The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

[GrauGeist]

...And, yes, I'm quite aware of the Ar234.

The Ar234 was a great recon and fast bomber platform (and the RLM should have focused on that instead of trying to rework the Me262), but the Ju287 would have been interesting to see how it worked out.

Seeing as how the B-29 is dominating this thread, could the B-32 have been able to carry the bomb?

The B-32 had issues to iron out, delaying it's entry into service until late January '45, which was not enough time to get it into Silverplate trim and the crews trained by the historic time-frame of the bombing.
It could carry a comparable load as the B-29 along with similar range, so it may have been possible if they wanted to put off the bombing date(s).

 

[Conslaw]

The Ar234 was a great recon and fast bomber platform (and the RLM should have focused on that instead of trying to rework the Me262), but the Ju287 would have been interesting to see how it worked out.


The B-32 had issues to iron out, delaying it's entry into service until late January '45, which was not enough time to get it into Silverplate trim and the crews trained by the historic time-frame of the bombing.
It could carry a comparable load as the B-29 along with similar range, so it may have been possible if they wanted to put off the bombing date(s).

The Ar234 was a great recon platform. The problem is, once it was available, it only brought back bad news.

 

[swampyankee]

The Ar234 was a great recon platform. The problem is, once it was available, it only brought back bad news.

Reporting reality isn't a problem except to people who don't want to deal with it.

 

[SaparotRob]

Reporting reality isn't a problem except to people who don't want to deal with it.

Welcome to my world.

 

[RCAFson]

I think it's interesting in a Post WW2 era three militaries chose a B-29 variant as their nuclear bomber, the USAF, RAF and Russia...

As we've discussed the RAF B-29s (Washington) never carried a nuclear weapon.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

As we've discussed the RAF B-29s (Washington) never carried a nuclear weapon.

Yea they didn't, but two things to look at - it gave the bomber command the tools to train if that requirement ever went down (I'm sure the British aircraft industry "would have" been more than capable of doing a Silverplate type mod if required) but more importantly, did the Soviets know that the Washington wasn't able to carry a nuclear weapon? Did anyone else at the time know that either?

 

[RCAFson]

Yea they didn't, but two things to look at - it gave the bomber command the tools to train if that requirement ever went down (I'm sure the British aircraft industry "would have" been more than capable of doing a Silverplate type mod if required) but more importantly, did the Soviets know that the Washington wasn't able to carry a nuclear weapon? Did anyone else at the time know that either?

Apply the same logic to the Lincoln.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Apply the same logic to the Lincoln.

As we've discussed the Lincoln never carried a nuclear weapon. It also played 2nd fiddle to the Washington

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And at the end of the day the 3rd post war B-29 operator, the Soviet Union DID did have nuclear capability with the Tu-4

 

[GrauGeist]

The RAF took on loan, 87 B-29s as a stop-gap until the Canberra became available in numbers.
They were returned in 1955 except for two, which went to the RAAF.

 

[RCAFson]

As we've discussed the Lincoln never carried a nuclear weapon. It also played 2nd fiddle to the Washington

The Washington never dropped a bomb of any kind in anger.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Washington never dropped a bomb of any kind in anger.

That was a good thing! It did fulfil a vital ELINT mission and as mentioned gave Bomber Command a stepping stone into their post WW2 nuclear capability.

And as mentioned, the Lincoln was perfect for it's post war role - bombing insurgents with no aerial opposition.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Washington never dropped a bomb of any kind in anger.

So what RAF strategic bomber did nuke a military target, then?

 

[RCAFson]

That was a good thing! It did fulfil a vital ELINT mission and as mentioned gave Bomber Command a stepping stone into their post WW2 nuclear capability.

And as mentioned, the Lincoln was perfect for it's post war role - bombing insurgents with no aerial opposition.

ELINT doesn't equal a nuclear bomber. The RAF was given some B-29s and then had to find a mission for them. Assuming the UK had a sizeable number of nuclear weapons they could have delivered by Lincolns at night.

So what RAF strategic bomber did nuke a military target, then?

AFAIK, the Vickers Valiant was the only RAF aircraft to drop a nuclear weapon. The UK's first non-test nuke, was the Blue Danube and while it would fit in a Lincoln B-B it was too long to be carried in a B-29 B-B.

 

[nuuumannn]

Gawd, this thread has been reduced to nit-picking between B-29 and Lancaster derivatives, simply to prove a point rather than to provide information, which is why it was started in the first place...

 

[swampyankee]

I'm beginning to think it should be closed. I, for one, am just going to ignore the thread from now on.

 

[GrauGeist]

AFAIK, the Vickers Valiant was the only RAF aircraft to drop a nuclear weapon.

Whaaat??
A "V bomber" and not a Lancaster?

How is this possible?

 

[GrauGeist]

Gawd, this thread has been reduced to nit-picking between B-29 and Lancaster derivatives, simply to prove a point rather than to provide information, which is why it was started in the first place...

Actually, Grant, there is a huge resource of info in this thread for anyone who wants to take the time to read through it.

 

[RCAFson]

Whaaat??
A "V bomber" and not a Lancaster?

How is this possible?

And not a B-29. I am quite happy to admit that a Valiant was a superior A-bomb delivery platform than a Lancaster or Lincoln. However, the fact is that the B-29 couldn't carry the UK's first nukes, while the Lincoln and Lancaster could.

 

[Conslaw]

And at the end of the day the 3rd post war B-29 operator, the Soviet Union DID did have nuclear capability with the Tu-4

The initial TU-4 was not nuclear-capable. The TU-4A introduced nuclear capability. It was more of a contemporary of the B-50, B-36 and B-47.