A 'big bomber' with six engines - worth the effort?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

wiking85 said:
Considering the dispersion from dropping the A-bomb at 30000 feet was about 1.5 miles, even dropping the max 9000kg payload is going to spill out everywhere, its going to make the British night bombing look accurate in comparison.
Click to expand...
What difference would it had made when hypothetically you would have two heavy bombers (Lancaster and B-29) bombing round the clock with each aircraft carrying a 20,000 pound bomb load saturating a target? Couple that with several hundered B-29s being let loose at one time (mind you this is all hypothetical).
 
It would be very expensive to do that and somewhat ineffective in terms of resources committed. Also the B29 would be a bigger, easier target to hit for the Me262.
 
Regarding altitude and accuracy, Ive had a lot of difficulty finding good camparable evidence to establish the effects of altitude on level bombing one way or another.

In early 1942, under training conditions in the US, the USAAC conducted field trials with bombs dropped at 20000 feet, and found that at that altitude 1% of bombs fell within 100 feet of a given point target. In 1945, with better aids and crews vastly more experienced and better trained, the figures had changed considerably, though annoyingly the measurement parameters also changed. The 1945 tests, showed that at 25000 feet, 60% of bombs dropped fell within a 1000 foot radius of a point target. Annoyingly, a test comparable to the 1942 parameters was not undertaken.

Bombing at higher altitude, however whilst theoretically less accurate, was in fact generally more accurate. US bombers normally bombed at 25000 feet, and achieved certain results with that. Most times, bombing was met with AA fire, of varying intensities, and this was the far more dominant effect on accuracy , followed by visibility and turbulence. If bombs could be dropped at above 28000 feet, and conditions were clear, with no wind shift or turbulence, then accuracy actually improved markedly. Whilst it is impossible to give an exact figure, because nearly every situation is different in some way, it seems pretty clear that altiude was not the dominant factor in bombing accuracy. It was a factor, but overshadowed by flak, and other factors.

Over Japan, Le May dropped the altitude of B-29s, because it was hard to get clear conditions over Japan, and the range at which the raids were being conducted limited bomb capacity. Precision raids continued right until the end of the war, with no real complaints as to accuracy because of altitude, but the fire bombing which was delivered at altudes of between 9 and 15000 feet, was brought about by other bitter necessities of war, not because it was ineffective to bomb at altitudes above 25000 feet.
 
wiking85 said:
It would be very expensive to do that and somewhat ineffective in terms of resources committed. Also the B29 would be a bigger, easier target to hit for the Me262.
Click to expand...
Providing the LW were able to field them in numbers. There's a lot of hypothetical situations here - personnaly I think B-29s "would have" been able to defend itself against the Me 262. Anything faster (like the MiG-15, 5 years later in Korea) would have been a different story.

To throw all this out, the B-32 would have been the B-17/B-24 replacement bomber in the ETO.
 
wiking85 said:
It would be very expensive to do that and somewhat ineffective in terms of resources committed. Also the B29 would be a bigger, easier target to hit for the Me262.
Click to expand...
Quite honestly, if the B-29 entered the ETO along the timeline of the PTO entry, I would say that Germany would step up the Me163 program to intercept the B-29.

That is assuming, that the B-29 would be used at it's optimum altitude and in significant numbers that would warrant a new-threat upgrade from the Luftwaffe.

That is thinking along the lines of a *what if* and the reality of it is that the Me262 was hard pressed to stem the tide of Allied heavy bombers at it was.
 
parsifal said:
Regarding altitude and accuracy, Ive had a lot of difficulty finding good camparable evidence to establish the effects of altitude on level bombing one way or another.
Click to expand...

The Combined Arms Research Library has this 8th AF report re: bombing for late '44 which deals quite extensively with how altitude increased and accuracy decreased (visual bombing conditions) across 1944:

https://server16040.contentdm.oclc....ROOT=/p4013coll8&CISOPTR=3339&CISOBOX=1&REC=1

Altitude-related stuff starts on page 9 of the pdf's 108 pages.

Edit - Summary table for altitude effects under visual conditions also on page 86. Note especially the percentage of "gross errors" from altitude, I have to read further to see how these were treated, however to me it looks like that from highest altitude, one bomber in four was dropping its load the mathematical equivalent of "nowhere even close to the target", even under visual bombing conditions.
 
Last edited:
great stuff. Istill am doubtful that altitude was the main issue affecting bombing accuracy. Visibility seems to be the main factor. In one instance, for the b-24, , accuracy actually improved with an increase in altitude. Missing also from these appraisals seems to be the effects of flak. Clearly, flak is much more effective at lower altitudes, and Ive read that it was a major factor in affecting bombing accuracy. For the Germans, aircraft operrating above about 22-24K were outside effective flak ceilings.

Anyway, once again, very good information, and thanks for bringing it to the forum
 

Nope......waste of engines and valuable materials basically, let alone crew. You could even make the argument (I would) that the B-17, Lanc, etc were already too large and wasteful of resources for a marginal performance (or worse).

What really mattered was not the amount of bombs it could carry but the accuracy. Dropping 20 bombs that all miss is worth far less than dropping 1 that hits.
Making a bigger plane to have even more would have been an even greater waste of resources. Each one you lost meant you lost even more.

For maritime support what mattered was fuel carried to fuel usage ratio. A Catalina had tremendous range with only 2 engines...


You can't help but think that a stripped down and smaller Lanc capable of a 300mph cruising speed would have been a lot better proposition than the normal configuration. It's bombing would have been just as woeful, but the survivability would have gone up a lot.

The only justification, for a very short time, was being able to carry the large early nukes. But it didn't take long to cut the size down so even by the 1950's fighter bombers were carrying them.
As for the Tallboy and Blockbusters bombs, the Lanc could handle that fine.... so who needed something larger?

Again you can't help but think the B-29 was also a very expensive failure.
 
OldSkeptic said:
Again you can't help but think the B-29 was also a very expensive failure.
Click to expand...
I'll call BS on that - despite it's teething problems it was the most advanced bomber of WW2, was the first nuclear deterrent after WW2 and into the early cold war, and carried on into Korea. It got the job done and saw service until the 1960s, while fielding about a 10% combat loss rate in both WW2 and Korea, so please tell me why was it a failure and if it was such a failure why did the RAF operate it until the Canberra and later "V" bombers came along?

I think you have a very simplistic view on why a large aircraft carrying large numbers of bombs are necessary - there have been many applications where a large 4 engine bombers were necessary and fulfilled a requirement in the post war years; aside from Korea and Vietnam you had Lincolns in Malaya and Kenya and Vulcans over the Falklands, I know there were more.
 
Last edited:
A pretty dim view of the B-29 from someone whose country was greatly aided by the B-29's operational success.

I don't say B-29's "saved Australia," but they contributed greatly during their operational time in the war. They contributed as much to the PTO campaign while they were there as Lancasters did during much of the ETO campaign, and had a long career after the war.
 

By the time that the B-29 became operational Australia had already been "saved". If the B-29 had been a complete operational failure it would not have affected Australia much, if at all.
 
You can believe that if you like, Wayne, but when the B-29 became operational, Japan was still a dangerous foe that could have caused some damage. And if you read it, I stated clearly that I wasn't saying the B-29 saved Australia. Perhaps you missed that.

So you're on the bandwagon who doesn't like the B-29 either? Care to elaborate why?

Lancasters sure didn't help you much. The B-29 did, along with a lot of other aircraft that weren't Lancasters and rendered the invasion of Japan and "Operation Downfall" unnecessary.
 
OldSkeptic said:
Again you can't help but think the B-29 was also a very expensive failure.
Click to expand...

In comparison to what? The B-29 could fly higher, further and faster than any other heavy bomber of the war and it had the best all round defensive armament; no other bomber came close to its all round performance. Sure, the strategic bombing campaign wasn't an outstanding success, but this could hardly be attributed to the aircraft. Fact is without the B-29 the war in the Pacific would have lasted a lot longer and been a whole lot bloodier.

PS: Would a Lancaster have been able to lug a Tallboy or Grand Slam all the way to Japan from Iwo Jima, let alone the Marianas? Would a Lancaster lugging a Tallboy or Grand Slam have survived over Japan, given that the usual bombing height range was between 12-15,000 ft?
 
The danger to Australia was largely over, and I would say it was more due to the USN, USMC, RN, RAN, Australian Army, etc, who fought the Japanese on islands all around the Pacific.

By the time the B-29 started operations in June 1944 Australia was basically beyond the reach of the Japanese, because the land, sea and air forces had started driving them back.

That's not to say I dislike the B-29.
 
With the benefit of hindsight we can look back and perhaps see ways that systems could have been improved or another system used.
This is not to say that one hates System X because they raise these questions.

For example, historically there were significant issues with the R-3350 program, and by extension, the B-29 program.
With hindsight, could a six-engine alternative have entered service earlier with less mechanical failures, even if not ultimately as state of the art as the four-engined R-3350?
 
With hindsight, the B-29 performed the best of all heavy bombers used by the USA in the PTO. We did it right. Going back to try to improve the best heavy bomber we used during the war seem counterproductive in the extreme and a complete waste of resources, much like happened in Germany with all their myriad types that never saw widespread service or some any service at all.

There was nothing wrong with the B-29 that impacted the combat effectiveness.

Did it have issues, yes. All types have issues going into service. But it achieved what it was design for as-deployed in the real world.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why such a repeating of the phrase 'improving the B-29'? For 1945, the B-29 is probably the best bet. For 1942, it is not. Neither is for 1943, nor for 1944.
For those years, a bomber designed around 6 two-stage R-1830s would be certainly capable hauling the big bomb load. Let alone the one designed around 6 V-1710s (hopefully, with turbos), or the one designed around four R-2800 Bs. That one can be upgraded with either R-3350s for 1945 (much like the B-29 was up-engined with bigger and more powerful engines to became B-50), or with 'C' series R-2800s.
 

I used the term "improved" loosely.
Yes, perhaps the ideas you just listed could be "improvements."

I was just trying to get the thread back on topic and off the "it was the best, God himself couldn't have improved it" line of thought.
 
Last edited:
I was just trying to get the thread back on topic and off the "it was the best, God himself couldn't have improved it" line of thought.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that, just made my laugh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
10
Views
410
GregP
BF-100 with radial engines (like BMW 801)?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
Mustang with the early Merlins
Replies
10
Views
561
Shortround6
S
Questions Bugging Me on Jet Engines
Replies
11
Views
1K
Engineman
E
Radial engines favored for powering the tanks & AFVs, 1935-45
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register