What if
November 28, 2014, 05:32:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Links Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: ‘Ural Bomber’ What If?  (Read 1516 times)
MAD
Scratchbuilds the entire model
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 721


« on: February 13, 2008, 10:50:23 AM »

In November 1933 the RLM started discussions with Junkers and Dornier about the requirements for a heavy strategic bomber for the Luftwaffe.
Junkers design submission was the Ju 89 and Dornier’s the Do-19.
But to the detriment of the Luftwaffe’s future, on the 29th April, 1937, only a short time after the prototypes first flights the further development of both strategic bombers was cancelled by the RLM. The reason for this step was the high fuel consumption of heavy bombers, as well as the fact, that a large number of bomber aircraft could only be manufactured if these bombers were medium seized bombers, like the Ju88.
This was made easer by the RLM, with the death of the programs biggest and most vocal supporter of the ‘Rural Bomber’ program, General Walther Wever, the Luftwaffe’s chief of staff was killed in a plane crash in 1936 and his successor, Herman Goering did not see the value in such aircraft.

I am interested to see what you think the production Ju 89 or Do-19 would have looked like, during its service in the early years of World War Two?
And how would these designs been modified and improved, with war experience until replaced by new designs?


Does anyone want to have a go at doing some ‘What If’ war time ‘Ural Bomber’ profiles?


M.A.D
Logged
Arc3371
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1552



« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2008, 04:38:17 PM »

The Ural bomber is an interesting what if
Logged
Madoc
Targeted for assassination by JMNs
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2008, 07:34:25 PM »

MAD,

I think that if the Nazis went in for heavy bombers in a big way it would've greatly shortened the war - in the Allies favor!

Germany didn't have the industrial base nor the resources to build a heavy bomber force large enough to make a difference and build sufficient numbers of light and medium bombers to still maintain its tactical edge.  The more strategic bombers it built, the fewer tactical ones would be available.  The fewer of those, the less effective the Blitzkrieg would be.  The less effective that is, the greater chance France has of staying in the war.  With France still in the war, the Nazis would be facing attacks from the west AND the east in 1942 or '43 at the latest.  Without the industrial and material resources of France to plunder, the German war machine is much the worse off in the face of these threats.  That'd be double plus ungood for the Nazis.

In the meantime, they'd be fielding too few strategic bombers to do much of anything with.  Oh, they'd be better at burning parts of cities than were the He-111's and their ilk but still too few in overall numbers to have a telling effect.  Certainly not in comparison to the swarms of Lancs and Halifaxes, and Stirlings the RAF could put up.  And definitely not in comparison to the clouds of B-17's and B-24's the US would soon be sending over.

Madoc
Logged

Wherever you go, there you are!
GTX
Beyond The Sprues Guy
What-IF SIG
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10823


"Princess"


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2008, 07:43:25 PM »

try to get a hold of "Luftwaffe Victorious" by  Mike Spick (see here: http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-Victorious-Mike-Spick/dp/185367611X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202931506&sr=8-1 )



In it he has the Do-19 fully developed and General Walther Wever surviving.  He also has a number of Do-19 derivatives.

Regards,

Greg
Logged

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
luft46models
Kitbasher
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2008, 11:19:23 PM »

Or try one of John Baxters Alternate Luftwaffe books but then again a lot of his ideas seemed to end up in the other book - I wouldn't necessarily say plagiarism cause I might get sued but read both and compare for yourself

William in Oz
Logged
ysi_maniac
Kit Surgeon First Class
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5223



« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2008, 01:48:46 PM »

What about a Do-217 with its engines and a pair of Jumo004 to complement them huh ?
Logged

Will die without understanding this world.
Cobra Kebab
Out of the Whiffing Closet
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2008, 02:18:57 PM »

Slapping a pair of Jumo 004s on it won't do squat in terms of increasing range and payload capacity.
Logged
Lawman
Makes own decals
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2008, 03:18:28 PM »

I agree, adding jet engines would make little sense. A much better bet might be to use jettisonable rockets, perhaps similar to the ones used to launch V-1 missiles - they would give enough boost for takeoff, and then simply drop off immediately after. However, as already said, the presence of a heavy bomber wouldn't really help Germany at all. Apart from anything else, it is entirely likely that Hitler would have meddled around, wanting the Luftwaffe to stop buying something useful like fighters, in favour of building modest numbers of these heavy bombers. It could prove to be the undoing of the Luftwaffe, perhaps shortening the war a bit.


Another bomber 'what-if' might have been the RAF having a British B-29 type bomber, with good high altitude performance and a good bombload. Using a common-section tubular fuselage, and semi-automated guns (.50cal, 15mm BESA or 20mm Hispano?), it could have helped with survival of the heavy bomber force. The alternative might have been for Britain to abandon heavy bombers as their primary bomber force, and switch to using the smaller, more agile, Mossies, which could at least fly in low and hit their targets (albeit with smaller bomb loads). Building hundreds of twin engined wooden bombers might have been cheaper, and yet potentially as effective, except for the area bombing. Obviously, if you really want to shorten the war a fair bit, you could have the RAF having more transports and gliders/glider-tugs. On Market Garden, a fraction of the intended force was actually landed in the first wave, hence they needed to waste time securing landing grounds for the follow up waves - have the entire Division landed in one go, and it might not have been a 'bridge too far'! This could see German forces falling apart, and the war being months shorter, and possibly a somewhat different post-war situation (Churchill potentially winning an early '45 election). This brings many potential what-ifs, e.g. no Russian Nene engine, so a poorly-engined Mig-15, stronger post-war forces etc... Heck, it could even go further - Army largely demobilised (no BAOR), relying instead on airpower and naval power!
Logged
ysi_maniac
Kit Surgeon First Class
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5223



« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2008, 03:36:12 PM »

Slapping a pair of Jumo 004s on it won't do squat in terms of increasing range and payload capacity.
I did not mention that wingspan is significantly increased, to improve high altitude performance, fuel tankage, and perhaps during takeoff. Piston engines alone for cruise flight.

I meant the jet engines only to increase power in some phases, like overflying target. Think on B-36 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36 . IMHO, jet engines would improve performance at high altitude, out of the reach of fighter.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 03:54:10 PM by ysi_maniac » Logged

Will die without understanding this world.
r16
Guest
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2008, 09:47:00 AM »

a better bet for high altitude flight would be D0217P , and 317-417 series .If someone has information on these types , I would really like to see them here too . I had spent some hours on them last summer and got practically nothing. (Fourth item in that came up today on google was Angelina Jolie .)
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.126 seconds with 23 queries.

Google visited last this page November 19, 2014, 03:37:36 PM