Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie Zoom]

From what I recall Lizzie[I may very well be incorrect though]the HE177 was a four engined aircraft but the engines were "twinned" into the same nacelle and drove a single propeller per unit hence appearing to be twin engined and as you say suffering high reliability problems.Back on topic it is hardly surprising that UXBs from WW2 are still being found as even now "live"ordnance from WW1 is still surfacing on quite a regular basis in Flanders etc.

You may well be right Baza. When I saw drawings and pictures in the past I just noted a two engine layout, but from what you say that could be the reason why this craft was a failure. Two engines driving a single propellor would have been high technology for the time and even for the Third Reich that would have been a lot to ask.

[Lizzie Zoom]

From what I recall Lizzie[I may very well be incorrect though]the HE177 was a four engined aircraft but the engines were "twinned" into the same nacelle and drove a single propeller per unit hence appearing to be twin engined and as you say suffering high reliability problems.Back on topic it is hardly surprising that UXBs from WW2 are still being found as even now "live"ordnance from WW1 is still surfacing on quite a regular basis in Flanders etc.

Indeed Baza. That is because, following on with my post on the London UXB's, 10% of all ordinance used would have failed to explode. Given that 100 million shells were used in WWI, that means there is 10 million shells in the ground unexplored.  When you walk those battlefields you soon learn to believe that, based on the evidence you find everywhere.

[biggriffin]

Return it to germany and detonate?

Ron.

Well don't forget 1.4 million tonnes of bombs were dropped on Germany by the British and American air forces, so they would have an estimated 140,000 tonnes of UXB,s already

And our bombs tended to be a LOT bigger than the German ones as they didn't have the heavy bombers like the allies did !

Yes, absolutely right

My favourite Luftwaffe bomber of 1940 is the Heinkel 111 and this had a maximum bomb load of 4,400 lb.  However, when Hitler decided they should bomb London and other British cities instead of bombing the RAF airfields, they had to travel further with a maximum fuel load.  That mean't their bomb loads decreased to a maximum of 2,134 lb.  This was typical of the Luftwaffe bombers used over Britain, with all having a similar, or even lighter bomb load.

Unlike the RAF Hitler (thank goodness) generally failed to successfully update his bomber fleet from what were 1930 designs, with two engines, thinking that with Blitzkrieg tactics the bombers would strike over short distances in massed fleets. Basically there was the four engined Focke-Wulf Condor flew for the Luftwaffe, but was kept for just maritime use where distances of flights (over the Atlantic) were longer. There was from 1942 the Heinkel He 177 Greif long range strategic, again twin engine, bomber that could carry a 13,228 lb bomb load, but it's numbers were small as it was basically a failure with continual engine failure and structural issues. The Germans never developed them further or increased their numbers for long distance bombing campaigns.

The RAF however developed the Lancaster and from 1942 they formed massive bombing fleets to strike Germany, and the Third Reich generally, had a maximum bomb load of 22,000 lb (equal to the post war Vulcan), but this was reduced to 14,000 when on long distance operations.  1,000 British bomber raids at night, then 1,000 American bomber raids during the day certainly guaranteed the Third Reich was hit hard, although today some revisionist historians pour scorn on this and the morals displayed by the Allies.  I say, to quote Arthur 'Bomber' Harris in 1942 when justifying the mass bombing of Germany, "They [the Germans] sowed the wind; now they reap the whirlwind".  My London East End Grandmother used to say "Too bloody true!".  I will always echo her sentiments.

.

The 1000 bomber raids you refer to were called "maximum effort" and comprised aircraft from every possible place, otu's,, newbie 's and anything that would fly, they were rare, but grabbed the headlines,  dependent on the destination, this would decide the load, normally a mix of He and incendiaries, or a 4000lb cookie and rest incendiaries, to cause maximum damage. If a fuel load of2154  gallons was added, it meant a long trip.   

[omegod]

I dug up an incendiary last year while detecting. I with my daughter so swiftly reburied it, whatever was in it Thermite or Phosphorus was leaking crystals. I've tried to find the bugger a few times since to get it dealt with but just can't bloody find it again  Some of them had an explosive charge in the tip so I will get it dealt with appropriately.....when I find it again 

[Lizzie Zoom]

With a crew loss averaging out at over 44%, with a total for the war of 55,573 British Bomber Command crew lost, it was always a case of Harris using everything he had at the time. Young men, who ended up forming most of the crews, were setting off as newbies and failing to return. This was regular, no matter how big the raid. Those that returned became veterans.

You are right biggriffin, the 1,000 bomber raids were good propaganda and were not for every raid for sure. The lack of craft and crews made sure of that.

Those long distance raids, to say Berlin, often meant Lancasters were stripped of excess equipment, such as armour plating, and given extra fuel tanks as you quote, but still they went with 7 imperial tons of bombs, the most any of the bombers during the European campaign could carry on such missions.

So much effort, and so much loss, but essential in the aim to crush the Nazis 

[BazaJT]

I still believe that for all the effort and all the losses suffered that Harris and his bomber crews were poorly treated at wars end and beyond,with the "firestorm" raids playing quite a large part in this treatment.It's only really now that the "bomber boys" are getting their own dedicated museum in Lincolnshire.

[Lizzie Zoom]

I still believe that for all the effort and all the losses suffered that Harris and his bomber crews were poorly treated at wars end and beyond,with the "firestorm" raids playing quite a large part in this treatment.It's only really now that the "bomber boys" are getting their own dedicated museum in Lincolnshire. The

I agree whole heartedly

No matter what the politics those crews obeyed orders and carried through with some of the bravest acts known during the war. They took off knowing all too keenly that so many of their colleagues had already perished and the chances were they would not return. These were frequently youngsters, aged 19, 20, 21, and at that age being the Captains of their aircraft. The responsibility, with abject fear they must have felt; the knowing that they would probably not see their parents and loved ones in the morning

They all should have been awarded the highest military medals, and the ones that survived campaign medals from the end of WWII.  It was a disgrace they were not so recognised

[biggriffin]

[quote author=Lizzie Zoom link=topic=141884.msg1845227#msg1845227 date



Those long distance raids, to say Berlin, often meant Lancasters were stripped of excess equipment, such as armour plating, and given extra fuel tanks as you quote, but still they went with 7 imperial tons of bombs, the most any of the bombers during the European campaign could carry on such missions.


[/quote]

Lancaster's were only stripped of the limited armour they had, when used to drop the grand slam, centre turrets were also removed, for a trip to the big city(Berlin) they flew as normal, when they bombed the Tirpitz, they flew up to lossiemouth, the bombs were tall boys, over range tanks were fitted, and larger merlin24,, this was the second time Lancaster's were lightened, the first when they flew to arrange archangel, in Russia for the first attempt on Tirpitz.

A brief outline.

[biggriffin]

Whoops, they were first lightened, and heavli modified for the dams raid.

[Rods2]

So they find an uxb in the river near king George dock, (500lb) it's been there 70 years, they evacuated an area of 250m, they are not moving it till tonight,  why not just drag out to middle of the Thames, or up stream a bit and blow it up, 
During the blitz they just carried on.

I know them elf's might get affected.

I think an even better plan would be to drag into the Thames estuary and detonate it in the vicinity of the SS Richard Montgomery. What could possibly go wrong?

[ronnyd]

I know where the UXBs are in Brackley......

Ron.

Think the UXB at Brakkers went off a long time ago. 

[Lizzie Zoom]

[quote author=Lizzie Zoom link=topic=141884.msg1845227#msg1845227 date



Those long distance raids, to say Berlin, often meant Lancasters were stripped of excess equipment, such as armour plating, and given extra fuel tanks as you quote, but still they went with 7 imperial tons of bombs, the most any of the bombers during the European campaign could carry on such missions.

Lancaster's were only stripped of the limited armour they had, when used to drop the grand slam, centre turrets were also removed, for a trip to the big city(Berlin) they flew as normal, when they bombed the Tirpitz, they flew up to lossiemouth, the bombs were tall boys, over range tanks were fitted, and larger merlin24,, this was the second time Lancaster's were lightened, the first when they flew to arrange archangel, in Russia for the first attempt on Tirpitz.

A brief outline.
[/quote]


Thank you

My statement was based on the work of the renowned historian Frederick Taylor and his acclaimed book Dresden Bloomsbury (2005) where on pages 2 & 3 he states "their armour perfunctory to start with - has been further depleted to save weight".  This has made me believe that on these long distance bombing runs this was typical to maintain a good bomb load, in this case 7 tons.

These differences make history so interesting and keep the debates live and on-going