Could the B-36 been ready by 1945?

[johnbr]

And it was also underpowered when they killed the Lycoming XR-7755. What it need was the Northrop Turbodyne.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The R-7755 would have put out about 700 HP more than the 4360. It would have helped but probably not made a big difference.

 

[renrich]

Tim, I don't think your scenario of an overthrow of Hitler and an armistice with US and Britain and the Soviets continuing the war is that far fetched. Unless I am mistaken it was FDR who insisted on unconditional surrender and that Churchill would have accepted some type of terms with a non Hitler led Germany. Remember, Britain was beginning to scrape the bottom of the manpower barrel and the trench warfare of WW1 was a recurring nightmare to them. I believe that Del is correct that if the German High Command had thought that terms other than unconditional surrender had been available, a concerted and probably successful effort to overthrow Hitler would have taken place.

 

[timshatz]

Ren, agreed. It is possible. The problem with the scenario is that it doesn't end the war, it just reshuffles the deck. At best.

At that point, the SU will doubtless see the Western Allies as traitors and possible enemies. I would assume the terms of such a peace would be the German Armies returning to German soil. That means France and the Low Countries are defacto liberated.

Is it the end of Lend Lease to the Soviets? I don't see the Western Allies joining Germany against the SU but would they give passive support if Germany (and this is stretching it but what the hell) suddenly becomes a democracy and is asking for help in fighting the SU (doubt it but the question would come up)? Would they extend Lend Lease to Germany? Would they allow the shipment and receiving of warstuffs to Germany through Baltic Ports? Through other European ports?

What about Eastern Europe? What about the Poles? They were the ones this whole thing started out over. Do the Germans leave Poland? If so, the SU would move in right away. Hungry and Rummania, what about them?

I'm getting a headache.

In a way, "Unconditional Surrender" made life a lot simpler.

 

[Demetrious]

A myth that refuses to die.

There would have been no invasion of Japan. It is an Island nation that has to import all its raw materials and most of its food.

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if I echo somebody else, but you are correct in saying that Japan would have been starved out quite effectively. Not by submarines, however- by B-29s mining the waters of Japan from the air. The aerial mine-laying operation, in the last months of the war, destroyed something like 90% of all Japanese merchant shipping in an incredibly brief amount of time. It was just barely behind the atom bomb in effectiveness at ending the war.

EDIT: I see I DID echo somebody else, but I'll add that the problem with relying on the starvation technique would likely have- because of the influence of the hardliners in the Japanese Army- resulted in something like near genocide. The possibility of the entire island starving before it surrendered was quite real.

 

[renrich]

I think that a scenario like we are discussing would require a complete change of attitude by FDR. His concern about communism and the SU was not nearly as great as Churchill's. If FDR had changed, a negotiated settlement would have to at least have included Germany having to retreat from all it's conquests along with reparations and would probably have left a confrontation between the SU and the US and Britain which was what happened anyway. Does make one's head spin with all the ramifications.

 

[Graeme]

Sometimes, you just cant push technology any faster than it historically unfolded.

That's the way I see it. Even the basic question of the layout and the number of powerplants wasn't finally resolved by Convair until late November 1941. Up until then it was this...

And even if the B-36 came around in 1945 (drumroll) WHERE IS IT GOING TO TAKE OFF AND LAND FROM!!!!!

I've read that even in the USA there were only three runways capable of supporting it (22 inch thick concrete) but no names were mentioned. Fort Worth would be one? And the other two?

 

[drgondog]

As for the B36, there were some serious teething problems that had to be identified and fixed during actual flight testing.

Regardless of how many resources the AAF could have thrown at an accelerated flight program, it would take time to uncover them all.

I maintain that the B36 would never be operational in 1945.

Sometimes, you just cant push technology any faster than it historically unfolded.

I've researched it in past lives and agree your points.

Although the 4360 didn't even bench test until 1944, there were other problems that needed to be solved in the combined system integration. It had a priority and the first prototype flew about when it was possible to do so given the gestation problems of the XB-36.

In my opinion it would have reached initial stages of production in early 1946 and been delivered with a lot of basic change orders stacking up.

