The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

[nuuumannn]

There is ample president for the US using British aircraft like the Spitfire and we overcame bigger engineering road blocks than that I believe.

Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.

 

[ykickamoocow]

Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.

Tinian would not have been the only option for where they could have launched the bomber on its way to Japan. Iwo Jima could have been used and that would have been well within range of the Lancasters.

 

[michael rauls]

Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.

It's certainly possible that it may have been impossible with the Lancaster or any other aircraft. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say for sure but as long as the wieght was within its capacity it seems like other hurdles wouldn't be to hard ro overcome.
Like flying from Okinawa instead of the Marianas for example.
Regardless while the absence of the B29 may have changed the course of the war by making things more difficult and costly it was to late to turn the tide as it had already bean thoroughly turned. At least to the best of my understanding.

 

[Greyman]

In preparations for Tiger Force, the RAF was in the process of modifying 600 Lancasters to serve as in-flight refueling aircraft in order to refuel Lincoln bombers. Without the B-29, I'm sure the USAAF would be able to take a few tanker Lancasters, modify a few 'Atomic' Lincolns, and hit Japan from Okinawa.

 

[wuzak]

Yup, but I doubt for a project like that. Borrowing Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Beaufighters in Europe is one thing, but for a project as significant as the atom bombs? Also I'm still querying whether a Lancaster could have carried the atom bombs at all, let alone taken them from Tinian to Japan and returned. Someone with the figures could work it out better than I. But again, the reality was that the Lancaster didn't have to, the B-29 could and was, in reality the only choice.

There were three devices designed during WW2.

The first was Thin Man. This was 38" (0.97m) in diameter and 17' (5.2m) long. This compares to the Tallboy (12,000lb, 38"/0.97m diameter x 21ft/6.4m long) and the 12,000lb HC bomb (38"/0.97m diameter x 17.3ft/5m long). Not sure what the weight of Thin Man was.

Thin Man (nuclear bomb) - Wikipedia says "There were no aircraft in the Allied inventory that could carry a Thin Man without being modified. However, the American Boeing B-29 Superfortress could be modified to carry it by removing part of the bulkhead under the main wing spar and some oxygen tanks located between its two bomb bays."

I don't believe that is correct, since the Lancaster had been carrying the Tallboy, 8,000lb HC and 12,000lb HC bombs internally, with the aid of bulged bomb bay doors.


The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was little Boy. Size wise it was much the same as the 4,000lb HC Cookie, which had been used by Bomber Command in Wellingtons, Lancasters and Mosquitoes. At 9,700lb it was quite a bit heavier, however, but no problem for the Lancaster.


Fat Man was heavier, at 10,300lb, but still within the capability of the Lancaster. The diameter would be the biggest problem, at 60" (1.5m) it was bigger than the Grand Slam, which was 46" (1.2m). The bomb would have had to hang down below the fuselage. Length was not an issue.

 

[wuzak]

I agree with other posters here - while the B-29 was influential in the outcome of the war, it basically accelerated the inevitable.

 

[nuuumannn]

Tinian would not have been the only option for where they could have launched the bomber on its way to Japan. Iwo Jima could have been used and that would have been well within range of the Lancasters range.

Alright, let's look at some numbers. The Lancaster B.I Special that carried the Grand Slam had a maximum range of 1,550 miles carrying a 22,000lb load at an all up weight of 72,000lbs.

A standard unmodified B-29 Superfortress had a maximum range of 5,830 miles and a gross weight of 105,000 lbs.

You might be underestimating a few things here. I'm looking at performance charts for the Lanc right now and I suspect you haven't taken into consideration reduced performance as a result of tropical conditions and extra drag from the modifications required to fit a Little Boy, let alone a Fat Man aboard the aircraft. Firstly, the bog standard Lanc Mk.I's performance suffers considerably in tropical conditions at maximum weight (66,500lbs max take off weight), it would be even worse at 72,000 lbs modified. Cruise altitude in tropical conditions becomes 17,000 ft at a speed of 162 mph. Range as a result would decrease as fuel consumption increases. The Specific air range drops from 1.01 ampg (air miles per gallon) to 0.95 ampg, fully supercharged in tropical conditions.

From here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_PD435_Performance.pdf

I'm still examining this so haven't come to a conclusion yet as to whether it might or might not be able to do it...

don't believe that is correct, since the Lancaster had been carrying the Tallboy, 8,000lb HC and 12,000lb HC bombs internally, with the aid of bulged bomb bay doors.

The diameter would be the biggest problem, at 60" (1.5m) it was bigger than the Grand Slam, which was 46" (1.2m). The bomb would have had to hang down below the fuselage.

Weight is certainly not the issue as I identified earlier. It's the bombs' shape and the effect that carrying them would have on drag. The Lanc is much less powerful and less capable than the B-29 and as a result it's performance would suffer considerably in tropical conditions.

 

[nuuumannn]

while the B-29 was influential in the outcome of the war, it basically accelerated the inevitable.

A simplistic view, but true, granted. The war's end was inevitable, but at what cost? Could anyone have accurately predicted when it was going to end at that time? I doubt it, as the decision wouldn't have been made to drop the bombs otherwise. As it was, the decision was made to bring about a swift end to the war and to save lives, as the argument goes, so that is most definitely a turning of the tide. What was Midway? The carrier battle hastened the end of Japanese naval dominance in the Pacific after the Coral Sea.

