The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
During the "Baby Blitz" of 1943/44 the Heinkel He 177 Greif (Griffon) exhibited a 6% attrition rate per mission. If two weapons were available and two He 177 were sent the chances of both being shot down are about 0.0036.

If the weapon can be released by a high speed ribbon parachute (which was a German 'invention' and widely used for slowing down assault gliders and jets such as the Ar 234 and Parachute Mines and used as part of escape egress system for the Do 335 and Me 163 ) and the parachute can slow the weapon to zero forward velocity from the release speed of 220mph/100m/s in 7-10 seconds and if the terminal descent velocity can be limited to 70-100ms a good distance could be achieved before the fissionable mass detonated. If released at 2000m altitude at 220mph/100ms I get about 1.5-2.0 km distance between the tail of the bomber and the time the bomb bursts. Doing about a 45 degree turn should get that to about 2km-2.5. If the weapon is less than 10 kilotons it should be survivable for the crew.

The normal strategy of these aircraft was to penetrate British airspace in a shallow dive, release at medium altitude and continue the dive back out to sea.

My recollection is that the parachutes use in aerial mines (to prevent the explosives busting out from hard impact) slowed decent to about 220feet/sec (70m/s) which is about 11 times the speed used for a human parachutist.


This would be a gold plated Heinkel. Usually only about 1/3rd had a tail warning radar. I would also expect a directional radar warning receiver and likely an escort of night fighters.

I would imagine that there wouldn't be a problem finding crews prepared to go up with the bombs like that B58 Hustler crew in "Failsafe". There is not much worth dying for these days but it was different back then.

An attack on the USA could be done with a Ju 390. There are arguments that the increased MTOW variant, the Ju 390V2, could do a return mission but irrespective of that the standard 6000 mile version could get to the US East coast with one in flight refuelling and return to Europe or if the refuelling wasn't possible ditch half way back across the Atlantic. Ju 290 and Ju 252 conducted many successful refuelling tests in 1942/43. In flight refuelling kits were prepared for the He 177A1 reconnaissance version way back in 1940. They used a drogue type method but the receiver had the drogue.

The weapon could perhaps be extracted MOAB style from the rear trapoklappe (loading ramp door) or could be carried externally. if it was a little boy type weapon.
 
Roosevelt was always briefed on a-bomb development

Yup, he kew about a weapon, but he didn't know what it was capable of. Very few did. That's what I'm saying. Also, I was reacting to your posts, nothing in them revealed that he knew exactly about the bomb.

Your post above shows a profound ignorance of this topic.

Profound ignorance, huh. Yet its you who won't accept the Lancaster couldn't do it, and here we are heckling down a side route so you can justify yourself.
 
An attack on the USA could be done with a Ju 390.

Problem with this is, what will it achieve? Germany doesn't have an atom bomb, so what are you gonna drop? And then what? The USAAF and RAF combined are slugging thousands of pounds of bombs with hundreds of bombers by day and night on Nazi facilities throughout Europe, what is one freakishly inadequate Ju 390 going to do against the entire USA? And what do they learn from it and how might it bring about an end to the war, which was their objective?
 
To summarise, two reasons why the Lancaster, and that includes ALL Lancaster marks - and the Lincoln could not have carried out the atom bomb raids on Japan.


2. The Lancaster did not have the performance to carry out the mission parameters as they were actually flown.

In short, the Lancaster could not have done it.

I doubt that there would have been a problem advancing a small production run AVRO Lincoln, the Lincoln essentially being a Lancaster with a new extended wing and two stage supercharged Marlins.

There was also the saddle tank Lancaster, designed specifically for Tiger Force to bomb the Japanese mainland.

pic-lanc-test9.jpg
 
There was also the saddle tank Lancaster, designed specifically for Tiger Force to bomb the Japanese mainland.

Yeah, looked at this already. it had impressive range after trials in India it could cover over 3,000 miles with a 6,000 lb load, but the project was discontinued in favour of in-flight refuelling for the Tiger Force.

