GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The problem that the B-29 encountered over Japan, was the varying air currents that are prevelant over Japan due to the Jet Stream.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.
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.
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 30,000ftYes, 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 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.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.
B-29 standard bomb load was not higher than the Lancaster for most mission profiles.
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.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.
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
Right, the geography of the Japanese islands coupled with the Jet Stream makes for extremely difficult air currents.I think he was referring to the issue of the jet stream over Japan, not saying that Europe doesn't have air currents.
The B-32 was to be operated in the ETO, replacing both B-17 and B-24.
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 bombs on fewer aircraft would mean less even scatter, a hit would have more effect but more chance of hitting nothing at all.As well as more bombs on the target area, no?
As well as more bombs on the target area, no?