# B-29's versus Luftwaffe



## ralphwiggum (Jan 6, 2009)

What would the luftwaffe have to do to defend the Reich if they had to combat 8th airforce Superfortresses instead of B-17's and Liberators?
Anyone have any suggestions?


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 6, 2009)

Pack a couple of extra MG 151s/MK 108s on the fighters and thats it - and that they already did by 1943. While the B-29 was a much larger and tougher plane than the B17/24, it was still just a bomber, fuel tanks burned just the same on it, engines failed just to same when hit (and sometimes even without being hit  ). I'd presume because the greater costs the USAAF would be able to field it in much smaller numbers, and losses would be more heavily felt.

The LW was rather concerned with the B-29 from Japanese reports, based on which they were attributing it with capabilities regarding its speed and ceiling the plane simply did not have - but a 'cure' against this phantom menace was created, the Ta 152.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jan 6, 2009)

The B-29s would pose some problems. They fly higher, faster and have computing gunsights. They have a larger bombload so there wouldn't need to be as many planes or as many raids.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 6, 2009)

They would likely also need to improve the AAA to 8.8cm FLAK 41 standarts.
And they would need some faster, higher flying nightfighter sooner.
GM-1 injection to all Reichs defense fighters, as standart equipment.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 6, 2009)

Hi Ralphwiggum,

>What would the luftwaffe have to do to defend the Reich if they had to combat 8th airforce Superfortresses instead of B-17's and Liberators?

Interesting question ... here is a diagram which I prepared when I had a look at that question a while back.

The B-29 speeds are from a diagram in the B-29 manual that has the disadvantage that it lists the influence of the cowl flap position on speed, but doesn't point out how much cowl flap opening is required at a certain power setting under certain conditions. Accordingly, the B-29 might be a bit faster or a bit slower than indicated in my diagram, and the difference is probably not uniform over the entire diagram either.

The "kinks" in the B-29 graph probably result from the limited accuracy in reading the complex diagram.

Weight of course has a big influence on B-29 speed as well - I chose 90000 lbs as a reference because that simplified reading the diagram, but that might not turn out to be the most typical operational weight if you decide on a specific scenario.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Erich (Jan 6, 2009)

not again ........ 

the TA 152H was never intended to combat high altitude B-29's, let's debunk the myth right now, tell the web-site owners you have been viewing that this is foolishness............ JG 301 pilots that flew the Tank and those that I have interviewed never even heard of the B-29.

besides the Me 262A-1 would of taken care of them both night and day if this would of happened in the real world

v/r Erich


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 6, 2009)

Hmm, not an expert on this, but oh well. I'd say the Luftwaffe would have to improve the FW190 design, perhaps develop the Ta-152 faster?

Edit: whoops, read Erich's post, so I'll defer to that.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 6, 2009)

The Luftwaffe would have had some tough times that's for sure.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 7, 2009)

This question was posed on another forum that I "attend". It was pointed out, quite rightly, that the LW would have a tough time, as the cruising speed at altitude was somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 mph+ for the B-29, which wouldn't give the defenders much time to scramble AND get up to 35,000 ft. in time to make the intercept; the only a/c that probably had a reasonable capability against the B-29 was the 262, as Erich ponted out. Add to this the fact that at that altitude most a/c would be approaching their stall speed, due to insufficient air at that altitude; any a/c that could make it up that far (besides the 262) was probably just over their stall speed after having made a max-V climb. Any violent evasive maneuvering at that altitude would probably result in an accelerated stall or a spin.


----------



## Haztoys (Jan 7, 2009)

TheMustangRider said:


> The Luftwaffe would have had some tough times that's for sure.




All and Every airforce of the time in the world would of had problems with the B-29...

And as those who feel the Me 262 is the fix all to all ...In 1945 the Me262 was still a b%#@tch to fly ..It took big skills and nuts to fly not some new flyer could do.....Were the US had 100's of B-29's flying with mear kids doing the driving ...A better motor in the Me262 and it would of gave the B-29 a run for its money..But the Me262 was just not cleaned up anuff when the two would of met in the skys over Germany in 45 ... ..

Any how ...The B-17 .B-24 .and Lanc's were getting the job done ...And the B-29 would of been even harder to stop..

(Would the Allies of had a plane to stop the B-29 if the shoe was on the other foot...???)


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 7, 2009)

The Do335 was an aircraft that would have been quite capable of intercepting the B-29, with a service ceiling over 37,000 feet and a top speed of 474 mph.

Perhaps under the protection of the Ta152, the Do335 would have certainly been a threat.

The Me262 could have been a key player in the interception of the B-29, however, climbing to that altitude would have burned a large portion of it's fuel supply, limiting it's time to engage.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 7, 2009)

Haztoys said:


> (Would the Allies of had a plane to stop the B-29 if the shoe was on the other foot...???)



Don't think so. American fighters were underarmed for attacking a heavy bomber. Maybe something like a Tempest would work. But even there, a 20MM was probably the minimum to use in attacking a B29 with any hope of a kill in one pass (going on that assumption). 

Attacking and destroying the B29 poses a very tough tactical problem for any airforce.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jan 7, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Maybe something like a Tempest would work. But even there, a 20MM was probably the minimum to use in attacking a B29 with any hope of a kill in one pass (going on that assumption).



I thought the Tempest was a low to medium altitude fighter.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2009)

The Me-262's would've shot the B29's down in droves. Furthermore the introduction of the B-29 to the ETO would've let to nearly all German fightersbeing equipped with the GM-1 boosting system. 

Another problem with the B-29 is that its operating height was so high that the escorting fighters would have a hard time properly defending it. Now over Japan that wasn't the biggest of problems as only a few a/c could reach them, but in Europe it would be a disaster waiting to happen.

And forget about the computing gunsight, the B-17's B-24's had that as-well, yet they achieved very poor result in regards to bomber accuracy. The B-29 would because of the greatly increased operatiin height have an even higher inaccuracy. 

As for the the Allies having anything to combat a bomber like the B-29, well as far as I can tell they had nothing besides the P-47, and it would need to be rearmed.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> As for the the Allies having anything to combat a bomber like the B-29, well as far as I can tell they had nothing besides the P-47, and it would need to be rearmed.



If circumstances had been different, the Allies could well have found themselves facing the He177, an aircraft with one or two parallels with the B29. It too suffered major teething problems, not least of which was its engines catching fire. Like the B29, it took a similar two years or so to properly iron out all of the problems though whereas the B29 stepped into an environment that exploited its advantages and provided a reasonable degree of air superiority, the He177 found itself with no decent fuel and pretty low down the list of priorities of the RLM by that time.

The Allies could put up Spitfire HF.VIs to counter the high-altitude Ju86P earlier in the war, so it shouldn't have been a problem to 

(a.) emulate
(b.) push through in numbers

a similar or better plane to counter high altitude German heavy bomber streams.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 7, 2009)

American fighters were well armed for their role of defending bombers and taking down German fighters, but in the case that Germany would had been able to turn the tide of the war and once again would had launched a bomber force aimed to Great Britain; I suppose that the 12 mm machine guns of American fighters would had been force to evolve to 20 mm cannons and of curse the Spitfire would had been ready to defend once again Great Britain.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 7, 2009)

Would a well working He-277, problems ironed out, four engines in four nacelles etc., be as difficult to bring down as the B-29? And what about the Messerschmitt 264?


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> The Me-262's would've shot the B29's down in droves. Furthermore the introduction of the B-29 to the ETO would've let to nearly all German fightersbeing equipped with the GM-1 boosting system.
> 
> Another problem with the B-29 is that its operating height was so high that the escorting fighters would have a hard time properly defending it. Now over Japan that wasn't the biggest of problems as only a few a/c could reach them, but in Europe it would be a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> If circumstances had been different, the Allies could well have found themselves facing the He177, an aircraft with one or two parallels with the B29. It too suffered major teething problems, not least of which was its engines catching fire. Like the B29, it took a similar two years or so to properly iron out all of the problems though whereas the B29 stepped into an environment that exploited its advantages and provided a reasonable degree of air superiority, the He177 found itself with no decent fuel and pretty low down the list of priorities of the RLM by that time.
> 
> The Allies could put up Spitfire HF.VIs to counter the high-altitude Ju86P earlier in the war, so it shouldn't have been a problem to
> 
> ...



Good points Colin. 

Infact if the Germans had went on the offensive again I think the He-277, which was a further development of the He-177, would've caused some very serious problems. The He-277 had a very high ceiling (15km), and a top speed similar to that of the B-29, and the bombload was larger.

The high altitude Spitfires and the P-47 would've been the only fighters to counter them, and even then they would have a very hard time.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2009)

TheMustangRider said:


> If the Me-262s could not keep up with B-17s and B-24s due to their limited numbers, fuel shortages and few trained pilots; the introduction of the B-29 in the ETO would had been the last blow for the Luftwaffe.



No, it would've just let to a lot of B-29's shot down because of a lack of escorts capable of properly defending them.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 7, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> I thought the Tempest was a low to medium altitude fighter.



Was thinking in terms of firepower, not so much atltitude performance.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> No, it would've just let to a lot of B-29's shot down because of a lack of escorts capable of properly defending them.[/QUO I am not debating the fact that more than one B-29 would had been shot down under the cannons of Me-262s but in the long term the Luftwaffe could had not been able to keep up with growing numbers of B-29s as it couldn't with B-17s and B-24s given the fact that its resources were decreasing rapidly and since the P-51 performed superbly at high altitude it would had been an effective escort fighter protecting B-29s as it was with B-17s and B-24s.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jan 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> As for the the Allies having anything to combat a bomber like the B-29, well as far as I can tell they had nothing besides the P-47, and it would need to be rearmed.



What about the P-38? It had high altitude performance and a fast climb rate and decent concentrated firepower.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2009)

Folks there too much speculation and "what ifs" in this scenario. As far as the Me 262 shooting down the B-29 in droves? Well they didn't do that against B-17s and B-24s so if deployed in the name numbers under the scenario that played out in 1945, the outcome "would of" probably been similar, or at least the war ending at least 6 months earlier than it did IMO.

Provided the B-29 would of been developed several years earlier and deployed in the numbers seen with the B-17 and B-24...

Don't forget the B-32 which "should have" been deployed in the spring of 1944. It carried the same normal bomb load as the B-29.

Now lets say the B-29 was in the ETO in the same numbers as the B-17s and B-24s in early 1944 - there probably "would of" been some problems with deployment and tactics, but make no doubt out it - the Luftwaffe would of been dealing with an aircraft which, in an overloaded configuration "could of" been carrying up to a 24,000 pound bomb load with under half the distance it had to fly in the Pacific. Multiply that by the numbers of B-17s and B-24s fielded during the same period and I think its obvious Germany would of probably gotten double the pounding.

Also remember what LeMay did - send out a few hundred B-29s at night. low level, stripped of all guns loaded with incendaries - and again, look at the distance between England and Germany and compare that with Saipan, Iwo or Okinawa and mainland Japan.

Now, should one want to speculate the same scenario with the Me 262 deployed a year earlier in significant numbers, well then I could see the B-29 having its hands full, even with escorting fighters.

Again, too many "what ifs."


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 7, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Provided the B-29 would of been developed several years earlier and deployed in the numbers seen with the B-17 and B-24...



That's the main problem I have with this scenario - availability. 

The B-29 was not only much superior to the B-17 and B-24, it was also twice the size of an aircraft, and generally representing much higher technology. It reads that it will take at least 2 times (if not even more!) the effort to build a B-29 than a B-17/24.

At the same time, its not twice as hard to shoot down for the enemy. With - realistically - half the size of a bomber fleet with B-29s, the attrition the Luftwaffe interceptors will cause can be more sensitive. Fewer bombers flying means less massed formations providing mutual fire, less seperate raids that can divide up the defensive force or even even completely evade being intercepted.

To that are also added the lower serviceability rates, the much higher supply train and maintenance and (I think) runway requirements for the larger aircraft.

In brief, I think that because of realistic operational and production reasons, half or third the number of B-29s are not a good alternative for B-17s/24s, even if the overall tonnage that could be _potentially_ delivered in a single raid is equal or greater, even if _individual_ aircraft are more likely to survive. These are IMHO are outweight by the greater sensitivity to attrition, and offering the defending interceptors some very considerate advantages. The high flying height can be of course beneficial for reducing losses, but it will also reduce the accuracy of bombing, and in the end, the effective destruction brought to enemy targets.


----------



## Erich (Jan 7, 2009)

depending on when in the air war theater in a most case scenario the LW would of pushed for the development of ground to air rocket system interception


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 8, 2009)

From what I can find, the cost in manpower and resources required for construction of a B-29 was something on the order of 2.5-3 times that of a B-17 and about 2 times that of a B-24 (which, at the time of its first flight, was the most technically complex bomber in existence). 

Ah, the USAAF has some prices for various bombers:

Cost of a B-17 goes from $301,221 in 1941 to $258,949 in 1942, $204,370 in 1944 and $187,742 in 1945 (1943 is blank).

B-24 does something quite similar: $379,162 in 1941, $304,391 in 1942 and $215,516 in 1944 (1943 and 1945 blank)

B-29 cost plummets as production ramps up. From a cost of $893,730 in 1942 (no earlier figure) to $605,360 in 1944 (ie, almost 50% price drop over two years) and $509,465 in 1945 (1943 blank again).

So, in 1944 a B-29 cost 2.95 times that of a B-17 and 2.8 times that of a B-24. By 1945 this would be some what lower, but not substantially so. Cost multiple is down to 2.7 times that of a B-17, no data for B-24, but averge yearly cost reduction is about $40,000 so guesstimation is about 2.5 times multiple). 

To put this in comparison, in 1944 a P-47 cost $85,575, a P-51 cost $51,572 and a P-38 cost $97,147. 

Meaning that in 1944, you could buy almost a squadron of P-51s for the price of a single B-29  

The other thing about the B-29 in Europe scenario is what use is it?

Seriously, its a Very Long Range/Very Heavy bomber. Why bother, when bases in England and Italy are at most a 1200 mile round trip from any potential target that the Allies could wish to strike? The B-29 makes much more sense in the vastness of the Pacific.

The British are fulfilling the Very Heavy Bomber role with their Lancasters and Halifaxes anyway. 10-14,000 lbs bomb loads are nothing to be snorted at.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 8, 2009)

Little addenum to my last post.

I always wondered if the performance figures for the He 277 weren't somewhat inflated.

At loaded weight it has higher wing loading and lower power to weight than the B-29, and (according to commonly published data) cruises faster, with a heavier bombload and has a 50% higher ceiling, all without the benefit of turbosupercharged engines. 

I understand that the high wingloading will help with speed, but surely something is a little wrong here. Just how much flight testing was actually done?

Also, anyone know just what type of DB 603s it used? Critical alt for the 603A was about 5,700 m, and about 7000 m for the 603 E. Can't see either of those pushing the 277 to 15,000 m


----------



## timshatz (Jan 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks there too much speculation and "what ifs" in this scenario. As far as the Me 262 shooting down the B-29 in droves? Well they didn't do that against B-17s and B-24s so if deployed in the name numbers under the scenario that played out in 1945, the outcome "would of" probably been similar, or at least the war ending at least 6 months earlier than it did IMO.
> 
> Provided the B-29 would of been developed several years earlier and deployed in the numbers seen with the B-17 and B-24...
> 
> ...



Good post. Pretty much dead on.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 8, 2009)

lets see faster win against the germans


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks there too much speculation and "what ifs" in this scenario. As far as the Me 262 shooting down the B-29 in droves? Well they didn't do that against B-17s and B-24s so if deployed in the name numbers under the scenario that played out in 1945, the outcome "would of" probably been similar, or at least the war ending at least 6 months earlier than it did IMO.
> 
> *Agreed on the attrition based on same tactics and altitudes. Escorts as effective, faster cruise in and out, much larger bomb loads, better fire control systems.. *
> 
> ...


----------



## fly boy (Jan 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks there too much speculation and "what ifs" in this scenario. As far as the Me 262 shooting down the B-29 in droves? Well they didn't do that against B-17s and B-24s so if deployed in the name numbers under the scenario that played out in 1945, the outcome "would of" probably been similar, or at least the war ending at least 6 months earlier than it did IMO.
> 
> Provided the B-29 would of been developed several years earlier and deployed in the numbers seen with the B-17 and B-24...
> 
> ...


i agree to much variables and what not


----------



## delcyros (Jan 8, 2009)

A bomber operating from a ceiling of 30K would likely encounter the same problems over europe as had the B-29 over Japan. The by then unknown jet stream effect would either lead to a reduced bombing altitude or a greatly reduced bombing accuracy from 30K, something which couldn´t be cured given the period knowledge of the phenomen and weather forecast methods.
That´s a very important concern with strategic consequences esspeccially for the oil bombing campaign of 1944, where precision bombing is a very important consideration for success. Poor accuracy from high altitude bombing eventually compromised the B-29´s effectiveness over Japan and led to the adoption of low altitude bombing with increased bombload.
The P-47 would have been extremely effective and a very tough opposition for any of the Luftwaffe fighters, particularely the Fw-190A without GM-1 injection but on the other hand the B-29 conditions (high ceiling, high cruise speed) are more to the taste of some of the historically more unsuccefful interceptors fielded by the Luftwaffe in mid 44, the Me-163B. -Given that they had have a good ground controller to vector them with their radars to the bomber stream. It´s also more likely that the Me-262 would be pressed into the interceptor role operating from central Germany instead into the bomber / recon role operating from France and northern Germany, esspeccially if other Luftwaffe fighters are found to be ineffective versus the B-29.
Flak would have to improve to FALK/41 standarts and the liklyhood that SAM missiles will be considered for mass produced increases, too.
The B-29 in operations over Europe may turned out to be very different from operations over the Pacific for bomber escort operations, resulting perhaps in a different charackter of aerial bombing than those experienced by all sides.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

delcyros said:


> A bomber operating from a ceiling of 30K would likely encounter the same problems over europe as had the B-29 over Japan. The by then unknown jet stream effect would either lead to a reduced bombing altitude or a greatly reduced bombing accuracy from 30K, something which couldn´t be cured given the period knowledge of the phenomen and weather forecast methods.
> 
> *I agree the potential problems. Both 50% increase in cruise speed and altitude would have diminished bombing CEP.
> 
> ...



I believe the most likely success scenario against everything the LW fielded (as contrast with 'what if') would have been an introduction into night bombing role initially because of few numbers and disparate performance characteristics in formation flying with B-24/B-17s... until the force built up to Division level of 10+ wings where they presumably could be tasked individually and escorted more effectively. 

The wildcard is USAAF leaders were absolutely dedicated to daylight bombing and shifting tactics would have been inconceivable, politically. 

Only Curt LeMay's reputation as a problem solver and direct chain of command to Joint Chiefs enabled the change to low level night raids over Japan. Would that have occurred in ETO? Would daylight raids have to reach a prohibitive level to force the change - and what would be different to make the B-29 more vulnerable to LW. It would have started at 28-30K and tested ability of LW to effectively stop them.

Hard to figure out just how fast the LW could have changed course with any effective measures to adapt to B-29 performance.

The 163 had such short range that it was almost a point defensive capability and would have to be deployed much closer to individual and critical targets. 

The 262 was a more promising answer but why would Hitler change his focus - even when the 8th AF with only B-17s and B-24s was systematically dismantling German industry? The B-29 was evolutionary not revolutionary. It's primary benefit was speed, range and ceiling. With the huge increase in load and speed it would be more effective per aircraft by far than a B-17 at the same altitudes.


----------



## Soren (Jan 8, 2009)

Had the B-29 entered service in the ETO then I see the Germans completely prioritizing the production of a/c like the Me-262, Ta-152 He-162. Fw-190A production would'v probably been completely haulted and all resources given to the contruction of the Ta-152, while Bf-109 production will be haulted in favour of the Me-262. The Ta-152H would've undoubtedly proven a true menace, esp. at high altitudes, the Allies having no a/c to effectively combat it. In 10min it was already at 10km height, and it could easily cruise up above the escorts maximum ceiling and come screaming down on the bombers without fear of reprisals.

So I think it would've been a wise move not to introduce the B-29 to the ETO to replace the B-17 B-24's. Sure it has a higher bombload, but its bombs will be scattered significantly more, and all hopes of effectively attacking key production areas will be lost. 

In Japan in worked because the Japanese had nearly no a/c to effectively intercept the B-29, but in Germany its an entirely different matter. And because of the expense of the B-29 not as many would've been deployed, and for every B-29 shot down, you've lost the equal to 3 B-17's.


----------



## Soren (Jan 8, 2009)

Jabberwocky said:


> Little addenum to my last post.
> 
> I always wondered if the performance figures for the He 277 weren't somewhat inflated.
> 
> ...



The performance figures are quite true and all thanks to a/c engine design. The wings were long and slender, the engines were fitted with the GM-1 boost system and geared for high alt flight. This allowed a ceiling of 15km, nearly as high as the Ta-152H's 15.1 km ceiling.

