WW2 (which went on to about 2500 hp in the post-war Noratlas), as long as it did not overheat! The challenges that were overcome in metallurgy, tribology and metalworking to achieve this were truly herculean (no pun intended). My late father served as a pilot in the RAF on Wellingtons, he considered the Hercules absolutely the best. He later flew the Warwick that replaced the Wellington, with Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines which were unreliable and prone to catching fire. Fantastic British engines include the Bristol Centaurus (also used later in the Warwick) which was around during the war but grossly under-appreciated at the time,. It would come into its own in the Tempest, Fury and large transports. Another might-have-been was the Fairey Monarch, probably the only successful double-engine. It was smothered by the big-engine mafia, RR, Bristol and Napier. It would have been the perfect engine for naval aircraft and for the Fairey Battle. The prototype flew trouble-free during the whole war in the works Fairey Battle utility aircraft.The Merlin was fantastic but RR had other engines in the pipeline, namely the Gryphon which from an engineering point of view was more interesting, a better design. Had the Merlin not lived up to expectations the Gryphon would have been rushed into use. German in-line engines had bigger displacements than the equivalent British engines, the Merlin was 27 litres the DB 601 was 34 litres, this was largely due to much better British/American fuel technology and RR's excellent supercharger technology. Direct injection, for all its advantages, is actually a handicap with high supercharger pressures as the cooling effect of petrol evaporation is not felt. The best formula was the single-point injection carburettor with a membrane chamber instead of a float (Bendix) and an intercooler.
@@michaelbizon444 Point 1 - The USA were never bombed or otherwise seriously attacked, the Brits had the nazis across the English Channel. Point 2 - Ol' uncle Adolf was way but way behind on the nukes business, for a start the best scientists had either fled, refused to cooperate or been killed. There has recently been a resurgent of pseudo-nostalgic fantasies in this field, like the flying saucers, amerika bombers, huge missiles, 1000 ton tanks, etc. by the "what if" brigade. What we know for certain is that nazi Germany was not short of folks with vivid imaginations and a pencil. The notion that any of these crackpot schemes would ever come to fruition is in itself a denial of the realities in place. The Brits were significantly ahead of the Americans in the nuclear field, they called the project "Tube alloys", but they realised that they did not have the sheer resources to make it work in time, so they passed on all their work and their top scientists to the Americans. The US had the resources, but even so the project went several orders of magnitude over budget. Even if you discount the American propensity to make everything bigger and more expensive than necessary (the Germans inevitably make things more complicated than necessary, it's called over-engineering), the nuclear project was way beyond the capabilities of the UK or Germany, specially with direct wartime activity. On top of that you have political meddling, by the all-powerful nazi party on one hand, and by bureaucrats and really difficult guys (but close friends of Churchill) on the other, I refer of course to Prof. Lindemann, look him up. A classic case of the wrong guy in the wrong place. The British "committee" way of doing things largely holds this sort of problem in check, although it has disadvantages.
Aside from the use as a heavy bomber the Ju-89 in mass production would have made the cargo/passenger variant cheaper which would have improved the German supply situation in the battle of Stalingrad.
Another lost cause, feh!
Would you be covering also the uralbomber peojects?
Bearing in mind that you couldn’t have both, how would the ‘Blitzkrieg’ have gone if the Luftwaffe had gone for strategic bombing and not tactical operations?
Great video, though, Ed. Nice one:)
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread with clear thought aircraft production should have massively increased before the war started. While tactical aviation was the correct call generally having 250 - 350 evolved JU89s Plus better and more plentiful long range transport (JU 252 AND 352) Would have made a really big difference in the East against Soviet industrial sites. Russia was always the goal just don't waste them during the BoB. (I know, that requires restraint.)
What is the most capable heavy bomber of the Axis Powers?
Honestly the he 177 wasnt a bad aircraft it just didn't get enough attention untill it was to late and it wasnt made in enough numbers to make a difference like so many axis aircraft
Meh. KI-67 Peggy, maybe?
@@billywoods9192 the ki-67 Peggy is a good one to! Wish It got more attention
They had no interest in strategic bombing....
