On German bombers (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
13,801
4,333
Apr 3, 2008
Deep in the shade that the LW fighters non-intentionally created, the LW bombers reside. How good they were? The missed opportunities? Claims that became 'facts' after years, if not decades of repeating?

To start the ball rolling, here is the excerpt from the He-177 A-3 manual (open the pic separately for hi res). My translation, so you know whom to blame:

he17 kenn.JPG
 
From current thread:

So now you want the Luftwaffe to develop a strategic bombing force.

LW wanted it. From the Do-19, He-111, He-177.

The reason the British and Americans deployed thousands of four engine bombers is because they needed that many to be sure of damaging German production. To hit a 200' by 200' structure they needed, statistically, to drop nearly 1000 bombs
.

The bomb raid does not need to go during the night only, so the navigators can actually guide the bomb stream to the target and bomb-aimers can actually hope to hit something. The LW heavy bomber will not do the 25000 ft bombing run either (like the B-17s did), but more likely from 17-18000 ft. The escorts need to kill VVS in process.

It worked, the Anglo-American campaign seriously curtailed German production, we can argue about the figures, but at a cost that the Germans simply could not afford.
There is no point in building a few hundred strategic bombers and going after Soviet production, you won't do enough damage.

There was almost 1200 of the He 177s built, not a few hundreds.
Many facilities, or their infra structure like machine tools, were very resilient against bombing. If the Soviets react by dispersing production in the vast expanses of the USSR you'll be lucky to find it, even with thousands of bombers.

That would mean that Soviets will relocate their factories twice. Not very good for the output of the war material. The dispersed production is lessefficient than huge factories.
The Baku oil fields cannot be relocated, it will took a while to start or increase production on other oil fields.

It's a complete dead end. The RLM had limited resources and had to martial them to best effect. Strategic bombers were a waste of those resources.
Cheers
Steve

The ww2 for the Nazi Germany was the dead end anyway.
 
I wonder what 'payload' (Zuladung) really means here. 11 tonnes is way beyond any value I can find quoted for the bomb load of the He 177, but it is very hard to interpret the term payload as applied to a dedicated bomber, as meaning anything other than the bomb load. I guess it really depends on what "Rüstgewicht" means. Tomo has translated it as "Equipped" (and my German is nowhere near good enough to dispute that), and Google offers nothing at all.
 
11 tons is the weight of the fuel plus bombs.

The bomb carrying capability of the He 177A-0. Caption on the low left corner: Mischlast-Sonderfall = mixed payload, special case. It allows for the bombs between 50 and 1700 kg to be carried on the 'Schlossebene I' (roughly = row one racks). If only 2 SC 1800 bombs are to be carried, they will be mounted at 'Schlossebene II'. As above - open the pic separately.

he17bay.JPG
 
Last edited:
Some sources give the 13 tons to be the payload (fuel + bombs), like Griehl's book about the He 177. This is the early He 177A-0, it does have less gun armament vs. the A-3 and subsequent, the engine should be lighter, too. The Beh.4 and Beh. 5 are two front fuselage fuel tanks, that can be replaced by two bigger tanks instead of bombs. Beh. 7 and 8 are outer wing tanks, Beh. 2 and 3 are inner wing tanks. Beh. = Behalter = Tank:

He177A_O A_1 load_range.jpg
 
Last edited:
He-177A3 was probably the best overall heavy bomber in the world during 1943. However only a few hundred were produced that year. Not enough to amount to a hill of beans for a war stretching from Kharkov to the English Channel.
 
Do 19 never flew as an operational bomber. Mentioning it smacks of desperation. The He 111 was hardly a strategic bomber comparable with those fielded by the Anglo-Americans. 2,000 Kg bomb load is barely adequate, and early versions carried even less.
They might have wanted such a force, certainly before Wever's demise, but they were not capable of building it. They weren't later either, as demonstrated perfectly by the He 177 saga.

1200 He 177 constructed is not the relevant number. The Germans needed something like that number in service at any given time to provide a genuine and meaningful strategic bombing force. They rarely even had a double figure number operational on any given day.

The He 177 was certainly not the best bomber operating (I use the term loosely for the He 177) in 1943. That was the Lancaster and by a country mile.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Do 19 never flew as an operational bomber. Mentioning it smacks of desperation. The He 111 was hardly a strategic bomber comparable with those fielded by the Anglo-Americans. 2,000 Kg bomb load is barely adequate, and early versions carried even less.

In the very important time of 1938-41, the He 111 was one of the best strategic bombers in service. RAF have had the Wellington, Hampden and Whitley as strategic bombers in that time, not the Lanc and Halifax.
Mentioning of the Do 19 is to show that LW kept a whether eye on the strategic bombers even before shooting started.

1200 He 177 constructed is not the relevant number. The Germans needed something like that number in service at any given time to provide a genuine and meaningful strategic bombing force. They rarely even had a double figure number operational on any given day.

The 'simple He 177' should enable more examples both produced and in service.
 
Do 19 never flew as an operational bomber. Mentioning it smacks of desperation. The He 111 was hardly a strategic bomber comparable with those fielded by the Anglo-Americans. 2,000 Kg bomb load is barely adequate, and early versions carried even less.

The He 111 was pretty comparable to the Wellington. It was a strategic bomber, just an early one and not overly large. Germans then sat on it and never gave it a 1500-1600hp engine until waaaayyyy to late. It doesn't get a "power" turret until late 1942 and that is powered in traverse only with one gun (a year after the same turret is used on the DO 217).

1200 He 177 constructed is not the relevant number. The Germans needed something like that number in service at any given time to provide a genuine and meaningful strategic bombing force. They rarely even had a double figure number operational on any given day.
Full agreement there.

The He 177 was certainly not the best bomber 'flying' in 1943. That was the Lancaster and by a country mile.

Lets see about the He 177

1. restricted bomb bay for some missions/loads............Check
2. Crappy defensive armament for 1943.......................Check
3. Low ceiling for daylight raids....................................Check
4. Poor engine reliability (after the 'fix')........................Check

Yep, it is hitting all the check marks for "best" :)

To be best it would have had to have been as good or better than the American or British bombers doing the same missions.
 
The He 177 needed to switch to 4 individual engines ASAP, along with increase of defensive firepower in the same time, in order to became a more useful (day) bomber.
The fuel and bombs weight for the Lanc (here):
-9774 liters, 4540 kg of bombs (vs. 10730 liters and 4000 kg for the He 177A-0; DB 606 - coupled 601E)
-7387 liters, 6350 kg of bombs (vs. 8800 liters and 7000 kg for the A-0)

Cruising speed - 410 km/h (per Griehl) vs. 365 (Lanc, on max lean mixture; how much at max. cont. power?). Max speed 480 kmh @ ~18000 ft vs 447 km/h @ 11500 ft (Lanc on combat power; 435 km/h @ 20000 ft). Granted, switching to individual engines would lower the Heinkel's speed, unless those engines are DB 605A or BMW 801s.
Lanc has more powerful armament for rear hemisphere, but none for 'belly' defense.

BTW:

1. restricted bomb bay for some missions/loads............Check

Still capable to lug 2 x 1800 kg (~7940 lbs) or 4 x 1000 kg (~8820 lbs) bombs in the bomb bay, with increased fuel.
 
.

The bomb raid does not need to go during the night only, so the navigators can actually guide the bomb stream to the target and bomb-aimers can actually hope to hit something. The LW heavy bomber will not do the 25000 ft bombing run either (like the B-17s did), but more likely from 17-18000 ft.

In 1944, bombing from altitudes averaging about 17,000 feet, in daylight, totally unopposed, the average radial standard deviation of bomb patterns attained by the RAF over 10 raids in Normandy was 620 yards. The average displacement of the mean point of impact over the ten raids was 408 yards. The very best was 100 yards and that is exceptional. Even with an average displacement of the mean point of impact of 100 yards the chances of hitting that 200' x 200' warehouse or machine shop are not good.
Your Luftwaffe bomb aimers will indeed be hoping to hit something.

100 RAF Lancasters achieved a bomb density of 10 bombs per acre at the centre of their bomb pattern.

The same rules applied to any other WW2 bombing force with comparable equipment and this is why the idea that a relative handful, even 40 or 50 heavy bombers could mount a precision type raid to destroy Soviet production facilities, factories , power stations, dams etc is just pie in the sky thinking.

It is historically demonstrated that a concerted campaign by hundreds or even thousands of bombers was required to have a significant impact. How significant that impact was is still the subject of debate seventy years later.

The Germans could never have afforded such an investment, even if they had had the means to build the force. They should never have attempted a half arsed programme like the He 177 and instead cut their losses and invested in something that might actually have proved useful to their war effort. The contribution of the He 177 to the German war effort was as near to zero as makes no difference.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Early He 177A3 continued to use the DB606 (paired DB601) as it was feared the DB610 would be unreliable, however the latter He 177A3 received the larger DB610 (Paired DB605) both being essentially the same engines used with fair reliability in the Me 109 and Me 110. All He 177A5 used the larger DB610. By early 1944 the engine was giving reliable service according to Griehl with MTBO of 220 hours. The solution being a combination of pilot training, maintenance procedures and most of all making sure the maintenance crews have the proper equipment. More or less the same solution as applied to the B-29. Obviously the 'fix' took far too long and its obvious that the Germans could have done very well with 4 equally distributed Jumo 211 and then transitioning to larger engines such as the Jumo 213, DB603, BMW801.

The maximum speed of the DB610 version 550kmh, that is 343mph, certainly faster than the Lancaster, Halifax or B-17. It was fast enough to avoid Soviet fighters.

The next version was the He 177A7 which had DB613 engines (twined DB603) and a larger wing. The wing had been designed structurally to allow 4 separate engines and in this form was known as the He 277A7. I suspect the engine issues would have been resolved in the He 177A7 but no one had the Stomach for it and they were going to head direct for the He 277 version.

It would have been in every way as magnificent as the B-29.

I don't see that the bomb bay was 'restricted', the criticism being valid perhaps for the He 177A1

There is no point 'gunning' a bomber engine to full power from the initiating of take off roll. It is best to wait until half of take-off speed is reached, to get a good airflow, and then go for full power. The increase in take off run is negligible as improved acceleration helps more in the second half of the take-off. B-29 crews were eventually trained to do their spark plug checks during the initial roll. They had been doing them waiting in line and also had the bad habbit of going to full power with brake on and then releasing rather than easing forward the throttles so that air was flowing.
 
Last edited:
He 177 A-3s and A-5s still had a bomb bay divided into three separate compartments. The Lancaster's bomb bay was 33' long and had width of 5'. Given that the entire aeroplane was only 68' 10" long that is nearly half the total length

No A-7 was ever built, so hardly relevant to WW2.

We can compare an estimated performance of an He 277 with that of a B-29 but not the actual performance and that's the point. The US built nearly 4,000 B-29s and many saw operational service, the same can't be said for the He 277 which was little more than a paper project.

When Major Kurt Schede who commanded I./FKG 50 refused to take responsibility for sending his He 177s out on operations in October 1942, due to on going problems he had some sympathy from Milch who is reported to have said.

"What good is a racehorse that displays its best speed over 200 metres but drops dead after 300."

The remarkable thing is that it was nearly another two years before the He 177 programme was finally abandoned.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
There bomb bay was divided longitudinally (=halved), but there were no divisions within those halves. See diagram above.

In 1944, bombing from altitudes averaging about 17,000 feet, in daylight, totally unopposed, the average radial standard deviation of bomb patterns attained by the RAF over 10 raids in Normandy was 620 yards. <snip>

Thanks for that data.

The same rules applied to any other WW2 bombing force with comparable equipment and this is why the idea that a relative handful, even 40 or 50 heavy bombers could mount a precision type raid to destroy Soviet production facilities, factories , power stations, dams etc is just pie in the sky thinking.

I'm sure that nobody will suggest a 40-50 bomber raid for a factory complex or oil processing facilities, stretching out at many square meters.

It is historically demonstrated that a concerted campaign by hundreds or even thousands of bombers was required to have a significant impact. How significant that impact was is still the subject of debate seventy years later.

Even if we just calculate the expenses Germany had on the air defense (AAA, fighters, radars, shelters, communications), the impact was surely felt.

The Germans could never have afforded such an investment, even if they had had the means to build the force.

Here we disagree.

They should never have attempted a half arsed programme like the He 177 and instead cut their losses and invested in something that might actually have proved useful to their war effort. The contribution of the He 177 to the German war effort was as near to zero as makes no difference.

Cheers

Steve

The He 177 was not a half-arsed programme. That might be said for, say, turning the Fw 200 into a combat aircraft. The Germans wanted too much of an aircraft, instead to go for a classic-layout 'horizontal' bomber with 4 separate engines.

Early He 177A3 continued to use the DB606 (paired DB601) as it was feared the DB610 would be unreliable, however the latter He 177A3 received the larger DB610 (Paired DB605) both being essentially the same engines used in the Me 109 and Me 110. All He 177A5 used the DB606.

Maybe you might want to check out the engine for the A-5, it should be the DB 610.

The maximum speed of the DB610 version 550kmh, that is 343mph, certainly faster than the Lancaster, Halifax or B-17. It was fast enough to avoid Soviet fighters.

Griehl gives max speed anywhere from 540 km/h to 480 km/h, for the versions with the DB 610. We don't know the max speed for the He 177 with all bombs and plenty of fuel carried. The 480 km/h max speed was when the two guided bombs were attached?
The MiG-3 was plenty capable enough to catch the any He 177, BTW. Though I'm not sure whether it would be able to certainly destroy it, unless it's a rare version with 2 cannons. By 1943, there was not many of the MiG 3 around?
If anyone wants the He 177 to survive daylight missions where fighter opposition is likely, better start thinkering about the long range fighters to escort it.

The next version was the He 177A7 which had DB613 engines (twined DB603) and a larger wing. The wing had been designed structurally to allow 4 separate engines and in this form was known as the He 277A7. I suspect the engine issues would have been resolved in the He 177A7 but no one had the Stomach for it and they were going to head direct for the He 277 version.

Griehl disagrees with you - the DB 610 was also in the A-7. The 4 engined He 177 was the He 177B, with BMW 801s.
 
Last edited:
In 1944, bombing from altitudes averaging about 17,000 feet, in daylight, totally unopposed, the average radial standard deviation of bomb patterns attained by the RAF over 10 raids in Normandy was 620 yards. The average displacement of the mean point of impact over the ten raids was 408 yards. The very best was 100 yards and that is exceptional. Even with an average displacement of the mean point of impact of 100 yards the chances of hitting that 200' x 200' warehouse or machine shop are not good.
Your Luftwaffe bomb aimers will indeed be hoping to hit something.

100 RAF Lancasters achieved a bomb density of 10 bombs per acre at the centre of their bomb pattern.

The same rules applied to any other WW2 bombing force with comparable equipment and this is why the idea that a relative handful, even 40 or 50 heavy bombers could mount a precision type raid to destroy Soviet production facilities, factories , power stations, dams etc is just pie in the sky thinking.

It is historically demonstrated that a concerted campaign by hundreds or even thousands of bombers was required to have a significant impact. How significant that impact was is still the subject of debate seventy years later.

The Germans could never have afforded such an investment, even if they had had the means to build the force. They should never have attempted a half arsed programme like the He 177 and instead cut their losses and invested in something that might actually have proved useful to their war effort. The contribution of the He 177 to the German war effort was as near to zero as makes no difference.

Cheers

Steve

Which is why they shifted to planning to use the Fritz-X bombs for their He-177s in strategic bombing, but didn't get the engines worked out in time. With the guided bomb the Germans would get much better accuracy per bomber during daylight.
 
No, it was divided into three compartments. I don't know the origin of the diagram above, but this is a German original for the A-5.

IMG_1312_web_zpsc4be6fdc.gif


When I said half arsed I was really meaning attempting to create a 60 degree dive bomber of the size of the He 177 and subsequently never really having any clear idea of what it was supposed to be.

Cheers

Steve
 
Which is why they shifted to planning to use the Fritz-X bombs for their He-177s in strategic bombing, but didn't get the engines worked out in time. With the guided bomb the Germans would get much better accuracy per bomber during daylight.
.

WW2 era guided munitions just weren't very reliable. You still need a lot of He 177s and a lot of Fritz Xs to do any meaningful damage to the production capacity of an entire nation.

Hundreds of human guided bombs couldn't stop an American fleet, never mind destroy entire industries in an enemy country.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Here is the part of the previously posted diagram. It can be seen that 3 lower bombloads would be impossible if the bomb bay way cut in 3 sections. The picture is from the manual of the He-177A-0.

bay.JPG


The 'Shlossebene' 1 and 2 were removable, so the fuel tanks 4 and 5 (fuselage front pair of tanks) can be replaced with bigger tanks, as can be read in the post 5 in this forum.
Also this diagram shows it, the 3rd case would be impossible with a 3-sectioned bomb bay (Nahbomber - short range bomber; Fernbomber - LR bomber):

bay2.JPG
 
Well, frames (spant) 13 and 19 on the drawing I posted are not solid bulkheads to the bomb doors so I suppose the loads illustrated above would be feasible with some jiggery pokery.

A 'rustzustande' is not something that could be done in the field but was a factory modification. It is a sub-designation of a sub-type.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back