TA-152 vs B-29

Koopernic · Apr 13, 2021

GrauGeist said:
As mentioned before, the biggest threat to the B-29 (or even the B-32) in Europe, would be the Me262.
It's speed and firepower was not matched until the Korean war.

A fully developed Me 262 was a monster. With the EZ42 or EZ45 gyro gunsight integrated with the FuG 248 3cm microwave radar ranging system and the Elfe computer was more advanced than the MiG 15. Apart from guns this gave an elegant way of aiming the R4M folding fin rockets. All German fighter aircraft did get the EZ42 including 109K4 but non were integrated with radar ranging because the radar was not yet ready. It was a leading edge type radar. The first set of EZ42 were incorrectly installed on the Me 262 leading many of the "dream team" aces to reject it but it worked very well on the Fw 190D9. The gyros were seperate but in the EZ45 they were integrated into the unit itself thereby making installation easier. These German gyro sights featured magnification and air density compensation and so rather than being adapted for rapid adaptation to deflection shots in dog fighting as the Allee sights were they were more focused on long range. The German fighter pilot Oskar Romm, flying an Fw 190D9, reports being consistently able to shoot down Lavochkins by targeting the cockpit at ranges of 500m. Brutal business.

SpicyJuan11 · Apr 23, 2021

Dimlee said:
If I'm not mistaken, B-29's sortie loss rate was 1.1 % in 1945 and around 0.3% during the Korean War (recon flights excluding).
I don't think that Ta-152 can do the job better than MiG-15. Even if we assume the same quality of pilots.

Are those total loss rates or combat?

Dimlee · Apr 23, 2021

SpicyJuan11 said:
Are those total loss rates or combat?

As I remember, those were combat loss rates.
I can not find now that article about the loss rate in WW2 but as for Korean War, there are numbers in Wiki:
"Over the course of the war, B-29s flew 20,000 sorties and dropped 200,000 tonnes (180,000 tons) of bombs. B-29 gunners were credited with shooting down 27 enemy aircraft.[76] In turn 78 B-29 were lost; 57 B-29 and reconnaissance variants were lost in action and 21 were non-combat losses. "
Boeing B-29 Superfortress - Wikipedia

Koopernic · May 2, 2021

Dimlee said:
As I remember, those were combat loss rates.
I can not find now that article about the loss rate in WW2 but as for Korean War, there are numbers in Wiki:
"Over the course of the war, B-29s flew 20,000 sorties and dropped 200,000 tonnes (180,000 tons) of bombs. B-29 gunners were credited with shooting down 27 enemy aircraft.[76] In turn 78 B-29 were lost; 57 B-29 and reconnaissance variants were lost in action and 21 were non-combat losses. "
Boeing B-29 Superfortress - Wikipedia

Given the Japanese managed 1.1% attrition rate against the B-29's one would think that the Luftwaffe would do better than the Japanese since they had better radar and better high altitude aircraft.

Of course the most likely scenario for use of the B-29 in ETO is that the D-day landings failed.

This could have happened had the Germans estimated the date of the landings more accurately (they estimated 2 weeks too late) and begun their build-up earlier. During several days of the first 2 weeks storms prevented the landing of supplies and manpower and had the storms lasted a few more days the landings might also have been repelled.

In this scenario the B-29 is exposed to Me 109, Ta 152 and Me 262 and relatively powerful German FLAK of 12.8cm that could reach the B-29.

The other reason might be the successful deployment of a proximity fuse, which might have happened had they not suspended their own program from 1940 to 1942. Such a fuse would have knocked the B-24 out of the war.

It all depend when. The B-29 would be a challenge to intercept in June 1944 for the Luftwaffe but the new high altitude versions of the Me 109 were then beginning production.

Admiral Beez · May 23, 2021

fubar57 said:
Aviation - What If

That's the totality of your contribution? Instead of calling him out for the venue why not consider the merits the post? IMO, let's leave the rules enforcement to the mods.

GrauGeist · May 23, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
That's the totality of your contribution? Instead of calling him out for the venue why not consider the merits the post? IMO, let's leave the rules enforcement to the mods.

What's your contribution?
Fubar answered his question, the mods moved the post to the right section and everyone moved forward - over a month ago...

Admiral Beez · May 23, 2021

GrauGeist said:
What's your contribution?

My attempt below. Single word dismissals bug me, but mods right above.

Thumpalumpacus said:
This is a what-if thread. What if the Germans held out long enough to produce the TA-152 in significant numbers, and what if that resilience led the USAAF to deploy the B-29 to Europe? How do you think these airplanes would stack up?

Traveling at over 350 mph at over 30,000 ft, the B-29 over Japan didn't really need fighter escort. Over Germany this will be different, and the Ta 152 will have the altitude performance and speed to catch the B-29. So we need a pressurized, high altitude escort fighter. Is that the P-51? Maybe the XP-47E but does it have the legs? P-38L may be the best choice.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 23, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
That's the totality of your contribution? Instead of calling him out for the venue why not consider the merits the post? IMO, let's leave the rules enforcement to the mods.

And this is the totality of yours? He was simply pointing out that there is a "What if section" to put the thread in. The thread was originally in the wrong section and it was then moved. No big deal, and certainly not a problem. Let's leave the rules enforcement to the mods yourself, and even more importantly lets not make mountains out of mole hills.

Admiral Beez · May 23, 2021

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
And this is the totality of yours? He was simply pointing out that there is a "What if section" to put the thread in. The thread was originally in the wrong section and it was then moved. No big deal, and certainly not a problem. Let's leave the rules enforcement to the mods yourself, and even more importantly lets not make mountains out of mole hills.

Worth saying twice, but I understood the first time. Happy Sunday all.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 23, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
Worth saying twice, but I understood the first time. Happy Sunday all.

I did not say it TWICE. Do you see it TWICE?

When I quoted your post it formatted wrong. I rewrote it, and deleted the first one. Is that ok?

Thumpalumpacus · May 23, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
Traveling at over 350 mph at over 30,000 ft, the B-29 over Japan didn't really need fighter escort. Over Germany this will be different, and the Ta 152 will have the altitude performance and speed to catch the B-29. So we need a pressurized, high altitude escort fighter. Is that the P-51? Maybe the XP-47E but does it have the legs? P-38L may be the best choice.

I bet if Doolittle turns the 8th fighters loose as in OTL, 350 mph at 30k will turn the trick all the same.

Here's my thinking:

Most of the Allied escort goes below and ahead of the bombers, to attack LW fighter fields. I could see keeping some Thunderbolts, with their high-altitude performance, for close-escort for the bombers. German fighters can either:

1) try scrambling to get to intercept height all the same -- suffering losses and scattering as it does so;

2) they take off early and use precious fuel orbiting for the intercept (especially those -109Fs with their short legs). Bear in mind that the -29's defensive armament suite is far better than any other heavy Allied bomber. Or --

3) take off after the fighter-sweep and lose most chances to intercept at all, risking ground losses in so doing.

Option 2) might be the best LW countertactic, but would be vulnerable to feints.

Do you or anyone else see problems with this line of thinking?

Admiral Beez · May 23, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
I bet if Doolittle turns the 8th fighters loose as in OTL, 350 mph at 30k will turn the trick all the same.

Here's my thinking:

Most of the Allied escort goes below and ahead of the bombers, to attack LW fighter fields. I could see keeping some Thunderbolts, with their high-altitude performance, for close-escort for the bombers. German fighters can either:

1) try scrambling to get to intercept height all the same -- suffering losses and scattering as it does so;

2) they take off early and use precious fuel orbiting for the intercept (especially those -109Fs with their short legs). Bear in mind that the -29's defensive armament suite is far better than any other heavy Allied bomber. Or --

3) take off after the fighter-sweep and lose most chances to intercept at all, risking ground losses in so doing.

Option 2) might be the best LW countertactic, but would be vulnerable to feints.

Do you or anyone else see problems with this line of thinking?

I like it. We're not specifically tackling the Ta 152 threat though.

I forgot that by this time the USAAF escorts could take off from France, so our high altitude, Ta 152 countering escorts can have the range needed.

Thumpalumpacus · May 23, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
I like it. We're not specifically tackling the Ta 152 threat though.

I forgot that by this time the USAAF escorts could take off from France, so our high altitude, Ta 152 countering escorts can have the range needed.

Given the Ta-152's fantastic performance at altitude, I think the best approach is getting them before they get up high. It's similar to the tactic used to reduce the threat from the 262, in a sense. Of course the -152 was dangerous down low as well, but our fighter pilots gotta get to them as close to the ground as possible. 470 mph at 30,000 foot is damned hard to fight.

Admiral Beez · May 23, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
Given the Ta-152's fantastic performance at altitude, I think the best approach is getting them before they get up high. It's similar to the tactic used to reduce the threat from the 262, in a sense. Of course the -152 was dangerous down low as well, but our fighter pilots gotta get to them as close to the ground as possible. 470 mph at 30,000 foot is damned hard to fight.

Yeah, that's Meteor territory there. Forward deployed to France, with RATO to altitude to preserve some semblance of endurance?

Thumpalumpacus · May 23, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
RATO to altitude?

I hadn't even given that any thought ... exactly why I asked the question. That would certainly change the scenario.

