A-Bombing Germany

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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]

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]

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]

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 b*tch of a time with providing Bomber Forms with planes with sufficient range?

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

 

[evangilder]

joint air command?

 

[102first_hussars]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

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]

Thank god it didn't come to that.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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]

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]

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]

why not a lincoln?

 

[syscom3]

Because the B29 was available and far superior to a Lincoln

 

[Nonskimmer]

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

Nope. Any good?

 

[102first_hussars]

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]

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.