If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
"robert arndt" wrote in message m... No, SC 2500: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7087/uk019b.jpg Hmm... Vaporware aside, which German aircraft could carry that bomb? Sources: Wings of the Luftwaffe, Capt.Eric Brown The Luftwaffe Album, Joachim Dressel and Manfred Griehl Hitlers Luftwaffe, Tony Wood and Bill Gunston Rough figures - He111H, bomb load 2000Kg in vertical cells sized for SC250 bombs; range 2000 Km Do217K, bomb load 2510Kg in one long bomb-bay, range 2100Km Ju88A, bomb load 500Kg internal, 3000Kg external, range 1800Km Amazingly enough, the Stuka had an impressive capacity Ju87D, bomb load (external) 1800Kg(short-range, overload), range 900 Km Now for the He177: Bomb load - 16x50Kg SC50, 4x250Kg SC250 or 2x500Kg SC500 internally (Brown) Maximum bomb load 6000Kg (seldom carried) (Gunston) 2,800Kg (A-5 model), 4,200Kg (A-7 model) (Dressel & Griehl) The bomb bay was split into three sections by structural bulkheads, limiting the length of any internally-carried store. Torpedoes, for instance, were to be carried externally. It appears the design suffered from bad weight escalation as time progressed (initial design requires strengthening, adds weight, needs bigger engines, needs more fuel, means less space for bombs). Also the range requirement means more space is needed for fuel, leaving less again for bombs. Range - 5000Km So the SC2500's that were dropped on Britain were probably carried by Do217's? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Eunometic wrote in message ...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ... Eunometic wrote in message ... (snip) The general claims are that they took no losses due to enemy (RAF) action and although this might be in dispute they certainbly can't be described as 'heavy'. So tell us the losses, given in 1944 when the Little Blitz was started the force had 35 He177s in a force of 550 bombers. How many He177 sorties? The He177 first appeared over the UK in 1942, as part of trials, but was mainly used in the west in anti shipping operations. The first He177 destroyed over the UK was on 21 January 1944. The RAF collected the wreckage of 4 He177s in the period 23 February to 2 March 1944, from crash sites in England. As for the He177, the tactic was to climb to over 20,000 feet over France then spend the rest of the flight to and from London in a shallow dive. As for the claim the RAF failed to shoot one down, RAF mosquito night fighters made claims for 8 He177s in the first 4 months of 1944, some of which at least have been confirmed post war. Who are the people making the claims there were no He177 combat losses, given all the Luftwaffe would have had is a failed to return? It has been claimed. I will track them down. To repeat myself, The first He177 destroyed over the UK was on 21 January 1944. The RAF collected the wreckage of 4 He177s in the period 23 February to 2 March 1944, from crash sites in England. Rather hard to claim no losses when the RAF had at least 5 wrecks to look at. Also note many of the raids were on the ports being used for Overlord, which flatters the bomber performance since they effectively did not cross the British coast. According to Alfred Price's Luftwaffe Data Book on 27 July 1942 I/KG40 had 16 out of 30 He177s operational, on 17 May 1943 there was 1 unserviceable He177 in Luftflotte 3, there were another 56 He177s present in Lufttwaffenbefelshaber Mitte (Germany) of which 26 were serviceable. On 31 May 1944 Luftflotte 3 held around 50 to 60 He177s in KG40, around 40 serviceable, with Luftflotte Reich holding some 157 in KG1 and KG100, of which 42 were serviceable. Nice data but irrelevent to combat losses. Not really, losing 1 out of 1,000 is low, losing 1 out of 5 is high losses. For example on 18 April 1944 the Luftwaffe sent 125 bombers to London, 5 of which were He177s. (snip) See above for other reasons why interception was hard, and the bombers came from France, rather hard to stay in a dive from Germany to England, especially one steep enough to do 400 mph in an aircraft with a top speed of around 300 mph. Presumably they would not begin their diving attack immediatly if this was the Hi-lo-Hi attack profile. So the claim is the He177s came from Germany, which would reduce the bomb load for a start. The information I have is they came from France, went high, stayed in a dive to the target and left at low altitude, no climb on the way out. Rather strange to bomb London and the channel ports from Germany when the French airfields were closer. (snip) You want lots of fuel if you are going to climb high and then try and stay in a 400 mph dive for a long time. You do not want a big bomb load if your objective is to climb high and fly fast. Now add the fact one or two of the bomb bays were often blanked off. My bet is each bomb bay could carry a 2 1,000 kg bombs, so in theory if all three were available you end up with 6,000 kg, but in practice it would seem the maximum internal load was 2,000 or 4,000 kg, given the bomb bay blanking. That sounds like a faith based answer. No, straight logic, 3 bomb bays of the same size, given some references talk about 2 1,000 KG bombs as the internal load it becomes quite clear, 2,000 KG is clearly to low given the three bomb bays even given the bomb bays were shallow, since there was a 1,520 litre fuel tank over each. If the bay was blanked off the relevant tank could be changed to a 3,450 litre one. If the 2,800 kg figure for internal bomb load for the A-5 is correct it would mean the version being quoted has at least one of the original bays was blanked off during production. The A-5/R6 was the version that came with only one bomb bay. A substantial internal bombload comparable or slightly superior to unmodified allied 4 engined heavies is most likely. I doubt blanking was the issue however. Ah yes, we are back to faith based answers. It is probable the He177 with all bomb bays in operation could carry around 6,000 KG of bombs internally, at least in some versions. The point is the modifications to carry the glider bombs reduced internal bomb capacity and upped weights, the wing strengthening, and it was largely the modified bombers that ended up bombing England. The He177 had a lower useful load than the standard allied heavies. The initial He177 units used against England in early 1944 were 3rd staffel I/KG 100 and 1st staffel I/KG 40. There were variants of the He 177 for instance apart from the He 177 A3 and He 177 A5 there were subdivisions of the aircraft to He 177 A5/R2 or A5/R4 possibly representing maritime and land attack versions with or without part of the bombay blanked and with racks added of to carry a torpedoes or mines or misslies to bulky. I suspect the "R" refers to "rucksatz" or field conversion kits the Luftwaffe was fond of using to adpat its aircraft. More typically 1000kg of bombs would be carried internally. Clearly preposterous. Ah yes, the faith based answer. Then you are agreeing with Wilshaw that the He 177, a bomber the size of a Lancaster,B17,Liberator with a bomb bay doors that extend a substantial length of the fueselage probably carried only 1000kg of bombs at a time a FW 190 single engined fighter carried more than this? Let us start with the fact the He177s had been modified to carry the glider bombs, modifications which included the bomb bay blanking off, thereby reducing their internal capacity. Then we add the tactics, fly as high as possible and stay in a dive over England, a dive steep enough to convert an around 260 mph maximum continuous cruise to a ground speed of 400 mph. Noting economical cruise was 210 mph at 20,000 feet. The dive angle was steep enough to up speed by around 50%. So no external loads and keep the internal weights down, above average fuel for the high climb and fast cruise. My point is there is a good chance the He177s used against England were only carrying something in the 1 to 2,000 KG range thanks to their modifications and the penalties extracted by the defences. Rather like the fact Lancasters could carry 14,000 pounds of bombs to Berlin but rarely went beyond 10,000 pounds in order keep performance acceptable given the defences. Also if the weights are correct the He177 useful load was around 3 tons less than the B-17G and the Lancaster. And note the depth of the bomb bays, given the fuselage fuel tanks. Internet resources might be in dispute but there would be books with complete Luftwaffe bomb loading plans for the aircraft available we can check up on. So let us know what you find. Presumably you have noted while the B-17 could carry 12,800 pounds internally it often operated with 4 to 5,000 pound bomb loads? Similar for other heavy bombers. Bomb load depends on mission. The mission profile of the He177 in 1944 would indicate bomb loads well below maximum. Weight does not impeded dive speed as much as it impedes top speed and climb. Last time I checked weight stops you from flying high enough to stay in a 400mph dive for a long time. The He177 was not a high flyer, service ceiling around 22,000 feet at maximum load, around 20 minutes to 20,000 feet. There is a difference between the theoretical performance of the different types and the way they were used on operations. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
So the SC2500's that were dropped on Britain were probably carried by
Do217's? Both the Do-217 and He-177 carried the SC 2500. The He-111 was limited to the SC 2000 (which is seen in the background of many photos of that bomb). The almost completed He-274 and planned Fw Ta 400 could have carried the SC 2500 as well. Rob p.s. Please note that the SC 2500 MAX was rarely used. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Top Secret wrote:
Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My understanding is they lacked heavy bombers. Top Secret What does this have to do with Bush's TANG service (or lack thereof) or Kerry's Purple Hearts? Let's try to stay on topic. Cheers --mike |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Considering the 217's marginal single-engine capability, carrying an
SC2500 must have been a little hairy. Just thinking about a night takeoff with one aboard makes me cringe. If you lost an engine right after TO you'd have to jettison the bomb to remain airborne - and it would land right under you . . . 10,000 Reichsmarks going home to the folks? BTW - how big were the sea mines dropped by parachute as 'blockbusters'? Again BTW in Bob Brahams' book he mentions shooting down a 177 in daytime over France - poor beast was apparently stooging around the home drome when Braham and his RIO saw it - their Mosquito had no problem with the 177. Walt BJ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article tDL1d.436892$%_6.239494@attbi_s01,
Mike Dargan wrote: Top Secret wrote: Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My understanding is they lacked heavy bombers. Top Secret What does this have to do with Bush's TANG service (or lack thereof) or Kerry's Purple Hearts? Let's try to stay on topic. Cheers --mike Dang...now I have to clean the keyboard. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Again BTW in Bob Brahams' book he mentions shooting down a 177 in daytime over France - poor beast was apparently stooging around the home drome when Braham and his RIO saw it - their Mosquito had no problem with the 177. If the text isn't too lengthy, would you mind relating the story? I am not familar with it. I know I have his book somewhere, but they are all in storage. The interview with the FW 190 pilot that shot him down was interesting. The thing that stood out when I read it some time ago was the author's humility and grace concerning his own near-fatal error in combat with handled with flat honesty. It was a riveting book and I wish I could find it to read that passage you mentioned. The daylight role of the Mosquito over the Reich is really fascinating - Braham weaves a great personal history of his time in that maelstrom. v/r Gordon |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
robert arndt wrote:
Both the Do-217 and He-177 carried the SC 2500. The He-111 was limited to the SC 2000 (which is seen in the background of many photos of that bomb). I can't find bomb-bay dimensions for either the Do217 or He177. He111 had small internal cells and a max load of 2000Kg - it is possible that the photograph of the SC2500 posed in front of an He111 is just that - posed. The only way an He111 could carry a bomb bigger than the SC250 was by external carriage IIRC. Not saying it isn't true, just that I havent seen any evidence. Do217 /seems/ to have a bomb-bay big enough - a single bay almost the length of the plane. I wonder if any of the He177's three bays was long enough for the SC2500? Of course, it could have been externally carried. The Warbirds Resource Group site http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/sc2500.html has dimensions of 155" long by 32 in diameter. Thats 392 cm by 32 cm. Too long for the He177's internal bays? The Stirling suffered a similar problem - the MoD spec asked for small bomb carriage only, and the bomb bay was divided into longtitudinal cells. As bombs grew larger, the Stirling couldn't carry them, which was one of the reasons it was quickly superseded in the bomber role. The later Lancaster, on the other hand, had an unobstructed bomb bay 10 meteres long. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I can't find bomb-bay dimensions for either the Do217 or He177. He111 had small internal cells and a max load of 2000Kg - it is possible that the photograph of the SC2500 posed in front of an He111 is just that - posed. I have a photo somewhere of a 111 wearing an SC2500 under the wing, where they also carried the V-1. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Dicey wrote in message ...
robert arndt wrote: Both the Do-217 and He-177 carried the SC 2500. The He-111 was limited to the SC 2000 (which is seen in the background of many photos of that bomb). I can't find bomb-bay dimensions for either the Do217 or He177. He111 had small internal cells and a max load of 2000Kg - it is possible that the photograph of the SC2500 posed in front of an He111 is just that - posed. The only way an He111 could carry a bomb bigger than the SC250 was by external carriage IIRC. Not saying it isn't true, just that I havent seen any evidence. Do217 /seems/ to have a bomb-bay big enough - a single bay almost the length of the plane. I wonder if any of the He177's three bays was long enough for the SC2500? Of course, it could have been externally carried. The Warbirds Resource Group site http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/sc2500.html has dimensions of 155" long by 32 in diameter. Thats 392 cm by 32 cm. Too long for the He177's internal bays? The Stirling suffered a similar problem - the MoD spec asked for small bomb carriage only, and the bomb bay was divided into longtitudinal cells. As bombs grew larger, the Stirling couldn't carry them, which was one of the reasons it was quickly superseded in the bomber role. The later Lancaster, on the other hand, had an unobstructed bomb bay 10 meteres long. The He 177 had to devote a considerable amount of material to stress for the dive bombing specification it had to adhere to. I suspect this is the reason the bay was subdivided with structural members. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Iran's nuclear program | Thelasian | Military Aviation | 107 | August 31st 04 06:35 AM |
FDR and Bush 43 | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 44 | June 24th 04 12:16 AM |
A BOMB PATTER IS LIKE A FOOTBALL | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 17 | March 3rd 04 01:54 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |
AIRCRAFT MUNITIONS - THE COBALT BOMB | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 1 | August 29th 03 09:22 AM |