Comments on: The short but glorious reign of the schnellbomber http://www.historicity.org/?p=28 Conversations about world history. Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:47:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: Pic http://www.historicity.org/?p=28#comment-22489 Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:11:21 +0000 http://www.historicity.org/?p=28#comment-22489 I would have to say that the Dehavlin Mosquito bomber out classed any airplane that Germany ever built during WWII(apart from the ME262 which arrived to late to make a difference). It could fly from England to Berlin drop its bombs and nothing could touch it. Out of thousand of sorties during that war only a handfull of casualties occured among its crews. I would have to say that the Dehavlin Mosquito bomber out classed any airplane that Germany ever built during WWII(apart from the ME262 which arrived to late to make a difference). It could fly from England to Berlin drop its bombs and nothing could touch it. Out of thousand of sorties during that war only a handfull of casualties occured among its crews.

]]> by: Andy http://www.historicity.org/?p=28#comment-15 Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:33:15 +0000 http://www.historicity.org/?p=28#comment-15 A quick followup comment, now that Topher's got me thinking about it again: I think that the schnellbombers would have been more successful if they had really been as "schnell" as they were meant to be. Although they were meant to be fast bombers, they were quite a bit slower than the British Spitfire. So you could say that these bombers, while faster than some of the fighters of the day, didn't actually meet the full design goals of the schnellbomber program. Another big issue, which I didn't mention earlier, is the problem of taking tactical aircraft and putting them to use as strategic weapons--a mistake that could be chalked up to the relative newness of the whole concept of combat aviation. A quick followup comment, now that Topher’s got me thinking about it again: I think that the schnellbombers would have been more successful if they had really been as “schnell” as they were meant to be. Although they were meant to be fast bombers, they were quite a bit slower than the British Spitfire. So you could say that these bombers, while faster than some of the fighters of the day, didn’t actually meet the full design goals of the schnellbomber program.

Another big issue, which I didn’t mention earlier, is the problem of taking tactical aircraft and putting them to use as strategic weapons–a mistake that could be chalked up to the relative newness of the whole concept of combat aviation.

]]> by: topher http://www.historicity.org/?p=28#comment-14 Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:31:10 +0000 http://www.historicity.org/?p=28#comment-14 Yes, I agree there. The "no cannon" fiasco made it obvious that the F-4 was barely adequate as a fighter. It worked best as a fighter-bomber. It's interesting to me that as far as I know, the FB-111 was the only plane to get the FB designation, even though they made the F-15 Strike Fighther (which could carry more than a B-17) as a bomber. I suspect that about that time they decided to go with the A (Attack) designation for light fighter/bombers, which gave us the F/A-18. Yes, I agree there. The “no cannon” fiasco made it obvious that the F-4 was barely adequate as a fighter. It worked best as a fighter-bomber.

It’s interesting to me that as far as I know, the FB-111 was the only plane to get the FB designation, even though they made the F-15 Strike Fighther (which could carry more than a B-17) as a bomber.

I suspect that about that time they decided to go with the A (Attack) designation for light fighter/bombers, which gave us the F/A-18.

]]> by: Andy http://www.historicity.org/?p=28#comment-13 Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:17:44 +0000 http://www.historicity.org/?p=28#comment-13 I think you're right, Topher. I think that "very heavy fighters" are the most direct descendant of the schnellbomber idea. I'd say the F-4 might be another good example along with the ones you mention. I think you’re right, Topher. I think that “very heavy fighters” are the most direct descendant of the schnellbomber idea. I’d say the F-4 might be another good example along with the ones you mention.

]]> by: topher http://www.historicity.org/?p=28#comment-12 Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:03:31 +0000 http://www.historicity.org/?p=28#comment-12 While I have a fair amount of WW2 aircraft knowledge, the majority of what I know is about the Jet Era, through about 1990. I never really thought about it until I read this post, but the idea of the schnellbomber continued and flourished. The British made the Canberra, and the US came up with the F-105. Niether were *stellar* fighters, but quite a few 105 pilots became aces in theirs, which is no mean feat for a light bomber. Or very heavy fighter if you will. The F-111 was originally intended to be a Navy fighter/bomber. They wanted a swing-wing aircraft that had long range capabilities and could drop bombs if needs be. It turned out to be too big for the carriers so they went with F-14's and F-18's instead, and the Air Force bought them as light bombers. But they still had an internal cannon for air to air combat. While I have a fair amount of WW2 aircraft knowledge, the majority of what I know is about the Jet Era, through about 1990.

I never really thought about it until I read this post, but the idea of the schnellbomber continued and flourished. The British made the Canberra, and the US came up with the F-105. Niether were *stellar* fighters, but quite a few 105 pilots became aces in theirs, which is no mean feat for a light bomber. Or very heavy fighter if you will.

The F-111 was originally intended to be a Navy fighter/bomber. They wanted a swing-wing aircraft that had long range capabilities and could drop bombs if needs be. It turned out to be too big for the carriers so they went with F-14’s and F-18’s instead, and the Air Force bought them as light bombers. But they still had an internal cannon for air to air combat.

]]>