B-29... good investment or waste of money?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

fbs
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:52 am

B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by fbs »


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
Posts: 592
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Holland

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by d0mbo »

Yes
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3946
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by 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.
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by Dixie »

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.
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
sfbaytf
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:54 pm

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by 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. 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.
User avatar
P.Hausser
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:24 am

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by P.Hausser »

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
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:54 pm

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by sfbaytf »

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
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:54 pm

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by sfbaytf »

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
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:52 am

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by fbs »

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
Posts: 3946
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by anarchyintheuk »

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.
User avatar
CarnageINC
Posts: 2208
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Rapid City SD

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by CarnageINC »

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
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:54 pm

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by sfbaytf »

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.
ORIGINAL: fbs

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?
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by witpqs »

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.]
User avatar
P.Hausser
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:24 am

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by P.Hausser »

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"
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by JWE »

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
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:54 pm

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by 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.
User avatar
Wirraway_Ace
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Austin / Brisbane

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by Wirraway_Ace »

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...
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2377
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by SuluSea »

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

 
 
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
tc464
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: Sodom on Potomac

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by tc464 »

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
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 7900
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: B-29... good investment or waste of money?

Post by jwilkerson »

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.

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”