OK, I see your point. The Blue Danube was designed for the jet engined V-bombers (and possibly vice versa).
The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945
- Thread starter nuuumannn
- Start date
- Status
OK, I see your point. The Blue Danube was designed for the jet engined V-bombers (and possibly vice versa).
Dash119
Senior Airman
We shouldn't let no merit in continuing, stop us from continuing!
Personally I'm hoping we can get to 85 pages like this thread; XP-39 II - The Groundhog Day Thread
On a more serious note;
I am going to second
GrauGeist , there is a lot of good information in this thread. It could have been presented in a better and more succinct method, but it is good information none the less. As with anything else these days, if you don't like the direction of this thread, don't click on the link.
- Thread starter
- #744
Yes, I agree, but my complaint is that it has degenerated into its current direction from what the original intent was, not that the information within wasn't of use. It clearly is of interest, as we can observe, but the intent has changed. It's become a stage for pointless tit-for-tat.
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.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
The RAF started returning the B-29s to the U.S. in 1955.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
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.
The drag of a 'silverplate' modded Lancaster VI and a Fatman would have been similar to a Lancaster with a Grandslam bomb, but of course average weight would have been less due to fuel burn on the long over water flight to Japan.
With a Littleboy and both forward turrets removed, drag would have been somewhat less than a typical Lancaster.
There's no doubt that a 'Siverplate' Lancaster VI ( ~3000IG internal fuel) could have carried a Littleboy from Tinian - Hiroshima - Okinawa (~2100 miles) because it's range would have been ~3000 statute miles.
A 'Silverplate' Lancaster VI with a Fatman ( ~3000IG internal fuel) would have had a range of at least 2700 statute miles and could have flown a Tinian - Nagasaki - Okinawa (or Kokura, ~2000 miles ) mission.
These range figures are calculated on a low-high-low mission profile basis with a climb to combat altitude as the aircraft nears Japan, and a bomb release at ~29K ft at a mean aircraft weight of 55k lbs.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
*just a reminder*
Per post #731, none of the above is possible, as the atom bombs weren't designed for the Lancaster.
Per post #731, none of the above is possible, as the atom bombs weren't designed for the Lancaster.
- Thread starter
- #750
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.
*just a reminder*
Per post #731, none of the above is possible, as the atom bombs weren't designed for the Lancaster.
Do we have to do this again?
"Ramsey was assigned to head the Delivery Group of the Ordnance Division and later
served as deputy to Pasion." His immediate tasks were to design the bomb casings that
would carry the gun-assembly bomb and implosion bomb. By the end of 1943 it had
already been established that the gun-type bomb-Thin Man-would weigh on the order
of five tons. Ramsey assumed that the implosion bomb would weigh approximately the
same. Given their size and weight, there were only two possible choices for an aircraft to
deliver the weapons, the British Lancaster or the American B-29, which had begun
production in September.
Ramsey favored the Lancaster and traveled to Canada in early October 1943 to meet Roy
Chadwick, the plane's chief designer, Chadwick was in Canada to observe the initial
Lancasters coming off the production line at the Victory Aircraft Works, Milton Airdrome,
in Toronto. Ramsey showed Chadwick preliminary sketches of the large-thin-shaped and
stubby shaped-bombs and later wrote with more details.(12) Chadwick assured Ramsey that
the Lancaster could accommodate them.
When Ramsey returned, he wrote to Parsons suggesting that the Lancaster be seriously
considered and planned a memo to General Groves recommending that a modified
Lancaster be used.(13)The bomb bay was thirty-three feet long and sixty-one inches wide.
The depth was only thirty-eight inches, but this could be modified. The Lancaster's ceiling
was 27,000 feet, its speed 285 miles per hour, and takeoff required only 3,750 feet of runway
-a critical matter wherever it would be based.
(12). Norman F, Ramsey Jr. to Roy Chadwick, October 23, 1943, Folder Dr. Norman Ramsey, Box 6,
Tolman Files, RG 227/81, NARA.
(13). Memo, N. F, Ramsey to Capt. W. . Parsons, October 14, 1943, Lancaster Aircraft, Folder Dr Norman Ramsey... NARA
" (Norris, pages 316-317 Racing for the Bomb)"
Ramsey specially checked to ensure that the Lancaster could carry the bombs in it's B-B before they were produced.
The Lancaster VI existed, it could carry either bomb and it had the TO power, lifting capacity and B-B volume to carry the bomb and the needed fuel. I understand that you don't want to accept the evidence but the data is all there. The mission planners had the option for a Tinian - target - Okinawa plan. They also had the option for an Iwo JIma - target - Iwo JIma or Okinawa plan,
- Thread starter
- #753
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.
Last edited:
That's how research works. You take data, from where ever you can find it, analyse it, and use to it prove a hypothesis.
The wartime measured and calculated AMPG for various mods of the Lancaster is available online. The ability of the Lancaster to lift heavier loads than required for a Tinian-target-Hiroshima plan is proven because Lancasters did it on actual operational missions and we have the test reports that were used to verify that the missions were feasible. The B-B volume of a Lancaster is easy to calculate, and when you do it's obvious that it has the volume to carry either A-bomb and needed extra fuel capacity via conformal B-B tanks.
AMPG = calculated during wartime and available online
operational ceiling data = proven based upon wartime test reports
weight lift capacity = proven based upon test data and operational missions
B-B volume to carry the bomb and extra fuel is a simple calculation and also proven by the ability of the Lancaster to carry a Tallboy and a 400OG aux B-B fuel tank.
Aircraft drag whilst carrying a FATMAN has also been calculated.
Putting this all together, we end up with a "Silverplate" Lancaster VI, with both forward turrets removed, conformal ~850 IG B-B fuel tanks for a total capacity of 3000IG of fuel, a single 10K lb A-bomb, and a TOW of ~70k lbs versus a proven max TO weight of 72K lbs.
"You can't just pick and choose what you wanna believe and state that it is fact. Doesn't work like that."
The factual data is all there, online. You're the master of picking and choosing what you wanna believe and it seems that no amount of data or reasoned argument is ever going to be enough for you, is it?
This tit for tat bickering is getting very old.
Last edited:
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
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.
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.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
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.
Additionally, the AA defences around Kokura were very active due the the previous night's fire-bombing of nearby cities and even at 30,000 feet, it was uncomfortably close to the B-29s.
I'm going to stop this. I don't like the tone of the discussion and it sounds like beating a dead horse. If the normal scenario is applicable, this will soon turn ugly and we'll have to ban people. I don't like to ban people, so i close the thread. For complains you are free to send me a PM and I'm willing to listen.
- Status
