Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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....And, yes, I'm quite aware of the Ar234.
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.Seeing as how the B-29 is dominating this thread, could the B-32 have been able to carry the bomb?
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.
Welcome to my world.Reporting reality isn't a problem except to people who don't want to deal with it.
As we've discussed the RAF B-29s (Washington) never carried a nuclear weapon.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...
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?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?
As we've discussed the Lincoln never carried a nuclear weapon. It also played 2nd fiddle to the WashingtonApply 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
The Washington never dropped a bomb of any kind in anger.
So what RAF strategic bomber did nuke a military target, then?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.
So what RAF strategic bomber did nuke a military target, then?
Whaaat??AFAIK, the Vickers Valiant was the only RAF aircraft to drop a nuclear weapon.
Actually, Grant, there is a huge resource of info in this thread for anyone who wants to take the time to read through it.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...
Whaaat??
A "V bomber" and not a Lancaster?
How is this possible?
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