The Best Bomber of WWII: #4 (2 Viewers)

[Readie]

It will pay to check on the (then) exchange rate; it could have been $4 to the £, but, as I was only 0-4 years old, during the war, it didn't really have much significance. I have a vague recollection of a downward devaluing, to $3, around 1960.
Edgar

Just as well the Euro wasn't around in WW2 eh Edgar !!

 

[Readie]

Don't forget the Brits used the B-29 as well until the Canberra and V bombers started coming into service.

You and your B29's FYB
You are almost as bad as me with Merlin's and Spitfires...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You and your B29's FYB
You are almost as bad as me with Merlin's and Spitfires...

 

[Readie]

Given the parlous state we found ourselves after 1945/46 we were pleased to have the B29, as a nuclear bomber to counter the Soviet threat before our own planes became available.
It was either the B29 or a huge catapult...
Such is the price of liberty

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Given the parlous state we found ourselves after 1945/46 we were pleased to have the B29, as a nuclear bomber to counter the Soviet threat before our own planes became available.
It was either the B29 or a huge catapult...
Such is the price of liberty

Just as US aircrews were pleased to know that while they tredged on during day missions, RAF Lancasters were keeping the fight round the clock!

 

[Readie]

Just as US aircrews were pleased to know that while they tredged on during day missions, RAF Lancasters were keeping the fight round the clock!

That's right. 24/7 took at bit of doing eh. We must not forget the Commonwealth crews that flew with the RAF either.:BIG:

 

[RCAFson]

Lancaster/B29 performance


Aircraft/TO weight/bomb load*/time to climb to-altitude/service ceiling@TO weight)/TO run/TO to 50ft/max speed at weight @ altitude

B I/72,000lb/22,000lb/50min-18,000ft/18,600ft/4350ft/?????/246mph at 72000lb @ 16,00ft

B29A/140,000lb/10,000lb/61.5min-20,000ft/24,000ft/5,230ft/7825ft/381mph at 101,500lb @ 25,000ft

BIII/63,000lb/14,000lb/35.8min-20,000ft/24,000ft/2,250ft/3900ft/287mph at 60,000lb @ 18,000ft

B29B/135,750lb/10,000/43.5min-20,000ft/30,250ft/4800ft/7125ft/395mph at 96,100lb @ 30,000ft

B VI/65,000lb/14,000lb/26min-20,000ftE/28,500ft/~2,000ftE/~3000ftE/313mph at 65,000lb @ 18,300ft

* B29 could increase bomb load to 20,000 lb by reducing fuel load with same TO, ceiling and climb performance

B = Lancaster
E = estimate

I haven't included range because the sources use different criteria such as fuel reserve which was only 5% for the B29 but typically ~20% for Lancaster.

Ranges as given, B29A = 3600nm for 10,000lb BL, Low/high mission profile; 2856nm for 20,000lb BL, Low/high mission profile; 3126nm for 10,000lb BL, high/high mission profile.

Lancaster I = 2200nm for 14000lb BL, high/high mission profile; at 72000lb (saddle tanks and 6000lb bomb load) TO range with reserves = 3017nm (~3200nm with 10% reserve and standard combat allowance), low/high mission profile.


sources.
Standard Aircraft Characteristics for B29A/B
mason, The Secret Years for lancaster.

 

[Readie]

Lancaster/B29 performance


Aircraft/TO weight/bomb load*/time to climb to-altitude/service ceiling@TO weight)/TO run/TO to 50ft/max speed at weight @ altitude

B I/72,000lb/22,000lb/50min-18,000ft/18,600ft/4350ft/?????/246mph at 72000lb @ 16,00ft

B29A/140,000lb/10,000lb/61.5min-20,000ft/24,000ft/5,230ft/7825ft/381mph at 101,500lb @ 25,000ft

BIII/63,000lb/14,000lb/35.8min-20,000ft/24,000ft/2,250ft/3900ft/287mph at 60,000lb @ 18,000ft

B29B/135,750lb/10,000/43.5min-20,000ft/30,250ft/4800ft/7125ft/395mph at 96,100lb @ 25,000ft

B VI/65,000lb/14,000lb/26min-20,000ftE/28,500ft/~2,000ftE/~3000ftE/313mph at 65,000lb @ 18,300ft

* B29 could increase bomb load to 20,000 lb by reducing fuel load with same TO, ceiling and climb performance

B = Lancaster
E = estimate

I haven't included range because the sources use different criteria such as fuel reserve which was only 5% for the B29 but typically ~20% for Lancaster.

Ranges as given, B29A = 3600nm for 10,000lb BL, Low/high mission profile; 2856nm for 20,000lb BL, Low/high mission profile; 3126nm for 10,000lb BL, high/high mission profile.

