The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Shortround6 · May 18, 2011

From Joe Baugher's website.

"Range and endurance with a 5000-pound bombload was 1700 miles in 7.3 hours at 25,000 feet (all-up weight of 61,500 pounds) with 2364 US gallons of fuel."
" Fuel: 2364 US gallons in main tanks, plus 450 gallons in auxiliary wing tanks and 800 gallons in extra tanks fitted in bomb bay if required."

B-29A:
" A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude"

Guam is over 1500 miles from Toyko and even Iwo Jima is about 700 miles from Toyko.

Operating at lower altitudes and slower speeds and needing at least 3 times the number of aircraft to deliver the same weight of bombs even if it can reach, bombing Japan with B-24s doesn't look like a good idea.

Readie · May 18, 2011

The Liberator had a combat range of 2100 miles with a payload of 2,700-8,000 lbs. ( Shortround I had typed this out while you posted)

So, to answer your question I reckon about 1000 miles or nearer with a heavier bomb load.
Vladivostok to Toyama 850Km (528 miles) as the crow flys.
Whether this was achievable though is another matter.
Cheers
John

syscom3 · May 18, 2011

B24's (and the few B32's that were flying) were operating from Okinawa in the waning months of the war and doing missions over southern Japan.

FLYBOYJ · May 18, 2011

syscom3 said:
B24's (and the few B32's that were flying) were operating from Okinawa in the waning months of the war and doing missions over southern Japan till the waning months of the war.

They were - 30th BG comes to mind.

gjs238 · May 18, 2011

Shortround6 said:
Operating at lower altitudes and slower speeds and needing at least 3 times the number of aircraft to deliver the same weight of bombs even if it can reach, bombing Japan with B-24s doesn't look like a good idea.

I suppose that if the B-29 entered service a year or so earlier in the ETO, one could make the same argument against using B-24's against long-range targets w/high bombloads in that theatre as well.

Conversly, if B-29's enter service later, then perhaps (or perhaps not) B-24's somehow become feasible against Japan.

FLYBOYJ · May 18, 2011

gjs238 said:
I suppose that if the B-29 entered service a year or so earlier in the ETO, one could make the same argument against using B-24's against long-range targets w/high bombloads in that theatre as well.

Conversly, if B-29's enter service later, then perhaps (or perhaps not) B-24's somehow become feasible against Japan.

The B-29 was never intended for the ETO. The plan was to have the B-32 replace the B-17 and B-24s in the ETO and have the B-32 as a back up to the B-29 in the Pacific, but as history played out both aircraft had development problems and the B-32 was way behind schedule to the point where its fate was sealed as the war ended early because of the atomic bomings.

gjs238 · May 18, 2011

But IF the B-29 and/or B-32 had entered service earlier, the way strategic bombers were deployed may have turned out differently than we have come to know.

FLYBOYJ · May 18, 2011

gjs238 said:
But IF the B-29 and/or B-32 had entered service earlier, the way strategic bombers were deployed may have turned out differently than we have come to know.

Probably, but also remember that tactics had to be developed to make both aircraft effective. Only 3 B-32s made it into combat and there's no way to tell how they would have done in the ETO.

gjs238 · May 18, 2011

Right.
I'm just making a reverse argument when using the example of B-29's in ETO.
If B-29 deployment against Japan had occurred much later, or not at all like in ETO, then B-24's against Japan may need to be considered - and the B-24's would need to deploy closer to Japan for that to happen.

FLYBOYJ · May 18, 2011

gjs238 said:
Right.
I'm just making a reverse argument when using the example of B-29's in ETO.
If B-29 deployment against Japan had occurred much later, or not at all like in ETO, then B-24's against Japan may need to be considered - and the B-24's would need to deploy closer to Japan for that to happen.

