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...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We've had this discussion before:
You have a very clear statement presented to you that the Lancaster was considered for THIN MAN and FATMAN. It's time for you to accept that.
[="nuuumannn, ] Yeah, I've read that page. It's not right. You are the one who needs to accept it.
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.
It is Owls Head with an "S". it is on the west shore of Penobscot Bay, it is around 50 miles From Portland and there are a crap load of Islands to the east in the middle of the Bay
View attachment 598790
That there was only one (or one who talked) witness to this seems rather incredible. Not to mention the amount of traffic through the area in terms of fishing boats (lobster pots) and sardine fishing since the war.
*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...
Carefully?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?
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?
The FATMAN bomb was considered for use in the Lancaster in case the B-29 was incapable of carrying it. Numerous sources support this.
The B-29 had to be rebuilt to accept the Fatman bomb
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 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.
This is a myth. There is no record whatsoever of any German aircraft having made such a flight. There was only two Ju 390s built and their fates can be verified. The prototype, which has been alleged to have made a flight to within sight of New York, but is roundly regarded as fiction based on no records surviving of such a thing nor eye-witness testimony from the Germans themselves that such a thing took place and if it did there would be evidence of it - was scrapped at the end of WW2 and the second prototype never flew and was scrapped incomplete.
There are plenty of records from the time of Ju 290s making long distance flights, including to Japan, yet no mention of such an achievement in any archive, nor eye-witness testimony or anything.
Have you been drinking. Come on now? I'm not even sure what to say here. Play nice?
Just relax everyone.
Ok, reality (finally) - so which one was actually used?Lets get back to reality here.
Ok, reality (finally) - so which one was actually used?
The B-29...
Is 100% false.There are plenty of records from the time of Ju 290s making long distance flights, including to Japan, yet no mention of such an achievement in any archive, nor eye-witness testimony or anything.