PDA

View Full Version : 4 engine flyable German bombers



Kamikaze_239
10-07-2006, 12:23 PM
Are there any 4 engine (or propellor driven) FLYABLE German bombers in IL2 FB+AEP+PF patched up to 4.04M?

If yes, can you tell me wich plane(s) and what kinda bomb load they can carry??

Thanx in advance

I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif 4 engine bombers...

Kamikaze_239
10-07-2006, 12:23 PM
Are there any 4 engine (or propellor driven) FLYABLE German bombers in IL2 FB+AEP+PF patched up to 4.04M?

If yes, can you tell me wich plane(s) and what kinda bomb load they can carry??

Thanx in advance

I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif 4 engine bombers...

berg417448
10-07-2006, 12:27 PM
No.

VW-IceFire
10-07-2006, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kamikaze_239:
Are there any 4 engine (or propellor driven) FLYABLE German bombers in IL2 FB+AEP+PF patched up to 4.04M?

If yes, can you tell me wich plane(s) and what kinda bomb load they can carry??

Thanx in advance

I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif 4 engine bombers... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thing is...there really aren't any 4 engined German bombers. This was the big problem with the Luftwaffe...they had no heavy bomber. They were a tactical airforce and even their medium bombers were supposed to be dive bombers in many cases.

The infamous He-177 was I think the only realistic attempt at producing a 4 engine bomber. Even then...it wasn't really a B-17 like bomber...it was a twin nacell, four engine driving two propellers setup. Very complex to start with and it was meddedled with by higher ups in the Luftwaffe who decreed that the bomber should also be able to dive bomb.

FW-200 BTW is not a four engined bomber. Its a transport and coastal reconnaisance ship.

Philipscdrw
10-07-2006, 02:42 PM
... but there was some progress towards a Fw-200 cockpit for it at one stage. I think it was submitted but was below standard?

Maybe there was a prominent bar in the cockpit, and the pilots kept getting drunk.

The only flyable 4-engined aircraft in FB is the TB-3, which has three varients (two engine/gunner combinations, and the SPB-variation which carried I-16s under the wings.) It is the coolest aircraft in the sim because, in the bombardier's station, there is a desk. On the desk there is a map. On the map there is a pencil. And as the aircraft banks, the pencil rolls across the map!

It doesn't ever fall off the desk though, even under negative-G conditions.

To be honest, flying 4-engined bombers wouldn't be much fun. They'd be just like flying the 2-engined bombers, but slower and with less performance and agility, although with more gunners, more bombs, and a better chance of getting home. And we already have twin-engined flyable bombers for the RAF, USSR (if you buy Pe-2), USAAF, USMC, Luftwaffe, and IJN. You can fly the stratigic-bomber-type mission with the B-25 or He-111 and Ju-88 - having a four-engined type to choose wouldn't really make a worthwhile difference, IMHO.

ruby_monkey
10-07-2006, 02:58 PM
Well, the He-177 would add the excitement of trying to guess which nacelle will spontaneously burst into flames.

Adam906
10-08-2006, 01:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
They were a tactical airforce and even their medium bombers were supposed to be dive bombers in many cases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That view is about 20 years out of date. The Luftwaffe had a very strong strategic doctrine/concept which it did, initially, follow. The only place its strategic doctrine was lacking was in the war at/over sea which was also a reflection of the big-gun ship view of senior Kriegsmarine staff in the lead up to war.

It was only during the later years that battlefield expediency, Hitler's limited concept of air power and Goerings apathy and toadying to Hitler's wishes that saw an increasing reliance on tactically orientated missions and diminished strategic emphasis. The fact that anti-shipping operations were conducted well into 1945 - albeit on a limited scale - stops dead in its tracks your statement that the Luftwaffe was a tactical airforce.

