The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[FLYBOYJ]

The B29 arrived too late to make any significant impact in WW2.

The destruction of Japanese military industry, mining all the waters around Japan and the firebombing of Tokyo, let alone the atomic bombing thus eliminating the need for an invasion of the Japanese homeland, yep - not much of a significant impact.

 

[Readie]

The first prototype made its maiden flight from Boeing Field, Seattle on 21 September 1942. Because of the aircraft's highly advanced design, challenging requirements, and immense pressure for production, development was deeply troubled. The second prototype, which unlike the unarmed first was fitted with a Sperry defensive armament system using remote controlled gun turrets sighted by periscopes,first flew on 30 December 1942, this flight being terminated due to a serious engine fire. On 18 February 1943 the second prototype crashed during its second test flight, an engine fire spreading to the wing, and causing the aircraft to crash into a factory just short of the runway, killing the entire 10 man crew and 20 others on the ground. Changes to the production craft came so often and so fast that in early 1944, B-29s flew from the production lines directly to modification depots for extensive rebuilds to incorporate the latest changes. The Air Force operated modification depots struggled to cope with the scale of work required, with a lack of hangars capable of housing the B-29 combined with freezing cold weather further delaying the modification, such that at the end of 1943, although almost 100 aircraft had been delivered, only 15 percent were airworthy.This prompted an intervention by General Hap Arnold to resolve the problem, with production personnel being sent from the factories to the modification centres to speed modification of sufficient aircraft to equip the first Bomb Groups in what became known as the "Battle of Kansas". This resulted in 150 aircraft being modified in the six weeks between 10 March and 15 April 1944.

The first B-29 combat mission was flown on 5 June 1944, with 77 out of 98 B-29s launched from India bombing the railroad shops in Bangkok and Thailand. Five B-29s were lost during the mission, not to hostile fire.

May 8 1945 VE Day -August 15 1945 VJ Day. So, the B29 career was rather short compared to the B17 and Lancaster.
I appreciate that range speed made the B29 bomber attack on Japan possible and that the B29 had some features that survived into the 1950's. But, in the context of this discussion about the heavy bombers that contributed the most toward victory it has to be the B17 and lancaster.

I err toward the Lancaster and the site of the BBMF flying makes me very proud and humble at the same time.
The American's feel the same about the Boeing's I'm sure.

To take up the point made by DerAdlerIstGelandet, national pride is also an influence and as we British paid such a heavy price for our liberty in terms of infrastructural damage, lost historical buildings, privation and fear of invasion and percentage loss of life, not to mention 61 years to repay the lend lease, that a lot of the world, America included ,doesn't really understand as they were not in our situation. Like it or not WW2 is still part of British heritage. Much to European amusement I might add.

The other point is that a lot of Europe has taken a slightly anti American and British stance. I find this bit rich as Europe has a lamentably short memory.
I worked in Dover in 2000 - 2002 and at the D day anniversary lots of older Americans and Commonwealth people came to see the D Day beaches.
As with the BBMF I felt quite humble to think of the sacrifices made.

pdfoot makes a good point....neither would I mate !

Cheers
John

 

[FLYBOYJ]

All that has been mentioned and discussed before - "the heavy bombers that contributed the most toward victory it has to be the B17 and lancaster" if we're talking the ETO, agree. The B-29 shortened the war by months and eventually ended it. The B-17 and B-24 "would have" been replaced by the B-32 had the war continued and it was shown that the Lancaster, even in the later models to include the Lincoln would not have been able to complete the mission in the same capacity as the B-29 did. Weather it served for one year or five years the B-29 served in WW2 and was by far the best bomber to come out of the war in terms of capability and performance, hands down.

 

[Readie]

the B-29 served in WW2 and was by far the best bomber to come out of the war in terms of capability and performance, hands down.

Look at the reliability records for B29. How can you make such a sweeping statement?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Look at the reliability records for B29. How can you make such a sweeping statement?

Simple - it still accomplished the mission. At worse the B-29 carried about a 65% Mission Capable rate but because of its capability and bomb load it was able to inflict the required damage to the enemy. The B-29 was the future of modern multi engine aircraft with regards to systems and operations. Yes there were many teething problems with the aircraft but it was at least a half of generation a head of the Lancaster in terms of construction, systems and in most cases, performance. I could start re-posting performance charts to prove my points as can also being up the fact that after WW2 the RAF "borrowed" the B-29 so it had an intercontental strike capability until the first of the "V" bombers came on line, this while the Lancaster was basically being removed from any type of combat duties.

