Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ummm....but, if it could have, would it have? or would we just wonder 'if it had'? Then again, the bomb bays were too small so it couldn't have even if we had wanted it too...
Had there been a need for the B-29 to drop a bomb that large, bomb bay doors "would have" been made avaiable to swap out with normal doors, something quite easy to do in the field.Ummm....but, if it could have, would it have? or would we just wonder 'if it had'? Then again, the bomb bays were too small so it couldn't have even if we had wanted it too...
The point is that just because the B-29 didn't do it is no reason to give it lesser marks in the which bomber is best test.
The decision could easily have been made by the RAF to obtain a few - say a squadron's worth - B-29s which would have arrived in time to drop most of the tallboys and grand slams.
Had there been a need for the B-29 to drop a bomb that large, bomb bay doors "would have" been made avaiable to swap out with normal doors, something quite easy to do in the field.
For example would it have been cost effective to send, say 500 B-29s over Germany, when for the same outlay, you could have say 2000 b-17s. if you look at the issue in those terms, Im not as convinced of the b-29s value
It is more than just the doors.
The B-29 "silverplate" models were specially modified to carry the atomic bombs - but tallboys were approximately twice as long as either Little Boy or Fat Man and the Grand Slam was even longer.
The pictures above show the Grand Slam covers the two forward bomb bays.
Does anybody know what the maximum bomb size that could be carried inside the standard B-29 bomb bay?
Had there been a need for the B-29 to drop a bomb that large, bomb bay doors "would have" been made avaiable to swap out with normal doors, something quite easy to do in the field.
The point is that just because the B-29 didn't do it is no reason to give it lesser marks in the which bomber is best test.
The decision could easily have been made by the RAF to obtain a few - say a squadron's worth - B-29s which would have arrived in time to drop most of the tallboys and grand slams.
No, we should give the Whitley points for actually doing the damage at the time. The point I'm making is that the B-29 wasn't the one doing the damage with tallboys and grandslams. Yes, she could carry them, but she wasn't the one doing the damage with them, it's the Lancaster with them on her combat record and the B-29 shouldn't take anything away from that. I'm not saying we should limit the discussion to 1944 because other bombers didn't have time to be modified at all, I'm saying we should include right up to the end of the war because even then other bombers weren't modified.
Are we comparing the capabilities of a bomber to decide which was best or are we comparing the war records? Or mix of the two?
Could a B-29 carry a Tall Boy? Yes did it in combat in WW II? no
Could a B-17 lift 17,000lbs of bombs of the ground? Yes. Could it actually reach a target with a such a load (even the coast of France) ? No. Could a B-17 carry a 12,000lb Tall Boy? No. It could not fit it inside and there wasn'
t room outside. Same for a B-24. They could carry the weight but not the actual weapon and no amount of fiddling with bomb doors or anything short of a total rebuild/new design was going to change it.
See the difference? The B-17/B-24 couldn't do it no matter what. The B-29 could but didn't. If Tall boys and Grand Slams had been needed against Japan in 1945 the B-29 could have done it. Now you want to down grade the B-29 because it didn't do it in combat in the time frame we are talking about.
Are we comparing the capabilities of a bomber to decide which was best or are we comparing the war records? Or mix of the two?
Could a B-29 carry a Tall Boy? Yes did it in combat in WW II? no
Could a B-17 lift 17,000lbs of bombs of the ground? Yes. Could it actually reach a target with a such a load (even the coast of France) ? No. Could a B-17 carry a 12,000lb Tall Boy? No. It could not fit it inside and there wasn'
t room outside. Same for a B-24. They could carry the weight but not the actual weapon and no amount of fiddling with bomb doors or anything short of a total rebuild/new design was going to change it.
See the difference? The B-17/B-24 couldn't do it no matter what. The B-29 could but didn't. If Tall boys and Grand Slams had been needed against Japan in 1945 the B-29 could have done it. Now you want to down grade the B-29 because it didn't do it in combat in the time frame we are talking about.
And the B29 is the only plane to have dropped atomic weapons. Of which the Lancaster did not.
And Lanc ..... The B29 could carry two large naval mines on a 1600 mile mission. Could the Lancaster do that?