Hiroshima raid
Author
Discussion

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

285 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
In theory, would a Lancaster or even a Lincoln have been capable of carrying out the Hiroshima nuclear bombing? I've seen suggestions that it could, but the range seems a bit marginal to me.

davepoth

29,395 posts

223 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
In theory, would a Lancaster or even a Lincoln have been capable of carrying out the Hiroshima nuclear bombing? I've seen suggestions that it could, but the range seems a bit marginal to me.
Possibly. Bear in mind that the Little Boy bomb was quite small - 4 and a half tonnes, and smaller in every dimension (and a lot smaller lengthways) than a Tallboy, and that there was no concern over aerial interception. You could have removed the top turret, taken a couple of guns out of the other turrets, and filled the rest of the bomb bay with a fuel tank.

According to this:

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/project-sil...

(and I've read it elsewhere)

The B-29 had to be extensively modified to get the bombs to fit anyway, and the reason the Lancaster wasn't used was because it wasn't American.

Eric Mc

124,944 posts

289 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
Also the Lancaster was slower and unpressurised - so could not fly very high. Part of the bomb drop strategy was to let the bomb go at high altitude and then turn around sharpish and get out of there as fast as possible. Wiki says the B-29 was flying at over 33,000 feet when it released the bomb.

The Lanc would not have been able to do that.

Simpo Two

91,533 posts

289 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
And the Pacific theatre was full of B29s. Where was the nearest Lancaster?

Wacky Racer

40,723 posts

271 months

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

285 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
And the Pacific theatre was full of B29s. Where was the nearest Lancaster?
The B29s to carry nukes were specially modified back in the US so the normal B29s in the Pacific weren't all that relevant.

bloomen

9,514 posts

183 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
Why didn't president Truman haul it into place with his little tractor?

theboss

7,402 posts

243 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
davepoth said:
Possibly. Bear in mind that the Little Boy bomb was quite small - 4 and a half tonnes, and smaller in every dimension (and a lot smaller lengthways) than a Tallboy, and that there was no concern over aerial interception. You could have removed the top turret, taken a couple of guns out of the other turrets, and filled the rest of the bomb bay with a fuel tank.

According to this:

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/project-sil...

(and I've read it elsewhere)

The B-29 had to be extensively modified to get the bombs to fit anyway, and the reason the Lancaster wasn't used was because it wasn't American.
Interesting to read that although the Lancaster wasn’t used after being considered, they did use its bomb release mechanisms after the previous design failed repeatedly in testing.

Simpo Two

91,533 posts

289 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
I can quite understand why the US wanted to use a US aeroplane to drop the world's first atom bomb and (almost) end WW2. It was an American show.

The only consideration might be the time needed to do the conversion - for example if a B-29 took months longer to convert than a Lanc - but it would have caused a severe dent in US home and world chutzpah I think.



No doubt if it happened today, media and social media would be full of noisy outraged liberals screaming blue murder at the atrocity.

theboss

7,402 posts

243 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
No doubt if it happened today, media and social media would be full of noisy outraged liberals screaming blue murder at the atrocity.
To be fair, I think a lot of people at the time, even in the circumstances, felt the same way. Not least a large proportion of the scientific community whose work went into developing it. They thought peace could be achieved by merely demonstrating the power of the weapon. Maybe they were right - we’ll never know.

Simpo Two

91,533 posts

289 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
theboss said:
Simpo Two said:
No doubt if it happened today, media and social media would be full of noisy outraged liberals screaming blue murder at the atrocity.
To be fair, I think a lot of people at the time, even in the circumstances, felt the same way. Not least a large proportion of the scientific community whose work went into developing it. They thought peace could be achieved by merely demonstrating the power of the weapon. Maybe they were right - we’ll never know.
I suspect almost every American was very happy to have the war over with no need to invade Japan with horrific losses in US lives. In total war you can't start feeling too sorry for the enemy and one of your lives is worth more than one of theirs.

Oppenheimer had second thoughts - but if he thought that the Japanese would suddenly quit if they saw some film of a big ball of smoke over the desert he was an idealist. If you bluff you have to be prepared to have it called.

theboss

7,402 posts

243 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
theboss said:
Simpo Two said:
No doubt if it happened today, media and social media would be full of noisy outraged liberals screaming blue murder at the atrocity.
To be fair, I think a lot of people at the time, even in the circumstances, felt the same way. Not least a large proportion of the scientific community whose work went into developing it. They thought peace could be achieved by merely demonstrating the power of the weapon. Maybe they were right - we’ll never know.
I suspect almost every American was very happy to have the war over with no need to invade Japan with horrific losses in US lives. In total war you can't start feeling too sorry for the enemy and one of your lives is worth more than one of theirs.

