(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

"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/

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.

On 11/3/2021 9:33 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "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/
>
Interesting read. Thank you.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:sludlb$d2i$1@dont-email.me...

.....Over Germany the favored bomber was our oldest, the B-17.
------------------

This is relevant, if not definitive:
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/06/30/boeing-b-17-flying-fortress-vs-the-consolidated-b-24-liberator/

"My father flew a B-17. He said it was amazing the battle damage that plane
would take. My uncle was a gunner on a B-24. He said that no self respecting
Liberator man would admit it, but they would have preferred the B-17."

"There was a serious problem in the design of the oxygen flow around the
upper ball turret. Wear and tear could cause a catastrophic failure leading
to an explosion that caused the plane to “disappear”.

Somewhere in my library is a first-hand account of a B24 suddenly gushing
fuel into the fuselage from a leak somewhere in the wing, which continues
across the center section. It didn't ignite, and the author suggested that
might be the reason B24s sometimes mysteriously blew up.

On 11/3/2021 9:33 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "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.

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.

"koz...@yahoo.com" wrote in message
news:338b0ad1-45c2-4798-9f24-e98f37af9bf0n@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 4:24:50 PM UTC-4, koz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.

"koz...@yahoo.com" wrote in message
news:cdd5e216-dd71-452e-9d16-111a5d07f793n@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 4:24:50 PM UTC-4, koz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 5:28:33 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> 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.

"koz...@yahoo.com" wrote in message
news:9c9d8879-c63e-4e40-8251-634046d8592bn@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 5:28:33 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> 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

On 05/11/2021 21:24, Jim Wilkins wrote:

>
> 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
>
>

The reality was that it was a typical Nazi screwup that wasted
considerable resources at a time when they needed every fighter bomber
they could make and every drop of aviation fuel to oppose the allied air
forces and the Red Army.

The simple fact is that by mid 1944 they couldnt even operate bombers
over the UK let alone the USA. The last attempt by the Luftwaffe was
operation Steinbock which between Jan and May 1944 launched a number of
raids on southern Britain. The results were catastrophic for the Germans
They lost 329 aircraft of the 524 committed. The first raid set the
pattern with the Luftwaffe losing 50 bombers of the 230 strong force and
causing little damage, in fact only 50 of the bombets managed to even
find london. The British were spoofing their radio navigation systems.

A German raid on the USA would have to be staged from western France and
that would be lost in 1944. Even had they been ready by then such was
the scope of RAF photo recon and Allied Sig Int that unusual activity
would have attracted a visit from the allied air forces. In fact just
such a day trip was made by RAF Mitchells with fighter escort to the
Luftwaffe air base at Brest in June 1943.

Brest Lanveoc had been the field from which German long range maritime
patrol bombers opertated from but by early 1944 it had been bombed
scores of time and wa basically unserviceable. The other airfields in
the region had been paid similat attention. By this time even of
Luftwaffe airfields in Germany were no longer safe with the IXth
tactical airforce attacking targets of opportunity throughout the region.

As for aircraft lets look at the reality

Aircraft number built
Me-262A - 3
Focke Wulf Ta 400 - 0
JU 390 - 2
He 277 - 0

"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. Also the problems of accurate
bombing from that altitude were very real. From 10,000 feet the USSBS
calculated a small raid circular error to be 570 feet, versus a large raid
of 765 feet (large raids had the problem the early bomb bursts kicked up
dust and smoke obscuring the target), so the B-36 would do better given
its higher average bomb load. That will be lost if at altitude, from 20,000
feet the errors were calculated to be 830 and 1,070 feet, from 29,000 feet
1,605 and 1,700 feet.

> 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.

Its main "competitor" bomb load wise would be the Lancaster at 10,065
pounds average bomb load for the war. At European ranges something
like 1 B-36 to say 5 Lancasters.

> 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.

> 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.

According to Arthur Harris a mid war RAF Heavy Bomber airfield cost
over a million pounds Sterling, so over 3 million dollars, which was of
course not big enough for the B-29.

The troubles with trying to figure out what a military aircraft cost is bad
enough but the post WWII inflation as price controls were relaxed makes
it worse, plus of course the ability to spread costs across a larger number
of production examples.

R-3350 $24,467 in 1942, $24,201 in 1943, $24,441 in 1944, $24,496 in 1945.
R-4360 $52,200 in 1942, $53,300 in 1944, $42,631 in 1945, $48,400 in 1946.
25 R-4360 built in 1944, 110 in 1945. 11,321 R-3350 built in 1944, 19,922
in 1944.

B-29 $865,036 in 1942, $574,058 in 1944, $467,927 in 1945.
B-36 in 1944, $2,541,138 or about 13.5 B-17 but requiring much less
manpower.
B-50 in 1946 $1,039,521, in 1947 $1,084,230 (B-29 with R-4360)
B-50D in fiscal year 1948, $1,228,469.

And of course there were no B-36 in 1944, just a price estimate.

> But I would expect the war would have been over much, much sooner.

The B-29 was 5 February 1940 requirement issued, 24 August 1940 prototypes
ordered, production of 92 in 1943, 1,161 in 1944 (or total production 470 to
end
June 1944, which is probably the cut off point for much, much sooner),
divide by
4 given the costs and you have 120 or so B-36 for the same money.

B-32 prototypes ordered in September 1940, with 14 built to end 1944.

So an aircraft with first production of 1 in August 1947, then 6 in June
1948 is
arriving in early 1944 and in numbers? And its bombing effect is so great
operation Overlord is not needed, or at least the allied armies are still in
France as the war in Europe ends? It certainly is an air force dream, but
consider the 6 months October 1944 to March 1945, Bomber Command and
the 8th Air Force between them dropped around 615,300 short tons of bombs
on Germany, without causing a surrender. At 25 short tons per B-36 that
works
out to 24,612 effective sorties.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

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
I have read in the past about how the high
altitude versions of the B-36 were quite
immune to fighters.

Fighters could climb as high, but then, because
of wing loading, the big bomber was much more
maneuverable, and could just turn slightly away and
the fighters could not get back on the same track.

On 11/9/2021 10:35 AM, a425couple wrote:
> 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
---

Here are some hints at citations:

About 1,910 results (0.73 seconds)
Search Results

FIGHTER PILOTS HEAVEN PB - Page 162
books.google.com › books
Lopez Ds · 2001
FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 162
With no bomb load and a light fuel load, the B-36 had a low wing
loading and a high power loading, making it surprisingly
maneuverable. The bomber pilots would constantly turn toward
the fighters, making it difficult to complete a ...

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress: Warrior Queen of the USAF
books.google.com › books
Jeanette Remak · 2017
FOUND INSIDE
The wing area permitted a cruising altitude above the operating
ceiling of any of the 1940s piston-turbine fighters. ...
This made the B-36 more maneuverable at high altitudes than many
of the USAF jet interceptors of the day.

"koz...@yahoo.com" <kozelsm@yahoo.com> writes:

>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.

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?"

--
A host is a host from coast to coast...............wb8foz@panix.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"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."

There are intensive and extensive problems, which require different types
and scales of effort to solve. Extensive problems like the A-bomb and
complex B-29 respond to dividing up the effort into more development groups
whiled intensive ones need a small group of the right people, sometimes half
a dozen or fewer, so they don't argue and stay out of each other's way.
Throwing money at such a problem can hurt by reducing the amount of a scarce
critical resource each group receives, for example enriched Uranium and
heavy water in the competing German fission programs. The US created
separate groups to pursue Uranium and Plutonium.

One technical expert in each relevant field plus highly skilled technicians
to implement and test their ideas may be ideal. I was a lab manager at Mitre
and Segway which both operated that way. Teams of only two people almost
simultaneously invented Radar in several countries.
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/2577147/nrl-history-november-1930/

This is a good analysis of the dynamics of a small research and development
group.
https://www.amazon.com/Soul-New-Machine-Tracy-Kidder/dp/0316491977
When it came out I was part of such a group, developing a computerized
tester for semiconductor wafers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_test_equipment

"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:

>"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."

Yes, Harris's monopoly/hoarding of Liberators was THE major
issue. Despite Churchill's fear of the U-boat issue, Harris
still seemed to win all the internecine battles. If Coastal
Command had had the use of a fraction of the B-24's aircraft
lost per week by Harris, the U-Boat issue would have been
resolved far earlier.

Likely because of Harris, I recall reading the #1 most effective
aircraft against U-boats was the Stringbag. They could operate
from one of the ad-hoc carriers easily. And anything with
wings would be 3-4X the speed of a U-boat. They all had the
often best airborne anti_U-boat weapon: a radio to call up a
Hedgehog-equipped destroyer.

And unlike {ahem} ""precision"" bombing, air cover of a convoy
would benefit even if they only harassed the surfaced U-boats
repeatedly, keeping them off-balance.

--
A host is a host from coast to coast...............wb8foz@panix.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"David Lesher" wrote in message news:snoov9$7bq$1@reader1.panix.com...

"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> writes:
....

Yes, Harris's monopoly/hoarding of Liberators was THE major
issue. Despite Churchill's fear of the U-boat issue, Harris
still seemed to win all the internecine battles. If Coastal
Command had had the use of a fraction of the B-24's aircraft
lost per week by Harris, the U-Boat issue would have been
resolved far earlier.

Likely because of Harris, I recall reading the #1 most effective
aircraft against U-boats was the Stringbag. They could operate
from one of the ad-hoc carriers easily. And anything with
wings would be 3-4X the speed of a U-boat. They all had the
often best airborne anti_U-boat weapon: a radio to call up a
Hedgehog-equipped destroyer.

And unlike {ahem} ""precision"" bombing, air cover of a convoy
would benefit even if they only harassed the surfaced U-boats
repeatedly, keeping them off-balance.

------------------

U-Boot memoirs state that constant aerial patrolling of the Bay of Biscay,
sometimes intentionally using obsolete radars the U-Boots could detect (to
mask the use of new ones they couldn't), kept them continually diving night
and day and unable to remain on the surface long enough to recharge their
batteries. Until Schnorchels arrived that tactic could provide a mission
kill without exposing the planes to upgraded AA defenses.

U-505, the one in Chicago, was bombed by a British plane that glided in
unobserved from the clouds with engines idling. The plane came low enough to
score a direct hit on the top of the hull, and was knocked down by the
blast. Since the aircrew had also maintained radio silence they hadn't yet
reported the sighting.

As the hull puncture was above the waterline the crew patched it up as well
as they could and headed for home. They could barely dive deep enough to
hide. A British sub waiting off the Spanish coast heard them but didn't
believe the loud racket of water rushing through remaining damage could
possibly be from a military target, and let them pass. It was the most
damaged U-Boot that managed to return.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-505

"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sno0f4$e0e$1@dont-email.me...
> "David Lesher" wrote in message news:snmqg6$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?"

Yes.

> 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."

Interesting article,

"It was equipped only with small numbers of short-ranged aircraft, the most
common
being the Avro Anson (which was obsolescent by the start of World War II)
and Vickers
Vildebeest (which was obsolete); for a time, shortages of aircraft were so
severe,
"scarecrow patrols" using Tiger Moths were even employed."

Seems the Hudsons, Londons, Stranraers and Sunderlands go missing from
the September 1939 Order of Battle which comes in at around half the size of
Bomber Command.

"Only as Bomber Command transitioned to four-engined aircraft did Coastal
Command receive the castoffs, such as Vickers Wellingtons"

Like the Wellington squadron present on 1 January 1941 for example.

Whitley V 1,700 miles with 3,750 pounds of bombs, maximum fuel, the
Wellington I did 2,550 miles with 500 pounds, jump the load to 2,800 pounds
and the range goes to 1,805 miles.

" motley assortment of Ansons, Whitleys, and Hampdens were unable to carry
the standard 450 lb (205 kg) depth charge"
The Hampdens were there as torpedo bombers, turning up in 1942.

Whitleys could carry the depth charges. What is missing is the early war
aircraft had anti submarine bombs, which were not powerful enough.
The Stirling and Halifax could carry the depth charge.

"Coastal Command's prize was the Consolidated Aircraft Liberator GR.I,
commonly called the VLR Liberator or just VLR. The Liberator B.I proved
too vulnerable for bombing missions over Europe"

The RAF did not use the B-24 as a bomber in what the US called the
European Theatre, the early versions were transports, then came bomber
units overseas, not until 1944 did Bomber Command have any and then
for counter measures.

The VLR was a major rework, to increase range, it was not a ready to go
aircraft,
which resulted in tensions as scarce B-24 were seemingly under modifications
for weeks instead of being on the front line.

B-24 production to end 1941, 1 XB-24, 6 YB/LB-30A, 1 B-24, 9 B-24A,
135 LB-30, 20 LB-30B, 4 B-24C, total 176, of these 93 in Q4/41

UK Liberator imports, 1941, 1 Mar, 3 Apr, 15 May, 4 Jun, 2 Aug (all mark I
to here), 1 Sep, 13 Oct, 25 Nov, 14 Dec, all mark II, total 25 I, 53 II, so
78.

Mark I = YB-24/LB-30A/LB-30B, mark II = LB-30

And of course a number of the early B-24 were not combat worthy and only
used for transports.

As of 1 July 1941 Coastal Command had 3 B-24 in one squadron, strength
climbed to 4 B-24 by 1 August. And the other B-24s went to BOAC/RAF
transport units and bomber units meant for overseas service

The first non Coastal Command RAF B-24 units were 159 and 160
squadrons, formed in January 1942, ordered to India they were held in the
Middle East in June 1942. Firstly to provide cover for a Malta convoy.

According to the RN official history Coastal Command anti submarine
units had 405 aircraft in January 1942, 489 in July and 509 in January
1943. The thing to note is in July 1942 the break down was 16 very
long range, 12 long range, 370 medium range and 91 flying boats,
6 months later the figures were 52, 66, 278 and 111 respectively.

Meantime Bomber Command's aircraft strength figures were
January 1942, 58 Blenheims, 5 Bostons, 161 Hampdens, 89
Whitleys, 353 Wellingtons, 48 Manchesters, 38 Stirlings and
50 Halifaxes, total 802, in January 1943 it was 37 Bostons, 36
Venturas, 5 Mitchells, 23 Mosquitoes, 187 Wellingtons, 104
Stirlings, 173 Halifaxes and 274 Lancasters, total 839. The year
1942 was one of major change over of aircraft types in Bomber
Command.

The 5 squadrons of Coastal Command Catalinas present on 1
January 1942 go missing from the article.

Apart from bombing U-boat bases and building yards, mostly as part of
training
Bomber Command flew 2,226 anti submarine sorties in 1942 and 1943. That
compares with 42,750 by Coastal Command.

"Nor were night air patrols, recognized as necessary, initiated until the
autumn of 1943"
" 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?

" Coastal Command strength never reached 266 VLR",
Escort carriers had a lot to do about that.

"From 14 January 1943 through May, they [Bomber Command} flew seven
thousand sorties[3] against the U-boat pens in Lorient, Brest, and St.
Nazaire,[18]
at a cost of 266 aircraft and crews."

Try 12 raids, 2,781 effective sorties, 36 aircraft lost, January to March
1943, plus
some other minor raids.

Up the above to the target classes City&U-boat pens, U-boat pens, Naval
Stores
(day raid), Port Area (all day raids), shipping (mostly day raids) and you
have 44
bombers missing. To end March a total of 8,038.9 short tons of bombs
dropped
on these targets, to end May 8,450 short tons. (2 April 1943, 90 effective
sorties,
1 Missing, 324 short tons of bombs on U-boat pens.

Or to put it another way, 5 months of attacks on French targets, day and
night,
January to May 1943, there were 59 bombers missing.

The whole article is conviction first, back fill evidence later.

Bomber Command did not want the B-24, it did end up with aircraft that would
have been more usefully employed in Coastal Command in the first half of the
war, similar for electronic aids. The code breaking successes of the second
half of 1941 had reduced allied shipping losses, plus Hitler ordering
U-boats
into the Arctic and Mediterranean, but also the decision to raise the speed
a ship needed before it could sail independently, there were few wolf pack
versus convoy battles in the first half of the war, relative to the number
of ships
sunk, not enough U-boats, plenty of independent sailings and the Germans
could
read the merchant ship code. The anti submarine need for most of 1942 was
off the Americas, and then covering operation Torch. Given the IJN chose
not
to use its submarine force for commerce warfare.

The military need was to stop axis expansion, which continued into the
second
half of 1942. Plenty of urgent needs now versus needs for 1943.

We know now crash building of escorts ahead of new merchant ships, plus more
air cover was the answer, at least to the standard U-boat. Cut down
drastically on
the number of independent sailings was the big one.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:snp8s6$nrd$1@dont-email.me...

I don't know the situation in Britain, but a book on the US Navy I bought at
FDR's mansion claims that tight Depression budgets forced the Navy to
concentrate on building long-lead-time capital ships, the Yorktown CVs and
North Carolina BBs, at the expense of smaller vessels that could be built
faster whenever military necessity increased the budget. They gambled that
Congress would recognize the need early enough, instead of hoping we could
avoid involvement until we were hit by surprise.

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclairnb@froggy.com.au> writes:

>"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?

It had an interesting history. It was not developed by Great
Britain or the US. It was the personal project of Wing Commander
Humphrey de Verd Leigh, who paid for all the R&D out of his own
pocket.

Once it was working, he had to sell it to the RAF, who {of
course} dismissed the idea, then came up with an inferior
alternative. Only after THAT fell on its face did the Leigh
Light get its chance.

--
A host is a host from coast to coast...............wb8foz@panix.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"David Lesher" wrote in message news:snrjfm$qug$1@reader1.panix.com...

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclairnb@froggy.com.au> writes:

>"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?

It had an interesting history. It was not developed by Great
Britain or the US. It was the personal project of Wing Commander
Humphrey de Verd Leigh, who paid for all the R&D out of his own
pocket.

Once it was working, he had to sell it to the RAF, who {of
course} dismissed the idea, then came up with an inferior
alternative. Only after THAT fell on its face did the Leigh
Light get its chance.

----------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here

"Slide Rule" by Nevil Shute recounts the story of a competition between
private industry and socialist government to develop long range passenger
airships. According to him the government was less interested in efficiency
and results than validating Socialism, and their airship was the tragic
result of their incompetence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101