Author Topic: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII  (Read 19174 times)

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #60 on: April 04, 2008, 07:48:08 PM »
I didnt realize the germans never had any form of forward observer for controlling air strikes at the wars beginning....very interesting. I've always been a bit perplexed about some of the choices the "luftwaffe" made (109 over he-100 for example) as well as any true evolution in airframe design from 1938-42. Basically after the 190 everything is in "vapor lock" till its to late. From what i've read I always conclude that the decisions are being made "above" the luftwaffe. If we parallel german tank development with aviation development we get some interesting non parallels...

In 1940 the germans had 3 seperate generations of tanks, all integrated into a very functional whole. THe PzII actually played a strong scout role and the PzIII was the anti armor "tank on Tank" element and the PZIV was an infantry support system. The PzII was quickly phased out and reengineered into a useful antitank platform (the marder), artillery playform (Wespe) and assualt gun (Bison). The PzIII upgraded to its design limits and then converted to the Stug III and StuH 42. By 1942 the PzIV had morphed into the main "tank on tank" element and by 1944 more then 1/2 the PzIV chassis were being used in a variety of other AFV's. THe PZV was in production in 1943 with over 1800 being built (almost 2/3's of the 3000 PZIVF2's built). In addition almost 700 Tigers were built.

So if we look at the entire picture we have a very well thought progression with new weapons sytems being phased in and older systems modified to fit a more appropriate role.

When you look at aircraft design you dont see any of the expected "quantum leap" in 1942, that is mirrored not only in German AFV design but also US, British, Japanese & Russian aviation design (and armored design to some degree). That is what led me to believe that the "good enough" theory of procurement was at work. A good anology would be US Naval procurement for the Marine Corps...very often things were judged to be "good enough".

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #61 on: April 04, 2008, 07:51:55 PM »
What year did the Fieschler Storch arrive?
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline RRAM

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #62 on: April 04, 2008, 08:15:16 PM »
I've always been a bit perplexed about some of the choices the "luftwaffe" made (109 over he-100 for example)

I guess this has already been discussed elsewhere in this boards. But the main reason was that Germany couldn't build both the 109 and the He100. And stopping the 109 production run was out of the question.

The Bf109 won the official RLM competition for the single-engined fighter for the luftwaffe in 1936. Discussions about wether the He112 was or not better still run up to this day but I think the RLM chose the right model between the two. The Heinkel was much expensive to build both in economic and manwork hours and by the time the competition was held, it was so full of problems it simply couldn't compete with the bf109 in equal terms.

Later the 112 proved to be a potentially capable fighter, but the 109 had already won the competition.

The Heinkel 100 was a private venture by Heinkel, who was dissapointed and annoyed his He112 had lost the RLM competition. The plane itself was brilliant for it's time and the performances on paper look great. However, for the time the He100D was flown (the previous prototypes weren't adaptable for combat usage) the 109 series were already being built, and factory lines were devoted to it. Changing the factory toolings from the 109 series to the He100s was out of the question, as the Bf109s were being already built in too low numbers (even by September 1939 there were too few Emils in service, that quite a good deal of Doras were still in front line Geschwaders...) there was no chance the production had to be stopped to bring yet another completely new model into service.

One has to understand the point of view by then. The 109 was seen (Righly so) as an excellent fighter on it's own. Sure, the He100 had better performance (on paper) but that extra performance won't justify stopping the whole production run, retooling the factories and lose several months worth of fighter production. Seen on perspective the RLM did the right thing, IMHO, turning the Heinkel down.

There was no question at all of having both models in service. Logistics would've been much more complicated that way (having two models of a plane to do the same role is an unneeded complication). And besides, there never was enough DB601 engine production for both the Bf110 and Bf109 series, only to have yet another fighter using the same engine.


All in all this is the same story as with the Fw falke. The plane was simply brilliant and much better (again, on paper) than the Bf110s then entering service in the Luftwaffe. But the Bf110 was already in service and in mass production. And was good enough not to warrant yet another model to cover exactly the same role, and the 110s were also being turned out in too low numbers to allow for a complete stop of the production run, time and resources for retooling, and then putting the new model on the line.

Quote
as well as any true evolution in airframe design from 1938-42. Basically after the 190 everything is in "vapor lock" till its to late. From what i've read I always conclude that the decisions are being made "above" the luftwaffe.

There were quite a deal of projects, humble. They simply delivered nothing, or even worse, delivered nightmares.

The Heinkel177 is one of those examples, a plane designed to be a fast and excellent heavy bomber that turned out to be a flying gas can. The Me210 comes also to mind; the plane designed to take the Bf110's spot wasn't even safe to fly until late 1942 (by then it was quite a nice machine, but with a year and a half delay. The 210 number was so associated with disaster that the definitive model entering service with the LW was called Me410, even while the 210 gave sterling service with the hungarian air force).

The Me209 and Me309 projects also are there. The RLM was actively looking for a fighter to replace the 109 in the JagdGeschwaders. It turned out to be that the 109 had almost the same performance as the prototipes of both "replacements", so none of both entered production and the 109 soldiered on until the end of the war.

The whole "Bomber B" projects were a massive waste of an immense ammount of resources, times, and money, involving no less than four of the major plane builders within germany, that came to nothing because the intended powerplant those bombers should've used from 1942 wasn't still reliable by 1944. And so the bombers which were to replace the Heinkel 111 or the Ju-88 never existed, and the german bomber units, exception made of those equipped with the very good Do217, had to make do with the He111 and the Ju88 variants up till the end of the war.

There were many other instances like these, of course, but I'll stop here.

It's not there were no projects or no intentions to develop a "second generation" of planes since 1941, Humble. Those projects existed even before the war started. They simply came to nothing because so many reasons they are hard to list; but sharing one common denominator: industrial efficience under the Nazis was down to stupid levels.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2008, 08:17:08 PM by RRAM »

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #63 on: April 04, 2008, 11:54:36 PM »
What year did the Fieschler Storch arrive?

June 1937, I believe.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Entr0py

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #64 on: April 05, 2008, 12:15:14 AM »
I recomend reading "Masters of the Air" by Donald L. Miller. Im not jumping in one way or the other on this post, but if you love the history of Strategic bombing as much as I do, you will love this book. One of the best reads ive ever enjoyed. Lots of great facts, stories, pictures, and you learn quite a bit! May sway one of you to the other side even.

(Image removed from quote.)


Just finished that one a couple weeks ago...great read!
I'm too wack for a sig. (Camaro, not just a car, it's a lifestyle.)

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #65 on: April 05, 2008, 10:37:45 AM »
The Luftwaffe used airborne forward observers to control ground attackaircraft near the front lines. They also controlled long range artillery. The Fi 156 was used for this purpose, but also in 1940 the Fw 189 Uhu entered service as tactical reconnaissance and army cooperation aircraft.

“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #66 on: April 05, 2008, 11:07:11 AM »
RAM,

I know there were alot of "projects", whats always confused me is that the Germans were really the world leaders in Aviation design in alot of ways in the 33-36 era. Personally I feel the decision to relagate heinkle to the "bomber" design role took all pressure off Messerschmitt. From my perspective the Americans, Japanese, Russians and even Italians totally dominated the germans in "2nd generation" airframes. The 109 was saddled with all its major shortcomings thruout the war. While the 190 was clearly a better plane in many ways it never really was a dominant air to air weapon with most expertain favoring the 109 by a wide margin. The 262 certainly was the true 3rd generation airframe and was well ahead of its counterparts...at the same time the lack of better plane was a serious issue by the end of 1942. The gravity of the problem is clearly illustrated by the luftwaffe's attempts to "force" the G.55 into german production (which I feel would have significantly altered the course of the airwar and more then likely significantly impacted US daylight bombing)...

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #67 on: April 05, 2008, 11:15:53 AM »
Many older Experten preferred the 109 because it was the plane they trained on and few for up to several years in combat. They knew the 109 intimately and trusted it to perform as they expected it to. The 190 was new and unpredictable to them, and in war one mistake is all it takes to be a late Experten. After the 190 had been in service for some time there were plenty of 190 Experten that would never willingly set foot in a 109 for the same reasons.

Edit: Also in the west the 190A didn't have the performance at altitude to be an effective fighter, only bomber destroyer. In the east the 190 proved an outstanding fighter at lower altitudes. The G.55 wasn't producible enough for the Germans. By that time they were so dedicated to 109 production that any major change would catastrophically disrupt production. Many of the questionable decisions made by the USAAF was also a result of production concerns.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 11:24:15 AM by Lumpy »
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #68 on: April 05, 2008, 12:24:55 PM »
It's this dedication to the 109 I've always questioned. If we look at the quantom leap from the Italian 202=>205 (which was an incremental gain)=>  the Re.2005 (which was again an improvement on the 205)=> the G.55 which was again a significant improvement on the Re.2005.

By late 1942 the germans should have had 3 or 4 totally new airframes equivelent to the R.2005 or G.55 to choose from. A 5 x 20mm G.55 series II melded to the DB 603 engine would have been a rude suprise to the allied bomber streams in mid 1943...

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #69 on: April 05, 2008, 01:04:39 PM »
It's a result of the byzantine state of affairs in the German leadership. In 1940-41 they fully expected to win the war with what they got. Future technological development and production was left to the private initiatives of men like Tank, Heinkel and Messerschmitt while Hitler had his eyes on the creation of Germania. When it became obvious that the war would not be won anytime soon Hitler and the Nazi leadership put their fate in jet technology and new versions of the 109 and 190 were seen as nothing more than stopgap measures. In many ways this was the correct call, but lack of prewar and early-war funding and constant meddling and change in the Reich's industrial leadership delayed the development of jet fighters and bomber until it was too late. Well, it would probably have been too late in any case, but could have lengthened the war considerably.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline AquaShrimp

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #70 on: April 05, 2008, 01:23:22 PM »
It was a dreadful high cost the allies paid in bomber crews.  10 men were put in a life or death situation each time a heavy bomber began to go down.  Any sort of G-forces on the bomber prevented the men from bailing out.

So who really won?  It costs the Germans 1 fighter for every 3 bombers shot down. 

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #71 on: April 05, 2008, 01:35:58 PM »
The Allies had resources to squander, the Germans did not.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #72 on: April 05, 2008, 01:41:52 PM »
Back to strategic bombing...

If the daylight campaign was dubious in its effectiveness, what then explains the fact that fuel was in short supply in late '44 as German fighter production was peaking?  I've read that they had more planes than they had fuel to fly them...
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #73 on: April 05, 2008, 02:00:35 PM »
Germany actually never had enough fuel, they simply didnt have the reserves or the resources within their borders. Thats really why the Russian campaign was launched, they needed the oil. That was one of the issues (along with the inability to produce a capable engine) that swung the tide against the original plan for a force of 500 hvy bombers toward the twin engine "fast bomber". While Ploesti is better known the raids against Leuna and other synthetic fuel plants were more telling since so many manufactured byproducts were synthetic. Production of synthetid fuel/byproducts fell by 90%+ between April & July of 1944 and never really recovered.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #74 on: April 05, 2008, 02:09:46 PM »
It was a dreadful high cost the allies paid in bomber crews.  10 men were put in a life or death situation each time a heavy bomber began to go down.  Any sort of G-forces on the bomber prevented the men from bailing out.

So who really won?  It costs the Germans 1 fighter for every 3 bombers shot down. 

Thats an overly simplistic view. War is/was always a meatgrinder. German U-boat crews suffered greater attrition and so did US sherman crews. Almost 100% of the original cadre of field grade officers in tanks at the start of D-day were killed or wounded in action by the end of the war. Losses were so high that many shermans were operated by 3 man crews during July/Aug/Sept of 1944. In one instance 17 shermans (operated by 3 man crews) were repaired and sent directly into a fluid battle with 15 of them being back out of action by 3PM that day. While the Sherman was actually not a bad tank, it was initially so undergunned that it was forced to point plank range to engage.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson