B-29... good investment or waste of money?

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Since the B29s didnt do anything the B17s from Europe couldnt....  yes. On Feb 45 just move 8th Airforce to the Pacific.

Actually, they did..., they flew from the Marianas to Japan and back. Also, the war in Europe wasn't over until May of 1945.

I know the war in Europe wasnt over but there was little to achieve in 45 that the british couldnt .. Likewise there was little the B29s could do better ok maybe kill a few more civilians per square km but not much else .

[tocaff]

The B-29 was a plane that bridged the old to the modern.  They had the 1st pressurized cabin, the guns could be controlled by the flight engineer from his dorsal turret by computer, the payload was large enough that they were designated VHBGs (Very Heavy) and the range was awesome for those days. 

The bombing campaign vs Japan was not successful?  How so?  Yes, the subs were brutal on the Japanese, but the B-29s devastated the cities with the firebombs on a scale unimagined at the time.  The A-bombs were nothing compared to the firebomb raids in the damage done and casualties caused, though 1 plane being able to level a city is nothing other than scary.

The plane was worth every cent invested in them and considering that they went almost straight from the drawing board to the production line they were a huge leap forward.  It's common for planes in their A version to be underpowered, as the B-29 was and the F-14 was considered to be too.

There's nothing like being able to hit your opponent and he can't reach you to hit back.

[Cajun Tifoso]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Since the B29s didnt do anything the B17s from Europe couldnt....  yes. On Feb 45 just move 8th Airforce to the Pacific.

While I believe in the actual application of bombs on target, the Mighty Eighth could have done just as good of a job of razing Japan. However, I think you would have had one hell of a problem getting the Eighth's pilots over to the Pacific. I know there were concerns with moving the ground troops out of the ETO to the Pacific. I don't see how the guys in the B-17's would have reacted any differently from anyone in Third Army for example (if the Third, or any of its units, were slated for transfer - I loaned my copy of Downfall out).

However, it is hard to get into a situation where you don't make observations based on hindsight or deal with odd issues of foresight. There are just too many variables. When the plans were down for the B-29, no one could know that in 1945 it would be impossible for B-17's to fly out of the Marianas or that they would have to fly from Okinawa once the island had been captured. I think it was a case of "we need the biggest, fastest, strongest bomber with the longest range" in the world.

However, I am drifting off topic. In my opinion, I would say that it was a good investment. While there are issues that make the decision questionable from our sofas here in the 21st Century, I don't think anyone in 1944 or 1945 would have had a problem with the B-29. Well, apart from having your engines catch fire on take off.

Patrick

[freeboy]

What really is the ?, could we have won the war without it? What are you using as a standard, what is the goal? End the war wit hthe least amount of casualties? end the war soonest.. other?
IS it simply a matter of cost?  other?

[P.Hausser]

ORIGINAL: crsutton




I think you have made the most important point. The B29 campaign vs Japan was not really sucessful. So unsucessful that they had to resort to area firebombing as a last resort. While the results were spectacular it is doubtful that the result were worth it. It is argued that the fire raids were wiping out industry as well as killing people but the sub war and mining campaign had already made those factories redundant as they had nothing to produce.

However, you have to build the plane as it the next step to the great planes that followed post war. You can't stand back and watch. When you have the assets, you build it. That is how you stay a superpower.

I congratulate your comment, it takes quite a bit of insight and courage to put forward such a comment.

[witpqs]

I'm having trouble with the assertion that the B-17 could have the same thing operating from the Marianas as the B-29 did. Being able to reach Japan is one thing, being able to reach it with the same payloads is quite another.

[YankeeAirRat]

Remember that the direct competitor to the B-29 was the B-32 Dominator being developed by Consolidated aircraft company. However this aircraft never successfully solved the pressurization problems that plagued it and it never solved that problem along with wiring issues between their remote control turrets and the gunner observation bubbles. It did reach combat status flying from a few USAAF air groups in the Philippines and CBI theaters flying into Indonesia and South East Asia targets. After the one and only bombardment group that was equipped with the B-32 moved to Okinawa, they quit flying bombing missions and instead became a long range photo recon aircraft. After the war most of the aircraft were scrapped.

Both of these aircraft (B-32 and B-29) were developed based on a design study that was started in 1939. The USAAF wanted a bigger, faster, higher flying bomber that could out perform the B-17. Remember that the B-17 was initially based a requirement that came from the early 30's on a bomber that was going to replace the B-10. Also note that the B-17 was basically a modified version of the B-247 airliner. That was standard as well, the B-18 was basically a modified version of the DC-2, HE The B-29 was the first bomber built by Boeing that was directly built for that reason and the first airplane that they developed that was the start of the large airframes that became standard of their company's history. So the B-29 had a number of learning lessons for the Boeing aircraft corporation.

Also a number of people were believers of air power influncing warfare and politics. Starting with General Giulio Douhet of Italy, Col William Mitchell, Sir Hugh Trenchard, and Major Alexander P. de Severesky (who produced via Disney a film about his book) all advocated the use of airpower; just to name a few of the more memorial ones. Douhet, Mitchell, Severesky, Spaatz, LeMay, etc all believe that precision bombing could destroy an enemies ability to wage war, and bring that enemy to the peace table. As we now know it wasn't like that. Using hindsight on decisions that influcenced history with out applying to the "fog of war" to the "why" of those decisions will generally cause issues, be very careful of that slippery slope.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

The B-29 effect is not modeled well in the game. The pilots have low experience levels

Couldn't you prepare pilots for this duty ahead of time and cherry pick your most experienced bomber pilots from the general reserve pools? Same with the escorting P-51s out of Iwo.

[Capt. Harlock]

the question is if you would need 8th Airforce in 45 in Europe anyway. Bombing Dresden at the end didn´t make much sense and is probably less justified than dropping the A-bombs.

Against Nazi Germany, no, Dresden was not justified. But as a message to Stalin, it just might have helped to prevent World War III. (Declassified documents show that Stain requested an attack on Dresden. My guess is that the western Allies figured that he really wanted to find out how capable 4E bombers were -- and they decided to show him.)

[sfbaytf]

The 8th had it been sent to the Pacific with it's B-17s or re-equipped would have faced the same problems as the B-29's in the Pacific faced when it came to high altitude bombing-the fierce jet stream over Japan. This made any sort of percision bombing impossible on a consistant basis. Low level firebombing was about the only thing you could really do if you wanted results.

Just to throw it out there, didn't Albert Speer say that one or 2 more Hamburgs and the war is over for Germany....what if the allieds firebombed Hamburg, Berlin, Frankfurt, Nuremburg, and a few other cities. They probably didn't have the ability and the Americans didn't want to join the British in terror raids in the ETO, but for arguments sake do you think Speer was correct in his assesment?

[SLAAKMAN]

The B29 was a necessary investment even though its costs exceeded the A-Bomb by a billion dollars. Unfortunately as in all wars attacks on civilian targets are clearly immoral and WWII is a clear case of the winners writing the history books.

[jomni]

Well the technology developed in the B-29 project will be useful in future bomber designs right.
Or are they totally useless once the jet bombers are made.

[JohnDillworth]

I understand that by the end of the war there were no targets left so if it were low level incendiary or high level precision the goal was accomplished, and accomplished by the B-29.
Now if the B-29 was not going to be available, allied strategy might have been different so as to allow other 4 engine heavies to get in range. Perhaps Taiwan (Formosa) would have become more attractive than Okinawa.

[bklooste]

Honestly you send 500 B17 drop indecinaries and thats a city gone ( which can be done via relay at Iowa Jima). You send 200 and its an industrial complex gone. Send 1000 B 29s and you just bomb a few more civilians, there is a decreasining return of scale , once you take out a countries refinaries & oil storage the war economy collapses , it takes a long time to rebuild or fix these. In the case of Japan with few resources and oil comming in you dont achieve much at all  since terror bombing doesnt work unless your goal is genocide.
 
In Europe after Feb there was nothing to do ..the strategic bombing in Europe was of little value  ( esp compared to the investment) until they bombed the refineries and Fisher tropish plants ,this had a major affect but once these were gone it was again pointless.
 
Regarding the B29s long term military value i dont think strategic bombers were usefull in Korea or Vietnam either. The one (very) usefull this is the pressure cabin technology helped boeing build later airliners  though this is not strictly a mil investment.
 
