The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[GrauGeist]

High altitude daylight bombing with the B-29 was pretty much ineffective. The real results came when they stripped it down and used it at night. Certainly the Lancaster could not have operated from the Mariannas but it could have been used from Iwo Jima and Okinawa. When fitted with high altitude, two stage, Merlin engines Lancaster performance increased considerably.

The problem that the B-29 encountered over Japan, was the varying air currents that are prevelant over Japan due to the Jet Stream.

The conditions over Europe are a great deal different.

 

[RCAFson]

The problem that the B-29 encountered over Japan, was the varying air currents that are prevelant over Japan due to the Jet Stream.

The conditions over Europe are a great deal different.

Yes conditions over Europe were a great deal different. The Germans had a far more effective air defense network with a much greater density of Flak. B-29s would have had to climb faster and higher, sooner, compared to operations from the Mariannas and this would have exacerbated their engine problems. I can't really see any reason why a B-29 formation would have greater bombing accuracy over Europe than a formation of B-17s.

 

[GrauGeist]

With the far more predictable air currents, pattern (area bombing) would have had much better results for the B-29 over Europe.

It was also much faster than the B-24, Lancaster and B-17 and it could operate at altitudes that made interception difficult (not impossible, difficult) for nearly all Luftwaffe interceptors except the Me262. It also had a standard bombload that was much heavier than the three bombers' capacity I just listed.

As it happens, one B-29 (41-36963) did fly to England in March 1944. It was there until early May of 1944, where it returned to the U.S. However, it did not fly any missions (bombing, recon, etc.) over continental Europe during it's stay in Britain.

There was also consideration to equip several bomb groups, to be stationed in Northern Ireland, but the idea was cancelled by February 1945. The main reasons was that the war in Europe by that time was drawing down, Germany simply did not have much fight left and the war effort in the Pacific was still in full swing and the B-29s were in demand.

 

[RCAFson]

With the far more predictable air currents, pattern (area bombing) would have had much better results for the B-29 over Europe.

It was also much faster than the B-24, Lancaster and B-17 and it could operate at altitudes that made interception difficult (not impossible, difficult) for nearly all Luftwaffe interceptors except the Me262. It also had a standard bombload that was much heavier than the three bombers' capacity I just listed.

As it happens, one B-29 (41-36963) did fly to England in March 1944. It was there until early May of 1944, where it returned to the U.S. However, it did not fly any missions (bombing, recon, etc.) over continental Europe during it's stay in Britain.

There was also consideration to equip several bomb groups, to be stationed in Northern Ireland, but the idea was cancelled by February 1945. The main reasons was that the war in Europe by that time was drawing down, Germany simply did not have much fight left and the war effort in the Pacific was still in full swing and the B-29s were in demand.

Yes, the B-29 could operate at higher altitude but it had to climb to that altitude fairly quickly, against European targets, and thus stress the engines more with high power climbs. Higher altitudes and faster cruise during bombing will probably equal less accuracy than a B-17/24 flying lower and slower.

B-29 standard bomb load was not higher than the Lancaster for most mission profiles.

 

[pbehn]

The idea that Europe doesn't have air currents is debatable I flew around Europe for years and a head or tail wind could add or take off 10 minutes on a one hour flight. I once arrived 10 minutes early on the flight Schipol Hanover

 

[wuzak]

Yes, the B-29 could operate at higher altitude but it had to climb to that altitude fairly quickly, against European targets, and thus stress the engines more with high power climbs. Higher altitudes and faster cruise during bombing will probably equal less accuracy than a B-17/24 flying lower and slower.

B-29 standard bomb load was not higher than the Lancaster for most mission profiles.

I don't think the B-29 would have bombed from much greater altitudes in Europe than did the B-17 and B-24.

The climbing issue is not really there, as the bombers would climb over the UK, or to the west, as they formed up into their combat wings. Much like the B-17s and B-24s did.

The airfields could be longer in the UK than they were in the Marianas, which would reduce the problems during take-offs.

 

[pbehn]

Yes, the B-29 could operate at higher altitude but it had to climb to that altitude fairly quickly, against European targets, and thus stress the engines more with high power climbs. Higher altitudes and faster cruise during bombing will probably equal less accuracy than a B-17/24 flying lower and slower.

B-29 standard bomb load was not higher than the Lancaster for most mission profiles.

