Was the B-29 Superfortress a Failure? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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
 
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?.
 
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!

 
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. :(
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back