Americans didn't drop the bomb...

[IforB]

Why would anyone need to dispute the established facts?

The planning and cost of the atomic bomb project was astronomical, to think that they couldn't modify the biggest aircraft they had at the time to carry the weapon, would have been a f**k up of monumental proportions.

This is based on nothing more than one eye witness who wasn't even there at the time the aircraft took off and on his unqualified opinion of the the size of the bomb.

Did he have any idea of the modifications that the silverplate B29 program had undertaken? I'll bet not.

Utter balls.

Edited by IforB on Friday 3rd July 00:31

[richw_82]

Mark-C said:

richw_82 said:

As mentioned in my earlier post, there were some strange parts about it, as to why there was even a minute British involvement.

I'll leave the rest but we were heavily involved in the Manhattan Project from the start. I say "we" but the British contingent were mostly immigrant scientists - start with the Australian Mark Oliphant who went to the US in 1941 (or 2?) to see why the US had done nothing with the info we passed to them about Uranium use in a bomb.

A quick google suggests starting here --> http://lanl.gov/history/wartime/britishmission.sht...

Edited to sort out the quoting

Edited by Mark-C on Friday 3rd July 00:26

Thanks for the link! I intended my post to mean on the bombing raid, not on the scientific side of things.

[Defcon]

richw_82 said:

cymtriks said:

Possible rationale:

Before the full effect of a nuclear attack was known the US did not want it known that thay could not deliver their new superweapon.

Immediately after the attack they took the "credit"

The whole thing was very very secret and only a few people actually knew what was going on. Most were sworn to secrecy.

In the years that followed the US wanted to cover up any suggestion that they could not deliver their bomb so the story stayed. The cold war made any suggestion that they couldn't deliver their bomb a very very secret thing.

Decades later that didn't matter but by then the history books were written and the UK, with lots of Japanese companies bringing much needed employment, did not want to open a can of worms by saying "it was us".

So the wrong story stayed.

I'm not saying he's right, just pointing out that it is plausible. It would be very naive to deny any alternative version of history just because the version you know was written in a history book that you read at school.

Also if it all went wrong (no really big bang) it could be laid firmly at the UK's door?

I heard the same about rocket and guided missile technology, we had it way before the Germans, but we needed the Krauts to test it on us first.

IforB said:

Why would anyone need to dispute the established facts?

The planning and cost of the atomic bomb project was astronomical, to think that they couldn't modify the biggest aircraft they had at the time to carry the weapon, would have been a f**k up of monumental proportions.

This is based on nothing more than one eye witness who wasn't even there at the time the aircraft took off and on his unqualified opinion of the the size of the bomb.

Did he have any idea of the modifications that the silverplate B29 program had undertaken? I'll bet not.

Utter balls.

Edited by IforB on Friday 3rd July 00:31

Shhhhhh its a richw_82 thread, he'll make you wear a foil gimp suit if you don't agree with the hilarious theories.

Edited by Defcon on Friday 3rd July 00:34

[richw_82]

Defcon said:

I heard the same about rocket and guided missile technology, we had it way before the Germans, but we needed the Krauts to test it on us first.

Edited by Defcon on Friday 3rd July 00:34

The US were experimenting with automatic pilots and radio controlled drones in 1917, way before the Germans.

So you are kind of right.

[fastfreddy]

seems to fit OK...

[Ganglandboss]

[Defcon]

richw_82 said:

Defcon said:

I heard the same about rocket and guided missile technology, we had it way before the Germans, but we needed the Krauts to test it on us first.

Edited by Defcon on Friday 3rd July 00:34

The US were experimenting with automatic pilots and radio controlled drones in 1917, way before the Germans.

So you are kind of right.

I'm American now?! I thought the immigration system was supposed to be difficult? Its a conspiracy I tell ya, I saw flying saucers over PH towers this morning.You ain't seen this, right?

Edited by Defcon on Friday 3rd July 01:01

[richw_82]

Sorry, did I get your nationality wrong? I made an assumption based on that you keep cropping up on posts usually in support of the US, and you don't interest me enough for me to have bothered to have checked your profile.

If you are in the UK (still haven't checked your profile) we started playing with things like that around 1935. It was just the Germans were the first to make it into a reasonably practical weapon.

[Jimbeaux]

richw_82 said:

Ganglandboss said:

Do yourself a favour - there are some hardcore plane nerds very knowledgeable aviation enthusiasts on this forum who will make you look very silly if you persist with this.

Now how why they do that?

The guy in the article is from a known unit, and can be traced to that place at that time. Whether or not he's lying we don't know.

As mentioned in my earlier post, there were some strange parts about it, as to why there was even a minute British involvement.

They built a bomb from scratch, why did they have to use a special bomb crutch from a Lanc rather than building one to suit a B29?

Let the enthusiasts come. Bring answers too.

The moon landing was fake and a guy like the one you cite used to be a scientist at Area 51 reverse engineering the fallen UFO. So this fellow has good company.

[Pigeon]

article said:

He stood beside the egg-shaped explosive, raising his arm above his head to get an idea just how big it was.

He's got the wrong one then.

The egg-shaped one was Fat Man, the Nagasaki bomb.

The Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy, was a basically cylindrical shape.

article said:

"I can reach 7 feet, and I was a minimum 6 inches too short to reach the height," Banks said. "I estimated it was 10 feet long."

Little Boy was 2'4" x 10', Fat Man was 5'0.25" x 10'8". One presumes it was on some sort of trolley or stand, but the size he's estimating clearly refers to Fat Man.

The two bombs were delivered to Tinian on different days, and obviously their arrival was not bruited about, so he must have missed the first one entirely and happened to spot the second one, remembered the weird bomb and then when the news broke put two and two together and made five.

OK so Fat Man was delivered by a B29 as well, but he's specifically on about the Enola Gay, and the bomb he's talking about was not carried in the Enola Gay.

Indeed all aircraft involved in both missions were B29s, so this "accompanying larger aircraft" thing is wrong.

[Defcon]

richw_82 said:

Sorry, did I get your nationality wrong? I made an assumption based on that you keep cropping up in the two threads that I have valiantly attempted to troll.

EFA.

Oh and just to correct your Wikipedia sources, we did 'start playing' with that technology, but ultimately turned to much simpler and therefore more reliable methods which were much more cost effective on the battlefield, both economically and in terms of personnel.

"We" means the Allied forces by the way, I know you're adamantly against anyone but our boys getting credit, I felt the same after my first term at school with those thick text books, but when you come to the second chapter, you might see things from other points of view, and teacher might let you cover the book in wrapping paper.

Edited by Defcon on Friday 3rd July 01:29

[pedantlewis]

So, why were the two bombs so different in shape/size? Is it because they were both essentially prototypes?

[TangoAlpha]

pedantlewis said:

So, why were the two bombs so different in shape/size? Is it because they were both essentially prototypes?

Fat Man was an implosion type bomb, the required critical mass was joined by imploding a sphere (hence the shape of the bomb).

Little Boy was a gun type where one part of the uranium mass was fired along a tube into the other part creating the critical mass needed for the explosion (again, note the shape of the bomb).

[SleeperCell]

They were specially modified ' Silverplate' B-29s, particularly in regard to making it fit in the bomb bay.

The only 4 engined British aircraft comparable to a B-29 at that time would maybe be a pre-production Avro Lincoln, a sort of upgraded Lancaster meant to be used in the Pacific theatre, and typically painted white, but they didn't officially enter service until a couple of months later on and wouldn't have been bigger or better than a B-29.

[svm]

richw_82 said:

Maybe to save face? There was talk of 617 sqn "The Dambusters" doing the job, they were the world leaders in precision bombing during the war and for a good few years after. It kind of makes it a bit too convenient in several other areas which have been confirmed.

Precision bombing? To hit a city?

No, thinking about this it does hold some weight... The yanks could have hit London by mistake instead of Hiroshima if left to their own devices.

[elster]

As for Hiroshima I think the man in question must of had a bit too much exposure and his brain has fried. After all there is a video and all the others on the mission know it happen.

Do you maybe just think he wants to pass the buck so he doesn't have the guilt that the A Bomb wasn't practical as it is a bit OTT on the whole killing side?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0eHCytkcHg&fea...


Watch that then come back.

Edited by elster on Friday 3rd July 07:19

Edited by elster on Friday 3rd July 07:22

[Eric Mc]

Much ado about nothing I think.

Modifying the B-29 bomb bays to carry the two atom bombs would not have been that difficult - and wasn't.

Another factor regarding the B-29 was its ability to fly at high altitudes - over 30,000 feet AND carry a heavy bomb load. This was particularly useful when carrying an atomic bomb as the altitude gave the aircraft time to turn and get away from the blast area.

For all its greatness as a bomber, a loaded Lancaster would have struggled to reach 20,000 feet - which would have cut it very fine for the aircraft to escape the blast zone. The Lincoln would not have been much different.

[Captain Cadillac]

Bulls**t.

Name another allied airplane of WW2 that could fly as fast and as high as a B29 while carrying that sort of payload.

Only a very small handful of pressurized planes were even in existence then.

[richw_82]

Defcon said:

richw_82 said:

Sorry, did I get your nationality wrong? I made an assumption based on that you keep cropping up in the two threads that I have valiantly attempted to troll.

EFA.

Oh and just to correct your Wikipedia sources, we did 'start playing' with that technology, but ultimately turned to much simpler and therefore more reliable methods which were much more cost effective on the battlefield, both economically and in terms of personnel.

"We" means the Allied forces by the way, I know you're adamantly against anyone but our boys getting credit, I felt the same after my first term at school with those thick text books, but when you come to the second chapter, you might see things from other points of view, and teacher might let you cover the book in wrapping paper.

Edited by Defcon on Friday 3rd July 01:29

I don't use wikipedia. Go look at De Havillands history, in particular a version of the Tiger Moth called the Queen Bee. WE meant the UK.

The US realised that the technology could be used offensively, initially the idea was for a guided ram. Later it became drone aircaft packed with explosives, then the TARZON guided bomb, both used in wartime.

[DrTre]

TheEnd said:

Those red bd commies were on the Allied side...

Not really, they just happened to be fighting a common enemy.