British Response to a Worse BoB

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
The reason I asked was specifically because the Blitz was generating demands within Churchill's cabinet for a negotiated settlement with Hitler. That was with less than 60,000 deaths. If the Blitz was worse and topped 100k or more (when I stated 100's of thousands in the OP, I meant by 1942), the calls would have risen quite a bit higher, especially if it seems the German bombers are unlikely to stop. I think the British, despite their resilience, were never tested as hard as the Germans were later and given that Hitler was not yet the bloodthirsty tyrant that he became known as, there was still to possibility of a deal in the eyes of enough British politicians and voters.

Really? Would you care to provide some of the evidence of this pressure for a negotiated settlement?

One point you seem to be ignoring; by May 1940 the UK night fighters were becoming more and more effective as a result of their radar. They were already causing serious casualties, and if the Blitz contmued then even more resources will be pumped into nightfighters, causing even more Luftwaffe losses.
The loss figures by May 41 were around 40,000 people killed, there isnt any way of increasing the effectiveness of the raids, so to kill more people you need more planes. Where are they coming from? and with better defences, you need yet MORE planes...!
 
Condors did have the range to fly to New York. Whether they then bailed out, crashed into a building or just landed is a choice they'd have to make when they got there. Not much point,though.

I wish people would stop picking on Udet. Everybody who met him liked him. He was a flying fool. The fact that somebody gave him a job because of his war record, and he was really bad at it, doesn't make him bad. What everybody needed was poor nazis.

Germany had everything it needed to win the BoB, as has been stated. Destroy Radar, continue to monitor and destroy radar, destroy sector stations and fighter stations, monitor and continue to destroy fighter stations, and destroy fighter and munitions factories. In that order. No diversions. Rest when the weather is bad. No more Fighter Command. Not much left of the Luftwaffe, men or machines. Then what?

Probably, at this point, Goering would be hosting the victory celebrations, when a couple of Spitfire squadrons that had been resting at Montrose, fly over and shoot up the festivities.
 

Larrikin

Banned
You could be right, yet still seems plausible that given the 'extra' need with a bigger target to shoot down - hit one engine with a twin, and its got problems, hit one engiine with a four-engine - so what - a purpose built single engined cannon armed fighter is ordered e.g. Boulton Paul P88a or P88b (OTL Air Ministry wanted but Treasury said no). In this situation the problem with the guns in the wings could be apparent earlier!? Conversly, maybe the wing could accomodate the cannon, without a problem - unlike the Hurricane & Spitfire.

Not sure of the relevance of you twin - four comment. Nobody in their right minds builds 4 engined fighters.

As for the P88, one of the reasons it was knocked back by the Chancellory was it was too bloody expensive.

And thicker wings means slower planes.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Where does this persistent belief come from?

The MAXIMUM range (not operational radius, RANGE) of the Fw 200 was 4440km assuming you stuffed it full of fuel and took out everything possible to save weight. It is 5,100km from DUBLIN Ireland to New York (where the Luftwaffe NEVER reached), 5.400km from Brest, France and 5,000km from Bergen, Norway. At best you wind up 550km or 350 miles short of New York. That is the middle of the Atlantic so you crash and you die.

The Condor was able to reach New York in PEACETIME. It would refuel in Iceland and in Newfoundland. I do not believe that the Marines on Iceland or the Canadians are going to uncoil the fuel hoses for the Luftwaffe during the war.

Condors did have the range to fly to New York. Whether they then bailed out, crashed into a building or just landed is a choice they'd have to make when they got there. Not much point,though.

I wish people would stop picking on Udet. Everybody who met him liked him. He was a flying fool. The fact that somebody gave him a job because of his war record, and he was really bad at it, doesn't make him bad. What everybody needed was poor nazis.

Germany had everything it needed to win the BoB, as has been stated. Destroy Radar, continue to monitor and destroy radar, destroy sector stations and fighter stations, monitor and continue to destroy fighter stations, and destroy fighter and munitions factories. In that order. No diversions. Rest when the weather is bad. No more Fighter Command. Not much left of the Luftwaffe, men or machines. Then what?

Probably, at this point, Goering would be hosting the victory celebrations, when a couple of Spitfire squadrons that had been resting at Montrose, fly over and shoot up the festivities.
 
Mimiquois guns

Not sure of the spelling of the place-name; but the Germans were actually in the process of having several thousand slave-labourors constructing a set of reaallly deep gun-bunkers at Mimecquois in France. The theory being that 15 big guns could be sunk into the ground completely, so they couldn't be seen from the air. These guns would fire a constant rain of shells down on London, and cause mass casualties. The guns were 500 feet long, and angled up at 45 degrees for maximum range. The Dambuster Squadron, 617, took them out in 1944, IIRR. If you have a copy of Paul Brickhill's book 'The Dambusters' look it up--he mentions the raid and goes into a lot of detail about the guns. That could have changed things in terms of public opinion in Britain.
 
Where does this persistent belief come from?

The MAXIMUM range (not operational radius, RANGE) of the Fw 200 was 4440km assuming you stuffed it full of fuel and took out everything possible to save weight. It is 5,100km from DUBLIN Ireland to New York (where the Luftwaffe NEVER reached), 5.400km from Brest, France and 5,000km from Bergen, Norway. At best you wind up 550km or 350 miles short of New York. That is the middle of the Atlantic so you crash and you die.

The Condor was able to reach New York in PEACETIME. It would refuel in Iceland and in Newfoundland. I do not believe that the Marines on Iceland or the Canadians are going to uncoil the fuel hoses for the Luftwaffe during the war.

August 10, 1938 Berlin to New York City non-syop in 24 hours 56 minutes.
Return August 13, 1938 in 19 hours 47 minutes.
There is a commemorative plaque.

The aircraft was the FW-200 Condor.

Aircraft without a load can carry aux. fuel tanks.

This is why I wondered what they would do when they got there.
 
Not sure of the relevance of you twin - four comment. Nobody in their right minds builds 4 engined fighters.
As for the P88, one of the reasons it was knocked back by the Chancellory was it was too bloody expensive.
And thicker wings means slower planes.

Not sure where you got the inference for 'four-engined fighters'!?

The thread started regarding a worse BoB if the Lw, had four-engined bombers. If the Lw had aircraft such as the Do-19 available in the BoB - which as I wrote before in an ATL is plausible. Then, the need for the RAF to have cannon armed fighters would be greater - why - if your target is a Do-17/Ju-88/He-111 you knock out an engine = good chance the enemy aircraft is not going to make it back, i.e. they are twin engine aircraft, however if a four-engined aircraft - knock out one engine - so what - it should make it back on the other three! Cannon, would enable you to damage more in the same firing time.
As I understand it the Air Ministry wanted two P88's, Westland, and Supermarine twin - the Treasury would only pay for the Westland i.e. Whirlwind.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Luftwaffe would likely disagree. The goal when attacking a heavy was 1. Kill the tail gunner so you were safe to 2. Set the inboard engine(s) on fire so the fire burns off the wing.

It is true that the later, more powerful engines allowed aircraft to make it home on three engines, sometimes on two. The 1938-39 engines generally were less powerful and less likely to get you home on three.

Maybe the "four engine fighters" refers to the XB-38 & 39 the B-17 & B-24 models modifed to act as escorts?
Not sure where you got the inference for 'four-engined fighters'!?

The thread started regarding a worse BoB if the Lw, had four-engined bombers. If the Lw had aircraft such as the Do-19 available in the BoB - which as I wrote before in an ATL is plausible. Then, the need for the RAF to have cannon armed fighters would be greater - why - if your target is a Do-17/Ju-88/He-111 you knock out an engine = good chance the enemy aircraft is not going to make it back, i.e. they are twin engine aircraft, however if a four-engined aircraft - knock out one engine - so what - it should make it back on the other three! Cannon, would enable you to damage more in the same firing time.
As I understand it the Air Ministry wanted two P88's, Westland, and Supermarine twin - the Treasury would only pay for the Westland i.e. Whirlwind.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I stand corrected.

I have to admit I was really surprised by this. The civilian version of the aircraft was considerably longer ranged than any of the military versions.

I don't know of any other aircraft with such a huge difference in performance (close to 30% in maximum range) between the very early civilian and later wartime military version.
August 10, 1938 Berlin to New York City non-syop in 24 hours 56 minutes.
Return August 13, 1938 in 19 hours 47 minutes.
There is a commemorative plaque.

The aircraft was the FW-200 Condor.

Aircraft without a load can carry aux. fuel tanks.

This is why I wondered what they would do when they got there.
 
I stand corrected.

I have to admit I was really surprised by this. The civilian version of the aircraft was considerably longer ranged than any of the military versions.

I don't know of any other aircraft with such a huge difference in performance (close to 30% in maximum range) between the very early civilian and later wartime military version.

Because the thing in civi trim had NO armor, no guns, no bomb load, and had to have the entire airframe strengthened (adds weight) so that it could conduct level and dive bombing attacks (in theory according to Jochen Helbig, a skilled pilot was supposed to be able to handle a kondor in a 60 degree dive). He claims that in practice, a decent pilot might be able to do 30 degrees (and this was comming from a guy who flew over 700 combat missions and sunk 4 major warships)

What that article leaves out was that:
A: the thing had no damn pay load at all
B: it was totally unservicable... in 1940,41 the primary recon airfield for the U-boats was at bordeux-meringac... they where lucky if they had 6 aircraft on hand at any one time and on any given day they where only likely to have 1:eek: be servicable and ready to fly. there where no reserve crews either... so a crew who flew a mission on day 1 for 8 or ten hours had to be rested the next day even if their bird could fly


and responding to your earlier post about the do-19. as designed it would have carried the same bombload as other german bombers (about 1600 kg-2000kg) except hauling it further... with the proper engines, hurricaines would have had an extremely hard time shooting them down or even keeping up with them assuming their bomb runs traded altitude for speed over the target... and without a 20mm cannon or equivilent, it is very hard to shoot down a 4 engine bomber

they would do well in their first few sorties... fighter pilots of the day (based on the German experience) had a very hard time judging firing distance when firing against large bombers. they had a tendancy to open fire from too great a range for fear of collission. Adolf Galland used to instruct his cadets to close their eyes, when they feared a collission was absolutely immenent, wait another three seconds on the same course then open fire with all weapons for 5 seconds before breaking off

once the whirlbird twin engined fighter makes an appearance with its 4 20mm cannons, any raid that isn't a hit and run against coastal facilities is doomed

the do-19 could have been produced in decent numbers had it been selected with only minor pod's to other aircraft... cancelling the do-17 early since it was allready obsolete, not wasting resources to make the ju-88 a dive bomber, so it can replace the HE-111 in rate production earlier, less stukas, less me-110s and you could have 250 or 300 do-19s

like i said the big problem would be producing air crew for them
 
The reason I asked was specifically because the Blitz was generating demands within Churchill's cabinet for a negotiated settlement with Hitler.
That was one reason Winston supported Bomber Command: the need to strike back was a political necessity for his government to survive. It's also IMO a major reason Hitler supported V-weapons.
I think the British, despite their resilience, were never tested as hard as the Germans were later
Agreed.
there was still to possibility of a deal in the eyes of enough British politicians and voters.
Possible, if it seemed Britain was defenseless &/or incapable of hitting back. Until the V-2, that didn't happen.
 
Having 4 engined bombers will not win the battle for the Luftwaffe, their medium bombers could already reach anywhere in the British Isles, and while they could carry more bombs than a twin engined medium, the Luftwaffe would have less of them to start with.
The reason that the Nazi's cancelled the heavy bomber program pre-war was simply because they couldn't have both a large tactical bomber fleet, and a reasonable sized strategic bomber fleet, bottlenecks and shortages of resources in the German aviation industry wouldn't allow it
 
. Nobody in their right minds builds 4 engined fighters.

.
The US built a small number of the YB-40 which was a B-17 fitted with extra guns and armour and which didn't carry bombs, Its job was to act as an escort for the main bomber formation.
It wasn't a great success as it had difficulty keeping up with the bomber formation after the normal B-17's had dropped their bombs, due to the extra weight of the guns and ammo it carried
 

Larrikin

Banned
The US built a small number of the YB-40 which was a B-17 fitted with extra guns and armour and which didn't carry bombs, Its job was to act as an escort for the main bomber formation.
It wasn't a great success as it had difficulty keeping up with the bomber formation after the normal B-17's had dropped their bombs, due to the extra weight of the guns and ammo it carried

See why nobody else bothered. :D
 
CalBear; Maybe the "four engine fighters" refers to the XB-38 & 39 the B-17 & B-24 models modifed to act as escorts?[/QUOTE said:
Calbear, I'm going to have to correct this one too. The XB-38 was a B-17E with Allison V1710 liquid cooled engines. One built, down in flames. Planned version with XB-40 armament not built. The XB-39 was a B-29 with double Allison V3420 engines, also failed. Similar to the British switching Merlins and Hercules on Lanc's and Halifax. The XB-40 was born in a program to develop better defensive weapons for the Fortress, such as the chin turret which appeared on B-17G. A B-40 did manage to shoot down an Italian-flown captured P-38 Lightning which was picking off stragglers. An interesting story. Also curious was the fact that B-17's were re-nosed with B-24 noses and B-24's had B-17 noses grafted on to improve something which was not improved.

A little off topic, but so it goes.
 
It would depend, of course, on the background and whether Goring's been avoided in favor somebody actually up to the job. The most important factor in a struggle is eptness of high command. I don't believe Goring could ever have won BoB; he was about as ept at high command as Rumsfeld under Bush II; plus, he makes my two-year-old son look patient.

My timeline on the most dangerous possible Hitler, Hitler's Republic, has distinctly serious result for Britain. I haven't yet reached the Battle of Britain, but I can tell you that far more German heavy bombers are made than TTL, and much more eptly-commanded, so are more effective. Also, note, Axis bomber aim was decidedly better than Allied aim even in our timeline. The TL is in suspension awaiting some more writing.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Calbear, I'm going to have to correct this one too. The XB-38 was a B-17E with Allison V1710 liquid cooled engines. One built, down in flames. Planned version with XB-40 armament not built. The XB-39 was a B-29 with double Allison V3420 engines, also failed. Similar to the British switching Merlins and Hercules on Lanc's and Halifax. The XB-40 was born in a program to develop better defensive weapons for the Fortress, such as the chin turret which appeared on B-17G. A B-40 did manage to shoot down an Italian-flown captured P-38 Lightning which was picking off stragglers. An interesting story. Also curious was the fact that B-17's were re-nosed with B-24 noses and B-24's had B-17 noses grafted on to improve something which was not improved.

A little off topic, but so it goes.

:eek: That's what I get for going from memory and not verifing the data before posting

I didn't know the put a B-17 nose onto the XB-41. The B-24 nose makes a little more sense, but not much.

The Italian pilot REALLY picked the wrong straggler to take on one-on-one.

I have often wondered how a full group of YB-40's would have faired all together in a single set of box formations. It might also have been interesting to see how much difference changing the tail guns to 20mm cannon would have made. A couple different Luftwaffe pilots who were interviewed post-war indicated that the tail gunner position was the first thing they went after when attacking the American heavies.

Overall the only real positive from the experiment with the YB-40 was the chin turret that became standard for all "G" models
 
Calbear, are you catching dyslexia? I didn't write XB-41 anywhere. Are you taking drugs or would you like some?

The story of the Italian pilot came from Martin Caidin's "Fork-Tailed Devil: P-38". Too bad Martin's gone. He was prolific and terrific.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Calbear, are you catching dyslexia? I didn't write XB-41 anywhere. Are you taking drugs or would you like some?

The story of the Italian pilot came from Martin Caidin's "Fork-Tailed Devil: P-38". Too bad Martin's gone. He was prolific and terrific.

Well, it was in the middle of the discssion on the "escort bombers, so I made a logical connection.

Can't catch dyslexia. Already have it.:eek: Spell check is, IMO, the greatest invention of all time (except canned beer).:D
 
Top