B-29's versus Luftwaffe

[drgondog]

30k?

Kurfrst - Kurz-Betriebsanleitung fr Flugzeugfhrer und Bodenpersonal fr GM 1-Anlagen in Bf 109 G.

and

The only point I was making Kurfurst is that of all the fighters we have been talking about, only the P-47 Improved performance when going from 25K to 30K (or 35).

There is no question that P-51s and Me 109s can engage and fight at 30K. The question posed is whether the Mustang loses comparitive performance versus the later model 109s in 1944 at that altitude. If so the 1650-9 becomes the standard P-51B and then D engine instead of the 1650-7 in mid to late 1944 instead of being allocated to P-51H production.

There is no question that the Fw 190A7 (and A8) is at a serious comparitive disadvantage to the P-51B (as is with 1650-3) and even the D with 1650-7

 

[Kurfürst]

My point was only that the solution for B-29@30k feet was already available in 1941: GM-1 injection... oddly enough, it was an answer to a question that was not even asked yet, though 190As would find it very useful (and had the capacity already btw for it). Another possibility if the problem was persistant were the DB 628 and 605L.

 

[davparlr]

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 timeline doesn't support your assumption that German high altitude fighters would be available. Here is the timeline that I perceive.
1) April, 1944, an unknown aircraft (per your input) appears over Berlin. The new aircraft flies above most of the defenses. The aircraft is faster and carries far more bombs that previous bombers. This and the earlier appearance of the very capable long range P-51 fighter, cause great concern in the Luftwaffe and Nazi command. Hitler's mind is changed and orders maximum effort to air defense, trials and training of the Me-262 is accelerated, Ta-152, if designed, is ordered into production. Other designs were authorized. High altitude performance options are to be implemented on all fighters.
2) April-August, '44. B-29s, in increasing numbers, along with B-17s and 24s in reducing numbers, and P-51 interdiction, ravage German infrastructure. Except for a few and increasing Me-262s and modified high altitude Bf-109s and Fw-190s, B-29s are basically unchallenged. New air bases in Europe allow easier access to German homeland for interdiction by P-47s and Brit fighters. Due to Me-262 and the new high altitude Bfs and Fws, AAF recognizes high altitude threat to B-29s and expedites advanced fighters, P-51H(P-51B/D w/-9 engine?), P-47M, P-72, P-80, and P-84, and also investigates improving high altitude performance. By August damage done due to bombing twice as high as with previous bombers as B-29 payload make their impact. B-29s fly at lower altitude, 25 to 30k, to improve bombing accuracy and to avoid increasing high altitude threats, losses due to Flak and air intercepts increases but are not significant.
3) September, '44. Allies are pressing Germany from East and West. Me-262 start appearing in increasing numbers but still contends with low level interdiction fighters and raids on bases. Ta-152Hs start to appear in increasing numbers. P-51Hs and P-47Ms appear in great numbers protecting lower altitude bombers protection from Ta-152s. B-29 operations above 30k are risky. All German airfields are under intense interdiction making operations difficult. He-162 starts to appear. P-80s, based in Europe mainland, begin operations over Germany. First flight of the new high altitude XP-47O with nitrous and new high altitude wings occurs.
4) October, '44. New P-47Ms with nitrous appears and raises altitude of protection for bombers. Vast amounts of P-51H (P-51B/D w/-9 eng) and P-47M began arriving. Any German aircraft launching is swarmed by Allied fighters. First jet to jet combat occurs between P-80 and Me-262. Due to unfamiliarity with aircraft and high speed combat by both newly assigned pilots, the outcome inconclusive, the Me-262 is shot down by P-51 while landing. P-72 enters production.
5) November, '44. Germany is losing the war. Rushed into production, P-47O becomes operational, sees little action.
6) December, '44. Due to increase bombing of the B-29s, German resources are non existent. Battle of the Bulge ends before it can get started. German collapse is eminent. War ends April 7, 1945. B-29s helped a bit, notably in less crewmembers lost. The P-72 is cancelled.

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.

Three to four months to design and modify. I suspect the P&W R-2800-57 with an adequate amount of nitrous would make the Jumo look anemic at any equivalent altitude.

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.

Even if started in May, '44, it would have been too late to make any impact.

 

[Erich]

fly in the ointment, the Bf 109G-6/AS is already in service with II./JG 11 and I./JG 3 for high altitude escort work for 30K in April of 44. You're quite right it isn't going to matter the US is going to bomb the crap out of the Reich regardless

 

[Soren]

Davparlr,

The problems with your timeline is that you're leaving out some pretty crucial stuff, such as that by the time the Allies would've recieved their new fighters in Europe the LW would already be fielding Jumo 213 EB engined Ta-152's and Jumo 004E engined Me-262's. And if Hitler had prioritized really well then possibly even at some point in late 44 HeS.011 engined a/c would start to emerge.

Also a fight between a Me-262 and P-80 would probably 9 times out of 10 end in the shoot down of the P-80 as it was slower in all areas besides roll rate compared to the Me-262. (Esp. if the Me-262 was fitted with the 004E engine)

So like I said from the beginning, I don't believe the B-29 would change anything but increase the Allied financial losses. I mean how are the escorts going to both cover the many B-17 B-24 and then also a similar amount of B-29's ? It's out of the question.

I suspect the P&W R-2800-57 with an adequate amount of nitrous would make the Jumo look anemic at any equivalent altitude.

Huh? You must be oblivious to the output of the EB engine and the weight difference between it and the P&W R-2800 engine! For a fighter I'd pick the Jumo engine any day!

 

[Kurfürst]

fly in the ointment, the Bf 109G-6/AS is already in service with II./JG 11 and I./JG 3 for high altitude escort work for 30K in April of 44. You're quite right it isn't going to matter the US is going to bomb the crap out of the Reich regardless

... add to that the high-altitude DB 605AS engines were choosen over the über-high-altitude DB 628 (four speed, two stage) in the automn of 1943 because of greater simplicity, though 150 of the latter was already built and would be no doubt preferred over the AS if such extreme performance would be really needed.

Anyway, there were literally hundreds of GM-1 boosted 109Gs produced by 1944. The B-29 wasn't that hot as far as performance goes, already exsisting fighters could deal with it so I starting to to feel the whole thing is getting overhyped.

Especially as the scenarios that assume the time travel of some very late or even post war aircraft, that also appear just like that, in huge numbers in very small time. Realistically (given the USAAF Stat. Digest figures in HoHun's post), the US could field around a mere hundred or so B-29s in Europe and perhaps 3-400 by late 1944 - far too small scale to change anything, unless supplemented by B-17s/24s, attritition is going to be paralyzing. Over Europe, it wasn't obsolate Japanese Army aircraft with massively deficient attitude performance waiting for it..

 

[HoHun]

Hi Kurfürst,

>... add to that the high-altitude DB 605AS engines were choosen over the über-high-altitude DB 628 (four speed, two stage) in the automn of 1943 because of greater simplicity, though 150 of the latter was already built and would be no doubt preferred over the AS if such extreme performance would be really needed.

Speaking of extreme performance, at which altitude could the B-29 actually operate on a routine basis? The cruise control chart in the B-29 manual I have goes only up to 30000 ft, and the same applies for the climb chart. It's obvious that it has some excess performance at that altitude to allow flight at still higher altitudes, but of course the altitude range included in the manual charts must have been chosen with an eye of the operational requirements - so the cut-off at 30000 ft is a bit suprising.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Kurfürst]

I don't have much on the B-29 (and if so, I cant seem to find it), but I do have Campbell's B-29 book, which has some specs:

5000 lbs over 1600 mile radius at high altitude
12000 lbs over 1600 mile radius at high altitude
20000 lbs maximum over short distances at low altitude

Max level speed 375 mph (600 kph) at 25 000 feet (7620m)
Normal cruising speed 200 to 250 mph (322 to 402 kph)

Service ceilting (weight unspecified) : 31 850 feet

Based on the above, high altitude flights at 30k seem either of very limited effectiveness compared to the size and cost of the plane, and I have some doubts it could operate in practice much in excess of the parameters of existing B-17s and B-24s - having ~32k ceiling does pose question wheter it could be reached by a fully loaded aircraft!
It appears to me cruised a bit faster, but the main advantage was longer range and higher bombload, which would not make interception particularly different, Fortresses and Liberators already cruised at such altitudes like 25 000 feet.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Also a fight between a Me-262 and P-80 would probably 9 times out of 10 end in the shoot down of the P-80 as it was slower in all areas besides roll rate compared to the Me-262. (Esp. if the Me-262 was fitted with the 004E engine)

With inadequately trained Luftwaffe pilots and probably fighting outnumbered 10 to 1 right? The -262 had advantages over the P-80 (at least on paper) but it wasn't a super plane, despite the Wright Pat report and the testing done after the war.

So like I said from the beginning, I don't believe the B-29 would change anything but increase the Allied financial losses.

Soren, you don't seem to understand that money was no object in the US producing war materials in WW2 - because of the tax revenue base created by the government and the money to begin with the US "could of" afforded to continue to send hordes of material and equipment to continue the war, and unlike Germany this was done WITHOUT the benefit of slave labor.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't have much on the B-29 (and if so, I cant seem to find it), but I do have Campbell's B-29 book, which has some specs:

5000 lbs over 1600 mile radius at high altitude
12000 lbs over 1600 mile radius at high altitude
20000 lbs maximum over short distances at low altitude

Max level speed 375 mph (600 kph) at 25 000 feet (7620m)
Normal cruising speed 200 to 250 mph (322 to 402 kph)

Service ceilting (weight unspecified) : 31 850 feet

Based on the above, high altitude flights at 30k seem either of very limited effectiveness compared to the size and cost of the plane, and I have some doubts it could operate in practice much in excess of the parameters of existing B-17s and B-24s - having ~32k ceiling does pose question wheter it could be reached by a fully loaded aircraft!
It appears to me cruised a bit faster, but the main advantage was longer range and higher bombload, which would not make interception particularly different, Fortresses and Liberators already cruised at such altitudes like 25 000 feet.

Real world info on B-29 ops...

The 6th Bomb Group: B-29 Performance

I think we have a flight manual in the tech section that also gives performance figures.

Also remember the aircraft did carry advanced radar and ECM equipment. The "short range" would fall under what B-29 would of had to fly from England to Germany. Remove armament and other equipment during "milk runs" and you could of upped the bomb load to 24K.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi Flyboyj,

>The aircraft was operational a few years earlier

Hm, that looks like a somwhat unrealistic kind of "what if" assumption to me.

If you re-read the original post by Ralphwiggum, it doesn't actually make any statement on B-29 numbers equalling the historical ones of the B-17 and B-24 but simply suggested availability of the type without static a specific time or a certain numerical strength.

I read that and my first post...

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."

But I do repect your comment....

 

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>I read that and my first post...

I read your post #24, but I thought you had just midunderstood Ralphwiggum's post #1 since in post #40 you write "Remember what was said in the beginning here - 'the same amounts of B-29 deployed as B-24s and B-17s.'" If that refers to your post #24 and not to post #1, "the beginning" is a rather misleading choice of words.

Anyway, the prerequisites you outline in post #59 to fulfill the what-if you created in post #24 are impossible for the first, and virtually impossible for the second. One could postulate with equal justification that the Me 262 was operational a few years earlier and Me 109 and Fw 190 production had been halted.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi Flyboyj,

>I read that and my first post...

I read your post #24, but I thought you had just midunderstood Ralphwiggum's post #1 since in post #40 you write "Remember what was said in the beginning here - 'the same amounts of B-29 deployed as B-24s and B-17s.'" If that refers to your post #24 and not to post #1, "the beginning" is a rather misleading choice of words.

Anyway, the prerequisites you outline in post #59 to fulfill the what-if you created in post #24 are impossible for the first, and virtually impossible for the second. One could postulate with equal justification that the Me 262 was operational a few years earlier and Me 109 and Fw 190 production had been halted.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Henning, I'm sorry but after reading that I'm confused!

 

[Messy1]

Germany could not deal with the current numbvers of bombers and fighters, so how could they deal with the B-29's in the same role? If the B29's had been assigned to the ETO, their numbers would have steadily increased, and the B-17's and B-24s would have still been flown, although in decreasing numbers. I agree that their was no clear need for the B29, as their was still huge numbers of B-17 and B-24's available. But I just cannot believe that Germany would be able to deal with the B29 when they had their hands full with the older and slower bombers and their escorts. Germany was losing the war, they were steadily losing the ability to produce adequate numbers of any type fighter to stem the tide of the B17 and B24's. To me it is a forgone conclusion. If they could not cope effectively with the older, slower bombers, how in hell could they cope with the addition of the B29 to the bomber force in ETO.
Another point I'd like to add, if Germany would've/could've started producing more fighters both jet and prop, the Allies would have stepped up ground attacks by fighters on the air bases needed to land and service those new fighters. This also would be a major stumbling block. Although Germany could produce the ME262, and other fighters that were superior to most US designs, they had no hope of outproducing the Allies in the sheer number of fighters. This is basically what lost the war for Germany. They slowly lost the battle of attrition. I have no doubt that if the US started to shift production to the B29, the production of other bombers would have slowed, and all the manpower and materials that was used in producing B17's and B24's would have made a huge jump in B29 production possible. I just finished reading a book about the Naval war in the Pacific, and I read a figure stating the the US produced, and I typing this from memory, either 100 or 200 new destroyers in the span of a year to year and a half during the height of the Pacific war. If they could produce that many ships, imagine how many B29's they could field if the focus had switched to producing B29 almost exclusively. I have no doubt that huge numbers of B29's would have been produced. Money, materials, and a quality workforce were no problems for the US at this time, which is much the opposite of Germany.

 

[syscom3]

There really was no chance the B29's could have been deployed to the ETO in any significant numbers until late 1944.

Because the B29 was already a very high profile program for the AAF and the actual production and crew training rates reflected what was the fastest rates possible, I dont see how you can say the production rates could have been sped up any faster.

Remember that the B29 was a generational leap in design and required a lot of sub contractors to deliver their systems on time, without any problems or "bugs". That was asking a lot and the simple historical reality of this project was "the big production rates were not till 1945".

Also ponder this ..... the assembly plants had to be built from scratch, a work force assembled and trained, and then low rate production begun until everyone knew what to do.

The Mareitta plant didn't reach a sustained production rate of 20 per month until Sept 1944. Omaha didn't reach that until Nov 1944. Renton reached that goal also that month. And this was with the plants having a priority and JCS backing. What makes anyone think this could be improved upon?

I would say that even if the AAF wanted to use the B29's in Europe, then they wouldn't be seen until late 1944 when it would be obvious that vast hordes of existing B17's and B24's were just as effective.

 

[Messy1]

Good points Syscom

 

[drgondog]

There really was no chance the B29's could have been deployed to the ETO in any significant numbers until late 1944.

Because the B29 was already a very high profile program for the AAF and the actual production and crew training rates reflected what was the fastest rates possible, I dont see how you can say the production rates could have been speed up any faster.

Remember that the B29 was a generational leap in design and required a lot of sub contractors to deliver their systems on time, without any problems or "bugs". That was asking a lot and the simple historical reality of this project was "the big production rates were not till 1945".

Also ponder this ..... the assembly plants had to be built from scratch, a work force assembled and trained, and then low rate production begun until everything knew what to do.

The Mareitta plant didn't reach a sustained production rate of 20 per month until Sept 1944. Omaha didn't reach that until Nov 1944. Renton reached that goal also that month. And this was with the plants having a priority and JCS backing. What makes anyone think this could be improved upon?

