[Rod]

The U.S. decided not to use the B-29s in the European theater given that it was urgently needed in the Pacific campaign where its range was required to reach Japan. But let us assume that there were enough B-29s being produced to replace the B-17s and that by the beginning of 1944, B-29s were departing from England for sorties over Germany:

-How much more difficult would have been for the Luftwaffe Bf-109s and Fw-190s to reach the operating altitude of the B-29s?
-Would there be a decrease in the effectiveness of the FlaK 88mm?
-Would more Luftwaffe bombers have been shot down by the B-29s (with their remote controlled and computer aided aiming MGs) than vis-a-vis the B-17s?

I know that by then P-51 Mustangs were available for escort but B-17s still saw some action against German fighters and many were still lost in bombing raids.

[Hans Strelow]

Rod, on Wed 1 Feb 2006 2115, said:

The U.S. decided not to use the B-29s in the European theater given that it was urgently needed in the Pacific campaign where its range was required to reach Japan. But let us assume that there were enough B-29s being produced to replace the B-17s and that by the beginning of 1944,  B-29s were departing from England for sorties over Germany:

-How much more difficult would have been for the Luftwaffe Bf-109s and Fw-190s to reach the operating altitude of the B-29s?
-Would there be a decrease in the effectiveness of the FlaK 88mm?
-Would more Luftwaffe bombers have been shot down by the B-29s (with their remote controlled and computer aided aiming MGs) than vis-a-vis the B-17s?

I know that by then P-51 Mustangs were available for escort but B-17s still saw some action against German fighters and many were still lost in bombing raids.

Good question.

-More difficult, sure - how much - more difficult to say.
-Yes, how much - more difficult to say.
-Fighters I suppose you mean - yes - how much - more difficult to say.

The two € cents I can give is that the B29's against Japan did almost nothing. That is before the low level firebombings started. Of course bringing two...ehrmm...special devices not counted.

My conclusion is that B29's instead of B17's (and B24's) against Germany would not make a big difference - one thought though. Range. But I think that from when the B29 was truly operational most important targets in Europe could be reached already.

Cheers

Hans

[Detonable]

The Germans knew about the B-29. They overestimated its ceiling, IIRC, and thought their 88's could not reach it. The 88's would have been even less effective than against the B-17, due to the higher altitude, and the lesser time in the target area due to the B-29's greater speed.

The FW-190 engine had poor performance above 20,000 feet. At 30,000 feet, it would not have very good performance, while the P-47 escort would probably do just fine. IIRC the ME-109's performance started to drop off at 25,000 feet or so. So both planes would have been challenged. The ME-262 jets would have performed just fine at 30,000 feet, and wouldn't have too much trouble catching the B-29.

On earlier threads, some posters stated that the flexing of the B-29 fuselage meant that the gunnery from the remote turrets wasn't very good. However, the tail gunner had a 20mm cannon in addition to twin 0.50s. Still, that didn't stop them from taking losses in Korea. I think the firepower of the ME-262 was devastating enough to bring down a B-29 without too much problem. However, they have to get close to use their low velocity cannon, and would have taken some losses.

Historically, I think that most of the Me-262s losses were to fighters. At the higher altitude of the B-29, there might be compressibility problems for fighters diving on the Me-262s. However, they could still loiter over the jet airfields and hit them taking off.

[Chris Werb]

At the higher altitude B-29s would have been even less accurate than B-17s historically were. They'd probably have gone over to night fire raids, for which a lot of the technology in the B-29 was unnecessary.

[KingSargent]

As Detonable mentioned, the inability of the B-29 to defend itself MIGHT have been a handicap against better resistance than the Japanese could put up in 1945. OTOH, the escort fighters probably would have kept them safe.

Still, if the Air Staff Idiots had decided to use the B-29 to prove their "bomber will always get through" doctrinal nonsense* and sent the B-29s by themselves, there would have been a bloodbath if the Germans could have found enough fuel for interceptors.

* Which was not nonsense when first articulated, but that's another story.

And as Chris says the B-29 couldn't hit jack and the higher-altitude capability would just have made more room for clouds to get between them and the target.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Detonable, on Wed 1 Feb 2006 2144, said:

On earlier threads, some posters stated that the flexing of the B-29 fuselage meant that the gunnery from the remote turrets wasn't very good.  However, the tail gunner had a 20mm cannon in addition to twin 0.50s.  Still, that didn't stop them from taking losses in Korea. 

