The utility of a B-17 like aircraft for the Luftwaffe

[stg 44]

Assuming by 1940 the Luftwaffe had refined the Ju89 to B-17 like performance, how much of a utility would it have had to put it into service?
Let's say the Ju89 is refined to B-17 like capabilities. It could replace the He111, Do217, He177, and Fw200.
In terms of payload it could carry over 4 tons of bombs, so would have the ability to replace more than two medium bombers in terms of tonnage on target at normal short/medium ranges, while having better defensive firepower and greater potential range. Plus it would be functional while the He177 wasn't. It would also be more survivable than the Fw200 and be more structurally sound. Plus it could have major economies of scale by replacing all of the above.
http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/ ... bomb-load/

So is the whole argument that having twin engine bombers instead of four engine ones from the He111 on up (not Ju88 though) bunk?

[Takao]

Ummm...You do realize that the 1940 standard of B-17 was the B-17B, 17C, and 17D. All were a far cry from the B-17G statistics which you linked to. For instance, the bomb loads were no where near 4 tons(8,000 lbs), but varied between 4,200 - 4,800lbs.
B-17B: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b17_4.html
B-17C: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b17_5.html
B-17D: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b17_7.html

And the RAF modified C - Fortress Is - did not perform all that well in combat.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b17_6.html
Although the Americans were somewhat critical of the RAF usage of the Fortresses in combat.

[stg 44]

Would you prefer I said B-24? How about that then?

[Takao]

Why not just give Germany the Handley Page Halifax, that way the Germans don't have to screw around trying to reverse engineer the "Davis wing".

Not that it will make that much of a difference...The Allies had produced how many 4-engine bombers?

[stg 44]

You're missing the point, I'm not saying they have the B-17 or -24 they develop an aircraft with similar capabilities by 1939-40.

[pintere]

I think there could have been some practical uses for it. Having a suitable aircraft with which to aid the u-boats in the battle of the atlantic would have been a boon. It might also allow them to strike the Russian factories in the Urals. In both situations, of course, there needs to be a sufficient number of aircraft. Though a four-engined bomber is not quite as important to Germany as the allies, I certainly think it would have done them no harm to have a good one in modest numbers.

[stg 44]

I think there could have been some practical uses for it. Having a suitable aircraft with which to aid the u-boats in the battle of the atlantic would have been a boon. It might also allow them to strike the Russian factories in the Urals. In both situations, of course, there needs to be a sufficient number of aircraft. Though a four-engined bomber is not quite as important to Germany as the allies, I certainly think it would have done them no harm to have a good one in modest numbers.

Part of the issue of the LW was it was constantly diverted to support the army directly with bombers not well suited to that role; a strategic bomber cannot really be used like that, so will have to be used as intended for operation/strategic missions

[pintere]

I think there could have been some practical uses for it. Having a suitable aircraft with which to aid the u-boats in the battle of the atlantic would have been a boon. It might also allow them to strike the Russian factories in the Urals. In both situations, of course, there needs to be a sufficient number of aircraft. Though a four-engined bomber is not quite as important to Germany as the allies, I certainly think it would have done them no harm to have a good one in modest numbers.

Part of the issue of the LW was it was constantly diverted to support the army directly with bombers not well suited to that role; a strategic bomber cannot really be used like that, so will have to be used as intended for operation/strategic missions

If Hermann Goering really was convinced of the value of strategic bombing (in the two examples I provided), I have a feeling he could get his way. Given all the other things the Luftwaffe did that infuriated the Heer, I reckon this would be a mere trifle

[stg 44]

He complained constantly he didn't have his He177 ready historically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_H ... fficulties

By early August 1942 Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring became angry about the apparent slowness with which the He 177A's powerplant problems were being dealt with. On August 13 he responded as follows to a report by Oberst Edgar Petersen (the Kommandeur der Erprobungstellen, or "commander" of the German military aviation test facility network. later in WW II) about the He 177A's powerplant troubles, particularly containing remarks about the problems caused by the compromised design of the DB 606 powerplants' accommodation in the He 177A's engine nacelles, and resultant poor maintenance access: "Why has this silly engine suddenly turned up, which is so idiotically welded together? They told me then, there would be two engines connected behind each other, and suddenly there appears this misbegotten monster of welded-together engines one cannot get at!"[22]

[thaddeus_c]

always maintain the logical development would be JU-89/90/290, although don't see why the Condor would be cancelled as it had other attributes and commercial value?

cancel the HE-177, the other Junkers transports JU-252/352.

(one result would be DB engines available, meaning the donor engines for the power system units in HE-177. they could be used in HE-111 giving that aircraft a new lease?)

IMO they would be used for naval aviation and as long distance, heavily armed transports, the greater numbers helping with interservice rivaly.

[SpicyJuan]

Assuming by 1940 the Luftwaffe had refined the Ju89 to B-17 like performance, how much of a utility would it have had to put it into service?
Let's say the Ju89 is refined to B-17 like capabilities. It could replace the He111, Do217, He177, and Fw200.
In terms of payload it could carry over 4 tons of bombs, so would have the ability to replace more than two medium bombers in terms of tonnage on target at normal short/medium ranges, while having better defensive firepower and greater potential range. Plus it would be functional while the He177 wasn't. It would also be more survivable than the Fw200 and be more structurally sound. Plus it could have major economies of scale by replacing all of the above.
http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/ ... bomb-load/

So is the whole argument that having twin engine bombers instead of four engine ones from the He111 on up (not Ju88 though) bunk?

Probably the only real great benefit is training airmen and maintenance crews in handling large aircraft (something that plagued the He 177) which would be a great benefit for the He 177, as well as give the German Aviation industry much experience in large aircraft (not implying that they didn't get that with the Banana bomber, Ju 89, and He 177, etc). If you want a true war winner for the early years, then look into fighters, such as the He 100 or Fw 187. It would be best not to cancel the He 177 too, as you only have to make sure the engine nacelles don't get poorly designed, and it should enter production in June/July 1940.

[sitalkes]

The Luftwaffe did get a plane like the fortress - once they took it from the Italians

[T. A. Gardner]

Where would the gasoline come from? The Luftwaffe could barely sustain a large air campaign with the aircraft they had. A B-17 /24 takes about 4 to 5 times the fuel a He 111 or Ju 88 does per mission. The Luftwaffe ran into the same problem with the He 177. They couldn't scrape up the necessary fuel to keep even a small fleet of these flying on a regular basis.

[stg 44]

Source on the B17 requiring that much fuel?

[T. A. Gardner]

Source on the B17 requiring that much fuel?

A B-17 has a normal fuel load of 1,700 gallons and if fitted (43 on for production) capacity for another 1,080 gallons in "Tokyo Tanks."

1,700 gallons of fuel weighs 10,324 lbs. or 5.16 tons. Adding in the 1,080 is another 6,559 lbs., or 3.28 tons for a total maximum fuel of 8.44 tons. An Me 109 requires about half a ton of fuel per sortie. That means (and this is rough) a single B-17 requires the fuel of a squadron of Me 109 if fully loaded. You can see very clearly that the Luftwaffe could not afford that sort of fuel use on a sustained basis. They'd be dry and grounded in a matter of months at most if they did.