B-29's versus Luftwaffe

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

real curious as to what documented sources state the LW was expecting the B-29 when every LW vet I have chatted with, written, whatever did not even know what the 29 was. Nothing is written in any Reich defense unit history(s) that I have read, and I have read through many in my library data, that even mention the B-29 was forthcoming to German air space.

tell me this is not Galland/Hermann contrived
 
it's not serious thinked that usaaf can deploy same number of B-29 as B-17 and 24, only can deploy or some hundreds take it from PTO or with an other industrial politic some more but with less of other aircrafs (more factory for B-29 need less factory for others)
 

E ~ Certainly a worthwhile question.

It would be more curious to ask how the Germans would a.) Not be aware of the program, b.) Not note its highly visible arrival with intentional low security in UK as they were intentionally flown that route (UK/Africa/Chinato get to China.

Our intelligence purposely suggested that the B-29 arrivals in UK were 'hard to miss' and intentionally done so to give impression to Abwehr intelligence operators in UK and Africa that the B-29s were coming to 8th AF..

I have no idea what Galland/Goering knew about the program - but they were clearly having their hands full with B-17s/24s and Lancs and failed to stop them. The arrival of the B-29 would surely have given Galland more weight in convincing Hitler that the 262 had to be accelerated - but history show Hitler was more interested in offense than air defense of the Reich. Why would the 29 change that attitude?
 
If Germany was losing the fight against the slower and lower flying B-17's and B-24's, I do not see how it can be argued that the Luftwaffe would fare any better against the B-29's had they been deployed in the ETO.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.:|
 
Going back to the "What if" (Germany being able to field large numbers of Ta 152s and Me 262s and delaying the war) I guess that we are forgeting, or perhaps understimating, the allies capacity to create and mass produce an aircraft to counter anything superior the LW would had trowhn at them; P-51Hs P-47Ns and P-80s were on the way when the war ended.
 
Hi Jabberwocky,

>Ah, the USAAF has some prices for various bombers:

Highly interesting! Where did you find this gem of information?

With regard to the price factor to the B-17 and B-24, the B-29 might be more economic than its hardware cost suggests because educating crews was very expensive too, and the capability of delivering more ordnance per crewman per mission, probably with an improved service life due to the better performance, might have made the B-29 the better option, had it been only a question of money to employ them.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Agreed. Replacing the B-17/B-24 with the B-29 is a significant improvement in the 8ths USAAF strategic bombing capabilities. Unfortunately, I still believe that the introduction of the B-29 does not alter anything on the general mistake that the bombers get´s always through. It´s not just the B-29´s it´s the escorts to fight down the Luftwaffe fighter force and I would like to underline this in our discussion. Without them, the B-29 may suffer Schweinfurth / Regensburg losses, too.

Flak would certainly be much less effective - forcing SAM technology - but where was that technology? and if possible to deploy it in 1944 why wasn't it deployed against the 8th AF?
Click to expand...
In 1944 there is no probability for SAM. It maybe would have appeared in 1945. Most SAM programs were cancelled in february 1945 to concentrate on other programs (not much undispersed industry to protect left at this time). I think -and may be wrong with this- that priorities would change with the B-29 -or not.

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.
Click to expand...
The -163 would have been fielded at Leuna and Hamburg synthetic fuel complexes as a point defense interceptor, agreed. I am inclined to think that one of the -163´s problems was the rather rapid approach speed vs- B-17´s, which is now a softer factor versus the faster cruising B-29. I don´t expect to much from this.
 
The biggest problem the Luftwaffe had was the escort fighters, Mustangs and Thunderbolts. The B-17's and B-24's were hit much harder by the LW fighters before continuous escort became normal.

So as long as the USAAC continued having good escort, what plane was dropping the payload wouldn't matter.

However, I think the B-29 would have a much harder time with the intense flak that the Germans could put up over target. I may be wrong, but I don't see the B-29 being able to withstand as much flak damage as the B-17. I would put it more on line with the B-24.

