Best overall bomber ww2

[Lucky13]

Cheers Joe! Just trying to get in the know here, not being a pilot etc. Being that the B-29 flew up 33.600 feet/10.200meters one would, or at least me, assume that they'd fly at maximum height to avoid fighters, in this case Luftwaffe, had they operated in ETO. Just thinking here that the Ta 152H being the only operating at that height 48.550 feet/14.800 meters...with GM-1 boost though, and in only a short period.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Holy Fricken Gees......

Thanks for the education Joe!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Cheers Joe! Just trying to get in the know here, not being a pilot etc. Being that the B-29 flew up 33.600 feet/10.200meters one would, or at least me, assume that they'd fly at maximum height to avoid fighters, in this case Luftwaffe, had they operated in ETO. Just thinking here that the Ta 152H being the only operating at that height 48.550 feet/14.800 meters...with GM-1 boost though, and in only a short period.

There is no doubt the B-29, if deployed in Europe would have had a rough road. I could agree the German air defenses were a lot more dangerous than what the Japanese fielded but the missions would have been half the range enabling the -29 to carry larger bomb loads than what they did in the Pacific. Of course this is a "would have, could have" situation and realistically it "would have" been the B-32 facing the luftwaffe.

Holy Fricken Gees......

Thanks for the education Joe!

I've met many pilots who flew in combat but the vast majority have told me some of their scariest times were through weather. Imagine a 21 year old Sergent Pilot flying through soup attempting to shoot an old "tone" approach!

 

[Zniperguy114]

Sorry, evangilder, I'm not trying to be a smartass, and so I am truely sorry about that.

But, to argue my point, the B-29 is better because it was designed off previous great bombers like the Lancaster and the B-17. Its designers took everything that was good about these previous bombers and improved everything else. It makes sense because the B-29 entered service two years after the Lancaster.

Both were great planes, but the successor is almost always better than previous models. That is why I believe the B-29 is better, Because it came after the Lancaster.

 

[Colin1]

There is no doubt the B-29, if deployed in Europe would have had a rough road

That's fair do's
but it surprised me

 

[Lucky13]

Thanks again Joe, for the education, well.....that goes for everybody on this forum!

Another question, this time about the A-Bombs that the B-29 carried? Why were they forced to make them that large as the 'Fat Man' and 'Little Boy' were, couldn't they have made them in the size of 'Tall Boy' and 'Grand Slam' and that way make them possilbe to be carried by the Lancaster, should it have been necessary?

 

[Zniperguy114]

probaly because the B-29 was to have a longer future in the USAF after the war.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks again Joe, for the education, well.....that goes for everybody on this forum!

Another question, this time about the A-Bombs that the B-29 carried? Why were they forced to make them that large as the 'Fat Man' and 'Little Boy' were, couldn't they have made them in the size of 'Tall Boy' and 'Grand Slam' and that way make them possilbe to be carried by the Lancaster, should it have been necessary?

From what I understand the function of each bomb dictated its shape, and that was actually one of the reasons why the Lancaster was first thought of for carrying the bombs. I think "Little Boy" would have fit in a Lancaster, but as stated earlier, I would have hated to see a 4 engine tail dragger that couldn't fly over 30K carrying a nuke!

 

[pbfoot]

[/QUOTE=FLYBOYJ;630363]This was done because of pilot shortages and also presented risk by removing another set of eyes in the cockpit, especially when shooting instrument approaches. I give Lanc pilots all the credit in the world as this was not an easy situation, but at the same time I wonder how many more Lancs would have returned by having that extra set of eyes in the cockpit.[/QUOTE]It I believe more of a weight issue they lightened the Lanc up for payload but I'm still trying to find ref to back that up but really working hard at it

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe more of a weight issue they lightened the Lanc up for payload but I'm still trying to find ref to back that up but really working hard at it

I doubt it - 180 pounds would not have made that much of a difference

 

[buffnut453]

I think Flyboy has the right reasons for only one pilot in the Lanc. That said, crews often cross-trained to ensure no single points of failure - IIRC it was not uncommon for navigators or bombardiers to be trained to fly and land the Lanc in case of emergency. However, this was no substitute for an extra pair of eyes in the cockpit.

Which leads to another (minor) advantage of the Lanc over the B-29...pilot visibility. This doesn't change anything else I said in my previous posts - the B-29 was superior - but it is one area where there was an advantage for the Lanc.

I'll stop waving the UJ now and duck back down behind the parapet!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'll stop waving the UJ now and duck back down behind the parapet!

 

[Glider]

You need to keep reading, this is on the next page and refers to the same mission:

A damage report prepared by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey after the war painted a less favorable picture. Forty-five percent of the bombs landed in the principal target area, which exceeded 1,000 feet in radius.