 

[Readie]

After WW2 the RAF "borrowed" the B-29 so it had an intercontental strike capability until the first of the "V" bombers came on line, this while the Lancaster was basically being removed from any type of combat duties.

You are moving on from the original point.
I know that the B29 was very much the next generation of long range bomber and that the Lancaster was removed from front line service.
I was talking about WW2 contribution.
You have your view and I have mine.
Cheers
John

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You are moving on from the original point.
I know that the B29 was very much the next generation of long range bomber and that the Lancaster was removed from front line service.
I was talking about WW2 contribution.You have your view and I have mine.
Cheers
John

In the end so was I but agree...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

To take up the point made by DerAdlerIstGelandet, national pride is also an influence

I certainly agree with you and find nothing wrong with it either. I was just commenting how the topic seems to be like dejavu.

 

[Glider]

Not always, I am British, proud of it and would defend the Lanc as a remarkable aircraft that did many things. But the B29 went further, faster, higher, carried a heavier payload, a greater radius with a far better defence capability and its in my mind foolish to pretend that the Lancaster was even close.

The B29 was the first of the next generation and the Lancaster in my mind, the best of the previous generation, period.

 

[syscom3]

Look at the reliability records for B29. How can you make such a sweeping statement?

The B29 was a reliable enough bomber through the latter part of 1944 through the end of the war. Once production ramped up and spares made available, and ground crews increased in proficiency, mission readiness improved.

 

[parsifal]

How did the B-29 readiness rate compare with the air force average. Both the british and US air forces had readiness rates for frontline formations of around 72% in the ETO. I would expect it was somewhat lower in the PTO. In early 1942 for example it , it plummetted to about 30%. Perhaps a figure of 65% might be appropriate?. How does the B-29 throughout its career compare with that . It also needs to be remembered the deployment of the B-29 may have something to do with a low serviceability rate. It began in China in the pacific, where the relative isolation of the bases from which was operating surely had an effect. B-29 operations were really not that successful until after two things happened.....the capture of the Marianas, which placed them better and solved the logistic issue, and secondly the switch to low level fire bombing, which greatly increased theuir lethality. If you want to talk about british comparability, it wasnt until the USAAC adopted British Incendiary/HE/Frag loadouts to maximise caualties, damage, and ignite targets. It was the fire bombing campaign that turned the corner for B-29 operations, not the A-Bomb so much

 

[Readie]

Ok, The B29 was an advanced design agreed. However, I suggest that it was flawed in the engine department. '3 turning 1 burning'. I know this issue was resolved eventually but, in the public eye the B29 will be forever the A bomb aircraft not the bomber that defeated Germany.
That honour has to go to the Lancaster, Stirling, Halifax, Wellington and B17. A combined effort.
The B29 delivered devastation to Japan, The British bombers B17 delivered devastation to Germany.
Which was the 'best bomber' ? maybe it doesn't really matter at the end of day.
I read that the Allies guilt over Dresden and the A bomb is a hard legacy, but 'total war' is just that.
I referred to Bomber Harris at the German view in an earlier thread, I'm interested to know how the Allies A bomb / firestorm attacks are viewed in America Australia.
Cheers
John

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How did the B-29 readiness rate compare with the air force average. Both the british and US air forces had readiness rates for frontline formations of around 72% in the ETO. I would expect it was somewhat lower in the PTO. In early 1942 for example it , it plummetted to about 30%. Perhaps a figure of 65% might be appropriate?. How does the B-29 throughout its career compare with that . It also needs to be remembered the deployment of the B-29 may have something to do with a low serviceability rate. It began in China in the pacific, where the relative isolation of the bases from which was operating surely had an effect. B-29 operations were really not that successful until after two things happened.....the capture of the Marianas, which placed them better and solved the logistic issue, and secondly the switch to low level fire bombing, which greatly increased theuir lethality. If you want to talk about british comparability, it wasnt until the USAAC adopted British Incendiary/HE/Frag loadouts to maximise caualties, damage, and ignite targets. It was the fire bombing campaign that turned the corner for B-29 operations, not the A-Bomb so much

The B-29 ran about a 65 - 70% mission capable rate and a 30 - 40% fully mission capable rate during the first few months of operations, and I'm pulling those numbers from memory. Much of those MC/ FMC rates were not only due to problems with the aircraft itself, but as you mentioned, supply problem. Also consider that B-29s had to fly some of the longest distances of WW2 to bomb their targets under very unforgiving conditions.

Ok, The B29 was an advanced design agreed. However, I suggest that it was flawed in the engine department. '3 turning 1 burning'. I know this issue was resolved eventually but, in the public eye the B29 will be forever the A bomb aircraft not the bomber that defeated Germany.
That honour has to go to the Lancaster, Stirling, Halifax, Wellington and B17. A combined effort.
The B29 delivered devastation to Japan, The British bombers B17 delivered devastation to Germany.
Which was the 'best bomber' ? maybe it doesn't really matter at the end of day.
I read that the Allies guilt over Dresden and the A bomb is a hard legacy, but 'total war' is just that.
I referred to Bomber Harris at the German view in an earlier thread, I'm interested to know how the Allies A bomb / firestorm attacks are viewed in America Australia.
Cheers
John

I agree with many of your points but when I'm asked about the "best" as I pilot and mechanic I look at the total operational capabilities of the machine and although many bombers hold their place in their operational during the war, nothing can touch the B-29. The Lancaster holds a distant second but in terms of systems and configuration (tail dragger landing gear, liquid cooled engines for example) it utilized technology of the day to get its job done. While its performance over Europe can never be questioned, I doubt it could have managed in the same capacity and in the same conditions as the B-29.

 

[Tangopilot89]

Here's a direct side-by-side comparison. Just click on 'Compare two other aircraft' and they should both be in the list.

Compare Aircraft - Results

Yes, the B-29 was a great aircraft, one of the first to have a pressurized fuselage I think. But as people have said before, it was an entirely new generation of bomber.

 

[pbfoot]

I've never seen this anywhere before so I thought I'd share it with the forum some bad points on the Lanc it had no deicing on either the props or the wing , and this little pearl from the flight manual about carb icing
"carburettor air intake control. A single lever for the hydraulic operation of all four carburettor hot air intakes is provided beside the pilots seat. Hot air should not be used unless the intakes become iced up and as ice guards are provided this should be rarely necessary. "
The ice guards were screens that covered the air intake
I wonder how many Lancs went down because of icing but all that icing equipment was extra weight that cut down on bombload

 

[Readie]

I agree with many of your points but when I'm asked about the "best" as I pilot and mechanic I look at the total operational capabilities of the machine and although many bombers hold their place in their operational during the war, nothing can touch the B-29. The Lancaster holds a distant second but in terms of systems and configuration (tail dragger landing gear, liquid cooled engines for example) it utilized technology of the day to get its job done. While its performance over Europe can never be questioned, I doubt it could have managed in the same capacity and in the same conditions as the B-29.

Apart from the word 'distant' I see your point Flyboy.
Have we done this thread to death?
Cheers
John

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've never seen this anywhere before so I thought I'd share it with the forum some bad points on the Lanc it had no deicing on either the props or the wing , and this little pearl from the flight manual about carb icing
"carburettor air intake control. A single lever for the hydraulic operation of all four carburettor hot air intakes is provided beside the pilots seat. Hot air should not be used unless the intakes become iced up and as ice guards are provided this should be rarely necessary. "
The ice guards were screens that covered the air intake
I wonder how many Lancs went down because of icing but all that icing equipment was extra weight that cut down on bombload

Yep! Also mentioned earlier was the single pilot operation in IMC, a very dangerous situation especially using stone age nav equipment for instrument approach procedures.

Apart from the word 'distant' I see your point Flyboy.
Have we done this thread to death?
Cheers
John

several times over, but it just won't die!

 

[Readie]

Never say never again eh

 

[gjs238]

To bomb Japan with the B-24, how close would the airfields have to be?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

To bomb Japan with the B-24, how close would the airfields have to be?

With a 2000 pound bomb load I think you're looking at a 21, maybe 2200 mile range, so one would have to be under 1000 miles to fly a B-24 to Japan, this just off the top of my head.