Yeah, I've read that page. It's not right., the Lancaster was NEVER considered for carriage of any nuclear weapon other than THIN MAN and even then not operationally. Let it go, Elsa...
German Aircraft that could deliver The Bomb
- Thread starter pinehilljoe
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Yeah, I've read that page. It's not right., the Lancaster was NEVER considered for carriage of any nuclear weapon other than THIN MAN and even then not operationally. Let it go, Elsa...
Grove's own book Now it can be told (pages 253-255) makes it clear that FATMAN was considered for the Lancaster and was considered problematic for the B-29 .
There are numerous sources that make it clear that the Lancaster was considered for all a-bomb variants then in development and it's time for you to man up and admit it.
*said in my best John Wayne voice - Nah, not gonna. I'm gonna quote some first hand sources instead. How 'bout you do the same, big guy... Man up, you say? Careful bucko...
Propellorhead
Airman 1st Class
you are talking about the US coastline in wartime when locals were under limits on their movement or activities:
This was the original email which caught my attention. Nowhere did it limit the event to just one witness frim uboat.net:
six engine plane wreck off Owls Head
Author: Gary Webster
Subject: German Aircraft Wreck off Owl's Head Maine.
Date: Fri Feb 13 16:53:14 1998
Message:
I received this e-mail and though I'd pass it on to this group. Mr. Ruben P. Whittemore claims to have relatives who eye-witnessed this event. What do you think? Seems a little far fetched, but you never know. I've left his e-mail address and mailing address for anyone wanting to ask him further questions. Were both Ju-390's accounted for after the war?
Gary
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: WREAKAGE OFF OWLS HEAD, MAINE:
FROM: [email protected]:
Found RMZ Tag: removed from aircraft motor found two miles southeast of the Owls Head Lighthouse, Maine.
I have a tag which when put together reads: (Note: “?†= unknown letter or number)
• R?Z WURKE Nb 135?34 (Allgemiene) - this word is almost gone due to condition
• JUNK??SM?T??WURKES (Agts: Haan) - this word is in same condition
• FWU ???KE N? 13??34 (Gbs: Fl??g?roberstkommando Rdt.)
Probable plate inscription text:
• RMZ WURKE Nb 135?34 (Allgemiene)
• JUNKERSMOTORWURKES (Agts: Haan)
• FWU WURKE Nb 135?34 (Gbs: Fliegeroberstkommando Rdt.)
Wreck was reported to have been here since September, 44 and reported as a large six motor aircraft with very dark green and black paint. Three bodies were found in area on the 28th of September, 1944 and taken by the U.S. Coast Guard to Rockland Maine Station.
One of the witnesses states he saw one body in German Luftwaffe Signal Corps Uniform, (grey-blue with yellow/brown collor tabs), rank of Hauptmann/Captain?
The FBI, USSS, MI all reported as having told those who had witnessed the crash that it was first a submarine, and later that they better forget what they saw!
I have dived in area and have recovered more parts, and have photos!
Please try to find out if Germans lost a large aircraft about the 17th to 19th of September, 1944 over the Atlantic.
Y.M.O.S.
Ruben Paul Whittemore
P.O. Box H-8
115 South Meadow Drive
Burlington, VT 05401
USA
This is pretty simple. The FATMAN bomb was considered for use in the Lancaster in case the B-29 was incapable of carrying it. Numerous sources support this.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
How the hell can one even compare Thin Man to Fat Man.
Thin Man was two feet wide with a three feet wide tail fin assembly and 17 feet long (shaped like a torpedo), weighing in at 8,000 pounds.
Fat Man (whose conventional counterpart was called a "Pumpkin Bomb" for a reason) was almost 11 feet long and five feet wide, weighing in over 10,000 pounds.
Now as much as some would love to believe the Lancaster would have been suitable for the job, please explained how the Weaponeer was going to access the weapon in the bomb-bay to arm it?
Thin Man was two feet wide with a three feet wide tail fin assembly and 17 feet long (shaped like a torpedo), weighing in at 8,000 pounds.
Fat Man (whose conventional counterpart was called a "Pumpkin Bomb" for a reason) was almost 11 feet long and five feet wide, weighing in over 10,000 pounds.
Now as much as some would love to believe the Lancaster would have been suitable for the job, please explained how the Weaponeer was going to access the weapon in the bomb-bay to arm it?
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Carefully?
The B-29 had to be rebuilt to accept the Fatman bomb; do you believe that modifying a Lancaster to allow crew access to the bomb bay was impossible?
The fact is that scientists and Groves himself thought the Lancaster suitable for carrying the bomb, albeit with some small mods... Lets get back to reality here.
It's on, Baby Cakes...
Lancaster The Second World War's Greatest Bomber, Leo McKinstry (John Murray, 2009) P. 495:
"Though the B-29 programme was beset with early difficulties, the USAAF was still reluctant to allow America's historic new weapon to be carried by an RAF aircraft. When, in late 1943, plans were being drawn up for the first full-drop tests of a dummy atomic bomb in early 1944, Ramsey again suggested that the Lancaster should be used because production on the B-29 had only just started. But again he was overruled, partly because General 'Hap' Arnold, the head of the USAAF had invested so much energy in the B-29 programme. On 29 November 1943, the first modifications began on the Superfortress to adapt it for the new bomb. The question of using the Lancaster never rose again."
In his footnotes McKinstry references The Making Of The Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes (Penguin, 1986), of which I have a copy handy and on page 479, Rhodes writes the following:
"Norman Ramsey started planning full-scale drop tests that autumn as the aspens brightened to yellow at Los Alamos. He offered to practice with a Lancaster. The Air Force insisted he practice with a B-29 even though the new polished-aluminium intercontinental bombers were just beginning production and were still scarce. "In order that the aircraft modifications could begin," Ramsey writes in his third-person report on this work, "Parsons and Ramsey selected two external shapes and weights as representative of the current plans at Site Y... For security reasons, these were called by the Air Force representatives the 'Thin Man' and the 'Fat Man', respectively; the Air Force officers tried to make their phone conversations sound as though they were modifying a plane to carry Roosevelt (the Thin Man) and Churchill (the Fat Man)... Modification of the first B-29 officially began November 29, 1943"."
Rhodes quotes Ramsey's report directly, and this is where I got my information from, too, since I have a written annotation of that report.
Now, Hunny Bunny, what I suspect you are doing is mistaking the fact that testing atom bomb shapes was about to take part using specially modified B-29s, which they did - the 58th example off the production line was retrofitted to be able to carry Thin Man and it was for this test that Ramsey suggested using the Lancaster. Both weapons were to be carried in the same aircraft; the Thin Man in the rear compartment carrying through to under the spar, and the Fat Man shape in the forward compartment. Both bombs were being developed simultaneously and Ramsey and Parsons were tasked with beginning full scale trials at the same time. And again, this was for dropping trials only, NOT operationally and certainly NOT to carry an operational bomb, just scale shapes that were weighted to look and feel like the bombs. I know wikipedia says it did, but again, you need to quote directly from the source material as to what is being said.
I put this down to you not reading your source material thoroughly again, Sweetcheex. Let's also not forget that the Lancaster could carry the Thin Man internally, but it could not carry the Fat Man internally. Wanna know how I know this? Fat Man had a diameter of 1.5 metres, the Grand Slam bomb, which could not be carried internally in a Lancaster without the removal of its bomb bay doors, had a diameter of 1.1 metres. So, do the maths.
Your logic is being shot down, prettyeyes...
No it didn't. The Fat Man could fit within the B-29's bomb bay without modification to the length of it.
Lancaster The Second World War's Greatest Bomber, Leo McKinstry (John Murray, 2009) P. 495:
"Though the B-29 programme was beset with early difficulties, the USAAF was still reluctant to allow America's historic new weapon to be carried by an RAF aircraft. When, in late 1943, plans were being drawn up for the first full-drop tests of a dummy atomic bomb in early 1944, Ramsey again suggested that the Lancaster should be used because production on the B-29 had only just started. But again he was overruled, partly because General 'Hap' Arnold, the head of the USAAF had invested so much energy in the B-29 programme. On 29 November 1943, the first modifications began on the Superfortress to adapt it for the new bomb. The question of using the Lancaster never rose again."
In his footnotes McKinstry references The Making Of The Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes (Penguin, 1986), of which I have a copy handy and on page 479, Rhodes writes the following:
"Norman Ramsey started planning full-scale drop tests that autumn as the aspens brightened to yellow at Los Alamos. He offered to practice with a Lancaster. The Air Force insisted he practice with a B-29 even though the new polished-aluminium intercontinental bombers were just beginning production and were still scarce. "In order that the aircraft modifications could begin," Ramsey writes in his third-person report on this work, "Parsons and Ramsey selected two external shapes and weights as representative of the current plans at Site Y... For security reasons, these were called by the Air Force representatives the 'Thin Man' and the 'Fat Man', respectively; the Air Force officers tried to make their phone conversations sound as though they were modifying a plane to carry Roosevelt (the Thin Man) and Churchill (the Fat Man)... Modification of the first B-29 officially began November 29, 1943"."
Rhodes quotes Ramsey's report directly, and this is where I got my information from, too, since I have a written annotation of that report.
Now, Hunny Bunny, what I suspect you are doing is mistaking the fact that testing atom bomb shapes was about to take part using specially modified B-29s, which they did - the 58th example off the production line was retrofitted to be able to carry Thin Man and it was for this test that Ramsey suggested using the Lancaster. Both weapons were to be carried in the same aircraft; the Thin Man in the rear compartment carrying through to under the spar, and the Fat Man shape in the forward compartment. Both bombs were being developed simultaneously and Ramsey and Parsons were tasked with beginning full scale trials at the same time. And again, this was for dropping trials only, NOT operationally and certainly NOT to carry an operational bomb, just scale shapes that were weighted to look and feel like the bombs. I know wikipedia says it did, but again, you need to quote directly from the source material as to what is being said.
I put this down to you not reading your source material thoroughly again, Sweetcheex. Let's also not forget that the Lancaster could carry the Thin Man internally, but it could not carry the Fat Man internally. Wanna know how I know this? Fat Man had a diameter of 1.5 metres, the Grand Slam bomb, which could not be carried internally in a Lancaster without the removal of its bomb bay doors, had a diameter of 1.1 metres. So, do the maths.
Your logic is being shot down, prettyeyes...
No it didn't. The Fat Man could fit within the B-29's bomb bay without modification to the length of it.
Last edited:
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Propellorhead,
re:"you are talking about the US coastline in wartime when locals were under limits on their movement or activities"
There would have been no limits on movement or activities on the locals during WWII that would have made any difference in this scenario. Fishermen kept on fishing, locals kept on boating to and from, or around the islands. In addition, many of the lighthouse keepers in the area were Coast Guard, or under the direct supervision of the Coast Guard. If there had been any sighting of a German aircraft in that area, one branch or another of the military would have been there in very short order. They would have investigated it until there was no further reason to.
re:"you are talking about the US coastline in wartime when locals were under limits on their movement or activities"
There would have been no limits on movement or activities on the locals during WWII that would have made any difference in this scenario. Fishermen kept on fishing, locals kept on boating to and from, or around the islands. In addition, many of the lighthouse keepers in the area were Coast Guard, or under the direct supervision of the Coast Guard. If there had been any sighting of a German aircraft in that area, one branch or another of the military would have been there in very short order. They would have investigated it until there was no further reason to.
Baby Cakes?
Hunny bunny?
Sweetcheex?
prettyeyes?
What???? Have you been drinking? Come on now? I'm not even sure what to say here. Play nice? No need to throw out childish insults either.
Propellorhead
Airman 1st Class
Mate, he said I wasn't man enough, so I'm calling him cutesy names from now on...
Just relax everyone.
Sorry Adler, I do think a little mod intervention wouldn't go astray - something about flogging dead horses. And I'll stop with the cutie pie stuff too...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Propellorhead,
re my saying you were spelling the word propeller wrong. Is there an alternative spelling that is used in the king's English? If so, I apologize for saying you were using the wrong spelling.
re my saying you were spelling the word propeller wrong. Is there an alternative spelling that is used in the king's English? If so, I apologize for saying you were using the wrong spelling.
Yup, and the Lancaster was a suggestion and ONLY that. Despite all this "Seriously considered" stuff on wiki and other websites and even in some books, I'm struggling to find anything that says the Lancaster was anything more than a suggestion that it be considered by word of mouth and by letter. The mere fact that Arnold shut it down every time it was brought up suggests it wasn't anything more than just a suggestion.
Can we PLEASE get back to German nuclear bombs and bombers?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Propellorhead, this:
The Ju390V1 made trial flights but never left Europe. Japan would have never allowed a trans-Asia flight because of Soviet territory over-flights putting their non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union in jeopardy.
Ju390V2 never made it to any operational condition before it was destroyed by Allied bombing.
The story of a mysterious Ju390 flying to North America first appeared in a 1955 article by Green with no sources or citations and the problem with this, is that the amount of fuel the Ju390 would have needed to make the round-trip voyage exceeded it's max. take-off weight limit. It literally could not do such a trip, it was physically impossible.
There was no third Ju390, just two and their actual flights and dispositions is heavily documented.
Is 100% false.
The Ju390V1 made trial flights but never left Europe. Japan would have never allowed a trans-Asia flight because of Soviet territory over-flights putting their non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union in jeopardy.
Ju390V2 never made it to any operational condition before it was destroyed by Allied bombing.
The story of a mysterious Ju390 flying to North America first appeared in a 1955 article by Green with no sources or citations and the problem with this, is that the amount of fuel the Ju390 would have needed to make the round-trip voyage exceeded it's max. take-off weight limit. It literally could not do such a trip, it was physically impossible.
There was no third Ju390, just two and their actual flights and dispositions is heavily documented.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Maybe we should rephrase the OP to '. . . that could deliver a 5000-10,000 lb bomb'. If a plane can deliver a bomb that size, then obviously it could be used to deliver a 'the bomb' of that size, regardless of whether there were any reason to think there was a possibility of a German A-bomb. (Which there is not.)
)
Last edited:
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
