B-36 in 1944

[kitplane01]

Could a hypothetical B-36 flying in 1944 have been shot down by the Germans? Or, could the Americans have shot down a German B-36?

(yes, I know there were no b-36 in 1944. I'm really asking about the capabilities of fighters at that time. Can they attack and even re-attack a target at 43,000 ft, or a target going 430 mph? Can they even catch one).

 

[Conslaw]

Could a hypothetical B-36 flying in 1944 have been shot down by the Germans? Or, could the Americans have shot down a German B-36?

(yes, I know there were no b-36 in 1944. I'm really asking about the capabilities of fighters at that time. Can they attack and even re-attack a target at 43,000 ft, or a target going 430 mph? Can they even catch one).

I don't think either the Allies or the Germans could have shot down a B-36 flying at 43,000 at 430 MPH; however, necessity is the mother of invention. If there was a legitimate threat of a plane flying that high, that fast, coming up with a countermeasure would have been a higher priority. A pressurized, rocket-assisted interceptor would have been theoretically possible, but probably would not have been successful most of the time.

As I understand it, the B-29 and B-36 projects were started at about the same time. Besides the inherent technical difficulties of coming up with an operational B-36, the cost/benefit ratio may not have been high enough even for the US to have accellerated the plane into availability 1944/45. Assume you have a B-36 well-sorted-out in 1944 and bombing a target with conventional bombs from 43,000 feet and 430 mph, the circular area of probability of the fall of the bombs would likely be several times that of the B-17. The cost of the plane would mean you couldn't fly large quantities. All of these are likely reasons the B-36 was not deployed in Korea.

 

[Tkdog]

I'm sure a P-39 could do it.

 

[kitplane01]

I'm sure a P-39 could do it.

Can you say more?

The interceptor would need a excess of speed over the target to make the intercept, and to reattack after the first gun run.

 

[Ovod]

I'm sure a P-39 could do it.

Er, not really, but the P-63 would have had a better chance for sure. Ironically the B-36 would be the sort of target were the 37 mm cannon of Bell aircraft might bring certain advantages - but I suspect a quartet of 20 mm guns would still be better.

 

[Tkdog]

It was a joke, with the abundance of p-39 was a super-plane threads.

More seriously, it would seem like any possible interception would require a very well coordinated defense system to get an interceptor at the right altitude, in the right place, at the right time. The interceptor itself might be the easy part really. By 1944 did anyone have that sort of system other than the British?

 

[GTX]

Not quite the premise here but perhaps some '46 B-36s operating from Canada:

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm sure a P-39 could do it.

If you remove the nose armor, the plane will point up and climb faster, QED.

 

[Shortround6]

The trouble with this is that it proposes using technology for the bomber that is not going to be made available for the fighter/s.

B-36 without the jet engine pods was not a 430mph airplane. Also without the jet engine pods it's ability to cruise at 43,000ft is highly suspect.


No 1944 fighter is going to be able to deal with a 1950/51 bomber.

 

[GrauGeist]

In 1944, maybe the Me163.
In 1945, the Ta152H.
This is assuming that the B-36 is at the originally mentioned 43,000 feet and at 400+ mph.

If it were at 37,000 feet and in late '44 early '45, then add the Me262 and Do335.to the list.

 

[ClayO]

The question would be, "why?" If the goal is to destroy the LW, you're not going to get there by putting up planes that only a few defenders can reach. You can't bomb their airfields, because, as Conslaw pointed out, the bombing accuracy from that height would be atrocious. The B-36 only made sense as a delivery vehicle for an atomic bomb, where the accuracy and radius of destruction would be city-sized.

 

[GrauGeist]

Although a single B-36 could deliver over 72,000 of bombs - at that point, I don't think accuracy would be an issue...

 

[kitplane01]

Again, not really thinking the B-36 in 1944 is going to fly.

Really, I'm wondering what's the highest and fastest thing a WW2 air force can successfully shoot down.

 

[ClayO]

Again, not really thinking the B-36 in 1944 is going to fly.

Really, I'm wondering what's the highest and fastest thing a WW2 air force can successfully shoot down.

You got me started wondering why the Germans didn't invent the surface to air missile instead of wasting all that effort on the V-1 and V-2. They had all of the pieces to put together batteries of ballistic anti-aircraft missiles: rocket motors, stabilization, anti-aircraft radar, etc. They could have used the same aiming and detonation schemes they developed for AAA, but with a much bigger bang when the missile reached its target: a ~2000 lb warhead, like on the V-1, has a blast radius of 400-600 yards and spreads shrapnel over an area more than a mile in diameter. There would have been a number of technical and tactical hurdles to overcome, but SAMs would have solved a lot of problems: lack of avgas and pilots being the main ones.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Germans were working on SAM systems.

Look up "Wasserfall"

 

[Conslaw]

The Germans were working on SAM systems.

Look up "Wasserfall"

The Smithsonian has three German surface to air missiles

Henschel HS 117 Schmetterling

Rheinmetall-Borsig Rheintocher R (two stage)

Enzian E1

They also have the air-to-air Ruhrstahl X4 and the Air to Surface Henschel HS-293

 

[Conslaw]

Wasserfall was an air-to-air version of the V2 (A4) rocket. This site has some interesting information about how the Germans allocated resources to the various projects.

Wasserfall

1944 February 29 - . Launch Site: Peenemuende. Launch Complex: Peenemuende GWO. Launch Pad: GWO?. Launch Vehicle: Wasserfall. FAILURE: Failure.