Kamikaze_239
10-08-2006, 12:03 PM
But I found this pic on a AEP website:
4 engine german bomber (http://www.cockpitnews.com.br/images/IL2/AEP10.jpg)

So there was a german bomber, and it looks that you can fly it, but does anybody know how?

Skycat_2
10-08-2006, 12:39 PM
That's the FW-200, the one that VW-IceFire said was a transport and recon plane. It is an AI plane.

Edit: In this sim it can carry several different bomb packages. The object viewer describes the Fw-200 as a long range maritime patrol and recon plane; it also says that one of its disadvantages was that it could only carry a light bomb load. I'm thinking that the bombs are for attacking ships. Apparently, because the Fw-200 was a militarized version of a civilian plane, it was not very durable.

The important thing for you to know is that it is not coded as a flyable in this game. It does not have a cockpit.

Sana_HvJ
10-08-2006, 01:46 PM
Thw FW200 originally was a passanger transport plane with the Lufthansa, it was later reconfigured to suit the role of a mainly naval recon plane.

The He177 was later reequipped with four single engines. It was also used as the basis for the He274 4 engined bomber.

i for one would love to see some strategic bombers in the game, like B17, Lancaster, Pe8 and of cause the He177.
But until this happens we'll have to settle with flying them in multiplayer games from external view ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Sana_HvJ
10-08-2006, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ruby_monkey:
Well, the He-177 would add the excitement of trying to guess which nacelle will spontaneously burst into flames. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the modellers will find a way of fixing this prob, just like with the Do335 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

actionhank1786
10-08-2006, 03:20 PM
The FW-200 was the scourge of the atlantic wasn't it?
Pretty high regards from Churchill.
Unless i'm abusing quotes here.

roybaty
10-08-2006, 04:55 PM
It was a converted airliner, and a fragile plane. It operated in an antishipping role between mid '40 through mid '41, after which it was withdrawn from offensive operations no doubt because it was a lumbering target for allied fighters.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kamikaze_239:
But I found this pic on a AEP website:
4 engine german bomber (http://www.cockpitnews.com.br/images/IL2/AEP10.jpg)

So there was a german bomber, and it looks that you can fly it, but does anybody know how? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
10-08-2006, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
They were a tactical airforce and even their medium bombers were supposed to be dive bombers in many cases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That view is about 20 years out of date. The Luftwaffe had a very strong strategic doctrine/concept which it did, initially, follow. The only place its strategic doctrine was lacking was in the war at/over sea which was also a reflection of the big-gun ship view of senior Kriegsmarine staff in the lead up to war.

It was only during the later years that battlefield expediency, Hitler's limited concept of air power and Goerings apathy and toadying to Hitler's wishes that saw an increasing reliance on tactically orientated missions and diminished strategic emphasis. The fact that anti-shipping operations were conducted well into 1945 - albeit on a limited scale - stops dead in its tracks your statement that the Luftwaffe was a tactical airforce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry I don't think so. I'm open to being convinced but you'll have to forgive me because I'm not. Maritime operations were pretty decent...sure. Even the use of guided rockets as ship killers was pretty impressive. But I don't see a real strategic doctrine to the Luftwaffe in terms of its aircraft procurement and equipment on hand at any point during the war. There was an overall doctrine established during the 1920s which came out of WWII. The feeling between experts being largely that "the bomber would always get through" and that wars would be fought by massed formations of bombers attacking the enemies cities. But the Germans never planned to have to fly their bombers that far...they never had an aircraft that could do real damage to Britains industry or even touch the Russian industry. Nothing on the strategic level that RAF Bomber Command or the 8th Air Force had. Sure the Luftwaffe could try and bomb London but that was more of a prestige target during the Battle of Britain or tactical targets against RAF airfields. During the war against in the East you often had Heinkels flying low level runs against enemy troops, forward supply bases, and the like. Almost always I read about efforts to support an army offensive. Nothing about crippling the enemy industry like the 8th or Bomber Command were doing. Thats the realization of the 1930's strategic bombing campaign concept...the Luftwaffe did a poor job on that.