Also - I am not sure that the B-36A/B (or B-35) could have reached design operational altitudes >40K with a 10,000 pound A-Bomb and still make 8,000 miles in 1946 on a reliable basis for operations.

Arguably, perhaps only one in 5 have to get through on a 1 way trip so this isn't a big concern in a death struggle.

Last, but not least - why assume that Germans don't have great (and extended) air defense capabilities west of UK if unmolested by US and RAF in 1943/1944 over Europe... or nuclear capability via surface launched V1 (large scale) combined with type 400 like sub development.

BS suppositions from my persepctive.

 

[Bill G.]

I've read that even in the USA there were only three runways capable of supporting it (22 inch thick concrete) but no names were mentioned. Fort Worth would be one? And the other two?

You are correct. The early B-36's had a single wheel main landing gear. The three bases were Fort Worth, Eglin AFB Florida, and Travis AFB California.

Here is a picture of me (6' 4") standing next to a single wheel landing gear at the Air Force Museum.

Bill G.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Don't forget Lindberg Field in San Diego

 

[Bill G.]

Don't forget Lindberg Field in San Diego

What I typed is from the book, "Convair B-36 Peacemaker, A Photo Chronicle" by Meyers K. Jacobsen. The data was found on page 17.

There were other fields that could handle the B-36 in an emergency. Many other fields became safe with the four wheel main landing gear.

Bill G.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The XC-99 was flown out of Lindberg so I would think it could handle a B-36


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rtVzztv0Hw

 

[Bill G.]

Maybe it could???

The XC-99 started with the single wheel main gear, but was modified so it too had the four wheel main landing gear.

The book shows the first flight from Lindberg Field in a picture. I don't know if Lindberg Field could handle the XC-99 at maximum weight.

The only XC-99 is now at the National Museum of the Air Force in Dayton, Ohio being restored for display. It will take many years to be ready to display. The problem is where will they put it? The three large hangers are full. And after all the time and money to restore the XC-99, it would be a shame to just put it back out in the weather again.

Bill G.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Let's hope some benefactor springs for another hangar!

 

[syscom3]

There's also the issue of training the pilots. The B29 was far simpler compared to the B36, and that program couldn't even get aircraft and personnel trained to minimum standards until early 1944.

And this scenario is going to have bombers this big and complex available in mass production WITH trained aircrews and ground support in 1945?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

B-29 Cockpit

B-36 Cockpit

B-29 Flight engineer station

B-36 Flight Engineer's station (1/3 view)

 

[davparlr]

As for the B36, there were some serious teething problems that had to be identified and fixed during actual flight testing.

Regardless of how many resources the AAF could have thrown at an accelerated flight program, it would take time to uncover them all.

I maintain that the B36 would never be operational in 1945.

Sometimes, you just cant push technology any faster than it historically unfolded.

I don't agree. Technically, other than size, the B-36 was no more advanced than the B-29, and size engineering was well understood by this time. While it required engine development with the associated problems, the B-36 engine did not seem to have significantly more problems than the B-29 engines, maybe less. The B-29 prototype was ordered Sep 40, the B-36, Nov 41. First flight of the B-29 was Sep 41. If the B-36 had been given the equivalent of priority as the B-29, it is not unreasonable for it to fly early 43. Combat ops in late spring, early summer 45 also is not be unreasonable.

 

[davparlr]

I've researched it in past lives and agree your points.

Although the 4360 didn't even bench test until 1944, there were other problems that needed to be solved in the combined system integration. It had a priority and the first prototype flew about when it was possible to do so given the gestation problems of the XB-36.

I have sources that said the XP-72 flew with the 4360 on 2 Feb, 44.

Also, concrete can be laid quite fast in wartime.

 

[renrich]

The B36 was operational before the Korean War, I think, and yet the B29s and B50s were used in that war. Were we saving the B36 for the SU?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The B36 was operational before the Korean War, I think, and yet the B29s and B50s were used in that war. Were we saving the B36 for the SU?

The B-29 was used in actual bombing missions but I do believe a few RB-50s were deployed.