Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why not a Mossie? They're faster and can do the same job as a B-29!Hampdens, Lancasters, Wellingtons, Halifaxes all did mining operations during WW2 for the RAF.
Perhaps they should have used Dakotas?
The 1962 Chevy Nova has 12 bolts that hold the front clip to the firewall.MiG-3s were used in combat in WW2, but Mikulin mills were wanted for IL-2s more.
& I wrote "Super Mosquito" which if it ( &/or the Hawker high-speed bomber) had been realized, then Butch Harris' program
to export Merlin wreckage to Germany in the hundreds a month - would've been shown as needless.
They make far more sense than the stupid crap you're posting.These are myths though right G-G, they don't belong on the best bomber thread, unlike the 'Super Mosquito'..
While you're at it, look up the Dornier Do-STRAYou are funny, de Havilland project DH 102 & Hawker project P.1005 certainly existed,
- but sadly ol' Blighty couldn't build enough Sabre to power 'em
Why not a Mossie? They're faster and can do the same job as a B-29!
You are funny, de Havilland project DH 102 & Hawker project P.1005 certainly existed,
- but sadly ol' Blighty couldn't build enough Sabre to power 'em
G-G, seems you left out the Me 163,
(& yes it has a tiny prop on its nose, but it was propelled by a jet, albeit not one made by a turbine. )
However, the C-54 certainly could tote a useful load, be they mines or what have you..
Some B-17s could carry 17,600lb of bombs, just not very far. two 4000lb bombs on external racks andeightsix 1600lb AP bombs inside (1600lb AP bombs were smaller in diameter than 1000lb HE bombs and would fit in the racks better).
Thank you. I believe the B-17 was lucky it could fly from England to the French coast and back with such a load, it was essentially useless except for winning bar bets.Minor correction SR.
I daresay it wouldn't take Dornberger & von Braun to work it out.
SAC for USN transport Liberator give max range as ~3,500 miles ( 6,000lb payload).
Mining German waters included the rivers from the Rhine to the Danube, & likely more dangerously defended than Nippon.
Churchill ate too many pies, he needed a Liberator to carry his big fat behind.I am not suggesting that a 'bog standard' C-54 be used, but that it could be used as a basis & customised for the duty.
& yes transport Lib was stripped of the guns/turrets & etc, AFAIR, Churchill had one he liked..
Hindsight is 20-20 especially if you're trying to compare technologies and situations that were state of the art 70 years ago. The B-29 was state of the art and ushered in systems and manufacturing techniques that can be traced to aircraft manufacturing technology today. The B-29 maintained a combat attrition rate of 10% (including in Korea) and remained in service until 1960. If it was that much of a folly then why did the RAF use it in post war years and the Soviet Union illegally copy it?!?!?Some thoughts on the matter.
B-29 was, in hindsight, an expensive folly. It was a failure as a self-defending bomber, even against the Japanese.
General LeMay, as a pragmatic boss,( with his bean-counter buddy McNamara) stopped such fruitless ideology.
Your opinion - tell that to the POWs held by the Japanese (I happen to have a family member who was a Japanese POW). The indiscriminate bombing of civilians was done by all combatants. Please refrain from this type of discussion, it will piss off many people on this forum and can ultimately lead to being banned.However, IMO, the punishment of Japanese civilians by mass burning was cruel & needless.
Not in the mass and time frame that was done by the B-29.Minelaying, while effective, could've been effectively done by less expensive means.
And the war would have lased until 1950The USN carrier forces were quite able to smash Nippon industry.
Cheap cruise missiles were a much more cost effective approach to mass city bombardment.
Weird that the B-36 was proceeded with, as a 'Mega Flying Fortress' bristling with gun turrets.
The Mosquito & Ar 234 pointed the way to the future, as had the V-weapons.
Have to disagree, Mosquito bomber ops showed that speed/evasion was the better option.
Not entirely true - B-29s over Korea suffered losses to MiGs early in the war - They started bombing at night but did conduct limited daylight operations in areas where UN forces had aerial superiority or where MiGs weren't a factor.MiG-15's quickly drove the B-29's back into the night over Korea, a Canberra would've done better.
The stripped out lightweight B-36 which could use height to evade was another thing, but once nukes got compact,
as noted, a fast jet would do it better.
A dedicated minelaying C-54 could've done that job at a fraction of the B-29's price.