Most Luftwaffe aircraft are tactical in nature and only the He-177 had the range and possible bombload (before it was fiddled with) to be a strategic bomber. So where's this outdated thinking at? They don't have much in the way of strategic aircraft in their arsenal. Maybe just the FW-200...I think the U-Boat probably has more tonnage sunk...but the Battle of the Atlantic isn't an area that I'm well researched on. Strategic bombing and theory in the 1920s, 1930s, and in practice in the 1940s I am fairly well researched on.

BTW: In game the FW-200 is a fairly weak aicraft. Only a few hits from cannon can sever a wing or cripple the aircraft.

Adam906
10-08-2006, 11:37 PM
VW-Icefire: You are confusing operational doctrine with production output and the two are non-relatable. In 1939 the Luftwaffe went to war having developed a large body of theory and doctrine for strategic air warfare. While it was eminently capable of supporting land operations, it never saw itself primarily as a support weapon for the army.

If you can get hold of the book "The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operational Air War, 1918 - 1940" by James Corum, I suggest you do as it will clear up the misconceptions you seem to have about the Luftwaffe and its doctrine.

Sana_HvJ
10-09-2006, 02:27 AM
One major reason for the germans not setting up a large strategic bomber arsenal is the lack of resources. Heavy bombers require a lot of material and supplies to service and germany simply couldn't come up with that. So they focused on smaller ac mainly for close ground support like the stukas and on two engined tactical bombers which filled the gap between close support aircraft and large bombers and hence could be used in both roles.

A large problem here was that german leaders demanded all planes could be used in multiple roles. A good example is the Ju88, which was used as recon, horizontal bomber, divbe bomber, long range bomber, naval aviation and even heavy interceptor and night fighter. Other aircraft like the Me262,Me210, He219 and Do217 suffered similar fates.

The result was that none of these ac was superior in any of the roles which it had to fulfil and often production was delayed dur to requested changes in construction. In my opinion this also hampered the development of heavy bombers. With the He177 and He274 germany had quite good designs but apart from the He177 they were never realy realized.

Bang_D
10-09-2006, 03:48 AM
There is one: Junkers Ju-287. The mystical 4 engine heavy jet bomber! And also the first plane in the world using former-swept wing design.
Only 2 prototypes built. The massive monster (nearly 20 tons max TOW) with only 4 miserable Jumo004s can reach a top speed of 585KM/H!
It is said the production varient would be equipped with powerful Jumo012 turbojets, rated at 6000lb each. Could carry 8tons of bombload(prototype).

Sana_HvJ
10-09-2006, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bang_D:
There is one: Junkers Ju-287. The mystical 4 engine heavy jet bomber! And also the first plane in the world using former-swept wing design.
Only 2 prototypes built. The massive monster (nearly 20 tons max TOW) with only 4 miserable Jumo004s can reach a top speed of 585KM/H!
It is said the production varient would be equipped with powerful Jumo012 turbojets, rated at 6000lb each. Could carry 8tons of bombload(prototype). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Top candidat for '46 Addon, just like 6 engined Ju390 aka "Amerika Bomber"

berg417448
10-09-2006, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bang_D:
There is one: Junkers Ju-287. The mystical 4 engine heavy jet bomber! And also the first plane in the world using former-swept wing design.
Only 2 prototypes built. The massive monster (nearly 20 tons max TOW) with only 4 miserable Jumo004s can reach a top speed of 585KM/H!
It is said the production varient would be equipped with powerful Jumo012 turbojets, rated at 6000lb each. Could carry 8tons of bombload(prototype). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


More than one if you want to count prototypes and planes being developed. For example, the AR-234C had 4 engines:
http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/avion/avion1/185.html


They also had the Ju-290 four engined Maritime Recon/Transport/Bomber which saw some use.

