Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,512
- Feb 27, 2020
We all know the french were very adept to made ugly looking planes, but that is no reason to forget 90 so Farman 220 family
Why Luftwaffe Didn't Have Any Four Engined Bombers....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We all know the french were very adept to made ugly looking planes, but that is no reason to forget 90 so Farman 220 family
Admiral Beez
Captain
I missed another German four engined bomber in my list above, the Dornier Do 19. Three built.
If the Germans need anything with four (or six) engines it's transports. Had Germany invaded Russia in June 1941 with a thousand or more Arado Ar 232 (shown below) and hundreds of Me 323 they might have been able to support their front lines.
This, and a large number of tracked all-terrain supply vehicles like the Maultier (seen below deplaning from a six engine Me 323), Raupenschlepper and Wehrmachtschlepper and six wheel drive Tatra 111 fuel carriers would have done a lot to overcome weather and logistical delays and keep the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe marching eastward.
True!
If the Germans need anything with four (or six) engines it's transports. Had Germany invaded Russia in June 1941 with a thousand or more Arado Ar 232 (shown below) and hundreds of Me 323 they might have been able to support their front lines.
This, and a large number of tracked all-terrain supply vehicles like the Maultier (seen below deplaning from a six engine Me 323), Raupenschlepper and Wehrmachtschlepper and six wheel drive Tatra 111 fuel carriers would have done a lot to overcome weather and logistical delays and keep the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe marching eastward.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Captain
Along with the Beaufighter and Betty, the He 111 was one of the most capable twin-engined torpedo bombers of the war, and AFAIK one of only two twin-engined bombers fitted for two torpedoes, the other being the Wellington.
I agree, but there were 6,000 Beaufighters plus over 1,000 Beaufort torpedo bombers produced and almost 12,000 Wellingtons and Warwicks. That is 19,000 aircraft both of which main types were replaced by better bombers night fighters an heavy fighters in the British inventory. Germany was also fighting USA and Russia.
Last edited:
...and in a later post I said this...
The choice of building smaller twin engined aircraft was as much a matter of situation as much as the death of Wever, as I identified - 1, more could be built, 2, they could be built under the guise of transports, 3, available resources and time, 4, tactical doctrine.[/QUOTE]
Admiral Beez
Captain
And it was good doctrine. The Germans just needed more twin engined bombers, many more.
Shortround6
Major General
The Germans were planning in 1939 on taking parts of Belgium and Holland before invading France (after they were done with Poland) the existing twin engine bombers could reach most of industrial England from such bases and indeed, during the war they managed to hit Northern Ireland. Need for longer ranged bombers is not very pressing.
Granted you need more crew but two 35,000lb bombers carrying 4000lbs each isn't that different than one 70,000lb bomber carrying 8,000lbs of bombs.
No Allied bomber built in numbers except the B-29 could have reached the Urals and returned after dropping a worthwhile bomb load from anywhere the Germans managed to capture in Russia in 1941-42. Trying to support even several hundred B-29 equivalent aircraft at the end of the German supply lines in Russia wasn't going to work.
Granted you need more crew but two 35,000lb bombers carrying 4000lbs each isn't that different than one 70,000lb bomber carrying 8,000lbs of bombs.
No Allied bomber built in numbers except the B-29 could have reached the Urals and returned after dropping a worthwhile bomb load from anywhere the Germans managed to capture in Russia in 1941-42. Trying to support even several hundred B-29 equivalent aircraft at the end of the German supply lines in Russia wasn't going to work.
Shortround6
Major General
A few hundred steam locomotives and a few thousand rail cars would have done wonders for the German supply situation too, and used a lot less oil and vital materials doing it.
Sure about that?
From History of German Aviation: Bombers and Reconnaissance Aircraft, 1935 to the Present (Schiffer, 2001) Cescotti states in his conclusion about the Fw 200C "With regard to its structural soundness, which in some areas was at its limits, the cautious advice given in late September 1939 indicates that the aircraft would almost assuredly hold some rather unpleasant surprises under constant combat useage. It was with good reason - and a direct result of specific instances - that the excerpt from the operation manual printed above included the warning "Aerobatics are prohibited"!
Taken from official data corresponding to the Fw 200 V11 and under the heading "Structure" is the following:
"Structural soundness test were initiated when it appeared that the previous authorised stress limits, based on the P3 criteria, would no longer be applicable given the potential 17% higher take-off weight for the C-Series. On 22 September 1939 the RLM's stress analysis centre in Berlin-Adlershof came to the unmistakable conclusion that, among other things:
- the weakest section of the outer wing area came in at approx. 5% under the 1.35x safety margin of the stress limit
- the fuselage was able to withstand stresses during flight but did not meet safety margins on landing
-the landing gear was considered adequate for normal safety considerations, but was not fully acceptable during overload testing..."
The Manchester!
That was a poor attempt at satire, as we know, the Manchester wasn't exactly reliable, and as far as I know it never did carry torpedoes, although it was designed to.
Shortround6
Major General
Quick google search shows 3 planes with different fuselage codes with broken fuselages on airfields.
Here is one.
Were these the only three that broke or were there more?
Admiral Beez
Captain
I forgot that the Ju-88 was also capable of twin torpedoes.The Manchester!
That was a poor attempt at satire, as we know, the Manchester wasn't exactly reliable, and as far as I know it never did carry torpedoes, although it was designed to.
And is this Do-217 really carrying four torpedoes? Did any other twin engined bomber in WW2 carry torpedoes outboard of the engine nacelles?
Wow! Was that configuration operational?
On the Wiki page is an example that lost its tail in flight over Norway - all crew lost. Not only the visible failure issues, but how many airframes were overstressed without visible results? There weren't many of these aircraft built, so not really anything you can build a sustained campaign around.
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,512
- Feb 27, 2020
I was trying to reinforce your statement. Think it backfire.
And now I have re-read what you wrote, I think it was me that didn't understand, so my apologies! To me it looked like you were telling me to get it right, when you were saying that I got it right. My mistake, my friend and I hope it didn't cause too much bother!
Escuadrilla Azul
Tech Sergeant
- 1,512
- Feb 27, 2020
No problem! Just sometimes writing serves us bad and english isn't my mother language.
