Best american bomber compared to german bombers

[daveshoup2MD]

In terms of a test aircraft that was used to try and figure out what a heavy bomber could or would do, what is the difference between the Me 264 program and the XB-15 program, in your opinion? Both were, essentially, operational test and design evaluation programs, and neither one resulted in an operational combat aircraft, much less an operational combat force. At least the Italians managed that with the P-108, albeit with very little success.

The Ju 390 was, essentially, the outgrowth of a modified transport aircraft, and demonstrates the design compromises such a project will always result in, given the significant differences between on and the other, as does the Japanese effort to turn out a strategic bomber based on the DC-4E airframe.

The Me 264 was not designed as a test aircraft, it was designed as a bomber from the outset and a limited series production was planned multiple times but cancelled due to limited German resources, the worsening war situation, and allied bombing.

If you want to play that game, technically the Ju 390 was a further develop of the Ju 290, which itself was a development of the Ju 90 which was the development of the Ju 89, a bomber. This is all meaningless, however. The Ju 390 was significantly modified from the Ju 290 and was intended from the outset as a bomber.

The XB-15 was also designed - and built - and flown - as a bomber; so was the XB-19. Neither was developed into an operational aircraft; neither was the Me 264. So, functional equivalent.

In terms of paper designs, the American XB-20 - a modernized B-15 with more powerful engines - looks promising for its day, but it was supplanted by the B-29, which was more technically advanced than anything else developed in the same period. Again, functionally equivalent to the majority of German heavy bomber projects ... except for the fact the American designs that went into production in (roughly) 1935-45 - the B-17, B-24, B-29, B-32, and PB4Y - were all significantly more capable than anything the Germans came up with as contemporaries in the same period, most notably the He177. So were, for that matter, the Short Stirling, Handley-Page Halifax, and Avro Lancaster. So was the P108, for that matter.

Take any of the German designs that actually flew and put them in order by the year of the prototype's first flight. Then put their contemporaries in order by the same. Then compare, in terms of whatever criteria you value - bombload, range, speed, etc. Yuo'll have an answer.

[SpicyJuan]

In terms of a test aircraft that was used to try and figure out what a heavy bomber could or would do, what is the difference between the Me 264 program and the XB-15 program, in your opinion? Both were, essentially, operational test and design evaluation programs, and neither one resulted in an operational combat aircraft, much less an operational combat force. At least the Italians managed that with the P-108, albeit with very little success.

The Ju 390 was, essentially, the outgrowth of a modified transport aircraft, and demonstrates the design compromises such a project will always result in, given the significant differences between on and the other, as does the Japanese effort to turn out a strategic bomber based on the DC-4E airframe.

The Me 264 was not designed as a test aircraft, it was designed as a bomber from the outset and a limited series production was planned multiple times but cancelled due to limited German resources, the worsening war situation, and allied bombing.

If you want to play that game, technically the Ju 390 was a further develop of the Ju 290, which itself was a development of the Ju 90 which was the development of the Ju 89, a bomber. This is all meaningless, however. The Ju 390 was significantly modified from the Ju 290 and was intended from the outset as a bomber.

The XB-15 was also designed - and built - and flown - as a bomber; so was the XB-19. Neither was developed into an operational aircraft; neither was the Me 264. So, functional equivalent.

In terms of paper designs, the American XB-20 - a modernized B-15 with more powerful engines - looks promising for its day, but it was supplanted by the B-29, which was more technically advanced than anything else developed in the same period. Again, functionally equivalent to the majority of German heavy bomber projects ... except for the fact the American designs that went into production in (roughly) 1935-45 - the B-17, B-24, B-29, B-32, and PB4Y - were all significantly more capable than anything the Germans came up with as contemporaries in the same period, most notably the He177. So were, for that matter, the Short Stirling, Handley-Page Halifax, and Avro Lancaster. So was the P108, for that matter.

Take any of the German designs that actually flew and put them in order by the year of the prototype's first flight. Then put their contemporaries in order by the same. Then compare, in terms of whatever criteria you value - bombload, range, speed, etc. Yuo'll have an answer.

“The Boeing XB-15 (Boeing 294) was a United States bomber aircraft designed in 1934 as a test for the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) to see if it would be possible to build a heavy bomber with a 5,000 mi (8,000 km) range”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XB-15

“The XB-19 project was intended to test flight characteristics and design techniques for giant bombers.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_XB-19

The XB-15 and XB-19 were essentially peacetime design studies not intended for mass production or widespread service while the Me 264 was a hasty wartime project to strike the US and assist the U-boats in the Atlantic. So no, they are not functionally the same.

