Americans didn't drop the bomb...
Discussion
EYEWITNESS TO HISTORY
Vet disputes A-bomb legend
Salem's Bruce Banks does not think the Enola Gay carried the huge weapon
CAPI LYNN
Statesman Journal
August 6, 2005
Bruce Banks knows what the history books say. The Enola Gay took off from Tinian Island 60 years ago today and dropped the first atomic bomb, on Hiroshima, Japan.
But he disputes the B-29's role in the mission.
Banks, 80, served at Tinian as a corporal in the Marine Corps. He was one of the first to arrive at the U.S. air base and one of the last to leave.
He says he stood beside the bomb the day it was unloaded and swears that there is no way it would fit in a B-29. He also thinks that one of the two larger aircraft that accompanied the Enola Gay that historic day must have transported the bomb, with the Enola Gay simply acting as a guide.
"I have mentioned my views and observations to a number of people," said Banks, who lives on the outskirts of West Salem, "and it upsets them something fierce and they think I'm sort of a nut."
Robert Heisler has doubts about his friend's theory. They have had many discussions during their weekly pinochle games, and Heisler has written several letters, including one to the television program 60 Minutes, in hopes of prompting some sort of investigation.
There have been no replies.
"Bruce refutes what happened," said Heisler, who was in Europe serving with the Army during the war. "He was there. He's got more inside dope than I do.
"I would just like to know what did happen."
Historians do not back Banks' assertion.
"I have never heard such a tale before," said Dr. James C. Bradford, an associate professor of history at Texas A&M University who edited "Atlas of American Military History."
Banks has never wavered from his convictions, and his family has been supportive of his alternate view.
"He saw what he saw, I'm sure," his wife, Helen, said.
Banks was drafted in 1943, and chose the Marine Corps. With his background as a journeyman machinist at a shipyard, the Marines were eager to make him a mechanic for the 17th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion.
He landed at Tinian on July 24, 1944. His job gave him access to a jeep and freedom to roam the island.
"I was a curious young punk," Banks said.
He said he just happened to be on the airfield the day the bomb arrived that following summer. He was among a group of about 20 servicemen who had gathered after it was unloaded.
"We didn't know it was an atomic bomb," Banks said. "It was just a great big bomb.
"We all wondered, 'What the heck are they going to do with it?'"
He stood beside the egg-shaped explosive, raising his arm above his head to get an idea just how big it was.
"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.
"The bomb was too big to go in any B-29. The aircraft was just not made for anything that big."
According to National Air and Space Museum archives at the Smithsonian Institution, several B-29s were specially designed for the secret mission.
Code-named "Silverplate," the aircraft were modified by deleting all gun turrets except for the tail position, removing armor plate, installing electric propellers and configuring the bomb bay to accommodate the device.
The museum's archives list specifications of the Enola Gay, but no measurements of the bomb-bay doors are given.
Banks said soon after the bomb arrived at Tinian, Navy Seabees dug a pit and installed two hydraulic hoists. The bomb later was hauled out and lowered into the pit. Within a week or so, two white aircraft arrived. He hadn't seen anything like them, and assumed they were British.
"They had only one bomb bay and four engines -- much larger than a B-29," Banks said.
"I saw them back the big aircraft over the pit and shove the bomb in it and close the bomb bay doors, then open it and put the bomb back."
He said observed this from about 150 yards away.
Banks wasn't an eyewitness when Col. Paul Tibbets and his crew took off Aug. 6, 1945, on their way to Hiroshima.
"I maintain the only thing the Enola Gay did was show the other aircraft where to go," Banks said. "It's just too big a bomb to fit in a B-29.
"It's not a figment of my imagination. It's what I saw."
Banks got out of the Marines after serving four years, and went on to have a family and work 37 years as a switchman for Southern Pacific Railroad.
It was years after the war when he began to question, in his mind, what unfolded that summer six decades ago.
"I could not understand why we were covering, why we were telling this story," he said. "There had to be more people than just me that were aware of the size of that bomb.
"Some of them could have been sworn to secrecy, but I wasn't in on it. I wasn't even supposed to be there."
Sixty years later, Heisler would love to be able prove his friend right. He has even thought about writing to the British government and Royal Air Force.
