The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

In all actuality you would have to break them down into types of bombers.

We discussed this last year..and the year before that... and the year before that Last year we even did break it down, don't know where those threads went.
I think we all agree that the question in this thread is actually a silly one, right?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Marcel

We discussed this last year..and the year before that... and the year before that Last year we even did break it down, don't know where those threads went.
I think we all agree that the question in this thread is actually a silly one, right?

Absolutely!

[Njaco]

Originally Posted by Marcel

We discussed this last year..and the year before that... and the year before that Last year we even did break it down, don't know where those threads went.
I think we all agree that the question in this thread is actually a silly one, right?

Yup and I still got sucked into answering it!

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Its maritime strike capability was limited

Why was that? It carried two large aerial mines and used its range and navigational capabilities to use that capacity to great effect in the inland seas of Japan.

And its ability to carry oversize loads, meant that if the Allies had decided to develop glide bombs like the germans had, then it would have been the well positioned to carry them.

as was its ability to provide ground support to battlefield situations.

I assume you mean it couldnt be used in a tactical situation, which is true, because IT WAS NEVER designed for that role. Your line of reasoning also suggests that no four engined "heavy bomber" could be used in that role either.

But then the inverse of your logic is the A20/B25/B26 and Mossie couldnt be used in long range missions either.

I read that the 3500 B-29s produced cost more to build than the entire 19000 B-24 program. How would 3500 B-29s fare, compared to 19000 B-24s over germany?

One B29 could carry an atomic bomb, with an effective payload of 15,000 tons. How about that?

The B24's were simpler to design and build and were in mass production 2 years before the B29 had any meaningful production. And we know one thing for sure, the B24 could not have bombed Japan from the Mariana's.

They would have been cut to pieces, simply because there would not have been enough of them. If we assume similar deployment rates to Germany as was done historically in the PTO, th en ther would have been about 300 by the end of 1944, rising to about 500 by March 1945. At that same time, ther were thousands of B-24s and B-17s battling the Luftwaffe. I doubt that the B-29, despite its higher individual survivability, would have fared better overall, when viewed as agroup. There simply were not enough of them, and that was because they cost so much per unit to produce.

Why do you assume they would have been cut to pieces. They were not immune to the LW but they sure would have been less vulnerable to most of the LW fighters. And if they were used as night bombers, they would have even less loses. And dont forget, most B29 loses in the Pacific were due to the plane [damaged] having to fly 1600 miles back to their bases. Now if that range was only a few hundred miles like that in Europe, the B29 loses would be even less.

So while I agree they are the best from a technological point of view, from an operations point of view I see them as having rather limited potential in the WWII context.

Limited potential? How about burning Japan to the ground.

How bout bring ECM dedicated aircraft to a new level of capabilities.

How about mining the inland seas and immobilizing the Japanese coastal traffic.

How about dropping two nuclear weapons.

You call that "limited"?

The B29 was the result of the lessons learned from the Lanc, B17 and B24. Each one of those three planes showed what was good and bad about their designs as intended for strategic warfare, and the B29 by design or not, minimized the bad points and integrated the good points (to one degree or another) into a single platform.

[Shortround6]

The problem with a lot of these "BEST OF WW II" threads is that they cover too much ground or time.

The state of aeronautical knowledge and availabe (or projected) engines changed so much from 1935-37 to 1943-44 that trying to compare planes from the start of the war to planes available near the end of the war is useless even if you were comparing planes designed for the "SAME MISSION" which you wouldn't be because the mission requirements changed over time.

[syscom3]

Heres a post war pic of the B29 carrying a grand slam.

[Waynos]

Excellent, thanks. I had been trying to find one without success. The installation in this case looks the sam as on the Lanc. Semi recessed into the bomb bay. Have you any idea how it carried two ?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Waynos

Excellent, thanks. I had been trying to find one without success. The installation in this case looks the sam as on the Lanc. Semi recessed into the bomb bay. Have you any idea how it carried two ?

Under the wings and they were Tall Boys.

something interesting

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

[Waynos]

Thanks very much. That is a fascinating document. I was suprised to see criticism that the reduction in aircraft performance following the release of the bomb was excessive. My initial though would be that divesting of a Tallboy would increase performance! Clearly it was drag uissue concerning ther modified bomb bay doors.

On reflection, two Grand slams would be a 44,000lb bomb load so no, I don't think the B-29 would have done that, but is there any more info on the twin Tallboy installation?

[FLYBOYJ]

Been searching but I have seen a photo of a B-29 with a pair of tall boys on inboard wing pylons.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Been searching but I have seen a photo of a B-29 with a pair of tall boys on inboard wing pylons.

I have been searching for it as well, since this convo started. I have the pic saved on my computer somewhere.

[river]

Hi,

I have a picture of it, in flight, with a 22000lb Grand Slam under each wing (on pylons between the fuselage and in-board engines). I can scan it, but it is in the book "B29 Fortress at War", by David A Anderton (page 125).

The actual aircraft was a Wichita built B29-75-BW, serial number 44-70060. It was modifed with wing pylons that could take a Grand Slam, Tallboy or a pair of M56 4000lb light-case bombs, per wing pylon.

In the picture the Grand Slams are filled with sand to test the flying qualities of the aircraft. The picture and this flight took place out of Wichita on the 29th of June 1945.

There is also a picture of the same aircraft carrying the M56 packages.

river

[Civettone]

I'm reading "the wild blue" at the moment, about B-24s flying from Italy. Also a good part on the B-24 and a comparison with the B-17, making the latter clearly inferior to the B-24.

The B-24 really is a no-nonsense bomber with maximum range and bomb load possible.

Would a modified B-24 have been able to carry the Bomb to Hiroshima?
Kris

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by river

Hi,

I have a picture of it, in flight, with a 22000lb Grand Slam under each wing (on pylons between the fuselage and in-board engines). I can scan it, but it is in the book "B29 Fortress at War", by David A Anderton (page 125).

The actual aircraft was a Wichita built B29-75-BW, serial number 44-70060. It was modifed with wing pylons that could take a Grand Slam, Tallboy or a pair of M56 4000lb light-case bombs, per wing pylon.

In the picture the Grand Slams are filled with sand to test the flying qualities of the aircraft. The picture and this flight took place out of Wichita on the 29th of June 1945.

There is also a picture of the same aircraft carrying the M56 packages.

river

River, are you sure that they were not Tallboy's? As I said before two Grand Slams is 44,000lb. I can beleive the B-36 lifting two of them but not the B-29. Unless they were only partially filled with sand to make them light enough of course, but then what would be the point of doing that?

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Would a modified B-24 have been able to carry the Bomb to Hiroshima?
Kris

No.