# B-29s over Germany



## Marshall_Stack (May 16, 2006)

How do you think the B-29 would have fared if used in the European theater?


----------



## Twitch (May 16, 2006)

I personally believe the B-29 would have done excellent in all ways.

Hey I grew up in St. Louis- Cleveland High on the south side.....


----------



## Marshall_Stack (May 16, 2006)

Twitch,

If you mean Cleveland High School (if there is such a thing), then you are definitely from St. Louis (since that is the first question people ask). I grew up in North County and now live in Ballwin. I don't know why you would leave St. Louis for L.A. :-'


----------



## syscom3 (May 16, 2006)

I think the B29 would have been far harder to bring down than the B17, plus it could dish out more punishment to the Luftwaffe.

But in the end, the German "Wild Boar" tactics would take their toll.


----------



## Erich (May 16, 2006)

wild boar tactics ? that is just night fighting which was fazed out in spring of 44. No doubt the B-29 turrets would not have been able to catch the Me 262 and also the R4M would of taken a terrible toll of which they did of US 8th and 15th heavies


----------



## Udet (May 16, 2006)

The crews manning a formation of B-29s caught by the Bf 109 G-6/R6s of JG 1 and JG 11 covering the northern territory of Germany or by elements of either IV.(sturm)/JG 3 or II.(sturm)/ JG 300 would have had the same ultra violent death airmen manning B-17s and B-24s endured during 1944.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2006)

I believe only later Luftwaffe fighters (Ta-152, Me-262, etc.) would of been the only ones delivering a decent challenge to the B-29. The Bf 109 G-6/R6 was an excellent bomber killer but over 25,000 feet with an aircraft that delivered it's bombs 100 mph faster and had a top speed 60-70 mph faster than the B-17 I doubt it could sustain a prolonged effective intercepts..

While there would of been canage on both side, those bombers that did get through were delivering and extra 12,000 pounds of bombs on to Germany - I think the out come would of been the same....


----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2006)

Udet, you forget a couple of things.

1) The B29's flew nearly 100 mph faster than the B17's and B24's. The German fighters would have a tougher time intercepting them.

2) While the fire control system of the B29 was not perfect, it was effective. If the fighters were going to get within the range of the .50's, they were going to get hit. Moreover, head on attacks would have some reduced effectiveness just from the hi closing rates.

3) While no bomber is invulnerable, the B29 was one strong airframe. If taking down the B17 took some effort, taking out the B29 would require even more.


----------



## Gnomey (May 17, 2006)

While I agree with your comments syscom, I would also agree with Erich and FBJ in that the B-29 would of suffered casualties (higher than the Japan raids) and it would of still been as stressful as it was the B-17 and B-24 crews, however with the extra tonnage being dropped by each plane they would of still been effective.


----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2006)

No doubt the Germans would have found the right type of fighter to take down the B29.

And yes, they would have inflicted some punishment on the B29's.

But in another sense, the B29 was an example of the allies upping the "ante" in the bomber offensive which was straining the Luftwaffe to keep up. An airplane this big would require some fighters carrying heavy cannons, which probably would be hard pressed to defend and maneuver to safety if allied fighters came around.

I would think the B29 with its complex avioncs would be a perfect night time bomber.


----------



## Twitch (May 17, 2006)

30 mms would bring down the B-29 just like they did all other heavies. It would simply take a few extra hits to do it from a gun platform capable of intercept at 33,000 feet. The original question of how B-29 would have fared would be easily answered by saying they would have done no worse than B-24/B-17s and probaly somewhat better. Simple.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2006)

Twitch said:


> 30 mms would bring down the B-29 just like they did all other heavies. It would simply take a few extra hits to do it from a gun platform capable of intercept at 33,000 feet. The original question of how B-29 would have fared would be easily answered by saying they would have done no worse than B-24/B-17s and probaly somewhat better. Simple.


Agree...


----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2006)

Didnt the 30mm cannons of the axis powers have some low muzzle velocities? A hit by one would cause damage, but if they have to get in close, then the .50's from the -29's would be in range.

I would say that a single B29 flying alone would be vulnerable, a B29 squadron quite dangerous to attack, a B29 group/wing as almost suicidal to attack, and any number of B29's escorted by fighters as being invulnerable.


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2006)

The Japs with aricraft that were nowhere nearly as well armed or effective as the Germans did quite well destroying a number of B29's. So to describe them as invulnerable is a little on the optamistic side.

I agree that the B29's would have doen a lot better than the B17/B24 but there are other factors that would assist. The B29's could fly higher making them more difficult to get at, plus they also flew faster making them more difficult to intercept in the first place. They were of course better defended, as to being more robust than a B17, I doubt that but the B17 was by common agreement the most robust Heavy Bomber so I don't consider that a slight of any kind.


----------



## timshatz (May 17, 2006)

Good posts.


----------



## Erich (May 17, 2006)

what-if of course, but most likely the production of higher altitude and faster prop job Ta 152H's would of been online including R4M's under thier wings . . . things would of been quite interesting above 30,000 feet


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2006)

And even though we're speaking "What If," the plan was to have the B-32 in the ETO had the war gone on (I know, we've discussed this before in detail)...


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 17, 2006)

Glider said:


> The Japs with aricraft that were nowhere nearly as well armed or effective as the Germans did quite well destroying a number of B29's. So to describe them as invulnerable is a little on the optamistic side.
> 
> I agree that the B29's would have doen a lot better than the B17/B24 but there are other factors that would assist. The B29's could fly higher making them more difficult to get at, plus they also flew faster making them more difficult to intercept in the first place. They were of course better defended, as to being more robust than a B17, I doubt that but the B17 was by common agreement the most robust Heavy Bomber so I don't consider that a slight of any kind.



I fully agree. Not that anyone cares.


----------



## Twitch (May 18, 2006)

Erich is right. Since it's a "what if" scenario anyhow rockets would have been used. The R4Ms were actually in the hands of some squadrons at the end although none were used.

As for ballistics of the 30 mm rounds- the 330 gram Mk 103 traveled at 860 meters per second, the 312 gram Mk 108 @ 505 m/s while the 20 mm MG 151's muzzle velocity was 800 m/s using a 92 gram and 705 m/s with a 115 gram shell. The MG 151's ballistics was not as "fast" as the Hispano Mk V 20 mm which launched a 130 gram projectile at 840 m/s.


----------



## davparlr (May 18, 2006)

The B-29 would obviously have been effective against Germany as were the B-17s and 24s. They would have needed the same protection. Without it there losses would have been high but not as high as the B-17/24s. Damage to Germany would have been significantly greater. The Me 262 would be effective against them. B-29s were chased from the daytime skys of Korea by the Mig 15.

I did read of an encounter between a B-29 and a P-61. The B-29 crew had a abandoned the plane and the P-61 was assigned to shoot it down. They practically had to empty their guns (including 20mm) before the B-29 came down. And, it was not shooting back! Sounds like it was a pretty tough bird.


----------



## Erich (May 18, 2006)

sounds like the P-61 crew sucked big-time !

yes R4M's and a successor would of been developed had the war continued. The TA 152H was enough to take out the B-29. R4M's were first used on ops March 18, 45 with III./JG 7. What a horror story it was for the B-17 formations as they thought that half of the 18 plus losses were due to 8.8cm Flak. Many fortress crews did not even know what hit them. Soon after this date I./JG 7 was equipped and later JV 44 with R4M useage against the 9th AF B-26's


----------



## Udet (May 22, 2006)

I really fail to see why is it the B-29 would have surpassed the performance record of the B-17 or B-24 in Europe.

Because it was faster than the two heavies the USAAF deployed in the ETO? Because it flew higher?

Any bomber formation of the allies flying unescorted in 1943-44 and getting intercepted by German fighters is doomed. The B-29 does not have anything that would make it an exception to that rule.

The features of the B-29 are frequently presented in real grandiose terms: 

(i) "It flew very high" (the Germans had planes who could be there to greet the B-29); 

(ii) "It was faster than the B-24 and B-17 (certainly not faster than any German fighter plane of 1944-45 -do not compare it with the German jets for it´d be overkill); 

(iii) "It had a central fire control system" (sounds somewhat exaggerated when one knows of the era, how effective such a system really was? i´ve been told by people fond of the PTO that the actual performance of the system was "nothing impressive" and that problems were not rare), 

(iv) "It had a pressurized cabin" (great when used against a nation that has neither Flak nor air force, or when going through a pleasure flight in skies where no war is being fought; wait for the first 2cm or 3cm shell of a Sturmböck to hit and let´s see what happens when the air escapes from the bomber).

Erich could be of help here: if i recall correctly the Germans had at least two AA guns which had a maximun effective ceiling that would have put the B-29 within comfortable reach right?

The 10.5-cm Flak 38 and the 12.8-cm Flak 40.

Still i believe the B-29 made a fine bomber; "super-bomber"? I do not think so.

I do not believe nor see arguments sound enough that might prove the B-29 would have fared in a much superior fashion if compared with the two other heavies.

If the results of strategic bombing in Europe were in fact to be surpassed by having B-29s instead of the other two models, then marginal is the first word coming into mind.

Cheers!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2006)

I think it would have been better for 3 reasons, the amount of payload would have been increased, overall it was a better bomber (why not use the better bomber), and the threat that it posed with the A-Bomb.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 22, 2006)

The B-29 was the best bomber of them all, but a 262 could still stick it. Of course in just a little while a Gloster might take 'em down. But then its not the B-29's toughness which won the day.


----------



## Glider (May 22, 2006)

Udet
Taking your points
If the B29 flies higher then the flak is less effective reducing your losses.
If the B29 flies faster you reduce the time over the danger area, reducing your losses. It also makes it more difficult to intercept, reducing your losses.
If the 29 is better defended then you again reduce your losses.
I don't think anyone said that they could fly unescorted, they needed escorting over Japan whose air defences were nowhere near as effective as the Germans.
For the above reasons I believe there can be no doubt that the B29 would have been far more effective than the B17/B24 and I haven't mentioned the most obvious reason, the range payload capabilities of the B29 were way ahead of either the B17 or B24


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2006)

> But then its not the B-29's toughness which won the day.



it wasn't even the B-29 that won the day, it was the weapon used, not the means of delivery that won the day..........

and remember the B-29 was not an easy plane to produce, you may be right in saying losses would be lower, but could the losses be sustained? they would be up against some exceptionally formidable german fighters, and it can be assumed that if the war continues to the point where the B-29 is being used over the ETO then the war's gone on longer than it did, the Germans are doing something right, and have already fought off the B-17/B-24 onslaught, so they wouldn't be facing 1945's weaker airforce, would production of the B-17 and B-24 be stopped dead in order to produce the B-29? no, of course not, the other planes were still needed, the kind of large scale production of the B-29 that would be needed over Europe would be a stretch of even the USA's powers..........


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2006)

The Luftwaffe was falling in effectiveness from 1943 to the wars end. If Germany had managed to hold on longer than they did, how many planes were going to be grounded from lack of fuel? How many skilled pilots would have already been killed by Allied escorts? 

The fact of the matter is, the B-29 carried a heavier payload further and faster. It's time over the danger zone was less, it's own defensive power was increased and it's height was increased. Reducing the German air defences considerably, then while escorted by the P-51 it was going to be so much more effective than the B-17 or B-24. The cruising speeds of both the B-29 and P-51 were higher than that of the B-17 or B-24 and flying higher ... both of those things would reduce the interception time, it's not hard to understand.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2006)

The B-29 was harder to build but by 1945 Boeing spooled up it's Wichita plant and Bell was building B-29s in Marietta Georgia, the difficulty of a larger and more complex aircraft was being overcome and by mid 1945 and there was still plenty of resources to supply thousands of B-29s where ever they were needed, and again it was planned to get the B-24 and B-17 out of service and replace them with the B-32. Convair was planning the same production methodology with the B-32 as they did with the B-24.

If anything by late 1945 and early 1946 I think the production capacity of the US would of INCREASED....


----------



## syscom3 (May 22, 2006)

At the peak of production (July 1945), the four B29 plants were cranking out about 375 B29's per month. And consider that was reflective of production planning knowing that they would not be used in the ETO.

It is quite conceivable that another two or three plants could have been brough on line if planned.


----------



## Twitch (May 22, 2006)

I must be on drugs or have too much WW 2 stuff floating around my head. Erich- I was thinking of the X-4 wire guided missile that was just reaching units at the end not the R4M.


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2006)

yes the wire guided X-4's were being field tested not on ops just .......... yet.

A similiar wire guided air to ship bomb had been tested on ops with KG 40 and KG 100 with limited success in 1944


----------



## Udet (May 22, 2006)

Erich, did you see my questions regarding the German AA guns which had the sufficient ceiling to hit whatever thing flew the higher altitudes during the war?


----------



## Erich (May 22, 2006)

Udet yes the 105 and 128mms could reach without problem especially the latter .. . . . .


----------



## Udet (May 22, 2006)

Glider, hello;

Taking your points is that I can tell the following:

(a) I brought the Flak issue to the discussion table in order to attempt illustrating that the "pressurized bomber" feature will be useless once the first enemy shell hits. Think of a single shell fired from a MK 108 in the nose of a Me 262.

Note I did not suggest a single Flak shell hitting a B-29 flying at 40,000 ft will have as a result the destruction of the bomber. However, you bet one single shell of the 12.8 cm Flak 40 gun will put an immediate end to the pressurized feature of the bomber.

Still, depending on where the shell of that particular Flak gun would hit and it could certainly bring a B-29 down as well.

(b) Agreed that if you are faster then time spent over the combat area can certainly get shortened. 

However, how does that change the fact there can be German fighters waiting a formation of B-29s, after having scrambled due to Radar system reports?

(c) The B-29 was better defended Glider? How come? Because of the "central fire control system"? As commented, where is the evidence such a sophisticated system was better than the job carried out by the frenzied gunners on board B-17s and B-24s?

Erich, thanks for the response; after all i was recalling it right.

Cheers!


----------



## Glider (May 22, 2006)

Udet, going with the flow
a) I totally agree that one hit from almost anything would break the pressurisation of the B29, and I wouldn't mind betting that one hit from a 128 will destroy any heavy bomber in the vast majority of cases. Also I do not deny that these guns can reach the altitudes in question, I never have denied it. However, the higher you are the safer you are as accuracy decreases with height and its more difficult to set the fuses. This was one of the reasons why Lancasters were preferred over Halifax's and Lancaster II's for that matter.

b) There is of course nothing to stop the Germans waiting for the bombers at altitude after being warned by radar reports. That said though, it will take longer for the fighters to gain that altitude, giving the escorts more time to intercept them, also at altitude the defending fighters were less effective. 190's would struggle at that altitude and the 109's would have to go with their built in weapons as the extra weight of external guns would cause difficulty at altitude. Me262's would have a huge advantage but were very limited in their operational numbers, plus of course the few 152's. The US could and would have provided considerable numbers of escorts and their fighters were very effective at altitude.
This plus the fact that the B29 would spend less time in the danger zone would result in fewer casualties.

c) Better Defence
The B17G had three turrets plus the rear position and of course the hand operated weapons. The Hand operated guns were largely ineffective giving eight effective weapons. Note the rear position had limited arc of fire so it could be argued that this should be reduced but I am ignoring that.

The B24 had four turrets including the rear and a couple of hand held guns, again giving eight effective weapons.

The B29 had five turrets giving an effective defensive armament of twelve weapons. I am ignoring the 20mm in the rear as it was often taken out or it tended to jam.

So we start off with a 50% increase in the firepower. It was better defended.

Then we look at the other improvements. As to evidence that the modernised fire control system was better than the traditonal system I frankly have no idea, and don't pretend to. I do however think it unlikely that it was worse than the traditional turret so we still have a 50% increase.

My personal view is that it probably was more effective because all armed bombers went for some form of central guidence, even the radar guided turrets in some Lancasters was a centrally controled. In the B29 it also gave flexibility as one gunner could control more than one turret if the situation demanded it.
So to sum up at worst it was a 50% increase in firepower and at best it was a lot better, but it was still an increase.

Even if you disagree with all the above and say it was no better than the B17/B24. The B29 still carried a hell of a lot more bombs a longer distance and therefore, was more effective than either of the others.


----------



## maxs75 (May 22, 2006)

Do You know if some 15th Air Force groups were selected to get B-29 instead of B-17/24? If so, which ones?

Max


----------



## Marshall_Stack (May 23, 2006)

Great discussion. Thanks for all the responses to this thread.

I thought I read (a long time ago) that an Air Force observer flew in a B-17 over Europe to determine if the B-29 was suitable for the European theater and determined that it was too tough. Again, I don't have anything to back this up so this can be taken with a grain of salt.

I asked a museum curator why the B-29s weren't used in the Europe theater. He said that it was too late to be deployed in that theater. I don't believe this since B-29s were bombing Japan from China in 1944.

The other reason I heard (and believe) is that the B-29s were desperately needed in the Pacific where the range needed for operations were greater and that the B-17s / B-24s were getting the job done in Europe.


----------



## syscom3 (May 23, 2006)

Recently I asked the members of the B29 web site about sudden depressurization of the B29. They told me that no B29's that they know of were destroyed by this event. The B29 was designed with catastrophic depressurization in mind and the structure built for its effect.

This question was answered by both aircrews and ground personnel.

Now of course any type of heavy flak hitting the aircraft is going to create a large of ammount of damage, probably with the expectation of catastophic structural failure. But if B29 is outside of the flak detonation blast overpressure zone, and only the fragments hit the structure, then the probability of structural failure due to depressurization is "nil".


----------



## Udet (May 23, 2006)

Mr. syscom3, good morning. How´s coffee?

Note I did not bring the depressurization issue of the B-29 to affirm the sole event of losing cabin pressure should -per se- end in the destruction of the bomber (although it could happen).

What I meant is any enemy shell, whether from Flak or fighter, smashing the structure of the B-29 will put an immediate end to such feature; sure B-29 crews knew their procedure in the event of depressurization but that´s not being dicussed here.

My idea was to suggest that other than mere crew comfort issues, the pressurization feature, as presented on the "B-29 happy feature list" is completely useless once the enemy came out and sank his teeth into it.

Cheers!


----------



## DaveB.inVa (May 23, 2006)

Just a couple quick notes, Im sorta running late and wont be able to write much.

It was standard proceedure with the B-29 to be unpressurized when in any combat area. This is seen in both WWII and Korea.

The CFC system was not perfect but it was pretty good. Ill have to dig around but I know a guy who was involved in its development and he can attest that for an inexperienced or average gunner the CFC was better. He compared it to ABS systems in cars. An awesome driver can out brake an ABS system, but an ABS system can make most crappy or horrible drivers have pretty good braking.

I do also believe it would handle the Me 262. It did fairly well with MiG's in Korea. Im not certain what limits are for the system though... again Ill have to do some research.


----------



## syscom3 (May 23, 2006)

Udet said:


> My idea was to suggest that other than mere crew comfort issues, the pressurization feature, as presented on the "B-29 happy feature list" is completely useless once the enemy came out and sank his teeth into it.
> Cheers!



The crew pressurization design came about for very specific reasons that the AAF thought was important. A pressurized design of an airplane that large add's a lot to its complexity and cost, so it wasnt some drunken bird colonel deciding in the officers club that "by god, if I am going to fly at 30,000 ft, then im going to do it in comfort".

The unpressurized B17's and B24's were hard on the crews and the pressurized cabins greatly increased their efficiency.

And remember the B29 had three seperate pressure cabins. A loss of pressurization in one did not impact the others. Plus, unless large chunks of the skin were blown out, then the depressurization was a slow event, and might not even be noticed.


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2006)

In any event it was going to be a turkey shoot for the few Ta-152's and Me-262's intercepting the B-29's, cause at the altitudes at which the B-29 was to be flying the P-51's and P-47's weren't very efficient escort, as they would've been unable to engage the much faster German fighters. The Me262's could be set to pound the bombers while the Ta-152's would be slaughtering the poor lads trying to defend the bombers, and there wasn't much the allies could do about that as they didn't have anything that could effectively counter Me262 and Ta-152 at those altitudes.

So if you ask me, it was wise to use the B-29 over Japan as they did, as the Jap's didn't have anything which could really counter it, but over Germany it would be much wiser to stick with the old B-17 and B-24, as they could be reasonably well protected, the B-29 couldn't. 

And syscom3, you talk about a slow depressurization in the event of a hit, something which might be the case if the breach was the size of a rifle projectile, it just so happens that the intercepting German fighters would be firing cannon shells at the darn thing  

A single 30mm hit to the cockpit area and I personally wouldn't like to be inside that B-29, cause that would not just mean a truly painful experience physically, it would also mean that I was gonna have to get out of that plane, and QUICK ! Cause that hole will only get larger, and get larger FAST! 

Infact a hit by a 30mm "M"Geschoss at anyone of the B-29's three pressurized compartments would be tragic for the crew, cause a split-second depressurization was sure to follow, something which will more than triple the effect of the 30mm round, causing a massive explosion indeed.


----------



## syscom3 (May 23, 2006)

Soren said:


> In any event it was going to be a turkey shoot for the few Ta-152's and Me-262's intercepting the B-29's, cause at the altitudes at which the B-29 was to be flying the P-51's and P-47's weren't very efficient escort, as they would've been unable to engage the much faster German fighters. The Me262's could be set to pound the bombers while the Ta-152's would be slaughtering the poor lads trying to defend the bombers, and there wasn't much the allies could do about that as they didn't have anything that could effectively counter Me262 and Ta-152 at those altitudes.



The P47's, P38's and P51's were more than capable of handling the Ta-152 at the altitude the B29's were going to fight. I'd even say the late model Spits would have been helping out if they had airfields close enough to the German border. It doesnt matter what the Ta152 performance was at 40,000 ft when it had to come down to 30,000 ft where the bombers are. There would have been no solution to the Me-262's untill the Meteor and P80 was available. The only saving grace was the limited numbers of jets the Germans could have deployed.



> So if you ask me, it was wise to use the B-29 over Japan as they did, as the Jap's didn't have anything which could really counter it, but over Germany it would be much wiser to stick with the old B-17 and B-24, as they could be reasonably well protected, the B-29 couldn't.



The B29 was a magnitude better than the B17 and B24. Invulnerable? No. better protected and tougher airframe? yes.



> And syscom3, you talk about a slow depressurization in the event of a hit, something which might be the case if the breach was the size of a rifle projectile, it just so happens that the intercepting German fighters would be firing cannon shells at the darn thing



On occasion, the Japanese did manage to pump cannon shells into B29's which created some big holes in it. There were no known B29 loss's due to rapid depressurization by that cause only.



> A single 30mm hit to the cockpit area and I personally wouldn't like to be inside that B-29, cause that would not just mean a truly painful experience physically, it would also mean that I was gonna have to get out of that plane, and QUICK ! Cause that hole will only get larger, and get larger FAST!
> 
> Infact a hit by a 30mm "M"Geschoss at anyone of the B-29's three pressurized compartments would be tragic for the crew, cause a split-second depressurization was sure to follow, something which will more than triple the effect of the 30mm round, causing a massive explosion indeed.



The B29 had a big airframe, and although the 30mm round would cause some damage, it doesnt mean it would always be fatal. And where did you get that number of "triple the effect"?


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2006)

Oh syscom don't be so ignorant, the P-51 and P-47 were near helpless against the Ta-152 at 30,000ft, not to mention against the Me262. Allied fighter pilots even refused to fly at places where Ta-152's could be expected, whether it be at low or high altitude.

The Ta-152 would hit 732 km/h at 31,000 ft, and could easily out-climb both the P-51 and P-47 at that altitude, and even more easily out-maneuver them. So effectively protecting the B-29 would've proven a near impossibility for the allies, and even if they could've managed to keep the B-29's relatively safe, it would've been at the cost of huge amounts of allied fighters lost.


----------



## syscom3 (May 23, 2006)

Soren said:



> Oh syscom don't be so ignorant, the P-51 and P-47 were near helpless against the Ta-152 at 30,000ft, not to mention against the Me262.



helpless? heheheheheh. I love dramatics. (although I did say the Me262 was a problem)



> Allied fighter pilots even refused to fly at places where Ta-152's could be expected, whether it be at low or high altitude.



Refuse to fight?  



> The Ta-152 would hit 732 km/h at 31,000 ft, and could easily out-climb both the P-51 and P-47 at that altitude, and even more easily out-maneuver them. So effectively protecting the B-29 would've proven a near impossibility for the allies, and even if they could've managed to keep the B-29's relatively safe, it would've been at the cost of huge amounts of allied fighters lost.



The P51K and P47N were just as fast and maneuverable as the Ta152. Plus the allies had so many fighters available, that the Ta152's would have been pursued from take off to altitude to landing untill they were all gone.


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2006)

gentlemen sorry but you both are making assumptions about the Ta 152H and Allied a/c. The Ta 152H was victorious over the P-47 and Tempest at mid altitudes only and did fly on any combat operations at it's intended height above 35,000 feet, and the P-51 was never encountered except in a Ta 152C experiment performed by Kurt Tank ..... maybe.

without proven documentation of combat between P-38's and P-51's/Ta 152's it is all a amtter of what-ifs. there is fact though that the TA 152H's were never pursued on take off or landing even in the range of the 8th AF Stangs/RAF and the Soviet forward air bases of which Stab./JG 301 mostly encountered


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2006)

Well obviously we're making assumptions, as this whole discussion is based on a "What if" scenario.

My point is just that the Ta-152 was a superior fighter at higher altitudes, cause it clearly was, FW testing of the Ta-152 shows that quite clearly.


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2006)

Soren :

My point although not clear was subtle. the Luftwaffe facing the B-29's in Ta 152's and Me 262's would of beaten to a pulp with P-51 aluminum. there was just an overwhelming presence that was not going to go away ... .


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2006)

How will you beat someone you can't catch Erich ??


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2006)

you are kidding ? 30 Ta's against 500 P-51's. yeah that's fair, right ? you and others have already said the ta is going to have to drop down to 35,000 or less to take on the enemy, because the US pilots are not going to come and try and top 40,000 with an unfair advantage


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2006)

Enough Me262's were caught. What makes you think that the 152 wouldn't be?
I am not saying that one to one the TA152 didn't have an advantage but over Germany one to one was a very very rare luxury for German forces. The bombers would have escorts climbing all over them


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2006)

as I stated. 100 German fighters against a 1000 plus escorts. seems funny doesn't it that we have brought this up several times in the past.


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2006)

Erich said:


> you and others have already said the ta is going to have to drop down to 35,000 or less to take on the enemy, because the US pilots are not going to come and try and top 40,000 with an unfair advantage



Exactly !

The Ta-152 had such a high ceiling that would be coming down from above pounding the Allied fighters into submission, and there wasn't much the Allies could do about that, if anything... The Ta-152 would have such a high speed advantage once it reached the allied fighters that it didn't matter how many P-51's there were, cause the Ta-152 would just simply use its excess energy from the dive and climb up to a safe altitude before initiating its next attack, and any P-51's trying to follow would be walking straight into a trap... And this something they could go on with until they had no more fuel left.

Employing the B-29 instead of the B-17/B-24 would be like handing over air-supremacy to the Germans on a silver plate! 

You don't fight on the enemy's terms, you fight on your own.

It would be like purposely sending out shermans to fight long range engagements with Tiger's, and we all know who the outcome is going to favor in that situation - the Tiger.


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2006)

You still haven't addressed the question. If the allied forces caught enough Me262's what make you think they wouldn't catch the Ta152.

Also there in an obvious flaw in your argument, i.e. while the 152 is trying to climb to their favourite fighting altitude, all the other allied planes in the area and escorts are already at altitude and coming down on them like a ton of bricks, while they climb.


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2006)

it was tried before from a height advantage and the Allies in P-51's took it to them. the zoom and climb action worked few times in 1945. you are forming a hypothesis which could not work simply because there were not enough Ta 152's to even come close to making 'your' taktics come true. Soren I have followed Ta 152C and H development since 1964 and can assure you truthfully they would of been slaughtered - overwhlemed even if they would of scored 5-6 kills in a days operations. there was just too many P-51's to contend with. And with only stab./JG 301 and 10 pilots flying the Tank it wasn't going to go very far, let alone having their bases and lines of communication blasted off the face of the earth. In essence because of the bases in the east of JG 301 the Soviets were hammering the airfields with artillery while JG 301 in vain tried to get farther to the west knowing full well they would beflying suicide missions towards either front......and this is reality not a fantasy. The big what-if would of been had the Luftwaffe dumped it's regular prop driven Fw 190A's and Bf 109G's/K's and re-equipped totally with the Tank plus had enough time to train it's pilots, then a feasible debate could exist


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2006)

Glider said:


> You still haven't addressed the question. If the allied forces caught enough Me262's what make you think they wouldn't catch the Ta152.



The Me262's were caught while trying to land, there's a difference.



Glider said:


> Also there in an obvious flaw in your argument, i.e. while the 152 is trying to climb to their favourite fighting altitude, all the other allied planes in the area and escorts are already at altitude and coming down on them like a ton of bricks, while they climb.



Well considering Allied fighters apparently were reluctant to come near airfields patrolled by Ta-152's, I don't visualize such a scenario coming true. (A valid point though)



Erich said:


> it was tried before from a height advantage and the Allies in P-51's took it to them. the zoom and climb action worked few times in 1945. you are forming a hypothesis which could not work simply because there were not enough Ta 152's to even come close to making 'your' taktics come true. Soren I have followed Ta 152C and H development since 1964 and can assure you truthfully they would of been slaughtered - overwhlemed even if they would of scored 5-6 kills in a days operations. there was just too many P-51's to contend with. And with only stab./JG 301 and 10 pilots flying the Tank it wasn't going to go very far, let alone having their bases and lines of communication blasted off the face of the earth. In essence because of the bases in the east of JG 301 the Soviets were hammering the airfields with artillery while JG 301 in vain tried to get farther to the west knowing full well they would beflying suicide missions towards either front......and this is reality not a fantasy. The big what-if would of been had the Luftwaffe dumped it's regular prop driven Fw 190A's and Bf 109G's/K's and re-equipped totally with the Tank plus had enough time to train it's pilots, then a feasible debate could exist



Erich I know you have a great deal of expertise in this area, and I certainly don't question your credibility - but as this thread started out as one big "What if", with the war going on and all, I don't see why a shift towards the Ta-152 wouldn't be possible ?

Again I admit this is one big "What if", but so is this thread, so i figured thats what we were discussing - what if's.


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2006)

ah to be there and see it and experience it for ourselves, we would truly understand

yes it is a what-if but how much additional infromation to we put towards the original thread question(s) ?

actually the /Ta 152 never patrolled any airfields, yes the myth is inplace that it protected Me 262 airfields but that is not true. Kommando Nowotny fell aprat even when protected by III./Jg 54 Doras whcih were slaughtered at the hands of overwhleming support of P-51's.

Me 262's were shot down in combat, I have the action reports which I have fully 
been interested in since we started the thread over a year ago on Me 262 shootdowns. Again when ther are only 3-4 of you in the melle of 40 Mustangs, who is going to win ?

my assumptions and of course it is a what if, had in late 44 the Ta 152H replaced the others then a shift in the war may have occurred both fighter vs fighter and fighter agasint bomber, the outcome would of been the war in the ETO lasting maybe till Decmber 45/Jaunary 46. The clock had ticked down to far for the Luftwaffe.


----------



## syscom3 (May 23, 2006)

I will try to summarize this question about B29's in the ETO.

1) The B29 was not invulnerable

2) The B29 was proven to be one structurally strong bomber for its day

3) Any size flak can bring down any plane, but the B29 was big and strong enough to require direct hits or near miss's.

4) Rapid depressurization was not an issue

5) Centralized fire control was an improvement over the B17/B24 setup.

6) The speed of the B29 complicated intercepts, Plus limited its exposure to flak.

7) The B29 flew at the same heights of the B17 

8 ) Taking down a bomber of this size required the latest planes the Luftwaffe had. I see only the FW190-D and Ta-152 as having the performance and firepower combination to do it.

9) The Me-262 was going to be an issue anyway you look at it.

10) The late model allied fighters were good enough to give a run for the money for any German fighter trying to intercept. If the German fighter is kept away from the bombers, then its a victory for the allies.

11) US production capability was massive enough to make good any loss's./


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2006)

number # 11 the most important of the above . . . . unstoppable


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2006)

Well I'm going to trust you then Erich, cause when it comes to history I can only know what I've either read or been told - And knowing you actually write books about this I feel comfortable trusting you on this.

However, even the best can be wrong sometimes, and concerning the Me262 shoot downs, well ofcourse there are always going to be instances where this occurred, but you've got to admit it is not what you hear the most of. 

And lastly, I never tried to convince any of you to believe that the Ta-152 was a war-winner, cause it wasn't, nothing the Germans could've possibly produced by then was (Except maybe the A-bomb, but this project was abandoned early by Hitler as he didn't know of its significance), just that if having seen more service than it did I'm sure it would've proven itself a deadly opponent and caused a good amount of grief to the allies. As do I believe that had the Fw-190D-9 been deployed properly, with proper pilots flying most of them, that it too would've caused more grief to the allies than it did.(Which was already significant)

But reality is that eventually Hitler would screw things up, cause he constantly did, and nomatter how good your army is, it isn't worth much without someone good to lead the way.


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2006)

ok not to stray off-topic which this statement will do, but I need to go back to the Me 262 shoot down thread and start that up again in it's "where-left-off stages" and continue this through the summer. have some interesting bits of information I have acquired over the many months since last posting. I know I know all the books can't be wrong, or can they ??


----------



## Soren (May 23, 2006)

Please do.


----------



## syscom3 (May 23, 2006)

The books are incorrect if they prove me wrong


----------



## Udet (May 23, 2006)

Erich is correct when he says we´ve been through this discussion in the past.


It seems like whenever the issue being discussed is the Ta-152, then there´s an issue that will come attached to it, it´s simply unavoidable: the B-29. You know, a direct consequence of one of the allied myths: "the Germans conceived the Ta-152 fearing the B-29 could be deployed in the ETO". Bah!!!!


Soren was not suggesting the Ta-152 and the Me-262 could change the outcome of the war.

Also Soren is aware the Ta-152 did not reach service in significant numbers.

Still, the combat record of the few Ta-152´s which entered service PROVED the lethal worth of the model: of the allied fighters which entered combat against the Ta-152 they simply ended the day biting the ground and the pilot barbecuing his nuts, you name them: P-47s, Tempest and Yaks.

Losses of Ta-152s to enemy fighters: ZERO. NULL. NADA.

I will focus on the Jug: sorry guys, but if the Ta-152 owned the Jug, then the P-51 will pretty much have the kind of end Soren pointed out here.

The P-51 is a sissy by the side of the Jug. 

The fact the Ta-152s would be outnumbered in the 10 vs. 1 scenario -and even more- is acknowledged. That they would have been slaughtered? Well, keeping in mind we are standing on a "what if" structure is that I have to answer "I do not know".

There were many many times during 1944 when the Bf 109 G-6/R6s, say, of JG 1 or JG 11, when intercepting B-17s, had of course to tangle with massive numbers of Mustangs. Where they slaughtered? In fact, many many times the majority of those Bf 109s fitted for bomber hunting roles, got away -meaning the majority of them returned to base-, and not just that, they also shot down Mustangs. That they had heavy losses several times? Yes, yes.

Note that the allied creatures depict the G-6/R6 model as either "easy prey to enemy fighters" or "no match" to allied fighters. In other words, in the mind of most allied guys a German pilot flying a 109 fitted with under-wing gondolas was "automatically doomed" if any allied fighter showed up. Crap, and one more of the many urban legends created by the victors.

(The propaganda works have been so persistent, solid and consistent most allied guys in fact see the Mustang as the flawles machine against which any German machine was 100% condemned.)

So, keeping the G-6/R6 precedent in mind, 10 or 14 Ta-152s entering a melee with 190 Mustangs would have been more than capable of leaving the Mustangs behind, destroying some Mustangs in the process. Please do not rush gentlemen, here it goes: That such a fact would have been "useless" for they were not available in signifcant numbers, being therefore uncapable of making a susbtantial contribution? Yes, yes, yes, I know it.

Bf 109 G-6/R6 could tangle with the P-51 B or D, then a Ta-152 will have a much more comfortable time with the Mustang -any version whatsoever-.

Glider:

Soren is correct, when he affirms the Ta-152s have a superior ceiling than that enjoyed by any version of the P-51. You then launched to following comment:

"while the 152 is trying to climb to their favourite fighting altitude, all the other allied planes in the area and escorts are already at altitude and coming down on them like a ton of bricks, while they.."

What makes you think that will be the scenario? What about German radar reporting the oncoming enemy formation to ground control of the Jagdgeschwader?

The Ta-152s were more than capable of reaching superior ceiling to then dive upon the escorts.

I believe the allies find relief in repeating the same things over and over again: "the Me 262 or Ta 152 were useless because they found themselves numerically overwhelmed by the Mustangs or Jugs".

As if trying to avoid the fact the Ta-152 was clearly superior to any other allied fighter deployed in the ETO.

Finally, and this is the better part, many guys predict on the "absolute superiority" of allied planes which did not see service (P-47 N) while trying to put down as much as possible German hardware that reached service and were battle proven (Me 262 or Ta 152).


----------



## syscom3 (May 24, 2006)

The Ta-152 was the next in line of the "up-the-ante" development of piston engined fighters that the allies and axis engaged in. As good as it was, it was not a magnitude better than the best allied designs, therefore it would only even the odds or have a slight advantage.

To say the -152 was equal to ten P51's preposterous as we will never know. The -152 was superior to the P38. Against the P47's, perhaps superior. The P51D would have held its own against them at altitude. Maybe not so good against them once the pilots were briefed on its performace.

The -152 had a temporary edge which was going to be equaled by the P47N and P51K (both of which saw service in the PTO). For the Spit, One of the RAF experts can tell us which model of that plane would be its equal.

Udet, when you speak of the Me109's going up to fight, and then all returning back to base unharmed "many times", youre not dealing with the fact that the Luftwaffe ran out of pilots and there could only be one reason for that.... they got shot down.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 24, 2006)

The RAF would of had a couple of late war prop fighters in to combat the Ta-152, but they weren't in the same class at very high altitude.

Spitfire XXI: A touch slower than the others but probably the best RAF high alt prop. 455-460 mph top speed is a bit down compared to the 460-490 of the P-51H, P-47N and Ta-152. Could do 405-410 mph at 40,000 feet/ 12,000 m. 

Late build versions were scheduled to recieve contra-rotating props and the 2,350 hp Griffon 85 engines, which would of perked up performance a little.

Tempest II: Cleaned up Tempest V with a Centarus radial engine. Would of been an outright menace down low for any opposition. 2,500 hp and 442 mph at 15,000 feet. Two squadrons all set for deployment to the CBI theatre, but were delayed and the war finished before they were declared operational.

The Tempest V was absolute pants at high altitude, thanks to its stone age supercharger design. However, I'll upset lot of people here and say that it was the finest low altitude fighter of the ET0, and the Mk II was that much better again.

And then you always have the Meteor III and the Vampire I

Of course, the vast majority of Spitfires are going to be MK IX/XVIs, XIV, Typhoons and Tempest V. The RAF was phasing the XIV in favour of the IX/XVI at the rate of about 2 squadrons a month at the end of the war. A similar story for the Tempest V replacing the Typhoon. The Meteor III was scheduled to go to 3 more RAF squadrons in June and July. Mk XIV production stopped in April with just 947 produced, as the much heavier, longer ranged and slightly slower Mk XVIII replaced it on the production lines. Would of been interesting to see it operate as a fighter-bomber. 

The RAF operated a HUGE range of fighters at the end of the war:

Spitfire IX (16 squadrons)
Spitfire XVI (14 squadrons)
Spitfire XIV (14 squadrons)
Spitfire XXI (1 squadron)
Typhoon IB (16 squadrons)
Tempest V (11 squadrons)
Mustang I (1 squadron)
Mustang III (4 squadrons)
Mustang IV (4 squadrons)
Mosquito VI (10 squadrons)
Mosquito XVII (2 squadrons)
Mosquito XIX (2 squadrons)
Mosquito XXX (10 squadrons)
Meteor I (Trials unit, FIU)
Meteor III (2 squadrons)

On the German side, don't forget the Do-335 as a potential bomber destroyer. Very fast, excellent range and heavily armed. The high velocity Mk 103 was probably far more suited to taking out a B-29 than the lower velocity Mk 108.

The other thing the RAF could of done to develop a counter to the TA-152 and other German late war props was put the more powerful Merlin 100 series in a Spitfire VIII airframe. In the great Spitfire tradition of shoehorning a new engine into an old airframe it probably would of done quite well, looking at the Mk V, IX and XIV as guides. A Mk VIII with a +25lbs rated Merlin 70, which is essentially what a Merlin 100 was, did 448mph at 25,000 feeet, so performance would of been good, if not in the rarified atmosphere of those fighters approaching 500mph.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (May 24, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> And remember the B29 had three seperate pressure cabins. A loss of pressurization in one did not impact the others. Plus, unless large chunks of the skin were blown out, then the depressurization was a slow event, and might not even be noticed.




Not quite, it has 2 sorta separate cabins. The front cabin housing the pilot and such was connected by a 30 some inch tunnel, which could not be closed, to the aft cabin where the gunners were. You loose pressurization in one youve lost it in both. 

Plus the tail gunners compartment received pressure from the same sources as the front compartments. Both fed from the turbos on engines 2 and 3. With a big enough hole youre not going to get much pressurization in the tail compartment either.

Still though explosive decompression wasnt an issue in combat as standard operating procedure required this portion of flight to be made unpressurized and on oxygen.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 24, 2006)

If the B-29 was used in the ETO the carnage and industrial demolition of the III Reich Germany would be a lot worst, simple as this.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (May 24, 2006)

Jabberwocky,

How would the Tempest II do at higher altitudes? Also, I was suprised that no one else brought up the DO 335 before you.


----------



## syscom3 (May 24, 2006)

The D335 was not operational when the war ended.

The B29 could have been deployed to the ETO as early as late spring 1944.

The Luftwaffe had to combat the B29 with what it had, not what it "might" get to fly.


----------



## Glider (May 24, 2006)

Udet said:


> Glider:
> Soren is correct, when he affirms the Ta-152s have a superior ceiling than that enjoyed by any version of the P-51. You then launched to following comment:
> "while the 152 is trying to climb to their favourite fighting altitude, all the other allied planes in the area and escorts are already at altitude and coming down on them like a ton of bricks, while they.."
> What makes you think that will be the scenario? What about German radar reporting the oncoming enemy formation to ground control of the Jagdgeschwader?
> ...



I am afraid that you are basing your assumption on the Allies using no nounce when it comes to tactics, i.e. that the only escorts are with the bombers. If I was planning a raid you can be sure that I would have the TA152 bases covered from the moment that the bombers are likely to appear. As the bombers approached there would be escorts well in front of the raid at an altitude to intercept the fighters on the way up.
Getting to altitude would be the major issue and you would be harried every step of the way. Even if the planes did make it to altitude they would have been harried and delayed and as a result ineffective. 

You are also assuming that the B29 would be very high, there is no reason why they should be. Over Japan they came down to achieve better bombing concentration, there is no reason why this wouldn't have been done over Germany. The high altitude was for cruising.

By the way no one has addressed the question I have put twice now. If the allied forces were able to catch so many of the Me262's why would they not be able to destroy the slower 152?

Then your 10-14 TA152's get to the bombers and attack. The 190 and 109 sufferred significant losses to the bomber defences, the losses were exagerated significantly by the bomber crews but the German loss reports confirmed that they were still high.
To a bomber there isn't a massive difference in the attacking plane is coming in at 460mph of the TA152 or the 410mph of the FW190A. Can I ask what losses you expect to suffer in your 10-14 planes when attacking say 2-300 B29's.

Your observation that 190 Mustangs would be left behind and totally outclassed is optamistic at best. The TA152 was an exceptional plane without doubt, better than almost anything in the air, quite probably, but 190 vs 10 without loss. The TA152 may well have sufferred no losses to allied aircraft but when did they attack 190 Mustangs? 

My understanding was that these were mainly based on the Eastern Front where the Russian airforce was far less sophisticated than the Western Allies.

Final request. I ask you to read my postings and quote anywhere where I said that the Allied planes were as good as the TA152, you will find that I didn't and haven't.


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2006)

typcially the B-29 would of been introduced to replace either the B-17 or B-24 and not be an addition so you can pretty much guess the Luftwaffe is out to lunch with it's present condition of a scant few Ta 152H's and Me 262's.

the ondly differnce HAD there been more Ta 152H's would of been the fighter vs fighter combats were the turning radius of the tank was quite excellent in fact over the Dora and any other Luftw. prop job, besdies the pure out and out speed of the craft and higher altitude margains. Again we are not going to knw as the A/C was never pitted in a high altitude sphere of combat

v/r E ~


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 24, 2006)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Jabberwocky,
> 
> How would the Tempest II do at higher altitudes? Also, I was suprised that no one else brought up the DO 335 before you.




I wouldn't like to be fighting in a Tempest variant (except maybe the Mk VI) above about 22,000 feet.

It was done, to be sure, but the drop off in engine power was considerable above 16-18,000 feet. Typhoon and Tempest pilots reported that Bf-109s pilots would attempt to draw them up to higher altitudes where their performance dropped off. 

Roland Beaumont got 2 109s and a 190 above 25,000 feet in a Typhoon though, so it wasn't suicide, just more difficult than at medium altitudes.


Most fighters had their peak speeds at 18-25,000 feet. The Tempest had it peak speed at around 14-15,000 feet.


----------



## Udet (May 24, 2006)

Marshall Stack:

"Also, I was suprised that no one else brought up the DO 335 before you."

I did, a long time ago. Responses of course followed paths similar to that you can observe on mr. syscom´s response here:

"The D335 was not operational when the war ended."

Another one of the very interesting anomalies one can detect in some allied guys: 

to predict an absolute superiority of allied planes which did not see service in a war theather or -even better- that saw no service of any kind, while trying to minimize and put down German hardware which got proven in combat. (i.e. Ta 152 and Me 262)

Just take another look at Jabberwocky´s happy list: he includes the two "squadrons" of Gloster Meteors...planes that strangely no German pilot ever had the chance to find in combat, planes that were never reported as seen by Flak gunners; planes that oddly scored no victories whatsoever against German planes. Two "squadrons" that were happily -and gladly- kept away from where the fire and blood were.

You know it´s a British Playmate syndrome: real good looking but pretty much useless.

One can continue wondering where all those magnificent Spitfires were located during the last 20 months of the war. One can review the accounts of units and pilots in Reichsverteidigung tasks, you can review real long lists of claims filed by German pilots, say, during the whole 1944 and one thing can be noticed: the bulk of the fight was being carried out by the guys of the 8th and 15th USAAF. 

Can someone get me a green tea cup here? Gentlemen, check lists of claims and please when you find a Spitfire, Typhoon or Tempest claimed shot down in combat then please highlight the claim -with bright color-; claims of British planes in the last year of the war are as scarce as common sense is in the present-day world.


Finally, mr. Glider, I do not have the necessary time to give a proper response the last words you just discharged here. Have tea and cookies at hand, for it will be very interesting. Now, i´m off to class.

Cheers!


----------



## pbfoot (May 24, 2006)

The fact the Me262 was produced by the Czechs after ww2 And in service til 57 but was not used by any others while the meteor laboured on long after 57 and was flown by a number of air arms and if your lucky maybe the mexican air force will upgrade to it in the near future and you'll be able to see it up close


----------



## syscom3 (May 24, 2006)

Udet, how many Do-335's were operational before the end of the war?

Then answer the following: How many Ta-152's were operational?

Then answer the following. How many P51D's, P47D-25's and P38L's were there?

Then answer this. How many P47N's and P51H's were operation before May 1945?

If were are talking about B29 raids on Germany, it would have taken place after the Normandy Invasion, and Germany was now in a pressed for time schedule. The super fighters had to be deployed in quantity while there was still time.

The only scenario thats feasable is a dozen or so -152's up against several groups of B29's. They would undoubtably take out a few B29's in the process but take loss's in return.

Remember this. The US could make good on the loss of a dozen B29's every day. The Luftwaffe couldnt take the loss of a dozen Ta152's in a week!

Now about those pesky Brit planes? When they were based close to the German border, they could free lance over the bredth of Germany just like the US 9th AF. They could easily have handled anything at low and middle altitudes while the US handled the high altitude stuff.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> The fact the Me262 was produced by the Czechs after ww2 And in service til 57 but was not used by any others while the meteor laboured on long after 57 and was flown by a number of air arms and if your lucky maybe the mexican air force will upgrade to it in the near future and you'll be able to see it up close


The -262 in its 1944/ 45 form was extremely unreliable and although time might have yielded improvements, time ran out for Germany in 1943. The unreliability factor coupled with its limited numbers in retrospect made the -262 no more than a psychological hindrance and a minimal nuance...

I suspect against the B-29 it would of yeilded no better results as against the B-17 or B-24 while delivering double and triple the bomb load....



syscom3 said:


> Udet, how many Do-335's were operational before the end of the war?
> 
> Then answer the following: How many Ta-152's were operational?
> 
> ...


 Perfect!!!!


----------



## syscom3 (May 25, 2006)

Flyboy, I know this question probably belongs in another thread, but when youre at 30,000 ft and above, traveling at 450 mph, isnt the airflow at the propellor tips and over the wings up in the sub-mach range?

Suppose the Ta-152 is at 40,000 feet and going 450 mph, and he dives. Wouldnt he get perislously close to losing it due to sonic airflow buffeting and then would have to throttle back (and slow down)?


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2006)

Udet said:


> Finally, mr. Glider, I do not have the necessary time to give a proper response the last words you just discharged here. Have tea and cookies at hand, for it will be very interesting. Now, i´m off to class.
> 
> Cheers!



Look forward to it but will leave the cookies behind, trying to lose weight.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 25, 2006)

Wow, great discussion here. 

If you consider that by the time the Ta 152 and B-29 were and could have been, respectively, operational in the ETO, the Allies had ground radar stations on the continent, and that allowed the marauding Allied fighter aircraft to catch the 262 on takeoff and landing. If the Ta 152 was such a threat, the same thing would have ended up happening to it as well. 

The Ta 152 was a superior plane to the vast majority of all fighter aircraft of the war, but would not be knocking B-29s out of the sky any better than the 190/109 were knocking the B-17/24 down.

Final comment: NUMBERS! The Ta 152's kill ratio is irrelevant. Just because none were shot down by enemy fighters doesn't suggest some mythical invincibility. That means of the miniscule number of sorties flown by the Ta 152, none were wasted in a lopsided furball with 354,456 Mustangs (obvious exaggeration). They just ran away when they couldn't win!


----------



## syscom3 (May 25, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Wow, great discussion here.
> 
> If you consider that by the time the Ta 152 and B-29 were and could have been, respectively, operational in the ETO, the Allies had ground radar stations on the continent, and that allowed the marauding Allied fighter aircraft to catch the 262 on takeoff and landing. If the Ta 152 was such a threat, the same thing would have ended up happening to it as well.



Ive never heard of the allies using ground radar to watch the german fighters take off.



> The Ta 152 was a superior plane to the vast majority of all fighter aircraft of the war, but would not be knocking B-29s out of the sky any better than the 190/109 were knocking the B-17/24 down.



read other threads on how effective the 109's and 190's were if they caught the b17's and 24's without fighter escort.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 25, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Ive never heard of the allies using ground radar to watch the german fighters take off.



The radar system allowed them to track aircraft above abou 500 feet or so, and the Germans knew it. I have an account of a flight of German 190Ds that didn't find their quarry at the designated location, so the just flew up to about 3500 feet and waited for the bounce.




syscom3 said:


> read other threads on how effective the 109's and 190's were if they caught the b17's and 24's without fighter escort.



Roger that, I was merely implying that the ta 152 would not be any better, not that the 109/190s were ineffective. The Ta 152 would for sure not be vaporizing multiple B-29s in one pass...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 25, 2006)

The Mig was better than the 262 or am I wrong?


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2006)

It is my opinion that since the Ta-152 is undoubtedly superior to the P-51 and P-47, especially at altitude, a deployment of the B-29 at its intended altitudes of operation would've given the allies a set very difficult problems to overcome, problems which could've otherwise been avoided. 

And as Erich pointed out, if the B-29 was to see service in the ETO, it wouldn't just mix up with the B-17/B-24's, it would replace them as the main bomber type. And if this shift happened a big problem would arise - how to protect the bombers ? Cause at the time the Allies had no fighter what so ever capable of effectively protecting the B-29 against the German Ta-152 and Me262 fighters at the altitudes for which the B-29 was intended to operate.

But lets assume the Allies regardless would've gone on to deploy the B-29 at its intended altitude of operation - a couple of squadrons of Ta-152's would've caused havoc in such a situation, without the allies being able to return the favor as altitude would restrict any escort's attempts to engage the Ta-152's which with their massive speed advantage from the dive would be climbing away immediately after their attack, soon to return with even more vengeance in mind. Meanwhile, without having to worry much about escorts, a squadron of Me262’s could be set to pound the bombers. The end result - alot of allied lives lost for nothing.

A much wiser choice would've been to keep the B-17/B-24's as the main bombers, as these by contrast could be effectively protected. And luckily for allies the B-29 came into service just abit too late for any goofball to get the bright idea of deploying it in the ETO.

Note - Although I'm convinced the tactic above would prove very effective for the Germans, it was by no means a war-winner, cause as Erich correctly pointed out the amount of Ta-152's and Me262 needed in such case was not only unachievable for the Germans, but also unachievable to keep operational at the rate needed. 



Glider said:


> If I was planning a raid you can be sure that I would have the TA152 bases covered from the moment that the bombers are likely to appear. As the bombers approached there would be escorts well in front of the raid at an altitude to intercept the fighters on the way up.



But you're forgetting that there would still be Bf-109's and Fw-190's to deal with, and alot of them, and now you're gonna have to deal with them at THEIR preferred altitude... And you can be sure that fighting Bf-109's and Fw-190's at low-mid altitudes would've been a VERY hard job to fulfill for the allied fighters at the time, despite their numerical advantage(Just ask the Russians). Especially the Fw-190 Dora-9 would've proven a true menace if such strategy as yours was to be used. - So there you have yet another negative factor to add to the event that the B-29 was deployed instead of the B-17/B-24's.



syscom3 said:


> Suppose the Ta-152 is at 40,000 feet and going 450 mph, and he dives. Wouldnt he get perislously close to losing it due to sonic airflow buffeting and then would have to throttle back (and slow down)?



I'll answer that: No, atleast not enough so that he wouldn't have a truly massive speed advantage once he reaches the escorts. He'd have to go unbelievably fast for what you're suggesting to ever have chance to occur.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 25, 2006)

Udet said:


> Marshall Stack:
> 
> "Also, I was suprised that no one else brought up the DO 335 before you."
> 
> ...




The two Gloster Meteor squadrons (616 and 504) were actually credited with over 50 aircraft straffing kills on the ground, 40 or so of which are credited to 616 Sqn. 616 was also credited with around 13 V1 kills (in Mk Is) They attacked MET (motorised enemy transport) and were responsible for CAP over Antwerp for incursions against Me-262 and He-234s. 

And the reason that the Gloster squadrons never met enemy planes in combat was two fold.

1) the RAF was concerned about letting their jet technology into the hands of their opponents and so limited thier operational deployment

2) After the end of 1944, when 616 Sqn moved to the Continent, the LuftWaffe was as rare as hens teeth and they had no opportunities to engage, despite flying over 500 sorties. You can't fight an opponent that just isn't there.

RAF claims are for 1,832 destroyed in the air in the final 9 and a bit months of the war. Balanced against this is 2,220 fighter losses to all causes, 1,674 aircrew lost (killed or PoW) and 134 wounded. If you include May and June 1944 this goes up quite a bit more, the RAF being heavily involved in the leadup and fighting over the invasion beaches.

USAAF claims are for 4,445 destroyed in the air in the same period. Balanced against this are 3,613 losses to all causes, and around 3,350 aircrew lost. A small problem here is sorting out 8th AF ground credits from 8th AF aerial credits, which occasionally get mixed.

According to records, the RAF lost about 3:1 to flak vs fighters (mostly Typhoons and Tempests) from July throught to the end of the war, the USAAF about 2:1 to flak vs fighters (mostly P-51s and P-47s).

Both airforces recorded higher fighter losses to German flak than to German fighters for the entire war. US losses were 1,691 to fighters 2,449 to flak and 1,184 to other causes: accidents, mechanical failures, friendly fire, navigational errors, ect, 

By the end of 1944 both the RAF and USAAF were disbanding squadrons for reformation in the Far East against Japan, or just standing down. Nos 96 and 132 did so in December, 229 and 603 in January, 168, 257 and 610 in March. Shows how much of a threat the LuftWaffe really was.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Flyboy, I know this question probably belongs in another thread, but when youre at 30,000 ft and above, traveling at 450 mph, isnt the airflow at the propellor tips and over the wings up in the sub-mach range?


Yes - and that's why you see on many charts propeller-driven aircraft starting to loose efficency at there altitudes


syscom3 said:


> Suppose the Ta-152 is at 40,000 feet and going 450 mph, and he dives. Wouldnt he get perislously close to losing it due to sonic airflow buffeting and then would have to throttle back (and slow down)?


 Yes and depending to the parameters the buffet may slow him down or start to shake the plane apart. The regime you're describing is exactly what happened to early P-38s....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> The Mig was better than the 262 or am I wrong?


I presume you're talking Mig-15 - it was the "next generation" of jet fighter.


----------



## syscom3 (May 25, 2006)

Thanks Flyboy.

I knew there might have been an issue of high speed dives from very high altitudes. 

While the Ta-152 was the apex (of its time in the waning months of the war in Europe), it wasnt a magnitude better than the allied fighters flying there.

It was an incremental improvemnt, just like the early model -190's were over the Spitfire.

I'd say the only threat that the B29's had that had no real solution were the rocket firing Me262's. But they came too late and were too few in number.

For Germany, the solution to the B29's was when it was too late and too few were available.

I'd say the B29's in late 1944 and early 1945, while not invincible, were going to be one tough cookie to bring down.


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes and depending to the parameters the buffet may slow him down or start to shake the plane apart. The regime you're describing is exactly what happened to early P-38s....



The Ta-152 would have to go ballistic for something like that to occur FLYBOYJ, at something like in excess of 900 km/h at the very least.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2006)

Soren said:


> The Ta-152 would have to go ballistic for something like that to occur FLYBOYJ, at something like in excess of 900 km/h at the very least.


And at a dive from 40,000 feet, theoretically its possible, but I think its wings would come off first...


----------



## Soren (May 25, 2006)

Absolutely possible, but my point is that at 900 km/h the speed advantage enjoyed by the Ta-152 would be enormous compared to its intended victims below.


----------



## Erich (May 25, 2006)

remember the old addage about P-51's loitering around airfields on landing aka Me 262's. The same would of happened to the TA 152 staffeln/gruppen. The Allied presence was just too strong


----------



## red admiral (May 25, 2006)

> Absolutely possible, but my point is that at 900 km/h the speed advantage enjoyed by the Ta-152 would be enormous compared to its intended victims below.



Re 2005s over Italy did this quite often. There was minimal buffeting up to 980kph, probably possible for 1000kph+. Attacks on B-17s below. Escorting P-39s had no chance of engaging them.


----------



## syscom3 (May 25, 2006)

red admiral said:


> Re 2005s over Italy did this quite often. There was minimal buffeting up to 980kph, probably possible for 1000kph+. Attacks on B-17s below. Escorting P-39s had no chance of engaging them.



I doubt they had no buffetting at those speeds. 600 mph is high in the sub-mach range to begin with, and the airflow over the wings would have been near sonic.

The airspeed indicators of those years were quite unreliable at speeds high in the mach range. If a pilot said his airspeed indicator said 600 mph in a dive, then it was an inaccurate reading.


----------



## red admiral (May 26, 2006)

http://www.aldini.it/re2005/980km-h1.JPG

Re 2005 flown by Commander de Prato on tests over Guidonia reached 980kph "without problems"


----------



## Jank (May 26, 2006)

The P-47N, as the preferred escort for the B-29, could have accompanied the B-29 to Europe as well. It's increased fuel capacity over the "D" model was via fuel cells that did not have to be used where the needed range was far less. Unused fuel cells are not subject to the problems associated with unused capacity of standard fuel tanks.

The P-47N without all that extra fuel weight would be like a slightly heavier "M" model with larger squared off wings that provided even better roll performance.

At 30-40,000ft, it would be a very fast ship, especially in a dive, with great roll rate and tremendous firepower.


----------



## Dogwalker (May 26, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The airspeed indicators of those years were quite unreliable at speeds high in the mach range. If a pilot said his airspeed indicator said 600 mph in a dive, then it was an inaccurate reading.


The 980 Km/h dive was obtained in the first day of trhee days of dives performed by Commander de Prato in a single pre-production fighter (MM096105) to test the modifications made to the tail section of the aircraft after aeroelastic problems were reported by the operative pilots in the pre-production aircrafts.
During the last day, he reached 988 Km/h.
These are not speed indicated by the onboard instruments, but corrected by the Reggiane and RA staff. An accurate test was reputed indispensable, since they were testing major modifications of the structure after a problem was reported.
The speed of 980 Km/h in dive was reached by a C.205 in a test too, but the Macchi C.202-205 pilots had to adjust the trimmer first to pass 750 Km/h to mantain the dive controllable. Otherwise, resonance effects will block the trimmer and the dive became incontrollable.
The same problem there was in the first two prototypes of Re.2005, but was fixed with some modifications in the pre-production aircrafts, so, the trimmer of Re.2005 was adjustable at every speed.
De Prato stated that the aircraft was fairly controllable, but that it was better that the pilots didn't try to perform "panic manuvers" at that speed, since thoose could damage the tail section after the modification too.
The C.202 was tested at 930 Km/h (it had to do, since the RA, up to 1942, requires from fighters a controllable dive speed of 1,55 times the maximum levelled speed to be accepted). One of the prototypes lost the tailplane during the tests, so, the tailplane of the production aircrafts was modified to sustain that speed.
Don'know the maximum speed reached by G55, but Gabrielli reported that Kurt Tank itself reached 900+ km/h testing the aircraft (this was an onboard indicated airspeed, since the german designer never said the type of tests he want to perform), and said to him that he was very pleased to notice that there weren't shakings at that speed.
However, 900+ Km/h was probably nothing ecceptional for G55, since the elder G50 was tested at 850 Km/h without problems.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

Either way as many people have posted here, the Germans would not have been able to muster eneogh Ta-152s to put into the air to counter a large B-29 force and they been able to the Allied Fighters were swarming over German territory and would have chewed them up just due to there larger advantage in numbers.


----------



## Dogwalker (May 26, 2006)

This is sure.
With the numerical superiority they had at the time the TA 152 came in service, the allies could switch even to the Gladiator as main fighter, and probably the result should be tha same.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 26, 2006)

What about our own Shooting Star? Could it have done tolerable as an escort fighter? Perhaps if it hadn't killed two good fighter pilots the allies would have been more enthusiastic about it.


----------



## syscom3 (May 26, 2006)

The P80 wasnt going to be combat ready untill summer 1945. The war was over by then.

As I mentioned before, once the US and Brits were on the ground in France, the clock was ticking for Germany. The B29's could have been flying their missions in the summer of 1944, and germany had to stop them with what they had available.

The Luftwaffe didnt have the fighters necessary to take them on untill late in the war when they would be of too little quantity flown by too few pilots of skill.


----------



## PipsPriller (May 27, 2006)

When Le May took over the B-29 force in the Pacific he found that bombing results from 30,000ft to be very poor, crews were exhausted flying at such heights, the Jet Stream caused enormous difficulties in formation flying and targetting and the bomb load greatly reduced to allow for fuel. 

Hence he changed to operation to mid altitude night bombing.

Now the Generals running the 8th in England probably would not have been so flexible. So if daylight raids continued using the B-29 the Jet Stream would have caused as many problems over Europe as over Japan. Bombing results would also have (probably) been worse, given the greater cloud cover at 30,000ft over Europe.

On the plus side the Luftwaffe would have found it extremely difficult in intercepting the B-29 force at 30,000ft travelling at 350mph. Not only would intercept times be much shorter, but time to climb to such high altitude would have used so much more fuel. In addition the computer controlled guns on the B-29 were far more accurate than those of the manned ones on the B-17 and B-24. The German flak would have been impotent at that altitude. And of the current Luftwaffe fighters only the Fw 190D and Ta 152 had the performance to fight at such high altitudes. Not sure about the Me 262. The Me 109 fighter force would have struggled to make more than one pass at such heights.

To be sure a B-29 force operating over Europe would have lost more than the 350 B-29's lost over Japan, but certainly the losses would have been much less than the 6,000 odd B-17 and B-24 bombers lost over Europe.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (May 27, 2006)

PipsPriller said:


> Now the Generals running the 8th in England probably would not have been so flexible. So if daylight raids continued using the B-29 the Jet Stream would have caused as many problems over Europe as over Japan. Bombing results would also have (probably) been worse, given the greater cloud cover at 30,000ft over Europe.



Youve got to remember that the Jet Stream wasnt exactly a phenomina observed over Europe... it was over Japan. The jet stream argument is not really founded because bombers of the time were capable and did operate in the altitude where the jet stream was found... except in Europe it just wasnt present.





PipsPriller said:


> On the plus side the Luftwaffe would have found it extremely difficult in intercepting the B-29 force at 30,000ft travelling at 350mph. Not only would intercept times be much shorter, but time to climb to such high altitude would have used so much more fuel.



Most likely B-29s would be traveling at cruise. In the Pacific this was about 220 mph


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2006)

backing up 2 postings; the Bf 109G-6/AS with MW 50 could fly over 35,000 ft and it was the result of wishes for a Höhenjäger against the P-51 in April of 44. The AS G-6 served till fall of 44 to be replaced by other G's, the G-10 being the fastest, so yes the 109 could kill a B-29 if needed.

you also forget the increased altitude performance of 128mm guns; no US or RAF bomber get get above the range of this very lethal wepaon in single or Zwilling mounts . . . .


----------



## PipsPriller (May 27, 2006)

DaveB.inVa said:


> Youve got to remember that the Jet Stream wasnt exactly a phenomina observed over Europe... it was over Japan. The jet stream argument is not really founded because bombers of the time were capable and did operate in the altitude where the jet stream was found... except in Europe it just wasnt present.



The only reason why it wasn't an observed phenomenona in Europe was because the bombers used in that Theatre ie B-17 and B-24, could not operate at those heights. 

The Jet Stream did exist over Europe, it's known by the term 'Polar-front Jet Stream'. Like jet streams world wide it flows from west to east, with speeds ranging from 75mph to 295mph, dependant on time of year (winter is worst than summer) and height. Speeds of 150mph are commonly found at heights of 30,000ft plus - the day operating height of B-29's.

The following site gives an excellent diagramme of the Jet Stream flow over Europe. http://www.wunderground.com/global/EU_2xJT_Index.html



DaveB.inVa said:


> Most likely B-29s would be traveling at cruise. In the Pacific this was about 220 mph



I should have mentioned that the 350mph is IAS, not TAS.


----------



## syscom3 (May 27, 2006)

The B17's often flew at 30,000 ft. The B24's had a lower ceiling thus never flew at that altitude.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

Erich do you have any info on G-6/AS operations? I have info on the aircraft but limited on the operations.


----------



## Udet (May 31, 2006)

Mr. Glider, back to you:


[QUOTE "I am afraid that you are basing your assumption on the Allies using no nounce when it comes to tactics, i.e. that the only escorts are with the bombers. If I was planning a raid you can be sure that I would have the TA152 bases covered from the moment that the bombers are likely to appear. As the bombers approached there would be escorts well in front of the raid at an altitude to intercept the fighters on the way up.
Getting to altitude would be the major issue and you would be harried every step of the way. Even if the planes did make it to altitude they would have been harried and delayed and as a result ineffective." 

Let´s not lose the ground here, be reminded that what we have here is a hypothetical scenario for discussion -"what if"-, and the sole thing I find funny about this sort of debating is when it can be realized there are guys predicting some sort of undisputed superiority of allied planes which did not see action in the ETO, the B-29 in this case, while attempting to minimize German planes proved in battle.

Now Glider, you have an opinion too low on me if you believe i believe escort fighters flight right by the side of the bombers, so I have nothing further to comment regarding the way fighter escort was provided.

Countless times the Bf 109 G-6s and Fw 190 As climbed to combat altitude during 1944, a time when the escorts where in action in large numbers. Combat records prove German pilots reached altitude even with escorts sweeping air space well ahead the bombers to "clear the path."

I do not see any clear reason to believe the Ta 152s would have not been able to climb to altitude.

You are right when you say getting to altitude is critical issue in the 1945 scenario though; in fact, the majority of the victories scored by the fighters of the USAAF -during the entire war- were precisely attained by diving upon German fighters which were in the climbing mode.



QUOTE: "You are also assuming that the B29 would be very high, there is no reason why they should be. Over Japan they came down to achieve better bombing concentration, there is no reason why this wouldn't have been done over Germany. The high altitude was for cruising."

Am I? Not necessarily Glider. I was merely suggesting that whatever altitude the B-29 was capable of flying there would be a German fighter capable of intercepting it. 

So if B-29s fly quite below their "super-altitude" -as it was frequently done in the PTO, due to poor bombing accuracy- then the debate as to how combat would progress above 40,000 ft is pointless.

That would also shatter the silly arguments of the allies saying the "Ta 152 was a response to the potential deployment of the B-29 in Europe."

If the B-29 comes down to 25,000 ft, then all fighter models available for the Luftwaffe are comfortably capable of intercepting it.

QUOTE: "By the way no one has addressed the question I have put twice now. If the allied forces were able to catch so many of the Me262's why would they not be able to destroy the slower 152?"

I will address it now. I have a juicy collection of guncamera footage, included are the films of 14 Me 262s in fact getting hit by USAAF fighters.

Before you counter-strike is that i tell you: I know what the value of guncamera footage as evidence in a debate is. 

It´s amazing to discover that 13 jets -out 14- appear at very low altitude, with the undercarriage down. Only 1 jet is hit while flying, meaning it did not get hit while trying to land, although the plane is fliyng at very low altitude.

The rest of the jets are flying so low, that in some cases you can clearly see trees, some cars and trucks.

I have told this to Erich, and tell it again: i put into serious doubt 60% of the alleged "jet kills" claimed by allied pilots. 

That my doubts might mean nothing? True, but there´s plenty of evidence here and there to doubt what the allies claim.

That a number of jets got hit and shot down is true Glider, so what? Does that prove the propeller fighters of the allies were "more than capable of dealing with it?"



QUOTE: "Then your 10-14 TA152's get to the bombers and attack. The 190 and 109 sufferred significant losses to the bomber defences, the losses were exagerated significantly by the bomber crews but the German loss reports confirmed that they were still high."

This is another part which deserves a somewhat deeper scrutiny Glider.

Try to answer this question:

Have you noticed when reading history of airwarfare over Europe in WWII, only German pilots "fear" the defensive fire of enemy bombers?

Whether flying in the west or east, ONLY German fighter pilots were "terrified" about enemy defensive gunners. Yes, when the IL-2M reached service "German fighters found the rear gunner as a real nasty surprise."

So the rear gunner on the IL-2 was "fearsome", while the rear gunners on the Stuka or Me 110´s were "not a problem", same in the case of the Me 410, with the remote controlled MG 131s, "unreliable devices".

In the west, the superb, lethal allied gunners shooting down countless German fighters.

Have you read any report of British pilots during the Battle of Britain fearing the defensive armament of He 111s, Do 17s and Ju 88s? Although I am sure you are an honorable man who will not lie, let me give the response: NO, YOU HAVE NOT.

The RAF had no losses when intercepting German bombers over England in 1940?

So it pretty much follows this direction Glider:

(a) The defensive armament on German planes is "useless", "weak" or "unrealiable", and apparently there is no record whatsoever of allied pilots expressing "fear" or ,say, "fretting" about German defensive fire. Not at all. Ever.

(b) The defensive armament fitted to either the heavies of the USAAF or to VVS bombers was "superb": only the most accurate, reliable and lethal machine guns (not to mention the fact allied gunners "were out of this planet and did a great job").

Can you detect any strange smell here Glider? Isn´t it bloody bizarre?

Let me finish my reponse to this particular point by saying German losses in 1943 to heavy bombers were within the acceptable and sustainable.

For each German fighter lost to the defensive fire of heavy bombers -my sources vary when giving the number- at least 5.8 bombers will be destroyed by the fighters. 

You have to believe this, if long range escorts do not appear in 1944, the war ends first for the USAAF. 



QUOTE: "To a bomber there isn't a massive difference in the attacking plane is coming in at 460mph of the TA152 or the 410mph of the FW190A. Can I ask what losses you expect to suffer in your 10-14 planes when attacking say 2-300 B29's.

Your observation that 190 Mustangs would be left behind and totally outclassed is optamistic at best. The TA152 was an exceptional plane without doubt, better than almost anything in the air, quite probably, but 190 vs 10 without loss. The TA152 may well have sufferred no losses to allied aircraft but when did they attack 190 Mustangs?" 

This was another hypothetical scenario Glider. If such a thing was attained by German fighters in 1944, why couldn´t the Ta 152 do it?

I digress, the Ta 152 was not going to do anything that could change the outcome of the war; that can not take away from it what it attained: the models of allied fighters which met it in the air were uncapable of dealing with it.

Finally, you are right when affirming the VVS was of an inferior quality; the Ta 152s of the stab./JG 301 flew against the soviet Yaks in numerical disadvantage similar to that experienced when fighting against the USSAF. they emerged victorious there.

Cheers!


----------



## syscom3 (May 31, 2006)

Let me see if I can summarize Udets post.

1) The German fighters would be able to climb to altitude to intercept the bombers.

I agree but it would get progressively harder to do each week that pass's by. Even with Ta-152's, there were not going to be enough of them to change the outcome. The Ta-152 was one heck of a plane, but it required one heck of a pilot to take full advantage of its capabilities. And great pilots were in short supply for the Luftwaffe.

2) German defensive guns were just as effective as the allied defensive guns?

Well, any gun shooting at someone is bound to be unnerving. But the B17 and B24 could reasonably be able to put five .50's on most rear facing area's of the planes. The B29 would be able to put six .50's in the same direction with the bonus that it was CFC directed and had a better probability of hitting something.

3) The altitudes the B29 flew over Japan were dictated by the fact that Japans defenses sucked big time at night. High altitudes were maintained during the day and low altitudes during the night. A hypothetical B29 force in the ETO would fight at 30K, just like the B17's. The existing German fighters would be more than capable of fighting the B29 at any altitude it flew at.

4) It doesnt matter how many Me262's were available because they didnt really shoot down many bombers to begin with. Look at the numbers. 3000 B17's and B24's flying from England and Italy and very few shot down. By the time the Me-262's would have finally been armed with the rockets, the war was cming to an end and there werent any pilots left to fly them. remember that the engine reliability was getting worse and the normal attrition rate of the pilots from non combat accidents was going to deplete the force any way you look at it.

5) The B29 was not a wonder weapon that was invulrnerable. It was a big improvement over the B17 and b24, and it would have complicated Luftwaffe efforts to stop them.

6) If the B29's flew night only missions, then the Luftwaffe would basically have nothing that could stop them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2006)

'ang on, this seems a little odd to me, you're discussing the hypothetical use of the B-29 over Europe correct? but you're still discussing the Luftwaffe in it's run down, on it's last legs 1945 state for the most part, is it not reasonable to assume that if the point is reached where it is felt the B-17 and B-24 are no longer doing a good anough job and the B-29 is needed then it is probable that the war has gone on longer than 1945 (which it really had to to get the B-29 in Europe in the numbers you're talking anyway) and the war is going pretty well for the Jerry, which also means they'd still be capable of producing more planes to a better quality? you're using a hypothetical situation with one variable, where in fact if you change that one variable (B-29 or no B-29) a lot of other things change too, does that make sence to anyone else?

and besides the way i see it is that the B-29 would make little difference, a bomb dropped is a bomb dropped no matter what plane delivered it, there'd be fewer B-29s so that counters their higher payload to a point where roughly the same tonnage is being dropped, so it flies higher and faster? firstly not when she's bloody full, secondly that famed central fire system wasn't famed for it's reliability and lastly no matter what a bomber can do a fighter can follow, especially the German ones, they would still get shot down..........


----------



## syscom3 (May 31, 2006)

The B29's would not have been deployed to Europe untill late spring at the earliest. And they wouldnt have been in large numbers untill the fall of 1944. Thats based on actual production rates. And it wasnt untill early 1945 that production really was beginning to ramp up.

The 8th and 15th AF campaign was not going to just stop because the B29 was going to be available in the future. The B17's and B24's (and Lancs) would have continued "business as usual" as the B29's groups joined them.

Its true that the CFC was not the most reliable of devices, but it did work well enough. 

Lanc, you have to look at the "macro" sense of the airwar. The B29's would complicate German intercepts of the groups, and although not invulnerable, they were a magnitude better than the B17's, B24's and Lancasters. And the germans would need to get ever more effective fighters deployed in quantity to match them. Some German fighters would always get through and shoot down there fair share of the -29's, but they in turn would suffer their own loss's.


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2006)

Lanc is very coorect in my eyes. A bomb dropped is a bomb dropped, and it doesn't matter from whoms AF of the Allies. Since this is all a big what-if scenario the question probably should of been started as to when the B-29 was to be introduced and was it to replace the existing US ETO bomber arsenal ?

without a doubt the Me 262 with R4M's would of been up as well as the TA 152H finally meeting US a/c on the TA's terms none of this mid-low altitude crap that it was not suited for though it did perform in excellent manner proven through the JG 301 veteran accts. The Ta during the late months is still marvelled today with the overly long wingspan and the cockpit pushed further back of the huge Jumo behind the edge of the wings. elongated the a/c was but it sure did it's thing when put into action. No doubt the Ta also woud of been armed with the R4M which would of been nothing for the field techs to accomplish.
As to Syscoms comment about B-29's attacking at night and no German response as to a/c, the same day fighter configs that I mentioned would of been used at night, as kommando Welter was already in action and the twin seater 262 would of been able to attack with it's full arsenal advantages. We may well have seen the first useage wide scale of R4M's or similiar rocket weaponry used at night and beleive it or not a Ta 152 variant was being mocked up for night combat.
As the Ta 152H's of III. gruppe and Stab./JG 301 had performed several high altitude cover ops for II./JG 301 Doras on the Ost front it is easily apparent the Ta 152H would of been a contender against the B-29 and the assorted Stangs and Jugs to proteect them

this is a death card of one particular Stab./JG 301 pilot, a most accomplished one at that flying in combat in April of 45 at low altitudue with an RAF Tempest. While slowly getting the upper hand "Sepps" supercharger seized (or at least this is what seemed apparent to the personell watching from the ground), and his Ta from the low altitude fell like a stone, Sattler being killed. He and the other Stab members hoping they would face P-51's at 30,000 plus feet an operation that never occured . . .


----------



## Marshall_Stack (May 31, 2006)

I didn't realize that there was a two seat version of the ME 262. Was this to be used for night fighting? I didn't think there was a two seat version since they said they trained pilots with the instructor on the wing as the pilot went through some of the controls. If they had a two seat version it makes sense that they would have used some for training.


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2006)

I can tell you for fact that JG 7, KG 51 and 54 had two seat trainers. Kommando Welter had the B-1a/U1 for night fighting equipped with Neptun 218 radar and the typical back seat radio operator. Yes at least 1 craft, red 12 was used on missions and this particular craft shot down 1 Mossie confirmed in spring of 45. Kommando Welter DID not have two seaters for training

back to the topic I would imagine that Ta 152H's with R4M's would of made up a wild display and tactics would evolved similair to firing like the Me 262's and a porpoise like attack, something to throw of the tail gunners posisiton or sighting requirements stabilizied within the B-29. In time weaknesses would of been found like in all a/c


----------



## Dac (May 31, 2006)

Sabre pilots found it almost impossible to stop MiG-15 attacks on daylight B-29 missions over Korea when escorting. Considering the speed difference between Allied escorts and Me 262s in 1945, Schwalbes would have done considerable damage to B-29 bomber formations.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2006)

But they didnt. Because the war was over before it could happen.

The Germans had to stop the B17/24/29 and Lanc's with what they had, not what was on the drawing boards.


----------



## Dac (Jun 1, 2006)

Over 1,000 Me 262s were built by the end of the war, they weren't used in the best way but they did their fair share of damage. The USAF abandoned B-29 daylight bombing in Korea because of the threat posed by MiG-15s and while it wasn't as fast, the Me 262 with heavy cannon and rockets would have been effective against the Superforts. Jagdverband 44 was active till the last days of the war when the rest of the Luftwaffe had ceased to exist.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2006)

1000 were built, but how many qualified pilots were there? And how many allied aircraft were lost to them?

This was a case of the Luftwaffe finally figuring it out when it was so late, it accomplished nothing.

The scenario is if the B29 was deployed to the ETO at the earliest practical date, what could the Germans have done in reality, to stop them? Would the various models of the -109 be able to handle them? What about the -190 variants? Would any of the twin engined fighters have enough performance to make a difference?

