# A-Bombing Germany



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

If, heven forbid, the allies did have to Atom bomb germany, which plane would they have used? My vote goes to the lancaster.................


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

I don't think it was ever seriously considered, due to all the European Countries being together, but if we'd have had do it, definately the Lancaster could've handled it.- Probably would've got Leonard Cheshire to fly it too...The uranium A-Bomb was only 9000lbs and the plutonium one was 10,000lbs, that they dropped on Japan, just a pair of real grunty Tallboys really...and ''one pass of course, old boy...!''


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

ironically, the A-bombs dropped on japan both missed their targets............


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 24, 2004)

One thing good about an atomic bomb detonating is that the fireball is so large that pinpoint accuracy was not needed. But I remember that the 2 A-bombs that were dropped on Japan were set to detonate above ground as an air burst to maxamize damage.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2004)

i can't believe people are voting for the B-29..................


----------



## Crazy (Apr 25, 2004)

Only 'cause it's better....


----------



## R Pope (Apr 25, 2004)

The Silverplate B-29's were designed to A-bomb Germany and Japan. The Germans just quit too soon. You don't think the Yanks would have let anyone else have a nuke, do you?


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 26, 2004)

Henschel HS-123







Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2004)

and the point of that was?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 26, 2004)

Did you know Australia was the first country to invite another to come and test-drop nukes on them ? Post-war, their Prime Minister, Menzies I think, was a total Anglophile and invited them [Without Cabinet approval] to use their desert for tests. Britain flew V-bombers all the way there [in-flight fuel-up's] and dropped them on the Maralinga test-range, the 'Blue Danube' A-bomb, I think...Caused a real outcry in Aussie, the Brits had to come back and clean it up - They lost alotta kangaroos and some Aborigines....[signed 'Kiwi-stirrer !!!] - P.S. IT'S TRUE !!! - It did help Britain's Nuclear-Deterrent Program...


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 26, 2004)

Also, I disagree that B-29's were 'designed' to A-bomb Europe Japan. There was only one B-29 that ever arrived in U.K., WWII, and it was an Intelligence exercise to throw off the Germans. They had plans to have 12 groups in N.Ireland, and 12 near Cairo, Eygpt, but USAAF wanted a long-range heavy bomber to bomb Japan, so thats where they headed, the CBI, and Marianas, when they were captured. Faced with huge losses to assault Jap homelands, the B-29 was the only aircraft available in the theatre to do the A-bombs....Britain acquired 50 B-29's post-war, and called them 'Washingtons'...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2004)

And the Soviets copied them (putting 23mm instead of 12.7mm for defence) and called it the Tu-4 'Bull'


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

but why would they fly out a plane to do a job that we had thousands of planes to do.................


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 27, 2004)

They didn't fly it to the UK to drop A-bombs, just throw the German Intelligence off, make them think that B-29's were going to start arriving soon in force - They didn't , they all went to the Far East...


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and the point of that was?



Hey, my recent demotion has left me feeling a bit cheeky 

Gotta prob, Bob?


FVS / IDDS / DES Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

B-29, no doubt about it 8) and the captured german stuka part..... i sincerely hop youre joking


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

ok, who voted for "other" and what plane do you think it would be?


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 28, 2004)

I would have to go with the B-29 as the Lancaster was slower then the B-29 and wasn't Pressurize like the B-29 was.

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

also, its probably more likely that a lancaster would get shot down more than a b-29 8) which unless the lancaster was over france at the time is a bad thing  (joke)


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 28, 2004)

I have to say I would have to agree that the A-bomb would have not been used in Europe. But if it was, the B-29. Why would the U.S. Let any other air arm even the RAF know about the Bomb? It even kept its own crews seperate from the rest of the lot.

If any other plane were to use it I might have to go with the Lancaster,  but then a modified B-24L that flew in the Pacific could have done the job. Bottom line we did not have to use the bomb!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

but that's what this topic's about, what would they use, it still think it would be the lancaster....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

no he b29 is far more suitable for the job 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

why?, the lancaster had the range and payload to do it................


----------



## Crazy (Apr 29, 2004)

So did the B-29. Plus, the Superfortress was already being equipped to drop the A-bomb.




Besides, it was an American bomb, you think we'd just hand it over to the British? No offence to the lads across the pond, but it just seems unlikely 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 29, 2004)

Yeah, but it wasn't specifically designed and built JUST to drop the A-bomb.- In fact the B-29 had major teething-troubles and was built to supercede the tired B-17 as a high-altitude bomber, hence the pressurisation from concept.- It was in the Pacific theatre because since Doolittle's raid, they needed such a bomber to raid Japan.- They still couldn't bomb Japan to it's knees, so a total of 46 were modified at Omaha,[based on an early-model configured at Wright Airfield in '43], and was known as the 509th Composite Group.- Also, it was British Intelligence that alerted the US to Germanys deuterium oxide production, which was soon destroyed by British Commandos Bombers- The British were involved in research that led to Project Manhatten, and that's why G/C Leonard Cheshire VC, Britain's Top Bomber-pilot was up at 39,000ft in 'Bock's Car' when the 2nd A-bomb sailed down on Nagasaki ...


----------



## Crazy (Apr 29, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> Yeah, but it wasn't specifically designed and built JUST to drop the A-bomb.- In fact the B-29 had major teething-troubles and was built to supercede the tired B-17 as a high-altitude bomber, hence the pressurisation from concept.- It was in the Pacific theatre because since Doolittle's raid, they needed such a bomber to raid Japan.- They still couldn't bomb Japan to it's knees, so a total of 46 were modified at Omaha,[based on an early-model configured at Wright Airfield in '43], and was known as the 509th Composite Group.- Also, it was British Intelligence that alerted the US to Germanys deuterium oxide production, which was soon destroyed by British Commandos Bombers- The British were involved in research that led to Project Manhatten, and that's why G/C Leonard Cheshire VC, Britain's Top Bomber-pilot was up at 39,000ft in 'Bock's Car' when the 2nd A-bomb sailed down on Nagasaki ...




Roger that, I simply meant that they were already modifying the B-29 to accomodate the A-bombs


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 30, 2004)

Genhose, great info about the British help with Manhatten Project, but as for that being the reason for the Brit being the Box Car pilot I do not. It was given to him by the top USAAF pilot who also flew the Horoshima mission. The Nagasaki raid was messed up from the start and almost was a compleate loss.

As for The USAAF using Lancasters they did fly them in the early part of the war, yes? We could have just said that they were some traids for the B-24s that the RAF had. But I an not shure the Lancs would be able to make the runs in daylight and survive.8)


----------



## Gemhorse (May 1, 2004)

G/C Leonard Cheshire [3x DSO; DFC, VC] having just recently tour-expired from 617 Sqn. was sent by Prime Minister Atlee [via Field-Marshal Sir Henry Maitland,] to the Marianas specifically to 'work with the USAAF' and see the new 'Allied' weapon in action, considering he was in command of the other 'biggest' bombs dropped, prior to the A-bomb, the 10,000lb' Tallboy's and 22.000lb 'Grand Slam's, over Germany. - The A-Bombs were a product of British Research and All the incredible Laboratory Industrial wealth of the USA...' a combined effort.' ..- If the B-29 HADN'T been available, I'M sure that the Lancaster COULD'VE been converted to fly at high-alttitude and deliver the A-Bombs...they were allocated to be part of 'Tiger Force' in late '44, to go over to fight against Japan after Germany was defeated, but I don't think this transpired...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

lancs could do it, and they would't have had to strip off the turrets, it could take a 9,000lb bomb easily, and it wouldn't take long to modify a lanc, if they did the mission at day, lancasters were already making daylight raids towards the end of the war, as the germans could offer very little fighter opposition, and if the USAAF was so worried, send a couple of 'stangs with them, and what's stoping you doing the raid at night, we had systems that could guide you to the target, so i dont see why not.....................