Oppenheimer had second thoughts - but if he thought that the Japanese would suddenly quit if they saw some film of a big ball of smoke over the desert he was an idealist. If you bluff you have to be prepared to have it called.
I agree entirely - just pointing out that the bombings weren't uncontroversial at the time, there were still plenty of outraged liberals in those days even with the backdrop of, as you say, total war.

Of course, they didn't have Facebook then, so were probably a little less vocal in their frothings.

Simpo Two

91,533 posts

289 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
The strange thing about Liberals is that they always take the other side. Witness Brexit!

Wacky Racer

40,723 posts

271 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
theboss said:
Simpo Two said:
No doubt if it happened today, media and social media would be full of noisy outraged liberals screaming blue murder at the atrocity.
To be fair, I think a lot of people at the time, even in the circumstances, felt the same way. Not least a large proportion of the scientific community whose work went into developing it. They thought peace could be achieved by merely demonstrating the power of the weapon. Maybe they were right - we’ll never know.
I suspect almost every American was very happy to have the war over with no need to invade Japan with horrific losses in US lives. In total war you can't start feeling too sorry for the enemy and one of your lives is worth more than one of theirs.

Oppenheimer had second thoughts - but if he thought that the Japanese would suddenly quit if they saw some film of a big ball of smoke over the desert he was an idealist. If you bluff you have to be prepared to have it called.
"I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb13ynu3Iac

Wacky Racer

40,723 posts

271 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
theboss said:
Simpo Two said:
No doubt if it happened today, media and social media would be full of noisy outraged liberals screaming blue murder at the atrocity.
To be fair, I think a lot of people at the time, even in the circumstances, felt the same way. Not least a large proportion of the scientific community whose work went into developing it. They thought peace could be achieved by merely demonstrating the power of the weapon. Maybe they were right - we’ll never know.
I suspect almost every American was very happy to have the war over with no need to invade Japan with horrific losses in US lives. In total war you can't start feeling too sorry for the enemy and one of your lives is worth more than one of theirs.

Oppenheimer had second thoughts - but if he thought that the Japanese would suddenly quit if they saw some film of a big ball of smoke over the desert he was an idealist. If you bluff you have to be prepared to have it called.
"I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb13ynu3Iac

Equus

16,980 posts

125 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
And the Pacific theatre was full of B29s. Where was the nearest Lancaster?
There would have been Lancasters there, had the war gone on any longer.

Tiger Force was in the process of being shipped out there.

The Lancaster that now flies as part of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight would actually have been among them.


Tony1963

5,808 posts

186 months

Saturday 29th September 2018
quotequote all
Ifs, buts, maybes....

All pointless really, once we decide that yes/no the Lancaster could/couldn't do the job. No point loitering on the what-ifs of something that happened 73 years ago!

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

156 months

Sunday 30th September 2018
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
theboss said:
Simpo Two said:
No doubt if it happened today, media and social media would be full of noisy outraged liberals screaming blue murder at the atrocity.
To be fair, I think a lot of people at the time, even in the circumstances, felt the same way. Not least a large proportion of the scientific community whose work went into developing it. They thought peace could be achieved by merely demonstrating the power of the weapon. Maybe they were right - we’ll never know.
I suspect almost every American was very happy to have the war over with no need to invade Japan with horrific losses in US lives. In total war you can't start feeling too sorry for the enemy and one of your lives is worth more than one of theirs.

Oppenheimer had second thoughts - but if he thought that the Japanese would suddenly quit if they saw some film of a big ball of smoke over the desert he was an idealist. If you bluff you have to be prepared to have it called.
The US could have starved the Japanese into submission without invasion and without using the atomic bomb, however there was a perceived risk that the Soviets could have landed on Japanese soil before the Japanese surrended.

Whatsmyname

944 posts

101 months

Sunday 30th September 2018
quotequote all
theboss said:
To be fair, I think a lot of people at the time, even in the circumstances, felt the same way. Not least a large proportion of the scientific community whose work went into developing it. They thought peace could be achieved by merely demonstrating the power of the weapon. Maybe they were right - we’ll never know.
The mind is a strange thing,

One persons mind achieving great things by splitting the atom, anothers by going lets build a nuke a kill a st tonne of people with it.

Dr Jekyll

Original Poster:

23,820 posts

285 months

Sunday 30th September 2018
quotequote all
Tony1963 said:
Ifs, buts, maybes....

All pointless really, once we decide that yes/no the Lancaster could/couldn't do the job. No point loitering on the what-ifs of something that happened 73 years ago!
But it is interesting to see how much better organised WW2 could have been if only PH had been available to advise.