Why no B-29's in ETO?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
User avatar
Robert Hurst
Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 04 Oct 2002, 16:11
Location: Worksop, Notts, UK

#16

Post by Robert Hurst » 13 Jul 2004, 12:07

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
Attachments
B-29 Superfortress.jpg
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

User avatar
Oracle
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: 16 Jan 2004, 21:33
Location: Southampton, England

XB-29 or YB-29 in England

#17

Post by Oracle » 15 Jul 2004, 18:13

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.


varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

#18

Post by varjag » 17 Jul 2004, 13:48

A bit OT I admit - but isn't there some reluctance in the British published photos - to downplay - the importance of US aircraft used by the RAF? A little bit the same national pride that made US equipment rare in TASS pictures...?

bullet
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 00:25
Location: Australia

#19

Post by bullet » 22 Jul 2004, 00:06

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.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re:

#20

Post by Simon Gunson » 29 Aug 2014, 05:06

bullet 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.
The B-29 was not limited by runway length from English airfields in missions against Germany

Image

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.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?

#21

Post by Takao » 29 Aug 2014, 12:17

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.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?

#22

Post by phylo_roadking » 30 Aug 2014, 00:06

From here...
With a 20,000lb bomb load it had a 1000sm radius from any concrete 1200m (4,000ft) runway

...to here...
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.
...you managed to leave out the word "concrete"...
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.
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...

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! :lol:

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)...

Image

And here's what the farmers did with the concrete! :D

Image
Image
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...

Felix C
Member
Posts: 1201
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 17:25
Location: Miami, Fl

Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?

#23

Post by Felix C » 30 Aug 2014, 01:25

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.

firstflabn
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 04:07

Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?

#24

Post by firstflabn » 30 Aug 2014, 05:14

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.

ROLAND1369
Member
Posts: 1403
Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?

#25

Post by ROLAND1369 » 30 Aug 2014, 14:39

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.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?

#26

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 30 Aug 2014, 22:03

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.
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.
firstflabn wrote:Many moons ago I worked in soils engineering and testing. Very complex subject built on some pretty basic concepts. ...
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
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 04:07

Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?

#27

Post by firstflabn » 30 Aug 2014, 23:58

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.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?

#28

Post by Simon Gunson » 03 Sep 2014, 23:41

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...
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.
...you managed to leave out the word "concrete"...
Just as you Phylo managed to leave out the term Grass runway which the B-29 was equally capable of using.

Seeing as you have never been a pilot I can understand why you do not understand the term PCN/ACN, CBR or ESWL.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?

#29

Post by Simon Gunson » 04 Sep 2014, 00:00

phylo_roadking wrote:
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.
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...

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! :lol:

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)...
As usual Phylo your contribution is irrelevant and ignorant.

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.

Simon Gunson
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 23 Mar 2004, 01:25
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Why no B-29's in ETO?

#30

Post by Simon Gunson » 04 Sep 2014, 01:25

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

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”