B29s for 617 sqn?

I learned recently that 617 sqn allongside it's compliment of Lancasters had a small number of Mosquitoes for target marking. This worked so well that the USAAF gave 617 a Mustang for target marking, which was also a success.

I also learned that tallboy and grand slam bombs were designed to be dropped from much higher than the Lancaster's 16,000 odd ft.

So how would it be possible for the USA to gift a handful of B29s for 617 sqn to use? What sort of impact could this have on the war?
 

sharlin

Banned
The B-29 could carry the Tallboy but I doubt there would be little change, the Tallboy/Grandslam combined with the Lancaster was a very powerful combination also the B-29 was a maintenance pig.
 
Lancaster was good enough, and the B-29 was needed in the Pacific. They did drop Tallboy, Grand Slam and an even bigger derivative postwar - but there was no really tough target that needed them in the Pacific.

b29_se_dv_ma_pumami_tallboy.jpg
 
B29's for 617

Timings are the main issue here. The big fault with the B29 was that it was technically very advanced and had several sometimes lethal teething troubles that the US air force and boeing had to resolve. Missions started from memory in June 44 from India/ mainland China and from Siapan by Oct 44.
The most famous Tallboy mission was the Tirpitz sinking in Nov 44. Tallboys had been dropped successfully from Mid 44 on Sub pens, V rocket sites and manufacturing facilities as well as critical railway tunnels. The Lancaster, stripped down could exceed 20,000 ft with a tall boy dependant on how far the target was from base (how much fuel it would have on board) and the age of such things as the engines. Above 18,000ft the Tallboy would reach a supersonic velocity (>750mph). Yes if dropped from 30,000ft it would have reached an even higher speed. The big peroblem would be the further modifications required to the B29. A tall boy is 21ft long whilst the standard bomb bays fwd and aft of a B29 from memory are around 13.5 ft each. The Grand slam is even bigger with a overall length of 26.5 ft. The Lancaster was uniquely qualified in 1944 to carry this munition. It had a 33ft bomb bay. THe B29 ended up being a fine aircraft but it simply wasn't fully shaken out and ready in mid to end 44. (too many engine fires etc).

Incidently when the americans were looking for an aircraft that could carry the A bomb they used it as a lever to accelerate B29 development. It was pointed out to them that Roy Chadwicks Lancaster could already carry the A bomb un modified. I guess the challenge for the Lancaster carrying the A bomb would be crew survivability. They would have been best part of 10,000 ft lower than the Enola Gay when they released, however if they had used a parachute retard device on the bomb with a barometric detonator to activate at say 5,000 ft then the would have had around 90 seconds to escape and put their raybans and lead underwear on !!
 
I have wondered what their effect would be on the tunnels and caves on Iwo Jima.


Did the USN ever consider special "bunker busting" ammo for it's BB guns? Something along the lines of the German "concrete piercing" ammo for the 14'' guns providing firesupport.
Or were the standard armour piercing shells efective against reinforced cave positions?
I remember a claim that New Jersey was very efective destroying some buried positions in Lebanon in the 80s
 
I was thinking of a handful of B29s in Europe for the specific purpose of precisions dropping tallboys and grandslams. A B29 should be able to carry these big bombs up to 30,000 feet where they will have much of the kinetic energy they were designed to have but didn't in practice because of the Lancaster's low ceiling.
 

Pangur

Donor
Did the USN ever consider special "bunker busting" ammo for it's BB guns? Something along the lines of the German "concrete piercing" ammo for the 14'' guns providing firesupport.
Or were the standard armour piercing shells efective against reinforced cave positions?
I remember a claim that New Jersey was very efective destroying some buried positions in Lebanon in the 80s

Perhaps in the invasion of Japan went ahead they very well have done just that
 
On problem in the B-29 design might be that it could technically carry a large Tallboy, or Grand Slam bomb only externally, as its bombay's were restricted in size, by the fuselage structure, which is why the B-29 carried several bombbay's and not a single one large bay. As the picture send earlier, it cearly shows a B-29 with an externally fitted large bomb, type not easily identified, but that would certainly affect flight performance and overall capabilities. The Lancaster at least did carry the Grand Slam and Tallboy internally, although without the bombbaydoors, which needed to be removed to fit in the thing. Therefore the lancaster was less influenced in flight performance than another type of aircraft, if needing to carry the ordonance externally.
 
On problem in the B-29 design might be that it could technically carry a large Tallboy, or Grand Slam bomb only externally, as its bombay's were restricted in size, by the fuselage structure, which is why the B-29 carried several bombbay's and not a single one large bay. As the picture send earlier, it cearly shows a B-29 with an externally fitted large bomb, type not easily identified, but that would certainly affect flight performance and overall capabilities. The Lancaster at least did carry the Grand Slam and Tallboy internally, although without the bombbaydoors, which needed to be removed to fit in the thing. Therefore the lancaster was less influenced in flight performance than another type of aircraft, if needing to carry the ordonance externally.

The Lancs carried Grand Slam much as the B-29 carried the Bell X-1, which was larger, but lighter. Drop altitude was around 23,000 to 26,000 ft. The X-1 weight approximated Tallboy.
 
Of course post-war the RAF did have a squadron (or two?) of B-29's... I assume this was because the Lincoln wasn't thought to be good enough for some roles?
 
Of course post-war the RAF did have a squadron (or two?) of B-29's... I assume this was because the Lincoln wasn't thought to be good enough for some roles?

I think the issue was the top speed of the Lincoln that wasn't considered fast enough being 100km/hr slower than the B 29.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Of course post-war the RAF did have a squadron (or two?) of B-29's... I assume this was because the Lincoln wasn't thought to be good enough for some roles?

87 Washington B.1s, in 9 squadrons, with most in service for 3/4 years, until the Canberra and V-bombers came along.
They were adopted as an interim nuclear bomber, and to get the crews experienced to modern, complicated bombers. Lincolns just weren't pressurized, or as finicky as the Superfortress.
 
Top