Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[TheMadPenguin]

The B-29 did have its fair share of issues as any new advanced technology does (then and now). The kinks were worked out and overall it was a fine design more capable than any bomber to see service in the war.

I didn't diss the plane, I dissed the HYPE. That's what this thread is about, yes? The folks who said the P-51 was over-hyped didn't say it wasn't a marvelous plane. Neither have I said that the B-29 wasn't the best of it's time.
I said it killed more of it's crew than the enemy did. I'm waiting on more knowledgeable folk to educate me.
I said it (and it's A-bombs) didn't convince Japan to surrender, the Soviets who'd destroyed the Japanese army in Machuria in very short order and stood poised to invade and absorb Japan convinced the Japanese government to surrender while they still had a nation. Evidences to the contrary are welcome.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I didn't diss the plane,

Care to show me where I said you did? I was addressing his post, not yours.

As for the rest of your post, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. My opinion is different than yours regardless of the stats you post. Is that ok? Am I entitled to have a different opinion? You are taking this far too fricken personal.

Have you considered that it lost more crews to accidents than enemy action because of the environment it flew in? Probably not. B-17s, B-24's and Lancasters faced a far more formidable German air defense including FLAK and enemy fighters for most of their flight to the target and back. B-29's in the Pacific flew large portions of their missions over the vast ocean, not making enemy contact.

I suspect had the 29 served in Europe what "killed its crews, the plane or the enemy" would be reversed.

As I said you have your opinion, and your opinion is not wrong, because that is all it is. Everything about this thread is an opinion. Mine included. You can dislike this post too if you like...

 

[GrauGeist]

I said it killed more of it's crew than the enemy did. I'm waiting on more knowledgeable folk to educate me.

B-29s flew 20,000 sorties during the war - out of all those sorties, 79 were lost.
Of those 79 B-29s that were lost, 21 were operational losses of various causes (mechanical, navigational, weather, etc.) and 58 were downed by enemy action.
Keep in mind that not all downings resulted in total loss of life.

So NO, the B-29 did not kill more crews than the enemy.

 

[wuzak]

Care to show me where I said you did? I was addressing his post, not yours.

As for the rest of your post, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. My opinion is different than yours regardless of the stats you post. Is that ok? Am I entitled to have a different opinion? You are taking this far to fricken personal.

Have you considered that it lost more crews to accidents than enemy action because of the environment it flew in? Probably not. B-17s, B-24's and Lancasters faced a far more formidable German air defense including FLAK and enemy fighters for most of their flight to the target and back. B-29's in the Pacific flew large portions of their missions over the vast ocean, not making enemy contact.

I suspect had the 29 served in Europe what "killed its crews, the plane or the enemy" would be reversed.

As I said you have your opinion, and your opinion is not wrong, because that is all it is. Everything about this thread is an opinion. Mine included. You can dislike this post too if you like...

I wonder if a B-29 devoid of defensive armament, save for the tail guns, woudl have been able to fly high enough and fast enough to survive the ETO as well as the B-17 and B-24 could with all their defences.

Alternatively, how effective would the B-29 as a night bomber, using Oboe/Gee-H/H2s or visual bombing on target indicators laid by the Pathfinder force, have been? Also without the remote gun installations.

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-29 was surprisingly fast with a moderate load, even faster clean, especially at altitude.

If it operated in the ETO, just about the only Luftwaffe aircraft that would have a chance at intercepting it, would be the Me262 unless 190/109 Jabos were already vectored and loitering.

 

[TheMadPenguin]

B-29s flew 20,000 sorties during the war - out of all those sorties, 79 were lost.
Of those 79 B-29s that were lost, 21 were operational losses of various causes (mechanical, navigational, weather, etc.) and 58 were downed by enemy action.
Keep in mind that not all downings resulted in total loss of life.

So NO, the B-29 did not kill more crews than the enemy.

Excuse my confusion please, I see in another thread by another poster

I found some info on the losses.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t165.pdf

20th Bomber Command
80 total, with 22 due to fighters, 7 from AAA and 51 from "other"
breakdown by year is:
1944 70 total, with 20 due to fighters, 5 from AAA and 45 from "other"
1945 10 total, with 2 due to fighters, 2 from AAA and 6 from "other"

21st Bomber Command
334 total, with 52 due to fighters, 47 from AAA, 19 from fighter/AAA and 216 from "other"
breakdown by year is:
1944 25 total, with 4 due to fighters, 1 from AAA, and 20 from "other"
1945 309 total, with 48 due to fighters, 46 from AAA, 19 from fighter/AAA and 196from "other"

The link to the source is broken, so I can't verify immediately.
What I read in the first quote is that about 3/4 of losses were to enemy action, in the second quote, about 2/3 were "the plane quit flying" (414 losses (not 79) and 267 "other").

I don't mean to molest anybody's sacred cows or sacred opinions, but things don't add up here (and the 2/3 to "other" is the kind of data I've seen the most).

The Mad Penguin (as in "what sane penguin would retire to FLORIDA?")

 

[GrauGeist]

No sacred cows, my numbers may be off because I am going from memory, but I DO know that the B-29 was an advanced design - far ahead of it's time - that was rushed into service because at the time of it's inception, the American military seriously thought that Britain would not be able to refuse Germany's offensive.
So it was conceived to to fly across the Atlantic and back in order to bomb German-held targets.
As it turns out, it became a valuable asset in the Pacific against Japan.

Yes, it had bugs because it was rushed into service, but it was not the widow-maker that your making it out to be.

My Uncle's sub, the SS Cavalla, was often given picket duties off the coast of Japan to rescue downed B-29 crews that had to ditch on their egress because of flack or interception, not because of mechanical issues.

 

[WARSPITER]

The B-29 was similar to jumping from 3G to 4G on phones. A sound design which was a long way ahead of it's contemporaries.
The number of derivates shows the versatility and the subsequent designs of later aircraft which were modelled on the original design
are it's legacy.

 

[Peter Gunn]

The issue for me is this:

"Me: B-29.
Reality: it was a fussy temperamental plane more likely to kill you than the Japanese fighters scrambling against you.
etc."

Stating your opinion as a fact tends to grind my gears. I have no problem with you having a different take on certain things, we're humans, we all see things differently. The above statement is not factual, although yes, the B-29 had a troublesome start, but name another country that came up with a similar design, produced it and not only made it operational, but used it to devastate a major opponents' cities and infrastructure. To me, I think that's a fairly awesome achievement, and not to diss any of our allied friends, I don't see another country with the possible exception of Great Britain with the ability to do that.

Perhaps you might read up on what the B-29 force did to Japans cities BEFORE the A-Bomb. And if you don't think the Japanese were worried about nuclear warfare, how long do you think they would be able to watch entire cities disappear in a flash one by one? That was going to start happening looong before the Russians ever got anywhere near mainland Japan.

Now, I have neither a sacred cow or sacred opinion on this matter, that your opinion differs from mine is fine, as I said, we're all human and two of us can look at the same thing and draw different conclusions, it's our nature. It was not my intent to ruffle any feathers or make the mod's job any harder.

I suppose I might have a small soft spot for the Superfortress as my uncle, one of dads 5 younger brothers was B-29 pilot out of Guam. But that really doesn't enter into the discussion here.

 

[pbehn]

Until a plane enters service it is always more dangerous to its crew than the enemy.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

No sacred cows, my numbers may be off because I am going from memory, but I DO know that the B-29 was an advanced design - far ahead of it's time - that was rushed into service because at the time of it's inception, the American military seriously thought that Britain would not be able to refuse Germany's offensive.
So it was conceived to to fly across the Atlantic and back in order to bomb German-held targets.
As it turns out, it became a valuable asset in the Pacific against Japan.

Yes, it had bugs because it was rushed into service, but it was not the widow-maker that your making it out to be.

My Uncle's sub, the SS Cavalla, was often given picket duties off the coast of Japan to rescue downed B-29 crews that had to ditch on their egress because of flack or interception, not because of mechanical issues.

The B29 wasn't capable of flying over the Atlantic and back. That was the genesis of the B36.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The B29 wasn't capable of flying over the Atlantic and back. That was the genesis of the B36.

Hense why we secured Greenland and Iceland...

 

[GrauGeist]

Hense why we secured Greenland and Iceland...

Exactly.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Exactly.

You stated that it was conceived to fly back and forth across the Atlantic which isn't the same.as iceland to Europe

 

[pbehn]

Reading a lot of accident statistics it seems that the trainers were the most dangerous, why didn't they just put pilots in P-51s straight away because they were statistically much safer?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

why didn't they just put pilots in P-51s straight away because they were statistically much safer?

Sure, just give 'em 50 hours of Flight Sim X and turn 'em loose to go bank and yank!

 

[pbehn]

Sure, just give 'em 50 hours of Flight Sim X and turn 'em loose to go bank and yank!

I do like insane use of statistics to "prove" something utterly stupid, did you know life expectancy in UK has increased by 25 years since tobacco was introduced?

 

[GrauGeist]

You stated that it was conceived to fly back and forth across the Atlantic which isn't the same.as iceland to Europe

Help me out here:
What's the body of water along that route called again?

 

[drgondog]

Sure, just give 'em 50 hours of Flight Sim X and turn 'em loose to go bank and yank!

Lol - my father flew P-40K at Saratsota before ETO in May. Flew P-51B first time May 29 - 1 1/2 hours touch and go. Assigned the 355th June 3rd. 2 more hours familiarization with take off and formation assembly. First day of Combat - D-Day. First kill D-Day Ju 87.

 

[pbehn]

Lol - my father flew P-40K at Saratsota before ETO in May. Flew P-51B first time May 29 - 1 1/2 hours touch and go. Assigned the 355th June 3rd. 2 more hours familiarization with take off and formation assembly. First day of Combat - D-Day. First kill D-Day Ju 87.

Great stuff and proves my statistical theory is correct.