If the Germans adopt the P.108 Long-Range Bomber...

...how far could they develop it? What sorts of upgrades might they install, and to what end?
 
... They'd probably strengthen it to the point they can use it as a dive bomber and put all the gunners into the front cabin to strengthen the fighting morale. Then they'd bulge out the bomb bay so it can already load their super heavy panic bomb that at this time is still in its planning stages... And yes.... Because no pilot can keep his eyes on four engines at the same time... They'll end up making it a twin...


And finally they rename it Heinkel 177
 
I think this has come up several times in discussions of potential German strategic bombers. I'm not an expert of Italian aircraft, but I think the consensus on this board at least is that the P.108 lacked the performance to be a really effective heavy bomber.
 
Finicky to maintain, hard to aim, limited ammo, and no way to repair or rearm during flight.

which was similar to the P-61 and B-29 turrets, and they had 1000 per gun,
which would not last long with the M3 .50 that fired at 1200 rpm
 
It would give Germany a strategic bomber earlier in the war, maybe not in time for the UK but with improved engined it might be ready for German mass production in 1941
 
Those turrets were on the body, not inaccessible over the engines.

still not a lot you could do in flight when they misbehaved. B-36 had the same problem, really tough to diagnose in air. They did have a lot more ammo capacity than the B-29, that couldn't be reloaded in flight.
 
still not a lot you could do in flight when they misbehaved. B-36 had the same problem, really tough to diagnose in air. They did have a lot more ammo capacity than the B-29, that couldn't be reloaded in flight.
I'll bet the B-29 had more rpg than the P.108's wing turrets, and they were easier to aim too, and probably more reliable (the wing turrets on the P.108 were fairly notorious for jamming, icing or failing). Oh, and at least some of the B-29s turrets could fire forward too. Overall the P.108 probably wasn't a bad aircraft, but those wing turrets were inexcusably stupid.
 
I'll bet the defensive armament on the Vickers Windsor would have proven quite inadequate. They were also mounted in nacelle-mounted barbettes.
 
the weapons would be more potent, but yes, nacelle-mounted turrets are a terrible idea, they have limited fields of fire, are hard to aim, and are inaccessible in flight unless the wing is thick enough for you to crawl out inside, which is pretty rare. This means limited ammunition, and no way to reload even if you carried extra, and quite probably more finicky and more prone to battle damage (engines are huge targets). Nor can I work out why the Windsor was armed this way, they had a spotter's position to the rear where a conventional tail-turret was usually located. In other words, they appear to have gone out of their way to make this bad.
 
Last edited:
Lord Cheshire allowed Crews in his Wing to remove some of the turrets and associated crew on the Halifax's as well as equipment he deemed unnessary - making the aircraft lighter and faster with corrisponding reduction in losses.

I've always maintained that a more stream lined 'unarmed' Lancaster with a crew of 4 (possibly 3?) would have suffered fewer AC losses due to its resulting improved performance.

Also each aircraft lost would be 4 Airman lost as opposed to 7

I've also maintained that building 2 Mossies for each Lancaster would have been even better!

But no one asked for my opinion at the time
 
Well tail turrets don't affect the airflow much, so they're usually okay (tail-turrets lasted well into the cold war).
 
One of the alternatives to building the P.108 was to build under license the B-17C. This wasn't nationalistic enough, so Giovanni Casiraghi, who was familiar with the Boeing, designed the Piaggio version. He seems to have built the wrong version, but neither the Boeing nor the Piaggio had a tail turret when originally designed. Of course, the Piaggio never got turbo-charged engines either. In one day, the USAAF lost 60 Fortresses, even though they had tail guns. In one day, one factory produced 16 Fortresses. It took 3 days for one Boeing factory to out-produce the war's P.108 bomber production. As for the Germans, there's Tooze.
 

Deleted member 1487

One of the alternatives to building the P.108 was to build under license the B-17C. This wasn't nationalistic enough, so Giovanni Casiraghi, who was familiar with the Boeing, designed the Piaggio version. He seems to have built the wrong version, but neither the Boeing nor the Piaggio had a tail turret when originally designed. Of course, the Piaggio never got turbo-charged engines either. In one day, the USAAF lost 60 Fortresses, even though they had tail guns. In one day, one factory produced 16 Fortresses. It took 3 days for one Boeing factory to out-produce the war's P.108 bomber production. As for the Germans, there's Tooze.
To be fair the Germans did build over 1000 He177s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.108

With Jumo 211Js or DB605s the P.108 would have been fine with some mods for the Germans, probably end up weighing around what the He177 did due to engine weight reduction and modified turrets. A nose redesign might be in order.

If the P.108 gets introduced with DB605s in 1942 and the He177 is cancelled as a result, the P.108 being then cancelled in 1944 when the war turns bad, Germany would be ahead of where it was IOTL rather than being stuck with a bunch of worthless He177s until 1944. It would have been pretty helpful in the Atlantic in 1942. In the east then from 1942-44.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

Can you picture the Germans building 1,000 Piaggios with 4,000 DB605 engines while not being willing to give the He-177B a shot? The British dabbled with the B-17C and gave it a sneer, and a pass.
I'm trying to stick within the OP. Clearly the He177B designed that way from the beginning is the superior choice.
 
Top