Avro Manchester, Lancaster, Lancastrian, Lincoln, Shackleton

[rickshaw]

Lift the bomb? Yes.
Fly the same mission profile? No.

They obviously, out of necessity would have had to change the profile which is of course relatively easy compared to getting the USAAF to adopt a British aircraft.  Once that hurdle is crossed, everything else would flow along.

Wrong, no Lanc could carry either bomb on the Tinian to Japan round trip.

You're forgetting, the plan for the employment of Tiger Force included the use of inflight refuelling.  While the saddle tank caused instability problems when full, I don't doubt they could have been used partly full to extend range as well.

Nor would carrying either weapon externally have been smart, particularly not the very sensitive
and persnickety plutonium implosion bomb.

The Lancaster wasn't going to carry it externally.

[Taiidantomcat]

I'm sure the Lanc could do it, it just seems like a lot of unneeded variables... saddle tanks, in flight rendezvous, aerial refueling, and we only had two bombs.

[rickshaw]

If they decided the Lancaster was what they wanted, then the rest would simply be put in place.  Remember, while there were only two bombs, the USAAF had over 80,000 men devoted to the bombing campaign against Japan, which the two bombs were in reality just one part of.   They were intending to have ~180,000 men for the air campaign, by the time the invasion was planned to commence.

Having say a dozen Lancasters for "special duties" would be in comparison be a minor affair.

[jcf]

If they decided the Lancaster was what they wanted, then the rest would simply be put in place.  Remember, while there were only two bombs, the USAAF had over 80,000 men devoted to the bombing campaign against Japan, which the two bombs were in reality just one part of.   They were intending to have ~180,000 men for the air campaign, by the time the invasion was planned to commence.

Having say a dozen Lancasters for "special duties" would be in comparison be a minor affair.

No, it would be a logistical circle-jerk and where are you going to base these wondrous non-existant Uber-Lancs?
How many soldier, Marines and sailors would have to die to get some rock close enough for the Lancs to be within striking range?

The notion that there were only two bombs is sadly mistaken, the uranium gun-bomb was an experiment  but the plutonium bomb was only the first of many.

[jcf]

Lift the bomb? Yes.
Fly the same mission profile? No.

They obviously, out of necessity would have had to change the profile which is of course relatively easy compared to getting the USAAF to adopt a British aircraft.  Once that hurdle is crossed, everything else would flow along.

Wrong, no Lanc could carry either bomb on the Tinian to Japan round trip.

You're forgetting, the plan for the employment of Tiger Force included the use of inflight refuelling.  While the saddle tank caused instability problems when full, I don't doubt they could have been used partly full to extend range as well.

Nor would carrying either weapon externally have been smart, particularly not the very sensitive
and persnickety plutonium implosion bomb.

The Lancaster wasn't going to carry it externally.

Oh yeah the wonderful paper Tiger Force, and even with the bulged doors a Lanc couldn't carry fat man internally.
BTW there were features of both types of devices that required them to be accessed in flight, relatively easy with
the B-29, not so much with the Lanc.

You want a Lanc to drop a gun-type uranium bomb on Germany knock yerself out, but it aint' viable in the Pacific.

[rickshaw]

Jon, I suggest you moderate your tone.  It adds nothing to the conversation.

No, it would be a logistical circle-jerk and where are you going to base these wondrous non-existant Uber-Lancs?

What "Uber-Lancs" - the A-bomb missions were well within the capabilities of the Lancaster, even while carrying a ~10,000 lb bomb load if flight refuelled.

How many soldier, Marines and sailors would have to die to get some rock close enough for the Lancs to be within striking range?

Iwo Jima was well within striking distance without inflight refuelling.  Iwo Jima was utilised as an intermediary and emergency base in real life, Jon.  I see no reason why it could not be used as one in this alternative counter-factual exploration.

However to be as equally brutal as you appear to desire I would suggest, "as many as are required to achieve the objective desired."  It is unfortunate but true that when war is engaged in, men invariably die.  If their commanders deem it necessary that they do so to capture some "rock" then that is what happens and that is exactly what happened in real life.

The notion that there were only two bombs is sadly mistaken, the uranium gun-bomb was an experiment  but the plutonium bomb was only the first of many.

The number of bombs is not important.  The delivery of them to their targets is, as far as this discussion is concerned.  You do not need hundreds of bombers to achieve that.

[rickshaw]

Oh yeah the wonderful paper Tiger Force, and even with the bulged doors a Lanc couldn't carry fat man internally.
BTW there were features of both types of devices that required them to be accessed in flight, relatively easy with
the B-29, not so much with the Lanc.

You want a Lanc to drop a gun-type uranium bomb on Germany knock yerself out, but it aint' viable in the Pacific.

You're really showing quite a nasty side of yourself, Jon.  Dismissing the valuable service of those members of the British forces who served in and were going to serve in Tiger Force is unbecoming.   It appears you believe that the US won the war single-handed by your attitude.  You appear to take any possibility that the British might have been able to supply the bomber which dropped the atomic weapons as some sort of personal affront.  I must wonder why?

It could have worked, no matter which theatre it was employed in.   If necessary, just as the B-29 was - it would have been made to work.   The B-29 was not a super-weapon.  When it was deployed to the Pacific it was an immature weapon which still had considerable teething problems which a year later were just finally being smoothed out.  The Lancaster OTOH was by 1945 a mature, well developed and fully-functioning weapon system.  Any objective observer would see that.

[NARSES2]

All right moderators hat on (second time in a few days, which is sad)

Lets just calm down and keep this amicable shall we ? If people want to pursue the could have/couldn't have discussion then do it via PM please.

Chris

[Taiidantomcat]

The B-29 was not a super-weapon.  When it was deployed to the Pacific it was an immature weapon which still had considerable teething problems which a year later were just finally being smoothed out.  

I agree, the B-29 would never be able to successfully drop atomic weapons over Japan.

We need to keep some historical perspective folks. We have fallen into the "historians trap" where we believe the people at the time can see the future as clearly as we see the past. the Article said the program started in october 1943 There is no airfield on Iwo, there is no Okinawa. The Philippines are still occupied. The South Pacific is still heavily contested, China is far flung. D-day hasn't occurred in Europe, The air war over Germany is still a toss up, The A-bombs are meant for Germany as well. Tiger Force and Air refueling are all in an unknown future.

The shot callers can't predict that "in two years Germany will be defeated, we will have invented air refueling, and taken enough islands to get so close to japan as to use a Lancaster to deliver Atomic bombs to end the war two years earlier with a Japanese surrender"  weapons previously meant for another country in a completely different scenario Remember that the war in Japan was supposed to last until 1947! The Grand slam wasn't even used operationally until March 1945. So no one in 1943 was going to say "but we should pick the lanc because it can carry a super bomb yet to be invented" You just can't know these things. The B-29 had fewer question marks so it got the call... way back in 1943

[The Wooksta!]

You're comparing apples with oranges, both aircraft were designed to different specs to achieve different objectives.

Lancaster with nuke?  Mods?  Nothing too major.

Take the turrets out? Done with Grand Slam (although there's a photo with a Grand Slam carrier that has all three still in place).  Fair front and back?  Lancastrian and there are plenty of photosof Lancastrians with Tallboy bomb doors. 

Carry dirty great big bomb?  Grand Slam & Tall Boy. Lancaster B.VI testbed intended for use as mothership for Miles M.52.  Bigger again! Lincoln could carry Grand Slam inside closed bomb doors as could Lancaster (I've a photo of the only one somewhere).  Lancaster could carry a Blue Danube, a Plutonium bomb of the implosion type IIRC - there's a photograph of a Lancaster carrying a Blue Danube casing (however, I haven't seen it but trust the researcher who told me). 

Could the Lancaster reach Japan?  Yes, if flown from Iwo Jima - half of Tiger Force was to have been based there, the other half in India.

Could Lancaster have survived the blast?  Possibly.  Depends on the attack plan.

[The Wooksta!]

Lincoln was always earmarked for the Far East.  The Lancaster only became a candidate for Tiger Force because the war over Germany had finished and the Lincoln was running late.

[The Wooksta!]

The Saddle Tank was a failure.  The crews who flew the two test aircraft hated it, because it flew very badly and would have been suicidal under combat conditions.

As for the bombs...  The Manhattan Project was producing enough Plutonium to build a bomb a week. 

[Taiidantomcat]

The Saddle Tank was a failure.  The crews who flew the two test aircraft hated it, because it flew very badly and would have been suicidal under combat conditions.

Lincoln was always earmarked for the Far East.  The Lancaster only became a candidate for Tiger Force because the war over Germany had finished and the Lincoln was running late.

Thank you

[kitnut617]

The Grand slam wasn't even used operationally until March 1945.

Correct!  but the Tallboy was used much earlier and that weighed 12,000 lbs.  It was the shackle for this bomb that was suggested to be used.  It's different to the one used on the Grand Slam bomb which was a huge chain wrapped around it, the Tallboy shackle was more conventional.

Correction:  The Tallboy had a chain shackle too, my apologies there, but it was from this bomb that the shackle was to be taken

[jcf]

Oh yeah the wonderful paper Tiger Force, and even with the bulged doors a Lanc couldn't carry fat man internally.
BTW there were features of both types of devices that required them to be accessed in flight, relatively easy with
the B-29, not so much with the Lanc.

You want a Lanc to drop a gun-type uranium bomb on Germany knock yerself out, but it aint' viable in the Pacific.

You're really showing quite a nasty side of yourself, Jon.  Dismissing the valuable service of those members of the British forces who served in and were going to serve in Tiger Force is unbecoming.   It appears you believe that the US won the war single-handed by your attitude.  You appear to take any possibility that the British might have been able to supply the bomber which dropped the atomic weapons as some sort of personal affront.  I must wonder why?

It could have worked, no matter which theatre it was employed in.   If necessary, just as the B-29 was - it would have been made to work.   The B-29 was not a super-weapon.  When it was deployed to the Pacific it was an immature weapon which still had considerable teething problems which a year later were just finally being smoothed out.  The Lancaster OTOH was by 1945 a mature, well developed and fully-functioning weapon system.  Any objective observer would see that.

Why yes, like most Canadians, I love to claim the US won the war single-handedly and that Commonwealth airmen, like my
Great-Uncle Norman 'Doc' Gordon who was the fourth commander of the Halifax 'Friday the 13th', were all useless twats. Oh
and of course my grandfather who, much to his chagrin, was kept at Borden for the entire war training tank drivers, such was
the price of being an experienced heavy equipment operator, he was completely useless. Along with my mum's Uncle Albert,
he was RCN and had two destroyers blown out from under him. There are others in the family, but you know they did nothing
at all. I just prefer to ignore those folks and wrap myself in the Red, White and Blue. Yeah right.

The Superfortress weren't a Super-weapon? Well shut ma mouth. Actually compared to any other four engine bomber of the period
that is exactly what it was, nothing else was as big, as heavy, flew as fast or as high. The B-29 weighed more empty than most Lancs
did loaded. I'm well aware of the problems with the B-29, the most serious of which were caused by an engine design that was not
ready for prime time.

Indeed the Lanc could lift big bombs, which always leads to a trade-off with fuel and thus range. The maximum range of
the Lanc with Grand Slam (a little factoid: range figures, like all aircraft performance specifications, are always
ideal condition projections, operational reality is often very different), is given as 1,550 miles at 15,000 ft, which is a
combat radius (the really important figure) of 775 miles. With a 12,000 lb load i.e. Tallboy, range goes to 1,730 miles,
combat radius of 865 miles, max ceiling of 19,000ft (Enola Gay dropped the bomb from 31,00 ft and was still heavily buffeted
by the blast). Iwo is about 850 miles from Hiroshima, 880 from Nagasaki, so even if the mission flies from Iwo
(doubtful) with the 9,000 lb Little Boy (plus the weight of the special mission equipment) your nuclear Lanc may make it to
Hiroshima and back, provided everything is perfect, a Nagasaki mission with the heavier Fat Man is rather unlikely. However,
one major fly in the soup is that the arming of Little Boy was done in flight, kinda hard to do with a Lanc. Anyhow using Tiger
Force with its proposed in-flight refueling as proof that a Lanc could fly the mission is pointless as it was never realized as
an operational force.

The fact is that the US was logistically and strategically committed to the B-29, which was why the decison to capture Saipan and
Tinian was taken in December 1943, the 509th started training in October 1944 and, finally,there was simply no need for the
Lancaster. In order to make a Lanc scenario work you'd have to change the sequence of events in the Pacific War and overall US
strategy. BTW the only reason the Lanc came up originally was that the early Thin Man designs for the uranium 'gun' bomb posited
a length of 17 feet in order to achieve the necessary velocity of the 'slug'. This led to the original 'Pullman' single bomb-bay
conversion of one B-29. The improved design that was Little Boy made the need for a long bomb-bay moot. As Robert points out
the Silverplate B-29s did use the Tallboy-type bomb shackle, with the forward bay provisioned to carry the Little Boy-type uranium
gun bomb and the aft bay the Fat Man-type plutonium implosion device.