Heinkel He 177 Germany's succesful longrange bomber

[Carl Schwamberger]

Yeah. the problem of Soviet interceptors is a tough one. If Im reading the summaries correctly the Germans never reach 4,000 operational aircraft in the east & it was usually less than 3000. Not a large margin of their own fighter planes to fly cover for bombers.

the problem is such campaigns against groups of small and decentralised targets are not what massed 4 engine bombers are great at, so it took lot of bombers and much repetition

The 9th Air Force found massed bombers were necessary to get effect on the transportation targets. My fathers B26 squadron came to England in the summer of 1943 with the idea squadron size attack groups were sufficient for the targets they'd be attacking. Six months later the 9th Bomber Division was hitting targets like bridges with minimum 36 & 54 plane strike groups, or larger. It wasn't practical to send the entire bomber division against a single target, but the general idea was the larger attack group used the less likely a second mission on the same target would be required.

That suggest just 500 or even 1000 He177 built are not going to provide enough operational aircraft to hit the number of targets needed to collapse or serious degrade Soviet transportation.

 

[TDM]

Yeah. the problem of Soviet interceptors is a tough one. If Im reading the summaries correctly the Germans never reach 4,000 operational aircraft in the east & it was usually less than 3000. Not a large margin of their own fighter planes to fly cover for bombers.



The 9th Air Force found massed bombers were necessary to get effect on the transportation targets. My fathers B26 squadron came to England in the summer of 1943 with the idea squadron size attack groups were sufficient for the targets they'd be attacking. Six months later the 9th Bomber Division was hitting targets like bridges with minimum 36 & 54 plane strike groups, or larger. It wasn't practical to send the entire bomber division against a single target, but the general idea was the larger attack group used the less likely a second mission on the same target would be required.

sorry are you quoting this post:

the problem is such campaigns against groups of small and decentralised targets are not what massed 4 engine bombers are great at, so it took lot of bombers and much repetition

Operation strangle:

Over the course of eight weeks, the Allies flew 21,000 sorties (388 per day) and dropped 22,500 tonnes of bombs.[2][3] The operation employed medium bombers and fighter bombers over a 150-square-mile (390 km2) area from Rome to Pisa and from Pescara to Rimini.[4]


Operation Clarion

Operation Clarion was the extensive allied campaign of Strategic bombing during World War II which attacked 200 German communication network targets[2]: 217  to open Operation Veritable/Grenade.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Clarion#cite_note-Bauer-1
3,500 bombers and nearly 5,000 fighters attacked targets across Germany in effort to destroy all means of transportation available. Targets included "rail stations, barges, docks, and bridges."[3]: 535 


(not sure of bomber mix but it certainly included lighter planes like Strangle, and it's hard to separate out Clarion from ongoing bombing campaign at times, but again look at those numbers, no way is a German 4 engine bomber force scraped out of cannibalised 2 engine programmes going to do this)

and of course one other big difference, those wallie operations were run with either air superiority or damn near local supremacy. The red air force and LW were in an ongoing fight over citadel

That suggest just 500 or even 1000 He177 built are not going to provide enough operational aircraft to hit the number of targets needed to collapse or serious degrade Soviet transportation

but yes +1 on this definitely!

 

[CaptainCalvert]

If we take the timeline as meaning reliable (by 1940s military standards) He177 that is simplified and lightened by not being built for dive bombing, then it's more a case that all the OTL ones are built but are better. And maybe some of the obsolete OTL bombers are sacrificed ITTL to make a few extra (better) He177.
An earlier post suggested they'd be useful for both heavier bombload at shorter range and reasonable load at longer range.
Not a game changer but a better use of resources than OTL with a possibility of some interesting changes here and there. And it's quite a nice looking plane.
The big problem is that bigger bombers generally need more robust runways so unless there's more resources shifted to runway building, they will only be able to land or take off from proper airfields or at lighter loads, which makes it harder to realise the potential benefits or more range or greater load.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

FWIW these are the performances of Germany's four and six-engine landplanes (plus the Do 17Z, Do 215 and Do 217) according to "Hitler's Luftwaffe" by Tony Wood and Bill Gunston. Unfortunately, there are a lot of gaps in the information and the maximum speeds and maximum ranges aren't always comparable.

​

The book didn't say what the internal bomb load of the He 177B and He 274 was, but my guess is that it was the same as the He 177A.

Quote from Page 235 of "German Aircraft Industry and Production 1933-1945" by Ferenc A. Vajda & Peter Dancey

...but it was a very different story with its more powerful successor, the DB 603. Daimler offered this new 1,500hp engine to the RLM for the first time on 4th September 1936. Udet halted its development on 11 March 1937! However, Daimler-Benz did continue very slowly with this its development as a private venture. The first engine was not tested until 1939 and 120 were ordered by RLM on 3rd February 1940. If the RLM had not forced the interruption of the DB 603's development in 1937 this powerful 1,750hp engine would already in 1940 been available to equip the German warplanes, with the possibility of a completely different outcome of the Battle of Britain.

I've no idea whether that's true, but it stands to reason that if the resources put into development of the DB 606 and DB 610 had been put into the DB 603 that engine would have been available several years earlier.

On Page 241 Vajda & Dancey say that the development of the 1,750hp Jumo 213 was unfortunately [for the Axis] drawn out and that there was not sufficient production capacity to mass produce it. I don't know of any ways to avoid either.

My guess is that if Heinkel had been allowed to build the four-engine version of the He 177 from the start it would have been built in place of all the He 177s and many of the Fw 200Cs. Although the first prototypes might have had to fly with DB 601 and Jumo 211 engines instead of DB 603s and Jumo 213s. Plus there's an outside chance of an earlier first flight date for the prototypes (due to faster development of the DB 603 vis-à-vis DB 606 or fitting DB 601s as an interim measure) so it could have been built in place of all the Fw 200Cs.

I've included the Do 217 because there's the possibility that He 177Bs could have been built in place of some or all of them and the Do 17Z & Do 215 because there's the possibility that more Do 217s with DB 603 engines could have been built in their place.

 

[tonycat77]

Yeah. the problem of Soviet interceptors is a tough one. If Im reading the summaries correctly the Germans never reach 4,000 operational aircraft in the east & it was usually less than 3000. Not a large margin of their own fighter planes to fly cover for bombers.

VVS planes were very light armed though, 2 fast firing light mgs and a 20mm cannon, or a .50 gun in place of the the 2 mgs.
Only planes that could fly high and fast and were heavily armed were the P-47 and the spitfire, both in very limited numbers.
Soviet planes had marginal performance above 6km.
My experience on IL-2 (yes i know it's a game,but its a good simulator, all things considered) made me avoid tail attacks on He-111 and JU-88, not for their pitiful defensive armament, but for the fact that unless i hit the oil radiator, i'd run out of ammo before anything happened.
I had to attack the fuel tanks on the wings or the cockpit, and if i ran out of cannon ammo, i'd have to RTB, since the mg's wouldn't be able to set the self sealing tanks on fire, as explosive cannon rounds do.
Now imagine a faster aircraft, flying higher, far superior defensive armaments, no good quality radar nets and 2 competing air forces, with their own chains of commands, unlike the RAF's chain home, covering a far larger area with limited aircraft capable of doing anything.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

To complement Post 84 this is the Fw 200C, He 177A, He 177B and He 274 in comparison to the Halifax, Lancaster, Manchester and Stirling which were begun around the same time as the Bomber A project and the Piaggio P.108B.

Sources
British aircraft "An Illustrated Guide to the Bombers of World War II" by Bill Gunston.
German aircraft "Hitler's Luftwaffe" by Tony Wood and Bill Gunston
Italian aircraft "Military Aviation Library World War II Japanese & Italian Aircraft" by Bill Gunston

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

VVS planes were very light armed though, 2 fast firing light mgs and a 20mm cannon, or a .50 gun in place of the the 2 mgs.
Only planes that could fly high and fast and were heavily armed were the P-47 and the spitfire, both in very limited numbers.
Soviet planes had marginal performance above 6km.

