Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was a good way for the Soviets to kill their most experienced pilots. The BI-1 cannot be compared even with the Me 163. I'm not sure it was capable to shoot down anyone directly over its own airfield. It is purely an experimental airplane, more dangerous to the Soviets themselves than to anyone.If faced with the bomber offensive, the Soviets must do something urgently. Emergency fighter program?
BI rocket fighter development was not very successful in real life and was already outdated when it was completed in 1945. Light armament, transonic effects not fully researched, short life of the equipment due to corrosion...
But probably the resumption of the BI program is the only solution in the summer 1945?
(Not for the night fighting, of course).
I look at the last posts and think the most addictive topic is the "off-" one. Blame me for starting that!
Anyway...
View attachment 803745
Back to the Unthinkable.
If faced with the bomber offensive, the Soviets must do something urgently. Emergency fighter program?
BI rocket fighter development was not very successful in real life and was already outdated when it was completed in 1945. Light armament, transonic effects not fully researched, short life of the equipment due to corrosion...
But probably the resumption of the BI program is the only solution in the summer 1945?
(Not for the night fighting, of course).
Sure. Up to 10000 m, however the command device (PUAZO) could track targets with speed less then 540 kph. Large caliber AAA was developed much later - 100mm KS-19 in 1948, 130mm KS-30 in 1952.Wasn't the 85mm a pretty good AAA piece? Could they make a dent?
The BI would be more trouble than it's worth, to be honest.I look at the last posts and think the most addictive topic is the "off-" one. Blame me for starting that!
Anyway...
View attachment 803745
Back to the Unthinkable.
If faced with the bomber offensive, the Soviets must do something urgently. Emergency fighter program?
BI rocket fighter development was not very successful in real life and was already outdated when it was completed in 1945. Light armament, transonic effects not fully researched, short life of the equipment due to corrosion...
But probably the resumption of the BI program is the only solution in the summer 1945?
(Not for the night fighting, of course).
That makes no sense what so ever. The effect of altitude over target on losses was not solely due to enemy action. It would have been foolish off the USAAF not to take all factors into consideration. And that's exactly what they did in deciding to reduce bombing altitude.No, it's not. If we consider the effect of altitude over the target (i.e. enemy impact), we should not distort it by losses due to other factors. The essence of statistical analysis is to determine the role of each factor separately so that the resulting data can be used for forecasting/planning.
The flight altitude profile did not vary much except for a segment near the target.
For planning of operations it is absolutely irrelevant what the crew in the dinghy off the coast of Japan hope for, or whether they hope at all.
That surely make sense - even if it was not done at that time.That makes no sense what so ever.
If the altitude during the whole flight was 30k, there is no question that this factor was of a greater importance. However, if the bombers climbed to 30k only over the target and then descended again on the way back, then it is unlikely that this greatly increased the malfunction probability. What was the altitude profile in the raids?The effect of altitude over target on losses was not solely due to enemy action.
The difference between 26k and 30k is not big enough - the Japanese AAA was still not effective. There was a sharp increase in damage from AA fire when the altitude was reduced to 18k. But even this increase was not fatal. Nevertheless, the increase was observed, and seems that the reliability factor was not properly analyzed - the number of observation was not taken into account to compare the malfunction rates. In general, the statistical theory of reliability was developed after the war, as far as I know.It would have been foolish off the USAAF not to take all factors into consideration. And that's exactly what they did in deciding to reduce bombing altitude.
There is no doubt that all the data was analyzed at different levels of command. There is no doubt that all factors were taken into account. But correct consideration of some factors was quite difficult. For example, if the statistics of engine failures is available, it is possible to find a value characterizing the probability of engine failure per unit of time depending on its life (engine hours), it can also depend on the flight altitude. Then it is necessary to study the statistics of engines on all airplanes in the raid - most likely, the distribution of the resource will be approximately the same in each raid, then you can calculate the probability of failure of aircraft in one raid, thus, to estimate the number of losses due to technical reasons. It will depend on the number of airplanes in the raid. But in this particular case the difference is not so crucial to bother with any calculations. Despite a slight increase in losses from anti-aircraft fire (compared to losses during bombing from 18k altitude), the level of losses remained acceptable.Shortly after LeMay took over XXI BC in January 1945, there were staff meetings after every bombing mission to discuss operational issues and from that information gathered, adjusted the tactical doctrine.
This would include bombing accuracy, aircraft and crew performance and cause of losses (including operational failures).
So no, hard statistics were not solely compiled post-war.
Of course the whole flight wasn't done at 30,000 feet. The fact that you would even ask that question shows your lack of knowledge in this subject. I notice that your posts in general are long on conjecture and short on facts. I think you're trolling and won't bother responding to your postsIf the altitude during the whole flight was 30k, there is no question that this factor was of a greater importance. However, if the bombers climbed to 30k only over the target and then descended again on the way back, then it is unlikely that this greatly increased the malfunction probability. What was the altitude profile in the raids?
I've made no secret of it. You could provide information, but you decided to use personal attacks instead.Of course the whole flight wasn't done at 30,000 feet. The fact that you would even ask that question shows your lack of knowledge in this subject.
That's simply not true.I notice that your posts in general are long on conjecture and short on facts.
I would be very grateful if you would keep your word.I think your trolling and won't bother responding to your posts
Sometimes deviations of the discussion can be useful in addressing the original topic. At what altitude would B-29s fly over the USSR? Taking into account that Soviet air defense aviation outnumbers the Japanese by far, altitude will be the only defense - escort is not expected due to insufficient range. This is not a flight over the ocean, a return at the altitude of 8k is hardly possible, as well as a long flight to the target at altitudes 10 to 20k.It would be nice to be able to get back to the original topic...
It may be of interest.I could give a brief overview of the development of high-altitude fighters in the USSR, but I'm not sure it would be of interest to anyone here.
Just a short remark: initially MiG-3 was developed as a high-speed front-line fighter. It was assumed later as a high altitude fighter due to a better engine performance over 6km, but it was rather a bonus as a real demand. The service ceiling of the MiG-3 did not exceed 11500 m.The Mig-3 was a high altitude fighter when first deployed. How many were left or how it would have even dealt with even B-17s is subject to question.
What exactly were the technical reasons mainly responsible for the losses in the raids on Japan? Lack of fuel? Engine failure/fire?
I would like to see the frequency distribution of the various reasons for technical failures.R-3350s were prone to overheating which resulted in engine shutdowns or fires. That was one reason Iwo Jima was assaulted -- not to provide escorts, though that was a happy side-effect -- but because when a B-29 goes down in the ocean ten guys are almost surely dead unless they get lucky and an American sub pulls up.
Or reduces the chance of overconsumption of fuel. And airplanes with engines with fewer defects could also be delivered. Or just new engines for replacement.So lowering altitudes relieved stress on the engines, reducing the likelihood of engine fires.
The B-29 was a fundamentally new machine, there was not yet much experience with such aircraft. All the "big bombers" became not big enough.because these were guys who'd been flying big bombers for years and understood the issues.
I do not mean the altitude over the target. And it is much higher than typical altitude on the route in the raids on Japan.Over western Russia, without jet-streams raising issues, flying at 25-28,000 ft could well work
You don't need the B-29 for this range. I emphasized that the greatest effect could be achieved by raids on poorly defended compact industrial centers deep in Russia. That's 1,800-2,000 miles if you take off in Norway or the Middle East. I doubt a safe airfield could be found any closer.I'd think the range of ops should still be reduced to maybe 700-800 miles
Soviet fighters in 1945 weren't huffing for breath at 25k, they started huffing somewhere around 28k, if not higher. That's why I asked at what altitudes flights over the USSR are supposed to be carried out. In any case, this is in no way comparable to the raids on Japan from the Marianas where only a relatively small part of the route assumed a high-altitude (over 20k) flight.But if my bomber can do 350 mph at 25,000 ft and your fighters are huffing for breath and it's only up to your AAA, that's odds I'd like.
The problem is that by the time of B-29 deployment in Europe, it is too late to blanket the airfields - the bombers from the 8th and 15th AF will be doing that. B-29s are needed for strategic destruction of industrial potential of the USSR, their use for tactical tasks is little justified, in my humble opinion.Blanket the airfields, then concentrate on marshaling yards, put medium bombers against bridges and airfields both, and use fighters to shoot up rolling stock and airfields on the way home. It's not like the Western Allies were babes in the woods.