PDA

View Full Version : why where there no B 29 over europe?



JASTA
03-18-2006, 06:59 PM
I remember reading that the USAF decided to use that plane only over japan, but why, wasn't she far superior to the the B 17 and B 24?

Enforcer572005
03-18-2006, 07:10 PM
wasnt needed. there were plenty of 17s and 24s, and the B29's range was badly needed in the pacific, as it was the only plane that had the range to reach japan from the bases we had, including the B24, whicvh had fantastic range itself. A b29 was sent on a tour of england to freak out the germans, and it did just that. it was an od green prototype. if the war lasted longer, it would have been used, as it is some 1946 cmpn scenarios like the shooting stars cmpn.

VW-IceFire
03-18-2006, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by JASTA:
I remember reading that the USAF decided to use that plane only over japan, but why, wasn't she far superior to the the B 17 and B 24?
I think it was a matter of the B-29 being more useful in terms of range and payload against Japan which was harder to hit in terms of having a good place to stage attacks from (a really good location didn't come until they had invaded Okinawa).

Another matter was the supply chain and abundance of B-17 and B-24 bombers sitting around. Even in January 1945 they started cutting back on production because they had plenty of B-17s sitting around not doing anything. The loss rates were down and production was up by leaps and bounds.

The US didn't reach its manufacturing capacity during the war...ever.

BfHeFwMe
03-18-2006, 10:20 PM
Little Boy and Fat Man weren't ready. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Akronnick
03-19-2006, 03:35 AM
It was a question of priorities. Since the range of the B-29 was desperately needed in PTO and the B-17 and B-24 had adaquate range to get the job done in ETO, the Superforts went to the Pacific.

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-19-2006, 04:37 AM
The B29 was a VERY expensive and complicated aircraft - unit cost $639000 compared to $276000 for a B17 or $336000 for a B24

Building sufficient numbers for TWO bombong offensives simultaneously would have been cost-prohibitive and, as has been mentioned, there were plenty of B17 and B24 which were perfectly adequate for the ETO

Aaron_GT
03-19-2006, 10:18 AM
The B29 had a 40% larger wing span. I would suspect that some dispersal facilities on bases in the UK might have needed to be reworked (and possibly taxiways too) to accomodate these.

TheCrux
03-19-2006, 10:39 AM
A What-if I thought of for years. In the shorter range missions in the ETO it could've carried its maximum bomb load, releasing more tonnage for less A/C used. It's cruise speed was 60-70 mph faster than the B-17, which would mean less time spent in hostile territory. While fighter escort would still be required even in the face of a weakened Luftwaffe, it's better defensive armament would be effective.

Always wondered what if USN Corsairs were to slug it out with 109's and 190's too.

djetz
03-19-2006, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by TheCrux:
Always wondered what if USN Corsairs were to slug it out with 109's and 190's too.

They did, on occasion. So did Fleet Air Arm (UK) Corsairs and F4Fs. In fact, the Germans had a flyable FAA Corsair that was captured intact after forced-landing somewhere in the Netherlands (as I recall it).

Gibbage1
03-19-2006, 09:05 PM
If I recall, F4F's mixed it up with 109's early in the war over North Afrika. The 109 pilots did not know what to make of the pudgy little aircraft, and tried to turn with them! Big error. The F4F may not have been able to out-turn a Zero, but it could out-turn anything the Germans had easy! The 109 pilots got a nasty suprise when the F4F's were on them in a heartbeat, and they then tried to dive away. Error #2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WTE_Galway
03-19-2006, 11:09 PM
I suspect another part of the reason is the big cannon german stuff would take down a b29 as easily as a b17 or b24 whereas the b29 was fairly hard for the japanese to do much about.

WOLFMondo
03-20-2006, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
The B29 was a VERY expensive and complicated aircraft - unit cost $639000 compared to $276000 for a B17 or $336000 for a B24

Building sufficient numbers for TWO bombong offensives simultaneously would have been cost-prohibitive and, as has been mentioned, there were plenty of B17 and B24 which were perfectly adequate for the ETO

There is also the logistics i.e. supply chains of replacement parts, training aircrew, ground crew etc. Takes allot more than simply delivering a plane to a squadron and expecting them to use it.

Taylortony
03-20-2006, 01:45 AM
Did somebody say Washington??????

StG2_Schlachter
03-20-2006, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
I suspect another part of the reason is the big cannon german stuff would take down a b29 as easily as a b17 or b24 whereas the b29 was fairly hard for the japanese to do much about.

The Japanese had this "big cannon stuff" as well.
The Ki-84c for instance has two 20mm cannons and two 30mm cannons.

danjama
03-20-2006, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
I suspect another part of the reason is the big cannon german stuff would take down a b29 as easily as a b17 or b24 whereas the b29 was fairly hard for the japanese to do much about.

The Japanese had this "big cannon stuff" as well.
The Ki-84c for instance has two 20mm cannons and two 30mm cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ki84c wasnt exactly developed in large numbers though

Megile_
03-20-2006, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by djetz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCrux:
Always wondered what if USN Corsairs were to slug it out with 109's and 190's too.

They did, on occasion. So did Fleet Air Arm (UK) Corsairs and F4Fs. In fact, the Germans had a flyable FAA Corsair that was captured intact after forced-landing somewhere in the Netherlands (as I recall it). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know that FAA Wildcats and Hellcats saw combat in Northern Europe against LW fighters, but I was under the impression that the Corsairs never saw a-a combat with the FAA in Europe.

Anyone got any combat records?

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-20-2006, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
The B29 was a VERY expensive and complicated aircraft - unit cost $639000 compared to $276000 for a B17 or $336000 for a B24

Building sufficient numbers for TWO bombong offensives simultaneously would have been cost-prohibitive and, as has been mentioned, there were plenty of B17 and B24 which were perfectly adequate for the ETO

There is also the logistics i.e. supply chains of replacement parts, training aircrew, ground crew etc. Takes allot more than simply delivering a plane to a squadron and expecting them to use it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, which is where the complexity issue comes in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The other aircraft which suffered from this was of course the P38

Another thing to bear in mind is that the B29 was a physically very large aircraft, which would have simply made it a big target for the excellent German AAA

I believe the B29 greatest success came when they switched to low-level nighttime raids which would have been suicide over Germany

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 04:55 AM
The B29 looked too much like the He177. Can't look too much like the enemy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Could it have something to do with not nneding the range? They allies didn´t have to fly so far in Europe. Might also have something to do with getting them there too. The B29 is quite a bit bigger that the B17. Maybe I´m wrong, but the planes had to be brought by ships and assembled later. The allies needed many more bombers in the European theatre than they needed in the Pacific.

msalama
03-20-2006, 05:00 AM
Maybe I´m wrong, but the planes had to be brought by ships and assembled later.

In the ETO? Nah, the Yankee heavies were flown in IIRC. The superior range of the B29, OTOH, wasn't really needed in Europe...

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 05:03 AM
Were the B17`s flown to Europe? They must have stopped in Canada(Newfoundland), Greenland, and Iceland for refueling.

msalama
03-20-2006, 05:07 AM
Were the B17`s flown to Europe?

Yep, IIRC... anyone?


They must have stopped in Canada(Newfoundland), Greenland, and Iceland for refueling.

Hmmm, most likely yes... anyone?

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-20-2006, 05:33 AM
""Operation Bolero" was the name given to the Ferry Operation beginning in 1942 using the Great Northern Back Door to Europe. Air bases for refueling were just being completed. This construction signified the beginning of mass flights of up to 1,000 aircraft a month. Fueling stops were located at Goose Bay, Labrador; Southern Greenland; Iceland; and then on to England. "

http://www.ultimatesacrifice.com/my_gal_sal_history.htm

msalama
03-20-2006, 05:36 AM
Thx SnapdLikeAMutha.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
Thx SnapdLikeAMutha.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Taylortony
03-20-2006, 09:43 AM
Fueling stops were located at Goose Bay, Labrador; Southern Greenland; Iceland; and then on to England.



Goose Bay actually has nodding donkeys to extract the oil from the ground as they spilt so much during the war they are now drilling for it............ The Washington operated by the RAF post war was the B29http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
03-20-2006, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by JASTA:
I remember reading that the USAF decided to use that plane only over japan, but why, wasn't she far superior to the the B 17 and B 24? need and economics, there was no need the B17 was pwning euro just fine.

Pirschjaeger
03-20-2006, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Taylortony:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fueling stops were located at Goose Bay, Labrador; Southern Greenland; Iceland; and then on to England.



Goose Bay actually has nodding donkeys to extract the oil from the ground as they spilt so much during the war they are now drilling for it............ The Washington operated by the RAF post war was the B29http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sure they weren`t refueling in Alberta? That`s where the worlds second largest oil deposit is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

horseback
03-20-2006, 03:08 PM
I expect that the American 'heavies' were relayed to Britain via the same route my family and I took when my Dad was transferred to England in January 1961: we took a MATS C-47 from a base in New York state to Newfoundland, then to Iceland, and on to Scotland, landing at our final destination at RAF Mildenhall about (I was seven, so don't hold me to this...) a day and a half after leaving New York. As I recall, we arrived in Britain the same day John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, so I missed the "...ask not what your country can do for you" speech, being fully engaged in the exploration of the Crown & Anchor Hotel in Ipswich at the time.