Would any of those planes be even more vulnerable to the escort fighters thus accomplish little? 

Was the German flak good enough to stop them?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2006)

> The scenario is if the B29 was deployed to the ETO at the earliest practical date



this is the issue that still poses a problem for me, you say it's late 1944 for the sake of argument yes? and you say that's based of production figures, well, hang on, wasn't all that production going out to the pacific? and it was needed in the pacific they weren't going to divert them to Europe at that time whilst -17s and -24s were out there, unless of course the -29 was really needed badly, if it is needed badly then something has gone right for the Germans and in this hypothetical situation, i dunno, perhaps they captured half of russia and forced them to sign a ceasefire, either way that's irrelivant, it will suffice to say things are going well, they have plenty of raw materials and plenty of pilots, the allied bombing is getting us nowhere, that is the only senario in which in 1945 the B-29s would be diverted from the PTO as i see it, now if things are going well and the jerries know the -29's coming what're they gonna do? produce and put pilots in shedloads of -152s and -262s, and they'll be up waiting for the -29's in large numbers, yes some will get through, but many more will get taken down, and suddenly this becomes very expensive for the yanks........

now what if we say the practical arrival of the -29 isn't until early '46 perhaps? when a lot more factories are producing large enough numbers for Europe (more would be needed over Europe than the pacifc i think we can agree on that) but again for the americans to think that -17s and -24s weren't sufficient anymore would lead one to assume that the war's going well for jerry again, and if we're talking '46 we're talking about some pretty scary kit coming from the germans, some of which was purpose built to take out the B-29...........

sys you say i need to look at the "macro" sence of warfare, i put it to you that you need to look at the macro sence of your sanareo, and realise that other things will change other than the introduction of the B-29, it is not the singular variable in what is in all honesty pure speculation...........


----------



## delcyros (Jun 1, 2006)

There is plenty of evidence from the Werknummern that at least 1.732 Me-262 have been assembled or worked to a state to receive Werknummern in ww2 (+16 Me-262 after VE-day). This doesn´t meen that 1.700 have been deployed to the Luftwaffe, of course.
The numbers deployed are matter of debate, so I will try to summerize the lower end of the line (the higher is matter of speculation, so I leave it).
At least 173 Me-262 have been lost due to enemy actions (including combat, AAA, mid air collisions, downed at take-off/landing, strafing, bombing and so on).
224 Me-262 have been lost to accidents (53 of them cannot bee associated with an event).
Ergo at least 400 Me-262 must have been be deployed to the Luftwaffe as the lowest possible number. If we take into account that a number of planes survived the war and that the numbers of losses is a low one (only caunting those to be associated with a known event), I feel justified to say that at least 600 Me-262 have been deployed to the Luftwaffe during ww2, with a good number of them beeing bombers and training / test planes. The high end of the probable numbers is unknown but I don´t believe in the often quoted 1433 planes figure.
There were still enough fighter pilots in the Luftwaffe to use those tools. Several Luftwaffe units should receive Me-262 or He-162 at the end of the war. Arguably, the average german fighterpilot at the end of the war lacked training, but in opposition to this new tactics have been utilized for jets quite early. Fuel was more a matter of concern.
The advent of the B-29 over Germany would surely have a serious impact. If we just replace the B-17 with B-29´s (not widening the timeframe) we would probably see an increase in losses for the Luftwaffe and (arguable) a decrease in losses for the 8th USAAF over europe. Anyway I would exclude a substantial change. The heavy AAA would still share a good deal to the B-29 as to any other bomber and the Me-262 would still be attributed with many high altitude interceptions from mid march 45 on. I rather see an acceleration of jet importance for the Luftwaffe high command in this scenario cause they are a proper answer. An early advent of B-29 could cause a sooner fighter deployment of the Me-262. The outcome wouldn´t change either: Soviet troops capturing Berlin and end ww2 in europe. Germany bombed.


----------



## PipsPriller (Jun 1, 2006)

The Luftwaffe in all it's potent glory couldn't stop, nor even limit, the bombing effect of B-17's and B-24's.

So why do the Luftwaffe hopefulls think that it would do even as well against a bomber travelling 80mph faster than the older models, operating far above their operational ceilings and with a superior fire control system?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> this is the issue that still poses a problem for me, you say it's late 1944 for the sake of argument yes? and you say that's based of production figures, well, hang on, wasn't all that production going out to the pacific?



This scenario is for a decision by Gen Arnold and Marshall that the B29 units were going to go to the ETO and not PTO. For whatever reason, the Mariana's were not available at the time needed and someone figured out that the logistics for them in the CBI was impossible to support.



> ......produce and put pilots in shedloads of -152s and -262s, and they'll be up waiting for the -29's in large numbers, yes some will get through, but many more will get taken down, and suddenly this becomes very expensive for the yanks........



But in reality, the ta-152 and -262's didnt appear in force untill the war was winding down. And that assumes the Luftwaffe had a qualified pilot available for each plane. It could have been done, but that would mean a complete suspension of existing sorties to fight the planes untill these two planes were online.

Remember that towards the end of the war, the Luftwaffe was deploying new pilots with less than a hundred hours of training. I have no reason to believe that any pilot of any nation could effectively handle any high performace fighter with that number of hours without killing himself in an accident or in combat.



> now what if we say the practical arrival of the -29 isn't until early '46 perhaps? when a lot more factories are producing large enough numbers for Europe (more would be needed over Europe than the pacifc i think we can agree on that) but again for the americans to think that -17s and -24s weren't sufficient anymore would lead one to assume that the war's going well for jerry again, and if we're talking '46 we're talking about some pretty scary kit coming from the germans, some of which was purpose built to take out the B-29...........



The US had four B29 assembly plants in operation by summer of 1945. If the war was going bad enough, more factories could have been brought online to build even more. remember that the B17's and B24's were being built right up to spring 1945. 

Also remember the allies had some tricks up their sleeves too. The P47N, P82 and P51K were going to be able to handle the Ta-152. And thats not counting the P80 and Meteor to handle the -262.

Dont forget that under developement in 1945 was the R4360 engined b29 that was going to be even faster than the -3350 equipped -29's.



> sys you say i need to look at the "macro" sence of warfare, i put it to you that you need to look at the macro sence of your sanareo, and realise that other things will change other than the introduction of the B-29, it is not the singular variable in what is in all honesty pure speculation...........



The decsion to base the B29 in the PTO was dictated by political decisions, not war realities. All it took for the B29 to go to the ETO was someone on the JCS to say that the submarine blockade of Japan was going to be just as effective as the B29, or the Mariana's would not be capable of supporting the B29 groups till "later".

In addition, no matter what happens in the air by the time the B29's would have arrived in force, the battle of Normandy and the Russian summer offensives had begun, and the clock was ticking for Germany.


----------



## Dac (Jun 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The decsion to base the B29 in the PTO was dictated by political decisions, not war realities. All it took for the B29 to go to the ETO was someone on the JCS to say that the submarine blockade of Japan was going to be just as effective as the B29, or the Mariana's would not be capable of supporting the B29 groups till "later".



It was also political decisions on the part of the German high command(Hitler) that limited the deployment of the Me 262 and other inteceptors. As delcyros points out, large numbers of B-29s being sent to the ETO would have provoked a response from the Germans. Instead of wasting Me 262s in the fighter-bomber role perhaps all the production would have gone into air defence. It's also probable that more effective interceptors liked the Ta 152 would have recieved a higher priority. 

I'm not arguing that the Luftwaffe would have been able to stop the Allied air offencive or somehow turned the tide of the war. I'm just saying that the air over Germany was a dangerous place for Allied aircraft till the end of the war and that would have applied to the B-29 too.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 1, 2006)

If the carnage and damage the existing B17's. -24's and Lancs couldnt motivate the German High Command to switch over to the Me-262 in a pure fighter role, then I seriously doubt the introduction of B29's would change their way of thinking.

One thing to remember is you cant hurry technology. If the Ta-152's engines were not ready for combat, then the plane isnt ready to fly.


----------



## Erich (Jun 1, 2006)

sorry guys this thread is going no-where like all what-ifs. if the B-29 would of been introduced earlier in the war the Luftwaffe plain and simple would of rushed the Ta 152H program sooner or another higher altitude alternative. Nothing was going to take on the Ta 152H in late war for the Allies don;t care if it was a P-51K which was ins erivce or a P-47N, there were newer Ta 152 varinats ready to be let loose but the war came to quickly to a close. As I said this is all nonsense now so lets close this ..............


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2006)

I agree - this is a BIG "what if."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 8, 2006)

Syscom, Lanc is right, you are not looking at all the angles of your " Great Big What If".

You also assume alot as well and discredit others assuming. Why is that? Are your assumptions better than others?

You say the P-51K would be able to handle the Ta-152? Are you sure about that? Did a P-51K ever see combat with a Ta-152? Nope.

You say the P-80 would be able to handle the Me-262? Are you sure about that? Did the P-80 ever see combat at all in WW2? Nope.

You say the Meteor could handle the Me-262? Are you sure about that? Did the Meteor ever see air to air combat in WW2? Nope and besides the Me-262 was proven to be a better aircraft than the Meteor anyhow.

You talk about all this hypothetical stuff, Besides the fact that I agree with Lanc up here, if the B-29s had to be forced into Europe in 1944 then the Ta-183 and the P.1011 would have been hurried up aswell, and they would have been more than a match for the allied fighters (as proven by US tests with the P.1011) and the B-29 aswell.

The Germans were not really lacking all that many experienced pilots in 1944, it was not until late 1944 that they experience level dropped.

Basically what I am saying here syscom is if you are going to throw out your What ifs like you do, then you are going to have to look at all the variables aswell and not dismiss other peoples like you do.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You also assume alot as well and discredit others assuming. Why is that? Are your assumptions better than others?



Of course they are



> You say the P-51K would be able to handle the Ta-152? Are you sure about that? Did a P-51K ever see combat with a Ta-152? Nope.



Conversely, a -152 never saw combat with a -51K. As good as the -152 was, it was not a magnitude better in performance than the newest versions of the allied fighters that would have met it.



> You say the P-80 would be able to handle the Me-262? Are you sure about that? Did the P-80 ever see combat at all in WW2? Nope.



P80 had engines that were a lot better, plus it had far longer range. Was it as fast as the -262? Nope. But the relative speeds were enough that the P80 could stay in a tail chase on the -262, or stay out of its way and just wait untill it had to land and then shoot it down.



> You say the Meteor could handle the Me-262? Are you sure about that? Did the Meteor ever see air to air combat in WW2? Nope and besides the Me-262 was proven to be a better aircraft than the Meteor anyhow.



Meteor had similar engines to the P80.



> You talk about all this hypothetical stuff, Besides the fact that I agree with Lanc up here, if the B-29s had to be forced into Europe in 1944 then the Ta-183 and the P.1011 would have been hurried up aswell, and they would have been more than a match for the allied fighters (as proven by US tests with the P.1011) and the B-29 aswell.



The -183 and .1011 wouldnt have been deployed any sooner than they were. Germany had only so many resources to go around and it could not produce production aircraft with no bugs in a "zero" time frame. As I said, if the B17, B24 and Lanc were not enough motivation for them, then the B29 was not going to incite them to speed things up.



> The Germans were not really lacking all that many experienced pilots in 1944, it was not until late 1944 that they experience level dropped.



I agree. The B29's would really be in force untill late 1944 anyway.



> Basically what I am saying here syscom is if you are going to throw out your What ifs like you do, then you are going to have to look at all the variables aswell and not dismiss other peoples like you do.



I looked at the other variables and they are to much in left field, and not enough what could have been done immediatly.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jun 8, 2006)

What is the P.1011? I couldn't find anything on Google.


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2006)

For christ sake syscom3


----------



## Sal Monella (Jun 8, 2006)

"What is the P.1011? I couldn't find anything on Google."

It's nice to see that I wasn't the only one.


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2006)

another thought even with the B-29 airborne the ground to air rocket program would of been pushed further. there are at least a half dozen incidences of them firing on B-17 formations during 1945, primarily for observation purposes.

the Ta 152H program would of been elevated in the extrememe as it would of taken on all Allied escort fighters..........but again this is a ALL encompassing what-if


----------



## delcyros (Jun 8, 2006)

Meteor and P-80´s do have different powerplants, Syscom. Altough I think You mean the general specification as a "radial" engine.
Meteor III: Dervent-I or II (907 Kp, depended on production model)
Meteor-IV: Dervent V (1456 Kp) -model late 1945
P-80: GE J 33 (1746 Kp) -model late 1945
What´s the issue with the reliability? As we see, the contemporary radial jet powerplants (Dervent I, Dh-Ghost, Welland) are not decisively better in thrust output and also were unreliable (there were problems to restart Wellands in flight), altough not to such a high degree as were the Jumo-004B´s. 
Radial engines are not superior over axial ones per se. The axial Jumo-004A had excellent lifetime, overrew abilities (from 840 Kp at 100% to 1.000 Kp during bench tests) but had too much scarce alloys. This was what made the Jumo-004B that inferior in reliability, not the axial layout.
In late 1945 almost all the unreliable Jumo-004B would have been replaced by the Jumo-004D (004B production was to fade out in may, 004D serial production started in mid march 45) or Jumo-004E. Both engines featured a new, more heat resistant alloy for the turbine section, which increased the average lifetime to 50+ hrs(thrust ratio was slightly increased to 930, resp. 1200 Kp, testbenched for 200 hrs sustained runs with and without reheat). Twin jet needles and a cyclic fuel compressor prevented much of the flameout threads common for early jet engines.
BMW-003A engines with 800 Kp thrust were more reliable and had a 200 hrs. average lifetime. By early 1945 serial production for BMW-003E started for the He-162. This variant could be enforced to 923 Kp thrust power rating for brief periods (excessive use of this overrew capability would significantly reduce the average lifetime). Mass production of the BMW-003D started in april 1945, this variant would have auto shut off and auto settings, greatly improving the specific fuel consumption and thrust rating (1100Kp).
For the late 45 timeframe we must exclude the unreliability as a prime factor for german jet engines.
My personal opinion nethertheless agrees on the latest british and US developments (RR Nene and GE J33) most. They were better powerplants than the proposed HeS011.
However, I wouldn´t think that the situation would allow for a late 45 timeframe. Even with B-29, the war would end historically in early may 45.
There is nothing the B-29 could do to accelerate the breakdown of Nazi Germany, ground forces were needed to achieve victory. Germany was already badly bombed in mid 44.


----------



## red admiral (Jun 8, 2006)

> My personal opinion nethertheless agrees on the latest british and US developments (RR Nene and GE J33) most. They were better powerplants than the proposed HeS011.



Whittle LR1 turbofan with 10 axial and 1 centrifugal stage, bypass ratio of 3 and 2700kg thrust in 1944.

More useful would be the Turbofan developed in 1943 or so for MetroVick and Whittle /700 that increased thrust by 60% and reduced fuel consumption by 20%. This was a simple device that could be simply attached to the turbine unit. The UDF tested produced even more thrust for less weight. Neither was implemented because it was too easy for an example to end up in German hands.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 8, 2006)

The first jet engine with turbofan was testbenched in 1941. It was the DB-006 ZTL (ZTL means "Zweistromturbinenluftstrahltriebwerk"-dual air flow jet engine) with a thrust rating of 1.150 Kp at 100% and 1350 Kp enforced. The engine was considered as too difficult for mass production (17 stages axial, 1 stage turbine) and the project was stopped later. DB managed to improve the concept for a really large, 3 stage fan, 10 stage axial and 3 stage turbine engine. (thrust output was estimated in excess of 7000 Kp. -I do have my doubts on such numbers-) The DB-016 featured such improvements as 90% thrust revectoring for rapid decelleration. At wars end, Daimler Benz worked small part fabrication of the first two prototypes. 
Beside of DB, Jumo and BMW as well as Heinkel all had ZTL jet engine concepts or test engines. 
The Whittle metrovic engine with diagonal compressor (same layout as HeS002, and HeS008-HeS011 but much more complicated) didn´t fullfilled their specifications. This 2.700 Kp thrust output was never achieved on the testbench.
The Nene was the best jet engine tested in ww2, excellent thrust rating, lightweighted, low specific fuel consumption. Huge diamter but otherwise excellent.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 8, 2006)

The ground to air rockets were quite an interesting developement. I think it would have been of limited use though as it would have been prone to jamming. If it was one thing the allies had an abundance of in 1945 was lots and lots of airframes dedicated to specific tasks.


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2006)

jamming is rather doubtful as case in point the Allies did not even know they existed and thought the strange looking puffs with bright light in the middle were some sort of flak. biggest problem was the guidance/radio control systems from ground to air which were a bit infantile but were getting worked out as the war wound down quickly. Berlin, Hamburg, Vienna and the major larger cities of the Ruhr were to be centers for rocket flak.

this is all another story along with radio and wire guided fighter to bomber rockets


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2006)

I'll just quickly throw this in as it was fired in anger several times

Rhine-daughter and later multi-stage developments, guess they thought the moon was controlled by the Allies


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 8, 2006)

That look interesting Erich, I have heard of the Wasserfall anti-aircraft rocket but that is it. Do you have anymore information?


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2006)

I have 10 tons of info on the German ground to air rockets much of it collected since the 1960's and most of it unseen materails as it was going to be used for a booklet I was pondering for many many years. Funny how the Soviets captured several Wasserfalls and what was left of the ancient now V-1 and V-2 systems in NE Germany and put together rather dreadful rocket programs

but I digress. A Rheintochter going through test devlopments. As to the written myth the project was not scrubbed out but continued for a high altitiude small but extrmemely powerful surface to air missile system, the wasserfall and several others were too big and guidanace control systems were faulty. Ideas were ill conceived as there were just too many missile designs on the work table. What if could of been devastating to US and even Soviet midrange bombers had the missiles been enplace in prtective and well-concealed camo'd bunkers and that was the idea to have them placed on the outskirts of the major cities. trials were also set on using a multi fired rocket systme for Bomber destroying like the ground unit Nebelwerfer


----------



## delcyros (Jun 8, 2006)

This really is an issue to cover, Erich!
I wasn´t aware that they used smokeless fuel...

pictures taken from -Märkische Allgemeine Zeitung- 08-11-1997, the author states that EWM W8 and -10 have been used twice in april with success. Not sure if this is true.


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2006)

there was actually a mission with similiar missile-wasserfall to fire on Brooklyn New York from the sea via a U-boot, it was scrubbed. also transatlantic experiments using a surface based missile-multi-stage to attack America from deep within the hills of the Reich. Besides taking the big boy JU 390 on air-stroll and firing off multiple attack missiles on European targets and America . . . but again all in the minds of technicians and the table 

the high tech experimental book was inches thick during 1944-45, and as I stated too many drafts on the drawing board and no time for preparation . . . . thank goodness ! and now we are using these expanded systems created by a demented regime today


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2006)

note the joy stick operator and thensingle scope radar unit for the wasserfall as it was radar assisted.

target acqueiesce or target assited Einzian and missile system with much favour argued like most of the Missile projects by senior applicators within the RLM and even the Flak arm into destruction ground the future project into the ground. over 40 testing plots and an altitiude of over 50,000 ft plenty enough to take on any high altitiude US or RAF bomber over the Reich.
again this was a joy stick operation which during the time of the war seemed to be cutting edge. In this day and age almost laughable unless we talk about the secret drones operated on similiar principles but with a TV screen camera system mounted. German teechs had already come up in late 1943 with an idea to mount them


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 8, 2006)

Thats some cool stuff you have there Erich.

I remember talking about TV guided bombs in an earlier thread.

The US did have a TV guided bomb in use by the end of WW2.


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2006)

Don't laugh at the Joystick approach. I have seen Seacat missiles hitting crossing targets using a joystick. Not as good as the modern stuff by far but a nice B17/24 isn't exactly a 70's jet bomber either.
A lot of anti tank nissiles were also controlled in this manner.


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2006)

The German guided missiles and bombs actually destroyed quite a number of allied ships, while heavily damaging others, and also some aircraft were destroyed as-well as some bridges etc etc.

So German guided missiles and bombs actually proved quite effective during the war, however by 44 the Allies had jamming devices which could disturb the guiding-system of some of these weapons, however not really efficiently.


