PDA

View Full Version : historical ?: interception of B29?



fridaycat
02-23-2005, 08:53 PM
So I'm eyeballing the stats on the B29 and wondering if and how the Japanese successfully intercepted any of them...

Superfortress @9144m: 642 kph

George @5700m: 571 kph
Tony @4900m: 572 kph
Dinah @6000m: 630 kph
Jack @5900m: 658 kph
Frank @6600m: 686 kph

I'm guessing the B-29 flew most of its missions near its top speed optimum altitude of 9000m, and I'm guessing the top speed of the Japanese interceptors is significantly degraded at 9000m, so that even Jack and Frank would be hard pressed to keep up. Unless they're really lucky and just happen to be on top of the Superfortress when it flies by, how did they manage to shoot any of them down? (What were actual Superfortress losses to Japanese fighters, anyway?)

fridaycat
02-23-2005, 08:53 PM
So I'm eyeballing the stats on the B29 and wondering if and how the Japanese successfully intercepted any of them...

Superfortress @9144m: 642 kph

George @5700m: 571 kph
Tony @4900m: 572 kph
Dinah @6000m: 630 kph
Jack @5900m: 658 kph
Frank @6600m: 686 kph

I'm guessing the B-29 flew most of its missions near its top speed optimum altitude of 9000m, and I'm guessing the top speed of the Japanese interceptors is significantly degraded at 9000m, so that even Jack and Frank would be hard pressed to keep up. Unless they're really lucky and just happen to be on top of the Superfortress when it flies by, how did they manage to shoot any of them down? (What were actual Superfortress losses to Japanese fighters, anyway?)

Zyzbot
02-23-2005, 08:59 PM
B-29 attacks were switched from high altitude to lower altitudes due to the lack of desired results from high altitude attacks.

This will answer some questions:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_10.html

BaldieJr
02-23-2005, 09:01 PM
Top speed is wrong.

ImpStarDuece
02-23-2005, 09:01 PM
For the Tokyo Firebombings the B-29s were stripped of armament and flown at 10 000 feet.

Duncan_Doenitz
02-23-2005, 09:53 PM
After successfully completing a Japanese fighter pilot career offline, there was a... well, sort of an "Easter Egg" (or maybe an "Easter Oleg"), a special treat at the end. The solo flight was an opportunity to intercept a lone B-29 that was headed for Nagasaki.

Despite re-flying the mission several times and watching the plane reach Nagasaki, no nuclear bomb was dropped.

This took place in Pacific Fighters without the patch.

Dunc

p1ngu666
02-23-2005, 10:10 PM
think they may have cruised at about 300mph, maybe less

ma book says 230 (370kph) for cruising speed
max is 358mph @ 25,000ft (7.6km)

they would probably fly at 230-315mph over japan, maybe slower elsewhere

b17 and lancs cruised at about 200mph i think

ronison
02-24-2005, 12:49 AM
The design of the B-29 was to fly at very high altatudes to avoid enemy air intercept. This was a very good concept but their was two probmels that were not reilized when the 29 was on the drawing boards.

One of the problems accentuated the other problem. At the time no one except the Japanese knew about the "Jet stream". This is very fast moving air at high altatudes that traves, at least in the northern hemespher, from west to east.

The problem in the design was that the 29 used the norton bomb sight, a very good sight at its time for what it was designed for, lower alatudes with little wind.

Being that the B-29 flew up with the jet stream the norton bomb sight would say the bombs were on target just to "drift" off and hit somewhere else due to the high winds at high altatudes. This made high altatude bombing not desrable.

To counter this the bombers were brought down to lower altatudes to achieve their desired results of hiting the targets. Because of this the Japanese intercepters were able to get up to the B-29's and in doing so some were lost or damaged.

Interesting to note, something you will not see much in many history books; the Japanese used the Jet Stream to fire bomb the US with baloons.

The idea was that the west coast of the United States had alot of forests. This being a highly needed war supply would, in the Japanese mind, cause the US to divert troops to fight any forest fires that were caused by the droping of incenduary bombs into the forests. This was a decent idea except that most of the west coast foests are actully rain forests and so do not burn as well as the Japanese thought they would.

One such baloon fell near a town in Oregon called Estacada. A family found the baloon, and not remembering the full details here, were killed when one of the bombs went off.

ClnlSandersLite
02-24-2005, 02:33 AM
It's been awhile since I've read about that incident, but they found it in the woods some time after the war. Went of when they where pulling it out or disecting it or something. When it killed them the govt was suddenly very active in those areas about people not touching the **** things. I believe those are the only known casualties from those balloons.

edit: Thinking about it, I think that was the first time the government officially acknowleged their existance. Also, I believe it was a group of 4 people.

LEXX_Luthor
02-24-2005, 03:49 AM
We conveniently "forgot" Ki~44 which was made as high altitude interceptor and the only fighter that could handle B~29s in 1944. Just finished reading Saburo's book again. A traditional sailor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Saburo trashes the Army, saying they had no success in B~29 intercepts and so abandoned them for the NAVY. Ki~44 was not mentioned in his book.

Chuck_Older
02-24-2005, 04:22 AM
The Japanese also had radar...plus, if you happen to have an island with two airstrips on it that lies on the path the B-29s must take to make their raid, you might catch a few of them in the air

WOLFMondo
02-24-2005, 04:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

b17 and lancs cruised at about 200mph i think <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they cruised even slower when carrying a full load of bombs.

KIMURA
02-24-2005, 04:39 AM
Read that book how they did.............. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/osp_img/titlecovers/S1613AL.JPG

MoeLarryCheese
02-24-2005, 06:15 AM
At high altitudes the Japanese were largly
in effective at intercepting B-29s.
My own reading and digging has revealed
that most B-29s shot down were crippled
by flack or had a major engine/system failure
before being caught be fighters.

Typical cruise speeds at 30,000' were about 250mph.
Over enemy territory the power was advanced to
"millitary" power, and a resulting speed of
300-310mph. That's not top speed. The engines
would never sustain rated power for long.
Also fuel consumption would be too high.

The change to low altitude saturation/fire raids
were for three basic reasons.

#1, The Japanese had no night fighters and an
inadequate night defense.
#2, poor bombing accuraccy at high altitudes.
#3, increased bomb load.

the switch to fire bombs was the result of the
total ineffectivness of HE bombs on the wooden cities.

Low altitudes delivered better engine reliability and allowed for greter bomb loads.

Additionally all guns and armour were stripped
to increase bomb load. Bomb load from Tinnian
and Guam were increased from roughly 10,000 lbs
on a raid on tokyo to 17,000-20,000lbs on the same raid.

The Norden bombsight was a high altitude bomb sight.
Yes, the winds aloft were always a problem.
On the low altitude fire raids no bomb sight
was required.

MLC

TheCrux
02-24-2005, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

b17 and lancs cruised at about 200mph i think <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they cruised even slower when carrying a full load of bombs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good bit lower. B-17s in the ETO usually cruised at about 155-160 MPH. Fairly common figure I've seen over the years of researching. Not sure about the Lancasters.

Keep in mind they were fully loaded and many were getting fairly "war weary".

fridaycat
02-24-2005, 08:21 AM
From a different site, Ki-44 IIc "Tojo", has a max speed of 605 kph (376 mph) at unspecified altitude. It appears slower than Jack or Frank, but perhaps it performed better at altitude.

So when the B29's switched to "low level" attacks, specifically what altitudes are we talking about?

Zyzbot
02-24-2005, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fridaycat:
From a different site, Ki-44 IIc "Tojo", has a max speed of 605 kph (376 mph) at unspecified altitude. It appears slower than Jack or Frank, but perhaps it performed better at altitude.

So when the B29's switched to "low level" attacks, specifically what altitudes are we talking about? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"LeMay suggested that high-altitude, daylight attacks be phased out and replaced by low-altitude, high-intensity incendiary raids at nighttime. The aircraft would attack individually, which meant that no assembly over the base at the start of the mission or along the way would be needed. Consequently, aircraft could go directly from the base to the target and return, maximizing the bomb load and saving substantially on fuel. He ordered that all the B-29s be stripped of their General Electric defensive gun systems, leaving only the tail gun. The weight of extra crew members, armament, and ammunition would bo into bombs, each B-29 being loaded down with six to eight tons of M69 incendiary bombs. These bombs would be dropped from altitudes of only 5 to 6 thousand feet. This strategy would enable the B-29s to escape the effects of the jet stream and would get the bombers below most of the cloud cover. In addition, the B-29s would no longer have to struggle up to 30,000 feet and this would save on fuel and on wear and tear to the engines. It was believed that Japanese night fighter forces were relatively weak..."

I have also read about later daytime raids in which the bombing altitude was often 18,000 to 20,000 feet.

Check this link for mission logs of one crew:

http://www.crew26.com/Missions/missions.htm

Old_Canuck
02-24-2005, 10:42 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ronison:
....

The problem in the design was that the 29 used the norton [Nordon] bomb sight, a very good sight at its time for what it was designed for, lower alatudes with little wind.

Being that the B-29 flew up with the jet stream the norton [Nordon] bomb sight would say the bombs were on target just to "drift" off ..../QUOTE]

Spell checking by Symantec http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
02-24-2005, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheCrux:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

b17 and lancs cruised at about 200mph i think <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they cruised even slower when carrying a full load of bombs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good bit lower. B-17s in the ETO usually cruised at about 155-160 MPH. Fairly common figure I've seen over the years of researching. Not sure about the Lancasters.

Keep in mind they were fully loaded and many were getting fairly "war weary". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ias perhaps? guess it would vary depending on the target, route, hight etc, but they didnt fly that fast, only mossie did. he177 aprently did shallow dives, after climbing to height over france. u could only do that on short range targets tho

Fliegeroffizier
02-24-2005, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ronison:
....

The problem in the design was that the 29 used the norton [Nordon] bomb sight, a very good sight at its time for what it was designed for, lower alatudes with little wind.

Being that the B-29 flew up with the jet stream the norton [Nordon] bomb sight would say the bombs were on target just to "drift" off ..../QUOTE]

Spell checking by Symantec http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, it is Norden, not Nordon

CzechTexan
02-24-2005, 01:47 PM
A good book on the subject is FLAMES OVER TOKYO. It tells the whole story of the B-29 bombing raids on Japan and the reasons for switching to low level night raids. It also gives good figures on the destruction of all major cities and death tolls.