Was the B-29 Superfortress a Failure?

[GrauGeist]

Mk 1 was little boy, Mk 2 was Tall boy

Mark 1 - Little Boy
Mark 2 - Thin Man
Mark 3 - Fat Man
Mark 4 - postwar Fat Man

 

[wuzak]

List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons

Mk I - Gun-assembly HEU bomb; "Little Boy" dropped on Hiroshima - Used in combat (Hiroshima) 8/6/1945, never stockpiled; only 5 bomb assemblies completed, all retired by Nov 1950
Mk II - Low-efficiency plutonium implosion bomb - Theoretical design, never produced
Mk III - Plutonium implosion bomb; "Fat Man", Model 1561; Mods 0, 1, 2 - Used in combat (Nagasaki) 8/9/1945; mass production 4/47-4/49, 120 produced; all retired late 1950

 

[WARSPITER]

As to costing, compare the B-29 program to the German V weapons.

The cost of infrastructure and development of the V1 and V2 was far above the effect they had.

Peenemunde and the underground facilities at Nordhausen could have been used for protection and production
of many other things Germany needed more.

The production of the 30,000+ V1's and 3,000+ V2's equates to enough to build 24,000 single engine fighters from
1943 on (only as an example - not a proposition).

The effort on development took away from jet aircraft / engine development at a time when they would have been more
than handy.

36,000 tons of explosives were used in these weapons for no real strategic effect.

Flak guns sited to protect V1 launch areas were equivalent to the amount protecting Hamburg.

Military targets were not an option as neither the V1 or V2 was accurate enough to fire at anything smaller than Antwerp
or London. There is always the perpetual question of why weren't the V1 and V2 used against the D-day landing sites or
the advancing Russians. Accuracy is the main reason.

Also, from records of V1's fired opposed to those that landed or were shot down, 25% didn't get to the target
due to malfunctions.

The V2 took large resources to fire a warhead to an operational range of 200 miles (320km). The warhead was just under a long
ton. Compare that to even some twin engine bombers (let alone four engine types) and the range is pathetic as is the payload.

Both weapons were not sorted at all as to accuracy / reliability, and neither could deliver a worthwhile payload for the resources
used. The B-29 was becoming more reliable as it went (I don't know if 25% were unable to reach their target and never seen
again due to malfunctions but I don't think so), and could also deliver a much bigger payload on the actual target. Plus, being an
aircraft they could be used multiple times thus lowering long term cost of resources.

Price wise, for the V weapons, estimates from US statisticians came up with a total including those produced of $4,000,000,000 in
US money as at 1944 values.

Overall, the V weapons were meant to devastate cities but again, compare the photo's of the firebombing of Japan already
posted in this thread (I think they were from B-29 attacks) where the B-29 did exactly what the V series were built for.

Last -The bombing offensive in Europe by the allies caused more damage over time - a lot more - and shows that the other neglected
item in the German arsenal was the four engined bomber.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Reading through this thread I don't see any valid reasons to term the B-29 a failure. What was expected? That is would fly into the heart of the Empire of Japan unopposed with no losses? Ridiculous. It wasn't meant to be a miracle plane, but a long range high altitude heavy (or Very Heavy) bomber. I'm pretty sure it managed to fill that role just fine in 1945.

Yes it had teething problems, name me plane that complex that didn't. Yes they changed tactics, so? Did it flatten Japan? Yes.

By July (consulting my uncles log/diary) they increased manifold pressure from something like 49in to 50.5in on take off and that got them plenty of speed and altitude on takeoff from Guam. Hence curing the issues they were having getting off the ground, again, did designers foresee that in 1940?

Also, Japanese flak wasn't as pathetic as you'd think. I have a couple of excerpts where my uncle is writing about some pretty nasty AAA, I mean BAAAD.

However, to be fair, he did say that if it had been German AA they would have ended up in Tokyo Bay, but don't for a moment think Japanese AAA was awful, it was not.

 

[The Stannum Crusader]

…but a long range high altitude heavy (or Very Heavy) bomber. I'm pretty sure it managed to fill that role just fine in 1945.

No, it did NOT fill the role of a high altitude bomber. It wasn't used at high altitude. And it was supposed to be practically invulnerable, that was the whole point of it being built as a high altitude bomber. But it wasn't used like that, so it did get losses.

 

[pbehn]

No, it did NOT fill the role of a high altitude bomber. It wasn't used at high altitude. And it was supposed to be practically invulnerable, that was the whole point of it being built as a high altitude bomber. But it wasn't used like that, so it did get losses.

It stayed in service until 1960, the British got 87 and used them until 1954, the Russians copied it. It took a long time until there was anything better.

 

[The Stannum Crusader]

It stayed in service until 1960, the British got 87 and used them until 1954, the Russians copied it. It took a long time until there was anything better.

There was something better right away. And I was talking about world War 2 for reference. The B36 could fly higher and much farther, but it was SAC. And just because something is still used doesn't mean there isn't better. The Russians are still using T-72 tanks, and there is DEFINITELY better tanks.

Edit: Heck, South Africa still uses DC-3s, but I assure you there are much better cargo planes.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What in 1945 was better?

 

[The Stannum Crusader]

What in 1945 was better?

That's a great point, It was the best bomber in 1945. I was responding to the person saying there was nothing better until 1960.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's a great point, It was the best bomber in 1945. I was responding to the person saying there was nothing better until 1960.

He didn't say there was nothing better in the fifties, though. He only said it stayed in service until 1960.

 

[The Stannum Crusader]

He didn't say there was nothing better in the fifties, though. He only said it stayed in service until 1960.

He said there was nothing better for a while. I say that's wrong. The B36 first flew in August of 1946, 1945 to 1946 is not a while.

 

[MIflyer]

In one sense all the WW2 USAAF high altitude long range bombers were failures. They could not conduct long range daylight precision attacks over hostile territory without unacceptable losses. The idea of defeating an enemy by destroying his industrial capabilities did not work. The idea of using turbosuperchargers to give bombers high altitude performance so they could escape interception and AA fire did not work. Ships at sea did not prove to be very vulnerable to high altitude bomber attacks because their maneuvering enabled them to evade the bombs and even when tied down in port they were difficult targets. Heavy bombers proved to be of very limited use in close support of ground troops. Nothing worked perfectly well. Victory Through Air Power was not realized.

But it all worked good enough to be decisive. The USAAF high altitude precision bombing raids worked a damn sight better than the RAF "Dehousing" approach. The USAAF attacks presented the Luftwaffe with a threat they could not ignore and that ultimately resulted in the Lufwaffe becoming a defensive force only. At sea B-17's and B-24's proved to vastly better "Patrol Bombers" than the USN's seaplanes and the big bombers attacking at night, with radar, were a horrific threat to both the IJN and Kriegsmarine that they were never able to counter. Their high altitude capabilities did not make the USAAF heavy bombers invulnerable but it did reduce the enemy defensive effectiveness considerably rather than it being so deadly as to rule out such missions - as it was for the RAF, the Germans, and the Soviets. The B-17, B-24, and B-29 were not Super Planes but they were a damn sight better than anything anyone else had, and by a wide margin as well.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

He said there was nothing better for a while. I say that's wrong. The B36 first flew in August of 1946, 1945 to 1946 is not a while.

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.

 

[pbehn]

There was something better right away. And I was talking about world War 2 for reference. The B36 could fly higher and much farther, but it was SAC. And just because something is still used doesn't mean there isn't better. The Russians are still using T-72 tanks, and there is DEFINITELY better tanks.

Edit: Heck, South Africa still uses DC-3s, but I assure you there are much better cargo planes.

Could the B-36 bomb from accurately 30,000ft? You seem to be blaming the B-29 and those behind it for not predicting the future with 100% accuracy. Th B-36 was in service from 1948, the war had ended in 1948. Bothe the B-29 and B-36 were in service until replaced by jets.

 

[SaparotRob]

The B-29 was certainly not a failure. There were no other high altitude bombers anywhere near as capable. It carried out its offensive missions in WW II and in Korea. I don't bother with stats but I'll go out on a limb and say it had a higher operational rate* than any of its Axis competitors. I don't remember any He-177 raids called "aluminum overcast". Again, as to it being a failure, Stalin upended the Russian economy and rebuilt its aviation industry copying it. I'm guessing Russia had its own, as well as captured German designs but Stalin went through the great effort of building it. The Communist Chinese sought them out as well.
It didn't fill the role of a high altitude bomber over Japan? Yes it did. The tactics, not the plane, didn't work. The tactics changed. Were the Iowa class battleships a failure? Nope. They were designed for face smacking against other super dreadnoughts. Didn't happen. They wound up being aircraft carrier heavy AAA escorts and shore bombarders. They also became missile trucks and underway fleet replenishment/repair ships for their escorts, but I digress.
I think this question was inspired by a click bait YouTube video.


