PDA

View Full Version : How much potential did the B-29 have?



Sergio_101
04-27-2006, 06:03 PM
No flame folks, lets avoid the nuclear comments.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b29-16.jpg http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b4/b50a-1.jpg http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/fta/b39-4.jpg

20,000 lbs of bombs, 405mph top speed for the
XB-39 version, modified for re-fuel in air....
The B-50 version (B-29D) was the first plane
to fly around the world non stop.

Copied by the Soviets down to the last rivit (TU-4 Bull)
Used in the USAF, USSR and Chinese airforces.

The last varient in service, the KC-97 tanker
was retired in 1978.

Sergio

horseback
04-27-2006, 06:08 PM
Hardly any, because it was actually built and operated and had known, recorded flaws, while aircraft that were barely off the drawing board or never flown could be capable of anything you might imagine, once the 'operational' models were produced...

cheers

horsebck

WTE_Galway
04-27-2006, 06:18 PM
An early war design it was superceded almost immediately when in August 1946 the first prototype B36 flew.

The B36 was intended to be the ultimate war winning bomber of world war II but production delays meant it became the mainstay of the cold war strategic bomber fleet instead.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap39.jpg

Jaws2002
04-27-2006, 06:24 PM
How much potential did the B-29



About as much as the Do-19. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif The only difference was that it was developed and built in USA, away from the war and it had the strong American industry behind it.

Do you think it had any chance if it was built in Germany? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Sergio_101
04-27-2006, 06:33 PM
Developed into tanker and transport versions
and also sold to civillians as the "Stratocruiser"
the B-29/B-50 also saw it's range and bomb load
increase.
Later jet engines were added for a performance
boost for tankers.

D0-19? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Sergio

DIRTY-MAC
04-27-2006, 07:13 PM
NONE..............

Ratsack
04-27-2006, 07:15 PM
None.

In an age of jet interceptors, it's clear the big four engined heavy was not much more than a target. The Soviets (masquerading as Chinese) proved it over Korea. The heavies were savaged so badly by MiG-15 'horizontal flak' as the US crews called it, that the B-29 had to be relegated to night work.

Does this story sound familiar? Wellingtons, Hampdens & Whitleys? He-111s, Do-17s and Ju-88s? Obsolete types in the presence of agressive, numerous interceptors. Dead.

Not a lot of potential, no.

cheers,
Ratsack

Sergio_101
04-27-2006, 07:33 PM
Good enough that the Soviets copied it down to the last rivit.

Sergio

Ernst_Rohr
04-27-2006, 07:34 PM
Tons actually.

Not to mention the fact that the 29 was THE primary bomber for the PTO. As the island hopping campaign progressed, the range of the 29's let them hit targets in Japan that the other strategic heavy bombers could not reach.

The defensive armament on the 29 was very heavy, and radar controlled. Once attacking fighters were identified, the gunners could dial in the wing dimensions of the fighter into the gunner computer and achieve very accurate fire against the oncoming fighters. The 29 was also fast for a bomber, and flew at very high altitudes, making it difficult to intercept.

After WWII, the 29 was the primary heavy bomber for the US during the Korean War, and it served throughout the war. The last operational 29 squadron disbanded in 1960. Fourteen years after the plane has ceased production, and 18 years after it first flew.

The Tu-4 version served until the mid 60s with the Soviet air force, and the PRC had operational units until 1970.

In short, it was a workhorse! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
04-27-2006, 08:15 PM
I'd say quite a bit...the B-29 was a very sophisticated and advanced design. Its performance was such that Japanese interceptors had a very hard time just trying to intercept the B-29s until the jetstream forced the B-29s to fly lower altitude runs.

It had a ton of flaws in its run up to full operational use and it wasn't all solved but most of it was. The B-29 sort of represents wartime America WWII's ability to put alot of industrial might behind something. It was certainly enough to even worry the Luftwaffe...so much so that quite a few high altitude designs were required.

WarWolfe_1
04-27-2006, 08:21 PM
It had enough potential to Drop 2 A-Bombs and end what would have been a very bloody home invasion and saving more lives than lost by those bombs.


NUFF said.

Gold_Monkey
04-27-2006, 08:31 PM
JFC, It had what it took to end the war with Japan. DUH

Slickun
04-27-2006, 09:29 PM
The ultimate weapons system of WW2.

