Why no B-29's in ETO?
- Robert Hurst
- Member
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: 04 Oct 2002, 16:11
- Location: Worksop, Notts, UK
Hi Mistel 1
Please attached to this post a pic of the only B-29 Superfortress to visit the ETO in WWII. The pic was taken from Fortresses of the Big Triangle First, by Cliff T Bishop.
Regards
Bob
Please attached to this post a pic of the only B-29 Superfortress to visit the ETO in WWII. The pic was taken from Fortresses of the Big Triangle First, by Cliff T Bishop.
Regards
Bob
- Attachments
-
- Shown here is B-29 Superfortress (41-36863) coming into land at Glatton on 12th March, 1944.
- B-29 Superfortress.jpg (59.81 KiB) Viewed 1892 times
XB-29 or YB-29 in England
I have seen a photo in a magazine of one of what I believe was captioned as either XB-29 or YB-29 aircraft that flew to England in 1944 [?]. EDITED: This was posted before the picture in the previous post. The BuAer number will of course confirm which model it was.
It is an interesting thought that had the war in Europe continued, the B-36 and its rivals may have been used to attack the Continent from the US.
It is an interesting thought that had the war in Europe continued, the B-36 and its rivals may have been used to attack the Continent from the US.
-
- Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Re:
The B-29 was not limited by runway length from English airfields in missions against Germanybullet wrote:B29 v B17, well it was a matter of range but also to use B29s in Europe would of required the extending of all runways to cater for take off and landing. It was a matter of economics, the B17s were doing the job.
With a 20,000lb bomb load it had a 1000sm radius from any concrete 1200m (4,000ft) runway
Using just wing fuel tanks 5,608 US Gal/33,648lb it could fly 2,480sm
Using standard fuel load 6,940 US Gal/41,320lb it could fly 3,070sm
It could lift off from a 4000ft runway with 20,000lb bombs with 33,648lb Fuel and fly 2,480sm, so the runway lengths were not a limiting factor for ETO.
Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?
I don't think it was runway length, but the weight the runway could support. Could most of the US bomber bases in England support the weight of the B-29 - which was roughly double the weight of the B-17 - without being resurfaced/rebuilt.
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?
From here...
...to here...
Here in N.I, when several USAAF bases were returned to civilian ownership postwar...said civilians (the farmers who's land it was) clubbed together, brought in pneumatic drills and contractors...and rapidly broke the runways up into little squares of four-inch thick concrete-and-aggregate...which they THEN piled up to make walls around their original field spaces!
At Cranfield in Co. Down and The Creagh, Co. Tyrone they had been laid direclty onto levelled sandy soil......and once cleared the farmers were able to plough virtually instantly. Cranfield was almost obliterated wholly, but large strips of apron were left at the Creagh.
(It's worth noting that in many cases RAF fields couldn't even support the weight of their lighter bomber aircraft; the legendary Scampton for example, where CHASTISE was launched from...started to be developed in the 1930s, work was abandoned twice at least due to muddy conditions, and in the end couldn't be used until 1942 because of the soft boggy condition of what was intended to be the runway!)
Here's a pic of the aforementioned Cranfield (Greencastle)...
And here's what the farmers did with the concrete!
With a 20,000lb bomb load it had a 1000sm radius from any concrete 1200m (4,000ft) runway
...to here...
...you managed to leave out the word "concrete"...It could lift off from a 4000ft runway with 20,000lb bombs with 33,648lb Fuel and fly 2,480sm, so the runway lengths were not a limiting factor for ETO.
It's length PLUS weight that could be supported IIRC. The concrete used for surfacing USAAF airfields was typically only some four inches thick...and wasn't exactly laid over a deep bed of ballast! If any...I don't think it was runway length, but the weight the runway could support. Could most of the US bomber bases in England support the weight of the B-29 - which was roughly double the weight of the B-17 - without being resurfaced/rebuilt.
Here in N.I, when several USAAF bases were returned to civilian ownership postwar...said civilians (the farmers who's land it was) clubbed together, brought in pneumatic drills and contractors...and rapidly broke the runways up into little squares of four-inch thick concrete-and-aggregate...which they THEN piled up to make walls around their original field spaces!
At Cranfield in Co. Down and The Creagh, Co. Tyrone they had been laid direclty onto levelled sandy soil......and once cleared the farmers were able to plough virtually instantly. Cranfield was almost obliterated wholly, but large strips of apron were left at the Creagh.
(It's worth noting that in many cases RAF fields couldn't even support the weight of their lighter bomber aircraft; the legendary Scampton for example, where CHASTISE was launched from...started to be developed in the 1930s, work was abandoned twice at least due to muddy conditions, and in the end couldn't be used until 1942 because of the soft boggy condition of what was intended to be the runway!)
Here's a pic of the aforementioned Cranfield (Greencastle)...
And here's what the farmers did with the concrete!
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?
Were not B29s in China operated from runaways of much less sophistication than in the UK? I recall reading Chinese peasants were used to construct them.
-
- Member
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 04:07
Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?
Many moons ago I worked in soils engineering and testing. Very complex subject built on some pretty basic concepts. For those interested, here's a link to a college geology course using WWII runway construction techniques to explain materials behavior under load. Without a background in the subject, some of it will be a bit over your head, but read it and you'll have a better understanding. (nice photos too!)
http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses ... ure2-3.pdf
One basic concept is bearing pressure. As to the B17/B29 comparison - grossly oversimplifying, the B29 was twice as heavy at takeoff as a B17, but it had almost three times as many tires to apply the load to the runway. So, depending on some other factors too complex to go into here, a B29 tire probably applied less load per unit of area than a B17.
Another way to understand it: why do snowshoes work? Answer: they spread the same total load (you and your gear) over a larger area, allowing you to stay on top of the snow rather than falling through. Within reason, total load doesn't matter, load per unit of area does. Tire contact area would be the necessary parameter to do a more precise calculation, but the above is sound in general. As explained in the link, subsurface conditions factor in as well - but that's also a question of total load/bearing area.
http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses ... ure2-3.pdf
One basic concept is bearing pressure. As to the B17/B29 comparison - grossly oversimplifying, the B29 was twice as heavy at takeoff as a B17, but it had almost three times as many tires to apply the load to the runway. So, depending on some other factors too complex to go into here, a B29 tire probably applied less load per unit of area than a B17.
Another way to understand it: why do snowshoes work? Answer: they spread the same total load (you and your gear) over a larger area, allowing you to stay on top of the snow rather than falling through. Within reason, total load doesn't matter, load per unit of area does. Tire contact area would be the necessary parameter to do a more precise calculation, but the above is sound in general. As explained in the link, subsurface conditions factor in as well - but that's also a question of total load/bearing area.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
- Location: USA
Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?
I think that the whole reason boils down to military necessity. As stated the allies already had a weapons system which was capable of reaching as far as poland in the form of B 17, B 24, and lancancaster bombers. There simply was no tactical or strategic reason for introducing an entirely new and unproven new weapon system wwhose primary strenghs were longer unneeded range and higher altitude capability. The systems in europe were tested, already using developed combat tactics taylored to the theater, had a well established maintaince and logistic, and personell training and replacement system functioning effectively both in theater and all the way back to the training and production facilities in the us. The introduction of a completly new weapons system would have necessitated the reproduction of a completely new system to support a radically new system at what could be considered a critiical part of the aerial campaign. And it must be remenbered that at the time the B 29 was an untried system which was to have, as all new systems do, many teething problems. Thus the disruption, for unneeded capability, would have been determental to the war effort in Europe, while the range and payload capability was needed in the vast reaches of the pacific. As an aside the altitude capabilities of the B 29 were seen as valuable against the relativly lower altitude capabilities of the Japanese heavy AA artillery, whereas the german 105 and 128 MM would have been capable of reaching the service altitudes.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?
Yes Chinese peasants did the labor, but no they were not 'unsophiticated', skilled engineers did the design and supervision. In some respects airfield pavement in China, or other areas could be more sophiticated. In the UK there waa a adaquate concrete industry and the pavement could be of steel reinforced concrete, with a simple ballast system underneath. Where large quantities of concrete were unavaiilable rock in multiple layers of different grades could be compacted. As with old Roman roads the nuances of rock size in each layer and degree of compaction could create useful pavement for heavy loads. The caveat is it required frequent regrading and compaction. I've also had it from a couple sources that while the Chinese engineers and construction managers were fairly capable the business owners were much more corrupt than in the US and one had to automatically assume they would "cheat" on specifications. Extremely close supervision was required to ensure correct construction. That was not always practical.Felix C wrote:Were not B29s in China operated from runaways of much less sophistication than in the UK? I recall reading Chinese peasants were used to construct them.