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2004)

They wanted to record it, bombing at night wouldn't show much except a huge flash. You wouldn't see the cloud afterwards.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

fair point, would look pretty cool seeing it at night (as far as dropping bombs are concerned, i realise there's nothing cool about having to drop an Atom bomb................)


----------



## Gemhorse (May 3, 2004)

Yeah, I don't really think A-Bombing Germany was on the cards...there was definate Intelligence Work devoted to keeping tabs on Hitler's Heavy-Water programme, and taking that out; - After that it was V1's 2's...- 1943 was the toughest-years for the RAF 8th Air Force, breaking-in the Daylight Night Bombing; what was being learned respectively of the B-17 went into the B-29's development; the Lancaster's into specialist bombing requiring serious modifications, the later Lancaster models in 1945 leaves me feeling that if required, they could have 'done the deed.'


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

thank you, it would have been picked, what's the point in sending over a whole new plane to do it when you already have thousands of planes that would do it better...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Does anyone thing race could have played into it? The Germans might not have been liked, but the Allies did consider them human (well, the Western Allies anyway). Could the fact that the Japanese were generally considered less-than-human have played a part in the decision to drop the bomb on them? I don't know just thought it might be a point to consider.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

No, you have to remember back then they didn't look at Nuclear bombs as we do today. Then it was just a huge bomb, they didn't know anything of radiation poisoning or any of the after effects. As I said it was just a huge bomb.
I really thing there were three reasons, 1) to save lives of millions of Americans (the Japanese had estimated 14 million militia ready to defend Japan, plus the civilians would be fighting every inch) 2) revenge for Pearl Harbour and their treatment of POWs 3) testing purposes, as Japan closer to America, and it would have been easier transporting the Atom bombs for bombing Japan instead of Germany.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

I'm not saying the race was the factor, just wondering if it might have played in. I think using the bomb over Japan definitely saved lives (American AND Japanese) and I think the people who feel an invasion would have cause fewer casualities should take a closer look at battles like Okinawa and Iwo Jima (where casualities for the Americans ran to the 1,000s and for the Japense to the 10,000s).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

> as Japan closer to America



no it's not, the bomb was produced in new york (hence the manhatten project) which is closed to brittian..........


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Well they wouldn't transport it straight over the Atlantic, the transport route went north along the coast of America, into Canada, over Greenland, into Iceland then into Britain. It would have been quicker going to Japan.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

good point............


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2004)

Yes, but I definately believe there was never any intention to use the A-Bomb on Germany - There were other country's all around it, whereas Japan are islands. - Also, they didn't necessarily believe then, that the A-Bomb drop on Japan would still finish them off...- We've been watching a colour- filmed doco on TV, [down here in NZ, with the Anzac Anniversary on at present,]... of Anzacs, never seen before, and of interest, they built a tower on a Pacific island and stacked 500 tons of TNT on it - The awesome resulting blast and devastation was like a post-nuke strike, and troop-training was carried-out in the blasted-trees site afterwards, as a type of simulation of entering such a situation, as a Mop-up Exercise....We generally know now that the Jap A-Bomb blasts were equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT going-off, but what was apparent in the doco, was that they didn't know then, that radiation was a secondary killer...I also believe that 'race' may well have been a factor - To the Allies, after WWI, and then into WWII, no-one had fought in such an unprovoked and vicious manner, with total contempt for War Conventions, as the Japanese had - plus the prospect of continuing Kamakazi attacks through to the bitter-end...the Japanese were despised, far more so than the Germans - I know of many Anzacs and ex-POW's of the Pacific/Burma War, who HATE the 'barbaric' Japanese STILL, because of the atrocities and indignities they perpetrated 60 odd years ago....and I'll bet you'll find plenty of American ex-GI's who feel the same today too...[even though the 'healing process' is well under way]. - Finally, I always thought the 'Bombs' were made and tested [in total secrecy] at Almagorda, New Mexico...


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Very interesting, I did not know about that training exercise. I don't believe they considered A-bombing Germany either, what would be the point? 
They probably hit Japan as a revenge strike, being a racial strike is a little strong. Although they may have tested it in Mexico, there's nothing more accurate than combat testing. It's the same with planes, you don't know how good, or bad they are until you combat test them.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2004)

You're almost witnessing the same thing again on a smaller scale, in Iraq -The 4 guys killed, burned, then dragged through the streets has enraged the Western World...' bloody sandal-slapping Arabs playing dirty!'...so some Iraqi prisoners suffer some 'indignities' as a consequence, [nothing too serious, like Sadaam was doing], but where you have the 'greater Arab population' being regarded as 'barbaric', post 9/11, with 'Holy Jihads and suicide-bombers', the Western reaction is getting more 'loaded', isn't it ?- And one shouldn't forget who started it...the Japs in WWII, and now since 9/11, the Western World is once more in a War, of a different kind this time, started by disgruntled Arabs using [yet again] terror-tactics...


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Yes, the new terror is even worse than the Japanese and German one, at least back then they had the army waving its banner. The arabs, or anyone for that matter that plays on terror rely on Western goodwill to not start checking and killing anyone and everyone, they don't realise with the troops on the ground goodwill can only be pushed so far.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2004)

I don't know what's gonna come from it all, but it's 'Terror-attack on anything,' that's got the World on Alert - even down here, Security has been stepped-up. When rabid zealots start offing innocents, creating financial domestic upheaval, nationally internationally, we've got to take action. - Guerillas defend their countries against invaders, if they attack military targets...- Terrorists are those who murder innocent civilians to make their point, because they haven't got the balls for a Real Fair Firefight ...there should be no mercy for captured Terrorists, why else do we have Geneva Conventions and such 'rules of engagement'...it's about time the toothless UN got it's finger-out...


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 6, 2004)

I'm abit non-plussed that the Alliance weren't keeping Iraq's borders secured since the Invasion, it's obvious they're being out-flanked by Al-Quaeda operatives infiltrating...setting-off the local insurgents...


