Questions about B-29 operational range, VVS, VVS intercept capability if Operation Unthinkable happen. (1 Viewer)

[Peter Gunn]

I've always maintained that the VVS (and the soviets in general) would be in for a rude awakening if they decided to take on the USAAF and the RAF. Ugly, yes, bloody, yes, the VVS absolutely getting its ass kicked eight ways to Sunday, yes.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've always maintained that the VVS (and the soviets in general) would be in for a rude awakening if they decided to take on the USAAF and the RAF. Ugly, yes, bloody, yes, the VVS absolutely getting its ass kicked eight ways to Sunday, yes.

Especially after escort fighters are released for strafing after escorting B-29s. Remember, P-51Hs, P-47Ns are coming online. Not sure RAF fighters would have the range to help, but Bomber Command would sure throw some stick in here too.

 

[Zmauky]

OK, I just wanted to say that the Russians have been doing something to develop high-altitude fighters.
Turbocompressors were installed on the I-153 and I-16 much earlier (I-16V 1938 and I-135TK 1939). The Sukhoi Su-1 (1939) was supposed to be a high-altitude fighter with a turbocharger.
The thing is that they were in no hurry and had no urgent reasons, so what kind of bomber destroyers did the allies develop, for example? If Whirlwind was there, Bell tried to cram in 2x37 with shooters, McDonald with the same 37 mm Lockheed with a large variant on the P-38 theme... shall we say they didn't succeed?
The choice of the word "primitive" for Yak-9PD is unfortunately a translation algorithm and too little attention.
The Yak-9PD is more or less a counterpart to the high-altitude Spitfire conversions from Abukir created for the same threat. Created in response to a direct threat and discarded when no longer needed.
Admittedly, there are big eyes in fear, so the Spitfire got variants VI and VII (not to mention the Ta 152 and Bv 155).

 

[Shortround6]

There is a big difference between doing experiments with turbochargers and putting them into production in service squadrons. The soviets blew up a lot of experimental turbochargers.

There is also a big difference in trying to intercept occasional recon aircraft and trying to intercept hundreds of bombers per raid.

There is also the issue of time. In late 1945 and 1946 the soviets don't have time to put new aircraft into production. They have time to modify/adapt but not time tool up and produce. The stocks of LL materials is also limited. P-63's etc, fuel for the western planes, anti knock materials for soviet fuel and so on.

 

[marathag]

Before any VVS craft can shoot at B-29s, they have to find them. USSR is a big country

most all of their Radars were Lend Lease, or knock-offs of those US and UK sets. Much of their Radar Net at this time was not much different than the Chain Home Radar of 1940, the 'Dumbo' VHF Radar.

Before the 'Great Patriotic War' the USSR had used the very basic RUS-2 Radar, a High Frequency set(75-83Mhz) with 50-120kW power and A-Scope display. 120-150 km range These were mostly used around Leningrad and Moscow. The RUS-1 was a near complete failure during the Winter War with Finland, the -2 an improved system, but TX and RX antenna arrays had to be separated by about a half mile.

The USSR had independently discovered both the Cavity Magnetron and Klystron before the War, but were unable to utilize them, in part from the poor state of the electronics industry and official displeasure over high frequency Radar. Some developers were shot, others Gulaged.

During the War, the USSR was far more interested in the Gun Laying Radar than for Search, and copied the LL'ed British GL Mk II as the SON-2, and the US sent around 500 sets of various search and gun laying units

From an earlier post of mine from another site on early Cold War Soviet Radar Development

P-3 "Dumbo"
55kW VHF Band Early Warning
The first Soviet radar unit to the determination of 3 coordinates was built approximately end of the World War II. The radar station was called "Pegmantit 3" - or abbreviated for P 3. There were two modifications: a mobile (P-3M) and a fixed site (P-3A) version. The mobile version was built in containers on two trucks. The transmitter and and the receiving system were put in a separate container. The display still was an A-Scope. 120 km range

Dumbo /P3 used A scope displays, that need a more skilled operator to know what they are looking at.

The P-3 is pretty much a 1940 Chain Home set, with a few trick to get minor azimuth determination. These replaced the semi-Mobile RUS-2 sets used during the War, that couldn't do height-finding or low altitudes. They didn't have a domestic filler like Chain Home Low for gap fillers

Soviets didn't have the number of sets to provide the net coverage that the UK had in 1940, either. *See Below

Cross Fork
AAA acquisition
based on British AA-4 Warning/ US SCR-602 radar; it led to the Knife Rest with PPI Scope

P-20 Token
.5 -1MW+ S-Band Early Warning/ later GCI Radar
three screen setup: Area, Sector and Height. All could not be active at same time. Similar to US AN/CPS-6 Radar, but not based on it: just similar goal and based on WWII ideas from MIT using five Emitters to determine azimuth, elevation and range. US noted 50 in operation across all the USSR in 1952, 115 the year after. CIA Reports from the mid '50s noted that these had a problem with overheating if used for more than 6 hours, and the P-3 had similar issues.

200-250km range

P-8 Knife Rest A Early Warning
75kW VHF 75kW 75km range PPI scope circular scan, first for Sov EarlyWarning Radars

P-30 Big Mesh GCI Radar, P-35 Bar Lock after improvements
E Band 1MW 180km

* The needed coverage I mentioned earlier
This is the kind of Radar Site density you need with Chain Home type gear to have chance at providing the data for plotting incoming aircraft

USSR didn't have anything close to that density in the 1948-1950 timeframe, and in WWII, did not experience much for Strategic Bombing by the Nazis to work on GCI methods as the UK had in place by 1940

Their better Radar, Token, in place of the Chain Home equivalent Dumbo, were able to do GCI out to 70 miles.
And they just had 50 of them deployed across the over 6000 mile length of the Country, with 37,000 miles of Border to watch over in 1952

UK has just 2000 miles of Border, with 50 Radar sites after the BoB
That means the USSR would need around 1000 sites for border coverage alone, and with vast amount of near empty territory, you need interior lines, like once past the Border, US ELINT Flights had marked the locations of the Radars in 1947, and was weak until the KoreanWar, where the number of sites increased dramatically

 

[Howard Gibson]

Especially after escort fighters are released for strafing after escorting B-29s. Remember, P-51Hs, P-47Ns are coming online. Not sure RAF fighters would have the range to help, but Bomber Command would sure throw some stick in here too.

The de Havilland Hornet was a long range escort fighter.

In the opening months of WWII, the Germans on the ground ran up something like a 20:1 kill ratio. They did not maintain this to 1945.

The effectiveness of strategic bombing over Europe is controversial. It did do serious damage to the Luftwaffe fighters by forcing them to fight in the happy place of the escorting P-47s. In Russia, you need to find their industry over their vast steppes. Bombed factories in Great Britain and Germany were quickly brought back into service after bombing. The Russians would not have been as good as this, but they did manage to move most of their industry from western USSR to central USSR, out of range of German bombers. You have two or three years of high altitude air superiority, after which the Soviets deploy some equivalent technology.

Radar is great, but if your bombers must fly over thousands of miles of enemy territory to reach targets, spotters on the ground can track them. Didn't Claire Chennault do something like this in China?

If there is a shooting war with strategic bombing, it is likely that Soviet ground forces with their supporting tactical air force, are getting into mischief. Your forces on the ground will be asking your airforce to do something about it. Now we must manage Yak-3s on their terms.

 

[marathag]

Radar is great, but if your bombers must fly over thousands of miles of enemy territory to reach targets, spotters on the ground can track them. Didn't Claire Chennault do something like this in China?

Japanese bombers over China couldn't fly as high as the B-29, and had no need to go higher, given Chinese defenses. Little AAA, and only the Foreign Volunteer air units being effective at all with interceptions

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The de Havilland Hornet was a long range escort fighter.

In the opening months of WWII, the Germans on the ground ran up something like a 20:1 kill ratio. They did not maintain this to 1945.

