B-29 Losses

[FLYBOYJ]

Only in PTO/CBI. In the MTO and ETO is wasn't worth the paper it was designed on.

Your opinion for what its worth, but then again you show little or nothing to back up your adolescent claims

 

[Siegfried]

V2 rockets ?? Only in static displays..

Time for the discovery channel to fund a V2 missile recreation and launch. It's the one good thing that comes out of pay TV.

 

[Ratsel]

Your opinion for what its worth, but then again you show little or nothing to back up your adolescent claims

I'm sorry but I though those two WMD's were not used in Europe during WWII (1 at least to my knowledge, was never ever used in Europe). My humblest appologies if they were. Also, if they were, I would very much like a reference so I can read up on it. Many thanks!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm sorry but I though those two WMD's were not used in Europe during WWII (1 at least to my knowledge, was never ever used in Europe). My humblest appologies if they were. Also, if they were, I would very much like a reference so I can read up on it. Many thanks!

Tell you what - because you're such a little smart@ss I'm going to give you two weeks to read up on the B-29 and see why they weren't NEEDED in the MTO or ETO, probably because the writing was on the wall, but then again I'll let you research that. Let me know what size dunce cap you need.
EDIT - I forgot about your last outburst, you are now a permanent fixture in cyberspace

 

[Vincenzo]

Flyboyj
numbers came from "Army air forces statistical digest- world war II" same of the JoeB link but from a complete pdf
effective "one wich carries out the purpose of mission" i think for bomber drop the bombs or the mines on the "target" (that they thinked was the target).

i don't think is a super weapon, is a superior bomber, and the newest heavy bomber of war, but numbers don't show a super weapons, same loss rate, true more laod but also more expensive to build, sure safe crews

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboyj
numbers came from "Army air forces statistical digest- world war II" same of the JoeB link but from a complete pdf
effective "one wich carries out the purpose of mission" i think for bomber drop the bombs or the mines on the "target" (that they thinked was the target).

Yes - that's the one, thanks!

 

[wuzak]

I need some clarification.

B-17s in the ETO cruised at a slower speed than they were capable of - I always assumed this was to do with the need for close formations.

Did the B-17 formations speed up on the bomb run? I believe that, except for the first few raids, B-17s maintained their formation through the bomb run.

Did the tactics for teh B-29 ovr Japan differ from the B-17 in the ETO? That is, did they use looser formations, allowing for higher speeds, and did they bomb individually, or in formation?

 

[Siegfried]

SNIP

Anyway a lot of the discussion on thread is about the altitude challenge B-29's presented to Japanese fighters or would to German fighters, but the basic problem that's being ignored there is proven inadequate accuracy bombing from that high up. B-29's would have had to abandon very high altitude bombing in ETO just like they did over Japan, to hit stuff, the main idea of bombing. So the altitude capabilities of the plane were not practically speaking a big advantage, as far as conventional bombing anyway.

Joe

Hi Joe, Love your website.

There was a considerable USAAF program to develop guided weapons, the AZON perhaps being the best known. The ones that a I know of and that saw use were:

1 AZON (AZimuth ONly) ie a command line of sight flare tracked bomb that could only be controlled left-right. Used mainly in the Paciffic from B-24's with the guidince controller often not in the B-24 but in a P-38 flying higher and further back.

2 BAT a radar guided glide bomb used against japanese shipping, it used a track locking radar. (Not much different from the track locking radar of the SCR-584 I Immagine)

3 The TV-guided "GB-4" radio controlled bomb which was used in combat, limited in use due to poor contrast for it BW nose camera. I believe the lack of gyrostabalised optics was another flaw.

4 TDR-1 a small piston engined color TV remote controlled RPV used against AAA sites on remote 'hoped' islands held by the Japanese.

Most of these weapons seem to have been at a deployable state around mid 1944 and apart from the BAT were built on small budgets. (this site gives the R+D costs of the BAT as greater than the Manhatten project: BatHead

Extraordinarily none of these techniques seem to have been used with B-29s: a free fall TV guided glide or vertical fall weapon likely would have been effective given the superior light conditions in the pacific.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I need some clarification.

B-17s in the ETO cruised at a slower speed than they were capable of - I always assumed this was to do with the need for close formations.