I believe the 15km ceiling was reached without a bombload though by one of the prototype a/c.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 8, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Weight of course has a big influence on B-29 speed as well - I chose 90000 lbs as a reference because that simplified reading the diagram, but that might not turn out to be the most typical operational weight if you decide on a specific scenario.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



i think that 90000 are too light, maybe good for return fly but it's best intercet the bomber in go fly


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2009)

the Ta 152H was designed to face the P-51D/K not as a bomber killer, the He 163 was out of the question as a bomber destroyer, masses of Me 262's with R4M's and the steps upwards in rocket design would have been used, indeed the facement of a more advanced US high alt. bomber type would of pressed towards jets of swept wing variety

am not sure where this thing is going as a huge what-if, we already talked about this last year or the year before


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> Had the B-29 entered service in the ETO then I see the Germans completely prioritizing the production of a/c like the Me-262, Ta-152 He-162. Fw-190A production would'v probably been completely haulted and all resources given to the contruction of the Ta-152, while Bf-109 production will be haulted in favour of the Me-262. The Ta-152H would've undoubtedly proven a true menace, esp. at high altitudes, the Allies having no a/c to effectively combat it. In 10min it was already at 10km height, and it could easily cruise up above the escorts maximum ceiling and come screaming down on the bombers without fear of reprisals.
> 
> *So the introduction of the B-29, in contrast to the EXPECTATION of the B-29 (Germans believed it was on the way) would have altered the priority? They were 'waiting to see if we were bluffing'?? In the meantime they had the B-17s and B-24s and Mustangs under control so there was no sense of urgency to alter production plans??
> 
> ...



Maybe 2x on cost and same as B-17 on crews but 3x bigger bomb load.

Soren - It's all speculation but the biggest flaw in your argument is that the Luftwaffe EXPECTED the B-29, feared its additional capabilities and yet failed to deploy anything to effectively resist it (i.e more effective than what they actually put up against B-17) had it actually arrived in ETO in 1944.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> Had the B-29 entered service in the ETO then I see the Germans completely prioritizing the production of a/c like the Me-262, Ta-152 He-162. Fw-190A production would'v probably been completely haulted and all resources given to the contruction of the Ta-152, while Bf-109 production will be haulted in favour of the Me-262. The Ta-152H would've undoubtedly proven a true menace, esp. at high altitudes, the Allies having no a/c to effectively combat it. In 10min it was already at 10km height, and it could easily cruise up above the escorts maximum ceiling and come screaming down on the bombers without fear of reprisals.


Speculation...


Soren said:


> So I think it would've been a wise move not to introduce the B-29 to the ETO to replace the B-17 B-24's. Sure it has a higher bombload, but its bombs will be scattered significantly more, and all hopes of effectively attacking key production areas will be lost.


Why would its bombs be "scattered" if it was bombing at the same altitudes as the B-17 or B-24 using the same bombsight? 


Soren said:


> In Japan in worked because the Japanese had nearly no a/c to effectively intercept the B-29, but in Germany its an entirely different matter. And because of the expense of the B-29 not as many would've been deployed, and for every B-29 shot down, you've lost the equal to 3 B-17's.


Remember what was said in the beginning here - "the same amounts of B-29 deployed as B-24s and B-17s." It's only speculation if the Luftwaffe "would of" made more of an effort to field more aircraft like the Ta 152 or aircraft that could counter the B-29. Possibly.

IMO the quantity of bombers deployed would not of been a factor. In fact for every B-17 and B-24 deployed in the ETO it was planned to replace them with the B-32.


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2009)

real curious as to what documented sources state the LW was expecting the B-29 when every LW vet I have chatted with, written, whatever did not even know what the 29 was. Nothing is written in any Reich defense unit history(s) that I have read, and I have read through many in my library data, that even mention the B-29 was forthcoming to German air space.

tell me this is not Galland/Hermann contrived


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 8, 2009)

it's not serious thinked that usaaf can deploy same number of B-29 as B-17 and 24, only can deploy or some hundreds take it from PTO or with an other industrial politic some more but with less of other aircrafs (more factory for B-29 need less factory for others)


----------



## drgondog (Jan 8, 2009)

Erich said:


> real curious as to what documented sources state the LW was expecting the B-29 when every LW vet I have chatted with, written, whatever did not even know what the 29 was. Nothing is written in any Reich defense unit history(s) that I have read, and I have read through many in my library data, that even mention the B-29 was forthcoming to German air space.
> 
> tell me this is not Galland/Hermann contrived



E ~ Certainly a worthwhile question. 

It would be more curious to ask how the Germans would a.) Not be aware of the program, b.) Not note its highly visible arrival with intentional low security in UK as they were intentionally flown that route (UK/Africa/Chinato get to China.

Our intelligence purposely suggested that the B-29 arrivals in UK were 'hard to miss' and intentionally done so to give impression to Abwehr intelligence operators in UK and Africa that the B-29s were coming to 8th AF..

I have no idea what Galland/Goering knew about the program - but they were clearly having their hands full with B-17s/24s and Lancs and failed to stop them. The arrival of the B-29 would surely have given Galland more weight in convincing Hitler that the 262 had to be accelerated - but history show Hitler was more interested in offense than air defense of the Reich. Why would the 29 change that attitude?


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 8, 2009)

If Germany was losing the fight against the slower and lower flying B-17's and B-24's, I do not see how it can be argued that the Luftwaffe would fare any better against the B-29's had they been deployed in the ETO.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 8, 2009)

Going back to the "What if" (Germany being able to field large numbers of Ta 152s and Me 262s and delaying the war) I guess that we are forgeting, or perhaps understimating, the allies capacity to create and mass produce an aircraft to counter anything superior the LW would had trowhn at them; P-51Hs P-47Ns and P-80s were on the way when the war ended.


----------



## Negative Creep (Jan 8, 2009)

I wonder if the P80 would have been rushed into operations as an escort for the B29?


----------



## HoHun (Jan 8, 2009)

Hi Jabberwocky,

>Ah, the USAAF has some prices for various bombers:

Highly interesting! Where did you find this gem of information? 

With regard to the price factor to the B-17 and B-24, the B-29 might be more economic than its hardware cost suggests because educating crews was very expensive too, and the capability of delivering more ordnance per crewman per mission, probably with an improved service life due to the better performance, might have made the B-29 the better option, had it been only a question of money to employ them.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## delcyros (Jan 8, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> If Germany was losing the fight against the slower and lower flying B-17's and B-24's, I do not see how it can be argued that the Luftwaffe would fare any better against the B-29's had they been deployed in the ETO.
> 
> Just my opinion, I could be wrong.



Agreed. Replacing the B-17/B-24 with the B-29 is a significant improvement in the 8ths USAAF strategic bombing capabilities. Unfortunately, I still believe that the introduction of the B-29 does not alter anything on the general mistake that the bombers get´s always through. It´s not just the B-29´s it´s the escorts to fight down the Luftwaffe fighter force and I would like to underline this in our discussion. Without them, the B-29 may suffer Schweinfurth / Regensburg losses, too.



> Flak would certainly be much less effective - forcing SAM technology - but where was that technology? and if possible to deploy it in 1944 why wasn't it deployed against the 8th AF?


In 1944 there is no probability for SAM. It maybe would have appeared in 1945. Most SAM programs were cancelled in february 1945 to concentrate on other programs (not much undispersed industry to protect left at this time). I think -and may be wrong with this- that priorities would change with the B-29 -or not.



> The 163 had such short range that it was almost a point defensive capability and would have to be deployed much closer to individual and critical targets.


The -163 would have been fielded at Leuna and Hamburg synthetic fuel complexes as a point defense interceptor, agreed. I am inclined to think that one of the -163´s problems was the rather rapid approach speed vs- B-17´s, which is now a softer factor versus the faster cruising B-29. I don´t expect to much from this.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Jan 8, 2009)

The biggest problem the Luftwaffe had was the escort fighters, Mustangs and Thunderbolts. The B-17's and B-24's were hit much harder by the LW fighters before continuous escort became normal. 

So as long as the USAAC continued having good escort, what plane was dropping the payload wouldn't matter. 

However, I think the B-29 would have a much harder time with the intense flak that the Germans could put up over target. I may be wrong, but I don't see the B-29 being able to withstand as much flak damage as the B-17. I would put it more on line with the B-24. 

And if it were me, seeing how late the B-29 would be in the game, I would stage them from Italy, not England. Let the 8th AF pound from the North, use the extra range of the B-29 to come from the South.


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 8, 2009)

I agree that a fighter escort would still be needed. Why couldn't the fighter escort stay at the highest altitude they can fly at, weather it be a P51 or P47, and come down to meet the Luftwaffe when they rose to meet them.

ME262'S were not available in large enough numbers to really make a dent in the B-17/B-24 numbers, why would that be any different for the B-29. I would dare say that if the US wanted to concentrate production on the B29, I think it would not be too long before they had more then enough bombers to effectively take the place of the B17's and B24's.


----------



## Soren (Jan 8, 2009)

> So the introduction of the B-29, in contrast to the EXPECTATION of the B-29 (Germans believed it was on the way) would have altered the priority? They were 'waiting to see if we were bluffing'?? In the meantime they had the B-17s and B-24s and Mustangs under control so there was no sense of urgency to alter production plans??



The B-29 was NOT expected or even known about by the Germans Bill.



> As to Ta 152 it was a null factor in 1944 (and 1945), ditto 190D, ditto He 162 ditto, Me 163, etc.



And there was a reason for that as well, which was that other projects were given priority by Hitler, mistakingly so for him. 



> Same point as above. Bigger CEP-yes at 30K but faster ships, huge bomb load and the LW fighter force deployed against the B-17s were not very effective when the Mustang achieved critical mass. If the LW could have re-prioritized and deployed advanced capabilities to defeat the B-17s and B-24s why didn't they?



Why ? Come on Bill, no'one can answer that question. What would be next ? Do I also have to somehow explain why Hitler chose to give his freezing troops in Stalingrad extra ammunition instead of life important winterclothes ?

Many of the decisions made during the war were anything but smart calculated. Had Hitler for example not delayed or cancelled several projects there's a great possibility that all of Europe would be in German hands. There are countless examples of Hitler screwing up aboslutely major chances for the Germans to turn the tide or even win the war as early as 43. The Germans even had a nuclear program way before anyone else, and the bomb was also suggested, however Hitler shut down the program telling them the war would be over in months not years, so why waste money on such a contrabtion. Well that decision certainly backfired! Hitler also made sure that the Germans weren't fielding jets in full military service already in mid 43.

So in short Hitler might as-well have made a different priority list than he did if he was smart enough, making sure that the jet advanced fighter program got full priority much much earlier on, as-well as cancelling several majorly resource draining pointless projects (such as the MAUS).



> By your argument why even resist the B-29 because it was a.) vulnerable, b.) less accuracy at 30,000 feet?



The B-29 was faster, could carry more bombs, but it would be without effective escort at 35kft, and since it was pressurized much larger than the B-17 it made for an ideal target for the fast German interceptors. 

I'd stick with the many B-17 B-24's at 28kft with escorts, it worked well.



drgondog said:


> Maybe 2x on cost and same as B-17 on crews but 3x bigger bomb load.
> 
> Soren - It's all speculation but the biggest flaw in your argument is that the Luftwaffe EXPECTED the B-29, feared its additional capabilities and yet failed to deploy anything to effectively resist it (i.e more effective than what they actually put up against B-17) had it actually arrived in ETO in 1944.



Oh I highly disagree, the Germans did infact know NOTHING about the B-29.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 8, 2009)

In April, ’44, the Germans were beginning to get their brains bombed out by B-17s and B-24s, flying at 25k and 20k respectively, protected by P-51s. The Germans were desperate to find an answer to this combination and did not succeed until the last quarter of ’44 in fielding aircraft that could challenge the P-51D at these altitudes. Now if the Germans could not stop the B-24s and B-17s at these altitudes, how in the world would they stop B-29s at 30k where the performance advantage of the P-51 was even greater? 

The bomb loads dropped by the B-17s and B-24s could be handled by 70-75% fewer B-29s, e.g., a thousand plane raid could be handled by 250-300 aircraft, exposing equally less crewmen to combat and allowing a significant increase in concentrations of escort fighters, somewhat offset by increased concentrations of defending forces. In addition, at 20k ft. the German defensive fighters had a significant performance advantage over the bombers, allowing many options in attack strategy for bombers coming and going. At 30k, the advantage is reduced. Going in, the fighter advantage is similar to the older bombers, except climb, but coming out, the B-29 could fly at about 340 mph continuous, giving only about 60 mph overtake to the German fighters, providing much better defensive fire solutions. Fighter climb is about half the rate at 20k. Attack options are limited by slow overtake and poorer altitude performance. Higher altitude also makes antiaircraft fire more difficult, reducing the effective foot print. At 30k, an aircraft would almost have to fly within four miles of an 88 site in order to be hit. At 20k, an aircraft can be hit within six miles of the 88 site. To provide the same coverage at 30k as at 20k, 50% more antiaircraft sites would have to be provided. These are rough estimates but they show the impact of flying higher.




Soren said:


> The Me-262's would've shot the B29's down in droves.


They didn’t shoot down B-17/24s in droves, why would they do that to B-29s



> Furthermore the introduction of the B-29 to the ETO would've let to nearly all German fightersbeing equipped with the GM-1 boosting system.


They didn’t seem to do that to get an edge on the P-51s defending the B-17/24s, strange.



> Another problem with the B-29 is that its operating height was so high that the escorting fighters would have a hard time properly defending it. Now over Japan that wasn't the biggest of problems as only a few a/c could reach them, but in Europe it would be a disaster waiting to happen.



Huh? The P-51D and P-47D-25 easily out performed their German counterparts at 25-33k from April ’44 to September ’44.



> And forget about the computing gunsight, the B-17's B-24's had that as-well, yet they achieved very poor result in regards to bomber accuracy.


Do you have data on effectiveness of these computing gunsights


> The B-29 would because of the greatly increased operatiin height have an even higher inaccuracy.


I am not sure how altitude affects accuracy of gun sights, bombsights yes. 




> No, it would've just let to a lot of B-29's shot down because of a lack of escorts capable of properly defending them.


Not against the competition in mid ’44. Even if so, nitrous was just as easy to put on allied fighters as German.



Jabberwocy said:


> Seriously, its a Very Long Range/Very Heavy bomber. Why bother, when bases in England and Italy are at most a 1200 mile round trip from any potential target that the Allies could wish to strike? The B-29 makes much more sense in the vastness of the Pacific.



And that is why they weren’t needed in ETO.



drgondog said:


> The Fw 190A8 is almost an non factor at 30K and the D-9s are way late.



The D-9 was formidable up to 25k, but ran out of air above that.



Soren said:


> Had the B-29 entered service in the ETO then I see the Germans completely prioritizing the production of a/c like the Me-262, Ta-152 He-162. Fw-190A production would'v probably been completely haulted and all resources given to the contruction of the Ta-152, while Bf-109 production will be haulted in favour of the Me-262. The Ta-152H would've undoubtedly proven a true menace, esp. at high altitudes, the Allies having no a/c to effectively combat it. In 10min it was already at 10km height, and it could easily cruise up above the escorts maximum ceiling and come screaming down on the bombers without fear of reprisals.



All wise decisions, but would also be too late once the B-29s appeared in the Spring of ’44, and, the Allies would probably also pursued support for the B-29 in pushing the P-51H, more P-47M/Ns, P-72 and P-80.



> In Japan in worked because the Japanese had nearly no a/c to effectively intercept the B-29, but in Germany its an entirely different matter. And because of the expense of the B-29 not as many would've been deployed, and for every B-29 shot down, you've lost the equal to 3 B-17's.



But when one made it through, it was equivalent to three B-17s, so, unless the kill rate was higher than 50%, something never gotten close to, the B-29 still comes out on top.



> The B-29 was faster, could carry more bombs, but it would be without effective escort at 35kft, and since it was pressurized much larger than the B-17 making it made for an ideal target for the fast German interceptors.



The P-47M and N generated 2600 hp, 1400 hp more than the Ta-152H, at 35k ft., add nitrous and better wings and voila. I doubt the AAF would have fielded the B-29 without adequate protection. I think the operating altitude for the B-29 was 30k ft, well within excellent performance envelop of the P-51D and P-47D-25.

As Soren pointed out, high altitude bombing was prone to error and there is no reason to believe the problems the B-29 had over Japan would be less over Europe. It is reasonable to believe that the B-29s would have to fly lower for accuracy, negating some advantages. However, a bomber with the payload and speed, and the defensive improvements, of the B-29 would have certainly been more effective and would have provided nothing but more headaches for the Germans. For the period of April, 1944 to September 1944, there is no reason to believe that the Germans would or could have fielded a high altitude defense faster than they were already trying to do. The more advanced aircraft, such as the Me-262, Fw-190D-9/10/etc, Bf-109K, Ta-152H etc., would have been too late, just as they were with the older bombers.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2009)

The way I see it there's no way the Allies could've gotten the same number of B-29s to the ETO as they did B-17's B-24's, it was way to expensive a machine. But 'if' were were to imagine they did then we might as-well also imagine the concequences it would've had if Hitler had prioritized differently.



davparlr said:


> They didn’t shoot down B-17/24s in droves, why would they do that to B-29s



I think you need to go check your history books again mate cause when'ever there were no escorts available to help the bombers were mauled beyond belief, it was raining metal over Schweinfurt Regensburg in 43. 

The escorts helped prevent it getting that bad again however, esp. the P-51 with its very long range and great high alt performance. But the stubborness to keep with the Fw-190A series also helped the Allies. The Anton was simply too sluggish at bomber alts, and it cost it dearly.



davpalr said:


> The P-47M and N generated 2600 hp, 1400 hp more than the Ta-152H, at 35k ft., add nitrous and better wings and voila.



Voila ? That's a serious design revision right there, not something done over night. Besides by the time the new Allied fighters would've been ready for shipment to the ETO the German LW would already be equipped with Ta-152's powered by the Jumo 213 EB engine, and nothing the Allies had in the works came close to this. 

But nevermind the propjobs, the Germans would be flying Jumo 004E equipped Me-262s with a performance of way over 900 km/h, 6000 ft/min climb rate 46 to 47 kft ceiling. 

And then there's the He-162, an excellent design which sadly suffered from hurried assembly a shortage of proper materials in 45. If Hitler had prioritized differently this a/c would've been built earlier and to much higher standards and with a more powerful version of the BMW engine. And properly assembled He-162's would've proven excellent counter escort fighters, leaving the job of pounding the bombers to the rocket equipped Me-262's.



> I doubt the AAF would have fielded the B-29 without adequate protection.



Prolonging its introduction until Dec 44 or early 45.



> I think the operating altitude for the B-29 was 30k ft, well within excellent performance envelop of the P-51D and P-47D-25.



It was 35kft according to what I've read, and that's higher than desirable considering the huge performance advantage enjoyed by fighters such as the Ta-152H Me-262.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 9, 2009)

Does anybody have reliable performance, loadout/range sources/datasheets for the B-29? It would add some objective data for the sake of discussion...


----------



## Marcel (Jan 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> Oh I highly disagree, the Germans did infact know NOTHING about the B-29.



I find that difficult to believe Soren. They must have known. I have a simple Dutch book about aviation, printed in 1943. It does describe the B29. Remember it was written in occupied country. How could this writer know and the German authorities not? Could it be that hey knew about it and ignored the info?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 9, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Jabberwocky,
> 
> >Ah, the USAAF has some prices for various bombers:
> 
> ...



The information all comes from the USAAF statistical digest. 

There a full upload of its various components at: Army Air Forces Statistical Digest - World War II


There is also a partially complete upload of it at: 
United States Army Air Forces in World War II

Gold mine of information there, hundreds of pages of raw stats on operations, losses, groups, personnelle, maintenance, ect, ect,

Both sites can be a little funky at times though. The AFHRA stie used to routinely deny me entry, and the USAAF.net site has a tendency to crash Firefox.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> The way I see it there's no way the Allies could've gotten the same number of B-29s to the ETO as they did B-17's B-24's, it was way to expensive a machine. But 'if' were were to imagine they did then we might as-well also imagine the concequences it would've had if Hitler had prioritized differently.


The allies *"would of" *fielded the same amount of B-29s as other bombers deployed, money was no object and the US had the money, resources and the capability to do so. There were thousands of aircraft being built in August 1945 and had the war gone on for a few more years (in the Pacific) you probably would of seen at least 500 B-32s in the Pacific (1500 were ordered) and at least that number of B-29s. 
Additionally the B-29D was being developed which eventually became the B-50. 60 were ordered before the war ended but the aircraft wasn't deployed until 1947.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 9, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The allies *"would of" *fielded the same amount of B-29s as other bombers deployed, money was no object and the US had the money, resources and the capability to do so..



maybe i don't understand you tell that from summer 44 the US can deployed in ETO many B-29 as many B-17 and 24 they have??
if they can surely they do, they not do because they can't


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> maybe i don't understand you tell that from summer 44 the US can deployed in ETO many B-29 as many B-17 and 24 they have??
> if they can surely they do, they not do because they can't



I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. The point is the US "could of" fielded the same amounts of B-29 to the ETO - this providing;

1. The aircraft was operational a few years earlier
2. B-17 and B-24 production halted.

By 1946 there probably would of been an additional 1000 B-29s and B-32s in the PTO had the war continued.

The fact that the B-29 was larger and more expensive was irrelevant bottom line is (was) that the capability was there to provide the quantity of aircraft needed to conduct operations during WW2. Aside from the beginning of WW2, I've seen little evidence to show the USAAF was being properly supplied.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> The B-29 was NOT expected or even known about by the Germans Bill.
> 
> *Then the German intelligence teams in US and UK were morons. Starting with the Boeing plants in Seattle area, a total cretin could position himself 10 milkes away from the plant and leisurely take pics as the aircraft was first flown...then Wichita. Are you saying that you believe that German intelligence did not have intelligent assets in the US?
> 
> ...



See above - if you are correct, as hard as it is to believe, then the German intelligence teams in US and UK and Middle East were totally clueless. Most of us do not hold that opinion.

Now, here is the reality. 8th AF made a decison in early 1944 that bringing in B-29s were more disruptive than potentially beneficial - primarily because extensive work needed to be accomplished to lengthen runways and modify service depots and base hangers to take the B-29.. not to mention Wing size deployment was not feasible until summer 1944 at the earliest.

It was agreed that deployment to ETO would start in spring 1945 if needed... and even that decision was recinded in fall 1944.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2009)

Hitler certainly knew nothing of it Bill, and neither did the German a/c designers. Maybe the Abwehr did, but there is no proof they did, you're just speculating. 

But lets assume the Germans did know about it, they apparently then weren't very concerned about it as it probably seemed it wasn't going to be in the ETO any time soon.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2009)

drgondog said:


> See above - if you are correct, as hard as it is to believe, then the German intelligence teams in US and UK and Middle East were totally clueless. Most of us do not hold that opinion.
> 
> Now, here is the reality. 8th AF made a decison in early 1944 that bringing in B-29s were more disruptive than potentially beneficial - primarily because extensive work needed to be accomplished to lengthen runways and modify service depots and base hangers to take the B-29.. not to mention Wing size deployment was not feasible until summer 1944 at the earliest.
> 
> It was agreed that deployment to ETO would start in spring 1945 if needed... and even that decision was recinded in fall 1944.


Well put Bill - I was going to mention that B-29 deployed to the UK - I remember seeing a photo of it and if I remember correctly the entire aircraft was painted OD. Does any one else have info on this?


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2009)

So let me get this straight. There are people here now that are of the opinion that the Abwehr had fully infiltrated the British US military intelligence while at the same time others say that the British had all Abwehr agents in the UK captured and knew where every single one in the US was ?? I've argued against this before.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 9, 2009)

The Germans were not clueless about the B29, because the AAF had publicized it as early as 1942.

Plus the B29's were bombing Japan in middle 1944 and they would have told the Germans about it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The Germans were not clueless about the B29, because the AAF had publicized it as early as 1942.
> 
> Plus the B29's were bombing Japan in middle 1944 and they would have told the Germans about it.



I'm sure Germany had an Embassy in Tokyo........


----------



## Erich (Jan 9, 2009)

most likely the higher LW intel knew of the remote possibilities of the B-29 onboard 8th or 15th AF command, but the average Hans pilot flying single and twin engine bomber destroyer missions knew nothing - that is my point, there was obviously nothing done in a hurried up program to face what was to come, although numerous failed experimentation was to be selected to try and build up moral in the doomed LW pilot cadre and for the sake of the German civilian population.

guys we are argueing ourselves into the ground with another what-if. Let's be real had the B-29 come onboard in the ETO it would further inflicted the carnage on the ground, would of it quicken the fall of the Reich who knows


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

Erich said:


> most likely the higher LW intel knew of the remote possibilities of the B-29 onboard 8th or 15th AF command, but the average Hans pilot flying single and twin engine bomber destroyer missions knew nothing - that is my point, there was obviously nothing done in a hurried up program to face what was to come, although numerous failed experimentation was to be selected to try and build up moral in the doomed LW pilot cadre and for the sake of the German civilian population.
> 
> guys we are argueing ourselves into the ground with another what-if. Let's be real had the B-29 come onboard in the ETO it would further inflicted the carnage on the ground, would of it quicken the fall of the Reich who knows



I would say this sums it up pretty well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2009)

agree...........


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> So let me get this straight. There are people here now that are of the opinion that the Abwehr had fully infiltrated the British US military intelligence while at the same time others say that the British had all Abwehr agents in the UK captured and knew where every single one in the US was ?? I've argued against this before.



No - that is not what is being said.

A casual stroll with camera in hand in the countryside near the airfields I just talked about, plus the ability to follow a new and very large moving four engine bomber with said camera, and a means to develop and smuggle film was not above Abwehr abilities.

Cutting out Life Magazine articles and smuggling those to Mexico was similarly in the Abwehr's bag of tricks.

ZERO infiltration required.

It is just not plausible that Hitler was not aware of it, ditto for Fatso. Lack of concern or disinclination to re setting priorities is also plausible... 

As Erich said, it is a null argument as it didn't come to 8th AF during WWII.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well put Bill - I was going to mention that B-29 deployed to the UK - I remember seeing a photo of it and if I remember correctly the entire aircraft was painted OD. Does any one else have info on this?



pg 205 The Mighty Eighth War Manual by Freeman shows the 29 at Glatton on March 11, 1944. OD with gray bottom.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2009)

drgondog said:


> pg 205 The Mighty Eighth War Manual by Freeman shows the 29 at Glatton on March 11, 1944. OD with gray bottom.


Thanks!


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2009)

drgondog said:


> No - that is not what is being said.
> 
> A casual stroll with camera in hand in the countryside near the airfields I just talked about, plus the ability to follow a new and very large moving four engine bomber with said camera, and a means to develop and smuggle film was not above Abwehr abilities.
> 
> ...



Oh I don't doubt the ability of the Abwehr Bill, they had some of the best trained agents in the world and they knew about most new upcoming Allied a/c designs having fully infiltrated the US a/c industry, but I just see two conflicting arguments thats all.

The point however is that the B-29 wasn't seen as making it to the ETO by the Germans at any rate, and no a/c designers knew anything about it, and it even seems Hitler Goering were also uninformed. The Abwehr had a lots of classified material not known of by the Führer.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> Oh I don't doubt the ability of the Abwehr Bill, they had some of the best trained agents in the world and they knew about most new upcoming Allied a/c designs having fully infiltrated the US a/c industry, but I just see two conflicting arguments thats all.
> 
> *Then we can safel now assume they knew all about the B-29.*
> 
> The point however is that the B-29 wasn't seen as making it to the ETO by the Germans at any rate, and no a/c designers knew anything about it, and it even seems Hitler Goering were also uninformed. The Abwehr had a lots of classified material not known of by the Führer.



*And you know this how?*


----------



## delcyros (Jan 9, 2009)

I think we have reached a point in the discussion where two things are matched together:
One aspect: The significant superiority of P-47/P-51 operating at high altitude in the fighter role.
The other: The B-29 beeing able to defend itselfe by high cruise alt / cruise speed and superior self defense.

I agree with the first but do question the second aspect. The Luftwaffe was able to deal with the B-17 / B-24 but it was not able to deal with the escorts in the same place.
I have seen little to convince me that the B-29 would change anything here. It would have been as vulnarable to Fw-190 in a head on firing pass as was the B-24. 
The Luftwaffe get´s beaten as historically or even more while the devastation on the ground is likely beeing larger but less precise and efficient.
You likely would see a change in production priorities from G-6 to GM-1 boosted Bf-109G5 high altitude fighters and maybe some Bf-109H-1 beeing converted from -G5 airframes as an interim measure long before the advent of the Ta-152H (they have been operationally tested in France 1944, while production was to begin in mid 1944 before beeing cancelled in favour to lower alt variants).
Is the P-51B/D really that superior to an GM-1 boosted Bf-109G5 or Bf-109h?


----------



## Marcel (Jan 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hitler certainly knew nothing of it Bill, and neither did the German a/c designers. Maybe the Abwehr did, but there is no proof they did, you're just speculating.
> 
> But lets assume the Germans did know about it, they apparently then weren't very concerned about it as it probably seemed it wasn't going to be in the ETO any time soon.


Dutch aviation enthousiasts were better then the German Intelligence:



Marcel said:


> I find that difficult to believe Soren. They must have known. I have a simple Dutch book about aviation, printed in 1943. It does describe the B29. Remember it was written in occupied country. How could this writer know and the German authorities not? Could it be that hey knew about it and ignored the info?


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> So let me get this straight. There are people here now that are of the opinion that the Abwehr had fully infiltrated the British US military intelligence while at the same time others say that the British had all Abwehr agents in the UK captured and knew where every single one in the US was ?? I've argued against this before.



Its true, you have argued this one out before with a similar lack of success, mainly due to an almost total lack of supporting evidence.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 9, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>The aircraft was operational a few years earlier

Hm, that looks like a somwhat unrealistic kind of "what if" assumption to me.

If you re-read the original post by Ralphwiggum, it doesn't actually make any statement on B-29 numbers equalling the historical ones of the B-17 and B-24 but simply suggested availability of the type without static a specific time or a certain numerical strength.

Accordingly, there migth be a way to satisfy this suggestion with a minimum of anachronistic assumptions: Due to the (historic) priority of the European theatre of operations over the Pacific, we could assume that the B-29 upon reaching operational status was (ahistorically) directed to the 8th Air Force, which would receive the total production of the type for use against Germany, augmenting the historically bomber force (or replacing parts of it, for example because the Liberator force is reduced in favour of the Pacific).

If the B-29s attacked the Reich, some Luftwaffe units would indeed have to fight "8th airforce Superfortresses instead of B-17's and Liberators" as Ralph suggested, though the latters would still be operating in the same theatre.

In my opinion, this might be a more interesting "what if" to think about because it doesn't require quite as great a leap as the "B-29 a few years earlier" scenario.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Jan 9, 2009)

Hi Jabberwocky,

>There a full upload of its various components at: Army Air Forces Statistical Digest - World War II

Thanks a lot, that's really good stuff! 

Table 74 on this page has some information on B-29 production:

List of Tables: Aircraft and Equipment

Except for the three prototypes, 92 B-29s were accepted in 1943, 1161 in 1944 and 2507 in 1945 (until August).

Table 87 shows that there were 145 very heavy bombers "on hand" in "overseas theatres" in April 1944, increasing to 407 by December 1944 and to 1090 by VJ day.

Table 101 lists the total combat losses for the B-29 as 501 first-line aircraft until the end of the war.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

delcyros said:


> I think we have reached a point in the discussion where two things are matched together:
> One aspect: The significant superiority of P-47/P-51 operating at high altitude in the fighter role.
> The other: The B-29 beeing able to defend itselfe by high cruise alt / cruise speed and superior self defense.
> 
> ...



Good question. The more important question is whether there would be more or less chance to shoot the much faster B-29s down at 30,000 feet when still escorted by the Mustangs. I personally think the 51 and 109G-6AS and -10 were close enough to the Mustang that the fight at 30K would be virtually the same as at 20K.