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2006)

Soren if your interested in the HS 293 and 294 may I suggest the two volumes on Luftw anti-shipping craft by Chris Goss. first volumes from Classic pubs is coming to me next week. I will be curious if Chris has found something new locked up at Pro/Kew archivs in England. the whole anti-shipping campaign in the Med and Atlantic is so little known and yes the joystick controllers fitted seemed to do a fair job but it was all up to the controller and yes if the guidance was not jammed or mother craft shot down and this was really the prime cause of failure of not reaching/hitting the ship targets ... many variables. sorry of this is getting OT

E ☼


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jun 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Thats some cool stuff you have there Erich.
> 
> I remember talking about TV guided bombs in an earlier thread.
> 
> The US did have a TV guided bomb in use by the end of WW2.



The US also had a radar guided bomb called the Bat that worked particularly well against shipping. It was basically a 1000lb GP bomb with wings and a tailplane that was carried usually be PB4Y-2 Privateers. When a Japanese ship was spotted it was dropped. The ship being the only radar return that the Bat saw made it an easy target. No guidance was needed after dropping... just set it and forget it!!
However if shipping was near land of course the Bat would head for the bigger radar return of land and miss the ship. But on the open seas it worked pretty good!

Some were also modified for use against bridges, but I think these had less than stellar performance.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 9, 2006)

I do agree.....But without the fighters you may not make it!


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2006)

Erich said:


> Soren if your interested in the HS 293 and 294 may I suggest the two volumes on Luftw anti-shipping craft by Chris Goss. first volumes from Classic pubs is coming to me next week. I will be curious if Chris has found something new locked up at Pro/Kew archivs in England. the whole anti-shipping campaign in the Med and Atlantic is so little known and yes the joystick controllers fitted seemed to do a fair job but it was all up to the controller and yes if the guidance was not jammed or mother craft shot down and this was really the prime cause of failure of not reaching/hitting the ship targets ... many variables. sorry of this is getting OT
> 
> E ☼



Thanks for the recommendation Erich, I think I'll acquire those examples within this month. I'm also interested in testimonies regarding the deployment and firing of these weapons, as its still very much a mysterious subject at the moment.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 9, 2006)

Let's add to Erich's surface-to-air missiles. Here's the synopsis in brief of others-

Even before massive Allied bombing raids were crumbling Germany, several projects were commenced. The weapons systems would be cheap compared to interceptor aircraft and no pilots’ lives would be risked. Ground radar guidance or telescopic human visual guidance would have directed them to targets. Safer, solid fuel powered them.

Before the Feuerlilie (Fire Lilly) Rheinmetall-Borsig did some research on a project missile called the Hecht (Pike). It was an 8.1-foot missile weighing 309 lbs. but little else survives of data.

The Feuerlilie F.55 took shape beginning in 1942. It featured a length of 15.75 feet and had a tail fin spanning 8.2 feet. It weighed 1,036 lbs. and its four liquid fuel Rheinmetall 109-515 motors of 13,970 lbs. thrust propelled it to 932 MPH by the end of its 15-mile flight to target guided by autopilot and radio command carrying a 220 lb. warhead. This SAM did not reach operational status. Two test firings were made.

The Schmetterling (Butterfly) Hs 117 was close to entering service by the end of the war. This one was 14 feet long with a 6.5-foot fin span. It weighed 981 lbs. at launch with its 55-pound proximity fuse warhead. 

After the two Schmidding 109-553 launch boosters accelerated it to 680 MPH they separated and the 827 lb. thrust BMW 109-558 sustainer held a constant 537 MPH over the course of its 20-mile range. Guidance was radio link where the operator steered the missile to a bomber formation with the aid of a 10x telescope. Launch was experimented with using He 111s. From the ground an altitude of 32,808 feet could be reached.

Fifty-nine were test fired and plans for 150 per month initially in March 1945 would rise to 3,000 per moth by November 1945. Sixty sites were earmarked for launch locations.

Rheintochtor (Daughter of the Rhine) R I was more ambitious a missile from Rheinmetall-Borsig. It was a two-stage bird with an overall length of 20.75 feet and had stub wings measuring 87.4 inches in span. Dual boosters gave the missile a 165,344 lb. kick for 0.6 second. The sustaining motor pushed at 8,818 lbs. thrust for ten more seconds. 

The R III was lighter by 500 lbs at 3,307 lbs. and had a 16.25-foot length. Both models had a 25-mile range but the R III could ascend to 49,213 feet where the R I could hit just 19,685 feet. The R I carried a 220 lb. warhead while the R III had one of 351 lbs. Neither saw service.

Eighty-two launches were made in test.

The Wasserfall (Waterfall) was a relatively large and sophisticated missile that came from Wernher von Braun and the Peenemunda team that worked on the A-4. It went from concept in 1942 to first launch in March 1944. Guidance was a combination of visual and electronic with the Kehl-Strassburg radio control system. Like all the missiles employing proximity fuses, the operator detonated on command or the fuse did so automatically when close to target. Warhead weight was 518 lbs.

The Peenemunda P IX motor developed 17,160 lbs. thrust for 42 seconds running on Visol (vinyl isobutyl ether) and SV-stoff, which was Salbei, or fuming nitric acid. The rocket was 25.6 feet long with an 8.2-foot fin span. All up it weighed 8,400 lbs. and reached out 22 miles at 1,700 MPH and hit an altitude of 58,071 feet but never reached the production lines.

Thirty-five were tested.

Holzbrau-Kissing took Messerschmitt’s converted Me 163 design turned it into the Enzian (Gentian, violet-like flower). Models ran from the E-1 to the E-6. The end result looked little like the rocket fighter, save for the 13.1-foot wings, perhaps. The Walter 109-502 rocket of 3,300 lbs. thrust ran on the same C-stoff/T-stoff fuel that the Me 163 used. T-stoff was hydrogen peroxide and C-stoff was a nasty blend of 30% hydrazine hydrate, 57% methyl alcohol and 13% water.

The 11.5-foot was three feet in diameter and it weighed 4,350 lbs. at launch with its 550 lb. proximity fuse warhead. The E-4 was 7.9 feet long weighing 3,968 lbs. To launch this SAM four Schmidding 109-553 solid fuel boosters of 3,850 lbs. thrust each for 4.0 seconds were lit. Then the Walter ran for 70.0 seconds. 600 MPH was achieved but range was just 15.25 miles. Vertical altitude of over 50,000 feet was possible though.

The Enzian used Kehl-Strassburg or Kogge-Brigg command radio guidance systems. But more advanced hardware was planned with a Madrid IR (infrared) homing device, Moritz radar and even the Archimedes acoustic homer. 

Thirty-eight trial firings were made.

Messerschmitt had a final missile planned, the E-6, which was a wire-guided anti-tank missile but no details are available.

The Taifun (Typhoon) was a last minute missile by Peenemunda at unguided, inexpensive technology. The idea was that only 1.1 lbs. of explosive was actually needed to bring down a bomber so at a cost of sixty-two 1945 US cents the 76-inch, 46.3 lb. missile was viable. 

The little Visol/SV-stoff motor accelerated it to 2,237 MPH in 2.5 seconds with accuracy to aim point. Though range was but about five miles 49,213 feet in altitude was achieved. The concept was to launch salvos of these missiles against incoming bombers. Effectiveness was as good as conventional anti-aircraft guns. 600 were produced though not used.

Had any mixture of these land-based SAMs been in service sooner they would have caused some damage to Allied bomber strikes. Batteries of missiles would have freed up fighters to clean up after formations were split after missile barrages and not take the brunt of the bomber boxes’ defensive armament.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 9, 2006)

Twitch said:


> ........Batteries of missiles would have freed up fighters to clean up after formations were split after missile barrages and not take the brunt of the bomber boxes’ defensive armament.



Assuming that there were no allied escort fighters around.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2006)

Syscom a freind of the famile was involved with the V-1 launches on England early war and then transferred to a local flak batterie and then with his earlier experience to experimental missile test centers. He still has some interesting info regarding the useage of ground to air materails inclusive of airfield defence and long range up to 50,000 ft but I must await his demise before I can post any of it upon his promised wishes.

safe to say that the Rocket-flak batteries would of sent up huge numbers of missiles to explode at an aprox altitiude and as Twitch said then allow Luftw fighters to take care of the chaotic mess, and the assumption that even with US fighters flying at an upper alt. of 1000 feet or higher, they too would of been part of the initial carnage. . . . . . who knows really as only several tests/firing ops against B-17 formations occurred in 45.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 9, 2006)

There would be far less of need for multitudes of slow and lethargic Zertroyers overburdened with armor that were used to attempt to break up formations. Wading into the firing range of several hundred .50s was not done with relish by rocket toting Ju 88 or Me 110 "formation breakers" that couldn't get out of their own way much less P-51s'.

Since there was no way to destroy all the heavies the next best thing was to destroy their accuracy. The way that was accomplished was to break up formations. Without concentrated accracy on targets the bombers' efforts would be thwarted.

"Regular" fighters could be used to take on escorts and seek out bombers not protected in the "box" formation. 190A-8s overweight with armor and up to 8 20 mms were no match for P-51s. Ta 152s and other normally balanced fighters would have had a much better advantage. And remember, if the heavy's formations were broke up from SAM barrages the escort fighters would be too.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 9, 2006)

Erich, we all wait your information. As usual, youre an endless supply of great material!

Twitch, the escort fighters would have to be right in with the bombers for them to be affected by the rocket barrage. Usually they were flying a lot higher than the bombers and not necessarily "right on top of them". The rocket barrage would have no impact on the fighter escorts.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2006)

Sys that totally depends on what type of missile batteries were in action, and that was the point as it was for regular Flak ground batteries around larger industrial or population centers. 88's and then outside were 105's and single 128mm's....... the idea would of been similiar with surface to air missiles except they would of been dug in quite well and camo'd. due to the ground smoke of course there was ways in theory to alleviate the smoke or at least make it rrail off in some fashion so as not to present such a noticeable target for jabos.

notiec on the Rhine daughter how the rockets would of been employed on their rails. the unit or supported system was dug in a bomb-proof bunker..........correct in theory again as a splinter type box. Sadly I do not see any particualrs yet as to how they would of been spaced out but they could of been fiored in groups of 8 or more but that is talking a fairly large area of ground, easy enough to be spotted and pounded into the ground by jabos or even 4-engine heavies. the idea alos of clearings in the ehavy spruce forests was also looked upon making deteection especially from low flying intruders much more difficult. Granted this would of only allowed for high range to vertical visual findings of the ehavy bombers due to tree height


----------



## Udet (Jun 9, 2006)

sir glider

im still awaiting your response to my posting. is there anything wrong where you living or what; or are you having a nasty time in trying to leave the cookies out of your diet?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 9, 2006)

Erich, in the case of the guided rockets, they would have been degraded by the ammount of cloud cover.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2006)

not if given preset co-ordinates/fuses to fire from at a given height. It was determined even through cloud decks as to what the height was of the bomber formations even after they grouped over England, the Luftwaffe knew elevation coming over the Reich for both bombers and fighters. Such gloomy stats for the German day fighter pilots as they witnessed the paper=telex's coming in of 500 to 1500 US fighters airborne and they would have to naturally go up into that to reach the bombers and only by sheer luck did they get through and attack the bombers frrely from escort interference. Miles of rocket batteris "could of" been had all along the main bomber streams to Hamburg and Vienna but obviously it never happened. I throw this out knowing full well it does not apply now but could the SAM's been a deterent or could it have slowed the war down and with it ending in the fall of 45 ? ......... possibly, but . . . .


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2006)

As Erich has mentioned the rocket sites would be vulnerable to Allied air-power. Both V-1 and V-2 rocket sites were destroyed, even when they were mobile launch sites. The AA rocket sites would not be able to fire back at the ground-attack craft coming down to get them, unless they wanted to waste a rocket and then take a while reloading it. Unless these sites are protected by a lot of 20-mm FlaK cannon, but this is excess resources. At least the heavy FlaK cannon would be able to fire back at Allied craft time and time again because it's a lot easier to load a shell than it is a missile. 

When these missiles are fired up at the formation, I will assume that they will be launched together to cause mass chaos. Isn't that what the heavy FlaK was supposed to do? Massive clouds of shrapnel didn't break up the bomber formations, so why assume these missiles would? 

I would hope for Germany's sake that these missiles would be so much more useful to make up for the extra time and money it takes to build a rocket than it does a shell. I may be jumping a little ahead, and am prepared to make a fool of myself here but, during Vietnam the Vietcong SAMs were unable to stop the B-52s attacking them and they were guided systems. Why should we assume that these primitive systems would be able to A) Hit the target B) Break up the formations C) Hit the escorts too and, finally, why should we assume that the German interceptors would be able to follow up against the formation and destroy the escorts then the bombers? 

I just don't see the masses of bombers just all breaking apart because some are destroyed, or there's a hail of missiles. Throughout the war they'd been dealing with a clouds of shrapnel, swarms of enemy fighters, and destructive weaponary from Germany but they never broke formation. Nor do I see the escorts being broken up, since the escorts were not hanging near the formation. The Allied escorts were roaming around the sky, in front, above or behind the formation. And even if these escorts were broken up, the few interceptors to rise up and meet them would still be out-numbered by at least five to one. 

I am actually quite interested in these rockets, as I've read a little and seen a couple of documentaries. And I would like to know more. But I honestly don't see them being as devestating as they're made out. It's all assumption.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2006)

ah but my young freind that is the point ..........assumptions/what-ifs and whatever we want to call it. usually the 88mm's did not fire all at once so from what I gather for SAMS there was to be apre-appointed time where a massive launch could take plae hoping that the explosions and fragmentation could possibly be on the scale 5-10 times broader than the effective 88mm round.

you can imagine if the lead or middle bomber group by chance ran into such firepower in the air what this would do to the following up squadrons and bomber groups and in late 44-45 and wars end the US bomber formations could run the gamet of some 10 miles or longer so picking out targets of oppourtunity would be quite easy.

obviously as we can easily see 5-6 SAM's are not going to do the trick, maybe 40-75 might be another story let all off within a minutes time schedule, this of course would have to be closelyw qtched with the bomber formations covering ground in that minutes time as well as weaving US fighter escorts which would be much harder to bring down

things to conisder in our on-going what-if §


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2006)

Germany would have to divert a lot of resources to bring that kind of firepower to bare on the U.S formations. And they would need to be at least five times more effective as the standard AA round to make good on those resources. 
I can only imagine the lead group feeling the force and being destroyed, but the following groups moving on as the missiles are reloaded. As it would take a lot longer than shells. 
Germany would need to deploy a lot of SAMs to attack all the groups that would be attacking in a single day, on a variety of targets. And I believe Germany didn't have the proximity fuse, would these SAMs be manually exploded?


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2006)

pressure principles were being worked on in 1945 for SAM's meaning basically again a preset height and the igniter within the unit fires off. I would of course have to peel back the internals of the rockets to see how they work to adequately prove this but it could not have been a visual sighting and then "trying" to trigger the rocket 30,000 or more feet off the ground. A following decoy A/C may have worked to radio in but late in the war anything with German markings would be pounced on.

Example one R4M = 1 8.8cm round Flak or larger and as the rockets were of larger caliber if want to call it that a massed barrage in the air would not have been unthinkable allowing they all exploded within a millisecond of one antoerh after firing at that determined height pattern.
Also yes midway in a bomber stream could of brought great destruction and chaos, usually for German day fighters in late war they were not attacking lead bomber formations but midway. Besides the US escorts could not be everywhere at once even with over 1000 STangs and T-bolts in the air, it just was not possible......sorry I am getting a little off stream-bed. you can see though had there been say as an example 6-7 batteries firing off at certain points in the airstream what type of chaos would of arisen, and a possible heyday for the German fighters even when mixing it up with Allied escorts ........... watch out a Ta 152 behind you !

§ E §


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2006)

Had Germany got the proximity fuse, the idea of these SAMs being really effective would be more open to me. But without an effective detonation system that would bring the rocket into a zone within the formation to cause maximum damage it seems like a lot of expense for a little increase in destruction. 

These rockets exploding at a pre-set height is obviously the best option. But being a 'what-if' we have no idea how many of these sites Germany could deploy. And with hundreds of bombers in the air, it would need to be a lot. Which is a lot of resources. 

The problem I see with the follow-up interceptors is that the escorts would still be there. The Luftwaffe would have to be attacking the broken up formation to make them most effective, they didn't have the fighter strength to attack all groups. So the escort forces could concentrate their defence on the broken formation. And the lead group has gone through unscathed. 

I can see the destructive force of a single rocket being massive, but the co-ordination of the whole system would be complex. Then the vectoring in of the fighters to the right group, while they avoid the concentrated escort defence. And the resources for this system would be massive. 

I personally think that if this defence system were to be set-up, the Allies would answer with Typhoons, Mosqutios, Lightnings and Thunderbolts attacking the sites before the big raids. And the sites would be more vulnerable and harder to replace than normal FlaK36 cannon. Then with the few sites remaining attacking the mid-group of bombers, hopefully breaking it apart, to be attacked by Ta-152s and Fw-190Ds which would meet an opposition of P-51Ks and P-51Ns which would out-number them five to one at least. I think for the escorts it would be "Watch out, Ta-152 on your tail..." and then for interceptor "Watch out, there's four Mustangs on your tail!"


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2006)

Had Germany got the proximity fuse, they wouldn't needed rockets. Can you imagine what Proximity Fuses would do to a daylight formation in their box's


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2006)

ah but the Luftwaffe did have preset fuzes for the heavy Flak but for the most part were not necessairly in range most of the time, either too high or too low with anything in the middle.

in course the rocket batteries would be fiored off in one massive salvo with a good luck if you hit anything attitude. had short range and I mean ground to air of 30,000 ft been used like the nebelwerfer effect ........... well you can imagine the destruction and complete chaos isued.

when the BR 21cm came into effect and fired off by stafflen of Bf 110G-2's the first ops in November 43 had the same effect and thankfully US escorts of P47's and the 9th AF Stangs came to the rescue. Will say the bomber crew vets first impressions of this weapon were pretty overwhelming


----------



## Udet (Jun 9, 2006)

Glider: you´ve got a little ostrich syndrome there. Congratulations.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2006)

Germany did have preset fuses, yes, but the proximity fuse would have made the AA defences of the Reich much more deadly. And these would have made the rockets a lot more deadly too. 

Before we get the wrong idea, Erich, I'm not saying these rocket systems would be useless. The destruction of air-to-air rocket systems in the Luftwaffe were cause for dread. But I do not think the effectiveness of the SAM system would offset the resources it would take to build it. Plus, as you've said previously, the SAM sites would be vulnerable to Allied ground-attack craft. 

Udet, you're acting like an attention seeking child. Congratulations.


----------



## Udet (Jun 9, 2006)

pland, (mr. supreme wisdom),

don´t come to tell me about childish plese...take a tour throughout the forum and read your rants everywhere. you might re-discover the meaning of childish.

mr. glider asked for my response earlier on this thread which i gave. 

now, if you don´t mind bugger off.


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2006)

UDET
Ostrich calling, Ostrich calling.
First the basics. How would a B29 fare over ETO? 
Awnser, a lot better than B17/B24. Its faster, has less time in the danger zone, and would receive fewer hits. It is also better defended, is more able to take care of itself and has a better payload range. Of course it will do better than a B17/B24, in the same way a B17/B24 is better than a Wellington.

Bouncing the Me262
If the Allies could catch and destroy a lot of the faster Me262's Why do you think they wouldn't be able to catch the slower TA152? I agree with our claims that the majority of losses happened at low altitude and not at height. However you cannot deny that losses of Me262's were high, in some cases more than the casualties that they incurred. So where they were caught is of interest but more important is that they were shot down.

Third your posting.
Climbing to Height. 
You are of course correct a lot of time the Germans did get to height, but a lot of the time they didn't. In the same way that the Allies concentrated on the Me262 bases, I would concentrate on the TA152 bases. It worked on the Me262, so I don't see why it wouldn't work on the TA152. See note above re where most of the 262's were destroyed. Give some credit, I have always said this was the best tactic.

The Height of the B29
A number of the postings were about how high the B29 operated. In reality they could operate at whatever height they wanted, which is the point I was trying to make. Personally I think they would have cruised at height and droppped lower for the bombing run, its what they did in the Pacific, I see no reason why they shouldn't do it in the ETO should the need arise. At 25,000 ft all Germans would be effective, but then so would all the Allied planes. Take your pick.

TA152 was built in responce to the threat of the B29
I think you know that I have never said this and believe like you, that its a load of tosh. The Germans were losing the battle and couldn't rely on numbers therefore had to have quality to have a chance. Had the roles been reversed no doubt the Meteor, MB5 and Hornet would have been given a higher priority and deployed with more haste.