Again however, it does not answer the speed and height envelope required. To put the aircraft's performance into perspective, at 175 mph at an average height of around 15,000 feet, Short Stirlings were being withdrawn from Bomber Command in 1942 for demonstrating this performance. Both the Lancaster I and III and Halifax III could do much better than this in Europe. Do you really think that kind of performance is acceptable for a bomber carrying a nuclear bomb over enemy territory in 1945?
 
doubt that there would have been a problem advancing a small production run AVRO Lincoln, the Lincoln essentially being a Lancaster with a new extended wing and two stage supercharged Marlins.

MER-lins. Also, you do some research and tell me when the Lincoln entered service and how many equipped the squadron at East Kirkby by 6 August 1945... (Hint, we've already covered why the Lincoln wasn't suitable in an August 1945 timeframe)
 
Yup, he kew about a weapon, but he didn't know what it was capable of. Very few did. That's what I'm saying. Also, I was reacting to your posts, nothing in them revealed that he knew exactly about the bomb.

Profound ignorance, huh. Yet its you who won't accept the Lancaster couldn't do it, and here we are heckling down a side route so you can justify yourself.

Sorry, but Roosevelt was briefed on the bomb and it's capabilities and destructive effect:

FDR and the bomb

It's more than a bit lunatic to suggest that he wasn't fully briefed on the project when there is so much readily available info to the contrary.

The Lancaster VI could deliver a 10K lb bomb and drop it from ~30K ft by flying from Okinawa - that's certain. It could probably do the same by flying from Tinian and landing at Okinawa.
 
There was one aircraft built, and it never proceeded to production. It was a failed design.
Interesting - your interpretation of failed is a bit different than other's.

The B-19 project wasn't high priority at thw onset, so development took longer than expected. It's performance, however, was above and beyond what had originally been anticipated...hardly a "failed design".

And while we're on the subject of failed design, tell me again, about that illustrious Lancaster MK VI...
 
Interesting - your interpretation of failed is a bit different than other's.

The B-19 project wasn't high priority at thw onset, so development took longer than expected. It's performance, however, was above and beyond what had originally been anticipated...hardly a "failed design".

And while we're on the subject of failed design, tell me again, about that illustrious Lancaster MK VI...

The B-19 resulted in a single aircraft that was never approved for production. It seems to compare unfavourably to the B-29 and it seems unlikely to have had the altitude performance of the B-29 due to it's larger size and weight, and lower power to weight ratio.

The Lancaster was highly successful and over 7000 were built. The lanc VI was a low production variant that was used in combat, and was, in effect, an engine test bed for the Lincoln. It performed very well on trials and there is no reason to suspect that it had any insurmountable problems. The Lancaster VI was certainly more reliable than the early variants of the B-29.
 
Sorry, but the Lanc MK VI variant had NINE airframes. Nine. That's eight fingers and one thumb.
The MK VI served for five months and was withdrawn from service. Awesome.

The B-19 (as has been exhaustingly stated before) took too long to develop, but it's proof of concept was applied to other heavy-lift aircraft. It was used as a long-range cargo ship, even with an engine change (R-3350 to V-3420), it was reliable and had no mishaps between 1941 and 1946.

Not bad for a "failure".
 
The Lancaster VI was certainly more reliable than the early variants of the B-29.
If it was so reliable, along with it's sister, the Lincoln, why did the RAF feel it needed 70 B-29s? Again you want to ignore the fact by 1945 the Lancaster/ Lincoln series of bombers had been eclipsed in design and operational capability by the B-29/ B-50 series. The Lancaster (and Lincoln) were great aircraft but as been pointed out many times retained features that were obsolete by 1945. The RAF didn't get back into the modern bomber game until the Canberra came along and then later with the V bomber series.

1595948757157.png
 
Bock's Car dropped a ~50% more powerful bomb at ~28.9k ft, versus ~31.6k ft for Enola Gay. Enola Gay could have probably dropped at 24k ft quite safely. The bombs weighed ~10k lbs, and were not especially heavy by Lancaster standards.

The Lancaster VI did have the altitude performance to have dropped either bomb at the historical release altitude , having a service ceiling of ~29k ft at 65000lb TOW (full fuel and ~14K bomb load). Why keep repeating something that has been shown to be untrue? Max TOW for the Lanc VI was 72000lb. The Silverplate B-29s had all armament (except tail guns) and armour stripped where a Lanc VI had full armament, so a "Silverplate" Lanc would perform better than a standard Lancaster VI.

The Lancaster would have had to have flown a modified flight path that included landing at either Okinawa or Iwo Jima. Bock's Car actually landed at Okinawa. A "Silverplate" Lincoln could probably have flown the same route as Enola Gay.

The Silverplate B-29s probably had a TO weight of 115-120k lbs.

I agree, if it had been a high enough priority, either the mission, the aircraft, or both could have been modified enough to have a Lancaster drop Little Boy. As you say, the plane could have been lightened. Two-stage Merlins adding enhance altitude capability, and landing at Okinawa or Iwo Jima. Were the airfields long enough to take off from? With JATO/RATO? RATO and atomic bombs, that's a pucker-inducing mix, isn't it? That was one of the US Navy's strategies in 1948 with the P2V Neptune carrying nuclear weapons launched with JATO off of aircraft carriers. (The planes were too big to land on the carrier.)

There are two other options: aerial refueling - which wasn't operational in World War II, but post-war showed that it wasn't that difficult; and making it a one-way mission. By one-way, I don't mean suicide. There could have been a designated bail out spot. If any mission was important enough to take a designed bail-out risk, this one was.

If they deemed it worthwhile to accept some additional risks, they could have even made the dropping plane radio-controlled.

In the big picture, yes this argument is pointless. The B-29 existed and it was the best aircraft for the job. That didn't stop us before hammering on "what ifs" before, and it won't stop us in the future.
 
There is a bit of irony in this whole thread. While the argument has been about the Lancaster delivering the atomic bomb, there was another bombing campaign being planned against Japan where the Lancaster was the critical aircraft. If the bomb had proven unsuccessful and the invasion had moved ahead, the allies were preparing an aggressive bombing campaign against Japanese defenses using Tallboy penetration bombs. The lesson learned on Iwo Jima and Okinawa in particular was that it was essential to develop counter measures against Japanese defenses. Thus, the Tallboy. While the US began ramping up production of licensed Tallboy designs for delivery from B-29s, the UK was moving or preparing to move large numbers of Lancaster squadrons to the PTO to support the first landings. One can just imagine what a couple hundred Tallboys being dropped on a target would have been like.
 
If it was so reliable, along with it's sister, the Lincoln, why did the RAF feel it needed 70 B-29s? Again you want to ignore the fact by 1945 the Lancaster/ Lincoln series of bombers had been eclipsed in design and operational capability by the B-29/ B-50 series. The Lancaster (and Lincoln) were great aircraft but as been pointed out many times retained features that were obsolete by 1945. The RAF didn't get back into the modern bomber game until the Canberra came along and then later with the V bomber series.

View attachment 590032

Attacking a nearly defenceless Japan in Aug 1945, is not quite the same as launching a nuclear strike against an intact USSR in the early 1950s, with far more powerful A-bombs than were used against Japan.
 
Attacking a nearly defenceless Japan in Aug 1945, is not quite the same as launching a nuclear strike against an intact USSR in the early 1950s, with far more powerful A-bombs than were used against Japan.
Defenseless as far as an air campaign and even then Japan still had several thousand combat aircraft available.

So at the end of the day the best tool for the job was utilized. But in the cold war years, you're correct. I would not have wanted to see nukes loaded into a single piloted multi engine aircraft that had a tail wheel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back