• Test mission - . Nation: Germany. Agency: Wehrmacht. Apogee: 0 km (0 mi).

1944 March 8 - . Launch Site: Peenemuende. Launch Complex: Peenemuende GWO. Launch Pad: GWO?. Launch Vehicle: Wasserfall.

• Test mission - . Nation: Germany. Agency: Wehrmacht. Apogee: 1.00 km (0.60 mi).

1944 October 30 - . Launch Site: Peenemuende. Launch Complex: Peenemuende. Launch Vehicle: Wasserfall.

• Wasserfall test - . Nation: Germany. Related Persons: Dornberger, Goering. Apogee: 18 km (11 mi). Range: 26 km (16 mi).
  The Wasserfall surface to air missile was launched from a table, as was the V-2. The missile was optically steered to its target, and had a potential range of 26 km and ceiling of 18 km, with a flight speed of 600 m/s. Goering observed the first launch from Test Stand IX. He was immensely fat, wearing a fantastical outfit, downing pills every five minutes, and uninterested in the proceedings. Dornberger ruefully noted that the Reich is losing the war due to the leadership's shortsightedness. They had not accepted Von Braun's rocket plans in 1939 or the Panzerfaust in 1942. They only became interested in the latter when the first American bazooka fell into German hands in Tunisia.

1944 October 30 - . Launch Site: Peenemuende. Launch Vehicle: Wasserfall.

• Nation: Germany. Apogee: 17 km (10 mi).

1944 December 31 - . Launch Site: Peenemuende. Launch Complex: Peenemuende. LV Family: V-2. Launch Vehicle: A-4b, Taifun, Wasserfall.

• Peenemuende rocket team faces the New Year - . Nation: Germany. Related Persons: Hitler.
  It was for them a depressing time. The V-2 came too late to affect the outcome of the war. The years 1939-1942, when Hitler had blocked development and production of the V-2, were lost years. By this time, the Peenemuende staff was allocated as follows: 135 were working on Taifun anti-aircraft barrage rocket; 1940 were working on the V-2; 1220 were working on the Wasserfall surface-to-air missile; 270 were working on the A4b winged V-2; and 660 were in administrative positions. Meanwhile Kammler was constantly underway, trying to deploy the wonder weapons he believed would save the Reich. He could only be met at one-hour meetings at autobahn intersections, on his way from one place to another.

1945 January 27 - . Launch Vehicle: Wasserfall.

• First meeting of Arbeitstab Dornberger in Berlin - . Nation: Germany. Related Persons: Dornberger.
  The group's first priority was to evalute the prospects for rapid development of an effective surface-to-air missile to combat the incessant Allied bombing raids. It had to be beam-riding instead of optically guided, in order to be effective at night and in bad weather. The group found there was no single 'wonder weapon' that would end the war in a few months. But Kammler still believed the Reich still could hold out for six months, enough time to develop and deploy a new weapon. Dornberger's team disagreed, but they had to try nevertheless. Therefore the Schmetterling, Wasserfall, and X4 missiles went into simultaneous final development and production. But realistically none of them could be mature enough to be sent to the front until early 1946. If the Reich could hold out that long, then it was possible it could slowly win back territory.

 

[Conslaw]

You got me started wondering why the Germans didn't invent the surface to air missile instead of wasting all that effort on the V-1 and V-2. They had all of the pieces to put together batteries of ballistic anti-aircraft missiles: rocket motors, stabilization, anti-aircraft radar, etc. They could have used the same aiming and detonation schemes they developed for AAA, but with a much bigger bang when the missile reached its target: a ~2000 lb warhead, like on the V-1, has a blast radius of 400-600 yards and spreads shrapnel over an area more than a mile in diameter. There would have been a number of technical and tactical hurdles to overcome, but SAMs would have solved a lot of problems: lack of avgas and pilots being the main ones.

Talking about a double-edged sword, a rocket with a blast radius of 400-600 yards and shrapnel spreading out a mile in diameter, when that is detonated over an enemy, that's one thing, but when you are sending up a bunch of them to defend against aircraft over your own cities, it seems very foreseeable that pieces of those missiles are going to cause a lot of damage/injury.

I was trying to see if I could get any quantitative information about casualties from anti-aircraft shells. An unreferenced response on Quora said that according the British 25% of German bombing casualties were actually caused by antiaircraft shells. I would like to find better referenced information than that.

 

[special ed]

Similar percentages of stuff coming down over N.Vietnam. After the F-111 raid in N. Africa the news media showed pics and video purporting to show indiscriminate bombing, however the components had Russian writing indicating missile debris. Consider the pieces of debris in a B-36 shootdown.

 

[GrauGeist]

Talking about a double-edged sword, a rocket with a blast radius of 400-600 yards and shrapnel spreading out a mile in diameter, when that is detonated over an enemy, that's one thing, but when you are sending up a bunch of them to defend against aircraft over your own cities, it seems very foreseeable that pieces of those missiles are going to cause a lot of damage/injury.

I was trying to see if I could get any quantitative information about casualties from anti-aircraft shells. An unreferenced response on Quora said that according the British 25% of German bombing casualties were actually caused by antiaircraft shells. I would like to find better referenced information than that.

Check out the "Battle of Los Angeles" to see what AA can do to a city.
The AA barrage only lasted a short while and at the time, there were a limited number of batteries.
So it'll give a fair perspective.