A-Bombing Germany

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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]

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]

yhea i agrea the b29 or b17 would have done it

 

[cheddar cheese]

but 11 people think otherwise...

 

[Lightning Guy]

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]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[plan_D]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[plan_D]

Thanks for them, LG.