Enola Gay Damaged at Air & Space Museum Opening

"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.

That's EXACTLY what everyone said about the Viet Nam Veteran's Memorial,
before it opened.

Probably said by the same sort of people who designed the WWII
memorial, and who later added the patrolling troopers (and even later
the nurse) to Maya Lin's magnificent sculpture.

There is only one Wall. I saw it one early morning before going to
work (I get up at five, which was always a problem when I was on the
road) and just stood there with tears running down my face.

The patrol had been added by that time. I rather liked the little
statues, as if these guys had just returned from an ambush and come
upon the bodies of 158,000 of their mates. That was before the nurse
came along. (Is she carrying a bedpan?) But the Wall would have been
just as good without them.

A Wall comes along only once in a century. There's no use hoping that
the WWII memorial or the Ground Zero thing will be in that class.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Probably said by the same sort of people who designed the WWII
memorial, and who later added the patrolling troopers (and even later
the nurse) to Maya Lin's magnificent sculpture.

Well, I think it was a lot more commonly felt than that.

I know I thought it was a patently absurd design -- until I saw it complete.
The wall has a weight and drama that a mere drawing cannot hope to capture.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"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

"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

Given that the soviet planners had thought all this through, in my mind it
is unlikely that a single bomber would have gotten through... The soviets
had rings of interceptor squadrons, numbering in the thousands - cheap,
short range, totally expendable, fast climbing jet fighters... Each bomber
would have been like a sparrow flying into one cloud of hornets after
another... That is why ICBM's are the weapon of deterrence, not bombers...

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

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...."

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 06:36:54 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:

as if these guys had just returned from an ambush and come
upon the bodies of 158,000 of their mates.

Oops! Fingers all thumbs. That should be 58,000, of course.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

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

The discussion I believe was about the B-36. It flew above the
absolute ceiling of contemporary MiG fighters. The British begged for
a chance to challenge the 36, but the USAF wisely ignored them. No
American fighter of the time could get up there, and no Russian
either.

In tests over Florida, in the rare cases where an interceptor could
match the 36's altitude, all the bomber had to do was execute a slow
turn. When the fighter matched it, it fell away. And nobody knows if
the 36 was flying at its absolute ceiling in those tests; evidently it
could go much higher.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:07:48 -0500, "Dennis O'Connor"
wrote:

Given that the soviet planners had thought all this through, in my mind it
is unlikely that a single bomber would have gotten through... The soviets
had rings of interceptor squadrons, numbering in the thousands - cheap,
short range, totally expendable, fast climbing jet fighters... Each bomber
would have been like a sparrow flying into one cloud of hornets after
another... That is why ICBM's are the weapon of deterrence, not bombers...

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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