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Yes, but the Coalition would be far stretched policing the whole border. It doesn't help with countries like Spain pulling out. Maybe the Iraqis, and the terrorists will push us too far and we could bring back World War 2 style carpet bombing, only with B-52 which make B-17 and all the other World War 2 bombers look like little girls toys.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Oh yeah, the French would LOVE that! I wasn't going to name countries, but since it's been brought up. Spain is the perfect example of what I was talking about. I don't want to belittle the tragedy of the Madrid attacks, but numerically they don't even come close to the devesation of whole cities during WWII, yet those citizens never sued for peace.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

the B-29 would have A-bombed germany 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

well done for getting us back on corse, but i stil think it would be the lancaster................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

the lancaster would make more sense, but i think the b-29 would have been more suited to the job 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

I'm going to say B-29 as well.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

The Lanc would have been hard pressed to get out of the way of a nuke. The post-war Lincolns had to enter a shallow dive in order to have the speed needed to escape the blast radius. If it had happened, it would have been a B-29.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 7, 2004)

No, definately the Lancaster ! - They didn't have but one B-29 in the U.K. anyway, and the conversion needed was extensive....There was no need to use the Bomb on Germany ! - We had them on the run, and besides, Patton wanted all the glory. - As far as the Lancaster went, they just needed to put on some Griffons and pressurise the cockpit, no problem !! - Another reason they chose to drop them on Japan INSTEAD, was Japan had it's own little nuclear program and Allied Intelligence couldn't find-out exactly how far they were with it, they couldn't infiltrate 'honkey' agents in to find-out, so they got the Big Delivery...everything indicated it was going to be a real bitch of a scrap to beat them, their terror Kamikaze's left no doubt that if they had a Bomb ready, they'd use it too - We bet them to it, and as it it turned-out, they weren't all that far with their nuke program....tough-titty, they were the Aggressors and they got scragged...I don't know why you insist that they were going to A-bomb Germany, it was already getting pretty 'munted' by the RAF 8th AF, Hitler had obviously over-committed themselves to 'history repeating Napoleon', they weren't hysterical, fanatical barbarians like the Japs...dedicated Nazis perhaps, but captured Germans were not all party zealots, that's how we got so many aviation radar advantages, quite a few Luftwaffe types saw through the High Command's bullshit, and defected with their planes, plus, as I've said before, we neutralised their nuclear program...something we COULDN'T do with Japan....


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

I don't know of any plans to ever use the bomb on Germany, but if there were any it would have been the B-29 to do it. Before you say they only had to put some Griffons and pressurize the Lanc, you may want to think about what that involves. True the Griffon wasn't much larger than the Merlin but it produced about 50% more power. That means that the entire engine mount will have to be massively reinforced. I'm not sure, but that much extra torque may have required adjustments to the flight surfaces to keep the plane stable. And pressurization was a monster on an aircraft as large as the Lanc. America had all kinds of problems before they go it right on the B-29. Pressurization requires an air-tight seal around every joint and window. The Lanc might have been modified, but it would have taken a while. The B-29 only needed some (relatively) minor adjustments to the bomb bay.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

Whites aren't honkey to the Japanese it's Kai Jin or Gaijin(Spelling? I can't remember which one). 
They would have never bombed Germany, they were on the run. The Japanese did deserve it, we would have never taken Japan without it. They had over 14 million people ready to fight, and ready to kill themselves for the cause. That's a lot of lives lost.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

I think the Allies could have finished Japan without using the bomb but the death toll would have been horrible. Japan in 1945 was an absolute fortess and records captured after the war showed that the Japanese were planning on using chemical and biological weapons against attacking soldiers.


----------



## brad (May 8, 2004)

probs a spitfire that has been modifided


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Yes, of course. A Spitfire.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

that's what Mrs. Banks would say...............



> The Lanc would have been hard pressed to get out of the way of a nuke.



wonderfull things, time delay fuses................



> The Lanc might have been modified, but it would have taken a while.



it didn't take long to modify a lanc, the bomb bay was pretty huge any way, it could easily take the weight to germany and back..............


----------



## brad (May 8, 2004)

yhea it would be a modified lanck or a b36


----------



## brad (May 8, 2004)

wow only 16 votes slow pole


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

I was talking about the time required to pressurize a Lanc and equip it with Griffons. Thanks for taking a quote out of context.

And I don't know about time delay fuzes but I do know that the post-war Lincoln (a Lanc with more powerful engines basically) had to enter a dive in order to escape the blast radius of a nuke.


----------



## brad (May 9, 2004)

time delayed nuck dont they explowed in air  couldnt they make it blow when it hit the floor


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Time delay fuse makes sure you can get out the way, or cause even more damage when the enemy thinks its a dud. They can explode in the air, if you set it to do so. Normal bombs exploded when they hit the deck.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

different bombs are detonated in different ways, a nuke could be set to a timer so it would explode as long as you wanted after it landed.................


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Thank you, Lanc. For clearing that up, it confused me so much...really..


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

I believe most nukes were actually intended to detonate at low altitude.


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

yhea about 3000ft but why if they want an air craft to get out of the way cant they make the nuke explode when it hits the deck


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

I think you would lose a lot of the power if you had a ground detetation. But I'm not sure it really matters when you are dropping a nuke anyway.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2004)

not really, although bombs do have more effect if they explode in the air, unless is a specail one like the tall boy and grand slam..............


----------



## Gemhorse (May 10, 2004)

The B-29 had an extensive pressurisation system built into it, including a tunnel that went from the front cabin, nearly half the length to the remote gunners, then the rear gunner in a separate cocoon. - All the Lancaster needed was the front cabin area pressurised. Also, it was built with the main wing spar out to the first engine nacelle each side as the primary element that everything else was built onto...it was sort of a T section, which gave great strength to the overall design, and the outer wings would've been strengthened as the latter Shackleton was...The A-bomb was designed to go off above ground; they were delicate, where a quantity of uranium/plutonium had to slide the length and collide with material at the other end to create the fission to critical mass, thus exploding...I think it may have been an altitude-fuse device that set that in motion, at least in those early ones...Gai-jin does indeed refer to 'whites', it actually means 'barbarian', which us 'honkeys' were referred to by the Japanese, who felt we were 'unclean and uncivilised'...James Clavell wrote a series of books centred around Japan, most remember his book 'Shogun', but his last one was called 'Gai-jin', about Admiral Peary's landings in Japan in the late 1800's...Anyway, IMHO, the Lancaster could've been modified to do the deed, the Griffons were capable of 2000+ hp each, the B-29's 2200hp engines had more plane to pull, the Wright R3350's had alot of development problems...they only really started getting them right prior to the nuking...


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

I don't think the Nuke was set to explode at 3000 ft, that's a bit too high. But it would have been an above ground explosion. Most of the time normal bombs were ground detonated because you wanted to cause damage, not always kill a lot of people. 
Exploding above ground spreads it more, which you don't want to do if you're trying to destroy buildings. Artillery shells fired on troop concentrations are a different matter, where the shells would ideally explode above ground spreading shrapnel over the troops causing mass injury, and death. 

Yes, I always thought the Gai-jin was the reference to whites by the Japanese.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

whereas the tall boy and grand slam were detonated about 100ft below ground to give a devistating earthquake effect.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

There have been some studies about developing Nukes that would detonate under ground. Supposedly it would limit the fall out. I imagine its affect would be much like a Grand Slam.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

cool 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (May 11, 2004)

I think they were the tests at Bikini Atoll and the Marshall Islands, back in the '60's...'rather more' powerful than a Grand Slam...they still can't let the Marshall Islanders back there...they're US Welfare beneficiaries, still living on another island...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Those weren't unground detonations though. Those were underwater and were designed to see what a nuke would do to a carrier group. These penatrating nukes are something new. They are designed to take out underground caves that conventional bunker busters can't reach.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

they do the same in the bond film "view to a kill", which is sooooo the best bond film....................


----------



## ahanswurst (May 12, 2004)

Without a doubt it would have been a B-29 to drop an atomic bomb on Germany if need be. But the Russians would have leveled Germany before an atomic bomb was needed. When The Russians captured Berlin and took German prisoners back to Russia. The History Channel had a series on the fall of Berlin and they said that 3/4's of the German prisoners taken by the Russians disappeared without a trace after they were marched back to Russia. I think the atomic bomb would never have been needed in Germany. The Russian troops were well equipped by that stage of the war. The History channel also said that in the Berlin area that most of the German females were raped numerous times by the Russian soldiers and a lot of German women commited suicide to escape that fate.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

So nuking Germany might have saved lives. Interesting thought.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

I doubt it, it would have saved them from rape. That's about it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

> they do the same in the bond film "view to a kill", which is sooooo the best bond film....................



apart from the man with the golden gun and the spy who loved me


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

Well that post said a lot of suicides resulted. And the Russians were big on prisoners rights so alot of them might have been saved.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Russians big on prisoners rights?


----------



## Gemhorse (May 13, 2004)

If you've read the History of the German Assault on Russia, the SS Einsatzgruppen did terrible despicable things to Soviet citizens and soldiers alike...Berlin was 'pay-back' time. - Ahanswurst is correct that there wasn't a need to A-bomd Germany, obviously the B-29/Lancaster delivery-aircraft factor is really an opinion thing...I believe the Lancaster COULD'VE done it , the B-29 went and did it, in Japan, but wasn't anywhere near ready to do it to Germany, at the time ...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

Supposed to have been weren't - a typo, I think everyone knows that.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Yes, I thought it was a bit weird someone coming out with that. Weird or stupid.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

it would have been a lanc, the B-29 wasn't ready at the time.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

lies, all lies


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Neither was the Lanc.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

The B-29 flew its first combat mission on 5 June '44. More of a problem would have been getting the bomb ready.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Yes, and the Lanc would have had to be altered for high altitude, and carrying the bomb.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

So we agree that, had it been done, it would have been a B-29.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Too true. That's another thing we agree on. Lightning I think we agree more than not..


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

You are right there. But our disagreements tend to become protracted. I'm going to guess we are both pretty stubborn people.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

You're right there too...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Hey! Another agreement!


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Now this is just getting silly


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

> So we agree that, had it been done, it would have been a B-29.



we cirtainly have not, i don't agree at all, and nor do 4 other people..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Why would it have been anything other than the B-29? It was in service and the only modifications required were to the bomb-bay. The Lanc would have required the same modifications and probably some sort of engine upgrade and could have really used pressurization.


----------



## brad (May 15, 2004)

yhea i agrea the b29 or b17 would have done it


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

but 11 people think otherwise...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 16, 2004)

The simple fact is that equipping the B-29 to drop the bomb would have presented fewer problems. It was probably more survivable. And I have my doubts about a Lanc being able to get high enough and fast enough to avoid the blast effects of a nuke.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

its a shame no-one thinks a captured german stuka would drop it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

it cirtainly would be funny  

and why does everyone keep saying about the lanc having trouble getting away from the blast, THEY DID HAVE TIME DELAY FUSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 17, 2004)

not for nukes! the bomb exploded 1440 feet over the ground, and with the lancs crappy ceiling, by the time the crew got back, their hands would be falling off.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

If the RAF had doubts about the post-war Lincoln's usefulness for dropping nukes they must have had serious doubts about using a Lanc.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The B-17 would have probably had trouble carrying the Nuke, brad. 
It would have been the B-29, there should be no doubt. The B-29 was faster, had higher ceiling and was more survivable than the Lanc. The B-29 would drop it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

I agree with all of that. The B-29 posed far fewer problems that trying to modify a Lanc to drop it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

this is starting to annoy me, it would have been a lanc.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Well, why would a Lanc be preferred to a B-29?


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Lanc, we all know you love the Lancaster but the B-29 was better, and more suited to drop the Nuke than the Lanc.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 20, 2004)

No, I don't agree the B-29 would've done it ! - The Lancaster would've done it ! - It had proved itself very adaptable for delivering ordinances that no other aircraft could take, including the B-29 - They didn't start on the bomb until 1942, and it took until July 1945, when they first tested it at Almagorda. - July 1943, Arnold ordered starting to modify a B-29, they started the actual mods in December, fitting an H-frame, hoist, carrier assembly and release unit, and the first 'dummy-bomb' tests were in late Feb. 1944 - After further mods, tests resumed in July'44 and by August , they'd fitted both bombs for size and meanwhile had modified a total of 46 'atomic' bombers ; - But it wasn't until July 1945 that they were ready to take-off and A-bomb ! - The decision to A-bomb Japan was a direct result from the B-29's INABILITY to bomb Japan into surrender, CONVENTIONALLY. - A great deal of destruction, yes ! - But no surrender ! - The prospect of losing a million Allied lives to storm the Japanese Islands, was why the decision was then made... But it wasn't on the cards to A-bomb Germany anyway, we'd neutralised their ability to make nukes, and most tacticians could see the beginning of Germany's end from the Invasion of Russia's first defeat of von Paulus...- And it's good to see the old Lancaster these days, the BBME one still flying, G-George in an Aussie museum, and we've got one here at MOTAT in Auckland, [you can do a virtual photo tour in it, on their website...] - So, Lancasters were, INMHO, adaptable to drop a nuke; - might've got their bum singed, but all 'in their stride', just like all their other duties....


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Thanks for that but the B-29 would have done it, faster and with a higher ceiling more ideal. The Lancaster would have needed improving as well. Mentioning the B-29 couldn't beat Japan conventionally means nothing since neither the Lanc, B-17 or B-24 managed to do it to Germany. German production increased every year from 1939 up until 1945. 

The turning point in my eyes was not Stalingrad, and then they didn't know it was either. The D-Day landings ended them, crushing them from both sides forced a quick defeat. Kursk was a larger contribution to their defeat as well. 
Stalingrad was in with El Alamein and Midway as well, so it seems more of a victory. 

We all know why Germany was not Nuked, and Japan was but IF Germany was nuked the Superfortress would have done it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

yup, just because the lanc likes the lancaster he thinks its the best, he should admit that its not as suitable or as good as the b-29. I mean, i dont go around saying that the P.108 was the best bomber around because it clearly wasnt.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Plan_D took everything I was going to say. But the I believe the B-29 was tested with the Tallboy and had more than enough power to carry Grand Slam, major modifications would have been needed but it could have been done.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

So I did some snooping online and turned up something that should interest all of you (especially Lanc).


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

Thanks for them, LG.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

No problem. I had heard that a B-29 could carry those bombs but had never seen a picture. Now I have and am very impressed.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 22, 2004)

When you say the B-29 'would've done it', it couldn't have....because it wasn't ready to drop ANY A-bombs UNTIL July 1945...if they had to do it, in the time-frame of the ETO, the closest, most adaptable aircraft was the Lancaster...One of the biggest problems the B-29 had, was achieving the 'high altitude,' for over long distances, as it's engines kept burning-out, and they didn't get that all sorted-out until the first-half of 1945, and the 'nuke versions' weren't ready until July...- I do believe that 'the worm turned' at Stalingrad....just like the Japs were first 'stopped in their tracks,' at Milne Bay...nobody realised it then, either...- But please don't mistake me on the B-29, it did became the Ultimate bomber of WWII; - I just believe the Lancaster would've dropped The Bomb, in the ETO - They were booked-in for 'Tiger Force' afterward, in the PTO as well...


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

I do not believe the Lancaster would have done it, it would have also required extensive work to prepare it for the drop. Maybe also not allowing it to be ready before July 1945. 

I still do not think the Wehrmacht was stopped at Stalingrad, as it made some more significant gains after that, it also was still able to fight. The battle of Kursk crippled it on the Eastern Front, and the Battle of the Bulge ended it all together.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

It may be that the B-29 wasn't capable of dropping the bomb before July of '45 but that works out fine as that was just about the time the bombs were being put into a useable form. I still think that the Lanc's lower speed and lower altitude would have hindered it from dropping a nuclear weapon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

two tall boys, that's typical americans, always showing off, well HA! we could carry them during the war, you couldn't do it till after.............


----------



## brad (May 23, 2004)

lanc it would of been the b-29 it droped both the tallboy and fatboy


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2004)

i think you mean it dropped the little boy and fat man??


----------



## brad (May 23, 2004)

yhea them ones


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2004)

the lanc could have done it too..................


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

I don't think it could have.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

if it could major modification would have been needed


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2004)

the Enola Gay had to be modified too................................


----------



## brad (May 25, 2004)

not as much


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

And if you are going to make a point of the B-29 not carrying Tallboy until after the war, I feel it is appropriate to mentioned that Lancs NEVER carried nuclear weapons and certainly not during the war.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

yup, because they couldnt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

no, it was because they didn't have to thank God...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I'm very thankful they didn't have to too. But I still have doubts about whether or not the Lanc could be used effectively to carry a nuke. Clearly the B-29 could.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

i agree 8)


----------



## Huckebein (May 26, 2004)

It's me again - the annoying late person who thinks he knows everything.  

Has anyone mentioned the Avro Lincoln yet? definitely able to carry an A-Bomb if required, and if Germany hadn't surrendered the Lincolns would've been operational in Europe while all the B-29s were in the Far East...  

Or why not a bloody Mossie? (I just thought of this) It wouldn't have had too many problems with the weight I don't think, and is small and fast enough to get through the defences - it is the Jack-Of-All-Trades after all! 8)


----------



## Huckebein (May 26, 2004)

P.S. Some piccies of Lincolns I found a while back - can't remember where  :












(This one's from the RAAF Mseum's site)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

The Lincoln has been mentioned as a reason why the Lancaster wouldn't have been used. This is from the book Avro Lancaster by Bill Sweetman, "From the RAF's point of view, the Lincoln's most serious drawback was that its speed and altitude were not high enough to escape safely from the blast of a nuclear weapon." Since the Lincoln couldn't do it I don't see how the Lanc could have. And I'm not sure the Mossie could have either. We are talking about a 10,000lb bomb that would have to be carried several hundred miles at least.


----------



## Huckebein (May 27, 2004)

Fair enough. I might be inclined to argue that a specially modified Mossie could do it, but it's a moot point anyway - they'd have used a B-29.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

A Mossie might have been able to. But the load, height, and range just might not have worked out. Anway, the B-29 definitely could do it and would have been the Allies choice.


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

yhea and if they did it would fall from the bomb bay the metal was only 1cm thick


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

i mean the lanc


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

this is a very serious question.....

Who voted for the Stuka?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

dear God


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

im looking at you Huckebein


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

A Stuka could have done it, if they renamed the B-29 a Stuka.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

of if they made slight modifications to the current stukas, namely more engines, different fuselage, better armour etc etc


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

wy would it need more armour??


----------



## Gemhorse (May 29, 2004)

Well, if hypothetically there was a major stuff-up with the Invasion say, 'Time-frame' and all , and they THEN had no choice but to use a nuke, I STILL think some typically brave RAF Bomber crew would've chucked one in an 'easily-adaptable' Lancaster, and done the DEED....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

thank you............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

> typically brave RAF Bomber crew



more like typically stupid, the b-29 was the better bomber in the first place and it wouldnt need as many modifications. the lanc WOULD NOT HAVE dropped the a-bomb on germany.


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

i aggre with cc


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

> more like typically stupid



a bit disrespectfull don't you think??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

but its true, no sane person should even think about using the lanc because the b-29 was the far more capable plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

the british would use a lanc, you know what we're like..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

thats very true, but you have to admit the b-29 was more capable


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

mmmmmmm.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

was that a yes?


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

The B-29 would have been used, it was a more capable plane. Had the British got the Atom bomb, the Lancaster might have been in consideration but still I doubt it would have been. 
If it would have been the Lancaster the changes would have been so drastic that it wouldn't be a Lancaster anymore, it would have been based on the Lancasters airframe.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 30, 2004)

Sometimes I think you chaps just ' look at the pictures...' - Your glorius B-29 wasn't READY in time for Germany, the only thing available in the bloody ETO WAS the Lancaster...already proved adaptable up to 22,000 lb of a single bomb...so what kinda stretch would it have taken to slip a 9,000-10,000 lb A-Bomb in ? - SFA ! - Also the US AND Britain worked [in the US] on the Bomb TOGETHER, whilst they converted 40 odd B-29's to 'nuke-bomber' status ...In fact, apart from the other reasons I've stated as to why they wouldn't have used one in Germany, one reason where they may have been tempted, was to keep the Russians from doing the 'Mongul Horde' into Europe...- And to blaspheme Bomber Command Aircrew as 'typically stupid' if they had've tried, really implies to me you just read 'the pictures, and not the words...'- 55,000 Bomber Command Aircrew lost their lives to keep your little pink bum safe for the last 60 years, and here you're crowing about 'the B-29 woulda done it..' when they were falling outa the sky over Burma and Japan because their engines kept burning-out from the climb to altitude...AT THE TIME. - No-one's saying the B-29 wasn't the Best Bomber....I'm saying it WASN'T ready IN TIME to HAVE A-Bombed Germany...but the Lancaster would've given it a shot...because that's the English Way ! - What kinda Englishman are you ? You sport a Russian flag, vote with Americans, bad-mouth the countrymen who brought YOUR freedom with their lives....' Rule Britannica...more like 'Ruin Britannica...'


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2004)

So the Lancaster could have carried a 22,000 lbs bomb, it could carry the Atom Bomb. Could it escape the blast? 
We all know the Atom bomb wasn't needed to be used on Germany, we all know that. There is no need to mention it, anymore. 'The B-29 wasn't ready for Germany' neither was the Atom bomb. 

AND IT'S THE SOVIET UNIONS FLAG! Not the Russians.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

> What kinda Englishman are you ?



an honest one that isnt obsessed with his country and tries to be fair to everyone.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

The B-29 flew it's first combat mission on June 5th, 1944 - the day BEFORE D-Day! Had the need arisen to drop the bomb on Germany, the B-29 would have been ready. Any attempt to drop the bomb from a Lanc would have been a suicide mission for the crew as the plane would have been destroyed (or at least severely damaged) in the explosion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

so we set it to detonate on the ground so it has time to escape, so what, it's a A-Bomb, it won't make much difference, we could even make it into a earthquake bomb, it would have done it...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

.....if the b-29 wasnt invented


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

All of those things you are suggesting, Lanc, would simply take more time. The B-29 could drop the bomb 'as is' (the bomb, obviously the plane required modifications). If the problem was as simple as changing where the bomb detonated, why didn't the RAF do that for the Lincolns after the war?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

He shoots...he scores.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

I wonder what the lanc will have to say to that.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Something remarkably inventive, and then LG will slap him...again.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2004)

i can't answer because i don't understand his post.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

sure you cant, you just cant admit that the lancaster was incompetent of doing the deed


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

Modifying the bomb (ie, adjusting the altitude/time of its detonation) would have required time. No such modifications were needed if the B-29 was used. Furthermore, if 'fixing' the bomb were as easy as you suggest, why didn't the RAF 'fix' a few so that the Lincoln could have been used post-war as a nuclear deterent?


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 2, 2004)

Sorry to rain on your parade LG, yes it was 5 June that 98 B-29's set off for the Makasan railroad yards in Bangkok, for their First Combat mission...2000 mile round-trip, 14 aircraft aborted before the target, total confusion over the target, a mere 18 bombs landed in the target area, 5 aircraft crashed on the return landing, and 42 had to land at other airfields due to fuel shortage...so much for the decisive launch of the B-29 VLR Bomber. - As I've said, only 46 were altered to carry the A-Bomb, and they were all in the Marianas, very special, very secret . - The B-29's abort rate was 23 percent until Le May arrived in the Marianas, and using Bomber Command techniques, finally started an effective campaign, bringing down the abort rate to less than 7 percent by July 1945. - Their BIG problem was their Wright R-3350 engines, which constantly over-heated...Le May solved this partly by LOW-level attacks at 5-6000 ft, the engines not having to struggle to 30,000 ft anymore. The attrition rate continued though, until 29th May '45, when they started adding Mustang escorts, because with all that armament , they still couldn't shoot their way back n' forth to the targets...After all the ETO had taught them, you'd think they would've got THAT right...At 11 men per aircraft, getting the B-29 effective as the Ultimate Bomber, took alot of needless American blood...- They couldn't just sling an A-Bomb in them either...the modifications to the 'nuke-bomber' variant was quite extensive, involving fitting of a special 'H' type hoist... - Like I said, if the need arose in Europe, the closest choice would've been a Lancaster....not the prima-donna problem-plane the B-29 WAS at the Time...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

But the B-29 had already proved it could drop the A-bomb on hiroshima, why use a plane that had not proved itself when there was one that has?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2004)

The Lancaster would have needed extensive improvement also, and even then it still couldn't have dropped the bomb. If the Lincoln couldn't do it, what makes you think the Lancaster could? It doesn't have the altitude or speed to drop the Nuke.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

That is the real issue and no one arguing for the Lanc here seems to want to tackle it. Gemhorse, I never claimed that the B-29 was a 'perfect' bomber but it was clearly capable of dropping a nuke. If the Lincoln couldn't, neither could the Lanc. 

A note on the R-3350 engines of the B-29. When I got to see the only B-29 still flying, one of the gentlemen who had served aboard B-29s was asked what the derivative B-50 looked like. He responded, "Oh, 'bout like a B-29 but with engines." The B-50 used P&W R-4360s.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2004)

once again, lack of time forbids me to get the book, but has anyone seen the B-24 that had the same engines as the B-29??............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

nope, but id like to


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 2, 2004)

As far as I know, the B-50 fitted in somewhere between the B-29 and the B-52...The B-29 had Wright R-3350's...As far as the Lancaster went, it wasn't designed [ at any stage ] to carry an A-Bomb, nor were it's latter variants ; the Lancastrian, the York, both of which were essentially transport aircraft, nor the Lincoln or the Shackleton. - However, the designs for the Lincoln were laid down in 1943 [B14/43] and first flew in June 1944. - It was capable of 35.000 ft ceiling, with Merlin 68's or 85's, and with longer span wing with a higher aspect ratio, a lengthened fuselage and new nose, a modified bomb bay and strengthened landing gear....They were in service until 1955, when the V-Bomber program started, the first UK Nuke-Bombers. - Essentially though, the Lincoln was simply just a modified Lancaster, and with different engines could maintain a ' Nuclear Altitude'...The Lancaster still, IMHO, could've, if required, handle an A-Bomb...The reason the Brits didn't rush around to build a Nuke-bomber before the 'V series', was probably post-Japan, they didn't see a requirement, not until the Cold War anyway...the last Lancasters remained in service [ with Canada ] until 1964, which really is a testament to their popularity....We shall have to differ in our opinions on this, gentlemen, because I'm adamant that the Lancaster could've done-it, but I do concede the B-29 was a great aircraft, teething-troubles and all and certainly did sterling service both as a conventional nuke bomber....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

The Lancaster and/or the bomb probably could have been modified to make it happen. The B-29 would have required fewer modifications, could have been made ready sooner, and would have been the plane used.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

> We shall have to differ in our opinions on this, gentlemen, because I'm adamant that the Lancaster could've done-it, but I do concede the B-29 was a great aircraft, teething-troubles and all and certainly did sterling service both as a conventional nuke bomber....



i can see we're not going to win this, so i shall agree with this statement, the lanc could have done it, but the favourite choice (i stil haven't said it would, as we don't know that) would be the B-29...................


----------



## brad (Jun 3, 2004)

> an honest one that isnt obsessed with his country and tries to be fair to everyone.


im the opiset


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

you tell 'em brad...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

so brad is a dishonest englishman who is obsessed with england and hates everyone


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

i see you've failed to read my other post??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

yes, you've succumbed  see, youve managed to gain some wisdom by becoming 14, youve learned how to accept defeat, well done grasshopper


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

> grasshopper



?? 

his name's Gemhorse...............


----------



## Gemhorse (Jun 4, 2004)

Thankyou Lanc, and LG, they were both very fine aircraft, the Lancaster a misfit as the Manchester [the engine idea was good, but not successful] but it went on to do work far beyond it's original design, and the supreme WWII Bomber, the B-29, which layed terrific waste to Japan, both conventionally and as the First Nuclear Bomber, and lead-on to establishing Strategic Bombers as a major weapon...B.52's have proved to be fearsome bombers....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

B-36s would have been amazing if they were ever used..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

I have read that the B-36 was actually able to out maneuver contemporary fighters at altitude because of its extremely large wing. It was all the smaller fighters could do to generate enough lift to maintain flight in that rarified air.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

wow, i would never have thought that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2004)

i'm trying to get up my picture of a B-36 with a fighter on it's underside, but it isn't working, i'll keep trying.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2004)

you know to put it on a post?


----------



## cls12vg30 (Jun 11, 2004)

Do you mean that tiny little parasite fighter that they tried to put in the B-36's bomb bay? It was an interesting concept. But the B36 carried something like _ sixteen_ defensive 20mm cannons! I don't know that it needed its own defensive fighter. 

Yeah the "aluminum clouds" arrived too late for WWII, but they were the first purpose-built nuclear bombers. It's mind-boggling how big they were...and all those engines..."six turning and four burning".


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

the fighter isn't mounted in the bomb bay, it's on a solid arm slung underneath the bomber............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

And by that time the guns had been removed from the B-36. By the time the B-36 entered service, the emphasis was on dropping nukes which is done by single planes rather than formations. Single planes have ZERO chance in a gun battle so the US yanked them off. And I've have mentioned before the B-36 could outmaneuver many fighters at altitude.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

this is it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

cool pic 8)



> Description: sorry about the colours, it's because of the file type



then why not change the file type


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 13, 2004)

becuase i originally saved it as a .bmp, but it said it couldn't use that file type when i uploaded it, so whn i changed it to .gif, the colours changed a bit................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2004)

should have changed it to jpeg 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 14, 2004)

it didn't give me that option..............


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Dec 20, 2004)

If Germany was to be A-bombed it would have been the B-29. Paul Tibbets states in his book and has stated publicly that the 509th CG was training for two theatres of operation. He states that one squadron was to be deployed to England and one to the Marianas, and that both strikes were to be carried out on the same day. Both would have been Silverplate B-29's. He states that the only reason Germany didn't get an A-bomb was because they surrendered before the bomb was ready. If you need page numbers and exact quotations I can provide them. 

I also have a limited edition book named "They were called Silverplate" by 509th historian Richard Campbell. This book is very informative as it goes into lengthy detail about all Silverplate modifications as well as each individual aircrafts crew, missions and demise. It also includes bomb descriptions, dummy and practice bombing missions plus a complete list of all 509th personell. I was very lucky to get this book as theyre were only 500 copies and most went to 509th veterans!

Also as a sidenote I feel it would be good to mention that the bomb shackle used to hold both atomic bombs as well as all Pumpkin practice bombs was the British "Type-F" single point heavy bomb shackle. This was the same shackle the Lancaster used with the Grand Slam.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 20, 2004)

That's very interesting!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

Yes this was a good discussion in its day 8)


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 7, 2005)

Flying as high as the B-29 did would mean that very few of the Luftwaffe fighters could get to it. The Lancaster was shifted to night-time raids early on. By the time the A-Bomb was ready the Lancaster was only really good for a night-time saturation area bomber. It was still a good aircraft but it just wasn't good enough for conditions in 1942. There were other better aircraft available such as the B-17 Fortress. Considering that the B-17 Fortress was being considered obsolete and they had the replacement of a B-29 even if it was flown there for deception purposes, I seriously doubt that they would use the Lancaster!! The B-17 had made the Lancaster obsolete and was itself obsolete so no, sorry I don't see a Lancaster doing it sorry. I chose B-29 Stratofortress, because I was unaware of the time period however, if it stretched out a bit longer my ultimate choice would be the B-36 Peacemaker due to its size and defences. Don't forget that the A-Bombs in production took a lot of time and effort to create. Therefore targets were selected very carefully to maximize their effective use.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

If they were to have dropped an A-Bomb on Germany it would have been a B-29. The British did not have an A-Bomb so it would have been a US bomber with a US Bomb. 

Besides the B-29 is much more suited for it.

I know you have to go with you Lanc, Lanc but even you can see that a B-29 is more capable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> Considering that the B-17 Fortress was being considered obsolete and they had the replacement of a B-29 even if it was flown there for deception purposes, I seriously doubt that they would use the Lancaster!! The B-17 had made the Lancaster obsolete and was itself obsolete so no, sorry I don't see a Lancaster doing it sorry. I chose B-29 Stratofortress, because I was unaware of the time period however, if it stretched out a bit longer my ultimate choice would be the B-36 Peacemaker due to its size and defences.



Had the war went on in Europe, the B-32 Dominator was supposed to replace the B-24 and B-17. Just a tad smaller than the B-29, it carried a similar load and had huge bomb bays. It probably could of carried an atomic bomb.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

That would have been an option other than the B-29. I believe though that it would have been a B-29.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

In all fairness to the brits, an atomic bomb in Europe would have been assembled in Britain. The short range from there to any target in Germany was far shorter than the 3200 mile round trips the 20th AF in the PTO had to fly.

A modified Lanc could have carried the bomb just by trading fuel for payload.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 8, 2005)

From London To Berlin Is Exactly a 2000 mile round trip (PD may call me a retard for this) and I dont think the USAF or the RAF/RCAF operated that far inland, so I think your distance may be inacurate SYS


----------



## evangilder (Nov 8, 2005)

London to Berlin a 2000 mile round-trip? Nope. It is 579 air miles from London to Berlin on a straight route. The distance from London to East Anglia, where all the airplane patches are is not great at all. From London to Lakenheath, where I was stationed, was 75 miles. 

Granted WWII bomber would not be flying a direct route to Berlin, but 2000 miles round trip would require a serious alteration.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

Fly all the way around France and come up through Itlay maybe?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

I was watching an a-bomb documentary on history channel.

I learned a new tidbit on the history of this. Seems that when the a-bomb was assembled on Tinian and it was only hours from being hoisted into the Enola Gay, one of the officers involved in the development of the bomb (a naval officer, I might add) was talking to Col Tibbets about arming it, and they both realized....what would happen if the plane crashed on takeoff. 

The possibility of an atomic detonation was possible, which would wipe out all the B29's on the island. Or, the high explosives could detonate and make a "dirty bomb" which could be just as bad. They decided to arm the bomb once airborne, just for the sake of the safety of the island.

I wonder if a Lanc modified to carry a bomb of this dimension, would have bomb bay access to allow a post take off arming.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

I think I have seen the documentary also. Is an interesting bit of trivia. I dont know if the Lanc would have been able to either.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

i saw about that on days that changed the world, and i dunno if the lanc could do it, unfortunately i doubt it.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i saw about that on days that changed the world, and i dunno if the lanc could do it, unfortunately i doubt it.........



HA! *I mean too bad*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

but they only decided to do that because of the high rate of take off acidents around the pacific, which wasn't so much of a problem over the UK.........


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

There wasnt any problem with B29's taking off from their bases in the Mariana's. What makes you think that?

In fact, by the spring of 1945, the B29's were being maintained and operated like clockwork.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 8, 2005)

evangilder said:


> London to Berlin a 2000 mile round-trip? Nope. It is 579 air miles from London to Berlin on a straight route. The distance from London to East Anglia, where all the airplane patches are is not great at all. From London to Lakenheath, where I was stationed, was 75 miles.
> 
> Granted WWII bomber would not be flying a direct route to Berlin, but 2000 miles round trip would require a serious alteration.



My bad, if thats the case why was joint air command having a bitch of a time with providing Bomber Forms with planes with sufficient range?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> evangilder said:
> 
> 
> > London to Berlin a 2000 mile round-trip? Nope. It is 579 air miles from London to Berlin on a straight route. The distance from London to East Anglia, where all the airplane patches are is not great at all. From London to Lakenheath, where I was stationed, was 75 miles.
> ...



Because of the bomb loads they wished to carry....


----------



## evangilder (Nov 8, 2005)

joint air command?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 8, 2005)

Thats my made up word, but you know what I mean, 

and FBJ I meant to say if thats the case why was joint air command having a b*tch of a time with providing Bomber Forms with Fighter planes with sufficient range?

Anyway I pick the Lancaster because it was the only bomber available in the ETO that had a large enough payload, though only slightly larger payload than the B-17 it still could be loaded with a bit more weight before it affected its ability to take-off, that was due to the more powerfull RR merlin 38 V12 Engines, they produced about 1640 horse power each whereas the B-17's Wright Cyclone's R-1820-97 only produced 1200hp


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

I dont even think Berlin needed to be bombed. A detonation in the Rhur would accomplish the goal. 

And the Rhur is only 300 miles from England?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 8, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Anyway I pick the Lancaster because it was the only bomber available in the ETO that had a large enough payload, though only slightly larger payload than the B-17


The payload of the B-17 was about 1/3 to 1/4 that of the Lancaster, depending on the model. The difference wasn't so slight.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

I know I said it was a bit more, but just a bit more reason to use the Lancaster though


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2005)

Here is the difference the B-17 could carry a little bit less than the Lanc but it could fly farther with it.

And this "Joint Air Command" whatever that is did not have a problem getting bombers and fighters to go anywhere they needed to go. They had the B-17 and the P-51D. They went anywhere you wanted them to go. 

Maybe the British were having problems with range but not the USAAF.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Here is the difference the B-17 could carry a little bit less than the Lanc but it could fly farther with it.
> 
> And this "Joint Air Command" whatever that is did not have a problem getting bombers and fighters to go anywhere they needed to go. They had the B-17 and the P-51D. They went anywhere you wanted them to go.
> 
> Maybe the British were having problems with range but not the USAAF.


Agreed Alder. I would still say the B-29 would be the plane that would A-bomb Germany.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 9, 2005)

Thank god it didn't come to that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 9, 2005)

> Maybe the British were having problems with range but not the USAAF



the RAF didn't have a problem with range over Europe, a grand slam could be carried almost anyware in germny, there was only a few hundred square miles that couldn't be hit, with lesser payloads the range was obviously allot more.........


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

Anyway, Churchill may have condoned the Nuking of Hiro-saki but I doubt he would have Berlin, Dresdon or Nuremberg for that matter, speaking, NS have you seen that new show on History, Bomber Boys?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Maybe the British were having problems with range but not the USAAF
> 
> 
> 
> the RAF didn't have a problem with range over Europe, a grand slam could be carried almost anyware in germny, there was only a few hundred square miles that couldn't be hit, with lesser payloads the range was obviously allot more.........



I am sorry if seemed like I was saying the British were having problems. I probably worded that wrong, but I was just basically trying to get the point to Hussars that he had no point. They could reach anywhere.

Oh yeah and the A Bomb carrying plane would have been a B-29!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 11, 2005)

why not a lincoln?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

Because the B29 was available and far superior to a Lincoln


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 11, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> NS have you seen that new show on History, Bomber Boys?


Nope. Any good?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 11, 2005)

good show, its a reality show about these losers whos great grandparents who served with the RCAF, they volunteerd to be in a program of where they will be trained like in the old days, food, clothing from sleeping arrangements to unfilterd cigarettes they have to live it, they are going to be trained as Bomber crew in the old Canadian fashion.

Its a pretty good show, I like seeing how the military turns regular snotmouth "Gansta" teenagers into respectable disciplined young men/women.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 11, 2005)

Oh yeah, I did hear something about that one. I thought there was another group who's grandparents/great grandparents were WWII vets, but not necessarily just RCAF.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> why not a lincoln?



For reasons that syscom said.  

The B-29 was the most advanced and best bomber to see service in WW2.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 12, 2005)

In your opinion


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

Name a bomber that was superior to the B-29. Please Hussars!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 12, 2005)

Listen Im not going to argue, I have a different opinion accept it and move on, you dont always have to be right.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2005)

syscom 3 said:


> Because the B29 was available and far superior to a Lincoln



how was it far superior, if they were superior why didn't we cancel our lincoln contracts and keep our Washingtons?? and if the stage was reached where we would have to use the atom over Europe it can be assumed that the war would've gone on a few months longer, the prototype lincoln first flew in 1944 so they would've been ready, and if not a lincoln why not a lancaster Mk.VI, they were in use..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Listen Im not going to argue, I have a different opinion accept it and move on, you dont always have to be right.



No your opinion is not wrong or bad. You are entitled to your opinion. Secondly I never claim to allways be right, I do not try to be right and I dont care if I am right or wrong all the time. I am hear to learn things and hopefully help others learn things. 

This is not an argument here. You are the one that feels backed into a corner and that is not my problem. All I want to know is what bomber was more advanced than the B-29, statistically and performance wise. I dont think there is one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> syscom 3 said:
> 
> 
> > Because the B29 was available and far superior to a Lincoln
> ...



Actually they were partly replaced by the Washingtons because the Washingtons had a longer range than the Linclon. The Lincoln was completely replaced when the V Bombers came out. Lets make a comparison here between the Lincoln and the B-29 or your Washington as you like to call it.

*Lincoln*

Wingspan: 120 ft (36.58 m) 
Length: 78 ft 34 in (23.86 m) 
Height: 17 ft 34 in (5.27 m) 
Weight: 43,400 lb (19686 kg) empty, 75,000 lb (34019 kg) max take-off 
Powerplant: four 1,750 hp (1305 kW) Rolls-Royce Merlin 85 piston engines 
Maximum speed: 295 mph (475 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4750 m) 
Range: 1,470 miles (2366 km) with maximum bomb-load 
Service ceiling: 30,500 ft (9295 m) 
Armament: 
Twin .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns in nose, dorsal and tail turrets, 
alternatively twin 20mm cannon in dorsal turret 
Up to 22,000 lb (6350 kg) of bombs 
Crew: 7, 
front gunner / bomb aimer 
pilot 
flight engineer / co-pilot 
navigator 
wireless operator, 
dorsal gunner 
rear gunner 

*B-29*

Crew: 10: pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, bombardier, navigator, radio operator, side gunners (two), top gunner, and tail gunner 
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m) 
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m) 
Height: 27 ft 9 in (8.5 m) 
Wing area: 1736 ft² (161.3 m²) 
Empty: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg) 
Loaded: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg) 
Maximum takeoff: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 supercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1600 kW) each 

Performance
Maximum speed: 357 mph (574 km/h) 
Cruising speed: 220 mph (350 km/h) 
Combat range: 3,250 miles (5,230 km) 
Ferry range: 5,600 miles (9,000 km) 
Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m) 
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (270 m/min) 
Wing loading: 69.12 lb/ft² (337 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg) 
[edit]
Armament
12× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 machine guns in remote controlled turrets 
1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail 
20,000 lb (9,072 kg) of bombs 

So now for the comparison. And the winners are:

Size: B-29
Max Take Off Weight: B-29
Power Plant: B-29
Max Speed: B-29
Range: B-29
Service Cieling: B-29
Defensive Armament: B-29
Bomb Load: Lincloln

In 8 catagories the B-29 wins in 7 of them. The Lincoln can carry 2000 lb more of bombs. To be honest the 20,000lb figure for the B-29 I am not sure that is correct because I am sure the B-29 can carry just as much as the Lincoln. So overall the B-29 is the more superior bomber.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 13, 2005)

The B29 could carry larger bomb loads at the cost of less fuel.

The bomb bay was huge, and aside from a few of the over sized bombs the Lanc carried, the B29 could still carry more, and still farther then the Lincoln


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> syscom 3 said:
> 
> 
> > Because the B29 was available and far superior to a Lincoln
> ...



From what I understand the Washington was actually "loaned" to the RAF until the Canberra was available in sufficient numbers....

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_13.html

Once the V bombers came on the scene, the Lincoln's days were numbered as a primary stategic bomber...

The Lincoln, while formidable and having the ability to carry a slightly heavier "normal" bomb load than the B-29 was no way as advanced. There were many internal "accessories" that the -29 had that put it at least a half a step above the Lincoln.

Great post Adler!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The B29 could carry larger bomb loads at the cost of less fuel.
> 
> The bomb bay was huge, and aside from a few of the over sized bombs the Lanc carried, the B29 could still carry more, and still farther then the Lincoln



Agreed...the range stats Adler posted show that the Lincoln can carry 22,000 of bombs 1,470 miles...The B-29 can carry 20,000lbs of bombs well over twice that distance...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From what I understand the Washington was actually "loaned" to the RAF until the Canberra was available in sufficient numbers....



That is correct. The Lincolns main downfall was its range. Therefore the RAF borrowed B-29s and called them Boeing Washingtons until the V Bombers came online. Once they did they were all returned to the United States by 1955.


----------

