B-47 or B-36 in Korea?

[David E. Powell]

With the B-29 and B-50 forces contending with MiGs over Korea, why not deploy B-36 or B-47 bombers? The B-47s would be much faster, and the B-36 at altitude would be harder to catch than a B-29. Plus one B-36 could drop a massive load of iron bombs.

[Keith Willshaw]

On 29/01/2014 22:35, David E. Powell wrote:
> With the B-29 and B-50 forces contending with MiGs over Korea, why not deploy B-36 or B-47 bombers? The B-47s would be much faster, and the B-36 at altitude would be harder to catch than a B-29. Plus one B-36 could drop a massive load of iron bombs.
>

The answer is very simple

The B-36 and later B-47 essentially were the strategic deterrent. No
other bombers had the range or carrying capacity to hit the USSR from
US bases and there were no ICBM's or SLBM's

The Korean war showed that the B-36 was vulnerable and it was rapidly
phased out in favour of the B-52. Trouble is that by 1952 there were
only a handful of B-47's available and no B-52's. Bottom line is that
SAC were not going to let these assets be used as tactical bombers nor
did it make sense to do so.

Keith

[John Szalay]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in
news:0e0f599e-b3ec-4ffe...@googlegroups.com:

LeMay was not about to waste HIS bombers for a "Police Action"

[a425couple]

"Keith Willshaw" <ke...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in...

> David E. Powell wrote:
>> With the B-29 and B-50 forces contending with MiGs over Korea,

--why not deploy B-36 or B-47 bombers? The B-47s would be much
--faster, and the B-36 at altitude would be harder to catch than a B-29.
--Plus one B-36 could drop a massive load of iron bombs.

(I'm also agreeing with John Szalay.)

> The answer is very simple
> The B-36 and later B-47 essentially were the strategic deterrent. No
> other bombers had the range or carrying capacity to hit the USSR from
> US bases and there were no ICBM's or SLBM's

and

> Trouble is that by 1952 there were
> only a handful of B-47's available and no B-52's. Bottom line is that
> SAC were not going to let these assets be used as tactical bombers nor
> did it make sense to do so.

Yes, to all of above.

> The Korean war showed that the B-36 was vulnerable

That is not so much true.
They used the Reconnaissance RB-36 quite a bit over
Korea and China.
It could operate quite well at high altitudes and was
quite invulnerable to the current fighter planes.
They reportedly could go over 58,000 feet, and
at that altitude jet fighter's wing loading made them
incapable of turning with the big bombers.

[Keith Willshaw]

There is a world of difference between an aircraft carrying cameras and
one that carries several tons of bombs. The RB-36 was in fact in service
for pretty short time with the last being withdrawn by 1959. It was
left to the RB-47 and the U-2 to make the really deep recon flights over
the defended airspace of the USSR.

Keith

[Daryl]

It wasn't until the Mig-17 made it's debut that the B-36 became
vulnerable. The B-36 was completely taken out of service by Feb, 1959.
It's day had come to an end for various reasons. But it wasn't the
Mig-15 that ended it.

In 1950, there just wasn't enough B-36s to do all three missions:
Conventional Bomber; Recon; Delivery of the really big bombs that no
other aircraft could carry as a Nuke Carrier.

But one Variant of the B-36 continue to operate throughout the Korean
War. The XC-99 was used by the Air Force for 10 years. To give you an
idea how successful it was, there was only 1 XC-99 yet it hauled over 60
million ibs of cargo in it's lifetime. It would start on the East
Coast, dropping off and picking up cargo, hopscotch across the nation,
on to Hawaii and then on to Japan and into Korea after there was a large
enough secure airfield for it to land on. Then it retraced it's steps
back. In 10 years, it logged over 7,400 flying hours. During Korea, if
you needed something transported from the East Coast or West Coast to
Korea fast, it was probably the XC-99 that carried it if was oversized
or super heavy.

Could the XC-99 ever face up to even one single Mig-15? With a top
speed and performance (except for weight and bulk), the XC-99 was
comparable to a C-54 or a C-97. It carried a huge "Shoot Me Here" sign
on it's back end.


--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[Peter Stickney]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> On 29/01/2014 22:35, David E. Powell wrote:
>> With the B-29 and B-50 forces contending with MiGs over Korea,
>> why not deploy B-36 or B-47 bombers? The B-47s would be much
>> faster, and the B-36 at altitude would be harder to catch than
>> a B-29. Plus one B-36 could drop a massive load of iron bombs.

The Heavies in Korea were B-29s and RB-29s. The only B-50s that
appeared at all were RB-50s that were performing perimeter recon
of the Soviet territory from Vladivostock on up.

That said, after the initial phase of the confilict, before the
Chinese intervened, there weren't any strategic targets left in
the DPRK. The B-29's trade was interdiction, with a special
concentration against the bridges across the Yalu River from
China. Although the B-29s could be vulnerable to MiG-15s in
daylight, they switched operations to night work, and losses were
held to an acceptable level.

That said, there weren't a lot of B-47s or B-36s available. Yhe
'47 was brand new - it just started entering service in 1951, and
there was a steep learning curve in bringing in the new jets.
(The '47s were also quickly strung as Nuke Carriers - when the
Quemoy and Matsu crisis heated up in the later '50s, some thought
was given to deploying B-47s to possibly take out Red Chinese
coastal installations and airfields - until it was realized that
the short bomb bay '47s (Which they all were at that point)could
only carry 6,000# of conventional bombs, and the job could be
done better with fighter-bombers.

The B-36s in service when the Korean War broke out were mostly
RB-36s, tasked with high altitude peripheral reconnaisance of the
Soviet Union. (At 50Kft the horizon is a long way away, and they
carried some amazing long-lens cameras. Since the Soviets
weren't as obliging as we were about revealing the locations of
objects within their borders, we had to do a lot of looking.

So - there wasn't much need, and the airplanes were needed for
other things.

> The answer is very simple
>
> The B-36 and later B-47 essentially were the strategic
> deterrent. No
> other bombers had the range or carrying capacity to hit the
> USSR from US bases and there were no ICBM's or SLBM's
>
> The Korean war showed that the B-36 was vulnerable and it was
> rapidly phased out in favour of the B-52. Trouble is that by
> 1952 there were
> only a handful of B-47's available and no B-52's. Bottom line
> is that SAC were not going to let these assets be used as
> tactical bombers nor did it make sense to do so.

The B-36s at height - 40 Kft+ - weren't very vulnerable to any
sunsonic/transonic fighter armed with guns. A MiG-15 or -17 (Or,
for that matter, an F-86 or Hunter) had very little G available,
and was operating very close to stalling out. Their only viable
attacks were Pursuit Curve gun runs, and the B-36 could defeat
them with a modest turn into the attack - the fighter can't pull
teh extra G needed to pull lead, and doesn't have the excess
power to maintain height - it either overshoots the turn, and has
to crawl back to the perch to try again (And, if you're a MiG,
maybe run out of gas), or it stalls and drops 3 or 4 miles before
it recovers.
That was a major reason for the USAF adopting FFAR volleys fired
from collision course attacks. The interceptor wasn't
maneuvering with the bomber, nor was it limited to an engagement
from the rear. The collision course attackes also didn't require
as much of a performance advantage, making the aircraft effectve
against B-47 performance (Or Canberra, Valiant, such) aircraft.

TheU.S. Navy tried to claim that the '36s were vulnerable - they
were, after all, fighting the budget battles againt tne new
upstart Air Force, but I haven't seen any good gun camera shots
from a Banshee of a B-36.
(The F2H could make it to 50,000'. It just couldn't maneuver up
there.)

--
Pete Stickney
From the foothills of the Florida Alps

[Daryl]

On 2/2/2014 9:56 PM, Peter Stickney wrote:
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> On 29/01/2014 22:35, David E. Powell wrote:
>>> With the B-29 and B-50 forces contending with MiGs over Korea,
>>> why not deploy B-36 or B-47 bombers? The B-47s would be much
>>> faster, and the B-36 at altitude would be harder to catch than
>>> a B-29. Plus one B-36 could drop a massive load of iron bombs.
>
> The Heavies in Korea were B-29s and RB-29s. The only B-50s that
> appeared at all were RB-50s that were performing perimeter recon
> of the Soviet territory from Vladivostock on up.
>
> That said, after the initial phase of the confilict, before the
> Chinese intervened, there weren't any strategic targets left in
> the DPRK. The B-29's trade was interdiction, with a special
> concentration against the bridges across the Yalu River from
> China. Although the B-29s could be vulnerable to MiG-15s in
> daylight, they switched operations to night work, and losses were
> held to an acceptable level.

Anytime one is involved in any conflict and "acceptable levels" are
brought up, it should scare the living hell out of you. Welcome to War.

>
> That said, there weren't a lot of B-47s or B-36s available. Yhe
> '47 was brand new - it just started entering service in 1951, and
> there was a steep learning curve in bringing in the new jets.
> (The '47s were also quickly strung as Nuke Carriers - when the
> Quemoy and Matsu crisis heated up in the later '50s, some thought
> was given to deploying B-47s to possibly take out Red Chinese
> coastal installations and airfields - until it was realized that
> the short bomb bay '47s (Which they all were at that point)could
> only carry 6,000# of conventional bombs, and the job could be
> done better with fighter-bombers.
>
> The B-36s in service when the Korean War broke out were mostly
> RB-36s, tasked with high altitude peripheral reconnaisance of the
> Soviet Union. (At 50Kft the horizon is a long way away, and they
> carried some amazing long-lens cameras. Since the Soviets
> weren't as obliging as we were about revealing the locations of
> objects within their borders, we had to do a lot of looking.

the RBs were what they used the A models for. They were upgraded and
converted.