Mission to Moscow-hypothetics

Graeme said:

'Role play'. What's our 'motivation' for wanting to destroy Moscow?-hypothetically.

Click to expand...

It wasn't hypothetical. During the Berlin crisis of the late 1940s, Truman sent B-29s to England to impress the Russians with the risks they were running by blockading Berlin. As it happens, they weren't Silverplate models, and the U.S. probably had no deployable atomic bombs at the time, but the bluff was there.

What good is a bluff if it can't be carried out?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

London to Moscow is 1359 nautical miles.

Guam to Tokyo is 1354 nautical miles -- and the 29s often went much further than Tokyo.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Cub Driver said:

It wasn't hypothetical. During the Berlin crisis of the late 1940s, Truman sent B-29s to England to impress the Russians with the risks they were running by blockading Berlin. As it happens, they weren't Silverplate models, and the U.S. probably had no deployable atomic bombs at the time, but the bluff was there.

What good is a bluff if it can't be carried out?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Click to expand...

I agree,..but the gents who are constructing this imaginary 'scenario' have picked "August 1945".

Hop, again thanks for the contribution!

The horizontal axis for the central diagram is cruise speed, and we know the fuel capacity of the B-29, so we can derive range. (From the manual, I'd say your first post actually listed a B-29A, while I think we'd have a "plain" B-29 with a slightly larger centre tank. I might be wrong, though.)

Click to expand...

Have You included the fuel burned for distance at specific average gross weight and during climb to altitude? BTW, I had the B-29 f.e.m. cruise chart (in a much worser resolution) and will use this chart (which looks like B-29B to me in every detail), thanks for posting it, Henning.

What we don't know is the actual cowl flap position, but it seems the WW2 aircraft were fairly content with small openings at high altitudes due to the low air temperatures.

Click to expand...

This explenation does not sound correct to me. From my understanding the cooling efficiency is reduced at altitude due to the lower airdensity and thus the lower specific thermal transfer potential of the gases. I find this assumption confirmed in various high altitude piston A/C engeneering instruction manuals.

Cub Driver, The mission profile is vastly different for Tokyo raids and our Moscow raid. The cruise altitudes were pretty low (typically 8.000-18.000ft.), there was escort cover and several emergancy landing fields close by (Iwo Jima, Okinawa). I fear, the mission to Moscow does not enjoi these advantages.

Beside this sceptizism, I would like to see how such a flight can be made. It can be done, sure, but it requires careful planning.
It all bottles down to several question remaining:

1.) What is the presence of VVS forces in august and where.
2.) What is the state of the PVO Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad?
3.) How can the US establish a weatherforecasting for the area in question?
4.) How far can the USAAF provide escort to the B-29 (and thus reducing the cruise altitude for a more economic cruise speed)?
5.) How could the Flightplan look like?
6.) Which weather- / and runwayconditions are necessary for an unproblematic take off?
7.) Which is the best timesetting for the mission (e.g. most part beeing made in darkness)
8.) does the VVS/PVO have high altitude / nightfighters?

It seems that without a proper high altitude weather forecast, the B-29 is forced to fly with lowered radardome (-10 mp/h cruise speed, -9% cruising range) just in order to keep on track with navigational issues.

best regards,
delc

I would like to also point out that the B29's that took off from the Mariana's would cruise at low altitude almost to the Japanese coast, then climb for altitude. This saved them lots of fuel.

This scenario for Moscow might not work, due to the B29 having to maintain mid and high altitude flight profiles to the target.

Delc, Think the weather question could be solved by having a Mosquito Weather Squadron doing Weather Recon over the SU from about the begining of June onwards.

As for flight plan info, here is a link to the site. You can tinker around with it to get the best plan. I tried an egress through the Balkans and it came up an hour longer. So I dumped it. But it is good for getting an idea.

route planner

The VVS did have High Alititude fighters but I do not know about Night Fighters. The Mig 3 was a high altitude fighter from the begining of the war and the US sent Lend Lease P47s over that were used to guard cities in High Altitude profiles. Now that would be something, having the B29 attacked by P47s. There is definitely more to this but the SU and the Russian Federation are pretty close lipped about what went on during the war (beyond the standard Mother Russia Propoganda). On top of that, there is a language barrier.

