Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I DO know the B-29 was very effective and hard hitting, with the heaviest normal bomb load of the war by a bomber in large scale production.
Don't even tell me about Grand Slams ... they were never a "normal" bomb load and the Lancasters that carried them were structurally in dangerous waters. It was done out of necessity, not with any regularity. They dropped a total of 42 Grand Slams in the entire war, less than .03% of Lancaster sorties.
Getting a reliable B-29 into production earlier may have allowed the USAAF to deploy them to where they were needed when they were needed most. ie in the ETO in late 1943/early 1944.
Had they been deployed in that time frame, even with reduced performance, I believe they would have reduced aircraft losses and reduced air crew illness and injury (such as frostbite).
I also have little doubt that they would have suffered heavier losses than B-29s did in the CBI and PTO historically.
Not sure if they would have proved more effective at bombing, but certainly there would have been more tonnage dropped in the target area.
A normal bomb load for a Lancaster was 14,000lbs. What was the normal bomb load for a B-29? I don't think it was the maximum 20,000lb, because range suffered with that load.
I believe it was being evaluated and they used the opportunity for propaganda, The RAF did consider it for night bombing, maybe if losses to flak and nightfighters became too high in a protracted war.Had the B-29 been deployed over Europe, things might have been a bit tougher since Europe was a high-altitude war at higher speeds. But it never was deployed there except as a visiting decoy. There was at least one B-29 that made a circuit of the UK bases, probably to cause concern in Germany.
Here is a question guys. The B 29 had a very sophisticated defence system with "computer" controlled firing/targeting was this proven to be more effective than the conventional defence of the B17 B24?