B-29 reset

[FLYBOYJ]

Japan was pretty thoroughly beaten by the time Lemay started his low level firebombing tactics.

A 1,000,000 man army and over 5,000 aircraft available (Jablownski, Wings of fire, 1971) No one saw white flags being hoisted.

US possession of Okinawa and Iwo Jima meant that the B-29 was no longer the only option for a strategic bombing campaign against Japan.

I could agree to a point but no one knew the full capacity of the Japanese war machine and how long they were willing to continue the war.

To put things in perspective, the $3 billion B-29 program cost more than the combined cost of the all the USN's new battleships and aircraft carriers.

Money well spent for what it brought to the table as a combat aircraft, aviation development and post war missions, I could also go into the economic aspects of employing people during its production, post war deployment, modification as a tanker, and later as a weather recon aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

Japan was pretty thoroughly beaten by the time Lemay started his low level firebombing tactics. US possession of Okinawa and Iwo Jima meant that the B-29 was no longer the only option for a strategic bombing campaign against Japan.

Japan was not beaten until the Emperor said they were...
Every man, woman and child was ready to defend Japanese soil to the death, even if it meant meeting Allied soldiers with sharpened sticks.

To put things in perspective, the $3 billion B-29 program cost more than the combined cost of the all the USN's new battleships and aircraft carriers.

B-24s cost $5,500,742,219 and the B-29 had a far higher range and far higher max. capacity per airframe. So technically, the B-24 was a waste of money, right?

 

[OldSkeptic]

Yep it was. It was designed and originally used to drop bombs from 30,000ft in day time. They dutifully used it in that way. Now they couldn't accurately drop bombs from 20,000ft at that time so it was even less accurate than all the daylight B-17s, B-24s in the ETO.

The impact on Japan was similar to Germany, limited (mining, the submarine blockade and the later naval blockade had a far greater effect). Plus by the time the B-29 bombing got really going they were bombing Japan from aircraft carriers....

So they turned it into a low level (less than 5,000ft) night time incendiary bomber and stripped out a lot of stuff out of it (guns, etc). Now anything could do that. All that money spent on giving it all that high altitude performance was wasted. And what it ended up doing could have been done by a lot of other, far cheaper aircraft.

As for the nukes. The Fat Boy weighed 10,300lbs, the Little boy 9,700lbs. A Lanc could carry that.... as for the range, my rough calculations make it that a Lanc with that load (and a late model with late model Merlins) needed a minimum of another 600 UK gals of fuel (4,500lbs) to make it from Tinian to Hiroshima and back. Say make it 700 UK gals and 5,200lbs for a reserve. Need a bit of tricking up and stripping out, but they did that with B-29 too.

Anyway they could have done it from Okinawa by that time, which B-24s bombed Japan from, round trip about 1,300 miles ..easily within a Lanc's range. Heck at that range you might have been able to trick up a B-24 to carry the nukes (maybe, Fat Man maybe yes, Little Boy maybe not because of the shape).

The B-29 cost $640,000*. B-24 $300,000 and the Lanc (at a 4:1 exchange rate of the time) $200,000.
That must be just the manufacturing cost, adding the development costs I get $1.4 million per plane. But I don't have the equivalent B-24 and Lanc development costs, but you'd expect them to be a heck of a lot less....

So back to the original point, what could a B-29 militarily do that another aircraft of the time couldn't also do at a fraction of the cost (albeit with a bit of tricking up)?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep it was. It was designed and originally used to drop bombs from 30,000ft in day time. They dutifully used it in that way. Now they couldn't accurately drop bombs from 20,000ft at that time so it was even less accurate than all the daylight B-17s, B-24s in the ETO.

"THEY" also discovered that there was this "THING" called the JET STREAM that made conventional high altitude bombing difficult over Japan. "THEY" did a great job identifying the problem and fixing it because "THEY" had a great aircraft to work with.

The impact on Japan was similar to Germany, limited (mining, the submarine blockade and the later naval blockade had a far greater effect). Plus by the time the B-29 bombing got really going they were bombing Japan from aircraft carriers....

