Longrange Fighter Bombers as an alternative to WWII Strategic Bombers

hammo1j

Donor
Strategic bombing has been criticised as being too inaccurate to warrant the effort. Until 1944 Bomber Command operating by night improved accuracy in the D-Day preparations, but returned to area bombing. USAAF daylight operations had some degree of accuracy but without a fighter escort were picked off by the Luftwaffe and the real battle was the destruction of the Luftwaffe by escort fighters to allow total air superiority on D-Day. Indeed, bad weather meant lots of the USAAF daylight bombing was as inaccurate as the RAF at night as both used radar.

There have been many tomes about the wasted effort of inaccurate bombing from 20 to 27, 000 feet, but none have suggested an alternative, so here is my proposal completely open to argument or refutal.

What if the Allies replaced their fleets of 4 engined heavies with heavy long ranged fighter bombers (LRFB). The P47 would be the model. 2,000 hp + radial engine able to absorb damage. Turbo supercharger to allow the transit and exit of the plane at 25,000 feet above the 88mm flak. The plane would be armed with 8*.50 or 4 * 20mm. Bombload would be in the order of 2,000 to 3,000 pounds, nothing to the heavies, but it would be delivered accurately.

The LRFB's would travel to the target at low or high level. Critically for accuracy they would operate in daylight from dusk to dawn. They would descend to low level where they would attack their target (military or industrial) in groups of 50 or 60. As many as 1,500 planes would be send out to 30 or so targets during the day splitting the defenses.

Low level dropping would ensure accuracy, but more important the planes would be able to defend themselves on the return journey, drawing up the Luftwaffe to defend their homeland.

Would this be a viable strategy or would the low level flak and the Luftwaffe over the long journey prove more leathal than for the heavy flak for the OTL heavy bombers?

Are there any other strategies that could be employed to replace the heavy bombers?

I look forward to your opinions.
 
Last edited:

CV12Hornet

How are you getting enough range on this aircraft without sacrificing performance? Take the P-47N as an example. As a fighter it has a combat radius of 800 nautical miles. As a fighter-bomber it has a combat radius of 463. The former allows you to fly anywhere in Germany from England; the latter won't get you much far east Stuttgart or Hanover.
 

andys

I'd suggest the Mosquito also be used in this role. Almost as fast, longer ranged and a bigger bomb load. The Mosquito can make it to Berlin.
 
Last edited:

CV12Hornet

andys said:
I'd suggest the Mosquito also be used in this role. Almost as fast, longer ranged and a bigger bomb load.
Click to expand...
The Mosquito is less efficient in delivering bombs on targets, whether it's in terms of manpower or scarce resources like Merlin engines.
 

Naval Aviation Fan

hammo1j said:
Snip
Click to expand...
I would ask right off the bat, what time frame are you looking at for your proposition? You say, "Replace their fleets of 4 engined heavy bombers...", but does that mean they were never made in the first place? Or that, later on in the war, they stopped building the heavies, and switched production over to mass-Juggs?
 

jsb

CV12Hornet said:
The Mosquito is less efficient in delivering bombs on targets, whether it's in terms of manpower or scarce resources like Merlin engines.
Click to expand...
Does this not depend on the loss rate? ie it's worse if they get shot down at the same rate, but since they might survive for more missions, it's not that clear?
 

spkaca

jsb said:
Does this not depend on the loss rate? ie it's worse if they get shot down at the same rate, but since they might survive for more missions, it's not that clear?
Click to expand...
Hasn't somebody crunched the numbers on this? The Mosquito had roughly one-third the bomb-load, but only 2 crew against 7 for the heavies, and a loss rate about one-third that of the heavies. I see it as: by relying on speed instead of defensive guns, the Mosquito foreshadowed Cold War bomber design concepts.
 

RanulfC

The question would actually be why does the 'doctrine' change and when? As of the 30s 'strategic' bombing was a two-fold concept that said that high altitude bombers didn't need escorts and that likewise such high attitude bombing was 'good-enough' to be of strategic value. All through WWII this was pretty much accepted world wide and few nations actually concentrated on 'accuracy' over range and bomb load.

Specifically early on this got boiled down to either not caring about how accurate you could be, (swarms of heavy bombers flying wingtip-to-wingtip flattening one city at a time till the enemy cries uncle) or flying low enough to bomb accurately (B-29's in Japan) and accepting the losses. For the mission an actual bomber makes all sorts of sense over any fighter bomber given the same criteria.

Randy
 

eltf177

My guess is heavies are going to exist so what OP wants is fewer of them and more FB's or lighter bombers.

Personally light flak will be a killer, and with more aircraft down low that means more 88's make it to the Eastern Front where they are desparately needed to stop the Soviet T-34's and KV-1's.
 

CV12Hornet

jsb said:
Does this not depend on the loss rate? ie it's worse if they get shot down at the same rate, but since they might survive for more missions, it's not that clear?
Click to expand...
Potentially, though the fact that Mosquitos are now taking the brunt of German air defenses further muddies the issue. As does the fact that the heavy bombers, despite their losses, were taking a serious toll on German fighter strength on their own. The 8th Air Force was trading 1:1 in airframes, which is obviously no bueno when you're trading 4-engine heavy bombers for single-engine fighters, but you get my point.
 
Last edited:

Peg Leg Pom

RanulfC said:
The question would actually be why does the 'doctrine' change and when? As of the 30s 'strategic' bombing was a two-fold concept that said that high altitude bombers didn't need escorts and that likewise such high attitude bombing was 'good-enough' to be of strategic value. All through WWII this was pretty much accepted world wide and few nations actually concentrated on 'accuracy' over range and bomb load.

Specifically early on this got boiled down to either not caring about how accurate you could be, (swarms of heavy bombers flying wingtip-to-wingtip flattening one city at a time till the enemy cries uncle) or flying low enough to bomb accurately (B-29's in Japan) and accepting the losses. For the mission an actual bomber makes all sorts of sense over any fighter bomber given the same criteria.

Randy
Click to expand...
The only reason I can think of would be a prewar ban on multi engine bombers so doctrine changes to take this into account.
 

CV12Hornet

For the record, the closest match you're going to find to this notional long-range fighter-bomber is the Boeing XF8B. And that's dependent on late-war technology, in particular the Wasp Major engine.
 
Not James Stockdale

Not James Stockdale

The real alternative to the four-engine strategic bombers would be twin-engine fast bombers like the Mosquito or Ju-88. Single-engine aircraft at the time just couldn't match the necessary range with a useful payload. Even then, switching from heavy bombers to fast interdictors really only makes sense if you are doing so to shift production resources from the air offensive to, for example, ground forces or landing craft.
 

GuildedAgeNostalgia

Perhaps a Zeppelin with a high enough altitude to avoid getting shot down by flack could carry 2/3 dive bombers and release them right before reaching the target, that way the dive bombers only needs to carry enough fuel for the return trip.
 
Not James Stockdale

Not James Stockdale

GuildedAgeNostalgia said:
Perhaps a Zeppelin with a high enough altitude to avoid getting shot down by flack could carry 2/3 dive bombers and release them right before reaching the target, that way the dive bombers only needs to carry enough fuel for the return trip.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, that's going to be an arms race that high altitude airplanes win. The payload of a lighter than air aircraft depends on the difference in density between the ambient air and the lifting gas. As you go higher, into thinner air, the density difference decreases and you need an increasingly large zeppelin to carry the same weight.
 

Belisarius II

I would argue that the strategic bomber offensive was well worth it's high costs in men, and material. The damage it did to Axis war production, and the overall economy was staggering, and could never have been achieved by light bombers, or fighter bombers. The manpower, industrial, and technological resources devoted to air defense was a huge assist to the ground war, on all fronts. Without the anti aircraft guns needed in Germany the anti tank strength on the Eastern Front would've been nearly doubled. Without the German Fighter force being pulled back into Germany they may not have lost air control on the Eastern Front.

The contribution of aircraft like the Mosquito, A-20, A-26, B-25, B-26, Typhoon, and Thunderbolt in close support, and interdiction roles made a huge contribution to victory, but the heavy bombers had an equally critical role to play on the strategic level. In term's of bringing the war home to the Germans, and Japanese only the heavies could really do that. Only the B-29 could have devastated Japan, from the Mariana Islands, and delivered the Atom Bomb.

The decision to engage in strategic bombing didn't deprive the tactical air forces of the aircraft they needed. The Anglo/American aviation industry was able to provide for both, while the Axis Powers couldn't. By mid 1943 Operation Pointblank forced Germany onto the permanent strategic defensive, and put the Luftwaffe into a death spiral. Not even jet fighters, and V weapons could prevent their cities, industrial base, and transportation networks from being devastated.
 

CB13

A couple of thoughts:
1. Even a large fighter bomber would have payload-range tradeoffs. There's just no replacement for size if you need to reach distant targets with a meaningful payload.
2. If you were going to pursue this hypothesis, I do think you need at least twin engines. So something like a Beaufighter or Lightning with radial engines.
3. But even with aircraft that size you're still guaranteed to have range issues and there would be a set of targets that could only be reached by 4-engine heavies....so what that means is that your new Twin-Engine Fighter Bombers would in effect replace your Twin-Engine Tactical Bombers, not the 4-Engine Heavies per your original hypothesis.
4. Within effective range you also have to realistic about what your weapons fit/payload could effectively damage. Heavy industry like steel are probably almost immune. For those you likely still need the firebombing to damage the temper of the precision machine tooling. For cannons/HMG's and light bombs I would think you would want to target petroleum (as refineries require pressure and are flammable), barges, trains and air fields....as well as any known supply-laden roads. Other than that, I think your losses for low-level attacks might not justify the damage you could inflict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top