Coventry: say that slower mate.
Maybe coulda done to Stalingrad what Allied Air forces did to Berlin. I don't know, but I think the Soviet air defenses would not have been able to counter high altitude bombings
Artillery did a pretty devastating job of levelling much of Stalingrad, they didn't need heavy long range bombers when they could pound the Soviet forces in it at will from a few km away. Ruins make good defences for tenacious soldiers, as the Allies found out at Monte Cassino.
Thank you, Ed! I've been hoping you'd get around to covering the "Urals bombers"! Whilst Germany likely coudn't have produce many Ju 89's,, the fact that it had some may have made more of an impact than their numbers might suggest. Aside from anything else, they would have given the Luftwaffe the capability to mount attacks against Russian factories even after a lot of them were relocated to places east of the Urals.
Also, with a proper long-range heavy bomber in their arsenal, instead of the FW 200 (a converted airliner that wasn't really structurally strong enough for the loads imposed on it by military use)), Germany could have caused even higher losses in the Battle of the Atlantic, and also have had more aircraft available for weather recconaisance missions out into the Atlantic.
Can't help wonder of the effects an fully developed Ural bomber would have had at the start of Operation Barbarossa. Firstly, the main fighter of the Red Army Air Force at that time was still the I-16, not to mention that the only fighter they had with a supercharger was the MIG-3, so there was not all that much the Russians could have put up against a high altitude bomber. Secondly, most of Soviets heavy industry was located west of the Urals at the start of hostilities and they barely managed to move the industrial infrastructure beyond the Urals and out of the reach of the advancing German armies. It is doubtful that they would have been as successful if they had been the subject of a strategic bombing campaign at the same time. Not being able to move and save their industry would most likely meant that the Russians lost the war in and around 43. That was what they themselves feared and why they move their industry in the first place.
What about the proposed FW-300 ?
@EdNashsMilitaryMatters >>> 👍👍
Can't remember where I read it (Len Deighton?), but Nazi war production was only a fraction of the Kaiser's army logistics, so your point is good on the physical ability to do it
The aspect of scale. Big bomber air forces are massive- the logistics, training, and production of the NUMBERS of B-17,24 and 29 - those efforts were simply massive. And in lockstep with the shipbuilding? A few hundred heavy bombers alone just wouldn't have been the a decider, I believe.
I believe it was Goering, who after the war, stated that Hitler had asked him to build an air force that could conquer the European continent and he certainly delivered. When they went after targets in England and anything beyond the battlefield proper in the USSR they were in way above their heads.
does anyone know how many ground crew personell was required to keep one B-17 flying missions? I heard one aircraft needed 180 men on the ground to keep it running but I don't know if that's true. In any case, heavy bombers are expensive toys :-)
That turned Nazi Germany into a stinking hole.
According to historian John Mosier, newbie pilot Wever was preparing to fly solo in an He-70, a pretty hot aircraft in the day. What the chief of staff was doing flying solo in such an aircraft is kind of odd. Apparently Wever's preflight was a bit incomplete, as he forgot to unlock the ailerons. The rest is history. No Wever, finis heavy bomber program.
Kesselring replaced him as COS and emphasis concentrated on tactical bombers for ground support, which is what the WWI fighter pilots running the Luftwaffe establishment and the Heer wanted all along. Trying to fight the Battle of Britain with the He-111 and the Do-17 had the historic results. The subsequent development of the flying (sic) disaster, the He-177 with dive-bomber feature urged on by Udet, is covered in many places. No Ural Bomber when Russian industry largely relocated there in 1941-42.
"German had no interest in heavy bombers". Considering that Wever died in 1936, I'd say YES. That was true.
They made the He 177... it was the project that replaced the Ju 89, plus the abortive Ju 288 which is a whole different story, also a heavy.
The effectiveness of allied bombing is generally not disputed. It's just that everything within several miles of the target also tended to be destroyed which was not desired.
I don't think it would've made much of a difference...the factories in the Urals would be pretty tough to hit directly and there was no gaurantee of air superiority on the way
In Britain, numbers would do more to ensure the success of the mission (shooting down one heavy bomber or 4 medium?)
