B-29 -why not in the European theatre?

[HP42]

Just sitting here puffing on the thought pipe  . Why was the B-29 never deployed in Europe? It was far more capable than the B-17 and probably stood better chance of surviving than the B-17 due to speed and altitude. I do wonder if the German piston fighters would have had as much success downing them. I guess it was best suited to the Japanese theatre due to range so they were all sent that way and that B-17 production was in place and geared up.

 

Makes you wonder what would have happened if Japan had given up a year early and they'd been available in Europe. Discuss... :-)

 

Phil 

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

You answered your own question

 

The B29 was the only practical solution for reaching the Japanese mainland. The whole of Germany was accessible by all the rest of the types by the time the B29 was available in numbers.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

My belief is they originally were designed for Europe in case Britain had fallen. But with testing and construction delays, coupled with the fact that Allied air superiorty over much of  Europe had been established. It was not needed there so the USAAF deployed to the CBI/Pacific theaters where altitude over the Hump and Range against japanese targets was needed. 

     The B-36 had been ordered for the same reason in case Britain had fallen.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Corsairfoxfouruncle
Added

[stevehnz]

2 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

   The B-36 had been ordered for the same reason in case Britain had fallen.

This last line had a whole Luft 46 scenario flashing in front of me, massed fleets of B-36s operating across the Atlantic to be met with German jets. Simply scary.

Steve.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Yes i can see that scenario ... thank god britain held. 

[Sabrejet]

B-29s were deployed in Europe: OK not in large numbers, but they were placed in Europe on TDY up to the late '50's/early '60s (later in KB-29 form).

 

Many of the early deployments were to train fighter pilots and controllers in the interception of the similar Soviet Tu-4.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

True Saberjet ... and the RAF had the B-29 Washington bomber. 

 

Though the idea of a whif as an allied version of Luft'46 of either a B-29 or B-36 would make for an interesting build? 

Edited September 10, 2017 by Corsairfoxfouruncle

[Thud4444]

The official statement was that it was superfluous and was not really ready in time. But according to Lemay, the war in Europe was winding down and most bomber raids that where being staged had little effect on the war by the time the B29 had all the kinks ironed out.  He wrote they where mostly being used to lure the Luftwaffe out of hiding so the American fighters could destroy them. ( hence the high visibility markings) But in Asia it could actually  help bring about an allied victory. He was the main proponent of adopting RAF tactics with the B29. Which made him famous or infamous, depending on who you ask. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Thud4444

[Daniel Cox]

The first Boeing B-29 Superfortress to reach Great Britain was YB-29 41-36963, which arrived during March 1944 and left for the United States early in May 1944.

 

"Boeing B-29 SUPERFORTRESS

Had the war in Europe continued into the summer and autumn of 1945, it was planned that nine B-29 groups would be based in the UK. This was to be achieved by converting groups in the 2nd Division from the B-24. At the close of 1944 it was expected that this would take place between June and September, although lengthening of runways at suitable bases had yet to be put in hand. Boscombe Down was proposed as the location of a conversion and training establishment. The plan was apparently abandoned in February 1945." ¹

 

¹ Freeman, Roger A. The Mighty Eight, War Manual, Arms and Armour, London, 1991. 205. Print.

 

 

[Ossington 2]

I get the feeling that this B-29 visit was to give Germany a strong hint of what potentially might be coming their way. A threat that had to be countered with more R&D at a time when maximum production of existing types was needed to replace attrition. 

[Daniel Cox]

Freeman claims the visit of 41-36963 was for tactical and technical evaluative purposes. Plus was also used as an opportunity to attempt to mislead the Germans into thinking that deployment of the type was imminent.

[old thumper]

I think it was simply a case of putting the B-29 where it was needed the most.

American factories were still producing the older bombers right up until the end of the war, but if Japan had quit fighting earlier then production would probably have ended sooner and the B-29 would have been sent to Great Britain.

Good point about the B-17 formations being used as fighter bait to destroy the Luftwaffe. If the German fighters had been useless against the B-29, then presumably they would have been used elsewhere, or the resources diverted to other weapons, or possibly used more against the east. My own view is that the B-29 would have done the same job as the B-24 and B-17 only quicker and more thoroughly.  

I have always felt that is was myth that the Eighth Air Force precision bombed in Europe as they bombed over such wide areas.  For me precision bombing in WW2 was the sort of thing we saw carried out by 617 Squadron and by RAF Mosquitoes. The most accurate bombing by the Americans was probably that done by the Ninth Air Force using the B-26 and other twin engined types. 

[JosephLalor]

15 hours ago, stevehnz said:

This last line had a whole Luft 46 scenario flashing in front of me, massed fleets of B-36s operating across the Atlantic to be met with German jets. Simply scary.

Steve.

Scott van Aken did an alternative history review on Modeling Madness of Pioneer's kit of the Fw183 which had a backstory about 9/JG92 intercepting B-36s from a base at Gurteenulla in Co Cork in June 1946

Edited September 11, 2017 by JosephLalor

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Correct in your assessment sir of the accuracy. However the Accuracy assumption was based on the prewar belief the Norden bombsight was the best thing invented. In actual use it had an ok hit accuracy of 30-60%. In a war that didnt really use ( gave birth to) precision munitions that was considered stellar. When you consder most iron (dumb) bombs from 8th and 15th AF bombers were dropped from 20,000+ feet. From an aircraft moving 160-190 mph sometimes through partial cloud cover. 30-60% seems fairly accurate. I wont mention the RAF's even less accurate night bombing percentages. It was considered accurate if you hit the correct city.or half of the city that contained the Target. Ive read books describing the results and goals that were set forth and met by bomber command.  I salute the RAF crews that went up in the dark not knowing if they'd even come back. Night after night. My favorite bomber is the Lancaster. I respect the RAF for its history and fighting spirit in WW2. So please don't get me wrong on this.

     The medium bomber types granted were more accurate. That they suffered serious losses at lower altitudes from flak and fighters you didnt mention. And those losses led to the types being used in other manners in most theaters. 

     We know better today that it was piddle poor. But thats due to the fact we have seen real time imagery of Smart bombs being used since the first desert storm. And have the benefit of being able to look back through time in judgement. I disagree with the idea the bombers were stripped back to NMF so as to lure the Germans out. The B-17 gained speed when stripped back as well as fuel efficiency. Ive read the B-17 carried serious weight in paint. Those are the reason fighters and bombers got stripped to NMF. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Corsairfoxfouruncle
Additional

[Caerbannog]

Paint, especially dull one, increases drag. So when the Allied gained air superiority the camouflage idea became less important. That is what I once read somewhere.

 

 

[Giorgio N]

The weight of the paint, even for bombers, was negligible. The real advantage in the elimination of the camouflage was saving time on the production line as there was no need anymore to go through all the painting stages. The real reason why the USAAF switched to natural metal surfaces was simply to allow aircrafts to be completed even faster

[Giorgio N]

Regarding the lack of use of the B-29 in Europe during WW2, according to W. Morrison's "Birds from Hell" the original deplyment plan for the B-29 (then still under development) called for 24 groups were to be equipped with the type in Europe. In March 1942 however Gen. Arnold called for a new plan that saw all aircrafts to be used against Japan for two reasons:

1) it was expected that the development time still required would have not allowed the B-29 to make a significant impact on the war in Europe (expected availability was late 1944)

2) the types already deployed in Europe (B-17 and B-24) had all the range necessary to reach any target. Any action against Japan on the other hand was expected to require the longer range of the new Superfortress

 

At the Casablanca Conference in Jan. 1943 President Roosevelt voiced his concern that China was in a dangerous situation and that allied support was necessary to keep that country into the war. For this reason he believed that everything should have been done to attack Japan. This came at a time when the Combined Chiefs of Staff were requesting the B-29s to be sent to Europe as soon as possible, while Arnold kept reminding them that the type would have not been available anywhere before at least Spring 1944. Roosevelt's determination in supporting China went to help Arnold's decision to use the B-29s against Japan only and so no B-29 was planned for use in Europe. With the Russian victory in Stalingrad later that year it became clear the the war in Europe was taking a turn for the best for the allies and at that point Arnold could more easily concentrate on his plans against Japan.

 

On the subject of YB-29 41-36963, the same aircraft flew to India in early April 1944 and was used operationally to carry fuel "over the hump" with the name of Hobo Queen

 

[Marvel Onkey]

16 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

In March 1942 however Gen. Arnold called for a new plan that saw all aircrafts to be used against Japan for two reasons:

1) it was expected that the development time still required would have not allowed the B-29 to make a significant impact on the war in Europe (expected availability was late 1944)

I think if I'd been in that meeting I might have queried his confidence in predicting the state of the ground war in Europe 2 1/2 years into the future...

 

1 hour ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

I wont mention the RAF's even less accurate night bombing percentages.

