# B-29 REMOTE CONTROL GUNNERY SYSTEM



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Aug 30, 2007)

OK, here’s a question ref the B-29’s gunnery system. Does anyone know why, alone among the gunners, the tail position couldn’t be allocated control of any of the other turrets?

It seems strange that the most effective sighting position (ie the tail) couldn’t be allocated control of the lower rear turret, especially as the waist gunners could be allocated control of the tail guns. I can understand why the tail position might not be given the rear upper turret due to arc of fire constraints caused by the tailplane and fin – it probably wouldn’t be usable over a large degree of the tail gunner’s cone of engagement - but I would have thought that the lower rear turret would have provided a welcome addition to the tail gunner’s weight of fire.

While on the subject, when the 20mm cannon was removed (Due to trajectory/reliability problems), why wasn’t it routinely replaced by another 0.5 calibre? I understand that this was done on some B-29Bs, so the engineering fix was available. Anyone with any knowledge or comment on the subject?


----------



## Micdrow (Aug 30, 2007)

You might want to check out this thread. There is also some manuals in the thread if I rember right on weapons system.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ot...s-tech/b-29-engineering-flight-book-8691.html


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 30, 2007)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> OK, here’s a question ref the B-29’s gunnery system. Does anyone know why, alone among the gunners, the tail position couldn’t be allocated control of any of the other turrets?
> 
> It seems strange that the most effective sighting position (ie the tail) couldn’t be allocated control of the lower rear turret, especially as the waist gunners could be allocated control of the tail guns. I can understand why the tail position might not be given the rear upper turret due to arc of fire constraints caused by the tailplane and fin – it probably wouldn’t be usable over a large degree of the tail gunner’s cone of engagement - but I would have thought that the lower rear turret would have provided a welcome addition to the tail gunner’s weight of fire.



I believe it could; I don't have the book in front of me, but I read that the tail gunner could actually control all three turrets (upper rear turret, lower rear turret, and tail gun), if necessary. It just depended on where the attack(s) was coming from.

Also, I believe the upper rear turret automatically stopped firing when it was aimed anywhere near the vertical stabilizer.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 31, 2007)

Okay, I stand corrected; here is the book I was thinking of. According to the schematic, the tail gunner did not have control of the upper turret at any time, only the lower turret; which makes sense, because he probably wouldn't be able to utilize the upper turret most of the time anyway since the vertical stabilizer would be in the way. I will attach the picture as soon as I get my internet issues resolved!


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Aug 31, 2007)

I’m really annoyed with myself now! In the last couple of days I found a really impressive site on the B-29 that had a very good extract of the B-29 gunnery-training manual; it may have even been buried in this site somewhere when I first found it! I thought I had book-marked the site/thread but obviously didn't as I can’t find it now – nor can I find it as I trawl back through my browsing history – it is VERY frustrating! 

In the manual, there was a matrix type diagram showing who could control what turret and the author even stated words to the effect that ‘this extract should resolve all the different stories as who could do what, with what, and when’. Anyway, this matrix seemed to show that tail gunner could only fire his ‘own’ guns and this backed up by a very basic schematic in 2 other references that I have: B-29 Superfortress by John Pimlott and B-29 Superfortress at War by David Anderton. Both these authors state in their text that the tail gunner only had control of his own weapons, hence my question(s). However, I am quite prepared to be corrected - just after the facts, sir, just after the facts!


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Aug 31, 2007)

Found the wretched thing!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

The tail gunner did not have a great line of fire and considering the B-29 fire control system was an optical system, it was probably felt it was not necessary to have the tail gunner control any other guns. Besides he's in the most vulnerable position of the aircraft basically segregated from the rest of the crew.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Aug 31, 2007)

It should be remembered that the tail gun on the B-29B had an APG-15 gun control radar. This S-band conical scan set had the ability to automatically track targets and to provide continuous "range rate" to the fire controls. It would make sense to have this "blind fire" capability direct additional guns that can bear on the target. Looks like the left and right blisters do this coordinating rather than the tail gunner.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 31, 2007)

The following link brings you to a great B29 website.

Join the mailing list and pose your questions right to the airmen who actually used the things or repaired them.

http://b-29.org/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

Here's some more...

A Day in the Life of a Tail Gunner- by Andy Doty


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Aug 31, 2007)

This might be a stupid question, but how is it determined who gets to control which guns? It would seem like everyone would want to control as many guns a possible (or maybe that's just me).


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Aug 31, 2007)

Arr - that's what the Central Fire Control gunner was for: he allocated additional turrets to those gunners that had targets from those that didn't, subject to the limitations of the system. Each sighting position had primary control of one turret and secondary control of another, and (from the table above) the waist sighting positions had tertiary control of another. Very clever and effective system for its day.

I thought Syscom3 would pitch in with something useful - thanks!


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Aug 31, 2007)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> Very clever and effective system for its day.
> 
> I'm impressed with the system. I am a controls engineer and automating processes and writing machine code is what I do for a living. I didn't realize that they had this system but was aware of the analog computer that submarines used to determine firing solutions.
> 
> Was the computing gunsight in the B-29 far and away better than the standard turrets of the day or did human ability still play a role in its effectiveness?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 31, 2007)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Downwind.Maddl-Land said:
> 
> 
> > Very clever and effective system for its day.
> ...


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Aug 31, 2007)

My view is, from what I have read, that it was far, far and away better than the standard turrets of the day. Check out some of the links above for a better understanding. Don't forget this system was designed in '42/3 and used analogue computers to compute parallax, range, lead angle, slew/rate of change, windage and ballistics. Moreover, it provided the basis for the systems used on Bears, Badgers and Bisons too.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 31, 2007)

Marshall_Stack said:


> This might be a stupid question, but how is it determined who gets to control which guns? It would seem like everyone would want to control as many guns a possible (or maybe that's just me).



It depended on what was going on at the time; every gunner had "primary" control of one turret, and "secondary" control of others. If there were no targets in their field of fire, they could turn control of their turret over to another gunner who might have targets in their area.

Okay, finally uploaded the image; here it is:


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Aug 31, 2007)

Did MIG-15s in the Korean War make any differences in the use of the gunsighting computer? They are obviously faster but would that make a difference?


----------



## Udet (Aug 31, 2007)

I have serious doubts this indeed very advanced and expensive system worked the way it was designed to operate.

The B-29s did never face over Japan the type of homeland defence the B-17s and B-24s of the 8th and 9th Air Forces did over Germany and central/east Europe.

For some reason it reminds me of the AA control system on US Navy battleships in the PTO, which was another alleged marvel; it could possibly work when being attacked by only a fistful of enemy planes, but have one of those battleships attacked in the fashion of Yamato during her final sortie, and i am sure the wonder is of little help if any.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Did MIG-15s in the Korean War make any differences in the use of the gunsighting computer? They are obviously faster but would that make a difference?


I posted this earlier but I had an uncle who was a B-29 and B-50 radio operator. He flew during the Korean War in B-29s and later flew ferret missions in the B-50. He told me that he got to play with the turrets on occasion. From what he told me the Mig-15 was harder to track (his own worlds). He also spoke about some radar aiming device that would illuminate red when the target was sighted. It seems this wasn't installed in the B-29 turrets but only in the tail. After some discussion in this forum I was wondering if he got the B-29 and B-50 fire control system confused (I still believe they were very similar). Mind you this discussion was in the early 1990s, the last time I saw him alive. He died in early 2003.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Aug 31, 2007)

Udet said:


> For some reason it reminds me of the AA control system on US Navy battleships in the PTO, which was another alleged marvel; it could possibly work when being attacked by only a fistful of enemy planes, but have one of those battleships attacked in the fashion of Yamato during her final sortie, and i am sure the wonder is of little help if any.



Although it might not be regarded as a "marvel", the radar controlled guns and proximity fuzed shells that the Navy used were better than other AA units.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

Another good sight...

Central Station Fire Control or Remote Control Turret System as used in the B-29, A-26 and the B-50


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

Udet said:


> I have serious doubts this indeed very advanced and expensive system worked the way it was designed to operate.


Not according to those who flew in B-29s and depended on the system - everyone I ever spoke to who flew in B-29s had high regards for the fire control system.


Udet said:


> The B-29s did never face over Japan the type of homeland defence the B-17s and B-24s of the 8th and 9th Air Forces did over Germany and central/east Europe.


True, that for another debate but according to USAAF records XX and XXI bomber command 20th AF claimed over 700 Japanese aircraft destroyed in the air, a good portion of those had to be to the guns of the B-29. Even if one was to half those losses, it's still a great combat record. Remember this?

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/b-29-losses-4429.html


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Aug 31, 2007)

Hi Sod Stitch, yes that’s fundamentally the same schematic that I have seen too, except that the accompanying text says that the tail gunner only has control of his guns. The line running from the waist gunners to the tail should, perhaps, have ‘one way’ arrows on them for clarity. Nonetheless, it seems daft, does it not, that the tail gunner couldn’t utilise the lower rear? Probably down to an accountant wanting to save $2 per airframe!

FlyboyJ, thanks for the valuable inputs; I would have reasoned that if the waist gunners could effectively utilise the tail guns, then the tail guns must have had a respectable field of fire; this is supported by the fact that, post war, only tail guns were retained. I concur the vulnerability of the poor benighted tail gunner! However, I would have thought that, by doubling his firepower the risk to his little pink body would have reduced a tad.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> FlyboyJ, thanks for the valuable inputs; I would have reasoned that if the waist gunners could effectively utilise the tail guns, then the tail guns must have had a respectable field of fire; this is supported by the fact that, post war, only tail guns were retained. I concur the vulnerability of the poor benighted tail gunner! However, I would have thought that, by doubling his firepower the risk to his little pink body would have reduced a tad.


Thanks! - I still think the tail gunner was omitted from the FC system was because he just flat out couldn't see much to the sides of the aircraft. 

BTW I work with a guy who flew in the last of the B-52 with a manned tail. gunner's position - he said in that era the B-52 tail gunner was "the loneliest guy in the Air Force!"


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Aug 31, 2007)

When under stress - Ain't we all, man - ain't we all...........!


----------



## HoHun (Aug 31, 2007)

Hi Stitch,

>Okay, finally uploaded the image; here it is:





[/QUOTE]

Thanks a lot!  I'm on a quest to find and identify all of the B-29 lights, and it looks like picture D shows the tail light below the turret cover hemisphere.

Do you perhaps know the function of the circular hole centrally above the rear gunner's armour glass that's also visible in picture D? For a while, I thought it might be intended for the gun camera, but it seems the gun camera (when present) was mounted above the 20 mm cannon barrel.

(Any photographs showing the position of formation or landing lights would be welcome, by the way ... it's surprisingly hard to find anything!)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 31, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Stitch,
> 
> Do you perhaps know the function of the circular hole centrally above the rear gunner's armour glass that's also visible in picture D? For a while, I thought it might be intended for the gun camera, but it seems the gun camera (when present) was mounted above the 20 mm cannon barrel.
> Regards,
> ...



If I remember correctly, I believe I read somewhere (don't remember where) that it's a rudimentary (i.e.: first-generation) RWR (Radar Warning Receiver).

Also, another interesting thing I read a while back is that the B-29's in Korea shot down more enemy aircraft than the fighters did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Do you perhaps know the function of the circular hole centrally above the rear gunner's armour glass that's also visible in picture D? For a while, I thought it might be intended for the gun camera, but it seems the gun camera (when present) was mounted above the 20 mm cannon barrel.


I believe that was a formation light.

B29 tail turret.jpg: Information from Answers.com


----------



## Udet (Aug 31, 2007)

Flyboy, hello.

Yes, i recall that previous older discussion. But see what we discussed that time, even if they did not face anything comparable to the Reich´s air defence system their losses were nonetheless significant over Japan.

As we commented that time, and also rereading the table you posted there, losses of B-29s if completely bearable were not necessarily low; being more expensive and difficult to produce than B-17s and B-24s is that we know there were not too many B-29s operating over Japan, so it is not daring to affirm an indentical number of B-29s deployed over Europe, facing both Kammhuber line high altitude guns, himmelbett, search lights and Luftwaffe fighter groups, would have endured significantly higher losses.

Please note that my arguments will not dispute the defensive guns of B-29s brought down a number of Japanese interceptors; rather my point will argue on the alleged qualities of the computer controlled system on board the super-fortress.

I would want to assume that if such system had been so wonderful, as it is oftenly depicted, their losses should have been certainly lower than they were, considering both the number of B-29s available and the type of enemy defence confronted; we should not forget that in addition to this defensive system the B-29s had long range escort support commencing during the first days of April, 1945 until the virtual end of the war in the PTO, even if losses of B-29s to Japanese fighters were rare during the last 4-5 months of the war.

Again, look at the table from the other thread Flyboy: 149 B-29s lost ("combat and accident") between May-December 1944. Even if the war could have been already decided for both ETO and PTO by late 1944, i think we will agree Japan was in a far more terrible condition than Germany during the same period, even if i can not tell how many of those 149 were lost to Japanese fighters.

So, again, if the same number of B-29s were to fly over Germany and central/east Europe between May-December 1944, i think of higher losses for sure.

My reasons.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Also, another interesting thing I read a while back is that the B-29's in Korea shot down more enemy aircraft than the fighters did.


Definitely not even close to being true!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

Udet said:


> Flyboy, hello.
> 
> Yes, i recall that previous older discussion. But see what we discussed that time, even if they did not face anything comparable to the Reich´s air defence system their losses were nonetheless significant over Japan.
> 
> ...




Points well taken, but also remember, most B-29 combat losses were due to flak - it took a lot to bring down a B-29 (as we know). There is no doubt in my mind the Luftwaffe would of dealt with the B-29, but it "would of" been a lot tougher...

Also keep in mind had the B-29 been operated in the capacity of the B-17 or B-24, you "would of" had an aircraft carrying twice the bomb load of both mentioned aircraft (points already discussed).


----------



## HoHun (Aug 31, 2007)

Hi Stitch,

>If I remember correctly, I believe I read somewhere (don't remember where) that it's a rudimentary (i.e.: first-generation) RWR (Radar Warning Receiver).

Hm, I think these would have to have some kind of dipole antenna since Japanese radar would probably have used relatively long wavelengths. I admit that I'm not sure if the Japanese actually had any radar-equipped night fighters ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Udet (Aug 31, 2007)

flyboy, i can agree.

Say, is that you on the photo with helmet and oxygen mask?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

Udet said:


> flyboy, i can agree.
> 
> Say, is that you on the photo with helmet and oxygen mask?



Yes, flying a Provost in April...


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 31, 2007)

There is also the fact that B29's that were damaged over Japan still had to fly several hundred miles to Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Sometimes they made it back. Sometimes they didnt. Now if they only had to fly 300-400 miles like that in Europe, many damaged B29's would have made it back, for statistically lower losses.


----------



## HoHun (Aug 31, 2007)

Hi Flyboyj,

>I believe that was a formation light.

Thanks! The photograph you linked again looks different than those I have seen before - it has a bulb-type cover, while all other photographs only show a flat reflective (and probably transparant) panel. So there seem to have been variations (or development steps) - highly interesting but also somewhat confusing 

Do you think the upper or the lower "suspect" is the formation light?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> There is also the fact that B29's that were damaged over Japan still had to fly several hundred miles to Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Sometimes they made it back. Sometimes they didnt. Now if they only had to fly 300-400 miles like that in Europe, many damaged B29's would have made it back, for statistically lower losses.



AGREE!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >I believe that was a formation light.
> 
> ...




I actually believe both of them are -I even seen a drawing somewhere that shows 3 lights right above the tail gunner's windshield.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 31, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Definitely not even close to being true!



It would seem you are correct; like I said, I can't remember where I read that (old age does that to you!), but after doing some research, apparently B-29 gunners were only credited with 27 air-to-air kills. I'm guessing the total number of enemy aircraft shot down by all other types far exceeds that total. I'll have to try and find that misleading reference again.

I found this; that circle above the gunners position is, indeed, a formation light:






P.S. Found a pretty good site for B-29 details (if y'all don't already know about it, that is!): The 330th Bomb Group


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Aug 31, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes, flying a Provost in April...



Hi Flyboyj...
Do you have the serial number of that Provost ?
sorry this is off topic,but I might have a photo of it or have seen it..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2007)

CRASHGATE3 said:


> Hi Flyboyj...
> Do you have the serial number of that Provost ?
> sorry this is off topic,but I might have a photo of it or have seen it..



XW435, registered here in the states as N4XW.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Aug 31, 2007)

Thanx....
I will look through my pix....


----------



## JoeB (Aug 31, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> It would seem you are correct; like I said, I can't remember where I read that (old age does that to you!), but after doing some research, apparently B-29 gunners were only credited with 27 air-to-air kills. I'm guessing the total number of enemy aircraft shot down by all other types far exceeds that total. I'll have to try and find that misleading reference again.


