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

[yulzari]

Forgive me if I came over too strong. Certainly the final outcome of the war was clear by 1943 when the initiative had passed to the allies.

How long it would take to get to that outcome was by no means so clear. By the autumn of 1944 there was confidence that the allies were safely established in the west. The French were rebuilding a substantial army saving the USA from sending even more troops to europe and even the RAF was actively planning and establishing types and modifications for Tiger Force to support the invasion of Japan in 1946.

Remember the Germans retained control of most of the major ports on the Channel coast and the allied armies were on the end of a very extended supply line with generals jockeying for a greater share of these supplies. Especially fuel. A long period of bad weather could have starved front line troops of fuel and ammunition, restricted allied tactical air power and given the Germans a chance to establish a defence in depth with a reserve. The allies could have been forced to divert their forces to reducing the established defences of the channel ports which would have kept them barely able to do more than hold on to the ground they had already taken. Only once the ports should be taken and opened then the chase would be back on. But 6 months later.

Without USA and Commonwealth supplies the Russians would have been one or two years behind in their advances. In such a case the western invasion would have met a far harder resistance, especially after forces had been transferred from the east. The germans managed to hold the allied forces in Italy for nearly three years.

But, to return to the thread topic, differences in US and British tooling, ancilliary components, drawing conventions and stock dimensions make either country need to virtually remake a design from the other, whatever might be the advantages of the other county's design. The only advantage to the USA not going down the B29/B32 route would be that they would know the designs worked. A known quantity.

 

[GregP]

you didn't come across too strongly, and I appreciate your point of view. Your sig says "Europe" and your point of view is probably shared by many in Europe. I'm assuming people in Europe have their own perspective of WWII since the ETO war was largely fought there and the first-hand stories can probably be graphically shown, maybe across the street. Being where it happened often perpetuates the real facts better than being thousands of miles away and reading about it in a book that may or may not enhance the facts with personal bias, and which was probably written by someone who wasn't there.

It's nice to hear a European perspective from a European and discuss the events.

My brother in law was a member of a country Sheriff's Department for 25 years. According to him you can sit three people in a room, put on an act of some crime happening, and you get three different stories about the same event. When you play it back on film, each sees his own version happening again.

Makes me wonder if a history text CAN be written from an unbiased standpoint. Most history texts are the point of view of the victor. The point of view of the side that lost is usually buried in obscurity. I have a history text written 3 years after the American Civil War ended. The story it tells is COMPLETELY different from what we read in a modern textbook.

So, please continue ...

 

[RCAFson]

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.

How many sorties did the USAAF fly in Europe by year?

 

[GregP]

From the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, WWII we have:

1941: 212
1942: 26.688
1943: 365, 940
1944: 1,284,195
1945: 685,765

Total: 2,362,800

That is combat sorties.

 

[RCAFson]

From the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, WWII we have:

1941: 212
1942: 26.688
1943: 365, 940
1944: 1,284,195
1945: 685,765

Total: 2,362,800

That is combat sorties.

Thanks, but, sorry, as I meant fighter combat sorties per year in the ETO.

 

[GregP]

Don't know that I have those numbers ... but I'll check. You check, too.

 

[parsifal]

There is no question in my mind that the Lancaster and Lincoln were both clearly outclassed by the B-29. there was a generational difference in the technology of the competing design.

But neither is this a valid comparison of contemporary designs. the lancaster predated the B-29 by some years, and the lincoln was essentially an adaption of that technology.

A fairer comparison would be to compare the English Electric Canberra to the B-29. Work began on the canberra in January 1944, and prototypes would have been ready for flight by the end of 1945, but for the severe military cutbacks that followed the outbreak of peace. As a comparison between the B-29 and the English Canberra, we have a reasonable competition, and stark variation in aircraft role and concept. I prefer the Canberra philosophy myself.

 

[GregP]

That's funny Parsifal.

Boeing began work on the B-29 concept on its own money in 1938 and the Air Corps issued the spec in 1939. Boeing submitted a proposal along with Consolidated (B-32) in May 1940 and got a go ahead in August 1940. The B-29 prototype flew on 21 Spe 1942.

The Canberra spec didn't appear until well into 1944 and had four years of accelerated wartime development on the B-29. When the B-29 was conceived, nobody in the USA had ever heard of jet engines for bombers and only a very few knew of them at all.

There is no comparison to be made. The Canberra never hauled more than 8,000 pounds of bombs and didn't fly until 1949. They have absolutely nothing in common other than being monoplanes, and their missions could not be farther apart unless one were a helicopter.

That's a good one, Parsifal. I hope it was a joke ...

 

[parsifal]

no, it wasnt, but thinking about it, maybe I should have made it so....

 

[GregP]

It just goes to show that one of one generation's most fearsome heavyweight attackers can be eclipsed by one of a succeeding generation's medium bombers. I'd bet that by the time the Canberra was in service, they were putting WAY more bombs on target than the WWII heavies.

I have never looked into the numbers, but I am assuming the bombsights were much better by 1949 since electronics was advancing much faster than aeronautics was.

 

[nuuumannn]

and the exception to the rule.

Let's not forget the Harrier, too. Again, apart from the first generation AV-8As, the Harrier was Americanised, which the Brits eventually acquired the technology back in the GR.5 onward. The big wing and composite forward fuse, improved range and load carrying capability - all largely due to effort by McAir, although BAe had plans for its own big wing Harrier. Later model Marine Corps Harrier IIs are fitted with radar, which only the British Sea Harrier had. As a fighter with a smaller frame than the Marines ones, the Sea Harriers were the fastest of the breed.

The idea that the United States would operate solely British equipment is flawed for several reasons; one of which is that the British turned to the United States for production capacity from very early on; the US could out produce the British firms by a substantial margin and so Britain equipped its units with American aircraft to suppliment its own in large numbers, quite naturally. Unless American firms undertook production of British aircraft, there was no way that the US could operate solely British equipment. And why would they do that? Despite smaller bomb loads et al, the B-17 and B-24 were fine aircraft that were available in large numbers. Also British and American objectives were different - as Yulzari pointed out, so each side's equipment was built to satisfy each country's objectives.