Just need to hit the rail lines between Moscow and the urals. The soviets had a hub system, with all roads leading to Moscow. Their ability to reroute was severely limited.
What a relief to finally hear about Wever and the Ural Bomber. With the German Engines that were developed, even though Merlin and Griffon were better, Germany could have wrought Havoc over Russia, and who knows, the war may have ended differently. Could they have made a bomber able to reach the USA, that one I doubt, but the UK would have suffered terribly, well more terribly than it did. With Jet engines...... ?
As far as aesthetics go at least the Boeing Prototype is just leaps and bounds better looking (in my opinion). But as I'm sure someone would scream, looks arn't everything. Tis true, and its very interesting to hear the stats of the JU-89. I still find it funny, that near the end of the war/post war mono-engine planes, such as the A-1 Skyraider, payloads could give heavy bombers a run for their money. I also like to speculate how the B-17 would have faired if given engines from different countries like the DB.605 (just as an example, I don't know if the 605 is a viable "bomber" engine or not).
The use of strategic bombers such as the JU 89 would not have changed the course of history. Because most of the military failures made by the Germans were determined by Hitler himself when he interfered the operational plannings on the spot. The dictator was a single minded man who reacted on certain provocations just like the pavlovian dog. Churchill himself saved Britain in 1940 when he ordered the Bomber Command to perform bombing raids at night against Berlin. This attacks where just pinpricks but they maid Hitler so furious he ordered the Luftwaffe to change tactics and to perform large scale bombing raids against London. This gave the Fighter Command enough time to regroup and to fill the gaps. Hitler with his thirst for revenge performed exactly in the way Churchill wanted him to do. So this would also have happened with heavy bombers.
we can recognize the wing of the ju87 in this monstruosity...
1:15 The Luftwaffe kinda did commit to the 4 engine heavy bomber. But the He 117 tended to overheat, with two engines in each of the cowls.
you mean the heinkel 177..the a5 version of the heinkel had overcome a lot of earlier engine problems but production of that advanced bomber was halted in august of 1944 with the beginning of the emergency fighter program
@@damiensuil2183 My bad on the typo.
But it was the Luftwaffe's 4 engine bomber.
The low aspect ratio wings of the JU-89 mark it as very much a product of the early to mid 1930s in bomber design. It would have needed a completely different wing to be comparable in performance to 4 engine British designs that flew during the war. Bigger engines would have been better put to use on a completely new design.
I think one of the main reason Germany lost the war was their lack of heavy bombers. Their inability to destroy the soviet factories in the eats was their downfall.
My favorite niche subject...
Why not rig these up with the Jumo 205/207 diesels? That way you get massive range, a reliable engine, good power, and great MPG. Solves the running costs issues at least and you'd only have needed a few of these to make a mess of British airfields. There's also a certain British bomb of 22k lbs.. Imagine if the Germans had designed and used a 17k lb runway bomb dispenser like that crate thing they slung under the Tornado... And they did try U12 and square versions of the Jumo diesels so you could have had a twin engined 89 or just remilitarised the Ju90 development..
I don't think a field version of ju 89 would have had a significant change (if the development went smoothly that is). Seems more like it would reduce the close air support ability of the german airforce and created a bigger burden on the industry tho i will admit that a focus on a single type of heavy bomber would also have some positives in the supply chain but again overall i think they would leave a weaker air force overall and possibly even help the british during the battle of britain with 89s being harder to replace
Not if it could hit the shadow factories accurately. Take out Merlin production.. And that's that.
I got a book that includes many Amerika Bomber aircraft from Germany. It's called Hitler's Luftwaffe, look for one with a red cover and the title at the top of the cover.