Which would have pushed for an invation of the Japanese homeland

Readie · May 18, 2011

FLYBOYJ said:
Which would have pushed for an invation of the Japanese homeland

That is a prospect to conjure with eh...the casualties would have been horrendous.

gjs238 · May 18, 2011

Perhaps, or we wait for B-24's to be deployed closer to Japan, then continue the aerial assault that was historically performed by B-29's.
So aerial assault is delayed.
Does that mandate invasion?
Anyway, with no B-29's, how else do you carpet bomb the Emperor?

parsifal · May 18, 2011

It would be technically feasible to delay the aerial assault until bases even closer to Japan had been developed. However, by 1945, the imperative was to defeat japan as quickly a possible, primarily to liberate the POWs and even more importantly to prevent serious encroachments by the Russians into Chinese and Japanese controled territory. The dropping of the A-Bomb effectively stifled this push by the russians.

gjs238 · May 18, 2011

So it seems that fans of the B-29 can justifiably claim that the plane slowed Soviet encroachment.
Also, without the B-29 or B-32, how would the A-Bombs have been dropped?
Were British heavies capable of this?

Shortround6 · May 18, 2011

They may have been able to lift the weight but I believe access was needed to bomb while in flight ( at least there was a requirement for access to the bomb when the Douglas A-3 Sky warrior was designed in the late 40s). Getting the British bomber and crew clear of the blast may have been a problem.

Readie · May 19, 2011

gjs238 said:
So it seems that fans of the B-29 can justifiably claim that the plane slowed Soviet encroachment.
Also, without the B-29 or B-32, how would the A-Bombs have been dropped?
Were British heavies capable of this?

The Lancaster could lift the weight and with a modification allow access to the A bomb.
The issue would have the operational ceiling.
I'm not sure that it would have been high enough to avoid the blast.
Unless, remote control systems could have been used.
I know 'drones' were in the development stage.
Cheers
John

gjs238 · Aug 26, 2011

Readie said:
The Lancaster could lift the weight and with a modification allow access to the A bomb.
The issue would have the operational ceiling.
I'm not sure that it would have been high enough to avoid the blast.
Unless, remote control systems could have been used.
I know 'drones' were in the development stage.
Cheers
John

Oh, so the Merlin wasn't up to the task?

FLYBOYJ · Aug 26, 2011

Readie said:
The Lancaster could lift the weight and with a modification allow access to the A bomb.
The issue would have the operational ceiling.
I'm not sure that it would have been high enough to avoid the blast.
Unless, remote control systems could have been used.
I know 'drones' were in the development stage.
Cheers
John

As stated earlier in the thread, placing an atomic weapon on an aircraft with a tail wheel flown by one pilot is a major risk consideration. I don't think the Lanc had the altitude to avoid the blast.

parsifal · Aug 26, 2011

FLYBOYJ said:
As stated earlier in the thread, placing an atomic weapon on an aircraft with a tail wheel flown by one pilot is a major risk consideration. I don't think the Lanc had the altitude to avoid the blast.

There is no doubt in my mind that the B-29 was a far superior nuclear weapons carrier than any of the British bomber aircraft, or their postwar developments, the Avro Lincolns and Shackletons. Yet both these aircraft, which were pretty close copies of the Lancaster, could, and did carry nuclear bombs of various kinds.

"The Mark 101 Lulu was an air-dropped nuclear depth bomb (NDB) developed by the United States in the 1950s. It utilized a W34 nuclear warhead, with a yield of 11 kilotons. It was deployed by the United States Navy for the purposes of anti-submarine warfare, in five different models, from 1958 until 1971. Weapons were also stockpiled at overseas allied bases under U.S. Marine Corps guard for use by maritime aircraft of NATO allies, notably at RAF St. Mawgan, Cornwall, UK, for use by Royal Air Force Avro Shackleton aircraft, and Dutch Navy P-2 Neptune and P-3 Orion aircraft. The Mk-101 Lulu was replaced by the multi-purpose B-57 NDB in the mid-1960s. The B-57 was a nuclear depth bomb that could also be used by tactical strike aircraft in a land warfare role. The Mk-101 Lulu had a length of 7 ft 6 in, diameter of 1 ft 6 in, and weighed 1,200 lbs.

