Amerika Bomber a complete waste of time and resources?

[Paul Lakowski]

Allied fighters couldn't climb to 11-12km altitude to intercept high altitude bomber mid war. By late war they could...but Germans could bomb at night ...there were other tricks, like speed at altitude.

would have to deploy disproportionate number of planes to counter such a small threat. Propaganda win for Nazi and loss for yanks.

[T. A. Gardner]

Allied fighters couldn't climb to 11-12km altitude to intercept high altitude bomber mid war. By late war they could...but Germans could bomb at night ...there were other tricks, like speed at altitude.

would have to deploy disproportionate number of planes to counter such a small threat. Propaganda win for Nazi and loss for yanks.

Last time I checked...



Range + altitude.



Altitude but not range

All the US would have to do is move squadrons training on these types in the US to areas threatened by the raid(s) as well as to places like Iceland or Canada and with radar, the intercept is on.

The problem for the Germans would be getting pressurization to work at those altitudes. They always had a great deal of difficulty with getting pressure cabins to work on their aircraft, and outside a few specialized reconnaissance planes never did manage to get one in production with a good working, viable pressurization system.

[maltesefalcon]

Actually the Me-261 could fill the role of nuisance bomber over NYC and the east coast dropping a dozen incendiary bombs per sortie....which if needed could become couple of nerve gas bombs per sortie.

The prototype could manage 385mph clean and the payload -range figures in 1941 while reaching 9km practical ceiling & 10-11 km maximum altitude.

I trried to read up on this one. It seems only a few prototypes were built, so there is very little data on them. What was the maximum payload at the range needed?

[T. A. Gardner]

The Me 261 was designed to have a crew of 7. Let's assume 4 of them can be eliminated as a bomber. At 500 lbs per person (their weight and the equipment etc., they used) this would be about 2000 lbs. payload. Let's say half that ends up as structure to house / hold the payload, or about 1000 lbs. / 500 kg.

[Knouterer]

Such missions, even if successful, would consume an enormous amount of fuel, which the Luftwaffe was increasingly short of. Which would be better for the Reich: sending one plane across the ocean to scatter a few bombs across NYC and killing a few dozen civilians, which probably would only harden America's resolve to win the war - or use the same amount of precious fuel to send up perhaps fifty night fighters who could intercept and shoot down say ten RAF bombers?

[maltesefalcon]

The Me 261 was designed to have a crew of 7. Let's assume 4 of them can be eliminated as a bomber. At 500 lbs per person (their weight and the equipment etc., they used) this would be about 2000 lbs. payload. Let's say half that ends up as structure to house / hold the payload, or about 1000 lbs. / 500 kg.

So you would have three crew? One pilot I assume, a navigator and a wireless operator who would also need to act as bomb aimer?

I guess this begs the question...If the newly discarded four were used in their oriiginal role in a non-bomber configuration, what did they do on the aircraft?

[Paul Lakowski]

Going on GRIEHL LUFTWAFFE OVER AMERICA , The Me-261 payload range was estimated at 700kg for 13,500km or 900kg for 11,000km range. To get from France to NYC should require ~ 2800nm each way on 3/4 fuel. By the numbers that's 2800nm or about 5100km so 13,664 km total range should be needed or just under 700kg payload.

However that was the COURIER mission with ZERO protection and armament. Griehl research into various LW bomber proposals - points to a armor /weapon figure 2-5% of GTO. Me-261 was reported to have GTO weight of 28t, suggesting a range of 1/2t to 1.4t. Further while the prototype could reach 9-11km altitude, a heavier bomber would need the wing enlarged, further increasing weight. The advantage would be the bomber could then reach 12-13km altitude.

The Me261 fuel capacity was 13t compared to 9t for the He-177, so given the propaganda value of such strikes , sounds like a worth while investment.

Yes it did operate the DB-606/610 engines but doesn't seem to have suffered the HE-177 problems. Part of the explanation comes from the ME nacelle design, which differed from the Heinkel design. Which begs the question was a switch of nacelle designs ever discussed ? Reportedly the ME-261 flew from Berlin to Tokyo and back - a distance of 4500km each way.

The other explanation suggests the He-177 engine problems are exaggerated.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/h ... st-1274335

Post 99 suggests 21 out of 86 known losses were to engine problem, however another 221 losses are 'un-know' causes?

The easy route would be to ASSUME they are all engine related, but that is speculation. Do the allies and Soviets ever produce figures about how many of these bombers were shot down by planes or AAA?

