FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Your opinion for what its worth, but then again you show little or nothing to back up your adolescent claims
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Your opinion for what its worth, but then again you show little or nothing to back up your adolescent claimsOnly in PTO/CBI. In the MTO and ETO is wasn't worth the paper it was designed on.
V2 rockets ?? Only in static displays..
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!Your opinion for what its worth, but then again you show little or nothing to back up your adolescent claims
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.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!
Yes - that's the one, thanks!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).
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
-bombers with WWII bombing technology could not hit accurately from 30k ft.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
There's a huge literature on the USAAF's struggles with bombing accuracy in the ETO, perhaps you should read some of it.
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.
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.
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 didThis 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.
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.
(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