No B-29 in Korea

[Dimlee]

Inspired by another thread (Mosquito instead of B-17).

What if:
- There are no B-29s available for the Korean war
- US air strategists decide that "Mosquito" type raids are the best against any target in the theatre, including industry, infrastructure, cities, etc.

1. What aircraft is/are the best for the job (available already or that can be quickly brought into service):
a. June-October1950, until MiG-15s arrive?
b. November 1950 to the end of war?
2. What is the counter-strategy of the Soviets and Chinese?

 

[SaparotRob]

The B-36 flies again!

 

[SaparotRob]

Still going to need a bomb truck. LeMay is in charge.

 

[tomo pauk]

The A-26 is probably the best choice.
When the MiG-15 arrives, the Western forces have the F-86 available, plus the A-26 can do the night bombing when outfitted with necessary electronics.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you're wanting to hit the same targets as the -29s, put a wing of -36s at Kadena or Andersen.

 

[Shortround6]

See Joe Baugher's web page,

B-29 in Korean War

For an overview of what the B-29 was doing.
Then try to decide what alternatives might present themselves.

Like the B-29s were flying from Japan and from Okinawa which would a be a long mission for A-26/B-26s.

If the B-29s were scraped and not available would have B-50s been available?
Would have been B-45 Tornados been built in bigger numbers?

It does look as though the B-29s, after a number initial troubles, did manage to hit just about all major targets just before the Chinese ramped up things in Nov of 1950.?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There were B-50s available, as a matter of fact RB-50s and RB-36s were used during the Korean war.

 

[special ed]

Canberras

 

[nuuumannn]

Canberras

For the second half of the war, maybe. The RAF's first Canberra squadrons didn't equip until 1951. Following service induction and operational training though, the Canberra could have been a useful weapon, particularly with its impressive altitude abilities, the Canberra B.2 could cruise at around 50,000 feet, but bombing accuracy would have been affected.

 

[Schweik]

Canberras

That is what I was thinking

 

[Graeme]

Canberra (not) in Korea

Was English Electric Canberra ever considered for the Korean War? And if it was, why not deployed there? Wikipedia: "In May 1951, the Canberra entered RAF squadron service, No. 101 Squadron being the first to receive the type. In a testament to the aircraft's benign handling characteristics...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Dimlee]

Like the B-29s were flying from Japan and from Okinawa which would a be a long mission for A-26/B-26s.

This is a problem, indeed in some early periods. It took over one month to restore Suwon airfield to accept F-86 in March 1951.

 

[Schweik]

Canberra range isn't that great either.

 

[GrauGeist]

Not sure if the scenario sees the B-29 program cancelled ir what, but an option (if it was cancelled) would be further development of the XB-42, which was cancelled in 1948.

It had good speed for a bomber, decent range and could carry up to 8,000 pounds of ordnance internally.

 

[Graeme]

US air strategists decide that "Mosquito" type raids are the best against any target in the theatre, including industry, infrastructure, cities, etc.

Then just bring her back - you know you want too!
And look at that range...

 

[Dimlee]

Then just bring her back - you know you want too!
And look at that range...

View attachment 649774

But how many Mossies are available in 1950, in serviceable condition?

 

[Graeme]

But how many Mossies are available in 1950, in serviceable condition?

Hi Dimlee.
Never a serious contender - but that scan above is a snapshot for 1953. By 1955 it was down to Burma (F.B.6), Yugoslavia (N.F.30), Israel (F.B.6 and B.9) and Sweden (N.F.19). Belgium and Israel had the T.3 trainer. "A few (B.35) remained with the RAF." No numbers given.
In Sky Guardians - by Michael Gething - he mentions six fighter squadrons (Nos 23, 25, 29, 141, 219 and 264) operating NF36s in front-line service until 1953. No numbers given.

 

[T Bolt]

If the B-29 never was, than I don't think all those B-17s and B-24s would have been scrapped so soon after the war and the B-24 might have had the range until the B-36 got there.

 

[SaparotRob]

Not the B-32 instead, if no B-29?

 

[GrauGeist]

Not the B-32 instead, if no B-29?

The B-32 was conceived as an alternative to the B-29, in the event that the B-29 program either flopped or was excessively delayed.

So there is a chance that it might have been developed independently if the B-29 never was, but it might have been a bit different, since the B-32 was designed linear to the B-29's specifications.