[T. A. Gardner]

The Me 261 was designed to have a crew of 7. Let's assume 4 of them can be eliminated as a bomber. At 500 lbs per person (their weight and the equipment etc., they used) this would be about 2000 lbs. payload. Let's say half that ends up as structure to house / hold the payload, or about 1000 lbs. / 500 kg.

So you would have three crew? One pilot I assume, a navigator and a wireless operator who would also need to act as bomb aimer?

I guess this begs the question...If the newly discarded four were used in their oriiginal role in a non-bomber configuration, what did they do on the aircraft?

The original crew was two pilots, flight engineer, navigator, radioman, and two relief crew or reconnaissance operators. You reduce it to three who each are now given two jobs to do. Pilot / Navigator, Pilot / radioman, Bombardier / flight engineer. This way you have the crew being able to rotate on the long flight and do the jobs that need doing on an intermittent basis.

[thaddeus_c]

Yes it did operate the DB-606/610 engines but doesn't seem to have suffered the HE-177 problems. Part of the explanation comes from the ME nacelle design, which differed from the Heinkel design. Which begs the question was a switch of nacelle designs ever discussed ? Reportedly the ME-261 flew from Berlin to Tokyo and back - a distance of 4500km each way.

The other explanation suggests the He-177 engine problems are exaggerated.

the change in engine arrangement is somewhat of a mystery, it does not seem to present any obvious advantage(s)

will venture the opinion that "coupled engine" was specialist or performance engine and 1,000 aircraft (2,000 "coupled engines") are going to be difficult to manufacture and impossible to properly maintain.

it follows that "coupled engines" would fare better on limited production aircraft? so an HE-119 or Me-261, how many of those would be expected to be built over course of the war? 200 - 300?

[Paul Lakowski]

Yes but the over heating of the HE-177 was documented and modifications to the nacelle did eventual reduce the problems. So maybe a simple nacelle change is all that was needed...if would figure that Heinkel and Messerschmitt would baulk at following others innovation/better design.

besides I still what to know how many of the lost HE-177 were shot down?

[maltesefalcon]

The Me 261 was designed to have a crew of 7. Let's assume 4 of them can be eliminated as a bomber. At 500 lbs per person (their weight and the equipment etc., they used) this would be about 2000 lbs. payload. Let's say half that ends up as structure to house / hold the payload, or about 1000 lbs. / 500 kg.

So you would have three crew? One pilot I assume, a navigator and a wireless operator who would also need to act as bomb aimer?

I guess this begs the question...If the newly discarded four were used in their oriiginal role in a non-bomber configuration, what did they do on the aircraft?

The original crew was two pilots, flight engineer, navigator, radioman, and two relief crew or reconnaissance operators. You reduce it to three who each are now given two jobs to do. Pilot / Navigator, Pilot / radioman, Bombardier / flight engineer. This way you have the crew being able to rotate on the long flight and do the jobs that need doing on an intermittent basis.

IMHO it makes more sense to combine radio/navigator. WWII technology really needed constant attention on course and corrections, especially if there are no nav beacons. (As there would be in this case.) They need a dedicated work space as well, with a table for maps and star charts. The bomb aimer could act as a relief pilot as his task is really only needed for a brief span of time.

[Tomg44]

A practical example of wartime intercontinental bomber technology was the Convair B36.
Note the payload, and the proposed departure point (Gander). Way beyond anything that the German industry could have produced.

See here for more info.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker

[Paul Lakowski]

/viewtopic.php?t=82567

During the war ~140 He-177 were lost due to enemy action (40 unserviceable He-177 were captured and/or destroyed in June '44 in France) and ~130 He-177 were lost in various accidents. This is actually a good loss rate for a ww2 bomber. You can compare it with B-29 loss rate, B-29 and He-177 sharing many elements (from design complexity and engine problems to comparable capabilities, operations and loss rate): in slightly more than 1 year of service B-29 groups lost 700 planes from the 2000 delivered. From the 631 lost only 128 were lost due to enemy action, the rest of them being accidents, mostly engine related. The loss rate in accidents was significantly worse for B-29 than for He-177. That crews loved He-177 is another proof of its reliability. No mentally sane pilot would like to fly an unreliable aircraft, particularly if he has to fly over ocean, as He-177 did in the majority of its missions.

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=82567&start=45

[Paul Lakowski]

OK LETS CRUNCH SOME NUMBERS.