I dont have quite that school house education in engineering, but did have a few years hands on experience with the licensed engineers. That the basics were understood by the Chinese is clear. Indeed they were probablly ahead of the Europeans in some respects to the 19th Century. The largest difference between Chinas construction industry and the US or Europe of the 1940s is industrial or mechanized techniques were not as prevalent. Pavement compaction techniques with Chinese peasant labor or Roman style slave labor techniques may appear "primitive' to the casual observer, but they are as good in end result as the 1930s technology motorized compactors.firstflabn wrote:Many moons ago I worked in soils engineering and testing. Very complex subject built on some pretty basic concepts. ...
-
- Member
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 04:07
Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?
Just guessing, but lack of power generating capacity would seem to be the limiting factor requiring use of 19th (or 9th) Century construction methods in China. I'm sure we shipped more complex equipment than concrete batch plants through L/L. Can't very well have a hand cranked mixer or aggregate feeder at the batch plant and expect to finish in the same century. Huge power draw, even for a portable plant.
Runway repair/maintenance with unskilled labor is fine - except that it also requires lots of skilled supervision.
Poking around a bit more on the 'net, the Corps of Engineers invented modern runway design and construction methods in WWII, necessitated by the development of heavy bombers. Before that, the Corps used highway designs. It's not just a matter of scaling up current methods. The knowledge simply didn't exist before very late in the 1930s. The Corps discovered some very complex interactions and produced the analytical methods to understand them. Lacking that, all there is is trial and error.
Just one more of those marvels of the Allied effort in WWII.
Runway repair/maintenance with unskilled labor is fine - except that it also requires lots of skilled supervision.
Poking around a bit more on the 'net, the Corps of Engineers invented modern runway design and construction methods in WWII, necessitated by the development of heavy bombers. Before that, the Corps used highway designs. It's not just a matter of scaling up current methods. The knowledge simply didn't exist before very late in the 1930s. The Corps discovered some very complex interactions and produced the analytical methods to understand them. Lacking that, all there is is trial and error.
Just one more of those marvels of the Allied effort in WWII.
-
- Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?
Just as you Phylo managed to leave out the term Grass runway which the B-29 was equally capable of using.phylo_roadking wrote:From here...
With a 20,000lb bomb load it had a 1000sm radius from any concrete 1200m (4,000ft) runway
...to here...
...you managed to leave out the word "concrete"...It could lift off from a 4000ft runway with 20,000lb bombs with 33,648lb Fuel and fly 2,480sm, so the runway lengths were not a limiting factor for ETO.
Seeing as you have never been a pilot I can understand why you do not understand the term PCN/ACN, CBR or ESWL.
-
- Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?
As usual Phylo your contribution is irrelevant and ignorant.phylo_roadking wrote:It's length PLUS weight that could be supported IIRC. The concrete used for surfacing USAAF airfields was typically only some four inches thick...and wasn't exactly laid over a deep bed of ballast! If any...I don't think it was runway length, but the weight the runway could support. Could most of the US bomber bases in England support the weight of the B-29 - which was roughly double the weight of the B-17 - without being resurfaced/rebuilt.
Here in N.I, when several USAAF bases were returned to civilian ownership postwar...said civilians (the farmers who's land it was) clubbed together, brought in pneumatic drills and contractors...and rapidly broke the runways up into little squares of four-inch thick concrete-and-aggregate...which they THEN piled up to make walls around their original field spaces!
At Cranfield in Co. Down and The Creagh, Co. Tyrone they had been laid direclty onto levelled sandy soil......and once cleared the farmers were able to plough virtually instantly. Cranfield was almost obliterated wholly, but large strips of apron were left at the Creagh.
(It's worth noting that in many cases RAF fields couldn't even support the weight of their lighter bomber aircraft; the legendary Scampton for example, where CHASTISE was launched from...started to be developed in the 1930s, work was abandoned twice at least due to muddy conditions, and in the end couldn't be used until 1942 because of the soft boggy condition of what was intended to be the runway!)
Here's a pic of the aforementioned Cranfield (Greencastle)...
RAF Greencastle was built for no other purpose than training. Not for launching heavy bombers on missions over Europe. Your field was used merely to train crews in operation of the Westland Lysander, the single engined Vultee Vengence and the A-20 Havoc. Whoop-de-doo.
Strawman hypothesis is when you you build a hypothesis that your opponent is advocating something which they are not advocating and then proceed to discredit them by shooting down that which they had never advocated.
-
- Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?
The Brabazon Committee intended in 1942 to build a license version of the B-29 in Northern Ireland however the project never materialised. RAF Langford Lodge airfield, Ulster, built in 1942 was actually intended for US B-29 operations in the ETO should England be invaded. In the event it was planned to base 800 B-29 bombers at RAF Langford Lodge. The base actually served during the war as a depot for US aircraft and trans Atlantic flights
Roosevelt funded America's XB-29 and Consolidated XB-32 Dominator on 6/9/40. Later he also funded the Consolidated XB-36 under the same proposals.
In July 1941 Westminster funded RAF specifications for 75 and 100 ton "Very Heavy" bombers (Air Ministry Specification B.5/41) This resulted in the Vickers Vickers T.441C, pusher six engined project, however it is a little known fact that funding was also set aside for manufacture of 300 B-29 Windsor Bombers in Norther Ireland.
The RAF felt unenthusiastic about the Vickers T.144C Windsor, thus they cast around and begged the Americans for rights to produced the B-29 under license. It was funded for a 300 aircraft order on 4/7/42. Later the Windsor project transformed into what later became known as the Lincoln Bomber. The British built B-29 was intended for purely RAF operations over Europe. The project never materialised.
During 1942 the Fairey Aerodrome (later known as Heathrow Airport) and RAF Stansted Mountfitchet were designated for Very Heavy B-29 and for XB-36 operations. Haethrow and St Mawgen in Cornwell featured the unique 1228/43 VHT towers designed for B-29 operations. St Mawgan in fact had a 9,000ft x 300ft runway built in 1943
Lakenheath, Sculthorpe, West Raynham, & Marham were all rebuilt during the mid 1940s as Very Heavy Bomber stations. These were the only RAF stations completed as such, complete with unique buildings such as the 294/45 VHB Control towers, so it is not relevant that most RAF bases could not launch full gross weight B-29s. A handful specifically were developed for B-29 missions and later during the Cold War, when the B-29 appeared as the "Washington" runways of suitable field were lengthened to 6,000ft. This did not preclude WW2 the possibility of operations against Germany which only required concrete runways of 4,000 feet
Roosevelt funded America's XB-29 and Consolidated XB-32 Dominator on 6/9/40. Later he also funded the Consolidated XB-36 under the same proposals.
In July 1941 Westminster funded RAF specifications for 75 and 100 ton "Very Heavy" bombers (Air Ministry Specification B.5/41) This resulted in the Vickers Vickers T.441C, pusher six engined project, however it is a little known fact that funding was also set aside for manufacture of 300 B-29 Windsor Bombers in Norther Ireland.
The RAF felt unenthusiastic about the Vickers T.144C Windsor, thus they cast around and begged the Americans for rights to produced the B-29 under license. It was funded for a 300 aircraft order on 4/7/42. Later the Windsor project transformed into what later became known as the Lincoln Bomber. The British built B-29 was intended for purely RAF operations over Europe. The project never materialised.
During 1942 the Fairey Aerodrome (later known as Heathrow Airport) and RAF Stansted Mountfitchet were designated for Very Heavy B-29 and for XB-36 operations. Haethrow and St Mawgen in Cornwell featured the unique 1228/43 VHT towers designed for B-29 operations. St Mawgan in fact had a 9,000ft x 300ft runway built in 1943
Lakenheath, Sculthorpe, West Raynham, & Marham were all rebuilt during the mid 1940s as Very Heavy Bomber stations. These were the only RAF stations completed as such, complete with unique buildings such as the 294/45 VHB Control towers, so it is not relevant that most RAF bases could not launch full gross weight B-29s. A handful specifically were developed for B-29 missions and later during the Cold War, when the B-29 appeared as the "Washington" runways of suitable field were lengthened to 6,000ft. This did not preclude WW2 the possibility of operations against Germany which only required concrete runways of 4,000 feet