The next question is what does the Fw 190A7 and A8 do to gain enough time to get to say 32-35K to get into position to make a single diving head on pass and keep going down when the escort is in the area. Both of them would have been at a serious disadvantage at those altitudes.

I suspect the net effect of the B-29 arriving in the ETO in Spring 1944 would have been to first determine if the B-29s planned operational altitudes and bombloads would have been adequate given the problems experienced in the engines in PTO.

The second question would be how to allocate the existing Mustang/Lightning target escort force. B-29s operating at higher speeds and altitudes would dilute the existing coverage even more in the critical April-May timeframe.

Last - how does it truly affect the LW priorities for fighter aircraft. The G-5 and G-6 were already being handicapped with cannon gondolas (at 25K) - what would the issues be at 30K? That is another 4-5 minutes of climb and high fuel consumption just to reach bomber altitude, meaning less time to engage and/or chase if the intercept prediction is off. The Fw 190A8 was already in trouble at 25K with the BMW801.

If the B-29s failed operationally at high altitude and forced back to 25-28K like the Forts, then intercept challenges are still higher for the LW just because of speed. The 51 escort should be even more effective for having longer engagement in escort duties with improved cruise speed to and from target. 

For the same reasons the P-47D should be able to perform more target escort duties - perhaps to Hamburg, Brunswick, Schweinfurt radius. At 200kts cruise for the B-29, both the P-47 and P-51 no longer have to throttle back and 'ess' to stay with the bombers.

If the latter point is true the escort potential over target for 8th AF dramatically expands much earlier in 1944 to virtually every active group in 8th FC excpet for Munich to Leipzig and Berlin ranges when only 51s and 38s can go all the way.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 9, 2009)

30k?

Kurfrst - Kurz-Betriebsanleitung fr Flugzeugfhrer und Bodenpersonal fr GM 1-Anlagen in Bf 109 G.

and


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> 30k?
> 
> Kurfrst - Kurz-Betriebsanleitung fr Flugzeugfhrer und Bodenpersonal fr GM 1-Anlagen in Bf 109 G.
> 
> and



The only point I was making Kurfurst is that of all the fighters we have been talking about, only the P-47 Improved performance when going from 25K to 30K (or 35).

There is no question that P-51s and Me 109s can engage and fight at 30K. The question posed is whether the Mustang loses comparitive performance versus the later model 109s in 1944 at that altitude. If so the 1650-9 becomes the standard P-51B and then D engine instead of the 1650-7 in mid to late 1944 instead of being allocated to P-51H production.

There is no question that the Fw 190A7 (and A8) is at a serious comparitive disadvantage to the P-51B (as is with 1650-3) and even the D with 1650-7


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 9, 2009)

My point was only that the solution for [email protected] feet was already available in 1941: GM-1 injection...  oddly enough, it was an answer to a question that was not even asked yet, though 190As would find it very useful (and had the capacity already btw for it). Another possibility if the problem was persistant were the DB 628 and 605L.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 9, 2009)

SOREN said:


> I think you need to go check your history books again mate cause when'ever there were no escorts available to help the bombers were mauled beyond belief, it was raining metal over Schweinfurt Regensburg in 43.



The timeline doesn’t support your assumption that German high altitude fighters would be available. Here is the timeline that I perceive. 
1) April, 1944, an unknown aircraft (per your input) appears over Berlin. The new aircraft flies above most of the defenses. The aircraft is faster and carries far more bombs that previous bombers. This and the earlier appearance of the very capable long range P-51 fighter, cause great concern in the Luftwaffe and Nazi command. Hitler's mind is changed and orders maximum effort to air defense, trials and training of the Me-262 is accelerated, Ta-152, if designed, is ordered into production. Other designs were authorized. High altitude performance options are to be implemented on all fighters.
2) April-August, ’44. B-29s, in increasing numbers, along with B-17s and 24s in reducing numbers, and P-51 interdiction, ravage German infrastructure. Except for a few and increasing Me-262s and modified high altitude Bf-109s and Fw-190s, B-29s are basically unchallenged. New air bases in Europe allow easier access to German homeland for interdiction by P-47s and Brit fighters. Due to Me-262 and the new high altitude Bfs and Fws, AAF recognizes high altitude threat to B-29s and expedites advanced fighters, P-51H(P-51B/D w/-9 engine?), P-47M, P-72, P-80, and P-84, and also investigates improving high altitude performance. By August damage done due to bombing twice as high as with previous bombers as B-29 payload make their impact. B-29s fly at lower altitude, 25 to 30k, to improve bombing accuracy and to avoid increasing high altitude threats, losses due to Flak and air intercepts increases but are not significant. 
3) September, ’44. Allies are pressing Germany from East and West. Me-262 start appearing in increasing numbers but still contends with low level interdiction fighters and raids on bases. Ta-152Hs start to appear in increasing numbers. P-51Hs and P-47Ms appear in great numbers protecting lower altitude bombers protection from Ta-152s. B-29 operations above 30k are risky. All German airfields are under intense interdiction making operations difficult. He-162 starts to appear. P-80s, based in Europe mainland, begin operations over Germany. First flight of the new high altitude XP-47O with nitrous and new high altitude wings occurs.
4) October, ’44. New P-47Ms with nitrous appears and raises altitude of protection for bombers. Vast amounts of P-51H (P-51B/D w/-9 eng) and P-47M began arriving. Any German aircraft launching is swarmed by Allied fighters. First jet to jet combat occurs between P-80 and Me-262. Due to unfamiliarity with aircraft and high speed combat by both newly assigned pilots, the outcome inconclusive, the Me-262 is shot down by P-51 while landing. P-72 enters production.
5) November, ’44. Germany is losing the war. Rushed into production, P-47O becomes operational, sees little action. 
6) December, ’44. Due to increase bombing of the B-29s, German resources are non existent. Battle of the Bulge ends before it can get started. German collapse is eminent. War ends April 7, 1945. B-29s helped a bit, notably in less crewmembers lost. The P-72 is cancelled.


> Voila ? That's a serious design revision right there, not something done over night. Besides by the time the new Allied fighters would've been ready for shipment to the ETO the German LW would already be equipped with Ta-152's powered by the Jumo 213 EB engine, and nothing the Allies had in the works came close to this.


Three to four months to design and modify. I suspect the P&W R-2800-57 with an adequate amount of nitrous would make the Jumo look anemic at any equivalent altitude. 



> And then there's the He-162, an excellent design which sadly suffered from hurried assembly a shortage of proper materials in 45. If Hitler had prioritized differently this a/c would've been built earlier and to much higher standards and with a more powerful version of the BMW engine. And properly assembled He-162's would've proven excellent counter escort fighters, leaving the job of pounding the bombers to the rocket equipped Me-262's.


Even if started in May, ’44, it would have been too late to make any impact.


----------



## Erich (Jan 9, 2009)

fly in the ointment, the Bf 109G-6/AS is already in service with II./JG 11 and I./JG 3 for high altitude escort work for 30K in April of 44. You're quite right it isn't going to matter the US is going to bomb the crap out of the Reich regardless


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2009)

Davparlr,

The problems with your timeline is that you're leaving out some pretty crucial stuff, such as that by the time the Allies would've recieved their new fighters in Europe the LW would already be fielding Jumo 213 EB engined Ta-152's and Jumo 004E engined Me-262's. And if Hitler had prioritized really well then possibly even at some point in late 44 HeS.011 engined a/c would start to emerge.

Also a fight between a Me-262 and P-80 would probably 9 times out of 10 end in the shoot down of the P-80 as it was slower in all areas besides roll rate compared to the Me-262. (Esp. if the Me-262 was fitted with the 004E engine)

So like I said from the beginning, I don't believe the B-29 would change anything but increase the Allied financial losses. I mean how are the escorts going to both cover the many B-17 B-24 and then also a similar amount of B-29's ? It's out of the question.



> I suspect the P&W R-2800-57 with an adequate amount of nitrous would make the Jumo look anemic at any equivalent altitude.



Huh? You must be oblivious to the output of the EB engine and the weight difference between it and the P&W R-2800 engine! For a fighter I'd pick the Jumo engine any day!


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 10, 2009)

Erich said:


> fly in the ointment, the Bf 109G-6/AS is already in service with II./JG 11 and I./JG 3 for high altitude escort work for 30K in April of 44. You're quite right it isn't going to matter the US is going to bomb the crap out of the Reich regardless



... add to that the high-altitude DB 605AS engines were choosen over the über-high-altitude DB 628 (four speed, two stage) in the automn of 1943 because of greater simplicity, though 150 of the latter was already built and would be no doubt preferred over the AS if such extreme performance would be really needed.

Anyway, there were literally hundreds of GM-1 boosted 109Gs produced by 1944. The B-29 wasn't _that_ hot as far as performance goes, already exsisting fighters could deal with it so I starting to to feel the whole thing is getting overhyped.

Especially as the scenarios that assume the time travel of some very late or even post war aircraft, that also appear just like that, in huge numbers in very small time. Realistically (given the USAAF Stat. Digest figures in HoHun's post), the US could field around a mere hundred or so B-29s in Europe and perhaps 3-400 by late 1944 - far too small scale to change anything, unless supplemented by B-17s/24s, attritition is going to be paralyzing. Over Europe, it wasn't obsolate Japanese Army aircraft with massively deficient attitude performance waiting for it..


----------



## HoHun (Jan 10, 2009)

Hi Kurfürst,

>... add to that the high-altitude DB 605AS engines were choosen over the über-high-altitude DB 628 (four speed, two stage) in the automn of 1943 because of greater simplicity, though 150 of the latter was already built and would be no doubt preferred over the AS if such extreme performance would be really needed.

Speaking of extreme performance, at which altitude could the B-29 actually operate on a routine basis? The cruise control chart in the B-29 manual I have goes only up to 30000 ft, and the same applies for the climb chart. It's obvious that it has some excess performance at that altitude to allow flight at still higher altitudes, but of course the altitude range included in the manual charts must have been chosen with an eye of the operational requirements - so the cut-off at 30000 ft is a bit suprising.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 10, 2009)

I don't have much on the B-29 (and if so, I cant seem to find it), but I do have Campbell's B-29 book, which has some specs:

5000 lbs over 1600 mile radius at high altitude
12000 lbs over 1600 mile radius at high altitude
20000 lbs maximum over short distances at low altitude

Max level speed 375 mph (600 kph) at 25 000 feet (7620m)
Normal cruising speed 200 to 250 mph (322 to 402 kph)

Service ceilting (weight unspecified) : 31 850 feet

Based on the above, high altitude flights at 30k seem either of very limited effectiveness compared to the size and cost of the plane, and I have some doubts it could operate in practice much in excess of the parameters of existing B-17s and B-24s - having ~32k ceiling does pose question wheter it could be reached by a fully loaded aircraft! 
It appears to me cruised a bit faster, but the main advantage was longer range and higher bombload, which would not make interception particularly different, Fortresses and Liberators already cruised at such altitudes like 25 000 feet.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2009)

Soren said:


> Also a fight between a Me-262 and P-80 would probably 9 times out of 10 end in the shoot down of the P-80 as it was slower in all areas besides roll rate compared to the Me-262. (Esp. if the Me-262 was fitted with the 004E engine)


With inadequately trained Luftwaffe pilots and probably fighting outnumbered 10 to 1 right? The -262 had advantages over the P-80 (at least on paper) but it wasn't a super plane, despite the Wright Pat report and the testing done after the war.


