B-29s over Germany

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

No syscom3 and me talk to each other like that and we know that we are kidding with each other.

Unlike you, Syscom3 does not actually think he is better than everyone here (atleast he does not show it that way).

Compared to you he is not arrogant. You are the most arrogant person I have ever seen type on here and I would hate to see how you are in person.

Click to expand...

Only thing I'm superior at over Deradler (and some others) is knowing whats a good beer!

If those large guided missles are launched from the -262's, wouldnt the jet become momentarily unstable as it drops from the wing?

I cant imagine the pilot concentrating on flying the plane, all of a sudden having to regain stability and then play with the joystick to guide the missle.

And all of this as bullets are flying at him.

syscom3 said:

If those large guided missles are launched from the -262's, wouldnt the jet become momentarily unstable as it drops from the wing?

Click to expand...

. If dropped at the same time, no. You may get a bounce but probably no worse than hitting some clear air turbulance.

The Me262 performance was significantly impacted when carrying bombs. Does anyone have any idea how badley it would be impacted carrying these missiles?
Presumably you would need a two seater to start of with and life goes downhill carrying aything externally.

my understanding is that would not be used by the 262 as it would have to have special launching rails fitted and the rocket becuase of bulk in size the rail would have to drop the missile downward slightly like a derop tank, something that would not be used due to the neccisity of attacking fast and illuding Allied escorts

~

plan_D said:

Del, for the sake of argument the Me-262 plane releases the X-4 at 520 MPH ground speed. This means that the X-4 upon release is travelling at the same speed. However, in terms of ground speed the X-4 can only go 520 MPH which would mean the missile would stay under the plane and this is silly.
In reality, the X-4 is going 0 MPH compared to the plane when attached. Upon release the X-4 will start to slow down until the rocket motor sets in. Once the rocket motor sets in, the missile will accelerate away up to a ground speed of 800 - 1,000 MPH to make it move beyond the carrier plane. It's the planes speed plus the rocket speed. I always think of the missile at 0 MPH when on a plane.

Which means, in reality, the X-4 does not go from 0 - 520 MPH instantly, when it's released it will actually slow down and it will take time to accelerate to it's top speed. In that time, the carrier plane is vulnerable.

Click to expand...

I second this. Sorry, PlanD, my mistake. Something has to be wrong with me.

It's okay, Del. I thought you must have been having a bad day.

Twitch, the plane is still vulnerable when the missile is being guided. And the pilot cannot break off while he's guiding the missile and trying to keep his plane straight. Unless they used a two-seater, which would be the best option. No one is making the X-4 to be a negative thing, so no stress is needed. I'm saying that it wasn't a perfect thing.

Re: X-4s weight- How much impact does a one or two 132-lb. bombs have on any plane's performance? Not much at that weight. We're not talking 1,000 pounder here. Bottom line is I personally would rather have a stand off weapon fired from 3+ miles away even if my crate was somewhat vulnerable for a quarter of a minute rather than wade into a bomber wing full of boxes bristling with fifties all trained on ME as I began firing guns.

At 3.5 miles distant you don't encounter ordnance from the heavies. And obviously you aren't going to set up fire and guide with escort fighters on your six. You elude them to the point where you you have enough time and space to launch.

The huge benefit of this weapon was that even if the launching aircraft had to break off due to interference the friggin missile would be a doomsday weapon whether the launcher had cut bait or not. The acoustic detonator would still work now wouldn't it?

The acoustic would have been to aerial missiles of the late war era, guided or unguided, as revolutionary as it was for the torpedo. It would suit even a blindfold shot taken in a split second in the basic general direction of the bomber formation.

The "normal" zerstroyer aircraft got through no matter how many were driven off by P-51s or hit by bomber fire. The only problem was that their weapons weren't singluarly potent enough to seriously break up enough bomber boxes to make a difference.

Nothing was going to halt the bomber stream in the end. Of course even singluar heavies would have sought to launch their bombs on their group's intended target even if they'd been dispersed by rocket fire or whatnot. Most would try. They wouldn't all just jettison ordnance and run for home unless damaged. However, in those circumstances they would have been vulnerable to any type of fighter without the protection of the bomber box crossfire.

