Me 264 German bomber?

Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video

Lost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!

A sneak peek from Allied Corps!

Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!

All good Deals always come in threes

Distant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!

Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Me 264 German bomber?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Me 264 German bomber?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Me 264 German bomber? - 7/19/2012 4:39:13 AM

Footslogger

Posts: 667
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline

Could this plane strike the USA? When was it first built? Did it see action?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdUAucryZII

Post #: 1

RE: Me 264 German bomber? - 7/19/2012 5:41:21 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 1429
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online

Nvm. I've read that a JU-390 got within 12 miles of the US, but it's been since debunked.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 7/19/2012 5:46:47 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Footslogger)

Post #: 2

RE: Me 264 German bomber? - 7/19/2012 7:53:36 AM

kg_1007

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

I always thought one of the mistakes made by the Reich was their NOT putting serious thought into long range, heavy bombers...they never even mounted a serious threat to nearby Britain after 1940 or so. I suppose they did not have the industry to do this, but it seems that beginning this type of project would have had better payoffs than the projects that were attempted, the V-weapons, rocket engines, etc.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 3

RE: Me 264 German bomber? - 7/19/2012 10:01:25 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 1454
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

I always thought one of the mistakes made by the Reich was their NOT putting serious thought into long range, heavy bombers...they never even mounted a serious threat to nearby Britain after 1940 or so. I suppose they did not have the industry to do this, but it seems that beginning this type of project would have had better payoffs than the projects that were attempted, the V-weapons, rocket engines, etc.

I think the development of the V weapons was able to go ahead because, although there was high technology in the design, it was low tech construction, they could be built by low skilled workers. A few duds would not have affected the overall performance of the weapons, aircraft production requires very much higher production standards and resources.

A meaningful strategic bomber force would have meant 1000s of bombers, 10,000s of trained aircrew, 100s of suitable airfields, 1000s of trained aircraft construction workers and maybe a much bigger fighter force, to support the bombers. All of which was probably beyond the power of the German economy, unless other things were given a lower priority.

Britain produced a strategic bomber force and the airfields to base them (later including those for the US 8th Air Force) because, during the early war period, it was the only way to strike Germany and worth the shortages it may have caused in other areas.

The US had enough resources to produce strategic bombers and still have everything else.

The Soviets seemed to have made the same decision as Germany, probably for similar reasons.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 7/19/2012 10:21:50 AM >

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to kg_1007)

Post #: 4

RE: Me 264 German bomber? - 7/19/2012 3:25:17 PM

kg_1007

Posts: 229
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

I always thought one of the mistakes made by the Reich was their NOT putting serious thought into long range, heavy bombers...they never even mounted a serious threat to nearby Britain after 1940 or so. I suppose they did not have the industry to do this, but it seems that beginning this type of project would have had better payoffs than the projects that were attempted, the V-weapons, rocket engines, etc.

I think the development of the V weapons was able to go ahead because, although there was high technology in the design, it was low tech construction, they could be built by low skilled workers. A few duds would not have affected the overall performance of the weapons, aircraft production requires very much higher production standards and resources.

A meaningful strategic bomber force would have meant 1000s of bombers, 10,000s of trained aircrew, 100s of suitable airfields, 1000s of trained aircraft construction workers and maybe a much bigger fighter force, to support the bombers. All of which was probably beyond the power of the German economy, unless other things were given a lower priority.

Britain produced a strategic bomber force and the airfields to base them (later including those for the US 8th Air Force) because, during the early war period, it was the only way to strike Germany and worth the shortages it may have caused in other areas.

The US had enough resources to produce strategic bombers and still have everything else.

The Soviets seemed to have made the same decision as Germany, probably for similar reasons.

Quite a good analysis!

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 5

RE: Me 264 German bomber? - 7/19/2012 4:14:28 PM

Klydon

Posts: 1873
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

I always thought one of the mistakes made by the Reich was their NOT putting serious thought into long range, heavy bombers...they never even mounted a serious threat to nearby Britain after 1940 or so. I suppose they did not have the industry to do this, but it seems that beginning this type of project would have had better payoffs than the projects that were attempted, the V-weapons, rocket engines, etc.

In reference to the OP questions:

Per Wiki:

First flight was the end of 1942. It was originally designed as a long range maritime recon aircraft to support the U-Boats. It was later looked at as part of the Amerika bomber program, but the Ju-390 was thought to be more promising.

I have several good books on the Luftwaffe.

When the Luftwaffe first started up, bombers based on civilian transport was a common theme. The airforce was seen more as a tactical arm in support of the ground forces (something Germany as a central European power with several potential enemies was going to be concerned with). The Germans also had very limited resources and production in the early days as well and it was thought that by building more smaller bombers would result in more flexibility than building fewer bigger bombers. On top of this, the Nazi government was impressed more by numbers than quality/capability.

The Germans did have their "strategic bomber" advocates and designs were drawn up for 4 engine planes, etc. I would have to look it up, but the chief advocate for this type of plane died in a crash in the mid to late 30's and with him went most of the push for a more strategic bomber force. Udet was a loud voice within the Luftwaffe and the tactical side became even more emphasised to the point of being silly about aircraft design. (Udet insisted on bombers being able to dive bomb, resulting in a lot of extra equipment, weight, and complexity being put into twin engine bombers like the JU-88).

It was not until the Battle of Britain that the Luftwaffe's limitations were exposed as a strategic bomber force. Even with this, they may still have won the Battle of Britain had the Luftwaffe been smarter about choosing what targets they were after in terms of pressure on the RAF and also the radar net. A drop tank for the ME-109 would have made a big difference as well. As it was, the Luftwaffe ruined itself and never really recovered. (Imagine no Battle of Britain and the Germans having an additional 1000 aircraft available for the Russian campaign along with being able to move 500 aircraft to the Med).

(in reply to kg_1007)

Post #: 6

RE: Me 264 German bomber? - 7/19/2012 6:31:58 PM

Ralzakark

Posts: 88
Joined: 4/24/2012
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Could this plane strike the USA? When was it first built? Did it see action?

The Me 264 prototype first flew on 23 December 1942 and it was never developed beyond a prototype.

Numerous versions were proposed, so saying if it could have bombed the USA is difficult as it depends on which version, and with what bomb-load, plus the production versions of which would undoubtedly have had different characteristics than those initially predicted. But it almost certainly could have done.

The only action it saw was when it was bombed on the ground by the USAF on 18 July 1944.

Robert Forsyth's book on the Me 264 is very good if you want the full story.

(in reply to Footslogger)

Post #: 7

RE: Me 264 German bomber? - 7/19/2012 11:59:18 PM

Footslogger

Posts: 667
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline

Having read this, were there any Allied aircraft that could cross the Atlantic then?

(in reply to Ralzakark)

Post #: 8

RE: Me 264 German bomber? - 7/20/2012 1:52:08 AM

aspqrz

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

The B-29 program was intended to produce a bomber capable of carrying a 2 ton bombload to Europe from bases in the CONUS.

The B-36 program was intended to produce a bomber capable of carrying a 10 ton bombload to Europe from bases in the CONUS.

The B-29 was, more or less, serviceable by mid 45 from a late 1941 approval date. The B-36 wasn't, mainly because the B-29 was deemed to be suitable for the purposes required as it was obvious Germany was going down in 44/45 and resources were diverted to getting the B-29 up to speed.

Whether either bomber, as complete and in service, could have managed either of the design propositions mentioned, I don't know, offhand, and stats available in the sources I have seen over the years are, to say the least, open to a variety of interpretations even today ... but those were part of the specified design parameters.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Footslogger)

Post #: 9

RE: Me 264 German bomber? - 7/23/2012 2:23:20 PM

turtlefang

Posts: 226
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline

The longest two way combat flight of a B29 was approximately 3,460 miles per Boeing Aircraft. However, this was done with a much reduced bombload, limited defensive arms, and a stripped down aircraft.

The "theoretical" range was 3,250 miles but in reality, you need to reduce this by about 15 to 20% for headwinds, lag time for formation, storm conditions, etc...and other frictions in flight. Operationally, most planned on a 2600 mile flight with some type of reserve fuel on top of that. Which usually reduced the "real range" down to "just" 2000 miles.

So, to answer your question, yes - based on the max combat mission a B29 flew, it could, with a reduced bomb load, bomb Europe from the US. With limited defensive armament, with no fighter escort, and with a very unlikely chance of many coming home. And, I suspect, limited impact.

And, just my POV, I view the B29 as the "best" WW2 strategic bomber built and used in any number.

As far as the B-36, never actually looked at that particular aircraft in this type of detail.

(in reply to aspqrz)

Post #: 10