ETO: US Lancaster/Lincoln vs. B-29/B-32

Perhaps - also consider the first P-38s were just about hand built, almost 40K per unit reduction from 1939 to1944.

Click to expand...

Indeed they were, although the P-51 dropped by about 8k per unit as well during this time frame. The B17 dropped from 371K to 188K, so such a drop in cost of production was the norm.

In years that both were produced we have this ratio of cost from P-38 to P-51

1942 - 2.05/1
1943 - 1.79/1
1944 - 1.88/1

For same radius of action (escort mission, 650 miles), we can observe the ratio in fuel expanded of ~ 7.4:4, for P-38J/L and Merlin Mustang. All in all, if it is not 2000:1000, it is circa 2000:1100 planes purchased and fueled, P-51 vs. P-38.
P-51 armada would need more pilots (not ground crew?), the P-38 pilots would be needing more training, though.

In 1945 a P-61 cost more than a B-17....

One thing I would say in favour of the Lincoln vs the B-29 was that the Lincoln's bomb bay was a bit more flexible and could take bigger bombs, particularly longer bombs.

Aerodynamically the B-29 was far more advanced.

wuzak said:

In 1945 a P-61 cost more than a B-17....

Click to expand...

Probably because of the nav and radar equipment, a beginning trend!

wuzak said:

One thing I would say in favour of the Lincoln vs the B-29 was that the Lincoln's bomb bay was a bit more flexible and could take bigger bombs, particularly longer bombs.

Aerodynamically the B-29 was far more advanced.

Click to expand...

I believe it was the same with the Lancaster - the B-29 had a long bomb bay but it was divided by a bulkhead which had to be removed on the Silverplate aircraft. I believe this was corrected on the B-50.

FLYBOYJ said:

Probably because of the nav and radar equipment, a beginning trend!



I believe it was the same with the Lancaster - the B-29 had a long bomb bay but it was divided by a bulkhead which had to be removed on the Silverplate aircraft. I believe this was corrected on the B-50.

Click to expand...

I understood the B-29 to have 2 bomb bays, similar to the single one in the B-17, divided by the wing centre section.

For the Silverplate mods the normal bomb racks were removed and a suspension frame with single point bomb release installed in the forward bomb bay.

According to Silverplate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the B-50 had to undergo similar modifications, as did the B-36.

Just reading about some B-29 variants, and it seems that the B-54 would have had a single, long bomb bay. This was a much modified B-50 with longer span wings and extended fuselage. But it did not proceed.

Milosh, we flew not only Mosquitoes and SPirtfires, but also Beaufighters, Bf 109's, Fw 190's, A6M Zeros, and every other typoe taht was captured.

The British planes accounted for about 1.6% of our aerial victories. The Axis planes none as they weren't flown in combat.

FLYBOYJ said:

er... The Merlin?

Click to expand...

6 pounder anti tank gun, 20mm cannon, Nene, Sapphire, Spey. The trick is to give it a completely different name and never volunteer that it is a foreign design.

On a different note,
IIRC RAF Bomber Command judged their 'economics' by tonnage of bombs delivered as against crews lost. USAAF judged on missions flown against aeroplanes lost. Thus the USAAF reaction to a target closer to their base was to use the lesser fuel to allow a faster and higher cruise. The RAF reaction was to load in more bombs. The larger RAF bomb bay capacities made this a possible choice. I freely acknowledge that this is a generalised comparison.
An ex RAF Whitley gunner (who must have flown on some of the last Whitley BC flights) staged into Manston and was surprised to find, from returning early B17 crews, that the Whitley was hauling virtually the same bomb load to western Germany as the B17.
I have mentioned before FAA Swordfish pilots pointing out to a proud civilian Boeing B17 engineer in 1941 that they too could deliver over 4,000lb of munitions to the Netherlands with 4 engines. But in their case it involved 8 wings and an awful lot of struts.
My point being that one must be very careful with ensuring your data is not only accurate but relevant, and also allows a direct and meaningful comparison or you will get the right answer, but sadly, to the wrong question. Politicians know this trick only too well.....
The USAAF might want to know how many missions a B29 could carry out and return. RAF Bomber Command might want to know what weight of bombs would a Lincoln crew deliver. Both are relevant questions, but not quite the same. I suspect the USAAF would conclude that a B29 could fly more missions that a Linclon. The RAF could decide that a given crew could drop a greater tonnage from a Lincon.

GregP said:

Milosh, we flew not only Mosquitoes and SPirtfires, but also Beaufighters, Bf 109's, Fw 190's, A6M Zeros, and every other typoe taht was captured.

The British planes accounted for about 1.6% of our aerial victories. The Axis planes none as they weren't flown in combat.

Click to expand...

Scratches head.

The Axis planes were captured. All sides repaired and flew what they captured. We flew a few British planes on operations, mostly in the MTO since they were there in numbers and the MTO was lower on the priority list for new equipment. The very few we flew in the ETRO were mostly PR operations.

But you knew that.

The USAAF started out with Spitfires in the ETO, IIRC.

GregP said:

The Axis planes were captured. All sides repaired and flew what they captured. We flew a few British planes on operations, mostly in the MTO since they were there in numbers and the MTO was lower on the priority list for new equipment. The very few we flew in the ETRO were mostly PR operations.

Click to expand...

Very hard for PR aircraft to contribute to the victory claims.

And it would seem that the USAAF were more than happy to borrow Spitfires for PR even though they had dedicated Lightning F5s available.

What are trying to say, Wayne? Just spit it out.

We already know the US operated a few Spitfires. They didn't contribute much to combat operations due to the uses to which they were put, but did pretty good recon work. A lot of that might have to do with the projected possibilities for replacement and spare parts. British planes were very handy when required and one cannot say they had bad performance.

What do a few PR sorties by Spitfires and Mosquitoes have to do with the Lancaster / Lincoln versus B-29 / B-32 question anyway? There is NO WAY the USA would have used British heavies instead of our own unless both the B-29 and B-32 were shown rather conclusively to be abject failures. In fact, neither one was a failure. The B-32 experienced delivery issues, but performed well once built and delivered. The B-29 had some issues that were solved and it performed brilliantly in combat. With good performance from our own planes, why in the world would anyone think we would adopt British planes? Not possible.

This is nothing short of baffling to me. Spend all that money, create all those jobs, and then just let them go for a plane that doesn't perform as well as our own developed super heavyweight bombers and also has no facilities for production that are presently existing and ready for use? Sounds like a decision that would be political suicide for anyone even suggesting it, whether in a civilian or military organization.

The British would not have bought one single piece of equipment from the USA if they had the production facilities in a state ready to deliver them on time for the expected war needs. That they DID buy some equipment from the USA merely indicates a gap in immediate needs that could not be filled any other way. That same was true in reverse except for a few expedient exceptions to that rule. Expediency in wartime is necessary and implemented as possible by all sides.

Greg,

The US used aircraft from other nations when it had a shortage or a gap in its capabilities. As in when they arrived in the UK they used Spitfires as US aircraft were not up to the task or simply not available at that time (P-47, for example). At least the first 8th AF mission was done with aircraft borrowed from the RAF (albeit Bostons/A-20s).

And you were comparing the value of British aircraft in US service by the contribution they made to victory claims:

GregP said:

Milosh, we flew not only Mosquitoes and SPirtfires, but also Beaufighters, Bf 109's, Fw 190's, A6M Zeros, and every other typoe taht was captured.

The British planes accounted for about 1.6% of our aerial victories. The Axis planes none as they weren't flown in combat.

Click to expand...

Something that is quite difficult for PR and weather recon aircraft to contribute to.

As for the Lancaster, as far as I am aware the only time the US contemplated using the Lancaster was for the nuclear bomb "Thin Man", since it was too long to fit in standard B-29 bomb bay. One was modified for the task, but the Thin Man bomb was cut from the program and that mod became unecessary.

I don't know much about the B-32, other than its program was running late.

I think that the B-29 could have been very effective in the ETO, probably moreso than in the PTO. The conditions on UK bases would certainly have been better and made it easier on the aircraft.

You're telling me, "The US used aircraft from other nations when it had a shortage or a gap in its capabilities."?

I already posted that immediately above your post!

What message are you trying to send me? I don't get it. Not trying to say anything unpleasant, but I don't understand what you are trying to say to me that I didn't already post. I think you're trying to duplicate my post with different words?

Hell, I agree.

Historically, the B-29 and R-3350 programs suffered extended development issues. If not, perhaps they could have been fielded earlier and/or with less mechanical failures.

Historically, the B-32 program suffered program delays and was not fielded in Europe. If not, perhaps they could have begun to replace B-17's and B-24's.

If one assumes that the B-29 and B-32 program issues and delays could not be improved upon, and uses hindsight to accept that B-32's will not be deployed in Europe, then perhaps one might look elsewhere for a B-17/B-24 replacement.

The war in Europe was won about mid-1944 and the rest up until VE day was just making sure it happened by continuing the pressure. By that time, we didn't really need a replacement for the B-17 / B-24 in the war itself, so the B-29 got slated for the PTO and the B-32 was a non-starter due to non-delivery.

We were also flying jets by Oct 1942 and never deployed them anywhere, though we did send a coule of P-80's for tests. One or two to the UK and one or two to Italy. They didn't fly any combat missions.

I decided to look at the use of British aircraft and looked up the Spitfire and the Beaufighter. I can't find the number of sorties flown by US–operated Mosquitoes.

The Spitfire flew 28,981 sorties in US service and the Beaufighter 6,706, for a total of 35,687 sorties.
Combat losses for Spitfires in US service were 191 and we lost 63 Beaufighters for a total of 254 losses.
Spitfires in US service had 259 victories and Beaufighters has 24 for a total of 283 victories.

In WWII, for fighters, the USA flew 927,460 sorties against Germany and 295,415 against Japan for a total of 1,223,875 sorties.

So the total contribution by US-operated British fighters amounts to 2.9% of all sorties, 1.9% of all combat losses, and 1.0% of all victories.

The only fighters we flew less in the ETO than the Spitfire were the A-36 Apache (retired early on), the P-61 Black Widow (late night fighter), and the Beaufighter. We didn't fly the Spitfire in the PTO.

The numbers rather obviously leave out sorties by US-operated Mosquitoes, but they won't make much difference ... maybe in the second or third decimal place. Source for ETO numbers is American Combat Planes by Ray Wagner. Source for Navy PTO numbers is Naval Aviation Combat Statistics for WWII by the US Navy.

GregP said:

The war in Europe was won about mid-1944 and the rest up until VE day was just making sure it happened by continuing the pressure.

Click to expand...

I can't answer for the USA perspective but from the UK perspective in mid 1944, after 5 years of war, we had just got a toehold back on continental soil with no certainty it would be held. The following best part of a years fighting would inflict WW1 type losses on the army and result in a grave shortage of infantry soldiers by the end of the winter so, no, the war in europe was not a given victory by mid 1944. Most of the soldiers to be of the large French army of late 1944 and early 1945 were still under german occupation and Britain was still being bombed until the end. The British public were still being rationed until the mid 1950's.
The point being that we know the end was months away in mid 1944 but people then had no way to know this and the battle for Germany could so easily have gone on into 1946. Especially if the Normandy landings had failed or were contained so planning had to allow for future war needs well beyond 8th May 1945.

OK ... then several more months of war made it so plain that wartime production was ramped down considerably ... in the USA, and we started planning for shifting resources to the PTO. Means about the same thing to me, perhaps not to you and that is just fine. You could be right.

This far after the war, it's all a matter of perspective. So much has been written about it that is wrong, that it makes it hard to separate the real facts from the "made up" so-called facts. I have read many times that the war in the ETO was essentially won by around mid-1944 or so, possibly by September, and that the remaining war in Europe was a foregone conclusion.

Maybe this is one of those "so-called" facts. I was assuming that it was pretty obvious to everyone that once the Allies were firmly established in mainland Europe, the handwriting was on the wall for the outcome.

Prior to that time, the UK, solely on their own, and operating with what equipment they had at the time, had withdrawn from mainland Europe at Dunkirk and had resisted any attempt at invasion of the UK quite successfully/ When they came back and established themselves on the continent, it was with much more equipment, many more men, and with the USA and all the other Allies along with them. The USA didn't make the difference alone ... though we certainly contributed, it was the combined effort of all the Allies.

If it wasn't obvious to everyone by then, and that wasn't all that long after D-Day, then I am at a loss as to what WOULD make it obvious.

Hitler lost on the Russian front when he invaded. He advanced and LOOKED good, outran his supply line, and the Russian winter defeated him. After that time, the Soviets really didn't need much help to win on that front ... they HAD the manpower, better weapons and equipment, better leadership, and were never really in danger after they stopped the initial advance. Good thing there was a lot of Russia in which to do it! ... or the Nazis might have accomplished their goals before winter could save them. There was still a lot of fighting to accomplish, but the outcome was not in doubt after the winter reprieve and re-armament pf the Soviet Union.

Not sure if any other peoples could have accomplished so much in the way of remaking and rearming themselves in the middle if a Russian winter, but obviously the Russians CAN! Lesson: Never attack Russians in winter. They understand winter. Sort of like: Never try to rob a butcher shop at knifepoint. Butchers are better with knives than YOU are. Or: Never try to rob a gun store at gunpoint. The sales force is armed and ready, and half the customers are probably Cops.

Japan was beaten at the time when the first Atomic bomb was dropped and it was obvious to the USA if not to everyone else (and I'm pretty sure it was ...). The intent of that first bomb was to force a surrender and it certainly helped trigger that outcome, undesirable as the rest might have been. The invasion of Japan would never have been in doubt, but would certainly have cost a lot of both Allied and Japanese lives needlessly. At least were all spared THAT eventuality on both sides.