B-29's versus Luftwaffe

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Meeko987
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 16 May 2017, 14:19
Location: UK

B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#1

Post by Meeko987 » 22 Aug 2017, 19:11

What would the Luftwaffe have to do to defend the Reich if they had to combat 8th airforce Superfortresses instead of B-17's and Liberators?

Anyone have any suggestions?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#2

Post by T. A. Gardner » 22 Aug 2017, 20:53

One thing would be having to dump the FW 190A as an interceptor. The Me 109 could still manage the altitude and speed to intercept, but it'd be hard pressed with its light armament to shoot one down.
The Ta 152 C and H along with the FW 190D would be necessarily the planes to do the job, outside jets.

Another problem is that the 8,8 cm flak is now worthless, or nearly so leaving far fewer 10.5 and 12.8 cm to defend targets. That means flak losses will decrease dramatically. The Luftwaffe would quickly realize that flak wasn't going to cut it any longer for air defense against high flying bombers. You'd need a SAM, and that isn't in the cards for the Germans. They have several rockets and missiles in testing but lack a fire control system for using them as SAMs almost entirely.

Jets would work, but they're unreliable POS's in 1944 -45 Germany. The Germans likely couldn't have kept 100 Me 262 flying on a daily basis due to lack of sufficient engine production and fuel requirements.


Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6347
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#3

Post by Richard Anderson » 22 Aug 2017, 21:02

T. A. Gardner wrote:One thing would be having to dump the FW 190A as an interceptor. The Me 109 could still manage the altitude and speed to intercept, but it'd be hard pressed with its light armament to shoot one down.
The Ta 152 C and H along with the FW 190D would be necessarily the planes to do the job, outside jets.

Another problem is that the 8,8 cm flak is now worthless, or nearly so leaving far fewer 10.5 and 12.8 cm to defend targets. That means flak losses will decrease dramatically. The Luftwaffe would quickly realize that flak wasn't going to cut it any longer for air defense against high flying bombers. You'd need a SAM, and that isn't in the cards for the Germans. They have several rockets and missiles in testing but lack a fire control system for using them as SAMs almost entirely.

Jets would work, but they're unreliable POS's in 1944 -45 Germany. The Germans likely couldn't have kept 100 Me 262 flying on a daily basis due to lack of sufficient engine production and fuel requirements.
Yes, but OTOH the bombing accuracy, tolerable under good conditions by 1944 with the B-17 and B-24 goes to pot again. :D
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Meeko987
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 16 May 2017, 14:19
Location: UK

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#4

Post by Meeko987 » 22 Aug 2017, 21:08

T. A. Gardner wrote:One thing would be having to dump the FW 190A as an interceptor. The Me 109 could still manage the altitude and speed to intercept, but it'd be hard pressed with its light armament to shoot one down.
The Ta 152 C and H along with the FW 190D would be necessarily the planes to do the job, outside jets.

Another problem is that the 8,8 cm flak is now worthless, or nearly so leaving far fewer 10.5 and 12.8 cm to defend targets. That means flak losses will decrease dramatically. The Luftwaffe would quickly realize that flak wasn't going to cut it any longer for air defense against high flying bombers. You'd need a SAM, and that isn't in the cards for the Germans. They have several rockets and missiles in testing but lack a fire control system for using them as SAMs almost entirely.

Jets would work, but they're unreliable POS's in 1944 -45 Germany. The Germans likely couldn't have kept 100 Me 262 flying on a daily basis due to lack of sufficient engine production and fuel requirements.
Would B-29's still need escorts or not? Would a Ta 152 even be any good at attacking bombers as it was hardly an improvement over the FW-190D was it?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#5

Post by T. A. Gardner » 22 Aug 2017, 21:47

Meeko987 wrote: Would B-29's still need escorts or not? Would a Ta 152 even be any good at attacking bombers as it was hardly an improvement over the FW-190D was it?
Sure, but the P-51H and P-47N are both available and capable of filling that role. Even the P-51D and P-47D can manage it.
Richard Anderson wrote: Yes, but OTOH the bombing accuracy, tolerable under good conditions by 1944 with the B-17 and B-24 goes to pot again. :D
You just switch the aiming point from a building to the city itself, like the RAF did, and accuracy goes way up. It's all in how you get your statistics after all... :D :roll:

User avatar
kfbr392
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 17:05
Location: Germany

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#6

Post by kfbr392 » 23 Aug 2017, 08:33

T. A. Gardner wrote:... The Me 109 could still manage the altitude and speed to intercept, but it'd be hard pressed with its light armament to shoot one down.
The Ta 152 C and H along with the FW 190D would be necessarily the planes to do the job, outside jets... The Germans likely couldn't have kept 100 Me 262 flying on a daily basis due to lack of sufficient engine production and fuel requirements.
The B-29 would have caused even more trouble for Germany than the B-17 and B-24.
But it would have been just as vulnerable against fighters firing the R4/M unguided impact-fused missile.

The R4/M could have restored the balance or even tipped the scales against USAAF daytime bombing.
It really depended on the date of its introduction. In the spring of 1945 it was too late.

The R4/M missile was first used in combat in March 1945. It performed very well against bomber formations during its brief career and was considered by General Adolf Galland the means to defeat Allied daylight bombing when used in combination with Me 262. It was also successfully employed by Fw 190.
While I did not read of the R4/M ever been deployed by Me 109, clearly 2x12 of those rockets could have finally given that lightly armed fighter aircraft a powerful anti-bomber punch.
In deutschen Quellen wird der Erfolg der R4/M als „ausgezeichnet“ und „überragend“ bezeichnet. In der kurzen Einsatzzeit sollen fast 500 alliierte Flugzeuge durch die R4/M zerstört worden sein. So sollen bei einem Einsatz aus einem Verband von 425 B-17 G 25 Maschinen ohne eigenen Verlust abgeschossen worden sein. Noch im April 1945 sollen 24 Fw 190 mit der R4/M 40 B-24 ohne eigene Verluste abgeschossen haben.
Unabhängig von den tatsächlichen Abschusszahlen war die R4/M aber zweifellos die effektivste Waffe deutscher Jagdflieger in den letzten Kriegsmonaten. Die Zahlen beider Seiten sprechen für die Effektivität des Düsenjägers in Kombination mit der Raketenbewaffnung. Die Verlustquote der Alliierten war jedoch durch deren enorme zahlenmäßige Überlegenheit so gering, dass der Einsatz der R4/M keine entscheidenden Auswirkungen mehr hatte.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R4M

nota
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 21 Aug 2006, 17:35
Location: miami

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#7

Post by nota » 24 Aug 2017, 06:56

they had the v2 a fair heavy lifter
that with less fuel and more boom and shrapnel
double the boom and add something to hit the bombers
and far less altitude need
and with a guidance system a bomber box hit should be possible
now how many b-29's each v2 could kill if it goes off mid box ?
3 to 6 ? I guess the bombers fly looser in short order

likely do the war effort better then the London terror shots
but by the time a b29 was operational the wars was lost

btw my dad worked on the design and development of the hyd's
a complex system that ran the powered and steering nose wheel on the b-29
that allowed the plane to move without a tractor at low speed and turn
avionic controls and guns also hyd powered were someone elses problem

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#8

Post by T. A. Gardner » 24 Aug 2017, 21:46

The Wasserfall was the V2 development team's effort to build a SAM off the V-2 design. They never got it to work right. Post war, the US test fired 3 Wasserfall they'd captured as part of Project Hermes, then discarded the missile as useless. The Russians tried to fully develop it into a working SAM too and put in about 6 years of effort into that. They too discarded the missile in the end as unworkable as a SAM.

The V-2 was a larger rocket than the Wasserfall. It also used non-storable propellant (LOX) that had to be fuelled right before launch. That took about half an hour to accomplish, maybe more. The V2 was also only semi-mobile. That is, you could move it to a launch site along with the other necessary equipment but then the rocket had to be erected on its launch stand, fueled up, and made ready for launch. This whole procedure took several hours.
That means you really can't have a V-2 sitting around waiting for the bomber formation to fly directly over it's location, which is what would need to happen for it to go through the bomber formation. Without some ability to change course, or fly a more slanted trajectory, it is pretty much useless as a SAM.

So, the answer is no, the V2 would not work as a SAM.

The US and Soviet Union in the 50's came to similar conclusions about SAM designs. The US Nike Ajax and Soviet S-25 / SA-1 missiles were two stage with a solid fuel booster and liquid fuel second stage using storable propellant. Both missiles carried large warheads.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#9

Post by T. A. Gardner » 24 Aug 2017, 21:57

kfbr392 wrote:[The B-29 would have caused even more trouble for Germany than the B-17 and B-24.
But it would have been just as vulnerable against fighters firing the R4/M unguided impact-fused missile.

The R4/M could have restored the balance or even tipped the scales against USAAF daytime bombing.
It really depended on the date of its introduction. In the spring of 1945 it was too late.

The R4/M missile was first used in combat in March 1945. It performed very well against bomber formations during its brief career and was considered by General Adolf Galland the means to defeat Allied daylight bombing when used in combination with Me 262. It was also successfully employed by Fw 190.
While I did not read of the R4/M ever been deployed by Me 109, clearly 2x12 of those rockets could have finally given that lightly armed fighter aircraft a powerful anti-bomber punch.
It doesn't matter if it's the R4M, MK 108 cannon, or something else used to try to shoot the plane down. You first have to have an interceptor that can fly at 30,000 + feet to intercept the bomber to begin with. That pretty much eliminates the FW 190A series leaving the Me 109G / K and FW 190D along with the TA 152H as potential prop planes for day interception. It eliminates almost the entire Nachtjager force from contention. So, if the USAAF chose to go to nighttime bombing with the B-29 using radar, then the Germans in the short run are reduced to a handful of 12.8 cm flak and 10.5cm flak (of marginal value at that altitude) as their air defense against the B-29.

So, either way, the B-29 presents a major problem for the Luftwaffe. By day it reduces the fighter interception force size and capacity markedly. It reduces the effectiveness of flak and the number of guns that can fire on the plane dramatically. All but eliminates entirely interception at night.

It would get even worse once the B-29D (aka B-50) got into production. The war ended just as that was starting. The B-29D was faster and flew even higher than the A series did.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#10

Post by Paul Lakowski » 25 Aug 2017, 00:21

Must build 128mm flak and need the Me-262 even more then.

FW-190 is needed to cover army operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress

What is B-29 speed @ 8-9km? FW-190A can only manage 360-380 mph @ 9km...but Me-109g is not much better @ 370-380mph

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#11

Post by Guaporense » 25 Aug 2017, 01:49

This is impossible to happen because if Germany lasts long enough to be bombed by B-29 it would need to defeat the USSR. If they managed defeat the USSR, Germany would be in control of the whole European continent. In this situation, the WAllies would give up on winning the war and hence will make a peace treaty. Hence, B-29 will never bombard Europe.

By the way, Japan managed to shot down 371 out of the 3,970 B-29 made. If a third world country like Japan managed to inflict such heavy casualties on the B-29 imagine if they went against Germany after Germany defeated the USSR...
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#12

Post by T. A. Gardner » 25 Aug 2017, 01:50

Paul Lakowski wrote:Must build 128mm flak and need the Me-262 even more then.

FW-190 is needed to cover army operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress

What is B-29 speed @ 8-9km? FW-190A can only manage 360-380 mph @ 9km...but Me-109g is not much better @ 370-380mph
The FW 190A's critical altitude is about 20,000 feet. Above that performance drops dramatically as altitude increases.

Image

Thus, by around 30,000 feet it's down to about 350 mph at most and the rate of climb and such are much poorer.

The Me 109G has a critical altitude of about 28,000 feet, above which performance starts to drop off.

Image

By 30,000 feet the 109 is down to about 375 or so. But, that's 25 mph better than the FW 190A and the rate of climb is still better too.

Now, the FW 190D-9 has a critical altitude of about 19,000 feet but, it's so much faster that even at 30,000 feet it's still able to make about 390 mph.

Image

Overall, the Germans really need the Ta 152 to have a competitive plane:

Image

Yodasgrandad
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 02 Nov 2016, 18:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#13

Post by Yodasgrandad » 25 Aug 2017, 02:44

Would a Ta 152 be easier/cheaper to produce than a FW190D-9 or roughly the same?

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#14

Post by Paul Lakowski » 25 Aug 2017, 02:49

NO since there is no option but for the jets, so Messerschmitt must convert Me-110/210/410 into Me-262 jet production ASAP and remaining Me-109 production lines can be turn it into a fast low level ground attack aircraft to avoid interception as long as possible.

FW-190 has the endurance to carry the heavy fire power needed to shoot down the bombers , but lacks the speed and altitude. That can be solved with the DB-603 engine- as in the FW-190C. Top speed at 30,000ft = 444 mph. Nothing else comes close.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... -speed.jpg

As the Wallie fighters get faster, the DB-603 can be tweaked to counter.

B-50 could manage 395mph @ 9km altitude,

.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-50_Superfortress

B-29 should be 358 mph @ 6 km altitude ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: B-29's versus Luftwaffe

#15

Post by T. A. Gardner » 25 Aug 2017, 04:58

Yodasgrandad wrote:Would a Ta 152 be easier/cheaper to produce than a FW190D-9 or roughly the same?
I'd think they'd pretty much cost the same since they were virtually the same aircraft.
Paul Lakowski wrote:NO since there is no option but for the jets, so Messerschmitt must convert Me-110/210/410 into Me-262 jet production ASAP and remaining Me-109 production lines can be turn it into a fast low level ground attack aircraft to avoid interception as long as possible.

FW-190 has the endurance to carry the heavy fire power needed to shoot down the bombers , but lacks the speed and altitude. That can be solved with the DB-603 engine- as in the FW-190C. Top speed at 30,000ft = 444 mph. Nothing else comes close.
The problem there with the "Kangaroo" as the C got dubbed was the TK 11 turbo-supercharger. There were serious issues with this to include: The exhaust pipes running from the engine to it weren't high temperature alloys and resulted in frequent leaks and failures. The turbine blade profiles needed a lot more engineering work to make them efficient. One should note that this was a problem with German jet engine design too. The air intake and intercooler arrangements were less than optimal.
Basically, the RLM and Focke Wulf admitted, along with DVL the turbo-supercharger design company, that without massive more testing and design effort the plane wasn't going to work.
And, even if it did work, there weren't the necessary high temperature metals available to mass produce the turbine or it's associated components.

The other problem was the cabin pressurization system that Focke Wulf could never get to work properly. This was a general problem for most German pressurized aircraft and usually was abandoned as it wasn't worth the weight penalty to have a mediocre system that rarely worked at all.

So, that leaves jet fighters and some sort of pressure suit if cabin pressurization isn't ready for mass production.

On the turbine blade design issue: Germany had limited engineering in this area compared to the US and Britain. The Germans relied heavily on Brown Boveri of Switzerland for blade profiles as this steam turbine company had one of the most extensive libraries of already calculated ones in Europe.
In the US, General Electric and Westinghouse had already done massive amounts of turbine design for ships in particular that they first applied in the interwar years (particularly GE) to designing turbochargers. So, by 1940 GE and Westinghouse had good profiles for what would become jet engines. Likewise, Britain had companies like Vickers that had done the same thing. Since both nations also had already developed a range of high temperature nickel alloy steels to deal with heat problems in this area, both had far less problem making reliable turbochargers and jet engines.
So, the Germans suffered in this area in part due to lack of naval design capacity having slid on using Swiss engineering for their steam turbine blade profiles.
This exact problem plagued the early BMW 003 engine and was what delayed its production about 18 months while BMW redesigned the blade profile after the disastrous first flight on an Me 262 prototype.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”