Best WWII Air-Force

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

What ?!

He means the standard configuration was tricycle landing gear....

Originally Posted by Soren

Thats incorrect, the He-277 wasn't just a prototype, it was finished well before wars end, the Fighter-defence program made sure both the He-177 & -277 didn't see much action though and is the pure reason for the low service record - trained pilots and fuel was missing. And in the few mission carried out escorts were missing.

And that still means that since it was not being used to bomb targets it is not a factor therefore is not part of the equation and therefore does not matter and as you called my point "moot" makes the He 277 a moot point to make...

Originally Posted by Soren

The B-29 wasn't ahead any way other than having a larger payload.

Actually its fire control system was ahead of anything in use at the time. The B-29 in all actuallity was the first "modern" heavy bomber.

Originally Posted by Soren

Way more capable ? The He-177 & -277 were both structurally more sound

Please prove this? What sources do you have to say so. Have you taken a B-29 and a He 277 and He 177 apart and studied the structures at detail.

If you can prove this, then please do so. If you can not then dont assumptions please...

Originally Posted by Soren

Interestingly the Germans had the Ju-390 that beats all three with a max bomb load of over 26,000 kg !! Range is much longer than all of the above as-well, an incredibly long 6,039 miles ! And despite the huge bombload speed is an impressive 505 km/h and the ceiling 6km with full bomb load.

And how many Ju 390s were actually built and used as bombers? None there were 2 prototypes built. 26 were ordered but never delivered. I dont think any of the 2 prototypes was actually flown with a bombload anyhow.

Originally Posted by Soren

This baby even reached the coast of the US during WW2.. (This could only be done with a very light bombload though)

And that is also debatable. It can not be proven or disproven.

Read the book KG 200 The Luftwaffes Most Secret Unit by Geoffrey J. Thomas and Barry Ketley. Interviews with Luftwaffe pilots from FAGr 5 state that this flight never happened. It was planned but never happened.

Also read the book Luftwaffe Over America The Secret Plans to Bomb the United States in WW2 by Manfred Griehl. It also shows evidence that it never happened as well.

FAGr 5 unit records also do not prove or disprove whether this flight actually took place.

FAGr 5 records state that the first prototype V1 (GH+UK) did not fly the mission which only leads us to the second prototype V2 (RC+DA) and Rechlin Test pilot, Oberleutnant Eisermann who also was flying (RC+DA) said that the second prototype did not fly the flight either.

Now having said all this. I believe the Ju 390 could have been a marvelous bomber (this is just my opinion though) but could have, should have, would have are all different things.

Originally Posted by Soren

Or what about the Me-264, with a speed of 560 km/h, a max bomb-load of 23,000 + kg, a range of 6,250 miles, and a service ceiling of 8km with full bomb-load. A very impressive aircraft, although cancelled with the initiation of the Fighter-defence program.

Again they never had anything other than prototypes. Therefore this aircraft is a moot point as well...

Originally Posted by Soren

The RAF is a strong contender for the best airforce of 1944 to 1945.

How was it better than the USAAF in 1945?

Originally Posted by Soren

The Allies didn't possess as good a tankbuster as the Hs-129, it was better armed, armored and a more stabile gun platform than any Allied ground attack aircraft. The problem with its engines were solved pretty early btw.

That is not true. The Allies had many fine tank busting aircraft.

And the Hs 129 still did not have that great of performance. Sorry it is true. I like the aircraft and agree it could have been the best in its role but it was not a "special purpose aircraft" in that sense and the allies had tank busting aircraft so this point is moot as well...

Originally Posted by Soren

And to your other comment about the Hs-129's combat effectiveness, well any of the dedicated ground-attack a/c of WW2 were vulnerable unless escorted by fighters - so thats a pretty moot point to make.

Negative the P-47 could take care of itself just fine so could the Tempest and the Typhoon and the ground attack versions of the Fw 190. Whether you want to realize it there were dedicated ground attack and tank busting versions of these aircraft so whos point is moot now...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

Ha ! And thats coming from you !


I can easily back it up, the He-177 was made to be able to dive bomb, hence its structural integrity had to be much higher than a conventional bomber.

Okay but have you actually tested the structural integrity of the B-29. What you just said up there is still speculation that the He 177 was stronger than the B-29.

Unless you have done tests and taken them apart and studied them, you are only speculating as syscom has said. This point is moot....

You see I can use the word moot as well....

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I had to use Wikipedia because some of the other sites for the He 277 information were very lacking.

The top speeds are very close but they don't matter much, what matters is the difference in cruise speed - check that out - The He-277 is a good deal faster than the B-29 at cruise speed; 460 km/h > 350 km/h.

Internal equipment? The B-29 carried "liaison set, radio compass, marker beacon, glide path receiver, localizer receiver, IFF (identification friend or foe) transformer, emergency rescue transmitter, blind bombing radar (on many aircraft), radio countermeasures, and static dischargers."

And the He-177 & He-277 carried about all of that as-well + infrared equipment.

I'm not saying the He 277 WOULD OF been a formidable aircraft. It was just as fast as the B-29

Faster at the all important cruise speed.

It's defensive armament was impressive but the B-29 had the most advanced and effective firecontrol system of any WW2 aircraft (and admittingly it did have some teething problems).

I don't believe the B-29 firecontrol system was any better than that carried on the He-177 or He-277, as far as I can see they have exactly the same functions.

That combined with its internal equipment made it the best bomber of WW2 period.

The B-29 had the advantage of not having its IFF equipment jammed, thats about all that made it superior, the He-177 & He-277 both carried pretty much the same equipment with very few exceptions.

Over all the 277 was close but no cigar....

I believe that had the LW invested trained men & fuel in this machine then it was just as good if not better than the B-29 - but as it looked there just wasn't any fuel or trained crew to spare, and the huge numbers of Allied fighters certainly didn't make life any easier.

[Soren]

And as to Jet-bombers:

Ju-287

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

The top speeds are very close but they don't matter much, what matters is the difference in cruise speed - check that out - The He-277 is a good deal faster than the B-29 at cruise speed; 460 km/h > 350 km/h.

Agree, but what about range?

Originally Posted by Soren

I don't believe the B-29 firecontrol system was any better than that carried on the He-177 or He-277, as far as I can see they have exactly the same functions.

Weren't some of the guns still hand operated in the 177? The only "hand gun" was the tail gunner on the 29 and in some cases that worked to an advantage.

Originally Posted by Soren

The B-29 had the advantage of not having its IFF equipment jammed, thats about all that made it superior, the He-177 & He-277 both carried pretty much the same equipment with very few exceptions.

Agree

Originally Posted by Soren

I believe that had the LW invested trained men & fuel in this machine then it was just as good if not better than the B-29 - but as it looked there just wasn't any fuel or trained crew to spare, and the huge numbers of Allied fighters certainly didn't make life any easier.

Agree there, but both aircraft were still taildraggers, recipes for disaster especially for green pilots. If there was a slight chance of either aircraft coming close to being operational, I think you would of had just as many losses to ground loops as you would of had to enemy fire.

[syscom3]

B29 vs He-277:

Armament for He-277
* 8 × 7.92 mm MG 81 machine guns in forward and rear fuselage barbettes
* 3 × 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in two dorsal turrets
* 1 × 15 mm or 20 mm MG 151 cannon in nose.

Look at that: 8 rifle caliber MG's compared to the B29's twelve .50's.

Plus the -277 DID NOT have a CFC system like the B29. The -277 guns were manually aimed, or mechanically controlled using traditional optical sites.

The B29 gets the points for having not only heavier firepower, but superior fire control.

Now for bombing radars:
The B29: Its tarted the war with the AN/APQ-13 radar bombing/navigational aid set, and then was upgraded to the AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar unit was used. Note - the Eagle antenna was mounted in a wing-shaped housing installed underneath the forward section of the fuselage.

The -277 had exactly what? And what was the IR set for?

The B29 gets the points for having aproven radar bombing set. The -277 gets no points simply because no reference is given to what avionics suites were used. And unfortunatly for the LW, as the war progressed to its final year, attaching radar bomb mechanisms to airframes and getting them to work became a lower and lower priority, while the converse was true for the RAF and AAF.

Production numbers:
He-277: Eight. And I didnt see any reference to any combat missions flown.
B29: Three thousand eight hundred ninety five (3895). Missions, I have to look it up tomorrow, but to say it was over 100,000 would not be an overstatement.

So Soren is comparing an airplane that was inferior in many area's, and was essentially never built or flew a mission, to one of the all time great bombers of WW2. Plus hes complaining that the LW didnt have the resources or fuel to get it to work as planned.

[Graeme]

Regarding that famous Junkers Ju 287V1 prototype.

