Game changers!

stona · Aug 19, 2016

It's worth mentioning that the German desperation for shipping was largely due to a self inflicted wound. In 1939 Germany had 3, 500,000 GRT of registered blue water and coastal shipping. Almost a third of this, close to 1,000,000 GRT was blockaded in neutral ports at the beginning of the war because the Germans had failed utterly to plan for this possibility.

To put this in perspective, when planning for Sealion, the Germans had available 550,000 GRT of their own shipping, plus another 200,000 GRT of shipping captured in France and the Low Countries. The total available, 750,000 GRT was LESS than the amount blockaded in foreign ports!
The figures are from Schenk/Groener

Whether Sealion was ever an achievable operation is another question, but the lack of foresight, losing nearly a third of the merchant fleet without a shot or torpedo being fired smacks of the sort of lack of long term planning that bedeviled the German effort throughout the entire war.

Cheers

Steve

pinehilljoe · Aug 19, 2016

The more I read this thread, I keep coming back to the B-29.
During the Tokyo Fire Raid, 330 B-29s destroyed 16 sq miles and killed between 60,000 and 125,000 people depending on which estimate is accurate. The subsequent fire raids are well known.
Operation Starvation, 160 B-29s sank 1.25 million tons of shipping in 6 months.

The aircraft was step forward in technology and gave the USAF a capability no other country had. That is a game changing aircraft.

pbehn · Aug 19, 2016

pinehilljoe said:
The more I read this thread, I keep coming back to the B-29.
During the Tokyo Fire Raid, 330 B-29s destroyed 16 sq miles and killed between 60,000 and 125,000 people depending on which estimate is accurate. The subsequent fire raids are well known.
Operation Starvation, 160 B-29s sank 1.25 million tons of shipping in 6 months.

The aircraft was step forward in technology and gave the USAF a capability no other country had. That is a game changing aircraft.

Only in terms of range, bombing and setting fire to cities didnt really change anything.

fastmongrel · Aug 19, 2016

The Silverplate B29s were game changers but in my view only because of the weapon they carried. Nothing was the same afterwards.

Shortround6 · Aug 19, 2016

Some changes are incremental, at what point (or how big) does an increment have to be to be game changer? if ever?
A bomber that carries 10% more bombs 10% further isn't a game changer.
A B-29 could carry the same bomb load as a B-24 (5000lbs) but carry it almost twice as far and do it at higher speeds and higher altitudes. If the B-29 stayed at lower altitudes it could carry almost 2 1/2 times the bomb load almost the same distance as the B-24. Granted it sucked a lot more fuel but the crews were just about the same and the ground crews certainly weren't 2 twice as big per plane. Perhaps that isn't enough of a game changer?

drgondog · Aug 19, 2016

pinehilljoe said:
The more I read this thread, I keep coming back to the B-29.
During the Tokyo Fire Raid, 330 B-29s destroyed 16 sq miles and killed between 60,000 and 125,000 people depending on which estimate is accurate. The subsequent fire raids are well known.
Operation Starvation, 160 B-29s sank 1.25 million tons of shipping in 6 months.

The aircraft was step forward in technology and gave the USAF a capability no other country had. That is a game changing aircraft.

Not disagreeing the impact - but Korea showed that the B-29 was very vulnerable to jet fighters. In that context the me 262 was the 'counter' to the strategic capability. That said, the B-29s range combined with payload, made the night attacks and mine laying capability more efficient, earlier, than B-24s based out of Okinawa and/or Iwo.

stona · Aug 19, 2016

drgondog said:
... the B-29s range combined with payload, made the night attacks and mine laying capability more efficient, earlier, than B-24s based out of Okinawa and/or Iwo.

Yes, which means that they upped the game, not that they changed the game.
Cheers
Steve

pbehn · Aug 19, 2016

The game that changed with the B29 was the loss rate, it and its crew were far too valuable to risk losses of 10 or 20%

Balljoint · Aug 19, 2016

pbehn said:
The game that changed with the B29 was the loss rate, it and its crew were far too valuable to risk losses of 10 or 20%

pbehn · Aug 19, 2016

You just quoted me,nothing else.

GregP · Aug 19, 2016

Boosting the post count, like this post.

Just in case you don't get it, that was a joke, not a ping on balljoint ... I've done that, too.

bobbysocks · Aug 22, 2016

BiffF15 said:
Okay, here is my question / point? If the Swordfish is not a game changer (and I see both sides of this argument / point), then would it be the pilots / airpower? If the Shark would have made the same impact but didn't, then what is the constant in the equation (air crew / air power). Thoughts...

Cheers,
Biff

given that another model of ac could have flown the same sortie with all the limitations or that adaptations could have been made to accommodate that model...I would say it was the pilots/training.....and same degree of luck ( especially with the bismark ). they aircraft did not have to out maneuver and EA to get into position. it went up against flak batteries which would have had the same effect on any other craft. having air superiority due to the lack of EAs opens the success rate up to just about any ac. take off conditions, range, payload become the limiting factors. I think any ac that could operate within those envelopes would have had relatively the same success with the same pilots or those of equal training.

pbehn · Aug 22, 2016

bobbysocks said:
take off conditions, range, payload become the limiting factors. I think any ac that could operate within those envelopes would have had relatively the same success with the same pilots or those of equal training.

My original post about the swordfish made the same point,the fact that the swordfish crippled the Bismark and that it wasn't by any means a high performer meant the game had changed.

bobbysocks · Aug 22, 2016

I don't know if the swordfish could carry the same torp that the kate did but if so I think the same number of SF if flown at pearl ( instead of kates ) could have netted the same result due to the absence of us air cover. after that the speed of the ac would added to the duration between waves and would have played to the defenders. they would have been able to bring more ground fire to bear. they would have still only had a couple of ac to meet the wave.....so the second wave may not have been equal.

pbehn · Aug 22, 2016

bobbysocks said:
I don't know if the swordfish could carry the same torp that the kate did but if so I think the same number of SF if flown at pearl ( instead of kates ) could have netted the same result due to the absence of us air cover. after that the speed of the ac would added to the duration between waves and would have played to the defenders. they would have been able to bring more ground fire to bear. they would have still only had a couple of ac to meet the wave.....so the second wave may not have been equal.

With respect Bobby by that time the game had changed, it is for historians to discuss why Pearl Harbour happened.

pinehilljoe · Sep 7, 2016

Without the B-29 I have to think the War in the Pacific could have been at least one year longer.

Even after the capture of Okinawa, the distance from Kadena to Tokyo is almost 1000 miles. Compare that to London to Berlin about 575 miles. No other plane had the range to strategically attack Japan, and also execute Operation Starvation. It would have been a much longer road to Tokyo without the 29 or a plane with similar performance.

All this is aside from the Bomb, its pure speculation how the Bomb could have been delivered without the B-29.

tomo pauk · Sep 7, 2016

Okinawa to Nagasaki is 470 miles as the crow flies. Okinawa to Hiroshima is 632 miles.
Amami (north to Okinawa) to Nagasaki 303 miles, to Hiroshima is 450 miles.
Within the reach for the B-17s, let alone B-24s, and their escort.

drgondog · Sep 8, 2016

Only the B-29 was capable of carrying the Tall Boy and Fat Man internally. The Lancaster could be adapted to carry under one wing but may not have been able to make Nagasaki from Okinawa because of the huge amount of drag. The B-36 could but wasn't ready.

Additionally, only the B-36 had room for early Thermonuclear weapons until B-47/B-52 came into operations.

parsifal · Sep 8, 2016

bobbysocks said:
I don't know if the swordfish could carry the same torp that the kate did but if so I think the same number of SF if flown at pearl ( instead of kates ) could have netted the same result due to the absence of us air cover. after that the speed of the ac would added to the duration between waves and would have played to the defenders. they would have been able to bring more ground fire to bear. they would have still only had a couple of ac to meet the wave.....so the second wave may not have been equal.

Swordfish could not do quite what the kate could do, but then the RN FAA (certain units at least) had a priceless advantage of being equipped with ASV radar and having other equipment and training for rough weather and night ops. in 1941, there were no other navies capable of that sort of operations, and few other types other than the swordfish.

As far as the ordinance carrying capability, both the Kate and the Swordfish could carry a single 18" torpedo. Neither were oxygen enriched (long lance). The Kates carried Type 91 17.7"torpedoes, with a warhead of 529 lbs. The outstanding thing about these torps was their ruggedness. They could be dropped up to 260 kts from a height exceeding 150 feet. The torps used at Pearl were were mod 2s, with inbuilt stabilisers that greatly assisted their depth settings (the box tails were added as an insurance)

The British torps were the RNs Mkl XII, which had a warhead of around 400lbs, with the torp having better range.
Swordfish had a rated ordinance load of around 2000lb of bombs or rockets, whilst the kate was rated to carry up to 3 551 lb bombs.

both a/ were basically bomb trucks with not enough performance to evade their attackers. Neither had self sealing tanks or armour that I know of. the Kate had significantly more range

wuzak · Sep 8, 2016

drgondog said:
Only the B-29 was capable of carrying the Tall Boy and Fat Man internally. The Lancaster could be adapted to carry under one wing but may not have been able to make Nagasaki from Okinawa because of the huge amount of drag. The B-36 could but wasn't ready.

Additionally, only the B-36 had room for early Thermonuclear weapons until B-47/B-52 came into operations.

Lancasters could carry the Tallboy internally - they did so often enough.

But I think you refer to the Little Boy nuclear device. This was 28" in diameter and 120" long, or 2" less than the 4,000lb HC Cookie and 10" longer. Apart from the American style square box fin tail, Little Boy could fit inside a Mosquito's bulged bomb bay (not that the Mossie would be able to take off with one aboard).

Thin Man was the one that wasn't used against Japan. It was suggested that the Lancaster carry this as its length required much modification to the B-29. The Thin Man was the same diameter as the 12,000lb HC block buster bomb and the 12,000lb Tallboy, longer than the former but shorter than the latter.

Fat Man would be the one that the Lancaster would find difficult to carry, being 14" larger in diameter than the 22,000lb Grand Slam bomb, which required the bomb bay doors to be removed in order for it to fit.

The B-29 did need modifications to carry this bomb also - mainly to do with the bomb racks, I think.

All three were less than the Lancaster's nominal maximum of 14,000lb.

Game changers!

Major

Senior Airman

Colonel

1st Sergeant

Major General

Major

Major

Colonel

Senior Airman

Colonel

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Colonel

Chief Master Sergeant

Colonel

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Colonel

Captain

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads