- Posts: 37
- Joined: 19 May 2004 18:31
- Location: Brno, Czech republic
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 17 Apr 2013 01:33
A man I once knew was shot down on his first mission as a tail gunner in a Lancaster in 1943, and spent the next two years in a camp in Poland. He told me they used to watch the American B-17s fly over to bomb some target neaby and they couldn't believe how few bombs they carried. He said they'd put so many machine guns in the plane to protect it that all those guns and ammunition took up something like half the potential bomb load. Seemed a bit counter-productive to him!
- Posts: 17487
- Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
- Location: Belfast
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 23 Oct 2010 21:34
Dear Uhu & Karaya1:
Bader's Briar here - rather than the Smith/Creek volume, you MIGHT want to get a serious look at the reviews at Amazon.com (specifically at http://www.amazon.com/Heinkel-He-177-27 ... ewpoints=1 ) for a 1998-published He 177 book (by Griehl and Dressel) that I've got a copy of, AND have used for a WHOLE LOT of the content at the English Wikipedia pages on the He 177, the high-altitude He 274, and the — yes, believe it or not, NEVER-built as a complete airframe — "He 277", as the 277's "final form" emerged with what can only be described as an enlarged He 219-patterned fuselage (complete with nosegear), as the Heinkel firm's Amerika Bomber contender.
Not too many copies of those books seem to remain available, and I was stunned to find out that the Smithsonian's NASM library doesn't even have a copy yet...but if you can either borrow a buddy's copy, or better yet acquire one yourself, you are gonna be QUITE surprised at what Fat Hermann thought about the DB 606 and possibly the DB 610 "power system" mills that the Gruesome Griffin was "afflicted" with...as "zusammengeschweißte Motoren" ???
Give that a look...and borrow OR get the book to check it out, if possible!
Bader's Briar.. ..!!
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 03 May 2014 05:05
None of them were FW 200s, which were shown in Call of Duty, twice. Finest Hour was the only game that got it right by showing JU 88s, but apparently everyone hated that one.
I get that the developers wanted to show what people would identify as heavy bombers, and the Germans didn't have one, but it's still pretty poor.
Lexipedium wiki historical encyclopedia – http://en.lexipedium.org/wiki/Main_Page
- Posts: 249
- Joined: 13 Oct 2015 10:05
- Location: Finland
- Gaston de Pawlowski, Dans les rides du front
- Posts: 435
- Joined: 10 May 2005 10:55
- Location: Pirmasens
Generally rural areas and smaller towns were not so much damaged like larger towns, but many were.
And important factories, railways, bridges, power plants etc. were damaged or destroyed.
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 26 Dec 2016 11:13
- Location: Germany
Seems to me that the medium Luftwaffe bombers weren't too badly behind the allied heavy bombers in pure bombload.wikipedia wrote:Bombs:
Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
- Location: Arizona
The Ju 88 has a crew of 3 or 4 versus a B-24 carrying a crew of 10.
The B-24 can more readily operate above 20,000 feet than a Ju 88 across a mission profile
The B-24 carries far more defensive armament and armor than a Ju 88... Typically 10 x .50 versus 4 - 6 7.92mm.
The B-24 carries its bombload internally while the Ju 88 carries nearly all of it on external racks and has a tiny internal bomb bay.
The B-24 had to operate in far more theaters and in much more varied conditions than the Ju 88 did.
Of course, if we toss in the B-29, there is no comparison in capability...