It was just a large lash up, roughly the same size as the eventual bomber but made up of of bits of other aircraft. The objective was to test the forward swept wing (FSW) at low speeds. Surely it would have been better to build a high-speed testbed so that a scaled wing could be tested at all speeds?

The Ju287V1 used a fuselage based on that of an He 177, a tail from a Ju 388, main wheels from a Ju 352 and two nose wheels from captured B-24 Liberaters!
To avoid cutting into the wing the main gears were fixed and spatted, though the wing box was cut open to receive the legs and bracing struts. The fixed nose gears were also spatted, and mounted side by side under the He 177 type cockpit. Four Jumo 004B turbojets were used, two on the sides of the nose and two under the trailing edge of the wing, where under high g loads they twisted the wing the wrong way.

This ungainly contraption first flew on 16 August 1944. Bill Green says it was once dived to 404mph; they were pushing their luck. It certainly showed that at low speeds an FSW aircraft could fly well, but that was never questioned. Even at speeds around 300 knots it was found that wing deflection was causing serious problems. Junkers decided with the Ju 287V2 -which may have completed by the Russians-to use six Jumo 004Bs in triple clusters hung ahead of the wing, to try stop it twisting. But with traditional metal wings the whole idea was an impossibility, unless the wing was almost solid!

'Back to the Drawing Board'-Bill Gunston 1996.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

And as to Jet-bombers:

Ju-287

And did they actually have these bomber, let alone in any significant numbers?

No just like any of the other heavy bombers.

[Marcel]

No matter what, eventually all threads will become a best bomber thread

[mosquitoman]

Because ultimately, fighters are mainly defensive weapons of war, bombers are the offensive arm of any air force.

[drgondog]

Musing and wondering if Soren believes anything American during WWII deserved any respect by the LW? Its Ok to disdain Americans in General as brash and cocky but do you really believe that the American bombers were inferior to German bombers?

The one universal opinion (ok maybe 99%) is that the LW failed miserably in their approach to long range strategic airpower - both escort and bomber force - and it cost them the Battle of Britain and it prevented them from attacking Soviet industry.

They had no approach to even attack (repeatedly and successfully) airfields in Britain during 1943-1945 while even USAAF fighters roamed at will throughout Germany - and the LW could do nothing to stop them.

But we are here debating whether the B-29 was inferior to the vaunted German He and Me series that were never effective, couldn't operate and didn't contribute the the German war effort.

The He277 was as effective as the B-36 (meaning not effective at all) and inferior in design to the B-36 which would first fly one year after WWII was over.

The LW never put out a heavy bomber that was the equal of the B-17 much less the Lancaster or B-29. They have to function reliablly, operate and at least pose a concern to an Allied planner to be compared, shouldn't they?

Paper aircraft and impressive prototypes are interesting for debate - but if it's not in production and contributing why is it being discussed in the context of Best Air Force in WWII?

Soren - to your opinion that the RAF was the best in 1944 and 1945 how do you set the boundary conditions to make that judgement? Do you consider the relative strength of the 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th in the ETO against the RAF in its center of Gravity as a start? Would you postulate that the entire RAF was the equal of those four USAAF Air Forces? In numbers, in aircraft mix, in aircrews, in ability to project force from airborne drops and logistics support to long range fighter sweeps deep in Germany or Austria, to bombing oil targets ranging from Ploesti to Posnan?

Do you compare the RAF in the Pacific or even RAF plus RNZAF plus RAAF flying quite a few USAAF aircraft like P-51s, P-47s and B-25s against the USAAF? Do you consider the USN and USMC as 'excluded' from the concept of most powerful Airpower in 1944 and 1945?

Do you want to match tonnage dropped on tactical or strategic targets or number of GAF a/c destroyed? Or Japanese?

How do you arrive at your conclusion? Could you even make your point using just the United Army Air Force in the ETO/MTO in contrast to all the RAF, RNZAF, RAAF world wide?

Regards,

Bill

PS - Forgot to mention that the mainstay of the USSR Strategic Bomber Fleet for many years Post WWII was the exact copy of the B-29.. wonder why they didn't pick any of the many superior LW bombers to copy and produce instead of the lousy ol B Two Nine? Dumb Russians!

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Paper aircraft and impressive prototypes are interesting for debate - but if it's not in production and contributing why is it being discussed in the context of Best Air Force in WWII?

Bulls-eye!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Have to agree as well.

[syscom3]

Yes. Well said.

[Glider]

Sums it up pretty well.