So they turned it into a low level (less than 5,000ft) night time incendiary bomber and stripped out a lot of stuff out of it (guns, etc). Now anything could do that. All that money spent on giving it all that high altitude performance was wasted. And what it ended up doing could have been done by a lot of other, far cheaper aircraft.

Could have, would have, should have, and when the mission was done all the equipment went back in and the B-29 became the backbone of the Strategic Air Command AND RAF Bomber Command in the post war years, with that said, your point?

As for the nukes. The Fat Boy weighed 10,300lbs, the Little boy 9,700lbs. A Lanc could carry that.... as for the range, my rough calculations make it that a Lanc with that load (and a late model with late model Merlins) needed a minimum of another 600 UK gals of fuel (4,500lbs) to make it from Tinian to Hiroshima and back. Say make it 700 UK gals and 5,200lbs for a reserve. Need a bit of tricking up and stripping out, but they did that with B-29 too.

Again, "could have, would have, should have." Do you even come close to realizing how much 6 or 700 UK gallons is when shoving it into an aircraft even one the size of a Lancaster or B-29???? A non-pressurized single pilot tail dragger bomber that couldn't get over 20,000 feet carrying a nuke was and is an accident waiting to happen. Yea, "tricking and stripping out," Just like Lemay did, right?

Anyway they could have done it from Okinawa by that time, which B-24s bombed Japan from, round trip about 1,300 miles ..easily within a Lanc's range. Heck at that range you might have been able to trick up a B-24 to carry the nukes (maybe, Fat Man maybe yes, Little Boy maybe not because of the shape).

See above - the Lanc "Could Have" done a better job than the B-24 in the PTO if used in the same capacity as the Liberator was with the 5th AF, IMO the Lanc was better than the B-24, but the Lanc was no intercontinental bomber in the same class as the B-29 and I'll once again revert to the fact of the 90 B-29s operated by Bomber Command into the 1950s. Why was that?????

The B-29 cost $640,000*. B-24 $300,000 and the Lanc (at a 4:1 exchange rate of the time) $200,000.
That must be just the manufacturing cost, adding the development costs I get $1.4 million per plane. But I don't have the equivalent B-24 and Lanc development costs, but you'd expect them to be a heck of a lot less....

And both the B-24 and Lanc quickly saw the scrapyard in the post war years (I recognize that the Lanc was used in limited numbers but the majority of them were gone by the 1950s). The USAF got 16 years out of the B-29, two wars as well as the first aerial tanker fleet, so tell me, do you really want to continue to crunch numbers to show the real value of the B-29???

So back to the original point, what could a B-29 militarily do that another aircraft of the time couldn't also do at a fraction of the cost (albeit with a bit of tricking up)?

Two Wars, Two Air Forces, a 10% combat loss rate for BOTH WW2 and Korea, the first nuclear deterrent, the first aerial tanker, 4 years with the RAF and 16 years of service. There's more, (like the Soviets copying it) shall I address those facts too???? With that said - "what could a B-29 militarily do that another aircraft of the time couldn't also do at a fraction of the cost?" The TU-4!!! Things are cheaper when you steal them and build them with slave labor!!!!

 

[GrauGeist]

Yep it was. It was designed and originally used to drop bombs from 30,000ft in day time. They dutifully used it in that way. Now they couldn't accurately drop bombs from 20,000ft at that time so it was even less accurate than all the daylight B-17s, B-24s in the ETO.

And yet, due to atmospheric conditions over the Japanese Isles, any bomber was met with the same frustration with warload delivery at designed altitudes. Be it a B-17, B-24, Lancaster or any other heavy bomber.

The impact on Japan was similar to Germany, limited (mining, the submarine blockade and the later naval blockade had a far greater effect). Plus by the time the B-29 bombing got really going they were bombing Japan from aircraft carriers....

Keep in mind that the B-29 was also hammering targets in the CBI, from Asian bases, even though attacks against Japan were not as productive as hoped. So don't think that the B-29 was solely intended as a weapon against Japan.
Also, might want to double-check your timeline, the forward bases in the Pacific were secured in mid-1944, allowing for extreme long range bombing missions against the Japanese Islands as well as missions against Japanese held islands in the region. It wasn't until early in 1945 (February) that carrier based attacks were conducted against Japanese proper.

So they turned it into a low level (less than 5,000ft) night time incendiary bomber and stripped out a lot of stuff out of it (guns, etc). Now anything could do that. All that money spent on giving it all that high altitude performance was wasted. And what it ended up doing could have been done by a lot of other, far cheaper aircraft.

I need to disagree here. One B-29 was capable of carrying a standard bomb load of 20,000 pounds long distance. For a bomber like the B-17 or the B-24, distance decreases as bombload increases. Even at max load for either one of those types, one B-29 is still doing the job of two bombers.

As for the nukes. The Fat Boy weighed 10,300lbs, the Little boy 9,700lbs. A Lanc could carry that.... as for the range, my rough calculations make it that a Lanc with that load (and a late model with late model Merlins) needed a minimum of another 600 UK gals of fuel (4,500lbs) to make it from Tinian to Hiroshima and back. Say make it 700 UK gals and 5,200lbs for a reserve. Need a bit of tricking up and stripping out, but they did that with B-29 too.
Anyway they could have done it from Okinawa by that time, which B-24s bombed Japan from, round trip about 1,300 miles ..easily within a Lanc's range. Heck at that range you might have been able to trick up a B-24 to carry the nukes (maybe, Fat Man maybe yes, Little Boy maybe not because of the shape).

Now we're entering the shady area of "what-ifs".
You're not only carrying a max load aboard, but now you want to load it down even more with extra fuel?
Obviously, the heavier it gets, the shorter the range...throwing more fuel onboard isn't going to somehow fix that.
One other thing to keep in mind, the altitude for Atomic bomb deployment was 30,000 feet and if memory serves me right (I may be off, here) the Lancaster's ceiling with a full bombload was 25,000 feet?

The B-29 cost $640,000*. B-24 $300,000 and the Lanc (at a 4:1 exchange rate of the time) $200,000.
That must be just the manufacturing cost, adding the development costs I get $1.4 million per plane. But I don't have the equivalent B-24 and Lanc development costs, but you'd expect them to be a heck of a lot less....

Again, the B-29 was an advanced piece of hardware...Aerodynamic advancements, new innovations in defensive turrets, pressurized cabin/personnel compartments, extreme load carrying, extreme long distance.
It carried a crew of 11 men and standard designed bombload of 20,000 pounds.
For a B-24 to match that bombload by comparable range, it would require four B-24 bombers.
That's four times aircraft cost each $298,000 = $1,192,000
That's four times the crewmen at 11 men each = 44 crewmen
Then let's factor in fuel for the four B-24s and logistics, support, maintenance, forward airbase area consumed and so on and so on.

So back to the original point, what could a B-29 militarily do that another aircraft of the time couldn't also do at a fraction of the cost (albeit with a bit of tricking up)?

The economics have already been covered above and when the B-29 entered service, it reclassified "heavy bomber" and introduced the era of long-range strategic bomber.

 

[GrauGeist]

lol Joe, ya' beat me to it!

 

[Elmas]

Let's see the B29 as a piece of engineering: B-29 was a post-WWII plane, all others planes of any other nation involved (Me 262 excepted, by my personal point of view) were pre-WWII airplanes.

The knowledge that American Air Industry acquired designing and building B29 was invaluable: capacity to succesfully handle very large programs, experience of sophisticated systems onboard and on the ground, pressurization (fundamental for civil aviation post WWII) etc. and so the American Air Industry was able, after the war, to make the best of it.

And this even if the B-29 had never dropped a single bomb in anger.

 

[nuuumannn]

what could a B-29 militarily do that another aircraft of the time couldn't also do at a fraction of the cost (albeit with a bit of tricking up)?

Be one of the most influential bombers in history. Need I add to what Joe and Dave have written already.