In fact, the Military Air Transport Service was founded for the express purpose of moving new combat aircraft to combat units, and a large percentage of the ferry pilots were young women.

B-29s were quite capable of making the trans-Atlantic flight, and did, quite regularly during the late forties to remind Stalin of the Air Force's reach. The issue was that they were very hard to build, and Boeing may have been reluctant to allow Convair, Douglas or another potential competitor to manufacture them (remember that the B-29 was the basis for its Stratoliner airliners postwar).

They were only capable of building so many per month, and initial technical problems meant that units on the line were often cannibalized for spare parts for units in service overseas, slowing production.

Remember that the first Superfortresses were based in China, and suffered all kinds of logistical nightmares before finally the bombing of the Japanese mainland was centered out of the Western Pacific.

cheers

horseback

djetz
03-20-2006, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Megile_:

I know that FAA Wildcats and Hellcats saw combat in Northern Europe against LW fighters, but I was under the impression that the Corsairs never saw a-a combat with the FAA in Europe.

Anyone got any combat records?

I believe that FAA Corsairs saw a little air-to-air combat over northwest europe, and scored a few victories, but I can't provide facts & figures off the top of my head. The only mission I can semi-recall was that they flew escort for one of the missions attacking the Tirpitz. It shouldn't be too hard to research, I'll have a quick look...

Taylortony
03-20-2006, 03:29 PM
re FAA corsairs you will find this of interest

http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibits/planes.asp?plane=153

http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibits/corsair_discoveries.htm

TX-Zen
03-20-2006, 03:32 PM
Silly me, all this time I thought it was because the Allies heard of the Ta152.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

djetz
03-20-2006, 03:37 PM
Nope, as far as I can tell, there is no recorded instance of FAA Corsairs fighting German aircraft. There are unsubstantiated claims, but nothing official. The FAA Corsair losses recorded were due to ground fire.

I got confused because FAA Martlets (F4Fs) and Gannets (F6Fs) did bring down quite a few axis planes.

Taylortony
03-20-2006, 03:54 PM
FAA Corsairs performed their first combat action on 3 April 1944, with Number 1834 Squadron flying from the HMS VICTORIOUS to help provide cover for a strike on the German super-battleship TIRPITZ in a Norwegian fjord. This was apparently the first combat operation of the Corsair off of an aircraft carrier. Further attacks on the TIRPITZ were performed in July and August 1944, with Corsairs from the HMS FORMIDABLE participating. It appears the Corsairs did not encounter aerial opposition on these raids. A confrontation between a Corsair and the tough German Focke-Wulf FW-190 would have made for an interesting fight.

Even as British Corsairs were fighting the Germans, they were going into combat in the Indian Ocean against the Japanese, with the first operational sorties on 19 April. Royal Navy carriers would be participants in the final battle for the Japanese home islands. On 9 August 1945, days before the end of the war, Corsairs from HMS FORMIDABLE were attacking Shiogama harbor on the northeast coast of Japan. A Canadian pilot, Lieutenant Robert H. Gray, was hit by flak but pressed home his attack on a Japanese destroyer, sinking it with a 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) bomb but crashing into the sea. He was posthumously awarded the last Victoria Cross of World War II.

425 (some sources say 370) Corsairs were also provided to the Royal New Zealand Air Force, beginning in late 1943. By the time the New Zealanders had worked up to operational Corsair squadrons in 1944 there was little for them to shoot at in the South Pacific, and they saw little combat. Most of the New Zealander Corsairs were scrapped after the war, as were the British Corsairs.

DaimonSyrius
03-20-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
Fueling stops were located at Goose Bay, Labrador; Southern Greenland; Iceland; and then on to England.
Would that be the route for P38s too? Glacier Girl and Greenland ring a bell.

Cheers,
S.

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-20-2006, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
Fueling stops were located at Goose Bay, Labrador; Southern Greenland; Iceland; and then on to England.
Would that be the route for P38s too? Glacier Girl and Greenland ring a bell.

Cheers,
S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, the bombers acted as lead ships for the P38, each bomber would shepherd a group of four Lightnings

DaimonSyrius
03-20-2006, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
Yep, the bombers acted as lead ships for the P38, each bomber would shepherd a group of four Lightnings

Thanks Snapd
Shepherd the Lightnings, nice image http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.