Fear of Bombers Defensive Fire
I think fear is the wrong word. I have read a number of comments about BOB pilots who thought that comments about the German bombers being poorly defended were greatly exagerated. As one put it, they shot me down twice and damaged me a third time, so how can they be that bad? Hard to disagree with that. 
I think we smell the same smell and there is no doubt that without the Long Range Fighters the USAAF would have had to stop their raid.

That said though, there is no doubt that the German Fighters saw there losses climb in 1943 and by 1944 the period we are talking about, they were not sustainable.
In 1943 the average fighter pilot strength was 2105 pilots
In 1943 the Germans lost 2967 pilots ie 141% of the average strength
In June 1943 Germany built 772 new fighters (109 and 190)
In December 1943 Germany built 663 new fighters (109 and 190)
In May 1944 Germany lost 25% of its fighter Pilots

Can a 'normal' allied fighter take on a 262 or Ta152. the reply is no and I have never said they can. What I have said is that with the numbers involved and the odds in the Allied favour yes, the Ta 152 can be handled. It wouldn't matter if we lost 2 or 3 fighters to a Ta152. The allies had them to lose and the Germans didn't.
I simply do not believe that 10 of anything can take on 190 of anything and get away with it UNLESS THEY RUN ON CONTACT. The caps are there because if you are going to penetrate the defences to get to the bombers, you cannot run on contact.

If you stand back and look at it we agree on a number of points.

Look forward to your reply.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 9, 2006)

From what I understand, Germany had proximity fuzes for large warheads (SAM), such as EWM W10. They also had a copied proximity fuze to be deployed on AA grenades for the 128 mm KM40 / Flak 42 but nothing for smaller calibres as 105 mm and 88mm.
Good comments, Glider.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 9, 2006)

Where the allies aware of the Ta-152 being developed? If so (conjecture on my part), then its probable that the P47N (maybe even F4U-5) would have been sped up into production to counter it.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2006)

Syscom, I don't think the Allies knew about the Ta-152 being in a deployable stage. Otherwise Allied pilots would have been warned of it's presence in the skies over Europe. And I've never heard of that, while I've heard of warnings about the Fw-190 when it was discovered. I may be wrong though.

Glider makes all good points. The fact of the matter is Germany was in no state or situation to hold off B-17s, so it would be in even less of a state and situation to hold off B-29s which were better bombers. 

Udet, Glider may well have asked for a response. I saw his request and it was in no way baiting you up with insults. You were seeking attention like a little child instead of having some patience and letting Glider get round to his response. But I'm sure you wouldn't understand that the world works for others aside from yourself. After all, you are so far up your own arse there is no light at the end of the tunnel. 
Now, I'm sure you'll respond with something that you consider witty and intelligent that will just bore everyone. Or you could leave and reply to Glider with something other than "Germany was the best, the Allies lied and still lie.". Either way, I'll be looking forward to reading your dribble.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2006)

remember the SAM deployment is pure speculation. the mentions as I put down were thought of but the plans were not put into action obviously.

Yes the cost of rocket to air deployment would of been quite costly but you maybe surprised as to the amount of air to air missiles were captured intact in southern Germany in March/April and even May 1945 when the Allies overan the area. Problem for Germany was getting from point A to point B and then making it all happen.

I shall say that at least the RAF and the Soviets knew of the Ta 152H's potential due to the combat experinces and at least I would like to think that the RAF must have shared some of it's airborne knowledge with the US 8th AF fighter command staff in regard to a new long wing long nose Fw like craft


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2006)

I have seen pictures of captured rockets, Erich. I wouldn't know if they were air-to-air or surface-to-air though. The difficulty would be in setting up the sites too. Do you have any production numbers for any of the SAMs ? Or are they another record that's been lost to time?

I know the RAF and VVS had a few scraps with the Ta-152, but did they have any idea of it before it was deployed? And what I've heard from the RAF side, at least, is that they weren't really in combat with the Ta-152 long enough to get a good picture of it's ability.


----------



## Henk (Jun 9, 2006)

Well Erich do you have any pictures of those German SAMs or any other air-air rockets or anti-aircraft rockets.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2006)

plan I do think production of the SAM's is hidden away in some secret CIA archiv's. the stuff was so cutting edge back in 1945 that is was hidden and classified along with the creators/scientists of those said units.

your probably right about not thinking anyting of letting 8th AF command know about the Ta. So late in the war, hardly seen and probably mis-ID'd as some Fw 190Dora


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Syscom, I don't think the Allies knew about the Ta-152 being in a deployable stage. Otherwise Allied pilots would have been warned of it's presence in the skies over Europe. And I've never heard of that, while I've heard of warnings about the Fw-190 when it was discovered. I may be wrong though.
> 
> Glider makes all good points. The fact of the matter is Germany was in no state or situation to hold off B-17s, so it would be in even less of a state and situation to hold off B-29s which were better bombers.
> 
> ...



Plan D your in danger of going too far here. If I thought that Udet comments were dribble I wouldn't have replied. I am sure that Udet knows I wasn't baiting him, its not my style.

The main reason for the delay was because my Anti Virus gave me a warning when I came onto this thread so for everyone's sake I kept away.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 9, 2006)

I wasn't refering to your dely, nor was I refering to your request for a response. I was refering to his baiting of you, which wasn't needed. I knew full well that you would reply eventually, so his impatience wasn't required nor was his childish attention seeking. 

I've gone far enough in this case. I plan on going no further, and the reference to Udet's dribble is in his usual postings about Allied 'lies'. In my opinion this episode has already been sealed. I hope that his reply to you will actually be decent and worthy of your effort. His reply will only make me laugh over my morning tea.


----------



## Udet (Jun 9, 2006)

this pland thing couldn´t be funnier. 

why dont you go get some dictionary and see the meaning of childish. look at yourself in a mirror before discharging your nonsense.

childish? re-read the utterly ridiculous "Proud to be British?" thread you commenced, and get to further understand the meaning of childish. it was fun to read you were complaining about individuals such as yourself.

now, the fact being it´s been a good while since i understood the sort of individual you are. that´s probably the reason i have no further use of any of the comments you discharge here and there.

i do not know if you speak for all the member forums when saying "they get bored" while reading me here. Do you get bored?  See how funny you are. Whether if you get bored reading my words is not even an issue, much less a concern. unlike you, i am not an entertainer.

i have fruitful exchanges with several members here. now i leave you. do not need to type this, you are very good at showing what you are all by your lonesome self.

im glad to see you are trying to improve your expressing manners though; be a good well behaved little child.



Mr. Glider: thank you for the response; i agree with all of your comments there. Nothing else to be added from my part.

Cheers!


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2006)

ah gents I thought this thread was about what-if's and the B-29 ?

c'mon guys .............


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 9, 2006)

Erich, if indeed the Ta-152 was sped up in development, when could the first sizeable numbers of them take to the sky? 

And would these early model -152's be problem free and significantly better than the allied types as to regain local air superiority?


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2006)

my opinion only .......... we would never have seen the Fw 190 Dora. the Ta 152 would of been the replacement. It was scheduled to be so anyway along with the newly-modified Me 262 by summer and fall of 45.

so most probably by December 44, although the Dora was in III./JG 54 by the fall of 44 the Ta was not yet ready quite yet


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 10, 2006)

*the Ta 152 would of been the replacement.*



The Dora was enough of a job to tackle for us flyboys. We don't need any replacements,thank you very much!!!


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2006)

Baloney we have been through this before; the Ta 152H was outstanding at the time----reality----- would of stood up to the best the Allies had to offer. the Dora was sub-standard to the Tank and it was proven via the JG 301 pilots that flew both models. the tank exploded off the runway and turned on a dime, the zoom characteristics and dive, nothing could touch it.

alright back to topic


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2006)

I like Erichs new avatar.

Besides being Col. Klink, it looks like hes giving us a stern lecture.


----------



## Jank (Jun 10, 2006)

Or flipping us the bird.


----------



## Henk (Jun 10, 2006)

He he he.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2006)

Once again, Udet, you are in that world of imagination where you think you know everything about everyone. When you know nothing. It was a lot like your take on the Germans and Germany, which couldn't have been further from the truth. But I will leave this here, because what you have said has made me smile with your blatant ignorance about the people on this site. And I don't want to ruin this thread. 

Erich, I don't think the Ta-152H would be enough of a performer to take on the Allied escorts on a five to one basis. And this is what they'd be facing. If the development would be speeded up the Ta-152 could have probably been in higher numbers, but as the Ta-152 increases in number so do the Allied escorts.


----------



## Henk (Jun 10, 2006)

Yep, that was the problem, Germany could not produce enough aircraft and fighting on three fronts did not help either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2006)

syscome3 said:


> Of course they are



Please tell me you are kidding, oh please tell me you are kidding!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> P80 had engines that were a lot better, plus it had far longer range. Was it as fast as the -262? Nope. But the relative speeds were enough that the P80 could stay in a tail chase on the -262, or stay out of its way and just wait untill it had to land and then shoot it down.
> 
> 
> 
> Meteor had similar engines to the P80.



And that means what? That the P-80 and the Meteor would outlfy a Me-262 in combat? Prove, cuz you can not. I can not prove that a Me-262 would outfly the other too. The difference is, I dont make assumptions and tell others that theres dont mean ****, as you do.


----------



## Erich (Jun 10, 2006)

HOGAN !

now guys ............ as he pulls up his index finger .............

no I am not saying that the Ta 152H would take out all Allied escorts just that it was the replacement for the Dora had it been able to overcome earlier mechanical designs and pushed into sevice. Even the C prototype was pushed into service by JG 301, with basically parts but some of the test frames that did remarkable in high flight tests were armed and ready to go against the Soviers.
quite naturally hardly enough and too late, but had the Ta 152H been in the front lines in more air units then we would of seen the aerial combats with Mutangs that we often chat and wonder about.

secondary note I have come up with 4 multi-questions last night to former JG 301 veteran Will Reschke for his personal attentions of the TA 152H's that he drove


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And that means what? That the P-80 and the Meteor would outlfy a Me-262 in combat? Prove, cuz you can not. I can not prove that a Me-262 would outfly the other too. The difference is, I dont make assumptions and tell others that theres dont mean ****, as you do.



The P80's and meteors could orbit the airfields and wait for the -262's to land or take off and then shoot them down. They were faster than the


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2006)

Yes, they can but it doesn´t makes much sense to me:
The Meteor-III lacks the speed to do so and is a huge target size to hit by LAA.
The P-80 being fast and nimble, lacks endurance to do so (according to the aircraft manual it was strictly advised to keep high ceiling in order to have a somehow useful endurance because at low alts, the fuel consumption was horrible. To some degree this also goes for the Meteor). It makes little sense to waste fuel at low alts with these jets, altough the Meteor-III performed some ground attacks in the closing weeks of ww2 (Take notice that all Meteor-III deployed over continental europe had a white camouflage in order to avoid beeing mistaken as a Me-262 - that´s no good). Airfields also is relative: The use of streets, open fields and autobahn as improvised airfield was widespread in 1945.
The allied piston engined A/C could perform these tasks more effectively.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)

Agreed Delycos and very well said. You see that is what I am talking about, looking at more than just the angle of "This is how I say it would be and that is the way it is!"


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2006)

If we want to get into the waht ifs then I believe that this should be a different thread. This one was simply, How well would the B29 have done in the ETO.

People are now talking about P80's which didn't take part in the ETO theatre (apart from two in the MTO which may or may not have undertaken a couple of unofficial missions). 
Metors being used to bounce Me262 which they didn't, 
Follow On 262's that didn't fight and probably (not to sure here) didn't fly, etc, I think you get my drift.

If we want a thread re what would have happened in the Germans had held on for another 12 months because, say, the first D Day was replused, then can I ask someone to start it?


----------



## Erich (Jun 11, 2006)

from the very onset this whole thread has been a what-if and now getting much more polluted .............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2006)

Agreed


----------



## Twitch (Jun 12, 2006)

To simplify things let's only imagine the X-4 was developed with more impetus after its 1st test in April 1944. Just about any fighter could mount them and being wire-guided with a 3.5 mile range they were impervious to jamming.
KA-BOOM!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 12, 2006)

The control of the X-4 missile must be difficult from a single-seat Fw-190, while trying to fly the plane in a combat zone. And while you're controlling the missile, do your wingmen protect you? Because you're flying straight and level with many dozens of Mustangs aiming to kill you. You would be the worst position possible, except maybe low and slow.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jun 12, 2006)

Since this thread I started has gone all over the place (not necessarily a bad thing except for some of the personal attacks), I want to throw out another "what-if" scenario. Whereas the B-29 being introduced in the ETO was possible, this scenario would have to have had the war extended.

What if the B-42 Mixmaster could have been deployed? Closing speeds with this bomber would have been interesting....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-42_Mixmaster


----------



## plan_D (Jun 12, 2006)

I think a deployment of B-42s would reduce the losses of the US bomber force drastically, but twice the payload of the Mosquito is not the payload of the B-17, B-24 or B-29. The B-42 would have probably used in the same role as the Mosquito rather than the heavy bomber role. 

The B-32 and B-36 should be more considered in a 'what-if' - the B-36 especially. The 17,600 lbs of the B-17 would be limp compared to the 86,000 lbs of a B-36!


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jun 12, 2006)

The B-42 can carry a 8,000 lb load. That is twice that of a B-17 on a long mission.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 12, 2006)

The B-17 carried 6,000 lbs on a long mission, and 17,600 lbs (possible) on a short mission. The B-42 carries twice the Mosquito, it's a small fast bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2006)

Intersting scenereo. As you said though, this would mean the war being extended and then it would have had to contend with Ta-183s and P.1011's. I dont think it would have changed much.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 13, 2006)

With only 250 mp/h cruising speed (jetmaster with jetengines), I see no decisive advantage for the B42. The question is what the top speed would be with 8000 lbs of bombs. However, as an attack plane it could be great.


----------



## Hop (Jun 13, 2006)

> The B-17 carried 6,000 lbs on a long mission, and 17,600 lbs (possible) on a short mission.



Whilst 17,600 lbs might have been theoretically possible, I've never heard of a B-17 carrying more than 8,000 lbs on an operational mission, and even that was for attacks on invasion beaches at very short range.

B-17 loads averaged just under 5,000 lbs, B-24s just over 5,000 lbs. The USAAF heavy bombers in Europe dropped 714,719 tons (1,429,438,000 lbs) from 274, 921 effective sorties (ie those which bombed). That's an average per bomber of 5,199 lbs.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jun 13, 2006)

Uh, oh...

Nobody told me that there would be math on this forum....


----------



## Twitch (Jun 13, 2006)

Please don't try to make guided ordnance like the X-4 a negative thing. Many other weapons from many countries guided from the cockpit were used successfully in combat like the SD 1400 X, Hs 293, BV 246, Glomb, Gargoyle, GB, Mistels, BQ-7 8 and the VB- 2,3,5,7 8s.

Since the X-4s speed was in the order of 520 MPH the time of vulnerable exposure while guiding was minimal. Why would the guiding craft be required to fly straight and level anyhow. There was also an X-7 made for anti-tank activities.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2006)

You're not going to be able to perform any kind of violent movement while the missile is still attached to your plane. Plus, the pilot controlling the missile would have to be concentrating on it hitting the target. He wouldn't be able to do that and control his plane. All the guided ordnance of World War II was guided by a crew member that wasn't the pilot of the plane. 

The X-4 wouldn't go from 0 - 520 MPH in a nano-second. The plane firing the missile _would_ be vulnerable for a couple of seconds at least. And when the sky is full of Mustang escorts, a couple of seconds is a long time.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 15, 2006)

would the Me-262 have been able to carry one? although they already were successful with R4Ms


----------



## delcyros (Jun 15, 2006)

The missile would go 0-520 in 0 sec. Take the airspeed of the carrierplane (Me-262) into account. 520 mp-h is a reasonable approach speed for this plane. 
Plans called for two - four X-4 in this plane. However, my personal opinion is that this weapon wouldn´t be very effective at all. As already pointed out, the guidiance is a bit problematic in the heat of combat.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 15, 2006)

nad they murdered enough already with their R4Ms


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2006)

Del, for the sake of argument the Me-262 plane releases the X-4 at 520 MPH ground speed. This means that the X-4 upon release is travelling at the same speed. However, in terms of ground speed the X-4 can only go 520 MPH which would mean the missile would stay under the plane and this is silly. 
In reality, the X-4 is going 0 MPH compared to the plane when attached. Upon release the X-4 will start to slow down until the rocket motor sets in. Once the rocket motor sets in, the missile will accelerate away up to a ground speed of 800 - 1,000 MPH to make it move beyond the carrier plane. It's the planes speed plus the rocket speed. I always think of the missile at 0 MPH when on a plane. 

Which means, in reality, the X-4 does not go from 0 - 520 MPH instantly, when it's released it will actually slow down and it will take time to accelerate to it's top speed. In that time, the carrier plane is vulnerable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Del, for the sake of argument the Me-262 plane releases the X-4 at 520 MPH ground speed. This means that the X-4 upon release is travelling at the same speed. However, in terms of ground speed the X-4 can only go 520 MPH which would mean the missile would stay under the plane and this is silly.
> In reality, the X-4 is going 0 MPH compared to the plane when attached. Upon release the X-4 will start to slow down until the rocket motor sets in. Once the rocket motor sets in, the missile will accelerate away up to a ground speed of 800 - 1,000 MPH to make it move beyond the carrier plane. It's the planes speed plus the rocket speed. I always think of the missile at 0 MPH when on a plane.
> 
> Which means, in reality, the X-4 does not go from 0 - 520 MPH instantly, when it's released it will actually slow down and it will take time to accelerate to it's top speed. In that time, the carrier plane is vulnerable.



I've heard this called "slew time" and is common with most air launched missiles. I seen Firebee drones launched from a C-130, when it drops it momentarily falls below and slightly behind the aircraft until the engine kicks in and then "woosh" it's gone! You barely could see this happen but I would imagine this would be the same situation for the X-4....


----------



## Udet (Jun 15, 2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet
You also assume alot as well and discredit others assuming. Why is that? Are your assumptions better than others? 


Of course they are"


HAHAHA!!!!!   

Can´t believe i had missed that part!

DerAdler, and you call me arrogant...? it´d appear mr. syscom3 has come to reinvent the definition of arrogance.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2006)

No syscom3 and me talk to each other like that and we know that we are kidding with each other. 

Unlike you, Syscom3 does not actually think he is better than everyone here (atleast he does not show it that way).

Compared to you he is not arrogant. You are the most arrogant person I have ever seen type on here and I would hate to see how you are in person.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 15, 2006)

Jeez the X-4 was the 1st wire-guided unjammable missile in the world and it is being perceived as something negative! The 262 units were going to use it as well as others. In fact the missiles had arrived at those airdromes before the end of hostilities but were never used in combat.

Come on, as it was normal zerstroyer aircraft got through the escorts and fired heavy cannon, missiles, mortars and aerial bombs. The American escorts were not impenetrable. In fact they often got pulled away in running fights with regular fighters as diversions to allow zerstroyers to slide in.

Imagine a a couple squadrons worth of attackers each with a 2 or 4 X-4s coming in. Unless they were all halted more than 3.5 miles away their ordnance would most certainly be launched. And the part you probably don't know is that they had acoustic proximity fuses tuned to the B-17 engines so that after initial steering input they were on a doomsday course that couldn't be stopped. This fuse was going to be used in other unguided ordnance as well.

The Ruhrstahl X-4 air-to-air weapon was really sci-fi in April of 1944 when it was first tested. This was a wire-guided weapon, and as are today's descendants, un-jam-able. The SD 1400 Xs and Hs 293s were effectively diverted from targets by Allied jamming later in the Mediterranean. The X-4 received its course corrections through it 3.5-mile long cables as they un-spooled. No countermeasures were then or are now effective.

Sighting and steering was accomplished with a PKS-12 gun sight in conjunction with the Dusseldorf/Detmold command link’s tiny joystick. The 242 lb. thrust BMW 109-448 rocket propelled the six foot long, 132 lb. missiles at 520 MPH to targets and the large 44 lb. warhead was detonated with a Kranich acoustic proximity fuse tuned to the frequency of the B-17's engines where it would explode at about twenty feet distant. The 2.8-foot wing fins gave stability. The fuel burned for seventeen seconds. It was SV-stoff and R-stoff or Tonka-250 mixing equal amounts of xylidine and triethylamine.

The BMW plant was destroyed in bombings and no X-4s were used by the Me 262 for which it was intended though some reached operational units. 

The Hs 298 lost to the X-4 but had some merits. It was 200 lbs. with its 55 lb. warhead. Length of the oval fuselage was 6.6 feet while the wing spanned a rather large 4.3 feet. It had a twin fin tail for control with input from the Kehl/Colmar command link. This is where it lost out to the X-4 in that attack parameters specified a no more than a 30-degree variant from astern while being 15-degrees below. The X-4 could be guided in any direction or attitude from the launch aircraft.

The Hs 298 used a Schmidding 109-543 with 330 lbs. thrust for twenty-five seconds attaining 575 MPH. Another drawback was the Hs 298’s short range of just one mile.


----------



## Soren (Jun 15, 2006)

Man this is getting more and more off-topic by the minute.....

Suggestion: Lets make a new thread about these early guided misiles.

Good post btw Twitch.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No syscom3 and me talk to each other like that and we know that we are kidding with each other.
> 
> Unlike you, Syscom3 does not actually think he is better than everyone here (atleast he does not show it that way).
> 
> Compared to you he is not arrogant. You are the most arrogant person I have ever seen type on here and I would hate to see how you are in person.



 

Only thing I'm superior at over Deradler (and some others) is knowing whats a good beer!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 15, 2006)

If those large guided missles are launched from the -262's, wouldnt the jet become momentarily unstable as it drops from the wing?

I cant imagine the pilot concentrating on flying the plane, all of a sudden having to regain stability and then play with the joystick to guide the missle.

And all of this as bullets are flying at him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If those large guided missles are launched from the -262's, wouldnt the jet become momentarily unstable as it drops from the wing?


. If dropped at the same time, no. You may get a bounce but probably no worse than hitting some clear air turbulance.


----------



## Glider (Jun 15, 2006)

The Me262 performance was significantly impacted when carrying bombs. Does anyone have any idea how badley it would be impacted carrying these missiles?
Presumably you would need a two seater to start of with and life goes downhill carrying aything externally.


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2006)

my understanding is that would not be used by the 262 as it would have to have special launching rails fitted and the rocket becuase of bulk in size the rail would have to drop the missile downward slightly like a derop tank, something that would not be used due to the neccisity of attacking fast and illuding Allied escorts

~


----------



## delcyros (Jun 15, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Del, for the sake of argument the Me-262 plane releases the X-4 at 520 MPH ground speed. This means that the X-4 upon release is travelling at the same speed. However, in terms of ground speed the X-4 can only go 520 MPH which would mean the missile would stay under the plane and this is silly.
> In reality, the X-4 is going 0 MPH compared to the plane when attached. Upon release the X-4 will start to slow down until the rocket motor sets in. Once the rocket motor sets in, the missile will accelerate away up to a ground speed of 800 - 1,000 MPH to make it move beyond the carrier plane. It's the planes speed plus the rocket speed. I always think of the missile at 0 MPH when on a plane.
> 
> Which means, in reality, the X-4 does not go from 0 - 520 MPH instantly, when it's released it will actually slow down and it will take time to accelerate to it's top speed. In that time, the carrier plane is vulnerable.



I second this. Sorry, PlanD, my mistake. Something has to be wrong with me.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2006)

It's okay, Del. I thought you must have been having a bad day. 

Twitch, the plane is still vulnerable when the missile is being guided. And the pilot cannot break off while he's guiding the missile and trying to keep his plane straight. Unless they used a two-seater, which would be the best option. No one is making the X-4 to be a negative thing, so no stress is needed. I'm saying that it wasn't a perfect thing.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 16, 2006)

Re: X-4s weight- How much impact does a one or two 132-lb. bombs have on any plane's performance? Not much at that weight. We're not talking 1,000 pounder here. Bottom line is I personally would rather have a stand off weapon fired from 3+ miles away even if my crate was somewhat vulnerable for a quarter of a minute rather than wade into a bomber wing full of boxes bristling with fifties all trained on ME as I began firing guns. 

At 3.5 miles distant you don't encounter ordnance from the heavies. And obviously you aren't going to set up fire and guide with escort fighters on your six. You elude them to the point where you you have enough time and space to launch.

The huge benefit of this weapon was that even if the launching aircraft had to break off due to interference the friggin missile would be a doomsday weapon whether the launcher had cut bait or not. The acoustic detonator would still work now wouldn't it? 

The acoustic would have been to aerial missiles of the late war era, guided or unguided, as revolutionary as it was for the torpedo. It would suit even a blindfold shot taken in a split second in the basic general direction of the bomber formation. 

The "normal" zerstroyer aircraft got through no matter how many were driven off by P-51s or hit by bomber fire. The only problem was that their weapons weren't singluarly potent enough to seriously break up enough bomber boxes to make a difference.

Nothing was going to halt the bomber stream in the end. Of course even singluar heavies would have sought to launch their bombs on their group's intended target even if they'd been dispersed by rocket fire or whatnot. Most would try. They wouldn't all just jettison ordnance and run for home unless damaged. However, in those circumstances they would have been vulnerable to any type of fighter without the protection of the bomber box crossfire.

Back in the 80s I had only one dialogue with General Galland regarding bomber attack and missiles. All I can offer is that HE was excited by the prospect of the missile. He seemed to take for granted that it would be used by the 262s as all other sources I've sen have indicated. Of course he wasn't a crew chief or armorer. But it was tested in Fw 190s, Ju 88Gs and Ju 388Ls. After all if bomb shackles and R4M racks were affixed to 262s certainly missile hardpoints could be to accomodate the 1,300 X-4s sitting in stock since late 1944. Rüstsätze were commonplace in coverting every weapon imaginable to use in nearly every aircraft.

In 1945 the Pudel program was engaged in ways foe the X-4 and other missiles to home on its target acoustically without external guidance. Perceived launch aircraft vulnerability problem solved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Only thing I'm superior at over Deradler (and some others) is knowing whats a good beer!



You only wish....


----------



## Henk (Jun 17, 2006)

Wow, this has turned way off topic, but I do not mind. The thing is that a missile does drop away from the plane and fall behind until the rocket engine starts and the missile will go and move away from the plane, but that moment is very dangerous and the pilot knows that. Like some of you have said. Today it is way easier to do this than in those days, aircraft are build not have side effect when they launch missiles.

Germany did have technology that made it so that the pilot did not need to guide the missiles any more and this made it very easier. Some even had something like a TV that showed the pilot where he is going with the missile. I saw it on a documentary program years ago.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2006)

Actually Henk, most missiles do fall away from the aircraft. The missiles engine is on a time delay and does not fire off until it safely away from the aircraft.

Now having said that, this should get back on topic.


----------



## Henk (Jun 19, 2006)

Yes I know that Adler, but thanks for the pic.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 5, 2012)

Performing high altitude ops in the ETO, would the B-29 have had the same reliability issues as occured in the PTO?
Or would performance have been better?

If better, would the B-29 have been able to bomb from higher altitudes, reducing flak and fighter losses?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 5, 2012)

gjs238 said:


> Performing high altitude ops in the ETO, would the B-29 have had the same reliability issues as occured in the PTO?
> Or would performance have been better?
> 
> If better, would the B-29 have been able to bomb from higher altitudes, reducing flak and fighter losses?



Possibly the cooler climate would have helped with reliability, as one of the big issues in take-off was engine cooling - which was marginal.

Higher altitudes may have put them out of effective range of the flak guns, but would also have adversely affected accuracy.

Just bombing at the same altitudes woudl be advantageous compared to the B-17/B-24 because a) the B-29 carried a bigger bomb load, b) the B-29 was a higher performing aircraft and c) the pressurised compartment would have made the crews more comfortable, and there would have been less injury/death due to low oxygen or frostbite.


----------



## model299 (Nov 5, 2012)

Wow, a six year old thread suddenly jumps back to life!!

I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm going to assume this point has already been made.

I would think the more advanced gunnery available in the Superfortress would have been a help against the LW.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 6, 2012)

Perhaps the B-29's could have/would have carried/dropped larger bombs.
Didn't B-17's B-24's drop smaller bombs than the British?


----------



## mike siggins (Nov 6, 2012)

it talked to an old piolt that flew b17 and b 29s he said the b 29 was a piece of crap engie fires was his biggest problem


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2012)

mike siggins said:


> it talked to an old piolt that flew b17 and b 29s he said the b 29 was a piece of crap engie fires was his biggest problem


While opinions of those who actually flew the aircraft are valued, I knew many pilots who flew both aircraft, B-17s and B-29s during WW2 and the B-29 in the post war years. Their opinion of the B-29 was entirely different and I think in the end its combat and service record dictates otherwise despite the teething problems encountered when he aircraft first entered service.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 6, 2012)

According to Wikipedia, the B-29 could carry 9000 kg (20,000 lb) of bombs as "standard loadout". This could have been carried to the most valuable targets in Germany?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> According to Wikipedia, the B-29 could carry 9000 kg (20,000 lb) of bombs as "standard loadout". This could have been carried to the most valuable targets in Germany?


Yes, and consider the shorter distances the B-29 "would have" flown.

Remember however, as the war progressed, it was never intended to send the B-29 to Europe. The B-32 was planned to replace the B-17 and B-24 in Europe.


----------



## mike siggins (Nov 6, 2012)

yes every body has a diferent opinion but what happens when u lose cabin pressure


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2012)

mike siggins said:


> yes every body has a diferent opinion but what happens when u lose cabin pressure


You put on an oxygen mask and keep flying, just like you would in any other type of pressurized aircraft that looses cabin pressure. A pressurized aircraft will only maintain cabin pressue to a 10 - 12,000 foot environment anyway.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 6, 2012)

Did they lower the cabin pressure when they got near the combat area.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> Did they lower the cabin pressure when they got near the combat area.



I don't think so. Even with some small punctures through the "pressure vessel," cabin pressure will still be maintained.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 6, 2012)

Yeah you would be surprised how large the outflow valve is on a modern airplane and they are only pressurized to about 6000ft. I've been in the forward E/E bay of a 747-400 and witnessed the outflow valve in action and it is quite the hole!!


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 6, 2012)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a8B7oYVtNY_


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 6, 2012)

_In wartime, the B-29 was capable of flight up to 31,850 feet (9,710 m),[20] at speeds of up to 350 mph (560 km/h) (true airspeed). This was its best defense, because Japanese fighters of that day could barely get that high, and few could catch the B-29, even if they were at altitude and waiting. Only the heaviest of anti-aircraft weapons could reach it, and since the Axis forces did not have proximity fuzes, hitting or damaging the aircraft from the ground in combat was next to impossible.[citation needed]
The B-29's revolutionary Central Fire Control system included four remotely controlled turrets armed with two .50 Browning M2 machine guns each.[N 2] All weapons were aimed electronically from five sighting stations located in the nose and tail positions and three Perspex blisters in the central fuselage.[N 3] Five General Electric analog computers (one dedicated to each sight) increased the weapons' accuracy by compensating for factors such as airspeed, lead, gravity, temperature and humidity. The computers also allowed a single gunner to operate two or more turrets (including tail guns) simultaneously. The gunner in the upper position acted as fire control officer, managing the distribution of turrets among the other gunners during combat._

Boeing B-29 Superfortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The B-29 was quiet fast. I think the Antons would sweat to catch it. Bombing from 30,000 was not much of a problem in the ETO, isn't?


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 6, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> The B-29 was quiet fast. I think the Antons would sweat to catch it. Bombing from 30,000 was not much of a problem in the ETO, isn't?



In terms of aircraft with high altitude capabilities the Luftwaffe was in a better position than the Japanese services.

Especially from early 1944 onwards the DB605AS with an oversized supercharger was available for the Me 109G5AS whie cryogenic nitrous oxide (GM1) was available around 2 years earlier and usable on both FW190 and Me 109. These were field retrofits in most instances.

Some of the more advanced two stage supercharger types were retarded from production to allow greater overall production of simpler types with improved supercharger hydrodynamics but one can immagine these types being advanced if the need to deal with the B-29 arose. No doubt the B29 is a harder aircraft to deal with but also twice as expensive as the B17.

For the record a Me 109G5ASM with 3 x 20mm guns and 2 x 13.2mm guns could do 390 mph at 9000m/30,000ft at which point the MW50 has switched of. The Me 109G5AS is available from about March 1944. The B29 is capable of 350mph at this altitude. Top speed of the Me 109G5ASM was about 405mph at a slightly lower altitude. The MW50 tank was meant to also function as a armoured cryogenic GM1 tank and it is likely this would be carried instead to offer a significantly higher speed. The Me 109K4 was capable of speeds of 444mph from about October 1944.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/files/PBG14_LS_SNplusMW50.jpg

So the Luftwaffe would be getting intercepts though it would be tougher and at altitudes favourable to allied types.

I can also see the Wasserfall SAM receiving priority over the V2/A4. It was test launching at the end of the war but might have seen service if it rather than the V2 received resources. It was designed to engage a 2g target at over 15000m/50,000ft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> In terms of aircraft with high altitude capabilities the Luftwaffe was in a better position than the Japanese services.
> 
> Especially from early 1944 onwards the DB605AS with an oversized supercharger was available for the Me 109G5AS whie cryogenic nitrous oxide (GM1) was available around 2 years earlier and usable on both FW190 and Me 109. These were field retrofits in most instances.
> 
> ...



All good provided the LW "would have" been able to produce the number of aircraft and more importantly the fuel to deal with B-29.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 7, 2012)

Considering how utterly impractical it was to operate B-29's from bases in India and China to bomb Japan, and that Germany was supposed to be a higher priority than Japan, it seems that it may have been best to utilize the B-29's from Britain.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 7, 2012)

I do not have further information at the moment making this just a claim, but I remember reading that the decision to deploy the B-29 to India and China was at least partly politically motivated as President Roosevelt wanted to involve china more actively in the Allied effort to defeat Imperial Japan.
Anyone feel free to confirm or refute my claim.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2012)

From Wiki..

_" Initial plans to use the B-32 to supplement the B-29 in re-equipping B-17 and B-24 groups *before redeployment of the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces to the Pacific *were stymied when only five production models had been delivered by the end of 1944, by which time full B-29 operations were underway in the Twentieth Air Force."_

_"The Army Air Forces wanted to begin replacing B-17s and B-24s with B-32s in the summer of 1944. The plan called for Mediterranean-based B-24 bomb groups to transition first, followed by other groups in the 15th Air Force and finally 8th Air Force groups. Because the B-32 test program was so far behind schedule, however, not a single B-32 was ever sent to the Mediterranean or European Theaters of Operation." _

Factsheets : Consolidated B-32


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2012)

mike siggins said:


> yes every body has a diferent opinion but what happens when u lose cabin pressure



The B29 crewman reported that most flak and bullet/cannon holes were not catastrophic to the airframe and the air pressure drop could often take some time to effect complete depressurization.

Theres a picture of a B29 with a complete side blister blowout at high altitude. And the B29 kept formation with no problem. The crew just put on the heated flying suits and air masks.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2012)

TheMustangRider said:


> I do not have further information at the moment making this just a claim, but I remember reading that the decision to deploy the B-29 to India and China was at least partly politically motivated as President Roosevelt wanted to involve china more actively in the Allied effort to defeat Imperial Japan.
> Anyone feel free to confirm or refute my claim.



The B29's were based in China simply because the Mariana's werent even taken yet. After operations started from the Mariana's, the superior logistical situation meant the China Based bomb groups became less and less relevant.


----------



## model299 (Nov 7, 2012)

mike siggins said:


> yes every body has a diferent opinion but what happens when u lose cabin pressure



Before it closed in the winter of '97. I volunteered at the Planes Of Fame museum at Flying Cloud Airport here in Eden Prairie, Mn. 

I had the chance on one weekend during a group reunion to talk to several former B-29 pilots about this very thing. They said standard proceedure for their group was to don hardhats, oxygen masks, and goggles when approaching the combat area. The goggles were in case any part of the glazing was destroyed during action. They never mentioned reducing the cabin pressure while in combat. That doesn't mean they didn't do it. They just never said anything to me about it.

They said when fully (over) loaded, the plane could be a real handful, and they used every inch of the runway before lifting the nose up. Once rid of the bombs and fuel load, they said the plane was a delight to fly, with light and responsive controls.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 7, 2012)

There was the case of the 737 which lost part of its roof structure and a flight attendant was blown out but the aircraft survived to land safely.

On mythbusters they pressured an aircraft and shot bullet holes in it and even small explosive charges and the explosive decompression didn't happen.

Explosive decompression probably only occurs with catastrophic failure of the aircraft which meant the aircraft was probably in such a bad way that it was going down anyways.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2012)

The Basket said:


> There was the case of the 737 which lost part of its roof structure and a flight attendant was blown out but the aircraft survived to land safely.
> 
> On mythbusters they pressured an aircraft and shot bullet holes in it and even small explosive charges and the explosive decompression didn't happen.
> 
> Explosive decompression probably only occurs with catastrophic failure of the aircraft which meant the aircraft was probably in such a bad way that it was going down anyways.



Explosive decompression happens in Hollywood...


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 8, 2012)

syscom3 said:


> The B29's were based in China simply because the Mariana's werent even taken yet. After operations started from the Mariana's, the superior logistical situation meant the China Based bomb groups became less and less relevant.



Operation Matterhorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 8, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All good provided the LW "would have" been able to produce the number of aircraft and more importantly the fuel to deal with B-29.



There are number of circumstances in which the Luftwaffe is well suplied with fuel:
1 Field Marshall Halder gets his way and Army group North take Moscow leading to total collapse of the Soviet Union
2 Operation case blue is effective and the Germans take the strategic Oil fields of the Caucuses and Baku. 
3 Erwin Rommel smashes his way through the middle East Up through Iraq and takes the Caucasian oil fields.
(Just having secure enigma codes might have done that)
4 Albert Speer authorises greater precautions to be taken in hardening and dispersing synthetic oil refineries.

All of these nearly succeeded, having oil fields of such a scale would have revolutionised German supply logistics and tank warfare.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 8, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> There are number of circumstances in which the Luftwaffe is well suplied with fuel:
> 1 Field Marshall Halder gets his way and Army group North take Moscow leading to total collapse of the Soviet Union
> 2 Operation case blue is effective and the Germans take the strategic Oil fields of the Caucuses and Baku.
> 3 Erwin Rommel smashes his way through the middle East Up through Iraq and takes the Caucasian oil fields.
> ...



Please , Siegfried, let's not start with this nonsense again.
Anyway, with Hitler and his right brain thinking making most of the decisions, the only chance the 3rd Reich had of coming out of WW2 with anything better than just a cease fire was is some brave individual put a bullet in Hitler's head before 1941.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> There are number of circumstances in which the Luftwaffe is well suplied with fuel:
> 1 Field Marshall Halder gets his way and Army group North take Moscow leading to total collapse of the Soviet Union
> 2 Operation case blue is effective and the Germans take the strategic Oil fields of the Caucuses and Baku.
> 3 Erwin Rommel smashes his way through the middle East Up through Iraq and takes the Caucasian oil fields.
> ...


*WOULD HAVE COULD HAVE SHOULD HAVE - PLEASE STAY ON SUBJECT.*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2012)

The Basket said:


> There was the case of the 737 which lost part of its roof structure and a flight attendant was blown out but the aircraft survived to land safely.
> 
> On mythbusters they pressured an aircraft and shot bullet holes in it and even small explosive charges and the explosive decompression didn't happen.
> 
> Explosive decompression probably only occurs with catastrophic failure of the aircraft which meant the aircraft was probably in such a bad way that it was going down anyways.



The 737 that lost its roof had a major structural failure due to corrosion within the pressure vessel. Because of the operating environment and age of the aircraft, corrosion was settling in areas not subjected to routine inspections. As a result all commercial airliners were required to comply with a "Corrosion Preventative Control Program" or CPCP that implemented a whole bunch of NDI (mainly ultrasonic) inspection requirements in bulkheads and skin lap joints where this corrosion was being found.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Nov 8, 2012)

Plus, the life of the 737 is in decades, whereas the life of a wartime B-29 is months.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2012)

gjs238 said:


> Operation Matterhorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And?


----------



## Readie (Nov 9, 2012)

Interesting points.
The B29 was without doubt the 'next generation' bomber and its higher faster capacity would hopefully have reduced the appalling allied aircrew loss rate in the traditional heavies that slogged it out till cessation of hostilities.
The extra bomb load would be a bonus of course.
Cheers
John


----------