Did the B-17 formations speed up on the bomb run? I believe that, except for the first few raids, B-17s maintained their formation through the bomb run.

Did the tactics for teh B-29 ovr Japan differ from the B-17 in the ETO? That is, did they use looser formations, allowing for higher speeds, and did they bomb individually, or in formation?

B-17s cruised at lower speeds for formation purposes and conserving fuel AFAIK. Formation flying is not an easy feat especially in a multi engine aircraft. Over the target the bombardier is actually "flying" the aircraft through the bomb sight and autopilot system. Those following behind flew the same speed and held formation. Later in the war only the lead plane had a bombardier, the rest carried a "toggler," an NCO who just threw a switch on command.

Over Japan LeMay changed tactics and B-29s bombed at lower levels with incendiaries

 

[tyrodtom]

Most of these weapons seem to have been at a deployable state around mid 1944 and apart from the BAT were built on small budgets. (this site gives the R+D costs of the BAT as greater than the Manhatten project:

I think you need to read that again, it says exceeded only by the Manhatten Project, then gives the cost as 700 million in 2004 dollars.
The Manhatten Project cost 1.8 billion up to Oct. 45, and that is in 1945 dollars. 24.4 billion in todays dollars. There would have to be many, many, projects that would have fit in between the cost of those two projects.

 

[GregP]

Shortround, RE post 75 or so, the B-45 may well have flown in 1947, but the design development was begun in 1944, and the USAAF, shortly to become the USAF, was certainly aware of the development of the B-45, having issued the requirement. I say the B-32 (and others) WAS put on hold by the B-45.

If you disagree, you are free to do so.

 

[wuzak]

B-17s cruised at lower speeds for formation purposes and conserving fuel AFAIK. Formation flying is not an easy feat especially in a multi engine aircraft. Over the target the bombardier is actually "flying" the aircraft through the bomb sight and autopilot system. Those following behind flew the same speed and held formation. Later in the war only the lead plane had a bombardier, the rest carried a "toggler," an NCO who just threw a switch on command.

Over Japan LeMay changed tactics and B-29s bombed at lower levels with incendiaries

This is what I am trying to point out. If B-29s had been sent to Europe, it is likely that the same, or very similar, tactics as those for the B-17 would have been used. Thus the higher potential speeds of the B-29 would have been negated by the formation flying needs.

 

[davparlr]

1. My point was that it's nonsense to directly compare a similar loss ratio to a larger bomb load and conclude the plane with the bigger bomb load is automatically more effective per loss. The bigger plane will cost more, depends how much more. I'm not ruling out that the B-29 would be more effective in the long run if you took all the correct factors into account.

Everybody seems to rate performance on tonnage dropped. Of course bombs on rice paddies typically are not useful. I happen to think that it is nonsense to compare similar loss ratio to a larger bombload and conclude the plane with the bigger bomb load is not more effective per loss. As far as cost is concerned, using GregP data on B-29 cost (post #82) verses B-17 cost, 1000 B-17 sorties would lose a average of 16 B-17s at a cost of $238,329 each for a total of $3,813,264. B-29s, flying 300 sorties, would lose an average of 5 B-29s at a cost of $639,188 each, for a total cost of $3,195,940, or a cost savings of $617,324. So for the same tonnage and loss rate the B-29 would save $617,324 and 105 lives. Seems cost effective to me.

But you leave out the biggest 'cost' of the B-29 program in context of WWII, which was time. Time is money in the economy, but time is even more critical in all out war. In real history, by the time B-29's were available in significant numbers in truly operational units, the bombing campaign in Europe was basically over. Even the B-29 force flying from the Marianas in Nov 44-Feb 45 in the initial high altitude campaign was small by 8th/15th AF standards, and the bombing campaign in ETO mainly won by then; the earlier B-29 force flying from China from mid 44 smaller still.

I agree with all of this.

It doesn't make much sense to point out the eventually higher efficiency of the mature B-29, which is typical of any larger plane, 'economy of scale' , but to ignore the fact that in real history the protracted development and debugging of the B-29 took too long for the plane to have been of much use in the war in Europe.

And this.

2. This is just repeating an assertion which has already been refuted with historical facts:
-it was seldom practical for bombers to fly formations close to their max speeds, and especially dicey for the B-29 with immature R-3350's especially prior to around late spring of '45, when the war in Europe was over.

I can certainly understand not wanting to fly formation near max speed, one must be capable of varying airspeed to accommodate perturbations such as turns, but the max speed of the B-29 was 358 mph. Flying formations within 10-15 mph of max normal power speed should be no problem. I would guess 300+ is reasonable if fuel usage is tolerable.

-bombers with WWII bombing technology could not hit accurately from 30k ft.

True at 20-25k. Late war techniques such as bombing on cue improved accuracy. In any event, B-29s could descend at speed to lower levels and still be tough to intercept.

3. This is not correct. Although the targets in Japan lay mainly north of the Marianas, the bombers were able to choose initial points relative to the targets in order to have (what they believed were) the most favorable heading relative to the wind. Bomb runs were not made with known crosswinds. This is in another category of web board silliness, assuming the planners in WWII ignored obvious and easy solutions to problems.

This is probably not true. B-29s in PTO were pretty well maxed out in range performance and planners would have had very limited options in setting up bomb runs and making it back, in addition they probably had poor Jet Stream data. The Norden bomb sight had a limited cross wind capability.

4. This is entirely irrelevant, besides being debateable. B-2's always use JDAM's to get adequate conventional bombing accuracy from high altitude, but in any case WWII bombers had WWII technology, not the B-2's.

Only debatable to those who are unfamiliar with the B-2 program and strategic bombing concepts. The B-2 performance requirements was specified and contracted in the early 80s as a strategic bomber capable of penetrating advanced defense systems and delivering nuclear warheads. This was well before GPS was completed, 1994, and the JDAM operational date, 1997. Accuracy requirements established at this time were very high, both at high altitude and, later, low altitude. As a strategic bomber, navigation and weapon delivery was required to be AUTONIMOUS, not dependent on any external aids, which could only be considered deniable by the enemy. This certainly includes GPS. As far as I know, these requirements still exist.

A slightly more relevant comparison might be B-52's in combat in Vietnam with conventional unguided bombs, where bombing altitudes exceeded 30k ft, and accuracy was adequate using strictly radar bombing techniques. But even those radar bombing systems were far superior to those available in WWII.

The Vietnam era B-52 weapon delivery system does not include an optical sighting system rather it relied on a poor-to-medium resolution radar and most likely a Doppler radar aided, i.e., ground speed and drift, navigation system and interface to the flight control system through the autopilot. Now, the B-52 radar system was not great and did not have high resolution modes like synthetic aperture radar modes found on the B-2 (when AF SAC crews reviewed the radar imagery of the B-2 they were stunned!).

The B-29 relied on optically identified and tracked targeting system interfaced to the flight control system through the autopilot. Both systems require operator input, the B-52 Bombardier/Navigator is required to visually identify target on the radar and input to the navigation computer by designating, maybe continual tracking, manual or automatic (?), for the B-29, the bombardier must acquire the target visually through a telescope and provide continual tracking inputs. I doubt the bomb delivery accuracy of the B-52, with its poor radar resolution, poor displays, and early dead reckoning computer was any better than that of the optical system of the B-29. Indeed, I suspect the B-29, in the optical mode, was equivalent to the high resolution radar and high resolution displays of the B-2. In addition, continual visual tracking has to be better than drift prone nav systems.

This does not apply to the early radar bomb delivery modes of the B-29.

It is easy to say that the old mechanical computers and optical systems of WWII were crude but they often performed quite well. When the late model battleships were being upgraded in the 1980s, there was a plan to install laser range finders for the main guns. The Navy found out, however, the original optical rangefinders on the battle ships were more accurate than the proposed laser system so they stuck with them. Also, if I remember correctly, the original electromechanical gun laying computer was retained because of its accuracy.

I was going to say one advantage the B-52 did have was modern aerodynamically designed bombs, but I remember hearing somewhere that they used a lot of WWII bombs. Does anyone know?

5. There is not only no evidence to support that statement, but it's specifically contradicted by operational history in both Europe and the Pacific.

You said the poor radar systems on the Vietnam era B-52s provide adequate accuracy whereas I believe the optical bomb laying system on the B-29 would have done better with the same bombs and flight planning.