Period.

Jungmann
04-27-2006, 09:36 PM
Don't believe it ever had radar fire control. Did have a central electronic computer that adjusted gun aim on the turrets for TAS and density altitude.

Rushed into production, it had lots of early bugs, engine fires, side gunner bubbles popping out, brake fires. Most of these solved by the time 20th BC reached Saipan from Wendover, Utah.

And yeah, it finally broke Japan's back with the low-altitude incendiary attacks on the cities. Potential enough.

Cheers,

WTE_Galway
04-27-2006, 11:33 PM
it was the best available in the last year of the war but it was an early war design

post war as a strategic bomber it was outclassed by first the B36 and then the B52

you can park a B29 under the wing of a B36 and the B36 payload of 86,000 pounds makes the B29 20,000 lbs almost laughable .. to put it in perspective later variants of the F18 fighter can carry almost 20,000 lbs.

it hung around because the the B36 was 3.6 million a go (which was huge money at the time )and every B36 built was needed for SAC

AKA_TAGERT
04-27-2006, 11:44 PM
B29 won the war.. no really

Badsight.
04-28-2006, 12:00 AM
how can people rubbish the B-29 - it was a great plane

its just that the B-36 is uber . . . .

Vipez-
04-28-2006, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
.. saving more lives than lost by those bombs.



Those +300.000 lives perished might disagree http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

gates123
04-28-2006, 01:25 AM
It couldnt hit anything from 30,000+ in which it was intended. Built for high altitude precision bombing yet it wasnt "effective" till it tossed out moletov cocktails at 5000ft over japanese wooden cities at night. HMMM Lotta money spent and technology stolen (USSR) for a use it wasnt intended for. Short of the A bomb missions it was more a less a failure in its main role.

It might have shined in a '46 europe campaign as long as there werent too many jets .

Look at the maintence records it had in CBI '44-45. Lost way too many planes (non-enemy related) for the amount of targets it never hit.

Kocur_
04-28-2006, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:

The defensive armament on the 29 was very heavy, and radar controlled. Once attacking fighters were identified, the gunners could dial in the wing dimensions of the fighter into the gunner computer and achieve very accurate fire against the oncoming fighters.

Jungmann is right: there was no radar in B-29's FCS. All the angular data input was done by gunners tracking target, while distance was set by turning knob to surround target pic seen in gunsight with dots. Even when the system worked perfectly, which wasnt often in the beginning, its efficency was comparable to that of manually controlled guns as tests proved. OTOH the system was VASTLY advanced, just not perfect enough.
Firepower per se was not so impressive compared to previous US bombers, as the weapons were still .50 M2s. And that is area where B-36 outclassed B-29 too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway IMHO during WW2 it was the most advanced bomber, if not a warplane in general in the world. It outclassed any heavy bomber to date and... was outclassed the same way shortly after WW2 by B-36.

Sergio_101
04-28-2006, 03:02 AM
Tail guns were 20mm cannon.

There was no RADAR aiming.

The remote aiming system was very unreliable.

I had a highschool teacher that flew as
a bombadier on a B-29 out of Tinian.
He said the gun aiming system was terrible
and his bomber never scored a hit! His
bomber was attacked many times, and he also said
the Japanese never scored a hit (on his bomber).

He also had some negative comments on the
reliability of those CW R-3350 engines.
He flew home many times on three engines.

Sergio

dadada1
04-28-2006, 03:06 AM
Not meaning to highjack you're thread sergio, but this reminded me of a documentary about a B29 sitting on the ice in Alaska. A group of guys had the idea of going up there and restoring her to flying condition, then flying her off the ice. One of the best documentaries I've ever seen on anything bar none. It's called "B29 Frozen in Time". Has anyone else here seen it?

Gibbage1
04-28-2006, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by gates123:
It couldnt hit anything from 30,000+ in which it was intended. Built for high altitude precision bombing yet it wasnt "effective" till it tossed out moletov cocktails at 5000ft over japanese wooden cities at night. HMMM Lotta money spent and technology stolen (USSR) for a use it wasnt intended for. Short of the A bomb missions it was more a less a failure in its main role.


Im sorry, WHAT was stolen from the USSR in the B-29? Im guessing you have been reading the red book version of history were the TU-4 was first?

As for bombing accuracy, even the B-17 and Lanc were poor shots at 20K. Wind is a very tricky think and tends to play with free-falling objects. Not a design fault, but a mother nature fault.

It also DID play a role in the ETU. The US propaganda machine fed German spies a bunch of info on the B-29. They passed this onto German high command and they sunk a TON of money into developing weapon systems to counter the B-29! They waisted all that money on countering a bomber that would never be used against them. Very effective, and did not loose any life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
04-28-2006, 03:35 AM
Tail guns were 20mm cannon.

Tail station, which was not connected with FCS btw, was originally equipped with pair of .50s and a 20mm cannon, but the latter was quickly removed.

mynameisroland
04-28-2006, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
No flame folks, lets avoid the nuclear comments.
Sergio

I'll leave the honour of trying to ruin other peoples threads to you Sergio.

p1ngu666
04-28-2006, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gates123:
It couldnt hit anything from 30,000+ in which it was intended. Built for high altitude precision bombing yet it wasnt "effective" till it tossed out moletov cocktails at 5000ft over japanese wooden cities at night. HMMM Lotta money spent and technology stolen (USSR) for a use it wasnt intended for. Short of the A bomb missions it was more a less a failure in its main role.


Im sorry, WHAT was stolen from the USSR in the B-29? Im guessing you have been reading the red book version of history were the TU-4 was first?

As for bombing accuracy, even the B-17 and Lanc were poor shots at 20K. Wind is a very tricky think and tends to play with free-falling objects. Not a design fault, but a mother nature fault.

It also DID play a role in the ETU. The US propaganda machine fed German spies a bunch of info on the B-29. They passed this onto German high command and they sunk a TON of money into developing weapon systems to counter the B-29! They waisted all that money on countering a bomber that would never be used against them. Very effective, and did not loose any life http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

need a SABS bombsite, or some other really fancy system, and a decent bomb, and how it falls out.

the grandslam and tall boy where noteable cos they just dropped and rotated. no wobble...

curiously they where also really acurate with blast bombs, which where just great big oil barrels filed with explosive, really

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
None.

In an age of jet interceptors, it's clear the big four engined heavy was not much more than a target. The Soviets (masquerading as Chinese) proved it over Korea. The heavies were savaged so badly by MiG-15 'horizontal flak' as the US crews called it, that the B-29 had to be relegated to night work.
cheers,
Ratsack When the Korean War ended on July 27, 1953, the B-29s had flown over 21,000 sorties, nearly 167,000 tons of bombs had been dropped, and 34 B-29s had been lost in combat (<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">16 to fighters</span>, four to flak, and fourteen to other causes). Just flying was almost as dangerous as MiGs.

More, http://mywebpages.comcast.net/b29sinthekoreanwar/0-b29MasterList.htm

Lists all the B-29s used and lost in Korea.

Ratsack
04-28-2006, 06:13 AM
The reason losses fell was because they went to night operations. They did so after benig massacred twice in daylight, in spite of jet escort. To suggest the MiGs were no more dangersous than normal ops is preposterous. Tell it to the crews.

At night, the heavy bombers hit what? Yes, a lot of civilian infrastructure, and a lot of open land. Highly effective...not.

Ratsack

Ratsack
04-28-2006, 06:47 AM
Luftluuver,

From this site:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029-12.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029-12.html)

€˜Up to early 1951, in the absence of organized defenses, B-29s had been able to make bombing runs at altitudes as low as 10,000 feet without any danger. However, on February 25, four B-29s on a raid against Sunchon were attacked by eight MiG-15s. Unescorted raids at low altitudes now became extremely dangerous. Consequently, the missions were now flown at 20,000 feet, defensive formations were used, and fighter escort was provided by F-80C and F-84E aircraft. These fighters were ineffective against the MiG-15, and coordination between the bombers and fighters was often poor. On February 25, four B-29s on a raid against Sunchon were attacked by eight MiG-15s. On March 1, a Superfortress formation was jumped by nine MiGs On April 12, a force of 48 B-29s attacking the railroad bridge linking Korea with Antung, Manchuria were attacked by dozens of MiGs, and three B-29s were shot down and seven were damaged. Because of these losses, General Stratemeyer called off these raids on April 12, and diverted the B-29s to close-support raids against Chinese targets further south around the 38th Parallel.€

Note that we€re not talking about large numbers of bombers or interceptors here, so these missions represent a very high rate of losses per sortie. By the 1950s, the B-29 was not viable in daylight in the face of opposition. I don€t even need to qualify that by saying €˜quality opposition€.

As far as effectiveness is concerned, consider the following from the same article:

€˜Between August 12 and 20, a series of strategic road and rail bridges were attacked and destroyed. The B-29s had to adopt new combat techniques during these raids. The B-29s of the 22nd and 92nd Bombardment Wings could only carry 500-pound bombs, which were not really big enough to do the job against strongly-constructed bridges. However, the 19th BG's B-29s could carry 1000-pound bombs. One particular bridge had to be hit every day for three weeks before it was destroyed. By the end of August, 37 of the 44 bridges targeted had been destroyed, with the remaining seven being so badly damaged that they were unusable.€

The prevarication about bomb size is irrelevant. The simple facts of the matter are that the B-29 €" like any bomber operating at those heights €" could not hit a target. They could plaster the area with bombs, but this is not a substitute for hitting the bl0ody target. They would€ve been better off using P-47 fighter bombers with long range drop tanks, escorted with jets.

On top of this, you€d have to question the wisdom of attempting a strategic campaign against the North Koreans. In a country that was barely industrialized, that was not producing the weapons it was using, what exactly constitutes a €˜strategic€ target? This is an important question, given this is the only sort of target the B-29 could hit.

The heavy bomber was just a technological dinosaur in the absence of precision-guided weapons. Nice looking plane, but operationally useless.

Cheers,
Ratsack

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 06:48 AM
February 25, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">four</span> B-29s on a raid against Sunchon were attacked by <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">eight</span> MiG-15s. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Unescorted</span> raids at low altitudes (10,000ft) now became extremely dangerous.

March 1, a Superfortress formation was jumped by <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">nine</span> MiGs. On April 12, a force of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">48</span> B-29s attacking the railroad bridge linking Korea with Antung, Manchuria were attacked by dozens(???) of MiGs, and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">three</span> B-29s were shot down. A 6.25% loss.

By October 27, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">five</span> more B-29s had been lost.

B-29 gunners had accounted for 34 communist fighters (16 of these being MiG-15s) probably destroyed another 17 (all MiG-15s) and damaged 11 (all MiG-15s). So 1 B-29 lost in exchange for 1 MiG15 lost.

On June 10, 1952, four SHORAN-equipped B-29s suddenly found themselves illuminated by radar-guided searchlights over Sinuiju. Night fighters were directed in to attack, and two bombers were shot down. A 50% lost rate to NFs. A night time massacre.

Between November 1952 and January 1953, five B-29s were lost to enemy night fighters. That is ~50% (7 of 16 due to a/c) loss to night fighters of the B-29s losses.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029-12.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029-12.html)

I don't see any daylight massacres.

Ratsack
04-28-2006, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
don't see any daylight massacres.

Then you're not looking.

Ratsack

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 06:51 AM
The heavy bomber was just a technological dinosaur in the absence of precision-guided weapons. Nice looking plane, but operationally useless That I agree with. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Another link, http://www.strategic-air-command.com/history/history-06.htm

Ratsack
04-28-2006, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The heavy bomber was just a technological dinosaur in the absence of precision-guided weapons. Nice looking plane, but operationally useless That I agree with. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm trying to recall the book it was in, but there was a passage about the sh1t fight that went on in the USAF after a B-29 raid was busted up with heavy losses, in spite of jet escort. One of the American pilots flying F-84 escorts was McCampbell, who went on to be the most successful jet-only ace.

I wish I could remember the source, because it also raised the issue of the way the losses were counted. There was some grumbling among crews who said they'd been attacked by fighters, when official reason recorded for writing off their plane was 'flak damage'. This gave rise to the saying about 'horizontal flak'. As in, 'Well, it must've been f**king horizontal flak, then, sir.'