A few things: The Boeing Model 299 was a company built proof of concept (and was lost after a very short time due to pilot error). The XB-17 had .50 Caliber machine guns and larger engines. Accepted by the Army the YB-17s had more guns and even more powerful engines. As to what the Germans would have done with heavy bombers we can only conjecture. The Luftwaffe had the RAF on the ropes when Hitler turned them away from RAF airfields to useless Civilian targets. Might he have done the same in the East? Bomb Moscow instead of industrial targets beyond the Urals? IF is the greatest word in History. I am a Retired USAF Colonel, former Fighter Pilot. One of the first thing drilled into me was the, by our own BDA, utter waste Allied bombing was during the War. If the Allies had concentrated bombers on strategic production targets and Tactical areas it would have had a marked difference on the length of the War.
Germany lacked the resources for a serious strategic bombing fleet. Also, in Russia they got plenty of possiblities to target Russian industry with conventional bombers. For years, vital russian industry remained within reach - not all was shipped to Ural.
The Luftwaffe had to choose between tactical support and strategic targets. As we know, German command preferred the first. It has to do with the assumption of a quick war, with no need for strategic long-term attrition war.
Actually, Germany had some decent numbers of He 177. While it had 2 propellors, it actually was driven by 4 engines in a twin-matrix, and was a strategic bomber. However, its operation strength was wasted during the mini-blitz, leaving too few of them left to counter the Normandy invasion. Again, the potential was not exploited but used for other goals then a sound military purpose.
The Nazis were wedded to the idea of air power supporting their ground forces. Only a few having the vision to understand what heavy bombers could do to the enemy and when the one highest placed military official who understood that was was killed, this vision died due to the short shortsightedness of those who did not understand the future role of the bomber would be in the coming conflict. One heavy bomber can carry the payload of many medium ones and thus fewer heavy bombers would have been needed. So production of heavy bombers would have not been crippling as some have suggested.
Wrong, they were about range not bomb load.
Did any of them realise and admit their mistakes in not continuing with the heavy bomber policy?
would not have mattered...
1) indeed..a handfull (say 50 ?) of JU 89 would mean a reduction of , say 100, ju 87 + ju88s.
And those missing tactical bombers wld make the blitzkrieg campaigns in poland, norway , benelux and France a lot slower and less decisive in concentration of MAYHEM on the to be punctured frontlines....
2) strategic bombers wld NOT have made a difference in the subjugation of Poland 39, Norway 40 and benelux 40...all of those ended PRETTY quick.
Only in France 40 it might see an effect...less tactical bombers might see a bit longer france campaign..and then strategic TERROR bombing in France might have some effect..but again..not much.
3) BoB wld see NO DIFFERENCE: if anything the SLOW flying Ju89 with really NOT SO MUCH airdefense wld see them shot out of the sky by the spitfires..
Then again, the german fighters should give COVER..but those cld ONLY COVER for 20 minutes over KEnt and HARDLY deeper into England.
With France falling LATER..England wld have MORE fighters and more RADAR installed.
4) ONLY in Russia and N Africa might things brighten up for the nazis..
But again, if 200 Ju89 wld have been manufactured and employed ..leading to a REDUCTION of ju88 and ju87 of about 600...then many, MANY of the rapid envelopments of millions of russian troops in 41 and 42 would simply NOT HAVE occured...as a tradeoff of bombing a few soviet factories in the Ural....and again: NO PROTECTING FIGHTERS for the Ju89 trying to get to the Urals...
For the Brits: bombarding Alexandria/Malta at will for a few weeks..but then the allied fighters wilkl take a toll.
5) No thoughts about Ju89 in an anti shipping role ??
How about covering Billy Mitchell?
Very nice. I guess the impact this might have had on the Battle of Britain depends on whether or not the Germans could have deployed them in sufficient numbers to the right targets (primarily industrial, I'm guessing), with bombsights that let them accurately hit their targets. I couldn't imagine them getting to these targets without lots of escorts, which was always part of the problem for the Germans.
Can't wait to see your Ju-290 video.
Given the defensive armament included 20mm cannon (even at this early stage in development) I think large formations of this type over the UK during the Battle of Britain would have led to severe problems for RAF interceptors armed mainly (almost exclusively) with rifle-caliber machine guns. There are plenty of accounts of Luftwaffe mediums returning to base with hundreds of bullet holes.
The defending fighters would have been out-ranged and out-gunned by the cannon-armed bombers and I'm not convinced that at that early stage of the war the escort fighters would have needed to accompany the bombers all the way to their targets...?
