German Strategic Bombing

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Posts: 37
Joined: 19 May 2004 18:31
Location: Brno, Czech republic

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by karaya1 » 27 Aug 2012 22:46

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.

Posts: 405
Joined: 05 Jan 2004 13:00
Location: US

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by uhu » 02 Sep 2012 02:50

Karaya 1,

Look for anything you can find on Horst Von Riesen and KG1.

Will Belford
Posts: 4
Joined: 17 Apr 2013 01:33

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by Will Belford » 15 May 2013 05:06

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!

User avatar
Posts: 17488
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 May 2013 21:18

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...

User avatar
Bader's Briar
Posts: 27
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 21:34

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by Bader's Briar » 23 May 2013 18:52

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 (specifically at ... 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" "zusammengeschweißte Motoren" ???

Give that a look...and borrow OR get the book to check it out, if possible!

Yours Sincerely,

Bader's Briar.. :wink: ..!!

Lieutenant S. Chuikov
Posts: 34
Joined: 03 May 2014 05:05

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by Lieutenant S. Chuikov » 20 May 2014 04:06

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.
Lieutenant S. Chuikov

Lexipedium wiki historical encyclopedia –

User avatar
Posts: 328
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 10:05
Location: Southern Finland

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by tramonte » 13 Oct 2015 10:45

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

Posts: 460
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:55
Location: Pirmasens

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by ManfredV » 19 Nov 2016 21:10

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.

Posts: 17
Joined: 26 Dec 2016 11:13
Location: Germany

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by thestor » 28 Dec 2016 01:14

Question: what makes a strategic bomber? Isn't it range mostly? Wikipedia says on the B-17G
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)
Seems to me that the medium Luftwaffe bombers weren't too badly behind the allied heavy bombers in pure bombload.
Last edited by thestor on 28 Dec 2016 19:28, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by steverodgers801 » 28 Dec 2016 15:21

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

Post by HarryMann » 22 Oct 2017 09:38

Think you'll find they weren't in the same park re: strategic bombers let alone a fleet.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Posts: 3510
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by T. A. Gardner » 23 Jun 2021 00:06

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...


He 111
Posts: 2
Joined: 28 May 2021 05:18
Location: Canada

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by He 111 » 10 Jul 2021 18:36

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.

Posts: 569
Joined: 20 Jan 2019 10:14
Location: Australia

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 12 Nov 2021 15:14

He 111 wrote:
10 Jul 2021 18:36
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.
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.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Posts: 4455
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: German Strategic Bombing

Post by Cult Icon » 12 Nov 2021 15:42

Came out recently, about the Operation Citadel preliminary:

Hitler's Strategic Bombing Offensive on the Eastern Front: Blitz Over the Volga, 1943 ... itry+Zubov

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”