If you were a pilot in ww2 which plane would you want to fly

[GrauGeist]

Indeed, any combat aircraft has its dangers when it goes into combat. Warships as well.

Richard B. Frank in his book Downfall - The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire says this, Appendix B, p. 363:

" The material price to the United States in the strategic bombing of Japan was remarkably modest. "
Cited:
414 B-29s for all operations lost
Air crew casualties 2,897 of which 2,148 dead
Air crew captured 334 of which 262 survived
. . . .
Britain's Bomber Command, 8,953 a/c lost and 55,500 air crew killed 1939-45
USAAF in Europe at least 25,000 air crew killed, heavy bomber losses 10,152
. . . .
Granted there were many carrier based sorties against Japan as well, and tactical bombers from Okinawa.

B-29 ops against Japan started in July of '44 in limited numbers from China then ceased in January of '45.
In the Pacific, B-29s started operations from Saipan in October '44 (in limited numbers), then moved to the Marianas in November '44.
It wasn't until February of 1945 that the B-29 was committed in force against Japan.

So the lower numbers of lost B-29s can be summed up by a few factors:
Shorter operational window.
Lower numbers committed for the better part of the year they saw service.
Japanese (Army and Navy) lack of a quantity of dedicated interceptors.
Lack of substantial AA artillery and concentration as well as AA command and control.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the USAAF started bombing operations in August 1942 with B-17s and June 1942 with B-24s.

So the B-17s and B-24s had a higher loss rate due to being in service two and a half years longer, in larger numbers and were against an enemy that had extremely accurate AA artillery as well as Artillery direction and concentration.
Add to this, extremely effective dedicated interceptors and their command and control.

 

[Alan Stevens]

B-29 ops against Japan started in July of '44 in limited numbers from China then ceased in January of '45.
In the Pacific, B-29s started operations from Saipan in October '44 (in limited numbers), then moved to the Marianas in November '44.
It wasn't until February of 1945 that the B-29 was committed in force against Japan.

So the lower numbers of lost B-29s can be summed up by a few factors:
Shorter operational window.
Lower numbers committed for the better part of the year they saw service.
Japanese (Army and Navy) lack of a quantity of dedicated interceptors.
Lack of substantial AA artillery and concentration as well as AA command and control.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the USAAF started bombing operations in August 1942 with B-17s and June 1942 with B-24s.

So the B-17s and B-24s had a higher loss rate due to being in service two and a half years longer, in larger numbers and were against an enemy that had extremely accurate AA artillery as well as Artillery direction and concentration.
Add to this, extremely effective dedicated interceptors and their command and control.

Still, we're talking about a couple orders of magnitude difference.

B-29s rapidly decimated the Japanese air forces and aircraft factories and AA.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Still, we're talking about a couple orders of magnitude difference.

B-29s rapidly decimated the Japanese air forces and aircraft factories and AA.

There were significant differences between German and Japanese building techniques that made Japanese cities much more vulnerable to firebombing as practiced by the Allies over Germany vs the USAAF over Japan. Couple that with the fact that Germany had two-plus years to evolve an air-defense network against both day- and night-bombing indicates to me that, though the -29 was clearly the best heavy bomber of the war, there's an apples-and-oranges comparison happening here.

It took several days of round-the-clock bombings to set Hamburg alight to deadly effect, ditto Dresden, while 334 B-29s killed at least 85,000 in one night over Tokyo -- but those same 334 B-29s, would they have ignited a firestorm in any brick-and-mortar German city, flying low-level against a night-fighter force that was probably the best in the world at that time?

 

[GrauGeist]

The Japanese also had great success in firebombing Chinese cities like Chongding and Changsha because of similar building materials as the Japanese used as well as crowded building layouts.

 

[Alan Stevens]

There were significant differences between German and Japanese building techniques that made Japanese cities much more vulnerable to firebombing as practiced by the Allies over Germany vs the USAAF over Japan. Couple that with the fact that Germany had two-plus years to evolve an air-defense network against both day- and night-bombing indicates to me that, though the -29 was clearly the best heavy bomber of the war, there's an apples-and-oranges comparison happening here.

It took several days of round-the-clock bombings to set Hamburg alight to deadly effect, ditto Dresden, while 334 B-29s killed at least 85,000 in one night over Tokyo -- but those same 334 B-29s, would they have ignited a firestorm in any brick-and-mortar German city, flying low-level against a night-fighter force that was probably the best in the world at that time?

Firestorms were a very rare and unpredictable phenomena.

Tokyo had very high winds that night, about 40 to 60 mph before the raid. That was integral to the formation of a firestorm.

Most of the incendiary raids killed not more than a few thousand people.

 

[GrauGeist]

Firestorms were a very rare and unpredictable phenomena.

Tokyo had very high winds that night, about 40 to 60 mph before the raid. That was integral to the formation of a firestorm.

Most of the incendiary raids killed not more than a few thousand people.

Actually, no.

Kassel: 10,000 dead
Hamburg: 45,000 dead
Schweinemumde: 23,000 dead
Dresden: 25,000 dead
Pforzheim: 21,200
Darmstadt: 12,500 dead
Chongqing: 10,000+ deaths
Etc, etc, etc...

 

[Alan Stevens]

Actually, no.

Kassel: 10,000 dead
Hamburg: 45,000 dead
Schweinemumde: 23,000 dead
Dresden: 25,000 dead
Pforzheim: 21,200
Darmstadt: 12,500 dead
Chongqing: 10,000+ deaths
Etc, etc, etc...

I was referring to Japanese cities.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was referring to Japanese cities.

Even moderate winds were deadly given the high fire-loading of their buildings. And Tokyo wasn't the only firestorm. Forgive the KWiki. but:

XXI Bomber Command followed up the firebombing of Tokyo with similar raids against other major cities. On 11 March 310 B-29s were dispatched against Nagoya. The bombing was spread over a greater area than had been the case at Tokyo, and the attack caused less damage. Nevertheless, 2.05 square miles (5.3 km2​) of buildings were burnt out and no B-29s were lost to the Japanese defenses. On the night of 13/14 March, 274 Superfortresses attacked Osaka and destroyed 8.1 square miles (21 km2​) of the city for the loss of two aircraft. Kobe was the next target in the firebombing campaign, and was attacked by 331 B-29s on the night of 16/17 March. The resulting firestorm destroyed 7 square miles (18 km2​) of the city (equivalent to half its area), killed 8,000 people and rendered 650,000 homeless. Three B-29s were lost. Nagoya was attacked again on the night of 18/19 March, and the B-29s destroyed 2.95 square miles (7.6 km2​) of buildings. Only one Superfortress was shot down during this attack, and all members of its crew were rescued after the aircraft ditched into the sea. This raid marked the end of the first firebombing campaign as XXI Bomber Command had exhausted its supplies of incendiary bombs.[110]​[111]​ The Command's next major operation was an unsuccessful night precision attack on the Mitsubishi aircraft engine factory conducted on the night of 23/24 March; during this operation five of the 251 aircraft dispatched were shot down.[112]​ B-29s also began to drop propaganda leaflets over Japan during March. These leaflets called on Japanese civilians to overthrow their government or face destruction.

Air raids on Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GrauGeist]

It doesn't take "high winds" to create a firestorm.

It takes a highly combustable base with rapid spread and a source of cooler air inflow to create convection.

Once this occurs, the fire behaviour changes rapidly.

In the case of Tokyo, the old section, which was a densely built over area of old wood and bamboo construction burned hot and rapid and being close to canals and the shore, sucked in cooler air and became a beast.

You can see this same behaviour in large wildfires that burn near bodies of water.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It doesn't take "high winds" to create a firestorm.

It takes a highly combustable base with rapid spread and a source of cooler air inflow to create convection.

Once this occurs, the fire behaviour changes rapidly.

In the case of Tokyo, the old section, which was a densely built over area of old wood and bamboo construction burned hot and rapid and being close to canals and the shore, sucked in cooler air and became a beast.

You can see this same behaviour in large wildfires that burn near bodies of water.

Agreed. A firestorm sucks ground-level air in from around the fire as the hot air rises -- because nature abhors a vacuum. With a large source of fuel, winds aren't needed, because the heated updrafts convect themselves. You can start to see tornadoes even in forest fires from this effect.

Winds are needed when the fire-loading is not so prevalent, as in ETO. But even there, as you've pointed out, they did happen --Hamburg had to be stoked by daylight high-explosive raids from Americans to blow the burning stuff -- and the flammable stuff -- all over. That took a couple of days. Brick buildings are more resilient. But they still have wooden joists and framework, and once that stuff is exposed, and enough incendiaries are thrown in once more, you'd best have left already.

 

[Alan Stevens]

Even moderate winds were deadly given the high fire-loading of their buildings. And Tokyo wasn't the only firestorm. Forgive the KWiki. but:

XXI Bomber Command followed up the firebombing of Tokyo with similar raids against other major cities. On 11 March 310 B-29s were dispatched against Nagoya. The bombing was spread over a greater area than had been the case at Tokyo, and the attack caused less damage. Nevertheless, 2.05 square miles (5.3 km2​) of buildings were burnt out and no B-29s were lost to the Japanese defenses. On the night of 13/14 March, 274 Superfortresses attacked Osaka and destroyed 8.1 square miles (21 km2​) of the city for the loss of two aircraft. Kobe was the next target in the firebombing campaign, and was attacked by 331 B-29s on the night of 16/17 March. The resulting firestorm destroyed 7 square miles (18 km2​) of the city (equivalent to half its area), killed 8,000 people and rendered 650,000 homeless. Three B-29s were lost. Nagoya was attacked again on the night of 18/19 March, and the B-29s destroyed 2.95 square miles (7.6 km2​) of buildings. Only one Superfortress was shot down during this attack, and all members of its crew were rescued after the aircraft ditched into the sea. This raid marked the end of the first firebombing campaign as XXI Bomber Command had exhausted its supplies of incendiary bombs.[110]​[111]​ The Command's next major operation was an unsuccessful night precision attack on the Mitsubishi aircraft engine factory conducted on the night of 23/24 March; during this operation five of the 251 aircraft dispatched were shot down.[112]​ B-29s also began to drop propaganda leaflets over Japan during March. These leaflets called on Japanese civilians to overthrow their government or face destruction.

