Top 3 mistakes per country, in field of military aviation

stona said:

Had the Germans faced the B-29 they would have faced it with the Me 262 armed with 30mm cannon. Even 350 mph doesn't look so good against 500mph+. I'm not sure I'd want to bet on the B-29 in that scenario.
There were other heavily armed jets and even rocket interceptors that may have been available too. How good they would have been we will never know.

*SNIP*

Cheers

Steve

Click to expand...

Interesting point you bring up Steve. I've wondered a long time how the B-29 would have fared in the ETO. I think intercepting the B-29 that's for sake of argument, 100 mph faster and flying 10,000 feet higher a tougher nut to crack, even for the 262. The 29 was operational in China in April-June of '44, could the USAAF have changed it's system to deploy it to Europe in the same time frame instead? I don't know, I do know that was the stated reason why they didn't, not wanting to introduce a new and totally different weapon into a system that was running at a pretty good pace.

But if they had, realistically were there enough 262's to make a difference? Historically they couldn't stop the B-17 raids so I'd expect they'd have a similar effect on a much improved bomber. If the B-29 was running operational strikes by July-August 1944 what amount of 262's were available for intercept at that time? I would imagine there would be B-17's and B-24's running thousand plane raids concurrently. Which to me sounds like the logistics/planning nightmare the AAF wisely avoided.

I guess what I'm trying to say with all this bleeber-blabber is the question: Historically, with what was actually produced and operational at the time, would the B-29 give a good account of itself in the ETO? Against 109's and 190's and flak, I'd say yes.

But as pbehn pointed out, the resource they represented made even moderate losses prohibitive, so perhaps if the meager 262 force concentrated on the Superfortress alone, that may have warranted stopping B-29 raids.

Sorry, I tend to ramble it seems.

I would be assuming something of a wider 'what if' for the B-29 deployed in the ETO. Somehow the Germans would have to be in a much stronger position in 1945 for it even to be deployed. In that scenario I would assume many more Me 262s and a generally better air defence capability over Germany.
The point I was making is that the B-29 was another generation of aircraft, like the Me 262, and we should compare apples with apples, not pears
I didn't know that the B-29 had been forced into night time operations by the MiG 15 until I read drgondog's post above, I was just assuming that in an Me 262 v B-29 scenario the odds would not necessarily favour the bomber.
Cheers
Steve

What about the Soviets? Some of contenders could be:
- failure to produce a fighter with reasonable armament (say, 2 cannons at least) and powerful engines (AM-35A, AM-38, M-82) early enough
- not producing a proper heir to the 'Fast Bomber 2' (SB-2) in 1941, in shape of ANT-58/'aircraft 103' until almost too late, that, combined with next mistake meant the Germans have the long logistic lanes safe from air attacks
- non introduction of drop tanks for fighters

Peter Gunn said:

Interesting point you bring up Steve. I've wondered a long time how the B-29 would have fared in the ETO. I think intercepting the B-29 that's for sake of argument, 100 mph faster and flying 10,000 feet higher a tougher nut to crack, even for the 262. The 29 was operational in China in April-June of '44, could the USAAF have changed it's system to deploy it to Europe in the same time frame instead? I don't know, I do know that was the stated reason why they didn't, not wanting to introduce a new and totally different weapon into a system that was running at a pretty good pace.

Click to expand...

the actual intent was to replace the B-17 and B-24 with the B-32

"The Army Air Forces wanted to begin replacing B-17s and B-24s with B-32s in the summer of 1944. The plan called for Mediterranean-based B-24 bomb groups to transition first, followed by other groups in the 15th Air Force and finally 8th Air Force groups."

B-32 Bomber Factory in Fort Worth, Texas,1944

Peter Gunn said:

But as pbehn pointed out, the resource they represented made even moderate losses prohibitive, so perhaps if the meager 262 force concentrated on the Superfortress alone, that may have warranted stopping B-29 raids.

.

Click to expand...

I think the maximum that could be considered acceptable was 2% and whereas the B 29 was fast it could not be escorted, interception by just a few fighters could have been serious.

Also the problem of actually hitting anything from 33,000 feet hadnt been solved.

pbehn said:

I think the maximum that could be considered acceptable was 2% and whereas the B 29 was fast it could not be escorted, interception by just a few fighters could have been serious.

Also the problem of actually hitting anything from 33,000 feet hadnt been solved.

Click to expand...

The B-29 could have been escorted and the problem of the B-29's wild inaccuracy over Japan at extreme altitudes was caused by the Jet Stream's presence over the home islands.