VW-IceFire
10-09-2006, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
VW-Icefire: You are confusing operational doctrine with production output and the two are non-relatable. In 1939 the Luftwaffe went to war having developed a large body of theory and doctrine for strategic air warfare. While it was eminently capable of supporting land operations, it never saw itself primarily as a support weapon for the army.

If you can get hold of the book "The Luftwaffe: Creating the Operational Air War, 1918 - 1940" by James Corum, I suggest you do as it will clear up the misconceptions you seem to have about the Luftwaffe and its doctrine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They are absolutely relatable. You have a doctrine that guides your overall military ambitions and you provide official specifications (which is how the majority of military aircraft have been procured since the beginning) to suit your needs. In this case I see the Luftwaffe suscribing to the notion of strategic warfare and even attempting to put it into use during the Blitz, but there is a fundamental disconnect in their overall thinking. Most published works I've read seem to agree that alot of it had to do with the higher ups in the Nazi party generally being soliders on the ground in WWI and primarily being interested in tactical warfare with the Luftwaffe.

Thus my original statement of the Luftwaffe being primarily a tactical airforce is largely, in my mind, true. Even if the Luftwaffe did not see itself as a tactical weapon (which is odd with short range fighter bombers, dive bombers, and a small collection of medium bombers) it largely was employed as a tactical weapon. There are some strategic bombing in their repetoire for sure...but they appear to have been largely driven by tactical requirements.

Thats not to say that they were at all like the Russians when it came to supporting the troops. That drove most of their efforts from airborne weapons to aircraft design.

Sorry, I'm not convinced that my thinking on the subject is 20 years out of date http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Philipscdrw
10-09-2006, 11:14 AM
The Fw-200 was terrifying to shipping, not because it could do serious damage with its bombs, but because it could shadow a convoy for hours, radioing its position to U-boats. The convoy couldn't really do anything about it, with the absence of merchantmen aircraft carriers in the early days, and the short range of land-based fighters. That's why they started putting Hurricanes on catapult launchers on merchant shipping.

Platypus_1.JaVA
10-09-2006, 11:37 AM
Call a budy and both jump into a Ju-88 online and fly in a really REALLY close formation together. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Sana_HvJ
10-09-2006, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
Call a budy and both jump into a Ju-88 online and fly in a really REALLY close formation together. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's almost as good as setting up a dogfight with ai-planes allowed and jump into a He111Z or Me323.

BTW, the Tu2 has become almost instartable due to very heavy torque of the engines. Don't know what patch did that, but you have to work the engines seperately to lift it. otherwise you'll just end up spinning real fast or even breaking of the landing gear. Once you gained enough speed it becomes a lot more stable, but not too fast in horizontal flight. i remember it going a lot faster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Adam906
10-09-2006, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
They are absolutely relatable. You have a doctrine that guides your overall military ambitions and you provide official specifications (which is how the majority of military aircraft have been procured since the beginning) to suit your needs. In this case I see the Luftwaffe suscribing to the notion of strategic warfare and even attempting to put it into use during the Blitz, but there is a fundamental disconnect in their overall thinking. Most published works I've read seem to agree that alot of it had to do with the higher ups in the Nazi party generally being soliders on the ground in WWI and primarily being interested in tactical warfare with the Luftwaffe.

Thus my original statement of the Luftwaffe being primarily a tactical airforce is largely, in my mind, true. Even if the Luftwaffe did not see itself as a tactical weapon (which is odd with short range fighter bombers, dive bombers, and a small collection of medium bombers) it largely was employed as a tactical weapon. There are some strategic bombing in their repetoire for sure...but they appear to have been largely driven by tactical requirements.

Thats not to say that they were at all like the Russians when it came to supporting the troops. That drove most of their efforts from airborne weapons to aircraft design.

Sorry, I'm not convinced that my thinking on the subject is 20 years out of date http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are equating strategic bombing with long range aircraft? Or so it seems. Ergo, you are assuming that Germany/Hitler's war plans involved operations against long range opponents..? German war aims during the 30's when these aircraft were on the production table were of limited geographic scale only. They did not include Russia and they did not include England, though these two were accepted as foes that would be dealt with further down the line - ie 1944ish. Thus you are only left with Poland, Denmark and France - all well within the range of the Luftwaffe's current bomber fleet. By 1944 these aircraft would be obsolete so with war against Poland, France out of the way, the luftwaffe could then re-equip with new generation aircraft of better range and performance to suit the next task at hand.

You also seem to overlook the impression Versailles left on the menaltiy of Hitler and to a lesser degree Goring. Hitler was obsessed with the notion of bigger and better so a force of 300 heavy bombers was not going to be as impressive as a force of 750 medium range bombers. Besides which, operationally speaking, a force of 750 as apposed to a force of 300 offers a wide degree of operational stability and implementation. Remember the quote of Goring when asking how many 2-engined bombers could be made from the materials used in a 4-engined bomber....? This is especially so when war with France was on the cards. With such a formidable air force on your doorstep Germany needed a similarly sized air force - hence why the luftwaffe if the 1930s is refered to as the risk air force. It was built to be impressive and large to deter other powers and for Hitler to weild as a propaganda sword, which he did quite effectively.

That the luftwaffe was turned to ground support/battle-field interdiction during Poland and France doesn't support your argument much as they were able to do so the luftwaffe fulfilled its primary strategic goal of air superiority and deep-penetration chaos in the first days. There was nothing else strategic to do within the scope of Hitler's deisgns for the conquered country (thus we see few attacks on armaments works or factories)

Quoting from Corum: "The Luftwaffe is charaterised as merely a "tactical air force", which was led by "soldiers first airmen second", men who "lacked a full committment to air power." Such assessments reflect a narrow American/British air forces culture dating from the 1930s in which true and correct way to conduct air warfare is by strategic bombing, other forms of air power being secondary to winning the war."

"German air power theory during the interwar period is remarkable for its broad and comprehensive approach to air power. To the Germans, airpower meant a doctrine of strategic bombing, but it also meant a concept of conducting joint operations with the ground forces, a theory of civil defense and passive defense against a bombing campaign, the creation of a paratroop force capable of seizing and holding vital objectives behind the lines, the creation of a large air transport fleet and a mobile logistics force for keeping one's forces supplied in the field and the development of a strong antiaircraft artillery arm that could defend the homeland and provide support to the armed forces." Corum, The Luftwaffe, p.284

In 1939 the Luftwaffe was the premier air force (even acknoweldged as such by other countries) in the world and you don't get to be that by simply being a narrow focused "tactical air force" Everything the Luftwaffe developed during the 1930s was evident in the campaigns to 1942. A Tactical air force would not have developed paratroopers or transport aircraft, would not have developed sophistaced plans to bomb key industrial and economic areas of Russia in 1941, would not have developed sophistacted point and area defence methods - the list goes on. In later years of the war the Luftwaffe was cobnfined to the tactical role to counteract shortfalls in army equipment and man power. During the early years of the war though, strategic bombing as a concept, as a theory as a doctrine and as an executed operational plan is evident in all the campaigns.

VW-IceFire
10-09-2006, 04:58 PM
Excellent points and well argued! Many of those points I cannot deny and indeed I even agree with. In 1939 the Luftwaffe definately surpassed other airforces in the world...it was a bit of a gamble for sure. If I were to expand our argument then there would be more to say on tactical VS strategic but I think its best left here. We have strayed a bit from the subject at hand http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

This thread was about 4 engined German bombers...of which none really exist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Philipscdrw
10-09-2006, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
In 1939 the Luftwaffe was the premier air force (even acknoweldged as such by other countries) in the world and you don't get to be that by simply being a narrow focused "tactical air force" Everything the Luftwaffe developed during the 1930s was evident in the campaigns to 1942. A Tactical air force would not have developed paratroopers or transport aircraft, would not have developed sophistaced plans to bomb key industrial and economic areas of Russia in 1941, would not have developed sophistacted point and area defence methods - the list goes on. In later years of the war the Luftwaffe was cobnfined to the tactical role to counteract shortfalls in army equipment and man power. During the early years of the war though, strategic bombing as a concept, as a theory as a doctrine and as an executed operational plan is evident in all the campaigns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose that the Luftwaffe was perhaps designed as a strategic weapon, as you said, and it may have thought of itself as a strategic weapon, but by 1940 it lacked the capacity to carry out effective strategic warfare, and it never regained that ability. The government ministers who (over?)regulated the Luftwaffe didn't recognise a role for heavy strategic bombers in time to bring any to operation during WW2.

Riper-Snifle
10-10-2006, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
They are absolutely relatable. You have a doctrine that guides your overall military ambitions and you provide official specifications (which is how the majority of military aircraft have been procured since the beginning) to suit your needs. In this case I see the Luftwaffe suscribing to the notion of strategic warfare and even attempting to put it into use during the Blitz, but there is a fundamental disconnect in their overall thinking. Most published works I've read seem to agree that alot of it had to do with the higher ups in the Nazi party generally being soliders on the ground in WWI and primarily being interested in tactical warfare with the Luftwaffe.

Thus my original statement of the Luftwaffe being primarily a tactical airforce is largely, in my mind, true. Even if the Luftwaffe did not see itself as a tactical weapon (which is odd with short range fighter bombers, dive bombers, and a small collection of medium bombers) it largely was employed as a tactical weapon. There are some strategic bombing in their repetoire for sure...but they appear to have been largely driven by tactical requirements.

Thats not to say that they were at all like the Russians when it came to supporting the troops. That drove most of their efforts from airborne weapons to aircraft design.

Sorry, I'm not convinced that my thinking on the subject is 20 years out of date http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are equating strategic bombing with long range aircraft? Or so it seems. Ergo, you are assuming that Germany/Hitler's war plans involved operations against long range opponents..? German war aims during the 30's when these aircraft were on the production table were of limited geographic scale only. They did not include Russia and they did not include England, though these two were accepted as foes that would be dealt with further down the line - ie 1944ish. Thus you are only left with Poland, Denmark and France - all well within the range of the Luftwaffe's current bomber fleet. By 1944 these aircraft would be obsolete so with war against Poland, France out of the way, the luftwaffe could then re-equip with new generation aircraft of better range and performance to suit the next task at hand.

You also seem to overlook the impression Versailles left on the menaltiy of Hitler and to a lesser degree Goring. Hitler was obsessed with the notion of bigger and better so a force of 300 heavy bombers was not going to be as impressive as a force of 750 medium range bombers. Besides which, operationally speaking, a force of 750 as apposed to a force of 300 offers a wide degree of operational stability and implementation. Remember the quote of Goring when asking how many 2-engined bombers could be made from the materials used in a 4-engined bomber....? This is especially so when war with France was on the cards. With such a formidable air force on your doorstep Germany needed a similarly sized air force - hence why the luftwaffe if the 1930s is refered to as the risk air force. It was built to be impressive and large to deter other powers and for Hitler to weild as a propaganda sword, which he did quite effectively.

That the luftwaffe was turned to ground support/battle-field interdiction during Poland and France doesn't support your argument much as they were able to do so the luftwaffe fulfilled its primary strategic goal of air superiority and deep-penetration chaos in the first days. There was nothing else strategic to do within the scope of Hitler's deisgns for the conquered country (thus we see few attacks on armaments works or factories)

Quoting from Corum: "The Luftwaffe is charaterised as merely a "tactical air force", which was led by "soldiers first airmen second", men who "lacked a full committment to air power." Such assessments reflect a narrow American/British air forces culture dating from the 1930s in which true and correct way to conduct air warfare is by strategic bombing, other forms of air power being secondary to winning the war."