There's a huge literature on the USAAF's struggles with bombing accuracy in the ETO, perhaps you should read some of it.

And, again, the B-29s could use high altitude to provide a high speed descent and weapon delivery to the lower altitudes flown by the B-17s. I doubt if they would need to given the amount of area bombing that was apparently done.

one big reason was to hit stuff, and the other was to reduce engine strain and resultant operational losses even with ~230-250mph typical cruise speeds, again putting paid to the idea of prolonged military power operations by B-29's at that time. "Blankets of Fire" by Werrell is a good book on the B-29 over Japan.

Again you disregard the significant difference in distance which has major impact on engine usage and target planning. ETO would be an almost completely different environment.

 

[davparlr]

I need some clarification.

B-17s in the ETO cruised at a slower speed than they were capable of - I always assumed this was to do with the need for close formations.

I tend to doubt that slower airspeed was due to formation flying. They certainly would not fly at max speeds and most likely flew at max range speed. In addition, like the naval convoys, they had to move en masse at the speed of the slowest aircraft. This could be quite slow if the models were mixed. The B-17E had a cruising speed of 195 to 223 mph but the B-17G had a cruise speed of 195 mph so, if they were flying in the same formation, how fast do you think they would fly? Even variations between aircraft had to be planned for.

While a C-141 is a jet and jets tend to be more stable than prop jobs (at least to me it seemed that way), I have flown Combat Airlift Missions in formation at around 290 mph and it didn't seem difficult. We flew extended fingertip which is probably all the bombers ever did.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Just wanted to say, this is a really informative thread... Great discussion folks!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This is what I am trying to point out. If B-29s had been sent to Europe, it is likely that the same, or very similar, tactics as those for the B-17 would have been used. Thus the higher potential speeds of the B-29 would have been negated by the formation flying needs.

Not really - the slower speeds not only involved formation flying but also involved keeping the defensive box for protection against fighters. Speaking hypothetically, I think the B-29 could have defended itself better against attacking fighters than the B-17 did

 

[Shortround6]

Shortround, RE post 75 or so, the B-45 may well have flown in 1947, but the design development was begun in 1944, and the USAAF, shortly to become the USAF, was certainly aware of the development of the B-45, having issued the requirement. I say the B-32 (and others) WAS put on hold by the B-45.

If you disagree, you are free to do so.

My objection is the timing among other things.

The B-32 is claimed to be a back up to the B-29 which makes a certain amount of sense given that they are started at the same time. The priority given the B-32 may have waxed and wained depending on well the B-29 program was going at any given time. The B-32 itself was far from a simple aircraft and did not progress as fast as was hoped for. The Production of the B-32 was ordered in small numbers (compared to the B-29) and not canceled until after Japan surrendered. Seeing as how many aircraft programs were canceled ( including thousands of B-29s) or put on hold with the end of the war because with halt in fighting they just weren't needed it is a little difficult to see the B-45 as the reason for the halt in the B-32 program.
Put that together with most of the problems with B-29 having been solved and the B29D/B-50 lurking in the wings B-32 program went away that have nothing to do with the B-45.
The B-36 wasn't cancelled although it was cut back quite a bit.

You of course are free to believe What you wish.

 

[TheMadPenguin]

Question to all on a point where "opinions differ". I'm not searching for opinions, but fact-based inferences:
AIUI, men died in B-17s, some at enemy hands and some because the plane quit flying. Ratio? The enemy was more likely to kill you than the plane was.
AIUI, men died in B-24s, some at enemy hands and some because the plane quit flying. Ratio? The enemy was more likely to kill you than the plane was.
AIUI, men died in B-29s, some at enemy hands and some because the plane quit flying. Ratio? The plane was more likely to kill you than the enemy was.
My resources are very limited (no room for books and little cash for travel). Is my understanding in conflict with y'alls knowledge?

(p.s. Shortround: "Florida" and "Highlands" do not coincide.)

 

[Shortround6]

(p.s. Shortround: "Florida" and "Highlands" do not coincide.)

Humor. In Florida if you are 100ft above sea level you may be in the Highlands

 

[TheMadPenguin]

Humor. In Florida if you are 100ft above sea level you may be in the Highlands

True. I live in Panama City. Our last mountain migrated to Georgia a few eons ago.