question B29

[Joris]

Were B29 bombers ever used on the western front / ETO?

[Adrian Barrell]

Not used for bombing during the war, though one did a tour of bases as an introduction so presumably intended for deployment. The Royal Air Force based them at Marham in Norfolk post-war.

[antarmike]

In RAF service they were known as Washingtons. Based at Watton and Coningsby (and briefly Waddington) as well as Marham.

The Americans deployed them during the Berlin Airlift, but no wartime service in Europe.

http://www.rafwatton.info/History/TheWashington/tabid/90/Default.aspx

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmarham/aboutus/rafmarham195053.cfm

B29 Washington Squadrons,

RAF Marham

No. 35 Squadron RAF

No. 90 Squadron RAF

No. 115 Squadron RAF

No. 207 Squadron RAF

RAF Coningsby

No. 15 Squadron RAF

No. 44 Squadron RAF

No. 57 Squadron RAF (moved from RAF Waddington in April 1952)

No. 149 Squadron RAF

RAF Watton

No. 192 Squadron RAF operated Washingtons between April 1952 and February 1958

Edited April 24, 2010 by antarmike

[N.O.S.]

Joris - from the information I can find, the reason the B29 was not used in European theatre was that in December 1943 (the maiden flight was Sep 42) it was decided to send the B29s to the Pacific instead of Europe (as presumably originally intended), where their longer range could be used to greater advantage - given the long distances over water needed to reach targets.

 

One cannot help but wonder what effect their use in Europe might have had on the war given their carrying capacity compared with B24s and B17s.

 

It's not that easy to compare payloads - some figures I've found are B29 max. payload 20,000lbs, B17 max. payload 17,600lbs but typically 4,500 - 8,000lbs of bombs depending on distance to target, so presumably quoted max. payload includes fuel?

 

For a given distance I'd have expected the B29 to be carrying a lot more payload than a B17. Over to the experts?

Edited April 24, 2010 by N.O.S.

[antarmike]

The Tu-4 also flew in europe from late in the 1940's. Essentially a Russian copy of the B-29, it was almost 1.4Tonnes heavier, since the russians could not copy the 16 SWG aluminium skin, and corresponding rivet lengths, so it was built with metric Aluminium sheet and bombload, and range did not compare with the B29/ Washington.

[antarmike]

Joris - from the information I can find, the reason the B29 was not used in European theatre was that in December 1943 (the maiden flight was Sep 42) it was decided to send the B29s to the Pacific instead of Europe (as presumably originally intended), where their longer range could be used to greater advantage - given the long distances over water needed to reach targets.

 

One cannot help but wonder what effect their use in Europe might have had on the war given their carrying capacity compared with B24s and B17s.

 

It's not that easy to compare payloads - some figures I've found are B29 max. payload 20,000lbs, B17 max. payload 17,600lbs but typically 4,500 - 8,000lbs of bombs depending on distance to target, so presumably quoted max. payload includes fuel?

 

For a given distance I'd have expected the B29 to be carrying a lot more payload than a B17. Over to the experts?

 

B29 carrying two American built versions of the 10 ton Gand Slam, (the T14 bomb). Intended for use against Japan, this bomb load is twice anything the Lancaster ever managed.

 

The B29 also flew with the American T12 a 20 ton Earthquake bomb, before the B-36 took over trial development of this weapon.

Edited April 24, 2010 by antarmike

[Joris]

Thanks for the answers lads! Learn something new here every day!

 

I dont think the B29 would have made a difference in the ETO. More bombs would not have shortened the war imho.

[steveo578]

Joris

I dont think the B29 would have made a difference in the ETO. More bombs would not have shortened the war imho.

 

 

Fair point, however it probably would have meant reduced crew losses especially if used as originally configured at high altitude.

 

If I remember correctly the B29 was primiarly designed to be used in ETO as a long range atlantic bomber but obviously at that range -New York-Hamburg and back would have reduced to the bomb load to a B17.

 

One reason for its inital use in SEATO was it ability to carry freight "over the hump" across the himalyias from India to China.

 

Steve

Edited April 26, 2010 by steveo578
addition

[antarmike]

Fair point, however it probably would have meant reduced crew losses especially if used as originally configured at high altitude.

 

If I remember correctly the B29 was primiarly designed to be used in ETO as a long range atlantic bomber but obviously at that range -New York-Hamburg and back would have reduced to the bomb load to a B17.

 

One reason for its inital use in SEATO was it ability to carry freight "over the hump" across the himalyias from India to China.

 

Steve

 

And a faster cruising speed than the B17 would mean less time over hostile territory, thus reducing casualties. The Maximum speed was also greater, so in a pursuit situation the B29 had a better chance of outrunning an attcker.

Edited April 26, 2010 by antarmike

[Jessie The Jeep]

The B-29 may have also suffered less engine overheating problems in Europe.

[agripper]

if the payload of teh B29 is 20,000 lbs and the lancs for 22,000 lbs Is not the Lanc the one capable of a heavier bomb load? If the RAF had used Mosquitoswith the bomb load they could carry plus there speed more aircrew lives could have been saved and reduced the needed for support fighters. Not to mention higher accuracy.

[Jessie The Jeep]

I believe the normal payload of the B-29 was 20,000lbs, where the Lanc was at its MAX load at 22,000lbs with the Grand Slam. I think the Lanc's normal load was 14,000lbs. The photo in the previous post shows the B-29 with TWO sand filled Grand Slams undergoing handling tests in the USA.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Jessie The Jeep

[Joris]

The B-29 may have also suffered less engine overheating problems in Europe.

 

Was this a serious problem of the B17?

[Jessie The Jeep]

No, but early B-29's in the Pacific had many overheating problems and engine fires. I wondered whether the colder wetter climate in Europe would have helped the engines of the B-29.

[Adrian Barrell]

It's pretty cold at B-29 altitudes no matter what theatre! I think the engines were and indeed are unreliable.

[Jessie The Jeep]

I would have thought that initial climb temperature would be higher at the latitude of bases like Tinian, plus many B-29 raids were low to mid altitude rather than high altitude like the B-17's and B-24's.

 

Also just found this from Wiki "the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat.

 

 

Interior photo of the rear pressurized cabin of the B-29 Superfortress, June 1944These weaknesses combined to make an engine that overheated regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff."

[Adrian Barrell]

True. Ambient temps would be higher in that theatre and take off and climb is always the hardest on cylinder temps. The CAF are building their own hybrid R-3350 engines because the B-29 engines have always had a short life even in civilian operation.

[steveo578]

Jessie The Jeep

I would have thought that initial climb temperature would be higher at the latitude of bases like Tinian, plus many B-29 raids were low to mid altitude rather than high altitude like the B-17's and B-24's.

 

 

Yes, it was a cause for concern for the A Bomb operations from tinian that the heavily loaded aircraft would blow an engine on take off, hence the development of the B29c and D and B50 and the need at great cost to take Iwo-Jima as a short stop for aircraft unable to return to Tinian or Guam

 

My point that if B29s had been used in Europe they would probably be used at high attitude was due to effective A/A and interceptors, the B29 had been designed to overfly contemporary 8.8cm FlaK 18 at in excess of 9000meter effective firing ceiling and at that altitude it would take 10 minutes for even a ME262 to climb to that altitiude by which time the 350mph of the B29 would distance itself.

 

In Japan by mid 1945 air defence was declining rapidly -by August even low altitude aircraft such as RB32 could operate with relative impunity.

[antarmike]

Yes, it was a cause for concern for the A Bomb operations from tinian that the heavily loaded aircraft would blow an engine on take off, hence the development of the B29c and D and B50 and the need at great cost to take Iwo-Jima as a short stop for aircraft unable to return to Tinian or Guam

 

My point that if B29s had been used in Europe they would probably be used at high attitude was due to effective A/A and interceptors, the B29 had been designed to overfly contemporary 8.8cm FlaK 18 at in excess of 9000meter effective firing ceiling and at that altitude it would take 10 minutes for even a ME262 to climb to that altitiude by which time the 350mph of the B29 would distance itself.

 

In Japan by mid 1945 air defence was declining rapidly -by August even low altitude aircraft such as RB32 could operate with relative impunity.

 

If I understand correctly high altitude missions were abandoned over Japan, because of the effects of the jet stream. The aircraft could either not make any headway against the wind or , if flying with the wind, was too fast for the bombsight to work, Surely the jetsteam regularly crosses Britain, and Europe, so surely exactly the same reasons would have prevented the B29 operating at its maximum ceiling over the ETO.

 

Or am I missing something here?

[Adrian Barrell]

The B-29 service ceiling was not much different to the B-17. Both were within the jetstreams level in theory.

[steveo578]

antarmike

Surely the jetsteam regularly crosses Britain, and Europe, so surely exactly the same reasons would have prevented the B29 operating at its maximum ceiling over the ETO.

 

Or am I missing something here?

 

 

In way you are correct, however when the B29 was designed no-one had heard of the Jet Stream -the Japanese guy who got his D.phil for it published the paper in Japanese and Esperanto so westerners were not aware of it, hence the surprise caused by the balloon bombs.

 

The Jet Stream tends to move about within a given range over a period of time normally several years the UK/European one moves from northern scandinavia to the alps . At the moment a plane could fly from Lincolnshire to Berlin at 10,000 metres without encountering it as it loops southward across the western UK runs across southern France/Germany looping around the German/polish border and then heads north again into Russia. In 1944-45 the Jet stream was encountered over Japan and was faily constitant at that time.

 

What the sitiuation was for the Jetstream was in wartime europe I don't know -I doubt there was any information recorded for it as it would be unknow to all but only a few western meterologists.