But what's one coastal city or naval base against the dispersed vastness of the Soviet Union?
While I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons: How many AJ-1's would be carried aboard the CVA-41 class? How many were proposed for the CVA-58 class? How effectively could they operate in the arctic with ice-breakers?
That being said, there were numerous coastal targets that would be quite ripe for the US Navy to use nuclear warheads on for several reasons
- There were many naval bases, shipping & transportation hubs, and submarine pens there
- They didn't have capacity for the 12000 pound tall-boy or 22000 grand-slam
- The ability to destroy cities was in vogue at the time as a means of killing morale: The US Navy wanted in on the action at the very least so they can say "I can blow up cities too!"
Furthermore
- Thought he USSR (and now Russia) is gigantic from east/west, from north/south is nowhere near as large. It seems about 600-900 miles from the coast to dead center.
- Moscow would likely be in striking range: The political center of gravity, and they were not well equipped to handle decapitation strikes
- The death toll caused by wiping cities off the face of the earth would far outweigh the loss of personnel on a carrier, and likely it's whole battlegroup (sociopathic as that sounds, we are talking about a no-holds barred operation where military/civilians are not distinguished from one another).
- Carriers equipped with the F2H were capable of defenses that could go up to around 50,000 feet
Given that carriers have to keep their distance off a hostile coast
What would have been the typical distance at the time?
A 23mm canon fired a 175gram projectile and had roughly twice the explosive of a 20mm projectile.
And the HS.404's were around 135g
The Muzzle velocity was a bit low but then the interceptors pretty much had to use a tail chase pursuit.
For the 20mm it's around 2900 fps at the time, and 2300 for the 23mm.
The question isn't so much that of accurate range of of 23mm cannon but if the interceptor (of whatever kind) could get in a firing pass and escape without getting hit badly by the defensive guns. Ad if the interceptor's guns could inflict fatal damage in a single firing pass.
Could 6 x 20mm do the job?
I have no idea where this comes from, a B-36 out turning a fighter?
The B-36 was not maneuverable a fighter-sized aircraft under most conditions: It's g-load capability seemed about the same as other bombers of the time; now up at high altitudes, say 45,000-48,000 feet, it retained more agility than fighter planes did at that altitude. In other words, it merely sucked less than a fighter at that altitude.
The B-36 project started before Pearl Harbor.
The B-36 started out as an ultra-long ranged bomber able to fly 12,000 miles with a 4,000 pound load; this was eventually changed for some reason to a 10,000 mile range with a 10,000 pound load. Desired speed was 450 mph, a cruise no lower than 275 mph, with self-defending armament, and a maximum altitude of at least 40,000 feet. As time went on the maximum desired altitude was bumped up to 50,000 feet and range to 10,000 nm.
The goal seemed to be to be able to fly from the US and hit Germany, and fly back; later hit both Germany and Japan.
First prototype was rolled out of the factory (but not flown) on Sept 8th 1945
Supposedly it had a structural issue that kept it on the ground for awhile.
Performance of the early models was hardly sparkling.
Early on the performance was particularly bad due to a lack of a suitable supercharger. With time, this was rectified, but the top-speed was never what they wanted. I'm not sure exactly how high the early B-36's could fly but I do remember seeing in a documentary, a nuclear weapon was released around 46,000 feet up, and an F2H at 52,000 feet successfully engaged it in mock combat. An F7U-1 also supposedly bagged one.
SO much so that in 1948 Convair suggested adding the underwing jet engines.
The B-36D...