Problem is, the US never really got the turrets working properly on the B-29 (IIRC they were stripped out post-war to increase the speed/ceiling - this was certainly done with the B-36).
The real advantage of the B-29 was the ability to fly high and fast, something only really the Mosquito was also able to do.
Problem is, the US never really got the turrets working properly on the B-29 (IIRC they were stripped out post-war to increase the speed/ceiling - this was certainly done with the B-36).
The real advantage of the B-29 was the ability to fly high and fast, something only really the Mosquito was also able to do.[/quote]
Only reeealy got them to work…
Only reeeealy the Mosquito…
Uh huh. You work in the media, right? :roll:
I think if you read his military service record it doesnt involve the Media,
What is your military service incidentally (not entirely related to bombers of course but more the infantry knowledge you were earlier displaying)
Wasn’t the B29 misemployed at relatively low level in raids on Japan? I seem to recall this from McNamara’s “Fog of War” documentary.
Correction about the above. The Lancaster was able to carry 22 000 pounds, the heaviest load of any bomber during WW2.
A great film for every to watch. Actually McNamara urged LeMay to deploy the bomber at a lower altitude for greater efficency. I never knew(untill I watched this movie) how much damage we did to Japan even before we dropped the Abombs.
A great film for every to watch. Actually McNamara urged LeMay to deploy the bomber at a lower altitude for greater efficency.
I remember now! It was because the faster and higher B29s were far less accurate - their bombs fell on a wider area.
I suppose it had inferior landing gear because it was prettier too eh? :lol:
Living with such compulsions must be agony.
suppose it had inferior landing gear because it was prettier too eh?
Living with such compulsions must be agony.
Alas, it is physics…
If the aircraft flies higher it takes longer for the bombs to hit the ground.
The bombs have a forward momentum as well as a downwards terminal velocity.
If the aircraft flies faster, the forward momentum of the bombs is greater.
If the aircraft flies faster, the bombs will be dispersed over a wider area.
If the forward momentum is greater, so is the margin of error in aiming.
Please don’t tell me you are going to pick a fight with Robert McNamara?!? He’s old for a start. He has learned a lot painfully, and was no fool to start with.
Nope, I’m a professional engineer working on high speed turbopumps and have an (MEng) degree in both Aeronautical and Mechanical engineering. I’m also an AMIMechE, and when I get around to it will also be an AMRAeS. I should get my CEng, MIMechE and MRAeS in 3 years or so.
I know you’re going to claim I’m lying here, so should a mod wish to verify this, I’m quite happy to do so - they should PM me for details. I’m not willing to post my details in public, but am quite happy to give them and a way of verifying them to any mod you care to mention on this site or one or two others.
The major benefit of the low-level fire raids was in bomb concentration - IIRC for much of the time the jetstream winds are parked right above much of Japan, and played havoc with the bomb aiming. The shift to low-level raids allowed much higher bomb concentrations, which are critical in the efficient starting of firestorms.
Had the fire raids been carried out in daylight, the B-29s would have had to stay high. When running high/fast (as it would be on penetration and over the target) a B-29 was right on the ragged edge of what the Japanese could actually intercept, making escort fighters largely unnecessary (this continued with the B-36, which was effectively uninterceptible until the mid 1950s). Since the Japanese nightfighter defences were so primitive the B-29s could come in low and (relatively) slow with practical impunity, giving much better bomb concentrations and so better firestorms.
Incidentally, the fire raids did have valid military targets. The dispersed nature of Japanese industry of the time (very dispersed indeed - I’ve seen figures suggesting every fourth house in Tokyo was involved in some way or another fabricating military equipment, spread out over the entire city) meant the only way to deal with the industry was to destroy the city.
I would strongly dispute that - IMHO he was probably the worst thing to happen to the US since WW2. Many of his “reforms” (ditching “obselete” manned bombers in favour of missiles for example, while scrapping working missile defence projects to ensure the ICBMs remained “uninterceptable” is a classic example) made both the US and the world as a whole a much more dangerous place. Another example was his demand that since the F-110 Sceptre and F4H-1 Phantom were being developed for the USAF and USN but had almost identical performance, one should be scrapped to save money. Both aircraft were of course what is now known as the F-4 Phantom.
Incidentally, I’ve recently seen an article where he decries the state where the US president has only minutes to react to a missile attack - all because of reforms he himself pushed through. Cnut!
ironman, if you dont like someone’s post, you have the right to ignore it
insulting the others does not help
So, the faster the bomber, the less worthy it is? Good gracious! You are trying to support your opinion that one bomber is better than another because it was slower?
…who thinks a jet engine twice the size of another weighs about the same, and other such curiosities?
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
So the more recent the bomber, the faster it is, the less accurate and worthwhile it is? Good gracious. You are trying to support your opinion with ludicrous reasoning.[/quote]
The conclusions drawn by Voluntary Escaper seem entirely reasonable for unguided bombs, but not true for guided ones. As guided weaponary was very much in its infancy during the period in question, I’d say VE’s statement is correct as a generalisation, even though it is no longer true given the predominance of guided weapons used in modern warfare.
FOR F*CK’S SAKE IRONMAN! Once you’ve posted something, leave it be OR include a brief note explaining what you’ve changed.
So the more recent the bomber, the faster it is, the less accurate and worthwhile it is? Good gracious. You are trying to support your opinion with ludicrous reasoning.[/quote]
The conclusions drawn by Voluntary Escaper seem entirely reasonable for unguided bombs, but not true for guided ones. As guided weaponary was very much in its infancy during the period in question, I’d say VE’s statement is correct as a generalisation, even though it is no longer true given the predominance of guided weapons used in modern warfare.[/quote]
glided missiles in world war 2 are fist use by the german, but they are not very effective as the allies would jam their signals and send the missiles to a wrong direction instead of the target
Apparently HMS Warspite was damaged using a Fritz X anti-ship missile. An Italian warship was sunk by one. The Fritz X was first used in 1943.
The point I was trying to make was that as a sweeping statement, VE was right, as the vast majority of bombs dropped were unguided, even if some guided weapons were used.
yeah, they are effective in the initial period, but as soon as the allies knows how to jam them, they are no longer effective
and i agree to VE too, thanks for the info though
Ironman is also ignoring the differing methods used in bombing and vast improvements in predictive aiming.
In WWII strategic bombers simply flew straight and level over the target, opened their bays and disgorged their load leading to the scattering previously described. This still happens, look at the huge swathes of countryside devastated by unguided bombs from B52s in Vietnam, the first Gulf War and Afghanistan. One of the reasons that strategic bombers carry such heavy loads is to set up a “shotgun” effect where sheer numbers of bombs compensate for their inherent inaccuracy.
High speed strike aircraft, on the other hand, when dropping unguided ordnance use a selection of methods to aid accuracy. They either drop from low altitude - often a few hundred feet - at high speed or use divebombing techniques to point the bomb at the target before release. Modern jets are aided in this by computers that place an impact prediction on the HUD.
Edited for spelling.
So, the faster the bomber, the less worthy it is? Good gracious! You are trying to support your opinion that one bomber is better than another because it was slower?
That is an interesting argument and it appears in the case of the B-29 that it has some truth, with regard to the accuracy of bomb aiming! I wonder what effect flying slower and lower had on fuel consumption, fuel load and consequently bomb load.
I was referring to the WW2 practice of opening the bomb doors and simply dropping them. Does anyone have any information about how bomb aiming evolved during/after WW2? The reduced accuracy of the B29 must have set some minds working.
When the fighter-bomber entered service, the technique evolved so that the aircraft tossed the dumb bomb into a ballistic path according to a predicted impact point. This preceded guided munitions and I am sure that there are many who could describe the workings of these!
There are many viewpoints regarding McNamara but I would humbly point out that Rumsfeld is certainly no improvement!
And your argument that the British bomber is better than the American one is based on the fact that the American bomber was faster and therefore it dropped it’s bombs with less accuracy?
Good gracious boy. Stiffle yourself.
Actully, the American bomber was better because the British bomber was painted a brownish color which absobs more light and that makes it too hot to be comfortable in.
See how much sence that makes? Stiffle yourself. The B-29 was faster and you hate that hence you find some way to support your claim that the British bomber was better by using the better speed of the B-29 as some kind of supposed disadvantage when fighters are chasing it to shoot it down. :roll: :roll:
Stiffle yourself!