B-36 in 1944

[Shortround6]

spreads shrapnel over an area more than a mile in diameter.

There is a huge difference in getting a few pieces of "shrapnel" to go a 1/2 mile from the explosion point and getting a worthwhile amount of fragments of the right size into each and every "area" a bomber might occupy.
Recovered fragments from a German 88mm shell.

Irregular shaped fragments loose velocity quickly, small fragments loose velocity quicker than large fragments.
V-2 warhead had very little metal for fragmentation.
Trying to get a somewhat even distribution of fragments of sufficient size and number to actually bring down a bomber hundreds of yds from the explosion was a difficult task.

Even He 111s were supposed to have gotten home with several hundred .303 bullet hits.
What kind of warhead do you need to get a hundred or more fragment "hits" on a B-17 5-600 yds from the explosion point?
The German 88mm shell held just under 2lbs of explosives (1000 88 shells for one V-2 warhead?) and the metal part was a bit under 19lbs.

How many bombers were knocked down by the explosion of the bomb load in a bomber in the same formation?
A few? some? planes knocked down a 1/2 mile away?

 

[Jugman]

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.

From at least 300 mile away from a target the B-36A could cruise at 40,000ft and the B-36B at 43,000ft. The B-36 would be practically immune from interception but the dispersal pattern would probably be so bad as to make the endeavor pointless.

This link is about the only ACM that works at these heights.

 

[GrauGeist]

Unless the B-36 followed a similar attack pattern like the He177, where the route to target was at higher altitudes and then started a descent to a lower altitude over target.
Conversely, the B-52s in SEA unloaded at altitude and the large quantity of ordnance being delivered from each bomber saw a considerable saturation of the target area.

Seeing as how a single B-36 could carry a load that was equal to several Lancasters/B-17s/B-24s, a flight of B-36s would easily saturate a target area.

 

[Shortround6]

From at least 300 mile away from a target the B-36A could cruise at 40,000ft and the B-36B at 43,000ft. The B-36 would be practically immune from interception but the dispersal pattern would probably be so bad as to make the endeavor pointless.

This link is about the only ACM that works at these heights.

See: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/B-36A_Peacemaker_CS_-_15_August_1949.pdf

and: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/B-36A_Peacemaker_SAC_-_13_April_1949.pdf

even at 212,000lbs operations at 40,000 ft look dubious. And the speed of 430mph is impossible unless diving.

Combat ceiling is where a single plane can still climb at 500fpm.
Service ceiling is where a single plane (in good condition) can still climb 100fpm while flying straight and level. Even a gentile turn will cause a loss of altitude.
Flying in formation will reduce the ceilings.

 

[ClayO]

The Germans were working on SAM systems.

Look up "Wasserfall"

That was fascinating. They had the right idea, started in time but couldn't get it all working before it was too late.

 

[Tkdog]

Considering it was a decade after the war before systems were really useful the failure is not surprising.

 

[Jugman]

Oh, I agree on the speed absolutely.

I agree that the B-36A could not have flown its intended mission at that altitude but I was thinking more along the lines London to Berlin. I don't really see the need to carry enough fuel to run seven laps from London to Berlin really all that necessary in such a scenario. Even with 72,000lb bomb load you could fly to Berlin and back three times over and have plenty of fuel to spare.

True about formation flying but I don't see any advantage or need to at such altitudes.

 

[GrauGeist]

True about formation flying but I don't see any advantage or need to at such altitudes.

The 128mm, 105mm and 88mm Flak batteries could easily reach the bombers at 40,000 feet, the 128 having a max. range of 48,500+ feet.
A single B-36 would easily be tracked by the Würzburg radar system (commanding the Kömmandogerat aiming system), a flight of B-36s would be easy pickings at any lower altitudes - both by Flak and the regular Sturmbock interceptors.

 

[Milosh]

Depends on which model of the 88.

8.8 cm Flak 41: effective ceiling of 11,300 meters (37,100 ft) and a maximum of 15,000 meters (49,000 ft)
The Flak 41 had the disadvantage of complexity, and was prone to problems with ammunition, empty cases often jamming on extraction. Because of the high cost and complexity of this weapon, the Germans manufactured relatively few of them, 556 in all.