I would say that even if the AAF wanted to use the B29's in Europe, then they wouldn't be seen until late 1944 when it would be obvious that vast hordes of existing B17's and B24's were just as effective.

all good points Syscom - not to mention either finding 'new places' to build long runways - or shut down existing bases; build the service depots and create the training/spares programs for entirely new engines, for example.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In actuality - right on!

 

[davparlr]

The problems with your timeline is that you're leaving out some pretty crucial stuff, such as that by the time the Allies would've recieved their new fighters in Europe the LW would already be fielding Jumo 213 EB engined Ta-152's and Jumo 004E engined Me-262's. And if Hitler had prioritized really well then possibly even at some point in late 44 HeS.011 engined a/c would start to emerge.

The things you suggest occurring would have had to start happening in '43, not April '44 to be effective. By this time the infrastructure of Germany was already crumbling and fighter sweeps were beginning to occur. After D-Day, short range for air strikes would make German defenses miserable. It didn't matter what technology was fielded, it had to be supported and the means to do this was quickly deteriorating.

Also a fight between a Me-262 and P-80 would probably 9 times out of 10 end in the shoot down of the P-80 as it was slower in all areas besides roll rate compared to the Me-262. (Esp. if the Me-262 was fitted with the 004E engine)

I would like to see your source for this information. What you have quoted before doesn't jive with what data supports, what there is of it. It sounds like some AF brass trying to make a case for congress to spend more money on fighter development. It doesn't matter, the Allies would still out produce Germany and even if the Me-262 out performed the P-80, it would not be enough to overcome the quantity difference.

So like I said from the beginning, I don't believe the B-29 would change anything but increase the Allied financial losses. I mean how are the escorts going to both cover the many B-17 B-24 and then also a similar amount of B-29's ? It's out of the question.

Well, as I've said before, that's why they didn't do it.

Huh? You must be oblivious to the output of the EB engine and the weight difference between it and the P&W R-2800 engine! For a fighter I'd pick the Jumo engine any day!

I don't have any data on the EB, but I do know this. The weight of a R-2800, including turbocharger, as installed in the P-47, is about 3260 lbs and I believe the weight of a Jumo 213 with cooling (an estimate) is about 2500 lbs. I also know that the -57 engine puts out 2800 hp at 33k ft (10k) with a slight drop off to 40k. To be equal to the power-to-weight efficiency of the P&W, the EB must generate at least 2145 hp at 33k. It may, indeed, do this, but since the Jumo 213E1 makes about 1300 hp at 33k, the EB better have one hellacious improvement over the E1! Now, if you can show me a reference that shows the EB making more than 2145 hp at 33k, or show that my weight estimate is substantially off, and I will agree with you. If you cannot, I won't.

 

[pinsog]

I have a question. Back through this thread there are some people stating more or less that the B29 would have been shot down in droves because Hitler would have seen how dangerous the B29 was and developed all these weapons to counteract it like- producing the Me262 as a fighter, developing the Ta152 long before they did, and someone even said developing the SAM(!)missile to shoot it down.

Isn't that like saying "George got killed and eaten by a black bear, but if it had been a grizzly he would have realized how deadly it was and fought it off."?

Less face it, by the middle stages of the war, all Hitler's dogs weren't barking, at least not all together, and he wasn't making the best of decisions. None of his peons were willing to tell him he was wrong so what would really have changed except that a faster higher flying aircraft, carrying more bombs and computer controlled defensive guns was now killing his people?

It wouldn't matter if the P51 and P47 couldn't fight well at 30,000 ft. They would simply patrol in front of and below the B29 and intercept the Germans before they could get up to the B29's altitude.

One more thing, those of you that think the Me262 was the answer to the 30,000 ft B29 question need to study the Me262 alittle better. It didn't do well at extreme altitudes, it had alot of engine trouble up really high. It actually performed better around 25,000 feet or lower.