Was the B-29 Superfortress a Failure?

Shortround6 · Mar 19, 2024

The Stannum Crusader said:
But I can say that although massive successes were learned through the B-29, the purpose was to be a bomber

And it was. Maybe not in the way originally intended but then the B-17 and B-24 could not be used as originally intended either. And not just the Norden bombsight, turns out the crews could not fly for hours on oxygen masks and heated suits alone. There was a definite time limit to high altitude flight using oxygen masks depending on altitude flown at.
And lets look at the British large bombers and how they were flown vs what they planned to do with them. The Whitley was always planned to be a "night" bomber. The Wellington was supposed to be a Day bomber (as was the Hampden) and the Manchester and Halifax may have been intended to be day bombers. Stirling was???? It was the failure of the Wellington to operate by day that forced the change to night bombing. Were they all failures?

Could the B-24 have done what the B-29 did in the Pacific? Forget about the atomic bomb, that is a red herring. Could B-24s have flown the distances needed with anything like useful bombload without requiring several times the numbers of aircraft, several times the number of air crew, several times the number of ground crew (on limited area Islands) and using more fuel?

Somebody may want to tell Tokyo that B-29s were failed bombers.

Over 16 square miles destroyed in one night.

Not done as "planned" in 1941-42 but what other "bomber" could have done that at the time (1945)?

Snautzer01 · Mar 19, 2024

Shortround6 said:
And it was. Maybe not in the way originally intended but then the B-17 and B-24 could not be used as originally intended either. And not just the Norden bombsight, turns out the crews could not fly for hours on oxygen masks and heated suits alone. There was a definite time limit to high altitude flight using oxygen masks depending on altitude flown at.
And lets look at the British large bombers and how they were flown vs what they planned to do with them. The Whitley was always planned to be a "night" bomber. The Wellington was supposed to be a Day bomber (as was the Hampden) and the Manchester and Halifax may have been intended to be day bombers. Stirling was???? It was the failure of the Wellington to operate by day that forced the change to night bombing. Were they all failures?

Could the B-24 have done what the B-29 did in the Pacific? Forget about the atomic bomb, that is a red herring. Could B-24s have flown the distances needed with anything like useful bombload without requiring several times the numbers of aircraft, several times the number of air crew, several times the number of ground crew (on limited area Islands) and using more fuel?

Somebody may want to tell Tokyo that B-29s were failed bombers.
View attachment 769550
Over 16 square miles destroyed in one night.

Not done as "planned" in 1941-42 but what other "bomber" could have done that at the time (1945)?

You do not need a plane at that cost to do that.
Paper houses antiqueted fire squads. Very good fire bombs.
Ask Dresden or any other fire bombed german city about that.
The b-29 was a high altitude bomber that should have been a superplane. Designed to be just that. It didnt . Lemay changed tactics for a reason.
However could not bomb at asked altitude and ( i am still very suprised about that) got shot down by aaa (not the german quantanties mind you nor the level of radar guided) and fighters that were shot down in barrel shootings in the rest of the pto. Never mind that it had to change for day to night and still got shot down. With Japanese radar years behind
Getting airborne was a danger never mind the running prop problems or the magnesium engine fires.
By the time it was sorted out it was kinda obsolete. The real top planes after ww2 went to SAC. That is why the B-29 got a new fight were it did ok. But. If usaaf had enough jet bombers it would not have been over korea.
Yes it delivered the a bomb. And yes it did damadge but a super weapon?
So no. Consider the costs. More expensive then Manhatten project.

fannum · Mar 19, 2024

C'mon guys ... MASS produced, large cabin. There's an order of magnitude of complexity vs. a tiny crew cabin ala Ju86, Wellington V/VI experiments.
The 307 by no measure qualifies as mass production, as they were hand built, and never well developed, constantly troublesome with LIMITED pressurization. Also note that the C-69 Connies were a maintenance nightmare, again usually without working pressurization. What was the downfall of the vaunted Comet ... how about pressurization in repetitive use.
They all were steps that evolved into the Stratocruisers, DC-7s and Super Connies that made the 707s and DC-8s possible.

special ed · Mar 19, 2024

At the time, no one was certain the bomb would work when air dropped. The reason for the mass production vs a limited few was the necessity for the air bombardment to continue until late 1947.

Shortround6 · Mar 19, 2024

That Tokyo raid was over 1400 miles one way. Not counting headwinds or tail winds.

We can argue over what the losses would have been using different tactics or daylight vs nighttime.
This Tokyo raid about 3 weeks before the first landing on Okinawa.
The bombers carried an average of 6 tons of bombe per plane.

No other plane could have done that mission without using 3-6 times the number of planes.
Or until more/closer Islands had been captured. The Raid was 8 months after Saipan had been captured.
It is about 750 miles from Iwo Jima to Tokyo. The US landed on Iwo Jima 3 weeks before the Tokyo raid.

I don't know if the B-29s shortened the war leading aside the Atomic bombs. But a longer war certainly seems probable. Either through less bombing or less mining.

even with the B-24s trying to operate out of Iwo Jima and/or Okinawa how many planes would be needed with what kind of support (ground crew etc) and how long would that have delayed things?

Premise is that the B-29 was a failure.
Nothing else could do the job except maybe the B-32, but what was the cost of the B-32 program and how much cross over was there?
Or build a crap load more aircraft carriers and use carrier aircraft to bomb Japan? at what cost in carriers/steel, manpower, oil and so on.

B-29 is not failure unless there was a viable alternative.

Frog · Mar 19, 2024

Shortround6 said:
That Tokyo raid was over 1400 miles one way. Not counting headwinds or tail winds.

We can argue over what the losses would have been using different tactics or daylight vs nighttime.
This Tokyo raid about 3 weeks before the first landing on Okinawa.
The bombers carried an average of 6 tons of bombe per plane.

No other plane could have done that mission without using 3-6 times the number of planes.
Or until more/closer Islands had been captured. The Raid was 8 months after Saipan had been captured.
It is about 750 miles from Iwo Jima to Tokyo. The US landed on Iwo Jima 3 weeks before the Tokyo raid.

I don't know if the B-29s shortened the war leading aside the Atomic bombs. But a longer war certainly seems probable. Either through less bombing or less mining.

even with the B-24s trying to operate out of Iwo Jima and/or Okinawa how many planes would be needed with what kind of support (ground crew etc) and how long would that have delayed things?

Premise is that the B-29 was a failure.
Nothing else could do the job except maybe the B-32, but what was the cost of the B-32 program and how much cross over was there?
Or build a crap load more aircraft carriers and use carrier aircraft to bomb Japan? at what cost in carriers/steel, manpower, oil and so on.

B-29 is not failure unless there was a viable alternative.

Notably as it was not known if the Bomb will work...

GrauGeist · Mar 19, 2024

The B-29 was to be "a heavy bomber".

It was not a dedicated "high altitude superbomber", it was a heavy bomber that was designed to be able to fly above accurate and deadly German flak if a mission required it.

Had the B-29's development not been delayed or if Germany had not collapsed as quick as it did in 44/45, it would have been used against Germany.

Thumpalumpacus · Mar 19, 2024

Snautzer01 said:
They should have been. The knew what and in what region it was designed for.

Really? How many USAAF meteorologists had experience over Japan at 25,000 foot? Be specific. And do you think jet streams are static and don't shift east-to-west? Because they do. We here in America see that now, over airspace we control ... 80 years later.

Snautzer01 said:
The most costly project in the war en they did not ask a junior metrologist with a bit of knowledge to examine. For a project outspending the Manhatten project by considerable margin..

Get your junior meteorologist over to Japan to do intel in 1940 when the project is in full swing, then. Good luck getting him to fit in.

Snautzer01 said:
Besides that. Not performing or not being able for what is is designed to do what would you call that?