@@jackaubrey8614 I don't think these bombers would have posed any more of a difficulty than what actually happened. German 4 engine strategic bombers would have been slower, giving the radar based defence more time to react. Considering the size of the aircraft, the defensive armament is still very weak, only 2 x MG & 2 X 20mm cannon. The issue is with the fire control. German MG operators (like all nations who used a manually operated swivel mounted system), struggled getting their guns to bear in the aircrafts slipstream against opposing fighters. I can't say what type of powered turrets they were going to use, but the French/British had supposedly the best in the world pre-war. Trying to get a heavy 20mm cannon on target would be even worse, with the technology they had. Neither the RAF/USAF went higher than 0.5"/12mm calibre during the war, for good reason.
When the RAF originally tried up gunning their 0.303" turrets to 0.5" approx mid war experiment, sadly the recoil buried the butts of the gun into the gunners chest.
Yes, the RAF fighters were under armed, & didn't always bring the German bombers down - but, it was still effective enough. The Boulton Paul Defiant fighter only had 4 x 0.303s, but still took the German bombers down easily enough.
There would have been less of these 4 engine bombers than twin engine type in a daylight raid formation, but with the same number of guns as the medium bombers, so it may be argued the number of guns for defensive fire is actually less (accepting though the 20mm cannons punch harder). The Americans had to use lots of 0.5" MGs to spray bullets to try & take out attacking fighters, the 20mm cannon rare of fire would have been a lot slower.
As others have mentioned, German bombers would still have had accuracy & weather issues (like all nations).
4 Engine bombers wouldn't be much help to Wehrmacht forces in the ground support role, the Allies couldn't make it work in 1944 despite air superiority. The Germans used dive bombers as they were far more accurate.
I'd agree night bombing cities could be more effective (baring weather & navigation issues), especially during the early war years, before radar armed fighters, & would have given them a greater range of targets. Just sending a bomber over a city gets the air raid sirens going, & workers going to shelters, stopping production.
@@eze8970 That was the prototypes armament, it is very liekely the nose and tail position would have gotten 20mm too.
The RAF bombers operated only at night, the US deluded itself into thinking the 12,7mm was good until the Korean war disabused them of that notion. The LW had 20mm cannons in ALL its medium and heavy bombers.
The Defiant was a joke.
Again, prototype weapons, once in service all bombers from all countries added guns.
The MG 151/20 has the same rate of fire as the rather mediocre M2.
The LW didnt use medium bombers in ground support, get a clue, they were used for interdiction and rear targets. Other aircraft were used for CAS.
@@trauko1388 Thank you for your reply.
It's possible about the 20mm cannon, BUT even the Luftwaffe didn't start putting them in the He177 until 1942, so in the 4th year of war. As stated, you also need a good mounting & aiming system to make them work, in the pre/early war years, I don't think any side had the tech to make it work properly.
The Korean war was in the 1950s, way after the timeframe were talking. The US 0.50" was considered good enough for WW2.
I don't think the Ju88 or Do17 had 20mm cannon to name 2, and it wasn't an official fitting in other twin engined bombers for crew armament, rather a occasional supplement. Again, you had to have proper mounting points & aiming systems. Even the US B29 bombers removed their 20mm cannon.
The Defiant definitely wasn't a joke. It's type holds the record for RAF squadron kills in a day. It was usually outclassed by single seat fighters, especially if outnumbered, but it was never intended to combat them, it was a bomber destroyer. Any plane out of it's role will suffer. People usually only hear from old info about the 2 times Defiant squadrons lost heavily in the Battle of Britain, but there were months when they were downing more than they lost. Modern evidence has shown far better how they really fared.
Weapons were changed from prototypes, but the 20mm wasn't really brought into LW service as a crewman standard weapon. The RAF struggled with even 0.50", & US didn't use them on their bombers. With the tech at the time, the 0.50"/12mm weapons were seen as best compromise between 'punch'/rate of fire/usability.
