What German Heavy Bomber Program...

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3

glvaca
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Program...

Post by glvaca »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Footslogger



That is correct. Wasn't the FW190 available at the time? And had it of taken the place of the ME 109, what do you think would of happened?

Hmmm, the Fw190 became operational around summer 1941. I don't think it could have been earlier but...

IF they would only have had simple drop tanks for the Me109 things would have been different.
Warspite1

May have been different. I think too little is made of the Luftwaffe's faulty tactics. The Me-109 fighters were badly utilised because it was wrongly felt that they were best employed in staying close to the bombers - thus sacrificing their speed. Just having more time over England would not have changed that; besides, all fighters had limited ammunition, and although I have no definitive data to back it up, I would be very surprised if fighters - British or German - landed without having expended their full load once battle was joined.

The Luftwaffe had the best fighter in the world in 1940 (the Spitfire I was in its early stages) and they blew it.

Well things would have been different, but I didn't say the outcome would have [:D][;)]
You're right, but also wrong [:'(]
The Germans didn't start out with close escort, they were pressed into it during the battle when losses for the bombers mounted. But that said, I won't dispute that it was bad tactics, which the Germans never repeated as even Goring recognized it in the end.

Hmmm, wether the 109 was better than the spit or vice versa is an ongoing debate from the event itself. If the flight models and performances of the planes in IL2-sturmovik is any reference, they are very, very closely matched in speed and climb but the spit is the better turner which is offset by the engine being unable to take negative G.

Anyway, the orginal premise was that with 30m extra flying time, the 109's would have been much more effective and losses would have been lower (many planes and pilots were lost because they ran out of fuel on the way back).

Concerning ammo, it's more likely to run out of ammo if you're attacking bombers which need many hits to take down. So I'm not sure if that arguement can be used to the advantage of the Brits.
User avatar
parusski
Posts: 4789
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Jackson Tn
Contact:

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Program...

Post by parusski »

ORIGINAL: Footslogger
ORIGINAL: Klydon

The Germans could have had all the heavy bombers at the start of the war they wanted (well, within reason). One of the huge deciding factors in the Battle of Britain was the short range of the German fighters who simply could not remain over England for very long at all.

That is correct. Wasn't the FW190 available at the time? And had it of taken the place of the ME 109, what do you think would of happened?

Another yes. I recall the time over Britain as being a few short minutes for German fighter planes.
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42129
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Program...

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: glvaca




Hmmm, the Fw190 became operational around summer 1941. I don't think it could have been earlier but...

IF they would only have had simple drop tanks for the Me109 things would have been different.
Warspite1

May have been different. I think too little is made of the Luftwaffe's faulty tactics. The Me-109 fighters were badly utilised because it was wrongly felt that they were best employed in staying close to the bombers - thus sacrificing their speed. Just having more time over England would not have changed that; besides, all fighters had limited ammunition, and although I have no definitive data to back it up, I would be very surprised if fighters - British or German - landed without having expended their full load once battle was joined.

The Luftwaffe had the best fighter in the world in 1940 (the Spitfire I was in its early stages) and they blew it.

Well things would have been different, but I didn't say the outcome would have [:D][;)]
You're right, but also wrong [:'(]
The Germans didn't start out with close escort, they were pressed into it during the battle when losses for the bombers mounted. But that said, I won't dispute that it was bad tactics, which the Germans never repeated as even Goring recognized it in the end.

Hmmm, wether the 109 was better than the spit or vice versa is an ongoing debate from the event itself. If the flight models and performances of the planes in IL2-sturmovik is any reference, they are very, very closely matched in speed and climb but the spit is the better turner which is offset by the engine being unable to take negative G.

Anyway, the orginal premise was that with 30m extra flying time, the 109's would have been much more effective and losses would have been lower (many planes and pilots were lost because they ran out of fuel on the way back).