 

[wuzak]

Weight is certainly not the issue as I identified earlier. It's the bombs' shape and the effect that carrying them would have on drag. The Lanc is much less powerful and less capable than the B-29 and as a result it's performance would suffer considerably in tropical conditions.

Certainly the Lancaster could not do it as well as the B-29, but it could have done it if required.

 

[nuuumannn]

Certainly the Lancaster could not do it as well as the B-29, but it could have done it if required.

Well, that's what I'm trying to verify. In contrast though, so far you haven't provided any evidence other than that it might be able to carry the bombs weight wise. Also, the flight refuelling thing wasn't ready by August 1945; trials were still undergoing. Thankfully though, the B-29 was built and could do the job.

 

[ykickamoocow]

Well, that's what I'm trying to verify. In contrast though, so far you haven't provided any evidence other than that it might be able to carry the bombs weight wise. Also, the flight refuelling thing wasn't ready by August 1945; trials were still undergoing.

Still could have used a closer airfield and refuelling would not have been necessary. Iwo Jima was not far away from Japan and by August 1945 it was completely secure.

 

[wuzak]

A simplistic view, but true, granted. The war's end was inevitable, but at what cost? Could anyone have accurately predicted when it was going to end at that time? I doubt it, as the decision wouldn't have been made to drop the bombs otherwise. As it was, the decision was made to bring about a swift end to the war and to save lives, as the argument goes, so that is most definitely a turning of the tide. What was Midway? The carrier battle hastened the end of Japanese naval dominance in the Pacific after the Coral Sea.

I think we need to look at the term "turning the tide".

To me it means that one side is winning, then that is stopped and then the other starts winning. A reversal of fortune.

When the B-29 started operations the US was doing the winning. That did not change with B-29 operations or the atomic bombs.

Did the atomic bombs hasten the end of the war? Probably.

Did the atomic bombs alter the outcome of the war? Not in terms of the result. Probably prevented a long and bloody invasion of Japan.

 

[nuuumannn]

Regardless while the absence of the B29 may have changed the course of the war by making things more difficult and costly it was to late to turn the tide as it had already bean thoroughly turned.

Hmm, see my comments above, but reluctantly I'm thinking you guys might be right on second thoughts, although I still believe that its impact shortened the war and that this essentially qualifies it for inclusion here.

 

[wuzak]

Well, that's what I'm trying to verify. In contrast though, so far you haven't provided any evidence other than that it might be able to carry the bombs weight wise. Also, the flight refuelling thing wasn't ready by August 1945; trials were still undergoing. Thankfully though, the B-29 was built and could do the job.

Only the Fat Man would have been problematic in terms of size.

The B-29 had to be modified to do the job as well.

 

[nuuumannn]

Yes, it did, but you are ignoring the performance bit. The Little Boy might have been able to be carried by the Lanc but again, what impact would that have on its range, and performance in tropical conditions? Besides, if I had a choice I would have chosen the Lincoln over the Lancaster because of its improved performance.

 

[ykickamoocow]

Yes, it did, but you are ignoring the performance bit. The Little Boy might have been able to be carried by the Lanc but again, what impact would that have on its range, and performance in tropical conditions?

Not that big an impact, or at least not enough to cause problems. The distance from Iwo Jima to Japan is 1300km, so a 2600km round trip. The Lancasters range was 4000km so even if the range was affected by the Little Boy it would not have been affected enough to cause problems, especially since the Lancaster would only need to carry the bomb for 1300km.

 

[Shortround6]

On the early bombs the bomb had to be accessible to a crewman while in flight. This requirement lasted for quite a while into the 40s if not the very early 50s ?

The other problem with using them was dropping them from a height that allowed the bomber enough time (using a lot of engine power) to clear the blast area.
The idea was that the plane and crew dropping the bomb could survive.

Accounts differ but it seems the Hiroshima bomb was dropped from somewhere between 26,000 and 30,060ft (?). one account saying it took just over 44 seconds to descend (Small parachutes/s on the bomb) to detonation height (600 meters?) and the Enola Gay was 11 1/2 miles away when the bomb went off.

The Lancaster might have been able to carry the bomb and drop it but it's chances of getting back to base are a lot less.

 

[michael rauls]

I think there may be some confusion here about changing the course of the war as oposed to changing the tide. At least as I perceive it changing the tide means to literally change the direction i.e. we were loosing.... but now were winning as oposed to changing the course of the war which can happen in the same general direction but in a somewhat different.....well......course i.e we were already winning but now were winning at less cost for example.
Great picks all though

 

[ykickamoocow]

I think there may be some confusion here about changing the course of the war as oposed to changing the tide. At least as I perceive it changing the tide means to literally change the direction i.e. we were loosing.... but now were winning as oposed to changing the course of the war which can happen in the same general direction but in a somewhat different.....well......course i.e we were already winning but now were winning at less cost for example.
Great picks all though

I bet when creating the thread you were not imagining a passionate discussion on whether a Lancaster could carry an atomic bomb

 

[michael rauls]

I bet when creating the thread you were not imagining a passionate discussion on whether a Lancaster could carry an atomic bomb

I must admit I was not but that's ok. I usually learn the most around here durring "thread drift"I believe is the term.