Most of the Russian info is going to be tough to get.

As for Fighter Escort, I think a P51 could probably make it to Eastern Polish Border from Western France. Maybe further if they left from Northern Italy. But for the last couple hundred miles, this thing is on it's own.

Have you considered bombing at night? Or in twilight or just after sunrise. Of all the options, I think right after sunrise is the best.

Gonna try another shot here. Instead of P-51s how about P-80s? If it was operational and available might negate some of the prob such as radar, intercept, etc. Just a thought.

Hi Syscom, good to have you with us!
I have read this, too. You may read in the internet that Enola Gay proceeded at ~6.000-8.000 ft. cruise altitude until starting the climb, altough I don´t know how credible this is. Can you point me to a source, where I can verify this?

Tim, thanks for the link. Very helpful. The Mosquito PR MK 34 with a total max. range of 3.500 mls. is able to do the job. It may take brief measurements and return, sadly it cannot stay there to observe weather developments, so the information avaiable to the Allies is a sketchy in quality but better than nothing, agreed. Such weather sorties may be misunderstood as high altitude photo missions (the Ju-86 sorties performed by the Luftwaffe) so they do increase the probability that the PVO increases their high altitude interception abilities.
The P-47 was new to me, thanks for the hint. In fact 195 P-47 have been send to the SU!

There was indeed a runway which could have handled a B-29 of any weight! This appeared in a British pilots' chat board, Wittering 5 mile runway -- is it true? - PPRuNe Forums

There used to be 2 grass aerodromes; these were Wittering and nearby Collyweston. In 1943 it was decided to join the two together; this required some tree-felling and ditch filling, but ultimately provided a 3 mile grass runway. This stretched from the Great North Road all the way to Collyweston village.

It was used in the war to recover 'lame ducks' - and by trials organistaions after the war. I think the infamous Me163 conducted various (unpowered!) skid landing trials at the time.

The 9000 ft 'V-bomber' runway was built over the 3-mile grass runway in the 1950s.

Click to expand...

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Hi Delcyros,

>Have You included the fuel burned for distance at specific average gross weight and during climb to altitude?

Yes.

>BTW, I had the B-29 f.e.m. cruise chart (in a much worser resolution) and will use this chart (which looks like B-29B to me in every detail), thanks for posting it, Henning.

Glad I could help How do you determine that it's for a B-29B? The manual only mentions "B-29" and "B-29A" (unless I have missed something).

>This explenation does not sound correct to me. From my understanding the cooling efficiency is reduced at altitude due to the lower airdensity and thus the lower specific thermal transfer potential of the gases. I find this assumption confirmed in various high altitude piston A/C engeneering instruction manuals.

Hm, I was going by comments on the cowl flap position of the Me 109 during tests, and it seems to have been similar in British "radiator suitability" tests. Maybe a question of liquid cooling vs. air cooling, or of mechanical vs. turbo-supercharging? The power curves of the planes I'm referring to certainly fall off below 30000 ft, so that might be the explanation.

>It seems that without a proper high altitude weather forecast, the B-29 is forced to fly with lowered radardome (-10 mp/h cruise speed, -9% cruising range) just in order to keep on track with navigational issues.

I'd think dead reckoning would be accurate enough as long as the radar were available to check some landmarks and to guide the final run-in, so the radome perhaps could be retracted most of the way.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

The f.e.m. cruise controll chart of the B-29 I have a copy from, is actually limited to 120.000lbs gross weight for calculation, Your cruise chart goes up to 130.000lbs and beyond so we can rule the B-29 out. The eagle radardome was installed in silverplate mods and B-29 serially. Both together makes me think it is B-29B related material.

I have so far compiled a map of flight to the target based on our avaiable informations.

Delc, Couple of ideas I had about the mission set up.

Is it possible to run a B17-B24 mission up to Murmansk from Norway (non-occupied part) to draw away high altitude interceptors. Do it over the preceeding month or so.

Also, how about doing the same mission from France to Poland/East Germany with intent of drawing local defenses. Have the B29 come in half an hour behind it. Similar to what they tried with the Schwienfort raid.

Also, if the mission does go at night, send out a fighter sweep towards the returning bomber from N. Italy. Try to suppress defenses.

I think this mission could be done once. But the second time, the Soviets (if they are any good) are going to be waiting for it. Single birds are going to get a lot of attention from the VVS.

Does this mission go as a single. How about a small formation of 4 birds? 3 for escort that peel away at the IP.

Hi Delcyros,

>The f.e.m. cruise controll chart of the B-29 I have a copy from, is actually limited to 120.000lbs gross weight for calculation, Your cruise chart goes up to 130.000lbs and beyond so we can rule the B-29 out. The eagle radardome was installed in silverplate mods and B-29 serially. Both together makes me think it is B-29B related material.

The manual is dated "Revised 1 February, 1945", which seems early for a B-29B.

The manual also states that "the wing center section hold 1315 gallons (1100 in B-29A)". The centre wing redesign was the main difference of the B-29A to the "plain" B-29, and I believe the B-29B aircraft were based on the B-29A and thus would have had the reduced centre wing fuel capacity, too.

(I'm not sure about the radar, but Bell radar of the early B-29 seems to have had a retractable dome. The Eagle might have been retractable, too, but it doesn't look like we can use this for identifying the B-29 subversion.)

What was the weight of a fully loaded "Silverplate", anyway? With gun turrets removed, I'd think it should be much lighter (and better streamlined) than the standard model.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hi Delcyros,

>The f.e.m. cruise controll chart of the B-29 I have a copy from, is actually limited to 120.000lbs gross weight for calculation, Your cruise chart goes up to 130.000lbs and beyond so we can rule the B-29 out. The eagle radardome was installed in silverplate mods and B-29 serially. Both together makes me think it is B-29B related material.

The manual is dated "Revised 1 February, 1945", which seems early for a B-29B.

The manual also states that "the wing center section hold 1315 gallons (1100 in B-29A)". The centre wing redesign was the main difference of the B-29A to the "plain" B-29, and I believe the B-29B aircraft were based on the B-29A and thus would have had the reduced centre wing fuel capacity, too.

(I'm not sure about the radar, but Bell radar of the early B-29 seems to have had a retractable dome. The Eagle might have been retractable, too, but it doesn't look like we can use this for identifying the B-29 subversion.)

What was the weight of a fully loaded "Silverplate", anyway? With gun turrets removed, I'd think it should be much lighter (and better streamlined) than the standard model.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

New fuel efficiency settings for the engines were developed in spring 1945.

Hi Syscom,

>New fuel efficiency settings for the engines were developed in spring 1945.

That's interesting - we should probably use these then. Do you happen to have a cruise control chart for the new settings?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Tibbets statement on Silverplate mods as provided by Dolphinstriker:

"On load and distance tests, Col Tibbets stated crews had taken off at 135,000 lbs. gross load, flown 4300 miles with 10,000 lbs. bomb load, bombed from 32,000 ft., and returned to base with 900 gallons of fuel. This is in excess of the expected target run and further tests will reduce the loading to reach the S.O.P. of 500 gallons of fuel on return."

Click to expand...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/9.pdf

(on top of page 2 for reference)

It is appearent that Enola Gay had a take off gross weight of close to 135.000lbs. The distance to Hiroshima is approx. comparable to the distance to Moscow, but the flight profile, as noted above by Syscom3 was somehow lower.
The take off gross weight of Bocks Car is unknown but should have been around 135.000lbs, too. The mission to Nagasaki was ~2.230 mls distance (Tinian-Yakashima-Kokura-Nagasaki-Okinawa), they were running on fumes with two engines out on their forced landing in Okinawa. Had the 1280 gallons extra fuel in the bomb bay been avaiable (and not unavaibale thanks to a faulty pump), they could have made it back to Iwo Jima.

In any event, if the manual shows revised fuel consumption charts from feb.45, it´s going to be relative to the modifications to B-29 made early in 45 for subsequent attacks on the japanese isles (such as removing of the guns, cleaning the airframe and so on). I don´t think there is substantial difference to the SIlverplate mod. As far as I know, only the B-29A had a reduced center wing fuel capacity of 1100 gallons.

B-17/-24 raids from mid Norway to Murmansk might pe a possibility to draw away some of the PVO´s high altitude interceptors (there are P-47C and P-47-D25, some P-63, one squadron Yak-9PD, one squadron of La-7(1945) and I assume a number of MiG-3 in the PVO Moscow). There is also one squadron equipped with captured Fw-190D somewhere stationed on the Baltic coast (I assume near Courland where they have been captured). But using this way of deception, I would cancel high altitude weather forecast in the Moscow area.

There is another possibility not discussed yet. Assuming a stream of bombers (say 130-200 B-29) cover the nuke model. They do not have bombs (or only the pathfinder group) but instead a full weapon suite and the bomb bays stuffed with fuel tanks. Their task is to provide cover, provide navigational assistance and light up the target area. A possibility?

delcyros said:

There is another possibility not discussed yet. Assuming a stream of bombers (say 130-200 B-29) cover the nuke model. They do not have bombs (or only the pathfinder group) but instead a full weapon suite and the bomb bays stuffed with fuel tanks. Their task is to provide cover, provide navigational assistance and light up the target area. A possibility?

Click to expand...

Delc, was kicking this idea around last night. It has to do with strategy and your idea is right down that path. Does the bombing mission go in with "soft strenght" (a single bomber going in, avoiding the enemy concentrations, high and fast, no escort in the hopes it is not noticed and blows through) or does it go in "hard strength" (going in as a large group, escorted as far as possible with several wings in groups for mutual support). Both have their positive and negative side.

Single can go at night, probably drop ok but have a hairy time on the way out. The mission scheme would be more like RAF nightbombing than USAAF precison mbing. In the RAF method, avoid the enemy and get the bombs on target. Each airplane flew alone. I think the odds are decent it would work.


The multiple bomber method has advantages too. You go in the start of the day and the mission takes all day. The odds that the bomber carrying the bomb will be hit are relatively low (about 2-5% on average). Down side is the Silverplate bird will be on the bomb run alone (imagine 120 B29s going into break away turns as the bomb is dropped, custom made for a military disaster), the Soviets will throw everything they have at it. Not good odds.

If history is any judge, the USAAF wouldn't send the mission in until the defenses were either suppressed or destroyed (as happened in Japan). In the face of a strong, active defense, there wasn't really a plan that I know of. We're kind of writing it here. My guess is the single at night would be the call.

One other question. In your scenario, have the bombs on Japan been dropped? I ask as the Soviets are going to be very interested in a single if the first two bombs were dropped as scheduled. It will probably affect their Air Defense strategies. Given that they only have 10 or so days to react, it may be too short a time. But a single bomber heading for Moscow might get more attention than we formerly thought. Maybe running the weather Mosquitos in on the same mission parameters as the Silverplate aircraft would have is a good idea. Either that, or have the a B29 do the flight once a week to see if it plausable and hopefully lull the Soviets.

Hi everyone,

>What was the weight of a fully loaded "Silverplate", anyway? With gun turrets removed, I'd think it should be much lighter (and better streamlined) than the standard model.

Well, after fine-tuning a B-29 simulator model for the X-Plane simulation to give realistic fuel burn and range, I tried to make the Manston-Moscow-Manston flight with the payload in question. Since the "Silverplate" B-29 is faster than the "turreted" standard model, it turned out that I had 12582 lbs of fuel left when landing back at Manston (even though the #1 engine failed over Latvia on the way out).

Here is the timeline:

22:30 Zulu: Takeoff, 290 at 18, Rwy 10 Manston. 126948 lbs, 43340 lbs fuel, 9107 lbs payload. Differential throttle necessary to keep aligned.
22:36 Zulu: Course 59, 500 fpm, 2400 rpm, 43.5"Hg, Putt Putt off, fuel pumps off, pressurization on
22:40 Zulu: Climb 700 fpm
22:38 Zulu: 10000 ft. Navigation lights off. 53 nm.
23:05 Zulu: 20000 ft. 111 nm.
23:15 Zulu: 26000 ft. 147 nm.
23:18 Zulu: 25000 ft. 160 nm. #4 engine momentary power loss. Fuel pumps on.
23:20 Zulu: 25000 ft. 173 nm. 2200 rpm, 35" Hg cruise setting.
23:50 Zulu: 25000 ft. 314 nm. Kiel NDB received, New course 90
23:56 Zulu: 25000 ft. 347 nm. New course 100
00:05 Zulu: 25000 ft. 386 nm. NDB Kiel overflight. New course 67. IFF off.
00:08 Zulu: 25000 ft. 402 nm. New course 72.
00:12 Zulu: 25000 ft. 402 nm. New course 67.
01:10 Zulu: Climb 500 fpm, 2400 rpm, 43.5" Hg.
01:24 Zulu: 31000 ft, 772 nm. New course 86.
01:27 Zulu: 30000 ft, 791 nm. 2200 rpm, 35" Hg cruise setting.
02:01 Zulu: 30000 ft, 995 nm. Flying over thunderstorms for an hour, tops to 30000 ft.
02:54 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1238 nm. Solid cloud cover.
02:58 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1256 nm. New course 130.
03:00 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1270 nm. 2400 rpm, 43.5" Hg.
03:06 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1302 nm. New course 145.
03:07 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1307 nm. Broken clouds.
03:11 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1326 nm. New course 122.
03:12 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1345 nm. New course 128.
03:14 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1349 nm. Target dead ahead.
03:17 Zulu: 30000 ft, visual drop. 28068 lbs fuel remaining, New course 308. 2600 rpm, full throttle.
03:22 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1390 nm, 2400 rpm, 43.5"Hg
03:27 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1415 nm. New course 270. Solid clouds.
04:00 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1588 nm. 2200 rpm, 35" Hg cruise setting.
04:50 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1832 nm. Broken clouds. Gulf of Riga. New course 240
05:14 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1943 nm. Baltic coast. Engine #1 sputters.
05:20 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1970 nm. Engine #1 loses power, shut down.
05:25 Zulu: 30000 ft, 1988 nm, 2400 rpm, 43.5"Hg
05:31 Zulu: 30000 ft, 2010 nm. Engines run hot, 2400 rpm, 40.0"Hg selected.
06:09 Zulu: 30000 ft, 2175 nm. Passing Bornholm. New course 245
06:25 Zulu: 30000 ft, 2243 nm. Overflight of Rügen. New course 270
06:37 Zulu: 30000 ft, 2302 nm. NDB Kiel received.
06:49 Zulu: 30000 ft, 2356 nm. NDB Kiel overflight. New course 244.
07:01 Zulu: 30000 ft, 2412 nm. Crossing Elbe River estuary.
07:34 Zulu: 30000 ft, 2565 nm. Crossing Dutch Coast near Texel.
07:56 Zulu: 30000 ft, 2672 nm. Sink -1000 fpm.
08:00 Zulu: 27000 ft, 2694 nm. New course 180.
08:03 Zulu: 24000 ft, 2709 nm. Coast of Kent sighted. New course 210.Throttles closed.
08:08 Zulu: 20000 ft, 2727 nm. Overhead Manston. New course 280.
08:13 Zulu: 11500 ft, 2748 nm. New course 100.
08:26 Zulu: Crash landing at Manston (nose wheel did not extend).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi again,

Some graphs ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hohun, why all the course changes on the way out? Are you avoiding concentrations? Just curious.