"If their plane actually did drop that bomb, why are they letting the U.S. and Enola Gay get all the credit?" Heisler said. "It seems like this went on awfully long if this isn't what happened.
"Wouldn't this drop a bombshell, so to speak, on the whole thing?"
Vet disputes A-bomb legend
Salem's Bruce Banks does not think the Enola Gay carried the huge weapon
CAPI LYNN
Statesman Journal
August 6, 2005
Bruce Banks knows what the history books say. The Enola Gay took off from Tinian Island 60 years ago today and dropped the first atomic bomb, on Hiroshima, Japan.
But he disputes the B-29's role in the mission.
Banks, 80, served at Tinian as a corporal in the Marine Corps. He was one of the first to arrive at the U.S. air base and one of the last to leave.
He says he stood beside the bomb the day it was unloaded and swears that there is no way it would fit in a B-29. He also thinks that one of the two larger aircraft that accompanied the Enola Gay that historic day must have transported the bomb, with the Enola Gay simply acting as a guide.
"I have mentioned my views and observations to a number of people," said Banks, who lives on the outskirts of West Salem, "and it upsets them something fierce and they think I'm sort of a nut."
Robert Heisler has doubts about his friend's theory. They have had many discussions during their weekly pinochle games, and Heisler has written several letters, including one to the television program 60 Minutes, in hopes of prompting some sort of investigation.
There have been no replies.
"Bruce refutes what happened," said Heisler, who was in Europe serving with the Army during the war. "He was there. He's got more inside dope than I do.
"I would just like to know what did happen."
Historians do not back Banks' assertion.
"I have never heard such a tale before," said Dr. James C. Bradford, an associate professor of history at Texas A&M University who edited "Atlas of American Military History."
Banks has never wavered from his convictions, and his family has been supportive of his alternate view.
"He saw what he saw, I'm sure," his wife, Helen, said.
Banks was drafted in 1943, and chose the Marine Corps. With his background as a journeyman machinist at a shipyard, the Marines were eager to make him a mechanic for the 17th Anti-Aircraft Artillery Battalion.
He landed at Tinian on July 24, 1944. His job gave him access to a jeep and freedom to roam the island.
"I was a curious young punk," Banks said.
He said he just happened to be on the airfield the day the bomb arrived that following summer. He was among a group of about 20 servicemen who had gathered after it was unloaded.
"We didn't know it was an atomic bomb," Banks said. "It was just a great big bomb.
"We all wondered, 'What the heck are they going to do with it?'"
He stood beside the egg-shaped explosive, raising his arm above his head to get an idea just how big it was.
"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.
"The bomb was too big to go in any B-29. The aircraft was just not made for anything that big."
According to National Air and Space Museum archives at the Smithsonian Institution, several B-29s were specially designed for the secret mission.
Code-named "Silverplate," the aircraft were modified by deleting all gun turrets except for the tail position, removing armor plate, installing electric propellers and configuring the bomb bay to accommodate the device.
The museum's archives list specifications of the Enola Gay, but no measurements of the bomb-bay doors are given.
Banks said soon after the bomb arrived at Tinian, Navy Seabees dug a pit and installed two hydraulic hoists. The bomb later was hauled out and lowered into the pit. Within a week or so, two white aircraft arrived. He hadn't seen anything like them, and assumed they were British.
"They had only one bomb bay and four engines -- much larger than a B-29," Banks said.
"I saw them back the big aircraft over the pit and shove the bomb in it and close the bomb bay doors, then open it and put the bomb back."
He said observed this from about 150 yards away.
Banks wasn't an eyewitness when Col. Paul Tibbets and his crew took off Aug. 6, 1945, on their way to Hiroshima.
"I maintain the only thing the Enola Gay did was show the other aircraft where to go," Banks said. "It's just too big a bomb to fit in a B-29.
"It's not a figment of my imagination. It's what I saw."
Banks got out of the Marines after serving four years, and went on to have a family and work 37 years as a switchman for Southern Pacific Railroad.
It was years after the war when he began to question, in his mind, what unfolded that summer six decades ago.
"I could not understand why we were covering, why we were telling this story," he said. "There had to be more people than just me that were aware of the size of that bomb.
"Some of them could have been sworn to secrecy, but I wasn't in on it. I wasn't even supposed to be there."
Sixty years later, Heisler would love to be able prove his friend right. He has even thought about writing to the British government and Royal Air Force.
"If their plane actually did drop that bomb, why are they letting the U.S. and Enola Gay get all the credit?" Heisler said. "It seems like this went on awfully long if this isn't what happened.
"Wouldn't this drop a bombshell, so to speak, on the whole thing?"
Superfortress was probably the biggest, either that or the B-32 Dominator.
I know they painted a few Lancasters white for the Tiger Force, but supposedly there were none out there... just the same as no B-29's were supposed to be in Europe (like the one found in the Ijsselmeer in Holland.)
Group Captain Leonard Cheshire was involved, and on the mission.
The bombs were designed to be carried on supports used for the 22,000lb "Grand Slam" as carried by the Lancaster.
Wierder and wierder.
I know they painted a few Lancasters white for the Tiger Force, but supposedly there were none out there... just the same as no B-29's were supposed to be in Europe (like the one found in the Ijsselmeer in Holland.)
Group Captain Leonard Cheshire was involved, and on the mission.
The bombs were designed to be carried on supports used for the 22,000lb "Grand Slam" as carried by the Lancaster.
Wierder and wierder.
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.
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?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.
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
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
So you are kind of right.
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.
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.
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
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.
Chris71 said:
elster said:
However the man who deserves the most appreciation for all flight is the Grandfather of Aviation Sir George Cayley.
Ask most people and they would have no idea who he is, unfortunately.
...or indeed his footman.Ask most people and they would have no idea who he is, unfortunately.
Eric Mc said:
It did.
It was a consequence of the fact that its immediate predecessor, the Manchester, was intended to be capable of carrying aerial torpedoes internally.
The Lancaster retained virtually all the features of the Manchester - apart from the useles Vulture engines.
This meant that people like Barnes Wallis could design bombs specifically to fit inside the extra large space available in the Lancaster bomb bay. The other two heavies, the Halifax and Stirling, did not have such a cavernous bay.
Ironically it was the one really strange requirement in Air Ministry specifications that gave the Manchester and subsequently the Lancaster it's great strength. The requirement? The aircraft had to be capable of being launched from a hydro pneumatic catapult. This was trialled successfully at Farnborough in 1942.It was a consequence of the fact that its immediate predecessor, the Manchester, was intended to be capable of carrying aerial torpedoes internally.
The Lancaster retained virtually all the features of the Manchester - apart from the useles Vulture engines.
This meant that people like Barnes Wallis could design bombs specifically to fit inside the extra large space available in the Lancaster bomb bay. The other two heavies, the Halifax and Stirling, did not have such a cavernous bay.
The wording as it appears in Air Ministry specification P.13/36 is as follows:
"Must be stressed for frictionless take-off."
There are a couple of bits furthwer up this thread that are interesting; the first was the bit about the jetstream and the B-29. David A Anderton's "Superfortress at War" has a wonderful tale in it of an experienced crew who used to use this new phenomena they came across to beat the new crews back; despite their aicraft being older and a bit tired.
The other was the mention of cutting the Lancaster about for the Grand Slam. There were no real structural changes to the Lancaster other than the fitment of more powerful Merlins, reinforced tyres, and deleting the front and mid-upper turrets. Various bits of internal equipment were also got rid of. The Grand Slam was carried externally, with a small fairing added to the front and rear of the bomb bay.
I'm rather glad with how this thread turned out. The original post was sent to me by a friend in the USA who knew i'd love it... and it never fails to bring up debate with aircraft enthusiasts; the whole would it/could it have done it starts to come out.
My favourite theory is the one that was posted earlier in this thread:
[i]The prototype Portaloo was lifted from the truck and lowered to the ground...
What's that, guys? asked Bruce Banks
It's an atom bomb, Bruce...[/i]
In reality the nearest the Lancaster got was probably in French (Aeronavale)service in the 1950's in the South Pacific. Operationally it did get as far as Vietnam, which not a lot of people know about.
Edited by richw_82 on Monday 6th July 19:17
JW911 said:
richw_82 said:
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.
Spotted this gem on page 1. If there's one thing you don't need to worry about with a bucket of sunshine, it's precision.
"Just put it somewhere in the middle."
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff