B-29 capability to bomb Germany from North America

parsifal said:

I dunno, but its missing the fundamental question. What the devil are these aircraft going to do when they get there, apart from get themselves shot down.

Bases closer to the target arent a "nice to have". they are esential in the ETO. they absolutely needed bases within P-51 range in order for this to work. A B-29 is a better proposition to a B-17 in terms of defnces, but the Germans are not the same as the Japanese ...far more dangerous in the air i would suggest.

Click to expand...

I was implicitly assuming any B-29 ETO bombing campaign would await the advent of the P-82 escort with appropriate mods to extend the range to that of a forward (icelandic or Azores) based B-29s. If you believe that, I would like to offer to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. 8)

I am not thinking sending B-29s against the Reich from distant bases is a good idea, just trying to understand what might be done with the B-29 that comes closest to Jenisch's original query:

"...just was wondering if the B-29 could really fly bombing missions with a decent payload (maybe a dubious claim, feel free to interpret) against Germany from Newfoundland."

Well, I believe it's been reasonably well established that it probably couldn't have performed such a mission, but thought it might be interesting to consider what might it actually have been able to do, making certain enabling assumptions such as inflight refueling or forward basing to intermediate locales like Iceland and the Azores...

I would note that the 'bombing" altitude of the "Tsuchizakiminato in Northwest Japan, ~1825 statute mles (~1600 nm) raid" was 10, 200 - 11, 800ft.

I don't know if the these planes had a fair number of the guns/turrets pulled either.

The bomb load/range does seem better than the figures from the manual.

Who needs sanity when you have Pykrete Project Habakkuk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia much more practical than flying from North America to Berlin with a bombload of about 10 ounces.

Shortround6 said:

From the chart in post #8 the B-29 had a radius of 2000NM ( 2300 statute miles) carrying about 5,000lb of bombs at 215 knts (247mph) at a take-off weight of 140,000lbs or 20,000lbs over the "normal" take-off figure. These appear to be post war data, but it sure looks like a New York base is out.

St Johns Newfoundland to Berlin is 2840 miles and cuts over 1000 miles off the New York distance.

Click to expand...

The B-50 (B-29D) operated at a normal MTOW of 170,000lbs some 30,000lbs more than a B-29A. At least 6000lbs of that extra weight is the heavier R-4360 engines given that the dry R-3350 is around 1200kg and a dry R-4360 is around 1760kg. All the B-29A needs is more runway to accelerate to the same Vr the B-50 used. I think about 5200ft was needed to clear 50ft obstacle. I'd say a 9000ft runway will do the job. Obviously superfluous equipment such as bomb shackles can be removed. I believe B-29's did lift of close to 160,000lbs.

It is a doable mission I feel. You build about 10 x 10000ft runways, launch 1000 bomber raids once every 10 days. USN can provide some protection from long range German fighters. B-29 Losses would be high, up to 10% due to the long warning and with maybe 1/3rd of the crews killed. German prison camps not too bad for the ones who survived. The Germans would soon be mounting missions heading in the other direction, the advantage being with the USA and its Canadian allie which supplies air bases near Newfoundland.

What is more of a fantasy is bombing Germany from the Azores. If the Azores need to be used then the Germans have launched a successful amphibious air assault on Britain: say Jun 6 1942, a distinct possibility if Hitler had of resisted Operation Barbarossa and tolerated US lend lease aid to Britain and the increasingly biased neutrality patrols so that the full German military force could be applied against Britain. I would expect Stalin to have launched his 'icebreaker' invasion by then, but then this is a hypothetical. The Azores would be vulnerable to German disruption and I doubt Salazar would be so agreeable to lease them.

The B-50 also had 50-60% more power than the B-29A.

Also, B-29As had cooling difficulties during take-off at MTOW or overload. A longer runway may alleviate that issue, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The B-36 project was started on the premise that Britain may fall and bombers would have to fly from North America to Germany to bomb them.

Koopernic said:

It is a doable mission I feel. You build about 10 x 10000ft runways, launch 1000 bomber raids once every 10 days. USN can provide some protection from long range German fighters. B-29 Losses would be high, up to 10% due to the long warning and with maybe 1/3rd of the crews killed. German prison camps not too bad for the ones who survived. The Germans would soon be mounting missions heading in the other direction, the advantage being with the USA and its Canadian allie which supplies air bases near Newfoundland..

Click to expand...

The B29 was so expensive that a 10% loss rate was not acceptable or sustainable, the job of pilot and flight engineer was much more complex, replacing crews at the rate of 100s per week would be a massive task. Many B17and B24s limped back to England and made forced landings it is a different task limping across the Atlantic. Unless the B29 was carrying a nuclear bomb it would be a waste of lives and effort.

If the UK is occupied then it is hostile territory which must be flown over before you reach Germany loss rates of 50% or more are possible.

