drgondog
Major
The most favorable outcome was already achieved when the capture of Port Moresby was delayed. Could have lost the Enterprise also.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The most favorable outcome was already achieved when the capture of Port Moresby was delayed. Could have lost the Enterprise also.The cost of the Doolittle raid may have been the Lexington. If the Enterprise was at the Battle of the Coral Sea instead of returning from the Doolittle raid the outcome may have been more favorable to the USN.
I don't believe there any raids by B-24s on mainland Japan at least until the capture of Okinawa. As I noted previously the B-29s could only bomb the western part of Kyushu.Bombing from China with B-29s (and some instances with B-24s) was about the only option at the time.
Aside from damage to the target(s), bombers appearing over the home islands would draw valuable resources from afield in order to bolster defenses.
It would also lend a psychological effect on the workforce (especially night bombing) as well as the fact that now, war is approaching their doorstep.
Since the Allies couldn't use Soviet bases and Alaska and Australia were too far, China was going to have to work for the time being.
Strategically it was certainly a victory. Could have lost the Enterprise but a more likely outcome is that the Shokaku doesn't make it back to Japan. More flight decks should help more than hurt.The most favorable outcome was already achieved when the capture of Port Moresby was delayed. Could have lost the Enterprise also.
Darwin is port so the supply problems couldn't have been that badWhile there were a fair number of air bases strung out along the Stuart Highway south of Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia, they would have needed upgrading for B-29 operations. There would still have been supply problems but with access to the rail line running south from Darwin these would have been less than flying the Hump. But you can't reach Japan as noted above.
There was a series of articles in the adf-serials newsletters in 2020 about these bases.
Thye were not based in China. From Craven and Cate:Are you sure the B-29s based in India weren't operating from foreward operating bases in the Chengtu area of China with fuel and supplies flown in from India?
Also, a one way trip from Australia to Japan is over 4,000 miles one-way. Not even the B-19, with a max. ferry range of 7,700 miles could have made it there and back.
Here's what Craven and Cates says:Right. It was still extraordinarily expensive, and largely ineffective. A better use for that 1943 time period would be attacking the refineries in NEI on a steady basis.
The B-29 groups were based in India, but operated from forward operating bases in China during Operation Matterhorn:Thye were not based in China. From Craven and Cate:
View attachment 668386
I'm not suggesting they bomb Japan at all. Its simply to early for that as a practical matter.
The Author of these comments was certainly not one to volunteer to lead missions under the overcast in the Ruhr or Oil Targets. Even the future Tokyo strikes in March 1945 had the benefit of well defined harbor for radar signature of lead pathpinder ships to mark 'the spot' and virtually zero anti-aircraft or night fighter resistance. ETO would have a a flak dominated bloodbath rivaling Schweinfurt, given fusing boundary of overcast. Who was the author of the memo?Interesting discussions of night bombing
View attachment 668389
This one is from April 5, 1945
View attachment 668390
The USAAF is starting to speak with a British accent.
The Author of these comments was certainly not one to volunteer to lead missions under the overcast in the Ruhr or Oil Targets. Even the future Tokyo strikes in March 1945 had the benefit of well defined harbor for radar signature of lead pathpinder ships to mark 'the spot' and virtually zero anti-aircraft or night fighter resistance. ETO would have a a flak dominated bloodbath rivaling Schweinfurt, given fusing boundary of overcast. Who was the author of the memo?
The following is the schedule for missions using the China bases. It's a 10-day cycle. The only exception I can find is the 3 missions to Formosa on October 14, 16 and 17. In that case the aircraft launched for each mission rapidly declined from 130 to 72 to 30. This cycle also explains why it took 8 months to fly 21 missionsThe B-29 groups were based in India, but operated from forward operating bases in China during Operation Matterhorn:
40th BG, based at Chakulia, India - operated from Hsinching, China.
444th BG, based at Dudhkundi, India - operated from Kwanghan, China.
462nd BG, based at Piardoba, India - operated from Linqiong, China.
468th BG, based at Kalaikunda, India - operated from Pengshan, China.
The attached documents contain a wealth of specific information on B-29 failures including engines starting on page 33.Obviously
And that's my point and as stated; for one reason or another, is not indicated
Because when it's identified, the type of overhaul that was required is when you will get a TRUE indication of engine reliability! For example, you could of had an engine that had low compression, maybe due to bad rings or valves on two cylinders. Rather than repair on the aircraft (which would more than likely be considered a non-routine "repair"), the entire engine was removed and sent to "overhaul."
On the flip side you can have an engine that seized (for one reason or another) and WOULD require a complete teardown, a major "overhaul."
I think you eluded to this as well.
Depending on what part of the engine (continually) fails can be an indicator of issues of design, production quality or even operator error!
Both cases would be counted as "an overhaul" although the first example could have been repaired on the aircraft and it's possible in may cases were.
Until this difference can be identified and quantified (and I doubt it ever can) these overhaul numbers can never be an accurate indicator on how reliable these engines really were during this time period.
Excellent! This is what I was talking about. Take this information and match it against engines sent out for overhaul and it will give a better picture on engine reliability.The attached documents conation a wealth of specific information on B-29 failures including engines starting on page 33.
View attachment 668736
Ahhh, the ultimate bean-counter!Students of the Vietnam War will recognize the name of the Officer in charge of analysis
Reflex sights? We were fitting our planes with the Mk.XIV bombsights?Interesting discussions of night bombing
Some time ago I posted an excerpt from an 8th AF bombing accuracy study which suggested that the Mk.XIV was superior to the Norden in real world conditions.Reflex sights? We were fitting our planes with the Mk.XIV bombsights?
The most obvious advantage of the Mk.XIV was that it didn't require a perfectly level approach to target (it could tolerate slight climb and descent angles), bank angles could be up to 60-degrees before the gyro would tumble, and the impact point could be computed in around 5-10 seconds if I recall. The Norden required a run-in time of around 30 seconds and generally required a straight-in approach, with the gyro only able to tolerate about 18-degrees of bank before it'd tumble (While I don't know if there was a 'push-to-cage' function available for the Norden, the Mk.XIV had such a feature, though the gyro could tolerate bank angles of up to 60-degrees before that'd happen).Some t8me ago Ii posted an excerpt from an 8th AF bombing accuracy study which suggested that the Mk.XIV was superior to the Norden in real world conditions.
My model planes when I ran down the hall making airplane noises.What's a Wind-Run aircraft?