The W34 boosted fission warhead used in the Mk-101 Lulu was also used in several other similar weapons, and a version referred to as 'Peter' was used as a thermonuclear primary in the British Yellow Sun and as 'Python' in the U.S. B28 nuclear bomb"

Though not widely known the British (and RAAF) Lincolns based at Butterwort were selected to carry the Commonwealth far Eastern nuclear deterrent in the 1950s. This consisted of 48 Red Beard Tactical Nukes. held at RAAF Butterworth in the 50's. though capable, the Lincolns were never deployed as Nukes. For one thing it was a touchy subject in Australia, for another the RAF sent out 3 squadrons of Vulcans during the Malayan Emergency, and it was these much more capable aircraft that took on the nuclear deterrent role in the latter part of the '50s.

Both the Shackleton and the Linclon are of similar proportion, though somewhat better performance. They both had fixed tailwheels, and the lincoln at least just a single pilot....not sure about the shackleton.

FLYBOYJ · Aug 26, 2011

parsifal said:
There is no doubt in my mind that the B-29 was a far superior nuclear weapons carrier than any of the British bomber aircraft, or their postwar developments, the Avro Lincolns and Shackletons. Yet both these aircraft, which were pretty close copies of the Lancaster, could, and did carry nuclear bombs of various kinds.

"The Mark 101 Lulu was an air-dropped nuclear depth bomb (NDB) developed by the United States in the 1950s. It utilized a W34 nuclear warhead, with a yield of 11 kilotons. It was deployed by the United States Navy for the purposes of anti-submarine warfare, in five different models, from 1958 until 1971. Weapons were also stockpiled at overseas allied bases under U.S. Marine Corps guard for use by maritime aircraft of NATO allies, notably at RAF St. Mawgan, Cornwall, UK, for use by Royal Air Force Avro Shackleton aircraft, and Dutch Navy P-2 Neptune and P-3 Orion aircraft. The Mk-101 Lulu was replaced by the multi-purpose B-57 NDB in the mid-1960s. The B-57 was a nuclear depth bomb that could also be used by tactical strike aircraft in a land warfare role. The Mk-101 Lulu had a length of 7 ft 6 in, diameter of 1 ft 6 in, and weighed 1,200 lbs.

The W34 boosted fission warhead used in the Mk-101 Lulu was also used in several other similar weapons, and a version referred to as 'Peter' was used as a thermonuclear primary in the British Yellow Sun and as 'Python' in the U.S. B28 nuclear bomb"

Though not widely known the British (and RAAF) Lincolns based at Butterwort were selected to carry the Commonwealth far Eastern nuclear deterrent in the 1950s. This consisted of 48 Red Beard Tactical Nukes. held at RAAF Butterworth in the 50's. though capable, the Lincolns were never deployed as Nukes. For one thing it was a touchy subject in Australia, for another the RAF sent out 3 squadrons of Vulcans during the Malayan Emergency, and it was these much more capable aircraft that took on the nuclear deterrent role in the latter part of the '50s.

Both the Shackleton and the Linclon are of similar proportion, though somewhat better performance. They both had fixed tailwheels, and the lincoln at least just a single pilot....not sure about the shackleton.

Having worked on aircraft with nuclear depth charges (P-3C), the deployment of nuclear depth charge is such that an aircraft like the Lanc, Shack or Lincoln could easily deploy the weapon with little risk to the aircraft upon detonation. At the time of the first deployment of the atomic bomb, these lower yield weapons weren't even thought of and it wasn't until the 1950s when they were developed and deployed in such a capacity that the risk mitigation was minimized, even for a tail wheel aircraft deploying them. Point being is why incur a risk during the deployment of a war winning strike on an aircraft whose basic configuration is obsolete? Of course all this happening around first generation nuclear weapons.

The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Major General

Chief Master Sergeant

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Chief Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Major General

Chief Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads