Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
....a weapon is worthless, etc if not used..its purpose was to be deployed in WW2....so, you have to figure in the cost of training crews, and their deployment/use....But that's not how it works.
The "cost" quoted for the B-29 program is the end figure for the program: cost of design, development, production and delivery to the customer (USAAF).
If you want to associate the human element into the fiscal equation, then it would be the B-17 that cost more, since more were produced, staffed and subsequent crews KIA.
Roughly 470+ B-29s were lost to all causes in WWII while roughly 4,700+ B-17s were lost.
And the B-29 "used..its purpose was to be deployed in WW2" and then some. I suggest you do some research and find the missions the B-29s flew aside from dropping bombs. And please spare us your political rants, they will not be welcomed here.....a weapon is worthless, etc if not used..its purpose was to be deployed in WW2....so, you have to figure in the cost of training crews, and their deployment/use....
..I was referring to the B29s vs the Abombs, not B17s
...and, it cost mucho $$ to train the humans [ lives ]
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH--political rants???!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH....do some research ahhahahahahhHAHHAHAHAHAnd the B-29 "used..its purpose was to be deployed in WW2" and then some. I suggest you do some research and find the missions the B-29s flew aside from dropping bombs. And please spare us your political rants, they will not be welcomed here.
o, yes, thanks for the replyAnd the B-29 "used..its purpose was to be deployed in WW2" and then some. I suggest you do some research and find the missions the B-29s flew aside from dropping bombs. And please spare us your political rants, they will not be welcomed here.
Great answer - so here's the deal - evidently you didn't read this when you joined the forum;HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH--political rants???!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH....do some research ahhahahahahhHAHHAHAHAH
woo hooo..not welcomed = HAHAHAHAHAHAH
...wow--such a great welcome from you --HAHAHAHAHAHAH
....the subject was the cost of the B29s vs the A-bombs....this is really simple = the cost of the B29s is not just the development and manufacturing ..it includes the deployment and the crew costs
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH--political rants???!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH....do some research ahhahahahahhHAHHAHAHAH
woo hooo..not welcomed = HAHAHAHAHAHAH
...wow--such a great welcome from you --HAHAHAHAHAHAH
....the subject was the cost of the B29s vs the A-bombs....this is really simple = the cost of the B29s is not just the development and manufacturing ..it includes the deployment and the crew costs
you are so welcoming ..thanksGreat answer - so here's the deal - evidently you didn't read this when you joined the forum;
I suggest you read this thoroughly.
My next welcome statement may not be so friendly.
thanks......
Good bye!you are so welcoming ..thanks
1. I don't see anything about laughing in there
2. please specify my ''error'', because I don't see anything where I did not abide by the rules
thanks......
No, the Lancaster could not have done what the 29 could and did. It had neither the range or the bomb bay size. The British did push the Lancaster to carry the atomic bomb the only problem was it was pushed to carry the Tall Man which was a gun type like Little Boy, the problem was it wouldn't work and when redesigned we got Little Boy which was to large. The Lancaster also did not have range needed as well, the RAF even tried in flight refueling but the Air Corps wouldn't allow it as to many things could go wrong.Yes but it was build to just do that. Could a lesser developed airplane have done the same? Lets say Lancaster?
Did they? Do you have a reference for that? The only one with some clout who mentioned using the Lancaster was Norman Ramsey. It stopped there.The British did push the Lancaster to carry the atomic bomb
Already been discussed, the Lancaster was mentioned only a few times by USAAF heads and was ruled out for several reasons, one of which explaining why the Army Air force would need 15 or so Lancasters without ANY explanation.No, the Lancaster could not have done what the 29 could and did. It had neither the range or the bomb bay size. The British did push the Lancaster to carry the atomic bomb the only problem was it was pushed to carry the Tall Man which was a gun type like Little Boy, the problem was it wouldn't work and when redesigned we got Little Boy which was to large. The Lancaster also did not have range needed as well, the RAF even tried in flight refueling but the Air Corps wouldn't allow it as to many things could go wrong.
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.