And if it were me, seeing how late the B-29 would be in the game, I would stage them from Italy, not England. Let the 8th AF pound from the North, use the extra range of the B-29 to come from the South.
 
I agree that a fighter escort would still be needed. Why couldn't the fighter escort stay at the highest altitude they can fly at, weather it be a P51 or P47, and come down to meet the Luftwaffe when they rose to meet them.

ME262'S were not available in large enough numbers to really make a dent in the B-17/B-24 numbers, why would that be any different for the B-29. I would dare say that if the US wanted to concentrate production on the B29, I think it would not be too long before they had more then enough bombers to effectively take the place of the B17's and B24's.
 

The B-29 was NOT expected or even known about by the Germans Bill.

As to Ta 152 it was a null factor in 1944 (and 1945), ditto 190D, ditto He 162 ditto, Me 163, etc.
Click to expand...

And there was a reason for that as well, which was that other projects were given priority by Hitler, mistakingly so for him.


Why ? Come on Bill, no'one can answer that question. What would be next ? Do I also have to somehow explain why Hitler chose to give his freezing troops in Stalingrad extra ammunition instead of life important winterclothes ?

Many of the decisions made during the war were anything but smart calculated. Had Hitler for example not delayed or cancelled several projects there's a great possibility that all of Europe would be in German hands. There are countless examples of Hitler screwing up aboslutely major chances for the Germans to turn the tide or even win the war as early as 43. The Germans even had a nuclear program way before anyone else, and the bomb was also suggested, however Hitler shut down the program telling them the war would be over in months not years, so why waste money on such a contrabtion. Well that decision certainly backfired! Hitler also made sure that the Germans weren't fielding jets in full military service already in mid 43.

So in short Hitler might as-well have made a different priority list than he did if he was smart enough, making sure that the jet advanced fighter program got full priority much much earlier on, as-well as cancelling several majorly resource draining pointless projects (such as the MAUS).

By your argument why even resist the B-29 because it was a.) vulnerable, b.) less accuracy at 30,000 feet?
Click to expand...

The B-29 was faster, could carry more bombs, but it would be without effective escort at 35kft, and since it was pressurized much larger than the B-17 it made for an ideal target for the fast German interceptors.

I'd stick with the many B-17 B-24's at 28kft with escorts, it worked well.


Oh I highly disagree, the Germans did infact know NOTHING about the B-29.
 
In April, '44, the Germans were beginning to get their brains bombed out by B-17s and B-24s, flying at 25k and 20k respectively, protected by P-51s. The Germans were desperate to find an answer to this combination and did not succeed until the last quarter of '44 in fielding aircraft that could challenge the P-51D at these altitudes. Now if the Germans could not stop the B-24s and B-17s at these altitudes, how in the world would they stop B-29s at 30k where the performance advantage of the P-51 was even greater?

The bomb loads dropped by the B-17s and B-24s could be handled by 70-75% fewer B-29s, e.g., a thousand plane raid could be handled by 250-300 aircraft, exposing equally less crewmen to combat and allowing a significant increase in concentrations of escort fighters, somewhat offset by increased concentrations of defending forces. In addition, at 20k ft. the German defensive fighters had a significant performance advantage over the bombers, allowing many options in attack strategy for bombers coming and going. At 30k, the advantage is reduced. Going in, the fighter advantage is similar to the older bombers, except climb, but coming out, the B-29 could fly at about 340 mph continuous, giving only about 60 mph overtake to the German fighters, providing much better defensive fire solutions. Fighter climb is about half the rate at 20k. Attack options are limited by slow overtake and poorer altitude performance. Higher altitude also makes antiaircraft fire more difficult, reducing the effective foot print. At 30k, an aircraft would almost have to fly within four miles of an 88 site in order to be hit. At 20k, an aircraft can be hit within six miles of the 88 site. To provide the same coverage at 30k as at 20k, 50% more antiaircraft sites would have to be provided. These are rough estimates but they show the impact of flying higher.


Soren said:
The Me-262's would've shot the B29's down in droves.
Click to expand...
They didn't shoot down B-17/24s in droves, why would they do that to B-29s

Furthermore the introduction of the B-29 to the ETO would've let to nearly all German fightersbeing equipped with the GM-1 boosting system.
Click to expand...
They didn't seem to do that to get an edge on the P-51s defending the B-17/24s, strange.


Huh? The P-51D and P-47D-25 easily out performed their German counterparts at 25-33k from April '44 to September '44.

And forget about the computing gunsight, the B-17's B-24's had that as-well, yet they achieved very poor result in regards to bomber accuracy.
Click to expand...
Do you have data on effectiveness of these computing gunsights
The B-29 would because of the greatly increased operatiin height have an even higher inaccuracy.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how altitude affects accuracy of gun sights, bombsights yes.


No, it would've just let to a lot of B-29's shot down because of a lack of escorts capable of properly defending them.
Click to expand...
Not against the competition in mid '44. Even if so, nitrous was just as easy to put on allied fighters as German.


And that is why they weren't needed in ETO.

drgondog said:
The Fw 190A8 is almost an non factor at 30K and the D-9s are way late.
Click to expand...

The D-9 was formidable up to 25k, but ran out of air above that.


All wise decisions, but would also be too late once the B-29s appeared in the Spring of '44, and, the Allies would probably also pursued support for the B-29 in pushing the P-51H, more P-47M/Ns, P-72 and P-80.


But when one made it through, it was equivalent to three B-17s, so, unless the kill rate was higher than 50%, something never gotten close to, the B-29 still comes out on top.

The B-29 was faster, could carry more bombs, but it would be without effective escort at 35kft, and since it was pressurized much larger than the B-17 making it made for an ideal target for the fast German interceptors.
Click to expand...

The P-47M and N generated 2600 hp, 1400 hp more than the Ta-152H, at 35k ft., add nitrous and better wings and voila. I doubt the AAF would have fielded the B-29 without adequate protection. I think the operating altitude for the B-29 was 30k ft, well within excellent performance envelop of the P-51D and P-47D-25.

As Soren pointed out, high altitude bombing was prone to error and there is no reason to believe the problems the B-29 had over Japan would be less over Europe. It is reasonable to believe that the B-29s would have to fly lower for accuracy, negating some advantages. However, a bomber with the payload and speed, and the defensive improvements, of the B-29 would have certainly been more effective and would have provided nothing but more headaches for the Germans. For the period of April, 1944 to September 1944, there is no reason to believe that the Germans would or could have fielded a high altitude defense faster than they were already trying to do. The more advanced aircraft, such as the Me-262, Fw-190D-9/10/etc, Bf-109K, Ta-152H etc., would have been too late, just as they were with the older bombers.
 
The way I see it there's no way the Allies could've gotten the same number of B-29s to the ETO as they did B-17's B-24's, it was way to expensive a machine. But 'if' were were to imagine they did then we might as-well also imagine the concequences it would've had if Hitler had prioritized differently.

davparlr said:
They didn't shoot down B-17/24s in droves, why would they do that to B-29s
Click to expand...

I think you need to go check your history books again mate cause when'ever there were no escorts available to help the bombers were mauled beyond belief, it was raining metal over Schweinfurt Regensburg in 43.

The escorts helped prevent it getting that bad again however, esp. the P-51 with its very long range and great high alt performance. But the stubborness to keep with the Fw-190A series also helped the Allies. The Anton was simply too sluggish at bomber alts, and it cost it dearly.

davpalr said:
The P-47M and N generated 2600 hp, 1400 hp more than the Ta-152H, at 35k ft., add nitrous and better wings and voila.
Click to expand...

Voila ? That's a serious design revision right there, not something done over night. Besides by the time the new Allied fighters would've been ready for shipment to the ETO the German LW would already be equipped with Ta-152's powered by the Jumo 213 EB engine, and nothing the Allies had in the works came close to this.

But nevermind the propjobs, the Germans would be flying Jumo 004E equipped Me-262s with a performance of way over 900 km/h, 6000 ft/min climb rate 46 to 47 kft ceiling.

