Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rnd 9 (Supp) - DC-3/C-47 & LI-2 (USA: SU/Russia) vs B-29 & B-50 (USA: SU/Russia)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    I'm sure that the Lac could very well have carried one of the A Bombs and with very little modification if any. It had close to the same range as the 29 but of course, it was British and the USAF didn't want any part of that.
    It was considered then dropped for a variety of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that it would have a hard time evading the bomb after release. The faster B-29 had to carry out a very specific "run like hell" maneuver after release of the bomb, and that was on a stripped aircraft to get more speed.

    While the Lancaster could carry the weight, the bomb, like a tallboy or Grand Slam, would have been partially exposed out of the rather shallow bomb bay creating additional drag problems.

    While I'm sure the USAAF had some "Not invented here" syndrome going on over this, it really wasn't the only issue involved.

    Comment


    • #62
      The Lancaster (and the Lincoln) was considered unsuitable for dropping nuclear weapons except in very controlled test environments as it was a very draughty aircraft and it was feared that elements of the mushroom cloud could contaminate the interior. Doubtless given time and need this could have been rectified and a special A bomb carrying version could have been produced but why bother if the B29 (and later the B50 Washington) could do the job.
      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
      Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

      Comment


      • #63
        Of course, one has to recognize that about 50% of the weight of early US nuclear bombs was armor plating over the outside of it to make it flak proof...

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X