The B-17, Halifax, Sterling, and B-24, were by no means clearly superior to the He 177 in terms of max speed, cruising speed, payload, and range. Sure, the He 177 had crucial flaws, but those flaws were not due to the inherent design of the aircraft as much as pigheaded specifications by the RLM. The four-individually engines Heinkel He 177B was more than a match for any of those aircraft. I know it’s in style to try to shit on everything German these days, but don’t be ridiculous.

[LineDoggie]

I’m not a Wehraboo or a liar, you’re just an idiot Praise from Caesar. You came in this thread inaccurately saying the Germans “had no real or practical” designs and creating irrelevant standards (such as mass production, widespread usage, combat success, etc) that have no bearing to the discussion of the technical differences of the aircraft. The thread is not about “look at how much better the German designs are than the B-29!” either. If you bothered reading past the thread title you would have known this.

Germany had no real or practical heavy bombers evidenced by the fact they never flew operational missions against the Reichs enemies. Im sorry you cannot abide by Facts Claiming the German A/C were superior or even equal to say a B-29 or Avro Lincoln is fantasy

Masturbatory fantasies of Luftwaffe 46-48 glory and Amerika Bombers aside, the german designs were crap not suited to mass production or operational usage. By the time they were to be built the reich could not spare the production facilities or material

[SpicyJuan]

I’m not a Wehraboo or a liar, you’re just an idiot Praise from Caesar. You came in this thread inaccurately saying the Germans “had no real or practical” designs and creating irrelevant standards (such as mass production, widespread usage, combat success, etc) that have no bearing to the discussion of the technical differences of the aircraft. The thread is not about “look at how much better the German designs are than the B-29!” either. If you bothered reading past the thread title you would have known this.

Germany had no real or practical heavy bombers evidenced by the fact they never flew operational missions against the Reichs enemies. Im sorry you cannot abide by Facts Claiming the German A/C were superior or even equal to say a B-29 or Avro Lincoln is fantasy

Masturbatory fantasies of Luftwaffe 46-48 glory and Amerika Bombers aside, the german designs were crap not suited to mass production or operational usage. By the time they were to be built the reich could not spare the production facilities or material

This entire post is a strawman. Nice try.

[daveshoup2MD]

The B-17, Halifax, Sterling, and B-24, were by no means clearly superior to the He 177 in terms of max speed, cruising speed, payload, and range. Sure, the He 177 had crucial flaws, but those flaws were not due to the inherent design of the aircraft as much as pigheaded specifications by the RLM. The four-individually engines Heinkel He 177B was more than a match for any of those aircraft. I know it’s in style to try to shit on everything German these days, but don’t be ridiculous.

Perhaps it wasn't clear, but the point is these aircraft designs should be compared to their contemporaries. The He 177 first flew in 1939, in its "flawed" version; the four (separate) engined version first flew in 1943.

The B-17 first flew in 1935; the B-24, Halifax ,and Stirling all in 1939; all four designs were better aircraft than the He 177. It is worth noting the flawed predecessor to the Lancaster, the Manchester, also flew in 1939. The Lancaster first flew in 1941; the B-29 and B-32 in 1942, and the PB4Y-2 in 1943. The Lincoln first flew in 1944; the B-36 in 1946.

Sp if the redesigned He 177, which first flew in 1943, is your example, in what way was it clearly superior to the "1943" model year B-17s, B-24s, B-29s, B-32s, or PB4Y-2s, or HP Halifaxes and Avro Lancasters (and even any Short Stirling bombers) being produced the same year?

[SpicyJuan]

The B-17, Halifax, Sterling, and B-24, were by no means clearly superior to the He 177 in terms of max speed, cruising speed, payload, and range. Sure, the He 177 had crucial flaws, but those flaws were not due to the inherent design of the aircraft as much as pigheaded specifications by the RLM. The four-individually engines Heinkel He 177B was more than a match for any of those aircraft. I know it’s in style to try to shit on everything German these days, but don’t be ridiculous.

Perhaps it wasn't clear, but the point is these aircraft designs should be compared to their contemporaries. The He 177 first flew in 1939, in its "flawed" version; the four (separate) engined version first flew in 1943.

The B-17 first flew in 1935; the B-24, Halifax ,and Stirling all in 1939; all four designs were better aircraft than the He 177. It is worth noting the flawed predecessor to the Lancaster, the Manchester, also flew in 1939. The Lancaster first flew in 1941; the B-29 and B-32 in 1942, and the PB4Y-2 in 1943. The Lincoln first flew in 1944; the B-36 in 1946.

Sp if the redesigned He 177, which first flew in 1943, is your example, in what way was it clearly superior to the "1943" model year B-17s, B-24s, B-29s, B-32s, or PB4Y-2s, or HP Halifaxes and Avro Lancasters (and even any Short Stirling bombers) being produced the same year?

The B-17, B-24, Halifax, and Sterling were not better aircraft than the He 177. They were about equal. The “first flew” date is irrelevant really. The B-17 of 1935 is nothing like the B-17 of 1945. It would be akin to saying you can’t compare the P-51D and the Spitfire XIV because the Spitfire first flew four years earlier. The fact that the four separate engined He 177 first flew in 1943 is entirely irrelevant. It was no more advanced than the He 177 of 1942 and there is no reason why it could not have been produced as early as the He 177A-3. This is of course without going into the entirely different contexts of the countries. Aircraft development in a country which is being bombed 24 hours a day and is tightly constrained by resources is a completely different scenario than in one which has all the money, resources, personnel it wants and never so much sees an enemy plane. It’s apples and oranges.

[daveshoup2MD]

The B-17, Halifax, Sterling, and B-24, were by no means clearly superior to the He 177 in terms of max speed, cruising speed, payload, and range. Sure, the He 177 had crucial flaws, but those flaws were not due to the inherent design of the aircraft as much as pigheaded specifications by the RLM. The four-individually engines Heinkel He 177B was more than a match for any of those aircraft. I know it’s in style to try to shit on everything German these days, but don’t be ridiculous.

Perhaps it wasn't clear, but the point is these aircraft designs should be compared to their contemporaries. The He 177 first flew in 1939, in its "flawed" version; the four (separate) engined version first flew in 1943.

The B-17 first flew in 1935; the B-24, Halifax ,and Stirling all in 1939; all four designs were better aircraft than the He 177. It is worth noting the flawed predecessor to the Lancaster, the Manchester, also flew in 1939. The Lancaster first flew in 1941; the B-29 and B-32 in 1942, and the PB4Y-2 in 1943. The Lincoln first flew in 1944; the B-36 in 1946.

Sp if the redesigned He 177, which first flew in 1943, is your example, in what way was it clearly superior to the "1943" model year B-17s, B-24s, B-29s, B-32s, or PB4Y-2s, or HP Halifaxes and Avro Lancasters (and even any Short Stirling bombers) being produced the same year?

The B-17, B-24, Halifax, and Sterling were not better aircraft than the He 177. They were about equal. The “first flew” date is irrelevant really. The B-17 of 1935 is nothing like the B-17 of 1945. It would be akin to saying you can’t compare the P-51D and the Spitfire XIV because the Spitfire first flew four years earlier. The fact that the four separate engined He 177 first flew in 1943 is entirely irrelevant. It was no more advanced than the He 177 of 1942 and there is no reason why it could not have been produced as early as the He 177A-3. This is of course without going into the entirely different contexts of the countries. Aircraft development in a country which is being bombed 24 hours a day and is tightly constrained by resources is a completely different scenario than in one which has all the money, resources, personnel it wants and never so much sees an enemy plane. It’s apples and oranges.

Okay, so pretend a decently-designed He 177 with four separate engines was designed and flying in 1942.

Now explain how that imaginary aircraft design is a more capable heavy bomber than the "1942" models of the B-17, B-24, B-29, B-32, Halifax, Lancaster, and/or Stirling?

[SpicyJuan]

The B-17, Halifax, Sterling, and B-24, were by no means clearly superior to the He 177 in terms of max speed, cruising speed, payload, and range. Sure, the He 177 had crucial flaws, but those flaws were not due to the inherent design of the aircraft as much as pigheaded specifications by the RLM. The four-individually engines Heinkel He 177B was more than a match for any of those aircraft. I know it’s in style to try to shit on everything German these days, but don’t be ridiculous.

Perhaps it wasn't clear, but the point is these aircraft designs should be compared to their contemporaries. The He 177 first flew in 1939, in its "flawed" version; the four (separate) engined version first flew in 1943.

The B-17 first flew in 1935; the B-24, Halifax ,and Stirling all in 1939; all four designs were better aircraft than the He 177. It is worth noting the flawed predecessor to the Lancaster, the Manchester, also flew in 1939. The Lancaster first flew in 1941; the B-29 and B-32 in 1942, and the PB4Y-2 in 1943. The Lincoln first flew in 1944; the B-36 in 1946.

Sp if the redesigned He 177, which first flew in 1943, is your example, in what way was it clearly superior to the "1943" model year B-17s, B-24s, B-29s, B-32s, or PB4Y-2s, or HP Halifaxes and Avro Lancasters (and even any Short Stirling bombers) being produced the same year?

The B-17, B-24, Halifax, and Sterling were not better aircraft than the He 177. They were about equal. The “first flew” date is irrelevant really. The B-17 of 1935 is nothing like the B-17 of 1945. It would be akin to saying you can’t compare the P-51D and the Spitfire XIV because the Spitfire first flew four years earlier. The fact that the four separate engined He 177 first flew in 1943 is entirely irrelevant. It was no more advanced than the He 177 of 1942 and there is no reason why it could not have been produced as early as the He 177A-3. This is of course without going into the entirely different contexts of the countries. Aircraft development in a country which is being bombed 24 hours a day and is tightly constrained by resources is a completely different scenario than in one which has all the money, resources, personnel it wants and never so much sees an enemy plane. It’s apples and oranges.

Okay, so pretend a decently-designed He 177 with four separate engines was designed and flying in 1942.

Now explain how that imaginary aircraft design is a more capable heavy bomber than the "1942" models of the B-17, B-24, B-29, B-32, Halifax, Lancaster, and/or Stirling?

No need for “what ifs”. Here is actual data (not estimates) based on the B-17G “Standard Aircraft Characteristics” sheets and He 177A-3 specifications.



As you can see, the B-17G is not overall superior. It beats out the He 177 by 250 miles when both have a 10,000 lbs bomb load, but this is at the cost of 79 mph in average cruise speed and 15,000 ft of altitude. If you adjust for cruise speed so that the B-17G is only 11 mph slower, the B-17’s range is shorter than the Heinkel’s by around 200 miles. This is without mentioning that due to the dive requirements, the He 177 can (and did, see for example Steinbock) go into a shallow dive and ramp up its airspeed to 350 mph, making it much less vulnerable to interception. The B-17G makes up for this with copious amounts of .50 cals (although the He 177 did have a fair amount of armament as well.

My overall point is this. The He 177 was comparable to its allied counterparts, not any significantly better or worse, it just comes down to what trade offs you want.

Since you asked about what if’s, I included the He 277 bomblod given by Griehl in He 177 277 274 page 184. The Ju 390 data is found on pg 192 of the same book.

http://wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17 ... istics.pdf
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/o ... 58&slide=0

[daveshoup2MD]

Thanks for the data; I notice there's nothing there about sortie rates and availability, which are both functions of design.

[SpicyJuan]

Thanks for the data; I notice there's nothing there about sortie rates and availability, which are both functions of design.

Those are really outside the scope of just the design since that encompasses lots of outside factors such as available fuel, crew training, available maintenance facilities, etc, all of which due to the worsening war situation for the Germans were to the Allies’ advantage. It would be like comparing apples to race cars. I don’t have the exact numbers on hand, but the He 177’s had the lowest loss rates by far of all German bombers in Operation Steinbock (10% vs 60% of all other bombers).

I added more to the datasheet, all primary sources of course. I think it’s fair to say that the Lancaster’s abilities exceed that of the He 177, the B-17 is about equal, the Halifax is slightly worse, and the B-24 lags behind all.

[daveshoup2MD]

Thanks for the data; I notice there's nothing there about sortie rates and availability, which are both functions of design.

Those are really outside the scope of just the design since that encompasses lots of outside factors such as available fuel, crew training, available maintenance facilities, etc, all of which due to the worsening war situation for the Germans were to the Allies’ advantage. It would be like comparing apples to race cars. I don’t have the exact numbers on hand, but the He 177’s had the lowest loss rates by far of all German bombers in Operation Steinbock (10% vs 60% of all other bombers).

I added more to the datasheet, all primary sources of course. I think it’s fair to say that the Lancaster’s abilities exceed that of the He 177, but the other types are about equal except the B-24 who lags behind all.

So, to answer the original question - the He 177, with all its, um, "challenges" remains the best (only) German heavy bomber; every American heavy bomber is better or at least comparable, based on your own data; same for the British, apparently.

So, bottom line, a (historical) 1943 variant of a 1941 German design is no better, and in many cases worse, than the 1942 versions of US and British designs that, in at least one case, dated back to 1935.

Good to know.

How does the imaginary 1942 He 177 variant stack up to the P-108 and the Pe-8? Or the TB-3? Or G5N?

Maybe the KI-20?

[SpicyJuan]

Thanks for the data; I notice there's nothing there about sortie rates and availability, which are both functions of design.