Soren said:


> So like I said from the beginning, I don't believe the B-29 would change anything but increase the Allied financial losses.


Soren, you don't seem to understand that money was no object in the US producing war materials in WW2 - because of the tax revenue base created by the government and the money to begin with the US "could of" afforded to continue to send hordes of material and equipment to continue the war, and unlike Germany this was done WITHOUT the benefit of slave labor.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> I don't have much on the B-29 (and if so, I cant seem to find it), but I do have Campbell's B-29 book, which has some specs:
> 
> 5000 lbs over 1600 mile radius at high altitude
> 12000 lbs over 1600 mile radius at high altitude
> ...


Real world info on B-29 ops...

The 6th Bomb Group: B-29 Performance

I think we have a flight manual in the tech section that also gives performance figures.

Also remember the aircraft did carry advanced radar and ECM equipment. The "short range" would fall under what B-29 would of had to fly from England to Germany. Remove armament and other equipment during "milk runs" and you could of upped the bomb load to 24K.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >The aircraft was operational a few years earlier
> 
> ...



I read that and my first post...



FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks there too much speculation and "what ifs" in this scenario. As far as the Me 262 shooting down the B-29 in droves? Well they didn't do that against B-17s and B-24s so if deployed in the name numbers under the scenario that played out in 1945, the outcome "would of" probably been similar, or at least the war ending at least 6 months earlier than it did IMO.
> 
> Provided the B-29 would of been developed several years earlier and deployed in the numbers seen with the B-17 and B-24...
> 
> ...



But I do repect your comment....


----------



## HoHun (Jan 10, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>I read that and my first post...

I read your post #24, but I thought you had just midunderstood Ralphwiggum's post #1 since in post #40 you write "Remember what was said in the beginning here - 'the same amounts of B-29 deployed as B-24s and B-17s.'" If that refers to your post #24 and not to post #1, "the beginning" is a rather misleading choice of words.

Anyway, the prerequisites you outline in post #59 to fulfill the what-if you created in post #24 are impossible for the first, and virtually impossible for the second. One could postulate with equal justification that the Me 262 was operational a few years earlier and Me 109 and Fw 190 production had been halted.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >I read that and my first post...
> 
> ...



Henning, I'm sorry but after reading that I'm confused!


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 10, 2009)

Germany could not deal with the current numbvers of bombers and fighters, so how could they deal with the B-29's in the same role? If the B29's had been assigned to the ETO, their numbers would have steadily increased, and the B-17's and B-24s would have still been flown, although in decreasing numbers. I agree that their was no clear need for the B29, as their was still huge numbers of B-17 and B-24's available. But I just cannot believe that Germany would be able to deal with the B29 when they had their hands full with the older and slower bombers and their escorts. Germany was losing the war, they were steadily losing the ability to produce adequate numbers of any type fighter to stem the tide of the B17 and B24's. To me it is a forgone conclusion. If they could not cope effectively with the older, slower bombers, how in hell could they cope with the addition of the B29 to the bomber force in ETO. 
Another point I'd like to add, if Germany would've/could've started producing more fighters both jet and prop, the Allies would have stepped up ground attacks by fighters on the air bases needed to land and service those new fighters. This also would be a major stumbling block. Although Germany could produce the ME262, and other fighters that were superior to most US designs, they had no hope of outproducing the Allies in the sheer number of fighters. This is basically what lost the war for Germany. They slowly lost the battle of attrition. I have no doubt that if the US started to shift production to the B29, the production of other bombers would have slowed, and all the manpower and materials that was used in producing B17's and B24's would have made a huge jump in B29 production possible. I just finished reading a book about the Naval war in the Pacific, and I read a figure stating the the US produced, and I typing this from memory, either 100 or 200 new destroyers in the span of a year to year and a half during the height of the Pacific war. If they could produce that many ships, imagine how many B29's they could field if the focus had switched to producing B29 almost exclusively. I have no doubt that huge numbers of B29's would have been produced. Money, materials, and a quality workforce were no problems for the US at this time, which is much the opposite of Germany.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 10, 2009)

There really was no chance the B29's could have been deployed to the ETO in any significant numbers until late 1944.

Because the B29 was already a very high profile program for the AAF and the actual production and crew training rates reflected what was the fastest rates possible, I dont see how you can say the production rates could have been sped up any faster.

Remember that the B29 was a generational leap in design and required a lot of sub contractors to deliver their systems on time, without any problems or "bugs". That was asking a lot and the simple historical reality of this project was "the big production rates were not till 1945".

Also ponder this ..... the assembly plants had to be built from scratch, a work force assembled and trained, and then low rate production begun until everyone knew what to do. 

The Mareitta plant didn't reach a sustained production rate of 20 per month until Sept 1944. Omaha didn't reach that until Nov 1944. Renton reached that goal also that month. And this was with the plants having a priority and JCS backing. What makes anyone think this could be improved upon?

I would say that even if the AAF wanted to use the B29's in Europe, then they wouldn't be seen until late 1944 when it would be obvious that vast hordes of existing B17's and B24's were just as effective.


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 10, 2009)

Good points Syscom


----------



## drgondog (Jan 10, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> There really was no chance the B29's could have been deployed to the ETO in any significant numbers until late 1944.
> 
> Because the B29 was already a very high profile program for the AAF and the actual production and crew training rates reflected what was the fastest rates possible, I dont see how you can say the production rates could have been speed up any faster.
> 
> ...


 

all good points Syscom - not to mention either finding 'new places' to build long runways - or shut down existing bases; build the service depots and create the training/spares programs for entirely new engines, for example.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2009)

In actuality - right on!


----------



## davparlr (Jan 10, 2009)

SOREN said:


> The problems with your timeline is that you're leaving out some pretty crucial stuff, such as that by the time the Allies would've recieved their new fighters in Europe the LW would already be fielding Jumo 213 EB engined Ta-152's and Jumo 004E engined Me-262's. And if Hitler had prioritized really well then possibly even at some point in late 44 HeS.011 engined a/c would start to emerge.


The things you suggest occurring would have had to start happening in ’43, not April ’44 to be effective. By this time the infrastructure of Germany was already crumbling and fighter sweeps were beginning to occur. After D-Day, short range for air strikes would make German defenses miserable. It didn’t matter what technology was fielded, it had to be supported and the means to do this was quickly deteriorating.


> Also a fight between a Me-262 and P-80 would probably 9 times out of 10 end in the shoot down of the P-80 as it was slower in all areas besides roll rate compared to the Me-262. (Esp. if the Me-262 was fitted with the 004E engine)


I would like to see your source for this information. What you have quoted before doesn’t jive with what data supports, what there is of it. It sounds like some AF brass trying to make a case for congress to spend more money on fighter development. It doesn’t matter, the Allies would still out produce Germany and even if the Me-262 out performed the P-80, it would not be enough to overcome the quantity difference.



> So like I said from the beginning, I don't believe the B-29 would change anything but increase the Allied financial losses. I mean how are the escorts going to both cover the many B-17 B-24 and then also a similar amount of B-29's ? It's out of the question.


Well, as I’ve said before, that’s why they didn’t do it.


> Huh? You must be oblivious to the output of the EB engine and the weight difference between it and the P&W R-2800 engine! For a fighter I'd pick the Jumo engine any day!



I don’t have any data on the EB, but I do know this. The weight of a R-2800, including turbocharger, as installed in the P-47, is about 3260 lbs and I believe the weight of a Jumo 213 with cooling (an estimate) is about 2500 lbs. I also know that the -57 engine puts out 2800 hp at 33k ft (10k) with a slight drop off to 40k. To be equal to the power-to-weight efficiency of the P&W, the EB must generate at least 2145 hp at 33k. It may, indeed, do this, but since the Jumo 213E1 makes about 1300 hp at 33k, the EB better have one hellacious improvement over the E1! Now, if you can show me a reference that shows the EB making more than 2145 hp at 33k, or show that my weight estimate is substantially off, and I will agree with you. If you cannot, I won’t.


----------



## pinsog (Jan 11, 2009)

I have a question. Back through this thread there are some people stating more or less that the B29 would have been shot down in droves because Hitler would have seen how dangerous the B29 was and developed all these weapons to counteract it like- producing the Me262 as a fighter, developing the Ta152 long before they did, and someone even said developing the SAM(!)missile to shoot it down. 

Isn't that like saying "George got killed and eaten by a black bear, but if it had been a grizzly he would have realized how deadly it was and fought it off."?

Less face it, by the middle stages of the war, all Hitler's dogs weren't barking, at least not all together, and he wasn't making the best of decisions. None of his peons were willing to tell him he was wrong so what would really have changed except that a faster higher flying aircraft, carrying more bombs and computer controlled defensive guns was now killing his people? 

It wouldn't matter if the P51 and P47 couldn't fight well at 30,000 ft. They would simply patrol in front of and below the B29 and intercept the Germans before they could get up to the B29's altitude. 

One more thing, those of you that think the Me262 was the answer to the 30,000 ft B29 question need to study the Me262 alittle better. It didn't do well at extreme altitudes, it had alot of engine trouble up really high. It actually performed better around 25,000 feet or lower.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 12, 2009)

pinsog said:


> Isn't that like saying "George got killed and eaten by a black bear, but if it had been a grizzly he would have realized how deadly it was and fought it off."?




A very astute comment!


----------



## Soren (Jan 12, 2009)

davparlr,

The Me-262 is a far superior a/c to the P-80. The Me-262 is faster, turns better climbs quicker than the P-80. So if both pilots are equally trained then the Me-262 will come out on top. Ofcourse by late 44 the average Allied pilot was much better trained than the average Luftwaffe pilot, there we agree. 

As for the Jumo 213EB engine, it weighed 940 kg, it was to run on C3 fuel and be equipped with MW50 GM-1 boosting systems. The max output was 2,500 PS at rated altitude, and it was planned to be boosted further to 3,000 PS.



> The things you suggest occurring would have had to start happening in ’43, not April ’44 to be effective. By this time the infrastructure of Germany was already crumbling and fighter sweeps were beginning to occur. After D-Day, short range for air strikes would make German defenses miserable. It didn’t matter what technology was fielded, it had to be supported and the means to do this was quickly deteriorating.



