Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think you would find that by the time B-29 operations began many of the initial crews were combat veterans and probably did not require that training especially with the B-29s fire control systemThe B-29 program was important enough that it should have merited use of Bell RP-63 targets.
Not on this forum and it by far it wasn't!The P-63 was the follow-up to the P-39 which I've read somewhere on a forum was the best fighter of WWII.
I recall reading a brief mention of that, too.which I've read somewhere on a forum was the best fighter of WWII.
I've had conversations with B-24 and B-17 turret gunners who were frustrated with the Me262 as it was too fast for their turrets, so I can only imagine the B-29 gunner's frustration with the MiG.I was told back in the 60s by a Korean vet, who was a B-29 tail gunner, that the tracking system could not track the MiG-15 accurately as they were too fast. He admitted to being terrified during missions, but that's all he mentioned.
My uncles diary mentions flak they took on one mission over the Tokyo - Nagoya complex I believe, the plane depressurized but they were already on oxygen as S.O.P. over target. I'll check but I think they took almost 50-60 holes so all compartments lost air integrity.The B-29 had pressurized sections. If the plane was hit would that have caused unique issues?
According to the same document the 8th Airforce heavy bombers shot down 3,381 enemy aircraft In 1943 alone. The loss of 700 bombers in the same time frame gives an incredible claims to loss ratio of almost 5 to 1. Their final tally of 6,098 compares favorably with the 7,442 air to air claims by fighters. Taking into account that the fighter totals would include bombers transports and others the heavy bombers were the most succeful "fighters" of WWII in the ETOI can agree with that.
I don't know how accurate this is but...
"According to the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest published in December 1945, in the 13-month period from August 1944 to the war's end in August 1945, B-29s were responsible for the destruction of 914 enemy aircraft in the air with a loss of just 72 of their own to enemy aircraft during more than 31,000 combat sorties flown."
Ordnance: Boeing B-29 Superfortress Game Changer
By Gregory A. Henry The Boeing B-29 Superfortress was a game changer. First rolling off the assembly line as a production aircraft in July 1943, the Superfortress was the answer to America’s need for a high-level long-range strategic bomber. Conceived in 1938, the Superfortress was designed to...warfarehistorynetwork.com
The aircraft was not pressurized during combat or pressurization was limited, this is mentioned in the flight manual IIRCThe B-29 had pressurized sections. If the plane was hit would that have caused unique issues?
Agree - the reference I posted was all I can find that showed any information on B-29 gunner performance over JapanAccording to the same document the 8th Airforce heavy bombers shot down 3,381 enemy aircraft In 1943 alone. The loss of 700 bombers in the same time frame gives an incredible claims to loss ratio of almost 5 to 1. Their final tally of 6,098 compares favorably with the 7,442 air to air claims by fighters. Taking into account that the fighter totals would include bombers transports and others the heavy bombers were the most succeful "fighters" of WWII in the ETO
The reality is that gunners were notorious for over claiming. Post war analysis showed this For the ETO And in fact if the USAAF truly believed their own numbers there wouldn't have been a call for escort fighters.
I don't know if a post war analysis was done for B 29 claims But it would be interesting to see the results.
Actually according to the attached document the combat veterans performed no better at learning how to operate the B-29 fire control system than the rookies.I think you would find that by the time B-29 operations began many of the initial crews were combat veterans and probably did not require that training especially with the B-29s fire control system
If, as you presume, the tests were done without qualified gunners the test were rubbish. The report make no mention of how the test were conducted. That being said I just posted a document testing done with a variety of gunner which h concluded that the combat veterans performed no better than the rookies.Not rubbish, just not informed with combat experience with the system. If those tests were accomplished stateside as the plane was going into service, the "test personnel" were most likely not combat experienced gunners, and certainly not with combat experience on the system.
Before the advent of reliable target drones with fighter-like performance, a true airborne workout of the system would be hard to achieve. Culver Cadets are not quite the thing.
As you note the M69 was an inaccurate weapon. From Cravan and Cates:The switch to night bombing had nothing to do with high altitude daylight bombing (which was not discontinued), it was specifically for incendiary bombing, which was conducted most often at 5,000 feet.
The factors involved in the decision was that Japan's night fighter force was almost non-existant as well as their AA batteries being ineffective at night.
Additionally, the M69 incendiary bomb was not a high altitude weapon. It needed to be dropped at lower altitudes in order to maximize saturation of a target.
Interesting - I read part of the report and in the conclusions it seems it was just a matter of additional training with this "new" equipment. It was interesting how there was improvement with each mission and how the bombardiers scored. For the technology of the day it seemed to work well and if you even consider a 75% error in the claims I posted (I'm throwing out a number) it seems B-29 gunners still did pretty good.Actually according to the attached document the combat veterans performed no better at learning how to operate the B-29 fire control system than the rookies.
View attachment 642177
View attachment 642179
View attachment 642178
I agree that the gunners did well, but keeping the sight on target is only part of the equation. The question I have is how well the computers did at translating the gunners input into putting bullets on target. There a lot of variables to be taken into account with not a lot of processing power to do the complex math. How quickly and precisely do the turret mechanisms respond? Remote turrets introduce the problem of parallax requiring accurate determination of target range. As I posted recently variability seems to have been a problem for the GE system.Interesting - I read part of the report and in the conclusions it seems it was just a matter of additional training with this "new" equipment. It was interesting how there was improvement with each mission and how the bombardiers scored. For the technology of the day it seemed to work well and if you even consider a 75% error in the claims I posted (I'm throwing out a number) it seems B-29 gunners still did pretty good.
The attached document contains a synopsis of bombing altitudesAs you note the M69 was an inaccurate weapon. From Cravan and Cates:
"The actual tactics to be used were the subject of much study by LeMay and his staff. The results of the Tokyo mission, though encouraging, were far from perfect. Like the other incendiary tests and LeMay's successful fire raid on Hankow on 18 December, this mission had been run at high altitude.† Because of the high winds prevalent over Japan, accuracy under such conditions was difficult to achieve; moreover, the ballistic characteristics of the 500-pound cluster of M69's rendered that bomb grossly inaccurate.19 A lower bombing altitude would increase accuracy, bomb load, and the life of B-29 engines. It might also increase losses to a prohibitive rate."
"As for enemy fighters, the chief cause of losses in daylight missions, there was less fear. Current intelligence credited the Japanese with only two units of night fighters in all of the home islands, and with them, as with the AA guns, radar equipment was not considered up to U.S. standards."
At the time low level night attacks were implemented high altitude attacks were not discontinued but it no longer done at 30,000 feet. I was surprised to learn how few high altitude missions were actually conducted. Only 16 in total.
View attachment 642191
High level bombing was conducted at similar altitudes to the ETO.
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.
Assuming there is the capacity to make 3 times the number of bombs and the shipping space to get them there them over to Europe and can have 3 times the number of armorers to prep and load them and assuming you can afford to replace B-17s on a one for one basis and that you have the additional ground crews to maintain the more complex aircraft.Sure. Like I say, I get your basic point and agree that it's valid: more altitude equals worse dispersion. And there's also the European weather which was bad enough at 24k.
But even given what -17s, -24s, and Lancs did historically, I can't imagine -29s would do worse, sloppy aiming and all. It's carrying 3-5 times the bomb loadout of the American predecessors, and 50% more than the Lanc, and with better defensive armament than any of 'em.