 

[Reegor]

Why bother? Bombing accuracy from 20,000ft was woeful so why go to 30,000ft? To be less accurate?

The plane was insanely expensive to develop (comparable to the Manhatten project from memory).
It failed at it's primary design task and then was switched to low level incendiary bombing over Japan, which could have been done by B-24s at a fraction of the cost.

The plane was a failure by any objective measure.

War = waste. After the fact, many programs did not live up to their early hopes. (Like others here, I don't agree that the B-29 was one of those. Someone mentioned the very effective inter-island mining program; B-29s were used to drop mines in areas that other vehicles could not reach safely/quickly, so they even get some of the credit for that.

On the other hand, it's clear that the USAAF brass pushed the B-29 program as hard as they did (and before it, the bombing of Europe) because they were maneuvering to get an independent Air Force after the war. If the B-29 and the 8th Air Force had been seen as ineffective, it might have been fatal to that plan. Internal correspondence, and post-war autobiographies, were pretty frank about that motivation.

 

[gjs238]

In the context of defeating Japan, and not postwar USAF aspirations, weather ops, aerial tankers, etc., it seems the "B-29 way" of going about it was not terribly efficient. I believe Churchill had reservations about the program.

Of course, when the B-29 mission and aircraft were designed, folks were unaware of all that would eventually transpire.
With hindsight, knowing what transpired, perhaps there was a better "way" of going about the air offensive against Japan.
For example, knowing today that low level incendiary and mining operations were ideal, perhaps we would have built a different aircraft.
For the mission actually performed, is all the sophistication of the B-29 necessary?
Could another craft have been developed more quickly and cheaply?
Or as the thread began, perhaps just different engines (which seemed to comprise the bulk of the mechanical problems.)

 

[Shortround6]

For a true "cost" you have to look at the cost of delivering XXXX tons of bombs to the target area/s. B-29 or B-17 or B-24, nothing was going to drop with great accuracy from 30,000ft (or just under) over Japan due to the Jet stream.

A B-29 could carry 5,000lb at hi altitude over a 1600 mile radius, or 12,000lbs at low altitude over the same 1600 mile radius.
A B-24 could carry 5,000lbs over a 1700 mile range. So they didn't really do the same job. Depending on which bases you use when the B-24 either can't get there at all or is going to carry a lot less bombs than the B-29.

Using TWO B-24s to deliver the same amount of bombs as a single B-29 may not be a cheap as it appears, The B-24s may use less fuel but you need two trained crews and more ground support personnel. The number of man hours of maintenance may be more for two aircraft. (144 spark plugs to change on a B-29, 224 spark plugs on two B-24s) and you are trying to maintain the aircraft thousands of miles from the factories. EVERYTHING needs to be transported across oceans, the bombs, the fuel the food for the men, on some islands even the drinking water ( or use desalinization plants).

 

[RpR]

In the context of defeating Japan, and not postwar USAF aspirations, weather ops, aerial tankers, etc., it seems the "B-29 way" of going about it was not terribly efficient. I believe Churchill had reservations about the program.

Of course, when the B-29 mission and aircraft were designed, folks were unaware of all that would eventually transpire.
With hindsight, knowing what transpired, perhaps there was a better "way" of going about the air offensive against Japan.
For example, knowing today that low level incendiary and mining operations were ideal, perhaps we would have built a different aircraft.
For the mission actually performed, is all the sophistication of the B-29 necessary?
Could another craft have been developed more quickly and cheaply?
Or as the thread began, perhaps just different engines (which seemed to comprise the bulk of the mechanical problems.)

Are you saying they should have gone with an improved B-19 which they easily could have?

 

[Shortround6]

The B-19 was obsolete on the day it flew. Douglas didn't even want to complete it ( they lost over a million dollars on the program). It took over 5 years to go from mock-up (not even start of design) to first flight and was thoroughly outdated in both aerodynamics and structure. It did make a good PR (press relations) aircraft though

 

[nuuumannn]

perhaps we would have built a different aircraft.

Perhaps, but you are forgetting that the B-29 would have been built at any rate. Like I said in a different thread, it was a natural progression from previous piston engined bombers to the next generation. It's technology was a considerable leap over previous types; that alone is why the B-29 was going to be built regardless of what was known at the time or what wasn't. If we don't progress technologically, we cannot expect to out do our enemies. It's evolution.

 

[gjs238]

Perhaps, but you are forgetting that the B-29 would have been built at any rate. Like I said in a different thread, it was a natural progression from previous piston engined bombers to the next generation. It's technology was a considerable leap over previous types; that alone is why the B-29 was going to be built regardless of what was known at the time or what wasn't. If we don't progress technologically, we cannot expect to out do our enemies. It's evolution.

Perhaps.
Perhaps it would have developed differently.
Perhaps another aircraft would have evolved.

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-29 was also first put on paper before WWII broke out (though the war clouds were certainly on the horizon) and it was intended to be the next step in bombers.

When the battle of Britain was underway, the urgency of the B-29 project was very clear, because if England fell (which was a serious concern), this would have been the only option to effectively strike Europe.

While many don't seem to appreciate the B-29's capabilities, it cannot be denied that this long-distance record-setting bomber was a technical leap forward.

 

[nuuumannn]

Perhaps it would have developed differently. Perhaps another aircraft would have evolved.

I think you might be stargazing. Dave nailed it with this.

"While many don't seem to appreciate the B-29's capabilities, it cannot be denied that this long-distance record-setting bomber was a technical leap forward."

Its influence (again, I'm quoting from another thread) was enormous. Every big Boeing and Tupolev aircraft subsequent to the B-29 owed a (significantly large in terms of Tupolev) part of their existence to it. It was truly ground breaking.

 

[RCAFson]

The B-29 was also first put on paper before WWII broke out (though the war clouds were certainly on the horizon) and it was intended to be the next step in bombers.

When the battle of Britain was underway, the urgency of the B-29 project was very clear, because if England fell (which was a serious concern), this would have been the only option to effectively strike Europe.

While many don't seem to appreciate the B-29's capabilities, it cannot be denied that this long-distance record-setting bomber was a technical leap forward.

The B-29 was very advanced and had comparatively great range but it certainly didn't have the ability to strike Europe from North America.

 

[GrauGeist]

On 18 September 1945, three B-29s left Hokkaido for Washington D.C. After experiencing headwinds, they cut the trip short by landing at Chicago, refueled and then continued to D.C. While this distance was not record setting (the RAF held the distance record set in the late 30's), it was record setting in the fact that it set record for the longest U.S. military flight, the first flight from Japan to the U.S.(5,840 miles - 9,400km) and a record breaking gross weight of 144,000 pounds (65,300kg).

Two months later, on 19 November 1945, a B-29 flew from Guam to Washington D.C., breaking the long distance world record and a weight record, flying non-stop for 7,916 miles (12,740km). The B-29's gross weight was 155,000 pounds (70,000 kg) and the flight took just over 35 hours.

 

[RCAFson]

On 18 September 1945, three B-29s left Hokkaido for Washington D.C. After experiencing headwinds, they cut the trip short by landing at Chicago, refueled and then continued to D.C. While this distance was not record setting (the RAF held the distance record set in the late 30's), it was record setting in the fact that it set record for the longest U.S. military flight, the first flight from Japan to the U.S.(5,840 miles - 9,400km) and a record breaking gross weight of 144,000 pounds (65,300kg).

Two months later, on 19 November 1945, a B-29 flew from Guam to Washington D.C., breaking the long distance world record and a weight record, flying non-stop for 7,916 miles (12,740km). The B-29's gross weight was 155,000 pounds (70,000 kg) and the flight took just over 35 hours.

Just because they managed to cram enough fuel into an aircraft to set a distance record doesn't make it able to carry a useful weapon load over those distances:

A B-29 could carry 5,000lb at hi altitude over a 1600 mile radius, or 12,000lbs at low altitude over the same 1600 mile radius.

.