It had to occur in the beginning of 1944 at the latest, I agree.


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 12, 2009)

pinsog said:


> I have a question. Back through this thread there are some people stating more or less that the B29 would have been shot down in droves because Hitler would have seen how dangerous the B29 was and developed all these weapons to counteract it like- producing the Me262 as a fighter, developing the Ta152 long before they did, and someone even said developing the SAM(!)missile to shoot it down.
> 
> Isn't that like saying "George got killed and eaten by a black bear, but if it had been a grizzly he would have realized how deadly it was and fought it off."?
> 
> ...



This is similar to what I was trying to say a few posts back. Agree 100%.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 12, 2009)

pinsog said:


> ...someone even said developing the SAM(!) missile to shoot it down...


Yes indeed
the Enzian being one such example.
It would have employed an infra-red guidance system too. However, by that late stage, the rapidly disintegrating organisational state of Germany and project prioritisation elsewhere saw the program cancelled in mid-January 1945.

Didn't quite get there but the Germans were knocking on the door of SAM interception.


----------



## red admiral (Jan 12, 2009)

> Didn't quite get there but the Germans were knocking on the door of SAM interception.



The UK was in a similar position with a variety of SAM (or rather GAP, Guided Anti-Aircraft Projectile) projects being built and tested. Their problem was rather more complicated than the German's though; an individual bomber, probably flying at night, is more challenging to hit than a 1000x1000x1000yd box of B-17s.


----------



## Erich (Jan 12, 2009)

there is documentation of at least 50 ground to air rockets being fired at US heavies in 45...............and I know you all will ask this but will have dig for the info as it is probably in the pit of doom at present, the figure just stuck out to me at the moment.

no matter nothing was going to stop the US heavy armada except for the hand of God, the LW was not or ever ready even by late 44 to counter what was beset before her. She did her best with what she had but it was failed attempt, the Reich defense Jg histories speak of it continually


----------



## HoHun (Jan 12, 2009)

Hi Messy,

>To me it is a forgone conclusion. If they could not cope effectively with the older, slower bombers, how in hell could they cope with the addition of the B29 to the bomber force in ETO. 

If you look at post #1 in this thread, the question was actually "What would the luftwaffe have to do to defend the Reich if they had to combat 8th airforce Superfortresses instead of B-17's and Liberators?"

You are answering the question: "Could the Luftwaffe have achieved total air superiority over the Reich if ..." - they obviously could not, but that was not what Ralphwiggum originally asked for.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 12, 2009)

Hohun, I did get off topic a little I see, but my opinion does not change too much.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 12, 2009)

Hi Messy,

>my opinion does not change too much.

Wow - elegant and modest ambiguity 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 12, 2009)

That is what happens when you read through several pages of posts, and then post an answer without first re-reading the question one last time. 

What I should have said was although I was off topic, my overall opinion is still the same, minus the B17's and B24's of course.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 13, 2009)

Erich said:


> there is documentation of at least 50 ground to air rockets being fired at US heavies in 45...............and I know you all will ask this but will have dig for the info as it is probably in the pit of doom at present, the figure just stuck out to me at the moment.
> 
> no matter nothing was going to stop the US heavy armada except for the hand of God, the LW was not or ever ready even by late 44 to counter what was beset before her. She did her best with what she had but it was failed attempt, the Reich defense Jg histories speak of it continually



I totally agree with you Erich, The Germans had the technology but didn't have the resources. By 1944, once the allies had the solid ground in Europe and the Russians were advancing in the east, Germany was finished.


----------



## Glider (Jan 13, 2009)

Erich
Have you any idea how many of those ground to air rockets hit?


----------



## davparlr (Jan 15, 2009)

SOREN said:


> The Me-262 is a far superior a/c to the P-80. The Me-262 is faster, turns better climbs quicker than the P-80. So if both pilots are equally trained then the Me-262 will come out on top. Ofcourse by late 44 the average Allied pilot was much better trained than the average Luftwaffe pilot, there we agree.



I doubt you have any supportable evidence of the statement that it superior to the P-80, much less far superior. I do not think there is much comparison data available and what there is does not have well documented descriptions of test procedures. I would be surprised if this documentation did not exist somewhere in archives of the AF, and, maybe someday someone will uncover this info. Until this documentation, if existing, is found, you statement is unsupportable. Performance data that is available indicates that the P-80A is as fast or faster, has better power to weight ratio, equal to or better climb, and much better ceiling. 



> As for the Jumo 213EB engine, it weighed 940 kg,


Don’t forget the cooling system and coolant. Gotta cool it to run it. 



> it was to run on C3 fuel and be equipped with MW50 GM-1 boosting systems. The max output was 2,500 PS at rated altitude,



Unless its critical altitude is much different than the E1 (around 15k ft.?), and it behaves like the E1, it will be nowhere near 2145 hp at 33k ft (10 km).



> and it was planned to be boosted further to 3,000 PS.


This is worthless unless we know what was planned for the PW2800. I believe it was reported on this forum somewhere that the PW2800 was tested at 3500 hp for quite a while with no damage. The P-47M had a critical altitude of 38,750 ft (11.8 km) at *2100 hp without nitrous*, at this altitude, the E1 makes 960 hp without GM-1, *1040 hp with GM-1*, 1140 hp less and 1060 hp less respectively. The maximum power of the E-1, with GM-1, was at 36,100ft (11 km) making 1200 hp. That’s an unbelievable amount of hp to make up by the EB. I think that it is apparent that the PW2800 had excellent high altitude performance potential, even better than the EB. 

I did read about the development of a Jumo 213T with a turbo that could possibly even things up.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 16, 2009)

Turbocharging is not necessarely an efficiant instrument to augment performance at high altitude and high speed, altough it appearently worked very well in the RW-2800.
The Jumo-213E at critical altitude developed 200 Kp of exhoust jet thrust.
That´s quite a lot when You consider that the Jumo-004D was producing a mere 380 Kp thrust at this altitude when running at 100% load.
This equates to 200kg or 2000N which at a speed of 200m/s(440mph) from Power = force x velocity = 400kW at the shaft.
Factoring in the propellor inefficiencies at high altitudes this equates to the aequivalent of ~500kW or ca. 670 hp more power developed by the engine in the first place.
Second order maybe but still to substantial to be ignored. 
As you know, to get a 10% increase in speed requires approximtely a cubed increase in power whereas it requires only a squared increase in thrust! It does not come in with increased cooling requirements, too (which would add drag in return)! So it´s maybe not worth to waste that source of power to drive a turbocharger, that´s at least the reason why Rolls Royce invested so much in turbocharging. They tried to find a solution to keep the jet exhoust thrust.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 16, 2009)

delcyros said:


> Turbocharging is not necessarely an efficiant instrument to augment performance at high altitude and high speed, altough it appearently worked very well in the RW-2800.
> The Jumo-213E at critical altitude developed 200 Kp of exhoust jet thrust.
> That´s quite a lot when You consider that the Jumo-004D was producing a mere 380 Kp thrust at this altitude when running at 100% load.
> This equates to 200kg or 2000N which at a speed of 200m/s(440mph) from Power = force x velocity = 400kW at the shaft.
> ...



All valid points and something I am sure every aero engineer traded off to try to get the best all-around solution for the designed performance envelop.
I have avoided the "Can I design a better aircraft thread" because I think that Messerschmitt, Tank, Johnson, et.al. were tops in their field and made all the tradeoffs of available technology to arrive at the solution of their particular requirements. I would never think I could do better, even with hindsight.


----------



## red admiral (Jan 17, 2009)

Some figures from RR for a Spitfire Mk XIV with and without ejector exhausts. Adds about 50mph at high altitude.

Super-chargergear Altitude(ft)Withoutexhaustthrust-Withexhaustthrust

MS 5,000 345 351
13,500FTH 388 400
23,500 373 399
FS
31,500FTH 419 454
40,000 377 424


----------



## Soren (Jan 20, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I doubt you have any supportable evidence of the statement that it superior to the P-80, much less far superior. I do not think there is much comparison data available and what there is does not have well documented descriptions of test procedures. I would be surprised if this documentation did not exist somewhere in archives of the AF, and, maybe someday someone will uncover this info. Until this documentation, if existing, is found, you statement is unsupportable. Performance data that is available indicates that the P-80A is as fast or faster, has better power to weight ratio, equal to or better climb, and much better ceiling.



I disagree. Available data contradicts what you are saying.



> Don’t forget the cooling system and coolant. Gotta cool it to run it.



I think it's around 125 to 150 kg. 



> This is worthless unless we know what was planned for the PW2800. I believe it was reported on this forum somewhere that the PW2800 was tested at 3500 hp for quite a while with no damage. The P-47M had a critical altitude of 38,750 ft (11.8 km) at *2100 hp without nitrous*, at this altitude, the E1 makes 960 hp without GM-1, *1040 hp with GM-1*, 1140 hp less and 1060 hp less respectively. The maximum power of the E-1, with GM-1, was at 36,100ft (11 km) making 1200 hp. That’s an unbelievable amount of hp to make up by the EB. I think that it is apparent that the PW2800 had excellent high altitude performance potential, even better than the EB.



Oh I disagree, I think the 213EB engine has the same or more potential in this area.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> I disagree. Available data contradicts what you are saying.



I don't want to retype the whole bloody quote, but go here to read more about the Wright Field comparison tests between the Me 262 the -80:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/me262-vs-p-80-a-562-19.html#post442670


----------



## davparlr (Jan 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> I disagree. Available data contradicts what you are saying.


I think available data is contradictory and mostly anecdotal and until some flight test data from the P-80 and Me-262 are available, this discussion can go on ad infinitum.




> I think it's around 125 to 150 kg.


Quite reasonable. I made a guess based on similar US aircraft.





> Oh I disagree, I think the 213EB engine has the same or more potential in this area.



I won't say that your statement is unreasonable. German engineers were certainly capable of engines of great performance. It just seems like a huge upgrade to the E1. I suspect the performace data on this engine must be lost. I do believe the PW2800 had very good high altitude potenial. The P-47M could generate 2100 hp at 38,750 ft (11.8 km) without nitrous. With nitrous, using the same profile as the E1, it is reasonable for the PW2800 to generate this same power, plus-or-minus 100 hp up to 46,000 ft, 1000 hp more than the E1 could do (roughly twice the power).


----------



## Civettone (Jul 8, 2009)

Glider said:


> Erich
> Have you any idea how many of those ground to air rockets hit?


Perhaps Erich's sources are referring to "operational testing". 

Kris


----------



## johnbr (Jul 8, 2009)

Do not forget they were working on the db 603q.A very high altitude version of the db 603n.


----------