As a broad approximation, the target area was closely equivalent to that within a circle of 1,490 feet radius, and 45 percent hits within a circle of that area gives a CEP of about 1,600 feet. This is not a demonstration of good bombing accuracy from 26,000 feet by the 73d Wing. Still, it was a marked improvement when compared with earlier strikes, and the bombing pattern showed a sufficient close concentration to destroy all elements of the target. Further training produced an average circular error probable of 1,250 feet, based on all bombers that did not abort for mechanical reasons.



Again, look at the bomb load:

"...56 B-29s..." dropped..." A total of 610 500-pound bombs..." = 5450lb/aircraft.

So a ~3000 mile range mission and a 5500lb bomb load/plane.

I suggest you find a british bombing raid where they managed to get 45 percent of the bombs in an area of that size first time and without practice. This may have been less accurate than first thought but is still a good result.

I notice you didn't comment about the defensive fire which is one of the main planks in your arguement. I notice that one B29 was lost to enemy action while gunners claimed 7 fighters destroyed and 18 damaged. Do you seriously believe that unescorted Lancasters flying at a lower altitude at a slower speed spending longer in the danger zone would only lose one bomber

 

[pbfoot]

From the RAF official history
OH (Webstee&Frankland) op .cit,ii, 201`-2
and as for a shortage of aircrew there was substanial abundance of aircrew and trades as early as May 41

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
Quote:" Well we agree that is your opinion, and you are welcome to be entitled to it. I believe this was already discussed several times, and the evidence was decisevely against your theory."

So if you have info on actual operations, give it out, please. I have gave some info on actual operations, it's pity that from numerous sources I have found only some info on actual bomb loads carried by He 177s in combat ops. Much easier to find that kind of info on Lancs.

But, on handbook info. Griehl Dressel: Heinkel He 177, 277, 274 p.77 On the experiences of I/FKG 50, which task was to combat test He 177. They had first He 177A-1s. "Worse still, 12 long-range flights under operational conditions had established a depth of penetration of only some 1,800km and the average speed of 340km/h was some 50km/h less than that achieved by He 177A-0s flown by E-Staffel 177." There are also other bits of info in the book later on, for ex how installation of flame dampers dropped speed significantly etc.

So IMHO our knowledge of actual capabilities of He 177A-3 and -5 in operational conditions is still too limited. But the bits of info we had are not too flattering when compared to paper figures.

And if you want detailed info what Lancs dropped on marshalling yards, see the link in the RCAFson's message #159.

Hello Vincenzo
It's pity that I have info only on some of He 177 operations. On Velikiye Luki raid, the explanations that first come into mind for why so small bombloads are:
1) bad planning, LW had decided to use a/fs not well suited for 177 operations, there were also good a/fs in East-Prussia, and because of that 177s could not take off even near their with max t/o weight.
2) pilots were still worried on the engines and didn't want to use max t/o power, so they took off lighter than max allowed.
3) Germans were so worried on Soviet fighters that took of with only ¼ of max possible bomb-load so as to be able to fly higher and faster and so lessen the possibilities of interception.
4) something else.

Juha

 

[Lucky13]

Messerschmitt Me 264

Specifications (with BMW 801 engines)
General characteristics

Crew: 8
Length: 69 ft 9 in (21.3 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft (43 m)
Height: 14 ft (4.3 m)
Wing area: 1,376 ft² (127.8 m²)
Empty weight: 46,630 lb (21,150 kg)
Loaded weight: 100,400 lb (45,540 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 123,000 lb (56,000 kg)
Powerplant: 4× BMW 801 G/H radial engines, 1,730 hp (1,272 kW) each


Performance

Maximum speed: 350 mph (560 km/h)
Cruise speed: 217 mph (350 km/h)
Range: 9,500 mi (15,000 km)
Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (8,000 m)
Rate of climb: 390 ft/min (120 m/min)
Wing loading: 72.9 lb/ft² (356 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.07 hp/lb (0.11 kW/kg)


Armament

Guns: 4 × 13 mm (0.51 in) MG 131 machine guns
2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons
Bombs: 3,000 kg (6,614 lb) bombload in internal bomb bay


Boeing B-29 Superfortress

General characteristics

Crew: 11 (5 officers, 6 enlisted): (A/C)Airplane Commander, Pilot, flight engineer (a rated pilot),[30][31] bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar operator, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m)
Wing area: 1,736 sqft (161.3 m²)
Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg)
Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg -- 135,000 lb plus combat load (144,000 lb on record[18]))
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241
Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²)
Aspect ratio: 11.50


Performance

Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h)
Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nmi, 5,230 km)
Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nmi, 9,000 km, (record 5,839 mi, 5,074 nmi, 9,397 km[18]))
Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m)
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.12 lb/sqft (337 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8


Armament

Guns: 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position (the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service )
B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout

=================================================================

Just for curiousity I checked between the Me 264 and the B-29. Why is that they say that they're comparable aircraft, when the B-29 can carry 6,000 Kg more in bombs than the '264, operate 2000m higher, all together the '29 has 960 more horsepower...? It's some parts where the '29 is a h*ll lot better than the '264, rate of climb etc., where the '264 exceed over the '29 and do so by far (if you believe the list), is the range, so why compare these two?