A series of failed missions based on inadequate met information. Now, tell me how you assign that to the design or construction of the plane itself.

Snautzer01 said:
I have a dishwasher that does not wash dishes but does a goed job on laundry. It was designed to do 1 specific job. Washing dishes. Thats what bought it for.

Right, because comparing two household appliances to a bomber flying at 25,000 foot is an apt analogy. Pfft.

The plane did as designed, hoisting 18,000 lbs of bombs 25,000 foot for a 1500-mile round trip. Environmental issues affected many planes and forced changes in ops, but somehow this plane is a failure ... sure, right. That unknown wind-patterns over Japan interfered with accurate bombing -- in that particular environment -- doesn't mean the plane was a failure.

Since you like terrestrial-appliance comparisons, if my truck is rated for 25 mpg optimum, but I'm driving through hilly country and only get18 mpg, is my truck a failure?

Maybe you have another plane in mind that could do that mission profile. Oh, that's right -- nothing in 1945 could.

Snautzer01 said:
You do not need a plane at that cost to do that.
Paper houses antiqueted fire squads. Very good fire bombs.
Ask Dresden or any other fire bombed german city about that.

Where're you basing your Lancasters? That's the next-best critter flying.

You're gonna need a bigger aircraft-carrier!

Thumpalumpacus · Mar 19, 2024

Shortround6 said:
Over 16 square miles destroyed in one night.

By 1/3 the bombers that attacked Cologne in 1942.

Damn, what a POS.

pb43 · Mar 19, 2024

The Stannum Crusader said:
Okay…
Although the B-29 is clearly not a Failure, I don't think it was necessary a success either. The B-29 was used extremely little in its intended role as a high altitude bomber. In the Pacific it was used mostly at low altitudes. In addition, I saw earlier a mention of the Norden Bomb Sight, but the Norden was plagued with problems, falsified test results, and was ridiculously expensive. LordHardThrasher explains the sight in his video on the bomb sight, and it sums it up in a more accurate and concise way than I could from memory. (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj9o-DOs4CFAxWHG9AFHZjRCOMQFnoECBAQAQ&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MitxRT7PA&usg=AOvVaw10Q7s1rc00NK0BB3NwFTjx&opi=89978449)

The one main success of the B-29 in any role unique to it was only accomplished through the Modified Silverplate B-29s. People got very off topic earlier in the discussion, but really the B-29 wasn't extremely successful. It only stayed in service in the B-50 because of USAF's Top brass's dogmatic refusal to use the B47 or B36.
And even still, just because the B-29 was modified into the war ender in the pacific doesn't mean IT was a success. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a success of the Manhattan Project, not the ridiculously expensive and poorly utilized B-29.
To sum it up, The B-29 might have been the "most advanced" or "highest flying" but these advantages were underutilized, and then it is praised for the success of a less expensive and more historically impactful arms project, the Atom Bomb.

-Stannum

Less expensive"? You obviously have no idea of the VAST sums of money and resources expended in the Manhattan Project and other early Fission weapons.

Thumpalumpacus · Mar 19, 2024

pb43 said:
Less expensive"? You obviously have no idea of the VAST sums of money and resources expended in the Manhattan Project and other early Fission weapons.

The B-29 did cost more, about 33% more. Doesn't mean it was a failure, at any rate.

The Stannum Liberator · Mar 19, 2024

pb43 said:
Less expensive"? You obviously have no idea of the VAST sums of money and resources expended in the Manhattan Project and other early Fission weapons.

I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but it says, « The $3 billion cost of design and production (equivalent to $49 billion in 2022), far exceeding the $1.9 billion cost of the Manhattan Project, made the B-29 program the most expensive of the war.«

Alan Stevens · Mar 19, 2024

The Stannum Crusader said:
I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but it says, « The $3 billion cost of design and production (equivalent to $49 billion in 2022), far exceeding the $1.9 billion cost of the Manhattan Project, made the B-29 program the most expensive of the war.«

Not a good comparison.

