Was thinking in terms of firepower, not so much atltitude performance.
B-29's versus Luftwaffe
- Thread starter ralphwiggum
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Was thinking in terms of firepower, not so much atltitude performance.
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
Marshall_Stack
Senior Airman
What about the P-38? It had high altitude performance and a fast climb rate and decent concentrated firepower.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Folks there too much speculation and "what ifs" in this scenario. As far as the Me 262 shooting down the B-29 in droves? Well they didn't do that against B-17s and B-24s so if deployed in the name numbers under the scenario that played out in 1945, the outcome "would of" probably been similar, or at least the war ending at least 6 months earlier than it did IMO.
Provided the B-29 would of been developed several years earlier and deployed in the numbers seen with the B-17 and B-24...
Don't forget the B-32 which "should have" been deployed in the spring of 1944. It carried the same normal bomb load as the B-29.
Now lets say the B-29 was in the ETO in the same numbers as the B-17s and B-24s in early 1944 - there probably "would of" been some problems with deployment and tactics, but make no doubt out it - the Luftwaffe would of been dealing with an aircraft which, in an overloaded configuration "could of" been carrying up to a 24,000 pound bomb load with under half the distance it had to fly in the Pacific. Multiply that by the numbers of B-17s and B-24s fielded during the same period and I think its obvious Germany would of probably gotten double the pounding.
Also remember what LeMay did - send out a few hundred B-29s at night. low level, stripped of all guns loaded with incendaries - and again, look at the distance between England and Germany and compare that with Saipan, Iwo or Okinawa and mainland Japan.
Now, should one want to speculate the same scenario with the Me 262 deployed a year earlier in significant numbers, well then I could see the B-29 having its hands full, even with escorting fighters.
Again, too many "what ifs."
Provided the B-29 would of been developed several years earlier and deployed in the numbers seen with the B-17 and B-24...
Don't forget the B-32 which "should have" been deployed in the spring of 1944. It carried the same normal bomb load as the B-29.
Now lets say the B-29 was in the ETO in the same numbers as the B-17s and B-24s in early 1944 - there probably "would of" been some problems with deployment and tactics, but make no doubt out it - the Luftwaffe would of been dealing with an aircraft which, in an overloaded configuration "could of" been carrying up to a 24,000 pound bomb load with under half the distance it had to fly in the Pacific. Multiply that by the numbers of B-17s and B-24s fielded during the same period and I think its obvious Germany would of probably gotten double the pounding.
Also remember what LeMay did - send out a few hundred B-29s at night. low level, stripped of all guns loaded with incendaries - and again, look at the distance between England and Germany and compare that with Saipan, Iwo or Okinawa and mainland Japan.
Now, should one want to speculate the same scenario with the Me 262 deployed a year earlier in significant numbers, well then I could see the B-29 having its hands full, even with escorting fighters.
Again, too many "what ifs."
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
That's the main problem I have with this scenario - availability.
The B-29 was not only much superior to the B-17 and B-24, it was also twice the size of an aircraft, and generally representing much higher technology. It reads that it will take at least 2 times (if not even more!) the effort to build a B-29 than a B-17/24.
At the same time, its not twice as hard to shoot down for the enemy. With - realistically - half the size of a bomber fleet with B-29s, the attrition the Luftwaffe interceptors will cause can be more sensitive. Fewer bombers flying means less massed formations providing mutual fire, less seperate raids that can divide up the defensive force or even even completely evade being intercepted.
To that are also added the lower serviceability rates, the much higher supply train and maintenance and (I think) runway requirements for the larger aircraft.
In brief, I think that because of realistic operational and production reasons, half or third the number of B-29s are not a good alternative for B-17s/24s, even if the overall tonnage that could be potentially delivered in a single raid is equal or greater, even if individual aircraft are more likely to survive. These are IMHO are outweight by the greater sensitivity to attrition, and offering the defending interceptors some very considerate advantages. The high flying height can be of course beneficial for reducing losses, but it will also reduce the accuracy of bombing, and in the end, the effective destruction brought to enemy targets.
Erich
the old Sage
depending on when in the air war theater in a most case scenario the LW would of pushed for the development of ground to air rocket system interception
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
From what I can find, the cost in manpower and resources required for construction of a B-29 was something on the order of 2.5-3 times that of a B-17 and about 2 times that of a B-24 (which, at the time of its first flight, was the most technically complex bomber in existence).
Ah, the USAAF has some prices for various bombers:
Cost of a B-17 goes from $301,221 in 1941 to $258,949 in 1942, $204,370 in 1944 and $187,742 in 1945 (1943 is blank).
B-24 does something quite similar: $379,162 in 1941, $304,391 in 1942 and $215,516 in 1944 (1943 and 1945 blank)
B-29 cost plummets as production ramps up. From a cost of $893,730 in 1942 (no earlier figure) to $605,360 in 1944 (ie, almost 50% price drop over two years) and $509,465 in 1945 (1943 blank again).
So, in 1944 a B-29 cost 2.95 times that of a B-17 and 2.8 times that of a B-24. By 1945 this would be some what lower, but not substantially so. Cost multiple is down to 2.7 times that of a B-17, no data for B-24, but averge yearly cost reduction is about $40,000 so guesstimation is about 2.5 times multiple).
To put this in comparison, in 1944 a P-47 cost $85,575, a P-51 cost $51,572 and a P-38 cost $97,147.
Meaning that in 1944, you could buy almost a squadron of P-51s for the price of a single B-29
The other thing about the B-29 in Europe scenario is what use is it?
Seriously, its a Very Long Range/Very Heavy bomber. Why bother, when bases in England and Italy are at most a 1200 mile round trip from any potential target that the Allies could wish to strike? The B-29 makes much more sense in the vastness of the Pacific.
The British are fulfilling the Very Heavy Bomber role with their Lancasters and Halifaxes anyway. 10-14,000 lbs bomb loads are nothing to be snorted at.
Ah, the USAAF has some prices for various bombers:
Cost of a B-17 goes from $301,221 in 1941 to $258,949 in 1942, $204,370 in 1944 and $187,742 in 1945 (1943 is blank).
B-24 does something quite similar: $379,162 in 1941, $304,391 in 1942 and $215,516 in 1944 (1943 and 1945 blank)
B-29 cost plummets as production ramps up. From a cost of $893,730 in 1942 (no earlier figure) to $605,360 in 1944 (ie, almost 50% price drop over two years) and $509,465 in 1945 (1943 blank again).
So, in 1944 a B-29 cost 2.95 times that of a B-17 and 2.8 times that of a B-24. By 1945 this would be some what lower, but not substantially so. Cost multiple is down to 2.7 times that of a B-17, no data for B-24, but averge yearly cost reduction is about $40,000 so guesstimation is about 2.5 times multiple).
To put this in comparison, in 1944 a P-47 cost $85,575, a P-51 cost $51,572 and a P-38 cost $97,147.
Meaning that in 1944, you could buy almost a squadron of P-51s for the price of a single B-29
The other thing about the B-29 in Europe scenario is what use is it?
Seriously, its a Very Long Range/Very Heavy bomber. Why bother, when bases in England and Italy are at most a 1200 mile round trip from any potential target that the Allies could wish to strike? The B-29 makes much more sense in the vastness of the Pacific.
The British are fulfilling the Very Heavy Bomber role with their Lancasters and Halifaxes anyway. 10-14,000 lbs bomb loads are nothing to be snorted at.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Little addenum to my last post.
I always wondered if the performance figures for the He 277 weren't somewhat inflated.
At loaded weight it has higher wing loading and lower power to weight than the B-29, and (according to commonly published data) cruises faster, with a heavier bombload and has a 50% higher ceiling, all without the benefit of turbosupercharged engines.
I understand that the high wingloading will help with speed, but surely something is a little wrong here. Just how much flight testing was actually done?
