Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
  • Welcome to the forum!

    Welcome to the War History Online Community Forum, please register or login to start commenting.

Stephen N Russell

WW2 stragetic bomber concepts

Recommended Posts

What if the US did fund Long range bombers & we had these in WW2:

B29

B30 Connie bomber

B19

B32.

& YB49.

What would  outcome belike for Pacific area alone asideETO.

B17s would be be delegated to Lifeboat service to save crews & Maritime patrol  over convoys inbound to UK.

What If if funding & tech issues No problem.

Imagine 10 squadrons of B19s bombing Japan with its bomb load  alone.

Or B19s raiding Japan from Alaska vs Doolittle Raid by B25.

Ideas, comments.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the possibilities if the B29 would have been used in ETO.  Sure the PTO was longer range and that was important. But consider the addition of a squardron in europe . They could have flown over flak and had much longer range and time on target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it the big problem with the USA bomber program in WW2 was the lack of ability to carry a decent sized bomb, coupled with accuracy problems in aiming the bombs.  The B-29 for instance could not carry the 22.000 lb "Grand Slam" internally, though able to be modified to carry two EXTERNALLY. (What the effects of two of these, mounted externally, on take-off performance would be I would rather not imagine, the B-29 was a bitch anyway on British_Grand_Slam_bomb.jpg.aa4f2ad732440a82fb28e39ab0607b53.jpg

take-off due to having a non-steerable nose wheel, causing its engines to overheat after being used to steer the aircraft.)  Accuracy is also something which needs to be taken into account, the idea of one aircraft aiming and the rest of the formation toggling when they see the lead ship unload would seem to be counter productive to accuracy.  I realise that the discussion includes the proviso " What If if funding & tech issues No problem."  However, as can be seen by looking at the engine reliability problems of the B-29 alone this is a very big "What if."

With further reference to the idea of introducing squadrons of B-29s to the ETO, I admit that the ability to cruise above the flak and fighters is a nice idea, but given that the European weather is frequently clouded over from that height, accuracy of bombing (already suspect) would be further compromised except on the clearest of days.  Even No 617 Squadron of the RAF, who had arguably the highest accuracy of any unit in the bomber offensive (No 9 Squadron bomb aimers would probably argue that one), had to bring their bomb back when they could not see the target, and this was from the much lower altitude of between sixteen and twenty thousand feet.  Europe does not have the "gin clear" skies of the PTO, and even there the B-29s were attacking at medium altitude due to accuracy problems and also at night to try to bring down losses, as RAF Bomber Command had done much earlier in the European theater before the Americans entered the war.

For further information see:

The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany. 4 volumes. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1961. official British history and co-authored by Noble Frankland and Sir Charles Webster

Bomber Offensive: The Devastation of Europe by Noble Frankland (Ballantine's Illustrated History of World War II. Campaign Book no. 7, 1970)

Whirlwind: The Air War Against Japan, 1942-1945, by Barrett Tillman, Simon & Schuster UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 When you want to use the big bombs you have a time disconnect in Europe because the big bomb targets, Ruhr, Ploesti, Turpitz, and some others had already been hit and destroyed by greater effort before the big bombers were operational .  That in reality is why we never got around to using them. IIRC wasn't there an attempt to send the 29 to ETO, like the one Greenermyer dug out of the ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen, try researching Barnes Wallis and his "Victory Bomber". Barnes Wallis was the man who came up with the idea of the "Bouncing Bomb" used by the Dam Busters. He also designed the Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs. But his BIG idea, from early in the war had been for a few massive strategic bombers, able to cruise at very great heights and to carry just ONE big bomb each.The bomb, when dropped, would bury itself deep in the ground before exploding, and produce a result very like an earthquake, sending a massive shockwave through the ground. The result, in theory, would have been much like the Atomic bomb - "one bomb, one city" You can't fight a war if your major engineering capacity lies in ruins as the result of a "synthetic earthquake."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Bomber

Quote

The British "Victory Bomber" was a Second World War design proposal by British inventor and aircraft designer Barnes Wallis while at Vickers-Armstrongs for a large strategic bomber. This aircraft was to have performed what Wallis referred to as "anti-civil engineering" bombing missions and was to have carried his projected 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) "earthquake bomb" to strategic targets in Germany. The Victory Bomber was considered to be extremely ambitious, the Royal Air Force (RAF) at that time not yet having introduced four-engine heavy bombers and to give the necessary performance, the Victory Bomber was to have six engines and was highly specialised to its role.

The project was studied in detail, the bomber proceeding to wind tunnel testing while the earthquake bomb to equip it was tested on representative models. The Air Ministry choose not proceed with development of the Victory Bomber, terminating it in May 1941. No prototypes were built but the Avro Lancaster utilized a similar role as well as being fitted with a similar armament array. The Lancaster used Wallis' Bouncing bomb during Operation Chastise to perform the famous "Dambusters" mission.

 

vickers_victory_bomber_canard_concept_blueprint.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/03/2018 at 4:49 PM, Robert Follis said:

 When you want to use the big bombs you have a time disconnect in Europe because the big bomb targets, Ruhr, Ploesti, Turpitz, and some others had already been hit and destroyed by greater effort before the big bombers were operational .  That in reality is why we never got around to using them. IIRC wasn't there an attempt to send the 29 to ETO, like the one Greenermyer dug out of the ice.

If you research No 617 Squadron RAF (along with No 9 Squadron RAF) you will find that they destroyed the Tirpitz using the "smaller" big bomb Tallboy, which "weighed in" at 12,000 lbs.  The largest single bomb capable of being carried by the B-17 due to its small bomb bay was 1000 lbs in wieight.  (It should be remembered however that the US classified it's bombers not by weight carrying ability, but by size, armour protection and armament)

tallboy1.gif.cc09049e6d2ed39c78dbdbf08e495d2d.gif 

These bombs were also used against the V1, V2 and V3 concrete bunker launching sites in France with pretty impressive results.  The 22,000 lbs Grand Slam was first used in anger against the Bielefeld Viaduct only hours after the first bomb was tested in the New Forest in Southern England.  In all some 40+ Grand Slams were used by the Royal Air Force in the last two and a half months of the Second World War in Europe.  Targets included U-Boat pens in Hamburg as well as strategically important rail targets all over Germany.  Of course, none of this would have been possible without the fitting of the Avro Lancasters of 617 Squadron with the Stabilising Automatic Bomb Sight.  Some other Squadrons, most notably No 9 Squadron RAF, arguably, became as accurate with the Mk XIV bomb sight.  It should also be noted that the RAF equipped all their bombers such that each aircraft aimed it's own bomb, there was no "toggling" when the lead ship dropped its load, this leading to greater accruacy than could ever be achieved with the "area bombing" technique used by the 8th Air Force bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end of the day this has to do with timing, and technological ability, and maybe foresight?

The B19 came in 1946. The war was over.

Timing is everything. It was about B17, (and holy moly did young Americans crews die in them until the P51 could provide escort) and B25, mostly. Those were the ones the factories were spitting out at the time. The bombing of Germany in daytime is something I personally never understood, but of course placing your bombs exactly where you wanted them might have had something to do with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If memory serves me correctly, the B-29 program was initiated in the [then] likelihood that Britain would fall, and the U.S. would have to mount trans-Atlantic bombing raids on our former ally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How plausable was that? If England had fallen, mass starvation would have followed.  B-29 bombers against Britain in such a scenario? Hardly likely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Stephen N Russell
      Wkipediaied  the Ploesti Raid & one thing stands  out:
      No Intel from any if partisan units to the Allies on German AA defenses etc.
      or did I miss  something.
      Or was area under total Nazi control & no gueriila efforts in area during raid.
       
       
    • By Nameless556
      The reasons they lost the war:
       
      1 They did not just take out Britain after the blitz of France, Belgium etc.  
      Yes I am  aware it would still be very difficult for the Nazis to do this.
       
      2 Invade Russia without enough materials, Tanks, Guns, men.
       
      If they had also gotten Japan to invade Siberia.
      Waited  to gather oil from Romania,
      Not halt the Strumgewer program
      and just more men.
       
      Have Japan wait to get the united States in the war.
      If Japan would have waited they could very well had a better chance of winning the war.
       
       
      Less Submarines more cruisers.  If the Nazis had built more cruisers, battleships.  
       
      They could have put more of a strain on the British war effort. 
       

      Better anti aircraft guns. 
       
      If this was done the Nazi war effort would have been much less effective.  
    • By Stephen N Russell
      Just read on WH about an average German who knew  of the Nazi atrocities being done.
      & feel for those Germans when they knew of the Jews being sent East & concentration camps being erected to send them  to the Death camps.
      & if any Germans living in Poland after 1939 noticed the ash from cremation of the Jews in the said Death Camps??
      Opens up a whole  new  yarn to German knowledge  of Nazi crimes.
      To run Poland etc they had to have employees run said cities etc thus average Germans in Poland would know about death camps, or how could use explain ash??
      Am I right or was Poland under total Military control& No civilian Germans came to aid running  of Govt.??
       
       
    • By Adam R
      Hitler at first underestimated Stalin describing his government as "nothing more than an international criminal ring". But when the war in the East turned, Hitler realised he had an equally formidable and ruthless opponent, "he (Stalin) is a hell of a fellow, in his own way" said Hitler (quote from Albert Speer's memoirs). 
      Hitler and Stalin were responsible for millions of deaths, wars, invasions, war crimes and atrocities.
      Who do you think was worse amongst these twentieth century despots? 
    • By Stephen N Russell
      Anyone know about Gen MacArthurs personal B17 " Bataan"??
      Checked online & No photos,, specs, tech on plane when in use.
      & same for Ikes personal  plane for use in ETO, same modified B17 or other cargo plane type.
      Or served in Air Units that flew  planes.
       
       
       
       
       
       
×