And then there's the He-162, an excellent design which sadly suffered from hurried assembly a shortage of proper materials in 45. If Hitler had prioritized differently this a/c would've been built earlier and to much higher standards and with a more powerful version of the BMW engine. And properly assembled He-162's would've proven excellent counter escort fighters, leaving the job of pounding the bombers to the rocket equipped Me-262's.

I doubt the AAF would have fielded the B-29 without adequate protection.
Click to expand...

Prolonging its introduction until Dec 44 or early 45.

I think the operating altitude for the B-29 was 30k ft, well within excellent performance envelop of the P-51D and P-47D-25.
Click to expand...

It was 35kft according to what I've read, and that's higher than desirable considering the huge performance advantage enjoyed by fighters such as the Ta-152H Me-262.
 
Soren said:
Oh I highly disagree, the Germans did infact know NOTHING about the B-29.
Click to expand...

I find that difficult to believe Soren. They must have known. I have a simple Dutch book about aviation, printed in 1943. It does describe the B29. Remember it was written in occupied country. How could this writer know and the German authorities not? Could it be that hey knew about it and ignored the info?
 

The information all comes from the USAAF statistical digest.

There a full upload of its various components at: Army Air Forces Statistical Digest - World War II


There is also a partially complete upload of it at:
United States Army Air Forces in World War II

Gold mine of information there, hundreds of pages of raw stats on operations, losses, groups, personnelle, maintenance, ect, ect,

Both sites can be a little funky at times though. The AFHRA stie used to routinely deny me entry, and the USAAF.net site has a tendency to crash Firefox.
 
The allies "would of" fielded the same amount of B-29s as other bombers deployed, money was no object and the US had the money, resources and the capability to do so. There were thousands of aircraft being built in August 1945 and had the war gone on for a few more years (in the Pacific) you probably would of seen at least 500 B-32s in the Pacific (1500 were ordered) and at least that number of B-29s.
Additionally the B-29D was being developed which eventually became the B-50. 60 were ordered before the war ended but the aircraft wasn't deployed until 1947.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
The allies "would of" fielded the same amount of B-29s as other bombers deployed, money was no object and the US had the money, resources and the capability to do so..
Click to expand...

maybe i don't understand you tell that from summer 44 the US can deployed in ETO many B-29 as many B-17 and 24 they have??
if they can surely they do, they not do because they can't
 
Vincenzo said:
maybe i don't understand you tell that from summer 44 the US can deployed in ETO many B-29 as many B-17 and 24 they have??
if they can surely they do, they not do because they can't
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. The point is the US "could of" fielded the same amounts of B-29 to the ETO - this providing;

1. The aircraft was operational a few years earlier
2. B-17 and B-24 production halted.

By 1946 there probably would of been an additional 1000 B-29s and B-32s in the PTO had the war continued.

The fact that the B-29 was larger and more expensive was irrelevant bottom line is (was) that the capability was there to provide the quantity of aircraft needed to conduct operations during WW2. Aside from the beginning of WW2, I've seen little evidence to show the USAAF was being properly supplied.
 

See above - if you are correct, as hard as it is to believe, then the German intelligence teams in US and UK and Middle East were totally clueless. Most of us do not hold that opinion.

Now, here is the reality. 8th AF made a decison in early 1944 that bringing in B-29s were more disruptive than potentially beneficial - primarily because extensive work needed to be accomplished to lengthen runways and modify service depots and base hangers to take the B-29.. not to mention Wing size deployment was not feasible until summer 1944 at the earliest.

It was agreed that deployment to ETO would start in spring 1945 if needed... and even that decision was recinded in fall 1944.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

PT-19A B-29 testbed
Replies
2
Views
795
Lucio
I
Question on Luftwaffe protocols for missing aircraft??
Replies
17
Views
1K
Snautzer01
S
B-17 in ASW?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
4K
Jugman
J
A
Do we know about how much Luftwaffe jet aircraft other than the Me 262 would cost in today's money?
Replies
0
Views
279
anetos05
A
S
B-29 True Max Speed?
Replies
9
Views
3K
ThomasP
T