Enola Gay Damaged at Air & Space Museum Opening

"Corrie" wrote:
The "Peacemaker" never dropped a bomb in anger - it scared the
Soviets out of starting anything stupid in the dark days of the early
Cold War.

It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a
weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed,
unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy
territory with acceptable losses. The B-36 always struck me as a flying
porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

That's exactly what the Soviets were afraid of. We spent them into
collapse because they thought our weapons might work. The B1 Bomber,
Star Wars, etc. They were fairly certain these things wouldn't work as
advertised, but they couldn't afford to take the chance that they might.
Unfortunately for them they also couldn't afford to keep up.

Dan Luke wrote:

"Corrie" wrote:

The "Peacemaker" never dropped a bomb in anger - it scared the
Soviets out of starting anything stupid in the dark days of the early
Cold War.


It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a
weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed,
unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy
territory with acceptable losses. The B-36 always struck me as a flying
porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego.

It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a
weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed,
unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy
territory with acceptable losses. The B-36 always struck me as a flying
porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego.

We know for a certainty that the 36s routinely flew over China and
even Vladivostok, and very likely they flew over much of Siberia and
perhaps even eastern Russia. Several crewmen have related how they
watched the MiGs trying to get up to their altitude but vainly falling
away. Such flights were probably made in excess of 50,000 feet.

LeMay actually didn't care for the 36, but it was in the pipeline when
he became head of SAC. He accepted it for what it was: a placemarker
for the B-52. It overlapped the B-47 (which likewise made regular
flights over eastern Russia) but the latter simply didn't have the
range to do what the 36 (and later the 52) was capable of.

Very quickly these flights were made unnecessary by the U-2, and the
U-2 in turn was soon supplanted by satellite photography.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Very quickly these flights were made unnecessary by the U-2, and the
U-2 in turn was soon supplanted by satellite photography.

Not supplanted, augmented. We're still using the U2's. There was also
this
black thing called an SR71

"Cub Driver" wrote:
Such flights were probably made in excess of 50,000 feet.

Would it have been operationally practical (or even possible) to drop
nukes from such altitudes?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:

Would it have been operationally practical (or even possible) to drop
nukes from such altitudes?

Absolutely. The main problem with bombing from altitudes higher than about
30,000'
is the fact that accuracy suffers once you get into or above jet streams. Heavy
bombs, such as the early nuclear weapons or the conventional "grand slam" bomb
are
less subject to being deflected by the winds, and, with nukes, it really doesn't
matter much if you're a mile off target.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

with nukes, it really doesn't
matter much if you're a mile off target.

As I recall (somewhat vaguely) that was very nearly the case with the
Nagasaki bomb.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Dan Luke wrote:

It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a
weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed,
unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy
territory with acceptable losses.

You mean like the losses the B-29s took bombing Japan? Of course, the losses to
the B-17s against Germany were worse. Lets take the worst case there. We lost
something over 60% of the planes that flew the Schweinfurt "Black Thursday" raid
and over half the planes made it to the target. At one time, we could have
launched over 30 B-36s at any given moment. So only 10 of them reach their
targets. Stalin isn't going to be upset at the prospect of losing 10 major
production centers? He would certainly be worried about the fact that the odds
were good that he'd be in one of them.

The B-36 always struck me as a flying
porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego.

The B-36 project was started prior to America's entry into WWII. Roosevelt was
afraid that Britain would be lost and that the U.S. would have to enter the war
against Germany without being able to base bombers in the British Isles. It was
planned that we would use it for a conventional bombing campaign against Germany
operating from bases in the U.S. Postwar development was a case basically of the
only game in town. It was the only plane capable of carrying nuclear weapons into
the USSR that could possibly reach production in a few years. It was a stopgap
measure, but it worked until we could get something better in place.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Dan Luke wrote:

It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a
weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed,
unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy
territory with acceptable losses.

You mean like the losses the B-29s took bombing Japan? Of course, the
losses to
the B-17s against Germany were worse. Lets take the worst case there. We
lost
something over 60% of the planes that flew the Schweinfurt "Black
Thursday" raid
and over half the planes made it to the target.

Not 60%, George...60 PLANES...out of over 300 that took on the mission. I've
leave the math (one-fifth, for the math challenged) to you.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
You mean like the losses the B-29s took bombing Japan?

The Japanese air forces were too decimated and technologically too
inferior for effective interception of the fast, high flying B-29s. That
would not have been the case with B-36s vs. Soviet air power.

At one time, we could have launched over 30 B-36s at any given moment.
So only 10 of them reach their targets.

That is by no means certain, given the vast distances the B-36s would
have had to fly unescorted.

He would certainly be worried about the fact that the odds were good
that
he'd be in one of them.

He would have had a long time to get out of town.

The B-36 always struck me as a flying
porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego.

It was the only plane capable of carrying nuclear weapons into
the USSR that could possibly reach production in a few years.

What about the B-29 (and B-50)? We had a lot more of them, and there
were plenty of runways in Europe they could use, which was not the case
with the B-36.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM