The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Waynos]

One thing that is also worth noting is that the B-29 was not only a leap ahead technologically over the Lancaster and B-17 24, it was also much more advanced than such as the Vickers Windsor and Avro Lincoln (and B-32?) which were directly comparable in timescale. I always fly the flag for British aircraft out of habit, but if you can't give credit where its due whats the point?

Speaking of which, I can't see how the Ju-88 could be rated above the DH Mosquito. The Mossie was faster, carried more bombs and was equally adaptable to say the least. I think the Ju 88 is certainly one of histories greatest aircraft, just behind the Mosquito I know, I know, lots of other don't

 

[Marcel]

In all actuality you would have to break them down into types of bombers.

We discussed this last year..and the year before that... and the year before that Last year we even did break it down, don't know where those threads went.
I think we all agree that the question in this thread is actually a silly one, right?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

We discussed this last year..and the year before that... and the year before that Last year we even did break it down, don't know where those threads went.
I think we all agree that the question in this thread is actually a silly one, right?

Absolutely!

 

[Njaco]

We discussed this last year..and the year before that... and the year before that Last year we even did break it down, don't know where those threads went.
I think we all agree that the question in this thread is actually a silly one, right?

Yup and I still got sucked into answering it!

 

[syscom3]

Its maritime strike capability was limited

Why was that? It carried two large aerial mines and used its range and navigational capabilities to use that capacity to great effect in the inland seas of Japan.

And its ability to carry oversize loads, meant that if the Allies had decided to develop glide bombs like the germans had, then it would have been the well positioned to carry them.

as was its ability to provide ground support to battlefield situations.

I assume you mean it couldnt be used in a tactical situation, which is true, because IT WAS NEVER designed for that role. Your line of reasoning also suggests that no four engined "heavy bomber" could be used in that role either.

But then the inverse of your logic is the A20/B25/B26 and Mossie couldnt be used in long range missions either.

I read that the 3500 B-29s produced cost more to build than the entire 19000 B-24 program. How would 3500 B-29s fare, compared to 19000 B-24s over germany?

One B29 could carry an atomic bomb, with an effective payload of 15,000 tons. How about that?

The B24's were simpler to design and build and were in mass production 2 years before the B29 had any meaningful production. And we know one thing for sure, the B24 could not have bombed Japan from the Mariana's.

They would have been cut to pieces, simply because there would not have been enough of them. If we assume similar deployment rates to Germany as was done historically in the PTO, th en ther would have been about 300 by the end of 1944, rising to about 500 by March 1945. At that same time, ther were thousands of B-24s and B-17s battling the Luftwaffe. I doubt that the B-29, despite its higher individual survivability, would have fared better overall, when viewed as agroup. There simply were not enough of them, and that was because they cost so much per unit to produce.

Why do you assume they would have been cut to pieces. They were not immune to the LW but they sure would have been less vulnerable to most of the LW fighters. And if they were used as night bombers, they would have even less loses. And dont forget, most B29 loses in the Pacific were due to the plane [damaged] having to fly 1600 miles back to their bases. Now if that range was only a few hundred miles like that in Europe, the B29 loses would be even less.

So while I agree they are the best from a technological point of view, from an operations point of view I see them as having rather limited potential in the WWII context.

Limited potential? How about burning Japan to the ground.

How bout bring ECM dedicated aircraft to a new level of capabilities.

How about mining the inland seas and immobilizing the Japanese coastal traffic.

How about dropping two nuclear weapons.

You call that "limited"?

The B29 was the result of the lessons learned from the Lanc, B17 and B24. Each one of those three planes showed what was good and bad about their designs as intended for strategic warfare, and the B29 by design or not, minimized the bad points and integrated the good points (to one degree or another) into a single platform.

 

[Shortround6]

The problem with a lot of these "BEST OF WW II" threads is that they cover too much ground or time.

The state of aeronautical knowledge and availabe (or projected) engines changed so much from 1935-37 to 1943-44 that trying to compare planes from the start of the war to planes available near the end of the war is useless even if you were comparing planes designed for the "SAME MISSION" which you wouldn't be because the mission requirements changed over time.

 

[syscom3]

Heres a post war pic of the B29 carrying a grand slam.

 

[Waynos]

Excellent, thanks. I had been trying to find one without success. The installation in this case looks the sam as on the Lanc. Semi recessed into the bomb bay. Have you any idea how it carried two ?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Excellent, thanks. I had been trying to find one without success. The installation in this case looks the sam as on the Lanc. Semi recessed into the bomb bay. Have you any idea how it carried two ?

Under the wings and they were Tall Boys.

something interesting

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADB972848&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

 

[Waynos]

Thanks very much. That is a fascinating document. I was suprised to see criticism that the reduction in aircraft performance following the release of the bomb was excessive. My initial though would be that divesting of a Tallboy would increase performance! Clearly it was drag uissue concerning ther modified bomb bay doors.

On reflection, two Grand slams would be a 44,000lb bomb load so no, I don't think the B-29 would have done that, but is there any more info on the twin Tallboy installation?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Been searching but I have seen a photo of a B-29 with a pair of tall boys on inboard wing pylons.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Been searching but I have seen a photo of a B-29 with a pair of tall boys on inboard wing pylons.

I have been searching for it as well, since this convo started. I have the pic saved on my computer somewhere.

 

[river]

Hi,

I have a picture of it, in flight, with a 22000lb Grand Slam under each wing (on pylons between the fuselage and in-board engines). I can scan it, but it is in the book "B29 Fortress at War", by David A Anderton (page 125).

The actual aircraft was a Wichita built B29-75-BW, serial number 44-70060. It was modifed with wing pylons that could take a Grand Slam, Tallboy or a pair of M56 4000lb light-case bombs, per wing pylon.

In the picture the Grand Slams are filled with sand to test the flying qualities of the aircraft. The picture and this flight took place out of Wichita on the 29th of June 1945.

There is also a picture of the same aircraft carrying the M56 packages.

river

 

[Civettone]

I'm reading "the wild blue" at the moment, about B-24s flying from Italy. Also a good part on the B-24 and a comparison with the B-17, making the latter clearly inferior to the B-24.

The B-24 really is a no-nonsense bomber with maximum range and bomb load possible.

Would a modified B-24 have been able to carry the Bomb to Hiroshima?
Kris

 

[Waynos]

Hi,

I have a picture of it, in flight, with a 22000lb Grand Slam under each wing (on pylons between the fuselage and in-board engines). I can scan it, but it is in the book "B29 Fortress at War", by David A Anderton (page 125).

The actual aircraft was a Wichita built B29-75-BW, serial number 44-70060. It was modifed with wing pylons that could take a Grand Slam, Tallboy or a pair of M56 4000lb light-case bombs, per wing pylon.

In the picture the Grand Slams are filled with sand to test the flying qualities of the aircraft. The picture and this flight took place out of Wichita on the 29th of June 1945.

There is also a picture of the same aircraft carrying the M56 packages.

river

River, are you sure that they were not Tallboy's? As I said before two Grand Slams is 44,000lb. I can beleive the B-36 lifting two of them but not the B-29. Unless they were only partially filled with sand to make them light enough of course, but then what would be the point of doing that?

 

[syscom3]

Would a modified B-24 have been able to carry the Bomb to Hiroshima?
Kris

No.

 

[river]

Hi,

River, are you sure that they were not Tallboy's? As I said before two Grand Slams is 44,000lb. I can beleive the B-36 lifting two of them but not the B-29. Unless they were only partially filled with sand to make them light enough of course, but then what would be the point of doing that?

The text says that Grand Slams, Tall Boys and M56 packages were tested on the pylons. The picture says they are Grand Slams, and they did say they were filled with sand. So, perhaps they were lighter in weight than the real Grand Slams, plus the text did say they were used to test the handling qualities of the B29 (maybe they were more concerned about the drag etc of the bombs as opposed to the weight - for initial testing?).

I'll check some images of Grand Slams and Tall Boys and check against the picture to see exactly what it is carrying - in case picture caption is incorrect. I'll try and get it scanned this evening and put the image here in this thread.

river

 

[Waynos]

Thanks, that would be great if you could.

 

[river]

Hi,

Sorry if the images are too big... but hey, you can never get too big when looking at fine war machinery, can you!
The pics look crappy as they are (below), but if you click on the yellow bar (on top) they'll blow up reall big and nice.

Okay, here is a pic of the B29 carrying the M56 bomb pakage on wing pylons....

And here it is with the Grand Slam (or Tall Boys? you guys may know better than me) under each wing.....

river

 

[flakhappy]

I keep running into these statements about the B24 having such a big bomb load, and range, and superior to the B-17, etc., etc. The statements probably are based on manufacturer's promotion, but not on fact. The B-24 had bomb bays (2) that could HOLD 8 tons, but believe somebody who flew in both 17s and 24s 65 years ago: While 17s loaded 3 tons for nearly every mission (except when carrying frags or firebombs), the 24s in Italy cut their loads to 2 1/2 tons so that they could fly to 25,000 feet. In B17s we flew most of our missions several thousand feet higher than that, and I personally flew over nine targets at over 30,000 feet. On top of that, the B-17 was WAY more stable for formation flying. The B-24 was a useful plane in the pacific where tight formations were rarely used. They could fill one bomb bay with fuel and fly all day.