Lancaster I = 2200nm for 14000lb BL, high/high mission profile; at 72000lb (saddle tanks and 6000lb bomb load) TO range with reserves = 3017nm (~3200nm with 10% reserve and standard combat allowance), low/high mission profile.


sources.
Standard Aircraft Characteristics for B29A/B
mason, The Secret Years for lancaster.

Very interesting but, it would be more relevant to compare the Lancaster with the Flying Fortress Liberator as they flew together in ETO and had the bomb load range to deliver pummelling body blows to the Nazi war machine.
At the slight risk of an outcry from its supporters I don't believe that the B29 could have done any more than was achieved in raids like Dresden by 1945.
It was the next generation of bomber but, was too late to have any impact in Europe. The PTO is another matter entirely of course.
Cheers
John

 

[RCAFson]

A problem with these performance stats is that the B-29 info is all from calculated data, where the Lancaster info is from actual aircraft tests. The Standard Aircraft Characteristics charts tend to be optimistic, and this is especially so, for example, for the F4F (from previous discussions) where actual aircraft tests fell far short of the SAC info. In daylight raids from Tinian/Saipan the original B29 struggled to carry 7000lbs of bombs to Tokyo even though this was only a ~2600nm round trip. What's really needed are figures on fuel consumption and AMPG, from actual tests, for the aircraft under discussion.

 

[wuzak]

In daylight raids from Tinian/Saipan the original B29 struggled to carry 7000lbs of bombs to Tokyo even though this was only a ~2600nm round trip. What's really needed are figures on fuel consumption and AMPG, from actual tests, for the aircraft under discussion.

Was that because they discovered the jetstream?

 

[Nig]

My first post, had intended to read for a while yet before commenting .

If the way it is to be evaluated is a cost to benifit ratio and keeping it's crew alive by it's ability to defend itself then all honors should go to the wooden wonder the mosquito.

After the war they analyzed it and found that in terms of useful damage done it was 4.95 times cheaper than the Lancaster.

It is also good to see what the enemy at the time said


"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

— Hermann Göring, 1943.

 

[RCAFson]

Was that because they discovered the jetstream?

If you read General Hansell's memoires, you will discover that the USAAF already knew, from practice missions from Kansas to Cuba (which emulated a Saipan to Tokyo mission), that the B-29 did not have sufficient range to fly the mission with adequate fuel reserves:

HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 4]

Hansell responded by pressing for an increase in max TO weight, but this still resulted in a reduction to a 7000lb (88 aircraft dropping 277.5 tons = 7000lbs/aircraft) bomb load:

HyperWar: Strategic Air War...Germany Japan [Chapter 5]

for Saipan to Tokyo missions, which is far less than the SAC data would suggest. Additionally, TO at 140000lb meant that the Saipan airfields were too short for predictable TO.

 

[pbehn]

I thought that the B-29 was the best bomber of WW-II?

It was the best bomber to serve in WW2 based on eventual performance and ending the war in Japan. Thankfully the allies had others before the summer of 1945.

 

[GrauGeist]

Some thoughts on the matter.

B-29 was, in hindsight, an expensive folly. It was a failure as a self-defending bomber, even against the Japanese.
General LeMay, as a pragmatic boss,( with his bean-counter buddy McNamara) stopped such fruitless ideology.
However, IMO, the punishment of Japanese civilians by mass burning was cruel & needless.

The B-29 was far from a folly. Also, name me one bomber that existed during WWII that was fully capably of defending itself without fighter escort in contested skies.

As far as the "punishment of Japanese civilians" goes, why not replace "Japanese" with "British", "German", "Chinese", "Russian", "Spanish" or any other nationality where warfare happened to catch civilians in the crossfire.

Minelaying, while effective, could've been effectively done by less expensive means.

How exactly? Sailing U.S. minelayers into Tokyo bay and just casually drop them here and there?

One B-29's mine payload was the equivellent of two U.S. sub mine payloads...you can't possibly think two subs are cheaper to operate than a single B-29...

The USN carrier forces were quite able to smash Nippon industry.

You must be reading a far different history book than I am...

A carrier force that would have gotten within strike range of Japan would have been well within range of Japanese fighters and bombers.

Cheap cruise missiles were a much more cost effective approach to mass city bombardment.
Weird that the B-36 was proceeded with, as a 'Mega Flying Fortress' bristling with gun turrets.

The Mosquito & Ar 234 pointed the way to the future, as had the V-weapons.

The B-36 was on the drawing board early in WWII...when it finally took to the air, it was the world's largest and most modern strategic bomber and would remain that way for several years.

Also, keep in mind that the Russians, who were the number two power in the world after WWII had a reverse engineered B-29 as their primary strategic bomber for several years...

Regarding "cruise missiles"...it would be decades before a cruise missile was a viable weapon. And citing the B-29 bombings as punishment to the Japanese people and then turning around and saying that a V-1 is a better anwser to bombarding a city is ridiculous. The V-1 attacks on London and other city centers were indiscriminate, random strikes with no specific target other than a set "area".

 

[wuzak]

Have to disagree, Mosquito bomber ops showed that speed/evasion was the better option.

Part of the B-29's defences again the Japanese was its altitude and speed capabilities, making it difficult to be intercepted.

MiG-15's quickly drove the B-29's back into the night over Korea, a Canberra would've done better.

Irrelevant to the matter of whether the B-29 was the best bomber of WW2.

The stripped out lightweight B-36 which could use height to evade was another thing, but once nukes got compact, as noted, a fast jet would do it better.

As mentioned by GrauGeist, the B-36 was on the drawing board from the early war years. A lot of time and investment had gone into the aircraft before it became operational.

Which was a "stripped out lightweight" version?

I don't hold to mass bombing of cities, but a positive US appraisal of the V1 had Ford mass-making them as the 'Loon'..

To what end?

A dedicated minelaying C-54 could've done that job at a fraction of the B-29's price.

Did such a thing exist?

 

[GrauGeist]

Have to disagree, Mosquito bomber ops showed that speed/evasion was the better option.

For surgical strikes, i cannot think of any Mosquito missions that took out an aircraft factory or marshalling yard.

MiG-15's quickly drove the B-29's back into the night over Korea, a Canberra would've done better.

Hello...no MiGs or Canberras in WWII...

The stripped out lightweight B-36 which could use height to evade was another thing, but once nukes got compact,
as noted, a fast jet would do it better.

Again, no jets or B-36 in WWII

I don't hold to mass bombing of cities, but a positive US appraisal of the V1 had Ford mass-making them as the 'Loon'..

They built over 1,300 of them and never used them.

They barely even used the TDR.

The USN wanted to confront the forces of Nippon, & destroy them, which they did.

You have that backward.
The Imperial Japanese Navy wanted a grand showdown and was denied. The closest they came were on two occasions: Battle of Midway and the Battle of Surigao Straight.

As it happens, the USN ended up bleeding out the Japanese Navy.

A dedicated minelaying C-54 could've done that job at a fraction of the B-29's price.

If using unarmed cargo planes were an effective option, I am pretty sure that it would have been done.

Reality dictates, however, that a C-54, traveling at it's max. speed of 275mph (cruise was 190) would have been deadmeat for the Japanese interceptors. It had no defensive armament, it had no defensive speed - you would be sending those airmen to thier deaths with such a stunt.

You're aware that the Japanese fighters (Army and Navy) were active right up to the final hours of the war, right?

 

[Shortround6]

Max fuel for C-54/DC-4 was 2877 gallons or about 17,250lbs. Throw in oil and crew and the load in mines is going to be rather small compared to a B-29. You are trying to use a roughly 70,000lb airplane to do the job of a 120-130,000lb plane, and no the extra 50,000lbs was NOT sucked up by the guns and extra crew.

 

[GrauGeist]

B-29 mining ops were also done at night, NIppon nightfighters were ineffective.

The Japanese sure as hell did have effective night fighters.

They had latewar fighters that were actually superior to the P-51, F6F and Corsair.

Jets were flying in WW2 , some even made combat. So were MiGs, just not MiG 15s

The only jets that saw combat in WWII were:
Me262
He162
Ar234
Gloster Meteor
the only other jet that was *technically* in a combat zone, was the P-80
The only other armed combat jet that was in the proximity of a war zone, was the He280.

The Russians did not have a jet until postwar - the closest thing they had, was a Thermojet: the MiG I-250.

But the B-29 was an obsolescent idea when built, & in practice, over Korea a few years later.

Most aircraft were obsolescent by the time they reached production.

The B-29 first saw combat in spring of 1944. The B-36 started on paper in 1941. The Douglas Skyraider (also of Korean service) started out on the drawing board around the middle of WWII.

Let's talk about obsolescent: the Bf109 started out on the drawing board in the early 1930's. By 1935, it had it's first flight and two years later, introduced into service. It remained a front-line fighter for nearly ten years. I'm sure that many downed Allied airmen would be interested to hear you explain to them about obsolescence.

 

[Shortround6]

If you need twice as many planes and crew to drop the same number of mines what happens to the cost? Or fly the same number of missions.
Without a C-54/DC-4 manual we are guessing. WIki figures are the usual nonsense of quoting the max in each category. Like max range with max fuel without saying what the speed/ altitude or useful payload was to reach that range.

 

[wuzak]

Hampdens, Lancasters, Wellingtons, Halifaxes all did mining operations during WW2 for the RAF.

Perhaps they should have used Dakotas?