"German air power theory during the interwar period is remarkable for its broad and comprehensive approach to air power. To the Germans, airpower meant a doctrine of strategic bombing, but it also meant a concept of conducting joint operations with the ground forces, a theory of civil defense and passive defense against a bombing campaign, the creation of a paratroop force capable of seizing and holding vital objectives behind the lines, the creation of a large air transport fleet and a mobile logistics force for keeping one's forces supplied in the field and the development of a strong antiaircraft artillery arm that could defend the homeland and provide support to the armed forces." Corum, The Luftwaffe, p.284

In 1939 the Luftwaffe was the premier air force (even acknoweldged as such by other countries) in the world and you don't get to be that by simply being a narrow focused "tactical air force" Everything the Luftwaffe developed during the 1930s was evident in the campaigns to 1942. A Tactical air force would not have developed paratroopers or transport aircraft, would not have developed sophistaced plans to bomb key industrial and economic areas of Russia in 1941, would not have developed sophistacted point and area defence methods - the list goes on. In later years of the war the Luftwaffe was cobnfined to the tactical role to counteract shortfalls in army equipment and man power. During the early years of the war though, strategic bombing as a concept, as a theory as a doctrine and as an executed operational plan is evident in all the campaigns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



One word- STUKA! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
10-10-2006, 10:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Adam906:

"German air power theory during the inter war period is remarkable for its broad and comprehensive approach to air power. To the Germans, air power meant a doctrine of strategic bombing, but it also meant a concept of conducting joint operations with the ground forces, a theory of civil defense and passive defense against a bombing campaign, the creation of a paratroop force capable of seizing and holding vital objectives behind the lines, the creation of a large air transport fleet and a mobile logistics force for keeping one's forces supplied in the field and the development of a strong antiaircraft artillery arm that could defend the homeland and provide support to the armed forces." Corum, The Luftwaffe, p.284

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed good post Adam. I think I shall look into that book. I have not read nor even heard of it.

Impressive post and quotes. Especially I think the page 284 selection.

But the more I think on the subject the less meat appears on the bones of Corum's argument.

If I accept the novel notion (novel to me that is, but perhaps not so novel to others) that the German Luftwaffe of the early war years was a strategic force, I think it passes the test, in theory.

I can see what Corum, and you, are getting at by giving diverse examples of deep penetration (transport, airborne etc.). I think that certainly the German theory was fully comprehensive enough. They did in fact attack a few deep pentration targets during the early war years, (approx till 1941 lets say). Warsaw and Rotterdam spring to mind, but there must be others(?)

So to my thinking, on the German Strategic air power theory, it is

1) Strategic, but with only a Intra-Continental range. (Within a continent).

and

2) Strategic, but in use largely ignored, expecially when compared to the tactical role that the Luftwaffe found itself participating in.

3) Strategic in an increasingly military insignificant role.

By that I mean, that when Germany could have used a robust, full, well rounded Stragetic Air Force, that could have attacked the strategic targets of their main enemies (USSR/USA). The (theoretical) Strategic Luftwaffe that was in service was of ever dubious value.

So that makes it Strategic, but of only limited in range, and ever diminishing utility, and subsequent usage.

And briefly now, the UK/USA air forces (particularly) the USA's had an air arm;

1.) that had a Inter-Continental range.
2.) Increased usage as the war raged.
3.) Ever greater military utility.

By this last point I mean that their theory and practice dovetailed nicely into what was needed to generate combat power that had utility when it was needed.

Calling the western strategic air power theory narrow, seems disingenuous. Rather I think that it is necessary to define Strategic, very broadly (to be inclusive) of the German Air force.

So while it may be possible to typify the German Luftwaffe as a strategic air force, this can only be done (in my opinion) by expanding the definition out of all meaning.