/viewtopic.php?t=82567

During the war ~140 He-177 were lost due to enemy action (40 unserviceable He-177 were captured and/or destroyed in June '44 in France) and ~130 He-177 were lost in various accidents. This is actually a good loss rate for a ww2 bomber. You can compare it with B-29 loss rate, B-29 and He-177 sharing many elements (from design complexity and engine problems to comparable capabilities, operations and loss rate): in slightly more than 1 year of service B-29 groups lost 700 planes from the 2000 delivered. From the 631 lost only 128 were lost due to enemy action, the rest of them being accidents, mostly engine related. The loss rate in accidents was significantly worse for B-29 than for He-177. That crews loved He-177 is another proof of its reliability. No mentally sane pilot would like to fly an unreliable aircraft, particularly if he has to fly over ocean, as He-177 did in the majority of its missions.

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=82567&start=45

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/h ... st-1274335

Post 99 suggests 21 out of 86 known losses were to engine problem, however another 221 losses are 'un-know' causes?

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/h ... st-1274335


Up until 1944 the LW accident rate was ~ 5 % and 10% 1944- VE day. If we take ~ 5% accident rate then that's ^488 x 0.05= 24 due to accidents. IF we extrapolate from know engine fires the rate is 24% of 488 losses or 119

Accidents = 24
Enemy action = 140
Various crashes = 65
Engine fire= 119
Unknown = 140
IF further break down into 14 accidents + 56 enemy action + 48 engine fires + 22 various.

So this suggests engine was responsible for 167 out of 488 losses and out of 1146 production = 14% .....Not as bad as we are lead to believe.

[Cantankerous]

The Focke-Wulf Ta 400 project required more materials and labor than the Messerschmitt Me 264 given the shape of its airframe, and thus the RLM became convinced that further development of the Ta 400 would be a waste of money and resources, notifying Focke-Wulf on October 15, 1943 that the Ta 400 program would be axed.

The November 1952 issue of American magazine Flying is the first publication associating the moniker "Amerika Bomber" with a very long range German bomber, remarking on page 15:

“More German scientists and equipment arrived and more German aircraft and engine plants took roots in Russian soil. Professor Doctor Schiebe, Freundel, Wocke, Hartmann and hundreds of others went to work on different projects, such as the most secret Luftwaffe plan of transatlantic bombing with the JuEF 132 — The ‘Amerika Bomber’.”

The late-war Junkers EF 132 strategic jet bomber project is referred to as "Amerika Bomber" in that publication, yet it was not designed at all for intercontinental bombing missions. As noted by Dan Sharp, the myth of an "Amerikabomber" requirement stems largely from Hermann Goering being quoted as saying the following in a speech at his retreat in Carinhall on March 18, 1943: " well remember that at Augsburg — it was exactly a year ago — | was shown an ‘Amerika Bomber’ that really called for nothing more than to be put into mass production." In actuality, this passage from Goering's speech was scripted as follows (translated from German): "I remember — it is years ago now — when | was in Augsburg, | was shown an ‘America’ aircraft which had only to be put into large-scale production." Nevertheless, many publications, including William Green's 1970 book Warplanes of the Third Reich, cooked up the notion of an "Amerikabomber" requirement by referring to either the Me 264 or the Horten Ho XVIII flying wing jet bomber as the "Amerikabomber". Although Reimar Horten claimed that the Ho XVIII had intercontinental range, the Ho XVIII actually was not designed to reach the US Eastern Seaboard because the parameters of the November 1944 Langstreckenbomber long-range jet bomber requirement for which it was designed explicitly specified that whichever jet bomber design was declared the winner of the Langstreckenbomber competition could only have enough range to strike liberated France or the UK.

In retrospect, the Messerschmitt Me 264, 1941 Focke-Wolf intercontinental bomber proposals, and probably the Junkers Ju 390 were the only heavy bomber designs for the Luftwaffe with enough range to reach the US Eastern Seaboard, and as I said above the Me 264 required less labor and materials when the first three prototypes were constructed. The Focke-Wulf Ta 400 and Heinkel He 277 projects were only intended to attack Allied shipping convoys in the Atlantic and didn't have sufficient range to attack the US. Production of the Me 264 might have been somewhat possible had Messerschmitt not pursued the Me 309 program and Hitler chose not to invade the USSR (Kriegsmarine admiral Erich Raeder advocated for seizing the Azores and Iceland in hopes of using those islands as launch pads for notional Me 264 airstrikes on the US Eastern Seaboard).

Link:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... ost-424050