Why germany never had a four engined bomber?

[Michael Ryan]

Hi Lithgow, Whilst I am inclined to agree with you to a point, what you may also considder is that post WWI, our (British) Military was almost obliterated by our political masters and rearmament was both costly, slow and late. Had General Wever built a startegic arm to the Lufwaffe in the early 30's, and inflicted sufficient damage to Britain in 1939/40, and given that a large part of our then Government wanted peace at any price, perhaps our will to fight without US support may have been significantly drained????? Further to extrapelate my point, in a single major front war with the USSR, it is my belief that yes, tactical advantage could and was won but with further strategic bombing the Luftwaffe could have brought Moscow to its knees??? Bear in mind that Stalin had decimated his own officer corps , his army was still equipped and fighting on a WW1 level and that he himself came to within a matter of days of requesting an armistice.

Ergo, to say that "it's highly unlikely that even long range bombers would have had any real effect on the outcome of the war for the Germans" is, in my opinion, highly debateable. If used in sufficient numbers with appropriate targeting at the begining of the war when the USSR and the British were still trying to recover from the catastrophic political interventions both post WW1 and pre 1939, then, I believe that the Strategic use of long range heavy capacity bombers could and would have had a significant if not profound effect on WW2??

However, can I suggest that we agree to differ???

With regards and best wishes Michael Ryan

[lithgow]

Whilst the cut backs in defence post WW1 were significant, they did in fact spur the use of airpower as it was much faster and more flexible with limited resources-air policing in Iraq, N/W India etc-heavy bombers remained part of the RAF all through the interwar period, albeit in small numbers as part of a relatively small air force until rearmament started in the mid 1930s.
As to the Germans, their prime failure in the Battle of Britain was the lack of long range fighter escorts, not a lack of long range bombers-the Bf 109 was a fighter intended for point defence against day bombers in the same way as the Spitfire and Hurricane-1940 saw the RAF fighters doing what they were designed to do-initial use of RAF bombers against German targets suffered a similar heavy loss rate by day, forcing the adoption of night bombing by both sides with a much reduced effectiveness until the RAF reached a critical mass in numbers and technology much later in the war-any bombing campaign against distant targets in the USSR would have faced the same problems.

[Michael Ryan]

Hi Again Lithgow, Yes, I agree with what you are saying but I also feel that you are missing my point? I am not talking about the War as it was fought but rather, as it could have been fought especialy in its very early days. The point that I am trying to make is that had General Wever lived and created a heavy strategic long range bomber force in the 1930's, with, as you rightly say, a capable fighter support element, the Luftwaffe may, after a couple or more heavy raids, been able to intimidate us out of the war. There were a lot of senior political figures, not to mention the ex King, Edward VIII who were very much in favour of a peace pact with AH. As was AH himself! Ergo Wever's stratergy could have won where limited battlefield tactics patently did not. And yes in the mid 30's, the French, the British and the USSR all had relatively large air forces but all suffered from the same problems, little or no development, few and poor airfields, disjointed infrastructure, over deployment around the world, poor training and obsolescent to obsolete aircraft. Wever's concept, if used and planned correctly could well have won the war in the west with a knock out blow in the mid/late 30's, ergo, long before the B of B. The Germans wasted months during the phony war due to their over confidence and ineptetude thus giving Fighter Command the breathing space to build up sufficient streangth to even participe in the B of B let alone win it. Their over confidence, subservience and reliance on an untrained leader as the Commander in Chief led to many such cock ups leading to total defeat. I would cite Dunkirk, Stalingrad, North Africa and many more examples. With regard to the USSR, Uncle Joe was too busy murdering the vast majority of his marshals, generals and senior officers to retaliate or even defend his country in the face of a concentrated strategic air offencive by the Luftwaffe especially when supported by a capable army using blitzcrieg tactics.

And lets not forget that the US were very isolationist during the 30's so it is most unlikely that they would have supported us let alone the USSR. So I would reiterate my opinion, that with a strategic bomber capability at the very begining of WWII, things could have turned out very differently by 1945. Thankfully for us, the Germans managed to lose a war which, in my opinion, they could well have won. To give one example of the gross mismanagement and inepetude of both the Luftwaffe, post General Wever and its High Command, vertually every bomber design submitted to the Luftwaffe had, by order, to have a dive bomber capability. A bit like the Vulcan and Fortress etc., or perhaps not???? They managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory!!!

Cheers MR

[Pacific Viking]

The abandoned four engined Ju-89 "Ural Bomber," was first flown in April 1937.




Only three prototypes were flown, but the type set several payload/altitude records reaching 7,242 metres (23,750ft) with a payload of 10,000kg (22,000lb) demonstrating a range of 2,980km (1,862 miles). The relatively underpowered Ju-89 was powered by four 750 hp Daimler Benz DB 600A engines.

The Ju-89 was roughly comparable to the British Short Stirling bomber.

Because the Spitfire had unheated guns until 1942 which were prone to jamming at altitude. In my opinion, had the Ju89 been used in the Battle of Britain The RAF would have had no way to shoot it sown in 1940 , or 1941.

The drawback for the Ju89 was the lack of a decent bomb sight.

[Michael Ryan]

Hi Viking, It has been eight years since I last viewed this thread and to be 100% honest, I cannot even remember posting to it! Please note that I have thanked you for your post as I wasn't actually aware of the prototypes of the Ural Bomber let alone the photographs, so once again, thank you. I also liked your post as, at least to me, your Post appears to support my argument.

Underpowered. it may have been but as a prototype, I would suggest that that fault would have been quickly corrected and looking at the almost delta shaped wings later famous on the B1 and B2 Vulcan bombers and their brilliant performances right up to the Falklands, could have had the potential to be a game changer. Can you imagine the havoc that this heavy lift tactical long rang bomber operating at high altitude in sufficient numbers and supported by the ME262 could have caused???? Terrifying in my opinion. Had General Weaver not been killed, managed to stay friends with AH and had the power to exercise his authority as chief of the Air Force Staff who knows where the war would have ended. To the RAF, his death/loss probably saved the RAF in later years not to mention the rest of Europe.

The analogy that I would draw is fighting a nest of wasps. Yes, you need fighters in a tactical role to support ground troops and as escorts etc. But to win the war you need to kill the infrastructure, ergo, you require a bigger and harder club, heavy bombers with a long range. Back to the analogy, it is no good, on finding a wasp's nest in your loft and trying to kill it off tactically by hitting it with a cricket bat then trying to stamp out all the wasps with a rolled-up newspaper. The only proven method to do it is to kill the infrastructure (nest) and the wasps strategically and kill the nest and contents. I believe that AH's policy of defeating Russia's field armies would bring Uncle Joe to his knees. Wrong. Stallin could afford to lose armies so all he did was allow the Wehrmacht to fight itself to a standstill whilst moving his infrastructure, factories and resources etc further east out of the reach of the Luftwaffe because he knew that Germany had no way of attacking them. He was correct in my opinion. Hitler was centered on localized single front warfare not a three front word war.

I hope that I have not bored you with my ramblings.

Cheera Michael R