It may have been Ivan Rendall, Splash One, ISBN 029 781 852. It's a good read in any case.

cheers,
Ratsack

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 07:13 AM
Ratsack, here you go, http://www.kmike.com/NoSweat/Pages/MigAlley.htm

In some "air battles", such as over the Suiho Hydroelectric Power Plant and Dam (then the 4th largest Hydroelectric Power Plant and Dam in the World) on September 12th, 1952, the searchlights were lined up like a boulevard on both sides of the Yalu River, tracking each aircraft that could not effectively jam (deflect) them with ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) . The Migs, in their intense pursuit of "coned targets", flew into and through some of their own flak. In spite of what was reported in official records and U.S.A.F. Korean Air War histories as a 307th Group ship shot down by fighters, that aircraft and crew were lost to a direct flak hit and resultant explosion with a full bomb load with burning wreckage falling on the Manchurian side of the River. That aircraft was directly in front of us and we reported at debriefing 5 hours later that there was "little or no possibility of survivors"€¦and we were WRONG! The Right Gunner, 1 out of the 12 crewmembers aboard, had survived , evaded capture for 12 days, was a P.O.W. for 12 months, was repatriated in August of 1953 and I talked to him at Thanksgiving 1998. But that's another story, the most incredible that I could relate!

The B-29 was 44-86343, 307BW-371BS, pilot Lowe, nose art WOLF PACK.

Kocur_
04-28-2006, 09:34 AM
I used Excel on data from http://mywebpages.comcast.net/b29sinthekoreanwar/0-b29MasterList.htm. I took all the B-29 losses and damages, where MiGs participated, i.e. including MiG+AA, damaged by MiG and crashed later or landed home but scrapped and damaged and repaired at depot. The available dates (no dates for 9 events) of such events are:
dd.mm.yy
09.11.50
30.03.51
12.04.51
12.04.51
22.10.51
23.10.51
23.10.51
23.10.51
23.10.51
24.10.51
24.10.51
27.10.51
12.04.52
12.04.52
19.11.52
30.12.52
30.12.52
10.01.53
29.01.53
30.01.53

So as much as the data there is complete, we can see that "B-29s massacres" are just another commie propaganda myth. We can see that the only dates when more than one B-29 was lost/damaged due to MiGs were:
12.04.51 - 3
23.10.51 - 4
24.10.51 - 2
12.04.52 - 2
30.12.52 - 2

So "heavy B-29 losses" must be read in the context: for the scale of Korean War, compared with WW2 those losses might have been seen as alarmingly high, but they were FAR from being "massacres".

Sergio_101
04-28-2006, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by dadada1:
Not meaning to highjack you're thread sergio, but this reminded me of a documentary about a B29 sitting on the ice in Alaska. A group of guys had the idea of going up there and restoring her to flying condition, then flying her off the ice. One of the best documentaries I've ever seen on anything bar none. It's called "B29 Frozen in Time". Has anyone else here seen it?

That bomber was a B-29B that crash landed intact on
the edge of a lake in Greenland.
It was named the "Kee Bird"
There was very little damage from the belly landing.
The plane was jacked up, gear dropped
and tires, engines props and other consumables were replaced.
There were two tragadies.
The Chief mechanic on the project died during
the work (he died in a hospital in Canada)
and in the end, after making the plane airworthy,
they screwed up and burned the plane to the ground.

Oh yes, the engines, although damaged could
be run, and as I remember two were started
on the remaining gas!

Sergio

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 02:50 PM
In my opinon it was the best heavy bomber of WW2.

1. B29
2. Lancaster
3. B17
4th equal = Halifax/B24


I am afraid the Lanc takes 2nd becasue of its massive bomb load vs the B17's. I know this will be controversial with the Yanks here (I know how they love the B17) but the B17s bomb load was around a Medium bombers load, not really a heavy.

telsono
04-28-2006, 02:54 PM
Didn't this bird burn because someone forgot to bolt down a gas operated auvilliary generator in the fuselage and it tipped over?

Slickun
04-28-2006, 02:55 PM
B-29's bombed the airfields available in North Korea most of the war, often at night, especially after being forced to do mostly night ops. It didn't take a "massacre" to do that...there were never more than about 110 B-29's available to the FEAF at anytime. There weren't many B-29's left in the whole world. A few losses were catastrophic to the FEAF.

That said, it was demonstrated pretty quickly that US escorts could not keep the MiG's from intercepting and making passes on the heavies.

Poor training and a rush to combat ops, combined with the unknown jet-stream, foiled early B-29 ops over Japan. The move to night incendary raids was spectacular in its success, however.

Contrary to a previous few posters, later raids, bombing from high altitudes, were also extremely successful. It was possible, with adequate training, to plaster a target from high altitude. The early crews were just not good enough.

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by telsono:
Didn't this bird burn because someone forgot to bolt down a gas operated auvilliary generator in the fuselage and it tipped over? Yes it was caused by the APU.

Sergio_101
04-28-2006, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
In my opinon it was the best heavy bomber of WW2.

1. B29
2. Lancater
3. B17
4th equal = Halifax/B24


Yanks, I am afraid the Lanc takes 2nd becasue of its massive bomb load vs the B17's. I know this will be controversial with the Yanks here (I know how they love the B17) but the B17s bomb load was around a Medium bombers load, not really a heavy.


As I posted in an eariler thread, the max bombload of a B-17 was quite comparable.
17,800 lbs for the B-17G and 20,800 for the B-17F.
All bombers traded off bomb load for range
and defensive armament.

What the Lancaster had was a massive and adaptable
bomb bay.
In this respect the Lancaster could carry
weapons that even a B-29 could not!

Bomb load to Berlin made a B-17 a medium bomber.
But the B-17 was NOT a medium bomber.

Sergio

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 03:13 PM
Planes often have flaws in their first incarnations.

But planes which have these fixed often go on to become classics.

Many inventions in the world have needed a bit of work to become classics.

The Lancaster was a failure in its first form, the MAnchester bomber. A bit of tweaking to the design and better/more engines and it becomes the best bomber on the Western front in WW2.

IN my opinon you can't say something is a bad design because it needs some problems ironing out. Often the lessons learned from the initial problems are invaluable.

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
As I posted in an eariler thread, the max bombload of a B-17 was quite comparable.
17,800 lbs for the B-17G and 20,800 for the B-17F.
All bombers traded off bomb load for range
and defensive armament.

Sergio

But it usually carried only 3000-4000lbs.

Not trying to contradict you, I dont know a lot about the B17, so any comments you have will be much appreciated. Thanks.

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 03:22 PM
ARe you sure about those bomb loads, are you not thinking of full loaded weight to be carried ? (crew/guns/equipment etc)

http://www.historylink101.com/ww2-planes/aa-b-17-bomber.htm

The link above says 6000lbs, I know internet links are sketchy for facts, but surely they cant be that far wrong?

EDIT : This one says 5000lbs

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/Aircraft/html/b-17.htm


I have never heard of B17's carrying 17000lbs into battle never mind 20,000.

Sergio_101
04-28-2006, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
As I posted in an eariler thread, the max bombload of a B-17 was quite comparable.
17,800 lbs for the B-17G and 20,800 for the B-17F.
All bombers traded off bomb load for range
and defensive armament.

Sergio

But it usually carried only 3000-4000lbs.

Not trying to contradict you, I dont know a lot about the B17, so any comments you have will be much appreciated. Thanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical Berlin load was 6,000lbs depending on
weather and the model.
G models typically carried less than an F model.

4,000 to 6,000lbs to Berlin.

Sergio

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 03:28 PM
Another link (these are the first I have found, not been searching for links which back up MY statements, these are random, first things google threw up for B17 bomb load)

http://www.ww2guide.com/usab.shtml

Shows max load of any B17 as 4000-6000lbs

B24 as 5000-8800lbs

B24 was a great bomber, like the Hurricane, its often forgotten as the B17 gets all the attention.

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 03:34 PM
Since the G was the most used to Berlin, then the load would be typically 4000 to 5000lb.

The Lanc, and the Hallie, carried over 2 times that to Berlin.

Sergio_101
04-28-2006, 03:36 PM
Typical bomb load was 6,000lbs.
Maximum load for the B-17G was 17,800lbs.
Maximum for the B-17F was 20,800lbs.

I doubt more than a rare B-17 ever carried
over 6,000lbs.
I have seen stories of short range runs
over occupied France with over 10,000lbs.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_16.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher2/b17_16.html)

Read here, Luftlover already has read this
and commented on it in previous posts.
He's just trolling.