Admiral Beez · May 23, 2021

Thumpalumpacus said:
I hadn't even given that any thought ... exactly why I asked the question. That would certainly change the scenario.

I can't find any examples of the Meteor using RATO. Here's a Corsair, Barracuda, B-29, and from 1942 an A-25.

It's this pic of the postwar CF-100 that gave me the idea.

We'd need to change the plan of keeping Meteors at home.

Thumpalumpacus · May 23, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
I can't find any examples of the Meteor using RATO. Here's a Corsair, Barracuda, B-29, and from 1942 an A-25.

It's this pic of the postwar CF-100 that gave me the idea.

View attachment 624437

We'd need to change the plan of keeping Meteors at home.

I don't know how far Meteors could range. I do know that the Germans with their rocket tech could and did put together RATO for the Arado jet, so having a jettisonable rig for the -152 might be useful. Take off under piston power, establish stable flight, and then light them off for some hyper-climb?

Admiral Beez · May 23, 2021

How effective was the B-29's armament? Is a remotely sighted belly gunner as good as a manned ball turret? Safer yes, but can the man hit his target?

Did the crew have armour? What about explosive decompression?

Thumpalumpacus · May 23, 2021

Admiral Beez said:
How effective was the B-29's armament? Is a remotely sighted belly gunner as good as a manned ball turret? Safer yes, but can the man hit his target?

View attachment 624442

Did the crew have armour? What about explosive decompression?

The key is actually the analog computer. The -29 had three gunners if I recall right, one controlling the upper turrets, one controlling the lower turrets, and one in the tail with a manual set-up.

Both the upper and lower turrets (that's 8 .50s total) had analog gun-laying computers guiding the turrets. Fewer guns than a -17 or -24, but with centralized and corrected aiming. That's not counting the manual tail guns, though I think the tail gunner could control the rear upper- and lower-turrets as well on demand.

From the Smithsonian:

The system in the B-29 employed analog electromechanical computers that used small, electrically-driven mechanical switches, called relays, instead of levers and gears. These devices were significantly faster than strictly mechanical computers.

Computers in the B-29 central fire control system made corrections in three main areas to accurately aim the aircraft's guns: ballistics, lead, and parallax.

Ballistics is the behavior of a projectile once it leaves the muzzle of a gun. The two main considerations when calculating ballistics are the pull of gravity and the resistance from air pressure that could push the bullet back, which can greatly change in varying conditions

Lead refers to the compensation for how much a target moves in the time it takes a bullet to reach it. To hit a fast moving target, guns may have to be aimed as much as 200 yards ahead of the enemy.

Parallax error occurs because the angle to the target from the gunner's sight is different from the angle to the target from a turret located several yards away. The computer calculates the parallax error and ensures that the guns fire at the target sighted by the gunner. The computers made these three corrections so that a gunner could simply point his sight at the target he wished to hit.

[...]

Each gunner accessed a gunsight and control system to enter information to calculate the range to a target. Two gyros on the sighting station provided the relative velocity of the target. Additional inputs came from the navigator's handset. Using indicated air speed, barometric altitude, and temperature set by the navigator, the computer calculated true air speed and density altitude to make the corrections for ballistics, lead, and parrallax.

[...]

One of the advantages of a remote firing system is that since the sights control the turrets electronically, a single sight can be used to train more than one turret on a target so each gunner had the ability to control more than one turret through a series of switches mounted at each station.

Defending the Superbomber: The B-29's Central Fire Control System.

This is not your father's B-17. The ability to direct fire-control from one of several stations electronically made the defensive armament more utile than a simple description of "10x.50cal guns" might sound. Certainly more concentrated than disparate gunners communicating by radio controlling one or two .50s apiece. It's a more-organized defense a force-multiplier.

As for decompression, I can't really speak to that, I'm more ignorant about that level of detail. But I do know that not the entire airplane was pressurized, so it's not like a fuselage hit is going to necessarily crumple anything. I know the forward and aft cabins were pressurized, and I think but am not sure that the tunnel over the bomb bay was as well. Hopefully someone better-informed will chime in to clear that up.

The B-29 was not invulnerable, but it was a damned-sight more difficult than anything the LW had seen. I should think the 262 would be the go-to weapon against it if the 262 had some reliability on its side. But again, an Allied fighter-sweep ahead of the raid would render that tactic weaker, if you can catch the 262s taking off. You might have better luck with putting RATO on a -152 as a climb-boost?

Admiral Beez · May 23, 2021

Good info here Defending the Superbomber: The B-29's Central Fire Control System

TA-152 vs B-29

Banned

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major

Major

Major

Major

Major

Major

Major

Major

Major

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads