Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That wasn't my point, the UK had to have a means of delivery otherwise the whole thing is a waste of time. The grand slam could be carried by a modified Lancaster and reduced performance in range was accepted. If it couldn't be carried by a modified Lancaster it wouldn't have left the drawing board, Barnes Wallace had many ideas for bombs and other weapons, including ideas which needed planes to carry them that didn't yet exist.
We shouldn't let no merit in continuing, stop us from continuing!Well, if the thread starter thinks this way, I can only agree. Maybe we should close this? Seems to me there is no merit in continuing.
I am going to secondActually, Grant, there is a huge resource of info in this thread for anyone who wants to take the time to read through it.
We're talking about the UK's first nukes. They were not designed to be carried in a B-29.
Actually, Grant, there is a huge resource of info in this thread for anyone who wants to take the time to read through it.
According to the always reliable wikipedia, the first bomb wasn't delivered until Nov 1953, by which time the B-29 was being phased out of UK service. The B-29 could have been modded to carry it, but it would have been almost entirely external due to it's length, and the length seems to preclude any minor mods to make it fit a B-29 B-B.Yes, but could they be modified to carry them? Or the bomb?
Cheers
Biff
We'd have to look up the serials at Joe Baugher's site to be sure, but I beleive a number of them lent to the RAF were the ones that had external hardpoints.Yes, but could they be modified to carry them? Or the bomb?
Cheers
Biff
What I got from this discourse is "yes" the Lancaster could have been used as an atomic bomber. I tried as best I could to follow the technical stuff. I believe the Lanc could have done it from Okinawa, not Tinian. This is due to the strain of a very high weight, draggy weapon that must be carried over 20,000 feet above the target. The plane must still have a lot of fuel left to go full throttle to clear the blast and maintain high altitude. This would hold true if the target was somewhere in Germany and the strike left from England. The Lancaster would require modifications. The Silverplates were modified B-29's. With all that said, it would have been a choice of desperation but I think it could have been done. Just not well.
Just to summarize my calculations.
*just a reminder*
Per post #731, none of the above is possible, as the atom bombs weren't designed for the Lancaster.
Let me just correct this. Overblown fanciful fiction, of course, since 'Silverplate' Lancaster VI is simply made up for convenience and the assumption that a Fat Man would have little impact on the Lancaster's performance to the same degree as a Grand Slam is assumption without factual evidence, that is, if it could even fit aboard, and there is no evidence that Chadwick EVER said that a Lancaster could carry a Fat Man, so the figures are presumptions at best and fantasy at worst.
The reality of the situation is that the Lancaster could not have flown the mission as it was flown by B-29s. It might have been able to carry either Little Boy or Thin Man, but if it was to go to Japan from Tinian it would need in-flight refuelling. Without, it couldn't do it.
Do we have to do this again?
I understand that you don't want to accept the evidence but the data is all there.
Well then stop with the 'Silverplate Lancaster VI' nonsense and I'll stop correcting you.
The data you present is a hodge podge of information taken from whatever suits you to justify your point, and it doesn't really prove anything since there is NO reliable data that can accurately verify what you are attempting to prove, so, no, the data IS NOT there. Just because Koopernic said so is NOT justifiable conclusive research. You can't just pick and choose what you wanna believe and state that it is fact. Doesn't work like that.
Yes, as a fictitious scenario what you're proposing warrants as being plausible, because you want it to be, but realistically it's a non-starter; the Lancaster could not do the Tinian raid without in-flight refuelling. It doesn't have the range, the height nor the speeds to do the raid successfully. With IFR it might just be able to.
I don't recall mention of it during the Hiroshima mission, but Bockscar got buffeted pretty hard after Fat Man detonated at Nagasaki and they were at 30,000 feet.Perhaps it's back in the earlier pages (I'm too lazy to look at the moment) but where is it proven that the Lancaster could fly the mission profile? I don't mean the take off from Tinian, I mean the part over Hiroshima and the actual drop. I see a lot of talk of in flight refueling but all the speeds and altitudes seem to be lower and slower than the Enola Gay profile. Is this thing capable of flying the mission successfully in the face of enemy AAA and interceptors? can it get high enough to drop and then speed away from the blast?
I'm guessing that Enola Gay did the turn and burn at what my uncle would have called Power Setting 1 i.e. BALLS OUT. I mean, I'm all for fighting for king and country but I wouldn't want to be irradiated by Little Boy or Fat Man just because my aircraft didn't have the ability to get me out of the blast zone.