What if: B-29 debut in England instead of India China
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
You don't make it abundantly clear
operating them over where? The ETO, or are we still sending them out to the PTO?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Boeing B-29 Superfortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WWII in Europe will be over in 11 months. Yet even on this late date only 77 B-29s are operational. That's less then 5% of U.S. and RAF heavy bombers already operating over Europe.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-29 was never intended for the ETO - the B-32 was supposed to replace the B-24 and B-17.
Hard to say the direct affect. Would the B-17 and B-24 have been phased out? Would all 3 bombers been deployed? The B-29 did have a lot of teething problems but then again would have been flying a fraction of the distance and could have carried full and overloaded bomb loads. Would the high level tactics been deployed or would have the tactics developed by Lemay been used?
A lot of variables to this question.
Hard to say the direct affect. Would the B-17 and B-24 have been phased out? Would all 3 bombers been deployed? The B-29 did have a lot of teething problems but then again would have been flying a fraction of the distance and could have carried full and overloaded bomb loads. Would the high level tactics been deployed or would have the tactics developed by Lemay been used?
A lot of variables to this question.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Plus airfield capabilities in the UK. The first B29 to arrive in the UK in 1944 had some small problems due to runway length required. Landing was not so bad, but take off was a bit more of a problem. If B29s were to operate in the ETO from the UK, then bigger airfield facilities would have been required, with all the associated delays of bringing the fileds, and aircraft, into operation. A relatively small point I know, but important in the overall scheme of things.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually a very good point!!!
- Thread starter
- #8
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Possibly, but you also had an element of time and manpower. many of the bases in china were hand built but there were plenty of manpower to support that effort. In the ETO I don't see the same happening.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Not really. Building from scratch is actually easier, paricularly in relatively uncluttered, virgin land.
Enlarging and extending existing airfields (in the UK) would have meant those 'fields being out of service until completed, and the resulting loss in available bomber squadrons operational. Also, the greater percentage of UK airfields, particularly bomber 'fields, had circuits which overlapped, they were so close to each other. The bulk of bomber 'fields were, naturally, on the east side of England, stretching from North Yorkshire, through Lincolnshire, into East Anglia, mainly Suffolk and Norfolk, with the USAAF occupying the latter area. There is/was only so much room, and not all of the land was suitable for airfiled construction. Add to this the fact that a runway on one airfield, if extended, could virtually end up almost encroaching on the runway from the next airfield, and you'lll get the idea. And that's before adding-in the requirements for dispersed hardstandings, taxi ways, the larger fuel stores required, etc etc.
Enlarging and extending existing airfields (in the UK) would have meant those 'fields being out of service until completed, and the resulting loss in available bomber squadrons operational. Also, the greater percentage of UK airfields, particularly bomber 'fields, had circuits which overlapped, they were so close to each other. The bulk of bomber 'fields were, naturally, on the east side of England, stretching from North Yorkshire, through Lincolnshire, into East Anglia, mainly Suffolk and Norfolk, with the USAAF occupying the latter area. There is/was only so much room, and not all of the land was suitable for airfiled construction. Add to this the fact that a runway on one airfield, if extended, could virtually end up almost encroaching on the runway from the next airfield, and you'lll get the idea. And that's before adding-in the requirements for dispersed hardstandings, taxi ways, the larger fuel stores required, etc etc.
True that the B-29 was always intended for the PTO, but that's the first time I've heard that the B-32 was planned to replace the B-17 and B-24 in the ETO. I've always thought it was really just a back-up program in case the B-29 was a failure.
As others have said, somebody is going to have to mess with history a bit to have the B-29 or B-32contribute meaningfully to the ETO (until the A-bomb is ready, of course). It is interesting to speculate how the B-29 might have faired if the war had been extended for a year and more advanced German jet and rocket interceptors, as well as SAMs were becoming available.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
...and in relation to the topic of the thread, your point is?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And how would it have fared against the Luftwaffe...
Would say rather well. It would flying at a higher altitude than the B-17s and B-24s. This would put the Fw190As more or less out of it.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
How long did it take a fully loaded B29 to get to its operational height of 30,000ft. If it took off from the usual bases in Norfolk would it have been at 30k ft by the time it crossed the coast in Holland or would it have had to circle or fly a dogleg across the North Sea.
This also applies to B17 and B24 could they hit there operational height in the time it took to cross the North Sea.
This also applies to B17 and B24 could they hit there operational height in the time it took to cross the North Sea.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
I'm not sure about the B29 reaching 30,000 feet before crossing into Continental Europe, but probably doubtful. The B17s and B24s formated over the UK and the coastal North Sea, whilst climbing at the same time. By the time of landfall, they were nearing their operational altitude, but still climbing. It seems that, on average, this could take an hour or more, but bear in mind this included forming up into the high, centre and low groups.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
As usual you only quote all the negative reports that were issued during the B-29s development without giving two sides to the story, especially its ACTUAL operational history that seems to dispel all the concerns over the Tyndall reports, either because many of those concerns were fixed or panned out to be non issues during actual operation. Aside from your usual latrine load of rubbish on this subject, please refrain from re-engaging your wikipedia cut and paste campaign as it will not be tolerated on this thread.
carry on folks....
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
That would depend on the mission profile in terms of range and bomb load. I show a rate of climb for the B-17 at 900' per minute, 1025' per minute for the B-24 and 900' per minute for the B-29. Again this is a standard rate and it can vary.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
