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

[sfbaytf]

I bought a DVD set years ago called "Disney on the Frontlines" basically a collection of WW 2 propaganda cartoons produced during the war. In it was a bonus DVD called "Victory Through Airpower" by a Russian immigrant Alexander P . de Seversky. It had an enourmous impact on public opinion and high government officials. The short animated film was based on his book. Winston Churchill was greatly impressed with the film. When he heard Rosevelt hadn't seen the film he insted a copy be sent to a meeting he had with FDR and showed him the film. It was after seeing the film that Rosevelt commited the US to long range strategic bombing.

The aiplane was a new and untested weapon back then and neither leaders in government or the military really knew what the full potential or limitations were.

Today we have over 50 years of use to make judgements and assessments. In 1944 they didn't have the wealth of knowledge and experience in using airplanes for waging war.

[usersatch]

[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Only 17 B52s were shot down, 11 of them during Linebacker II in 1972. Losses stopped as soon as the Wild Weasel flights came in prior to the arrival of the bomber cells. True, they did hit a lot of jungle, but if you read some of the Vietnamese accounts, the arc-light strikes were devastating when they found their targets. And in a jungle environment, you dont necessarily have to have direct hits to impede the enemy. Turn a trail into a moon-scape and now you have to build a new trail (into Cambodia and Laos).

And don't underestimate the US propensity to NOT chose to keep the best system around (e.g., the A-10). Besides, they didn't need to build more of them, we had about 1,200 in service at the time, and only a small portion were modified to carry the iron bomb loads for SE Asia.

If it was theoretically possible to jam the JDAMs they could then literally pick about a dozen different types of long distance stand-off weapons instead.

The point is that the B52 proves that you can keep a WW2 design (large 4/8 engine bomber) and still carry out a variety of missions--strategic bombing (conventional and nuclear), tactical bombing, mining, cruise missile/stand-off attacks, anti-ship/ASW attacks, along with very effective ECM and anti-radar capabilities.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: usersatch

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.

[/quote]

Only 17 B52s were shot down, 11 of them during Linebacker II in 1972. Losses stopped as soon as the Wild Weasel flights came in prior to the arrival of the bomber cells. True, they did hit a lot of jungle, but if you read some of the Vietnamese accounts, the arc-light strikes were devastating when they found their targets. And in a jungle environment, you dont necessarily have to have direct hits to impede the enemy. Turn a trail into a moon-scape and now you have to build a new trail (into Cambodia and Laos).

And don't underestimate the US propensity to NOT chose to keep the best system around (e.g., the A-10). Besides, they didn't need to build more of them, we had about 1,200 in service at the time, and only a small portion were modified to carry the iron bomb loads for SE Asia.

If it was theoretically possible to jam the JDAMs they could then literally pick about a dozen different types of long distance stand-off weapons instead.

The point is that the B52 proves that you can keep a WW2 design (large 4/8 engine bomber) and still carry out a variety of missions--strategic bombing (conventional and nuclear), tactical bombing, mining, cruise missile/stand-off attacks, anti-ship/ASW attacks, along with very effective ECM and anti-radar capabilities.
[/quote]

It is possible to jam JDAMs Russia and China have them. With stand offs the 4 Engines are not much more effective.

In nearly all cases except for line backer they were used against oponents with no or antiquated air defences.
You could have a Ju-87 add an ECM , anti- radar and it would be effective against these oponents.

My point is while they are built you may as well use them but they are not a cost effective design. Lets go back tothe B29 though as we are not talking about 4e in general.

[YankeeAirRat]

DARPA, DIA, and Office of Naval Research bought a few of GPS jammers that the Russians and Chinese defense companies were selling, along with a few that were found manufactured in the caves in Afghanistan. All of them found that the jammers only worked at the last 2 meters of the weapon's path and then introduced a 2 meter CEP around the jammer. At which point the sciencetists looked at it and basically ruled that the physics would still have the bomb hitting the target to rule the jammer ineffective.

As to the B-29 or any 4E bomber being cost effective in its mission. That is one of those beer debates that you can have till the keg is empty. Again the prophets at the time were saying that precision strategtic bombing could bring about political change to a nation with minimual involvement from ground troops. As it was shown later on, in some of those nations that suffered strategtic bombing on an almost daily event, there was no change in thier will and to an extent harden it. If you look at out of all the major nations that were involved in World War 2, only the Japanese, British, Germans, Italians, and Russians were subjected to strategtic bombing. Even the bombing that the British faced could really be considered theater bombing or tactical bombing since most of the targets prior to the start of the "terror" raids were against airfields, radar sites, naval bases, and army bases. So by those that listened to Douhet and others, those targets were not strategtic. Strategtic were those targets that produced the war making/fighting capabilities of a nation. So where the USAAF going after the engine factories or the ball bearing factories in some German or Japanese city makes it strategtic bombing effort.

[bklooste]

You do know the ones they are selling are NOT the ones their mil uses , they are low power and its for people like Osama and delivery drivers who want a smoko. GPS is just a very weak radio signal about -160db , a mobile phone signal is about 10 billion times stronger . The main reason for the test was to see whether terrorists or rogue states could get decent jammers. Also major powers can just shoot down the sats hence the investment in JDAMS while excelent and cost effective versus a 3rd rate state needs to be seen in that context. In the Iraq war the US had information from Russia ,detected the jamming signals and attacked them first , jamming tech is now much more advanced and jammers are likely not to be turned on until planes appear.
Also rather than jamming ,emmiting fake signals is probably better as instead of no information and using inertial guidance ( fancy word for dumb bomb) it would be incorrectly guided.

Agree in 1940 the view was it can bring about political change but i would have thought after the Blitz , Hamburg and Stalingrad they would know better in 45.

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

DARPA, DIA, and Office of Naval Research bought a few of GPS jammers that the Russians and Chinese defense companies were selling, along with a few that were found manufactured in the caves in Afghanistan. All of them found that the jammers only worked at the last 2 meters of the weapon's path and then introduced a 2 meter CEP around the jammer. At which point the sciencetists looked at it and basically ruled that the physics would still have the bomb hitting the target to rule the jammer ineffective.

As to the B-29 or any 4E bomber being cost effective in its mission. That is one of those beer debates that you can have till the keg is empty. Again the prophets at the time were saying that precision strategtic bombing could bring about political change to a nation with minimual involvement from ground troops. As it was shown later on, in some of those nations that suffered strategtic bombing on an almost daily event, there was no change in thier will and to an extent harden it. If you look at out of all the major nations that were involved in World War 2, only the Japanese, British, Germans, Italians, and Russians were subjected to strategtic bombing. Even the bombing that the British faced could really be considered theater bombing or tactical bombing since most of the targets prior to the start of the "terror" raids were against airfields, radar sites, naval bases, and army bases. So by those that listened to Douhet and others, those targets were not strategtic. Strategtic were those targets that produced the war making/fighting capabilities of a nation. So where the USAAF going after the engine factories or the ball bearing factories in some German or Japanese city makes it strategtic bombing effort.

[xj900uk]

You can do kamikaze attacks on Allied shipping, and IMO you shuold also have the ability to order your pilots to do kamikaze attacks on high-flying B29's (as I believe was done quite voluntarily by several pilots who ran out of ammo). In fact, you could argue that it was the suicide ramming attacks on teh B29's and their success (nothing else seemed to bring them down or make them turn back) that lead to the formation of the original 'thunder god' special attack corps to try it on shipping, first off Leyte and then elsewhere...

[usersatch]

I thought I read that German pilots would do something similar to the B17s--try to slice the bomber open with the wing of their aircraft and then bail out. Planes were plentiful, but pilots were not.

[sfbaytf]

In the combat report I uploaded on the other thread on Okinawa, there are the attacks on Japanese airfields. In the report you'll see plenty of pilots giving their lives for the Emperor by ramming B-29's. I don't know if these were regular pilots who decided to go postal or fighter squadrons that were converted to kamakazie status and scrambled when the B-29 raids were detected.

[Cap Mandrake]

I wouldn't discount that, when the contracts for the B-29 were let, that planners were thinking about more capable enemies than Japan. This would include the Germans, of course, but, by late 43 and certainly by 44, when it was pretty clear which side was going to win the war, Patton and Churchill weren't the only ones thinking about the Russkis.

The B-29 was an awesome tour de force of technological and scientific prowess partly designed to intimidate a potential opponent before the flag went up. Even leaving it in polished aluminum without paint was designed not just to save weight but to flaunt its superiority.

It is the same reason that certain Japanese cities were deliberatey NOT bombed with convential weapons in preparation for the blinding white light demonstration that was intended to be seen, in an allegorical sense, all the way in Moscow.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

In the combat report I uploaded on the other thread on Okinawa, there are the attacks on Japanese airfields. In the report you'll see plenty of pilots giving their lives for the Emperor by ramming B-29's. I don't know if these were regular pilots who decided to go postal or fighter squadrons that were converted to kamakazie status and scrambled when the B-29 raids were detected.

I know one pilot actually survived a deliberate ramming of a B29 he did some propaganda for 6 months than they sent him back to his anti B29 suicide unit. He didnt survive a second time.

[tocaff]

The B-29 was the only plane capable of doing the job needed. According to crewmen they loved the plane because it did the job and brought them home.  That in itself along with the fact that Japanese fighters tended to keep their distance or not press home attacks says it all.  Bomb your enemy into submission or invade and suffer horrendous loses, what would you choose to do as CIC of a war weary nation?

[topeverest]

While Japans fate clearly was sealed prior to the B29 reaching its full potential, the 29 certainly gutted many aspects of the war production capacity (and ability) of Japan in ways other bombers could not. It also was a necessary precursor to an assumed invasion of Japan, becasue contol of the skies was necessary to do that. It also was an huge morale booster for the Americans, knowing that major japanese cities were burned to the ground, even if many types of production items were able to continue.

I agree that these attacks increased Japan's will to fight, but if we assume the atomic bomb didnt work as planned, the war would have had to go on. The 29 was the key resource to take away Japan's ability to continue a meaninful struggle over any period of time.

In this it paid back in spades.

[Zemke]

Boeing built the first prototype in 1939, according to their web site. This tells me the US Army was looking ahead at several things, (1) A replacement bomber for the B-17 and B-24, (2) IF England fell, a way to strike Europe from North America. Like most weapons programs today, I don't think anyone really knew the true costs, and as always, proponents of a new weapons program will play up the capabilities and down play the real costs. We must also keep in mind the US Army Air Corps was focused on strategic bombing and like the RAF, thought it would be a "War Winner", (and we still have that mind set today, but that is another conversation). Anyway, as a US Army Officer, I have often wished the Army had it's own tactical air support like the Marines, as the USAF focus today is still NOT tactical air, but 200 million dollar fighters (F-22) with no one to shoot down, and 2 billion dollar B-1s being used in many cases as tactical close air support by dropping JDAMs, while the most effective close air support air craft, the A-10 is no longer even in production and is over 25 years old. Hell I would even bring back the old Sky-raiders, they could carry a huge payload, stay over the target for long periods and flew slow enough to really see what is taking place on the ground.........but I way off topic now, grinding my own person axe, sorry.

[sfbaytf]

Some time ago I heard some mention of the Air Force turning over their A-10's to the Army. Guess that didn't go anywhere.

[usersatch]

Yeah, I read that, too. Right now, still USAF, USAFR, and ANG. I had read that they were supposed to start production again. It would be nice, but I can't see it happening since you can do the job of one plane with two (Apache and B52/F18F) for double the price!!!

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Some time ago I heard some mention of the Air Force turning over their A-10's to the Army. Guess that didn't go anywhere.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

Boeing built the first prototype in 1939, according to their web site. This tells me the US Army was looking ahead at several things, (1) A replacement bomber for the B-17 and B-24, (2) IF England fell, a way to strike Europe from North America.

Sorry that cant be right, in 39 no one had an inkling France would fall yet alone the Uk. France had the greatest army on earth pre 1940 according to most army experts.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: topeverest


I agree that these attacks increased Japan's will to fight, but if we assume the atomic bomb didnt work as planned, the war would have had to go on. The 29 was the key resource to take away Japan's ability to continue a meaninful struggle over any period of time.

In this it paid back in spades.

They could have got it onto another plane probably also once the Russians attack and crush Manchuko Japan will prob surrender anyway. It was getting pretty pointless.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

Boeing built the first prototype in 1939, according to their web site. This tells me the US Army was looking ahead at several things, (1) A replacement bomber for the B-17 and B-24, (2) IF England fell, a way to strike Europe from North America. Like most weapons programs today, I don't think anyone really knew the true costs, and as always, proponents of a new weapons program will play up the capabilities and down play the real costs. We must also keep in mind the US Army Air Corps was focused on strategic bombing and like the RAF, thought it would be a "War Winner", (and we still have that mind set today, but that is another conversation). Anyway, as a US Army Officer, I have often wished the Army had it's own tactical air support like the Marines, as the USAF focus today is still NOT tactical air, but 200 million dollar fighters (F-22) with no one to shoot down, and 2 billion dollar B-1s being used in many cases as tactical close air support by dropping JDAMs, while the most effective close air support air craft, the A-10 is no longer even in production and is over 25 years old. Hell I would even bring back the old Sky-raiders, they could carry a huge payload, stay over the target for long periods and flew slow enough to really see what is taking place on the ground.........but I way off topic now, grinding my own person axe, sorry.

what are all those F-18 and F-15 for? Thought those would do most of the ground support nowadays?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

what are all those F-18 and F-15 for? Thought those would do most of the ground support nowadays?

The difference these days with video recordings that show when politicians are lying is that now the politicians have video recordings to ignore!

[John Lansford]

F-18 and F-15's are really too fast to perform close air support very well.  By the time the pilot has found and identified the target, he's already on top of it.  The LGB packages these planes now carry helps, but those are secondary missions for what are basically air superiority fighters (except for the F-15E's, they're specialized ground attack planes).
 
The ideal CAS plane would be something like the A-10 or A1 Skyraider, carries a lot of ordinance, good range and loiter time, survivable and not too fast to be able to find the target.  The USAF didn't want to subordinate its mission to that of the ground forces, so they never had any interest in planes like the A-10.  Fighters are a lot sexier, after all.