Back in the 80s I had only one dialogue with General Galland regarding bomber attack and missiles. All I can offer is that HE was excited by the prospect of the missile. He seemed to take for granted that it would be used by the 262s as all other sources I've sen have indicated. Of course he wasn't a crew chief or armorer. But it was tested in Fw 190s, Ju 88Gs and Ju 388Ls. After all if bomb shackles and R4M racks were affixed to 262s certainly missile hardpoints could be to accomodate the 1,300 X-4s sitting in stock since late 1944. Rüstsätze were commonplace in coverting every weapon imaginable to use in nearly every aircraft.

In 1945 the Pudel program was engaged in ways foe the X-4 and other missiles to home on its target acoustically without external guidance. Perceived launch aircraft vulnerability problem solved.

syscom3 said:

Only thing I'm superior at over Deradler (and some others) is knowing whats a good beer!

Click to expand...

You only wish....

Wow, this has turned way off topic, but I do not mind. The thing is that a missile does drop away from the plane and fall behind until the rocket engine starts and the missile will go and move away from the plane, but that moment is very dangerous and the pilot knows that. Like some of you have said. Today it is way easier to do this than in those days, aircraft are build not have side effect when they launch missiles.

Germany did have technology that made it so that the pilot did not need to guide the missiles any more and this made it very easier. Some even had something like a TV that showed the pilot where he is going with the missile. I saw it on a documentary program years ago.

Actually Henk, most missiles do fall away from the aircraft. The missiles engine is on a time delay and does not fire off until it safely away from the aircraft.

Now having said that, this should get back on topic.

Yes I know that Adler, but thanks for the pic.

Performing high altitude ops in the ETO, would the B-29 have had the same reliability issues as occured in the PTO?
Or would performance have been better?

If better, would the B-29 have been able to bomb from higher altitudes, reducing flak and fighter losses?

gjs238 said:

Performing high altitude ops in the ETO, would the B-29 have had the same reliability issues as occured in the PTO?
Or would performance have been better?

If better, would the B-29 have been able to bomb from higher altitudes, reducing flak and fighter losses?

Click to expand...

Possibly the cooler climate would have helped with reliability, as one of the big issues in take-off was engine cooling - which was marginal.

Higher altitudes may have put them out of effective range of the flak guns, but would also have adversely affected accuracy.

Just bombing at the same altitudes woudl be advantageous compared to the B-17/B-24 because a) the B-29 carried a bigger bomb load, b) the B-29 was a higher performing aircraft and c) the pressurised compartment would have made the crews more comfortable, and there would have been less injury/death due to low oxygen or frostbite.

Wow, a six year old thread suddenly jumps back to life!!

I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm going to assume this point has already been made.

I would think the more advanced gunnery available in the Superfortress would have been a help against the LW.

Perhaps the B-29's could have/would have carried/dropped larger bombs.
Didn't B-17's B-24's drop smaller bombs than the British?

it talked to an old piolt that flew b17 and b 29s he said the b 29 was a piece of crap engie fires was his biggest problem

mike siggins said:

it talked to an old piolt that flew b17 and b 29s he said the b 29 was a piece of crap engie fires was his biggest problem

Click to expand...

While opinions of those who actually flew the aircraft are valued, I knew many pilots who flew both aircraft, B-17s and B-29s during WW2 and the B-29 in the post war years. Their opinion of the B-29 was entirely different and I think in the end its combat and service record dictates otherwise despite the teething problems encountered when he aircraft first entered service.

According to Wikipedia, the B-29 could carry 9000 kg (20,000 lb) of bombs as "standard loadout". This could have been carried to the most valuable targets in Germany?

Jenisch said:

According to Wikipedia, the B-29 could carry 9000 kg (20,000 lb) of bombs as "standard loadout". This could have been carried to the most valuable targets in Germany?

Click to expand...

Yes, and consider the shorter distances the B-29 "would have" flown.

Remember however, as the war progressed, it was never intended to send the B-29 to Europe. The B-32 was planned to replace the B-17 and B-24 in Europe.