A-Bombing Germany

• May 21, 2004

• #121

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 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.

 

• May 22, 2004

• #122

G

Gemhorse

Senior Airman

622

26

Mar 6, 2004

New Zealand

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...

 

• May 22, 2004

• #123

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 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.

 

• May 22, 2004

• #124

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 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.

 

• May 22, 2004

• Thread starter
• #125

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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.............

 

• May 23, 2004

• #126

B

brad

Airman 1st Class

249

0

Apr 10, 2004

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

 

• May 23, 2004

• Thread starter
• #127

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• May 23, 2004

• #128

B

brad

Airman 1st Class

249

0

Apr 10, 2004

yhea them ones

 

• May 23, 2004

• Thread starter
• #129

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• May 25, 2004

• #130

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

I don't think it could have.

 

• May 25, 2004

• #131

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

if it could major modification would have been needed

 

• May 25, 2004

• Thread starter
• #132

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• May 25, 2004

• #133

B

brad

Airman 1st Class

249

0

Apr 10, 2004

not as much

 

• May 25, 2004

• #134

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 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.

 

• May 26, 2004

• #135

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

yup, because they couldnt

 

• May 26, 2004

• Thread starter
• #136

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• May 26, 2004

• #137

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 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.

 

• May 26, 2004

• #138

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

i agree 8)

 

• May 26, 2004

• #139

Huckebein

Airman

80

0

Jan 23, 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)

 

• May 26, 2004

• #140

Huckebein

Airman

80

0

Jan 23, 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)