The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Juha]

Hello FlyboyJ
Even if I think that B-29 was the best bomber used during WWII, I'd not say that it

"could more than take care if itself." If that was true why the need for escort fighters and why the bombing campaign was so expensive in men and machines. Of course one reason was the unreliability of R-3350 engines but there were also many losses to Japanese fighters.

And Lancaster Specials could carry 5 and 10 tons bombs, so Lanc had the lifting capacity but not the range.

"The B-29 was a technology a head of the Lancaster in all aspects of systems, operations and performance"
I agree that but B-29 still lacked reliability even if they found out ways to minimize the strain to engines and so improve the reliability.
I still agree with that that B-29 was the best bomber of WWII.

Juha

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hello FlyboyJ
Even if I think that B-29 was the best bomber used during WWII, I'd not say that it

"could more than take care if itself." If that was true why the need for escort fighters and why the bombing campaign was so expensive in men and machines. Of course one reason was the unreliability of R-3350 engines but there were also many losses to Japanese fighters.

And Lancaster Specials could carry 5 and 10 tons bombs, so Lanc had the lifting capacity but not the range.

"The B-29 was a technology a head of the Lancaster in all aspects of systems, operations and performance"
I agree that but B-29 still lacked reliability even if they found out ways to minimize the strain to engines and so improve the reliability.
I still agree with that that B-29 was the best bomber of WWII.

Juha

You're almost right....

Many of the B-29 raids were accomplished without escorts as the 29s were flown at altitudes beyond the ability of most Japanese fighters to intercept. It was later in the war when the big bomber went low level is when they were escorted in and out of target, and even at that point the fighter escort was permitted to leave the bombers to strafe target of opportunity once the target was bombed. The B-29 never had more than a 10% loss loss rate from all causes, both WW2 and during the Korean conflict.

As far as reliability? Sure the first year there were problems with the 3350, but many of those problems (like any other new aircraft would have) were remedied by the time the firebombing offensive against Japan was started in April 1945. The B-29 turned out to be a very reliable aircraft, served in 2 wars and served for 15 years, it doesn't get any better than that.

Bomb loads? The B-29 could carry block busters under its wings. The Lancaster came close to bomb carrying ability but it wasn't flying that bomb load as fast, as long and as high as a B-29....

It wan't a Lancaster the USSR chose to copy ....

 

[Juha]

Hello FlyboyJ

I agree with that. But not so sure that the problems of 3350s were erased. IIRC when the British used Washingtons (loaned B-29s in 50s) they still had problems with engines. "Very good 3-engine bomber" they tended to say, but admitted that it was more sophisticated than Avro Lincoln.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hello FlyboyJ

I agree with that. But not so sure that the problems of 3350s were erased. IIRC when the British used Washingtons (loaned B-29s in 50s) they still had problems with engines. "Very good 3-engine bomber" they tended to say, but admitted that it was more sophisticated than Avro Lincoln.

But that was the case with all large radial recips, especially when installed on multi-engined aircraft. The 3350 had a large part of the engine made out of magnesium, a little flame and, well you know the rest. The reliability factor of the radial was apparent in the post WW2 years where all major airliners kept to the large radial until the turbine engine was scene.

When TWA was operating the Constellation, there was a continual program to ensure that engines were available, even at stations where there were little or no maintenance facilitilites. It was accepted that these engines in post war operation weren't going to last to overhaul.

Here's some more info on the 3350 and the B-29...

"The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures was the engine. Though the Wright R-3350 would later become a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems, many caused by demands that the B-29 be put in operation as soon as possible. It had an impressive power-to-weight ratio, but this came at a heavy cost to durability. Worse, the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat.

These weaknesses combined to make an engine that would overheat regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff. Unseated valves released fuel-air mixtures during engine combustion that acted as a blowtorch against the valve stems. When these burned through the engines disintegrated and caught fire. A fire that was not immediately contained in the forward part of the engine by fire extinguishers became impossible to put out. An accessory housing manufactured of magnesium alloy in the back of the engine would often catch fire and produce heat so intense it burned through the firewall to the main wing spar in no more than 90 seconds, resulting in catastrophic failure of the wing.

This problem would not be fully cured until the aircraft was re-engined with the more powerful Pratt Whitney R-4360 'Wasp Major' in the B-29D/B-50 program, which arrived too late for World War II. Interim measures included cuffs placed on propeller blades to divert a greater flow of cooling air into the intakes, which had baffles installed to direct a stream of air onto the exhaust valves. Oil flow to the valves was also increased, asbestos baffles installed around rubber push rod fittings to prevent oil loss, thorough pre-flight inspections made to detect unseated valves, and frequent replacement of the uppermost 5 cylinders (every 25 hours of engine time) and engines (75 hours)."

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The fact that the B-29 needed air escort is a weak argument. The B-17 needed air escort, the B-24 needed air escort, and if the Lancaster had flown more day missions it would have needed air escort. It certainly needed air escort when it flew day missions.

ALL BOMBERS NEEDED AIR ESCORT, ESPECIALLY OVER EUROPE.

The B-29 could carry a large load, the furthest distance at high altitudes and was more advanced than any bomber in the sky at the time. As FBJ pointed out, it had the best fire control system of any bomber.

There is no way to say that any bomber was better than the B-29.

If the need had risen the B-29 would have found its way to Europe as well...

 

[Juha]

Adler
I know, I know...but as I wrote, my post was a reaction to Flyboy J's statement that B-29 "could more than take care if itself". To my understanding a plane that can take care of itself doesn't need escort, and a plane which can more than take care of itself needs escort even less. Now unescorted B-29s could always, at least during WWII, fought their way to their targets but sometimes suffered rather heavy losses to enemy so USAAF decided that the escort would not be a bad idea after all.
Flyboy's answer was very good so I have no reason to continue argument with him and after all I have been in opinion that B-29 was the best bomber of WWII since late 60s onwards.

Juha

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My uncle flew in B-29s in Korea and in both B-29s and B-50s after Korea. He revealed to me that he had flown 'ferret' missions into the Soviet Union. On one occasion they shot their way out but not without having their aircraft filled with holes. F-86s showed up to save the day.

Of course this is just one of many Cold War actions that will never be confirmed or denied.

 

[B-17G]

Has anyone mentioned the B-17? I personally think that it was the best bomber.(just look at my username) Correct me if I am wrong but couldn't the B-17 withstand the most battle damage of all the bombers in WWII?

 

[B-17G]

Sorry, I see that the B-17 was already discussed. How do you determine which is the best bomber? (missions, lossses, range)? I don't think this discussion will ever be done.

 

[syscom3]

Sorry, I see that the B-17 was already discussed. How do you determine which is the best bomber? (missions, lossses, range)? I don't think this discussion will ever be done.

Ultimatley, it was the USSBS produced after the war that identified what worked and what didnt.

The B29 was obviously the best bomber of WW2.

The Lanc came in 2nd place as it could carry the large bombs needed to destroy the industrial machinery in the factories.

Although I still say the B24 was 2nd best in the PTO and CBI theaters.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sorry, I see that the B-17 was already discussed. How do you determine which is the best bomber? (missions, lossses, range)? I don't think this discussion will ever be done.

Bomb load, performance, impact, defensive armament and systems. The B-29 was almost a generation a head of any WW2 heavy bomber.

 

[bomber]

Aren't numbers built and number of missions taken as a factor ?

If we applied the same criteria to fighters, it'd make the 262 the best fighter of WWII wouldn't it ?

Simon

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Aren't numbers built and number of missions taken as a factor ?

If we applied the same criteria to fighters, it'd make the 262 the best fighter of WWII wouldn't it ?

Simon

No - the 262 had little or no impact on the war, can't say the same about the B-29....

 

[drgondog]

You're almost right....

Many of the B-29 raids were accomplished without escorts as the 29s were flown at altitudes beyond the ability of most Japanese fighters to intercept. It was later in the war when the big bomber went low level is when they were escorted in and out of target, and even at that point the fighter escort was permitted to leave the bombers to strafe target of opportunity once the target was bombed. The B-29 never had more than a 10% loss loss rate from all causes, both WW2 and during the Korean conflict.

As far as reliability? Sure the first year there were problems with the 3350, but many of those problems (like any other new aircraft would have) were remedied by the time the firebombing offensive against Japan was started in April 1945.

It is perhaps a nit but the first low level firebombing missions occurred on March 9, 1945 shortly after LeMay took over XXI BC while reporting to Joint Chiefs.

His reasoning was a.) low stress on engines, b.) Japanese had almost zero night defense capability - Nothing to compare to Germans, c.) heavier bomb load capability after stripping all guns (and gunners) except tail, and removing Tokyo tanks, d.) Japanese believed to have lousy firefighting capability and most dwellings made of wood, e.) no escort required, and f.) high level results were TERRIBLE to date.

His crews thought they were all going to die and the rest is history.

I'm often wrong (but rarely uncertain) but I don't think any of the night raids ever had fighter escort! And most of the missions after March, 1945 until the Okinawa pre-invasion were night raids - after that a mix of high and low

The two most amusing parts of his 'recollections' were a.) LeMay had to get to the 5th Page of the Logistics Priorities set by the US Navy to find the first item related to the B-29s (the primary reason for taking the Marianas) and .b) He told Nimitz after the 13th that he would run out of incidieries by the 19th of March - and Nimitz didn't believe him - and got reamed by Joint Chiefs when LeMay had to stop these extremely successful attacks until more (many more) incindieries could be shipped in. They used up what was believed adequate for 6 months in 10 days.

The best single reference on this subject is Mission With LeMay an autobiography by McKantor(?CRS in play)

My vote is on the B-29, too bad the 36 didn't fly a little bit sooner.

Regards,

Bill

 

[renrich]

Some of those early spy missions flown deep into the USSR with B45s, B47s and others are really interesting stories. I would not argue the point but my favorite WW2 bombers were the B26 Marauder, the A20 and it's succesor the other B26. I read somewhere that the early pilots of the Marauder were afraid of the airplane and Jimmy Doolittle came to the base and put it through it's paces to reassure them. It went on to be a formidable medium bomber with a low loss rate.

 

[renrich]

The lowlevel B29 missions were also a function of poor bombing accuracy from high altitude because of the jet stream.

 

[bomber]

No - the 262 had little or no impact on the war, can't say the same about the B-29....

If we take away the 2 nukes... what was the comparable impact between the B29 and B24 on the war ?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If we take away the 2 nukes... what was the comparable impact between the B29 and B24 on the war ?

The B-29 buried mainland Japan, especially the firebombings in April 1945 which killed more people than the atominc bombings. It was also used to mine the entire Japanese coastline as well.

The B-24 in the Pacific was a good reliable heavy bomber that was used to hit targets that were soon to be invaded. No way did it have the range and bomb load to do what the B-29 did.

 

[syscom3]

A lesser known mission that the B29's had were the mining of the inland seas.

Two mines were carried by each B29.

This shut down the last of the merchant ship operations between the Japanese cities. If anything, the Japanese were not only having their cities burned to the ground, but now were on the verge of famine since food stocks could not be distributed with any efficiency

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This is from the USAF Historical Research Agency. Look at the jump in dropped bomb tonnage in 1944, about the time the B-29 came on scene. Compare it to Mid 1945 and I think the B-29s impact is more than apparent.