I mentioned it in my posting after editing.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I mentioned it in my posting after editing.I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread of a B-29 tail gunner in Korea who told me the computer controlled guns could not track fast enough for MiGs.
As I mentioned earlier and in the spirit of the thread, the Soviets need to be engaged in Russian occupied Europe first.Ok, I have to agree. It may be useful.
Which exactly? Airfields beyond the range of Soviet tactical aviation would be needed.
The same range - 2000-2500 km.
The Rhine may have to be crossed first.
Curtis LeMay was quoted as saying that most of the central business district was spared from destruction, and that was a good thing since the two atomic attacks were sufficient to end the war.The B-29 Bockscar flew around Kokura for almost an hour, looking for a break in the overcast, as the RoE did not allow for Radar Bombing. There was enough fuel for one attempted run on Nagasaki, that was still partially obscured, but Major Sweeney made the call to drop, even though the designated aimpoint was overcast, and dropped several miles away and the blast was channeled by the Urakami valley, that reduced the bombs effect on half of the city.
On the approach to landing at Okinawa(the extra loitering and a stuck valve on a fuel tank ruled out a return to Tinian) #2 Engine ran out fuel on landing, with the rest about to do so.
I assumed that the number of B-29s was very limited and they would be used only for strikes against the most distant and critical targets in the USSR.There is no reason why this would not be the case in this scenario.
Claim to kill ratio. Not actual kills. Bomber gunners typically over claim by a factor of about 10 to 1. Any evidence I have seen shows the B-29 was not much better in that regard. If you look at the claims by B-29 gunners you will seem some clearly exaggerated claims.Don't forget the P-47N. Range for days, fast and agile at high altitude, and harder than woodpecker lips when it comes to damage.
Then your Soviet fighters get to the B-29's analog-computer FC system which managed a positive kill-ratio against jets.
Losses actually were reduced at lower altitudesNo major jet stream action at least in the eastern USSR where all the big cities and industries are.
So they could also go in high 30,000+ feet and use that for their defensive protection.
The table demonstrates something quite contrary - 1.7 vs. 1.5% loss and 52.4 vs. 22.1% damaged in daylight attacks, % damaged by AAA increased drastically. In night raids, altitude was of much less importance generally - they should be considered separately.Losses actually were reduced at lower altitudes
No it doesn't. Overall losses decreased from 5.2% at 30,000 to 3.4% at 26,000 to 27,000 to 1.7% below 20,00 for daylight attacks. The table does in fact separate day from night.The table demonstrates something quite contrary - 1.7 vs. 1.5% loss and 52.4 vs. 22.1% damaged in daylight attacks, % damaged by AAA increased drastically. In night raids, altitude was of much less importance generally - they should be considered separately.
I should also add that Craven and Cates state that the total number of fighters assigned to defend Japan was 375 only increased after March 1945. Shooting down 60 to 80 in a single mission out of a total of 375 would be a fantastic accomplishment.Claim to kill ratio. Not actual kills. Bomber gunners typically over claim by a factor of about 10 to 1. Any evidence I have seen shows the B-29 was not much better in that regard. If you look at the claims by B-29 gunners you will seem some clearly exaggerated claims.
View attachment 803112
View attachment 803106
60 claims to 9 lost. When you compare to the number of Japanese aircraft available they shot down virtually the entire Japanese intercepting force. Note that 74 B-29s shot down or damaged 116 aircraft i.e. over 1.5 EACH.
View attachment 803107
39 to 4.
View attachment 803113
80 to 3. An unbelievable (literally) 27 to 1 ratio.
View attachment 803109
36 to 2.
View attachment 803114
34 to 3. 41 aircraft shot down or damaged 1.3 aircraft each!
View attachment 803115
86 to 12.
If you look at the number of fighters the Japanese actually have available these claims cannot be real.
We have to consider only losses due to enemy action - losses due to technical failures, etc. depends non-linearly on the number of planes taken into account, and this value was totally different.No it doesn't. Overall losses decreased from 5.2% at 30,000 to 3.4% at 26,000 to 27,000 to 1.7% below 20,00 for daylight attacks.
I just mentioned that we should mix values for daylight and night attacks for correct statistical interpretation. In night rides the altitude had no significant impact on losses.The table does in fact separate day from night.
The level of B-29 shooters' overclaim of MiGs is too high to judge the actual ratio from their claims. No positives to be seen there. According to Tepsurkaev/Krylov, the Soviets confirm the loss of 2 or 3 of their MiGs from B-29 guns, of which only one can be accurately credited to the B-29, for the rest there is no solid evidence (it could be also credited to the escort), as well as one Chinese one - it was simply reported by Soviet pilots, Chinese losses are unknown to me. Most of the MiGs claimed shot down by B-29 gunners landed on their airfields with a few holes - the damages were rather minimal, there was one emergency landing outside the airfield, the plane was recovered. If necessary we can compare the lists of claims and losses with dates and names, but I think this topic has been discussed here at least thousand times in detail.
Soviet pilots noted that the B-29's machine guns were unable to turn their barrels fast enough for sustained aimed fire - the angular velocity of the fighter's movement exceeded the capabilities of the automatics - as special ed already mentioned above.
Ok, I have to agree. It may be useful.
Which exactly? Airfields beyond the range of Soviet tactical aviation would be needed.
The same range - 2000-2500 km.
The Rhine may have to be crossed first.
As I mentioned earlier and in the spirit of the thread, the Soviets need to be engaged in Russian occupied Europe first.
The Allies would most certainly put the medium bombers into the fray along the front, using the heavies such as the Lancaster, B-24 amd B-17 to strike rear areas and the B-29 would come into play striking deep into Soviet territory.
During the war against the Germans, the Allies did not just strike factories, they struck command and control centers, railyards, key infrastructure centers, depots and essential military targets such as barracks, tank parks and airfields.
There is no reason why this would not be the case in this scenario.
As far the Baltic is concerned, yes, there would be quite a few "airfields" available, since the US Navy had one of the largest carrier fleets in history at the time. Carriers stationed in the Baltic and Aegean would provide considerable force projection into Eastern Europe and the F8F (1,105 mile/1,778 km range) and F7F (1,200 mile/1,900 km range) would be the prime movers in fighter protection.
Damn, I'd really hoped you have serious arguments.USAF documents undercut your point here,
So it'll be easier for them to do it again. Or do you think that the Soviet tank armies will stand still and wait to be bombed?The Western Allies did that in Mar of 1945.
So it'll be easier for them to do it again. Or do you think that the Soviet tank armies will stand still and wait to be bombed?
I do not think, I am perfectly sure, that these AGs unable to stand up to the Soviets - at least within the first 1-2 month.... or: do you think 12th and 21st Army Grou;ps unable to stand up to the Soviets?
Sure. Trouble will start when Soviets reach the Rhine. They are unlikely to cross it. And most likely, they will then be thrown back - they will run out of reserves, logistical problems will significantly increase . But the first strike will be terrible.Remember, logistics matters here.
The British (including Commonwealth forces) and the U.S. had 100 divisions on hand at the time, plus an additional 10 divisions of remobilized German POWs available if needed.So it'll be easier for them to do it again. Or do you think that the Soviet tank armies will stand still and wait to be bombed?
Versus >260 Soviet (in equivalent)? Not very impressive.The British (including Commonwealth forces) and the U.S. had 100 divisions on hand at the time, plus an additional 10 divisions of remobilized German POWs available if needed.