Almost 4,000 B-29 aircraft were built at an average cost of about $750,000 each.

Enough for several air forces.

The Manhattan Project built three atom bombs that were utilized in WW II.

About $600 million per atom bomb.

Alan Stevens · Mar 19, 2024

fannum said:
I find the jet stream discussion a laughable collection of information tidbits that are given the weight of "everyone shoulda known" as in those days of meteorology being a tiny field of study, with even worldwide AG government agencies relying on Farmer Almanac type record patterns. We were missing satellites, internet, and oceanographic impact.
Forecasting without mid ocean (all major seas!!!) observations was one step above Ouija Board science. Contrast with the D-Day weather risks, and a much smaller ocean.

Detailed information about the jet streams did not come until aircraft started operating at those altitudes and in enough quantities of sorties that provided enough data to comprehensively understand what was there.

In the case of Japan that was 1944.

GrauGeist · Mar 19, 2024

I hate to be the killer of popular myths, but...wait, I'm lying.

The Manhattan Project did NOT cost 1.9 billion, 2.2 billion, 2.6 billion or whatever catchy figure of the day happens to be.

From the start of the project through to the end of August 1945, the project cost 20 billion dollars.
This excludes the 76 million that the U.S. Army spent on the Silverplate project (B-29 modifications, personnel, training, logistics, support, etc., etc.)

And here's a fun bit of trivia:
There were roughly 12,731 B-17s built and the unit cost was approximately $250,000 dollars per aircraft, delivered.

If we put pencil to paper and do a bit of math, we'll see that the B-17 project end up costing...

Wait for it...

$3,182,750,000 dollars.

Yes, that's right - 3 billion dollars.

Thumpalumpacus · Mar 20, 2024

Alan Stevens said:
The Manhattan Project built three atom bombs that were utilized in WW II.

Only two used in WWII. Others may parse the math.

Thumpalumpacus · Mar 20, 2024

GrauGeist said:
I hate to be the killer of popular myths, but...wait, I'm lying.

The Manhattan Project did NOT cost 1.9 billion, 2.2 billion, 2.6 billion or whatever catchy figure of the day happens to be.

From the start of the project through to the end of August 1945, the project cost 20 billion dollars.
This excludes the 76 million that the U.S. Army spent on the Silverplate project (B-29 modifications, personnel, training, logistics, support, etc., etc.)

And here's a fun bit of trivia:
There were roughly 12,731 B-17s built and the unit cost was approximately $250,000 dollars per aircraft, delivered.

If we put pencil to paper and do a bit of math, we'll see that the B-17 project end up costing...

Wait for it...

$3,182,750,000 dollars.

Yes, that's right - 3 billion dollars.

Yabut the combat footage ... priceless.

GrauGeist · Mar 20, 2024

Thumpalumpacus said:
Only two used in WWII. Others may parse the math.

There were three - one tested, two used in Japan.

If Japan did not capitulate after the Kokura Mission (Nagasaki alternate), then they would have had to wait until more "Fat Man" bombs were assembled.

Thumpalumpacus · Mar 20, 2024

GrauGeist said:
There were three - one tested, two used in Japan.

If Japan did not capitulate after the Kokura Mission (Nagasaki alternate), then they would have had to wait until more "Fat Man" bombs were assembled.

Trinity wasn't used in the war, it was the proof-of-concept. Only two were used in war.

GrauGeist · Mar 20, 2024

Thumpalumpacus said:
Trinity wasn't used in the war, it was the proof-of-concept. Only two were used in war.

True, but *technically* speaking, there were three air dropped bombs.

Thin Man, which was supposed to be dropped from a B-29 during a test (did not go well) - 16 March 1944

Little Boy - Hiroshima Mission, 6 August 1945

Fat Man - Kokura Mission, 9 August 1945

Was the B-29 Superfortress a Failure?

Major General

Honourably banned

Airman 1st Class

2nd Lieutenant

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Major

Airman

Major

Airman

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Major

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads