JAG88
Banned
From the Ju90? I said a a new wing was needed, not that the Ju90's was optimized for a strategic bomber, though the bomber variant of the Ju290 was apparently viable.
Same wing 90/290, the latter simply extended the outer panel...
Much depends on the layout of the design. But remember most of the potential bomb capacity of the Ju88 was external. It's max internal capacity was less than that of the Ju89 and that also reduced the range to something like 600 miles. Using the bomb bays as fuel tank holders and loading up the external bomb racks with max potential payload extended range, but only by consuming a bunch more fuel due to the much increased drag.
I was thinking of the He 111 for some reason.
Still, 1400Kg vs supposedly 1600Kg... can you smell it?
When I get home I can double check on the ramp. Not sure exactly you're referring to with the 'not drag, not speed'part.
That the items you mentioned, kitchen, etc, are all internal and do not add drag nor do they affect range nor speed.
I'll check my books on the bomber, but IIRC there was a version that could.
A project? Maybe. Service aircraft, no.
Are you talking production models? Because of course, they weren't even in production. I can check my book on the bomber when I get home to get the chart about their planned range.
I am talking about the prototypes they built and tested.
In Russia not an issue due to air defense being a point defense system rather than a nationally integrated system like in Germany or Britain. Even then air defenses were mostly concentrated in Moscow and Leningrad, with the rest being pretty inadequate for most of the war. Over Britain that wouldn't be needed, but of course the 5000k range was for the Ural Bomber and potentially VLR recon.
Try that a couple times, people wise up real fast in war, even with simple land observers the bombers would get tracked and crushed, and we are talking about 20+ hour missions...
Comparing a bomber without armor, bombs, and defensive weapons to production bombers that did really doesn't tell you much.
The Ju90 had a draggier fuselage and engines, the Ju89 still had turrets to add, plus clean the fuselage and add stronger and more aerodynamic engines... I doubt the difference would be too much.
As to the bomb load, again so much depends on the internal structure and ability to redesign it, it very well might not have been possible to put 500kg bombs inside. There must have been a reason the pro-strategic bomber Walter Wever cancelled the Ural Bomber project and started fresh with the Bomber A design shortly before his death.
Doubt it, even if you had to put them vertically with an ESAC type rack, it is an aircraft, not a honeycomb, and the fact that the contemporary Ju 88 used the ladder typical of the time is a good enough hint for me.
A lot depends on how effectively one bomber with bigger bombs would be vs. larger numbers of smaller bombers, especially when it comes to things like fuel consumption, complexity of construction, replacement cost if damaged or destroyed, etc. That said I do agree that something like a B17 in 1940, assuming it were technologically possible to have hundreds ready in time, would be superior IMHO to the OTL options, which included the Do17.
If you can fit large bombs you can fit smaller ones as needed, even if you lose some tonnage.
If Kesselring was right and it is a 2x3 affair I am sold, 2xJu89s=8t bombs, 12 crew, 3xHe111s=6t, 15 crew, add training an extra pilot, navigator/bombardier. More fuel? Maybe, but the real calculation is ton fuel/ton bombs...
The Perfect is the enemy of the Good Enough. The problem is it isn't clear than the Ju89, even developed, would have been Good Enough to justify the cost. Plus it wasn't really a 'bird on hand' yet due to the unpredictability of the how redesigns would work out.
That is it, beyond cleaning it up a bit, new rudders, new engines, revamped cockpit... I do not see the problem if it can already lift 10t, excellent for a mid-30s bomber.
You're forgetting all the redesign work that would have to be done, new prototypes needing to be built, construction of the new production facilities, not simply the lines being changed over due to how much larger the facilities would need to be to make them compared to twin engine bombers, and so on.
1940 is the earliest date it would be reason to enter production, but then you also need to train a bunch of crews from scratch on a bomber of that size and complexity. James Corum's "Creating the Operational Air War' has a good section on the issues that existed around building up a strategic bomber force, even tackling the 'why' of the death of the Ural Bombers project. E.R. Hooton's "Phoenix Triumphant" also covers it from a bit of a different angle.
First flight 1936, there are 2 full years to test it and set up production of an aircraft that was cancelled without mentioning a single defect or performance issue, not even to make up a pretext, sounds like enough time to me
Since we were talking about having the bomb bay inside and you said it did, citing the gondola....
We disagree as what inside means, lets leave it at that...
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that leaving all else the same would mean compromised performance compared to redesigning the aircraft around the much more powerful engines.
For me having no heavy bomber ASAP means compromised security, given the geopolitical context of the mid-1930s.
Perfect<Good.
Same exact wings on the Ju290 as the 90? I highly doubt that given the engine power upgrade.
They just enlarged the outer panels.
Well when you're talking about redesigns that didn't happen IRL...
You are the one arguing for their need, not me.
Hitler defense? He literally was in charge of the War Ministry and set national policy; since war wasn't being pursued by anyone but Hitler and as of 1936 there was no war on the horizon unless Hitler started it it was a reasonable assumption. Hitler's erratic foreign policy only came about later after the decision had been made. Since Wever died in 1936 there is no post-war rationalization there like with other generals.
Hitler denounced Versailles, remilitarized the Ruhr, reinstated conscription, created the LW, absorbed Austria, took the Sudetes, conquered the Czechs... and in the last of his "dont worry, they wont declare war" over Poland, well, they did. Stupidly, but they did.
The point is, war could have come over any of those before, you cant be certain of what the other is going to do, you cant guarantee "no war before XXXX", someone might simply come and declare it on you now rather than when it suits you...
And Hitler has been used as an easy pretext, he wasnt that thick, but since he was evil AND dead, it is an easy excuse...
Since the 'risiko Luftwaffe' strategy had already been laid out and worked out and the Ural Bomber project was for offensive war against the USSR, there really wasn't a risk of being caught flat footed on the horizon in 1936, especially when twin engine bombers were already available for a regional defensive or offensive war against likely enemies of the time. A huge amount of things changed from 1936-40 to even get into the situation in 1941 where a Ural Bomber would even have been needed and had Udet not screwed it up the He177 would have been in production by then IOTL. Plus it wasn't until late 1941 that they'd have the necessary based in the USSR from which to even reach the Urals...
The Ural bomber was supposed to make it from East Prussia.
Hindsight, you can never be certain the UK isnt going to turn on you... oh wait, they did... and the LW and KM were in no way ready to deal with them...
What is the point of a Ju89 with heavy defensive firepower and armor, not to mention the range, if you're going at night and can cut all of that to increase payload with a lighter bomber, like the British twin engine strategic bombers of 1939-41? Something like the Wellington bomber would have been ideal in that case, or even a stripped down He111.
Because the night thing was an accident, it wasnt really practicable until the beams were perfected and you cant rely on that, once you could, you can get rid of all the now unnecessary stuff.
Most things; it was capable of tactical, operational, and strategic level bombing provided the ranges are short enough and they were in 1939-40. Corum's book I mentioned earlier really covers the why's of all of this.
Too slow for tactical, too weakly armed and ranged for strategic, falls between 2 stools IMHO.
I honestly don't know why the Ju90 wasn't adopted as a military transport, especially since they were already flying a militarized transport prototype in December 1939 and could have adapted it to the Ju352 standard of three engines, one in the nose, well before the 252 prototype even flew.
Ju 352 used Jumos, just use 5 of the crappiest engines available for the Ju 89, it will even help to offset the ramp weight.
Last edited: