Why do you think the B-36 would have ended the war sooner? Over Germany the favored bomber was our oldest, the B-17. https://457thbombgroupassoc.org/b-29-superfortress-visit-to-glatton/
"a425couple" wrote in message news:WrxgJ.12008$I%1.4692@fx36.iad...
(IMHO, the B-36 was very interesting,
and very impressive, but awfully expensive,
and the ineffectiveness of high level bombing
would not make up for the decrease in weapons
that actually won the war.)
There are interesting pictures and diagrams on
the original.)
Myke Predko
Carbon based life formOct 24
How effective would the B-36 Peacemaker have been if it gets into World
War II?
It would have been awesome.
While the cruise speed of the B-36 was basically the same as the B-29
(around 235 MPH) it could do it at over 40,000 feet! There were no anti-aircraft cannon that could reach that altitude in World War II.
It’s range of 4,000 miles (in the early versions) with a 10,000 lb
payload didn’t quite give it the range to attack Japan from the
Aleutians but it could easily attack Berlin from Iceland. For shorter distances, the aircraft could carry up to 72,000 lbs of bombs.
Of course, if any fighters could climb to an altitude which would put
the B-36 into danger, it could ably defend itself with 16 20mm cannon
(12 in remote turrets).
There would only be one issue and it isn’t a trivial one - the B-36 required much longer, wider and thicker runways than any other aircraft
up to that point in time. When the first B-36 made its first flight,
there were only three runways in the world that could handle the
aircraft. The efforts to build B-29 runways around the world would be
seen as creating goat paths in comparison to the effort that would be required for the B-36.
But I would expect the war would have been over much, much sooner.
61.1K viewsView 1,357 upvotesView shares
80 comments from
Alex Johnston
and more
--------------------
Why do you think the B-36 would have ended the war sooner? Over Germany
the favored bomber was our oldest, the B-17. https://457thbombgroupassoc.org/b-29-superfortress-visit-to-glatton/
"a425couple" wrote in message news:WrxgJ.12008$I%1.4692@fx36.iad...
(IMHO, the B-36 was very interesting,
and very impressive, but awfully expensive,
and the ineffectiveness of high level bombing
would not make up for the decrease in weapons
that actually won the war.)
There are interesting pictures and diagrams on
the original.)
Myke Predko
Carbon based life formOct 24
How effective would the B-36 Peacemaker have been if it gets into World
War II?
It would have been awesome.
While the cruise speed of the B-36 was basically the same as the B-29
(around 235 MPH) it could do it at over 40,000 feet! There were no anti-aircraft cannon that could reach that altitude in World War II.
It’s range of 4,000 miles (in the early versions) with a 10,000 lb
payload didn’t quite give it the range to attack Japan from the
Aleutians but it could easily attack Berlin from Iceland. For shorter distances, the aircraft could carry up to 72,000 lbs of bombs.
Of course, if any fighters could climb to an altitude which would put
the B-36 into danger, it could ably defend itself with 16 20mm cannon
(12 in remote turrets).
----
Why do you think the B-36 would have ended the war sooner? Over Germany
the favored bomber was our oldest, the B-17. https://457thbombgroupassoc.org/b-29-superfortress-visit-to-glatton/
Dear Jim, I do not think the B-36 would
have helped much, if any.
Too expensive, labor and material intensive.
IMHO, We had fine strategic bombing capacity with
the B-17, B-24, and finally in Pacific B-29.
Dear Jim, I do not think the B-36 would
have helped much, if any.
Too expensive, labor and material intensive.
IMHO, We had fine strategic bombing capacity with
the B-17, B-24, and finally in Pacific B-29.
"koz...@yahoo.com" wrote in message news:338b0ad1-45c2-4798...@googlegroups.com...
On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-4, a425couple wrote:
Dear Jim, I do not think the B-36 would
have helped much, if any.
Too expensive, labor and material intensive.
IMHO, We had fine strategic bombing capacity with
the B-17, B-24, and finally in Pacific B-29.
They covered the needs well enough -- range, payload and defensive protection.
-------------------------
Thanks to good planning, abundant resources and a lot of luck we had the right heavy bomber for the differing needs of each theater of the war,
though we didn't initially know which was which without trial and error. The Southwest Pacific under Kenney had last pick of what the others didn't want, yet they still received very capable aircraft, the B24 and P38.
https://warisboring.com/the-dominator-was-the-b-29-bombers-bizarre-competitor/
On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"koz...@yahoo.com" wrote in message news:338b0ad1-45c2-4798...@googlegroups.com...
On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-4, a425couple wrote:
Dear Jim, I do not think the B-36 would
have helped much, if any.
Too expensive, labor and material intensive.
IMHO, We had fine strategic bombing capacity with
the B-17, B-24, and finally in Pacific B-29.
They covered the needs well enough -- range, payload and defensive protection.
-------------------------
Thanks to good planning, abundant resources and a lot of luck we had the right heavy bomber for the differing needs of each theater of the war, though we didn't initially know which was which without trial and error. The
Southwest Pacific under Kenney had last pick of what the others didn't want,
yet they still received very capable aircraft, the B24 and P38.
https://warisboring.com/the-dominator-was-the-b-29-bombers-bizarre-competitor/
B-32 construction was underway and over 100 were in service and over 1,000 under
contract when the war ended. Problems with the pressurization system led to that
being deleted during development. It would not compete with the B-29 but it would
take over the B-17 and B-24 roles with a larger and more modern bomber. In mid 1945
it was generally envisioned that the war would last at least until mid 1946, so the B-32
was a good program to have.
It was smart to have the B-36 in development in 1941 just in case those missions would
need to be flown from Canada to Europe if Britain fell.
On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"koz...@yahoo.com" wrote in message news:338b0ad1-45c2-4798...@googlegroups.com...
On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-4, a425couple wrote:
Dear Jim, I do not think the B-36 would
have helped much, if any.
Too expensive, labor and material intensive.
IMHO, We had fine strategic bombing capacity with
the B-17, B-24, and finally in Pacific B-29.
They covered the needs well enough -- range, payload and defensive protection.
-------------------------
Thanks to good planning, abundant resources and a lot of luck we had the right heavy bomber for the differing needs of each theater of the war, though we didn't initially know which was which without trial and error. The
Southwest Pacific under Kenney had last pick of what the others didn't want,
yet they still received very capable aircraft, the B24 and P38.
https://warisboring.com/the-dominator-was-the-b-29-bombers-bizarre-competitor/
B-32 construction was underway and over 100 were in service and over 1,000 under
contract when the war ended. Problems with the pressurization system led
to that
being deleted during development. It would not compete with the B-29 but
it would
take over the B-17 and B-24 roles with a larger and more modern bomber. In mid 1945
it was generally envisioned that the war would last at least until mid
1946, so the B-32
was a good program to have.
It was smart to have the B-36 in development in 1941 just in case those missions would
need to be flown from Canada to Europe if Britain fell.
I just read the B-32 article and learned some new things.
"On the other hand, the B-32 had a nearly 20 percent greater range of 3,800 miles, and could
maintain a much higher cruising speed of 290 miles per hour, compared to 230 for the B-29.
The Dominator also benefited from reversible-pitch propellers and the thick Davis wing
inherited from the B-24, which minimized drag at lower speeds — an especially useful quality
while attempting to land."
I have a fine book about the B-32 at home but it did not mention those range and speed details.
-------------------
Compare the Allied accomplishments to the comparable German program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber
I just read the B-32 article and learned some new things.
"On the other hand, the B-32 had a nearly 20 percent greater range of
3,800
miles, and could
maintain a much higher cruising speed of 290 miles per hour, compared to
230
for the B-29.
The Dominator also benefited from reversible-pitch propellers and the
thick
Davis wing
inherited from the B-24, which minimized drag at lower speeds — an especially useful quality
while attempting to land."
I have a fine book about the B-32 at home but it did not mention those
range
and speed details.
-------------------
Compare the Allied accomplishments to the comparable German program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber
You mean comparable to the B-36?
B-36 had real development in the war and could have been sped up if necessary.
The Amerika Bomber never got beyond the design phase.
--------------
I meant compared to their entire heavy bomber effort. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/heinkel-177-flaming-coffin-german-heavy-dive-bomber-luftwaffe-hated.html
Myke Predko
Carbon based life formOct 24
How effective would the B-36 Peacemaker have been if it gets into World
War II? It would have been awesome.
While the cruise speed of the B-36 was basically the same as the B-29
(around 235 MPH) it could do it at over 40,000 feet! There were no anti-aircraft cannon that could reach that altitude in World War II.
It’s range of 4,000 miles (in the early versions) with a 10,000 lb payload didn’t quite give it the range to attack Japan from the Aleutians but it could easily attack Berlin from Iceland. For shorter distances, the
aircraft could carry up to 72,000 lbs of bombs.
Of course, if any fighters could climb to an altitude which would put the B-36 into danger, it could ably defend itself with 16 20mm cannon (12 in remote turrets).
There would only be one issue and it isn’t a trivial one - the B-36 required much longer, wider and thicker runways than any other aircraft up
to that point in time. When the first B-36 made its first flight, there
were only three runways in the world that could handle the aircraft. The efforts to build B-29 runways around the world would be seen as creating
goat paths in comparison to the effort that would be required for the
B-36.
But I would expect the war would have been over much, much sooner.
On 11/6/2021 10:42 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:---
"a425couple" <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WrxgJ.12008$I%1.4692@fx36.iad...
Myke Predko
Carbon based life formOct 24
How effective would the B-36 Peacemaker have been if it gets into
World War II? It would have been awesome.
While the cruise speed of the B-36 was basically the same as the B-29
(around 235 MPH) it could do it at over 40,000 feet! There were no
anti-aircraft cannon that could reach that altitude in World War II.
However there were fighters that could.
Of course, if any fighters could climb to an altitude which would put
the B-36 into danger, it could ably defend itself with 16 20mm cannon
(12 in remote turrets).
The self defending bomber had long been discredited.
Mostly agree, however it turns out the B-36 had
some real advantages over the other bombers.
I can not find my books on it right now, but
"a425couple" <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:WrxgJ.12008$I%1.4692@fx36.iad...
Myke Predko
Carbon based life formOct 24
How effective would the B-36 Peacemaker have been if it gets into
World War II? It would have been awesome.
While the cruise speed of the B-36 was basically the same as the B-29
(around 235 MPH) it could do it at over 40,000 feet! There were no
anti-aircraft cannon that could reach that altitude in World War II.
However there were fighters that could.
Of course, if any fighters could climb to an altitude which would put
the B-36 into danger, it could ably defend itself with 16 20mm cannon
(12 in remote turrets).
The self defending bomber had long been discredited.
On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 12:33:50 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
Why do you think the B-36 would have ended the war sooner? Over Germany the >> favored bomber was our oldest, the B-17.
https://457thbombgroupassoc.org/b-29-superfortress-visit-to-glatton/
Someone could run the figures, but probably on a per-dollar basis, squadrons of
the B-17 and B-24 and escorts could probably deliver the same tonnage for less money
and the same or less aircrew casualties.
"David Lesher" wrote in message news:snmqg6$p1n$2@reader1.panix.com...
Would not the better question have been "What if the resources
had instead been directed at providing air cover for conveys to
disrupt the U-boat threat?"
--------------------
The problem of the Mid-Atlantic Gap was solved by May 1943, at which point >Doenitz suspended the U-Boot offensive until promised solutions became >available (never).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_gap
A substantial part of the problem was rivalry between Bomber
and Coastal Commands, and aircraft didn't help much when night
or fog hid the target. "Even in mid-1942, Coastal Command only
had two squadrons of Liberators and Fortresses, and at the
first sign of Coastal Command's success against U-boats, Harris
sought to have their aircraft used in attacking German cities."
"David Lesher" wrote in message news:snmqg6$p1n$2@reader1.panix.com...
Would not the better question have been "What if the resources
had instead been directed at providing air cover for conveys to
disrupt the U-boat threat?"
The problem of the Mid-Atlantic Gap was solved by May 1943, at which point Doenitz suspended the U-Boot offensive until promised solutions became available (never).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_gap
A substantial part of the problem was rivalry between Bomber and Coastal Commands, and aircraft didn't help much when night or fog hid the target. "Even in mid-1942, Coastal Command only had two squadrons of Liberators
and Fortresses, and at the first sign of Coastal Command's success against U-boats, Harris sought to have their aircraft used in attacking German cities."
"In response, the Leigh light was developed. Though it had to
overcome Air Ministry indifference, and only entered service in
June 1941"
So Leigh Lights were not used for a couple of years?
"In response, the Leigh light was developed. Though it had to
overcome Air Ministry indifference, and only entered service in
June 1941"
So Leigh Lights were not used for a couple of years?
If there’s a single reason to go to the National Museum of the US Air Force in Dayton Ohio; it is to see the B-36 - the size of the aircraft
is truly astonishing and has to be experienced to be believed.
The B-36 was in service from 1948 to 1959 and never flew in combat and therein lies the rub -
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 295 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:17:41 |
| Calls: | 6,642 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,190 |
| Messages: | 5,325,487 |