German Strategic Bombing

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Ovidius, The Internet and Ju- 88's

Postby varjag » 16 Aug 2002 12:59

Ovidius - I have the greatest respect for you and people like you who relish in the study and analysis of WW aircraft - have done so myself for many years. These guys on the net - post sites with info taken from generations of books going right back to the time when I, began to read such books. There seems to me to have been an inflation,going on over at least three decades, about the performances,shortcomings, and various point about 'our favourite WW 2 a/c' that I deplore,because a lot of it is B/S. I do not have access to a flight manual for the Ju-88A4, nor have you - or the guys who post these ridiculous figures - but the flight envelope of this aircraft must have been way below what your info claims. The most common load on the A-4 seems to have been 4 x 250 or on occasion 2 x 500 + 2 x 250 on the external racks.The latter load seems not to have been used for diving attacks.The bomb-bay could hold 4 x 50 or 2 x 250 so the only possibility of 'getting to the plimsoll line' would
seem to carry 2 x 1000 on the inner hard-points and 2 x 500 on the outer ones and to put an enormous fueltank in the bomb-bay to reach that 'obtainable' maximum take-off weight of about 14 tonnes.
Let me assure you that irrespective of what any internet site might claim no sober Ju-88 pilot would attempt that - and certainly not under field conditions.The JuMo 211's hade a rated TAKE-OFF maximum boost effect of
some 1360 HP each at about 2600 rpm - PERMISSABLE for only some 60 - 90 seconds before throttling back to some 2250 revs and then obtaining something of the order 960 HP from each.My gut feeling is that at those revs the plane would fall out of the sky if weighing 14 tonnes - unless the pilot maintains at least 'combat revs' at some 2400 - again PERMISSABLE only for some 5 minutes -
considerations like that, Ovidius - prompted my first reply.What I am simply saying is - don't take all the MAXIMUMS for any aeroplane and add them all together - to calculate optimum performance.It is a mistake too many Johnny-Come-Lataley's have been doing for thirty years in this game.
I think you deserve to be a more critical viewer and analytical judge of the raw data you obtain in books and on the internet.
Keep up the good work - rgds,varjag

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Re: Ovidius, The Internet and Ju- 88's

Postby Ovidius » 16 Aug 2002 15:24

varjag wrote:I do not have access to a flight manual for the Ju-88A4, nor have you - or the guys who post these ridiculous figures -


I hope to find one. Or at least a veteran airman who can testify over this.

varjag wrote:What I am simply saying is - don't take all the MAXIMUMS for any aeroplane and add them all together - to calculate optimum performance.


If the Ju-88A-4 couldn't fly with full load of 3 tonnes on the basis of your disbelief - BTW the hardest thing for an overloaded plane is take-off, once in the air it can fly without problems, hence the need for RATO packs - then I can say myself I "don't believe" a B-24D could fly, for long ranges, with 3.6 tonnes :wink:

The problem here is not how much could a plane raise, in absolute numbers, but the comparative figures. What I try to show is that a Ju-88A-4 could fly with loads similar to an Allied heavy bomber, and therefore it could be an instrument for strategic/terror attacks just as well.

~Ovidius

FYI: even the Ju-87D("Dora") dive bomber could fly, for short ranges, with a 1800kg bomb, or with a 1400kg "bunker buster" bomb, and it had just one Jumo 211 engine :D (A real evolution from the "Anton" that could barely raise a 500kg bomb)

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3681
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Postby Victor » 16 Aug 2002 20:18

Generally, Todd Henny's site seems to be well informed, but still I found some mistakes in the IAR-80 article.

As for veterans, Ovidius, cdor. av. (VR) Dan Stoian flew 136 missions on the A-4 and 11 on the D-1. In his books he does not mention any missions with more than 2,000 kg of bombs, which he gives as the usual figure. In the interview I took him, he also mentioned the 2,000 kg figure. No 3,000 kg.

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

My Dear Ovidius

Postby varjag » 17 Aug 2002 13:32

I am trying to lower your sights to reality. OK - a Ju 87D flew with a 1800kgs bombload. How loaded? Where? When? For HOW LONG? (I don't have to ask if there was a gunner in the back-seat - there wasn't).Was this from the Rechlin Probezentral on 2800 mtrs of concrete runway and with JATO? Now to the loading problem - 1800 kg's. How much was on the centre-fork and how much was on the four hard-points under the wing-tips? Because as far as I know there was no German 1800 kg bomb to simplify your problem.AS far as I understand the wing structure of the Ju-87 was designed to take 2 x 2 x 50 kg boms of the hard-points - so where do we go from here? Oh, I forgot - what was the fuel-load for the highly exciting experiment?

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Re: My Dear Ovidius

Postby Ovidius » 17 Aug 2002 14:13

varjag wrote:I am trying to lower your sights to reality. OK - a Ju 87D flew with a 1800kgs bombload. How loaded? Where? When? For HOW LONG? (I don't have to ask if there was a gunner in the back-seat - there wasn't).


Are you sure? This was a "D", not an "A" that could barely raise a 500kg bomb with the gunner left home :D

varjag wrote:Now to the loading problem - 1800 kg's. How much was on the centre-fork and how much was on the four hard-points under the wing-tips?


The four hardpoints took only 50kg each.

varjag wrote:Because as far as I know there was no German 1800 kg bomb to simplify your problem.


In your place I won't jump to such conclusions :mrgreen:

There were the SC 1000, SC 1200 and SC 1800 general purpose bombs, where the number = weight in kg.

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5865

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/sc1800.html

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ju87d.html

There were also anti-bunker & anti-armor bombs in the 1000-1500kg class, like the PC 1000 and PC 1400, which the central swing-rack of the "Dora" could load as well.

varjag wrote:Oh, I forgot - what was the fuel-load for the highly exciting experiment?


It wasn't an experiment, but a load for bombing purposes on the Eastern Front, used more than just once.

(And unfortunately in some cases when using this load the undercarriage broke on soft ground :( )

~Ovidius

PS there were also bigger German bombs, in the 2000kg class:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bombs.html

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3044
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Re: My Dear Ovidius

Postby Mark V » 17 Aug 2002 14:41

varjag wrote:I am trying to lower your sights to reality. OK - a Ju 87D flew with a 1800kgs bombload. Where? When? For HOW LONG?.


Hi.

IIRC Ju-87s used 1800kg bombs against fortress of Brest-Litovsk in 1941 and also against Illustrious in Malta same year, i have no sources available about this right now - i am depending on my memory here...so don't shoot me...

Such load severely limited ceiling, rate of climb was nearly nonexistant :D, only planes with best condition could be used, very long airstrip was needed and radius of action was very short -- but Ju-87 could and did carry such loads in action...

How much was on the centre-fork and how much was on the four hard-points under the wing-tips? Because as far as I know there was no German 1800 kg bomb to simplify your problem.?



Ovidius allready showed that there were 1800 kg bombs - and for loading. One bomb.

About Ju-88. I think average load was between 1500-2000kg (but in favourable conditions and mission type 3000kg could be carried) depending on fuel needed, altitude perfomance needed in particular mission, condition of aircraft and above all the available airstrip. We Finns were restricted with our Ju-88 A-4s to about 1500 kg just because almost all our airstrips were very short and unpaved.

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Bombloads

Postby varjag » 18 Aug 2002 11:54

Mark V - perkele, I would never shoot a Finn! OK - so now we have Ju 87
B-series carrying 1800 kg bombs against Brest-Litovsk and HMS Illustrious
in Malta - even if, as Ovidius wrote, they tended to collapse their landing gears on take-off. It would be nice to read something about the actual operational use of this load on Ju 87's.
As for the Ju 88 loads the Finnish experience is probably as good as any,perhaps Sotamusei,can provide the Flight Manual for the A-4 that Ovidius requires.

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

German bombs

Postby varjag » 18 Aug 2002 12:06

My Dear Ovidius - on the subject of German bombs - I STAND CORRECTED! And thanks for that info. Your report about collapsing undercarriages on Ju 87's when carrying 1800 kg's under the belly is quite in line with my thinking when querying this fantastic load. One wonders what tactical situation - would warrant such an attempt but can only admire the courage of the pilot, who accepts a 50/50, that the undercarriage will NOT collapse and the 50/50 that the 1700 or-so kg's of HE under his feet will not explode - in case his first 50/50 bet - looses.

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Re: Bombloads

Postby Ovidius » 18 Aug 2002 12:10

varjag wrote:OK - so now we have Ju 87B-series carrying 1800 kg bombs against Brest-Litovsk and HMS Illustrious
in Malta - even if, as Ovidius wrote, they tended to collapse their landing gears on take-off. It would be nice to read something about the actual operational use of this load on Ju 87's.


How many times should I repeat I was talking about D-series?

As long as I know, the "B" usually flew with 1 x 500kg + 4 x 50kg(2 crewmen), or with 1 x 1000kg(pilot only).

~Ovidius

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 13633
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Postby Andy H » 18 Aug 2002 18:26

JLees

I agree that Germany had the intention but lacked the means to deliver.

:D Andy from the Shire

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Postby Ovidius » 18 Aug 2002 18:37

Cheshire Yeomanry wrote:I agree that Germany had the intention but lacked the means to deliver.


And I seek to prove the opposite: they had both the intention and the means to deliver, but on smaller scale. :mrgreen:

~Ovidius

varjag
Financial supporter
Posts: 4368
Joined: 01 May 2002 01:44
Location: Australia

Re: Bombloads

Postby varjag » 19 Aug 2002 05:22

Ovidius wrote:
varjag wrote:OK - so now we have Ju 87B-series carrying 1800 kg bombs against Brest-Litovsk and HMS Illustrious
in Malta - even if, as Ovidius wrote, they tended to collapse their landing gears on take-off. It would be nice to read something about the actual operational use of this load on Ju 87's.


How many times should I repeat I was talking about D-series?

As long as I know, the "B" usually flew with 1 x 500kg + 4 x 50kg(2 crewmen), or with 1 x 1000kg(pilot only).

~Ovidius

OK Ovidius - I know that you didn't write it (about Brest Litovsk and Malta)
and perhaps I shouldn't have replied the way I did. The Illustrious raids
on Malta were in Jan. 1941 and Brest Litovsk in June 41 - and the D-series
Ju 87 seems to have been introduced about a year later. Nonetheless it would be VERY interesting to learn about the flight characteristics of a 'D' with 1800 kg's under the belly! Exciting - would be my verdict.

uhu
Member
Posts: 379
Joined: 05 Jan 2004 13:00
Location: US

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Postby uhu » 05 Aug 2012 04:15

Germany had only one strategic bomber in squadron service, the He 177. By the time the bugs were out of it and it was in squadron service on the Russian Front, ready for long range high capacity bombardment, there was one other problem. One full days German aero fuel capacity would be required for each mission! The bulk of the 177's were shortly scrapped or used as decoys on Luftwaffe flak traps!

karaya1
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 19 May 2004 18:31
Location: Brno, Czech republic

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Postby karaya1 » 21 Aug 2012 20:17

Interesting piece of information, uhu, could you please add some details, at least the unit and time frame?

Thanks a lot.

Regards,
Jakub

uhu
Member
Posts: 379
Joined: 05 Jan 2004 13:00
Location: US

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Postby uhu » 25 Aug 2012 16:36

Sorry for the late reply as I had to find my source. I'm referencing "Heinkel He-177 Greif", Classic Publications by Smith and Creek. This is a great book and one every Luftwaffe collection needs.

They were put into storage at the end of July 1944. A mission with 80 of the Heinkel 177 would take 472 tons of fuel, and that amount of fuel was simply not available.


Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]