B-29s over Germany

[Erich]

what-if of course, but most likely the production of higher altitude and faster prop job Ta 152H's would of been online including R4M's under thier wings . . . things would of been quite interesting above 30,000 feet

[FLYBOYJ]

And even though we're speaking "What If," the plan was to have the B-32 in the ETO had the war gone on (I know, we've discussed this before in detail)...

[Nonskimmer]

Originally Posted by Glider

The Japs with aricraft that were nowhere nearly as well armed or effective as the Germans did quite well destroying a number of B29's. So to describe them as invulnerable is a little on the optamistic side.

I agree that the B29's would have doen a lot better than the B17/B24 but there are other factors that would assist. The B29's could fly higher making them more difficult to get at, plus they also flew faster making them more difficult to intercept in the first place. They were of course better defended, as to being more robust than a B17, I doubt that but the B17 was by common agreement the most robust Heavy Bomber so I don't consider that a slight of any kind.

I fully agree. Not that anyone cares.

[Twitch]

Erich is right. Since it's a "what if" scenario anyhow rockets would have been used. The R4Ms were actually in the hands of some squadrons at the end although none were used.

As for ballistics of the 30 mm rounds- the 330 gram Mk 103 traveled at 860 meters per second, the 312 gram Mk 108 @ 505 m/s while the 20 mm MG 151's muzzle velocity was 800 m/s using a 92 gram and 705 m/s with a 115 gram shell. The MG 151's ballistics was not as "fast" as the Hispano Mk V 20 mm which launched a 130 gram projectile at 840 m/s.

[davparlr]

The B-29 would obviously have been effective against Germany as were the B-17s and 24s. They would have needed the same protection. Without it there losses would have been high but not as high as the B-17/24s. Damage to Germany would have been significantly greater. The Me 262 would be effective against them. B-29s were chased from the daytime skys of Korea by the Mig 15.

I did read of an encounter between a B-29 and a P-61. The B-29 crew had a abandoned the plane and the P-61 was assigned to shoot it down. They practically had to empty their guns (including 20mm) before the B-29 came down. And, it was not shooting back! Sounds like it was a pretty tough bird.

[Erich]

sounds like the P-61 crew sucked big-time !

yes R4M's and a successor would of been developed had the war continued. The TA 152H was enough to take out the B-29. R4M's were first used on ops March 18, 45 with III./JG 7. What a horror story it was for the B-17 formations as they thought that half of the 18 plus losses were due to 8.8cm Flak. Many fortress crews did not even know what hit them. Soon after this date I./JG 7 was equipped and later JV 44 with R4M useage against the 9th AF B-26's

[Udet]

I really fail to see why is it the B-29 would have surpassed the performance record of the B-17 or B-24 in Europe.

Because it was faster than the two heavies the USAAF deployed in the ETO? Because it flew higher?

Any bomber formation of the allies flying unescorted in 1943-44 and getting intercepted by German fighters is doomed. The B-29 does not have anything that would make it an exception to that rule.

The features of the B-29 are frequently presented in real grandiose terms:

(i) "It flew very high" (the Germans had planes who could be there to greet the B-29);

(ii) "It was faster than the B-24 and B-17 (certainly not faster than any German fighter plane of 1944-45 -do not compare it with the German jets for it´d be overkill);

(iii) "It had a central fire control system" (sounds somewhat exaggerated when one knows of the era, how effective such a system really was? i´ve been told by people fond of the PTO that the actual performance of the system was "nothing impressive" and that problems were not rare),

(iv) "It had a pressurized cabin" (great when used against a nation that has neither Flak nor air force, or when going through a pleasure flight in skies where no war is being fought; wait for the first 2cm or 3cm shell of a Sturmböck to hit and let´s see what happens when the air escapes from the bomber).

Erich could be of help here: if i recall correctly the Germans had at least two AA guns which had a maximun effective ceiling that would have put the B-29 within comfortable reach right?

The 10.5-cm Flak 38 and the 12.8-cm Flak 40.

Still i believe the B-29 made a fine bomber; "super-bomber"? I do not think so.

I do not believe nor see arguments sound enough that might prove the B-29 would have fared in a much superior fashion if compared with the two other heavies.

If the results of strategic bombing in Europe were in fact to be surpassed by having B-29s instead of the other two models, then marginal is the first word coming into mind.

Cheers!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think it would have been better for 3 reasons, the amount of payload would have been increased, overall it was a better bomber (why not use the better bomber), and the threat that it posed with the A-Bomb.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

The B-29 was the best bomber of them all, but a 262 could still stick it. Of course in just a little while a Gloster might take 'em down. But then its not the B-29's toughness which won the day.

[Glider]

Udet
Taking your points
If the B29 flies higher then the flak is less effective reducing your losses.
If the B29 flies faster you reduce the time over the danger area, reducing your losses. It also makes it more difficult to intercept, reducing your losses.
If the 29 is better defended then you again reduce your losses.
I don't think anyone said that they could fly unescorted, they needed escorting over Japan whose air defences were nowhere near as effective as the Germans.
For the above reasons I believe there can be no doubt that the B29 would have been far more effective than the B17/B24 and I haven't mentioned the most obvious reason, the range payload capabilities of the B29 were way ahead of either the B17 or B24

[the lancaster kicks ass]

But then its not the B-29's toughness which won the day.

it wasn't even the B-29 that won the day, it was the weapon used, not the means of delivery that won the day..........

and remember the B-29 was not an easy plane to produce, you may be right in saying losses would be lower, but could the losses be sustained? they would be up against some exceptionally formidable german fighters, and it can be assumed that if the war continues to the point where the B-29 is being used over the ETO then the war's gone on longer than it did, the Germans are doing something right, and have already fought off the B-17/B-24 onslaught, so they wouldn't be facing 1945's weaker airforce, would production of the B-17 and B-24 be stopped dead in order to produce the B-29? no, of course not, the other planes were still needed, the kind of large scale production of the B-29 that would be needed over Europe would be a stretch of even the USA's powers..........

[plan_D]

The Luftwaffe was falling in effectiveness from 1943 to the wars end. If Germany had managed to hold on longer than they did, how many planes were going to be grounded from lack of fuel? How many skilled pilots would have already been killed by Allied escorts?

The fact of the matter is, the B-29 carried a heavier payload further and faster. It's time over the danger zone was less, it's own defensive power was increased and it's height was increased. Reducing the German air defences considerably, then while escorted by the P-51 it was going to be so much more effective than the B-17 or B-24. The cruising speeds of both the B-29 and P-51 were higher than that of the B-17 or B-24 and flying higher ... both of those things would reduce the interception time, it's not hard to understand.

[FLYBOYJ]

The B-29 was harder to build but by 1945 Boeing spooled up it's Wichita plant and Bell was building B-29s in Marietta Georgia, the difficulty of a larger and more complex aircraft was being overcome and by mid 1945 and there was still plenty of resources to supply thousands of B-29s where ever they were needed, and again it was planned to get the B-24 and B-17 out of service and replace them with the B-32. Convair was planning the same production methodology with the B-32 as they did with the B-24.

If anything by late 1945 and early 1946 I think the production capacity of the US would of INCREASED....

[syscom3]

At the peak of production (July 1945), the four B29 plants were cranking out about 375 B29's per month. And consider that was reflective of production planning knowing that they would not be used in the ETO.

It is quite conceivable that another two or three plants could have been brough on line if planned.

[Twitch]

I must be on drugs or have too much WW 2 stuff floating around my head. Erich- I was thinking of the X-4 wire guided missile that was just reaching units at the end not the R4M.