German Strategic Bombing
-
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 19 May 2004 18:31
- Location: Brno, Czech republic
Re: German Strategic Bombing
Thanks, I have to stop at the library asap. I'm interested in the German long-range bombing capabilities and actual operations, so this seems to be an interesting piece of information fitting well within the mosaic.
-
- Member
- Posts: 403
- Joined: 05 Jan 2004 13:00
- Location: US
Re: German Strategic Bombing
Karaya 1,
Look for anything you can find on Horst Von Riesen and KG1.
http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177
Look for anything you can find on Horst Von Riesen and KG1.
http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177
-
- Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 17 Apr 2013 01:33
Re: German Strategic Bombing
Fascinating comparison of the Ju88 and trhe Liberator, thank you.
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!
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!
-
- Member
- Posts: 17489
- Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: German Strategic Bombing
Will - the B-17's bombload (max.) was actually very similar to the original specification for the Lancaster; however, the actual design of the B-17 airframe prevented any "stretch" in physical carrying capacity...unlike the Lanc, which had its bombbay amended...AND it's bomb doors "bulged"...allowing even "standard" Lancs to jump across its service history from a specificed 8,000 lbs originally to 14,400 lbs!
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
-
- Member
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 23 Oct 2010 21:34
Re: German Strategic Bombing
THIS book should be MUCH more "enlightening" on the 177 and her relatives...
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!
Yours Sincerely,
Bader's Briar..
..!!
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!
Yours Sincerely,
Bader's Briar..

-
- Member
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 03 May 2014 05:05
Re: German Strategic Bombing
Someone please correct if this is wrong.
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.
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.
Lieutenant S. Chuikov
Lexipedium wiki historical encyclopedia – http://en.lexipedium.org/wiki/Main_Page
Lexipedium wiki historical encyclopedia – http://en.lexipedium.org/wiki/Main_Page
-
- Member
- Posts: 320
- Joined: 13 Oct 2015 10:05
- Location: Southern Finland
Re: German Strategic Bombing
I have certain doubts of casualties of all bombings if not carefully counted by reliable officials (like in UK). There is certain tendency to show loss figures higher than they actually were to dehumanize enemy. Also in reality many western German districts outside centre of cities and towns were not ruined much if not mauled by ground forces artillery/mortar.
"Military history is nothing but a tissue of fictions and legends, only a form of literary invention; reality counts for very little in such affair."
- Gaston de Pawlowski, Dans les rides du front
- Gaston de Pawlowski, Dans les rides du front
-
- Member
- Posts: 459
- Joined: 10 May 2005 10:55
- Location: Pirmasens
Re: German Strategic Bombing
During last months and weeks of war even many smaller towns and villages were bombed. Of course many villages had only a few or no damages. Surprisingly some larger towns had only few damages, f.e. Fürth and Bamberg, but smaller towns like Plattling, Treuchtlingen and Crailsheim were hit heavely.
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: 26 Dec 2016 11:13
- Location: Germany
Re: German Strategic Bombing
Question: what makes a strategic bomber? Isn't it range mostly? Wikipedia says on the B-17G
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)
Last edited by thestor on 28 Dec 2016 19:28, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02
Re: German Strategic Bombing
general wever was interested in strategic bombing, but when he died in a crash in 37 or so the Luftwaffe, lost interest and focused on tactical support. on short range yes, but the Germans had no long range bombers. the He 177 was beset with design problems and never had an impact
-
- New member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 22 Oct 2017 08:50
- Location: Herts
Re: German Strategic Bombing
Thestor...
Think you'll find they weren't in the same park re: strategic bombers let alone a fleet.
Think you'll find they weren't in the same park re: strategic bombers let alone a fleet.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3120
- Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
- Location: Arizona
Re: German Strategic Bombing
Going back to page 1, the obvious differences between a B-24 and a Ju 88 are:
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...

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...

-
- Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 28 May 2021 05:18
- Location: Canada
Re: German Strategic Bombing
You should have compared the B 24 to the He 177. When the 177 engine where working fine it was a better bomber in my opinion.
-
- Member
- Posts: 461
- Joined: 20 Jan 2019 10:14
- Location: Australia
Re: German Strategic Bombing
The 24 represented what you really wanted with WW2 planes, a focus with role. While it had a hefty amount of weight tacked in with the amount of .50cals and armor plating to protect them, it was a bomber through and through.
The 177 represented a failure with focus on role, it was a strategic bomber with quirks like mixed remote/manual defences (pick one or the other, or you get no benefits of either!), welded together engines (loss in reliability no matter how you spin it, not good), and dive bomber abilities, which is simply wasted on the airframe and only increases weight further.
The Germans would've been far better off with a Kurt Tank designed bomber, that guy knew how to make a plane with a focus in mind.
-
- Member
- Posts: 4313
- Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00
Re: German Strategic Bombing
Came out recently, about the Operation Citadel preliminary:
Hitler's Strategic Bombing Offensive on the Eastern Front: Blitz Over the Volga, 1943
https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Strategi ... itry+Zubov
Hitler's Strategic Bombing Offensive on the Eastern Front: Blitz Over the Volga, 1943
https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Strategi ... itry+Zubov