The B-29 Superfortress

[whistlingdeath77]

If we had the B-29 Superfortress into production or in combat let's say in 1942-43, do you feel it would have shortened the war, kept it the same or prolonged the outcome of world war 2? And do you feel the Army air core would of had less losses of personel, more or the same? Comments?

[The Inspector]

Theatrewise, except for a few bases deep in China, we had no place to fly B-29's from, and the range was so great from them to Japan that the payload would have been minimal. The Army was still wrangling with the size of the B15 and B-19 and Boeings 314 Clippers had only been flying for a very few years, all in an era when the 'suits' in the military still thought about WW1 battle strategies and fabric covered wooden airplanes and a B-17 was 'huge'.

[Django]

'43 would only be 1 year earlier. I agree that in the CBI, it wouldn't have mattered much. So I'm guessing you're asking about had they been deployed to the ETO at that point and what the ramifications would have been... I think it might have not mattered much. Fighters still couldn't make it all the way to the target. Losses might have been slightly less and the crews would have been more comfortable I think in the pressurized cabins, but that's about it. Increased payloads onto the target? Surely.

[the330thbg]

Having a long range fighter earlier would have had a much more dramatic effect.

[PbyCat-Guy]

Maybe the B-29s could've been used as another Heavy bomber in Europe/North Africa. Imagine a group of B-29s out of England at those High Altitudes, to come in and finish the target off after the B-17s and B-24s. I think I was just inspired to do my next drawing, a "what-if" of B-29s with FW-190s or something.

[the330thbg]

Would have ended up like the high altitude bombings initially over Japan. Very inaccurate. What ended up working best for the B-29 were lower altitude night incendiary bombings. The Brits had that figured out already!

[the330thbg]

Ask any WWII bomber crewmen. Fighter protection is what they needed more than anything. The B-29 would have been decimated in daylight bombing raids over Germany just like the B-17/24's were. P-51d's would have been the ticket.
By the time B-29's were in mass over Japan their Air Force was minimal with few fighters and even fewer qualified pilots as they were whittled down in the Pacific Campaign.

Last edited by the330thbg on Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[tom d. friedman]

the united states was hardly tooled up for mass production of anything in 1942, by 43 things were clicking. that was a pivotal year!!

[whistlingdeath77]

i figured that if the B-29 could fly faster and higher than the 17 and the 24, just maybe the losses would have been less due to that.

[John Dupre]

Does deploying the airplane earlier mean the crews understand how to use the aircraft as intended or to get the most performance out of it? Think of the B-26 Marauder. It was certainly more advanced than its predecessors and arguably even its contemporary the B-25. Yet it was almost a disaster early on because the crews hadn't learned to master it and the training system didn't know how to train crews to fly it properly. Would the B-29 have the same problem in '42-'43?

[b29flteng]

I don't believe it would have shortened the war. It just carried more bombs per sortie a little higher than the 17 or 24. I agree with a couple of others that the long range escort fighters destroying the German Air Force had more to do with shortening the war, and the destruction of the transportation facilities in Europe. If you can't get the ammo to the troops, they can't fight.

[whistlingdeath77]

Does deploying the airplane earlier mean the crews understand how to use the aircraft as intended or to get the most performance out of it? Think of the B-26 Marauder. It was certainly more advanced than its predecessors and arguably even its contemporary the B-25. Yet it was almost a disaster early on because the crews hadn't learned to master it and the training system didn't know how to train crews to fly it properly. Would the B-29 have the same problem in '42-'43?

No, i'm going to go with the crews being fully trained on a B-29 from the start, just like the B-17 or B-24 crews. Maybe some men would have been able to get home faster and less frostbite or possibly making it back to base that much quicker if there was a crew member hurt badly. Medical attention would have maybe been given faster? But, then again, the B-17 was a warrior almost like she had a personel connection with her crews to make sure she got them back. So I guess it is a very tough call.

Do you take your B-17 into combat knowing that it will take a beating and keep going or do you start out with a B-29 knowing that it has better performance, but engine problems may occur? What is the range difference for both aircraft? Maybe some B-29 crews were able to make it home on some occasions strickly from having more fuel and range? Thoughts???

[Mark Sampson]

Airplane guys hate to admit it, but ultimately, in Europe, the Allied ground troops had to finish the war. Many historians have suggested that if the Allied strategic air forces had concentrated on destroying Germany's oil reserves and production, rather than attacking cities and factories, the war might have been shortened. But remember that the Germans fought hard right up to the end. The B-29 would not have been a 'magic bullet' in this case, although it certainly would have been welcome.

[whistlingdeath77]

b-17 stats

Maximum speed: 287 mph (249 kn, 462 km/h)
Cruise speed: 182 mph (158 kn, 293 km/h)
Range: 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km) with 2,700 kg (6,000 lb) bombload
Service ceiling: 35,600 ft (10,850 m)
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 38.0 lb/sq ft (185.7 kg/m2)
Power/mass: 0.089 hp/lb (150 W/kg)

B-29 stats

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, [61])
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

Range looks like it could have made a big difference

[the330thbg]

Airplane guys hate to admit it, but ultimately, in Europe, the Allied ground troops had to finish the war. Many historians have suggested that if the Allied strategic air forces had concentrated on destroying Germany's oil reserves and production, rather than attacking cities and factories, the war might have been shortened. But remember that the Germans fought hard right up to the end. The B-29 would not have been a 'magic bullet' in this case, although it certainly would have been welcome.

The Airplane guys know for a fact that it beat Japan without an invasion. The airplane dropped atom bombs did that without a mainland troop invasion by US troops.