The LW did use it's bombers in the tactical role, especially in the early years, it wasn't just the Stukas (& Henschel 123). The Luftwaffe was a mainly Tactical Airforce due to the German Army Doctrine (& General Wevers death). Yes, they bombed the rear areas to, but would be used as called upon, no different from the Allied twin engine types. In one of my Eastern Front books, the author, a German Soldier, describes how German bombers help repel a Soviet tank attack on the front lines. Later in the war, the Germans had more flexibility for ground attack, using Me 109s & FW190s and other types.
@@eze8970 The He 177 didnt enter service until 1942, save for a small pre-production series they all got 20mm guns, a single MG FF on the A1s, three MG 151s on the A3s.
Regarding mounting and aiming devices, it affected ALL WW2 defensive weapons, not just the 20mm, and knowing the bombers will be firing back with cannons DOES make a difference to the fighter pilot.
Yeah, that is what the USAAF thought until they got to actually try 20mm cannon, then they realized their mistake YEARS after everyone had changed to 20mm during WW2...
The German mediums got MG FFs as modifications to defend from frontal attacks since 1940, Ju 188s even got MG 151s in turrets like the He 177.
The Defiant holds the record for CLAIMS in a day... something to ALWAYS keep in mind with the RAF.
The LW used both the MG FF and the MG 151, the former when space was at a premium, both were widely used.
No, the M2 was "what they had", it was a WW1 relic and literally had no other options beyond RCMGs... so M2s it was, same for everything else, specially when the US failed to make the Hispano work even when provided blueprints. That is why they were taken off the B29s.
There is no difference between using a medium to bomb fixed positions previous to an assault than using heavies, the US had an issue when they tried to use them in a more fluid situation and failed.
Jabo 109s were used since the BoB, they werent a late invention, same for the Bf 110s
Defence wise it’s very similar to what he Kondor would later sport.
I don't think so much as 'heavy' bombers being versatile for the German war effort, as opposed to 'long-range' bombers being needed. Once the Russians withdrew their heavy industry to the Ural's, their factories didn't just become unhindered to Luftwaffe bombing, it also allowed AAA and troops to be freed up to take the war to Germany. Ironically the Luftwaffe/RLM worked on high-altitude long-range aircraft like the Messerschmitt Me 261.
I guess the same thing could be said about the British, who were able to manufacture and train further North of the British with immunity from Luftwaffe bombing....
I understand the crazy psychology of the German high command was without doubt it's own worst enemy, but I could never understand the time, effort and resources wasted on the He 177 and it's coupled engine arrangement, growth in fuselage and wing weight to facilitate dive-bombing, instead of simply doing in essence what the British did with the Manchester to create the Lancaster - add an inner wing section to incorporate four individual necelled engines - one knows Ernst Heinkel himself knew and appriciate this himself when on 17 November 1938, he requested that two of the eight prototype He 117's (V3 and V4) be modified with four individual Jumo 211 engines in place of the coupled-engine DB 606's arrangement......
One should also appreciate that Goring rescinded the dive-bombing requirements of the He 117 on 15tg Sep 1942, in the hope of making the He 177 work.
Everyone talks about Wever but the Germans never had enough gasoline or aluminum and they also had no longer range fighters to protect them and most of specs for this bomber were predicted and there defensive weapons were primitive also the allied strategic bombing campaign wasn’t as successful as most people imagine it destroyed a lot of cities but only at the end was effective mostly in fuel production and really Germans wanted to sign a treaty with England as sea lion would be disaster for them the plan was one of intimidation and Russia could always move further away and even more dispersed
Given the range and load limitations of heavy bombers until after 2nd WW, they where all but absolutely useless to the Luftwaffe: America and Siberia where beyond the range of any long range bombers. Furthermore, there where no escort fighters with such range.
Since America was Britain's arsenal, why bother?
Excellent point indeed. A proper bomber force (something unrealistic for wartime Germany to build and maintain, but we are talking hypothetical) could have made the Western Allies lives more difficult. British factories, docks, and staging grounds all played a very important part in the wartime effort.
Britain built a buttload of 4-engined heavies, the Stick of Butch Harris ⭐.
The Luftwaffe was designed as short-range support for the army. 'Flying long range artillery', basically. Neither Hitler nor Goering had the slightest interest in strategic bombing. Hitler was obsessed by fighter-bombers, and also by numbers....
The other reason why Hitler's regime never developed a strategic bombing capability was because of the basic nature of governance which characterised that regime. It basically functioned like a Renaissance prince's court, where the person who got the ear of the prince got the job, or their project advanced.
Essentially, to advance any project, you had to get Hitler's approval.
However, you also had to KEEP Hitler's approval, and that was bloody difficult when the last person to speak to 'Der Fuhrer' today was the person whose newly approved project was launched tomorrow...
A strategic bomber is a project that needs sustained investment and work to be successful. That sort of long term thinking was precisely the thing that Hitler's regime could not offer....
By the way, that is essentially the reason why Nazi Germany never developed a blue water navy either...
And even a six engined bomber too…
Four engines would have made little difference to the Battle of Britain but the Blitz would have been heavier with more, but not decisive casualties to people and production. The fact is they could not have sustained much more force without lessening the invasion force on the prime target Russia.
Ironic germany knew that longrange bombers and aircraft where important , as the failures of fighter planes and medium bombers came to light ith fuel capacity , The FW 200 condor , the Donier 24T1 2 aircraft with huge range , both maritime build aircraft of one a flying boat that was extensivly used . by the Dutch east indies army .and build on specific request. it was ironic the luftwaffe refused to build longrange aircraft .
A long range bomber force sweeping in from the north sea and hitting Scapa Flo would leave the Atlantic free for Bismark and her sisters to reign havoc on the convoys.. .. just one of 'what if's'.
They'd have had to get there first. There were British fighter squadrons in the area I believe, and the bombers would have had no fighter escort. Which would not have ended well for them.
You may be right, but when the Junkers Ju 88 first arrived over Scapa Flow on 17th October 1939* it was three days after the sinking of the Royal Oak so the dispersal of the fleet had already begun, and it's not obvious to me that heavies would have found a target here to make the definitive difference.
(*Both the first German bomb of WWII to land on British soil and the first shooting down on British soil by anti-aircraft fire, btw.)
I head on some old doc.with hitler it was always how many not how big with bombers,seems it was the opposite with tanks
one can dream... one can dream.
Sorry but what’s he flaunting in his left hand at 2:00? You could get demonetised!
in my opinion that heavy bomber would have made a big difference in Russia, because the factories behind the Urals would have been very susceptible
We'll see the concept poke its head up again with the Ju390 . They added 2 more powerplants. Never happened. Too little, too late.
Piaggio p 108.
well... german air force would be also much more dangerous if fighters would have longer range as they only had few minutes over london to protect bombers. so with heavier bombers i dont think there would be all that much change.
I wonder how Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighters would have influenced the battle of Britain
Assuming that there really wasn't anything like a victory possible for Germany in the Battle of Britain, short of destroying the Royal Navy, the question is what difference would heavy bombers have made to the invasion of the USSR. I look at your map, and see the famous names (Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad) and see how shallow a penetration Germany actually made, and think "Not much." What would have been a decisive employment of the Urals bombers?
Soviets had large depots what could have been hit by longer range bombers, but as Ed mentioned Germans were hooked on tactical bombing, so enemy's strategic targets what feeded frontline were more or less untouched.
I wonder if the Germans would have developed an escort fighter with greater range if Wever hadn't died and the Ju 89 or Do 19 had been put into service.
Thot the Do-19 was a more handsome machine, but then, that was Dornier's duty 2 the art
Even if Weaver had lived, I seriously doubt that Germany would have had the resources to finish development and mass production of a heavy bomber. The German military had always sought rapid campaigns and the production of a heavy bomber didn't fit in with that concept.
Depends on whether 'r not Goring would have kept his back.
Over 1000 He 177 are nothing apparently...
it not only had dead end Junkers trailing edge flaps and ailerons a la Ju G38/52/86/87 it had them on the horizontal stabiiliser too. It needed a fat high lift/draggy wing for take off and landing slow flight. How many times do you see them in modern planes?