Flak 18, 36 and 37:
effective range 7,620 m (25,000 ft) effective ceiling
Maximum range 11,900 m (39,000 ft) maximum ceiling

 

[hermankeil]

In "The BigShow" Pierre Closterman claims to have shot down a 109 at 46,000 feet flying a Spitfire MK6, I believe.

 

[ClayO]

Considering it was a decade after the war before systems were really useful the failure is not surprising.

On the other hand, they pioneered the cruise missile, long range ballistic missile, video guided bomb and several other things that the rest of the world wouldn't get right until years later (and in the case of ballistic missiles, not with considerable help from former Nazi scientists). So there's not telling what they could have done if they had set their priorities differently.

 

[11bwmech]

The 128mm, 105mm and 88mm Flak batteries could easily reach the bombers at 40,000 feet, the 128 having a max. range of 48,500+ feet.
A single B-36 would easily be tracked by the Würzburg radar system (commanding the Kömmandogerat aiming system), a flight of B-36s would be easy pickings at any lower altitudes - both by Flak and the regular Sturmbock interceptors.

A lot depends on which model of the B-36 you're talking about. The H and J model "lightweights" could exceed 50000 ft. And with a load of 132 500 pound bombs, one aircraft could do a lot of damage, even if not too accurate bombing from altitude. Even jet fighters of the early 50s couldn' get close. And even if they could, the bomber could turn quickly with its high lift wing, leaving the fighter out in left field. With the advent of air-to-air missiles, all that went out the window, of course.

 

[Milosh]

In "The BigShow" Pierre Closterman claims to have shot down a 109 at 46,000 feet flying a Spitfire MK6, I believe.

Take everything he says with a very large dose of salt.

 

[Shortround6]

Will this do???

 

[AMCKen]

The "430mph" is the maximum speed with everything turning and burning. Cruise speed was just 230mph.

 

[Tkdog]

On the other hand, they pioneered the cruise missile, long range ballistic missile, video guided bomb and several other things that the rest of the world wouldn't get right until years later (and in the case of ballistic missiles, not with considerable help from former Nazi scientists). So there's not telling what they could have done if they had set their priorities differently.

Horse puckey. The allies did not develop "V weapons" because they had no need for them. Holding up the Nazi regime as a group of wonder scientists is inaccurate. They tried to push nascent technology so hard because they had no other choice as it was clear early on they were going to lose. So they started throwing Hail Mary passes. The allies did not need to do that. So they didn't.

Once you have air superiority you don't need cruise missiles.

 

[k2keller]

Necessity is the mother of invention. If there was a need, countermeasures were within reach. I'm not saying that a Spitfire is the solution, but here's a parallel scenario:

 

[GrauGeist]

Horse puckey. The allies did not develop "V weapons" because they had no need for them. Holding up the Nazi regime as a group of wonder scientists is inaccurate. They tried to push nascent technology so hard because they had no other choice as it was clear early on they were going to lose. So they started throwing Hail Mary passes. The allies did not need to do that. So they didn't.

Once you have air superiority you don't need cruise missiles.

USN's Interstate TDR - introduced 1944
USN's ASM-N-2 "Bat" - introduced 1944

USAAF's GB-1 - introduced 1943
USAAF's GT-1 - introduced 1944

Plus a long list of prototypes, testbeds and even the JB-2 "loon" which was a copy of the V-1.

So yes, the Americans most certainly did have "V" weapons...

 

[Tkdog]

Fair enough, and signs that if there had been a desire to shoot something like the V-2 back across the channel it could have been done.

 

[Shortround6]

The "430mph" is the maximum speed with everything turning and burning. Cruise speed was just 230mph.

The "burning" part refers to the Jet pods with four JE 47 engines. They didn't show up until the "D" version of the B-36 although 64 B-36Bs were equipped with the jet engine pods. The Prototype "D" flew for the first time on March 26, 1949. First production example flew on July 11, 1949. The last of the converted Bs was redelivered in Feb of 1952.