A-Bombing Germany

• May 26, 2004

• #141

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 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.

 

• May 27, 2004

• #142

Huckebein

Airman

80

0

Jan 23, 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.

 

• May 27, 2004

• #143

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 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.

 

• May 27, 2004

• #144

B

brad

Airman 1st Class

249

0

Apr 10, 2004

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

 

• May 27, 2004

• #145

B

brad

Airman 1st Class

249

0

Apr 10, 2004

i mean the lanc

 

• May 27, 2004

• #146

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

this is a very serious question.....

Who voted for the Stuka?

 

• May 28, 2004

• Thread starter
• #147

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

dear God

 

• May 28, 2004

• #148

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

im looking at you Huckebein

 

• May 29, 2004

• #149

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

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

 

• May 29, 2004

• #150

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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

 

• May 29, 2004

• Thread starter
• #151

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

wy would it need more armour??

 

• May 29, 2004

• #152

G

Gemhorse

Senior Airman

622

26

Mar 6, 2004

New Zealand

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....

 

• May 29, 2004

• Thread starter
• #153

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• May 29, 2004

• #154

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

typically brave RAF Bomber crew

Click to expand...

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.

 

• May 29, 2004

• #155

B

brad

Airman 1st Class

249

0

Apr 10, 2004

i aggre with cc

 

• May 29, 2004

• Thread starter
• #156

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

more like typically stupid

Click to expand...

a bit disrespectfull don't you think??

 

• May 30, 2004

• #157

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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

 

• May 30, 2004

• Thread starter
• #158

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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

 

• May 30, 2004

• #159

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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

 

• May 30, 2004

• Thread starter
• #160

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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