Sergio

telsono
04-28-2006, 03:50 PM
I had read that the B-24 suffered from lateral stability problems when it was under load and flying over 20,000ft. This was the reason for the B-24 units flying in the lower positions in mixed formations with B-17's in Europe. I would then guess that the B-24's operated at below 20,000ft. in the Pacific which would have made this problem not of concern.

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 04:02 PM
379th BG

1st mission: May 29 1943
last mission: Apr 25 1945

Sorties: 10,492
Bomb tonnage: 26,459.6

<span class="ev_code_RED">AVERAGE</span>: 5044lbs

381st BG

1st mission: June 22 1943
last mission: Apr 25 1945

Sorties: 9,035
Bomb tonnage: 22,159.5

<span class="ev_code_RED">AVERAGE</span>: 4905lbs

That was just opening to a page and picking 2.
Would you like me to do more Sergio?

Sergio_101
04-28-2006, 04:11 PM
Give it hell Luftlover.
You got a bone to pick, have at it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

I find you amusing cause you are arguing max loads
with average statistics. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Sergio

Sergio_101
04-28-2006, 04:22 PM
B-17 got the attention for the same reason as the Spit.

The B-24 and Hurricane were butt ugly.

Spit is elegant and the B-17 looks like an
"Art Decco" airliner. (B-17 is based on the
model 247 airliner, so it's no accident)

Hurricane looks like an upside down pregnant guppy
and the B-24 looks like a flying rail car.

Sergio

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 04:25 PM
Use some of your grey matter Sergio. I did not think I would have to spell it out for you.

Short range mission, like over France, would be more and long range missions, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">like to Berlin</span>, would be less. Yup, be sure, 101 suits your nick.

LOL, even the Boeing official site only states 9,600lb. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Aaron_GT
04-28-2006, 04:30 PM
Wing bomb racks were introduced part way through the B17F production run, but were later deleted again, although in theory they could be fitted in the field in later production B17Fs. With racks fitted there was a theoretical capability for a 20,800lb load, but only for very short range attacks, and only gentle maneouvers could be used. Without the wing racks the maximum load that could be carried was 8 1600 lb bombs internally for a maximum of 12,800 lbs.

Sergio_101
04-28-2006, 04:36 PM
Aaron is correct.
Eat Crow Luftluuver.

Sergio

Ratsack
04-28-2006, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:

So as much as the data there is complete, we can see that "B-29s massacres" are just another commie propaganda myth. We can see that the only dates when more than one B-29 was lost/damaged due to MiGs were:


No, it's not 'commie propaganda' at all: the source was American. I'll try to dig it up for you with a reference. It's a long weekend here, so that may take some time.

Ratsack

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 04:59 PM
Why 101, since I posted what Aaron posted in the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">other</span> thread.

Since you are having some troubles, I was commenting on your Berlin bomb load.

Btw, have a look at this link www.303rdbg.com/missionreports/150.pdf (http://www.303rdbg.com/missionreports/150.pdf) for a mission that was shorter than to Berlin. Two 1000lb bombs and 4 M17 (500lb ea) clusters > total 4000lb. Zwischenahn is west of Bremen, near Oldenburg. Where was this humungous bomb load?

Sergio_101
04-28-2006, 05:03 PM
Luftluuver, I said 4000-6000 lbs to Berlin.
You said an average of "5044lbs".

Hmmmm, I'd say you got some math to do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Sergio

luftluuver
04-28-2006, 05:23 PM
G models typically carried less than an F model.
Nice edit, for you also said: G models typically carried less than an F model. More Gs bombed Berlin than Fs.

Only 4000lb was carried to Zwischenahn, the last resort target, Berlin being the primary target. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif That is some 2000lb short of your 6000lb max bomb load to Berlin and the 303rd was using Gs.

darkhorizon11
04-28-2006, 05:25 PM
I hate these threads because there not specific enough. Potential? What kind? Potential to bring a quick end to a war that would have cost millions more lives on both sides? yes1

Potential threat to the Russians that they had to copy it exactly and examine the **** out of it? Yes!

Potential threat if the Germans held on a drag the war in Europe well into 1946? Its hard to say... but probably yes. The German jets could catch the big bomber but:

a. from what I've read the 29 could take cannon shots better that a lot of other aircraft increasing its survivability

b. although the jets could catch it a lot of other German props couldn't or at least not without A LONG chase it which American jet fighters could defend from attackers

c. its range was massive making no part of the Reich safe from bases in Great Britain or France not to mention the punishing bomb load

Of course this is just in the era from 1945 to 1947, once we move into the jet it was obvious the aircraft becoming obsolete. But given its time period and purpose it had a lot of potential.

I give 'er a thumbs up! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
04-28-2006, 05:38 PM
Agreed DarkHorizon, big thumbs up from me too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Those power operated, computer aimed turrets, they looked damn good too. You keyed in aircraft type, speed and other bits of information and then just kept the cross hair on the enemy plane and fired. The computer calculated the lead for you.

Also any gunner could operate other turrets if he was in a better position to see the fighter or a gunner had been hit/injured. PLUS he wasnt sat behind the guns, so that he was less likely to get hit.

I saw a guy demonstrating how to operate them on Battle Stations one day. The only problem was when they came up against the Mig15, it could not compensate for the massive speed. But against its contemporary oppostion (ie prop fighters) it was great. The guy (he was an old veteran B29 pilot) said it was a 'very effective' system.

He also likened flying the B-29 to sitting in your front porch flying your house. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The-Pizza-Man
04-28-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Aaron is correct.
Eat Crow Luftluuver.

Sergio

He is correct, but practically the bomb load was much lower. This is from another website I go to from time to time. I think it's by the co-author of flying guns of ww2.

"The bomb bay of a B-17 was arranged vertically in the center section of the fuselage; it was relatively high but short. There was a central divsion that in effect created two bomb bays, side by side, each with both an internal and external (i.e. outer wall) bomb rack and its own pair of doors.

If the bombs were small enough there was no interference between the inner and outer racks. For example, the inner rack could carry 7 100-pounders and the outer rack 5, so the a homogeneous load of such bombs could be divided 5-7-7-5, a total of 24 bombs as maximal load. For 500-pounders this could be 2-4-4-2, twelve bombs in total. It is obvious that with bombs stowed above each other, order of release was crucial.

If the bombs were larger in diameter, they could not be carried on both the inner and the outer racks. So three of 1000 lb bombs could be carried on an inner rack with the corresponding outer rack being empty. And for 2000 lb bombs just one would carried on each inner rack. However, the 1600-pdr was an AP bomb, relatively small for its weight, and could in theory be carried on inner (three) and outer racks (one) simultaneously; although there probable was little enough reason to carry this anti-shipping weapon.

If bomb types were mixed it became much more complicated, for it would be possible to carry smaller bombs in the space above the bigger bombs. Nor was it necessary to carry symmetric loads in both bays. If long ranges needed to be flown, one of the bomb bays would be taken up by an auxiliary fuel tank. (This bomb-bay tank seems to have evolved in parlance into the Bombay tank; which would help explain why outer wing tanks were later called Tokyo tanks.) - Gustin_E "

Sergio_101
04-30-2006, 08:38 AM
I am well aware that most B-17s never carried more
than 6,000lbs.

As to the B-29, in it's re-fuel in air form
it could carry a full load to max range.
and the B-50 varient could carry an additional
8,000 lbs of bombs.
In air refueling gave the B-29/B-50 a global range.

That makes it a tad more adaptable than any
German or British WWII bomber.

Sergio

luftluuver
04-30-2006, 10:25 AM
whoopy do dah. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Should the fife and drums be brought out?

Bremspropeller
04-30-2006, 10:35 AM
The B-29 ?

It influenced the russian and american bomber-designers untill the very latest models.

I'd call the B-29 "mother of the SAC".

30,000ft, pressurized cabin, high speed, long legs, etc.

Nothing could compare to the Stratofortress when it appeared.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
04-30-2006, 10:56 AM
Nice stuff and piccies of B-29 in RAF service here:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafwaddington/b29.html

HellToupee
04-30-2006, 01:57 PM
the ICBM was what obsoleted the strategic bomber, for shorter range stuff smaller faster bombers mosquito style eg canberra were probly better. Tho for fighting anyone without an airforce strat bombers do just fine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bremspropeller
04-30-2006, 04:42 PM
Nah, nuking a city with a B-52 has much more style than doing so with an ICBM. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif