Was the B-29 Superfortress a Failure?

[Snautzer01]

The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

OK, I see your point. The Blue Danube was designed for the jet engined V-bombers (and possibly vice versa).

ww2aircraft.net

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

OK, I see your point. The Blue Danube was designed for the jet engined V-bombers (and possibly vice versa).

ww2aircraft.net

That was a prototype Groundhog thread. There was a poster on that (and other) thread that gave the tone that commonwealth aircraft were ignored unjustly. After making some pretty ignorant statements and having several of our members call him out, the individual left the stage voluntarily

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That was the first long thread I read completely when I signed up. Made me wonder what I was getting into, lol.

 

[Dana Bell]

I wasn't impressed with this video. There were so many simple mistakes (UAAC?) that everything else was thrown into doubt. I'm not certain which explanations were well researched and which ones were bunk.

Cheers,



Dana

 

[SaparotRob]

You it's bad when I can find the errors.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You it's bad when I can find the errors.

"You know* it's bad [...]"

 

[Snautzer01]

That was a prototype Groundhog thread. There was a poster on that (and other) thread that gave the tone that commonwealth aircraft were ignored unjustly. After making some pretty ignorant statements and having several of our members call him out, the individual left the stage voluntarily

Did anyone check the sources this person gave here in this post?.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Did anyone check the sources this person gave here in this post?.

I did - some of his references were valid, some of his points were speculative based on very loose "what if" scenarios. For example, he did cite that Norman Ramsey, one of the architects of the bomb looked into using the Lancaster and did meet with Roy Chadwick. This was true but the final decision was not his and as history played out the B-29 was the chosen platform. He came up with very optimistic performance numbers where he felt the Lancaster VI was able to perform on par with the B-29. Bottom line, once it was decided to go forward with the Silverplate mod, the commitment was there and the poster who kept pushing the Lancaster nuke conspiracy theory probably just fed the "Black Lancaster" story which was utter BS!

 

[Snautzer01]

Thanks . Appreciated.

 

[SplitRz]

I did - some of his references were valid, some of his points were speculative based on very loose "what if" scenarios. For example, he did cite that Norman Ramsey, one of the architects of the bomb looked into using the Lancaster and did meet with Roy Chadwick. This was true but the final decision was not his and as history played out the B-29 was the chosen platform. He came up with very optimistic performance numbers where he felt the Lancaster VI was able to perform on par with the B-29. Bottom line, once it was decided to go forward with the Silverplate mod, the commitment was there and the poster who kept pushing the Lancaster nuke conspiracy theory probably just fed the "Black Lancaster" story which was utter BS!

Sweet bejeebers. I can't believe that Mark Felton would have pedalled such obvious cack.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sweet bejeebers. I can't believe that Mark Felton would have pedalled such obvious cack.

Yep - and the conspiracy theories arose from the smoldering bovine fecal matter!

 

[Snautzer01]

Pumpkin bomb - Wikipedia the practised a lot over Japan with a copy of the bomb. Didnt know that. Pumpkin bomb - Wikipedia

 

[SaparotRob]

"You know* it's bad [...]"

Yeah, I UNfixed it. Should have left the error in.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, I fixed it. Should have left the error in.

Dammit, there goes my joke!

 

[SaparotRob]

Okay, the voices in my head were discussing the Atomic Lanc. The British Boing Washington bombers were acquired for their atomic bomb capabilities. If the Lanc was capable, why get the Boings? Were the Lancasters all scrapped by then?

 

[GrauGeist]

The Lancasters stayed in service (although in dwindling numbers) until the early 50's.
The Lincoln, which was an upgraded Lanc, remained in service (in reduced numbers) until the early 60's.

The Washington (B-29s on loan to the RAF) operated alongside the Lincoln.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And the Washingtons were not nuclear capable.

 

[GrauGeist]

Correct, most of the B-29s were production B-29s that went from the assembly line to storage due to the end of the war. A few were current operational aircraft with the USAF.

None were Silverplate or B-50 variants.

 

[SaparotRob]

So only the Silverplates, modified B-29s (designed and manufactured before the revelation of the bombs dimensions) could carry A-bombs. The Lancaster, which was available during and post war, was superseded in part by the B-29, the Washington. The RAF must have seen some improved capability of the B-29 over the Lancaster. The Washington couldn't carry "A" weapons. The Lancaster was never actually modified for the job.
I think I killed three birds with one stone.

 

[pb43]

The B-29 was the first bomber able to deliver the strategic effects the bomber advocates dreamed of.
It was the first bomber with the performance and bomb load to able to be used to smash cities at will.
Nothing was the same after B San.

You are forgetting that Britain had the Stirling, Lancaster and Halifax several years before the B-29 entered service in any numbers. That trio proved that they could deliver strategic bombing from 1942 on, two years before the B-29.