Best overall bomber ww2

[FLYBOYJ]

This site mentions the possible use of the Lancaster for the A-bomb drops:
Operation Silverplate

Lancasters were mentioned as they and the B-29 were the only allied aircraft able to carry the atomic bombs internally "WITH MODIFICATIONS." Had the Lancaster been used, it woo would have had to be modified.

but I'm certain I read that the first test drops were done with a Lancaster. I'll keep looking till I find it.

Please do.

BTW...

"Ramsey quickly concluded that there were only two Allied bombers capable of carrying both weapons: the Boeing B-29 (if suitably modified) and the Avro Lancaster. The Lancaster had ample room internally, and it was a prodigious weight lifter; it almost won the contest. In fact, Ramsey traveled to Canada in October 1943 to meet with Roy Chadwick, the Lancaster's chief designer. As luck would have it, Chadwick had crossed the Atlantic to view Lancasters being built at the Avro Canada works in Toronto, and Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the gun and the implosion weapon casings. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed, but he was well-used to wartime secrecy; Chadwick did not ask why the weapons had such unusual shapes."

As far as I know the USAAF NEVER had a Lancaster in its inventory for any reason and IF it was to be used, it would have been used by the 509th, and you clearly see they never used any other bomber aircraft but the B-29.

"Prior to the decision to use the B-29 serious consideration had been given to using the British Avro Lancaster to deliver the weapon, which would have required much less modification, but the idea was vetoed by General Groves who thought it "beyond comprehension to use a British plane to deliver an American A-bomb"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate

 

[dunmunro1]

However, if the first drops were with an RCAF flown Lancaster, then it wouldn't be recorded in the 509th history.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

However, if the first drops were with an RCAF flown Lancaster, then it wouldn't be recorded in the 509th history.

Perhaps not, but I still challenge you to find a source comfirming your claim.


IF that was true, it would have been an obvious mention in the development in the atomic bomb and B-29 history. Even IF an RCAF crew did do this drop, where would it have been done? More than likely Wendover, right at the 509th's backyard or at Alamogosa New Mexico.

The first airdrop of an atomic bomb (model) was done in August 1943 (as shown)

The first Silverplate aircraft were delivered in October 1944

The first "pumpkin bombs" were used in training in early 1945

The first live pumkin was dropped in July 1945

When "would have" an RCAF Lancaster been used or needed??? The first full size pumpkins weren't developed until 1945, by that time there were at least 20 or 30 silver plate aircraft available.


Sorry dunmnro, you're grasping at straws. I've studied this subject matter fior years and even had an uncle who flew in B-29s and was briefly stationed at Wendover, no RCAF Lancaster was ever used to do anything with the development for the atomic bomb.

 

[Waynos]

Thanks for thiose quotes FlyboyJ. I had no idea the Lanc came so close to actually being used for the A bomb. I remember a discussion quuite a long time ago on here where some members (inc me) said the Lanc 'could have', many other members said 'don't be daft'. I'd have loved that info then

I am currently reading Leo Mckinstry's history of the Lancaster and I've seen no mention of A bomb tests in the index

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks for thiose quotes FlyboyJ. I had no idea the Lanc came so close to actually being used for the A bomb. I remember a discussion quuite a long time ago on here where some members (inc me) said the Lanc 'could have', many other members said 'don't be daft'. I'd have loved that info then

I am currently reading Leo Mckinstry's history of the Lancaster and I've seen no mention of A bomb tests in the index

Thanks Waynos - be rest assured if a Lancaster would have found its way on the Manhattan Project, it would have been just as well documented and well photographed as the Enola Gay.

 

[dunmunro1]

Operation Silverplate

Some factoids:

initial acceptance date for a-bomb modded B-29 was to be Jan 15 1944.

this was delayed by mod and engine difficulties until Feb 20 1944

first drop test March 06 1944 - resulted in failure

B-29 recommended to be modded to "British method of suspending heavy bombs by a single lug"

Test resumed June 14th 1944

In mid-October (1944), the first three of the new SILVERPLATE aircraft batch (42-65209, -216, and -217) were accepted from the Martin-Omaha facility. Unlike 42-6529, the original PULLMAN airplane, they were fitted with a single-point bomb release modeled after the British 'Type F' heavy bomb mechanism and mounted on an improved frame fitted in the forward bomb bay.

So the 509th's B29s ended up with a bomb bay that was compatible with the Lancaster...

 

[Thorlifter]

Thanks for thiose quotes FlyboyJ. I had no idea the Lanc came so close to actually being used for the A bomb.

Nor did I....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Operation Silverplate

Some factoids:

initial acceptance date for a-bomb modded B-29 was to be Jan 15 1944.

this was delayed by mod and engine difficulties until Feb 20 1944

first drop test March 06 1944 - resulted in failure

B-29 recommended to be modded to "British method of suspending heavy bombs by a single lug"

Test resumed June 14th 1944

In mid-October (1944), the first three of the new SILVERPLATE aircraft batch (42-65209, -216, and -217) were accepted from the Martin-Omaha facility. Unlike 42-6529, the original PULLMAN airplane, they were fitted with a single-point bomb release modeled after the British 'Type F' heavy bomb mechanism and mounted on an improved frame fitted in the forward bomb bay.

So the 509th's B29s ended up with a bomb bay that was compatible with the Lancaster...

All they did was use the same bomb release mechanism. Your point?!?!?

A lancaster would have still needed to be modified to carry the atomic bomb, this is a mute point....

Your initial quote...

"When the first dummy A-bombs were produced, the B29 was unable to carry them. The USAAF conducted the first A-bomb drop tests using borrowed RCAF Lancasters."

No Lancaster EVER dropped any dummy atomic bomb....

 

[pbfoot]

assuming the Lanc would have been a MK X I checked all the serial numbers out for MK X's and only one went to the US
KB 805
This aircraft was sent to the United Statets for trials of the American-built Emerson remote gun control system; flown to England Nov.44; held at #5MU, Kemble, Glos.; retained in England following the war; used by Tactical Fighter Unit (TFU); storage at various RAF M.U.'s; SOC 3.7.47

 

[FLYBOYJ]

assuming the Lanc would have been a MK X I checked all the serial numbers out for MK X's and only one went to the US
KB 805
This aircraft was sent to the United Statets for trials of the American-built Emerson remote gun control system; flown to England Nov.44; held at #5MU, Kemble, Glos.; retained in England following the war; used by Tactical Fighter Unit (TFU); storage at various RAF M.U.'s; SOC 3.7.47

Thanks for the info - it seems however that this aircraft was never turned over to the USAAF.

 

[dunmunro1]

How would they know that the Lanc bomb release mechanism was superior for that specific bomb?

Seems like the Lanc was pretty much ready for the job when it rolled out of the factory.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How would they know that the Lanc bomb release mechanism was superior for that specific bomb?

Seems like the Lanc was pretty much ready for the job when it rolled out of the factory.

You're grasping at straws again.

The bomb release mechanism has NOTHING to do with the aircraft and is a "bolt on component" that is considered more of as assessorary that could have been fitted to any other aircraft of its type. Yes, they used the RAF bomb rack as a "pattern" based on your own post.



With that said the Lancaster lacked the range, speed, altitude and systems to ever compete with the B-29 and the B-29 as a whole was a generation a head of the Lancaster.

IF THE LANCASTER WAS EVEN CLOSE TO THE B-29, WHY DID THE BRITISH USE THEM IN THE LATE 1940s, EARLY 1950s WHEN THEY STILL HAD LANCASTERS AVAILABLE????

The B-29 was the most advanced and best bomber of WW2 hands down. The Lancaster was a distant second.

 

[pbfoot]

Thanks for the info - it seems however that this aircraft was never turned over to the USAAF.

I know but that is the only one that didn't go overseas or be converted to transport during that time period, on a high note I found out KB889 the Lanc at Duxford I think used to be my playground . We used to sneak into it as little kids when it was at the Old Museum of flight in town

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I know but that is the only one that didn't go overseas or be converted to transport during that time period

Still don't show it in the USAAF inventory and I'd bet dollars to donuts it never made it any where close to Wendover or New Mexico.

 

[pbfoot]

Still don't show it in the USAAF inventory and I'd bet dollars to donuts it never made it any where close to Wendover or New Mexico.

It was never SOC from the RCAF but I also agree that it had nada to do with any A bomb tests , its probable I would think somebody checked out the bomb bay but that might be about that

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It was never SOC from the RCAF but I also agree that it had nada to do with any A bomb tests , its probable I would think somebody checked out the bomb bay but that might be about that

And that even might be a stretch of the imagination.

 

[dunmunro1]

The B-29 was the most advanced and best bomber of WW2 hands down. The Lancaster was a distant second.

I'm not sure why you have to shout. The suitability of the Lanc or Lincoln as a post war nuclear bomber doesn't really apply to WW2 where the ability of the aircraft to perform a variety of missions, with a variety of bombs is key.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not sure why you have to shout. The suitability of the Lanc or Lincoln as a post war nuclear bomber doesn't really apply to WW2 where the ability of the aircraft to perform a variety of missions, with a variety of bombs is key.

I shout for several reasons - 1. You posted a claim that was utter bullshit. 2. You have provided no technical information to back up any of your clams.

A bit of advice - if you're going to post on this forum, come armed and know what you're talking about because there are some on this forum who have actually worked around some of this stuff and its very hard to bamboozal us with half cocked claims.

Now do you need me to technically demonstrate that the B-29 was a superior and more advanced bombing platform than the Lancaster?!?!?!?

 

[dunmunro1]

I shout for several reasons - 1. You posted a claim that was utter bullshit. 2. You have provided no technical information to back up any of your clams.

A bit of advice - if you're going to post on this forum, come armed and know what you're talking about because there are some on this forum who have actually worked around some of this stuff and its very hard to bamboozal us with half cocked claims.

Now do you need me to technically demonstrate that the B-29 was a superior and more advanced bombing platform than the Lancaster?!?!?!?

I will continue to look for where I read this, but if I'm wrong, I'll say so.

Lots of people make mistakes, including me, but I don't think that's any reason to use profanity, or question someone's integrity, if the mistake was an honest one and not an attempt to deceive. The Lanc was considered for the A-bomb, and some of it's features ended up in the B-29 and this occurred after the designer of the Lanc was consulted on the project. The B-29 Silverplate mod program was behind schedule, and the Lancaster was in production in Canada, and I'll leave it at that for now, pending more research.

The Me-262 was "a superior and more advanced" fighter, but that certainly doesn't qualify it as the" best overall" fighter, IMHO, because of it's late introduction and limited overall impact on the war.

 

[Thorlifter]

Now do you need me to technically demonstrate that the B-29 was a superior and more advanced bombing platform than the Lancaster?!?!?!?

I'm not trying to be an a$$, but I would like for you to tell me why, but only because I want to know. I would like to know why it was better, and not just because the B-29 was faster, had longer range, had a heavier payload, and could fly higher. To me, a superior and more advanced bombing platform simply means it could deliver the bombs where they were intended to land.

They already proved that the higher the B-17s flew, that the accuracy was absolutely terrible, even with the Norton bombsite. Did they improve this in the B-29?