B-29... good investment or waste of money? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

fbs -> B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 5:07:48 PM)


From the positive side, it bombed Japan, mined the ports and dropped the atomic bomb.

But, bombing of Japan was more effective only after Feb-1945, with the low-level incendiary bomb runs. By that time, Japan's fate was already sealed. Also, the mining of ports could be done by other means, and I guess that a B-24 could be modified to carry the atomic bombs from Iwo Jima.

So, did the B-29 justify being the most expensive program of the war, or would the money have been better spent on more submarines, carriers or shipping?

Thanks!
fbs



d0mbo -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 5:12:02 PM)

Yes



anarchyintheuk -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 5:18:18 PM)

Imo no, but iirc it was pitched to the army in '39 or '40 and nobody knew capabilities of the 4es at the time and there was no way to predict what the situation would be when they eventually went into service. It was the next logical step in bomber design (faster, higher flying, etc.) and too much institutional support for such a program for it to die absent a demonstrated lack of need for the aircraft or a complete production failure.



Dixie -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 5:28:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Imo no, but iirc it was pitched to the army in '39 or '40 and nobody knew capabilities of the 4es at the time and there was no way to predict what the situation would be when they eventually went into service. It was the next logical step in bomber design (faster, higher flying, etc.) and too much institutional support for such a program for it to die absent a demonstrated lack of need for the aircraft or a complete production failure.


I was going to make more or less the same points, but I'd say it probably was worth the investment. Maybe most of it's roles could have been carried out by other means, but it probably would've needed far more effort and investment of forces. iirc the atmoic bombs couldn't fit in the B-24 or B-17, although I may be wrong.

Wouldn't any money saved from not developing the B-29 have gone into other Army projects rather than more navy ships? Even during wartime forces on the same side tend to be protective of their babies. Even towards the end of the war there was no guarantee that Japan would fold as they did and strategic bombing of Japan was felt to be a vital part of the war effort.

There's also the long term benefits and effects. It was the first stratospheric bomber and paved the way for the jet bombers that followed and allowed the USAF to become an independant force capable of nuclear deterrant in the early Cold War days.



sfbaytf -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 5:36:10 PM)

Perhaps the real question is not the B-29 per se, but the overall cost and effectiveness of the strategic bombing concept in WW2. Could the money and resources spent on strategic bombing assets (B-17, B-24, B-29, bases, manpower) been better utilized elsewhere. Use the manpower instead to raise more ground combat divisions, focus more on tactical bombers to support ground troops, have more B-26, A20s so on and so forth.

Alot of the passionate and heated arguments over the role of air power was the reason why the US Air Force was created after the war and the Army was stripped of most of it's airpower.

The continuing debate is a reason why the US Marines have insisted on keeping a seperate air force. They don't want to be dependent on someone esle for providing air support.



P.Hausser -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 5:47:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Perhaps the real question is not the B-29 per se, but the overall cost and effectiveness of the strategic bombing concept in WW2. Could the money and resources spent on strategic bombing assets (B-17, B-24, B-29, bases, manpower) been better utilized elsewhere.







The whole Strategic Bomber thing turned into a deliberate slaughter of civilians with intention of forcing totalitarian regimes to surrender,
as they would care if Johanna and Inger died to "Napalm type" bombs when trying to hide out in their grandma's basement.



sfbaytf -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 5:55:56 PM)

After the war numerous studies indicated the bombing of civilians had the opposite effect. It just hardened their resolve to fight harder. Today the same problem exists and is a reason why so much trouble is taken to try and avoid any civilian casualties and why insurgents try to mix in with civilians so they are shielded from air attacks.

At the time-WW2 peoples attitudes and social norms were different.



sfbaytf -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 6:05:40 PM)

In AE game terms I find the B-29 to be invaluable due to it's range, bomb capacity and abiliy to defend itself. I would not have carried out my recent invasion of Okinawa if I didn't have B-29's. They were instrumential in blasting the air bases packed with fighters and bombers surrounding and on Okinawa. I would have suffered unacceptable losses from air attacks. The difference between a B-29 strike and a B-24 strike on an airbase is substantial. I could not bomb many of the Japanese airbases with B-24's as they don't have the range.

B-29's range also is a big factor in being able to mine many ports that are not in B-24 range.

I've also garnered over 6000 points from firebombing cities. Don't know if it has any material affect on the war though.

On occasion I've used the B-29's range to bomb ships in Japanes home island ports.

In AE terms the B-29 is a very useful tool.



fbs -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 6:29:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
In AE terms the B-29 is a very useful tool.



That's a good point, and it also reflects a significant difference between AE and the actual war on Allied side. In AE we get resources for free, so between 0 B-29 and 500 B-29 we'll of course want the 500 B-29. But, in the actual war they had to choose between 500 B-29 and 2,000 B-24; or 500 B-29 and 10,000 C-47. If you could choose, what would you?



anarchyintheuk -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 6:30:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Wouldn't any money saved from not developing the B-29 have gone into other Army projects rather than more navy ships? Even during wartime forces on the same side tend to be protective of their babies.



I'd agree. Probably increased a/c production. In some ways, the B-29 was inevitable. If that specific B-29 wasn't designed another one would have been. The Army Air Corps/Force needed it as a claim on funding, resources and production.



CarnageINC -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 6:33:09 PM)

Yes, it was the grandfather to the modern cold war strategic bombers, B-47, 50, 52, 58, etc.  Without out them our capability to project nuclear power would of allowed the Soviets and Chinese to run more freely in the world.  Nations must force other nations to react to what their doing, there by spending resources that most of them can ill afford to do.  In most conflicts new weapons or tactics almost always have had a deciding factor in who will win.



sfbaytf -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 6:40:42 PM)

I would have to take the 500 B-29's. The range factor alone makes it worthwhile. If nothing else the ability to fly greater distances and take pictures is worth the cost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs


quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
In AE terms the B-29 is a very useful tool.



That's a good point, and it also reflects a significant difference between AE and the actual war on Allied side. In AE we get resources for free, so between 0 B-29 and 500 B-29 we'll of course want the 500 B-29. But, in the actual war they had to choose between 500 B-29 and 2,000 B-24; or 500 B-29 and 10,000 C-47. If you could choose, what would you?




witpqs -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 6:49:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

The whole Strategic Bomber thing turned into a deliberate slaughter of civilians with intention of forcing totalitarian regimes to surrender, as they would care if Johanna and Inger died to "Napalm type" bombs when trying to hide out in their grandma's basement.


AFAIK the intention was not to get the regimes to surrender over concerns for their people, but by destroying their means of production. When hitting factories turned out to have less than the desired effect (for many reasons) part of the effort turned to 'make the workers ineffective' by making many homeless and killing or injuring some. [Not saying it was the right way to go.]



P.Hausser -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 7:17:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

AFAIK the intention was not to get the regimes to surrender over concerns for their people, but by destroying their means of production. When hitting factories turned out to have less than the desired effect (for many reasons) part of the effort turned to 'make the workers ineffective' by making many homeless and killing or injuring some. [Not saying it was the right way to go.]




I agree, a quote from one of the directives
"The progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic systems and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened"



JWE -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 7:26:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
At the time-WW2 peoples attitudes and social norms were different.

That they were. To get a grasp on the issue, one must try to think like a turn-of-the-century person who had just experienced the ultimate horror of War-I. The theories of Guilio Douhet, Billy Mitchell, Hugh Trenchard, et al, offered what seemed a panacea (or at least a prophylactic) to million man casualty lists. Aircraft, in the 20s and 30s had very limited capabilities and could neither affirm nor deny the philosophical expectation. Nevertheless, the imperitive to apply the prophylactic was formost in the minds of its adherents.

Aboslutely no one had a clue as to what the acceleration stresses of War-II would ultimately produce in terms of aircraft capability. The fact of a wartime environment puts immediate functional performance clearly ahead of consideration of long term implications. Logic is irrelevant at the inception of a Darwinian system. It is only relevant at the end, in order to identify the shape of the progression.

Given the mind set of a 1920-1940 military professional, and the social/philosophical/cultural environment of the times, there ain't no way, that nobody, nohow, would ever keep the B-29 from development.



sfbaytf -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 7:42:52 PM)

This is why I don't buy into the modern day questioning of dropping the atomic bombs. In the modern context it sounds unreasonable, but in the context of the norms and situation of WW2 it makes sense.

Had we invaded and suffered the losses we would have and it was later discovered we has it and didn't use it, I think the public uproar would have been defeaning.



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 8:35:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser



The whole Strategic Bomber thing turned into a deliberate slaughter of civilians with intention of forcing totalitarian regimes to surrender,
as they would care if Johanna and Inger died to "Napalm type" bombs when trying to hide out in their grandma's basement.



Hmm, that was a bit "incendiary". Given your sig, that even seems a bit ironic...

I think it is fairer to say, that the democracys of Britain and the United States could not understand why the people of Germany and Japan continued to allow the governments to rule, and kept increasing the pressure. A democracy can certainly elect poor or evil leaders, but they usually don't have to be invaded to remove them. In retrospect, it seemed to harden resolve rather than encourage revolt. 60+ years later, however, I still hold the populations of Germany and Japan significantly culpable. Far, far too many Germans and Japanese citizens supported the efforts of the Governments for me to feel comfortable.

In the end, the destruction of Japan's cities and the death of so many citizens had the effect of forcing Japan to surrender--once the Soviets were no longer an option to mediate more favorable surrender terms, and the Atomic bombs had hinted that the total devastation of Japan was imminent...



SuluSea -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 8:48:33 PM)

B-29 was money well spent not only for the destruction caused by the planes but the lessons learned helped in developing future weapon systems.

quote:

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."
William Tecumseh Sherman

 
 



tc464 -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 9:11:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

The whole Strategic Bomber thing turned into a deliberate slaughter of civilians with intention of forcing totalitarian regimes to surrender,
as they would care if Johanna and Inger died to "Napalm type" bombs when trying to hide out in their grandma's basement.



"It was their system of dispersal of industry. All you had to do was visit one of those targets after we roasted it, and see the ruins of a multitude of tiny houses, with a drill press sticking up through the wreckage of every home. The entire population got into the act and worked to make those airplanes or munitions of war... men, women, children. We knew we were going to kill a lot of women and kids when we burned that town. Had to be done." -- Curtis LeMay



jwilkerson -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 9:12:43 PM)

With the caveat that this thread is obviously treading the line between political discussion and military history - and would toss in that in WAR the "ROI" (Return on investiment) is ultimately measured based on whether the item in question brought the war to a successful conclusion more quickly. Ending the war quickly stops all the bad things about war the soonest. The death, destruction not to mention all manner of spending on weapons - all these are abrupted ended when the war ends. The B-29 certainly hastened the end of the war - yes it was expensive - so was the Manhattan project - so were the US Army and US Navy - but all were elements of ending the war more quickly and ending the bad effects for all parties.




JWE -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 9:20:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
This is why I don't buy into the modern day questioning of dropping the atomic bombs. In the modern context it sounds unreasonable, but in the context of the norms and situation of WW2 it makes sense.

Had we invaded and suffered the losses we would have and it was later discovered we has it and didn't use it, I think the public uproar would have been defeaning.

Yes, sir. Given the mind set, at the time, the Atomic bomb was simply a weapon. It is only with benefit of our contemporary hindsight that we now understand the true implications of using this as a weapon.

I understand that Oppenheimer and others saw Chesterton's Shiva, the Devourer of Worlds; and I would likely have been there too. But there is a disconnect between expressions of cultural philosophy and cultural survival imperitives.

The whole world, at the time, was a bubbling pot of political change: there were monarchists, there were oligarchs, there were democrats, and of the democrats there were socialists and capitalists and national socialists, and frikkin bears, oh my. The hearts and minds of the Euro (and Japanese) masses were not far away from conformance to a monarchical establishment, so a national socialist structure wouldn't be all that different. So what the hell to do to make your way in the turmoil of the early 20th century? Lots of people starving, hoping, thinking, remembering, believing, wanting, and caring. Woof !!

So that's kind of the environment, but I'm probably internalising less than 10% of what really was. So there once was a world that our generation has absolutely no clue about. I doubt there's a thousand people in the whole country who know that Chesterton isn't a cigarette.

Life is perception; and it's the perception of them that we give the 'scale' to.

[edit] sorry didn't see Joe's post. Please ignore everything. Joe, should I delete this post?



sfbaytf -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 9:28:27 PM)

Bombing of cites with the intention of killing civilians was highly controversial back then. After Dresden the public in Britian and the US was horrified. Bomber Harris was often referee to as butcher Harris in he RAF and other circles. I think with the benefit of hindsight if given he choice we probably would have pursued a different course, but we didn't have the knowledge we have today. The airplane was still a relatively new weapon and theories behind it's use were still being worked out.

I think he bombing of oil targets were the most productive use of strategic bombers- once they and the fighters neutralized the enemy airpower. In the Pacific it was different. I think the mining of ports was the most effective. The jet stream over Japan made precision bombing very difficult. I don't know offhand the use of strategic bombers hitting airfields to neutralize kamikazies, but Im sure once the carnage at Okinawa took place it became a prioriy.



Nikademus -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 9:30:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

[[edit] sorry didn't see Joe's post. Please ignore everything. Joe, should I delete this post?


Without touching on the political, i'd recommend Richard Frank's "Downfall" in regards to the A-Bomb question. It's a thought provoker.




mike scholl 1 -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 9:38:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Imo no, but iirc it was pitched to the army in '39 or '40 and nobody knew capabilities of the 4es at the time and there was no way to predict what the situation would be when they eventually went into service. It was the next logical step in bomber design (faster, higher flying, etc.) and too much institutional support for such a program for it to die absent a demonstrated lack of need for the aircraft or a complete production failure.



In addition, you need to remember that the President of the US was facinated with the "potential" of air power, and a strong supporter of it's programs.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 10:02:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Imo no, but iirc it was pitched to the army in '39 or '40 and nobody knew capabilities of the 4es at the time and there was no way to predict what the situation would be when they eventually went into service. It was the next logical step in bomber design (faster, higher flying, etc.) and too much institutional support for such a program for it to die absent a demonstrated lack of need for the aircraft or a complete production failure.



In addition, you need to remember that the President of the US was facinated with the "potential" of air power, and a strong supporter of it's programs.



Good point.



freeboy -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 10:52:44 PM)

One note of difference when we look at bombing industry in Japan vs Germany, the Japanees had lots of cottage industry supportingthe war effort, small factories in and around wooden building, giving a added factor in a firestorm bombing campeign..
back on track;
My thoughts are it is truly hard to say that without a bomber which was used to  effectively shortened the war with its  and the long range capabilities the allies would be better off... sure, we could have bult more of lessable planes, but really we had HUGE amounts of surplus atteh end of the war... ships, planes tanks... it was not the lack of industry, but rather in its employment that may or may not have shortened the war....
So, to make a convoluted argument crystal clear, my vote is on YES the B 29 was worth it, with a large asterisk after the answer.



fbs -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 11:04:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Given the mind set of a 1920-1940 military professional, and the social/philosophical/cultural environment of the times, there ain't no way, that nobody, nohow, would ever keep the B-29 from development.



That's true, but the same can be said of the battleship - no way anyone could stop the building of the dozens of ultimately white elephants between 1920 and 1950.

I don't question heavy bombers as the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster, as anyone would rather have the means of delivering a big payload than not. My question is the actual benefit of spending vast sums to build an incredibly advanced bomber, a generation ahead of its competition, which became effective only after the war was already won.

Putting it the other way around, the B-29 cost $630K each (plus development cost, in the order of a few hundred million), a B-24 cost $300K, and a Gato SS cost around $1M in WW2 dollars. The development cost alone of the B-29 would easily cover building 100-200 submarines, and with a rate of three B-29 = two Gato SS, I'd go with the submarines as having a much better cost/benefit -- specially against a country completely dependent on sea lanes.

Of course, these points are moot, as nothing could have stopped the B-29 program, specially when there was plenty of money available to go around.


Thanks,
fbs



USS Henrico -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/9/2010 11:12:04 PM)

The B-24s (and B-17s once transferred from Europe) could have bombed Japan as the B-29 did, but they would have had to been based closer because of their shorter range. Thus the bombing of Japan would have started later and the war probably would have been lengthened by several months IMO. As has been mentioned, the B-29 led to the strategic bombers that came later, so something similar to the B-29 would have been developed eventually.

Note that the B-29 did have a competing program, the B-32 Dominator, which only started arriving as the war ended, so it is a forgotten sister. The B-32 does show up in AE.




JohnDillworth -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/10/2010 12:27:48 AM)

The B-29 effect is not modeled well in the game. The pilots have low experience levels, the Japanese have an abnormal number of pilots and planes whilst the allies are limited to historic numbers. This allows an imbalance that makes them much less effective then they were in real life. Also the Mariana's airfields are not sized correctly. Although Tinian was THE LARGEST AIRFIELD IN THE WORLD in 1945 the developers saw fit to only allow it as a level 7. Even with overstacking it is not possible in the game to model historic strike sizes with the frequency that occurred that in real life. They are really not much of a factor in the game.



bklooste -> RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money? (4/10/2010 1:23:44 AM)

Since the B29s didnt do anything the B17s from Europe couldnt....  yes. On Feb 45 just move 8th Airforce to the Pacific.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625