27 destroyed credits to B-29's in Korea, right v. almost 800 credited to F-86's. B-29's were credited with more than any plane *besides* the F-86. But as we discussed on 'gunner kills' thread, victory credits to bombers typically exceeded enemy losses by much more than fighter credits of the same air arm at the same time. It was more difficult to weed out duplications, and the bomber couldn't follow its fighter target to destruction so more estimating was needed; but morale was a factor weighing against being too strict about crediting gunners with victories. Anyway I studied B-29 v MiG-15 engagements closely, found the 'MiG' and US accounts of pretty much all of them (almos all v Soviet AF MiG's), and B-29's seem to have really downed 3 or 4 MiG's, and strangely 2 of the sure kills were *not* credited at the time. That's a much lower accuracy rate than fighter claims so B-29's didn't even actually shoot down the second most enemy a/c in Korea, F-80's did. MiG-15's destroyed 20 B-29/RB-29 in Korea counting planes written off from MiG damage, possibly one other writeoff and another RB-29 of the 91st SRS, which lost a/c over Korea, also lost one near the USSR to MiG-15's in 1952. The B-29's gun system, state of art in 1945, could not cope with swept wing jet targets.

In WWII 74 B-29 losses were attributed to fighters, 54 to AAA, and 19 to a combination. The reason losses were considered barely sustainable as of early 1945, was heavy operational losses in addition: long range with no emergency field until Iwo Jima was captured, and the B-29 was still a buggy airplane. B-29's were credited with 914 Japanese fighters destroyed. The accuracy ratio of those credits appears to be somewhat higher than in Korea, perhaps 1/4-1/3 that many enemy planes were actually downed. More than a few rammed, so those 'kills' are without doubt, though usually resulted in the B-29's loss as well. 

The ratio of credited victories to losses due to fighters in WWII was much (around 3 times) higher for the B-29 than the B-17/24 in ETO.

Joe


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Sep 2, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Here's some more...
> 
> A Day in the Life of a Tail Gunner- by Andy Doty



Thanks for that FBJ, it was a very fascinating read


----------



## delcyros (Sep 2, 2007)

I am personally not convinced that experiences from the PTO service of B-29 can be extrapolated to europe, particularely the latter part, say from feb. 45 to august 45.

Tactics were simply to different there. In order to allow precise bombardement, the B-29 had to fly comparably low for most of the mission, something which was eased by the airspace condition (approach to and return from destiny was over empty ocean and not enemy (better: contested) airspace. The remote gunnery system usually was removed from the B-29 A and -B during this period, leaving the tail guns only. Another important tactical difference lies in the formation flying. Over Japan, there wasn´t exactly any kind of a tight formation flying with single or pairs of B-29 operating independently, this was forced by the long range requirement (air assembly of large formations is a long lasting and fuel gulping task). 

Things in europe would differ greatly:

1.) It is not reasonable that B-29 would operate at low altitude as they did in Japan. That would be negative here over contested airspace (lots of Flak, too.) and it isn´t necessary due to the generally shorter ranges.

2.) It is not reasonable with the tight AAA concentration and the proposed Luftwaffe interceptor capabilities (both night and day) that the B-29 would remove their remote gunnery system.

3.) The higher range tolerances would allow the assembly of large formations prior to entering contested airspace at least in daylight operations (open formations would remain in night sorties).

These differences will have both, tactical and logistical consequences:

A1.) The formations, flying higher and equipped better will become increasingly difficult to attack with means of conventional airplanes, esspeccially LW nightfighters (barring the few Ju-388J) and old 8.8cm AAA, thus the number of losses should be expected to proportionally reduce compared to B-17/B-24 raids.

A2.) As a direct reaction to A1.) - we would have to admit the possibility that the Luftwaffe transformes it´s bomber hunter Fw-190 groups into bomber hunter Me-262 groups more rapidly than historically. It is also reasonable that the AAA concentrates their advanced 8.8cm Flak 41 over key targets as we would expect means to extend their effective AAA ceiling. I even wouldn´t rule out that the high altitude mission profile of the B-29 would force the mass production of SAM, which was rejected in exactly this timeframe. None of these countermeasures would develop a notable effect until april 45 but they would give an uncomfortable prospect to future operations. 

B1.) The number of B-29 accidents would increase substantially compared to B-17/B-24 raids (conditions comparable to the early, say 1944 period of the B-29 operations vs. Japan), mostly due to engine overheating problems.

B2.) As a direct result to B1.) adaequate cooling techniques would be developed as they were historically.

C1.) The high altitude mission envelope would confront the bombing crews with the jet stream, making navigational issues more problematic and precise bombardements more a matter of luck than anything else (this problem was encountered over Japan, too and was adressed with the low altitude mission profile, which followed from feb. 45 onwards).

C2.) As a direct result of C1.) the altitude mission profile would have been lowered somehow, but not as deep as it was done over japan. A normal high altitude mission profile (at around 20.000-25.000 ft.) would have been accepted for the bombing run.