Bomber command had a problem synchronizing the bomber stream, a B29 didn't have to fly straight at Germany, R.A.F. bombers would go across to Wales others went north across the sea,they only had to pass the coast at a given point at a given time. With the range of the b29 I can't see any problem getting gently to 30,000ft

 

[pbehn]

I don't think the B-29 would have bombed from much greater altitudes in Europe than did the B-17 and B-24.

The climbing issue is not really there, as the bombers would climb over the UK, or to the west, as they formed up into their combat wings. Much like the B-17s and B-24s did.

The airfields could be longer in the UK than they were in the Marianas, which would reduce the problems during take-offs.

I used to race on a circuit at R.A.F Carnaby , 9,000 ft long, Elvington was also an R.A.F. base and I believe was an emergency landing site for the shuttle it was 10,000ft long. Much of the UK is flat, the airfields are as long as you want.

 

[parsifal]

The most likely scenario that might see a need for the b-29 in the ETO is some form of extension in the ETO. Realistically this would mean history following a different pathway to that from as early as 1942.

this is the scenario I see playing out.

hitler accedes to OKH wishes and wanders off into semi-retirement on the eastern front, appointing manstein as the supreme commander East Front. Speer is appointed minister of armaments and immediately abandons all tiger and panther production in favour of STUG and MK IVs as well as rationalising truck production.

There is an immediate withdrawal from North Africa

The battles of late 42 and 43 through to Kursk are no static encirclements, but mobile affairs, in which the heer trades ground for time. The Red army is successful, but the costs are high. The heer emerges with a workable mobile reserve and a line intact, behind the Dnieper.

At this point a truce is negotiated. it is temporary uneasy and nobody believes it will last. Stalin informs the west he needs breathing space to rebuild his shattered forces, and will return to finish the job in one years time

Faced with this the allies are unable to open a second front until 1945. They use 1943 and 1944 to liberate Africa, liquidate Vichy, occupy Sicily Sardinia and Corsica, gain neutrality from turkey and Spain, and decide to intensify the air battle for Germany.

The german attempt to get their jet program to fruition, but largely fail. There are too many competing priorities and throughout 1945, despite the promise the jet technologies offer, they still are largely ineffectual in terms of numbers and serviceability rates

The germans do however succeed in developing a high altitude pressurised cabin technology and engine management (not sure if that is realistic or not).

From mid 1944 on, the dominant US types become these new bomber types, B-32/B-29. They face a bolstered German defence system, but not impregnable. they need to bring down, or at least control the explosion in german production whilst the Soviets rebuild their forces. Can they do it?

 

[GrauGeist]

B-29 standard bomb load was not higher than the Lancaster for most mission profiles.

Standard Lancaster bombload was 14,000 pounds, the standard B-29 bombload was 20,000 pounds.

Yes, the Lancaster "could" carry a 22,000 pound bomb, but was highly modified to do so and was mission specific just as the Silverplate B-29s were modified to carry nuclear bombs and were mission specific.

 

[RCAFson]

Standard Lancaster bombload was 14,000 pounds, the standard B-29 bombload was 20,000 pounds.

Yes, the Lancaster "could" carry a 22,000 pound bomb, but was highly modified to do so and was mission specific just as the Silverplate B-29s were modified to carry nuclear bombs and were mission specific.

B-29 bomb loads varied by mission profile and range. From the Marianas, flying a high altitude daylight mission bomb load, was, IIRC 5-7000lb.

The "standard" load of the B-29 was 10,000 lbs for a high altitude drop (20k cruise and drop at 30k ft). The maximum bomb load was 20,000lb.
Service ceiling at Max TO (140000lb) weight was 24000ft
Service ceiling at 130000lb TO weight was ~29000ft
Radius with a 20,000lb bomb load and 140k lb TO was 1750 miles but this envisaged a cruise to target of 230mph at 10000ft with a bombing altitude of 25000ft. Radius at 130k lb TO = ~1350 miles.
Time to 20k ft at 140k lb = 61.5mins
Time to 20K ft 130k lb = ~45mins

(Post war SAC data)


These mission profiles would have needed considerable modification against European targets.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Did anyone consider that these performance numbers will vary with temperature and density altitude?

As will any cooling issues, say the hypothetical engine issues of the 3350 operating in the European winter??

 

[gjs238]

The idea that Europe doesn't have air currents is debatable I flew around Europe for years and a head or tail wind could add or take off 10 minutes on a one hour flight. I once arrived 10 minutes early on the flight Schipol Hanover

I think he was referring to the issue of the jet stream over Japan, not saying that Europe doesn't have air currents.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I always liked Joe Baugher's sites - great information with lots of references. With all this hypothetical talk about what the B-29 "could have" and "would have" done, some real good info...

"Before he left, General Hansell had introduced some reforms which were to have lasting effects. Engine failures were still a problem for the B-29 as late as mid-January of 1945, and the abort rate was running at 23 percent per mission. In order to reduce the abort rate, Hansell ordered a weight reduction program for the B-29 in which one of the fuel tanks was taken out and some of the 0.50-inch machine gun ammunition was removed, shaving over 6000 pounds from the weight of each plane. Maintenance was centralized under Hansell's headquarters rather than having it being split up between the various Bombardment Groups. As a result of these changes, B-29 endurance began to lengthen, engine life was extended from 200 to 750 hours, and the abort rate began to decline. By July of 1945, it was down to less then seven percent per operation."

B-29 Attacks on Japan from the Marianas

 

[GrauGeist]

I think he was referring to the issue of the jet stream over Japan, not saying that Europe doesn't have air currents.

Right, the geography of the Japanese islands coupled with the Jet Stream makes for extremely difficult air currents.

Regarding the B-29 & Lancaster loadouts...when I said "standard", I meant their designed maximum loads.

I was in a hurry so I wasn't more specific, but yes, each mission will have a specific distance and the bomb load will be made accordingly. The mission will also take into consideration of the weather, time of day, the enemy's defenses (AA & local airfields) plus the target profile will determine the amount of ordnance to be dropped times how many bombers will be fielded to achieve the mission's goal.

If the B-29 happened to have been deployed in the ETO against German proper, it could have carried close to the max. loadout since the targets were not a long distance objective. On the otherhand, they could have a 3/4 loadout to be able to maintain a higher cruise speed - which would still be more per bomber than a B-17 or B-24 in the same mission.

So it could have been done, but the people in charge didn't see a need for it, because as I mentioned before, Germany was punch-drunk and on it's last legs by the time the B-29 was rolling off the assembly line and making it's way to the bomber groups. The Lancaster, the B-17, B-24 and all the Allied medium bombers were doing a good enough job to warrant the B-29 to be dedicated to the Pacific, where it was most needed.

 

[Peter Gunn]

The B-32 was to be operated in the ETO, replacing both B-17 and B-24.

FBJ - Quick question, I read somewhere (maybe Wiki now that I think of it) the 8th and perhaps also the 15th AF were to reequip with the Dominator but then be redeployed to the PTO for the final push on Japan. I guess my confusion, and my question is was the B-32 slated for ETO operations or as new equipment for a move to the PTO?

Thanks.
Pete

 

[stona]

There is no consideration above to what exactly the B-29 was supposed to hit from 30,000ft or any other altitude.
The weather in NW Europe is indeed very different from the Pacific, and it has nothing to do with winds. It has everything to do with cloud and the fact that the ground and any targets are invisible to the attacking aircraft. A B-29 bombing on H2X would simply distribute more bombs in the vague vicinity of the target than a B-17/24 would.
More than 50% of bombing carried out by the USAAF in NW Europe in the last three months of 1944 was carried out through 8-10/10 cloud. 35% through 10/10 cloud. 86.3% of H2X missions bombed through 8-10/10 cloud.
Through 10/10 cloud only 0.2% of bombs fell within 1000' of the aiming point, more worryingly only 58.5% fell within 5 miles of the aiming point! This is NOT precision bombing.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Greyman]

A B-29 bombing on H2X would simply distribute more bombs in the vague vicinity of the target than a B-17/24 would.

As well as more bombs on the target area, no?

 

[pbehn]

As well as more bombs on the target area, no?

More bombs on fewer aircraft would mean less even scatter, a hit would have more effect but more chance of hitting nothing at all.

 

[stona]

As well as more bombs on the target area, no?

Well if they bombed from the same altitude then they too would get 1 bomb in 500 within 1000 ft of the aiming point (H2X through 10/10 cloud) obviously if they dropped 1,000 bombs rather than 500 then statistically they would get 2 of them in the target area, so yes They'd also get twice as many 5 miles away.

Altitude is another factor. I would suggest that the B-29 would be obliged to bomb from similar altitudes as the B-17 and B-24 did. In good visibility bombing from below 12,000ft the B-17 Groups managed to get 66% of bombs within 1000ft of the aiming point. Above 24,000ft this fell to just 12.6%.

Cheers

Steve