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

German Four Engined Bombers ?

Discussion in 'Air Warfare' started by FNG phpbb3, Apr 10, 2005.

  1. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,841
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
  2. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Try telling that to the people of Valetta, in Malta, who suffered from large numbers of daily raids from 1941-1942 at the hands of the Luftwaffe. :)
     
  3. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Hello, Mr C., :D
    I know they suffered. A lot of German bombs killed civilians. But:
    1. AFAIK the Germans were not the ones who started the campaign of prolonged bombardments of civilian areas as a comprehensive, strategic method of warfare (they did it as a retaliation, at a smaller scale – they were unable to do better/worse), and
    2. I don´r consider NSDAP regime as a civilized one, and
    3. Malta was a strategic target (the last point is superfluous)
     
  4. Moonchild

    Moonchild New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Slovakia
    via TanksinWW2
    In the Brown's book there was a simple explanation why he liked Condor so much. He flew it only as a plane, not the war-machine. And Condors were originally civilian airplanes, so they must have been good to drive.
     
  5. Canadian_Super_Patriot

    Canadian_Super_Patriot recruit

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The german were working on them , but they never entered service , heres a question. How come Germany didn't have a heavy bomber command like the allies did ? was because hitler and Goering were idiots or what ?
     
  6. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes They were idiots! ;)

    Those 2 ruined the Luftwaffe and made it useless as a weapon!
     
  7. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,841
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Why not?

    Partly because the Luftwaffe was designed as a tactical airforce to help win ground campaigns quickly, partly because you can built 5 medium bombers for the same expense/resources as 2 heavy bombers, and the German leadership wanted a show of strength.

    Plus - how would heavy bombers have helped Germany? (see above)

    Oh, and yes, neither Hitler nor Goering were entirely rational people... ;)
     
  8. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Hitler was mad? I hope you can provide evidence to support such a radical theory

    FNG
     
  9. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    It it is very likely he had gotten syphilis (in 1908/10) from a prostitute wich drove him mad.....

    http://hnn.us/comments/9441.html
     
  10. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Back to topic.. Germany had 4 engined aircraft as passenger aircraft of wich some were converted to Luftwaffe service!
    We all know the FW-200 but the Heinkel He-116b is another one!
    With better engines and armmament could have gotten the luftwaffe somewhere.....

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
  12. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    How come, thay could devise a ballistic missile and put it in large scale production, but to take a carcass, screw 4 motors to it and make a mass product out of it - that - they couldn´t . In my country there is a saying: "it´s better to lose something with a wise guy than to find somethin with a stupid one". Maybe you know local versions.
    With psychos like Hitler and Goering they´ve found something - belief in themselves. Just in order to, later, lose everything. V-2 project was a step in this (last) direction.
     
  13. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    How come, thay could devise a ballistic missile and put it in large scale production, but to take a carcass, screw 4 motors to it and make a mass product out of it - that - they couldn´t .

    With all due respect Izaak, have you even read the preceding posts?

    They could and did build four, even six engine planes and bombers, on a large scale however they chose not to. It's not a matter of inability it was a policy decision.

    They same could have been said of the Soviets, despite a small number of Pe8s (Or whatever designation you wish to use for them!), they largely ignored 4 engined strategic bombers, that's not to say that they were incapable of building them, they clearly weren't, but they chose to build a massive tactical airforce that would have the most direct influence on the battlefield, rather than a smaller strategic air force that would not directly alter battles.

    As for the Luftwaffe heavies, I really doubt they would have had a war-altering influence anyway.

    The Luftwaffe lacked the wealth of intelligence that the Allies had, through the likes of the ULTRA intercepts and in the east certainly faced a relatively fluid front, the US and UK heavies in Britain could operate from a position of pretty much complete security from enemy ground forces, and were pretty safe from the air as well, once over British airspace.

    A lot gets said about how the lack of a four engine heavy doomed the Luftwaffe, I don't think it did. Without the intelligence to pick targets of real military value it wouldn't have made any difference to the Battle of Britain, since the entire of Britain could be bombed by the Luftwaffe planes at the time from the south east to the shipyards of Belfast and Scotland, without a long range escort fighter any four engine heavies would be restricted to bombing blindly by night, as the twins were, so no change there then.

    In the east the you get basically the same the problems, a four engine heavy would not be immune to interception for long, and if the Soviet fighters/engines weren't up to the job a few squadrons of lend-lease inteceptors would be. So they'd have to carpet bomb the Urals blindly by night in the hope of hitting something worthwhile. Might slow down Soviet tank production a tiny fraction but unlikely to be enough to make a huge difference and that would only be until the front moved back out of range.

    The survivors would probably be wasted as hastily converted transports to try and bail out Paulos at Stalingrad.
     
  14. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, I have, Captain, Sir.
    I have DEVOURED them! I was in a satiric corner, Sir. Sorry, Sir.

    “however they chose not to. It's not a matter of inability it was a policy decision.”
    A: Then I´d be very happy to see the decision on paper or screen. There wasn´t such a decision. Hitler was biting carpets when he heard about more burning He-177s. Milch was on a verge of a suicide (well, not exactly, but he should have).

    Beeing pretty sure that they aren´t going to see an usable bomber on this side of the final Victory, they settled on building huge ballistic missiles with tiny warheads instead. Smart and cheap. And humanitarian. And humanistic (I am thinking of Armstrong´s famous words on the Moon.Unforgettable and – how wise! Thanks to Hitler´s stupid bomber designers!!!)