It can go different ways but I suspect that fractionally more B-29 would return than B-24/B-17 for each given mission.
The Luftwaffe interceptor capabilities for the timeframe in question are a bit overstated - little would change. The Fw-190 Sturmgruppen are to slow and couldn´t operate high enough to play a role while the Me-262 could still get in for the shot. I expect that most high altitude interceptions indeed would result from the jets say from mid feb. 45 onwards with little change to historical loss ratios which were low for the bombers and high for the interceptors in this timeframe!


----------



## Udet (Sep 2, 2007)

Delcyros:

Well it is reasonable to assume your response was to a significant degree aimed at my previous comments where i stated the if the B-29s would have had to operate in the ETO, then their losses would have been certainly larger.

As you might have read, i made no mention of any particular Luftwaffe fighter as potential weapon to cause B-29 losses to increase if compared to losses known for the PTO experience.

I agree with almost everything you said, and i believe your comments validate mine: in the ETO/MTO the B-29s would have faced a far more capable enemy in terms of air defence systems.

With this i did not suggest the Luftwaffe was in 1945 in such position to effectively defeat B-29 formations, focusing the idea only on higher losses inflicted to the superfortresses if we keep in mind losses the Japs proved capable to inflict.

I do not see any reason to have the B-29s flying over Europe in a fashion different to that of the streams of B-17s and B-24s. Of course they will fly bombing runs with the tactics previously adopted in the case of the other types of heavy bombers.


Not entirely sure if the Fw 190 A-8/R8´s were "too slow" to counter the menace posed by the B-29s though, but as i said, i made no specific reference to any type of German craft eventually displayed to intercept them...but implied or covered in my comments was your observation: the Me 262 was already operational and the necessary tactical adjustements would surely have been made in the Luftwaffe to deploy them accordingly; their degree of success i would not know, but again, only higher losses of B-29s when seeing the PTO case.

More importantly and going back to the computer controlled defensive gunnery system of the B-29, it could have been precisely over Europe where the true worth of such equipment could be put to test. Being so complex and new, and based on the experiences of both sides with regard to new sophisticated systems used in combat, it is my belief the results would not have been so succesful.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2007)

Gentlemen, while there is validity in many of your statements, there is nothing indicating anywhere at anytime that the B-29's firecontrol system worked less than as advertised, but to hypothesize about the aircraft being used in the ETO, I would say there would of been more issues with the propulsion system than anything else....


----------



## JoeB (Sep 2, 2007)

JoeB said:


> B-29's were credited with 914 Japanese fighters destroyed. The accuracy ratio of those credits appears to be somewhat higher than in Korea, perhaps 1/4-1/3 that many enemy planes were actually downed. More than a few rammed, so those 'kills' are without doubt, though usually resulted in the B-29's loss as well.



Here's a more specific example of WWII B-29 claim accuracy. Henry Sakaida in "B-29 Hunters of the JAAF" describes from both sides ten different B-29 raids, one over Manchuria and the rest over Japan, prior to the switchover to night raids in March 1945. Later on B-29's flew more day raids, but let's take the example of before the night raids, where there's no deconfliction issue with US fighter claims over Japan at the same time. I filled in some details of victories credited to the B-29's from Rust "20th Air Force Story" where Sakaida didn't give them.

To summarize the B-29's were credited with 214 Japanese fighters destroyed in those raids (with many more 'probable' and 'damaged'). Sakaida gives combined JAAF and JNAF fighter losses adding by my count to 51, so 24% claim accuracy. However in a few of those cases the JNAF participated or may have and its losses aren't known, and at least one case he gives JAAF pilot KIA's not plane losses. So the actual % is probably a bit higher, but doesn't seem likely to have exceeded 1/3. And again, one feature of these missions was lots of ramming by the Japanese, accounting for most of the B-29 and fighter losses. It doesn't mean necessarily the claim accuracy % would be much lower without it, surely fighters which had rammed and were falling in flames were often credited to a gunner or several gunners inadvertently, so the claims would probably have been lower without those planes seen falling. One aside is that the B-29s' bombs destroyed 87 (per Sakaida, some other sources quote a bit lower) Type 4 Fighters, Ki-84 Hayate or "Frank" on Nakajima's assembly line at Ota on one of those raids, Feb 10 '45. It was almost surely the greatest single destruction of fighters by B-29's in one action.

Joe


----------