Air raids on Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tokyo and Hiroshima are often cited as the most significant firestorms in Japan during World War II. The Tokyo firebombing on March 9–10, 1945, caused a massive firestorm, killing around 100,000 people and devastating 16 square miles of the city. Hiroshima's atomic bombing on August 6, 1945, also resulted in a firestorm due to the intense heat and blast effects of the nuclear explosion.

Nagasaki's atomic bombing on August 9, 1945, did not result in a firestorm.

While other cities like Nagoya and Osaka experienced severe incendiary bombings, they may not have reached the same scale or intensity to be classified as "true firestorms." The distinction often lies in the self-sustaining wind systems and extreme temperatures that define a firestorm. The sheer tonnage of incendiaries in those other raids did cause widespread fires and destruction over several square miles of area.

My understanding of a "firestorm" is well beyond just a huge fire, even one lit by several thousand tons of incendiary bombs systematically distributed over several square miles of urban area. Literally a huge "fire tornado."

A firestorm is an extreme and self-sustaining fire phenomenon characterized by intense heat, strong winds, and widespread destruction. It occurs when the heat generated by a large fire causes a powerful updraft, drawing in oxygen-rich air from surrounding areas. This creates a feedback loop, where the influx of air feeds the fire, causing it to grow even larger and more intense. The rising hot air and cooler incoming air can also form tornado-like winds, further spreading the flames and exacerbating the destruction.
Key features of a firestorm include:
- Self-perpetuating system: The fire sustains itself by generating winds and drawing in oxygen.
- High temperatures: Extreme heat, capable of igniting nearby structures and vegetation.
- Large-scale destruction: Often associated with urban or forest fires, leading to catastrophic damage.

These phenomena are rare and are typically linked to large-scale events like incendiary bombings (e.g., Tokyo, Dresden) or natural wildfires.

 

[Alan Stevens]

Agreed. A firestorm sucks ground-level air in from around the fire as the hot air rises -- because nature abhors a vacuum. With a large source of fuel, winds aren't needed, because the heated updrafts convect themselves. You can start to see tornadoes even in forest fires from this effect.

Winds are needed when the fire-loading is not so prevalent, as in ETO. But even there, as you've pointed out, they did happen --Hamburg had to be stoked by daylight high-explosive raids from Americans to blow the burning stuff -- and the flammable stuff -- all over. That took a couple of days. Brick buildings are more resilient. But they still have wooden joists and framework, and once that stuff is exposed, and enough incendiaries are thrown in once more, you'd best have left already.

Raids like Hamburg included thousands of tons of general purpose bombs to devastate fire departments and other emergency responders, fill streets with debris to hinder those services, and to punch holes in reinforced roofs -- followed in a few hours by more fleets of bombers to release thousands of tons of incendiaries to take advantage of the above.

 

[GrauGeist]

The RAF had a two-stage bombing strategy:
The Incendiary bomb deliveries were preceeded by HE bomb deliveries (in some cases, "Earthquake" bombs) which would knock the slate, tiles or other roofing off structures in order to expose framework.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The RAF had a two-stage bombing strategy:
The Incendiary bomb deliveries were preceeded by HE bomb deliveries (in some cases, "Earthquake" bombs) which would knock the slate, tiles or other roofing off structures in order to expose framework.

The other thing was that the 4000-lb "Cookies" were dropped to break water mains and hamper fire services. Often RAF heavies would carry one Cookie and then top up carrying capacity with incendiaries. That those heavy HE bombs would also expose flammable framework was a plus.

 

[GrauGeist]

BTW, I am familiar with fire storms.

Especially on a personal level - in 2018, we had a wildfire jump containment and as it approached my city, the cooler Air from the Sacramenton River supercharged the conflagration and generated a massive fire tornado, which tore into the western edge of the city and came within a half mile of my place.

This photo, which was taken before I realized what was hapoening, shows the maelstrom developing to the right.

 

[Zipper730]

The RAF had a two-stage bombing strategy:
The Incendiary bomb deliveries were preceeded by HE bomb deliveries (in some cases, "Earthquake" bombs) which would knock the slate, tiles or other roofing off structures in order to expose framework.

I never knew there were any Tallboys used in an area bombing raid

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I never knew there were any Tallboys used in an area bombing raid

I've only read of them using the Cookies in city raids, but my knowledge isn't comprehensive.

 

[GrauGeist]

It's been years since I read the RAF's oob for the bombing of Dresden.

The first thing that came to mind, was the RAF calculating the effects of earthquake bombs to damage buildings by knocking the slate off rooftops as well as damaging watermains, etc.
This was studied for Operation Thunderclap, which was later modified and put into action for the actual bombing raids.

It turns out that the RAF used 4,000 lb. Blockbusters instead, which achieved the same results.

 

[SaparotRob]

I've only read of them using the Cookies in city raids, but my knowledge isn't comprehensive.

I'm going to have to work up to that.