A-Bombing Germany

[cheddar cheese]

was that a yes?

 

[plan_D]

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]

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]

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]

What kinda Englishman are you ?

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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]

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]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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]

He shoots...he scores.

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

 

[plan_D]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.