Also, anyone know just what type of DB 603s it used? Critical alt for the 603A was about 5,700 m, and about 7000 m for the 603 E. Can't see either of those pushing the 277 to 15,000 m
I always wondered if the performance figures for the He 277 weren't somewhat inflated.
At loaded weight it has higher wing loading and lower power to weight than the B-29, and (according to commonly published data) cruises faster, with a heavier bombload and has a 50% higher ceiling, all without the benefit of turbosupercharged engines.
I understand that the high wingloading will help with speed, but surely something is a little wrong here. Just how much flight testing was actually done?
Also, anyone know just what type of DB 603s it used? Critical alt for the 603A was about 5,700 m, and about 7000 m for the 603 E. Can't see either of those pushing the 277 to 15,000 m
Good post. Pretty much dead on.
drgondog
Major
i agree to much variables and what not
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
A bomber operating from a ceiling of 30K would likely encounter the same problems over europe as had the B-29 over Japan. The by then unknown jet stream effect would either lead to a reduced bombing altitude or a greatly reduced bombing accuracy from 30K, something which couldn´t be cured given the period knowledge of the phenomen and weather forecast methods.
That´s a very important concern with strategic consequences esspeccially for the oil bombing campaign of 1944, where precision bombing is a very important consideration for success. Poor accuracy from high altitude bombing eventually compromised the B-29´s effectiveness over Japan and led to the adoption of low altitude bombing with increased bombload.
The P-47 would have been extremely effective and a very tough opposition for any of the Luftwaffe fighters, particularely the Fw-190A without GM-1 injection but on the other hand the B-29 conditions (high ceiling, high cruise speed) are more to the taste of some of the historically more unsuccefful interceptors fielded by the Luftwaffe in mid 44, the Me-163B. -Given that they had have a good ground controller to vector them with their radars to the bomber stream. It´s also more likely that the Me-262 would be pressed into the interceptor role operating from central Germany instead into the bomber / recon role operating from France and northern Germany, esspeccially if other Luftwaffe fighters are found to be ineffective versus the B-29.
Flak would have to improve to FALK/41 standarts and the liklyhood that SAM missiles will be considered for mass produced increases, too.
The B-29 in operations over Europe may turned out to be very different from operations over the Pacific for bomber escort operations, resulting perhaps in a different charackter of aerial bombing than those experienced by all sides.
That´s a very important concern with strategic consequences esspeccially for the oil bombing campaign of 1944, where precision bombing is a very important consideration for success. Poor accuracy from high altitude bombing eventually compromised the B-29´s effectiveness over Japan and led to the adoption of low altitude bombing with increased bombload.
The P-47 would have been extremely effective and a very tough opposition for any of the Luftwaffe fighters, particularely the Fw-190A without GM-1 injection but on the other hand the B-29 conditions (high ceiling, high cruise speed) are more to the taste of some of the historically more unsuccefful interceptors fielded by the Luftwaffe in mid 44, the Me-163B. -Given that they had have a good ground controller to vector them with their radars to the bomber stream. It´s also more likely that the Me-262 would be pressed into the interceptor role operating from central Germany instead into the bomber / recon role operating from France and northern Germany, esspeccially if other Luftwaffe fighters are found to be ineffective versus the B-29.
Flak would have to improve to FALK/41 standarts and the liklyhood that SAM missiles will be considered for mass produced increases, too.
The B-29 in operations over Europe may turned out to be very different from operations over the Pacific for bomber escort operations, resulting perhaps in a different charackter of aerial bombing than those experienced by all sides.
drgondog
Major
I believe the most likely success scenario against everything the LW fielded (as contrast with 'what if') would have been an introduction into night bombing role initially because of few numbers and disparate performance characteristics in formation flying with B-24/B-17s... until the force built up to Division level of 10+ wings where they presumably could be tasked individually and escorted more effectively.
The wildcard is USAAF leaders were absolutely dedicated to daylight bombing and shifting tactics would have been inconceivable, politically.
Only Curt LeMay's reputation as a problem solver and direct chain of command to Joint Chiefs enabled the change to low level night raids over Japan. Would that have occurred in ETO? Would daylight raids have to reach a prohibitive level to force the change - and what would be different to make the B-29 more vulnerable to LW. It would have started at 28-30K and tested ability of LW to effectively stop them.
Hard to figure out just how fast the LW could have changed course with any effective measures to adapt to B-29 performance.
The 163 had such short range that it was almost a point defensive capability and would have to be deployed much closer to individual and critical targets.
The 262 was a more promising answer but why would Hitler change his focus - even when the 8th AF with only B-17s and B-24s was systematically dismantling German industry? The B-29 was evolutionary not revolutionary. It's primary benefit was speed, range and ceiling. With the huge increase in load and speed it would be more effective per aircraft by far than a B-17 at the same altitudes.
Had the B-29 entered service in the ETO then I see the Germans completely prioritizing the production of a/c like the Me-262, Ta-152 He-162. Fw-190A production would'v probably been completely haulted and all resources given to the contruction of the Ta-152, while Bf-109 production will be haulted in favour of the Me-262. The Ta-152H would've undoubtedly proven a true menace, esp. at high altitudes, the Allies having no a/c to effectively combat it. In 10min it was already at 10km height, and it could easily cruise up above the escorts maximum ceiling and come screaming down on the bombers without fear of reprisals.
So I think it would've been a wise move not to introduce the B-29 to the ETO to replace the B-17 B-24's. Sure it has a higher bombload, but its bombs will be scattered significantly more, and all hopes of effectively attacking key production areas will be lost.
In Japan in worked because the Japanese had nearly no a/c to effectively intercept the B-29, but in Germany its an entirely different matter. And because of the expense of the B-29 not as many would've been deployed, and for every B-29 shot down, you've lost the equal to 3 B-17's.
So I think it would've been a wise move not to introduce the B-29 to the ETO to replace the B-17 B-24's. Sure it has a higher bombload, but its bombs will be scattered significantly more, and all hopes of effectively attacking key production areas will be lost.
In Japan in worked because the Japanese had nearly no a/c to effectively intercept the B-29, but in Germany its an entirely different matter. And because of the expense of the B-29 not as many would've been deployed, and for every B-29 shot down, you've lost the equal to 3 B-17's.
The performance figures are quite true and all thanks to a/c engine design. The wings were long and slender, the engines were fitted with the GM-1 boost system and geared for high alt flight. This allowed a ceiling of 15km, nearly as high as the Ta-152H's 15.1 km ceiling.
I believe the 15km ceiling was reached without a bombload though by one of the prototype a/c.
i think that 90000 are too light, maybe good for return fly but it's best intercet the bomber in go fly
Erich
the old Sage
the Ta 152H was designed to face the P-51D/K not as a bomber killer, the He 163 was out of the question as a bomber destroyer, masses of Me 262's with R4M's and the steps upwards in rocket design would have been used, indeed the facement of a more advanced US high alt. bomber type would of pressed towards jets of swept wing variety
am not sure where this thing is going as a huge what-if, we already talked about this last year or the year before
am not sure where this thing is going as a huge what-if, we already talked about this last year or the year before
drgondog
Major
Maybe 2x on cost and same as B-17 on crews but 3x bigger bomb load.
Soren - It's all speculation but the biggest flaw in your argument is that the Luftwaffe EXPECTED the B-29, feared its additional capabilities and yet failed to deploy anything to effectively resist it (i.e more effective than what they actually put up against B-17) had it actually arrived in ETO in 1944.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Speculation...
Why would its bombs be "scattered" if it was bombing at the same altitudes as the B-17 or B-24 using the same bombsight?
Remember what was said in the beginning here - "the same amounts of B-29 deployed as B-24s and B-17s." It's only speculation if the Luftwaffe "would of" made more of an effort to field more aircraft like the Ta 152 or aircraft that could counter the B-29. Possibly.
IMO the quantity of bombers deployed would not of been a factor. In fact for every B-17 and B-24 deployed in the ETO it was planned to replace them with the B-32.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)