Those are really outside the scope of just the design since that encompasses lots of outside factors such as available fuel, crew training, available maintenance facilities, etc, all of which due to the worsening war situation for the Germans were to the Allies’ advantage. It would be like comparing apples to race cars. I don’t have the exact numbers on hand, but the He 177’s had the lowest loss rates by far of all German bombers in Operation Steinbock (10% vs 60% of all other bombers).

I added more to the datasheet, all primary sources of course. I think it’s fair to say that the Lancaster’s abilities exceed that of the He 177, but the other types are about equal except the B-24 who lags behind all.

So, to answer the original question

What is the "original question" exactly? You were the one that said the Germans managed nothing more than, "at best", the equivalent of the XB-15. You were the one who said that all the Allied bombers, including the B-17, B-24, and P 108 "were all significantly more capable" than the He 177. The data shows that this is demonstrably false as the B-17 is equal to, and the B-24 and Halifax slightly worse than the He 177. This is a far cry from your original claim.

the He 177, with all its, um, "challenges" remains the best (only) German heavy bomber; every American heavy bomber is better or at least comparable, based on your own data; same for the British, apparently.

No, that's quite the misrepresentation of what I said. Not "every" American or British bomber was comparable or better. The B-24 and even Halifax are at least slightly worse than the He 177.

So, bottom line, a (historical) 1943 variant of a 1941 German design is no better, and in many cases worse, than the 1942 versions of US and British designs that, in at least one case, dated back to 1935. Good to know.

Are you actually trying to hold a good faith discussion or are you just bullshitting? The bottom line is that German the 1943 version of a 1939 design is extremely comparable, if not better, than the 1943 versions of 1939 British and American aircraft. Considering the Lancaster is a two years newer design, it's not that much of a surprise that it is better than the He 177. You are trying to make a big deal of the fact that the He 177 is comparable to a 1935 design, but this really is a dishonest comparison. The Model 299, of which only one was built and flown in 1935, was entirely unique and was not representative of the entire B-17 program. B-17 development in fact only really got underway in 1938-1940, and the first "true" B-17 variant, the extensively redesigned E only first flew on 9/1941. I find it very interesting how you seem determined to put everything German in the worst light possible.

Aircraft type First Flight/Variant entered service
He 177 A-3: 11.1939/1943
Lancaster III: 1.1941/1943
B-17G: 7.1935/1943
Halifax III: 10.1939/1943
B-24 Mk VI (B-24H): 12.1939/1943
P.108B: 11.1939/1941

How does the imaginary 1942 He 177 variant stack up to the P-108 and the Pe-8? Or the TB-3? Or G5N?
Maybe the KI-20?

What "imaginary" 1942 He 177 are you talking about?

Are you seriously questioning if the He 177 was better than the TB-3 and Ki-20? get out of here
Yes, the He 177 was also superior to the P.108B, G5N, and Pe-8.
P.108B 7,700 lbs 1,600 miles
P.108B 4,000 lbs 2,000 miles
P.108B 1,300 lbs 2,200 miles
Pe-8 (1941) 4,400 lbs 2,200 miles

[daveshoup2MD]

Your question - Which aircraft do you think would've been the "best" if properly developed?

The He 177 was a poor design that had much in common with the Avro Manchester; the difference being the British were smart enough to fix their equivalent.

The Americans never came up with as flawed a concept as the He 177, much less the rest of the napkinwaffe. The same for the British, which given that they Allies were burning the heart out of Hamburg in July, 1943, using those same "flawed" designs, makes it quit clear that the best designs were those capable of actually getting off the ground and accomplishing their missions; the British and Americans knew, in a general sense, what they wanted to do with heavy bombers a decade before they had to execute; the Germans never did figure out what the point of a LW heavy bomber force was going to be...

And the imaginary "1942 He 177" is the 1943 four (separate) engined version design equivalent in 1942 you posited above.

[SpicyJuan]

Your question - Which aircraft do you think would've been the "best" if properly developed?

So why did you bring in the He 177 at all when it was not mentioned in the OP?

[SpicyJuan]

And the imaginary "1942 He 177" is the 1943 four (separate) engined version design equivalent in 1942 you posited above.

As early as 1938-1939 a four separate engined variant of the He 177 was proposed. If it want for the dive bombing requirement, this, along with likely a larger fuselage and wing fuselage would have been designed. We can speculate all day on what the bomb load and range of what a 1943 variant of this fantasy aircraft would look like, but what is indisputable is that any four separate engines variant of the He 177 would not have had the same issues at all as the historical variant did. One of the main reasons why there was a lack of major operational usage of the He 177 besides reliability problems was the lack of trained maintenance available to service such a complex and temperamental engine. This would not have nearly been as big of a deal with a four separate engined variant.