 

[YankeeAirRat]

Part of the reason okinawa was chosen is that it had a larger number of deep water harbors that the fleet could retire to while being involved with Operation Downfall. Taiwan just doesn't have that many deep water harbors large enough to accomidate the fleet. If you read the biography "Quiet Warrior" by Buell it states that Spruance was the one that made the choice to go to Okinawa for that reason and was able to successfully sell it not only to his friend Nimitz, but also to the JCS. To honestly think about it. The B-17 was at the time the war ended too old to use. So I wouldn't have been suprised to have seen some of the B-17 units in the 8th start the conversion to B-29's or even B-24's since both of those aircraft were superior to the B-17 near the end of the war. Mainly in tonnage carried and range.

[aspqrz02]

As some people have alluded to the reason for the B-29 ... it was a FY-40 program that was intended to produce a 4e bomber capable of carrying a 2 ton bombload from North America to the European mainland and then return, nonstop.

Considering the world situation in 1940, this was not an unreasonable requirement.

The B-36 was a FY41 program to produce a bomber capable of carrying a 10 ton bombload from the Continental US to the European mainland and then return ... as it was feared that the UK would fall to the Germans.

It was developmentally delayed because it was decided not to run two parallel programs, in effect, and the resources were poured into the B-29 which, when its engines weren't problematic, was a satisfactory aircraft.

Was either program worth it?

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those Romans had a way with words [:)]

Phil

[witpqs]

The choice involving Taiwan was really Philippines versus Taiwan, not Okinawa. Nimitz wanted to take Formosa to cut off the sea lanes, MacArthur wanted to take the PI for that and to keep his promise. IMO Okinawa would have been taken in either case.

[usersatch]

Regarding the B29s long term military value i dont think strategic bombers were usefull in Korea or Vietnam either. The one (very) usefull this is the pressure cabin technology helped boeing build later airliners  though this is not strictly a mil investment.

Maybe not useful to bomb classical tragets like heavy industry when there were few to none to hit, but the B29 in Korea and the B52 were very useful. Any airplane (the B52) that can wipe out an area 2 miles long by 1/4 miles wide of every living soul is useful. In Gulf War 1, the B52 literally wiped out entire units with arc-light strikes on the Iraqi border. Even as we speak, the B52 is still proving its utility with extended loiter JDAM strikes.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

the question is if you would need 8th Airforce in 45 in Europe anyway. Bombing Dresden at the end didn´t make much sense and is probably less justified than dropping the A-bombs.

Against Nazi Germany, no, Dresden was not justified. But as a message to Stalin, it just might have helped to prevent World War III. (Declassified documents show that Stain requested an attack on Dresden. My guess is that the western Allies figured that he really wanted to find out how capable 4E bombers were -- and they decided to show him.)

Dresden was just one of many devastating 4E attacks and I doubt that Stalin wasn´t aware of the strenght of the British and US bomber force by the time of the Dresden attack. Many attacks in 45 were just attacks because you had to attack something, that´s why you get so many reports from bombers dropping their load onto "something German" in the last months even though there was no reason to do so in the end. But that was war at that time.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: usersatch

Regarding the B29s long term military value i dont think strategic bombers were usefull in Korea or Vietnam either. The one (very) usefull this is the pressure cabin technology helped boeing build later airliners  though this is not strictly a mil investment.

Maybe not useful to bomb classical tragets like heavy industry when there were few to none to hit, but the B29 in Korea and the B52 were very useful. Any airplane (the B52) that can wipe out an area 2 miles long by 1/4 miles wide of every living soul is useful. In Gulf War 1, the B52 literally wiped out entire units with arc-light strikes on the Iraqi border. Even as we speak, the B52 is still proving its utility with extended loiter JDAM strikes.

In Vietnam the B52 was pretty useless and was shotdown quite a bit i would argue having 4* the tactical bombers would have been of much greater use. Though they dropped massive amounts of weapons nearly all of it fell where the North Vietnamese were not. If it was that successful the US would have just built a few more B52 instead of risking ground troops and not leave vietnam.

Agree they are quite usefull at the moment as TACTICAL bombers ,loitering but that is only because the enemy is not a major power . Against any significant force ( even Vietnam over Hanoi) they would be shotdown and the JDAMs have the GPS jammed.