Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Amerikabombers vs. Fu-Go balloons

Discussion in 'Air Warfare' started by me262 phpbb3, Feb 17, 2005.

  1. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    the use of the me 264 will be good in that case , but you will have only one shot, the next time you want to use it they will be waiting :bang: , you know what if mean!!
     
  2. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yeah, but one strike would also be enough ! Not only would an intire city be turned into ruins, but it would scare the crap out of any American !.

    Emagine looking in your daily newspaper and seeing New York lay in total ruins and looking like a moon-landscape !! That would severely affect every single American, to a point where i think they would back out of the war !

    Best regards, KBO.
     
  3. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    or perhaps will boost the morale with the cry: avange NY!!!!!!
     
  4. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Wouldnt you be scared if you saw NY look like Hiroshima did in 45 ? My first thought would be, "Holy ***t what if they do that again to another city ?!".

    Fact is you couldnt be sure if they'd do it again, and that would scare the crap out of anybody !! :eek: (I mean Hiroshima didnt exactly look splendid after the "Bomb" had hit it :D )

    KBO
     
  5. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    but it was 2 bombs and the emperor surrender that finished the war, after considering all the suffering of the people, in america will be the oposite, i think, as told before, is one shot attack, then they will be waiting and also the will do any effort to avenge that!!
     
  6. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes 2 bombs were dropped over Japan, but even one bomb would have made the emperor settle for surrender ! Also NY is bigger than Hiroshima and Nagasaki ! So a blow on NY would really spell disaster for the U.S. !

    Maby the goverment would urge people to take revenge, but i doubt people would dare, as they couldnt be certain it wouldnt happen again.

    Anyhow, we couldnt know ! ;)

    :D
     
  7. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    just remember this is a : what if situation?
    cheers!!!!! :smok:
     
  8. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Exactly ! :D

    Cheers m8 ! :smok:
     
  9. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    KBO, terror bombing didn't work against any civilian population of any of the major combatants of the war, why would the US have been so hugely different? Did the destruction of Hamburg have the Germans rioting in the streets and demanding peace? Did Coventry finish British morale? Yes NYC may be bigger, but the US is bigger overall too.

    You cannot compare the Hiroshima/Nagasaki strikes to what you are suggesting. On the one hand you have a nation that was defeated, almost defenceless, knew it and was considering surrender anyway against a nation facing it's first direct threat over its mainland, on the verge of victory, with a highly capable and well equipped airforce and more than capable of countering the threat.

    We can't know for certain, but the historical precedents are certainly there.

    As a symbolic counter, it's a hugely expensive program just to destroy one city, especially when there's every likelihood the aircraft wouldn't even reach the city in the first place, and can never be repeated, especially using a weapon that was not even available.

    A more likely scenario would have been the use of Chemical or Biological agents, but even then I can't see the US surrendering under these circumstances, I think you're underestimating the Americans somewhat KBO.

    KBO you make building a transatlantic bomber sound as simple as talking to the manufacturers, saying "We want a bigger plane with better engines" and they'll magically produce one. Let me say again: it's not as simple as just upping the size and adding a couple of extra engines. If it were that simple it would not have taken the US 4 to 5 years to produce the B-29, and a large amount of that time was spent with fingers crossed hoping that engines powerfull enough would become available.

    It took years of expensive R&D to produce practical strategic bombers by those WW2 powers that took that route, you cannot just take a plane and add a couple of extra engines without making significant, time consuming and costly alterations to the design.

    This is why I said in an earlier post that Germany was years away from producing an effective transatlantic bomber.

    Now this is not entirely a "What If...?" and it certainly did not start that way. The Fu-Gos existed and were used, the Me264 existed and flew, at least in prototype form, however the German Atomic Bomb did not exist (And because of the political hamstringing of German physicists was never likely to!), so trying to be realistic about this, I go back to what I originally said: The Fu-Go balloons were a better prospect, certainly in terms of what they could achieve militarily against the cost per unit than the Amerika Bombers.

    At the risk of repetition, neither with or without atomic weaponary (And I choose to consider without the far more likely option, KBO you can disagree all you wish and use this being a "What if...?" but the Germans did not have the bomb, nor were they realistically close to developing one), neither method of attack was going to turn things around for either Axis power. Again KBO, you can believe one massive attack would panic the whole US into sueing for peace if you want, I don't think that would have been the case.

    The Fu-Gos could have caused devastation throughout the woodlands on the US West Coast, you only need to look at the summer panic every year over forest fires where-ever they occur in the world to see the potential, the Amerika Bombers could only ever have been a huge drain on Germany's resources compared to what they stood to achieve.

    If it were not for Galland Hitler would have persued his own beliefs that Germany could only win in an offensive war, that would have meant more bombers and fewer defensive fighters. Hitler wanted bombers, especially Amerika bombers, Galland persuaded him that the only realistic chance Germany had in the airwar was to produce fighters.

    Yes, if Hitler had been adamant there would have been little Galland could have done to push it through, but the fact remains that the credit for halting Germany's bomber programme should go to Galland, not Hitler.
     
  10. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    It has nothing to do with the City's size, but being striked by an A-bomb is not at all the same as being regularly bombed !! An A-bomb would have much more effect on the public ! Why do you think it is called "the weapon to end all wars" ?!



    That could also be a possible scenario yes !


    Simon do you think the Go229 (Stealth aircraft) was easy to build ? Well the Germans build it ! And i would say that its at least 10 times more complicated than a long range bomber would ever be !

    Simon how can you say that the German werent close at completing a nuclear bomb ?! They were years ahead of the U.S. wich because of Germany's surrender recieved the last of the scientists, and thats was exactly what they needed. Hadnt Germany surrendered it was unlikely the U.S. would ever be first having a A-bomb !

    Well intercepting ballons wouldnt be hard ! It would be like a turkeyshoot. They would certainly be easier to shoot down than bombers !

    I never said it wasnt, but, eventually Hitler had the last word 'Always'.

    Best regards, KBO.
     
  11. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    It has nothing to do with the City's size, but being striked by an A-bomb is not at all the same as being regularly bombed !! An A-bomb would have much more effect on the public ! Why do you think it is called "the weapon to end all wars" ?!

    Terror bombing is Terror bombing, it doens't matter whether it comes from an incendiary bomb, an HE bomb, a blast bomb or an A-bomb. The difference and the reason why it is the "weapon to end all wars" (And let's face it, it didn't!), is that a single warhead/bomb can wipe out a city, however the to the dead of Hiroshima or the dead of Hamburg there is little difference, they're still dead, and killed by a power they could not defend against, that's Terror Bombing, you can't tell me that those killed at Hamburg thought "Oh, am I glad I was killed by a conventional fire, not a Nuclear blast!" However the availability of nuclear weapons did not match the availability of bombers.

    Regardless, yes it does have to do with a city's size and the nation's size. Wipe out one city from a nation with five and they will keenly feel it's loss, wipe out one city from a nation with a thousand and the others will think "Rather them than me". Remember the Stalin quote on the home page.

    Simon do you think the Go229 (Stealth aircraft) was easy to build ? Well the Germans build it ! And i would say that its at least 10 times more complicated than a long range bomber would ever be !

    KBO the Go229 was not designed as a stealth fighter, it was designed as a Jet fighter, the Stealth aspect was an accidental byproduct, and the Lippisch brothers spent years developing their design and that was from designers who had considerable experience building flying-wing aircraft, I really don't see the relevance here comparing that to producing a self defending bomber capable of bombing all the way over the Atlantic by a company (and nation) who had never built an effective long range strategic bomber. :-?

    Well intercepting ballons wouldnt be hard ! It would be like a turkeyshoot. They would certainly be easier to shoot down than bombers !

    No, not difficult at all, except that these balloons produced a minimal signature (bombers are bigger and produce a bigger signature) and travelled around 200 mph thanks to the jet stream, also the loss of a bomber (guaranteed if you want a decent bombload) far exceeds the cost of an unmanned balloon, finally please see link... /www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=331&SearchTerms=P-63,FuGo,killer

    yeah, a dead easy kill... :-?

    That could also be a possible scenario yes !

    What? The mass surrender, or the Chemical/Biological attack?
     
  12. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    another amerika bomber project was made by the horten brothers, the Ho XVIIIB, with a range of 11,000 kms, a ceiling of 16 kms, a endurance of 27 hours, the rlm expected the plane by the fall of 45, but you know the rest :smok:
    [​IMG]
     
  13. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    a fw 238/ 238h have a load of 12,699/11587 lbs,range of 14,100/15,000 kms and endurance of 29/ 48 hours
    [​IMG]
     
  14. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    If the A-bomb hadnt been developed there would be alot more war going on than now. The U.S. and Russia would without doubt have engaged each other !!

    :lol: :lol: Are you trying to tell me that a Nuclear bomb doesnt have more propoganda value than a conventional bomb ?!

    Well striking NY would also mean a real loss then ! ;)


    Well if these balloons were so effective, then why werent they used ?

    The Chemical attack !
     
  15. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    i saw a program about those ballons years ago, and if i can remember well the japs send about 10,000, from main land japan, the amercans do not know from were they launched, they suspected from ships near the coast, but up on further examination of the few examples they found intact, they analized the sand, used as ballast and by comparison with samples of sands they have, the concluded that they came from japan, they even managed to pinpoint the island!!! so they ordered a bombing attack to eliminate the ballon factories, another thing is that they did not mentioned to anybody about those ballons, so the japs never knew they reached america
     
  16. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    So the Japs used them ? :eek:
     
  17. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    yes they did, but never found out the results, if the had a positive comfirmation that they manage to reach america they probably send some more, perhaps around 100,000 ballons, because they were cheap!!!!
     
  18. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Hmm.. they didnt work very well though.
     
  19. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    oh yes, in principle they did, but as always you need feedback to know the succes or the failure of your attack, in thes case was a lack of info so no more ballons( after the attack from bombeers)
     
  20. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,841
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Ok, having read all this, I still stand by my first post.

    Germany did not have a plane capable of reaching America (and returning) with anything like a worthwhile bombload.
    Even if they went, they could only hit selected bits of the east coast, and America is a big country. Imagine a WW2 where the Germans could only bomb Lyme Regis, and the British could only bomb Koln. :roll:
    If they chose to terror-bomb, well, take a look at how everyone else responded to terror bombing. Take a look at how the US reacted to Pearl Harbour, or even 9/11.
    A-bombs? No. Germany largely gave up on them even before us Brits (and the Norwegian Resistance) started to sabotage their heavy water plants.
    And, after the first strike, the US would set up effective detection & interception systems. Could one strike (nuclear or not) achieve that much?

    Frankly, they's be better off trying the 'citrus bombing'... :D
     

Share This Page