GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
This was the same for Allied bombers in 1944, when the Me262 showed up.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
This was the same for Allied bombers in 1944, when the Me262 showed up.A bit of B-29 trivia - I knew a man who had been a B-29 tail gunner during the Korean unpleasentness and was terrified of MiG-15 attacks because he could not track them at their speed.
B-36 entered service in 1948, meaning B-29 was the best for four years, not one year. Or if we're going by first flight-- the B-29 first flew in 1942, again giving us four years to chew on. I'd say that's a while.
At any rate, not being the best doesn't mean a plane is a failure, which is the original question here.
I would note that the Grumman Avenger was built to a spec that called for a ceiling of 30,000ft.While I think the arguments that the B-29 was not successful at its intended design purpose (High Altitude, long range, unescorted bombing) are legitimate arguments, I would disagree that this made the aircraft a partial failure?
Why?
This was war. War is always full of unknowns. Anyone who has experienced it knows that war rarely goes as planned. You always have to adapt and overcome. No different here with the B-29. The USAAF had to adapt and change strategies to the environment, and it was successful in doing just that.
Like the P-39?If we are going to quantify an aircraft being a failure because it was not the best, then all aircraft are failures in some form or fashion.
So $2 billion divided by 3.*sigh*
Far too expensive for 3 bombs, better to continue fighting hand to hand for another 2 to 3 years and let someone else develop nuclear weapons for their use. The cost isnt in the making of the bombs it is in figuring out how to make them.So $2 billion divided by 3.
Average of $667 million per bomb.
The initial B-29 concept and design studies were for a high altitude bomber that could do its job from high altitude - and from medium and low altitude.Some people are probably going to argue and say "The B29 was designed to be unescorted or high altitude" It was for both. Its range was longer than any fighter of the time, if the purpose was to take advantage of that range, then no fighters could have escorted it the whole way. If you claim the purpose wasn't to be high altitude, then you're just wrong.
Considering the B-29 first flew just after the USA did any strategic bombing of any kind anywhere it was quite a feat for it to be as close to what was needed in 1945 as it actually was. As a project when it was first conceived the world and especially the world of aviation was a completely different place.If we are going to quantify an aircraft being a failure because it was not the best, then all aircraft are failures in some form or fashion.
I am not arguing against the cost of the atomic bombs.Far too expensive for 3 bombs, better to continue fighting hand to hand for another 2 to 3 years and let someone else develop nuclear weapons for their use. The cost isnt in the making of the bombs it is in figuring out how to make them.
Still does.FWIW 1945 pictures of Enola Gay show a smooth fuselage with no turrets or sighting blisters.
No. The Lancaster lacked the range, payload, speed performance and basic "stretch" to achieve the mission. I couldn't have flown from the Marianas, and would have required taking Okinawa in order to be able to attack the Japanese mainland.Yes but it was build to just do that. Could a lesser developed airplane have done the same? Lets say Lancaster?
The high altitude bit didn't work out in a specific set of circumstances, at a particular time. For the rest of its career - (Well, other than the Air Rescue Service SB-29s) they performed most of their missions at high altitudes.Did it do what is was created for? Partly. The high altitude bit didnt worknout very well i believe. Wasn it leMay that changed to lower altitude and different pay load? Question is how much of the budget was spend on gear not used.
The 87 RAF B-29s were in England March 1950 - March 1954 because they were longer-ranged than the Lincolns, and could reach targets in the USSR from the UK - the Lincolns would require basing in France, the Netherlands, or Germany.No. The Lancaster lacked the range, payload, speed performance and basic "stretch" to achieve the mission. I couldn't have flown from the Marianas, and would have required taking Okinawa in order to be able to attack the Japanese mainland.
It's worth noting that the Uprated Lancaster, the Lincoln, was supplanted in Bomber Command by (Wait for it...) B-29s (Washingtons, in RAF Speak)
It slso wasn't "built to just do that" - It was built to be able to do that - and it did - and many other things besides.
Okay, this is I assume being taken from The Costs of the Manhattan Project | Brookings,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.)
What is cost? If you spend $100,000 on a holiday you spent a lot of money and just have memories.. If you spend $100,000 on gold bullion you have gold which may or may not be worth what you paid for it. In terms of a nations spending on things like the B-29 and nuclear weapons, the USA spending left it with massive physical and intellectual assets. Boeing as a company today has a market capitalisation of $140 Billion.
I agree, as I see things the USA made the decision in around 1938 that if anyone was going to be bombing anyone at long range they were going to be market leader. You cannot put a cost on what not having something is when someone else does. The costs to a state are different to those of an individual or a corporation. There were thousands of contractors involved in the two projects and tens of thousands of people, many or perhaps even most learned new skills and technologies which remained within the US economy along with many factories and machines.There are multiple ways of comparing monetary values across time, and each method has its advantages depending on the cost you are looking at. Using the standard CPI adjustment is likely not the best choice for comparing military project expenses from different time periods. For that, using the share of GDP is probably a better choice.
See this page from the Measuring Worth website which gives an overview of the different ways of comparing worth across time: Choosing the Best Indicator to Measure Relative Worth
Some people have claimed that in-flight refueling could have provided the range needed from the Marianas.No. The Lancaster lacked the range, payload, speed performance and basic "stretch" to achieve the mission. I couldn't have flown from the Marianas, and would have required taking Okinawa in order to be able to attack the Japanese mainland.
It's worth noting that the Uprated Lancaster, the Lincoln, was supplanted in Bomber Command by (Wait for it...) B-29s (Washingtons, in RAF Speak)
It slso wasn't "built to just do that" - It was built to be able to do that - and it did - and many other things besides.