japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


czert2 -> japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 11:45:42 AM)

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php/8811-A-Successful-Japanese-Atomic-Bomb-Test
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/12/113_56715.html

it is forgoten history, posibility or just wishfull thinking ?




warspite1 -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 12:36:49 PM)

Wishful thinking! Well that kind of depends whose side one is on! [;)]

Just two questions. All these years some people have been slating the US for dropping the bombs. If there was any evidence that the Japanese were close to getting there first (or indeed at all) I think this would have been shouted from the rooftops as mitigation for the decision taken by President Truman (not that any is needed in my view). Why has this never been mentioned?

If the Japanese were so close such that they actually detonated a device (and the Soviets captured the scientists, technicians, plans etc why did it take the Soviets so long to produce their own?

Summary: In my view its total garbage.




wdolson -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 12:56:58 PM)

I'm skeptical. A nuclear bomb program requires a tremendous amount of infrastructure, and no trace of that infrastructure has ever turned up. The US/British nuclear weapons program was located in three states (Oak Ridge, TN, Hanford, WA, and Los Alamos, NM) each of those facilities became huge by war's end. The Manhattan project was working on both a plutonium and uranium weapon at the same time, which added to the territory used and the number of personnel, but even just a uranium bomb project would have taken up a lot of space and used a lot of personnel.

It's pretty much accepted that Japan did have a nuclear weapons program, but they didn't have the expertise, the funding, or the facilities to pull it off. The Anglo-American effort had some of the world's top Physicists working on the project as well as some top engineers. I read somewhere else one reason the Germans never produced a nuclear weapon was in part because of the antisemitism. Most of the top Physicists in Europe investigating nuclear properties were Jewish and just about all of them fled west before the war. That's why Einstein ended up in the US (though he wasn't a nuclear Physicist). The brain drain left the Germans with a deficit in cutting edge scientific talent.

The Japanese were far from dumb. Their engineering in a lot of areas was very good, but they were way behind in training top scientists and the culture didn't encourage stand out talents to thrive and western culture fosters it to a good degree.

What the Manhattan Project achieved during the war was truly amazing if you understand how R&D works. They started with some scientific theories that were fairly well understood, but there were gaps. In three years they filled those gaps and produced three prototypes, all worked and two under war conditions (being dropped from B-29s on Japan).

Every aircraft the US used in the war was either in operation or was in development on Dec 7, 1941. No plane went from concept to operational at that time (though there were some nearing operational readiness when the war ended). No scientific breakthroughs were achieved in aviation to do that, though there were quite a few engineering/tech advancements. The Manhattan Project advanced science while doing all the engineering too. That's an almost unique achievement, especially in that time frame.

The Japanese had some scientists who were up on the state of nuclear Physics when the war started, but their knowledge was quickly out of date as the shrouds of secrecy closed in on the subject. I'm sure they could manage to answer some of the questions on their own, but their progress couldn't possibly been as fast as the Anglo-Americans, they didn't have anything close to the brain trust they had, nor the resources.

Bill




Zorch -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 1:57:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I'm skeptical. A nuclear bomb program requires a tremendous amount of infrastructure, and no trace of that infrastructure has ever turned up. The US/British nuclear weapons program was located in three states (Oak Ridge, TN, Hanford, WA, and Los Alamos, NM) each of those facilities became huge by war's end. The Manhattan project was working on both a plutonium and uranium weapon at the same time, which added to the territory used and the number of personnel, but even just a uranium bomb project would have taken up a lot of space and used a lot of personnel.

It's pretty much accepted that Japan did have a nuclear weapons program, but they didn't have the expertise, the funding, or the facilities to pull it off. The Anglo-American effort had some of the world's top Physicists working on the project as well as some top engineers. I read somewhere else one reason the Germans never produced a nuclear weapon was in part because of the antisemitism. Most of the top Physicists in Europe investigating nuclear properties were Jewish and just about all of them fled west before the war. That's why Einstein ended up in the US (though he wasn't a nuclear Physicist). The brain drain left the Germans with a deficit in cutting edge scientific talent.

The Japanese were far from dumb. Their engineering in a lot of areas was very good, but they were way behind in training top scientists and the culture didn't encourage stand out talents to thrive and western culture fosters it to a good degree.

What the Manhattan Project achieved during the war was truly amazing if you understand how R&D works. They started with some scientific theories that were fairly well understood, but there were gaps. In three years they filled those gaps and produced three prototypes, all worked and two under war conditions (being dropped from B-29s on Japan).

Every aircraft the US used in the war was either in operation or was in development on Dec 7, 1941. No plane went from concept to operational at that time (though there were some nearing operational readiness when the war ended). No scientific breakthroughs were achieved in aviation to do that, though there were quite a few engineering/tech advancements. The Manhattan Project advanced science while doing all the engineering too. That's an almost unique achievement, especially in that time frame.

The Japanese had some scientists who were up on the state of nuclear Physics when the war started, but their knowledge was quickly out of date as the shrouds of secrecy closed in on the subject. I'm sure they could manage to answer some of the questions on their own, but their progress couldn't possibly been as fast as the Anglo-Americans, they didn't have anything close to the brain trust they had, nor the resources.

Bill

The most important thing the scientists did was persuade the government that it was worth devoting really massive resources to a project that would take at least 3 years, and was not guaranteed to work!
German scientists didn't get past this hurdle.




crsutton -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 3:21:01 PM)

What Bill said. The US spent about 1 billion dollars to develop the bomb. A massive investment in the 1940s. Good science was not enough to make a bomb. A nation had to have the resources as well. When you consider that every other combatant in the war was more than exhausted economically from the demands of their own basic needs, the US with it's surplus economic capacity (immune from bombing as well) was the only power that had any realistic chance of producing the bomb during the war. The science was no secret. Everyone understood the principals. It is just that no one else had the means.

Any discussion of any other nation developing the bomb during the war is just speculation or bunk history. Japan in 1944 was no more positioned to produce the bomb than Ethiopia was.




AW1Steve -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 3:52:29 PM)

Even if Japan/Germany/USSR (pick your country) had developed an atomic weapon , it would not have done them any good without a delivery system. The 1st bombs weighted upwards of 10,000 pounds. Without the B-29 to deliver it , the USAAF would have been very hard pressed to employ it. And the US spend nearly as much to develop the B-29 as the bomb itself. It even built a "back up" , the B-32 Dominator (although no where as successful as the B-29 as it was built to be more Conventional" than the B-29). Germany had no heavy bomber , Japan's (the Betty) was way too small and the JIN's "Rita" never completed development. The Russian's TB-3 would probably never be capable.

So again, even if these countries had the "Bomb", and I don't believe they did, only the USAAF and possibly the RAF could successfully deliver one.




Orm -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 5:12:29 PM)

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?




warspite1 -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 5:14:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?
warspite1

That thing was so unreliable do you really want it carrying an atomic bomb? [:D]




Orm -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 5:19:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?
warspite1

That thing was so unreliable do you really want it carrying an atomic bomb? [:D]


What would they have to lose?

And I thought it was better late war. (after improvements?)

Edit: Just to clarify. I wouldn't want it to carry any load whatsoever. Especially not a atomic bomb. But the question is whether it could have been modified to carry one or not.




warspite1 -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 5:25:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?
warspite1

That thing was so unreliable do you really want it carrying an atomic bomb? [:D]


What would they have to lose?

And I thought it was better late war. (after improvements?)

Edit: Just to clarify. I wouldn't want it to carry any load whatsoever. Especially not a atomic bomb. But the question is whether it could have been modified to carry one or not.
warspite1

Yes - it was only a [:D] comment based on the trials and tribulations of the development of the aircraft.




Orm -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 5:28:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?
warspite1

That thing was so unreliable do you really want it carrying an atomic bomb? [:D]


What would they have to lose?

And I thought it was better late war. (after improvements?)

Edit: Just to clarify. I wouldn't want it to carry any load whatsoever. Especially not a atomic bomb. But the question is whether it could have been modified to carry one or not.
warspite1

Yes - it was only a [:D] comment based on the trials and tribulations of the development of the aircraft.


Yes. I got that and I should have put a [:D] after 'what do they have to lose' comment.

My edit was just to guard against fallout. [;)]




AW1Steve -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 5:49:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?

Could the He 177 load a 10,000 pound weapon and they fly several thousand miles? My understanding was the He177 really din not proceed beyond the prototype stage.




Orm -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 6:01:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?

Could the He 177 load a 10,000 pound weapon and they fly several thousand miles? My understanding was the He177 really din not proceed beyond the prototype stage.

Why fly several thousand miles? London is just a couple of hundred miles away. Maybe as much as four hundred depending on air base used and hypothetical date of operation.

During the late war it was operational and used. Mainly on the Eastern Front. But eventually the fuel shortage stopped its use. Normal bomb load was over 10,0000 pounds but that was, of course, several bombs. Not sure how it would handle just one heavy bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177




AW1Steve -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 6:03:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?

Could the He 177 load a 10,000 pound weapon and they fly several thousand miles? My understanding was the He177 really din not proceed beyond the prototype stage.

Why fly several thousand miles? London is just a couple of hundred miles away. Maybe as much as four hundred depending on air base used and hypothetical date of operation.

During the late war it was operational and used. Mainly on the Eastern Front. But eventually the fuel shortage stopped its use. Normal bomb load was over 10,0000 pounds but that was, of course, several bombs. Not sure how it would handle just one heavy bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177

"Nuking" London wouldn't end the war , but would surely invite retaliation.




Orm -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 6:05:11 PM)

Heinkel He 177 A-3/R2 of 2./KG 100, 21 March 1944

[image]local://upfiles/29130/CC3F811DA33D4A4AA715DDE69F26E948.jpg[/image]




Orm -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 6:13:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?

Could the He 177 load a 10,000 pound weapon and they fly several thousand miles? My understanding was the He177 really din not proceed beyond the prototype stage.

Why fly several thousand miles? London is just a couple of hundred miles away. Maybe as much as four hundred depending on air base used and hypothetical date of operation.

During the late war it was operational and used. Mainly on the Eastern Front. But eventually the fuel shortage stopped its use. Normal bomb load was over 10,0000 pounds but that was, of course, several bombs. Not sure how it would handle just one heavy bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177

"Nuking" London wouldn't end the war , but would surely invite retaliation.

[sm=00000018.gif]

I didn't realize that the sentence "only the USAAF and possibly the RAF could successfully deliver one" actually meant "ending the war". [sm=nono.gif]




AW1Steve -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 6:46:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?

Could the He 177 load a 10,000 pound weapon and they fly several thousand miles? My understanding was the He177 really din not proceed beyond the prototype stage.

Why fly several thousand miles? London is just a couple of hundred miles away. Maybe as much as four hundred depending on air base used and hypothetical date of operation.

During the late war it was operational and used. Mainly on the Eastern Front. But eventually the fuel shortage stopped its use. Normal bomb load was over 10,0000 pounds but that was, of course, several bombs. Not sure how it would handle just one heavy bomb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_177

"Nuking" London wouldn't end the war , but would surely invite retaliation.

[sm=00000018.gif]

I didn't realize that the sentence "only the USAAF and possibly the RAF could successfully deliver one" actually meant "ending the war". [sm=nono.gif]


It doesn't. Now read the other quote. WOULD SURELY INVITE RETALIATION. Let me explain. The cold , hard truth is that you could nuke every city in Europe , and it really would not hurt the USA's war production (except for theories of nuclear winter and such , which were not even theories at this time). You can't say the same about Germany. So how exactly , in the long term , does Germany nuking London do anything except making the remaining allies quite angry?[&:] [&:]




Orm -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 7:11:18 PM)

I make one last attempt. I answered this post of your about the German lack of a heavy bomber. I claim that Germany had a heavy bomber. Your response to that with "invite retaliation" and "that you could nuke every city in Europe , and it really would not hurt the USA's war production" has nothing to do with if Germany had a heavy bomber or not and I consider it very close to trolling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Even if Japan/Germany/USSR (pick your country) had developed an atomic weapon , it would not have done them any good without a delivery system. The 1st bombs weighted upwards of 10,000 pounds. Without the B-29 to deliver it , the USAAF would have been very hard pressed to employ it. And the US spend nearly as much to develop the B-29 as the bomb itself. It even built a "back up" , the B-32 Dominator (although no where as successful as the B-29 as it was built to be more Conventional" than the B-29). Germany had no heavy bomber , Japan's (the Betty) was way too small and the JIN's "Rita" never completed development. The Russian's TB-3 would probably never be capable.

So again, even if these countries had the "Bomb", and I don't believe they did, only the USAAF and possibly the RAF could successfully deliver one.




Dili -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 7:22:27 PM)

Germans also had Ju 290. A small quantity but could certainly be modified.




AW1Steve -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 7:24:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I make one last attempt. I answered this post of your about the German lack of a heavy bomber. I claim that Germany had a heavy bomber. Your response to that with "invite retaliation" and "that you could nuke every city in Europe , and it really would not hurt the USA's war production" has nothing to do with if Germany had a heavy bomber or not and I consider it very close to trolling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Even if Japan/Germany/USSR (pick your country) had developed an atomic weapon , it would not have done them any good without a delivery system. The 1st bombs weighted upwards of 10,000 pounds. Without the B-29 to deliver it , the USAAF would have been very hard pressed to employ it. And the US spend nearly as much to develop the B-29 as the bomb itself. It even built a "back up" , the B-32 Dominator (although no where as successful as the B-29 as it was built to be more Conventional" than the B-29). Germany had no heavy bomber , Japan's (the Betty) was way too small and the JIN's "Rita" never completed development. The Russian's TB-3 would probably never be capable.

So again, even if these countries had the "Bomb", and I don't believe they did, only the USAAF and possibly the RAF could successfully deliver one.



I was discussing , with you as well as others, various factors and possibilities . You appear to think everything I wrote was about you. I can only say , "Dude, it's not all about you". I've made a couple of comments ,opinions as they were. Next you go off high and to the right and accuse me of trolling. [X(] [8|][&:] If you have a problem with what I say , talk to me. Or if you feel that won't work, please contact our very friendly and responsive moderator to take action. Accusations and words like "trolling" don't stop flame wars, they start them. Apparently you feel that I'm in some way "gunning" for you. I'm not. You have your thoughts , and I have mine. There is no reason to take them personally , or to get personal. If you feel offended by my disagreeing with you , I'm sorry. But unless you can explain to me exactly how I've offended you, I won't apologize. If you do, then I probably will.[:)]




AW1Steve -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 7:35:28 PM)

Part of the "power" of the USA's nuclear power program AND it's B-29 program was it's size. No one that hadn't tried to build a bomb would likely realize what a tremendous undertaking it was. B-29's were rolling off the assembly lines in massive numbers. 500 were appearing over Japanese cities in a single conventional raid. Did anyone except the US truly realize that the USA could only produce a couple of bombs per month? Neither Germany nor Japan had penetrated the Manhattan project. So for all they knew , the USAAF could obliterate every single German and Japanese city , with absolutely no danger to themselves.

My point is , unless a power that produce such a weapon as a nuclear weapon also produced a reliable , and numerous delivery system , the effects upon the war would be largely academic. That's called deterrence. You destroy one of my allies cities , and I destroy ALL of yours. That kind of reduces the likelihood of 1st use , unless your side has an absolute death wish. Which makes a small atomic project an expensive , academic exercise. An atomic program has to "Go big" , or it's probably not worth it's while. It might be useful for a deterrent affect , but you can't use it 1st.




Alfred -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 8:08:01 PM)

The He-177 was intended to be the delivery system for the German A-bomb.  If they had ever first solved the theoretical scientific issues ... and then possessed the engineering capacity to actually produce one ... and their other pressing military demands had allowed them the luxury of flying through Allied dominated air space and dropping it.  The B-29 could effectively fly to its destination unchallenged, the same could not be said of the He-177 (or any German bomber type).

Alfred




Dili -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 8:20:21 PM)

I don't think B-29 would have been unchallenged if it was to drop the bomb in Berlin.




Alfred -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 8:48:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I don't think B-29 would have been unchallenged if it was to drop the bomb in Berlin.


Correct but

(a) it was never deployed in the ETO. By the time it would have been deployed USAAF and RAF bombers were already operating largely unchallenged in daylight over what remained of German airspace

(b) it would have been accompanied by swarms of escorts which would easily have neutralised what remained of the Luftwaffe jagd after Boddenplatte (whereas the Germans lacked the necessary fighter escort by then to shield their own delivery system)

(c) there would have been decoy B-29 sent along too just in case a German fighter penetrated the escorting screen

Against Germany, some defensive measures would have been required but there is no doubt that the A-bomb could have been successfully delivered in August 1945. Against Japan there really was no need for defensive measures

Alfred




warspite1 -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/23/2016 8:53:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I don't think B-29 would have been unchallenged if it was to drop the bomb in Berlin.


Correct but

(a) it was never deployed in the ETO. By the time it would have been deployed USAAF and RAF bombers were already operating largely unchallenged in daylight over what remained of German airspace

(b) it would have been accompanied by swarms of escorts which would easily have neutralised what remained of the Luftwaffe jagd after Boddenplatte (whereas the Germans lacked the necessary fighter escort by then to shield their own delivery system)

(c) there would have been decoy B-29 sent along too just in case a German fighter penetrated the escorting screen

Against Germany, some defensive measures would have been required but there is no doubt that the A-bomb could have been successfully delivered in August 1945. Against Japan there really was no need for defensive measures

Alfred
warspite1

But all that begs the question under what circumstances the bomb would ever have been dropped on Germany. By the time the Germans were in the position that Japan was in (but sadly for them not an island) - the need for the bomb would have gone away.

Surely 'by the time it would have been deployed' means that the German situation you describe has not yet come about and indeed there is no end to the war in sight without a whole lot more bloodshed.




crsutton -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/24/2016 5:28:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I don't think B-29 would have been unchallenged if it was to drop the bomb in Berlin.



What in August of 45? By then a piper club could have probably flown over Berlin unchallenged...Well, maybe the Russians would have shot it down.[;)]




wdolson -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/24/2016 5:58:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?


The He-177 was really used as a patrol bomber. The death of Walter Wever in 1936 really changed the direction of the Luftwaffe's development. Wever saw the use of a heavy bomber force and was working on developing that capability when he died in a plane crash. His successors saw little need for an offense air arm beyond tactical and the heavy bomber program languished.

The He-177 did get built, but it was primarily targeted to replace the Fw-200 which was an airliner pressed into the maritime patrol mission. Some were used in other roles, but they were uncommon missions and only handfuls were used.

In any case the Germans never used them as strategic bombers, even if they could technically be used in that role.

Bill




Orm -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/24/2016 10:19:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Germany had no heavy bomber

What about Heinkel He 177?


The He-177 was really used as a patrol bomber. The death of Walter Wever in 1936 really changed the direction of the Luftwaffe's development. Wever saw the use of a heavy bomber force and was working on developing that capability when he died in a plane crash. His successors saw little need for an offense air arm beyond tactical and the heavy bomber program languished.

The He-177 did get built, but it was primarily targeted to replace the Fw-200 which was an airliner pressed into the maritime patrol mission. Some were used in other roles, but they were uncommon missions and only handfuls were used.

In any case the Germans never used them as strategic bombers, even if they could technically be used in that role.

Bill



I thought that some He-177 took part in Operation Steinbock, the strategic bombing of London early '44. This wiki page confirms this, even though I do not call wiki a reliable site. Do you have some information that claim that the He-177 didn't participate in this strategic bombing?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Steinbock




Sardaukar -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/24/2016 10:22:30 AM)

OT, but might be of interest:

He-177s participated to this very successful attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frantic

On the night of 21 June, the Combat Wing of B-17s which earlier landed at Poltava sustained severe losses in a German air attack. Hungarian planes also participated in the attack. Personnel were alerted at approximately 2330 hours when it was announced that German bombers had crossed the front lines in the general direction of Poltava. At 0030 hours, Pathfinder aircraft released flares directly above the airfield and ten minutes later the first bombs were dropped. For almost two hours, an estimated 75 Luftwaffe bombers attacked the base, exhibiting a very high degree of accuracy. Nearly all bombs were dropped in the dispersal area of the landing ground where only B-17s were parked, indicating without question that the B-17s constituted the specific objective of the raiders.

Of the 73 B-17s which had landed at Poltava, 47 were destroyed and most of the remainder severely damaged. One American B-17 copilot, Joseph Lukacek, was killed. His captain, Raymond Estele, was severely wounded and died later; several others suffered minor injuries. The stores of fuel and ammunition brought so laboriously from the United States were also destroyed. Three days after the attack, only nine of the 73 aircraft at Poltava were operational. The truck-mounted 50-caliber machine guns that the Soviet high command insisted would be adequate had no effect on the Luftwaffe, as no aircraft were shot down or disabled. Also, Russian and American fighter aircraft were not allowed to take off (by Soviet high-command) to engage the Luftwaffe during this attack; the reason for this is unclear.

American personnel losses were light due to adequate warning and the network of slit trenches distant from the aircraft parking area. Russian losses were much higher since work crews were ordered to fight fires and disable anti-personnel bombs while the raid was ongoing. Butterfly bombs continued to explode on the field for many weeks thereafter. Red Air Force losses included 15 Yak-9s, 6 Yak-7s, three trainers, a Hawker Hurricane, and a VIP DC-3. Soviet anti-aircraft fire was intense but random, and perversely served to outline the field for the German aircraft. There are conflicting reports about whether Soviet aircraft engaged the enemy, but since there was no radar intercept capability, even American fighters would have been ineffective.

The well-planned German attack was led by Oberstleutnant Wilhelm Antrup of KG 55 and carried out by He-111Hs and Ju-88s of KG 4, KG 53, KG 55, and KG 27 operating from bases at Minsk. The operation was nicknamed Zaunkoenig. After the He-111s left, the Ju-88s strafed the field at low altitude. He-177s from Night Reconnaissance Squadrons performed target reconnaissance, pathfinder duties and bomb damage assessment. There were no German losses.






wdolson -> RE: japanese nuke bomb ? what you think about it ? (7/24/2016 11:52:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The He-177 was really used as a patrol bomber. The death of Walter Wever in 1936 really changed the direction of the Luftwaffe's development. Wever saw the use of a heavy bomber force and was working on developing that capability when he died in a plane crash. His successors saw little need for an offense air arm beyond tactical and the heavy bomber program languished.

The He-177 did get built, but it was primarily targeted to replace the Fw-200 which was an airliner pressed into the maritime patrol mission. Some were used in other roles, but they were uncommon missions and only handfuls were used.

In any case the Germans never used them as strategic bombers, even if they could technically be used in that role.

Bill



quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
I thought that some He-177 took part in Operation Steinbock, the strategic bombing of London early '44. This wiki page confirms this, even though I do not call wiki a reliable site. Do you have some information that claim that the He-177 didn't participate in this strategic bombing?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Steinbock


I suppose Operation Steinbock could be considered strategic bombing, but most of the aircraft involved were tactical bombers pressed into the role, they even used some Fw-190s as bombers for the operation. Much like the Blitz in 1940-41. And the total number of He-177 used was only 41.

The Germans never developed a strategic bombing doctrine and the primary role of the 4 engine bombers they did have were other missions.

Bill




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.691406