* I can't remember the correct term so please don't blast me. You know, number of missions, number of planes per mission less mechanical failures, that stuff.

 

[Shortround6]

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 entered 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.

It is even worse than that.
From Joe Baugher
A further 21 B-36As were completed (44-92005/92025). None of them were fitted with any armament either, at least initially. Nineteen of them were delivered to the 7th Bombardment Group (Heavy) which was based at Carswell AFB, located just across the field from the Convair factory at Fort Worth. The first delivery was on June 26, 1948. The last B-36A was accepted in February 1949. They were used exclusively for training and crew conversion, and were not considered as being combat-ready.
The B-36Bs were first assigned to the 7th Bombardment Group at Carswell AFB (which already had B-36As, the first planes arriving in November of 1948. By the end of 1948, there were 35 B-36s in service with SAC at Carswell AFB.

 

[GrauGeist]

"The B-29 was a failure" yet the B-32 gets overlooked every single time someone comes along and regurgitates that line.

The B-32 was the B-29's "fall back", the AAF ordered 1,500 and by war's end, with 118 units delivered, cancelled the order and had them taken out of service and scrapped.

 

[The Stannum Crusader]

At any rate, not being the best doesn't mean a plane is a failure, which is the original question here.

I did not say the B29 was a failure, literally read the first sentence of my first post. Top of page 14.

 

[33k in the air]

The USAAF high altitude precision bombing raids worked a damn sight better than the RAF "Dehousing" approach.

Three points:

(1) Late in the war Bomber Command was able to bomb at least as accurately, if not more, at night than the 8th Air Force did by daylight thanks to techniques such as low-level offset target marking, its wide variety of target indicator ordnance, and various electronic navigation aids such as Oboe.

(2) The campaign against the Ruhr waged by Bomber Command from March through July 1943 had a large effect on German war economy, resulting in war production stagnating for seven months following the campaign. It didn't exhibit sustained growth again until March 1944.

(3) The idea that all Bomber Command did was area incendiary raids on German cities is a myth. In reality it dropped plenty of ordnance on other targets. It dropped more tons of bombs on German oil targets in 1945 than did the 8th and 15th Air Forces combined, for example. The peak year for incendiary bomb usage was 1943, and in the spring of 1944 Bomber Command shifted to primarily high explosive ordnance, a change which persisted for the remainder of the war.

Aircraft from 408 Squadron, for example, participated in 76 bombing operations in 1943, of which 73 carried incendiary bomb loads and just 3 carried high explosive only loads. In 1944, out of a total 129 bombing operations, 36 of them were incendiary while 93 were high explosive. (And of those 36 incendiary missions, 24 of them were flown in the first four months of the year, meaning just 12 were flown over the remaining eight months of 1944.) In 1945, out of 46 bombing operations, 13 were incendiary while 33 were high explosive only.

In percentage of operations terms, 96% of 408 Squadron bombing ops were incendiary/fire-raising in 1943. This fell to 28% in 1944, and was 28% again in 1945.

 

[pbehn]

The B-29 was certainly not a failure. There were no other high altitude bombers anywhere near as capable. It carried out its offensive missions in WW II and in Korea. I don't bother with stats but I'll go out on a limb and say it had a higher operational rate* than any of its Axis competitors. I don't remember any He-177 raids called "aluminum overcast". Again, as to it being a failure, Stalin upended the Russian economy and rebuilt its aviation industry copying it. I'm guessing Russia had its own, as well as captured German designs but Stalin went through the great effort of building it. The Communist Chinese sought them out as well.
It didn't fill the role of a high altitude bomber over Japan? Yes it did. The tactics, not the plane, didn't work. The tactics changed. Were the Iowa class battleships a failure? Nope. They were designed for face smacking against other super dreadnoughts. Didn't happen. They wound up being aircraft carrier heavy AAA escorts and shore bombarders. They also became missile trucks and underway fleet replenishment/repair ships for their escorts, but I digress.
I think this question was inspired by a click bait YouTube video.


* I can't remember the correct term so please don't blast me. You know, number of missions, number of planes per mission less mechanical failures, that stuff.

In my book missing a target from 30,000ft isnt as serious as missing a whole war, however if not for the B-29 maybe the B-36 could have ended things later?