Again, just curious....

 

[Kurfürst]

The following picture is from the book Juha cited, Griehl Dressel: Heinkel He 177, 277, 274, p.45.

I can count 28 x SC 250 and 4 x SC 500 (ie. 250 and 500 kg general purpose bombs)

"ut, on handbook info. Griehl Dressel: Heinkel He 177, 277, 274 p.77 On the experiences of I/FKG 50, which task was to combat test He 177. They had first He 177A-1s. "Worse still, 12 long-range flights under operational conditions had established a depth of penetration of only some 1,800km and the average speed of 340km/h was some 50km/h less than that achieved by He 177A-0s flown by E-Staffel 177."

Penetration depth = 1/3 maximal range. To put it in context, "only" 1800 km is equivalent of bombing Helsinki from Bomber Command bases in Britain (ca 1700 km), or bombing Stalingrad from the said Könisgberg bases in Ease Prussia (1800 km)...

 

[Waynos]

That looks like a posed photo. Why are the bombs on the floor instead of on a trolley? How does that prove they are carried by the He-177?

There are many photos of aircraft on the ground posing in front of various weapons, but none of them claim they are all carried at the same time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

[=================================================================

Just for curiousity I checked between the Me 264 and the B-29. Why is that they say that they're comparable aircraft, when the B-29 can carry 6,000 Kg more in bombs than the '264, operate 2000m higher, all together the '29 has 960 more horsepower...? It's some parts where the '29 is a h*ll lot better than the '264, rate of climb etc., where the '264 exceed over the '29 and do so by far (if you believe the list), is the range, so why compare these two?

Again, just curious....

Agree...

 

[parsifal]

Someone mentioned the possibility of sending Lancasters (and Lincolns) to the Pacific and suggested this never happened, and would never happen.

Its true that it never happened, but it was planned to happen, ands some units (not the Lancaster units) were already in the PTO when the "Tiger Force" as it was named, was disbanded October 1945.

This is a straight cut and paste from Wiki...

At the Quebec Conference of September 1944, the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill proposed to transfer a large part of Bomber Command to the Pacific, comprising from 500 to 1,000 heavy bombers, once Germany was defeated. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt accepted the offer, stating that a "long and costly struggle" still lay ahead of the Allies.[1]

The proposed force was soon scaled back to 22 squadrons in three groups: one British Royal Air Force (RAF), one Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and one from various air forces. By late 1945 this had been scaled back to 10 squadrons in two composite groups, made up of RAF, RCAF, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) squadrons. Tiger Force was to have been based on Okinawa and would have used Avro Lancasters, Avro Lincolns (the latest development of the Lancaster) and Consolidated Liberators.

The bomber force would take its escorts from the fighter units of the U.S. Far East Air Force, the Australian First Tactical Air Force and/or other Commonwealth units.

The colour scheme for Tiger Force aircraft was white upper-surfaces with black undersides; this scheme, despite the cancellation of operations against Japan, was apparent on many post-war Lancasters and Lincolns. To enable the aircraft to operate at the long distances involved, flight refuelling was to have been employed, using equipment developed by Flight Refuelling Ltd.

Tiger Force was officially disbanded on October 31, 1945, by which stage it included only British units.[2]

[edit] Order of battle
[edit] Wings
No. 348 Wing RAF (later renamed 551 Wing)
No. 349 Wing RAF (552 Wing)
No. 350 Wing RAF (553 Wing)
No. 351 Wing RAF (554 Wing)
No. 555 Wing RAAF
No. 661 Wing RCAF
No. 662 Wing RCAF
No. 663 Wing RCAF
No. 664 Wing RCAF
[edit] Squadrons
Bomber squadrons

No. 7 Squadron RAF
No. 9 Squadron RAF
No. 35 Squadron RAF
No. 44 Squadron RAF (replaced by 49 Squadron)
No. 49 Squadron RAF (replaced 44 Squadron)
No. 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF
No. 207 Squadron RAF
No. 405 Squadron RCAF
No. 408 Squadron RCAF
No. 419 Squadron RCAF
No. 420 Squadron RCAF
No. 425 Squadron RCAF
No. 428 Squadron RCAF
No. 431 Squadron RCAF
No. 434 Squadron RCAF
No. 460 Squadron RAAF
No. 463 Squadron RAAF
No. 467 Squadron RAAF
No. 617 Squadron RAF
No. 627 Squadron RAF
No. 635 Squadron RAF
No. 692 Squadron RAF
Support units

No. 426 Squadron RCAF (Transport)