Other posters have said it, but it's not correct: the statement is not supported by the actual results. The B-29's claimed about a 3 times better ratio of enemy fighters destroyed to B-29's lost to fighters than the B-17/24 did, around 9 v around 3. Both those ratios were pretty inflated, but there's no evidence B-29 claims were *more* inflated than B-17/24. Actually I've been going through recently and tallying claims v. real Japanese losses in two sided works about B-29's (like Sakaida's books), and the B-29 claims are if anything a bit more accurate than typical ETO bomber claiming. One reason for that is ramming by Japanese fighters (a fighter that rammed was going to be claimed on behalf of the target, and be a real loss!). Ramming is another reason the J fighters brought down as many of the pretty limited number of B-29's they did. German fighters were tougher, but not by that much esp by 1945. So the evidence just doesn't support saying the B-29 defensive armament in WWII was less effective than the less advanced US bombers. It indicates it was more effective.

In Korea the B-29 system was totally outmatched by a fighter much faster than even the Me-262. There the claims were quite overstated more than in 1945; 27 confirmed victories by B-29's v. apparently 3 MiG-15's really downed by B-29's (at least two were the result of unconfirmed claims, strangely enough). In Korea, and actually I believe in many cases in later WWII the B-29 tail armament was 3* .50, the 20mm dispensed with. Later in Korea many B-29's were also refitted with B-50 turrets to improve that key position in night raids (which they flew almost exclusively in areas of likely MiG activity after October 1951).

On the original question, in the period B-29's could realistically have been operating in Europe, mid 1944 on, they would have been effective, just like B-17's and B-24's generally were in that period (escorts, right targets like oil infrastructure etc., good accuracy). The 88 Flak (except the relatively rare Flak 41) was marginal even against the B-17, better v. the B-24 which flew lower. But as mentioned by others the altitude accuracy trade off would affect any plane. The B-29's virtues wouldn't have been put to best use in ETO though given the real timing and that's a big reason why original plans (ca. 1942) to use it there faded away over the period before 1944.

Joe

[Tony Williams]

IMO the B-29 would have been less effective than the B-17/24, simply because one of the key benefits of the USAAF daylight raids was to suck in as many Luftwaffe fighters to their destruction by the escorts as they could. Hence the almost total lack of Luftwaffe opposition to D-day and thereafter. To do that job as well, the B-29 would have to have flown deliberately low and slow...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Rod]

Did the B-29 have a diiferent (better?) bombing sight system than the B-17 Norden one or were they the same? I would assume that perhaps the B-29 being newer and more expensive and especially for the fact that it flies higher, might have had a more sophisticated sight system to compensate the higher bombing altitude in order to preserve accuracy.

[DKTanker]

Rod, on Wed 1 Feb 2006 1922, said:

Did the B-29 have a diiferent (better?) bombing sight system than the B-17 Norden one or were they the same? I would assume that perhaps the B-29 being newer and more expensive and especially for the fact that it flies higher, might have had a more sophisticated  sight system to compensate the higher bombing altitude in order to preserve accuracy.

Except the B29 doesn't fly higher. Boeing states the service ceiling of the B29 as 31K plus change while they state the B17G at 35K plus change. Now the cruising speed of 220 mph does give it quite an edge over the B17s 150mph.

[GregShaw]

DKTanker, on Wed 1 Feb 2006 2110, said:

Except the B29 doesn't fly higher.  Boeing states the service ceiling of the B29 as 31K plus change while they state the B17G at 35K plus change.  Now the cruising speed of 220 mph does give it quite an edge over the B17s 150mph.

I wouldn't put a lot of credence into book values for service ceilings. B-17s typically bombed from around 25,000 ft, and the B-24 about 22,000 ft or so. While B-29s against Japan seem to have commonly operated at 30,000 ft + altitudes. In practice the B-24 was right about the FTH of Fw 190A/D and the B-17 a bit above it. Note, the Bf 109G wasn't much better off prior to the DB605AS in a few Bf 109G-5/6 in the spring of '44 and the G-10 in the summer of '44. The Fw 190A/D would have been badly outclassed by the USAAF P-47 and P-51 at 30,000 ft +, and even the Bf 109G-10 and K-4 would be well above their FTH. I suspect the USAAF would have stuck with the original high altitude V-1650-3 in the P-51 rather than switching to the medium altitude V-1650-7.

Greg Shaw

[seahawk]

If the b-29 would have been used over Europe from early 1944 on it would have had some obvious consequences.

a) all Me-262 would have been built as fighters. Me-262 and Ta-152 production would have been more important

B) The B-29 would have taken less losses, but would probably have had more problems hitting targets due to typical european weather

c) More Luftwaffe fighters would have been free to counter D-Day, as nmost FW-190 and some Me109 would have been useless in the bomber intercept role

d) we might have seen the Wasserfall SAM

Would this haver made a difference, well it depends. For the bomber crews probably yes, for the course of the war probably no.

[pluto77189]

From what I remember, one of the big reasons the B-29's couldn't hit a
thing in Japan at high altitude was the jet streams. They were flying into
(and bombing into ) the wind. When they flew with it, they were too fast
for the bomb sight to accuratly work

If the B-29's were used in the role they were intended, as high altitude
bombers, they would have proabably been more effective than the other
bombers.

Regardless, high altitude daylight bombing was only so effective, both in
Europe and Japan. An increase in effectivness in such an ineffective
strategy isn't of much value. I thik the B-29's would have been
technilogical overkill in Europe.

[JOE BRENNAN]

The B-29 would have been overkill in Europe in the correct timeframe. Still, some statements seemed to be based on exaggerated 'debunking' of daylight bombing in WWII. For example that the Germans would have emphasized air defence more if the USAAF used B-29's. By mid 1944 the Germans were being seriously hurt by daylight bombing (synthetic oil industry, etc) ; the proper debate over its place in winning the war is that it took that long to be true; until land invasion of Germany was imminent (from both sides). The Germans put a lot of resources into air defence despite that land threat, they couldn't wisely have put more emphasis on it by that time. Same with the implication that bomber effectiveness was so much a function of escort's shooting down interceptors that the bombers *had* to be offered in a deliberately vulnerable position or would somehow be ignored;it exaggerates a point with some validity: by mid 1944 the effect on Germany of the bombing itself had become serious.

B-17/24 altitudes were around as stated by Greg AFAIK, as averages. The difference was probably the main reason the 8th AF leadership didn't like the B-24, felt that had a measureable effect on flak attrition (not just that it couldn't take damage as well if hit, but more likely to be hit). As strong a feeling doesn't seem to have existed in the 15th AF though, maybe because average distance to targets was greater, and the B-24 longer legged. The B-29's range wasn't needed though.

B-29's started over Japan with highest groups ~32k but averages around 30. That edged down even before the start of night raids. For example the Feb 10 raid on the Nakajima plant (accuracy rated fair, but 74 completed 'Franks' were destroyed, an example of the underestimation of damage at the time in later B-29 daylight raids before Mar '45) was at 26-29k. That was also typical of daylight raids after firebombing started (some later incendiary raids were in daylight). In Korea typicial altitudes against targets with radar directed heavy flak were ~20-27, day or night. Without effective flak the optimum lower still (WWII night raids w/o effective J night flak or Korean targets without much heavy flak). Esp in latter part of latter war, the trade off was pretty purely flak (and searchlight) exposure v. bombing accuracy, but interesting the Soviets didn't view the La-11 (high performance piston fighter by WWII stds) as a practical interceptor of B-29's at night (even under radar GCI) because of speed and altitude; La-11's made no claims of B-29's destroyed (did damage a couple).

Joe

This post has been edited by JOE BRENNAN: 02 February 2006 - 1225 PM

[Old Tanker]

Side note:

I spent Monday at the Pima Air Museum.

Saw close up and personal B-17, B-24 and B-29 , most impressive.

[GregShaw]

seahawk*, on Wed 1 Feb 2006 2334, said:

If the b-29 would have been used over Europe from early 1944 on it would have had some obvious consequences.

a) all Me-262 would have been built as fighters. Me 262 and Ta 152 production would have been more important

And the Me-262 wouldn't have seen service any sooner, it was engine availability that delayed it, not Hitler. It is doubtful the Ta-152H would have made it into service any earlier either, although the Ta 152C with the DB603A engine might have been available around the same time as the Fw 190D-9 with the Jumo 213A. The Luftwaffe was behind the tech curve in early '44 through fall '44, and the B-29 would have just stressed them further.

Quote

B) The B-29 would have taken less losses, but would probably have had more problems hitting targets due to typical european weather

Maybe, the USAAF had H2x radar bombing systems available for blind bombing, and I doubt optical bombing would be significantly worse than the B-17/24.

Quote

c) More Luftwaffe fighters would have been free to counter D-Day, as nmost FW-190 and some Me109 would have been useless in the bomber intercept role

I don't think so. Politically the Luftwaffe would have still gone up to play, they were already being accused of cowardice just facing the B-17/24/Lancaster combo.

Quote

d) we might have seen the Wasserfall SAM

Without prox fuses they were an awfully expensive/complicated way to miss with a big warhead. :)

Greg Shaw

This post has been edited by GregShaw: 02 February 2006 - 1327 PM

[requiem77]

as far as the b29, wasnt there a special type of fw-190 with VERY long wings and an engine designed for very high altitude just coming in as the war ended?
i would imagine given enough fuel, the 262 could have done something about the 29 ,although as everyone knew, that was the problem and not availability of aircraft. The germans actually produced massive numbers of fighters toward the end of the war but couldnt get them up due to lack of fuel as everyone knows.
Obviously the germans could engineer a fighter for the unique world of bomber intercepts but i dont know how you intercept an atomic bomb. Lucky for them they didnt drag it out a few months.

[Detonable]

requiem77, on Thu 2 Feb 2006 1544, said:

as far as the b29, wasnt there a special type of fw-190 with VERY long wings and an engine designed for very high altitude just coming in as the war ended?
        i would imagine given enough fuel, the 262 could have done something about the 29 ,although as everyone knew, that was the problem and not availability of aircraft. The germans actually produced massive numbers of fighters toward the end of the war but couldnt get them up due to lack of fuel as everyone knows.
        Obviously the germans could engineer a fighter for the unique world of bomber intercepts but i dont know how you intercept an atomic bomb.  Lucky for them they didnt drag it out a few months.

The Germans built plenty of conventional fighters in 1944, and these lacked fuel. Also, they did not have fuel to train replacement pilots. I don't think they had a lack of jet fuel. It takes less refining than gasoline, and there were so few flight hours by jets.

The jets really weren't ready for production until fall 1944. By then the German rail network had been bombed into oblivion. It seems that about 1200 Me-262s were manufactured. I think almost half never arrived at the airfields. This is from memory from Ethell? "German Jets In Combat".

What was the top speed of the Migs at 30,000 feet vs. that of the Me-262? It can't be much more than 100 mph difference, since both planes are subsonic.

Whats an FTH?

[GregShaw]

Detonable, on Thu 2 Feb 2006 1348, said:

Whats an FTH?

Full Throttle Height - a concept from supercharged engines, basically the height you can run the engine with the throttle wide open and not worry about blowing the engine up. Below that altitude the supercharger could provide more boost than the engine could safely tolerate, above that altitude the blower could no longer provide enough compression for the engine to produce full power.

For both the DB 605A and the BMW 801D static rated altitude was approx 18,700 ft and 1.42 ata. But you have to take into account ram pressure recovery from the forward motion of the aircraft. I'm not bored enough to do the math right now, but basically the faster you go the higher and faster you go. Flat out level speed the Fw 190A and Bf 109G both topped out right around 22,000 ft in Takeoff and Emergency power, probably slightly lower at Climb and Combat power.

In contrast, the V-1650-3 had a Emergency power static altitude of about 1330 hp @ 23,000 ft & 67 in Hg, and Mil power static altitude of 1210 hp @ 25,800 ft & 61 in Hg. Combined with the Mustang's excellent ram recovery, that put FTH up around 28,000 - 30,000 ft.

The medium altitude V-1650-7 was rated about 1505 hp @ 19,300 ft & 67 in Hg Emergency and 1370 hp @ 21,400 ft and 61 in Hg Mil. Putting FTH for the -7 engined Ponys in the 24,000 - 26,000 ft range.

Greg Shaw

This post has been edited by GregShaw: 02 February 2006 - 1644 PM

[Hans Strelow]

Since Greg is hanging around here I might ask a slightly OT question.

I have long ago somewhere read something about that the normal rules about maneuverability is not in force at high altitudes. That a big winged bomber like a B 36 actually could outmaneuver certain fighters. Am I dreaming completely or is there any substance in this?

Cheers

Hans

furrign schpellinq

This post has been edited by Hans Strelow: 02 February 2006 - 1646 PM

[f101]

B-29 became available in abequate numbers only in the march '45. So there is no point in this discussion :).