The effectiveness of strategic bombing over Europe is controversial. It did do serious damage to the Luftwaffe fighters by forcing them to fight in the happy place of the escorting P-47s. In Russia, you need to find their industry over their vast steppes. Bombed factories in Great Britain and Germany were quickly brought back into service after bombing. The Russians would not have been as good as this, but they did manage to move most of their industry from western USSR to central USSR, out of range of German bombers. You have two or three years of high altitude air superiority, after which the Soviets deploy some equivalent technology.

Radar is great, but if your bombers must fly over thousands of miles of enemy territory to reach targets, spotters on the ground can track them. Didn't Claire Chennault do something like this in China?

If there is a shooting war with strategic bombing, it is likely that Soviet ground forces with their supporting tactical air force, are getting into mischief. Your forces on the ground will be asking your airforce to do something about it. Now we must manage Yak-3s on their terms.

Lot of good points there. I had indeed forgotten about the Hornet and appreciate you pulling the short hairs.

As for dealing with Yaks, I bet bombing their airfields will get their attention -- and that can be done without using the heavies.

 

[NevadaK]

The de Havilland Hornet was a long range escort fighter.

In the opening months of WWII, the Germans on the ground ran up something like a 20:1 kill ratio. They did not maintain this to 1945.

The effectiveness of strategic bombing over Europe is controversial. It did do serious damage to the Luftwaffe fighters by forcing them to fight in the happy place of the escorting P-47s. In Russia, you need to find their industry over their vast steppes. Bombed factories in Great Britain and Germany were quickly brought back into service after bombing. The Russians would not have been as good as this, but they did manage to move most of their industry from western USSR to central USSR, out of range of German bombers. You have two or three years of high altitude air superiority, after which the Soviets deploy some equivalent technology.

Radar is great, but if your bombers must fly over thousands of miles of enemy territory to reach targets, spotters on the ground can track them. Didn't Claire Chennault do something like this in China?

If there is a shooting war with strategic bombing, it is likely that Soviet ground forces with their supporting tactical air force, are getting into mischief. Your forces on the ground will be asking your airforce to do something about it. Now we must manage Yak-3s on their terms.

Good Points Howard,

A couple things to think about, I doubt that a strategic bombing campaign would start out trying to knock out factories. It is more likely that a strategic campaign would target mobility and field reserves where the USSR ground forces would be particularly vulnerable. Second, just as in Western Europe the focus of the USAAF in 1944 became the destruction of the Luftwaffe, the initial goal would be the destruction of the VVS.

 

[bf109xxl]

Were the Russians desperate for high altitude performance. Ju86s were a nuisance, not an existential threat. They did have Spitfire_IXs. The Soviets were interested in low altitude ground support.

All through the war, the Soviets tried to develop a high-altitude fighter, but failed. Not because they didn't want to, but because they lacked highly qualified personnel.
You have rather strange ideas about the USSR. In reality, it was a poor country with a rather miserable technological level and a constant lack of highly qualified specialists. All this was worsened by the inefficiency of Stalin's leadership. No redistribution of resources could accelerate the R&D work.

Did the Americans and British even know where Soviet factories were?

Of course. Sometimes western specialists were even sent there for installation and startup work - the Soviets received machinery and even entire factories under the lend-lease program. In fact, to defeat the USSR it was enough to bomb Baku - both oil fields and refineries. The Allies were going to do this as early as 1940 (Operation Pike), so they had the exact coordinates of the targets.

Bombing would be destructive, and the Soviets would be motivated to develop two stage superchargers.

They were already motivated in 1940 when the development of the two-stage supercharger began!

It would take a couple of years, but the Soviet Union was a big place.

We discuss the hypothetical situation of a continuation of the war between the USSR and the Western Allies already in 1945. The USSR does not have "a couple of years". The question is what the USSR could do with the means already available or ready for serial production.

 

[bf109xxl]

Good Points Howard,

A couple things to think about, I doubt that a strategic bombing campaign would start out trying to knock out factories. It is more likely that a strategic campaign would target mobility and field reserves where the USSR ground forces would be particularly vulnerable.

You don't need B-29s for that - they're just right for attacking industrial targets up to Urals. It is enough to bomb out Moscow, Kharkov, Leningrad and the Volga region - Gorky (Nizhny Novgorod), Saratov, Kazan, Kuibyshev (Samara). The remaining plants in Novosibirsk, Omsk and Komsomolsk-on-Amur are absolutely insufficient to replenish reserves.

Second, just as in Western Europe the focus of the USAAF in 1944 became the destruction of the Luftwaffe, the initial goal would be the destruction of the VVS.

Both of these tasks - strategic bombing of the Soviet industry and tactical bombing to destroy the VVS - can be effectively accomplished simultaneously.

 

[bf109xxl]

In Russia, you need to find their industry over their vast steppes.

Somehow the Germans managed both to find and even seriously damage them. And the Allies were so stupid that with their much more advanced bombers and reconnaissance could not do it. Quite a controversial point of view.

Bombed factories in Great Britain and Germany were quickly brought back into service after bombing.

In Germany, not all of them - especially synthetic fuel production facilities. The logistical infrastructure was critical, and it was hit first. The bombing of these plants quickly led to fuel shortages in the Reich.

The Russians would not have been as good as this, but they did manage to move most of their industry from western USSR to central USSR, out of range of German bombers.

They moved them even further away - to the Urals and Siberia. But critical production facilities remained in the European part of the USSR and were in range of the B-29s.
The most important aircraft factories were located in Moscow and the Volga region - to the cities I have listed above I can add Rybinsk and Yaroslavl. Another important city was Perm in the northern Urals. But B-29s could reach it as well operating from Norway.

You have two or three years of high altitude air superiority, after which the Soviets deploy some equivalent technology.

You have two or three month to destroy the critical facilities in the USSR. After that, you don't have to fear any new high-altitude fighters, radars, etc.

Now we must manage Yak-3s on their terms.

How many B-29s were shot down by La-9s in Korea? And that was a more dangerous opponent than the Yak-3...

 

[NevadaK]

I have a conversation about the VVS's ability to react and intercept the super fortresses if Operation Unthinkable right in 1945 if it is carried out, there are a few questions and want to ask you guys in here, if in the case if a strategic bombing will take place targeting important cities of the Soviet Union such as Moscow or Leningrad, what will be the VVS's ability to react?

Answering Questions Directly

- If this happened, where would the Allies start bombing, what bases would they have to fly thier B-29 and escort fighter to strategic bombings on Soviet cities, would they take off from Germany, France or was there a country closer enough to have an airport for the B-29 to take off from?

Tinian to Tokyo ís 1500 miles. Any distance less than that is workable. Berlin to Moscow is 1000 miles, B-29 bases in Germany would provide a measure of coverage of the USSR, however, as Germany would likely be where the majority of any conflict was, its unlikely to be used for strategic bombing resources. Northern Turkey would be an option as would northern Iran as both are about 1000 miles to Moscow. If we really want to be creative, bases in southern Finland would give the best coverage of the USSR by far.

As far as what bases? I believe the US had shown that it could and would build bases from scratch where they were needed.

- From France or Germany to Moscow is quite a long way, is there any escort fighter capable of doing this mission, I think of P-47N and P-51D but am wondering about the amount of combat fuel it has.

Yes, P-47N and P-51D and H would be most likely. P-47N in particular was designed to escort the B-29 during the entire mission.

- Can the Mig-3 or can any Soviet high altitude interceptors have the speed and ability to intercept the B-29 at 25,000 to 30,000 feet?

Probably, the Japanese were able to intercept B-29's at altitude with planes that struggled at altitude.

- I have seen some sources on the internet and Wiki mentioning the La-7's service ceiling of over 30,000 feet but I have not found any documents talking about its capabilities or speed at 30,000 feet (typically I find the La-7's top speed at 25,000 feet to be around 372mph.)

So my question is, was the La-7 or any Soviet fighter capable of competing with any Allied escort aircraft at 30,000 feet altitude and why?

Western fighters such as the Spitfire, Mustang and P-47 performed quite well at altitude and held a distinct advantage over axis forces. VVS fighters lacked equal performance at altitude and would suffer in conflict.

- The Soviet Union also had a lot of captured German planes, do you guys think it would be able to intercept them?

No. Captured aircraft had a limited lifespan and were not superior to Allied air resources.

 

[Peter Gunn]

It did do serious damage to the Luftwaffe fighters by forcing them to fight in the happy place of the escorting P-47s.

No, it forced the Luftwaffe to fight in the happy place of the escorting P-51 Mustangs. Both further ranging than the P-47 and at an altitude right in the wheelhouse of the P-51.

Also "managing a Yak-3 on their terms" doesn't exactly strike fear into the metric shit ton of hot rod fighters the USAAF and RAF deployed. I don't see them giving much trouble to late model Spitfires, or H model Mustangs and N model Thunderbolts.

Not to mention Gloster Meteors or P-80s.

 

[marathag]

Tinian to Tokyo ís 1500 miles. Any distance less than that is workable.

LeMay had the B-29s fly lower, at night, so more bombs could be carried. At those lower altitudes, could carry 10,000 pounds, 1840 nautical miles. Targets shorter than that, more bombs could be carried.

Cruising at 20,000 feet before climbing to over 30,000ft like the Atomic missions, had 1600 nautical mile range.

You don't want to drop a 15kt atomic bomb from 20,000 feet, not enough time to clear the target area.

From 34,000 feet Enola Gay had 44 seconds from release to detonation to get as far away as possible. It was bomb release, and then hard turn. IIRC had a nine mile slant range, and the aircraft still experienced severe buffeting

 

[marathag]

How many B-29s were shot down by La-9s in Korea? And that was a more dangerous opponent than the Yak-3...

not many, per this site
Known B-29 Superfortress Losses in Korea (1950-1953) - Nuclear Companion: A nuclear guide to the cold war
MiG-15s seem to be the majority of shoot downs.
Blurb from the site:
Officially, 34 B-29s were lost during the Korean War: 16 were destroyed by fighter aircraft, 14 by other causes, and four by anti-aircraft weapons.

The B-29 bombers performed 21,000 missions, dropped 167,000 tons of bombs, and only took 26 days off from combat throughout the conflict.

On the other hand, the gunners of the B-29 claimed to have shot down 27 enemy aircraft, 16 of which were MiG-15s, in addition to possibly shooting down another 17 and damaging 11 MiG-15s.

 

[special ed]

A friend who was a tail gunner on B-29s in Korea said he was terrified of the MiG-15. The tracking system of the 29 could not track the 15 as the attacks were faster than the onboard system capability. He never mentioned any prop plane attacks. In fact, when discussing missions, he would get that far away look and stop talking.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

LeMay had the B-29s fly lower, at night, so more bombs could be carried. At those lower altitudes, could carry 10,000 pounds, 1840 nautical miles. Targets shorter than that, more bombs could be carried.

Cruising at 20,000 feet before climbing to over 30,000ft like the Atomic missions, had 1600 nautical mile range.

You don't want to drop a 15kt atomic bomb from 20,000 feet, not enough time to clear the target area.

From 34,000 feet Enola Gay had 44 seconds from release to detonation to get as far away as possible. It was bomb release, and then hard turn. IIRC had a nine mile slant range, and the aircraft still experienced severe buffeting

Hansell and LeMay both ordered high-altitude missions (25 - 30,000 ft) before the switch in tactics at the beginning of Mar 1945 to low-altitude incendiary missions. B-29s were perfectly capable of the `2,850-mile high-altitude missions carrying (iirc, open to correction) about 10,000 lbs of bombs.

 

[bf109xxl]

not many

That's right. Actually, it was a rhetorical question on my part - the effectiveness of the best Soviet piston-engined fighters against the B-29 was extremely low. I suspect it would be insufficient against the B-17/-24/Lancs as well, but in this case a fighter escort would be necessary.

 

[Howard Gibson]

You have two or three month to destroy the critical facilities in the USSR. After that, you don't have to fear any new high-altitude fighters, radars, etc.

That is what all the strategic bombing aficionados said. You bomb a factory. Either they fix it in a week or two, or they move it to a new location.