    The bombers were a particularly bad idea in view of Hitler´s plans to bomb factories on Urals and behind. (Remember, hehas never revoked these plans, whatever your wise arguments). Just a few hundreds kms from his planned line where to stop the offensive. (Sorry to say – it was more like a few thousands kms, even if the line had been reached, so the bombers would have to carry gasoline only to reach the targets – and back home).

    Simply don´t forget that the man was actually sick in his head. He WANTED the bombers, just as he wanted Me262 to drop some puny bombs and squeeze the last panic-sh*t out of the bloody jew-infested americans, instead of shooting bombers which were killing his own people. Which delayed the program long enough that the superb jet remained grounded (almost) till the Victory (not his, thank G-d).

    If my language is offensive to anyone, please let me know. THIS can be changed.
     
  15. Skua

    Skua New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    The decision to use the Me 262 as a fighter bomber was : 1. Not Hitlers idea, and 2. Perhaps not even a stupid idea. The successes of the Me 262 against bomber formations were few ( just look at the modest results the elite JV 44 achieved against sometimes unescorted American B-26 medium bombers, not to mention when they were escorted ), it might very well have been more useful as a fast attack aircraft.
     
  16. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,841
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    A website, I'm afraid, but this is the story I have consistantly seen in books etc.

    http://www.simviation.com/fsdcbaindo19.htm

    Talking about the Do19 (a 4-engined heavy from 1935).
    It mentions this:

    "When Generalleutnant Weaver died in an airplane crash, the heavy bomber program lost it's momentum, and was not to recover. When the Luftwaffe was given it's heavy blow over the skies of England, the error of not having heavy bombers became apparent. But by then it was too late in the day to develop the bombers required.

    Albert Kesselring, Weaver's successor, believed that what Germany required was more fighters and tactical bombers."
     
  17. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky, I hate to contradict you, but the search for Historic Truth forces me to do it, no matter how reluctantly I´ll be doing this.

    If you are with the website indicated to show, that the said policy decision was taken, then I am not convinced. Just read it again:
    "...... the heavy bomber program lost it's momentum, and was not to recover.(...)...the error of not having heavy bombers became apparent. But by then it was too late in the day to develop the bombers required.
    (....)....Albert Kesselring, Weaver's successor, believed that what Germany required was more fighters and tactical bombers."

    It does not sound like a decision.
    A decision is basically an order: " From this dato the Program of Heavy Bomber is cancelled. Period". This is a decision. Not: lost momentum, believed, etc". Sorry. Maybe I am wrong again. :(
     
  18. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,841
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    An actual order on a piece of paper saying 'no more big bombers'?
    I don't know. It would require research...

    Basically, the 'effective' head of the Luftwaffe (ie: not Goering) was a man who believed in their value. But he died, and a man who preferred the light/tactical bomber came in. New man, new policy.
    Germany developed several 4-engined heavies before 1939 (see Ome Joop's post above for a few, plus a few wartime developments), but all were quietly shelved in favour of 'planes like the Do17, the Ju88, the Ju87, the He111, etc after the death of Weaver

    Coincidence? ;)

    (Edit - correctly identified the poster who shared the pictures!)
     
  19. Izaak Stern

    Izaak Stern New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I´m sure there was a nasty conspiracy behind this!
    But , seriously: I am not fool enough not to believe in German designers´ capabilities. What I am "fighting for" is showing that Hitler´s regime was just as irrational as Le Corporal himself. People were corrupt, stupid, afraid of Hitler or all three (and more) simultaneously. The qualities of the German people in the sense of professional achievements, bravery, excellent work ethics – had been inherited form before. It was the political, Party top, that was rotten all through. And that´s them and Le Corporal himself, who botched almost everything they touched, including a coherent strategy of development of luftwaffe. No more, no less.
    As regards the "decision" to stop 4m bomber program: I am pretty sure that if it was actually issued, it would have been fond, like tonnes of other documents. I just happen to remember the topic from Milch´s book, who has never written, that the program had been abandoned.
    ;)
     
  20. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,841
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    No arguments that the German system was highly inefficient, disorganised etc.
    This was partly a deliberate attempt to keep powerful people fighting each other rather than fighting the government, and partly because nobody bothered to organise anything properly until Speer arrived.

    Basically, Weaver was asking for 4-engined bombers. He died.
    Kesselring asked the firms for more tactical bombers. So does Dornier continue with the Do19, or develop the Do17?

    Nobody (I think) has stated that Hitler himself leant down from his pulpit and stated "No Heavy Bombers".
    The point is, Germany could have had a decent 4-engined heavy in Squadron service in 1939 had it recieved official backing after Weaver's death. It did not.
    Therefore, Germany chose not to have a 4-engined heavy.

    Now, the V2 vs bombers.

    The V2 was not a cost-effective way to deliver 1,000lb of explosives to England, especially as accuracy was not precise!
    However, I would argue that it was more cost-effective than a fleet of bombers.

    Bombers can be intercepted, and Britain had one of the best air-defence systems in the world, and a huge fleet of interceptors. Bombers need escorts, which the Luftwaffe did not have. Bombers need large bases to operate from, which need to be built, and which the enemy can attack. Bombers need to be built, and require a large number of men to crew & service them.

    The V2 was impossible to intercept. It was launched from the rear of a large half-track. It was built (largely) by slave labour. It requires no crew, and a handful of technicians to set it up & fire it.

    All in all a far more sustainable bombardment method for Germany than a bomber fleet.
     

Share This Page