I once wrote an undergraduate essay on the efficacy of bombing in WWII, I recall a quote (but not who said it- it was 20 years ago) along the lines that the whole of the Bomber Command's war was a never-ending effort to circumvent the fact that you cannot see in the dark.

[JohnT]

Interesting question posed b y the OP.

 

I would suggest that the first reason was range.  The B-29 figures will vary with load etc but has a suggested range of 3,250 miles whereas the B-17G has 2,000 or so and the B-24 2,100.  I used Wikipedia which may or may not be 100% right but its the same source for all three.  

 

I think we also continuously grossly underestimate the importance of production and logistics.  How often have there been examples of equipment that was inferior yet successful as it was available in quantity?  The Sherman tank springs to mind.  In aviation often modest incremental improvements were not made to aircraft due to the perceived interruption to production.  WW2 was a production and numbers war as much as anything.  I can see why the US would think to have B-29s in one theatre and the B-17/B-24 combination in another.

 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

If i rememeber correctly the plan was for all the bomber wings to be stationed in north-eastern canada and possibly Greenland had Britain fallen. I think that wouldve allowed the B-29's to operate roundtrip with smaller loads. 

      As for the paint i would like to remind readers that a B-17/24 used a large amount of it. Three layers at least. The 1st being zinc chromate. 2nd being the camouflage colors olive, medium green, and neutral grey. 3rd is the paint used in group/squadron markings, codes, wear & damage repairs, & noseart. All this paint added to Drag and weight. I happily agree that it was probably a time saving measure in production to skip most of those steps. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Corsairfoxfouruncle
Additional

[bzn20]

My dad was not long out of training in 1946,his  Sergeant asked him , you know a lot about different aircraft, what  is the wing span of a B-29 ? About 140 feet and about 100 feet long. So we'll be able to get them in here then? Yes , with a bit to spare. Are they coming here then? Just wondered lad that's all.... A week or so later B-29s flew in to Waddington with ground crews, ground support equipment and .......Fridges, flown in to cool the beer that arrived at the same time ! He'd never seen a 'plane that big, never had cold beer before, he still talks about it.

Edited September 11, 2017 by bzn20

[Patrick Martin]

Were not a few used to have a go at U-boat facilities immediately post war?

[noelh]

A few things spring to mind from this discussion. One is that without the B29 the defeat of Japan would have been that much more difficult. It's greater range and bomb load has to have been decisive. Secondly it's rather ironic that despite it's pressurisation and high altitude performance it was most effective at lower altitude dropping incendiaries. 

 

In relation to the lack of paint on B17/B24s. Camouflage would seem to be rather superfluous when in reality bombers operated in mass formations at high altitude , sometimes with contrails to point them out. Hard to miss as targets.

 

[rayprit]

THREAD DRIFT WARNING...................To be honest for a period of time they were all over Europe!!  3 x B-29s had trouble returning  to their bases after a bombing run on Japan and landed on Russian soil as it was their safest and easiest option.  The crews were "interned" for 9 months under close arrest and the Russians now, having 3 x B-29s in there posession kept them and copied them, nut for nut, screw for screw.  One of the crew members even left his camera hanging on a hook inside the aircraft, they even copied that....they made 100s of them........................full story here:

 

 

 

[Giorgio N]

5 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

If i rememeber correctly the plan was for all the bomber wings to be stationed in north-eastern canada and possibly Greenland had Britain fallen. I think that wouldve allowed the B-29's to operate roundtrip with smaller loads. 

      As for the paint i would like to remind readers that a B-17/24 used a large amount of it. Three layers at least. The 1st being zinc chromate. 2nd being the camouflage colors olive, medium green, and neutral grey. 3rd is the paint used in group/squadron markings, codes, wear & damage repairs, & noseart. All this paint added to Drag and weight. I happily agree that it was probably a time saving measure in production to skip most of those steps. 

 

The weight saving by switching to natural metal finishes on a B-24 was calculated by Proving Ground Command to be a fantastic 71 lbs. ! For a typical fighter sized aircraft the saving was in the 15-20 lbs. range. Hardly something that really affected performances.

Tests on the same type of aircraft showed that by having a very smooth surface instead of the original painted surfaces the increase in maximum speed was between 2 and 7 mph...

Original expectations on the increase in performance were much higher but the reality is that while it's true that a smoother surface results in less drag, leaving paint off does not necessarily result in a smoother surface. Actually the best surface would be one where the metal is carefully filled, painted and then then smoothed (a bit like modellers do...). Such a surface however requires a lot more maintenance to retain the advantage in speed, something that was not desirable.