This is all in the realm of alternate history speculation in which political and economic factors are more important than technical ones. But it is quite obvious that mounting a sustained aerial bombing campaign of Nazi-occupied Europe from North America is a non-starter, even with the B-36. If the US found itself at war with a Nazi Germany and the British Isles were not available as potential bases (either neutrality or prior surrender) Iceland the Azores, or both would be built up as the principle bases, and the B-29 would be the principle weapon. B-36's are just so expensive that I can imagine massive raids with these planes. One can also wonder if the US would employ nukes in this situation - presumably with the B-36. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki worked so well to end the Pacific War because Japan was already on its knees and had lost any hope that it might still win the war. In this hypothetical situation, Germany still dominates Europe and is presumably only facing a sustained land campaign against the USSR in the East. Not only would Nazi Germany probably not capitulate after the USAAF drops a nuke on one or two cities, the USA would be in no position to take advantage of a German collapse. My own speculation is that the USAAF would continue to mount a strategic offensive from Iceland, the Azores, or North Africa with conventional bombing, waiting to unveil nukes only during or immediately after an invasion of western Europe when a Nazi collapse might favor the US.

fastmongrel said:

Who needs sanity when you have Pykrete Project Habakkuk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia much more practical than flying from North America to Berlin with a bombload of about 10 ounces.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the Pykrete idea insanity. It was a path not taken. If the Allies had completely put off offensive action against Japan until after Germany was defeated, and if the Pykrete aircraft carrier would have been given high priority, It would have been very interesting to have an "unsinkable" airbase within easy range of the Japanese home islands with no intervening conquests.

If you look at the way the idea was actually handled, it was handled in a very sane manner. The theory was investigated, and it was rejected as not being the best answer.

The question is not only of a bomber and escorts but also sufficient target and weather recon aircraft to make the missions worthwhile. Sending WW" bombers against targets covered in cloud was a waste of effort and trying to guess the weather in Germany from Iceland or Africa is just gambling.

pbehn said:

The question is not only of a bomber and escorts but also sufficient target and weather recon aircraft to make the missions worthwhile. Sending WW" bombers against targets covered in cloud was a waste of effort and trying to guess the weather in Germany from Iceland or Africa is just gambling.

Click to expand...

Probably not so dependent on weather recon as earlier in the war when bombing was primarily by optical bomb sight and cloud cover was a mission killer. By early 1944, the first improved high frequency navigation radars were being deployed into the strategic bomber force typically used on pathfinder aircraft. US Improvement of the British H2S system with a higher frequency X-Band transmitter, evolved into the AN/APQ-13 deployed on PTO B-29 before the end of hostilities. Shortly after the war, a truly integrated navigation and bombing system was developed and installed in B-29 fleet.

The following post war US Savings Bond marketing film provides some insight although the marking on the radar control unit (visible at 2:32 into the video) may indicate the unit being depicted is a postwar AN/APQ-24 navigation and bombing system consisting of the APS-23 RADAR and APA-44 computer.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RDjlYNqcwA

The first such unit was installed in a B-29 in June 1947. Accuracy of the -24 was ideally 25 mils which I believe corresponds to ~100 yards CEP bombing from 25,000 ft. With a range of 200 miles, the weather would be revealed to some degree before reaching the target. (The APS-23 had a second post war life as a civil weather radar)

Development of Airborne Armament 1910-1961

According to the typically indisputable source of Wikipedia ( ), The atom bomb delivery unit: the USAAF's 509th Composite Group was to be deployed half to ETO and half to the PTO:

509th Composite Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The 509th Composite Group was constituted on 9 December 1944, and activated on 17 December 1944, at Wendover Army Air Field, Utah. It was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Paul W. Tibbets,[1] who received promotion to full colonel in January 1945.[2] It was initially assumed that the group would divide in two, with half going to Europe and half to the Pacific.[3] In the first week of September Tibbets was assigned to organize a combat group to develop the means of delivering an atomic weapon by airplane against targets in Germany and Japan, then command it in combat.[4]"

Correction: the radar unit depicted in the video above is an AN/APQ-23 an improved version of the AN/APQ-13 first deployed on PTO B-29s. The AN/APQ-23 was a post war development and superseded by the more accurate AN/APQ-24.

The less accurate APQ-13 apparently had a CEP of about 400 meters (altitude unknown) and was typically employed for area bombing.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/A/n/AN_APQ-13_airborne_radar.htm

The APQ-13 was not nearly so accurate as the later -24, but the -23 was a significant improvement and approached a real precision-bombing capability.

from: Development of Airborne Armament 1910-1961

"The first synchronous radar bombing system, the AN/APQ-23 (essentially the APQ-13 search radar combined with the new CP-16 computer) had been under development since March 1944 for possible installation in B-17, B-24, B-29, and other heavy bombardment aircraft. The APQ-23 system supplied range, azimuth, distance, and drift Information to both pilot and bombardier and could perform offset as well as direct bomb aiming3 The drawback of the system was the drawback of the APQ-13— a lack of resolution and the consequent limitation of the radar sight to the high altitude bombing of large and clearly distinguishable targets. By the end of the war, Western Electric had improved the resolution of the radar by developing a special 60-inch rotating-dish antenna, but the APQ-23 was still in the test stage when hostilities ceased.17

The project was completed after World War II, and the unit was installed in B-29's and B-50's. In its final configuration, the APQ-23 operated satisfactorily up to about 30,000 feet altitude at ground speeds as groat as 440 knots. The radar had a tracking range of 15 nautical miles and could use offset aiming points as far as 30,000 feet from the target in range and at any azimuth bearing. The accuracy of the APQ-23 against an "ideal" point target (one which could be precisely located because of land-water contrast) was about 35 mils --this would be a ground distance of 350 feet from a ten thousand foot altitude."