The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945
- Thread starter nuuumannn
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Although we know what a Tallboy or Grandslam can do if accidentally set off, would you want to apply the same risk mitigation to a nuclear weapon?
I wasn't advocating landing with a nuke in a Lancaster more advocating dropping the Grandslam anywhere as a better option to landing with it.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Copy - so another reason why we shouldn't consider the Lancaster as a nuke hauler!
I wasn't. When a bomb load like a Grandslam explodes it turns Merlin engines into pieces of ordenance.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep! So we agree on what an accidental nuke explosion (even an early one) can do!
I have been to Hiroshima, you don't want that happening by accident. Was there ever a contingency for Enola Gay and Bocks car to return with theirs?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I believe there was
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I don't recall about Little Boy but Fat Man was armed when Bockscar took off.
Not sure if the Weaponeer could over-ride it or not.
If not, my guess is that they would have had to drop it at sea before descending.
Not sure if the Weaponeer could over-ride it or not.
If not, my guess is that they would have had to drop it at sea before descending.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Fatman weighed under 10,000 pounds. I think a return landing would have been possible.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I'm sure that the load wouldn't be difficult to land with, but I'm wondering what abort sequence the Weaponeer had at his disposal for Fat Man.
I know it had a multiple sequence for detonation that started with the drop: 15 seconds after release saw the circuits partially close, then at 7,000 ASL, the barometric pressure switch engaged the radar circuit which in turn closed the firing circuit at 1,800 ASL.
My concern would be returning to base with an armed A-bomb and then something like a rough landing damages the harness between the bomb and the Weaponeer's control board, would the bomb then "think" it had been released and start it's sequencing?
wuzak
Captain
I don't think that the Lancaster was ever considered to carry Little Boy or Fat Man. Rather it was Thin Man, the first bomb developed, which brought the Lancaster into consideration. Thin Man was very long which meant that it could not fit in a standard B-29 bomb bay.
But a B-29 was modified so that it could carry that bomb, so the Lancaster was no longer considered.
Fat Man and Little Boy could fit inside a modified standard size B-29 bomb bay, so no need to use a Lancaster for them.
Fat Man weighed 10,300 lbs and was designed as an implosion bomb. It was considered the safer design. The bomb had three physical circuit pins that could be pulled and replaced with dead circuit pins rendering the device inert. This could be done at any point during flight. During the Nagasaki raid, the arming pins were placed at low altitude as the B-29 didn't have a pressurized bomb bay. Has the raid failed to locate the target the bomb would have been "safed" and returned to Tinian.
Little Boy weighed 9,700 pounds and was a gun type bomb. This bomb contains a literal gun that would shoot a plug of U-235 into a U-235 "post" with polonium initiator. There was a lot of concerns about the safety of this device and on the Hiroshima raid the bombardier had to arm the bomb by loading the cordite bag charges. The bomb could be defused if needed to return to Tinian by pulling the primer and cordite.
A major worry was that dropping an unarmed Little Boy would result in an incomplete fission on impact by the slug being forced into the receiver. On the other hand, there have been a number of accidentally dropped implosion Bomba without incident.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Cross wind landing in a multi engine taildragger...
Shortround6
Major General
So both bombs needed access during flight for final arming and possible disarming?
this rather rules out the Lancaster without putting hatches at suitable points in the floor above the bomb bay?
And would the bombardier have room to work in the Lancaster bomb bay even if there were hatche that allowed a man to climb into the bay with a bomb in place.
this rather rules out the Lancaster without putting hatches at suitable points in the floor above the bomb bay?
And would the bombardier have room to work in the Lancaster bomb bay even if there were hatche that allowed a man to climb into the bay with a bomb in place.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
That would certainly have a high pucker factor...
- Thread starter
- #317
Cooo-rect. The Lancaster was listed in Ramsay's report because it was the only bomber that could carry Thin Man internally without modification. Once the AAF was brought on board via Arnold, the Lancaster was ruled out because it wasn't American. Then, as we know, Thin Man gave way to Little Boy. By this time the Lancaster wasn't in the running.
My father talked of landing the Lanc in a cross wind...he side slipped it in. These aircraft often took their full load back to base, and sometimes jettisoned some or all of the load depending on available fuel and other factors. He landed with a full load when the Master Bomber called off the raid to Goch, Feb 7, 1945.
Could the Lanc have successfully dropped a nuclear device? I think so. The Mk. VI had engine issues but was extremely fast and could fly at a higher ceiling. The engines in the B-29 were also problematic, remember. The range could have been accomplished with use of a closer base. Ideal? Perhaps not, but in times of war many things were attempted in less than ideal circumstances. The Dams raid comes to mind.
Jim
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
By the time the Enola Gay bombed Hiroshima there was a good grasp of the operational issues with the B-29s to the point where they were meeting their MC rates, General LeMay demanded that one way or another. With that said I think it was shown quite clear the limitations of the Lancaster VI. Could the Lancaster have worked as a nuclear bomber? Maybe - there were a lot of technical issues shown in this thread. At the end of the day the best tool available was used.
- Status
