Biggest German Bomb in WW2?

[Top Secret]

Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My understanding
is they lacked heavy bombers.

Top Secret

[Keith Willshaw]

"Top Secret" > wrote in message
...
> Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My
understanding
> is they lacked heavy bombers.
>

The largest bomber aircraft they used in squadron service
was the He-177 Grief (Griffon)

It was a 2 propellor aircraft with each propellor
driven by 2 coupled engines. Built in relatively small
numbers (approx 1000) it was not a success being prone to fires and
on the few occassions it was used over the UK it took
heavy losses. Max bomb load was around 6000 kg
but this would require external racks which slowed the
aircraft down and reduced range. More typically
1000kg of bombs would be carried internally.

It flew most of its sorties over the eastern front.

Keith

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>
> "Top Secret" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My
> understanding
>> is they lacked heavy bombers.
>>
>
> The largest bomber aircraft they used in squadron service
> was the He-177 Grief (Griffon)
>
> It was a 2 propellor aircraft with each propellor
> driven by 2 coupled engines. Built in relatively small
> numbers (approx 1000) it was not a success being prone to fires and
> on the few occassions it was used over the UK it took
> heavy losses. Max bomb load was around 6000 kg
> but this would require external racks which slowed the
> aircraft down and reduced range. More typically
> 1000kg of bombs would be carried internally.
>
> It flew most of its sorties over the eastern front.

Where it suffered from a number of problems which compromized its
combat effectiveness. During the Stalingrad campaign, a Gruppe of
early He 177s was dispatched to the area to fly supplies in, and
evacuees out. (The Luftwaffe had, between Crete, Stalingrad, adn
Tunisia pretty much wiped out their transport fleet) It was found
that the 177 couldn't carry any more cargo or people than an He 111,
at a significant cost in fuel, reliability, and maintenance.
The Germans put a lot of effort into debugging the Grief, and, by mid
1944, had it pretty much in shape to use. By that time, the Luftwaffe
in the East had two problems - They didn't have the Intelligence
resources to find target suitable for heavy bombers, and there's no
use sending the airplanes out without some idea of where to go adn
what to hit, and they were suffering under severe fuel shortages. A
Gruppe-sized heavy bomber raid would have used the entire front's
AVGAS allocation for a week. There's not much point in conducting a
single raid of minimal effectiveness if it wipes out your own troops
air cover better than the Soviets did.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[robert arndt]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message >...
> "Top Secret" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My
> understanding
> > is they lacked heavy bombers.
>
> Probably the SC 1800; SC for "Spreng Cylindrisch" (cylindrical HE)
> and 1800 for the weight in kilogram. The SC 1800 was a big bomb,
> but with modifications a Fw 190 could carry one, and a He 111 could
> carry two on external bomb racks.


No, SC 2500:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7087/uk019b.jpg

Note: This is the bomb casing that the two German spherical
radiological weapons under construction were to be carried in and
dropped by either

a) the re-activated Sanger antipodal bomber project of Feb 1945
(mock-up construction discovered in Lofer factory at end of war)

or

b) Horten XVIII "Amerika" bomber project of March 1945 (with partial
tubular steel center section started before collapse)

with the intention of dropping them on NYC.

Rob

[machf]

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:29:42 +0200, "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?

He 111s, maybe?

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/sc2500.html

Found another mention here:

http://www.bpears.org.uk/NE-Diary/Bck/BSeq_02.html

"The SC 2500 was the largest SC dropped on Great Britain".

There's also a reference to the SC 2600 in Ploetz's "Geschichte des zweiten
Weltkrieges", which seems very similar ("2050kg of Trialen filling").

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and ".sons.of" parts before replying

[Eunometic]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Top Secret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My
> understanding
> > is they lacked heavy bombers.
> >
>
> The largest bomber aircraft they used in squadron service
> was the He-177 Grief (Griffon)
>
> It was a 2 propellor aircraft with each propellor
> driven by 2 coupled engines. Built in relatively small
> numbers (approx 1000) it was not a success being prone to fires and
> on the few occassions it was used over the UK it took
> heavy losses.

The general claims are that they took no losses due to enemy (RAF)
action and although this migh be in dispute they certainbly can't be
described as 'heavy'. The He 177 had good performance for its day and
the most produced version: the He 177 A-5 had solved most of the
engine problems which related to oil leakages induced by the stresses
of the coupling gearbox igniting on hot exhausts in the tight cowling
and vibration problems that sometimes caused con rods to puncture the
crank case.

Attacks involved a climbout over Germany with a long shallow diving
attack at over 400mph that made interception very difficult.


> Max bomb load was around 6000 kg
> but this would require external racks which slowed the
> aircraft down and reduced range.

The maximum INTERNAL bombload was 6000 KG with some compromises
requred when external weapons such as three CLOS guided anti-shipping
missiles the HS 293.

It had a bigger internal bombload than the B17.

> More typically
> 1000kg of bombs would be carried internally.

Clearly preposterous.
>
> It flew most of its sorties over the eastern front.
>
> Keith

[Eunometic]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > writes:
> >
> > "Top Secret" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My
> understanding
> >> is they lacked heavy bombers.
> >>
> >
> > The largest bomber aircraft they used in squadron service
> > was the He-177 Grief (Griffon)
> >
> > It was a 2 propellor aircraft with each propellor
> > driven by 2 coupled engines. Built in relatively small
> > numbers (approx 1000) it was not a success being prone to fires and
> > on the few occassions it was used over the UK it took
> > heavy losses. Max bomb load was around 6000 kg
> > but this would require external racks which slowed the
> > aircraft down and reduced range. More typically
> > 1000kg of bombs would be carried internally.
> >
> > It flew most of its sorties over the eastern front.
>
> Where it suffered from a number of problems which compromized its
> combat effectiveness. During the Stalingrad campaign, a Gruppe of
> early He 177s was dispatched to the area to fly supplies in, and
> evacuees out. (The Luftwaffe had, between Crete, Stalingrad, adn
> Tunisia pretty much wiped out their transport fleet) It was found
> that the 177 couldn't carry any more cargo or people than an He 111,
> at a significant cost in fuel, reliability, and maintenance.

This in part sounds unbelievable considering the quoted actual range,
performance and huge fuel load of the He 177 aircraft. Many earlier
(Battle of Britian) He 111 seem to have been converted to transport
aircraft for paratroops and supply delivery as more advanced aircraft
replaced them eg the Do 217 K and Do 217M, Ju 188, Ju88S and perhaps
latter variants of the He 111 (H-22) Although never really an
airliner it did have a duel use history as a Lufthansa airliner and I
suspect that the He 177 bulked out on volume or while the much smaller
He 111 must have had its internal bombay removed to gain volume.
Either that or the runways couldn;t handle the He 177 at full load.

> The Germans put a lot of effort into debugging the Grief, and, by mid
> 1944, had it pretty much in shape to use. By that time, the Luftwaffe
> in the East had two problems - They didn't have the Intelligence
> resources to find target suitable for heavy bombers, and there's no
> use sending the airplanes out without some idea of where to go adn
> what to hit, and they were suffering under severe fuel shortages. A
> Gruppe-sized heavy bomber raid would have used the entire front's
> AVGAS allocation for a week. There's not much point in conducting a
> single raid of minimal effectiveness if it wipes out your own troops
> air cover better than the Soviets did.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Eunometic) writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
>> In article >,
>> "Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>> >
>> > "Top Secret" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My
>> understanding
>> >> is they lacked heavy bombers.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The largest bomber aircraft they used in squadron service
>> > was the He-177 Grief (Griffon)
>> >
>> > It was a 2 propellor aircraft with each propellor
>> > driven by 2 coupled engines. Built in relatively small
>> > numbers (approx 1000) it was not a success being prone to fires and
>> > on the few occassions it was used over the UK it took
>> > heavy losses. Max bomb load was around 6000 kg
>> > but this would require external racks which slowed the
>> > aircraft down and reduced range. More typically
>> > 1000kg of bombs would be carried internally.
>> >
>> > It flew most of its sorties over the eastern front.
>>
>> Where it suffered from a number of problems which compromized its
>> combat effectiveness. During the Stalingrad campaign, a Gruppe of
>> early He 177s was dispatched to the area to fly supplies in, and
>> evacuees out. (The Luftwaffe had, between Crete, Stalingrad, adn
>> Tunisia pretty much wiped out their transport fleet) It was found
>> that the 177 couldn't carry any more cargo or people than an He 111,
>> at a significant cost in fuel, reliability, and maintenance.
>
> This in part sounds unbelievable considering the quoted actual range,
> performance and huge fuel load of the He 177 aircraft. Many earlier
> (Battle of Britian) He 111 seem to have been converted to transport
> aircraft for paratroops and supply delivery as more advanced aircraft
> replaced them eg the Do 217 K and Do 217M, Ju 188, Ju88S and perhaps
> latter variants of the He 111 (H-22) Although never really an
> airliner it did have a duel use history as a Lufthansa airliner and I
> suspect that the He 177 bulked out on volume or while the much smaller
> He 111 must have had its internal bombay removed to gain volume.
> Either that or the runways couldn;t handle the He 177 at full load.

Unlike a cereal box, it's not a matter of weight, but of volume.
While the He 177 was a bigger, heavier airplane, it achieved its
performance by having the lowest drag, and highest fuel fraction
possible. There wasn't a whole lof of usable volume inside the
fuselage, especially for passengers. That's not really an unexpected
result - it's perfectly natural if your goal is to carry a dense,
concentrated load, such as bombs, over a fairly long distance.
Consider the examples of the B-17, the B-29, and the Tu-95. All were
used as the basis of transports, (Boeing 307, Boeing 377, and Tu-114,
respectively) but all required completely new fuselages with a major
increase in volume available. The He 111 was less compromised in this
respect - it had started life, after all, as an airliner (Well,
perhaps we should make that "airliner" - it always was intended to be
a bomber) so it had built into it the usable volume in the cabin to
hold things that were less dense than bombs. That's the reason for
the 111's wonky vertical bomb racks (For those unfamiliar, He 111
bombs were stowed vertiaccly, hanging nose-up in 4 pairs of discrete
cells in the fuselage at the location of teh wing center section).
The bombs fit into the "smoking cabin" of the He 111 airliner, and the
vertical stowage didn't require cutting the major structural members
of the fuselage structure. Removing teh racks and fitting floors in
the bays for carrying people & stuff was an easy mod. (The vertical
bomb stowage seriously compromised bombng accuracy. As the bombs
dropped out, tail first, they'd wobble around untile they stabilized
in the normal bomb manner. (Pointy part forward, fins in back, body
aligned with the airflow) Until they stabilized, they were flying
themselves in random directions, making accurate dropping impossible.)

It wasn't that the He 177 was an inferior load carrier, it just wasn't
a useful transport.

>
>> The Germans put a lot of effort into debugging the Grief, and, by mid
>> 1944, had it pretty much in shape to use. By that time, the Luftwaffe
>> in the East had two problems - They didn't have the Intelligence
>> resources to find target suitable for heavy bombers, and there's no
>> use sending the airplanes out without some idea of where to go adn
>> what to hit, and they were suffering under severe fuel shortages. A
>> Gruppe-sized heavy bomber raid would have used the entire front's
>> AVGAS allocation for a week. There's not much point in conducting a
>> single raid of minimal effectiveness if it wipes out your own troops
>> air cover better than the Soviets did.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Eunometic wrote in message ...
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
>> "Top Secret" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My
>> understanding
>> > is they lacked heavy bombers.
>> >
>>
>> The largest bomber aircraft they used in squadron service
>> was the He-177 Grief (Griffon)
>>
>> It was a 2 propellor aircraft with each propellor
>> driven by 2 coupled engines. Built in relatively small
>> numbers (approx 1000) it was not a success being prone to fires and
>> on the few occassions it was used over the UK it took
>> heavy losses.
>
>The general claims are that they took no losses due to enemy (RAF)
>action and although this migh 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?

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.

After all the USAAF B-17 units flew 200 successful sorties in
1942 before a B-17 was lost to enemy fighters. The numbers
matter when it comes to claiming things about losses.

>The He 177 had good performance for its day and
>the most produced version: the He 177 A-5 had solved most of the
>engine problems which related to oil leakages induced by the stresses
>of the coupling gearbox igniting on hot exhausts in the tight cowling
>and vibration problems that sometimes caused con rods to puncture the
>crank case.
>
>Attacks involved a climbout over Germany with a long shallow diving
>attack at over 400mph that made interception very difficult.

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.

Rather strange to bomb London and the channel ports from
Germany when the French airfields were closer.

>> Max bomb load was around 6000 kg
>> but this would require external racks which slowed the
>> aircraft down and reduced range.
>
>The maximum INTERNAL bombload was 6000 KG with some compromises
>requred when external weapons such as three CLOS guided anti-shipping
>missiles the HS 293.
>
>It had a bigger internal bombload than the B17.

6,000 KG is around 13,200 pounds of bombs, the B-17
managed 12,800 pounds internally. Rather marginal
difference.

And it is clear the He177 internal bomb load is disputed
between different references, many giving the 6,000 KG
figure as total internal and external. The He177A5 weighed
37,000 pounds empty or around 1,000 pounds more than a
B-17G but normal loaded weight of 60,000 pounds was around
5,500 pounds less, the He177 maximum loaded weight of
around 68,000 pounds was around 4,000 pounds less than
a B-17G. If the fuel capacity figure I have is correct, 2,788
imperial gallons, the He177 could carry around 20,000 pounds
of fuel, at 300 gallons to the long ton.

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.

>> More typically
>> 1000kg of bombs would be carried internally.
>
>Clearly preposterous.

Ah yes, the faith based answer. 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.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Eunometic]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message >...
> Eunometic wrote in message ...
> >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> >> "Top Secret" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Compared to Allied forces, what was the max they fielded? My
> understanding
> >> > is they lacked heavy bombers.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The largest bomber aircraft they used in squadron service
> >> was the He-177 Grief (Griffon)
> >>
> >> It was a 2 propellor aircraft with each propellor
> >> driven by 2 coupled engines. Built in relatively small
> >> numbers (approx 1000) it was not a success being prone to fires and
> >> on the few occassions it was used over the UK it took
> >> heavy losses.
> >
> >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.

>
> 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.

>
> After all the USAAF B-17 units flew 200 successful sorties in
> 1942 before a B-17 was lost to enemy fighters. The numbers
> matter when it comes to claiming things about losses.
>
> >The He 177 had good performance for its day and
> >the most produced version: the He 177 A-5 had solved most of the
> >engine problems which related to oil leakages induced by the stresses
> >of the coupling gearbox igniting on hot exhausts in the tight cowling
> >and vibration problems that sometimes caused con rods to puncture the
> >crank case.
> >
> >Attacks involved a climbout over Germany with a long shallow diving
> >attack at over 400mph that made interception very difficult.
>
> 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.

>
> Rather strange to bomb London and the channel ports from
> Germany when the French airfields were closer.
>
> >> Max bomb load was around 6000 kg
> >> but this would require external racks which slowed the
> >> aircraft down and reduced range.
> >
> >The maximum INTERNAL bombload was 6000 KG with some compromises
> >required when external weapons such as three CLOS guided anti-shipping
> >missiles the HS 293.
> >
> >It had a bigger internal bombload than the B17.
>
> 6,000 KG is around 13,200 pounds of bombs, the B-17
> managed 12,800 pounds internally. Rather marginal
> difference.
>
> And it is clear the He177 internal bomb load is disputed
> between different references, many giving the 6,000 KG
> figure as total internal and external. The He177A5 weighed
> 37,000 pounds empty or around 1,000 pounds more than a
> B-17G but normal loaded weight of 60,000 pounds was around
> 5,500 pounds less, the He177 maximum loaded weight of
> around 68,000 pounds was around 4,000 pounds less than
> a B-17G. If the fuel capacity figure I have is correct, 2,788
> imperial gallons, the He177 could carry around 20,000 pounds
> of fuel, at 300 gallons to the long ton.

Different versions had differnt fuel loads due to tankage and wingspan
changes. Also there seem to have been field conversion kits.

>
> 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.

A substantial internal bombload comparable or slightly superior to
unmodified allied 4 engined heavies is most likely. I doubt blanking
was the issue however.

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?

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.

> 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.

>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.

[Alan Dicey]

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?

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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.

[robert arndt]

> 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.

[Mike Dargan]

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

[WaltBJ]

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

[Steve Hix]

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.

[Krztalizer]

>
>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

[Alan Dicey]

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.

[Krztalizer]

>
>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.

[Eunometic]

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.

[robert arndt]

> BTW - how big were the sea mines dropped by parachute as
> 'blockbusters'?

The Germans used the LMA and LMB Minenbomben:


http://www.luftarchiv.info/bordgerate/abwurf.htm

On this German page is a range of German bombs and you can clearly see
the LMB mine fitted with bomb fins and the last one the BM 1000
"Monika". The Germans also had a LMB IV that was intended for the
Me-264 but I don't think it was ever used as the Me-264 was lost. It
is noteworthy that this weapon would have been used against the US
eastern seaboard by the Me-264.

Rob

p.s. The LMB IV weighed 2,380 lbs with 2,006 lb of Amatol 39.

[Top Secret]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:tDL1d.436892$%_6.239494@attbi_s01...
> 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

After all the great replies this brought a smile to my face............I
must admit I really hate it when a NG is invaded this way by posts that
should appear in alt.politics or something similar.