B-29 in pacific

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by elmilitaro, Mar 18, 2006.

  1. elmilitaro

    elmilitaro Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    College student (getting PhD)
    Location:
    Texas
    Hey guys, do you think the war in the pacific could have been won without the B-29, explain. :)
     
  2. MacArther

    MacArther Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Junior Historian, Paintballer, Student
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Home Page:
    Eventually, yes. However, the abscence of the B-29 would mean that other projects would have to be accomplished to carry the A-bombs to their targets. Baring this option, then there would have been a full-scale invasion of Japan (which the Japanese were gearing up to defend against) which could have cost millions of lives on both the Allied and Japanese sides.
     
  3. loomaluftwaffe

    loomaluftwaffe Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    but after Germany urrendered, that was the First time that the Japs actually surrendered in large numbers
     
  4. DaveB.inVa

    DaveB.inVa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    The war in the Pacific would have eventually been won, it just probably would have taken a little longer and Japan would have remained more or less untouched a little longer as well.

    Without the B-29 (barring another large aircraft didnt come along) I would say decent full scale bombardment wouldnt occur until a lot of mainland China and Korea had been captured allowing use of shorter ranged aircraft like B-17's, B-24's and Lancasters.

    I remember reading somewhere (I believe on the childrenofthemanhattanproject site) that scientists didnt really know exactly how big the bomb would be at first, but even then plans were being developed to get the bomb to a target. One method considered was delivery by a boat. From what I remember it involved getting a craft in a harbor. Pretty tough to even do that without even considering Japanese defenses as well as control of the thing. Still I am sure it would have made it.

    Another option once it was found that the bomb was able to be carried by aircraft was the Lancaster. This was even considered, here is an excerpt from an article:

    "Ramsey quickly concluded that there were only two Allied bombers capable of carrying both weapons: the Boeing B-29 (if suitably modified) and the Avro Lancaster. The Lancaster had ample room internally, and it was a prodigious weight lifter; it almost won the contest. In fact, Ramsey traveled to Canada in October 1943 to meet with Roy Chadwick, the Lancaster's chief designer. As luck would have it, Chadwick had crossed the Atlantic to view Lancasters being built at the Avro Canada works in Toronto, and Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the gun and the implosion weapon casings. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed, but he was well-used to wartime secrecy; Chadwick did not ask why the weapons had such unusual shapes.

    When Ramsey returned to the US, he recommended to Parsons that the Avro Lancaster should be seriously considered. Apparently General Groves had not yet asked for US Army Air Forces support, however, and a different kind of detonation took place when the Chief of the USAAF, General H. H. 'Hap' Arnold, received word of the proposal. Arnold had been personally briefed on the programs importance by the Army Chief of Staff, but Arnold made it clear to Groves that, if any atomic bombs were to be dropped in combat, a USAAF-crewed B-29 would deliver them. With that proviso firmly established, Arnold willingly endorsed the Manhattan Project's request for USAAF assistance."
    from: cybermodeler.com/history/silverpl/silverpl.shtml


    The book "One Hundred Years of World Military Aircraft" covers this as well.
     
  5. loomaluftwaffe

    loomaluftwaffe Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    how about the B-32 dominator?
     
  6. DaveB.inVa

    DaveB.inVa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    Had it been the only bomber around to do the job Im sure it would have been pressed into service as some were. They were found to be pretty stable bombing platforms although they werent as advanced as the B-29.

    For carrying the atomic bomb the answer would be no without very extensive modifications. The B-32 had 4 rollup bomb bay doors much like the B-24 and the partition between them as I understand is a load bearing beam.

    The Navy had also done trials on a PB4Y trying to modify it to drop aerial torpedos. They had tried to find ways around removing that beam and were unsucessful.
     
  7. Aggie08

    Aggie08 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Texas
    The a-bomb delivery is certainly important, but what about the countless conventional raids they carried out? Range, bombload, speed, etc.
     
  8. loomaluftwaffe

    loomaluftwaffe Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    if u wanna kill Japan just bring some Napalm
     
  9. JonJGoldberg

    JonJGoldberg Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    HOME AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGY
    Location:
    NEW YORK, NEW YORK
    ...I agree with DaveB.inVa. The B-32 was 'available' if introduced a bit later, much less capable...

    CONSOLIDATED-VULTEE B-32 DOMINATOR
    First official flight: (XB-32) 07/09/1942
    Production >>
    1942: //XB-32// Prototype pressurized heavy bomber, twin tail, glass nose. // Consolidated-Vultee San Diego, California (CO) // 3
    1944: //B-32// As XB-32, upressurized, single tail, nose turret. // Consolidated-Vultee Fort Worth, Texas (CF) // 74
    1944: //TB-32// As B-32, unarmed trainer version. // Consolidated-Vultee Fort Worth, Texas (CF) // 40

    ...last 6 aircraft flown directly into desert storage, all later scrapped.

    Images From http://www.consolidatedaircraft.org/Hangar/Bombers/b32dominator.htm
     

    Attached Files:

  10. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,203
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    It was also planned to replace ETO B-17s and B-24s with the B-32 had the war in Europe lasted longer...
     
  11. loomaluftwaffe

    loomaluftwaffe Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    nice pics, why not just use the B-29 in the ETO?
     
  12. DaveB.inVa

    DaveB.inVa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Electrical Engineer
    Had things gone the wrong way Im sure they would have been used there. But B-17's and B-24's along with the the RAF was doing the job.
     
  13. Twitch

    Twitch Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    historical combat aviation writer
    Location:
    City of the Angels California
    Barring the B-29 and B-32 remeber the B-36 was in development since 1941. We can imagine more impetus would have been put on it as it was back-burnered due to the B-29 development ahead of it. Might have flown in late 1944.

    B-24s and B-17 would have done the job in more time but it is likely the invasion would have taken place without the nuke and that would have bee the biggest blood bath in history.
     
  14. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,203
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Agree - If the -29 or -32 wasn't available, the only aircraft capable of carring the atomic bombs (in their WW2 deployable form) was a Lancaster!!!
     
  15. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Dont forget that the USN had effectively strangled Japan by the time the B29's began their campaign to burn down the cities of Japan.

    If there were no B29's, the B32's and B24's based in Okinawa were going to do the job.
     
  16. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    or an early lincoln if the war had gone on slightly longer, that being said the lancaster was more than up to the job.......
     
  17. R988

    R988 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Office Gimp
    Location:
    Londonium
    They could always have used a submarine, get into a harbour or at least close, not as effective as an aircraft though.

    I suppose they could have pinched a German V2 rocket ;)
     
Loading...

Share This Page