Concerning ammo, it's more likely to run out of ammo if you're attacking bombers which need many hits to take down. So I'm not sure if that arguement can be used to the advantage of the Brits.
Warspite1

Not according to James Holland "The Battle of Britain" [Goring] had been quite specific in insisting fighters operated independently. "Putting the majority of fighters and Zerstörers close to the bomber formations will prevent then from being used as effectively as they might". Somehow, this clear directive got lost in translation...... The situation got worse over time as Goring blamed the fighters for the bomber losses and then demanded more and more fighters be used for each attack. Problem was of course, by that time, there were not the same number of fighters available. Yes the RAF was not exactly flush with pilots, but the Luftwaffe was being bled white.

Total ammunition burst was measured in seconds (cannot recall how many - but it was low around 20?

I agree that there were fighters that fell into the drink on the way back, and maybe some of these would have survived. I just do not believe it would have been the deciding factor. In addition, the British were outstripping German production easily, the repair rate for damaged aircraft was much higher than that for the Germans.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
glvaca
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:42 pm

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Program...

Post by glvaca »

Just re-read the section concerning this in Galland's "The First and the Last". He's quite clear that Goring required close and rigit protection _during_ the battle as losses mounted for the bombers. Page 28.

Around 15 sec for the early spits. Lots of 303 guns with limited effectiveness. The 109's will be something in the order of 20+ sec machine gun, but IIRC only about 60 rounds per canon (2x20mm in wings).

And the British pilots actually had orders to fire on the rescue services [;)]

30min. more over the combat area would most certainly have made a difference. It is the difference between having to rush in an engagement with one eye on the fuel gauge constantly or having time to pick your fight and engage from a good position. I mean, they had, histroically 15m over target, that would have become 45m. You cannot say that is not a considerable difference. Many of the German pilot stories mention the lack of the drop tanks and how, in their mind, it would have made a difference.

Whether it would have been enough for the Germans to gain the advantage is impossible to say, obviously, their failure to keep pressure on the airfields and the radar stations are also major reasons why you Brits were able to win the battle.

So again, not saying it would have changed the outcome, but it surely would have had an influence [;)]

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42129
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Program...

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Just re-read the section concerning this in Galland's "The First and the Last". He's quite clear that Goring required close and rigit protection _during_ the battle as losses mounted for the bombers. Page 28.

Around 15 sec for the early spits. Lots of 303 guns with limited effectiveness. The 109's will be something in the order of 20+ sec machine gun, but IIRC only about 60 rounds per canon (2x20mm in wings).

And the British pilots actually had orders to fire on the rescue services [;)]

30min. more over the combat area would most certainly have made a difference. It is the difference between having to rush in an engagement with one eye on the fuel gauge constantly or having time to pick your fight and engage from a good position. I mean, they had, histroically 15m over target, that would have become 45m. You cannot say that is not a considerable difference. Many of the German pilot stories mention the lack of the drop tanks and how, in their mind, it would have made a difference.

Whether it would have been enough for the Germans to gain the advantage is impossible to say, obviously, their failure to keep pressure on the airfields and the radar stations are also major reasons why you Brits were able to win the battle.

So again, not saying it would have changed the outcome, but it surely would have had an influence [;)]

Warspite1

Who is right Galland or Holland? Well it sounds like what Galland says mirrors what Holland says - the only difference is where did the order eminate from? Doesn't really matter in the final analysis. Whoever it was was was wrong - and it cost the Luftwaffe!

Yes the lack of understanding of the importance of those big towers on the coast did the Germans no favours - whoops...

British pilots had orders to fire on the "rescue services" - I won't go there as the thread will just descend into one of those tit for tat exchanges (that is not aimed at you glvaca). Suffice to say both sides can claim "wrong doing" and I am sure we have our own thoughts on that.

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Zebedee
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:52 am

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Progra put m...

Post by Zebedee »

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Well, part of it is how you define "ideal". The brain trust behind the Luftwaffe never envisioned a Battle of Britain scenario. They were more concerned with defense of the homeland and at best, continental situations. Looked at through that prisim, the Luftwaffe was more than adequate to that task with one glaring exception and that was the expectation that the Me110 would be able to escort bombers and be effective against enemy fighter opposition.

They planned for and envisioned a Battle of Britain scenario. In fact, the initial planning for the attack on the West called for an assault through the low countries, a defensive line in Northern France, and access for the LW from airbases on the channel coast to bomb Britain out of the war. The Ju-88 was designed with this in mind.

Compare the RAF bombers of the time with the Ju-88. Likewise compare the initial RAF results with that of the LW in the Battle of Britain. Same problems. Only Britain was able to allocate resources to the RAF to expand and improve its bomber force in a way which was not possible for Germany after the failure to knock the Soviet Union out in one quick campaign.
Image
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Progra put m...

Post by Klydon »

That may have been Nazi propaganda (bombing the British out of the war), but most any reasonable person in the Luftwaffe didn't have it in mind. The Ju-88 was a replacement for the prewar bombers that were converted from fast passinger planes or courier planes that were designed to also have military uses (HE-111 and Do-17). The Ju-88 was a warplane from the start; not built with civil aviation in mind. If the Germans had been serious about a Battle of Britain scenario, drop tanks would have had a lot more attention paid to them sooner, because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know a Me-109 is going to have issues in any projection of power over Britain. Of course, a lot of people were all in on the Me-110 as being the big time plane to project fighter power over enemy airspace.

As far as aircraft production goes, the British were finally cranking planes out, especially compared to the Germans. The issue the RAF faced was pilots. This is where the Germans came the closest to breaking the RAF is the life of a RAF pilot dropped to days at the height of the battle and the British came very close to deciding to pull back their remaining fighter forces to try to stop a would be German invasion.

For the WITE, (and in general) can you imagine had the Luftwaffe not fought the Battle of Britain, what would have been the result elsewhere? The Germans would have been able to make the Med a even worse place for Allied shipping just with the Stukas that got shot down and the Germans could have likely had 800 more planes to use against Russia. In addition, think of all the air crew losses the Germans took during the Battle of Britain. I don't know that they were able to ever replace them adequately and probably from a quality standpoint of view, it was never the same.
User avatar
Zebedee
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:52 am

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Progra put m...

Post by Zebedee »

ORIGINAL: Klydon

That may have been Nazi propaganda (bombing the British out of the war), but most any reasonable person in the Luftwaffe didn't have it in mind. The Ju-88 was a replacement for the prewar bombers that were converted from fast passinger planes or courier planes that were designed to also have military uses (HE-111 and Do-17). The Ju-88 was a warplane from the start; not built with civil aviation in mind. If the Germans had been serious about a Battle of Britain scenario, drop tanks would have had a lot more attention paid to them sooner, because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know a Me-109 is going to have issues in any projection of power over Britain. Of course, a lot of people were all in on the Me-110 as being the big time plane to project fighter power over enemy airspace.

To cut a long and tedious discussion short, you may find the theoretical work presented in Militaerwissenschaftliche Rundschau of interest as background to a discussion on the development of German air doctrine in the late 30s. As Felmy highlighted in spring 1939, they knew what they wanted to do but feared they had not the resources to do it. Felmy was proven to be correct in 1940. Events elsewhere prevented a concerted repeat performance. Nazi propaganda is one thing, planning for the conduct of a war is another. They're not really mutually interchangeable. Although Germany did try in 1941.
Image
lastdingo
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:20 pm

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Progra put m...

Post by lastdingo »

Fw 187 and He 100 were extremely promising German longer-range fighters, even He 112 (original Bf 109 competitor) had a 1000+ km range.
It was really only Messerschmidt who fucked the range thing up.

The Ju 88 and He 111 also had enough range for England missions. In worst case they had to reduce their bomb load. Ju 88 B-position (upper machine gunner position) sucked because of its inability to defend to the sides.

Fw 190 and Ju 288 could have fixed all those woes by early 1942 (both with 2,000 hp Jumo 222 engine(s)), but RLM fucked up the Ju 288 project and some Jumo engineers fucked up the Jumo 222 project.
cherryfunk
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:13 pm

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Progra put m...

Post by cherryfunk »


As I understand it -- the worst case scenario for the British is that they're forced to pull back to bases in Scotland, which are out of Luftwaffe range, where they rest and refit and wait.  When the invasion comes, the RAF pours down from the north to contest the air space while the Royal Navy obliterates the invasion "fleet" (consisting mostly of river barges which could be capsized by the wake of a fast-moving destroyer...)
  


User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Progra put m...

Post by Klydon »

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

ORIGINAL: Klydon

That may have been Nazi propaganda (bombing the British out of the war), but most any reasonable person in the Luftwaffe didn't have it in mind. The Ju-88 was a replacement for the prewar bombers that were converted from fast passinger planes or courier planes that were designed to also have military uses (HE-111 and Do-17). The Ju-88 was a warplane from the start; not built with civil aviation in mind. If the Germans had been serious about a Battle of Britain scenario, drop tanks would have had a lot more attention paid to them sooner, because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know a Me-109 is going to have issues in any projection of power over Britain. Of course, a lot of people were all in on the Me-110 as being the big time plane to project fighter power over enemy airspace.

To cut a long and tedious discussion short, you may find the theoretical work presented in Militaerwissenschaftliche Rundschau of interest as background to a discussion on the development of German air doctrine in the late 30s. As Felmy highlighted in spring 1939, they knew what they wanted to do but feared they had not the resources to do it. Felmy was proven to be correct in 1940. Events elsewhere prevented a concerted repeat performance. Nazi propaganda is one thing, planning for the conduct of a war is another. They're not really mutually interchangeable. Although Germany did try in 1941.

We may have our time lines a bit off from each other. When I say the Luftwaffe was not really thinking of an air war with England except in the most general terms, I am more or less in the early to mid 30's when the Luftwaffe was far more concerned with their neighbors. After Wever got killed, there was no real huge advocate for simple strategic bombing because the one thing Wever would not really deal with was the shortage of raw materials (not to mention the cost) the Germans were dealing with. That and the other thing was the Nazi administration was more interested in overall numbers when it came to aircraft. By the late 30's, I grant that far more attention was being paid to the issue of trying to bomb the British out, but they didn't get a chance to really do anything about it before the war started.

User avatar
Caltone
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Program...

Post by Caltone »

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Have you read Macksey's "Invasion"? Interesting read of an alternative history where the Germans win the BoB and invade - or rather, win by invading. A great read!

Interesting, on to amazon [;)]
Macksey's "Invasion

hah, just did the same thing [:D] Found a nice copy with Amazon Prime shipping as well.
"Order AP Hill to prepare for battle" -- Stonewall Jackson
User avatar
paullus99
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 10:00 am

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Program...

Post by paullus99 »

There are two versions of "Invasion" out there - the main book (that I've had for years, despite a few small errors it is a fantastic read!) and a slight variation that he did later for a compilation of Alt-History (I'll find a copy & edit here later) that makes some small changes relating to German decisions with their Battlecruisers.
Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...
lastdingo
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:20 pm

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Progra put m...

Post by lastdingo »

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk
As I understand it -- the worst case scenario for the British is that they're forced to pull back to bases in Scotland, which are out of Luftwaffe range, where they rest and refit and wait.  When the invasion comes, the RAF pours down from the north to contest the air space while the Royal Navy obliterates the invasion "fleet" (consisting mostly of river barges which could be capsized by the wake of a fast-moving destroyer...)

That, the destruction of the exposed industries and storage facilities of the south, a large-scale blunting (wrecking) of the Home Fleet by mines, 500 kg bombs and 21" torpedoes and the large-scale destruction of bomber command during the invasion.

By the way - mid England was already out of range of fighters and thus quite safe.
User avatar
Rasputitsa
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Bedfordshire UK
Contact:

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Progra put m...

Post by Rasputitsa »

ORIGINAL: lastdingo
ORIGINAL: cherryfunk
As I understand it -- the worst case scenario for the British is that they're forced to pull back to bases in Scotland, which are out of Luftwaffe range, where they rest and refit and wait.  When the invasion comes, the RAF pours down from the north to contest the air space while the Royal Navy obliterates the invasion "fleet" (consisting mostly of river barges which could be capsized by the wake of a fast-moving destroyer...)

That, the destruction of the exposed industries and storage facilities of the south, a large-scale blunting (wrecking) of the Home Fleet by mines, 500 kg bombs and 21" torpedoes and the large-scale destruction of bomber command during the invasion.

By the way - mid England was already out of range of fighters and thus quite safe.

RAF Fighter Command would not have withdrawn to Scotland, it was enough, if it became necessary, to pull back to 12 Group airfields, just North of London. From these airfields, Leigh-Mallory and Douglas Bader were using the 'Big Wing' tactic of grouping squadrons into larger formations, as the greater distance from the Channel gave time to form these forces.

Dowding and Park would have been able to add 11 Group squadrons to the 'Big Wings', just as in 1943 the US daylight bombing missions met German fighters as there own escorts headed for home, so the German bombers would have met massed attacks as the Me 109s turned back.

The Luftwaffe in 1940 was unable to stop the uplift of 327,000 troops from Dunkirk, despite many slow and unarmed vessels included in the rescue fleet and good weather. They had not perfected the techniques that would be so effective later in 1941 and would have found it difficult to cope with the the Royal Navy, in full force, both day and night, over the weeks the invasion would have taken.

Just as Barbarossa was doomed by logistics and distance, only successful in the event of a Russian collapse, so Sealion was a forlorn hope, which could only succeed with a British collapse. Strategic bombers would not have made any difference in either case. [:)]
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon

“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon
gradenko2k
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:08 am

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Progra put m...

Post by gradenko2k »

http://www.philm.demon.co.uk/Miscellaneous/Sealion.htm

The Sealion option just wasn't a feasible one for Germany:

* The Kriegsmarine was badly outnumbered, and it wasn't realistic to expect that the Luftwaffe could sink enough ships to even the score, given the historical track record they had.

* Comparisons to D-Day:
D-Day had 2 years set aside for planning. Sealion had 84 days
D-Day transported 5 Allied divisions. Sealion intended to transport as many as 9.
D-Day saw the Allies having complete air and naval superiority, specially designed equipment for the task, 2 years' worth of experience performing amphibious landings, friendly local resistance, and branch inter-operability. Not so much for the Germans
D-Day landings were conducted over a 50 mile stretch of coastline. Sealion intended to have a front of 275 miles across.

* According to the planners, there would be a period of 8-10 days between the landings and a second wave of reinforcements and supplies. That is, the 9 German divisions would have to hold out against 28 Allied divisons for more than a week without resupply

* The west end of the English Channel was supposed to be blocked off by U-boats, while the east end was supposed to be blocked off by mines and 14 torpedo boats. In both cases, neither of these forces are quite suited to stopping the 17-20 RN destroyers that they were expected to face.

* The means of protection for the transport fleet against any RN ships that penetrated this "blockade" would be for the soldiers in the transport barges to shoot at any ships that they could not positively identify. At night.

* Speaking of the transport barges, these were suited for river travel, and could be sunk simply by the RN driving over them and letting the sea-wash do the rest.

* There were not enough ship-trained men to man the barges anyway, as scraping the bottom of the maritime-trained barrel meant that they still lacked 4 000 sailors, not to mention that the Kriegsmarine's own ships would be operating with minimal crew, while being expecting to fight a major fleet action.

* The barges travel at 2-3 knots while being towed by a tug. Against the 5 knot tides of Channel, the soldiers in these barges would be sailing for about 30 hours, exposed to the elements all the while, only to land on a hostile beach.

* The barges were expected to sail until they were 10 miles out from the beach, then form an order line parallel to the coast, then advance simultaneously. At night. With only hailers to provide communication and coordination. Without practice. Without a complete complement of sailors.

* Attempts to create makeshift ferries / rafts / pontoons were disastrous failures, especially since they were tasked to an Engineer Battalion that was based in Bavaria. That they could not create these improvised floatation devices meant that the Wehrmacht's landing forces would have to make do without their horse-based transportation.

* In order to capture a port in short order to facilitate resupply, the Luftwaffe planned to use paratroopers, except there were no provisions for escorting the paradrop planes, and the drop zones were 10-15 miles away from Dover itself.

* There were no plans to deal with coordination or organization of the units after they had landed. The Wehrmacht would basically instruct Regimental and Battalion commanders to do whatever they could with whatever forces they could scrape together after the landing, in the hopes that these small "weak but continuous fronts" would somehow gel together into a coherent force.

* There were no plans to include artillery with the first wave, which meant that even 19th century fortifications like the Martello Towers might prove to be useful against the rifles and hand grenades of the Germans.

* There were no plans to include engineers or their equipment with the first wave, which meant that after passing the Martello Towers, the Germans would be stopped cold at the Royal Military Canal, since it would be uncrossable without bridging equipment.

* Since there were not enough life jackets for everyone, the first wave was expected to take off their life jackets (which are worn UNDERNEATH the combat pack) and bring them back to the water's edge. All the while being shot at by the British. There were no plans for who was supposed to coordinate the retrieval of the life jackets, and their retrieval would have conflicted with the Kriegsmarine's orders to leave as soon as the troops had been dropped off the barges anyway.

* Despite the lack of engineers, artillery or any other heavy equipment, 4 000 horses were supposed to be included in the first wave.

* The Luftwaffe was expected to act as artillery for the first wave, keep the RN at bay, achieve total air superiority, cut off supplies and reinforcements by bombing railway lines, and engage in anti-civilian terror bombing to cause a road-choking panicked evacuation. Mind you, the RAF's 11 Fighter Group had about as many Spitfires and Hurricanes (570) as the Luftwaffe had ME-109s (600)

* Simply pulling 11 Fighter Group back to the English Midlands would have been sufficient to put them out of reach of German fighters, which meant that the British airfields, industrial areas, ports, supply dumps and troop concentrations would have been nigh-untouchable, unless the Luftwaffe was willing to send unescorted bombing raids against these.

* If the Luftwaffe slow down their anti-RAF operational tempo in support of the landings, then 11 Group has a chance to rest, rearm and recover, as would 10 Group and 12 Group. If the Luftwaffe allocate their fighters to protect the landing barges, then the bombers (i.e. the artillery) have to go unescorted. If the Luftwaffe decides to protect their bombers, then RAF Bomber Command can attack the huge mass of barges moving along at 2 knots. If the barges are somehow protected from air attack anyway, then the Luftwaffe isn't watching out for the RN, which as said before, can simply sink these barges by driving over them with a Destroyer or two.

* Britain was producing more fighters than Germany was, and the setting of the battle favored the British in recovering any downed pilots.

* During the single exercise meant to practice the planned operation, less than 50% of the troops managed to make it ashore, despite the fact that it was done in broad daylight (unlike the planned night landings), without hostile beach defenders, without hostile aircraft, in good weather, and with only a mile's worth of sailing.

* The suggestion of invading earlier, in July, would arguably have been worse, as you're pitting a weaker Kriegsmarine (still recovering from Norway), a weaker Luftwaffe (still recovering from supporting Fall Gelb) and a weaker Wehrmacht (still recovering from executing Fall Gelb) against a stronger RAF (no attrition from the Battle of Britain) and possibly stronger Allied forces (if we assume the variant where France isn't completely beaten before the invasion begins). Even if we handwaved all of this away, invading in July means no time to have gathered up those oh-so-sinkable barges. Without them, the Kriegsmarine can transport a grand total of one division.
User avatar
Zebedee
Posts: 535
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:52 am

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Progra put m...

Post by Zebedee »

ORIGINAL: Klydon
We may have our time lines a bit off from each other. When I say the Luftwaffe was not really thinking of an air war with England except in the most general terms, I am more or less in the early to mid 30's when the Luftwaffe was far more concerned with their neighbors. After Wever got killed, there was no real huge advocate for simple strategic bombing because the one thing Wever would not really deal with was the shortage of raw materials (not to mention the cost) the Germans were dealing with. That and the other thing was the Nazi administration was more interested in overall numbers when it came to aircraft. By the late 30's, I grant that far more attention was being paid to the issue of trying to bomb the British out, but they didn't get a chance to really do anything about it before the war started.

I must confess to being confused by the arguments you're presenting.

Wever was a firm advocate for the need to develop a capability for strategic bombing. Given the range needed to bomb, say, the Soviet Union, such a capability would of course be applicable to whether the Luftwaffe could perform such a mission over the British Isles. So I'm not certain how one can argue that the "The brain trust behind the Luftwaffe never envisioned a Battle of Britain scenario." They evidently did foresee a need for a strategic element to the LW - whether their immediate focus was to the East or not - based upon the desire to reduce the capabilities of a future enemy's industry and/or inciting internal disorder through the already tested method of bombing the civilian population (tested during WW1 - the experiences of the Spanish Civil War actually dented that theory somewhat). That, combined with the missions to support the KM in reducing an enemy's naval capabilities and to acheive air superiority over a battlefield, is surely the essence of the 'Battle of Britain scenario'?

The capability was behind other priorities in the initial 2 1/2 years as the LW found its feet - there's no doubt of that - but eg 1936's Die Luftkriegfuehrung is more a statement of current capability than theoretical ideals. One sees that in the decision to cancel the Do-19 and Ju-89 projects which was a reflection on the difficulties in creating a 4 engined strategic bomber force (you rightly mention raw materials, but more mundane issues revolved around having a good enough engine too) rather than a rejection of the merits of strategic bombing. Hence the focus on the JU-88 (the sacred cow of German aircraft production in its role as the 'schnellbomber' - so fast, it requires no fighter escort and with a range, perhaps coincidentally, just sufficient to allow it to operate over the British Isles - divebombing was of course a later requirement tacked on to address the issues of putting a bomb on a target) as well as the high hopes for the He-177 (a project intended to overcome the difficulties with engines which borked the Do-19 and Ju-89).


So I can't really buy into the idea that the LW was somehow thrust into doing something it hadn't been prepared to do because it had faulty foundations from the start or that it latterly had become overly focused on the tactical rather than it following a very similar learning curve to the RAF in how to conduct a strategic bombing campaign when theory met actuality.
Image
WilliePete
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:07 pm

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Program...

Post by WilliePete »

this is one area of the war that I do not know much about. Regarding the Eastern Front, I never did understand why the Germans didnt try to curb Soviet war production, especially by hitting tank factories...
- They That Sow The Wind, Shall Reap The Whirlwind -
User avatar
Pipewrench
Posts: 453
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:38 am

RE: What German Heavy Bomber Program...

Post by Pipewrench »

off in the archives:

good reading material

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ww2/batlbrit.pdf
and a very good read is Len Deighton, The Battle of Britain

warspite1 I totally agree with you.

'Kesselring and Udet "advocated the
continuance and extension of the Air Force's
ground-support role, and argued against the
creation of a bomber force along Douhetian
lines."41 The two had reasoned that for the
Luftwaffe to support a major continental war in
1943 (given the constraints under which
Germany had to orchestrate its rearmament
plans) that a heavy bomber was simply not
feasible, nor was it required.'


If on the other hand Germany had pushed the production of the U-boat the air campaign by the Luftwaffe might of succeeded. We will never know

“We are limited only by our imagination and our will to act.”
– Ron Garan
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”