This is not to say that the Jet Stream wasn't present over Europe, but the conditions were different due to the geographic makeup.

Dealing with those high-altitude currents was a steep learning curve at the time.

Bombers in the ETO didn't operate at the altitudes where the polar jet stream would be encountered, typically not below 9,000m/29,000ft.
B-29s operating against Japan flew at exactly the same altitude as the lower range of the sub tropical jet stream, around 10,000m/33,000ft making it very much a factor.
Cheers
Steve.

Ehh, it would be nice if someone actually based on a decent source in regard to Ki-61.

First, the fuel capacity. Early Hiens had four fuel tanks : two 190 l wing fuel tanks, one 170 l center-wing fuel tank and one 200 l rear fuselage fuel tank. The last one was only used in very long flights and even during escort missions it was preferred to carry two drop tanks rather than load the rear fuel tank. Why ? Because it created stability issues moving the Center of Gravity of the machine to the rear (reminds P-51D, doesnt it ? ). Most of the time this fuel tank was left empty or even removed.

Soon after production of Ki-61-I Otsu started (after producing 90 or so airframes) it was removed completely. Thus total capacity was reduced from 750 to 550 liters.
This was further decreased after producing about 150 Ki-61-I Otsu, when additional protection to the fuel tanks was provided, reducing capacity of wing fuel tanks to 170 l and center-wing fuel tank to 160 l - overall capacity decreased from 550 to 500 liters.

Shortround6 said:

And then we have this report: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tony-I.pdf

No under seat tank and total fuel capacity of about 550 liters, arguing over 2-3 liters is foolish. Especially considering manufacturing tolerances and conversion charts/formulas.
Apparently there was quite a variation in tanks fitted and perhaps even their capacities.
Also of interest is the performance of the captured plane against US fighters, most of the comparisons are pretty much forgone conclusions but comparing it to the FM-2 is interesting, especially considering the test weight of the Tony was 6150lbs and not the 6982lbs shown in some of the other charts with the 199-200 gal fuel load.
Perhaps the captured plane's engine wasn't running right or the plane was mis-rigged (out of alignment?) but it was a dog when climbing compared to the FM-2 (which is over 1000lbs heavier) and adding 300lbs of fuel and then extra protected tank weight certainly wasn't going to help.

Click to expand...

This was one of the two Ki-61s tested in US. I believe in one of them engine stopped working during the testing leading to plane crash. Either this was the mentioned in report model or the other one. But makes no difference, since aircraft had multiple issues. None of the Hiens was captured even in decent conditions and it took engineers weeks to bring them back to flyable condition. Hardly it represents the actual machine performance.
Fortunately I have Ki-61 Piloting Procedure (sort of a pilots handbook) captured in 1944 in Hollandia. I once made a comparison of it to Bf 109 F-1 / F-2 powered by Db 601 N so a bit better performing engine if compared to Ki-61 powered Ha-40 (license built Db 601Aa).
Results at rated power were :
Ki-61 (Ha-40) vs Bf 109 F-1 / F-2 (Db 601 N)
Level speed
Alt
1 km 496 km/h 514 km/h
2 ....... 520 ......... 534
3 ....... 545 ......... 553
4 ....... 569 ......... 573
5 ....... 589 ......... 592
6 ....... 591 ......... 594
7 ....... 589 ......... 590
8 ....... 580 ......... 580
9 ....... 561 ......... 565
10 ....... 523 ......... 523

Time to altitde in min (rate of climb in m/s)
Alt
1 km 1-20 min (14.3 m/s) / 1 min (16 m/s)
3 ............... 3-34 (16.8) / 3-12 (16)
6 ............... 6-50 (11.1) / 6-30 (11.2)
8 ............... 10-48 (6.9) / 10-30(6.4)
10 ............... 17-14 (3.3) / 18-42(2.5)

Data for Bf 109 F-1 / F-2 based on Specification sheet for the Bf 109 aircraft type, models F-1 and F-2 with DB 601N engine from Kurfurst.org website - http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F1F2_Kennblatt/Kennblatt_fur_Bf109F1F2_DB601N.PDF .

Ki-61 certainly wasn't the best performing aircraft around, but it wasnt nearly as bad as the US report made it look like. As often it is captured aircraft fail to present full level of performance simply due to state they were captured in, lack of knowledge about operation of the aircraft by the intelligence and crews and finally lack of desire to push the aircraft to the limits and loose the precious object.

Not to put too fine a point on things but B-29's were under escort in the PTO by D model Mustangs so there's that.

FLYBOYJ - Thanks for the info, never knew they were going to replace the Forts and Libs with the Dominator, man, learn something new everyday.

Peter Gunn said:

Not to put too fine a point on things but B-29's were under escort in the PTO by D model Mustangs so there's that.

Click to expand...

And why not? Someone above is confusing maximum speed and cruising speed! The B-29 cruised at 220-230mph at an altitude well below the P-51 D's service ceiling, meaning that the P-51 is quite capable of performing the escort for a typical B-29 mission.
Cheers
Steve

stona said:

And why not? Someone above is confusing maximum speed and cruising speed! The B-29 cruised at 220-230mph at an altitude well below the P-51 D's service ceiling, meaning that the P-51 is quite capable of performing the escort for a typical B-29 mission.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

Well I was confusing it mainly because people were talking about its speed of 350MPH making it difficult to intercept.

Peter Gunn said:

Not to put too fine a point on things but B-29's were under escort in the PTO by D model Mustangs so there's that.

Click to expand...

VLR missions started 7 April 1945

You had four FGs operating from Iwo Jima: 15th, 21st and 506th who were operating the P-51D and then there was the 414th that was equipped with the P-47N that went operational a few months later.

Before that, the B-29s ran the gauntlet alone

And given the VLR escorts got a late start it was a good thing for the 20th BC the IJAAF was weakened as it was by the end of the Pacific War from what I gather because the Superforts initial operations from China/Marianas were less than stellar due to technical issues on their massive Wright engines.

The B-29s also started their ops from the newly captured islands in late '44 and were actively intercepted over the home islands.

The VLR escorts were a welcome relief

GrauGeist said:

The VLR escorts were a welcome relief

Click to expand...

Indeed they were.
Anywhere in the aerial battleground of WWII where the enemy was still present the sight of escorts must have looked like God-given to the bomber boys.

Hiromachi said:

Ehh, it would be nice if someone actually based on a decent source in regard to Ki-61.

First, the fuel capacity........................

Click to expand...

Thank you. Would you happen to have the weight of Ki-61 for those performance figures? Or the armament?

Shortround6 said:

Thank you. Would you happen to have the weight of Ki-61 for those performance figures? Or the armament?

Click to expand...

Performance figures are based on a model with 2950 kg weight (CG position 25.8%), no idea what was armament of that specific model they based performance on but Handbook in Chapter I Section 1 e gives following : " Armament : Fuselage : Two 13 mm machine cannons, Wing : Two 13 mm (machine cannons) "
Japanese usually in flight manuals rounded the caliber numbers, so 12.7 mm Ho-103 are often mentioned just as 13 mm machine cannons.

The really problem with weight is that it was changing through the production - the armament and armor protection were increasing it but at the same time aircraft fuel load was decreasing thus partially compensating the weight increase. In general it should oscillate around 3000 kg.

FWIW:

Yeah, I have it since like forever.
I also have manual which is a closest to actual data.

tomo pauk said:

What about the Soviets? Some of contenders could be:
- failure to produce a fighter with reasonable armament (say, 2 cannons at least) and powerful engines (AM-35A, AM-38, M-82) early enough
- not producing a proper heir to the 'Fast Bomber 2' (SB-2) in 1941, in shape of ANT-58/'aircraft 103' until almost too late, that, combined with next mistake meant the Germans have the long logistic lanes safe from air attacks
- non introduction of drop tanks for fighters

Click to expand...

I am not sure that failure to develop certain engines (or more properly the failure of certain development projects) are really "mistakes".
Russians were trying to develop higher powered engines from 1939 on. Unfortunately the base engines they had to work with limited the projects and most failed. It wasn't really lack of effort or a decision not to develop higher powered engines (like British decision not to buy/fit constant speed props or fully feathering props on multi engine aircraft when they were avialable).

Unfortunately the Russians then faced two problems. One was the engines were behind world standard (until the M-82) and the 2nd was that the typical Russian wood construction for fighters was heavier than equivalent metal construction. Russians sacrificed Armament (weight) for performance. The Russians often tried small batches of fighters with heavier armament but reverted back to the lighter armament after the experiments. Even the La-7 didn't get 3 cannon until a new model cannon allowed the fitting of 3 cannon for the weight of 2 of the old cannon. Total number of rounds carried didn't actually change much, fewer rounds per gun for the 3 gun planes. 400 rounds for two guns and 450 rounds for 3 guns.