The problem with the altitude defense is it reduces accuracy. The 9th Bomber Division was able to reduce altitude to increase effects on targets. Kenny did the same with the US 5th Air Force. Medium, low, and extreme low altitude techniques got the ratio of sorties to target destruction to something resembling practicality. Judging from the experience of the US 15th and 9th Air Forces Im skeptical the limited numbers of German bombers on the Easter Front can get a signifiant effect using high altitude bombing against transportation targets. The precision required is just to high.


Here the Germans are stuck with the same problem as nearly everyone else 1939 - 1943. There were not a lot of escort fighters for long range missions. For the 9th AF & the B25 Groups of the 15th Air Force this was not a problem as they were usually hitting targets inside the Allied fighter cover. In the Pacific both the Japanese and the 5th Air Force adapted low level tactics to try to dodge the local interceptor defense. That had its own set of pros and cons.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

To complement Posts 84 and 86 these are the production figures for the Bv 138 & 222, Fw 200C, Dorniers 17, 18, 24, 215 & 217, He 177 and Ju 290 from September 1939 to 1945 according to "German Aircraft Industry and Production 1933-1945" by Ferenc A. Vajda & Peter Dancey, specifically "Table 8-Q German Aircraft Production (1938-45)" on Pages 146 & 147. Note that the figures for 1939 are for the period from September to December of that year.

I've included the flying boats because I think the Germans would have been better off using adapted twin-engine bombers instead of the flying boats for maritime reconnaissance and adapted four-engine bombers instead of the Bv 222. I've read that many of the junior officers in the Küstenfliegerstaffeln during the second half of the 1930s thought the same.

I read in a book (which might have been "The German Air Force 1933-45 An Anatomy of Failure" by Matthew Cooper) that the Fw 200C was produced in small numbers in 1940 and 1941 because the He 177 was expected to enter service within a few months and the RLM didn't want to build large numbers of an aircraft which would soon be obsolete.

Is that statement true? And if it is how many Fw 200Cs could have been built in 1940 and 1941 without a significant reduction in the production of twin-engine bombers? Plus there are things like finding the aircrew, ground crew and fuel. Although even a doubling of the number of aircraft built in this period would result in a significant increase in the amount of merchant shipping sunk between June 1940 and May 1941 on their own account and they'd give the Kriegsmarine a better idea of where the convoys were.

 

[Parma]

If we take the timeline as meaning reliable (by 1940s military standards) He177 that is simplified and lightened by not being built for dive bombing, then it's more a case that all the OTL ones are built but are better. And maybe some of the obsolete OTL bombers are sacrificed ITTL to make a few extra (better) He177.
An earlier post suggested they'd be useful for both heavier bombload at shorter range and reasonable load at longer range.
Not a game changer but a better use of resources than OTL with a possibility of some interesting changes here and there. And it's quite a nice looking plane.
The big problem is that bigger bombers generally need more robust runways so unless there's more resources shifted to runway building, they will only be able to land or take off from proper airfields or at lighter loads, which makes it harder to realise the potential benefits or more range or greater load.

I agree with you comment. Although I am not sure what runways the OTL He 177 used at the East front.
General consensus it He 177 with orthodox engine lay out and no divebomb abilities might be a good real heavy bomber.
When used on mid range missions close to a major operation, German or Russian, what effect could this have on the ground operations/offensives?
And I wonder if close to an offensive in the vastness of Russia is close as in West European terms.

 

[ric350]

VVS planes were very light armed though

They had the P-39.

ric350

 

[The Wooksta!]

Re a nose gear on the 177. At least one of the paper He 277 designs had a nose gear.

 

[Aghasverov]

They had the P-39.

ric350

P-39 was fairly lousy at altitude though.... more P-63's, and earlier, might've been decent as interceptors....

 

[Garrison]

Thing is we know from the OTL experience of what it took for the USA and Britain to mount successful strategic bombing campaigns, and the limits of what even successful strategic bombing could achieve. The Luftwaffe isn't even going to come close with maybe a 1000 He 177s, more likely fewer given the other demands on the aircraft industry.

 

[Post]

Thing is we know from the OTL experience of what it took for the USA and Britain to mount successful strategic bombing campaigns, and the limits of what even successful strategic bombing could achieve. The Luftwaffe isn't even going to come close with maybe a 1000 He 177s, more likely fewer given the other demands on the aircraft industry.

If we're still talking about bombing the Urals, there's also the logistical issue: a bombing campaign uses a lot of resources, which have to be transported to the east, where the logistics were already insufficient.

Not to mention the amounts of fuel needed, of which the Germans had a short supply.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Thing is we know from the OTL experience of what it took for the USA and Britain to mount successful strategic bombing campaigns, and the limits of what even successful strategic bombing could achieve. The Luftwaffe isn't even going to come close with maybe a 1,000 He 177s, more likely fewer given the other demands on the aircraft industry.

Is that 1,000 in addition to the 1,146 (according to Vajda & Dancey) that were completed 1942-44 IOTL?

 

[Garrison]

Is that 1,000 in addition to the 1,146 (according to Vajda & Dancey) that were completed 1942-44 IOTL?

I wouldn't have thought so unless they are really taking the axe to the rest of Luftwaffe production.

 

[marathag]

Im skeptical the limited numbers of German bombers on the Easter Front can get a signifiant effect using high altitude bombing against transportation targets. The precision required is just to high.

The best the Nazis can expect, is it forces the VVS to keep more interceptors in rear areas, covering cities, in place of the Front

 

[PhilKearny]

The best the Nazis can expect, is it forces the VVS to keep more interceptors in rear areas, covering cities, in place of the Front

The increase in He-177s would also probably reduce the number of anti-tank guns, as more guns will be needed for anti-aircraft duty.

 

[ric350]

P-39 was fairly lousy at altitude though

Fighter to fighter, yes. But good enough for bomber intercept I think.

ric350

 

[marathag]

Fighter to fighter, yes. But good enough for bomber intercept I think.

ric350

View attachment 766301

From WWII performance site

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39D-PHQ-M-19-1325-A.jpg

since it refuses to display save for reduced size here

But climb time is as important as speed
P-39D

3.	Climb data: Prestone and oil cooler shutter wide open; mixture control auto rich below 20,000 ft.; auto lean above 20,000 ft.

	Altitude Ft.​	Speed MPH​	R.P.M.​	B.H.P.​	Rate of climb Ft/Min​	Time of climb Min.​
	0​	157​	3000​	1150​	2720​	0​
	5,000​	169​	3000​	1150​	2720​	1.84​
	10,000​	183​	3000​	1150​	2720​	3.68​
	*12,400​	190​	3000​	1150​	2720​	4.56​
	13,650​	192​	3000​	1080​	2515​	5.0​
	15,000​	194​	2600​	865​	1880​	5.7​
	20,000​	203​	2600​	710​	1300​	8.9​
	25,000​	213​	2600​	585​	800​	13.8​
	30,000​	225​	2600​	465​	300​	20.8​
	S/C 31,100​	229​	2600​	415​	100​	32.0​
	A/C 33,200​	232​	2600​	390​	0​	-​

**Critical altitude for military rated power in climb.

P-51B

1. Time to Climb; 3,000 r.p.m., oil and coolant flaps wide open.

Altitude Ft.​	Man. Press. " Hg.​	Rate of Climb Ft/min.​	BHP from Chart​	Time to Climb Min.​
(a) Low blower Operation
S.L.​	60.5​	3,600​	1,500​	0​
5,000​	60.5​	3,570​	1,510​	1.4​
10,000​	60.5​	3,540​	1,525​	2.8​
13,000​	60.5​	3,520​	1,510​	3.7​
17,400​	52.3​	2,965​	1,320​	5.05​
(b) High blower Operation
17,400​	60.5​	2,965​	1,320​	5.1​
20,000​	60.5​	2,915​	1,310​	5.9​
26,000​	60.5​	2,780​	1,260​	7.7​
30,000​	51.6​	2,125​	1,075​	9.8​
35,000​	41.8​	1,280​	850​	12.3​
40,000​	32.8​	450​	630​	18.6​
S/C 42,000​	29.1​	100​	540​	26.3​
A/C 42,600​	28.2​	0​	515​	--​

So almost twice as long to climb to 25,000 feet